“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

Even when social scientists or biologists explore human sexuality, they do so from the framework of sexuality as it appears in your world. There are quite natural sexual variations, even involving reproduction, that are not now apparent in human behavior in any culture. [...]

[...] Such peoples, building up the human stock, intuitively knew that the population would be increased if relations were restricted to periods when conception was most likely to occur. [...]

You may see an automobile for example with your eyes, and hear its sound through your ears, but it is also within the human capacity, ideally speaking, to hear the sight of the car, and to see the sound of the car. Practically speaking these capacities have been overlooked in human development simply because the ego hit upon the present method of perception, and clung to it.

[...] It goes without saying that this potentiality is very seldom realized, but it is part of the human heritage. [...]

[...] Their connections with human moods is only too apparent.

[...] Basically, however, there are no clear, set, human, psychological characteristics that belong to one sex or the other. [...]

(Pause at 9:35.) Give us a moment… Survival of the human species, as it has developed, is a matter of belief far more than is understood — for certain beliefs are now built in. [...]

[...] These are put together, so to speak, in the human personality with great leeway and in many proportions.

[...] I hinted at our last discussion that it is indeed within the ability of the human personality to become aware of other realities while still keeping contact with physical reality. Manipulation in the physical universe is of course a necessity, but there are ways by which the human individual can become aware of other quite valid realities, and still maintain balance and control within his own more usual field of activity.

[...] Again I say as I have said before, all human beings are breathers, and in this respect all human beings are mediums.

[...] It involves no more, however, than a study of human personality, for it involves nothing more than a switching of focus. It is imperative, if we are to speak easily, that you read the material having to do with the specific ways in which the human individual creates physical matter on a subconscious basis.

[...] Ages ago, humans not only watched the animals, but went to them for help. [...] If a human was in a catatonic state after a battle, for instance, the “animal medicine man” would purposely shock the patient into an emotional reaction to bring him out of the state.

(2. The use of animals — rats, say — in experiments involving injections, before giving them to human beings. [...]

A human being, however, has another dimension to deal with, a new area of creativity, a diverse mixture of beliefs. [...]

Aside from anything Seth has said or ever may say about other probable realities, or even about human origins here on earth, I think it most risky at this stage in history for anyone—scientist or not—to dogmatically state that life has no meaning, or is a farce, or that attributes of our reality of which we can only mentally conceive at this time do not really exist. [...] Human beings do know their own worth, as Seth stated in this session.

[...] Moreover, science’s thesis meets with no answering affirmation in the human heart—and in fact arouses the deepest antipathy, for in his heart man well knows his own worth, and realizes that his own consciousness is no accident.⁵ The psyche, then, possesses within itself an inner affirmation, an affirmation that provides the impetus for physical emergence, an affirmation that keeps man from being completely blinded by his own mental edifices (all with much emphasis and fast delivery.

[...] (Pause.) In a fashion, creative play is your human version of far greater characteristics from which your universe itself was formed. [...]

[...] Your proud human consciousness rests on the vast “unconscious” integrity of your physical being. [...]

(Pause.) There has been great discussion in past years about the survival of the fittest, in Darwinian terms,⁴ but little emphasis is placed upon the quality of life, or of survival itself; or in human terms, [there has been] little probing into the question of what makes life worthwhile. [...]

[...] This applies to human populations as well as to the animals.

(11:22.) Such a development would, however, necessitate first of all a broadening of concepts about the self, and a greater understanding of human potential. Human consciousness is now at a stage where such a development is not only feasible, but necessary if the race is to achieve its greatest fulfillment.

Jane Roberts’s experience to some extent hints at the multidimensional nature of the human psyche and gives clues as to the abilities that lie within each individual. [...]

[...] Many other psychological elements are involved in any human situation.

[...] They are actually in the process of putting their own personalities together long after most people have settled upon one official version or another—and so their behavior gives glimpses of the ever-changing give-and-take among the various elements of human personality.

[...] Before the Roman gods were fully formalized, there was a spectacular range of good and bad deities, with all gradations [among them], that more or less “democratically” represented the unknown but sensed, splendid and tumultuous characteristics of the human soul, and have stood for those sensed but unknown glimpses of his own reality that man was in one way or another determined to explore.

(Before tonight’s session, she and I discussed the importance of Seth’s material on human sexuality and hoped he would expand it.)

[...] When he studies such animal behavior, however, and sometimes uses the sexual patterns of the animals to make certain points about human sexuality, then man does not take this into consideration, but speaks as if the present observed animal behavior is the indication of a prime or basic nature inherent in their biology.

[...] The great human qualities of love, strength, compassion, intellect and imagination do not belong to one sex or the other.

The individual is born equipped with his humanness, with certain propensities and leanings toward development. He knows what human voices sound like even before his ear physically hears those sounds. [...]

The human personality is therefore endowed sexually and psychologically with a freedom from strict sexual orientation. [...]

[...] This means that he denies a certain portion of his own humanity, and then is forced to overreact in expressing those emotions left open to him. [...]

[...] Their ego and their subconscious and their superego and their id leads them no further than a worm that wiggles in the grass and is dead forever tomorrow, and even the worm has more reality than they are willing to assign to one human consciousness. [...]

[...] And these whole other areas represent human personality and all its potentials. [...]

[...] You are amused by the very human characteristics I show. [...]

[...] As it operates within your system, and within the human personality, the word expectation is a much better term. [...]

On the part of any human personality, therefore, it is extremely important that methods be learned to let action follow its normal directive bent within the personality, therefore avoiding these abortive offshoots that impede main directives and purposes of the unit as a whole.

It is extremely difficult, but it is possible for the human system to close off, for all practical purposes, a channel that has been used for the flow of such an impeding action. [...]

[...] In connection with Seth’s material here, however: In the United States alone there have been many discoveries of human (and/or humanlike) tracks, both large and small, in very ancient rock formations. [...] In Texas, very clear giant-sized human tracks, dating from the Cretaceous Period of 140 million years ago, have been found intermixed in rock with those of several kinds of great dinosaurs — a discovery completely at odds with current scientific ideas that man is at most but a few million years old. [...]

How does the human data from such very ancient times fit in with the comparatively modest dates — of “only” 50 million to 30 million years ago — that Seth cites for his mutated forms at the beginning of this session? [...]

[...] Your humanness did not emerge by refusing your animal heritage, but upon an extension of it.”

[...] In historical terms this situation has always existed for the human species; and we think it applies almost equally in Eastern lands, especially among the political leaders and ruling classes within them.

[...] Even given their undeniable accomplishments, why didn’t the Eastern countries create ages ago the immortal societies that could have served as models for those of the West to emulate — cultures and/or nations in which all the mundane human vicissitudes (in those terms) had been long understood and abolished: war, crime, poverty, ignorance, and disease?

(“Number twenty-three: Are you in contact with, or speaking through, any other humans as you are with Jane?”)

(“Number twenty-six: Are animals fragments of human beings?”)

[...] Yet you consider yourselves quite independent, and not thrust-off second-handed selves; so dogs and other animals are not simply the manifestation of stray psychic energy on the part of human beings.

[...] The human psyche contains such patterns that can be put together in multitudinous ways. You have categorized human abilities so that it seems that you are men or women, or women and men primarily, and persons secondarily. [...]

[...] A human child, true; but an offspring in which the entire history of the earth is involved — a new creation arising not just from two parents, but from the entire gestalt of nature, from which the parents themselves once emerged; a private yet public affair in which the physical elements of earth become individualized; in which psyche and earth cooperate in a birth that is human, and in other terms, divine.

[...] You will never have any relationship with the Dick Reed that you have projected upon a living human being. You may have a relationship with that human being, but there is a world of difference between that human being and the imagined image of him to which you react. [...] But you cannot project that image upon another human being and deny him his own reality. [...]

[...] No human being could ever deliver what you expect a man to deliver in a relationship. [...]

You are not able, at this point, you have never been able to look at a man as an individual human being. [...]

[...] From the viewpoint of the concerned and conscientious ego-self, truly there appears to be great and disastrous evils that overflow like poison the cup of human existence.

When he sips of it, as you have sipped of it, and as all conscientious human beings sip of it, then indeed the taste is bitter. [...]

[...] Nothing here must ever be taken as a justification for evil, in humanity’s terms. [...]

[...] (Long pause.) The human race is a stage through which various forms of consciousness travel. [...]

When you leave the physical system after reincarnations, you have learned the lessons, and you are literally no longer a member of the human race in those terms, for you elect to leave it. [...]

Humanity dreams the same dream at once, and you have your mass world. [...]