“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

[...] And when you kill so much as an ant, so do you kill part of Him in most practical terms.

When you kill in thought, you kill indeed.

[...] A man who kills with hatred will have his hatred to contend with, but he is not able to kill anyone who has not decided to die—and to die in a particular manner; that is, someone who wants his death blamed on another, who would not commit suicide, who would not choose a long illness—someone who is ready to die but does not want to deal with the circumstances, and wants indeed to be surprised by death.

[...] Within your system, to kill is obviously a moral crime, but to kill another in punishment only compounds the original error. [...]

The problem of war will sooner or later teach you that when you kill another man, basically you will end up killing yourself. [...]

[...] Rat poison may indeed add its own dangers, killing other small birds or rodents, and contaminating animal food supplies. [...]

[...] These would kill every flea in the house, supposedly. [...]

[...] In this case, whether the hallucination ends with him riding the animal, making friends with it, domesticating it, killing it or being killed by it, each alternative… (Jane coughed, then paused and took a sip of beer) is carefully weighed, and the results will have much to do with his future development.

[...] In my hand I held a tablet that said: “Thou shalt not kill.” [...]

For example: Many of you believe in the basis of Freudian psychology — that the son naturally wants to displace the father in his mother’s attentions, and that beneath the son’s love for his father, there rages the murderous intent to kill. [...]

[...] She was afraid that she might discover within herself the buried impulse to kill her husband, or to break up the marriage, but she was sure that her overweight condition hid some unfortunate impulse.

[...] After Marilyn left Jane and I discovered that both of us had been alarmed by the child in some vague way; his actions had been quite overtly strong, we thought, involving such things as pretending to kill our cat Willy, taking swings at Jane and me, etc. [...]

[...] You may be killed by what you have created. [...]

You do not feel guilty for those you kill in your dreams. [...]

[...] A man walked out into the street and was killed by a falling brick. [...]

(Bernice M.: “Before he was killed.”)

Here, often, and for various reasons, you find a hidden and distorted sense of power that says, “I am so powerful that I could kill you with my thought, and yet I refuse to do so.” [...] If thoughts alone could kill, you would not have the overpopulation problem!

[...] Thoughts can kill, these people think — as if the individual against whom such an impulse was directed had no protective life-giving energies of his or her own, and no natural defense.

Six weeks ago in Tehran, the capital city of Iran, over 150 officials of the ruling Islamic Republican Party were killed by bomb explosions which destroyed their headquarters building. [...] [The most powerful one, the Mujahedin-e Khalq, for example, is a Marxist-based guerrilla organization of “People’s Crusaders” that espouses its own brand of radical Islamic republicanism.] The mass killing resulted in an immediate increase in the government’s campaign to eliminate opponents of clerical [Shiite] rule in Iran. [...]

In all of this—the bombings and persecutions and killings—I thought of great, loose groups of consciousnesses swirling in angry revolt, with each consciousness “working” individually and collectively for and against others, each one seeking to know new creative aspects of itself within the framework of a chosen national structure.²

[...] The interpretation of scanty records, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, has given rise to debate, but it appears he was either Menahem ben Judah, who was killed in A.D. 66 in Jerusalem, or a nephew, who survived and succeeded him.)

[...] He died with a small group of men in a cave that he held as a point of refuge in the middle of a battle, killed by members of another sect. [...]

[...] Value fulfillment would not be achieved in some important directions if man ceased killing because he knew death did not exist. He must cease killing while he believes death does exist. [...]

You have heard terms like “The Brotherhood of Man,” or, as Ruburt might say, “The Brother-Womanhood of Women” (humorously). But at any given time, in your terms — at any given time — the population of the earth is made up of counterparts … and so when you kill an enemy, you are killing a version of yourself … For as you are members of a physical species, you are also members of a psychic kind of counterpart reality; and this membership straddles races or countries, or states or politics.

[...] I’ll close this appendix with two more queries that psychically are much more personal and very intriguing: Had Peter Smith viewed the same events on that tower in Jerusalem from the vantage point of the soldier who killed my soldier? [...]

[...] Then I “picked up” that my soldier-self was killed by his countrymen because he’d traitorously sought to warn Zealot leaders of a planned search of the lower city of Jerusalem by Roman troops. [...]

[...] John had two questions for Seth—one concerning himself, and one about a pet dog that had recently been killed. [...]

[...] No one wanted the dog killed, but it was not coincidence that you yourself loosened the dog’s collar, or that your wife was the one who left the dog; for symbolically the two of you were connected here. [...]

[...] On the other hand you had an individual aggressively attuned that day with withheld violence, who was going to kill one animal or another. [...]

Often the insecticide kills more than the mosquito, and its effects can be far-reaching, and possibly have disastrous consequences. [...]

[...] That voice might tell him to commit any of a number of nefarious actions — to assassinate the enemies that stand in the way of his great ideal — and it might seem to him and to others that he has a natural impulse to kill, and indeed an inner decree from God to do so.

[...] (Long pause.) It cannot value life, and so in its search for the ideal it can indeed justify in its philosophy the possibility of an accident that might kill many many people through direct or indirect means, and kill the unborn as well.²

[...] He was afraid of the cat, considering him wild and caged originally, as his mother had been in his interpretation, so he felt forced to help the cat (who did not have any love for him), as he felt before he had to help his mother—who would kill him if she had the chance.

[...] Instead of Star Trek’s “I will not kill today,” have him substitute “I will not worry today.” [...]

[...] Your mother is not out to kill him personally. His mother was not out to kill him personally. [...]