“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

Man thought once, historically speaking, that there was but one world. Now he knows differently, but he still clings to the idea of one god, one self, and one body through which to express it.

There is one God, but within that God are many. There is one self, but within that self are many. There is one body, in one time, but the self has other bodies in other times. [...]

[...] One of my purposes then has been to make this unknown reality consciously known.

[...] Now: Life after death has usually been described quite in keeping with the old accepted ideas about one self, and limited concepts of personhood. [...]

(To SW and CW) I do have one point to make. [...] and at one time your sister... [...] Was also known to this one here in Spain, the country now called Spain... [...]

[...] I want you to seriously consider each one of the paintings and tell me which one is Bega.

[...] I did, indeed, however stand in front of each one of you and looked into your faces and you did not see me. [...]

[...] A mole or mark on one of the feet... [...]

[...] Again, in your terms, these are your problems, and no god or devil put them upon you, and there is no one to blame but yourselves. [...] And so that for the millions that you think you slay, you slay not one. And so that despite you and your concepts of value, creativity always emerges triumphant, and those that are killed in one war come back to fight against war the next time, and hopefully, you teach yourselves some lessons. [...]

[...] And the higher one gets in power, the harder it is to hide such things from one’s self. [...]

[...] In one story or another, it has existed far back into the annals of your time. [...]

As I have tried to explain to you, the rigorous concepts of good and evil are themselves highly distorted, and when you find such a dilemma where goodness is one thing and evil another, and both contrary and separate, then you automatically separate them in your minds and in your feelings and in your fantasies. [...]

[...] There are ways to discover whether the projection is a pseudo one or a valid one. For one simple example, Ruburt experienced a valid projection begun from the dream state, some time ago.

(“I believe your brother Loren is one present. [...] We saw one reason why Seth could have chosen to insert it here in the envelope data, and Seth confirms our speculation later. [...] Ruth Gridley, listed on page 3 of the object as one of the Art Shop’s new management, is my first cousin; Loren of course is my brother. [...]

[...] The three sections of milkweed pod shown are made up groups of lines; each group contains about the same number and arrangement of lines, whether one would consider them black or white. One could find arrangements of five lines in each of these groups, but could also count more or less, depending on approach. [...]

[...] There can be a literal interpretation: The drawing of the milkweed on page one of the object is V-shaped in the abstract sense—wide at one end, narrowing to a point, as did Jane’s gesture. [...]

When the two of you work with Framework 2 then, say, Jane one and Rob one can help each other help Jane two and Rob two also, so that you add to your benefits. [...]

If either of you “lose” an hour, often you project that one lost hour into fifty future ones, but you are learning. [...]

Do have Ruburt ask the natural Jane (Jane one) what to do when there are difficulties, so that the natural self at least gets a chance to give an opinion. [...]

[...] You have vast reservoirs of energy in particular, both of you, that have been blocked simply because the natural person was simply ignored, and beliefs of the social person taken as the indisputable ones. [...]

[...] We have discovered that no one can escape the vast creativity of the mental image, or of emotion. This does not mean that we are not spontaneous, or that we must deliberate between one thought or another, in anxious concern that one might be negative or destructive. [...]

We will be quite aware that we are ourselves, however — the multidimensional personalities who shared a more or less common environment at one level of our existence. As you will see, this analogy is a rather simple one that will do only for now, because past, present, and future do not really exist in those terms.

(10:11.) When one has been born and has died many times, expecting extinction with each death, and when this experience is followed by the realization that existence still continues, then a sense of the divine comedy enters in.

[...] On the one hand you take life too seriously, and on the other, you do not take playful existence seriously enough.

[...] The distance between one life and another exists psychologically, and not in terms of years or centuries. [...] There may be great temperamental differences in some cases, between your personality in one given life and another — so that your present self simply could not relate to the other’s experience.

(The second question: Did Seth intend to title Part One and Part Two of his book, as he had his chapters? [...]

[...] That was one life divided into two separate periods — literally a life divided in terms of interests, concentration of abilities, and life styles.

Now if the life in question is a recent one, in your terms, the details may be more readily recalled and far more precise. [...]

(Pause at 9:45, one of many. Now rock music began to blare out from one of the apartments below us. [...]

[...] You’re not going to get two sentences about one subject, then switch to another one….” [...]

3. In Hinduism and Buddhism, karma is thought of as the total moral sum of an individual’s acts in any one life — thus determining the person’s fate or destiny in the next. [...] A “future” life, then, can affect a “past” one, so karma as it is usually considered does not apply.

[...] She lit a cigarette and looked off to one side and down, her attention already turned inward as she prepared to psychically join a very familiar “energy personality essence,” as Seth calls himself.)

[...] One had to do with the kind of body Sally had at her disposal. Seth said, “Now the new body is, of course, not a new one at all, but simply a body not physical in your terms, one that you use in astral projections, one that gives the vitality and strength to the physical body that you know.

So while Seth often explains present life problems as the result of past life difficulties, he makes it clear to those that can understand that the lives really exist simultaneously, just as three personalities can exist in one body at one time. [...] In one case, a friend’s hang-ups in the present originated right in this life, though her boyfriend’s were left over from the past.

[...] The physical senses can only perceive reality a little bit at a time, and so it seems to you that one moment exists and is gone forever, and the next moment comes and like the one before also disappears.

“In your dimension it is as if remembered events were like pieces of furniture, all arranged in one room, in a given order. [...]

Development is therefore considered in a one-line direction only, in Christian terms. [...] The idea of evolution in its popular meaning promulgated this theory, as through gradual progression in a one-line direction, man emerged from the ape. [...]

(9:30.) On the one hand, quite simply and in a way that you cannot presently understand, evil does not exist. [...] (Pause; one of many.)

[...] Quite without realizing it, your ego is a result of group consciousness, for example; the one consciousness that most directly faces the exterior world, is dependent upon the minute consciousness that resides within each living cell of your body; and as a rule you are only aware of one ego — at least at a time.

[...] The soul is not ascending a series of stairs, each one representing a new and higher point of development.

At one point Seth smiled broadly and said, “Now, I have lived and died many times, and you can sense my vitality. [...] You helped him ‘save his soul’ at one time [in a past life] and he was returning the favor. At one time he was tempted to use his abilities to gain power, and to use the priesthood for gain. [...]

[...] We are not “punished” in one life for the “transgressions” of a past one. [...]

[...] The daughter had left too late; he was too old; no one would have him, and now he had no one even to talk to. [...]

“The problem is a challenge set up by the entity for one of its own personalities, but the outcome is up to the personality involved. [...] … One does not choose illness per se for a lifetime situation. [...]

One of the other children, a brother, is now one of your cousins; and another child is now a twin of Dick’s present wife. [...]

We have, I believe, used the analogy of air, comparing it to the vitality of the universe in one of our previous sessions. [...] So does it enter as one thing many times, and so does it emerge as something different many times; and so does it change shape and content, and so does it show many faces and yet never disappears. [...]

[...] No one, I am sure, denies the existence of air because ordinarily you do not see it. No one denies the existence of air because they do not understand the method by which their own lungs breathe. [...]

If man does not know who breathes within him, and if man does not know who dreams within him, it is not because there is one who acts in the physical world and one completely separate who dreams and breathes. [...]

[...] These portions of the self are all simultaneous; in various stages of consciousness you become aware of other portions of the self, and an I identifies itself with one or another of these.

When consciousness leaves the body, it identifies itself with one of these portions, and travels in its form. [...]

One form may indeed serve, and then consciousness may project out of it into a new form that is familiar with other dimensions. [...]

[...] It is indeed possible to be involved with more than one form at once as in usual projection.

[...] The three men were a part of one entity, gaining physical existence in one time. [...] There are reasons why the entity did not return as one person. For one thing, the full consciousness of an entity would be too strong for one physical vehicle. [...]

“In actuality, following the image through, and strictly as an analogy, there would also be an infinite number of threads both above and below your own, all part of one inconceivably miraculous webwork. Yet each thread would not be one-dimensional but of many dimensions, and conceivably, if you knew how, there would be ways of leapfrogging from one thread to the other. [...]

[...] One of the most important points, I think, is that God is not static Himself. [...] Most of your God concepts deal with a static God, and here is one of your main theological difficulties. [...]

[...] One of these contained the personality that most stories of Christ refer to. [...] There was constant communication between these three portions of one entity, though they were born and buried at different dates. [...]

“The gurus say: ‘Give it all up.’ One of those we read about today counsels: ‘When you want to do one thing, do another instead. [...]

[...] But why call our generalized awareness an illusion, instead of regarding it as one of the innumerable manifestations that reality takes? No one is free of certain minimum physical needs or of self-oriented thought, I remarked to Jane recently, and each nation strives to expand its technological base no matter what its philosophy may be. [...]

(Being individualists, then, as I wrote in the Introductory Notes for Volume 1, we don’t concentrate upon whatever parallels exist between Seth’s concepts on the one hand and those of Eastern religious, philosophical, and mystical doctrines on the other; while we know of such similarities, we’re just as aware of how different from them Seth’s viewpoint can be, too. [...]

“Thank God that some god managed to disentangle itself from such psychic oneness, if that’s what it’s supposed to be. [...]

[...] Now three of these personalities are yours: one is not yours. One is not “yours" in your terms as of this time. [...]

Now I speak from several layers, though the word “speak" is a poor one, I turn myself, you see, into steps down which I walk and the steps represent what you would term personality fragments, though the term is distortive. [...] I have been to your seminar—not your seminar—but ones much like them in what you would term the past. [...]

([Gene]: “Then is it right to respond to this man Baba in the following way—you and I are one and the only thing which keeps us apart is my not knowing that we are one?”)

[...] When you read our material, there will be one issue in particular on which you will not agree. [...]

One note along these lines. A plane—and I am using your term, I will try to think of a better one—is not necessarily a planet. A plane may be one planet, but a plane may also exist where no planet is. One planet may have several planes. [...]

In other terms you could also say that an entity visits all planes simultaneously, as it is possible for you to visit one particular state, one particular county, one particular city at one time. [...]

[...] However, by seeing beneath the camouflage in any one case you see beneath the camouflage in all cases. What these wires are, therefore, that seem to divide our planes and that appear so differently in one plane than they do in another, are solidified vitality whose camouflaging action is determined by mental enzymes.

[...] It is oftentime practical that entities or their various personalities visit one plane before another. This does not mean that one plane must necessarily be visited before another. [...]

[...] Pretend that there is a world within as vivid and real as the physical one. [...] If you want, imagine that they have dials and you flip them off, one by one. [...] This is one method of beginning.

[...] As you practice, you will learn to tell one from the other.

[...] Yesterday, the theft was one of innumerable probable events. I chose such an example because more than one person would have to be involved — the victim and the robber. [...] In one way or another, through your conscious thought you attracted such an event, and drew it from probability into actuality. [...]

You may be convinced that human nature is evil, or that no one is safe from another’s aggression, or that people are motivated mainly by greed. [...] On basic levels your convictions will be quite similar, but one will see himself as the victim and one as the aggressor — that is, each of you will react differently to the same set of beliefs. [...]

[...] Each painting is but one materialization, one focused presentation, of an endless variety of probable paintings. [...]

You can change the picture of your life at any time if only you realize that it is simply the one portrait of yourself that you have created from an unlimited amount of probable ones. [...]

[...] The interior perception activates the outside one. [...] I am saying that all exterior events, including your own bodies with their insides, all objects, all physical materializations, are the outside structures of inside ones that are composed of interior sound and invisible light, interwoven in electromagnetic patterns.

[...] See the definitions of genes and chromosomes in the 610th session in Chapter One.)

[...] In a sense, and a very real one, the mental image is incipient matter; and any structure so composed, combining the electromagnetic sound and light values, will automatically try to reproduce itself in physical existence, or materialization. [...]

[...] Jane’s trance had developed into quite a profound one but, typically, she was soon out of it. [...]