“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

(Lately we have begun using the pendulum to “verify” the validity of our predictions, and our interpretation of them. To our surprise, we have discovered that the pendulum does not always agree with our conscious interpretations. At times it will agree with our predictions and our interpretations. At times it will not agree with our interpretation of what it calls a valid prediction. And at times it will state that a prediction is valid, when we can see nothing during the following day’s events to tie to the prediction.)

Ruburt may trust the pendulum, although care should be taken as far as predictions are concerned, though with training the pendulum will give valid answers to predictions.

(For many months now both Jane and I have followed a practice of making perhaps half a dozen predictions for the following day. Usually each one consists of three or four words at the most. On the day the predictions were made for, we check them against what we can consciously remember of the day’s events. It is great fun to make them, and was Jane’s idea originally.

The predictions weren’t the greatest, but they had a satisfying feel. [...] So I granted them as fair-enough predictions, particularly in summertime when normal associations didn’t usually involve snow. I also granted a “fair” prediction to “detective.”

All of that came to mind this morning; not that it couldn’t have just been “coincidence” that later in the day I hear from Ed — after making three predictions that seemed to apply to him. [...] And I know that those memories and thoughts were connected with my later predictions and Ed’s letter in the noon mail. [...]

This appendix contains three of Jane Roberts’ (unfinished) essays on different kinds of “prediction” and precognition experience. [...]

The experimentation with daily predictions will show you quite clearly, with practice, the nature of such distortions, as you see the difference between the predicted event and the event that occurs. Also for economy and for the reason given above, symbols may stand for more than one physical reality, and so may they in some of the earlier predictions given in this material.

[...] In Ruburt’s predictions he has only begun. [...] And much of this significant material that he will observe from his predictions will also apply to dream symbols.

(On February 1 I began to make a list of daily predictions, as Jane has been doing for some time now.

[...] Working with events not even real to you, it produces a physical structure that maintains identity and predictability out of a vastly creative network. That network is unpredictable, yet from it Ruburt can predictably put ashes into that shell. (Jane held up her favorite ashtray, the abalone shell we’d found in Baja California in 1958, and tapped some ashes into it from her cigarette.) The predictability of that gesture rests upon the basis of an unpredictability, in which multitudinous other actions could have occurred, and in other realities do occur.

[...] Because I have a larger scope of perception than you, I can with greater facility predict what may happen. But this is dependent upon my prediction as to which choice [of probable events] you will make, and the choice is still your own … Predictions, per se, do not contradict the theory of free will, though free will is dependent upon much more than any freedom of the ego alone. [...]

Science likes to think that it deals with predictable action. It perceives such a small amount of data, however, and in such a limited area, that the great inner unpredictability of any molecule, atom, or wave is not apparent. Scientists perceive only what appears within your system, and that often appears predictable.

3. In Note 6 for Session 681 I quoted Seth on his own ability to predict (which he seldom indulges), and on the subject in general. He also commented on predictions in a more amused way in ESP class for January 5, 1971; see the transcript in the Appendix of Seth Speaks: “Time, in your terms, is plastic. Most predictions are made in a highly distorted fashion; they can lead the public astray. [...] You can tune into certain probabilities and predict ‘that they will occur,’ but free will always operates. No god in a giant ivory tower says ‘This will happen February 15 at 8:05.’; and if no god predicts, then I do not see the point of doing so myself.”

[...] In fact, the behavior of any object in your universe is “predictable” only because you concentrate upon such a small portion of its reality.² Unpredictability assures uniqueness, and is the opposite of predetermined motion. [...]

[...] Basically that portion of the psyche is outside of space and time, while enabling you to operate in it.⁴ It deals intimately with probabilities — (louder:) the source of all predictable action.

[...] This does not involve only the predictive behavior of the physical organism alone, however. At these deeper levels the cellular activity includes making predictive judgments about the environment outside of the body. [...] When you want to walk across the room, the body must not only operate using hindsight and “prediction” as far as its own behavior is concerned, but it must take into consideration the predictive activity of all of the other elements in that room.

[...] Here I am saying that the atoms and molecules themselves, because of their characteristics, not only deal with probabilities within the body’s cellular structure, but also helps the body make predictive judgments about entities or objects outside of itself.

[...] Your daily life is affected, because in such a dream you deal with probable predictabilities. [...]

[...] Most predictions are made in a highly distorted fashion; they can lead the public astray. [...] You can tune in to certain probabilities and predict “that they will occur,” but free will always operates. [...] And if no god predicts, then I do not see the point of doing so myself.

[...] When you understand the nature of reality, then you realize that predictions of future events are basically meaningless. You can predict some events and they can occur, but you create the future in every moment.

(Janice S. commented that Seth did not give many predictions.)

[...] Politicians try to predict what other governments will do. Ordinary people try to predict what their government might do.

[...] Your consciousness is at a point where it is beginning to understand the significance of “predictive action” — and predictive action always involves probabilities.

However, it seems to you that all action in the past is fixed and done, while behavior in the future alone is open to change — so the word “prediction” assumes future action. [...] When you are dealing with historic events you believe that no prediction is involved. [...]

(Seth has predicted sale of the ESP book, and of the material itself many times. [...] See the notes preceding the 138th session for a partial list of such predictions. [...]

(In the 92nd session, of September 28, 1964, Seth predicted the sale of this specific book by name. [...]

[...] Nevertheless, that which is obvious to me is not obvious, often, to you, and it is not too difficult for me to see why at times you appear to be lacking in faith when such predictions are made.

[...] Do you see any changes from your predictions?”)

(Here Seth referred to a discussion before the session, concerning the time element and his predictions re John Bradley, Searle, etc., in various previous sessions.)

(After John B. had left, Jane said she felt that many of Seth’s predictions re John & Searle would work out soon, & all at once. [...]

Such predictions can affect the probabilities, of course, and reinforce a present line of belief. [...] In some cases such a prediction can make death a fact — while its opposite can regenerate the patient’s belief in his or her own ability to live.

[...] This does not mean that the future cannot be predicted sometimes, for in practical terms you will often continue with certain lines of probability which can be seen “ahead of time.”

[...] But even such decisions can be altered at any time in your “now” — the entire body can be regenerated in a way that would be impossible to predict in usual medical terms. [...]

I am not cautious, I am simply realistic and when you understand the nature of reality then you realize that predictions of future events are basically meaningless. Now you can predict some events and they occur, but you create the future in every moment in your frame of reference, and time in your terms is plastic. Most predictions are made in a highly distorted fashion, and they lead the public astray. [...] You can tune in to certain probabilities and predict “that they will occur,” but free will always operates and no god in giant ivory figures says, this will happen February 15th at 8:05 and if no god predicts, then I do not see the point of doing so myself. [...]

(Rachel commented that Seth did not give many predictions for the future.)

(Seth also agreed that all such predictions are indeed based on probabilities. By and large, he said, predictions will work out if no major drastic changes in personality and/or behavior occur.

[...] I also thought that all such predictions, whether favorable or not, depended upon probabilities, in line with the latest material we have been getting. [...]

[...] Your weathercasters try to predict the weather. [...] The weather, however, is the result of the world’s natural moods, and intuitive predictions would be far more predictable, for they would deal with those variables that cannot appear, or be predicted, at the exterior level.

[...] Times of famine were indeed predicted in dreams and guarded against. [...]

The suggestions we have given so far are predictives; they actually predict dire events of one kind or another, following a given original action.

Again, however, even in far simpler cases, the constructive personage will often make predictions that, incidentally, do not predict — and almost always give orders and directives that are to be followed without question.

[...] Not, however, Seth’s prediction that a vast improvement in Jane’s eyes would show up in a week to 10 days.

(This prediction was coupled with Jane’s use of the hot towels on her knees—as Seth has suggested she do often in the recent sessions—and which Jane has largely ignored. [...]

Ruburt’s own experiments with predictions will accelerate his ability to let longer segments, concerning any one particular prediction, in our sessions to come through. [...] But with practice there will be better, and if you will excuse the pun, more predictable results.

(Around suppertime Saturday when we were again discussing the matter of interpretation of prediction data, Jane again felt Seth nearby. [...]

[...] And in no case has there been a distortion in our predictions concerning Ruburt’s sales. [...]

[...] Try your hand at predicting future events. In the beginning, it does not matter whether or not your predictions are “true.” [...] Do not put any great stake in your predictions, for if you do you will be very disappointed if they do not work out, and end the entire procedure.

[...] You are aware of them before they happen, whether or not you ever succeed in conscious predictions. [...]

[...] He allowed himself no leeway, or very little, and in that framework the body was limited but predictable.

[...] The body is not as predictable. [...]