“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

(A note added the next morning: I was especially pleased to hear Seth talk of redemption, for that’s one of the main themes I tried to explore in the essays for Dreams—redemption on many levels, even though we may not grasp what’s transpiring on a number of those levels. But more and more, ever since he gave that session, some time ago now, on redemption, I’ve come to believe that the very idea or theme of redemption may be the major path we follow in physical life.)

Within the idea of probable realities, then, there are innumerable opportunities for redemption to take place, between or among creatures—or even between or among ideas—and in all manner of ways. [...] There are multitudinous possibilities for a redemption—or equalization or love or forgiveness, say—to take place amid such a dazzling array of probable realities. As far as our understanding can go, such a redemptive quality can be psychic, physical, both, or simply based on explorations of feeling and accomplishment we have yet to know.

I’m certainly not writing here about the idea of redemption in the ordinary religious sense, although I think it’s perfectly possible that in some other frameworks, larger than our taken-for-granted physical and psychological one, the idea of redemption—of understanding and embracing—may be involved in a “religious” sense, as part of an intuitive grasp of All That Is.

Since I’m so closely related to Jane in this life, through marriage, as well as through at least several reincarnational and counterpart roles (according to Seth and our own feelings), I’m as deeply involved in this search for redemption as she is. [...] To me, redemption means a continuous search or journey, then, involving whatever events and interchanges we choose to create, for whatever purposes, along the way—and truly, I think, some of those purposes will involve things “the conscious mind may not be able presently to perceive.” [...]

Now what kinds of “redemption” can be found amid the interchanges among any combination of reincarnational and/or counterpart lives, for instance? Some, certainly, and no doubt the reader can think of at least a few creative interpretations of redemptive qualities, but I’d rather let the question search for its own approximate answers as I continue work upon this essay. [...]

[...] When she read it to me I knew at once that it would go here, for a few words she certainly sang of the basic theme of these essays—of the sublime, immortal consciounesses of the earth and All That Is, of that loving redemption that consciousness always makes possible somehow, somewhere, in the eternal private world of each of us, and that each of us always seeks:

[...] I also reminded her that in the October session I’d written in my notes about redemption. [...]

[...] You do not feel that your dream existence is useless, hopeless or beyond redemption, and it seldom occurs to you to think of your dream existence in such a manner.

[...] Only science’s Sinful Self operates in a framework in which there is no sacramental redemption. [...]

[...] Was this to be the “redemption” Seth had talked about a couple of years ago, and that I’d tried to deal with in the intro for Dreams? [...]

[...] The results would be even more intimate than those in James and Cézanne. A work like that would furnish invaluable clues concerning her redemption, on many levels, and mine as well.

[...] Once again I note that in my opinion Jane’s dependency represents, at least in part, a search for a “redemption” that encompasses other motivations and realities than those concerned with “just” our temporal lives; that indeed, her impaired state grew out of her mystical nature itself (but was hardly caused by it!).

Religion, having in certain terms created the entire concept, had then to create the idea of redemption to rectify it. [...]

[...] Now to some extent it was that poor, unhappy Sinful Self, a psychological structure formed by beliefs and feelings, that was also seeking its own redemption, since even it had outgrown the framework that so defined it. [...]

And if there is any redemption, my good, holy friend, (to Joel) it takes place in each moment of time now in each day, not back so many centuries ago. [...]

The concept of original sin was a very poor, limited and distorted one, but at least along with it went rather simple procedures: Through baptism you might be saved, or through certain words or sacraments or rituals redemption could be found. [...]

If a man was a sinner, still there was a way of redemption, and the immortality of the soul went largely unquestioned, of course. [...]

[...] What part do I play, and have yet to play, in Jane’s redemption—as well as my own—and on what level or levels? [...]

You redeem and you sanctify, otherwise there is no redemption and no sanctification. [...]

[...] We agree with Seth’s overall view, and that a sublime mystery is implied—but we also want to achieve as much as we can of that redemption now, and on conscious physical and psychological levels.

[...] Now to some extent it was that poor, unhappy sinful self, a psychological structure formed by beliefs and feelings, that was also seeking its own redemption, since even it had outgrown the framework that so defined it.