“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

In this book he comments on our religions, sciences, cults, and on our medical beliefs as well, with an uncompromising wisdom — as if — as if he represents some deep part of the human psyche that knows better, that has always known better — as if he speaks out not only with my voice but for many many other people — as if he represents the truths that we have allowed ourselves to forget.

[...] Much of this book is concerned with the purposes of our impulses, and the reasons for their poor reputations in the eyes of science and religion. [...]

[...] Your concepts of personhood are now limiting you personally and en masse, and yet your religions, metaphysics, histories, and even your sciences are hinged upon your ideas of who and what you are. [...] Your religions do not explain your greater reality, and your sciences leave you just as ignorant about the nature of the universe in which you dwell.

[...] She’s tough in ways that science, for instance, doesn’t understand at all.

The idea is to be alert for psychological contents of the mind that we usually ignore, that science can’t prove or disprove … where we take experience over theory.

This is another classic example of an event that science would label simply “coincidental” without being able to give any objective proof to back up its contention.

Seth’s material largely opposes science’s mechanistic model of the body wearing down within certain age limits, abetted as that model is by the power of the beliefs that say it will. [...]

[...] Quickly I tried to explain that in biology the science of classification is called taxonomy. [...]

[...] “I’m really making an effort to free myself from what science believes about evolution, or anything like that,” she said. [...]

Science has promoted the idea that hostility is a constant attribute of nature and all of its parts, while it sees the cooperating characteristics of nature as rather infrequent or extraordinary — but certainly outside of the norm (wryly amused).

[...] Therefore science, for example, says that creatures — except for man — operate by blind instinct, and that term is meant to explain all of the complicated behavior of the other species. [...]

[...] It is interesting to note that even before medical science, there were a goodly number of healthy populations. [...]

[...] Science has believed to the contrary in the utter annihilation of the intellect after death, and since man had by then placed all of his identification with the intellect, this was a shattering blow to it. [...]

[...] They are even more entangled with scientific concepts, and with science’s views of life in general. [...]

(Then I told her about the article I’d just taken from Science News last night, concerning the abilities of animals, birds and bees to carry maps of their terrain in their heads. [...]

(Pause.) Your many civilizations, historically speaking, each with its own fields of activity, its own sciences, religions, politics and art—these all represent various ways that man has used imagination and reason to form a framework through which (underlined) a more or less cohesive reality is experienced.

Man’s physical world, with all of its civilizations and cultural aspects, and even with its technologies and sciences, basically represents the species’ innate drive to communicate, to move outward, to create, and to objectify sensed inner realities. [...]

[...] At biological levels the body often produces its own “preventative medicine,” or “inoculations,” by seeking out, for example, new or foreign substances in its environment [that are] due to nature, science or technology; it assimilates such properties in small doses, coming down with an “illness” which, left alone, would soon vanish as the body utilized what it could [of it], or socialized “a seeming invader.”

(“Well then, will I be able to sell the science-fiction cover I’m working on?”)

[...] There is certain work that you could do that could be compared to Ruburt’s science fiction; that is, commercial in that it brings in money, and yet expresses an intuitive and creative part of the personality and is not, as you say, hack work.

In your field of art you could do better now than he is in science fiction, since you are more sure of how you get your effects, and he is still not. [...]

Now while it seems that your world contains more and more information all the time, your particular brand of science is a relatively narrow one, in that it accepts as valid only certain specific areas of speculation. [...] To that degree, the unknown is more feared by science than it ever was by religion.

As he progressed with the series, Seth delved into Jane’s sinful self from a number of viewpoints: its birth and growth during her intense relationship with the Roman Catholic Church throughout her early years; the development of her very stubborn core beliefs; her creative dilemmas after she left the church in her late teens; the conflicts she began to experience after our marriage, involving on the one hand her sinful self and the religion she thought she’d left behind, and on the other hand science, art, writing, and the unconventional direction she discovered her natural, mystical abilities were taking via the Seth material; her growing fears of leading others astray; and the very real necessity for her—and for each individual—to achieve value fulfillment.

[...] (Long pause.) Reincarnation suggests, of course, the extension of personal existence beyond one time period, independently of one bodily form, the translation or transmission of intelligence through nonphysical frameworks, and implies psychological behavior, memory and desire as purposeful action without the substance of any physical mechanism—propositions that science at its present stage of development simply could not buy, and for which it could find no evidence, for its methods would automatically preclude the type of experience that such evidence would require.

People can become quite frightened, then, of any kind of experiences of a personal nature that imply reincarnational life, for they are then faced with the taboos of science, or perhaps by the distorted explanations of some religions or cults. [...]

[...] I do want to point out that all fetuses do not necessarily intend to develop into normal babies, and that if medical science, through its techniques, ends up in directing a normal birth, the consciousness of the child may never feel normally allied with physical experience.

[...] In the terms used by science, there was no evolution in linear terms, but vast (long pause) explosions of consciousness, expansions of capacities, unfoldings on the parts of all species, and these still continue. [...]

What grandiose claims these are, however — at least at this time — for Jane and I also read that in the last three-quarters of a century science has managed to bring about an increase of only four years in the life expectancy of the adult white male: from 69 to 73 years. [...]

[...] (People might even have to change their marriage vows!) Science-fiction ideas abound. [...]

It would therefore be highly limiting for me to deliver our material in such a way that I emphasized those matters in which science might agree with my material. [...]

[...] What’s he trying to do, I asked Jane—combine something like science’s theoretical “big-bang” origin of the universe, all of those billions of years ago, with creationism’s theory of a recent spontaneous, divine creation of that same universe? [...]

[...] Science currently postulates this theory as its “standard model” for the creation of the universe.³

[...] Even your science knows this now, and yet your eyes see the table as solid. [...]

[...] It does mean that even your science is discovering the existence of the inside world, which it will be unable to deny much longer.