“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

These moment points may, for simplicity’s sake, also be thought of as reference points from one system to another. [...]

[...] When I refer to the ego I do so for simplicity’s sake, since the term has meaning to you. [...]

[...] And for Mark’s sake may I say that levels of existence do not necessarily imply higher or lower levels, but concentric levels, even as the layers of the subconscious do not imply upper and lower levels, but are merely terms used for the sake of simplicity.

[...] The whole affair will be settled now with relative ease, so that you will be quite astonished at the simplicity of it.

[...] I told her that in my opinion the material tonight represented her and Seth at their best — and that it also had a deceptive simplicity. [...]

When I speak of levels of the subconscious, I do so only for simplicity’s sake, since there is after all no top or bottom to the mind, but only a present point of focus from which viewpoints may be taken, and new perspectives formed. [...]

For simplicity’s sake, I say that I gave him the image, but actually I gave him the impression, which he translated into an image, so that he could deal with it in a more familiar way.

[...] [Earlier Monday night, before the session, I’d asked Jane how one could “be a child again,” while retaining the valuable elements from the subsequent events in life, but keeping that original clarity and simplicity of vision.] I’d been thinking primarily of painting. [...]

[...] To interpret them upon one level alone would be indeed simplicity in itself. [...]

[...] When I speak in terms of continuity here, and before and after, I speak for simplicity’s sake only, since the survival personality that is, always existed, of course.

[...] In normal life you even turn down outer-sense stimuli for the sake of simplicity, and to enable you to focus upon those stimuli close at hand.

[...] And again remember that these senses, these inner senses, operate as a whole, and that at least to some degree the divisions between them are somewhat arbitrary on my part, and are made for the sake of simplicity.

[...] For simplicity’s sake we shall call the body forms of which we spoke in our last session, forms one, two and three.

[...] This is for simplicity’s sake. [...]

[...] Some of this will seem very simple, but often you forget the pure simplicity of your motives when you concentrate upon tangles.

Unless you use the inner senses in the manner that I have and will prescribe, you will always receive but a glimmering of any true concept, regardless of its simplicity.

[...] I am using the term ‘God’ for simplicity’s sake.

[...] Here we run into something of which I have sometimes mentioned, concerning afterimages; since in actuality all constructions are simultaneous, realize that I use the term after for its simplicity to your way of thought.

If you will think (I hope) for simplicity’s sake of the whole self as it exists on your plane with its physical body, conscious ego and inner self as one field unit, which is also part of the larger or more complete entity as one field unit within another, then perhaps it will not be too much for you to imagine the connection, or one of the connections, between the entity field and the whole-self field, which is on your plane as being the inner senses—that is, the inner senses are one of the connectives between these two fields.

[...] For simplicity’s sake I will speak of the ego and the subconscious, though they are actually one. [...]