“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

However, aside from being in outright conflict with the theory of evolution [and the idea of an ancient universe], the beliefs of the creationists do pose a number of questions that are quite intriguing from our joint viewpoint. [...]

[...] Why man’s sin, resulting in the catastrophic flood, to which all species fell victim? The regular theory of evolution doesn’t have to contend with such questions, of course, but in the book I just read no explanations for questions like that are given—I don’t even remember that they were raised.

[...] I’d devoted the piece to a study of the establishment theory of evolution versus ideas Seth, Jane, and I have on that theme, and noted that I’d accumulated much information from a number of sources. [...]

[...] I think it most interesting that the theory of evolution is now challenged by those who, like Jane and I, simply want to know whether it has a basis in scientific fact; and that it’s also come under virulent attack by those who generally believe in fundamentalist religions. [...]

1. The “big bang” theory postulates that 10 to 15 billion years ago all matter — or energy — was concentrated in one great primordial “atom.” [...] One variation of the theory considered a pulsating universe that results from the repeated collapsing and expanding of all matter-energy.

[...] (Jane was restless during this delivery, rubbing her face and hair.) They will be forced to postulate the existence of an unknown force, always existing despite newer current theories. No postulated new force theory will be able to explain reality.

Your scientific fields of endeavor may stumble upon the mathematical probabilities involved in such other fields within perhaps a 60-year period, but they will not recognize the significance of the discovery—which will probably be made in an attempt to obtain more data concerning an idea related to Einstein’s special field theory.

I want to make this clear: no postulated new force theory will answer their questions until it is realized that no system is closed, and that the physical universe is not the origin of, but the result of, the energy that they seek. [...]

[...] Gene had questioned Seth in what I guess you could call “professional philosophical jargon,” making frequent references to esoteric Eastern theories with which I was totally unfamiliar. [...]

[...] His theories as to the multidimensional personality are not only intellectually provocative but emotionally challenging. [...]

[...] While he sees reincarnation as a fact, he places it in an entirely different time context, and reconciles the theory with the idea of “simultaneous” time. [...]

[...] His ideas on God are a natural and fascinating extension of these theories.

[...] In his general theory of relativity, Einstein postulated that space can curve, and this has been shown to happen near our sun. [...] Nor can the big-bang theory of the origin of the universe account for the homogeneity of a flat universe. The inflationary model can explain both the appearance of flatness and homogeneity—but, like all theories, it poses other problems that have yet to be resolved.

To me, the Seth Material is no longer a continuing manuscript of fascinating theories to be carefully judged against reality. [...]

[...] As a result I’m working on a book called Aspect Psychology, which I hope will present a theory of personality large enough to contain man’s psychic nature and activities. [...]

[...] He stresses the individual’s capacity for conscious action, and provides excellent exercises designed to show each person how to apply these theories to any life situation.

[...] Unless you accept that statement at least as a theory upon which to build, then much of my material would appear meaningless.

That statement, therefore, must be the basis for any new scientific theories that hope to accomplish any performances at all leading to an acquisition of knowledge.

Now if you had all been really paying attention to what I have said for some time about the simultaneous nature of time and existence, then you would have known that the theory of evolution is as beautiful as a tale as the theory of Biblical creation. [...]

(Wally spoke of Darwin’s theory of evolution.)

[...] And yet, if you had listened to what I have been saying, again, you would have known the theory to be a pretty tale. [...]

[...] I read some of my Aspects after John commented so favorably on those theories last night, but I feel comfortable with my life—I suppose I mean with my work—in a way I haven’t. I feel my temples and brows changing constantly as tension releases; the eyes becoming better; and even my sinus. [...]

[...] I do not harp to you about theory simply because I want you to spout theory, but because I want you to put these theories into practice for yourselves and discover the selves that are within you. [...]

In other words, larger mathematically intuitive, pure-theory ideas were presented as well as circumstances would permit. (Pause.) Theories and ideas are far more important than details, for the detail comes from the theory and not the other way around.

1. In the 582nd session in Chapter 20 of Seth Speaks, I quoted Seth during a 1971 ESP class: “All consciousness does, indeed, exist at once, and therefore it did not evolve in those terms … the theory of evolution is as beautiful a tale as the theory of Biblical creation … both might seem to exist within their own systems, and yet, in larger respects they cannot be realities….”

[...] His theories and teachings could be interpreted in many ways; they stood for kernels that man could sow as he wished. [...]

This refers me back to your false cause and effect theory. For practical purposes so far this theory has not been too binding, but it is becoming so. [...]

The psychologist believed most heartily in his theory of mental disintegration with age, and he set out to prove that he was right, bringing about self-predictive difficulties. Yet the theory, more or less fit into Framework 1 beautifully. [...]

[...] It would exist regardless, now, of the particular theories of time which might be held, for it is strongly anchored as a specific manipulator of physical reality. And physical reality, believe it or not, is not dependent upon the theory of time as a series of moments.

[...] This is not however your cause and effect theory at all.

Ruburt has a very good beginning, and the book should be very successful; later books on the subject will be more advanced, with experiments to back up theory, but this book will be a very good start. [...]

(Seth began talking about the dilemma posed between the conventional theory of evolution and his ideas about the simultaneous nature of time and existence, soon after these sessions started late in 1963. [...]

[...] This is no longer theory to you, for you are practically aware of the self in an evergrowing fashion.

(“Whatever thoughts, beliefs, opinions, theories, or dogmas you write, engrave, or impress on your subconscious mind... [...]

[...] They seemed to offer a unified theory to cover the years of our marriage, and even Jane’s childhood. [...]

[...] Yet good theory is practical. [...]

Seeing that group of people week after week, he is able to work with them, follow their progress and put theory into practice. [...]

Ruburt’s personality is not one that can be held down to specific instances, but (is one) to evolve theories that can be used by many.

(Whatever thoughts, beliefs, opinions, theories or dogma you write, engrave or impress on your subconscious mind—you will experience them as the objective manifestation of circumstances, conditions and events; what you write on the inside, you experience on the outside. [...]