“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

[...] And it was mistrust of that world, coupled with a mistrust of physical theories and alternatives, that partially caused his difficulties. [...]

[...] Instead, the theories were made manifest in my life, becoming facts of my existence. [...]

[...] So while this book is devoted to Seth’s theories on the nature of dreams and his instructions on their use, it is not meant to be a definitive statement. [...]

[...] It will not fit in with current theories, for the current theories by their nature must distort the truth they carry. [...]

We have mentioned reincarnation hardly at all (but see the 631st session in Chapter Seven), yet here let me state that the theory is a conscious-mind interpretation in linear terms. [...]

[...] With your theories of guilt and punishment you often imagine that you are hampered in this existence by guilts collected in the last life — or worse, accumulated through the centuries.

[...] While you believe in theories like the survival of the fittest, however, and the grand fantasies of evolution, then you put together your perceptions of the world so that they seem to bear out those theories. [...]

Theories of probabilities will be seen as practical, workable, psychological facts, giving leeway and freedom to the individual, who will no longer feel at the mercy of external events — but will realize instead that he (or she) is their initiator.

[...] Seth’s theory of simultaneous time, which can encompass the notion of future probabilities projected backward into an apparent past, for instance, leaves great leeway for the interpretation of events or questions, however, and makes the idea of contradiction posed by an Atlantis in the past and one in the future too simple as an explanation. [...]

11. I found it quite difficult to extract from the 747th session the material I wanted for this note on Atlantis, so interwound is it with closely related information on early man and animal kingdoms, the expanding-universe theory, archaeology, Jane’s other work, All That Is, and so forth. [...]

[...] Also some of the theories I will present to you in this discussion will be quite unfamiliar to you.

Much of “Unknown” Reality is involved with the breaking up of theories that have been long accepted, but that prevent you from perceiving the powerful nature of those absent portions of the self. [...]

(Pause at 9:57.) Let those who will, laugh at tales of spirits turning into the trees⁵ — a simplistic theory, certainly, yet a symbolic statement in such societies: The dead were buried at home in the same close territory, to form in later times the very composition of the ground upon which religions grew. [...]

(Jane now smiled as Seth began to consider the theories of both men. [...]

[...] Portions of both of their theories are correct. [...]

[...] If Dunne were able to write another book now, on his time theories, he would be able to correct several of his well-intentioned errors.

[...] And in many respects his theories come very close to explaining the way things are. [...]

[...] Seth also offers major material on his theories involving “counterparts.” [...]

[...] I do not put labels on my own theories, and I explain — or I try to explain — my most ‘profound’ statements by adding a dash of zest, a smidgen of humor, an egotistical touch of humility. [...]

[...] My own theory is that the people who work there get sick of it after a while, and then get sick in order to get a rest or a vacation with pay.

The unconscious is understood to be a garbage heap of undesirable impulses, long ago discarded by civilization, while again much religious theory projects the image of the hidden self that must be kept in bounds by good work, prayer, and penance.

[...] It would be of some benefit at least to be a little less intimidating, always using the hospital’s precise designation for bedsores (decubiti), the term, used as it is, simply impresses upon you the greater strength of medical theory. [...]

1. Appendix 12 contains much material on conventional theories of evolution, as well as on Seth’s and my own often countering views.

6. I’d say that in a context like the one he uses here, Seth automatically refers to Albert Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity. [...]

[...] For this reason, Seth explains how the theories of Freud and Darwin confine our imaginations and our abilities.

[...] Those theories, along with religion’s belief in the flawed self, have left their marks on all of our lives. [...]

[...] In Note 35 for the same appendix, I quoted Seth from the 702nd session in Volume 1; he advanced his own idea of interrelated fields versus particle-wave theory.

In Note 1 for Session 709 I wrote that “Tachyons … are supposed faster-than-light particles that are thought to be possible within Einstein’s special theory of relativity.” [...]

In his special theory of relativity, however, Albert Einstein showed that mass is a highly concentrated form of energy. [...]

Interestingly enough, several very distant quasars have been linked to certain observed faster-than-light effects, thus contradicting current physical theory that nothing can exceed the speed of light. [...]

[...] The expanding universe theory applies much more truly to time than it does to the physical universe. [...]

(Seth dealt with the expanding universe theory in sessions 42-45, saying among other things that our physical universe is not expanding as is currently thought; he had much to say on the distortive data furnished us by our instruments.)

But granted or not, the idea of any sort of genetic preparation for future contingencies collides with the very powerful theory of evolution, which holds that evolutionary, genetic changes take place only through natural selection and chance mutations (although random or chance mutations are generally regarded as mistakes on nature’s part). [...] I can even see Seth’s material in this session being scientifically dismissed as another version of old, discredited Lamarckian theories. [...]

[...] Rather, some “modern” physicists are searching for nonmaterial “particles” that certain theories (one of them having to do with “quarks,” for example) say should exist if the theories are valid. [...]