“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

[...] Your scientists have already discovered the theory of antimatter, but assume that it is completely separate from your own universe, I believe the latest theory being that a universe of antimatter may possibly be found at the furthest reaches of your known universe.

[...] I have mentioned that your cause and effect theory is in itself antiquated and distorted. [...]

[...] Despite any other theories to the contrary, the world, all of its physical aspects, and all of its creatures, depends upon an inborn cooperation. [...]

(I told Jane that Seth’s opening line for Chapter 2, about possessing a group of attitudes toward oneself and toward life, at birth, runs directly counter to establishment theory that the newborn is like a blank slate, to be imprinted through teaching and experience. [...]

Now this is a more respectable theory than many, but in my case it is not the correct one. Again, the theories of personality that are taken for granted within your system still manage to confuse you. [...]

[...] There’s no questioning mind at work, no new ideas or theories — merely the familiar rehash about All That Is, love, reincarnation, and so forth. [...]

(Pause.) There has been on the one hand a too-great reliance upon the conscious mind — while its characteristics and mechanisms were misunderstood — so that proponents of the “conscious-reasoning-mind-above-all” theories advocate a use of intellect and reasoning powers, while not recognizing their source in the inner self.

[...] These theories hold that the intellect and usual consciousness are far inferior to the inner “unconscious” portions of being, and that all the answers are hidden from view. [...]

[...] Her work was unique in that it was coming through her individual personality, I added — yet, why wasn’t the theory of probabilities, or its equivalent, say, common knowledge, or at least considered, in psychology today? [...]

If we can see future events in dreams, does this mean that the theory of free will is a myth? [...]

Predictions, per se, do not contradict the theory of free will, though free will is dependent upon much more than the freedom of the ego alone. [...]

[...] Psychologists, generally speaking, have not yet accepted the theories of your own physicists, and they continue to consider time as a series of moments. [...]

[...] In his comments he referred rather often to his own theory of spherical time. [...]

When the inverted time system is understood clearly, then the inadequacy of the cause and effect theory will be clear. [...]

[...] The expansion is an illusion, based among other things upon inadequate time measurements, upon the limited cause and effect theories; and yet in some manners the universe could be said to be expanding, but with entirely different connotations than are usually used.

[...] The phenomena that are given as evidence of this kind of expanding universe are the result of camouflage instruments, distortive ideas of time, and the resulting cause and effect theory.

[...] This means that each thought is an electromagnetic system in fact and not just in theory. [...]

[...] As the material has clearly specified, your own existence continues in probable universes along the lines charted in the inverted time theory. [...]

This section of the book will include excerpts from Seth’s manuscripts on the general nature of dream reality, dream investigation and recall and will be followed by a series of chapters on various kinds of dreams captured by Rob, my students and me as we checked out Seth’s theories, as far as we were able. [...]

[...] “A fantastic theory,” I said to Rob.

“I have the impression that it’s a lot more than just theory,” Rob said, and I had to agree with him. [...]

(9:33.) There is furthermore a deep, subjective, immaculately knowledgeable standard within man’s consciousness by which he ultimately judges all of the theories and the beliefs of his time, and even if his intellect is momentarily swamped by ignoble doctrines, still that point of integrity within him is never fooled.

[...] The history of science itself contains many examples of theories and “facts” gone awry. [...]

4. The English naturalist, Charles Darwin (1809–1882), maintained in his theory of organic evolution that all plants and animals develop from their own previous forms by inheriting minute variations through succeeding generations, with those forms best fitted to the environment being the ones most likely to survive.

Amazingly, another English naturalist, Alfred Wallace (1823–1913), independently developed a similar theory, and the two men had their work presented to science in the same paper in 1858. [...]

[...] The woman through whom I speak found herself in an unusual situation, comma, for no theories — metaphysical, psychological, or otherwise — could adequately explain her experience. [...]

Certainly theories of evolution (Darwinism) forbid the notion that dinosaurs and man, or any kind of man, were contemporary! [...]

[...] I’ve often thought of how weak our current theories are to explain what we see around us, or in the night sky.

[...] Since telepathy exists (as described in Chapter Three), the subject will react not only to verbal commands but to the unspoken beliefs of the practitioner, thereby “proving,” of course, the hypnotist’s theory of what his profession is.

There is, unfortunately, a great difference between theory and practice, as you should know, in the field of medicine (to Nadine). [...]

[...] They were, in a strange way, mathematicians and scientists, but in a way that had nothing to do with physical space or physical theories, and they imagined out of their great power, a dimension of reality in which there were trees and fields and physical beings with physical bodies; skies that were blue; water that fell down from the sky. [...]