“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

[...] He simply views physical reality through an undeviating system of beliefs. [...]

[...] Her beliefs then became the new foundation, the one point of change that allowed Augustus to view this alternate self-image with any kind of detachment at all.

2. Here Seth probably referred to material that Jane and I recently came across concerning the views of a “radical” philosophy of change: Violence is permissible in order to bring about a revolution which, in turn, would lead to a new age. [...] Many people have held such fashionable views in recent decades. [...]

([Joel:] “I kinda got the feeling this wouldn’t be a good night for it from Ruburt’s point of view.”)

[...] That is why I am here and why you are here … My view of reality is different from your own, and that is fine, and so I can teach. [...]

(Long pause at 3:20.) Again, people who have such views of the inner self usually project the same ideas upon nature at large, so that the natural world appears equally mysterious, dangerous, and threatening.

[...] From your point of view these might appear alien, and yet they are as much a part of your psyche as your motherland is a portion of the earth.

[...] They are also painting a highly prejudiced view of reality, leaving out all matters concerning man’s heroism, love of his fellow creatures, his wonder, sympathy, and the great redeeming qualities of the natural world itself. [...]

[...] I like to think of such research from the particle’s point of view, though, a consideration I haven’t seen mentioned in the few scientific journals I read. [...]

[...] But whereas the meson vanishes from our view after its exceedingly brief existence, the electron has an “infinite” life-span. [...]

[...] And in these windows you may view other portions of yourself. [...] You may seem to be viewing strangers. [...]

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

[...] Those who die unborn, or young, choose to touch upon physical reality to fulfill certain needs; they glimpse it as one might a view through the window of a passing automobile. [...]

[...] As a rule our self two can indeed view what may happen in self one’s future. However, our self two views probabilities, and some of these probabilities will indeed occur to self one. [...]

[...] They sought to learn John’s views while not committing themselves in any way, so as to save themselves the embarrassmentof being refused. [...]

[...] Yet it certainly contains a most intriguing, multidimensional view of the nature of probabilities, a view in which our ideas of a “simple, single event” must vanish; at least we can never again look at any event as being concrete, finished, or absolute. [...]

[...] But as I wrote in introducing Volume 1, whatever comments I make along the way will explain Jane’s trance performances from my view, as best I can offer them — her behavior while she’s “under,” the varied, powerful or muted use of her voice as she speaks for Seth, her stamina and humor in sessions, the speed or slowness of her delivery. [...]

[...] Everyone acting in that scene would view the hat and the table, and react accordingly with their own individual characteristics.

(Slowly:) The simple picture of the universe that you see on our screen, therefore, represents a view from your own now perspective — but each star, planet, galaxy or whatever is made up of other reference points in which, to put it simply, the same patterns have different kinds of reality. [...]

3. The 453rd session, for December 4, 1968, is printed in its entirety in the Appendix of The Seth Material. In that session, I think, Seth came through with one of his most evocative conceptions: “You do not understand the dimensions into which your own thoughts drop, for they continue their own existences, and others look up to them and view them like stars. [...]

(Her challenge, then, is that she’s never integrated fully her psychic orientation, the true source of all of her gifts, with her views of the rest of her world. [...]

[...] No matter what he was taught in Catholic school or later in the public one, his intuitions, wedded to his creative capacities, led him to question established views. [...]

I also believe, however, that generally speaking science still views our genetic systems in mechanical, deterministic, and reductionistic terms, and will continue to do so for a long time: So that evidence is being accumulated to support that overall view that at this time science has no need to seek for other, larger, and more unsettling frames of reference encompassing consciousness, intent, and genetics. [...]

[...] More than this, however, the theory’s vast suggestive nature forms a framework through which people then view the experiences of their lives, and through whose focus the behavior of their own species seems determined. [...]

[...] It is indeed no more than a point of view. [...]

[...] I realize that the changes that must occur before I can view those other planes will occur in me, not in the other planes. [...]

[...] If you consider the wires again, then you could view them as solidified emotion, woven together, however with a strong cohesive and stiffening power of the intellect. [...]

[...] I wondered whether a part of her might be viewing her childhood in order to remind her of that mobile heritage, to help her regenerate it in the present.⁵ “see myself jumproping [again]… but the places themselves seem more significant to me [today] rather than people,” she wrote. “they are fairly extensive, in color and i look out from them at the view thus going inside them to a degree; must cover the… time period when I was about three…. [...]

[...] It’s filled with trees and flowering shrubs—a view Jane cherishes, and one she has painted and written about a number of times. Indeed, she was looking out at that view at four o’clock on a foggy morning in June 1979 (over two and a half years ago) when she was inspired to name that certain part of her “that is as clear-eyed as a child” the “God of Jane.” [...]

I’m afraid that I did most of the talking in our “discussion,” but once again we tried to view our lives in some sort of joint mental and physical perspective. [...]

[...] We think that both writers express extreme points of view, and that both are much too adulatory of us. [...]

(View of clouds and sky passing by. I was looking out at it through a glass window of some sort; sensation of traveling fast, quick view of cockpit.

(A quick view of houses, blue sky, trees, from a corner perspective; vanished instantly.