“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

[...] Not what is wrong but what is right, and how a greater degree of “rightness” can be achieved. [...]

As you were reading today, your imaginations are centered in the wrong direction. [...]

[...] You are using it the wrong way quite well in some regards. [...]

[...] There is a difference between feeling a certain way, and knowing the feeling is true — that is, it is true you feel, perhaps, that A is B, but you can be completely wrong in your interpretation. [...]

[...] They go into exact detail as to what was wrong, and they fit today like a glove. [...]

[...] This may work when manuscripts are being typed, and so much physical labor is involved, but overall you are using the “wrong” approach to time, particularly for any creative artist. [...]

[...] It gathers all of experience together and transforms it, so many of your problems have been caused by applying the wrong kind of orientation to your lives and activities.

I say wrong, meaning no moral judgment, but the application of one method to a pursuit that cannot be adequately expressed in such a fashion. [...]

[...] Your problems have not been solved, then, largely of course because you have taken the wrong approach, and that is because you were jointly not convinced as yet. [...]

If you believe that hate is wrong and evil, and then find yourself hating someone, you may try to inhibit the emotion or turn it against yourself — raging against yourself rather than another. [...]

[...] All natural aggressive elements were denied in their natures, and any evidence of momentary hatred was considered evil and wrong. [...]

[...] Such theories are based upon the concept that there is something innately disruptive, base, or wrong in man’s emotional nature, while the soul is always depicted as being calm, “perfect,” passive and unfeeling. [...]

[...] Parents, taught to believe that hatred is wrong, do not know how to handle such a situation. [...]

[...] Ideas of right and wrong are always guidelines that are then individually interpreted. [...]

[...] In whatever terms, the devotee is told that there is something wrong with earthly experience. [...]

There is a belief in illness as being morally wrong, and a countering belief in it as being ennobling, uplifting and spiritually good. [...]

[...] Now what your senses tell you about the nature of matter is entirely erroneous, and what they tell you about space is equally wrong — wrong in terms of basic reality, but quite in keeping of course with three-dimensional concepts. [...]

[...] The patients do not yet realize that there is nothing wrong with them at all.

Man possesses an innate biological knowledge, however, of right and wrong, and to a large extent religions, as they are utilized, distort much of that information. [...] Is it possible that we have read the message wrong?” All That Is is within each living thing. [...]

[...] It deals with utility, function, need, and the “righting of wrongs.” [...]

[...] If you believe something is wrong then in your experience it will be, and you will consider it negative. [...]

[...] The trouble is that ideas of right and wrong are intimately involved with your chemistry, and you cannot separate your moral values from your body.

[...] If the flow continued it would be wrong or detrimental in your terms, but the body would not think the blood was bad because it continued its course of action. [...]

When you consider aggressive thoughts wrong, using this analogy, you do not even begin to allow the system to clear itself. [...]

[...] There is nothing intrinsically wrong with his legs. [...]

[...] Those books are for the mass market, and (louder) they touch certain elements in the mass mind that yearn for miracles—looking for the wrong reasons for the wrong things, displayed it seems for the wrong reasons.

[...] There is nothing wrong with the station, but with your reception of it.

I am not saying here that any given sexual performance is “wrong,” or meaningless, or debased, if it is not accompanied by the sentiments of love and devotion. [...]

[...] The body is early forbidden territory, so that the child feels it is wrong to love itself in any fashion.

[...] She was also frightened at the tests in sessions, of being wrong, and of the seance. [...] Being right didn’t carry the weight that being wrong did. [...]

[...] Yet your terms are precisely what imprison you, and lead you to the “wrong” kinds of questions.

(With amusement:) The wrong kinds of questions are the right ones for you, however, in your civilization and with your beliefs, because you want to stay within that structure to that extent. [...]

[...] Please understand me: There is nothing wrong with a loving technology.

[...] (Pause.) Science is used to asking quite specific questions, and as Ruburt wrote recently (in God of Jane) it usually comes up with very specific answers—even if those answers are wrong (with some humor).

“Wrong” answers can fit together, however, to present a perfect picture, an excellent construct of its own—and why not? [...]

With all due respect, your friend [the psychologist] is, with the best of intentions, barking up the wrong psychological tree. [...]

[...] Discoveries in the “future” are quite apt to prove such limited viewpoints wrong. [...]

Again, you have been taught to believe that impulses are wrong, generally speaking, or at best that they represent messages from a nefarious subconscious, giving voice to dark moods and desires.

[...] She went to the doctor, who told her he did not believe there was anything wrong. [...]

[...] Seth talked a good deal on the cooperation of all living things in maintaining our universe, and of how it’s so very wrong for civilized human beings to kill. [...]

[...] Seth said that these other groups also have their wrongs, as we have ours. [...]

[...] But it is wrong to kill on our plane when we do consider it an end.

[...] Seth repeated several times that for civilized man to kill is wrong. [...]

[...] So what went wrong? [...]

[...] You were pleased when Ruburt walked across the floor with his plunger, without the table, yet both of you expected him to walk down steps, small as they are, and walk around the car in the garage without his table, or there is something wrong. [...]

[...] It is not morally wrong at any given time to want the opposite, or overall to prefer mental to physical activity—nor, overall, is that preference unhealthy.

[...] You cannot say that any of Ruburt’s attitudes were “wrong,” nor can you say in larger terms that his method was “wrong.” [...]

[...] The idea of those pendulum sessions should not be to find out what is wrong, but to discover Ruburt’s feelings and beliefs, and to ascertain how they can be changed to bring about more favorable conditions.