Jane Roberts in the Dictionary of Gnosis & Western Esotericism

[Sena]

The Dictionary of Gnosis & Western Esotericism is a massive book of 1262 pages, sold on Amazon UK for £148! It is edited by Wouter Hanegraaf, Professor at the University of Amsterdam. There is a 6 page entry on Jane Roberts. The following is an extract from the book:

"The Sethian worldview is explained with con-
siderable intellectual subtlety. It is based upon
a concept of the soul (also referred to as "multi-
dimensional personality" or "entity") defined as
conscious, unlimited energy that is continuously
seeking to express itself. It does so by creating
"realities" and identifying itself with them. Each
human being is in fact a "fragment personality"
unconsciously participating in a much larger group
entity or oversoul; we all "create our own reality"
on the basis of our beliefs, and derive our sense of
identity from focusing more or less exclusively on
the products of our own creative → imagination
while blocking from conscious awareness the mul-
tiple alternative realities that are available to us.
The reality shared by us as human beings is char-
acterized by the categories of linear time and three-
dimensional space; but in fact, reality consists of an
unlimited number of dimensions, most of which
are beyond our capacity of understanding, and
time does not exist.
These principles are developed with relentless
logic into a radical multidimensional worldview
reminiscent of the so-called "many-worlds theory"
in quantum physics. Since even the tiniest move-
ment of consciousness is inherently creative, it
inevitably gets realized. Thus, whenever in our
daily life we choose between A and B, this causes
our personality to split up into two fragments
focused on two parallel universes: one in which we
have chosen A, another in which we have chosen B.
Any soul's consciousness may therefore be imag-
ined as an explosion of "fragments" that continu-
ously multiply in an infinite number of parallel
realities, each one of which is experienced as "the"
only reality by the fragment that is focused on it.
Seth devotes detailed discussions to the concomi-
tant philosophical problems, such as the implica-
tions for our concepts of personal "identity", or the
nature of "consensus reality" (Seth does not defend
solipsism, but claims that consensus reality is per-
manently being created as an unconscious and
automatic telepathic compromise agreed upon by
our souls).
Just like each personality is a fragment of a much
larger soul or "entity", entities in turn are parts of
a god-like super-entity, referred to as All That Is
(and Seth speculates that perhaps All That Is him-
self might be a fragment of an even larger entity,
and so on ad infinitum). All That Is strives for self-
realization by means of unfolding his infinite cre-
ative potential in a dazzling expansion of multiple
realities: a process that is never-ending, and yet
takes place not in space-time but in what is called
the "spacious present". Conscious participation in
this process is what gives meaning to human life:
'You are here to use, enjoy, and express yourself
through the body. You are here to aid in the great
expansion of consciousness. You are [here] . . . to
create the spirit as faithfully and beautifully as you
can in the flesh' (The Nature of Personal Reality,
28). While our "higher self" remains permanently
linked to our "multi-dimensional personality", it
guides our ego and personal subconscious through
an endless series of lives, during which we experi-
ence our self-created realities. Eventually we will
learn to make conscious and responsible use of our
creative abilities (whereas at present most of us do
so unconsciously and irresponsibly), after which
we will be ready to "graduate" to even higher
cycles of development presently beyond our capac-
ity of imagination. Conventional concepts of rein-
carnation are ultimately misleading, because they
suggest a linear development whereas actually time
does not exist: 'The reincarnational structure is a
psychological one. It cannot be understood in any
other terms. . . . The reality, the validity, the imme-
diacy of those lives do exist simultaneously with
your present life. The distance between one life
and another exists psychologically, and not in
terms of years or centuries. . . . Reincarnation, as it
is usually explained . . . is a myth' (Seth Speaks,
447/449).
Some sources of the Sethian worldview are obvi-
ous: there are clear references to e.g. Emersonian
Transcendentalism, William James (the subject of
an entire book written by Roberts), and popular
accounts of modern relativity physics and psychol-
ogy. The insistence that we can create our reality by
our conscious beliefs reflects not only basic → New
Thought convictions, but also a concern about the
suggestion of popular psychoanalytic literature
that we are at the mercy of our unconscious drives.
More research is needed to explore e.g. the sources
of Roberts' early interest in reincarnation, or the
extent of her familiarity with → spiritualism.
Regardless of such backgrounds, the Sethian
synthesis is remarkable for its originality and inter-
nal consistency. Its optimistic and world-affirming
spirituality and its message that all of us have the
power to create our own reality by changing our
beliefs has strongly appealed to many readers since
the 1970s. Detailed analysis of the literature of the
→ New Age movement shows that its basic ideas
are modeled after Seth's worldview to such a degree
that, without exaggeration, Jane Roberts should be rec-
ognized as one of the major religious innovators in
Western society after World War II. Given her piv-
otal role in creating the foundations of a compre-
hensive belief system now widely diffused through
Western popular culture, she has been surprisingly
neglected by scholars of Western esotericism and of
new religious movements. A major critical mono-
graph is long overdue."

The full 6-page entry is in the attached pdf.

[leidl]

Had never really thought of Jane as a "religious innovator", it's an interesting way of looking at her work.  My guess is she would balk at that term.      Most people associate religions with the worship of a deity, but if we use an updated definition of religion, this may be a fair way to represent her?

I used the Seth search engine to look for "new religion," and turned up something from Seth Speaks:

"I would like to make certain points clear. The "new religion" following the Second Coming will not be Christian in your terms, although the third personality of Christ will initiate it.

This personality will refer to the historical Christ, will recognize his relationship with that personality; but within him the three personality groupings will form a new psychic entity, a different psychological gestalt. As this metamorphosis takes place, it will initiate a metamorphosis on a human level also (emphatically), as man's inner abilities are accepted and developed.

[... 4 paragraphs ...]

As these changes come about, new areas will be activated in the brain to physically take care of them. Physically then, brain mappings will be possible in which past-life memories are evoked. All of these alterations are spiritual changes in which the meaning of religion will escape organizational bounds, become a living part of individual existence, and where psychic frameworks rather than physical ones form the foundations for civilization. (Pause, eyes closed, at 11:05.)

[... 2 paragraphs ...]

I am including this information in this chapter on religion because it is important that you realize that spiritual ignorance is at the basis of so many of your problems, and that indeed your only limitations are spiritual ones.

(11:14.) The metamorphosis mentioned earlier on the part of the third personality, will have such strength and power that it will call out from mankind these same qualities from within itself. The qualities have always been present. They will finally break through the veils of physical perception, extending that perception in new ways."

—SS Chapter 21: Session 586, July 24, 1971


It isn't clear to me if Jane is a religious innovator, but perhaps she was preparing the way for one.  She/Seth help us see that we all participate in All That Is; we don't need to bow and scrape to a monarchical God that looks down on us.  Jane/Seth also get the balance right between the excessive emphasis on oneness in the east, and of the separate self in the west.

Interesting read, Sena, thanks.

[Sena]

It isn't clear to me if Jane is a religious innovator, but perhaps she was preparing the way for one.

leidl, I agree that Jane had no intention of founding a religion. The question is whether Seth had such an intention. If so, this would be new kind of religion without an institutional basis. A personal religion. A body of knowledge which gives meaning to life.