~Speaking of Seth~

>Do the fragments continue on or are they just energy releases in a moment then they disperse?

The eternal validity of a fragment personality.

This is Seth remarking on Sue's lucid dream of the couple, machine translation, and I think it implies they go on:

"The matter served to remind them once again of my contact with them and to make them think, and it also served as a new incentive for further contact.

(Seth gestured humorously, but then became quiet and leaned forward with pointed seriousness.)

"We seek to save even our shadows, and we bring light to the darkest corners of our hidden fragments. To this extent and under these conditions we are our own redeemers."

I think that fragments continue, and they will live with their choices, as they manifested their free will according to their abilities. The entity chooses as main learning vehicle the fragment that chose correctly. That is the one that will eventually graduate that incarnation.

Ruburt, the entity, chooses / chose the Jane, the personality fragment, that made the correct choices from the entity's perspective. The other Jane fragments continue the paths they chose, maybe with some possibility to compensate for the errors they made, but mostly won't..

All this is pretty vaguely detailed by the Seth material, but it isn't contradicted by it.

I think that the reality is vastly different than we perceive it.

Do the fragments continue on or are they just energy releases in a moment then they disperse?

I think these questions are answered if you look at it from the perspective of the present being the point of power, from which the past is also created. So, it isn't as much that there was a past that you remember, but that you have in your present memory information that you believe to be in your past. This past is created according to your present beliefs and needs.

It seems that your entity, at various points of a chosen incarnation, may decide to further split the experience, based on different choices of a personality, working on two (probably even more than two) distinct fragments that became distinct identities. This would look as if from one single seed a tree with multiple trunks, branches, leaves develops.

It would've been so nicer if the Seth material were clearer and more structured, but I guess that this wasn't possible because it was intended to reach a very wide audience in terms of evolvement and beliefs, and it was also limited by Jane's ability to conceptualize enough to put in words what she received directly. She wasn't parroting, but translating the information.

"...they carry your memories within them up to this point of activation..." (machine trans)

Now, when did the point of activation occur?

For if it was not long before Jane and Rob noticed them in the dancing establishment, would they not each respectively be wearing matching outfits? Both Robs wearing, say, beige pants and a plaid shirt, same pattern?

And had that been the case, I would think that would have been part of the story as recounted by Jane and Rob since that would have been rather remarkable.

"Those alive with you, your contemporaries, do not all belong to the same probable system. You are at a meeting ground in that respect, where individuals from many probable realities mix and merge, agreeing momentarily to accept certain portions of the same space-time environment."

--Seth, UR2 Section 6: Session 729 January 13, 1975

"So to go into your friend Sue Watkins' experience and the connection to the probable universe.

"The experience was completely valid, and it was intended as a lesson on many levels. First of all, it becomes clear that there is communication between different probabilistic systems and that actions in one system can and do affect others. The couple (an older version of Jane and me) actually exists, as probable selves of yours in a different system."

"[The York Beach couple] carry your memories within them up to this point of activation..."

--Seth, SESSION 545 12. AUGUST 1970 (mach trans)

The YB couple had to be from a different probable reality, because with the common memories Jane and Rob had with them, if they somehow were in the same probability, both couples would come back to Elmira from YB to the same apartment (and then a big fight would ensue -- joking).

At the point of activation, with common memories, the two Janes, for instance, would have had the same amount of money in their respective purses, I would think.

(Timothy Foote, senior editor in charge of the book review department for Time Magazine, interviewed Jane and me today in connection with a cover story he is to write about Richard Bach and Jonathan Livingston Seagull.

[... 1 paragraph ...]

(As it was, Seth spoke very briefly to Timothy Foote at about 3:00 PM, discussing some remarks all of us had been making about Freudian psychology. It wasn't recorded or noted. At the time I thought the brief appearance a little odd, but when it developed that Timothy Foote wouldn't be staying for supper, as we had planned, Seth's appearance made good sense.

(Some time later Jane told me she picked up that when Seth spoke Timothy was suspicious—"Seth would speak now, you see, in order to make an impression," etc.

(Timothy Foote told Jane he would review Seth Speaks for the magazine. We didn't ask him to do this. He told us his review for Richard Bach wouldn't "be hostile;" he didn't particularly like the book. Jane, liking Timothy Foote, told me later that had he stayed for the evening she would have had a session for him; yet we feel there were reasons he didn't stay, and that things worked out for the best all around.

[... 6 paragraphs ...]

For he is a kind, well-intentioned, intelligent man, searching to make sense of the nature of reality by using the yardstick of available beliefs. His kindly inner skepticism is the same as that that is within many of the magazine's readers. They will (in quotes) "want to believe" Seagull and its story, for example, but they will not come from any homogenous background of acceptance, necessarily. Do you follow me?

[... 41 paragraphs ...]

(A copy of Seth's answer to Timothy's daughter will be sent to Timothy, probably after his article about Dick Bach has appeared in Time Magazine. [Copy sent to Timothy Foote October 21, Saturday.]

(Added Note: Timothy Foote also told Jane and me that he'd like to do a feature story on Jane, Seth and me for Time Magazine, but that it probably wouldn't ever be done—the magazine being "too secular"—Timothy Foote's words. I don't know whether he meant cover story, a la Dick Bach.

--Seth, TPS2, Deleted Session, October 13, 1972

I may have posted this excerpt from Time before:

SETH QUOTED IN MONDAY, NOV. 13, 1972 TIME MAGAZINE

 ...However he feels about marriage, [Richard] Bach is wedded to Jonathan [Livingston Seagull] and to its source of inspiration. Several times while flying, Bach has heard a voice give him a sharp command which he followed on instinct; it saved his life, he insists. Yet he admits to being nervous about acting as a vehicle for what he long thought of as the alien force that gave him Jonathan. Because he believes in most of what the book illustrates he has also been a bit worried that readers would refuse to take it seriously once they knew about its "kooky" origin.

One result has been a soft flirtation with the world of the occult. Bach began by skulking into occult bookstores and sampling the fare. "It took nerve," he recalls, "just to go in one of those places." Since then he has tried a few mediums, but found "all that crystal-ball stuff, spirit guides, music and the darkened rooms" hard to take. Recently, though, he discovered Jane Roberts, a poet and science-fiction writer, who since 1963 has been a conduit for the spoken words of a personality called Seth. "It's all done in daylight," says Bach. "There's just this one small, middle-aged woman in a rocking chair. When Seth speaks, her voice deepens and even the planes of her face seem to change."

Seth, in fact, sounds rather like the former Indian Defense Minister, crotchety Krishna Menon. He proved a great help to Bach. For one thing, he advised Bach not to worry about religions that claim Jonathan is preaching their doctrine. ("The seagull is free. How they think about him you cannot dictate.") He also told Bach that every individual consciousness has many aspects that move freely through time and space. Jonathan was not alien but came from one of Bach's aspects. "Information, then, becomes new and is reborn as it is interpreted through a new consciousness," Seth continued.

Jane Roberts and her husband Robert have recorded 6,800 pages of Seth's talk. Much of it has been put together into two Prentice-Hall books, The Seth Material (1970) and, this fall, Seth Speaks. Whoever he is or is not, Seth speaks with more cogency than most of the troubled spirits that find their way into print. To Bach's relief, the two Seth books outline a cosmology that coincides a good deal with his own way of viewing life and death. Though Bach would hate the labels, the final result, like Jonathan, seems to be a blend of Jung, Christian Science and theosophy. It assumes individuals exist as multidimensional personalities who do not die but simply change consciousness. Explicit too, are the great powers that reside in the individual, if he will only tap them, to evolve and to triumph over matter (and sickness) through thought control. Or, as Jonathan Livingston Seagull puts it: "A seagull is an unlimited idea of freedom, an image of the Great Gull, and your whole body, from wingtip to wingtip, is nothing more than your thought itself."...

https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,910460-7,00.html

Dictation. (Pause. Then humorously:) An aside to you: Now, you see, I can speak in Time or out of it. Underline "Time."

--Seth, NoPR Part One: Chapter 5: Session 626, November 8, 1972

And thank you for reading it, Solstice. I look forward to our email chat.

Thank you again James.  I just finished Vol 2 of your Great Work "Nursery of the Gods" and will be putting together my quest-ions and comments addressed to your email.