Seth: "I do not see the particular physical image of a witness to a session"

[inavalan]

"It had not entered my mind to explain it to you earlier. In most instances, or at least in many instances, I do not see the particular physical image of a witness to a session; but indeed as you described it, I see what you may call a composite image, an energy reality that is composed of past personalities, and in many cases also of future personalities that will be adopted by the inner self.

I can, it is true, focus exclusively upon the present individual. This merely involves a change of focus on my part, and a narrowing of focus and concentration. There is much more that can be said here, but we shall save it for another occasion. The matter was in your mind, and I am giving you a simple and direct answer."

—TES5 Session 206 November 8, 1965

[Deb]

Seth mentioned that more than once. I was fascinated when I read his in-depth explanation in Seth Speaks. I'll also add another quote I found. Underlines in first quote are Seth's.

Rob: ("Number nine: You told us you were going to elaborate upon what you perceive when you are speaking through Jane to a roomful of people. In that ESP class session, you mentioned going into a trance yourself, and the effort required by you to pinpoint us in our time and space.")

I perceive people in a room in a far different manner than they perceive themselves; their various past and future reincarnated personalities, but not their probable selves, are perceivable to me. I "see" the reincarnated aspects, the various manifestations taken in that regard. In your terms it would be as if you saw a series of quickly moving pictures, all representing various poses of one personality. I must remember, in all communications with those in the room, to limit my remarks and focus to the specific reincarnated "present self." I see this composite image myself. It is not registered by Ruburt's eyes (pause), which do not have the multidimensional depth perception necessary.

I see the composite image clearly, whether or not I am looking through Ruburt's eyes. I use his eyes because they narrow down the focus for me, to the one "present" self of which the individual is aware.

Communicating with your system in such a manner demands great diligence and greater discrimination, according to the "distance" of the communicator from the physical system. I am not based within the physical system, for example. The discrimination comes to bear upon the precision needed to enter your reality at the precise time, the precise point in time and space, upon which you are concentrated.

Present and future experience of those in the room are available to me, and as real as their present experience. Therefore I must remember what they think has already happened, or not yet occurred, for to me it is one. These patterns of activity, however, are also constantly changing. I say for example that I am aware of their past and future actions and thoughts; and yet what I am aware of, actually, are ever-shifting and changing patterns, both in the future and in the past.

(11:00.) Some of the events that I see connected very clearly with these persons in the future may not, in your physical system, occur. They exist as probabilities, as potentials, actualized in thoughts but not turned into definite physical form. I told you that no events were predetermined. I would have to tune into a future date, in your terms, and probe it with all of its ramifications in order to ascertain which of the probable actions I saw in your earlier would be actualized in your later.

To a large extent the methods of communication may vary. A personality based within physical reality, between lives for example, would find entry in many ways easier. The information he would be able to give, however, would also be limited because of his experience. I do have a memory of physical existence however, and this automatically helps me in translating your mental data into physical form. I do perceive objects, for example. Using Ruburt's mechanism is of great help here also. At times I see the room and the people as he, or rather his perceptive mechanisms, do.

In this case I translate or read that data and use it as you might a computer's. Will that answer your question?

Roberts, Jane. Seth Speaks: The Eternal Validity of the Soul (A Seth Book) . Amber-Allen Publishing. Kindle Edition.

"Right now I see you symbolically speaking, in your terms, as the sum of the various people I have known in past lives as you, plus the you that is present, in your terms. In terms then of vision, I see Joseph rather than Robert. And I speak through Ruburt rather than the less—rather than the more limited concept of Jane. Do you follow"
—TES9 Session 442 October 14, 1968

[inavalan]