[Fort some time now, I haven’t posted my sessions here, wanting to post previous series, such as the set I call Only Somewhat Real, without interruption. But now we can return to our previously scheduled programming, so to speak.]
Thursday, March 4, 2021
7:45 a.m. It was suggested that I contact Jane Roberts. Interesting idea. I suppose I could try. Jane Roberts, are you available and interested in a conversation? Or Rob, for that matter? Or both?
Why not ask for Seth?
Go right to the top, eh? Well, is this Jane?
Your friends are conducting an experiment on you, you understand.
Oh yes, at least I think I do. They are trying to tempt me into more conversations with someone who was female, as if months of conversations with Rita didn’t count.
And you know why.
I do, but what I don’t understand is why it should be that nearly every life of mine that I have been able to contact has been male and not female. I think my friends suspect prejudice, or let’s say one-sided-ness, but is it that? Somehow I don’t think so.
Perhaps it would be worthwhile to look at what your acquaintances did, what occupied them, what they were. Joseph the Egyptian, Smallwood, Bertram, David – they all had one thing in common with each other, and in common with you.
They were otherworldly men. They were none of them blind materialists.
There you are.
Well, that doesn’t seem to get us very much forwarder, as they say.
What is your obsession? (Not too strong a word, if one removes the nuance of fanaticism that attaches to the word.) What led you to them in the first place?
Consciously, I expect you mean, because of course David and Joseph shaped my life from earliest times, I not suspecting it. Well, sure, it was the search to see what I could believe of the metaphysical stuff I could feel myself drawn to, but that never felt quite real. Kelly told me of Bertram, that was the first, and the others came.
Maybe none of your female beings were centered on that same quest for direct experience of the other side. Maybe those incarnations had different fish to fry.
That would explain why these mystics came first. It wouldn’t explain why they were never succeeded by female personalities.
You will remember that you had strong suspicions that David was gay, though celibate.
I had forgotten, but yes, that’s true.
And Bertram was celibate, and possible the Egyptian. They were aimed at other things in their lives, and the deliberate one-sidedness of celibate life was designed to avoid distraction.
Smallwood had a wife and children, till she died early.
Don’t forget the question of “which you.” His conscious life had one set of concentrations; his unconscious (that is, his Joseph-plus) life had different, if overlapping, priorities.
In any case —
Well, you see, it isn’t so much that your experience is skewed toward a disproportionate percentage of men, but that your entryway into the knowledge and practice pointed you to them because they were the closest emotionally and, one might say, vocationally.
Now what about Jane? I get that you had a strong admixture of masculine features. I think you were probably a pretty good balance. Is that true?
Everybody comes into life with a unique problem or set of problems to address by living. In any case, I had Rob to hold the balance.
I don’t quite understand what you’re getting at.
Didn’t we just say that your male incarnations were centered on connecting to the other side in one way or another? In my case I had one particular male incarnation – Rubert – that was the gyroscope, and I had two other male incarnations – Seth and Rob – to support and encourage me to act as the passive conduit.
Do you mean “passive”? Or receptive?
Ah, now here you begin to come to it. There is something in the way you were raised that sees woman as more passive, men as more active. At the same time, you see women as naturally more intuitive, men as naturally less willing to trust feelings. You see women and men valuing different things, acting in different ways, misunderstanding each other in a sort of co-dependent fashion. So you are tempted to regard the nature of what you do as inherently more natural to the feminine than to the masculine.
Most oracles and sibyls were women, after all. There has to be a reason why it was so, even if it is not so any more. (Not saying it isn’t or is; I don’t know.)
Could it be that you are uneasy, deep within, lest you identify too closely with the feminine, given how much of yourself is invested in this pursuit?
You mean, I’d be afraid to be taken over? That doesn’t seem too real.
Not that you would be taken over, exactly, but that your center of gravity might shift significantly enough that you would find yourself partly alien to yourself.
Can that happen?
Of course it can happen. You can see it (from externally) on all sides. The lunatic asylums are full of people who have become alien to themselves, they having no explanation for what happened and having no idea how to live with it.
And part of me fears that?
I didn’t say that. It would be closer to say, you value the connections you made, and you cling to them, in a way, and you can only go farther by casting off from the familiar and seeing what happens.
Hmm. A simple matter of intent, I suppose?
Isn’t that usually the key?
In my experience, it is. So how should I point the question?
Why not try this. Ask to be in closer contact with any woman in your group who was also concerned with what has concerned you. That way only the femaleness is a stretch; the preoccupations are the same.
Interesting idea. Now, given that I am going to transcribe this, how about more on Jane Roberts?
A highly satisfactory compressed lifetime. Intellectually and artistically satisfying, with a rich and rewarding partnership – two partnerships, if you count Seth – and mutual assistance and respect.
I have ordered Rob’s book describing your final years, but pending delivery, what can you tell us of the dance you danced with illness?
You know pretty much anything I could say. Illness and debility are not unfortunate things unless you choose to label them that. Like all experiences in 3D, they arise for reasons, not by “chance,” and if engaged, they pay dividends accordingly.
Do you care to go into detail?
What? About physical suffering and its uses? Why not describe a headache you had six years ago? The how of it is not important, but the why of it is. That’s how you usually put it, isn’t it?
It is. Funny, I thought this might be difficult, but it is as natural as
Oh. I was about to say, “as others I have had long acquaintance with,” and of course there is a connection somehow, if only of resonance.
That would be quite an “if only.” Resonance is all you can really know. Anything beyond that is story. Past lives, all that, is a way of organizing your experience; there is no guarantee that your organizing principles are correct, any more than that your detail is correct.
So, stick to what we know.
Or let’s say hold the rest lightly, subject to later correction.
Okay. Thanks for all this. You brought a lot of light to the 3D world; lots of people love you for it.
And it all helps.
Maybe sometime we can talk about that. Not now, though, Again, our thanks.