“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

Many people believe that birth, to the contrary, is a time of trauma, or even of rage, as the infant leaves its mother’s womb. Birth is life’s most precious natural process. Even in births that are thought of (underlined) as not “normal,” there is on the infant’s part a sense of discovery and joy.

Those attitudes are inbred in the smallest microscopic portions of the body — a part of each atom and cell and organ, and they serve to trigger all of the body’s responses that promote growth and fulfillment. Infants are not born with an inbred fear of their environment, or of other creatures. They are instead immersed in feelings of well-being, vitality, and exuberance. They take it for granted that their needs will be met, and that the universe is well-disposed toward them. They feel a part of their environment.

(I also think it quite evident that Seth began to go into those attributes we’re born with in light of my comments about current psychological dogma that the infant is born without any impetuses …

[...] The impetus for any developing and latent action is incipient in the unborn infant. The child’s first steps are latent within the first flickering of the infant’s eyes, for the events follow as naturally as the opening of the petals of a flower.

[...] It is the inner self that unfolds those patterns of behavior spoken about in the article you read on infant growth. [...]

[...] At levels almost impossible to describe to you in your adulthoods, all infants, for example, know that they are born into the environmental niches that suit them and no others — [that are] tailored to their requirements. [...] It is not nearly as easy to see that the same applies to man and his mental and physical environment, his town or country or culture, but the infant trusts from the very first moment.

[...] Children learn such languages mentally long before they are physically capable of speaking them; but again, in genetically inspired dreams, children—or rather, infants—practice language. Before such infants hear their parents speak, however, they are in telepathic communication, and even in the fetus genetic dreams involve the coding and interpretation of language. [...]

Infants think long before they can speak. [...]

Now: this basic mental system provides the infant’s natural mental environment, and nurtures it so that the infant is anything but strictly programmed mentally. [...]

Yet the physical matter of the born infant contains none of the same physical matter which was received initially from the parents. The original matter has completely disappeared, to be replaced by other matter as the consciousness of the infant slowly constructs about itself its growing awareness of itself into physical matter.

The parents, therefore, give definite parts of their own physical matter to initiate the infant’s construction, and yet it is not this particular matter which grows.

No particle of matter is the same in the born infant, that was contained in either the fetus or earlier in the sperm or egg. [...]

The school and the store were not in the infant’s experience, for in that probability the family moved away. The blur of activity earlier was the result of neurological confusion, and Ruburt switched over unknowingly to an environment still in the same physical block that was meaningful to him, but not shared by the future experience of that infant. [...]

[...] Ruburt was bodiless on the one hand, and on the other he perceived some of the experience through the eyes of an infant in a carriage.

The infant with whom he momentarily identified as the self he is now only opaquely and indirectly shared common experience. [...]

[...] They did not need long periods of protection as infants, but in an animal fashion were physically more agile at younger ages than, say, the human infant.

Consciousness forms the genes, and not the other way around, and the about-to-be-born infant is the agency that adds new material through the chromosomal structure.² The child is from birth far more aware of all kinds of physical events than is realized also. [...]

[...] He will be acquainted in the dream state with other young budding musicians, though they are infants also. [...]

(Long pause.) It would seem that infants have no belief systems, and therefore could not be in charge of their own realities in any way. [...]

[...] When the infant is born, he still hears these sounds and voices, but again, they do not answer his physical needs, nor bring milk when he cries, and gradually he discards them.

[...] To some extent they must be present at birth, but they can still escape any full identification with the born infant. [...]

[...] Although in your terms your new parents may be infants now, or in your scale of time not even born, the arrangements may still be made.

[...] Infants carry a strong telepathic connection with the mother, which is not severed for some time, so that inoculations given the infant can work in that regard, even as a child can also be protected in other systems when the mother calls upon the appropriate spirit.

(4:28.) Even when biological “failures” develop, as with stillborn infants, or malformed ones, the inner consciousness involved does not give up, and even though death results, the consciousness tries again under different conditions. [...]

[...] But the fetus then is simply not the infant, and the infant is not the adult.

I think it very likely that aborted fetuses and those infants who die early in “life” — say within a few months after birth, especially — never intended to stay long within camouflage (physical) reality to begin with; the consciousnesses within those small human structures came just to momentarily sample our world of matter, whether from inside the womb or out of it. [...]

[...] The gist of the piece is that each year in this country an estimated several thousand seriously defective infants are quietly left to die, without treatment, after most careful consideration by the parents and doctors involved.

His recovery also follows his body’s own unique rhythms, which are as spontaneous as an infant’s. Let him know that his recovery is indeed a fact: he has only to recognize it as so in his mind. [...]

[...] Even as infants, then, you are predisposed naturally toward certain feelings, thoughts and attitudes that are meant to insure your healthy survival and emergence into adulthood. [...]

[...] Children—change that to “infants”—dream of their past lives, remembering, for example, how to walk and talk. [...]

I am not advising that malformed infants be killed, but I do want to point out that even in those most severe cases there is meaning in such conditions, and the consciousness involved then chooses another kind of experience.