Dog reincarnates 5 years later

[Mark M]

"You may be interested to know one interesting piece of information. Your dog has been reincarnated, in his terms, looking much as he did before.

(Our dog Mischa died in 1963. Jane had him when we met in 1953.

[... 2 paragraphs ...]

(This data was quite unexpected by us, although this afternoon I had mentioned Mischa to Jane in passing, remarking on a similarity of pose struck by our cat Willy as he stood in the studio, intently listening to a sound outside. I hadn't intended that any remark of mine about the dog lead to this kind of data, nor did Jane interpret it that way. In fact, we know so little about animals, let alone animal reincarnation, as far as this material goes, that it hasn't occurred to us to ask this kind of question . By "this territory" Seth meant Elmira, New York.

[... 3 paragraphs ...]

("Will this dog have any empathy with us?"

(Leaning forward.) The marking reminiscent of the affair at Saratoga. And to your question, yes.* (Mischa had briefly tussled with another dog.)*

[... 1 paragraph ...]

Now my best wishes to you both, and I will not keep Ruburt barking for me any longer. *(Humorously:)*I am an old dog, and I remembered you.

[... 2 paragraphs ...]

(I certainly didn't know that I'd publish my 1960 drawing of Mischa 42 years later! Before Jane and I married, on December 27, 1954, she told me I'd have to take her dog, too.)"

—TES9 Session 448 November 13, 1968

[Deb]

And Mischa reincarnated as a cat! Very cool. Mischa was Walt and Jane's dog, I have a photo of them with her.

Didn't Seth say there once was a fragment of himself that was a dog?

Here's a fun photo of a chicken I had who was fascinated with Jane's face. Chickens don't tend to stare intensely at anything, they're always on the lookout for predators, so this seemed unusual to me hence the photo.

[Mark M]

"(Many sessions ago, Seth told us he had a dog fragment personality still here on Earth. He wouldn't tell us where it was, though. "Number twenty-five: Do you have any physical fragments of any kind still here on earth?")



I do not now. My dog is gone.



[... 2 paragraphs ...]



(10:30.) In one manner of speaking, you are fragments of your entities. Yet you consider yourselves quite independent, and not thrust-off second-handed selves; so dogs and other animals are not simply the manifestation of stray psychic energy on the part of human beings.



[... 3 paragraphs ...]



The mechanics of consciousness remain the same. They do not change for animals or men. Therefore there are no limitations set upon the development of any individual consciousness, or growth of any identity. Consciousness both in the body and without finds its own range, its own level. A dog, then, is not limited to being a dog in other existences."



—SS Chapter 20: Session 581, April 14, 1971