Little brat (my word)

[Mark M]

 "Jane and I had visited the Wilburs at their trailer in Wellsburg last Friday evening, January 14, 1966, and met for the first time their 2-year old son, Scotty. When we left Jane forgot her pocketbook and Marilyn returned it Saturday morning; she had her son with her and Jane had more time to observe him.
 
"After Marilyn left Jane and I discovered that both of us had been alarmed by the child in some vague way; his actions had been quite overtly strong, we thought, involving such things as pretending to kill our cat Willy, taking swings at Jane and me, etc. We found it hard to like him subjectively, even while dismissing these demonstrations.
 
"Toward the end of the session as Seth, Jane and I sat talking alone, after the departure of the Gallaghers, Seth volunteered the information that Scotty was a greedy child. He belonged to an entity that was strongly attached to physical life on our plane, Seth said; the entity having experienced many physical lives, and still refusing to leave earth as we know it.
 
"In addition the child knew it was not wanted, but had insisted upon being born. Knowing it was not wanted, it paid back its parents. It was destructive, and psychically older than they —Seth confirming my suspicion here. The child was to cause its parents much trouble, but they were strong enough to cope with it."
 
—Seth, TPS1, Session 223 (Deleted Portion) January 16, 1966

At another forum, MB wrote, and I agreed:

Wow!  Thanks Mark.  I find it quite shocking that an energy presence, and an entity at that, could exist in Non-Physical in that state.  It seems so out of harmony with that dimension of existence.  I would also love to know how that child turned out.  Thanks for expanding my horizons.

LC wrote:

This shocked me, too. I ended up asking Rick Stack about this passage during his online Seth class tonight. I described the passage to him and said, "Seth has always said that we have an entity just as wise as he is, inside of us. How can that be the case if this one entity is so greedy that it would send such a sociopathic child into physical reality?"

Rick sounded surprised and said he didn't remember this, and had to pull out his copy of TPS1 to look at it himself.

All these classes are recorded, so I can play the clip for you guys sometime, if you want. Until then, I have transcribed Rick's response here:

"First of all, we don't have Seth's words. Whenever we don't have Seth's words and we have Rob interpreting it, we have a different story entirely... particularly if I find something that is anomalous to the material - there are times when you find something in Seth's words that don't really go along with everything else he said. And usually you have to realize and take into context that that material got distorted a little bit. Particularly when I have Rob's interpretation here, and I don't have [Seth's] actual words.

One, I would not take this that seriously, first of all. And second, [it's] counter everything that he's always said about what the entity really is.

So when [Seth] says here, "the entity having experienced many physical lives and still refusing to leave Earth as we know it," that makes no sense whatsoever with everything else that [Seth] said. As you have probably noticed. The entity is not an infant, to say the least. It is far beyond physical personalities in its understanding and it doesn't make even sense - "refusing to leave earth." The entity has representatives on earth or physical personalities strewn throughout time. And they're all in their probability clouds, and they're still happening. The entity - many entities - are involved in physical reality.

Now, they might be talking about an aspect of the entity, a physical personality, so this particular personality... now, also, "refusing to leave Earth as we know it" sounds like a misinterpretation as well. That's not how Seth generally describes this at all. It's not a matter of refusing or not refusing. In certain terms it's kind of like a course. You choose to go through the course of physical reality. At a certain point you graduate. So it's not a matter of "refusing" to leave. Most beings or many don't leave until they're ready to leave. But when he's talking about a personality that's greedy or.. and they're using that term, or whatever, uh - and why is a person greedy? They have a lack of understanding. Seth has definitely said there are personalities that are learning things. Going through reincarnations. They might carry hate with them. They might carry limiting beliefs that they have not resolved yet that would result in something like greed that is caused by a lack of understanding, really... a lack of spiritual understanding.

So, yeah, it's absolutely possible that the child they're dealing with - [Seth] has made it more than clear that people are not born "tabula rasa" - a blank slate. People, when they are born, are coming with all kinds of stuff, and often an agenda that has been set up by the entity, which is an intelligent being. Not a greedy - *laughs* - there's no greedy entities, as far as I understand.

Now look, every once in a while you will see something like this where it doesn't make sense with the entire Seth material.

It's up to you to realize that there's a distortion particularly when you have Rob reporting this. I understand though, getting upset by stuff like that."

I responded:

Very interesting.

And yet Seth rather put down Frank Withers which seems rather shocking too.

One example:

" 'Now the hand changes again,' Seth said. 'It becomes a stubby fat one. Frank Withers had a hand like that, just like that. Frank Withers was a fathead,' he said, with great satisfaction, even though Frank was, according to Seth, a personality fragment of his own entity."

—TSM Chapter Three

Later on, Seth says something like he shouldn't be so hard on Frank and, I think, he was Frank to learn humility.

Also, this involves Sue Watkins:

"Your child, in a past life, this child was an uncle and in an accident you killed him. You were in a carriage, driving it. He went to adjust a bridle. England, 1451. Give us a moment.

"...something happened that frightened you. You yelled at the horses and screamed. Your uncle fell. The horses panicked, and he fell beneath a hoof. You never forgave yourself, and now in your first reincarnation as a woman since that time, you decided to be the vehicle through which he could enter physical reality again, and so became his mother in physical terms....

"Now these are the things, some of the things, that you do not want to face consciously. Your uncle did not blame you for the accident at the time."

—Seth, TPS1 Session 458 (Deleted Portion) January 20, 1969

Her then-uncle did not blame her, but she felt the need to be his mother in this life.

My understanding is that it's the entity that makes decisions to reincarnate.

Sue's "guilt" seems to be shared by her entity.

Also, Rob, distorting Seth or not, is reporting why the kid is, in my words, a brat.

How would Rick explain that?

Further, I think Seth told Rob and Jane that they could become entities if they so chose.

Might a "new" entity be less wise than an "old" one?

The Education of Oversoul 7...

[Mark M]

Didn't Seth say a person could reincarnate too soon?

Is this the entity making a mistake in that regard?

[inavalan]

—Seth, TPS1, Session 223 (Deleted Portion) January 16, 1966

"(In the 223rd session for January 16, 1966, Seth said that my name in the Denmark life was Larns Devonsdorf. My wife then was named Letti Cluse. My son — who is now Jane — was Graton. Seth, a prosperous merchant, traveler, and family friend, was named Brons Martzens.)

The general itinerary of my journeys as given in that session by Ruburt was correct. There were some distortions in other portions of that session, however.

... The reincarnational structure is a psychological one.  It cannot be understood in any other terms.  The distortions and interpretations that have built up about it are natural enough, considering what seems to be your practical experience with the nature of time."

—SS Appendix: Session 595, September 20, 1971

[Mark M]

Thanks, but the only problem is exactly where were the distortions?

Here is some material from Speaks:

(Jim H.: "Didn't you say earlier, referring to the woman who was born in a minority race, that her challenges had been set up by a previous personality, in our terms?")

By the whole self.

(Jim H.: "The decision was made when that previous personality had returned to the whole self for a period of reevaluation?")

You must realize, again, that we are speaking of divisions for convenience's sake, where none really exists. At the same "time," so to speak, that this personality is born into a minority race, in a completely different era it may be born rich, secure and aristocratic. It is searching out different methods of experience and expansion. Do you follow me?

(Jim H.: "I understand. I thought you probably meant the challenges had been set up by the whole self.")

Indeed. Remember, this is your entire identity of which we are speaking. It is only you who are presently aware of but one portion of it; and this portion you insist upon calling yourself. You are the self who makes these decisions.

ESP Class Session: Tuesday, February 9, 1971.
Appendix of Seth Speaks

[inavalan]

I think this is a distortion:

"In addition the child knew it was not wanted, but had insisted upon being born. Knowing it was not wanted, it paid back its parents. It was destructive, and psychically older than they —Seth confirming my suspicion here. The child was to cause its parents much trouble, but they were strong enough to cope with it."

Also, in #223 it is said that the entity decided on reincarnation, which is a distortion, while on your most recent quotation, the whole self decides the reincarnation, which is what Seth said in other sessions too.

[Mark M]

Whole self, entity, where are the definitions plainly distinguishing these? Maybe little distinction between the two is why he made the apparent error.

Here is something I chanced upon:

"Some personalities are drawn to enter at conception as a result of seemingly less worthy motives - greed, for example, or an obsessional desire that is partially composed of unresolved problems...."

From Seth Speaks, Chapter 13: Session 557

[Mik]

First I want to preface this with that I am a spiritual Mystic. Most of my knowledge came from that search. And only a small amount from Seth.

I came to know what I call "the Universe", or some times "the One", is what Seth terms is "ATI". We are both part of, and the entirely of, ATI at the same time.

For every person who is murdered, raped, or was harmed: there is another reincarnation of that 'entity' that did that to them. They are working on two sides of the same issues.

Remember that: time is an  illusion created for man, and reincarnation is not sequential.

Also remember that our problems are our lessons and our teachers.

There are people everywhere from within the spectrum of what we call 'good to bad' that you can imagine.

There is no point in being surprised that there are 'bad' people in this world.

It is an absolute requirement for the lessons that need to be learned.

(Joy and) Happiness,
    Mik.

[inavalan]

First I want to preface this with that I am a spiritual Mystic. Most of my knowledge came from that search.  ...

If you don't mind ... honest questions:

What does "spiritual Mystic" mean, and what does it mean in your case? Are there other kind of mystics, besides the spiritual ones?

I found a definition: "A mystic is a person who seeks to awaken, glimpse, and reclaim the innate spiritual Oneness at the core of their being. In other words, a mystic is a spiritual seeker who is driven to surrender their ego and orients their whole lives toward deeply integrating the primordial truth that they are an inseparable part of the Divine."

Also, what do you mean by "search"? Studying what others wrote?

I just want to get an idea where your opinions come from, how you formed them.

Thanks.

[Mik]

I am not bothered by your questions. I have never revealed some of the information below, but here in the Seth world I believe it acceptable.

As to the question are there different types of mystics, everyone is on their own path. There is a very wide spectrum of people who believe themselves to be Mystics.

Please reread my introduction.

I believe in your definition the word seeks is close to my word search in intent.

However, as part of my path, I sought reading in many different religions and philosophies as part of learning. I am a pluralist. I believe that all religions offer good and bad things. I am particularly fond of Sufi poetry.

And as you can probably guess from my comments in my immediately proceeding post, I'm also a pantheist. (Even though I am not fond of, and try to avoid, the word god.)

But most of my important learnings came from personal experience and Communications with my advisors, in person with other Mystics, psychics, a master in martial arts (he did not consider himself a Mystic, but we shared so many common ideas, but from different perspectives, it was one of the most enlightening 4 hour conversations I had.)

For many Mystics, that I met, psychic abilities were a part of their path. Like mine. This is probably because open psychics can feel other open psychics. So I was probably drawn to that type.

 Four times I was drawn to irrational places, once over 30 miles, where I would normally never go: only to meet another Mystic, or in one case the martial arts master who was also an open psychic. All of these meetings were extremely enlightening, usually for both members.

Back to other types of Mystics: some of the people I met, were more focused on the psychic aspects, and the power that brings, than the spiritual side.

That's why I call myself a spiritual Mystic. To differentiate myself from those more interested in power.

All of this is based on the path of my experiences and learning. You are right, the word spiritual is redundant, but I feel it helps explain who I am. Many people perceive the word Mystic in so many wild ways.

My psychic abilities also drew me to many people that needed help. And I tried to use it wisely.

Fairly early in my psychic experiences I found I had three advisors. That shared information with me through my spiritual source. Like Seth but different.

One was a female voice that was loving and caring and provided great amounts of information to help others. She would provide information that was far more accurate than my psychic abilities can bring.

The other was masculine. Extremely humorous, sometime sarcastic about things I did or wanted to achieve or do. Although quite annoying at the same time funny. The perspective brought by humor had much educational value about myself.

The third voice was neither male nor female. I call it the It Voice. None of the voices offered names so I simply called them the female, the male, the it voice.

The it voice spoke very rarely. But when it did it's information was often extremely important. None of these voices ever told me what to do. They only provided information that I had to determine what to do with.

Thier information was so much better, and clear, than what my psychic abilities and intellect could collect, I eventually gave up and closed down my psychic abilities, about 98%. I was/am actually more closed than most people. (All people have psychic abilities.) I did allow the rule that if anything was extremely important for me to perceive to help someone else, it could come through. Other psychics could no longer perceive me.

My advisors, in the end were my greatest teachers, along with the 6-hour conversation with the tree in the swamp. (Again read my introduction.)

A few years before I met the tree, the three advisors merged into one. That was an education in itself. What was left was a more loving, and occasionally a little humorous, it voice. It's still did not speak often but it's information was still extremely valuable.

I stopped searching after my 6-hour conversation with the tree. It had answered my questions. So now what I have left is the It Voice.

I can reach that source when I need to through meditation. And it's still occasionally provides information unsolicited.

Throughout I have used the word "voice", and yes a lot of it was words, but they also taught with with images when that was a better way to teach or communicate.

I am now in my 60s. I spoke with the tree when I was 33.

A few years ago I decided to resume a different type of search. How to give love to all people, and the universe, to the best of my ability. And that was the most important outcome of the entire search from 18 to 33.

Yes I obtained a great deal of esoteric knowledge. A great deal of information about ATI, and 'reality' in general. But as many religions say right off the bat: To give love is the most important thing.

To give love is very very different than to feel love. And I use my Universal spiritual source to help power my abilities to give love.

One thing I learned along the way, is that:

-When you help someone else you help yourself directly.
-When you harm someone else you harm yourself directly.
-It's very important to give love to all that you meet.
-Treat others as they want to be treated: not as you want to be treated, there's a big difference and it's important.

(Joy and) Happiness,
     Mik

[inavalan]

@Mik

Thanks

[Mik]

@inavalan

I just reread my original Post in this sequence.

I misspoke about something. (I talk into my phone to write documents.)


-At this point in time, the planet as a whole requires 'bad' people for lessons; because some people in their current time-life-cycle require it. Also the 'bad' people are Learning lessons simultaneously.

-In other words, not everyone requires 'bad' people for lessons in their current time-life-cycle.

Apologies.