Brian Weiss and his communication with spiritual teachers

[Nataly]

I am now reading the books of Brian Weiss. And for me this is yet another confirmation of the existence of teachers for every soul. I used to read about it in the books of Michael Newton and Robert Schwartz. Seth also told how he was one of those who had met the soul after death. Why do not they mention these teachers in religions? Are they considered angels in religions? What do you think about it.

[Sena]

Nataly, Brian Weiss's books provide evidence for reincarnation. This website gives 10 reasons why Christianity rejects reincarnation:

https://bible.org/question/what-does-bible-say-about-reincarnation

Reason no.9 contradicts books like Brian Weiss's:

"The supposed evidence for reincarnation, rememberings from past lives that come out under hypnosis or "past life regression" can be explained—if they truly occur at all—as mental telepathy from other living beings, from the souls of dead humans in purgatory or hell, or from demons. The real possibility of the latter should make us extremely skittish about opening our souls to "past life regressions.""

The most important reason, however, is not mentioned in the list. The Catholic Church and other Christian organizations all demand money from their adherents, and a belief in reincarnation would make people less likely to fork out cash. The Christian lie is that we have only one shot at living a good life, and after that you might go to hell if you haven't contributed enough money.

Buddhism does accept reincarnation, but denies the soul. Without a soul reincarnation is impossible. A good Buddhist probably would not approve of Brian Weiss's books. It's good that you are reading the books. Books like that were important in my spiritual journey.

[Nataly]

Nataly, Brian Weiss's books provide evidence for reincarnation. This website gives 10 reasons why Christianity rejects reincarnation:

https://bible.org/question/what-does-bible-say-about-reincarnation

Reason no.9 contradicts books like Brian Weiss's:

"The supposed evidence for reincarnation, rememberings from past lives that come out under hypnosis or "past life regression" can be explained—if they truly occur at all—as mental telepathy from other living beings, from the souls of dead humans in purgatory or hell, or from demons. The real possibility of the latter should make us extremely skittish about opening our souls to "past life regressions.""

The most important reason, however, is not mentioned in the list. The Catholic Church and other Christian organizations all demand money from their adherents, and a belief in reincarnation would make people less likely to fork out cash. The Christian lie is that we have only one shot at living a good life, and after that you might go to hell if you haven't contributed enough money.

Thank you! It's very interesting information.
I'm also interested in the question, why do we need teachers? And why do we need such hard life, which is described in the books of Brian Weiss? It turns out the same religion, with prohibitions, permits and punishments.

Buddhism does accept reincarnation, but denies the soul. Without a soul reincarnation is impossible.

Seth, too, has no concept of the soul. There is a concept of essence and personalities, in which it is embodied.
Buddhism is a religion. And she has a hidden knowledge, like all religions. This knowledge is available only to the most advanced practices of these religions. Sometimes they themselves do not recognize religions, they edit their texts. In Buddhism, there are many working practices that allow us to get out of our reality.

You can read Yoga Vashisht. "Yoga Vashsht (Higher Yoga) is a unique creation of Indian philosophy, deeply respected for its practical mysticism. Most of the texts of the scriptures were handed down by God to their followers, but Yoga Vashisht was told to the Lord God himself. This is the teaching of the sage Vashishti, addressed to the god Rama. The doctrine is that everything is a manifestation of the infinite Consciousness, including the material world, that is, the world as we see it". Very fascinating book of stories. And very big.

A good Buddhist probably would not approve of Brian Weiss's books.

I do not think so. For example, the Dalai Lama very much welcomes the study of meditation by science. And it is believed that all the Dalai Lama remember all their past incarnations.

It's good that you are reading the books.

I always looked for the truth, because I'm an old soul)
"The old soul has already learned all the subtleties of emotional life and pays all its attention to spiritual growth. Older souls learn non-attachment to the emotional intensity of the mature cycle and to the physical plane as a whole. They have a more intelligent approach to existence than mature souls, they can perceive the Greater, of which we are all part. Old souls need to complete their experience on the physical plane and work out all karma before starting the lessons of the astral plane.
...
Older souls usually learn a lot of existing religious teachings, but eventually come to their own belief system, in which they unite the different aspects of various spiritual theories. " (The Michael Teachings).

[Sena]

Seth, too, has no concept of the soul.

Nataly, I don't quite agree with this. It is certainly true that Seth's idea of the soul is completely different from the Christian idea. Christian theology is dualistic, meaning that the soul and body are separate. In Christian theology, the soul is something you possess and are supposed to keep pure:

"Body and soul are recognized as a dualism and their values contrasted: "Fear ye not them that kill the body . . . but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell.""

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm

Seth has a great deal to say about the soul, and this is an example:

"In many philosophies this sort of idea is retained — the soul being returned to a primal giver, or being dissolved in a nebulous state somewhere between being and nonbeing. The soul is, however, first of all creative. It can be discussed from many viewpoints. Its characteristics can be given to some degree, and indeed most of my readers could find out these characteristics for themselves if they were highly enough motivated, and if this was their main concern. The soul or entity is itself the most highly motivated, most highly energized, and most potent consciousness-unit known in any universe."
—Seth Speaks Chapter 6: Session 526, May 4, 1970

It is interesting that Seth regards the "soul" as synonymous with "entity". This means that "my" soul is not just "Sena's soul". The entity is comprised of many individuals, some of them in other systems of reality.

I also understand that according to Seth the soul is bisexual, an idea that would horrify Christians:

"Man's recognition of his bisexual nature is, therefore, a must in his future."
—Nature of the Psyche Chapter 4: Session 769, March 29, 1976

[Nataly]

"In the materialization of the personality through various incarnations, only the ego and the layers of the personal subconscious acquire new characteristics. The remaining levels of the "I" retain the previous experience, personality and knowledge.
In fact, the ego acquires its own [relative] stability largely because of this subconscious "preservation." If it were not for the past experience of other lives, stored at deep levels of the self, the ego could not correlate itself with other , and there would be no public relations.
Training is to some extent transmitted at the genetic level. This is the physical embodiment of inner knowledge that has been acquired in past lives and persists. A person does not begin to exist from birth and struggles to make the first attempts to gain some experience. If this were so, you would still live in the Stone Age.
...
Each part of the "I", although it has a certain independence, nevertheless, is responsible to all other fragments of the personality, and each whole [essence] is responsible
before others, although for the most part independently in their actions and decisions.
The whole "I" [essence] consists of many levels, many entities also form a gestalt, of which you know very little ... ".

"The Seth Material", Chapter twelve "After death and between lives"


"Everyone from birth forms a personal copy of the accumulating individual, continuous electrical signals that include his dreams, thoughts, desires and experiences. Then, after physical death, his personality exists separately from the physical form".

"The Seth Material", Chapter Fourteen "Dreams, work with dreams"

"Essence is not a person. Personality represents those aspects of essence that you can manifest in a three-dimensional existence ... Personality is influenced by circumstances, in your understanding, but the essence and uses them. Essence can not be changed beyond her will.
...
Personality and essence do not depend on physical form. Just because you are accustomed to think so, such manifestations seem strange to you ... You use your body as an astronaut by a scaphan, and you need it for about the same."
...
What part of us is experiencing death? The more information about reincarnations and inner "I" Seth gave us, the more we were interested. Possessing a whole "I" may be wonderful, but if my "I" named Jane Roberta is absorbed after death to others, then, from my point of view, this is no longer a survival. It's like saying that a small fish continues live when it is eaten by a large, because it becomes a part of it.
But, according to Seth, personality does not disappear. It exists always. The most difficult thing is to realize that the "I" has no boundaries, except for those that it poses to itself because of ignorance. Our individual consciousness grows and forms from its experience different "personalities", fragments of oneself. These fragments - one of them is Jane Roberta - are totally independent in their actions and decisions, but internal components constantly communicate with the goal-oriented "I" , part of which are. These "fragments" themselves grow, develop and can form their own entities, "gestalt personalities", or, in other words, whole souls.
Seth says that even in this life we have different ego; we accept the idea of one for ego as a symbol, for simplicity. At any time in this life, the ego is a part of us that is on the surface. Even the ego, as we understand it, is constantly changing. For example, Jane Roberta is now different from Jane Roberta ten years ago, although the "I" was not aware of any special changes.
My own experience convinced me that I am more than my ordinary self, than the part that I call it. For example, when you receive information through clairvoyance, some part of me knows something that I-Jane does not initially know. It conveys the knowledge of Jane's ego. I believe that this happens not only with the use of extrasensory abilities, but also in the case of creative inspiration - we are tuning to a more wise part of our being".

"The Seth Material", Chapter Sixteen "The multidimensional personality"

[Sena]

Possessing a whole "I" may be wonderful, but if my "I" named Jane Roberta is absorbed after death to others, then, from my point of view, this is no longer a survival.

Nataly, I don't think that is correct. According to Seth, individuality is maintained after death. Even cells have individuality.:

"Independence and individuality are always maintained, while cooperation strongly works among individuals. This cooperation never blots out individuality in any kind of gestalt."
—The Early Sessions, Book 2 Session 66 June 29, 1964

"In deeper terms, there is still another meaning that mirrors all of those apparent divisions that occur as All That Is seemingly separates portions of itself from itself, scattering its omnipotence into new patterns of being that, in your terms, remember their source and look back to it longingly, while still glorying in the unique individuality that is their own."
—Nature of Personal Reality Chapter 12: Session 647, March 12, 1973

"No individuality is lost, but it becomes a part of the inner self, and its experiences are added to the total experience of the many personalities that have composed the inner self."
—The Early Sessions Book 3 Session 126 January 27, 1965

• "Electromagnetically all living things are connected, yet each retains individuality. There is no nirvana in those terms, in which individuality will be vanquished."

• "I have avoided such discussions mainly in the past, until I thought you were ready for them. And now you are. These personalities are a part of your particular entity. Entities are obviously subdivisions of the whole, or All That Is. You retain your individuality as part of an entity, and the entity retains its individuality as a part of an energy gestalt."

• "Individual selves will retain identity. They will be able to participate at a high level of awareness with the whole of which they are part."

—The Early Sessions Book 7 Session 305 November 30, 1966

When Seth said "there is no nirvana", he was making a clear distinction from Buddhism.

[Deb]

The most important reason, however, is not mentioned in the list. The Catholic Church and other Christian organizations all demand money from their adherents, and a belief in reincarnation would make people less likely to fork out cash. The Christian lie is that we have only one shot at living a good life, and after that you might go to hell if you haven't contributed enough money.

Decades ago a college professor pointed out to me that religion was the first form of government—a way to control people. Things started to make sense to me after that. What a great way to control people's behavior by telling them they have to be "good" in this life, adhere to the rules dictated by God in the bible, or they will burn in hell forever. No second chance to make things right. Knowledge of reincarnation would undermine the control. Then there is the confessional, just in case people were not clear on what "good" means. Then you can be somewhat absolved of your minor indiscretions by a priest dictating a personalized prayer list for penance. Of course, in order to be forgiven you would need to belong to the church. For a price.

Caving under family pressure, I joined a nearby Catholic church when my son was born in order to have him baptized as insurance against the family's fear of purgatory. I was required to sign a contract stating the amount of money I'd be tithing every week. They actually had envelopes printed and sent to me with my name on them and the amount of money they would be containing. How spiritual.

Seth, too, has no concept of the soul.

Seth speaks extensively about the soul throughout the books. His explanations make more sense to me than anything else I've come across. As with the multitude of many topics he discusses, the information tends to be spread across the various books in small increments and it's up to us to put it all together. Of course, the Sethtalks search engine is a huge help, but not all of the Seth books have been put into it yet. Take a peek:

http://search.sethtalks.com/q/soul/

Why do not they mention these teachers in religions? Are they considered angels in religions? What do you think about it.

Seth has two explanations for angels in religion, both are interesting and I can certainly see where our guides or higher selves could be made into the concept of angels. My thought on religion vs. what the Seth materials share is that religion is man's attempt to understand reality from the perspective of earth inhabitants focused in this reality. They may get brief hints of what's beyond the official line of consciousness, but in turn still interpret (color and distort) it by what is generally known or accepted as truth. Seth instead offers us a behind-the-scenes glimpse of reality, as his existence is no longer focused in this/our physical reality. ("I am aware of some truths that many of you seem to have forgotten. I hope to remind you of these." Session 511, Seth Speaks) He points out the distortion here:

"What I will tell you has been told before throughout the centuries, and given again when it was forgotten. I hope to clarify many points that have been distorted through the years. And I offer my original interpretation of others, for no knowledge exists in a vacuum, and all information must be interpreted and colored by the personality who holds it and passes it on. Therefore I describe reality as I know it, and my experience in many layers and dimensions."
—SS Chapter 1: Session 511, January 21, 1970

So on to where the concept angels comes from:

"At one time there were also species of birds, however, with high intelligence — this before the period mentioned earlier. They were not humanoid; not, for example, people with wings. They were large birds, with the capacity for dealing with concepts. They were social, could swim well (pause), and for some time could live on the water. They had songs of great beauty, and a most extensive vocabulary. They had talons. (Her eyes wide and dark, Jane held up her hands, fingers bent as though ready to grasp — or claw.) When he was a cave dweller, man saw these birds often, particularly in cliffs by water. Many times the birds saved children from falling. Man identified with their easy flight up the cliffsides, and followed the sounds of their songs to safe clearings. These memories turned into the angel images. In each case in those times there was the greatest cooperation, on a global scale, between species. The inner impetus toward development, however, came from the innate comprehension of future probabilities. In that picture all species alive at any time joined. This included plants and fauna. Those who cooperated survived, but they did not think in terms of the survival of their own species alone — but, in time terms, of a greater living picture, or world inviolate, in which all survived." —UR1 Section 2: Session 691 March 25, 1974

"It is very possible for one dreamer who is a Speaker, to go to the aid of another individual who is having some difficulties in an inner reality within the dream state. The idea of guardian angels of course is highly connected here. A good Speaker is as effective within one reality as he is within the other, creating psychic frameworks within physical reality as well as within interior environments. Many artists, poets, and musicians are Speakers, translating one world in terms of another, forming psychic structures that exist in both with great vitality — structures that may be perceived from more than one reality at once."

"A Speaker or Speakers will appear in whatever guise will be most acceptable to the projectionist, whether it be the guise of a god, an angel or a disciple." —SS Chapter 19: Session 575, March 24, 1971

"That is the analogy. In actuality the mind is but a portion of the entity which looks out for the personality on the camouflage plane. Your guardian angel legends and such refer to this part of the entity, which is the mind and which is attached to the present personality during this particular existence. The mind helps to keep the personality from going too far astray. I use the term personality to include the whole person. I use it to express the entirety manifested in physical form, in one life."
—TES1 Session 21 February 3, 1964

And I see I have more catching up to do on this topic!

[Nataly]

Possessing a whole "I" may be wonderful, but if my "I" named Jane Roberta is absorbed after death to others, then, from my point of view, this is no longer a survival.

Nataly, I don't think that is correct. According to Seth, individuality is maintained after death. Even cells have individuality.:

These are not my words. This is a quote from Seth. There is further explanation that you did not take into account.

When Seth said "there is no nirvana", he was making a clear distinction from Buddhism.

I agree, nirvana does not exist, like paradise does not exist. But this does not mean that there are no useful techniques in Buddhism with which you absolutely, as I see it, are not familiar. There are the same mystical techniques in Christianity. Techniques to work with thoughts. With a real change in your inner world. With work with emotions. With a real change of self. And not just talking about it. When the personality changes, her dreams change. This is an indicator of real work with yourself. If your dreams do not change while your whole life, then you do not work in inner reality.

Seth, too, has no concept of the soul.

Seth has a multi-dimensional concept of the soul. How can this be considered a soul in the usual 3-dimensional sense?

"That is the analogy. In actuality the mind is but a portion of the entity which looks out for the personality on the camouflage plane. Your guardian angel legends and such refer to this part of the entity, which is the mind and which is attached to the present personality during this particular existence. The mind helps to keep the personality from going too far astray. I use the term personality to include the whole person. I use it to express the entirety manifested in physical form, in one life."
—TES1 Session 21 February 3, 1964

Sena, Deb - What do you call "soul" in this passage? Entity? Write in your own words, not citations, as you understand the concept of "soul" in Seth. In one short sentence.

[Sena]

Sena, Deb - What do you call "soul" in this passage? Entity? Write in your own words, not citations, as you understand the concept of "soul" in Seth. In one short sentence.

That's a good challenge! The soul is the reality of my existence beyond physical appearances.

[Deb]

In that passage, Seth was using the word entity to refer to the oversoul, which sends out portions of itself into this plane (and others as well). He does at times refer to those portions as 'entity' and as 'soul' interchangeably, but makes a point to say there is no real separation or closed systems as he tries to describe such things in ways we can understand from our current perspective.

One short sentence is hard, in my mind there's a lot more involved. I rarely do as I'm told, too. But as basic as I can get, I would define soul as "the unique essence or signature of a consciousness that is a portion of a greater whole."

For me to confine that to a more 3-dimensional definition, I'd just probably say "The conscious essence that is my true self, currently housed in this body."

Nataly, your definition please?

[Sena]

This quote from Neville Goddard may be relevant:

"Before Abraham was, I AM. Yes, I was aware of being before I became aware of being man, and in that day when I shall cease to be conscious of being man I shall still be conscious of being.... The consciousness of being is not dependent on being anything..... Jesus discovered this glorious truth and declared Himself to be one with God, not the God that man had fashioned, for he never recognized such a God. Jesus found God to be his awareness of being and so told man that the Kingdom of God and heaven were within."

[Sena]

@Sena I went to that bible.org

I find it difficult to read such things, but I wanted to show how the idea of soul has been distorted beyond recognition.