Seth in Seth Speaks, recounts he was a spice merchant in Denmark, and that was where he met Ruburt (Jane Roberts) and Joseph, Jane's mate in this life. He had lives as monks, and one as a pope and a victim of the Spanish Inquisition. female lives are, Dutch spinster, courtesan at time of the biblical David, several lives as a humble mother with children. He is an entity, not an aspect of Jane/Ruburt. Jane had to attend out of body preparation classes while her body slept at night, to learn how to channel Seth; not everyone has the temperament for this kind of work. I believe there was an agreement between her and Seth, to do the work.

We each maintain our individuality from life to life.
and this is a belief system planet. it is a duality based planet. Without a belief system, there is basically nowhere to go from there, without some sort of belief system to start from.  since it is duality based, some are said to be wrong, some are said to be right, and yet we learn from Monroe, there is no right, there is no wrong. Whatever your belief system is, it will cause you to perceive FROM that belief system, that will be your perception. Perceiving something is not knowledge. a perception is only a perception and is not proven correct or incorrect.
True knowledge can only be demonstrated before it becomes true.

that is why we teach the very thing that we need to learn.

Religion is a belief system. The Christ light is beyond all belief systems, and is within all persons, but basically unrecognized until the person does examine their own belief system, by living the belief system out, and proceeding to the next more comprehensive belief system level.

Seth is asked this question on page 293 of Seth Speaks, the Eternal
Validity of the Soul; Was the statement correct, given by Jane, while speaking for you, that there have been millions of speakers? Or was this distorted?

Seth answers: It was not distorted. The speakers are gifted according to their own characters, some having far more abilities than others, but all having playing roles in the communication of inner data. In your terms, therefore some speakers would be much more accomplished than others. For example, there have been a far smaller number of truly prominent speakers than the number given.

There have been less than 30 great speakers. The Christ entity was one. The Buddha another.

The greatest speakers do not only translate and communicate inner data, but also go much further into these inner realms of reality than others connected with your physical system. They add, then to the basic inner data.
At another level Emerson was a speaker. a man named Maubundu, in Africa, 14 B.C. are several speakers. They are still active in between lives with ELS.

question number four: Is it possible to name or describe a first speaker?
Seth: In greater terms, there was no first speaker. Imagine that you wanted to be ten places at once; and that you actually sent one portion of yourself to each of these 10 places, and that each of these portions were conscious, alert and aware. You, being the 10 of you would be aware of existence in each of the 10 places.
(Bruce is reporting experience of being in more than one place, at this time, because we are able to do this)

Continuing with the speakers; Speakers do not originate in the locations or time periods in which they manifest.

I'm enjoying the conversation Beau and Justin. thank you!

regarding differing kinds of ressurrection, since the body is not real nor eternal, I do not believe Jesus died, not in the sense that we think of death. We often think of this speaker as suffering, painting pictures of him with a thorny crown. A speaker has learned to circumvent suffering, they come and go as they wish from the vehicle of the body.
In Jesus's case or Yeshua as Justin calls him, is probably the more accurate name, I still believe he could transmute his body into pure light at will and this would be a truer ressurrection concept.

In addition more NDE reports are coming in. Where monitoring the body for life signs shows none. and the spirit is able to make a new decision to come back into the body.
I believe as examples for us, to show on a basic level, we are more than the body, that it is the soul which animates the flesh, and that consciousness came first, the body second.

  Nice post Alysia, overall i do agree with much of it.   I do have a theoretical question for you though. 

  Say there was a particular and supposedly channeled source which twisted and misrepresented some of the very core teachings and meaning of a great spiritual teachers life and example.  Would you say it would be loving, or wise to promote very positively and repeatedly such a source if this was true?

  I don't need an answer really, but just thought it was a good question to pose to you.

We are stardust, we are golden...and we've got to get ourselves back to the garden.....

in the words of an old song that is playing in my head.

Love you all, blink

Quote:



  Why ever the need for guides and teachers in their various nonphysical, physical, inbetween, etc. forms?   Why the need for Yeshua and Buddha and their material lives? 

  If we humans relied only on ourselves, boy would humanity be really, really, really stuck even more so than now.  Maybe our general stuckness and our inablitity to see our way out of it is why there are so many guides/teachers who are so active in all levels to do with the Earth. 

  And why, oh why Blink for the instructive above post and reply???
 

  Contradict self much?   Who are you trying to get back to the garden with your post?   I sense your positive intentions, and i appreciate them and you much for it, but i don't have to agree with you, and i think its ok for you to disagree with me and for me to disagree with you.

  Beau my new found friend, can you not see the irony and contradiction in the message of your posts on this thread when compared to your actual actions themselves?

  You got on a thread started by someone else, to essentially disagree with the thread and the thread starters messages repeatedly (no, that's not all that happened, but it seemed to be a big focus of yours all in all).   Yet, no one, including the thread starter himself, ever told you that you shouldn't do that.  Instead, open hearted and minded dialogue and light hearted debate ensued. 

  Just as Blink was trying to "teach" me that we are the ones who get ourselves back to the garden.  If that was completely true and the only part of it, then there wouldn't ever been any need for any kind of outside guide or teacher.  What need for her trying to "teach" me that, if true?

  The only difference between you, Blink and i is that i'm not saying one thing and doing another.  I think it's quite alright to question and even speak out against another's beliefs on occasion if that is done more so positively and level handed.    No, it shouldn't be the main focus of anyone's activity.  The best "teaching" is ultimately done by pure example and vibes, but we are on a discussion forum that requires primarily written words to communicate consciously. 

  Anyways, continue to disagree with my points and point out my errors, i'm quite alright with it and still very much love you, Blink and all here.     That's what its about, seeing and concentrating on the best in others, even when disagreeing their beliefs and perceptions.   As i've said repeatedly, i sense positive intentions in both you and Blink, and appreciate you both taking the time trying to show me a better and higher way.   But your truths, aren't necessarily the ultimate truths, as you seem to be saying to me as well. 

Btw, i plan on going to Bruce's workshop if he ever does one here, so look foward to meeting you and others here in person.  I've so far only met Albert in person.

I think, Justin, that you really don't understand me. But that's okay.

I'm really really really really really not interested in this kind of conversation.

And, it's really really really really not all about you.

the end, blink

Quote: