39th talk with Rita – 2-14-2015

Saturday, February 14, 2015

F: 7 a.m. Late start this morning, though I don’t mind. Well, Miss Rita, I certainly do feel like I am riding a runaway horse, not for the first time. Performing in public like this is bringing in questions faster than we can deal with them, and now Charles is offering me several questions and saying, if not this one, try this one, or this one, etc.

So – just a note on the process as I am experiencing it – there is the pull of the continuity of your narrative (you say, “next time we could begin here”) and the pull of past threads to be followed (“bookmark that and we will talk about it another time”) and the pull of individual responses in the form of email and blog comments (“Rita said x and such, but it seems to me…”) and Charles’ own requests for clarification from me, and then as I say the posing of alternate questions we could ask.

None of this bothers me, and I’m delighted that enough people are taking the material seriously enough to wrestle with it and respond to it. But I’m sure glad to have that naval soundings survey analogy to reassure me that in a sense, we can’t really get lost. And I’m glad to have Charles’ presence as a sheet anchor to windward. I can see that it would be easy to lose all sense of direction, exploring these things. In fact, I wonder if that isn’t more or less what I have done, all these years.

R: In wondering that, you are showing yourself to be a child of the age you live in. So do many of your questioners. I mean by that, you are disregarding the continuing presence in your life of your non-physical self. This is a bit of a diversion from the topic of suffering and good and evil, but it won’t take long, perhaps, and pursuing the thread because it presented itself is an example of a way to live connected.

You have a compass.

What good is a compass to a navigator who doesn’t know it exists, or doesn’t consult it? None. But the compass is there, used or unused. Why should you or anybody fear getting lost, as long as you are consulting your compass? And if you don’t consult it – tacitly or not, that is, doing it consciously or automatically, either one – how can you expect to follow any course?

F: Between us, we’re in a nautical mood today, I see. I take it you mean what the church would call conscience, only in a wider sense than knowledge of whether an action or thought or projected action or thought is good and evil.

R: The physical self forms what we loosely call an ego, and that ego is conscious of what the senses report to it, plus what its reactions to its environment report to it as emotions. As long as the ego’s world remains bounded by such limits, you have a very small boat in a very big sea, terrified of storms, navigating at random, subject to course correction by emotional reaction to any stray circumstance. But when that ego realizes that it has a compass, everything changes, or can change, if the compass is intelligently used. The ego’s higher self (call it) not only can read the compass, it can connect to GPS. It not only knows where the boat is, it knows how it got there, and why, and where it set out for. And – stretching the analogy quite a bit, but true to life – the higher self knows that it is the cause as well as the experiencer of the circumstances the little boat finds itself in. Or, not quite. Let’s say, it recognizes that no storm or difficulty or anything that comes to be experienced is either random or purposeless.

But, let’s drop the analogy at that point. You see that I mean to say that if it were up to you (as it often seems to you) to shape your lives, you would be vastly overmatched.

F: Always outnumbered, always outgunned, as I read somewhere.

R: So in this particular instance, if it were up to Charles as his ego exists or you as your ego exists and neither of you were in connection with your “higher selves,” your non-3D components that have never left you nor ever could leave you, then yes, you’d be lost in moments. But it is the very connection with the non-3D that renders this possible. Renders your lives possible.

F: And in the non-3D part of ourselves we live and move and have our being.

R: Well, isn’t that a perfectly valid way to describe your situation?

F: It certainly seems so to me, and of course I find it satisfying to have a way of understanding the 2,000-year old Christian tradition without having to sign on to their contemporary understandings of it. I mean, all that knowledge and wisdom, couched in language that we find unmeaningful – I always knew it meant something, even if it didn’t mean what it was explained to mean.

R: And where do you think that knowing came from, if not your non-3D extension, or source? You tended to think of it as past-life knowledge, I think, but in that case why can’t you read Egyptian?

F: I’d like to know that myself. But, as you always say, let’s consider that at another time. The hour is half over and we haven’t gotten to the question yet.

R: I think you will find that we have, actually. It’s all tied together. How can we discuss the question of good and evil, and of suffering, and of the question of the meaning of life, if we allow ourselves to disregard the fact that appearances are not accurate, that you are not boats afloat in an unknown sea, adrift, with no origin, no purpose, no projected port, no task, no larger purpose?

F: I remember Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain writing somewhere of a moment during the war when he suddenly experienced himself as part of the entire army. (He was a Union officer in the Civil War.) I don’t know how to say it in few words. He had always experienced himself as an officer in the machinery, so to speak, but at this moment he had a sort of mystical sense of himself as an individual participating as part of one large thing. I suspect he was experiencing something similar to what happens when small boats realize they are part of a regatta and couldn’t get lost if they wanted to. Either that, or they are fishermen as in Captains Courageous and work alone but not lost.

But meanwhile, I’m sure people are wondering when we’re going to return more directly to the subject at hand. So let’s take up where you left off, saying, “Since you are well beyond your hour, we can stop here and continue next time with just that question, which after all is the root of all the questions on the topic — what is the purpose of suffering in the world?”

R: Let me suggest a slightly different way of looking at the subject, that may help some people. To say, “what is the purpose of—” is to isolate something that cannot be understood in isolation. If you were to try to say “what is the purpose of a knee in the world?” you couldn’t begin to answer the question even in the simplest of ways without referring to the thigh and the calf, and even if you left it at that, it wouldn’t make any sense, not really. It might, for instance, be looked at as a weakness in the leg, because obviously such a complicated joint would look like a makeshift, compared to the relative simplicity of the bones it connects. And of course if you want to explain about the mobility it offers, you are going to wind up talking about hips and feet and the body in general, and gravity, and musculature, and blood circulation, and the on-going repair of cells – and there’s no end to the things a simple discussion of knees would entail. And every time you tried to put it into context, somebody would be saying, “but I want to know why there have to be knees in the world, and you’re telling me all these irrelevant things!”

F: Explaining how to make a watch.

R: Yes, except in this case there is no other way to do it, if the person asking the question doesn’t even have the concept of time!

So rather than asking, “what is the purpose of suffering in the world? I suggest it would be better to ask, “what is it in the nature of the world that produces suffering as a by-product?” That may sound like the same statement, but it is not. It is like explaining about exercise, and how the deliberate exhaustion of the muscles’ cells produces pain but also produces new growth. In this case, as so often, context is everything. If you were to decree that nothing should ever produce pain, because you have decided that pain is bad, then what have you just done to life? How many doors have you closed off? How many activities of greater interest and with greater rewards have you just foreclosed?

F: I agree, of course, though I don’t know how it will look after I disengage and our joint mind is not shaping my perceptions! – but I predict that some will look at this as merely an apology for evil.

R: No doubt. But you can learn from a lesson or you can reject it – you can’t really do both.

F: And here we are at the end of an hour, unless you want to continue.

R: No, I am content. I think you will find that this was a better session than you think. Right at the moment, you are thinking, “we didn’t even get to the question until it was half over,” but when you come to look at it, you may think differently.

F: Well, we’ll see. Till next time, then.

27 thoughts on “39th talk with Rita – 2-14-2015

  1. “What is it in the nature of the world that produces suffering as a by-product?”

    Yes, that is the question phrased as I wish I had phrased it last winter. What is the nature of the world that continues, after eons of time and billions of 3-D/non 3-D “communities” of people, to produce the kinds of self-harming, other-harming and earth-harming actions that IMHO humanity ought to have outgrown eons ago as “learning and growth opportunities”?

    What is the nature of the world that it’s not obvious that we are more than our physical bodies and have a compass to guide our lives? As obvious as it is that we have knees, to use your example? Why isn’t the voice of conscience louder and prompts from our Larger Selves stronger than hints and cryptic nudges most of the time?

    And after the Change that Rita recently referred to, will our choices and behaviors change so that attitudes and actions that produce suffering and “evil” seem like pre-Change relics?

    (I’m sure I seem like an opaque idiot for asking these questions and have probably used the wrong phrasing again, even after all these months of “working” with the material.)

    There was a graphic in the Sunday Boston Globe that is apropos to our subject. Here’s the link:

    Thank you for making your work public.

    1. Martha, a suggestion. Why not ask these same questions — which I don’t at all think are those of an “opaque idiot” — of your own guidance? Ask, not rhetorically, and not assuming that the answer are self-evident, and working from the assumption that the universe does in fact know what it’s doing. If you postulate that we are not necessarily malfunctioning, however gruesome the results look close-up — what answers do you get? And then share the results with the rest of us. Sincerely asking and then accurately transmitting the result is all any of us can do, and every person will access the information from a unique (hence uniquely valuable) viewpoint. I for one would be interested to see what you got.

  2. Martha,
    Your are not alone with feeling unsatisfied with a current state of knowledge or understanding; if we are ever satisfied, we will stop seeking. Nevertheless, I have been trying to ask similar questions of my guidance, more than once, and feel I have moved off of my previous world view of pain and suffering, but I am not yet at a point I consider to be understanding. If you are able to get some input from your guidance, I would be happy to share and add my findings on the subject. Meanwhile I am off to spend a week at Remote Viewing Intensive.

    1. Thank you John and Frank. Yesterday, the answer I got was in the form of a child’s foam cube, picked up while walking along the sidewalk next to the seawall in Narragansett. I knew it “meant” something. And later, when reading the paper, I saw the graphic (link above) and saw the cube again. Around the cube it says: Ever in motion, our eyes take in a multitude of views, a collage of fragments the we seamlessly stitch together to form a graspable experience.” True that.

      Later I went to a party where people are very much mired in 3-D and don’t appear to have even a glimpse of the truth of this sort of material. And it seems to me that their lives would be richer and more manageable if suffering wasn’t the predominant teaching tool. If clearer access to Guidance was available to all. And here it is, Memorial Day 2015, and “we” as a collective are still glorifying war instead of peace. When will we have that war to end all wars, finding that method of learning ineffective for achieving any ends whatsoever? (all rhetorical questions)

      1. What makes you think that rhetorical questions are anything but a waste of time and emotion? (And yes, I did that deliberately.) If you now look at the rhetorical question i just posed and see it as a real question that has a real answer somewhere, doesn’t it open things up? Doesn’t it offer your intuition a chance to inform you?

        The trouble with rhetorical questions is that rather than open you to new understandings, they tend to lock you into old ones. So you ask, rhetorically, “When will we have that war to end all wars, finding that method of learning ineffective for achieving any ends whatsoever?” Look at all the assumptions crystallized therein. But what if in fact some or all of those assumptions are wrong, or are only provisionally true? Doesn’t this put you farther INTO a box you wish to escape from?

        I don’t see how you can learn the meaning of suffering, and the reason why it has been so prevalent — and maybe, perhaps, the nature of its usefulness in certain conditions — if you start out by assuming and even stating that you know that it CAN’T be useful, or have meaning, or whatever. I really do hope you will ask these questions as real questions, and share the answers with us (without thinking you have to sign off on them, just reporting what you got, like it or not).

      2. Martha, somewhat belated (due to my being at a retreat program last week) I offer the following. It comes from a joint mind, part me, part greater wisdom, and I can only humbly offer it as a perspective, certainly not truth. It’s so much nicer when you are absolutely sure that you didn’t make it up, but as Frank says, I’m trying to get beyond that in learning this process.

        “Becoming a victim or seeing others as a victim is inevitable from thinking of yourself as a unit in isolation. If you instead saw yourself as a connected community it might be possible to see yourself and others as a participant instead of a victim.

        Yes you can and you do experience pain and suffering that you do not cause, if viewed from your individual 3-D perspective. The purpose of that experience is not for the pain or suffering per se, but to help relieve the forces that cause it or move you in another direction. There can be benefits to the experience. There is not a latent intent or need of the Universe to create pain, anymore than there is a need for any extreme. Localized forces that depart from balance are important for experience, otherwise creativity would be limited. When there is a strong imbalance, there is movement to rebalance.

        Always you make choices, to fuel or not to fuel something that’s burning inside. To hate hatred is to fuel the subject. What is the character of the soul that you are becoming that will affect the greater being? One of bitterness, because of pain and suffering? Or one of acceptance and determination to overcome bitterness? You are stronger having overcome than having no hurdle.

        Can you have love and compassion for those who hurt other people? Can you see broad enough to see that they are hurting themselves, an objectification of what’s going on inside them? Would a greater being agree to experience pain and suffering if it helped relieve and dissipate that in another part of the one greater mind?

        Martin Luther King. Selma. The KKK killing black people. Would prejudice and fear of race end without this kind of play?

        So you see human suffering. You don’t see your greater beings suffering in love with you. You didn’t experience the choice at the level of the greater being to participate in that suffering as a compassionate and loving action for the greater good of the greater mind. You don’t see the dissipative effects that has on the inner forces that result in suffering, and you don’t see the strength of the character that becomes out of that experience. But you can choose how you react and your choices do affect your own character and what we become. You see an adult mistreat a child, do you equally mistreat the adult? Do you as a member of the jury condemn to death a murderer? These choices build a lasting character that either tends to prolong and strengthen the forces or tends dissipate them.

        Whether it’s evil, pain, suffering, economic disparity or whatever, the work to be done is on yourself, always on yourself. If seeing these realities doesn’t move you inward, you are not seeing them as intended.”

        Again, a single perspective, and that only.

        1. Thank you for your fantastic reply.

          “But you can choose how you react and your choices do affect your own character and what we become…These choices build a lasting character that either tends to prolong and strengthen the forces or tends dissipate them.”

  3. You’re right. And I hope your book, in addition to answers from Rita, focuses on pointing out incorrect assumptions, how to question incorrect assumptions & how to ask more open-ended questions that can lead to new understandings. As I read your reply, I think of Byron Katie’s Work: “Is that true?” “Can you absolutely know that’s true?” “How do you feel when you believe that statement is true?”

    I do believe that all experiences, including suffering have meaning and are useful. I guess I wish it wasn’t SO useful.

  4. Frank,
    The dialog between you and Martha triggers something I’ve been thinking: Rita’s (and your) examples of HOW to change, HOW to grow, HOW to see and experience more and more of this Universe have become as meaningful to me as the ‘factual’ information … maybe even more.

    I second Martha’s suggestion that the ‘new book’ point out “how to ask more open-ended questions that can lead to new understandings.” For me that’s what the Change is about … MUCH more so than ‘is Christianity right/wrong’, ‘can Rita be believed’, or ‘why is there suffering.’

    This (from Cosmic Internet) still sends chills up my back: “It is a great and rare privilege to participate in the coalescing of a new civilization; rarer to participate in a new form of civilization; rarest of all—your fate—to also participate in the coming to consciousness of a new way of being human.”

    I deeply appreciate that privilege!

    1. And you are playing your part! You wouldn’t be here, otherwise, presumably.

      But I don’t see a need for instructions on HOW to ask more open-ended questions. Surely a reminder that this is desirable should be enough to nudge people to do so.

      1. You’d think so … but based on experience I’d say it will take a lot more than ‘a reminder!’ If we (the race) are ‘lucky’, maybe many, MANY reminders will be enough … my fearful side wonders if it will take much stronger ‘nudges’…
        The paragraph preceding the one quoted above (from Cosmic Internet): “Those who cannot create rely upon those who can. It requires much less to adhere to a new vision than to obtain and co-shape it. Your work is to help to shape the vision so that your fellows— many of whom will hate you for the work!—may benefit.”

      2. Hello friends (and the nudges by Rita&Frank on the matters).

        It is sooo VERY nice listening to the conversations to say the least!
        I was sitting here by the PC “listening” to yours when reading about these things; and all of a sudden “heard a word” clearly (in my mind which intuitively I have learned to trust by now), it was the word spelled out clearly as “somebody” sitting here beside of me, and it was told with ONE word:”Homeward-bound.”

        We are “coming home.”
        Well, well, and since “Time” is one of “the Framework Constructions” … THEN, it (is) must be true of us “never have left God” at all?

        Thanks a lot….Happy Days are here again…
        B&B,Inger Lise.

        1. Inger Lise,
          “You’re coming home” was one of the most vivid messages I received at my first TMI session and the following two sessions have for me consistently been on that same theme. At Guidelines I had a guided tour of some elements and extensive Q&A on “Home” and last week at Remote Viewing I had the most astounding visceral experience of “The Path of My Soul” which began with the end of my Earth life.

          I appreciate your insight on time. Wherever or whenever I’m at on the time scale, home is home and there is no other place like it.

          1. John, you are certainly “on the path” toward “enlightenment” by no doubt.

            I`m looking up something in book 9, The Early Sessions by Jane / Rob / Seth about the same,and it says on page 134 / 135 / 136 / 137, session 446 and 447 (I`m jumping around a bit between the pages):
            “When you leave the physical system after reincarnations, you have learned the lessons,and you are literally no longer a member of the human race in those terms, for you elect to leave it. Only the conscious self dwells within it in any case, and it is other portions of your personality who simultaneously dwell within the other training systems. In other more “advanced”systems, thoughts and emotions are automatically and immediately translated into action, into camouflage, into whatever approximation of matter there exists. Therefore the lessons must be taught and learned well.
            The responsibility for creation must be clearly understood.

            Your system is a training ground only for those however who have chosen to go beyond into particular other systems.These systems are interrelated… other training systems are set up for those who embark on entirely different patterns.

            On page 138 is it told to a couple who had lost a 4 year old child… visiting Jane and Rob for a channeling because of the death of their child, and Seth telling them:
            “First, some general advice. Do not go looking willy-nilly. The answers are within yourself and you will find them. You have your own channels into other dimensions.Use them. You will find the way.
            Now. You do not know each other, our guests, and you have come a long way. Therefore we (Seth says”WE”) will give what information or advice that we have on your parts (to Dave and Estelle, the couple asking). For the two of you must grow together more, the husband and the wife. There are cleavages, but the best portions of both of your personalities can be most effectively fulfilled if those cleavages are bridged, bypassed. Now give us a moment.(Pause).

            The boy was briefly with you for his own reasons. He was to enlighten you, and so he did.He was of an ancient ENTITY,and you have known him on other lives. He wanted his mother to look inward. He was at one time his father`s uncle.
            He did not mean to stay within physical reality. He only came to show you what was possible, and to bring the both of you to an understanding of inner reality. He CHOSE his illness, it was not thrust upon him. He did not want to be of the earth. He was done with it, and he only returned so that both of you could learn the truths and inner realities that you are now seeking.
            He was a light, and a light to you, and the light was extinguished. The light will lead you into knowledge that you would not have known otherwise, nor would you have sought it as vigorously. He was well aware of this. He wanted you to begin the pilgrimage that you were beginning, but the pilgrimage is within yourselves.

            He was indeed involved in scientific endeavors, both on Atlantis and in Egypt,but he had no desire to continue those pursuits in this present existence. He had gone beyond them.
            The boy knew all this.
            To the father of the boy:
            You always have control. You are the one who is always in control, and you knew before you and your wife met subconsciously, the circumstances that had gone before, and the reason for your meeting, and your son knew. He went before you as he has gone before you in the past.
            It is not the time for you to go willy-nilly, looking for truth in any tree-top– the truth is inside your own skull, and you at least know how to find it.
            Your son is not a three-year-old any longer. He is an ENTITY older than you, and he has tried to point the way to you.
            The child knew well what he was doing. He was a personality who left you when his own reincarnations were finished.” (The Early Sessions are very detailed in the explanations).

            LOL,Inger Lise.

          2. Thank you Inger Lise. I will search that Seth information. Aren’t we all on our own paths moving toward a similar goal?

  5. John. I have always been fascinated by what Seth says about “The Mass-Consciousness”.
    Seth says it is ever “an extension in consciousness”… and that is something we are in agreement with… all of us here at least.
    Rita&Frank&TGU saying (as E.C., Seth, etc. etc.): “Life and Death are ONE.”
    To me it is as a matter of fact to be aware about it (after many life-spans of being “a warrior”); in “overcoming death” (or, the created death-scenarios throughout the history of mankind when in the physical framework of time).

    Frank is doing a marvelous work (by/with Ruta& TGU), and an exceptional gift (a mission) brought forth in public. The PROCESS (the progress in awareness if putting it in that way), in bringing all the information into “Doings”, the same as Seth did for Jane&Rob.

    Seth says on page 136 (book 9,The Early Sessions):”You are dealing with the transformation of emotional energy into action and form. You then manipulate within the system which you yourself have created, and by its effects learn where you have succeeded and where you have failed (Seth explains so-called “failures” another place in the same session. Very much the same as Rita does).

    AND here comes something VERY interesting by Seth: “The system always includes some fragments who are entering for the first time, as well as individuals in their third or fourth reincarnations (Edgar Cayce said it is MANY MORE…at least 30!?!).

    Where “TIME” can fits into these things will be another “Nutcracker.”
    I have “a feeling” (intuition?) within us, to be in the need “to overcome” the conception about Time one way or the other.

    As you dream, and have a dream existence while still involved in the physical dimension, so is the physical dimension a dream within another dimension in which your consciousness is far more acute. And as in your dream you set up situations and work out problems, so you do the same in your physical existence.

    On page 137: “Often you are aware that you are dreaming. You can change an unpleasant dream by realizing that you are creating it, and that the problems are of your own making. You leave physical reality when you come to the same realization.

    Humanity dreams the same dream at once, and you have your mass world. The whole construction however is like an educational play in which you are the producers as well as the actors. There is a play within a play within a play, mazes of understanding. There is no end to the within of things.
    The dreamer dreams and the dreamer within the dream dreams, and sometimes the dreamers are aware of each other. But the dreams are not meaningless, and the actions within them are highly significant. The whole self is the observer, and also participating in many roles.

    Further: “Problems leading to world wars also cause cause worldwide natural disasters. These are merely another materialization of energy projected by those who have NOT learned how to handle it. SUCH REACTIONS fire through the dream universe also, and reflected through all phases of your activity. The whole self compares the performance of various portions of itself in physical reality and in dream reality, and draws its own conclusions.”

    Hmm, sometimes wonder if Rita&Frank sitting here beside of me on the PC???(smiles).
    B&B,Inger Lise.
    P.S. What I have wondered a great deal about is: How come Robert Butts (Jane`s husband) said after Jane’s death, such as:”When the voice” of Jane died– then, also the voice of Seth “died forever,” because it was ONLY through Jane, Seth was speaking through, as “the entity of Seth” and nobody else.
    Robert Butts stressed in the book after the death of Jane in “NOBODY ELSE” (“ever”) speaking through the voice by Seth.”
    Hmm! To me it must be “an misunderstanding” of the material by the husband ?BUT, OKAY, it CAN be somebody else to try copying the books and the material as their own after Jane`s of course.

    1. Inger Lise, your comments are consistently interesting, and i wish someone would do the work of collecting them so we can find a way to put them together in more accessible form. Your knowledge of the Seth material, by itself, is worthwhile, and combined with the Cayce material and your own experiences, it is very helpful.

      Thanks for the compliment, by the way.

      As to Rob’s comment, i think what he meant was that the Seth-Jane interaction (their temporary-joint-mind “voice”) was unique and could not be repeated because with Jane gone, one half the joint mind was gone. It would be so with Rita and me, as well, or with any two people. That isn’t the same as saying that Seth can never communicate with the world again if he should choose to; but it wouldn’t be the same, any more than Abraham Lincoln coming through would be the same as George Washington, or — on the other end of the line — any more than me being on this end would be the same as Jane Roberts, or Inger Lise

      1. Seth said he wouldn’t come through other channels in order to maintain the integrity of that body of material that he gave to Jane. But he encouraged all of his readers to contact “their own ‘Seth-level'” and get their own answers. Sound familiar? 🙂

        1. Yes, and it’s human to seek attribution and authority over resonance, as Rita often reminds us. in addition, “3D and non-3D minds as well as knowledge coalesce around likemindedness, intent, and focus forming a connected, alive subset of the Universe.” I interpret that to mean our seeking causes the information to flow; the answers flow to the question, so to speak. Didn’t someone say sometime, “Seek and you shall find?”

          1. Absolutely agree with you John in every way (smiles).

            Martha says it well too.

            Frank, YOU gave me one of those “AHA” moments as usual.
            Something “came to mind” this morning:
            (you know I have to deal with two (at least) languages at the same time.
            I have been thinking about “the meaning of words” as such.
            The “aha-moment.”
            Could it be the “Compound Being” = Entity (the word Seth used instead of the “compound being?”)
            And eventually “Strands” = Fragments (used by Seth in the books?)

            In a way is it VERY useful “to deal with” two languages at the same time, because then have TO WORK with the material “into the bone of it” so to speak.
            Not to mention “in using” the intuition&the feeling of it (the whole context).

            And YES,I have experienced “TIME” as “fluid/liquid/transient”, the timelessness of everything, and not as “the static hardware” we are used to thinking it.
            I am convinced it is possible in us”to manipulate” matter.

            Luv ye,
            Inger Lise.

          2. > Could it be the “Compound Being” = Entity (the word Seth used instead of the “compound being?”)
            And eventually “Strands” = Fragments (used by Seth in the books?)

            I don’t know, but i can see it is time — probably past time — for me to be reading the Seth books that sit patiently on my cookcases.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *