December 19, 1991 Thursday Morning, Aaron's Christmas Stories and Q&A

Aaron: My greetings and love to all of you. This week before your annual commemoration of the birth of he whom you name Jesus I promised to speak to you about some of my memories of that being in that lifetime. Last night I spoke about him at length. Since many of you were here I will not repeat that now. I will assume that the transcript will be available to those who were not present.

What I emphasized in my talking of him last night was the importance of his humanness. Those who came to be his followers related to him not because they thought of him as God, but because of the very beautiful human qualities in him … that he was not above the suffering that we all encountered. He did not set himself apart, nor wish to be worshipped in any way. He did not call himself God.

(Long pause.) I'm sorting out memories. There was a time when I was with him and he was traveling. We came to a village where his reputation had preceded him. There were those who shunned him and those who sought him. Those who came after him wanted to hold him up on a pedestal. They brought out food and wanted to serve him and to set an elaborate table. This was a rural and rustic village. When I say "to set an elaborate table," I mean to bring the best of the food they had. He sat down, as did others … not at a table, on the ground.

They brought him a plate of sorts with … more of a bowl, with many foods in it. And they served him first. I know he was hungry. We all were. We had been traveling for several days with little food. At the outskirts of the circle was a young child watching, and he was thin. There was obviously some scarcity of food in this village. And those beings that chose to honor him by serving him their food were serving the very best they had.

So, there was this child watching. One of those who was serving, noticing Jesus looking at the child, went to shoo the child away: "Get out of here! Go on!" And said to him, "That is the child of one who disdains you." The child was very thin and had sores on his body, and Jesus simply stood up and took the bowl of food, carried it to the child. The child was frightened, seeing this man walking toward him and having been told to go. But in a very soft voice he said, "I will not hurt you. Would you like food?" And he sat down on the ground, held the bowl out, handed it to the child. He asked for clean cloths and water. While the child ate, he washed his sores.

Just that. There was no lecture. Certainly, he could have used it as an example: Love your enemy. Words were totally unnecessary. The simplicity and grace of his gesture was all that was needed.

There were other children there. This one had been the boldest. The others approached. Seeing this one eating, they became a bit bolder. And this food was shared with all. Somehow there was plenty. I don't know if he did it or how it happened, but there was enough for all to eat who were hungry.

There was another day that I remember when we were in a very poor hut. Please do not mistake my stories to think that I was very close to him or followed him all the time. He traveled a good bit and when he came near to where I lived and word came that he would be there, I would have the great joy of spending a few days with him before I needed to return to my family, my sheep, my responsibility. There were many with him. I was not one of a chosen or select few in any way.

We were gathered in a barn of some sort … flimsy shelter against a great storm. The roof was leaking … not just here and there, but everywhere. And yet, it was still better than no shelter. There was material present to mend the roof, a thatch of sorts. The being whose barn it was was injured, unable to do that work. So, when the rain intermittently let up, some of the younger and stronger of us went out in the cold and rain to repair the roof as best we could, to put some of this new thatch on it. It is a job far easier to do in nice weather. And yet, it can be done in inclement weather.

He came with us. He didn't have to. He could have stayed inside in the driest spot. He didn't talk about it-he just came. Such work in cold weather may lead one's hands to become raw and bleeding, especially the fingertips. His hands bled along with ours. I'm sure he could have stopped that, had he wanted to. Instead, he bore it with all of us. When we were done and came inside, he simply took each of our hands in his, not to perform miracles, but as way of saying thank you, just of sharing the comradeship. And somehow in his touch, much as I told last night, there was some healing.

I'm sure that he could have thoroughly healed those torn hands of ours. He was able to perform such miracles, although I never saw him perform them. He chose not to awe us with his miracles, but to do his healing quietly. Simply at his touch the pain receded, almost to the point that we weren't aware of how it happened. It wasn't until thinking about it much later that I realized that it had been his touch that had taken away some of the pain and soreness and led to prompt healing of the split skin.

This spirit that is presently Barbara was my son in that lifetime, the son of a poor shepherd. That being that she was was a boy named Mark. She's seen this lifetime, it's something that I've shared with her … not because there was a need to know, not because there was karma, but simply as a small gift to her, a very joyous memory. When he was first old enough to travel-perhaps seven years old-old enough to walk that distance, I took him with me on my annual pilgrimage to meet with he who was known as Jesus. We walked for several days and Mark did an admirable job of keeping up, but he was tired, his feet sore, a bit hungry. When we arrived at the place where Jesus was … Perhaps I should let Barbara tell this one as she remembers it from her own viewpoint, and I can only tell you how I remember it as the father. But her memory of it may mean more to you.

Barbara: At one point I was dealing with Aaron with many heavy past lives and I said to him, "Aaron, can I never see a past life where there is beauty and love?" … and saw just a glimpse of this past life. I've seen other glimpses of this lifetime with Aaron. But this one hour or so of it was so very beautiful.

This man was standing there and I knew from a distance … It's awkward to keep saying, "the being that I was"-please understand that if I say "I" it's not me, it's that being who I was, but I'm going to simplify the talking about it by saying "I."

I knew immediately which one he was. He wasn't bigger or taller or different-looking than the other people that were gathered, but he radiated light … literally. Aaron-my father-brought me up to him and he simply said, "This is your son." And Aaron said, "His name is Mark." He just said, "Hello, Mark." Food was brought-we had been traveling and we were hungry. I was a small child; I ate and adults were speaking above my head. I became drowsy. I was just mesmerized by the energy and presence of him. After I ate, my head started to droop, and I dozed. I felt his arm come around me and just pull me over, putting my head against his chest. That memory means more to me than almost any memory I have. When I'm feeling afraid, when I'm feeling alone, I come back to that memory, and how immense and powerful his energy was. There's nothing profound to tell about it, it's just one of the most quietly joyful memories that I have … that in the midst of talking to all these men, he could notice a young child falling asleep and lovingly pull him over to sleep against him … and how much love and comfort there was in that. It's a memory that I very much cherish.

Aaron: I was not an educated being, nor political. I didn't really understand the political forces of that time. I was a very simple person. What I responded to most was his love, his humility, his honesty, his kindness. But I also responded to his humanness, to the fact that he grieved, that he felt sadness as well as joy, that he felt pain when his body was injured, that he was clearly human.

People have asked me here about the stories of his divine birth, let us say, through a virgin and I've declined to answer that. Each religion builds the myths that are useful to it. In saying it that way, I'm not saying this is simply a myth. It doesn't matter. He was human. However he came to this incarnation, by whatever route he moved into human form, once in human form he was human. I've spoken before about seeing this as one of the greatest gifts that he gave.

Last night I was asked, "Are there others like Christ and the Buddha who have walked the Earth, who do so today?" There are many beings who have reached that level of evolution, but very few who, having reached that level of evolution, have returned to human form-very few. In incarnating as a human, he was a part of the law of karma. Any anger, hatred or fear within him could lead to adhering karma and the need to return again and again. He knew that. He knew that he would be incarnate with only the thinnest transparency of this veil of forgetting that most of us have, so that he had clear memory of who he was and why he came. And yet, he also knew that he would be human. He was still willing to come.

There are many highly-evolved beings who serve humans-who serve all beings, human or non-human-from the spirit plane, but very few who have willingly chosen to come back and serve from the human plane. And yet, it's the only way it could have been done. It's one thing to receive divine guidance and another to see a fellow being practice what he preaches, even to his own death. The power of that is very forceful, very profound. And this, to me, is his greatest gift: his willingness to serve, even to that degree … and the fact that he didn't take advantage of his clear seeing of who he was and why he had come to avoid, in any way, the pain of being human.

Can you see that even the smallest avoidance of that would have set him apart … so that his teaching could not have been nearly as effective? And he knew that.

I was also asked last night if Christians who have some belief in Christ are more evolved in some way. And I said that every religion on Earth is a viable path to freedom, to graduation from this human plane. What is a Christian? The church has distorted the meaning of this word. Perhaps more murder and ill will has been performed in Christ's name than love has been performed, sad though that may be. There are a great many Christians who are not members of the church, but like those of us who did not call ourselves Christians in his time but simply followed this being whom we called Jesus, there are beings who are intent on learning to forgive and love each other, to not harm another being, and learning these lessons of love. In doing that, most certainly they are followers of him, whatever religion they choose to belong to. It has nothing to do with the Christian church, only that they follow the lessons taught by a great master. That is all.

D: Was Jesus called Jesus back in that lifetime when you knew him, or was he called by another name?

Aaron: Some called him Jesus, some called him the carpenter, or the carpenter from Nazareth. In some circles, he was simply known as "the teacher." Yes, there were many teachers. And yet, he came to be called that by many. When I say he whom you know as Jesus, perhaps I do that more to distinguish because, of course, the spirit also lived many other lives. Yes, he had reached the point where he no longer needed to incarnate in human form, but to reach that point he had lived a great many lives. So, in naming him in that way I am referring to that specific incarnation of this spirit.

(Many pages deleted as not directly relevant.)

A: I have the sense that J is wondering about South America and some of the cultures that existed there. I am wondering also about the idea that Jesus came to this hemisphere and taught also. (Barbara: During that lifetime?) Or at another time.

Aaron: Let's save your questions on South American culture and spirituality for another week. Did he who was known as Jesus come to this hemisphere to teach in that lifetime? No. Unequivocally, no. That does not mean that what he taught might not have been taught by other entities in this hemisphere in much the same time frame. But he himself did not come here. Nor did he reincarnate after his death in that lifetime. That entity who was known as Jesus in that incarnation did live in this hemisphere in prior incarnations. He was not yet fully evolved, but still was a great teacher … a very wise and compassionate being. Does that answer your question?

A: Did Jesus evolve through the Earth plane?

Aaron: Yes.

(The remainder of the session has not been reviewed by Barbara and Aaron.)

Q: Were there cultures on Earth before those that we normally know about?

Aaron: There were cultures such as Atlantis, Q, but they are known about and they were not widespread over the whole Earth, but focused in one part of the Earth. Does that answer your question?

(There is some talk about extra-terrestrial or any type of nonhuman influence on humans in ancient times.)

Aaron: There are two types of beings who came to Earth in ancient times. Because such extra-terrestrial beings arrived in space ships, arrived from space, they were commonly thought to be gods. Because they were not human many of them had attributes that led those who were human to think of them as gods, not just that they had the technology, but that they were telepathic, that they had refined healing skills, and so on. They had an advanced understanding of energy which allowed them, for example, using their own body energy as a shield, to deflect a missile of some sort thrown at them back to that being that threw it. Not catching it and re-throwing it, simply reflecting it.

I've said that such beings came from two places. A few were positively-polarized, more were negatively-polarized. Many of those who were negatively-polarized came from Orion galaxy. There was a watchfulness among more advanced beings of the evolution of Earth and a “hands off” kind of a policy. Much of that is described in your series, Star Trek, that one does not intervene with the growth of beings on a planet or alter its culture in any way. And positively-polarized beings agreed to and adhered to that policy, watching from a distance, offering guidance in the form of spirit guidance, but always observing the free will of the entities, as I observe your free will.

There were other beings, negatively-polarized beings, who did not completely adhere to that policy, who created some distortions. They brought with them concepts of service to self, which they brought into societies that were very much polarized to service to others, societies that were very free of a central ego, where there was much love and sharing. And into such a society they brought the concept of “me,” of power hunger, and so on.

You might ask, “How could this be allowed to happen? How can those beings that are positively-polarized not stop negatively-polarized beings from bringing harm? Is it not their responsibility?” Yes, but to intervene by stopping them is still intervention. If a child is about to touch a very red-hot stove and get burned, you stop him. If a child has a box of candy and is eating too much, you might mention, “You might get a stomach-ache.” If he persists, perhaps you need to let him eat it, get that stomach-ache and feel sick for a bit and learn the lesson.

So, one must be very careful where one intervenes and where one does not, and that that intervention in itself is not a further disruption of free will. It seems to me that the introduction of negativity to those societies served a purpose, that it brought elements of self into a society so that those who were part of that society could evolve even further, moving past that element of self.

It's much like the story of Gurdjieff that you've heard me talk about. The being that was so unpleasant and finally left, and Gurdjieff went after him and asked him to come back, paid him to come back. And the people in the community said, “How could you invite him back?” And he said, “He's the yeast for the bread. How else will you learn?”

So, perhaps the yeast of this intervention by negatively-polarized beings was necessary to introduce negativity to those cultures in a deeper ways and allow them the opportunity to confirm their positivity. Those beings who serve as guides to you, who are more highly-evolved beings beyond the third density, most certainly saw what was happening, but came to a decision that their intervention would take away a catalyst for learning and be a distortion of free will in itself. That if these beings who were human wished to welcome these negatively-polarized entities into their midst, a far wiser way of dealing with it was to remain available to those third density entities as guides, to be there when they needed help, but to let them deal with it themselves.

I do not mean to imply that all UFO's that are seen on Earth, that are extra-terrestrial entities, are negatively-polarized, but there are very few positively-polarized entities who come to Earth and make their powers known. There are those beings that we call wanderers who come to Earth but do so by incarnating into an Earth body, and, as such, they're fully human. They may have memories of special skills and the ability to work telepathically with their guides, to bring higher knowledge to Earth, but they do so from the standpoint of being human and, as such, there is no danger of distorting free will. Does that answer your question or would you like me to speak further on it?

Q: Why does Aaron not like to tell us the dates of past lives?

Aaron: It simplifies my work, Q. If I make it a policy not to share anything that's not directly relevant to your present learning and stay with that, I have far fewer personal decisions to make. There is only once that I've told a being who continually nagged me about a past life, about his name in that life and the dates that he lived, the town that he lived in, and afterward, doing some research into that being, he was sorry, as I projected he would be, that he had nagged me for the information. In telling him, I was not shaking the puppy. Rather, I was allowing the child to eat the box of candy, get its own stomach ache and learn.

I'm not saying that harm would come out of it in every situation, but it just simplifies it to say, “If it's not relevant, you don't need to know.” Is that sufficient?

Q: We're like modern American children: we want to know why. We don't take the word of our elders without questioning it.

Aaron: Nor should you, Q. There's no reason not to question. I am not a final authority on anything, and I value all of your input. I simply have the right to say, “No.” That is all.

Q: Aaron said that all religions are leading people on a path. What about atheists?

Q: Or Islam, where violence is taught as a way.

Q: Or Jimmy Swaggart? Or Jim and Tammy Bakker? Televangelists who are using religion to make money?

Q: Or non-religion?

Aaron: I need to be more careful with the way I word things. All religions that are founded by a being, who is clear in his or her connection with God and all that is, that are first founded by a being of positive polarity and in service to others, are viable paths. In the case of a religion that has become distorted to teach violence, I would suggest that those people who are followers of that religion need to move in that direction to understand the difference between violence and non-violence.

Using children as an example again. Those of you with children know that when you have several three-year-olds playing together and they're having trouble sharing some toys, no matter how much you talk to them about it, if they're of equal size and they're not physically harming each other, sometimes it's best to step aside and let them work out the diplomacy of it themselves. They need to understand how sharing works at times by being the one that pulls away and sees the other angered by it, that the other children won't play with it. And also by being the one from whom the toy is pulled away and experiencing that hurt. There are beings who are learning that in terms of violence and non-violence and perhaps they need that same kind of experimentation. I'm not condoning the violence that grows out of that. I'm just saying that nothing is entirely negative.

When you talk about a religion founded by beings who are simply doing it to become wealthy, it's not what I call religion.

Atheism. God exists regardless of whether we acknowledge Its existence. I hesitated there because I was about to say “His” and thought perhaps I should say “Hers,” and I'm hesitant to say either “His” or “Hers” as God is neither masculine or feminine. And yet, “Its” just doesn't sound right. There is no proper pronoun in the English language adequate for such use. So, God exists whether we acknowledge God's existence or not.

Part of what you are learning, a large part of what you're learning in this lifetime is faith. Think how much easier it is to have faith, to practice and learn faith, when you have had a direct experience of God. When you've seen through this veil clearly, even for just a few moments—even if it does not stay with you as direct experience, but only becomes the memory of that experience—it still has a force to it which helps you maintain your faith.

Perhaps those who are atheists are having to learn faith in a harder way without the additional help of such experiences of God because they haven't learned it many times in the past and they've set themselves up a situation where they're going to be pushed against a wall a bit to learn. Some beings have what we call “blind faith.” It doesn't come out of deep insight, but out of clinging. And many of those who are atheists choose that course as a reaction against blind faith, and that, too, is part of their learning.

Is that sufficient, or would you like me to speak further on this?

Q: I remember that I wanted to share something about what we were talking about last week. We were talking about the ability to feel anger and compassion simultaneously, or is it alternating? If Hebrew was the only language you spoke, then until 1973, you could be angry or feel helpless or upset, but not frustration because there was no word in Hebrew for that experience. So, we need a word for the combination of anger and compassion.

Q: “Companger!”

(Aaron's answer is not on the tape—microphone was not properly connected.)

Q: What happens if my needs and wants oppose someone else's? I realize that I, through acceptance or being, can accept the other person's wants and needs, and accept my giving up my wants and needs; but I'm still aware of my feeling about it. For example, Q and I have different sexual needs. I know that we both enjoy making love and it brings us closer and makes us stronger, so it seems right to do so. But Q does not want to make love as often as I do. So, here are my needs and Q's needs, and I always give up; but I'm left with the feelings.

Aaron: Here we come back to awareness and acceptance. There are different levels of awareness. One is awareness of feelings. A higher level of awareness is awareness of who and what you truly are. When there's no self or other, then there's nobody to oppose you, even if at the human level it feels like you're being opposed.

Let's put this in very simple terms. You want this. He or she wants that. This is important to you. That's important to him or her. And there's no way to compromise it; it's either this or that. You want white Christmas lights on the tree and she wants colored Christmas lights on the tree. You want to plant an evergreen between your yard and your neighbor's and your neighbor wants to plant lilacs.

Being aware of the anger is only part of it. Especially in a situation like you've given as an example where it's not just a one-time situation, but recurrent. Being aware of the anger helps to keep you from reactivity but, nevertheless, every time the situation reoccurs there's anger about it and an increasing resentment, even if you talk about it. When you can see clearly how that anger creates the sense of separation, the sense of “there's somebody to oppose me,” and find acceptance of that separate self, it helps to take you back to a deeper level of connection with your neighbor who wants the lilacs, with your lover whose sexual need differs from your own. It helps to remind you that you're not two.

At that point, something very wonderful happens. In the midst of watching the human reacting—feeling pain, feeling deprivation or frustration or anger—the heart opens with such a sense of compassion and understanding that the issue becomes very irrelevant. You start to see how much the issue is an ego matter—even in a case where it is also partly an expression of physical need.

Essentially, what's happened is that the emotional body—that part that says, “I need, I want”—dissolves and you have clear seeing through the eyes of your higher self, not seeing through your higher self's eyes so much as really becoming for that moment your higher self. At that moment of clear seeing, there's only connection. And, while the human is suffering with the issues, the higher self is laughing about the whole thing. That degree of equanimity that arrives at that point—that knows that while on one level it truly does matter while on another level it doesn't matter at all—allows a profound relaxation of the “I,” of the “I need, I want,” and anger does stop arising. Not because you've tried to get rid of it, but because you've seen through the “I” that promotes it.

Let me put this in some very specific terms for several of you. The “I” that says “I want to make love; I feel deprived of that experience,” as it dissolves there's still a human feeling some degree of deprivation, and there's another aspect, the higher self, hugging that human and saying, “It's okay.” at which point, you move into a clarity of understanding that allows a previously impossible communication. What are her needs? What are my needs? She would not choose to make love as often. Is it the sex itself or the closeness that I value? Can we lie together in bed and simply both read whatever it is we're reading, feeling the closeness of each other's physical presence and enjoying each other in that way? What other ways can we find to connect ourselves to each other? It's a clear seeing that comes once the “I”—”I need, I want” and all the fear that's inherent in that -dissolves.

I have been speaking of this, in a sense, personally with one of you who wishes her partner were more available to her at times, resents the time that he spends in other pursuits. There's recurrent pain and anger about it, and I said recently to that being that it was important to look at the judgment that's there: Should I be angry? Is this a situation where it's okay to be angry? And to acknowledge that if there's anger, then there's anger. It's not that it's “okay-anger” or “not-okay-anger.” You don't have to give yourself permission to feel anger, just awareness: feeling angerwithout any regard as to whether it's appropriate to be feeling anger at that point. We're not talking about reactivity to the anger—about lashing out at another because there's anger—we're just talking about the feeling. Anger doesn't come only when it's appropriate; anger comes when anger comes, when the entity feels threatened or hurt in some way, or feels fear. So, I suggested the value of watching not the anger itself, but the judgment around the anger.

Coming back to Q's question, I wonder if there's also judgment: I shouldn't be angry; her needs are different. I don't have a right to be angry. Even a very subtle level of judgment. Because what I'm seeing is that the anger is staying solid. With the repeated nature of the catalyst there's a recurring level of ongoing resentment. When permission is given to feel one's feelings, it does take one out of the place of self, does give you a higher and clearer perspective and sense of connection where there's no more fear, no more threat, no more self and other. And at that place of connection, through clear seeing, there are so often ideas—not of compromise—but of real creative solution. What are the real needs that are being expressed here? When I see anger not dissolving it makes me feel that there's still judgment of some sort or another: I shouldn't be angry. And so, you get stuck in the same pattern over and over again.

I want to look at this from a different perspective. Now, I've been responding to this specific situation. Why are you put in that situation in the first place? What if your needs and someone else's needs seem to conflict? And there's no right or wrong to the needs, they're just conflicting? As I've been speaking about judgment, do you see how wonderful an opportunity that situation is to learn about judgment? It's easy when your needs are clearly—I hesitate to use the word “right” and “wrong”—when your needs are clearly “service to other” and another's needs are clearly “service to self”. When your needs are clearly to avoid harming of others and another's needs are to harm others in service to self, then you have no trouble with judging yourself. If you feel anger, you feel anger, and it's easier to feel compassion for that being who is so frightened and so service to self because there's no judgment of yourself. It's much harder when there's no clear right or wrong because you do move into judgment: is it appropriate to be feeling anger here? And as soon as you do that, you can't say, “Just feeling anger” and let the anger go through. The story of “Is it appropriate?” and the judging solidifies the anger, creates a repeating pattern of it.

So, such situations, where there's no apparent right or wrong to it, just two beings with conflicting needs, are a wonderful opportunity to observe how anger moves to judgment, how you must ask yourself, “Is my anger appropriate?” or any other heavy emotion, and to focus, not on the emotion itself, but on your reaction to the emotion. And to see if focusing on that reaction leads you to understand the patterns of judgment in yourself a little more so that that may begin to dissolve and you may move to a less judgmental place toward yourself and toward all beings. Are there questions?

(no further recording)