In January 2006, while I was in the middle of receiving lots of information from the other side, several things happened that once again shook my confidence — for in this whole process, I have never been certain that I was right or even that I knew what I was doing. Much closer to say the opposite. (If you cannot stand ambiguity or uncertainty and if you cannot stand the feeling of being lost, exploring probably is not for you.)
Not only was I unable to obtain verification of Joseph Smallwood’s story as I went along, but when a friend asked me to obtain information from the other side, and I did, it turned out that what I had brought back was smoke. It didn’t match the case at all. Yet the information that I was bringing back — and promptly posting to a Monroe Institute group — was proving helpful to people. How could I sometimes be receiving information that was helpful and at other times receive information that was wrong? It never made sense to me. A little discussion with the guys upstairs shed light on the question.
* * *
January 6, 2006
(2:30 pm.) So on the one hand, wonderful material and it resonates with people. On the second hand, Mary Ann sets me a blind question and you guys strike out entirely but with utter confidence. How does all this come together and – mostly – how can you guys be wrong?
We know a sincere troubled question when we hear it, and the sincerity deserves an answer regardless other things.
If you were to be sure that anything you said was true – this is different from Psychics’ Disease – how?
Ouch. I hadn’t thought of that.
Over-reliance on intuitive powers, we remind you, is something we did warn you against.
What I’m getting between the lines – and I can hear you saying “exactly!” before I even finish writing it – I get that I can’t get certain kinds of information from you.
It is a delicate balance on our end. On the one hand, not to put any barrier to access. On the other, not to encourage dead-ends. Your choice, always, but we do not need to, nor intend to, facilitate the making of what we see as bad choices. And this moves us into deeper waters than first appeared. As you see, we are continually needing to open a topic with a greatly over-simplified bird’s-eye view so that, once you have oriented yourself, we may proceed to enter qualifiers, contradictions, caveats, and swirls and eddies.
But we can explore conscience, and the choosing among paths, and our nudgings, and free will, at another time. Too bad you don’t have more acquaintance with theology.
I can hear a hint. I bought the books. I just can’t make them read themselves.
I get this: This is expanded access, and it is real access. But nothing obtained in this way is to be taken on faith any more than information obtained any other way.
Exactly! Exactly. No less – but no more. It is a question of resonance, and willingness to go one way rather than another – and of guidance considered at a whole new level.
I begin to see.
* * *
Perhaps you do too. I began this process of developing access to guidance assuming that anyone on the other side would have access to all knowledge. I assumed therefore that I would have access to all knowledge, secondhand. That doesn’t seem to be the way it works. But how it does work remains to be seen. Or rather, remains to be experienced.