“This is what immortality is, and you can no more forfeit immortality than live without breathing.“
A friend told me that she was having a hard time with the idea of talking to a past life. She had had regressions and said it didn’t feel like the description the guys had given and I had passed on. So I asked them for something on the difference between a completed life and an in-process life.
[January 6, 2006]
(10:40)… I know the difference of course – you gave it to Rita and me some time ago in one of the sessions – but would you care to address the subject here?
And if we said no? We smile.
Here is the concept we laid out. Remember, now, a concept is meant as an assistance, not as an idol. And on the other hand, it is as the joke you cited last night – “Please don’t bite my finger; look where I’m pointing.” With these complementary caveats, we proceed.
Move your frame of reference from your life in a body, lived one moment of time-space sequentially at a time, to the other part of you that lives outside of – therefore beyond – time-space. That part of you contains all versions of your life, for as you know each decision, each alternative possibility is fully lived out, though you necessarily are aware of only one version at a time as “real,” the others being regarded as “theoretical” or even “fantasy.”
[This is another long story. For the moment just bear in mind that this is the framework they are working from.].
Contact between individuals is never merely person to person on a Downstairs level. If it is contact between people in bodies, there is Downstairs contact, but more significantly there is contact Upstairs to Upstairs, so to speak. You might think of the communication as going from your Downstairs to Upstairs to the other person’s Upstairs to their Downstairs – and back again. This will become more understandable when you reflect upon things you know about someone’s hidden inner state “intuitively.”
Now, when one in a body contacts another who is not in body – what you might call a past life – the only communication is Upstairs to Upstairs and then down to you on a Downstairs level. But who is it that you are contacting? It depends largely upon your expectations until you know what the situation is (what we’re in the process of explaining); then it becomes a matter of what you intend.
The part of a “person” – we put the word in quotes merely to remind you that you aren’t as much separated individuals as you usually think you are – the part that is outside time and space comprises (among other things!) all versions of an individual, and every moment of all versions of that individual, and a sort of summing-up of the individual. Now, this Upstairs, this completed-person, is alive and conscious, and is conscious not merely of that one life but of everything around it including you. So, you talk, and you talk to a being who on the one hand is the very spit and image of the person, and on the other hand is an eternal being in full conscious relatedness, and on the third hand, so to speak, may be part of your Guys Upstairs!
Let us state this slowly and plainly, without flourish or exaggeration or metaphor: This is what immortality is, and you can no more forfeit immortality than live without breathing.
So – that is what it means to speak to the completed self. If on the other hand you choose to speak to, say, Frank in 1955 – if you choose to speak to the self-in-process rather than the completed-self — here is where complications begin. Because even that self-in-process is connected to the completed-self. How could it not be? So there will be bleed-through as it knows what it “should not” know.
Worse (for you), you will be tying on to one version, not the sum of all possible versions, and you may obtain what we might call a false precision. Worse yet, you may tie onto one version one time, another at another time, and then where is your coherent story?
You – Frank – had problems with brother Smallwood’s story. Suppose you had latched on to an in-process Smallwood?
Enough for now. If any have questions, that will serve as the point of departure.
My thanks as ever.
And ours in return.
Dear Mr DeMarco,
I’ve also experienced confusion, as to different past lives, then wondering, who am I? How do I understand I am the total sum of my experience and not its parts? It’s a confusing question, with probably no simple answer. Reading what you shared helps me understand it in a more concentrate and tangtible way. I’ve thought of “this life” as the physical me, incarnated now, and the “spiritual me” as whatever part of me is invisible, but I like how you say “upstairs” and “downstairs.” I feel that makes things clearer and understandable.
I know this is rather cliche, but one analogy I try to use is that the soul is like a driver, trying out different cars, or having different incarnations in bodies I call lifetimes. When you’ve driven one car long enough, you move on to another. Although the car may not exist anymore, you remember the experience of driving it, even though you now drive another. I guess that different types of cars, such as a red or a blue, a truck or a station wagon, might be like having different identities, such as being male in one life or being European in another.
Even if I tell myself a metaphor like that, I still get confused. Here’s an example I find myself drawing during my long hours at work as a file clerk, and as a student between graduate and undergraduate school.
It reminds me of a particular life in some Navy. In highschool, you are an ordinary sailor, a deckhand perhaps. In college, your considered an officer, as a midshipman! Congrats! Being a graduate, you move up to lieutenant, second in command to captain but not quite there. Graduating, as an associate professor, you can teach, your a captain! Great, but your not quite in control. To be a full professor would be like being a post-captain. Not good enough. As a commodore, it’d be like being the Dean of a department, still not top dog. You might command a group of ships here and then. If you wanna run the show, gotta be an admiral. But wait, there’s different ranks like rear-admiral and what not. Still, it’s like being on some kind of Trust or Board, with everyone quarreling to lead that. To be honest, the UC Board of Regents reminds me of the Admiralty. Why do human beings create large scale institutions, with a hierarchal structures? I have no idea, but I see this type of structure in other facets of society too.
What I try to do is to see, what is it I would like to accomplish now in the present that would make me happy? Is it feeling a oneness with nature at the park? Caring for a friend? Giving someone a smile to let them know I care? I try to focus on little things, but maybe those are the ones that bring happiness. Maybe happiness is that simple, maybe it’s harder. I’m not really sure, but I enjoy learning about your Journey and it’s Experiences! Take care!
God Bless You,
Naomi