Allow me to wish us all a healthy, prosperous, growth-filled year, not just on January first, but all year, every year. And if any of those qualities are missing, or seem to be missing, let us remember that things aren’t always as they seem, and — as the guys continually point out — all is always well.
The nature of contact between individuals
Friends, something on the difference between completed and in-process. 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.”
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 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, in the absence of bodies – 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 life 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.
Why information from the other side is not infallible
[A long-lived perplexity cleared up here — how can information from the guys be real and yet sometimes wrong?]
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. .So how does 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.