Thursday, January 29, 2015
[Where we left off yesterday:
[F: So – I am sure someone will ask – if all possible worlds exist, meaning that all possible choices are made by some aspect of ourselves, what is the point of choosing, what is the point of working to create ourselves?
[R: You are walking the possibilities.
[F: Oh, that explains it! Huh?
[R: We’ll start there next time.]
F: 5:45 a.m. Okay, Rita, here we go again. We are walking the possibilities, you said. Meaning –?
R: Copy the line from yesterday.
F: If you try to understand it while trying to think of life as physical, sequential, and “real,” you can get only a vague and theoretical understanding that will have no application to your life.
R: That’s the one. Writing it out rather than being able to copy it from a computer file engages you in the process, helping mesh our operations. Whenever you get stuck you can try it, it is a simple tool.
F: One I’ve used occasionally in writing, come to think of it, but not for many years. Okay, so –
R: Feel your way back to an understanding of life as a unity – no splits, no physical or non-physical, no “other side,” but one thing all together with, shall we say, specialized locations, or perhaps local specialties. That is, it isn’t at all homogenous, but neither is there any absolute division. And feel yourselves back to a sense of 3D reality being actually a special condition of overall reality, one which is projected from, or say conceived out of the larger reality to produce a test tube’s specialized conditions.
When you remember life that way, it is easier to feel how life is lived as unknowable patterns of energy, presenting themselves as tangible realities, and you don’t have to imagine rocks in your path when you come to move.
F: I got that, but in case anyone didn’t, I take it to mean, if we think of the world as physical and somehow “realer” than energy, it is hard to really get the idea of so many realities being equally existent. The idea of physical reality is one of “rocks in our path.”
R: Exactly. Much easier to think of changing channels.
So. Proceeding from the imaginating starting point
F: That word stopped me.
R: Well, what word would serve better? Imaginative sounds like “we’re going to play pretend.” So does “imagined,” only past tense.
F: I see your point. It just stopped me, is all. Okay, so proceeding from there –
R: You were one time given a vision of reality as not moving events, but planes of an unmoving crystal, planes inside the crystal – not external facets – that were illuminated alternately depending on how one shined a light on it, or perhaps we should say through it.
F: I remember. In my sessions with Skip in 2000, I think.
R: Well, you see, that is a very good metaphor for the underlying situation, if I can explain it.
The world is created. (Not earth, here; I mean physical reality in general.) As it springs into being, all of its potentialities spring into being in exactly the same way as an individual’s potentialities spring into being with his or her conception.
You see? It’s all there from the beginning, because outside of 3D – it isn’t process, it is being.
F: There isn’t any “becoming” about it because it isn’t filtered through successive time-moments, the way we experience life in 3D. That what you mean?
R: Yes. Translated into 3D terms, it looks like “becoming,” because it is so alien to 3D experience to think of something in a state of being rather than becoming.
F: But of course “becoming” is precisely what we do experience here.
R: Of course; that is the intent. It’s in the design. But you can’t understand things in a new way by continuing to see them only in the accustomed way.
F: I understand.
R: Hold that image, of all 3D reality as one giant unmoving and unchanging crystal. (If that is more than you can do comfortably, envisage all aspects of your life as a crystal. The image, not the precision, is the helpful thing here.) The crystal contains all possibilities. By nature, it contains what it is, no more, no less.
Let’s call it a transparent crystal, and let’s put ourselves outside it, with a laser pointer. Shine that laser at the crystal, and it will illumine a path into it. As far as you are concerned – as far as you can tell – only the path illuminated exists; all else is darkness, background. What is illumined is real and everything else is theoretical.
Now change the angle the light strikes the crystal at – ever so slightly or quite a bit different, whichever you prefer. What is illumined changes; what is background includes the path that was previously illumined. What was “real” is now “only theoretical,” or is “unknowable.” What was unknown, perhaps unsuspected, is now clearly seen as “real.”
This, up to this point, is background. Now I move on to what I meant by walking the possibilities, and here I must introduce a complication, though a very clarifying one. The music on a record was only revealed when a needle dragged along the groove of the record. No needle, no perceived sound, although the sound was inherently, latently, really there in the composition of the record.
F: I see where you’re going with this!
R: If what you perceive as 3D reality is the record, your awareness is the needle, even though your awareness is also part of the record (because you and all your experiences are part of it).
F: The guys told us the record and needle analogy as they being the needle, we the record. You’re saying not so simple?
R: Simple enough if you can remember that you are “the guys” as well as your physical existence.
F: Oh yeah. It’s hard to keep that in mind once we sort of move on to other things.
R: Practice, practice. As you get accustomed to thinking in a new way, more sophisticated levels of understanding become possible precisely because you become more able to hold each new awareness in mind as accepted background.
F: So, walking the possibilities.
R: Well, it should be clear enough now. The possibilities are inherent in the creation. But they are not made manifest to the non-3D part of creation until they are experienced in 3D and conveyed.
F: Which means experiencing them as if each were the only reality.
R: That is the set-up. It adds immediacy, interest, intensity. Mostly it adds clarity.
F: Pin-point focus on the flavor of a life led along a path illuminated from a certain angle.
R: Well, don’t get fixated on that image, helpful though it is. Don’t let yourself be led to think of your path as straight and strait, just because you imagine a line to be that way. Light can bounce off slight irregularities and take quite a ride – to switch metaphors.
F: All right, so I gather that – Oh! I think I got it! The point is not us as individuals shaping ourselves (though that is true) but that we experience whatever we experience because of our choices so that the non-3D can experience what until then was only potential.
R: Close enough. And since different versions of yourself experience different lives because of different choices, we in non-3D (so to speak) get to see all the potential, not any one version alone.
F: George Bernard Shaw scoffed at what he said was the Englishman’s conception of the universe as a “moral gymnasium.” This is closer to his point of view, isn’t it?
R: Find the Emerson quote you like and insert it.
[Emerson in 1828, age 25: “If you think you came into being for the purpose of taking an important part in the administration of events, to guard a province of the moral creation from ruin, and that its salvation hangs on the success of your single arm, you have wholly mistaken your business.”]
R: Next time we will begin with Bob’s question about language, which should be easy to dispose of.
F: Well this is extremely interesting, Rita. Thank you on behalf of your audience, whoever they are or may become.
R: Till next time, then.