Friday, October 22, 2010
F: 6:45 AM. Guys, I’ve had an insight in the past few days. I have known and not known, all this time, haven’t I? I have a robot that says, “don’t allow yourself to believe in all this, or any of it, lest you become a gulled flake.”
But that isn’t what I want. I want to experience, and assimilate, and build from there. I don’t want to reject, and I don’t want to accept, blindly in either case. So how do I do this?
The Guys Upstairs: You don’t customarily weigh input that you have come to accept as normal — what you see, what you hear, latterly what you feel (though there was a time when you didn’t feel, or allow yourself to feel, or know how to feel). You can’t be continuously distrusting input and at the same time easily and spontaneously be accepting and using that input. That is at most a transitional situation.
F: And how do I avoid Psychic’s Disease?
TGU: Pre-program it. Use your control panel.
F: That seems a bit risky, depending on that. Wouldn’t any psychic tend to rely on just that, and doesn’t the result tend to come to the same thing? We’re still back to “I feel it, therefore it’s true.”
TGU: This is a valid concern for you and for everyone, so we’ll address it (with due regard for the irony involved in your receiving psychic validation of the need for caution in obtaining psychic validation).
F: Well, don’t think the irony is lost on me!
TGU: No, we understand, of course.
Suppose we define two polar-opposite positions. One is totally open to input, the other totally closed to it. These two extremes may in fact consist of different axes. For instance, one may be closed or open to the idea of psychic input, or to the reality of it, or to the validity of it.
Thus, six positions, just to begin.
Open………………………….. Closed
1……….…. Idea……………. 2
3…………. reality……..…… 4
5………… validity…………. 6
Position two maintains that it can’t ever happen; position four, that it happens but isn’t happening to the person involved; position six, that it is happening but doesn’t mean anything, or at least doesn’t mean anything non-pathological.
Conversely, position one says it is a part of life; three says it is occurring in a given instance; five says whatever is received is valid.
These are subtly and often not so subtly different positions.
Now, consider that if there are six extremes, there are more than six intermediate positions. We won’t bother to spell them out — you aren’t in the mood to sit still for it even if it would be worthwhile — but even two intermediate positions along three axes would provide an additional 12 positions possible. Work it out in Excel if you care to, if it would amuse you.
F: So the proper attitude would be –?
TGU: The proper attitude for what you want, at this time in your life, is not a universal, of course.
F: No. Understood.
TGU: Try this on and if it fits comfortably, adopt it. If not, modify it to fit comfortably.
F: I do like your attitude (though I suppose it figures that I would, or I would connect to others with a different attitude, wouldn’t I?) in that it doesn’t try to wrest control from me.
TGU: Just the opposite, in fact. We are trying to assist you to take ever greater control of your life by opening you up to greater spaces internally. (“Greater spaces internally” is a metaphor, naturally, which ought to be obvious but perhaps can bear repeating.)
Why don’t you try this? Others should find their own preferred positions. One size definitely does not fit all.
Be open to any idea of possible psychic reality. Don’t close the door on any possibility — which means, don’t close the door on any possibility. Did you hear that?
F: Yes. Refusing to admit a possibility is closing the door against it. It is pre-defining it out of effective existence for me.
TGU: Very common. Universal, in fact, because you can only deal with a subset of reality. Some people’s subsets are larger than others, and few people’s subsets entirely overlap, though they may not and usually do not realize it, but nobody can encompass reality. The being that could is the conceptualization you consider God. Not one of the gods, either, but the only being that could encompass everything. Obviously — is it obvious? — only one being can encompass all of reality, and all other beings must be a subset of that overarching being.
F: Interesting side trip into theology.
TGU: Not theology at all; cosmology and very practical psychology. We are merely telling you that neither you nor we nor anything nor anybody can see and know and experience and encompass all things except — at most — one all-transcendent being. You can argue whether an all-transcendent being exists, but you can’t argue about the fact that you aren’t it! And, neither are we. So, we exist perceiving subsets of reality, defining things into or out of existence.
So. You could choose to admit into your subset of reality the idea that any possible perception or experience may exist. This would be a position of radical openness to the idea of psychic input. You would still have to decide (if only by default) your position on the reality and the validity of such input.
If you define yourself to be radically open to real and valid experience, having defined yourself as radically open to the idea of it all, you are going to have a very different life henceforth.
F: And I suppose the fear of the new defines our degree of openness or closed-ness.
TGU: Not only fear, though this is a big one. There are other things in life that may be important. Psychic exploration is only one path of many.
F: Should I think about all this, or just choose? Or, indeed, have I already chosen long ago?
TGU: Yes but no. Yes, you chose when your internal makeup was decided, before you were born. No, you choose as you go along. You know the situation by now. Free choice within previously drawn limits.
F: Yes. Well, my druthers are,
Absolutely open ideas of what is possible, which has not been the case to now.
Openness to experience as much as I can assimilate, with more being assimilated as I assimilate more previously, provided it is real and valid. No interest in exploring fantasy or fears or delusions.
TGU: Well, as Jean-Luc Picard would say, “make it so.”
F: Thank you. We’ll see if the ride changes.
Frank, you no doubt sense how welcomed this material is to those of us who are constantly wrestling with ourselves on the same subjects.
Sooner or later we all have to find a way to deal with these issues in our own way, and this helps.
I once asked my guidance, which I am newly referring to now as the Other Parts of Me (OPM) what I should do with doubt. Their simple answer: “Throw it away.”
John
You didn’t ask me, but I would have said throw away the anchors on both sides: Throw away doubt, throw away certainty. What’s left will be more than enough to add interest to your life!
I agree completely. The only certainty is that whatever you previously believed to be certain will eventually be shown to be not so, at least not so simple as!
This speaks to “where I’m at” lately as well. This past week has been, at times, almost hellish, and I think it is because there are a lot of “old issues”–from this life, certainly–that are coming up to be healed. For me, the “heavier anchor”, to use the above analogy, is “doubt”, esp. w/ all the earlier messaging (from family and former best friends) to “not look foolish” or “be considered insane” (and w/ a “history” in my family of “mental illness”, that latter has been quite the “onus”!)
It seems I need a better way/ritual/method of communing w/ my own “Upstairs”, w/out wandering off into self-conversations of “how would I explain this to anyone else?” An obvious answer popped up just now, “You don’t. Just do it.”
A dream I had yesterday morning contained powerful symbology of how I’ve allowed certain limiting ideas to “take up residence” in my “building”. Some resided in the basement, and represented the “Rationalist/Materialist” ideas, while “upstairs” was an unruly, hulking group of “teenagers”/ideas, riding motorcycles and go-karts indiscriminately thru the hallways (I could even smell the thick exhaust of the engines!)
And I am certainly all too familiar w/ “fear”, but are there litmus tests for “fantasy” and “delusion”?
Craig
Reading this, i thought, maybe you should ask, before you go to sleep, for a dream that will help you communicate better; ask for something practical (it won’t necessarily have to be a ritual, could be just a simple different way of looking at things). Ask that the dream be meaningful, comprehensible, and that you will remember it. As to litmus tests, I think the simplest thing is just, “does it resonate,” and try trusting your life and your inner crap-detector.
Frank,I have thought upon”the memory-bank”labored within us en masse lately.
And in the latest issue of “Venture Inward,” the magazine of Edgar Cayce`s A.R.E., something very interesting caught my mind especially. It is about Atlantis and Lemuria:
“Truly,human-like beings were on our planet about 2.8 million years ago.Astonishingly, their genes DOUBLED and there was a rapid wiring of their frontal cortex.This rapid change produced their more complex brain with its large frontal lobe, differentiating humans from animals, even apes. Along with the “Cambrian Explosion” this rapid change is another un-evolutionary explosion. Add to this that dramatic climate change occurred 200,000 years ago, causing an even more advanced human, Homo Sapiens, to burst on the scene with behaviors that helped survival in changing climates. But this still doesn`t explain the legends and lore of Lemuria and Atlantis.
Edgar Cayce`s readings indicate that around 210,000 BC,Atlanteans appeard on this planet (554 of Cayce`s 2,5oo life readings refer to Atlantis).
According to his reading of the Akashic Record, early Atlanteans were semi-physical beings, not as solid as we are today. They were more mind than body, and were naturally psychic. (see the 364-series of readings on Atlantis.)
Cayce also stated that the Lemurians of the South Pacific predated the Atlanteans of the Atlantic, and Lemurians were not physical but more like ghosts or spirits; only much later was the term applied to primates on Madagascar. Lemurians were not humans as we know them, because they were not walking around in material bodies. (436-2 and 364-1o)
Atlanteans eventually developed physical bodies, though still not as densely physical as we are.
We know that very physical, muscle-and-bone, bipedal hominids (anthropoids and humans) were on this planet during the era of Lemuria and Atlantis. We consider them as primitive humans or”ape-men”.
According to many sources, including Cayce, among these primitives there also existed isolated areas of highly sophisticated beings that were human-like. These beings possessed an awareness of the forces of Nature, and used these forces to build megalithic structures oriented to the stars, planets, cardinal points of Earth`s electromagnetic field,and the seasons.
And according to Cayce`s readings it was around 50,000 BC that Atlantis began its destruction with the first of a series of violent earth changes. And Lemuria`s destruction predates Atlantis`s.
Could a binary star like Scholz`s (the Scholz-binary-system-discovery in 2013) was told about at first, under the title:TWO SUNS IN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM) explained in the same Magazine Issue.
The answer according to Cayce is “yes”. Cayce`s reading 5757-1 teaches that attitudes and emotions of the children of God (that`s us) affect celestial objects (and not the other way around) because there is an unseen Oneness among all we see.
He states that sunspots are a result of humanity`s strife, hatred, and violence.
And just as the Tower of Babel resulted in the confusion of tongues (Gen.11:1-9), the Sun reacts with massive flares that disrupt communications on Earth when souls of the Oneness flare up their negative emotions and vibrations.
Well,I have to end the quotes for now–as there is a whole lot more interesting material about it in the same issue– AND Seth had something very interesting about the very same as well. (session 503,September 24,1969. The Early Sessions book 9).
LOL,Inger Lise
P.S. I am not leaving for Sweden before Wednesday the coming week (I was a week ahead of time as usual).
(I just found your follow-up comment today; have been offline for over a week, mainly to “heal overheated circuits”–mine!)
Your suggestion coincides w/ what I wrote in my journal this A.M.; that I needed to get back into “dream analysis”, at least of the ones which strike me as “significant”. Asking for clarification is a good suggestion as well; some of my symbols are pretty inscrutable (at least they would be to most anyone else, viewing from the “outside”)!
Indeed; it does get back to “what resonates” w/ me; I can then pursue it further (thru dreams, asking my own “Upstairs”, meditation), and see “where I get”…
Craig
Another way you can reframe the whole thing is to consider that what you are doing is art, in which case everything is acceptable.
Time is art.
That’s a pretty good r-framing.