Jung on communication between 3D and non-3D

Thursday, August 13, 2015

[Dr. Bernie Beitman’s questions: “Why is Dr. Jung still hanging around us 3D people when there are, I understand, many realms of conscious to be explored or is he doing this exploration simultaneously (since time is different where he is) And what role if any does he see for me around synchronicity and coincidences especially since my book is a month away from typesetting and I’ve just posted my first post on my Psychology Today blog.”]

F: 5:30 a.m. Dr. Jung? And, if not these questions, do you have different questions you would prefer to address? And / or other things to say?

CGJ: You felt my hesitation, which was not reluctance to respond, but a hesitation as to which route to take, which direction to begin to travel. Your end of the hesitation was a reluctance to undertake the same explanation you have facilitated many times already. So let me begin there, with a mild tutorial.

[Editorial note. It’s true, I was thinking, “oh no, not again!” I always hate repeating what I have done before. When this came through, I realized that Jung was helping me understand the process a little more, showing that interruptions or hesitations are not always all on one side. I get that from now on, such notes are going to be ever more common, as he and others help us learn the process. But of course I could be all wet; it may mean nothing of the sort. Time will tell.]

You in 3D are enmeshed in time, but so are we in non-3D. The difference is not that we live in different realms; it is that we live in the same realm but constrained by different rules. Gurdjieff has something to say to you on this subject, but it will take patient study, and I do not say that it will necessarily be worth your time – either Frank’s or Dr. Beitman’s or anyone who reads this. I merely note it. Life “under the moon,” as he puts it, has more restrictions. But let us leave that tempting side-path.

To be enmeshed in time is not escapable, any more than to be enmeshed in any of the other dimensions that shape existence. This has been well laid out in the Rita material in recent months. But to be enmeshed in it is not an invariant experience. Some are enmeshed and frog-marched, as in 3D; some are enmeshed but allowed to navigate freely, as in the non-3D. And I note – but do not intend to do more than point in this direction for those it may intrigue – there are other conditions of life with fewer restrictions than we 3D-attached beings live among.

So, your short answer: It is no inconvenience for those in the non-3D to interact with those in 3D, and it has certain advantages for either party, as has been said many times. 3D attention provides us with extra energy, extra life-force so to speak. (But – “so to speak!” It is a metaphor, not a scientific fact.) [I think a better translation might have been, “not a scientific statement.” But “fact” is what I came up with at the time.] Non-3D connection provides you with a wider, more extensive network of effective consciousness, thus assisting you to function more efficiently in doing what you already do although you do not customarily think of it that way.

So, you see, mutual advantage, and I must reiterate, this is one, shared, universe, not two, not separated. 3D is a special case of non-3D, and there is no distance to overcome, no difference in essence between 3D and non-3D beings to be overcome. (I refer to communication with those “spirits” – those non-physical minds – that are willing and able to communicate with spirit while it is enmeshed in 3D. Those that are unwilling or unable we may disregard, noting however that they exist. It isn’t as if the 3D universe were the only game in town.)

And as to why we in non-3D should be willing to communicate (beyond the energy boost from your attention, as mentioned), the simple answer is that you and we are actually all “we” in the largest sense. We are all part of the same reality, and we have business together, you might say. Your concerns are ours, and, to a certain extent, ours are yours. That doesn’t mean the shared areas of concern are always obvious, of course.

And, finally as to “why,” you might consider that one may travel to a foreign land without wishing to entirely sever home ties. For a good homely American analogy, you might think of us as Daniel Boone, sojourning across the mountains in unknown territory, but considering ourselves still part of the community we emerged from. Boone could return physically and we can not, but we can remain in continual contact if we wish, and Boone – as far as he knew – could not. But in both cases, the explorer might consider himself a pathfinder for a community to which he still felt himself bound, and for which he still cared.

F: Okay, that all seems clear. But then, I sort of knew where you would likely go with it anyway, except for the reference to Gurdjieff. Any more to say on the subject, or shall we wait to see if Bernie has follow-up questions? (Bernie or anyone else – for I intend to post this as usual.)

CGJ: Questions are always helpful, as they point the material. Let’s wait for that, and if there are none there will be other things to discuss.

F: No doubt. Then about Bernie’s second question?

CGJ: “What role if any does he see.” A lot of assumptions packed into that short sentence.

F: I know that you do not think it presumptuous [of him], but I note it here so that it is on the record.

CGJ: Yes, that is helpful. As you have seen, it is a continual temptation to people, reading emotions into statements. We “on this side” as you used to say are, as you were told, emotionally chilly compared to life in 3D; we do not have the same intensity of emotion that is mostly the product of confinement in one moment of time and one set of conscious / unconscious motivations and reactions. It’s easy to be “cool” when you see in context.

No, the assumptions I refer to have to do with the conditions of existence.

F: Jimmy Durante – “the conditions which prevail.”

CGJ: The conditions always surrounding existence – seen or unseen, suspected or not, hypothesized about or not.

Let me for the moment address Dr. Beitman specifically and directly.

Like me, like anyone, you will find any subject absorbing that is pursued for its own sake rather than for “practical” reasons, because the subject that captures you is linked to your essence. Medieval man would say you have a “vocation,” a calling – exploration of this particular material calls you, and you respond. Could there be any surer sign that you are on the right path than the fact that you responded to being called? As long as you focus your attention in congruence to a calling and [are] not half-diverted by “practical” considerations (that I will say are often devastatingly im-practical because divorced from one’s mainsprings), all will go well, and your journey will be one of absorbing interest and joy, as it always should be.

If your question implies the question, will I achieve something worthwhile? Will I build on Jung’s work?

These are actually not important questions, believe it or not. The important question – for you, for anyone, for this work, for anyone’s work – is only, is this what I am called to do?

Many questions arise from that one, of course. Am I working as much and as well as I can? Am I as alert to opportunity and requirement as I might be? But the one central question is as posed. Am I following what I am being called to do? To the extent that you (anyone) can answer this one question affirmatively, you are living life successfully, because you are expressing what you came to life to express. This does not mean this is all you came to life to do, but the person who has found his work, her work, is a happy fulfilled person no matter the vicissitudes that accompany life.

F: That is very clear to me. I think of how this work has blossomed and how it has enriched my life unimaginably just in the past ten years, starting from sitting alone thinking I was goofing off from what I thought was my “real” work – and how much it has spread to involve others. There isn’t any way I could have planned that or even imagined it. In fact my imaginings were usually very different from where I wound up going.

CGJ: Then let me add this, and we will pause. It doesn’t matter what role anyone sees for anyone else, or particularly, for oneself. In 3D you proceed somewhat in the dark, and this is by design. But guidance is always at hand, and you only need listen. Listen to your feelings. They will not steer you wrong. Listen particularly closely when you feel things that seem to impel you toward a course that makes no sense to you. I am not here saying follow every stray impulse, but I am saying follow every strong abiding knowing that would lead you off course. Follow your heart and do not expect to know where you are going. Be satisfied that you have a guide willing and able to be your GPS.

F: Anachronistic but vivid.

CGJ: How can a thing be an anachronism when one roams through time at will?

F: I feel your smile and I share it. Unless you have more for us at the moment, I’ll bid you good day.

CGJ: No, I have had my say for the moment.

F: Then thank you as always.