Immortal and yet mortal

Saturday, September 5, 2015
F: 2:30 a.m. All right. I’m ready if you are ready.
TGU, or maybe just T, for “Them”: Notice that you are re-reading the past couple of sessions, trying to retrieve the sense you had (but do not now have) of where this is going.
F: It seemed like I had some sense of your next move, last night, sometime, but it is gone now.
T: We say again as we have said before, the fact that you cannot pull it up ahead of our exposition ought to be of tremendous reassurance to you that you aren’t “just making this up” behind your own back. But, if you want to play with that idea every so often, no great harm done, provided you don’t let it cripple you in actually bringing it in when connected.
F: It seems to me that when I have had a glimpse, I ought to be able to hold it.
T: As you do a dream that vanishes with a change in state, for instance?
F: Hmm. Point.
T: Even blurring conceptual boundaries and thinking this is coming to you from another part of yourself, the fact that it is at least initially state-specific ought to show you that the way you conceptualize the source matters less than the fact that you allow the material in.
F: All right. I see that. Or rather, now I feel it. It is more real to me than it was.
T: Excellent. So, to proceed.

We are putting this new material into the framework of soul versus spirit, for the sake of convenience. You are familiar with the concept, it is supported in the scriptures and the book you published [The Division of Consciousness, by Peter Novak], and it is easily expressed. But remember as we proceed, you are as always understanding A by better understanding B and then proceeding from that new understanding of A to better understand B. That is why the process is so circular, or anyway cyclical, and unavoidably repetitious.
F: Well, I’m willing to assume that you would tell us straight-out if you could do so.
T: “What can’t be said –“
F: I know. [A reference to something Jack Kerouac said somewhere, “what can’t be said, can’t be said, and it can’t be whistled, either.”] All right, then, where do you go from here?
T: If the individual soul is created by its unique experience on earth, still it is not –
F: I can hear you shifting gears, trying to find an approach.
[Pause at 2:52 that lasted a minute or so.]
T: You are both mortal and immortal, in more ways than one. On the physical level, in 3D, you are mortal in that the bodily link to specific time-place is created and dies and exists only in the intervening time, yet you are immortal in that the mind – the habit-pattern, the ring-of-associated-contents – shaped in that life continues after the death of the body. This you know. But there is another sense in which this mortal-yet-also-immortal state is true, and that is disregarding your bodily mortality entirely and considering only your spirit-soul nature.
The soul is born, it is created, when certain contents are given to be part of the ring that the new life-circumstance is to be. That particular set of attributes, that particular collection of threads or strands, may never have existed in the world before. (Or, they may have, but if they did it would have been in a different time and place, and so by association would be very different each time.)
F: I think that last bit meant, even if you use the same mixture a second or third time, the non-3D components are necessarily going to be mixed with different 3D components such as physical heredity and environment, and so the result of each life will be a soul different from the identical non-3D mixture associated elsewhere and / or else-when.
T: Yes, that is the sense of what we said.
If you can see that the soul, like the 3D creation of which it is a part, is born, it should be less of a shock to see that it can also die. Nothing allied to flesh lives forever, nor should it.
F: You’re going to have to say a hell of a lot more about that.
T: Oh, don’t we know it! And there will be plenty of misunderstandings of what we say, we know before we even begin to say it. But, that is inherent in the process of bringing forth new understandings, new mis-understandings en route.
There is a direct link between the soul in the non-3D and the attention it receives from 3D. That is its food, enabling its continued existence. This is why there are what have been called “hungry ghosts,” hungry for attention from the 3D, stringing people along for the sake of their attention.
F: As you may be doing here.
T: Certainly your attention is reward enough for our tutelage, and the more people’s attention we attract, the more well paid we will be. Hence, our incentive to provide material that will be of interest, and hence your continued necessity to be sure you don’t allow yourself to be led astray.
F: Never any guarantees, are there?
T: Not really. How can there be? But your best safeguard is your own attitude, your own intent, so that you draw to you what is sincerely interested in being helpful.
But, as we were saying – the link between 3D and non-3D, is the
F: That sentence sort of dried up. I think I know where you are going, but I couldn’t find an appropriate word. So –?
T: Not everybody – not most people – are going to have lives that make them particularly memorable. For every Caesar, how many many millions of common people. For every Beethoven or da Vinci or Monet, how many mediocre practitioners, how many mere imitators. For every genius or saint, how many “average” persons. And for every unknown but powerful individual, how many scarcely formed, shapeless drifters.
The few who epitomize an excellence (and, bear in mind, they may well be famous, but not necessarily, not in any way the world recognizes) are valuable templates. Those who touch many people, and especially many types of people, may be valuable anchors. Thus authors, nurses, politicians, any who deal with, touch, many kinds of lives.
Now, suppose you are a clerk at K-Mart – in other words, are anonymous to the world – and are neither in strong relationships nor are an example of conspicuous loneliness – in other words, are not striking either for your bonds to others or for the lack of them – and you have no particularly vivid inner life, nor any particularly intense interest in a given thing.
Can you see that such a person has less to offer the 3D world after he or she crosses into the non-3D? There are fewer “hooks” to attract people.
But this is not a matter of class nor income nor profession or lack of it, nor family status nor hobbies nor education nor self-education. Another person in the same circumstances with a different attitude or different — orientation call it – might become a quite compelling personality even if, as we said, the world never takes notice.
Paraphrase, please, so we may see your level of comprehension of nuance.
F: I would have thought you’d be able to know that from the inside. You are saying that many people are not particularly valuable as links to the 3D once they have ceased to be there, because their inner and outer lives provide little of interest to the 3D world.
T: Little of interest, or you might say little of sustenance. The 3D world relies on its links to the non-3D, whether or not it is aware of it.
All right. Now we will need to wrap up for the moment, but it is important that we not leave the impression that there are important people” and “unimportant people” in any way that can be recognized. Nor are people failures if their pattern is not retained for future use, or for reinforcement of the 3D (we’ll explain that in due time, if you remind us).
The impression of waste or of failure will come from only one mistake – and that is, losing sight of the fact that what we need to consider as units for the purpose of analysis are in fact never units but are always a smaller part of something vastly greater. No blood cell in a body is “important” or “unimportant” except in the opinion of a given observer. None is a “failure” or a “success” except in the view of someone with their own need to lay down such arbitrary and
F: What is the word?
T: Doesn’t matter, you have the sense of it. The point is that such judgments are meaningless; they have no objective content.
These last couple of points are merely to tide you over, lest people get discouraged at their prospects — for discouragement is a great drain on power.
F: All right. Well, we’re looking forward to more. Till next time.

8 thoughts on “Immortal and yet mortal

  1. “for discouragement is a great drain on power.”

    Man, don’t I know it. Nothing more readily stops the flow (or transmission?) of power than discouragement and its many cognates.

    But, as Nietzsche put it, why dwell upon such painful matters assuming one does not have to…

    “There is a direct link between the soul in the non-3D and the attention it receives from 3D. That is its food, enabling its continued existence. This is why there are what have been called “hungry ghosts,” hungry for attention from the 3D, stringing people along for the sake of their attention.
    F: As you may be doing here.
    T: Certainly your attention is reward enough for our tutelage, and the more people’s attention we attract, the more well paid we will be. Hence, our incentive to provide material that will be of interest, and hence your continued necessity to be sure you don’t allow yourself to be led astray.
    F: Never any guarantees, are there?
    T: Not really. How can there be? But your best safeguard is your own attitude, your own intent, so that you draw to you what is sincerely interested in being helpful.”

    This bit here is similar to thoughts I’ve been grappling with recently. It can be boiled down to something like, “what are ‘they’ getting out of this?” Now, that question is actually misleading if for no other reason than I’ve never asked the question. But it is the best translation/compression I can come up with.

    Not-me: May we?
    Me: Seriously?
    Not-me: Well, it is up to you. We can speak through you, as your “I”, with no recognition of our contribution. The advantage of doing it this way is that it focuses you and frees you up a little.
    Me: Fine, but don’t go on too long. I have things to do that require “mental energy.”
    Not-Me: All of you have read here and elsewhere that so much of what seems mysterious, opaque, and incomprehensible about non-3D and its denizens is really quite basic and direct. In fact, so much so that it scarcely seems credible to many humans, especially educated ones.
    Me: Non-3D itself is often scarcely credible among educated humans.
    Not-me: Exactly. And there is much to say about that, but perhaps later. The passage you quote above goes to our point…
    Me: I’m not quite getting it.
    Not-me: Yes. We are, shall we say, conferring or arguing how best to frame it. That’s what you feel–our indecision. We want to say the universe loves “attention,” especially that which comes from 3D. It is quite rich and delicious. Now, it goes without saying there is much in the universe that is completely uninterested in 3D. But the universe is a big place so, perforce, we are talking about something that is vast but obviously more local. The real point here is that attention-energy-feeling-thought-force-power –name any or all of that what you will– can be tremendously “fulfilling” to absorb and interact with. You, “there”, do not perceive this or at least most don’t. We give an analogy, and remember that this is an analogy.

    Think of someone whom you deeply love, are passionately fond of, or are extremely fascinated by (perhaps you know them intimately or not all– it doesn’t matter) and consider what their attention directed toward you would or does feel like– the electricity, charge, and excitement of it. Encased in your bodies you do not, though it is certainly possible, directly perceive the very basic exchange or flow of energy/radiation that is always occurring.
    Me: Then why is your example an analogy?
    Not-me: We say that in part because of your own translation efforts which desires to hedge what we put forth, but also because people will bring assumptions to the claim and it is helpful if they are given a pause to consider what those assumptions might be.

    In a previous thread you noted that we communicated how people’s I-there’s as well other kinds of intelligence were simply interested in and curious about this forum for its own sake–as if it were just a good show. Part of the reason it is such a good show is that the participants’ attention (and “participants” denotes not just Frank and those that comment, but everyone who gives their attention to this project)is being directed toward “us”, toward our region of being. We love the attention!
    Me: Well–
    Not-me: Yes, we feel your question and you already know the answer. We will say for everyone’s benefit: this attention we love is not a matter of narcissism or seeking of the spotlight like the common egotistical human that desires attention as a glue to plug the perceived holes in their being (the non-3D versions can be and often are the “hungry ghosts”). What we are saying is this: the exchange and reciprocity of attention/energy is very basic, direct, and always on-going everywhere. We perceive this more clearly in our condition than you do in yours. But when you consciously or knowingly engage in this exchange with “us” it sweetens the exchange, so to speak.

    One last analogy. Humans, some humans anyway, and more than a few who would claim otherwise, are quite taken with those symbolic notes of exchange called money. In one sense money is pure abstraction, make-believe, which is what makes it so useful, it is fungible and can be converted into millions of other things. On the other hand, it is an actually existing thing, material and real enough to touch. However, it is in its circulation, its capacity to flow and transform in the process of trillions of exchanges which gives it its power.
    Me: And?
    Not-me: Your attention/energy directed toward “us” and non-3D is not unlike that in a rough and metaphorical way.
    Me: Doesn’t money convey a far too local and specifically modern human meaning here to be of much use.
    Not-me: No, so long as its understood that attention, consciousness, awareness, thought, feeling, and so on are highly “valued.” That they are more mediums of exchange, if you will, rather than properties of this or that being.
    Me: Okay, not sure I buy it but I have to leave off now.
    Not-me: We know. Your attention is much appreciated…

  2. Note: The following started flowing apparently about the same time Cat’s Paw was having dialogue, which was subsequently posted. Of course I didn’t know that at the time, as I was in the right front seat of a car going through Oregon. It was more coherent than usual, although capturing it on the iPhone notes was a bit challenging. The fact that it seemed to coincide does not in any way speak to its source or for that matter its fallibility or infallibility. As always it’s one perspective, in this case a pseudo-technical one, and challenges as well as clarifies some of my previous notions.

    The opening question came with the download, and was reworked with help from the source(s) afterward to reflect more precisely the topic.

    From ???, except where noted:

    “What are the conditions that support retention of individual souls versus integration of these into the spirit we call the greater being (my shorthand acronym: GB)?”

    “One aspect is the GB to 3D linkage. That portion of consciousness we’ve arbitrarily assigned as the GB does not have unlimited energy.  The energy it does have is spread over its “spectral domaine”. When that domaine includes lives in the physical dimensions, as these are extensions of the GB, significant energy is necessary to function in this very “dense” part of reality. 

    Given the limitations that exist naturally with any arbitrary sub part of consciousness, it cannot “be” everywhere. Its energy is clustered around its primary tone, and for it to interact beyond remote communications with much higher consciousness, or function in less dense regions of reality, it has to “spread out”, or increase its tone or both. 

    When the GB is experiencing multiple lives and alternates in various physical realities, there is an inherent advantage to have a tone that is consistent with non-physical reality that is not very far (in the spectral sense) from that necessary to experience the dense physical realities. 

    Less dense realities are compatible with higher tones so that an entity existing in one or more of these would naturally need and have a higher tone. 

    Changing tone is another whole issue, but generally higher consciousness functions with higher tones and there is a natural “draw” or “pull” or “support” to graduate to higher and higher levels. A benevolent evolvement is always occurring. 

    We might picture a compound GB as a high growth area on the “fringes” (or maybe with a better connotation “leading edge”) of consciousness, growing new souls, changing, adapting. It’s developing in conjunction with even greater consciousness that it’s connected to “nearby” in tone. 

    A note that the word “tone” will have frequency and sound meanings for humans which can’t be avoided, but it a decent interim analogy. It’s just that is has to be kept in mind that “tone” is a substitute for a much more complex phenomena that can’t be explained accurately in your language or world of 3D. 

    Eventually (or after a duration) for several reasons GB’s near physical realities will evolve “further away” with higher tones where it is both difficult, eventually impossible, to penetrate physical densities directly. Also the interests of the GB may naturally no longer involve having lives and supporting lives in the physical. 

    So there are transitions involved. To simplify it, consider it a transition from lower to higher consciousness, from lower to higher tone. 

    As this transition occurs, the GB energy vacates the physical spectrum and it is no longer necessary or desirable to have non-3D counterparts to the physical functioning with near-physical tones. These entities cannot exist in the same way at higher tones.”

    (I pursued this further later: “Everything is connected but that doesn’t mean that everything can exist in any part of all realities.  The tone of a human, a finished soul, or a greater being is uniquely compatible with the region of reality it’s a part of.”)

    “The energy which previously was functioning as souls in the making, and then finished souls, and entities in support and connection to 3D, is absorbed and consolidated around the higher tone. (Seth talks about “fragments” that choose to break off to stay in the physical and I now better understand why that is necessary.)
     
    Individuality, or a sense of self-identity exists but at a higher level. The sub-identities which were previously associated with any human or soul “community” are thoroughly mixed into the greater whole of the now higher entity.”
    John

  3. “When the GB is experiencing multiple lives and alternates in various physical realities, there is an inherent advantage to have a tone that is consistent with non-physical reality that is not very far (in the spectral sense) from that necessary to experience the dense physical realities.”

    Yeah, what I sense on this point is the “they” or not-me, as I call it, is quite “close by” when measured by a rough scale of consciousness or awareness. That is to say, “they” are not too different from me. Hence, communication is relatively “easy.” There are obviously some significant differences, but I get the sense that the differences are mostly unimportant and can be construed as a distraction from the basic importance of the communication or connection itself.

    As for communication with the greater being (GB)it is certainly possible, but a more or less radical change in consciousness or awareness is required to experience communication with the GB directly. After a certain duration (I feel duration is the best term here. It implies a quantum of intensity/or state of consciousness rather than an extended “amount” of linear time), the alteration in consciousness would increasingly become irrevocable. 3D awareness as we typically experience it would become out of reach, so to speak.

    Moreover, I sense there is awareness (or “discreet” beings) up and down the string that runs from any one of us to the GB. Each autonomous and conscious in it’s own way. Jumping from “me” directly to the GB is quite a jump in scales. As I write, I sense the old, well-worn concept of the Great Chain of Being taking on new and fresh meaning, being reborn in a way.

    1. My only advice (not that you asked for any) is that it has always served me well, as i formulate ideas of relationships, to be prepared to abandon them or modify them, with or without advance notice. But i like the way you’re thinking about things.

  4. Yep, it is worth a reminder. Like anyone I suppose, I’ve been known to fall in love with some ideas. Attachment is often not a virtue.

  5. No question about that Frank. No matter what analogy is given or what our understanding is, it is more of “what we can handle” and what is best for us to know versus what is the complete story, the latter which we will forever strive but likely never achieve.

    Cat’s Paw, my perception is similar to you on this, and I’ve had more than one “discussion” about it. Personally I find it helpful to work through an understanding until it makes sense to me, even though I know I will have to throw it overboard in the future, rather than not wrestle with it, and not try to come to grips with it at all.

  6. A lot here for me to “chew on” (meaning “I don’t get it” at this stage). Perhaps if I drew my own diagrams…I think, OTOH, I have wrestled w/ certain ideas, and thrown some overboard, and am at a “time” in my life where there is a deep yearning to know more (perhaps I am a mere “hungry ghost”?), w/ occasional intense “longings for Home” (whatever that might be). The idea of “extinction” of “aspects of self” still terrifies me, but, some “dark nights of the soul”, as it were, I’m just “ready to go”, wherever (or no-where) that might be…

    …so, carry on, Ladies and Gents. Your ideas make some sort of sense to me, even tho I’ve been in a most uncomfortable state, for some years now, and that has “descended a fog/veil” over my engagement/enjoyment of life.

    Craig

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *