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.
Saturday, September 5, 2015