Sunday September 20, 2015
F: 6:45 a.m. Still too soon?
TGU: Not necessarily.
F: Well, that’s good. But I’ve pretty much forgotten where we were and what we were pursuing. No doubt somebody will remind me when I send this out – assuming we come up with something to send out – but in the meantime, you have something on tap?
TGU: It depends where you want to go, as always.
F: As always? It doesn’t seem to me to be “as always.” When I know where I want to go, sure. But when I don’t, it seems to me you[-all] are usually there with something.
TGU: And that can provide our theme for today, if you wish.
Very well. As so often, we must return to the question “which you.” We haven’t defined the possibilities and in general prefer not to define possibilities, lest people confuse a sketch for a road map.
F: Meaning, put it in a neat box.
TGU: Yes. That’s the recurring temptation. Well, one way to deal with that recurring temptation is to refuse to define things (which is a valid strategy but useful only in certain cases) or to repeatedly provide inconsistent definitions appropriate to the particular question, which is our preferred method. Thus over time a careful examination of answers and their slightly different questions will continue to provide an open-ended series of pointers, rather than a closed system.
So, in considering who “you” are, we could slice the pie various ways and – unlike pie – come up with different-seeming results. Today’s pie:
You the conscious but eternally flickering flame of consciousness, of awareness of your physical self and surroundings, together with a particularly activated area of your mental realm.
You the so-called personal unconscious, that is, the more conscious part of you not confined to 3D conditions.
You the combination of 3D and non-3D awareness.
You the preceding combination plus greater or lesser awareness of the underlying larger being, which includes greater or lesser awareness of various “past lives” – that is – other 3D beings with whom you have close resonances.
And so on and so forth. Again, this is very much not meant to be comprehensive. In fact, it is not even meant to be – is meant not to be – logically rigorous. Is it a pointer, not a road map, let alone a set of confinements.
Which “you” is it, do you suppose, who summons or attracts information and / or interlocutors from the vasty deep?
F: I’d suppose it would depend.
TGU: It would. It does. Now, for the sake of the discussion, we are going to pretend a certain amount of “therefores” – just be aware that it isn’t nearly this cause-and-effect except from this way of looking at it.
F: I understand. I have learned that. Viewpoint is everything.
TGU: You have learned it, it is true. But it is equally true that what you know effectively varies by time and circumstance. Nothing wrong with that and nothing to be done about it, just be aware of that fact as a limitation.
TGU: When you sit down to chat, no matter how you prefer to do it – pen, recorder, whatever – you either have a question or topic in mind, or you don’t. If you do, it may be something quite specific, or it may be an implied continuation, as in, “okay, Rita, your move.” If you don’t, you are still asking the implied question, does anybody have anything to say to me?
TGU: Well, where does that impulse to sit down and take dictation come from?
F: Sometimes it is a routine.
TGU: And you can lean on that routine for assistance, true. The routine and your showing up amount to an implied request for a continuation, not necessarily of a previous topic, but of communication as a process.
TGU: But what may not be obvious as a question is – who is calling? What variant of “you” is on the line? Or to put it another way, what parts of that total being are active at that particular moment?
F: I begin to see why you gave us a heads-up about causality.
TGU: Sure, because you can look at it as, “I did this, therefore I brought that,” but you can equally well look at it as “this brought me into play, therefore I did that and other things followed.”
F: If I may?
TGU: We depend upon it, in fact.
F: I think you just said, we can look at it like we are the cause, with our self-definition silently taken for granted, and maybe assumed to be unchanging, or we can look at it like, something, some condition known or unknown or partially known, elicited a given part of our total self, which then elicited a response by means of the interaction between what that part of us is, and what it magnetizes.
TGU: Good. Better than we could have put it.
F: And I know why – because I can express it more freely when I am not trying to let it flow.
TGU: Not exactly. More like, you in 3D are naturally more tightly focused than we in non-3D. You are sharper, more pointed, and the result can show that. When you find people channeling famous authors, you find that the material brought in is usually less precise, less in the style of the author in life. This is because the person bringing it in, if s/he does not mingle his or her consciousness with the non-3D author, cannot bring that author’s words to the pointedness they would have had.
F: So if I talk to Thoreau or Emerson, say, I may expect the thought to be congruent, but not the polished words.
TGU: First drafts are first drafts, after all. Sometimes they are inspired and letter-perfect, but not often.
F: It occurs to me – occurred to me as I got up to refill my coffee cup just now – all these sessions aren’t really about providing a coherent picture of the afterlife at all, are they? Or even a coherent picture of our life as a whole? They are more like glimpses through a kaleidoscope.
TGU: Let’s say, like alternate entry-points. A somewhat coherent view of things – a relatively firm place to stand – is always a useful thing for people. The danger is in their turning it into something more defined and rigid than it was intended to be. What is of far more use is to show you various ways of using the abilities that all of you already have, by definition, so that you can do your own exploring. Necessarily, everybody’s conclusions and experiences will vary, and this is not a bad or even regrettable thing, but a good thing. Different vantage points are going to produce different vistas. That’s the point of 3D in the first place, or anyway that is one point.
F: Only 45 minutes, but I feel like stopping, unless you have more for today.
TGU: No, this is fine.
F: Thanks for this. It’s good to be back in harness. It seems like it has been a long time.
TGU: Righteous persistence brings comfortable habits, as well as reward.
F: So it does. Okay, till next time.