Our part in the matter…

Sunday, December 13, 2015
F: Another idea in the shower, an interesting one at first glance….
Okay, whoever is point man on the idea, care to say more?
TGU: You might ask yourself where you got the idea of “point man for this idea.” It isn’t an idea you’ve had before.
F: No, it isn’t, but it seemed natural at the time.
TGU: Pursue it in your mind from time to time, mulch it, develop it. It will lead you in new directions.
F: All right. I’d be tempted to do that in any case.
TGU: At some point you must take the time to do your theological browsing (and trust to your own guidance to recognize the prompts), or you will lose the opportunity forever. Once your particular container is no longer in the present – so to speak – you will be unable to take your pen in hand. So if you want to do it, know that time is flying as always in 3D, and you don’t have forever. Where time doesn’t fly, and where you do have forever, you can’t write.
F: Can you think?

TGU: What good would the non-3D be to anybody if we couldn’t think? How could we communicate, or have anything to communicate, if we couldn’t think? Our consciousness remains vigorous despite your logic.
F: Well, what I have been getting is that consciousness outside the 3D is not as brightly lit.
TGU: Relative to 3D! If you have 100 lumens of consciousness, say, and it is all or mostly in one moment, it is going to be far brighter at that point than 100 lumens distributed along a vast spectrum. But although those in 3D are brighter than we, in a way – they aren’t smarter or more active. And of course “they” and “we” are terms of convenience, only.
F: I suppose it is permissible to think in terms of “us” and “them” as long as we realize that it is all within the context of “we are one thing.”
TGU: In theory, yes, and in practice you slip back into the same old rut of duality.
F: Is that why they call it rutting?
TGU: Very funny – as you would say. The point is, nearly any language would do if you could hold the larger context in consciousness, so that you remembered that separation and division are relative rather than absolute. But the limitations imposed by 3D time and 3D bodies mean that such relatively expanded concepts do not persist until you make them so much a matter of mental habit that they perpetuate themselves.
In any case, of course we think, and relate, and change – within the larger context, remember – despite what you have heard about the nonphysical world having no time, or the spiritual being unchanging, or the
F: Lost it, but I get the point. Those are 3D concepts trying to describe the non-3D.
TGU: More like, they are logical derivations of the seeming necessities of explaining
F: Wow, that one got tangled up! But I got it. You mean, people have a distinct experience, but when they try to understand, or express it in 3D terms, logic derived from experience of living in 3D decides this or that “must” be true, if this or that other thing happened.
TGU: And the thing that happened wasn’t experienced in the way it was remembered, because memory is a time-distorted understanding of something grokked.
F: So a misremembered experience is translated into words, and then logical conclusions are drawn from that twice-distorted narrative, and further conclusions are drawn from the logical results of the previous conclusions.
TGU: Correct.
F: The result being contradictory accounts and contradictory “rules.”
TGU: Correct. But even the contradictory accounts, [when] read backwards, [will] lead to the original experience.
F: Meaning – if you know what the experience must have been, you can trace its effects when drawn through a certain mindset?
TGU: That’s what we said.
F: Just checking. So the
Oh.
Pretty big realization, there.
TGU: You’d better spell it out, less for others now (though that too) than for yourself later.
F: Setting out the
Not sure I can do it. Let’s try again. If we set out the conditions, such as Rita and others have begun to give us, in such a way as to make clear what the distorted accounts began from, it will be possible for devotees of any or all the thought-systems to work their way back to the undistorted version.
TGU: Or – since it intimidates you even to write it – all religions may reestablish a common understanding, thus providing the central linch-pin for the next age, as Christianity did for the previous age.
F: And what we are doing can help the process.
TGU: What you are doing can help the process. You, plural.
F: And a cascade of thoughts come through, too fast to be grasped. Among them, that Bob [Monroe] was perfectly fitted to begin the process, by his allergy to belief-systems. That implied in the TMI world is a belief-system. That a belief-system that incorporates its own provisional, non-authoritative nature is to some degree a reliable midwife. That we’re going to get into an awful lot of trouble, or anyway a huge ruckus.
TGU: There is the fact that in acting as agents for the non-3D you may continue to expect to experience assistance and protection.
F: Yes, well for the first time I begin to see that Bob wasn’t necessarily over-reacting in fearing a mob of fundamentalists burning him out.
TGU: However, as you may have heard
F: I know. All is well.
TGU: If everything is one, how could it not be well, always? That doesn’t mean you are always going to be jumping up and down with glee over your particular role in your particular moment. But it does mean that on a deeper level you can relax. Even in the fire-bombings of World War II or the depths of the Gulag, all was well. Nothing is suffered that does not have its compensating effect. All tragedy is local – and so is all complaining. You don’t see a lot of fear and anger on the non-3D side of things.
F: I think I’ll type this up and publish part of it.
TGU: That’s the idea.
F: Okay. Thanks as always.

8 thoughts on “Our part in the matter…

  1. I think there is some important concepts in the thoughts Frank brought us. My take on it:

    Having free will in the formation of our own soul without an understanding of reality is like having a vote in our country with no education. How can we expect to make reasonable choices if we have no concept of the extent of our own being, our relationship to other consciousness, our origin and destination, our purpose, the Universe in general and our connection to that which created us? Knowledge about these topics form a belief system—a religious belief system—that is our basis for self-guidance as we determine our being.

    As humans we are purposely limited in our breadth, and the depth of understanding of reality is commensurate with our state of consciousness. Thousands of years ago that state was not as developed as it is today, and the basis for religious beliefs came to us for the most part via intermediaries. Even though the core knowledge was from a single pool of thought, misinterpretations by the intermediaries and the further accidental and purposeful distortions in retranslations resulted in various inaccuracies. Nevertheless, the era of the great religions have helped bring mankind to a level where some greater complexities of consciousness can be understood with more clarity.

    Working backward through the evolution of the current dogmas of the world’s great religions, even with the inaccuracies, can lead to the common core knowledge that was their foundation.

    TMI, because of the capability it brings and its aversion to dogma is in a position to expose people who are ready and willing directly to the same common core knowledge of reality at a level consistent with our current state of consciousness. Exposure to this knowledge is not for the purpose of forming a new organized religion. But it can help remove the current distortions person by person, and form a basis for people in the future to have a less distorted “religious” belief system as self guidance for their own free will.
    John

  2. Hmmm … “reestablish a common understanding, thus providing the central linchpin for the next age“; sounds like a ‘rubber-hits-the-road’ way of saying “the coming to consciousness of a new way of being human.”?! Not that I’m complaining; beginning to feel ‘this’ is the most exciting (and scary) thing I’ve been involved with …

    I keep wondering ‘where’ TMI (management/administration) is on this; are they considering/open to being the matrix through which this ‘linchpin’ forms? Is the organization that brings us ‘Guidelines’ (to facilitate individuals connecting with their guidance) open itself to connecting with guidance as we sail into this next age, this new way of being human?
    Jim

  3. If the phrase”all is well” can refer to,fire bombings,or theGulag or worse, than it has lost most of its meaning or usefulness IMHO.

    1. Actually, Jon, if it does NOT refer to the most horrific things that happen in 3D, what good (that is, how valid) can it be? The point is that no matter how bad things are within 3D, things have not gone off the rails; the world is not doomed; nothing is irreparable.Or maybe I should say, no matter how bad it may get at ant part of the 3D world, the overall scheme of things is fine, in the same way that the disasters in a horror film do not actually carry over into real life. That’s my read on it, anyway.

  4. Hello from Finland, been reading this from Sept./Nov. time. With alternating interest. Jung really perked me up, Hemingway – I kept asking myself: why am I reading about the intimate affairs of a long-gone guy? Is he just fishing for attention, using women as bait? And yet, in every post there was at least one sentence that made sense to me, here, now. So I kept coming back. And then, TGU turn up with really, really solidly interesting stuff (for me, that is) – and then, seems like Frank loses interest. Oh, well. And then TGU come back in a kick-ass cosmology mode, reminding we don’t have forever…

    And the process – the way they describe, it is so accurate. And this was ripened for me this morning: we have to sacrifice consciously or we end up destroying unconsciously. I’ll explain: For some days now I have been churning and turning these things in my mind: Met my mother and re-connected with the desolate loneliness she touched off in me. Read a bit of Alice Miller after that, which describes the symptoms of emotionally unavailable mother very well, but is completely stuck in the victimhood drama, and does not say anything constructive about the mother. This tied with something I had discussed on FB a little earlier, about the emotion of loneliness. To me it seems like it is the land’s end of individuation. As a culture, we have made our task to explore individuation, self-carriage. It has an end of sorts, complete isolation. A point where one can’t get any further. A place where you face it as a fact that you don’t want any more loneliness. But to reach there, one has to have the guts to go on one’s own for a long time. And this is what, culturally, our mothers have been teaching us – by being unavailable. We have been taking the lonely journey to individuation, to see what is there at the furthest reach of it. Without the emotionally unavailable mothers we wouldn’t have had the perseverance to get to the outermost reach of separation & isolation. So it is not about the failed mothers (as per Alice Miller), it is just our culture exploring the experience of separate individuality to its fullest expression. Many fail and fall by the roadside. Looking at the reality of this in my circle of friends: the challenges of motherhood in our culture are really significant. Many new little soldiers marching in the army of solitude are in the making right now. Feelings of great sadness about the whole process, both for mothers and for their children. How is it that such destruction just goes on and on?

    This ties with my thoughts about Freud & Jung. I’ve been thinking Freud is just a garbage-collector compared to Jung, chewing on the leftovers when Jung is traveling further along the roads of human experience. And still, Freud’s definition of health (capable of work and love) – can’t argue with that, an excellent definition, by all means. And lately, I am realizing I have to hand it to him, there is something in us that looks very much like what he called thanatos, death-wish. Jung talks about shadow, something we have to deal with at the beginning of our individual path of self-realization. But it is quite obvious that there are those who never get past that. Self-sabotage and sabotaging others, in a quite unconscious but extremely vicious manner, happens all the time. Like the emotionally unavailable mother – who themselves may feel like the most perfect mother there can be. We have, we carry that destructive part in ourselves. The idiocy of many religions is that we can somehow push it away, declare it invalid. And end up enacting it in a completely unconscious manner. Like the emotionally unavailable mothers, like the foreign policy of many countries: Repression at home, aggression abroad. Pretending that we can just choose to be good and so-called bad is always in the other.

    Ok, apologies if this is incoherent, but it is a new perspective for me. Never had seen the significance of sacrifice in this way before. Give something up – sacrifice it before is becomes a corpse and a rotting burden.

    Thank you very much for the blog, it is extremely interesting & inspiring. Agree with TGU about books – after a lifetime of feeling books are my closest friends, Now I can’t seem to finish a tiny volume anymore. So maybe books are not where it is at anymor

    So, the garbage collection… This is the way of nature: Things are constantly being born and dying, all at the same time. We have gotten it into our heads that being born is good, dying is bad. So we work hard trying to keep alive things that are ripe for garbage. In our homes, in our culture, in our societies. Everywhere dead, restricting forms that burden down what is alive. We entertain ideas of apocalypse and armageddon that would take care of cleaning the slate so that we don’t need to do our own dirty work for ourselves. We expect God to wipe our asses, and that definitely is dangerous.

    1. Kristiina, thank you very much for this comment. It raises a lot of interesting points. How about if I enter it as a post, rather than merely a comment, so that more people will see it?
      On a personal note, it is surprising and humbling to think that this blog is being read in Finland and Norway and Australia, etc.

      1. You’re free to place my comment anywhere you want – I am happy if you like it. TGU seem to skirt the topic of presenting these things a bit. To me, it seems sometimes it is enough to have thought certain things, sometimes it seems some tangible publicity is necessary. Book-form seems to be fading out, as TGU say. What will come in it’s place? Or is it this? But is has sometimes felt that I am just entertaining myself with this kind of thoughts – the voice of insecurity/judgement.

      2. Absolutely Amazing Frank, and fantastic in every way.

        Thank you very much Kristiina for telling.
        MY generation learned a whole lot about Finland (all the old history about it), and my own pair of grandparents came from the Swedish-speaking areas in Finland.
        Sweden and Finland were in Union once upon a time (500 years ago).
        We are a bunch of mixtures here in Scandinavia, also called the Nordic countries.
        But Finland has its own original language (strange to us Scandinavians), which does NOT resemble the Scandinavian languages. It is impossible to understand (if they do not speaks Swedish or English that is).

        It seems many of the Edgar Cayce Readings have come true (E.C. died in 1945), as some readings tell about the english/american language “becoming A World-Language in the future”.
        And that is very good, no more “Tower of Babel”….Except for the grammar that is (laughs).

        B & B, Inger Lise.

Leave a Reply

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