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.
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
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.