[From Frank: This is working well. As I take a break, John steps in. Very efficient of someone.]
Worship knowledge, not people
When I first realized that I had access to my own greater source of intelligence, the first thing I wanted to know was from what source was it coming. God? Jesus? A dead relative? Elvis? Eventually I found out that it was another part of me, and then I didn’t know how to trust it. I trusted what came from “afar” more than what came from “close by”. Attribution of the source of my “downloads” became even more muddled when I realized I was a version of everyone and everything.
We grow up paying a lot of attention to the authority figures in our life: our parents or guardians, if we are fortunate enough to have them, our teachers, and those that we considered to have excelled in our society.
In connecting to “greater wisdom”, it’s a constant dilemma: Is this valid new knowledge, meaning knowledge that comes from beyond what I would derive using my human senses, or am I just making it up from what I already knew or something I read? Should it be believed because of the authority or reputation of the attributed non-3D source, or the 3D person receiving it? I tell myself: it doesn’t matter; it resonates or it doesn’t.
Eventually we have to form our own mind and determine our own being. In this context we are what we believe, and when it comes to our belief systems, there is only one authority, and that is ourselves! As we consider changing our belief systems, how do we go about assessing new knowledge?
This subject is addressed below in what came from the joint mind of Frank and Rita, followed by what came from my joint mind.
Frank and Rita, posted Tuesday March 31, 2015, not yet published.
Now, as to the first question, who was the non-physical source of the information. I am smiling myself, as I remember the first session you and I had, in August, 2001, when I asked a question based in the same assumption, and the guys refused to answer it in the terms it was posed, lest they reinforce us in an incorrect way of seeing things.
F: Oh, I remember, for sure! You thought it was such a simple question – and I gather that others (Explorers, I mean) – had been used to talking in terms of individuals, but the guys would have none of it. They were downright blunt about it.
R: Even in this series of communications, between two people who came to know each other very well, we are allowing ourselves to proceed as if it was the individual Frank talking with the still-individual Rita, and in a way that is true. But the point is, in another way, it is not true, and it is for the purpose of leading people to a greater awareness of the specific nuance that we now begin to stress different ways of looking at it.
So, I would say to John Dorsey Wolf [I had asked the question about the source of one of the TMI Explorer tapes]: What you – and others, usually including Frank – assume in posing the question in this way is that information flows from a given person, whereas in fact it flows through, not from, in the same way healing energies do. To lay too much stress on the question of who the information flowed through is to over-emphasize the nozzle and hose as opposed to the water. Even among the embodied, as of course all who read this are, information seeks its outlet by choosing nozzles at least as often as nozzles choose where the water is to come from.
F: You’re even more insulting in your analogies than the guys were, Rita! It was bad enough to be called worms, but hose nozzles?
R: I know you’re smiling, but your readers may not. But in fact an inorganic analogy just for this moment, and just for the sake of one momentary point of view, is actually very apposite, because we are making a very important point about process.
It is natural that anyone in a body experiences life as if proceeding from other bodies; that is, from other distinctive individual units. Natural, but inaccurate and insufficient, particularly as you refine your perceptions. And when you go to conceptualize the non-3D sources of information that you contact seemingly in a very different way than ordinary sensory communication, it is natural to carry assumptions over. But it is not accurate.
Suppose I said, “Oh yes, the non-3D source of that particular passage was John the Baptist?” Even if in fact it could be said to be John the Baptist (and, understand, I am using that name only as an example), what would that tell you?
F: Well, I don’t know, Rita. It seems to me it is of value that we here know that I’m talking to you rather than –. Oh. I get your point. It’s really less meaningful than we assume, isn’t it?
R: Even when we were speaking face to face, neither of us knew from one moment to the next where any given bit of information really came from. You never do. [This was not an insult. It meant, one never does.] Communities talking to communities, and giving attributions to the supposed unit through which the information proceeds.
F: You aren’t so much answering John’s question as taking it for a springboard.
R: Correct, and nothing wrong with it. I told you earlier, that is what I would do from time to time. But, in fact, I did answer the question. There is no ownership of ideas, and – think about this one – no ownership of ways of seeing and thinking and intuiting. It is convenient to pin a given thought to the lifetime it expressed through, but it is only convenient; it is not particularly accurate.
From My Joint Mind:
Coming to grips with identity can get quite confusing. One moment you identify yourself as an isolated person defined by your body functioning in an external world. In the next moment you see yourself as an intimate extension of your greater self, inserted into 3D. You’ve also experienced yourself as one with the Universe. Often you sense yourself as a single unit, but then you recognize you are a community, and then a conglomeration of particles of consciousness indistinguishable from the rest of consciousness. You’re all of these.
We smile, even chuckle at the dichotomies: an individual and a community; yourself and other people as well; a person and a thing; a person and a place; separate and not separate; isolated and connected; alone and together; one life and all lives; a miniature version of God, like God in construction but not in awareness or breadth.
We are not just smiling at you but at ourselves as well trying our best to provide knowledge which is simultaneously in between and beyond our previous state of mutual understanding.
It is natural for people to gravitate to attribution of knowledge. When you put a name on the bottom of this page, what does that represent? You know you can’t really say that these thoughts are coming from the body of John. But they are being expressed in 3D with the help of the physical senses and body of John.
Others may say, “John said this or that”, or “John wrote this or that”, and literally that is valid. But what you say or write does not originate inside the body called John; it comes out of a joint mind that can vary from a small segment of consciousness to a very vast part of it. You, no matter how you choose to view yourself, are a participant in that mind.
We avoid names because even though we are other aspects of you, the knowledge we seek with you could come from anybody or everybody. It could be “next door”, it could be more remote. Wisdom and knowledge have no name to apply to it. Who would be the author? The “first” person to have written something or said something on Earth? Or maybe the “first” in some other physical reality? That of course assumes there is some time reference to begin with. Those entities are extensions of greater beings, and we’re all everything anyway. That doesn’t mean that we can’t find wisdom within consciousness, or that it can’t find us as we seek it. There just is no valid name to put on it.
You remember that Seth somewhat reluctantly gave that name to Jane Roberts, with the implication that it didn’t have the same meaning as a human would apply to a named person. The same can be said about any guru. Don’t automatically accept something due to the name on the source. Don’t discount due to the name on the source. Believe or don’t believe but not solely on the criteria of authority or reputation.
Be cautious about worshipping. If it’s meant as merely an exaggerated statement of respect of someone, it’s understandable; after all, they are just another aspect of yourself. But if it implies you view yourself as a “lesser” entity in any way; or that there is an authority over your mind, then that can be detrimental to your being. You may appreciate another and you may especially appreciate the information that comes through them, but that doesn’t make them any better than you are. You all benefit from each other in many ways, seen or unseen. Worship the wisdom, if indeed it is wisdom in your assessment, but not the source or the local outlet.
If in your determination a good example is set, worship it by emulating the behavior, not by elevating the person to a state above you, or declaring yourself to a lower status. There are levels of consciousness, but is a higher level of consciousness more valuable, or more important than a lower level? That’s like thinking a 60 year old person is more important than a 5 year old.
We worship being; we worship life!