Tuesday, March 8, 2016
F: 4:10 p.m. Rita, shall we? I took a walk and it – and the 80-degree weather – seems to have energized me.
R: We can try whenever you wish – if it isn’t too often – and can quit whenever you wish, as well.
F: I counted something like 38,000 words since the 11th of February. It adds up.
R: Slow and steady wins the race.
F: So, more on fully human, fully divine?
R: You will find it a useful rule of thumb to assume that anything that has been believed has some kernel of truth to it. Every report of experience may have some useful clue. It is important to remember, always, that perception is one thing and interpretation another. Quite an elaborate misleading superstructure may be built upon some humble but rock-solid experience someone had. So, if you study scripture, or metaphysics, or science, or folklore, or even superstition – don’t think you need to accept the conclusions in order to consider the reports. If ancient Germans worshipped a grove of oak trees, the question is not whether they were right in whatever they concluded were the reasons for it; the question is what did they feel, and what if anything at this remove can we deduce.
[Typing this, it doesn’t seem clearly expressed to me. What I got was that the religion the Germans may have built around the experience doesn’t necessarily reflect on the validity of whatever experience caused them to worship there. In this context, “feeling” means not emotion, but non-rational perception.]
That is merely a prolog for what I am about to say, which is: Anything you have ever heard or ever will hear about the non-3D is probably true to some degree, and almost definitely false to the degree that the explanation puts a non-3D experience into 3D assumptions like time and space, separation and urgency. Even to the degree that the explanation silently assumes the “external” and “internal,” or objective and subjective, of 3D assumptions, it is going to be distorted.
So don’t be – I almost want to say “offended” – when one person’s account does not match up with another’s. In the case of such disparities, don’t assume deception or fakery or blindness. The chief cause of incompatible descriptions is a difference in platform.
F: I like the way you put that. I take it you have taken up computers as a hobby!
R: Hardly, but consider the limitations imposed by my secretary.
R: By “platform” in this case I mean, of course, the mental worlds that convey such experience. A different mental world is going to be a different place from which interpretation springs. It’s a wonder that anything at all meaningful can be conveyed, under the circumstances. And in fact if not for the silent co-ordination and facilitation going on in the non-3D by the various components of the 3D beings, maybe nothing at all would ever get conveyed.
There is no objective reporting of life on “the other side,” life in non-3D. There can’t be. Can you see why there can’t?
F: Well, that doesn’t look so hard. We in 3D are enmeshed in our separated worlds and we each build up our model of “what is.” We exchange notes with each other, and we read each other’s books and lives for clues, but mostly we aren’t very moveable, at least not after we once find our footing. So sure, we would all be looking at the same flower and seeing different shades of color.
R: That’s right, and I remind you, there’s nothing wrong with conditions as they are. That’s how it is designed to function. But to say that is not to say there’s anything wrong with peeking behind the veil and understanding as much as you wish to, or are able to. It isn’t forbidden, or even discouraged, it’s just complicated by the nature and extent of translation needed.
F: All right.
R: But perhaps we should pause.
F: Yes, I’m afraid so. Maybe more in a couple of hours.
R: Either way is fine.