John Dorsey Wolf – Who do you want to be?

What do you want to be?
by John Dorsey Wolf

From Me and My Joint Mind:
Last night in my sleep I had a interesting counseling session. “You are always getting ready for what comes next.” What was meant was that whatever it is that I am involved with at the pre-sent is preparing me for what I will be involved with subsequently. This applies in the current life as well as what follows.

In the context of the current life it is consistent with what Rita has taught us: that our experienc-es lead us to choices of the next experience; or, another way to look at it, our current choice re-stricts the options on subsequent choices of what we experience. Why would not the same apply to our post life-in-the-body experiences? “You are creating your future now.”

The question came through, “What do you want to be?” I thought and said (non-verbally), “You mean, what do I want to do?” The answer was, “No, what do you want to be?” Here, there is more “being” than “doing”.

As I woke up there were two thoughts in my head. The first was, this is a topic of enough im-portance that I had a remembered conversation about it in my sleep (which happens rarely with me), encouraging me to pursue it. Secondly, it set me to thinking how what I am experiencing now is affecting what I am to be.

It is straightforward for me to retrace certain aspects of my life and see how one event led to an-other. It is also perceivable how previous events prepared me for subsequent ones. But this is different. How do the events of our life mold who we become?

The temptation to describe ourselves in terms of our “doings” is very high. I am a retired engi-neer from the aerospace business. That is true, but that’s not who I am.

In a previous connection a few months ago when we were cleaning out a storage room, I was told, “This is how you think of your life, as a series of boxes, each containing the memories of your experiences at specific times and places. But your experiences are not you.”

“When you stop and dwell on the contents of a “box”, feelings do come back. Memories of those experiences return. They may not be accurate, but they are the way you now remember it. We put the story of ourselves together by lining up the boxes. Even as you bring back memories, or rearrange them, you are reinforcing the (mostly) fictional story you tell yourself about your life (said with humor).

But even you are missing the real you when you do that. All you can get from a box is what your end of the “stick” experienced at the time. What you don’t recall, and can’t, is what the rest of the “stick” got out of all those boxes, and of course what’s in between them as well. Those boxes don’t tell much of the ripple effects that your experience had on others either.” (The “stick” here is referring to the continuum of consciousness between the me in the physical, externally oriented at one end, and the rest of my greater being reaching into everything at the other.)

How can we answer the question of who we are becoming, without understanding who we are presently and how we became who we are?

I am a mind, knitted from a selected community of minds, each of whom are knitted from their own selected community. I am a perception; a unique one. A simple example: each one of us could look at a picture of pools and waterfalls in a steep canyon. Some might sense peace and tranquility; but, I am going to also see great danger, because I fell in such a canyon. I am a per-ception molded by experience.

I have an iconoclastic nature, and my experiences encouraged and emphasized that aspect of me, so I am primed to “be” that. If I had a choice to participate in an established process or organiza-tion versus trying to make change to it, I would pick the change route every time.

While these examples are just that, it is my belief they come closer to describing me as a mind and a perspective, than does any of my “doings”. I am a product of my life events but I am not those events.

Back to the question: What do you want to be?” When you are mind without body, what do you want to be? I think that’s worth thinking about.


6 thoughts on “John Dorsey Wolf – Who do you want to be?

  1. Hm, very interesting question John, and many a time I have to ponder “why I am here to do on the Planet Earth” (called The Third Dimension).
    From “above” it is a wonder of creation…A beautiful physical Nature to watch (watching it from the Space-Stations and the flying machines).
    According to the Edgar Cayce Readings was it NOT (originally) meant to be for the humans to become “a part of it”.
    According to the E.C. Readings: “The souls of men “forced” themselves (as fragments of souls) into matter. And the first “man” was Androgynous.

    And still according to the E.C.Readings, we are “to find our way back to whence we came from.”

    To me when it comes to all “the study” ….in me (sometimes) to become a sort of fatalistic….or a feeling of it.
    Another E.C.Reading says: “You are the sum total of what you ever will be.” Hmm, status quo ? Or as ACIM says:” You are NOT a body.”

    I have noticed there are TWO MAIN different world-views. It is Seth and E.C. in the common point of view how IMPORTANT the physical body will be. Though, the Main-Theme for Edgar Cayce is to SPIRITUALIZE it(from whence it came), while Seth more or less seems to CONTINUE in the physical body as a perfection within it(the physical body)?

    ACIM pointing out “the body is a camouflage-system of illusion,” and the very same with “the time-framework.” It is what Seth says likewise but a bit different).

    Agree absolutely with you on “the importance of staying connected” with “guidance”.

    Thanks a lot from Inger Lise.

  2. Hello dear friends…
    John, you gave me a hint to pick up a book about Edgar Cayce and his readings. The book is written by some good friends of Cayce`s, Lytle Robinson, “Edgar Cayce`s ORIGIN and DESTINY of MAN,” subtitled “With wisdom from the Edgar Cayce Readings.” The book is available from The A.R.E.Press. And the book is very objective in my opinion.

    I can quote something from the last appendix in the book:
    “Salvation seemed almost a physical impossibility with the present state of man, not that he is bad, but that he is indifferent. Still, if we are children of a loving father, would he give us up so easily? It was incompatible with a God of Justice, Love, and Patience. This conviction I could not escape.”

    Lytle W.Robinson died in 1997 in his hometown of Tuscon, Arizona.

    BUT, here comes something written by his widow L.W.R. as an addendum, in 1969, in the same book.
    She had once a private reading with E.C. back in 1939.
    I quote something that could be of interest for many of us, the words by his widow:
    “Today, some thirty years after the date of the reading, to find much of its prophecy to be true, I would judge it to be about 75% accurate at this point in time. In any case that is the degree of accuracy that I or no one else could have foretold in 1939.”

    And then comes her POSTSCRIPT which I find VERY interesting:
    “Not long before he suffered a stroke (Lytle, her husband) in 1995, we were at home reading when Lytle looked up from the book and said abruptly,”I don`t believe in anything anymore.”
    “What?”I asked, trying to understand what he was saying.
    “Reincarnation and all that–I don`t believe it anymore.”
    “Oh, you don`t mean that!” I answered, smiling and trying to take it lightly.
    “It`s true. I don`t believe in reincarnation or anything. There is nothing more than just what we see around us.” He turned his attention back to his book and did not mention the subject to me again, though I heard him repeat the same statement to a group of friends.

    But then, about two years after his death, a vivid dream convinced me that Lytle had moved beyond that interval of skepticism. In this dream, I was sitting alone in a dark section of a room when Lytle walked into the adjacent area [that is what I have experienced with my deceased brother as well many years ago, two years after his death, but not “dreaming”…it felt as real as anything else], which was well lighted. Standing close to him, on either side, were two women. Looking directly at me, Lytle said clearly, “I`m going to be born in New York, and I`m going to become a Jew.”
    That last statement was particularly significant because for many years Lytle had adamantly sided with the Palestinians in all matters and was loudly outspoken in his negative criticism of Israel. According to this dream, he was being given another opportunity to “consider all sides” as his Cayce Reading admonished—and this time being born into the Jewish culture.
    Signed Barbara A. Robinson.

    Okay, whatever you believe, the book is worth reading.

    B&B,Inger Lise.

  3. Inger Lise,
    I have just found the book you recommended above, “used and in very good condition” on Amazon, and have ordered it. Of course you can imagine that your comment above arrived on my computer as I was thinking over the vital role our beliefs play in accepting and applying this wisdom to our lives. It’s one thing to have the knowledge and another to know it in the heart where it can affect our living and our dying. I’m pursuing that, and will eventually write up what I get. Rita and Frank have opened many doors, as have you. Many thanks,

  4. Frank, the following does not address John’s post–at least not directly. However I’m not sure where else to put it. Feel free to post it separately on its own or leave it in this comment chain.

    I have been urged to join the conversation using the following from 3/7/16 as a jumping-off point.

    F: Well, I was thinking, they didn’t say Jesus was half human, half divine, they said fully human, fully divine. And somehow that seems to me to describe us pretty well. No wonder we’re so uneasy!
    R: Half animal, half spirit, is how people often think of themselves. It doesn’t usually occur to them that they are fully 3D creatures, fully non-3D creatures at the same time – and, creators as well as creatures. Life-experience and words and sequential language are too much in the way of such understanding. But now perhaps we can begin to tie this all together if you bring in concepts I started with in December [2014].
    Everybody and everything exists in all dimensions. Necessarily. There is no other way it can be. Therefore trees and moss and foxes and people are in All-D, not merely in 3D – and so are rocks and seas and nuclear waste products. Regardless which kingdom, animal, vegetable, or mineral, everything exists in all dimensions, and that include sub-atomic particles, galaxies of stars, and many things commonly perceived as relationships such as heat, light, etc.. I know that is puzzling but let’s not pursue that particular side-trail. The physicists among you may find it an interesting line of thought. Thought, too, exists in All-D.

    Me: So?
    Other-Me: We wish to join our and your perspective with the one Rita and Frank have provided. First, we say bravo! All indeed exists in All-D. There is no other way it can be. Whether this seems logical, comprehensible, or fathomable to any of you is another matter and one we want to address.

    We offer here one-part explanation and one-part method for engagement. Stated simply, that which one might call spirit or “energy” is fundamental to and coequal with all that is. There is nothing which is not this energy or spirit. It is shared by all. All is shared in and through it. It is the basis of unity–the reason All-D is in fact All-D. Aware of it or not, each of you extends through and beyond infinity simply b/c you are composed of that which composes All.
    Me: Yes, be “we” are very limited. For most this will be at best conceptually distant.
    Other-Me: We understand. But you also should understand that it needn’t be. There is nothing more direct or basic. In any case, this is the point we want to address. To grasp this pure fundamental, thought is neither necessary nor unnecessary. Comprehension, as many of you would understand it, is neither necessary nor unnecessary.
    Me: This is fine stuff, but it’s kinda coming off as inscrutable and Zen-ish which I’m not sure will be helpful to those reading it.
    Other-Me: Yes, well, there is a reason for that! We are opening access to an experience–not a philosophical position or abstract concept. One may call it knowledge, and it is, but really it is best understood and related to as an experience; no real difference from the experience of sunlight or the sound of a chattering magpie. Perhaps the only discernible difference is this experience is yet more simple, more direct, and more given than those examples.
    Me: Okay, that helps. We are talking about experience. So how can we experience it?
    Other-Me: The ways and means are as varied as you can imagine. And yet they are not. The unity of all means: that which connects you in all ways to all things is always itself and nothing else.
    Me: But what about the sheer diversity of forms and types? Forget the non-3D, just here in 3D the diversity of life is staggering.
    Other-Me: Resist for the moment the urge to contrast, compare, and measure. Put in abeyance the fascination with paradox. Most importantly, bring to your immediate awareness the impulse to judge which is the more “real” or which is “better”–diversity or unity? Acknowledge that impulse and then put it on hold. Both are real. Neither cancels the other. For our purposes, however, the focus here is about experiencing the unity of all. In that simple experience you will know there is no contradiction, no either/or.
    Me: Yes, but how?
    Other-Me: It is simple. What you are, that which you are composed of, composes All. The capacity for difference and diversity is an expression of the fundamental unity that composes everything. You (your core or spirit or basic energy) “extend” in and through All. You can and do reach out to all that is “around” you–whether you are actively aware of it or not. At this “level” there can be no difference despite there really being trillions of “differences.” Simply put, your thought, feeling, sensation, being, and doing is made of that which all things are made of. Allow the experience of your being, which is all being, to come into your awareness. It is not magic. Nor is it mystical. It, the experience, is not of the elect nor of the chosen. It is of the All, belongs to the All, and thus is fundamental, simple, and wholly “natural”. There are indeed ways of “verifying” this for yourself, but we cannot go into that now as it is likely to lead some down non-helpful paths.

    Me: Okay, but it doesn’t seem like you guys have provided a method to me.
    Other-Me: If you mean we have not provided a method for your 21st century conditioned human mind to parse or figure out then, yes, we agree. That is simply b/c there is nothing to figure out. There is no complication to untangle or unwind. And we will further refine “21st century conditioned mind” in noting that it is mostly your immediate consciousness, the “I”, which has nothing to figure out. Just b/c this experience cannot be brought immediately and definitively into terms which (the minute tip of the iceberg that is) your common everyday sense of yourself as an “I” can easily grasp doesn’t negate the reality of the experience. Once you can consciously recognize and acknowledge the experience for what it is as it is your little “I” consciousness will learn to define and hold it better. But first you must experience the greater parts of you in unity with the diversity of the All on its own terms–not on the terms of your very, very local and immediate consciousness and self-identification.
    Me: I’m tired, but reading this over it might come off as…well the “All” being this great undifferentiated mass of nothing in particular that sends people gazing off into the blue hoping for some [mystical] experience.
    Other-Me: You know from experience otherwise.
    Me: Yes, but I’m not up for going into that right now.
    Other-Me: Of course. We will put it this way. To experience what we have alluded to may be any number of things. However, one thing it may be is the experience of your being (physical and nonphysical) in nonverbal/non-conceptual communication and relation with other beings–humans and others. It is simply experiencing the fact that “you” are not confined by the constraints of time, space, or location. Your capacity to act and be active is not confined to your “body.” It may sound otherworldly, esoteric, or magical, but once again we say there is nothing more basic or common. You are tired and should rest now.
    Me: Agreed.

  5. John,

    I’ve been reading and rereading sections of “The Sphere and the Hologram” that (for me) relate to your discussion of ‘doing’ versus ‘being’.

    In the section ‘Individuals and Threads‘ TGU says “It’s no more arbitrary or mistaken to look at a characteristic as an individual, than it is to look at a person in a body as an individual.” I hear them saying that characteristics (of us composite 3D’ers) are just as interesting to them (or maybe even more so) as us as individuals. If characteristics = ‘being’, this implies TGU rates that very high also.

    In the section ‘Work and Vocation”, there is a larger view of ‘being’ and ‘doing:

    “What’s most important is the person who is the most real and performs the function they came in to function as the flower they’re creating. The better they do that, the more perfect the flower they are.”

    This ‘me’ grows into deeper and broader awareness of larger-me and knows I will ‘be’ that one day. So my interest in ‘performing that function’ well is high; in essence, as (part of?) larger-me I get the benefit both now in 3D and ‘then’ in non-3D.

    Wild stuff, huh?!

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.