Tuesday, April 26, 2016
F: 2:45 a.m. Well, Miss Rita, I suppose it is you wanting to talk. I don’t know why else I would wake up, misread the clock, start the coffee, and then find out that what I read as a 5 was actually a 2. What is on your mind? Or do you plead not guilty?
R: I can’t be responsible for your misreading the clock! And we needn’t do this now. It’s always your choice.
F: Now is fine. But if there is an error involved, it obviously can’t be me; it must therefore be you.
R: I remember your humor, very well.
F: Long few years there, huh?
R: You know better. Very well, if you are awake, we could talk about the process of interaction between one’s 3D and non-3D components as an on-going process. You just put your toe in the water and found that teaching, like writing, opens new channels to you. That’s why some of us did it, you know! Only those teachers who taught only for the sake of a paycheck deteriorated into a mental rut. Those who taught in order to convey an understanding, taught themselves, in the process, the gaps that were in their understandings. We also were lured into more ambitious or more speculative areas of research. So in that sense, teaching was its own reward.
Now, this isn’t about teaching or learning, and yet that is as good an entry-point as any. If you are (if one is) to illustrate 3D life, specific applications are so much the better. So let us use my life.
I functioned on the 3D level for most of my life, in most ways, in most situations, until I did Bob’s Gateway program. The reason that program was such a wake-up call was less anything specific that happened to me then the revelation that there were these unsuspected rooms in my mental house, or one might say, that there was so much more to the world in dimensions I had not really suspected.
I am not talking about beliefs here, but experiences. One can have beliefs about the afterlife or the spiritual aspects of life. One may even have experiences that are anomalous but that do not change one’s beliefs because they have no links to the accustomed mental world, and so remain anomalous rather than serving as entry-point to a new territory..
In my functioning in the years until 1979, I lived the life one leads: an inner life surrounded by external circumstances. You know that is how life appears. Everybody’s life appears that way.
But there is a difference between life as it appears, and life as it is conceptualized, or theorized about, and life as it actually functions. It is in the differences between these three ways to describe life that much confusion arises. If you think of it that way, it is easier to see why one’s ideas about life can change radically without changing life as it has been regardless of how experienced. How many times our ideas become disconnected from reality, we not knowing which is correct, our ideas (which may be strongly felt) or our experience (which after all is lived, but may be a mistake nonetheless). And you can see why sudden moments of integration may change everything – one’s present reality, one’s understanding of one’s past, and one’s prospects for the future.
F: Something went “clunk” and things fitted together suddenly.
R: That’s right, or perhaps not so suddenly, perhaps by a slow steady process of association only realized in retrospect, such as happened to us in the course of the Sphere and Hologram sessions. But yes, often enough a clunk, as in my Gateway.
That “clunk” is of course not so much a culmination (though it is that) as an initiation, a beginning of a new segment of one’s journey. But I set out to talk about the 3D non-3D interactions as you go along in your life.
I grew up, went to college, married, became a mother, began and maintained a career, entertained strong political opinions, speculated on the meaning and nature of life, and, in general, lived life, in all its varied aspects.
We all do, and nearly all of us live our lives as if it were a matter of 3D external life “out there” and non-3D internal life “inside our heads.” The difference between introverts and extraverts, between feeling and thinking, between intuitive and sensory are not differences in kind but differences in ratio. That is, these are various positions on a sliding scale, but the scale is the same.
You see, this has nothing to do with opinion. One may conceptualize the world in religious terms, another in atheistic, and anywhere in between, and still they are all points on a scale that sees the world as 3D (external, solid, objective, “out there”) coexisting with non-3D (internal, ever-changing, subjective, “in here”). Political opinions don’t matter, relative IQ doesn’t matter, education, income, social status, ability, even genius doesn’t matter. It is still one sliding scale and any combination of factors you can name leave you on that same scale, experiencing yourself on the one hand, the external world on the other.
That’s why you can’t think your way into a new life.
F: I learned that at Gateway, but I didn’t conceptualize it like this.
R: Gateway was your thunk as mine was mine, but again, a thunk is a doorway, not a terminus.
Now, my point here is that while I was functioning in that way, I was no less connected to my non-3D component than ever. How could I be? You don’t have to be aware of guidance to depend on it, and you don’t have to know that “I am more than my physical body” for it to be so, regardless of your opinion. This is the basis for anomalous experience.
F: I think I know where you’re going with this.
R: Well, tell your story of Dr. Forrester.
F: When I lived in tidewater Virginia in the 1980s, I took an eight-week course (one session a week) at the A.R.E. in Virginia Beach, taught by a retired minister named Dr. James Forrester, called “Parapsychology and Religion.” The first night, he had us call out any form of psychic phenomena we could think of, and he wrote them down on a chalkboard. So, telepathy, psychokinesis, etc. And when we had filled the board he examined it and said that every thing we had mentioned was mentioned in scripture. This was a new way for me to think about things. As an ex-Catholic who was “ex” without being hostile to it (indeed, retaining loyalty to a certain core of it that is often wrongly attacked), I could see his point. People’s opinions about psychic or spiritual phenomena divided them, but the phenomena themselves did not. The difference was in the standing-point from which the same phenomena were judged.
R: So, if you experience a non-3D intercession, how you fit it in to your world-view – or how you are perhaps unable to fit it in – may make the same things look quite different, and if your language describing it is sufficiently vague and sufficiently vehement, you may wind up with people dividing into mutually hostile camps because they don’t see the reality, only the shadows cast by their belief-systems, whether it be religion or scientism or New Age belief or whatever. But at one end, it is the same experience. It is only in the translation at the other end that a sense of incompatible difference is introduced.
Until my Gateway I experienced life as inner versus outer, subjective versus objective, just as everyone or nearly everyone does. As long as you are experiencing life that way, your opinions will not change things. Your habits will not change them. Your intentions will not change them. And, in fact, your opinions and habits and intentions may seat you all the more firmly in that world-view, and all the lofty and quite practical advice you may get in person or via reading or whatever will be only theoretical for you.
F: I had to learn it is from the heart not the head.
R: It is indeed, though not that simple, since different people – different mixtures of elements – require different stimuli. But yes, there was a different application, and it changed your world. But not directly and not immediately and not thoroughly. A doorway, not a destination.
And that will do for now.
F: Many thanks, although I still suspect you of adjusting my clocks.
R: Ah, victimhood. I did tell you, one effect of my Gateway was that my daughters were never again able to guilt-trip me.
F: Yes, and now I share their disappointment! Till next time, then.