Saturday, June 4, 2016
F: 4:20 a.m. Can’t sleep more, so might as well see if we can continue. I have never been so aware of the limitations of my own conscious mind as now, when trying to hold a vast set of relationships in mind, and being unable to.
TGU: That is why you are doing it the way you are doing it. It is why we are teaching the method of combining the intensive focus of 3D mind with the vast associative ability of the non-3D mind – precisely so you can do what cannot be done within the limits of 3D mind alone.
F: We have been told and have been believing that mind is in the non-3D
TGU: And so it is. Here, as with the question your friend John raised, it is a matter of words making meaning less obvious.
F: This is why Rita proceeds slowly.
TGU: Yes, but every way has its disadvantages.
F: Why is it that you, Mr. Mystery Guest, rather than Rita, have taken over the seminar?
TGU: That will appear. Meanwhile, let us run through the clarifications and be on. Mind exists in 3D, as you know. It exists in non-3D, as you know. Both. Same mind. Or, you might say, two kinds of mind, though that is less precise. Operating within 3D conditions, mind takes on 3D characteristic advantages and limitations, and if you settle for that – as many people do, not being aware of a choice in the matter – you have what we regard as normal everyday consciousness, the consciousness of rationality, of logic, of what [author Robert] Graves called solar mind.
However, even the most determined rationalist recognizes another mind, mysterious, lunar, playing by its own rules – the mind of dreams, and reverie, and “moods.” This is the mind or aspect of mind that may have premonitions, “psychic” experiences, flashes of genius. Same person, even [same] conditions, but another type of mind.
F: They explain it today as left brain, right brain.
TGU: Of course, but that is explaining the mechanism of transmission, not the nature itself. What I suggest here is that what you experience as left-brain function is mind operating in 3D conditions and more or less limited to what may be known within such confines. This is mind playing by 3D rules. What you experience as right-brain function may be said to be mind operating in 3D conditions with the door left open to the extrasensory knowledge, ability, and functioning appropriate to non-3D conditions.
F: All right. And John’s question?
TGU: Patch it in when you transcribe.
[John’s comment on my blog: “I’m confused a little with the revised definitions. Rita previously said, `The Soul is the 3D life you experience, which means not only the one physical life but all its associates (`past’ and `future’ lives).’ To me this implies multiple TSL’s. Then today, TGU says, `The Soul is a collection of strands developed in isolation in a single TSL situation.’ Can you please clarify?”]
The short answer is that the Soul may be regarded as the combination of ingredients placed in one TSL, together with all its awareness of connection. Given that it connects very broadly indeed, the connections it becomes aware of determine the limits of its self-definition. There is no such thing as a Soul in isolation, really, only a concentration on a given combination of elements considered as if they were less interconnected to everything else than in fact they are (and have to be). This is for the purposes of analysis, as you have been told before.
Saying “all is one” is accurate – and brings you nowhere once you have accepted that all divisions are only relative. If you are to understand relations between elements, it is necessary to consider them as if they were more separate than in fact they ever could be. Understood?
F: Yes, and we’ll see if this answers John’s objection / question.
TGU: So let us turn to the Super Soul, or Greater Soul, or Next Level Up, call it what you will. Hold in mind the underlying question of how to reconcile what you are being given with perceptions of old souls, young souls, etc., and more than anything (emotionally) with the question of the soul’s longing to perfect itself – for that is what this all comes to, in the end.
F: Proceed, by all means.
TGU: From here on, you should make a continuing effort to bear in mind that although we must consider things separate, they are not separate. That does not sound like much of an adjustment, perhaps, until you realize that it means
F: I lost the thread, sorry.
TGU: The very experience of “losing the thread” – which usually means that a part of your mind continued with some line of thought that led you away – illustrates the point. You already know that you are communities. (This by the way should remind you that we are communities, that your non-3D components are of course enmeshed in your 3D limitations and possibilities too.) This phenomenon might remind you that different parts of your communities have their own activities and tendencies, not to say their own agendas (which they also have), which can lead to conflict, or confusion, or back-tracking, or what you call wool-gathering. It can also lead to obsession and neurosis but that is what you are always calling a side-trail.
Remembering that a thing is both separate and non-separate means that you remember more fully that your standpoint determines what you see. Your bias, your momentary clarity, your dogged pursuit of a line of thought, your conflict of desires or conflict of thought frames, determines what you see. If you once realize this – that is, if it once becomes real to you, rather than only an idea, you see that contradictions in description are most likely limitations in viewpoint rather than limitations by the nature of things.
And this is important, because all your perceived limitations stem from (and also reinforce) your ideas of How Things Are.
F: In other words, once we see that the way we see things is not “the way it is,” but “the way it looks from here,” we see that it is really possible to change the conditions we experience. We change reality by seeing it differently.
TGU: Is this not obvious from your experience? It may be made even more obvious by being put into the negative: You cannot change your reality if you do not see it differently.
F: So creating our own reality – well, you say it.
TGU: Creating your own reality begins in one of two ways. Either something “happens to you” which leads you to change your ideas of what is possible, or you change your ideas of what is possible, and conditions around you seem to alter. But of course, to say this is to put into 3D terms – into sequential language – something that is neither sequential nor “either / or.”
But to return to the point. Considering the Soul as one thing and the Greater Soul as another and the Greater Soul Community as a third is all well and good as an approximation for the sake of analysis, but will lead to confusion if you cannot remember while we examine them that we are not examining separate units but are investigating the same thing as it appears in different aspects depending on the point of view from which we examine it. I cannot keep harping on this as we go along, so I’m doing the harping in advance. Try, really try, to remember that distinctions are always relative.
F: I have wondered if that isn’t what the Buddha meant in saying that when you make a distinction, you make an error.
TGU: Yes, you have been through all that before.
F: So we have, sometime. I had forgotten. Okay, so–?
TGU: So the nature of the Greater Soul that we will go into, and the way that it seems to interact with the Soul on the one hand and the Greater Soul Community on the other, is not nearly so distinct as analysis might imply. All descriptions of reality are to some degree wrong, as an expression of “the view from here.” Most of the world’s problems with scripture and metaphysics stem from confusing “the view from here” with an impossible “absolutely the way it is.” This isn’t because one doesn’t know enough, or see enough, or understand enough, but because there is no one way of seeing reality.
There are only approximations.
F: But it has been an hour, somehow, and I’m running down. No time to begin another thought, unless a simple one.
TGU: This will do for the moment.
F: Very well, our thanks, and we will not-see you next time.
TGU: As you say, “very funny.”