Thursday, June 9, 2016
F: 5:45 a.m. Okay, Mr. Mystery Guest, you’re on. I imagine you know that some people aren’t sure what we’re doing or where we’re going, though it seems to me we’ve told them more than once that (1) I don’t know the itinerary, but (2) we’re out to reconcile various contradictions in the way we see things.
TGU: In any exposition, some parts will be clear, even obvious, to some while others will be difficult or incomprehensible to the same people, and other parts will be obviously wrong or irrelevant to the same people. But other people will find that those various portions affect them entirely differently. It is a matter of resonance, as you put it – only “resonance” is a matter of congruence between what is being expressed and where a given person is at that moment. What resonates one day might fall flat if presented another day. Same material, but the recipient is in a different place, hence, in effect, is a different person. This dance, which has many causes, is not inherently a problem and can be easily corrected for if only by repetition in various contexts at various times. Scripture is often delivered that way, notice. It isn’t that the inspired author didn’t know how to write or how to organize what was to be written, but that the material is better presented in one way than another for any given audience and there would be no way to predict who what or when that audience would be. When the audience is a moving target, the material must be loosely enough interrelated to allow for rearrangements on the receiving end.
By the way, this doesn’t mean that the authors, doing their best, know why they make certain decisions. Their non-3D component may be providing the perceptual strategy for their eventual readers, as well as providing the content. But this is not what we are here to describe today.
F: Still, some may find it useful.
TGU: Perhaps. But never forget the opportunity costs involved. That which you do precludes you doing something other at that time.
F: And time is on the wing.
TGU: Not particularly more so today than any day, but yes.
You will remember that this particular segment was sparked by Rita’s daughter’s question of meaning. Rita got out of the way, you might say, to make it easier for you to answer. I realize you didn’t realize that. But let us continue.
Do souls in 3D have a purpose, and are they created at different levels or do they bring themselves along, as we might put it, from life to life? More than that, what is the connection between the lives as we
F: It’s getting tangled again. I can hear it (so to speak).
TGU: Yes it is, but if you will once state the things to be connected, stating it carefully, that will sort it out.
F: Me? And not you?
TGU: Think of it as a 3D-sequential analysis of the algebraic problem to be solved, using the 3D intensity of focus to illumine the blackboard. Then we can team up to explain what cannot be easily seen from your side.
F: Huh! Well, that’s different!
TGU: Only in being more overt than usual. If you looked back on your years of contact, you would see that your mind has been holding the place right along. Often enough it has been the non-3D portion of your individuality – the personal unconscious, I suppose you could call it – but you were the one enabling the agenda, regardless what it looked like to 3D-you.
F: Let’s go into that some time. Okay, so, the problem. Let me see.
We have been given descriptions of ourselves from the point of view of us as individuals. Or, no, I mean to say, we have been given descriptions of our life as if the individual were the important thing and the rest of creation were backdrop. We have also been given descriptions of reality as if the overall picture were the important thing.
Let me try that again. The microscopic view of our lives and the telescopic view of “life as it is” have been given to us in various times and forms, by various people, but we are here at the meeting-place of those definitions and descriptions, trying to make the two join up, and not having all that much luck at it. It all seems to me to require too many leaps of faith, a sudden (or gradual) adherence to one way of seeing things that then ceases to make any effort to reconcile disparities in view – often ceases even to see disparities, or brushes aside any other way of seeing things as error or irrelevance.
I don’t know how much of that is my personal peculiarity and how much is general. I know I bristle at being expected to sign on to any program, yet I bristle equally at seeing any given viewpoint dismissed. Maybe that is just me wanting to keep my options open, but by this time it is so ingrained that it seems not only natural but inevitable.
TGU: One more attempt to describe the problem to be attacked, then. As concisely as you can, this time.
F: What are we and what is our place in the general scheme of things. Concise enough?
TGU: Admirably. But notice how you had to work to get there. That focusing process is part of what the 3D-experienced mind brings to the table. Now, what are the components of that problem?
F: 1) What are we – which I take it is where we started years ago, because we couldn’t go far if we continued to assume we were what we appeared to be, and what others told us we were.
2) What is our place in the greater reality we live in? Seems to me we haven’t gotten very far with this part of it.
TGU: We have gone farther with part two than it may seem, because refinements in understanding your place in the universe (our place too, by the way) depend upon refinements in understanding who and what you (and we) are.
You saw it most clearly in terms of reincarnation, how a definition of humans as units led to certain alternative theories, whereas a different definition reconciled some things and opened up other questions that hadn’t been obvious before. It is the same in terms of your purpose in the universe, your destination or destinations, your larger family – all that. Most often, the answers to any question are built into the form in which the question is asked.
F: Does that imply that the questions are planted?
TGU: In a sense, they are. If an area is to be explored, it must be examined. To be examined, it must be approached by one route or another. To the extent that your non-3D component can influence you to ask the question in the right way, it can smooth the way for a better answer.
F: Which implies that the non-3D component already knows the answer, so why go through the rigmarole?
TGU: No, it implies that the non-3D knows, or senses, or gravitates toward, the right way to ask the question. If you are exploring, you may know that you want to go west without knowing what you’re going to find. Or maybe we ought to say, if you’re lost in the woods, you may instinctively know that a return to orientation lies in that direction, and may follow that instinct until you get un-lost again.
F: Every so often we have one of these sessions where I feel like instead of doing the work, we’re talking about the way it feels to do it, instead.
TGU: Even if that were an accurate description of what we’re doing, it wouldn’t imply wasted time, because what we’re doing is furnishing people with tools, not giving them a finished product to believe or disbelieve.
Next time we can go back to trying to make flat statements that can’t be misinterpreted, but don’t regard today’s session as a waste of time. It wasn’t.
F: Okay. Well there’s our hour, so I will see you next time, and meanwhile our continued thanks for all this.