Tuesday, July 18, 2017
7 a.m. [My brother] Paul responds to yesterday’s by saying, “In this context the quest for Smallwood’s historical reality looks entirely different, doesn’t it? Your Smallwood might have been some combination of Life A2 and Life 87, not a figure to be verified in our historical records.”
And Karla leaves a comment on the blog:
[In a previous post, Rita said: “Everything that happens to Life A registers with Sam. Every choice among possibilities that Life A makes, changes Sam so far as that choice changes Life A. Experience affects, in other words. But bear in mind, Life A in the larger sense is every mind resulting from every choices, not just the one-reality-or-lifepath-at-a-time that it appears. Life A is all paths taken, not any one path taken.”
[Is Life A in a sense the “quantum potential” of all its components (strands)? If so, is that quantum potential at some point recognized or somehow experienced by the individual lifepath? For example, right now from my own perspective, I am looking at my individual lifepath. Will I from this individual perspective, at some point after the body is dropped, experience the quantum potential of my origins (all paths taken)? In other words, will I experience all paths taken while simultaneously being cognizant of my own individuality? If so, what is that experience like?
[Would the same experience extend to my other lifetimes? For example, I resonate with a specific lifepath (time, place, circumstances) of various other lifetimes. Will I at some point recognize or experience all paths taken and not just one lifepath of all the other lifetimes? I wonder if this has any relation to the experience of oneness or transcendence that has been discussed.]
So, Miss Rita, two very interesting questions to explore. Or perhaps you will be able to dismiss them with a word or two.
Let us begin with Karla’s, as it is more easily dealt with. The answer to her question is, distinguish carefully who “I” refers to in any given context, and recognize that a specific
Start again? I got distracted.
After the body is dropped, every individual life reconnects with every other individual life of Life A3, say. So Life A3 has X number of versions (all the decision-splits in the consciousness, not so much in the
Easily dealt with, huh? I recognize the difficulty – I should, being part of it! We have to back up a bit, don’t we?
It isn’t new ground, it is lightly retracing old ground as context, but not so easy to fold into a sentence.
Let’s try again from the other end of the question. Frank is Sam’s Life A5000. Every decision of life A5000’s in effect splits into two versions, each of which continues to live that life, one living the coin-flip’s heads and the other the tails, so to speak. Each succeeding version meets a choice-point, and in effect splits, and on and on until Life A5000 is something that could be considered to be a cloud of probabilities. Which is the real A5000? Every one of them, and in a sense, only all of them in sum. So, when all of them are at the end of process, the “I” of Life A5000 is not any of them but all of them.
That didn’t come out right. I think you mean, the viewpoint is not from any one “I” but from the sum of them all.
Yes, and that “sum” isn’t like a total of individuals so much as an individual made up of so many sub-individuals.
The analogy in my head as you said that is, like us relative to our strands, or like a 3D mind relative to its complexes.
The point is that without the artificial separation imposed by 3D conditions, we don’t go into the larger consciousness identifying so much with Life A5000-Version-10578682 (any individually experienced version of a life) but with Life A5000 as a whole, incorporating all its versions.
So, in answer to Karla’s question, it would be more accurate to say you will experience more fully the fact that any version is an intrinsic part of Life A5000, which experiences that it is an intrinsic part of Sam.
And presumably it continues in an upward chain from there, with Sam realizing its intrinsic connection with the next level up.
Except remember that the difference between 3D and non-3D is unique. Sam does not differ from the next layer up in the way you do from Sam, because there is not the difference in terrain between 3D and non-3D to impose a barrier to connected consciousness.
And, in answer to the second part of her question, it is mostly a matter of convenience whether to describe it as you remembering other lifetimes or – which I think I would prefer – you as being reabsorbed by, or reconnected with, all the rest of you, with the awareness flowing in as a natural result of the reunion.
I hope I got that the way you wanted. I’m afraid it is still open to misinterpretation.
If people are following the thought, it will be clear, and if not, the effort of making sense of it will help them pick up from where they left the trail.
All right, and I see there is a third question mixed in: Does this relate to the experience of oneness.
If does, of course. When people return from an NDE or even an OBE, one aspect or another is going to have made the greatest impression on the experiencer. If that aspect is the sense of being so vastly larger than one had suspected, you come back saying “all is one,” and what you make of that sense is up to you. It is a matter of how much work you do to understand it. This work [between Rita and me, she meant] is valuable in that it leaves bread crumbs on the trail for those who already know that “all is one” but who perhaps are wondering what that means in practice.
Others might return with some other aspect of “afterlife” existence more prominent in their consciousness, and hence they produce seemingly contradictory reports.
Of course. But every sincere report has its kernel of truth, if you will but remain open to it. It may require some digging to find it.
Understood. And as to my brother’s comment?
I said it would be less easy to deal with. Let’s see.
I take it my giving you time by going to get another mug of coffee didn’t do it for you.
Really, it is going to require a new start. Better to try from scratch.
Defer it till next time, you mean? I can do that. More today meanwhile?
This will do. This [session] looked at a point that is not obvious. More next time.
Okay, then, thanks. This is like The Perils of Pauline [the first serial film], except I’m always the one tied to the railroad tracks, wondering what comes next.
And you love it.
I do, truly.