Friday, July 21, 2017
2:20 a.m. Rita, in looking back at Lori’s question, it seems to me there is indeed more to be said. The entire second graf calls for an answer, if you care to provide it. What role do limits play in non-3D? Do they impel development? And, do they involve lack in some way?
All good questions. The first polarity to be dealt with had to be “near” and “far,” because that is the one most easily seen. But there are others, and again, limits determine form and enable form.
Another limit involves what I suppose we much call the reflected light of 3D consciousness.
Funny that we haven’t dealt with this earlier except in passing.
Context is all. It has been mentioned but not dwelt upon because other things were always more central to whatever path was being followed.
I’ll set it out, per your implied wish. We in 3D have a small but brightly lit consciousness, its intensity fed by the concentration of the ever-moving present moment. The non-3D, we have been told by the guys years ago, have a more extensive but more subdued consciousness, obviously because they – you, now – are not concentrated by that very-3D phenomenon. Right?
Right. So you may accurately describe our consciousness-intensity as being a limit. And you can see the implications for 3D / non-3D interaction.
Well, I hadn’t, until you said that. Or, I guess I sort of had and mostly hadn’t given it a lot of thought.
Now is the time to do so. think – using your pen – about the mutual benefits of communication across the non-existent veil between 3D and non-3D.
Well, if our relatively brighter consciousness can light up a local non-3D consciousness, I suppose it is like giving it food. So, our mere attention, regardless of content, may have value for it.
That’s right, and that is the key to many false manifestations.
The non-3D has con artists, in other words, willing to string us along to keep our attention.
You could put it that way. Go on.
I suppose this could be connected to what Bob Monroe called Loosh? Emotion in 3D harvested by non-3D?
That requires more careful consideration, but yes, it can manifest that way. Intense emotion burns terrific amount of energy. Such flare-ups are “harvested,” so to speak, if only de facto.
Does this – he asked suspiciously – imply that non-3D has a vested interest in stirring up 3D strife?
The vested interest is in stirring up consciousness, intensity. A world of people actively in love would do just as well as a world engaged in hating itself, that is, thinking that it was hating “the other.”
But in a way, it is our choice.
Theoretically, yes. In practice, you need all the guidance you can get.
Our religious teachers over the years? The Buddha, Jesus, the prophets?
All these, but also the philosophers, Taoists – any individuals and groups advocating turning from the objects of attention and turning toward the phenomenon of consciousness itself.
And when civilizations put their energies to external objects, allowing their consciousnesses to dim in complacency or outward-direction, there is always another World War to turn up the flame.
That is an alternative, yes.
I can see for the first time the idea of monks – be they Christian or Buddhist or Sufi or whatever – as preserving the world through contemplation and prayer, thoroughly inward preoccupations that seemingly don’t have anything to do with the rest of the world, however benevolent their intentions.
Let’s pause for now, and you go back to sleep for a while, and continue later if you wish.
All right, but this does shed light on a question from Ellen, doesn’t it? Or is that question why this discussion went in this direction?
To quote someone I know, that is one of the useless questions. But yes, it does shed light on it, and we can look at it when we resume.
[Ellen: Since the strands that compose a life originate in non 3D communities of like-minded groups of individuals, does it then follow that the strands that compose lifes like ISIS members (committing acts of intense violence toward others) originate from non 3D communities composed primarily of like-minded (violent) individuals?]
8:50 a.m. All right, I guess I’m up for more. Shall we continue?
Let’s, and let’s begin with Ellen’s question. We have to say excellent, productive question, but based on false premises.
And I think I know what those are.
First is the implied distinction between violent and non-violent individuals in 3D, a wholly false and arbitrary distinction because it confuses behavior with essence. Anyone may become violent under the proper stimuli. And of course if this is a false distinction in 3D, naturally it is even more false in non-3D which does not have the pressure of current-moment intensity to foster such violence.
However, the question does lead to productive discussion. It is true that bands of like-minded individuals likely share common strands, and it is true that “souls of a feather, flock together” as was said, even more so in non-3D where the many aspects of 3D life do not conceal or submerge essence.
I think you mean, the accidentals of 3D life may make the essential similarities between people less obvious.
More, you are more of a unified package in 3D; your personality-ring is more evident than your comprising traits. So the view others have of you may be very different from the real core of what you are. This has nothing to do with deceit or concealment. It is a fact of life. Once you are in non-3D, your various essential components are as evident as your total personality.
All right, I get that.
Now consider this, which has been mentioned almost in passing from time to time, but is very important to a true understanding of the interaction and interdependence of 3D and non-3D as two aspects of the one undivided reality. There can be no passion or motive for passion in 3D that does not exist in non-3D. Manifestations will be different, because of the difference in terrain, but there can be no source of conduct in 3D that does not pre-exist in non-3D. And that is about as flat a statement as you will ever hear me make.
Good and evil, sins and saintlinesses, all exist in non-3D or they could not exist here.
Exactly. And if you will think about it, you will see why that must be so. To relate it more directly to Ellen’s question, her intuition is closer to the truth than her formulation of it.
Well, to be fair, she may not have stated her position carefully. It was only a comment.
It wasn’t a judgment. If anything, it was a compliment, though I didn’t mean it that way either. It was seeing things as they are.
As this has been going on, for the past few grafs I have been playing with a realization. This is one of the uses of this work, isn’t it? Tying together things that have become distorted because considered apart.
This is less of a movement on your part than on mine. You know my position while in 3D, but things look different now.
It is a peculiarity of New Age thought to consider these matters anew, as if nobody had even thought about them before. This has its advantages, but it carries the defects inherent in autodidacticism: inability to assess and compensate for one’s areas of ignorance. If you cannot relate your understandings to the religious and philosophical thought of the ages, you risk either reinventing the wheel – which is not so terrible – or entirely missing quite sophisticated understandings that would complete and rebalance your new understandings. And this is a serious problem.
To be clear, we are talking about what we may deduce from doctrines and parables and teachings; we are not talking about giving up our understandings for older ones.
You will remember, Frank, that you once thought traditional religion and modern metaphysics could shed light for each other upon common problems, and then gave up.
I concluded that there’s no use building a bridge to a shipwreck. Now I would add, particularly since the inhabitants of the shipwreck do all they can to destroy the bridge as fast as you build it.
That is true, but not the whole story. The metaphysical seekers have been just as adamant to proceed without reference to their religious heritage.
And our work – yours and mine – has been to change the terms of the argument.
If one brings in data that changes the definition of 3D life and adds even a little clarity to the definition of non-3D life, it clears ground for new understandings to arise among those willing to follow where guidance leads. And the very complexity of the ideas we are putting forth may serve to bring others to greater understanding, hopefully, of religious doctrines that may not have seemed to make much sense.
And that is enough for now.
Thanks very much, as always. Next time.