Bob Monroe on another meaning of our lives

Thursday, August 24, 2017

5:10 a.m. So, beginning again. I have Bob Monroe’s old inscription awaiting translation. Bob, are you available? Looking at it, I certainly don’t have a clue.

R² (28Y – 2)  = SRT

D

And trying to figure it out isn’t getting you anywhere.

No, just as in 2006. I knew then that it wasn’t my mind coming up with a fluent translation (that I wasn’t even always sure even made sense). I look at SRT and am trying to make it into Sidereal Time or something equivalent, but of course I know it isn’t that or anything like that. So, can you give us a clue?

You take 28Y to be 28 years, too, and wonder what 26 years of age [28Y-2] has to do with anything.

Exactly. By this time I know the difference between perceiving and guessing, even if I can’t always stop myself from guessing.

Is this the most important thing you – we – need to be talking about this morning?

Most important in itself, no, I doubt it. But as an entry-point to renewed communication, yes I think it is. I need to feel that flow.

What would you tell a class in intuition about the value of evidence?

I certainly wouldn’t tell them that it has no value, so stick to things that can’t be verified, and avoid those things that can.

But what would you tell them to do when they couldn’t get what they were after?

It would depend. I might tell them to keep trying. Or I might say give up on what you want (for the moment) and settle for what you can get (at the moment).

I think you would tell them that depending on evidence to convince yourself can be a dead-end street, raising your levels of anxiety and making it even harder to get a reliable channel established.

Possibly I would. I might also tell them, keep talking, as the connection may strengthen. I am beginning to feel your presence more definitely. So, let’s forget about the inscription for the moment. What would you like to say to people whose lives you touched so strongly and positively, even if they never met you?

You know how it is different, the same effort, if you think it did or didn’t bear fruit. To sink your life into opening a possibility and see that it came to nothing could be – disheartening, anyway. To see that it led to something is just the opposite. And of course talking about all this is difficult because of definitions, as usual.

Oh, I know what you mean. Rita and I are always finding that the simplest statement may take a while to say in a way to be understood, because we have to make an effort to have it understood as it is, rather than how people might think it is. When we first began, the very concept of the individual was firm in our minds, and firmly wrong. The guys started by loosening our definition of individuals in the non-3D, but it didn’t take them long to extend the redefinition to 3D as well. And I think I feel where you’re going with this.

Of course. Unsuspected connections among people. Even the process of self-selection that leads a given group to appear at the same time and place is an example of unseen connections.

I get that you are about to expand things, and shake them up.

I am if you allow it through. You could refuse to allow the thought. Many people do, and therefore they impede or cut their access to active communication with guidance, because they then maintain an unconscious vigilance against that thought.

Certainly I can see that. So—?

It is easy for you to see that seemingly separate 3D individuals may be connected via their mutual connection to their Sam, as you and Rita are calling it. And you can see that they may share strands from other such excursions – other “past lives” even though some may be in the future from your viewpoint. But it hasn’t quite occurred to you that there is an element of sequence even to the creation of new souls. Even in the non-3D, where “there is no time,” change implies sequence. (At least, it almost inevitably does, while you are in 3D time. There is another way to see it, but why not stick to what seems evident to you now?) It hasn’t occurred to you that new souls may be created after you, in response to you.

That will take some unpacking, though I have a vague sense of it.

Your lives are not significant only in 3D life, perhaps not even primarily in 3D life. Your living your potential (including your limitations and conflicts) may serve as a model from which others are created. To get the sense of this, think historically.

Francis of Assisi came first to my mind, for some reason. Then Lincoln.

Francis is a good example. His legacy to the 3D world expresses through the Franciscan order he founded, and through the biographies people read and the sense of his example. But his larger legacy may be said to be in the 3D world: He lived a template that is then easier for others to live through, hence to be created to fit.

I was following you until that last bit.

Well, that is the new element to consider. Your 3D lives also affect the non-3D, not indirectly as in “new souls have to live in the 3D world that results from your actions (and even from your being)” but directly, as in “new souls may employ the same combination of elements we used before in different circumstances.”

Hard to see why that confers any particular advantage. I mean, a Sam has all the elements it needs, right?

Was the English language, and world drama, unaffected by the nights Shakespeare spent writing his plays?

Shakespeare, or Bacon, or whomever.

That isn’t important for the example. The fact is, that individual life’s labor changed the possibilities. I use Shakespeare because he is known. I could use millions of others but it would convey nothing because they were unknown; nonetheless by their faithful working-out of their life’s possibilities, they too created easier possibilities for those who followed them in sequence.

Is this what you were getting at when your affirmation had us say “for me and those who follow me”?

I had a strong inkling by that point, let’s leave it at that. Like everybody else in the world, I often did things because they felt right, not really having any other motivating factor.

I don’t think I’m understanding all the implications of what you’ve just said, but what I got, I like. If people need any one single thing today, it is reason to think that their efforts count, when clearly they don’t much count when measured strictly in 3D effort.

Most of what is going on everywhere, in any time, is invisible and disregarded by society at large and particularly by those who think they are the ones who count. This is where the possibility for change comes from: the freedom of the disregarded.

And R² (R squared)?

Still trying for the formula, still hoping.

It doesn’t seem like it should be so impossible, given that we brought it across 11 years ago, when I had so much less experience.

Exactly. Too much experience, and you’re doing it in public, or thinking to. It ramps up the fear of failure. It makes you try to guess.

It does. So why not give it to me so I can go on to other things?

You can do that anyway, and if I don’t, you will have to.

Well, I know that. If you don’t want to, or I can’t bring it in, we’re still grateful for what we got. Not to mention, for all you made possible. Thanks, Bob, and I look forward to further episodes of The Perils of Pauline, featuring either you or your unindicted co-conspirator.