Thursday, October 5, 2017
12:40 a.m. Ready if you are. Where were we?
You had just realized why you live on a timeline where everything you don’t like nevertheless exists.
Perhaps you could spell that out again?
Even on any given timeline, decisions have consequences. Even though other timelines follow opposite decisions, and thus assure that every decision is explored – which means the fate of the universe never depends upon anybody making the “correct” decision – in each timeline, the decisions that have been made determine the reality being experienced, and determine which opportunities exist (or, as it appears to you, which opportunities are thereby created).
The sense I’m gradually getting, more clearly with time, is that our lives are the demonstrating of the consequences of a decision-tree. Each version shows what would happen if a chain of decisions – ours as individuals, but within a context of uncounted others’, which means within what seems like a firm matrix. It begins to seem that life is the showing of uncounted possible paths, the showing being the main thing, for some reason.
That won’t be as clear to your friends as it is to you at the moment, and won’t be as clear to you later as it is now. So we should press on and provide context.
Seems like we are switching roles.
The roles were always arbitrary, if serviceable. Do you remember how Rita ascribed greater intelligence and knowledge to what you were calling TGU because you two were always asking the questions and they were always answering them?
They said our lives were the answers to their questions.
That is a way to see the meaning of your lives – but it requires that you hold firmly in mind that you and we are not different entities. We keep reiterating it; you all keep losing sight of it. If you think there is a “we” and a “they” you are going to continually misapprehend the situation – and yet language continually works to reinforce that false impression.
We are more like different parts of a dissociated consciousness.
Minus the pathological connotations, yes. There is only one reality, and everybody in it exists in all parts of it. We keep repeating that, too. 3D individuals nonetheless exist in All-D. Non-3D individuals nonetheless exist in 3D. It is much more a matter of where your consciousness centers, than any other single difference. Every religious or philosophical teaching that works from the assumption of a division in the universe goes wrong precisely because of that assumption.
Now remember that at the moment we are looking at your 3D life as an experiencer of the interaction of soul and spirit. That is, soul, the shaped collection of traits, and spirit, the free-ranging animating force.
I get that I should sleep on this a bit.
It’s easier. Come back to it when you know it is time.
5:20 a.m. That seems to have helped. Very well –
You may find it easiest to begin with negative manifestations. Let us start with hatred.
Which, I presume, begins with fear.
That’s a “yes but no.” But explaining why it is a “yes but no” may take some doing. It isn’t simple. If it were only yes, or only no, it would be.
Is it a matter of “circumstances alter cases”? But even as I ask that, I can tell that it isn’t that simple. Let me go deeper.
[A pause, as I do.]
Start by saying that 3D life, lived as it must be in 3D conditions, imparts its own peculiar spin on perception, hence on
I can’t find the word. Try again?
Let’s go about it this way. Your ideas about things are based on a combination of things: input and prior ideas, mostly.
Input is determined, or let’s say skewed, by perception, and your sensory perceptions are by themselves obviously limited to a tiny percentage of the physically existent spectrum. Even the electromagnetic spectrum that is recognized by science – which is to say, by sensory data extended by instrumentation and inference – is mostly far beyond your ability to experience directly by sight, sound, smell, taste, touch. That limited input is mixed – interpreted – by ideas of how things are, ideas formed from prior first-hand and second-hand experience, all of it also subject to those same limitations.
If this were the whole story, your possibilities would be very much more limited than they are, for how could you break out of the self-contained idea-system and experience-system, call it, delivered and limited by sensory data? You can get an idea of what your world would be like by looking at the mental constructs of people who do believe that sensory data is all there is. Of course, these people themselves do not live in the world they deduce; no one could. But they ignore and deny experience to the contrary, so you can get an idea of that mental reality by overhearing their mental reinforcement of their ideas, so to speak, as they ty to persuade others.
The compensating factor in your lives is, of course, what you would call direct feed. Call it intuition, divine guidance, extra-sensory knowing, instinctive wisdom, inexplicable useful connection – however you think of it, it is the other part of your being that greatly assists your limited 3D existence – that makes it possible, in fact. No one and nothing could exist on its own, without an unbroken connection to its larger self centered beyond the 3D construct. The birds that build nests may not be able to say non-3D, but they rely on it, as all animals and vegetables do, to enable them to make sense of incoming sensory data and, particularly, to make sense of it in advance. You call it instinct, in animals, in babies, in yourselves sometimes, but that’s what it really is, connection. And remember, that isn’t connection to a something else; it is connection to another part of yourself.
Aha! And the two forms of perception are sometimes at war with one another.
Not the forms, but the results of having contradictory ideas about the meaning of the data from two different kinds of sources.
Okay. But – war.
It can be; it certainly doesn’t have to be. Some people respond to contradiction by attempting to define one half of the contradiction out of existence, and this can lead to conflict in one or another form. But others respond by seeing any contradiction as an implicit invitation to see more clearly, deeper, to resolve it, and only if they are unable to find resolution do they proceed to ignore one half, or go to war on it. And still others, fewer, respond to an irreconcilable contradiction by leaving it in suspension, waiting for further developments to clarity things. But yes, there is the potential within you of warfare, one element against another, and of course it is easier to direct those forces outward – projecting the conflict on to others – than to deal with it within your own psyche.
Now, you could argue that in the case of self-division turned outward, the hatred is the unacknowledged result of fear (fear of one’s own contradictions, illogical, inexplicable, and perhaps therefore terrifying), and that isn’t wrong. But it isn’t the whole story either, you see.
This particular genesis of hatred is not the only one. But it is the most common by far.
Does that imply that if we could overcome the resistance of the 3D personality to realizing that it extends beyond the 3D, the world would be a more peaceful place?
It should scarcely need stating. Instinctive societies anywhere are inherently peaceful; it is the separation from one’s roots beyond the 3D world that leads to a society’s madness. And we are not quite saying, indigenous societies are sane and the technological post-Christian Western world is crazy, or, say, crazed. But we would say that if you will look around you, you will see some societies that take instinct and folk-wisdom for granted – Italy, say; Poland; country-folk pretty nearly anywhere before they are disillusioned and mentally overthrown by the assumption of superiority by city culture. These are not societies roiling in hatred, and they aren’t very easily roused to hatred based on abstract ideas and plans to reshape the world.
Unlike technological, materialistic America. Our rulers, I mean, not necessarily those of us who happen to live here.
I know, don’t give ourselves a pass as if we were living here by coincidence. We must bear some responsibility for what is done in our name.
That isn’t quite the nature of our reservation. It is more to the nature of your attitude than to the substance of the comment.
Okay, I get it. You don’t like me making blanket condemnations.
It isn’t so much what we don’t like, as what is good for you. To issue a blanket condemnation is to show that you don’t understand, or rather than you are suspending your understanding. To understand everything, someone said, would be to forgive everything. In your life you mostly know this. And, in fact, a teaching opportunity: Consider your reactions as opposed to what you would prefer your reaction to be, what your reaction often is. Where does the difference come from?
I think you’re going to say it is the difference between a reaction from my 3D-only personality and my larger personality which presumably knows better.
Well, knows better but also isn’t hurting in the same way. First-tier experience hurts, we said. Well, anger often proceeds from injury.
And this is one reason for bringing to political and social questions the knowings you have developed in your “higher” moments – that is, your moments of meditation, or of communion with your larger self. The closer your connection with your self beyond 3D limitations, the more accurate and effective your reactions within 3D, you see. It is in effect a fountain of wisdom that cannot be matched by any amount of 3D experience.
And let us pause here. With your earlier couple of pages [meaning, from 12:40], you will have quite enough to type up, and this is a convenient place to pause.
Thanks very much, as always. I can’t decide whether we got very far or not. I suspect, farther than it seems to me while still in the joint mind. Very well, till next time.