Nathaniel — definitions and non-physical experience

Monday, November 5, 2017

4:05 a.m. EDT. All right, my friends. A sus ordenes. ETs?

Let’s discuss 3D and non-3D relationships. There is more than one way to be an alien. We are going to keep coming back to this point: There is one reality with local subdivisions, not fragmented or segmented realities.

Either you are saying something new that I am not getting yet, or we’re being careless with our phrasing – you are or I am – and said “reality” when we meant “universe,” or 3D universe,” or something.

Both senses are true. In this particular case we are stressing the continuity between what is usually considered to be two different subjects, so the language is going to be vague at first, likely. The question on alien 3D life obviously involves the question of alien non-3D life, only it [the connection] is only obvious in retrospect; that is, once mentioned.

So – to be clear – the two subjects are ETs and –?

The nature of your own non-3D world, which means the nature of the All-D, which implies the question of what you can see out-of-body; how far you can go; what you may or may not be able to imagine.

Still not clear. Getting less hazy.

Your out-of-body explorers – let’s confine our discussion for the moment to Bob Monroe’s tales, which you are familiar with.

Yes. A seeming contradiction, his tales in Far Journeys of AA and BB traveling around, basically for kicks, finding Earth and AA getting sucked into physical life because it is so intense and vibrant.

You could ask him directly.

I know, but I don’t dare. I don’t want to be seen as thinking I’m channeling Bob.

Which you have done already.

Yes, and you see the reception it got.

Yet you are fine with channeling Rita to the extent of three books.

Four, counting the one not yet published. But Rita doesn’t have Bob’s fame and there is no implied stigma to saying, “I’m talking to…”

And you are going to let that stop you, Frank?

Well, yes, more or less I am. What is the percentage in creating obstacles, when I can say the same things without attribution and avoid the whole question.

[A sense of a chuckle on the other end.] Not much, at that.  Very well, we’ll do it your way.

Just “doing the best I can.”

Yes, and we appreciate everybody’s efforts, and anybody’s. Remember and be reassured, the actual mechanism that causes an idea to go “click!” for somebody is the connection between that somebody and an association made by way of your words (or anyone’s, of course), not by the words themselves.

Yes, I remember that. Words as sparks rather than as scripture.

Well, in a sense that is what scripture is, sparks. But in the sense you mean, yes. It isn’t the word itself that changes things, it’s what the word helps illumine.

So, back to the question of non-physical travel (so called) and physical limitation, which is really what the perceived contradiction is about. Perhaps you should concentrate for a moment, and then phrase the question at hand.

Okay. It seems to us usually that non-3D is not tied to locality, but is free to move at will. This material seems to be saying that in any given place, what we experience as non-3D is really a subset of All-D, and therefore must be tied to one locality. The non-physical Canada, for instance. The 3D is not being a sort of Disneyland theme park.

And the word that came to you while writing that?

“Non-locality.” But I have only a vague sense of the connection. I almost interrupted my sentence to give a big “aha!” because I sensed it was a key somehow, but I didn’t, because I don’t know what it lights up, only that it does, or anyway will.

Here is the key to the contradiction. Only, don’t expect it to clear up the whole intricate subject in three words. But it is a trail through the forest, anyway.

[How can 40 minutes be gone already, and only four pages written? Like yesterday, no sense of moving slowly, yet – where did that time go? Perplexing.]

Life in 3D implies life in one locality. You are in one place, at one time. Yet you know that 3D is a subset of All-D, and All-D does not exist in these limited conditions. The All-D, you already know, comprises all the timelines in which you exist. So, in a sense you in 3D, by way of your own nature in non-3D, as the other part of All-D, also exist in the same conditions that you now recognize to apply to All-D.

May I untangle? I got the sense of it in writing that, but since the process involved my writing while shifting (so to speak), I don’t see how it could have come out clearly, and it certainly didn’t.

This is as much about process as content, remember. Go ahead.

I think what we’re getting at here is that what we experience depends mostly upon what we concentrate on, meaning not “what external subject we think about, “but “what part of ourselves we experience while perceiving.” If we think of ourselves in our accustomed 3D definitions, we naturally experience the world of 3D, with separation in time and space one prominent characteristic. If we think of ourselves as our larger non-3D-bounded beings, we experience the world as nonlocal (because the separations in space are not absolute but perceptual) and time-ranging (because the separations in time are not barriers but, shall we say, a way of keeping times sorted).

Yes, except “think about” isn’t right. It’s more, “feel,” or “experience.” It isn’t your thought about who and what you are that matters. The thought may (or may not!) lead you to what does matter, which is your knowing, your working from, your identity as a being that surpasses, and never was confined to, 3D limitations.

Our divine as opposed to our human nature.

Not so much “as opposed to,” but yes.

So what you call non-physical exploration is not and cannot be non-physical as long as you experience yourselves as 3D beings, having a non-3D experience. You see? Your definitions alter your perceptions.

I take it that you mean, our self-definitions conscious or otherwise.

Precisely, and of course “otherwise” here as everywhere is the strongest.

What is unconscious has power over us, if only because it is invisible to us and therefore we identify its effects as ours.

That’s right. So, consider pioneer Bob Monroe. Consider him not from his unknowable inner process, inner experience, inner starting and ending points. Instead, just look at what he left on the record.

In his three books.

The three books are fixed in form (although their meaning will change as time changes the reader), but the experiences he facilitated for others are also part of his legacy, and must be taken into consideration.  Thus, people who have experiences in one of his TMI programs are a part of his external record, and by nature not a fixed but an ever-varying format, because they proceed from his way of phrasing things. Can you explain?

We’ll see. I get that Bob necessarily wrote his books as if we were the 3D beings we experience ourselves to be – limited, separated individuals – with a hitherto unsuspected additional non-physical dimension. In essence, he portrayed us as individual ghosts able to interact with other individual ghosts, that “ghost-ness” being our true nature, and our 3D experience being just that, an experience, rather than our true nature. I imagine that this was his own starting-point, and I imagine that either he didn’t move from that definition or, more likely, he figured that he would have to begin there in order to relate to his readers. From that individual starting-point, he moved to talking about his I-There and his new self-identification as a human who was really a ghost that was not individual except in a manner of speaking, being a part of a much larger being from which he stemmed and to which he remained connected.

Notice, it has been only 65 minutes, but you have produced roughly the same amount of words as usual, despite that initial slower pace.

It’s perplexing to me, the fewer pages produced in 40 minutes, and the larger amount produced in the next 25 minutes. And I’m no longer naïve enough to think it doesn’t mean anything, nor to think you’re going to tell us right now.

Then you won’t be disappointed, will you. But this is enough for now.

Okay. I do get the sense we have begun to clear up the latest contradiction.

It will get more obscure before it gets clearer, but yes, good work on both our parts, today. Till next time.

Till next time.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *