Nathaniel — 3D-conscious and non-3D-conscious

Nathaniel — 3D-conscious and non-3D-conscious

Tuesday, December 12, 2017

5:30 a.m. Looking back to our session of Dec. 7 – seems longer ago than that – I see your summary of what needs to be explained, to explain why we are on any given timeline, regardless whether we think we would have chosen it.

[“So, in this question of particular timelines. Given the fact that a decision is, in effect, a change of timeline – well, we need to sketch out several things needing to be sketched out in turn. What is a decision, and who makes it, for one. What a decision actually does; that is, how it affects timelines. Why decisions are possible, why they are made, for another. How they are made. And, not least, how all this is affected by, and affects, other layers of consciousness. That’s a lot to have to accomplish, but it seemed better to set out the problem so you would have some idea where we’re headed.”]

So – ?

That was an analysis of what had to be explained, not a syllabus. The factors don’t need to be spelled out one by one. The trick is for you to make the connections, which can only be done individually, of course, and not by rote. Rote is for memorizing tools you can use. Individual leaps into comprehension, though, is the way those tools produce results.

Meaning, just looking at the list now, we understand it better because of your past work.

Well, don’t you?

I’d say not quite that. It’s more like I feel more ready to understand than I did before.

That’s a good way to put it. Much of the mental construction has been done not by your 3D mind but by your so-called unconscious mind – that is, the part of your extensive mind you are not conscious of. It isn’t unconscious of you; you are unconscious of it

And some of that construction work requires time? Which is why we don’t get it right away?

You think – why should it require time? Another throwback to your old assumption, “on the other side, there is no time.” By the way, just for completeness, that statement is true in a way, but to understand “in a way,” so much more reorienting is required that perhaps we should say, it isn’t true for you at this time, from this place.

Like our discussion of reincarnation. Either a yes or a no would be equally misleading because some of our assumptions about it are wrong.

Some of your unconscious assumptions, yes. That is always what makes these teachings so difficult. But, as we make the unconscious conscious, things clarify.

In writing that sentence, I see the confusion in the way we use “unconscious” for two different meanings.

As we said, you really need a different word to represent the parts of your mind that are, themselves, very conscious, only inaccessible to the bright narrow spotlight you experience as 3D consciousness.

Jung’s “shadow.”

That’s in the right direction. Minus so many things people have hung onto the concept, it would almost serve.

What if we began to speak of conscious and shadow-conscious, instead of conscious and unconscious?

We had to stop and consider that – as you experienced. It has its pros and cons. Like anything you seek to capture in words, what you gain in one direction, you are likely to lose in another. One aspect will become more precisely seen, and others will blur.

I’m open to suggestions.

At the risk of over-emphasizing the distance between two ends of what is, after all, an unbroken continuity, let’s think about using these terms:

3D-mind v. non-3D mind, to distinguish between you as you experience yourselves and us – TGU, Rita, Nathaniel, your past lives, etc.

3D-awareness v.  non-3D-awareness to distinguish between your conscious mind and your so-called unconscious mind.

But it’s long. Maybe 3D-aware and non-3D-aware?

We can try it, see how it goes.

I’ve gotten beyond seeing things as digressions or irrelevancies.

Good. And we’ll take that as a hint. [Smiling.] So, as we were saying, when new connections are offered, either by study or by “external” input, the work of doing that associating is done by your non-3D-aware minds.

That isn’t going to work, is it? Sounds like you’re saying not-aware-of-3D  mind, which is the opposite of what you mean.

Perhaps not shadow but shadowed.

­Our 3D-minds v. shadowed-minds?

Or even shadow-minds. It might work better. In fact, it has another advantage in that it shades off into the group mind of which individual minds are a part.

Which would leave you saying, new connections are made not by our 3D minds but by our shadow-minds. I don’t know. another possibility just flitted in, and flitted right out. Let me see if I can retrieve it. [Pause.] Well, I can’t, at least at the moment. And we’ve burned 40 minutes so far and haven’t really gotten anywhere.

Analysis, re-arrangement, pondering, is all work, all worthwhile.

Leaves me less to type, anyway. So, from here, where do we go today?

We might as well continue on the subject we strayed onto. (Yes, strayed. It wasn’t planned, and it wasn’t accident either. Every crossroads leads to different places, and every point along the way is, in effect, a crossroads.) You focus on a given thought or subject. That’s your conscious mind working.

Our flashlight. (I remembered what zipped by earlier.)

Your conscious 3D-mind – your flashlight – connects seamlessly to your non-3D mind, what we once called like starglow, an immense, omni-connected background presence in your life.

And! I just got it! It isn’t actually that your consciousness is dim, so much as that our vision in 3D is blinded by the intensity of our flashlight consciousness.

Now tie this in to the thoughts that came in recent sessions.

Yes, I got it. The physical horizons, and the similar time-bounded horizons, and us always at the middle, but the time horizon continually moving us along.

Your flashlight beam illumines intensely within its range; beyond that is the effective horizon.

And you – and our non-3D awareness – are how we “see” beyond our horizons.

Not so much a new thought as a new phrasing of a familiar thought, that will bring in its wake different associations.

So, to return to our starting-point: As information passes from starglow to flashlight-area, it is essential that you be able to receive it, that you not be blinded by the glare of 3D-awareness.

So, slow down, meditate, experience, turn off the association-machine, etc. Just as religious and philosophical and self-development systems have always advised.

In studying any system, you will be obliged to separate practice from theory, perception from rules. If you look at any explanations – including these – as external indicators of a not-necessarily-experienced internal reality, you will not stray so far or so often into error.

Trusting our gut-instinct, for instance.

Following your intuition. Listening to the small still voice. Hushing the monkey-mind. All ways of advising a practice, despite their different tacked-on explanation or ideology.

And there’s your hour.

Thanks for all this. Next time.


19 thoughts on “Nathaniel — 3D-conscious and non-3D-conscious

  1. OK. Two things (btw, great discussion, Frank).

    First, where is the biological brain in all of this? Is it a 5th wheel? Is it simply part of the “association machine” or “our 3D blindness as each horizon continually approaches”? Or … is it somehow concurrently integrated into a part of the “human-languaged” quadrant I now have in my head about these concepts (e.g., two minds, aware or not aware)?

    Second, you mention practices (meditation, slowing down, etc). This was an excellent clarification. I thought that I would add or relate that Abraham (Hicks) continually emphasizes “reducing our resistance” by meditating. And, I have some other responses to this content, but I am keeping my comment brief.

    Again, thank you to all involved. Grateful.

    1. Please don’t keep your comments brief out of a fear that others will find them uninteresting, or unhelpful. I can understand keeping them brief if it is a matter of your not having time at any given moment, but it would be a mistake to withhold out of an excess of modesty (As in, “I couldn’t possibly have anything important to say.”)

          1. length = time to gain some clarity/focus and write it out (did not feel I had that yesterday)

            I understand what you are saying about modesty. I will take heed to that. Thank you.

  2. So useful! To see what innate spiritual practice could look like vs what every other “expert” tells us to do. There’s not always time to meditate, study, sort out what others say to do. Seems like it has to be a fly-by-the-seat-of-the-pants practice of listening to our own inner guidance and acting on it, in the moment. I think I’m repeating myself, from other comments, but it’s what I come back to. This is how to be authentic, to take the immediate association/decision we feel and apply it. To make this our practice.

  3. I read this post with Dec 7 and 10th’s posts. I had the following insights, and I’d like to offer them up to this group.

    Nathaniel talks about us living in a bubble, and that seems like the beam of light of our 3-D consciousness. Information from the All-D is always coming through to us. Yet the sharp focus on our lives prevents us from being overwhelmed by All-D input. I can become aware of the star field outside my bubble through meditation. (I use a Hemi-Sync exercise to distract my conscious mind so that more can bubble up into my awareness from the All-D.) I tuned down my sharp focus and allow the star field to become visible.

    Also, our way of viewing things is always through a filter. It’s our unique perspective, made up of our likes and dislikes, our predispositions, and our non-physical parts or strands. The phrase that keeps rambling through my mind is from Apostle Paul in his letter to Corinth:

    “Now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I shall know fully just as I also have been fully known” (1 Cor 13.12) So for a man who’d had the profound visions and out-of-body experiences as Paul did, he still felt like he only saw a poor reflection of a greater reality. He was frustrated by it, yet he reminded himself (and his audience) to be patient.

    (When I use quotes from the Christian Bible, I’m using them as quotes from a religion’s sacred text. I don’t mean to present them as a standard. I was raised Christian, which informs my thinking. Yet I value personal experience above doctrine and dogma.)

    1. I think the way you approach this is a very helpful example to people of how to get the benefits of the tradition you were raised in, without being forever constrained within its limitations.

  4. Suggestion re: 3D-awareness v. non-3D-awareness to distinguish between your conscious mind and your so-called unconscious mind.

    3D-awareness v. greater-awareness or extensive-awareness

    In other words, an awareness that includes more than 3D-awareness?

  5. I would like to offer another view of this topic.

    Consider the electromagnetic spectrum. Everyone learned in school that the visible spectrum is a narrow set of frequencies. That is what we call “color” range. We “see” only those frequencies within this spectrum. You could say this is one of the “D” in 3D that we experience. It is the dimension of space. We also experience the audible spectrum, which could be considered another “D” in 3D. Then we have the sense of time, which doesn’t have anything to do per-se with the spectrum, but rather the changes experienced in the spectrum. That would be the third “D” of 3D.

    Also, the spectrum isn’t just wavelengths as it is understood. Instead, it can be considered information. The wavelength doesn’t go from 0 to infinity. It goes from infinity to infinity, never reaching 0 and never reaching a maximum. In addition, we use a discrete value to represent the range (e.g. 0 to x). But in my understanding, it isn’t a discrete value, but instead a “quality” of energy. That quality is represented along a linear scale by a number due to the physically observed behavior of waves.

    You can see what this infers. The experience of “3D” life is the filtering of this unlimited energy into narrow bands of experienced energy. The “All-D” is what we are, the full spectrum of this unlimited energy of which we can experience. And this energy is information. We “see” because we receive the energy from the visible spectrum and we able to “know” what we see, which is information (i.e. knowing, which is not the same thing as knowing a label or labeling). We recognize, which is knowing, even if we don’t have a label for it.

    So, if this spectrum, which has been reduced to a set of numbers, can be accepted as being more than just a discrete set of numbers, and is instead infinite information, then we are the embodiment of this information (i.e. we create it), and it is the focusing of limited ranges of information that define “separation” between dimensions of awareness.

    1. We don’t seem to be speaking the same language, so I’m not sure that I understand you. When Nathaniel etc. use 3D, they refer to the three dimensional world we know so well — height, depth, width, plus time as we perceive it. Your use of 3D seems to refer to something else entirely. Re your third paragraph, my understanding is that each of our senses picks up a given range of the energy spectrum, so that we perceive sound as if something very different from sight, for example, because we apprehend them through different sense-organs, even though they are actually part of a continuity.

      1. Yes, the standard definition for 3D is the Euclidean space. But what I was trying to say is that the perception of space as 3D dimensions isn’t actually there. Otherwise, what does 4D or 5D mean? Are they just more axes? What I’m trying to explain is that visible space is only there because we see information within the visible electromagnetic spectrum. The photons that enter our eyes is just energy and the body filters that energy into the visible spectrum. We interpret that information into our awareness (such as objects in space). Because we don’t really have 3D as “space” (which infers distance), I’m referring to All-D and 3D in terms of the energy spectrum. I break that spectrum down into dimensions of energy awareness. 1 dimension is that of 3D space (visible spectrum). Another is sound which is “2D”. And the 3rd dimension as time, which is “1D” meaning a “moment”.

          1. Sure, that’s understandable. I guess I’m not trying to discuss concepts using standard definitions, but rather to point out the limitations and suggest an alternative. Dimension is defined a particular way because it is representing an observed aspect from a particular perspective (from within 3D reality). However, if one tries to explain something that isn’t an aspect of this reality using those same terms, it’s difficult to discuss the concepts that does not relate to one standard definition and understanding. I hope my intent is coming through.

  6. Frank,
    I’m curious as to where the All-D concept fits into this concern about 3D vs non-3D. For me All-D is a very useful concept/container, referring to any and all awareness/consciousness I have and/or aspire to.

    Perhaps the desire is to contrast 3D-consciousness against any and all consciousness that’s not 3D. That’s not a useful direction for me, as there are no real boundaries/divisions, and concentrating on words for such just seems to add to the separation.

    What am I missing here?

    1. Too simple for you to notice, maybe. All-D was a catchall term for the reality of which 3D and non-3D are complementary parts. In other words, it is as its name implies: It is ALL rather than partial.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.