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.
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.