Nathaniel on life among outcomes

Nathaniel on life among outcomes

Friday, December 15, 2017

4:50 a.m. Such a comfortable, familiar habit, coffee and slippers and robe, sitting at my desk—

All right, friends, ready to proceed?

Indeed we are. And glad you are ready as well.

I had printed out someone’s question, the other day, but now I can’t find it. So, more on decisions and changing timelines?

You needn’t clutch, trying to remember what we had listed as things to be covered. We made the list, we can follow the list. But, as we said, it doesn’t need to be done that way. The underlying question – how is it that find yourselves on this rather than that timeline – amounts to asking, why can’t you have everything your own way.

I remember my very little daughter saying one time, with a great sigh, that that’s what she would like, to have everything her own way. It was so funny, because I thought, yeah, wouldn’t we all.

Same old question, though – which you? And beyond that, what’s the fun in playing a game in which you win every time? And beyond that, how can you construct anything without resistance to be overcome? And beyond that – it isn’t only about you (although, in a way, it is), so how could it center only on you?

Beyond all that, you are not playing a game, or constructing something, or engaging in a competition – whatever metaphor you care to use – once and for all. Instead, you are engaged in what we might call permanent impermanence. Perpetual readjustment. Continual reaction and reaction and reaction, not in a passive way that leaves you only the acted-upon, but in a creative way that leaves you perpetually stimulated by what has been, and then contributing by your reaction – your chosen and unchosen reaction – to what has been.

I got a great visual of an intense handball or jai alai game. Intense, deadly-fast, intoxicatingly intricate, exciting.

Yep, that’s your lives. Even the boring parts are, let’s say, the background moments to a continuing movement.

Now, we know that the natural thing here for many of you will be to say, “But what’s the point of all this?” Wrong question, for the moment. A better question is, “How can this be true? It doesn’t feel that way.”

No, it can’t very well feel that way in any one given timeline, can it?

That is a very 3D way to look at it. We’d say it a little differently. That was a transitional concept, that many-worlds way of looking at things. It isn’t that the world is split by each decision – not in a physical-reality way. It’s that it is possible (inevitable, in fact) to split in a different way, non-sequentially.

I’m getting the idea, but non-sequentially isn’t the right word.

It is in a way, but it requires explaining. Try, and we will correct.

Yeah, it’s hard. All right, what I’m getting is that within conventional 3D thinking it is an endless series of Y structures. One splits to become two, each of which splits in turn. So, the guys told us it doesn’t happen as a result of decisions, but was a pre-existing set of equally real timelines created with the creation of the universe. That is, all possibilities always existed, so all timelines existed, only one seeming real at any one time in any one place. And now you are saying, I think, that we don’t traverse all those timelines in parallel – all the timelines don’t exist simultaneously in the way we’ve been thinking – but we don’t traverse them sequentially either. It’s more like reality flickers continually, like a fluorescent light in a way, always on, always changing, always more or less continual.

It is in the continual readjustment of the perpetual present moment that all timelines are traversed.

I’m almost ready to give up on words. I can’t explain what I’m sensing.

You know how people sometimes describe reality as ineffable? That’s what they are running up against. But it isn’t an absolute barrier. Experience plus intuition can convey what theory and mere words cannot. That is why there is no substitute for experience and a personal teacher. Fortunately, “when the student is ready, the teacher will appear.”

Not necessarily in physical form, I take it.

Well – Let’s put it this way. In physical form is how you respond easiest while dependent upon sensory input. It doesn’t have to be a person. It may be a set of circumstances.

A book falling off a shelf, leading an intuitive person to buy the book.

Certainly. A chance conversation. An overheard remark. A connection drawn because you happen to be reading two very different books at the same time. There are millions of ways. It isn’t the circumstances themselves, it is the recognition of resonance.

But sometimes it’s a person. And the odd thing is that that teacher may function for you as teacher without either of you suspecting it. Your influence on each other’s lives is greater than you commonly suspect, and it occurs in ways you often are unaware of.

In any case, no need to give up on words. Remember, think of them as sparks, catalysts, not as in themselves the mechanism of construction. You can express something very sloppily and still strike sparks; you can express very distinctly, with fine modulation of meaning, and not strike sparks. And in either case, you’ll mostly never know on a 3D level. Nor need you. it isn’t your effect on others that is the point of your lives, but your effect on you. On you. You are your responsibility.

To clarify, I know you don’t mean, “Look out for number one,” meaning, do whatever you want to others.

Even that, in a way. If you are responsible in your relationships [I wrote this, but in typing it, I don’t understand what this clause means], you express who you are. In other words, you live your values. To be good to others may be who you are. To be indifferent to them, to view them with hostility and suspicion, to be actively malevolent – all these possible ways of being are part of the range of human reaction, and just because you disapprove of them does not mean they aren’t.

I get it: If you disapprove of evil, fight it by expressing your values, but the emphasis is not on the social outcome but on your own character development through choices.

Your own life is what you contribute to social outcome. This is not metaphor but fact. A John F. Kennedy, a Gandhi, a Hitler, will have a vast impact upon present and future society. That impact is an integral part of their lives. Nonetheless the lives were about their choices as individuals, as much as about their reactions to the influences around them. At the opposite end of the scale, someone nobody will ever hear of – a monk in his community, and we don’t mean Thomas Merton or the Dalai Lama or John Tettemer (or Mother Teresa; it isn’t a gender thing), but a truly anonymous monk – is still engaged in living his or her values. The invisible but very real influence of any of those individuals – who are connected to others by innumerable strands, remember – will have an effect, but they exert that influence, they have that effect, as a by-product, you might say, of living their values.

So you can say, perhaps, that “resist not evil” has as one of its meanings the importance of keeping your eye on the ball and not confusing your actions externally as reality and your actions internally as not important or even not real. One of its meanings.

Bear in mind, there can be no “final” result while the world continues to exist. It isn’t pastàpresent àfuture. It is one perpetually interacting present moment, playing out all possible scenarios. At any one time – Now listen to this! – at any one time, you are who you are, you exist in the existing web of relationships, you choose (actively or by default) your reaction to that moment. There can be no final victory or defeat, because there is no “final.” So, can’t you see, the stakes aren’t nearly as high as people sometimes think? If you come to the happy ending, only to find that the story continues (as it always does), or if you lose everything and all is in ruins, only to find that the story continues (as it always does), how much emphasis should you put on winning?

But that seems to imply that our creation and expression of character is equally evanescent.

In a sense, it is. That is no tragedy, and it is not pointless. Everything gets expressed, developed, extended. Then other qualities get expressed, developed, extended, and maybe they to some extent contradict or reinforce or complement the previous ones. Which is real? Which is important? Which is the point of your life?

All of them.

Correct. All of them, any one of them at any given moment. You don’t need to understand your present-day life, nor see the point to it, nor bemoan the things you “should” have done, nor those you wish you hadn’t done. It is always now; you are always tasked with choosing who and what you want to be now, this moment. And no “external “developments can ever relive you of that responsibility nor (what amounts to the same thing) rob you of your inheritance and legacy.

And that’s enough for the moment.

And it’s six exactly. Nice work. See you next time.

 

14 thoughts on “Nathaniel on life among outcomes

  1. “…how can you construct anything without resistance to be overcome?” That turned on a light for me this morning.
    “Experience plus intuition can convey what theory and mere words cannot…it is the recognition of resonance.” The same thing said in a new way propelled me to a new understanding.
    Powerful.

    1. Jane ? And all….Thank you very much friends.

      Guess what ? I have ordered Janes book, “Jumping” from Amazon today. Charles gave me the title of Janes book as he really did finding her website…. I have pondered it for a long whike in how to find you Jane? – And it was Charles who did it ! Fantastic.

      THE VOID, oh my, for how long NOT to have wondered about it too !
      I can RECAL to have experienced “THE VOID” myself as a matter of fact.

      I have come to see now by to read what Frank, and all of you, to have “seen” the TRUTH in the words by what “Rita” is telling through Franks`.
      The very same in the book by Stewart Edvard White titled as:
      The Unobstructed Universe, and the content, the very same channeling as Ritas` , and quote from a chapter with there, a summary, an end of a sentence(from “the the other side of the veil” the after-life conversations in the book):
      “CONSCIOUSNESS is all there is….”
      ABOVE consciousness is – NOTHING created but The Void of Nothingness – “The Knowing I AM, ONE-Known of No-thing.”

      ….And and a quote from another splendid book: “The Afterlife of Billy Fingers”… In the last Chapter as the ending message to his sister:
      “And as I go on to another Universe, flickering as a beam of light into the unknown, flickering as a flame of pure Spirit in and out of consciousness, flickering from being to non-being and back again, as I do so, I ask only these things. Play this role for me. Be the Scheherazade of my posthumous journey, keep listening for my voice, and always, always and forever remember my love.”

      The end of the book.

      A winterdream right now “over here” – Bliss & Blessings, Inger Lise.

      1. Inger Lise–it’s great to be seeing you here and also at Charles’ site. Thanks for ordering my book. I’ve ordered Charles’ book “Motorcycle Enlightenment,” through Amazon. Because of him, I’m revisiting the Stewart Edward White books, especially his last one, “With Folded Wings.” As Frank wrote, it’s the “recognition of resonance” at work, “experience plus intuition.”
        I envy your winterdream. We could use the moisture here and are short some snow.
        Jane

        1. Jane — I`m walking over to your place with the two coffee-cups ! Do you have the coffee-filters ready?

          And I have the same book (of course): “With Folded Wings.”
          Hm, another “hint” in looking it up once more ? As I am telling Charles all the time: “It IS no Coincidences.”
          Yes, indeed very true – the Resonanace – and the Frequencies, seems to become more and more available into our awareness nowadays.

          This selfsame morning looking into a newly arrived book from Amazon by the NDE-experiencer Nanci L. Danison, titled: “Answers from the Afterlife( the book is somewhat a compilation of her three former books – I am only to read the first chapter today, and to have thought, so far, her story is “recognized” as very reliable as such, and quote:

          “Knowings do not come in words. They are not communicated verbally or telepathically by another being or entity, such as guides, angels, or spirits. Knowings are pure understanding unfiltered by anyone`s translation or interpretation. They come directly from the mind of Source. ….”
          Jumping (he, he) a bit down the same page:
          “Receiving Knowings generates an emotional sensation of assuredness and total certainty, and of being the recipient of great scholarship that cannot be put into exact words,
          Knowings are not a compendium of words in your mind.
          Rather, they are telepathically absorbed wisdom.”
          “A profusion of emotions surged through my body and mind. My laptop keystrokes engraved a hard drive with my memories of awakening a Source as indelibly as a diamond cutter etches glass, without warning, I transported back into the same level of Source`s loving Energy that I experienced during the deepest part of my merger into Source….Universal Knowledge opened to me….. I could read through the lens of my mind`s eye EVERY SINGLE WORD EVER HAD BEEN WRITTEN, or ever will be written, in the English language. Books of every description. Poetry, songs. Plays. Even little personal notes and office telephone message slips. My mind simultaneously held every written word ever produced by English-speaking humans.”

          I am asking : – WHY ONLY THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE ? –

          Hm, here I am pondering about what Nanci Danison telling in the book about hers…..She says:
          ONLY “english-speaking humans” ?
          When I am to recal onc, long ago, in to have an OBE- to have experienced something similar myself — BUT ALL “LANGUAGES” where FELT AS “A KNOWING”; Back then, in MY Mind, NO LANGUAGE were “used”, as when in us to use the language ordinarily as physical human bodies.
          In the OBE- no language were necessarily needed at all. You just KNOW without words.
          Very peculiar Nanci telling she received “the KNOWING” only by “the english-speaking” humans, though ?

          Nanci Danison telling “the Universal Knowledge opened to me:” AND THEN WONDER HOW she could tell in the book it is “ONLY THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING HUMANS” ?
          Okay, I can read further on in the same book later on and see if it is me not seeing it as something “out of Context” somehow.
          BTW:
          Received a email from Amazon about your book “is sent, and on its way up north.”

          And yes, Charles really having a precious gift in to find the most important context & content in any book/novel ever written (and easy to understand, at least for me). Smiling & blink the One Eye, Inger Lise.
          P.S. Sorry to hear all the snow at “the end-tail” of the Rockies to be gone with you ? The Rockies are really some gigantic formations. I have done a flight once, passing above the Rockies in the most wonderful weather, a flight all the way from Seattle to Los Angeles in the late 1980s….
          What a world of change since back then….The world changes FAST….. about the nano-seconds.
          Oh well, the illusion of Time, I `ll guess.

  2. Frank, what do you think about my explanation for “time” and “probability”?

    Whether you’re in 3D or All-D, the experience of time exists, but it is interpreted differently. We observe 3D time due to our physical senses, but it isn’t a linear progression which is interpreted by our perception and mental processing. In All-D, time is an experience, not observation. Same is true for 3D, but we interpret the experience as a linear progression because we can only perceive the creation of the observation from a narrow perspective. So the sense of only one experienced “moment” exists as a unit in terms of “time”. Unfiltered, all those “moments” are experienced simultaneously, but the experience changes you, which is the feeling of “time”.

    If you think about the “past” and the “future”, it is only in our minds. But they exist because we can think it. The same is true about the “present”. It is in our minds, but a chosen moment is “created” in the reality we experience because our All-D focuses on experiencing that choice. The “past” isn’t there, per-se, in this 3D reality. It is in our minds (or All-D), but so are many other not-actualized “pasts” which is really an un-chosen “now”, as well as the possible “futures” that we have yet to choose. I don’t mean ALL possible futures, but rather all imagined possible futures (that’s why some people seem to be limited in their lives, because of the limited probabilities they see for themselves). What this means is that the realized “now” is only that reality we choose to create by our choice, but just as we can imagine a different “past” and “future”, we can also imagine a different “now” without creating it into a reality.

    The difficulty in explaining and understanding this is due to the “direction” we think in. We think from the end-result, which is our physical experience of reality, backwards (meaning we hold beliefs that the reality outside of us is outside of our control, aka the belief in separation). We don’t really consider that it is a feedback loop: that we created the experience (through choice) that we experience physically, which leads to more choices that creates more experiences. This perpetual action is the reason why we “feel” time, which is the sense of action->reaction (a core belief of this reality: cause and effect). And choice is not necessarily objectively noticed. Action->reaction is not necessarily about the physical world’s perpetual Newtonian motion, which is simply the observation of a particular world being created through action (or choice or change or experience or “becoming”).

    So the idea that all probability exists simply means we can envision many different choices. Our ability to envision without physically manifesting, is the awareness of probabilities. Physical manifestation does not equal “real”. It is just one way of experiencing a probability (this particular 3D reality). The term “real” just means “experienced in this reality”, just as “probability” doesn’t mean “unreal” but instead “not experienced in this reality”. The choosing of a probability is based on the “rules” we agreed to follow, which is the existence of belief systems. That is how different realities come to exist: probabilities made “real” through the filter of beliefs.

    1. It took me until just now to reply to your previous comment, because i had to print it out and think about it.
      Here, too, there may be slippage between concepts. As I understand All-D, it refers to the complete unknowable reality that includes but is not limited to the 3D world we know. I agree that time appears differently from each viewpoint, but I’m not sure what you mean in saying that in All-D time is an experience, not observation. Not knowing what you mean, i can’t really comment on it.

  3. Lots going on for me.

    It is interesting to me that when the scaffolding changes, so does the context (often enough). The contrast of “Individual v. Group” is something that I have wrestled with throughout this material – often using Rita’s A / B process to go back and forth.

    After reading the first 3 days of this newer series with Nathaniel last night (e.g., I am starting from the beginning to formulate a couple of questions), I went to bed meditating or focusing on my “Sam”. It seemed more natural to do this after the reading.

    Related to this, on an OBE forum yesterday, I had shared a non-physical experience about someone from my past who seems to share the same “Sam” with me. Remembering and sharing that experience seemed to jar my mind(s) and brought back memories of that discovery. With the scaffolding changes, it was as if I was integrating that remembered experience with what is currently flowing from Nathaniel through Frank (e.g., all timelines, Sam, All-D). “Keeping my eye on the ball” as Rita suggested when answering my question (e.g., about being on the beam) a few months ago.

    I have not specifically been practicing (e.g., OBE’s, phasing) for some time now, however I had a series of phases / dreams throughout the early morning (e.g., I was intentionally and consciously milking this) and eventually upon awakening I entered back into what appeared to a last hypnopompic state with images against the back drop of a desert plain or dry lake bed. There was an object in the distance (a speck) and I thought “OK, let’s go there”. I was quickly zooming or flying towards it, and when I reached it there was a transition of sorts. I just went somewhere else, and I started to wake …

    … but not before briefly seeing my primary guide (e.g., flickering). She was standing at the end and to the right of my bed. I said “hello” as I was glad to see her – it has been a while. As soon as I did, I was awake and physically-oriented.

  4. So interesting, Frank. I speak and record my communications rather than write them out as you do. The most recent one has overlaps to this post, so reading yours today is stimulating.

    In the most recent recording, “they” were saying that it all happens in “real time,” so to speak (not that it gets tallied up later). Our contribution to the whole is who/what we ARE, so it is not about affecting the rest of our world through good works or being worthwhile. Whether it is good or bad is part of the duality experience itself and doesn’t tally when one is not functioning in that context.

    However, they urged me to use the good/bad perception while engaging in the dual-world experience. We function here as a series of relationships. This/That is endemic in this experience. So encouragement was given to be mindful of what effects I am having on those around me, as well as the general “flavor” I emanate. They said the concept of whether that has WORTH only exists when one is in the relationship modality, but that’s alright. It felt like the idea was “play the game full out while you’re engaged in it,” and not to try to apply the good/bad evaluation to how that fits into the all-D because that doesn’t really tally.

      1. Thanks for the suggestion, Frank. I have a friend who may be willing. She did one and I found it helpful. The spoken version is pretty slow. When I was able to read it, a different layer revealed because I was reading the words at a faster pace. If I get some transcribed, I will send it to you for your valuable input, Frank.

        1. fwiw … WIndows 10 has speech to text built into it (called Cortana) … and it will type what you are saying into your word processor … so no extra human transcriber is needed.

Leave a Reply

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