Nathaniel — “Local representatives”
Sunday, January 28, 2018
4 a.m. The thing you said yesterday that startled me, because it opened new vistas, as I said, was that we in 3D are our Sam’s local representatives. I should like us to pursue that. I can’t think how it could be a more important realignment of view.
You may spell out what you think it leads toward, and we will proceed from there.
Well, when we think of our place in the scheme of things, I think we consider the 3D parts of ourselves as if they were the whole thing to be considered. It hadn’t occurred to me that of course what 3D experiences, the rest of All-D experiences as well, and what our All-D being is experiencing, so, at a remove, is the Sam from which we were – deduced, I suppose one might say, or abstracted, or separated out.
Nothing wrong with the word “created.”
All right, the Sam from which we were created. Vast impersonal forces contend in the universe, and that contention is not limited to our 3D existence, but it is in our 3D existence that a particular kind of contention can occur. Our peculiar conditions of compressed energy create structures. Delayed consequences, separation in time and space, restriction to an over-changing present moment – taken together, it creates a crucible, as has been said, to create structures that could scarcely be created otherwise. These structures – that is, we – then function from the All-D as modifiers of the community of minds. That is about as far as I can go.
Notice that none of this centers on 3D life as the end-result in and of itself, and yet it takes for granted the unique importance of 3D life in the overall scheme of things. The 3D life is not everything; but it is something. The universe does not center around it, but does rely on it to fulfill its function. In this, of course, there is no real difference from your experience of any other part of life. As above, so below – as always.
Perhaps we can resume after another sleep-cycle or two.
We are always available. It’s up to you.
7:45 a.m. To resume –
Although you often think of yourselves as 3D beings – as if you could be only 3D beings – of course you are a part of a larger being whose consciousness extends to 3D but does not center there. And of course it itself is part of a being larger than itself, as you may be said to comprise beings smaller than yourselves, but for the moment let us confine the discussion to the human-consciousness scale, both the part centering in 3D consciousness and the part centering in non-3D consciousness.
Now, when you begin thinking of yourselves as structures funneling, shaping, interfering with, harmonizing, etc., vast impersonal forces, you may perhaps see yourselves very differently. Even the shipwrecks among you may be seen to have taken part in great encounters.
I get the image of a fleet of ships – sailing ships, say – encountering a storm.
The storm is apt to leave them somewhat the worse for wear. That is not a tragedy, seen large, though of course it may be experienced as tragedy by any given ship and those concerned with it. Storms, and the result of storms, are not tragedy, any more than prolonged balmy days or crisp winter nights. They are among the conditions of life, and that’s an end to it. You may rail against specific weather if you like, but it won’t do you any good. You might as well contend against the existence of weather in general. If you have atmosphere, you will have weather, and there is an end to it. Period.
You seem more emphatic on the subject of resignation before the inevitable than the subject seems to warrant.
We are emphatic on the uselessness of wishing things were other than they are. Nobody knows better than life, than the All-That-Is. Yet you spend so much of your lives thinking that in this or that specific, you do. It is not characteristic of wisdom.
Consider us admonished. Although, we are expected to exercise our judgment, and to express our preferences, are we not?
Oh yes. Have you considered that we, too, have judgments and preferences? And that our basis for those judgments and preferences may be slightly broader, deeper, wider, more secure, more eternal, less contingent upon momentary stimuli, than yours?
Hmm. A trip to the woodshed, feels like.
Try to hold both sides of the balance, not just one. You are expected to hold opinions and values; indeed, you could scarcely be alive without them forming, consciously and otherwise. But recognize, your views and experiences – hence, your opinions and values – are always going to be more partial, and we might almost say more arbitrary, than ours. You have a right to an opinion; you have a duty to remember, it may be wrong. Or, rather than “wrong,” let us say, it may not be the best you can do at any given moment.
Are we beginning to discuss conscience?
Tangentially. Primarily we are looking at that tension, that communication, between the 3D individual and the rest of it that is part of it – integrally part of it – but is not primarily affected by necessary 3D limitations. It may be experienced as a spirit, or as “other,” or as a part of one’s own mind, and none of these ways of conceptualizing it is wrong, and none sufficient to express every aspect of it.
The point for the moment is that you in 3D have access to a point of view that has your best interests at heart (being, after all, part of the same being you are also part of; being another part of your self), but whose judgments and preferences may run counter to your own. And then what do you do?
You choose whether “my will” or “thy will,” I suppose.
Exactly. Jesus the man might be said to have had the normal human interests in life; perhaps they did not offer him a smooth ride without internal conflicts. Given that people might not discern the gentle irony in that sentence, let us rephrase it to be sure that we are clear: Jesus was subject to conflicting desires and pressures, like any other human being. It is in his choice to consistently follow the will of his non-3D self that he distinguished his use of will from all others.
I get, rather like Joan of Arc listening to her voices.
Like that, yes, but at an entirely different order of magnitude, so to speak. Joan hesitated, naturally enough, until she learned by experience that they could be trusted. And in the case of Jesus, it was not voices – which are, of course, relatively external, relatively “other” to the person experiencing them – but of an identification so near complete as to provide certainty. Jesus did not doubt what; he was tempted to doubt whether he as a human was able to do the “what.” His consistent will was, “Thy will, not mine, even though I would prefer to avoid this if possible.”
It reminds me of Lincoln, praying to know the right thing to do, but always being willing to do it once he thought he knew. The same humility in the face of something so transcending being human.
Lincoln’s struggles were external, but yes, similar process. And it is as well to remind you, for you to remind each other, that the same decisions face you, if not every moment, at least often enough. Are you going to rely on your 3D judgments to form your values and shape your actions, or will you employ the wider connections always available to you?
Carl Jung, I think, compared what he thought of as the racial unconscious to an immensely long-lived, immensely wise old man, always willing to help if consulted.
That is a valid conceptualization, perhaps more adapted to 20th-century understanding than, say, the medieval concept of ex-human Saints, and the Blessed Mother, as intermediaries between humans and God. Given the form of their understandings of the structure of themselves and of the physical world and of the unseen but felt spiritual world, their path to connection worked for them as it would not work for you. Given the 20th-century concepts of separation in time and space, individuals as units, non-existence or at least questionable existence of the unseen world or worlds, Jung’s concept was a viable bridge to a reality they could not approach even as nearly and effectively as medieval times had done.
Well, I’m aware of how much work you all have been to, these past 20 years, to lay our new understandings of who we are and what we’re living among and what our potentials are: It has been a good deal of groundwork-laying, in order to provide another way to see things.
And you wonder, who will ever absorb it, and what good it will do any who don’t hear of it and haven’t accompanied you on the journey.
And you’re saying, as usual, “Don’t worry about it.” I’ll use Rita’s old habitual response: “I’m not worrying about it.” But of course I do. And at the same time I realize, that’s a waste of energy.
Now, you may conclude that we have forgotten not only about the discussion of sin in general, but of lust as the most recent particular. This, we have not. You will find that the recent discussions will shed light on the subject. As usual, context is more important than the item center-stage.
I don’t know that you’ve ever said that before.
Perhaps not, but it is so nonetheless, and certainly you can see that this has been our practice, even if unstated.
Indeed I have. Next time?