Saturday, April 28, 2018
5:55 a.m. Thought about not getting up to do this, then thought, “But why not? I like doing it, and I’m not tired, nor sick.” So, here we are again. I do wonder if anybody went to the link to Schumacher’s discussion that I added to the end of yesterday’s discussion. Gentlemen?
If you can keep in your minds the clear distinction between spirit and soul, between levels of being – in short, the basis for the question of “Which you?” – you will have the basis for a new approach to the examination of your lives. It is one thing to see the world as merely an extension of your own internal world, a second thing to see it as separate from and superior to your being (as common sense would see it), and quite a different, more difficult but more productive thing to see it as necessarily both, or, if you prefer, as necessarily something not quite either.
Neither subjective nor objective, exactly, and not a blending of both either. So what does that leave?
If it could be put into a word or phrase, or even a sentence or two, that would show that it was not a new way of seeing it, but one that already had its place hollowed out for it [in language].
But surely it has been thought and experienced before, so why shouldn’t there be expressions for it in the language?
But you see, it is one thing for the word to exist among hundreds of thousands that exist; but if it is not in common currency, it may as well not exist. It doesn’t exist except for those who know about it, in short. To put it another way, words hide in plain sight. If you don’t know the meaning of a word, the meaning won’t exist for you either.
This is a little tangled. I’m getting the idea, but not so easy to express, I agree. Those more esoteric messages may be puzzled out, perhaps, but until that happens they will be meaningless to those who stumble onto them.
The man who decoded huna. Tell it, not worrying about the vagueness in your mind about detail, but getting to the essential part of the story.
The essential, I imagine, is that a westerner in Hawaii (I think, or maybe Polynesia somewhere) witnessed the efficiency of native cursing of someone who died of the curse for reasons not medically explainable. He learned that there was an understanding of the world that the natives had that they were not about to share with Westerners. He figured it out deductively, examining the meaning of the words in their language by how they had been put together out of smaller earlier words. This is a terrible summary, but it’s all in Max Freedom Long’s book The Secret Science Behind Miracles. [I looked it up, transcribing this. The subtitle is “Huna Magic and Ho’Opono, Ho’Oponopono Instant Healing.”]
The point here is that he found in a foreign language that the world as experienced and conceptualized by the speakers of that language was right there, in common use, but hidden in plain sight. Hidden, not in the sense of something deliberately camouflaged, but of something so unfamiliar as to be misinterpreted or, let’s say, interpreted as being simpler than it is in its inner being.
Language always expresses the understanding of those who have used it. As understanding changes, so does the language. We have discussed this many times.
Yes. Poets, seers, anyone who has gone beyond common perceptions, they sometimes have to torture the language, to convey new meanings.
You know where we are going with this.
Yes, I think so. To find the hidden (lost) understandings of the past, look in the language we use today for its hidden meanings. Oddly, what I just wrote is not at all what I intended to write, which would be something more akin to, “to find the past understandings hidden from us by our own present understandings, go back to previous days and look at them from their viewpoint rather than from our own.” You changed courses on me because that isn’t practicable, I take it?
Neither of the two approaches is practical for any but a few. Are you all to become linguists? Or scholars of theology and philosophy and archaeology?
I see your point, but after all it was you who said tell Max Long’s story.
His discovery required a lifetime. So did Jung’s rediscovery of the inner essence of alchemy. Do you think it would be worthwhile to imitate the path of another, when that path has already been overtaken by a railroad through the same territory?
What is it you suggest, then? I get that you are reminding us that what we see around us is capable of a more profound understanding.
What is it that you yourself have stumbled onto as your life’s work, while you had your mind on quite other ideas?
I see. The most direct route is of course inward. Doing just what we are doing here.
Only, not in a spirt of imitation, but of emulation. There is a difference.
Yes, the difference between concentrating on the external aspect of something and concentrating on the internal aspect of the same something.
In this case, the process of living in communication with one’s ____. And here we return to the problem of language and understandings.
Yes, I see. To finish your sentence with the words “higher self” or “non-3D component” or “self that remembers non-duality” would in each case give a seemingly specific but actually not very useful definition to something, not necessarily at all accurate.
And the difficulty reinforces our point. What is an advance for you because made in the spirt of honest exploration may be an advance for someone else if made in that same spirit, – but it may be a retrogression, or a detour, or a wrong turning, for someone else making it in a spirit of trying to be in your life rather than theirs.
I may want to do the same kind of exploring as did Carl Jung, but I don’t have his languages or his professional experiences or his life or anything. To truly explore I must first be myself and not an imitation of someone else.
Correct. Emulate the spirit of inquiry, don’t imitate the details of a life.
So, in practical terms, the thing for anyone to do is to get on the closest terms with one’s equivalent of whoever it is that you are, and pay attention to the heavy hints it drops.
What else is 3D life?
It doesn’t look that way.
It will if you change your definitions, and here we come to the point of this long run-up. The world looks to you like people scurrying around (or lounging around, for that matter), each engaged in time-filling activities, none giving any particular thought to “the meaning of things” or “why am I here?” This is very broad-brush, but not so far wrong as a portrait of your view of ordinary life.
As you say, pretty broad-brush.
Still. Now, if we assume that reality nevertheless knows what it’s doing, the question becomes, “What’s really going on? How does an anthill of people running around pursuing their own karma add up to any kind of meaning?” In other words, the same question: Why is life as it is, and what is it?
And the answer is–?
The answer is, you can’t understand those ants without understanding the anthill, and you can’t understand the anthill without understanding that the ants aren’t at all what you think they are. They are not individual in the way mammals are, and at the same time they and you are the same kind of thing with one emphasizing more the-common-larger-being-made-up-of-seeming-individuals and the other emphasizing the-individuals-cooperating-only-in-a-more-tenuous-relationship. But if you do not look to the common elements, you will not see – though it is right there in front of your eyes – that neither ants nor humans are as they appear.
And the going behind the curtain, seeing deeper, implies close communication with our guys upstairs.
Close but not necessarily conscious. TGU but not necessarily experienced in the way anyone else does. But our immediate point, which we should like to begin with when we resume, is that the closer understanding of the hidden-from-you nature of 3D life is a key to what we are calling the weather you live among.
Give us a little more?
You cannot tell objective from subjective until you understand the true differences between them, and the true similarities or even identities.
And that is enough.
All right. Thanks as always, and see you tomorrow or Monday, or whenever.