[Continuing Sunday’s conversation with the guys, moving from the dream into wider realms.]
[Sunday, April 29, 2018]
10:15 a.m. Okay, looking at the dream as expressing internal relationships primarily focused on each other, rather than focused on “me as internal individual made up of many elements” nor on “me as external individual interacting with the external world.” A third way to look at things beyond internal v. external.
Keep a light touch on the microscope knob. It is easy to jiggle the focus merely by an inattentive movement. Thus, moving back into familiar terms such as “internal v. external” may mislead you into trying to cram a new delicate perception into an accustomed way of seeing things.
So, a better way of phrasing it?
This may come out long-winded, because not previously organized for speech. After we articulate it, though, probably you or we will be able to express it surprisingly concisely. You will find that pattern frequently when feeling your way into new relationships of ideas and viewpoints.
I understand the problem. I should, having been trapped in it often enough!
You are at one and the same time:
- An individual in 3D, placed into a given time-space situation;
- A community of elements assembled to live together to form (by living) a new habit-pattern called a mind, or soul.
- One element of a higher-level being that is not perceptible in 3D but in which you live and move and have your being.
This is not a description of three different states, but of the one state looked at from three different viewpoints.
I understand. “As above, so below”; so from a lower level of integration we look like a success story, I suppose, while from a higher level of integration we look like the new kid in town, still learning the ropes. And from our own 3D level, we look like somebody herding cats, or engaged in a shootout, or conducting a symphony, depending upon the cooperation of the various constituent elements.
Yes, that is one element of the situation, the fact that who and what you are can be seen in any of these three ways, or in more than one, or in all three ways, and either alternately or in succession or fluctuating or tumultuously varying. That situation is one element.
Another element is that from any moment of time, the present is alive with potential, which means in fact that all moments of time are alive with potential, always. So, the better your relations with various lives that are your strands, the greater your ability to affect positive change all up and down the line. However,
Sure, the defect of the quality is, we also have the potential to do equivalent amounts of damage.
But now put together just these two aspects of reality: what you are in sum, and the fact that you can change any of it.
But that isn’t how we experience it, usually. Maybe never, really. Life around us seems very stable, very stubborn, and does not change merely because we want it to. Nor do we change merely by wanting to. Our own mental and physical habits are very hard to modify. Willpower alone doesn’t do it.
That is one prime advantage of 3D, after all, to resist, to not produce instant manifestation. We can do that [produce instantly] in non-3D, but it does not produce the lasting results we get by immersion in 3D. When you make patterns in water, it’s easy – and they disappear. Make patterns in solid substance – wood, steel, cement – and it is difficult, and they persist.
I grant that we can change, if only with difficulty and slowly (usually).
So then cast back to a few of the experiences you have come to take for granted, TMI-enabled experiences such as retrievals; self-generated experiences like healing “past” lives; communication between and even among many other lives in other times and places.
Yes, more magical than they sometimes appear, because it’s easy to take for granted the change of viewpoint that enabled them.
So, two elements: Who and what you are while in 3D, and time is alive everywhere. Add a third: Your possibilities alter according to the times you live in.
The weather. The really external conditions among which you lead your lives. There is internal (your intuitively contacted world), and there is the apparently external (your sensorially-contacted world which is the same thing experienced differently), and this third element that may be difficult to explain. That is, it is a distinction that will be obvious once we figure out how to express it, but may not be obvious until then.
It has been only half an hour, but I need a few minutes’ nap. Maybe finish after that?
There’s no time limit, no deadline. We will get to it when we do.
Monday, April 30, 2018
So now we proceed to what you are calling the weather?
We do. And perhaps it will begin simply and get complex, or vice-versa. We shall see.
It will be interesting to see.
Remember – we keep stressing this point because you are so likely to forget it – the importance of these discussions is in the connections among them, more than in any particular explication. So as we discuss the weather, it will only being you to someplace new in so far as you remember to associate it with the rest of your mental lives.
We have just been at some pains to dissect your life experiences as two complementary perceptions (intuition and sensory), leading you to experience life as, correspondingly, inner or outer, subjective or objective. It has required books – literally – to lay the groundwork for you to remember that 3D and non-3D, inner and outer, is all one world, not two. The rest of our explorations, to the limit of patience and beyond, would only reinforce and expand upon this one point: Life, the world, reality, All That Is, consciousness – call it what you will – has no firm boundaries that are in any way ultimate divisions into more than the one thing it is. Boundaries for the sake of logical or perceptual analysis, yes, but absolute “this is this and not that,” no. So when we make a new separation, as we are about to do, it is important for your understanding that you remember that it is a boundary, or division, for the sake of analysis and understanding, rather than any splitting of reality into two things.
I can see why you worry about it. The structure of our 3D minds with their limited RAM pretty much assures that what we say “Yes, sure, it’s obvious” to one moment seems like fantasy or exaggeration a while later.
When you are “in a different mood,” as you say. (We know you don’t regard moods as different logical spaces, but they are, quite as much as they are different emotionally.)
So here is the distinction. You in your identities as 3D beings live primarily in the present moment as defined by your bodies. That is, if you are born in 1946, that particular 3D-you continues from there until released. It is true that you extend in the ways we have discussed, so that your 3D personas are not the whole of the greater you, but it is also true that “you” are primarily the you created for one moment of time-space.
Say you are born into the time of the Roman Empire. What is the particular nature of that age? Where does it come from, the ambiance in which you will pass that life? The easy and obvious answer is that it was shaped by history, by the decisions and events that occurred before you arrived. This is a true answer, but not a sufficient one, by far, because if you look at the question in the light of so much context we have provided that is not in your mind at the moment, you will see that what is obvious at any given time depends upon what context it is being considered in.
Let me rephrase that last part. You are saying that if we wish to see more deeply into the question, we will have to consider it not in “common sense” terms but in terms of the deeper constituents of reality you have been putting us in mind of.
Yes. Yes, that is it exactly. (1) Multiple versions of reality depending upon choices, first of all. This refers not only to any one person, but to every person, and it results in a complex mesh that has unsuspected implications. (2) Continual revision as people change their decisions. (3) Mutual interaction based upon conscious or (mostly) unconscious adjustment to the changes experienced by or initiated by others. That is a very different context!
It is. We usually think in terms of “Caesar did this, the Gauls did that, this resulted,” etc., as if it were all fixed and a one-time event, and modern Europe descended from Caesar’s magnificent statesmanship that turned a physical conquest into a conversion of loyalties. We don’t think of it as subject to revision.
You always did.
You can hear me sigh, I imagine. Yes I did, and now you intend for me to give it to the world, I presume.
Nobody can force you, but why would you wish to cover it up? It isn’t dishonorable, nor was it foolish. Is it that you still think it embarrassing?
Yes, I suppose so. I hadn’t thought of that.
There is still a vestige of an earlier you, apologizing for his differences, embarrassed by them, yet unable to disown them or disbelieve what they showed him.
I suppose looking at the embarrassment factor will help somebody, too, come to think of it. Maybe everybody is used to hiding where they are different, or assume they are different.
Even this will tie into our theme, as you look back on it. But, do tell.
Very well. And I cannot express how strong my reluctance is, to put this on the record.
It will help “you” as opposed to this old robot, for you to do so.
Well, that’s very interesting. As I got up to get more coffee, I drew an association I hadn’t drawn before.
That’s one of the benefits of updating old robots.
So it is. Okay, true confessions. When I was a boy reading history – this is still embarrassing to relate – I felt sure that if I could only read it differently, I could make it come out “right,” meaning more to my taste. I don’t remember specifics, but I imagine it began with Civil War battles where the Federals (the North) lost. But I don’t remember and that doesn’t matter. The point is, I wanted desperately to change what I was reading, which of course everything else around me said was fixed and final.
Come to think of it, another association. The one I had remembered on my way to get coffee was the way I used to know (but couldn’t find out how to put into effect) that if I just turned “something,” I could fix my lungs so I wouldn’t have asthma. The second association that just comes to me is how I used to feel to trapped in time, like taking what seemed an interminably long trip in the car, desperate to move to the end when we should be there, rather than having to endure every moment along the way.
I had never associated these three things, but look at them.
- I “knew” I could change history.
- I “knew” I could change physical reality to heal my lungs.
- I “knew” I could move in time.
In all three cases, I “knew” it could be done, and I knew I didn’t know how to do it. And it was all crazy, from anything I knew around me. I did have enough sense not to mention any of it.
There’s your hour, and we can continue from this point. Well done.
Thank you. and I guess thank you for pushing me to examine that. I can see that the new associations put everything in a new context. Very well, till next time.