Monday, May 21, 2018
3:15 a.m. All right, gentlemen, let’s get back to work. You were saying?
At the moment we are examining the nature of the continuing present moment as it reveals itself in any given time-slice in 3D. it will be worthwhile for people to realize that “It is all now” is the same thing as “This moment of time is unique.” Same thing, but conceived of, and experienced, very differently. Once you realize that everything is alive no matter how dead it looks, and that every moment of time is the same moment – divided, as it were, for differential experience – and that every form of life (it’s all life, remember) has a form of consciousness particular to itself – well, once you realize all that, you can see why the world (that is, reality) is such a very different thing than your own upbringing conceives of it.
Also, you can see that the assumptions you bring to reality affect the conclusions you draw, and both [assumptions and conclusions] affect the structures you construct and live among – your religions, your politics, your philosophies, everything. As you see, looking around you, you all live in different worlds that sometimes touch and sometimes don’t; they sometimes conflict or contradict each other, and sometimes find allies and what we might call psychic or intellectual or emotional kinfolk.
The portrait of reality that we are drawing for you – with you, actually – cannot be 100% accurate. Neither was Seth’s nor Cayce’s nor anyone’s. And why not? Because telling truth—perceiving truth once it is told – is a two-ended communication link. It takes two to communicate, one to speak and one to understand. The personal adequacies and inadequacies on either end change (perhaps we should say determine) the nature of what is communicated. We do not mean to say that a given speaker or a given hearer is inadequate to the truth. It isn’t like Seth should have been a better teacher, or Cayce a better student, or you reading this better prepared emotionally or intellectually. But, truth is vastly larger than anyone can conceive of it. What anyone can conceive of is vastly larger than anyone can express adequately. What they may express refers to things vastly larger than the language can convey.
This is why wisdom (as opposed to a recital of facts) can be conveyed only one to one, usually in person. It is why revelation immediately devolves into dogma, sectarian differences, and strife of one sort or another.
But does this mean that there is no truth to be found, or that there is no use trying to convey it, or that what is not given in person has no value?
Rhetorical questions, I realize.
So when we talk of something – the nature of the present moment, for instance – it would be counter-productive, as we have said before, for you to immediately relate what we say to your accustomed way of thinking, to reconcile it with what you regard as authority. To force a new thought to first fit in with what you already think is to cripple your chances of experiencing it. What you get is a shadow of the impact – the positive, constructive, reorienting impact – you might have experienced if you had given the new way of seeing a chance to seat in, to give you a glimpse of a new world to experience.
Nonetheless, mostly you don’t hear new thoughts on their own; you fit them in, or misfit them in, to what you have constructed so far. It’s natural, nor is it entirely a negative phenomenon. But it makes it hard for you to revolutionize your lives when you ache to do so.
So take the present moment in which you read this. Bear in mind, you will never be the same person re-reading it, no matter how often you come back to it: Any given slice of the eternal present moment has its own particular qualities, so the same words would affect you differently even if you could be the same each time, which of course you will not be.
Can’t step in the same river twice, not only because the river keeps on flowing by, but because you aren’t the same person taking the step.
But in saying that, you related what we said to what you already thought, you see. It isn’t an entirely obstructive habit, and in any case it isn’t very easily overcome, only be aware of it.
Speaking of which, over the weekend I came across Sydney Omarr’s book Answer in the Sky … Almost, that I edited more than 25 years ago, and as I think of astrology in the context of one eternally existing present moment subdivided in our experience by 3D time-slices, I can see easier how the basis of astrology could be explained in a way that would make sense to people who assume it is superstition because they conceive of it as pretending to express a cause-and-effect relationship.
Presumably the book re-entering your life at this time is coincidence.
Very funny. I suppose it’s time for me to unpack my book of astrology texts and make a new attempt to study it in light of your current concepts.
That would be a possibility; hardly a requirement. You may find demands on your time multiplying, if you wish.
Now, in the course of interacting with a dozen people in the context of experiencing and deepening connection with intuitive guidance, a couple of seemingly not-quite-relevant aspects of life intruded.
Politics, the news, and people dealing with everyday life.
More carefully, divisions by politics, carefully not pursued while you all went about your common constructive pursuit.
Not quite sure where you’re headed, here.
Politics – divisions by politics, which means perceptions that divide as opposed to shared perceptions that unite – isn’t, or aren’t, comfortable nor fun nor, often, productive. But the tensions are real, the disparate perceptions and values expressing in the moment are real, so the unwanted guest at the feast may be ignored, but will nonetheless be there. It is always that way, but some times make it more evident than others. When it is obvious and potentially destructive or anyway uncomfortable, is that an anomaly? An unfortunate deviation from the pursuit of higher thought?
I know you set that up for me to say, “No, all is one,” or whatever, but yes, of course I find it so in practice, even though I know it is different in reality.
Thus you see an example of the effect on you – on anyone reading this (or not reading this, for that matter) – always. The vast impersonal forces shape the zeitgeist. Your own personal forces interact with the world around you which you do not shape, and yet your ability to choose, starting from this platform that has been affected by these forces, is unimpaired, and – more than that – your ability to choose involves the ability to affect not only the “present moment as experienced in a 3D time-slice,” but (therefore) the one living undivided eternal present moment.
I’m getting – as you’re saying that – the sense of how astrology might represent it. The slow-moving outer planets (not to mention the fixed stars beyond us) represent the vast impersonal forces that set up the situation for a generation; the inner planets perhaps represent our personal forces; and our individual response to the situations set up by this focus is our response. It is what we choose to do with what life dealt us.
And yes, I recognize that again I am doing exactly what you point out is a somewhat hazardous operation, that of associating new information with older, while trying not to lose the impact of the new.
And we did say, this can scarcely be helped. The trick is to get the most benefit with the least drawback. Enough for now.
Well, as so often, I’ll have to go back as I type this up, to see if it rounded off or just stopped. In either case, thanks for all this, and we’ll see you next time.