Thursday, June 7, 2018
5:15 a.m. Private session yesterday. (Why do I feel compelled to write that? Is it anybody’s business?)
Your life is not your own, once you begin to allow people to participate. How far you open the door is, of course, up to you. but, having opened the door, it is only courteous to announce your business hours.
That last part went off on its own, didn’t it?
It followed its own momentum, let’s say that. We would have said, only courteous to acknowledge that you still have a personal life that continues even when you communicate with us. Or, perhaps a still better way to put it would be somewhat generalized – If you were to feel obliged to publicize every communication, you would thereby assure that you could not take advantage of this access for your most personal matters. It would condemn you to being able to help others but not yourself. It would be the converse of a more common attitude in which one keeps such communications strictly to oneself and dares not (or anyway chooses not to) use it openly to assist others.
I suppose it is like any other aspect of life, a resource to be used only with discretion.
You are all private, you are all public.
Okay, so today’s topic?
You will notice your boredom with “Topaz.”
The Alfred Hitchcock movie I received yesterday, yes. I have watched about an hour of it, I suppose, and for some reason it does not grip me. It is supposed to be a suspenseful drama, but I feel myself not much caring.
And you know why, though there is a paradox.
There was, until I wrote that out and got the point. I was prepared to say, “The drama is too external,” then I was prepared to abject that “On the other hand I’m re-reading all those Lucas Davenport novels of John Sandford, and they are just police novels.” But in writing your “paradox” sentence I realized, I’m re-reading the novels not for the plot but in order to hang out with the characters, and even their actions are overlaid with their psychological drama.
And that is our morning’s theme: When you get to a certain point, you cease to believe in the primacy of action and instead believe in the primacy of psychology. But you can express it yourself more easily, and we will edit as necessary.
I get that you are saying that once we no longer take for granted the external drama, it heightens our interest in the internal drama.
Not quite. Slower.
It’s like the joke that says that anybody who thinks “The sky’s the limit” has a limited imagination. Life-and-death situations aren’t as exciting when death is just death and not catastrophe.
Keep going, you’re getting there, but not there yet.
If the external world is only a reflection of our internal, real, world, external drama cannot be more than a hinting at the real conflicts going on.
And we’ll take it from here. That last isn’t right either, but it’s close enough to spring from. The external world is not only a reflection of the internal world; neither is it unconnected to it nor independent of it nor superior in importance to it. Any of these relationships may seem obvious from a given point of view, but any of them reflect the limitations of a point of view, rather than the limitations inherent in the situation. A wider view of the reality of the internal / external relationship is what we are trying to provide.
The personal world you know is one element. Obviously nothing can be more real than that – although, typically, materialist science inverts the relationship, thinking that the one unquestionable reality is only theoretical because it cannot be measured by instruments.
The world you experience as objectively “there” to be dealt with is also real, despite philosophies and half-understood mysticism that would wave it away as only an illusion. A thing may be more than can be grasped, without ceasing to exist.
The unbreakable connection between the personal world and the external world exists. While you are in 3D, even though your senses tell you that 3D is all there is, still you are in All-D – as is that external reality – and you cannot disconnect from the larger context in which you exist.
Your deeper reality exists. That is, the “you-ness” that precedes, co-exists with, and follows your time in 3D cannot be destroyed, nor talked away. In that sense, you have an independent place to stand, even if it is not as you may conceive it.
Similarly, the external world may be said to have its place to stand, independent of any of its components.
Finally, the forces we are calling the vast impersonal forces exist, and coordinate or shape or let us say potentiate and channel all this into a coherent functioning pattern.
Let me itemize, for clarity:
- Our internal world, one per each.
- The external world we each experience.
- The connection between the two, here seen as an element in itself.
- Our deeper reality beyond our 3D internal world.
- The deeper reality of the external world (though I’m as yet a bit vague on this one).
- The vast impersonal forces as the coordinating element.
Bear in mind, the external world as you experience it is going to be different for each person, as each person is different. That doesn’t make the external world per se different, only different for each.
All right.
You see, the entire universe does not center on any of you. (We state it thus baldly merely to flush out any hidden assumptions.) Neither do you exist merely for the universe. It is a much more cooperative relationship than you commonly realize, and it is distorted by your assumption that either end is real and the opposite end unreal, or either end is “the important thing” and the other not. This is just as between us and you in these communications, where we said from the beginning, “Beware of pedestals; they distort relationships.”
So I am thinking of Eisenhower as depicted in that excellent film, “Ike: Countdown to D-Day.” His concentration was, and needed to be, entirely on externals. He focused what he was upon the task at hand. It wasn’t the time for metaphysical questioning or discussions such as these. He acted as though what was external was real, and needed to.
He did not, and needed not to.
You may wish to explain that for the studio audience.
He relied upon God’s approval of his motivations. He prayed in his attitude if not necessarily in words. He assumed, and tried to live up to, the fact that the forces he was commanding were doing God’s work. In this he was like Lincoln 80 years earlier. Just because you do not share the form of the connection, do not be blinded to the forces involved. Don’t be like the dictator [Stalin, I think it was] who asked, “And how many divisions does the Pope have?” In that, he was blind to the reality of the non-3D, you see. If you do not believe in God in the way Ike did, or Lincoln did (or, if you do), recognize with the Sufis that “Words are a prison; God is free.”
One of my favorite sayings.
Which is why we lifted it. So do you see that, and why, Eisenhower in concentrating on external forces nonetheless involved the deeper reality beneath them?
Are you saying he was directing – using – the vast impersonal forces as they flowed through the moment?
Just as Hitler had used them, just as Churchill or Lincoln used them, yes. Just as Dion Fortune’s group began to use them in a coordinated fashion after Dunkirk. Prayer is not self-delusion, nor is it desperation – nor a magic wand. Regardless of its form or apparent intent, it is an alignment.
Prayer is magic?
Magic as in “direction of forces beyond human control,” yes. And as has been said, people are praying all the time, and their prayers are always answered.
A farmer said that to Emerson when Emerson was a boy.
That forgotten farmer [named Tarbox, I think] played his part in history with that one statement that set Emerson thinking.
So next time we’ll talk of prayer and the vast impersonal forces. It isn’t a view of prayer that churchgoers would recognize, necessarily, but then, neither would New Agers, perhaps.
Very well. Nice session. Thanks as always.
Usually when Frank doesn’t post a session for the day, I use it as an opportunity to reread previous sessions, sometimes several days at a time. If Frank doesn’t show up for several days, I begin to wonder if he’s fallen off the edge of the planet or gotten abducted by ETs. Both sound like fun, so maybe I should launch a rescue expedition? Ha!
This morning I’ve been contemplating the nature of evil, and I’ve been working at unraveling it from my American Protestant religious background. I don’t propose that I will come to any great conclusions here, but I want to post these thoughts as part of a process, one that may spark others to post as well.
TGU says that evil exists and the line between good and evil runs through each of us, not between us. That confirms what I’ve known for years — a personified source of evil (a satan) is unnecessary. It is a way that religion has explained why bad things happen to good people. But in divorcing ourselves from the evil which exists in each of us, we risk divorcing ourselves from the absolute goodness within as well. Once we reach that sorry place, it is easy for religion to convince us that we are unworthy worms in the dust, vastly in need of rescuing, etc, etc. [Sigh.]
If I understand TGU correctly, the vast impersonal forces are neither good nor evil, just really large scale forces that affects everyone and everything in the All-D without regards to personal needs or preferences. Where these forces come from or where they go, TGU hasn’t said. Nor has TGU said what governs or determines their nature. These forces blow through the structures of our lives, and sometimes the music is beautiful and sometimes it’s creepy. What is it TGU compassionately said a couple days ago, “The music is so loud it sometimes drives you insane?” We don’t have to look very far to see that nowadays.
I working definition of evil is that it is selfish actions that negatively impact others. It’s being “off the beam” or off track, and not caring how my actions may affect another. It’s also placing my needs above the needs of the many or the few. Yet I can see that I could still be on the beam, and my actions could still negatively affect others. Hmmm.
Like I said, no conclusions here. Maybe I’ve missed something or someone has an insight into this. TGU has seemed (to me) to be a bit oblique on this subject, as it is a side trail that would take a lot work to clear away the misinformation. Maybe that has been left as an exercise for the student.
Dear Jane(C), Frank & all.
What you to have brought up here is very relevant to “my daily” speculations – because what you are telling/asking here seems “becoming a part of the OBSTRUCTED existence on the earth.
Once Charles Sides(friend of Franks`)and I did “the conversations” about MANY books. And the one book to have begun to read anew is the one titled: “The Unobstructed Universe,” by the long gone author Stewart Edward White. The channelings back in the time before WWI coming forth with the channelings by “the Energy-Essence” called “Betty” – also named as “The Betty Books”… something similar to Seths and Franks`
And here the other day came upon chapter VII. titled: ONLY ONE UNIVERSE…. and quote “Betty”(channeling), with big letters in the book:”THERE IS ONLY ONE UNIVERSE.” And Betty goes into explaining more of it: “We must,” she insisted, at a later session, “say over and over, THERE IS ONLY ONE UNIVERSE. That is the fundamental premise. “All the concepts that I have been assigned to bring to you,” she repeated, “must be based on the fact that THERE IS ONLY ONE UNIVERSE. The next step is your recognition of the shifting, even in your consciousness, of the dividing line between the obstructed and the unobstructed universe. Next is your realization, of what your scientists have admitted(supposingly a hint to Albert Einstein, and Tesla etc., as the channelings of Betty was done approximately around 1910-1920/1930s), that there exists–in the only-one-universe of which you are a part–much that your senses cannot detect, but which you have proved to exist by means of instruments invented by man. The unobstructed universe of mine is part of your universe, just as your obstructed universe is part of mine.”
Down the same page: “We established the reality of consciousness, and the continuity of the individual division of consciousness. That was done long ago. Now and more than ever, for a laboratory starting point, a premise, a goal to be proved, we must rationalize for a reasonable mind the second great reality, that of the ONLY ONE UNIVERSE (with the big letters again in the book). THE GREAT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOU AND ME IS IN OUR AWARENESS-MECHANISM; and even that awareness-mechanism is FUNDAMENTALLY the same(upheavals of lthe letters again);the difference is not so great.”
I`m jumping a bit to another page(page 45 in my edition a copy printed in 2010): “A second purpose is to instill into earth consciousness the oneness of the whole. (and with the upheavals of letters)THIS BROADENS YOUR ETHICS AND RESTRICTS YOUR MORALS. Both have been too loose for the comfortable living of mankind.”
I`m jumping to page 46: “It is only through the application of the reality of law, the acceptance of responsibility by the higher quality, the recognition of the need of the lower qualities for aid in their individual fufillment of their work and obligations, that the world can settle into a true evolutionary process. It s important not only for you, but for us, that this occur.”
In the book it is a whole chapter about FREQUENCY, the chapter XVI:
Betty: “FREQUENCY–FREQUENCY!” says she, and let it go with that.
“Frequency of what?” I asked when, days later, she repeated.
“Of consciousness, the one and only reality. It is what controls. Consciousness is in evolution. Therefore it is in various degrees. Each degree has its frequency. That frequency is a—well, I`ll have to call it a sort of magnetic energy. It is a vibratory emanation of the vital force; the thing that is; the individual rate…..”Frequency is the essential characteristic or property of motion,” insisted Betty. ” I am not talking about rate of motion, which is the property or characteristic of motion most familiar to you in the obstructed universe. What I am talking about is the essence of the orthic trilogia which results in motion.
“Your individual frequency and your degree of consciousness are related,” she continued. “There is, for example, a degree in evolution of consciousness that we will call treeness; and in manifesting it becomes a tree. Now to that there is a corresponding frequency, And you have an electrical spark, and that is a degree of consciousness, and to it you have a corresponding frequency, There is an actual difference in vibration. Motion is. Frequency is an essence of consciousness, an actuality. What you call motion is really only one aspect of frequency.”
She refused to consider vibration a synonym.
“Take the simplest thing we can call a frequency. Take a tuning fork. It prongs move in space at a temporal rate. That is motion, as you know motion,” said Betty. The essence of the motion is frequency.
Darby asking:
“The divison into time, space, motion, I gather, is only for our understanding. Actually they are only aspects, there is no sharp division between them?” surmised Darby(talking with Betty), “not in the orthic,” agreed Betty.
…on page 109: “Consciousness is in motion,” agreed Betty.
Obviously; “That means that frequency and quality are at least closely related,” said Darby— the differentiation of quality in essence.
Well, ending the quotes here: The Unobstucted Universe (the particular book) almost “fell into my eyes in the beginning of this week,” and now rereading it anew….Catching the memory?? Smiles from Inger Lise
P.S. There seems to be(still)a reference to our own “ethic & moral” about us…. Us, the essence (sparks) of consciousness.
And I was pondering on the the vast impersonal forces… that affects everyone and everything…are neither good nor evil. Difficulty with this. It is estimated that 100 million people died in various wars last century. For each of those people there was nothing impersonal about their suffering nor deaths.
Obviously I have no conclusions- just disturbing wonderings- which certainly do not align themselves in any way with TGU’s views. Theirs are seen by me more as philosophical discussions that are far removed from my 3D life.
And the particular one that made me roar with laughter was “that all prayers are answered”. Hmm none of them tried to comfort their mother -racket with pain -and asking “why has my god forgotten about me? why doesn’t he take me?” And her understanding that years of devotion and prayers for a ‘happy death’ had not been heard.
Yes, I can agree with TGU that there are impersonal forces but I do not think that they are good; more leaning towards the evil. And why? To what end/purpose? Why not compassionate forces that love humanity and want the best for us? Like a loving parent that wants the best for its child-its creation. Sorry…just fantasizing about my kind of 3D.
Too much to answer here. You may want to go back to previous posts that went into these and related questions in some depth.