TGU — on strands and immortality

Wednesday, July 25, 2018

4:45 a.m. All right, guys, I’m ready. Just scanned recent transmissions, to try to remember where we were. I hope that isn’t necessary, but I figure it can’t hurt.

No, can’t hurt. The intellectual thread we are pursuing at the moment is the immortality of lives that continues in a way you haven’t considered. Much of this whole long discussion was spurred by Bob Friedman asking you what people do in the afterlife, you remember.

That seems quite a while ago, quite a few books ago. But yes, now that you remind me, I do.

We could not answer without showing you that your society’s many unspoken assumptions were wrong, that the reality of life is different from its appearance, and so the very assumptions built into such questions prevent it from being answered. You [that is, members of our society, our culture] have been given so many conflicting descriptions of life, death, afterlife – because people do not question their own assumptions.

For that matter, I suppose it began with Rita’s questions in 2001.

It did, for you. Until the series of prep sessions in 2000, you had only patchwork ideas picked up here and there from whatever resonated in what you read. But you never would have begun to tease out the implications of what you had been given in the sessions, without Rita’s persistent questioning. And you never would have had access to answers without the information as a starting point that you got in the black box during those sessions.

So I suppose I may take it that you have been providing me with the resources as we went along.

It is the same for everyone, only they must keep their intent clear. By that we mean, not the path – for the path may seem nonexistent – nor even the goal – for how can you know where you are headed, if you are exploring new territory (even if only new to yourself) – but what you want to be or become or continue to be. Have a clear ideal of self-construction, and the means to grow toward it will be provided, moment by moment.

We won’t take a lot of time on this, for it is almost tangential to our theme, but, a minute or two.

Consider Abraham Lincoln. Could you or anyone think that he lived his life expecting to be elected president and save the Union and finally settle the slavery question and, in the process, become a model of an upright uncommon common man? If he had had such an idea (and from where could he have gotten it?), it would have led him to delusions of grandeur. No, his day to day existence was an experience of living a raw life, very conscious of his social and educational shortcomings. His continuing resolve was to better his condition; his continuing way of being was goodwill, charitable intent, tender-heartedness, melancholy, a love of fun – all the traits that are so well known in him – all shot through with a continuing ambition that saw law and politics as its channel, but saw no real outlet or obvious channel for what would really satisfy that ambition. He lived his life having to damp down his expectations to what seemed reasonable, regardless of other things within him that whispered, quite irrationally, that there were other unnamed and unshaped prospects before him. And who would have been able to believe such a destiny as was Abraham Lincoln’s?

Our point concerns not Abraham Lincoln, primarily, but you, whoever reads (or writes, for that matter) this. Clear intent is your gyroscope; it will hold your course true even though you cannot see any but the next step ahead.

Thank you. That was pretty eloquent.

Hopefully it clarified once again how very much your lives are in your hands.

All right. Now, to continue on the unsuspected aspects of immortality.

Each new incarnation may be regarded as a new soul or as a continuation in new clothing of a pre-existing soul’s existence. Either view is somewhat true – it is true from a certain point of view – and neither is absolutely true. That is, neither is the only valid way of seeing it. Those who can only see it one way believe the facts prove that reincarnation does or does not exist, and that the soul does or does not have more than one 3D existence. But, beyond that, those who have been following our description may not be seeing a further ambiguity, which is what we are attempting to clarify.

A soul is formed (or, if you prefer, resumes its journey in new clothing). It consists of a bundle of strands that it – the personality, the “ring” that is the 3D soul – holds together for the course of a lifetime. Living that life, it chooses, chooses, chooses, and in the process decides (shapes) what it wishes to be. That is, it chooses which values and traits it wishes to emphasize, to live, and which it chooses to de-emphasize, or fight against, or disown. Depending upon the homogeneity or otherwise of the original mixture of strands, the soul has an easy or a difficult time, holding things together. But at some point it completes its 3D journey. Then what?

Or, a better way to put it – what has that soul become, and what has its 3D life done to its constituent strands?

There are at least two ways to answer the question, aren’t there?

As usual.

One way is to trace what those years of living together has produced that is new (and this is what we have concentrated upon until now), and the other is to trace what has happened to those individual strands that continue to be individual strands, even as they also become part of something new.

It is people’s inability or unwillingness to see that both processes co-exist that causes so much unnecessary confusion and dissention.

And, as always, I’m hearing, unsaid, “which is why religions etc. have to preach a simplified set of dogmas”; because who is going to be able to redefine everything for the average person who is not particularly interested in such questions, and is not particularly awake to non-3D explanations.

Well, also because religions – including the religion of materialism – are chiefly carried on by people who are not inclined to see things more than any one way. That trait closes them off from any but the most dualistic reading of the way things are.

So, you can see that a person’s decisions in a lifetime help determine the composition of character (call it) that is the result of that lifetime. Thus the soul that results is different in some way from the soul as it was when it entered that life. The combination of strands has lived together. Regardless of your opinion of whether that particular soul existed before the life, it exists (either for the first time, or in a way altered by the lifetime) afterward. But – and this is our new ground here – let’s look at the pre-existing strands themselves. They did not lose their individual identity, living as part of a new bundle. They are still as individual as they ever were – only, remember, “individual” is a relative and not an absolute term.

You have to ask yourself, though, where did that strand come from? Suppose you adopt the view that says Bertram was one strand that went into the making of Frank DeMarco. The “Bertram” that is that strand is actually a form of shorthand representing a reality that might be termed – if it were not impossibly too long to use – “the strands that lived together in a particular place and time and therefore were available to function as a relative unit.”

Yes, I get it. I’ve had it for a while now, today. On one end, we are –. Oh, didn’t you use the funnel analogy once? Wide at the receiving end, narrow at the resultant one? Or perhaps that was a different subject.

You might more profitably look at an individual 3D life as a prism working not to diffract but to reconnect. That is, many waveforms entering, one waveform (containing them all) emerging. And each prism-focused lifeform may then enter as one strand into another prism-focused lightform.

Thus each new form may contribute to further developments without losing its own identity. But if you look at that, you see that you are faced with the question, what were these lightforms before they went into the focusing process?

You are back in your old cliffhanger mode, I see, as it has been an hour.

Well, we made some progress today, and it helps you to have a definite point of departure each time.

That it does. Thank you for this very interesting discussion, or lecture, or whatever. Till next time.