On crystals and viewpoints

Wednesday, September 19, 2018

6:10 a.m. I get the feeling that “singing the universe into existence” went in a direction a little different than what you had intended. Care to revisit?

What we said was necessary, but of course there is always more to be said on any subject. That’s why sometimes it matters, where a discussion goes, and sometimes it doesn’t. Now, recalibrate, and slow way down, and we shall see if you can loosen the reins of your imagination sufficiently to bring in something outside your comfort zone.

Well – I guess we’ll see.

[Pause]

You are creator gods, because everything in reality is made of the same stuff. No, woodchucks don’t help create the world, only – yes, they do.

We have told you, the very rocks that compose your 3D geology are conscious, and, indeed, are the same thing as you, only living at different speed, for different reasons, filling a different role. When you come to see this, you will have penetrated a veil of illusion that is very powerful: that is, that matter is something different from spirit, or, in other words, that the 3D world is “real” in an exterior sense (i.e. absolutely, differently “out there” rather than being the same as you).

It’s slippery. I get it and lose it, even now.

That is because partly it is a matter of which you?” You as 3D creature are clearly different from rocks and woodchucks. You as a constituent of reality conforming to material pretensions are not different from the other elements of life that are conforming to material pretensions.

I think that means, we within our 3D roles are limited in ways that make us human, as woodchucks – why are we talking about woodchucks, particularly? – are limited in ways that make them animals, and rocks in ways that make them minerals.

You will find that this idea is now clearer to you (having gotten it from us by direct intuition) than to many of your readers who can only guess at the meaning.

Why? It’s clear enough, isn’t it?

No. We just said it isn’t clear enough. Restate it even if it seems repetitious to you.

If you say so. What I got was that we are all the same thing in the realm superior to the 3D/non-3D split, and it is only within 3D (and its non-3D extension) that differences between animal, vegetable, mineral, human manifest. That is, we aren’t essentially human-only. Rocks aren’t essentially mineral only. Fish, amoebae, virii, seawater, whatever, are not their physical 3D manifestations only. We are all part of the same thing. Differences are at a more superficial level.

That still won’t be clear, you’ll find.

That’s because people will slap “nothing but” labels on it. It’s “nothing but” pantheism or panentheism, or whatever.

And in applying labels they will thereby prevent themselves from really feeling the distinction. Perhaps. If so, that is not your affair. People can only hear what they have ears to hear – and if there is a cosmic hearing aid, we don’t know who is manufacturing it.

Very funny. But, I know the feeling. First hand. When I look back at my life, I see many truths that were presented to me that I could not see. I could not give them fair consideration. There was not enough common ground between the assumptions behind them and the assumptions I incorporated in my view of the world.

Talk a little about your experience of crystals.

That’s a good example of the process of opening up to a new understanding, as a matter of fact.

Yes, that’s why we suggested it. And, as usual, you phrasing things wile in this ILC state will have certain advantages over our doing it. It will be more fluent, will require less to overcome, though the difference in effort may be imperceptible to you.

I do admire how you continually mingle content and process in these talks.

Okay, crystals. My entry into the New Age world was sort of sideways. I didn’t grow up in Southern California, so to speak. Although I had certain inclinations toward the mystical life, I was raised Catholic, and did not lay down that viewpoint when I left the church, so much as accepted it and rebelled against it.

No, that is too careless.

Okay, let me slow down again.

Yes, I see that I rebelled against certain things – hell, God the policeman, the Church’s rules – and never even thought about the fact that I accepted and continued to accept the underlying truth of the fact that the spiritual world existed and was fundamental.

No, you are forgetting.

So I was.

[Because the rest is mostly me and not them, I am going to print it in Roman rather than italic, as that is easier to read in large doses.]

[Me:] In the aftermath of consciously leaving the church – a process that occurred between the ages of 17 and 19 – the mental world I lived in was very different from what I was remembering, wasn’t it. It accepted the world of matter as obviously real and – I don’t know that I ever thought of this – I searched for evidence that this obviously-real material world was not as meaningless as it appeared. Thus, I was more than open to reading of Edgar Cayce, and I probably would have been open to Seth if I had been aware of the Jane Roberts books. (Only, it was too early for Roberts as it was also for Bob Monroe, as we are talking here of the last half of the 1960s, before either of them had published.)

So, I read Thomas Sugrue’s There is a River, though, come to think of it, I read Jess Stearn’s Edgar Cayce, the Sleeping Prophet first. Anyway, they kept a hope alive that this so self-evidently real 3D world wasn’t the closed-off thing it appeared to be. But I was still thinking of it as primarily real, I was only looking for an extra-sensory escape hatch, or periscope, or something. I think lots of people went through this in those days. Lots of people escaped or tried to escape their Christian or Jewish background by going to the relatively neutral refuge of Hinduism or, more commonly, Buddhism. We knew that materialism couldn’t be true; we knew it wasn’t enough. But we didn’t know what was true, and didn’t have any idea how to find it.

As I said, I came to the New Age movement sideways. I didn’t read Seth; I didn’t follow a guru; I didn’t jump onto the love and light bandwagon. I made a living and read history and waited for my glorious future or unroll itself, and in no way subscribed to the idea of pie in the sky. Such anomalous experiences as I had, I set aside in my mind or held for future explanation. Then came the Shirley MacLaine workshop, and teaming up with Bob Friedman a couple of year later, and Kelly Neff (Quattrin, then), and the Monroe Institute’s Gateway program, and I was living in a different world, but though it had points of congruence with what Monroe called the psychic underground, it had important differences too. I didn’t entirely fit in.

God, this is taking a long time. Anyway, when I discovered crystals, I did so from a mindset that centered on life as it appears, so on the one hand I experienced their energy (“or am I just making this up?”) and on the other, I had to try to fit it in with the idea that rocks were, quite obviously, dead inert matter, as opposed to the lords of creation, namely us (as exemplified, say, in Congress!).

So experiencing the energy of crystals had to be pigeon-holed into the idea that they were somehow batteries, or – much later – were programmable. The physical world’s classification system still first, you see.

Okay, now I see it differently, only we’ve burned up so much time – do we have enough for you to continue?

Finish with crystals.

Well, I guess the point is this. As long as we think that the “obvious” divisions of the world are real and fundamental, it is going to be difficult or impossible for us to really see behind the curtain. If we see crystals as matter that happens to have certain properties that can be used to enhance or anyway interact with human psyches, we will see things one way. When we come to see that everything, no matter how “dead” or inert, is made of the same conscious living presence that we are, then the divisions are still real but they are no longer fundamental. They no longer present an obstacle to be overcome, merely an appearance to be understood.

And I better appreciate your difficulties in making clear statements that will not be misunderstood.

It can’t be done. But you do the best you can.

Okay. Till next time, then.

 

2 thoughts on “On crystals and viewpoints

  1. Interesting discussion of crystals, Frank. Makes us want to rethink our concepts about inanimate objects, though I shouldn’t be surprised. Having been a commercial pilot for years, I’ve always sensed/known that each airplane has an individual feel to it. An airplane can get cranky. Airplanes love to do what they were designed to do — fly. They hate sitting on the ground, and the older ones especially hate sitting overnight in freezing weather without a heating unit hooked up to them. That was especially true one winter morning in Reno with an older 737-300 jet I didn’t think we’d every get that old babe out of her pissy mood and into the air!

    Lately I’ve been contemplating that my dog could be a compound being in process, just like me. That would explain how I sense traits in her similar to other dogs I’ve had. And I’ve always just knew, without knowing how, that my first Scottie had been a companion to one of my previous incarnations, and she came back to be with me again. So, maybe critters are composed of strands and traits just as we are. They don’t seem to have any challenge with getting these strands to live together!

    So I’m getting from today’s discussion that the creative life force — I think we’ve been calling it “spirit” — expresses in and through all matter, so as to experience physicality in a multiplicity of forms. And this expression spans the range between doing-ness and being-ness. There’s probably others that it spans, but this is the one that’s most evident from our discussion.

    Much food for thought here. Thanks.

    1. Just a couple of comments on your comment. As you know, Richard Bach certainly attributed feelings and intentions and even moods to various airplanes he flew. As to animals being compound beings like us, my understanding of what the guys said is that ANY (that is, all) products of sexual union are compound beings, so, yes. Presumably a very good dog gets to be a human, a very bad dog gets to be a Congressman. Oops, did I say that?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *