Answering two questions
Tuesday, September 25, 2018
2:30 a.m. Questions? You want questions? We’ve got questions! Let’s start with Jim Austin’s.
[“creator and creation … are two words for the same thing. If you can once intuitively grasp [this] you will be living a different life from then on. Everything will change.” Pretty strong statement! But I don’t get the feeling TGU is saying we need to do anything particular … beyond living with this knowledge in the background while going about daily life. Comment?]
It is always a difficulty, whether to answer a question as stated, or as it may be intended. We will try to do both. yes, you don’t need to do anything, but no, that isn’t quite our meaning. The ambiguity here centers on that word “do.” If your understanding of life is transformed, but you continue your usual routine, can you be said to be “doing” anything about it? So, no, no particular doing. Only – which you? Or, in this case, what has happened, and is happening, to the you that has come to a new understanding?
We said, everything will change. That means, really, your relation to everything will change. You being transformed is the equivalent of everything on the other side of the your interactions being transformed, in the same way a mathematical equation will be affected in every way when anything on either side of the equal sign is changed.
So, living your life in this new understanding may be externally unaffected or may be radically transformed or may be partly changed and partly unaltered; there isn’t any predicting. But you will be different, which is the desired result.
You could say the third-tier consequences will be transformation, regardless of the way the first-tier experiences are structured.
And I felt your influence guiding me as I hesitated in that sentence, resulting in a clearer statement. Sometimes such influences are more evident than other times. Appreciated, either way.
We think we have responded to the letter and spirit of the question, but if we have failed, or if our response raises further questions, of course we will be available for further questioning – for follow-ups, as you say.
I was a little surprised you dealt with that one so easily. Okay, then, another, this one from Lisa C, and I’ll bet this one will take you a bit longer.
[Oh man – can’t resist. The question of “create your own reality or avoid thinking your life out in advance?” I may have heard “Both” or it may have been my imagination. Can your TGU comment or expand on that question….and if it is both, then paint it out so it’s clear? “Both,” if correct, feels like more fog for me. Any clarification is appreciated. Thank you!]
This is one of those questions that may be dealt with extremely briefly (and that will satisfy some, who will intuitively get it) or may need some exposition, for those whose starting place is a little farther away.
Briefly: There is no real contradiction between the two statements. The contradiction is merely apparent. Turning the knob of the viewing lens shows that it is a linguistic rather than an essential tangle.
In other words, words are impeding understanding rather than assisting it.
Well – let’s say words are reinforcing a certain way of seeing things, and therefore obscuring an alternative way of seeing.
The seeming contradiction is this.
“Create your own reality” seems to say, consciously decide what you want, and magnetize it to you (or, pull your life toward it, however you choose to see it). “Avoid thinking your life out in advance” seems to say, let your unconscious (or rather, your non-3D-focused) mind decide, rather than trying to sculpt your life to 3D expectations. Contradiction, right?
Not to me, but I see where you’re going with it. It wasn’t clear before you and I addressed the question.
And that is the nature of guidance, of course.
Who is it, who creates your own reality? And, how is it done? At the same time, who is it who avoids thinking out your life (that is, planning)? Depending upon how you define that side of the equation, the equation is going to come out differently.
If you create your own reality by conscious thought, conscious action, at the 3D level, then clearly that is a contradictory process to avoiding planning on a 3D level. That is the only way it is contradictory. But if the creating and the results of the avoiding were done only on the non-3D level, where is the aspect of choice? Where is the use of free will in continued choice?
It is a collaboration, you see, just as guidance is a collaboration, or ILC as a source of information and wisdom.
The “you” that functions as if it alone were running things (as if it alone existed, for that matter) does not live in the real world, but in a subset of the real world that it mistakes for reality. Living only in the basement, it has no idea of the first or second floors, let alone the attic or roof or great outdoors.
Just for the sake of completeness of statement, we could add, a being that lived only outside the house could have little idea of the reality of living inside; that is, non-3D beings who have never entered the 3D boot camp can have only a theoretical idea, not really a first-hand understanding. They can and do experience it second-hand, but that is the difference between reading about a game or a war or a romance, on the one hand, and participating, on the other.
On a practical level, return to the point of the original statement, that to realize that creation and creatures are the same thing. Realize that and you realize the actual unreality of many of the elaborate puzzles that the 3D experience, and the 3D mind spinning its logic, produce.
I think we haven’t had the bell-ringer yet. What you said is complete to me, and yet at the same time I can feel that some won’t get it.
It’s very simple, really. Stop thinking of yourselves as separate from the non-3D part of you, and these conundrums disappear. In just the same way, you, Frank, no longer worry about whether a given thought is “yours” or “ours.” Your new understanding recognizes that the question is only partially meaningful.
Yes, and not helpful, so why fool with it?
And somehow we have spent an hour on this, though with fewer pages filled than usual, so rather than go at a third question, I’ll wrap up here, unless you have more to say on this one.
Well, the same addendum as for Jim’s: We’re always available for follow-ups, and of course that means available directly, not only or even necessarily primarily through you, Frank.
Okay. Well, our thanks as always.