Two more questions

Wednesday, September 26, 2018

3:35 a.m. Getting some interesting questions, things I would never think to ask – which is an advantage of multiple viewpoints, of course.

From Ramona:

[1. Regarding communication, who and what are these inner contacts? Are they from our past? Great minds that don’t need a physical form, hoping to get across something they have left behind? Something they want humanity to know about or recover? Do they have a plan?

[2. Are there different levels to these contacts? Are some more intense? A matching of vibration so to speak? Existing with, hosting? Unable to reach the physical without a partner? Directing, pushing the ‘3D’ person into certain subjects, books and experiences so we can learn what is needed to finesse the coming blending of minds?

[3. Is the future of mediation changing? Evolving? Working in a more harmonious way with the right energies at the right times with receptive human beings? Holding and nurturing the essence, exchanging of substance with these other minds? Empowering and guiding? Spiritual companionship? Creating?]

[TGU:] Yes, complicated questions, or rather, complicated aspects of divergent viewpoints attempting to converge in a common understanding. Numbering them for convenience.

1) This question actually boils down to a somewhat different question, namely: What is the relation to 3D specific consciousness of these extensions of awareness? We know it doesn’t necessarily seem like that, at first glance.

Here the difficulty is that you [-all] are continually tempted to over-personalize – over-individualize, call it – things (consciousness-hubs) because of your sensory experience of separation.

The illusion of separation, yes.

The illusion that separation is as absolute as it may appear because you experience yourselves as different bodies. So it is natural to unconsciously extend that assumption to the non-3D world, and in the process misunderstand.

We have said from the beginning, you as individuals are not as individual, not as separate (and not as unitary) as you perceive yourselves to be. We tried many analogies to express the fact, the most successful of which perhaps was water and ice cubes – the non-3D state represented by water, the 3D state by ice cubes. Only, remember that you are not one state, but both. you are us, as you are each other. So, you see, the unstated assumption behind this first question falls down.

Now, if you will look at the question a little differently, you will see a somewhat more helpful answer.

Ask, are these various aspects (of one conscious mind) from your past, or are they great disembodied minds not needing to be incarnate, and do we have a plan or a need, etc. – and you see, the answer is always yes. We are whatever you can imagine us to be, as aspects, rather than as separate beings. And remember, you are the same substance we are.

You are both spirit and soul; thus, you are undivided and individuated. Both, not either. Your 3D lifetime does not and never can affect or change your spirit, but it is, of course, the very shaping of your soul or, as we often call it, your mind.

I understand. This was all spelled out for us long ago in the sessions that became The Sphere and the Hologram. Okay.

So, question 2, you see, again assumes an individuality, a difference or divergence that does not exist in the absolute form the question implies. However, as long as that is understood, the answer to all is, yes.

Now, question 3, although it implies “a” future rather than endless variations of futures, correctly sees one possibility, a preferred possibility. Only, there are no guarantees as to how soon or in how straight a line you will experience such a future. Some versions more so, some less.

Yes, again, explained long ago in The Sphere and the Hologram.

“Long ago” from your viewpoint. Ten years does not seem quite so monumental, from outside 3D, nor 20.

Point taken. Oaky, I’ll assume that you continue with the standard “We’ll say more if need be.”

Of course. It is the very nature of teaching, advertising, persuasion, explication. Never assume that any one statement will be universally understood, nor that it cannot be improved upon in altered circumstances.

Half an hour. Shall we continue?

Of course.

Okay, this from Ernie Rockwell: [Is there some perhaps nonorganic entity that placed humans on earth and farms us for energy (negative preferred). Ties into the writing by Monroe and John Kreiter. I don’t know if this question is too hot to handle but what have they to say about salvation of the soul, and Jesus‘s role in it Thanks so much for opening the floor.]

[TGU:] In answering these questions, we hope that you will remember to relate one answer with another. In other words, don’t treat each question and answer as if they had nothing to do with each other. If you keep your consciousness expanded, you will see that everything sheds light on everything else, when seen together. The other way to say the same thing is that you lose more and more understanding, the closer you focus on one thing as if to the exclusion of everything else you know. Thus, it is not merely convenience that associates Ramona’s question and Ernie’s, nor the answers. They (and any others) will illumine each other – if you will let them. But you have to do your part, by not partitioning your mind and your ideas and your perception of interactions.

I’ll be interested in your take on the phrase “negative preferred.” I don’t quite know what that means, in context. I suppose it means, he would like you to address the idea of –. Well, I really don’t know what it means.

Let’s take the second part first, and it may clarify the question – or at least, our answer! – for you.

Life is not about “the salvation of the soul,” in the sense of a life-or-death judgment, but about the development of the soul, which is a very different thing. The role of Jesus is (not was) to act as intermediary not between humans and God, exactly, as between 3D-limited-idea and the greater, fuller reality that is possible for 3D souls to realize.

“I have come that you may have life more abundantly.” Not a quote, but a close paraphrase, anyway.

And, not in the past only but as a continuing present-tense presence – or do you think that other souls live on, but Jesus is only in a non-3D museum?

In other words, Jesus is an historical example, a human who realized his divinity – and he continues to be an approachable, helpful presence in the 3D/non-3D world.

Yes. Those who find themselves afraid of this idea will usually find that their fear is a fear of coming under the authority of institutions that have privatized Jesus, so to speak. But that is a crippling doubt that is unwarranted.

Henry Thoreau said, “It would be a poor story to be prejudiced against the life of Christ because his book was edited by Christians.”

Exactly. Now, to proceed to the first part of the question. You are not familiar with Kreiter but are, of course, with Monroe.

Yes, the story of Someone as told in Far Journeys.

You know, too, that others have had that same sense of victimization initially. Gurdjieff’s words are often interpreted that way.

Yes.

Recognize how different these parables and understandings look when you subtract the idea of [non-3D] individuals with their own agenda.

What you are left with is process, I suppose.

Exactly. But people’s fears, expressed within a mental context that assumes individuality in non-3D in the same way it is experienced within 3D, lead them to see process as drama.

I’d better translate that. You are saying, our emotions flow and produce non-3D consequences. That is process. But assuming that someone is deliberately causing this to happen, and for its own benefit, is drama.

Those who are taken with Monroe’s parable frequently notice that a little later on his understanding gets considerably refined, and the sense of victimization and hopelessness vanishes.

True.

As to “negative preferred” – we will look at that in a sense perhaps not intended by your questioner, and say, yes, that is the problem: People have a tendency to see things in a negative context because their unconscious fears shape (distort) their perceptions.

And that’s your hour.

Yes, and a very productive one. Thank you. and four more questions already queued up, and maybe more to come.

All to the good.

Till next time, then.

 

3 thoughts on “Two more questions

  1. I really like the way Ramona’s questions are worded, and they resulted in some beautiful answers. And it was very helpful to have Ernie’s questions placed within the context of seeing process as drama. Also, I can probably never hear enough on divergence and convergence to rest comfortably in my understanding. It really helps to see the nature of our questions and the nature of the response.

  2. Thanks so much for answering these questions. Great answers I’ve read twice and need to read again. The answer about Jesus was very enlightening. The answer on the Loosh parable seems to be no unless our fear creates it somehow.

  3. Life is about the development of the soul. I like that. That makes sense. What makes life so effective at developing souls is emotion. TGU has said that emotion to them is rather cool, because it is mitigated across the total being. In our appearance of separateness, emotion is a bright pinpoint of energy. Coupled with the urgency of time, we are forced to choose who we are at each given moment. Emotion makes 3D an especially good crucible for the amalgamation of compound beings — us. So, yes, Someone did create a garden where being with emotions were developed. But it wasn’t for a selfish or sinister reason evidently.

    Bob Monroe was known as an accurate reporter of what he experienced, doing the best he could to relate what he learned with as little editorializing as possible. I’ve always been deeply troubled when I read the story of Someone in Far Journeys. I couldn’t imagine this having been the Grand Architect (as Bob would say). And how could that be? If creator and creation are the same, creator would not be a parasite to its creation. The only other way would have been for other beings to have created humankind for their own purposes. Others have proposed that possibility, but that is beyond the scope of this short response. (Smile.)

    So I’m glad TGU addressed Ernie’s question. I was betting that they wouldn’t, so I’ll happily pay my losses.

Leave a Reply

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