Choosing among non-3D influences

Saturday, October 20, 2018

3:45 a.m. Another question.

[Jim Austin: The sentence “Many are driven to suicide, if the concept of suicide be extended to include throwing one’s life away, giving up, giving in.” is very interesting. The ubiquity and importance of this problem (“it is not an issue of marginal or peripheral concern: It is of vital importance.”) could make one wonder what ‘non-3D’ is up to. It seems TGU and my guidance, and the guidance of many here want the best for each of us … and lo, in writing this I see the distinction: as usual, which ‘you/us’ do I mean? Each of us compound 3Ders have those “hair-shirt”/harpy stands, in varying numbers and strengths as part of a ‘larger’ you. The guidance I know works to make me aware of ways to deal with those parts of me; this post is a perfect example. But one could speculate on the equal availability of ‘guidance’ that would say “Listen to them, they are right!” Seems like that would be another of those ‘virtuous or vicious cycles’ TGU recently alluded to; the path forward would depend on which you listen to.

[Would TGU care to comment on the ‘existence’ of (from the 3D perspective) such ‘bad guidance?’]

[TGU:] Perhaps it would be worthwhile to extend the concept of “which you?” into the non-3D. That is, when you consider your guys upstairs – when you consult us either explicitly as in this way, or implicitly as in following hunches, inclinations, proclivities – remember that we are no more uniform among ourselves than you are. Why should we be expected to be? How should we be able to? As above, so below.

We return to prior themes. The truths religions are based in are true even if they have been privatized, even if they have been perverted for the benefit of certain individuals, or groups, even if they have been understood only according to narrow or bigoted senses.

Not senses.

No. Narrow or bigoted outlets, say, or guidelines. The sense of it is, the truth of it is distorted by preconception. Religions take aspects of the truth and express them. But even a partial view is better than a bland blindness to the problems involved, is it not?

Rhetorical question, I take it. You know I agree with that – only, at some point the distortion inherent in a partial view overwhelms the benefit.

Always true, and always part of the human situation, for none of you – we should extend that to say, none of us, that is, no one involved in compound beings – can escape the benefits and limitations of partial views.

So in your various scriptures, it would be as well for someone to go along compiling not commandments, not historical or mythical situations and commentary, but – advice. “Test the spirits,” for one. From advice given, a world-view can be deduced. More importantly, many a practical pitfall may be illumined and avoided.

So, Jim’s question. I get the sense of what you have to say about it. There are spirits on all sides of all questions, and it would be well for all of us in 3D to bear that fact in mind.

You have said it concisely.

Thank you. but don’t you care to expand it?

Really, there should be no need. You are composed of many strands, which may be harmonious or may be discordant or may be sometimes the one and sometimes the other. Realize your situation and you realize the appropriate strategy by which to live and guide your lives. If you do not realize it, you may be blown about by any stray gust of wind, or may confuse certainty with truth, and in either case be unlikely to make much progress in integrating what may be a very diverse and even contradictory bundle.

In effect, your lives are stretched between extremes, and you are enabled and also compelled to choose who and what you will be, according to how you choose among possible values. Your span may be relatively large or relatively small, but within that span of possibilities, it is for you to decide. That is what all that conflict is about: your right and need to choose.

Good and bad angels.

Certainly it can be looked at that way, only it would be better if even while one chooses, one remembers that what is good for you is not necessarily an absolute, and what is bad to you is equally not necessarily an absolute.

God looked upon what he had created and found it good.

It was only after the humans chose to see things through the tree of the perception of things as good or evil – according to the myth encapsulated in Genesis – that they decided that part of God’s creation was good and part bad.

I am reminded of the commentary someone quoted. I think it was a Chinese or Japanese man, commenting on the Western world view. He said: “Man against nature, nature against man. Man against God, God against man. God against nature, nature against God. Very funny religion!” That isn’t exact, but that’s the sense of it. It may be from Joseph Campbell.

That is an outside view of Western man’s blindness, and all the more valuable for being outside it.

So, in a nutshell, “bad” guidance is – unhelpful guidance? Malicious guidance?

It is unnecessary to label it in that way. Merely say this: Guidance that comes via non-3D sources is no more to be accepted unconditionally and automatically than if it came from a 3D source. But neither is it to be automatically disregarded, in the same way. Rather, it is for you to use your discernment; to choose. That’s all that is involved. As with Andy’s question, the nub is this: It is your life, for you to decide. You choose. Cast your net widely, but that doesn’t mean you are to unthinkingly accept anything and everything you dredge up.

Understood.

Well, that is enough on the subject. No need to stretch this out merely to make up your hour.

Okay. Thanks as always.