TGU on difference in levels of viewpoint

Wednesday, April 10, 2019

4 a.m. … And posting FDR’s material to facebook led to me re-reading yesterday’s material, which I had actually forgotten. You guys want to say more on the subject, or is that for another time? … Re-reading just the last couple of exchanges, I got that this subject can’t really be discussed intelligently by pretending or assuming that we’re at the same level.

That isn’t what you mean to say.

That’s my line.

And explication and explanation are our lines. So, a few words on the subject, because yours was an accurate flash of insight, if not yet expressed.

Just as a plant disappears from the world of the seed it came from, or (to say the same thing from another point of view) the seed is a dead predecessor to the plant, so various aspects of what it is to be a soul – that is, a spirit intertwined with 3D conditions so as to appear separate and limited – cannot be understood if examined strictly from a vantage point that assumes one level of reality is the only level operating.

Before you are a soul, there is a “you,” but it disappears from view when you look for it at the soul level. [That is, in 3D.] After you cease to function in 3D – after physical death – the soul disappears from view if looked at from the soul level. You see? A visual analogy might be to envision a flower – a daffodil, say. Beneath ground is the bulb, level 1. Above ground is the stalk, level 2. Above the stalk is the flower itself, level 3. (It doesn’t matter if this is a stupid way to subdivide a flower; it is for the purpose of analogy.) If you attempt to understand daffodils by examining only level 2, not suspecting the existence of levels 1 and 3, or, suspecting them, regarding them as unprovable, how well are you going to be able to understand daffodils? You might be able to describe the stalk in exquisite (not to say excruciating) detail, but your very precision is going to further distort your understanding of levels 1 and 3, because of their obscurity and seeming abstract theoretical nature.

Nice analogy. It works.

And it could be extended, for no one can understand flowers without understanding pollination, nutrition from the soil, photosynthesis, etc., etc. So with souls.

Yes, I see it. We look at people’s lives and measure the stalk, guess at the bulb, sort of see the flower in its effects on this 3D world.

Not wrong, but we would see the flower as expressing beyond the 3D world, and more or less invisible to the 3D world. However, you did say “sort of,” and there is a “sort of” aspect to the flower’s reflection in the 3D.

I am beginning to see how everything I know, which of course includes everything I think about, makes any message I bring forth unique. It really is true that nobody could do exactly what I can do; and of course, that goes for everybody else, a good reason to encourage others to do the same.

Your accustomed joke which tells truth: You’re special, just like everybody else.

And on that note, maybe we’ll see you later.

Well, we aren’t going anywhere, so it’s always up to you.


5 thoughts on “TGU on difference in levels of viewpoint

  1. “ any message I bring forth [is] unique.” “… a good reason to encourage others to do the same.”

    My first reaction: while ‘bringing forth’ information is very useful, it is one small part of what connection to guidance is about. Guidance (quickly) pointed out that while that’s true, THIS site is strongly oriented toward publishing that information in conversation form, and those ‘conversations’ have been/are extremely beneficial to me and many others.

    Some connections with guidance (like mine) are simply (?!) constant communication for living life, making it easier, more satisfying, and fun. What each of us brings through IS unique and important; so is how we use it.

  2. I believe that bringing forth information is the re-making of us. Getting it past the usual blocks and resistances in order to have it live in our own where-the-rubber-hits-the-road awareness changes us, how we see ourselves. Grounding it in the world demonstrates commitment to actively aligning ourselves with the truth we find in the information and the act of bringing it forth.
    When I align with Louisa May Alcott, I have acknowledged the truth of her and the truth of me, the truth of our ability to connect, transcending usual limits, and even the truth of the usefulness of the content of the message for my own life (e.g., struggles with writing or family).
    So, for me this information exchange is usually more than useful or beneficial–it’s transformative in the sense of how I know and apply myself in this life. I see it as one of the ways we live guidance.

    1. Jane, I really love this comment and the points you make. I totally agree that living in/with guidance is transformative. It certainly has transformed my life – in really positive ways!

      Really well said! 🙂

      1. Thank you for that, Andy. If I’m even sure what I want to say, I struggle with how to say it, so I’m glad it connected with you.

  3. Well said, Jim and Jane. Frank, your “you’re special…” phrase is a jewel – it’s going on my fridge! Thanks to all for sharing!

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.