Wednesday, May 8, 2019
2:30 a.m. Care to continue? Yesterday’s session was sort of rough, I thought. Good material, but not as clearly expressed as it might have been. That, or not as clearly transmitted and received. How does the result strike you? The same way?
Things tend to even out over enough time. Let’s proceed, then.
You have seen us using words like soul and spirit that many people in your day shy away from, for all sorts of reasons, from unpopularity in current opinion, to repugnance in association, to emotional reaction against certain attitudes in others.
This is Nathaniel again, isn’t it? Or some in connection with Nathaniel. The language has that same feel of something unfamiliar. Why, I can’t imagine, since my mind is still the one choosing the language when necessary.
This is relevant only in that it is worth your knowing that the source is not one of what you call your ex-humans, but someone (if I may be called a `someone’) at a different level, with a different perspective on the human experience.
Certainly it feels like that – non-human, I mean. Perhaps I shouldn’t have interrupted, but something in the word choice alerted me. Pray continue.
Your time will transcend religious, and anti- and non-religious, thought. “Your time” does not mean the next ten minutes, nor ten years, nor perhaps ten centuries (though that may be a bit of an exaggeration) but you are in process. This is one of the elements of the transformation you are living through. As the inner lives of those in the 1000s in Europe are not the same quality as yours, so neither will that of your linear descendants be. But this does not mean that you will be going into entirely uncharted waters (that is, terrain entirely new to you), nor that you will be moving in oscillation to the past. New, but familiar. Familiar, but not identical.
I understand, though I don’t know the nature of what (I hope) you’re going to describe. As far as I’ve gotten is that we will live in knowledge, rather than in belief, that we are part of something greater than our 3D selves.
So you can see that
Sorry, lost the thread.
If you will begin to remember to apply this one insight in all things, everything will gradually begin to clarify for you, and that is this: Life, even specifically human life, does not center in 3D.
Everything else – every readjustment in your thinking – must follow.
And, I take it, you propose to set out for us what that means in practice.
In practice and in theory, yes. Obviously if it were clear upon our first stating it, it couldn’t be very new, nor so very important.
Yet we may jump to sudden comprehension from time to time as you elucidate.
Words as sparks, not as signposts.
All right, so if human life does not center in 3D, where does it center? And, in what way can we say it does not center where you are, as it seems to?
And that is what religious thought centers on, isn’t it, when it is not setting out rules and splitting logical hairs.
It will be a prime mistake and an unproductive diversion, to give in to the habit and temptation to criticize religion as it has been, or even as it is. Remove the beam from your own eyes first, as is said.
Yes, bad habit. All right, then, go ahead.
However, you are not wrong to see that the question of where the center of human life is, is the central concern of churches. Also of philosophies, though they are more apt to take the answer for granted, producing such things as “common sense” philosophy.
Human life in its externals seems clearly bounded: birth, life in its stages, death, and that’s the whole of it. This is the life you seem to see all around you, in the vegetable and animal kingdoms. Whether you have any particular insight into those lives is at least questionable, but this is the appearance you perceive, and it is tempting to draw the analogy and conclude that if there’s one thing 3D life demonstrates, it is that physical life is limited.
I would have said, our lives show us that there is an inner life to match the outer. What that inner life amounts to is debated, but I don’t know of anybody who actually denies that we experience it.
You can see that the perceived limits to physical existence (what you may call your outer world) tempt people to conclude that the inner world is equally limited. Some think the inner is dependent on the outer, some don’t, but in any case people tend to work from the assumption that the 3D world is the center of life.
Started to write “their life” and crossed out the adjective.
Correctly. It is a nuance, but in the right direction. The question is larger than individual lives; universal.
And perhaps you had better pause here.
Yes, I was just noticing, 40 minutes and only a little more than five pages. Slow today.
Partly it is the material, but you could do with some more sleep first.
5:10 a.m. All right, ready again, if you are. [Pause} Not ready?
It’s odd, I’m no longer used to being ready and having nobody on the line in mid-conversation. But I get only blankness. Perhaps I can prime the pump. If the 3D life we lead is not primary – if the center is elsewhere – why are we so fixated on things of the flesh? Sex, for instance. Only, as I write that I feel that it is prompted, so, explain please.
You know the explanation, but it is as well that we provide it. When you were ready to resume, you were sort of fixed in your opinion of where and how to resume. It jammed the works. So we suggested the word sex, you more or less invented the context in which the word would be at least plausible, and, as you intuited, your active intervention prodded the machinery into working. Only, it was working, it merely wasn’t working to produce anything, for a moment.
I get that. I wonder if others will. That last sentence is sort of cryptic.
You are welcome to enlarge upon it.
It seems to say, don’t assume the connection is lost, merely because it isn’t spitting out messages.
Close enough. Now, to resume. You experience inner life and outer. Some think they are unconnected, some think connected only somewhat, some – as you, once it was suggested – think they are the same thing perceived one through essence, one through personality, so to speak. That is, one through direct feed, the other through the senses.
Say it’s so. Then what happens to the inner world when the outer world goes away? You think you have addressed this in Rita’s book [Awakening from the 3D World] but you havne’t.
Let’s put it slightly differently. The 3D body dies. What further connection can you have to the 3D world? Yet, you do have such connections. What are ghosts, what are lost spirits who don’t realize they are dead, or spirits reluctant or unable to “move on” after the death of the 3D body, if not a person’s inner world maintaining a distorted connection with the outer world? Yet if it is possible for this to happen, clearly the inner world cannot depend upon the outer (else they would vanish) but neither is it self-directed in the way that seems obvious.
We established, years ago, that the inner world is created by elements from beyond the 3D. The larger being is clearly not centered in 3D, and we are each extensions of it.
Then act like it!
I beg your pardon?
What do religions teach, if not that humans are created by, and part of, something antecedent to their own creature (obviously) and greater than themselves? The fact that they then differ in that each concentrates upon different aspects of that larger reality does not change the fact that this is the nub of religious life. So let us take that seriously, and many things will change in the world that does not – or, let’s say, that does no longer – recognize religion as the proper way to go about maintaining the relationship.
We will resume from here. This is enough typing for you, for the moment.
“Then act like it!” had a powerful emotional impact, as you probably know.
Good. It was meant to, for your benefit. But enough for now.
Okay. Our thanks as always.