Interacting with the non 3D

Wednesday, September 11, 2019

2:55 a.m. I watched “Kardec” on Netflix last night, on Charles [Sides]’ recommendation. (The film was made in Brazil. Entertaining to see all those French citizens speaking Portuguese!) Very well done, showing how very isolated he was in that materialist era, a true scientist willing and able to pursue facts without being hobbled by the accepted prejudices of the day. A beautiful love story, in the devotion of him and his wife. Of course I don’t know how faithful to the facts the movie was, but it was beautiful as told.

How isolated these pioneers were: Kardec, later Cayce, Roberts, Monroe – less so as time went on, until today we live in an entirely new era, but perhaps we wouldn’t have reached this new jumping-off place without their work. It is true, the spirits told Kardec that he would not have to do the work; that others were ready to do it if he wouldn’t. Still, it cost him, and surely he could see the cost looming before the bill was presented. No small thing, to have achieved a reputation for scientific investigation and be forced to lay it on the altar of the fears of people and their institutions.

3:25 a.m. Guys? Anything today, or do we take a day off?

You can always take a day off merely by not showing up, and, as we have said more than once, sometimes that’s appropriate.

And you, on your end? What are the variables?

On our end nothing, in effect, because we are not constricted by time-slices. Hence, if we cannot work “now,” we can work “later,” and you won’t see the difference.

Except sometimes in mid-process you have asked for time to think.

Yes. Perplexing you extremely, if we recall!

Well, it did. I half-remember you saying the obstacle was actually on my end anyway.

Perhaps a more careful way to say it is that what is available to you depends upon where you are mentally. Some things that are a stretch in one “mood” or at one phase of your life are not a stretch at another. This is not a variable from this end, but of course it may look like it.

So in terms of your recent description of the mental field as an interaction between 3D field and non-3D field –

Surely you can see that a field that continually fluctuates, although within limits, fluctuates in what it is in resonance with. Someone who habitually thinks high thoughts – to make this example severely practical – is going to resonate to different fields than those of one who habitually thinks low ones, or who alternates between the two.

This is the same thing you’ve been saying all along: We shape who we become through our choices.

That’s correct. And this is a way of explaining the process via a different analogy, and a vivid image.

Yes, true. And our choices affect others to some extent.

Isn’t this what religions have always said? Isn’t it common sense, once you see that everything (hence every one) is interconnected? But the electrical field analogy may make it intuitively more obvious.

So what do people do – oh, never mind, I hear the answer before I finish the question. I was going to ask, how do people deal with conflicting voices, and the answer is, Test the spirits.

It requires rashness to accept anything on faith alone. Sometimes that is appropriate, sometimes not. But why take the chance? If something appeals to you, you tend to accept it, but is this the wisest course? If everyone told the truth, it would be merely a matter of openness. If everyone’s intentions were pure, if people could be accepted at face value, that’s one thing. But life in 3D is not that simple. Why would you expect it to be in non-3D?

Yet I have been accepting you and your information for a quarter of a century and more.

But – have you? Uncritically? Without doubt and questioning and demand for evidence, and without qualifying further questions? We would hardly say you accepted everything on faith – nor would we have wanted you to.

Rita continually posed many questions that would not have occurred to me, and often obtained greater clarity that way. I have always regretted that my ability to talk to you was not accompanied by the gift of analysis and cross-examination, and I have hoped for another Rita to perform that function.

You had Rita herself, for four books of transcript worth!

That’s true, but that only backs the problem up one level.

We understand. It is using a non-3D voice to validate non-3D voices.

The fact that I could recognize the feel of my old friend from 3D did make a difference. But you and I for once are on the same page here, it seems, on the question of the utility of doubt.

We have never been on different pages, except in appearance. You stressed your doubts and we counter-balanced the boat by giving you reason to have faith. If you had gone too far in the opposite direction (as you have, occasionally, actually) in semi-deifying us or the message, we would have, and did, counter-balance in the opposite direction, reminding you that no communication may safely be assumed to be pure and undistorted. What we both want is a clearly flowing stream that is not accepted as gospel and is not discarded as fantasy, but is considered, examined, held up to one’s inner truth-detector. And we’d say we’ve both done pretty well at that.

Only now it gets more complicated.

Well, it is complicated, in that we need people to see how to be accepting and critical at the same time. Some will know how to do it instinctively; some can learn how (some merely need it to be pointed out and that’s enough) and some will never be able to balance, but will land on one side or the other.

And the problem is that we are now bringing into consideration the vast impersonal forces you have been leading us toward.

Think now of those forces as if they were gravitational fields, or electrical fields, or, better, magnetic fields. (These are not scientific analogies, because that is not your playground, but they provide images, which will help people to leap the gap.)

That does help. I can feel that my mental field may be interfered with or rather must interact with

Think of it as, in effect, the mental weather. You live among the weather generated by the magnetic currents of the day interacting with the magnetic fields that exist regardless of a specific day.

Terrifically mixed metaphor!

Yes, but we’re trying for an image, not for a definition. You are small boats on a great ocean. You don’t cause the tides or the waves or the atmospheric conditions, all you can do is adapt to them. Or, you are airplanes in a vast sky whose barometric pressure, jet streams, humidity, thunderstorms, etc. you must cope with but cannot control. Or, a third analogy, you are a localized electro-magnetic field interacting not only with a larger field from which you have been thrown off, but with huge external fields independent of your control.

We mean to convey:

• You are small; the universe is not.
• You are isolated in effect, no matter how connected you are in fact.
• You are in unbreakable connection with the field that is the present moment, but neither you nor it is what appears. “Present moment” is not evanescent nor fragile nor perishable, and neither are you.
• You are not an accident but are part of a system, and have been thrown up in the course of events. Is there such a thing as an accident or a meaningless event?

The bottom line here is that you are not isolated nor meaningless to the rest of reality. Hw could you be? But you may need to function as if you were. Well, if so, so what? There are millions of roles to be played, and the roles are always filled. If Allen Kardec hasn’t said yes, someone else would have, and the world would have continued to spin.

That reminds me of the rhyme Andrew Johnson liked.

“No matter what you sing or say

The world rolls on the same old way,

And he who would possess his soul

Must hang on tight and let her roll.”

Well, sometimes you may prefer to ride “no hands,” but otherwise, sure, that’s the way life is. In non-3D, just as in 3D. It isn’t profitable to consider non-3D as if it were populated by autistic individuals, any more than 3D.

Yeah, but can we trust you?

You know what it said in “Maverick,” so many years ago, “If you can’t trust your banker, who can you trust?”

You’ve got me smiling. I can even tell you the name of the episode: “Shady Deal at Sunny Acres,” though I don’t remember the plot, thank God.

You remember more than you think.

I’ll save it for my past-life review. Thanks for all this.