ILC as it appears from the non-3D

Thursday, September 19, 2019

4:30 a.m. I don’t know where we’re going, as so often, but I keep in mind the question of vast impersonal forces, good and evil, 3D/non-3D beings, person-groups, and the scalar nature of reality, and God knows what other concepts it would be well to remember. Over to you.

The more concepts you associate in your mind, the larger the picture you can get, if only by indirection. It is a difficulty of 3D minds channeling and then interpreting, that they may tend to reconstruct on too small a scale, or may paint with such broad strokes as to remove the human connection altogether. The hardest thing is to keep a subject both expanded and grounded.

Seth did it.

Indeed he did – but Jane Roberts did not, at least initially. That is, she had to remove her 3D personality from the equation before she could receive Seth’s far-ranging but grounded messages.

You are almost saying – it occurs to me – that Rob Butts was as important to the process as Jane was, not merely because he recorded what otherwise would have been ephemeral communication but because his mind was in effect Jane’s temporary left brain.

Very good. Very good. What you just said is implicit in what we just said, but only implicit. Yes, Seth communicated to Rob through Jane, quite as much as he could be said to have communicated to Jane through her own non-3D conscious mind. You see the implications for yourself and for anyone practicing ILC.

This allows us to be our own Jane, our own Rob.

Yes, and let’s look at that a bit. Here is your process as we see it.

* Your non-3D awareness is at the ready. It consents, and usually encourages. Sometimes (that is, for some people often, for others rarely, but sometimes) it would rather not, but it is almost always the 3D personality’s choice.

* Your 3D awareness – your conscious mind – is receptive and alert, in a state of expectation, call it. It may or may not have a specific topic in mind; the key is the state of willingness to be in communication.

* The “times” are right. That is, the “external” factors do not inhibit. On the 3D side, external interference is at a minimum, and certainly the 3D personality has a sense of safety. On the non-3D side, certain alignments make it not-impossible to communicate.

“Not-impossible”?

A little more definite than merely saying “possible,” which you would probably let slide by, unnoticed. We mean, sometimes, conditions are not aligned so as to allow this kind of communication, and when they aren’t, it does not occur. But mostly they are.

Conditions such as –

Let’s finish our description first.

* A smooth transition of information between minds is established which is actually an emotional resonance, though it may seem to have nothing “emotional” about it. What we mean here is the equivalent of being in love, or rather of being in loving relationship such as may happen in a family or among comrades or between any two or more people who find themselves also in another. This emotional resonance is essential for trust.

Yes, I have been hearing that word “trust” the whole paragraph.

Trust reduces friction because it allows the 3D mind to receive without caution.

That’s very interesting.

Yes, isn’t it? Then, finally –

* A reciprocating process of reception and analysis results in greater clarity than reception alone, as we have often said. Your being in a state of alertness, having a conversation rather than taking dictation, allows for more to be conveyed because it builds into context as it goes.

I think that means, because as we think about what we’re receiving, the very process of thinking about it grounds it, connects it with the rest of our being.

Prevents it from remaining merely theoretical, yes. If you and Rita had either of you been working separately, you could not have gotten the altered point of view that carried you both far.

Like Jane and Rob, you’re saying.

That isn’t the important point here. In fact, it is the obvious point that may conceal the more important one, which is that now, on your own, you are able to dispense with the necessity of having another member of a closely matched team, and how often can that happen?

How often can life arrange for two closely aligned people to work together, you mean? I wouldn’t think that would be all that hard.

Whether hard or not is not the question; it is the removal of a variable.

I see. ILC means we can any of us proceed without waiting for our Rita to arrive, and can proceed after she has left the scene.

It means you are not dependent. And that is huge.

Hence your long persistent listing of cautions for those doing it, the pitfalls of ego, etc.

What did you used to tell your children about tools?

I taught them that if tools couldn’t hurt us, they couldn’t do us any good either. In other words, tools need to be used respectfully, but, used that way, were not to be feared.

Our point exactly. Now if you will go back and re-read the points of the process we described – skimming over our dialogues within the list – you will see that it gives you a fixed point of reference from which to measure the experience as you in 3D experience it. It gives you another way of understanding it, and hence of experiencing it, and hence of refining it.

Okay. Valuable, I’m sure.

Spreading the use of the technique at some point is more valuable than any given bit of information specifically brought through. What is one man’s work compared to what it opens for others?

Got it. Well, you always said you didn’t care if I wrote or not.

Yes we did. What we did and do care about is that you set an example of transparency and persistence. You know you are not transparent about every aspect of your life, and we respect that, nor is it an ideal that anyone would necessarily follow. But about this learning and practice of ILC, you have been transparent, and that has been of much greater value than any theoretical claim to omniscience or even of particular skill would have been.

I think you just said, nobody’s going to make of their life an open book, even if they are able to do so (which, I’d guess, they wouldn’t be able to do), but they can learn to deal transparently with this aspect – this 3D/non-3D transfer of information and concepts.

Is that how you see the process? As a transfer of information and concepts? It is that, of course, but is that its primary importance to you?

Now that you call my attention to it, no. It is the companionship.

Of course. And as it is for you, so it is for others, only it would be as well for them to realize it. Bringing in information is good work. Transforming yourselves by progressive alterations, sparked by new insights, is good work. But in a sense these are – what shall we call them? – productive side-effects of the real thing that is going on, which is the freeing of the 3D self from the oppressive sense of isolation and futility that otherwise might overwhelm it.

Is that really the center of it?

You still tend to forget, externals are secondary. Helping others, reshaping society, opening new ways to advance, all that – it’s all well and good, but your job – that is, everyone’s job – is reshaping yourself toward your ideals, whatever they may be. Our job is to help any given 3D personality with that task, the only real task anyone has.

I do forget, sometimes. It turns everything upside-down. We are taught that concentration on self is selfishness, and concentrating on helping others is beneficial and laudable.

And so it is, but your primary task remains yourself. If you wish to make yourself a conduit of blessings for others, we entirely approve, but your work is the shaping of yourself to be such a conduit, or a better conduit. The effect has more to do with others than with yourself.

Except there is no “other.”

No, there isn’t, except relatively. But relatively is where you live and are deigned to live.

Enough for the moment.

Very interesting, as usual. Okay, till next time, then.

 

2 thoughts on “ILC as it appears from the non-3D

  1. Another “omg” post.

    The Seth/Rob/Jane explanation is amazing and so clarifying. “This allows us to be our own Jane, our own Rob. … you are not dependent. And that is huge.”

    Laying out the ILC process lays out our own authority and commitment and responsibility so clearly. I knew I had to be in a state of joy to receive well–“the equivalent of being in love” exactly. Your identifying this achievement of connection as “companionship” moved me to my core.

    I don’t know if you’re thinking about another book, Frank, but I’d vote for that.

    1. Thank you for lifting up that word: companionship. Maybe it is the right word to describe that inner stirring that I tend to think of as life-current. Always there, but the attention needs to be turned to it to become conscious of it. Joy is good. But the tricky part is directing the attention in the normal life. Taking time for it, yes, but the next step: keeping one foot constantly in that life-current of companionship.

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.