Beginning on the celestial kingdom

Beginning on the celestial kingdom

Wednesday, October 2, 2019

3 a.m. All right, to continue –

Looking at the 3D world as it is projected from the non-3D, we have sketched the role of mineral, vegetable, and animal kingdoms in maintaining it moment by moment. Let us look at the celestial kingdom, then return to humans who bridge animal and celestial kingdoms, as we said. It is easier to describe a bridge if one sees what it bridges.

Bear in mind, our usage here does not attempt to conform to that which other civilizations or sub-cultures understood when using this rough characterization. This is a convenient scheme of things, not a scientific or religious characterization. What medieval clerics meant by celestial, or medieval philosophers, may or may not apply. Obviously (or perhaps not obviously, but it seems obvious to us) something seen in another frame of reference is not going to seem the same. Every context has its own boundaries around a thing, and so doesn’t quite describe the same thing; at most there is great overlap.

So, let us define “celestial” in this context not as “heavenly” meaning the context of the afterlife nor as “heavenly” meaning astronomical realities. To us here, as we will use it in this scheme of things, “celestial” will mean the invisible substructure and superstructure of reality, the non-material yet essentially 3D forces that hold things together.

I was reminded recently that I should pause before writing, to let your meanings come clearer, so that I would end up with fewer back-trackings and re-phrasings. I get the sense that I should have done that here, but even now it isn’t really clear to me.

There are advantages and disadvantages to every way of working, and there are ebbs and flows of connection. Righteous persistence wins reward.

Then, again?

Your present civilization sees matter and energy as separate things, even though science famously recognizes that E=mc2, or, in other words, that energy and matter are different states of the same thing, or different states of the same energy. You see?

I see it is awkward to state. But the point is clear enough. Matter is slowed energy, so they must be the same substance – only in the nature of our language, “substance” suggests a thing – matter – rather than whatever it is that matter is composed of.

You are thinking that this is wasting time, but it isn’t. If you do not hold firmly in your mind that energies are not in any way different from, separate from, materials, you will unconsciously let them split off from one another, producing an incomplete picture because tempting you to consider them as if they were separate. Do that and the next step is to concentrate on one and ignore or even forget the other. This is how medieval understanding devolved into a disconnected spirituality and a disconnected materialism, a long slide that reached bottom at about the end of the 19th century. Then came the discovery of radiation and Einstein’s famous equation, and quantum theory, and science began – but only began – the long climb upward toward reintegration.

And spirituality?

That’s what you – we – and of course many others are working on. Seeing the celestial kingdom again as a normal part of the everyday world re-spiritualizes matter and grounds energy. That is a statement that will repay consideration. Meanwhile, let us proceed to our classification scheme.

The celestial kingdom as we will describe it includes all the occult properties of matter, for one thing. That which makes a particular piece of ground a “power spot” or a “sacred site” is a specific connection of the celestial kingdom to the geography of a given site. But it is not merely a matter of minerals. The ancient Germans had their sacred groves of oaks. That was an example of the vegetable kingdom entering into the celestial – or, let’s say, of the inter-functioning of the two.

Of the three?

Yes, because of course the mineral structure had to be able to support the oaks or they could not have been there. The animal kingdom contributed to a minor degree, in the sense of squirrels burying acorns, say, but primarily the animal kingdom benefited from, that is, luxuriated in, the portal thus created.

If I have the sense of it, you are saying power spots may be created by the interaction of the celestial kingdom with the mineral kingdom, or with both mineral and animal kingdoms.

Yes, and remember, humans are a part of the animal kingdom. So when humans recognize a power spot and choose to build on it and in a sense magnify it, they too are contributing, in a way that other animals cannot.

Now, power spots are of course only special cases of the larger energetic superstructure of the Earth. A whole science of geomancy has existed, primarily in China, and a newer version has been developing in the West beginning in the 20th century with the rediscovery of ley lines.

Which of course implies that it was known in older times when the structures and highways were built that trace them.

There is nothing new under the sun. Also, there is more in heaven and earth than your science knows, Horatio. Also, there is nothing new or old – to vary the saying – but that thinking makes it so. But the point is less what has been than what is coming to be.

Now, power spots, ley lines, etc., are so to speak the planet’s electrical grid. This is energy that carries potential, but it is more passive possibility than active volition. For that, you get into “superstition” and “old wives’ tales.”

Yes, I’ve been waiting for this. Elves, fairies, sprites, salamanders, and all. I’ve never had to decide what I thought about all that. Instinctively I’ve been tempted to dismiss it all as nonsense; at the same time, I’ve learned to be a little careful about what I dismiss unexamined.

And your mantra?

Oh yes, I’d forgotten, or anyway I haven’t’ had occasion to use it lately. I always say, anything that has been believed by a great body of people over any length of time probably has some truth in it.

You usually phrase it with fewer hedges around it, when speaking only to yourself.

You’re right. I’d say, anything believed by many people over time has some truth.

You are still hedging. Never mind, we can say it more freely, and you don’t have to be responsible for the saying of it. Pixies, fairies, the little people, etc. – where do you think such ideas come from? If you say, “From the imaginations of various peoples,” that begs the question of why they imagined one thing in the place of another.

Werewolves, shape-shifters, familiar spirits – do you think these, too, are only the imaginings of superstitious peasantry? Of course you do, but that isn’t because you are seeing fact; it is because you are seeing through the mesh of your civilization’s filters. You can’t see them, except ever so faintly and uncertainly, because your culture gets in the way.

Dion Fortune certainly believed in at least some of them.

Plenty of people – respectable people, sometimes scientifically distinguished people – know what they have seen and experienced, but they know, too, what they dare not acknowledge lest their reputation be destroyed.

Rather like people admitting to having seen a UFO.

Exactly so.

Now, we are nearly at an hour, and we have scarcely begun on the celestial kingdom, so let us sum up this so far: The celestial kingdom has its passive and its active side; its ley lines and its “supernatural” folk. Those are the extremes, and many phenomena in the middle. Only, bear in mind – and perhaps we have not yet said this – the celestial kingdom like the other kingdoms exists in All-D, obviously, not merely in 3D which would be impossible for reasons we have explained. Therefore, there are aspects of if that can never be experienced, nor weighed and measured, in 3D terms alone.

I think you are saying, they can’t be made sense of without taking into account their non-3D existence as well as their 3D existence.

Yes, but that would be better phrased as “the fact that the 3D shades into the non-3D,” which of course is  a universal statement that the most diehard materialist must someday recognize.

It’s true, I get that we are only at the beginning, but I also get that you want to come at it when I am fresh.

That’s right. A little at a time gets the job done.

Well, I’m glad to righteously persist. Our thanks as always.


6 thoughts on “Beginning on the celestial kingdom

  1. As far as I’m concerned, Frank, you’re on fire with these sessions. Beginning with the most traditional concepts–kingdoms, celestial, etc.–you take us, with the help of science, to the outer edges of where 3D shades into non-3D. And there we are, sitting with Tolkien’s cohort of elves and orcs and hobbits–as non-3D representatives. I love it. You covered an incredible amount of ground today. I think it works, at least for me, because you’ve prepared us to see it, through Thomas’s sayings, your session flashbacks, and the progression of these sessions (with your essential input). I’m closer than I’ve ever been to grasping it and seeing it at work in my own life. It fits.

  2. I heartily and completely endorse Jane’s comments!

    Having worked and (sometimes) taught in the academic environment for most of my career, I recognize the masterful job the Frank/TGU ‘mind’ has done/is doing in transmitting, formatting, and writing this (magical to me) material. The constant repetition from constantly changing perspectives take patience, intent, and planning/control. Somebody here knows what they are doing!

  3. So far, this description of the celestial kingdom reminds me of what’s sometimes called the imaginal realm. I’m following with interest.

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.