The process of understanding

The process of understanding

Thursday, October 3, 2019

4:15 a.m. Judging from the responses on the blog, this material is striking home. Of course to some degree that ramps up my anxiety, but – after so much time – not much. I don’t know who is in charge here, but I have a pretty good idea who isn’t! So, pray continue.

We on our end are gratified that you and any of you are willing to listen. You will find that it can be a lonely thing to know and have no one to tell; to be able to help and have no one wanting to be assisted. People must make their own way in this 3D/non-3D world, but they can do it efficiently or not, steadily or not, and all one can do, with the best will in the world, is offer what one knows.

You can’t make the horse drink.

No, you never can. That part isn’t bad – independence is one’s nature particularly in 3D where everyone is so inter-dependent – but it can be hard to watch someone die of thirst, refusing to drink. Metaphor, but a vivid reality, we assure you.

Sounds painful.

If it were only that, it would be extremely painful, probably. Fortunately, in a wider context nothing is as it seems in 3D. Still, one regrets wasted opportunities.

All right, now we are describing the celestial kingdom in the context of a scheme to describe the boundaries and potentials of the 3D part of the world. The celestial kingdom may be said to comprise energies rather than objects. And this too requires careful sorting out.

Bearing in mind that in 3D what we call energy is what also manifests as matter.

Yes, but we need to take things a little slowly as usual. There is of course a practical reason for considering matter and energy separately, just as there is a reason to recognize and bear in mind their underlying continuity. Matter may be merely slowed-down bound energy, looked at in its essence, but after all, energy itself is a sort of slowed-down form of reality, as is all the 3D. So, to remember that matter and energy share the same underlying reality is perhaps less helpful than you might think: They still must be considered separately to be understood.

What I get as analogy is that a fox and a dove are both animals, but they are better understood in their fox-ness and their dove-ness than merely in their shared animal-ness.

Let’s say, rather, that any level of distinction may be appropriate at a given time and inappropriate at a different time, even though of course all these distinctions remain true at all times.

We are turning the focusing knob on the telescope/microscope.

Focus is always required, and will come about by your choice or by default.

So when we say that the celestial kingdom as we describe it deals with energy patterns rather than with physically observable objects such as animals and trees and rocks, remember that all four categories are necessarily physical and non-physical; all four manifest in 3D but – like everything in 3D – exist not only in 3D but in all dimensions as well. There is no such thing as a creature or being or any manifestation that exists only in 3D. Like trying to be in height and width but not in length, it is not possible; the idea is a misunderstanding. But within that shared condition exist all the gradations that you experience, and many that you do not.

As the mineral kingdom consists of a consciousness limited in extent and in its permissible range of manifestation, and the vegetable kingdom and animal kingdom the same only with different boundaries, so the celestial kingdom. That is, everything plays its part. There is less “important” v. “non-important” than you may think. Is the fender on a car less important than the bumper, or the hood, or the window? It depends on the context of the inquiry. Is your arm less important than your leg? You see?

Yes. Our focus determines what we think is important. As our focus changes, the relative importance of what we focus on changes, or rather appears to change.

“Appears to” is right. A whole is the sum of its parts. Remove a part and you have either an incomplete whole or a whole differently defined. Context is everything in making distinctions. That’s why distinctions may be so misleading.

“Make a distinction, make an error.” Isn’t that what the Buddha said?

If he did not or did, you can see the sense of the saying.

Seems like today is all preliminaries to saying something but not really getting around to saying it.

That appearance is created by your focus.

Oh, very good. Yes, I get it. I am expecting one thing and when I get something different, I tend to say “That isn’t as important as what I expected.”

Precisely – and experiencing it, and understanding that you were experiencing it – is as good a way as we know to let that understanding sink in, root itself, acquire a context.

So were you doing it deliberately?

Not per se. We take advantage of whatever situation manifests. So do you.

So do we in 3D life, you mean?

Yes, in general. Also you, Frank, in these conversations, specifically. You don’t think of response as taking advantage of an opportunity, but what else is it? You can’t respond to what isn’t front and center; you respond to what is, no matter how hidden or indirect the connection may be. Your response in turn shapes our response to your response. It is a natural progression. Ask any teacher: The student’s expressed grasp of the material shapes the teacher’s next lesson, or, let’s say, the teacher’s next move.

So we’re going to defer further description of the celestial kingdom’s properties until next time?

Is that what you think we are doing?

Well, yes. Not for no reason, but we didn’t get any further in the subject itself, as opposed to the process of understanding it. Did we?

To some degree, that is a distinction without a difference. If we are explaining how to focus the telescope/microscope, are we avoiding describing the view, or are we enabling you to see for yourself rather than having to rely on someone else’s description?

Still –

All right, we do understand. Then take this much: The celestial kingdom could be called the energetic, or the invisible, or the spiritual kingdom just as well, and each of those labels would highlight one aspect and obscure others. To call it the energetic kingdom would focus on things like ley lines and portals; “invisible” would focus on its existence beyond the sensory apparatus and its extensions that humans can apply; “spiritual” would focus on its close connection with the non-3D end of the 3D/non-3D spectrum. Each of these is true; none is the truth.

There isn’t any “the” truth. Or, let’s say, we’re never in a position to see it.

“Position” is the idea that tells you why you can’t. Anything can be really known only when you can see it from all sides at once, and from no side. Any standing-point imposes perspective, and perspective is always arbitrary, limited, persuasive, and misleading. So yes, in 3D you are never in position to be in all-positions, or in no-position, and so you can get only partial views.

“And there’s your hour.”


Thank you for all this, as always, and see you next time.


2 thoughts on “The process of understanding

  1. “Context is everything in making distinctions.” That shone further light on my conversations with those in another realm. “We take advantage of whatever situation manifests. So do you.” I take advantage of a response that has manifested, or I believe it has. Even the least response, or the suggestion of a response, and I move it to “front and center.” “You respond to what is, no matter how hidden or indirect the connection may be. Your response in turn shapes our response to your response …” That’s how it commences. Together, we create a context, and either it rings true or it doesn’t. I (and many of us, I think) have felt the power of the response that rings true and felt the presence of the responder. Today’s session reminded me of the size–or length or breadth or depth–of the connection that is the context. Very moving.

  2. “Is the fender on a car less important than the bumper …”
    Had to grin at this showing up, as guidance/I have ‘developed’ a car analogy that helps me better understand where I fit in … I pass it along FWIW.

    This personality (I/me) is the wheels on the ‘car’ that is ‘larger me’; I am figuratively and literally where ‘the rubber meets the road’ in this journey through 3D. Some things that fit the analogy:
    – there’s a much larger system (car, driver, road) that I’m part of,
    – presumably the car is on other journeys with other ‘wheels,’
    – I can be as aware (or unaware) of the above as I choose,
    – I become better ‘wheels’ through working to see and be more aware of the journey.

    Like all analogies it can be pushed too far, and those breakdown points are worthy of attention:
    – my awareness ‘governs’ the level of choice I have over when and where the car goes,
    – I can and will grow into being other parts (functions) of the car,
    – I’m beginning to see that the car is 3D life and the sub-/super-structures that support it,
    – the ‘driver’ is beyond me (right now).

    Anyone for the First Church of the Bugatti Chiron? 🙂

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.