Friday, November 8, 2019
5:50 a.m. All right, next installment of the Perils of Pauline?
We are still wanting to relate your 3D life not so much to life in the greater reality as an abstraction, but to your life in the greater reality.
You mean to keep it practical, I take it.
It isn’t that discussing abstractions isn’t practical. It can be, or it can be evasion. But discussing how you in the 3D really are, rather than how you think you are, is going to be unmistakably practical, and then it is a question of whether you apply what you learn.
No flights of fancy.
Let’s say, no walling it off into nice theory as opposed to integrating it into your self-awareness.
Lay on, Macduff. [Which, speaking of flights of fancy, leads me by mental association to the fact that Macbeth was buried on Iona, and makes me wonder if I could have seen his grave (assuming it is marked after all this time) had I been aware of it when I was there.]
Which led you to accuse yourself of not being very present.
A true bill if I ever presented one.
Let’s use that as springboard:
- Your lives in 3D are necessarily bounded by time and space and – less obviously – by the amount of things you can be aware of at any one time.
- Your lives in 3D, however, take place in a larger context that does not suffer the same constraints.
- Your awareness of the interaction between what we have been calling your 3D component and your non-3D component fluctuates, as of course all 3D consciousness fluctuates.
- Another way to say this is that sometimes you function (in 3D) as if you were on your own and sometimes as if temporarily connected to a larger being.
- It is that “as if” that determines the flavor of your lives.
I can see that, and so far it isn’t anything new, is it?
That depends upon who is reading it, doesn’t it? Something not previously heard is new, is it not?
- One implication here is that different levels of consciousness effectively live in different worlds with different rules. This applies not only between lives but within
I understand that one, all right.
Yet you will find that you and in fact nearly everyone else as well commonly think and act as if you and they were constants rather than variables.
- You don’t live in the same world with the same rules when you change states of consciousness, until you stabilize them.
- In the absence of a stable platform, how reliable are your observations? How predictable are your reactions? How dependable are your interactions?
- Stability is not everything – growth may sometimes result from or result in temporary instability – but it is not nothing, either.
- And remember always that what you experience as “the external world” is a (relatively) stable point of reference! That’s one reason it exists!
Explain that, a little?
You can’t measure one variable by another, Einstein. Something has to be considered a fixed reference point. If you continually (or let’s say, unpredictably) change, and so do those around you (speaking of their internal selves, as yours, rather than theirs or yours as they appear to others), where is any point of stability but an “external” world?
But other people’s appearance is part of the world as we experience it.
It is, and your own appearance is part of the world as other people experience it. To that degree you act as landscape for one another, preserving a continuity of environment. But neither you nor they are as you appear. Your “external” aspect is scenery; you relate primarily internally/externally
And now we need you to be explaining your explanation.
You (all) live as if your world was as it appears, when in fact you know full well it is not.
More carefully said, I think you mean when we know that in our own case it is not so.
That’s a doubtful qualifier. Yes, you know it of yourselves to the degree that you allow that your inner world is as real as the other. You might be surprised if you knew how few people do. And of those who do, some concede that others have a similarly invisible side to their lives, and some do not.
How can anyone not know that they live an internal life as well as an external one? I don’t see that it would be even possible.
Perhaps this is a matter of definition as well as of perception. Again we say, people’s definition of and their perception of their internal life fluctuates in a great range, not only from moment to moment within a given person but from lifetime to lifetime, say. At any given moment, in any given lifetime, the variations in range are limited, but within those limits fluctuation is inevitable and therefore cannot be undesirable.
“Cannot be,” assuming that we assume that All Is Well.
You are perfectly free to assume that All Is Ill, or All Is Often Ill, or that you know better than reality, for that matter, but how useful is any such arrogant assumption?
- “The world” provides a 3D frame of reference not obviously under your control, not apparently fluctuating as you fluctuate. Hence by implication your reaction to the world provides clues as to how you may have changed snice your last observation.
And as you open our eyes to things, we find “the world” changing?
Hard to give a true response to that statement, it is so packed with true and false implications.
- Greater command over life comes from greater command over your own variables, of course. What else do you have to work with?
- But as usual, “which you?”
- That is the reason for all this exploring, all this redefining, all this acquiring of experience and theory and data on life in non-3D.
It isn’t like the universe needs another reporter (though each report adds another window on the world), but that you need a better handle on who you are if you are to be able to transcend your previous self-definitions.
And it is only in self-transcendence that we make any progress.
Again, your statement is loaded with conscious and unconscious and semi-conscious definitions and meanings, and is not easily addressed.
- If you will begin to see the 3D world less as your natural environment and more as your independent sounding-board, you will find that your life seems, feels, and becomes entirely different and livelier.
But it is our environment, of course.
It is and it is not. Let’s say, as a halfway point, treat it as not only.
I get that.
But don’t overlook what we just said: It is and it is not your environment. But we haven’t time to go into this today, and what we have said so far makes a unit; good place to stop.
Our thanks as always.