Saturday, November 9, 2019
6 a.m. All right, to work. You said, as a halfway point, treat the 3D world as “not only” our environment.
Re-read yesterday’s before we begin, to get it fresh in your mind. This will help the process.
Me only, or the reader as well?
You have no control over what anyone does but yourself. And in this case you are the amenuensis and the interlocutor both – you will benefit from the focus.
Yes, I can see that – having just done it – but even now it is hard to hold on to.
Which is why we need symbols, you will remember, and why religions (including science) need dogma, to provide capsule-summary-images to imply a lot in bite-sized bits.
Now you, experiencing yourselves in 3D as 3D, live differently depending upon your awareness of who you really are – which, remember, fluctuates.
- The 3D world of constraints may be seen as a stage, a stable platform maintained by joint effort of the various kingdoms: vegetable, animal, celestial, mineral.
- But do not think of this platform as static merely because it is stable. It is dynamic, rather.
- Do not think of it as one-dimensional, or rather as of uniform texture, say. It contains within itself all possibilities and hence all possible conditions.
- “Magic” is the manipulation of the prevailing conditions by the will of the individual (bearing in mind that there can be no such thing as a 3D-only individual).
- “Superstition” is sometimes the deducing of rules governing the appearance of magic outside conscious willing.
- “Religion” may be, on one end, the extension of consciousness by the use of symbol and dogma, or at the other end a sort of substitute extension, living by rule, as superstition.
- Bear in mind, aware of it or not, you move from one state of being to another as you live. This is not a one-way progression, so much as a wandering.
- The 3D world, which you perceive as external, functions, as we said, as a sort of mirror of your state of being. Thus as Thoreau said, don’t curse your life, it isn’t as bad as you are.
And I guess don’t take credit for it either, when things are going well?
Let’s say, an attitude of trustful interest would be appropriate in either case. You didn’t cause your good fortune, you didn’t cause your ill-fortune, and anyway you can’t depend upon your judgment as to which is which.
Now, if you affect your environment, and your environment affects you, that is a very different state of affairs from that which you come to logically if you consider that it is only one way or the other. You are not “only” (nor always) magicians, setting the stage and directing the play. You are not only nor always victims or let’s say recipients, reacting to the latest blows of fate or kisses from the gods. Nor do you move from the one to the other. It only looks like that.
I think of Caesar as I write that.
Caesar you know was considered to be beloved by the gods, which assured his astonishing luck time and again when he needed it. Yet he was diligent, determined, far-sighted, of few illusions, sometimes ruthless and more often merciful, at a time when mercy was often mistaken for weakness. He is a good example of a conscious man operating in good connection with his non-3D component and interacting with what seems an exterior environment to entirely transform his society. Yet his goal and his methods were not primarily aimed at transforming his 3D environment even though he himself thought in those terms.
I wish I could speak to Caesar.
Only you don’t believe yourself worth of his attention.
Well, yes, I guess so, like when I contacted Joseph P. Kennedy expecting to be swatted for my impertinence, and he said there isn’t anybody who is more nobody than a dead man.
The key as always is, what do you have in common? Where is the point of resonance between you? it won’t be culture or language or biographical detail necessarily, but there will be something, or you would not feel the draw. So ask yourself where the resonance is, or rather, feel where it is, and see if anything happens.
And this is not an interruption of your lesson-plan, I take it.
Very funny. Try the experiment. What doesn’t work today may work tomorrow. What does work today will necessarily carry the quality of the moment.
It’s funny, I woke up thinking of my academic friend who believed I was honest, but maintained that my contacts weren’t scientifically valid unless I could somehow prove that I was talking to whomever I thought (or they said) it was. I maintained just the opposite, that the experience precedes the proof, that it is the experience and not the data that must be looked at as of primary importance, for our attribution of source must always be speculative and probably at least partly erroneous.
Enough nervousness. Try.
Yes. Very well, what would be our point of contact, the reason for my fascination with the man Julius Caesar?
We transcend categories. It is that extending beyond bounds that is in common.
Clearly I am not socialite, soldier, statesman. So the transcendence you mean is not of career.
Why do you think Caesar transformed the world, more after his death than before?
You altered the categories for others.
After you have seen more clearly than others, their sight clears as well. This is not your doing as an individual; it is you as servant of the gods. But the gods love those who willingly do their bidding.
It can be hard to remember that you were others before and presumably after you were Caesar.
You will find it easier to see if you think of it not as Caesar but as Caesar’s traits. Many an individual has flowed with this or that bundle of Caesar’s categories, qualities. Napoleon chiefly, as you were given some time ago, but many a one unknown to history. Any life successfully lived adds to the possible patterns.
That last sentence was a shift in feel.
Your attention wavered. Still, there was the true contact you wanted.
- Think of yourselves as patterns interacting with the external world as also a pattern, but realize that you-as-pattern is itself a somewhat external thing, not you-as-essence.
So what is the over-arching thing you are trying to get across, here?
It is worthwhile to think of yourselves as separate from the 3D world and yet an integral part of the 3D world. Both, not one or the other, because “the 3D world” is itself more of two natures than appears.
As beings who are not of the 3D, you have leverage. As beings who are of the 3D, you have insight, or let’s say a sense of identity. You belong and yet you are more than. The 3D world is environment and yet it is an externalization of you (if only “in effect”).
And that will do for the moment.
Well, thank you for all this, as usual. A particularly unusual experience this morning.
No, a slight stretching of your categories, nothing more.
If you say so. Till next time, then.