Sunday, November 17, 2019
7:10 a.m. A session this morning, gentlemen, or should I do other things?
It is always your choice, you and anybody else. We are here to remind you of your freedom – including the freedom that can come from living within a routine – not to impose limits nor to take the burden of choice from you where it belongs.
Yes, you have been clear about that from the beginning.
It is natural sometimes, and for some natures, to want to hand over the burden of freedom to what seems a higher power, or at least a surer power. The impulse isn’t exactly mistaken, more misunderstood. It isn’t for you in 3D to give up being in 3D (and we remind you, the limitations inherent in 3D life are all about choice) but to live in 3D choosing ever better.
Which of course implies that you know what “better” is.
[Transcribing this, I see I need to clarify: TGU and I knew that I meant “that one knows”; not “that TGU knows.”]
Let’s look at it carefully, because our statement is subject to misunderstanding, as you just demonstrated.
- Better and worse are, of course, value statements.
- Everyone sees them as, in effect, objectively there. And so they are, objectively, from one’s own subjective view!
- Not only do they differ between and among people within 3D, but of course between each person and its non-3D component.
“Its” represents you giving up on spelling out “his and her” or defaulting to “his.”
Yes. We don’t have time for all that. It isn’t that we object but that it diverts attention.
- Suppose we in non-3D were as individual as you in 3D think yourselves, then in effect you, Frank, would extend into non-3D strictly as Frank. How could that be?
Yes, I get it. If I am part of a larger being that has also expressed as Bertram or the Egyptian Joseph or the American Joseph, etc., where would their extensions be?
Correct. You are each more complicated than you appear to yourselves. That complicated nature may be overlooked without distorting some things, and in other things may be absolutely vital.
So let us look at it carefully.
Frank exists in 3D; he extends into (indeed, proceeded from) the non-3D. This is not some marginal part of himself that may be disregarded internally. That is, externally be may be considered by observers to be a 3D unit, but the reality will always be that he is a unit in 3D and non-3D.
The strands that he comprises came from many 3D lives that were themselves created of many strands.
I messed up a graf and crossed it out. Bullets?
- He is made of many strands.
- Every strand is as complicated as he is.
- Every strand extends into non-3D even considered from where it is “alive” in 3D, not less than when it is considered from elsewhere.
- In short, he is a web, not a unit, and so is everyone.
- That web may be considered to be a unit only by conscious or (usually) unconscious truncation, disregarding all the extensions in all directions.
- But if you study a unit that is only a unit because you refuse to consider what you have defined out of existence, how well can you understand it?
It would be to understand the mechanism of a transmission belt without considering what it attaches to, or why it exists, let alone how it functions as part of a larger unit.
Correct. And what mechanic would undertake to fix what he did not understand?
So to return: Better and worse are better or worse from what point of view? Or, better stated, which “better or worse” do you want to be self-evident? If you choose that result, you need merely to proceed to the point of view from which it is self-evident.
Isn’t that backwards from the way it really works?
It is an illustration of how it works.
I’m struggling, here. It seems to me I in 3D will have a viewpoint sometimes markedly different from “mine in non-3D” which I suppose may amount to what seems to me to be “yours.” In such case, won’t my view of better and worse be different from yours, sometimes markedly so?
Indeed it will. That’s what 3D is all about, after all.
Then you are really losing me. If so, what is the advantage to anybody of learning to connect?
A viewpoint that is 3D and non-3D is yet a viewpoint, is it not? Perhaps a binocular one? Perhaps better than monocular from either end?
So then, say I am in pretty good connection with my non-3D self, and let’s assume that this connection is more instinctive than conscious. That is, it is more natural than self-consciously put into operation. Clumsy way to say, that cooperation becomes my norm. What then of my views of better and worse?
Well, you tell us. How do you feel?
I have become much less judgmental over the years, which at first seems like an unalloyed good thing, but has its drawbacks.
Its difficulties, say.
Difficulties, all right. It certainly doesn’t make me a man of action!
Perhaps that was newer in your possibilities anyway. But – how does this way of living feel to you as you live it?
There’s a split decision, really. I like it very much, because who wouldn’t like to feel wiser than s/he did normally? But –
Yes. But, the downside is that otherwise you feel stupid.
“Stupid” over-draws it, a bit. Uninspired, anyway. Oblivious. Incompetent at the simplest things other people seem to know instinctively.
Yes, but consider. If you were not in good connection with your non-3D, would you automatically be any better at living in the 3D world?
As I write that, a fragment of scripture comes to me, the words “my refuge and my strength.”
Do you think you are the first person to experience the difference between functioning in 3D only, as if you were on your own, and functioning in connection with forces unseen but trusted and trust-worthy?
You do – the process does – make the most unexpected connections.
Isn’t that the point of connecting with the rest of yourself, these unexpected extensions into new understandings?
It is so often a surprise.
You’re welcome. Said (as you know) with a smile.
Enough for the moment. Do as you please, but consider, as you choose, “which you?”
The same old refrain, like “As above, so below.” Very well, our thanks as always.