Some are lenses, some are not

Saturday, September 11, 2010

2 PM. Just got a vivid sense of what you mean. Had lay down and for some reason – you, I suppose – I thought of the words “Natty Maru,” the nickname the sailors on the Natoma Bay had for their ship when fighting the Japanese in World War II. This of course connected to the past-life memories of James Leininger, who as a boy was haunted by memories that turned out to be of James Huston, a fighter pilot on that ship. Suddenly I saw it: The strand-mind within James Leininger was the person-mind of James Houston. The person-mind of James Houston had moved on to become part of a group-mind that was the person-mind of a little boy. Conceptually it is very simple!

Well, not quite so simple, but that is an accurate perception and understanding. Thus, you see, reincarnation is correct, for a soul moved on to live again. But reincarnation is not correct, because the soul did not move on to be ringmaster again, but only to be one factor of many.

Yes, and when young James moves on, James Houston will be a strand of a strand.

Not quite that simple either, but you’re getting the sense of it now. And perhaps you see why we have been saying, do your work on yourself now, meaning while you are ringmaster, for you won’t find it so easy thereafter, and may in fact find it impossible unless you receive assistance.

Not every person-group is included in a new person-group.

No, and those who are, are chosen by no rules that we know how to enumerate. You can feel, now, how many, many things cannot be explained while you are firmly enmeshed in wrong concepts.

Yes. Without the division of “individuals” into the various components as you have been explaining, there is no room for understanding.

We told you years ago, but got tangled in analogy and quietly dropped the subject with relief, that some people’s souls crystallized in their lifetimes and others didn’t. We also said that some people were “lenses” used to shine the light of spirit through and serve as models for new souls. Now we can re-conceptualize for you.

A person-group upon dropping the body is a unit in heaven. That is, a non-physical habit-pattern – a mind – newly relieved of its affiliation with the body, exists and has its awareness automatically expanded as it realizes and explores its huge number of interconnections with strands and groups. That’s more than enough, for some, and they have no wish to return to become a strand in another person-mind. Others, either for specific tasks to be accomplished or from their own intrinsic interest, return to earth in a new affiliation. Well, how is the former person-mind to be a new person-mind? That person-mind forms as the sum of its strand-minds. Can someone be a strand and a ringmaster in the same person-mind? (Actually, it can seem that way, but only for a while, and even then the answer is, “no, they can’t really.”) So, looking at life from the viewpoint of any given person-mind, you’re only new once. You only get one bite of the ringmaster apple. You don’t step into the same river of life twice. But that is not the same as saying that you only live once and then you’re never alive on earth again. Rather, it means that the particular ring that is you can only be forged once. Once created, you can play many parts in life physical and life non-physical, but you can’t create yourself again, and can’t be created anew again. That’s just common sense. But it has a lot of ramifications for those who can ponder it in light of psychology or theology or metaphysical systems. It will throw a peculiar and intense light on many things.

Some former person-groups (we suppose we are going to have to invent yet more jargon to concisely say it: ex-ringmasters, let’s call them tentatively; it may prove unworkable) will be of particular use to the purpose behind life, and they may be used as strands not once or twice but many times. Others may be of no use at all and may never served in that capacity. (That doesn’t mean they will serve no purpose or will cease to exist; it means they are not sufficiently differentiated to be useful as feedstock for new-person groups, one might say.) And, between these extremes, some ex-ringmasters will be employed as strands in some but not many new person-groups.

A couple of things to note.

1) It is not a case of an ex-ringmaster getting only one new assignment. They could get many; the only rules about it (as far as we know) concern usefulness.

2) Just because an ex-ringmaster is used in one person-group doesn’t exactly mean it will or won’t have further influence when that person-group in turn becomes a strand in a new group-mind. It depends on how prominent it is in the person-mind of which it forms a strand.

3) A person-group may crystallize or not. If it does, in effect a new being has been created, closer to being a unit than before because the relations of its constituent parts are relatively fixed.

4) However, this isn’t really so, either, except from a certain point of view, because a strand-mind within a person-mind may play one role, have one relative importance, but play an entirely new role, of greater or lesser importance, when that person-mind is considered as having become part of another group-mind.

5) Finally and most confusingly of all, consider: All this is our explanation unavoidably crammed into the time-and-space analogy, or model. All this movement isn’t really movement, so much as relationship. Our description is somewhat as if we were trying to describe an abstract painting by saying the colors swirl, or this color blends into that and proceeds to that. The movement is analogy more than it is description, but that’s part of the inherent problem of translating into 3-D terms.

Wow, that’s quite a lot to come just pouring out.

At unpredictable times, information will “click” and if we can, we like to take advantage of that moment, for it is when your mind is temporarily most pliant and receptive.

I’ll go send it out. Thanks.

4 thoughts on “Some are lenses, some are not

  1. I’m going to print this one out and put it in Chapter 14 of Sphere and Hologram, where the chat on crystallization did get tangled. I reread it this morning after reading this. The discussion of group-minds and ringmasters in the recent days has made this more understandable.

  2. This is mind blowing for me, rearranging my understanding in a profound, more satisfying, more connected way. I’ve had these same questions rolling around in my head, and your post articulated them and brought answers. Can you refer me to where to get a better understanding of crystallization? Thanks.

  3. Ya, I’m referring to Chap 14, “The Amoeba and Crystallized Beings,” from Franks’a book, “The Sphere and Hologram.” The amoeba is a term TGU used in Chap 10 for the greater self.

    TGU never got across a satisfactory explanation of crystallization in S&H. I couldn’t get past the idea of myself as an individual. Nor could I shift my perspective to my greater being and understand nothing is ever lost. All is deeply and dearly valued. I felt like if my personality didn’t crystallize, if it wasn’t something unique and valuable, the parts would just get recycled, and “they” would try again. That freaked me out a bit, as I have a vested interest in the continuity of this self. It sounded too much like getting tossed in hell, because I hadn’t been “good.”

    The error in my thinking is in the language. It’s not me versus them. It’s us. I and they are one being, with me being the local part of greater. Nothing is lost. The crystallized soul is a new lens for the light to shine thru. It’s a new wind chime for the winds to blow thru. It is unique as a snowflake.

    Lemme know if I answered your question or not.

    1. Thanks, Jane C! You did. I haven’t read S&H yet.

      My thinking followed yours–hard to get past the idea of the individual and of not failing the test and being lost forever. I was also trying to figure the idea of “final contribution” in there. Your “me being the local part of greater” helps shed light. Frank begins this post with an example of this, but I didn’t connect back. Thanks for sharing, Janie-Jane.

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.