Sunday, September 6, 2015
I am unclear as to whether to proceed with Dr. Jung’s exploration, or continue the path we began and continued yesterday morning, being tutored, as far as I can tell, not by Jung but by an undefined group that I call TGU for convenience. So, I leave it open, and let’s see.
It is better perhaps to combine the two approaches. No reason for you not to think – or rather, “feel” – that it is Carl Jung talking to you. We have had several years on this path now, not to mention other connections, so that makes it a little easier to communicate except in certain instances when new material is to be introduced and it seems desirable to separate it from implied connection to established ground between us.
I had a bit of trouble there. Do you mean, when some new angle is to be taken, or when something is going to appear to contradict what I have received previously, it is easier if it comes from undefined sources, so I don’t worry about continuity, or about consistency?
That is correct. It isn’t the lack of continuity or consistency itself, you understand, but your concern over the discrepancies, that could create a problem. By loosening the identification of source, we give you room – or you give yourself room, I should say – to let the material come freely, judging it later. It is an easy way of helping you loosen resistances.
I see. And it wouldn’t necessarily be helpful to others doing the same thing.
Everyone is different, and of course no size fits all. If you have one type of potential resistance, and another person has an entirely different, or even largely different type of problem to be overcome, it only stands to reason that a different approach will likely be called for.
One man’s meat is another man’s poison.
Precisely. So, let us to work.
I and my friends known and unknown are waiting with great interest. This whole exploration is something some of us have been wanting for years, maybe for our whole lives.
Yes, and that suggests a line of inquiry that may at first seem to be a digression, or even a diversion. And that is – what do you suppose it means, that a person can “come into this life” hungry for a given kind of knowledge? You are quite right that it happens. But why, do you suppose, does it happen? How can it happen? It seems to me that simple association of ideas should make it clear that a soul is always a new being, just from thinking about that one circumstance.
Before you come into the world, are you not connected to the entire cosmic internet, as you are calling it? Do you not know what is what? So why should anyone commence a lifetime of longing for certain kinds of knowledge that would exist, easily available – given that your 3D mind is still inextricably connected to your non-3D mind – if you as your particular unit had pre-existed your physical existence?
If the subject of rebirth into the 3D were as simple as some believe it to be, such obstacles would be slight, and easily overcome. Knowledge of “past lives” would be as easily recalled as anything within the given life. Individual ability to access it would vary, as every other aspect of life varies between individuals, but in general, the connection would tend to outweigh the separation.
Only, this is not so. Knowledge can be obtained, but it is not automatic. This one fact, that previous generations described but did not analyze by saying that memory was erased as one crossed the River Lethe on the way back to 3D existence, is valuable evidence.
Each new entrance into the 3D world of limitation may be seen either as “here I am, back for another stay,” or “here I am, mint-new and ready for my first experience” – and each of these ways of seeing it are somewhat true. You are a continuity; you are a new creation. The fact that both halves are true will help you understand soul and spirit.
So, if you are born wanting to know something, and it is something that can be learned, this should suggest to you a continuity – you are born with a hunger for that knowledge – and a new departure – you do not have access to the information you surely could have had access to in the non-3D.
Individual strands will bring their own unfinished business into a life, you understand. Not as an agenda or even as a conscious incompletion, but as one aspect of who and what they are, coming in. But the ring containing these strands – the new soul formed in a specific time and place, comprising many such strands — did not pre-exist this incarnation. (This statement will need to be modified, if only in nuance, but will stand for the moment.)
While I was bringing that in, I was holding at bay the words “state-specific,” and got the sense that this was a new falling into place of something.
An example of how a new experience may modify and enrich the older being.
I in this lifetime acquired the concept of state-specific memories, which allows a new analogy that could not have existed in that form previously.
Precisely. And it is a good and useful analogy. Any given soul, any particular parson’s life in totality, could be looked at as a state-specific memory of the greater being of which it is only one part.
Or a mood?
Yes, in a way, a given life, having a predominating emotional flavor, could be looked at as a mood of the larger being, or perhaps, as the cause of a mood. But we cannot go into that here and now. Let us stay with “state-specific memory”; it will be a useful analogy, and will bring us far, though not today, nor all at once.
A state-specific memory exists, but it is not always accessible. When inaccessible, it does not exist, as far as the person holding that memory is concerned. It is not on his mental horizon. When a given state returns it to accessibility, it may appear as brand-new, or perhaps it will be greeted as an old friend, but in neither case will it be remain readily accessible unless the individual turns it from being state-specific to being more generally connected. One does this by creating new links to other states, as perhaps you realize easily.
The techniques to help you retain a dream amount to enabling you to link a state-specific memory – the dream – to a wider and more varying state – daytime consciousness – so that it may be examined in various circumstances. Writing it down, for instance, serves to accomplish this through the discipline of holding it in mind while you go through the process of writing, or even of formulating into language for the sake of a recorder. It is less the record than the process that makes the dream accessible later, even if the written or spoken record is needed as a reminder.
Yes, that’s clear. So the analogy is?
To read it one way, from the non-3D into 3D – the new soul attempts to retrieve the dream and translate it into another form of consciousness, in this case one closely connected with 3D existence.
To read it the other way, from 3D into non-3D – the soul’s experience is recorded and could be looked at as one state, even almost of one mood, of the larger being from which it was constructed.
Bear in mind, analogy is never identity, by definition. But it may prove helpful.