Jesus said: If a blind person leads another blind person, both of them will fall into a ditch.
I suppose there is more to this than the obvious point, that we should choose our guides carefully. The previous saying, about not hiding our light under a bushel, says light is placed so that people can see it. But of course the blind cannot see, so there is no light for them, and they must be guided by one who can see. As I say, the point is obvious. So what is behind the obvious?
External and internal are the same thing, remember, and Jesus was not concentrating on the 3D world as an end but as means, nor on society except as in reference to the individual. Put all that together and this saying looks different, does it not? Remembering, too, that it is a talking point for active discussion, and not a finished product for itself?
Well, it implies relations within the community that is the individual. Do we guide ourselves, and are we guided by ourselves? Can one part of us depend upon another? That seems to be forcing it. unless – come to think of it –
Yes, and that is why some of these sayings were not for popular consumption: They cannot be understood unless the underlying assumptions are understood – and these are not easily conveyed. So tell what you just came to.
If we are communities of “past lives,” each in its own present time, we may be said to be guiding ourselves. A life being lived in the 1800s in Spain connects to one being lived in the 1400s in the Philippines and one living in the 1900s in Africa somewhere, and so on and so forth. Each is alive now, in its own circumstances. Each is in the point of power – the now – from its own frame of reference. Each has unconscious and sometimes conscious interconnection with the others, so that as one changes, potentially the others change.
And who is to guide them all?
Exactly. Without a guide external to the unit, it may merely spin its wheels, never finding traction. But – there’s that word “external.”
You might bear in mind that external is a relative term, but still it may be relatively external. That is, yes, “all is one,” but forks are still not napkins even if both are part of a place-setting.
So, our units are more of a oneness than other units are to them, even though ultimately there is no division. I suppose that means a hierarchy of being, in which x number of 3D souls are spun from a given non-3D higher self – what TGU used to call amoebas – and at this level of analysis the various amoebas are each separate, thus confining us to a smaller subset of the universe.
You may find that what is clear to you at this moment is less so later; you may wish to rephrase what you just said, to be clearer for you and for others.
Okay. I get that my life connects with x number of other lifes spun out of whatever my higher self is. All my lifes (not lives, in that I am using it as was given me a while ago by Nathaniel or perhaps Rita or TGU in general) are equally alive, each experiencing its life as alive in the eternal now; so we affect each other, intuitively and unconsciously always, but sometimes also deliberately and consciously. Interactions with lifes of another higher self, though, are perceived as external because they are, relatively, external to my higher self. At some level beyond that, there must be identity again, but that is beyond our discussion. The immediate point is that we cannot escape from a closed system, so if we are to obtain guidance beyond what we know, it must come from outside. That is, in spiritual matters as in material ones, there is an “external,” if only relatively.
Exactly so. The light is no light to the blind. The blind cannot be guided by it, so must rely upon one who is not blind. And if one’s 3D soul connects to other 3D souls each of whom is blind, where is the guidance to come from?
I would have thought – from the higher self.
So now we ask you, is it possible for a higher self to be relatively blind, as well?
I shouldn’t think so.
That is because you are not yet factoring in vast impersonal forces, nor vast personal forces, blowing through your lives. Or, let’s say, you are thinking of them as if they blew only through 3D lives.
I never thought they didn’t. You are saying they also affect the parts of ourselves that are in non-3D?
Can you think of any way in which they could fail to? You in 3D are also in non-3D. If you burn your toe, is your finger unaffected? Is the total being that connects toe and finger unaffected, merely because the finger itself is not burned?
We’re still thinking of our 3D lives as if they were unaffected by the rest of reality, I see.
You tend to think of them as if the 3D was as separate as it appears to be, and is if any one part of 3D is unconnected to other parts of 3D, yes. And, once again, this is why so many truths cannot be easily told: Too much background must be understood before the explanation can explain anything. But yes, this is how the blind wind up leading the blind, and how the lamp’s light may avail them not, they being blind.
Enough for the moment. This will repay pondering, even more than others, because it recasts what will have been experienced as familiar.
It does that. Many thanks for this. It seems like it by itself could lead to a whole book’s worth of further explanation / exploration.
So it could, and perhaps many a one will undertake it.
But not necessarily me, eh? Well, I have enough to do.
A work that can be completed by any one person will not live in the way that an open-ended exploration can.