B Saying 81
Jesus said: Whoever has become rich should rule. Whoever has power should renounce it.
I suppose “having become rich,” in context, may mean having realized that all that “external” world is actually part of us, and we are not contingent, even accidental, bit-players. But – rule what? Or, rule whom?
How about, “Rule yourself”? That is, remembering that you remain a community, though now realizing that the community of you is vastly larger than you had suspected, the part of the community that is most aware naturally should guide the being. Would you rather be guided by a steersman who is asleep, or half-blind?
Then what does “power” in this same saying refer to? It isn’t power over others, is it? (What others?) and it isn’t power over oneself, I’d imagine; at least I can’t see why one would need to renounce it.
What if it is more like saying, “Lay the burden down”?
Interesting thought. Coupled with the first sentence – as is clearly the intention here – it suggests that it’s one thing to come to an extended awareness, another to attempt to use that awareness for personal ends.
Saying 82, you see, builds upon this too. What does it mean for one to be near to Jesus, or far from Jesus?
Jesus said: Whoever is near to me is near the fire. Whoever is far from me is far from the Kingdom.
Near the fire, far from the kingdom. Implied contrast here, implied comparison of the fire and the kingdom. I presume it isn’t redundant, as I presume that no word choice is arbitrary or careless. “The fire” seems to imply the heart of things. “The kingdom” seems to imply a state of being; at least, that’s what I have been taking it to signify.
But what of the meaning of being closer to or farther from Jesus?
Could mean many things. Mentally, emotionally, in conduct, but I don’t think any of these, or maybe I should say I don’t think any of these only.
What would it mean to be close to the state of being that Jesus embodied?
Well, I was inching toward that idea. I can’t believe he meant, “Who believes in me,” or even, “Who believes what I believe” is closer to him. I don’t think it is a matter of faith, the way Christians have come to think it means. Surely it has to be based in experience. Faith may be very helpful in keeping you on the path when you can’t see or feel your way, but I don’t see that blind faith has much to do with having life more abundantly. Although, I suppose it may if it preserves one from falling into fear.
So, in context, what would it mean to be near to or far from Jesus’ state of being?
Didn’t he say, in words that Christians editors neglected to censor, that others would be able to do as he did, and even more? That is, didn’t he say there was not a qualitative difference between him and his followers (and their followers, etc.), but more that he was walking ahead showing by example?
There you go.
So, “the fire”; “the kingdom”?
Your take on it is close enough. if any need more clarity on it, let them sink into themselves and ponder it.
Jesus said: The images are revealed to people. The light within them is hidden in the image of the Father’s light. He will be revealed. His image is hidden in the light.
I can’t make much of this as first blush. Your move.
Take it one sentence at a time, beginning with the meaning of the previous saying.
I think we left it as, you may be near the heart of things, or far from the state of being that Jesus lived in, depending. So, connecting that to this: “The images are revealed to people. The light within them” – what does “them” refer to? The images? The people? It makes a difference which.
Just free-associate it, then look at what you produce and critique it. That’s one approach when you’re stalled.
Okay. Meaning, I take it, this way I don’t have to worry so much about getting it wrong, just produce something and see.
After all, by definition, ILC [Intuitive Linked Communication] is only partly you even at its least precise, least connected. So freewheel it, and see.
Okay. Let’s put it this way: People see “the Father’s image” – which presumably they think of as God’s image – and this image, or versions of it, come to them. They are revealed to them, not “people seek and find them,” though I suppose that happens too. The majority of what they perceive overawes them, to the point that they don’t realize that what they are seeing is also they themselves. “The light within them is hidden in the image of the Father’s light.” Yet “his image” – the Father’s – is “hidden in his light” but will be revealed.
You’re getting there. Now condense it.
As we learn more of who we are – I’m referring to non-3D aspects of ourself, our higher-self aspects – we may not recognize ourselves at first because of the grandeur of what we see. Our part in it is hidden, not by design but because it is too good to be believed perhaps. At the same time, though we are part of it, it is so much greater than us. We may learn that we are a part of all that is, yet only a part. In other words, we are not merely worms, but we aren’t gods either, but something of either, or both, depending upon our point of view.
Fair enough. And, continuing?
- Jesus said: You are pleased when you see your own likeness. When you see your images that came into being before you did, immortal and invisible images, how much can you bear?
My writing on the page from some past reading says, “`Past’ lives etc.”
And does that still ring true?
It is a horseback approximation, I suppose. Today I’d say, at first we are pleased because we realize that we are greater than we had thought, and this without psychic inflation of any sort, merely a matter of fact. But when we look more closely, or maybe I should say when more is revealed to us, when we are able to see more, we see that the “self” we primarily identify with is only a part of a larger self that is still far from any concept of divinity but is far greater than any particular soul. And to the extent that we acknowledge or recognize or are forced to recognize that these other souls of which we are a part have other values, other traits, many of which we may not share or even approve of, we are forced to stretch our self-tolerance (put it that way) well beyond our comfort zones.
Looking at that interpretation of sayings 83 and 84, are you content?
It’s as good as I can do at the moment, anyway.
Then file this experience of doubt and blankness and their antidote as one more data-point in the process. When one is overwhelmed by a feeling of a responsibility greater than one can live up to, remember to treat it as only your own opinion, not “the word from on high,” not God or TGU or a line of angels swearing that you are right.
Yes, I do get it. It has been a recurrent struggle, though less of one than in the past.
So look at saying 85 and see what we can make of it.
Curious phrasing, and I see why you put it that way. “We” because it isn’t merely any conscious 3D view, but neither it is your (or my non-3D) view unmoderated, given that it is modulated by passing through my 3D mind.
It is always that way, and anyone seeking advice or wisdom from their larger self or from their guardian angels, or from their undefined guys upstairs or their very specifically defined individuals they contact would be (will be) well advised to remember it. Certainty may be comforting (or the responsibility for producing it may be oppressive) but it is illusory. Communication always involves slippage. That is both a problem (involving the possibility of miscommunication) and an opportunity (allowing truth to slip in regardless of one’s perhaps firmly held wrong ideas or emotional obstacles.