I believe you proposed to continue by discussing how we change our beliefs.
Less how you change them than how they change. That is, you are less active in the process than might be assumed.
Our beliefs change themselves?
- Remember, we are considering your life not as if the 3D were lived in the isolation it is usually considered to be lived in, but in its connections conscious and unconscious, 3D and non-3D, present and (in effect) past and future.
- Seen in this larger, wider, deeper, context, changes in who you experience yourselves to be are naturally seen to involve relationships between conscious and impersonal forces; that is, between personal and impersonal forces.
- The rules of 3D existence mandate that everything be experienced sequentially – that is, in time-slices. That doesn’t mean though that they actually take place in time-slice increments.
We experience things as “past” or “future” because that’s how a 3D mind makes sense of things, but in fact every moment of time is in the present in its own frame of reference.
Yes. And this form of relativity is far more important than the application of relativity merely to space while trying to treat time distortion as a sort of interesting parlor trick. But of course we aren’t here to discuss such things; that kind of discussion will be best confined to the minds that find it natural to think in such ways.
- Given the above, perhaps you can see that what you are – which threads you pick up and which ones you lay down at any given moment – cannot be caused in the way 3D conditions lead you to assume.
The connection isn’t quite clear to me.
“Choosing” is a more interactive process, it involves more factors even disregarding “external” events, than 3D rules make it seem.
Ah! It isn’t just cause-and-effect, and isn’t cause-and-effect involving only the factors active in any given moment.
That’s closer. But it is hellishly difficult to translate a simultaneous process into a sequential narrative, just as it is difficult to describe events involving many dimensions as if it involved only one.
I seem to feel you ready to throw up your non-existent hands in the face of the impossible complexity of the task.
Candidly, yes, we do feel that way, a little. It isn’t merely a matter of many things to do, nor of a task requiring greater bandwidth and RAM than is at your disposal. Nor is it that your attitude toward the material is a problem; it isn’t. But how to explain everything at once. That’s the problem.
Why more so now than heretofore?
Because many times, processes that are simultaneous and interactive can be described sequentially and in isolated detail, and then re-assembled, so to speak. But there comes a level of complexity that makes this impossible. That’s why it is usually abandoned as inexpressible, or is warped into something that will be at least a little bit true, but is mostly misleading.
Which is why we see so many mutually contradictory philosophies and religions and cosmologies, I take it. With the best will to truth, they grasp only a part of it, not only because of people’s peculiarities of thought but also because it is all too vast to be grasped as it really is, rather than “sort of like this.”
In addition, any explanation will be more understandable, or less, depending upon the audience.
So what are you going to do, quit?
We smile. No, we’re just kvetching, as you might say.
Feels like you’re also stalling for time while you think about it.
I had the feeling, coming into this session, that you knew what you wanted to say and knew how you were going to approach saying it.
Look back. Can you see how we got derailed because your question/comment showed us that we weren’t getting it across?
After the fourth bullet-point, you mean?
Yes. And that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have interrupted, it means that made it clear that less was being conveyed than we hoped, and needed.
Let’s put it another way. Maybe if we list the frameworks, each of which must be considered as if separate, but all of which (and others unmentioned, for sheer lack of bandwidth) must be considered together which is a very different thing than considering them separately.
- Your consciousness, in reality affected by all
Still too big?
Too unwieldy, anyway.
Can’t you break it down farther?
It’s hard to see how.
Could you just continue sketching one piece at a time? Isn’t that what you had planned to do in discussing feelings and thought?
We have about reached the limit of what can be usefully discussed sequentially and separately.
From the beginning, our strategy has been to describe your lives beginning as they appear to you. It looks like we will have to continue on that path, but we caution you, in some ways our explanations can only become successively more misleading unless translated beyond 3D concepts. And to do that requires much more of you, because in effect you will need to be continually holding in mind all the caveats and “so to speaks” that we will not be able to furnish if we are to get anything said. You see the difficulty? And the opportunity?
The analogy that comes to mind is Jesus bringing his disciples along. At some point he needed them to bring more understanding to their listening. And not just Jesus, I imagine, but the Buddha and anyone reaching this barrier.
Yes, it is a form of sound barrier.
So what can we as listeners do to better absorb what you need to tell us?
Isn’t it obvious?
It is now. It wasn’t when I asked. We need to understand more by using our higher awareness, or non-3D component’s ability to make connections that are beyond our 3D minds’ abilities to do.
You do that already, of course, but yes, you will need to do that even more actively and more successively as we proceed. This is why learning to communicate with your non-3D components is crucial to the process of understanding life. You literally can’t understand anything about life if you cannot achieve a viewpoint – a standing-point – independent of a 3D-only understanding. And you cannot achieve that broader viewpoint using only 3D tools, using only logic and thought. They must be assisted and directed by a higher understanding than 3D-only, and this whether recognized by the 3D mind or (usually) not.
I get that this almost means you will need to speak to us even more cryptically.
Others have used that strategy. We prefer to try to continue to explain, explain, explain, even at the cost of tedium. We may need to back up and try from a different angle.
Well, all I can say is, Seth never ran himself into cul de sacs.
Like you’d know?