TGU answering four questions from a reader

Sunday, February 28, 2021

6:15 a.m. Some questions from a reader of the blog.

Questions posted to my blog, left 2-25-2021, by Inge Crossen, in response to “Continuity in Form and Pattern”:

[I have a few small question:

[1) As the human form exists as a permanent perfect pattern /blueprint used for all manifestations of humans, how and when do the actual temporary manifestations pick up all their deformities they are born with, illnesses and so forth? For example: does the non 3D ‘community’ say: “Lets try that experience, find the parents, culture , timeline, set up the abnormality, focus in the body and see how the personality develops and how it can change/adjust our understanding?’

[2) If we, as physical manifestations, are experiencing for the 3D ‘community’ to expand, did ‘I’ have a say in this?

[3) Do I make the daily choices from my local consciousness or not really?

[4) Was ‘I’ just a spark of consciousness with no prior awareness (personality) before conception into this physical life experience and the personality awareness is the outcome which expands the infinite?]

Are you up to answering them?

Well, let’s see. They are worth addressing, and show that someone has been taking the material seriously. In general, we prefer that people work out implications for themselves, because anything one produces, right or wrong, is one’s own, in a way that something given by another cannot be. However, this set of questions is evidence of prior thought.

1) Deformities and illnesses. We think you will find it more productive to follow standard models of development over time than to consider illnesses or deformities as special creations by choice. If we do not misunderstand the question, it assumes that things happen by focused intent rather than, or at least in addition to the natural processes of development, and this is misleading.

If I understand you, you are saying that the gradual corruption of the genetic blueprint happens over time for strictly physical reasons, and is not so much intended as not precluded.

Bearing in mind, the world is a wide place; 3D time extends a long way.

Room for many things to happen, you mean.

If one concentrates on illness, which certainly can be intricate, widespread, consequential, one might conclude that illness is the norm. If, though, one concentrates on health (even the relative health of those who are also suffering from a specific illness, when one considers the non-affected properties of their being), it is clear that health and function are the rule, with disease and debility the exception. “Exception” doesn’t mean non-existent, but it does mean, mostly people are well. Most people are well, and even sick people are mostly well. Someone with a serious disease usually isn’t diseased in several functions, so one might say (though it is an unusual way to look at it) that although sick, they are mostly well.

We are not trying to talk away the existence of disease, any more than we would talk away the existence of suffering of any kind – only, they are not what they seem, because your lives themselves are not what they seem, as we explained at length a while ago.

But the gravamen of the charge is the suspicion that abnormalities are deliberately decided upon for reasons of someone’s or someones’ own (in non-3D presumably).

Yes, that is what I’m hearing

Well, no. Think of all life (from the creation of the 3D to its end) as one stream. As the stream flows in time, swirls, eddies, cross-currents, anomalies occur and produce results not all of them intended; some merely the results of the process. After all, it isn’t much of an on-going experiment if anyone at all knows everything that is going to happen. What could an experimenter learn from an experiment that could be entirely understood and predicted?

In short, life flows, things happen, just as physical medical investigation describes. Chromosomes break, things mutate. Some abnormalities enter the stream and become endemic.

I think you mean, a tendency toward diabetes, say, or a systemic weakness, or broken patterns leading to hemophilia, that sort of thing.

Potential for a given individual to adopt one or more abnormalities exists within the individual’s particular eddy in the genetic river. But this means not that the individual picks it up (or doesn’t) at random. Rather, if s/he picks it up it will be, essentially, by choice, because something in the corruption may be turned to advantage.

So you see, many of your own assumptions about health and illness and genetics and choice need to be carefully considered if you are to avoid the wrong conclusions about a useful manifestation.

I realize, as you say that, we are in the habit of judging mutations as useful or not. It’s just judgment, not particularly enlightening.

It is one thing to consider that illness is assigned; another to consider that illness is accepted. That is, there are no victims here, nor helpless laboratory rats. But just as eternal life in one given 3D body is not the goal of 3D life, neither is what you might consider to be “perfect” health. Many things in life might be unpleasant but useful, and disease and illness are sometimes among these.

Question 2: “If we, as physical manifestations, are experiencing for the 3D ‘community’ to expand, did ‘I’ have a say in this?”

This question is rooted in a linguistic confusion, not in real facts. You and the community are not separable in this way in the non-3D. If your body turns over in your sleep, did your big toe get to be part of the decision-making process?

Question 3: “Do I make the daily choices from my local consciousness or not really?”

This question surprises us, and is in fact discouraging. If after so many words, spread over so many years, we have not made this elementary fact clear –

I know. but consider, she may not have read most of your explanations.

But it is so elementary to everything else. We keep repeating, the 3D was constructed for the purpose of isolating bits of consciousness in bits of time and space so they could experience a concentrated environment – a crucible – in which to decide who and what and how they wished to develop. What good would it do to create all that for the sake of “not really”?

To be fair, I think the question is more than that. (And this is a strange inversion of function, my enjoining you to be more reasonable.)

The question is rooted in the assumption the local consciousness and the larger 3D component that is part of that local consciousness (!) are separable. They may be considered that way; they are not separated in fact at all, nor could “they” be, given that it is not two things, but the same thing being considered.

Question 4: “Was ‘I’ just a spark of consciousness with no prior awareness (personality) before conception into this physical life experience and the personality awareness is the outcome which expands the infinite?”

Same misunderstanding, same misconception of separation and non-identity.

Well aren’t we in a grumpy mood, all of a sudden!

Not grumpy, of course, but the questions, though intelligent, serve as an active reminder of how much shrubbery there is to clear away, as you sometimes say.

But isn’t that the job you set me to do? And thus, yourselves?

It is. Here’s the source of our frustration. Not that the person didn’t understand, or wasn’t aware of, any given piece of information, but that she could know X amount and still not move to a different understanding of things.

You mean, I think – how the old way of seeing things persists even as she absorbs new.

Yes. And [this is] scarcely [limited to] one person, of course, but she is representative of the scope of the problem. One expects incomprehension from those who have not attended to the explanations. But that one did attend, did think about, did formulate questions and still did not connect to one of the primary bits of information – namely, that if free will were an illusion, there would have been no point in creating the conditions in which to exercise it – is disconcerting, at least.

I’ve never experienced frustration or discouragement from your side.

How would you know? It would communicate itself to you as a mood, and you would take ownership. But in the larger sense, you are right. It has happened before, but it is relatively rare.

I can almost remember the time. [Twenty years ago, with Rita, I think.]

But the specific is not important. At any rate, the questions were sincere and careful, and deserved a response. Perhaps it is well for us, as well as you, to remember that just because a thing has been explained doesn’t mean it won’t need to be explained again.

Well, thanks for addressing it. Maybe you should take two aspirins and lie down for a while.

Which “us”? Our 3D component, maybe?

Very funny. Till next time, then.