TGU on our connection with non-3D

TGU on our connection with non-3D

Friday, April 9, 2021

6:50 a.m. Any need to comment on Jane Coleman’s read on your response of April 5 to Martha MacBurnie’s question?

[From Jane Coleman, 4-6-2021:

[Seems to me that TGU cleared the shrubbery but didn’t yet get to Martha’s deeper question: why do we have to have painful or catastrophic experiences to affect change? I checked in with my guidance for more. We don’t have to have these kinds of experiences to change. What we have right now is the results of disconnected living — not living with full non-3D awareness or sleep walking. We have taken the challenge to live in full awareness and support each other in the process. As we continue to do that, we ripple that way of living outwards. As we have a strong preference for change via uplifting experiences, we create the method of change that we want.  It also occurs to me that as we live more connected, we will begin to see “negative experiences” differently. We will trust life and take on the challenge in a different way, not resisting, but looking for the blessing.]

No, as you know, we are in full agreement with her take on the situation. It is, in fact, what we have been saying as we went along: Many of what are considered to be humanity’s failings are the result of stumbling around in 3D without being in connection with the non-3D that has better perspective on things. But that doesn’t mean that the present situation was an accident, nor an experiment, nor a necessary step in an evolutionary process.

Seems to me, that exhausts the list of possibilities.

Sometimes things “just happen,” so to speak, the results of many choices. If humans ate of the fruit of the tree of seeing things as good and evil, was that an accident? An experiment? A necessary step? It was a choice, and choice is a necessary adjunct to free will, which is a necessary adjunct to full participation.

So are you connecting that choice with lack of continuous access?

Reason it out.

Well, let me think. [Recalibrating] I suppose that if we start to see things as good and evil, we lose the faculty of acceptance to the degree that we gain in the habit of judging. (I don’t mean “gain” as a good thing.) And if we start judging everything – I mean, as we get into the habit of judging things – we progressively condemn more and more of what we see.

And what you don’t see.

Yes, that’s where I was going. We no longer accept, so we begin to shut out, to let some things in and leave other things out.

You sunder the world.

There is a vital connection between the two things that is just beyond my connecting them.

It is simple enough, conceptually. When you cease to accept the 3D world, you cease to accept the non-3D world. To the degree that you get into the habit of judging (that is, of choosing to accept or reject), it is a short step to rejecting what is unpleasant, what is painful, and once you begin to do that, you start to lose your way, because you are crippling your innate guidance system.

So you wind up like Hemingway in his old age, losing his connection to what really is going on because he has told himself so many lies about what he has done that he can no longer trace cause and effect.

Hardly Hemingway alone, of course. He is merely an historical example you know. But you and everyone you know or ever will know do the same thing, to greater or lesser degree, and that’s what’s ailing you.

I feel the truth of what you are saying, but still don’t quite have the connecting mechanism between judgment as a habit and losing connection with our non-3D component.

It hurts too much to see yourselves as you really are, because there is too much you condemn! So you stop listening, and you rewrite your biography, and you proceed on your own as best you can. Of course this is not a conscious process. If it were, it could be overcome. Or rather, we should say, “Once it becomes conscious, you can learn to overcome it.”

Which is what you are helping us to do.

Scarcely us alone, of course. Help is at hand for everyone, always, but there must be openness to it. It is to create a space for openness that so many messages in so many forms have gone forth. It is more than 2,000 years since Jesus came that you might have life more abundantly, and he was not the first nor the last. Just as the message has had to be delivered in so many different ways, so there have been many different messengers. Some devote their lives to it, some live their lives in such a way as to offer broad hints, some study and practice in isolation, and work not by affecting another individual – maybe not even one flesh and blood individual! – but by affecting the shared subjectivity.

Hear this: Any and all of you will carry the message, or resist it, or contradict it, or live oblivious to it, but it is how you choose to live in relation to this one question that will determine your life.

I think you are saying, insofar as we open ourselves to our non-3D guidance, our lives will overcome the truncation that follows attempting to live by judging everything.

Provided that you do not succumb to psychic inflation, yes. If you were to say, “I listen to my guys upstairs, I’m pretty special, I’m an advanced being,” – or, worse, “I am a guru and a role model,” well, it is a short step to madness. Being closely connected to your individual non-3D component is very desirable, but it is not a panacea.

Sketch the downside for us, then, because at first glance this seems to contradict what you said previously.

Remember, life doesn’t contradict itself, but it does contain all contradictions. Another way to say the same thing would be to say, “Any valid course is between extremes that are undesirable.” If you want to go East, there is some range that will get you there, and some going-too-far that won’t.  Even if you head due North or due South, you have some chance of nearing East, though that is not an efficient way to proceed. But if you are heading Northwest, say, even slightly, how are you ever going to go East? And of course it is far preferable to confine your range between ENE and ESE, say. This does not judge whether going East is a “good” or a “bad” thing; it says, if that’s where you want to go, there will be a range of courses that will move you in that direction. Anything outside that range will not.

I think this is somehow connected – can’t quite see how – with the idea that it is not desirable to follow our non-3D blindly, even though it is desirable to follow it consciously.

Good. But better would be to say, not “follow it consciously,” but “cooperate with it consciously, ”consult with it consciously.” You are in the body. It is your choice, always. That’s what you’re there for, to choose. Abandoning that requirement to choose would be as bad, on the one side, as refusing to listen to it is, on the other side. Your proper course lies between the two extremes.

I get, too, that our non-3D component isn’t perfect. It isn’t automatically benign. No, that isn’t quite right, but you know what I mean, you say it.

All values are represented in the world, and you won’t approve of all of them. Some cut against others. Some you cannot live if you want to live other, contradictory, values. You must choose. So, the non-3D component of someone living values that are repugnant to you still has its rights in this life. What is not right for you may be right for another.

More than that, you are, as Emerson said, “the child of many sires.” You comprise many strands, some of them perhaps at odds with one another. How are you to live by choosing chaos? You will live by some and will choose not to live by others, and there is nothing wrong with this. But this means, it is not safe for you to automatically follow every impulse, or go down every road that tempts you. You know all this; you live it every day, but it may not have occurred to you in this context.

This is clear, but you didn’t sketch the connection to psychic inflation. At least, if it is implied in what you said, I missed it.

Inflation leads you out of discernment and into automatism. You cease to be human and fallible and uncertain, and you see yourself as divine and infallible and all-knowing. It doesn’t happen all at once, but it is a terribly strong tendency once it gets a toehold.

Yes, I see. Nietzsche as opposed to Jung.

Hemingway in the grip of his myth of himself as opposed to Hemingway searching for his wholeness in the middle of the night. Yourselves in your moments of arrogant certainty as opposed to yourselves when you are conscious, humble, and kind.

So, stay connected to your non-3D (your conscience, in a sense, only without the overtones of something always grading your scorecard), but never forget that it is your guide, your protector – your friend – but not your master or your superior or your boss. Within that range of being is your range of possibilities, your best course to become what you want to become.

And enough for the moment.

You so often surprise me. Thanks for this, as always.


8 thoughts on “TGU on our connection with non-3D

  1. It is an interesting thought to consider that your non-3D guidance can be fallible in the sense that it can misdirect if followed. But contradictorily, It is not an accident. The idea that any choice is not an accident, and yet the outcome of a choice can be undesired is an interesting perspective. So even if one was to “blindly” choose to accept guidance that would be detrimental, would it be considered detrimental in the bigger picture, if there is no accident?

    I’m having a hard time understanding how the idea that the non-3D is fallible correlates with the idea that there are no accidents.

    “But that doesn’t mean that the present situation was an accident, nor an experiment, nor a necessary step in an evolutionary process.”

    1. I didn’t get that they said it was fallible, but that it might correspond to parts of ourselves we might wish to overrule. I think they are keen to remind us that WE are not infallible, particularly if we come to rely upon our non-3D connection. Clearly they encourage that connection, but they don’t want us getting inflated about it. (“I talk to the guys; they’re always right, which means I am always right.”) Hard to see how that would be in anybody’s best interest.

      1. Definitely accept the idea that we are not infallible. The confusion for me was because if nothing is an accident, then even overruling our choice by listening blindly implies it is also not an accident. How does one in 3D know if it’s guidance or a misguided choice? That’s where it seems contradictory.

        1. To clarify, if inflation is what causes “incorrect” choices, was that because the choice was made in error/inflation/bad guidance? Or was that by the winds that blow/guidance/not an accident?

          I guess this is similar to the question of free will vs. predestination.

        2. To follow up, I received some clarity on my comments.

          The idea that something is not an accident was being misapplied to the outcome of a choice or decision as if that was the setup by non-3D. This is where my confusion and apparent contradiction arose. It is also why people think everything is predestined.

          The circumstance that one is presented with is not an accident. The choices made for the circumstance is by free-will. The outcome is the result of the choice in that circumstance, and it is not directed by anyone other than the individual chooser.

          So in the case of guidance that may be misdirecting, that may not be an accident, but the choice is always from free-will whether to accept or reject the guidance. Thus free-will is retained and the advice to use your discernment still stands.

  2. Simon,
    I like and agree with your comments, and understand TGU and my guidance to say similar things. ‘Our’ one addition is to the concepts and meaning ‘behind’ the sentence “The outcome is the result of the choice in that circumstance … ”

    Circumstances are (often? always?) far, far bigger/complex/deeper than us 3D’ers can ever comprehend and/or be aware of. Vast impersonal forces, unknown parts/strands of ourselves, our connection with our larger selves (and much more) are all part of that vastness. Thus the “choice in that circumstance” may lead to outcomes that seem accidental. Perhaps this is where faith comes in?!

    1. So true. We in 3D can never really know all of the influences incorporated into a circumstance.

      In fact, you could even argue that an outcome is not an accident because the choice is also a “strand” involved in the outcome, which could be looked at as the “circumstance” to the next choice.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.