Thursday, June 3, 2021
5:10 a.m. Shall we proceed?
Glance back at recent sessions.
June 1 – understanding non-3D without reference to 3D. There’s only one reality ultimately, no matter how many local variations. June 2 – we in 3D are both individual and community. Which aspect we concentrate on determines how we see things.
Funny, I had started to think we’d been at this a lot longer. Looking at it in typescript is a lot easier than leafing through pages of handwritten paragraphs. Easier to grasp quickly.
Now, if 3D is not a localized phenomenon in one small corner of reality but is, instead, an aspect (though only one aspect) of all reality, that makes it not a curiosity but an integral part of all that is. Surely you can see that that follows, if you once grant the assumption. This is as much as saying, reality cannot do without the 3D, any more than it can do without the non-3D.
But wouldn’t that mean that everything would have a 3D aspect?
Wouldn’t the opposite assumption mean that the universe has second-class citizens, whether 3D-connected or non-3D-connected? Which was “superior” and which “inferior” would be a matter of viewpoint, but one or the other would by inference be preferred. And – the question of preference aside – wouldn’t this be a sort of absolute split in the universe, which we keep saying is not possible?
Just for the record, we should remind people that you are referring to the ultimate sum of everything; our language, though, doesn’t support this very well. Say “universe” and people think of the many-universes way of seeing things, and wonder, perhaps, if you mean only one version, or one reality; or if you say world, they may wonder if it applies on Mars, so to speak. All-that-is is an attempt at removing the linguistic ambiguity. All-D, same thing. In any case, I’m clear that you mean everything.
By now that clarification shouldn’t have been needed, but we agree that in practice probably it is as well to state it. So – to continue –
If everything is more or less the same, so that “as above, so below” may be safely taken to be a valid mode of conceptualization, then what? How does remembering this fact (or postulating it, anyway) help you to learn to envision non-3D life in its own terms, without reference to 3D?
I don’t see that it does. It implies that everything is tied to 3D.
Or that 3D is a part of everything, so that one is tied to the other, regardless whether you consider 3D the dog or the tin can tied to the dog.
Inelegant analogy. Vivid, though.
If there is one thing you should have learned by now, a century and more since the setting-out of the theory of relativity, it is that everything exists in relation to everything else, not in relation to an abstract hierarchy. That is, there is never only one way of seeing things. You can look at anything as if it were the center of things. Just as each 3D individual may be validly considered to be the center of its universe, so each aspect of reality may validly be considered the center of things. It’s just a question of which aspect you wish to consider at the moment.
That’s clear to me, and I hope to those who are not linked in to us at the moment.
That shouldn’t be a concern, given that anybody can tune in to a temporary group mind that existed at a given moment, no matter where/when the non-included person tunes in from.
That’s a pretty major statement. Do you mean it as broadly as it came out?
Of course we do. How could any of you –? Well, let’s resort to bullet-points and see how we do.
- Temporary group mind. That is, various 3D consciousnesses cooperating to the point of creating moments in which they share a view of reality.
- Only, it is more than a “view.” It has all the aspects of ordinary “individual” reality except confinement to one physical space.
- Given that mind is a non-3D phenomenon expressing through 3D limitations, a temporary group mind is (or may be seen as) a larger non-3D phenomenon expressing through 3D limitations but on a more inclusive scale.
- One moment of time-space is as alive as any other, obviously, so there can be no “dead past” or “uncreated future” except from a 3D perspective. But a temporary joint mind helps its members transcend that 3D perspective somewhat.
- Given that “individuals” are in fact communities functioning in 3D as one unit, where is the isolation, except as seen and experienced from a 3D viewpoint?
- Given that mind has a 3D component – as, clearly, it does – where is the space for non-3D isolation either?
You see? Given this background, how could any 3D individual be unable to connect via its non-3D component? That’s the only way you ever connect! And if all times are existent for non-3D, how can any of it be walled off from you? Now, this is not to say that in practice you know how to extend to everything; obviously, you don’t know, or you would be doing it, routinely. But it is to say – we’ll say it as clearly as we can – Nothing is walled-off from you. You may have whatever you learn to extend to. The fact that your mental existence seems to be limited is true and not true. It is a real barrier, as you experience. But it is a permeable barrier, and perhaps a non-existent barrier (that is, your experienced changes) as you learn to live in a different mental world with different rules.
As Thoreau said in Walden.
He still had to live in 19th-century Concord, with all his character-defined limitations, but yes.
Thinking about this, are you saying you can’t really describe non-3D as isolated from 3D because it never is isolated from 3D?
No, but we are saying describing non-3D without reference to 3D is as inherently distorting as experiencing 3D without non-3D. Nothing wrong with looking at it in isolation, for the sake of a later construction that will be more inclusive, but bear in mind as we go along that it won’t be the final view. You can consider the mountain and not the plains, but considering both together will provide a more balanced view, more inclusive, more – well, all-encompassing.
So where do we go from here?
We go where we set out to go – to look at non-3D life in its own terms – but now perhaps with a heightened understanding of the fact that you can’t leave yourself behind as you do the considering. That is, still holding on to your 3D viewpoint is not only a necessary inconvenience stemming from your being still alive in 3D; it is also necessary as a reference-point. This will become clearer as we go along.
And our immediate jumping-off point, next time?
Still proceeding from familiar to less familiar, let’s look at the moment after death, as we have described it at other times, but this time not from the shore as the ship embarks (as is the customary view), nor from the ship itself (as in Rita’s book you called Awakening from the 3D World), but from the view of the opposite shore as the ship arrives. This time, you see, our emphasis will be not on how you learn to readjust, but on describing what you readjust to.
All right; looking forward to it.
Another word. You have brought forth a good deal of material in 20 years. Rather than trying to analyze it by category, or trying to construct a grand theory of everything, you should stick to your natural bent and consider it as history and biography. Instead of doing violence to your natural way of seeing things, run it all through the filters you have spent your life developing – that is, do what comes naturally – and the result will surprise you as much as anybody.
I take it you don’t mean, tell it as it came to me as part of my life.
No. We mean, tell it as the history and biography of 3D-plus-non-3D individual-communities. Origins, beginnings, lifespans, transitions, life beyond.
Merciful heavens. I wouldn’t know where to start, not how to start.
Begin where we are now, at the interface between 3D and non-3D. Let the idea marinate. You will see.
Well, in any case, thanks for all this, and, again, I’m looking forward to next time.