TGU – Our situation (part 5)

Tuesday, June 15, 2021

5 a.m. Ready if you are. I always have the sense – even if I rarely express it – that these sessions come in bite-sized pieces not only because we are taking into account how much physical energy I have available but also because I can only absorb so much material at a time. I, other readers, whomever.

That is a factor. Not only you all in the present, but unpredictable future readers. In the larger sense, it is unpredictable, of course. Still, simpler is better.

A la Lincoln’s advice to his partner Herndon, not to go over the heads of his simplest listeners, given that the more intelligent will understand the simple anyway. Yes, I get that. So where did you intend to go, to continue yesterday’s?

You are 3D souls at present (necessarily, or how would you be reading this?) and at the same time you are many “past” strands, interleaved, in a sense – cooperatively living your present life, making the “you” of you, and at the same time you, as a unit, are potentially a single strand in “future” beings. These are not three different things, but three valid ways to describe the totality of 3D-you at the present moment. (By “present moment,” we mean, whenever you read this, you see. It is always true of anyone living in 3D.)

Beyond that, you are only a part of a larger being, a fact you are likely to forget and remember, forget and remember, as you go on. That “part of something bigger” tends to be the subject of hasty approximations and many an ungrounded generalization.

Yes, I get that. Experienced for a second, or periodically, or over long periods, or continually, it will seem quite different, and people will come to different conclusions about what it is they are experiencing, and thus different conclusions about what they are, given that they are in connection with their hastily defined something.

Religions have arisen from such glimpses. So have philosophies and esoteric practices. Also, they have all arisen as much from the absence of continuity of such perceptions.

“Oh God, why have you abandoned me”?

That, or a pervasive haunting sense of the meaninglessness of life as lived, in contrast to that one blinding flash of greater life that somehow yet remains out of reach, or let’s say remains out of reach of willful effort.

I wish I really knew various theologies. I get the sense that this is the source of may arguments about “divine grace” v. “good works,” for instance.

Others who do have, or do acquire, such specialized knowledge may be able to follow these hints, and shed light from a slightly different direction. It is not your primary task, of course, or you would have equipped yourself for it, not knowing why.

That’s a large subject right there, isn’t it? By looking at what we did acquire, we can get a hint as to what we were designed to do here, you might say.

Oh yes. And those toward the end of their lives, looking back, may see more clearly than they could at the time what they were doing actually, as opposed to what they thought they were doing.

And this is not a side-trail but ties in closely to your description of us as at the same time (1) past strands cooperating, (2) present individual, (3) potential future strand.

Yes, it is.

You are acclimating us to seeing ourselves from various viewpoints according to function (or to other criteria) rather than always considering ourselves units, or even “individual communities.”

We are, and it has taken a while for the new way of seeing yourself to seem natural. That is the drawback and the payback of dealing extensively with context. It takes a while, but what comes is a grounded understanding.

So, you are three things even considered only in your “3D-unit” aspect. Beyond that, you are, at one and the same time, and dependent only upon how you see yourselves in context, (1) you in 3D and your non-3D perceptions, (2) 3D-and-non-3D unit as part of a larger being, (3) 3D-plus-non-3D unit as itself the culmination and association of many “smaller,” “past,” units. You see, it’s complicated in scale and not merely in extent, and in time, not merely in the moment.

Let me rephrase, to reduce potential misunderstanding of that paragraph. Seen one way – what we are in the present moment (any present moment) –  we may be considered any of three ways. At the same time, seen another way – us as part of the greater being that is greater than our non-3D self as well as our 3D self – we may be seen in a different three ways.

Yes. And you should be able to see that six ways of seeing things leads to enormous contradictions and confusion for those who can see things in only one way, or even two or three ways but no more. In a universe of no center and no periphery, you are always going to have to be able to shift viewpoint (and thus, to see all relationships in unaccustomed fashion) if you are to see clearly.

And 3D time and space militates against just that.

It does, but not because the world is perverse, or because there was an accident or bad design or because Adam ate the apple. It is because the whole point of 3D is to enable choice in constricted awareness. We remind you, the Fall of Man was not in eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but of eating the fruit that led to perceiving things as good and evil. The very same scripture says, remember, that God looked upon all he had made and found it good. If it was all good, where was the space for knowledge of good and evil? And if it was not all good, what happened? The answer is not that there was suddenly evil but that now people fell into seeing things as good and evil.

They mistook preference for absolute perception.

That’s one way to put it. So – to remain on point – if reality can be seen in any or all of six ways, and you choose to see it only one way, how can you expect to understand it? And, if to see it more than one way requires that you unlearn certain mental habits that you may cherish – scientific materialism, say; hard-headed “common sense”; “The Bible says …” – well, you can see, it can be a struggle.

Fortunately we have our non-3D-component to nudge us.

Yes, and you have your shared subjectivity to nudge you, even more strongly, if you are a certain type of person! Speaking of shifts of point of view, the shift between being based in the non-3D-oriented intuition and the 3D-oriented senses can be the most difficult.

So now we may proceed to your life post-3D, bearing in mind all this, for if you let your thinking snap back to considering yourself a unit only, or a 3D and non-3D combination of a unit only. or any other simplified view of who and what you are, it is not going to make sense no matter how plainly and carefully we proceed. Either it will seem to be ungrounded nonsense or it will seem to make sense in and of itself but you will be unable to assimilate it with the life you are leading. You see?

I think you are saying, this is a different form of context.

Yes. The new material we present must always be integrated with what you have received previously (from us or from others or from life-experience or whatever; source doesn’t matter), or it will be like Jesus’s metaphor about patching new material onto old, and the patch not holding.

You have been giving us new wine and new wineskins as you went along, trying to keep them in balance.

Yes, very good. Good analogy. The balancing also occurs within each of you, with the assistance of your non-3D component: You absorb what you can, you tentatively accept what you cannot yet absorb, and you live the process of mulling it over. That is exactly what you do with the effects you encounter of the shared subjectivity – and for the same reason.

So there is your hour – to the minute this time, as it happens – and as we said, next time we will begin to sketch your life after 3D.

All tremendously interesting to me, and of course you have my and our thanks for all of it. Till next time.

 

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.