TGU – Our situation (Part 7)

Thursday, June 17, 2021

5 a.m. Need to re-read yesterday’s. Then, onward? The effects of changes?

You must not allow yourselves to become discouraged, now, if you begin to find the material more difficult to understand, or to receive inspiration from – or, in your case, Frank, to even conceptualize and express. We began with the familiar, but we intend to move a good long way. Initial obscurity or clumsiness or seeming irrelevance should not be allowed to turn you aside. Persevere, weigh, consider while in close connection to your larger being, and all will go well.

Now, begin from the idea that you as individuals were called into being by the times you were then born into. The strands that are associated to form you did not themselves come into existence only at this birth. So in that sense, you always existed. But the particular combination that is you did come together only at this birth. In that sense you did not pre-exist this lifetime.

Similarly, after your present 3D death, the strands that preexisted you will continue. The new combination that you are living will or will not continue. (That is, you will or will not have crystallized a new individual.) In that sense “you” may or may not survive this lifetime.

You can see, we trust, that so many schemes that attempt to describe life are truncated because they see only one part of reality. And when someone who is firmly rooted in one way of seeing things first begins to consider another way of understanding the same situation, it may look not only inconsistent with what was believed, but in fact wildly improbable, even crazy. They will have to survive beyond this period of disorientation, if they are going to get a more nuanced view, rather than merely charging to a new view, abandoning the former view.

To go from believing in a God who takes a personal interest in all creatures, to believing in a clockwork universe of laws without supernatural aspects (or, therefore, the possibility of supernatural intervention) is not an advance in understanding. The advance would come only if the thinker becomes able to see that either and both descriptions are somewhat real and somewhat incomplete.

In fact, we might generalize and say, find any knot in understanding that has adherents on one side vehemently opposing adherents on the opposite side – predestination v. free will, for instance – and you will see an aspect of reality being seen in an oversimplified way, leading to logical, internally consistent, models that nonetheless do not account for all the facts.

It is this tendency to shun conundrums and seeming contradictions and seeming paradoxes that lead to so many mutually contradictory and incompatible models of reality. But how is this tendency to be overcome, if so much background must first be sketched, so that people will see that what is obvious is not necessarily obvious except in only one way to see it?

I’ll take that as a hanging question.

Take it, rather, as an implied condition behind our slow progress.

Now the interaction of 3D individuals with “the times” has many facets that are not commonly considered together. When you do so, you may be surprised at the subsidiary clarity that presents itself unexpectedly and unpredictably.

I am having to recalibrate.

Use your control-panel, instead. We realize that this is merely to substitute one visualization for another, but there are advantages. Set a slide-switch perhaps to represent the concept “receptivity v. consistency,” and move it – for the moment – toward extreme receptivity. Set another to represent focus v. wide-angle, and move it – for the moment – toward extreme focus. And then employ that extreme focus, that extreme receptivity, to listen to what we offer. Later you will set the switches to other positions, or, more likely, they will tend to re-set themselves toward a default position comfortable to you. (That default position can also be reset, of course.)

Okay.

  • You as individuals are not only communities of your constituent materials; you are also ambassadors (so to speak) of the non-3D communities you also represent. You tend to forget that.
  • The times called you forth. Your natural impulses and propensities tend to represent “the times” quite as much as they represent whatever you were prior to this existence.
  • Your lives are not yours alone, in many ways. Not yours in the sense –. No, let’s use bullet-points here, or numbers or something. Not the interrelations, so much as the multiplicity.

[The following seemed clear while I was receiving it, but transcribing it, a couple of hours later, I see the underlying idea is not self-evident. What they are doing is mentioning one aspect of our lives, then, in the following number, mentioning another aspect, reminding us “(and X)” that this is in addition to the total of aspects previously mentioned.]

  1. You v. your community
  2. You (and 1) v. your non-3D extensions.
  3. You (and 2) and your relationship with those around you physically.
  4. You (and 3) and your relationship with those with whom you are in resonance, whether you do or do not ever meet them.
  5. You (and 4) and your relationship with “the times” in the most mundane sense of the word – you are part of the world, in the way that Tuesday is part of the week, or November is part of the year.
  6. You (and 5) and your creative contribution to life, over and above your merely living it (which in itself is a contribution).

You probably absorbed that without difficulty. The difficulty is to hold it later, when not under the direct influence of the group mind. [And, as I noted above, this is exactly what happened.]

A new slide-switch, perhaps?

Perhaps, if it appeals to you. But you may find it difficult to properly phrase the polarity. Long-term comprehension v. what? Short-time comprehension?

I see the problem. Well, maybe something will come to me. In any case –

The various ways your life’s relationships could be described are complex enough that you can see why they are not usually held in mind simultaneously. But what of the world’s relationship to you? Do you have any reason to think they are less complex, more easily held in mind at the same time?

Such as?

Well, first of all, “the times” – the shared subjectivity with its implied massive inertia, its seeming “otherness” – is incomprehensibly on a different scale from you, and yet you and it are intimately related.

Like “God v. man” or perhaps “Atman v. Brahman” or physical world v. our little piece of it, or group-mind v. our particular mind.

Many ways of seeing aspects of the same reality which (remember) is greater than any attempts to comprehend it.

Now your hour is up and you are too tired to continue this at full force. We have begun to sketch the range of “you”; next time we will begin to sketch the range of the “other” that you exist within.

I would have liked to continue, but it is a relief to be able to stop. Till next time, then.

 

2 thoughts on “TGU – Our situation (Part 7)

  1. “Similarly, after your present 3D death, the strands that preexisted you will continue. The new combination that you are living will or will not continue. (That is, you will or will not have crystallized a new individual.) In that sense “you” may or may not survive this lifetime.”

    TGU first talked about crystallization in Sphere & Hologram. The subject troubled me then, as I thought, “OMG! What if I don’t gel? I’ll be obliterated!” It had that same sense of doom from my Christian upbringing, the judgement and being cast into eternal fire scenario.

    Today, I didn’t feel that doom. I took note of my reaction and was interested in what had changed. I remembered that I am a community functioning as an individual in 3D. The community of strands are affected by the life being lived here. And I am not the body, nor the personality. I’m something more. Vastly more. And sometimes I know that “moreness.” So I wasn’t troubled.

    Whew! Maybe this stuff is finally sinking in.

    1. I also resisted this idea. It’s hard not to when it sounds like “you” will dissolve if some criteria is not met.

      If I understand correctly, though, the perspective provided is that if something doesn’t crystalize, then there is nothing to lose because it didn’t come to be. From the physical perspective, if you only have an idea, but nothing concrete, you don’t lose anything just because the idea did not materialize. I get that this is similar in effect.

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.