TGU – Our situation (part 17)

Sunday, June 27, 2021

3:355 a.m.

Half a dozen questions on strands from Bill Ebeltoft and Jane Coleman on behalf of their small ILC group of four that have been meeting weekly via Zoom. No reason to delay dealing with them, I imagine.

“Question 1: If a soul doesn’t crystallize upon death and disassembles into its constituent threads, doesn’t the soul’s experiences (which presumably affected and changed or added to the individual threads’ composition and complexity) remain even though the soul itself didn’t crystallize?”

Yes indeed. As we indicated, each of the strands was impacted by the experiences of that lifetime. Such experience cannot be lost.

“Question 2: The consensus of our small group seemed to be that the concept of crystallization as we understood it was a misinterpretation caused by looking at it from only a 3D perspective. To understand it, we need to look at it from a non-3D and All-D perspective. Can they expand on this for us?”

We had thought we had finally expressed the situation clearly. Apparently not. The various strands cooperate during a 3D life, experiencing together, acting together. That 3D life serves as a mold, baking in an oven. If, at the end of the living-together enforced by one common 3D body, the strands have not acquired their own cohesion (so that they are able to continue to act as one even without the external swaddling they had had), they continue to exist but they do not continue to exist as one, new, unit. Instead, they exist as they existed before that lifetime, and in that sense it is as if the lifetime had never been lived. There is no new unified point of view created by that lifetime’s experiences, there are only the same older points of view, each of them influenced to greater or lesser extent by that lifetime’s experience, but there is no new summary-viewpoint.

Do you think this is clear?

I do, but I thought you had made it clear before. I guess we’ll see.

“Question 3: My guys seemed to indicate that a soul not crystallizing is a relatively rare occurrence. Is this a more or less correct interpretation?”

We don’t know how to formulate an answer to this question that would be helpful. It applies a concept that is more a 3D concept than All-D. that is, we recognize that to you it seems perfectly straightforward to ask if a thing happens commonly or rarely, but from our point of view that’s like asking if an ex-3D soul spells its name using capital letters or not.

Oh, you could answer it, if you made it clear that the answer applies to 3D understanding, is couched in 3D terms, for a 3D context. And isn’t that what you’re always having to do? I don’t quite see the problem. I do see the analogy: In non-3D, without paper or pen or computer screen, the concept of capital letters – of script itself – is not meaningful. Still, you can apply analogy. I’m a little surprised that you are hesitating here.

Ah. As you formulated that response, it occurred to us that the question is based less in a request for meaningful information to be applied to understanding, than it is in fear of non-survival.

I don’t know that Bill’s group would agree, and I don’t know that I do myself, though I see why you say so.

We are relating the question to our over-arching purpose, which is to bring forth information that will be actively helpful to the individual in 3D circumstances, rather than deal with abstract questions or issues that might be of academic interest but would have no practical application. The question “How often” would seem to be one of the latter, until we reflect that it is based, below the level of consciousness, in a fear that the river may have a rapids or a dangerous waterfall that one may have to cope with.

Well, I can see that. You may be right. It is natural to wonder, I suppose. We are walking somewhat in the dark, and if someone is showing us obstacles hidden to us, it is natural to ask if there are a lot of them.

All right, we see it. In those terms, then, we would say that it happens almost not at all to any group-consciousness (or call it individual-community, so as not to confuse it with a group of 3D individuals) that has progressed to the point of seriously considering the question. The curiosity itself presumes a certain individual point of view.

I get that you haven’t quite said it.

It’s more like this: Whether or not the new 3D viewpoint coalesces and continues, the consciousnesses of the component strands continue. Each of those strands from its point of view will have incorporated the experiences of that lifetime. Each within its own point of view will remember, and will have been changed by, that lifetime. So what has been lost? If there is no new point of view because nothing was created as a unique mixture by those experiences, still nothing has been lost, no one has been punished, no one experiences ceasing to exist.

Let’s just say that for all extents and purposes you may safely ignore the question of a 3D viewpoint not remaining coherent and (in effect) newly created. Thus, for practical purposes, which is all we’re concerned with here, there is no quantifying of the phenomenon.

If that isn’t clear, perhaps we’ll get a rephrased question and you can try again. For myself, it is clearer as a concept than it has ever been.

Good. This was quite a stumbling block when we introduced it 20 years ago. Perhaps you can see that wrestling with it periodically has helped clarify.

“Question 4: It a soul does not crystallize, is it still possible to contact the essence of it?”

As indicated, every strand of it continues to exist, continues to embody (so to speak) an experience of that life, so yes, of course. However, you are likely to encounter aspects of the life rather than the life as a whole, because “the life as a whole” implies an over-arching synthesis which did not occur. How many commuting office-workers experiencing and expressing roughly the same life do you need to contact? What could you learn? But you can absorb any aspects of such life – the commuting, the home life, the unreflective flowing through 3D circumstances, the relationships, etc. – as they reflected in any given strand, and in practice you won’t notice the difference.

“Question 5: The guys stated that we all extend into all aspects of 3D, non-3D, and All-D, including the shared subjectivity. I would assume that the effects each soul has on these would last, since the effects are continuous, not just applied after death, and would not go away just because the soul did not crystallize. Thus does not that soul still exist in this manner?”

Your conclusions are correct; your premises, though, are not. That is, you mix 3D time-based concepts with something that is not time-based.

I get what you are thinking, but isn’t it just a matter of words?

We are more than smiling. It’s all just a matter of words! That’s the inherent difficulty. The words give an illusion an appearance of reality that must then be dissolved using yet more words.

However, here is what we mean.

Yes, effects are continuous, at each moment of 3D time; they are not added on, in some fashion, after the fact. To that extent, good careful thinking, and we approve the process. Only, carry your argument forward and it answers itself.

I get your meaning and I can feel the difficulty you are having in putting it into words.

You try, then.

I think the confusing thing is that we keep referring to the soul as if it were something different from the strands comprising it. It is as if we were asking if the bruise experienced on a leg were also experienced by the rest of the body, the body being somehow separate from the leg. It is a non-reality whose non-reality it is hard to express. I can only hope the spark of understanding jumps across from something we said.

If this doesn’t answer the question, perhaps a rephrasing [meaning, another question] will lead us to find the words that will convey the spark.

“Question 6: The guys have indicated that the soul’s work is to be the ringmaster for the threads, and oftentimes these threads are not harmonious. We know that sound at a disharmonious frequency can shatter a glass. And if an airplane’s engines are not synchronized with each other, one can hear and feel the vibration in the airframe. Can the dissonance between the threads cause poor health (physically, mentally, and/or emotionally)?”

Dissonance among threads is a very large and fruitful topic. Your whole lives may be said to be being lived for the sake of taking dissonant threads and accustoming them to reconcile, so that a new and previously impossible point of view emerges into All-D.

You can’t expect such a process to be smooth sweetness and light. The explosions in the cylinders of a gasoline engine are not exceptions, nor malfunction; they are inherent. You see? Therefore, the effects of such explosions can not be the same as they might be if the process itself were different.

Wow. That opened up a huge understanding for me. To continue with your metaphor, illnesses would represent a running-rough of the motor, perhaps complete with occasional backfires. But “Man is born to trouble as the sparks fly upward” may be seen, in this context, to mean, “It’s inherent in the situation, and don’t worry about it. Also don’t expect anything other.”

Given that the hour has been consumed by these very good questions, let’s continue with this one next time, for as you intuited, it can lead us far. Whenever we finish with the byways it leads us through, we can continue with the question of the future life of strands (which, perhaps you can see already, is indistinguishable from “The future life of the 3D individual being considered”).

Yes, I got that. Okay, then, till next time, and our thanks as always.



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.