Thursday, September 23, 2021
7 a.m. Shall we continue with “More than human”? You labeled our last session “preliminary considerations.” So what follows?
Slide-switches.
Right. Okay, so – ?
Has it ever occurred to you that there is a reason, beyond differences in personality or receptivity, why descriptions of the afterlife, and therefore of the meaning of 3D life, differ so widely? We don’t mean merely differences in emphasis or in detail, but essential conceptual differences, as if two or more entirely different things were being described?
I guess I have attributed much of it to people’s training, their religious beliefs, the society they grew up in, all that.
But that begs the question, doesn’t it?
It does, I see. Because why do those things differ?
Exactly. Religion, science, philosophy, anything you care to name – it is all the result of people’s perception. Even if the core beliefs are then manipulated for individual benefit – and that’s what happens, sooner or later, a sort of intellectual entropy – the core beliefs themselves came from somewhere. That is, they struck someone, and more than one someone, obviously, as true. So why did people come up with such different visions of the future and (therefore) the meaning of the present?
The usual answer people offer is that “they” – everybody else – were superstitious, and/or ignorant, and/or shallow or wicked. Mostly it amounts to “They weren’t fortunate enough to be born into our times, when they would have had a chance of becoming enlightened.” John Anthony West used to be devastatingly sarcastic about that idea: Called it The Church of Progress.
We can offer a somewhat less barbed explanation: Different groups of people see different parts of one reality, and assume that the part they see explains everything. Those reporting a radically different picture obviously are living in cloud-cuckoo-land.
Thus, we have gone into some detail as to the 3D-oriented future that you participate in. (We could say “will participate in,” but that gives the implication that you aren’t there already, a purely 3D-tainted idea.) The nature and function of strands in constellating you and interacting you with the rest of 3D, we have gone into. We think that’s a pretty firmly seated idea and context, by this point. So now let’s look more carefully at the other half of your immortality, the other half of who and why you are in existence.
Ah, the part we have been skirting around for quite some time: The non-3D aspect of our lives.
A little more slowly, as usual. And check that your slide-switches are set to maximum receptivity – and that goes for your readers, too.
All right.
- Remember that 3D and 3D-oriented activity is only a small part of the totality. It is a vital part, but only part, as your leg or your arm may be said to be a vital but limited part of your body.
- Remember that non-3D means something different from merely “not physical in appearance or in function.” Given that you in 3D shade into non-3D, it could not be that simple a meaning. You might for an interim concept think of it as more like “not playing by 3D rules.” This is only a stopgap concept, but it may help get to the other side of that gap, which is what stopgap measures are designed to do.
- Now, if you were to describe your essence without reference to the 3D at all – hence without reference to strands and inter-relation among strands, and third-tier consequences, choice, etc. – how would you do it? What else of you is left?
I take it that isn’t a rhetorical question.
Well, it is and it isn’t. How would you respond?
I have functioned as an observer of the 3D life, not merely as participant. But that still references 3D. I experience myself, conceptually, as different from the 3D unit. I feel that I must have pre-existed it, though I can’t remember doing so. I have confidence that I cannot cease to exist after 3D is over, though I would be hard-pressed to defend that certainty. I don’t know, that doesn’t come to much.
Au contraire, you have gone directly to the point. What you really have, what you really are, one might say, is a certainty of your own existence as a being unbounded by time (that is, you can’t remember non-being and you can’t envision non-being as a part of your non-future) or by 3D conditions.
You know yourself to be undying. We would say immortal, but nobody knows what that word means, though they think they do. “Immortal” is by implication tied to the 3D concept of time. It may be paraphrased as “not mortal,” a very negative description. So, to avoid that unwanted connection, let us say you are non-rationally but unshakably convinced that dying is not a possibility for that part of yourself that has nothing essential to do with 3D limitation.
Then what are we doing here? Plenty of people are afraid of death, and plenty of new creatures don’t crystallize, according to you. Don’t these solus perish? Don’t they cease to exists except in the context of whatever 3D experience they lived?
Ah, but you see, that’s getting nearer to it. Which you? You may have heard the question before.
Yes, very funny, but what do you mean?
Well,
- “You” are the animating spirit as it exists, entwined with a 3D body in 3D conditions. That is, you are a compound being made up of many strands, and that being has a beginning and a process and a cessation. We have been calling that unit a “mind” or a “soul,” more or less indiscriminately.
- You are also the animating spirit as it exists as part of what we are calling the larger being, the non-3D until that creates of its substance so many 3D souls. Just because you don’t identify so much with this aspect of yourself while 3D holds your attention doesn’t mean you cease to exist and function within it. That is, in a very real sense, you are also a part of the larger being, no matter what 3D drama you may be enmeshed in.
Okay.
Well, you see, “you” may be partially but accurately described in either of two ways, one dependent upon 3D to be understood, the other not dependent upon 3D. Either description is an accurate account of that aspect of you, but of course in so far as it fails to recognize the other aspect, it is incomplete and misleading.
A great light dawns! And, I realize with dismay, I have seen this before and have gone on to disregard it in practice.
Spell it out and we will criticize.
We are of two natures, human and divine.
Well, don’t go on and on about it.
That’s really all we need to say, isn’t it?
People have been saying it for thousands of years and it hasn’t sunk in for the present-day transitioning civilization. It won’t hurt to do so one time more.
I don’t know what I have to say that clarifies anything. It’s clear as I said it.
We smile. It is, to you, at this moment, in your present state of intellectual connection. You will find it less so (again) after the interposition of a few events, or, as you see it, the lapse of a little time. Make the effort, please.
As long as we look at anything connected with the 3D world of past, present, future, with its limitations and its definiteness, we identify with the human aspect. Even if we come to realize that we units are actually communities and are part of larger communities, still the emphasis remains on life in 3D.
It is more easily grasped intellectually, given that all your sensory data supports it. Your awareness of your non-physical aspects still tends to be implicitly tied to the 3D.
Yes, I see that. But our intuitive side tells a different story. It says, “I am, and as far as I know I always was, and as far as I feel, I always will be.”
Thus the grammatical puzzle of God saying “I am that am” and not qualifying it by saying “I am who always was” or “I am who lives forever,” etc. Any given scripture might become corrupted to recast that answer into terms that make sense in 3D terms, but making 3D sense isn’t really the purpose of scripture, is it? Or, let’s say, scripture isn’t about taking the meaning of appearances for granted.
And thus we segue into theology.
Theology, psychology, anthroposophy, etc., etc. Our point – and we will conclude here for today – is that now we will have to look at a different “you” than the one we examined in a 3D context.
So today’s should be called – ?
“More than human: Two ways to see you.”
Thanks as always, and see you next time.