Wednesday, March 2, 2022
4:40 a.m. David died fifty-two years ago today. I wonder, did he and Dennis reunite in some way, when Dennis died, or is that some sort of misunderstanding we have? [Dave Schlachter (1947-1970) and Dennis Crabb (1947-2022) were college friends of mine, as will appear.]
Is that what you want to talk about today?
Yes, I think it is. But I wouldn’t want to stray too far from your exposition of the past few days. Yesterday’s was already an interruption.
Again, to some extent the concept of interruption does not apply. If one is exploring an ocean, one’s direction does make a difference in what is seen immediately, but ultimately it is all the same.
Well, let’s talk about what happens between people after death. Rita may have discussed this specifically, but I don’t remember it, if so.
What you are asking about is not quite that, but closer to, What is the connection among souls in and out of the 3D.
Is it? Very well, shall we explore it? I take it that Dennis’ death [which was on Jan 29, but I learned of it only this Sunday]is being used to call this to my attention.
Omitting the cause-and-effect of it, you could put it that way. That is, your reaction can be used to explore certain things about you and your life both personally and as an example of human life in general, but to say that, is not the same as to say that he died, or you reacted, for the purpose of the examination!
Understood.
So there were the three of you, that could be examined as a unit. That is one aspect of each of your lives. Thus, for everybody:
- Oneself
- One’s friendships singly
- One’s friendships in small units (two or three or at most half a dozen, say)
- One’s membership in larger units, scaling upwards to, ultimately, membership in the human race. That is, groups scaling ever upward in number, many overlapping, each with something in common apart from other groups.
Thus, you see, this need not be seen as interruption of our theme, merely a choice of one particular direction. You are each part of America’s soul, after all, and that is something you have in common, considered consciously or not. Three young men, Americans, from very different backgrounds: one WASP, one Jewish, one Italian-American. Did you ever center your attention on your ethnic backgrounds?
I can speak for myself. I was more aware of other things, at that age. Mostly I saw that they both came from more money than I did, but that was true of almost everyone around me, for I was in an expensive school.
You had things in common, and if you will list them, you will release from within your unconscious mind associations you may not have realized.
All right. We were boys, Americans, college boys, fraternity brothers. Whatever the basis of friendship is, we had it. David and Dennis shared a midwestern background. David and I were equally serious and political. Dennis and I – well, I never really knew what it was that Dennis and I shared, only that the moment I met him I knew he was important to me, even though it was not reciprocated until we had enough experience of each other. Dennis and David had a good deal of disposable money, next to me, but they were not rich. Dennis and I worked during our college years, but, for instance, they both had cars. I don’t know, is this what you want? It seems pretty superficial to me.
That’s how dredging proceeds, usually, from the superficial into successively deeper strata. Nothing wrong with superficial as a beginning. We can start here.
So there are three of you, sharing things you haven’t yet considered. You were all undergraduates at the same school, for one thing. You were all liberal arts majors. You were all born in the same short span of time – 1946 for you, 1947 for them. You all followed political news and considered yourselves pretty well informed. You were all readers. You see? Still not profound comparisons, but illuminating a little more as you dig.
I suppose our courses may have overlapped, though I don’t remember being in the same class as either of them.
The general drift of your education would have overlapped, you perhaps taking it too much for granted to notice.
I see that. I majored in History, eventually, Dennis in International Affairs, David in – well, what did David major in? I know he wanted to be a lawyer, perhaps eventually a judge.
And law is something you seriously considered as a stepping stone to politics, and law is how Dennis eventually made his living. That attraction to the law as a profession is what you might call an invisible shared characteristic.
Okay, I see that. But is there a point to this?
Well, people examining past-life connections don’t always pay enough attention to present-life connections. Past, present, future are separate as long as you remain constricted by the 3D condition of experiencing the present moment as divided into time-slices, but once you set that aside, what is left of such differences?
I’m getting your thought, but it so delicate, so tentative, if we don’t get in onto paper I’m going to lose it.
The living present moment in 3D is (outside of, or we should say, beyond 3D) the way time really is. People say, “There is no time” but what they mean or should mean is that outside of 3D there is no passage of time, no division of time. It is all one thing, in the way that geography is all one thing, and there is no traction-engine pulling you in one direction at its own speed. Instead, you are free within the limits of your comprehension.
Almost changed that to “within the limits of your range,” but that seemed tautological.
The point – and it is an important point, though not necessarily at this moment – is that once you are free from 3D limitations, that doesn’t mean you are automatically co-extensive with the universe. You are and you aren’t.
We could be but we aren’t aware of it.
In a sense, yes. Let’s say that what you are – no matter how extensive the definition – can never be the same as everything. Everybody is limited; that’s what it means, to be creatures. That we are not bound by 3D does not mean that we are bound by nothing. We have our limits. Everything does, except for all-that-is, seen either as an abstraction or as a being. (Clearly, all-that-is couldn’t be a creature, a creation, or you have just backed up the argument one level more, ending in the same mystery.)
So you, David, Dennis, having been connected in 3D, are connected regardless whether you were, or considered yourselves, or consider yourself now in retrospect, to have been connected in “past” lives or “future” lives. You see our point here?
I’m not sure I see all of it. I get that you’re saying there is only one living present moment, so that in effect our 3D life cuts us off from awareness of most of it. All we experience is living in whatever present moment we are living. But the past and future are equally real (be they single or multiple). I imagine you intend for us to realize that we in 3D sometimes feel the reality even though it may be hidden at any given moment.
That’s the idea. Thinking in time-slices as you do (led there by all of your 3D experience), you naturally structure such awareness as “past-life,” or else as merely an inexplicable present-life attraction. But really, you are sensing connection and putting story around it.
I have gotten two bits of story, it is true. David as my instructor when I was learning to be a diviner in fire in the first century A.D.; Dennis and I as husband and wife, I think, in Switzerland at some undetermined time. But who knows? Plus, in those days I wasn’t thinking in terms of threads, but of reincarnation as units.
That way of looking at it is true as well, you should realize. We stressed threads at first because it had bene a neglected understanding, not because it was the only way to see things.
So if you want to see if David and Dennis had a reunion when Dennis dies, ask yourself first if any of you ever parted.
Bob Monroe envisioned our return to our full non-3D selves as a reunion overflowing with joy.
He did, and he also reminded you that his reports were a translation of a translation of a translation.
In other words, “you do the best you can,” but that doesn’t mean you’re writing Scripture.
Or another way to see it, it doesn’t mean Scripture is more than somebody’s best attempt to describe what can’t help getting distorted by the process of translation.
You might call this “Connection,” and we might pursue it next time.
All right. I’ll be interested to see how this looks to me after I transcribe it and re-read it. That will make three readings, as usual, and sometimes I see it differently, getting it all at once after getting it twice in detail. Till next time.