Tuesday, December 19, 2017
I wonder, sometimes: Do these topics arise because of the things that have been happening in my life, or are there things triggered so that the subjects may arise.
This could be an interesting topic, if we can find the right analogy. The short, but too cryptic, answer is that what looks like an either/or is actually a restatement from a different point of view. But – how to explain the fact?
A book falls off a shelf in front of Bruce Moen and leads him onto a lifelong quest: Was that lifelong quest dependent upon that specific incident and his receptivity to it?
I would assume not. Life finds a way. If one incident didn’t do it, another would.
Can you see that what you just said could be paraphrased as, “The result pulls the causes, until the causes come into manifestation”?
Phrasing that, I could feel the pull from [the word] “existence” to “manifestation.”
Oh yes. Very different nuances. The one would imply that the causes only came into existence when they manifested in 3D reality; the other implies that the causes always existed as potential, needing only a chance to manifest.
I get that “potential” wasn’t quite the right word.
No, because it has the nuance, still, of “not existing until.” A better word wouldn’t have that silent nuance.
Always “existed within the template,” maybe?
Except that to some this will seem like mere playing with words, it will do.
The two ways of stating things amount to the same thing. They only look different if you assume that you are either pulling yourself off the ground by pulling on your shoestrings, or that you are responding to events as best you can and are thus sort of shaping your life, sort of being shaped by it. In either case you are leaving out of the equation the draw from the vastly larger parts of yourselves.
“You are not alone” means more than “you are not an orphan”; it also means, you are not an independent agent at your level of being, any more than one of your blood cells, or tissues, or organs, or appendages like the hand that is writing this is independent. They function as if independent within the sphere of their responsibilities – but that is the only way their independence has any reality or makes any sense.
To say, “My hand is writing this” is a useful misstatement of a clumsier way of seeing it which would be something like, “The fingers and thumb in cooperation with the rest of the body,” etc. Too involved to be saying, every time to discuss your writing words on a page, but true even when your attention is on the words or even the process. In the same way, your lives as “independent” 3D individuals, even when you remember that the individuals are actually communities.
All right, clear enough. And as you say, we know it but we don’t always remember it.
Not only that: You haven’t yet extended that knowing to larger spheres. In trying to understand “afterlife” concepts, you still tend to center those concepts on the individuals you perceive yourselves to be, even when you conceive of yourselves as more than one lifetime. The idea that you, your viewpoint, will be dominant in your larger being is true only in the sense that you are there from one point of view.
I am getting that you are meaning to say, the larger being is like a diamond with many facets. Looking into the heart of the diamond through any one facet would be like experiencing one life through one lifetime; it would be like seeing one particular connection as the important one when in fact it is the one that is accessible to us – which is a very different statement.
Bearing in mind, as always, the limitations of analogy, yes, that will do. You in 3D have one entry to your larger beings. After you leave 3D you will remain as other people’s possible entry to communication with your larger being, in the way you, Frank, communicated with Hemingway and got not Hemingway as he existed in all his facets (no one could do that for anyone) but Hemingway as he existed in the facets accessible to you and as he extended into his larger self. Someone communicating with someone else is always facet to facet, and is always higher self to higher self via those facets.
So, don’t expect to be in charge of our own destiny.
Would you want to be? Is it reasonable for a finger to have a destiny independent of the hand of which it is a necessary and valuable part as an instrument cooperating with others to express a higher will? And likewise, the hand is not independent, nor the arm. So why expect that you as a functioning individual can or should operate in a vacuum, as if your being was the center of the universe? In a sense, yes: You are the center for yourself, and should be because in 3D awareness you must be. But as above, so below. Your life makes no sense in isolation because there is no “isolation” of 3D from other levels of being.
I thought we were going to go farther into the question of good and evil, partly because of the video on J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis I saw last night, but we didn’t.
Didn’t, and did. No part of your life may be well understood while other parts are firmly mis-understood. “To understand A,” etc. You would never get to understand good and evil, life and death, purpose and drift, love and hatred, while holding firmly incorrect views about other aspects of your life. So, like the flickering universe you are a part of, your life consists of perpetually changing colors (so to speak) as you continually readjust your ideas and experiences of yourselves. You aren’t and weren’t and never will be a finished product. In a continually changing, interacting, self-referential universe, how could you be?