Thursday, October 3, 2019
We are describing the celestial kingdom in the context of a scheme to describe the boundaries and potentials of the 3D part of the world. The celestial kingdom may be said to comprise energies rather than objects. And this too requires careful sorting out.
Bearing in mind that in 3D what we call energy is what also manifests as matter.
There is a practical reason for considering matter and energy separately, just as there is a reason to bear in mind their underlying continuity. Matter may be merely slowed-down bound energy, in essence, but after all, energy itself is a sort of slowed-down form of reality, as is all the 3D. So, to remember that matter and energy share the same underlying reality is perhaps less helpful than you might think: They still must be considered separately to be understood.
What I get as analogy is that a fox and a dove are both animals, but they are better understood in their fox-ness and their dove-ness than merely in their shared animal-ness.
Any level of distinction may be appropriate at a given time and inappropriate at a different time, even though these distinctions remain true at all times.
We are turning the focusing knob on the telescope/microscope.
Focus is always required, and will come about by your choice or by default.
So when we say that the celestial kingdom deals with energy patterns rather than with physically observable objects such as animals and trees and rocks, remember that all four categories are necessarily physical and non-physical; all four manifest in 3D but exist in all dimensions. There is no such thing as a creature or being or manifestation that exists only in 3D. Like trying to be in height and width but not in length, it is not possible; the idea is a misunderstanding. But within that shared condition exist all the gradations that you experience, and many that you do not.
As the mineral kingdom consists of a consciousness limited in extent and in range of manifestation, and the vegetable kingdom and animal kingdom the same only with different boundaries, so the celestial kingdom. That is, there is less “important v. non-important” than you may think. Is the fender on a car less important than the bumper, or the hood, or the window? It depends on the context of the inquiry. Is your arm less important than your leg?
As our focus changes, the relative importance of what we focus on appears to change.
“Appears to” is right. A whole is the sum of its parts. Remove a part and you have either an incomplete whole or a whole differently defined. Context is everything in making distinctions. That’s why distinctions may be so misleading.
“Make a distinction, make an error.” Isn’t that what the Buddha said?
If he did not or did, you can see the sense of the saying.
Seems like today is all preliminaries to saying something but not really getting around to saying it.
That appearance is created by your focus.
Oh, very good! Yes, I get it. I am expecting one thing and when I get something different, I tend to say “That isn’t as important as what I expected.”
Precisely – and experiencing it, and understanding that you were experiencing it – is as good a way as we know to let that understanding acquire a context.
So were you doing it deliberately?
Not per se. We take advantage of whatever situation manifests. So do you.
In 3D life, you mean?
Yes, in general. Also in these conversations, specifically. You don’t think of response being taking advantage of an opportunity, but what else is it? You can’t respond to what isn’t front and center; you respond to what is, no matter how hidden or indirect the connection may be. Your response in turn shapes our response to your response. It is a natural progression. Ask any teacher: The student’s expressed grasp of the material shapes the teacher’s next move.
So we’re going to defer further description of the celestial kingdom’s properties until next time?
Is that what you think we are doing?
Well, yes. We didn’t get any further in the subject, as opposed to the process of understanding. Did we?
To some degree, that is a distinction without a difference. If we are explaining how to focus the telescope/microscope, are we avoiding describing the view, or are we enabling you to see for yourself rather than having to rely on someone else’s description?
Still –
All right, we do understand. Then take this much: The celestial kingdom could be called the energetic, or the invisible, or the spiritual kingdom just as well, and each of those labels would highlight one aspect and obscure others. To call it the energetic kingdom would focus on things like ley lines and portals; “invisible” would focus on its existence beyond the sensory apparatus and its extensions that humans can apply; “spiritual” would focus on its close connection with the non-3D end of the 3D/non-3D spectrum. Each of these is true; none is the truth.
There isn’t any “the” truth. Or, let’s say, we’re never in a position to see it.
“Position” is the idea that tells you why you can’t. Anything can be really known only when you can see it from all sides at once, and from no side. Any standing-point imposes perspective, and perspective is always limited, persuasive, and misleading. So yes, in 3D you are never in position to be in all-positions, or in no-position, and so you can get only partial views.