Sunday, October 6, 2019
Different actors play different roles at different times.
We have seen that as it applies to the human drama, but you are meaning it in a larger context.
Indeed we are. But, it is slippery. Rather than you “taking dictation,” as you say, this time we would like you to sit with the feeling, the not-thought-but-logical-nonverbal-perception, so that you may get the overall sense of it. Then express it and we’ll see where we get to and how we do.
[Two minute pause.] I think it is the thin edge of the wedge, but we’ll start here and see.
We are accustomed to identifying with the human body, personality, identity, including ancestry, affiliations, associations, resonances of character and interests, etc. It’s what we are, after all. But we tend to forget that it isn’t only what we are. Beneath the compound spirit that has become human is the more universal spirit that does not change with our 3D experiences, is not shaped by repeated pairings of physical heredities. We are the unchanged thing as much as we are the shaped, created, self-modifying thing we know ourselves to be.
In the same way, the 3D drama may be considered both as story and as actors playing roles in that story. Only, the “actors” include all kingdoms, especially including the animal kingdom. So at any given performance, the cast may include certain energies playing humans, but at other performances, different energies may be playing the humans. It isn’t as if the universe is divided into humans and second-class citizens. It is divided into the human experience and all other experience, but that is not the same thing as saying that only one class of actor gets to play human. It means, only one group at any given time.
I’m not sure I made that spectacularly clear, but it’s a start. Your critique?
As you say, it’s a start.
Laughing. All right, where do we go from here?
But we did not mean it satirically. It’s a start. That may be said of anything we have ever succeeded in conveying. Here is our continuation of your interpretation of what you intuited of our intended message. (And if you will re-read that sentence, you will have an enhanced understanding of the difficulties inherent in translation.) Some people, looking at a scheme that positions humans in the center of the 3D world, will object that this is nothing but collective human egotism. So, to demonstrate our point, let us turn the focus from humans to, say, the bee.
The 3D world from a bee’s perspective has been developed and maintained specifically to provide a nurturing environment for bees to exist, including a means of nutrition that also accomplishes their purpose in the larger scheme of things. Does a bee need to be aware of the place in the scheme of things occupied by whales, tigers, termites, jellyfish, oak trees, rain clouds, metallic ores? It does not. We need not posit nor deny that bees might become aware of such things to state confidently that such knowledge is not essential to it maintaining its bee-ness. Similarly, humans. You can see human “purpose” (though each of you may have a different piece of the puzzle, and some of the pieces may be being held backwards), but you cannot see the world from a non-human point of view.
Isn’t that precisely what we’re trying to do here?
No. We are trying to convey it as an abstract idea, just as you might grasp the conditions inside the atmosphere of the planet Jupiter, but you can’t experience the reality, as opposed to an abstraction. The bee isn’t wrong (and neither is the human) in seeing itself and its species as the center of its world and as a vital link in the scheme of things. But it is equally true that the bee is a role as much as an essence, and that bees as a species are a role, are a function, quite as much as they are an independent existence. They are part of an ecology, after all. Neither bees nor humans (nor everything else) can live in isolation. When an individual bee dies, does it go to bee-heaven? Alternatively, does the spark that animated the flying creature disappear rather than changing existence? Does the bee reincarnate in an attempt to become a better bee?
As with the bee, continue the analogy to trees, daffodils, pond slime, bacteria – to the animating principle behind power spots, to the intelligence that governs subassemblies such as muscle-groups or nervous systems or specialized organs.
And we can generalize much farther than that: the intelligences that form and are embodied (so to speak) in created machinery or even in dwellings. In short, the living animating souls, call them, behind and within even what you think of as “inanimate” material. This, not to mention particular animals such as pets that form close symbiotic bonds with humans and across species, such as, for instance, cats and dogs in the same household, or canaries, or whatever.
I gather that this boils down (at least for the moment) to the fact that while the human role is unique, the spirit that plays the human role is not.
At any given time it is, but yes, otherwise, not. The world is not divided into officers and other ranks.