Thursday, October 10, 2019
The energy aspect of the world – the definite but non-material-appearing reality that is as vital to maintaining the world as is the mineral or vegetable or animal kingdom – is, as we said, of two natures.
I think you mean, its nature stretches to two extremes, one more mechanical, the other more conscious.
That is a good way to put it. On the mechanical end, the “nervous system” of reality. On the other end, the “population” of the celestial kingdom. But remember to connect all this of the 3D with the non-3D to which it extends.
Every kingdom shades off in two directions. The mineral kingdom shades off into non-material energy at one end (radiation, atomic radiation, what one might call semi-non-3D interactions) and the vegetable at the other. The vegetable kingdom extends from manifestations scarcely more sentient than mineral, to manifestations practically animal (think, say, of the Venus fly trap). The animal kingdom extends from quasi-vegetative organisms through human beings into quasi-divine beings. There are no hard and fast divisions, no closed frontiers, no absolutely differentiated stepping stones.
Divisions are constructs, quite as much as perceived realities. You may think of our scheme for sorting out reality as one of an unbroken but differentiated spectrum, like the rainbow. Just as, in a rainbow, colors shade smoothly into one another yet still show their own individual specialized nature, so the things of the world in general. The celestial kingdom is the end of the rainbow-spectrum that is closest to intelligence-not-bound-by-form, while the other end of the spectrum, the mineral kingdom, may be considered form-least-bound-to-active-intelligence. However, do not become captive to an analogy. It may illustrate, it may spark, but it cannot exactly represent reality, or it would be reality rather than metaphor.
So, to funnel down to the celestial kingdom again, now bearing in mind that it shades from quasi-animal to quasi-non-3D – well, you may end up staring at the page. Merely label this as speculative, even though to do that cuts against your (and others’) assumption that “the other side knows everything.”
Yes, that’s the source of anxiety, isn’t it. How to bring forth information not “that can’t be proved,” for all of it comes under that label, but also “that I don’t feel sure of,” which is a different thing entirely.
And, bearing in mind that our communications with you are quite as much about illustrating the process as about conveying a view, you can see that venturing out into deeper waters together is itself worthwhile.
I don’t see how any of this can be speculative on your part.
No, nor do you see lies, nor fictions, nor self-aggrandizing fables, nor commands, nor any of the unreliable-to-pathological phenomena that have been reported over the years.
Joe Fisher’s hungry ghosts, for instance.
Certainly. Poltergeists. Malicious or stupid or playful spirits encountered via light-headed experimentation with Ouija boards, say. Evil spirits. Malicious ex-humans determined to exert the dominance they exerted in 3D life. All the nightmares any alcoholic ever experienced in his worst seizures, or a drug addict’s. The world is not good without evil. (If it were, how could you have the concepts?) Why would you expect every phenomenon not to extend between the two, similarly?
And it all shades off into the vast impersonal forces that populate the non-3D.
Greater clarity on any subject may be obtained by proceeding in either direction: more detail, or greater extension. Better than either, though, is both. But it is not a quick and easy process.