Saturday, November 13, 2021
8:40 a.m. Re-reading yesterday’s, a thought or the beginning of a thought flitted by. As best I can recall, it amounted to this: Anything we can imagine life to be about, it probably is. Anything we can imagine as a final definitive way to see things, it probably isn’t. Sort of like Clarke’s law that said if a respected experienced scientist said a thing was possible, it probably was, and if he said a thing was impossible, he was probably wrong. That mangles the quote, but gives the idea. (And, in terms of process, I saw that I had a real resistance to adding the bit about Clarke’s law, and felt an equal determination – from you? – that I should include it.) In any case –
You are correct in choosing to have a session despite your body’s reluctance, for the connection always helps the 3D part of us to cope.
I don’t know that you’ve ever said that before.
It isn’t the text for the sermon, but we thought you ought to know, as one more bit of encouragement to pursue the path most helpful to yourself. Difficulties are usually more useful when overcome than when shirked. By that, we don’t mean you shouldn’t get around difficulties if you can; we mean, if you are in them, face them. And one way of facing them is to remember what you really intend, as opposed to what may seem more expedient.
Now, the thought you snagged as you moved by it (or, equally, as it moved by you): The answer to the question “What is the meaning of life?” or “What is the meaning of my life,” or “What is the meaning of this or that aspect of my life” is always the same. It is what you imagine it is, only not merely that, but other things as well.
Life is always broader, wider, deeper than our ideas about it.
Yes, but also, your “ideas about it” are themselves broader, wider, deeper than you realize. Life can usually be seen as conforming to some pattern, but it is never exactly that pattern, certainly never only that pattern. Do think, feel, intuit, experience, generalize. You have been given a brain, and senses, and connection to the non-3D library of knowing: Use them. Only, don’t let yourself presume that an answer is or ever could be the answer.
That’s the scientific method, really, is it not? Investigate, theorize, produce whatever generalizations appear valid, and thus come nearer to the truth, only remembering that you aren’t going to get to “the” truth.
It is the second half of the formula that people find hard to live in practice. When you have gone to so much work to establish a fact, a relationship, it takes a certain strength of mind to be able to say, “No, it looks like that was wrong.” But that is your condition, in 3D and – as we have mentioned – here too. Don’t come over thinking now you’ll know everything.
In a limited sense that is true, for you will have access to anything. But can an ocean be contained in a teacup? Even a very expanded teacup? You know the difference between quality and quantity in 3D. Something similar extends to non-3D, as well. Rita’s endless research project without the need to write up a report is one way to see it. But there are as many ways to experience non-3D as there are “individual” viewpoints. It is one of many things ex-3D-ers bring to the table.
Presumably it wasn’t just a stray thought. The point of it was – ?
You see?
Laughing. Yes I do. You just get finished saying a thing never has only one meaning, and I ask you what the meaning was.
A point of it, rather than the point of it, was the restricting yourself to any given definition of anything is a way of setting up filters that will prevent you from seeing things differently in the future. It makes perception and response to perception much more difficult. It narrows your options, deadens your spiritual space. It is the very opposite of “life more abundantly.”
The common theme I keep hearing is that you’re trying to help us widen our mental space.
That isn’t a good phrasing, but that is the idea, yes. Physical infirmities, and mental prejudices, and emotional scarring, and lack of imagination (that is, lack of hope that anything could ever improve; lack of faith that in some way all is well) – these and any of these and any of other limiting conditions as well, all act to narrow your area of freedom, to deaden your sense of aliveness. At an extreme they may lead you to drag out your 3D existence one day by one painful day by one savorless, meaningless day. That is an experience in itself, but is it what you want? Is it what you came here for? You decide.
Thinking of the people in the film “Awakenings,” apparently some people do come here for a long life trapped –
Yes, but (a) you do not know what their third-tier reaction was, to that long experience, and, more to the point, (b) we are talking here of how people may obtain life more abundantly. Let those entrapped people serve as an example of trapped-ness (regardless of their inner experience); the question for you – for you reading this – is, do you wish to settle for being trapped as you are, to whatever extent you are, or do you wish more life? As we have taken to repeating: It is a practical question. Life as an abstraction may be this or that: But your life is not an abstraction, but a continuing possibility. Why not treat it that way?
As you have me writing that, I have been getting a sense of – what should I call it? It feels like almost a desperate intensity, a longing, an emotional intensity I would not have associates with non-3D beings.
Perhaps you don’t understand us as well as you think you do. Life is passion, and if passion expresses differently outside 3D constraints, still it expresses.
What you have been feeling is our intense longing to convey a gift that could be so easily accepted, but mostly is not. We can see how easy it would be for any of you to really get what we are pointing at, and we watch and we wait and we communicate and we watch and we wait and people treat it as “just words.” If you think communicating 3D to 3D is frustrating, try communicating non-3D to 3D.
Perhaps we ought to talk a little about emotions in non-3D.
We told you once, you’d find us emotionally chilly: That was in the context of the contrast between 3D hot wires and explosions, and non-3D interconnection and automatic modulation. But the strength of emotion is here as well as in 3D. Where do you think you get it from? Or actually, it would be more accurate to say, we pass it back and forth between 3D and non-3D, between immediacy and context, between microscope and telescope.
This really would repay a change of vocabulary, but adding words, or defining words to one specialized meaning, tends to create distance between those who study it over a long period of time and those who come new to it, only to find it hedged by a specialized vocabulary that must be learned. There is a place for that procedure, but you are not the scribe and we are not the sources for that approach. We want to keep it simple.
As in “Keep it simple, stupid.”
We recognize the light touch, but in this case we do not wish to seem to endorse that concept even by indirection. “Stupid” has nothing to do with it. “Stupid” would be to talk over people’s heads to show your supposed superiority. “Stupid” would be to forget that the purpose of communications is to communicate! If the current does not flow because of a defect in the wiring, is it the fault of the person who does not receive?
So, the change in vocabulary?
Well, for example, “emotion.” That word means one thing in 3D circumstances of compression, another thing in non-3D. Do you ever read of that difference?
I haven’t, but my reading of theoreticals isn’t very extensive.
You read of it as if they were two very different things, or as if the one does not exist in the other state. Strictly, it isn’t vocabulary that is needed but a readjustment of concepts – but that readjustment then has to be tacked down by language, of course. Sometimes it is an easy fix, substituting “3D and non-3D” for certain aspects of “material and spiritual.” Sometimes – and this is one of those times – it is more difficult.
Let’s pause here.
Okay. Our thanks as always, you know that. What was today’s theme?
“Widening the mental space” would do.
Okay. Thanks again.