Friday, March 11, 2022
3:35 a.m. Yesterday’s experiment worked well enough, I’d like to try it again, only this time I hope to be able to ask questions. Yesterday’s statement was so strong and beautiful, I didn’t want to risk spoiling it by an anticlimax. So, I set my switches for maximum focus, receptivity, clarity, and presence, and I ask my total self to direct us as it chooses.
Bearing in mind that this requires an act of faith, nonetheless it can represent, as well, an abdication of responsibility as a 3D focus. It is a delicate balancing act, to continue to perform your specialized function and to loosen the control on your end so that higher direction may come through. This is a knack and a skill, to be learned like any other. Do not be discouraged when your early results are erratic. No one learns anything new by beginning as an expert.
[I did not think to write it down at the moment, but it was clear to me throughout that all this is very much aimed at everyone who will ever read this. They are talking about you as well as me.]
Sometimes people display astonishing aptitudes – Mozart at age four, for instance.
But a prodigy is bringing into a life talents developed at a prior time. Those talents were learned, honed, at some time. The person who was Mozart was not the beginning of the story of the development of those powers; only, the invisible links make it seem so.
By the same token, then, any of us may show what seems like astonishing natural aptitudes.
“Seems” is the operative word. We say, merely, do not be discouraged when new endeavors are not instantly successful. If they should happen to be so – if you reap what looks like an unearned increment – well and good, but even a Mozart might have to learn a different skill starting from scratch. A prodigy in one area of 3D life is not a prodigy in all areas.
Okay, understood. So I take it that you are saying this as encouragement to one and all.
We are saying it is the direction of the current, culturally: Your future sees more of this and less of the former inability to communicate easily and freely between 3D and non-3D – and between various levels of non-3D, which is what we propose to discuss today.
As in, my larger being, as opposed to my immediate non-3D components?
That is a reasonable initial way to look at it. It is to redefine that understanding that we propose to move. Do not think to obtain results in the way others did, be they Cayce or Roberts or Monroe, in your time, or saints or mystics or mages in other times. New wine, new wineskins.
At one level, you have seen trance mediums, their everyday personalities set aside, their ordinary consciousness in abeyance. You have seen saints rapt with communication with heaven, conversing with saints, angels, God, jinns. You have seen ordinary people, in other words, having their lives transformed by utterly non-normal experience apparently not of their volition or instigation. At most, some may have consented or, indeed, enthusiastically participated. But perhaps they were, instead, frightened, or puzzled, or for some reason reluctant. This is one extreme of transformation.
The reason this phenomenon is not seen clearly in your time is that religion has been privatized (as you put it), so that one either believes or disbelieves – that is, one either is one of the flock or is not – rather than accepting the phenomenon as one undivided but multi-faceted experience.
An experiencer of a UFO-related experience, a person who sees an image of Mary in the sky, they may seem to be in different worlds – or may be seen as equally liars or hysterics – depending upon one’s mental categories and prejudices. What they have in common is in experiencing something as if it were exterior and yet uniquely personal to them.
I get, the three children at Fatima, Portugal, in 1917.
You could compile a list of attested miraculous appearances in a religious context. They would be – or we should say, they have been – accepted within their religious community’s contexts, and disregarded or denied outside of it. The same goes for UFO experiencers. A John Mack may scientifically investigate such testimony and render as his profession opinion that they are not mentally ill, and the only result initially will be that he reinforces belief among believers, and reinforces doubt and derisive skepticism, ramping up to rage, among non-believers. It is the same thing, you see, so of course it produces similar results.
You have said many times that we cannot persuade anyone of anything.
Have you ever done so?
Not that I know of. Nor has anybody ever persuaded me. If I am willing to move, evidence sways me. Not otherwise.
No, and this is not a bad thing, but is a useful one. It prevents everyone from going off the rails at every new piece of evidence. But maybe now the times are changing in this regard.
So that we will be more easily swayed by ground-breaking evidence?
Not that, exactly. More like, the mountains of evidence in what has seemed to be different fields, coming together over a century or more by now, are having their cumulative effect.
The river is eroding the stone.
So to speak, yes. But the invisible part of the process is that “the times” are allowing into 3D only souls open to the new changes. We mean, not that there will be any unanimity of opinion, but that the social situation people will be born into, combined with the outer-planet situation, as astrologers would see it, will guarantee that certain categories of thought and perception previously difficult or impossible will now be mainstream.
This is why the new global culture is coming into existence?
“Why” is too pointed, but your underlying sense of it is correct. Let us say that the new culture will necessarily be very different in several essentials than what preceded it in any of the many cultures around the world that will contribute to it.
Am I losing the focus I need? That is, does this burn energy faster?
You are stretching a little farther, but after all that is only an analogy. Intend, and you can find the energy.
Okay.
But we will conclude as soon as convenient – and do not be tempted to return for more until you sense that the wells have refilled. This is not some evanescent phenomenon that may go away if not carefully watched. You can depend on it, limited mostly by your own willingness to make the effort.
To round this off for now, then:
- Religious and non-religious, scientific and non-scientific, esoteric and mundane, verifiable and non-verifiable – all these categories are going to be redefined as it is seen that old boundaries divided things artificially.
- Therefore, past testimony will have to be reexamined, and present experience will have to be examined in the context of these new understandings.
- Therefore, as has been said to you, much that seemed superstition will be seen as valid, and vice-versa. That doesn’t mean that reality changed; it doesn’t even mean that perception changed. It would be closer to say, it will be more convenient to see things this way rather than that way. (This is always so.)
- This opens a space for new ways of doing old things, and mediumship is not least but, in a way, first among them. This is the easiest and most powerful way to extend your experienced world. Of course it comes with pitfalls, among them that of hubris, self-delusion, and unwarranted certainty. But then, any tool that can do any good can also be used incorrectly. It is up to you to be alert.
Enough for the moment.
Thank you.