Wednesday, May 25, 2022
5:30 a.m. It was a pleasure to have you guys make an appearance at our small ILC meeting yesterday. If I get to listen to the recording we made, I’ll transcribe your part of it and send it around, if need be. Or, you could just repeat yourselves here and I can transcribe this. What do you say?
That actually won’t work as well or as easily as you might think it should do. We aren’t “live on tape,” available for instant replay. We are, instead, always part of a three-way equation, of which time, or “the times,” or “the moment,” is the third factor.
If I read that right, you’re saying the filter that we are calling “the times” never allows in exactly the same information twice.
Not quite, but nearly. Set your switches and we can go into it, if you wish.
Okay, done.
You are never exactly the same, one moment to the next, and so in effect we aren’t, and so the information that can pass between us is going to vary.
“You aren’t,” in that what we resonate with will alter slightly as we alter.
Yes. That doesn’t mean that broad outlines can’t be conveyed over time, of course; consider what we have done together in your lifetime. But the information you are getting from us these days is very different in texture, let’s say, than it was. Or, you might say, the facts are unchanged but the nuances are in some cases almost unrecognizably different. And this is because what you can recognize is different, you see. You, being different, polarize or magnetize to different nuances. That’s one reason of many why every different person will bring back information often similar but never with exactly the same flavor. And it is why understandings emerge over time, rather than being transplanted wholesale.
We resonate to different combinations of data.
That’s a valid way to put it.
Okay, well, that’s interesting. I have started reading a book I bought a long time ago and never looked at – can’t remember when or why – called The Dead Saints Chronicles: A Zen Journey Through the Christian Afterlife, by David Solomon with John Anthony West. It may be the “with John Anthony West” that led me to buy it, or it may be that David is the adoptive son of Paul Solomon, one of whose books Hampton Roads published long ago. (It was called The Meta-Human, and I never read that one either.)
I am finding it slow going, as I always do when reading someone else’s spiritual lessons. They never quite fit what seems to me to be true. Talk of Earth University, for instance, gets on my nerves. It seems to me a somewhat useful analogy that is overused by a college-educated generation and, in being overused, is often stretched.
That isn’t really your reservation about it, or about others. It is more, “Am I right? Wrong? Misguided? Deceived? Deceiving myself and others? How is it possible that my particular message – my flavor, if you will – can be true when it contradicts theologies, philosophies, inspired messages, etc., etc.?” And that is a concern that is going to bedevil anybody and everybody who brings back messages from us – that is, from their non-3D component and their non-3D resonances.
Well, it is. It is one thing to take it on faith, but another thing to swallow it whole. Aren’t we advised to test the spirits?
Bear in mind, you are listening to sources that do not have behind them the authority of the 3D world: not tradition, not scripture, not peer review, not prestige or even widespread acceptance. Should it surprise you that sometimes it would seem like walking on thin ice? And, it is a good thing to somewhat doubt – or let’s say, to hold only tentatively – what you bring forth. You aren’t infallible, by the nature of things, so some things you are going to get wrong. The way to winnow out the errors is to persevere. Over time, with sincere effort and purity of intent, wrinkles will smooth themselves out pretty much automatically. You’ll hear something and it will be the piece you need, and things will snap into a new entirety, just as recently (to cite a small example) you “heard” the implications of the Egyptians calling 3D the First Life.
As more and more people do this, we’re going to need a code of encouragement or something. A list of reminders of the conditions we function in, and the limits to certainty.
Every new phase of individual growth and social cooperation involves its own way of doing things. Nobody thought out monasticism ahead of time, nor did monasticism remain static. Rather, it changed in time and it changed according to circumstances and the needs of the times. Similarly, the Babylonians had priests, and the Egyptians, and the Romans. So do Christians and Jews and other religions. The forms are different; the rituals of course are adapted to the various peoples. The assumptions are different; the theology is different. And, in each case, no matter how devoted to the preservation of tradition, still small changes – and occasionally revolutionary changes – have been incorporated. This is how it should be, because this is how it must be, given the nature of life in 3D time-slices.
So you’re thinking, “What does this have to do with us? We’re not setting up a priesthood here.” No, but you are working out practical rules for communication, and what do you think the initiators of the various priesthoods were doing?
The popular cynical take on it would be, roughly, that they were setting up a racket.
Yes, but that is unconscious self-righteousness, assuming other people’s motivations were never as high up the scale.
It is also grossly ignorant of history and psychology, particularly when we consider monks as opposed to priests. Everything human decays, but who ever sets out to create something pre-decayed? That is, who deliberately plants bad seed, or builds with rotten lumber? The monks took over waste land, and reclaimed it, and gradually flourished, but they didn’t set out to flourish, they set out to find a way to live that would feed their spirit.
However, to bring this back to you, it will become important that every person take for granted their access to inner truth. That means, in practice:
- Everyone has the potential to bring true messages.
- No one is entitled to say, “I have the only truth,” nor to say, “My message is entirely true and contains no errors, nor anything that may only be fully understood over time.”
- Therefore, everyone is required, in practice, to decide, day by day, who and what to believe.
- As a practical rule of thumb, give extra weight to anything that has been widely believed over long periods of time. Are you really so much smarter, wiser, holier, than all those people?
- Nevertheless, remember that in effect “truths change,” and certainly what is appropriate changes. Don’t let public acceptance over time become a strait-jacket preventing you from going your own way.
- Regardless what you can or cannot accept of others’ truths, you will have to go your own way. Even if your way turns out to be adhering to something already established, what makes it your way is your conscious intent, your free-will decision.
Enough for the moment.
Our theme?
“Ground rules for new circumstances”?
You don’t do real good headlines, but I’ll think of something. Okay, thanks as always.