A long dream, well remembered and recited during the night, and I am going to take some time to recall it here, rather than do a session. There was the dream itself and there were lessons exemplified in it. Let’s see how well, working together, we can reassemble the pieces.
There I was with Jaime Bianch, the actor who plays Salvador Marti in “El Ministerio del Tiempo,” or with Salvador himself. He was showing me my new office – large and square and airy, as I remember it now, though I don’t remember thinking about its size. I think I was the new boss, my first day there. We were interrupted by the secretary saying a woman was there to see me in my official capacity. I invited her into the office, over Salvador’s urgent objections to my seeing her at all, let alone in the office. I didn’t understand why he was objecting, and overruled him. Then he was not in the room and she was. Sitting there, she started talking in a way that I realized after the fact was merely killing time.
There was this huge thump against the office door, which I took as a meaningless interruption, and told her to continue (while I continued to try to figure out what she was talking about). There came another thump, almost as loud as the first, and I opened the door to find Salvador on the floor, looking like he was dying. I assumed he was having a heart attack, and ran to the phone on my desk, but had to think if I needed to push a button to get an outside line, remembered that I didn’t need to, pressed 9 and had to concentrate to remember that the following numbers were 1 and 1. Something made me wonder if he was dying of natural causes or had been murdered. For one thing, the woman was gone, and in retrospect her talk seemed pointless and now looked suspicious. Something important followed. What was it?
[TGU:] You might look first at what you have here.
So. I was the new boss. The outgoing boss was showing me my new office, and was strongly averse to my allowing this unknown woman into the office regardless of her pretext. Because I was new and eager to help, and because he could not give me a reason for his opposition, and because my own inexperience made me too trusting, I let her in, and while she was occupying my attention with meaningless time-wasting things, the old boss – my mentor, I suppose – was either dying or was being killed in my absence. When he made enough noise (either he himself or the event itself), I discovered it, did what I could do without delay, but had to fight through my panic to remember how to request assistance. I haven’t yet remembered the rest.
But looking at what you have here, what comes to mind?
I like the character Salvador Marti. He is old, grey, wise, stern, compassionate, and determined, according to circumstances.
He is the wise old man you’d like to be.
True enough. He’s funny, too, and sees things with the weight but also the wisdom of age. So many things he has observed.
Also, he is an orphan.
Yes he is, but is that relevant?
Did you not have to be told [at Gateway], many times, “You are not alone”? And did that not mark a turning-point for you?
Yes, so it did. All right. I am the new jefe, being shown my new office by the former jefe, presumably retired or retiring. The new office is still strange to me, and maybe I haven’t grown into it yet.
Yes, good. That’s why it seems so unusually big.
The characteristics I bring to the office are turned against me because in my inexperience I do not recognize danger and in my rationalism I do not properly rate the old man’s intuitive but not articulate sense of danger. So, eagerness, kindness, dislike of standing on ceremony. The woman was little more than a shadow figure, not individual at all in the way Salvador was. There was no personal chemistry between us, in other words. I invited her into my office not because she was a woman, but because she asked to be allowed in.
You should look at that carefully.
All right. Are you saying a man making the same request wouldn’t have gotten the same invitation?
Not quite that – but would he have been able to hold your attention with nothing in quite the same way?
Perhaps not.
And in fact if Salvador had had the same feeling that you should not meet a given man, would you have listened more carefully, perhaps?
Yes, I would have. So I suppose your point is that I am more susceptible to danger from women than from men, if only because I am not properly guarded in my attitude. Without examining it closely, I don’t know if it proves true in my life that women are more dangerous to me than men, but I’ll look at it
We didn’t quite say more dangerous to you. It is Salvador who pays the price for your youthful recklessness in not heeding his inarticulate objections. Even if he is dying of natural causes, he is dying with a door between you.
And as a result of that separation?
Look to the dream itself, What does it say?
Yes, I see. Not logically, but emotionally-logically, you might say, that may be the point. While I’m wasting my time trying to make sense of a strange woman’s chatter, my wise old man is dying. I’m listening to her because I think that’s my duty, my new role, and I’m trying to do a conscientious job. And we are assuming that somebody or somebodies are taking advantage of that trust to do harm to another.
Now stop in your tracks and rather than look at this dream as a drama put on in order to illustrate psychological truths – which it also is – look at it as true in itself in a deeper way.
I almost have what you’re getting at, but not quite. It’s a fine point, isn’t it?
It depends upon a very slight adjustment of the microscope knob which, if your fingers tremble, it’s easy to lose.
And it would be better for me to adjust the knob than for you to do it on my behalf.
In a sense, we cannot do it on your behalf. You can lead a 3D mind to water, but you can’t make it think. Only you can do that, because thinking is a form of rearrangement of habits that perdure.
If you say so. Instead of looking at a dream as a staged drama, we could – should, I guess – also look at it as real in its own terms. It is as if we are looking at an interaction of elements of ourselves in their community aspect rather than in their individual aspect. Nancy’s circle of lives rather than an assumed forged unity.
That’s closer to it. Dreams not only deal with your relations with the external world, not only deal with your relations with your internal world, but also deal with the relations among the parts of you. Dreams show how they interact with each other, and with “you as individual” and with “you as individual in the world.” It is much more complex than even Carl Jung realized intellectually, though he did realize it instinctually, and did deal with it almost as side-effect.
You are at one and the same time:
- An individual in 3D, placed into a given time-space situation;
- A community of elements assembled to live together to form (by living) a new habit-pattern called a mind, or soul.
- One element of a higher-level being not perceptible in 3D in which you live and move and have your being.
This is not a description of three different states, but of the one state looked at from three different viewpoints.
I understand. “As above, so below.” From a lower level of integration we look like a success story, I suppose, while from a higher level of integration we look like the new kid in town, still learning the ropes. And from our own 3D level, we look like somebody herding cats, or engaged in a shootout, or conducting a symphony, depending upon the cooperation of the various constituent elements.
Yes, that is one element of the situation, the fact that who and what you are can be seen in any of these three ways, or in more than one, or in all three ways, and either alternately or in succession or fluctuating or tumultuously varying. That situation is one element.
Another element is that from any moment of time, the present is alive with potential, which means in fact that all moments of time are alive with potential, always. So, the better your relations with various lives that are your strands, the greater your ability to affect positive change all up and down the line. However,
Sure, the defect of the quality is, we also have the potential to do equivalent amounts of damage.
But now put together just these two aspects of reality: what you are in sum, and the fact that you can change any of it.
But that isn’t how we experience it. Life around us seems very stable, very stubborn, and does not change merely because we want it to. Nor do we change merely by wanting to. Our own mental and physical habits are very hard to modify. Willpower alone doesn’t do it.
That is one prime advantage of 3D, after all, to resist, to not produce instant manifestation. We can produce instantly in non-3D, but it does not produce the lasting results we get by immersion in 3D. When you make patterns in water, it’s easy – and they disappear. Make patterns in solid substance – wood, steel, cement – and it is difficult, and they persist.
I grant that we can change, if only with difficulty and slowly (usually).
So then cast back to a few of the experiences you have come to take for granted, such as retrievals; healing “past” lives; communication between and among many other lives in other times and places.
Yes, more magical than they sometimes appear, because it’s easy to take for granted the change of viewpoint that enabled them.
So, two elements: (1) Who and what you are while in 3D, and (2) time is alive everywhere. Add a third: Your possibilities alter according to the external conditions among which you lead your lives. There is internal (your intuitively contacted world), and the apparently external (your sensorially-contacted world which is the same thing experienced differently), and this third element, which we may call the weather. But it will only being you to someplace new in so far as you remember to associate it with the rest of your mental lives.
We have been at some pains to dissect your life experiences as complementary perceptions (intuition and sensory) that lead you to experience life as inner or outer, subjective or objective. It has required books – literally – to lay the groundwork for you to remember that 3D and non-3D, inner and outer, is all one world, not two. Life, reality, “All That Is,” consciousness (call it what you will) has no firm boundaries only boundaries for the sake of logical or perceptual analysis. So if we make a new separation, it is important that you remember that it is for the sake of analysis and understanding, rather than a division into two things.
I can see why you worry about it. The structure of our 3D minds with their limited RAM pretty much assures that what is obvious in one moment seems like fantasy or exaggeration a while later.
So here is the distinction. You as 3D beings live primarily in the present moment as defined by your bodies, birth to death. It is true that you extend in the ways we have discussed, but it is also true that “you” are primarily the you created for one moment of time-space.
Say you are born into the time of the Roman Empire. What is the particular nature of that age? The easy answer is that it was shaped by the decisions and events that occurred before you arrived. This is true, but not sufficient, because what is obvious depends upon the context it is considered in.
You are saying that to see more deeply into the question, we will have to consider it not in “common sense” terms but in terms of the deeper constituents of reality you have been putting us in mind of.
Yes. Yes, that is it exactly. (1) Multiple versions of reality depending upon choices, first of all. This refers to every person, and results in a complex mesh that has unsuspected implications. (2) Continual revision as people change their decisions. (3) Mutual interaction based upon conscious or unconscious adjustment to the changes experienced by or initiated by others. That is a very different context!
We usually think in terms of “Caesar did this, the Gauls did that, this resulted,” etc., as if it were all fixed. We don’t think of it as subject to revision.
You always did.
Yes I did, and now you intend for me to give it to the world, I presume.
Nobody can force you, but why would you wish to cover it up? It isn’t dishonorable, nor was it foolish. There is still a vestige of an earlier you, apologizing for his differences, embarrassed by them, yet unable to disown them or disbelieve what they showed him.
Maybe everybody is used to hiding where they are different, or where they assume they are different. Very well. And I cannot express how strong my reluctance is, to put this on the record.
It will help “you” as opposed to this old robot, for you to do so.
Okay, true confessions. When I was a boy reading history – this is still embarrassing to relate – I felt sure that if I could only read it differently, I could make it come out “right,” meaning more to my taste. I don’t remember specifics, but I imagine it began with Civil War battles where the Federals (the North) lost. But I don’t remember and that doesn’t matter. The point is, I wanted desperately to change what I was reading, which of course everything else around me said was fixed and final.
Come to think of it, another association. I used to know (but couldn’t find out how to do it) that if I just turned “something,” I could fix my lungs so I wouldn’t have asthma. Another association that comes to me is how I used to feel to trapped in time, like taking what seemed an interminably long trip in the car, desperate to move to the end when we should be there, rather than having to endure every moment along the way. I never associated these three things, but look at them.
- I “knew” I could change history.
- I “knew” I could change physical reality to heal my lungs.
- I “knew” I could move in time.
In all three cases, I “knew” it could be done, and I knew I didn’t know how to do it. And it was all crazy, from anything I knew around me. I did have enough sense not to mention any of it. Thank you. I guess, for pushing me to examine that. I can see that the new associations put everything in a new context.