Saturday, August 27, 2022
7:15 a.m. A late start at 6:30, then choosing and sending a morning message, and here we are. If I get nothing else from re-reading old stuff, I see that it is good material, and I see that I am a better writer than the guys are! Maybe because they have a sloppy but literal-minded secretary. Editing certainly improves their clarity. I will have to decide whether to print out the edited results. I suppose I could keep the binders of the original material and set out the edited in another series of binders. Early days to be thinking of that, though.
So much helpful intent! So much encouragement. I’m very grateful, and I’m sure some others are, as well.
You have never set out the handicap you work from, which is that one who is strong on the inner plane is not strong on the outer. No one leads in both spheres of life.
No one? That’s a pretty flat statement.
It is, but so is “Gravity pulls toward the center.” Some statements merely express relationships, and this is one.
Can you tell us why this is so? (I get that you intend to.)
We will have to do so with half our evidence being invisible to you.
Meaning, I take it, that using famous historical examples provides us with people whose external facts are familiar, but we’re still ignorant of their inner life.
Not, exactly, “their inner life”: more like, “The non-3D as it expresses through them as people.” That is, we have to move the argument one layer up from the 3D. We can’t treat George Washington as the man who lived 1732-1799. We are dealing with more than “the father of his country,” more than the son of his parents, etc.
Ah, got it. It’s easy to forget, using historical examples, that they too are communities of strands, and hence are more complex than they appear.
It is easy to show that to you, about yourself. But everybody else in the world is hearsay to you, no matter how close you may be to them emotionally or mentally or genetically. You interact with aspects of others, you never can and never could interact with another entire person. How could two spheres touch on all sides? You touch where you touch; all else is unknown to you, whatever your guesses or conclusions.
But can’t we experience each other’s totality in non-3D? And I felt your explosion of delight when I got that, though I don’t yet see why it’s such a breakthrough.
It is exactly our point. In 3D you experience separation. In non-3D you experience connection. Same you, different environment. But – remember – we have said that 3D and non-3D are not in fact two realms but are the same realm seen different ways. So, there can be no barrier between the two, no reason why you won’t be allowed to peep through the window of the house next door.
The barrier is within our ideas of what is possible, I suppose.
Now if you as an isolated 3D individual are particularly suited to a life of 3D activity (in whatever field; this has nothing to do with athletics or acumen or efficient use of resources), this does not carry over to you in non-3D.
I get that I need to remember presence. Focus, receptivity, clarity, presence. Proceed.
Any 3D being is a selection from among possibilities.
Yes, I see that. Our larger being might have chosen slightly different combinations of strands.
Slightly, or greatly, yes. Well, as a selection, you are – how can we put it so as not to mislead? – you are like a shaped implement, pruned of inessential attributes, designed to function in your 3D circumstances. This doesn’t mean you feel like you fit in (or don’t) with your life circumstances. It does mean, your life is not accidental. But this means you are necessarily incomplete; necessarily one-sided; necessarily less than everything, because no one could live expressing everything.
Can’t express pear except by suppressing non-pear.
That’s the idea. This is not tragedy, nor bad design, nor punishment. (We realize, we keep saying that, but maybe you or some of you keep suspecting it.) The 3D has no ability to hold someone expressing everything at once. That’s one reason there are so many people, each expressing some fraction of everything. But if by definition no 3D “individual” can express all of itself – let alone all of reality! – surely you can see that to your non-3D self (your larger sphere, to use our analogy) you as 3D creatures are experienced as truncation, or, to be charitable, as specialized function.
We in 3D and we as non-3D beings can never express as the same thing.
Can never really be the same thing. The 3D person is a subset of the non-3D person. You can grow, to become more aware of your unsuspected depths, but how could you ever establish a one-to-one correspondence with your non-3D?
I get, immediately (even knowing that you meant the question as rhetorical): Emulate Jesus in continually doing the will of the father: Live willingly following the promptings of our non-3D selves. But as I write it out, I see that really isn’t an answer either. It wouldn’t be a bad way to live (assuming we were always able to distinguish true messages from Psychic’s Disease), but even if we did it perfectly, we’d still be a truncated version of who we are beyond 3D.
So now, look at Abraham Lincoln, an example sufficiently familiar to all, but less blinding than Jesus. On the 3D plane he was very effective, enough so as to make his name immortal. Does this imply that on the non-3D plane he was not (is not) effective?
Now you have me counting pages and looking at the clock, wondering if I should quit. I have no idea how this should go, or is going.
We are pursuing our “flat statement.” Lincoln the 3D man was a combination of characteristics that was highly effective in a given time and a given set of circumstances. He could be said to have led on the 3D plane. But do you have any reason to assume that his superiority of character and intellect would be equally the case in non-3D?
In non-3D, to his larger being, Lincoln is just one set of combinations among many, I suppose.
This isn’t a matter of judgment of value; “Lincoln” in non-3D is much more the product of the community of influences that make him up than the “individual” that 3D necessarily makes him appear to be.
All right, you’ve convinced me. Someone who is a leader in 3D, in whatever sphere of life, is not necessarily a leader in non-3D. What about the opposite case? How can someone who is ineffective in 3D be effective in non-3D? I don’t mean “why,” I mean, “How?”
You are thinking “ineffective,” but that isn’t right. It’s more like non-apparent, or, say, inactive.
Okay, I got it, though you haven’t said it. You mean, just as vegetables have greater internal freedom than animals because they have less to do to maintain themselves, so someone may be very little active in 3D external affairs and very much active in 3D internal affairs.
Yes, like monks praying, or you talking to us, or people living quiet lives of integrity and service. You are being led from the non-3D, you see. The non-3D could be said to be active, and the 3D passive. Only of course you need to remember, words solidify things that are not actually plural but single. You in 3D and you inn non-3D are two beings for the purposes of analysis of the way things are, but nonetheless you are one thing.
It takes the fun out of blaming the non-3D for our problems.
Yes, life is unfair.
Smiling. I didn’t expect a session when I sat down with this, but it’s always a pleasure. Our thanks as always.