Sunday, September 25, 2022
10:20 a.m. Reading about possession in Mary’s unpublished manuscript, I’m led to think, “How can that be? It takes disconnection for granted. Maybe it is a new dominant Strand taking over?
You see the difference an overall concept makes. Wat one concept leaves open as a possibility, another closes. More to the point, what one explains, another explains differently, and therein lies opportunity.
Say on.
If you are each separate, then yes, if “you: go away because you are drunk or are using drugs or are in a coma or any of several possible situations – “you” can be upstaged, dispossessed, by another individual.
Or, if you are all connected so that every division is only a relative division, not an absolute, then there’s plenty of room for displacement by conflict among the many lives that coexist within you.
What if either conception is only a provisional, partial, sort-of-true explanation? What if you apply “As above, so below” to the question of who you are and what influences may affect you?
If we in 3D are communities made of communities, brought to a point by being fixed in a moment of time/space, well, let’s see:
- We certainly are surrounded by others, even if ultimately at another level we may be all the same.
- We each seem to embody certain values, certain ways of seeing things.
- Such difference may lead to instinctive enmity. “Born enemies,” so to speak. Also of course to instinctive alliances, “born friends,” or even “born soul-mates.”
- We seem to be here partly to act as part of the shared subjectivity for each other, so show the other (perhaps merely by being what we are, regardless of anything we do) something about him- or her-self.
- Some people are bullies; some are ignorant louts; some are nurturers, teachers, helping hands, inspirations, whatever. What we are, not merely what we do, varies greatly.
So do you colonize one another, in a way analogous to possession?
I don’t know if we do; I know that some people try to. They try to completely control another person, like a guard in a concentration camp.
Should you expect that anything that manifests in 3D does not exist in non-3D? May perhaps be said to originate in non-3D, to be worked out in 3D?
So what’s your model, here? That cases of possession are internal or external? One of our own Strands, or something extrinsic?
What protects people from possession? It can’t be as simple as consciousness,” or you’d all be vulnerable whenever you closed your eyes.
I imagine our continuity is preserved by our link to our non-3D self. And I don’t see how that link could be severed.
Then how does possession take place? How is it even possible?
I can’t see how it can be anything external, whatever “external” may mean. So that means that anything that manifests is part of our larger being’s inventory.
Your Larger Being, being of course different from other Larger Beings.
Well, that’s a thought. We’re right back to “All is one.”
It is. You won’t get around the fact. But if all is one, and as above so below, what of possession?
It is just as you said: How we see it depends on the model we fit it into.
Yep. There’s room in the universe for everything, and there’s no possibility of the universe holding less than everything.
Very interesting.
3:50 p.m. So let’s talk about “alternate realities,” sparked again by Mary’s manuscript. My present thought is that every possible permutation occurs not at the same time, exactly, but one after another depending upon which changes of mind produce which chain-reactions. So in one sense you could say every reality lasts the blink of an eye, if that; in another sense, you could say that each version of reality is as complete and as real as any other, because – it’s all projected. Its all mind-stuff, and mind-stuff requires no time to reset the scenery.
True enough. And that is one way of seeing things, not two. That is, it is one unified vision that says, “From the one point of view, this; from another point of view, that.” Far better than thinking that any one point of view could ever adequately encompass what is.
Naturally there would be bleed-through between lives. In fact, it’s surprising there isn’t more of it.
Your mind is a focusing-mechanism, designed to focus on one moment, one place, one composite reality. It doesn’t always eliminate bleed-through, and of course there are always some who seek it out, wanting to see around the corner (and nothing wrong with that), but mostly it functions as we describe: One world at a time, as Thoreau said on his deathbed.