Wednesday, June 3, 2020
[Yesterday I sent this to our little ILC group: “I get the feeling that it would be a really good thing for us to try some exercises in telepathy. I know that several members of our group have studied Remote Viewing, at TMI or elsewhere. Would one of you be willing to design a few experiments in telepathy for us?” In response, Provi said, “I’m not clear what you want Frank because remote viewing and mental telepathy are not the same thing…. For me, mental telepathy is ‘mind to mind’ or ‘thoughts through space’ that one can tap into.”]
3:50 a.m. Somewhere the guys once gave me a concise description of how psychic functioning appeared to be different in different circumstances. I wish I could find it. A fast scan of the table of contents of the four Rita books does not disclose it. Maybe Only Somewhat Real [an unpublished manuscript from the source I named Nathaniel]? Nope, nor the material from earlier this year. It would take some searching to find it, and that is a shame, as it is very a propos right now.
[TGU:] It is a simple enough concept. Easier to re-state it than to go burrowing.
Well, that would be a convenience to me if you would.
All is one, therefore all is connected. But how does that manifest? Well, you live it.
- ILC conducted with us, you call connecting to guidance.
- Connected to others in non-3D, you may call connecting to past lives, or may call spiritualism.
- Connecting to past times (not necessarily to past minds) you may call psychometry, or alternatively, remote viewing.
- Connecting to each other in 3D bodies, you call telepathy.
It is the same process of removing the conceptual barriers (the only barriers there are) between your mind and the other end of the connection. Same process, no matter how differently you may conceive of it, no matter what different rituals you may evolve to practice what seem to you to be different skills to different goals.
Telepathy occurs non-3D mind to non-3D mind, like every other “psychic” manifestation. As we said before somewhere, the chief difference is in who is on the other end of the line.
Thus, in a sense you shouldn’t need to adjust the dials to move from ILC as you are thinking of it, to ILC as a carrier of telepathic thought. You aren’t doing anything different, you are thinking about it differently. In short, it is very easy provided you can see things differently, and impossible if you can’t, and of every degree of ease or difficulty depending upon where you are in the scale between the extremes.
Thank you. That is as clear and simple as I remember it from before, whenever that was. But although I entirely agree, I still don’t quite know how to adjust the dial.
You have to understand going into it, the skill will change you. No one can change without changing. Neither can anyone gain without losing. That doesn’t mean it is a zero-sum game; it means, in becoming someone new, you leave off at least something of what you were. How else could one change? How else can the word “change” be understood? As one analogy, gaining sexual experience involves losing one’s previous naiveté or innocence. You can’t say this is a bad thing; you must say, though, that it is a real change, a substitution of one state for another, not an addition of something new to a base that remains unchanged.
These are opportunity costs. I understand that. Doing X means not doing all the other things one might otherwise have done.
3D life might be described as several decades of exploring opportunity costs. Yes, that is what choosing is by nature, the acquisition of this and the laying-down of that.
So, if you prepare to learn something, you might say you are preparing to become something. It may be a large change or a small one, but change means change, it doesn’t mean “the same only more so.”
I guess I can see, in this context, some things that have puzzled me. I always wondered why Colin Wilson didn’t want to do a Gateway when I had arranged for Laurie to invite him to do so. He was all about our acquiring greater abilities, and I thought, “I know what you want, and I know where they sell it,” but he declined. He did visit TMI, and he and Joy each got a session in the black box and enjoyed it, but he never did Gateway. I wondered why (beyond the obvious: It was clear that it wasn’t his path, but I wondered why it wasn’t). I suppose his guidance was saying, “Stick to what you’re doing.” Or maybe not, of course.
You might ask him.
For some reason, I have not felt impelled to do so, nor even confident that I could.
Yet you wish to learn telepathy.
The link between my statement and yours is not obvious to me.
It ought to be. Consider the plight of empaths, unable to not connect only at will.
You mean, I think (eliminating the double negative), empaths have no ability to discriminate.
In your initial attempts to learn another way to communicate, there is potential for unanticipated jolts until you learn the ropes. That is, you will need to learn ways to get what you want rather than anything and everything that is “out there,” and while you are learning you will flounder about.
And so?
And so you may hear straight truths you won’t like; you may find communicating bone-to-bone, so to speak, raw, unmodulated, even bruising.
Even when we are connecting with old friends, in or out of the 3D world?
It isn’t the person on the other end that may be the problem; it is the unmediated glimpses of yourselves that may be disconcerting, even painful. Mind-to-mind does not come with tact. You learned that years ago, speaking to the non-3D. You won’t find it any different speaking to another person in 3D, because of course the connection will be “your” non-3D to “the other person’s” non-3D, then to the respective 3D minds.
I have avoided such speed bumps by not contacting those likely to lead me through them, but on the other hand, I don’t think I have made any particular effort to avoid the speed bumps when they arrived, as they have generally proved useful.
It’s all part of the learning process. We merely point out that it won’t be as smooth as some might expect, and it will repay a certain amount of caution.
Caution how?
For one thing, as usual in such matters, anyone with a strong reluctance to go down this road should listen to that reluctance as a message from guidance. This is not for everyone. Much depends upon one’s willingness to work on oneself, for that is the chief initial obstacle and reward.
Okay.
We are not going to create a list of cautions. That would be to create a list of obstacles rather than of opportunities, at least that is how it would appear. But the obstacle is the opportunity. Better, if you are going to go down this road, to go in confidence that your own non-3D component knows what it is doing. Only, do not abandon normal caution. Trust God but tie your camel, the Arabs say.
Sounds like the first step is a little self-exploration to see how our communities feel about the potential risk v. the potential gain.
Introspection is usually helpful, and this is no exception.
Very well. More at the moment?
We doubt that you or anyone reading this really heard us the first time: Learning this skill will change your life. Unexpectedly, except in that it will be toward greater openness as long as it is in a positive direction. Should you put your foot in a bear trap, it is possible that you will move to greater closed-ness, perhaps entire closed-ness for the rest of your lifetime. However, absent that, you will have to live in a more open, accepting, self-aware manner than ever before. As we said, it won’t necessarily be comfortable.
But it will be exploring.
It will that.
Okay. Thanks as always.