Wednesday, November 30, 2022
5:05 a.m. Well, my friends, we agreed yesterday that I would ask this question, though I’m pretty sure I know the answer. Do we affect others when we’re angry, say, even if they don’t know it?
It’s slightly more complicated than you are seeing it, but, of course you do.
I take it that
(a) we’re all connected,
(b) the ability to send healing implies the ability to send harming, and
(c) we don’t always know what we’re doing.
All true but not without compensatory factors. There is also the question of timing, of armoring, and of – shall we call it – agency. (Others might call it “past life agreements” or even “pre-life agreements,” but that is misleading.)
Let us begin with bullet points, so as to keep the main outline clear.
- “All is one.” Everything connects. There are no loose ends in reality.
- You don’t exactly “send” anything, but you, shall we say, intend for others, and it amounts to the same thing. You might think of it as aligning your energy to someone, and intending that they resonate to your state of being. This brings you blessings or curses, as you intend for others.
- The perpetually apt question, “Which you?” should remind you that you do many things without being consciously aware of them. Nonetheless, these things have their effect on you.
- The moment allows certain things, disallows others. Thus to a degree your ability to curse or bless – to send harming or healing – will fluctuate not only with your will but with what you might call the cosmic weather.
- It fluctuates, too, by the intended recipient’s state of being. A well-armored person may refuse to admit alteration, and so you cannot “send” healing energies or curses, because the intended recipient refuses. An open person may be very open to help or harm.
- And, finally for the moment, a person may be open in certain ways, and to certain people, that we would call agents. That is, there is someone you trust. You maintain yourself (unconsciously, effortlessly) in a state of openness to that person.
Interesting. You saw my three and raised me three.
And had you gone deeper, we could have accompanied you. In general, we meet you at your level of the moment. Why not? Less friction this way.
Our joint precis doesn’t seem very complicated, to me. Common sense, even though I wouldn’t have thought of the three caveats you added.
True doesn’t have to be complicated. It always is, in that any analysis can be pursued more profoundly, but it isn’t always worthwhile to lose sight of the simple skeleton of it, for it is the bullet points that you will remember in time of need.
In time of need?
“Fear is the mind killer,” remember. Frank Herbert knew what he was having his characters say. It is when you are afraid, that you need a few simple touchstones to protect you.
Protect us, I take it, from our fear.
Well – yes and no. The fear, if it can be overcome, then ceases to be a factor paralyzing your analytical and other abilities, so removing the fear is always helpful per se. But sometimes the fear is well-grounded, and you need protection against what is rightly feared. Either way (and, in practice, usually both ways at once) it will help to have a few simple touchstones to banish fear so that you may remember that you are a child of the universe with a right to be here.
Some Protestant sect teaches or taught its children to recite something at night, more or less
Four angels guard my bed,
Two at the foot, two at the head
And I forget the rest of it,* but I can see the advantage of giving the infant something easily remembered, designed to inspire trust and a sense of protection. And I remember Lanny Budd [hero of Upton Sinclair’s series of eleven novels] advising his future wife, in mortal danger from the Nazis, to say her prayers like a child, not as a rational adult.
Yes, good advice. It is the emotional safe place, not the mental inquiry, that would be needed.
I am reminded that when a businessman is considering whether to extend credit to customers, the first consideration is that extending credit guarantees that you will sustain losses, and it is up to you to decide if the gain is worth the loss. An equivalent, it seems to me, is that living unarmored involves the rick of being stabbed in the back, and every person has to decide (consciously or by default) whether the gain is worth the risk.
Seth said it is a safe universe, and we would certainly agree. But that doesn’t mean the movie has no villains, nobody wearing the black hats. It’s up to you, how you want to play your part.
Which is to say, “Protection isn’t everything”?
And to say, “Neither is openness, not any quality seen in isolation. You are not simple beings; your role in the continuing improv is not necessarily simple, though you can make it less simple or more simple. So don’t expect one rule to cover all situations.
Now let’s look at the half dozen points again.
- Everything connects. (No accidents.)
- Not sending, but matching energies.
- Many motivations, often unconscious.
- Restriction by cosmic weather.
- Restriction by recipient’s condition.
- Restriction by implied agreements.
You see, a coherent framework for what you experience anyway.
Then it seems to me there is another aspect of this that we haven’t addressed. In fact, it may be the point I set out to address initially. Not just, can we affect others without their knowing it, but do we affect others without our knowing it?
You don’t need an answer to that. It is scarcely even a question.
Yes, of course. We’re affecting people all around us, all the time.
You couldn’t not affect others. Even if you suddenly ceased to exist, your absence (as opposed to what would have been your presence) would have an effect.
We radiate what we are.
You don’t have anything else to radiate. And what else could be as effective, let alone more effective?
Our being, not merely our acting.
You are all born knowing this, though society often enough unlearns you of it.
Shall we call this “Radiating”?
You might. Or, perhaps, “Relating.”
You were asked, “What do they do over there,” and you said, “We relate.”
Can you say we were wrong? And what are you doing that’s so different? Given that “you” and “we” are as mingled as everything else,, isn’t it what you ought to expect?
“Relating,” as in processing unfinished business,” or in fact also “producing unfinished business”?
Better to stay with processing “potential energy accumulated by past action and inaction.” Less productive of cross-currents.
Okay. Our thanks as always. See you next month, presumably.
— —
*So I went looking, and of course can’t find it. It may have been from a Dion Fortune novel. But I did find this, said to be a traditional nursery rhyme:
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John,
Bless the bed that I lie on.
Four corners to my bed,
Four angels round my head;
One to watch and one to pray
And two to bear my soul away.