Monday, September 9, 2019
Paul Brunton sensed and deduced that experience of the world (that is, of reality) can only come via the mind, hence the mind is the ultimate. He was careful not to dismiss the world as only an illusion, and not to take its independent existence for granted. He balanced. Well, now look at the “mental” as a field interacting with 3D and non-3D. Is it an individual field, when it interacts as well with every other mental field? Is it a collective field, when it uniquely interacts with at least one field that is unique(the 3D), and perhaps both? (The non-3D, remember, though not divided is not uniform.)
It is both and neither, depending upon what we stress.
Of course. And what happens to that field when the 3D pole ceases to exist (dies)?
I see it! In terms of time, the mental field ceases to exist, for there is no second pole to hold it in being. But wherever it was, it remains. The mind – the mental field – that was suspended between George Washington’s 3D existence and the non-3D remains in that context. That’s why we can still talk to past lives, why we can interact with living beings and not merely statues or recordings.
So now you can see several interacting awarenesses, if only potentially.
I won’t be able to follow up on them, but others will once it has been called to their attention, and that’s what you are using me for.
Correct, except it is “we” using you – that is, you and us together. But that is one function of the ILC process, and one reason to spread the usage, to provide more people willing and able to strike sparks.
So let’s make it practical for those experiencing chronic health challenges. Rather than consider illnesses as 3D-caused (only), or as “spiritually” caused (as if it is one’s fault for hosting illness), what is the story seen when we consider our mental world to be a field generated by and suspended from the interaction between 3D and non-3D fields?
First, recognize that customarily you all experience yourselves as primarily mental, no matter how attached to physical sensations you may be. Even the person who is most sensually oriented does not identify with the body as a collection of cells and organs, but as the horse it (the person) rides. Anyone concentrating on primarily physical activities still experiences himself or herself as the person who. They don’t identify with the muscles; they identify with having the muscles. It is easier to see in those who experience the world primarily emotionally or intellectually, but it is the case always. You have bodies; you tend bodies; you may even think that you think of yourselves as bodies, but when you look more closely you see that it comes down to you using (living in) bodies. That is a small but important difference.
So now when something perturbs the body, does it really feel like it is perturbing you, or like it is perturbing something you are integrally bound to?
That’s why some of us are not afraid of death but welcome it as an end to interference.
Yes. The interference has made clearer to you that you really are mind. Then it is only a matter of whether you consider the mind to be an attribute of the body, which it is, in a way, or an entity not wholly dependent an independent entity upon the body, which it is in a way.
And the definition we choose determines how much we can or cannot affect things like health.
Like many things. But then let us penetrate a bit farther. The way in which one conceptualizes the mind as somewhat independent of the body also helps determine what is or is not possible.
It occurred to me that, as so often, the distance analogy has snuck into the illustration. We tend to think of 3D and non-3D as separated by something, rather than occupying identical or overlapping spaces. If we could visualize every moment of time/space separately and simultaneously, it would be easier to see it as it is, maybe.