36. Working from our true center

36. Working from our true center

Saturday, June 1, 2024

4:10 a.m. All right, do we resume with what we do in 3D, and might do?

Remember, we are out to describe you as creator gods, rather than spectators at a tragedy or comedy. Also rather than heroes or villains. It’s all more nuanced than that.

And eventually you are going to get around to describing psychic interpretational structures.

We haven’t forgotten, though the term keeps eluding you. But try to relax. We know what we’re doing, and it isn’t up to you to drive the argument, or keep it on track.

Yet I do get the sense that my keeping track does help somehow.

It helps you connect with us, but not for the reason you think. Let’s say it helps you find us, helps you get to where we want to go. It helps you to put your concentration on the place in the argument where we are.

You’re still not quite saying it. It seems to be a matter of resonance with the idea, somehow, rather than with you as conduits of the idea.

That’s a way to put it. A geographical analogy – and only an analogy, of course: If the information of the day is in Cleveland, and you begin by assuming we are going to be in Atlanta, it can cause some inefficiencies. It is worse, of course, if you are east of our desired starting place and you insist on going farther east (or north or south). That is, you may think of it as a three-part process. You in resonance with us and we in resonance with the material. The closer the resonance, the easier to convey information. So, keeping up with the argument doesn’t necessarily give you a sense of where it’s heading (though sometimes it does), but it does give you a way to anticipate where we are.

But this is describing process.

Useful  sometimes. We don’t intend to dwell upon it. A simple way to hold it in mind is, you don’t do brain surgery by thinking about sports, nor do you do well at sports if your mind is on music or international events. For efficient transfer of understandings, nothing beats focus.

Now, to continue. You have absorbed the idea, presumably, that each of you may be considered to be a specialized communication device between 3D and non-3D. You experience input from either side; you produce output to either side. Through you, the non-3D knows your 3D experience. Through you, your 3D component receives instruction, guidance, help, from non-3D. You are links between the two conditions, 3D and non-3D. and of course this is not limited to humans. Everything, by nature, reports to non-3D on its 3D life, and expresses non-3D vitality to its 3D component. Rocks, trees, kangaroos, humans, energetic 3D forms unsuspected by you: You are all part of the same 3D trance, you are all participating mind-stuff.

Just as there is continuous interaction among 3D creatures, so there is continuous interaction between 3D and non-3D.

How else could it be? You are all the same thing. We are all the same thing. Of course there is continuous interaction. Nothing is static, nothing is disconnected.

Well, this is one more reason for you to see yourselves not as isolated 3D ego-selves, but as inherently connected non-3D-and-3D selves. Your center of existence is not the ego, nor is it the part of you that is beyond 3D. it is between the two. The Self that Jung described is not a non-3D abstraction, nor a 3D time-and-space-limited thing encased by a physical body. It is between the two; it is neither-nor and both-and. If you cannot change your definition, you will not be able to change your perception, probably. But if you do change your definition, several unconscious assumptions will fall away, and you will be living a life with greater possibilities of everyday magic. Perhaps we shouldn’t use the word “magic,” as the word may lead you unconsciously away from the everyday-ordinariness of what we’re meaning. Yet, magic it is, next to the limitations imposed by wrong definitions.

Do you want life more abundantly? You will prevent yourself from living it, if you insist on defining yourself as smaller than you are. Yet you will equally well stunt your growth if you try to see yourself in impossible ways. Aim too high, too fast, and you will be trying to believe something that the rest of you insists (silently, perhaps) is only a pleasant fantasy.

If I understand the sense of what you just said, it is that at any stage in our growth, we can move so far and no farther. We can easily grow too little, but we can also fail to grow by trying to take larger steps than we are ready for.

You may look at it as a process of self-education, only remembering that everyone starts off from a different place, with a different mixture of aptitudes, experiences, drives. But you never go two steps ahead. No matter how big or how small the next step, you can’t skip it. You may take several steps in such rapid succession that they seem like one giant leap, perhaps, but you only get from A to C by absorbing B.

Thus, our long and tedious exposition of so many facts of life, lest anyone miss a step essential to their particular development. (Of course they will have their own non-3D assistance as well.) It is never a matter of your memorizing anything. In fact, memorization would deter. It is a matter of your coming live the information, and that requires time and attention. How much time, what form of attention, varies by the individual, but the necessity is a constant.

And, just to remind you that it isn’t “all about you,” remember that the non-3D is affected by how you each and all develop. We have a vested interest in our creator gods awakening to their fuller potential. As far as we are concerned, the sooner the better. It isn’t like we have an interest in keeping people ignorant and disconnected.

But how is it that that’s where we seem to start? I have long wondered, why the long process? Why can’t we start off however it is that we wind up?

We smile. You want to begin the footrace at the final tape. You want to get the PhD first and go to school afterward. You want to begin as a grown person without having been baby, child, teen. You want to be a Z without having experienced A through Y. Does any of that sound reasonable?

It sounds like somebody sputtering because he doesn’t have an answer, or doesn’t have an answer he wants to admit to.

Yes, we suppose it does. Well, let’s put it this way: Life is about the journey, not only about the destination. If we needed to know what a fully realized being looks like – well, we have seen fully realized beings. But if we wish to see the process by which newly created combinations become fully realized beings, how else can we do that but by setting things in motion and observing? Yes, we participate, but so do you, and we all learn as we go. Or, let’s say, not so much “learn” as “experience.” There’s a difference. You can experience without learning, though it isn’t particularly desirable. You can learn without experiencing, but only at the risk of the learning remaining theoretical, encapsulated, you might say, rather than becoming part of you.

I get that the most important part of that is the “newly created combinations.”

That’s how the universe grows, after all. Or would you prefer that the whole play took place before you went on stage?

Very funny. Next time?

There’s more to say about your life in 3D and non-3D, and what is being created, and what good it is, and how it works. Mostly “how it works,” as we want it keep it practical.

Our thanks as always.