[A truly exciting session, though I don’t know how much of the excitement will translate for others.]
Monday, June 20, 2016
F: 6:15 a.m. I awoke with the words “self realization,” and am tempted to say, “that’s what we’re doing,” only I realize I don’t know anything about what those words mean to those who use them. Well, friend, I presume you know where you want to go next.
TGU: Let us look a little bit about conflict in your 3D life – during your 3D life, I mean – as it manifests the uneasy position you are in, being at once an individual (forging itself into a relative unity in the heat of a shared 3D existence) and a part of something greater (which may have purposes of its own for you).
I used the concept of sin as one approach to the subject but we are going to put that down for the moment, always well aware of people’s prickly resistance to anything they suspect of being “religious rather than spiritual.” Sin is one indicator of your situation, in the way a GPS or compass or radio beacon might be considered to be a means of realizing the need for course-correction. However, unlike a GPS or a radio beacon, the concept of sin has been so closely connected to “follow the rules, or else,” that many people have a hard time hearing about it.
So let’s look at internal conflict as an alternate indicator.
What does it mean to be self-divided? Obviously the phrase describes many different situations:
- Contradictions between comprising strands
- Conflict between what the individual wants to do and what it feels it should do
- Of the latter, the conflict may stem from “external” pressures such as society, law, responsibilities, etc.
- It may stem from one’s code [that] one attempts to live, which verges on the source of the sense of sin again.
F: This division isn’t working out very well, is it? I get the feeling you were expecting to lay out a sort of logical tree.
TGU: Doesn’t matter. A simpler way is to say that self-division may stem from internal tug-of-war or individual reluctance, or inability, to function in the way some “external” force mandates. Perhaps you can see that these are two ways of saying the same thing, and could not apply outside the specialized 3D conditions of isolation of consciousness from its surroundings.
F: Meaning, we experience “external” forces only in so far as they represent internal unconscious forces?
TGU: Hmm. This is difficult. It is hard for you to remember that “internal” and “external” are only ways of experiencing the same one undivided and indivisible reality. Language continually tempts you to experience them as separate. Even the act of correcting that misperception causes difficulties.
F: Well, I don’t know, I think I’m following you all right. Isn’t the “external” world –. Oh. Okay, go ahead.
TGU: Yes, that is the thing that is hardest to hold on to, right there. It is true that the “external” world serves to illumine hidden aspects of your “inner” world – your shadow in all its superior or inferior aspects – but it is not true that the external world is only a mirror. It has its own “objective” existence relative to any 3D being no matter how well that 3D being communicates with its non-3D aspects. You aren’t dreaming the world into being as an individual.
F: Whew, this is one of those moments like standing high upon a peak in Darien,* not quite getting it but sensing we are so close to getting a major new way of understanding something.
TGU: Yes, and you are feeling a little breathless at the prospect of so much work ahead to apprehend and express it. But, little by little, you know.
F: I do know. But – this is going to be a real stitcher-together-of-concepts, I think. It’s going to really help.
TGU: That will depend upon me to get it across, and you to express it, and the reader to make the imaginative leap, but yes – and it’s funny, but I’m judging from your reaction – yes, I think this is going to work. Only don’t expect it to be a similar lightning-flash of illumination for one and all, even if we do get it across well. The reader remains an integral part of any equation attempting to illuminate.
F: That’s right. If we can’t get it across, we’ll blame them! J
TGU: And if that doesn’t work, I can blame you.
F: Not while I’m holding the pen, you won’t.
TGU: No, you’ll blame yourself.
F: Anyway –
TGU: Can you express the half-insight that just took your breath away? I think you will find (in general) that doing the work of carefully expressing what you can say brings you closer to what at first you cannot say.
F: Well, it was when you said we aren’t dreaming the world as an individual. Your underlining led me to realize, as I know you meant it to, that we are dreaming the world as part of something larger, just as aboriginals of all places and times seem to know. But it’s way more than that, and I’m not sure I can get it.
TGU: One tiny piece at a time, and we will do the connecting manually, so to speak, if they don’t connect themselves in the process. (And, of course, we may prod from time to time.)
F: Okay, well, let’s see.
We all know that the “external” world isn’t solid and material and external at all, but is a manifestation of consciousness like the rest of it. It isn’t like we were these pinpricks of life among dead matter, or of consciousness among unconscious or non-conscious things.
We know that our hidden selves – our shadow elements – are brought to our attention by being manifested in what seems to us external circumstances.
We know that there are as many “worlds,” or “realities,” as there are results of individual decisions, in other words an uncountable and in fact perhaps an unboundable number, and that we move among them by choosing.
We know that we can affect the external world, either by choosing to be in a different version or by changing what we see – probably the former. But we know, equally, that the world (that is, reality) is intractable. It has inertia. It fights us. If you are born with asthma you cannot necessarily whisk it away by choosing to be elsewhere where you don’t have it. Yet we know that miracles happen, and we know something about the why and the how of miracles, enough to know that we don’t have them in enough of a right context to understand them.
We know that we experience this life as if we were individual elements in isolation from others no matter how emotionally or intellectually close they may be. At the same time we experience self-division, and change, so we know we aren’t individual in the sense of being all and only one thing.
And here I run out of steam.
TGU: Bearing in mind that these are your knowns, and not necessarily shared by everyone, all right. So sink in, and ask, what excited you (starting from this viewpoint) about the connection you sense and half-realized.
F: Well, I go back a few pages, and I see that we were trying to reconcile internal and external and I got that the external world exists in its own right and at the same time it exists as part of us, or I should say we exist as part of it – and yet all the other aspects of it remain true, which means we are affected by it and affect it.
TGU: No, you are skating on the surface. What you just said can be interpreted as mere statement of the obvious. A materialist could say it. Sink in, a little. Don’t try to think, try to receive.
F: The external world as we experience it is the inner world of the larger being. Is that it?
TGU: It is closer. Remember, your starting place here is the connection between the individual per se and its existence as also part of the larger being. We moved from exploring the sense of sin as one evidence of the tensions of that dual citizenship.
F: Yes, and I got that the reason we can’t manipulate the outside world entirely is that it is bigger than us, and then I’m now realizing that the exciting breakthrough concept is very hard to put into words, because the words are flat. They don’t seem to say anything very exciting. They sound obvious.
TGU: That is often the case. It is mostly a matter of saying the same words in different contexts until they come alive with meaning. At least, that’s our experience here, trying to get things across using language. It is far easier to get you to make a leap than to provide a way for others to do so in the absence of their own guidance.
F: Do you mean, it is up to them to connect to the material through their intuition? I was going to add an “or do you mean,” but it has vanished, so I suppose that’s what you meant.
TGU: We will work more with this. Don’t lose your memory of that view from Panama, stout Cortez.
F: Actually, it was Balboa. Keats got it wrong. But I will try to hold it. I can feel it vanishing in the light of day, though.
TGU: You got a glimpse. Intend to hold it. And we will see you next time, whenever that is.
F: Okay. Thank you very much.
– – –
* Courtesy of the internet search function, this excerpt from “On First Looking into Chapman’s Homer” by John Keats:
“Then felt I like some watcher of the skies
When a new planet swims into his ken;
Or like stout Cortez when with eagle eye
He stared at the Pacific – and all his men
Looked at each other with a wild surmise –
Silent, upon a peak in Darien.”
Ho hum, I am thinking of a bridge between the individual and the larger being. A well-functioning one will enable transport both ways and make both ends richer. A limited function bridge will cause all sorts of tension&difficulty, friction between the sides. The friction may be sin, but maybe it is also one part of what individual consciousness is meant to do: to bring forth whatever the current constellation of strands is capable of bringing forth. And sorry for the constrained analogy, we are ourselves the bridge, too. Creaking and heaving under the weight, or completely unused and ignored.
And also, been reading Freud for studies, and his ideas about dreams…the realities we construct for ourselves and as cultures seem more and more dream-like to me. Freud says dreams do not want to be understood, but I am thinking: maybe dreams desperately want to be understood, but we are so consistently dim, so hell-bent on keeping our rigid consciousness, we completely refuse to even consider the possibility. Of course, wobbles in consciousness are sometimes madness. But being able to establish a functioning bridge between individual and larger being: it would make such a vast difference to everything. It is such a new perspective to me, I am still in the process of establishing coordinates. How will my life&everything look like from this angle? So interesting, thank you!
hah, just commenting myself, about Freud. He is offering such a nasty put-down for explanation for self-division (or psychological symptoms) (unfulfilled sexual wishes) that most will just turn away in disgust. As if his intention was to snuff any curiosity about the anomalies of being human in a way that no-one will ever look that way anymore. And Freuds insistence on sexuality instead of libido which refers to energy in general rather than just cravings for sexual fulfilment – a way to block the movement of attention to these strange symptoms/anomalies/self-divisions that point out the places of our dream where something is going on that we really still do not know what it is!
You won’t find the explanation in Freud. You may well find the way forward in Jung, however. Jung seems to have been an absolutely fearless pioneer, willing to follow the data regardless what it might cost him in academic respectability, loss of comradeship, or even sanity. He certainly took terrific risks with his sanity in the years when European civilization was tearing itself apart by way of World War I.
I think Freud will always be important as the man who reminded the west that it was more than was on the surface, but i think the theories he developed will be less and less important as we grow in wisdom and consciousness. He was a man captured by the materialism of his time and place, and a very shallow rationalist it could be.
I’ve been working on aspects of this from other angles (creation of physical reality, evolution, cause and effect) for a couple of weeks, and it may help (emphasis on help versus “here’s the answer”) with our eventual better understanding.
Me and my greater being produce my body through which I (produce and) experience my reality in this world. But there are greater parts of my objective surroundings that are jointly produced by greater consciousness, that which is associated with greater numbers of human beings. The entire world, made up of a wide variety of consciousness, is jointly produced by a very large aggregate of consciousness, much larger than that which corresponds to me. But as always, we are not separate from that. We may be a smaller part of that consciousness; but nevertheless, a part of it and well aligned or not well aligned with it’s purposes.
As sin might be one clue, or one kind of “compass”, that we have to sense our alignment with our greater being; likewise, the tensions and issues of the whole Earth, may give us a compass for our alignment to even greater consciousness.
So how does the world (meaning our external objective reality) serve as our compass needle for understanding our inner alignments to the purposes of this even greater aggregate of consciousness? What is the objective world able to tell us about how well it’s corresponding subsets of consciousness are internally aligned? How well aligned is the subset of consciousness associated with current mankind on earth with that of other species of animals? Or with that of man’s natural surroundings, as part of his greater consciousness?
The discussion on climate change that has been going on is perhaps not coincidental. Climate change is an issue that is associated with a large aggregate of consciousness: individuals, groups of individuals, man as a whole, other species of animals, nature itself. Thinking of it as a “measure” or a compass, what can we learn from it? Do we not feel the tensions between our own “level” of consciousness, even that of our greater being and that of even greater consciousness reflected in this issue?
John
Thank you, Frank! Please stick with this. I think it is sidling up to some very worthwhile enlargements in our views of “what is.” I’ve been doing my own channeling/inspired communication each morning and this morning the guidance was just to read what you had done today.
The disunity we experience in our everyday experience of self is like the handicap weights on race horses or any kind of drag that weighs us down, and even has us grinding to a halt! The more one functions in unity and congruence, the more one lives in mastery, like a smooth-gliding surface, RR tracks instead of a rocky road.
I would add to the list of knowns that those who live in a knowing that they are one with their surroundings, be it animals, people, objects, the weather…, are able to affect change in all of those much more easily than the average Joe.
I remember when I was involved in the healing work that it was made clear to me that there were two (at least!) different orientations to that.
1) Seeing the healee as a person that I felt compassion for and whom I wished to serve.
2) Seeing the healee as an aspect of myself which I was choosing to alter in some way.
I had questions about free will and violating another’s free will in version #2, which is one of the reasons I stopped doing the hands-on healing work.
From my friends:
“We can bring all of this into a unity that far surpasses what you now imagine, or have even considered to date. And so it is.”
Ever onward! Exciting stuff.