Tuesday, July 25, 2017
6:35 a.m. Rita, would you care to begin with questions, or do you have something else in mind?
We seem to be getting into a discussion of souls, Old Souls, and all that, and that is worth pursuing from a different angle than the one people usually see it from. So let’s begin with Ellen’s question and go from there.
Okay.
[Ellen Malkin: “Sam’s total specific gravity, so to speak, its place on a scale of values, is determined partly by the nature of the Lifes it creates, but the converse is equally true, it is from its nature that the Lifes derive their nature, so in an equally accurate sense, it pre-determines their makeup which determines its.”
[Rita’s clarification about confusing essence and behavior (as it related to violence) was very helpful. Behaviors are the result of our choices. So— are the strands our essence? our inclinations toward certain behaviors to have certain experiences? or our proclivity for certain paths or choices?
[I am a mother to 3 children and those 3 souls (from birth) had different dispositions, personalities and proclivities for fear, achievement, etc. Are these tendencies their essence or strands? Is this what Rita means by our life’s make up being predetermined by the nature of our Sam?]
[Rita:] She is on the right track, but hasn’t yet factored in what you might call environment v. heredity when applied to the non-3D world. Non-3D conditions mean they play out somewhat differently than they would seem to in 3D.
Did I mess that up?
Let’s just continue; it will smooth out.
A 3D individual’s component strands will indeed affect its character, and so it will incline that individual toward certain behaviors. But other strands in the same individual will contradict or reinforce or not affect the results of that one strand.
In other words, we are made up of different strands, which results in conflicting impulses that result in our relative freedom to choose which impulse to follow.
In a sense, yes. Every 3D individual will be a different mixture of elements, and will by its choices over a lifetime strengthen one or another of its comprising strands’ patterns. In that way, you choose who you are going to be.
And I’m guessing that every version of each individual demonstrates what we would be if all the other choices were made.
And the result at the end of the 3D life is that probability cloud we mentioned earlier. To put it in a less nebulous way, the complete 3D life is a portrait of all the possibilities that lifetime contained. I know that seems almost futile, but that is because you are looking at it, inevitably, from the point of view of one version of one 3D individual, and all other versions seem theoretical. Moreover, it seems like your choices are meaningless. If all paths are taken, who cares what any one path chooses or experiences?
Well, there is that feeling, sure. We are taught to strive to achieve, and this at first glance seems to say it doesn’t matter.
It doesn’t. And it does.
Thanks for clearing that up. Smiling.
Let’s continue more directly with the question at hand. Ellen points out that her children were very different, which is what anyone except a particularly dogmatic behaviorist would expect. I merely remind her, and all of you, that your starting-place – what comprises you – is what is fixed, determined, in life. What you do with that initial mixture is your freedom, only it can be seen
Let me. From the point of view of any one version of a 3D individual, freewill is little more than an illusion in a way, because often the results of past actions and choices all but determine one’s possibilities or lack of possibilities. But from the point of view of the completed 3D individual, the sum of all versions, all the choices did result in very different results, with the “tails” of every choice hidden from the version that lived out the “heads.”
Your lives are not futility, nor the acting-out of a predetermined plan. And neither are they the chaotic result of a chaotic process with no rules or constraints. It’s all in how you look at it – and, it looks different yet, from Sam’s point of view.
Sam, remember, experiences your life in all its versions. For convenience sake we have been saying it as if the mind you are creating enters non-3D only upon your death to 3D, but of course it is there all along, changing and flowering from the time-oriented 3D point of view. It gets hard to correct the picture because you have to hold it in your mind while your 3D mind and experience and sensory information are telling you that things move past à present à future, whereas it is far more true (but confusing) to say that everything that is, sprang into being with the birth of this reality-system, and only seems to be maturing as you go, because thinking of things changing “as you go” is almost the only way you can imagine things. This – as you know, Frank – branches off to many other subjects which we will resist for the moment.
I think that should answer Ellen’s questions and her underlying questions, and if she or anyone else wishes more on the subject, their questions will supply a convenient starting-point. So let’s proceed to the question of Old Souls and all that.
I’ve never made up my mind about them, because as you know, I am leery of anything people parrot, and that is certainly high on the list of parroted statements. And yes, I am aware of the rest of the situation; neither do I do the work to examine the basis for those beliefs. But that’s why I have you!
I’m smiling too, but your readers may not realize that that was a joke at your expense, that last. But yes, it is true that you wait for things to come to you first-hand, which leaves you vulnerable to all the perils of the autodidact. Still, it is one way of working, one that you have made work for you. Others will build on your work – our work – in quite a different manner, some of which you would hate, which doesn’t make it any the less useful.
Here is a theoretical framework within which Old Souls not only make sense, but are inevitable. All our work to date has been preparing us for this exposition, so you won’t find it alien, but on the other hand our framework means it won’t look quite the way it does to others. Let’s look at it from Sam’s point of view instead of from the point of view of the individual.
Sam chooses parts of its essence and places them into a given time / place in 3D – earth or elsewhere, past present or future from your standing-point, doesn’t make any difference. This does not happen once, nor does it happen at only one time. It happens continually. Sam doesn’t deal the cards and then sit back and watch the show. Sam is always dealing the cards, and always watching the show, and – don’t forget – being affected by how the game plays out.
As each Life returns from 3D (so to speak. “Returns” isn’t accurate as it implies that it ever left, but that is a constraint of 3D language we will note and ignore except from time to time) – as each 3D life returns, it returns as a life that has experienced 3D constrictions and has been affected by it. Several things may and do happen:
1) Different parts of that mind, or soul, combine with different parts of other minds, or with different unused elements of Sam, and become a new 3D individual. In essence you could say a 3D individual is created anew from elements of Sam that have and / or have not had prior 3D experience. This is a new soul, is it not?
2) All of a 3D individual mind may be used in the composition of a new soul, together with other elements. That makes the initial individual one strand in the new individual’s composition.
3) All of a 3D individual may be reinserted into 3D without the addition of other elements. Thus a new individual from one point of view, a continuing individual from another. Much more of a unit than in the other two situations, you see. Should this not be seen as an Old Soul?
The major difference between this formulation and others you may have seen is that this one preserves the sense of unity behind the sense of diversity. You are accustomed to seeing people as scattershot units bumping into each other. It is time to adjust the focus so that you remember them as component parts of something larger, something that it itself part of something larger. It is not anarchy, it is not tyranny. As above, so below.
And that’s it for today, I got that. Thanks, Rita. I think this does clarify things somewhat. And more to say another time, clearly.
Again, questions point the material. It is an advantage that comes from your working without a net.
Yes, I think so too. Okay, till next time.