Nathaniel on impurities

Nathaniel on impurities

Friday, January 19, 2018

5:45 a.m. All right, let’s continue. I just got the thought of the use of impurities in glassblowing. Your prodding?

Not exactly, or let’s say not necessarily. But it is a useful image. Even your impurities produce color in the glass. However, the difficulty with that very useful image is that glass, once it cools, is relatively stable, relatively hardened and shaped. So, remember, it can always be re-melted; also, in a long enough span of time, it runs, like any other plastic form.

Not sure about the physics of that. I know that glass panes very slowly – over hundreds of years – do tend to puddle.

In any case we are more concerned with the reality we are attempting to describe than the images we use in doing so. Our point is merely that nothing lasts forever, in 3D, or, therefore, in All-D.

In that if the 3D changes and the non-3D does not, the unit changes nonetheless.

Even that (correct) perception over-estimates the permanence of the units you think yourselves. If one is immortal but transformed, one’s nature is a matter mostly of one’s opinion. Immortal? Unchangeable? Finite shelf-life? Transient phenomenon? All yes, all no, all both and neither.

Context is all, then.

Context determines how you see a thing, and if it is a thing of enough facets, enough complexity, it will appear in very different guise depending upon the mind you bring to the examination.

But, a word about impurities in glass, as it may shed light on our subject. Remember always, the purpose of life in 3D and out of 3D is not to replicate clear light. What would be the point of that? It is to produce millions of shades of different colors in a continually changing light show.

Of course, you must understand, that is one way to put it. The light show may also be regarded as a side-effect of what’s really going on, instead. Any statement that begins with, “The meaning of life is…” ought to be, and often is not, followed by the words, “in one view of things.” Do you really think that the purpose of life could be summed up in a sentence, or an encyclopedia for that matter? Much easier to continually say, “The purpose of life isn’t this or that or that either.” That’s truer.

Within that constraint, let’s say merely that the fact that you and every compound being include impurities does not indicate a design failure, nor a deliberate malign turning. This will become clearer when we look at the nature of impurities, as they manifest in the 3D crucible.

Are you making a differentiation between impurities in 3D and in non-3D?

Remember what we just said. How could anything that affected your 3D component fail to affect your All-D reality regardless if your non-3D component were unaffected directly? So, the question isn’t as relevant as you might think. But we get that your underlying thought is – Do the non-3D creatures sin, so to speak? That amounts to asking, Does the 3D set of conditions produce (or allow) sin; can non-3D creatures (unitary beings) sin?

I guess, more or less. Good questions, anyway.

Remember the myth of Lucifer’s sin. Lucifer chose; Lucifer refused to accept hits (to coin a pronoun) place in the scheme of things. Many consequences followed, but the point here is that a unitary being is portrayed as having free will. Having free will, he-she-it was able to choose to do this or that. Is it sin to choose, when one has been created free to choose?

Rhetorical question.

Not if you realize that the answer depends upon the nature of sin. If sin were as simple as “not obeying the royal will,” yes, simple, but not illustrative of anything real. That is a system made for servo-mechanisms, not independent souls. When you activate a servo-mechanism, you expect it to do exactly what it was designed to do, no more and no less. If it deviates from your command, it is to that degree malfunctioning.

Does that sound like a functioning independent being, created to reflect the light in its own unique way?

So, if instead sin is seen as “missing the mark,” is it possible for non-compound beings, existing outside the 3D crucible, to sin? That is, do they have a mark to hit? Are they able to miss it?

I don’t know.

Back the question up. What is a mark, seen in 3D terms? What in your lives you are leading right now would be a hitting or a missing of the mark?

I suppose, being the most fulfilled version of our raw materials that we can be.

And if your raw materials include cruelty, lust, envy, malice in any of its forms? Selfishness, pettiness, anything negative you can think of. Were you created to manifest them? To fight them? To incorporate and transform them?

I don’t know. I get the sense there’s something wrong with our definitions here.

And so there is. Good. Setting that aside for the moment, another guess at what would be the hitting or missing of the mark?

I can only fall back on my own experience of what satisfies me in my life, but I don’t suppose it is in any way universal.

You can’t know that, one way or the other.

No, I suppose I can’t. Well, I enjoy creating and I enjoy helping people, but that doesn’t mean I am particularly gregarious or even comfortable in the world, nor does it mean that the enjoyment of creation makes any given day seem worthwhile.

So, your conclusion here would be?

That I miss the mark when I turn away from creativity and helping people.

Stated that baldly, does the statement satisfy?

No, it doesn’t. But if we knew ahead of time what you’re getting at, we wouldn’t need this process, would we?

Let’s say your missing the mark is simpler (not necessarily easier) than that. Let’s say, missing the mark is not listening to the inner voice as you live your days, thus not doing the most that would be possible with your life as raw materials.

Sin as self-sabotage.

Well, what else is it, if not that?

But that implies forces that we are here to resist, as well as forces that we are here to flow with.

And can you see how that might easily be misinterpreted into “Thou shalt not” and “Thou shalt”?

It’s still far from satisfactory. It’s more up in the air than ever.


All right, you made me smile. I get it, who said we were anywhere near resolution. So?

Vast impersonal forces. You may have heard the expression.

Yeah, somewhere.

We deliberately repeat it rather than vary the words, so as to impress upon you the concept as it continues to exist, remembered or not. You exist – we exist – everybody and everything exists – in the context of vast impersonal forces.

Vast – as in, magnitude beyond the human scale.

Impersonal – as in, nature and purpose well beyond the human scale.

Forces – as in, unbound energies, not in any way structures or (same thing) individuals.

To sum up, before we pause. Your lives in 3D are mixtures of qualities. This could scarcely be avoided in 3D existence even if you were not compound in nature. Mixtures are not uniform; they may be internally consistent or internally at war, but they are collections as well as, prior to, being in any sense individual.

These collections are “externally” affected by their own internal characteristics, their own vulnerabilities [I think they meant predilections], seemingly coming at them from outside themselves. That’s the point of the crucible, to allow them to confront themselves.

Well, inherent in the smelting in the crucible is confrontation with the impurities, so that they may be burned out (seen one way) or incorporated (seen another), or transformed and transmuted (seen yet a third way). But where did they come from, these impurities? And how does it assist anything, this smelting process? And for that matter, how will it assist you in your daily lives to know any of this?

Let me guess: “To be continued.”

It’s your clock, not ours. But yes, to be continued, for as long as you wish, for as long as you are able.

Okay. Well, thanks as always.


Glassblowing and our lives

Glassblowing and our lives

Thursday, January 18, 2018

6 a.m. All right, my friends. You were saying?

Glassblowing was an appropriate analogy for the interplay of compound beings and the vast impersonal forces that are beyond personality or easily discerned individuality.

Hold the visual image this calls forth. It may remind you that life is greater, wider, deeper, more intricate, more mysterious, than it sometimes appears in 3D. It will also remind you that your 3D and non-3D components are – obviously – in the same boat, as are you and all your fellows past, present, and future.

When one goes to thinking about the larger questions – what is the meaning of life, why am I here, where do I go from here, why am I as I am and what can I do to change or continue, that sort of question – there is often a tendency to unconsciously distort the question (and thus the answer) by considering oneself separate, or by considering one’s class of beings as separate. Surely you can see that an inquiry into the meaning of life that assumes, silently, that the center of life is oneself, or is 3D beings as a whole, or is compound beings as a whole, is necessarily going to be seriously skewed by that assumption. The proportions are wrong; it is out of drawing.

But of course the tendency is natural. To proceed to describe all heaven and earth as if one knew is to disconnect from reality in an alternative way, particularly if the resulting scheme still talks of human existence, or compound-being existence, as if they were realer than they are, rather than half-abstractions.

Being in bodies as you are, living in 3D as part of compound beings as you are, and each of you functioning as if you were a unit rather than an interconnected part of a larger something, certainly you must relate to the greater reality in terms you can relate to. Only, do not allow yourself to think that simplifications that form a coherent scheme express reality in anything like its complexity.

So, in a sense, each of you is the center of your universe, – only remember that this is a limitation of perspective for the sake of utility and reference rather than a description that would be recognizable from any viewpoint other than someone’s living in 3D.

And perhaps you can see now why the recent reorientations, accustoming you to recognizing that 3D and non-3D are complementary parts of one whole; are, in fact, one undivided and indivisible reality. And that “this world and the next world” is a sterile concept needing to be overcome if you are to deepen your understanding of the way things are. And that the 3D world per se isn’t as real as it sometimes appears.

It has been necessary to do two complementary things: to get the materialistic vision expanded to include all the non-physical forces it wants to deny, and to get the metaphysical vision expanded to include all the religious insights it wants to deny. Not that either half of this large task has been accomplished, but many people chipping away will have an effect. Cayce the first, Seth the second, and many, many people following upon them, and many, many to follow as time goes on. But – that is what we are about here, tying together perceived antagonisms to overcome their partiality at a higher level. You cannot move forward by clinging to your accustomed prejudices.

So I take it the grain of sand’s view of the glassblowing process might not be entirely adequate to the full picture.

Yes, funny, but that’s the idea. Only, remember, that grain of sand has its own level of awareness. Like everything else, it is made of and from consciousness. It is no more dead or inert than anything else could be. It isn’t dead, or unconscious, or orphaned in the universe; it is different; it has its own appropriate level of participation in the world. It has its own non-3D component, obviously, or else how did it manage to exist in only some of the dimensions. So, don’t pity it, learn to speak its language, if you can, if you wish to.

After all, that’s what larger beings have to learn to do, to speak to you.

Was that my thought, rather than yours?

Ownership of ideas again. You mean, was that an error of reception, you inserting something that did not belong?

Yes, I guess that’s one way to put it.

Did the idea surprise you?

Yes it did.


“Well?” meaning I suppose that the fact that it was a surprise ought to tell me it wasn’t mine.

You might say that. But it would be better to loosen your hold on the idea that ideas originate with anyone. It would be closer to say they originate from the interaction of two or more mental processes, and would be closer yet to say they don’t so much originate as reveal themselves. But let’s pursue the idea itself, rather than ideas about ideas. Yes, larger beings have to learn to communicate with partial beings, call them. Do you automatically know how to talk to the bacteria in your body, or the habit-systems that might be called servo-mechanisms that maintain your body moment by moment? Do you even maintain a continual awareness that they are there to be communicated with? The analogy is fairly close.

So, now. Bearing in mind that analogies are necessarily approximations, which means necessarily somewhat inadequate, somewhat inaccurate, think of that grain-of-sand-into-glass analogy. In a way, that is your life. It is the transformation of particles into a larger structure; it is the fusing under hellishly hot conditions of things that were separate into things that are functionally one. It is the creation of larger structures from simple components.

[It was only in typing this up that I realized they meant that our multiple strands are fused, in 3D conditions, into a unity, a higher level of structure. Presumably that new structure becomes a strand in yet another 3D being, and thus becomes part of something even more complicated, more intricate.]

It is analogy, remember, and every analogy breaks down somewhere. But it is a good analogy. Can you see now why we aren’t as concerned with peace on earth, and social justice, and intellectual comprehension of the way things are, as you might expect? It isn’t that they aren’t real within your context; it is that your context itself is only somewhat real, only transiently real, you might say, next to the overwhelmingly important fact that the fire is melting the sand into glass.

But. Analogies break down. Do not allow yourselves to fall into the error of thinking nothing matters, that you are an insignificant grain of sand, that you are going to be annihilated by the vast impersonal forces that are, in fact, transforming and shaping you. You are still the spark of consciousness that you experience yourself to be. Your non-3D component is as much in the transforming furnace as you are. Your unique contribution to the whole is still unique, still a contribution. Only, what is really going on is also at a scale far larger than that of compound beings, let alone 3D individuals.

I feel a little breathless, or rather, like I am breathing very rarified air, this morning. I didn’t expect any of this. Can you really relate it to the sins and virtues, I wonder?

The difficulty will be in not allowing yourselves to be seduced by any one aspect of reality, any one particularly vivid analogy. It was desirable to remind you that Life is bigger than your 3D experience; it would be undesirable if that glimpse then persuaded you that your here-and-now had no place in things, no importance in your development, for it would soon follow that you would conclude that your very existence has no point, no importance. And such is not the case.

Our hour is up, but we can continue if you wish to round things off.

No, this is a unit as it is. Only remember that holding two or more competing or complementary or contradictory visions at the same time may lead you to be able to intuit things that cannot quite be put into sequential thinking.

Well, we’ll see as we go along. Thank you for a very vivid image today.


Continuing on pride as a sin

Continuing on pride as a sin

Wednesday, January 17, 2018

4:35 a.m. Ready if you are.

One could go on about pride for quite some time, because pride as missing the mark – as opposed to its positive connotations – is extensive, widespread. Scratch any sin and you will find pride involved if no other than an active sense of separation from others in 3D, and in separation from one’s responsibilities within the totality of 3D existence.

That’s a little vague.

Consider that life is somewhat a matter of self-definition. Whether one accepts the definitions others provide (directly or indirectly) or forms one’s definitions oneself by prolonged acts of will (although they may not be obviously so), in one way or another, usually in several ways, in fact, everyone necessarily adheres to a story of who they are. You can see, it’s only natural. You’re in 3D, you have to have some way of seeing yourself.

Well, depths of perception differ among individuals. Leaving aside, for the moment, the question of what one’s society tells him he is, everyone’s depth of awareness says, “I am this,” or “I am that,” even if the consciousness of that individual does not know it, or argues against it. In other words, some people know they are all alone in the universe and it’s every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost. Others know that we are all in it together, here to help one another. You see? That strength of knowing has nothing to do with the reality of things; it has to do with the reality they are here to experience.

A person expresses different aspects of reality, according to how s/he sees the world.

Yes, provided you remember that how you see the world is likely to be the result of many things: environment, 3D heredity, non-3D heredity (that is, the qualities you bring into this life), and what we might call the results of contention, that is, the thought forms and ideas and emotional patterns you develop in the course of your life spent reconciling so many factors.

Well, if you approach each day with Abraham Lincoln’s humility, you are not likely to err on the side of pride as sin. You will take pride in your accomplishments, but that is a different meaning of the word pride. Compare Lincoln and any example to you of one acting from vanity (we do not mean vanity of appearance, necessarily) and you will see more clearly.

Someone like the later Franklin Roosevelt, making decisions out of arrogant certainty. Or Kaiser Wilhelm. Like that?

That is one way it can express, but better to steer away from the statesman aspect and stay closer to the aspect of personal character. An equivalent to Lincoln on the opposite side politically might be Jefferson Davis, yet they might have little or no value as opposing examples of the quality of pride and resisting pride as applies to all you non-statesmen.

I see it more clearly than I can yet express it. I take it you want me to find the examples? The difficulty is that by definition we need famous people, or we will have no common frame of reference.

You know enough examples! Only, don’t limit yourself to those Lincoln knew or interacted with.

Yes, I see – though Robert E. Lee, come to think of it, is a man who matched Lincoln’s humility. Well, George McClellan. There’s a puffed-up theatrical person, very much the great man in his own mind. But I’m hearing you, feeling you, pushing me in another direction. Get off politics.

Well, how about Hemingway? Humble in relation to his trade, proud in reaction to fame and achievement? No? Why not?

To illustrate the way pride becomes a missing of the mark, you need to show a quality closer to the bone, not a reflection of achievement or place, although those are not incorrect as examples.

You’d better take the lead, and maybe something will occur to me as you do.

No, think about the theme. How does pride as a sin mingle with a man’s or woman’s perceptions to lead in the wrong direction? Keep it close; perhaps keep it in the abstract rather than finding a known life-story to illustrate it.

You are asking me to think, as well as intuit.

That’s exactly what we are asking, of you, of everyone.

I guess the first question is, wrong direction relative to what goals. I doubt you are concerned with 3D achievement per se, since as you have said it all falls away as we die, so it must be 3D achievement in so far as it affects the enduring habit-system we create in the living of our lives. But I’m seeing something even behind that, a complex of traits you wish to encourage.

Think of your lives in their aspect as creators-by-deciding-things.

You mean, deciding moment by moment and thereby each creating our characters.

That is what you are there to do, to choose and choose and choose. You know that: Now connect that to the question of purpose, and sin as diversion from the purpose.

You have said that our decisions within each timeline have an effect in some way, that we are not just hamsters in a cage going through meaningless motions. So if the point is for us to somehow set our imprint on the pattern, I guess –. Oh! Do you mean sin is what prevents us from being the real us? Or, maybe, the ideal us?

See? Working it out in thought, combined with openness to the intuitive flashes that become possible when you have bent your thinking apparatus to a given task, brings results. Now, follow up the scent you have just caught.

Sin is somehow a warping of ourselves from our true potential. That’s awfully slippery still, but that’s sort of it.

A dwarfing of your potential, call it. That’s why it is bad for you. but obviously this statement is loaded with unspoken assumptions. Still, you are in the right direction.

It doesn’t have to do with external rules or external effects; it is about our own self-creation.

Not quite. Your life in 3D, no less than in non-3D and in fact in some ways more urgently (because you live in the crucible of the present moment limited in extent, and therefore in effect under pressure) cannot help but effect those around you. So, your choices and their effects cannot help but affect others’ environment, and what you might call the general situation. Lincoln was not working out his salvation in isolation, and who and what he had made himself had a real impact on others. This is true of every person, all the time, only your stories aren’t public knowledge.

So, let’s say it isn’t only to do with externals. Isn’t primarily, let’s say.

Yes, that’s closer. We haven’t talked about the necessary interconnection of public and private sectors, because we have wanted to focus your attention upon the closest area of engagement, but you can see that the external conditions of one’s life have to have a huge effect on the living of it. It is just that the cause and effect isn’t the way they are assumed to be.

I don’t get the sense that this has been digression, but I don’t quite see the thread we’re following. The bread crumbs only show a few at a time.

You are going to be redefining a lot of things you’re heard about but never given much attention to – at least, we think that’s what’s going to happen. Partly it’s up to your willingness. But it isn’t as simple as “list a sin, talk about it.” It’s still all about the interplay of vast impersonal forces with compound beings structured and being restructured by experiences in the denser medium that is a crucible.

You make it sound like glassblowing, a little. Fire and air and skillful direction and the sand becomes transparent or translucent, assumes shape.

And acquires function. And that’s where we choose to pause for now.

All right, well, thanks and see you next time, except we never see you at all.

Faith is belief in things unseen.

So it is. Okay.


Chasing Smallwood — .29. Enter Mr. Lincoln

[A book with four interlocking themes:

  • how to communicate with the dead;
  • the life of a 19th-century American;
  • the massive task facing us today, and
  • the physical world’s place in the scheme of things.]


[Now came a development that maybe somebody smarter would have foreseen, but it certainly bowled me over.]

[Thursday, February 9, 2006]

[Joseph, continuing]

If the war had ended with 1864 and Lincoln hadn’t gotten killed, there’s so much could have been better. Mr. Lincoln had been thinking about things, the way he did, and he knew the problems

You’ve been talking to him.

Yes I have, and yes you can too. This one ain’t a whim like the last idea you had.

Whew! A little overwhelming, the idea of it. Can I talk to him directly, or through you or how?

This ain’t entirely your idea. It’s set up, just be ready.

I say again, whew! All right, I’m as ready as I’ll ever be. Mr. Lincoln, if I really can contact you, you know I suppose how deep my admiration for you. I have tried to model myself on your example of kindness and goodwill.

Thank you. That form of emulation is the very best flattery. We all generally model ourselves on somebody whether consciously or not.

I take it that you, the completed Lincoln, are aware of our lives here and now.

This is the purpose of this series of communications, to put in a word about your lives and circumstances.

You are still a thinker, then, weighing and calculating.

You will not find yourself any different after you die than you were alive. This is a lesson many people have been teaching. It is in life that you shape yourself. After you are dead, your ability to remold yourself is greatly diminished.

So, Mr. Lincoln, please say what you want to tell us and I will do my best to bring it across.

Excessive admiration distances quite as much as contempt. Try to avoid either extreme, and it will go better.

Our attempt to create a union of states that would be strong enough to survive but not so strong as to lead to tyranny looked important enough when I viewed it from life. After I died though I got a clearer view of a thing I had seen only in glimpses while alive. The American experiment was about politics and power and freedom only at one level. On a different and perhaps a more profound level, it was about creating the framework for a new civilization, and that new civilization was to be the cradle of a new humanity.

This is why we were tormented by the race question, and the Indian question. The experiment had to be an experiment on behalf of all the world’s people, not just Englishmen in North America. The thing that was being worked out with us – through us – was bigger than we were. It was bigger than anything anyone could foresee, and in that it was just, and shows the wisdom of providence.

My strength – as yours in this different field – was my willingness to be led when I could foresee nothing, or could foresee only little. I led the Union effort by faith and charity, and only vaguely by hope, for in truth there was little enough reason for hope much of the time. I knew that we were serving a higher purpose, but for a long time I could not quite see what that purpose was, and so I never knew which actions and tendencies – however well-meant – might be aiding, and which contradicting, the working-out of that purpose. I could but do my best. That meant living in faith and charity, for I assumed that actions taken without malice were the most likely to accord with the purposes of the almighty, and actions taken in response to a situation, rather than to advance my fixed plans, would likewise best accord with a higher design.

Now, in modeling yourself after one who tried never to injure another, you must not imagine that it is possible to live life without doing injury. At best we live without intending to injure, but that weighs very heavily in our favor, as you may discover.

Now you in your day are tortured by questions without obvious answers, and challenges that seem hopelessly larger than probable solutions. Faith, and charity, and hope as best you can.

Faith – for you did not call forth these challenges, but yet they came forth out of the hand of providence specifically that your time might solve them.

Charity – for nothing is more sterile and self-defeating than hatred, and nothing is surer to go wrong and land you in a ditch.

Hope – because when you cannot see ahead, you need to steer by something. The harbor may be out of sight, but that does not mean it has ceased to exist.

Your times are not easier than mine, but not harder. You have greater resources and greater problems and the result is about the same. Think of how overwhelmed I was, so often, when you confront your own problems. I did not see how we could ever come through it. Many times it seemed to hinge on a jackstraw. When I did not know what to do, when there was nothing I could do but wait, then I learned about living in faith, and cherishing unreasonable hope.

My life with Mary had taught me patience. No doubt it might have taught her the same! That patience was sorely needed.

As you look at what we did, remember that to you it is clear what were our valid actions and what were our mistakes. Remember that to me, at least, it was often not clear even after the fact what was right and what not. So often necessary measures are a mixture of right and wrong, true actions and mistakes, and only arbitrary judges are quite sure. You have read ex parte Milligan. I remain convinced I did the only thing I could do. And all my actions were that same mixture of expedient and inexpedient, justifiable and perhaps not, sustainable and not.

You could write of my life if you wished to, for you understand my mainspring very well. (Yes, as did Billy Herndon.) Goodwill and good intentions and perseverance in doing the right as God gives us to see the right – that was my life, and all my many failings together did not prevail against a life lived with those few simple touchstones.

Mr. Lincoln, you know how deeply you are loved and appreciated. Does this effect your existence on that side?

Could it be otherwise? That is an extension of goodwill to me from those who valued what I worked to preserve, and especially the colored people who confused me – as the means of their salvation – with the providence whose instrument I was.

Well, you know how I feel about you! Did you want to say more?

This is enough for the moment.

Thank you. Thank you. And Joseph – thank you.

Mind your strength, now. You have been told already, you can do too much of this.


Lucifer and Pride

Lucifer and Pride

Tuesday, January 16, 2018

6:45 a.m. You began on pride, and separation, and the story of Lucifer refusing to serve.

We did and – we’re smiling, here – you don’t need to work quite so hard to be sure we stay on point. In this, we do know where we’re going, although you do not. We will not lose ourselves in endless associations.

Lucifer is an intricate myth, or fable, or explanation; that is not the same as saying Lucifer did not – does not – exist. What it does say is that like all myths and fables, the Lucifer of the story is a translation.

A way of explaining to us, I got that. But I’m getting that there is more to it than that.

Should you imagine Lucifer to be human? Or human with wings or horns or a tail? Do you suppose Lucifer was born and grew up and plans on retiring someday? We’re trying to stretch the idea to the point of the ridiculous to help you see that your idea of Lucifer probably is mostly left over from your childhood ideas.

Obviously Lucifer isn’t human, with human characteristics. You aren’t exactly human with human characteristics, except insofar as you’re playing the human role, so how could Lucifer be, or the Recording Angel, so to speak? You see? Lucifer and other unitary beings are a different order of being than compound beings; if you do not keep that in mind, you will blur important clarifying characteristics. Yes there are points of connection between unitary and compound beings, but that’s just repeating that there are no absolute separations in the universe. There are points of connections between humans and reptiles, or mammals and avians, but that doesn’t make them interchangeable.

So, recognize that Lucifer’s reality is not the same as a compound being’s.

However, having said that, obviously Lucifer’s reality and human reality interact, or there would be no myth about it. And clearly there is human awareness of the force that is Lucifer, or there would be no myth. How could a myth arise about something never sensed?

This is said to assist you to take seriously what decades of mental habit may have consigned to the scrapheap. Just because something is not what you thought it, that does not mean it is nothing, or is just anything.

So, Lucifer’s rebellion as a way of looking at the sin of Pride, as it is experienced in 3D life, remember. This is not meant to dissolve into theory and unreality.

In the absence of a sense of separation, there can be no sin of Pride. There can be the quality of being proud of this or that, but this is only including different things under the same word. This pitfall, by the way, is almost exclusively associated with pride. No one would think of positive characteristics to do with lust, envy, gluttony, covetousness, anger or sloth. Pride is not only chief of sins; it is, you might say, a transition from one state to the other, in a way that no other is.

Does that mean that –? No, go on.

So, to be clear, in the case of pride we are looking at a characteristic that may express well or may express for ill. That really cannot be said of the others.

So, Pride as sin, as “missing the mark.” How could it not be integrally connected with a sense of separation? It proceeds from a sense of separation, and it fosters a sense of separation. And, since separation is a 3D perception rather than an All-D reality, how can it not be leading you in the wrong direction?

Now – we shouldn’t have to say this, but for clarity – the word “separation” itself has many nuances; the one we are intending is a sense as if things were only separate and not also all a part of the whole. A perception of the separation, the differentiation, of things is appropriate while in 3D, or why do you not eat fire hydrants or sleep on cinder blocks. But a perception that everything is a jumble of unconnected things is not only meaningless but fosters (and proceeds from) a sense that life itself is meaningless.

So, pride becomes a missing of the mark when it fosters or expresses the idea that things may be used rather than related to.

That was a surprising thought; took me a second to catch up.

If you are a part of a whole, you have a proper place, and that place comes with duties and responsibilities, perquisites and privileges. No, you aren’t the king, but neither are you dirt under the king’s feet. No, you don’t get to run roughshod over others, but nor do they you. When things are seen whole, they function in a naturally coordinated fashion.

But. If you see the separation aspect and not the interconnection aspect, then you go wrong, and all the remaining sins become possible, in fact, become likely. And all this, you see, proceeds from eating from the tree of Perceiving Things As If They Were Good or Evil.

That’s a connection I hadn’t made. If we didn’t see things as separate, we wouldn’t be prone to consider only ourselves.

That’s right, and if you didn’t consider only yourselves, the other sins would scarcely be possible.

However, remember, the 3D experience was crafted; it wasn’t somebody’s mistake. The fact that you are here in perception of separation is not your fault, it is your situation. The fact that those conditions may lead you into sin is merely, you might say, an occupational hazard.

We might look at the seven sins as warning signs, I suppose, rather than as personal failings.

You might indeed, but better still would be to regard them as both, for you are never disconnected from your non-3D selves, which are not constrained or blinded (one might say) by 3D conditions.

In other words, we know better.

You do when you allow the knowledge to penetrate, yes.

To return to Lucifer. Lucifer, you see, in refusing to serve was saying, “I know better than the universe.”

I doubt he thought of it that way.

You might be better to say “it” than “he.” We have been avoiding pronouns because we don’t want to subconsciously reinforce the idea that a unitary being has gender, even if (or should we say especially because) the use of a pronoun will imply gender only as a stylistic convention. Only, “it” implies lifelessness – again, subconsciously – and we don’t want to encourage that either. So we were constrained to use the name given to that vast impersonal force.

Lucifer a vast impersonal force?

It’s intricate, but we will try to give you just a sense of it. Lucifer is a force expressing through a structure, but not a 3D structure such as you. What are called spiritual forces do not have 3D bodies, but they do have structure. If they did not, you would be unable to conceptualize them. But this tends toward the theoretical, and we should prefer to continue on the path we have begun.

To sum up for the morning, Lucifer erred in thinking his- her- it- self separate and therefore having his / her / its own destiny that Lucifer rather than the overall scheme of things would decide.

I see your point about gender. Can we agree upon some kind of shorthand to avoid the his-her-its thing?

Perhaps you will find it before our next session. But here is your hour.

And a very interesting one. Thank you.

Beginning on sins and virtues

Beginning on sins and virtues

Monday, January 15, 2018

5:35 a.m. So, gentlemen, shall we start on virtues and vices?

We said we should begin with Pride, traditionally chief of the seven deadly sins. Perhaps though we ought to provide a little context for the discussion.

I’d be astonished if you didn’t. We know your ways, after so many years.

Context is not everything, but it is a great lot. The setting in which you see something, the angle from which you view it, colors your mental atmosphere; it determines not exactly what you see, but certainly how you see it. Think of it as a mood, and it may be clearer to you what we are saying. A mood colors the world for you, and so the world seems to be objectively different than it does in another mood, or free from them. This is not a deep or abstruse statement; you all know it from experience; all we’re doing is applying the analogy to context.

So, think of context as setting the mood in which we are likely to see something?

That will serve. Very well, the context we should like you to place the discussion in is not one of religious teachings (we know many of your readers present and future will come to it with a strong bias, acknowledged or unconscious, against anything labeled “religious”) but of wisdom teachings. This should allow them to escape the self-made prison of emotional reaction against early experience or against politically skewed religious systems.

If you think of the dogmatic core of any religion as its contribution to wisdom teachings, you can assess what if any of it is true for you without needing to overcome your own judgments on any aspects of that religion that may be said to be political or, say, organizational.

That is, to what degree does this worked-out codified belief help me make sense of the world. Is that what you mean?

In this case, how does it help make sense of “the world” in its largest meaning, yes. The 3D world in connection to the non-3D world. The world of compound beings in relation to the vast impersonal forces that flow through it. The meaning of 3D life and of life above, beyond, before, 3D life. These are not new questions. You are not the first people to ask them. The answers we can provide, the interpretations of past answers we can provide, are not new in that sense. But they are living questions and we can give you living answers – that is, tailored to your time, right now. Only, to new explanations you must bring an open heart, not merely what is called an open mind. You must be prepared to be carried away (if that opportunity presents itself) rather than remain armored against persuasion. So often, you know, an “open mind” really amounts to strained tolerance, or perhaps we might say enforced patience. That attitude will be entirely useless here. In fact, it will be harmful in that it will prevent you from receiving the ever-crucial initial impression that has the ability to carry you over onto a more appropriate, current, and productive timeline.

Please – for your own sakes – an open heart, a willingness to encounter parts of yourself that may surprise you, or else leave the material alone and do other things.

Never quite heard you say something like that before.

It is important. People do not come to any day’s thought expecting to be transported to a new life. It is important to realize what attitude will make that transformation possible and what will make the possibility close off.

In other words, this isn’t about belief but about conviction. We aren’t being asked to take something on faith, but, instead, to be open to having conviction spring up within us. And don’t think I didn’t feel the difference in this when you sort of guided my words. [Meaning, in this paragraph.]

Yes. That’s what inspiration is, the infusing of spirit.

All right. So, Pride?

In everything that follows, remember, we are examining traditions to see what they may have set out for us that may be of use to us as we try to make sense of our world, our time. You care less about how they came to their conclusions, or even what these signposts meant to them, than what they point us to, today (whatever “today” this is read from, here and now). Scripture, like any other set of words, is to spark, to set off sparks, not to lay down the law. What we make of scripture, as of anything else, is what reaction it sets off within us, remembering that we are as divine and as human as scripture and those who wrote scripture.

So when we come to Pride, for instance, we don’t care so much what it meant to others – even to those who formulated their conclusions from their experience guided by their own connection to their larger beings. The use we make of these ideas may (or may not, but may) be very different. They may lead us to conclusions very different from, even antagonistic to, that of their authors. No matter. The divine spark is as alive in you as it was in them, and that is what will lead you today.

All this is to explain why we will examine traditional signposts in ways that may have nothing to do with the context in which they have long been formulated. Those still living inside those traditions – that is, those for whom these traditions remain alive – may think we are doing violence to them, but that cannot be helped. It does no good to attempt to compel an attitude; it must spring up by reaction to what is said, if at all.

I have been accused of “twisting scripture” in my time when I attempted to express my own understanding of things traditionally understood in other ways.

Well, prepare to experience it again! But it didn’t kill Emerson and it won’t kill you.

So – Pride.

We aren’t stalling. Context is important! Very well, let’s begin. Remembering your definitions of who and what 3D compound beings are, how can Pride be said to be an obstacle to whatever such beings are here to accomplish?

What I get is that it reinforces a sense of separation.

Remember the fable of the fallen angels. Lucifer – light-bearer – the most beautiful of the unitary beings, is said to have refused to serve compound beings. Non serviam: I will not serve. What do you suppose that means to you, to your life, to your journey?

Are we to take it as history?

It is always a huge mistake to read mythology or fable or scripture as if it were fact when it is written or spoken to convey truth. An unorthodox but perhaps illuminating comparison would be to a dream. Dreams are not fact, but they tell truth by illustrating it in a story. At least, that’s what some of them do; that’s how some of them may be seen. Take scripture and, more than that, take religious and spiritual stories as dreams, clothing truths in stories in order to clarify them. Thus, the apple in the garden; it is a way of making memorable a psychological truth. Thus, Lucifer refusing to serve. Forget what Milton made of the story; return to essentials.

Always, in such matters, ask “How does this story apply to me, here, now?” And don’t forget that sometimes, many times even, it may not. In such case, leave it until it does. When time and circumstance brings it front and center, you’ll know!

Now, there’s your hour, and although you may not think we’ve gotten very far, we’re pleased. We know you thought it was going to be one sin, one virtue, one session, and done in eleven days, but not necessarily. There’s a lot to be said, and there is not only no penalty for not finishing quickly, in some ways it’s just as well to give the material time to work on people. For that, there’s nothing better than time and reflection, as it allows deeper parts of themselves to swirl into patterns of consciousness.

Well, you know we’re grateful for your attention, and I know you’re grateful for ours. Next time, then.


Nathaniel on truth and viewpoint

Sunday, January 14, 2018

Nathaniel on truth and viewpoint

6:15 a.m. Watched parts of some YouTube video interviews with Colin Wilson last night, and was reminded that he called himself a hedgehog rather than a fox – that is, he knew one thing rather than many – and of course so am I.

Very well, my friends. This idea that came to me yesterday from wherever it is that ideas do come – let’s give it a try. What I got was that we might do a session apiece on the seven deadly sins and the four cardinal virtues as they appear from your viewpoint. I imagine we won’t be getting a pietistic viewpoint, and can’t wait to see what we do get. First off, you agree that sin is missing the mark – an error of judgment or execution, rather than an offense that is going to be prosecuted in some after-death court of law?

Let’s start a little slower. You can’t just invalidate major threads of human thought with a wave of your hand. At least, it isn’t wise to do so.

I assumed that it would be common ground between us, or among us, I suppose I should say, given how many of you there may be on the line. (And how many of me, come to think of it.)

It is and it isn’t. Let’s put it this way: We share one way of looking at things, but we remember that there are other ways. It isn’t as if anyone ever comes to a “the” truth. You know this, it’s just in another context.

You are saying it is all viewpoints.

Viewpoint, and the result of viewpoint. If you look at things from one viewing-post (as, in practice, everyone must, that viewing-post being their life in all its far-flung ramifications), everything you build upon that view proceeds from it. If you are in a ship in the South Pacific in 1775 and you are English, that’s the outlook you will have. Everything you see will be seen out of the eyes of a 1700s Englishman in the South Seas. It’s obvious, once you think about it. You can’t expect that you’re going to have the viewpoint of a Phoenician or a Tibetan Lama or anybody. You are who you are, and you see things from that platform’s vantage point, in perspective from that spot in space-time.

A complicating factor is that this is only this simple as long as we ignore the fact that that “you” in the South Seas in the 1700s is internally connected to so many other lives living elsewhere and elsewhen. Those extensions (of course from their point of view, he will be the extension of them, but you know what we mean) will alter his perspective unpredictably. No matter how unconscious that 3D personality may be of how widely he extends, he may be – will be – unconsciously affected. No matter how psychically aware he may be, he will still be mostly unconscious of his full scope, necessarily (as you and all your readers and friends), because you can’t pour a quart of water into a pint container. All we’re saying here is that people are stranger and more unpredictable than their evident surroundings would lead you to expect them to be if a current 3D incarnation were as isolated as it appears.

Sure. We all have these cross-currents within us, from God knows who and God knows where.

That’s right. However, within that context, the fact remains that you are each shaped by your circumstances, as you should be, as was inherent in the whole shaping of 3D reality to be a crucible. It isn’t complicated but it is easily overlooked, being like the air you breathe: Search for the truth, but try to remember, it is going to be your truth, not any nonexistent “the” truth.

Nonexistent? I don’t see how that can be.

We mean it not in the sense of “the whole reality is a lie and anything you want to say about it is as true as anything else and no more” though we see that our idea could be mistaken for that, but “the world is way more complex and interrelated for anyone in 3D no matter how aware, how extended, to comprehend; thus any truths will be only partial truths, as your lives are only partial lives when seen from a wider deeper perspective.”

Do search, do sift and weigh and come as close to your truth as you can. This is not only not a waste of time, it is intrinsic to your existence in your particular piece of 3D time-space. Who is going to give a true report of the world from your point of view if you do not? (You understand, we mean, a report to the larger All-D world, a report in the form of what you make yourself by living.) Only, do not confuse that very useful quest and result with an imagined pursuit of (still less an acquisition of) truths greater than you can comprehend. You, stretching to your uttermost, will find it quite enough to do to absorb the truth of your own 3D life you live; don’t march off to a pretended siege of Babylon. We trust that you and your readers take for granted that this is aimed at one and all, not just you, Frank.

So, when we come to look at sin and virtue, our viewpoint will be limited (another way to say it would be, “will be focused”) by yours, Frank. Any transmission comes via a 3D person acting as middleman, and his essence is integrally involved. How else could it be? A trance medium may be entirely unconscious of the messages being delivered, but listen to that sentence carefully: unconscious. That is, who the medium is, is still indivisible from the process. If his or her conscious mind is not involved, nonetheless his or her un-conscious mind will be because it must be. Who Edgar Cayce was, who Jane Roberts was, beyond the level of their consciousness, had to be part of the equation. Their participation was not limited to willingness and vocal cords.

Sure, I see that. Maybe that is why Seth used to refer to his channel as Rubert rather than as Jane, to remind Rob and the readers that there were more relationships and more on-going factors than met the eye.

So, you see, let this session serve as reminder – there can scarcely be too many, nor too often – that we are going for the deepest truths that can be brought forth, but that the depth has practical limits. It is so difficult to be confident that people will employ a rheostat rather than an on / off switch, will say “As true as I can find,” rather than either “there is no truth to find” or “it’s true because I know it is.” Of the two, it’s hard to say which is the greater pitfall. The one leads to irresponsible nihilism; the other leads to Psychic’s Disease or to irresponsible certainty. That doesn’t mean the task is impossible, only that it can be difficult, and has hazards.

So, after all these preliminaries, we can begin – a short beginning in the time left – and we will proceed when and how you wish, after that. As you intuited, Frank, it wasn’t exactly your ideas, though of course the whole idea of ownership of ideas is a little – well, strange. You own an idea insofar as you provide it a home, or let’s say as you recognize a kinship. But you do not originate one, any more than you give birth to a beloved kitten or puppy.

Pet ideas, I like that. Better than pet rocks, even.

And what makes you think that 3D individuals are not, in a sense, the pets of the ideas?

In the sense that people may be said to be owned by their cats or dogs?

If you were to look at the subject from the viewpoint of vast impersonal forces interacting with 3D structures, you’d see it as the ideas seeking and finding vessels to contain and express something of the idea’s essence.

Very interesting thought. (It must have been mine! J)

So, we’ve burned an hour on preliminaries. I can’t quite see where we did it, as we have filled only seven and a half pages, but would clocks lie? Last words?

We will begin with Pride, traditionally first and chief of the sins, but that doesn’t mean that other thoughts may not intervene [first].

Understood. Well, it’s all very interesting, and I see pretty clearly (not that I didn’t earlier) how much of a hedgehog I am, always worrying one bone. Till next time.