TGU on a dream and Jane Roberts and the path ahead

Thursday, April 22, 2021

5:40 a.m. Malk? Not only do I now know what malk is supposed to mean, now I’ve lost the dream context. But it was very clearly malk, not mall. And in the dream I was driving very fast – too fast, leaving too little space between myself and others. I cut in to the right, the car ahead of me was too close, was stopping, I cut out to the left, then I was seeing from above my body, and realized I was in a massive car wreck in process. Then I was parked on the left shoulder, and the car was either unharmed or was harmed only slightly, but there had been this massive 70-something-car pileup along six or seven lanes of this freeway. I wish I could remember what “malk” means, or what its context was.

A little help, here?

You often describe your life as a train wreck; this is a pileup. You didn’t cause the pileup, but you were moving too fast, cutting too close, for safety even in ordinary conditions. The fact that you escaped uninjured and unhurt – if you did – would be inexplicable good fortune.

Oh, I got the sense of being dead and not yet realizing it – the out-of-body perspective, the inexplicable segue from being in the middle lanes while things were piling up to suddenly being at rest on the side of the road. Is that what this was describing? A sudden end? Or driving with insufficient caution? And what is malk and what was the context?

The better the question, the better the answer.

What’s wrong with the questions? I am asking, what is the meaning.

There are better questions, such as Why this dream now?

Consider it asked that way.

You have been reading about Jane Roberts’ final days, skipping ahead to see where she died, and being somewhat disappointed that Rob Butts kept his privacy about her final time and his reaction.

All about death, yes, I see.

An appropriate follow-up question, should you choose to ask it, is, What is Jane Roberts and her experience to me? Why am I drawn to it?

All right. And – ?

Beyond the obvious – her exploration, her long interaction with Seth (and, by the way, her even longer interaction with Rob!) – is this: She was an artistic person interacting with the world, a situation that has its difficulties. You may learn something about yourself as much from the differences between your situations as from the similarities.

Such as.

Well, such as that she chose not to have physical children, concentrating instead on the children of her mind and spirit. Such as that she and Rob worked together, and that her explorations formed a common bond between then, rather than separating her from him. Such as that her work met success and was intended to, even though the extent of that success (1) at first escaped their attention, and then (2) surpassed their expectations and almost their belief. Such as that she moved down a dark path that constricted her, and him, increasingly, until her only way out was to leave the 3D entirely. Such as that she didn’t even have to give thought to who would carry on her work and give it a firm foothold in the world, because they both knew that Rob would continue to be her rock  after her life as he had been during it.

Yes, that’s interesting, and does throw light on my life by reflection. But I’m pretty sure there is something to be learned from that dream that we haven’t gotten to. Given that I don’t know the proper question to phrase, I fall back on “what would I ask if I had enough sense to know what to ask.”

A part of your mind is asking: Am I nearly out of time? Am I driving too fast, too recklessly? Is a huge pileup about to happen?

And of course a better question is, What should I be doing right now? What should I be aware of, conscious of, oriented to, right now?

A better question any time, yes. If you are about to be involved in a major car wreck not of your own making, slowing down and driving carefully won’t necessarily save you from it, but it certainly won’t make anything any worse. In other words, it is the safe thing. It is, to coin a phrase, “Common sense,” regardless how uncommon in practice. But maybe you would be better if you weren’t on that road at all.

Competition? I suddenly get the racing down the road, cutting in and out of lanes, as a metaphor for competition. But is that it?

You do remember? (We smile, as obviously at the moment you do not. At the moment you are forgetting): Symbols never have any one meaning. They are always seed-pods, packed with more than any one potential. What you can find is well and good; there will always be more to be found.

Seems to me you are being unnecessarily (and irritatingly) cryptic. Both, then? Impending pile-up and a description of competition?

It is – or could be taken to be – a description of competition as experienced by you. Certainly not by a John F. Kennedy or a Hemingway, or by any who thrive and derive energy from competition. Your attitude

Is more tike Jane Roberts had! I get that.

It is a different path entirely, you see, calling for different skills and different attitudes, leading to different results.

But I had the sense that the pileup wasn’t my fault, even though I wasn’t helping matters by my aggressive driving. It had started far in front of me.

Not a question of fault but of consequences. Is the middle of a pileup where you want to be?

So stay off the superhighway.

Or if you find yourself there, at least drive very differently, leaving yourself reaction time, and room to bail out of an emerging situation.

Now, are we talking about a social situation – a massive currency inflation, say, or a civil uprising, or something? A war, even?

Let us put it this way, and we ask that you and any who read this slow down and hear this carefully.

Recalibrate. Okay.

What you call “hard times” continue to concatenate. Things don’t get easier, as you don’t go backwards in your ability to cope with them; they get harder, as you move through what must be experienced for you to arrive beyond them. Please re-read that sentence carefully, allowing yourselves to reflect what it may possibly refer to.

“Hard times” manifest in various ways to various people, depending upon who and what they are. Remember, the “external” world will give you what you are, because that is what will resonate in your life. What may be a problem to someone else may be seemingly nonexistent to you, because you have no need for it, no need to grapple with that particular aspect of life. But what may be nonexistent (functionally) to others may be a big thing to you, because it represents something you do need to grapple with.

But the common thread is that “hard times” can’t be avoided, even though they come in seemingly different forms.

They can’t be avoided, and – this may be a new thought – they shouldn’t be avoided; in fact, you shouldn’t want to avoid them, but should welcome them as you welcome any new day. Like the rest of your life, they do not arrive “at random.”

Final thoughts I should consider about my dream?

You wanted to know what the dream is telling you. It says, “Stay awake! Stay aware!” And it says, by implication, “If you don’t want to be in the middle of a huge pileup, don’t get on that road, or, if you have to be on it, drive conservatively and hope for the best.

Which we do by staying awake.

No, there’s a nuance you aren’t getting. Given certain circumstances, you pass a point of no return.

Ah! That’s Jane Roberts’ situation! Somehow she went too far into illness, and the only way out was through it, into non-3D.

That sentence contains many wrong assumptions and errors of interpretation, but you do have the nub of it: You can wind up with no way out. This is not necessarily a good thing or a bad thing. But you see, here is another connection to you reading about Jane Roberts and your having a dream that at first seems entirely unconnected to her.

Then to finish the statement you began to make –

If you don’t want to wind up in a certain place, a certain situation, it would be well to move out of it before you reach the point of no return.

And this statement will mean different things to different people, depending on where they are in life.

It is never any different. There’s no way else it could be.

Okay, well, thanks very much. Or – something else?

Only that we wouldn’t like to leave this with a penumbra of doom hanging over it. This is not about doom but about fate, which is a far different thing.

You can’t leave us with that. A bit more, please.

What is fate (that is, what can’t be avoided because of the net weight of so many decisions by so many people over so long a time) may at first blush look pleasant or not, survivable or not, fortunate – even heavenly – or not. What is common, always, is that from your own perspective, you are the center of its meaning. You aren’t the center of what unfolds, but from your point of view it necessarily unfolds as if you are the center. This is how it must be, by the nature of things. So, when what comes to you arrives, greet it as a friend; from your point of view (or rather, when viewed in relation to your life) it was fashioned specifically for you. It is, in a sense, a gift, even if often a difficult one. It is not a mistake, certainly not a punishment, not an accident.

And that is enough for the moment.

All right, thanks again, and we’ll see you next time. (6:50)

 

TGU on faith in life

Wednesday, April 21, 2021

10 a.m. I see I was losing perspective. I am diagnosed with a couple of ailments, one of them cancerous tumors, and I continue calmly with my life, because I trust life, and the situation calls for me to just live, trusting, and do whatever common-sense things the doctors prescribe. But I publish Papa’s Trial and I am led to press, to worry, to think I have to make things happen because the situation calls for me to interact with the outside world, and that is never very easy for me.

But then, like grace from God, in the middle of the night I remember, Trust. Either we trust or we don’t. We may alternate between the two, but there isn’t any stable middle position between them.

So, guys – comment?

Mainly, we are glad you listened, for your own sake and for the sake of the example that you will set, one way or the other.

Well, it’s hard to stay awake all the time. We nod off and don’t realize it until something nudges us, something internal or external.

Internal or external, so-called.

Understood.

If you don’t have a destination, any direction is the right direction. But if you want to get somewhere, you need to be traveling toward it. This means a little more than it may seem to at first.

I’m listening.

It’s easy to live in faith if you are oaky with whatever comes. It’s a little harder if you start hedging: “I trust life, but cancer would be unacceptable,” or “but I want my portfolio protected,” or, “but I have to keep my job.” And so on and so forth. But even if one learns to live in faith at that level, there’s always another level. In your case, “but I want my books to succeed,” or even a more detailed specification, such as sales of X number, etc.

I understand the concept of the spiral as opposed to the circle. We keep revisiting the same issues, only in different form according to how we ourselves have changed.

Certainly. Teenagers don’t do first-grade schoolwork. Nor is it any kind of failure that the teen has more complicated problems. It is what you should expect.

I really do get that. The only reason I was starting to feel pressed was that I forgot, for the moment, that it is a matter of trust.

And you may have been influenced by other peoples’ opinions of what you should be doing, as you guessed them (i.e. their opinions), or should we say, as you interpreted their smoke signals.

That too.

So live in faith, doing what you know to do, and are inspired to do, and as you do even when you are not sure if it is right or wrong for you.

And I realize that, as usual, this applies not to myself alone.

It applies to anyone wanting to live in faith so that they may have life more abundantly.

Our thanks as always.

 

True then, true now

Tuesday, April 20, 2021

7 a.m. Some things never change, or let’s say, they don’t change unless we change, and even then, they come around again as another turn on the spiral. This from my journal of April 5, 1996 probably applies to a lot of people besides me:

[April 5, 1996

[Gentlemen, any words to the wise for this depressed gentleman?

[The words are that you are as you are, and that’s what you wanted to become. As Neale {Donald Walsch, the author of the Conversations with God books} would say – or as God had Neale say, choose one – or don’t choose at all, to be more accurate. Your choice every moment is, “What do I want to be this minute?” Which is always under your control to the extent that you remain conscious. Externals act as prods, only and always. If you read Lanny Budd or watch “Casablanca” or sit watching trees vibrate to the wind and the moment, you are still on the so-called inside reacting to things on the so-called outside.

[Is there something particular I can do right now to improve things?

[You can right now – always right now, and only right now – determine to exist right now as a fully conscious being, aware of inside and outside influences, not identifying. Observing the tides. All the angst about who you are, where you are going, what’s going to happen – etc. – is useless as you know. Self-indulgent. Contradictory. So – forget all that horseshit, as the book {Alexander’s Feast} you love so well says.]

Verb sap., but easy to forget.

TGU on choosing our paths

Monday, April 19, 2021

4:25 a.m. Re-reading The Making of the President 1960 after all these years is as interesting as rereading Schlesinger was. I was, I suppose, no more than 19 when I read it, still full of anguish. I would have been interested primarily in the story of how JFK struck for power. I doubt I would have understood much of the rest of it – White’s masterful description of the country’s political structure – at the time. Certainly I read it differently than I would have read it after having my own brief electoral experience. Hard to remember the “how” of it, but within another ten years, wholly unprepared, still quite ignorant of what would be required, I too had run for Congress, with mostly my brother for support. It didn’t take long to realize that this was not many kind of life I wanted – but having started, I had to continue until the primary voting would free me from further responsibility. What a very naïve boy I was. Yet, oddly, following that wrong path for so many wrong reasons led to everything I was to do, in totally different fields.

[TGU:] Do you want our opinion?

Always. Or at least – J – usually.

Everything you did out of internal compulsion helped you do what you set out to do before you even had a body. Yet had you chosen not to do any of it, or had you abandoned ship in mid-effort, your external life might have gotten harder, or even easier, but you would still have found your way to this connection provided you didn’t let “common sense” drown out the quiet internal guidance that led you to prefer this to that, to instinctively prefer A to B to C.

And as usual you are talking to others through me. I get that, and in fact I usually assume it, though I don’t always say it.

Your friend DW says we keep expressing his own situation, and so have others said the same thing, and we say to them merely, “You are aware of it, and it strikes you. but our words are equally appropriate for many others who do not become aware of it.” But this is not something peculiar to us talking to you. We, or our equivalents, talking to anyone would have application to others, if the talk were recorded; if the advice were heeded.

I’ve worked on that assumption, too. We’re all one thing, in a way.

So – to continue – when you make choices in life, different kinds of people make them in different ways, and this is fine; there is nothing wrong with diversity, and a good deal right with it. But those who try to live exclusively by “common sense” and logic will find extensive reinforcement from the outside world. Those who try to live by following intuition and feelings will have a harder time finding similar reinforcement. They will need select communities if they are to find any reinforcement at all. Fortunately much of that kind of reinforcement can be virtual – but not all of it. You must have at least one person who believes in you in this context. Only, live in faith that that need will be met, if you are able to live that way.

You mean, I think, if we are able to live in such a way as to believe that what we need will be provided.

Isn’t that what we just said?

I didn’t want there to be any ambiguity in how people took it. You are saying in this as in other things, live in faith.

Yes indeed.

You don’t always get what you want. We might almost say you don’t usually get what you want. But as the song says, you get what you need.

Doesn’t the song say we “just might” get what we need?

Regardless, we say, you will get what you need unless you actively or passively insist on not receiving it. And even in such case, what you need will continue to be available whenever you are willing to accept it. Of course, what it is may change as you choose, but it will be there.

I don’t doubt it.

No, but you did, before you learned better.

Oh yes, and I felt very alone in the world. Thank God for my brother, I always said (and say yet), who believed in me. That was more than I could always do for myself.

If we could only convince you! (You all, of course.) What you need, there it is. What you get is what you need as you are. If you want other, you need to change who you are, but that is all you need to do. If you need help from the universe, step out of the way.

Does that apply to Papa’s Trial? Said with a straight face – I’m not twitting you – yet said in confidence, as well, and in a lot of perplexity.

Yes, and let’s parse that.

  • Confidence, because you know from experience and faith, All is well.
  • Perplexity, because what you think should happen doesn’t, and, even more,
  • Who you are, what you do or even want to do, don’t seem to match the situation within.
  • And mostly – and the important part of this discussion – there is as always the question of “What is guidance saying” as opposed to “What are robots or bad assumptions saying?” That is, can you trust this or that internal tendency.

Particularly the latter. If we could trust every impulse to be divinely inspired, so to speak, life would be easy. But to live like that would be to live subject to Psychic’s Disease, I think. Yet to discern among threads is not so easy.

We never promised easy. In fact, as we have said in other contexts, you shouldn’t expect “easy” because you would be bored, as a teenager would be bored by a child’s simpler problems.

We’re between two extremes. Live in faith, but don’t live on automatic pilot, giving up the power of choice and decision even to what may be a “higher power,” because it may be a complex, instead.

Nor is that a design flaw in the pattern of life. It is an inherent difficulty, but a productive one.

So, when it comes to promoting Papa’s Trial and we have no real clue how to do it – what?

Discern among motives. Is there something you feel you should do that feels like too much work, or feels repugnant, or useless? That may be a dilemma. But if there are things you can do, and you do them, how can you lose? If there are things you should refrain from doing, and you do refrain – again, how can you lose? If is only in the areas of confusion that your dilemma resides.

Sure. So how do we sort our motives out?

How do you ever?

The best we can do is to be as conscious as possible, I suppose.

But how do you examine?

I try talking to you.

There are worse approaches. But we rarely tell you what to do, if you haven’t noticed.

I’m sure it seems that way to you, and it is true in terms of “Do this,” or “Do that.” But you usually try to keep me on the strait and narrow, I notice.

How do you examine?

I was about to say, I “feel” my way. But that doesn’t take us any farther from Psychic’s Disease, does it?

Here we would have to depart from our preferred policy of generalizing from your situation for the sake of others as well. What suits you will not suit everybody.

I don’t see why you can’t proceed, with that caveat.

There is too much risk of being misunderstood. Nearly a certainty, in fact, because so little can be said clearly using words. You know the difference between the promptings of your better nature and your worse nature (to put it that way), but knowing is not the same as being able to put it into words. Well, same with us. Some things can’t be said.

Can’t be said without being misunderstood?

Yes, but not because we can’t put it clearly; because the subtlety of life eludes your net.

So, in practice –

“You do the best you can.” You don’t expect perfection of yourself or of others, and neither do you settle into complacency.

Does any of this actually help anybody? Myself included.

You shouldn’t ever underestimate the supportive nature of finding out that one’s own experience is not peculiar to oneself but is widespread, even natural. It removes a layer of difficulty, allowing the person to address the difficulty remaining without first having to battle through a perception of personal failure, or of personal entanglement.

And there’s your hour.

Our thanks as always.

 

TGU on listening

Sunday, April 18, 2021

8:15 p.m. Going through old journals reminds me of things long forgotten, overlain by other things. But this entry could have been written for all of us today, particularly those still learning to trust talking to guidance:

[Monday, February 12, 1996

[My friends, you are calling?

[We are. Isn’t it interesting you would open your journal and sit blankly, not knowing why you opened it up, having nothing to say – then wait for us instead of closing it again? It is just this level of awareness and responsiveness that – lacking – is so frustrating to those who would help you – all of you – moment by moment, day by day. For very often you – all of you – will either disregard or not-hear – and sometimes you will put great effort into not-hearing – suggestions on our part. Or you will go far enough as to open a journal (to use this as an example) but then will close it again when you ask “Why am I doing this?” So – be comforted; you have come a certain distance even in your most seemingly trivial, that is, your least focused-on, manifestations. Now then, to the subject….]

 

TGU on how to use old journals

Sunday, April 18, 2021

4:10 a.m. While I wait for inspiration on how to bring Papa’s Trial to people’s attention, let’s turn to the question Louis posed last week, about how I can use the material to be found in my journals. He specifically wanted me to ask you, and I think it’s a good idea. So – ?

You realize, in effect you are saying, “Enough about my last project, let’s look at the next.”

I specifically chose to ask about Papa’s Trial first, last Monday.

You asked about success, not quite the same question. And, speaking of questions, would you care to recalibrate and ask today’s question as carefully as you can?

All right. [Did]

I have been keeping a journal since 1966. Its purpose has changed as I and my life have changed, but at least the past 30 years of it include many thoughts and insights and potential jumping-off places that I should hate to leave unused. Is there a way to mine that material? Are their habits and techniques and perhaps even tools I could use to make it more possible to do so?

A better question, you see, reminding you that your interest here is in practical tools, rather than, say, ideas for essays or whatever.

I do see it, and it is techniques that Louis was suggesting I ask for.

You have vaguely thought, over the years, that you should type it all up, but not only is the volume of work required impossible, neither would it solve your problem. You would then have a shelf of typed impenetrable material instead of handwritten impenetrable material. So then, you thought of indexing, in the way Emerson complied index after index, and then indexes of indexes, and this too seemed beyond doing. You try re-reading or even skimming, and even there, a list of what you want to deal with is huge – or would be, if you followed the impulse very far.

All very true. But given that I start at #49, around the time of Gateway, I am presently on #132. Even though a good deal of all those pages  consists of dialogues like this one, and so could be silently skipped over, there’s still an enormous bulk to be used, if only I could get to it.

In retrospect, you see how good an impulse it was, to type each day’s session that day, lest they accumulate and be lost.

Yes, and I wish I’d started doing that sooner. Can’t recall when I did start, really. In any case – techniques to use what I have?

Maybe it is too late. Have you considered that?

You know I have.

Maybe it is unnecessary. Have you considered that?

Unneeded, in that I incorporated the material into my life? Unneeded in that I wouldn’t have any greater success in getting it out than I have had so far?

We don’t say it is, we said, have you considered it? Really considered it, because if you have, you will have come to more clarity, in the way that negative space helps define a picture.

I get the strongest feeling that you don’t have a clue and don’t want to admit it.

Or possibly you are making us up.

Or that, at least at the moment.

You see the pattern here? Ask us about anything other than yourself, and you receive fluent replies. Ask us about the most intimate subject – yourself – and you do not. Why should that be? It isn’t fear of public exposure, because you aren’t doing this in public. If you didn’t want to type it up and sent it out, who could force you to? So why should you freeze – and it can hardly be us freezing – when you come to asking for information that might help you?

It seems to me I do that frequently, and usually get information.

Now pay attention to the background noise, so to speak.

Yes, the thoughts as we write this. I am remembering parts of the German film I saw the other night, “The Lives of Others,” a very interesting film.

And why should memories of that film be playing in the background as you try to get techniques to recover your past?

Is that what I’m doing?

Is it anything else?

I thought I was trying to get past information back into consciousness for possible use.

Which is trying to recover your past.

Hmm.

The writer in the film got to see the extensive dossiers the Stasi had kept on him. The Stasi officer who had saved him got to see the inscription in the book that thanked him anonymously. In neither case could a story have been recreated and understood using those reports. They were signposts, only, and could not have been more than that.

So, read them just to bring back those days, back into my mind.

Not exactly back into your mind. They were there, they are there, they will remain there. But let’s say to bring them to interact with your present-tense mind.

Which, however, moves, moment by moment.

Well, that’s always the case in 3D. That’s how you wind up with 100 books each written in the present and now representing a far country.

So maybe I need to do – or let’s say, have the opportunity to do – a Bronson Alcott?

[Alcott, a prodigious talker all his life, and also a prodigious journaler, was struck dumb in his old age, and spent the last year of his life rereading his journals in silence, first to last. He died right after finishing. I have thought, it must have been a sort of past-life review for him.]

It’s up to you.

Interesting. I can see that this removes the pressure immediately.

It is the difference between an overwhelming chore and a pleasant pastime.

It implies giving up having a goal.

So? Would that be the end of the world?

It would not. Sort of bittersweet, because much might have been made of all that material, but perhaps the train has left the station.

And perhaps there will be another train. You don’t know.

So your advice is, read and don’t worry about how to make use of it?

That is, let’s say, one option. Or you could try rereading and typing up what you find, but how well is that working for you?

Or I suppose I could read, make a semi-cryptic note on what’s there, and leave it at that.

Even that would be a sort of index, and it would be an index of only the things you noticed particularly. Not a bad halfway house, and you’ll notice that is exactly what you were doing until you had to stop to proofread Papa’s Trial once more.

Thanks as always. I don’t know where this leaves me, but it does clarify things a bit.

 

Circles of influence

Sunday, April 18, 2021

Last night I was thinking that you could measure the flow of individuals in and out of your life by creating a simple graphic and placing each name where it belonged. Theoretically this would show you who you knew at what times of your life. It might remind you of relationships you had long forgotten.

I don’t know that this graphic would actually do that, but I can see that it could give you a sense of the great number of people your life touched.

We swim in a sea of people. We know it intellectually, abstractly. This would show it visually, viscerally.

Draw it much like an outline of the solar system, with yourself as the center of your life. Then, in a series of concentric circles, place those you have interacted with:

  • Within the past week
  • Within the past month
  • Within the past three months
  • Within the past six months
  • Within the past year
  • Within the past five years
  • Within the past 10 years
  • Within the past 25 years
  • Within the past 50 years
  • At any time in your life before that.

Like so:

As I say, I don’t know that this would help us much to cluster particular people who were important in our lives at any given time, but certainly it ought to show how many people we have had as part of our lives, how many people’s lives we ourselves have touched.