Thomas, Sayings 83, 84, and 85

Monday, July 15, 2019

2:05 a.m. Saying 83 from the Gospel of Thomas.

  1. Jesus said: The images are revealed to people. The light within them is hidden in the image of the Father’s light. He will be revealed. His image is hidden in the light.

I can’t make much of this as first blush. Your move.

Take it one sentence at a time, beginning with the meaning of the previous saying.

I think we left it as, you may be near the heart of things, or far from the state of being that Jesus lived in, depending. So, connecting that to this: “The images are revealed to people. The light within them” – what does “them” refer to? The images? The people? It makes a difference which.

I think I’m too ambitious, trying this so early, only I wasn’t sleeping well. But we can try again in a while, I guess.

4:50 a.m. Okay, trying again.

Just free-associate it, then look at what you produce and critique it. that’s one approach when you’re stalled.

Okay. Meaning, I take it, this way I don’t have to worry so much about getting it wrong, just produce something and see.

After all, by definition, ILC [Intuitive Linked Communication] is only partly you even at its least precise, its least connected. So freewheel it, and see.

Okay. Let’s put it this way: People see “the Father’s image” – which presumably they think of as God’s image – and this image, or versions of it, come to them. They are revealed to them, not “people seek and find them,” though I suppose that happens too. The majority of what they perceive overawes them, to the point that they don’t realize that what they are seeing is also they themselves. “The light within them is hidden in the image of the Father’s light.”

Yet “his image” – the Father’s – is “hidden in his light” but will be revealed.

You’re getting there. Now condense it.

As we learn more of who we are – I’m referring to non-3D aspects of ourself, our higher-self aspects – we may not recognize ourselves at first because of the grandeur of what we see.  Our part in it is hidden, not by design but, so to speak, because it is too good to be believed perhaps. At the same time, though we are part of it, it is so much greater than us. We may learn that we are a part of all that is, yet only a part. In other words, we are not merely worms, but we aren’t gods either, but something of either, or both, depending upon our point of view.

Fair enough. And, continuing?

Saying 84.

  1. Jesus said: You are pleased when you see your own likeness. When you see your images that came into being before you did, immortal and invisible images, how much can you bear?

My writing on the page from some past reading says, “`Past’ lives etc.”

And does that still ring true?

It is a horseback approximation, I suppose. Today I’d say, at first we are pleased because we realize that we are greater than we had thought, and this without psychic inflation of any sort, merely a matter of fact. But when we look more closely, or maybe I should say when more is revealed to us, when we are able to see more, we see that the “self” we primarily identify with is only a part of a larger self that is still far from any concept of divinity but is far greater than any particular soul. And to the extent that we acknowledge or recognize or are forced to recognize that these other souls of which we are a part have other values, other traits, many of which we may not share or even approve of, we are forced to stretch our self-tolerance (put it that way) well beyond our comfort zones.

Looking at that interpretation of Sayings 83 and 84, are you content?

It’s as good as I can do at the moment, anyway.

Then file this experience of doubt and blankness and their antidote as one more data-point in the process. When one is overwhelmed by a feeling of a responsibility greater than one can live up to, remember to treat it as only your own opinion, not “the word from on high,” not God or TGU or a line of angels swearing that you are right.

Yes, I do get it. It has been a recurrent struggle, though less of one than in the past.

So look at Saying 85 and see what we can make of it.

Curious phrasing, and I see why you put it that way. “We” because it isn’t merely any conscious 3D view, but neither it is your (or my non-3D) view unmoderated, given that it is modulated by passing through my 3D mind.

It is always that way, and anyone seeking advice or wisdom from their larger self or from their guardian angels, or from their undefined guys upstairs or their very specifically defined individuals they contact would be (will be) well advised to remember it. Certainty may be comforting (or the responsibility for producing it may be oppressive) but it is illusory. Communication always involves slippage. That is both a problem (involving the possibility of miscommunication) and an opportunity (allowing truth to slip in regardless of one’s perhaps firmly held wrong ideas or emotional obstacles.

So, Saying 85:

  1. Jesus said: Adam came into being from enormous power and wealth, but he was never worthy of you, for had he been worthy of you he would not have died.

The first part seems evident, the second part not evident, in fact not understandable.

Well, explain what you seem to understand.

Adam – taking “Adam” as our ultimate ancestor, as in the mythos from Genesis – brought to his 3D life all the resources of the larger non-3D world from which he was created. “Enormous power and wealth.” Presumably he entered without the luggage of past lives elsewhere, though come to think of it that is nowhere stated.

And, what you don’t [understand]?

What does “worthy of you” mean? What does it mean that if he had been “worthy of you” he would not have died? It implies that the disciples have something (beyond living at that moment) that Adam had not had, taking Adam as a real person and not a mythological symbol

Pursue that hint. What did the disciples of Jesus – those he was directly talking to, and those that would come in time – what did they have that Adam did not?

You’re going to have to help us here beyond pointing the way, I think.

Then sink into the phrase “worthy of you.” Recalibrate around that, and see. So, slow way down.

[I did.]

I begin to wonder if this is a mistranslation.

Your suggested alternative?

Something like, “worth imitating,” or “worth emulating.”

A little more. Try again.

Oh. I get the sense of it. Adam – symbol or perhaps real human ancestor; it hardly matters which – came in with such potential, but the disciples would find Adam insufficient as an example and even as a resource. They were in some way beyond him.

Yes, and you can hardly expect that to mean that “progress” or “evolution” had enabled them to surpass him, so what does it mean that if he had been worthy of them (had been a worthy example to emulate) “he would not have died”?

It must mean that they had something – or that Adam had overlooked or lost or never had something – that would have let him live. Does this mean that Adam did not become immortal, did not crystallize?

If you think of “Adam” as a symbol it may be easier, less shocking, for you to consider. The 3D soul that was Adam certainly continued after that 3D life ended, so what can this mean?

Cayce, I think it was, claimed that Jesus was the reincarnated Adam, out to fulfill his mission and atone for his error in not following his divine promptings. And that’s one thing that has always bothered me about this kind of exploration: People say so many things, often mutually contradictory, sometimes self-contradictory, and always with certainty.

Yes, but your irritation aside, and without worrying about whose word you might contradict, what might it mean, that Adam “would not have died”? In what sense did he die; in what sense might he not have died, for you may presume that Jesus was not suggesting that Adam might have lived one 3D life without an end.

Maybe the Adam lacked a permanent on-3D existence because he did not crystallize but diffused among us all.

That’s closer. Keep going.

We all have two aspects – our personal lives and our lives as they interact with everyone around us. If we look at our personal lives as if the world were divided into “me” and “not-me,” that 3D and non-3D soul might attain eternal (or relatively eternal, who knows?) life through the process of becoming    fixed; having one “I” acquire dominion over all the other “I”s that Gurdjieff describes as contending within.

But it we look at our souls as communities that do not and can not and never could exist in isolation (for there is no such possibility, any more than for us to live breathing only our own air), then there is no fixed soul to achieve in any meaningful way that does not involve us all. And perhaps that was Adam’s role and fate and even, perhaps, Adam’s choice.

Bearing in mind that some of this is speculation (good, worthwhile speculation, but speculations nonetheless), this is a good understanding, and a place to pause.

Okay. Till next time, then. Our thanks as always.


TGU — habit patterns and the other side

August 25, 2007, continuing

7 PM. All right. Are there residual emotions on the other side? Surely it can’t be as chilly as it has been described to us.

It isn’t that we don’t have the habit systems formed by our emotional reactions while we were still alive there. It’s that we don’t have similar conditions here to cause us to react in the same way to new phenomena/stimuli/events choose one.

So, we can’t get jealous now, but if we are in a mind that we shaped in a lifetime of jealousy, the habitual expression is still there.

A little hard to sort that out. You mean, I think I hear you say, that new events won’t reshape your mental or emotional habits.

That’s right. That’s why it’s so important to work on yourself while you’re alive and you can’t change. Choosing, just as you’ve been told.

I see that and it makes sense. So if you go over and you have a lifetime of feeling angry, you will react angrily to the same kinds of things?

You’re the leopard can’t change his spots, right.

I started to get this the other day and forgot it. I was thinking of hoods, I think. Going over to the other side, they’d still be hoods, with those emotions and values, which aren’t mine.

Yes, except you are part of a continuum and you do share those values, or you share

I’m sorry, I tried to correct you in mid-sentence. You were saying?

You share a lot of traits that you disapprove of. Everyone does. We’re all part of the same battle.

So this is a restatement of the Christian mythos of the universal struggle between good and evil.

That’s right. It isn’t fiction just because it’s myth.

And all this circles back to where we began today – it is up to me to come up with concepts and diagrams to show the parallels.

Nothing will work better, or as well, as diagrams explaining text and text explaining diagrams, both

All right. Is a big task and I don’t feel particularly equal to it. So much that I should know and don’t know.

Who is ever prepared as well as they might be? You do the best you can.

Thomas, Saying 81 and 82

Sunday, July 14, 2019

2:30 a.m. Last Sunday you concluded our look at Saying 81 by saying I should think about what it means to find “the body,” as in, “whoever has come to know the world has found the body.” And the second part was, if you have found the body, the world is not worthy of you. When it came time to look at Saying 81, you basically blew me off because I hadn’t spent time on saying 80, pondering. That was Monday. But I can’t say I have given it much thought even yet.

  1. Jesus said: Whoever has come to know the world has found the body. Whoever has found that body, the world is not worthy of him.

Even though it is worthwhile to build your understanding by cumulating bits one at a time, you can give yourself permission to continue without understanding everything, as you did in reading In Search of the Miraculous [by P. D. Ouspensky]. You will miss some connections you might otherwise make, but in compensation, you will move on to other things that you wouldn’t otherwise get to, if you remained stalled until you figured out what you can’t figure out.

I sort of thought it was you saying “Figure that out before we continue.”

Yes, but if you can’t, or don’t, we can continue. Of course you could cease this exploration – or any exploration, or all exploration – any time you wished. It can’t be forced.

Well, let me just take a horseback guess at 80 and we can move on. I suppose knowing the world may mean experiencing the “external world,” the 3D/non-3D that we are a part of, and that is a part of us, but that seems to us “external,” that is, not under our control and not part of our particular essence. And if we take the exterior to be “the body,” perhaps that is meant to be opposed to “the mind” or “the spirit,” which is what we experience as internal, as the “us” of us.

If so, then anybody who comes to know the external world has moved to another plane of being, and is no longer subject to the same level of constraints that apply to those who think external reality is external rather than experienced as external.

Was that so hard?

No guarantees, I understand, that this is right, just a way to see it.

No guarantees for anything, any time. But you do what you can, and the very act of pondering produces changes. Now we may proceed to Saying 81, keeping 80 in mind.

  1. Jesus said: Whoever has become rich should rule. Whoever has power should renounce it.

I suppose “having become rich,” in context, may mean having realized that all that “external” world is actually part of us, and we are not contingent, even accidental, bit-players. But – rule what? Or, rule whom?

How about, “Rule yourself”? That is, remembering that you remain a community, though now realizing that the community of you is vastly larger than you had suspected, the part of the community that is most aware naturally should guide the being. Would you rather be guided by a steersman who is asleep, or half-blind?

Then what does “power” in this same saying refer to? It isn’t power over others, is it? (What others?) and it isn’t’ power over oneself, I’d imagine; at least I can’t see why one would need to renounce it.

What if it is more like saying, “Lay the burden down”?

Interesting thought. Coupled with the first sentence – as is clearly the intention here – it suggests that it’s one thing to come to an extended awareness, another to attempt to use that awareness for personal ends.

Very good.

Thank you.

Saying 82, you see, builds upon this too. What does it mean for one to be near to Jesus, or far from Jesus?

  1. Jesus said: Whoever is near to me is near the fire. Whoever is far from me is far from the Kingdom.

Near the fire, far from the kingdom. Implied contrast here, implied comparison of the fire and the kingdom. I presume it isn’t redundant, as I presume that no word choice is arbitrary or careless. “The fire” seems to imply the heart of things. “The kingdom” seems to imply a state of being; at least, that’s what I have been taking it to signify.

But what of the meaning of being closer to or farther from Jesus?

Could mean many things. Mentally, emotionally, in conduct, but I don’t think any of these, or maybe I should say I don’t think any of these only.

What would it mean to be close to the state of being that Jesus embodied?

Well, I was inching toward that idea. I can’t believe he meant, “Who believes in me,” or even, “who believes what I believe” is closer to him. I don’t think it is a matter of faith, the way Christians have come to think it means. Surely it has to be based in experience. Faith may be very helpful in keeping you on the path when you can’t see or feel your way, but I don’t see that blind faith has much to do with having life more abundantly. Although, I suppose it may if it preserves one from falling into fear.

So, in context, what would it mean to be near to or far from Jesus’ state of being?

Didn’t he say, in words that Christians editors neglected to censor, that others would be able to do as he did, and even more? That is, didn’t he say there was not a qualitative difference between him and his followers (and their followers, etc.), but more that he was walking ahead showing by example?

There you go.

So, “the fire”; “the kingdom”?

Your take on it is close enough. if any need more clarity on it, let them sink into themselves and ponder it.

I intended to proceed to Saying 83, but as I read it is see I am not fresh enough to give it the apprehension it requires.

What we’ve done here is enough. we aren’t n the clock, and we face no particular deadlines.

Oaky. Thanks as always. Next time.


America’s Long Journey: The Ratification campaign

The Ratification campaign

Originally the convention was to have proposed revisions of the existing Articles of Confederation. But everybody knew that if the new Constitution were adopted, the former colonies would be embarking on uncharted waters. For that to happen, nine states – two-thirds of the 13 – would have to call conventions that voted to ratify. To put it another way, any five states could kill it by declining to ratify.

A prime weakness of the Confederation government was the need for unanimity. In practice, that meant that nothing that any one State objected to could be done. And that, in turn, meant that the Confederation lived on borrowed time. Nobody knew it better than the members of that Congress, so they decided – unanimously, by some miracle – to leave the decision to the states.

Then followed the process of ratification, State by State, in convention, and it didn’t come easy. Historians have guessed that the public was divided pretty evenly when the debates started.

Everybody knew that if any two of four states — Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia — rejected the proposed Constitution, it would probably come to nothing, regardless if the other states approved. And some heavy hitters were opposed. Thomas Paine, for one. In Massachusetts, Samuel Adams. In New York, Governor George Clinton and the whole state machinery. In Virginia, Patrick Henry. But the Federalists were not exactly helpless. In Massachusetts, John Adams. In New York, Hamilton. In Pennsylvania, Franklin, and in Virginia, Madison.

And towering over them all, the man who had presided at the convention, George Washington.

The Federalists argued that ratification was necessary to fix the obvious inadequacies of the Confederation government. To continue under a government that couldn’t make decisions except unanimously, and couldn’t even prevent the various states from each issuing its own currency would be to drift to disaster and dissolution, followed by – what? No one cared to guess.

The Anti-federalists viewed the strong central government outlined in the Constitution as a threat to liberty and a betrayal of the Revolution. They worried what would happen to the powers of the states, and argued cogently that the Constitution lacked a bill of rights.

The struggle over ratification was intense and bitter, but in every state, the Federalists were more united, and more used to working with politicians on a national level.

The turning point of the campaign probably came in Massachusetts, when Hancock and Samuel Adams negotiated a compromise: The convention would ratify, and delegates would recommend amendments to be considered by the new Congress. The Massachusetts compromise determined the fate of the Constitution, as it permitted delegates with doubts to vote for it in the hope that it would be amended. All subsequent state conventions but Maryland’s recommended amendments as part of their decisions to ratify.

And so it was done. One interesting and under-reported fact, if indeed it is fact, and not merely appearance: The smaller states, which one might have expected to be the most fearful of incorporation into a stronger central government, by and large were among the first signers, while Virginia and New York, which one might have thought would expect to extend their influence in a larger union, were far more hesitant. Nonetheless, the die was cast.

The ratifications, in the order in which they took place:


Delaware (Dec. 7), Pennsylvania (Dec. 12), New Jersey (Dec. 18)


Georgia (Jan. 2) Connecticut (Jan. 9)

Massachusetts (Feb. 6)

Maryland (April 28)

South Carolina (May 23)

New Hampshire, the crucial ninth state needed (June 21), Virginia (June 25)

New York (July 26)

Voting ratification after the new government was already functioning:

North Carolina (November 21, 1789)

Rhode Island (May 29, 1790)

It had been a long and hard-fought struggle, which in itself, perhaps, had encouraged people to look beyond the limits of their state, and come a step closer toward thinking of themselves not as New Yorkers or Virginians but as Americans. Shared experiences will do that.


TGU — different gifts bring differnt opportunities

August 25, 2007

My friends, what was the dream I waked from? Or – what other would you like to talk about?

We prefer to talk about your mission, if you would.

All right.

You are happiest – anyone is – when the friction is least between your conscious life and your unconscious life. But what does that mean? It could be interpreted in various ways but here is one. It is time for the various analogies about the nature of man to come together when they are describing the same thing, and diverge when they are describing different things. At present they merely blur, or overlap, because it is not realized that they are alternate descriptions. Instead, each is in its own context and is not seen that the various schemes

Sort of got lost in a sense, trying to include so much. What usually happens, in fact.

Yes, you are our reducing-valve and sometimes the pipe gets clogged, eh?


Well, among others, yes.

David isn’t this a job for Dr. Jung?

Not really, for a couple of reasons. One, your excessive respect. Two, it would force the discussion into only one context, as Gurdjieff, say, would force it into another.

So, will you try again?

We will, always. Will you? Not just Frank, you understand.

I do. Will anyone reading this?

Well, even larger – wider – than that: Will any given person, when prompted by us, respond?

Opening this book “at random” I see the frustrated entry of August 10. Same thing, eh?

Eh? You’re picking up our ways.

I say it sometimes.

Yes, just having you on. Yes, same subject.

Well, let’s try again.

If the nature of mankind in the world is again seen in an integrated manner, through a cultural viewpoint that is broad enough, so many different pieces will fall into place. The anxiety of your times is the unbearable tension of a world that doesn’t make sense except in bits.

So – a scientist can make sense of the world if he or she sticks to seeing it through the world of science.

No, I know where you’re going – we’ve tried before to do this – but it hasn’t worked, probably for the same reason as what you’re trying to overcome.

Diagrams, parallel charts. It can’t perhaps be done merely with words.

Alright, I get it – and my task is to do the conscious thinking that will bring it through.

You tend to underestimate the computer-programmer side of you, the logical-puzzle-solver, the structurer. That skill is as necessary as being receptive to information, and is one reason why so many individuals doing this produce different flavors: each has a different blend of skills, it isn’t just that each comes from a different experience base, though that may sound like the same thing. So – use those skills. As in all other things in life, bring to this everything that you are, seemingly relevant or not. You will be surprised when you consciously do so, how much richer things are.

This implies that some information I can’t bring over but must distill from what I can bring over. So – I could bring over words and concepts perhaps but not generalizations or diagrams from them? Why should that be?

Different gifts, that’s all. Some people could bring over electrical diagrams, schematics, technical information of all sorts. But do you have that informational backload, that technical familiarity, so that enough could be skipped – elided – to make it possible to bring it through without an impossible volume? If we had to first explain what a computer is, and a resistor, and explain every concept building-block by building-block, how far do you think we’d get? If we had to give you the background to the Civil War, and explain personage by personage – you see? It couldn’t really be done. Just as you can’t know everything consciously, so you can’t act as a very efficient conduit of everything.

And this is also how errors get in.

Certainly. And how self-accusations of making it up as you go along come in.

Dana? Did I just hear you, when I thought of your having to learn quantum mechanics?

Theory, yes. Hello.

It took you long enough – or me long enough – or both of us long enough. I’d given up hearing from you.

You will notice how clearly you can hear the “flavor” of me in your mind.

Yes indeed. I don’t have to wonder if you’re one of the guys. How are you? I’m trying to remember how long ago you died, and can’t. It seems very long ago.

May. But go look

April 14, according to my desk calendar.

April, May – time isn’t that important on your side, never mind on this side!

It’s the kind of thing I’d worry about in the past, but it doesn’t much signify, does it?

Ask yourself the date of significant events in your life and you won’t remember that many. Birthdays. Weddings, maybe. Divorces, sometimes! But what day did you quit a job or graduate a school or move to another address?

Yes, I get it.

So go do other things. I’m here when you concentrate again.

Smallwood on making pottery

Thursday, August 23, 2007

Joseph [Smallwood], my friend, what’s up with you? I’m trying to get your story out.

And trying your hand at made work again. Fun, ain’t it? [Joseph said in his day they called things that were fashioned “made work.”]

Did you do stuff like that? Clay or something?

Did a little wood working to pass the time sometimes. You’d call it somewhere between scrimshaw and whittling, I expect. Remember how you were fascinated by the book about the mountain man in Tennessee who made so many things out of wood?

Alex Stewart. Had to dredge for the name. Yes I do. Drew up resonances, did it?

Well, it did, a little. Whittling or cutting handy little contrivances for camp life is a different thing from throwing pots or painting but you can see that it has its points of resemblance.

I can feel it more than conceptualize it.

Sure, and where do you suppose that feeling is coming from, but something welling up from within ? It happens all the time, to everybody, but mostly it goes unnoticed. I mean, the cause does, the feeling is sometimes felt sometimes unnoticed.

I reviewed that book going on 20 years ago. It gave me vague yearnings to do the same thing, but I never acted on them, and knew somehow that it wasn’t practical.

You remember Dion Fortune says it’s enough for the subconscious that you “show willing” as she puts it? That’s why. It’s a sort of acknowledgment, a bringing that into the light of day. Hard to explain why it’s important but it is. It’s a good thing to do.

I’ve reached a nice time in my life.

You’re doing what you always felt, just like young Churchill practicing oratory or young Lincoln feeling his way towards doing the thing that would make his name immortal. I don’t mean that you’re going to be famous, I mean that your real task in life echoes through your earlier years although you can’t understand what the echoes are saying. Until you get to that place, you aren’t comfortable, then you are, even if that place is the middle of a war.

I guess I couldn’t have gotten here any earlier.

All paths are open, all paths are good, you know that. Everything has its compensation as Emerson pointed out. Win something here, you lose something there. It’s just the way it is.

Well, it’s always good to talk to you. Unless you have something special for me, I guess I’ll go hang out at the pottery and study glazes.

Go ahead. Just don’t forget what you want to accomplish with your books – but you would do better with them if you get away from them sometimes. And pottery is as good a way as any.

Joyce on accomplishment and living

Friday, August 10, 2007

5:45 a.m. somehow frittered away three quarters of an hour doing — what?? Story of my life, that.

Joyce, where do I go from here? If psychic powers and abilities aren’t an end in themselves – and clearly they aren’t, any more than anything else is – and if no form of external achievement is my focus –

You did notice that when external achievement was described on the C. G. Jung film you watched last night, it was described as a masculine trait. That is, it is one way to approach the world. It is not everything, and in fact may not be anything important next to other things one accomplishes in life. It is what is noticed, and is not unimportant in itself, only it may be less important than the opportunity costs it incurs.

I can’t see you choosing “opportunity costs” as a phrase, so I assume you pulled that out of my economics class background.

You pulled it out, I selected it. You could see the process that way. But that isn’t what is to the point here.

Rita said your and my session yesterday was therapy.

What else do you need more? And what else am I uniquely trained to give you, love?

Jung said cures come from a therapist – what he or she is rather than knows, and I believe it from experience on both ends.

You still yearn for accomplishment that can be stacked on a shelf or listed. But you have already accomplished so much! Didn’t you hear Michael tell you, twice, how many people you have helped in your career? You automatically discount that because you did it – but don’t you value that trait in others?

Yes I do. I value other kinds of accomplishments too, though.

If you could believe it, and really mean “too” instead of “instead” you would be better satisfied with your life.

Yes, I suppose so. To me it has the flavor of apology – “I didn’t accomplish anything that I thought I would, but I did help some people.”

It is the roots of that flavor of apology that are the problem. A long time ago – you were in family therapy with Bob Kelly – he pointed out that you were placing so much stress on writing a book that it distorted your day and made it impossible to write the book. You’re not so one sided now, and you have had vastly more experience, but you’re still doing it.

I don’t know how to not do it, save perhaps to just give up.

No, that isn’t true. You have gradually learned how to not do it – you took walks in the woods, you take photos, you sculpt, and you have always read – your brother even introduced you, years ago, to the fine art of “hanging out.” Only – you still cling to the “should be writing” idea, partly out of hope of earning money and partly out of lack of imagination, if I may say so. When you just were in England – it hadn’t occurred to you, had it, until I just started to say this – you had to learn just to enjoy yourself without reading or writing.

Huh! Interesting.

Yes, isn’t it?