Blog

Continuity in form and pattern

Friday, December 4, 2020

5:20 a.m. This email from Bob Washburne came more than three weeks ago. It is in two parts, the second of which perhaps we can address at another time. Guys, do you have anything to say about this interesting question?

[Bob Washburne 11-16-2020

[I have purchased and read all of your non-fiction books….  While trying to get my head around it all, I came up with a question for which I don’t see an obvious answer. Several times TGU tells us that the body is more of a colony than a unit with all of the major organs having their own minds and consciousness. I took this literally rather than allegorically – that the liver has its own mind and consciousness. But if that is the case, where does the liver go when the body dies?  Or the individual liver cells who each have their own minds and consciousness?  I am having trouble applying “As above, so below” to this one as the body per se doesn’t appear to extend beyond the lower astral.]

We do, as it happens. As you know, this is the kind of response we would encourage: He read, he pondered, he tried drawing inferences, and, failing to find a satisfying answer, he asks for clarification.

Yes. Rita’s method.

Hence your transient importance. While you are here, he can ask you to ask us. When you are not here, finding a source of connection may not be obvious, like someone seeking clarification from Seth, say. The information is still there; potential access is still there; plenty of people will be able to access the material both from your point of view and independently. But the question will be, How do you know who to listen to?

And the answer will be, you’ll just have to decide for yourself.

A more careful answer will be, “Righteous persistence brings reward.” It will be up to each one to hone the skill, just as it was for you. You did not learn to ape Cayce. You do not contact Seth, as far as you know. (We don’t mean, by that, that you are contacting Seth unknowingly, but that you are not reaching specifically for that particular source.) You developed your abilities, which often feels like “not doing it right” until you find your feet. You tapped into sources of information suited to your interests, your emotional and mental processes, your known and unknown connections. Things that are easy for you will be hard for others. Things impossible for you will be possible, even easy, for others. There is nothing new in this; it is always that way. Perhaps Swedenborg wouldn’t have found it easy to channel musicals, let’s put it that way.

This amounts to saying, we are all important, all unique, and at the same time all limited, all dispensable.

Isn’t that your experience of life? Only, “dispensable” doesn’t in this context amount to “throwaway.” It means, nobody’s absence will cause the world to come to a halt.

Understood. So about the question specifically?

Applying “As above, so below” is exactly the approach to take here. The difficulty is to find the proper analogy.

I immediately thought, “Trees, animals, any form of consciousness not individuated like our level.”

Yes. Just as any particular maple tree may be regarded as one cell of a larger thought-form known as Maple Tree, so with livers or kidneys or lungs. And this leads to some interesting information we have never wandered into, if you want to hear it.

We do, of course. And in passing I would say (as I suppose we must have said before) that this sounds like Plato’s Ideal forms.

It should.

Now remember, we are looking at the world not as dead (or even living) “matter,” that is, as chunks of things sitting in space interacting, but as concretized thought. If you keep that in mind, many things change. A tree, a brain cell, a bacillus, is real; it exists. It is not a figment of your imagination, but is as real as you are (which, we remind you, is “only somewhat” real). As real, but not necessarily real in the same guise as you.

In other words, it would be a mistake to think that an individual maple tree or liver or liver cell had an individual destiny.

The only reason we would hesitate to agree with that statement is because of the second half, not the first. Your own destinies are not exactly “individual” in the way you are thinking. But subject to that caveat, yes, we agree. The pattern of slowed-down energy that is a liver does not need to (nor can it) evolve. When the 3D body dissolves, as when the tree is chopped down or dies of some infestation, the energy is released. The pattern continues to exist as pattern, and thus shapes future livers or maple trees, but the specific consciousness that the liver or the tree exhibited during life is not bound to repeat as a “more evolved” liver or tree. It is not bound to continue a genetic or a non-3D line, any more than the atoms and molecules and tissues that constitute your bodies are bound to continue in your genetic line. How could they, when your 3D body at any given moment consists of material borrowed for the moment?

Meaning, I take it, that our bodies continually shed cells, acquire cells.

Continuity is in form, in pattern, not in the same old cells proceeding on together.

So, you see, you as an individual are real in one sense, only an abstraction in another. You are permanent in pattern, temporary as manifestation. You can be considered as the holder-together of all the elements that go into your 3D life – physical, mental, personal, impersonal – and at the same time as only temporary from the 3D viewpoint. Your fingernails are not immortal as fingernails. There is no non-3D museum displaying them as relics or examples of you. Just as the physical atoms served and moved on, so the archetype itself may be said to have served as pattern but not been enmeshed in the specific creation. How does a blueprint become a part of the structure it shapes and describes? It doesn’t. The blueprint as blueprint remains in being, but no matter how essential it was to the creation of the thing, it is separate because it is of a different order of things.

You could almost say the cel is not the cartoon. Absurd comparison, but since it came to me, I throw it in.

Let’s say the cel, and the entire construction of the cartoon, is not the same as the projected image, but yes, we agree.

So then the swirl of consciousness that is someone’s liver is a manifestation of a pattern, produced for the occasion and dissolved afterwards.

There’s a little distortion there, but not enough to worry about at the moment.

BTW I questioned Bob’s use of the word “colony” but decided it is a minor quibble.

Welcome to our reality. We are always doing that, deciding which slight misconception needs to be cleared up and which can be slurred over for the sake of making a different point. Nothing wrong with it, that’s just the process, and the closer you look, the wider you will see the examples of it, in 3D as well as non-3D. No, you aren’t a colony as much as a construction. But it is a minor point.

I was intrigued by your saying that this could lead to more interesting information. I suppose we are out of time to even hint at it?

Mostly yes.

A hint, even? A bread-crumb for next time?

All layers of reality exist equally but do not exist in the same way. Hornblower is real in the sense of a mental archetype but not in the sense of a physically existing 3D human. Isn’t now, never was. He was created (or perhaps we should say abstracted) by a 3D creator-being named C.S. Forester. Who created Forester, who lived at another level of being?

That’s a hint, only, and that is enough for the moment.

Hmm. Well, to be continued, I guess. Thanks for all this.

Jane Peranteau’s question

Thursday, December 3, 2020

7:05 a.m. Perhaps it is time to get to work again. I see that Louise Calio had emailed me a while ago, asking if Jane Peranteau’s question had ever been addressed. Jane had asked if we in 3D affected the vast impersonal forces in any way beyond how we expressed them in our lives. “In other words, you could say they hone us. Do we hone them? Or is it just about honing us?”

It’s an excellent question, and I might as well start by saying, “Beats me. If we do, I don’t know how. If we don’t, I don’t know why not.” So what say you, friends?

Welcome back. And don’t go feeling guilty or even puzzled by the hiatus. Not everything that expresses in 3D life results from 3D decisions or lack of decision, from 3D action or inaction. And this is part of our response to the question you are finally able to ask us to address.

You will remember, All is one; As above, so below; and Each of you in 3D is a unique window serving as conduit of Spirit which exists ell above 3D influence or manipulation. Holding in mind these givens, look again at the question. What’s the answer?

I don’t know. Is it “Which you?”

That’s part of it, yes. Can you express it a little more fully?

I guess in this context the question is almost meaningless, in that it slides between definitions. Or, doesn’t slide between them, as much as assume one and forget the other.

Yes. Continue.

The question as posed sort of asks if we in our 3D lives affect the vast impersonal forces. If we were separate from the rest of us – the non-3D, and the larger beings from whom we are created as quasi-separate beings, and all the rest of us via the network of interrelations in 3D and non-3D – the answer would probably be, “No, of course we don’t.” But we are not separate. Our 3D decisions help shape our larger being, because they shape us (who are a part of that larger being) via third-tier consequences. I don’t know if that changes the answer to a yes, but clearly it affects the question.

Yes it does. Here’s an analogy to consider. If a life-experience of some kind changes someone, does it change that persona’s children by how it changes the person? Dos it change its friends, associates, enemies, neighbors, parents even?

I don’t see that the question can be answered yes or no. It’s a maybe.

Of course it is. Being changed, someone may or may not change those around it. If so, then yes. If no, then no. If sometimes, or potentially, or slightly or greatly, then that. But you can’t say “yes” or “no” per se.

But it seems to me that in saying maybe, we are implicitly saying “Yes” to at least one sense of Jane’s question. That is, potentially we can affect the vast impersonal forces.

No, that isn’t a valid understanding. We have yet to make it clear. Not even indirectly will you affect those forces. But you may affect how they are experienced – that is, how they manifest. But this is not what you are thinking.

I’m not really thinking anything very clearly. But I was thinking we had gotten somewhere for a moment.

We did, only you went a step too far, too soon. Recalibrate.

Okay.

I see it’s a form of pressing for clarity which, itself, reduces clarity.

There is a right way and a wrong way to do anything. A technique that is appropriate sometimes is not, other times.

So, then?

Let’s return to “you can’t say yes or no per se,” drawing a different set of conclusions. Rather than thinking this demonstrates something directly, let’s look at the nature of things. Does your life change the world? Does it change reality? Does it weigh in the scales in any meaningful way?

Surely you can see that the answer is, “It depends upon the scale you examine the subject in.” Day to day among your family and friends. Long-term among them. Day to day in your world at large, and long-term among them. This is four states right there, at only the most superficial examination of the situation. It doesn’t even begin to address your inner world and its consequences. It doesn’t consider you as part of a network of lives any of which may be affected.

All right, I see that.

Well, it’s the old “focusing the microscope (or telescope)” analogy. What you see depends on what your focal length allows you to see. There isn’t any one answer to all situations, only a “one answer” to a specific way of looking at things.

You’re saying (I think) that our question is ether too broad or too narrow to answer.

We’re saying this is the answer: that it depends on your meaning, which as usual depends on a lot of unconscious or semi-conscious assumptions.

Looking at this, I get that it answers part of Jane’s question. It says, it depends on which “you” we’re thinking of. But doesn’t that still support the conclusion I jumped to earlier, that potentially we can affect the forces?

We see the slippage here. Our qualification was not that you could or couldn’t sometimes affect the world around you even at a higher level: It was that you cannot affect the motivating forces themselves. It’s strictly a matter of disproportion. An atom of seawater, no matter what it does or what happens to it, cannot expect to affect the tides.

Ah! Got it. We don’t affect Spirit, any more than the atom affects the tides. The drop of seawater is part of the sea; it is affected by the tides and cannot not be, but its resistance or compliance (assuming it were capable of such) cannot affect the tide nor the moon that draws it..

Exactly. And if this is not clear, or spurs additional questions, you know where to find us.

Well, I do in theory. What has been going on this past month since November sixth?

That would be telling, as they say. Settle for resumption of access.

Cryptic. Okay, well at any rate thanks for this session.

The Interface: Combinations

The final question of Dirk’s latest series, then.

[6.0) It seems apparent that certain sets of strengths of various emotions in varying combinations – valence, arousal, and intensity in psychological terms – lead to certain “strengths” and “advantages”, and other “weaknesses” and “disadvantages”.  Is this a reasonable view? What can you tell us about this?]

As usual, things will look different when seen from different angles. You could say that the emotions cause things or that they result from things. Rather than choose one view or the other, it is productive to look at it both ways, so that the problems presented by seeing it one way will be countered by the problems of seeing it another way.

If you take the emotions to be a part of the 3D individual’s character as is commonly done, then yes, you could say that they bring in their wake certain consequences, and may be judged in terms of the character they are part of. But a moment’s thought should produce dissatisfaction with that analysis. If, as we have been saying, emotions are the effect produced by the friction of inner and outer worlds, how can an effect be considered to be a cause at the same time? We don’t mean that an effect cannot then become a cause; obviously it can and does: That is the basis of any system employing feedback. That is a quite different thing from lifting oneself by pulling up on one’s bootstraps.

Yet, if you take the emotion to be the natural effect of the 3D individual in its surroundings, could you now say that in effect they are part of that personality? If – well, we’re looking for an analogy and not finding one, but perhaps it is clear?

How about this? If a person never fits into his surroundings comfortably, and is never going to, because of what he is and what his surroundings are, can’t we say his nature is quarrelsome, or petulant, or miserable, or however it takes him?

You have the idea of it. We are not sure the underlying idea will be clear to any on the strength of the words alone.

I think you’re simply saying, when our situation is such that it inherently causes persistent results, those results may be said to be a part of our character. To say that wouldn’t be accurate in one sense, but would be an acceptable shorthand for a different way of seeing it.

Good enough, yes. And since we have to remember to include one’s second-tier response to life – that is, how one chooses to respond to life – you can see that both aspects, both ways of seeing, are in fact accurate enough for descriptive purposes, if not necessarily for analytical ones.

So now let’s back up and summarize all this series of questions. We have said:

  • The strength and combinations of emotions in any given lifetime result from the fit or misfit of a soul in its larger (unconscious to it) “external” world.
  • The emotions as they manifest are not chosen by the individual, but are chosen, in effect, by the process of putting a certain mixture of characteristics in a certain time-space-location.
  • The individual cannot choose where it begins – what it begins as – but can and does choose what it will become, by its choices throughout its lifetime, creating second- and then cumulatively third-tier effects.

Perhaps the most important thing we have said is that you in 3D are not primarily reasonable beings proceeding from thoughts. You sometimes like to see yourselves that way, but you aren’t, any more than an animal instinctively defending its offspring at peril of its own life. That isn’t reasonable, and it is essential; in other words, it is more fundamental than reason.

Your lives are based in emotion, not in thought. This does not mean you run amok with feelings. It doesn’t mean your emotional base is violently volatile or immovably quiescent or anything between. It means, only, that as has been said, “Feelings are the language of the soul.” It is in feelings that you connect to your larger self, to the outside world, to each other.

This would be obvious if not for one thing that confuses analysis. Feelings may be, and often are, invisible to the 3D mind. Thus you may be motivated by feelings you are not aware of having.

I think we should make explicit the difference between what you just said and what Dirk has reported. [That is, the absence in his life of certain emotions.]

Yes, although it seems to us that we have already done so, many times.

Conceptually, maybe?

We shall see:

  • Consider the entire range of possible emotions to be an artist’s palette. Call this the complete spectrum.
  • Consider the emotions produced by a person’s 3D experience to be, in effect, a limited palette. No one experiences all Certainly people do not experience them equally. [I take this to mean, we each experience them in different ratios.]
  • Consider the partial palette you employ in your life (or, shall we say, that you seem to be furnished with in your life) to be a subset of the complete spectrum. There is no reason a priori to assume that the spectrum experienced cannot be added to or subtracted from during a lifetime. People change.
  • Another way to classify yourselves would be between experienced and potential or latent emotions. What you have not experienced will be invisible to you. However, looked at more closely, latent emotions reveal themselves to be parts of the complete spectrum that have not manifested, so what advantage is there in deciding that they are or are not parts of one’s emotional makeup?

That seems clear. And a change in environment could produce changes in emotions experienced, I imagine.

Certainly. As could a change in the conscious self. Change either end of the conscious/”external” relationship, and the laminal layer will be affected.

Thus, when Dirk asserts that he does not experience certain emotions, he is correct so long as he silently adds, “at least, not so far.” When others insist that he must have experienced them but not recognized the fact, or suppressed knowledge of it, they are on shakier ground, but need not be considered right or wrong. Sometimes, in 3D, you do suppress or not recognize emotions playing out in life. But sometimes one person’s life does not produce the emotions others would have expected it to, because of reasons not observable by them.

In short, as you always say, “Don’t judge others’ lives, you never have the data.”

Well, it’s the truth.

Anything else?

The consideration of outlying conditions. Psychopaths, for instance.

Yes?

As you can imagine, the range of relationships between an individual’s 3D awareness and its surroundings extends from empath to sociopath. That is, from one whose psychic boundaries are nearly nonexistent to one who lives at the opposite pole of unawareness.

I never happened to think of it that way. Empaths and sociopaths are unaware of boundaries between self and other, the one because it fully participates, the other because it is aware of nothing but self.

That isn’t a definitive statement, but it is a suggestive one. And most people function between the two poles of acceptance and rejection of others. No matter the individual’s makeup, the complete spectrum of emotions is potentially available, but not necessarily available in practice. Second- and third-tier decisions have as much to do with whether a given part of the spectrum is available.

Our thanks as always, and now we will wait for further questions, or for you to begin something else, or time out for a vacation. Till next time, then.

The Interface: Types of emotional mixes

Dirk’s question 5.9 is next on the list.

[5.9) How does the relative absence of certain emotions play out in this? Clearly we see sociopaths, psychopaths, narcissists, stoics, empaths, natural carers (a British term), sensitives of various types, and a myriad of others. Some seem highly negative in ways. Some highly positive. Some seemingly neutral.]

Well, once again we would say, look  at what you already know from experience, but conceptualize it, this time, from our point of view. Specifically, look at all those kinds of people not as the causes but as the manifestations.

We’re going to move back a few steps, as so often, so that the context may help explain the perception.

  • What you experience as “external” is not separate from you, but a part of you experienced separately.
  • Therefore what is “external” in your lives will vary in extent and even form as you proceed with your self-development.
  • In effect, your will alters the facts of life of your world.
  • At the same time, everyone else in the world is undergoing the same process, so not only does their internal world change, but their share of the shared subjectivity changes as well.
  • Usually this is a very small change, because you are so small and the world is so large; however, the effect of any given person’s changes may be huge to you because of resonances and other ties.
  • Other people as perceived by you is all you can know of them. You cannot use a non-existent yardstick. Instead, you guess; you judge, you intuit, you estimate. But you do not know.
  • Implicit in your guessing, or estimating, are numerous schemes for classification such as you cite here. These are not useless, nor mistaken a priori, but they do mislead.

I think you are saying that we are measuring effects rather than causes.

Isn’t that what we said?

Maybe, but it seems clearer now.

That’s the idea. If your emotional life as experienced from within you is actually the product of interaction between your inner and outer life, then can’t it be said that the report you get of other people’s lives is measuring the same thing?

Just as for us, so for others. The emotional makeup we observe is a combination of the results of (1) friction between inner and outer, and (2) the habits one develops in response to a lifetime’s experience.

And I think I can offer a good example. George Washington’s temper was apparently volcanic, nearly ungovernable when he was a boy. But a lifetime’s rigid self-control put it so entirely under his will that it almost never surfaced, even when observers could see him smoldering in the successful effort to retain self-control. “Self-control” in this case means, refusal to manifest what is strongly prompted.

Yes. His initial composition led to tremendous friction between inner and outer. Fortunately for his country, he willed himself to prevent the manifestation of that friction, and so later in life was able to function as if unaffected, even when he obviously was affected.

Now, generalize. All around you, you see your fellow 3D souls. That is, you see part of them! You see things about them that they don’t see themselves. They see things about themselves that observers do not and cannot. And there are many things about them that are accessible to neither themselves or others.

The short answer to Dirk’s 5.9, then, is that all these variations in a person’s personality or psychology are appearance rather than essence, or, let’s say, they represent a part of a person, never the essence. They show that soul from the outside as it reacts to the shared subjectivity

You mean, I know, it shows how they appear to us outside.

Yes. Sometimes – often, in fact – also how you appear to yourselves. But don’t mistake the ionized layer for the motive factor.

Well, how do we conceptualize the ionized layer when it appears to us as a lack of emotion, rather than as an emotion?

It isn’t any different. High tide and low tide are still part of the same phenomenon. It isn’t like low tide is qualitatively different from high tide merely because it doesn’t wet the same ground.

As we said, such classification schemes aren’t useless, they’re just measuring something different than they think they’re measuring. Like the epicycles of geocentric astronomy, they save the phenomena and may be relied upon, but they silently distort larger understandings in part because they do offer valid readings, though on a wrong scale.

So a sociopath is a person without remorse, say, a person to whom other people aren’t quite real. A narcissist may concede the reality of other people, but not consider them as very important or even very present. Someone who naturally cares about others, or, as in the case of empaths, cannot (apparently) prevent itself from identifying with others – are all these types the result of differences or are they the causes of differences? Do you enter 3D life so constituted that you must be a sociopath, or do you come into 3D life, identical in makeup, but manifesting differently depending upon the external environment experienced?

“Nature v. nurture.”

Yes, but again seen from the other end of the telescope. The 3D soul is the same in essence. But which part of that essence it manifests depends upon where and how it finds itself, and what second- and third-tier effects it determines to manifest.

George Washington might have turned out differently if he had not gotten that terrific temper under control.

Everything would have changed. That doesn’t mean he would or wouldn’t have ceased to be the father of his country, but he wouldn’t have been the same man (considering in terms of third-tier effects) and so you couldn’t expect that the results of his interactions with the “external” world would have been unaffected.

So do you wish to say more on Dirk’s question?

It is hazardous to classify even familiar states as positive or negative per se. They may be positive or negative when seen in a certain context, or when seen by a certain viewer (or even by self), but when do you ever have the data make a definitive judgment? The world is good; your lives are good. It is only the tree of the perception of things as good or evil (duality and judgment combined, in other words) that leads you to reject some and embrace others. You know this abstractly by now, but this is one more specific situation to apply it to.

The Interface: Inter-life agreements

Well, maybe it’s this way. Our larger beings, whatever they are, use what they have at hand to create a new 3D soul into specific space-time-locations. But to use an experienced soul (an ex-human) without modification might not fit the bill. Perhaps other qualities are needed. So this new soul may contain more than one ex-human soul and they have to accommodate each other as best they can.

Let us take it from here. Assume this is so, and you can see that from one point of view it is the individual soul going through a process of successive incarnations, each of which poses different challenges and facilitates certain kinds of further development. From a systems point of view, though, we see All-D beings (what you call your higher self, or your larger being, or your oversoul perhaps: not a god, but not at the human level either) contributing their substance, on a continuing basis, to an on-going situation conducted largely in 3D. We will say – for now – that the situation is the development of the shared subjectivity.

Meaning, I take it, that we are all of us part of the one being, and so are tied to it.

To spell that out a little: Your shared subjectivity comprises all of all of you. Not just all of any one of you; not just some of all of you. All of everyone in 3D. You are all a part of one thing, even though you also experience yourselves as separate. Your localized consciousness (your 3D conscious personality) shades off into your 3D unconscious mind, which manifests to you as part of the “external” world. Thus the things of your inner world and the things of your interconnection with the outer world cannot be separated. It’s all one thing, as you have been told. At the same time, you are all individuals, as you have experienced. Both, not one or the other.

And I suppose it’s useless to try to know what the larger beings are doing.

Not useless, but there are so many layers of translation needed, so much spelling-out of context. What else is scripture but an attempt to describe a gestalt, glimpsed perhaps only briefly, in sequential language silently embodying so many misleading understandings.

While we hold this context in mind, can you give us an idea?

Consider that everything eschatological in any set of scriptures describes what will happen to this shared subjectivity. It doesn’t necessarily describe the nature and fate of other equally real realities.

I started to get, “Any more than…” but lost the subject.

Well, stick to what you can perceive or imagine. Your fate is tied to the one reality you are a part of. You needn’t concern yourselves – nor can you, in practice – with others. Just knowing that others exist ought to be enough to change your ideas.

Treating each “reality” as one being, among others.

And at the same time, as part of one higher unity, yes.

So what seems to us the external world is in fact a shared subjectivity comprising everybody living in this particular reality, but other realities exist.

Remember continuously: “As above, so below.” This is the single most helpful guide you have inherited. Just as you are beings who are part of a larger being, so it [the larger being] is a being that is part of a larger-yet being. But that’s all you need to know about that, really, for how can it affect anything you can do in your life? It is important to sense that that layer exists; it is not important to try to imagine its life or purpose beyond what you can glean from applying the principle of “As above, so below.”

I have noticed, over the years, that you try to stick to what may be useful, useable, helpful, rather than going soaring into the stratosphere.

The world doesn’t particularly need more soap-bubble conceptualizations. It needs approaches that will help people develop.

So are we finished with considering inter-life agreements?

We can move on, next time.

The Interface: Mulling

You are regretting the loss of the ideas and side-trails that had suggested themselves as you wrote all that, yesterday and the day before. But it is not lost, only submerged until you should re-read or remember, and allow your mind to play on it.

Mulling it, we say.

Mulling over something is a non-linear, non-rational approach to material that otherwise must be dealt with in a linear way, in the same way it was received. Images (just as in remote viewing) convey gestalts and suppress opinion and cognitive bias.

So do that here, now, on the record, without feeling constrained to defend whatever ideas or associations or questions arise. This will demonstrate a process that will prove useful to many, on many occasions. Only, don’t let your mind wander at random. This is not the time to wonder about the political landscape. You want to let your mind roam within this one given pasture. It may be a difficult trick to master, or it may come easily, but it is valuable. Confining your thought to one subject, let it wool-gather within that subject.

Agreements with others prior to this life. What about the continuity between (among) lives? What about our role after this life, when we are someone else’s TGU, or someone’s strand, or however it works? Besides, looking at it from the point of view of the larger beings rather than our points of view as 3D creatures, how does it look? Do our larger beings wind up laying the same game, on the principle of “As above, so below”?

Try to mull, not reason.

Okay. Well, the whole idea of agreements made prior to 3D seems to put 3D front and center. Should it be? But if 3D isn’t the center, what is? Our personal development? But we are fragments. Why would a process center on the development of fragments into something?

OT1H I can imagine the shared subjectivity as the point. Oh, it feels like something went “Click!” Is that what you wanted me to come to?

It is a potential continuation-place, let’s put it that way. You sensed a thought that inherently connects. But make note of it and continue.

Okay. Well, it could explain why 3D affairs are important to the larger world, if shared subjectivity develops. Bob Monroe had a sense of units reassembling and, when they once reached completion, disappearing from sight as they went on to whatever comes next.

Sticking to Dirk’s question about agreements.

It’s hard to know how to think about it. It implies – funny I never thought of this before – that we are each fabricated to fit a role in a given 3D life’s drama. But if that is so, what were we before we were fabricated? Were we a bunch of not-necessarily-connected parts that could be assembled, like Legos? Or, if we were already units from prior experience, were we –

Oh. Is that the sense of it? Strands being combined to form a new unit?

Make sense to you, suddenly, in a different way?

Yes, I think it does.

That’s the value of context, and that’s a way to invite a different context, by mulling, “wool-gathering,” preferably while making a record for yourself to look over, so you don’t need to hold things in memory. Now restate what came to you.

The Interface: Agreements

All right, friends, last time you said we should begin with Dirk’s 5.8: “Is one of these [factors] agreements with others we will interact with during each life?”

Anyone exploring these questions begins somewhere. However they may have gotten to their starting-place, there they are. And whether that starting-place consists of well-formed concepts (perhaps inculcated by education or by osmosis from the environment they were raised in) or a jumble of half-thought-out ideas and reactions, still, there they are. As they explore, they sift through what they know, what they experience, what they instinctively believe, and that sifting process changes the world they accept.

They choose what they believe.

Yes. Not “choose” in the sense of arbitrarily deciding to believe or disbelieve this or that, usually; “choose” in the sense that adhering to one thing may mean automatically (perhaps unconsciously) relinquishing a hold on something else. But, choosing. That is your life, as we have often reminded you. Even the person who clings to the idea that everything is predestined is thus choosing (by the clinging) to believe in the impossibility of choice.

So, perhaps you begin by believing in heaven and hell and judgment at death.

As we write that, I find myself realizing, that needn’t be confined to Christian terms. What is Anubis, after all, but judgment? Only, it is not followed by heaven or hell, but by another life or not.

Buddhism teaches an unending succession of lives, but implicit in the idea of rebirth at the level you have earned is the idea of judgment. Not so much what you did as what you became.

Examples could be multiplied, but no need. The point is that belief-systems are a mixture of perception and beliefs and a logical working-out of relationships. If the perceptions change, or the beliefs, the logic will change or will be superseded, or will cease to be seen as relevant.

All of this is preliminary to discussing the question, but is not therefore irrelevant. (We did say the question would serve as springboard.)

So now let us look at the question in light of this reminder. Look how many tacit or explicit assumptions that short question embodies.

  • Agreement with “others.”
  • Prior existence of self and others.
  • A script to be enacted in 3D life.

Agreement with others implies first off the existence of others, or there is no one to agree with. It implies a setting-up of a situation backstage (a writing of the play). It implies that you yourself exist, of course, but not as the you that you presently experience yourself to be; as the you that precedes this incarnation. You may say, “obviously,” but think with us. “Frank DeMarco” as such did not exist before Frank DeMarco was born in 1946. That is, the soul (considered as the specific mixture of spirit and pre-existing soul-stuff from the higher self in the All-D) did not exist as Frank DeMarco until inserted into the specific time-space-location.

This is not just playing with words. Listen.

The “you” that any of you in 3D experience yourselves to be is a mixture of what you were prior to this 3D life and what there is of you that is specific to this 3D life. It is always a mixture. That’s the point of 3D life, or anyway one point.

Do you, Frank, think that your underlying soul (your reality before and beyond your specific 3D identity) is always left-handed, always has your temperament and talents and infirmities? Do you suppose other lifetimes that went into the composition of you all dealt with asthma, all immersed themselves in history, all were or were not family men or monks or recluses or bon vivants? Once you look at it, it is obviously not so. But then, where is the “you” who may be making agreements with “others” concerning a 3D life to come?

I get the distinction, and I am willing to take your word for it that this is not merely playing with words, but I don’t see the significance of the distinction.

You don’t?

[A sense of their puzzlement.]

I’m waiting while you sort it out.

Let’s look again at the implied or explicit postulates:

  • A “you” to make an agreement.
  • An “other” or “others” with whom to agree.
  • An offstage director, and at least a shooting script.

What these amount to depends upon the belief-system you bring to it. As we said at the beginning of this session, concepts change as experience changes you. We didn’t put it quite that way, but that is what we said. Therefore, those three elements – you, an other, a script or plot – will be interpreted very differently by people filling them into different belief-systems. Similarly, heaven and hell, judgment, afterlife, reincarnation – they all look different depending upon the filters on the lenses thorough which you perceive them.

This is not a cause for despair as in, “There isn’t any way to get to the truth!” Actually, it is your only hope, for it amounts to, “There is always a way to see as much truth as you are willing and able to see.” If you could not know truth when you saw it unless it was “the” truth, your position would be hopeless, because you could never get high enough to see it. Fortunately for you, truth is not part of a binary “true/not true” system. It is more like a rheostat, capable of being tuned up or down.

So to return to the question at hand?

We never left it. The truth or falsity of the statement – or, better, the accuracy or degree of error of the statement – depends entirely upon the platform from which you view it. (This is, of course, always the case, whether realized or not.)

We suggest that rather than looking at such statements or questions as susceptible to “yes” or “no” answers, you look at them closely, as we have been doing here, not trying to logic you way to what you believe, nor merely feeling your way to a reaction, but weighing it, pondering it.

It is the most destructive idea, to think that “right and wrong” is a binary phenomenon. It destroys your ability to see nuances and variabilities and relative relationships.

We’re back to the results of eating from the tree of perceiving things as good or evil.

Precisely.