Blog

Guidelines

The Monroe Institute’s five-day Guidelines program (assisting people to get into touch with guidance in their everyday lives) includes on its schedule of activities two designated speakers, celebrated remote viewer Joe McMoneagle on Monday night, then me on Wednesday night. So, last night I drove down and spoke to the class, beginning a little after 7:30 and leaving (after a little socializing) at 10:30.

As always, before I began I felt an undercurrent of nervousness — not acute, but persistent — because I do not prepare a talk except in the loosest way. If you want to stay in the moment, which is how I find that I can connect best with people, prepared remarks can get in the way.  Besides, as I always tell them, I don’t regard myself as the entertainment and them as the audience, but instead I think of it as us thinking together. That means staying in the moment.

Last May, when I taught my weekend program there, at one point I heard someone refer to their ordinary life as “the real world,” and I took issue with that, pointing out that it was only in the safe protected environment of a program in the TMI environment that many of them felt safe to express who they really are, what they really believe, as opposed to society’s rigid if incorrect assumptions. That being so, which one should be called the unreal world, the place where they could fully interact as they are, or the place where they feel they need to hide, interacting with others who are also hiding?

So, here in the real world of a TMI course, I did what I could to give them the benefit of what I had learned through 25 years of trial and error. In other words, through 25 years of making mistakes and learning from them. I handed out the crib sheet I had developed for my weekend course, listing the bad models, bad habits, and useless questions that hamper our everyday ability to experience guidance, and gave them my book A Place to Stand, transcripts of the ten black-box sessions that laid the groundwork for everything that has followed.

Yak, yak, yak, all about me. That’s what it felt like, as I gave them my personal history, especially the work I did with Rita Warren and what we learned from it. But then we moved from focusing on me to what should always be the real focus of the talk, them. As always, it was highly interesting. I learn at least as much from people’s questions (because of the need to respond) as they do from my answers, I often think.

So today they move into the final day of their course, then off to the Unreal World, while I prepare for the Discovery course (using Mind Mirror) that begins Saturday night.

Life is good.

TGU — concluding remarks

Wednesday, June 20, 2018

6:30 a.m. I’d like another go, if you’re ready.

Very well.

One cannot do one’s best work while half not there. This is as true of life itself as of any specific part of life. Presence makes the difference. What woodworker or potter or carpenter works while only half there? It cuts against the grain, so to speak.

However, do not interpret that to mean that dreaming – daydreaming, actively creating, living in a state of reverie, fantasizing – is necessarily not a worthwhile part of a life. But even there, one should be single-mindedly there. You see?

I’m not sure I see anything beyond the obvious.

What is obvious to one will not be to another.

Well, even if your occupation at the moment is day-dreaming, throw yourself into it, don’t do it with half your mind.

That’s what we knew you concluded. That isn’t quite what we mean. It isn’t so much a matter of concentration as of awareness. What you do, know that you are doing it.

You’re going to have to explain that.

People commonly experience the world through a haze of screens, story, automatic association of ideas, many things. You might say you go through life absent-mindedly, and it requires some sort of crisis to get your attention. But it isn’t a matter of intensity of consciousness, nor of single-mindedness, nor of exalted (nor non-exalted) ideals or visions or understandings. It’s just a matter of being there. But what does that mean, “being there”? it means being a clear screen for your non-3D self, you might say. It means channeling the 3D world for the rest of your All-D self. It means being the news reporter you came into 3D to be, whether what you are reporting is the inner life of a sheepherder in Mongolia, or of a drug dealer in Columbia, or a fisherman or farmer or factory worker or store clerk or mother or father or priest or harlot or anything. Every life is a unique window, no matter how many other lives might be described as similar. And everyone’s news report is necessarily personal and unique, no matter how similar.

But isn’t data from someone who is only partly there as valid as any other?

It is. We have said many times that “the other side” has no preferences or judgments about what decisions you make. Well, we may have preferences, but we don’t try to enforce them. You are there to learn what you want to be. There isn’t any other way to learn that but to see what happens when you play in traffic. But we cringe, sometimes, perhaps.

But bear in mind, these conversations are not for everybody, but for those able to comprehend them and interested in implementing them. This pretty much rules out people content with living in a way that is automatic and distracted.

Your lives matter to the whole, as everything interconnects. You sometimes have to stretch to be able to believe that your life matters even to the 3D world you experience, so you may have to take our word that it matters to the All-D world that is so much deeper than the 3D world your senses report (and largely invent). So – live them as best you can, living our your pattern. The 3D world is not what it seems, and there is more to life than you can experience while in 3D, but in 3D is where you are, so make the best of it.

And we do that how?

By being open to it, not shrinking from it. By being awake and not half-awake or asleep. By living in a default state of love, joy, expectation, connection. It isn’t hard, it mostly requires that you decide to be that way, and then remember the decision.

So, you said you were going to give us a few concluding remarks. Were those the ones you meant?

We have given you everything you need, and we wish you well, and for all of you, we aren’t going anywhere – we are available when contacted. That doesn’t mean we may not wish to discuss other things at other times, but this is a reasonable place to pause (or perhaps conclude), yes.

Well, speaking for my friends as well as for myself, we thank you for all this. It has been an enjoyable ride and perhaps cuts even deeper than we know at the moment.

If you will work on your summary – no small project – you will find many questions coming to mind, and we will be very glad to address them as they arise.

That sounds like a plan, thanks. And I get that of course that goes for anybody reading these conversations. As they work the material, they have as much access to answers as I do.

Of course, and that is part of the message we have been delivering all along.

Okay. Till next time, then, whenever that turns out to be. Thanks again.

 

TGU — Continuity of consciousness

Wednesday, June 20, 2018

1:45 a.m. Very well, gentlemen. Concluding remarks? Whatever that means in this case.

You will note that some of your readers have gotten the point of all this, and have said so, emphatically. The same passage that strikes some as theoretical and others as mildly interesting strikes some to the core, and they wake up. But what does that mean, to wake up? Is that to imply that the rest of humanity sleeps?

I don’t see what else it could mean.

Well, say that is so, we have yet to explain what we mean by the difference between waking and sleep. It may seem obvious, but, as with so many matters, the closer you look at it, the more facets it presents, and the more potentially contradictory implications.

Gurdjieff said humans were asleep, and that no work on oneself could be done in sleep. I begin to see what you may be driving at.

Your friend Colin Wilson often used the analogy of a neon tube under insufficient power, that flickered rather than glowed, or a pot of water under insufficient heat, that couldn’t quite be brought to the boil. The image is of discontinuity rather than continuity. Twilight, then a momentary illumination, then twilight again, a repetitive but not regular alternation of states. Your own long quest began when you were first exposed to the idea, and you went in search of a way to connect those moments of lucidity.

It was Colin’s novel The Mind Parasites that made me aware of the problem. But I didn’t know what to do, where to turn. It is hard to pursue mental clarity and continuity when beginning from a position of flickering awareness.

And if you will – slowly, ploddingly – sketch out the situation as you experienced it, we will get where we want to go.

If you say so. It seems obvious enough.

I wanted that clarity of mind and continuity of consciousness that Colin had brilliantly illuminated for me in that book. But I was not yet 24 years old, and I felt I had already missed so many opportunities! I had drifted through my college years, drifted into an early marriage, drifted into a job, all the while waiting until I should be old enough to run for Congress and emulate John F. Kennedy’s career. My internal life was mostly divorced from my external life. That is, I was waiting to begin what I felt was going to be my career, but I did nothing to bring it about.

Yes, but go even slower, allow yourself to sink deeper. Don’t skim over the surface of the subject; don’t go into Story, but feel your way through it.

If I were to put it into conceptual terms, I’d say that I was living a pretty meaningless external life, while dreaming an entirely different internal one. I read incessantly, but what I read wasn’t aimed at anything, even vaguely. It wasn’t yet my time of reading detective novels, nor even fiction to any large extent, so far as I can remember. This was long before the internet, and long before I could buy any book I wanted without thinking carefully about the cost. I was, at first, in a small town with a small town’s library, then later in Iowa City with the university library, then in Tampa with the city library, even more so when I began working there. but I can’t remember, now, what kind of books I was reading. Anything by Colin Wilson, but beyond that, what? Anyway, I was leading one life externally, a different life internally.

Look at that more closely. This does not involve you alone, nor even you as an unusual case study. It is closer to you as a typical example of a not-so-widely-understood phenomenon.

My mental world and my physical world didn’t really coincide except that they were going on at the same moment. Externally I was a young news reporter trying to do a job for which he was entirely untrained (and would receive no training), a young husband with no idea of what married life should be and no imagination to envision the emptiness of my wife’s days back when we had only one car and she had no job.

Yes, but –

I’m still reaching for whatever it is you want. Internally I was dreaming, though I can’t quite remember any more what it was I dreamed of. I expected to be a writer and make my living – get rich, in fact – by my writing, but I did nothing to connect that internal dream, or expectation, even, to reality. Similarly, my political career-to-be, I –. Oh, now I get what you’re after!

If you can hold it. Go ahead.

I never knew what it was all about, no matter what “it” we refer to. In politics, I could see results but no causes, could respond but not initiate, could relate anything to my dreamy ideas and feelings, but could not relate any of it to the core of me.

Still more carefully.

Well – I guess it was like I was trying to play a game without knowing the rules or the objective, and without insight into the other players’ motivations. I don’t know that I ever felt the reality of other people. They and the world existed, but I existed sort of next to them, not with them or among them. Is this what you’re wanting?

Let us take it from here. We would say that the nub of your problem was that although you were experiencing your life as disconnected from the world around you, really you were disconnected from your own inner motivations. You had ideas about your life. That is not the same thing as participating in it.

Now you might say, “How can anybody live without participating in their life?” And we would say, “Look around you. For that matter, look within you.” That is the source of people’s sense of futility.

Take someone who has found the only thing for him or her to do – Picasso painting, Hemingway writing, Churchill steering or attempting to steer society, Georgia O’Keefe painting, Jacob Riis or Lincoln Steffens trying to bring social reform – anyone in any field who was consumed with a task not as a means to achieve fame and fortune, or even to keep body and soul together, but because they knew that this is what they were put on God’s earth to do. It doesn’t matter how messy the rest of their lives may have been, nor what else they may have spent their energies doing, nor even how successful or not they were. Examples are usually success stories because they are known, but the reality isn’t any different for those who do not become known.

When someone knows what they are in 3D to do, their life has a continuity of consciousness that may have nothing to do with externals. The continuity is not between moments of time, nor between themselves as individuals and their fellows. It is continuity of connection with their deepest self. This is why they are single-minded about what they do. (Single-minded, even if they may do many other things as well.)

That may not be as clear as you think it is.

The difference between being engaged in something and merely going through the motions has little to do with one’s relation to the external world, and little to do, consequently, with success or failure of their efforts in any particular thing. It has to do with connection. This is what you are considering as continuity of consciousness. You quote Carl Jung to the effect that he who looks outward dreams; he who looks inward awakes. Does that really mean anything to you, or is it just words? For, you can look outward while dreaming that you are looking inward, and that is the most difficult trap to emerge from. If you dream that you are awake, what will spur you to awaken in real life?

Your connection with your non-3D component, presumably.

We don’t know what else could do it. But suppose you live in such a way (and in such a world of accepted ideas) as to be not in conscious connection, then what?

Then a feeling of lostness, I suppose, a feeling of marking time and losing ground.

But you often feel you are marking time even today. Would you say your internal life is no different from what it was at 24?

No, not even close.

The difference being?

Somehow I am more here, now. It feels like I wasn’t really there, then, not fully formed. Hard to put it into words.

You had not had the experience of being consciously fully present. A child is fully present as its natural state, but with the coming of the age of reason, at year seven or so, its world divides into inner and outer in a way difficult to define but familiar to all. To return to that childhood state of non-division [consciously] is the point. And you did not experience that until your experience with mescaline in 1970 and then not again until your Gateway experience 1992.

Yes, I see that. And the penetration into reality is what has made the difference. Not that it made my life any easier, but –

Oh come! Of course it made your life easier. What you mean is, “Not that it made my life automatically without problems, and not that it made me able to function smoothly and flawlessly.”

Correction accepted. You’re right, that’s what I did mean. Life still had difficulties and I made no end of embarrassing and even painful mistakes, but from that point I had a touchstone.

There is more to be said, but perhaps another time would be better. You are feeling the strain.

It has been 75 minutes. All right, then. More tomorrow?

We’ll be here, if you will be.

See you then.

 

About the mind mirror

The Monroe Institute course I am about to take (beginning the 22nd, continuing to the 29th) is all about using the Mind Mirror software combined with TMI’s SAM technology, to help us not only get to unusual mental states, but chart them.

I wrote a brief article about Mind Mirror for The Echo World magazine: http://theechoworld.com/

For the past couple of years, I have written something nearly every month, but I never think to mention it here. The URL above will take you to their website. You will find some fascinating material there.

TGU — Reality as magic

Tuesday, June 19, 2018

3:15 a.m. Proceeding –?

Everything we have said to this point leads to this: The world is magic and is to be influenced by magic. You, as humans, are magic and are to be influenced by magic. Now it merely remains to show you magic when it is right in front of you.

I don’t get that you mean “magic” in any metaphorical way.

No, quite literally. Everything is alive, everything is conscious, everything is interconnected. Of course it is all magic; it is only the limitations of thought and feeling imposed by 3D conditions that prevent you from knowing something so obvious. But it isn’t magic in effect if the trance is deep enough.

The 3D trance.

Yes. The trance that says What You See Is What You Get. The sensory experience – and all the philosophies hung from it – that argues that what can’t be measured cannot exist. The science and the religion that argue that either there are two worlds or only the material world, with anything else being superstitious foolishness. The world – reality – is magic. One more time: Alive, conscious, interconnected.

So what we commonly consider magic to be – the interfering with the laws of nature by the application of directed will?

That is the wider world seen through a crack in the 3D trance. The materialist who allows for an afterlife, or ghosts, or effective witchcraft (the cursing of another, as an example). You see? It is the assumption of the primacy of 3D rules, only with bewildering exceptions. It is an allowing-in of contrary evidence, but only the least degree.

Now, if what we are saying is true, look what it clears up. Those things that fly directly in the face of common sense, that cannot be explained in terms of accepted physical laws – and here we could append quite a list of phenomena! – but are nonetheless fitted in, badly, to a materialist context. At the same time, the many deep ends off which various religions drop: demons, hobgoblins of all kinds, invisible traps for the unwary, celestial wars over the fate of helpless individuals. Most of all, the endless contradictions in the evidence. All these problems stem from attempting to understand All-D reality out of an assumption that 3D reality is the known quantity. The assumption may be implicit or explicit, but that is the root of the problem.

Now, we don’t want to leave the impression that the solution to the problem is impossible. It isn’t. But the problem can’t be solved at the level it is posed. As with contradictions or paradoxes, it resolves only when seen from a higher understanding.

So look at reality as being all one world; All-D rather than 3D-only in nature; experienced by humans as 3D and non-3D (or as 3D only) until they learn to, or remember to, experience with their whole being rather than with only their 3D senses and a usually automatic – that is, usually unconscious – assist from their non-3D component. From the more unified point of view, you see that of course the wellsprings of the 3D part of the world are not limited to 3D causes and manifestations. Of course events transpire in 3D, but only after they are precipitated from All-D conditions. Of course – in short – the world and all its workings is magical in nature. And of course that can only mean that you are magical in nature, unless you are somehow different from everything else in the All-D world!

No, it doesn’t feel like it, perhaps. Or if it does, it feels like it only now and then, or only in specific circumstances, usually as an exception to the rules. But “what it feels like” is not a reliable guide, because that amounts to “as it is interpreted to me by my particular mixture of sensory and non-sensory apprehension.” Not a reliable guide! The result may be sensory disorientation and non-sensory nonsense.

Couldn’t resist that play on words, could you? Non-sensory nonsense.

If we had not mentioned it, someone would have; the pull linguistically was very strong.

When Jesus said that someone with faith the size of a mustard seed – that is, in even a miniscule amount – could tell a mountain to move and the mountain would move, he was trying to express something – or rather, he was expressing something – that totally contradicted sensory experience. If he was not speaking metaphorically, and not speaking nonsense, what was he pointing to?

I get that “faith” isn’t quite the right word.

It could be, but so much depends upon what the reader or listener understands by the word. It did not mean “faith in me,” nor even, quite, “faith in what I am saying.” More like, “attunement to reality, perception of what the laws of nature really are.” This, for “the laws of nature” in this case means the laws of All-D nature, not merely the laws of a special case such as 3D-only.

If you really see how things are, you see, you will be able to perform incredible feats of magic. Not that the ability to do magic is the point. It isn’t. The point is that seeing clearly shows you the real nature of yourself and the world and the unsuspected larger world beyond the 3D trance. Everything Jesus said and did aimed at providing a wake-up call for those ready to respond to it. “He who has ears, let him hear.”

Instead, they made him a god. Easier to deal with that way.

That isn’t quite fair, or, let’s say, isn’t fair to all. To some, yes. Those who did get the message – those who were ready to wake up – did wake up. They are not necessarily the ones who left an obvious mark upon history. Those who somewhat woke up were transformed, but not unrecognizably, and are known as apostle and disciples. They changed who they were; they changed their attitudes and their behavior (“See how these Christians love one another”) but they continued to regard 3D as self-evident and separate from the “spiritual” or “celestial” or “afterlife” reality that would only be experienced after death. They interpreted the words of Jesus as if he had been giving laws rather than helpful instruction; lived in fear of punishment and hope of salvation – that is, they lived in expectation of an external judgment – rather than in joyful, even playful, freedom. They experienced a new birth of freedom, to put it in Abraham Lincoln’s words, but only within a 3D context. What they did experience and to some degree transmit was enough to transform the world. But perhaps it was only a halfway-house understanding, after all.

But what about you? You are at the end of 2,000 years of that message being passed down, even if in distorted form often enough. Can you say that your mental and emotional world has been liberated by that message, or have you, too, not mostly missed it?

The reality is magic, and magic is defined, among other ways, as the ability to affect your surroundings to reshape them in conformity with your will. But that definition contains a whole host of terms themselves requiring definition.

We almost despair of making our point and having it heard. If Jesus had so limited a success, how can we expect to do any better? For, you will read what we say and maybe assent and maybe assent with reservations, but you will not apply your assent. You will not realize – make real – your greater freedom. And if you do not apply what we have given you, it is just an outpouring of words, nothing more.

I suppose some concrete practical down-to-earth suggestions would help.

That, they would not.

Because?

Because this is not a matter of a theory to be explored, or an equation to be solved, or even a working hypothesis to be lived. It is an insight, or it is nothing.

You mean, either your hints allow our non-3D component to give us the reality of it, or nothing happens.

We hesitate to agree or disagree with that way of putting it. Remember that each of you – each of us, remember – is different, and will be told different things out of our total experiences. Not only our 3D experience; not only our All-D experience of this particular lifetime, but out of our entire experience, which in context means our Sam’s entire experience. You don’t all have the same Sam; you don’t all have access to the entirety of the Sam you do spring from; you don’t at all have the same present-day 3D opportunities and insights. So, some have greater potential to receive a greater insight than others.

Then, if no practical suggestions for us – ?

We have already made the only practical suggestion necessary, and we have made it many times. Concentrate on waking up.

Jesus said unless you become like a little child, you can’t enter into heaven. He said the kingdom of heaven is right here, right now, not somewhere else or somewhen else. Those two statements give you all you need.

If we have ears to hear.

Well, can you deny it? It is the parable about sowing seed on fertile or rocky ground: The harvest depends not upon the seed, but upon the receptivity of the soil it falls on.

I got the idea, the other day, for a little book to be called Advice from Jesus, re-stating what he is recorded to have said, only looking at it as helpful hints rather than laying down the law.

Gee, did you? Where did that idea come from, do you suppose? Only, you don’t need to be the one to write it. Anyone whose eyes are open to what Jesus was saying can write it. Once you look at it with different eyes, it will be obvious enough. Jesus for the Age of Aquarius, so to speak.

Thanks for all this. Our theme for next time?

Maybe a couple of concluding remarks, nothing more.

Hmm. Okay, till next time.

 

TGU — More on how we interact with the “external” world

Monday, June 18, 2018

3:05 a.m. We were to resume with more on the “how” of individual interaction with the external world.

Yes. We realize that it will become difficult to keep all the branches of the argument in mind. At some point it may become useful to construct a skeleton of the argument, so that the essentials can be grasped visually all at the same time. Sequential exposition, instantaneous recapitulations, you see. One more alternation to keep in mind and practice.

Yes, it is already beyond my ability to recap.

But for right now, let’s look more closely into the question of how it is that you can (and do) affect the world magically, not merely directly. It must be evident that this cannot be a matter of 3D interaction alone.

It is when you mention it.

All right, so. Considering yourselves as if you were 3D-only results in certain distortions. Considering yourselves as if you were 3D-only individuals interacting with 3D-only surroundings compounds those distortions and produces a conviction of helplessness in a hostile or indifferent world. Our present enterprise has been all about re-considering yourselves and re-considering the world – and now re-considering the interaction of yourselves and the world – as All-D beings experiencing 3D limitations. That is all we have been doing. In fact, this is all we have been doing with you, Frank, from the beginning.

Colin Wilson’s hedgehog, I think it was, or maybe badger. He quoted someone as saying that some writers were foxes and knew many things, and others were hedgehogs (or was it badgers?) who knew one thing. He defined himself as one of those who knew one thing, and said he had been writing the same book over and over again, all his life. And I have realized, relatively recently, that that’s me too, and not necessarily only as a writer; I have been learning and teaching one thing, and that is that what we seem to be, what is culturally accepted as an accurate definition of us, is not adequate. I have moved from definition to definition, from explanation to explanation, but what it all has had in common was a feeling for the “why” of existence, and, more recently, the “how” of it.

And it was a matter of “Ask, and you shall receive.” Any thirst that is deep enough will automatically provide the means to slake it – if the hunger is primary and is followed up on. Our part in the matter has been to suggest alternate ways of understanding that were, as best we could, tailored to your personality and essence. You, repeating these, in turn provide enlightenment for those whose being is close enough to yours to respond to the same “flavor” of information. Those sufficiently different will not respond to this but will not be left unfed. There are many ways to suggest people toward the truth, and each way must be suited to its audience.

One truth, but many appearances.

More or less. Let’s leave it that not any truth applies to everyone. What may look like entirely contradictory descriptions may still represent steps toward truth for those at a certain position. After all, neither you nor they are going to find a “the” truth. At best you are going to find the truest truth you can relate to.

So, to continue. You as All-D beings, experiencing yourselves primarily as 3D beings, naturally experience an external world, as we have said. That external world, though, is external to you only insofar as you consider it, experience it, as 3D-only. In reality you and it are not separate any more than you and your fellow humans – or, shall we say, your fellow sojourners in 3D, because this is not confined to “human” as you understand it – could be considered separate. You are all part of one another, and of us, and therefore of the “external” world.

“Therefore” may need to be explained.

Oh yes. The fact is, there is an external world only in the sense that reality may be experienced as it would be if 3D were all there is.

For two paragraphs, I have been hearing in my head Castaneda’s (or don Juan’s) description of reality as tonal and nagual, which I take to be a description of the world as seen externally or internally, sensorially or intuitively.

But, without verging on to others’ description of reality, let us acknowledge it and proceed our own way. The fact is, All-D – that is to say, entire reality, not merely the stripped-down version of it that may be experienced directly by 3D senses – is not divided as the 3D version is (or seems to be). Therefore, in effect, All-D reality has different rules than 3D reality, or, we could equally well say, All-D reality is different essentially from 3D reality. Only, there is only one reality, but the way that reality seems to “obviously” be depends entirely upon the vantage point from which it is considered. We regret having to harp on this point – which will seem so obvious to some – because it is not obvious to everyone, and even to those to whom it is obvious when stated, it is easily forgotten or, shall we say, left unattended in a separate mental bucket at any given time when one is concentrating upon something else.

In the way we are explaining the world (that is, reality), in the All-D we are indeed all one, and therefore there is no “other,” no “external world.” And therefore – another therefore – you affect the world directly by what you are, at least as much as by what you do. And even this sentence requires careful consideration.

Yes, I get that. But it evanesces, and I am left with agreement without specific understanding.

What you do may be paraphrased, “What you will; what you actually intend.” But that in turn depends upon what you are, for what else is will founded on if not a being who wills? What you are determines what you wish, and in turn is determined by what you were, which is determined by a combination of where you began at a previous instant and what you chose at that instant.

Seems like that could be said more clearly. We are whatever we are as a result of past decisions, which our free will exercised upon pre-existing conditions.

And thus, as we say, what you are at any given moment is as important as what you specifically will. Another way to say it: Your unconscious will (that is, what you have made yourself to be) is as important as your conscious will (that is, any specific immediate intent). And this is how you affect external reality, by adding your vote to any issue.

I know that isn’t clear enough as stated, though I can feel toward it.

You as All-D beings affect other All-D beings directly, which means you can affect All-D reality directly, for the 3D trance is a result of All-D beings in concert. (In discord, too, but you know what we mean.) How greatly or how little you affect it depends upon many things, primarily your level of being, and your intensity of application at any given moment, and how well or ill your intent fits with that of others. But that is where you affect your 3D external reality, and not (as seems to 3D eyes) directly in an “external” world.

Next time, perhaps we will suggest a few specific examples of the kinds of interactions – conscious and otherwise – that characterize 3D beings, affecting 3D reality “magically.” But enough for the moment.

Things seem to be culminating again. Thanks for your long effort to sketch our way toward a more coherent understanding of things.

Our thanks in turn, to all who have come along for the ride. It takes two or more to communicates, even if “all is one.” We smile.

Me too. okay, till next time.

TGU — Magical interaction with the external world

Sunday, June 17, 2018

4:15 a.m. So, guys, yesterday you said we’d resume with more on how we produce external events by our reaction to previous external events. You said, “We are talking now about magical interaction with the external world.”

Yes, in the context, remember, of two other aspects of external reality as you experience it. It is the fact that external events have these three aspects, rather than any one of them, that confuses the issue. Anyone seeing clearly only one aspect, or even any two aspects, will have a firm but incomplete idea of the nature of reality, and this will lead him or her to draw incorrect conclusions excluding certain aspects of what is real.

You mean, I think, they will become materialists, or spiritualists, or whatever, as a result of not seeing how the other aspects can be equally true.

That’s right. They will have lost beginner’s mind, in that respect, and so certain doors will be closed to them. They will be pushing on doors that open toward them, you might say.

So, as we discuss magical interaction with the world, try to keep in mind that the other modes of interaction remain true. They don’t go away merely because this one is also true.

And that brings what seems to be a burst of enlightenment. It is analogous to the levels of control over our health that you once sketched out.

Yes. Don’t go into it in any detail, but give the general idea in a sentence or two.

The level of control over our health that we have depends upon the ground-rules of the world we live in – and that depends upon the level of integration of 3D resources that we can command. You didn’t put it quite that way, but that’s what it amounted to. I put it into Imagine Yourself Well as a table of five levels of being, five levels of interaction, ranging from no effective access to the miraculous abilities of someone on Jesus’ level. I hadn’t seen it till now, but that is a concrete example of what you’re talking about here.

Yes it is. And the central point, for you, for your readers, for anyone in 3D, is: Your interaction with the external world is not under your total control (obviously), but it is potentially qualitatively different depending upon your effective level of integration with your non-3D components. Some people live in a constricted, determined environment; others live in a world of magical potential. Same world. Some people’s every wish is frustrated; others get what they really want, as if by automatic pilot. Same reality. And, even more importantly, some people at a high level of integration nonetheless do not get things they very much want, and no one, even at the highest level, the most magical and miraculous and what we might call miraculiferous level, gets everything they want.

“Miraculiferous” means miracle-producing, or miracle-bearing, I understand. I’m not sure the word is going to catch on, however.

Who cares? It made the point, which is that the highest levels of integration produce miracles, not merely experience them, and even these levels do not get everything they want. This is just common sense, and you can see it anywhere you please, but it is a bit of common sense that tends to get lost as one explores these rarified realms of speculation. In other words, it is an aspect of reality that gets lost sight of when one discovers the truth of other aspects. We don’t want you to be among those who lose sight of it, or you won’t go any farther than established thought has gone long ago.

It can be easy to lose sight of.

It is only a matter of the world being larger than any of its parts. Dion Fortune’s group – and Hitler’s, for that matter – had certain ways it wanted the world to be, but for all their magical abilities, they had to fight for them; they could not merely will them into existence, nor did their going into battle assure their success.

Again (and again, and again), this is only what your experience of the world tells you every moment, only you must integrate what you know in one part of your mind with what you know in another. External reality is as real as internal reality, even though neither is quite as simple as they may appear. They may either one be ill-defined; they do not thereby go out of existence. They must be taken into account, or your mental construction (deduction) of the world will be one-sided and seriously distorted.

Yes, you magically affect externals. No, externals are not under your sole control. Really, we can see that the first statement might not be obvious, but we should have thought the second would be. Only long experience says otherwise.

But let us spend a moment on the question of how and how far and under what conditions your individual selves affect external reality magically.

How. Remember, although we discuss the subject as if it were a matter of a 3D individual affecting a 3D world, the reality is that it is an All-D individual affecting an All-D world, and cannot be otherwise. Although you may be entirely unaware of your non-3D component, still it is there. Although you may be entirely unaware of the world’s 3D component, still it is there. You ignore this only at the price of missing the point entirely. The difference in your level of integration determines the difference in your conscious control of the situation, not the nature of it. Your full being is only partly in 3D; to treat 3D affairs as if only the 3D mattered is to – well, find an analogy.

Any analogy that showed us mistaking a part for the whole, I guess. Someone thinking that the physical radio set produced the message rather than reproduced it.

Good enough. Not bad, in fact. The transmission over the airwaves is invisible to one who places his faith only in what he can see. The radio exists. The program is experienced. But it is obviously superstition to assume that the radio program can have been produced elsewhere and transmitted without wires. A valuable analogy if not over-stretched.

But time is running short today. let us defer further consideration of how, so that we may dispose of how far, and under what conditions, if possible.

How far. The variable, the limitation, is partly within the individual and partly inherent in the time the individual lives in. One’s level of integration clearly determines one’s ability to command one’s innate resources, but even here, individuals vary widely. Two people each in full communication with their non-3D components will not be identical. They will each be their full selves, but that full self will be different. Obvious, isn’t it, once pointed out? If you were all fully awake, fully functioning, still you would all differ. That’s what you came to 3D to do: to express your difference; see out of your own private window; make your unique contribution. And, at the same time, the canvas upon which one paints one’s life and makes one’s contribution is not self-created, but is in existence before one makes an entrance. Again, it is obvious but is easily lost sight of.

As to “under what conditions,” remember, again, that you are All-D creatures affecting an All-D world. External reality could be looked at, for this purpose, as the entirety of all the affected All-D creatures, taken together. Again, a common-sense understanding, though here somewhat unusually defined. External reality isn’t some inanimate (or even animate) “thing”; it is the product of so many individual All-D reactions and interactions to what is presented.

And we will resume with more on the “how” of individual integration with the external world, next time.

So much more, behind the little bit we get written.

It is always that way – but again, remember, words as sparks, not as definitions.

Yes. Okay, see you next time, and our thanks as always.