Blog

Wednesday, April 9, 2025

5:35 a.m. Have ben reading Walden steadily, but almost through now. I have hoped for another session such as yesterday’s. but I don’t think I have energy enough.

Return to Brunton rather than Thoreau (much less [Earl] Diggers [creator of Charlie Chan]), and perhaps your wells will refill. Thoreau inspired you, but that was long ago, and perhaps you now find in him confirmation rather than new inspiration. When scarcely into manhood, you had your eyes opened by him, but by this time you read him – recognizing, it is true, but recognizing is not pioneering. One pioneers for oneself, quite as much as for one’s neighbors, and in fact whether neighbors follow you into Kentucky is mostly irrelevant to the question of where you are going.

That sounds a little like what Henry himself would have written.

It shouldn’t surprise you. Those closest to you will manifest in one resemblance or another. Can you see – we know you can – how vastly more sophisticated your ideas are now of relationships in time, next to where you began?

Of course. Who could go through so extensive a tutelage over 25 years and not be transformed by it? For which – I know you know – I am grateful. You did help rearrange my ideas until I felt the world making sense. Or, I suppose I should say, you helped me rearrange my sense of the world.

I am moved suddenly – listening? – to see if Jon [Holt] wants a word.

I do. You and I never talked about Thoreau, and he was not prominent in my thinking, but I find that he and I are more alike than I would have guessed.

Well, you certainly share an acerbic quality, come to think of it. You didn’t suffer fools gladly; hardly at all.

We shared a thread, you see; that’s my point. Henry, I, you. It made an instinctive sympathy among us.

I feel that, now that you say it.

Sympathy between people is less about ideas or even interests, than something more personal. Like natures

Lost it. “Like natures” was a wrong turn somehow.

That’s one example of how your attunement sharpened over the years. It was a sort of blurring of focus, but you picked it up right away. What I meant was that people who share a thread, a strand, will be linked at a level well below consciousness, and it will mark them the way two brothers may be marked so that even if they themselves see mainly the differences between them, outsiders will first sense the similarities.

Now of course, everybody is part of all one thing, ultimately, but that isn’t as helpful on an individual level, any more than it would be to say that Florida and California are all part of the earth, so they aren’t much different.

On a human scale, they are. And on a human scale, if you are going to make meaningful distinctions, you have to see distinctly! You have to say, a pumpkin and an eggplant are not the same thing, no matter what they may have in common.

Understood. So what is the point here? I know you have one, and I suspect it had to do with my reading Thoreau again.

It has to do with the thought you scarcely remember to have had – that I helped send your way, you might say – that it was our talks last December that discussed the sins and virtues in a way that might help you write the essay you have already half forgotten about.

It is more complicated than I have seen yet, isn’t it, this interacting?

Yes. You tend to think of things as more straightforward than they are, more straight-ahead. But things curl around, and retrace their steps, and flow  back and forth, and all at speed, so your conscious mind simplifies the result into an idea it can hold without getting dizzy.

It isn’t, you contact me, I contact Henery, Henry contacts Emerson, say. It isn’t even, you contact me or I you, and we banter back and forth like this appears to be. And it isn’t as simple as a two-way conversation, with one or more people butting in or joining in or taking over. And it also isn’t a free-for-all. Communication has structure, but it isn’t Roberts Rules of Order.

Go ahead.

Go back to your idea of a 3D mind being like iron in a magnetic field. Think of communications as being a dance of various pieces of iron in that kind of suspensory field. You can see that it  there would be laws of nature applying, but they wouldn’t necessarily be simple and certainly wouldn’t be unvarying in application. It would be complicated. But someone looking at the field from outside – and still more from inside – might not be able to follow every little fluctuation of influence. He would simplify it not so much in his mind as in his perceptions.

I get the idea of that. He would see it simplified because, say, the movements would be too quick and too complex for his eyes to see or his mind to discern.

And therefore this is all at an unconscious level, you see. You can’t be conscious of what you can’t perceive as input.

On a sensory level, not on an intuitive level.

Of course, but in this case the difference isn’t as important as you might think. The point is, as you very well know, if you aren’t conscious of it, you can’t have control of it, even to the point of thinking about it.

Not even abstract thought, sort of blue-sky “what if?”

That’s what I’m getting to. Where do you think such ideas some from , since they don’t come from deduction from sensory experience?

They don’t?

They don’t.

I guess, from our non-3D component, directly or indirectly.

Exactly, and talking to the guys, or my talking to you, or you working with Rita, is all the “indirectly” we’re talking about.

I’ve almost got it. We help each other, across lives, by suggesting things that are clear where we are (for whatever reason) but not so clear to others.

That’s the idea.

This builds on yesterday’s.

Spell it out.

Every life is individual in effect. We are all specialists in our time, our place. This means each of us is open to deeper insight from one particular insight than perhaps anybody else is or ever could be. But we can pass this insight around among ourselves, and it looks to us like they are free-floating ideas, or perhaps they merely feel to us like our own ideas. “Oh, what a bright body I am!”

So there’s the conversation you hoped to have and thought you probably wouldn’t be able to have.

Thanks, Jon. It is very good to be in touch again. I had wondered if we had drifted out of reach of each other.

Does your left arm drift out of reach of your right arm? Have you ever heard that “All is one”?

I did hear that somewhere, come to think of it.

Not every rule people make up is true, and even if true, not every rule is absolute. The world will give you what you need.

I sure couldn’t have gotten you to agree with that when you were in the body!

You get what you need, not necessarily what you want.

Like the song. Okay, Jon, thanks and let’s do this some more. I may call this “Extension, Part II.”

Try, “Productive complications.”

Or I may try that. Thanks.

 

Tuesday, April 8, 2025

5:30 a.m. Reading in A Search in Secret Egypt, remembering my own time in the King’s Chamber, but [unlike Paul Brunton in the 1930s] surrounded by the others of Ruth Shilling’s party, I having done no preparatory fasting, but wanting some form of contact or knowing, and not receiving it.

Did I waste that opportunity?

You made the opportunity; seized it, used it, were quietly transformed by it – and at the same time were apparently unaffected.

Two levels of consciousness.

Certainly. One level clasped hands with – reunified – other levels of “long ago.” The normal level of everyday 3D consciousness linked this “normal” experience with your normal life.

I think you mean, my physical presence in the chamber served to link my consciousness to another part of myself in other times.

That is a carelessly put approximation. By that we mean, not that you are careless in your description, but that it is entirely insufficient, because in the absence of context it must be so.

Say more?

Your 3D consciousness may be described as a magnetic field in the midst of the forces of the moment (This is why consciousness fluctuates so.) Your non-3D consciousness is immune to the pressures of the 3D moment, being outside that crucible – except insofar as it is connected to your 3D consciousness. You see? It is the eternal (that is, the outside-of-time) linked to the temporal. An inherently unstable stability, a paradoxical yoking of the eternally-still to the eternally-moving.

This is why human consciousness has the potential to touch the non-sensory eternal. Which end of the polarity do you connect to – identify with – at any given moment? If the fluctuating end, you experience “everyday life” as if it were the reality. If the eternal end, you experience the infinite as if it were the reality. But for compound beings, the reality can only be both, not one or the other, regardless of how one sees or conceptualizes it.

So with a certain amount of effort we may become conduits.

Yes – but it isn‘t as simple even as that, for the effort may come from one end or the other. It may be effort in your present-day life but it may also be, or may be instead, effort from the opposite end of the polarity – from the “you” that you were in other lives. And in fact it is still less simple yet. The effort may be being made – and perhaps also resisted – by more than one other, for it is not so simple as one present-day-you and one previous-you. It is more like a community of present-day you and other communities of you in other times.

A community on the 3D end experiencing interaction with perhaps many communities on the non-3D end.

Yes. “All is one.” You are each communities of strands, each of which is a community of strands, so that individuality is always somewhat illusion. It is real, but never absolute.

It is the kind of thought that is hard to hold in mind. I feel like I ought to be gasping with effort, yet it feels perfectly understandable – and totally beyond my real grasp, at the same time. I wish I had an image to hold it. Words are slippery.

Produce images and we will comment. As usual, what you produce through effort will stay with you, while what you might receive as a gift might not.

Well, let’s see.

[Waiting.]

“Tug-of-war” is the first image that arises.

A good image, including the element of opposition – of unity through the tension of opposition. Try again.

[Waiting.]

Alliances, cooperating on either end. But this isn’t very helpful.

Perhaps more so than you realize. Alliances are fragile, require continual effort, are aimed at a purpose. Again?

[Waiting.]

I get the sense of smoke signals and connect with Thoreau’s poem “Smoke” that I put on my blog for today. The poet as communicator. Our attempts to communicate from this end. No, our attempts to listen at this end, but I get a sense now that we ought to be more aware that we are also speaking from this end.

Should it be any different for any moment of time just because that is where you are experiencing it? Those other lives were – are – speaking from their time, you are speaking from yours. The 3D-moment tempts you always to think your present different from all other present moments, and of course it is different in context but the same in nature. Tuesday, April 8, 2025, is not essentially  different from all the rest of time, and how could it be? Why should it be? And so with every other moment.

So, tug-of-war, alliances, smoke signals. Again?

[Waiting.]

Smiling. The Internet.

No bad analogy, and one you have used before. Only, you see, using it in connection with the three previous images produces a somewhat fuller understanding.

I do see. And your preferred method of multiple alternate images works well as usual.

So now return to the night in the King’s Chamber of the Great Pyramid. That present-moment experience of the time is now more than six years in your past. It is as far from your present present-moment awareness as, say, Joe Indian, or the Egyptian Joseph. But no farther! There is always only the now. That “now” may be seen either from the 3D point of view, something always moving, or from the non-3D point of view, something forever existing.

As soon as the moment moves us along, the present-moment we just experienced becomes inaccessible to us sensorily and can be accessed only through memory or imagination.

Yes – and who just wrote that sentence?

It’s true. I had the feeling – am having it now – of watching my hand guide the pen, and, in a sense, watching my mind receive the words. It is a slight distance between the 3D moment and this not-quite-3D-only observer/participant. But – words! – while what I am saying is true, the very nature of words somewhat falsifies it by making it seem something other than what it is. Words put an aura around everything they try to describe, can’t be helped except to make note of it.

This was good work. Type it up and send it to the world – but don’t forget to read it and re-read it and hold it, don’t let this one sink out of your sight.

Profound thanks and appreciation. These days – as you know – communications at this level are rarer and their value is clearer than when they came every day I cared to make the effort.

Title this one, perhaps, “Extension.”

I wouldn’t have thought of that title. Good idea. Thanks.

 

Friday, April 4, 2025

Open for business, I guess. Things changing, but I don’t have a starting-point even for a question.

Your extensive examination yesterday of the morning’s dream was good work.

It helped to have Charles’ perspective on it. The one thing he picked up that I had missed proved quite illustrative and suggested the larger theme. But I don’t intend to share the dream on my blog.

No need to. We never asked you for transparency greater than you can bear. But notice how well the decoding worked, how helpful.

We did as well, at least, as I used to do with Fran Slocumb more than 30 years ago.

Yes and you know why.

I do now that you put it in mind. (At least, I assume that’s what just happened.) I am so much more unobstructed between 3D and non-3D than I was in those days, I can do more on my own, or with a little help from a friend, than I could do then with a trained Jungian analyst.

And that is one more benefit of openness, as we have said many times: life more abundantly.

Interesting. I get a realization that as we progress, our baseline shifts, we not necessarily noticing. Makes sense.

That is the story of anyone’s life: As they change, the baseline shifts forward or backward. They gain ground or they lose it. But no matter where they are – and no matter which way they have been moving lately – every present moment offers the freedom to move. You can strive upward, you can coast (or plummet) downward; it is up to you, always.

Your message of hope and promise has not varied in 30 years, and it is a great comfort.

You are welcome.

I get the sense I should do an essay on choice, on the virtues as decisions and the sins as sliding (I can’t find the word I want; it means a process of not applying ourselves, and losing ground by it).

Hear this: Any such essay on your part would have great value, as you are the only person who has received these messages first-hand, which means as gestalts rather than as words, even though they have often come as words in conversations with us. You will have access to all the unspoken nuances and faint breaths of meaning that surround the words and surround even the concepts. That doesn’t mean you are required to do the work – who could do the requiring? – but it does mean, if you do it, it will be worth doing.

I’ll bear it in mind.

You think, “I don’t have the energy, the concentration, these days,” but as always, the task will provide the energy.

That hasn’t been obvious.

It is sometimes a matter of overcoming an initial obstacle: Once you get into the flow, the means will be provided.

You could outline it for me, perhaps.

You don’t want much!

Is that so big a deal?

Bigger than you realize. You are asking us to perform a sequential task from a non-sequential base.

Oh come! What are you doing right now but performing a sequential task?

We – you and we together – are doing that.

So how would it be any different? I’d still have to write out your caputs.

Very well. Give us a moment.

Still after all these years surprising you need time to regroup sometimes.

“All these years” means something different to you than to us. It is the difference between two cities if you bicycle or take an airplane. We are the plane, so there isn’t much “time” difference between our departure and arrival. This can be a problem as well as an advantage.

Care to elaborate?

Do you remember when Rita, a few months into your collaboration, said to us that we had told her something “a long time ago,” and we laughed?

I understand. In the perspective of 24 years, it is clear that the lapse of a few months was just nothing.

But she had changed. You had changed. You had bicycled a laborious way that we had merely traversed in a step. The disparity in how you and we experience 3D time is not to be underrated as a potential obstacle. But of course it can be overcome; indeed, our history for 24 years demonstrates that it can be overcome. Still, it exists.

In any case –

An outline of an essay:

• Life as choice and creation.
• Navigating sequential 3D time as an organizing principle.
• Difficulties in perseverance.
• Too much input; too many “you”s.
• Sins as errors you fall into.
• Virtues as choices you may use to advantage.
• Brief specifics of the seven sins and why they impede.
• Brief specifics of the four or seven virtues and how they assist.
• Coda on why it is important.

There is your essay, if you will write it.

Yes, very good. And I get the sense that there is a reason you couldn’t actually write it, though you could – and just did – provide the general outline.

Do you wish to become a trance channel?

Emphatically not.                                                                 

Well?

Now I’m wondering if the right AI could write it.

The process of informing the AI would be more tedious than writing the essay – and how would you propose to give it all the intangibles we mentioned?

I see your point.

Title this “Baselines” if you wish.

Yes. Good title. Thanks.

 

Tuesday, April 1, 2025

My friend Frank Pasciuti, knowing that I have misplaced or lost my copy of Paul Brunton’s A Search in Secret Egypt, surprised me yesterday by giving me a copy he had just bought.

9:50 a.m. If I can read Brunton slowly enough, I’ll get more out of it than the first time. And if I sit quietly long enough, I will get something too. Surely I have waited long enough! But maybe waiting is mostly what I have been doing.

Not quite that flat and dire. You have learned as you went along, it wasn’t just waiting.

I think my record of whatever progress I made has been warped by my automatic assumption that things must be put into words, when some things can’t be put into words.

Travelers’ tales always have the same obstacles to overcome. How make words or even pictures convey the reality that is so much deeper, less tangible, less defined?

You do the best you can. But that isn’t necessarily very good.

How would you know how to mark your own paper?

The end-result of so many decades of endless searching  – no matter how often I was diverted to other things – ought to have amounted to more. I am resigned to dying ignorant, but I wish I could at least have come closer to my sense of what is possible.

You – and anyone still identified with 3D consciousness – are entirely incapable of judging.

I know, I know: We never have the data.

Well, you don’t. not because of lack of effort or ability but because of the circumstances. One could say 3D is not for understanding but for action.

Splendid. Action out of ignorance, always swinging in the dark.

That is how it may look if you pretend for the moment that your 3D component could be disconnected from your non-3D component. But how could that happen? Regardless what you are aware of, or are willing to listen to, the connection cannot be broken, because it isn’t really a connection at all, except conceptually. 3D and non-3D components are part of one thing, not two. They are a polarity, not a set of fraternal twins. How would you et out to fracture a unit along its polarizing line? You might imagine it, but it can’t really be done. So, you are never alone as a 3D-only creature, regardless how it may sometimes feel.

So, we’re swinging in the dark (no 3D clues) but are being guided by non-3D radar.

You could put it that way. Disorientation is not the same as being lost and alone.

Well, I’ll keep keeping on, hoping that what I feel is guidance and not robots or fantasy.

There is always that risk, but even if you stray from the beam, you can always find it again, and go back to following it. As you know, for most of an airplane’s journey it is off course, and it doesn’t matter. Little course corrections will get you there, and that is vastly more practical than trying desperately to stay on course every minute. Navigate by your pole-star, and relax a little.