TGU on waking and sleeping and waking again

Sunday, August 5, 2018

9 a.m. Something that had fallen asleep awakened again, a minute or two ago, on reading in Paul Brunton’s chapter “Karnak Days.” [A Search in Secret Egypt.] Just as – Ouspensky? somebody – described, I experienced a something [within me] waking up. Curious feeling. I wonder when it fell asleep? I’m sure what we read has to do with whether we sleep or waken, but I don’t know which is cause and which is effect.

Is it possible that I sometimes talk to the guys while myself inwardly asleep? If not, have I really been awake all those months in which we talked nearly every day?

You overlook the possibility that this inner awakening may be more state-specific than chronology-driven. Thus perhaps you waken when you communicate, and sleep during at least some of the time when you do not.

Which is chicken and which is egg, if that be so?

Ritual is of course designed to awaken those who partake in it. Religious rites are established specifically to assure that only so much time, and no more, will elapse before a given individual will be reminded, and hopefully awakened. But of course in time everything decays and becomes not tocsin but lullaby. The very act of fulfilling the rite ceases to awaken, and instead lulls further to sleep, because performed only as external habit.

Is this why – as Jung said – the gods never reinhabit the temples they desert? That renewal can come only by moving away from the familiar into new ground?

Well, you don’t go to Mass, do you? And yet you are not an anti-religious zealot. That is, you see the legitimate function of religion and religions, but you cannot derive from exoteric ritual what you need. In that sense, by the way, you are the temple the gods deserted (for you did not desert them, and would love to hold communion with them if they lived here still).

“You” meaning not only me, but us in general, I take it.

Those whom the shoe fits, let them wear it. Those who do not know, let them try it for size.

That’s a different “feel” than I can remember interacting with before.

To stick to the point: A community of people with common intent and a shared ritual (assuring periodic reminders) may have a better chance of remaining awake, or rather continually reawakening without too much lost time. Those of you attempting this on your own must, of necessity, rely upon close unbroken communication with the only part of yourselves not subject to 3D fluctuation, and that is, of course, your inner guidance, your non-3D component, your angels or saints or however you conceptualize your connection with the larger world of which the physical is only a part. What else do you have?

I keep thinking a new age is coming in which science, art, and religion will again be one thing, but of course I know that even if it does come, it will be long beyond our own time.

And – perhaps it has not occurred to you – you would not fit well into it, perhaps. Daniel Boone would have made a poor apartment dweller. Fishermen might not enjoy life inland. No need for further analogies; the point should be clear. You were made to be what you are. Why fight it?

Thinking about what you said here, I guess it was a good instinct that led me to begin keeping a journal all those years ago – 52, next month – even though I was not awake and wouldn’t be awake for many a long year.

Your non-3D never sleeps; it knows what you need; it knows the limits of what you can accept; it knows the most promising avenues for advancement. (It does what it can, and it is up to you to cooperate when you know and to listen when you don’t. Nobody can or would want to compel you to cooperate, or even to listen, but it is in your best interest regardless.) To keep a journal was a step toward remaining conscious, and in due time it provided a continuing venue for communication once begun. But if you had resisted keeping a journal, no doubt other opportunities would have arisen.

I know, “We’re always on Plan B.”

Well – we are. And nothing wrong with it, it’s just the way things are.

 

Dreams as first-tier experience

[Recently I decided to re-read past journals, starting from the most recent and working backward, in an on-going attempt to recapture things I may tend to forget. I haven’t gotten very far, but already, an interesting development.]

Saturday, August 4, 2018

3:20 a.m. Tired of lying in bed, not needing more sleep at the moment. But what to do? Watched a tedious Netflix movie last night and resented the time it took, though God knows I wasn’t doing anything constructive with it.

Am I getting depressed? I realize I have no idea what is going on around me politically or socially, and have no way to find out. Despair at long distance.

For the longest time, I have relied upon these conversations for a sense of purpose and of achievement. Absent them, nothing. That isn’t good.

An old pattern, an old problem. Doing as a way to validate being.

— Re-reading journal 114, I come to that dream of July 19 that had me so exultant, so exalted – only to bring me crushingly (the word I used) to earth when I realized I had been dreaming.

But – had you?

Well, that was the question, yes. Had I? Or was it a higher perception interpreted into a dream? It sure was a disappointment to realize that I was here, in 3D, rather than the dream’s reality being the reality I was in. Can I – should I – take it as encouragement that sort of backfired?

Instead of looking for the cause, look to the reality. You were so happy! You were free of so many hampering circumstances. Only, when you awoke, you tried to make 3D sense of it all, and of course could not, because symbolic reality does not translate into prosaic reality.

I lost something just then, a glimpse I got while still writing out your words.

Yes, just concentrate on it. “Symbolic” is the word, because it reminded you of John Anthony West writing on Symbolist Egypt.

Yes, it did, but that isn’t quite what I glimpsed and lost. It was a way to explain the relation—

Oh yes. First-tier, second-tier, third-tier experience.

That’s right. A dream may be considered to be a first-tier experience just as much as any 3D physical experience. And like any first-tier experience, it may have second-tier effects. That is, first there is what happens, but that is always of the moment and so – from the point of view of the ever-moving present moment – ephemeral. The effect that the first-tier event has, its second-tier effect upon your psyche, will always be what is important. A blow to the head may hurt; its second-tier effects (and we don’t mean any continuing physical trauma) will determine if it is important to you or not.

If I understand it rightly, this is (or may be) what Dion Fortune meant, in saying that modern phycology had gotten an idea of this reality, but was holding it from the wrong end of the stick. Psychology reads dreams as expressions of the psychic reality of an individual – as is undoubtedly true – but does not seem to suspect that the dream may be truer in a way than the 3D reality it illustrates.

No, slow down a little. Try again. You aren’t on the wrong track, but it needs more careful stating, and better for you to do it – and thus lock it into your understanding –than to be merely given it.

Well, this dream reassured me that my reality really exists, that I am not stuck here as it sometimes seems, that what I know can be experienced.

[The dream, as recorded Thursday, July 19, 2018, at 2:20 a.m.

[I was so exultant! But then –

[I slipped out of a church service; it was evening, I guess. I was aware of people watching me, or anyway they might be watching me, but I didn’t care. I set off for home. I was barefoot but that didn’t seem odd. I began walking, only I was slip-skipping, traveling a little above the trail, which led through the woods. I was so exultant: I was flying, and this time there could be no doubt about it. All the way home to what was Rita’s house, and I walked the last little way, up a small hill, carrying something in front of me (a chair?) that I had been carrying the whole time. When I entered the house, Matt and Sarah and the kids {i.e. my daughter and her family} were there, it was Christmas night and a couple of presents were still unopened.

[But then I realized that I was in the recliner on the first floor, in p.j.s and a robe.

[So crushingly disappointing. Yet still I suspect that it means something.]

But then one wakes up, and must decide, what does the dream mean? Is it only wish-fulfillment? Does it symbolize important non-3D realities? So I suppose it is a pioneering instinct. It is a reassurance from the future, and/or from a wider part of the present moment.

It is a first-tier fact, rather than, as it may appear to be, a reaction to 3D mental and/or physical events.

“Rather than”? Couldn’t it sometimes be, “in addition to”?

Perhaps. But the important point here is that a dream has its own reality and is not merely a symbol of something, just as an idea has its own reality and is not something you made up.

So when we react to our dreams –

You remember “When you wish upon a star.”

I do every so often. That was a magical event for me, for no particular 3D reason I ever saw.

It came because you would need it. Tell the story.

I was a boy, watching a Walt Disney TV show. I don’t remember what the show was about, but at the end, with little apparent connection, a man’s voice sang these magic words –

When you wish upon a star,

Makes no difference who you are.

When you wish upon a star

Your dreams come true.

When you wish upon a star,

Makes no difference who you are.

Anything your heart desires

Will come to you.

When you wish upon a star,

Makes no difference who you are,

When you wish upon a star

Your dreams – come – true.

It almost brings me to tears, so many years later, because I vividly remember how that song penetrated my core. I can’t remember if I felt exalted or reassured or what, but something in me clung to that message of desperately needed encouragement.

Disney as dream, you see. He organized and institutionalized a dream factory for just that reason. That was his function, to encourage, to cast out lifelines in a desperate time.

Well, God bless him. It certainly worked for me. And it reminds me of my friend Robert Clarke, saying how much cheerful optimistic American films helped in the depths of the English hard times of the 1930s and 1940s. This puts that in a different light.

So there is your “doing” for the morning.

Well, it helps, always. Thanks.

 

Mind Mirror report

In the June issue of The Echo World, Central Virginia’s metaphysical monthly paper, I promised the readers that I would report in August on what if anything happened in the Discovery program at The Monroe Institute that was going to wire us all up to the Mind Mirror. (August issue, rather than July, because deadlines for copy for the July issue would have been June first, or, in other words, before the program began. Even I am not that intuitive.

August issue is just out. If you are so unfortunate as not to live in Virginia, you can look at it here:  http://theechoworld.com/Magazine/magazine.html

 

TGU — three views of humans and strands

Thursday, July 26, 2018

6:10 a.m. Very well, guys, humans as prisms, and as the results of prisms.

Well, let’s look at humans as the elementary light that has been so many times recombined. This may turn out to be easy to say, or difficult. Let’s find out.

The point we made is that any given 3D compound-being is made up of numerous strands, or threads – call them what you will – that henceforth function together as a unit, and may, acting as a unit, enter another compound-being as one of its threads. However, this is not an either/or situation. Any such being is not a unit in the way that people in 3D think themselves (experience themselves) to be units. And this is the slippery concept that may elude people. Usually does elude people, so that they wind up thinking things are one way or the other, not conceiving that they may be one way and the other.

The sense that I am getting is that we are at once finished products and the raw material (sub-assemblies, I suppose would be a better way to look at it) for further products. And, come to think of it, we are also the raw material. So, three aspects: Original material, sub-assembled material, input to further development.

Yes, only don’t let yourself be fooled by unconscious assumptions into thinking you are or ever could be only one or even two of three, rather than, always, all three.

As so often, it is a new clarity that seems like it ought to have been obvious all the while. We are the original material, or substance, or pattern, or energy, whatever we should call it to avoid misleading associations. We are also what we have made of it in our particular part of creation, and we are the result of past construction and part of future constructions.

Only, call it “play” as well as “construction,” and you will get rid of the grimmer overtones of your conceptualization.

Hence, we are individual only in a manner of speaking, just as you have said from the beginning. We are individual only as long as one puts limits on how far to look, how much to include.

Correct.

And, just as you have always said, we are all one; we are all units; we are all communities.

Now perhaps you can see more clearly how perceived divisions among humans, animals, vegetables, minerals – not to mention unbound forms such as other parts of the energy spectrum perceived and unperceived, and other parts of reality beyond that, usually lumped only in magical realms – perhaps you can see why any divisions among things, all of which retain their original “is”-ness, can only be provisional, never absolute.

The units within reality are only units because of the way we slice things.

Well, in the broadest sense of “we” that may be more or less said to be true. But in ordinary terms, such divisions are more or less fixed to your perception and you may (or may not) be able to transcend them momentarily, but you can’t really go beyond them or reshuffle the deck.

Laying out the cards is beyond our pay grade.

Depending upon how one defines “our,” yes. The point at the moment is this: You are you (the current 3D assembly reading or writing this) and you are you (the collection of strands functioning together that comprise that assembly) and you are you (the indefinitely large number of constituents of each strand, and the constituents of each of those constituents, ad infinitum. Hence you are vastly more than you commonly experience yourselves to be, and have access to anything any part of you has experienced, which in effect is without limits.

This turned out to be easier to express than we had feared. The main thing is that, once created, nothing ceases to exist. But neither do the things it was made from cease to exist, either in their new form as part of the newly created unit, nor in their original form before that creation, which itself was the result of prior creation, and on and on backward until you come to the original creation which also is beyond your pay grade, as you say, only is still within your memory, potentially.

It is?

Potentially. The major obstacle in all such recapture is your own filters that prevent you from thinking certain things, or from seeing them in any way that seems self-evidently nonsensical to you.

But these can be overcome.

That’s the purpose of the process of becoming awake, to see clearly.

Huh!

Think of yourselves – our-selves, we remind you, for it isn’t as if we were divine and you human – think of yourselves as the eyes and also the creative hands of reality. All that complication, all that play of elements, all that drama – do you think any of it is wasted, or meaningless, or tragic? Do you think, as some do, “God sleeps,” or “Life is a useless passion,” or “Man is only a collection of a few cents’ worth of chemicals”? Given your own indifference to – ignorance of – past tragedy, how important do you think first-tier effects are today? And, if you think, “They’re happening now! Of course they’re important!” – then, how about those of 10 years ago, or 20, or 50, or 100, or 1,000, or 10,000? Anything that ever happened, happened in the now. Where else could it have happened? But if you are not all torn up by the Rape of Nanking or the sacking of Rome or the worldwide destruction in past floods or other cataclysms – What distinguishes any of them from your own dramas, except that you are here, now? Two years from now, you will see it differently. Which point of view is “right”? Today’s? That of 2020? That of 3020?

Be careful in your reactions, here. We do not say, “Be indifferent to suffering.” We say, “If you wish to be awake, you must see things clearly and not through accustomed filters.” If you allow drama to persuade you that your 3D reality is real in any absolute sense, how are you going to remember that it is only relatively real, that the players are only relatively units, that your life is only relatively what it seems to be?

All right, you’ve made the point before.

And we will need to make it again, because everything in your lives leads you to think otherwise.

All right, so we have expressed what we set out to express.

Going away for a bit?

We never claimed this was going to be another book. We had some redefining we wanted to do. This is enough for now.

Okay, well, thanks. Till next time.

 

TGU — on strands and immortality

Wednesday, July 25, 2018

4:45 a.m. All right, guys, I’m ready. Just scanned recent transmissions, to try to remember where we were. I hope that isn’t necessary, but I figure it can’t hurt.

No, can’t hurt. The intellectual thread we are pursuing at the moment is the immortality of lives that continues in a way you haven’t considered. Much of this whole long discussion was spurred by Bob Friedman asking you what people do in the afterlife, you remember.

That seems quite a while ago, quite a few books ago. But yes, now that you remind me, I do.

We could not answer without showing you that your society’s many unspoken assumptions were wrong, that the reality of life is different from its appearance, and so the very assumptions built into such questions prevent it from being answered. You [that is, members of our society, our culture] have been given so many conflicting descriptions of life, death, afterlife – because people do not question their own assumptions.

For that matter, I suppose it began with Rita’s questions in 2001.

It did, for you. Until the series of prep sessions in 2000, you had only patchwork ideas picked up here and there from whatever resonated in what you read. But you never would have begun to tease out the implications of what you had been given in the sessions, without Rita’s persistent questioning. And you never would have had access to answers without the information as a starting point that you got in the black box during those sessions.

So I suppose I may take it that you have been providing me with the resources as we went along.

It is the same for everyone, only they must keep their intent clear. By that we mean, not the path – for the path may seem nonexistent – nor even the goal – for how can you know where you are headed, if you are exploring new territory (even if only new to yourself) – but what you want to be or become or continue to be. Have a clear ideal of self-construction, and the means to grow toward it will be provided, moment by moment.

We won’t take a lot of time on this, for it is almost tangential to our theme, but, a minute or two.

Consider Abraham Lincoln. Could you or anyone think that he lived his life expecting to be elected president and save the Union and finally settle the slavery question and, in the process, become a model of an upright uncommon common man? If he had had such an idea (and from where could he have gotten it?), it would have led him to delusions of grandeur. No, his day to day existence was an experience of living a raw life, very conscious of his social and educational shortcomings. His continuing resolve was to better his condition; his continuing way of being was goodwill, charitable intent, tender-heartedness, melancholy, a love of fun – all the traits that are so well known in him – all shot through with a continuing ambition that saw law and politics as its channel, but saw no real outlet or obvious channel for what would really satisfy that ambition. He lived his life having to damp down his expectations to what seemed reasonable, regardless of other things within him that whispered, quite irrationally, that there were other unnamed and unshaped prospects before him. And who would have been able to believe such a destiny as was Abraham Lincoln’s?

Our point concerns not Abraham Lincoln, primarily, but you, whoever reads (or writes, for that matter) this. Clear intent is your gyroscope; it will hold your course true even though you cannot see any but the next step ahead.

Thank you. That was pretty eloquent.

Hopefully it clarified once again how very much your lives are in your hands.

All right. Now, to continue on the unsuspected aspects of immortality.

Each new incarnation may be regarded as a new soul or as a continuation in new clothing of a pre-existing soul’s existence. Either view is somewhat true – it is true from a certain point of view – and neither is absolutely true. That is, neither is the only valid way of seeing it. Those who can only see it one way believe the facts prove that reincarnation does or does not exist, and that the soul does or does not have more than one 3D existence. But, beyond that, those who have been following our description may not be seeing a further ambiguity, which is what we are attempting to clarify.

A soul is formed (or, if you prefer, resumes its journey in new clothing). It consists of a bundle of strands that it – the personality, the “ring” that is the 3D soul – holds together for the course of a lifetime. Living that life, it chooses, chooses, chooses, and in the process decides (shapes) what it wishes to be. That is, it chooses which values and traits it wishes to emphasize, to live, and which it chooses to de-emphasize, or fight against, or disown. Depending upon the homogeneity or otherwise of the original mixture of strands, the soul has an easy or a difficult time, holding things together. But at some point it completes its 3D journey. Then what?

Or, a better way to put it – what has that soul become, and what has its 3D life done to its constituent strands?

There are at least two ways to answer the question, aren’t there?

As usual.

One way is to trace what those years of living together has produced that is new (and this is what we have concentrated upon until now), and the other is to trace what has happened to those individual strands that continue to be individual strands, even as they also become part of something new.

It is people’s inability or unwillingness to see that both processes co-exist that causes so much unnecessary confusion and dissention.

And, as always, I’m hearing, unsaid, “which is why religions etc. have to preach a simplified set of dogmas”; because who is going to be able to redefine everything for the average person who is not particularly interested in such questions, and is not particularly awake to non-3D explanations.

Well, also because religions – including the religion of materialism – are chiefly carried on by people who are not inclined to see things more than any one way. That trait closes them off from any but the most dualistic reading of the way things are.

So, you can see that a person’s decisions in a lifetime help determine the composition of character (call it) that is the result of that lifetime. Thus the soul that results is different in some way from the soul as it was when it entered that life. The combination of strands has lived together. Regardless of your opinion of whether that particular soul existed before the life, it exists (either for the first time, or in a way altered by the lifetime) afterward. But – and this is our new ground here – let’s look at the pre-existing strands themselves. They did not lose their individual identity, living as part of a new bundle. They are still as individual as they ever were – only, remember, “individual” is a relative and not an absolute term.

You have to ask yourself, though, where did that strand come from? Suppose you adopt the view that says Bertram was one strand that went into the making of Frank DeMarco. The “Bertram” that is that strand is actually a form of shorthand representing a reality that might be termed – if it were not impossibly too long to use – “the strands that lived together in a particular place and time and therefore were available to function as a relative unit.”

Yes, I get it. I’ve had it for a while now, today. On one end, we are –. Oh, didn’t you use the funnel analogy once? Wide at the receiving end, narrow at the resultant one? Or perhaps that was a different subject.

You might more profitably look at an individual 3D life as a prism working not to diffract but to reconnect. That is, many waveforms entering, one waveform (containing them all) emerging. And each prism-focused lifeform may then enter as one strand into another prism-focused lightform.

Thus each new form may contribute to further developments without losing its own identity. But if you look at that, you see that you are faced with the question, what were these lightforms before they went into the focusing process?

You are back in your old cliffhanger mode, I see, as it has been an hour.

Well, we made some progress today, and it helps you to have a definite point of departure each time.

That it does. Thank you for this very interesting discussion, or lecture, or whatever. Till next time.

 

TGU — Creation and life

Tuesday, July 24, 2018

2:45 a.m. I feel like I’m waiting, now. Waiting for something scheduled, but unknown to me, as before the Discovery course, when I felt strongly that it was going to be important, but could not know how or why or even if. Perhaps after the lunar eclipse on my birthday.

Meanwhile, what you called our inheritance of lives. I get that it means more than that each life continues to be alive in reference to its own time, but I can see we’re in for some redefinition.

It may become tedious, before we have spelled it out to our own satisfaction. So many changes in viewpoint require continual checking to be sure that people are still on board, and since such checking cannot be done orally, it can only be done by redundancy.

Let us begin by using your own strands as example, bearing in mind that, as usual, our explanation is going to be less precise in the beginning, because terms will need to be more carefully defined and delimited as we go along. That means, initially we must use terms loosely, or else you could not follow us.

Rita’s old “To understand A, you must understand B, but…”

It is a fact of life, like alternation of consciousness, or perspective shifts, or gravity. It is just one of the constraints imposed by 3D existence.

So, let’s begin where so many explorations begin in your life, with the continuously present but mostly taken for granted presence of David Poynter.

The Welsh journalist and psychic investigator, who I think used the name Peters as his pen name.

It is his tendencies, many of them, that shaped your life, and he was the one who introduced you (at your suggestion) to Joseph Smallwood, remember. His continuing existence within you was manifest to you in London that time, when you experienced his grief and anger when you looked at the war memorial that said, merely, “July 1, 1916.” It was his voice you were able to capture on the tape recorder, standing on Dun I, on Iona.

David had an interesting life, of much significance to you, but that life he lived did not cease when that body died. This, you know. But it is the nature of its subsequent immortality that is somewhat different than you have been imagining it.

Now I am thinking of Voltaire’s sardonic definition of the soul in the Christian concept as “an infinite stick with one end.”

Yes, the idea that a soul could come into existence and then remain in existence forever seemed ridiculous to him. It did not occur to him, perhaps, that this is the nature of creation. Notre Dame, the Roman Colosseum, the Parthenon, the masterpiece at Agra (the Taj Mahal), even lesser works such as Monticello or some of the architectural masterpieces of Louis Sullivan, did not exist, and then they did. Once they came into existence, they could not cease to exist merely because they were damaged or destroyed. Creation is forever, in that sense, and it is as true of human souls as of intellectual constructions such as architecture or music or theorems.

But aren’t all creations merely the bringing into 3D existence of something that existed in possibility all along? Plato’s archetypes?

There is a difference, though, between potential energy and kinetic energy, between what always might have been and what ever actually was.

The CD-ROM video game’s total potential versus any particular run of the game.

Everything – hence, anything – is potentially existent, but only that which is made manifest in form exists in reality.

Now, you know that’s going to get us into trouble.

It is mostly a matter of slogging through, as usual. Most potential misunderstandings sort themselves out, given persistence and at least a modicum of Beginner’s Mind.

What we mean is that anything is only potential until it is made manifest. This doesn’t mean, until it is put into physical form, exactly. It means, more, until somebody has thought of it. It isn’t the playing or the transcribing or even the initial notation of Beethoven’s Third Symphony that brought it into existence, but Beethoven’s capturing it in his mind. Once he had done that, something new existed in the world, and would have continued to exist even if no one had ever heard it played. Even if he had never written it down (but had once had it firmly in mind). We have been through the successive levels of manifestation with you before, and more than once.

Yes. Conception, realization, then various levels of sharing with the world.

You took that explanation to be an explanation of the various levels of influence one could have on the world, and that is accurate, so far as it goes. But it is also an example of 3D creation of souls. Creation is creation, and it is very little different according to the materials one works with. Bach’s children were his musical works, no less than his physical offspring. Very different materials, very different results. But the same creation according to the laws of creation.

Here is the law that ought to sober you as well as encourage you, given that your entire lives in 3D are lives necessarily filled with creation: Once created, created forever.

But since everything exists in potential, or we couldn’t bring it into manifestation, how is our bringing it into manifestation a turning point? I mean, how can bringing anything into 3D existence really matter?

We know you got the implication, but we spell it out for clarity’s sake: Creation in 3D is not merely material but intellectual and emotional. The non-3D is no less a part of the All-D in which you live than is the 3D, so things that you “merely” think or imagine or envision are no less real than those that can be cobbled together in material reality. That is, the Moonlight Sonata is as real in its intellectual conception (with its emotional properties) as in its notation on paper or its performance on instruments. Non-3D creation is creation, merely of a different order than 3D creation; 3D creation in the non-material (such as ideas) is as real as in the material (such as written manuscript).

To answer your question, manifesting any given potential is choosing this over that. It is choosing.

Yes, I see. I hadn’t thought of it that way, but it is obvious enough now. What we create is what we prefer.

It is what you prefer to encourage into existence.

Hence the church’s admonition that we may sin through our thoughts, I suppose.

That was the original idea, when it was still realized that to live in 3D is to be an active creator. But when the idea decayed into a continuing test of obedience to a set of rules, you can see that it became an enforcer of conformity – or anyway an attempt to enforce conformity – rather than a guide to responsible creation.

And in resisting coercion we fell into undisciplined creation without any sense of consequences.

That you did. And that is one of the things we hope to correct.

“As a man thinks, so he is.”

Yes. That didn’t mean, “Think this way, or else.” It meant, “You are what you eat,” intellectually, and, even more, “Your fruits proceed from what you are in essence, not merely from what you choose to manifest.”

Now, consider. Once created, always created. It is true for human 3D lives no less than for human intellectual creations. The reason why you may communicate with Joseph the Egyptian or with Hemingway or Lincoln is not any connection with what you think of as “past” lives, but with a continuing present life. The various categories of lives that we said you could potentially communicate with were spelled out as a way of expanding your concepts. Now it is time to look more clearly at the subject, because to continue to be bound by those concepts would be to be constricted rather than expanded.

“And we’ll continue next time.”

Couldn’t have said it better ourselves.

Okay. See you then.

 

Straightening out concepts

Monday, July 23, 2018

12:15 a.m. An image of a hand politely knocking on the door – knock, knock – and I am awake and ready to go. Of course, given that I slept much of yesterday, I’m not exactly sleep-deprived. Okay, guys, the separate-but-connected eternal life of strands.

In a while. You’re jumping the gun, here.

So it wasn’t you?

We’re smiling. Ironic question, given the topic. Get some more sleep and come back to it.

Well, okay. I thought it was a clear summons.

1:25. Well, it’s disorienting. I guess I was dreaming, thinking I was journaling it. Gone now. I think still wearing the sleeve I use to stop my arm from sticking to the desk set up a physical memory that led me to think I was journaling. Funny feeling. Anyway, let’s resume.

You won’t remember, probably, but the process of your coming to the strands theory was not as straightforward as you think. In fact, the process was a mixture of us and you, as is almost always the case except in trance channeling, and even to an extent there, we could say, for the information still has to come through the channels the mind’s familiar processes will have set up.

That is, in trance channeling, the 3D conscious mind does not participate in the way it does during ILC or during ordinary consciousness in its less well perceived aspects. Still, it is the structure through which information flows. Thus Cayce’s information is couched in archaic Biblical language, and Jane Roberts’ material is still bounded somewhat by what she could admit, and by what was a natural trajectory, one might say. As a side note, the fact that she and Rob and Seth were friends before Jane and Robs’ physical 3D lives smoothed connection considerably, as did your prior association with Rita.

By contrast to trance channeling, your ILC practice involves the active participation of the conscious 3D mind, which is an advantage and a drawback. OT1H, you can increase the clarity if only by objecting that something is not clear. OTOH, as you know, there is always the question of whether this or that element has been added by you, slightly or greatly altering the meaning we intended. You have become pretty good at watching for this, but of course it is always going to be a problem.

The problem is particularly acute when the information is farthest from your expected or familiar understandings. And the concept of strands is a good example of such a problem.

I don’t feel we are making things very clear, here.

Stick with it. It will clarify. You will notice that clarity usually increases as we get better into the flow.

So, we wanted to explain to you and to Rita – this was in 2001, you remember, near the beginning of your joint explorations – that, and how, you in 3D are not what you assumed yourselves to be. Not individual, not separate. We began by saying that to us, the connections between separated units appear as obvious as the units.

You used the analogy of the threads in a tapestry, I think. On the front side – the 3D side – color appears as different non-connected dots. But this is matched by the threads on the reverse – the non-3D – side, connecting the dots that appear on the obverse.

That’s right. And we encouraged you, assisted you, to paint the painting illustrating the concept, only by then the concept had subtly changed, and now we were talking about the 3D individual as the dot and past-life connections being the invisible connecting threads.

I remember.

And at first you were taking the threads to be individual characteristics such as red hair or bad temper or artistic disposition, with the individuals being, in a sense, strung along the threads of all the traits.

Yes. I got that we comprise millions of such threads, not all of which are, or ever could be, active. Our choice as to which of them to activate is what shapes our life.

And this idea shaped your ideas about life in general, and after a time you grew dissatisfied with it and began to consider each past life – rather than the traits each might have – as the threads.

I have been alternating between the two concepts, haven’t I?

You have been silently wavering, yes, and the usual reluctance to make a firm decision has served you well, because it prevented you from deciding that a base camp must be – would have to be – the destination.

So now we are going to redefine not only the distinction between traits and what we might call 3D units – “past lives” to you, and also present lives – but between the elements of a given 3D life and the group nature of that same life.

The latter being the insight or the beginning, anyway, that I got early yesterday morning. Separate but connected eternal life.

Let us begin by straightening out the confusion between choices of traits and inheritance of lives.

Itself a clarification. Very illuminating way to put it.

Less so, without explanation, to those who can only read the words rather than getting it directly.

All right. So, choice of traits: Yes, each of you comprises millions of potential choice points and millions of predetermined choices, many of which may be re-chosen, that is, reconsidered and altered. Your physical characteristics are not quite as stubborn as you might think, but in practice, stubborn enough that you may take them as irreversible. People don’t usually change the color of their eyes, say, or their height or body type. However, examples of people whose eyes do change color, in connection with multiple personalities, may demonstrate the point, not central here, that, as we say, things are a bit more fluid than they commonly seem.

Among those millions of traits are many that are subject to change by choice. So, by careful training, by willpower, by established habit, by selection of environment, one may become more what one wishes to be and less what one begins as, in certain categories, particularly mental and emotional, though expressing as behavioral. This is all true, but not the point here.

The difference between you as a 3D unit and you as a 3D community is what we wish to focus on, at the moment, and this bears on the insight that came to you in a moment of clarity.

Inheritance of lives, you called it a moment ago.

Yes, and here we redefine what you understand in one way, to show you that you must also understand it in another way. Not this instead of that, but this and that.

The “this” is the concept of your 3D existence as a ring holding together strands each of which was a life. As we told you in those earlier sessions, your choices in this life determine to what extent one or another strand expresses. You form who you are going to wind up being by your choices as you go along. By now this concept should appear natural, even obvious, but it wasn’t always so. At one point it represented a major readjustment.

The “that” is the concept you came to yesterday, that we have never expressed till now, which is that each strand that was a 3D life continues to be a 3D life even though contained within another life as one strand.

And that is a big redefinition.

It is, but we have scarcely begun to spell it out or even clarify it. That can wait till next time. It has taken till now to clear the shrubbery, as you like to say, so that we can see the ground we’re going to work. We will continue next time.

Okay, well, thanks for this. Till then.