Thomas, Saying 41

Sunday, June 16, 2019

Saying 41

Jesus said: Whoever possesses some will be given more. Whoever possesses virtually nothing will have what little he does possess taken away.

6:45 a.m. Saying 41 seems to us today to epitomize the economic injustice we see around us, but we know that Jesus was not critiquing society, nor was he disapproving what he described, merely describing what is. Bearing in mind that he was describing our situation in 3D and non-3D, what did this one mean? And, as we have learned to do, let’s look at it in context of the immediately preceding Saying, which contrasted the inanition of literalism with what was connected to direct experience of the higher being. Again, a paraphrase, but I hope a valid one.

Yes, valid. And you cans see once again that context is everything, in searching out hidden meanings. One who does not possess the key to greater life will not come to it by mere extension of days. One who does, no matter how little, will acquire more.

“Will”? Or “may”? I don’t see that there’s anything inevitable about it. Won’t it depend upon the person’s efforts and choices?

And here, you see, you enter into the roots of theological debate – faith v. works as a means to salvation. Predestination v. free will. God’s favor as manifested in one’s station in life, or his displeasure, manifested equally. Karma as the result of past actions placing you in the caste of untouchables or in the highest caste in the land. All such questions are rooted in logic, and, as such, are seductively plausible and deadly in their effect.

I see that, since you point it out, but does that answer my question?

Look to what Jesus said, as recorded by those who heard, rather than to what makes sense to you that he must have meant. The former is testimony; the latter is logic.

All right, I see that. He is recorded as saying “will,” not “may.” So what can it mean?

You really mean to ask, how can it be that some have and others do not have what is needed to acquire life more abundantly.

I suppose I do.

“It isn’t fair,” in effect.

Yes, that’s the underlying thought, I agree. I wasn’t quite aware that it amounts to that.

So then, if we work on the assumption that life is fair, ultimately, where do we come out?

I suppose we must see one’s position as the result of past choices.

No! That is, not exactly.

Well –

Call it, the fruit of one’s birth, plus the sum of one’s choices. For not all men are created equal in standing, only in worth.

Second-class citizens of the universe, then?

Don’t react out of emotional preference, but out of discernment.

Good reminder. Well –. I don’t know, you’re going to have to give us more of a clue than that.

No, we don’t need to. You just caught the spark that leaped the gap.

Perhaps I did. We keep thinking that all non-3D beings – that is, our higher selves – are identical, even if we know intellectually that they are not. And we know abstractly that each comprises its own set of values, just as is reflected in our own 3D lives.

If all non-3D beings held the same set of values, how could conflict exist in the 3D part of the world? It is precisely in the clash and interaction and alliance and melding of values that life in 3D reflects (in slowed-down and concentrated form) life in non-3D.

Therefore, no two individuals in 3D hold exactly the same set of values in exactly the same proportions as anyone else. How could they? They are there to embody those values, not to serve as mirror images of one another.

And therefore some are born into the 3D world without a clue, and some are not.

And there is nothing unjust about it, except in appearance when viewed from too constricted a 3D viewpoint.

This may be a digression, but does this mean you approve of the caste system, and dog-eat-dog economics?

We remind you that we don’t particularly concern ourselves with your economic or social arrangements except insofar as they affect your individual development. But – as a sidelight not to be pursued here at this time – if you consider the other half of Jesus’ instructions to the people, you will see that they amount to practical instruction as to the state of being that will produce a fair and just society. This was not his primary concern, we remind you: Jesus was concerned that those who could raise their state of being learn how to do so. but concomitant with that was instruction for those who could not.

A good answer, but I’d still like a more direct one.

How can there be injustice in the universe? It would be the equivalent to a five-pound weight weighing six pounds, or four. It can’t be done.

Then where is the real justice behind the very apparent injustice in the world?

Let us ask you a very simple question, then. If you could exchange your life for that of the very rich, would you?

No. Maybe when I was younger.

Would you exchange it for that of the very poor?

When I was younger I felt guilty to have some when others had nothing, or had much less, but I didn’t exchange then either.

But if it were possible for you to become somewhat richer, or somewhat poorer, what would your reaction be?

Until it reached the limits of my comfort zone, I wouldn’t care, particularly.

So are you unjustly held in your position, or did you carve it out (or fall into it, or assume it) naturally and easily?

If I had been born into a different family at a different economic level or with a different cultural background, I would not be who I am now. I might have accomplished something, or let’s say something more.

But it is sheerly an act of faith to think that any change of circumstance could bring only advantages and no disadvantages.

Sure.

So do you suppose that you are uniquely placed in that your life provided you with the opportunity to work out your salvation, so to speak – that is, to display your possibilities by a succession of choices? As it is for you, it is for others, but all others are working on their own agendas, obviously, so what they need and create for themselves is different, as they themselves are different according to what they were formed of from their non-3D parent, so to speak.

Then this Saying – since I cannot believe it preached either inevitability or hopelessness or “resignation to the will of God” as if to the whim of a tyrant – means what? That those who could hear it were automatically among those who did have the potential? Seems unnecessary.

You will find that logic will keep sneaking in where not desired. Logic is for critiquing, not for construction. First get the understanding, then test it.

So where am I going wrong?

You in 3D have a vital part to play in the cosmic working-out of life. We occasionally remind you, life is not play-pretend, any more than it is meaningless or pre-positioned or a matter of “walking each other home,” as someone said. You are not – we are not – merely killing time.

Thoreau said once, you can’t kill time without injuring eternity.

He was perhaps trying too hard for a smart saying. In any case, you nor we are merely killing time, but in our lives we are contending with those of other values – as we said, some opposed, some in rough agreement, some not one thing nor the other.

You didn’t say that, actually. No in so many words.

But the sense was there. So listen when Jesus says to you, if you have something of the truth, there is the potential for you to have more, but if you do not, there is no hope for you. This isn’t meant as discouragement – nor, for that matter, exactly as encouragement – but as a description of the situation.

This time you said “potential”; earlier you said it was a given.

It is a matter of which context you apply. In absolute, it is “will.” At any given time, according to your decisions (which means, in effect, according to your effective will) it is potential.

So think on these things and we will resume another time.

All right, our thanks as always.

 

Thomas, Saying 40

Saturday, June 15, 2019

3:15 a.m. Saying 40, then? It has its interesting points.

40 Jesus said: A grapevine was planted outside of the Father but, as it did not strengthen, they will pull it up by its roots and it will die.

Grapevine – for wine, presumably. “Outside of the Father,” and who is the “they” who will uproot it? And what does the grapevine signify to them, that it may not to us? Previous Saying compares the literalists and the disciples, and cautions the disciples to be wise as serpents and gentle as doves by comparison.

You’re learning. You see what a good practice it is to automatically connect the present subject with its preceding context.

What do you suppose it means, “outside of the Father?”

I suppose I was thinking that nothing not rooted in the higher self – or perhaps even more basic than that, in the non-3D – would thrive. But as I write that, I see it is a shallow understanding. (It really does pay to put full attention on things.) Jesus was in the habit of describing himself as identical to the Father, or – let’s say, indistinguishable. “I and the father are one.” People later came to think that meant Jesus was uniquely divine – “the only begotten son of God,” but I’m not aware of him making any such claim. I have taken “I and the father are one” to mean that he in 3D was in full connection with his non-3D self, not only the extension of his human self into non-3D but the source of the 3D/non-3D person, the “father” whose will he strove to do in preference to doing his own will. That certainly says he and the father were not the same thing, does it not? We are not in the habit of saying “I and my kneecap are one,” though come to think of it, if the kneecap were able to speak perhaps it would regard us in that way, I don’t know. Anyway, Jesus seemed to regard the father to whom he taught the disciples to pray, in the only prayer he is recorded to have recommended, as the loving creator of humans, in intimate connection with them, whose will could be ascertained and ought to be followed. I don’t think he ever said, “follow me” so much as “follow my example,” or “walk in my path.”

Very good. You see the enhanced fluency this morning?

I do. This would not have come last night, would it? A matter of fatigue?

Never mind the why, for the moment. Let us continue with the matter in hand. So what was the grapevine planted “outside of the Father,” and who planted it?

Well, I was sort of relying on you to tell us what the grapevine was. A tradition, perhaps? An interpolation? A proposed source of nourishment or encouragement or even of intoxication for us?

Bearing in mind that the grapevine is a symbol, it may mean any and all of those things. In any case it is clearly a living thing that was meant to flourish but did not do so.

I suppose, in context, it might be a religious tradition established by the scribes and Pharisees that was planted in logic and commandments and blind faith rather than in the living will of the non-3D Father as could be lived as Jesus was living it and was teaching those who could hear him to listen to it.

All right. So, “it did not strengthen.”

They had authority and tradition going for them – and the power of coercion, perhaps, but in any case surely the power of their position. They had scholarly logic, and they knew all the verses by heart, and the arguments over the years. They had everything that 3D conditions could provide (except, perhaps, the Inquisition, though they had a non-coercive equivalent) – and still the way of thinking and being that they promoted “did not thrive.”

Actually it was the people following this regime who did not thrive. But yes, that is the sense of it. The tradition and learning and social support – and good intentions no less, and earnest striving, for there was as much of that then as now or ever – did not suffice to provide life more abundantly, not to lead the way toward it.

I see that, easily enough. The spirit gives life, but literalism kills, to paraphrase the scripture.

Literalism is always an interment. It may begin as earnest attempt at preservation, but if what is preserved is not used, worked, struggled with, its meaning goes dead on you. It is not enough to blindly obey nor to blindly reverence nor to blindly have faith. The blind lead the blind into a ditch, do they not? That is as true considered internally, as one’s thought processes, as between individuals.

So who is the “they” who will pull up this vine by the roots and let it die?

They who planted it, surely, or at any rate they who inherited from them one way or another.

Yes, that makes sense. So even the rationalists and the literalists will come to see the error of their ways?

They will lose hope (and faith) in that attempt. That is not the same thing as saying they will then understand where the vine ought to have been planted.

I’m getting that you mean, they having given up on their attempts at blind faith planted in reason and traditions, may give up the attempt at meaning. Thus, today’s materialistic disbelief in even the existence, let alone the primacy, of the non-3D aspect of the world, let alone any question of human relation to any concept of divinity, or even of any relation to any intelligent non-3D inherent connection to us.

And is this not where your civilization is?

And has been for some while. I suppose we are a people who largely believe in nothing.

Nihil, nothing: Hence nihilism, acknowledged or not. And that is Saying 40, and we may proceed at another time.

All right. Our thanks as always. This was particularly interesting to me.

That is partly because you are beginning to experience the flow. Be well. This is said to one and all, with special reference to those who do not feel well, and in the particulars in which they experience that unwellness.

Richard Bach said we are perfect expressions of perfect love.

And in so saying, he was speaking the plain truth. But knowing it is not experiencing it. Live it.

Okay. Next time, 41.

 

Thomas, Saying 39a and 39b

Thomas Saying 39 a and b

Friday, June 14, 2019

Saying 39.

39a Jesus said: The Pharisees and the scribes have taken the keys to knowledge and hidden them. They did not go in, and they did not permit those desiring to go in to enter.

39b You should be as clever as snakes and as innocent as doves.

Sayings 39 a and b at first glance don’t seem to have anything to do with each other, the first describing the failings of the scribes and the Pharisees in neither learning nor letting others learn the truth; the second admonishing his disciples to be wise as serpents and gentle as doves. But as they are coupled, presumably they are coupled for a reason.

Amigos? What say you?

Previous Saying?

The presence of Jesus was an opportunity for transformation that could be seized or missed, but in any case would be a limited-time window. Once he was gone, there would be no similar opportunity.

So, connecting the three, as usual – the one under consideration (in two parts, in this case) and the preceding –

The scribes and the Pharisees, literalists, did not grasp the true manning, and – by holding others to their own literal meaning – prevented others from grasping what they themselves could not. It was up to Jesus’ disciples – who would have benefitted from the presence and who would henceforth be animated and transformed and sustained by the spirit, to be wise and gentle; that is, to have eyes open and heart open too.

Rough paraphrase, but a good one. So you see the progression is an easy one, but if you once go off the main line, you will continue to stray.

Easy to get lost without some kind of check.

That’s the purpose of community, and of access to the spirit. Yet entire communities may go astray, and the messages of the spirit be misconstrued. Nothing is sure-fire over time.

Every tradition decays, you mean.

Let’s say, the smart money bets that way. Look to your civilization around you.

You don’t need to rub it in, it’s obvious.

Be well.

That’s it? Just two pages?

You are not in the proper place to deal with Saying 40, not that it is particularly difficult.

If you say so. Okay, next time.

 

 

 

 

Thomas, Saying 38

Friday, June 14, 2019

Jesus said: You often wanted to hear the words I am speaking to you. You have no one else from whom you can hear them. The days will come when you will seek me and you will not be able to find me.

5:50 a.m. Saying 38 seems self-explanatory, but must be included in the Sayings for some reason. What am I missing?

It is in three parts, not one. Look at it (look at anything, for that matter) more closely, more carefully, and you will see more, just as with the process of sinking into hieroglyphs.

All right. One, they have wanted what he provides. Two, he is the only source they have. Three, he won’t be there forever.

And the previous Saying?

He will appear to them when they strip off personality and approach him in essence.

Well, not quite, though mostly. He will approach them, or they will approach him.

I see the nuance. They aren’t passive recipients.

So, putting the four ingredients together?

They need to come to essence to see him. He provides what they have wanted, and he is their only source, but he won’t be in 3D forever and – I just noticed – this may also mean that even seeking him essence to essence, they may be unable to find him. Not sure that is what is intended, but it seems a possible reading.

So you see, a little more there than meets the casual eye.

Yes.

So what is it that they sought and could not find, before Jesus?

Well, you know, I had slid over that too. I assumed it meant access to non-3D, but it could mean many things. You tell us.

No, what did being in the presence of Jesus provide them that they had sought and not found? What words?

You have said he came to provide clarity on our place in the 3D and non-3D.

He taught, you will remember, “as one who has authority” rather than merely explicating scriptures.

“You wanted to hear these words.” They wanted the clarity he provided.

What’s wrong with the word “guidance”?

Say some more about that?

The disciples weren’t necessarily hungry for abstract theory, nor even explanations of abstract relationships. They weren’t all unlettered fishermen, but they weren’t looking for an outdoor university, either. Jesus provided something unique, something not to be found elsewhere. What was it?

I think of the intangible but definite effect of being in the presence of a master.

Let’s say, being in the presence allows one to function at a higher level. Being at that higher level, one can perceive and understand and absorb and be transformed by what otherwise one cannot.

And so it was up to them to be transformed while he was still in 3D, or the chance would be gone.

Well and good, as far as it goes, but why would that be taught after he was gone? Wouldn’t the message by implication discourage those who hadn’t had that opportunity?

Not if the disciples teaching it were able to do for their followers what the presence of Jesus had done for them. And this would have been after Pentecost, which changed things.

Very good. After the spirit came to permanently indwell in the disciples, Jesus being gone from 3D existence for good and all, it was that indwelling presence that could from that time be available to one and all who sought it and had capacity to accept it. And this would have been the understood background of this teaching.

You may proceed to the next, or rest here for the moment.

I think I’d pause. Thanks as always.

 

Adding complexity to the model of what we are

Adding complexity to the model of what we are

Tuesday, July 3, 2007

11 a.m. All right, so let us bring our charts to another level of complexity. Again, do this in pencil so that you will be less prone to anxiety about it, knowing that you (we) don’t have to get it “right” the first time. And of course what applies to you applies to many others, who will find our anxiety-avoidance techniques useful, perhaps.

You remember the basic diagram. Copy it in when you put this on the machine.

Now, looking at it, realize that each circle is not a unit but is in itself a complex structure, or meeting-point, or focus (however you would like to think of it) all parts of which may come into play in different circumstances. Let’s start on your side for convenience, working this from the familiar to the less familiar (although “familiar” is a very relative term, and in a way could be considered to mean “the unknown that you think you know”).

[I insert here the diagram we worked on next, so that you will have an idea of what i was working on with pencil and paper. A and G are repeated only because of limitations in the reproduction process.]

You see we start off with 1A and 1S, your dimensions – your heredity, as Yeats would say, physical and nonphysical. Putting one above and the other below is merely convention: they could be portrayed in reverse order, or side-by-side – only why overturn convention without specific reason? It only makes things harder, by introducing another complication.

You see the value of sketches, and of pencil (or rather, of eraser!) – increased clarity results and in turn is depicted. Thus you erase “connections” and write “heredity” as you realize that “connections” belongs to a different order of affiliation.

So, you add 1R for those nonphysical beings with whom you share resonance (thus bypassing questions of reincarnation) and 1F for physical beings with whom you share residents, F for a friend.

So we begin the other drawings. Looking at 1A we find: genetic inheritance of characteristics, genetic and habit-formation inheritance through the family, and the overall influence of the culture one is born into. These all affect the individual every day but usually mostly below the threshold of consciousness.

Looking next at 1S for your nonphysical heredity: developed tendencies of thought and inclination, and closely related to that, skills and knacks developed over repeated lifetimes. Also past associates of the blood or otherwise, which differs from 1R because while you are on the same wavelength with those you resonate with (by definition), any given life will shovel you into relationship with people you don’t resonate with. You have some point in common, or you could not meet – but you are not naturally in instinctive sympathy. Nonetheless the shared experience provides a link that otherwise would not be there. (It is, remember, one prime advantage of life in the physical that it allows one to associate with others of such different wavelengths that they would never easily meet on this side.) Finally we could add that which you have loved or valued. If you reread Moby-Dick seven times, or read the Bible every year like Cayce, or if you were an admirer of Napoleon or of Wellington, or if you haunted the opera or the theater, or if you were bonded to animals or trees or loved to play cards or – anything – that old connection survives, perhaps unsuspected or experienced but inexplicable to you.

Of the presence in your psyche of 1F, friends and lovers, there should be no need to say much. This is always well known. The tie between friends or between lovers may be more mysterious or complex – certainly more volatile – than is commonly experienced; nonetheless no mammal – and you are mammals while in the body, however you may think of yourselves – no mammal can live alone without shivering.

Of your nonphysical associates (1R) you have been getting some slow education. If you as a conscious creature in time-space contain all these elements, think how complex is your energy signature! Think how many, many different ways-lengths you may resonate to. Again, it is in physical matter that the universe as we know it gains so many possibilities of self-referencing incremental complexity.

That’s enough for the moment.

Yes. I think I’ll merge these three drawings into one.

Do, and copy it here, and more can be (and may be) added in time.

Thank you as always.

Thomas, Saying 37

Thursday, June 13, 2019

8:40 p.m.

[Saying 37. The disciples asked him: When will you appear to us? When will we see you? Jesus replied: When you strip naked without shame and trample your clothing underfoot just as little children do, then you will look at the son of the living one without begin afraid.]

When I first read Saying 37 – in 2002, it seems from my inscription in the front – I made this note on the page: “When the inner is as the outer – when there is nothing being hidden.” That was as I understood it then, my mind being on the admonition of Jesus to have integrity, to be the same in essence as in appearance.

But perhaps that was too superficial a view? What say you, gentlemen?

We say, what was the preceding Saying?

Saying 36 said don’t worry what to wear.

And this one says, don’t wear anything!

Very funny.

Perhaps look at it this way. When you divest yourself – unclothe yourself – of everything, what is left but you, alone, as you are, what you are. In your time (though not so much as the previous generation or three) “naked” is usually seen in context of sexuality, but it needn’t be. It may be more akin to words like unvarnished, plain, unconcealed. It may signify essence, in other words, not personality. Now, personality is an essential in 3D life. You cannot be getting by without appearances, want to or not. This is the Mask that Yeats spoke of, the Persona that Jung described. It comes with living, because no one can see the real you, with the best of intentions on both sides. Only outside of 3D conditions do we see essence to essence – and at first the newly arrived ex-human personality is apt to receive something of a shock!

I learned years ago that tact is useless in dealing with the non-3D.

Empathy is not, but tact is useless, true. Tact may be described as the pretense that things are not as they are. Jesus said when you are through with pretense, you are ready to see.

Only, we can’t really be through with pretense – in that sense of the word – till we are finished with 3D life, can we?

He didn’t say otherwise, but he answered their question, and you may be sure that soon or late he was understood, and this teaching-point was passed along in discussions among the community.

Well, that brings up a point. If the secret teachings of Jesus were understood and were passed along not as cryptic sayings but as understood guideposts, how did it get lost? Why don’t we know them? Why didn’t the early communities pass it to the later ones, down to our time?

You know the answer to that, and you’ve known it for decades.

That simple, then?

Not every answer is complicated. But spell it out.

I will, and yet I don’t quite see – come to think of it – how it could have come about. What I have long believed is that people who had the knowledge and the level of being passed it on to those who did not have the level of being to truly understand and embody it but thought they did, and so it was a long slow process of decline. Things done without understanding – that is, first without the inner experience, then thus without understanding, soon become done by rote, and what is done by rote is soon superstition. Superstition results in belief without understanding, hence in faith only, and in calls to enforce faith, then progressive error, hypocrisy, and fanaticism (particularly in those who are unable to face their own unbelief, and project it outward).

A good summary.

But how does it happen that those who do know pass the torch to those who do not? Can’t they see the incapacity of those they are handing off to?

You are overlooking a couple of things: Time, heredity, and inertia.

Explain?

All 3D things decay with time. A very slow, imperceptible decline still has significant impact over enough time.

True. we’ve seen it in education within a 50-year span.

Project that over 100, 200, 1,000 years.

Second is heredity, or we should say inheritance. People born into a family of believers are not necessarily of a level of being sufficient to understand and accept. Their own children in time will have a parent or parents only going through the motions: contradicting words and even beliefs by daily actions. This too is a cumulating process.

Finally, inertia. Not everybody is able to hold the flame. Communities helps, but even in a solid community of people who have experienced, not merely believed, time and living may erode one’s ability to live at a high level, and the descent may be as imperceptible as any other form of descent.

Yes, I see it. That’s very clear.

Enough for now, as this is a second bite at the apple. No more tonight.

All right; our thanks as always.

 

Thomas, Saying 36

Thursday, June 13, 2019

6:20 a.m. Heavy dreaming. I awoke thinking that life considered only in itself, as one life in matter, makes no sense. People’s sense of an afterlife and of other dimensions is not based on wishful thinking but on sure instinct, and perhaps memory. This fragmentary life is only a part of the story, and cannot be understood as if it were a whole.

Saying 36: Jesus said: Do not worry from morning to evening or from evening to morning about what you are going to wear.

Friends, any comment on this? The striking thing to me beyond the obvious is the “morning to evening or evening to morning” and as I write this I wonder if that doesn’t mean, “from 3D life to death” to “life to death in the non-3D,” which from the 3D point of view would look like an invisible time, from death to life again. [In transcribing, I put the phrases in quotes in an attempt to make it more understandable.]

You might restate that.

I sure might! But it’s a simple thought. Maybe it means, don’t worry about appearances (or protection? or concealment? – anything clothing may represent to us) during life in the world nor life in the next life. But although that seems symmetrical as I think it, or, say, envision it, when I try to write it out it doesn’t quite make sense.

And that is a good example of the difference between intuiting and reasoning. Reasoning is a good check on intuiting, but neither function is complete in itself.

Tell me, then.

Life in 3D in and of itself – as you woke up thinking – makes no sense. That is, it makes no sense as any kind of complete whole; clearly, any given life is a fragment rather than a complete thing. The question is: a fragment of what? But you and anyone who feels into it know that life itself is a fragment. That is an important piece of knowledge, upon which much can be built.

Negative evidence, in a sense. We may not know what else there is, but we know that this cannot be all.

Negative evidence, yes, and a firm foundation, for, as you say, this 3D life you are leading cannot be all. To know that is to have your feet firmly planted, even if you never get any farther in figuring out what the rest of it is.

The previous saying, which I gather we hadn’t finished with, though I forgot that when I began this one, seems to indicate that we are well advised to take precautions against others; this one says, don’t worry about what you will wear. So, connect these dots for us, please?

Also the one before that, about the blind leading the blind. Only, bear in mind, to do this properly you would need to be able to bear them all in mind at the same time, which is not possible in a 3D mind.

Where’s NZT when you need it?

[The movie and later TV series “Limitless” postulated a neuro-enhancing drug, NZT, that gave the user access to 100% of his mind, thus making him, in effect, a genius for as long as the effect lasted.]

That is actually truer than you know. A glimpse of the world through the cleansed doors of perception that Blake referred to would be worth a lifetime of earnest research in a library. But we must work with what we have, what we are.

I sometimes think, this must be so frustratingly slow for you.

As for yourselves. However, slow and steady wins the race, as the saying is. This is why it is so important to absorb rather than merely memorize or study or continually refer to past teachings. What you absorb transforms you, and you no longer need to hold it in your mental RAM [that is, active memory], so to speak. Self-transformation is the only way to get around the inherent limitations of life in 3D.

Does that apply in a larger context?

You are getting cryptic to your readers as you get into closer synchrony with us. This is a continual problem that is experienced in reading poetry, for instance.

Yeats especially! But I’ll bear it in mind. What I was asking is, may our entire 3D lives be seen as a long process of absorbing a point of view? (I didn’t mean to write “a point of view,” so – over to you.)

A 3D life is a point of view, properly seen. It might almost be considered a mood of the larger being.

So to stick to the point, is our whole life the absorbing of something?

Spell out the implications. At this point the difference between Frank and TGU is more an arbitrary illusion than any kind of hard and fast reality.

I’ve felt that, creeping up over the years.

That’s of course what we and you have been working toward. It is what anyone working on increasing access works on, know it or not. So, continue.

Well, let’s look at 3D life – which we just said is incomplete looked at as if it were a unit – as a long effort to absorb. That means, to changeand grow so that new information has room to change and grow so that it can absorb more. If this is the case, we really are

Hmm. Lots of things arising from that thought. I’ll need to recalibrarte, take it slowly, if I am not to be overwhelmed.

What if our larger non-3D being, that we are often tempted to think of as perfect and all-knowing (if only because it clearly knows so vastly much more than we do) and even all-powerful, for the same reason – is in fact what we keep hearing it is: an individual that (like us) is also a community; a sojourner, a student, a neophyte, an explorer, a stumbler in the dark, a bringer of light, a contender among others.

What if our non-3D component is like to our 3D component that we are somewhat (if incompletely) familiar with? Maybe that is part of what Jesus was trying to get across to his disciples who were already stretched by what he could get across. But this is a long way from the Saying we came to explicate.

No, it’s a long way from where you expected to go. There’s a difference.

All right. Let’s look at it. Saying 34, the blind leading the blind; 35, the strong man can be overcome and his possessions stolen, if an intruder can tie his hands; 36, don’t worry about what to wear.

You can see that, considered separately, they make no sense, or may be made to make a kind of sense, but the more they are considered together, the les consistent they will appear unless one’s point of view changes to make sense of them. Try to apply them to the accustomed obvious 3D context and you get nonsense or truisms or impractical advice or social lunacy. This, by the way, can be used as a guide. When scripture appears to make no sense, that’s a good sign that you are understanding it from the wrong vantage point, the wrong state of mind.

So where are we?

Suppose you look at 3D life not as a school for the 3D individual so much as a source of input for the larger being, the non-3D being of whose substance the 3D being is made. Not God in the sense of the creator of All That Is. Not demigods or demiurges, though some have understood them that way. Larger intermediate beings, partaking of 3D insofar as they have (comprise) 3D souls, but themselves pre-existing the souls and having their own lives. Suppose these larger beings – not perfect and unchanging, not all-knowing parents waiting for their 3D children to wake up, certainly not judges marking 3D scorecards – suppose these larger being are and are not you, in the way that you are and are not your toe or your kneecap.

It’s difficult sometimes to apply the recommended “As above, so below.”

But that is why it is a touchstone, because it is continually useful when applied.

So if the larger beings contend, and are subject to non-3D conditions not entirely dissimilar to 3D conditions we are used to, only presumably not constricted in application like time and space [do to us] here – what are the implications for us?

You should bear it in mind. If you are part of something that is contending and living and growing in its own environment, and your decisions can help shape its course – that’s quite a different thing from your stumbling along in the dark, equally likely to pursue any course, in that your life has no meaning beyond yourself.

So we’re right back in the question of The Meaning of Life.

Is there any other question? Everything is a subset of that one question.

Yes, I guess it is. But, the clock ticking, have we actually dealt with Saying 36?

No need to get mechanical about the process. It was a good discussion.

Still –

Enough for now.

Okay. Thanks.