Intuitive Linked Communication (ILC)

Tuesday, February 6, 2018

John Anthony West is dying. I picked up an email in the middle of the night saying so, and for a few hours now I have been thinking about it, while sort of sleeping, processing. I think John is going on 82. By 80, some people’s bodies are still going strong, and other people’s are packing it in. No tragedy either way, but not much we could or should do to try to overrule nature. What is nature but our All-D pattern? You don’t have to believe in predestination, or in a “the” future, to know that nature bats last and father knows best. Sometimes the ending of a life involves tragedy in its effect on others, but I don’t believe it is ever tragic for the person involved.

So I thought I’d ask Nathaniel, or the guys, about John’s life and its effect on his fellow humans, millions of whom it affected even if they never heard of him.

So that his life may serve as an example of the interface, you mean?

We could talk about that, if that’s your choice.

John has been living his life primarily for himself; his own life has spilled over to affect others. That’s everybody’s obituary, whether widely known, benevolent, curious, intellectual, inspiring, dedicated, or not. Given that we are all one thing, how else can it be? You can’t help doing both, all the time.

You can tell your friends what he did as a writer. Our concern is John’s connections with others that did not involve the written word. It can serve as an illustration of a wider topic.

Those interested can look him up on Amazon or via a search engine, but the book that made great impact on me was Serpent in the Sky, his explanation of the inner workings of what he called symbolist Egypt.

I met him at a conference in the Fall of 1995. He was a speaker at a conference including Colin Wilson, Graham Hancock, Robert Bauval and others. I knew only Colin; I hadn’t even heard of the others. I remember John as a forceful presence; not much else. We met only once more, a few years later at another event. Our thread of a friendship was mostly via email. His influence on me was mostly by way of that remarkable book. After reading it, his forceful presence was always clear in its orientation. I loved his sarcasm about the modern Church of Progress, his contempt for what passes for culture in our generation, most of which is decay. But is this what you want?

It demonstrates his effect on you, anyway. You saw him as allied, in a similar way to how you saw Colin Wilson, though the points in common were different. In both cases, someone persevering in his own path for its own sake, attracting others not so much to himself as to himself-pursuing-his-path.

I think I have an idea what you’re getting at, but you haven’t quite said it yet.

Remember at the beginning of all this, “the guys,” as you called them, telling you that where you in 3D saw the front of the tapestry, in non-3D we can see the connecting threads? This is an example of connecting threads. A strictly 3D view would show Frank, Colin, John as three men each going his own way, happening to meet, exchanging notes that amounted to, “Yes, I see things that way, too. Glad to have your agreement, and thanks for this bit of information; I can use it.” That’s the front of the tapestry.

The other side, the side not meant to be displayed (this is analogy remember), shows bright blue and red and yellow threads extending from this point over to that point – connections necessarily, deliberately, invisible to the front side, so that the picture may appear as images rather than as only color. Colin and John and Frank connect by certain threads of concern for the underlying meaning of 3D life, and those threads connect them during and after and before their respective 3D sojourns.

And such threads may be many in number for each person, and may be of several different kinds.

Naturally. Some of you who share a concern for the underlying meaning of the world may concern yourselves with gardening, or archeology, or warfare, or plumbing, or library science, or bureaucracy, or fine workmanship of one kind of another, or family, or gambling, or sports. No two of you combine exactly the same interests in exactly the same proportions. There wouldn’t be anything wrong if you happened to do so, but in practice it doesn’t happen. You are as individual and similar as snowflakes.

So, when you touch, it is like two faceted jewels touching. You abut in one place, or even in a few places, but not all. Your common interests or passions or predilections are few. They may be intense; they will not extend to your whole being. Other facets will match other individuals, or not at all perhaps.

Which is more important? The jewel considered alone, or the jewel considered by which facets match up with the facets of others? The answer is, it’s a false choice. The two seeming alternatives are properly part of one indivisible whole. You can’t live without centering on your own life; you can’t live without affecting others and being affected by them.

Remember that the difference between the front of the tapestry, showing a picture, and the reverse, showing how the seemingly distinct points of color connect, is viewpoint. It is one tapestry, divided into two by the fact that you can’t see two sides at once, but that is a logical and sensory division, not an actual one. In life, there is one tapestry, not a front and a separate reverse.

And, one more thing. A person doesn’t cease to interact upon death. John Anthony West does not become a statue, of only historical interest, upon his death. Outside of 3D restrictions, a mind continues to function as it always did, as you know. So where is there room to think, “He’s history”? In a sense, yes, but mostly no. Even while you function within the 3D crucible, most of your functioning takes place mentally – that is to say, in All-D beyond 3D restriction. Once the locus of your consciousness moves beyond that restriction, your interactions change but do not cease.

“What you gain on the swings, you lose in the roundabouts.”

Well, yes, but you might reverse the order to provide a more optimistic lesson. For whatever losses, there are corresponding gains.

Can John’s friends help him in the process of dying?

Good wishes are always a good thing, but nobody needs help dying. Or, to put it another way, no matter how easily or not a person’s death appears to be, that person will have what is needed. It is literally not possible for anyone to be without the necessary resources, ever. You are not orphans in the universe, and, as Seth pointed out, it is a safe universe, a benevolent universe created for a purpose. In a real if limited sense, that purpose may be said to be – you. Nobody is an afterthought or an unnecessary irrelevance or a negligible bit player.

Anything else you’d like to say? I feel like we haven’t really talked about John at all.

We haven’t talked about his external communication, but about something far more central to you all. It will be found to be enough.

 

An example of free-lance exploring, from my friend Dick Werling. This is far from the first such report he has shared with me; I will attempt to go back and print them all. His format, which is quite different from mine, arises from his long career as an engineer. That’s just as it should be: We each have our own way of doing things, which is appropriate for us.

“Excerpt from Lab Journal”

 

Time	Perceptions	Inferences
	Dedicate session to Higher Self and appropriate Lower Selves of DW  and any others who may appear, including SHKSPR, for use at appropriate time(s) – or for non-use if that is in the best interests of all concerned. Confident of, and grateful for, all needed help to identify, clarify, understand, and if appropriate heal issues presented, recognizing that it is an unusual session.	DW begins to enter extra-ordinary states of consciousness
	April 30, 2023 3:51 pm EDT DW:  “Is the eternal soul that was embodied in the Actor and Playwright William Shakespeare available for conversation at this time?” SHKSPR:  “Let me look around and see if he is on stage at this time.” DW:  “Did you find him?” SHKSPR:  “He’s rubbing his eyes, just waking up, I guess.”  “Who is calling and what do you want with him at this time?” DW:  “Sir, I call from what is now the United States of America, across the seas from England, in the year of our Lord 2023.”  “I don’t know if you can contact me or not but would like to see if we can converse on a soul-to-soul basis.  Does that help?” SHKSPR:  “Are you sure you are real?” DW:  “Yes, in my ‘3-D’ physical universe at this time, I am real.”  “Can we talk?” SHKSPR:  “Let’s find out.  We have heard of a ‘DW’ rummaging around up here recently.  Are you the same soul?” DW:  “Probably.  I don’t know anyone else who is rummaging around in your area right now.” SHKSPR:  “Okay, how do you do it?” DW:  “Some new gifts of God have recently made it possible to converse at a Soul level, across time and geographic space.”  “Now, I think I was alerted to call you because of a musical play a century ago by Richard Rodgers and Lorenz Hart, loosely based on what we now know as your Comedy of Errors.”  “Mr. Rodgers and I have been conversing in this manner for about an earth year now.  Does that help?” SHKSPR:  “Answers some questions and raises others.”  “You know, the world has changed enormously since my last embodiment.  Many more humans alive, much more command over their lives, much larger geographic areas inhabited by men and women now than in my time.” DW:  “Yes.  I realize that it must be quite a shock to look at my world through your soul eyes.” SHKSPR:  “Well put.”  “You are right.” SHKSPR:  “Can we adjourn now and resume after I have had some time to learn more about this process, and YOU, DW.” 4:12 pm EDT DW:  End Segment [21 minutes at Focus 27]   April 30, 2023 8:56 pm EDT DW:  “Hello, SHKSPR, are you ready to continue this conversation?” SHKSPR:  “Yes, but first you must realize how different your “real” world is from the one in which I lived four centuries ago.”  “For example, in MY “real” world there was no television, no radio, no telephone, no automobiles or trucks.  We players travelled from place to place bringing news (sometimes not reliably), history, examples from the past [the Greek and Roman plays and documents).  To a large extent, we created the news and entertainment of the times.” DW:  “I begin to see the enormous changes that face you, SHKSPR, in this attempted communication.”  “Thank you for setting the stage for me (as it were).” DW:  “With that base in mind, let me ask if you can describe the sources of your creations?” SHKSPR: “Oh, my.  The ideas just came to me.” DW:  “Were the speeches complete in the language(s) of your day? Or perhaps telepathic in nature awaiting words for you to fill out.”  “I ask because some ideas seem to come from angels or Wise Old Men and Women who are sent from the Lord.” SHKSPR: “Interesting questions.  DW, I need some time to adjust to the frame of reference you are using at this time.  I need another break.” 9:15 pm End Segment [19 minutes at Focus 27]   May 3, 2023 4:45 pm EDT SHKSPR:  “DW, your world is incredible.  So different from that in which I lived, wrote, acted, and directed.” DW:  “I think I understand.  Are the human characteristics different?” SHKSPR:  “Haven’t checked that much yet.  But, I think not.  Please take a look at my King Lear.  I think those characters are still alive and well in your world.” 4:48 pm EDT End Segment. [3 minutes in Focus 27] May 3, 2023 10:55 pm EDT DW:  “Thank you.  I have cheated, just read a summary of the play, and find the savagery portrayed to be more than I’m comfortable with. But, I think I see your point that these characters still live today.  In my country, the United States of America, we seem to be at a critical inflection point in our national life.  Perhaps I can imagine that the character Trump displays some of those characteristics I can imagine of a good king, Lear, in his younger days.  Surrounded by adversaries, but continuing to Love his family and nation better than Lear could. Would you comment on my first guess?” SHKSPR:  “Yes, you are naïve, good-hearted.  Hoping for the best outcomes.  Many in my audiences were like you, and I took advantage of them as I built the changes into the plot and the script.”  “Now, as you know, audiences include a wide range of folks – many of whom need violence (or something that would offend you). So, as a producer [a business man] I had to satisfy their needs as well.  Senseless deaths, heartbreaks, etc.   SHKSPR:  “Now, on to Lear.  You, DW, have wondered if new abilities accompany old age.  It may be that Lear was experiencing something like that.  At 80, he was ten years older than the ‘threescore and ten’ of his time.  His desire to take care of his daughters at that age might have been related to such an aging phenomenon.  But the society around him was not.  Jealousy, envy, competition followed Lear’s magnanimous gesture – making for some exaggerated human behavior.”  “It was a fascinating experience to write and re-write that script.”  “I learned a lot.” “Also, DW, you have wondered if I had anything like what you now term a “Near Death Experience.”  “I think not.  But I certainly had several “spiritually transformative experiences” – very difficult to describe.  Joan of Arc, two centuries later, was the first to bring such experiences into the English consciousness – and they had to burn her at the stake!” 9:57 am EDT End Segment [About 20 minutes at Focus 27 this morning.  Slept on the conversation last night]

 

 

Saturday, January 6, 2018

My friends, I am nearly finished in my initial edit (adding subheads) to the book of Nathaniel that I am thinking about as Only Somewhat real. It will take a while to prepare for publication, and then I will have not one but two books reading for press, and the prospect of publishing them only one per year, with It’s All One World not slated till September, and Awakening from the 3D World not even beginning to sell except a few through TMI and my friends. I feel fortunate to have a publisher at all, given how few books sell, and at the same time I feel like I’m working strictly on faith, as the only sign that the books will live is the individual feedback I get (certainly not the sales figures.)

So now I’m toying with the idea of trying to write a book spelling out the new world-view I have been given, these past 25 years – 35 years, come to think of it, if we date from the Shirley MacLaine conference. Maybe it’s too much to ask that people accompany me on the journey. Maybe they need a shorter, simpler precis. So I’m inviting your thoughts on the matter.

Record what you got Thursday and Friday.

[Thursday: “My God, this is good stuff, but it’s all hidden!” This popped out of my mouth as I was editing the book. Friday: I registered having to fight despair both getting a good enough handle on it to be able to summarize and clarify, and of ever getting to a larger audience. TGU response was, “Both sources of despair are the same: the mistaken idea that you are on your own,” which I acknowledged. “I should know that by now! But I do fall back into it. Thanks.]

Yes, I haven’t lost sight of that, but it isn’t entirely satisfactory. Living in faith I can do. I do. But faith is better for at least a glimmer of hope to go along with it.

Do you want practical advice, or general reassurance?

I really do trust. But some practical advice is always appreciated. I am practical chiefly in allowing myself to be guided by knowings, and of course it is easy to go wrong along the way, by mistaking an idea or a wish or a fear or an emotional pattern for a knowing. So yes, suggest away.

Keep working, keep open to possibilities, keep trusting that what you need will come to you. The revolutionary turns in one’s life can never be predicted by the 3D mind using 3D logic, or they wouldn’t be revolutionary in nature. But they may be felt, as non-3D knowing is heeded. You do remember what the Church defined faith as being?

Belief in things unseen.

Could you fairly say that faith has ever let you down in your life? Even when you pinned that faith to the wrong specifics? Even when it led you to what looked like dead ends?

No, I can’t. When something got in my way, it usually – maybe always – turned out to be me.

It generally does, because that is the working-out in 3D of the pattern you embody. We keep emphasizing: There can be no problem disconnected to one’s being, because inner and outer are the same thing.

Just keep soldiering on, I take it.

90% of life is just showing up. Why do you suppose that is?

Well, I guess if we wind up showing up at the circumstances resulting from what we are, that saying is a restatement of Thoreau’s saying you don’t have to go count the cats in Zanzibar.

Correct. You can relax to the extent of not having to worry about finding your task or struggle or accomplishment or passion in life. Life will provide.

Then, given that the process of producing a book through reason and selection is different from producing one by taking dictation, can I look for assistance of a different sort if I do begin to summarize the new view of life that has been given us? I can’t just sit down and listen; it’s different.

The difference is more apparent than real – and of course this goes not just for you and your task but for anybody. Only stay connected and all will go well. Digging ditches is different in nature from pushing paper or designing buildings or operating on a medical patient or contriving theories, but any of these – and any occupation you could name, done from necessity or done from love of it – connects the same way. You can live your life connected or you can live your life as if you in 3D were on your own, but the choice is up to you.

How guidance expresses will vary with every individual, and will be the same (in a way) for all. You might as well intend to work without breathing as to work without connection – so what’s the point of worrying about whether you’ll have assistance? A nurse struggling through her shift at work may feel alone and overwhelmed, but her day will go better to the degree that she knows she isn’t alone, not really. And the same for all of us – of us, for we and you extend into each other, we remind you.

 

Monday, September 23, 2019

Guys, I’d be open to your explanation of how the various kingdoms maintain the 3D world.

Bear in mind, explanations are models, they are schematics.

Yes. The map is not the territory. Still, it helps orient us.

That is the intent, to orient you. Anything experienced first-hand is going to be different than expected, but a little preparatory explanation can help point you in a helpful direction. So, let’s paint a few broad strokes, and see where it leaves us. Your reactions, as usual, will help us to refine the presentation; that’s just the nature of teaching.

Taking the old conceptual scheme of things, we will look at the 3D world in terms of kingdoms, and will not concern ourselves to adhere strictly to the scheme when we have reason to diverge from it. After all, a scheme hundreds of years old must in some senses be incomplete, in terms of the revolutionary discoveries and theories that followed. Animal, vegetable, mineral didn’t really have room for electrons and plasma and quantum states. However, in practice this is less of an obstacle than you might imagine.

Let’s begin with mineral, vegetable, animal, human, celestial. A progression from inert to energetic, from static to active, from unconscious to conscious, from dead to fully alive.

Bear in mind, this scheme was not prepared by “modern” minds. The mental world of those who devised it contained very different premises than yours does, and contained premises that will be in some ways more and in some ways less similar to the civilization that is shaping itself around you. Life, we remind you, is not linear, and the mental life of a culture is not a progression from ignorance to knowledge, from error to truth, or from puzzlement toward comprehension. It is more like a fade-in/fade-out process, in which a new field of perception gradually clarifies a different world, as older ways of seeing close and newer ways open.

Although I understand what you are saying, I’m not sure this is going to be clear to our readers.

Feel free to translate.

A civilization has limits to its perceptions and understandings, within which are contained all its possibilities. The ancient Greeks, Jews, Romans, Parthians, etc. were not different from us merely because they didn’t have our science and technology, but really almost the inverse. They didn’t build our civilization in their time because they lived in a world with different mental limits.

Yes, and of course that is true in far more detail, to a far greater extent, when you consider not only the civilizations to which you are directly affiliated but also those like the world’s indigenous communities that entirely reject or cannot comprehend the underpinnings of your worldview that resulted in your technology, and your way of being. African tribes, North and South American tribes, Aborigines in Australasia, subcultures everywhere including in Europe – they are not necessarily failed attempts to produce the Model T Ford. And they are not necessarily unsuccessful adaptations to the world. One small example, the mostly unsuspected world of shamans in many cultures, intimately in contact with vegetable mineral and celestial intelligences to which your particular civilization has been mostly blind and deaf.

I imagine that some people will find it hard to think of primitive people around the world, particularly in the tropics, as successful but different. To us they appear to be more like degenerated remnants of an earlier level of development. They appear to have been ground down by the difficulties of life in their environment, and appear to have lost the thread that their ancestors had. Today’s Maya, for instance, descendants of what seems to have been a fabulously accomplished civilization, appear to be totally incapable of understanding it, let alone recreating it. Of course, this could be because the invading Spanish burned their books, but I don’t think it is entirely that simple.

You could look to medieval Europe for a more accessible example. People believed in alchemy and astrology, in geomancy, in communing with spirits, with many forces you cannot take seriously in your current civilization’s model: elementals, demons, familiars, etc. Another civilization’s assumptions and working models are going to appear superstitious to a different civilization using different models.

We’re slow off the mark this morning, though. We’ve burned 45 minutes and we haven’t even begun on the kingdoms as explanation.

Oh, but we have, only we didn’t begin where you might have expected us to. These preliminary brush-clearings will shed light on the subject, if absorbed.

We begin by reminding you that the 3D and non-3D worlds not only interact, not only interconnect, but are two aspects of the same undivided reality. The West, and its cultural children, tends to proceed as if this were not so. No one else has done so since the days of Atlantis. (That particular blindness to inconvenient facts doomed them and is dooming yours to obsolescence.)

Seems to me the Greeks and Romans took their gods seriously. What is the underlying assumption of the Iliad and the Odyssey, after all, if not the continuing interaction of the gods and humans? The Roman Army cast augurs to see if this was a day they should fight. These were not seen as superstitions nor poetic license. So in what sense may they be said to have lived without a sense of 3D/non-3D interaction?

The Greco-Roman civilization did begin as religious; it ended as skeptical, materialistic and “hard-headedly practical” in a way your own civilization finds comfortingly familiar. After all, your civilization, which in a sense may be said to date from somewhere in the Middle Ages when the Renaissance attempted to recreate Greek life in its attitudes and perceptions, began one way and moved to another. Do you think John Adams would recognize your times as his logical mental and spiritual descendant? Jefferson might. Adams would not.

I gather that the distinction you are drawing is religious.

Not religious in the sense of following any particular creed, let alone belonging to any sect, but religious in the sense of at least an instinctive recognition of non-3D ties as vital. Washington would have agreed with Adams in that; he believed in divine providence, because he had repeatedly experienced it.

Hold in mind the distinction between different civilizations and their beliefs (which is another way of saying, their codifications of the results of what they experienced). We will be looking at a medieval scheme of classification not as they would have seen it, and certainly not as your civilization sees it, but as the next, emerging, civilization might tend to explain it.

Looking forward to that. See you then.

 

Tuesday, September 24, 2019

So let’s look at the 3D world as an entity to be maintained in being. First, remember that in this context, when we say “world” we mean 3D reality as a whole. To say “the 3D world” is so much less cumbersome to say than “the 3D energetic pattern taken as a whole, including energy, matter, 3D/non-3D interconnections, etc.” You will remember that you in 3D are projected from non-3D; that matter is energy bound in slow-motion patterns; that spiritual and physical, and many other such polarities, are polarities, that is, bound opposites, hence are two sides of the same coin. It is important that it be remembered, or you will revert to your previous categories.

All right, let’s begin with the mineral kingdom, that holds your reality in persistence. We have said mountains, but this equally includes the material elements comprising gas giants, dwarf stars, plasma interactions, electro-magnetic storms, all physical manifestations that are commonly regarded as inanimate. As said, this kingdom provides the persistence of the way things are. This is why your world is not so plastic that its geography does not persist.

In other words, without this element, what is Africa today might be nonexistent tomorrow. Today’s mountain might be only tomorrow’s memory of where a mountain was. Without this element, nothing would have any stable continuing existence in time.

However, be aware, “stable” is not the same as “unchanging.” Your world changes, it does not fluctuate wildly and in chaotic fashion. Without this element there could be no physical laws, no continuity.

All right, atop the mineral kingdom is the vegetable kingdom. For this and for subsequent kingdoms we will stick to Terran examples. What is your experience of the vegetable kingdom?

I’d say it has to do with a different kind of persistence. Woods, for instance, have a different emotional feel than cropland, as both do than city parks or suburban lawns. The tropics are very different emotionally than the arctic, say.

Yes, and this is not subjective response, but, shall we call it, an emotionally objective response. That is, human response to these patterns is real and is not dependent upon someone’s ideas about such areas.

So even though we vary individually in our appreciation of nature, say, still we have in common that we do feel those differences, however we react to them.

Some people love forests; others find them oppressive, or even frightening. And the same variation of response may be noted for any vegetable manifestation. People with green thumbs are counterbalanced in the world with people who couldn’t keep a houseplant alive to save their own lives. But the maintenance of an emotional background depends not upon the human response but upon the vegetation itself.

We know this will seem fanciful to anyone who is accustomed to thinking of the vegetable world as scenery, or as the life-support system (the food) for herbivores, or as the part of the ecosystem that exchanges gases. It is also these, but there is no need to dwell upon roles and processes that are fairly well understood. The intercommunication of plants, their mental world, is still to be unveiled in concept, but plants as part of the gas-exchange system and as part of the food-chain are blocked in to your view of the world. What has been overlooked in theory – even though well experienced over millennia by individuals in a more “spiritual” concept – is that plants provide emotional climates in the way that the mineral kingdom (including weather patterns, for instance) provide physical climate.

I get suddenly that geomancy and similar divination systems are rooted in place, in the way astrology is rooted in time.

You might say, astrology is based in the variation in quality of different moments of time. Similarly, other means of divination are based in the quality of differences in place. Differences in place (in the quality of the mineral composition of a place, call it) may be modified by judicious alteration of the vegetable kingdom in that place. And if this is new to a materialist science that is blind to what it cannot measure, it is not new to uncounted generations of people who plant trees, shrubs, herbs, flowers to alter their immediate environment. It isn’t merely a matter of aesthetics, or rather, aesthetics is a matter of more than merely an indefinable “good taste.” There could be a science of aesthetics, but it would need to be based in an understanding of how the vegetable kingdom maintains an emotional presence in the physical world. You couldn’t have a vegetable kingdom not based in an underlying mineral kingdom, but a mineral kingdom in the absence of a vegetable kingdom would be unrecognizably different to you. Such worlds exist, but they require that humans bring their own emotional support-system.

This is a good place to pause. Some time spent pondering this kingdom before we proceed would be well spent.

 

[This incident, which occurred about six months after my brief trip to Egypt, requires a little explanation. Years earlier, I had connected with the medieval monk Bertram, with whom I am intimately connected (whether “past life” or Strand is irrelevant) and had felt and sent healing energy to an ice cold spot I felt in his chest, which I took to be the TB that eventually killed him. As with healing Joseph’s back earlier, helping Bertram appeared to have also helped my own situation. And years ago I had learned to extend love to the actual physical mechanism (and its underlying intelligence, of course) that was fighting the battle for me, rather than cursing it for letting me down.]

Saturday, September 21, 2019

5:10 a.m. Close to panic as I awaken with lungs sore and not really breathing air in. The inhaler worked a little and the nebulizer seems to be helping but it was a bad couple of minutes and I’m not out of the woods yet. Someday it is going to be too much. Someday the palliatives aren’t going to work again.

Guys, why?

Feel into it. Extend compassion. They are fighting for you. Send love as you did to Bertram once.

Okay. Don’t know who we’re connected to, but sending reinforcements to them, in a way.

Very much so.

And they to me?

You to them. Your help is from others.

Okay. At some point we should talk about this.

We are always willing.

Can we do it now?

Unlikely, but we’re willing if you are.

With the nebulizer, even more than with the inhaler, comes lassitude. But maybe in a minute or two I will be able to begin. Nose filled up again, I notice, otherwise things are calming down.

Send love. Just because you feel better doesn’t guarantee others do.

5:25. Okay, whew. Better. What a change. I had been keeping on top of this for a while – a month now? Whenever it started in again. But this was the first time it was getting out of control. God Bless Neal Rogers! [Neal is my friend, an ENT doc, who, among other things, advised me years ago to get the nebulizer for just such situations.] It occurs to me, I have some pills I could take. I’ll have to remember where they are. I bought them for Egypt, late last year or maybe early this year, and didn’t need them.

Okay, so what did I just learn, beyond the fact that I’m not as on top of this as I had hoped?

You learned of an unsuspected vulnerability that accompanies increased connection with the rest of you. but we will need to take this slowly.

Yes, because this has far wider implications than just me, or just people with asthma, or just people who are chronically or even intermittently ill – doesn’t it?

Oh yes. Immediately it concerns those who are expanding their awareness beyond the obvious 3D life and its non-3D component, into active connection with others with whom they live in resonance, consciously or not.

It is a mistake to consider our bodies as merely 3D vehicles, I get that. They are transceivers.

They are transducers, yes.

I see, looking back, I left a gap in the record. I woke up uncomfortable; it rapidly got out of control. It got to be an acute pain centered in my lower lungs, accompanied with inability to get the oxygen I needed. It was like the incidence of heart problem I had back in 2003, only I knew to deal with it first by staying calm then by using the spray inhaler which gave only the slightest immediate assistance, then by making my way to the guest room where I have the nebulizer set up and ready. I clicked it on and sat here at the desk gasping it down only this time I was with pen and paper as I did. So I recorded the beginning of a session, culminating in getting an insight or an idea that I didn’t have energy to record. This improved things until at 5:25 I resumed writing.

What I got was that I should actively send love to the embattled cells that were fighting for me, much as a nation supports its troops fighting off invaders. Then you see that “Send love. Just because you feel better doesn’t guarantee others do.” And at that point I realized more. But I’d rather you guys set it out rather than my trying to reconstruct the sequence in which I got it.

Yes, the sequence isn’t important, but the intuitive redirection of your thought is.

I see I’m going to have to go back to using the nebulizer as we do this.

That doesn’t indicate failure, just more like fluctuation.

Go ahead, I’m with you.

Once you reached over to Joseph Smallwood in 1863 and effected a cure that also helped you. This kind of interaction – positive or negative, conscious or unconscious – happens more commonly than anybody suspects. You still think of yourselves as more isolated, as more units, than you are. But let’s look at it this way. Why do you suppose some people are born with lifelong illnesses of  one or another kind, one or another degree of severity?

I have always assumed that we all have some weakest link, that acts the way a fuse does, to be the weak link that blows first.

Say that is so – and to a degree it is so – the question remains, why the variation in intensity and nature?

Well, we’re all different, aren’t we? Different environments, different heredities.

So, it is a matter of chance?

I didn’t say that. Although, come to think of it, that’s what I did sort of say, by implication. I didn’t mean it that way, though.

Everybody is shaped, nobody just happens. Everybody relates to everybody else (in non-3D as in 3D); there are no orphans in the world, regardless what roles a given life may assume.

[I took that to mean, regardless what it looks like to us, seeing only externals.]

So the implication as usual is that we are as we are for a reason.

It is equally true to say you are as you are from reasons. Both, not only one, are true.

Okay. I see that. We are the result of causes, we are the shaper of causes to come.

We merely caution against the idea that says, “This happened in order that that may happen.” Subordinating a moment to its consequences, you see. This isn’t untrue exactly, but it is a misplacement of emphasis.

However, within this, our point is that Frank as constructed and nurtured in 3D is never Frank only in 3D. He is never Frank without connection to all that he is in permanent resonance with: his physical and non-physical heredity, his ancestors and his “past” lives. He is also a field, not a unit. As a field, he is a more active and fluctuating entity, less bounded than appearance would suggest. And he interacts with the 3D and non-3D world continuously, willingly or not, consciously or not. He affects and is affected. And so does each of you, to varying degrees.

Some people come into this world as more sensitive receivers, easily disrupted but with great potential to connect. Others come in with a greater shielding, or call it insulation, that they may function as a steadying force.

I thought the physical world of matter did that – the mountains, the sea, the non-living 3D world we sometimes call the mineral kingdom.

Yes, but that background may be said to hold the stage steady, as the animal kingdom holds the basis of the mental field ready. The vegetable and animal kingdoms serve purposes like the mineral beyond the obvious, but we are speaking here of the human kingdom, which is part animal kingdom, part non-3D consciousness, or what might be called the celestial kingdom. But we don’t have time for this now. You are running down rapidly.

I guess I am. Okay.

You all hold the worlds together non-physically, quite as much as physically. Much of your real life is usually unsuspected by your conscious 3D-life mental constructions. It is this interaction we wish to speak of, and we can see it will have to wait for another time.

Well, you have our attention. I am feeling more or less back to normal again, and I’ll transcribe all this and send it out in a while, and we can come back and talk some more tomorrow, hopefully. Hopefully without all the drama. Our thanks as always.

 

Thursday, September 10, 2020

Ready to resume, but for some reason it feels like a long time has elapsed since yesterday’s session.

That is because emotionally, it has. You don’t quite realize it, nor why it is so, and conveniently enough, it fits right in with our discussion. Isn’t that amazing?

Yesterday you saw the video of the wildfires in the course of your group meeting. That is, you saw an upsetting thing while actively linked first with Dirk, then with Dirk and Bill, then gradually with nearly a dozen people. You are always linked in 3D, but this was a conscious link. It is the equivalent of networking computers as opposed to several computers functioning simultaneously but autonomously.

I don’t usually look at the news even on the computer, so I wasn’t really aware of the fires, and certainly wasn’t aware in the second-hand way that is sensory evidence. It was a shock. A view from space (presumably) of hundreds of miles of smoke pouring off the land and extending far out to sea –

Yes. Your emotion choked you.

Did it? I felt so sad, so upset. It felt like it has when someone close to me has died.

Can you not see the analogy to how you feel when you see something in its historical perspective, and you feel where it is going?

I do.

All this is directly appropriate to our discussion, you see.

Could you spell it out for us?

Of course that is what we intend. Something experiential, immediate, transformative (or perhaps we should say emotionally engaging) will bring life to a discussion in a way that abstract exposition never can.

• At the level of the vast impersonal forces, there is impetus. There is raw power, sheer potential, change. Potential energy waiting to manifest as kinetic energy, you might say.
• These forces are not unvarying. Like everything else in the universe, they ebb and flow, build and release and gradually build again. Every moment in life is different.
• These forces as expressed in 3D interact with existing 3D conditions, obviously. They don’t form those conditions, but manifest into It isn’t the fault of the forces, what they find. Rain per se (to use a different example) cannot be faulted for falling on ground that is already soggy: The forces are not responsible for the playing-field onto which they express.
• Neither is it in any way fixed and determined, how forces will flow. Like water seeking its own level, the forces manifest into what exists – but what exists is not inevitable nor pre-determined. What exists has the same freedom to choose its manifestation that you do in your individual lives. Indeed, that’s the point of 3D existence.
• As we said earlier, forces may manifest through human or through (seemingly) inanimate channels. The “earthquakes v. war” example was well founded. Human choice makes the difference as will be obvious once you remember in this context the psychic nature of “objective” 3D reality.

Yes, I see. Even I have forgotten (in this context) what has become second nature to my thought: All reality is one thing, conscious and interactive, and all 3D reality is shared subjectivity. In that context, the artificiality that seems to inhere in the concept of human v. natural manifestations disappears.

Excellent. So then you see that other things follow.

1. Life is always seemingly unfair in specific, never really unfair either specifically or as a whole.
2. Human choice matters; it has consequences.
3. There can be no such thing as meaningless coincidence, nor unmerited reward or suffering. Indeed, the concept of reward or suffering is only illusory, however persuasive.
4. Have the world you want! Only remember, the concept of “what you want” is more complex than you commonly suppose, because it always involves layers of cause and effect well beyond 3D consciousness – and there’s nothing wrong with that.

Now, you, Frank, looking at visual illustration of vast forces manifesting, are filled with sorrow. Why?

I expect you are going to tell us, beyond the obvious.

There is no telling what is “obvious.” The obvious to one is not even probable to another. That’s why we are always filling in the tacitly assumed background. Tell us what you do know about what you felt – not only what you knew then but what you know now while we are closely linked.

I hated to see the destruction. I like fire, always have, and I have never shrunk from destruction per se. It’s part of life. But the sheer scale of it, felt like watching the world burn. I guess it fed into my continuing sense that this life-sustaining garden is being destroyed. Conceptually I have been thinking, for decades now, that we are turning the green Earth into a ruined desert like Mars. This was seeing it.

And? There’s more.

I guess having people there makes it more urgent: my brother and his family, Dirk, Dave and so many people that they stand in for.

And?

It’s all so unnecessary! Like all the other wrong turnings I have been watching, all these many decades. I don’t say that is a balanced judgment, but it was a strong feeling.

All right. So now let’s look at this as example, bearing in mind that it is one example among thousands of millions that exist.

The forces exist. So you might say, the vast impersonal forces have released energy into the world as this specific manifestation. The energies had to release, and, releasing into the conditions they found, the fires resulted. It could have been otherwise but in this reality, the fires are the resulting situation.

Anyone in 3D sees the fires. But how many of you see the fires as the result of the same forces?

• Some will believe it was natural (hence, they assume, non-conscious, inanimate forces manifesting).
• Others may intuit that there is a connection, though they have no really robust intellectual model of how it can be so.
• Some may say it is God’s will (that is, it can’t be understood) or that it is God’s judgment on human activity, each one providing a different set of presumably condemned behaviors. (This way of thinking is actually closer to yours, and ours, in many ways than is the mindset that assumes coincidence and assumes the mindless collision of inanimate forces.)
• Some will trace physical collision of cause and effect, drawing ecological and/or societal conclusions.

The point is that although the manifestation (the fire) is one, the interpretations are many, and this is before we consider individual reactions to specifics. Everyone brings to its understanding of an event the worldview it has created to date. Therefore, no event appears to be the same in essence, let alone in meaning, to any two people. There is broad overlap, or you couldn’t live together in the world, but still, you’re each experiencing something a little different.

Aren’t you saying that we each pick up different aspects of a whole that none of us can grasp entirely because it is beyond our capacity?

Yes, that’s a very good way to put it. Now, we are at your hour, but this is not a good place to stop.

Proceed, I’m fine.

Your reaction to sudden sensory evidence of the ongoing destruction was your reaction. Others would have had reactions that might overlap but would not overlap exactly, because you are all leading different lives. So your emotions are not universally shared, nor even universally understood, because so much depends upon the way each one sees the world. But they were yours. You see? They were a sort of instant reading for you on where you were, vis a vis that reality.

The emotions were a sort of gauge?

We wouldn’t say that is their purpose, but they do serve to do that. Now if in the face of this example you were not clear on the difference between feelings and emotions, we would be at something of a loss.

 

Monday, September 14, 2020

I am pretty discouraged, as I look back on my life. In so many interactions with people, I see that I was misunderstood, and that I misunderstood myself. There was a level of sincerity that I never approached. Or do I mean integrity? At a deep level, how sincere have I ever been? Meaning well, in a vague way, has always come naturally to me. But following through? Really engaging? If I had to say, one way or the other, if my nature was warm or cold, I would be hard pressed to answer. It is all very unsatisfying. So is my track record of interactions. Some people I have benefited, others I have probably injured, more by inadvertence than ever by design. I don’t know what I’m asking for, but, something.

You must remember to distance yourself from your own ideas of who and what and why you are. Living a life is not the same thing as understanding it or directing it or conceptualizing it, and certainly it is not the same thing as criticizing it.

It looks like a record of futility, from here. I couldn’t even be good.

That is the sort of half-blind comment that is totally useless to you except in so far as it helps you understand others who make the same mistake. If (when) your own internal biases do not allow you to properly record certain types of interactions and effects, how can you expect to be able to see your life in perspective?

Which leaves me just nowhere.

No, it leaves you at any given moment of the eternal present deciding what you want to be from here on. In a way, your track record (anyone’s) would only blur your vision of what is available. It would say, “My life is X and such; it has no room for anything beyond these bounds; it is to be scored according to these measurements.” Plenty of people try to live like that – and that is a core of deadness.  When Jesus said, “I have come that you may have life more abundantly,” he meant that he came that people could learn to live in the moment, rather than to live according to past resolves, past ideas, past strictures. He meant to show them that living mostly automatically was not living, but existing, and that life could be far more.

Well, I have always experienced you as encouraging me (against the evidence, it often seemed), and I do appreciate the support.

Yes, but you aren’t valuing it properly. This is an instance in which the implied distancing between “you” and “us” misleads. You “connect” with only that that reflects a part of you. So in effect, we in non-3D are, and only are, part of who you are, known to yourself or not. So, “encouraging you” is not the product of some well-wishing bystanders giving you the benefit of the doubt. It is not an ignorant assessment of what you are. If anyone is ignorant of the true nature of a 3D individual, it is that individual itself. Most of what you are is hidden from you by circumstances. This is what makes 3D life so difficult, so rewarding, so potentially productive, so frustrating.

To which, a long sigh, and “Live in faith.”

Certainly it works better than discouragement and bafflement.

I often wonder if it isn’t merely a sliding through life among the path of least resistance.

Oddly enough, it is just the reverse. The path of least resistance is to identify with whatever mood presents itself.

Are we using the same yardstick here? I’m talking about drifting.

You think drift and living in faith are synonyms or at least similar, because both imply a letting go of the controls. If you were drifting, do you think you’d be having this kind of conversation?

I don’t see why not, necessarily.

You have absorbed that “faith” and “doubt” is the same intermediate position between knowing and unknowing, and that which aspect appears depends upon where you view it from. So experiencing doubt is not necessarily departing from living in faith. It is, let’s say, a position check, to see if a course-correction is warranted. But pray tell, if you are drifting, what do you need a course correction for? What would even raise the idea for you?

Seems to me you are arguing that living in faith and drifting are the same thing.

You want to know drifting? Drifting is taking for granted whatever your mental construction serves up in connection with “external” events. It means letting your mental robots, your moods, your scripts and mirrors and projections, color your reality, you not offering counterpoise to them. It means existing, not living.

I sort of see what you’re saying, only you haven’t quite said it.

Au contraire, we have said it loud and clearly. To the degree that you are conscious, you are alive. But consciousness is a sort of friction against the tide of inner and outer events. That’s what 3D was designed to provide, after all. Next time we do a regular session, we can take up where we just left off: the 3D as the background allowing the friction of the “external” against the taken-for-granted internal.

It is in keeping the discussion practical, grounded in experience, that any real enlightenment can be provided. If you lose some skin in the process, it may be uncomfortable, but it is scarcely important even to you, let alone to the greater picture.

 

Tuesday, September 15, 2020

Okay, the 3D as friction.

Not the 3D itself as friction, exactly. Let’s call the 3D environment the background that allows for the friction. The existence of 3D conditions allows a non-3D creature to confront itself and thereby have the opportunity to polish itself.

The 3D allows the “external” world to show the subjective 3D soul what it is that it doesn’t suspect. We remind you:

• We in non-3D experience a very broad, relatively unlimited consciousness that is not highly focused, in contrast to 3D consciousness, which is tightly limited and highly focused.
• The 3D conditions of isolation in time and space, under the incessant and unvarying pressure of the ever-moving present moment, produce or allow the tight beam of awareness.
• The upside: intensity. The downside: limitation. However, circumstances alter cases. Sometimes (that is, for some purposes) intensity may become a disadvantage and limitations an advantage. It’s all in what you want to do.
• Initially non-3D extension into 3D was clean and straightforward, and over time the system acquired drag: Individual 3D souls, and the system itself, experienced degradation.
• Well, how does a system arrange to clean its elements? There can be no other way but to take advantage of what exists, or else to design something else.
• The pre-eminent characteristic of 3D is concentration in isolation. So, how to use that to self-correct? It isn’t necessary to change the system, merely to change the uses of the system.

I’m getting, to look at it in a different way.

Well, to experience it in a different way, yes. It’s mostly a matter of turning that massive concentrated intelligence onto the problem. Once it becomes aware, it will auto-correct. But we cannot gallop past this point. At the risk of boring some, we must assure that no one who is willing to understand is left behind because of inadequate explanation on our part.

Only first-time visitors to 3D come without baggage. Your mental world includes things you are unaware of, because they never crossed the threshold into your conscious awareness; and things you prefer to be unaware of; and things you are not yet able to discern.

Your life in 3D allows you the possibility of retrieving and reintegrating all this, and we will now look at why and how. Remember however that whether you do so, or the extent to which you do so, is your choice. And remember, the question of “which you” is to be borne in mind. Your 3D self may wish to escape discomfort, while your non-3D self says, “No pain, no gain.” But let’s look at how and why.

• What you experience as the external world, a world beyond your control, continuously interacts with your subjectivity, breaking your isolation, if you would ever realize it, and preventing you from losing yourself in a hall of mirrors. If not for an external objective world for you to interact with, your own fantasies and misconceptions and self-protective games would forever isolate you from any reality you didn’t want to deal with. But you can’t just wish away the external world. You can’t wish it away, nor talk it away, nor live as if it did not exist, and because you can’t, you have the possibility of learning who you are beyond what you accept; you have the possibility of seeing what you’d prefer to change, and deciding whether to change it or merely bemoan it.

How else could an isolated 3D consciousness realize all the things it was not? How realize all the things it could develop? How mend old wounds, close unfinished business, awaken to what had been overlooked? You see? The 3D world is the land of possibilities.

• The 3D self you experience is limited in its awareness of connections. It never sees its potential. At best, it sees the next available increment. Carl Jung reminded you that the shadow, the unknown parts of yourself, contain what is better than you, not only what is worse than you. To the degree that you assimilate your shadow, you incorporate unsuspected potentials.

My sense of this is that 3D conditions force us to see ourselves more as we are than as we think we are.

Well – not “force,” so much as “enable.”  An unseized opportunity will feel like an affliction, and many people at any given time – and everybody at one time or another – find themselves unwilling to feel the discomfort as the price of the enhanced awareness.

Haven’t we said all this before?

Implicitly, perhaps. We remind you that the same information conveyed at a different time in a different context is itself implicitly different. Same information, different potential impact.

But let us hammer this home one time more. Your lives in 3D can be hard; they can hurt; they can feel unsatisfactory, futile, even deliberately perverse. That doesn’t mean your judgment of your lives are accurate. We won’t say, flatly, “No pain, no gain,” but we will say that in this world you don’t usually get something for nothing. In fact, you never do, in reality, though it may appear that way.

For that matter, neither do you get nothing for something. “Righteous persistence brings reward” – and that goes for righteous perseverance in any direction, aimed at any goal. It is impossible for the universe to reward you improperly or inadequately or tardily. However, that doesn’t mean you always have eyes to see. Indeed, in the nature of things, usually you don’t. That’s why your life makes better sense to you in hindsight: What was there to be seen is seen easier with perspective.

It is this invariant relationship between effort and result that makes 3D so valuable as a compressed system for learning who you are, and what you need to, or prefer to, tune.

In context, I suppose “living in faith” means living in faith that life is just.

More carefully said (though what you just said is not wrong, and is admirably concise), “living in faith” means presuming that what life brings you is what you need. However, that still implies intent on your part. You don’t correct your flaws or develop your potential accidentally (regardless how it may sometimes appear); intention is everything.

Let’s reiterate that: Intention is everything. It directs what you will allow yourself to realize; it orients your internal radar toward the next thing; it overcomes any tendency to drift. This is why we say you are in 3D to choose, and choose, and choose.