Intuitive Linked Communication (ILC)

Tuesday, March 27, 2018

At some time you will want to describe what you are learning – or remembering – about the process of communicating via ILC [Intuitive Linked Communication] rather than mediumship or trance-work. It will be worth spelling out in some detail, because for some people it will be the available path in a way that other processes are not.

A dredging operation, I take it.

The material is all there, in past conversations, in your memories, and in what will arise when you hold your mind to the question of the “how” of the process.

Okay, so today?

We continue to encourage anyone reading this to widen your nets. Focus more intensely than ever before, but make your area of focus wider, not narrower.

I get that you want us to learn to do two seemingly contradictory things at the same time. There is ordinary consciousness, different for everyone, somewhat random, somewhat flickering or erratic, somewhat diffuse. Any given person may be highly intense, or less so, or not at all; may be very broadly interested in many things, or less so, or quite limited in scope; may be inclined to be, or less so, or not at all:

• motivated and skilled at prolonged periods of concentration,
• and / or analysis of what is experiences,
• and / or sensitive and reflective to meanings

What it all has in common is probably greater than the differences among us. When we learn to focus our attention upon an object, we concentrate in one way. When we learn to focus our attention-apparatus itself, we concentrate ourselves in a different way, setting the dial of our attention to a certain point regardless of object.

Close enough, although a clarifying image would help greatly.

Well – the first concentrates upon the object on the microscope slide, and the second concentrates on the adjustment the microscope lens is set at.

Better. And we are asking you to learn to focus harder on more. More intensely, on a wider scale. We want to help you to get used to minute examination of a wider field of vision. It isn’t impossible, and it isn’t even particularly difficult once you acquire the knack and the habit, but it does require focused intent, and then practice. Specialists already do the former, and generalists the latter. Now combine the two approaches.

So, we have been examining in detail the reality of your 3D lives in their greater context (“past lives,” strands, Sams, All-D interactions, etc.). Recently we have been widening the focus again, moving into “different” or “unrelated” or “discursive” fields such as theology and ideology and politics. You may be beginning to see how consideration of vast impersonal forces and their interaction with structured All-D minds in their limited context changes the context. Your lives are lived less in thought than in emotion, and we are helping refocus your ideas about life (which can sometimes verge toward relatively lifeless, un-lifelike, abstraction) to better take into account the forces you actually live among.

It will serve each of you to make a very short outline of the pillars of the worldview we have been presenting as you yourself understand it. A skeleton will clarify your understanding if only by the occasional blankness you will experience in connecting gaps in your understanding. This is a way to make it more yours, less a borrowed artifact.

Your religious opinions, your political and ideological opinions, must be taken into account if you are to know yourselves. And if you do not know yourselves to the best of your ability, how can you progress? One can only build upon what one has, and what one has is that which is made conscious to the 3D mind. All the resources of the All-D mind are available, if only through this ILC process, but until something is associated with other things in the living present moment – which is almost a definition of consciousness – it cannot be used, scarcely apprehended.

If you do not inter-associate the contents of your mind, they do not coalesce to form a higher, more complex structure, and that is what we are about, here. In associating what had been separate, you create a platform upon which to climb toward a higher consciousness. Pardon the physical analogy but it is nearly unavoidable.

There would be only limited value in providing a new model of human existence as compound beings living in the 3D crucible if we left it abstract and tidy. Life is neither abstract nor tidy; by design. The material being melted in a retort does not experience the flame as abstract nor as tidy. Instead, it experiences it as very personal: perhaps destructive, perhaps liberating, perhaps both. Well, don’t wall off the untidy reality of your lives and think you have come to a greater understanding. You have, in a way, but, to the degree that you wall off your experiences, you have overspecialized to the point of distortion. A person who is a geologist lives a life that is more than rocks, however fascinating he may find them. Someone suffused in military science, say, will find himself on very different ground should he fall in love, or have an NDE.

So, in brief: Take all that you know of yourself and add it to your microscope’s field of vision. You needn’t – can’t – do it in public. This is between you and yourself. But you can’t lie to yourself and get any benefit from it. Therefore, you now must range beyond our explanations, using them only as guidelines (which is all they have ever been). Now you must bring to light all that is hidden within you, hidden from you, stashed away by you as uncomfortable, unacceptable. And, therefore, you must move into areas you have until now left unexplored.

• If you are religious, you must dare blasphemy.
• If you are secular – still more if you are materialist – you must dare superstition.
• Scientists must move among the unscientific, even anti-scientific mind, as Carl Jung was forced to explore the mentality of the alchemists.
• Mystics must resign themselves to system and order.

A lot of “musts,” and you understand, they are “musts” only if you wish to go that way. No one can force anyone to do the exploration with its attendant growth. It’s up to you. Only, if you do want to go in a certain direction, you must take whatever crops up on the way. You can’t commit and not-commit at the same time. You don’t explore by staying within the confines of what has been mapped out.

To participate in the coming stages, you will need to willingly enter into uncomfortably alien terrain. You don’t need to follow, and you can turn around at any point, but what you can’t do is explore and also stay home unchanged.

The whole world around you will throw up to you all your unthought thoughts, your unacted desires, your unacknowledged predilections. It won’t always tickle. But to understand yourself, to consciously build the requisite base for a more complete and more complex self capable of greater things, there is no other way. Thus, theology. Thus, politics. Thus, your personal psychology and biography, all thrown into the mix.

 

Saturday, August 31, 2019

I am feeling that I still don’t have a handle on what you mean by vast impersonal forces as they refer to us. The sense of it flickers but does not steadily illuminate. Is it beyond us? Beyond me where I am? Does it require other preliminary information?

It butts up against uneasiness in you, so makes little headway. But give it time, it may come.

If you say so.

People who envy your fluency at ILC [Intuitive Linked Communication] perhaps underestimate the lubricating effect of decades of practice on the friction of sensory non-reinforcement.

Care to try that again?

Funny, we were about to say the same thing. Practice makes perfect, is all it amounts to, with the added thought that nothing is as easy and fluid as appears to others. People may not realize that they see what succeeds and not what fails.

I’ve tried to leave in our mistakes and dead-ends, for just that reason; encouragement, and honesty.

Yes, but what of the attempts not worth transcribing, and the times you would have liked to do something but couldn’t? This is not a matter of suppression or even of selection, but of the natural effect of your not printing every thought you ever had, or every notation you ever made. To put it plainly, we are reminding people that nothing is as meaningfully smooth as it may appear, if only because of such natural selection.

You make me sound like Darwin.

Very funny – to quote a friend. Could anyone ever really describe his or her life? Detail every bump? List every book read, every mental connection made, any coinciding event inner and outer? Obviously not, and if it could be done, who would want to read it? The equivalent would be to have a map on a one-to-one scale. As your professor said, so many decades ago, if you had one, where would you store it? The same goes for maps of moments. However, consider expression to be a process of successive compression.

Interesting way to put it. Selective editing, is what I might have said.

Successive compression gives the sense of it a little better.

• First is the living of it,
• then the rough recording of it in memory,
• then perhaps the jotting down of notes as in journal entries,
• then perhaps the transcribing of some of those notes,
• then perhaps the compilation of such notes as articles or books.

Each stage in the communication is a process of selection and arrangement (even if only arrangement by chronology or by topic). It may appear to swell as well as contract, for notes may need to be more fully expressed, but at every stage in the process, fewer items are retained and more are silently discarded as irrelevant, usually unnoticed. Selection produces clarity. A literal transcript of everything would be impossible to produce, and useless. It must be condensed according to the need of the user. And this is an exact description of the process, the nature, and the use of ILC.

I remember how hard it was at first, sensing various possible phrases and meanings, and not knowing which was more accurate. It was strictly private, with no thought of an audience, so it was merely – merely! – a matter of trying to be accurate, yet I often could not tell which of two words or phrases or even, sometimes, directions, was what “the other side” wanted to convey. I learned to go ahead without so much angst, and eventually I realized that intent is more important than exactness. Provided I was intending to do my best, the message would come through.

Eventually you came to see that any of the alternatives would go where we wanted to go – which is what you just said, but we thought it was worth the rephrasing and repetition. Now speak of Jones Very, and you will make our point.

Jones Very was an intuitive, a poet, who came to Emerson with transcriptions (so to speak) which Emerson recognized as genuinely inspired. However, Very would not allow a word to be altered, because, as he said, it was the word of spirit. Emerson is said to have drily remarked that it was clear that spirit didn’t always know how to spell.

Yes. You see, Jones Very was in touch; he received. But he placed too much reverence on the word as he received it, not realizing that he was necessarily part of the process. (Thus, we warned you repeatedly not to treat our words as scripture, but you still aren’t comfortable rephrasing or paraphrasing what you get this way. As if the source that provided would not be available for the editing process!)

Yes, it is that “they’re still part of the editing process” that I didn’t realize. It made for lots of unnecessary scrupulosity. [I used the word to mean too scrupulous: too prone to nit-picking one’s performance. I notice, looking it up on-line, that some people are now defining it as a mental disorder, which figures.]

Intent is the determining characteristic. All else is technique and detail. This, to those who read your reports: Lighten up, free yourselves to receive by realizing that you will always be part of the process; confide that mistakes are always corrected in process, provided sincere unflagging intent to be in genuine and helpful connection. Take this encouragement and go forward.

It’s each person’s job to see what life calls them to do.

It is. It cannot be any other way.  Even if one were to decide to blindly follow another (a path we do not advise!) the decision to follow would of course be the individual’s decision. Even a decision to abdicate is a decision.

 

In June, 2018, I attended the Monroe Institute’s weeklong residential course titled Discovery. The attraction for me was that all participants would be wired up to Mind Mirror software that recorded brainwave patterns during the exercises.

In the very first exercise, which was as much calibration as anything (measuring our base lines), facilitator Judith Pennington was surprised at the level of integration I was able to achieve. When we talked about it, I suggested that it may be because for 20 years I had been accustomed to staying in a slightly altered state (talking to the guys) while not only interacting with them but writing it all down.

After the program ended, we came to my house and she wired me up to see just what the process of talking to the guys looked like electrically. The following transcript of that session may be of interest.

 

Session for Judith Pennington

Friday, June 29, 2018

10:15 a.m. Beginning. Guys, you know what we’re doing here, I know. What would you like to say to Judith and me?

We approve the idea of verification by electronics, although it isn’t necessary, of course, strictly speaking. Yet – it is. There is a type of person – you should know! – who needs to be sure “I’m not just making this up.” Electronic signatures don’t give content but they do give an indication that something is happening.

Now, looking at your whole week at Monroe, you cans see that merely seeing electronic signatures of brainwave activity validated your process to you even though you didn’t really understand what was being measured, nor what it really means.

Yes, I know. Sort of a circular process, I thought. They tell me it’s real and I say, “See, this proves that it’s real.”

Nonetheless, it did help. Your difference from others – or in the case of Dirk, your similarity and difference – shows you in isolation.

Not “isolation,” I think. “In relief”?

Yes. Better.

So subjectively as you know I feel like things changed. To go from a housecat to an eagle is if nothing else great symbolism.

You already knew it was going to be a big week.

True.

Well, must have been a coincidence.

Very funny. Ready for questions?

You can try.

[I had thought to allow Judith to ask questions, but she had none at this time.]

What can you tell me about where I go from here? I get that you want me to write out the gist of the material I have been given all these years, but – beyond that?

It isn’t so much a “beyond that” as a “how to do it.” It begins with seeing yourself differently. You have come to that, this week. Decide and execute. Once you know what you want – and decide to get it – the way clarifies.

Specifically?

There is the speaking aspect – interacting persona to persona, so to speak – and the writing aspect – interacting mind to mind, or, in TMI-speak, mental body to mental body. You can see which one has the potential to reach the largest number of people.

Go at it through the emotions, in other words.

Not exactly. Slow down.

Okay.

Emotions are a part of the persona-to-persona interaction, but that doesn’t mean “emotional” in the sense of drama. It means, your whole essence, who you are in toto – in relation to the given listener – rather than merely mental constructs. Mental constructs can be as valuable as anything else, but they are limited, and that limitation has advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, it puts things in isolation, eliminating misleading context. On the other hand, the “extraneous” aspects it weeds out may be (necessarily are) important in the overall scheme of things, and their absence results in a distorted picture.

It is a matter of words as sparks versus words as markers.

Yes. Direct speech in someone’s presence – even virtual presence such as a telephone or internet connection – allows for a greater jump of understanding between the two (or more) people. Fixing the speech in writing – still more, in print – reduces, though it does not eliminate, that potential, with the corresponding advantage in permanence of presentation.

So I need to be taking the show on the road, so to speak.

Yes, but virtually does at least as well as physically. Telephone, skype, web seminars, anything that brings it present-tense to present-tense, will serve the purpose. You don’t have to be P.T. Barnum.

Okay, I hear that. A word on process. I am very aware of Judith watching the monitor as I do this, and in the back of my mind I’m wondering, will any of this show? Will it demonstrate that I’m fooling myself? Now, I know it isn’t that, yet the background worry is there. Is there anything to be done besides ignoring it?

Just remember the doubt as part of the process. If you still occasionally doubt in unusual circumstances after 25 years, what must the person trying it for the first time (on faith, so to speak), experience? Remember that and allow for it.

Allow for it, how?

To a great extent, merely mentioning the problem reassures people that you are not qualitatively different from them, and so reduces the perceived distance they have to go.

Okay. I can’t understand how we can have covered so many pages in 20 minutes.

Perhaps you are a bit hyper being under observation.

Hmm. Maybe so. All right.

[Later when we looked at the charts, we saw a difference right here. My energy became less spiky, and more normal.]

 Can we talk about housecats and eagles? [Two images of myself that came up during exercises.]

Housecats balance energies unnoticed. Self-contained, alert, curious, they interact without much being interfered with. Eagles live away from everyday human activity and may serve more as a symbol of freedom and flight than as an everyday part of life. But both have their place. What you really want to see is the movement from seeing yourself as a housecat to seeing yourself as an eagle. The progression is a different thing from either given state.

Your life becomes less your own, and becomes at the same time of more consequence. People tend to hang their drama upon symbols, and, as you learned from watching Hemingway, public attention can be like the drag of a fishhook in a fish’s mouth.

Gary Powell is facing that concern.

It isn’t a unique problem. Life involves tradeoffs.

Somehow during the program – I’ll have to look back among my notes to remember how – I changed my image of things. Seeing myself as “a point of awareness extending” means that past lives, etc., are all part of my extended being.

You will find it much less constricting. You are already living as if; now you will live not as if, but as.

I think I’ll bring this to an end (I’m tired), unless you have more you’d like to say.

No, enough for now. Good work. Be well.

Thanks, and you.

[I then told Judith that I was ready to quit, and she had something for me to ask.]

Judith has a question. “What are the conversations that I’ve been listening to just now?”

Your framework has been slipping, so to speak, just as Frank’s. You are no longer seeing yourself as separate in the way you did previously – if only from sitting among so much evidence to the contrary all week. You are so much more than your consciously identified presence – “Judith” – and your awareness is now extending to be more conscious – more actively conscious – of interacting continuously with those other elements. At first they will seem to be “other” but in time they become familiar.

“Is this the astral realm that I’ve been listening to?”

To say yes or no would be to implicitly affirm a way of seeing the world that we do not share. Let’s say merely that you are experiencing greater range of —

“Range of motion” isn’t right. What is?

Greater range, let’s leave it at that.

[end 10:55 a.m.]

 

In the past 120 years or so, science has come a long way toward overthrowing all the theoretical bulwarks of the materialist way of seeing things. The guys upstairs must be smiling. In the absence of a functioning website at the moment, here’s a place-holder:

 

https://www.schwartzreport.net/2023/01/31/why-more-physicists-are-starting-to-think-space-and-time-are-illusions/

 

 

Saturday, July 24, 2021

Yesterday’s information seems to me to have been quite densely packed. A tremendous lot there, if someone is ready for it. or maybe it’s all something everybody already knows. You said, think about it and ask any questions that arise. The only question that surfaces for me right now is the nature of the living present moment, that you described two weeks ago as the organizing principle.

Recalibrate now. Receptivity and focus are different activities than looking to remember something.

Okay. Slide-switches, as usual.

Now, stop looking at the clock! Be here, now. And, by an odd coincidence (we smile), that directly ties to the theme.

• Your experience of time divides into two: (1) the living present moment, and (2) everything else.
• We have said, many times, there are no absolute divisions in the universe.
• You have accepted that all moments continue to exist, and somehow exist living, rather than in a state of preservation like museum dioramas.
• We remind you that “life is but a dream,” projected from a “realer” reality, and therefore the laws governing it are those of the psyche, not of mechanistic 3D interactions.
• You know yourselves to be immortal and invulnerable; and you also feel contingent and helpless, often enough. That is, either you haven’t decided or the reality is self-contradictory, or what you are living is – as we have said – only somewhat real.

Does this carry you over the difficulty?

It may begin to. I get that you are saying that how we experience life depends upon what part of the overall experience we concentrate on.

Well, you got a lot more than that! Expand on it a bit. Nobody will be able to follow the jump without intermediate sign-posting.

Okay. I got that our life at this level is a dream of a larger reality, and that we are both actor and audience. Whether we are also scriptwriter, director, stage manager, etc., I don’t know, but for the moment the important thing is that we are actors doing improv, and audience losing itself in observing. Both elements are equally real within us.

Yes. Good so far. Continue.

Another way to look at it is as our being both insiders and outsiders. As outsiders, we accept the play, the scenery, the cast, even our part in the improv, as objectively “there.” That is, we participate and cannot help participating, just as physically we cannot help having our body being in any one place at a time. As insiders, we know better than to take any of it at face value. We cannot wave our hands and wish the world into non-existence, but we aren’t taken in by its appearance of solidity, either. My sense is that we, at some level way above 3D consciousness, are in connection with the dreamer dreaming the dream. Probably we are that dreamer, to some extent, though I think it would be too simple (and too inflated) to think we are it in any sense in which 3D intellect would participate.

Again?

I just mean, Jung could get glimpses and it enhanced his wisdom; Nietzsche identified with the divine level of things and it destroyed him, the level of forces cracking his vessel like an iron bar against fine porcelain.

Continue.

I doubt there is any absolute division here, any more than anywhere else in the world. We probably partake in divinity just as we partake in 3D restriction – partly, not entirely. Thus we are somewhat at home in either aspect of reality, but not entirely.

Isn’t your whole life one of uneasy coexistence within you of elements that are never entirely “at home”? This is so not only (not even primarily) because of the coexistence of strands, but because within each strand was the same uneasy living on borrowed time, in rented quarters, so to speak. 3D life is inherently a “settling for,” among things that are not only contradictory sometimes, but are out of different realities that have little to say to one another.

Now, the important point here is that you, living at this moment, are alive, you are real, you can choose. You are not dead, nor an abstraction, nor a puppet. As you concentrate on those living features, your life expands – you have life more abundantly – and it has no reference to “externals” of any kind. Being more alive does not necessarily alter your social position; it does necessarily alter what of you can be experienced at that moment.

Annoyingly, it seems to be slipping away.

Stop watching the clock and counting pages. Merely focus and maximize receptivity. But actually, let us use this process as an example. Through all these journal entries, every letter written was written in the living present moment, which in effect moved on, or moved you on, so that you could write the next letter. So in effect you could say

1. Your entire entry, every time, was written word by word in the living present, but
2. The whole thing is part of the past, and became part of the past as fast as it came through.

Is this not your life, all of you? Moment by moment you experience this uniquely alive feeling, and moment by moment that feeling detaches and moves along, carrying you with it. Do you not see something strange in this? Doesn’t it strike you as strange?

It does me, as well you know. If it does others, I don’t know.

Well, this is a huge clue to reality, staring you in the face at every moment. What could be stranger? If you accept life as a past, present, future progression, in which the past continually disappears and the future is continually not yet created and the present moment is the only thing that is real, you can make a sort of sense of life. But once that becomes impossible, then what?

Impossible, I take it, as we experience or acknowledge contact between times, between lives, etc.

Among other disturbing anomalies, yes. But it is no advance to say “On the other side, there is no time,” or, for that matter, “Life is but a dream,” if you don’t understand in what way what you say is not true. Life is so arranged that during your 3D existence parts of you may experience things that don’t fit into any scheme you devise. That is, there are always distracting, niggling, irritating things that don’t quite fit but can’t be dismissed. The biggest of these is the nature of the present moment.

 

Friday, July 23, 2021

Just as we in non-3D are not quite as we are commonly defined, nor you in 3D, so neither are you in your 3D/non-3D entirety seen correctly, usually. Thus your nature, your limitations, and your potential are misunderstood, for how much correct understanding can filter through so much wrong definition?

I have been feeling for your meaning, and I began to get a sense of a very common-sense picture, but it relies upon so many interlocking definitions. The result isn’t complicated, it’s elegantly simple, as I suppose we should expect. Truth usually is elegant, simple, straightforward and self-evident, but only when seen straight. Until seen straight, it will look like a mass of contradictions, side-trails, irrelevancies, and unknowablities.

Thus, Newton’s laws, and the re-visioning of Copernicus, and Einstein’s mathematical pulling-together of the two concepts of matter and energy. Thus Jung’s grasping exposition of psychological types. Any clarification of previously known but mystifying phenomena depends mostly upon seeing them from a new point of view.

But although I can more or less feel it, I couldn’t yet express it, which is the same as admitting that I don’t really have it.

No, it is the same as saying that you have done the spadework, immersing yourself in various aspects of the problem, and you are Wilbur Wright standing in his bicycle shop, talking to a customer while absent-mindedly holding a flexible carton and twisting it in opposite directions.

Even after he had the clarifying bit of insight, he had to do a lot of work testing what he suddenly knew, intuitively, was the key to control of a vehicle in flight.

Genius is 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration, you know that.

Well, this would be a good time for you to throw in your 1%.

We smile. So you tell us.

I guess I’d say, we don’t go anywhere when we die. We don’t become anything we aren’t already. We continue.

Yes. Nobody and nothing is disconnected. There is no individual unit to exist or cease to exist or come into existence. What there is, is one vast whole, of which you and we are part, and “you” and “we” are relatively individual, communities of communities, and ourselves parts of larger communities. If you once grasp the reality of this interconnection, you see that “you” cannot die because “you” never existed in the way you usually see yourselves.

• You are combinations of strands.
• Each strand is a combination of strands.
• Each moment of time exists forever, and thus so do everything in those moments.
• However, all time may be divided in effect into the one present-moment as experienced, and all other moments.
• Everything interacts! One strand may connect many different centuries or territories. It is not possible to affect any one thing without affecting every
• 3D existence does not exist in the absence of non-3D connection. It couldn’t. The difference between the two states is a relative difference, not an absolute.
• Existing within 3D constriction, you yet exist outside of it, as well.
• Physical death, like physical birth, is a moment of transition, the culmination of a process, not a change from one thing to another, but from one set of environmental ground-rules to another.
• As a thought-experiment, consider yourself a bundle of strands existing equally after as well as before the process of bundling. You will see the superficiality of 3D existence as a physical unit.

I think you mean we’ll see that the only thing that changes is our experience as a relatively isolated unit.

Yes. You will watch as the superficial lining of 3D definition falls away, leaving and revealing (and, in fact, liberating) all the elements of yourself that 3D existence tended to obscure and submerge.

I’m still not sure we have conveyed the “aha!”-producing insight.

It is a Copernican shift, and you have known it for more than 20 years, but you have been unable to fully appreciate the idea as long as you remained enmeshed in the idea that a 3D body was the same as evidence of individuality in the sense of isolation.

Yes, that’s it, isn’t it? I see.

You see because you were born seeing it, groping your way to it. But although it is clear at the moment, perhaps it will be less so after we pause. It will be worth your while to spell out your understanding.

Every description of life or the afterlife is misleading in so far as it is based on the idea (usually implicit) that there is the unit (a “me” separate in some real way) and there is everything else. Thus any first-hand experience of the afterlife, or retrievals, or the meaning of life is all incorrect in so far as it is based on wrong definitions. But change the definitions, and the experiences remain, but they can be seen to be something different than we thought them to be.

Yes.

• You don’t have to step off a high wire when you die.
• You don’t have to find Charon or not get across the River Styx.
• You are not required to appear in court and be judged.
• You are not sentenced to rebirth, and neither are you liberated from the wheel of life and rebirth.
• You do not cease to exist.
• You do not leave Earth and the things of Earth;
• neither do you have to pretend to continue a 3D existence by what Monroe called belief-system territories and Moen called hollow heavens.

In short, anything people have posited or concluded or experienced or feared or looked forward to is true or not true, accurate or not accurate, reliable or misleading – depending upon the one definition that everything hangs on.

I get it. Either we realize that there are no absolute divisions in reality, or we don’t. If we think there are, then there are all those projections that appear real. If we see that there are not, then clearly we already are what we are.

Let’s put it this way: Just as the “external” world is not separate from you, regardless how 3D conditions make it appear; just as the “material” world is mind-stuff, in the same way your psyches are, so the present-moment is as much a part of everything as are all the other moments, but 3D conditions mask the reality.

And this hour has been very productive indeed. At least, we hope your friends will find it to have been. There is more to spell out, but this is the crucial insight. Change this one idea, and see how things that seemed chaotic and disconnected fall into place, or rather, are seen to be what they always were, harmonious parts of an undivided reality.

I take it we resume from here, but how, I don’t quite see.

Merely concentrate upon questions that arise as you think about your perpetual existence as part of all that is. We will help you, to the degree that your receptivity allows.