Connections between 3D and non-3D

Publish on Comments(0)

Connections between 3D and non-3D

Monday, July 2, 2007

8:40 a.m. All right, friends, I’m open to suggestion. Do you have more you’d like to say about the connection between minds on your side and on our side? I recognize of course that “your side” and “our side” is not only an analogy that may overstate differences, but in fact implies a difference that doesn’t even quite exist.

You will remember that some years ago you realized that the terms subconscious and conscious led by way of unspoken association to the idea that a wave

[Lost it.]

Again, you can’t think about the information and receive it at the same time, just as you can’t experience something new and analyze it at the same time. You may do it in rapid alternation, but not simultaneously. Bruce Moen uses the analogy of the bicycle balance maintained between perceiver and analyzer; it is the same process, in fact literally the same. You are perceiving – non-physically – or you are analyzing what you have perceived. At any given moment you cannot be doing both, any more than you can pitch and catch a ball at the same time. You may throw it back as soon as you catch it – rapid alternation of process – but you cannot do both at the same time.

Sometimes you wool-gather and lose the thread. Sometimes you argue, or criticize. Sometimes the information or the process makes you uncomfortable for some reason. Sometimes there is a physical interruption like a phone call. Any of these things – or other things – can cause you to lose the thread, but it doesn’t have to become an important interruption, any more than losing your balance on a bicycle that isn’t up to speed, and putting out your foot to support you against the ground.

That was very interesting, and I know that you know – obviously! – that I appreciate it and see it as potentially a good learning tool for others.

Did we ever mention to you that your strongest impulse is to know something well enough to teach it?

Can’t say you have. I thought at first you were going to say my strongest impulse was to teach, or maybe to communicate. Of course it is stronger to put it your way. The Internet is very important for people like me – and that in context tells me that it is an important tool for person-to-person teaching of anything whether considered a subject for classes or not. Good.

Now, to return –

David here, because we share so much “flavor” of our minds. It makes it easier to communicate provided it is some subject congenial to me and not more so to another. You’ll notice, I didn’t try telling you about Joseph’s Civil War experiences, or life among the Indians.

If we drop your analogy of “this side that side,” we still need to pick up another which will have its own defects. That can be a good thing when an analogy has become constricting or very misleading – but until then, why not continue to elaborate on what we’re building? It’s just a matter of periodic reminders of the limitations of analogy.

While you were writing – if I may put it that way – I realized that the reason I’m not planning my trip to England other than picking a few places is that you and others will be there to see that I “fortuitously” see what is important to me to see.

It happens all the time. It is helpful for you to hold a focus – like Iona that time. We can do the rest.

Great. A relief. Okay, so you were saying –

Here is your analogy, spelled out a bit. Outside physical time-space, minds exist in a more or less permanent form. What we are on the side was shaped by what we did while in the body with the original inheritance we began from. Inside physical time-space, new minds – new “souls” in restricted sense – are formed with each new body, and shaped during a lifetime.

At some point you’re going to need drawings to spell this out a bit, but not yet. Ask for an artist at that point.

That hasn’t ever occurred to me.

Not consciously. You are in touch with your inner writer and editor and – now – potter.

[I spent a couple of years learning to throw pots.] Interesting. Okay, and –

Day-to-day life in time-space involves complex mostly unconscious interactions with the other side. You [-all] are sometimes aware of dreams, though what they are and why they are perplexes you, mostly. Sometimes you hear voices, or feel impulses, or experience knowings, or follow hunches, and all these are all variants of connection. Sometimes you meet people and are instantly old friends, for no reason that is apparent. Sometimes you share flashes or extensive swatches of telepathic communication. You have a instinctive knowings, you work sleepwalking, as you sometimes put it –

All these very common internal events are examples of the way your this-side (to you) life connects with the other side that is also part of you.

So it is as much a vertical as a horizontal division – as you sometimes admit when you talk about Upstairs and Downstairs. And of course this side/that side Upstairs/Downstairs is only physical spatial analogy. Necessary, helpful, but only analogy, and like any analogy it brings its unexpected and sometimes unsuspected baggage.

So how do we portray the connection between you in the physical and you out of the physical? We have talked to us

Interesting. Lost it again. Why this time?

You were trying to figure out what I was going to say – trying to remember what I was referring to. But remembering is not the same as receiving.

I see it. And if I wrote faster maybe I’d have done the remembering quickly enough that I wouldn’t have noticed the alternation in mental gears?

Well, it depends on how fast you change those gears, for one thing! But it’s a pretty high-risk operation. Easier to alternate between reception and questioning or commenting than between reception and memory-searching or arguing or active worrying.

All right. So—

So – we could bring in an artist if you aren’t too nervous about it.

As you did that time for the TGU painting!

Yes. And you never realized that till this minute, did you? Think how much else in all of your lives depends on your accessing skills from “this” side.

Well, how about if you sketch it one bit at a time?

 

The purpose of this first sketch, which is actually a diagram, is to convey that on either side of the veil between physical and nonphysical, any given mind may be in connection with others on both sides. Simple and obvious, that is, once stated – but easily forgotten while you are thinking about these things in some other context. The diagram, BTW, is the simplest possible diagram to describe the situation. If you will go back and add numbers on your side, letters on mine –

You see that 1 for instance may connect with only A or B or C, or only 2 or 3 — that is one possibility: one to one.

Or, 1 may communicate with A and B, or A and C., or B and C, etc. (but three is the minimum needed to express the concept) and that is a second possibility – one on one side and one or more on the other.

Or, 1 may similarly relate to 2 and 3 (or others, or more) and that is a third possibility – one connecting to one or more on his same side.

Finally, 1 may connect to one or more of A, B, C and one or more of 2, 3, etc. This seemingly more complex situation is closest to normal, little though you normally realize it.

I should add that the final set includes within it subsets that I am not bothering to describe but they should be obvious enough. I mention this only to show you that I recognize that they are there.

Now – add to this the obvious fact that each of the letters and numbers is in the same situation of communicating with others on both sides, and you begin to get a sense of the complexity of existence and communication even at any one moment of time! Obviously it all changes moment to moment.

I can see how I can tweak that diagram to make it a bit more aesthetically pleasing – which will increase its pedagogical impact, I think.

Of course, and when you do so, you may tap into an artist in the woodpile — your grandfather, for example, to help you to do so.

Nice thought. Okay.

That is phase one of the explanation. Take a little rest now.

Categories: Intuitive Linked Communication (ILC)

Thomas, Saying 35

Publish on Comments(1)

Wednesday, June 12, 2019

6:10 a.m. Saying 35

Jesus said: It is not possible for anyone to enter a strong man’s house and take it over forcefully unless he first ties his hands. Then he can steal from that house.

Not sure what this one means. Everything depends upon who or what the strong man represents. The previous saying refers to the blind leading the blind. The one before that, to not hiding our light under a bushel. So I suppose this may mean that if we are connected, we are strong and cannot be overcome, in which case the person who would steal from that house refers not to 3D theft but to something else. Yes?

Of course. Jesus was not promising physical immunity, nor 3D security. As noted earlier, history would contradict the promise, given the long string of martyrdoms that followed. Nor was that anything to his purpose of setting out the promise of 3D/non-3D life.

So look at it. No one can take over the strong man’s house unless he binds the strong man. No one can enter and take over, notice.

Does this imply what is called [spirit, or demonic] possession?

Let’s put it this way. An individual is a community, but is not the only community in the world, considered as 3D or as non-3D or as both. You do not live isolated, even if “all is one.” So you should not expect to live without interaction or interference. In practical 3D terms you know this, only you must apply it to yourselves while realizing that you are both 3D and non-3D, which, in practice, you tend to forget.

It’s true. The concepts seem to sort into separate mental buckets.

It is the process of associating previously separately held ideas that this is about. This is where new insight arises.

So then the question becomes: What makes the strong man strong? Who is the potential intruder, conceptually? What is it the intruder may wish to steal? And, by implication, how does one prevent the intrusion; how does one prevent one’s hands from being bound?

And the answer is –?

Light. Awareness. Connection: These make the strong man strong. These prevent him from being led into a ditch. These also provide light for others, though “others” requires clarification. For the moment, let’s look at it.

You are both stronger and more vulnerable than you realize. Alone and in conscious connection to your source, you cannot be shaken unless that source is shaken. But the source too is vulnerable to the vast impersonal forces we have been alluding to, and hinting at, and keeping at least in the background of the discussion, because here too, we are all connected, not autistic and invulnerable.

I sense that some may become politically offended by the use of the term autistic, as though it were a slur.

Understood, but such reactions are no more helpful to understanding than taking offense at language that is not gender-neutral, or parables that seem to lead to politically undesirable conclusions. It is important to keep one’s eye on the ball. Indeed, if it were not a diversion from the point here, this would naturally segue into a discussion of how misapplying scripture to realms it does not intend to instruct about – science, say, or sociology – leads to radically wrong interpretations. But let us stick to the point of the moment.

The non-3D component of which you are a part does not exist in a vacuum. It does not exist in isolation. It does not exist immune to the vast forces that contend in the universe. (Universe here meaning non-3D as well as 3D, obviously.) We have been a long time getting to this, but here we are. Another moment of redefinition for you, and if you enter into this rabbit hole, your previous understandings once more become so much discarded scaffolding.

We’re going to fall to the ground sometime, presumably, but I’m willing to risk it. Let’s continue.

Scripture, we keep reminding you, is written in such a way (or perhaps we should say concerns concepts of such a nature) as to require multiple interpretations depending upon one’s level of being. You can only get out of it what you are able to bring to it. Sounds circular, but there you are. You might think of scripture less as lessons than as reminders.

Listen, now. All men may be created equal in essence, but they certainly and obviously are not equal in any other thing that can be measured. This should tell you that all men are brothers and that all men are different. Both, not only one or the other. At some level, all are kin; no one is a stranger in the world. At another level, no one entirely fits into his surroundings; everyone is a little bit of a stretch from the (abstract) norm. If true in 3D, true in non-3D no less, though up to this point we have been considering non-3D individuals as though more or less identical.

Wow. This is redefinition, with a vengeance. Yet it is the same old process that you used with Rita, continually expanding the frame of reference to see how different things looked.

There is no other way, really.

So. Take the strong man to be both the non-3D-connected 3D individual (unconnected consciously, perhaps, but connected nonetheless) and that non-3D component considered in and of itself. Two very different fields of action, you see, the former oriented toward the 3D, the latter toward the non-3D as it includes the 3D. The former the more localized-in-time-and-space version, the latter the greater self, the larger being.

Clearly different beings, different fields of interest, depending as usual upon the turn of the focusing knob on the telescope, or microscope. But the results will be the same, in a sense, because it is the same forces acting upon the same objects, in a sense. It is only the scale and the external conditions that vary and thus seems to vary the result.

That’s clear, but a little abstract. Can you ground it for us a little?

You as 3D individual live your life choosing. You come into being incorporating certain values and preferences, and you live your life affirming or denying or modifying; exploring and retreating and pondering and equivocating. At the end of your span you are what your choices have made you by how they modified your original being. Given that no one is identical in composition to anyone else, you are in effect innumerable experiments in being.

These experiments in turn affect the larger being, the non-3D greater self of which they are a part, in two ways: directly, in that they offer direct feed, and indirectly, in that they affect each other, one 3D life bleeding over into another, and not as a one-time thing but continuously. Do you see that this means that 3D beings and non-3D beings alike are affected by the winds that blow through your world?

Now that you point it out. There wouldn’t be much point to 3D existence if it did not affect the non-3D.

And that is one reason why the non-3D is vitally concerned with 3D life, you see.

As religions have always maintained. Or usually, anyway; no way for me to know whether “always.”

You’re learning. But yet, that’s the point. So the strong man may be seen in 3D terms or in non-3D terms which includes 3D within it. But the Saying reads very differently depending upon how you read it.

It does. And we haven’t gotten to the question of what the intruder can steal, nor of who the intruder can be, nor of how the intruder breaks in.

What can be stolen can only be one’s possessions, and what possessions can a non-3D individual have? The intruder can only be another individual, and what can a non-3D intruder be but another non-3D individual? We defer the question of how he breaks in, as too large a question to be treated as an afterthought. But bear this all in mind, in pondering the Saying. It is true that Jesus was not intending to convey the non-3D aspect of it at the time; the 3D aspects would be quite enough for even his disciples to grasp, and his intent was always practical, always aimed at bringing access to “life more abundantly.” Still, the meaning is there, and comes out in other contexts, as we shall see.

Shall we? It will be interesting to see if we do or don’t.

A certain amount depends upon the vagaries of conversational flow, but major milestones will be reached one way or another.

And that’s it for the moment, I gather, it having been an hour.

It is.

Thanks as always.

 

Categories: Intuitive Linked Communication (ILC)

Three worldviews

Publish on Comments(0)

Three worldviews

Tuesday, July 3, 2007

7:25 a.m. I suppose it should be reassuring that I have no idea what comes next, and don’t even know what has come so far – that is, I can’t recall except by effort both sessions. I don’t know what is being created and of course I am wondering if there will be any more. There is no angst about this, it is way too familiar, but there you are.

All right, David – I don’t know what is next, so I sure hope you do. But then, I assume it.

We mentioned that you use two analogies – Upstairs/Downstairs and this side/that side, both geographical analogies, so to speak. We started to say that you had once realized that conscious/subconscious also implied a separation in space, as the difference between the top of a wave and the body of the wave (and the wave in turn could be seen as the tip of greater depths, as Upton Sinclair more or less saw the individual and the race).

All these analogies are useful distinctions but – like all distinctions – they are partial, tentative, dependent upon the point of view of the observer. In a very real way, distinctions obstruct or blur the realization that distinctions are by nature falsifications no matter how carefully drawn.

Furthermore you are coming to realize that what we are giving you here is the root of the problem of Western civilization. Nothing less. And that is: Being unable to believe in immortality, or being unable to conceive of immortality as anything but a vague continuation of existence, because of conclusions that for a while seemed forced by reason in the light of science, western civilization split into three parts that each went its own way (except that each, regarding itself as the only legitimate and accurate representation of reality, also regarded itself as the only legitimate authority around which society was to revolve, thus setting the scene for endless struggles, or Kulturkampf). These three may be subdivided but that would only blur the lines I am drawing to show you the outline.

Religion. Received belief, corporate bodies revolving around scriptures as they interpreted them.

Science. Continual investigation into physical reality, being willing to (and expecting to have to) reshape its view of reality as new data is derived or discovered.

Humanists, call them. If you don’t want to call them humanists (shades of the accusations of Secular Humanism thrown out by the fundamentalists some years ago in your path) I can name them something else. The essence is this: they do not rely upon Scripture or on investigation, but upon something neither Science nor Religion easily recognizes. Call them perhaps the Intuition-ists? The Rooted-Nature-ists?

You see? Emerson, Thoreau, Goethe, Whitman, Coleridge – not merely artists, not exactly mystics, not quite scientists. It is not a matter of temperament, though it may easily appear so because certain temperaments gravitate toward certain points of view and those accustomed lines of thought tend to shape people into these temperaments.

So you have those who follow scriptural authority, others who follow investigative authority and still others who follow instinct informed (depending on the person) by different combinations of scriptural and scientific information.

Each of these has a different worldview. Each in a very real sense lives in a different world. They all perceive different facts, deduce different rules, arrive at different conclusions. This after all is what your blog is all about – the world is fragmented.

As I said, each division can be subdivided. Catholics and fundamentalists and Quakers have huge differences among them, not to mention the differences between any of them and Muslims, Rastafarians, Hindus or Buddhists. Nonetheless, you can see a rough commonality among them when seen from this particular categorizing scheme. Similarly, physicists live in a pretty different world from sociologists, and either from psychologists, yet clearly they all look to experientially derived data for their authority. And Goethe may have significant differences from Ken Kesey, and each from Hemingway, say – but they are all making sense of the world less from Scripture or scientific investigation than from personal intuition.

Again, this is only a classification scheme. Goethe could be put in among scientists, as could Thoreau. Newton had a foot in at least two worlds. The point is not to pick holes in the scheme but to pick an implied (or anyway an inferred) whole out of it.

For this is what it gives you, you see. Once you see the culture as consisting of a positive, a negative and a reconciling force (to use Gurdjieff’s terms) you see that none of the three may be dispensed with. Each is necessary, and will be present one way or another. It is not the presence or even the overdeveloped presence of any that is the problem.

The problem of the West – and hence of the world – is not that there are three means of receiving data but that the three means appears to be delivering contradictory data! This is why each set goes off to sulk, or comes out to do battle, instead of playfully and creatively cooperating and competing to each make its own contribution and recognize the contributions of the others. This is why it is a struggle in terms of tug-of-war rather than, say, a foot race.

Now, in spelling out to you a scheme of what life is really like – that is, taking both sides of the veil as an interactive system – and in pointing out that the means of personal verification are available to each of you, have we not given you the clue that society could follow to reunify its vision?

If scientists as scientists (not as individuals with divided minds, putting their science aside on Sunday mornings, so to speak) can obtain first-hand knowledge of the essential immortality and interpenetrating nature of life –

If the religious as seekers of religious truth can do the same, and interpret their experience in light of the scriptures (and then, soon enough, learn to use the scriptures as roadmaps of what they are likely to discover, or should watch out for, or tools that they may be able to use) –

If the poets and mystics as intuiters of truth can fashion a reconciling view respecting both religion and science –

Do you not have your next civilization in its essence? You will not live long enough to see it flower but you may easily live long enough to see it take root – and you will continue to actively participate (with greater freedom and sureness) from the other side.

So, that is what you are up to.

I see to my surprise that it has been an hour.

Yes, go. But today we can probably give you more – assuming you wish to receive it today.

Categories: Intuitive Linked Communication (ILC)

Thomas, Saying 36

Publish on Comments(5)

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.

 

Categories: Intuitive Linked Communication (ILC)

Thomas, Saying 37

Publish on Comments(0)

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.

 

Categories: Intuitive Linked Communication (ILC)