Saturday, September 23, 2017
All right, I think I know where you are going next. At least, it has been in my mind recurrently. Passions. Or, emotions, at least. I have been hearing that we live in a sea of emotions.
Do you not think it is interesting that philosophers and scientists attempt to explain the human life without beginning from the self-evident fact that human life is dominated by emotion? You are not creatures of thought, or logic, or abstract yearnings for knowledge, or any of the things you may consider yourselves to be when you sit down to define your lives. You are people living an endless procession of emotions, even the calmest of you, even the iciest and most self-centered and autistic of you, even the most sociopathically self-centered of you. Your lives are not about thought or about rational development. They are the living of forces from well beyond consciousness or thought.
Pretty broad brush we’re painting with, this morning.
It did get your attention, perhaps, and in this case, that is not so easy. You have such a firm opinion of something so obviously incorrect, it is necessary to shout, you might say.
You had a friend who was convinced that he felt no emotions. He thought of himself as a hard-headed scientist, seeing himself – seeing life – rationally, surrounded by people whose lives were driven by emotion. The fact that he was wrong but certain could sum up the human situation in this regard. You are the conduits of vast impersonal forces, and you rarely suspect the fact, because when you are aware of the forces flowing through you, they seem to be your forces, mobilized for some personal reason, or provoked by some personal encounter. And when you are not aware of them, you forget the awareness you had had, and you go back to thinking yourselves rational self-directed beings.
Not sure who you are describing. I don’t have any such illusion, and I don’t know anybody who does. We know we –
Oh, do continue!
Very funny. All right, the sense of what you meant just penetrated, and so I do see your point. And I guess I’ll be better able to say this than you will. I can at least use a one-inch brush instead of a paint-roller.
I interrupted myself because I started to say that I and my friends realize that we are subject to intractable problems – emotional biases dating back to childhood, sometimes; the effects of past traumas; what analysts call complexes; persistent failings we are unable to root out. But I stopped when I realized, that is exactly what you just said: I was defining us as rational beings with problems, and we could at least equally well be defined as creatures living lives shaped by forces beyond our control. Or, not quite. By forces either beyond our control or forces needing to be controlled.
But that is an advance in understanding, is it not? You are not rational beings interrupted by occasional (or even frequent, or even continual) emotional forces. You are compound beings living your entire life as conduits for forces that flow through you, you doing what you can to channel and direct them. That is not the picture John Locke [English philosopher and rationalist] would paint of humans. Nor B.F. Skinner [American psychologist, founder of behaviorism, which seems to think humans have no source of information or behavior beyond the strictly physical]. But equally it is not the point of view of Freud and Jung [two of the giant figures who pioneered modern psychology] and those who accompanied and followed them. They recognized the role of passion in the human, but they assumed that the human occupied a detached place that was affected by the emotions and what they knew as the problems of the person. They did not necessarily see that in any person’s life the central fact is that the 3D individual is a conduit of forces from beyond. They tended to see the 3D individual as a separate unit affected by these forces. We have repeated this now, several times. We wonder: Have any of you actually heard it?
Some will. I did, I think.
We will repeat it from time to time, because you may find the concept elusive. Your physically separate and seemingly independent life accustoms you to thinking your mental life equally separate, and your civilization accustoms you to seeing your emotional life as an offshoot of your mental life, which is ridiculous but persuasive because habitual.
A conflict of orientations
You know, I think that for the first time I understand why the metaphysical types and the religious types can not be made to take each other seriously!
Not to mention the scientific types, the “hard-headed realist” types and especially the worshiper of an idea of the mind as an ideal. Go ahead.
It is not just a temperamental difference, nor a matter of prejudice, nor of strongly held opinion, though that is how I have usually seen it (on either side). They aren’t using the same definitions!
They do not consider the same forces, no. They define the world differently.
And that isn’t a matter of opinions, but of orientation. It seems clear at the moment, so I’d better write it down. Religious thought begins by seeing humans as living in a torrent of forces, call them, that often manifest as emotion or even as persistent non-rational motivators. Religious thought proceeds from a recognition that we as individuals are not the basic unit we think ourselves to be, but are conduits of vast inhuman forces that they perhaps personify as God or Devil, or perhaps see merely as illusion. [I was thinking of Buddhism, here.] For those who do not see life in this way, religious thought seems nonsensical, superstitious.
I think my own brush broadened at the tip during use just then. Still, I think it is a valid insight. And you can see that psychotherapy is halfway toward religious thought, only it persists (as far as I know) in thinking the individual the unit it seems to be, rather than the construct and community it also is.
All right, now you, and at least some of your readers, will have made the adjustment. You will find life looks differently, only – look close to hand, don’t succumb to the temptation to look only (or primarily) at others, or at society at large. Look to your own lives: What else do you know so well? What else can you know “essence to essence,” so to speak?
This is very interesting. With that one fundamental insight, we can proceed beyond futile arguments about the track record of organized religions, and about points of dogma, and about most of the things that prevent discussion on sympathetic grounds. Once realize that the great divide is between those who think us independent units mostly motivated by reason and those who see us as conduits of vast impersonal forces, and lots of things clear up, including where (relative to that divide) we ourselves belong.
Bearing in mind, of course, that this is one way to divide the world.
Yes, like the joke, “the world is divided into two kinds of people, those who divide the world into two kinds of people and those who don’t.”
It is useful at any given moment, but remember that the cake may be sliced in many different directions, to yield different, equally valid, divisions. But this particular division should prove particularly useful just at the moment. This is a logical place to pause, and an opportunity for people to examine the nature of their lives to see if they agree with what has been said.
Sunday, September 24, 2017
- Interplay of Forces
Process v. result
I’d like to get something straight before we go on any farther. I get a firm idea of what I’m being told, but other people reading the same words get another idea that is clearly different, and, to my mind, confused. Is it my job to rephrase your words to make them clearer in such cases, or is it every man for himself, interpreting them, or what? I mean, it’s one thing when I bring through something that is susceptible to more than one interpretation in my view, but I think it is quite another when it seems clear to me and is read differently by others. On the one hand we don’t need a pope. On the other hand we don’t want to be putting things to a vote. My question amounts to this: When I, as scribe, feel that others are misinterpreting what came to me essence to essence, what can we reliably do to clean up the confusion? If we say, “Ask you,” well, that just comes back in the same hole we went out. And of course, here I am, asking you.
And here – as, ironically, you well know – you see the dilemma faced by any people attempting to bring information through. Any body of information must be conveyed through human instruments. The transmission, the reception, the process of assimilation, the process of mutual understanding – all the steps in the process are subject to the difficulties of communication among people who are having to rely partly on sensory data, partly on communication mind-to-mind that does not depend on data, and partly on each mind’s prepared reception.
Oh, I understand the problem, all right! But what is the indicated solution?
If we understand you correctly (this is sarcasm, you understand), you are asking how you can overcome the difficulties that caused the Protestant revolution, the controversies over heresy before that, wars between different religions, hostility between religions and secular orientations, wars within the scientific and mental worlds between, again, orthodoxy and heresy –
I get the point. But in practical terms?
You know the answer. You quote it every so often.
“You do the best you can.”
What else is there? As misunderstandings arise, you clarify your prior statements. But process and result are two different things, in all forms of cooperative thought. You can do your best to clarify. You can’t depend upon others seeing it your way.
Seems to me we are providing people with a lot of opportunities to mislead themselves – and to be misled by others.
We are. That is true whenever one brings any information through. But the alternative is silence, and the corrective is always at hand: It is for each person to wrestle with the material and make of it what s/he can, remembering that vehemence is no proof of truth (and is often an indication of suppressed doubt) and that sincerity of purpose combined with humility will lead you right, over time.
Strands, traits, and forces
Okay. Specifically in this case, my understanding is that the impersonal forces we are talking about are not the strands but something entirely different. Can we at least clear that up?
You say “clear that up.” No, we can’t clear up anything, in any absolute sense, because the words carry ambiguity, and people bring to the interpretation of words their own mindset, which is never a blank neutral platform, but always includes all sorts of bias and distortion unsuspected by the person consciously. You’ve seen it all your lives, all of you – and you’ve exemplified it, not usually realizing it, all your lives. It is the source of much exasperation among you.
But, we know what you mean, and we will try to provide a clearer statement. By the way, this is one reason why “the better the question, the better the answer”; questions tend to reveal past ambiguities of expression, and thus reduce the extent of material productive of controversy as to fact (as opposed to controversy as to implication).
Strands and forces. Compound beings, as we have said, comprise “past lives” as strands, and comprise, as well, traits, characteristics.
Now, we haven’t needed to go into this until now, but let’s look at traits. You could look at a trait as a tendency. But this is going to have to be said carefully. There are physical traits, like red hair. That is not a tendency, although tendencies may be associated with it. In fact, it may better be considered as a physical indicator of a tendency, such as, perhaps, a hot temper, or impulsiveness. Red hair does not cause either; it does not guarantee the presence of either; but it may be a signpost saying, “they’re likely to be where it is.” You see? A physical trait like an open countenance or red hair or height or shortness or thinness or stoutness – any of the characteristics of appearance that are often used as signposts of mental or temperamental characteristics may in fact be signposts. They are not the thing itself.
Beyond physical traits, there are traits of temperamental characteristic. So, maybe the person is impulsive, does have a hot temper. Regardless of signposts, these traits do exist. But what are they? They are not the forces we are talking about. They are the relative susceptibility or insusceptibility to these forces.
I am grasping for analogies.
Better not use analogies in a contested meaning, unless there is no better alternative. Unwanted associations to a given metaphor may only cloud the picture further.
Your composition leaves you more susceptible to some forces and less so to others. You are a poor conductor of some energies and a good conductor of others, by your nature. This has nothing to do with what you do with these energies as they flow through you, it merely addresses the fact that your initial composition inclines you toward some things and away from others. This is no different than what you have been told for all these years, except that it is now being said explicitly, with emphasis on other aspects of the situation. First you had to be led to see yourselves as the communities you are: Until you saw that, none of this could be understood.
And bear in mind, none of this is new in the sense of never having been seen or said before in history. What is new is the context. So, people throughout millennia have talked about choleric or sanguine dispositions. What is that but a recognition and codification of the observed fact that people’s dispositions are not identical, and that they can be made to fall into categories?
Choleric, sanguine, phlegmatic and melancholic.
Or, astrological or alchemical or any number of systems of categorizations. It all boils down to this: People are mixtures of traits that express elementary forces; they express them in different degrees, rather than uniformly; they may be categorized for belter understanding. But what is central for our purposes, for the moment, is that humans are conduits of vast forces that flow through them in varying strengths according to the nature of the individual, and it is the individual’s task (opportunity; fate; problem) to choose moment by moment to express or resist or divert the various forces as they arise in everyday life.
You are not the forces that express through you (and everybody else). Your particular makeup is unique, necessarily, because your comprising characteristics are a unique mixture. Your decisions during your lifetime help determine the flow of these forces. (The fact that all versions considered together make all choices is not relevant here, because each version’s world may be considered as if it were the only “the” world, as in practice you usually do.)
As to what those forces are, what it all means – stay tuned.
All right. Well, thanks for all this. It will clear up some things, I hope.
Monday, September 25, 2017
Alone and not alone
I picked up my author’s copies of Awakening from the 3D World yesterday. That makes four volumes of transcripts, if we include Sphere and Hologram and the two volumes of Rita’s World. Another one [ultimately titled It’s All One World] finished and awaiting my review and an intro and conclusion. And it looks like we’re in the process of producing yet another, at the moment.
That doesn’t mean they will sell, but at least I have done the work, holding the sessions day by day – and typing them up – and sending them to my list, and putting them on my blog, and Facebook – and compiling them and proofreading and editing them – and setting them in order with preface and afterword. And I’ve done it alone. Without all that work – and it has been work! – nothing would be left of any of it. It would be vanished.
And without the help I got in getting Sphere and Hologram designed and typeset and published – Melynn Allen’s work – or getting the website set up – first Larry Giannou, then Rich Spees – same result, oblivion. Without Bob Friedman publishing Rita’s World and now Awakening from the 3D World, same thing. I would have to do that, too, and could do only a self-publishing version of the job. And then there are all the people who have encouraged me and given me feedback as I put the day’s take on the net day by day, without which I doubt I could have been able to continue.
Look at it one way, I did it all myself. Look at it another way, by myself I couldn’t have done it at all. Both true. Probably both a model of our lives here. It is up to us to decide what to do, moment by moment, and then do it; but we live in a vast invisible web of support that we may disregard (“I’m a self-made man”) or recognize (“Thank God for my friends”). Equally true, which means, in both cases, only true in relation to one another, not true as absolutes.
I didn’t intend to spend that time writing up that thought. It sort of took over. Probably I’ll send it out anyway; it seems to apply.
So, your turn:
[A familiar “voice,” not the one I expected!] You are feeling pride in our accomplishment. Nothing wrong with basking.
Hi, Rita. I guess that’s why I browsed the introduction to Awakening from the 3D World] and re-read the conclusion, huh? To put me in mind of you?
You could just as easily put it the other way round, and say I haunted you, putting it in your mind to pick up the new book, so you would turn your attention from what you expected – another talk with your mystery guest – to what was on our slate, a visit from your old landlady.
Smiling. And now I see why I was moved to think back on all the work we’ve done. The primary person I didn’t mention – not the only one, but the primary one – was you, of course. But I doubt you are here for the purpose of getting your film credits.
No, but our case is an example of how little we know our life’s shape ahead of time. We didn’t meet until I was already 80 years old and bored with life. Who knew what lay ahead?
Technically we met when you were 78, but I know what you mean. We didn’t really begin to interact until 2000.
And we did those sessions, and more in 2004, and they didn’t seem to come to anything in terms of the outside world beyond the [Monroe Institute-oriented] Voyagers Mailing List and our own friends. And then they did, on the path (or in the version) in which you did the work. [In other words, the probable future we took, as opposed to those we didn’t take in this version of ourselves.] And because you did the initial work, the path was open for us to work together in this new way over the past three years, and it continues to stretch ahead as a possibility. But the intellectual work could not have been accomplished without the other work which was not work but a natural joy, and how shall we describe it?
I know what you’re talking about. In a way you could say we were taking care of each other. You were mothering me, I was the dutiful affectionate son you never had.
That emotional trust and intellectual and spiritual companionship laid the basis for what we did, because as you know, these things proceed not from intellect alone (where they may easily turn rancid) but from the heart.
Where there is trust, there is no room for fear, for one thing.
Yes, but more, where there is trust, there is assurance, there is a sense of being guided. Almost the same as what you just said, but not quite.
And there was your lifetime of practical knowledge and your habit of intellectual inquiry that shaped our sessions, for they weren’t questions that would have occurred to me. We were a good team.
And you have another now.
Nancy Ford, you mean. Yes. She has accompanied me in the same way you did intellectually, though everything else was different.
So is that what we’re doing here today, Old Home Week?
“Mere everyday stuff”
Remember, at least as important as any information you bring through is your encouragement of others to do their own equivalent thing. So the more glimpses behind the scenes they get, the more they realize, you are just another guy, just as you say but they don’t always hear. Of course, you are but you aren’t. What distinguishes you is that you do the work; you follow where it leads; you are willing to serve. But that should encourage, too, for that is a decision open to anybody to take. It’s up to them.
Yes, it is a little disconcerting, sometimes, to see some people regarding me as if I were something special. A nice corrective to all the people who think I’m nothing much!
But to stick to the point: Everybody’s circumstances surround them, obviously, and since their own circumstances (their own unimportant boring surroundings, the flat and unprofitable details of their lives) cannot match anybody’s they read about, whether it’s your life or anybody else they’re interested in, the temptation is to say “I’m nobody and I can’t expect to really do anything.” And of course that is wrong.
The fallacy of insignificance, somebody called it.
Your own life always looks relatively flat and humdrum in a way, even when it also feels exciting and even dramatic, because you yourself are at the center of it, and so where is the room for the drama of the unfamiliar? But drama is not a sign of significance any more than heartburn would be. Your own judgment of your life is unlikely to be an accurate one, because you cannot usually get any perspective on it. But if you are doing your best, and are living your truest impulses, and are following where it leads, how can you be wasting your time even if it feels like putting in time is all you are doing? The mother raising her children may feel like the days are going by without anything in it for her; that doesn’t mean that is the judgment she will come to when she looks back on her life as a whole.
If our readers don’t realize that that paragraph was aimed directly at them, well – I’m pointing it out.
There is an aspect to pioneering that perhaps they have never considered, and that is that your own true path is never obviously important, never obviously the path to significant achievement internal or external. It usually looks like “mere everyday stuff.” When you come to know that “mere everyday stuff” – speaking primarily internally – is the gold, your life will change, or rather your appreciation of your life will change. Everybody has a unique gift to offer the world, and of course “the world” does not mean “the 3D world only.” I trust that we have made it clear by now that there really isn’t any “3D world only.” No two gifts are identical, any more than any two gift-givers are identical, so while you may use models for your conduct, use them as models of character, not as models of circumstance.
I think you mean, don’t expect your life, your gift, to resemble anyone else’s. It’s one thing to admire and imitate Lincoln’s virtues, say, but it wouldn’t be much use to expect to be president and sign the Emancipation Proclamation, or to mourn the fact that you couldn’t.
Nobody’s life is identical to anybody else’s, and nobody’s is redundant or insignificant. You know what Bob [Monroe] said.
“You do the best you can.”
I don’t know what more anybody could do.
No. Well, thanks for this unexpected pleasurable visit. You doing all right?
I could ask the same of you, and the answer would be the same.
Yes it would. Okay, Miss Rita, thanks and our love to you, and maybe we’ll talk to you again some time. Be well, always.
Tuesday, September 26, 2017
All right, shall we resume? Whoever is up to bat, you have the floor, to mix the metaphor.
You see the benefit of not over-personalizing the process. If you hold your attention on the subject at hand (that is, bringing in useful illustrative information) rather than on the person perceived to be the source or conduit of that information, you bring fewer preconceptions to the table. It frees us by freeing you. Now, sink into it, and we will try to deliver information for you to put into words.
[Pause, while I remained receptive and they presumably poured.]
An image of individuals and forces
I get that we’re centering on that same image of humans as conduits of vast impersonal forces. It’s a huge subject, and it flows off in all directions. I’ll start and rely on you to steer me or at least head me off if I go off in non-productive directions.
The visual is sort of a horizontal torus comprising untold millions of individuals, a swirl of organized energy, call us. We know we aren’t “individuals” in the way people commonly think, but for simplicity, call us that. So, a vast orderly flow of compound-being energies, always changing, but, as I say, orderly, sort of shaped loosely. I can’t think of a good extension of the visual analogy. Not marbles or solid objects of any kind; not merely lights or drops of liquid, a little too undefined. Maybe the kind of visual image you see in close-ups of the sun’s swirling energies.
Anyway, that is the horizontal image. Then welling up vertically are the vast impersonal energies I have been sensing, the forces that flow through our lives, vitalizing them, causing complication and interest and discord and beauty and every thing humans can feel. We personalize these energies – we personify them – we think either that they are part of our being (rather than part of our environment, you might say) or that they are the forces of the gods.
Horizontally, a vast beautiful ever-changing torus-shaped image representing humanity. Vertically, an eternal upwelling of energies from far beyond human limits, mingling with, transforming, interfering with, vitalizing, all human activity as it is directed by uncounted numbers of decisions moment by moment by uncounted numbers of humans and ex-humans. (Humans, remember, in this case means compound beings whose consciousness normally is restricted to 3D conditions. It does not mean “only planet Earth”).
I say humans and ex-humans, and I am surprised at first, then I recall that of course we and they remain integrally connected, so of course we continue to be affected, and to affect, together. Not in lockstep, and I don’t even know if always in harmony, but at any rate, together.
More or less okay so far?
So far, so good. Now, why are we centering this picture at this time in your exposition?
Hmm. All I can get is, it’s time. We have reached the point where we can’t re-evaluate without changing focus.
Not exactly reevaluate. More like, you can’t go deeper without bringing what had been unnoticed background into focus.
Okay. So the question in our minds becomes, so where are we going?
Wrong question. A better question would be, where have we been? It’s much more convincingly answered, you see.
If you say so. And?
Bear in mind continually, there can be no such thing as a universally applicable statement. What is appropriate to a Western audience may not meet the condition of someone in a Chinese or African society. What meets the needs of 2017 may fall flat in 2050 as in 1950. So, don’t try to assume that everything being said is universally applicable. It isn’t and it can’t be. The underlying reality is the same, but the illustrative examples aren’t and cannot be equally appropriate. We are speaking to you, in your 2017 now. Settle for that, and do not try to make one size fit all.
Do you think that’s what I would be inclined to do?
Not particularly, but we aren’t speaking only to you.
All right. So, where we have been, tailored to our audience. (I’d like to know how you do that. But I realize it’s a side-trail.)
Exploring religious thought
Where Western society has been is a divided trail. For 500 years and more, religion and science have been fragmented because divorced from each other and unable to understand each other’s point of view. We would say the chief example of this is that your society has lost sight of the vast impersonal forces we mentioned as vast impersonal forces. A part of your thought regards them as supernatural or as only epi-phenomena (because “matter” is considered to be primary, as if matter even existed).
Clearly a society cannot continue such a splintering process forever. At some point the social glue cannot hold. Then comes the use of force and, ultimately, self-destruction. But remember, we are not primarily concerned with societies but with compound-beings. It is true, your society shapes you. but it is not the only thing that shapes you, and its influence can be modified. In any case, stick to what you know, which is your own experience in the world, most of that experience being internal.
That’s all the back-tracking we need to do here. Those interested in history will find the history well laid out – and the way it is laid out will tell you worlds about the mental constrictions of those who did the laying out. But, it’s hardly necessary. You all know what you are living.
Now, to come back to what is for many of you a sore point – which should be your cue that it is an important point. Religious thought is your most extensive investigation into the existence, function, and manifestation of these vast impersonal forces. We have said it before and no doubt we will be obliged to say it again, because there will be great resistance, but if you do not know these forces, you do not know your lives. If you do not know how they shape your lives, you do not know what your lives are to accomplish, or why you are in 3D in the first place.
Do we need to say we are not advocating that you go join a church? However, we are requesting that those of you who are members of The Church of Nothing-But consider resigning your membership.
These forces are real. Every society you know of, and many more that you have never heard of and never will hear of, knew it, know it, will know it. You cannot understand reality if you begin by resolutely determining that reality will not consist of A, B, or C because you were taught a cruder version of them, or because you don’t like the looks of some who talk about A, B, or C as if they knew what they were talking about and – more – as if no contradictory version could contain truth. If you allow yourselves to block off aspects of reality because of external manifestations, that isn’t exploring, it is a different form of conformity, conforming to an imagined band of holders of the truth instead of going ahead and seeing for yourself.
Understand, to say all that is not to say, give up your present beliefs. What kind of exploring would that be, either? Yet, it may seem like that, because we do say, don’t let your present beliefs prevent you from giving fair consideration to things you may have rejected. (Actually, it is more a matter of giving fair consideration to things that remind you of things you have rejected.)
Well, I can’t speak for our companions, but I understand it, anyway.
Then we shall continue next time.
Our thanks as always.
Wednesday, September 27, 2017
Soul and spirit
Let us begin our long discussion of the forces that influence your lives, and that your lives use in order to make shapes.
Interesting way to think of it.
An analogy: Think of the air you breathe. Chemically, you change its composition; physically, within limits, you direct the outward flow of breathed air. You are not the air, and yet the air is a part of you, but not as a component so much as part of a process. Air flows through you. It is changed in predictable fashion as it does so, but this is not a one-time change, nor an accident, nor an incident: It is a process, and it must continue if you are to live. Eliminate humans and the air continues to exist and be influenced by other beings. But eliminate air and humans die. For good, for keeps.
So you may wish to think of these “vast impersonal forces” we have been mentioning as the equivalent of air to breathe. And in fact the same word is sometimes used for breath and spirit, and that’s what they are talking about.
I see. I thought I understood before, but this is clearer. The soul is us, the created physical beings attached to strands etc. The spirit is the force that flows through us, animating us, interacting with us, but not us.
That’s correct. You have been close to this understanding, closer sometimes than others, but now you have it. Spirit both is part of you (because you couldn’t exist without it) and is not a part of you (because it has its own independent existence that would not fail in your absence.)
Compound beings are soul and spirit, localized collections of strands and characteristics, serving as conduits for forces forever beyond them. So now that you are clear on that distinction – you interact with spirit; you embody soul – let us look at the forces flowing through you.
The forces of good and evil, I take it.
Good and evil
Well, not quite. Good and evil may be looked at more as effects than as causes.
Remember, God looked at his creation and found it good. He didn’t find it good and evil, he found it good. Evil didn’t enter into the picture until a compound being chose to experience the result of perceiving things as good and evil. Dropping into duality, in other words.
But wasn’t “creation” – the 3D world in its widest ramifications – already by nature dualistic?
Only if experienced – seen – that way.
You’re going to have to explain that.
Oh yes, and it won’t be a brief explanation. By the time we have explained it as best we can, many things will appear in different light.
Remember if you can – the 3D world is not exactly a creation, more like a separation from the larger reality. It is a creation in so far as anything is a creation that is gathered together from a larger assemblage, a larger more comprehensive whole. But only in that sense. “The world was created out of nothing” can only mean – nothing like it existed before it was created. That doesn’t mean first there was a vacuum, then there was rubble filling the vacuum.
I get the sense of the 3D world as being a truncated part of reality, and it was the treating the truncated part as if it were a whole that is meant by creation. Is that right, or even partly right?
That is a serviceable interim way to look at it. Remember, we are reminding you, as Rita did, there is one reality, not two. The 3D world is part of the All-D, as we are calling it. So if 3D had been created out of nothing, in the way people commonly understand the idea, what of the rest of All-D? Yes, you might imagine that it was created and unnoticed, or was created and somewhat noticed and considered as the spiritual complement of the physical world, but there is no need for so complicated a reaction.
Considered as a world in itself, the 3D world came into existence when compound beings were – truncated, I suppose we should say – to experience only so much of reality and no more. But it is not this simple.
I notice it never is.
Over-simplifying is one of the great roots of fanaticism and determined ignorance.
So, to continue: The forces that flow through you manifest as good and evil not so much because it is their nature as because that is your nature. It isn’t spirit that is perceiving things as good and evil; it is your perception, just as was said in the Book of Genesis. But misinterpretation of intent leads to mistranslation and misunderstanding, and a devil of a lot of bad theology is based on logical conclusions from bad translations and incorrect assumptions.
“A devil of a lot.” Nice.
That wasn’t merely a play on words, but no need to underline it. The “vast impersonal forces” that flow through you are beyond the human level in its 3D manifestation. That is, they themselves are a non-human energy transforming what they flow through and being slightly transformed in turn, but they should not be considered to be human energies merely because they flow through humans.
Again, this is going to need to be unpacked.
We’re well aware of it. Tackle this particular bit.
I get that the energy that flows through us manifests as our passions. So, sometimes – depending on what it is flowing through – it may manifest as one of the seven deadly sins, or one of the virtues. I imagine it may also manifest as mental energy, not necessarily associated with either. How different is it from what Freud called libido?
In the sense that it is an energy that does not originate within humans but flows through them, and in some it flows stronger than others, and in some it may get dammed up here, in others there, it is closer to Jung’s idea. It isn’t just sexual energy – that is, to speak more fully, it isn’t in itself sexual energy at all; it may (and often does) manifest in that way, but it is not itself limited to one kind of energy.
Then we should look at it as the source of our animation. Does that mean we each get different amounts, or does it mean our internal makeup means that we each allow different amounts to flow through us?
All the differences between people that may be observed are the results of their initial composition combined with the results of their choices on an on-going basis. But one person’s lesser amount of psychic energy flow does not imply a cosmic injustice. Don’t jump to that conclusion. Here, as everywhere, one size does not fit all. What some handle easily would electrocute others. What is comfortable for one would cause another to die of boredom, so to speak. Should it surprise anybody that it is as complicated and varied as life itself?