Friday, September 3, 2021
2:30 a.m. Gentlemen, do I hear correctly that you want to deal with a couple of questions that have arisen?
You do. We are proceeding well, and are not likely to lose track, but someone who asks a question will find every day a long time, not knowing when or if it will be addressed. Where we have come to allows us to address them without dislocating the flow. So let us begin with Bill Ebeltoft’s.
[From Bill Ebeltoft:
[In the discussion of Soul, Spirit and Time (27 July), one of the bullet points says in part, “It may be obvious that a soul can only originate in 3D conditions.”
[This seems to contradict what has been said before in Rita’s books and other places in my understanding; that the Soul is created in the non-3D by “SAM”, who collects various threads, combines them, and inserts them into one or more 3D timeslots. When the Soul drops its 3D representation, it then refocuses into the non-3D. To me, this says the Soul actually exists in the non-3D and is inserted into a 3D situation to see what develops.
[Also, what about those souls that have never had a 3D experience, or is this a different manifestation? All of this while keeping in mind that soul, spirit, and realities, all of them, are inseparably part of all-that-is.
[Can we get some clarification on this?]
[TGU:] We realize that you and he touched on this during your weekly meeting, but it is as well to look at it carefully. Mostly the first question is an example of the difficulties words lead to, by making relative separations seem more definite than they are. The 3D and non-3D are not like two adjacent rooms in a house, separated by, and connected by, a doorway. Language suggests that, but in so doing, language misleads. The relation between the two is more like your slide-switches than like your on/off switches. Reality is continuous, not discontinuous.
So let us restate what we said, in words that make that continuity clearer. What we said wasn’t wrong (except, perhaps, insofar as we thought the reality would be obvious!) but as we see, it suggested wrong ideas.
As Bill pointed out, the selection and insertion is planned and executed by the larger being, and is inserted into 3D to see what it will become. However, this does not contradict what we said, that a soul “can only originate in 3D conditions.” The source of the confusion lies in the word “originate.” If it is taken to mean one thing, it looks one way. If another, it looks a different way.
Souls are planned, you might say, in non-3D, and they effectuate, come into existence, in 3D. They can’t manifest without manifesting, and in this context, manifesting means coming into 3D existence.
As with most of the things we have to say, those of a certain impatient cast of mind will be tempted to dismiss our careful distinctions as meaningless. We can only say, meaningless is literally true for those who cannot find the meaning. But we assure you, it exists.
Just to be clear, I know you do not refer to Bill in that statement.
Of course, particularly given that we “overheard” your conversation with him on Wednesday that showed he did get the distinction. But a tendency to impatience does exist among some, and it is as well to caution them that it may lead them to miss things. (Their own connectedness will protect them from this, to some degree – except insofar as their non-3D component may share their response!)
Bill’s second question raises a point we have not addressed, but only skirted upon. Partly it is a confusion based in that same word-oriented tendency to create false distinctions, but partly it draws on the real distinction between unitary and compound beings, and spotlights an area so far left unmentioned.
Yes, it is a curious (though familiar enough) feeling, knowing that you are going to be talking about something, using my pen, I knowing nothing of it until we get there.
But let us clear away the false distinction first. “What about those souls that have never had a 3D experience, or is this a different manifestation?” By our definition, a soul is a collection of traits that are living together in 3D and acquiring (or not acquiring) an identity, an ability to remain as a unit after the artificial constrictions of 3D existence fall away. Looked at that way, how could there be a soul that has never had a 3D existence? It is the 3D existence that makes the soul. So, in that sense, the question is founded in a misunderstanding. Every soul –
However, it is possible that we have misinterpreted the question. (Difficulties caused by language flow both ways.) If Bill meant one thing by that question, the answer is obvious: Souls by definition are created in 3D conditions, so must have had a 3D experience, if only the one that originated them. But the same question may be interpreted in a very different sense, to be rephrased as, “souls who are in their very first 3D experience, not having previously experienced it as a strand.” Same words, but a very different question, also worth answering.
If we understand the genesis of the question, it asks, is a compound being (a soul created of various strands which have had lives of their own) different from a soul created of elements that have never participated in a life. That is, can an assemblage of the latter be considered a unitary being, perhaps, and, if it can, is this by nature different from ordinary compound beings that you are and that you live among.
You have said in the past that compound beings are the product of sexual reproduction – that is, of the combining of two sets of genetic materials.
Correct, and this should show you that it is basically impossible for “material” that has never been in 3D to come into 3D without mixing with traits and strands that have existed in 3D. Even parthenogenesis would not remove the impossibility of coming into 3D experience without mixing materials, for of course the mother herself is a mixture of uncounted generations of mixtures.
You seem to be equating what I would think of as non-3D characteristics with what I would think of as 3D characteristics. I mean, are traits of character so closely tied to DNA?
Such a question is based in misunderstanding fostered by language. What do you suppose DNA is, if not the 3D factor that allows in certain mixtures and freezes out others?
I don’t know that I have ever thought of it that way.
That’s because you have been keeping “spiritual” and “physical” in separate mental buckets. Language tempts you to do that. Even our careful use of non-3D and 3D doesn’t eliminate the tendency, though it does tend to damp out the separation by expressing it as ends of a polarity.
Well, you know, it’s interesting. As we write this, I’m remembering that I used to be puzzled by all that Old Testament history that seemed to say that God cared about bloodlines. Even setting aside the question of what the writers of the scriptures meant by God, the fact remains that they found bloodlines important. Is this what they were intuiting?
They would say this is what God told them. You will find many an important message from the non-3D recorded in terms of “Thus saith the Lord”; meaning, “I’m quoting God here, this is not merely my opinion.” You don’t need to accept their theology to examine what they recorded.
Yes, you keep saying that. But studying scripture would be a fulltime job.
Not if approached in the way you approach history. A little at a time, and the job proceeds, if it never finishes.
I thought we’d get to more than one person’s question, but I see we won’t. You said there was a distinction between unitary and compound beings as yet unexplored.
We should give this some thought, really, before opening up the subject. But let’s say this. Within the larger being each of you is composed of –
No, it’s going to get tangled.
Bullets, perhaps.
Perhaps.
- Each of you is the creation of one or more larger beings.
- One, if all your strands are composed of materials from only the same larger being. How often do you suppose that happens?
- More, if any of your strands originated in different larger beings. As you may imagine, this is by far the most common case, and becomes more common with each new recombination.
- In that sense, the 3D world could be considered the non-3D world’s equivalent of sexual reproduction. If one larger being contributes material and so does another, that daughter-being is a part of both of them, of course. It represents a permanent link between beings that may not have had links previously. (Or may have had, of course.)
- Can you see that this is one more process that keeps the world tied together?
That’s going to give us things to think about!
And question, we trust. “The better the question…”, you know.
What shall we call this?
Possibly “3D and non-3D aspects of the soul,” something like that. You’ll think of something.
Well, you know you have our continuing gratitude for so many interesting discussions. Till next time.