Tuesday, December 28, 2021
5:10 a.m. Focus, receptivity, clarity, presence. For the record, I kept these in mind while visiting my daughter and her family, and I think it affected the experience, keeping me more aware of me being among others, rather than losing that sense of “me” while being among others. I am using these switches whenever I remember them, in fact. At the doctor’s office, for instance.
Very well, let’s proceed. I re-read our five sessions, to get it a bit fresher in my mind, and that’s the best I can do. Guys?
You neglected to say that you are getting a better sense of the 3D world being, in one sense, all that is, rather than being only a side-show of reality.
Well, I have a sort of sense of it. It isn’t very clear. Is that where you want to go next?
It is one possible extension of our thought, yes. And there isn’t any particular reason not to go there, though it would be so much easier if you all could hold in mind the main points we have been making.
Hold them in mind simultaneously, you mean. Do you want me to go through the transcripts again and list them?
No, nor shall we try to do it here – but we remind you and your friends that every connection you can hold in mind deepens whatever thought you may be considering. Connection is everything. If 3D life is anything, it is the forced consideration of details in isolation; therefore it is highly rewarding when you succeed in countering that tendency by reuniting what have been experienced separately.
I get, the most important thing to hold in mind is the aim toward “life more abundantly.”
Yes, because of the qualities required to attain it, and because of the benefits flowing to you as you attain it. Why do all the work of considering what we are telling you, only to let yourselves remain unchanged? Only, it is up to you to change. This is your constriction and also your freedom.
And, by implication, the more of our own resources we become aware of, and learn to use, the more of “us” there is, to bring to bear.
Of course.
Now, what does it mean, to say that 3D life is everything? Clearly we don’t mean that non-3D doesn’t count. Once again, we’re going to ask you to do more thinking aloud, and we will comment.
I think I had in mind the all-that-is as being this huge cloud, sort of like the nighttime sky in extent, and 3D being one small localized piece of it, like Earth among all the immensity.
A localized phenomenon.
Yes. My instincts have always had it that this 3D life was a specialized form of existence, and that our true life, our natural life, the life we were made for (or maybe I should say were made of), exists mostly or even entirely beyond the physical world.
It was, perhaps, for you to begin your conscious 3D life with that idea in mind that you were born into an enclave of the medieval Catholic world, mingled with 20th century America.
Yes, I’ve come to that idea. It was as if structured for my benefit, even if I didn’t always like it. I don’t know if it affected my fellow Catholic School inmates that way.
In any case, focus on you. You began and long continued with this idea, and gradually it changed.
Because you changed it! That is, because conversations with you, in combination with various experiences, changed it. The idea of a 3D world and a non-3D world was a useful bit of scaffolding, but really, how can there be a division between them? “Non-3D” isn’t really “absence of” 3D; it’s more like 3D-plus.
That will require a bit of explaining, but yes, continue.
Well, if the 3D is a sort of slowed-down version of reality, what was slowed down is probably the same thing as the non-slowed-down rest of reality. Matter is bound energy, not something different from energy, regardless of appearances. Separation in space and time, and their effects, are merely a sort of slowing down of connections in a way similar to matter being slowed-down energy. So I don’t see how what 3D actually is can not be as “everywhere” and as “everywhen” as everything else. And this is the limit of what I can express. It’s actually slightly more than I knew; it sort of organized itself as I went along – or was that you, horning in?
Meaningless distinction: What do you know about how thought organizes itself? If it is a process beyond your conscious fashioning – as, clearly, it is – ascribing it to you or to us is merely metaphysics, and not particularly useful metaphysics.
Let’s begin with non-3D as “3D-plus.” By this you mean, or ought to mean, if you are functioning clearly, that there is not two kinds of reality, but one reality (as we keep telling you) that expresses or can be experienced in more than one way. So it isn’t as if 3D and 3D rules are somehow incompatible with, or even separate from, non-3D. it is that 3D is a specialized way of seeing.
That didn’t come out the way I was expecting it to. Is what I wrote what you meant?
It is. 3D is a way of seeing, quite as much as it is a way of experiencing that is somehow “outside of you.”
A great light begins to dawn!
Yes, good.
But I’m not able to put it into words, at least not yet.
No, try.
Well, we keep falling back into the idea that the world (reality) is “us” and “other,” and every time I realize another context in which this is not true, new possibilities and relationships seem to open up.
Naturally. You live your life that much more abundantly. Continue.
You’ve been drumming it into us, that what looks like the “external,” “objectively real,” other-determined outside world both in 3D and in non-3D is actually ourselves beyond the limits of whatever we know. And now I’m sensing this is true as well of the entire division into 3D and on-3D.
Well, slow down a little. You are on the right track, but, a little slower. Don’t let intellectual excitement shallow out your thought.
Okay. Recalibrating. Let’s put it this way, and see where we wind up. There can be no separate 3D or non-3D if life is all one thing. There can be no separate “me” and “other.” No separate “now” and “then,” nor even “here” and “there, except relatively – and “relatively” means, relative to each other. The various positions in polarities depend upon each other’s existence, or there could be no polarity.
All of this is on the right track, but you are in danger of your readers thinking you are getting lost in impractical abstractions. Can you point it more?
Well, you said 3D is a way of seeing, and it made me think, it is a way of seeing, of perceiving, or interpreting, that we are employing. It isn’t really being done to us; we are experiencing things that way.
And you hadn’t consciously thought, but did take for granted, that “you” are more than 3D-you, and therefore part of you is not seeing things in 3D, and therefore
Therefore is responsible for us seeing things as 3D, and since presumably this part of ourselves has a reason for doing so, and since I trust that its interests and mine run together (it being part of me, after all), it follows that the 3D experience may or may not be localized in the universe, but there is no a priori reason to say that it is local. It may be, it may not be. Also, though, there is no reason I can see why everyone’s experience of 3D must be the same. Perhaps 3D in other star systems follows different rules because the souls that inhabit them live there for different reasons, needing different effects and causes.
And perhaps there are places where the interconnection of 3D and non-3D is universally experienced and taken for granted.
And you’d like for this to become one of them.
Wouldn’t you?
I would. But we’re out of time. Shall we name this session merely (6)? It isn’t very descriptive, though it helps preserve the sense of connection.
“3D as a way of seeing” might serve.
Yes. I see it might. Much more to come, I imagine. Very well, our thanks for the assistance, even if I’m having to do the work now. Smiling.