We can live many lives at any one time so if an individual awareness, who is living many lives, returns to its “source” from more than one existence at approximately the same time how much do the experiences and attitudes gained from each experience, each life, influence each other? Particularly if they are diametrically opposite.

Imagine if you go to, let us say, the road construction public meeting and there are many angry people, you may be one of them? Imagine your feelings as you leave the meeting. You then go to one of your dances, say, you are greeted with warmth and smiles and you find your focus and feelings entirely changed. You have just experienced two opposite sets of feelings, yes?

Yes.

Now don’t you compartmentalise those? You don’t put one set of feelings against the other, do you? You wouldn’t find it easy to recap the events of the road meeting using your dance feelings and vice versa. So you are able to absorb both sets of feelings but you keep them separate. Now what have they been? Within let’s say a day has the intensity of feeling worn off? From both meetings?

Yes.

Which set of feelings would you possibly retain more?

Hopefully the pleasant one more.

Quite likely. Unless the other one is revivified by a further focus. But let us say you have left that subject. So once you have left it you basically put it behind you don’t you? You don’t want to revisit it. So you forget it.  Whereas the dance experience may be recalled with pleasure. Now apply that to your question.

So what about beliefs in these lives? For example, in one you are a deeply committed Christian and in another an atheist. This is the same individual awareness experiencing these lives. What happens when you return to where you came from with those two totally different beliefs?

You soon realise that each one is an experience, a focus, a play. Now if you had been watching a play and got lost in the drama and even identified with one of the characters to a certain extent e.g. the atheist, now (you have switched focus) you will look at that with a different eye because remember you have been having lots of focuses and so as you are forever becoming those lots of focuses will have given you a certain amount, actually unlimited, of experience and an ability to put things in perspective. Basically you have done it all before, even though with no time you can say you were doing it all simultaneously but as we have explained before that no time is more the fact that there is no such thing as past or future because all is always available but that doesn’t mean to say that you are focusing on the same things all the time does it?

No.

So you will be able to put it all in perspective. Now if you have found that you have become a committed Christian while you’ve been here, the minute you leave you are looking from a distance, you are at the back of the stage say, but even more so because you are not even in the theatre any more. Yes?

Yes.

So you look and “well that was interesting, so that is what it feels like to be a committed Christian”.

Yes.

But what does this actually mean? “Well, there is no religion, there is no need for religion. There is no need to believe in this person or that person because we all just simply are”.

This is indicative of what happens in the physical environment. Once you detach yourself from the observer status then you can get lost in a belief system that feels real to you but the minute you step back outside that belief system the unreality of it all becomes perfectly apparent and so, like anything else, you are able to merely put it aside. “That was an interesting experience”.

And you can discuss this experience with various others of course. “What did you think of that?  “Yes, it is amazing”. But it becomes quite academic. Can you imagine the conversations going on, “How did you feel?” “How did you feel?” And then you’re going to get the one who says “Well I suspected it couldn’t quite be right, you know”.  And another might say “I was absolutely convinced I was going to be met by Jesus and I was really quite surprised when Mum and Dad turned up but I couldn’t actually say that I wasn’t most pleased to see Mum and Dad and I realised very quickly that we all survive”.

As soon as you find out that everything that you are creating is due to your own intentions to create X, Y and Z, and it happens, then you quickly realise that your life (existence?) is not bound up by the intentions of some God figure.

So how much in the way of attitudes, experiences etc. actually return with the individual awareness? Or can they only be recreated with the multitude of awarenesses that have conglomerated in the life experience?

You take from each what you wish to take from each. When you were having the physical experience you were sometimes in doubt as to which decision to make. That was an attitude towards something, wasn’t it?

Yes.

Toward one side or the other. Now how much do those attitudes apply to your new environment? Take for example the committed Christian situation. Let us say that Mum and Dad were committed Christians as well. They might say “We’ve learned it isn’t quite as we thought, this is how it works, let us show you”. And they demonstrate. Are you going to believe it as it happens in front of your eyes? And so committed Christianity just dissipates away. (Non-relevant attitudes and beliefs are discarded)

So you don’t need all the other consciousnesses that have been with you in that particular life experience to have any belief, attitude, experience etc.?

We will all decide to go and watch a football match. Now let us say 20,000 people all think that going to watch X versus Y is a jolly good idea. It is all video screened and you all have touch buttons. At this particular football match there is no referee, the crowd is the referee. They are all seeing things from different angles, this sentence has a double meaning, do you understand?

Yes, yes.

They are all seeing things from different angles and so when a challenge is signalled the videos are replayed, you all look at the screen and you all press your button. Now depending from which angle you are watching you could say yes or no couldn’t you? From one angle it looks like a foul from another it doesn’t, bias is in there as well. You may agree or not agree with what has happened. But when the game is over you have experienced the democratic result of 20,000 different points of view and it is up to you whether you say “that was pretty good, I’m happy with the result, it seemed quite fair” or “we wuz robbed”. Now if you saw it as fair you would say “well that’s that, no big deal”.

So you participated, you made decisions faced with actions that have occurred. Now then take that as your individual faced with various actions in various circumstances for which decisions are required but you are one of a number (of participants) 20,000 say or 20, 000,000, who knows, depending on how attractive your particular gestalt is. You go with the decisions that are made.

Yes.

And so,  ”it’s been an interesting exercise”.

Yes.

Now let us say that your particular gestalt has been married to another particular gestalt and you have developed a really good feeling of love. Now when you go over and the other gestalt hasn’t come over then you will probably still have the desire to see that particular person.

Agreed.

Now you do not need to get together with another number of awarenesses in the (your previous) gestalt in order to see that person because you are not creating anything. You do not need a gestalt any more, the gestalt was necessary for the creation of the instrument. You can simply tune into the thoughts, you can tune into the senses. If you think of telepathic transfer of sight pictures, which you have seen credible evidence of on your television programmes, what is being transmitted? The picture being seen by one gestalt is being transmitted to another but wouldn’t you say that each awareness comprising the gestalt is seeing the same picture? Gestalt “A” is going to telepath a picture, seeing a mountain and it has the intention to transfer that picture to gestalt ”B”. Would you say that all the participants in each gestalt see the picture, for the purposes of this explanation let us assume that the picture is transmitted perfectly?

Yes.

So each one is able to see the sensory perceptions of another?

Yes.

So what we are saying is that you as an individual awareness upon leaving the physical are still able to tune in to the sensory perceptions of the object gestalt. Do you understand? The transmission is still there, you didn’t need a physical instrument to pick up the transmission?

No.

The transmission was being made from the instrument seeing the picture but you do not need all the individual awarenesses within the gestalt to do that, any individual awareness can broadcast what it sees i.e. transmit the picture. The picture being seen is like an idea, it is floating out there and so it is whether you wish to focus in upon it.

Thank you.

(We can assume that the brain and mind are continuously transmitting to the individual consciousnesses/awarenesses and majority instructions are being transmitted back.  Broadcasts that can be tuned into by third parties)

So in, what we call, the next life all the awarenesses that are returning, changing focus, what percentage of that would be from the physical and what percentage would be from other types of existences?

How many people, in terms of physical instruments here, lead fairly narrow lives and how many lead very interesting and diverse lives? Understand?

Yes.

So when it comes to bringing stuff back, we work on the same basis, how many lives are you focused into? It is up to each individual awareness. Let us take the football fan once more, we will stay with this analogy. There is one person who is only interested in Manchester United and that is the only game he looks up, he bothers to watch, he is not interested in any other teams. Does he switch on when Hull are playing Southampton?

No.

He is not interested, he doesn’t bother. Now someone who is passionate about football regardless, just loves watching football, is likely to switch on any football game rather than some other programme. So imagine the tennis, which you have just watched; how many people have only watched one person play?

Very few.

Most are interested in the competition. They will have their favourite but they will also be interested in who their favourite is likely to play and if, like our football fan, they just love watching good tennis then they will view many games, many players. When their favourite is playing the excitement and tension will be high but although that may be missing when watching other matches the skill and effort displayed will still be appreciated.

Yes.

At the end of it all, after waking up and finding out who had won the men’s, did it really enter your mind, other than passing, who had won the women’s?

No.

Experience over. You are now back in your home environment. When the next tournament comes up, if it is on your television, will you want to watch parts of that?

Yes.

Another experience.

What I am trying to determine, I was asking about other forms of life other than the physical.

We have been through this before. You cannot imagine yourself as bodiless. We will return to an example we have given you before, sliding up and down rainbows of coloured light, feeling the motion, hearing the music, absolutely blissed out, totally unaware of time. Now, you will think of, what we might term the G-force, the feeling of ascending and descending and the sound rising and falling.  To give you some idea of this; if, wearing your virtual reality visor you find yourself on a rollercoaster and you are suddenly faced with a steep drop what will be your initial reaction?

Fear.

Fear! And will you feel the drop as you go down?

Yes.

But is it real?

No.

It’s imagined.

Yes.

And it’s imagined because of your memory of that. So you look downwards upon a steep drop and then as you look upwards you will expect to slow down and of course you do. So your expectation is creating your feeling?

Yes.

This applies across the board.

 (And as any medium knows those same physical sensations can be experienced as a result of receiving them from a “departed” sender. Conversely the “departed” can experience our physical and mental feelings should they wish to focus in. A consequence of “quantum entanglement” or more simply “interconnected consciousness” operating in a constant state of potential telepathic communication. As explained in a previous post, you can never be separated from those you love. Now you can understand why we are encouraged not to let grief consume us in sadness as when they tune in to see how we are faring they are subjected to our feelings. How much better to try to keep upbeat and enjoying life so that those tuning in pick up those feelings and can be at peace regarding our mental condition whilst they await us joining them. P.S. This knowledge can be of inestimable comfort to the newly bereaved and if able to be put into practice the newly departed also so we would ask that if you know of anyone who could be helped by this understanding to please forward this post to them.)

Please reiterate that part of your question and we will try to expand some more.

I was just asking about other realities that’s all.

This is the point we were trying to make. We were describing sliding up and down the coloured rainbow and then we switched to the rollercoaster; now match the two up. You will imagine the feeling of sliding up and down. You will be happy in that feeling, there won’t be the fear, you will just enjoy the feeling.

Yes.

You not only create your physical reality, you create your feelings, you create everything. You create your attitudes. Attitudes aren’t thrust upon you, you create your attitudes. Fear isn’t thrust upon you….

I would imagine that your attitudes develop throughout what I would call a lifetime and your attitudes change throughout a lifetime.

You don’t imagine that, you are fully aware of that as you experience different things in different places.

Yes.

We once took you through the business of walking into somewhere and opening a door to find somebody firing bullets at you; you quickly slammed the door and then realised there were no bullet holes. The next door was an attacking cobra which you recoiled from but after several more of these you opened the doors with perfect equanimity. You knew that you were going to be confronted by something but it wasn’t real. Apply this to your imaginations. So you are going to imagine a wonderful feeling for example. You are going to imagine beautiful music. In the physical your imagination does not result in perfect pictures or beautiful sounds, you can only base them on memories of the same which are relatively indistinct, but imagine, as we have said in a previous example, that when the telepathic picture comes to you of the café overlooking the Mediterranean it comes to you as a reality as you are not self- entrammelled with the filters of the physical. So it comes to you actually crystal clear and then it is real. What you would term real. It comes in crystal clear.

 ( So just as our thoughts create our realities they are picked up as realities i.e. as we scan the thoughts we are actually scanning the realities which we then decide whether we wish to find out more so we focus on the thought/reality and find ourselves experiencing it. This is why those newly passed over find they have to stay focused on their desired  object/environment as if they let their mind wander they find themselves experiencing successive realities.)   It may be worthwhile  reading a previous post “All Worlds are Thought Worlds”

Well so does the music. If you take sound the only reason you have sound in the physical is because you have pressure waves that impinge upon the ear. Would you not think that sound exists apart from that?

Yes.

So what is the sound of the pressure wave?

It is a vibration, isn’t it?

And you have to convert that vibration to a particular sound. Now when you convert that vibration to a particular sound what is actually hearing? The awarenesses, the consciousnesses focused upon the instrument. The consciousness is actually hearing but with what?

In the physical it is through the ear and the brain.. um..

But the awareness is non-physical, what is it hearing with? You have no idea.

Obviously, because if the human body is made up of X consciousnesses the individual consciousness would just be a minute part of that anyway.

It is not a question of size because when it comes to the imagination the smallest thing can imagine as much as the biggest thing in terms of any particular aspect.

Yes, I would agree with that.

When it comes to multitudinous activities, as in a tapestry for example, then it becomes more difficult and therefore more are involved. One may have detailed out in their imagination their café while another has detailed out their football field and the players upon it. (We must assume that many and various awarenesses then focus in on the player/ instrument of their choice and commence the game according to the agreed rules). So you have all these different ideas/scenarios/ realities floating about and you just focus in on whichever one (or more) that attracts you. Not really any different from the physical, as above so below. You have all these activities going on in the physical and you decide which ones you are going to focus into.

Yes.

Same as your television. If you have 400 channels to choose from which one are you going to look at?  Remember, each one is simply moving waves that move through the atmosphere with no sound or light until they are turned into sound and light by the instrument, i.e. the television, and then your own instrument then turns that sound and light via your eyes and hearing into what you hear and see and then when it comes to the awarenesses I am afraid we will have to leave it there as even if we knew it would be impossible to describe to you because it is totally non-physical.

Yes. Thank you.

All is imagination. Now the word has its connotations. Whenever you think of imagining you think of some sort of hazy picture in the mind which you can think of and get some vague idea of what it is that you are trying to do but that is generally always in the context of something already existing and so therefore you have to go to pencil and paper or computer and try to sketch out what it is that you are thinking of.

Yes.

Then you have to refine the idea, put in measurements etc. If you are technically capable you can then run your design through a computer and see if it works and if it does the next step is to make a model or simply construct from your design. Now depending on how speculative or futuristic your design is in respect to those already in existence it may be that the stresses and strains produced by your designs require materials that do not exist. For example, you could imagine this enormous plane and then find that in order to get that payload off the ground you would need wings of a certain size but the materials available to build those wings would not be able to withstand the stresses placed upon them by the turbulence to be met in normal flying. Everything in the physical has its natural limits. You could not have an aeroplane with a kilometre wide wingspan with your present materials.

So in order to try to give you some ideas we can only put across analogies that you can understand and these analogies are limited by the parameters of the physical environment. When you talk about sight you are talking about looking through eyes at a light reflecting or light emitting object. Now if that isn’t there, how do you see? Because you can only see when light is reflected from something and that is because you are in the physical and that is how the system works. But it is quite obvious that when a telepathic picture is transmitted the receiver is not seeing light being reflected from the object and you ask what is actually happening here?  You would have to say that this would be a thought wave or an intention wave but nobody recognises these things and yet it is happening. (Trying to understand the process/mechanism that makes remote viewing possible is similarly open to speculation although quantum entanglement and non-locality give a credible answer if it is deemed that part of our awareness dwells in that domain but if we also subscribe to the interconnectedness of consciousness these processes are far more simply explained)

When you both think of the same thing at the same time, when you think of someone and the phone rings and it is that person, what has happened? The thought has gone between by what you would call “brains”, but you know that isn’t possible or think it isn’t possible. Has it gone between awarenesses which are focused upon the same thing? Now when it comes to the constituents of the gestalt your awareness of the thought coming from somebody else has come to the surface which means that the majority opinion of the gestalt has said “X is going to phone” or is thinking of phoning. Now there has to be some kind of reasonable connection there between the parties because the majority would have to be interested; how often have you heard of someone saying “That is going to be so-and-so”, a complete stranger?

Never.

Of course not because the majority of the gestalt, even though the thought is out there, would have no idea and couldn’t be bothered with it; but if there is a relationship connection of whatever affinity then yes. Most of the time the only time you will know when someone is going to phone or you know that someone is in trouble is when there is, what you would term, an attachment of care. That is because that corridor of connection is always open, the doors are always open, because you always wish to be aware.

Yes.

Let us say then for that particular person your Skype is always on and so is theirs, so when they think, i.e. press the button, you are immediately aware. Now this continues on as we have said before, once these links are forged then they continue on until they are no longer of interest or something else comes in that is of greater interest. All is forever becoming. You cannot say to yourself that you will only be associated with this person for infinity because the minute that you come back to realising that you have lots of focuses going you will ask yourself “How many people am I madly in love with?”

Yes.

It could be many and so it’s only because you are in the physical that you say “Well which one” because you think in the singular. You don’t think “Well all of them”, and there will be more and more.

You will then realise that you are in love with the image, the gestalt instrument image. You then become aware that everything is connected to everything else and that the image was merely a focus for the time. Yes?

Yes.

You then understand what unconditional love is. It is not conditional upon a physical instrument. That was just in the play, the constructed experience, and outside of that everybody cooperates and so there is no marriage or other restrictive arrangement. There is just love and peace to all, you might say. You are content just to be and to experience and to move from one experience to another and you are all doing it.

Thank you.

You are correct in your earlier conversation that when you turn your focus away from the physical body there will be a short or maybe a little longer transition period to where you understand in the terms that we have just outlined.

Yes, I can well imagine.

You will be quite happy in your new knowledge and, as we have said, as to those remaining you will look back in because you have had a lot of interest, but of course you have got all your other focuses as well and, as there is no time, you will be able to tune into the experience memory and everything else bank of the particular person and so, as we have said before, you will be there all the time, you won’t miss a thing. It won’t be a case of “I looked in last week, what’s happening this week?” because when you look in this week you will be aware of everything that the person experienced in that past week. So to you, no time has passed, or what has, you have been aware of it all.

That’s right.

Because you will pick up what those feelings and attitudes are the instrument is currently sensing and feeling. You will pick up where they are at the present time but that will be the culmination of what they have become and as they maybe switch to a memory from a week before that memory will seem as natural to you as if you have experienced the actual event because you are experiencing the same memory. Do you understand?

Yes, no problem.

So effectively when you enjoin, conjoin, focus into the mind of the instrument then you are part of that mind in the same way that you are part of the instrument that you are currently experiencing the physical through. Yes?

Yes.

It is just a question of tuning in.

And when you have read this over several times you may feel a certain sense of security and peace. 

Please feel free to forward this post to anyone you think may benefit especially those who are grieving the loss of a loved one.

 

 

 

 

All verify that you are eternally connected to those you love.

Rosenblum and Kuttner: “In principle…any two objects that have ever interacted are forever entangled.  The behaviour of one instantaneously influences the other.  An entanglement exists even if the interaction is through each of the objects having interacted with a third object.  In principle, our world has a universal connectedness.”

Sir Charles Sherrington  1857-1952 Neurologist, Nobel Prize winner, President of the Royal Society: ” How far is the one mind a collection of quasi-independent minds integrated physically in large measure by temporal concurrence of experience?

When quantum particles are entangled they cannot be described individually. They form a single quantum object even though they may be located far apart.

Is there any further information that you can give us that possibly we might not understand but somebody accessing the website might understand?

You will have realised from your own searches into the current theories and philosophies that are propounded at the present time and from your membership of the Scientific and Medical Network that the information we have provided so far is what you might call at the outer limits of conjecture as regards the general attachment to the notion of self. Even though we feel that the process as we have described it is quite readily understandable there is a reluctance on the part of most to, if you would like to say the word, “accept” that it is a question of even understanding the acceptance of the idea of decision making by majority after a lifetime’s believing wholeheartedly in the fact that you are singularly responsible for your thoughts and actions. Even though you may wonder where your thoughts come from you still believe that your actions derive solely from your own decisions; that you make your own minds up albeit influenced by others and by circumstance. Even so you believe that when it comes to the crux that the sole responsibility for a particular decision rests with yourself.

Now to have to give up that control and simply sit back and wait for the decision to come to you takes some understanding because you will still feel that “Ah, I think I’ll do this”.

What is happening? You are responding to what you might call the mass decision, the majority of the mass of consciousness that is, at that time, focused on, what you might call, your particular instrument or identity and its position in its surroundings. So it would be quite difficult for you to stand aside and see a decision made from taking an objective point of view because you are part of the decision making process. The nearest you can get to this particular position is feeling that you have to do something, that this decision to a certain degree is being forced upon me. “I’d rather not do it, but I simply have to do it because I can’t see that there is any other action I can possibly take”. You will blame that on various factors, relationships, circumstance and other strictures but you are unlikely to think to yourself “Well, it’s simply the fact that the majority want to do something else, they don’t see it the same way as I do’.

So you will still take them (decisions made) as your own because really the decision is your own in that you will go along with the thought even though you don’t wish to. Because what is the alternative? The alternative is to switch focus and to do that you will leave the present focus into the physical. Now, of course, you can take the attitude “Well, I’ll sleep on it and so I’ll make no decision and see how I feel in the morning”. Can you speculate yourself as to what might happen during the intervening hours when you are no longer focused into the physical as we previously told you? Would you care to give an opinion on that?

Interaction with other consciousnesses which could give you an answer.

Certainly change your opinion or show you alternatives but point out that “this is the best way” or simply, “we know that may be the best way but we are quite interested in trying this other avenue”. Yes?

Yes.

So your indecision may last for some time but if the overall life of the instrument still holds its attraction then you will stay with it. You will decide that it may be interesting to see what would happen if that course was followed. Normally I would do this but what would happen if I did that?

Yes.

So this is the tough part about taking you any further because in order for you to understand more you would need to understand the feeling of the intensity of thought and the flow of thought and you are really not in a position to do that. You have to be in the world of thought in order to do this, to be aware of all the thoughts that are out there. At the moment you are only aware of the thought as produced by the confluence of thought, shall we say, the thoughts that emerged to which there is a consensus agreement. You are not aware of the multitude of thoughts that goes into that. This is one difficulty.

Now when it comes down to other aspects, as you have seen various scenarios propounded, in the “simulation” hypothesis for example, what is imagination but a simulation?

Yes.

Except for the fact that the imagination is, shall we say, somewhat spontaneous. Spontaneous within prescribed parameters, a certain framework into which you have to operate, in that you can’t expect to operate as if you were at sea if you are on land. Different procedures may be necessary. So you could easily say that simulation could marry up with imagination and the same goes for virtual realities. It makes sense to imagine that somewhere you are wearing a virtual helmet, watching a virtual screen.  After all, what is it inside your head but a virtual screen? You have no idea. We may just as well say that what you are looking at is this, to make it easy for you, sea of moving waves, this 2 dimensional surround of “pixels” and wherever you look then what you see is the mass imagination, the majority imagination.

We are now moving into an area which is slightly different. We have touched upon this before when we were talking about a leader going along and as they do the imagining then you pick up on that imagining and accept it and go with it. See the large mountain on the right, yes, see the small mountain on the left, yes, and so you gradually set your environment up as you go along. We have said the same thing about the shoals of fish and the flocks of birds in that one sends a thought out, the others instantly get the thought and so instantly turn left, right or whatever.

Have you thought in terms of the fact that these flocks of birds or shoals of fish, in regards to gestalt consciousness, are all involved in the decision making? It is not just the leader saying “here’s a picture, go left, go right”, it’s the whole lot simply because of the speed, actually it is instantaneous but that is beyond your present comprehension. (The concepts of quantum entanglement and non-locality are the nearest equivalents to instantaneous communication). Everybody gets to say go left or go right and of course in the speed of things when it comes to say shoals of fish evading predators then that may be panic stations, resulting in left and right being yelled out all over the place. Whereas with flocks of birds do you notice the fact that the movement of flocks of birds is quite graceful. Now why would they do that do you think? The feeling of their movement against the air, would it be enjoyable?

I would imagine so.

If they were stopping and starting, dropping like a stone and having to start up again. You don’t see that do you? You see long graceful movements in the main. Maybe some turns. Pilots involved in acrobatic displays do the same thing, they do manoeuvres and loop the loops, rolls etc. but it all shows control and a certain pleasure in executing a manoeuvre as far as the birds are concerned and to a degree the fish when they are not being pursued may take pleasure in performing rhythmic movements much as you do when you are dancing or Tai Chi or whatever. But then you are entering into a mass agreement because the mass may decide in its imagination that it wishes to experience x, y and z. Once you think of the fact that even though we said before that there are different gestalts of consciousness, which indeed there are, doing their own thing, then due to the interconnectedness of consciousness there will be contact between all consciousness.

Just consider that all are aware of everything that is likely to happen (this would account for premonitions) because if they care to survey the “ocean of thought”, shall we say, much as you go to the internet and look at the world news, then you decide which interests you and which doesn’t interest you. When you are aware that an earthquake or hurricane or some other disaster is imminent, even say the plane or ship you intend to travel on or the turning you were going to take, you are aware of the likelihood of the outcome of taking said action and taking alternative actions because all probabilities are weighed and explored in one fashion or another. That doesn’t mean to say that all are experienced but one can certainly extrapolate them to their likely outcome and then you, your gestalt that is, can decide whether you wish to take the instrument into that particular environment with the knowledge that it may not come out of it or in other cases it definitely will not come out of it and that will be the exit that is planned. Although from your point of view this is seemingly against the run of reason, from another point of view, in that you may also be focusing through many of the gestalts that comprise your family and acquaintances etc., you will still be fully aware and fully focused into the physical but simply through different eyes. You actually don’t lose anything particular except a certain point of view from the one instrument no longer around, but you are still surrounded by the same environment and people except for the one. (Perhaps this is where the proposition arose that we are all one another )

Now if you had been focusing through all these, you obviously would not be aware of it, but you can easily see that losing the focus through one wouldn’t be a big deal. Would you agree?

Yes.

You may miss out on a few experiences but in general the experiences will still be yours to enjoy.

We have covered a small part of an area into which you can look further. Whether it will have any practical value to you other than theoretical projection it is up to you to decide because what you have learned so far has given you a certain amount of peace in knowing that there is no question that you will survive the end of the physical body but you understandably would like to know more about your own physical trials and tribulations prior to your intended departure and also as to when that is likely to be. Of course this is all purely looked at from the point of view of the focus into the physical, because in order to take on the viewpoint the individual consciousness focuses into the gestalt and then one has to simply go with the flow and accept what goes on and just live one day at a time. That has got to be the goal of all those who wish to relieve themselves of worry and anxiety about the future. Simply wake up in the morning and “what shall we fill today with?” Put on one side the fact that this may or may not happen.

Now David likes to be in control of the day-to-day and the future. What is the point of buying this plant if I am uncertain as to whether I will see it mature? But if he took a moment to think about it then he would still see it wouldn’t he? (This puts another meaning into “the futurity of present decision”).

As we have just said, through somebody else’s eyes or simply by just focusing in. So how do you feel about those back in Europe who planted vast estates with no likelihood, from the physical point of view, of ever seeing them to maturity? Did they somehow know or did the gestalt know, and of course it did, they would see the end result of their efforts even though they may not be seeing it through one particular instruments eyes. For those who seemingly plan for developments outside their projected lifescale you must think to yourself that the consciousnesses doing this are involved in creation that by nature of the physical takes longer than the human lifetime. So why not? Why should you limit yourself to a human lifetime when it is only a focus through an instrument?

Now, you sit back and think to yourself “well I’m going to focus through several sequential instruments”. Yes?

Yes.

Even though some of those may be alive at the same time. For example, you could be focused through several instruments, all of different ages, all in the same location and all aware of their environment. For you, your sequentiality of experience can be to you, provided you see it from that angle, basically unbroken. You can be looking at it through the eyes of the grandfather. The father is an adult as well, you can be looking through those eyes. The son is reaching adulthood as well and has memories of his childhood and so we go on. You don’t have to stay in the family line either.

You can be the tree.

You can even be the tree if you wish, yes.

If you are part of the person who is doing the planting and you wish to be part of the environment, you could give the instrument the idea of planting. It doesn’t matter whether it is for his lifetime because it is for your (planned) lifetime(s).

You make a good point in that it is possible that a group of trees may want to arrange themselves in a certain order. Now we could come back to another area of your previous mythology, you might say, that the god Pan is responsible for the flora.

I’m not aware of that, I don’t remember.

Let us look at gestalts which are not focused through physical eyes and are simply wishing to design the beautiful vista, shall we say. But in order to design that particular vista, yes, they can have it in the imagination like everything else but you all can work in different ways. You can draw or paint a vase or you can actually make a vase, two different experiences, different sensations and satisfactions. Painting a vase is more akin to an observer status but actually fashioning it and feeling the clay forming in your hands is being fully involved although you won’t be aware of the finished product until it is finished any more than you are until you make the final brushstroke on your painting. Different dimensional experiences, the virtual, the 2 dimensional and the 3 dimensional aspects of the actual vase.

If you wish to experience all three dimensions then you have to use different levels of involvement, different focuses and work with different numbers of participating consciousnesses according to the dimension you wish to create in.

So although you may be focused into a tree gestalt you may still need another gestalt, be it a human or an animal to plant these acorns, shall we say, so that in 150 years time say you have this wonderful avenue of oak trees. It is very unlikely that you would use a squirrel to bury these to the desired pattern so you would give the idea to an instrument that understands measurement. You can see that interaction and cooperation is necessary to co-create. One can never understand where the thought first arose. It is basically impossible to determine which consciousness produced the thought because that consciousness didn’t know where the thought came from either. How can you claim ownership when you are noticing thoughts all the time, from everywhere? How do you know whether your thought is original or not, you simply don’t. All get used to the idea in the end. It doesn’t matter where it came from, it looks interesting and I think I’ll follow it along because it looks like it could be an interesting experience.

This is one area worthy of further thought, trying to understand your own position in this web of interconnectedness and seeing the various avenues that are open to you.

You are getting to the edge now where you will need to experiment and have at least a mental experience of the maybe. We can use words and words and words but nothing in the end is going to substitute for your understanding through deduction and experience.

We suggest that you listen to this over again and see what major points you can take on board and we will revisit this at a later time.