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?
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?
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?
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?
So you look and “well that was interesting, so that is what it feels like to be a committed Christian”.
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?
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?
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.
And so, ”it’s been an interesting exercise”.
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.
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?
So each one is able to see the sensory perceptions of another?
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?
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.
(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?
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?
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?
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.
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?
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?
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! And will you feel the drop as you go down?
But is it real?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?”
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.