.............
Answer:
The only way you could do that is if you interacted with me outside
the context of Linda. That, at this time is impossible.
Question:
Is that a, is that a potential, is that a possibility?
Answer:
It would be dependent upon a complete splitting off from Linda, and
I don't believe Linda is capable of that now.
Question:
Would that imply a development, a growth, a development in
conscious terms, in terms of Linda's own self?
Answer:
Yes, that involves a process that at this point would be frightening
to Linda.
Question:
Okay. Are all personalities connected in this fashion? As what is
occurring now, the interaction between, the translation between
various communications of the self?
Answer:
Yes, as far as I understand your question.
Question:
Is there, following this line, is there a dual interpretation going on?
You see in terms, you translate in terms of words and familiar
images that Linda utilizes.
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
Do you have, does this energy have its own interpretation?
Answer:
Yes, but you wouldn't be able to understand it.
Question:
I wouldn't be able to understand the symbols?
Answer:
No, that's right.
Question:
Do you communicate and again this is distorted I suppose, but do
you communicate with other energy-like spaces yourself within the
context of your own reality?
Answer:
I have my own interaction.
Question:
You have your own associates? Figuratively speaking.
Answer:
Very figuratively speaking, only figuratively speaking.
Question:
But you do have your own interactions?
Answer:
I have my own heartbeat, if you will.
Question:
Do you feel the equivalent of emotions in your sense, in your terms?
Answer:
Not as you understand them. Not as you understand emotion, no.
Question:
I would like you to elaborate upon that? Would there be any
understanding possible? I get a feeling that it has to do with different
intensities, but not with emotions per se. Different types of
intensities.
Answer:
Focuses in mind.. If that helps you. Focus for you is your aspiration
to focus more solidly in mind, but there are other considerations. I
have not those considerations. I have not those contingencies, those
limitations.
Question:
How about physical space?
Answer:
Yes. I don't speak of limitations in a negative sense. Only, I'm only
speaking of responding to physical laws. I am not saying that that is a
negative environment for one to be in. I'm only saying that my
natural environment is different from yours, do you understand?
Question:
Yes. I understand what you're saying, yes. But I cannot help feeling
that even though that is said that in a sense still the physical
environment does express, does not yet have the flexibility, can it
have the flexibility? Can it blossom into a greater flexibility?
Answer:
It can blossom into a greater flexibility, but by definition cannot
enjoy the same kind of flexibility that I, figuratively speaking, enjoy.
However, as you know, the physical environment affords many
opportunities that are at least compensations for the lack of
flexibility.
Question:
Is your environment a greater state of being, a greater more diverse
matured state of being, using certain terms.
Answer:
Depending upon the experience of the particles...(unclear)...yes.
Question:
I wonder if the physical environment is a point which we will
eventually leave and I do not wish to think along those lines, I wish
to, I feel that the physical, I feel that matter, can blossom along
directions, along directions in which perhaps other environments
cannot and I do not wish to think that the physical environment that
consciousness here, uh, human consciousness, will transcend. Am I
mistaken for thinking that it should not be transcended? That the
physical environment will blossom as a result of greater evolution?
Answer:
It will blossom and it will naturally be transcended by individual
particles, as I said, in natural sequence. To try to skip any single
moment or step is not a valuable pursuit.
Question:
But there will be a point in which this environment and your
environment will meet?
Answer:
They do already. They are one already, just different aspects.
What you have to remember here is that matter is continually in
flux, meaning that there are particles drifting into matter and out of
matter continually.
Question:
So they grow in the process?
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
But you are no longer focused in that manner?
Answer:
No.
Question:
Can you describe the point in relation to what you just described, as
to where at that point, or where you are in relation to what you're
just describing? You described a point where you are in relation to
the process?
Answer:
Yes, I think I can put it this way. It's not important, it's not really
relevant for you to know what my experience is or has been. What
is important for you to know is, as we discussed last evening, is that
I am a part of collective human consciousness. I'm a piece of a
collective human consciousness and I am collective human
consciousness simultaneously. So you are in touch with mind,
isolated mind at the moment.
Question:
Like the photograph?
Answer:
Yes, precisely so.
Question:
Frozen here for purposes of translation?
Answer:
Yes, for informational purposes.
Question:
And any future growing is contingent upon, is contingent upon
exploration by, along the frequencies of oneself, exploration along
the....any future understanding is based upon a deeper inner
exploration of consciousness itself by the human individuals?
Answer:
Yes. There is one further point I would like to make about
"myself." It's important for you to understand that I am not an
entity per se.
Question:
Are you more of a flux?
Answer:
I don't know what you mean by that, do you mean movement?
Question:
Yes, yes, movement which is caught, sort of, now, caught in the
sense of being translated. Movement which continues before and
after in terms of how we picture time, but movement which continues
regardless and this is one focus of translation.
Answer:
Uh-huh, yes. I'm in combination with one of you. I'm in combination
with Linda.
Question:
And Linda is integrally related to Neil?
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
And so it is a mutual creation and we have talked....I do have a
question. I don't know how familiar Linda is, to some extent, uh, is
it a similar relationship as, two human individuals in particular, uh
Jane Roberts and her husband Rob and the Seth, the Seth energy,
the Seth personality essence. Is that, that brings similar images to
mind, that there is an analogy between Linda and Neil and the
translation of this energy as there was with Jane Roberts and her
husband Rob with the Seth energy?
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
And the Seth energy would be another portion of the collective whole
consciousness being translated, another portion of the movement
being translated?
Answer:
Yes
Question:
So is there....
Answer:
It's a different interpretation.
Question:
And all interpretations are valid?
Answer:
All interpretations have purpose.
Question:
So this purpose is integrally related to Neil and Linda, in a sense?
Answer:
Yes. absolutely.
Question:
It's integrally related to our purpose and it would not be so for
others as much?
Answer:
No, you can't say that. It might be for others. It depends on the
overall state of consciousness at any given moment. In other words,
if you were to have assemble materials, fifty years ago, we might
say that it's relevant to a specific number of persons. If that same
material were assembled today it would be relevant to a different
number of persons, based on the overall human consciousness....
Question:
You mean the affiliation of certain individuals gravitating towards a
certain....
Answer:
No, I wouldn't say an affiliation even. A certain societal measure.
In other words, given a greater intellectual freedom at one point in
history than at another point, chances are greater that there will be
a larger number of persons who would be interested in the same
materials that you are.
Question:
Has your energy been translated....
Answer:
In different combinations.
Question:
In different contexts of histories, in different periods of time.
Answer:
Oh, yes. It's always in different combinations. What might be
interesting to you to know is that, for instance, it is a different
combination of energy present tonight than was present last night,
though what happened last night is available to the current
combination of energies.
Question:
So you deal in terms of computations and combinations which we
are barely can, which we get a glimpse of. I am beginning to get
glimpses of...
Answer:
Yes. In other words, uh, you can take a drink of water from a glass
and then the next drink of water that you take from the glass is
certainly water and it's certainly from that glass but it's different water.
Question:
As, as in a fundamental sense, very fundamental sense, all elements
are constantly shifting and changing?
Answer:
Yes. Yes. However, when we're talking about collective human
consciousness it shifts and changes almost imperceptibly in terms
of your time.
Question:
So could there be, can there appear a new event which is
unexplainable?
Answer:
I don't understand what you mean.
Question:
Can an event appear on a macroscopic level to the observing human
consciousness which was actually a result of inner changes and
transformations but which gathers...
Answer:
I think my definition of macroscopic may be different than yours.
Would you please explain that?
Question:
Appearing to the , the perceptive abilities, the common collective
agreed-upon perceptions...
Answer:
I think perhaps an example would be in order, why don't you do
that?
Question:
Uh, a new idea, a new idea appearing in human history.
Answer:
Alright, by one individual?
Question:
By, no, many individuals in a given historical context. A new idea
which changes, indeed changes history, appearing perhaps seemingly
overnight but actually being worked in the the inner workings...the
changing of computations that are going on at an inner level, a
constant shifting and changing of things which are happening
beneath the general perception of human outer conscious awareness
....appearing as a new idea but which was actually all along working
on an interior level, so to speak.
Answer:
So what is the question?
Question:
Where, uh, is that idea....this statement is actually a question...is
that idea a result of things that are going on on an inner level, where
various combinations of consciousness communicate with one
another...
Answer:
Alright, let's put it this way. Let's say that an individual suddenly,
or seemingly suddenly, has an idea, that would seem to be so vast in
scope that, well, let's put it this way. Ideas certainly do come from
one kind of consciousness to another, however the receiving
consciousness of that idea must have a certain capacity. In other
words, Einstein had a certain natural capacity in his being to receive
ideas that were so vast in terms of consciousness, uh...a person with
an IQ of 8- would not have the capacity to receive that kind of idea.
So what we're dealing with here is not only the intelligence of a
particular human being but also personal history, in terms of this
lifetime and history that goes beyond this lifetime in terms of his
personal consciousness. So what we really have here are various
receptivity levels in various human beings.
Question:
What I am saying is that, is there times throughout history in
which the receptive levels of a large amount of individuals are
aligned to receive a new idea, an idea that revolutionizes, that
changes.....
Answer:
Oh, yes.
Question:
Why is that so, at that point? Why is that so at that point and not at
other points? Is it because there has been certain coordinates,
certain inner developments going on....
Answer:
Certain intersections, uh, certain developments, development is
steady, uh, what I mean is continuous, always present, a certain kind
of.......(tape ends)...At times that development is faster than at other
times, based upon current events, current circumstances and so
forth, that make total consciousness more receptive than at other
times. So what we also have to be aware of here is that it is not
decided from outside human consciousness that, in spite of what you
read - and the way you read it, it is not decided outside human
consciousness that human beings need X,Y, Z, and it is imparted to
them. It is not such a simple thing as that, and then finding
receptive people, you know, to carry it out. It's not that simple.
There is a reaching out from human consciousness that is as large as
what is being imparted.
Question:
It's a collective desire for growth?
Answer:
Yes, exactly so. A certain energy, and so forth, is imparted which is
then interpreted and then passed on as idea. Does that make sense
to you?
Question:
Yes.
Answer:
So I think that it is the habit of many persons, both writers and
readers, to believe that there is some kind of higher force that is
continually watching and trying to, you know, if only we would be
more receptive, if only, uh, if only they could get through. That's
kind of a, it's a strange way to view it I think. As if no interaction
is the best, most efficient way to growth. And so, we don't just...
if you were with another person and that person states an idea to
you and you interacted with it in conversation and there is a
dialogue and then the idea becomes yours. You have also, you
have been part of its creation, instead of just receiving and the gift
is meaningless.
Question:
Because there would be a living aspiration, a living identification.
Answer:
Yes. You know that a very creative person, let's say a writer or a
painter, whatever, can cause a dialogue in other people, uh.....in
other words if you're looking at a painting, you may have a dialogue
with that painting , not necessarily with the painter.
Question:
But through that affiliation you have an identification with the soul
of the painter, so to speak.
Answer:
Exactly, but that, in that way the painting can reach many more
people than the painter could reach. So that is the kind of thing that
happens, yes.
Question:
That's a symbol that touches on many different levels within many
different people.
Answer:
Yes, so ideas can take many forms.
Question:
Very briefly, I just want to touch upon very briefly, have other
civilizations in the perceptual context of human history focused
upon different neurological focuses, which if you brought within the
context....
Answer:
Maybe we should make another point here. There is also, there is a
certain, how can I say this.....it's possible to partially digest an idea.
In other words, let's say that an idea, a very complex idea, is
presented to you and you don't have the capacity to encompass the
entire idea and make it your own. It's still possible that there are
parts of the idea that you would embrace, be able to understand and
translate, interpret and translate to others. So I think that we can say
that at different times in civilization, though a civilization may or may
not have been as developed....Let's say that at a particular time it was
not developed as our current civilization or as receptive, ideas are
The only way you could do that is if you interacted with me outside
the context of Linda. That, at this time is impossible.
Question:
Is that a, is that a potential, is that a possibility?
Answer:
It would be dependent upon a complete splitting off from Linda, and
I don't believe Linda is capable of that now.
Question:
Would that imply a development, a growth, a development in
conscious terms, in terms of Linda's own self?
Answer:
Yes, that involves a process that at this point would be frightening
to Linda.
Question:
Okay. Are all personalities connected in this fashion? As what is
occurring now, the interaction between, the translation between
various communications of the self?
Answer:
Yes, as far as I understand your question.
Question:
Is there, following this line, is there a dual interpretation going on?
You see in terms, you translate in terms of words and familiar
images that Linda utilizes.
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
Do you have, does this energy have its own interpretation?
Answer:
Yes, but you wouldn't be able to understand it.
Question:
I wouldn't be able to understand the symbols?
Answer:
No, that's right.
Question:
Do you communicate and again this is distorted I suppose, but do
you communicate with other energy-like spaces yourself within the
context of your own reality?
Answer:
I have my own interaction.
Question:
You have your own associates? Figuratively speaking.
Answer:
Very figuratively speaking, only figuratively speaking.
Question:
But you do have your own interactions?
Answer:
I have my own heartbeat, if you will.
Question:
Do you feel the equivalent of emotions in your sense, in your terms?
Answer:
Not as you understand them. Not as you understand emotion, no.
Question:
I would like you to elaborate upon that? Would there be any
understanding possible? I get a feeling that it has to do with different
intensities, but not with emotions per se. Different types of
intensities.
Answer:
Focuses in mind.. If that helps you. Focus for you is your aspiration
to focus more solidly in mind, but there are other considerations. I
have not those considerations. I have not those contingencies, those
limitations.
Question:
How about physical space?
Answer:
Yes. I don't speak of limitations in a negative sense. Only, I'm only
speaking of responding to physical laws. I am not saying that that is a
negative environment for one to be in. I'm only saying that my
natural environment is different from yours, do you understand?
Question:
Yes. I understand what you're saying, yes. But I cannot help feeling
that even though that is said that in a sense still the physical
environment does express, does not yet have the flexibility, can it
have the flexibility? Can it blossom into a greater flexibility?
Answer:
It can blossom into a greater flexibility, but by definition cannot
enjoy the same kind of flexibility that I, figuratively speaking, enjoy.
However, as you know, the physical environment affords many
opportunities that are at least compensations for the lack of
flexibility.
Question:
Is your environment a greater state of being, a greater more diverse
matured state of being, using certain terms.
Answer:
Depending upon the experience of the particles...(unclear)...yes.
Question:
I wonder if the physical environment is a point which we will
eventually leave and I do not wish to think along those lines, I wish
to, I feel that the physical, I feel that matter, can blossom along
directions, along directions in which perhaps other environments
cannot and I do not wish to think that the physical environment that
consciousness here, uh, human consciousness, will transcend. Am I
mistaken for thinking that it should not be transcended? That the
physical environment will blossom as a result of greater evolution?
Answer:
It will blossom and it will naturally be transcended by individual
particles, as I said, in natural sequence. To try to skip any single
moment or step is not a valuable pursuit.
Question:
But there will be a point in which this environment and your
environment will meet?
Answer:
They do already. They are one already, just different aspects.
What you have to remember here is that matter is continually in
flux, meaning that there are particles drifting into matter and out of
matter continually.
Question:
So they grow in the process?
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
But you are no longer focused in that manner?
Answer:
No.
Question:
Can you describe the point in relation to what you just described, as
to where at that point, or where you are in relation to what you're
just describing? You described a point where you are in relation to
the process?
Answer:
Yes, I think I can put it this way. It's not important, it's not really
relevant for you to know what my experience is or has been. What
is important for you to know is, as we discussed last evening, is that
I am a part of collective human consciousness. I'm a piece of a
collective human consciousness and I am collective human
consciousness simultaneously. So you are in touch with mind,
isolated mind at the moment.
Question:
Like the photograph?
Answer:
Yes, precisely so.
Question:
Frozen here for purposes of translation?
Answer:
Yes, for informational purposes.
Question:
And any future growing is contingent upon, is contingent upon
exploration by, along the frequencies of oneself, exploration along
the....any future understanding is based upon a deeper inner
exploration of consciousness itself by the human individuals?
Answer:
Yes. There is one further point I would like to make about
"myself." It's important for you to understand that I am not an
entity per se.
Question:
Are you more of a flux?
Answer:
I don't know what you mean by that, do you mean movement?
Question:
Yes, yes, movement which is caught, sort of, now, caught in the
sense of being translated. Movement which continues before and
after in terms of how we picture time, but movement which continues
regardless and this is one focus of translation.
Answer:
Uh-huh, yes. I'm in combination with one of you. I'm in combination
with Linda.
Question:
And Linda is integrally related to Neil?
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
And so it is a mutual creation and we have talked....I do have a
question. I don't know how familiar Linda is, to some extent, uh, is
it a similar relationship as, two human individuals in particular, uh
Jane Roberts and her husband Rob and the Seth, the Seth energy,
the Seth personality essence. Is that, that brings similar images to
mind, that there is an analogy between Linda and Neil and the
translation of this energy as there was with Jane Roberts and her
husband Rob with the Seth energy?
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
And the Seth energy would be another portion of the collective whole
consciousness being translated, another portion of the movement
being translated?
Answer:
Yes
Question:
So is there....
Answer:
It's a different interpretation.
Question:
And all interpretations are valid?
Answer:
All interpretations have purpose.
Question:
So this purpose is integrally related to Neil and Linda, in a sense?
Answer:
Yes. absolutely.
Question:
It's integrally related to our purpose and it would not be so for
others as much?
Answer:
No, you can't say that. It might be for others. It depends on the
overall state of consciousness at any given moment. In other words,
if you were to have assemble materials, fifty years ago, we might
say that it's relevant to a specific number of persons. If that same
material were assembled today it would be relevant to a different
number of persons, based on the overall human consciousness....
Question:
You mean the affiliation of certain individuals gravitating towards a
certain....
Answer:
No, I wouldn't say an affiliation even. A certain societal measure.
In other words, given a greater intellectual freedom at one point in
history than at another point, chances are greater that there will be
a larger number of persons who would be interested in the same
materials that you are.
Question:
Has your energy been translated....
Answer:
In different combinations.
Question:
In different contexts of histories, in different periods of time.
Answer:
Oh, yes. It's always in different combinations. What might be
interesting to you to know is that, for instance, it is a different
combination of energy present tonight than was present last night,
though what happened last night is available to the current
combination of energies.
Question:
So you deal in terms of computations and combinations which we
are barely can, which we get a glimpse of. I am beginning to get
glimpses of...
Answer:
Yes. In other words, uh, you can take a drink of water from a glass
and then the next drink of water that you take from the glass is
certainly water and it's certainly from that glass but it's different water.
Question:
As, as in a fundamental sense, very fundamental sense, all elements
are constantly shifting and changing?
Answer:
Yes. Yes. However, when we're talking about collective human
consciousness it shifts and changes almost imperceptibly in terms
of your time.
Question:
So could there be, can there appear a new event which is
unexplainable?
Answer:
I don't understand what you mean.
Question:
Can an event appear on a macroscopic level to the observing human
consciousness which was actually a result of inner changes and
transformations but which gathers...
Answer:
I think my definition of macroscopic may be different than yours.
Would you please explain that?
Question:
Appearing to the , the perceptive abilities, the common collective
agreed-upon perceptions...
Answer:
I think perhaps an example would be in order, why don't you do
that?
Question:
Uh, a new idea, a new idea appearing in human history.
Answer:
Alright, by one individual?
Question:
By, no, many individuals in a given historical context. A new idea
which changes, indeed changes history, appearing perhaps seemingly
overnight but actually being worked in the the inner workings...the
changing of computations that are going on at an inner level, a
constant shifting and changing of things which are happening
beneath the general perception of human outer conscious awareness
....appearing as a new idea but which was actually all along working
on an interior level, so to speak.
Answer:
So what is the question?
Question:
Where, uh, is that idea....this statement is actually a question...is
that idea a result of things that are going on on an inner level, where
various combinations of consciousness communicate with one
another...
Answer:
Alright, let's put it this way. Let's say that an individual suddenly,
or seemingly suddenly, has an idea, that would seem to be so vast in
scope that, well, let's put it this way. Ideas certainly do come from
one kind of consciousness to another, however the receiving
consciousness of that idea must have a certain capacity. In other
words, Einstein had a certain natural capacity in his being to receive
ideas that were so vast in terms of consciousness, uh...a person with
an IQ of 8- would not have the capacity to receive that kind of idea.
So what we're dealing with here is not only the intelligence of a
particular human being but also personal history, in terms of this
lifetime and history that goes beyond this lifetime in terms of his
personal consciousness. So what we really have here are various
receptivity levels in various human beings.
Question:
What I am saying is that, is there times throughout history in
which the receptive levels of a large amount of individuals are
aligned to receive a new idea, an idea that revolutionizes, that
changes.....
Answer:
Oh, yes.
Question:
Why is that so, at that point? Why is that so at that point and not at
other points? Is it because there has been certain coordinates,
certain inner developments going on....
Answer:
Certain intersections, uh, certain developments, development is
steady, uh, what I mean is continuous, always present, a certain kind
of.......(tape ends)...At times that development is faster than at other
times, based upon current events, current circumstances and so
forth, that make total consciousness more receptive than at other
times. So what we also have to be aware of here is that it is not
decided from outside human consciousness that, in spite of what you
read - and the way you read it, it is not decided outside human
consciousness that human beings need X,Y, Z, and it is imparted to
them. It is not such a simple thing as that, and then finding
receptive people, you know, to carry it out. It's not that simple.
There is a reaching out from human consciousness that is as large as
what is being imparted.
Question:
It's a collective desire for growth?
Answer:
Yes, exactly so. A certain energy, and so forth, is imparted which is
then interpreted and then passed on as idea. Does that make sense
to you?
Question:
Yes.
Answer:
So I think that it is the habit of many persons, both writers and
readers, to believe that there is some kind of higher force that is
continually watching and trying to, you know, if only we would be
more receptive, if only, uh, if only they could get through. That's
kind of a, it's a strange way to view it I think. As if no interaction
is the best, most efficient way to growth. And so, we don't just...
if you were with another person and that person states an idea to
you and you interacted with it in conversation and there is a
dialogue and then the idea becomes yours. You have also, you
have been part of its creation, instead of just receiving and the gift
is meaningless.
Question:
Because there would be a living aspiration, a living identification.
Answer:
Yes. You know that a very creative person, let's say a writer or a
painter, whatever, can cause a dialogue in other people, uh.....in
other words if you're looking at a painting, you may have a dialogue
with that painting , not necessarily with the painter.
Question:
But through that affiliation you have an identification with the soul
of the painter, so to speak.
Answer:
Exactly, but that, in that way the painting can reach many more
people than the painter could reach. So that is the kind of thing that
happens, yes.
Question:
That's a symbol that touches on many different levels within many
different people.
Answer:
Yes, so ideas can take many forms.
Question:
Very briefly, I just want to touch upon very briefly, have other
civilizations in the perceptual context of human history focused
upon different neurological focuses, which if you brought within the
context....
Answer:
Maybe we should make another point here. There is also, there is a
certain, how can I say this.....it's possible to partially digest an idea.
In other words, let's say that an idea, a very complex idea, is
presented to you and you don't have the capacity to encompass the
entire idea and make it your own. It's still possible that there are
parts of the idea that you would embrace, be able to understand and
translate, interpret and translate to others. So I think that we can say
that at different times in civilization, though a civilization may or may
not have been as developed....Let's say that at a particular time it was
not developed as our current civilization or as receptive, ideas are
still afloat. There is still potential dialogue. Partial ideas may be
embraced.
Question:
So it could be digested, so to speak, in a different manner?
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
It could be taken out and translated and even be an idea which can
lead to a great amount of people to a new discovery whereas,
figuratively speaking, previously it did not?
Answer:
Yes, and there's also the possibility that the idea may be
misinterpreted, and in not being embraced fully that parts of it may
be plucked which will lead to a misinterpretation.
Question:
But wouldn't that be part of the overall growth and development...
Answer:
Yes, that certainly can be.
Question:
If followed sincerely...
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
Is there ever, is there an an attempt upon one civilization to reach
out consciously with another civilization? One civilization in terms
of different focuses of consciousness, different areas which were
focused upon...is it possible for one civilization to reach out to
another?
Answer:
Why don't you give me an example?
Question:
Is it possible for what is referred to as the Luminian civilization, for
instance, to...
Answer:
To overlap?
Question:
To overlap, to reach out, to attempt a communication on a conscious..
Answer:
As focus in mind develops that is possible. We should end the session
now.
Question:
Okay, we're going to relax and......
_________________________________________________
The following dialogue undated:
Neil:
The moment before, what is the interaction? There is interaction
when we are not involved in it, when we're not an integral part in it.
What does it (under hypnosis) do when it does not interact with us?
Meaning, outside the formulation of this particular perception, what
are its activities? And that could not be explained except by saying
as we grow and as we expand we grow into the perception of that. We
grow into something that cannot be translated into words.
Linda:
Maybe what was meant was, once we get beyond where we are
subject to time.
Neil:
Yes, that's right. That we create, that any particular particle
observed is in interaction. All particles are hypothetical. What they
observe, for instance, as an electron or any other type of particle,
subatomic, is a result of interaction. The moment before, its position
is not know.
Linda:
Its position or what it is?
Neil:
What it is and its position.
Linda:
So the particle itself is never observed.
Neil:
It's observed as a result of its interaction. And the observer is an
integral part and creator of that interaction. In other words, if the
observer's consciousness was different what would be observed
would also be different. What they are observing physically is
an interaction.
Linda:
They are observing two pieces of matter, right, that are two small
to see. We are talking about matter here, that they're observing
right?
Neil:
Right, but they don't know its position. First and foremost, they
don't know its position.
Linda:
Yea, but here we're really talking about matter. We're not talking
about these other elements that precede.....
Neil:
The elements of matter have their psychological counterparts.
They're the same throughout. Everything repeats itself. It is the
same thing. As they go deeper into subatomic physics, the
particles become more random.
Linda:
What does that mean, less predictable?
Neil:
Much less predictable. And their interactions become that much
more hypothetical. What is actually going on becomes more vague,
because what they do, the more one goes into subatomic particles,
the more the interaction becomes less probable.
Linda:
And so what you're saying then, is that...........
Neil:
Less predictable. In other words, it mimics consciousness itself as
matter becomes, is probed deeper and deeper.
Linda:
But we still are looking at matter.
Neil:
Matter is energy
Linda:
I'm talking here, okay, I'm talking here about the elements that
precedes...okay that on the chart are ahead of random and time. I'm
not talking about matter. I see something else here that's a possible
link with what you're saying, those elements, I can't quite think what
it is. I mean, I know that in the experiments they become less
predictable and all that stuff is related to the other elements on the
other side but I don't know how. I don't know how.
Neil:
Are you talking about elements which are not physical? Elements
which are...
Linda:
Yea, yea, that precedes time, like psychic energy and perception and
space and...
Neil:
Perception actually creates the form.
Linda:
What is we have to assume though, in this Heisenberg thing, is if one
affects the interaction by observing that there would be an interaction
without the observation.
Neil:
But there's not. There are now. There are many views now that the
observer actually creates the interaction. That the interaction cannot
exist outside the observing, that's established among many people,
among many physicists. That the observer cannot be separated from
the interaction. It is impossible. It's all encompassing. You cannot
separate one from the other.
Linda:
So you isolate a subatomic particle by itself and let it interact with the
observer, as opposed to another particle?
Neil:
No. The observer creates the totality.
Linda:
So the observer creates the interaction between one subatomic
particle and another subatomic particle?
Neil:
The observer creates the field of perception.
Linda:
So you have two subatomic particles. And they interact, and the
observer makes them interact with each other?
Neil:
You have the observer as a random element.
Linda:
I know, so what are you saying?
Neil:
You have the three things that are interacting.
Linda:
The observer causes the interaction between the two subatomic
particles, is that what you're saying?
Neil:
Uh-huh.
Linda:
They would not interact without the observer?
Neil:
No. They would not. It would be, it would be unknown. Their
position is unknown. They interact without observation.
Linda:
We don't know.
Neil:
We don't know. But we cannot separate one from the other. They
are not interacting independently, no. Although, although many
believe that they are and many do not. And that's what some more
progressive physicists are attempting, that there's no independent
interaction. So what you have is, what the moment, figuratively
speaking, the moment before interaction. And that's what you're
talking about, I think. Are you talking about the elements which
bring them into position that they can then interact?
Linda:
No. I don't know that yet. I'm just saying that....
Neil:
There's no independent agent.
Linda:
I'm saying that time can exist without matter or physical energy.
Physical energy can exist without matter and that matter exists
with all of them. That's what I'm saying here basically.
Neil:
You just explained your chart a little while ago. That's the best
illustration, of what you're, I don't think you see the illustration
is the answer. Possibility existed and then something enters into it.
Linda:
Yea.
Neil:
That possibility has all the positions, that something enters into it
and creates the apparent interaction and unfolding.
Linda:
Isn't it an act of observation from the outside the universe? In this
case, every one of the subatomic particles.
Neil:
Yes.
Linda:
I really believe that the push came from the outside. Somehow.
In other words, that it wasn't an internal combustion sort of thing.
Neil:
What do you mean? You mean the Big Bang?
Linda:
Yea. Well, yea, I think the Big Bang happened. I'm not saying it
didn't. What I'm saying is, well who knows.....
Neil:
The Big Bang was the actualization of a possibility according to those
within the boundaries of that perception, but the actual perception
in the sense that you're talking about exists outside.
Linda:
I've often thought that perception is the very element, and the only
one, that ties us in the universe, that ties the universe to what lies
outside it.
Neil:
You're talking about, you're talking about......then you're still equating
perception with a sense of time.
Linda:
No, I am not. That connection to what lies outside the universe is
continual. It's like a cell in your hand, you know, its existence is
continual in your hand.
Neil:
I thought we were talking about timeless perception.
Linda:
Yea, we are. We are. It exists without time, that link to what's
outside the universe exists without time, or with time. It doesn't
make any difference, it's always present.
Neil:
Time is an attempt to form a construct of timelessness, a conception
of timelessness. What you're looking for us, hypothetically from our
viewpoint, outside and cannot explain itself. It's outside the system.
Time is an attempt to form a construct of what it feels is essentially
timelessness. The possibilities can actualize. They can be illuminated
and actualized. The explanation is not to be found within them and
within the context of the perception of how you're describing it. I
don't understand what you're, I don't understand what is your
question is?
Linda:
I don't know.
Neil:
What is your question?
Linda:
I don't know. I just don't have a grasp of it.
Neil:
Of what? Please put it in words. You thought that perception, again
you thought that perception was what?
Linda:
Well, yea, I just always looked at them as kind of, I mean I realized a
long time ago that they weren't subject to time but I still saw them
being in order. I still was ordering them in my mind according to
time. I'm still saying that, well, we have perception, then we have
space, then we have psychic energy but there was no then, there
was no then, there was no then. They're simultaneous, they are
simultaneous.
Neil:
That's right, they are simultaneous. What illuminates them.....
Linda:
My question is, I realize what my question is but go ahead.
Neil:
What illuminates them is the interaction.
Linda:
Yea, exactly.
Neil:
What illuminates them.....they are interacting, but what illuminates
them is outside that interaction.
Linda:
I don't believe that. So they interact all by themselves?
Neil:
No, they illuminate at the point of entry. Just like.....
Linda:
Yes, they do.
Neil:
Just like getting back to observing particles, their interaction occurs
upon observation and the observer creates the interaction. So
everything is interacting upon the basis of an illumination which
includes a totality of the observer and particles. Which create one
another. The interaction is different outside the observation and
that's X, Another point is that if they're organizing according to one
fashion here, one probability, what you observe is one probability of
interaction. What then it has to be, or hypothetically so...and you
cannot say that it isn't, it has to be organizing, if there's one probable
interaction here on A, it has to be interacting there on C. Or there
on F. And all the interactions are probable and integral to the
observer. That's why the observer at one point will observe an
interaction occurring here in one fashion and he will, he or she will
observe an interaction occurring at a different point in time
somewhere else at another point of the experiment. And they will
observe different particles. And they will observe the same particle
that they observed before in different positions. But all probabilities
have to be occurring at the same time but the point of perception is
such, that in time it can only observe one at a time. And therefore
they seem to be divided and separated through time but they're
being illuminated by something that is not common to them,
something which contains them but which is not common to them
and which organizes things simultaneously. Which organizes different
probable interactions at a moment we cannot yet see because we
depend upon a linear sense of time. But I think the.....I think time
itself can be equated with a desire to form a construct. It is because
before the element of time, before the interaction of the various
elements....
Linda:
I think it's the result of a desire. I don't think it is a desire.
Neil:
It is the result of a desire.
Linda:
And another thing is that random and time.....
Neil:
That;s what I'm saying.
Linda:
Are like this. So that, you know, when I talk about the physical
elements random is one of them, one of the forces. But it's so close
with time that I can't say that random precedes time. But time does
precede any kind of energy or matter because it cannot come into
existence without movement.
Neil:
Time is dependent upon something else. Time in a linear sense
cannot begin. It is not the beginning point. It is impossible.
Something else.....
Linda:
I don't believe that....
Neil:
Oh, yes, I do.
Linda:
Why?
Neil:
You're confusing timelessness and time.
Linda:
No, I'm not.
Neil:
Timelessness is not endless time.
Linda:
No, it's not. No, it's not.
Neil:
We have our definitions confused here.
Linda:
Okay, what I'm saying is that when the push from the outside the
universe, whatever that is, happens....at that moment, that is the
first moment.
Neil:
Excuse me. It's not so much a push as it is a pull. It is also a pull
as much as it is a push. That's what I meant by desire. It's also a
push as much a pull.
Linda:
What I want to say is that it is the first moment of existence. You
know, we believe that we have.....
Neil:
It's the first moment of the unfolding of a pattern of a realization of
interaction in the possibility. The possibility exists. Something has
to give it birth.
Linda:
Okay, can I say something? I know I want to say something. I'm
beginning to think that there is no, there is no point, and I won't say
time, there is no point in the universe including between its
incarnation that it is without time.
Neil:
That's right, there's no empty space. There isn't, just like a
personality last night (referring to hypnosis) could account for
infinite past and infinite future. But did not exist a moment before.
It's a coordination that's not based upon time.
Linda:
I think something completely different. What I'm saying is that time,
wait, now just give me a moment because this is important. I don't
believe there is ever a point without time as long as the universe is
incarnating, incarnating, incarnating, we're talking here about the
first moment. I think we're saying the first measured moment.
In other words, once the incarnation is over I'm not sure that it ever
goes back to a point beyond time. In other words, I'm not sure that
the space between the first moment of time and the last moment of
time, I'm not sure there's any space there.
Neil:
No, there's not.
Linda:
I think it's just circular.
Neil:
That's right.
Linda:
I think there's a demarcation of some kind where time may change
its character over the course of the incarnation. I think it may
change its character based on, uh, what's perceiving it. The balance
of perception, perception, perception is really very....
Neil:
Consciousness can alter it.
Linda:
Yea, it can be altered.
Neil:
Yes, of course.
Linda:
I know. I'm going to have a cigarette and then I'm going to ask you
a question.
Neil:
I just had an image here that probabilities form a circle and that the
nature of time....
Linda:
Is circular.
Neil:
Alters, from the view of the perspective that we're talking about
outside it.
Linda:
Yea.
Neil:
Not only that but the perspective outside it, the consciousness can
alter, alter any probability as a whole. That's how we can account for
the past and the future at any give point. Since it can account for the
past and future, in the manner that it does, in the totality that it does,
we can also alter.....time.
Linda:
I think it could but it doesn't
Neil:
Well, put it this way. Time likened to mind, okay, mind forming a
conception. I have always equated time with mind. And therefore,
when you say it doesn't, let's say it provides in a whisper the
illuminations and the intuitions at various times to the sense of time.
In other words....
Linda:
You're talking about a person again.
Neil:
Well, I'm talking in terms of a person in terms of time...and putting
time with mind.
Linda:
Okay.
Neil:
I'm talking about the consciousness, the energy being interpreted in
time as illuminations, as intuitions. In other words, that's how the
position outside time can directly affect time.
Linda:
Yea. It does. It interacts.
Neil:
It cannot, it will not, but mind is there, time and mind, same thing,
for it, for time and mind translates and interprets as it will what is
occurring outside itself. In other words, it's not a question of whether
or not it can or does alter time. It's a question of how mind at the
same moment interacts and translates that which is outside mind.
Perception outside mind. Timelessness. What were you going to say?
Linda:
I don't remember.......oh, I was going to say that the elements that are
outside time or precede time still though interact with time through
the other physical elements, period. They don't interact with time in
a pure sense.
Neil:
With what, with any one given element? No, they.....
Linda:
No, the elements that precede time don't interact with time.
Neil:
Precede time? Don't interact.....
Linda:
Yea, the primary elements, meaning, you know, perception, space.....
Neil:
Well, that's what I asked. I asked what position what is that
personality doing when it's not interacting? And it (from hypnosis)
could not answer that question because I myself am asking it, a
asking a question that cannot be answered by the very formulation
of the question, by the very intent of the question, by the very
emotion of the question. And you too are trying to objectify, you're
trying to objectify.....
Linda:
So you're saying that that energy or whatever it is, that entity and
so forth is, precedes time?
Neil:
Absolutely.
Linda:
Okay.
Neil:
And interacts. And at the moment of interaction can account for
your entire past and future.
Linda:
Okay. But...
Neil:
Because it's not limited to that line.
Linda:
Right. But, it interacts only when brought into the time frame.
Neil:
Yes. What I had asked is what is it doing outside that? When it's
not involved...
Linda:
Okay, I'm beginning to see. I'm beginning to see. I don't know...
Neil:
You're the one who had the direct experience.
Linda:
Yea. I know. But I did and I didn't. Cause I went outside time so I
can't experience outside time.
Neil:
No, you didn't. Something else organized time differently, which
perceived a difference. What was perceived was a different
organization of time.
Linda:
As a little side note, I've read in various places by people who, I
would say are special people, who are creative in special ways and
all of that say, and this is like Franc (gifted musician) that when
So it could be digested, so to speak, in a different manner?
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
It could be taken out and translated and even be an idea which can
lead to a great amount of people to a new discovery whereas,
figuratively speaking, previously it did not?
Answer:
Yes, and there's also the possibility that the idea may be
misinterpreted, and in not being embraced fully that parts of it may
be plucked which will lead to a misinterpretation.
Question:
But wouldn't that be part of the overall growth and development...
Answer:
Yes, that certainly can be.
Question:
If followed sincerely...
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
Is there ever, is there an an attempt upon one civilization to reach
out consciously with another civilization? One civilization in terms
of different focuses of consciousness, different areas which were
focused upon...is it possible for one civilization to reach out to
another?
Answer:
Why don't you give me an example?
Question:
Is it possible for what is referred to as the Luminian civilization, for
instance, to...
Answer:
To overlap?
Question:
To overlap, to reach out, to attempt a communication on a conscious..
Answer:
As focus in mind develops that is possible. We should end the session
now.
Question:
Okay, we're going to relax and......
_________________________________________________
The following dialogue undated:
Neil:
The moment before, what is the interaction? There is interaction
when we are not involved in it, when we're not an integral part in it.
What does it (under hypnosis) do when it does not interact with us?
Meaning, outside the formulation of this particular perception, what
are its activities? And that could not be explained except by saying
as we grow and as we expand we grow into the perception of that. We
grow into something that cannot be translated into words.
Linda:
Maybe what was meant was, once we get beyond where we are
subject to time.
Neil:
Yes, that's right. That we create, that any particular particle
observed is in interaction. All particles are hypothetical. What they
observe, for instance, as an electron or any other type of particle,
subatomic, is a result of interaction. The moment before, its position
is not know.
Linda:
Its position or what it is?
Neil:
What it is and its position.
Linda:
So the particle itself is never observed.
Neil:
It's observed as a result of its interaction. And the observer is an
integral part and creator of that interaction. In other words, if the
observer's consciousness was different what would be observed
would also be different. What they are observing physically is
an interaction.
Linda:
They are observing two pieces of matter, right, that are two small
to see. We are talking about matter here, that they're observing
right?
Neil:
Right, but they don't know its position. First and foremost, they
don't know its position.
Linda:
Yea, but here we're really talking about matter. We're not talking
about these other elements that precede.....
Neil:
The elements of matter have their psychological counterparts.
They're the same throughout. Everything repeats itself. It is the
same thing. As they go deeper into subatomic physics, the
particles become more random.
Linda:
What does that mean, less predictable?
Neil:
Much less predictable. And their interactions become that much
more hypothetical. What is actually going on becomes more vague,
because what they do, the more one goes into subatomic particles,
the more the interaction becomes less probable.
Linda:
And so what you're saying then, is that...........
Neil:
Less predictable. In other words, it mimics consciousness itself as
matter becomes, is probed deeper and deeper.
Linda:
But we still are looking at matter.
Neil:
Matter is energy
Linda:
I'm talking here, okay, I'm talking here about the elements that
precedes...okay that on the chart are ahead of random and time. I'm
not talking about matter. I see something else here that's a possible
link with what you're saying, those elements, I can't quite think what
it is. I mean, I know that in the experiments they become less
predictable and all that stuff is related to the other elements on the
other side but I don't know how. I don't know how.
Neil:
Are you talking about elements which are not physical? Elements
which are...
Linda:
Yea, yea, that precedes time, like psychic energy and perception and
space and...
Neil:
Perception actually creates the form.
Linda:
What is we have to assume though, in this Heisenberg thing, is if one
affects the interaction by observing that there would be an interaction
without the observation.
Neil:
But there's not. There are now. There are many views now that the
observer actually creates the interaction. That the interaction cannot
exist outside the observing, that's established among many people,
among many physicists. That the observer cannot be separated from
the interaction. It is impossible. It's all encompassing. You cannot
separate one from the other.
Linda:
So you isolate a subatomic particle by itself and let it interact with the
observer, as opposed to another particle?
Neil:
No. The observer creates the totality.
Linda:
So the observer creates the interaction between one subatomic
particle and another subatomic particle?
Neil:
The observer creates the field of perception.
Linda:
So you have two subatomic particles. And they interact, and the
observer makes them interact with each other?
Neil:
You have the observer as a random element.
Linda:
I know, so what are you saying?
Neil:
You have the three things that are interacting.
Linda:
The observer causes the interaction between the two subatomic
particles, is that what you're saying?
Neil:
Uh-huh.
Linda:
They would not interact without the observer?
Neil:
No. They would not. It would be, it would be unknown. Their
position is unknown. They interact without observation.
Linda:
We don't know.
Neil:
We don't know. But we cannot separate one from the other. They
are not interacting independently, no. Although, although many
believe that they are and many do not. And that's what some more
progressive physicists are attempting, that there's no independent
interaction. So what you have is, what the moment, figuratively
speaking, the moment before interaction. And that's what you're
talking about, I think. Are you talking about the elements which
bring them into position that they can then interact?
Linda:
No. I don't know that yet. I'm just saying that....
Neil:
There's no independent agent.
Linda:
I'm saying that time can exist without matter or physical energy.
Physical energy can exist without matter and that matter exists
with all of them. That's what I'm saying here basically.
Neil:
You just explained your chart a little while ago. That's the best
illustration, of what you're, I don't think you see the illustration
is the answer. Possibility existed and then something enters into it.
Linda:
Yea.
Neil:
That possibility has all the positions, that something enters into it
and creates the apparent interaction and unfolding.
Linda:
Isn't it an act of observation from the outside the universe? In this
case, every one of the subatomic particles.
Neil:
Yes.
Linda:
I really believe that the push came from the outside. Somehow.
In other words, that it wasn't an internal combustion sort of thing.
Neil:
What do you mean? You mean the Big Bang?
Linda:
Yea. Well, yea, I think the Big Bang happened. I'm not saying it
didn't. What I'm saying is, well who knows.....
Neil:
The Big Bang was the actualization of a possibility according to those
within the boundaries of that perception, but the actual perception
in the sense that you're talking about exists outside.
Linda:
I've often thought that perception is the very element, and the only
one, that ties us in the universe, that ties the universe to what lies
outside it.
Neil:
You're talking about, you're talking about......then you're still equating
perception with a sense of time.
Linda:
No, I am not. That connection to what lies outside the universe is
continual. It's like a cell in your hand, you know, its existence is
continual in your hand.
Neil:
I thought we were talking about timeless perception.
Linda:
Yea, we are. We are. It exists without time, that link to what's
outside the universe exists without time, or with time. It doesn't
make any difference, it's always present.
Neil:
Time is an attempt to form a construct of timelessness, a conception
of timelessness. What you're looking for us, hypothetically from our
viewpoint, outside and cannot explain itself. It's outside the system.
Time is an attempt to form a construct of what it feels is essentially
timelessness. The possibilities can actualize. They can be illuminated
and actualized. The explanation is not to be found within them and
within the context of the perception of how you're describing it. I
don't understand what you're, I don't understand what is your
question is?
Linda:
I don't know.
Neil:
What is your question?
Linda:
I don't know. I just don't have a grasp of it.
Neil:
Of what? Please put it in words. You thought that perception, again
you thought that perception was what?
Linda:
Well, yea, I just always looked at them as kind of, I mean I realized a
long time ago that they weren't subject to time but I still saw them
being in order. I still was ordering them in my mind according to
time. I'm still saying that, well, we have perception, then we have
space, then we have psychic energy but there was no then, there
was no then, there was no then. They're simultaneous, they are
simultaneous.
Neil:
That's right, they are simultaneous. What illuminates them.....
Linda:
My question is, I realize what my question is but go ahead.
Neil:
What illuminates them is the interaction.
Linda:
Yea, exactly.
Neil:
What illuminates them.....they are interacting, but what illuminates
them is outside that interaction.
Linda:
I don't believe that. So they interact all by themselves?
Neil:
No, they illuminate at the point of entry. Just like.....
Linda:
Yes, they do.
Neil:
Just like getting back to observing particles, their interaction occurs
upon observation and the observer creates the interaction. So
everything is interacting upon the basis of an illumination which
includes a totality of the observer and particles. Which create one
another. The interaction is different outside the observation and
that's X, Another point is that if they're organizing according to one
fashion here, one probability, what you observe is one probability of
interaction. What then it has to be, or hypothetically so...and you
cannot say that it isn't, it has to be organizing, if there's one probable
interaction here on A, it has to be interacting there on C. Or there
on F. And all the interactions are probable and integral to the
observer. That's why the observer at one point will observe an
interaction occurring here in one fashion and he will, he or she will
observe an interaction occurring at a different point in time
somewhere else at another point of the experiment. And they will
observe different particles. And they will observe the same particle
that they observed before in different positions. But all probabilities
have to be occurring at the same time but the point of perception is
such, that in time it can only observe one at a time. And therefore
they seem to be divided and separated through time but they're
being illuminated by something that is not common to them,
something which contains them but which is not common to them
and which organizes things simultaneously. Which organizes different
probable interactions at a moment we cannot yet see because we
depend upon a linear sense of time. But I think the.....I think time
itself can be equated with a desire to form a construct. It is because
before the element of time, before the interaction of the various
elements....
Linda:
I think it's the result of a desire. I don't think it is a desire.
Neil:
It is the result of a desire.
Linda:
And another thing is that random and time.....
Neil:
That;s what I'm saying.
Linda:
Are like this. So that, you know, when I talk about the physical
elements random is one of them, one of the forces. But it's so close
with time that I can't say that random precedes time. But time does
precede any kind of energy or matter because it cannot come into
existence without movement.
Neil:
Time is dependent upon something else. Time in a linear sense
cannot begin. It is not the beginning point. It is impossible.
Something else.....
Linda:
I don't believe that....
Neil:
Oh, yes, I do.
Linda:
Why?
Neil:
You're confusing timelessness and time.
Linda:
No, I'm not.
Neil:
Timelessness is not endless time.
Linda:
No, it's not. No, it's not.
Neil:
We have our definitions confused here.
Linda:
Okay, what I'm saying is that when the push from the outside the
universe, whatever that is, happens....at that moment, that is the
first moment.
Neil:
Excuse me. It's not so much a push as it is a pull. It is also a pull
as much as it is a push. That's what I meant by desire. It's also a
push as much a pull.
Linda:
What I want to say is that it is the first moment of existence. You
know, we believe that we have.....
Neil:
It's the first moment of the unfolding of a pattern of a realization of
interaction in the possibility. The possibility exists. Something has
to give it birth.
Linda:
Okay, can I say something? I know I want to say something. I'm
beginning to think that there is no, there is no point, and I won't say
time, there is no point in the universe including between its
incarnation that it is without time.
Neil:
That's right, there's no empty space. There isn't, just like a
personality last night (referring to hypnosis) could account for
infinite past and infinite future. But did not exist a moment before.
It's a coordination that's not based upon time.
Linda:
I think something completely different. What I'm saying is that time,
wait, now just give me a moment because this is important. I don't
believe there is ever a point without time as long as the universe is
incarnating, incarnating, incarnating, we're talking here about the
first moment. I think we're saying the first measured moment.
In other words, once the incarnation is over I'm not sure that it ever
goes back to a point beyond time. In other words, I'm not sure that
the space between the first moment of time and the last moment of
time, I'm not sure there's any space there.
Neil:
No, there's not.
Linda:
I think it's just circular.
Neil:
That's right.
Linda:
I think there's a demarcation of some kind where time may change
its character over the course of the incarnation. I think it may
change its character based on, uh, what's perceiving it. The balance
of perception, perception, perception is really very....
Neil:
Consciousness can alter it.
Linda:
Yea, it can be altered.
Neil:
Yes, of course.
Linda:
I know. I'm going to have a cigarette and then I'm going to ask you
a question.
Neil:
I just had an image here that probabilities form a circle and that the
nature of time....
Linda:
Is circular.
Neil:
Alters, from the view of the perspective that we're talking about
outside it.
Linda:
Yea.
Neil:
Not only that but the perspective outside it, the consciousness can
alter, alter any probability as a whole. That's how we can account for
the past and the future at any give point. Since it can account for the
past and future, in the manner that it does, in the totality that it does,
we can also alter.....time.
Linda:
I think it could but it doesn't
Neil:
Well, put it this way. Time likened to mind, okay, mind forming a
conception. I have always equated time with mind. And therefore,
when you say it doesn't, let's say it provides in a whisper the
illuminations and the intuitions at various times to the sense of time.
In other words....
Linda:
You're talking about a person again.
Neil:
Well, I'm talking in terms of a person in terms of time...and putting
time with mind.
Linda:
Okay.
Neil:
I'm talking about the consciousness, the energy being interpreted in
time as illuminations, as intuitions. In other words, that's how the
position outside time can directly affect time.
Linda:
Yea. It does. It interacts.
Neil:
It cannot, it will not, but mind is there, time and mind, same thing,
for it, for time and mind translates and interprets as it will what is
occurring outside itself. In other words, it's not a question of whether
or not it can or does alter time. It's a question of how mind at the
same moment interacts and translates that which is outside mind.
Perception outside mind. Timelessness. What were you going to say?
Linda:
I don't remember.......oh, I was going to say that the elements that are
outside time or precede time still though interact with time through
the other physical elements, period. They don't interact with time in
a pure sense.
Neil:
With what, with any one given element? No, they.....
Linda:
No, the elements that precede time don't interact with time.
Neil:
Precede time? Don't interact.....
Linda:
Yea, the primary elements, meaning, you know, perception, space.....
Neil:
Well, that's what I asked. I asked what position what is that
personality doing when it's not interacting? And it (from hypnosis)
could not answer that question because I myself am asking it, a
asking a question that cannot be answered by the very formulation
of the question, by the very intent of the question, by the very
emotion of the question. And you too are trying to objectify, you're
trying to objectify.....
Linda:
So you're saying that that energy or whatever it is, that entity and
so forth is, precedes time?
Neil:
Absolutely.
Linda:
Okay.
Neil:
And interacts. And at the moment of interaction can account for
your entire past and future.
Linda:
Okay. But...
Neil:
Because it's not limited to that line.
Linda:
Right. But, it interacts only when brought into the time frame.
Neil:
Yes. What I had asked is what is it doing outside that? When it's
not involved...
Linda:
Okay, I'm beginning to see. I'm beginning to see. I don't know...
Neil:
You're the one who had the direct experience.
Linda:
Yea. I know. But I did and I didn't. Cause I went outside time so I
can't experience outside time.
Neil:
No, you didn't. Something else organized time differently, which
perceived a difference. What was perceived was a different
organization of time.
Linda:
As a little side note, I've read in various places by people who, I
would say are special people, who are creative in special ways and
all of that say, and this is like Franc (gifted musician) that when
there's a need there is enough time and I do believe that the very
creativity and so forth, that whatever is coming through that person,
let's say, can alter time. It can alter time to the point of being able to
do more than a given....
Neil:
I wrote this morning that the moment is not in reality understood. In
other words, that there's the moment can be utilized in the same way
that you utilized it last night (hypnosis),
Linda:
Okay. I want to say one more thing. I'm wondering and I'm not
saying this, if the less aware people are the shorter time seems.
Neil:
The more predictable.
Tape, Side II:
Neil:
The more that Fred (example from hypnosis) will complete the
history that's seen. So to speak.
Linda:
Yea., I think so.
Neil:
The more predictable it becomes. The greater the awareness, the
more probabilities. The more, the awareness of other probabilities
which are other possibilities just like matter, the more you get into
it and take it apart, the vaster it becomes. The spaces inbetween
become huge, the probabilities become immense.
Linda:
I know.
Neil:
The possibilities are immense because what you're doing, you're
taking matter and you're getting back to light itself.
Linda:
Exactly.
Neil:
So matter is a root and base upon which, one can escape into that
sense of timelessness, but the work is to be done here in matter,
because matter draws, can draw and blossom all the energy rather
than to detach like you did in a session. So there's a difference, that's
what the Mother talks about. Matter can blossom...so my question is
....if that would happen here, how would that energy blossom in terms
of your personality, hypothetically, using your personality, that was
the blossom out of the roots of your personality (hypnosis), out of the
sense of time rather than stepping aside, so to speak, it would be a
fuller, dynamic vitalizing sense. It would be matter expressing spirit,
matter expressing consciousness. At any point, this is what I know
now, there's a continuity between past, there's a continuity of time, of
linear time. You have the ability to momentarily go outside the
system. And when you go outside the system, the energy interacts
and you go outside the system.
Linda:
You're not letting me talk at all, at all.
Neil:
That's right!
Linda:
I want to say something. Okay, we've talked before about when a
person is out of incarnation his sense of time is different than when in
incarnation. And let's say that when Louise died and I was born two
years later and we from this side can measure that and say that's
two years. Uh, but I can say from the other standpoint that it
seemed like just an instant. I won't even say that it seemed like an
instant, I will say that there was no time involved. From the other
side. Wait. That from Louise's standpoint, it just seemed like a
darkness and it could have been three hundred years, it could have
been three seconds, it could have been an eternity. It just, there
really wasn't time. You know, time...
Neil:
Not only that. You could pick up on a different probable strand.
Linda:
But if we're talking about time as mind, are we saying that there is
no mind? Out of incarnation? This is interesting because in one of
my writings, in one of my writings the other day....
Neil:
Okay, fine.
Linda:
Wait, wait, wait. In one of my writings the other day, I said that a
person who dies and is out of matter is still subject to physical energy
and time and now I understand why. They are subject to it and
though it seems different, there is still mind. There is still mind.
Neil:
A lot of mystics, a lot of people have tried to liberate themselves
from mind without understanding the fully dynamics of what's
involved.
Linda:
It can't be done.
Neil:
That's, Aurobindo and the Mother did... One could remain there
but one would not blossom and grow there. Matter blossoms the
totality of the spirit. Matter is.....
Linda:
You can't anyway. You can't eliminate mind. You can't eliminate
mind.
Neil:
No, but you can appear to be such. Just like you can step aside and
the energy could come through, so to speak. But there is no, there is
no sense of, there's no...Louise could die and be reborn, it could be
two seconds or it could seem like an eternity. There's no gap. And
yet there is a gap. And yet.....within the spectrum of timelessness,
different probabilities are chosen.
Linda:
By what or whom?
Neil:
That's the next question. Are chosen by the consensus of the
interacting probable selves. In other words, the probable selves
form a gestalt and the best overall action or course is taken.
Linda:
Yea.
Neil:
Is taken. But that's one course taken by one part of the overall
interaction. In other words, there are other courses being taken.
All probabilities are in motion. But the you that you identify as you
is following a particular line of probabilities.
Linda:
I think every probability has life, has motion, but now we are talking
about actualized. One is actualized.
Neil:
They all are actualized.
Linda:
I don't believe that.
Neil:
Yes, they are.
Linda:
No, I don't.
Neil:
Yes, they are. You, as you, are aware of one probable line from
Louise. Hypothetically, let's say, a different you who decided to take
a different course, a different pattern of development would not be
aware of you but would be just as valid within the spectrum of its
development and all the probabilities are explored within the context
of the gestalt. In other words...
Linda:
I don't believe that an infinite number of probable mes are being
actualized from a point from Louise. I don't believe that.
Neil:
No, they're not. They're being actualized from the point of overall
pattern, development and desire. There are different strands going
out. Forget the word infinite, let's say many. There are many
probabilities going out. You who you are, how you identify yourself
as, is one particular pattern of development, one probable direction
in terms of time that Louise could have taken, hypothetically, to use
the sense of linear time. Could have taken. There are probable
directions. Some of those probable directions are actualized
according to a different line of development taken by.....the greater
consciousness.
Linda:
I don't know if I agree that any other one is actualized.
Neil:
Are you saying that this is the only one? How could that be. There
are numerous probabilities. Just like there are numerous Louise'....
Louise is not a fixed position. She herself is a probable interaction.
Linda:
Okay. What you're saying.....I can see it from one standpoint only,
and that is that if you look at personhood, okay, humanness, as one
particle, yea, then many many many are being actualized, okay?
But I don't think we have like a family tree here. Where we get one
and it splits and splits and splits.
Neil:
We're talking about a flower that blooms at once with many different
petals.
Linda:
I don't believe that there's another Linda living out another actuality.
Neil:
Yes, but there is.....but then we're talking about, yes, that is true. But
we're talking about the overall developments that suit your personal
gestalt, your own personal development. Okay, there is unity....
Linda:
I think mind lives out the probabilities. I don't believe it's necessary
to have three physical bodies for me to live out three probabilities.
Neil:
But there is. That is beyond....absolutely.
Linda:
I don't agree.
Neil:
There are an infinite number of physical universes with all the
elements interacting within each one of them. That's black holes
and white holes. They're transformations of energies between
systems.
Linda:
I don't know if we can say infinite.
Neil:
Let's say many. There are other probable, there are other probable
versions of matter. But now we're getting off into a slightly different
area. There are other probable versions of matter.
Linda:
I don't know if I agree with that either. I won't say that I disagree.
Neil:
There are.
Linda:
I don't know that I can follow it either.
Neil:
What is the difficulty? What is that you have difficulty with?
Linda:
Well, I don't know enough about it. I can't say what a black hole is
right now. I don't know for sure that there is some other kind of
matter.....
Neil:
Why are you separating, okay, I'm just using black holes as an
example. Forget the black holes. Why are you saying mind follows
probabilities, matter too follows probabilities. The very evolution is
probabilities.
Linda:
Yes, it does. Yes, it does. But I'm not going to hop on this parallel
universes band wagon where I'm really living out some other
probabilities...I'm living my probabilities now....
Neil:
That's right.
Linda:
Talk about lack of free will here.
Neil:
No, I'm talking about something else lives....that which outside of
time lives. Let's say, for purposes of this discussion a different
probability of you at the same time, that you are and solely you....
and that is a different probability.
Linda:
No, I don't agree at all. There is no other Linda O..... running around
in the universe living out a slightly different set of probabilities.
Neil:
You're limiting, you're putting into small terms what I'm trying.....
Linda:
That's probably true.
Neil:
What do you mean, another Linda O......
Linda:
Another me.
Neil:
There, okay, there were other probable directions you could have
taken.
Linda:
No, not by me.
Neil:
Not by you, not by you. But by some other self within the circle.
But they are related....
Linda:
But you've been saying probable me's.
Neil:
No. You're having trouble between the individual and the unity.
That's what I'm talking about. Not you, not you. But related to you.
Just as Louise is related to you. Is Louise you? Is Louise you?
Linda:
No.
Neil:
She's not and yet she is. She's related. That interaction...
Linda:
I just had a funny thought. So you think that the act of observation
by the dictaphone is changing out interaction?
Neil:
Yes, it is. Of course.
Linda:
I think it is too. I do.
Neil:
There's something that mathematicians have been working on.
That for every person that enters the room, you square it. In other
words, if another person entered the room there would be the
creation of his own self, the creation of me and you, the creation of,
and and uh, then there would be the creation of me and the creation
of you from me and the creation of him. In other words, probabilities
multiply. Every element is another form of interaction. All elements
are interacting and changing at the same time. There's no conflict
between, is there a conflict between you and Louise? Are you the
same self? You could say yes in one sense but no in another. She
has her own personhood.
Linda:
I know that. And she continues to have it.
Neil:
That's what, exactly. And then she continues to have it along the
linear time like Fred, past, present and future. She continues to,
and yet, because there is outside time, there can be another whole
universe introduced into the system. If there was something
outside the system it could not escape, it could not go outside the
linear sense of time. In other words, you could not be. Louise
would just continue on indefinitely because there is something
outside the system.
Linda:
What system? The universe?
Neil:
Mind is increasingly becoming consciousness, expressing
consciousness. We're talking about some of the things that, uh
directions that Aurobindo was talking about, in fact, that we
figuratively escape and go outside time. That's what a lot of
people do but mind....
Linda:
Do they? Do people do that?
Neil:
Yes, they do. And they never, they don't...there's something here,
matter itself desires to express the timeless consciousness. Because
matter itself is a form of consciousness.
Linda:
I know.
Neil:
And that at any point you can escape matter and large...
Linda:
Partially.
Neil:
But matter will not develop that way. Matter needs, matter itself,
form itself can express the totality of the consciousness. It can
blossom into that and it is doing so through what we perceive as
evolution.
Linda:
Do you know the way that the dictaphone is changing our.....
Neil:
Yes. In terms of nervous system response.....reaction. I'm aware
it's there, I am talking in a different tone. There is therefore a
different probable interaction...
Linda:
And the other thing is that I pay more attention to you.
Neil:
You never do. You never do.
Linda:
Isn't that true?
Neil:
So you see how the dictaphone.....
Linda:
Yes, the other thing.....if you went back and played this tape we
would find out that seven-eighths of the speaking has been yours.
Neil:
And we would find that comment to be yours. So what are you
saying?
Linda:
I'm not saying anything really. I'm saying that you're a greedy
particle. (lol)
Neil:
I'm saying that you're a particle which desires to be greedy. (lol)
Linda:
That's probably a good place to end.
I wrote this morning that the moment is not in reality understood. In
other words, that there's the moment can be utilized in the same way
that you utilized it last night (hypnosis),
Linda:
Okay. I want to say one more thing. I'm wondering and I'm not
saying this, if the less aware people are the shorter time seems.
Neil:
The more predictable.
Tape, Side II:
Neil:
The more that Fred (example from hypnosis) will complete the
history that's seen. So to speak.
Linda:
Yea., I think so.
Neil:
The more predictable it becomes. The greater the awareness, the
more probabilities. The more, the awareness of other probabilities
which are other possibilities just like matter, the more you get into
it and take it apart, the vaster it becomes. The spaces inbetween
become huge, the probabilities become immense.
Linda:
I know.
Neil:
The possibilities are immense because what you're doing, you're
taking matter and you're getting back to light itself.
Linda:
Exactly.
Neil:
So matter is a root and base upon which, one can escape into that
sense of timelessness, but the work is to be done here in matter,
because matter draws, can draw and blossom all the energy rather
than to detach like you did in a session. So there's a difference, that's
what the Mother talks about. Matter can blossom...so my question is
....if that would happen here, how would that energy blossom in terms
of your personality, hypothetically, using your personality, that was
the blossom out of the roots of your personality (hypnosis), out of the
sense of time rather than stepping aside, so to speak, it would be a
fuller, dynamic vitalizing sense. It would be matter expressing spirit,
matter expressing consciousness. At any point, this is what I know
now, there's a continuity between past, there's a continuity of time, of
linear time. You have the ability to momentarily go outside the
system. And when you go outside the system, the energy interacts
and you go outside the system.
Linda:
You're not letting me talk at all, at all.
Neil:
That's right!
Linda:
I want to say something. Okay, we've talked before about when a
person is out of incarnation his sense of time is different than when in
incarnation. And let's say that when Louise died and I was born two
years later and we from this side can measure that and say that's
two years. Uh, but I can say from the other standpoint that it
seemed like just an instant. I won't even say that it seemed like an
instant, I will say that there was no time involved. From the other
side. Wait. That from Louise's standpoint, it just seemed like a
darkness and it could have been three hundred years, it could have
been three seconds, it could have been an eternity. It just, there
really wasn't time. You know, time...
Neil:
Not only that. You could pick up on a different probable strand.
Linda:
But if we're talking about time as mind, are we saying that there is
no mind? Out of incarnation? This is interesting because in one of
my writings, in one of my writings the other day....
Neil:
Okay, fine.
Linda:
Wait, wait, wait. In one of my writings the other day, I said that a
person who dies and is out of matter is still subject to physical energy
and time and now I understand why. They are subject to it and
though it seems different, there is still mind. There is still mind.
Neil:
A lot of mystics, a lot of people have tried to liberate themselves
from mind without understanding the fully dynamics of what's
involved.
Linda:
It can't be done.
Neil:
That's, Aurobindo and the Mother did... One could remain there
but one would not blossom and grow there. Matter blossoms the
totality of the spirit. Matter is.....
Linda:
You can't anyway. You can't eliminate mind. You can't eliminate
mind.
Neil:
No, but you can appear to be such. Just like you can step aside and
the energy could come through, so to speak. But there is no, there is
no sense of, there's no...Louise could die and be reborn, it could be
two seconds or it could seem like an eternity. There's no gap. And
yet there is a gap. And yet.....within the spectrum of timelessness,
different probabilities are chosen.
Linda:
By what or whom?
Neil:
That's the next question. Are chosen by the consensus of the
interacting probable selves. In other words, the probable selves
form a gestalt and the best overall action or course is taken.
Linda:
Yea.
Neil:
Is taken. But that's one course taken by one part of the overall
interaction. In other words, there are other courses being taken.
All probabilities are in motion. But the you that you identify as you
is following a particular line of probabilities.
Linda:
I think every probability has life, has motion, but now we are talking
about actualized. One is actualized.
Neil:
They all are actualized.
Linda:
I don't believe that.
Neil:
Yes, they are.
Linda:
No, I don't.
Neil:
Yes, they are. You, as you, are aware of one probable line from
Louise. Hypothetically, let's say, a different you who decided to take
a different course, a different pattern of development would not be
aware of you but would be just as valid within the spectrum of its
development and all the probabilities are explored within the context
of the gestalt. In other words...
Linda:
I don't believe that an infinite number of probable mes are being
actualized from a point from Louise. I don't believe that.
Neil:
No, they're not. They're being actualized from the point of overall
pattern, development and desire. There are different strands going
out. Forget the word infinite, let's say many. There are many
probabilities going out. You who you are, how you identify yourself
as, is one particular pattern of development, one probable direction
in terms of time that Louise could have taken, hypothetically, to use
the sense of linear time. Could have taken. There are probable
directions. Some of those probable directions are actualized
according to a different line of development taken by.....the greater
consciousness.
Linda:
I don't know if I agree that any other one is actualized.
Neil:
Are you saying that this is the only one? How could that be. There
are numerous probabilities. Just like there are numerous Louise'....
Louise is not a fixed position. She herself is a probable interaction.
Linda:
Okay. What you're saying.....I can see it from one standpoint only,
and that is that if you look at personhood, okay, humanness, as one
particle, yea, then many many many are being actualized, okay?
But I don't think we have like a family tree here. Where we get one
and it splits and splits and splits.
Neil:
We're talking about a flower that blooms at once with many different
petals.
Linda:
I don't believe that there's another Linda living out another actuality.
Neil:
Yes, but there is.....but then we're talking about, yes, that is true. But
we're talking about the overall developments that suit your personal
gestalt, your own personal development. Okay, there is unity....
Linda:
I think mind lives out the probabilities. I don't believe it's necessary
to have three physical bodies for me to live out three probabilities.
Neil:
But there is. That is beyond....absolutely.
Linda:
I don't agree.
Neil:
There are an infinite number of physical universes with all the
elements interacting within each one of them. That's black holes
and white holes. They're transformations of energies between
systems.
Linda:
I don't know if we can say infinite.
Neil:
Let's say many. There are other probable, there are other probable
versions of matter. But now we're getting off into a slightly different
area. There are other probable versions of matter.
Linda:
I don't know if I agree with that either. I won't say that I disagree.
Neil:
There are.
Linda:
I don't know that I can follow it either.
Neil:
What is the difficulty? What is that you have difficulty with?
Linda:
Well, I don't know enough about it. I can't say what a black hole is
right now. I don't know for sure that there is some other kind of
matter.....
Neil:
Why are you separating, okay, I'm just using black holes as an
example. Forget the black holes. Why are you saying mind follows
probabilities, matter too follows probabilities. The very evolution is
probabilities.
Linda:
Yes, it does. Yes, it does. But I'm not going to hop on this parallel
universes band wagon where I'm really living out some other
probabilities...I'm living my probabilities now....
Neil:
That's right.
Linda:
Talk about lack of free will here.
Neil:
No, I'm talking about something else lives....that which outside of
time lives. Let's say, for purposes of this discussion a different
probability of you at the same time, that you are and solely you....
and that is a different probability.
Linda:
No, I don't agree at all. There is no other Linda O..... running around
in the universe living out a slightly different set of probabilities.
Neil:
You're limiting, you're putting into small terms what I'm trying.....
Linda:
That's probably true.
Neil:
What do you mean, another Linda O......
Linda:
Another me.
Neil:
There, okay, there were other probable directions you could have
taken.
Linda:
No, not by me.
Neil:
Not by you, not by you. But by some other self within the circle.
But they are related....
Linda:
But you've been saying probable me's.
Neil:
No. You're having trouble between the individual and the unity.
That's what I'm talking about. Not you, not you. But related to you.
Just as Louise is related to you. Is Louise you? Is Louise you?
Linda:
No.
Neil:
She's not and yet she is. She's related. That interaction...
Linda:
I just had a funny thought. So you think that the act of observation
by the dictaphone is changing out interaction?
Neil:
Yes, it is. Of course.
Linda:
I think it is too. I do.
Neil:
There's something that mathematicians have been working on.
That for every person that enters the room, you square it. In other
words, if another person entered the room there would be the
creation of his own self, the creation of me and you, the creation of,
and and uh, then there would be the creation of me and the creation
of you from me and the creation of him. In other words, probabilities
multiply. Every element is another form of interaction. All elements
are interacting and changing at the same time. There's no conflict
between, is there a conflict between you and Louise? Are you the
same self? You could say yes in one sense but no in another. She
has her own personhood.
Linda:
I know that. And she continues to have it.
Neil:
That's what, exactly. And then she continues to have it along the
linear time like Fred, past, present and future. She continues to,
and yet, because there is outside time, there can be another whole
universe introduced into the system. If there was something
outside the system it could not escape, it could not go outside the
linear sense of time. In other words, you could not be. Louise
would just continue on indefinitely because there is something
outside the system.
Linda:
What system? The universe?
Neil:
Mind is increasingly becoming consciousness, expressing
consciousness. We're talking about some of the things that, uh
directions that Aurobindo was talking about, in fact, that we
figuratively escape and go outside time. That's what a lot of
people do but mind....
Linda:
Do they? Do people do that?
Neil:
Yes, they do. And they never, they don't...there's something here,
matter itself desires to express the timeless consciousness. Because
matter itself is a form of consciousness.
Linda:
I know.
Neil:
And that at any point you can escape matter and large...
Linda:
Partially.
Neil:
But matter will not develop that way. Matter needs, matter itself,
form itself can express the totality of the consciousness. It can
blossom into that and it is doing so through what we perceive as
evolution.
Linda:
Do you know the way that the dictaphone is changing our.....
Neil:
Yes. In terms of nervous system response.....reaction. I'm aware
it's there, I am talking in a different tone. There is therefore a
different probable interaction...
Linda:
And the other thing is that I pay more attention to you.
Neil:
You never do. You never do.
Linda:
Isn't that true?
Neil:
So you see how the dictaphone.....
Linda:
Yes, the other thing.....if you went back and played this tape we
would find out that seven-eighths of the speaking has been yours.
Neil:
And we would find that comment to be yours. So what are you
saying?
Linda:
I'm not saying anything really. I'm saying that you're a greedy
particle. (lol)
Neil:
I'm saying that you're a particle which desires to be greedy. (lol)
Linda:
That's probably a good place to end.
_________________________________________________
Session: November 1, 1988
Question:
Is there any symbol or image for the Place tonight? Is there anything
around the environment that you're in?
Answer:
nswer:
We'll use the zero as symbol.
Question:
I want to start off by asking you about the transition from, uh, the
process to get you into this state and then the alterations of energy
that take place both on a, both in terms of physics and in terms of
physical alterations.
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
What exactly is the, uh, mechanism, perhaps that's the wrong word
but mechanism, uh, employed in making a transitional switch. What
are the mental/physical dynamics and is it a physical energy as well
as a nonphysical.
Answer:
Yes, there's a transference of energy. In other words, from physical
energy to a different kind of energy. And the purpose of the "calming"
process is to allow that transference, that conversion of energy. In
other words, physical energy translated by intent. (note: "calming
process" referred to here is meant with respect to the light state
of relaxation or hypnosis where sessions begin.)
Question:
Intent upon, intent upon Linda? Intent upon the whole personality?
Answer:
Intent by all forces present including your own. For instance, in daily
life it's possible for one person to psychologically depress another
person, uh, and that person's energy level will drop. Alright?
Question:
Right.
Answer:
And the same thing happens here, only it's not through the use of
depression but through intent.
Question:
The intent to, to reach out?
Answer:
Yes. So when the physical energy is depressed, it is calmed. That
energy is sublimated and translated by intent into a different kind of
energy.
Question:
What kind of energy is that? Can you...
Answer:
If we look at the Twelve, if we look at the twelve elements, it's
analogous to psychic energy which is the kind of energy that records
and has, makes available those records that it keep.
Question:
Isn't that present at each moment of physical waking time? Isn't that
always present?
Answer:
It's always available.
Question:
So what is happening here is that the energy is being brought forth
to the surface of awareness in my waking moment, in Linda's waking
moment. What I am saying is that it's operating all the time. So if, and
we've gone over this before and I won't go into it too much, but is it
possible to cautiously, simultaneously hold that perception of a
switch to this present state, there would wouldn't be that switch to
this present state if we were more consciously aware of the dynamics
of this state operating all the time.
Answer:
Yes, basically what happens is that so much emphasis, so much reign
is given to the physical energies. For instance, as one example, that
this kind of energy really can't be heard as it might, you see, if more
focus were given to it.
Question:
So this is a dramatization?
Answer:
Basically we focus upon certain energies in daily life and...it's not that
the energies are mutually exclusive but it's where our focus falls. So in
quieting the physical energies for a session like this we're just really
changing focus...by intent.
Question:
Well, yea, what I'm saying is that if we were more dynamic in our
manipulation of energy, in our awareness of energies, then, uh, then
the interplay would be more synchronistic .
Answer:
Yes. Now, I believe there was a question about....you have a question
on a piece of paper there?
Question:
Uh, yes, about the, uh, about the, we had just begun to talk about the
transition state to this, what you're talking about, to this calming
effect. Also, what I put down is also the reverse when you're leaving
this state.
Answer:
There was a different question.
Question:
About the nature of physics?
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
Okay, about, the question is, is that what is the nature of energy. Is
it an independent energy. Can you describe it in terms of physics?
Answer:
Out of all the energies it is an independent, it can be an independent
energy by its field direction. However, in the world as we know it, no
energy can be isolated completely. However, that's what I trying to
get to before. About intent, And what we can say intent is, is the
movement of consciousness, the movement, almost like an eye or a
pair of eyes. When they move from one thing to another, they process
the data. If I look at a chair right now, I'm processing that data. Then
my eyes move to a table, I 'm processing that data. And it is my
intent to move my eyes in such a way that the data is changing. And
that is basically what happens here, that the consciousness produces
the change, the conversion of energy. Consciousness produces that.
The energies fall in line with the consciousness so that when the
consciousness is focused upon physical energy, when the eyes are
focused on physical energy, that's where the consciousness lies.
In that moment.
Question:
So your eyes are not focused there at this moment or this aspect of
this moment, it is not focused there?
Answer:
No, we are not now focusing upon the physical energies.
Question:
So how, what is the, what is the substance of the world that you're,
that you from the inside of your consciousness experiencing?
You're not creating physical objects in other words. You're not...
Answer:
No.
Question:
So what are you, what do you register. Do you register the
nonphysical aspects of the physical objects which have their own
fields, which have their own plane of existence?
Answer:
I register the record that is being created at this moment. In other
words...
Question:
But I am physical. I am talking from a physical point.
Answer:
Yes, as we said, uh, the energy cannot be totally isolated, so although
the focus is on what we'll call psychic energy, uh, it is expressed of
course by physical energy through the act of speaking and so forth.
So it, you know, cannot be absolutely isolated under these
circumstances.
Question:
Right.
Answer:
But the predominance of concentration can be in that direction so
that the bulk of comprehension comes from that source.
Question:
If I was to consciously, if I was to consciously see, immediately,
directly perceive the vantage point where you're speaking, if I did not
let the physical sense predominate, to the degree that it does, what
would I be perceiving? How would I be perceiving it? And I suppose
the, I suppose I can answer the question myself. I suppose the
question can't really be answered because...
Answer:
It can. You would be perceiving as closely as possible the essence of
time.
Question:
Can you talk about the essence of time?
Answer:
By experiencing a single moment, one can more easily see the
essence of time than by focusing upon blocks of time, years of time,
eras in time. And when the physical energies have been put aside, the
physical energies of movement, of physical movement, and so forth,
that are subject to time and measured by time, then time itself is
stripped away to its essence. We are having moments here,
consecutive moments but the focus is upon moment by moment,
not the collection of moments, upon. In other words, the last
sentence, the now. The now is fully, and I can't stress that enough,
fully the essence of time. But as you know very well, when we're
dealing with the physical energies the focus is given upon the
collection of moments, upon....if one is moving a leg, for instance,
focus is upon the entire movement of the leg, not each singular
moment of lifting the leg. Let's say it's lifted three feet in the air.
When we are focused on the physical energies, we think of the
entire lifting motion. I'm going to lift my leg from here to here and
we don't think of any single point on the way up, on the way in
that movement. We think of the entire movement. It has a
beginning, it has an end and once it's here it's only seen in relation
to the beginning and the end as opposed to being isolated moments
or the essence of time. Do you understand what I'm saying?
Question:
Uh, yes I believe so. Using that example, can one say that the
body, the physical organism, has a wisdom in which the outer mind
and personality is just beginning to learn. In other words, is there a
more...there's a multi-dimensional working to the physical organism
which far surpasses our way of constructing time, our way of
constructing sense, our way of constructing perception. It works as
an organism and it works as collection of, it organizes itself without
thinking about itself. It's composed of billions of parts collaborating
yet working as a unity, yet each individual part is individual. Are
we, is the human mind slowly evolving to the point where it has
that absolute comprehension in that fashion in terms of organizing
its perception.
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
So, also, the moment, the now, is also, I suppose, an apex for many
different worlds or many different dimensions. It's a taking off point
for any one direction.
Answer:
Yes. You can see from that, that the world as you say is a continual
apex. There is no single apex.
Question:
Right. Which is intent, which is essence.
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
It's not a single apex because it's the essence of the apex.
Answer:
It's not a single apex because this moment is a single apex.
Question:
Right.
Answer:
The next moment is a single apex, the next moment is a
apex, it's one continual apex.
Question:
Does this have a language? Which can be described?
Answer:
Yes, but you have to be in it. You have to be within the language.
That's the difference...
Question:
I understand.
Answer:
Between language as it's used and that language. We're outside
the language. We are here (pointing) and the language is here
(pointing) and it goes out and it's comprehended by another
being, another human being and it goes back and forth like a
ping-pong ball. Like an object that's almost outside itself but
the knowingness and the inner language...
Question:
Is an association between all...
Answer:
We are inside the language as opposed to creating it and having
the language inside us.
Question:
So, so to use an analogy, you are, one is more inside, well, not an
analogy perhaps, one is literally more inside the essence of all
things.
Answer:
It's almost as if we are being spoken from that language which you...
Question:
Right now?
Answer:
Always. We are being spoken. I am a word. You are a word.
And we are being continually spoken.
Question:
And the word awakens to its own essence so there is an interplay
between each, to use that example, each word then in turn becomes
a seed for the opening it up to its own divine essence?
Answer:
Yes, it's a pulsation. It is an inversion. It is precisely as the poem
states. Inverted and invisible.* (*Linda's poem)
Question:
Is the essence...
Answer:
The language you could see this way. You could think of it as a
sphere and you are a word within the sphere of that language.
And then you speak a word.
Question:
And the sphere simultaneously....
Answer:
But you are a word.
Question:
And yet when you, when we talk about that, then I see that
language, I sense that language becoming more visible.
Answer:
Would you say that again please?
Question:
As, uh, at moments such as now I feel that unspoken language then
I see that myself as a word spoken and a sphere simultaneously
existing and becoming present, becoming wholly visible.
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
As though the complete interplay becomes visible.
Answer:
Yes. Yes, it's like you being a penny realizing the dollar.
Does that make sense to you?
(note, this above comment is in relation to a humorous
playful conversation that Linda and I had some time back)
Question:
Yes. Does that mean also, does that imply also there are other
communications going on between people that they're not aware
of and that form their own associations?
Answer:
Continuously.
Question:
So there, for instance, I suppose, there are associations between
people who do not know, who know each other very much in the
way of an acquaintance but there are deeper associations going
back and forth between those individuals on different levels.
Answer:
Actually, actually, there is but one association.
Question:
I agree, yes.
Answer:
There is one association and...
Question:
I'm talking about unperceived associations that are going on
continuously.
Answer:
There is in all of it, in all the communications, there is but one...
now, when you talk about associations between one and another
we're talking about levels, we're talking about perhaps the spoken
word, the spoken thought between two people is one way of
associating within the whole, one way of associating. Then as
the consciousness grows, expands, and so forth, the associations
between two beings changes, is continually changing so that it's
continually rising.
Question:
So the other, uh, unspoken...
poken...
Answer:
Until there's no more associations. It just is.
Question:
Unity?
Answer:
Yes. The one unity, whatever you'd like to say.
Question:
So those associations become more conscious, more consciously
present. The level of communication between two people at that
point becomes more conscious, the inner dynamics of
communication become more visible to the waking consciousness
of those individuals. Is that what is present between
Neil and Linda, that type of...
Answer:
Yes. Neil and Linda both understand the wholeness, the language
that speaks of the wholeness, that is the wholeness. It is a
growing realization that every word that is spoken is an attempt
to define that wholeness. They are seemingly quite different.
The attempt really is to define the wholeness and then of course
once the wholeness is completely totally understood one lives in
definition.
Question:
Then one wouldn't know if one is talking or not?
Answer:
Right. (Neil laughs) Exactly. In talking here we mean more than
a mouth moving and sound coming out.
Question:
And I suppose you could also say between, well, yea, indicative of
dreaming/waking too. One would not know if one, one would be in
a whole state where dreaming/waking would be irrelevant to make
the distinctions between both...
Answer:
There would be no distinction. There are no distinctions at that
point. There are no, the pairs of opposites are resolved.
Waking/dreaming, life/death, there is consciousness only of the
unity of the opposites.
Question:
So all held simultaneously without coercion and all held, not from
the, a single apex but from an understanding of the inner essence
which connects all...
Answer:
Yes. I feel that we are somehow lacking in description of all this
hierarchical thought forming process.
Question:
What do you, are lacking in description?
Answer:
I don't feel that our description has been complete. I'd like to go into
that a little bit more.
Question:
Okay.
Answer:
Language is an attempt to resolve opposites. In other words, if I
speak to you I perceive you as separate from me, just by the act
of needing to speak to communicate with that which is not myself.
So, if you are, if I am and you are not I, then you are opposite...
(tape is turned over)...I was saying that, if I'm speaking to you,
I am I and you are not I. Then I recognize you in my lack of my
I-ness as my opposite, in other words, not I. So that the language
that we normally use, let's say between two beings, two or more
beings, is an attempt to integrate. It is an attempt to overcome
the pairs of opposites. It's an attempt to understand you as I and
I as you. That can be done in many ways in many ways, uh, but
that isn't just the language of love. It is also the language of hate,
the language of anger, the language of frustration. All of those
things that we express are really an attempt to unify. And if I
express to you, for instance, my anger then I am really asking you
a question. I', really asking you to show me that you are not my
opposite.
Question:
I'm very well, I'm aware of that process. That's fascinating. Uh,
I'm going to check the tape for a second. Now, the language...can
you hear me?
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
You were talking about love and the hate and the love and the
expression.
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
That if you do express, that if one does express anger or hate,
it's really a question.
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
And so I take it that it's really an attempt to unify what appears
to be a separate me from you, uh...
Answer:
All communication is really an attempt to unify.
Question:
I'm aware in myself of always a sense that individuality, uh, is
exactly that, but it's to be honored, it's to be exuberantly
expressed. Once that realization is made...
Answer:
Yes. When I talk about resolving the opposites, I'm not really
talking about becoming identical. I'm talking about a recognition,
a kind of consciousness that knows, that is aware, that though
you and I might exhibit many different elements outwardly and
inwardly, we are of the same essence. That's what I'm speaking
about. We're of the same essence. We are, I may be a cell in arm,
you may be a cell in the leg, but we are the same essence of the
same body.
Question:
So then there is a joyful, a joyful, a courageous, joyful celebration..
Answer:
If you would like to see it as such. There is so much to celebrate
if we would just see it as such.
Question:
Why does, why is there such a persistence upon that obscuration,
that division? Why does that persist so much. Is it because of fear?
Fear to touch, fear to reach out, fear to let go? And to embrace?
Answer:
Fear of losing oneself. There is a time in the evolution of things
when the individual is to be celebrated, as you say, to be
applauded, to be recognized, and there is another time in the
process of evolution when that no longer matters. And when it
no longer matter, true unity does occur. But there are many
various stages of unity, of recognition of unity that it is quite
possible on the level that you're talking about to be an
individual and to also recognize unity. To feel unity but not to
wholly live in unity.
Question:
To live wholly in unity would be not standing from a single apex,
I suppose, and there being absolutely no differentiation from the
experience...
Answer:
That's right. That's right. When my experience is in fact your
experience, then it is felt by you in the same way that it is felt by
me. Because it has happened to you as it has happened to me
because we are the same. I am you, you are me.
Question:
And there is but a single individual.
Answer:
And when the higher stages of unity are reached, more and more,
you feel my experience as if it happened to you, because indeed
it has and you know that. You are aware of it as your experience.
You are aware of a nation's experience as your experience.
You are aware of the world's experience as your experience.
There is no differentiation. There is no other. There is no
separation.
Question:
As this grows, as this feeling and this drive and this aspiration
does grow, and it is growing in evolution, there is also at the
same time as this begins to unfold, as this movement begins to
emerge and unfold, is there a clinging at the same time back to
the isolated particle, back to the isolate...
Answer:
Of course. To familiar perceptions. And what can happen is that
unity can be, recognition of unity can be a very even continually
onward motion. More likely, more commonly, there are leaps in
perception. Perception may stay more or less the same for some
time and then something occurs to enable one to have a big leap
of perception. When that happens it's very frightening because
literally the feet leave the ground. Figuratively rather the feet
leave the ground and there's no connection with the earth.
But one can still look down and see the earth and know the earth
but one doesn't feel as personally connected to everything that
happens there.
Question:
So it's like a stretching of the muscles?
Answer:
It is. However that can be at time frightening.
Question:
And that's what's happening now in current, uh, time...
Answer:
Yes, to many, many individuals and therefore, we've spoken
before of the human, the collective human consciousness.
We'll as more and more people are feeling that fright but are at
the same time feeling that increased awareness, then the
entire human consciousness also reflects that.
Question:
I have one more question concerning this. Uh, what brings it to
that point, in perceived time? What brings it to that experience
point, why now and not before? What is the pressing, what is the
catalyst, what is the force which is pressing? Is it the force of the
collective consciousness? Has experiences reached a certain point
where it's time to go on?
Answer:
Yes. Yes, basically what happens is, we've spoken before about,
as consciousness increases, I am more likely to, at least at
moments, experience your experience as my own. Okay, now,
when we are talking about collective human consciousness...as I
become, let's say I as an individual become more finely tuned it
is easier for me to pick up the experiences of all others as my
own, to be aware of it. And that happens throughout the entire
collective human consciousness and that produces movement,
continual movement. We feed upon each other in that way.
We do not feed upon each other, we feed each other that way.
Question:
So we're allowing for a playful expression and exploration of the
interplay of different dimensions of consciousness, bringing them
to conscious focus. For instance, a more dynamic interplay in
dreaming/waking states...
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
Are these sessions evolving, uh, in and of itself?
Answer:
Alright, since my experience is your experience, what do you
think?
Question:
Yes. (laugh)
Answer:
Alright. Then it's so.
Question:
Is Linda, uh, more merged now tonight with this energy? Is the,
is it becoming more unified? As an experience, I know Linda
steps aside, to use that term stepping aside, is that coming to a
point where the energy now in Linda is becoming an inseparable
intertwined unity where there's..I suppose that what I'm saying
is less and less differentiation as this perceived time goes on?
Answer:
Yes, as I mentioned in another session, sessions vary in nature
because there's a different collection, a different point within the
collective consciousness that you're drawing from and the
relationship among the three, you, Linda and the third will vary
from time to time but basically, probably it will be more a single
unit, not just the third and Linda that are involved.
Question:
And then unfolding from there?
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
So it's really a play, it's really a dance, it's really...
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
But it's having the, in personality terms, it's having the courage
to engage in such a play.
Answer:
Yes, for an example, you perceive that you're asking a question.
Who's asking a question? It's, are you originating the question?
Or does something that I communicate to you on a different
level cause you to ask that question. Does Linda's desire to
have the question asked influence you in a different manner
so that you then ask the question? Does your question
influence the answer? Is the answer coming from Linda,
is the answer coming from the third, is the answer coming
from you?
Question:
It's a charade to satisfy all parts concerned!
Answer:
Yes, so...
Question:
So they may be content and perceive, and perceive in their
terms...(laughs).
Answer:
Precisely.
Question:
But I suppose if the interplay between all which is the joyful
dance between, it becomes a tool rather than a necessity.
Answer:
Yes. There is no separation but as long as separation is
perceived, then there will be the dance and there will be the
dialogue.
Question:
And that has brought us one step closer now.
Answer:
Yes. Yes.
Question:
One final question.
Answer:
Yes?
Question:
Uh, when, and we're very shortly about to do, Linda awakens,
comes, why is there the, what is the, can you explain the nature
of the experience and sensation, why the prolongation of, of the
process of hypnosis used to induce a peaceful state when the
same time is spent coming out of the state....there's an anxiety
or there's a...
Answer:
Yes. I can explain. We spoke earlier about sublimating the
physical energies...it's almost as if they're compressed. In other
words, physical energies are always giving off, dispersing.
Energy comes in, energy goes out and so forth. When we calm
the body and we calm the physical energies, we are essentially
compressing it. It does not give off nearly as much, do you
understand?
Question:
Yes.
Answer:
Alright. So that, when all of a sudden you allow the physical
energy to be totally present, then in other words you say, uh,
one, two three presto it's free again, it's almost like an
explosion because what's been compressed, what's been kept
entirely still, with no focus, with no consciousness really
directed toward it, it's reintroduced and it heats up.
Question:
Is that a natural physical, I mean could that actually be
physically recorded if one wanted to do so. Is that an actual
change in the cells. Is that perceivable?
Answer:
I'm certain that the body temperature could be measured and a
difference be found. But the feeling to the entity experiencing it
is one of heat. It's literally almost an explosion. So if all of a
sudden you see the difference between a short period of breaking
the state and a longer period is the following. If you spend a lot of
time coming out. breaking the state of consciousness, you speak
about the body, you focus entirely upon it and that heats it up
even more, where a shorter period of time is best.
Question:
There's no build-up.
Answer:
Because there's no focus upon it, there's no intent. Such a strong
amount of intent focused upon the physical...
Question:
Okay, so in this way that you're speaking about there's an
immediate, it's almost as there was no return.
Answer:
Yes, that's right.
Question:
It's immediate.
Answer:
Yes. Immediate, almost immediate is best, where there is not
prolonged attention.
Question:
Right. Okay.
Answer:
Probably counting from zero to three with a short statement
ahead of time would best.
Question:
Okay, that is what we're gonna do now.
Dialogue: November 9, 1988
Dialogue between Neil and Linda about a session just completed.
Both Neil and Linda neglected to turn on the dictaphone switch on
properly thereby getting no recorded sound.
Linda:
Tell me what it said. Let's get it down right now. Let's just talk about
it.
Neil:
You were in infinity. My questions weren't very concise. But you
had difficulty answering them for reasons that you stated were
infinite and you wanted to go along with the macrocosmic.
Linda:
That's what it said, that I was in a "macrocosmic mood"?
Neil:
Right.
Linda:
Okay,then we talked about, and this doesn't matter because it'll
come up again... we talked about the time thing and how all the
elements are squished up to a point...
Neil:
We talked about the twelve elements...
Linda:
Something being born...
Neil:
You talked about the twelve elements and the conversion..
Linda:
Points between the two sides being the apex or whatever and the
point belonging to both sides. But that'll all come up again. Uh, we
talked about the apple analogy.
Neil:
The apple was the take-off point for what was...
Linda:
Okay, definition of apple versus "real" apple.
Neil:
The apple was an example use of how ideas basically how we
separate in terms of our language, in terms of our mind. Idea from
its actual form. And where, let's go back a second. Also, in the place
that you were of infinity, this comes to mind now, time didn't exist.
Not even a concept to the presence there.
Linda:
Right. Because that side was in the eternal now.
Neil:
Yea, there were two side you made very comparative. Time was
one side of the eternal now. You have the symbol of infinity, field
perspective..
Linda:
Field direction, yea.
Neil:
And field direction and how they interrelate. And the apple
example was how we could have the idea of the apple and then
hold the physical apple. We could not imagine a turquoise apple
because if we imagined an apple being turquoise it would be a
different type of, it would be a different object if it was turquoise.
Linda:
So its definition limits it, it has boundaries around it. Although that
wasn't really said.
Neil:
Yea. And its, now you presented the question and then addressed
it. You presented the question, the idea of the apple and the actual
apple, what came first?
Linda:
We need to think that the definition and the possibility comes first
but it doesn't.
Neil:
And that in a very eloquent way, you went on to say that it's
simultaneous. And so we come into being, and this is where my
writing comes in that I did tonight and before you addressed it.
We came into being, we don't come into being, that all elements
are already self-contained, self-born. They're self-born elements.
They don't come into being. There's no conflict, there's no dualities,
there's no separation... It's absolutely....you don't recall...
Linda:
Yea. I do recall that.
Neil:
It's an absolutely simultaneous creation.
Linda:
Yea, I said spontaneous, instantaneous.
Neil:
Yes. So we don't perceive the apple/idea together as one.
And that's direct cognition. We perceive an idea as separate
from apple. We perceive an idea separate from this. There is
an absolute, direct cognition. There is not that separation.
And things appear out of nothing. Absolute nothing.
Linda:
Okay, now that's a different thing. Let's go on to what was said in the
instructions. As I recall, it was sort of like the instructions were
telling us how to be a turquoise apple. In other words, how to go
beyond the limits of our own definition which is human.
Neil:
By jumping into our own intuition.
Linda:
Uh-huh.
Neil:
By jumping into our own intuition, by having our waking days, you
said...in the middle of the waking days to form a question.
Linda:
To form the questions....
Neil:
To form the questions. And narrow it down at the same time and
jump into them intuitively.
Linda:
Either through questions or not.
Neil:
That came later. Answer them from a point which is nonhuman
within ourselves, the point of intuition, the point of the immediate,
the point of direct cognition.
Linda:
Uh-huh. The instructions were rather lengthy, weren't they?
Neil:
Yes.
Linda:
And you didn't say anything in the meantime. It just went on and on
and on, right?
Neil:
At least over ten minutes.
Linda:
Really?
Neil:
Yea.
Linda:
Talking? You're kidding.
Neil:
No, as a matter of fact, this whole session you did all the talking.
Linda:
And we lost it.
Neil:
We didn't really lose it. That the third, you see I got the sense that
the third is not, would no longer be necessary.
Linda:
Oh, that's right. That's a layer. The human consciousness is a layer.
Neil:
It's a layer...
Linda:
And it fine to identify and answer the questions of humanness.
Oh, I remember what it said. When you get into, in order to even do
that completely you really have to understand what that side is so
that it can be applied to it. And in order to do that you have to go
beyond that layer of human consciousness. Not necessarily above,
but you have to be able to leave it alone and get outside it.
Neil:
Is that why perhaps I didn't turn on the session? Because that
(laugh)...
Linda:
Well, I don't know. That may be a reason or it...I don't know.
Neil:
To jump into that intuition without depending upon it.
Linda:
No, I don't think that. I think maybe that, you know, I don't know,
that way I'm feeling that the whole thing is a hoax or something like
that, you know, and if I had listened to it I might have...how do you
think I would have felt if I had listened to it? That it was a hoax?
Neil:
Just the opposite.
Linda:
Really.
Neil:
Yea. What you experienced was almost, it wasn't Linda stepping
aside. Okay.
Linda:
No, it wasn't.
Neil:
It was air. It was done in air. It was done in infinity. That's why you
feel that it was nothing. Because it was...it was almost as if there was
a transparency.
Linda:
I did. I felt like I could go from the beginning and just whip through
all the material. I really did.
Neil:
There was an absolute. There was a transparency which was
absolute.
Linda:
I...(unclear)..at that in the beginning. I almost just started doing it.
You know, in the beginning of the session, I almost...after your
question there as a silence.
Neil:
Oh, yes a long silence.
Linda:
And I almost just began the material.
Neil:
What material? By yourself?
Linda:
Just sort of dictating the material.
Neil:
There was an absolute transparency.
Linda:
I think maybe I'd like to forget about this session and see what
happens in the next session.
Neil:
Now. The instructions were about how the third is an intermediate
and how it would be done immediately.
Linda:
Oh, it said it will be done as if it was a fait accompli.
Neil:
It will be done through trial and error.
Linda:
I remember. I said something about it will be done through error,
then trials. In other words, we will feel on trial sort of when we
make error and all that kind of thing and when we'll have to, you
know, just keep going but sooner or later it will be sort of....it will
become clearer. Like a crab on the ocean, uh, like a crab on the
beach.
Neil:
Right.
Linda:
And we may do that with errors and revisions, etc. And all that,
in other words, I think it's telling us not to be afraid to make
mistakes. Not to be afraid to have ideas that may not hold up
for us later on. Because it's a process. In other words, it was
describing a process, yet, I can't even say that I. I was
describing the process.
Neil:
And also that there would be a merging of, of Neil/Linda and all this
would be done on this basis.
Linda:
Oh, yea, that was very clear.
Neil:
On the writing basis.
Linda:
It didn't say that. It said it may be done through sessions or not.
It doesn't matter. The sessions are fine, remember?
Neil:
I'm saying, it was saying it would be done through the....the way I
gathered was the abolishing of all opposites, of all opposites, of all
dualities. There would no longer need to be a third because there
ualities. There would no longer need to be a third because there
will be an absolute merging.
Linda:
Right. It said that there would be a third but it would be symbolic
only.
Neil:
Yea, exactly.
Linda:
You know, as anything we would create would be something else, but
it wouldn't emanate from a third.
Neil:
Yea, that is the most important. Almost as though we become the
direct incarnation.
Linda:
I also know that it's something that I'm not used to doing because
when I first got into all this I used to get headaches and so forth
afterward and I have that same headache.
Neil:
Maybe because my question were....
Linda:
No. No, no, no. Just because it's a strain to do this. Because it was
coming from me, taxing my capabilities. I'm not built to do this.
A human being is not built to do this.
Neil:
To handle that energy.
Linda:
That's right. Now, when I'm displaced and the third is speaking and
all that, well, no big deal.
Neil:
You weren't displaced this time.
Linda:
No, I wasn't displaced. I knew it.
Neil:
You were infinity itself speaking?
Linda:
No. Yea,, whatever.
Neil:
There wasn't a displacement.
Linda:
No, there wasn't a displacement.
Neil:
That's why you feel that it was a hoax. You feel it in a sense
because well, where were you? You feel it was nothing.
Linda:
I didn't have the clout, you know, that a third could give me.
Neil:
Exactly.
Linda:
Uh-huh, I was completely dependent on myself in that instance.
Well, you too, but without that other worldly kind of idea, that
higher being idea.
Neil:
Right.
Linda:
Which is where I think a lot of people do get stuck, Neil.
Neil: Well, you said that.
Linda:
I did?
Neil:
Yea. No, no, you get stuck in a human con...but I related it to that.
Linda:
Yea, no, no, I did too. I did too, yes I understand, I heard that.
I heard that. You know with some of these mediums and...
Neil:
But you didn't say that. I felt that. Wait a minute, there's a dual
communication going on. You said about human consciousness,
how people get stuck, but that was...
Linda:
That's what I meant.
Neil:
That's what I thought you meant.
Linda:
(laugh) That's what I meant, that's what you heard, but that's not
what I said.
Neil:
But that's what I heard.
Linda:
are you sure I didn't say it?
Neil:
Yea, but that's what I heard.
Linda:
Okay.
Neil:
You did say it. (note: here I meant that it didn't matter whether
it was "spoken" or not, the intent was heard and abolished the
dualism of spoken or not spoken)
Linda:
That's still a shame that we lost it. However, I think we've got most of
it, don't you think? Can you think of anything else?
Neil:
I'm just thinking that hearing it might...
Linda:
Might what?
Neil:
Provide the sensational feedback.
Linda:
That we don't want?
Neil:
No, that you would recognize it, you would recognize, it would spark
the more immediate feeling of what actually transpired.
Linda:
Well, yea, I see what you mean.
Neil:
Were you being animated?
Linda:
What do you mean?
Neil:
As opposed to stepping aside? As though you were a variant.
Linda:
Of myself?
Neil:
Of infinity A variation in infinity.
Linda:
Yea, that's right, uh-huh.
Neil:
Without distinction. So there was no stepping aside because there
was infinity perpetually before time. That's how you started it....
before time. Time had no meaning to you.
Linda:
Yea, it's true. That's one way that I know it was legitimate.
Neil:
Yea, time had no meaning for you. You couldn't understand the
questions because it was like chatter which didn't register.
Linda:
That's it. That's exactly what it was like.
Neil:
It was chatter. And my questions were chatter and I know that
they weren't concise at all.
Linda:
No, but the fact is that that's what we've been doing. Those
questions, answers to those questions, and then you know
more questions from you based on my answers and on and on
so, you know, we were satisfied with that kind of chatter before.
Neil:
We've know that we've used a third, we've always know what
third represented was a symbol.
Linda:
Yea, it was....
Neil:
It wasn't personified.
Linda:
No, it was never personified but just the fact that I could step
aside meant there was something there. It wasn't a being, no.
Neil:
But, what happened now is that, okay, you stepped aside....when
there was the third you stepped aside figuratively speaking.
Here, the third stepped aside.
Linda:
You're right. You're right, that's what happened.
Neil:
The symbol stepped aside and was infinity. Almost without a
symbol. that's why time didn't have any meaning. Time itself
is a translation, is a symbol. There was infinity without time.
Linda:
I remember telling you that precisely half the elements are on one
side of time and all the other elements are on the other side.
Neil:
That's right.
Linda:
And all the elements that precede time are not dependent upon
time actually..are in a single point.
Neil:
And time is one side?
Linda:
See, I've always thought of it as the elements being up here up
here at "existence" and just kind of going through all these
elements and then....but, you know the standard physics picture
of it is really closer.
Neil:
Right.
Linda:
You know, that...boom. Bang and there's this time, there's, you
know...
Neil:
Instantaneous.
Linda:
Uh-huh. Interesting though that space exists before that. It does.
It's was over here, it exists before that.
Neil:
You never told me that. Sound, psychic sound.
Linda:
What did I say about it? I don't think... you asked me something
about psychic sound.
Neil:
Sound can't be translated if you want a pure...translation. You can't
talk about it in terms of time. It is before time. Sound is before
time.
Linda:
Right. I have a feeling, you know, just as we talk in the human sense
of there being sort of lower, not lower, but you know, more
mundane emotions or goings on..
Neil:
I don't like the way you term them mundane because even you
yourself said that they were, you made it a point to say.....
Linda:
Things that are experienced daily, psychologically and then there's
the higher counterpart we talked about, you know, what we mean
by forgiveness here and what we mean by forgiveness there.
Personal love versus universal love, that there's always a
counterpart. I won't say higher but there's always a counterpart.
I think that same kind of counterpart exists between the universe's
left brain and right brain. In other words, the elements that precede
time and the elements that don't. Half and half. In other words, you
got time over here and over here it talks about the eternal now.
That relates to time, but that's not time like we know it. That's the
counterpart of time. And I just saw that.
Neil:
It's a reflection. It;s a mirror reflection, like holding...
Linda:
Yea. I just saw that on one of the other elements too. I think that
sound, okay, sound as we know it in the physical sense takes up time
doesn't it. T-h-e takes a certain amount of time to sound. Okay,
psychic sound is the higher counterpart of that.
Neil:
Like time, okay.
Linda:
Uh-huh. Just as just as a sound coming out of our, emanating from
our mouths is an expression....
Neil:
That's very interesting.
Linda:
...the physical universe emanates from this sound.
Neil:
That's how they could merge and that's also related to the analogy
of the apple and the idea.
Linda:
Yea.
Neil:
You named three...time, the apple and sound. All those three
analogies are related. So sound...
Linda:
I'm guessing and I don't know this. I don't know this, but I'm
guessing that the counterpart of matter might be space.
Neil:
Why am I getting anti-matter?
Linda:
That's still matter.
Neil:
No, but I know...
Linda:
But we're not getting opposites here. We're getting counterparts.
In other words, if we have sound on this side and psychic sound
over here, they're not opposites. They're counterparts. They're
related.
Neil:
But they never do merge.
Linda:
Just like the eternal now here and time here, they are related.
Neil:
They do merge but the only way to explain it's merging is direct
intuition, direct cognition. It cannot be explained. Do they merge
or not. Yes, but no.
Linda:
Yea, well precisely so.
Neil:
Yes, but no.
Linda:
But I'm just wondering, I want to hold that point, you know, for later.
That space might be the counterpart of matter. I believe it might.
You know it's almost like...
Neil:
An inversion.
Linda:
Yea, it peels out. Space and matter are at opposite corners of the
twelve. And then we have psychic sound and time sitting right there
together. If we peeled it open that;s what we would get. And it you
kept peeling out this way, space and matter. And if you peeled the
energies you'd get random and psychic energy interfacing with
perception and physical energy interfacing as counterparts. But it's
all closed up like this against this point and you peel it like that, that's
what you would get. I don't know if that holds or not...I want to think
about this later.
Neil:
It does. That point is where you were before those translations and
descriptions are necessary.
Linda:
I don't know, yea, that point, uh-huh.
Neil:
That point.
Linda:
Not entirely, but I was a lot there. I was looking around. I was walking
in a room and I was looking around it. And I might have not been in it
but I was looking around it.
Neil:
Sound like the third and you were being merged and were being
spoken for.
Linda:
Yea, but, yea I like your thing about being merged. It's interesting.
But you know one thing I recognized, and I didn't tell you about this,
but when you were first, when you were counting backwards and
telling me that I was going into infinity with each number and
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, uh, I had this flash of something that I
had seen one time in a regression after I died. There was that
very, very, dark indigo blue. Indigo blue when you mentioned
infinity and so forth, that's what I saw, just like what I saw after
a death one time. It was the same thing, it was the same feeling
of almost being speechless, of seeing it all but not being able to
define it. It was almost a deja vu in a way.
Neil:
Infinity and time did not meet then. It cannot be explained in
terms of time. They meet but they don't meet. I want to get back
to the sound.
Linda:
Oh, yea, you did ask that. You asked if time is infinite and I said that
infinity is a quality about time and I said that time is a quality about
infinity, but they are not each other.
Neil:
Yea, well, right, I know. I wanted you to say that. I know that. That's
why I asked, I just wanted you to say something about that. The sound,
I see something very interesting about that sound. I'm almost when it
was used, I mean how. I see. When we make a sound...
Linda:
An expression.
Neil:
An expression.
Linda:
But it take up time, on that side it doesn't take up time.
Neil:
Okay. As the intent to speak....
Linda:
Well, it's like, you know...
Neil:
So what is the point? Can you imagine the point? Imagine a line
going to infinite (unclear)...which is infinite and then a sound or
time emerges from that. That's a translation. But you were that
line before the translation was being made into a sound or into time.
Linda:
Wait a minute. I just saw something. This was my first inkling
about space. In physics we think about space being there, you know,
ready to be occupied by matter. Whenever there is matter it
occupies space. That's the relation basically, in terms of physics.
However, matter if we think about them in counterparts, it's
almost like matter, that space is an etheric shell around a piece of
matter.
Neil:
Not a shell.
Linda:
It's an inverse.
Neil:
That;s what I just said before.
Linda:
I mean, if you had an apple here and you have space all around it,
well obviously the apple does occupy space. But space is around
the apple. If all of a sudden you were to just remove the apple...
Neil:
Isn't that the inverse of the idea?
Linda:
It doesn't leave a hole but conceptually. Only conceptually because
we're not talking physically really.
Neil:
What is the inverse of the idea? Is it the manifestation of the apple?
Linda:
Yea. I've got to get those writings out about the apple that I did
some time ago and I have to refine it and build a case around the
apple. We could use an apple and explain the whole universe.
Absolutely.
Neil:
So sounds can be translated before the physical manifestation appears.
Linda:
Yes.
Neil:
And communicated with....between beings.
Linda:
Right. It's almost like sound can go through. Sound can exist and
communication can happen without the time it takes to physically
express.
Neil:
Manifest.
Linda:
Yes. I'm thinking the same thing with space. Somehow matter can
actually, you know, without being present be....
Neil:
Translated and communicated back and forth.
Linda:
In the space. In the space. Uh, something about that. This is
very important stuff because it is primary. It is elementary.
Neil:
You said this was the beginning.
Linda:
It is.
Neil:
You said this was the beginning.
Yea, it is.
Neil:
Sound could be translated before the physical manifestation.
Linda:
Uh-huh, instantaneous, without taking up any time. It's something
about what Nick told me that that subatomic particle on one side of
the earth corresponded completely, identically with another
subatomic particle on the other side of the earth, meaning that they
were in sync. Without any time of anything else, they both were
simultaneously...
Neil:
There's a direct reflection of what we're talking about here.
Linda:
Uh-huh.
Neil:
So one could translate the counterpart of the physical manifestation
without bothering with the physical manifestation.
Linda:
Say that again.
Neil:
One can translate the counterpart of the physical manifestation
without bothering with the physical manifestation.
Linda:
Yes. Yes, I think so. I think we can just go via the other, uh, the
counterpart. I think we can work through a counterpart as easily
as we can work through the physical manifestation.
Neil:
But they're not separate. But we talk about it now as if they are.
Linda:
It's almost like the psychic sound is the definition of something over
on this side. Its the definition, it's not the physical manifestation.
It's the possibility. Psychic energy is the possibility of random.
perception is the possibility of....
Neil:
Here's this idea. Some consciousness did not....(tape ended)....
would not even perceive a physical universe because they would
perceive....they would be dealing with it more directly in our
terms of talking, in our terms of looking...in our sense they
would be dealing with it more directly because they would be
dealing with the counterpart of physical manifestation. Uh, they
wouldn't even see physical objects. Physical objects would not be
perceived. What would be perceived would be their sound.
The timeless sound, the inaudible sound. Before it manifested.
Linda:
Inverted, invisible spaces. (note: reference to Linda's poem)
Neil:
But at our end we perceive the physical without perceiving the
qualities which manifest it.
Linda:
Right. We are looking at all effect and no causes.
Neil:
It's almost as though we see a flat three-dimensional surface.
Linda:
Uh-huh, that's right.
Neil:
And we don't see the qualities which....
Linda:
You know, in the writing, at the very beginning I was talking about
what the new mathematics would have to be like and I said it would
have to be, and this has always puzzled me, it would have to be
one dimensional. One dimensional. Everybody's always trying to
expand into all these dimensions but I thought it would be one
dimensional.
Neil:
Yea.
Linda:
What is one dimensional?
Neil:
It is the sum total of multi-dimensional.
Linda:
Wait a minute, no. One dimension...if you look at the dimensions and
one goes up and one goes across and one goes...depth...that one
dimensional...which one is it? It's not any of those. One dimensional
math...I understand what I wrote in 1978.
Neil:
It doesn't have any particular qualities. It doesn't have any particular
qualities.
Linda:
That's right. It is. And how do you describe that? (laugh)
Neil:
You don't. You don't.
Linda:
I also said it would be based on zero.
Neil:
What were you talking about...the squishing of things,
the compression?
Linda:
Yes.
Neil:
Well, that's a reflection of what this is. That's a physical reflection
of what this is.
Linda:
Probably this dialog, this discussion you see, is probably what was
insinuated by the session. Because if we had the session on tape,
we wouldn't be having this dialog. Dialog, you see can go farther.
In other words, that's precisely what was hinted at. In other words,
we're doing the session now. (both laugh) That wasn't the session...
this is the session. And we were being told, well okay, we won't even
have this session to depend on, to sit back and listen and comment
on.
Neil:
That's what I just told you before. I was just asking...you don't
remember me asking you that? Just before? You don't remember
me saying that? I just said that to you before. On the other side of
this tape.
Linda:
Uh-huh. Okay, I'm ready to quit now.
Neil:
No. A little bit more.
Linda:
I haven't anything more to say.
Neil:
I do.
Linda:
I'm ending this session. (laughs)
Neil:
No.
Linda:
There isn't anything else to say at this time. There will be.
Session: November 24, 1988 (approximately)
(Much of the session is obscured by static. There are many spaces.)
Neil:
(after Linda described the sensation of flying over mountains and
green grass)...
Symbolically, did it represent a passage to a space you're now in?
Linda:
Yes.
Neil:
Are there any, are there any colors or sounds in the place now.
Linda:
Not now.
Neil:
Okay.
Linda:
There was also the.....sensation that you're very far away. It's almost
as if you are a projected image.
Neil:
As though I am a projected image?
Linda:
Yes...(unclear)..and you're the distance that we assume you to be
from me and then very suddenly you are way, way far away. The
same image, but as if you are projected on a light screen.
Neil:
The distance has to to do with psychological distance?
Linda:
No.
Neil:
I mean...inner, some type of inner psychic proportional distance in
terms of...
Linda:
Yes. But you see, you are the same in relation to me...(unclear)...
when you are seemingly hundreds of feet away or only two. It's just
an interesting phenomena.
Neil:
Oh well, I see you, I see you physically and I do not directly perceive
the same perceptual distance in terms of the psychic space, in terms
of the particular space.
Linda:
Yes. It's as though you are one-dimensional.
Neil:
Is what I'm projecting, is my image of myself what I'm projecting
perhaps one-dimensional? And you're see how I construct my
reality of images?
Linda:
Actually, it's...(unclear)...
Neil:
Can you elaborate upon that? That is what the focus of tonight's...
Linda:
(unclear)....and in a dream we feel that we are in the three
dimensions. Most of the time that we experience during the waking
state as well. Although the events and activities within the dream
may be different, we still basically feel that we're in three
dimensions. It's analogous to trying to imagine that you have a
universe, and we'll use the twelve elements, and to say that we
understand these twelve elements is as if we tried to construct an
element in our minds that has absolutely nothing to do with the
universe as we know it. In other words, to construct something so
completely foreign....(unclear)...and...
Neil:
So we interpret it in our three-dimensional sense?
Linda:
Yes. I mean, is we were to try to construct the thirteenth element
or something that goes beyond the physical space and energy as
we know, beyond perception even, it would be a very difficult if
not impossible thing to do.
Neil:
Is it because it's not upon a mentalized basis as we understand it?
It's upon a, it's totally within non-mentalized proportions,
non-mentalized dimension.
Linda:
Yes, it is. It's....
Neil:
It's difficult to even put into words...
Linda:
Yes. Back to the dream state....it's very difficult, or it would be very
difficult while in a dream to experience the dream one-dimensionally.
Because we don't understand one dimension. We understand
three dimensions. We understand the possibility of four
dimensions. We don't understand one dimension.
Neil:
What is one dimension? Is one dimension as you talked about
previously?
Linda:
Yes, but that really is more than one dimension.
Neil:
Yes, understood. Understood.
Linda:
(Unclear)...remember that unless it is, it is one dimensional in terms
that it's an image.
Neil:
Right. And with that one dimension it implies with that
comprehension of that, one dimension implies a greater mobility.
Linda:
Greater Flexibility.
Neil:
Such as tonight.
Linda:
Yes.
Neil:
So also there is no need for dreaming within that particular state, that
particular space you speak of. There is no need for dreaming as in
former terms, in three-dimensional terms.
Linda:
No, although possibly the image, the one-dimensional image of you is,
could be considered my form of dreaming or imagination.
Neil:
But if I changed my perception of how I am constructing my reality,
would that, would you perceive corresponding difference?
Linda:
Possibly not.
Neil:
So all this, all this implies a direct intuitive approach to understanding
this and understanding the one dimension.
Linda:
Would you repeat that please?
Neil:
I have a different...forget that...in the last few moments where
have...when I am not, when I am not speaking to you what
information are you processing? Are you processing any
information?
Linda:
Yes, at the moment I seem to be interested this evening in
phenomena. And I was processing the sensations of my hands.
I have an awareness of my left arm from the elbow down and of my
right hand and they seem to be suspended in space. Not connected
fully with anything else, not actually touching anything and a
singular awareness, an awareness of them as isolated matter, I
suppose you could. I have no sensation in any of the rest of my body,
only the the one arm and the hand.
Neil:
Is that a psychic inter...is that a psychic interpretation or a psychic
concentration. Is that, is that an actual state of construction from the
place that you're speaking from?
Linda:
I am aware of them as energy. And I see them...with a light aura.
Neil:
As we become more aware of the flexibility of consciousness, do we
manipulate what you are saying, what you are experiencing.
Linda:
Apparently so. I am not quite certain why the emphasis is upon
phenomena but I'm aware now that it has been there from the
moment this session began. The image of the western scene, the
one-dimensional image of you and the variations in distance and
now the image of the hands and the arm being disassociated from
the body or any other bit of matter or nonmatter. I'm not certain
why there's this focus of events.
Neil:
In waking we see the three-dimensional formation of events...in
waking perception as we generally interpret it, we see the, we see,
we don't see the greater patterns in energy. Is it a more delightful
place than dreaming?
Linda:
It's just different.
Neil:
Have I changed, how you see me now? Since the beginning of the
session...
Linda:
No. There's a very wide swing in the way you were seem at the
beginning of the session. Now....
Neil:
Could all this be done in waking?
Linda:
It's unlikely that it would be.
Neil:
Why is that? Is it because the concentration is so taken up?
(After long pause)...Can you still hear me?
Linda:
Yes.
Neil:
What are you doing?
Linda:
(After a long pause)...perhaps we could redirect this session.
Neil:
I would like, I would like to talk about the, uh, some of the
comments that you made from a session before when you were
in infinity if you comment from the place that you are now,
if you have a more direct perception of that and....I'm wondering, uh,
if the session are better spent....there's a question as to whether or
not there's more, more, of a complete focus if done in the waking
state rather than through the session. Can you comment about that?
Linda:
We should terminate this session?
Neil:
Okay.
Dialog about the session:
Linda:
Especially at the end, I couldn't even hear you.
Neil:
You couldn't hear me at all?
Linda:
I could hear you speaking, but I couldn't...
Neil:
Again, you couldn't translate what I was saying?
Linda:
No, but it was different that last time.
Neil:
How so? More personal? You still maintained the voice, I mean
you still maintained an "I". There was more flexibility.
Linda:
(Unclear)...I'm not sure that I want to write this down. I understood
myself to be a being of light and I can't explain that.
Neil:
I can tell you some of the things if you like. That your hands, that
you started to see your hands....
Linda:
(Unclear)... at the end I became completely absorbed in it. I saw
myself as indigo blue outlined in white light. In the white light..
and the image was rather vague, it was, you know, just the outline
of a being and I knew it was me and I didn't know what that meant.
Neil:
Like the western scene at first?
Linda:
Yes. let me get back to this light thing and that part of me, I think,
that was interpreting this and so forth. Whoa, wait a minute here.
Neil:
The words didn't suffice the experience which kept expanding.
Linda:
Yea, it kept expanding and I saw...
Neil:
It was more that..you could translate into words.
Linda:
It was more that..you could translate into words.
Linda:
Yes, and I wanted to....I don't know.
Neil:
You wanted to what?
Linda:
I wanted to keep away from the idea of specialness.
Neil:
Have I/
Linda:
Uh-huh.
Neil:
Yea, so did I.
Linda:
What do you mean?
Neil:
I didn't feel like saying where did you appear and where are you
and this and that.
Linda:
Why is that? Why did you feel that way?
Neil:
The fact that what are you doing is related to language structure
and "I" and you know it goes beyond that and that's limiting it to,
that's trying to limit it to the words of an "I".
Linda:
Do you know what I almost felt it was like and I thing that this was
a valuable experience. I felt that I got on this different plane and
it's called "astral plane" and so forth by various people. I felt like
I was on the astral plane somehow, that I sort of got caught
between.
Neil:
Between?
Linda:
I don't know.
Neil:
Between what? Between the physical and the astral?
Linda:
No, between the physical and...
Neil:
Infinity.
Linda:
Yea,between the finite and the infinite, you know, finite meaning
being, you know, human beings, blah, blah, blah. And then, you
know transcending that. It was almost like I was going through
layers and I got stuck at one of them. And what I was seeing
there I could very much believe is what a lot of other people see,
a lot of authors and so forth who have these experiences.
I understand that now.
Neil:
What are you seeing?
Linda:
Well, all the images that I was playing with. I was out there
playing with physical phenomena. And I was completely
emeshed in it, and absorbed in it and absorbed in it. Seeing
myself as a being of light and so forth, you know, that's a very
powerful image and one could definitely get hung up on that
image.
Neil:
Which you don't want.
Linda:
No.
Neil:
But you could see how a lot of people do?
Linda:
Yea. And I explored it enough to know what that is.
Neil:
It's a play, similar to what we do in our dreams, only a more
mature form of play..(unclear)....
Linda:
Yea, a more mature form and therefore, we're much more likely
to take it seriously.
Neil:
Ah-hah!
Linda:
So that when...
Neil:
Does...(unclear)...from a more conscious presence?
Linda:
That's right. So let;'s say that when a person says that an entity is
writing through them and all that kind of thing, that comes from fear
and this is extremely important, do you understand?
Neil:
Yes, exactly for that reason.
Linda:
Yea, exactly and I understand it completely. In other words, I was
out there playing around and it was, it was more like something was
playing with me.
Neil:
So taken one step further...
Linda:
I had no control.
Neil:
Taken one step further, this is the place or the space where entities
introduce themselves by name or there appears a name and there's
an entity speaking through..
Linda:
Yes, I think so. I think so. I wonder what that place is. It's being
caught and there are all of these images flying around.
Neil:
This is the place of channeling? Where the different entities..
Linda:
I won't say it's the only place, but it's one of the places.
Neil:
And isn't it colored by the, uh, personality? So therefore it's always
distorted to some extent?
Linda:
I think so. I'm trying to think if my personality could have been
involved in that.
Neil:
How about used as a translation?
Linda:
Yes, I mean the images that were produced are not something that
I've thought of before or that I've seen in dreams or that have
occurred to me.
Neil:
No, but your consciousness is an integral part.
Linda:
Yes.
Neil:
Or that...in other words, hypothetically, there's a person who is
religiously oriented and who has the flexibility of consciousness
to go to that space and then it comes through and would be
colored by a religious tint.
Linda:
Uh-huh, and of course, you know since, you know, I've thought so
much about light and all of that before and seen other images with
light and everything and here that's the way I would probably see
something, yes.
Neil:
And the information, uh, would be valid but in a certain sense valid.
It's still tinted. Biased.
Linda:
Yes, I think so. I'd like to think about that. But yes I think it would
be biased. I hesitate to make a judgment about the value of that
place.
Neil:
Okay, so what did you see, you saw a point beyond it? That you
didn't know what you wanted to enter into.
Linda:
Exactly, when I started to see myself as a being of light and so forth...
Neil:
Is that the point beyond it?
Linda:
Uh-huh.
Neil:
And you were beginning to expand?
Linda:
I was beginning to expand, I was beginning to take that image of the
being of light or to feel that image, to go with it and I realized I would
have to become, I was becoming completely absorbed in that image
which was an image of myself. And that's not what I wanted to do.
Neil:
An image of yourself?
Linda:
Yes. I, I am not here to glorify the self. That's not what I want to do.
Neil:
You mean it would have been in conjunction with your personality?
Linda:
Yes, I think it's possible that as I saw that being and so forth, that it's
something I could have put a name to ultimately if I had continued
with it.
Neil:
Like an entity?
Linda:
Yea, exactly.
Neil:
So is that the point where...
Linda:
Yea, I think that, you know, it's very possible that I was the center
of the being and then, you know, the light radiating around it, that I
could have...for instance, and I'm not sure of this, but for instance I
could have eventually have seen that as an interchangeable self.
Neil:
And spoken as another self?
Linda:
Possible so.
Neil:
That's the part that you didn't want to enter into.
Linda:
That's right.
Neil:
Would you have been in control over it, I mean, as far as you're
concerned? You said you wanted to stop the session. Was it
because...
Linda:
I felt that I was losing control. It was going on without me. The
images and so forth were actually going on without me. The images
and so forth were actually going on without me.
Neil:
So it went to aura and the beyond, playing with that, to a point
where there would be a possibility where another self or entity or
energy was speaking through you.
Linda:
I could feel the acceleration. I was feeling the acceleration toward
something like that although I can't name it.
Neil:
But it was an acceleration in a process, it was in..
Linda:
Yes.
Neil:
Almost as though you were going through the internal digestive
system of another entity.
Linda:
Yea, and I didn't feel that it was my process, that I was partaking
of a process but it wasn't mine. It was an illustration. We've been
contemplating quite a lot lately about the third or about going to the
infinite place or about from where to speak. This is another
possibility of from where to speak. It was an illustration.
Neil:
There's this place to speak and there's that place to speak and so on.
Linda:
And there are probably a number of others and so what we have to
do is find where does our voice come from and where do we wish to
speak from and then become consistent with that. I found one that
I did not want.
Neil:
oh, what do you mean?
Linda:
This one, yes.
Neil:
This is a disassociation, wouldn't you say? From the infinite would be
another one, you know.
Linda:
Yes.
Neil:
It was?
Linda:
Wait a minute. What do you mean by disassociation?
Neil:
Disassociation in the sense that, uh, that the work would be more
fully done in...
Linda:
Oh, I didn't realize, again I can't make a judgment about that.
I suppose if we do this three more times and something like this
happens three more times...I suppose
Neil:
But you don't know what you would have said if another voice came
through yourself.
Linda:
No, I don't. I wasn't interested in finding out.
Neil:
That it would be biased through your personality.
Linda:
I'm not certain even that another voice would have spoken. I'm
saying it was that kind of setup, I think where I was starting to see
myself as special. Not special in terms of being more special than
other people, but I was getting really very much involved in the
"I"ness of it.
Neil:
The "I"ness?
Linda:
What I am and that's not where...
Neil:
But it was, it was impersonal, that energy, wasn't it?
Linda:
No, not so impersonal.
Neil:
You mean it was becoming an I?
Linda:
Yea, it was becoming my "I".
Neil:
With its energy.
Linda:
Uh-huh.
Neil:
And you're not certain what?
Linda:
And I'm not certain, that's not what I want to do. Don't ask me why,
that's just not what I want to do. I think it is being done enough.
Neil:
You mean other people, channels....
Linda:
Yea, I'm not going to denigrate...
Neil;
We're more interested in the dynamics of....
Linda:
Of consciousness, not unconsciousness.
Neil:
So that's a form of unconsciousness?
Linda:
I think it is. For me it would be.
Neil:
I think it's portraying, I think it's like if you take a light and you shot
it through the internal digestive system of the, of the mind, and I
think that's what's happening with a lot of these channels and that
was an illustration too. It's like taking a light and shining it into the
interior space and we're not interested in the..interior space but
consciousness itself.
Linda:
Right.
Neil:
Which contains all these.
Linda:
Yep. Okay, you can turn it off.
Session: December 10, 1988
Question:
What space are you in tonight?
Answer:
I'm not certain yet.
Question:
Are you in the place?
Answer:
I think you should take me deeper.
Question:
Okay. (and Neil does)
Question:
Does the place you're in now have any shape or colors?
Answer:
No, concepts. I'm in a place of concepts. We usually focus upon
the being of an inner place. This time we'll focus upon the concepts
available to any being of any focus.
Question:
What kind of concepts? Concepts of...
Answer:
It's actually one large concept and we can split it off depending on
the questions that you ask.
Question:
So any question asked is within the realm you're in....the concepts
are there?
Answer:
Yes. For instance, when you were counting backwards I found
myself wandering to the concept of a flower.
Question:
What did it look like? The concept of a flower.
Answer:
Yes. The concept of a flower with lots of petals, kind of a daisy-
looking flower. But I saw it very quickly and identified it and
then reached into the concept, not into the image.
Question:
How does the concept differ from the image...aren't they one and
the same?
Answer:
The image is within the concept. The image in this case preceded
the concept, the full concept. The image is one part and only one
part of the concept.
Question:
Is this related to what we've spoken about on previous occasions
about the idea and the apple, the idea creating the apple. The idea,
for instance, behind the apple.
Answer:
No, not really, because in this case the idea precedes the image
which precedes the concept. That's the way we're looking at it,
that's the way......we've set up the chain for this specific time.
Question:
So there are many different ways of setting up perception, of
playing with, manipulating perception.....and setting it up in this way
is one option among different...
Answer:
Yes, the reason that, well, yes, if you want to deal with specifics you
have to direct to those specifics or you're just swimming in an ocean
of non-specifics.
Question:
What I'm saying is...
Answer:
So you must have an idea or an image of something that open, that
directs you into the ocean of concepts through which you go to a
specific and appropriate place.
Question:
Uh-huh. Does Linda exist as a concept? To your consciousness
right now? Is Linda a concept?
Answer:
Yes. Although I though we might deal with more general subjects.
Question:
Okay. Uh, I want to talk about matter as a concept.
Answer:
Alright.
Question:
Uh....is matter, is matter viewed as the final element in the
universe, as the absolute element containing all the other
elements?
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
From all perspectives of all different, of all different ways of
constructing perception, matter is viewed as the quintessential final
and absolute elements?
Answer:
As manifested at this moment, yes. We will not negate, of course,
the possibility that there is one more or an infinite number of
elements to follow.
Question:
After matter.
Answer:
That's right. That as we look at the twelve elements at this "time"
in physical manifestation you are correct.
Question:
Matter contains all the elements?
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
Does matter, can matter itself blossom those elements into a new
manifestation, into a greater expression.....an expression which
contains all the elements but not just being contained within matter
but matter blossoming all those elements into a new creation?
Answer:
I don't know what you mean by a new creation.
Question:
Into, if matter contains all the elements, then matter itself, can
matter itself....
Answer:
Evolve into a thirteenth element?
Question:
Right. Okay, saying a thirteenth element but the thirteenth element
taking all the other twelve elements condensing them , blossoming into
another element....
Answer:
No, not as you stated it.
Question:
What would be the thirteenth element?
Answer:
That actually defies the imagination,
Question:
It would not be matter? Would it be, it would not be matter?
Answer:
Well, not matter as we know it. Because matter has field direction.
It has interaction potential and that;s defined no. If a thirteenth
element evolved it would be matter plus one. It would be matter
plus, well, if we look at matter as X, then it would be X + Y let's say
or X = C. It would be something unknown to us now and therefore
not matter per se.
Question:
Would it be a greater expression, a more complete expression?
Of the whole?
Answer:
Well, if there were a thirteenth element it would add another
dimension to the whole....another of the whole's dimensions would
be expressed might be a better way to say it.
Question:
Does the thirteenth element already exist?
Answer:
No.
Question:
Nowhere?
Answer:
No, not in the universe at this time. Nor is it probable, and I
wanted earlier to point out that within Zero, or Infinity, that
every possibility exists. Some possibilities become probabilities
and realities and some don't. Some are actually not manifested but
it's there. We should never think of the twelve elements as being,
or anything else actually, as being absolutely closed.
Question:
What is the difference between a probability and its actualization?
Isn't a probability within its own sphere an actualization?
Answer:
Probabilities are actually based upon...well, probabilities lie between
field direction and interaction potential really. A probability is a
movement or of an action and therefore, we're speaking of something
that has field direction, probably interacting, potentially interacting
in a certain way. Now,that's not an absolute. It's a probability.
When the interaction does occur, then it's a reality. But until, and
that may narrow and become more and more probable....in other
words, it maybe almost an impossibility but as certain action occur,
let's say physical reality, uh, some strange turns of events may make
it less and less impossible.
*Note this was the last recorded session.
_________________________________________________
[The following document given to me by L. is apart from
the above sessions and dialogues. It is was originally conceived by
L. around a decade prior to our meeting and commencement of the
work presented above. I am presenting it here because its genius of
query, articulation and elaboration is directly and integrally
connected to some of the subject matter interests expressed
throughout the above joint sessions and dialogues.
Since recent contact has not been successful with L.
it is being reprinted here without permission from its author.
However, it will be immediately removed from this site if
requested in the future by its author.]
Linda:
So that when...
Neil:
Does...(unclear)...from a more conscious presence?
Linda:
That's right. So let;'s say that when a person says that an entity is
writing through them and all that kind of thing, that comes from fear
and this is extremely important, do you understand?
Neil:
Yes, exactly for that reason.
Linda:
Yea, exactly and I understand it completely. In other words, I was
out there playing around and it was, it was more like something was
playing with me.
Neil:
So taken one step further...
Linda:
I had no control.
Neil:
Taken one step further, this is the place or the space where entities
introduce themselves by name or there appears a name and there's
an entity speaking through..
Linda:
Yes, I think so. I think so. I wonder what that place is. It's being
caught and there are all of these images flying around.
Neil:
This is the place of channeling? Where the different entities..
Linda:
I won't say it's the only place, but it's one of the places.
Neil:
And isn't it colored by the, uh, personality? So therefore it's always
distorted to some extent?
Linda:
I think so. I'm trying to think if my personality could have been
involved in that.
Neil:
How about used as a translation?
Linda:
Yes, I mean the images that were produced are not something that
I've thought of before or that I've seen in dreams or that have
occurred to me.
Neil:
No, but your consciousness is an integral part.
Linda:
Yes.
Neil:
Or that...in other words, hypothetically, there's a person who is
religiously oriented and who has the flexibility of consciousness
to go to that space and then it comes through and would be
colored by a religious tint.
Linda:
Uh-huh, and of course, you know since, you know, I've thought so
much about light and all of that before and seen other images with
light and everything and here that's the way I would probably see
something, yes.
Neil:
And the information, uh, would be valid but in a certain sense valid.
It's still tinted. Biased.
Linda:
Yes, I think so. I'd like to think about that. But yes I think it would
be biased. I hesitate to make a judgment about the value of that
place.
Neil:
Okay, so what did you see, you saw a point beyond it? That you
didn't know what you wanted to enter into.
Linda:
Exactly, when I started to see myself as a being of light and so forth...
Neil:
Is that the point beyond it?
Linda:
Uh-huh.
Neil:
And you were beginning to expand?
Linda:
I was beginning to expand, I was beginning to take that image of the
being of light or to feel that image, to go with it and I realized I would
have to become, I was becoming completely absorbed in that image
which was an image of myself. And that's not what I wanted to do.
Neil:
An image of yourself?
Linda:
Yes. I, I am not here to glorify the self. That's not what I want to do.
Neil:
You mean it would have been in conjunction with your personality?
Linda:
Yes, I think it's possible that as I saw that being and so forth, that it's
something I could have put a name to ultimately if I had continued
with it.
Neil:
Like an entity?
Linda:
Yea, exactly.
Neil:
So is that the point where...
Linda:
Yea, I think that, you know, it's very possible that I was the center
of the being and then, you know, the light radiating around it, that I
could have...for instance, and I'm not sure of this, but for instance I
could have eventually have seen that as an interchangeable self.
Neil:
And spoken as another self?
Linda:
Possible so.
Neil:
That's the part that you didn't want to enter into.
Linda:
That's right.
Neil:
Would you have been in control over it, I mean, as far as you're
concerned? You said you wanted to stop the session. Was it
because...
Linda:
I felt that I was losing control. It was going on without me. The
images and so forth were actually going on without me. The images
and so forth were actually going on without me.
Neil:
So it went to aura and the beyond, playing with that, to a point
where there would be a possibility where another self or entity or
energy was speaking through you.
Linda:
I could feel the acceleration. I was feeling the acceleration toward
something like that although I can't name it.
Neil:
But it was an acceleration in a process, it was in..
Linda:
Yes.
Neil:
Almost as though you were going through the internal digestive
system of another entity.
Linda:
Yea, and I didn't feel that it was my process, that I was partaking
of a process but it wasn't mine. It was an illustration. We've been
contemplating quite a lot lately about the third or about going to the
infinite place or about from where to speak. This is another
possibility of from where to speak. It was an illustration.
Neil:
There's this place to speak and there's that place to speak and so on.
Linda:
And there are probably a number of others and so what we have to
do is find where does our voice come from and where do we wish to
speak from and then become consistent with that. I found one that
I did not want.
Neil:
oh, what do you mean?
Linda:
This one, yes.
Neil:
This is a disassociation, wouldn't you say? From the infinite would be
another one, you know.
Linda:
Yes.
Neil:
It was?
Linda:
Wait a minute. What do you mean by disassociation?
Neil:
Disassociation in the sense that, uh, that the work would be more
fully done in...
Linda:
Oh, I didn't realize, again I can't make a judgment about that.
I suppose if we do this three more times and something like this
happens three more times...I suppose
Neil:
But you don't know what you would have said if another voice came
through yourself.
Linda:
No, I don't. I wasn't interested in finding out.
Neil:
That it would be biased through your personality.
Linda:
I'm not certain even that another voice would have spoken. I'm
saying it was that kind of setup, I think where I was starting to see
myself as special. Not special in terms of being more special than
other people, but I was getting really very much involved in the
"I"ness of it.
Neil:
The "I"ness?
Linda:
What I am and that's not where...
Neil:
But it was, it was impersonal, that energy, wasn't it?
Linda:
No, not so impersonal.
Neil:
You mean it was becoming an I?
Linda:
Yea, it was becoming my "I".
Neil:
With its energy.
Linda:
Uh-huh.
Neil:
And you're not certain what?
Linda:
And I'm not certain, that's not what I want to do. Don't ask me why,
that's just not what I want to do. I think it is being done enough.
Neil:
You mean other people, channels....
Linda:
Yea, I'm not going to denigrate...
Neil;
We're more interested in the dynamics of....
Linda:
Of consciousness, not unconsciousness.
Neil:
So that's a form of unconsciousness?
Linda:
I think it is. For me it would be.
Neil:
I think it's portraying, I think it's like if you take a light and you shot
it through the internal digestive system of the, of the mind, and I
think that's what's happening with a lot of these channels and that
was an illustration too. It's like taking a light and shining it into the
interior space and we're not interested in the..interior space but
consciousness itself.
Linda:
Right.
Neil:
Which contains all these.
Linda:
Yep. Okay, you can turn it off.
Session: December 10, 1988
Question:
What space are you in tonight?
Answer:
I'm not certain yet.
Question:
Are you in the place?
Answer:
I think you should take me deeper.
Question:
Okay. (and Neil does)
Question:
Does the place you're in now have any shape or colors?
Answer:
No, concepts. I'm in a place of concepts. We usually focus upon
the being of an inner place. This time we'll focus upon the concepts
available to any being of any focus.
Question:
What kind of concepts? Concepts of...
Answer:
It's actually one large concept and we can split it off depending on
the questions that you ask.
Question:
So any question asked is within the realm you're in....the concepts
are there?
Answer:
Yes. For instance, when you were counting backwards I found
myself wandering to the concept of a flower.
Question:
What did it look like? The concept of a flower.
Answer:
Yes. The concept of a flower with lots of petals, kind of a daisy-
looking flower. But I saw it very quickly and identified it and
then reached into the concept, not into the image.
Question:
How does the concept differ from the image...aren't they one and
the same?
Answer:
The image is within the concept. The image in this case preceded
the concept, the full concept. The image is one part and only one
part of the concept.
Question:
Is this related to what we've spoken about on previous occasions
about the idea and the apple, the idea creating the apple. The idea,
for instance, behind the apple.
Answer:
No, not really, because in this case the idea precedes the image
which precedes the concept. That's the way we're looking at it,
that's the way......we've set up the chain for this specific time.
Question:
So there are many different ways of setting up perception, of
playing with, manipulating perception.....and setting it up in this way
is one option among different...
Answer:
Yes, the reason that, well, yes, if you want to deal with specifics you
have to direct to those specifics or you're just swimming in an ocean
of non-specifics.
Question:
What I'm saying is...
Answer:
So you must have an idea or an image of something that open, that
directs you into the ocean of concepts through which you go to a
specific and appropriate place.
Question:
Uh-huh. Does Linda exist as a concept? To your consciousness
right now? Is Linda a concept?
Answer:
Yes. Although I though we might deal with more general subjects.
Question:
Okay. Uh, I want to talk about matter as a concept.
Answer:
Alright.
Question:
Uh....is matter, is matter viewed as the final element in the
universe, as the absolute element containing all the other
elements?
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
From all perspectives of all different, of all different ways of
constructing perception, matter is viewed as the quintessential final
and absolute elements?
Answer:
As manifested at this moment, yes. We will not negate, of course,
the possibility that there is one more or an infinite number of
elements to follow.
Question:
After matter.
Answer:
That's right. That as we look at the twelve elements at this "time"
in physical manifestation you are correct.
Question:
Matter contains all the elements?
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
Does matter, can matter itself blossom those elements into a new
manifestation, into a greater expression.....an expression which
contains all the elements but not just being contained within matter
but matter blossoming all those elements into a new creation?
Answer:
I don't know what you mean by a new creation.
Question:
Into, if matter contains all the elements, then matter itself, can
matter itself....
Answer:
Evolve into a thirteenth element?
Question:
Right. Okay, saying a thirteenth element but the thirteenth element
taking all the other twelve elements condensing them , blossoming into
another element....
Answer:
No, not as you stated it.
Question:
What would be the thirteenth element?
Answer:
That actually defies the imagination,
Question:
It would not be matter? Would it be, it would not be matter?
Answer:
Well, not matter as we know it. Because matter has field direction.
It has interaction potential and that;s defined no. If a thirteenth
element evolved it would be matter plus one. It would be matter
plus, well, if we look at matter as X, then it would be X + Y let's say
or X = C. It would be something unknown to us now and therefore
not matter per se.
Question:
Would it be a greater expression, a more complete expression?
Of the whole?
Answer:
Well, if there were a thirteenth element it would add another
dimension to the whole....another of the whole's dimensions would
be expressed might be a better way to say it.
Question:
Does the thirteenth element already exist?
Answer:
No.
Question:
Nowhere?
Answer:
No, not in the universe at this time. Nor is it probable, and I
wanted earlier to point out that within Zero, or Infinity, that
every possibility exists. Some possibilities become probabilities
and realities and some don't. Some are actually not manifested but
it's there. We should never think of the twelve elements as being,
or anything else actually, as being absolutely closed.
Question:
What is the difference between a probability and its actualization?
Isn't a probability within its own sphere an actualization?
Answer:
Probabilities are actually based upon...well, probabilities lie between
field direction and interaction potential really. A probability is a
movement or of an action and therefore, we're speaking of something
that has field direction, probably interacting, potentially interacting
in a certain way. Now,that's not an absolute. It's a probability.
When the interaction does occur, then it's a reality. But until, and
that may narrow and become more and more probable....in other
words, it maybe almost an impossibility but as certain action occur,
let's say physical reality, uh, some strange turns of events may make
it less and less impossible.
*Note this was the last recorded session.
_________________________________________________
[The following document given to me by L. is apart from
the above sessions and dialogues. It is was originally conceived by
L. around a decade prior to our meeting and commencement of the
work presented above. I am presenting it here because its genius of
query, articulation and elaboration is directly and integrally
connected to some of the subject matter interests expressed
throughout the above joint sessions and dialogues.
Since recent contact has not been successful with L.
it is being reprinted here without permission from its author.
However, it will be immediately removed from this site if
requested in the future by its author.]
