MONDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2007
The following sessions are the written transcripts from dictaphone recorded sessions nearly two decades ago between myself and another whose primary field of interest involved the nature-and-construction of consciousness. They not only touch upon subject areas concerning the nature of perception and consciousness but most notably entail a process of articulation and dialogue that involve a highly unusual and expansive access to "areas of communication" that are not currently defined by as well as lying well beyond the scope of the familiar paradigms or archetypes of the Unconscious (e.g., beginning with the conception of a single skin-encapsulated egoistic self). One concern about publishing these dialogues is that understandably but shortsightedly there will be a compulsion among many to conclude that what is represented here are the dissociative or splintered aspects of "self" and thus easily a likely candidate for a well-earned place in DSM IV.
Another concern is that there will be a predilection among some readers, regardless of how extraordinarily ill-conceived, to place them in the fanciful and frequently distorted quasi bin of "New Age Psychology." Each dialogue which follows, depicted as "Question and Answer" (respectively Neil and Linda) aside from typical dialogues (immediately following sessions) were answered by Linda as she was placed by Neil in a guided state of very mild relaxation or light hypnosis. Mild relaxation or light hypnosis set up the means or the foundation thus allowing for a greater access to a more expansive and different organizational frame(s) of reference or "areas of communication" that are at best poorly understood or inadequately explored by traditional psychoanalysis or neuroscience.
Many of the dialogues here address the general nature of the structure/process of human collective consciousness and perception in general. However, what is especially relevant or what the reader needs to be especially mindful to is the highly unusual or extraordinary seamless access to information under a more relaxed state of consciousness. Essentially, what is explored here is a much more expansive or different than familiarly known access to areas of communication and consciousness which lie outside typical human experience. Again, however strong the tendency, it would be terribly misguided in fact erroneous to consider them as part of a joint psychopathology under the highly narrow lens of what essentially serves as the litmus test for typical discourse.
Session July 5, 1988
Question:
I want you to look for the familiar inner library and tell me if you can see it.
Answer:
Yes. It's green.
Question:
Are you inside? Or are you looking at it?
Answer:
Alright, I'll walk into an actual library.
Question:
What do you see around you? Do you see books?
Answer:
Rows of books and round tables. I've been there before.
I chose a library from a dream.
Question:
You chose the library from a dream?
Answer:
Yes. It seems to be important here that we have a visual
representation of a library, so I've chose a dream that
I/Linda have had to be that library.
Question:
Are you viewing this state from a different perspective than you
would than you would, than Linda would in what you refer to as
the dream?
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
Can you describe the difference, the observing difference?
Answer:
I'm looking at the library as I would look at a photograph, without
interaction. Dreams are not without interaction.
Question:
Are there many places to go now, within the context of what you see?
Do you desire to go someplace there?
Answer:
Only if you wish me to.
Question:
You do see books?
Answer:
Yes, the walls are lined with books. Try to picture almost a stage with
three walls of books and tables and I'm standing viewing the
three walls. And there are nooks and crannies and the books continue
around those areas.
Question:
I want you to take the first book that you have a natural attraction
for, something that catches your inner feeling.
Answer:
I would like you to choose the book. I'm here for you.
Question:
I want you, if you can, to take the book that speaks about how we
create and how we put waking and dreaming together, the
interconnecting symbols, how we write our psyches and how we
divide them and how we create different interpretations of
waking and dreaming realities. It's the book that illustrates the
ever-connecting symbols between both. Is there such a book?
Answer:
You don't really need to look at the book. You can just ask me.
Question:
Can you see the point of uninterrupted experience, consciousness
that holds waking and dreaming at the same time, the
interconnecting symbols between both, without the need to
create the distances and the gaps. Do you see?
Answer:
We've spoken about it before.
Question:
Right. I continue to wonder if it's fear which creates the gaps
between, the connecting between both states.
Answer:
No, it's not fear.
Question:
Is it lack of experience?
Answer:
Yes. Lack of experience, lack of familiarity.
Question: What is the familiarity that needs to be developed.
Is it a personal sense of one's playfulness, ones own confidence,
one's own courage to pursue? That creates a more uninterrupted
flow, a more joyous continuum?
Answer:
I think that we should redefine the word needs, first of all. I don't
think that we can say that there is a need for development along
these lines. Need indicates that something is not being done that
should be done. And it is being done. Would you like to rephrase?
Question:
Yes, it's just that it's such a familiar habit to cloak it in certain terms
that.....
Answer:
Exactly, I'm not criticizing the question at all. I'm only saying that
speaking from the positive standpoint.....what I'm really trying to say
to you is that we could speak in terms of misinterpretations, we can
speak in terms of need.....we can speak in those terms but
completely from a human standpoint.
Question:
Do you mean from an ego standpoint?
Answer:
From a human standpoint....this should not be this way, this should
be that way...
Question:
Right, right.
Answer:
...when there are really no shoulds, in other words, when I say that
we should think in terms of timing, uh, when we're talking about
development it's only a question of at which point during that
development that consciousness is, as opposed to that development
being wrong or misdirected, misinterpreted. So if we could speak in
terms of different points in evolution, for instance...
Question:
Uh-huh, well, I do have one question which is particularly personal,
which I have a feeling, which is the, which is, which is somewhat
negative, but it is personal.....the idea of self-betrayal, of the feeling
of.....the feeling of not doing something, and not fulfilling growing in
awareness and...not overcoming certain fears leads to a feeling of
self-betrayal. And I know that's exactly what you wanted to address
in a more positive light.
Answer:
Yes, I know your question and I know it about you specifically...
and the comment that comes to mind, and I hope that you don't take
this personally, is that it's an egotistical viewpoint, and what I mean
to say is that the focus is from the ego.....that again you're not doing
this and you should be doing that...is placing a great deal of emphasis
on the self and though there's nothing wrong with placing emphasis
on the self apparently you feel that it's uncomfortable and all I can
really say to you is that it is something that will pass, that you can't
..(unclear)..that if you're putting a lot of emphasis upon the self and
you would like not to...then the answer is obvious, you don't put as
much emphasis on the self. However, that's not possible. So you just
go with that, realize that it's part of the process and try not to belabor
it. In other words, don't let your feelings about it send you into a
spiral.
Question:
Right.
Answer:
...and just try to be philosophical about it and realize it's part of
the process, a needed one, as natural one and.....
Question:
Is that a feeling, is that an acceptance of grace of one's own
being...that's what I'm sensing.
Answer:
I think that your word acceptance is a very wise one. If you'd
like to know more about that you certainly may ask.
Question:
I, uh, want to go off to another tangent very briefly. I was
describing a dream, physically outstanding in terms of its intensity,
about a week ago which I was describing to Linda, in which I woke
up in the dream and I thought that I was completely awake in my
room and then I started to experience what I refer to as kundalini,
a feeling of immense energy growing and everything in the room
took on that characteristic and then I opened my eyes a second time
and I realized that it was, that I was now in the actual physical room
...and there seemed to be an experience with different frameworks...
that I refer to as different frameworks of organization. Do you know
what I am referring to?
Answer:
Yes. I have two things to say about it. First of all, the ability to
think in a dream is a sign of growing consciousness, growing
awareness. Secondly, the switching on and off of the light switch, uh,
is a symbolic action.
Question:
What...why at certain points can one allow oneself, afford oneself
the luxury of thinking while at other times in other dreams it does
not seem emotionally feasible, one does not feel up to that in that
space?
Answer:
Well dreams are, as you know, uh....dreams are dreamt for
various purposes and the purposes are varied, vast.
Question:
I mean specifically the ability to, to think.
Answer:
I understand. I'm getting to that. Depending upon what you're
working out in a specific dream, and I don't even really like the
phrase working out, what you're...
Question:
Constructing?
Answer:
Constructing, choosing to experience I think is a good phrase for
that, uh, choosing to add to your experience and you do, uh.....
depends, now in a dream where you think, where you have thoughts,
where you analyze in the dream, that kind of thing, probably what
you're attempting is a merger of the different bodies, in the different
psychological bodies, facing thought here in the psychological
framework along with the emotional, along with the physical and
what we're going to call all those psychological aspects...
Question:
Right.
Answer:
... so that at various times, uh, when you.....I don't really want
to say that a dream like that is more important than another dream.
It is not. However, it does show a certain measure, as I said before,
of expanding consciousness, uh,...I believe you had another question
about your specific dream.....about the light switch.
Question:
Not particularly , just except, uh, I saw that, I felt that the, uh,
I felt how one part of consciousness organizes...in a brief second, in
a brief microsecond between one framework and another without
distinguishing and there's a certain habit, there's a certain familiar
pattern, uh, which generally acts as a safety value, a protective
consciousness that is going on simultaneously. That was my feeling,
I was feeling that the ability at that point to switch between one and
another was just a question of seeing through how we form certain
frameworks, certain focuses.
Answer:
Exactly. When I talk about thoughts in a dream obviously I
don't mean the kind of thought that "Oh, there's a big green monster
and he's going to chase me." That's not the kind of thought that I'm
talking about. I'm talking about the ability specifically to analyze, to
gather information from the dream, which of course comes from
other places, from the dream and to gain something from it...and to,
uh, synthesize...
Question:
Obviously the, the uh, the experience that Linda is having right now
cannot be equated with the normal reference of the dream state. It
is, is it a more waking dream state in that respect, is it a more, is it
the, I hate to use the term, the step beyond thinking independently
and analyzing that is, is it the actual innate awareness of how things
are formed and taking a different perspective in relation to the
dream?
Answer:
Well, first of all, I should say that, perhaps we described this before,
I'm not certain Linda is stepping aside.....Linda is present and viewing
but is not really directing as one does in a dream. One is the director
in a dream, one chooses the roles, one chooses the actors, one
chooses the script, one chooses all the key personnel and everything
surrounding the storyline. Linda is not choosing at this point.
Question:
Is there another framework of organization of consciousness?
Answer:
Completely different, yes.
Question:
A framework which is organized by another portion of
consciousness?
Answer:
Well...
Question:
By consciousness which is part of the whole?
Answer:
Yes, we could say that in this instance. You're actually organizing
the consciousness by your questions. And that's why questions are
important.
Question:
Okay, I have a question upon that. The, I am organizing by my
questions...do my questions present one actualized version of an
event?
Answer:
Yes, one and only one.
Question:
In other words, the event horizon could be actualized differently, in
different translations. Is that correct?
Answer:
Oh, yes. I'm not telling you that the information that I'm giving you
is subjective, uh, I'm not telling you that at all. But certainly process,
and the individual circumstances that produce this process are
subjective...And I'm not talking here about the content.
Question:
And Linda learns as well?
Answer:
Yes, hopefully.
Question:
Is...Linda's and Neil's consciousness are particularly native to one
another, particularly.....
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
Which enable various other frameworks of organization, various...
Answer:
Yes, they are, they/we, however you wish to phrase it. I'm the
same consciousness and we can say that every particle is the
same consciousness and that of course is true. However, what
makes the work special with Neil and Linda is their recognition of
the consciousness through each other.
Question:
Also, we see as well where male and female overlap, merge, are
translated in that. And...
Answer:
Yes, although I would say that that is an important factor only from
the human standpoint.....that if you were to view Neil as a unit of
consciousness and Linda as a unit of consciousness both contain both
of those aspects. Now, in the physical incarnation, of course there is
an awareness, uh, of which...(unclear)...was chosen for the physical
bodies.....and because of that there will be an awareness of it,
certainly back and forth, but it could easily be done in a different way
and has been before in terms of these two particular beings. Do you
understand that?
Question:
Yes, I do. Yes I do. Is there a growing towards a point in which there
will be a waking awareness of how it was done in other times, how it is
being organized this time, how it is being organized overall from the
viewpoint of a more unified whole?
Answer:
If that becomes important in other aspects of the work. In and of
itself, it's probably not necessary.
Question:
Is what Linda and myself have been working on...is the language, uh,
we feel that there's a language inbetween waking and dreaming
consciousness. Can you comment upon that?
Answer:
Well, all we can really say is inbetween is consciousness, another
form of consciousness.
Question:
Are there certain sounds, certain symbols which speak of both
simultaneously?
Answer:
There are certain sounds and symbols that can be used to describe
this particular kind of consciousness. It's not necessary but that
can be done, yes.
Question:
Can you elaborate upon that? Can you elaborate upon the.....it is not
necessary, it is not necessary for growth and development...
Answer:
No, it is not. The, really the only way that it can be used in a
meaningful, as meaningful I suppose, uh, is really when more and
more, two or more, are trying to communicate about that particular
kind of consciousness. Certainly it's not, it doesn't, the sound or the
symbol on its own....it's there but it doesn't communicate. I's used to
communicate.
Question:
So it only has meaning in the context of an overall growth?
Answer:
Communication. Communication. And I believe that there are
questions in terms of mathematical symbols..
Question:
Do you have any mathematical symbols that would be useful
right now?
Answer:
That's not really what I think we should do...those symbols are
there certainly. They are available.
Question:
When it becomes necessary, then it will become apparent.
Answer:
Yes, yes. I think it would be a better idea to discuss the symbols
in terms of, in general terms.
Question:
Okay. I do have a question. How are you organized when my
questions are not organizing? Would I have to go to a different
place to see a different organization?
Answer:
I don't understand the last part of the question.
Question:
My question, my questions organize in part, as well as Linda's
intentions, uh, this particular form of communication?
Answer:
Yes.
Question: Is this particular form of communication happening
all the time, beneath our awareness, outside our awareness?
Is it an ongoing communication which is occurring even though
we're not focused upon it at any specific given time.?
Answer:
The kind of communication we're having now?
Question:
Yes, yes. Is this consciousness involved in other activities...
Answer:
It's always available, uh, the real question here, or the real point
I guess we could say, is that we are willing now. It is a question
of your will, not mine. I organize in a different way, one that you
would not be familiar with, but I can adapt my particular kind of
organization to yours but that is because you will it, you organize
it. I then adapt that to your organization.
Question:
How are you the moment before that, figuratively speaking?
Would it be understood, can it be understood?
Answer:
It could be understood. I don't know if it's important to you to
understand it, if it is we can attempt that.
Question:
Do the books in the library contain what anybody needs to know,
what anybody desires to know? The library, is it a mass construct
familiar to, familiar to many people?
Answer:
Yes. It is familiar to many people in different ways, in different
disguises, if you will. I think we talked about this before. It
could be a rock, it could be a library, it could be anything. The
important thing is that there are records and they are available
to anyone.
Question:
Have these records existed throughout history?
Answer:
Absolutely. And those records change. The records contain the
present moment, as we know the moment, and all previous moments
as we know the past and they contain probabilities, possibilities,
probabilities for the future as well and so those books are
continually being written, if you will. In other words, in other
words, if you were to pull out a book with a, let's say, description
of a specific human being. Let's say, let's give it a name, this
book's name is Fred. Now we can look through all the pages up
to the present moment, which let's say he is age forty. Now the
rest of the book is written for the rest of his existence as Fred,
it is already written. And it can be read right now all the way to
the end. However, it is continually changing.
Question:
So each point has its own line?
Answer:
Yes. So if you were to look at Fred's past, the present and the
future at each moment, more of the book becomes past of
course, indefinite, unless it's a book of names. Now sometimes
that book can be read to the very end and it will happen
precisely as it is written.
Question:
Would, hypothetically, Fred one day experience all his probable
version? All of his probable histories? Would he be able to
consciously form, consciously live all his probable histories?
Answer:
Through mind.
Question:
Would that represent a point of growth?
Answer:
Again, I think we should speak in terms of purpose. Fred will
experience what is relevant to Fred. Obviously, all possible, all
possibilities for incarnation could almost be termed infinite.
There are that many, but what is the point in focusing on let's say
three thousand possibilities for a single moment when that
moment may not be, may not call for that kind of significance?
In other words, Fred will experience what is relevant to him this
time. Now, if we want to be more specific we can talk in terms of
Linda, for instance, experiencing possibilities, probabilities through
Louise [Linda's past]. Alright? Now for some reason, and now,
some of that's still unfolding, uh, for some reasons that knowledge,
that consciousness of that possibility, probability was important,
was relevant. Now, if it were not, Linda would not focus on it,
would not be conscious of it. I believe that was your question
about consciousness.
Question:
Right. So there are certain lines activated according to present
purpose, present intent?
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
Present desire, which would fall in a line of the fulfillment of the
present focus?
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
Okay. So there's, so at any given point there, it could be said there
is literally infinite amount of histories available, deciding upon the
focus chosen?
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
And there's combinations, past, present and future.....
Answer:
Yes. I hesitated before to use the word infinite and I strike that.
Let's not say infinite, let's say vast. Very vast. It would seem
infinite from a human standpoint but let's not use that word.
Question:
So also nothing is definitely set at any given point either. It's
continually being created. The idea of permanency.
Answer:
Let's say that, we're getting into fine line here in terms of being
set, in terms of being prewritten. I know the essence of the
question. Because it is Fred's book, and because Fred is writing it,
you understand, in a sense Fred is writing it. In another sense it
is being written. There's a seeming duality there but it is not
really a duality. It just depends upon perspective. In other
words, from Fred's perspective, uh, let's do it this way. From
Fred's perspective, if Fred is not particularly conscious, let's say,
particularly aware or awake, uh, Fred may have little idea of
what the rest of his book contains. A psychologist, someone who
is trained in looking at these things may review Fred's history
and understand where he is now, his relationships, etc., and have
a better idea than Fred does of what the rest of the book will say.
Alright, we can move right on up there and when we get to a
certain point we can say that it is absolute, it can be known. What
is in this book. But because we are dealing with this book, we are
dealing with several different possibilities. We are dealing with
the possibility that the psychologist is reading the book, the book
is being read from a different, what you call a higher perspective,
the book varies depending upon who is reading it and the
understanding , the awareness of the entity that is reading the
book. At a certain point it is, can be absolutely known, what the
rest of the book will in fact say. And I know that may be very
difficult for you to swallow. But what we are talking about here
are perspectives that are so completely different from human
perspectives that the question is not about predestination really,
except from, and these are human terms, free will, predestination,
free will, that is human concern.
Question:
It's awareness of patterns of being....
Answer:
In other words, Fred's will, Fred's will, now, can be known, and I
think I can say without reservation, that there is no human
consciousness that can absolutely know it. So from a human
perspective, free will reigns and that is the truth. That is a truth.
But there are other perspectives, other perceptions.
Question:
Which goes beyond the conventional definition of determinism.
pre-determinism?
Answer:
Yes. If there is anything more about that, I'd be happy to
attempt it.
Question:
Linda right now is observing?
Answer:
Yes, in a sense.
Question:
She is not dreaming?
Answer:
No, and she at the same time is not able to have input into this.
Question:
Why is that? Can you comment upon that?
Answer:
It's as if you had taken a frame of time and frozen it, though...
there is no...(unclear)..to Linda at this time and there is
processing and all that, but in terms of output there is frozen time.
Question:
Brought together...a frame of organization for the express purpose
of this moment? Formed an organization pattern for this particular
moment?
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
Can you, can you talk about yourself? You would not define
yourself as human consciousness per se, right?
Answer:
It's very interesting of course. I'm going through Linda and going
through you, it's hard describe the process but you read something
earlier this evening about coming from a collective human
consciousness and that's very appropriate.
Question:
Okay. Do you figuratively speaking, do you, drop "figuratively", do
you observe Linda and Neil at other times?
Answer:
No, I do not. However, in a single instant I am able to observe Neil
and Linda at any previous moment. Does that make sense?
Question:
In other words...
Answer:
I'm not really observing Neil and Linda as you perceive events
happening to you. If you ask me, I can for instance observe Linda
and Neil reading the book although that was a previous action. I can
observe it now as if it's happening now.
Question:
So your framework of time is quite different than how we organize it?
Answer:
Yes, although you're capable of that kind of organization.
Question:
Is that a point of growing....so it does not have to do with memory as
we understand it?
Answer:
No. I, and I say that word with caution, I observe any situation that
is relevant to this, completely in the now, as if, meaning from your
standpoint, all events are simultaneous. Now I think that you have a
lot of literature afloat, shall we say, that talks about all events being
simultaneous, uh,....that's one way of putting it, but I think that
there's a better way of saying that. In other words, we could say that
all events are available simultaneously. (long period of silence)....
Does the silence come from a sense of not being fulfilled?
Question:
Not really.
Answer:
Do you feel unfinished?
Question:
No, I find that, I'm feeling that all questions must come out of
experience and at the risk of being, and out of pursuing and knowing
individually without what we define as exterior means, just
contemplating that....
Answer:
Would you like an elaboration?
Question:
If you have something, sure.
Answer:
Would you like to phrase it into a simple question?
Question:
The, when there is, when there is expansion and growth of being,
then I suppose the nature of these sessions will change accordingly,
as we, Neil and Linda grow in ourselves?
Answer:
Yes, that's right.
Question:
I'm just wondering why there is in many, I suppose, so much fear
involved in self-exploration, so much fear involved in.....not to speak
negatively, but there is that fear, as well as that awareness and that
joy and....
Answer:
The fear is understandable, afterall, you have been abandoned.
Question:
What do you mean by that? Can you elaborate upon that?
Answer:
I can. I'm trying to narrow this down. By taking on, I'll use one of
Linda's phrases here, by taking on more and more elements, the
particle let's say that is you, uh, being in matter and so forth, has
lost consciousness, is less aware of its consciousness than it was at
one time. In other words, it's as if your mother pushed you out the
door and said, you know at a very young age, and said well, fend for
yourself. Let's say that the child has been very warm and safe and
you're well-fed and you understand where you are and blah, blah,
blah, blah, and then you're suddenly forced into a set of
circumstances which are completely different from what you're
used to and you feel a sense of abandonment, uh, and I think that
there is a certain anger in the human condition as well as fear,
although anger is a form of fear, uh, I think that we can say that
there is also, you can see that genuine anger.... (unclear)...
Question:
But I have a growing feeling that pursued sincerely with eyes open
and the courage and the dedication, that that itself would turn into
love, that itself would blossom into a loving understanding.
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
And knowing.
Answer:
That's exactly what happens.
Question:
And that realization of, that inner-outer unification..
Answer:
Yes, it's a change of focus and finally the child who's been pushed
out the door into the elements , into a different environment and
so forth drops his anger and stops raging, stops being afraid and
finally sits down and say well, "Okay, I guess this is it, now what
am I going to do about it?" And there is that point in the child
who is sent out to weather the elements that, in terms of an adult
human being, there is a point at which that awareness happens
and the point can be an instant or it can be longer depending upon
the circumstances and the personal history of the person
attempting it. But there is that point where fear does turn to love.
I believe that is what you and Linda and many, many, many others
at this time are dealing with is the transitional period between fear
and love.
Session: August 1, 1988
Question:
I want to begin by talking about something which we talked about
before. This position that you're in, is this an interaction point,
again, we spoke about it before?
Answer:
In a sense.
Question:
Do you recall last time from this space, from this position, do you
recall the other session?
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
Has any time lapsed between that session and this session from
your present point? From this interaction point?
Answer:
No.
Question:
There has been no space?
Answer:
Time has continued to occur. However, as I spoke to you the last
time, one of the last times, each time you questioned me, I am a
different combination, and yet I have full access to all memory.
Question:
So there must be something beyond the limitation of the questions
which we can get to and speak more directly of.
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
Which is another question (laughs).
Answer:
Yes, I have...
Question:
I would like if possible for you to speak about that. I realize the
limitations of the question.
Answer:
Would you like, would you like for me to speak on a certain theme?
Question:
I would like....
Answer:
...A certain area?
Question:
Area is closer to theme. I would like...my questions create the
session as much as Linda creates the session?
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
I would like to get beyond that and this might be somewhat
distorted...for you to express your own viewpoint...within the heart
beneath the questions.
Answer:
For me to express my own viewpoint, as you call it, uh, might not be
more interesting to you than if you were only to ask questions and
have no answers. But if you'd like, I would like you to suggest an
area. I feel that you are feeling a certain responsibility with which
you're uncomfortable. That need not be so, just remember that
everything is subject to revision. Revision of course is magnificent,
revision is the universe. So, instead of feeling responsibility and that
your participation might be inadequate, just keep in mind that if it
is indeed inadequate, then what emanates from it can be revised at
some later date, can be reorganized. However, as I stated earlier, if
you would like me to attempt that, I will.
Question:
I would like to ask a different question, something on a different line
first. Are you aware of...I find that some of the dreams I've been
having in terms of my sense of time lately, within a period of the last
several days, couple of weeks, have been almost remarkable in
nature, almost shocking in nature and I don't know if it's a natural
shocking process or, in order to awaken a particular self-discovery.
But are you, can you be aware of the dreams I'm referring to with
the sensations of the dreams that I have?
Answer:
I can have a feeling about it through the present moment with you.
Question:
Right. It seem to be somewhat of a theme of...some of the dreams
have been of the theme of displacement, not knowing where exactly
where I was, not having the specific image of myself to locate as
when I awakened taking that sense into the dream state and....
Answer:
It's as if, it's analogous to actually, what I was just going to say about
being able to feel or sense through the present moment...that's
precisely what you really do in the dream states that you're
mentioning. In other words, it's a scanning process. You're scanning
through material, a huge amount of material that's there in the
dream state and you have recognized that it has no boundaries
essentially. So you're culling through it to determine which point of
interest you can and need to incorporate into your personal
consciousness.
Question:
Uh-huh, that seems to be...
Answer:
And in that sense your work with your dream state is not a lot
different than my work with you. You have asked me in the
past if I am analogous to a dream state. I will say no. It's as if
you are my dream state.
Question:
And I felt that Linda has been my dream state...
Answer:
When I say you I mean you and Linda...
Question:
Oh.
Answer:
You together, your work, the present occurence is my dream state.
Question:
But these dreams awaken (laugh). What I'm getting at is some other
related material. Do the dreams themselves...if we're, if we are in a
sense your dream state, do the dreams themselves awaken...are your
dreams awakening in a certain sense?
Answer:
They're evolving. As my dreams, I don't mean to indicate that I
possess you, that you are a part of me. No. I mean simply that I
experience you as a dream state, as my dream state at the present
moment.
Question:
So you are the waking self? You are the...
Answer:
In my perception I am a waking not-self.
Question:
Right. At what point did you realize....or at what point did that
perception occur? That we...there seems to be a moment in the
course of dreams that, well, where one becomes aware of a
particular dream, at a particular point, at a particular position of
consciousness, at a particular moment. Does the same process occur
with you at a particular moment...this dream became obvious...
Answer:
(unclear)...you see, because there is no point of perception in my
kind of consciousness. So when you ask me about realizing a point
of perception, I can say it has always been realized.
Question:
From your perspective?
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
So have the dreams, using that term, Linda and Neil become aware
then from their point of perception of a self or a waking point,
however you want to phrase it, which is dreaming them?
Answer:
You're aware now and think about your own dreams when you ask
that question because you participate in your dreams and
increasingly you're aware of the waking self while you're in the
dream, so increasingly you and Linda, that one energy between you
or that is you, becoming increasingly aware of this waking state.
Question:
I sense a unified...
Answer:
It's a hierarchical...
Question:
I sense a unified process.
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
So that does change the interaction just as when the waking self in,
the dream self becomes more aware, changes the nature of the
interaction.
Answer:
Yes. We spoke before, we spoke earlier of the evolution, the point of
evolution being determined by the kinds of dreams that occur in an
individual's experience, for instance whether one is able to think and
analyze in the dream or if one is just reacting in the dream.
Question:
What predisposes Neil and Linda to that configuration, to the whole
configuration? In terms of time, were there certain qualities built up?
Answer:
Of course.
Question:
So does this represent a new type of interaction, a new interaction,
uh, a new path of development, a new.....
Answer:
In your case certainly.
Question:
Are you growing too from this?
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
In what sense?
Answer:
Remember that we also spoke of dreams as being in the center, as
being the line, the razor-edged path, whatever you would like to call
it. Between two opposites of waking and dreaming, for instance,
that waking...conscious-unconscious would be a better way to put it.
Question:
Are you still here?
Answer:
Yes. I began to drift. I apologize.
Question:
Can you explain drifting? What was...
Answer:
Yes, I can. Drifting for me, my energy, is the same as drifting let's
say for Linda. That it takes a constant amount of energy to focus in
any given situation.
Question:
Is there any danger of overexertion? I have to ask that.
Answer:
No.
Question:
Okay.
Answer:
And at time the natural, the natural way of energy is to disperse,
not to focus. And so there are points at which there is nothing to
bind the energy in a certain location and I don't mean physical
location.
Question:
Is it translated at those other locations? That's something that has
crossed my mind several times.
Answer:
What do you mean by translation?
Question:
Picked up and translated by other portions of consciousness, used as,
for instance, this is an interaction. This is a gestalt and a translation.
Answer:
It's not a translation. The, and I would like to speak about this for a
moment, the natural way of energy, the way it wants to go...and I
don't mean desires to go, but its natural path is to disperse into
identical units. Now, when energy is bound up, it's extremely hard
to, to keep it static, to keep it confined, to keep it, as I said again,
bound. It wants to disperse, to drift. But when many, many
particles of energy are drawn together with the purpose of attention
or focus, there's purpose in that but it does require much more
energy for them to be bound together than it does for them to
disperse. So it can seem as a problem at times for human beings,
because they feel that they must be focused. They must have all
this energy. It makes them aware of their existence. To have the
energy bound together and they're very much afraid of nonexistence
when the energy disperses. Does that make sense to you?
Question:
Yea. And playing with, playing with having the courage to
experience nonexistence would be widening the field of perceptions.
Is that...
Answer:
Would you repeat that please?
Question:
Experiencing, having the courage to experience nonexistence with a
feeling of nonexistence, of dispersion, would, in human beings,
enable human beings to enlarge, perceptions, to bring in other data,
not having to be so highly...
Answer:
What they fear in terms, you know, what they fear is nonexistence.
However, that's not the case. Different kind of existence, but not
nonexistence.
Question:
So for you dispersing is still conscious?
Answer:
Very. No more nor less, just a different use of energy.
Question:
I would not perceive a few moments ago a dispersing, a drifting away
if I myself was able to drift along at the same moment so to speak.
Answer:
Yes, that's correct.
Question:
So there wouldn't be any gap in perception then, from my...
Answer:
That's right. What we're attempting here is to bring together two
kinds, no two aspects of consciousness and making them one.
Question:
That's what I've been working on. That's what I've been seeing.
Answer:
And because all units of energy will ultimately be dispersed, all units
will ultimately be dispersed, it is through this dispersal, this drifting if
you would, that the different aspects of consciousness know one
another. Because when energy is bound, let's say the energy in your
body, in your mind, is confined, then that is your identification. And
it is more difficult for you to identify with that which is outside it. But
if you can let a small part of those energy particles drift, and this is
symbolic now, and let them drift, they are another aspect of
consciousness you can perceive other than focusing on what you
believe your energy to be. It's a method of expansion.
Question:
So also, this session, as Neil and Linda call it, if we learn that, how to
play, how to drift, how to disperse, then there would be a more
unified communion and we wouldn't have to just notice this
interaction in what we call this session.
Answer:
Yes, the session would not be separate, would not be a separate
happening. Session/not session.
Question:
Right. I feel that it is also tied into the concept of intent, inner intent
which brings focuses together. The intent of, the inner intent...
Answer:
Perhaps I should interrupt here. I believe the only inner intent is
movement.
Question:
That's....what I mean by inner intent, I mean movement in a, in a
direction, an intent of movement.
Answer:
Yes. And in a sense to allow continuance of movement as opposed
to in a specific direction.
Question:
Is Linda present here? From her point of view? Is she drifting?
Is she watching this?
Answer:
Yes, but....she's drifting, that's in a sense, as you know, it's very
difficult, well if not impossible for her to recall what has occured in a
session until...
Question:
Right.
Answer:
What happens there is basically that she is that drifting state and
while that's happening, while that is occurring, she is combined with
this state which is very similar so that when the session is over, what
she has experienced is my state where memory is available but not
being continually utilized. So that, after a session, Linda cannot
actively remember what occurred during a session but when she
hears it then forms a new memory. She recognizes it as having
been in combination with the state that produced it and then can
form a memory.
Question:
Like dreams. If that...
Answer:
Yes. It's, for instance, very important for some to consciously
remember a dream after awakening and then it becomes a
memory. Otherwise it will slip away. And that's precisely what
happens here. I'm not comparing this to a dream but in that one
aspect it definitely is very similar. If one does not work at memory
it will slip away. If Linda did not listen to the tape after the session
the material would be lost to conscious memory until she did, but it
would still be available at any time.
Question:
So she would still grow?
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
Isn't it an art form as well? Couldn't it be an art form? Dabbling in
and mixing and matching memories and recalling other parts of
drifting consciousness and bringing them to the position of a specific
waking self.
Answer:
Yes, in that sense any action or interaction can be considered an art
form.
Question:
And between the drifting consciousness and the formed identified
point of consciousness I feel something evolving, a third position,
as we talked about before.
Answer:
Or a first position really. A primary position.
Question:
Which shows, or will in a sense where other portions of consciousness
drift. Making them visible all at once or making large fields of them
visible through a new sense.
Answer:
If it's important to categorize them.
Question:
Do you, uh, I asked this question before and I want to ask it again.
Do you, this term, might be distorted but do you have, I hate using,
do you have equals at your own level? Associates at your own level,
other portions of consciousness that are at the particular...
Answer:
Yes. I have said before that I am part of, and at the same time all
of collective human consciousness. When we have interactions here,
you're dealing with part of, and those parts that are left behind, that
are not involved in this interaction, you might term associates I
suppose.
Question:
Could we awake, could we be aware as this point of consciousness is
aware?
Answer:
Let me say it to you this way. In our interaction I am part of the
collective human consciousness but as that part I am also the whole
of it. You have access to the entire realm of human collective
consciousness. In other words, the essence of the particles, say that I
have grouped together now, that are together as the "I" to whom you
are speaking. Each of those particles is as aware as every other
particle so that you may call me one particle if you'd like. That might
be a simple way to symbolize this. That my particle is as aware as
every other. So to expand that to two particles, for instance, will not
gain you any further knowledge or higher consciousness. But there
are levels of attainment so to speak, in session (unclear) due to the
interpretation of the vehicle that's being used in a sense.
Question:
And the interpretation is a translation...
Answer:
Yes. The interpretation at any given moment is a boundary, if you
will. In other words the particle that you call forth tonight may or
may not seem as astute as the next particle that you call forth due
to the momentary condition of the vehicle through which the energy
passes.
Question:
So it's perpetual movement?
Answer:
Yes. Exactly so. In other words, each of the particles is absolutely
pure consciousness in human terms but will never be exactly pure
as passed through a human vehicle. Never.
Question:
Could it be translated into other consciousness besides human?
Answer:
No. We are talking here the collective human consciousness.
If you want to speak of an animal then there would be a collective
pig consciousness, for instance, a collective snake consciousness.
Question:
Human consciousness is evolving.....to a new, to a wider position?
Answer:
Yes. Every time that you, for instance, achieve a higher level of
consciousness, the entirety of the human collective consciousness
expands, however minutely.
Question:
Also I think of , what comes to mind when you describe the process
is the process of subatomic particles, or particles...the interaction...of
how physicists observe particles, what they're capturing is an
interaction, is a particular moment of interaction but the movement
continues and it might not be the same particle a moment later and
it's not. It's always in a different position.
Answer:
That's right. That's precisely what we're saying now.
Question:
So what it is in exercising, it is a learning that nothing, everything is
held and nothing is held.
Answer:
There's one further point I want to make in terms of a subatomic
particle in comparison with human consciousness. And that is the
time factor is, it varies. Literally say a second later, by necessity
changes its position...interaction. That as a particle increases in
consciousness, its ability to span time increases.
Question:
You mean be in more than one location at once?
Answer:
That's not what we're addressing.
Question:
Taken to...
Answer:
I'm just trying to make the point that in a session, for instance,
there is a certain time that is best for the interaction, length of
time. But because of the different kind of consciousness that
time will be different let's say than a relatively new piece of
matter, a subatomic particle let's say.
Question:
Do you have a particular fondness for Neil and Linda?
Answer:
Affinity, at this moment.
Question:
Does Linda ask you questions now too?
Answer:
I am occasionally aware of questions. Those questions may or
may not be asked at the present moment. They may be echoes of
questions that have been asked previously.
Question:
So I get the feeling of a multi-dimensional conversation of sorts.
Answer:
Yes. Would you like to end the session?
Question:
Yes.
August 2, 1988: A dialogue about process and consciousness.
Neil:
You're like a child; you need things in boxes.
Linda:
No, I don't want to lose things.
Neil:
It's not lost.
Linda:
I don't want to lose my things.
Neil:
They're not lost, your things are never lost.
Linda:
Well, yea, I suppose all this was somewhere in here all this time. But
why isn't this there continually?
Neil:
It is.
Linda:
Why do I have to get frustrated and depressed and then it comes out
all at once. Why is that?
Neil:
Because you don't trust.
Linda:
Because I've moved on to another point?
Neil:
Because you don't trust the point.
Linda:
Is that the way we move from a point? Why can't we gradually slide
into a point?
Neil:
We do that enough. Because there's not enough trust in the point
where you are. In order to trust you must be willing to forget. In
order to be able to forget, if you're willing to forget, then it's always
there in new form. The thing never repeats itself, there's nothing to
be held. The data always changes. That's why the sessions are
possible. If it was based upon a gradual linear point, it would never
be done. It is based upon utilization of....
Linda:
Of a further point.
Neil:
No.
Linda:
I have to hop to that point. If I slid into that point, it would never
be....
Neil:
It's a non-moving point, it's a non-moving point that moves. It
doesn't move linearly. If you want to hold the point, by the very
intent hold the point, you're obscuring new data and you're
sabotaging, in a sense, what led you to that point to begin with.
Linda:
Yea, that's the truth.
Neil:
And you, you touch upon points absolutely, magnificent points, and
then like a child you want to put them in a box. And that's what
you're trying to see.
Linda:
Sometimes I feel like a child compared to you. Sometimes I feel like
the revelation that I have just found is just an unlocking of the secret
of something you've already written. But I wonder if you've
understood what you've already written either.
Neil:
The first part of what you said is not entirely true.
Linda:
I know our processes are different. It's the, with you, it is the only
time it has ever happened to me.
Neil:
It frightens you to form a memory, because you're so, you're so
adept at skipping between the points in your terms.....that it
frightens you.....
Linda:
It would obscure my process.....just like you said before.....it would
obscure my process.....that's why I can't remember.
Neil:
Oh, no.
Linda:
Yea, it is.
Neil:
That's what I said before but that's only half the reason. It wouldn't
obscure your process if you trust the point to become another point
and let it dissolve and at the same time allow that part of you to form
a memory of it. In other words, in forming a memory of it, you don't
lose anything as long as you're willing to go beyond the memory.
You feel that once you have it, you have to encase it and box it and
hold it. And that's your idea of memory.
Linda:
Yes. (laughs)
Neil:
And you want to go beyond that and jump between the points but it is
neither. It is knowing how to jump between the points and not feeling
overwhelmed by memory. In other words, the memory you desire,
that you're fearful of is not as overwhelming as you have been
thinking.
Linda:
Maybe it's the very memory that we can't walk on water. Maybe I
don't to remember that we can't.
Neil:
You want to take memory and put it in a box. I'm telling you that
it's okay to have memory and to feel memory and to live in memories
and at the same time be willing to drop it and to go on to another
point. You're afraid to put a mirror to yourself. It's almost as though
I take a mirror and put it between the points that you're jumping
which scares you out of your wits, to no end. Because if I took a
mirror and put it in your consciousness, and showed you your
jumping between points, that itself would form a pattern of what
you're doing...and you don't want to.....you're a child in that sense.
You don't want to know. You want to continue to jump, but if I hold
a mirror to your jumping between points, you run away. Yet the
jumping between points is itself miraculous and itself is wonderful.
And in itself represents an innate knowledge, but you don't want to
form a conception of this road that you travel, the patterns that you
form.
Linda:
But I should, right? I should.
Neil:
It's not that you should but that you can and it's okay. What you're
learning is, that there's no need to be frightened.
Linda:
Is it, is it partially being frightened or is it possible that that would
obscure my process?
Neil:
That is the fear.....that it would obscure your process...it would
obscure the inner movements, so to speak, that you jumped into
early on...it would obscure the inner places. That's your fear,
that it would obscure. It would not really obscure but since you're
so adept at doing that, and since subconsciously you know, and it's
rightly so, that other people are not naturally adept...for the most
part used to jumping between those points between inner places as
you do...then you fear yourself becoming...
Linda:
As mere mortals. (laugh)
Neil:
...as others do not perceive those inner points, but that is not
something to be lost. That is your right, your natural right, that
is what you are, that is what you do. And it's okay to form a
conception of it, okay to form a memory of it, without obscuring
anything. It does not obscure and you have to realize that it
doesn't obscure anything. In other words, and you cannot follow
other people's ideas of memory and time. And you, this has to be
an original thing on your part.
Linda:
(laugh) That's the way I feel.
Neil:
In order for it to be complete?
Linda:
In order for it to be valid for me or then I'm afraid I'm using other
people's material.
Neil:
Right. You have no other example to follow. This has to be from
you. And this is quite an endeavor because your original intent was
to escape memory and now you have nobody else's example in
which to form it. So, you're faced with a dilemma, so to speak, in
which you who originally escaped memory now has to form it
originally. Because you traveled the roads of inner perception
before you realized what you were doing. Once doing that, there's
no return and now in waking you realize the necessity of forming a
memory and you don't have anybody's example to follow. So this
has to come from you and that takes courage but it's there. You
took a most courageous, where you thought of it as escape, a most
courageous route that people don't follow but you realize that in
memory, you see. And that's what frightens you, the formation of
that memory, of your own inner movement frightens you but it need
not. It need not.
Linda:
It is, it's never.....wanting to look back....and getting caught there,
getting delayed. But I do so much there. If I can't go back and
retrieve lost ideas, lost thoughts, they remain lost to me.
Neil:
No.
Linda:
I guess they don't, they come out in another way.
Neil:
Again, it's not a question of putting it in a box the joyful recognition
of where you move and saying "I" along those points.
Linda:
There's the joy but there's no trace of it, it's not.....
Neil:
Exactly, but the memory is there.
Linda:
How can I be a writer, how can I ever capture.....
Neil:
But the memory is there, you see. The memory is there at your
choice, that's what you have to realize. The memory is there at
your choice, joyfully recognized, joyful recognition. At any of those
points, you can say "I", but the movement exists regardless. And
what you have to know and see for yourself is that to say "I" is a
matter of exclamation, not a matter of entrapment. Exclamation as
in joy. Exclamation as in "I" but not as a matter of putting it in a box.
It's knowing at any point that you move, just as in a session, at any
point can account for future and past even though it exists at other
points.
Linda:
I know. Fred's book can be read at any moment.
Neil:
Exactly. You have to learn how to form memory with eyes open,
just as you know how to form non-memory with your inner eyes
open. You have to learn how to form memory with your outer
eyes open. The two go together. They form one another, they
form patterns. Memories are not entrapments. They're points.
Linda:
I know. I know that really. I just don't.....we missed the original
point.
Neil:
What do you mean?
Linda:
We started off with the writing and got off on a tangent about me and
my process. We missed the original point.
Neil:
No we didn't
Neil's writing:
Conscious focus in its essential aspect is formulated instantaneously.
It has no memory from which it springs.
Linda:
Wait a minute, read it again. That's just what we were talking about.
Neil:
Conscious focus in its essential aspect is formulated instantaneously.
It has no memory from which it springs. Memory is a way of slowing
down motion which is timeless in its essential nature and
instantaneous in appearance. Direct cognition involves living and
waking realization of no separate "I" forming reality. It thinks as it
moves. Its looking and forming are one simultaneously with no
historical past or future reference. This involves actualization of a
deeper moment we haven't yet learned to normally, consciously
breathe and live. This is an understanding of inner perception at
the point of interaction with later formed outward linear focuses.
This is where one learns how to manipulate time and alter
neurological focus of delineated linear "I", thus introducing new data
in the waking field, data which did not exist previously. This is where
waking consciously, non-mentally touches inner perception and
experiences the formation or intersection of its framework, a point
where timelessness and time, which equals perception, converges
forming patterns of memory or particles of being. It all seems so
logically laid out but the entire cause-effect is an infinitely miniscule
point of focus of horizon seemingly infinite in depth and scope to
those who move and identify within it, appearing noncontestible,
absolute. It is a field of perception formed out of what we can call a
formed concentration of consciousness in which this field is but one
possible particle or focus. And in its own terms it moves in
accordance to differently formed concentrations of itself which is
timeless and spaceless. Its formed lived-in patterns are
interpretations made of this movement which is absolute,
transparent, perpetual. The nature of our language and being is one
formed conception of it. As consciousness or conscious awareness
grows here, the formed pattern becomes illuminated through
nonverbal senses. The dynamics of its construction seen, memory
shrinks and begins to dissolve and the appearance of simultaneous
events begin to emerge in the light of an non-mentally identified
movement. Consciousness which self-pattern and other movements
through inner spaces which weave in and out of time. More of the
movement between waking-dreaming, life-death becomes lived and
a certain transparency reveals itself.
Neil:
Do you understand what I'm saying?
Linda:
Yes.
Neil:
Did you like it?
Linda:
Yes.
Neil:
I'm doing this. Watch. (Kundalini)
Linda:
You've been doing that full time.
Neil:
Watch this.
Linda:
I know.
Neil:
Did you feel that?
Linda:
Yes. I'm already.....
Neil:
This is sound. Consciousness forms the focuses, the focuses reveal
the consciousness. As the focuses grow in conscious awareness, it
begins to radiate the consciousness. As that happens, the particle,
the energy which represents the formation of the particle,
begins to glow or vibrate in unison. In other words, the particle
reaches the speed at which the consciousness itself is actually
moving. And the particle is actually a slowed-down version of the
consciousness. It's an interpretation, a translation, a condensation.
And the particle begins to speak. It's speaking is the vibration and
the vibration is the recognition. The recognition is the illumination
of the consciousness which forms it. It becomes aware of itself as a
pattern of concentration from which it is focusing. The "we"
becomes aware of the "I", the "I" becomes aware of the "we".
And what you have is a merging. You have a merging, a waking
field of perception with other levels of consciousness which
simultaneously exist. But now there's a difference; they're
simultaneously realized. They begin to vibrate at the same level.
The particle is raised to the level of the speed of consciousness
itself. The particle.....
Linda:
Is that how inner space travel is done?
Neil:
Right.
Linda:
It is, isn't it.
Neil:
Yes.
Linda:
(laugh) That's it. That's it.
Neil:
The particle, the particle symbolizes so to speak, in our terms, and
doesn't allow the particle representing waking field of consciousness,
doesn't reveal the inner consciousness, the movement, the fast
movement. In other words, that's why when waking field perception
opens up to inner consciousness, it begins to radiate at the same rate
of speed that consciousness is. In other words, a comet unobstructed,
unfiltered begins to flow and circle between all levels. It's radiances
begin to glow, equally brilliant among each, each encapsulation. And
there's a mutual affinity between all opposites. The opposites begin
to radiate the ONE. There is unity without division. There is
multiplicity, unity radiating as something different than either ONE
or multiplicity. See, consciousness.....it's interesting, waking field of
consciousness has been too slow and something within waking, when
waking field of perception touches inner perception it introduces new
data and that, what I mean by new data is what I just said, it begins
to radiate at the same vibration, the same speed. It begins to
translate that which cannot be translated in the old symbolic
framework. It begins to live motions, speeds which don't fit
linear frames. That is why memory dissolves. Memory reveals the
inner point upon which it constructs other frequencies or other
perceptions.
Linda:
That's just what I was writing about.
Neil:
Exactly. And it begins to utilize consciously. It begins to
consciously utilize those fields of perception. It cultivates other
speeds which are all native and are all implied. It begins to reach
out and integrate within itself other aspects of itself previously
asleep to. It begins to wake up within its dreams and its dreams
begin to wake. There's a mutual transference of information and
that mutual transference can be compared to speeds, the
speeds match, the motions match. The particle raises up to the
motions of consciousness, the speed of consciousness. But the
particle begins to radiate from within itself, the speed of
consciousness. In other words, that's how matter expands and
grows. That's what Aurobindo was referring to. The data is
changed. See, the movement in and of itself cannot be spoken of.
When the particle begins to radiate the consciousness or realize
the same speed, motion, it, as a new dimension.....
Linda:
What cause it to change its speed?
Neil:
Interpretation. Desire to know. Nonverbally, cannot even put
into words, but if put into words, the desire to form, the desire to
know itself. We are an interpretation and when we realize that we
are a form of parallel consciousness.....
Neil:
It forms a field.
Linda:
But wait. I know. It goes so far, it can go no farther and yet it has
to go farther. Now listen to me.
Neil:
It forms a field of perception in which it can grow.
Linda:
When it hits its own wall then it must be transformed. It becomes
other.
Neil:
It has reached its limit.
Linda:
It has reached its limit. Is that how conversion happens?
Neil:
That's how conversion....
Linda:
That's how conversion happens, Neil!!!
Neil:
But. But it has not reached its limit in any sense of a linear sense.
It touches something which is an inner component of its outer fields.
Linda:
What do you mean? Oh, it touches one of the elements it already
possesses.
Neil:
It touches one of the....
Linda:
It spews off something, that's what happens!! It unsees!!
Neil:
It touches one of the elements which forms it, that's how memory
dissolves. It unsees.
Linda:
It unsees. It unsees, that's precisely it. That is precisely it. That's
how conversion happens.
Neil:
That's Einstein's formula of consciousness, yes. He never applied it
to consciousness but he would. He would agree. That's the
conversion of the elements.
Linda:
That's how they spew off. They hit the wall, they hit the wall.
Neil:
But, the conversion of the elements are dependent on the waking
field of perception.
Linda:
Why?
Neil:
Because without it no conscious growth could take place. At least
at our level that is necessary. When the movement, becomes
aware of itself that becomes necessary. Because the waking field
of perception, there's a consciously formed pattern of focus. And
we are consciousness forming and growing selves.
Linda:
I don't even know if we know what we have here. And that's good.
I hope we don't know.
Neil:
Why do you hope we don't know? (laugh)
Linda:
Because....
Neil:
That's the undoing.
Linda:
That's the undoing.
Neil:
That's nonlinear operating.
Linda:
That's boxing it in. That's what I have done sometimes in the past.
Neil:
Right.
Linda:
I was too aware of what I knew. Not compared to what other
people knew or what had been known before, but I before, but
I became aware of my own knowing and just as I have....
(end of tape)....just as I have been so afraid of reading what
someone else thought, I've been afraid of my own thoughts.
Neil:
Uh-huh.
Linda:
Because then I'm too aware and then that actually stops me from
hitting the wall.
Neil:
But you have to become aware of your movement.
Linda:
The self doesn't need to become aware. The self does not need to
be aware. It just needs to.....
Neil:
You have to be aware. You have to be aware of the patterns that
you form even though you might not live within them. You have to
understand that you form patterns. Patterns are alwats formed....
Linda:
Oh, the fact of it, but it reaches a feeling point, Neil. It reaches a
feeling point and that's what I don't want. I don't want the feeling
point.
Neil:
You cannot explain consciousness by it.
Linda:
Reading someone else's work or understanding what they understand
and feeling what understand stops me out because then I realize
I can't walk on water.
Neil:
But you always can.
Linda:
But I always can.
Neil:
And you can read others and you can read your own thoughts and
you could realize that you form patterns which others perceive.
And others perceive you or a you. But, the movement is
unobstructed. You have to be willing in your sense to be in a box,
so to speak, without feeling threatened that you're in a box and
being aware of your movement. There's no entrapment and, like I
said before, you cannot use other people's examples of memory for
your own. You have to, you are unique in this fashion. You, you,
Linda, has to form your own, you have to come to terms with a sense
of memory. Your own sense of memory. There's nobody's example
to follow. Like I said, where you thought you were escaping and
going into inner places, you actually reached a point where you were
exploring things that others usually do not. And when you begin to
open your eyes....
Linda:
I'll realize that it was outer all along, Neil.
Neil:
It was outer all along.
Linda:
It was outer all along.
Neil:
That's right and that is the memory and that is the pattern and
you continue. It was outer all along.
Linda:
It was.
Neil:
Because it was you. (laugh) It was you.
Linda:
And the same thing applies in this whole psychological thing that I
am going through.
Neil:
Right.
Linda:
There is no other "I". There is one to merge with, there is no
parallel self. (laugh) It was there all along (laugh)
Neil:
That's a very big realization. That's a very big revelation. I'm glad
you realize that. In many ways I need to realize that.
Linda:
I know. There is no schism.
Neil:
No. Because you were always outer, it was all you.
Linda:
Just as the inner thought processes are always me.
Neil:
Right. There's no "I" to come to.
Linda:
There is no"I/we".
Linda:
(laugh)
Neil:
How do you feel about that? You almost feel slightly embarrassed.
Linda:
Yea, I do. (laugh) I do.
Neil:
It's the "we" pretending not to be. (laugh) There's just "it". (laugh)
There is no schism. In a wider sense that's why so many people feel
the necessity of making opposites between things, schisms
bewteen things. There isn't.
Linda:
I think we should go eat now.
Neil:
And it finds no outer translation. Because it's all inner/outer. Inner
to outer. There's nowwhere to box it because it's always inner to
outer. The outer.....
Linda:
Just the way the universe can't be boxed, Neil!
Neil:
That's right. The outer makes absolutely no sense.
Linda:
That's why the universe can't be boxed. That's why there is no...
Neil:
No, there isn't a point.
Linda:
There is no set of all sets.
Neil:
No, now...
Linda:
Someday I'm going to realize what we just said. Again.
Neil:
You are now (laugh)
Linda:
I am now. I won't tomorrow but someday I will again.
Neil:
Then it's the same thing.
Linda:
I know. I know it is.
Neil:
Is there a point of fear?
Linda:
But I'll forget.
Neil:
Is that out of fear?
Linda:
Out of habit. Forgetting is a habit.
Neil:
But who is that which talks about all this now? (laugh) There's no
escape.
Linda:
It's the real one, it is.
Neil:
There's no fake one, it's it. (laugh)
Linda:
I know. I know, I know that. It's just like when I write, I know.
I can read my writing months later and I don't know again.
Neil:
There comes a point of no return where you cannot continue to
play hide and seek with yourself so thoroughly because something
reveals itself which is common to both the hiding and the seeking.
And that's courage to stand with eyes open within all spaces.
Linda:
That's like the dream I had where I could not open my eyes.
Because there was light inside and outside.
Neil:
Because they were already open.
Linda:
The same thing was outside as was inside.
Neil:
That's right, and you...
Linda:
It didn't matter if I opened my eyes. I thought I had to open my
eyes. I didn't have to open them.
Neil:
It's the merging, Linda, you don't even realize how significant that
is. That is the merging. That is the absolute merging. The
realization is the merging.
Linda:
That there's no inner/outer.
Neil:
They exist in an inner sense and this is the language. That is the
language which bridges. They exist in an inner sense.
Linda:
No, they just exist.
Neil:
Well, in an inner sense, I didn't mean inner as opposed to outer.
They exist.
Linda:
Inner implies outer. They just exist.
Neil:
They exist.
Linda:
It just is, just like my writing.
Neil:
Right, and when waking...
Linda:
It reduces everything to the element "existence", Neil. Now
speaking of the element of existence, do you think we should eat to
maintain ours?
Neil:
No. (Linda laughs) It, it just is. Words are attempts at boxing in a
sense.
[Note, page 1 that follows below is currently missing, dated approximately Summer/ Fall of 1988. The first answer beginning with page two is in response to a previous question with respect to the possibility of having the nature of the dialogues in these sessions more directly or transparently communicated, that is to say, from its "own perspective", or patterns of perception and symbolism, prior to the translation or articulation by Linda.]
.............
Another concern is that there will be a predilection among some readers, regardless of how extraordinarily ill-conceived, to place them in the fanciful and frequently distorted quasi bin of "New Age Psychology." Each dialogue which follows, depicted as "Question and Answer" (respectively Neil and Linda) aside from typical dialogues (immediately following sessions) were answered by Linda as she was placed by Neil in a guided state of very mild relaxation or light hypnosis. Mild relaxation or light hypnosis set up the means or the foundation thus allowing for a greater access to a more expansive and different organizational frame(s) of reference or "areas of communication" that are at best poorly understood or inadequately explored by traditional psychoanalysis or neuroscience.
Many of the dialogues here address the general nature of the structure/process of human collective consciousness and perception in general. However, what is especially relevant or what the reader needs to be especially mindful to is the highly unusual or extraordinary seamless access to information under a more relaxed state of consciousness. Essentially, what is explored here is a much more expansive or different than familiarly known access to areas of communication and consciousness which lie outside typical human experience. Again, however strong the tendency, it would be terribly misguided in fact erroneous to consider them as part of a joint psychopathology under the highly narrow lens of what essentially serves as the litmus test for typical discourse.
Session July 5, 1988
Question:
I want you to look for the familiar inner library and tell me if you can see it.
Answer:
Yes. It's green.
Question:
Are you inside? Or are you looking at it?
Answer:
Alright, I'll walk into an actual library.
Question:
What do you see around you? Do you see books?
Answer:
Rows of books and round tables. I've been there before.
I chose a library from a dream.
Question:
You chose the library from a dream?
Answer:
Yes. It seems to be important here that we have a visual
representation of a library, so I've chose a dream that
I/Linda have had to be that library.
Question:
Are you viewing this state from a different perspective than you
would than you would, than Linda would in what you refer to as
the dream?
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
Can you describe the difference, the observing difference?
Answer:
I'm looking at the library as I would look at a photograph, without
interaction. Dreams are not without interaction.
Question:
Are there many places to go now, within the context of what you see?
Do you desire to go someplace there?
Answer:
Only if you wish me to.
Question:
You do see books?
Answer:
Yes, the walls are lined with books. Try to picture almost a stage with
three walls of books and tables and I'm standing viewing the
three walls. And there are nooks and crannies and the books continue
around those areas.
Question:
I want you to take the first book that you have a natural attraction
for, something that catches your inner feeling.
Answer:
I would like you to choose the book. I'm here for you.
Question:
I want you, if you can, to take the book that speaks about how we
create and how we put waking and dreaming together, the
interconnecting symbols, how we write our psyches and how we
divide them and how we create different interpretations of
waking and dreaming realities. It's the book that illustrates the
ever-connecting symbols between both. Is there such a book?
Answer:
You don't really need to look at the book. You can just ask me.
Question:
Can you see the point of uninterrupted experience, consciousness
that holds waking and dreaming at the same time, the
interconnecting symbols between both, without the need to
create the distances and the gaps. Do you see?
Answer:
We've spoken about it before.
Question:
Right. I continue to wonder if it's fear which creates the gaps
between, the connecting between both states.
Answer:
No, it's not fear.
Question:
Is it lack of experience?
Answer:
Yes. Lack of experience, lack of familiarity.
Question: What is the familiarity that needs to be developed.
Is it a personal sense of one's playfulness, ones own confidence,
one's own courage to pursue? That creates a more uninterrupted
flow, a more joyous continuum?
Answer:
I think that we should redefine the word needs, first of all. I don't
think that we can say that there is a need for development along
these lines. Need indicates that something is not being done that
should be done. And it is being done. Would you like to rephrase?
Question:
Yes, it's just that it's such a familiar habit to cloak it in certain terms
that.....
Answer:
Exactly, I'm not criticizing the question at all. I'm only saying that
speaking from the positive standpoint.....what I'm really trying to say
to you is that we could speak in terms of misinterpretations, we can
speak in terms of need.....we can speak in those terms but
completely from a human standpoint.
Question:
Do you mean from an ego standpoint?
Answer:
From a human standpoint....this should not be this way, this should
be that way...
Question:
Right, right.
Answer:
...when there are really no shoulds, in other words, when I say that
we should think in terms of timing, uh, when we're talking about
development it's only a question of at which point during that
development that consciousness is, as opposed to that development
being wrong or misdirected, misinterpreted. So if we could speak in
terms of different points in evolution, for instance...
Question:
Uh-huh, well, I do have one question which is particularly personal,
which I have a feeling, which is the, which is, which is somewhat
negative, but it is personal.....the idea of self-betrayal, of the feeling
of.....the feeling of not doing something, and not fulfilling growing in
awareness and...not overcoming certain fears leads to a feeling of
self-betrayal. And I know that's exactly what you wanted to address
in a more positive light.
Answer:
Yes, I know your question and I know it about you specifically...
and the comment that comes to mind, and I hope that you don't take
this personally, is that it's an egotistical viewpoint, and what I mean
to say is that the focus is from the ego.....that again you're not doing
this and you should be doing that...is placing a great deal of emphasis
on the self and though there's nothing wrong with placing emphasis
on the self apparently you feel that it's uncomfortable and all I can
really say to you is that it is something that will pass, that you can't
..(unclear)..that if you're putting a lot of emphasis upon the self and
you would like not to...then the answer is obvious, you don't put as
much emphasis on the self. However, that's not possible. So you just
go with that, realize that it's part of the process and try not to belabor
it. In other words, don't let your feelings about it send you into a
spiral.
Question:
Right.
Answer:
...and just try to be philosophical about it and realize it's part of
the process, a needed one, as natural one and.....
Question:
Is that a feeling, is that an acceptance of grace of one's own
being...that's what I'm sensing.
Answer:
I think that your word acceptance is a very wise one. If you'd
like to know more about that you certainly may ask.
Question:
I, uh, want to go off to another tangent very briefly. I was
describing a dream, physically outstanding in terms of its intensity,
about a week ago which I was describing to Linda, in which I woke
up in the dream and I thought that I was completely awake in my
room and then I started to experience what I refer to as kundalini,
a feeling of immense energy growing and everything in the room
took on that characteristic and then I opened my eyes a second time
and I realized that it was, that I was now in the actual physical room
...and there seemed to be an experience with different frameworks...
that I refer to as different frameworks of organization. Do you know
what I am referring to?
Answer:
Yes. I have two things to say about it. First of all, the ability to
think in a dream is a sign of growing consciousness, growing
awareness. Secondly, the switching on and off of the light switch, uh,
is a symbolic action.
Question:
What...why at certain points can one allow oneself, afford oneself
the luxury of thinking while at other times in other dreams it does
not seem emotionally feasible, one does not feel up to that in that
space?
Answer:
Well dreams are, as you know, uh....dreams are dreamt for
various purposes and the purposes are varied, vast.
Question:
I mean specifically the ability to, to think.
Answer:
I understand. I'm getting to that. Depending upon what you're
working out in a specific dream, and I don't even really like the
phrase working out, what you're...
Question:
Constructing?
Answer:
Constructing, choosing to experience I think is a good phrase for
that, uh, choosing to add to your experience and you do, uh.....
depends, now in a dream where you think, where you have thoughts,
where you analyze in the dream, that kind of thing, probably what
you're attempting is a merger of the different bodies, in the different
psychological bodies, facing thought here in the psychological
framework along with the emotional, along with the physical and
what we're going to call all those psychological aspects...
Question:
Right.
Answer:
... so that at various times, uh, when you.....I don't really want
to say that a dream like that is more important than another dream.
It is not. However, it does show a certain measure, as I said before,
of expanding consciousness, uh,...I believe you had another question
about your specific dream.....about the light switch.
Question:
Not particularly , just except, uh, I saw that, I felt that the, uh,
I felt how one part of consciousness organizes...in a brief second, in
a brief microsecond between one framework and another without
distinguishing and there's a certain habit, there's a certain familiar
pattern, uh, which generally acts as a safety value, a protective
consciousness that is going on simultaneously. That was my feeling,
I was feeling that the ability at that point to switch between one and
another was just a question of seeing through how we form certain
frameworks, certain focuses.
Answer:
Exactly. When I talk about thoughts in a dream obviously I
don't mean the kind of thought that "Oh, there's a big green monster
and he's going to chase me." That's not the kind of thought that I'm
talking about. I'm talking about the ability specifically to analyze, to
gather information from the dream, which of course comes from
other places, from the dream and to gain something from it...and to,
uh, synthesize...
Question:
Obviously the, the uh, the experience that Linda is having right now
cannot be equated with the normal reference of the dream state. It
is, is it a more waking dream state in that respect, is it a more, is it
the, I hate to use the term, the step beyond thinking independently
and analyzing that is, is it the actual innate awareness of how things
are formed and taking a different perspective in relation to the
dream?
Answer:
Well, first of all, I should say that, perhaps we described this before,
I'm not certain Linda is stepping aside.....Linda is present and viewing
but is not really directing as one does in a dream. One is the director
in a dream, one chooses the roles, one chooses the actors, one
chooses the script, one chooses all the key personnel and everything
surrounding the storyline. Linda is not choosing at this point.
Question:
Is there another framework of organization of consciousness?
Answer:
Completely different, yes.
Question:
A framework which is organized by another portion of
consciousness?
Answer:
Well...
Question:
By consciousness which is part of the whole?
Answer:
Yes, we could say that in this instance. You're actually organizing
the consciousness by your questions. And that's why questions are
important.
Question:
Okay, I have a question upon that. The, I am organizing by my
questions...do my questions present one actualized version of an
event?
Answer:
Yes, one and only one.
Question:
In other words, the event horizon could be actualized differently, in
different translations. Is that correct?
Answer:
Oh, yes. I'm not telling you that the information that I'm giving you
is subjective, uh, I'm not telling you that at all. But certainly process,
and the individual circumstances that produce this process are
subjective...And I'm not talking here about the content.
Question:
And Linda learns as well?
Answer:
Yes, hopefully.
Question:
Is...Linda's and Neil's consciousness are particularly native to one
another, particularly.....
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
Which enable various other frameworks of organization, various...
Answer:
Yes, they are, they/we, however you wish to phrase it. I'm the
same consciousness and we can say that every particle is the
same consciousness and that of course is true. However, what
makes the work special with Neil and Linda is their recognition of
the consciousness through each other.
Question:
Also, we see as well where male and female overlap, merge, are
translated in that. And...
Answer:
Yes, although I would say that that is an important factor only from
the human standpoint.....that if you were to view Neil as a unit of
consciousness and Linda as a unit of consciousness both contain both
of those aspects. Now, in the physical incarnation, of course there is
an awareness, uh, of which...(unclear)...was chosen for the physical
bodies.....and because of that there will be an awareness of it,
certainly back and forth, but it could easily be done in a different way
and has been before in terms of these two particular beings. Do you
understand that?
Question:
Yes, I do. Yes I do. Is there a growing towards a point in which there
will be a waking awareness of how it was done in other times, how it is
being organized this time, how it is being organized overall from the
viewpoint of a more unified whole?
Answer:
If that becomes important in other aspects of the work. In and of
itself, it's probably not necessary.
Question:
Is what Linda and myself have been working on...is the language, uh,
we feel that there's a language inbetween waking and dreaming
consciousness. Can you comment upon that?
Answer:
Well, all we can really say is inbetween is consciousness, another
form of consciousness.
Question:
Are there certain sounds, certain symbols which speak of both
simultaneously?
Answer:
There are certain sounds and symbols that can be used to describe
this particular kind of consciousness. It's not necessary but that
can be done, yes.
Question:
Can you elaborate upon that? Can you elaborate upon the.....it is not
necessary, it is not necessary for growth and development...
Answer:
No, it is not. The, really the only way that it can be used in a
meaningful, as meaningful I suppose, uh, is really when more and
more, two or more, are trying to communicate about that particular
kind of consciousness. Certainly it's not, it doesn't, the sound or the
symbol on its own....it's there but it doesn't communicate. I's used to
communicate.
Question:
So it only has meaning in the context of an overall growth?
Answer:
Communication. Communication. And I believe that there are
questions in terms of mathematical symbols..
Question:
Do you have any mathematical symbols that would be useful
right now?
Answer:
That's not really what I think we should do...those symbols are
there certainly. They are available.
Question:
When it becomes necessary, then it will become apparent.
Answer:
Yes, yes. I think it would be a better idea to discuss the symbols
in terms of, in general terms.
Question:
Okay. I do have a question. How are you organized when my
questions are not organizing? Would I have to go to a different
place to see a different organization?
Answer:
I don't understand the last part of the question.
Question:
My question, my questions organize in part, as well as Linda's
intentions, uh, this particular form of communication?
Answer:
Yes.
Question: Is this particular form of communication happening
all the time, beneath our awareness, outside our awareness?
Is it an ongoing communication which is occurring even though
we're not focused upon it at any specific given time.?
Answer:
The kind of communication we're having now?
Question:
Yes, yes. Is this consciousness involved in other activities...
Answer:
It's always available, uh, the real question here, or the real point
I guess we could say, is that we are willing now. It is a question
of your will, not mine. I organize in a different way, one that you
would not be familiar with, but I can adapt my particular kind of
organization to yours but that is because you will it, you organize
it. I then adapt that to your organization.
Question:
How are you the moment before that, figuratively speaking?
Would it be understood, can it be understood?
Answer:
It could be understood. I don't know if it's important to you to
understand it, if it is we can attempt that.
Question:
Do the books in the library contain what anybody needs to know,
what anybody desires to know? The library, is it a mass construct
familiar to, familiar to many people?
Answer:
Yes. It is familiar to many people in different ways, in different
disguises, if you will. I think we talked about this before. It
could be a rock, it could be a library, it could be anything. The
important thing is that there are records and they are available
to anyone.
Question:
Have these records existed throughout history?
Answer:
Absolutely. And those records change. The records contain the
present moment, as we know the moment, and all previous moments
as we know the past and they contain probabilities, possibilities,
probabilities for the future as well and so those books are
continually being written, if you will. In other words, in other
words, if you were to pull out a book with a, let's say, description
of a specific human being. Let's say, let's give it a name, this
book's name is Fred. Now we can look through all the pages up
to the present moment, which let's say he is age forty. Now the
rest of the book is written for the rest of his existence as Fred,
it is already written. And it can be read right now all the way to
the end. However, it is continually changing.
Question:
So each point has its own line?
Answer:
Yes. So if you were to look at Fred's past, the present and the
future at each moment, more of the book becomes past of
course, indefinite, unless it's a book of names. Now sometimes
that book can be read to the very end and it will happen
precisely as it is written.
Question:
Would, hypothetically, Fred one day experience all his probable
version? All of his probable histories? Would he be able to
consciously form, consciously live all his probable histories?
Answer:
Through mind.
Question:
Would that represent a point of growth?
Answer:
Again, I think we should speak in terms of purpose. Fred will
experience what is relevant to Fred. Obviously, all possible, all
possibilities for incarnation could almost be termed infinite.
There are that many, but what is the point in focusing on let's say
three thousand possibilities for a single moment when that
moment may not be, may not call for that kind of significance?
In other words, Fred will experience what is relevant to him this
time. Now, if we want to be more specific we can talk in terms of
Linda, for instance, experiencing possibilities, probabilities through
Louise [Linda's past]. Alright? Now for some reason, and now,
some of that's still unfolding, uh, for some reasons that knowledge,
that consciousness of that possibility, probability was important,
was relevant. Now, if it were not, Linda would not focus on it,
would not be conscious of it. I believe that was your question
about consciousness.
Question:
Right. So there are certain lines activated according to present
purpose, present intent?
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
Present desire, which would fall in a line of the fulfillment of the
present focus?
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
Okay. So there's, so at any given point there, it could be said there
is literally infinite amount of histories available, deciding upon the
focus chosen?
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
And there's combinations, past, present and future.....
Answer:
Yes. I hesitated before to use the word infinite and I strike that.
Let's not say infinite, let's say vast. Very vast. It would seem
infinite from a human standpoint but let's not use that word.
Question:
So also nothing is definitely set at any given point either. It's
continually being created. The idea of permanency.
Answer:
Let's say that, we're getting into fine line here in terms of being
set, in terms of being prewritten. I know the essence of the
question. Because it is Fred's book, and because Fred is writing it,
you understand, in a sense Fred is writing it. In another sense it
is being written. There's a seeming duality there but it is not
really a duality. It just depends upon perspective. In other
words, from Fred's perspective, uh, let's do it this way. From
Fred's perspective, if Fred is not particularly conscious, let's say,
particularly aware or awake, uh, Fred may have little idea of
what the rest of his book contains. A psychologist, someone who
is trained in looking at these things may review Fred's history
and understand where he is now, his relationships, etc., and have
a better idea than Fred does of what the rest of the book will say.
Alright, we can move right on up there and when we get to a
certain point we can say that it is absolute, it can be known. What
is in this book. But because we are dealing with this book, we are
dealing with several different possibilities. We are dealing with
the possibility that the psychologist is reading the book, the book
is being read from a different, what you call a higher perspective,
the book varies depending upon who is reading it and the
understanding , the awareness of the entity that is reading the
book. At a certain point it is, can be absolutely known, what the
rest of the book will in fact say. And I know that may be very
difficult for you to swallow. But what we are talking about here
are perspectives that are so completely different from human
perspectives that the question is not about predestination really,
except from, and these are human terms, free will, predestination,
free will, that is human concern.
Question:
It's awareness of patterns of being....
Answer:
In other words, Fred's will, Fred's will, now, can be known, and I
think I can say without reservation, that there is no human
consciousness that can absolutely know it. So from a human
perspective, free will reigns and that is the truth. That is a truth.
But there are other perspectives, other perceptions.
Question:
Which goes beyond the conventional definition of determinism.
pre-determinism?
Answer:
Yes. If there is anything more about that, I'd be happy to
attempt it.
Question:
Linda right now is observing?
Answer:
Yes, in a sense.
Question:
She is not dreaming?
Answer:
No, and she at the same time is not able to have input into this.
Question:
Why is that? Can you comment upon that?
Answer:
It's as if you had taken a frame of time and frozen it, though...
there is no...(unclear)..to Linda at this time and there is
processing and all that, but in terms of output there is frozen time.
Question:
Brought together...a frame of organization for the express purpose
of this moment? Formed an organization pattern for this particular
moment?
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
Can you, can you talk about yourself? You would not define
yourself as human consciousness per se, right?
Answer:
It's very interesting of course. I'm going through Linda and going
through you, it's hard describe the process but you read something
earlier this evening about coming from a collective human
consciousness and that's very appropriate.
Question:
Okay. Do you figuratively speaking, do you, drop "figuratively", do
you observe Linda and Neil at other times?
Answer:
No, I do not. However, in a single instant I am able to observe Neil
and Linda at any previous moment. Does that make sense?
Question:
In other words...
Answer:
I'm not really observing Neil and Linda as you perceive events
happening to you. If you ask me, I can for instance observe Linda
and Neil reading the book although that was a previous action. I can
observe it now as if it's happening now.
Question:
So your framework of time is quite different than how we organize it?
Answer:
Yes, although you're capable of that kind of organization.
Question:
Is that a point of growing....so it does not have to do with memory as
we understand it?
Answer:
No. I, and I say that word with caution, I observe any situation that
is relevant to this, completely in the now, as if, meaning from your
standpoint, all events are simultaneous. Now I think that you have a
lot of literature afloat, shall we say, that talks about all events being
simultaneous, uh,....that's one way of putting it, but I think that
there's a better way of saying that. In other words, we could say that
all events are available simultaneously. (long period of silence)....
Does the silence come from a sense of not being fulfilled?
Question:
Not really.
Answer:
Do you feel unfinished?
Question:
No, I find that, I'm feeling that all questions must come out of
experience and at the risk of being, and out of pursuing and knowing
individually without what we define as exterior means, just
contemplating that....
Answer:
Would you like an elaboration?
Question:
If you have something, sure.
Answer:
Would you like to phrase it into a simple question?
Question:
The, when there is, when there is expansion and growth of being,
then I suppose the nature of these sessions will change accordingly,
as we, Neil and Linda grow in ourselves?
Answer:
Yes, that's right.
Question:
I'm just wondering why there is in many, I suppose, so much fear
involved in self-exploration, so much fear involved in.....not to speak
negatively, but there is that fear, as well as that awareness and that
joy and....
Answer:
The fear is understandable, afterall, you have been abandoned.
Question:
What do you mean by that? Can you elaborate upon that?
Answer:
I can. I'm trying to narrow this down. By taking on, I'll use one of
Linda's phrases here, by taking on more and more elements, the
particle let's say that is you, uh, being in matter and so forth, has
lost consciousness, is less aware of its consciousness than it was at
one time. In other words, it's as if your mother pushed you out the
door and said, you know at a very young age, and said well, fend for
yourself. Let's say that the child has been very warm and safe and
you're well-fed and you understand where you are and blah, blah,
blah, blah, and then you're suddenly forced into a set of
circumstances which are completely different from what you're
used to and you feel a sense of abandonment, uh, and I think that
there is a certain anger in the human condition as well as fear,
although anger is a form of fear, uh, I think that we can say that
there is also, you can see that genuine anger.... (unclear)...
Question:
But I have a growing feeling that pursued sincerely with eyes open
and the courage and the dedication, that that itself would turn into
love, that itself would blossom into a loving understanding.
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
And knowing.
Answer:
That's exactly what happens.
Question:
And that realization of, that inner-outer unification..
Answer:
Yes, it's a change of focus and finally the child who's been pushed
out the door into the elements , into a different environment and
so forth drops his anger and stops raging, stops being afraid and
finally sits down and say well, "Okay, I guess this is it, now what
am I going to do about it?" And there is that point in the child
who is sent out to weather the elements that, in terms of an adult
human being, there is a point at which that awareness happens
and the point can be an instant or it can be longer depending upon
the circumstances and the personal history of the person
attempting it. But there is that point where fear does turn to love.
I believe that is what you and Linda and many, many, many others
at this time are dealing with is the transitional period between fear
and love.
Session: August 1, 1988
Question:
I want to begin by talking about something which we talked about
before. This position that you're in, is this an interaction point,
again, we spoke about it before?
Answer:
In a sense.
Question:
Do you recall last time from this space, from this position, do you
recall the other session?
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
Has any time lapsed between that session and this session from
your present point? From this interaction point?
Answer:
No.
Question:
There has been no space?
Answer:
Time has continued to occur. However, as I spoke to you the last
time, one of the last times, each time you questioned me, I am a
different combination, and yet I have full access to all memory.
Question:
So there must be something beyond the limitation of the questions
which we can get to and speak more directly of.
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
Which is another question (laughs).
Answer:
Yes, I have...
Question:
I would like if possible for you to speak about that. I realize the
limitations of the question.
Answer:
Would you like, would you like for me to speak on a certain theme?
Question:
I would like....
Answer:
...A certain area?
Question:
Area is closer to theme. I would like...my questions create the
session as much as Linda creates the session?
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
I would like to get beyond that and this might be somewhat
distorted...for you to express your own viewpoint...within the heart
beneath the questions.
Answer:
For me to express my own viewpoint, as you call it, uh, might not be
more interesting to you than if you were only to ask questions and
have no answers. But if you'd like, I would like you to suggest an
area. I feel that you are feeling a certain responsibility with which
you're uncomfortable. That need not be so, just remember that
everything is subject to revision. Revision of course is magnificent,
revision is the universe. So, instead of feeling responsibility and that
your participation might be inadequate, just keep in mind that if it
is indeed inadequate, then what emanates from it can be revised at
some later date, can be reorganized. However, as I stated earlier, if
you would like me to attempt that, I will.
Question:
I would like to ask a different question, something on a different line
first. Are you aware of...I find that some of the dreams I've been
having in terms of my sense of time lately, within a period of the last
several days, couple of weeks, have been almost remarkable in
nature, almost shocking in nature and I don't know if it's a natural
shocking process or, in order to awaken a particular self-discovery.
But are you, can you be aware of the dreams I'm referring to with
the sensations of the dreams that I have?
Answer:
I can have a feeling about it through the present moment with you.
Question:
Right. It seem to be somewhat of a theme of...some of the dreams
have been of the theme of displacement, not knowing where exactly
where I was, not having the specific image of myself to locate as
when I awakened taking that sense into the dream state and....
Answer:
It's as if, it's analogous to actually, what I was just going to say about
being able to feel or sense through the present moment...that's
precisely what you really do in the dream states that you're
mentioning. In other words, it's a scanning process. You're scanning
through material, a huge amount of material that's there in the
dream state and you have recognized that it has no boundaries
essentially. So you're culling through it to determine which point of
interest you can and need to incorporate into your personal
consciousness.
Question:
Uh-huh, that seems to be...
Answer:
And in that sense your work with your dream state is not a lot
different than my work with you. You have asked me in the
past if I am analogous to a dream state. I will say no. It's as if
you are my dream state.
Question:
And I felt that Linda has been my dream state...
Answer:
When I say you I mean you and Linda...
Question:
Oh.
Answer:
You together, your work, the present occurence is my dream state.
Question:
But these dreams awaken (laugh). What I'm getting at is some other
related material. Do the dreams themselves...if we're, if we are in a
sense your dream state, do the dreams themselves awaken...are your
dreams awakening in a certain sense?
Answer:
They're evolving. As my dreams, I don't mean to indicate that I
possess you, that you are a part of me. No. I mean simply that I
experience you as a dream state, as my dream state at the present
moment.
Question:
So you are the waking self? You are the...
Answer:
In my perception I am a waking not-self.
Question:
Right. At what point did you realize....or at what point did that
perception occur? That we...there seems to be a moment in the
course of dreams that, well, where one becomes aware of a
particular dream, at a particular point, at a particular position of
consciousness, at a particular moment. Does the same process occur
with you at a particular moment...this dream became obvious...
Answer:
(unclear)...you see, because there is no point of perception in my
kind of consciousness. So when you ask me about realizing a point
of perception, I can say it has always been realized.
Question:
From your perspective?
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
So have the dreams, using that term, Linda and Neil become aware
then from their point of perception of a self or a waking point,
however you want to phrase it, which is dreaming them?
Answer:
You're aware now and think about your own dreams when you ask
that question because you participate in your dreams and
increasingly you're aware of the waking self while you're in the
dream, so increasingly you and Linda, that one energy between you
or that is you, becoming increasingly aware of this waking state.
Question:
I sense a unified...
Answer:
It's a hierarchical...
Question:
I sense a unified process.
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
So that does change the interaction just as when the waking self in,
the dream self becomes more aware, changes the nature of the
interaction.
Answer:
Yes. We spoke before, we spoke earlier of the evolution, the point of
evolution being determined by the kinds of dreams that occur in an
individual's experience, for instance whether one is able to think and
analyze in the dream or if one is just reacting in the dream.
Question:
What predisposes Neil and Linda to that configuration, to the whole
configuration? In terms of time, were there certain qualities built up?
Answer:
Of course.
Question:
So does this represent a new type of interaction, a new interaction,
uh, a new path of development, a new.....
Answer:
In your case certainly.
Question:
Are you growing too from this?
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
In what sense?
Answer:
Remember that we also spoke of dreams as being in the center, as
being the line, the razor-edged path, whatever you would like to call
it. Between two opposites of waking and dreaming, for instance,
that waking...conscious-unconscious would be a better way to put it.
Question:
Are you still here?
Answer:
Yes. I began to drift. I apologize.
Question:
Can you explain drifting? What was...
Answer:
Yes, I can. Drifting for me, my energy, is the same as drifting let's
say for Linda. That it takes a constant amount of energy to focus in
any given situation.
Question:
Is there any danger of overexertion? I have to ask that.
Answer:
No.
Question:
Okay.
Answer:
And at time the natural, the natural way of energy is to disperse,
not to focus. And so there are points at which there is nothing to
bind the energy in a certain location and I don't mean physical
location.
Question:
Is it translated at those other locations? That's something that has
crossed my mind several times.
Answer:
What do you mean by translation?
Question:
Picked up and translated by other portions of consciousness, used as,
for instance, this is an interaction. This is a gestalt and a translation.
Answer:
It's not a translation. The, and I would like to speak about this for a
moment, the natural way of energy, the way it wants to go...and I
don't mean desires to go, but its natural path is to disperse into
identical units. Now, when energy is bound up, it's extremely hard
to, to keep it static, to keep it confined, to keep it, as I said again,
bound. It wants to disperse, to drift. But when many, many
particles of energy are drawn together with the purpose of attention
or focus, there's purpose in that but it does require much more
energy for them to be bound together than it does for them to
disperse. So it can seem as a problem at times for human beings,
because they feel that they must be focused. They must have all
this energy. It makes them aware of their existence. To have the
energy bound together and they're very much afraid of nonexistence
when the energy disperses. Does that make sense to you?
Question:
Yea. And playing with, playing with having the courage to
experience nonexistence would be widening the field of perceptions.
Is that...
Answer:
Would you repeat that please?
Question:
Experiencing, having the courage to experience nonexistence with a
feeling of nonexistence, of dispersion, would, in human beings,
enable human beings to enlarge, perceptions, to bring in other data,
not having to be so highly...
Answer:
What they fear in terms, you know, what they fear is nonexistence.
However, that's not the case. Different kind of existence, but not
nonexistence.
Question:
So for you dispersing is still conscious?
Answer:
Very. No more nor less, just a different use of energy.
Question:
I would not perceive a few moments ago a dispersing, a drifting away
if I myself was able to drift along at the same moment so to speak.
Answer:
Yes, that's correct.
Question:
So there wouldn't be any gap in perception then, from my...
Answer:
That's right. What we're attempting here is to bring together two
kinds, no two aspects of consciousness and making them one.
Question:
That's what I've been working on. That's what I've been seeing.
Answer:
And because all units of energy will ultimately be dispersed, all units
will ultimately be dispersed, it is through this dispersal, this drifting if
you would, that the different aspects of consciousness know one
another. Because when energy is bound, let's say the energy in your
body, in your mind, is confined, then that is your identification. And
it is more difficult for you to identify with that which is outside it. But
if you can let a small part of those energy particles drift, and this is
symbolic now, and let them drift, they are another aspect of
consciousness you can perceive other than focusing on what you
believe your energy to be. It's a method of expansion.
Question:
So also, this session, as Neil and Linda call it, if we learn that, how to
play, how to drift, how to disperse, then there would be a more
unified communion and we wouldn't have to just notice this
interaction in what we call this session.
Answer:
Yes, the session would not be separate, would not be a separate
happening. Session/not session.
Question:
Right. I feel that it is also tied into the concept of intent, inner intent
which brings focuses together. The intent of, the inner intent...
Answer:
Perhaps I should interrupt here. I believe the only inner intent is
movement.
Question:
That's....what I mean by inner intent, I mean movement in a, in a
direction, an intent of movement.
Answer:
Yes. And in a sense to allow continuance of movement as opposed
to in a specific direction.
Question:
Is Linda present here? From her point of view? Is she drifting?
Is she watching this?
Answer:
Yes, but....she's drifting, that's in a sense, as you know, it's very
difficult, well if not impossible for her to recall what has occured in a
session until...
Question:
Right.
Answer:
What happens there is basically that she is that drifting state and
while that's happening, while that is occurring, she is combined with
this state which is very similar so that when the session is over, what
she has experienced is my state where memory is available but not
being continually utilized. So that, after a session, Linda cannot
actively remember what occurred during a session but when she
hears it then forms a new memory. She recognizes it as having
been in combination with the state that produced it and then can
form a memory.
Question:
Like dreams. If that...
Answer:
Yes. It's, for instance, very important for some to consciously
remember a dream after awakening and then it becomes a
memory. Otherwise it will slip away. And that's precisely what
happens here. I'm not comparing this to a dream but in that one
aspect it definitely is very similar. If one does not work at memory
it will slip away. If Linda did not listen to the tape after the session
the material would be lost to conscious memory until she did, but it
would still be available at any time.
Question:
So she would still grow?
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
Isn't it an art form as well? Couldn't it be an art form? Dabbling in
and mixing and matching memories and recalling other parts of
drifting consciousness and bringing them to the position of a specific
waking self.
Answer:
Yes, in that sense any action or interaction can be considered an art
form.
Question:
And between the drifting consciousness and the formed identified
point of consciousness I feel something evolving, a third position,
as we talked about before.
Answer:
Or a first position really. A primary position.
Question:
Which shows, or will in a sense where other portions of consciousness
drift. Making them visible all at once or making large fields of them
visible through a new sense.
Answer:
If it's important to categorize them.
Question:
Do you, uh, I asked this question before and I want to ask it again.
Do you, this term, might be distorted but do you have, I hate using,
do you have equals at your own level? Associates at your own level,
other portions of consciousness that are at the particular...
Answer:
Yes. I have said before that I am part of, and at the same time all
of collective human consciousness. When we have interactions here,
you're dealing with part of, and those parts that are left behind, that
are not involved in this interaction, you might term associates I
suppose.
Question:
Could we awake, could we be aware as this point of consciousness is
aware?
Answer:
Let me say it to you this way. In our interaction I am part of the
collective human consciousness but as that part I am also the whole
of it. You have access to the entire realm of human collective
consciousness. In other words, the essence of the particles, say that I
have grouped together now, that are together as the "I" to whom you
are speaking. Each of those particles is as aware as every other
particle so that you may call me one particle if you'd like. That might
be a simple way to symbolize this. That my particle is as aware as
every other. So to expand that to two particles, for instance, will not
gain you any further knowledge or higher consciousness. But there
are levels of attainment so to speak, in session (unclear) due to the
interpretation of the vehicle that's being used in a sense.
Question:
And the interpretation is a translation...
Answer:
Yes. The interpretation at any given moment is a boundary, if you
will. In other words the particle that you call forth tonight may or
may not seem as astute as the next particle that you call forth due
to the momentary condition of the vehicle through which the energy
passes.
Question:
So it's perpetual movement?
Answer:
Yes. Exactly so. In other words, each of the particles is absolutely
pure consciousness in human terms but will never be exactly pure
as passed through a human vehicle. Never.
Question:
Could it be translated into other consciousness besides human?
Answer:
No. We are talking here the collective human consciousness.
If you want to speak of an animal then there would be a collective
pig consciousness, for instance, a collective snake consciousness.
Question:
Human consciousness is evolving.....to a new, to a wider position?
Answer:
Yes. Every time that you, for instance, achieve a higher level of
consciousness, the entirety of the human collective consciousness
expands, however minutely.
Question:
Also I think of , what comes to mind when you describe the process
is the process of subatomic particles, or particles...the interaction...of
how physicists observe particles, what they're capturing is an
interaction, is a particular moment of interaction but the movement
continues and it might not be the same particle a moment later and
it's not. It's always in a different position.
Answer:
That's right. That's precisely what we're saying now.
Question:
So what it is in exercising, it is a learning that nothing, everything is
held and nothing is held.
Answer:
There's one further point I want to make in terms of a subatomic
particle in comparison with human consciousness. And that is the
time factor is, it varies. Literally say a second later, by necessity
changes its position...interaction. That as a particle increases in
consciousness, its ability to span time increases.
Question:
You mean be in more than one location at once?
Answer:
That's not what we're addressing.
Question:
Taken to...
Answer:
I'm just trying to make the point that in a session, for instance,
there is a certain time that is best for the interaction, length of
time. But because of the different kind of consciousness that
time will be different let's say than a relatively new piece of
matter, a subatomic particle let's say.
Question:
Do you have a particular fondness for Neil and Linda?
Answer:
Affinity, at this moment.
Question:
Does Linda ask you questions now too?
Answer:
I am occasionally aware of questions. Those questions may or
may not be asked at the present moment. They may be echoes of
questions that have been asked previously.
Question:
So I get the feeling of a multi-dimensional conversation of sorts.
Answer:
Yes. Would you like to end the session?
Question:
Yes.
August 2, 1988: A dialogue about process and consciousness.
Neil:
You're like a child; you need things in boxes.
Linda:
No, I don't want to lose things.
Neil:
It's not lost.
Linda:
I don't want to lose my things.
Neil:
They're not lost, your things are never lost.
Linda:
Well, yea, I suppose all this was somewhere in here all this time. But
why isn't this there continually?
Neil:
It is.
Linda:
Why do I have to get frustrated and depressed and then it comes out
all at once. Why is that?
Neil:
Because you don't trust.
Linda:
Because I've moved on to another point?
Neil:
Because you don't trust the point.
Linda:
Is that the way we move from a point? Why can't we gradually slide
into a point?
Neil:
We do that enough. Because there's not enough trust in the point
where you are. In order to trust you must be willing to forget. In
order to be able to forget, if you're willing to forget, then it's always
there in new form. The thing never repeats itself, there's nothing to
be held. The data always changes. That's why the sessions are
possible. If it was based upon a gradual linear point, it would never
be done. It is based upon utilization of....
Linda:
Of a further point.
Neil:
No.
Linda:
I have to hop to that point. If I slid into that point, it would never
be....
Neil:
It's a non-moving point, it's a non-moving point that moves. It
doesn't move linearly. If you want to hold the point, by the very
intent hold the point, you're obscuring new data and you're
sabotaging, in a sense, what led you to that point to begin with.
Linda:
Yea, that's the truth.
Neil:
And you, you touch upon points absolutely, magnificent points, and
then like a child you want to put them in a box. And that's what
you're trying to see.
Linda:
Sometimes I feel like a child compared to you. Sometimes I feel like
the revelation that I have just found is just an unlocking of the secret
of something you've already written. But I wonder if you've
understood what you've already written either.
Neil:
The first part of what you said is not entirely true.
Linda:
I know our processes are different. It's the, with you, it is the only
time it has ever happened to me.
Neil:
It frightens you to form a memory, because you're so, you're so
adept at skipping between the points in your terms.....that it
frightens you.....
Linda:
It would obscure my process.....just like you said before.....it would
obscure my process.....that's why I can't remember.
Neil:
Oh, no.
Linda:
Yea, it is.
Neil:
That's what I said before but that's only half the reason. It wouldn't
obscure your process if you trust the point to become another point
and let it dissolve and at the same time allow that part of you to form
a memory of it. In other words, in forming a memory of it, you don't
lose anything as long as you're willing to go beyond the memory.
You feel that once you have it, you have to encase it and box it and
hold it. And that's your idea of memory.
Linda:
Yes. (laughs)
Neil:
And you want to go beyond that and jump between the points but it is
neither. It is knowing how to jump between the points and not feeling
overwhelmed by memory. In other words, the memory you desire,
that you're fearful of is not as overwhelming as you have been
thinking.
Linda:
Maybe it's the very memory that we can't walk on water. Maybe I
don't to remember that we can't.
Neil:
You want to take memory and put it in a box. I'm telling you that
it's okay to have memory and to feel memory and to live in memories
and at the same time be willing to drop it and to go on to another
point. You're afraid to put a mirror to yourself. It's almost as though
I take a mirror and put it between the points that you're jumping
which scares you out of your wits, to no end. Because if I took a
mirror and put it in your consciousness, and showed you your
jumping between points, that itself would form a pattern of what
you're doing...and you don't want to.....you're a child in that sense.
You don't want to know. You want to continue to jump, but if I hold
a mirror to your jumping between points, you run away. Yet the
jumping between points is itself miraculous and itself is wonderful.
And in itself represents an innate knowledge, but you don't want to
form a conception of this road that you travel, the patterns that you
form.
Linda:
But I should, right? I should.
Neil:
It's not that you should but that you can and it's okay. What you're
learning is, that there's no need to be frightened.
Linda:
Is it, is it partially being frightened or is it possible that that would
obscure my process?
Neil:
That is the fear.....that it would obscure your process...it would
obscure the inner movements, so to speak, that you jumped into
early on...it would obscure the inner places. That's your fear,
that it would obscure. It would not really obscure but since you're
so adept at doing that, and since subconsciously you know, and it's
rightly so, that other people are not naturally adept...for the most
part used to jumping between those points between inner places as
you do...then you fear yourself becoming...
Linda:
As mere mortals. (laugh)
Neil:
...as others do not perceive those inner points, but that is not
something to be lost. That is your right, your natural right, that
is what you are, that is what you do. And it's okay to form a
conception of it, okay to form a memory of it, without obscuring
anything. It does not obscure and you have to realize that it
doesn't obscure anything. In other words, and you cannot follow
other people's ideas of memory and time. And you, this has to be
an original thing on your part.
Linda:
(laugh) That's the way I feel.
Neil:
In order for it to be complete?
Linda:
In order for it to be valid for me or then I'm afraid I'm using other
people's material.
Neil:
Right. You have no other example to follow. This has to be from
you. And this is quite an endeavor because your original intent was
to escape memory and now you have nobody else's example in
which to form it. So, you're faced with a dilemma, so to speak, in
which you who originally escaped memory now has to form it
originally. Because you traveled the roads of inner perception
before you realized what you were doing. Once doing that, there's
no return and now in waking you realize the necessity of forming a
memory and you don't have anybody's example to follow. So this
has to come from you and that takes courage but it's there. You
took a most courageous, where you thought of it as escape, a most
courageous route that people don't follow but you realize that in
memory, you see. And that's what frightens you, the formation of
that memory, of your own inner movement frightens you but it need
not. It need not.
Linda:
It is, it's never.....wanting to look back....and getting caught there,
getting delayed. But I do so much there. If I can't go back and
retrieve lost ideas, lost thoughts, they remain lost to me.
Neil:
No.
Linda:
I guess they don't, they come out in another way.
Neil:
Again, it's not a question of putting it in a box the joyful recognition
of where you move and saying "I" along those points.
Linda:
There's the joy but there's no trace of it, it's not.....
Neil:
Exactly, but the memory is there.
Linda:
How can I be a writer, how can I ever capture.....
Neil:
But the memory is there, you see. The memory is there at your
choice, that's what you have to realize. The memory is there at
your choice, joyfully recognized, joyful recognition. At any of those
points, you can say "I", but the movement exists regardless. And
what you have to know and see for yourself is that to say "I" is a
matter of exclamation, not a matter of entrapment. Exclamation as
in joy. Exclamation as in "I" but not as a matter of putting it in a box.
It's knowing at any point that you move, just as in a session, at any
point can account for future and past even though it exists at other
points.
Linda:
I know. Fred's book can be read at any moment.
Neil:
Exactly. You have to learn how to form memory with eyes open,
just as you know how to form non-memory with your inner eyes
open. You have to learn how to form memory with your outer
eyes open. The two go together. They form one another, they
form patterns. Memories are not entrapments. They're points.
Linda:
I know. I know that really. I just don't.....we missed the original
point.
Neil:
What do you mean?
Linda:
We started off with the writing and got off on a tangent about me and
my process. We missed the original point.
Neil:
No we didn't
Neil's writing:
Conscious focus in its essential aspect is formulated instantaneously.
It has no memory from which it springs.
Linda:
Wait a minute, read it again. That's just what we were talking about.
Neil:
Conscious focus in its essential aspect is formulated instantaneously.
It has no memory from which it springs. Memory is a way of slowing
down motion which is timeless in its essential nature and
instantaneous in appearance. Direct cognition involves living and
waking realization of no separate "I" forming reality. It thinks as it
moves. Its looking and forming are one simultaneously with no
historical past or future reference. This involves actualization of a
deeper moment we haven't yet learned to normally, consciously
breathe and live. This is an understanding of inner perception at
the point of interaction with later formed outward linear focuses.
This is where one learns how to manipulate time and alter
neurological focus of delineated linear "I", thus introducing new data
in the waking field, data which did not exist previously. This is where
waking consciously, non-mentally touches inner perception and
experiences the formation or intersection of its framework, a point
where timelessness and time, which equals perception, converges
forming patterns of memory or particles of being. It all seems so
logically laid out but the entire cause-effect is an infinitely miniscule
point of focus of horizon seemingly infinite in depth and scope to
those who move and identify within it, appearing noncontestible,
absolute. It is a field of perception formed out of what we can call a
formed concentration of consciousness in which this field is but one
possible particle or focus. And in its own terms it moves in
accordance to differently formed concentrations of itself which is
timeless and spaceless. Its formed lived-in patterns are
interpretations made of this movement which is absolute,
transparent, perpetual. The nature of our language and being is one
formed conception of it. As consciousness or conscious awareness
grows here, the formed pattern becomes illuminated through
nonverbal senses. The dynamics of its construction seen, memory
shrinks and begins to dissolve and the appearance of simultaneous
events begin to emerge in the light of an non-mentally identified
movement. Consciousness which self-pattern and other movements
through inner spaces which weave in and out of time. More of the
movement between waking-dreaming, life-death becomes lived and
a certain transparency reveals itself.
Neil:
Do you understand what I'm saying?
Linda:
Yes.
Neil:
Did you like it?
Linda:
Yes.
Neil:
I'm doing this. Watch. (Kundalini)
Linda:
You've been doing that full time.
Neil:
Watch this.
Linda:
I know.
Neil:
Did you feel that?
Linda:
Yes. I'm already.....
Neil:
This is sound. Consciousness forms the focuses, the focuses reveal
the consciousness. As the focuses grow in conscious awareness, it
begins to radiate the consciousness. As that happens, the particle,
the energy which represents the formation of the particle,
begins to glow or vibrate in unison. In other words, the particle
reaches the speed at which the consciousness itself is actually
moving. And the particle is actually a slowed-down version of the
consciousness. It's an interpretation, a translation, a condensation.
And the particle begins to speak. It's speaking is the vibration and
the vibration is the recognition. The recognition is the illumination
of the consciousness which forms it. It becomes aware of itself as a
pattern of concentration from which it is focusing. The "we"
becomes aware of the "I", the "I" becomes aware of the "we".
And what you have is a merging. You have a merging, a waking
field of perception with other levels of consciousness which
simultaneously exist. But now there's a difference; they're
simultaneously realized. They begin to vibrate at the same level.
The particle is raised to the level of the speed of consciousness
itself. The particle.....
Linda:
Is that how inner space travel is done?
Neil:
Right.
Linda:
It is, isn't it.
Neil:
Yes.
Linda:
(laugh) That's it. That's it.
Neil:
The particle, the particle symbolizes so to speak, in our terms, and
doesn't allow the particle representing waking field of consciousness,
doesn't reveal the inner consciousness, the movement, the fast
movement. In other words, that's why when waking field perception
opens up to inner consciousness, it begins to radiate at the same rate
of speed that consciousness is. In other words, a comet unobstructed,
unfiltered begins to flow and circle between all levels. It's radiances
begin to glow, equally brilliant among each, each encapsulation. And
there's a mutual affinity between all opposites. The opposites begin
to radiate the ONE. There is unity without division. There is
multiplicity, unity radiating as something different than either ONE
or multiplicity. See, consciousness.....it's interesting, waking field of
consciousness has been too slow and something within waking, when
waking field of perception touches inner perception it introduces new
data and that, what I mean by new data is what I just said, it begins
to radiate at the same vibration, the same speed. It begins to
translate that which cannot be translated in the old symbolic
framework. It begins to live motions, speeds which don't fit
linear frames. That is why memory dissolves. Memory reveals the
inner point upon which it constructs other frequencies or other
perceptions.
Linda:
That's just what I was writing about.
Neil:
Exactly. And it begins to utilize consciously. It begins to
consciously utilize those fields of perception. It cultivates other
speeds which are all native and are all implied. It begins to reach
out and integrate within itself other aspects of itself previously
asleep to. It begins to wake up within its dreams and its dreams
begin to wake. There's a mutual transference of information and
that mutual transference can be compared to speeds, the
speeds match, the motions match. The particle raises up to the
motions of consciousness, the speed of consciousness. But the
particle begins to radiate from within itself, the speed of
consciousness. In other words, that's how matter expands and
grows. That's what Aurobindo was referring to. The data is
changed. See, the movement in and of itself cannot be spoken of.
When the particle begins to radiate the consciousness or realize
the same speed, motion, it, as a new dimension.....
Linda:
What cause it to change its speed?
Neil:
Interpretation. Desire to know. Nonverbally, cannot even put
into words, but if put into words, the desire to form, the desire to
know itself. We are an interpretation and when we realize that we
are a form of parallel consciousness.....
Neil:
It forms a field.
Linda:
But wait. I know. It goes so far, it can go no farther and yet it has
to go farther. Now listen to me.
Neil:
It forms a field of perception in which it can grow.
Linda:
When it hits its own wall then it must be transformed. It becomes
other.
Neil:
It has reached its limit.
Linda:
It has reached its limit. Is that how conversion happens?
Neil:
That's how conversion....
Linda:
That's how conversion happens, Neil!!!
Neil:
But. But it has not reached its limit in any sense of a linear sense.
It touches something which is an inner component of its outer fields.
Linda:
What do you mean? Oh, it touches one of the elements it already
possesses.
Neil:
It touches one of the....
Linda:
It spews off something, that's what happens!! It unsees!!
Neil:
It touches one of the elements which forms it, that's how memory
dissolves. It unsees.
Linda:
It unsees. It unsees, that's precisely it. That is precisely it. That's
how conversion happens.
Neil:
That's Einstein's formula of consciousness, yes. He never applied it
to consciousness but he would. He would agree. That's the
conversion of the elements.
Linda:
That's how they spew off. They hit the wall, they hit the wall.
Neil:
But, the conversion of the elements are dependent on the waking
field of perception.
Linda:
Why?
Neil:
Because without it no conscious growth could take place. At least
at our level that is necessary. When the movement, becomes
aware of itself that becomes necessary. Because the waking field
of perception, there's a consciously formed pattern of focus. And
we are consciousness forming and growing selves.
Linda:
I don't even know if we know what we have here. And that's good.
I hope we don't know.
Neil:
Why do you hope we don't know? (laugh)
Linda:
Because....
Neil:
That's the undoing.
Linda:
That's the undoing.
Neil:
That's nonlinear operating.
Linda:
That's boxing it in. That's what I have done sometimes in the past.
Neil:
Right.
Linda:
I was too aware of what I knew. Not compared to what other
people knew or what had been known before, but I before, but
I became aware of my own knowing and just as I have....
(end of tape)....just as I have been so afraid of reading what
someone else thought, I've been afraid of my own thoughts.
Neil:
Uh-huh.
Linda:
Because then I'm too aware and then that actually stops me from
hitting the wall.
Neil:
But you have to become aware of your movement.
Linda:
The self doesn't need to become aware. The self does not need to
be aware. It just needs to.....
Neil:
You have to be aware. You have to be aware of the patterns that
you form even though you might not live within them. You have to
understand that you form patterns. Patterns are alwats formed....
Linda:
Oh, the fact of it, but it reaches a feeling point, Neil. It reaches a
feeling point and that's what I don't want. I don't want the feeling
point.
Neil:
You cannot explain consciousness by it.
Linda:
Reading someone else's work or understanding what they understand
and feeling what understand stops me out because then I realize
I can't walk on water.
Neil:
But you always can.
Linda:
But I always can.
Neil:
And you can read others and you can read your own thoughts and
you could realize that you form patterns which others perceive.
And others perceive you or a you. But, the movement is
unobstructed. You have to be willing in your sense to be in a box,
so to speak, without feeling threatened that you're in a box and
being aware of your movement. There's no entrapment and, like I
said before, you cannot use other people's examples of memory for
your own. You have to, you are unique in this fashion. You, you,
Linda, has to form your own, you have to come to terms with a sense
of memory. Your own sense of memory. There's nobody's example
to follow. Like I said, where you thought you were escaping and
going into inner places, you actually reached a point where you were
exploring things that others usually do not. And when you begin to
open your eyes....
Linda:
I'll realize that it was outer all along, Neil.
Neil:
It was outer all along.
Linda:
It was outer all along.
Neil:
That's right and that is the memory and that is the pattern and
you continue. It was outer all along.
Linda:
It was.
Neil:
Because it was you. (laugh) It was you.
Linda:
And the same thing applies in this whole psychological thing that I
am going through.
Neil:
Right.
Linda:
There is no other "I". There is one to merge with, there is no
parallel self. (laugh) It was there all along (laugh)
Neil:
That's a very big realization. That's a very big revelation. I'm glad
you realize that. In many ways I need to realize that.
Linda:
I know. There is no schism.
Neil:
No. Because you were always outer, it was all you.
Linda:
Just as the inner thought processes are always me.
Neil:
Right. There's no "I" to come to.
Linda:
There is no"I/we".
Linda:
(laugh)
Neil:
How do you feel about that? You almost feel slightly embarrassed.
Linda:
Yea, I do. (laugh) I do.
Neil:
It's the "we" pretending not to be. (laugh) There's just "it". (laugh)
There is no schism. In a wider sense that's why so many people feel
the necessity of making opposites between things, schisms
bewteen things. There isn't.
Linda:
I think we should go eat now.
Neil:
And it finds no outer translation. Because it's all inner/outer. Inner
to outer. There's nowwhere to box it because it's always inner to
outer. The outer.....
Linda:
Just the way the universe can't be boxed, Neil!
Neil:
That's right. The outer makes absolutely no sense.
Linda:
That's why the universe can't be boxed. That's why there is no...
Neil:
No, there isn't a point.
Linda:
There is no set of all sets.
Neil:
No, now...
Linda:
Someday I'm going to realize what we just said. Again.
Neil:
You are now (laugh)
Linda:
I am now. I won't tomorrow but someday I will again.
Neil:
Then it's the same thing.
Linda:
I know. I know it is.
Neil:
Is there a point of fear?
Linda:
But I'll forget.
Neil:
Is that out of fear?
Linda:
Out of habit. Forgetting is a habit.
Neil:
But who is that which talks about all this now? (laugh) There's no
escape.
Linda:
It's the real one, it is.
Neil:
There's no fake one, it's it. (laugh)
Linda:
I know. I know, I know that. It's just like when I write, I know.
I can read my writing months later and I don't know again.
Neil:
There comes a point of no return where you cannot continue to
play hide and seek with yourself so thoroughly because something
reveals itself which is common to both the hiding and the seeking.
And that's courage to stand with eyes open within all spaces.
Linda:
That's like the dream I had where I could not open my eyes.
Because there was light inside and outside.
Neil:
Because they were already open.
Linda:
The same thing was outside as was inside.
Neil:
That's right, and you...
Linda:
It didn't matter if I opened my eyes. I thought I had to open my
eyes. I didn't have to open them.
Neil:
It's the merging, Linda, you don't even realize how significant that
is. That is the merging. That is the absolute merging. The
realization is the merging.
Linda:
That there's no inner/outer.
Neil:
They exist in an inner sense and this is the language. That is the
language which bridges. They exist in an inner sense.
Linda:
No, they just exist.
Neil:
Well, in an inner sense, I didn't mean inner as opposed to outer.
They exist.
Linda:
Inner implies outer. They just exist.
Neil:
They exist.
Linda:
It just is, just like my writing.
Neil:
Right, and when waking...
Linda:
It reduces everything to the element "existence", Neil. Now
speaking of the element of existence, do you think we should eat to
maintain ours?
Neil:
No. (Linda laughs) It, it just is. Words are attempts at boxing in a
sense.
[Note, page 1 that follows below is currently missing, dated approximately Summer/ Fall of 1988. The first answer beginning with page two is in response to a previous question with respect to the possibility of having the nature of the dialogues in these sessions more directly or transparently communicated, that is to say, from its "own perspective", or patterns of perception and symbolism, prior to the translation or articulation by Linda.]
.............
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.* (*A reference to 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 playful insightful
phrase by Linda during a previous conversation).
phrase by Linda during a previous conversation).
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 therewill 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.)
Question:
(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?
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
Are there any, are there any colors or sounds in the place now.
Answer:
Not now.
Question:
Okay.
Answer:
There was also the.....sensation that you're very far away. It's almost
as if you are a projected image.
Question:
As though I am a projected image?
Answer:
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.
Question:
The distance has to to do with psychological distance?
Answer:
No.
Question:
I mean...inner, some type of inner psychic proportional distance in
terms of...
Answer:
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.
Question:
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.
Answer:
Yes. It's as though you are one-dimensional.
Question:
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?
Answer:
Actually, it's...(unclear)...
Question:
Can you elaborate upon that? That is what the focus of tonight's...
Answer:
(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...
Question:
So we interpret it in our three-dimensional sense?
Answer:
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.
Question:
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.
Answer:
Yes, it is. It's....
Question
It's difficult to even put into words...
Answer:
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.
Question:
What is one dimension? Is one dimension as you talked about
previously?
Answer:
Yes, but that really is more than one dimension.
Question:
Yes, understood. Understood.
Answer:
(Unclear)...remember that unless it is, it is one dimensional in terms
that it's an image.
Question:
Right. And with that one dimension it implies with that
comprehension of that, one dimension implies a greater mobility.
Answer:
Greater Flexibility.
Question:
Such as tonight.
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
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.
Answer:
No, although possibly the image, the one-dimensional image of you is,
could be considered my form of dreaming or imagination.
Question:
But if I changed my perception of how I am constructing my reality,
would that, would you perceive corresponding difference?
Answer:
Possibly not.
Question:
So all this, all this implies a direct intuitive approach to understanding
this and understanding the one dimension.
Answer:
Would you repeat that please?
Question:
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?
Answer:
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.
Question:
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?
Answer:
I am aware of them as energy. And I see them...with a light aura.
Question:
As we become more aware of the flexibility of consciousness, do we
manipulate what you are saying, what you are experiencing.
Answer:
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.
Question:
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?
Answer:
It's just different.
Question:
Have I changed, how you see me now? Since the beginning of the
session...
Answer
No. There's a very wide swing in the way you were seem at the
beginning of the session. Now....
Question:
Could all this be done in waking?
Answer:
It's unlikely that it would be.
Question:
Why is that? Is it because the concentration is so taken up?
(After long pause)...Can you still hear me?
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
What are you doing?
Answer:
(After a long pause)...perhaps we could redirect this session.
Question:
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?
Answer:
We should terminate this session.
Question:
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.
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.
