6/16/2019 3:45 p.m.
H: I want to have a dialogue now. Earlier, it was less willing, but now I am ready. The thing is, I realize, I have become more of a doubter that “a believer” in this. So there is that tacit assumption, and it may be blocking the effort. Although the evidence has been more towards success, certainly more at times, I am somehow doubting this…
V: Doubting is useful, too.
H: Want to elaborate?
V: It keeps you from merging with the voices, or picking up negative spirits.
H: OK, I semi wrote this [myself], but it is in the spirit of what I received.
Again, just getting a flash now instead of a whole sentence, the spirit of it was “that’s how we communicate.”
Another flash: “like planting just the seed of a thought in your mind and letting it germinate.” All that in just a flash – a knowing.
Another: “there are lots of ways to communicate – right now that’s what we are demonstrating. You have to be really attuned, and sensitive to it, to pick it up. “
V: This morning you were just so concentrated on the voice experience, and you noticed how in between writing the voice came through. You stopped, listened, and the wrote. When YOU write, you dictate the words, and of course you will hear only your own voice.
That’s where the doubt comes from. Because all you ever hear is your voice. But note how we are proceeding here: we are placing flashes in your mind, like the whole thought enfolded at once. – Stay with us --
[I was drifting]
H: Sorry, lost it.
V: Thinking about your favorite subject again [laughter].
H: Anyways, yes, I pick it up now. It is like a “thought bullet” and that’s what I pick up and just write out as a sentence. Like you are always one step ahead in what I am writing.
V: But your doubt comes from only hearing your voice. Yet we communicate with you in the “substratum” of thought, in tacit thought and knowledge.
H: Yes, I understand. What though in those cases where I do pick up a different voice, like Heather’s, or once or twice, Dave’s?
V: But it was not during writing !?
H: I think so.
V: Well, there you go. In this form of mediumship those voices CAN only be heard in the quiet moments when your own voice is not speaking. When you spell out the “thought bullet,” that which contains the whole thought enfolded, it is CLEARLY your voice, AS… IF…. COUTNING…. OUT… PENNIES…. [laughing]. So it is a cognitive activity, “transcribing” you might say.
H: An interesting word: “trans-scribing,” as in trans-cendental.
V: Don’t read too much into it. The very point here is, in this “normal” way of interacting with us, the insight comes in a flash, and you have to be really attuned to this to pick up these flashes of information and /or knowledge. But that is one of your gifts: non-linear thinking, of seeing the consequences of actions immediately, maybe more than a step ahead than most people. Your brain is wired to pick up jumps. “Quantum jumps” of information [ laughing]. Dave would like that.
H: Dave was a genius.
V: IS a genius. Would you like to talk to him?
H: Yes and no. Still worried.
V: Well, here is the point. For the kind of normal communication, this here works fine. It would work fine, too, for talking to Dave, or Heather, but you don’t trust it. In those instances you need a voice, feel a different energy. So you need to give it the space to come through. You can’t “pollute” that space with your own voice while transcribing. So you need to pause, and just receive, like you did this morning.
Only in the emptiness can the voice, the energy, fully unfold.
It is all in these “thought bullets” we are sending, or the spirit is sending, it is all there, but it needs space, an emptiness into which it can unfold.
V: Yes, something like that. “It is the emptiness of the cup that makes it useful.” Those old Zen masters were on to something. “If the cup is full, it cannot receive.” So you must empty the cup to receive.
H: And that also means to clear out the assumptions.
V: yes, very much. A clean slate. If you assume this will not work, it will not. If you assume, it can only work in one way, you limit yourself to others. Assumption also limit the dialogue: the free flow of memory.
V: Yes, what you called thought bullets are really just meaning. The meaning is enfolded, and you unfold it in your context, the total situation. But that situation includes us.
So the thought bullet, that is the meaning, is already there, ready to unfold, into the structure of language. Now, again, since it is the total condition –the talking together—it can only unfold in the language and imagery that is available to you in your mind. There may be deeper meaning, but you may not be able to “translate” or “transcribe it.” Do you follow?
H: Yes. I can only express it as good as I can, meaning I = this 3D being and 3D mind.
V: Yes. So we could place the meaning in the thought bullet that maybe somebody else could interpret both as some mathematical formula or theorem, but with you that is not how you could do it. You know math, but [it is] not your normal way of thinking.
This is also why Hegel back then came through in English, because that is your normal way to unfold that thought bullet, at least in that moment back then, the total situation/condition as it was back then.
So, now we ask you: is this not working?
H: I have to admit, it does. I just don’t know if you are not really just me.
V: But we ARE you. That is the whole point. We are, yet we are not. Do you know? Everything is connected, a really bad way of saying it, but you understand.
Where is the difference? Here, there? Spatial distinctions.
I/you/them? Differentiations of separations.
At the bottom it is all one, net of Indra, whatever you want to call it. So what difference does it make. Really?
Pragmatically, the only difference here is that meaning is flowing. Information hitherto unknown to you is coming out.
Previously at best implicit knowledge becomes explicit.
H: Yes, sometimes so fast I can later not read my handwriting.
V: the point is: it does not matter, if you learn from it. That is guidance. Being lead, and recognizing the leading. Doubting, blocking is only detrimental. Only the flow of meaning is that matters. Even the voices, they are only confirmation for you, “sugar on top.”
H: Well, I have to say, another very insightful dialogue.
Is there more?
[ a private talk ensues about how to name all this]
Namaste — I bow to you and the Divine in you.
Copyright © Hanns-Oskar Porr