David Wilcock

[Monica]

Dear Monica, our issues are slowly resolving themselves. As you say it is a matter of perspective

Yippeeee!

Did you understand the information above it? That is very relevant in my point of view. I will repeat it for convienience. in my understanding you cannot see my point if you miss this bit.

You cannot see what I see because you see what you see. You cannot know what I know because you know what you know. Anything you see or hear or experience in any way at all is specific to you. You create a universe by perceiving it so everything in that universe is specific to you. (Old man sitting on top of a pole. Hitch hikers guide to the galaxy by Douglas Adams)

Yes, I understood it and basically agree. That's what I call perspective.

There is no discreet motion, motion is what we call the succession of discrete checkpoints.

Are you referring to physical motion of an object, traveling thru a physical reality? In that case, yes, I would agree. But I was referring to the motion itself, the flow, the energy of the motion. Not in physical terms. Maybe I'm not explaining it well. What I'm trying to convey is that there is far, far more than just a physical description of the UniVerse(s).

I think the difference is still more than perception here. But thank you so much for not hitting me with a large hammer by now

That wouldn't be very nice, would it?

You are of course absolutely correct. I say the IAM exists outside of this universe. The universe exists within the IAM! The IAM is not contained within the universe! It does not fit inside the universe! An infinite zoo of different universes however fit inside of IAM !

Get it ? For those with occult backgrounds: The Khabs is in the Khu, not the Khu is in the Khabs. (Crowley's book of the law.)

I would say it's accurate to say that the IAM does not fit inside the UniVerse(s), but I wouldn't say that it exists ONLY outside the UniVerse(s). I would say that it exists both within AND outside...everywhere, in all that is. But perhaps you didn't mean 'outside the Universe' at the exclusion of 'within the Universe' - perhaps you meant 'in addition to' but not exclusively? Perhaps I misinterpreted your statement to mean separate from, but not part of, the UniVerse? (Which is how religions see God - a separate Being existing outside his Creation, but not part of it.)

All discrete universes that are born from IAM's act of perception/creation are completely separated.

Separated by what?

By their own exclusion of the other. If you were to see what I see. How could you see what you see? You cannot ever close the distance to me without losing yourself and becoming me. The very fact of you being you makes it impossible for you to be me. This separates the universes within IAM.

At this level of our existence, sure. That'll all change when we become a SMC, eh?

There is still a connection through IAM. In fact, the only way for you to truly know me. Is to know yourself.

If the power of this separation would vanish. Then all universes would instantly anihilate and return to the unmanifest. They cannot exist if they are not in some way defined.

OK I'll go along with that.

Thank you for bearing with me. I think if you grok this you've understood the essence of my lifes study. You don't have to agree with it. Just getting it would be superb! The dream is simply another place in your universe.

So you don't believe in a consensual dream reality? Only a consensual 3D reality?

It is not separated from the universe. IAM is always. There is never a NOT IAM moment. Do you remember one instance of unconsciousness?

Sure. Every night when I go to sleep, I lose consciousness. Sometimes I wake up in Dreamscape. When I lost consciousness, I don't remember it later because I wasn't conscious.

Or was it always the universe telling you that it exists? No entities can travel between these universes of self. They are merely travelling between different regions in one universe. For example between the astral and physical.

What about when you have a dream about someone, and it turns out that they had the dream too? Isn't that a common region that you both inhabit, just as a physical locale is a common region here in 3D?

If an entity were to travel he would cease to be himself and begin to be another. His old self still firmly in the place he just left! Self is a function of the universe you're in. I cannot see what you see because I see what I see! This is why I considered that bit so vitally important. You cannot become another. You can only ever be you. You in billion forms that is true but you nonetheless. You could become "You that became me" but never "me" because I never was you! ... See the difference?

Intellectually, yes. I would even take it a step further and say that the 'Me' of 5 minutes ago is not necessarily 'Me' because I might have had a major spiritual breakthru in the last 5 minutes. Certainly, the 'Me' of 20 years ago seems, in some ways, like a different person. And, since I do believe in reincarnation and have past-life memories, is the 'Me' in that past life the same as 'Me' in the now? It all depends on where you decide to demarcate. Demarcation is essentially arbitrary. There are sets within sets within sets within sets, ad infinitum.

However, in IAM all is one. I am connects by being the "thing" in which all others exist. It is not an intermediate connection like how roads connect cities. It is how space connects planets.. By allowing them to be a part of it.

Physically denoted by the membrane? You and I know that it's much larger than that, of course, but M Theory is a major step towards understanding of the IAM for those that lean towards scientism.

It would be awesome if you could understand the point I make fully. And then reject it! I would be very happy. As you say consensus should not be our goal. Just momentarily seeing from another point.

So glad to agree on this! B4 is such a wonderful place. I participated in a religious forum awhile back, and such a basic concept as 'respect while disagreeing' completely eluded them. I kept trying to convey that point that I didn't care if they agreed or not, but I hoped for understanding, but they could not grasp understanding while disagreeing yet still showing respect. I believe it is a very important concept.

I do understand your point, but I can't say whether I 'agree' or not because the fact is that I don't know. I don't really know where our distinctions lie, and where/when/how our consciousnesses interface and overlap. Who am "I" ...? You say I am a distinct being, distinct from you. I agree that I have distinct characteristics, but I'm not certain exactly where those demarcations lie. Especially being Wanderers, having come from a density in which there was a group consciousness, I cannot say with certainty exactly who or what exactly "I" am, as long as the veil is in place. I have penetrated the veil on one occasion, and I remember it well.

Only in the sense that they must seem absolute to an entity living in 3d such as myself. I don't claim I know the absolute truth. Only that what I see seems absolute.

This is where our perspectives differ. I see very little as being absolute. The more I understand, the less I see as absolute. The UniVerse and its myriad colors, textures, and possibilities seem to get less and less absolute as my time here continues.

PS. I added a few comments to my last post while you were replying to it...you might want to skim over it again.

---

You cannot see what I see because you see what you see. You cannot know what I know because you know what you know.

I think this is relevant to the conversation:

Radiohead: Where I End and You Begin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPclmNZh4...re=related