[youcantseethis]

My attempt to convey a noumenous experience in the lingua of phenomena of what it's like when Tim and I are joined, via the spiritual bridges of love that we become and are, along with knowing that some — perhaps many — readers of The Risen find important parts of it difficult to understand, leads me to wonder if it's possible to convey, through indirect means, much of anything. It's quite clear that a book orchestrated by 1,500 non-terrestrial entities is not "Astral Spirituality 101"or "Mediumship for Dummies", and those who have been investigating such matters for many years have a much better time with it, such as Mike Tymn, who noted in his review of The Risen:

"Had I started reading this book 20 or so years ago (assuming it had been written and published then), when I was just beginning my serious metaphysical studies, I probably would not have gone beyond the first few chapters, as the material would have far exceeded my boggle threshold. I likely would have tossed the book aside as just so much fantasy.

"However, with those 20 years of metaphysical study behind me, I quickly became engrossed in the book. Not only were the "dialogues of love, grief, and survival" (the sub-title of the book) consistent with the most credible testimony relative to life after death that I have encountered elsewhere but the dialogues helped me make sense out of a number of things which I had previously struggled to grasp."

Perhaps it explains my earlier question about why mediums never say much about their own internal processes, and why others around them avoid asking. The answer, from an Authentic Self perspective, is that simulate selves are trained by the ego-mind toward such avoidance. To tread such paths is to open the channels that become a living bridge to other dimensions, thus proving immortality and frustrating death, and loosening the ego-mind's grasp on one's mind. It's often said in many different ways in The Risen that each of us is "the way": the bridge, the door, the path to other-dimensional geographies of existence. These are not metaphors, but actualities. Perhaps quantum mechanics will end up explaining it best to our earthly minds, although, as Niels Bohr said, "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood a single word." Apparently, The Risen is not shocking enough!

Synchronistically, I came across this passage during my current re-reading of Maurice Nicoll's, Living Time and the Integration of Life. I'm not saying it will explain the actual noumenon, but it may enlighten a few about what I was trying to convey regarding my recent experience with Tim. I will let it stand by itself while ending this bit of blog:

"It is impossible for me to say that I know anybody, and it is equally impossible to say that anybody knows me. For while I see all your bodily movements and outward appearances so easily and have a hundred thousand visual impressions of you that do not exist in your mind, and have seen you as part of the landscape, part of the house, part of the street, and have a knowledge of you that you always wish to know about —what impression you make, how you look—yet I cannot see into you and do not know what you are, and can never know. And while I have this direct access to your visible side, to all your life as seen, you have direct access to your invisibility—and to your invisibility only you have this direct access, if you learn to use it. I and everyone else can see and hear you. The whole world might see and hear you. But only you can know yourself.

"Now to the reader all this may appear obvious, but I must assure him that it is not at all obvious. It is an extremely difficult thing to grasp and I will endeavour to explain why this is so. We do not grasp that we are invisible. We do not realise that we live in a world of invisible people. We do not understand that life, before all other definitions of it, is a drama of the visible and invisible. . . . We think that only the visible world hasreality and structure and do not conceive the possibility that the psychological world, or inner world that we know as our thought, feeling and imagination, may have also a real structure and exist in its own 'space', although not that space that we are in touch with through our sense-organs.

" . . . I believe that we never understand anything about the 'invisible' world if we do not grasp our own invisibility first . . . we can never realise the existence of another person in any real way unless we realise our own existence. The realisation of one's own existence, as a real experience, is the realisation of one's essential invisibility." (pp. 3-5)