"Decisions & Synchronicity" from "Without Expectations"
12-9-95


Questioner :  I have always been fascinated with the idea of how your
society works.

B:  Oh, all right.  It works very well, thank you very much.

Q :  I'm aware of that.  Ah ... well, let's say for example ... how do the
beings on your planet, or your dimension, how do they make decisions?  Such
as when they go ... when the decisions are contradicting ... or they just
differ?

B:  They cannot be contradicting, there is not such thing in our society at
this time.  We rely one hundred percent on synchronicity, and trust that
what  happens is what's supposed to be happening and use it to the fullest
potential in that way.  We only take action on things that excite us the
most, and nothing else, not ever, not for a moment.  By doing that our
combined, telepathically intertwined reality explores and experiences a
constantly unfolding life of  synchronicity -- always being exactly at the
right place at the right time; just exactly when we need to be there,
interacting with exactly who we need to interact with, no one else.  Every
decision happens automatically that way, because it is simply a matter of
recognizing what our truth is and acting on it, and that's the only
fundamental mechanism for making a decision that exists for us, and can
exist for you.

Q:  I see.

B:  Does that help illuminate the situation a little bit?

Q:  Oh, it definitely helps, yes.

B:  All right, anything else?

Q:  Does it mean that any particular being of your reality could represent
the entire reality you live in?

B:  Yes, we are all connected.  Even though we have individuation, you
would recognize a distinct difference in what you would call my personality
and the personality of another being from my civilization. But we are all
telempathically intertwined and they all know that this communication is
going on right now, in some portion of their consciousness.

Q:  Okay.

B:  To whatever varying degree is representative of what serves them to
know it.

Q:  And there is no ... say we had this conversation ... say you are on
your ship and one of you wants to go left and one of you wants to go right?
 I understand this is not synchronicity, but it's a personal choice, it's a
representation of personality....

B:  Yes, but what you are missing is the idea that if it really serves the
best of all concerned to have the conversation or have the discussion as to
whether left or right would be best, then we trust that that's serving us
to have that conversation.  Otherwise the people in the ship, at that
particular moment, are all going to want to do the same thing, at the same
time, automatically, because it serves all of them synchronistically to do
so -- and anyone with whom that would conflict wouldn't wind up being
there.

Q:  All right.

B:  They would simply be on another ship going in the other direction
automatically.  It would just simply have worked out that way.  We never
let it get to the point where we have to realize the conflictive, polarized
nature of decisions because we are constantly acting in trust in the
synchronicity, so the synchronicity never leads us to that. Except when, if
it does, we recognize that there is a purpose in being led to that -- we
accept it as such, and therefore, because we accept it as such, there is no
conflict.  Because now we're focused on the real reason for the different
choices, which is not necessarily to make one choice or another, but to
discuss the whole concept of why we have two choices to make.  That's
living in the moment with what is happening.  We recognize that the concept
of discussing what choice to make is the very reason why it happened.  We
don't get about being confused about what choice we should make; we clearly
understand that the conversation needs to be about making choices.  Does
that make sense?

Q:  Oh yes, it does.

B:  Does this help?

Q:  A lot.

B:  Well, thank you.

Q:  Thank you.