*Definitions of Reality* Q: I was thinking about what you said about relationships, people having relationships... B: Yes. Q: And it occurred to me: the relationship my soul is having with All That Is, right now - would that be me? B: Yes. One of them. Q: One of them, right. That's (__?) this time. B: Yes. Q: Thank you very much. B: Thank you. Q2: I've heard it said that when projecting from, say, the mentalities of the etheric universe, projecting on a curvature is more accurate, more effective, than projecting in straight lines. Does that make sense? B: Perhaps for the individual that suggested it. But it is simply one representational way to understand the relationship of yourself to All That Is. If it makes sense to you, use it; if it doesn't, don't. It is simply a definition. Q: Well, it's based itself on - of course this gets back into physics - is space itself built on a circle of curves? Is that how you see it as a... B: In a sense. But again, space/time is also an illusion built on nothing. Q: So it is comparable to saying, "well, it's this way, or it's this way." Both could be quite true. B: There are mass conscious representations that are created to be generally applicable throughout any given universe. And in that sense there is a degree of recognizable spiraling curvature that energy will represent itself within - in this physiological universe. Q: Okay. One other question I have: different subject. The subject of law. B: Law. Q: Law, which in my interpretation governs the world of creation itself. Let me express this. B: All right. Q: For example, there is a law - it seems there is a law, which says that if you are in your own domain, you're creating your own dominion, so to speak, and your own reality, so there is this tendency that other outside vibrations will not interfere with you - will not be negatively affecting you. You see what I'm saying? B: That is because there is no outside. Whatever you are is it. You are your own entire universe. Q: Ookaay... so is that... all right. Is that a law, which affects all beings? B: It is an agreement. Q: Is an agreement. Okay. But the real core of the question is: I've experienced a sense... it's an abstract sensing - not actually perceiving, but a sensing - of elders, elders outside of this reality structure. B: We understand. You are simply in touch with different levels of consciousness as you interpret them to be on different levels. Q: Elders that would appear - not as any manifestations - but only as perhaps a law, a law of order, a law of evolution. B: We understand what you are saying, but you are only recognizing the agreements of all the consciousness within the idea of that particular universe you are perceiving. Q: So you are saying it's nothing more than that? It's all... B: It has its own self-awareness, but that does not mean it is not a co- creation with you. You are all co-creations with each other, and yet you each have your own self-awareness. Q: Yeah. Is that where it stops? There's no... Q: That's where it begins and ends. There are elders; there are you; there are the ideas that you are both a single co-creation that defines each other. Q: Oh, I see. Okay, because there seems to be worlds that will defy naming, defy definition. B: Only because that is the definition of your reality: to not have those definitions. Q: Okay. B: The idea of those levels is that definition is simply knowingness, not analytical. Q: Yeah, there's a thing in the bible where God does not want to be named, doesn't want to be marked. You see what I'm saying? B: Oh, it is not that God doesn't want to be; it has nothing to do with the idea of wanting to be. It is simply the idea of recognizing that there are the ideas of levels - so to speak, levels - within All That Is, for which your particular level of experience does not create a recognizable conscious definition other than the actual direct experience of knowingness itself. Q: I see. Okay, thank you. B: Thank you!