30 September 2016
Often is asked what the spiritual meaning of anything might be, suggesting a purpose or reason for something that is unique or different, when viewed from the "spiritual" point-of-view. I turn to The Committee for insight.
Q: I imagine it's good to define "spiritual" point-of-view. What is it?
C: A human creation.
Q: Without humans, there would be no such perspective?
C: No. There is perspective; there are points-of-view. These refer to physical properties; where such conditions are not relevant, distinct points-of-view fade.
Q: There are no differences in opinion in "Heaven"?
C: Of course, just as on Earth. They are not "points-of-view". All views from all points are available to any soul desiring to look.
Q: So what can the phrase "spiritual meaning" signify, if it's a human creation?
C: Useful it would be, to ask the humans using it. We will say, is it desire for another to provide insight the questioner does not want to see, yet does. Where a questioner chooses to have another soul interpret for her- or himself.
It is similar to what humans always say, "..to be perfectly honest.." as if there were other times such person speaks with imperfect honesty, or speaks dishonestly. Anyone questioned about use of the phrase would not agree to dishonesty or imperfect honesty, yet suggests it. S/he repeats what has been heard, without question or examination.
Because a unique opinion or point-of-view is offered from "spirit", is it accurate to believe this perspective is only available to spirit? No, for all ways of examining a human experience are also available to humans. Humans can see all things we can see, if humans choose it.
Q: This seems a bit unfair, even rough, on some of us.
C: Only roughly unfair to those who have grown accustomed to the idea they cannot see where indeed they can.
We can see into things not of Earth, or hidden from your dimensionality by virtue of your choice to remain behind a veil of limitation. There are effects easy to be seen, if confusing and sometimes painful, with meanings and purposes just as obvious but for choice of reaction.
Q: If the idea humans could see into spiritual meanings with relative ease took hold, I am guessing many if not most paid mediums would suffer sharp declines in business.
C: Yes, that outcome is likely, if the choice were made. We suggest it would - and will be - a slow and steady choice. Humans enjoy the ability to have something done rather than doing it alone, without assistance, paid or otherwise.
Q: The inability to examine a life plan, is this part of the mystery for humans?
C: Yes, however the life plan mystery involves upcoming events, concealed until "time" comes for their revelation. Once an event occurs then unfolds, insight into the many meanings which an be attributed is available to any observer willing to consider her or his impressions.
Humans adore absoluteness and completion. Humans like to believe insight by another into one aspect equals ability to see into all aspects. You passed on information given to you by the soul of Amelia Earhart which did not match precise assumptions made by readers after hearing other information, and because the completeness of the information did not extrapolate to expectations of complementary information, the reaction was one of incorrectness, inaccuracy.
This reaction speaks more to the choice of the observer, than to the correctness of information.
Q: Is it a bad idea or generally a positive one, to see insight into meanings not obvious?
C: It is good, more so when the questioner looks more deeply into what is already seen.
Q: Is it possible we're not supposed to see into all angles or aspects of a situation?
C: No. There is no censorship or restriction of information, spiritually. The choice or inability of insight into a known situation is a human selection, often a life plan event.
Q: This gets us into why and how we plan lives.
C: A subject we have often discussed.
Q: Esteemed Committee, thank you.
C: Our pleasure; do return soon, all of you.
27 September 2016
Q: Esteemed Committee, this question is as old as time and this website, whichever came first, however since there is no time, the question can't be answered. What is the difference between belief and proof, or what are the similarities?
C: In which environment? Proof is simply training, from experience. There is no such thing as proof to a newborn human; there either is, or there is not. The baby wants to see her or his mother or father and accepts what is seen, the presence or the absence of the parent. The baby does not consider proof.
This comes about through social training and education.
Where human trained proof, or human created and acceptable evidence do not exist, proof is not a requirement for belief. It also isn’t a requirement for humans, but for human habit of requiring proof. This is naturally limited to the five senses, by use of the word nature we mean the development of human behaviors as set down by habit and custom of humans preceding the current, subject example.
Q: What is belief without proof?
C: Simply belief. Why is proof required? Because it has been taught to be required, and false proof or evidence has sometimes been supplied, reinforcing the idea proof is necessary. Proof is needed if belief's habit says proof is necessary.
Q: I have sometimes read the term, intended as criticism no doubt, "sky wizard," used to refer to God. Why do critics of belief in a supreme being engage in this terminology and what proof would satisfy them there is no sky wizard, that most believers in religious faith do not see a wizard in the sky?
C: It is comforting to retreat into a belief system, and often this is achieved by rejecting another belief system. No different than leaving a neighbor's apartment and retreating to your own. To expect a supreme being to be a wizard requires social training and habit.
There is nothing to be gained by attempting to convince a believer in sky wizards, that there is not one. Acceptance gives itself; it is reciprocal.
Q: I recently read an article by the well known British astrophysicist Stephen Hawking, who suggested mankind must find the aliens before they find us. I laughed out loud, because I'm certain he'd toss my book "into the bin" as Brits might say, if I suggested alien ETs have already "found" us and they've been around Earth as long as there have been humans aboard, and even longer. A lot longer. He'd want "proof". There is none available that would satisfy him, or anybody else. Who's right?
C: Both of you, both beliefs. Humans have elected to construct belief out of bricks and boards of evidence, and pre-select the materials suitable for such construction. Until a bit of new masonry comes along that observers will find acceptable - and many will not, no matter what - there is little belief to be had from suggestion.
Q: Nevertheless, many humans both hold and learn beliefs without a structured assembly erected before them, or presented for their inspection. Why does this happen?
C: Because it is the nature of your soul to believe, and to know what you should. The learned process of requiring acceptable evidence will never overtake or erase the essence of your existence.
Q: Give us a practical method, one I likely already employ. The other day 5 people were murdered at a shopping mall north of Seattle, state of Washington, USA. Initial news reports said witnesses described the killer as Hispanic. You chimed in and said no, from the Middle East and Muslim. I just knew and understood that was accurate, but kept the detail to myself, understanding it would serve no purpose; once the killer was captured, that detail would come out. Sure enough, he is a 20 year old Turk (not quite Middle East, but very close) and a Muslim who seems to have associated with at least the ideas of ISIS.
How can people be taught to hear and believe their inner voice, in examples such as above?
C: By listening, and keeping track. Once enough of such insights occur, the pattern of being accurate almost all the time will become obvious. It will not be perfect, but very close to it, far more accurate than random guesses could ever be. Few humans engage in this tracking and review of insights and thoughts that "occur" to them, yet if the many were to do so, it would become obvious.
Q: Does the "belief requires proof" process apply in your dimensionality the same way as it does on Earth?
C: Yes, however the evidence is more easily accepted. Humans teach one another doubt, with great gusto. It is deemed prudent and smart to be skeptical, to avoid or minimize risk. This is not the case in our dimensionality, because we do not concern ourselves with physical loss. This one key characteristic of the Earth environment and its relative density supply a great incentive to be unsure and uncertain, the illusion it is.
The experience of the illusion is wonderful, and this justifies the use of evidence and proof against doubt and uncertainty, to create belief.
Q: OK, but it also seems that human insistence that everything be justified with acceptable proof, limits and restrains us as much as it supplies experience and understanding.
C: With one aspect, which must be included. It is voluntary to see things this way. Blind trust is not blind at all, and s/he who takes advantage of it in others, is truly the blind one. The seemingly naïve among humans, whose blind trust in their safety can get them injured or killed, regain their soul and being in ways others cannot, vicious and tragic such "accidents" seem to be, to humans.
Q: Committee, thank you for the brief visit today.
C: Welcome you are.
25 September 2016
RQ1: What is the volume of our souls? Like can we measure the mass of our soul or is it infinite? Or can we expand our soul bigger and smaller in size?
C: This depends on which or what definition of volume is preferred. Preferences are the result of experience, on Earth and away from it, and thus we expect volume to be understood in units humans employ for measurement. Density and mass are the operative parameters, and we say, the mass of our soul remains as the density fluctuates; compression and expansion.
A human soul and the soul without the human; the same thing, both occupy a volume humans do not yet understand. This is the subatomic measurement of an atom, which as we have explained before, is vast. The open space between protons plus neutrons and orbiting electrons is large. Size often exists as a function of velocity, thus time required to traverse it the relative measure of its meaning.
The soul of a human is not limited or constrained by the velocities humans consider absolute, so size cannot be measured and considered in human terms. Nevertheless, to frame your question in terms of extremes, we say, your soul is the size of a pinhead or a battleship, simultaneously, with reference to surroundings. The surroundings change and thus might the relative size.
Q2: You once said that if everyone in collective used their thoughts to manifest and cause the snow of a mountain to fall, can all our thoughts as an entire collection manifest a true Santa Claus that lives at the North Pole if everyone as a collective truly believes and thinks to manifest one?
C: Collectively, all of you can manifest snow at the level of the sea on the equator. You do not believe this is possible. Belief creates proof from action.
A true Santa Claus? As compared to a false one? Define true Santa Claus, and you shall have him. We say, humanity has already manifested a Santa Claus; that you speak of it means you have. We know your response; you mean one you can physically touch. Yes, you do this also. Each year there are hundreds and thousands of them, appearing near centers of sale and purchase, where many gifts are obtained for the annual festivities.
We know your response to this also; a Santa Claus that physically does the things you perceive in the bodies of others, with a flying sleigh, reindeer and a large bag of gifts for children.
Q3: Can the collective manifest a true Santa Claus that lives at the North Pole if everyone truly believes they can manifest one?
C: Yes. Do you believe you can, enough of you?
24 September 2016
Aspirin necessary? I don't think so...
A reader inquires and The Committee addresses each part or question:
RQ1: I had a mental vision of back and white lines that looked as ripples on water would look if you threw in say 3 stones. But there was a strange interference where some ripples seemed confined in a small area. Possibly like if one wave was on a different plane, I'm not sure.
C: This you can see yourself, without a mental image. Toss several stones into still water and observe the waves from each impact as they intersect. This is the small area you observed mentally.
RQ2: In the normal double slit experiment, when we see the particle loop, if we could see all planes or dimensions, would it loop in a true circle, an oval or a torus shape? Or is it just like ripples on water?
C: Yes, the deviations of the particle are not the same but similar to the ripples in water, the ripples being the observance of energy as it moves through and temporarily displaces the liquid. The particle is solid and thus reveals deviations differently. Eventually the particle would come full circle, and this could be any of several shapes, as you mention and others, also.
RQ3: If we focus enough on the particle can the speed of the particle be increased beyond light speed? Can the particle operate outside of time? If so what does it now look and feel like?
C: Yes, however the particle would disappear and what would be the purpose? Everything operates outside time; which is merely a mode of perception. The particle looks and feels the same, the missing clocks and watches are what seems different.
RQ4: What is the best way to train our minds to observe and measure these waves and particles? How do we know when we are on the right track and not just seeing images we have picked up previously? How can we practice this safely and know how much mental energy to apply?
C: No training is required. Decide you want to see them and you shall. It is most likely you will see them with your mind and not only your eyes, but human perception means only eyes matter, thoughts do not.
You assume, erroneously, that seeing images picked up previously equals the wrong track. Mental perception is memory, not observance. Is it? The human mind betrays itself.
There is no risk or danger to the application of mental energy. There exists no such thing as too much. Only the reaction creates a notion of too much.
RQ5: If we encase ourselves inside a vessel, is the vessel say an electron or a photon? Or a thought? If we surround it with the energy of the destination, is this by mentally focusing on a destination or is it a calculation of a specific amount of energy? Or is it simply about believing until you arrive at a knowing?
C: What is a vessel assumed to be an electron or photon? Or a thought?
A vessel is not surrounded with energy of a destination, the traveler tunes to the energy frequency or signature of the desired location. No calculation but rather synchronization is what achieves the alignment thus travel.
Belief is the first and main ingredient.
RQ5½: If we use a spherical crystal, what type and size please?
C: No sphere is required; there is no specific shape necessary and it need not be a crystal, as humans understand them.
20 September 2016
A reader asks:
"[I] was thinking last night have you ever [done] an article about [The Committee] themselves [I] thought it would be interesting to hear about them regarding any past lives they had or anything else in general they do so much for us but [I] just thought it might be interesting to hear and read about them for a change as always thanks to you and [The Committee] for your time and effort and happy to see things are going well for you."
This has been mentioned before, however new readers won't find it in the e-books.
I refer to them as Gabrianna, Herman and Matthew. Gabrianna is my main Guardian Angel. "She" is a female persona (the pronoun gives it away!) and appears to be in her mid 30s. She shows up as either auburn haired European or African. She is very beautiful, in my humble opinion, and I have met several women of both persuasions Gabrianna says resemble her, if she were to ever incarnate. She is not an alumna of an Earth life.
Herman is European looking, a senior citizen type and a scientist. He has lived two lives as a human on Earth, and pursued science in one, in the 19th century. He was and is my voice into mathematics, engineering and things scientific, an interest which has gripped me since I can remember, especially electricity.
Matthew is a dark haired male of a Semitic or Middle Eastern appearance, also in his mid 30 to early 40s in appearance.
Gabrianna has never appeared to me physically, only in my mind. Herman did once on request, about 20 years ago in a park on a cold winter day when I was running. He was wearing a long, dark overcoat and scarf and nodded his head slightly in silence, as I ran past. He had medium length gray hair. When I realized strongly that he was acknowledging me, I stopped after a few steps and looked back to see him; he had disappeared.
Matthew once showed up in a bookstore, as an employee. I was looking for a book and couldn't find the section where I thought it would be. He calmly approached, asking if he could help. I told him the section and he knew exactly where it was. I found it right away, even though I'd already passed by at least twice. I found my book and asked the cashier to thank the employee for me, since I couldn't see him anymore in the not-so-large store. The young woman asked me what he looked like, then told me nobody by that description worked there.
They communicate as a collective voice. I do not "hear" them individually, that I can distinguish, although I do get the feeling Herman takes the lead on science, math and physics type things. Matthew does general philosophy and galaxial subjects and Gabrianna supplies human behavior insights, development and world history.
We chose these names together, to help anchor my understanding and perception into the physical world. I do not often think of them individually. They are always available, if sometimes silent on certain questions, and have made great efforts to bring forward the many subjects of interviews with souls of the deceased.
I consider myself their typist.