Saturday, 9 December, 2000
Higher Self: Well, come on, my friend; feel free to speak your
Michael: It's been a long time, and I'm rusty. I don't know where
Higher Self: Never mind. I know you wish to speak with me, or else
you wouldn't have started this session.
By the way: welcome to the 2000s!
Michael: Oh, no - not that! You know perfectly well the 3rd
millennium doesn't begin until the 1st of January, 2001.
Higher Self: Please note that I said "Welcome to the 2000s", not
"Welcome to the 3rd Millennium". Undisputably the 2000s began nearly a year
ago, if by the "2000s" you mean those four-digit years which begin with "2".
Michael: Well, okay. I guess I concede that. I just get a bit
tired of ignorant people who can't even count properly assuming that the 3rd
millennium began at the start of the year 2000. I mean, a millennium is up when
a thousand years have passed, and if the year 1000 was the thousandth year
(which would be why it's called "1000"), then it's obvious that the
first millennium wasn't up until the thousandth year was completed. Therefore
the second millennium began at the start of the following year - that is, at the
start of 1001. A simple matter of counting shows therefore that the third
millennium doesn't begin until the start of the year 2001. Q.E.D.
Higher Self: You've just neatly solved one of the great trivial
media debates of the last few years. But people probably got deflected from
that way of reasoning things by the so-called "Millennium bug" that it was
feared would cripple computers. And of course, because of the way older
computers store year data, the appearance of the "2" digit is relevant
in that. Whether it is or isn't the beginning of a millennium is of course
irrelevant to the computer affair - but people didn't stop to think of that.
Michael: And what a fizzer the bug was, too. And to think some
survivalists and New-Age people were busily stocking up food, preparing to hide
in nuclear shelters, setting up wind-powered electricity generators, and so on,
in preparation for the great disaster they thought would befall the world as the
computers in control of everything collapsed around them. Why, the worst that I
heard happened was that a ticket machine in a bus in Hobart refused to issue
tickets to passengers because of the bug!
Higher Self: It was indeed a great fizzer. But perhaps it focused
people's minds on the dependence humanity has on technology, and on the fact
that it could possibly fail, and that this could have serious consequences.
Michael: Well, that may be so, but I don't see what we can do
about it now. We are already dependent on that technology; it's a
fait accompli. And if Isaac Asimov is right, it can't be undone now -
not least because, without that technology and without the high-energy
consumption that tends to go with it, the earth could support only a couple of
billion people. If we were serious about wanting to undo that, we might have to
call for a few billion volunteers to commit suicide so that those remaining can
continue to live. I don't see much evidence of that many prospective
Higher Self: Quite so. I agree that a naive "abandon technology and
energy use and go back to nature" approach is not viable. And people will never
voluntarily do it, anyway. Asimov points out that at no time anywhere
in history have people at large voluntarily given up any technology once it is
But of course it would be possible for present technology to be used far
less destructively, and indeed for new technology, including energy use and
computers, to develop, but in a way that enhances your planet and all life on
it, rather than one that is destructive, as is now predominant. Alas, given the
rabid "economic rationalism" that is so rampant in many societies currently
(which I think is pretty irrational, actually), I don't see any signs of a change of direction in the immediate future, at least.
But I suppose you know this already.
I notice you've stopped using the name "Bivalia" in these dialogues.
Michael: Yes. I never really felt at ease with it, never felt
convinced deep inside that it was in fact my Higher-Self name. But,
since Lady Hilarion back in 1994 told me that it was my Higher-Self name, I was
prepared to go along with that and use it for the time being, until something
better came to me. And it never did. I suppose it didn't worry me a great
deal, since I never seemed to attach the same importance to one's Higher-Self
name that many of the people I was mixing with at the time did. I mean, some
of them changed their Higher-Self name four or five times, and it all seemed
rather faddish to me.
Higher Self: No doubt it was sometimes - but those people were
obviously trying to tune into their Higher Selves (and your world would be
paradise if the majority of people were sincerely trying to do that), and their
successive names were attempts to get closer and closer to the essence of their
Higher Selves as expressed in their Higher-Self names. Because, as I think
we've discussed before, names can convey the essence of something. In
spite of what Shakespeare said to the contrary, "A rose by any other name would
smell just as sweet", I think we agreed that something would feel
different if its name were changed. So there was a good reason behind those
people's numerous name changes, even if it seemed a bit faddish at times.
Michael: Oh, I wasn't criticizing it; just saying that somehow I
couldn't get into it myself.
Higher Self: That's fair enough. No-one ever told you that you had
to do that.
Anyway, what prompted you to drop the name "Bivalia" now?
Michael: Well, there was one particular thing that clinched it,
actually. I've recently been putting these dialogues on my web site, for the
convenience of people who want to read them - people I know who have expressed
interest in so doing, because I'm not going to make the pages public, and they
don't link directly off the public part of my web site, with book reviews, lists
of books by authors, and so on.[a]
Anyway, I know that my web site is already on at least two search engines -
Google and All the Web - so that means anyone who uses those search engines can
find my pages if they enter search terms that are included in those pages. I
think the search engines found my pages because Ray G.'s site in England
links to my site (as does mine to his), and the "spiders" employed by search
engines to trawl the web can follow links from one web site or page to another.
That's how I think those search engines found my web site. (Strange, all the
spider metaphors that have grown up around the Internet.)
Anyway, I visited those search engines and entered the name "Bivalia" to
see if my private pages with our dialogues were also referred to in the search
engines. I didn't think they would be, because there are no links anywhere on
the Internet to the private pages containing our dialogues, and I thought
therefore the search engines wouldn't have found my dialogues, because they need
links (so I thought) to find them. But I wanted to check and make sure.
When I entered the name "Bivalia", I found no evidence of my dialogues -
but, to my surprise, I did find other references to "Bivalia". And it turns out
it is the Latin name for mussels - meaning "bivalves", I suppose.
Well, I somehow found this a bit deflating, and it didn't seem credible to
me that my Higher-Self name would be the same as the genus name (or whatever) of
mussels. Not that I have anything in particular against mussels, but I have no
special interest in them, either, and I suppose I thought my real Higher-Self
name would feel a bit special, somehow. And "Bivalia" never did feel special,
and it didn't after I discovered this. If one has a Higher-Self name, it didn't
seem to me that this was it, anyway, and I didn't feel like using it after that.
Higher Self: All beings in the universe do have names, you
know. Any entity's name is, in a kind of universal spiritual language, the
distilled essence of a description of who they are and what they are about. But
beings in spirit often have names that are not pronounceable in Earthly
language, and are not spellable in any Earthly alphabet. Your speech and
writing are of the physical plane, and on higher levels, the names which exist
there use the language and spelling that are native to that level. But an
Earthly name can approach the same essence that a higher-level name has, in
something like the way a two-dimensional picture approaches the reality of a
three-dimensional scene. So that is why New-Age people seek to know their
Higher-Self names, and appear to attach a lot of importance to them. It does
act a bit like a radio beam that enables them to tune into the essence of their
Higher Selves which they can only see an aspect of, not in full. But it would
be a mistake to make it the be-all and end-all, and if you don't resonate to the
idea of being so preoccupied with it, just leave it for now, and focus on
methods of tuning in to Spirit and to your Higher Self that you find more
productive - such as writing these dialogues, for example.
In actual fact, it's far better to think up your Higher-Self name yourself
from inner intuition, rather than just accepting it from someone else. Someone
else may be psychic enough to tune in to one's own Higher Self to some degree,
and from that may divine a Higher-Self name that is in tune with that person's
Higher Self to some extent; but it is unlikely that they can tune in as closely
as that person himself can. (And you understand that my "himself" is a generic
one applying to all people - it gets tiresome to keep saying "him or her", "he
or she", "himself or herself" all the time.)
This is why I have not told you my Higher-Self name in these dialogues.
The actual name cannot be spoken or spelled in Earthly language, so
this is not a matter of my being difficult or evasive. As for an approximation
you could use, there are any number of approximations that could be suggested,
and each would have its own limitations. It is up to you to find out the
approximation that best serves you at this time, which may be different from
what best serves you at another time, so that is why I don't suggest an
approximation now. One I chose arbitrarily would be unlikely to be the best for
you at this time; that can be found only by you yourself pondering it, thinking
about it, feeling into it, and intuiting the most suitable approximation
yourself. Anything I suggested to you now would be no more useful than
"Bivalia" was, and you probably wouldn't use it anyway because it didn't feel
right, or just didn't feel real.
Michael: Well, these dialogues represent my best attempt at tuning
in to you; but they don't suggest to me even the merest hint of a Higher-Self
name that feels right.
Higher Self: All in good time. Don't worry about it. It will come
to you easier than you expect if and when it is important to you. Meanwhile,
you can follow other avenues in the search for Spirit. You can call me "Higher
Self" if you like, or revert to "Counsellor" which you used in 1990 and 1991, or
even "Richard" if you like, which you tried briefly in those dialogues, and
found didn't work all that well.
Michael: I was rather fumblingly trying to find a name to address
the Counsellor by (who I now suspect was just you), and had to have a name to
address him by.
Higher Self: I wouldn't try to force it if I were you (well, I
am you, of course - but you know what I mean). Just use "Higher Self"
for now - not as a name to address me by, if you don't feel comfortable with
that, but just as a label in these dialogues to identify my words by.
Michael: The "Conversations with God" books are similarly
dialogues between Neale Donald Walsch and God (not his Higher Self) -
Higher Self: Aren't the two the same - one's Higher Self and God?
(Pardon me for cutting in.) You could call me God if you like - or Spirit (as
you did once before).
Michael: Hey, just a minute there. I would question that God and
one's Higher Self are exactly the same thing. I accept the idea that
the connection between the two is far closer than most churches tell people, and
that there is a sense in which by contacting God you are also in touch with your
Higher Self, and vice-versa - but not that the two are exactly identical.
Surely, at the very least, God is a superset of one's Higher Self, or (to put
the same thing the other way around) one's Higher Self is a subset of God.
Higher Self: Yes, quite so. I was not thinking of mathematical
identity when I equated the two, but rather of the final result: that is, you
would get very similar results if you were talking with God, and thought of your
partner in conversation as being God, as those you get talking with me, and
thinking of me as your Higher Self. But, with your usual literal mind, you
picked me up on it. I should know better, and should tailor my language to suit
the way your mind works. (Don't worry - my mind tends to work like that, too,
as your mind is simply a projection of my mind; but I like to occasionally relax
that manner of thinking.)
When one talks with God, God of course channels his thoughts through that
person's Higher Self anyway (it is the only way he can reach a person, and to
even speak of doing it another way is itself rather meaningless); and when you
talk with me, I am in touch with God, and he lies at the back of everything I
say. So in a manner of speaking, it's all the same thing anyway. And that's
why you can have different people receive information from God, and for it to be
different in certain respects for each person, and yet in each case it may
really be God who has talked to them.
At any rate, God and one's Higher Self are not as different as you may
think (if you accept the view held by many people), and don't let
church-oriented people tell you otherwise: many of them are into fear and
separation, and I don't think that's a path either you or I want to follow. So
you might like to try having a conversation with God one day, or with me, and
addressing me as God (which will give the same results anyway).
Michael: Well, maybe - it might take a bit of getting used to,
calling you God and having direct conversations with God himself. And I don't
model these discussions on the "Conversations with God" books, as interesting
and good as they are. And it's worth remembering I started having dialogues
with you before I ever read any of those books, and there's a general
similarity, but it's not all that similar when you look closely - so no-one can
accuse me of copying Walsch's idea.
Anyway, I was just about to say that in his books, he doesn't even label
the two parts of the dialogue at all (his own, and God's) - he merely
distinguishes the two speakers by using a different typeface. And in creating
my web page, I've adopted that idea myself. But I do want to label the parts,
and not rely entirely on differing typefaces to distinguish the parts. It may
be a bit confusing at times (although in those books it's usually fairly plain)
- and besides, on the Internet, because things are not truly standardized yet,
you cannot count on fonts, typefaces, and the like appearing correctly on other
people's computers. Depending on how they are set up, it's possible the
different fonts might be ignored, and all the text appear the same - and it's
one of the basic principles of web design that you can by all means use such
devices to clarify things, but you mustn't ever rely on them alone to convey
important information - the document must still be fully understandable if
nothing more than the basic text displays; and that's another reason I want to
use labels - apart from the fact that I just want to anyway, for clarity.
Higher Self: Well, fair enough.
Michael: I don't know how I got onto all that. I have a feeling I
was intending to lead up to something, but somehow got distracted.
Higher Self: Well, it's nice to see you again. Don't worry about
that; just enjoy the chat. I've always made it clear that such chat is part of
what we do together, that it's not all serious and purposeful. It all helps you
to become more aware of me, helps you become more unified as an entity.
Michael: It's been nearly two years since I had a dialogue - the
second break as long as that. And I seriously expected never to write another
dialogue ever again. But I suppose going through the files to put on the web
somehow focused my mind on you, and made it easier to start a dialogue after
But I think there's a reason why I haven't been able to have dialogues
recently. I seem to be less spiritual now, seem to have less faith, even of the
tentative nature I had before, in you or in God or in anything spiritual. I
seem to be going through a darker period now, in spiritual terms, even though
materially my life is probably better than it has ever been before - largely
because, at long last, after many difficulties, I have completed my move out of
the Trumper St. place, quit the place, and no longer have to pay rent for it.
For the three years or so that I wasn't completely moved out (although long
since living in Healesville), I felt unsettled, unable to do certain things,
unable to focus on things like reading. I still felt tied to the place, and
worried about what might happen if the landlady found out about my bad floor,
even though it wasn't my fault. I told her about it when I quit, and she didn't
seem to blame me. Of course now she or her husband have seen things (I drove
past once and saw a whole lot of wood, no doubt ripped from the floor, stacked
outside in the driveway), but since I haven't spoken to them since I quit, I
don't know what they think of that now. They know where to contact me if they
want to, and, while the condition of the floor is unfortunate, my conscience is
clear, because I didn't cause it.
Higher Self: You don't have to justify this to me. We went through
this once before. It's over now; you are now free to move on to other and
Michael: Yes; well, as I was about to say, I do feel
freer now, with that millstone removed from around my neck, and I want to do
more reading, and I want to visit Adelaide to visit the D.s (old family
friends I've always felt a connection with somehow), and, who knows, I might
even be able to do some composing of music again -
Higher Self: Kuthumi is waiting to guide you, as soon as you wish to
ask him. Remember we discussed that once before, and you did start to
compose something very good, in memory of your grandmother, a little while after
asking his help.
Michael: Yes. Well, maybe - although I must say I seem to focus
less on the Masters now than I did before. No insult to them, of course - but I
just don't feel so sure of all that Masters stuff, ascension, and all that.
Higher Self: No offence taken. The Masters themselves have promoted
the idea that they are there to help people when they need it, but not to make
anyone dependent on them. And it's a good sign that you don't focus on them so
much now, and act more in your own power - but it's always nice to keep them as
friends should you feel so inclined. It's up to you whether you wish to call on
Kuthumi, of course.
Michael: Anyway, I was just saying I might feel freer now to do
various things, such as composing, maybe writing - whatever. And I might visit
the Cocos Islands some time in the next year or so - something I've wanted to do
for years. As we've discussed before, coral atolls seem to fascinate me, and
that is a convenient one to visit: it belongs to Australia, and is supposed to
be one of the most beautiful places on earth.
But, in spite of this freedom on one level, I seem to be going through a
darker period spiritually, and am more full of doubts. I haven't written
dialogues with you for two years - and my supply of haiku verses (another way in
which I sought a more spiritual awareness) seems to have dried up completely,
after a mere 18 verses, and writing further ones seems even more remote than
further dialogues with you.
Higher Self: I wouldn't worry about it. It will come back again if
and when you need it, as if nothing had happened at all. Worrying about it
would do more harm than the mere fact of not doing it any more. Things come and
go, and it's best not to try to force them.
Michael: I actually feel a nostalgia for those verses now, and am
sorry that seems to have passed. And nothing seems to have come in to replace
it. As I say, I just don't seem to be living spiritually any more. I speak to
Spirit less often now, and just find all this spiritual stuff less convincing.
Higher Self: It's a phase you're going through. I don't think
you've lost your inner ideals, the inner world of the imagination, so I really
don't see anything to worry about, although I can certainly understand your
desire to be able to feel the reality of all this more explicitly. But one of
the limitations of your world seems to be that it is necessary for one's
spiritual growth to go through periods like this, where not much seems to
happen, where you seem to flounder round in darkness, even seem to go backwards
If anyone is so secure and sure in their faith that they never go through
this, I tend to suspect they have been to some extent brainwashed in their
faith, that they have accepted it on outside authority, not because they've
fully thought things out and arrived at that truth from within. Or if they
have truly arrived at their faith from within, it at least makes me
suspect they have (for the time being) stopped growing, and are stagnating.
Although even that may be a phase they need to go through, and it may ultimately
contribute to their growth - for everyone will grow spiritually
ultimately - there comes a time when it cannot be prevented, because it is the
nature of humans to grow spiritually, as surely as rivers flow downhill and
finally reach the sea. It's as certain as that in the long run.
Michael: Some would say the very opposite, that the inherent
nature of humanity is corrupt and sinful, and separated from God, and that, but
for the grace of God, they would sink forever into darkness. Some of them call
that Hell, and use all sorts of horrible imagery to describe it.
Higher Self: Well, we've discussed this before, and I think you know
what I think of that. Those are limitations of awareness those people create
for themselves, or accept uncritically from others, or from scriptures. Just
because others say that is so, it is no reason why you have to accept it if it
feels deeply wrong to you in some way.
Michael: Well, I wasn't saying I accept that view; I was just
pointing out that your statement that it is the inherent nature of humans to
grow spiritually is not accepted by all people. In fact, amongst those who have
any spiritual belief at all, I think it is a minority belief, at least in the
society I live in.
Higher Self: Quite so. But I know you don't accept that view
yourself, because it feels deeply wrong to you in some way.
Michael: Well, I don't quite know where this latest bit of
But I think one of the reasons why I was reluctant to have a dialogue was
because I was afraid my recent pessimistic view of anything spiritual would
dominate, that I would be unable to have you say anything positive and
inspiring: you'd either support my pessimistic view, or else try unsuccessfully
and unconvincingly to say nice inspiring things. And if that happened, the last
balloon of pretension that these dialogues are spiritual, that they are anything
more than a delightful fantasy or charade, would be pricked, and you would
effectively be dead as far as I was concerned. And I didn't want that to
happen, so I tended to put off writing a dialogue. As long as I didn't actually
contact you, I would at least keep alive the hope that I could if I
Higher Self: Well, I'm sorry if you've felt like that recently.
But so what if you did have a dialogue, and I didn't perform up to scratch?
We both know that channelling is not a perfect way of receiving information.
(Although I know you've distanced yourself from the concept that you are
channelling me in these dialogues, that is in effect what it is: you are tuning
in to me, a spiritual entity, and trying to receive information from that
spiritual entity. And that is what channelling is.) If I don't seem to perform
adequately, it might be for no more reason than your own state of mind - because
a channelling can be adversely affected by a poor or depressed state of mind.
Now, just between you and me, that mightn't matter. We can just be
friends, and we don't have to feel that we're performing up to a sufficient
standard; but if you were to do public channellings of the Masters, or even of
me, your own Higher Self, for instance, it might be a bit different, and it
might not be advisable to do that if you felt depressed, or felt it likely you
might be depressed on the appointed day. And I know you have never
felt the slightest desire or urge to channel in any more public way than by
these dialogues, and for good reason - it is not a role that is appointed for
you at this time. And by making the dialogues available to others later on, you
can be of benefit to them; but by writing my words at the times you are best
able to receive them, instead of doing "live" channelling, and being subject to
your state of mind at the time, and being unable to correct anything once it is
said, you circumvent that problem. With the emotional problems you tend to
have, written channelling was just made for you - and I don't recommend
you try voice channelling at this time (not to mention the fact that having your
speech recorded would make you nervous, and people will want to do
this, and it would make you nervous and inhibit the purity of your channelling).
I think you worry unnecessarily about it all. Just do dialogues whenever
you feel like it. It really doesn't matter if periods of several years go by
without doing this. Shortly before the recent two-year break, we tried an
exercise when for several consecutive days we had a short dialogue, just to show
that you can contact me on an everyday, casual basis. You chose not to
keep doing that long-term - but you know it can be done, should you
wish to, and should you find it helpful. But there is no "must" about it -
there is no-one judging whether your dialogues come up to scratch, either in
terms of frequency or quality.
Michael: Yes, I suppose I was afraid that this dialogue would be
lacking in quality, not up to the usual standard. And I do think most of our
dialogues are very good - and I do think this one is not quite up to that
standard, although it's not nearly as bad as I feared it might be.
Higher Self: Well, whether it is or isn't, I would urge you not to
judge it at all. It's what you need to do at this present time, and it's not at
all helpful to go ahead thinking this dialogue is a good one, or this one is not
so good, and so on. Who sets the standard by which you judge them, and what is
Michael: The standard is difficult to describe, but I can
certainly feel it. I guess a dialogue is good when it is interesting, brings up
wonderful ideas, conjures up a sense of magic or wonder such as some of them
Higher Self: Well, that may be so - but the dialogues vary. And it
is just as important to work through bad feelings as to revel in good ones with
me. And I make no judgement about which is better to do, and want you to do
both of those things. Indeed, it is important for you to deal with
negative feelings as well as indulge in positive ones.
As to who does the judging, certainly I do not. God does not. If anyone
else in spirit happens to be aware of what we're saying, and if they see fit to
judge it, it's none of their business - and no concern of ours how they judge
it. Really, that leaves only your ego, your rational, conscious mind, doing the
judging. I don't condemn your ego for doing so at times, and fully acknowledge
your ego's right to judge things. But just don't take it too seriously; if your
mind judges something we talk about, just accept that and then think about it
from my point of view. That's all part of the process of growing: you don't
angrily or forcibly reject the stuff your mind comes up with, but accept it with
love, consider it, then put it aside and think it through from other points of
view. That ego point of view will weaken in time if you do that, and fall more
Michael: Yes, I suppose you're right. And I don't regard
that ego point of view as all-dominating. But I suppose I can't help being
dominated by it at times, even if it isn't really what I want.
Michael: Well, I feel as if this dialogue hasn't quite reached a
natural conclusion, but I seem to be at a bit of a loss what to say.
Higher Self: Don't worry about that. The thing is just to talk with
me, to become easy with sharing your thoughts and feelings with your Higher
Self. That is more important than the actual things we talk about, even though
those can sometimes be important.
Michael: Well, there was one thing I might mention, but I somehow
don't feel like embarking on that now. It might take a lot of time, and I want
to go and get something to eat now (at 11.00 p.m.). And I feel it might also
lead into very murky areas that I would challenge you to be inspiring about, and
it might thus trigger my fear that my dialogues become an obvious pretence which
I can't keep up any longer because the illusion is finally shattered for good.
Higher Self: I would welcome your challenging me on anything you
like. But remember what I said about how to regard it if I can't seem to come
up to scratch. Your Higher Self is not something that's only there to come up
with brilliant answers, and I would certainly not want to regard all our
previous discussions as great, profound teachings around which you could write
scriptures or build a religion or start a church. (God forbid that anyone
should try to build a religion around anything I say; I would say to them, "Go
within and seek your own wisdom from your own Higher Self rather than accept
uncritically what comes from someone else".)
No, I am with you as a guide and companion, and I will always try to lead
you to those things that form the undercurrent to your life, that can cut
through the worries and cares of life, even if at times those deeper things seem
swamped at times.
Go on - speak your thoughts.
Michael: Already, your slightly evasive answer there is starting
to hint at what I just said I feared.
Higher Self: You will fail at times to receive what I say,
or will put your own thoughts into my mouth, think it's coming from me, but
doesn't measure up. Nothing is surer. I am not omnipotent, and I
cannot completely change your whole state of mind. I can't give you
neat, infallible answers to every conceivable problem that may come up.
And haven't you noticed, when someone or some religion does purport or
appear to give completely comprehensive, infallible answers, how utterly
inadequate those answers are? They are usually fear-based, and I try not to use
any fear at all as a factor in our discussions. When I love you and all beings
so much, how could I possibly consciously and deliberately use fear in an
attempt to influence you or anyone else? If I do occasionally, it is due to
fallibility - not because I think fear has a proper role in spiritual growth.
From where I see things, it doesn't. (And please do pull me up and
tell me if at any time you think I have slipped into fear-based thinking.)
And haven't you noticed that those same religions are usually very
authoritarian? I don't support the idea of making people believe anything
through force of authority, but rather encourage them to develop their own
awareness, so that they arrive at answers on their own, with any spiritual help
they are willing to receive. Truth arrived at in that fashion is far more
important, and is more truly absorbed, than any concepts merely accepted from
outside authorities - even if those outside ideas happen to be totally true.
(Another of my little sayings or aphorisms.)
Don't put me on a pedestal I cannot remain securely on. If you absolutely
depend on me to come to the rescue and infallibly fix any discouragement you
experience, you are putting me on too high a pedestal. I would rather be on the
ground with you, helping you in whatever way I can. Sometimes I can give
answers - sometimes I can't, but will just be with you in your difficulty or
depression, or whatever the problem is.
If on some occasion you come to me and I don't seem able to perform up to
the standard you expect, leave it for a while, and come back after a good
night's sleep. Things always seem different the next day. But don't make a
decision that it's all over now, that for now and forever more I am nothing more
than a pretence that you cannot sustain any more.
And so what if I am a pretence at times? Perhaps pretending certain
spiritual things is a valid way of expanding your mind, of considering
possibilities, of thinking about new ideas. If you do cease (for the time
being) to believe in my reality, then use these dialogues purely as a literary
device to write about your own concerns. That will still be useful as
self-therapy if nothing else - and my influence will still bring to bear and
keep you connected with spirit, even if you are quite unaware of it. And it
won't even matter if you become completely atheistic, so long as you keep that
connection open - that connection to something higher and broader. And it won't
matter in the slightest what you attribute that to, whether you think it is
spiritual in nature or not - just so long as you don't close off that connection
to all that is wonderful, all that you have spent your life longing for, even if
you didn't know what it was. That awareness of something wonderful has
remained mostly undimmed in you, regardless of whether you have been going
through an atheistic, unspiritual period or not.
Michael: Well, thanks. Perhaps that explanation has redeemed the
pessimistic feelings I was starting to get upon hearing your acknowledgement
that you may fail me at times. I will bear that in mind.
Higher Self: Thanks for being with me, and for your faith in me.
Michael: I think I'll finish for now. I might come back tomorrow,
or even later tonight (which will be after midnight, and therefore tomorrow
anyway). So I'll see you later.
Higher Self: Good-bye, and remember: I am always with you anyway,
whether you are thinking about me or not. Farewell for now.