VISITS INTO THE REAL REALITY Writing 4
(This chapter reports what I observed about the person of the visitor during the times we met and my reactions to him; with the exception of the dramatic event that ended our conversations.)
Let me first describe him. He was dressed in a white robe and was shorter than me. He had regular, quite handsome facial features. What stood out were his eyes. They had a crystal clear depth. Looking at them was like looking to the bottom of tropical waters; the clarity in them was amazing.
He had a sphere of serenity about him and seemed to know exactly what he wanted. He looked neither young nor old. His voice was friendly, yet more business-like than emotional.
I should mention that with all the calmness he exuded and the remarkable transparency of his eyes, I picked up a hint of melancholy or perhaps even sadness in his appearance. When I asked him about it, he did not deny it. He said that there is something like a scar on his soul; although, he considers it more a source of gratitude than of anything else.
When he walked up to me, he introduced himself right away as a member of the fifth human generation - the one that had produced the present human race and was the instigator of the Negative State and dominated life on planet earth.
In sharp contrasts to the others I had met, he introduced himself by name. He told me his name was Gamaliel.
(This greatly disturbed me. It is a name from the Bible. But my experiences on the spiritual level and the information I received there are so universal and unconditionally addressing every person on our planet that I am not pleased with a reminder of one particular religion, whichever one. On top of this, I made a mistake. I thought it was the name of an angel in one of the biblical stories. When I checked it out, I learned it was the name of an esteemed scholar and prominent religious leader at the time of Jesus. Paul, who became the central authority in Christianity, mentions him as his teacher.)
Let me interrupt my description of him by mentioning that I did ask why this name.
He answered that it was to illustrate my position as student, asking questions. As one of the fabricators of our generation of humans, he knew what had been done to our brain that caused its minimal ability to grasp true reality. So he was a good source for bridging some of the gap between my fragmented understanding and the knowledge the other human generations share.
He promised that during our conversations I would get a greater sense of the oneness of all humans. This is possible, he said, because in a way all six human generations are as one person, one body. He used Wisdom as an example. I can relate to him despite her being in many respects 'superior' to me. This can only be done because Wisdom and I belong to the same human organism. It means I can relate to her/him without even thinking about it.
When he said this and I nodded, Wisdom teased me with, "And I thought it was the brilliance of my speaking that had you understand me."
I did ask G. if, say, I had been born in a Hindu family or had no religious upbringing, would he appear to me with this name?
He said, no, but that it would make no difference in terms of what he was going to say.
Continuing to describe him, I must say that only a few times during his volunteering information and answering my questions he showed emotions, by smiling for instance. When he talked about his 'conversion', I think I picked up some vibrations of the immense pressure he must have felt, but he did not become personal with me. He remained the teacher.
He hardly changed positions while he talked. Every day we were sitting opposite of each other on greenish looking and soft feeling rocks. The atmosphere was peaceful. I saw no changes in him age-wise, as had been the case with some of the others here.
At one point, I asked if he was a real person like Wisdom or Achmed, or myself, for that matter. To this he said, he was sure he came across that way to me. I had to agree. He suggested leaving it at that for now.
Let me mention the few times he did express emotions. In one session, when I asked him if I was free to become 'negative', he looked straight at me and mentioned that our sessions had been sort of formal; we sit opposite of each other; he does most of the talking and I think and sometimes speak my questions. In one of our first sessions, he had told me he was not going to hug me. The reason he gave was that he still is personally involved in my life. But that particular day he said that he would not mind embracing me. Not as a father figure - although, technically, his generation had produced mine. Also not as a friend or lover. He wanted to do it as an entity who is one with me as well as one with I AM.
When we did hug, it felt very different than the intimacy I felt with I AM, or Wisdom, or Achmed and his wife. It seemed my senses could not register any feelings, let alone tell me how to describe it. I can only say that whatever my system picked up, it moved me to tears. Why, I don't know.
At another time he said that he realized how absurd the information he gave must sound to an average person on earth. But he was not going to pay any attention to objections anybody could have to what he said. He was with me to give me facts. ('From the horse's mouth', I thought by myself.) He repeated the message I hear all the time that what I would do with knowing the facts is up to me. He added, with a rare smile, that it was a good sign I could accept his being here with me while perhaps he was in other places too, as he was not held captive by time or distance the way I am.
In a later session, when I asked, "And what if all this smooth talk of you is fake and tries to lure me into a sense of safety and knowing it all, while it's based on nothing?", he threw up his hands and laughed, "If you want to believe that, you're free to do so. Then there is nothing more I can do." He added that, of course, it is no laughing matter if I would believe that the real reality of which I, for an earthling, have seen so much, is an illusory world.
He then restated something I do believe and what again touched me deeply. "It is I AM," he said, "who also through me and through you exposes His/Her nature to any possible falsity and, yet, will not force the truth on us. We remain, like all else, Her/His beloved reality. It is I AM who is paying the highest price for the consequences of the fullness of reality being violated."
Not long after that he wanted to say something personal. "Right now, here, with you, I clearly am an individual like you are and anything else is that exists. Yet I am also part of my generation. The 'pain' you sense in me has to do with this. It is not caused by guilt over what I did personally. I was honestly dedicated to the calling of our human species. But what I carry is the burden of knowing that my generation set up a situation, even if it is a temporary and pseudo one, that could be interpreted as humiliating to I AM, for the whole universe to see."
He stated that his sorrow is not mine. It comes from knowing more than I do. My mission is different than his. This was part of a long speech.
While I let it sink in, he drew with his finger some ever widening circles in what I guess I should call the ground. He pointed out that I AM is the center as well as the circumference of what 'flies' away from the center. And each dot of the circumference is in itself the center of 'everything'. So I didn't need to speculate where the Negative State is located. It can be anywhere. I was told earlier that their pseudo-creation is placed outside of the furthest outer side of the universe. But that that is not meant geographically. It indicates that it 'takes place' in strict isolation from the rest of what exists. Denying that there is any place where I AM is not the center is the gravest error to be made in all of the universe.
Once, he started to laugh when he read my thoughts. It was when he talked about the discrepancy between the real motivations we act upon and what we pretend. ('Not to mention that our actual behavior speaks its own language. So what is the real us?' I was thinking). Hearing him laugh felt good as he usually is so 'objective' and unashamedly transparent and serene.
He said, "Well, how do you decide that I am real? What I say doesn't seem too specific, does it? Most of it you heard before. Yet you do take me seriously. Isn't it a yes or no situation? Looking at the consistency of what I and the others here tell you, it is a 'yes'. I am as I present myself, and you notice the good our conversation does to you. But, of course, the logic you normally go by and what the world around you uses does little to support the claim that I am real and an authentic presence.
In the last 'normal' session I had with him he teased me by saying that it was quite an achievement for me with my not particularly systematic and orderly brain to be able to write reports that hang together coherently, without contradictions or conflicting ideas or logic. He said the reason for this is, of course, that the information is not coming from an external source, including my brain, but is spoken on the level of my spirit.
Finally, I personally was glad he addressed an issue that I know some readers of these words will find annoying. It is the use of He/She and Her/His for referring to I AM. He said I would leave behind the need for that unusual but nevertheless correct use when I die; then I would never have to use it again.