Monday March 2, 2015

F: 6:30 a.m. Good morning, Miss Rita. Were you the one who put the idea into my mind last night that I should contact my old friend David, dead 45 years ago today?

R: There is no real use pinpointing the supposed source of an idea. Ideas are not property, and either they resonate or not. Either they are good ideas, or not.

F: However, good or bad is a judgment, and you can have an opinion about it.

R: That’s a different question. I have no objection but you may not wish to do so on the air, so to speak.

F: All right. While we are on the air, though, I want to mention And We Go On, by Will Bird, which was a gift from my friend Jim Szpajcher. It is by a Canadian soldier who survived World War I largely because he heeded repeated contacts from his brother who had been killed before Will enlisted. A book that is very honest about how often soldiers would know ahead of time that they would be killed that day. Someday when honesty returns to the subject of the human condition seen scientifically – and religiously, for that matter – such testimonies will be taken for granted, but it must have been an extraordinary testimony when published. Okay, do we continue with the list of questions? Or do we do something else? It’s up to you.

R: Let’s continue.

[Bob Friedman’s questions: I am fascinated by how time (or non-time) is experienced in non-3D. Maybe it’s impossible for us in 3D to grasp that, but can Rita give it a try? It would seem to me that even a thought following a thought (as consciousness goes) would have to be linear in some respect. But everyone who channels non-3D says that time does not exist, that all that happens in every dimension, happens in the present moment. Are all thoughts happening simultaneously in non-3D? If not, wouldn’t that constitute something like linear time?]

R: Bob is correct that change implies sequence, and that involves a structure holding, or enabling, sequence. And it is equally true that people are saying there is no time. The problem lies in language, and language (we keep coming back to it) reflects past understandings, perceptions, in its very structure. It also shapes – delimits – future understandings and perceptions in that what we experience in 3D, we tend to try to validate or invalidate by an unconscious process of comparison. If the language says something doesn’t make sense, the overwhelming temptation is to invalidate the something. “I was mistaken.” “That couldn’t have happened.”

F: Which is why they say to have a second language is to have a second soul?

R: What people mean by that varies by the person, but that is one thing they can mean. A language that has no word for past or future expresses, and shapes, a very different experience of the world than one which does.

So, “there is no time.” Take that as an honest and accurate statement, and put it next to the logical necessity of some kind of organizer of experience into sequence, and what do you get?

F: Arguments.

R: Yes, that, but what do you get when you accept both halves of a contradiction

F: A redefinition of terms

R: Well, at least a redefinition of terms in a particular context. In this instance, you have these pieces of the puzzle:

– There must be something linear, something to establish a sequence
– Everything happens in the present moment
– All life is “present” in that it is all alive, and persists in being alive
– In 3D, at least, there is something unique in that “present” moment, in that here is your opportunity to choose and thus, seemingly at least, reshape or confirm what you are and what you value.
– In non-3D, that “present” moment, as a traveling point carrying you along, does not exist
– Finally, you inhabit both 3D and non-3D at the same time, because non-3D is not a separate place but is an intrinsic part of 3D.

Look at all those conditions together, all of them true, and see if you can make sense of them.

F: I take it that last statement is rhetorical.

R: Not at all. Do the work of thinking about it. Only that way will it become yours. All I can do is point – that’s all this can amount to, because nobody can do someone else’s thinking. Unless you wrestle with the material, it will never be yours.

F: So how do you want to proceed?

R: Go to Bob’s second question, and you’ll see.

[Second question: this concerns God, angels, guides, higher self, etc. Does supplication (some call it prayer) from 3D to non-3D make any difference, and if so, who does one ask? Do non-3D beings interfere in the events of 3D, if only to answer a prayer? I remember a voice I heard from somewhere, while in my car, which actually saved my life when I was seventeen? It just said, “STOP!” when I was about to enter an intersection on a green light. Some car running a red light would have killed me for sure. What voice was that? How do “they” decide when to interfere and when not to? I know we don’t see the larger perspective, but who does, and how does that work if there is interceding in 3D events?]

R: Bob, your own example, your own experience, demonstrated convincingly for you that of course such contact exists. Whether it should be thought of as interference, however, is another thing.

F: I was struck, reading Bob’s second question, that I “just happened” to be moved to mention Will Bird’s book.

R: Yes. Was that impulse interference? Was it conformity to an unperceived but pre-existent pattern? Was it you foreseeing? Was it you unconsciously remembering what you had read when you printed out the list of questions several days ago? Is there any reason to try to differentiate the source of the impulse, whether me or your non-3D self or other “guides” or “angels”?

So yes, non-3D beings intervene, and far more often than you realize, because much of that interaction is taken for granted and attributed to “natural” processes. Well, they are natural, it is only the definition of “natural” that is too constricted.

Yes, prayer affects which reality you move to. Think of prayer as focused intent, stronger according to the intensity of the underlying feeling and/or the consistency of intent over time. Others have seen it as petition to God or petition to a favorite saint, and in other ways, but such definition says something about each person’s mental world, and nothing about the underlying reality. Each way of seeing things has its advantages and its corresponding defects, which is why no one way of seeing things has ever prevailed absolutely. (Many things that are conceded in public are disbelieved in private.)

If you will work to hold all the background and redefinition I have been providing, you will watch your understanding of these things appear before you as if by magic, because to see familiar ideas in unfamiliar contexts is to shake the kaleidoscope.

And, don’t forget, who says it is a “they” intervening? The difference between “they” and “we” or even “I” is more theoretical than real, because in a very real sense we are all one. You know that, but as long as you keep that thought in one container and these thoughts in another, they cannot illumine each other. Once you do, it becomes clear, first emotionally, then mentally.

So now let us return to the first question, even though it is too soon for most people to have done much thinking about it.

If time were the linear structure it appears to be in 3D, how could thoughts or foreknowledge or even a wider perception be passed along? Yes, it is true that

F: I’m muddling that. Try again?

R: You weren’t muddling it; it was going in an unfamiliar direction and you were trying to construct or deduce logical links in your mind, though to you it appeared that you were merely reaching for the right words.

If time was as it appears, there could be no communication across time as you experience it in 3D. The past would be gone, the future not yet created. What is there to communicate?

If time is as you have been thinking about it, Frank, following the scheme given us years ago, all moments exist and they are equally available to the non-3D, hence, potentially, to the 3D component of the non-3D. In such case, different questions arise, but not the question of how interaction across time is possible. That concept is more useful than the previous one, which is why it was given, but of course it is not ultimately and exactly true; it is reality as somewhat distorted to fit into 3D experience.

If you think of 3D’s experience of time as watching a movie frame by frame, and non-3D’s experience as absorbing the entire movie, or let’s say holding the entire movie in mind with the ability to then examine any frame or combination of frames, you can get closer to it. Only, the frames are not static but alive, and can continually be changed by focused intent.

But don’t get too enamored of this model either, because there is still the question of all those unlived possibilities (from any one life-path’s point of view) and what they amount to.

F: I get the feeling it is a good thing the hour is up.

R: You aren’t doing so badly. We have provided things to think about, and that is the real accomplishment. By the way this should explain why so often you get an elliptical or puzzling answer to questions about the nature of things. If you work for it, it will be yours. If you are handed it, you will keep on shopping.

F: At the end of a session, I go back and count the number of pages we’ve covered, and it’s always a surprise. Okay, Miss Rita, till next time.

Sunday March 1, 2015

F: 7 a.m. Late start, this morning, Miss Rita. The dog ate my alarm clock. Actually, I was pleasantly surprised to sleep as late as I did. Continue with the questions? Something to say first? Your move.

R: You may go to the next question on the list.

[Jim Austin’s question:

[A. She seems to define compound beings as “anything created in 3D by sexual reproduction uniting different strains”

[– Does she mean the standard biological joining of gametes from two or more 3D beings … or are there more ‘complex’ forms of “sexual reproduction?”

[– Does this imply that compound beings are always created through sexual reproduction? This would seem reasonable, as the physical process starts with joining material ‘pieces” from different 3D beings.

[B. “Compound beings … are both battleground and reconciling force for opposing forces.” That reminds me of Rita’s earlier comment that the story of the Fall (Lucifer and the ‘fallen’ angels) is “true enough.” THERE is a (big time!) story of “opposing forces”; would she care to elaborate?]

R: In this instance, sexual reproduction means merely what it seems to mean – the creation of a new unique physical heredity by means of taking half from one individual, and another half from another individual. It is the continual mixing and matching going on in the gene pool that makes different opportunities for new individuals being inserted at any given time.

This is not to say that such new opportunities are the only reason for sexual congress, nor that bloodlines determine fate. I am answering the question as posed. New mixtures define the opportunities among which the individual chooses. If you are born human, you cannot decide among options limited to whales, say, or trees.

Part B of the question should have been answered by now (though after the question was posed, I recognize). Given that the non-3D world is a part of the 3D world (and vice-versa), it should be clear that it exists within duality, even though duality manifests differently outside the specialized conditions of 3D. Therefore all polarities are experienced in non-3D no less. So yes, there is the tension of opposites, but stopping at that leads people in misleading directions, so that they think of war rather than recognizing that war is one condition but never the only one. When a scale contains war, it also contains reconciliation, just as a scale containing competition also includes cooperation. These are not either/ or so much as either / or / both / neither.

F: In short, it isn’t as simple as good vs. evil, which is where we tend to go in thinking about dualistic forces.

R: No, but the reasons why it is not that simple are so complex, so intertwined with seemingly unrelated matters, it is hard to get a handle on the subject, and harder to keep it once you get one.

F: Which is why questions help?

R: It is why they can help. Whether they do or not depends largely upon the choice of question, and the order in which they are pursued. It is a matter of preserving and extending a line of inquiry.

F: I actually got a sense of your being overwhelmed by the size of the subject matter.

R: Not the size of it, exactly, but the complexity. To understand A, in this case, you must understand not just B but a whole alphabet, and the same for each of those letters.

F: Is it hopeless?

R: Nothing is hopeless, but it is necessarily not as straightforward as you might expect, because we have to continually go back and explain apparent contradictions, or sketch out essential but not obvious connections, or redefine material that was slurred over previously in order to continue on a previous line of inquiry.

F: So how do you want to go about it?

R: The only ways I know are either a prepared statement, or a close response to questions, or a loose response, using a question as a springboard, or, in practice, alternation among the methods. You will have to be prepared for a good deal of restatement, often seemingly redundant, because the process of explanation involves not merely the presentation of material but the presentation of that material in different contexts. To say it once and leave it is to leave it undigested, or at least over-simplified.

F: I seem to remember the guys often going back over previously covered ground using that background in new contexts.

R: Yes. We may have thought them somewhat plodding at times, somewhat dogged. I recognized what they were doing, but still sometimes it felt slow. And I was nowhere near as fast as you were! So the pace was not nearly as far from mine as from yours. Plus I was by temperament and training more methodical and careful, and that also made it easier. The years since have perhaps made you more able to participate in this process in the way I did then. Let’s hope so, because you will need to.

Even this explanation is an example of the process, and of the difference in you. You are not champing at the bit, saying, “get on with it! What about the question?” instead you are patiently waiting for it to be revealed. That patience, whether you know it or not, is rooted in a faith that the process will produce results. This allows you to go along for the ride without suspecting that you are merely traveling in circles and without wondering if I am merely evading a short answer for whatever reason.

F: In other words, description of the process – illustration of the process – is an important part of the explanation, and not a diversion,

R: That’s right. The process is the often-taken-for-granted illustration that will help you glimpse the situation behind the larger questions, regardless whether it illumines any particular detailed question.

F: It has been only half an hour but I am tired already. Is this because of the need to concentrate on this? Or some other reason? Or just one of those things?

R: Prolonged concentration on one detailed subject can produce fatigue, more so than concentration on first one thing, then another. And concentration on a message whose purport and intention is not clear may be more fatiguing than when you have a sense of where it is going. These are two different processes, and the difference is similar to the difference in effort required by thinking as opposed to associating.

F: So I am doing a different kind of work when I bring in unfamiliar material than when I bring in easier stuff?

R: It may look that way. It would be closer to say, different when you are bringing in material that is not clear to you over a long span, as opposed to material each bite of which is clear and makes sense and builds on (as well as towards) something easily comprehensible.

F: It is the working suspended in air that brings extra fatigue?

R: You could put it that way. But this small digression on process has restored your attention for the question, you will notice.

F: I thought it was the coffee. But, proceed.

R: When you consider good and evil, you tend to do so either as abstract concepts or as specific examples. Neither alternative is wrong, but neither is sufficient in itself. Every time you go looking into the nature of reality, context is all. Context determines how a thing looks. If you examine it always from the same viewpoint, in the same context, it will seem to you immutable and unquestionable. Indeed, this is a trap the true believers fall into; they mistake preferences for objective reality.

We will need to look at the subject of good and evil again (and, probably, again and again), each time reminding people to change contexts and see how it looks now. Those who will not or can not examine a thing as it actually presents itself in a different context will be unable to follow, and will drop away. Nothing wrong with that, everybody has a different path. But for those who can, greater understanding can emerge.

Look at it this way. The situation – especially as concerns you while in 3D – may be described as in the Bible, a war of good versus evil that spills over between non-3D and 3D, as it only to be expected. You or anyone could easily produce an overwhelming case for the truth of this by looking to history, or to the news of the day, or to one’s own experience. That is true, but not the whole truth, and so, [while] being true, it also contains implied falsehood, not from intent to deceive but from inability to express non-sequential reality in sequential terms without distortion.

F: I remember working hard to make sense of things as you elicited explanations in 2001-2002. You were not receiving the answers you expected, I seem to remember, and I was not equipped with concepts to explain the logic behind what we were being told.

R: You may consider this a rematch. Now, beginning with the Biblical view of good and evil, which as I say is accurate but inadequate, as a mythos must always be, consider in context the fact that compound beings are, by nature, compound! That is, we are not representatives of only one set of virtues; we are mixtures. Then add the fact that what deed is evil in one circumstance may be good in another. Add that the same is true for tendencies, like them or not, approve of them or not. Add that a physical situation is always more complicated than it appears and hence cannot really be accurately judged even by the most intuitive. Add that given “individuals” change moment by moment (in that different parts of the community that they really are may take charge for the moment, then be superseded, then may return, etc.). Where is the stable platform from which you can say, “this is good, that is evil”? And yet, in any given situation, that is not only what you do, it is what you should do, even must do – only, do it provisionally, because you can never have the data for a final, absolute judgment, even on an individual, even on yourself, let alone a complex situation.

F: This doesn’t seem an obvious place to stop, but I got the sense that you are pausing.

R: It is a good place to pause. Much food for thought in today’s material, little though you may think it at the moment.

F: I guess we’re going to continue with the question next time.

R: Perhaps, or perhaps not. Play it day by day and it will work out.

F: All right, I can do that. Our thanks as always.

Saturday February 28, 2015

F: 3:45 a.m. All right, Miss Rita, ready for action. Your plan seems to be catching fire.

R: You will find that everything moves faster now. Not like the 1970s.

F: Thank God! Okay, questions, or do you have a theme?

R: Questions will do. It isn’t hard to use a given question as an entry-point for anything I have in mind. It isn’t as if we were likely to stray beyond the bounds of the question of “what is?”

F: Question I’ve been asking all my life. All right, here’s the first of the day, from John Wolf.

[John Wolf’s question: I am confused by the apparent mixing of the body (DNA) heritage and the spiritual strand heritage or the implication that the spiritual heritage is affected or even made via the sexual reproduction process. Please clarify.

[The second part of this paragraph, “Compound beings, by their nature, are both battleground and reconciling force for opposing forces. They live a battle (and perhaps a reconciling) and they become a potential way forward. In short, they not only complicate the non-3D world by presenting new possibilities, they also help hold it together by sometimes reconciling the polar opposites they may learn to live.” has interesting implications. Does this “reconciling” within non-3D go on among the parts of the greater being beyond the non-3D extension of ourselves? Does this “reconciling” in the non-3D show itself as conflict in the 3D world?]

R: That should lead to some clarification without requiring a good deal of explanation. Remember that this model stresses the unity of 3D and non-3D, rather than stressing differences. So it is an invitation to you (plural) to redefine your ideas of life, stressing that you extend into the non-3D (because the non-3D consists of additional dimensions usually unperceived or misperceived by those minds focused on 3D) and, therefore, the non-3D world may be said to extend into you. It is merely a matter of definition.

Well, if you are (whether or not known to yourselves) non-3D beings as well as 3D beings, should it surprise you that the affairs of “one side of the veil” and of the other side should not merely overlap but be an extension of each other? It is in the misrepresentation of life beyond the 3D that so much angst and disorientation originates. Once you remember that you have an understandable part in the nature of things – that you are not an accident, not contingent, not a meaningless spectator of incomprehensible activities – then you begin again to live without disorientation and anxiety.

To focus specifically on the first part of the question: It is true that physical and spiritual are intricately and necessarily linked, but the process is easily explained yet easily misunderstood.

The sexual reproduction of physical beings is a means of continually producing new mixtures of physical characteristic, so that a new soul may have a new home with new possibilities.

F: Probably as well to remind people that you are using `soul’ to mean the specific mind created in any given incarnation, as opposed to `spirit,’ which is the underlying unchanging breath of life that animates the soul.

R: Yes although the second half of that statement is not quite that simple. But yes, `soul’ means a specific incarnation, regardless of the antecedents or afterlife of that soul. The mating of different physical heredities produces continually new combinations of physical heredities for the incarnating spirit, the soul.

Perhaps an analogy will help to understand the relationship between spiritual heritage and physical heritage. Consider each of these to be one parent.

F: Not so new an analogy. The spirit is masculine, matter is feminine. Father God and Mother Earth.

R: But if older ways of expressing things spoke to modern humans, there wouldn’t be any need for new translations, would there? Once the relative polarities became entangled with physical gender, not only did the analogy become confused, but sexual politics entered in and caused needless additional confusion because of all the side-issues raised by implication, as if analogy were anatomy.

In any case, consider that the physical confluence of different genetic inheritances is one factor in the new soul’s environment. The other factor is what you may call the spiritual heritage but – as I try to express what to me seems very clear and obvious – I see is fraught with more potential misunderstanding than I had realized. The new soul is a new vessel, but what fills it is not created out of nothing, any more than the new body’s material substance is created out of nothing. How could it be? It is just that the reassembly of cells into a new organization may look like it sprang from nothing if the observer concentrates only on the emerging organism forgetting the energy stream that enters and is incorporated.

F: May I?

R: Try, anyway.

F: The body begins as sperm and egg, then zygote, then continually dividing and multiplying cells, and as the cells continually multiply they begin to assume their specialized form and function according to the underlying pattern of their blueprint. If you don’t realize that the cells do not come out of nowhere but are the result of the mother’s nutrition and continual feed of new material into the developing fetus, it will look like magic –something out of nothing. (And indeed, the reality is magical enough!) But, once you do remember that the new being has its genesis and maintenance in an already existing being, from which at the proper point in its development it separates to begin a separate existence, the magic is in the overall arrangement, not in any hocus-pocus.

R: Yes, and although the new being’s limits and characteristics are not determined by the genetics of its parents, the limits of choice are. That is, you may choose among a vast array of possibilities, but `vast’ is not `unlimited.’

Now, the second part of the question could be answered, simply but probably misleadingly, by reminding you that 3D and non-3D are part of the same thing. Although local weather conditions may vary, they are each part of the same climate, or say the same ecosystem.

Yes, the non-3D forces battle within 3D. Yes, 3D battles both represent and affect non-3D. If they [that is, 3D and non-3D] are the same thing, how could they not? Just because compound beings may exist without noticeable extension into 3D, that does not mean

F: I can always tell when you lead me beyond accustomed material. I tend to go wool-gathering and come back and find I have no idea how to finish something I left while I went wandering.

R: You will notice that it is only very rarely that I attempt to resume a sentence exactly where it was interrupted. Why pursue a dead-end when it is so easily gone around?

F: Now that you mention it, I do see that. So –

R: Anything you can feel in 3D exists as well in non-3D, except that the expression of the underlying forces may be different because of terrain. That is, in 3D you may experience isolation and the – desperation, let’s call it – of struggle moment by moment to have your values prevail. Outside of 3D, we cannot very well feel either of those things, for our environment – the relative freedom in non-3D of 3D constraints – prevents us from seeing life in that blinkered focused fashion. Nonetheless, we compound beings have our values, and we do not cease to maintain and represent them. If you are kind in 3D, you will not cease to value kindness beyond the body. If you are iron, you will not soften. And if you are cruel or vindictive, you will not cease to be so. You are what you are. You represent and extend what you are made of. The major difference is that within 3D you have greater freedom of choice as to what you will become, and outside 3D you have greater awareness of your own place in the greater scheme of things.

John Wolf’s question does not express the relationship between battles and reconciliation in the way that I would like to express it. Put it this way: every new compound being is a new opportunity for the expression of the potential contained within the larger being. (For the moment I am concentrating on creation out of any one larger being, but it is not that simple, or you would be back to creation from God, end of story. But, one thing at a time.) The nature of each compound being is a bag of possibilities which each 3D life sorts and chooses among and brings together into an enduring pattern. Thus, by your work at reconciling opposing or anyway diverging forces, you help create new possibilities for reconciliation on the non-3D side as well. By your expression and choice of one or another set of values, you create an exponent of those values on the other side, in the non-3D, among the enduring archetypes, however you wish to say it.

Thus, the forces of heaven are at war, and Earth is the battleground. Or, the world is a place of creation in which 3D beings created from non-3D elements create in their turn, thus returning, to the non-3D part of the world, the elements of which they were formed, transformed. Or, values precede form as blueprints precede construction, and in the incarnation and interplay of the 3D representation of these values – particularly in that the 3D representatives are inherently mixtures of values, never pure representatives – is the continuous redevelopment and re-creation of logical development of tendencies.

F: That was quite a paragraph. I was holding on to the buckboard, hoping not to get thrown off before the horses slowed down. That is, I’m writing and not at all sure what I’m writing makes sense, because I have no time to absorb it, even though (paradoxically) it is obvious enough as it comes through.

R: And, as you see, it is an hour and a little more, and this is a good place to pause.

F: Yes, I’ll stagger out of the buckboard and head for the saloon, toss back a couple of hard whiskeys, and see what the day looks like. Till next time, then.

Friday February 27, 2015

F: 3:30 a.m. Good morning, Rita. Big day, yesterday. Your suggestion met response. Back to questions, today, or do you have more you would like to say?

R: I want to second the motion about your taking care of your health as we do this. Your correspondent issued a warning that this could take an emotional toll as you proceed. Well, it doesn’t need to, but it could. A little preventive maintenance would be just as well.

F: For others, I take it, not just for me.

R: Of course.

F: And such maintenance would be?

R: Nothing you haven’t been told in the past, but that isn’t to say that you have paid much attention. You needn’t establish protective rituals unless ritual itself appeals to you, but you should remain aware that your mind belongs to you; that you in the physical have the right to make decisions and no one else does (for yourself, that is, of course); that you will need to remember to keep to a middle course, opening to the unknown but not losing touch with mundane reality.

In short, establish your intent firmly; you wish to explore, you wish to be of service, you wish to grow in a healthy direction, you wish to preserve your autonomy without either retreating into isolation or losing your protective boundaries. Those who prefer ritual should invent a ritual expressing this. Those who do not prefer ritual should still find a way not to forget that these are the boundaries within which your explorations proceed. Now we may start on questions.

F: Just in order?

R: Sure. Just as Charles stacks them up.

F: Okay, here goes.

[Chey’s question: At other times the Guys and Rita have talked about the completed being after we drop the body. I believe the guys said that the completed being is a compilation of our 3D life as “experienced” by the 3D individual AND the experiences of that same being having lived all those other possible paths. In other words, while we were in the body, we could choose among all possible paths, and only choose one to consciously shine our little 5% (or whatever) flashlight on, but all paths are actually taken. Is the combination of all those possible paths taken compile [sic] the completed being? Or is it something different? I assume that if this or something like it is accurate, that completed being would also have memories of all those other paths.

[If so, we are actually so very much more than we could ever even begin to dream!

[And, do all those other paths that were lived but not chosen also affect our lives as we experience it with our flashlight every day, now?]

R: Initially, you will remember, the guys groped for a way to explain to us the reason you (or anyone, of course) might reach another life in its state of awareness at that moment (the life in process, they called it) or might reach it after the storm of everyday life was passed and it had a vantage-point over the entire life as lived, the completed being. This was a necessary but unsufficient step toward continuing to redefine our ideas so that we could become able to learn more.

F: To understand A, etc.

R: Exactly. Had you and I begun from a different place, the explanations that would have led forward would necessarily have been different. That’s why different explorers bring home different maps of the same territory. What you see depends partly upon what you are capable of seeing, and that depends partly upon where you were when you set out. Thus, it is well not to try to judge different schemes of things in terms of “which is more correct,,” and better to judge them in terms of “where did the map maker start from, to produce these differences between this map and mine?” it does not good to abandon the maps you have made yourself in favor of another’s maps merely because that other has prestige in some form or another. The only reason to change is that you have found something that feels more correct than what you already had come to.

So, to return more closely to the question – today I would express it this way. The consciousness you are living at any given moment is aware of one path, even if that awareness is aware of multiple paths within the path, if that is not too confusing. In other words, no matter how complicated or rich your path is, complete with jumps to other timelines, awareness of multiple versions coexisting, etc., still you will experience your life as one path, not as several different paths even if that awareness shifts on you either slowly or rapidly. To be aware of – or, let’s put it this way, you are aware of just as much complexity as you can handle, and anything more is only theoretical [to you].

So, any given life-experience, no matter how complicated, is one path chosen among the many that might have been chosen. Looking at it from the path chosen, the completed-life-awareness sees only what it lived. It sees the results of its choices in that lifetime. It, itself, is the stable result of the experiment that that life was.

But looking at it from the point of view of the larger being from which the individual was formed, each completed-life-awareness is only one iteration, no more valuable, no less; no realer, no less, than all the others. So really we might refine our model from two to three. We still have (from the point of view of contact from 3D, which is all you have) the in-process awareness – Joseph on July 4, 1863. We have the completed-life representation – Joseph looking back on his life in the 19th century. But we also have – if we can get to it, which mostly depends on the level of awareness of the 3D questioner – another layer which I suppose we might call the larger being’s experience of Joseph in all iterations.

F: Not too snappy a label.

R: You are welcome to improve on it. But you see the point.

F: Oh yes. And I feel a little better about our stumbling around sometimes. It means we don’t have to get it right the first time.

R: And don’t have to stick to superseded ways of understanding, and don’t have to wonder if you’re making it all up. Given sincerity and openness and an intelligently critical attitude, you’ll get there. It is only when you begin to defend what you have already gotten that you will lose sight of greater understandings that might have followed.

So – again to return closely to the question at hand – we should say that the larger being has memories of all the paths any one consciousness created, or trod, whichever way you want to look at it. And you have access to the larger being by way of your direct connection, of course – your own non-3D component. Or, you can access any one iteration in detail; it depends on what you want, which depends partly on what you are.

Yes, you are more than you think. And you can learn to perceive more of what you are; it’s up to you.

As to the final part of the question – yes, everything you connect to affects your lives to greater or lesser extent, dependent upon many variables. The rule of thumb I would propose is, you will experience more connection or less connection depending mostly upon your willingness to do so, and also upon the appropriateness of such understanding to the path you are on, which are two categories that largely overlap but not always, and not necessarily. If you follow what feels right for you, you aren’t likely to go too far wrong.

F: Next question?

R: Yes. You will notice that this proceeds nicely from the previous question though Charles presumably did not line them up that way, given that he did not know how my answer would proceed.

F: Well, the two do have a relationship. He may have figured they were a logical progression.

R: You might ask him. I don’t think he did, consciously. At any rate, pose the second question.

[Cat’s Paw’s question: I’m curious about one’s relationship to one’s strands in non 3D. Do you interact “externally” with some or all of the strands that compose you as individual beings in their own right? Do you mostly know them as a part of your own being?

[I guess what I’m groping for is presumably one’s strands are living their own “lives,” yes? Their changes and transformations would affect you as yours affects them…? Now the image just popped into my head of strands/beings which, like family in the 3D world, don’t get on so well, but are stuck with one another because they are “family,” after all.]

R: The short answer is that outside of 3D, there is no perception of something being “external.” Once the conditions of 3D are transcended, it becomes clear that “external” merely meant, beyond the limits of the conscious awareness as it was bounded by 3D conditions – perception of separation, binding to the continuously moving present moment, delayed consequences, etc. Remove those conditions and you return to life as it really is. (But those conditions were imposed for a constructive reason, remember. 3D is not a punishment nor a school nor a feverish illusion, but an artificially devised greenhouse for growing compound beings in the only way they can be produced. At least, that’s one way of looking at it.)

So, yes, the image of family is a good one in that it suggests an on-going unbreakable relationship. Perhaps a better image would be – the bees in a hive, all living as individuals, all living as individual cells in a larger being that is less physical than metaphysical, almost, a “hive.” The hive – meaning, the sum total of the bees operating as part of one unit – is as real as the individual bees, yet could not exist without them. The bees are as individual as any 3D body that maintains itself, but, without the organizing principle that we are calling the hive, could not long exist and in any case would have no meaningful existence.

And that’s another hour.

F: So it is. Our thanks as always, and next time we will continue down the list or will again follow you down the rabbit hole, whichever you prefer.

R: “I’m late, I’m late, for a very important date.”

F: Don’t think we don’t all feel like the white rabbit sometimes, or the March Hare.

R: Better connections will help you feel less so.

F: If you say so.  Okay, next time.

Thursday, February 26, 2015

F: Almost 4 a.m. Good morning, Rita. Am I right that I ought to take a break from this? If so, why, and do you mean (or do I mean) a day here and there, or a longer span? This, given that there will be a matter of a week or more soon enough, when I go to PD and then move.

R: There isn’t any “ought” about it, but there certainly is a “feel free” about it. That much is up to you. The material will wait, and our connection isn’t likely to evaporate.

F: Plus perhaps we’ll have at least a couple of others on the line. I find the prospect exciting, but I don’t know how discreet I should be about names in public. Suffice it to say for public consumption that I know of two of my friends who are talking to you, and I am encouraging them to post transcripts, and I have hopes that this public record will encourage others to try their hand.

R: This is material enough to fill a session.

F: Let’s do it. The questions won’t go away.

R: Very well – and said with a twinkle in my very-non-3D eye.

F: Because who’s to say what’s my idea and what’s yours.

R: And what is neither or both, correct.

Here is the hope and the intent that I have. It is one thing to communicate more fully. It is another to release the results of such communication to close friends. A third, to release it to the winds, so to speak – to the world. A fourth to encourage others to do the same, and it is yet another step to encourage them to practice together – which is what this could become. Such practice would have its difficulties and its opportunities, and would be the difference between a controlled laboratory experiment and uncontrolled everyday practice which could become everyday behavior.

Suppose you and – well, I would name them, but I feel your resistance and I have to respect it – suppose you and your three close friends, one of them very close – all begin to talk to me, first in private, then sharing the results among you (as you have already done), then – next – putting such communication on the public record. You all met me, and only one in-the-flesh meeting is required to set up an extremely powerful link if the link already exists in the non-3D.

F: You mean, I take it, that a physical meeting helps us to recognize a link that already exists but might not otherwise be recognized.

R: That’s right. So, even though you know one another and know me, the act of bringing forth information supposedly from the same non-3D source is going to have its tensions. Fear lest you are fooling yourself, of course. Fear that the material will be distorted by your expectations. Fear that what you bring in will not jibe with what another is getting – or, far worse, with what more than one other is getting. All these, over and above the usual concern lest you mislead others inadvertently (since you know you won’t do so deliberately).

But the overcoming of these obstacles is precisely what is going to make a further step possible.

In fact, you could almost make that a law of 3D life – it is the overcoming of obstacles that makes for change. Then it is up to you to determine the nature of the change, which you do by your chosen attitude as you address the challenge, the obstacle.

Such a controlled small-group experiment will illustrate the obstacles that will present themselves to a world of people routinely communicating with the non-3D in one way or another – and will, in its working-out, point toward helpful practices and attitudes that will arise from recognition of the obstacles.

For instance, authority.

There will be a tremendous temptation to oneself and to others to settle upon one or another person as “the authority on (in this case) Rita.” That is as natural as breathing, and couldn’t be less helpful to the process. Because, if Frank, say, is the authority on communications with Rita (or with Hemingway, or anyone else Frank develops a non-3D relationship with), then what of everybody else, very much including people who knew Rita (or Hemingway, or whomever) much better than Frank did?

You see? Who is to say who has a better connection at any one time?

Who is to say whose internal mechanism is unconsciously distorting which part of which message?

Who is to say that their connection, their overall sense of the person, their messages, are right, and others’ are wrong?

And – following from this and actually more important, but not always as obvious – who is to say that one’s own message is wrong, one’s own ability or authority is less valid, one’s own contribution is unneeded or unwanted or “only” one talking to oneself?

It is in the friction of multiple messages from (and to) the same source that you will find a new freedom, the freedom that comes with true sharing in an attitude of one among equals, where the only judgment is – because it is what you will have to come to – “does it resonate?”

Do you see what I am saying? In common 3D interaction, you may accept another person as an authority on this or that, but you accept no one as an authority over everything. (Or, if you do, you are in for a real disappointment at some point.) You should be grateful that this is so, or you would be perpetually in a subordinate role, the student to others’ teaching. But what true teacher wants his or her students to remain students all their lives? Far better for them to move out on their own, hopefully to surpass the teacher.

Another issue will be consistency of information. Weigh consistency to some extent. Indeed, you will scarcely be able to avoid doing so. But recognize that not consistency but resonance is the touchstone. If you wish to set up a religion, then yes, consistency will be, or will anyway seem to be, the most important thing, as any deviation from the words of the master, as recorded in scripture, will be an assault on the fabric. But if instead of preserving a monument to the truth as found previously, you wish to continue to progress toward an ever-greater truth, consistency will serve only as a very rough guide. You don’t abandon your compass, your GPS – that is, your inner certainty expressed as resonance with a given message – in order to remain faithful to a map someone else drew. To do so would amount to an implicit declaration that someone else’s connection, experience, and descriptive ability is automatically better than your own. And even if that were objectively true, where would living by that idea leave you? It wouldn’t help you pioneer new territory, that’s for sure. New territory (new to you, that is) may be marked on the map; it isn’t known to you until you traverse it.

Yet another issue will be the silent jockeying among individuals for recognition or precedence or status. The more you are aware of this as a potential problem, the less of an actual problem this will be. But it is complicated by the fact that valid information may come by means of an ego-driven individual. In other words, you will find yourselves separating the message from the messenger – and this is as it should be, indeed must be.

F: It has been 45 minutes. Do you want to stop here, to make one distinct message, or start on a question, or — come to think of it – do you have more you want to say about this? I sensed completion, but maybe I was wrong.

R: We can end here. It is true, I do want this to stand alone, because I want everybody who reads it to engage in the great experiment. I think you will find that some have been doing it already but have been loath to announce it, lest they be accused of delusions of grandeur.

F: Just as they would be if we caught them talking on the telephone.

R: Just remember back to your own tentative first steps. It didn’t always seem so natural and obvious!

F: No, it certainly did not. Very well, Miss Rita, a very interesting session, not at all what I expected. Not that that is anything new! See you next time.

Wednesday February 25, 2015

F: 3:20 a.m. Okay, Miss Rita, you’re on. The questions keep getting more interesting, I think, including ones we probably won’t get to for a while. What a nice sense of community!

Where would you like to start?

R: We may as well go down the new list in order.

[Charles: Stephen Hawkins was quoted yesterday as saying that our most immediate threat is human behavior. “The human failing I would most like to correct is aggression” he said… It may have had survival advantage in caveman days, to get more food, territory or a partner with whom to reproduce, but now it threatens to destroy us all.” Would Rita please comment on this?]

F: I think that is a slander on cave man, myself, but I’ll be interested in your take on it. I remember so well your down-the-line liberal views when you were in the body.

R: Without getting into ideology, and certainly not into politics, let me say that of course everything looks different from here. How could it not? Context is all, or nearly all. Our 3D lives are a long effort to express what is within us, which requires and presupposes a decision – a continuing decision, you might say – as to what we want to express, what we want to be. You may have contradictory values included in your 3D soul – well, your task is to judge which ones you wish to express and encourage, and which you wish to repress and discourage. And of course there are productive and destructive ways of going about all this, but if you don’t realize that we are by nature compound beings, the task is going to be misunderstood.

To answer the question succinctly, let me say this. Hawkins is correct and also not.

F: Yes but no. Seems like we’ve heard that before.

R: And it is quite possible you’ll hear it again. The only alternative is oversimplification, sometimes.

Hawkins is right that aggression as a trait threatens destruction, although I would now judge that the danger is substantially less in 2015 than it was 50 years before. But he is making an unnoticed error in attributing it to human nature. It would be closer to the truth to say that humans are living with aggression (as with all values and the behaviors arising from them) that are brought forth from the non-3D and are expressed more clearly in 3D circumstances. Life is a conflict of values, both in 3D and in non-3D. Behavior is a little different in different terrain, but the originating forces are, of course, the same.

F: I’m torn between wanting you to go on with this and wanting you to go on to the next question.

R: There isn’t any point in hurrying through things to get to tomorrow. Tomorrow will always be tomorrow. The time is always now, as Ram Das reminded us.

F: All right. That has always been a fault of mine, hurrying forward. So, pray continue.

R: Dawkins says the human failing he would like to correct. Is it specifically human, though? Is it a failing? And even if either or both, is it meaningful to talk of correcting it?

The statement could be rephrased several ways. One would be: “I don’t like aggression and would like to see it eliminated.” Another would be: “There is something defective in human nature, and I would like to see it altered and therefore cured.” Another would be: “I’m tired of war and the causes of war and I dream of a world without them.” And yet another would be

F: Lost it.

R: Well, even this many is enough not to invalidate the statement but to illuminate the tacit assumptions it incorporates. The additional rephrasing dealt with the assumption of individuals acting in mutual isolation, but you have enough to see my point here.

I would argue that it is not aggression but selfishness that threatens life as you are living it. That is, most people are not malign or even hostile, particularly, but a civilization that fosters a sense of isolation, of lack of mutual interdependence, is not only profoundly inhuman, it is also profoundly unscientific, because interdependence is perhaps the first law of nature, recognized or not. What is the much-quoted “survival of the fittest” but a statement that the most successful species is the one that best fits in to the existing order of things? It is not – who is the most ruthless. Anything that overreaches risks pulling the temple down around his ears.

F: That last sentence sounds more like me than like you!

R: Well, it is a joint mind, you know. No reason your own flavor wouldn’t get into the teacup. It often does.

Here is my point. Aggression flows from a sense of isolation, which may result in fear, in ruthlessness, in a sense that it is dog-eat-dog, sauve qui peut. But without that sense of isolation – in non-3D, in other words — the values still exist, and still have their vigorous proponents. It is just that we in non-3D do not experience the world as you do, so of course everything expresses differently. So I’d say it isn’t aggression that threatens you, it is the belief that you each exist in isolation – in isolation from non-3D, from each other, from your pasts and futures. But that is not what Dawkins is saying, because he is concentrating on effects and not causes. This is not to criticize his work, only to clarify. Now, I suggest that we move on to something else until questions and comments proceed from this, for we have not begun to exhaust the subject.

F: If I hear you right, you’re saying, again, let this marinate for a while.

R: Too big a chunk of unfamiliar material may prove indigestible, for two reasons. One, the temptation will be to embrace it but then move on, leaving it as a cyst rather than incorporating it. Two, the implications of new material only reveal themselves in connection with various facets of reality. Look at life through new lenses and each day illumines different things, as happened to us in 2001 and 2002 when we lived with the material the guys provided us week by week.

F: Yes, I well remember, and it’s true, the continuing nature of the tutorial, combined with the somewhat random barrage of questions from the Voyagers Mailing List and others, did result in our being presented new aspects of what might have been glossed over otherwise.

R: Glossed over, encapsulated, and in essence disregarded. Okay, next question.

[Charles: “I’m wrestling with `what the person is, is right, regardless of whether what the person specifically does in any given circumstance is right or not.’ I understand that no being is “created” wrong, but from this comment it seems to indicate there is a `right’ choice. Would Rita please comment?]

R: Charles has the first part, which is more difficult for many people than you might suspect. Not only do people criticize what others (and they themselves) do, they often criticize what others (and they themselves) are. Perhaps they do not think of it that way, but that’s the effect. When you say, “I love x” – whether friend, lover, or only someone you have read about or seen – “but I only wish he or she weren’t so [whatever]” – you are in effect saying, “that person is imperfect as is.”

Well, there are two ways of saying the same thing. Either everybody is imperfect, because everybody has the defect of their qualities, or everybody is perfect, because they are as they were created and they are living that problem as best they can. This isn’t even two statements, both true, but one statement.

As I say, Charles has that part, or seems to by this question. Now let us look at the second part of this, thinking as we do.

A right choice? There are so many ways to examine this. Right absolutely? Right for the individual> And, if the latter, what does that mean? Right as in, best expressing the person’s qualities at the moment? Or, as offering the most productive path forward (however that would be defined, and whoever would be the ones to define it)?

Given that, one way or another, all choices are taken from the view of the absolute, it still remains true that on any one pathway, only one choice is made. You don’t come to a crossroads and take every fork in the road. You take one, regardless what happens in other versions of reality. And often enough the various options are, shall we say, ethically neutral. That is, taking one path or another won’t affect or won’t much affect your on-going process of living your values. Whether you go east or west may make no difference ethically though it may make a huge difference (or may not, but may) in the future choices you will be faced with. But whether you can call a given choice “right” or not depends on where you stand relative to the person choosing.

You see? My point was that a person is as he or she was created; they do as they are moved to do, and the results of their choices can be argued, but the nature of the community that is functioning as an individual cannot.

F: And, as to pole stars, do we have time enough to squeeze in question three?

[Charles: “Further, if everyone has a `pole star,’ is that referring to a preference of choices that would be beneficial to the person in 3D, meaning some choices have better 3D results; i.e. maybe less suffering? Or, if that is misunderstood, what does Rita mean by a `pole star’?]

R: When I say pole star, here, I mean the constant unvarying orientation that any 3D life cannot avoid having, consciously or (usually) not. What you are is hugely determinative of what you believe, what you value, what you choose. That’s all.

F: And enough for today?

R: Enough for today. Allow me to extend my thanks for the questions, which assist greatly in elucidating the material.

F: And, of course, our thanks to you. Tell next time, then.

Tuesday February 24, 2015

F: 4:30 a.m. All right, Miss Rita, ready if you are. Shall we begin with Suzanne’s question?

R: All right with me.

[Suzanne: A few sessions ago, you closed by saying Be Well, and Rita said to add it to your list of questions. Interested in hearing more so wanted to make sure that question was added to the list.]

R: I was merely noting that life outside 3D is not unvarying bliss the way some people imagine it. True, we don’t get colds and our limbs and joints don’t ache, but still there are stresses, and the results of stresses.

F: I take it you don’t mean physical stresses left over from 3D life – that is, the non-3D equivalent of phantom-limb pains.

R: An interesting analogy, that, actually. Let me think if I should pursue it.

[pause]

Let me say it straight, and then we’ll see if I want to pursue the analogy. What I intended to make note of is that we are still compound beings, even after we have dropped the body. As a matter of fact, the tensions between various components may sometimes be stronger, more evident, without the body’s buffering intervention.

F: Is that what Yeats meant when he wrote of being thankful for “the body and its stupidity”?

R: I can’t answer for Mr. Yeats, but it may have been at least a glimmer of the truth that spirits contend, both in the body and no less outside the body. Don’t think of eternity as a place of eternal rest, necessarily! That is as much failure of imagination as anything. Hence, harps and clouds and all that, that discredits the idea of a non-physical world among the non-religious.

An angel – a unitary being of any sort – is incapable of being self-divided, for the very good reason that there is no diversity of internal content to form sides.

But compound beings – and by that I mean anything created in 3D by sexual reproduction uniting different strains, incorporating in one body different strands each of which may itself have been a life lived as an individual by what had been a community – compound beings are not only capable of being self-divided; they can scarcely escape it. And this is a function we have not yet touched on. Compound beings, by their nature, are both battleground and reconciling force for opposing forces. They live a battle (and perhaps a reconciling) and they become a potential way forward. In short, they not only complicate the non-3D world by presenting new possibilities, they also help hold it together by sometimes reconciling the polar opposites they may learn to live.

F: I sometimes wonder if this or that that we get in these sessions is merely me echoing something I’ve read – but not in this case! I don’t know that I’ve ever heard anybody describe us or our function in the larger scheme of things in just that way.

R: Remember, “3D,” “the world” – even “people,” many times – does not mean only Earth. You may tend to think that humans on Earth are radically different from beings also in 3D who live elsewhere, but perhaps you tend to exaggerate the differences and underrate the commonalities. The same non-3D being may very easily incorporate elements from various parts of 3D, just as humans may have ancestors from different genetic strands, or different ethnic groups, or different races. Depending on the extent of difference, the internal diversity – and perhaps the internal stress – will be that much the greater. But this is a side trail.

The central point here is that 3D life is integrally connected with non-3D life, and if you can keep that in mind as you examine anything, it will gradually reorient your thinking in new and productive directions. Trust your guidance as you consider ideas. Entertain fanciful connections as they arise, and consider that they may be arising not at random, as they appear to be, but in some sequence not apparent to you, but aimed at assisting you to new integrations.

F: So when I said “be well” as a sort of generalized sign-off gesture, and you in effect said, “not necessarily,” it was to provide an entry-point for you to point out that on the other side not all is beer and skittles – and as soon as I wrote “the other side,” I went, “oops!”

R: It is hard to reorient your thinking all at once, and I recognize that three months is still pretty much “all at once.” But you caught it, that’s the point. And you see, perhaps, why I began with that point that it is one reality, not two. There is a casual utility in thinking of “this side” and “the other side,” but it too easily tempts you into disregarding all the unbreakable links that are more obvious when you remember that you are observing one being functioning partly in, partly out of, the 3D environment.

“Spirits” as you often think of them, have passions no less than “physical beings” do. How could they not? They have self-division, values, motives. No, they don’t commute to work or mow the lawn or clerk at a store, but they share human life in its essentials, and what is essential about human life is not the externals but the internals. However, naturally these things express differently in different surroundings.

F: Meaning, I take it, in surroundings where consciousness is not led to exaggerate the always-moving present moment.

R: That, and the continual sense of separation, and the ability to go for long periods of time not recognizing the results of a given thought or attitude.

But values remain; passions remain; one should say, I suppose, life remains. The guys told us we would find them emotionally chilly next to us in 3D. True, but not the whole story. We “here” are seemingly more chilly because not riding that exaggerated present moment. But in essence we are more passionate, actually, because not distracted by the innumerable cross-currents of human existence.

F: I’m getting more than has been said so far.

R: Go ahead, if you want to try. You know the limitations of language and the starting-point of visualization.

F: What I hear between the lines is that our non-3D component shares our emotional makeup to a larger degree than I would have thought, because I would have thought that the Larger Being would be more neutral, as it incorporates more than one of us. (“Incorporates” is the wrong word literally, but I mean it includes many 3D beings.)

R: Yes, but there is a difference between the Larger Being and any individual’s non-3D components; that’s the point.

F: I see it clearly now, but I think I was hazy on it till now. So our non-3D component is our representation in non-3D of what we in 3D are, including whatever moves us.

R: Yes, but it is a two-way street, and the 3D world represents the non-3D in a way and to an intense degree, that I did not suspect while still in the body.

F: That’s because you weren’t raised Catholic.

R: Well, maybe so. I can see there is far more in Christianity than I was willing to concede. And I admit to suspecting that you were still in the thrall of that early training.

F: I don’t think so, but how would I know. I know that it seems to me to have had explanatory value that is usually underrated in this formerly Protestant and now functionally atheist culture.

I thought you’d waltz right through Suzanne’s question and get to the three Charles posed to come after that. But we’re running short on time today.

R: Take it as a good lesson on the value of people asking the questions that occur to them. There may be a reason why they are prompted to ask them!

In fact, a word on that. This question-and-answer format has the advantage of what I might call multiple entry-points. Since you are not a trance medium, it might be very difficult for me to introduce a surprising topic, or a surprising twist on what seems a familiar topic, without questions providing an entry-point.

F: Because questions do not have to be justified as the logical continuation of a chain of thought.

R: That’s right. They can serve very easily as points of departure.

F: And that’s why “the better the question, the better the answer”!

R: Yes. A really good question – I don’t mean, necessarily, a particularly clever question, or a well-thought-out question, but a question emerging from someone’s sincere wanting to know – will provide more entry-points for material that otherwise might have to await some on-ramp.

F: Well, well. You’ve joined the information superhighway. I still remember your struggling with computers.

R: That’s one thing we don’t have to contend with here, fortunately – technology. And I’m very glad of it.

F: Well, I think you’ve provided us with an entry-point to a host of entry-points, Miss Rita. Anything else before we close up shop?

R: Only this Everyone who reads, everyone who thinks about, everyone who contributes questions to or objections to the material, contributes. I hope you will all realize, there is no way for you to know whether a given question is “only you” or is being prompted by another part of yourself. It is, in fact, nearly a meaningless distinction. So don’t underrate your participation.

F: Thanks, Rita, and we’ll see you next time.

Monday February 23, 2015

F: 4:10 a.m. All right, Miss Rita. We can proceed with the previous list or start on Charles’ updated list. Let me re-read them, and then we can go where you please.

R: You felt my preference as you read them. My preference / your preference – in this context it is hard for you to sort out which is which.

F: Very true.

R: That’s a confusing thing when you first start doing this and a confirming one after a while. Wasn’t it?

F: Yes indeed. If I had let my doubts about “maybe I’m just making this up” stop me, it would have been largely because the information was so readily there that it seemed too good to be true, so maybe was wishful thinking.

R: Always good to note for the record, as a part of the experience. Very well, copy Charles’ note and the first set of questions.

[From Charles, quoting Rita’s answer to Cat’s Paw:

[R: … I would prefer that it stays focused on what it can learn to understand and (in the positive sense of the term) manipulate, rather than be dissipated in idle speculation.

[I think that’s well put, Rita (and Frank). With that in mind, could Rita speak to this: She emphasizes repeatedly there is no separation of 3D and non 3D, but from our limited perspective that often does not seem to be the case. I also get that “information,” ideas, hunches, even events or situations may originate, as it were, in non 3D though we mostly remain unaware of the fact.

[1.Is it the case that the more we are able to bring (or allow, or manifest?) our non 3D (larger) being into everyday 3D life the better or richer the experience?

[2.If so, what techniques, practices, or attitudes are conducive for doing this?

[3. How important or relevant is being conscious or aware of this process–keeping in mind that we are presumably always “in touch” with non 3D yet mostly unaware of it?]

R: Answering (1), no, there is no such rule. People are formed for many different reasons, of different components, which in effect gives them different missions, different priorities and possibilities. But this answer must itself be seen in context, the context of “who is likely to read it?”

F: Yes, I get that, all right. Those whose “path” – whose composition – makes them interested in the material are no doubt interested for a reason. Those who are not interested, are not interested for the simple reason that it doesn’t interest them – that is, it doesn’t concern them, they aren’t going this way.

R: Yes, it is pretty nearly that simple. If you have no interest in woodworking, you are unlikely to spend a lot of time on woodworking websites, let alone pick up a chisel and hammer, or drawknife, or whatever.

F: So it amounts to “listen to guidance [to know] whether you should listen to guidance.”

R: In practice, I think you will find that this is what people do. No one is bereft of a pole star, no matter how it may look to others or even to themselves. But that doesn’t at all mean that they will or should therefore conceptualize it the same way or even be aware of it as such. You may be a woodsman or a mechanic or – make it as 3D-oriented as you please – the access to guidance is there, recognized or not, conceptualized or not.

F: Everybody has a guardian angel.

R: Yes except that the angel is concerned less with abstract questions of good and evil as if it were a hall monitor, and more with questions of good or evil for the mixture that the individual person is. If you concentrate on an abstract set of rules, as the church did, you will see it as an innate source of knowledge of whether you are transgressing or not, and this is not a mistake, but it is limited. A wider view sees that that guardian angel may be equally well seen as a person’s perception of his or her non-3D component, there to offer advice when requested (or, sometimes, urgently required), and of course it will always proceed from the point of view that what the person is, is right, regardless of whether what the person specifically does in any given circumstance is right or not.

F: Hmm. Long disquisition possible here. You want to proceed along this line, or continue with the second question?

R: Let’s say a few words more. You have the sense of it, you begin it.

F: The defect of the Catholic upbringing for many people – certainly including me – is the sense of guilt that accompanies one’s inability to live up to an abstract inflexible set of rules of conduct. Granted, there was Confession to give one a sense of relief, of release, of a fresh start – but it would be a fresh start to again attempt to live up to an ideal, which by definition can never be lived, but only lived toward.

R: And now you can see that the support of the moral code could have been given without the pervading sense of guilt and failure, had the nature of the challenge and the opportunities been given differently. If what you are is taken as given, then the difference between what you are and what you naturally aspire to be or to become may be more of a route-indicator and less of a reproach.

F: Yes, and all this without reference to heaven or hell, which are mostly exaggerations of incentive.

R: In this context.

F: In this context, yes. I mean, the conflict between what we are and what we want to be exists without the promised reward or punishment.

R: For you it did. For some it did. But the world contains a world of different types of people, who respond to different sets of incentives. But this is all in answer to the first question: Different strokes for different folks, and each will know his or her own way. So I would rephrase it somewhat to say, the more you are able to stay in touch with your non-3D component, the more likely you are to stay on the beam – but this predicts nothing about how this will manifest. In some it will be a mystical bent, in others an intellectual abstract curiosity, in others a severe allergy to the mention of anything metaphysical, etc. The variations are as numerous as the types of people, and of course everyone who exists is right! That is, people are not created defective, no matter how it may seem to you. Their values may be antithetical to yours (and to each other’s); their beliefs may be contradictory; they may manifest many evil traits; they may seem blind to reality. It doesn’t matter: they were no more created “wrong” than you were. Everybody is a perfect expression of what they were created of, and nobody is perfect measured from any abstract table of values or attributes.

F: So, heaven and hell are useful concepts for some people.

R: You might say they are true concepts for some kinds of people, and [objectively] as true as any other description of what is called the afterlife, including this one. In this case the yardstick is shaped to the thing being measured.

F: Not sure I understand that last sentence.

R: Let it marinate, and let’s proceed to question #2, which as you see should require little discussion.

[2.If so, what techniques, practices, or attitudes are conducive for doing this?]

R: Discard the “if so” in so far as it implies that I agree that this is for everybody, for the reasons just stated. With that understood, I decline to prescribe specifics, as everyone’s circumstances, opportunities and limitations are different, and a specific answer would have too much weight for some people, leading them either to feel that their own guidance is wrong, or to rebel against what does not resonate. The simple answer is, you will know what is right for you. Just – ask guidance! Where else is the knowing going to come from?

That said, of course there are generalities I can give you without the risk of discouraging people. Openness to your own guidance is the key to all of it. The only thing external guidance (such as this) can do is to remind you “from the outside,” as it will seem, and get your attention.

F: On to #3?

R: Yes.

[3. How important or relevant is being conscious or aware of this process–keeping in mind that we are presumably always “in touch” with non 3D yet mostly unaware of it?]

R: This question has been answered above, you see. For those to whom it is important, it is important. For those to whom it is nonexistent, it is non-existent! And every gradation between the two. It is a tautology. One size does not fit all

F: We still have another ten minutes or so. Shall we continue or stop here?

R: We can at least begin on the next question.

[Charles quotes a question from Suzanne:
[I wonder if Rita could comment on the idea of soulmates. I think of it not necessarily as “that person you were destined to marry”, but as a particularly strong feeling you get, when you meet someone, that you have known them all along and/or have been waiting to find them. What is going on when that happens? Are we recognizing “strands” that we have been part of before? (If the topic has already been addressed, disregard. I did a search for soulmate and saw nothing come up.)]

R: The guys talked to us of soulmates, and explained that the concept arises from the mistaken view that individuals are unitary rather than compound, though they didn’t put it that way. Like most concepts, it can have a utility, but like most concepts it is easily overemphasized and mistaken for a rule or an invariant or inflexible description of reality.

Clearly the phenomenon exists, or there would be no concept seeking to explain it. But the fact that an inexplicable resonance between people exists does not mean that a given concept is the best way, let alone the only way, to explain it. In this context the explanation you offer – that it is recognition of a strand that you have been part of before – is close, but it might be better to see it as recognition of a strand that you share. No past tense about it.

But more to the point, why the question? That is, why is the question arising within you, and why now, and what is the answer going to affect? Understand, I am not criticizing the question, I am saying that introspection into the genesis of the question and its importance to you may be worthwhile.

And that’s about it for the day. We may begin again wherever Charles prefers.

F: This seems to be working well. Thanks as always, and we’ll see you next time.

Sunday February 22, 2015

F: 5:30 a.m. Miss Rita, it occurs to me, maybe you would rather lecture than answer questions at some point. I assume you will let me know.

R: Of course. But for now this serves. It is always well to know where your students’ understanding is. And questions will reveal that.

F: Okay, shall we continue down the list?

R: We might as well. Charles may substitute questions as he sees fit, since the burden of shaping the material is going to fall on him. But at any given time, it is safe enough, easy enough, to see what has been given previously.

F: Okay, here’s the next on the present list.

[From Charles. {In the 48th session, Rita says} “This is simpler than it seems, in concept, but may not be so easy to grasp in detail. The short answer is, to the extent that a lifetime created a unique new window on 3D, it is valuable. But it if did not, not.” Just for clarification, a 3D life that did not create a “unique new window” isn’t lost but isn’t used again to create a new soul. Is this correct? For example, Hitler certainly created something unique, so would his 3D life be part of a “bundle” to create a new soul? I realize I’m using 3D judgment in my question.]

R: I think this isn’t coming from a clear understanding (and I realize that his level of understanding now has surpassed that that existed when the question was formed, but it will be useful to others to see the divergence and the course-correction, so to speak).

You mustn’t let the “individual” concept sneak back into your thinking when you are thinking of the progression of strands through 3D experience. That is true in a way, but is not true in a way.

F: You’re going to need to do some “’splaining,” Lucy.

R: Oh, I know it. (And bear in mind, most of your readers will never have seen “I Love Lucy,” ultimately. You’re dating yourself.)

F: You mean “Lucy, you’ve got some ‘splainin’ to do” isn’t going to pass into immortality?

R: That’s exactly where it is going! As opposed to remaining current! But to return to the question—

I remind you, reincarnation as commonly understood and described obviously is not false, or you wouldn’t have so many reports over so many centuries from so many people. But it isn’t to be seen only one way, either, or you wouldn’t see so many sincere searchers after truth rejecting the idea for good and sufficient reasons. When someone poses a question in the way this one is posed, it falls into just the assumptions that divide human opinion on reincarnation. It is hidden in the language, you see, and the language shapes perception in the same way that it [i.e., language] has been shaped by past perception.

F: Yes, you’ve said that more than once, and the guys before you.

R: And we’ll need to say it again, I have no doubt, because the habits that arise out of language are persistent.

“Hitler’s 3D life” certainly could be a strand in other bundles – not just one bundle, notice – it isn’t as if that life were a physical commodity that could only be transferred, hence could only go to one place or another, or even one place at a time. Any given life, once lived, is a resource from which other lives may be created. Those lives may incorporate that life (that strand) in greater or less importance. That is, the entire new package may include Hitler’s life to a small degree, or a larger degree, and with that, may emphasize this or that aspect of his personality. It isn’t a unit in the way language tempts you to think of it.

F: Let me see if I can rephrase that, so we know if I’m getting it right. Hitler comes into existence. He incorporates 100 strands, say, and who knows who they were. After he dies – whether in 1945 in Berlin or afterwards in Argentina or the moon – the mind that he formed during life may be used as one strand of other lives, and each of those lives will of course be different combinations of minds, and so will be dominated by different ratios of characteristics (that’s one way to put it) not only among the different strands, but within the different strands. But in any case, the use of a strand in one person does not in any way affect its availability for use in others.

R: That’s right. And that is one reason why particularly effective combinations may echo through history – not, exactly, that a person’s reputation leads others to emulate him or her; closer to the opposite way around – that person’s characteristics are used repeatedly for reasons of the Larger Being’s, and therefore many people in 3D find themselves drawn to accounts of the original life. And so you see Caesar and Napoleon echo down through the centuries – and Jesus and St. Francis and Muhammad.

F: As in Power versus Force?

R: He is reporting results rather than causes, but he’s worth looking into with this explanation in mind.

F: But how about Peter Novak’s The Division of Consciousness?

R: A valuable springboard for thought, but again proceeding from a very different idea of how things work.

F: Finished with the question?

R: Not quite. “A 3D life that did not create a `unique new window’ isn’t lost but isn’t used again to create a new soul” makes the mistake again of regarding as a unit what is not a unit. The point here is that when a particular mixture of elements proves not to be valuable as a window onto 3D, it is not necessarily used in the creation of others. But the elements of which it was put together obviously do not cease to exist; it is the particular creation that may be, essentially, disused. And once more I caution you not to assume that you or anyone can judge the uniqueness or value of any one window on the world. Most of what you are is hidden from all others, not by reluctance or stealth but by the nature of things. Judge not.

F: Lest we be judged?

R: No, just, judge not, because as the guys always told us, you never have the data. Most of anyone is always inaccessible and incommunicable.

F: Still waters run deep.

R: Yes, but so do rapidly running waters, and no one can plumb another’s depths. Now we may move on.

F: All right, the next one seems to be closely related to it.

[Rita said yesterday, “What is beneficial to the non-3D world, as I have explained before, is that the conditions of 3D life allow the creation of non-3D minds that could not have come into existence otherwise.” So, a 3D life is “successful”, adds a new perspective to non 3D and is therefore retained as a thread for a new soul. And this process continues on and on for what purpose? (I know … another fish question.) But, doesn’t everyone in 3D have an insatiable quest to know what all (3D, non 3D, unitary beings, etc.) this is for? Is it for “curiosity” as Bruce Moen suggests, “play” as Joseph Chilton Pearce suggests, or as Edgar Cayce said in a reading “God’s desire for companionship and expression”?]

R: The purpose may be simply stated as the cooperative construction of ever-more-intricate and versatile windows on 3D through the creation of ever-more-intricate actors in 3D.

Now, you may look at one or another aspect of this and come down with very different ideas about it. If you trace the Larger Beings’ purposes, life in 3D is seen as one thread in a tapestry. If you trace any particular thread’s “progress” through the weaving, life is seen as a journey, a progression, a rising or sinking in development..

F: The latter is closer to what people typically think of as reincarnation, I think.

R: Yes, because it is what it looks like when you proceed from that point of view. That’s why I am laying much more emphasis on the view from the Larger Being’s end, as balance.

Now as to the purpose beyond this immediate purpose, that may have to wait until the fish develop better TV reception. I’d prefer to stick to topics that actually bear on your lives as you live them. What use is it to allow yourselves to be distracted from what you can do (and, one might say, are responsible to do)?

F: Well, as Charles says, there is a certain natural curiosity.

R: Yes, there is – and I would prefer that it stays focused on what it can learn to understand and (in the positive sense of the term) manipulate, rather than be dissipated in idle speculation.

And that will do for today.

F: All right, Miss Rita. Thanks as always.

Saturday February 21, 2015

F: 5:30 a.m. You had said you would continue on from where you left off, and there are a bunch of questions more that Charles posed, that I printed out and have ready to go, Rita. But it is a weird uneasy feeling, doing this, knowing that I don’t quite have a handle on the questions, and hoping you do.

R: You should put it on the record, so that others doing the same work will recognize that their difficulties are not unique to them.

F: Yes, I’ve sort of been doing that right along, and for that reason. Also, it’s a more honest way of proceeding than it would be if I were pretending I could just waltz along, in control of the process.

Many times, I understand the question and could answer it myself (not that I’m always sure where “myself” leaves off and “Rita” comes in). But other times, I read the question, realize that I don’t really understand it, or where it is coming from – and I proceed to put pen to paper and answer it, and all I can hope is that whatever comes out is truly you, or anyway someone “over there,” and not just gibberish. It never has come out as nonsense – that is, it comes out in comprehensible sentences – but often enough all I can do is keep up with the flow and hope it’s making sense. I often do this with the uneasy feeling that a close examination of the material would show that it is full of inconsistencies and contradictions.

R: But you continue to do the work.

F: I do. There’s nothing equally interesting to me, and it feels like I have spent so many years honing my abilities, that I have to proceed on trust that it all adds up to something. And of course when we see response from people indicating that what they read resonates with them, that helps. It’s just that the work always, or mostly, or anyway often enough, comes with that uneasiness attached.

And now we have covered two journal pages and haven’t begun today’s work.

R: Not true. The process, the encouragement of others by example and by stories about your experience of the process, is an inherent part of the process of encouraging people to redefine themselves so that they can move out of their old outgrown shell and into another, larger one.

F: If you say so. All right, you said you wanted to say a couple of things about the final question posed by “cat’s paw.”

[“Is (over-) reliance on thinking linguistically a specific constraint that limits perception on this front?”]

R: Well, as I said, I could have answered, simply, “sometimes it is.” But it will be more useful to explain a little more.

Bob [Monroe] stressed that NVC – non-vocal communication – was an essential skill if people were to communicate with what he thought of as the non-physical world. This is because of just this problem of sequential versus intuitive perception.

F: May I rephrase?

R: You have the pen.

F: I take it to mean, thoughts, words, are sequentially processed and can only be sequentially processed. Non-physical reality is, by definition, outside 3D and therefore is, by definition, not easily even described, let alone experienced, as a sequential 3D-time-slice-limited process. Therefore the habit of communicating in non-3D helps develop the ability to experience non-3D with fewer filters, because it doesn’t involve silently and unconsciously translating everything into 3D terms, which of course is a process that involves a certain distortion.

R: I thought you were worried about not understanding the material.

F: Very funny. Sometimes I get it, sometimes I don’t but what I just said seems clear enough in light of what you’ve said before this.

R: Don’t forget – and this is for everybody, Frank, not just for you – what you get while you are linked to other minds always seems obvious, always seems yours, except when you are groping for new material. It may not seem as obvious when you are processing it on your own afterwards.

In any case, your summary is good enough. Any sequential process is going to impede perception of the non-3D. but it is important to remember that you will only make sense of that experience by integrating it with the rest of your life, and that will be done through 3D means of processing, in other words sequential processing usually involving language. The whole point of 3D existence, as Bob used to stress, is the simultaneous balanced employment of intuition and logic; perception and interpretation.

F: First wallow in the sensation, then use the worm of thought to understand it, he told our Guidelines program.

R: That’s right. And that’s enough on this very important question.

F: Okay, onwards. In order?

R: Why not?

[Charles: {in the 35th session} Rita said, “This should be a tremendously encouraging fact! You aren’t in charge of the agenda; you don’t have to figure out what to do; you aren’t in any way lost; and nothing you became is lost or unemployed. It is a state the very opposite of stagnation.”]

R: I shouldn’t need to say much about this. It is only when the 3D-formed ego, thinking it is on its own, unaware of its integral connection to non-3D (through its extension in that direction) and to other past 3D experiences, other 3D-shaped minds (through the strands that comprise it)

F: Sort of lost control of the sentence, though I know where it’s going.

R: The only time you feel lost and alone is when you don’t feel your connection to more than the 3D-defined self that the senses report. As long as you remain in connection – or, and this is important – as long as you live in faith that the connection has not ceased to exist, you don’t have to worry that you don’t know what to do, you don’t know where you’re going to end up, you don’t know if you’re safe, you don’t know if “external” events are going to overwhelm you. If you remain aware of your connections, you recognize that the hardest challenges have meaning, and that it is very true that “all is well, all is always well,” regardless of whether you see it or not, feel it or not, approve of conditions or not, feel adequate to circumstances or not.

You don’t need to do anything, any time, but your best, and in this context “doing your best” refers not primarily to external efforts but to your attitude, your concentration on the underlying point to all of life’s challenges, which is, how do I respond to this? What are my values and how do I express them? How will my response to circumstances show me who and what I am to date?

F: Can’t get lost, can’t get hurt.

R: Well—

You know full well you can get lost, can get hurt, judging in 3D terms. I don’t mean to explain away difficulties any more than to explain away evil or suffering in general. But it is true that from your non-3D perspective you can see that the 3D drama doesn’t mean what it seems to mean from within the drama. Life is meant to be convincing, after all. How much would it accomplish for you to be going through the motions saying, “I know I just broke my arm, but it really doesn’t mean anything”? No, when you break your arm you can’t define your arm into an unbroken state. (The question of miracles is a side-trail at the moment.) It is in non-3D that we experience things that way – instant manifestation, instant change. The point of 3D circumstances is delayed consequences so you don’t have to experience everything as ephemeral. I realize – I well remember – that often enough you would like nothing better, but all that would happen is that you would define away anything you didn’t like or didn’t approve of, and therefore couldn’t profit from the play.

F: Which bears on the topic of why there is so much pain and suffering in the world. It is because we can’t escape the consequences of our actions merely by wishing them away.

R: You wouldn’t accept that if I said it! Try it again, more carefully (which by the way will give you a sense of the difficulty of trying to teach from a distance).

F: Well, pain and suffering are the results of decisions and actions in 3D. Some are our own decisions and actions, and some are not. Therefore we experience results both first-hand and second-hand. Come to think of it, this sounds like the old “Earth school” concept I have so much resistance to. So I suppose that aspect of it must be true, or true enough in context.

R: That’s a little better. 3D experience is always real in the way that anything is real that does not yield to contrary desire. And, as I say, it is the persistence of external conditions that is a prime value in 3D. But it is the fact that such perceived conditions are only relatively true (i.e. true only while in 3D) that is your Ariadne’s thread out of the 3D labyrinth.

F: I guess we aren’t going to get to the next item on the agenda. Anything more to say about this one?

R: You aren’t in charge of the agenda – therefore you can relax about it. You aren’t lost r perplexed at the non-3D level, and if you can learn to trust that – the easiest way to do so being “all is well” – you will find your own way easier not because “external” circumstances ease (they may, they may not) but because you don’t waste so much energy in anxiety.

F: Okay, Rita, thanks and we’ll see you next time.