Thursday, January 29, 2015

[Where we left off yesterday:

[F: So – I am sure someone will ask – if all possible worlds exist, meaning that all possible choices are made by some aspect of ourselves, what is the point of choosing, what is the point of working to create ourselves?

[R: You are walking the possibilities.

[F: Oh, that explains it! Huh?

[R: We’ll start there next time.]

F: 5:45 a.m. Okay, Rita, here we go again. We are walking the possibilities, you said. Meaning –?

R: Copy the line from yesterday.

F: If you try to understand it while trying to think of life as physical, sequential, and “real,” you can get only a vague and theoretical understanding that will have no application to your life.

R: That’s the one. Writing it out rather than being able to copy it from a computer file engages you in the process, helping mesh our operations. Whenever you get stuck you can try it, it is a simple tool.

F: One I’ve used occasionally in writing, come to think of it, but not for many years. Okay, so –

R: Feel your way back to an understanding of life as a unity – no splits, no physical or non-physical, no “other side,” but one thing all together with, shall we say, specialized locations, or perhaps local specialties. That is, it isn’t at all homogenous, but neither is there any absolute division. And feel yourselves back to a sense of 3D reality being actually a special condition of overall reality, one which is projected from, or say conceived out of the larger reality to produce a test tube’s specialized conditions.

When you remember life that way, it is easier to feel how life is lived as unknowable patterns of energy, presenting themselves as tangible realities, and you don’t have to imagine rocks in your path when you come to move.

F: I got that, but in case anyone didn’t, I take it to mean, if we think of the world as physical and somehow “realer” than energy, it is hard to really get the idea of so many realities being equally existent. The idea of physical reality is one of “rocks in our path.”

R: Exactly. Much easier to think of changing channels.

So. Proceeding from the imaginating starting point

F: That word stopped me.

R: Well, what word would serve better? Imaginative sounds like “we’re going to play pretend.” So does “imagined,” only past tense.

F: I see your point. It just stopped me, is all. Okay, so proceeding from there –

R: You were one time given a vision of reality as not moving events, but planes of an unmoving crystal, planes inside the crystal – not external facets – that were illuminated alternately depending on how one shined a light on it, or perhaps we should say through it.

F: I remember. In my sessions with Skip in 2000, I think.

R: Well, you see, that is a very good metaphor for the underlying situation, if I can explain it.

The world is created. (Not earth, here; I mean physical reality in general.) As it springs into being, all of its potentialities spring into being in exactly the same way as an individual’s potentialities spring into being with his or her conception.

You see? It’s all there from the beginning, because outside of 3D – it isn’t process, it is being.

F: There isn’t any “becoming” about it because it isn’t filtered through successive time-moments, the way we experience life in 3D. That what you mean?

R: Yes. Translated into 3D terms, it looks like “becoming,” because it is so alien to 3D experience to think of something in a state of being rather than becoming.

F: But of course “becoming” is precisely what we do experience here.

R: Of course; that is the intent. It’s in the design. But you can’t understand things in a new way by continuing to see them only in the accustomed way.

F: I understand.

R: Hold that image, of all 3D reality as one giant unmoving and unchanging crystal. (If that is more than you can do comfortably, envisage all aspects of your life as a crystal. The image, not the precision, is the helpful thing here.) The crystal contains all possibilities. By nature, it contains what it is, no more, no less.

Let’s call it a transparent crystal, and let’s put ourselves outside it, with a laser pointer. Shine that laser at the crystal, and it will illumine a path into it. As far as you are concerned – as far as you can tell – only the path illuminated exists; all else is darkness, background. What is illumined is real and everything else is theoretical.

Now change the angle the light strikes the crystal at – ever so slightly or quite a bit different, whichever you prefer. What is illumined changes; what is background includes the path that was previously illumined. What was “real” is now “only theoretical,” or is “unknowable.” What was unknown, perhaps unsuspected, is now clearly seen as “real.”

This, up to this point, is background. Now I move on to what I meant by walking the possibilities, and here I must introduce a complication, though a very clarifying one. The music on a record was only revealed when a needle dragged along the groove of the record. No needle, no perceived sound, although the sound was inherently, latently, really there in the composition of the record.

F: I see where you’re going with this!

R: If what you perceive as 3D reality is the record, your awareness is the needle, even though your awareness is also part of the record (because you and all your experiences are part of it).

F: The guys told us the record and needle analogy as they being the needle, we the record. You’re saying not so simple?

R: Simple enough if you can remember that you are “the guys” as well as your physical existence.

F: Oh yeah. It’s hard to keep that in mind once we sort of move on to other things.

R: Practice, practice. As you get accustomed to thinking in a new way, more sophisticated levels of understanding become possible precisely because you become more able to hold each new awareness in mind as accepted background.

F: So, walking the possibilities.

R: Well, it should be clear enough now. The possibilities are inherent in the creation. But they are not made manifest to the non-3D part of creation until they are experienced in 3D and conveyed.

F: Which means experiencing them as if each were the only reality.

R: That is the set-up. It adds immediacy, interest, intensity. Mostly it adds clarity.

F: Pin-point focus on the flavor of a life led along a path illuminated from a certain angle.

R: Well, don’t get fixated on that image, helpful though it is. Don’t let yourself be led to think of your path as straight and strait, just because you imagine a line to be that way. Light can bounce off slight irregularities and take quite a ride – to switch metaphors.

F: All right, so I gather that – Oh! I think I got it! The point is not us as individuals shaping ourselves (though that is true) but that we experience whatever we experience because of our choices so that the non-3D can experience what until then was only potential.

R: Close enough. And since different versions of yourself experience different lives because of different choices, we in non-3D (so to speak) get to see all the potential, not any one version alone.

F: George Bernard Shaw scoffed at what he said was the Englishman’s conception of the universe as a “moral gymnasium.” This is closer to his point of view, isn’t it?

R: Find the Emerson quote you like and insert it.

[Emerson in 1828, age 25: “If you think you came into being for the purpose of taking an important part in the administration of events, to guard a province of the moral creation from ruin, and that its salvation hangs on the success of your single arm, you have wholly mistaken your business.”]

R: Next time we will begin with Bob’s question about language, which should be easy to dispose of.

F: Well this is extremely interesting, Rita. Thank you on behalf of your audience, whoever they are or may become.

R: Till next time, then.

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

F: 6 a.m. Well, Miss Rita, I’m a little at sea as to how to proceed. The interrupted thought, you said you’d follow up later – is it still available?

[Rita said she would start a session with this thought rather than trying to tackle it at the end of a session:

[Human brain tissue contains access points that allow us to access the memory, but those access points are more like local copies of the original than like independent replications. If you consider the brain tissue that connects to the memory, realize that if it were quite that simple, –]

R: …. your memories would be quite as much at risk as if the memory itself was stored there.

F: So we are like local CPU’s, accessing the cloud?

R: Don’t tie your understanding too closely to physical analogies – particularly not to technological analogies – or what will you do when the technology has become replaced by something else? But in a broad sense, you have the idea of it. Perhaps you could regard your brain as a temporary local copy of the mind you are constructing safely outside of 3D vicissitudes.

F: I begin to see why you didn’t want to start into this at the end of a session.

R: Yes. Any statement needs to be described as to what it means and what it does not mean. Many times the second part of the process is overlooked or omitted because the need is not seen or the implications are unimportant or mostly obvious. But when one makes a certain mind of statement – something seemingly familiar but actually a novel spin on old concepts, or an unfamiliar usage of familiar words – it is well to try to reduce potential misunderstanding.

Thus, the paragraph preceding the previous one contains several ideas.

 The brain a temporary local copy of your mind
 Your mind continually being created outside of 3D
 Implicitly, your mind already existing outside of 3D and therefore containing the results of your future choices, as well as your present and your former futures, if we may call them that. And it is this last comment that will require the most thought, as it will be a readjustment for you, Frank, if not necessarily for anyone who may read this.

As to the first statement, which is only sort of true, the important part of it is the thought that your physical existence is not required for the preservation of the active, living, record of your life. Now, language is a problem here, because as soon as you read “record” – even though the word has been preceded by “active, living,” you tend to think of it as something fixed, and dead. A record of something is itself not living and vital – or so language tempts you to think. So, find a better word than “record,” so you don’t have to make the continuing effort to remind yourself of the limits of the analogy.

F: How about ghost, or spirit, or shadow?

R: That might work if you can remember from usage to usage (i.e. from moment to moment) that it is the physical that is the ghost of the reality, and the non-physical that is the actual thing being considered.

F: Speaking of making a Copernican Shift –

R: Yes, and you might as well begin making a habit of doing so. When you place the sun in the center of your mental solar system, many relationships clarify.

The second point is also only approximately true. From the 3D perspective, your mind is being created as you go along, and is being created not in the physical, as it usually seems to you, but in the non-physical where it really is because where you, or the larger part of you, really is. Remember, we are not talking about physical and non-physical being separate; we are talking – or trying to, against the silent bias of language – about the physical world being a local area of the whole – three dimensions among many. (And yes, the whole idea of dimensions is itself an approximate term, used for shorthand convenience.)

Not just the record of your life; not just the mental part of your life, but the very physical existence you are aware of, all resides in the full set of dimensions, because, as I said, everything has to exist in all dimensions if it exists in any. So all this talk about physical or non-physical is not meaningless, but it is not the absolute dichotomy it appears to be because of the language we employ.

And then we come to the third point, and I suggest you refill your coffee cup.

F: Yes, the same idea occurred to me!

R: Here is the complexity that required a fresh mind. [Typing this, the sentence stopped me. Then I realized she meant, a mind fresh to the task rather than at the end of a session. The meaning was clear when I brought it in, but had blurred by the time I came to transcribe it.]

F: I know what you are intending to relate it to, and if you can clear up the tangle of half-understood concepts that we reported in Sphere and Hologram, but couldn’t untangle, I’d be very glad.

R: Summarize the problem, if you would.

F: Well, the guys told us that the results of every decision constitute an alternate version of reality, but that the idea of the world splitting with each decision was the result of thinking in terms of a past that ceases to exist, a present in which choices are made, and a future that is determined by the present, in contra-distinction to the view of time as existing – every conceivable variation of every conceivable scenario – from the time the world was created, here using “the world” to mean not Earth but the entire material universe.

It seemed to me this meant that some version of every one of us took every possible path – usually unknown to one another, but not invariably, I gather – which sort of defeats the point of “choosing, choosing, choosing” as the purpose of life, it seems to me.

R: Again, put the sun rather than the earth in the center, and things clarify. If you stop thinking of physical life as “real” and start seeing it as a sort of projections of non-physical life, you aren’t faced with the question of – oh, where do those uncounted number of alternate worlds exist? Which version of your life – of your soul – is real? How can all this make sense in terms of one individual (yes, relatively individual, but you understand what I’m getting at) being shaped and then functioning?

F: I could never get a good handle on it. I brought it through and had confidence that my translation wasn’t very wrong, but I couldn’t really make sense of it, though I tried. I mean, I could sort of wrap my head around it, but I couldn’t really connect it to the life I experience myself leading day by day, And relating it is the point, isn’t it?

R: It is. Here is one clarification that may bring you far – again, provided that you make the Copernican Shift in your mind.

Start with the idea that the larger being selected this and that combination of elements to be you, inserting you in a certain place and time. That is well and good as a working statement, but in fact it describes the situation only approximately and from a 3D-based perspective. Alter the perspective and you see that reality is actually a projection of inherent possibilities rather than a physical reality. Therefore, it costs nothing to explore this or that set of possibilities. One is as real as any other.

F: I do get what you mean, but I don’t think you’ve said it yet in any way that can not be wildly misrepresented.

R: Suppose a computer-generated image. Suppose the image is systematically transformed so that every possible combination is displayed. Suppose – harder, I realize – that all these possible variations are on display simultaneously and are simultaneously apprehensible. The possibilities (whatever they may be) were all inherent in the computer program. If they were not inherent, they could not have manifested, clearly. There is no need to decide (or rather, arbitrarily choose to regard) which one is uniquely “real” and the others a copy or a theoretical manifestation, only. Which one is “real” is simple – it is whichever one you are connecting to.

This, minus the sequential-time implications that insert themselves into the analogy, is more or less the situation.

F: But understanding it depends entirely upon your making the Copernican Shift.

R: If you try to understand it while trying to think of life as physical, sequential, and “real,” you can get only a vague and theoretical understanding that will have no application to your life.

F: So – I am sure someone will ask – if all possible worlds exist, meaning that all possible choices are made by some aspect of ourselves, what is the point of choosing, what is the point of working to create ourselves?

R: You are walking the possibilities.

F: Oh, that explains it! Huh?

R: We’ll start there next time. And we will sooner or later get to the rest of Bob’s question, but after all there is no hurry.

F: Well, it’s an interesting process, and on behalf of those who are reading this or will read it, thanks. See you next time.

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

F: 5:30 a.m. All right, Rita, I have re-read yesterday’s transcript, including the excerpts from Sphere and Hologram, and I must say that as always it is a weird feeling to know more or less what subject you are going to address, and have no idea what’s coming, yet at the same time have confidence that something is coming. I’ll paste Bob’s questions in here, along with your bookmark, and then over to you.,

[Bob Friedman’s questions, wrongly attributed yesterday to Charles Sides:

[(1) How is consciousness, which is non-physical, connected to a physical brain? Scientists have demonstrated that when certain parts of the brain are stimulated, images and words and events may appear (memories, I suppose). I have always thought that memories were part of what we physicals call consciousness, as our “awareness” can call them up (pre-Alzheimer’s of course) as part of what we call “thinking.” How can consciousness manipulate the brain to “park” those memories–through a chemical process or something else?

[(2) When “Rita” was in 3-D, she spoke and thought in English. She is communicating to us now, through Frank, in English (or does she just stimulate Frank’s language so he writes the words in English)? It’s hard for us in 3-D to imagine anything without use of whatever language we use on this planet, so how does the use of English, French, Swahili, etc., “translate” over to the non-3-D consciousness. Do you “think” and communicate in a language over there, or is there an entirely different way to communicate?]

[Rita said yesterday that she would start with this thought that she did not want to begin at the end of a session:

[Human brain tissue contains access points that allow us to access the memory, but those access points are more like local copies of the original than like independent replications. If you consider the brain tissue that connects to the memory, realize that if it were quite that simple, –]


[Rita:] Notice that I gave you a few seconds to realize that you aren’t making it up. The worry that you are making it up is, as you well know, an inhibiting factor in developing the ability to receive material. Note, I said in “developing,” not in “discovering” or in “creating” such an ability. As you also well know.

F: But maybe we never get fully beyond that worry.

Maybe you do, maybe you don’t, it is a matter of personality and experiences. But “called or not called, God will be here,” Carl Jung says.

F: Now that is weird. I heard that last sentence as loud and clear as if I had spoken it internally myself, so I wrote it even though it did not belong and I doubt if it was you, Rita, who said it. It is utterly unlike anything you would have said in 3D – even to the use of the word God, if my memory serves. So what is going on?

CGJ: You know full well what is going on, but you intend something different and so you say, “this cannot be, I refuse to acknowledge what I know.”

F: Very well. Welcome, Dr. Jung.

CGJ: This is not an either/or situation over here, you know. You have said and written for many years that separation is a quality of physical life rather than non-physical life, and yet when that quality manifests you do not expect it. You silently assume that we over here will follow the rules. But they are not our rules and this is not our game, or yours, but, shall we say, a compromise between the two, a translation between worlds.

F: I see you are using the terms that Rita has been moving us beyond – here and there, physical and non-physical, etc.

CGJ: Consider any scheme of things to be less a description than a metaphor meant to be instructive and helpful. If

F: Dammit, I have a bad habit of going wool-gathering if I let myself pause in this process.

CGJ: Not so much if you let yourself pause; more if you let yourself entertain two trains of thoughts, or if you worry over what you are receiving.

F: Can you continue where you were going when I lost the connection?

CGJ: Merely, use alternative explanatory schemes. Do not allow yourselves to be enmeshed in them. There is no advantage to changing denominations within the church, save to be more comfortable! The exchange per se does not bring you closer to the truth, although the experience of it, may.

However, I entered the discussion to do two things. One, to make you aware that this process has listeners on the non-physical side, no less than on the physical side, and two, to say something on the subject of consciousness.

F: Someone on the TMI Explorers list had suggested I ask you, I think.

CGJ: Called or not called, those you connect to by your nature, your interests, your sympathies, and your tasks will also be there. But more strongly so if we are called.

F: An example of how we are continuously more connected than we realize we are –

CGJ: Go back to the beginning of this new series of conversations and see for yourself. Rita began by saying the communication is without beginning or end, by the nature of things, regardless of whether the interaction is observed consciously, and certainly regardless of whether it is reflected upon by the 3D experiencer.

F: Well, it is an honor to connect with you. Am I mistaken in believing that where Jung is (at least, in relation to me) Robert Clarke cannot be far behind?

CGJ: That is correct, and the clustering of souls relative to any given individual might be a subject for you to explore at some point, although perhaps not now.

F: Well, I remember being told years ago that anyone who reads a book connects – not metaphorically but truly, though of course nonphysically – to the author and to everybody else who reads or did read or will read that book.

CGJ: Yes, an approximate statement of the process of clustering. You shouldn’t carry the statement too far, but it may remind you of the value in choosing good companions. However, to return to the matter in hand –

Remember, as this process continues, that any discussion of any topic may or may not resonate, may or may not prove productive of new connections, new insights, but will not produce absolute statements that may be accurately taken only one way. The key to anyone’s understanding is that each mind, each soul, is a point of view. That is, each 3D-created mind is a particular window not only on the 3D part of the world, but on everything that mind ponders. The bias incorporated into a more or less permanent habit-system (as you once heard the human mind described) is valued precisely because it is a bias; it is a particular way of seeing things, a particular slant on life. Far from such non-objective bias being seen as a detriment, it is recognized as the point of 3D experience.

But – any given viewpoint is just that – one viewpoint. Even if the viewpoint is itself an incorporation of the habit of always seeing things in many ways, that viewpoint is itself only one way of experiencing things.

F: In other words, we mustn’t expect to receive any final answers, here.

CGJ: No. And you – yourself, Frank, as transducer of energies – should rejoice that this is so, as it removes the impossible burden of the need for omniscience or, more, infallibility. And for the reader it removes the burden of deciding whether to throw over every other system of thought and follow whatever you derive. Not that anyone would do it anyway, but that they might criticize themselves for being unable to do so. They should work with this material, not be captured by it. The same words will seem to mean different things to different people at different times and in different contexts.

F: You said you came today to say something on the nature of consciousness. My hour is nearly gone – can you still get it in?

CGJ: I am smiling, my friend. I have said it already. The point I made is the point I wanted to make. And now I will let you end with Rita, only now knowing to remember that this conversation is wider on both sides of the veil – I use the older idea purposely, to reassure you that you need not confine yourselves to carefully censored language – and that your own community (that is said for anyone who ever reads this) is more extensive than you usually realize or dare realize. You are none of you isolated, no matter how it may feel. You are not orphans, nor are you stranded on desert islands.

F: Thank you. I know that such reassurance will be of great value to many people.

CGJ: But not you, eh?

F: All right. Miss Rita, anything else before we close shop for the day?

R: As you used to say, tomorrow we can resume our regularly scheduled programming.

F: Okay. Thank you for being the catalyst who started this very interesting enterprise.

R: As to who started what, that would be an interesting discussion at another time. No need for it now, however.

F: Okay. See you tomorrow, probably.

Monday January 26, 2015

F: 6 a.m. Good Morning, Miss Rita. Charles asks a couple of questions that I have more than an inkling of the answers to. Seems to me these are more or less what you were asking in 2001-2002.

[I misread this as being questions from Charles whereas they were really Bob Friedman’s questions that Charles was passing along, per our agreement. He asked:

[1) How is consciousness, which is non-physical, connected to a physical brain? Scientists have demonstrated that when certain parts of the brain are stimulated, images and words and events may appear (memories, I suppose). I have always thought that memories were part of what we physicals call consciousness, as our “awareness” can call them up (pre-Alzheimer’s of course) as part of what we call “thinking.” How can consciousness manipulate the brain to “park” those memories–through a chemical process or something else?

[2) When “Rita” was in 3-D, she spoke and thought in English. She is communicating to us now, through Frank, in English (or does she just stimulate Frank’s language so he writes the words in English)? It’s hard for us in 3-D to imagine anything without use of whatever language we use on this planet, so how does the use of English, French, Swahili, etc., “translate” over to the non-3-D consciousness. Do you “think” and communicate in a language over there, or is there an entirely different way to communicate?]

F: Care to comment? Or do I have to make up something? 

R: You may make up something, if you wish. The distinction between people “making up something” and “receiving information” is less than people suppose. It isn’t like it is a game of one pitching and another catching. (I omit consideration of situations in which the intent is to deceive; I am talking about any person’s process of idea-reception. Bookmark this topic, if you wish; it would be productive. It is the difference between thinking something through, and following chains of association. It involves the temporary group mind as an active if rarely suspected aspect of a person’s consciousness.)

Now, to these specific questions. The first question I am afraid I have to say, indicates that Charles has not absorbed, or is not taking into consideration, what has been said so far. Either that, or he silently means “in so far as humans are concerned,” but it doesn’t look like this latter is the case. At any rate, here is my attempt to clarify the subject. I will answer the question as posed, and you each may proceed to apply the general answer to human consciousness in particular.

F: I am engaged in a silent argument here, Rita. Doesn’t Charles’ first sentence show that he means humans, or at least humans and anything else that has a brain?

R: Well, let us proceed, and we’ll see. He asks, you see, how consciousness connects to a brain. I understand your thinking he is asking a special case of connection, but I cannot accept the question as posed without seeming to agree silently with several assumptions included equally silently.

F: This reminds me of your asking the guys, in our first session, how many we were speaking to, and their throwing out the assumptions behind the question rather than giving you an answer that would have been approximately true but would have reinforced assumptions you didn’t even know you were incorporating.

R: I have more sympathy now with their predicament then.

F: I’ll bet! So –?

R: Perhaps my objection would become clearer if I were to repeat the question substituting the word “gravity” for “consciousness,” or using “love.” Can you see that this question as posed is as if we had not had yesterday’s discussion? It treats consciousness as a specific rather than a universal precondition of life – indeed of the existence of the world. I will answer the question as posed, but not in such a way as to lose the ground we gained so far.

So let me parse the question. In the first place, it would be truer to say that consciousness is non-physical and physical in nature. It is not bound by physical rules; however, it shapes physical rules. It is not so much found in the physical world as comprises the physical world. It is not a thing or a condition; it is a piece of what the world is made of. That is why, as I said “yesterday,” Bob’s question can’t be answered in the way he would have wanted – scientists cannot examine what they cannot isolate – at least, they can’t understand what they are dealing with as long as they mis-define it.

So, consciousness doesn’t connect to a brain; it comprises it. The brain – and all of physical existence – is made of consciousness. And that was my initial hesitation that you picked up on, Frank. Consciousness has no necessary connection to a brain. Not even within humans, but more broadly not to clouds or soil or radioactive waste or orlon fibers. You tend to think of things having consciousness when it would be more useful to think of them as expressions of consciousness. They are all coordinated – the world is held together – by the fact that one factor holding it together is this undivided consciousness.

F: It is in God that we live and move and have our being, it says somewhere.

R: That is one way to phrase it, and one way to look at it. But it jumps a few levels, let’s put it that way. It is as relatively true as any other way of seeing the connectedness of all things.

Now, there is a difference between consciousness and human awareness, and I realize that this is closer to what Charles means. But again, the question seems to exist without reference to previous answers, which is not good. I mean, it leads nowhere to consider these questions as if in isolation from previous answers. It is in the drawing of connections that a new way of seeing the world will emerge for you. If you do not draw the connection – it cannot be done on your behalf; it requires that you work at it – if you do not draw the connections and feel your way to inferences, this will be not an exploration but, in effect, idle speculation that nowhere touches your real life. For, if you do work to absorb the material and thus change how you see the world, even if you wind up rejecting the new construct, it will have moved you to a new understanding. But first you must have worked with the material. That is your safety-valve, you see; it is less the specific information than the general reorientation that is being presented, and less the reorientation than the temporary or permanent expansion of the ideas that, for you, comprise the world. This can only take place if you work. This is not a science-fiction story to be enjoyed and forgotten.

F: I well remember how your life and mine were transformed by the material we brought forth in our sessions.

R: Yes, and as it turned out, even the things that unsettled me and left me wondering if I knew anything were of great value. In fact I might almost say that was the value. But, to continue.

There is a demonstrable link, of course, between the physical matter of the brain and access to any particular memory. But it is just as was explained to us, the difference between access and location, although actually I need to say more about that, more than “the guys” were unable to get across to us because we were only in the first stages of absorbing their concept of access points.

F: I am going to recommend – in fact, I am doing it now – that people find that part in The Sphere and the Hologram. Maybe I will look it up, and if I can find it I will insert it here.

[And here it is, from material received in Rita’s and my 2001-2002 sessions. Begin transcript:

R: I’ve been wanting to ask the guys about this. We understand that there’s now quite good scientific evidence that our consciousness does not seem to reside in the brain or in the physical body. There’s now interest in the same question with respect to memory. Do you have any comment you’d like to make about that?
TGU: Well it’s all the same thing. You’re looking in matter for things that are not material, and you’re not going to find them. Given that the organizing principle for the whole body is outside of the physical, and the physical is laid down on energy patterns that are set from beyond the physical, it would be foolish for us to then entrust a vital part of the mechanism to a physical place, when it’s already in a nonphysical place.
The circulation of your blood is a physical function. The storing of your memories is not entirely a physical function. The accessing of the memories is more physical than anything else, but the actual storing of them is not. Just as with your consciousness, the accessing of your consciousness is partly physical. If you have a brain injury (even though that’s also an energetic injury), you could look at it as a physical injury that may make it impossible for you to access memories or abilities that you had prior to the injury. But when you drop the body you’ll find that all of those abilities and memories are still there on call, because they weren’t destroyed. They were never in the physical in the first place. Your access to them was destroyed, or damaged, but not the actual abilities or memories. This is why some of you have been surprised that people with extensive head injuries who were given sympathetic and loving attention over long periods of time regained abilities that had been thought to be lost. They learned new pathways to something which was invulnerable because it wasn’t in the physical.
R: All right, can you talk about the process – it’s important to some of us, these days – about losing memories as we age.
TGU: Well again, you aren’t losing the memories, you’re losing the access to the memories. The memories are as they are, as you would find were you to have an operation and have them open your brain and touch portions of the brain with the needles. They’ve done that for years, they know that they are there. But it isn’t that that particular piece of the brain is exactly the memory, it’s more like that particular piece of the brain is the doorkeeper to the memory. A subtle difference, but it is a big one.
R: So something has happened with respect to the antenna that picks up the external information?
TGU: The switching mechanism, we would say. Like a telephone exchange. It could be that portions of the lobes that are the gateways no longer function, and it’s as if the memories are gone. But ordinarily it’s that the switching function is inhibited, and can be restored sometimes, and when the switching function is restored, it’s found that, lo and behold, the memories were there all along. You see, there are two things going on. The switching function on the one hand, that enables you to access the places in the physical gateways, which then access the memories, and on the other hand the gateways themselves.
So if the gateway cell, shall we say, is destroyed, then there may not be any access to memory, although perhaps another one can be developed. Or, if the switching system fails to access the cell that’s perfectly good, still you’ve lost your access. In neither case has the memory been lost absolutely, it’s all there, as you would say, in the Akashic record – which ought to tell you that it’s there in the first place. It hasn’t been so much transferred from the physical as stored, in the first place, in the nonphysical.
[End transcript.]

[Another transcript, which, I notice, uses the word “consciousness” more in the way we use it every day, from a session in the black box in which Rita was acting as monitor while Skip Atwater worked the machinery:

R: Skip has a question here for me to ask. He’s asking, what is the equivalent of the switching system when you leave the body?
TGU: Well, you see, when you leave the body, you don’t need that switching system in just that way, because that switching system is necessary because you’re living in time-slices. You’re going blip, blip, blip, blip, and so there is a sequence. There’s a limitation on your consciousness, which is that it can only hold so many things in consciousness at the same time, and your consciousness really does sort of have to move moment to moment, to stay in the same place. Once you’re outside of the time-slice problem, and once you’re outside of moving, moment to moment, to stay with a sliding present, you don’t have that same situation, and then it’s more like the crystal analogy that we gave you a long time ago, in which we said that the volume of the crystal has innumerable places in it, all of which interconnect. They don’t move, it just depends on which way you shine your flashlight.
Did that answer the question? Your switching system is because your consciousness is required to hold things together while you’re moving from moment to moment in the present. That is to say, while the present is moving around you and you are staying up with it.
[End of transcript from The Sphere and the Hologram; resuming transcript of 1-26-2015:]

[Rita:] “The guys” were making an incomplete and only approximately accurate statement, because often – especially with new material – that is the best that can be done. The actual memories reside in what people call the Akashic Record, in that everything that occurs – whether seemingly physical or seemingly mental or seemingly emotional (as if any of those could exist in isolation) – is automatically recorded there. In a sense it could be said to occur there, because that “record” is not separate from life but is life.

However, that last point aside, our brains

F: Wow, that was different! First it was you forming the sentence, then it was me, as I realized when I had written the word “our.”

R: Mark that subject “to be continued.” It is a sign, by the way, that this process is continuing to refine your perceptions. For your comfort, I will continue the sentence. Human brain tissue contains access points that allow us to access the memory, but those access points are more like local copies of the original than like independent replications.

F: I don’t understand that last statement.

If you consider the brain tissue that connects to the memory, realize that if it were quite that simple, —

R: Hmm, this requires a longer discussion than we should begin toward the end of a session. I will resume with that in our next meeting. Meanwhile, let me wrap up other aspects of that first question by saying, again, that consciousness is not a quality, to be included or not included depending on what we’re considering. Consciousness is part of everything.

Note: I did not say everything is a part of consciousness, but consciousness is part of everything, in the same way one might say either “humans ae spiritual in nature” or “spirits have human experiences” and come up with a different meaning.

F: I feel like I muddled that last.

R: You’re tired. Leave it at that, and we’ll come back to the subject.

F: Doesn’t feel like we’ve come very far today.

R: It’s hard for you to judge when you can’t see things as a whole because you are within a life of time-slices. Clearing away misconceptions is valuable work, and implicitly constructive.

F: All right, till next time, and I trust you are enjoying the process.

R: I always loved to teach. Thank you for your effort and attention.

Sunday, January 25, 2015

F: 6:45 a.m. So, Rita, Bob asks what consciousness is.

[Bob Friedman’s question — #6 in this series:

[“What is consciousness, what is it made of, and how does it work, that allows it access to all six dimensions (or however many there are) at once? Is this 3-D consciousness a piece of that larger consciousness, and if so, can she describe that?

[“From what she says, we are all part of that larger being that Frank draws. And this larger being is part of even larger beings, and presumably it all is part of what Seth calls All That Is, which is the totality of consciousness (which some call God) and all it `creates.’ It’s well known that all our materialist scientists together can’t explain the nature of consciousness. Maybe Rita can give it a go, with information that some of these more open-minded materialists can explore further. What would they look for? Is it ever `provable’ or even describable in 3-D, since it is so much more than 3-D and the physical brain?]

F: I don’t suppose that will take you more than a couple of minutes to explain.

R: Every language describes the world differently. In effect, each one describes a different world, psychologically, because the assumptions of the language are built into it, and then they feed these assumptions right back to the users. Some are better at describing these things than others, because of the level of the people who developed them to express their view of the world.

We aren’t going to explore linguistics here, but I want you to be aware that language makes you, or tempts you to, consider some things as real and definite, which in fact belong to an entirely different order of things.

Thus, the word “consciousness.” It is natural (at least in English and in many Western languages) to think of consciousness as a condition rather than a relationship; or even as an object (if a non-physical one) rather than either a condition or a relationship. This is inappropriately concrete.

I need you to understand this point, or anything I say about it will be a waste of words, time, and effort. Those of you who are familiar with other definitions, please, suspend what you know and consider this as if you had never pondered the problem. After all, if previous answers satisfied you, why continue to look, but if you keep looking, why bother if you are only going to say “that isn’t what I read here, or was taught there”? After you ponder this, is the time to relate it to previously absorbed ideas. Otherwise you are just going through the motions. Sorry to sound so directive, but I need you here, now (whenever you read this) if you are to get anything at all from this work.

F: I understand that. It can be a problem, not letting some background programs in our minds run while we try to concentrate on one thing.

R: I well remember it! That’s why I am reminding you in advance. And, parenthetically, that is the value of our minds once we have left the body – we can serve to translate 3D experience accurately because we know first-hand what it is like to function in those conditions. You also find it hard to remember the context we have been creating, which – if you disregard it – results in your attempting to cram new explanations into old, inadequate, contexts.

F: Aha. New wine in old wineskins!

R: One aspect of what Jesus meant, yes. There was more, but that is not our subject today.

Suppose – this is not a diversion – suppose you were to ask me what gravity is, what it is made of, how it works. Or love. Suppose we tried to find a way to make it provable to those who doubt what it is or that it is. Suppose we tried to do so for the aether.

You know the story of the man who was looking for his lost keys where the light was brightest rather than where he dropped them. One point of the story is that you can’t look for something where it is not, no matter how favorable the conditions. That is, you can look, but you will not find!

Consciousness is a condition of life, no less than gravity is a condition of life on Earth or than love is a condition of separated elements feeling their essential unity. You won’t find life without consciousness any more than you will find anything in creation that is somehow not alive. The form of the consciousness will vary according to condition, just as the form of life varies according to condition, but the one is as universal as the other.

It might be theoretically possible for a fish to scientifically investigate what water is, but it isn’t very likely. And even this is an inadequate analogy, because water is to a fish what air is to a scientist, and scientists can study air. But how can scientists study consciousness when they cannot see it in contradistinction to unconsciousness because nothing exists without consciousness any more than anything exists without gravity?

They don’t understand this, of course, but that is the nub of heir difficulty. Not realizing that everything is alive and conscious, they cannot realize that there is no place for them to stand outside of consciousness to measure it.

The world is made up of certain essentials, and cannot in any way, at any place, for any time, exist without them. We keep coming back to it – you can’t have height and depth without width. You can’t, any more than you can have a system of numbers with a gap in it (regardless of nomenclature; I am speaking of the unbroken unity of the reality).

Can you see that all the background you have been given to this point is not only invisible to your hypothetical scientist but actually antithetical to the context of everything he has been taught? You cannot expect very many of them to welcome such an upheaval, any more than medieval scientists welcomed Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo, and for the same reason. Their system had been worked out in great detail and had great precision within its range of competence, and the new system seemed to them a flight of fancy.

If a scientist were to examine this question of consciousness from the starting point of a 3D world created out of the non-3D, however, he or she would quickly see that consciousness, love, and other essentials were the framework on which 3D reality was constructed, hence were built into it, hence could nowhere not be there, hence could not be studied in any way that assumed it as an element that could be studied from the outside. Qualities of consciousness, yes. Conditions of consciousness, manifestations of consciousness. Not consciousness itself. The best anyone could do would be to

F: Sorry. Lost it.

R: It was, perhaps, a bridge too far. Let it stand: The study of how consciousness manifests in different conditions (among plants and minerals, for instance) is possible. The contraposition of consciousness and a hypothetical unconsciousness is not, because the hypothesized conditions contradicts the conditions of existence. Again, try to imagine the world without love, or without gravity. You can sort of do it, in a science-fiction-y way, but not really, because it can’t hold together.

F: I know readers will pose the question, so I’ll do it for them. Love?

R: You see cruelty or indifference, and you think, “we know what absence of love looks like,” but you don’t, because it (that is, absence of love) does not, and can not, exist in the 3D world. What you observe is love restricted to too small a circle by various people – at an extreme, the circle being confined to themselves only. But even here, and even when they also hate themselves, without love there could be no existence, because it is the air you breathe, know it or not, approve of it or not, conceive of it as even a possibility, or not.

Perhaps this answers the question, and if not I am open to follow-up questions as always, but your hour is up.

F: I was always told that teachers get into the habit of speaking fluently for 50 minutes and then dry up. I see the habit persists.

R: You were also told, or read, that Edgar Cayce did fine bringing through messages when he confined it to once or twice a day, but rapidly depleted his body when he tried to do it too often, too long.

F: Point taken. I think today’s material will start a lot of rabbits running, and it should be interesting to watch you run them down. Our thanks as always, and I’ll see you hopefully tomorrow.

R: Don’t count on seeing me.

F: [Smiling.] I still can’t get used to hearing that sly humor. Okay.

Saturday, January 24, 2015

F: 6 a.m. Ready if you are, Rita.

R: Still working on Charles’ question, trying to convey my own experience, as he asked. It feels like describing how to make a watch, in response to someone asking what time it is, but I don’t see what else is to be done.

[Charles’ question, the fifth such question we posed: “I know that a misunderstanding could occur if everyone believed all death experiences would be the same. I also know that everything, including 3-D life, is subjective. With that in mind, Rita, would you please tell us your “subjective” experiences? The “specifics” that Bob and I would like to know pertain to how you, Rita, are perceiving your “existence” now. Most, if not all, of the readers knew you as Rita here in 3-D. Most of us have read that in the afterlife beings take on a body, continue learning, help others make the adjustment, act as guides, as well as other “activities”. So, bearing in mind the question does come from a 3-D mindset, would you tell us what “life” is like for you now, maybe as you might write a letter describing your new environment and activities to someone after you’ve moved?”]

F: I always told him, we’re in the position of a fish at the bottom of the ocean trying to envision a man at the top of a mountain watching television – to say nothing of trying to imagine the TV show.

R: Yes, it is a lot of translation, even for an ascended fish looking over the man’s shoulder.

Now, I said that the 3D dimensions are a part of the general reality that includes the higher dimensions. And I left off last time promising to begin with the function of partially-3D beings such as ourselves in the greater scheme of things. So here goes.

First, realize that one way to classify –

Well, I suppose I’ll have to backtrack first. I need you to realize actively that the higher dimensions are well populated, and most of the inhabitants have not had the 3D experience. That is, among various Larger Beings, some include 3D elements and some do not.

F: Did I get that right? Something didn’t feel quite right, like I slurred something.

R: Very good. Probably I wouldn’t have stopped to correct you, because I don’t like to interrupt the flow unnecessarily, preferring to go back later and correct. You heard, “some Larger Beings have, and some have not, had the 3D experience.” But in fact the only beings to incorporate 3D elements (as far as I know) are what I am calling Larger Beings. The others appear more unitary, though in this I may be mistaken.

That is, Larger Beings appear to be more composites than unitary – more like compounds than like elements, if you will. As far as appears to me – and to the Larger Being of which I am a part, and to whose knowledge I have access, you understand – we are communities of individuals which are themselves communities of individuals – ad infinitum, practically. This is so of necessity because we are units formed (deliberately, and for a purpose) of heterogeneous elements that otherwise never would have fused, because outside of 3D conditions they never could have fused.

So a more correct statement would be (picking up where I was), the higher dimensions are filled with Larger Beings at least partially shaped by the 3D experience, and by another type (or, probably, types) of being that are unitary in nature because not formed by the close association of elements in 3D conditions.

F: So, less Earth School than Earth Blast-Furnace.

R: Or Earth Smelter, yes.

F: And between the lines, I’ve been having a struggle that makes me smile. I keep wanting to write “the heavens” and I keep forcing myself to stick to “the higher dimensions,” thinking how it would have grated on you, in life, to have used such an expression with its religious connotations.

R: You may use either translation, provided it is understood that “the heavens” does not exactly mean whatever comes to the reader’s mind because of an association with the word “heaven.” At the same time, I acknowledge that in turning my back on Christian tradition as an indicator of spiritual realities seen and described in the past, I missed something. The problem is that too much of religion is dead repetition without understanding, as if following rules and forcing what is thought of as belief could lead to any growth of understanding, or any valid experience which, in turn, might lead to a growth of understanding. However, if that problem can be overcome, there is much value in it. Whatever your tradition, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, whatever, delve into its mystical component and you will find very valuable indicators. Only, don’t throw out the baby. It is of no advantage to swap beliefs in the hope that a new belief system (including one based on what I am telling you) can advance your understanding more rapidly. The best such a switch could do would be to clear the field of misunderstandings, but perhaps at the expense of allowing the same mental habits that constructed the first misunderstandings to busily start constructing new misunderstandings.

So, to return to the point, the heavens are filled with at least two kinds of beings, those who have been shaped by the 3D experience and those who have not. We are different, we perceive differently, and in the larger scheme of things we serve different functions.

I have said, if there are six dimensions (or 12, or however many; I am not writing a physics textbook and I cannot say how many, first because I do not know and second because I suspect “how many” would turn out to be a matter of interpretation, in the way that any different scale of measurement produces different results because including or excluding different levels of detail) – if there are x number of dimensions, we must be in all.

That is a true statement. However it is an equally true statement that one could be not in all, but in none. Or, more closely, that one could be in a different set of dimensions, that either overlap with those we know, or touch them tangentially, or are entirely separate. These other beings who have never been in (or should I say were not formed by) 3D appear to me to live in a universe that has overlap with ours (or how could I perceive them?) but does not entirely or even largely overlap ours. And so, one function of the Larger Being of which we are a part is that of interpreting 3D to those who have not experienced it and never can.

And where do you suppose the Larger Beings derive the knowledge they pass along? Where if not at least partially from us? And we, of course, are part of them, and so you must see that our function is to be one part of beings that change. They change continually, by preference but also because that is their nature.

As far as I can tell, beings who have not part of their being in 3D do not and cannot change – which makes our Larger Beings unique and thus uniquely valuable. Is this much clear?

F: I seem to remember stuff from our sessions [in 2001 and 2002, which were published as The Sphere and the Hologram] that might have been trying to say something like this, but it has been a long time, and I’d have to look it up. Humans were the trickster factor in the world, as I remember.

R: That was a somewhat different context. That described humanity as the species that deliberately and continuously changed its environment, often unconsciously.

F: I used to wonder why beavers couldn’t be considered to be doing the same thing.

R: The response, you may remember, was that beavers were transforming in a regular way, within limits. They cut down trees and dammed rivers, but they don’t mine ore, for instance.

No, I’m saying something different. In the heavens, there are our Larger Beings, and there are others, and we are a unique factor among them because of our origins, our nature, and our effect on everything else. But bear in mind, for all I know the heavens are filled with other kinds of beings equally unique. But this is beyond my first-hand knowledge, even drawing on the memory-banks (so to speak) of the Larger Being I am within.

Our unique function includes successively modifying 3D conditions partly by creating new beings – creating new souls – on a regular basis, and partly by other interventions. Obviously, if you are going to modify, you are going to monitor. And such monitoring in a way is a good description of my “daily” life now.

But what does that mean? Am I continually watching the news, so to speak? Am I fixated on the 3D world I just left? Well, as so often – yes but no.

Yes, in that I preserve my awareness of the 3D dimensions (or how could I be interacting with you, even though your mind itself extends to the higher dimensions?), but no, in that I am equally interacting with others here as we share information and thus refine our understanding.

F: Your perpetual research project!

R: In a sense, yes. And our mutual interaction “up here” is not without purpose, any more than my interaction with 3D is without purpose. But remember, the purpose is not merely whatever I might want it to be. As any subsystem serves the larger mechanism, and as any organ serves the body it is a part of, so I serve the Larger Being, and in that is no flavor of subservience or coercion. I am doing what is natural, and how can that not be comfortable and fitting? All beings strive to fulfill their nature.

F: Hmm. A lot to chew on, there. Do we go on to another question, or do you care to say more next time?

R: Perhaps it would be best to leave this question and answer for a while – to marinate, as you like to say – and move to other things. They will illumine aspects of this answer, and it will illumine them.

F: All right, well thanks very much. I’m getting feedback that says people are enjoying and profiting from this, and on their behalf as well as mine, again thanks.

R: You’re welcome and as you’ve heard before (and I heard when I was in 3D) our thanks from “over here” for your attention.

Friday, January 23, 2015

F: 6:40 a.m. All right, Miss Rita, ready on this end. I just re-read the past two days’ information, to try to keep it fresh in my mind, and I notice how hard it is to stay focused, rather than have a part of my mind – the larger part, it sometimes seems – wander off on tangents suggested by the material. And that doesn’t even count the tangents that have nothing to do with the material, but refer to my life in other aspects. Still, reviewing seems to help on this end, so I assume it helps on your end.

R: It does, but wouldn’t if you attempted to keep what you just read front and center, rather than as recent background. That would amount to clutching at it, and how can you actively clutch and at the same time be receptive to new material? I know you would think you were trying to keep it where the new material could actively associate with it, thus conglomerating them, but it doesn’t work that way. It would be a more subtle form of clinging to the familiar (even though only familiar for one or two days) while trying to move into new territory. So let this note serve as a guide as to how to absorb the recent while receiving the new. It is a valuable hint, or will be to some.

F: All right. So how do you want to continue? Or have you said all you wish about Charles’ question (which I will repeat here when I print this out}?

[Charles’ question: “I know that a misunderstanding could occur if everyone believed all death experiences would be the same. I also know that everything, including 3-D life, is subjective. With that in mind, Rita, would you please tell us your “subjective” experiences? The “specifics” that Bob and I would like to know pertain to how you, Rita, are perceiving your “existence” now. Most, if not all, of the readers knew you as Rita here in 3-D. Most of us have read that in the afterlife beings take on a body, continue learning, help others make the adjustment, act as guides, as well as other “activities”. So, bearing in mind the question does come from a 3-D mindset, would you tell us what “life” is like for you now, maybe as you might write a letter describing your new environment and activities to someone after you’ve moved?”]

R: Look at where we have been (assemble it by making note of the two sessions’ transcripts).

F: All right:

No “other side” or separate afterlife or absolutely separate individual (i.e., not separate from the larger being of which it was formed).

All of us, physical or non, in all dimensions regardless where we are focused.

Once free of the body, four possible orientations: on 3D, or on non-3D, or alternating, or expanded to include awareness of both.

R: Yes, very good. All this is standard pedagogical technique, you see. Present something new, connect it to previous material, set forth a recapitulation of the material, and do it all over again with new materials. The first mention requires many words, but each reminder serves only to bring into awareness what has been absorbed, so requires only a shorthand allusion to it. It is, in a way, a process of creating shorthand descriptions so that many more things may be held in consciousness together. Slow starting, but ultimately greater potential for communication. And that is why those without patience can only be taught by hard experience.

F: I know the old saying – “experience is a hard school, but fools will learn in no other.”

R: Fools, but also people who are not fools but are crippling themselves by impatience, or what you could call spiritual greed, or those who cannot rouse themselves from their accustomed formulations, but rather try to fit new material in prematurely. I say prematurely because after all, at some point new ways of seeing the world have to be meshed with everything else that you are – but you can’t mesh something new unless you have it, and you can’t have it unless you first consider it in itself (as best you can) without forcing it prematurely into agreement with what you are used to thinking.

F: You can’t explore by staying home. Same old story.

R: Same old story. So – look back at that capsule summary and we’ll go on.

F: Okay.

R: I experienced the fourth option: having been prepared by my present (that is, immediately past) life, and by other lives that were comprised in my being, and by the larger being itself, which, in sum has its own characteristics, I was able to expand my consciousness to what I truly was, rather than only the 3D representation I had just emerged from, or any non-3D models I might have had, or an alternation of the two. And, I’m sorry, but that warrants what will seem a lengthy digression.

F: Go ahead.

R: Several digressions possible, in fact, because of course they are not digressions but additional equally important facets of the situation.

1. Past lives. If our beings – our 3D personas, perhaps I should say – are composed of many strands, and those strands are not really traits, as we deduced when talking to “the guys” in 2001, but are each previous individual lived-out-in-3D minds (as well as other factors that more truly could be called traits), you can see that each of them will have its own biases that will enter into the total. Indeed, how else can it be? Creation of the bias is the point of physical existence! Still, it can add up to many internal contradictions that may be more obvious once we are no longer confined (and, somewhat, protected) by the limits of consciousness in 3D life.

2. Remember that the Larger Being is not a code-word for God. A much closer analogy would be a family or group. That is, any ten Larger Beings would seem to each other as individual as any ten people in 3D. They don’t have an uncountable number of 3D-live within them, and neither are they the 35.6 they used to tease me with when I used to ask how many I was talking to. Like ourselves reading this, they are societies that function as individuals. As above, so below. The world – the universe, call it what you will – is scaled.

Actually, that will do, as far as digressions, because the third point is not a digression at all, but a continuation: Expanding my awareness changed me, in effect, yet left me what I always was.

It changed me in the way that any new way of seeing things amounts to a new experience, which, integrated, amounts to a slightly or significantly altered being.

It left me unaffected in the sense that the particular individual consciousness that I had just laboriously fashioned in nearly 90 years of Earth-life was not altered or expunged (which would defeat the purpose, would it not?) but remained a resource.

F: It depends on which one we contact.

R: So to speak, yes. I am the same old Rita you knew, and that is our connection (or, more properly, one of our connections, but I throw that in only for the sake of completeness, and to serve as a reminder later that what you are getting does not contradict this shorthand statement). But I am also so much more than the Rita you or I knew, because I am the being of which I only partially and occasionally partook.

Both, not one or the other. And I am aware of this because my consciousness expanded, rather than choosing or alternating, once free of the confines of 3D time.

So now, consider what this means, in terms of my immediate perceptions upon dropping the body, and in terms of my “day to day” existence here, which – I have not forgotten – is the nub of the question.

When I transitioned, or “went over,” or dropped the body – think of it as you prefer – the fact that I was able to expand meant that I had no need of analogies to serve as bridge, as I mentioned earlier. Therefore, after the brief moment of reorientation, my life here assumed the pattern it has maintained since.

And – here is the nub of it – that meant that I ceased to function as an autonomous individual in the way I thought myself to be while in 3D, and resumed functioning – or rather, assumed my position for the first time, “Rita” not having been previously in existence before the life that created and shaped her – as a part of the larger being.

In other words, don’t think that you, “coming over to this side” (as you persist in thinking about it) will set your own priorities and busy yourselves with your own projects and, perhaps, find yourself at a loss as to what comes next. Such reports as you have had of people in that fix are reports of 3D individuals who are fixed entirely on non-3D but are not yet aware of their proper place as part of the larger being. You could consider them victims of amnesia, in a way. They don’t know who they are beyond the self they grew and became accustomed to in 3D.

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.

And – our starting place for next time, I hope – you as an individual element within the larger being are a specialized function, a specialized organ, for you came out of 3D, and hence are the Larger Being’s window on the 3D world, or one of them.

And there is your hour.

F: Thanks, Rita. You remain a brilliant teacher. Till next time.

Thursday, January 22, 2015

F: 6:30 a.m. Rita, you said 3D life is in support of non-3D life, just about the time I ran out of gas. Is that where you want to pick up?

R: I am continuing to answer the question of how I spend my time here, as part of what I experienced as I moved my consciousness from a 3D focus. It isn’t a question that can be answered in 20 words or less.

[Charles’ question: “I know that a misunderstanding could occur if everyone believed all death experiences would be the same. I also know that everything, including 3-D life, is subjective. With that in mind, Rita, would you please tell us your “subjective” experiences? The “specifics” that Bob and I would like to know pertain to how you, Rita, are perceiving your “existence” now. Most, if not all, of the readers knew you as Rita here in 3-D. Most of us have read that in the afterlife beings take on a body, continue learning, help others make the adjustment, act as guides, as well as other “activities”. So, bearing in mind the question does come from a 3-D mindset, would you tell us what “life” is like for you now, maybe as you might write a letter describing your new environment and activities to someone after you’ve moved?”]

If you bear in mind the conditions I described “yesterday” (to you), you will see that nearly all descriptions of the afterlife you have ever received have been analogies, conscious or unconscious, designed to motivate, to encourage, 3D consciousness to

F: Dammit, went wool-gathering. Again?

R: There is no hurry. Just stay with the process and we’ll get there.

Descriptions of the afterlife are analogies, for one simple reason. Describing additional dimensions (or rather the effect of awareness of additional dimensions) in terms comprehensible to fewer dimensions can only be analogy. So what’s the solution? Twofold: (1) work hard remembering (on both sides) that it is analogy, (2) work hard (on the receiver’s end) to stretch to try to feel the meaning rather than to read it as a logical exercise or a travel story.

Any such description is provided in the hope of encouraging the reader or listener to make just such a stretch of comprehension, because the very process of stretching will open new possibilities. What did our Sphere and Hologram book do, after all, but put into words new ways of seeing things, for the purpose of helping people to stretch? What did Seth do, and intend to do, but the same thing. But it does no good to read something intended to change you by making you aware of unknown parts of yourself as if it were merely a travel diary that assumes (and leaves) the accustomed 3D life as if it were a stable, fixed, immutable reference point.

Prime among distorting background assumptions is the one that thinks 3D and non-3D are two different things. They are in that they are relatively different. They are not in that they are points on a bell curve rather than either-or.

That’s why I started with my experience while in a coma. When I was ready and able to drop the body, I moved pretty seamlessly to a new awareness, because I had been moving toward it for eight years, not to say my entire lifetime. After all, who suggested to me that I suggest to you that we do weekly sessions to follow up your new information obtained in 2000 and shared with me and others?

So what happened? Because I refocused from 3D to non-3D consciously, I had no need to reorient myself. That is part of what I meant in saying my past-life review was merely a process of seeing my 3D life from the point of view of my non-3D component.

Because I didn’t need orientation, I didn’t need analogies or scenarios. Hence, no past-life review, no crossing the river of no return, no white light, etc. All that is a 3D-oriented description of a change in consciousness, and the process that enables or smooths the change.

So, seamlessly, I was “there,” or “here.” But what did that mean?

Immediately, it meant a sort of reorientation, as I remembered that my non-3D self experienced my 3D life as I lived it. Then I knew that I had been in the higher dimensions all along, regardless how oblivious to them I was.

But at the same time, I realized that I was still in the 3D dimensions even though not focused there – because, again, how can there be any dimensions we are not in? if reality is six-dimensional, you can’t be only in three non-physical dimensions, any more than you can be only in three physical dimensions. In either case, you can be aware only of some and not of others, but in no case can you not actually be there.

Think about that!

Really, think about it. You always were in the non-3D dimensions, but your awareness of them differed at different times, and certainly differed by different individuals. It isn’t any different from “the other side,” from the higher dimensions. We remain in 3D, though our awareness varies both in time and between people.

Now, if you move over thinking you are exchanging the physical world for the non-physical world, what you experience (at least internally) will differ from what you experience if you realize that you remain in the one, undivided, reality, moving only your focus. And between the two extremes may be found every description of “the afterlife” ever expressed. By the way, can you see the assumptions hidden within the word “afterlife”? you might taste what it is like to think of it, instead, as the “non-3D life” or “life beyond 3D” – assuming you can hold in mind that you always did live in non-3D, regardless of your focus.

Now, if you are still with me, you may begin to see why contradictory accounts of the non-3D initiation and continuation are all expressing any one aspect of a huge and simultaneous experience. Words are too slow and sequential to show it easily but I will try to give it in word-sketches, and maybe Frank can come up with a line-drawing to express it as he did with TGU’s self-portrait.

Hmm, let me try that right now. I get what you intend to say. Let me fool with pencil and paper and if I get something, I’ll sketch it here, and if not I can always continue. My assumption is that you will help provide the sketch.

Well – I will try to keep the point to be illustrated clear in your mind. But the actual work of translating it will be up to you.

F: All right, let’s see.

[Six sketches.]

All right, that didn’t take long. I don’t know how I will reproduce sketching on the computer, though.

R: As an interim measure, merely scan the page and include the scan as an attachment. Meanwhile, say a few words on the six sketches.

F: [I will scan them when and if I figure out how to download new drivers to accommodate windows 8.1]

All right. I drew a vertical line with a sort of tripod at the bottom. The tripod represents the three physical dimensions; the vertical, the extension of ourselves to the other dimensions, however many of them there are.

Our awareness after death may remain in the 3D, in which case we are “stuck” and may benefit from a retrieval.

Or, it may move entirely to the non-3D, forgetting Earth (that is, the 3D dimensions).

Or, it may alternate between the two.

Or, it may expand to incorporate the whole.

R: I think you will find that even this description of these very simple stick diagrams makes it more comprehensible, what I am to say.

F: I think so too, just as our earlier sketch in 2001.

R: In my particular case, I experienced the fourth possibility, after a relatively brief period of concentrating on the new non-3D dimensions. But a description of all this must wait till you are recharged, as your hour is about up.

F: Interesting to have to participate in a more active way. Thanks for your continued efforts here, Rita.

R: You’re welcome, and I now understand what “the guys” – our non-3D dimensions – meant when they expressed equal gratitude for 3D attention to the problem. Only in 3D can you act, as you were always told. That doesn’t mean quite what it appears to mean, but close to it.

F: All right, till next time.

As it happened, answering this question took more than one session.

Wednesday, January 21, 2015

F: 5:40 a.m. Rita? Charles’ question?

[Charles’ question, given to me the night before as usual, was phrased this way:

[“I know that a misunderstanding could occur if everyone believed all death experiences would be the same. I also know that everything, including 3-D life, is subjective. With that in mind, Rita, would you please tell us your “subjective” experiences? The “specifics” that Bob and I would like to know pertain to how you, Rita, are perceiving your “existence” now. Most, if not all, of the readers knew you as Rita here in 3-D. Most of us have read that in the afterlife beings take on a body, continue learning, help others make the adjustment, act as guides, as well as other “activities”. So, bearing in mind the question does come from a 3-D mindset, would you tell us what “life” is like for you now, maybe as you might write a letter describing your new environment and activities to someone after you’ve moved?”]

R: I know what they would like me to provide. It is what I wanted too, when I was in their situation. It is what you would like as well. But how many contradictory stories would you like? How many will be enough to satisfy that need? Will one more definite story delivered with or without nuance and caveats help anybody to understand anything? No, it won’t. it would only force or encourage people to choose among visions.

No such story will accomplish what is needed, which – I say it again although it seems to me I have said it continually – is to replace the unconscious and conscious assumptions with new ones.

What good is it to describe an afterlife or a version of the afterlife or a specific of “the afterlife” – when the entire preliminary point is that there is no separate afterlife?

What use is it to describe “the other side” when we are trying to accustom you to the idea that there is no division in the way you have been thinking about it?

I don’t object to the question – anything that is on your mind will help clarify the situation – but I will keep coming back to the point that you don’t move into new territory by remaining in old territory. Not that exploration requires abandoning everything you think you know but that it requires entertaining an entirely different structure.

Suppose I were to say, I was met by Abraham at the River Jordan? Or I entered the Re-education Center in Focus 27? Or I found myself in Summerland? Or I merged with All-There-Is and live in cosmic bliss? Or I found myself in an analog to physical existence and had to remind myself, from time to time, that I was not “alive” any more?

I am not mocking the question. I am trying to shake you from the habit of thinking you can hear something new by putting it into accustomed terms. I can draw analogies, and they may be helpful and anyway are needed to bridge the gap between preconception and unsuspected reality – but by definition an analogy is not a photograph. Something that is more or less “like” something else is clearly not like it in other respects, or it would be not an analogy but an identity.

Now please move from where you started. To get any benefit from this or any communication, you have to do more than be open to hearing; you need to prepare the ground. And that means be actively aware, while you read what I or others have to say, that at least some of what you have constructed as a mental framework is wrong. At least some things you may have discarded or may never have considered are right, or more right than you have considered. Thus, in Christian theology you will find many glimpses of another way to see things, just as Frank always insisted and I resisted. This is not to say the Christian theologies (for there are more than one) are right, or that I see things in those terms. It is to say, merely, that here as elsewhere you may find valid hints.

As for instance, angels. Have you thought of angels as “beings” who have not had and will not have the 3D experience? Have you thought of the relationship between such beings and the other beings – the Larger Selves of 3D beings – who have had it? That is the kind of thinking you will need to do, if you wish to follow me to the new ground I hope to bring you to.

I have not forgotten the question, and I don’t intend to dance around it. I am trying hard to assure that you put yourselves into a place where you can actually hear something new and not cram it into accustomed ideas.

– No “other side,” but only additional dimensions not clearly perceived from 3D, and hence crammed into attributes of time.
– No afterlife separate from physical life, but one continual life that always partakes of all dimensions.
– No separate self that dies and goes on to a non-physical experience, but a seemingly separate part of a larger being that moves from relative isolation to recovery of its awareness of unbroken connection.
– No external objective environment outside of 3D, no subjective shell, but one undivided reality. (This does not mean no relative separation into units – what am I if not that? It means, you realize that you are a part of everything in a way that will require some extended discussion, another time. Make note of this as another question, perhaps.)

I have to say, I am afraid that as soon as I move to the next part of this, you will immediately forget what I just said, and will busily pack everything new into your accustomed containers, thus preserving your comfort at the expense of your potential growth in understanding. I know, from personal experience! There is nothing harder than realizing, all the way down, that you are hearing something new. That’s why so much reportage from “the afterlife” is so contradictory. I used to wonder if “the guys upstairs” ever got frustrated in their attempt to communicate. I think now, the answer is yes and no. Yes because so little gets through the mental filters. No because it is a worthwhile effort, and every communication that does get done is worthwhile and satisfying.

Now, you will think I am only now getting to answering your question. If so, that will serve as a sign to yourself that you haven’t really heard anything I’ve said so far, but have been impatiently (or perhaps patiently) waiting for me to “get to the point.” Well, I have put out the signs; it is up to each of you, whether you follow them.

I spent my last days in a coma. That meant, my body was abandoned in terms of my conscious supervision. I could maintain a form of focused consciousness that is possible only in the body, yet not have to focus it on keeping the body safe and functioning. Thus, I could experience “the afterlife” in a way impossible after dropping the body.

I see that I must explain that. Bearing in mind that we extend to all dimensions (because there is no other way it can be) and that the conditions of 3D life result in our consciousness being intense, focused, and narrow in extent, you can see that it is a greatly different viewpoint of the higher dimensions than is afforded when our consciousness is centered in the higher dimensions without the focusing effect. In a sense, the coma was the best of both worlds when it came to exploration. But this was only because I was ready for it. An unprepared mind would not be able to comprehend, though it might observe. Another way to say it is that our backgrounds and biases form the limits to what we can comprehend, which is why reports and scriptures differ.

As I lay in a coma, as I went exploring possibilities, I saw things still in my accustomed manner – and why should we expect anything else? We do not suddenly (nor gradually) become someone else just because we distance ourselves from, and eventually drop, the body. So, I saw research projects, you might say. I saw continuities rather than new departures. The differences I saw I attributed to new conditions, the similarities I attributed to my remaining me.

Then, I finally was finished with that tethered form of existence. I released the body and hence released my connection to the factor that centered my attention in one 3D focus. That does not mean I left 3D. How could I? If we are always in all dimensions, how can we leave any of them? Instead, it means my consciousness was released from 3D conditions. I was no longer constrained, and, in effect, the barriers between my consciousness and the conscious presence of my larger being were removed. (This is analogy, remember. Not barriers of any kind, really, more an accustomed focus.)

Now what situation did I step into? (And here you hope for a description of day-to-day reality, forgetting or disregarding everything I said at length earlier. Try to get beyond that.)

I saw that I was part of a being – one being among uncounted others, by the way. The Larger Being is not a code-word for God, nor for The Human Race. That being, that in a way could be looked upon as my creator, or perhaps like my parents, or like the soil from which I as a newly formed separate intelligence had sprung – that being always exists regardless of sojourns of any part of it into 3D. The 3D experience – each 3D experience, I should say – only adds to the total. It is valued, but it is not the central focus of the being.

So, my consciousness remained, and it also transformed, or I should say acquired an alternate way to experience itself. And, parenthetically, I think that may be the simplest explanation of what people call the past-life review: It is their sudden seeing of their life from the point of view of the larger being. Because they return to 3D, they naturally report the experience in 3D terms, which is not wrong but is radically incomplete, as if you were to describe a person only as seen from the right-hand side and not from front, back, and left, not to say and from above and below, inside and outside.

I suddenly realized (that’s how it would appear from the 3D point of view) that “Rita” and Rita’s whole life were (a) only a small part of my being’s life, (b)

F: Phooey, lost it.

R: It has been over an hour. Not surprising.

F: Well, let’s try to get through what you were saying.

R: When my consciousness was released from its 3D-centered existence, I saw all the unsuspected background of my life – all the non-3D activity that was going on while I graded papers, so to speak – and I realized that neither my 3D life nor the non-3D life centered on 3D. It seemed to, while I was there, or was focused there, I should say, but in fact it did not. 3D life is in support of the larger life, not vice-versa. But I’m afraid we will have to pause here, because it can’t be expressed as an addendum.

F: Thanks, Rita. I can feel the effort you are exerting to try to make a true statement, and I appreciate it. I can say, I wondered how you would respond to the question. It is still true, isn’t it, the better the question, the better the answer.

R: Still true. That’s our hope here.

F: Till next time, then.

Tuesday January 20, 2015

F: Good morning, Rita. Bob [Friedman]’s follow-up questions. Number two I think I could answer from what you’ve given, but I’ll be interested in your response to them all.

[Follow-up questions from Bob:

[“What I mean by specific is more detail about what is perceived (both by the former 3-D person and others perceiving them) when he/she crosses over: 1) Is there a body of some sort resembling the former body? We often read about the “astral body” — is that similar in any way to the physical body, and are others, either parts of the greater entity or other former physical persons, aware of this body/person as “Bob” or “Rita”? 2) Do the memories of “Bob” carry over into a new non-physical-brain consciousness? 3) Does the “Bob” life (and presumably other past and future lives), or any former physical entity now on earth, gradually or ever lose awareness of its memories and traits from the former 3-D life?”]

R: I see. You want to know how the nonphysical part of the world appears to your consciousness when you drop the body. But it seems you really want to know “how is it really” in the afterlife. Is it solid or not, do we have form or not, is it a continuation of this or that aspect of physical life. Believe me, I recognize the question – it is one reason (of many) that led me to suggest to Frank that we do weekly sessions, to explore just that kind of issue. But my agenda got hijacked by what we were calling the guys upstairs, or what I had been instructed years before to call “energies,” and I see now why: to answer my questions as posed would have encouraged me in misunderstanding.

[1) Is there a body of some sort resembling the former body? We often read about the “astral body” — is that similar in any way to the physical body, and are others, either parts of the greater entity or other former physical persons, aware of this body/person as “Bob” or “Rita”?]

Answering what sounds like an easy uncomplicated question in this case is neither easy nor uncomplicated, but we can try. The simplest answer is, people perceive (a) what they need to perceive, or (b) what they are able to perceive – and those two conditions change with time and experience, so their perception also changes; thus, if you are expecting heaven, you may get it, and it may not last! Nor hell, nor nothingness.

But that simple answer does not mean what it appears to mean – that it is all some sort of imagination-game. We have to consider two things more: who is the “you,” as usual, and who is the other, or what is the other.

As to the first, remember, the prime change when you drop the body is that you cease to be unaware of the rest of your being. I put it in that double-negative form purposefully, because “cease to be unaware” has a different set of nuances than “become aware” or even “remember again.” It is not an act of will on the part of the soul departing 3D life, but of perception. It is more like opening your eyes than it is like determining to see.

If the newcomers to life unencumbered by the restrictions of life in the physical world are able to become seamlessly aware that they are part of a larger being, that’s one thing. If they think themselves the same unit, only now deprived of (or relieved of) the body, that is a second thing. And – more usually – if they are somewhere in between, it is a process and so “the afterlife” seems to change around them as they change.

If you will go back and look at Bob [Monroe]’s first book, you will see anomalous descriptions of the afterlife, discrepancies he was unable to account for and was unwilling (bless him!) to suppress for the sake of an apparent consistency. This is less a matter of the afterlife’s nature changing, or of it having different compartments with different attributes, than it was of his approaching it with different attitudes (mostly unconscious of the difference) at different times.

Consider, too, the experiences of Lifeline retrievers. You go to do a retrieval. Your consciousness is inserted into a scenario not of your choosing, you connect to the mind that is lost or stuck, the person has an epiphany and “moves on” as you say. Did the afterlife change, objectively, for that person? It changed subjectively – and in the absence of an anchoring physical body holding you to 3D conditions, the distinction between objective and subjective cease to exist!

Re-read that, please. It is important. Many of the discrepancies and apparent contradictions in reports from the “afterlife” – including descriptions of heaven and hell among religions – stem from lack of realization of this very important fact. “Objective” reality is only possible in 3D, because of its conditions. We were told that in the past, Frank, but not in so many words, only by implication, and neither of us understood it in that way.

This is why in the “afterlife” there can be no deceit, no concealment. This is why there is perfect justice, and why things automatically sort themselves into perfect order. And it is why the 3D world was created (one reason why): to provide a place with perception of separation, and delayed consequences, and the cohabitation of elements of different types [in one body] so that they may similarly associate in the non-3D world in a way they couldn’t otherwise.

The simplest answer to your first question is that there are as many answers as there are experiences, because everyone’s subjectivity is the only objectivity. That isn’t the end of the subject, but enough on that for now.

[2) Do the memories of “Bob” carry over into a new non-physical-brain consciousness?]

Your second question is easily disposed of. Not only your memories but everything about you including facets you have no hint of while you are in the physical world “go” with you, because you are what you make yourself, and making you was the whole point of your 3D existence. In addition, as I said earlier, the non-3D mind is accessible to all. (However, this is true while you are still in 3D, as well, only you may or may not realize it.)

[3) Does the “Bob” life (and presumably other past and future lives), or any former physical entity now on earth, gradually or ever lose awareness of its memories and traits from the former 3-D life?”]

Your third question leads us into very interesting territory, via one of those “yes but no” answers we became so familiar with.

First, no, because why should it. But this answer has two caveats that amount to “yes, in a way.”

First caveat: As you digest experience, you change. That is what absorbing experience means. And something that has been assimilated has no reason to continue to exist as a separate piece of data. So – the Larger Being of which Bob is a part holds his memories as it holds everything about him, but the better it assimilates his life, the less prominent any specific item in that life – such as memories – becomes. Why should your Larger Being remember your old telephone numbers or ZIP codes? They are still there; they are so little needed or consulted that they might be considered to have been forgotten. And this says by inference that the most important things in your life sort out to the top, which is only what you would expect.

Second caveat, a more interesting one: The interaction with the 3D world helps determine what is forgotten or remembered.

This one bears thinking about, and requires background, and then we’re done for the moment.
All minds exist in “the non-physical” and interact according to nonphysical rather than physical rules, as we have said. In 3D, you access your mind primarily through your brain; nonetheless the mind, which cannot be destroyed, exists beyond the confines and accidents of the 3D world

Your consciousness in 3D is limited and bright – the comparison the guys gave us is apt: the difference between star-glow that is all-extensive but relatively dim and a flashlight that is narrow but intense. That your 3D consciousness is narrow but intense is the result of 3D conditions. (Your mind itself remains unaffected, but its expression is focused.)

Therefore, your attention from 3D to someone not in 3D has the effect of lighting up their consciousness. In effect, you provide an energy boost that results in their seeming more “there.” An example is just what we are doing now. This process focuses your attention on me, and so I am more aware, in a way. This is what we outside of 3D get out of this process, over and above what else we want to accomplish. You have heard of the “hungry ghosts” concept, perhaps. That energy boost is what fuels it.

So, you can see that as you are forgotten by those on earth, you in effect lose awareness. Not really, for nothing is ever lost, but in effect. Nor is this necessarily a bad thing. An adult is not necessarily dependent upon being able to remember the details of childhood, and what advantage would it provide?

So, that’s our morning’s work, and thank you for the interesting questions.

F: Thanks, Rita, and we’ll talk again whenever we do.