Monday February 16, 2015

F: 5 a.m. Beginning again, Miss Rita. I think today I’ll leave it up to you where we begin, and I’ll try it in the journal, the old way. Something didn’t work out yesterday, and I’m wondering if it is too many variables.

R: Or could it be that things beyond your ability to observe them make some times propitious and others not, and some times extremely auspicious and other times particularly unsuitable. It is a mistake to underrate the powerful influence of the background influences in your lives. You aren’t immune to them, and how should you expect to be? You are a part of the great beating heart of the world, or a part of the great clockwork, if that more mechanical analogy appeals to you – part of a vast undivided eco-system that extends throughout all of 3D (because of course there cannot be any absolute divisions) and extends throughout all non-3D, as well, which is going to be a different thought to you, therefore an important one.

When in 3D – I remember it well – there is a tendency to think that the non-physical world is unchanging, somehow static. But how could that be, given that the 3D world is part of it, and reflects it, and provides part of the background for it, as the non-3D provides part of the background for 3D? it is all in one’s viewpoint, one’s place to stand, which is the background and which the foreground.

Sunday February 15, 2015

F: 5 a.m. Good morning, Rita. Your rephrasing of the question as “What is it in the nature of the world that produces suffering as a by-product?” seems to have opened doors for Charles. He suggests that you continue along that line. Or, of course, we could follow another of his suggestions.

And, before you begin either, I might ask what’s wrong with me this morning. I have rephrased this question several times, I don’t feel particularly clear-headed, though I am not sleepy, and I feel like the temperature here is way too hot, even though I just checked the thermostat and moved it from 65 down to 64. Is there something going on that I should know about? Is this a day when I should use the journal rather than going directly to the computer?


No answer. Maybe I should do this another time?

Saturday, February 14, 2015

F: 7 a.m. Late start this morning, though I don’t mind. Well, Miss Rita, I certainly do feel like I am riding a runaway horse, not for the first time. Performing in public like this is bringing in questions faster than we can deal with them, and now Charles is offering me several questions and saying, if not this one, try this one, or this one, etc.

So – just a note on the process as I am experiencing it – there is the pull of the continuity of your narrative (you say, “next time we could begin here”) and the pull of past threads to be followed (“bookmark that and we will talk about it another time”) and the pull of individual responses in the form of email and blog comments (“Rita said x and such, but it seems to me…”) and Charles’ own requests for clarification from me, and then as I say the posing of alternate questions we could ask.

None of this bothers me, and I’m delighted that enough people are taking the material seriously enough to wrestle with it and respond to it. But I’m sure glad to have that naval soundings survey analogy to reassure me that in a sense, we can’t really get lost. And I’m glad to have Charles’ presence as a sheet anchor to windward. I can see that it would be easy to lose all sense of direction, exploring these things. In fact, I wonder if that isn’t more or less what I have done, all these years.

Friday February 13, 2015

F: 5:40 a.m. Good morning, Miss Rita. I’m going to try this on the computer again, since yesterday seemed to work out well enough. If we ever get to a patch where speed works against me, I trust you will advise me to go back to pen and paper.

R: I would be more likely to advise you not to change your environment but to change your stance within it. Changing your environment is all well and good, but it is a roundabout way to accomplish what may be accomplished easily and simply once you know how to do so, and you do know that. It is a matter of choosing your attitude. Just as you can choose to reject a mood that tempts you – you don’t have to be mad, you don’t have to be impatient, or depressed, or discouraged (nor, elated, exalted, or other varieties of emotional experience more on the manic end of the scale) – so you don’t have to fall into any habitual behavior, once your consciousness is aware of what is happening. So, now, if I were to say to you, “Frank, slow down a little; you’re moving too fast to sink into the connection,” you would know how to do it, and wouldn’t therefore react to the suggestion as a criticism, but as merely a helpful suggested course-correction.

F: Okay. I presume that hint was made for others as well, given that I got the gist of it long before I finished typing out the sentences.

The current issue of Fate magazine has an article by my friend Michael Langevin, titled, “Is There a Real World Hogwarts?” As you may imagine, it’s about the magical possibilities of a certain institute in central Virginia. I must admit, I read only one Harry Potter book, and didn’t like it, so the comparison has no charm for me, but it’s nice to see The Monroe Institute get some favorable ink. I don’t know the demographics about Fate readers, but i would think that at least some of them ought to be interested.

For nearly two dozen years, TMI has been a major factor in my life, and it, and the community I tapped into there, have done more to make me whatever it is that i am than anything else i can name.

If you don’t know about the place, take a look at their website. Poke around, see if intuition prods you in that direction. You never know.

Thursday, February 12, 2015

F: 4:30 a.m. We’ll try it directly on the computer this morning, Rita. I’m too tired to think of writing and then transcribing. We’ll see how it goes. If I can tell a difference, maybe I’ll have to abort and start again in the journal, either today or next time.

But I was lying in bed unable to sleep –unable to turn off the thoughts – and as I expect you know, it started with the dreams I woke from an hour ago or more, particularly the one involving you. For the record, I’ll record the dream. I can’t help wondering if it was a communication from you, or a dramatization of my internal state, or what.

I was doing something – looking in a garage, I think – and I became aware that a car came up behind me, and paused, and moved on, going up an alley on my left. I thought to look at it, and I could recognize your head of silver hair in the back seat. So I followed, but when we were all together, there were a lot of people there. Besides you and me, there was a woman who helped take care of you who I knew [in the dream, not in real life] and her daughter that I didn’t know she had, and my brother Joe, dead these 35 years, who dropped into the scene and lay there, I think unconscious. All those people are in the way of your and my communication with each other and I wondered, either in the dream or outside of it, whether all this controversy about suffering may be creating static on the line, or, alternatively, if static might be the result of doing this wire-walking in public. There were more dreams but I don’t remember them. In any case, your comments please, and then can we continue stirring people up by talking about a subject on which they have strong opinions.

This piece from Salon, which I came to by way of the morning Schwartzreport, is an example of ignoring – overlooking — the elephant in the living room.

The article states, almost gleefully, that the Catholic church’s hemorrhage in numbers is good news politically. It assumes that the origins and significance of the most significant change happening in the West – not just America – are primarily political!

The West is ceasing to be Christian, as ancient Rome ceased to worship its gods, and in neither case did it have much to do with social issues. People leave churches – leave their religion — when they are unable to find what they need for their spiritual growth and sustenance.

I was raised Catholic and had to leave fully 50 years ago. It wasn’t because I disagreed with church doctrine on this or that. (In my experience, American Catholics largely ignore such issues in their daily lives, as can be seen in the scarcity of American Catholic families with three or more children.) Instead, it was because something within me felt I had to.

My life since leaving the church has been a long fumbling search for greater meaning, greater truth, greater spiritual relevance. If my church had provided me that, do you think I would have cared a fig about the hierarchy’s position on birth control?

Those who think a church can be successfully turned into a social-welfare group or a political-advocacy group are in for a crushing disappointment. Society is evolving a new form of group spirituality that will fill the gap the old religions can no longer fill. I don’t know what that new form will look like, but I know it is on its way, and it won’t be the worship of science or consumerism or “progress.” What it will be? Stay tuned.

Wednesday, February 11, 2015

F: 4:45 a.m. Well, Miss Rita, here we go again. Since I spent so much of yesterday sleeping – and wake up a while ago realizing I am well again – no reason to delay starting.

Always a pleasure to remember the feeling of being well. It’s easy to take for granted, no matter how much experience we have. Possibly that’s a good segue to our topic of the day, suffering. But first, a thought on yesterday’s experiment. You said you don’t care how I do it, handwriting or computer, but it felt different to me, perhaps not quite as connected.

R: You were not quite as connected. The method had nothing to do with it. You were ill, and that’s going to affect your perceptions and your abilities. But if you don’t mind the extra work of transcribing, handwriting has the advantage of being a little slower, a little more – well, it gives you a little time to sink into a given sentence as it is being expressed. Your defining characteristic is speed; therefore you experiences its limitations as well as its advantages. So something that slows you down a little is not an obstacle. For others, it might be. One size does not fit all.

Tuesday February 10, 2015

F: 11 a.m. Given that we didn’t get to talk earlier today, and given that I’m not really hitting on all cylinders yet (but given that the alternative is packing books, getting ready for my move!) I thought maybe we could try this directly on the computer rather than writing it out in longhand first. If so, that will save more than an hour of work. Rita, is this fine with you?

R: The experimentation with procedure is fine with me, provided that you don’t let yourself get overextended. Today is a good day for this experiment, in that the questions are small and easily disposed of. Take them in any order you wish.

F: All right, let’s start with this one: “3D is not really a duality but instead a continuum in which we look at both ends of one stick. Is this true of love and fear as well?”

Monday February 9, 2015

F: 4 a.m. Rita, Jim Austin poses the following question.

Well, I had gotten thus far when, re-reading the question that I had printed out for the morning, I realized that it was what we had worked on yesterday, and I had to re-read the previous session in order to remember where we were. So I guess we should resume with a discussion of this much:

[#11 from Jim Austin: “{Rita} strongly suggests we look … at ‘the relationship’ between Larger Selves, those with 3D experience, and those without (later referred to as ‘unitary beings’). In Question 5 (4) she relates that Larger Beings are a unique factor, implying they/we (through the experiences gained in 3D life) are constantly changing. So how is this useful in daily life?]

R: The question is based on a partial misinterpretation of what I meant. I seem not to have made myself plain, and such questions serve a valuable function for any teacher, showing her where she has inadvertently led her students astray. Or “he,” of course.

F: That’s all right, I am not a masculinist, or whatever the equivalent of feminist would be.

R: Oh? I hadn’t noticed.

F: Smiling. Touché. Anyway –