Monday, January 19, 2015
F: 7 a.m., All right, Miss Rita, I will put Bob’s question here, and I will re-read it, and hopefully off we go.
[Question 3 (from Bob Friedman)
[The material [on Saturday] prompted some thought on the transition period. I understand broadly what Rita is saying about going from the limited 3D perspective to a broader perspective of some sort of collective soul. I found myself wondering just how the “Bob Friedman” personality and collection of experiences, beliefs, work, etc., is perceived “over there” in the non-physical realm. Does one maintain all those memories and personality traits as “Bob,” or is one more of a conglomeration of everyone’s experiences in the so-called “collective” of past lives, other soul parts and their experiences, etc.? In other words, more specifically, how does one perceive oneself on the other side and how do others perceive the former earthbound “you”?]
R: A good clarifying question, and the answer is just the kind of “yes but no” answer we used to get, or, no “yes but no,” but more like “either and both.”
Back in our sessions, early on, we were told that the guys regarded our minds as little more than habit systems, and I don’t remember ever pursuing that very vigorously. So perhaps now is as good a time as any.
The whole point of creating a soul in a given time and place, comprising certain traits and predispositions, is to create an enduring resource; so, when successful, there would be no point in throwing the elements back in the soup! A point of view, an accustomed collaboration of elements in new container, is an accomplishment. It is valued. Certainly Bob will continue to be Bob as, for instance, I continue to be Rita and all those past lives people connect to on occasion continue to be themselves. No need to fear dissolution! However, that isn’t the end of the story, because the opposite – or what seems to be an opposite – is also true. In effect, we ae all one; in effect we are all individuals. So if you ask for some specific information, it is the equivalent of doing a “search.” The information is here, and if it is here, it is available. (The limits on information are on the 3D receptor’s end, not on this end.)
I am not yet sure what you mean by “specifically.” I recognize that you don’t wish to be fobbed off with generalities, but I don’t know what else you want. I am of course willing to clarify or expand if you can let me know what you have in mind.
Meanwhile, these thoughts on the subject. Has it occurred to any of you yet that this question, and things I have said already, provide a good deal of clarification into the process of soulmaking?
Take the word “traits” and substitute “minds” or “lives” or “past lives” or “other related minds” and see how this sentence reads:
A new soul is created by the combination of many past traits into one time and place and genetic structure.
I am tempted to sit back and say, “Do you see?” – and if I were in a classroom, that is what I would be inclined to do, for anything reasoned out by oneself is more permanent and definite than something presented by another. But – as Frank doesn’t like waiting (a joke) and as we want to use his time as best we can, time being a limited resource – here are the implications I want you to get.
– Everyone on earth (that is, in 3D) may be considered a community of certain past individuals.
– Everyone is thus a recapitulation of what has gone before. This will need to be filled in.
– The mental world in 3D as well as beyond it is thus made continually more complex and attains more possibilities, because any combination of previous elements has greater potential for complexity.
– This is why change is a continually accelerating process. With each iteration, the building blocks are more complex, so the resulting new entity can become yet more complex.
– As was said earlier, time experienced as chronology matters. You can’t tear down the pyramids before they are constructed. You can’t use simple lives as building blocks until they have come into existence, nor can you be used until you have come into existence.
– This, by the way, or perhaps not so “by the way,” is the truth behind evolution. It is not that things continually get “better,” whatever “better” means. It is that things build on prior things, resulting in ever greater possibilities.
F: That’s quite a lot from one question. I get the impression you want us to rest on our oars, even though it has been only 20 minutes.
R: No, that is more you panting and gasping for breath because it came out so fluently. Take a moment to recalibrate. Sip your coffee. No rush – but as I said, we must use your time while we have it.
F: Yes, I heard that, and I didn’t take it to be a pre-obit, but a reminder that tempus is continuing to fugit.
R: Not in the context you are considering it, however, or let’s say not only in that context. It is true that your time and energy and attention are limited, as is everybody’s, but I am not concerned that you won’t complete the work. My concern is that it be completed in a timely fashion. People are finally ready for this new understanding (or nearly so, from your perspective), and it will be a shame if we do not provide them with this new utensil.
F: I look back at my black-box sessions of 2000, and your and my sessions of 2001-2002, which were at your suggestion, and I see suspicious footprints.
R: How does a footprint entertain suspicion?
F: Very funny – that isn’t the kind of joke I associate with you, Rita.
R: Remember, I both am and am not the same person.
F: Yes, need to remember that. Okay, more?
R: Let me say it explicitly –don’t hold all this for eventual polishing into a book. Get the material out as best you can – TMI Explorers list, your friends, your blog, Facebook – so that it may marinate. If it becomes a book, all right, and this moment-by-moment dissemination won’t hinder but will help the book. And if it never becomes a book, it will still have been put out there.
F: This reminds me to ask about the many-versions idea.
R: Yes but not here or now. Let Charles insert it into the flow as he is moved to.
F: You said, “Everyone is thus a recapitulation of what has gone before. This will need to be filled in.”
R: Perhaps it is obvious to some. It won’t be obvious to all.
Let’s put it this way. A moment while I shape an example. [Brief pause]
Let’s use you as an example, although the detail isn’t right. You were formed in 1946, of certain materials. (And this will enable me to clarify a few things left over from our sessions when I was the inquirer rather than the encyclopedia.)
Your physical heredity is from your genetic heritage from your parents (and, by extension, from their families, emphasized for many previous generations but theoretically including heredity from the first person, that is, forever).
Your cultural heredity is from the environment you are placed in. This includes not only physical surroundings but intellectual and perceptual and emotional influences.
But your soul heredity, call it, is from the previous souls whose pattern has been used in order to fashion you.
I know what you mean (I can feel it) but I don’t think that last part is yet clear.
I am about to be more specific. For you (silently going along with certain erroneous identifications you have made, such as Joseph Smallwood’s name):
Katrina, the Polish-Jewish girl
John Cotton, of Virginia in the 1700s.
David Poynter, the Welsh journalist.
Joseph “Smallwood,” the transcendentalist.
I’ll stop there. You could trace out your spiritual heritage just by examining the qualities of these “past lives” and seeing how they manifest in you. And this is not to mention Bertram the monk or Joseph the Egyptian whose emotional link to the non-physical shaped you so strongly.
Do you see the point of this? You are shaped not of abstract “traits” but of lives that exhibited what we call traits. How could you comprise these lives if the lives weren’t yet lived?
Yet – and this is an important clarification – it is as if future lives exist within you, as well, because – well, take your example. Joseph Smallwood is one of your strands. That means that he is connected directly to you, a “you” which is partly him and mostly other. You comprise all of him – and many others. He, and anyone in what we might all the objective past, equally comprises you as one strand, but in a different way.
F: And I can see that this is a tangled mess, mostly due to linguistic difficulties and considerations of time.
R: Mostly due to the limitations of sequential presentation in words. A picture would present it instantly – if such a picture could be drawn.
F: Well, maybe we can go at it again, at another time. I think it’s time to quit. See you another time. Thanks as always.