Rita — Question 5 (3)

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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.