Rita — on emotions

January 31, 2015

F: 5:30 a.m. Miss Rita, if you have recovered from your post-birthday hangover, let’s go again. [Pause.] No come-back?

R: The delay wasn’t on this end, and perhaps we should say, wasn’t on your end either. We just weren’t linked for a moment.

F: So that might have been because I wasn’t in the right place – what else might it have been? For, this will interest people, I have no doubt, particularly those who are doing the same thing and occasionally meeting frustration in their attempts.

R: We can go into it sometime; let me think on how to answer it. Meanwhile we can proceed with the questions you have in queue.

F: I am always surprised when I hear from the other side – or from non-3D, or I hardly know how to think of it — that time is required to think something through.

R: That’s only because you still have remnants active of the attitude you began the work with – thinking that beings on the other side must be perfect in so many ways as opposed to life in the physical. Thus, they must know everything (including the future). But – that romanticized and fuzzy view was not grounded in the reality described to us over many months.

F: It is true that I have gradually come to think of the other side – the non-physical side of life – as having its own form of duration, but I’m not consistent.

R: It isn’t that you aren’t consistent, so much as that different parts of you have different assumptions, and different helmsmen steer your ship at different times, you usually not noticing the difference.

F: Correction noted. Do we ever get to the place where our community of comprising strands become a truly consistent unity?

R: Go re-read our book with that question in mind. That is more or less what “the guys” were trying to explain to us about becoming crystallized. But my and your deficits in understanding them led us to misapprehend their meaning somewhat.

F: Yes, I seem to remember maybe applying logic in trying to shape their answer. Or, put it this way, I would have a vague sense and would put it into words as best I could, but the process of putting it into words was warped by my process of trying to square the latest with the previous. That still doesn’t quite say it, but those who have tried this will know what it is to get in their own way by trying too hard.

But I well remember you wrestling with language, unable to really grasp the difference between our 3D experience of time and what they were calling “duration” to differentiate between the two. I think you were really trying – well, rather than put words into your mouth, I’ll let you put words into my mouth, or anyway my pen. What were you experiencing?

R: Like you, I had always read that outside of physical life “time does not exist,” so it was an adjustment to have our friends insist that yes it does, but it’s different. Now that I am here, I can see the difference and can see why it can be difficult to understand it while in 3D. But if you will remember my insistence that 3D and non-3D are part of the same undivided reality, it may be easier to see that the same conditions apply, only modified according to the constraints of 3D existence or their opposite. [That is, constraints or lack of constraints.] But as this side is not unchanging, clearly something separates the two. I had a hard time seeing it, that’s all. [I think “something separates the two” means, something separates the before and after states around a change.]

F: All right, on to this morning’s questions? Or do you want to pursue this?

R: Let’s proceed.

[Jenny Horner’s questions:

[1. Do emotions exist in non-3D Reality? Does Rita experience frustration, irritation, joy, happiness?

[2. We are born as “potential” and create a “linear life” by the linking of experiences chosen and “bestowed” by life’s circumstances. Every step of the journey through a human life, one is “haunted” by the “shadow,” the un-lived potential for both positive and negative capabilities. As humans we are challenged to acknowledge this shadow (not repress it,) and find healthy expression for its energies. Is there a “shadow” aspect to non-3D Reality, and if so, what is its form and function?]

R: This first one isn’t hard, is it? Not if you read our dialogue about it.

F: Maybe this whole project is going to turn out to be an on-going plug for The Sphere and the Hologram.

R: Well, there’s a tremendous lot of material there, as well as a sort of guided tour, or call it an escorted journey, from the more common ways of seeing the world to a much less common way.

F: Plus it was a lot of work to transcribe, assemble, edit and publish! It would be nice if it wasn’t all in vain.

R: The process itself was not in vain. It helped seal your understanding of much that had been brought forth.

F: Okay. At any rate, today’s first question. Emotion in the non-3D?

R: As the guys explained to us, the conditions of existence – or I should say of awareness within existence – are different because of differences in terrain. So, in 3D you experience emotion, as you experience everything in your life, as a localized “hot” phenomenon. Here we experience it as a generalized, hence “cool,” phenomenon.

F: Yes, that’s very clear to me.

R: You will find it is less so to those who don’t remember what the guys said about it.

F: Didn’t they use the analogy of something hot touching our skin and us maybe getting a burn from it because our skin couldn’t conduct the heat away (laterally) fast enough, whereas on the non-3D side, easy and extensive connection means instant and efficient conductance, thus a wider but less intense experience?

R: They said, “you would find it somewhat chilly emotionally,” or words to that effect.

F: However, I think Jenny is asking something more than that.

R: Yes, but it has to be understood in terms of how it is experienced, if what is experienced is to be understood with the minimum of distortion. A yes or no answer – even a “yes but no” answer – would not clarify anything.

So, within that context, I can say that we here experience emotions second-hand as you experience them, say, and first-hand in a way, but really, in such a way that it would be better described as a tinge, a flavor, then as a mood or a change of state.

Experiencing what you experience should not require amplification. As we experience anything else, we experience your emotions. We are permanently along for the ride, whether or not we put our hands on the wheel for the moment. But what we ourselves experience is a little harder to convey.

What we do not experience are the emotions proceeding from a sense of isolation or from a sense of being helpless captives of a process beyond our control or modification. In other words, we do not experience lack of connection, how could we? We do not feel ourselves to be hurtling toward death, or buffeted by “external” events – how could we? So that is a massive difference right there. If anger is the difference between what is and what is desired, doesn’t that depend on a certain sense of time?

F: I could feel my connection wavering on that last sentence. Again?

R: Any emotion stemming from the difference between what you want and what is, depends on a perception of your being subject to circumstances partially or wholly beyond your control. It would be impossible for us here to feel that, relative to each other. We may be opposed in values and even in perceptions, but that is not the same thing as being able to believe in blame. We can’t help knowing better, and not abstractly but practically, with all our being.

If anger stems from fear – what is fear going to stem from, here?

F: Could you say – what just came into my mind, so maybe it’s you saying it, for all I know – could you say that the negative emotions cannot exist outside of 3D, but the positive ones can?

R: Can and do, but again, subject to the conditions I just reminded you of. Reduce everything to love or fear, and see these two polarities as the experience of oneness or separation, and you can see that while that duality is useful and in fact inevitable in a world of duality, it is only slightly applicable outside of 3D. We know we are all one thing. The most we experience of separation is a relative difference, in values, in experience, in what color on the spectrum we represent. Can green hate red? They can be seen as opposed to each other; they are certainly different points in the spectrum; they are certainly not interchangeable. But how could they – knowing that they are part of one thing – hate or fear each other? And without hate or fear, the negative emotions are not here to be expressed. You could say that this is why it is said that all is love. All is the awareness of unity, hence love, hence all the positive emotions.

F: Something of a shock to see that our hour is up. We didn’t get very far today.

R: Far enough, and tomorrow is another day and we can proceed to Jenny’s second question.

F: Very good. Thanks as always.

2 thoughts on “Rita — on emotions

  1. In regard to time on the other side, it might be helpful to look at it as a radial process rather than linear. A central point that is endlessly creating and re-creating the present moment but always connected to and influenced by a dynamic spherical motion that is constantly appearing and disappearing. Like a kind of cosmic breath. In this way all time is present (and I mean that every moment is here now) but also in motion as an infinitely locatable point.

    Consciousness appears to have the ability to dip in and out of time.

  2. Frank?
    I have “felt” in the same way as Charles this time around. Hopefully you do not mind in me to quote something from “Psychic Politics” by Jane Roberts and Seth: “You always form your own experience.
    Each world view exists at its own particular “frequency”, and can only be tuned in to by those more or less within the same range.
    The frequencies themselves, however,have to be adjusted properly to be brought into focus, and those adjustments necessitate certain intents and sympathies. It is not possible to tune in to such a world view if you are basically at odds with it. You will not be able to make the proper adjustments.
    Seth calls Jane as “Ruburt” and he says: Ruburt
    tuned in to the world view of a man known dead. He(Jane) was aware however, of the universe through William James world view. As you might tune into a program on a television set, Ruburt tuned into the view of reality now held in the mind of William James.
    Because that view necessarily involved EMOTIONS, Ruburt felt some sense of emotional contact–but only with the validity of emotions. Each person has such a world view, whether living or dead in your terms, and that “living picture” exists despite time or space.
    It CAN be perceived by others(stressing the “can”)….And then comes “each world view exists at its own “particular frequency.”

    To me it seems emotions will be as frequencies(and each person have the own frequency).

    Hmm,(and smiles)Inger Lise.

Leave a Reply

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