Rita on compound beings

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?]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 –

R: I contrasted what we – following the guys’ nomenclature – are calling the Larger Being, on the one hand, with angels. The contrast was between a compound being, that by its nature changes continually, and a unitary or perhaps we should say internally consistent being that does not and can not change. Each has its function, and the functioning and the nature of each can be best illustrated by comparing one to the other.

Again – I dislike being so repetitious (to the point of tedium, it seems to me), but let me remind you to bear ever in mind in these discussions the nature of reality as undivided rather than physical v. non-physical. If you allow yourselves to slip back into the accustomed scheme dividing physical and non-physical as if they were different universes, rather than different parts of the same universe, your thought will split into two, probably unknown to yourselves, and rather than a reorientation you will experience merely a playing with words.

But if you can remember that reality is undivided and that what you are experiencing in 3D is really only a localized version of a more comprehensive experience, you will remember that there can be no true division into body and spirit, only a different placing of emphasis. You in bodies nonetheless inhabit the higher dimensions you are mostly unaware of. We not in bodies nonetheless inhabit the 3D world though our consciousness is not tethered to it by bodies, and is not limited to it by the tricks of perception caused by living in time-slices and relying primarily upon sensory data for our orientation.

Thus you can see two things. First, interaction is continuous, whether perceived or not. Second, your, as well as our, field of activity is not limited to 3D. (This sort of ignores the fact that, as I have said, “we” and “you” are not separate from each other; that fact alone should demonstrate that one cannot be in one place only and the other in another place only.)

So it will be worth your while to remember that when we say “the Larger Being” we refer to the beings of which you, and we, are part.

Now, this is such a simple statement that it requires considerable explanation to be sure that it is not misunderstood. And, a short digression to tell you why that is so as a general rule: The shorter the statement, the greater the chance that it will be accepted without processing. You might think, “well, that’s well and good,” but in fact it allows you to create your own version of what it means, because a host of unconscious associations will arise within you, and will be attached to the words, and it will seem to you that the short statement “obviously” meant something shaped by your unconscious assumptions.

F: Colin Wilson used to call TGU “the Man Upstairs” in emails to me, which showed me that he was thinking of them as singular, and probably thought I was employing a code-word for God. There is no way that TGU can spell The Man Upstairs, so it seemed clear to me that Colin, who was way too intelligent to make such an elementary error, was seeing what I was saying through his own filters.

R: As everyone does, of course. The trick is to become as aware of them as possible, so as to become able to correct for the consequent (and antecedent) bias. That is the value of thinking about these things rather than merely accepting or rejecting them by reference to the understandings you bring to the discussion ahead of time.

So, process the question of what “The Larger Being” suggests to your mind. Realize that there is no way you can trust unconscious assumptions to be correct.

Re-read that, if you will. I realize that it seems to contradict the very process of trusting intuition that we are engaged in (for how different is it, to trust intuition or to talk to “the other side” or to receive messages from one’s own non-3D self?), but in fact it is very much consistent with one of the major themes you have received, Frank, from the beginning of the process of active communication in the 1980s – use both processes, logic and intuition. Use both analysis and perception. Avoid Psychic’s Disease and Closed-Mind equally.

And so you can see that this is one reason why that is to be desired: Only by receptivity can you expand beyond sensory-driven logic, but only by conscious thought can you discover and correct for unconscious bias.

Bearing this in mind, among the many things “The Larger Being does not mean are:

All humanity
All creation
Yourself and a few kindred souls only
The creator of the universe (if you conceive of this as different from God)

Any of these assumptions will send you down different garden paths. For our purposes, let us define them so:

Larger Beings incorporate smaller but similar consciousnesses and function in a way that is different and incomprehensible to those elements that comprise them.

Remember, you experience yourselves (usually) as if you were units, whereas it is at least equally true to say that you are communities. In fact it might be closer to the truth to say that an individual in 3D is a community learning to function as a unit, and the unit is designed to function as one unit in a larger community functioning as a unit, and so on and so forth, all the way up and down the chain of being.

[At first I wrote, “one unit in a larger community learning to function as a unit,” but then I stopped, went back and changed “learning to function” to “functioning.” I note this because it felt like a correction was being insisted on, and in the process of transcribing, I see that the two versions convey very different meanings. Apparently 3D is about learning, and from then on whatever we are, we continue to be.]

But “the chain of being” doesn’t include non-compound – integral – beings. It refers to compound beings.

F: Does this imply that our cells are themselves compound beings?

R: That is exactly what it implies and it is true, what you intuited, that you as an individual are the equivalent to them of their Larger Being, and your communications to them are equivalent (to them) of messages from TGU. That is, they experience communications from another order of intelligence whose true mode of operation is a mystery to them.

F: Again, as above, so below.

R: Yes, only bear in mind, the world is full of many things besides compound beings formed of 3D experience. And one way in which the Larger Beings are compound is that they may be composed of elements some of which have not been shaped by 3D, as well as some which have. Just because we examine any given element in isolation does not mean it may be rightly be considered to be truly isolated. All things connect. It is merely that for the purpose of close examination and analysis, you can only look at so much at a time.

F: I was struck by something you said in passing yesterday to the effect that any generalization is a slurring of certain differences and an emphasis, perhaps an over-emphasis, on certain similarities.

R: Given time and attention such distortions iron out, but it does take time and attention.

Now, your hour is over, and a bit more. I believe we have answered the question not as posed but as it would be better posed. If not, we can come back to it.

F: The only loose thread I see is “how is this useful in daily life?”

R: There could be two alternate answers to that. One, the answer is implied in the description of what the Larger Being is. (Consider the difference between our definition and the unconscious assumptions built into the term Higher Self, for instance.) The second is, “that’s a large topic in itself; either that, or it is the theme of this entire work.” Sorry to be so cryptic, but that’s enough said, at least for the moment. We can continue with question #12 next time.

F: Okay, Rita. Continued thanks.

One thought on “Rita on compound beings

  1. Wow…this is a much larger organic concept for me of how we exist on this 3D/non3D spectrum of ‘life’. It helps to shift that old concept of higher self being a main non3D connection and see we are much bigger than we can realize…if I am getting this right. I had a flash of Swedenborg’s work maybe having an insight into this. The body/cell analogy was helpful and underscores the importance of our choices in how we care for it as well.
    Felt my head expand 🙂

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.