Rita — suffering and the perception of separation

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 mater 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.

R: Pretty much everything we’re doing is for others to benefit from as well, if they can. A distinction between what is meant for one and what is meant for all is usually an arbitrary one anyway.

F: So as you know, Charles has provided quite a queue of suggested questions around the topic of suffering, and the related topic of good and evil. And as you no doubt also know, we’re perfectly happy with you proceeding wherever you wish to go. What you don’t answer today in one way will probably be answered another day, in another context.

R: That’s right. You might think of this as a survey cruise.

F: Meaning, I take it, the peacetime cruises the U.S Navy used to make, and perhaps still does make, in which the ship is aimed down a specific line and soundings are taken every so many feet until they have a chart of depths along that line – and then they alter course, go over the same ground at a different angle, and do it all again, until they have a pretty accurate map of the depths beneath their keel. Thus, survey charts. Probably an obsolete procedure in this era of satellites, but of course I don’t know. In any case, a nice analogy to what we’re doing.

R: If you keep to that analogy, it should ease any anxiety you might have as to whether we will miss something important if we go left instead of right, up instead of down.

Also, I remind you, there’s no hurry. We are not having to hasten to catch up, lest we get left. The 3D world has been going for quite a while, and the non-3D world for quite a while longer than that, so it isn’t like there’s any rush, here. Impatience, yes, and well I remember it. But rush, no.

Very well, let’s look at a few of those questions and I will try to clear the ground of misunderstandings, and we’ll see where it takes us.

F: Okay, here’s the tag end of Charles’ earlier question that hasn’t been addressed yet, I think. After citing a couple of statistics on the prevalence of suffering in the world, he asked, “Is the 3D person choosing these circumstances? Is it true that no matter what happens, car accidents, cancer, etc., we in 3D are making the choice? Or, is non 3D making the choice and we in 3D are the focal point to see how we handle it?

R: Yes, this is a good starting place, and you might as well throw in the other question that he suggested might follow depending on what you got about the first one.

[Martha’s question: “Every day I ask what in the world can be the purpose of all of the suffering in the world? After eons of time, haven’t these so called Larger Beings had enough of it? I’m sure their 3-D strands would appreciate a break from these never-ending plotlines of pain and war, disease and poverty, pollution and cruelty. And back to yesterday’s session, could she expand on the part about non-3-D entities that interact with us and how much influence they have as telepathic trouble makers or helpers?”]

I hardly know how to address the question, as it is so laden with hot buttons wired to dynamite. Any given angle of approach – speaking of surveys! – presents problems not so much inherent in the material, though it will seem like that, as inherent in people’s ingrained automatic responses to approaches to the material. I mention this not as a complaint, nor really as a description of difficulty, so much as a red flag so that readers many be aware of their own part in their reactions. An emotional reaction usually seems inevitable, as if any right-thinking person would naturally have to respond to a given statement in a certain way. But in fact, just as I mentioned a moment ago, it is always a choice, but the individual may or may not be aware that it is a choice. So, reader, if you feel your hackles rising, it would be valuable for you to observe and choose your reaction. Valuable entirely regardless of what your finally chosen attitude is. This in not about opinions, but about consciousness.

Charles’ question rests on an assumption that is not true, and so does Martha’s. The assumption, all the more powerful for being unconscious, of course, is that there is a meaningful difference between you in 3D and we in non-3D. The very language asserts this to be a true distinction – the language of my previous sentence asserts it – but it is wrong, and I have been at some pains to build a picture of reality that would help overcome this linguistic bias.

This is one world. We all extend to all of it. There is no division between 3D and non-3D in the commonly accepted sense; no “veil” to penetrate, no bridge to cross to get to the other side; no “other side.” One world. 3D beings are part of larger beings that may be partly in 3D and partly not in 3D, but are of the same substance, and therefore of the same nature, functioning in different terrain and therefore appearing different.

I know it can be difficult to hold that in mind, but to the extent that you can, you will avoid many complications that are apparent but not real. That is, they seem real, but are actually optical illusions.

If 3D and non-3d beings were units, individuals, and could be validly considered to be different in nature rather than all part of the same thing, then it would be possible to look at life as a matter of “who’s responsible, here? Who is pulling the strings, and who is being made to dance to them?” but suppose you asked that of movements of your legs, dancing? Who is responsible for the movement? The brain directing? The localized intelligence executing? And what difference would the answer make? It would be an unmeaningful answer, because it is an unmeaningful question.

F: And it tempts us back into the villains-and-victims scenario.

R: It does. If one or the other is responsible, one or the other is to blame, or is being put upon. So, you are dancing. Is your brain to blame? Is your link to the non-3D (where your mind, rather than your brain, resides) to blame? Is it your legs? Is it your nervous system, your musculature, your acquired sense of balance? You could decide upon an answer, but it would be the result of a decision, rather than the necessary conclusion presented by an impartial review of the facts.

This doesn’t answer Martha’s initial question, “what in the world can be the purpose of all of the suffering in the world,” but it does dispose of the follow-up statements posed as questions. Since you are well beyond your hour, we can stop here and continue next time with just that question, which after all is the root of all the questions on the topic — what is the purpose of suffering in the world?

F: All right. It seems to me the process of typing directly into the computer continues smoothly enough to warrant further continuance. Yes?

R: I’ll let you know if I see a problem.

F: Till next time, then.

10 thoughts on “Rita — suffering and the perception of separation

  1. “The assumption, all the more powerful for being unconscious, of course, is that there is a meaningful difference between you in 3D and we in non-3D.”

    Conscious or unconscious, if there didn’t appear to be a meaningful difference between 3-D and non-3-D, we wouldn’t be here reading Frank’s conversations with you, Rita. We’d be having our own. And probably understanding with crystal clarity the purpose of suffering in our lives and in the world.

    Thank you for continuing this discussion.

    1. I’m wondering if you are missing the point that it isn’t “us” and “them” in the sense of two sides (or two street gangs, for that matter), but two aspects of our own nature. We are part animal part divine, would be the way the medievals would have said it, i suspect. We are clearly part of the 3D world, yet we extend to the other dimensions as well (everything is always everywhere, remember) and so on the one hand we do participate in 3D first hand and another hand we are part of those who are observing second-hand. (A lot of “hands” in that sentence! Harry Truman used to say he was looking for a one-armed economist, so he wouldn’t always be saying on the one hand, on the other hand.)

      1. I don’t visualize “us” & “them”. I see myself as a 3-D branch of a larger entity, which I picture like an ever-changing Allium shubertii, shimmering with choices taken and probabilities realized. All of the spikes are personalities and the whole flower is the larger self, which itself is part of a larger garden I’m not aware of at my level. But even with that pictorial approximation, I do feel a separation from the insights and purposes of the larger self, even if I am an integral part. And I wonder why so few are able to feel not separate. And if I felt more “connected” to my larger self, wouldn’t it be easier to make better choices in life? Inflict less suffering on myself and others?

        1. i don’t the answers to your questions, but i do know it is easy enough to become closer to your non-3D self. Intuition, empathy, meditation,– anything that takes ego out of the center and puts the non-3D in the center where it belongs. my guess, anyway.

  2. So if we try to understand the unity of all and the as above so below, it leads, me at least, to ask if there is predation in the non 3D. Are the wars and starvation here merely shadows of the wars and starvation that occurs in the non 3D?
    Great thanks to Rita and Frank for doing this work.

    1. we’ll see what Rita has to say about it, presumably, at some point. My own horseback guess would be that the same forces and tendencies exist in non-3D as in 3D, but the lack of 3D’s special defining characteristics means they wouldn’t manifest in the same way. We are continually conditioned, remember, by an environment of perceived separation; a relentlessly moving “present” moment, hence delayed consequences; relative amnesia as to the rest of what we are; limited ability to hold more than a certain amount of data in mind at the same time, etc. Naturally we are going to be more prone to paranoia, panic, scarcity-consciousness, etc. OTOH I suspect that if evil and the will to subjugate others exists in 3D, it existed first in non-3D. How it manifests — well, we’ll just have to ask Rita. For that matter, she may well say i’m all wet, but i can handle it.

  3. Frank,
    Perhaps adolescence provides a good analogy to help understand questions like “why so few are able to feel not separate.” We’ve all experienced adolescence, lived through it, and (hopefully) learned from that growth. We’ve felt the separation from what we were and knew (childhood), and the emptiness being filled with growing connection to adulthood.

    So in a way those feelings of separation are a sign of growth, of a loosening of our grip on what we’ve been and of growth into what we’re becoming. For me the information that you and Rita make available is a great help, to better understand the physical world that takes up most of my present attention, and to grow into better connection with the non-physically world that my attention (like everyone’s) will inevitably turn to.

  4. Hi Frank,

    It’s been a while since I’ve visited. I’m following the conversations with Rita with great interest. I know some of the information she’s sharing and some is new, or perhaps delivered in a new way. It’s caused me to ask spirit some new questions, and, as my guide always directs, to ask [maybe] the right question. I do a lot of healing work with great success, so the topic of suffering is relevant. Surprisingly, although it shouldn’t be, a new guide is communicating to me and answering some of the questions Rita’s answers raised. I’m grateful to you both for that. The guide described himself as universal energy and when he said it I heard telepathically, creator and creating. I asked, what’s the purpose of suffering. His reply, “to highlight that you don’t need to.”
    “Because you persist.”
    Does it [suffering] serve a higher purpose?
    “Is there a lesser purpose? You [humanity] persist. The fragility of your struggle ultimately will cause you to perish. Your will will sustain you.”
    Fragility? Struggle?
    “You answered your question. To struggle is to be without foundation. To struggle, lacks purpose. Your purpose is to live, not suffer. Suffering is habit created by choice.”
    I paused and thought about reincarnation.
    “You return [return didn’t feel like the right word] to live, not suffer.”

    This conversation, which felt like an instruction, left me thoughtful.
    I wonder if Rita had something to add. I love what you do and how you do it. Thank you again for sharing.
    I’m reading The Sphere and The Hologram now.
    Cheers, Simon

    1. Thanks, Simon, that’s very encouraging. You yourself know had affirming it is to feel that you have been employed to help others; that what you do has had a positive effect.

      as i ponder this reply, i hear “suffering is the difference between what is and what you would prefer.” That seems to imply a simple way out of suffering! I’ll pass this on to Charles and perhaps he will pose it to Rita at some point.

      1. Thanks, Frank. I like that, the difference between what is and what you would prefer. It does imply a simple way out, which is what spirit always encourages. It’s seeing, or being that ‘way’ that is at times elusive. The ‘difference’ is tension. When I’m healing, between the present state of illness and the future, sometimes immediate, state of health there’s tension, a tense vibratory field — unordered chaos. The universal energy guide instructs I can replace one state with another. Eliminating the way of healing [technique] and the journey to wellness. Illness to health. I’ve witnessed it happen, but can’t identify how it happened. I feel what the guide means, but can’t intellectualise it. A simple way.

Leave a Reply

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