Thursday February 19, 2015
F: 3:30 a.m. Okay, Miss Rita, since it seems I’m not going to get any more sleep anyway, we might as well start. I haven’t counted the questions Charles proposes as possibilities, but there must be a dozen of them. Where would you like to begin?
R: Let’s start with my comment about autism, or the way my comment was held to apply to autism and other situations.
[Charles: Rita said, “Much that seems abnormal and even catastrophic around you – the explosion of autism, for instance – bears within it the seeds of things unsuspected but not therefore undesirable.” I think anyone who is or knows someone who is autistic would appreciate knowing more about the “seeds of things unsuspected but not therefore undesirable.” I’m thinking particularly of parents I know who have an autistic child having difficulty coping in 3D. What can they learn from non 3D that can help both the child and the family?]
The response is based in a misunderstanding, perhaps. What I did not mean in particular was that autism or any other physical condition that distorted a given person’s relations with the 3D world was in and of itself necessarily a precursor of a change in the conditions of life. What I did mean was that lives lived under such conditions produced souls with a very different experience of life, hence with a very different composition.
F: I think I’m getting where you’re going, but it’s going to have to be spelled out a bit.
R: Feel free.
F: I get that you’re meaning that, again, the important thing is not the 3D experience but the non-3D soul that emerges from that experience, and that such souls are different somehow from souls that have not gone through something similar.
R: Yes, only don’t exaggerate the difference. Just as autism is in some ways similar to people’s experience of life under heavy cocaine usage, so in a different way it may be similar to lives lived under permanent or persistent physical afflictions that by their persistence add a certain flavor to the life, hence to the soul.
So, to answer the question as posed, I’d say don’t expect that the condition will necessarily produce anything recognizable from within 3D existence. It may, it may not. But the fact that 3D is now throwing off so many autistic individuals means that the non-3D is receiving more souls shaped in such circumstances – just as it is receiving many souls shaped by lifetimes overshadowed by drug usage – and therefore it will have an effect. But given that the effect of anyone’s addition to the non-3D mind is not obvious to you in 3D, you mustn’t expect to be aware of the difference, nor is it necessarily important that you be.
F: “The seeds of things unsuspected” had more to do with the non-3D pool of possibilities presented by diverse minds than with anything seen in the body.
R: Yes, but not entirely yes. Over time this will affect 3D reality as well. However, you may or may not make the connection. But that’s enough on this for the moment.
Charles’ second question?
[Rita said, “At any rate, it is those who experience 3D reality who serve as interpreters of 3D to those who have not experienced it.” Would Rita explain more about those beings who have not experienced 3D. How is 3D life beneficial to them? Do they use this information to serve as “helpers” to those who are presently in 3D? Any other information about beings who have not had 3D experience would be appreciated.]
All right, but I’m going to disappoint him, I think, because mostly I’m not going to answer the question, for one good reason. Suppose I tried to paint a picture of life in the non-3D as it applied – or rather, did not apply – to those still in 3D? What could that be but a theoretical exercise, a speculative venture of no practical use in rearranging your notions of who you are and why you are, with all the practical results that flow from that?
F: You don’t intend to explain the TV show the man on the top of the mountain is watching. The fish at the bottom of the sea have more pressing concerns.
R: Not “more pressing,” even, so much as more practical. What is beneficial to the non-3D world, as I have explained before, is that the conditions of 3D life allow the creation of non-3D minds that could not have come into existence otherwise.
The creation of compound beings – souls made up of many strands that learned to live together and hence grew into a single habit-system – is unique to the 3D world. And “world,” I remind you, doesn’t mean Earth as one planet, but means all of 3D creation. And “3D creation,” I remind you in turn, is one part of an undivided reality. Don’t let yourselves step back into thinking of “our side” and “your side.”
As to the part of the question about non-3D beings serving as helpers, this is a misunderstanding. What 3D beings experience as “helpers” or angels or higher selves or larger beings can only be – well, how to say it?
F: How about this? We can only connect to the parts of ourselves that are outside 3D, not to beings that are entirely non-3D, hence anything we get from non-3D beings has to be via our own extension.
R: Not quite. Not wrong, but many nuances are wrong. It would be better to say only compound beings can communicate between 3D and non-3D, but in practice since compound beings can also communicate with non-3D beings, it appears more seamless than it is. Your own non-3D portion of yourself – your larger being of which you are a part –
F: Sorry, lost it in that long parenthetical expression.
R: The point is this. You naturally relate this whole discussion to the 3D world around you. But really it centers on the non-3D world that is so vastly greater. We compound beings and products of compound beings are a specialized breed – the non-3D’s hunting dogs, I suppose you might say – but most of reality is not hunting dogs.
F: So, life elsewhere is largely incommunicable to us, and anyway isn’t very much our business?
R: Anything that interests you is your business, but that doesn’t automatically mean you can access it. Nor does it mean an intellectual curiosity is always the most urgent item of business. Let’s move on to the next question, as it is connected to this one.
[Rita said, “The non-3D has a stake in the creation of 3D minds, and therefore a stake in 3D matters in a way quite different than you in bodies commonly think.” Would Rita explain how their “stake in 3D matters” is different than we think?]
I explained that their stake is in the creation of new viewpoints in itself. It has nothing to do with outcomes in 3D except in so far as they make further development easier or harder – or rather, in so far as they point things in one certain direction rather than another. But Earth is not the only game in town, so it is a mistake to think that everything hinges on what happens in the next presidential election, or in the course of changes in present civilization, or in the rise and fall of races or cultures.
F: Understood – though I think that statement would have startled you, while you were in the body.
R: Oh yes! But you know, they do say travel is broadening. Number four next.
[Rita said, “No, the list of things we don’t care about from this side is extensive!” What would the list of things non 3D cares about include?]
[I misread this as “the list of things non 3D doesn’t care about,” and Rita answered it that way, apparently responding to what was in my mind rather than what was written and misread. Interesting.]
Pretty much everything you care about other than the composition of your character and the nurturance of your soul. Politics, ideology, economics, technology, religion, science, — you name it. I suppose I should add, “except in so far as they cause or reflect changes in what and who you are.” In other words, we don’t care about the results of the latest elections, but if you participated in some way, directly or vicariously, we would care about how that experience changed you.
You have to understand, everything is upside down from the way you think of it. The individual is everything, and the abstract mass – be it class or nation or race or anything – is just a shadow. Do you think the Democratic Party means anything in non-3D? if it did, then what of the Czarist Party in Russia, or the populares in ancient Rome, and so forth? But any given soul is of unchallenged worth, because it is real, it is a creation, and it is unique.
F: One more?
R: One more, and your hour will be up, and probably a little more than up.
[In the 17th session Rita said, “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!” What would constitute a “success” that would “create an enduring resource”?]
This is simpler than it seems, in concept, but may not be so easy to grasp in detail. The short answer is, to the extent that a lifetime created a unique new window on 3D, it is valuable. But it if did not, not.
F: That sounds awfully cold.
R: I know, it sounds like we are saying “that life wasn’t really worth anybody’s time, forget about it.”
F: That is exactly what it sounds like.
R: And that is both an accurate and an inaccurate summary of our position. The closest analogy I can think of offhand is fishing. If any particular cast doesn’t catch a fish, we pull the line back and case again. Would there be any point in leaving the line in the water so we wouldn’t “waste” the cast? Do we hurt the line by pulling it back? The apparent callousness stems from your viewing it from the 3D, which tends to make illusions seem real and reality seem illusory.
And that’s enough for the day,
F: Pretty nearly an hour exactly. Okay, our thanks as always, and we’ll see you next time.