Friday February 20, 2015
F: 3:30 a.m. A choice of several, Miss Rita. What’s your pleasure?
R: Let’s do as we did before, starting at the top and proceeding more or less in order.
F: Okay, take it away. First question in Charles’ list is, “What questions does she wish she had asked but didn’t when she was in 3D?”
R: I understand the sense of the question. Literally, the answer would be “none,” because I am well content with where we went, what I recovered, how it went. But in the sense Charles meant it – more or less, what in retrospect might have been a productive approach that in fact we didn’t think to try – I think it would have to be an extension of your basic question.
F: What would I ask if I had enough sense to know what I ought to ask?
R: Yes, that one. Because that amounts to saying, “I know that my perspective is limited to the extent that I allow my time-slice-delimited consciousness to try to run the show, and I know that my non-3D consciousness has a perspective that is wider and undistorted by this limitation of the moving present – so slip me a clue, and I’ll gladly listen.” But it isn’t any tragedy that I didn’t think to do that – and, in a way, any time spent listening to Guidance amounts to doing just that, in any case.
F: So to put it in terms of the lives we in 3D are leading at the moment —
R: Guidance is always there, always willing. Connect to it by your intent to be guided, and it is the equivalent of asking the question you would ask if you had sense enough to know on your own. You, as a 3D-bounded intelligence, may not know; but you, as a 3D-bounded intelligence connected inseparably to a non-3D part of yourself, will know, do know. Clarify the channel and you will have all you need, all you can handle, at any given moment.
Charles’ second question may be answered in a line — that is the purpose and the scope of this entire series of communications.
F: His second was, “Which questions did she ask when in 3D that remained confusing or unanswered but have been clarified or answered in non 3D?” So how about, “Is her larger being communicating with the dimension `above’ hers in the same way she is communicating with you?”
R: I see I have not yet communicated this clearly. I am tempted to skip on, because this requires some work on your part – that is, it isn’t short and sweet – but the next items aren’t any easier, so we might as well plow into this one.
The confusion is partly inherent in language, partly a matter of confusion of background. Let’s see how we can go about this.
First, remember that there is one big difference between 3D and non-3D, and that is the set of conditions 3D was created to have so that it could create and nourish compound beings. 3D has:
– perception of separation in space and time
– delayed consequences
– a “moving present moment” that makes choice a continuing necessity / possibility.
These conditions do not apply outside of 3D. In non-3D it is clear that connections are as real as separations; manifestation is instant (that is, there is no perception of external v. internal); and although we experience separation of events, or of states of being, in the way produced by time in 3D, we are not helplessly carried along as in a river, and we do not lose our perspective (thinking “the present moment” more important than the others). In a sense, we live continually in the present; in another sense, we live continually in all time. We may pursue that later, if you wish – I rather expect that Charles will wish! (said with a smile) – but the present point is that 3D and non-3D are different experiences in a way that is unique. It is a mistake to think that therefore we in non-3D are distinguished from another “layer” in the same way that you in 3D experience yourselves separated from non-3D.
F: And anyway we aren’t really separated from non-3D at all.
R: Well, your experience is separate, unless and until and to the extent that you broaden your awareness to encompass dimensions that are often blurred by the intensity and narrowness of focus of 3D experience.
F: So, to paraphrase, the 3D/non-3D frontier is not a model for another such frontier above or beyond our own non-3D components.
R: That’s right. But that is only half the question, or anyway half the answer. Because the question implies this question: Do we in non-3D – as part of compound beings – interface with other, non-compound, beings in non-3D. And that is a different story.
F: Yes, I can see that it is posed a little clearer that way.
R: Remember, the guys began wish us by telling us that the difference between them and us was not a difference in essence but in circumstance.
F: The same thing, expressing in different terrain, they said.
R: But now that we have refined that understanding, we see that it isn’t exactly different terrain – non-3D is the same as 3D physically, but our perception here has been freed of the limitations that made us (to varying extents) perceive higher dimensions as if they were aspects of time, as I said. So, while it is convenient to speak of 3D and non-3D, it remains important to realize that this is convenience, not literal distinction. We are where you are; you are where we are; the reason you are not constantly aware of it has to do with limitations on your consciousness, not from your “moving” or not moving here or there. It’s all here.
So, bearing that in mind, the true distinction is between compound beings and unitary beings. There isn’t some additional dimension we must climb into in order to deal with non-compound beings, and there isn’t some tangible distinction in terrain as there is between 3D and non-3D. What remains is a difference in essential nature. There is the frontier, or the challenge, or the opportunity for interaction and growth.
F: Looking back at the question, I’m not sure Charles or anyone will feel you quite answered it.
R: I began an answer to it. Clearing away shrubbery – as you say – is an important part of moving to new understanding. Unlearning what you thought you know, or, mostly, realizing what you had been taking for granted, and ceasing to do so, is as important a step as emptying a glass so you can fill it with something different.
F: Are you now in a position to fill it with something different?
R: I am. You are not. By which I mean, not that you are necessarily unprepared for more (some are, some are not, but it will always be so as people come to this material), but that there is an educational value in the pause after one step and before another.
F: Letting it marinate.
R: That’s right. Time spent pondering is always time well spent, regardless of whether or not you come up with new insights as a result. It is always well to live with new material, for the continuous slowly boiling mixture that you are will send different elements to the surface as time moves, and so the material will be folded in more thoroughly.
F: Material for more questions in that last paragraph.
R: Of course. But not right now.
F: It is 4:15, we have another 10 or 15 minutes. Shall we begin on the next one?
R: Well, let’s see. The questions with their context are longer perhaps than the answer need be. Go ahead.
F: Question four for the day, posted on my blog by someone using the name “cat’s paw”:
Let’s say the “limitations” imposed by 3D conditions vary wildly from individual to individual, but still obtain across a wide spectrum. Based on your work (and Rita’s help here) and Monroe’s and countless others of course we have some sense of the benefit of these “limitations” for non 3D and beyond.
Now … let’s say a significant “limitation” for 3D humans here and now is a constraint on perception based upon 3D conditions generally, but also the specific historical conditions operating at present.
This constraint on our perception presumably prohibits (some of, most of?) us from readily perceiving and interacting with the nonhuman intelligences all around us (“aliens” may come to mind, but I am thinking more of earth-related intelligences: plants and animals for sure, but also cryptid beings for which there is lots of anecdotal evidence but little physical evidence like Sasquatch, “faeries” and other apparently even stranger beings).
So, keep in mind for the questions that follow the presupposition I’m working from: it is incumbent upon humans to widen both their sense of “community” and “intelligence” to include nonhumans in those perceptions and definitions. That it will make us more “human” not less to do so.
1. Through what effort or process can we learn to perceive and interact with nonhuman intelligences more consciously?
2. Why do nonhuman intelligences (allegedly) seem to be less “constrained” by 3D limitations than humans? Is this a matter of historical-developmental conditions (modernity)into which we are born? Are non 3D factors also determining these constraints on us from the “outside” as it were?
3. Does Rita interact with some of the intelligences I’m alluding to in non 3D?
4. Are there “risks” or potential “dangers” we should be aware of?
5. Is (over-) reliance on thinking linguistically a specific constraint that limits perception on this front?
R: I agree that there is much more for humans to become aware of. I agree that to do so makes you – nor more human perhaps, but more fully developed as a human (always bearing in mind that you as a human are inherently and inextricably connected to your non-3D component – that you are therefore no less connected to anything you connect to via 3D). In fact, to add to that parenthesis, you never know whether you are functioning “via 3D” or “via non-3D” for the very simple reason that it is a matter of interpretation, or viewpoint, which way you see it.
As to the specific questions –
1) Increased awareness is always the same process regardless of what it aims toward. The effort to live more in the present moment, getting out from behind filters and scripts, clarifies the screen and makes it easier to see.
2) That is mostly a “seems.” Non-human intelligence of any kind – be it plant or ET – has its own inherent possibilities and limitations. You cannot expect the intelligence that governs your body’s autonomic systems to study astronomy, remember. Don’t envy others their abilities if you are unwilling to envy them their limitations.
3) Yes and so do all of you. But it is one thing to interact, and a different thing to recognize the nature of the interaction. See #1, above.
4) No.
5) Hmm. This deserves a larger answer than we can give here, so let’s begin next time with this one, and we can move on from here. It won’t take an inordinately long time to answer, but it offers the chance to say a couple of things, and I shouldn’t like to miss that opportunity.
F: Okay, we can close up shop for the moment. Thanks as always, Rita. Many people in your classroom, and we’re thanking you as we go.
R: Till next time. Nice apples you’re leaving on my desk.
F: Smiling.