Rita on reincarnation issues

Sunday February 22, 2015

F: 5:30 a.m. Miss Rita, it occurs to me, maybe you would rather lecture than answer questions at some point. I assume you will let me know.

R: Of course. But for now this serves. It is always well to know where your students’ understanding is. And questions will reveal that.

F: Okay, shall we continue down the list?

R: We might as well. Charles may substitute questions as he sees fit, since the burden of shaping the material is going to fall on him. But at any given time, it is safe enough, easy enough, to see what has been given previously.

F: Okay, here’s the next on the present list.

[From Charles. {In the 48th session, Rita says} “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.” Just for clarification, a 3D life that did not create a “unique new window” isn’t lost but isn’t used again to create a new soul. Is this correct? For example, Hitler certainly created something unique, so would his 3D life be part of a “bundle” to create a new soul? I realize I’m using 3D judgment in my question.]

R: I think this isn’t coming from a clear understanding (and I realize that his level of understanding now has surpassed that that existed when the question was formed, but it will be useful to others to see the divergence and the course-correction, so to speak).

You mustn’t let the “individual” concept sneak back into your thinking when you are thinking of the progression of strands through 3D experience. That is true in a way, but is not true in a way.

F: You’re going to need to do some “’splaining,” Lucy.

R: Oh, I know it. (And bear in mind, most of your readers will never have seen “I Love Lucy,” ultimately. You’re dating yourself.)

F: You mean “Lucy, you’ve got some ‘splainin’ to do” isn’t going to pass into immortality?

R: That’s exactly where it is going! As opposed to remaining current! But to return to the question—

I remind you, reincarnation as commonly understood and described obviously is not false, or you wouldn’t have so many reports over so many centuries from so many people. But it isn’t to be seen only one way, either, or you wouldn’t see so many sincere searchers after truth rejecting the idea for good and sufficient reasons. When someone poses a question in the way this one is posed, it falls into just the assumptions that divide human opinion on reincarnation. It is hidden in the language, you see, and the language shapes perception in the same way that it [i.e., language] has been shaped by past perception.

F: Yes, you’ve said that more than once, and the guys before you.

R: And we’ll need to say it again, I have no doubt, because the habits that arise out of language are persistent.

“Hitler’s 3D life” certainly could be a strand in other bundles – not just one bundle, notice – it isn’t as if that life were a physical commodity that could only be transferred, hence could only go to one place or another, or even one place at a time. Any given life, once lived, is a resource from which other lives may be created. Those lives may incorporate that life (that strand) in greater or less importance. That is, the entire new package may include Hitler’s life to a small degree, or a larger degree, and with that, may emphasize this or that aspect of his personality. It isn’t a unit in the way language tempts you to think of it.

F: Let me see if I can rephrase that, so we know if I’m getting it right. Hitler comes into existence. He incorporates 100 strands, say, and who knows who they were. After he dies – whether in 1945 in Berlin or afterwards in Argentina or the moon – the mind that he formed during life may be used as one strand of other lives, and each of those lives will of course be different combinations of minds, and so will be dominated by different ratios of characteristics (that’s one way to put it) not only among the different strands, but within the different strands. But in any case, the use of a strand in one person does not in any way affect its availability for use in others.

R: That’s right. And that is one reason why particularly effective combinations may echo through history – not, exactly, that a person’s reputation leads others to emulate him or her; closer to the opposite way around – that person’s characteristics are used repeatedly for reasons of the Larger Being’s, and therefore many people in 3D find themselves drawn to accounts of the original life. And so you see Caesar and Napoleon echo down through the centuries – and Jesus and St. Francis and Muhammad.

F: As in Power versus Force?

R: He is reporting results rather than causes, but he’s worth looking into with this explanation in mind.

F: But how about Peter Novak’s The Division of Consciousness?

R: A valuable springboard for thought, but again proceeding from a very different idea of how things work.

F: Finished with the question?

R: Not quite. “A 3D life that did not create a `unique new window’ isn’t lost but isn’t used again to create a new soul” makes the mistake again of regarding as a unit what is not a unit. The point here is that when a particular mixture of elements proves not to be valuable as a window onto 3D, it is not necessarily used in the creation of others. But the elements of which it was put together obviously do not cease to exist; it is the particular creation that may be, essentially, disused. And once more I caution you not to assume that you or anyone can judge the uniqueness or value of any one window on the world. Most of what you are is hidden from all others, not by reluctance or stealth but by the nature of things. Judge not.

F: Lest we be judged?

R: No, just, judge not, because as the guys always told us, you never have the data. Most of anyone is always inaccessible and incommunicable.

F: Still waters run deep.

R: Yes, but so do rapidly running waters, and no one can plumb another’s depths. Now we may move on.

F: All right, the next one seems to be closely related to it.

[Rita said yesterday, “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.” So, a 3D life is “successful”, adds a new perspective to non 3D and is therefore retained as a thread for a new soul. And this process continues on and on for what purpose? (I know … another fish question.) But, doesn’t everyone in 3D have an insatiable quest to know what all (3D, non 3D, unitary beings, etc.) this is for? Is it for “curiosity” as Bruce Moen suggests, “play” as Joseph Chilton Pearce suggests, or as Edgar Cayce said in a reading “God’s desire for companionship and expression”?]

R: The purpose may be simply stated as the cooperative construction of ever-more-intricate and versatile windows on 3D through the creation of ever-more-intricate actors in 3D.

Now, you may look at one or another aspect of this and come down with very different ideas about it. If you trace the Larger Beings’ purposes, life in 3D is seen as one thread in a tapestry. If you trace any particular thread’s “progress” through the weaving, life is seen as a journey, a progression, a rising or sinking in development..

F: The latter is closer to what people typically think of as reincarnation, I think.

R: Yes, because it is what it looks like when you proceed from that point of view. That’s why I am laying much more emphasis on the view from the Larger Being’s end, as balance.

Now as to the purpose beyond this immediate purpose, that may have to wait until the fish develop better TV reception. I’d prefer to stick to topics that actually bear on your lives as you live them. What use is it to allow yourselves to be distracted from what you can do (and, one might say, are responsible to do)?

F: Well, as Charles says, there is a certain natural curiosity.

R: Yes, there is – and I would prefer that it stays focused on what it can learn to understand and (in the positive sense of the term) manipulate, rather than be dissipated in idle speculation.

And that will do for today.

F: All right, Miss Rita. Thanks as always.

15 thoughts on “Rita on reincarnation issues

  1. Rita says:
    If you trace any particular threads “progress” through the weaving, life is seen as a journey, a progression, a rising or sinking in development…..Then am back to Edgar Cayce again(smiles).
    Someone asking E.C. about Hitler and Stalin(Stalin was no better than Hitler as such), and if not to recall the paraphrased reply all wrong…..In the particular E.C. Reading, explaining it as:”If a soul CONTINUES in doing “the severe bad things,” life after life(even in between lives can be retarded)continually….THEN the particular INDIVIDUAL/as the same, will be “consumed” for eternity(vanish as an individual soul-unit).”The Form” of the individual can be “consumed” into the UNDIVIDED existence, as it once were “from the beginning”.
    But here Edgar Cayce make an differentiation between SOUL and SPIRIT. The soul goes on and on in the development, while SPIRIT is the same, never changing.

    I LOVE LUCY. Believe in it or not, even on TV here in Norway once upon a time. The late mother of mine was a big fan of Lucy`s.

    …have to run….dinner-time. Inger Lise.
    P.S. I do not agree in of Napoleon being “as bad” as Hitler and Stalin. Napoleon was an military genius who sadly enough “fall into egocentricity(as often-time the geniuses does…..biking over so to speak). 3D-hickups.

    1. i don’t believe either Caesar or Napoleon was presented as being bad — rather, as archetypes of the dynamic man of the world who changed the shape of the civilization they inhabited.

  2. Thinking of our spiritual heritage as a soup of characteristics, a mixture from ingredients brought into existence from previously experienced lives, it’s easy to picture the potential for higher and higher degrees of complexity and nuance. For example, you Frank (pardon me for using you) and others have a characteristic, or ability, to connect to non-3D. Your “soup” could be a significant ingredient in the making of an unlimited number of future spiritual soups thereby seeding the human population with a characteristic that can help expand the consciousness of man. By choosing the mixture of the soups, as well as time and place of insertion into 3D, even with the “randomness” created by free will, the “soup creators” have an enormous influence on the vector of mankind’s evolution of consciousness. Potentially this process could bring into being a new kind of civilization on Earth, one of higher consciousness, which in turn would enable even further evolution of the consciousness of mankind. There is an aspect of time involved as Rita previously pointed out: the ingredients are not available for use until the life has been lived.

    1. that sounds about right to me. We are all standing on the shoulders of those who came before us (which must make for some pretty sore shoulders down there, and bad backs, too!) — which emphasizes our own responsibility not to waste the potential of the live we are leading.

  3. R: Yes, there is – and I would prefer that it stays focused on what it can learn to understand and (in the positive sense of the term) manipulate, rather than be dissipated in idle speculation.

    I think that’s well put, Rita (and Frank). With that in mind, could Rita speak to this: She emphasizes repeatedly there is no separation of 3D and non 3D, but from our limited perspective that often does not seem to be the case. I also get that “information,” ideas, hunches, even events or situations may originate, as it were, in non 3D though we mostly remain unaware of the fact.

    1.Is it the case that the more we are able to bring (or allow, or manifest?) our non 3D (larger) being into everyday 3D life the better or richer the experience?

    2.If so, what techniques, practices, or attitudes are conducive for doing this?

    3. How important or relevant is being conscious or aware of this process–keeping in mind that we are presumably always “in touch” with non 3D yet mostly unaware of it?

  4. So if a thread is a trait, 1 of Hitler’s 100 threads might be “genocidal dictator”, since he shares that trait with so many others throughout history? (Overheard at the Thread Store: You’ll LOVE that thread! It’s one of our most popular! Strongmen, Popes, Presidents — we sell out of it century after century!)

    btw The Play version of I Love Lucy just opened in Providence. The ad was on the local classical music station (also a rather gray-haired demographic). I had to wonder if they’re playing all matinees since how many older people are going to go out on icy February roads at night??

    1. i wasn’t there; i can’t generalize. Among possible Hitler threads, i suppose:

      frustrated artist; frustrated architect; gifted orator; “channel” in effect for a nation’s frustrations and sense of having been cruelly treated; highly intuitive politician; lover of dogs and children; sexually twisted individual; occult dabbler and perhaps more than dabbler, if the stories are correct; born loser; Right Man (in A.E. Van Vogt’s terminology — that is, he was always right and it was always somebody else’s fault); carrier of inherited hatreds — etc., etc. Lumping him as “genocidal dictator” basically amounts to saying you don’t like him, it doesn’t really comprise a category.

      Even if it did, I don’t remember any “genocidal dictators” among even the worst of Popes. (I take it you don’t like Popes either.) Even Caesare Borgia, who has to be at about the bottom of the Pope-barrel, wasn’t genocidal, merely treacherous and without discernible conscience.

      1. sorry — that was my attempt at humor. Just picturing a Larger Self choosing threads at the Thread Store, wondering if he’d have a similar blood-red thread in his bundle, connecting him to Stalin, whatever Popes called for the Inquisition, US presidents calling for extermination of Indians, Pol Pot, Mao, Ghengis Khan…For whatever reasons history needed them to act that part, so they put that thread in their bundle. Not saying that thread is the whole personality, just a thread. Pictured historical figures choosing their military uniforms and authoritative robes ~ the 3-D “threads” corresponding to those non-physical “threads”.

  5. I wonder if Rita could comment on the idea of soulmates. I think of it not necessarily as “that person you were destined to marry”, but as a particularly strong feeling you get, when you meet someone, that you have known them all along and/or have been waiting to find them.

    What is going on when that happens? Are we recognizing “strands” that we have been part of before?
    (If the topic has already been addressed, disregard. I did a search for soulmate and saw nothing come up.)
    Also one more: a few sessions ago, you closed by saying Be Well, and Rita said to add it to your list of questions. Interested in hearing more so wanted to make sure that question was added to the list.

  6. Interesting as always…gets me wondering about my “threads” in this lifetime. The only “reincarnational hint” I can recall receiving (in a very clear dream) occurred w/in a few weeks after a session w/ a past-life regressionist, although my session didn’t go into my “past” lives; more of an affirming/healing-thing. Walking along a road (in the dream), I came upon two men, standing by a brown Chevrolet sedan (thus giving me the hint that the life in question was French-Canadian, vs. French, although the year doesn’t seem to jive w/ Canada being “Canada” as yet); they were dressed in royal blue coveralls. One looked at me, pointed, and said, “You were Leonard Levoissier (or Duvossier); you were a soldier who fought in the war of 1813 (?), and you served in the military until 1856…”

    I’m thinking/feeling that one way to learn what some of my current “threads” are is to identify my “passions” of this lifetime: Flying, ice-skating, gardening, building things, art (“doing” vs. “appreciation”) (jewelry, drawing, writing), an appreciation of “dreadful” puns, drawing silly cartoons…Of these threads, I must consider the what I consider “less than desirable” ones (judgement call, perhaps…?), the biggest current one being “lack of trust in self/ceding, if grudgingly to ‘the Experts'”.

    Continuing to weave and sew, and build, hopefully, new “windows”…

    1. I suppose the War of 1812 might have been referred to as the war in 1813 by the Canadians. I can’t remember which year or years we tried to invade Candaa, but if it was 113 rather than 1812, that would make sense. Or it could be that he only joined in 1813. Or neither, of course.

      i think you’re on the right path, searching out affinities.

      1. In my very limited knowledge of World History, I know that the Napoleonic conquests were ongoing in 1813 (centered in Spain, I think, that year), but “my” thread seemed to be French-Canadian. I recall that the British occupied what is now Canada (at least in the Eastern Provinces) in 1813; that was also the year of the Battle of Lake Erie (if the battle was held this winter, the combatants could’ve simply walked across the frozen lake!) It’s possible (on this timeline) that there were French fur-trappers around then; I recall them being mentioned a lot, when I was canoeing w/ a friend in the Minnesota Boundary Waters years ago.

        “Affinities” is a good word; more clues could be possibly had by which historical (again, on this timeline) figures I’ve admired; for me primarily Thomas Edison, Vincent Van Gogh, Frank Lloyd Wright in earlier years; more recently, Bob Monroe, Jane Roberts/Robert Butts, Gerald Durrell, Alf Wight (aka: “James Herriot”) and, ahem, you, Mr. DeMarco…

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.