Rita on the interplay of 3D and non-3D

Saturday February 28, 2015

F: 3:45 a.m. All right, Miss Rita, ready for action. Your plan seems to be catching fire.

R: You will find that everything moves faster now. Not like the 1970s.

F: Thank God! Okay, questions, or do you have a theme?

R: Questions will do. It isn’t hard to use a given question as an entry-point for anything I have in mind. It isn’t as if we were likely to stray beyond the bounds of the question of “what is?”

F: Question I’ve been asking all my life. All right, here’s the first of the day, from John Wolf.

[John Wolf’s question: I am confused by the apparent mixing of the body (DNA) heritage and the spiritual strand heritage or the implication that the spiritual heritage is affected or even made via the sexual reproduction process. Please clarify.

[The second part of this paragraph, “Compound beings, by their nature, are both battleground and reconciling force for opposing forces. They live a battle (and perhaps a reconciling) and they become a potential way forward. In short, they not only complicate the non-3D world by presenting new possibilities, they also help hold it together by sometimes reconciling the polar opposites they may learn to live.” has interesting implications. Does this “reconciling” within non-3D go on among the parts of the greater being beyond the non-3D extension of ourselves? Does this “reconciling” in the non-3D show itself as conflict in the 3D world?]

R: That should lead to some clarification without requiring a good deal of explanation. Remember that this model stresses the unity of 3D and non-3D, rather than stressing differences. So it is an invitation to you (plural) to redefine your ideas of life, stressing that you extend into the non-3D (because the non-3D consists of additional dimensions usually unperceived or misperceived by those minds focused on 3D) and, therefore, the non-3D world may be said to extend into you. It is merely a matter of definition.

Well, if you are (whether or not known to yourselves) non-3D beings as well as 3D beings, should it surprise you that the affairs of “one side of the veil” and of the other side should not merely overlap but be an extension of each other? It is in the misrepresentation of life beyond the 3D that so much angst and disorientation originates. Once you remember that you have an understandable part in the nature of things – that you are not an accident, not contingent, not a meaningless spectator of incomprehensible activities – then you begin again to live without disorientation and anxiety.

To focus specifically on the first part of the question: It is true that physical and spiritual are intricately and necessarily linked, but the process is easily explained yet easily misunderstood.

The sexual reproduction of physical beings is a means of continually producing new mixtures of physical characteristic, so that a new soul may have a new home with new possibilities.

F: Probably as well to remind people that you are using `soul’ to mean the specific mind created in any given incarnation, as opposed to `spirit,’ which is the underlying unchanging breath of life that animates the soul.

R: Yes although the second half of that statement is not quite that simple. But yes, `soul’ means a specific incarnation, regardless of the antecedents or afterlife of that soul. The mating of different physical heredities produces continually new combinations of physical heredities for the incarnating spirit, the soul.

Perhaps an analogy will help to understand the relationship between spiritual heritage and physical heritage. Consider each of these to be one parent.

F: Not so new an analogy. The spirit is masculine, matter is feminine. Father God and Mother Earth.

R: But if older ways of expressing things spoke to modern humans, there wouldn’t be any need for new translations, would there? Once the relative polarities became entangled with physical gender, not only did the analogy become confused, but sexual politics entered in and caused needless additional confusion because of all the side-issues raised by implication, as if analogy were anatomy.

In any case, consider that the physical confluence of different genetic inheritances is one factor in the new soul’s environment. The other factor is what you may call the spiritual heritage but – as I try to express what to me seems very clear and obvious – I see is fraught with more potential misunderstanding than I had realized. The new soul is a new vessel, but what fills it is not created out of nothing, any more than the new body’s material substance is created out of nothing. How could it be? It is just that the reassembly of cells into a new organization may look like it sprang from nothing if the observer concentrates only on the emerging organism forgetting the energy stream that enters and is incorporated.

F: May I?

R: Try, anyway.

F: The body begins as sperm and egg, then zygote, then continually dividing and multiplying cells, and as the cells continually multiply they begin to assume their specialized form and function according to the underlying pattern of their blueprint. If you don’t realize that the cells do not come out of nowhere but are the result of the mother’s nutrition and continual feed of new material into the developing fetus, it will look like magic –something out of nothing. (And indeed, the reality is magical enough!) But, once you do remember that the new being has its genesis and maintenance in an already existing being, from which at the proper point in its development it separates to begin a separate existence, the magic is in the overall arrangement, not in any hocus-pocus.

R: Yes, and although the new being’s limits and characteristics are not determined by the genetics of its parents, the limits of choice are. That is, you may choose among a vast array of possibilities, but `vast’ is not `unlimited.’

Now, the second part of the question could be answered, simply but probably misleadingly, by reminding you that 3D and non-3D are part of the same thing. Although local weather conditions may vary, they are each part of the same climate, or say the same ecosystem.

Yes, the non-3D forces battle within 3D. Yes, 3D battles both represent and affect non-3D. If they [that is, 3D and non-3D] are the same thing, how could they not? Just because compound beings may exist without noticeable extension into 3D, that does not mean

F: I can always tell when you lead me beyond accustomed material. I tend to go wool-gathering and come back and find I have no idea how to finish something I left while I went wandering.

R: You will notice that it is only very rarely that I attempt to resume a sentence exactly where it was interrupted. Why pursue a dead-end when it is so easily gone around?

F: Now that you mention it, I do see that. So –

R: Anything you can feel in 3D exists as well in non-3D, except that the expression of the underlying forces may be different because of terrain. That is, in 3D you may experience isolation and the – desperation, let’s call it – of struggle moment by moment to have your values prevail. Outside of 3D, we cannot very well feel either of those things, for our environment – the relative freedom in non-3D of 3D constraints – prevents us from seeing life in that blinkered focused fashion. Nonetheless, we compound beings have our values, and we do not cease to maintain and represent them. If you are kind in 3D, you will not cease to value kindness beyond the body. If you are iron, you will not soften. And if you are cruel or vindictive, you will not cease to be so. You are what you are. You represent and extend what you are made of. The major difference is that within 3D you have greater freedom of choice as to what you will become, and outside 3D you have greater awareness of your own place in the greater scheme of things.

John Wolf’s question does not express the relationship between battles and reconciliation in the way that I would like to express it. Put it this way: every new compound being is a new opportunity for the expression of the potential contained within the larger being. (For the moment I am concentrating on creation out of any one larger being, but it is not that simple, or you would be back to creation from God, end of story. But, one thing at a time.) The nature of each compound being is a bag of possibilities which each 3D life sorts and chooses among and brings together into an enduring pattern. Thus, by your work at reconciling opposing or anyway diverging forces, you help create new possibilities for reconciliation on the non-3D side as well. By your expression and choice of one or another set of values, you create an exponent of those values on the other side, in the non-3D, among the enduring archetypes, however you wish to say it.

Thus, the forces of heaven are at war, and Earth is the battleground. Or, the world is a place of creation in which 3D beings created from non-3D elements create in their turn, thus returning, to the non-3D part of the world, the elements of which they were formed, transformed. Or, values precede form as blueprints precede construction, and in the incarnation and interplay of the 3D representation of these values – particularly in that the 3D representatives are inherently mixtures of values, never pure representatives – is the continuous redevelopment and re-creation of logical development of tendencies.

F: That was quite a paragraph. I was holding on to the buckboard, hoping not to get thrown off before the horses slowed down. That is, I’m writing and not at all sure what I’m writing makes sense, because I have no time to absorb it, even though (paradoxically) it is obvious enough as it comes through.

R: And, as you see, it is an hour and a little more, and this is a good place to pause.

F: Yes, I’ll stagger out of the buckboard and head for the saloon, toss back a couple of hard whiskeys, and see what the day looks like. Till next time, then.

10 thoughts on “Rita on the interplay of 3D and non-3D

  1. Thanks for holding on to the buckboard – overall the message makes sense but it is definitely a lot to absorb!

    The message makes sense when I apply it to myself, but I lose clarity when I try to apply it to my child, who I believe to be on the autism spectrum. I think I must be struggling to figure out the origins of those particular traits that are considered to be autism – are autistic tendencies physical, spiritual, or an intricate weaving of both? I have been trying to think about my child’s values – if autistic tendencies were strictly neurological, would those values be any different but for the neurological condition? Are those values only expressed differently because of the neurological condition? These questions are not well thought-out, but if you could pass them along, I would appreciate it.

    Thanks again!

  2. Thanks so much Rita. Your two long paragraphs pull together so much I’d suspected, explains so well the convulsions now tearing the Earth, and explains so clearly the importance of the roles we are each playing. I just hope my Big One is on the side of light and love, which seems to be true.

  3. This puts me in mind of the current effort in certain consciousness studies to eliminate “vitalism” from their thought. By this I take it they mean a type of Cartesian dualism in which a non-material spark of life or spirit is thought to animate inert matter. If this effort isn’t interpreted in a sense of pure material reductionism, I think it can be harmonious with Rita’s formulation of 3D and non-3D as inhering in the same non-dual whole. But I’m having trouble conceptualizing the interweaving of 3D and non-3D. Some scientific-minded types want to find a specific interface between living cells and the quantum fields where they suppose consciousness to reside, perhaps via ion channels or microtubules or whatever. I suspect that this idea fallaciously collapses a whole lot of levels, but I still wonder whether it’s broadly (or even narrowly) on the right track. I also see that this might be one of those “questions which lead not to edification” as the Buddha put it – intellectual curiosity that doesn’t really help one live right. But still I wonder …

    1. Interesting questions and ideas, Dorothy…it puts to mind my own struggles w/ encountering ideas which seem to want to reduce “All That Is” to some material cause. But, it was my own susceptibility to fear, the fear that “those w/ authority”, be they Scientists, Zen Masters, or Non-dualists, etc. had “figured it all out”, and “dummies like me” had to struggle w/ the ideas, “take the mandatory courses”, in order to “graduate” (or fade quietly, or screaming, into oblivion, in the case of the Materialists).

      I well recall “quaking w/ fear” (around about 2005) that the Penrose/Hammerhoff theory of consciousness (as outlined in “What The (Bleep)?…”) was the “right” one, as it made “logical sense” to me. But, the questions still arose, perhaps “in error”: What gave rise to the microtubules? The molecular reactions? The quantum field? (My current “working hypothesis” is that the microtubules represent a “fine-tuning mechanism” of the brain, in part influenced by TMI’s use of “SAM technology”, in its intersection w/ consciousness…) I guess “cause and effect” is just 3D stuff, or our perception on our protracted sense of linear time.

      Indeed, I feel I can tie myself into a paralyzed knot, pondering these “questions which (may not) lead to edification”. Just “sitting with”, and finding what resonates seems very important to me now…plus, as a very kinesthetic being, I have things I want to do and enjoy in my remaining “time”…

  4. Frank,
    This session finally got through to me that this is a DISCUSSION, leading to better understanding on all sides … not ‘higher authority’ handing down scripture. Funny how hard it is to change old habits; Rita has said it over and over in many ways, but it took your back-and-forth with her above for me to break through.

    Now I see the consistency and progression of the vision Rita just suggested, through TGU’s many ‘hints’ (Sphere and the Hologram), Rita’s pounding it home here, expanding the discussion to include ‘outside’ questions, and now increasing the number of ‘portals’ to discuss through.

    Unfortunately , following/taking part in a discussion (instead of just accepting scripture) takes work and effort … which (of course) Rita has been pushing us to do. I’m getting the feeling these guys know what they’re doing!!

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.