Tuesday March 3, 2015
F: 4 a.m., nearly. Miss Rita, you awake? Shall we begin?
R: Let’s continue as we have begun. We can get to anything we need to get to, answering questions.
[Lynn’s question: “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.”]
R: This is the way to approach this material, or any material purporting to explain life. How does it apply to me, to my circumstances, to what I see around me in my life? Not – in other words – the abstract world reported by the news media or the entertainment media or the social media (including books, by the way, a sort of very slow-motion social media), but the world I experience. If the material cannot be grounded in this fashion, what good is it to you? That isn’t to say that every session will have instant application, but don’t build castles in the air and think you’re going to be able to live in them.
These questions of Lynn’s have more than one part, and they have an underlying concern as well. Let’s see how well we can deal with them.
First the genesis of autism, put it that way. There must be the genetic window. That is, there must be the possibility of autism in the physical organism. However, in the case of autism this possibility is so widespread as to be nearly pandemic.
F: Can a possibility be pandemic?
R: What it means is that the window of physical genetic opportunity encompasses perhaps a third of humanity, maybe more. But as the guys told us once in another context, a possibility is not a certainty. A child will not pick up on the opportunity for a genetically transmitted condition unless he or she needs it. The child’s brothers or sisters the same, so that in a family of four one may have it and three may not, even though the genetic opportunity is the same. These conditions, like any other precondition in a life, are chosen, not random. But of course not chosen consciously by the soul, but by the underlying spirit.
Now, within the ranks of those for whom autism is a possibility, some will and some won’t have it triggered by environmental factors, and in this they will serve as the canaries in the mine shaft, early warning systems of what is happening to the biological environment that might as yet be unnoticed otherwise. It is the unnoticed consequences of extensive modification of your biological environment that are most likely to end the human experiment, not bombs or weapons.
But so much for the question of autism’s genesis in a given individual. In the most causal sense – that is, at the bottom of the chain of causation – it is not an accident of genetics, nor neglect or inadvertence in the child’s nurturance, though it may easily seem to be either or both of these things. At base, autism, like any focusing condition, is a matter of the spirit’s choice for its utility to the soul.
F: You say, “like any focusing condition.”
R: Any restriction or limitation focuses life’s energies, channeling life into a narrower passage.
F: Creating a Venturi effect? Narrower passage, hence correspondingly greater velocity?
R: Let’s not push the physical analogy too far. To a degree, how’s that? The point to grasp is that it isn’t a catastrophe or even a misfortune, only a difficult path selected for a reason, or reasons. Those reasons, by the way, necessarily con
F: Lost the verb. Got the sense of it. Weird. Try again?
R: The reasons one chooses autism include the effect on the others who will be around one’s life. It is a difficulty and an opportunity for them no less.
But let us pass to the second part of the question, the child’s values. I think it would be better expressed something like this: “Does autism limit, or redirect, or somehow affect, the child’s experience in such a way as to interfere with his or her purpose in coming into life?” if I have understood the underlying sense of the question, the answer is, clearly not, because the selection of autism was in itself one of the limiting definitions selected for the life. That is, how can a definition warp a definition?
F: May I?
R: Go ahead.
F: I think you mean, given that the child’s path included selection of autism, the path necessarily included any possible effects of autism. To speculate as to what the child’s inner or outer life would have been had he or she not chosen to take on autism is counter-factual, and you might as well ask what would have been the effect if the child had been born to other parents, or at a different time.
R: That’s right. All is well, all is always well – but it isn’t always obviously well.
F: I published a book – I don’t remember if you ever saw it – called Gift From My Son, by Keli Lindelien, talking about her recognition of the opportunities as well as limitations of the situation.
R: Opportunities and limitations are always to be found in any situation, you know that.
F: I do now. Didn’t when I was young. I used to believe in the existence of injustice; but then, I believed in chance and coincidence, too. More on this question?
R: Only if Lynn or others desire it.
F: Okay, question #2:
[Louisa’s question: “I recall Yogananda saying to forgive everything and all, because we are still in the violent wave of creation, which I gather is an energy we are swept up into as humans from beyond 3D. Can Rita comment on that one?”]
R: I’m sorry, but I don’t know anything about this one. In any case, it is a theoretical rather than a practical question.
F: I suppose it even verges on blaming circumstance, in a way, though I doubt that was his intent. Very well, how about this one?
[Martha’s question: “`But without that sense of isolation – in non-3D, in other words — the values still exist, and still have their vigorous proponents.’ Can Rita elaborate on this? Is this possibly where myths of gods taking sides in wars comes from? Or serial killers claiming to hear a voice telling them to kill? Is that their non-3D self rooting for the aggressive choice? I can’t imagine that might be true, but “the values still exist and have their vigorous proponents” has me wondering what she really meant by it.
[“And I hope she elaborates on how to change the belief that we’re isolated from our non 3-D selves because I believe my world and the world would be a better place of more loving and harmonious effects of choices without that sense of isolation. I believe my life would feel deeper and more meaningful.”]
R: The interaction and silent connection between these two questions is instructive, if you care to look at them before reading what is to follow.
F: Aimed at our readers, I take it, since all I have before me is a blank page, at this point.
R: It won’t hurt you to see it too. It may make it easier to get a concise and coherent statement across.
F: All right. Yes, I think I see it.
R: The first question or set of questions asks whether – no, this isn’t the way to go about this. Let’s start again.
Put it this way. As I have said before, the non-3D in compound beings may not be 3D, but it exists within duality. That is, merely because it is not confined to the specialized conditions of the 3D dimensions, that does not mean that it somehow escapes duality. To imagine that as possible, you would have to re-impose the idea (silently, probably; unnoticed) of “this side” and “the other side”; in other words, two different realms. But this is one reality. How could 3D exist in duality and non-3D not? It is only in the expression that they vary. I must keep coming back to this, which you will remember was one of the very first things I said in this series of communications. If you miss this, or miss its implications, or allow yourselves to return to more accustomed formulations, yon miss it all.
So. Yes, antithetical values all exist. Duality means balance. They exist in 3D and they exist in non-3D, and to try to determine which expression is most important, most real, or even which was prior, is futility. It is a set of meaningless questions based on a confusion of terms that assume that rules and conditions are different between 3D and non-3D in terms of the existence or non-existence of duality and its effects.
And yes, human awareness of this fact sometimes has expressed in stories of the wars in heaven. Not merely the gods taking sides in 3D wars, but, more, the gods warring in non-3D and it spilling over into 3D. This is how it can appear, depending on the unconscious assumptions about reality that the myth-makers are contained within.
Yes, also, sometimes psychotic killers or sadists or other variants of criminal insanity ae perceiving themselves to be the willing or unwilling agents of non-corporeal forces – felt to be “in their minds,” or more conventionally coming from the devil or some other powerful non-corporeal being.
So, all these questions are answered yes, somewhat against the expectation of our questioner. Now, Frank, what is the connection between the first and second paragraphs? The unnoticed connection, I man.
F: Martha assumes that a greater connection with our non-3D selves will necessarily result in only good, more harmonious effects, more love and light, less fear and hatred.
R: Yes, and to a degree she is right, because a reduction of fear will naturally result from greater connection, and isn’t that what we’re about here? But – and it is a big “but” — greater connection also means greater connection to any aspect of this dualistic reality to which you have resonances, either known and cultivated or unnoticed and therefore beyond your control. If everybody on earth realized their connection, it would change everything, for sure – but it would not bring utopia. It would (and hopefully will) move the conflict and potential reconciliation up another notch.
But the point to remember here, as in all this, is that you ae necessarily and desirably the center of your world.. What you do in your life is real for you, and everything else is secondary at best, unreal at worst. So nurturing your connection is your job and your opportunity, only remember that opportunities always bring difficulties, or they would not be opportunities.
F: And that’s our hour, and a little more. Anything else for today?
R: No, that rounds it out nicely.
F: Then we will see you next time, and we thank you as always.