Wednesday March 11, 2015
F: 6:10 a.m. Well, Miss Rita, as you no doubt counted on, I’m bored with not connecting, and Charles has a few questions queued up, so why not begin on one?
R: Why not indeed? Merely remember, you don’t need to; it is your choice.
F: Oh, I know. I probably wouldn’t do it if I had to.
R: Yes, like the program description you are procrastinating on.
F: Why is that, by the way?
R: You know full well your habit of doing some kinds of things at the last minute, and other kinds of things in a detailed, orderly, well thought-out way.
F: Yes, I know the “that” of it. I don’t know the “why” – why some things and not others.
R: Surely it is clear that some sorts of things stir resistances and others do not. But – you never did like self-observation much.
F: No, so you said. It was the first time I realized it.
R: Never too late to begin. Now, let’s have the first question.
[Charles had said: “Below I removed some of the introductory material and included only the questions, but you have the originals if you think the context is important.”]
[Greg’s Question: “I did recently come up against angels or beings not exposed to earth and it wasn’t comfortable for either of us. I’ve often seen symbols floating around people. I get the sense that like the ribbons on the jackets of the military we seem to carry symbols or vibrations with us that seem to represent experiences on earth and other adventures. Sometimes it is just a color or vibration beside a symbol, but it is very foreign to our friends who haven’t had the experience. I wonder if they think we are somehow tainted by our experiences. Would Rita comment on this?”]
R: You hardly need me to comment on this one, Frank.
F: No, but it will have more authority coming from you.
R: Perhaps it will; if so, that is unfortunate, and should be noted as a tendency to be resisted. If one gains authority by virtue of being discarnate, rather than by virtue of the intrinsic value of the information one provides – well, that is the process of setting up idols. It isn’t a good thing. Tell.
F: Okay. My friend Ed Carter told me once that on the other side (as we thought of it then) Earth graduates were respected as if we were graduates of boot-camp. In other words, we had been toughened and shaped by a difficult experience designed to produce constructive results. In light of that, I would say that what Greg saw were more in the nature of campaign patches, or unit flashes, than of some sort of stigma.
R: Yes. Unitary beings do look upon compound beings as somewhat foreign, and perhaps among them there is a wide range of reactions to us. (I do not know, I merely assume it; I seems reasonable that there would be. But I haven’t had sufficient experience with unitary beings to be able to generalize.)
However, bear in mind, Greg, that your experience is only one context – the context of a still-embodied compound being encountering unfamiliar energies and unconsciously assuming certain things about them – seeing them as individuals, for one thing, when they might equally well be seen as all being part of one thing – which colors your experience. It does not invalidate the experience but the fact that it is only one way of making sense of what you saw / felt / intuited should be borne in mind so that you may be freer, in the future, to alter or even discard one interpretation and amend or replace it with another, in light of fuller experience.
F: That’s very interesting.
I thought, no need to go a full hour if I don’t feel like I, but let’s go one question at a time until I feel like quitting. Okay?
R: Or until the hour is up. Yes.
[Louisa’s question: “Where do autonomous thoughts or moods that suddenly inject themselves into our consciousness come from? Are they from beyond 3D, the guys or our collective unconscious which I assume includes the guides and guys but to what purpose? What does Rita think?]
R: One easy way to think of it is to remember that you experience yourself as an individual but are actually a functioning community. What you are thinking of as autonomous thoughts or moods do not spring up out of nothing. They are the interaction of some part of you with –
F: Yeah, I heard you jam on the brakes. Too much explanation to fit into a sentence?
R: Too much to fit into a chapter of a book! But, we can try.
[Long pause, or anyway it seemed long.]
R: Perhaps we need to start with the reminder that you are in 3D, and therefore are under the tutelage of the ever-moving present moment. That is the prime distinction of 3D reality, from which all other distinctions proceed, and (I am tempted to say, “therefore”) from which all benefits to be derived from the experience proceed.
This present moment, in all its overwhelming continuing impact, presents you with “external” conditions. You must meet them as best you can, and they are the only conditions you can meet. You can’t deal with last Tuesday’s experience (though you may have to deal with present consequences of not having dealt with them then) and you can’t deal with next Tuesday’s, even if you are able to anticipate them.
Well, each present moment evokes or mobilizes or stirs certain elements within you. They come to the fore, and to you it looks like they bring with them autonomous thoughts or moods. In fact, you very likely see the thought or the mood and do not see the accompanying strands of your being that produced and responded to them, in reaction to the “external” events of the ever living ever moving present moment.
F: Which is what you were just telling me – that I don’t notice the strands causing me to react in one way to certain kinds of things and in another to others.
R: That’s right. Now, look again at Louisa’s second sentence. Can you see how many unnecessary postulates society – even psychologically sophisticated society – posits in attempting to understand something that is actually quite simple, when grasped by the right handle? And by the way, don’t forget, I know this first-hand. I was a Jungian myself. But a change in postulates gradually produces a change in the conditions one sees as reality and those one sees as illusions.
No need to postulate things coming from non-3D – and in any case, what would that mean? No need to consider them as coming from the collective unconscious – and what would that mean? If it means from the one mind we all share, it is tautology. If it envisions that collective unconscious as a separate thing, it is mistaking a word for a reality. If it takes TGU – or me – as something acting separately from the individual instead of smoothly with it by necessity, it is a mistake of something internal for something seemingly external.
F: And her second question?
[Louisa’s second question: “I love Frank’s quote from Jung regarding making the unconscious conscious but what does that really mean to an individual? Do we have a personal unconscious? What makes some people open to these autonomous voices? Sanford used Satan the challenger to Christ in the desert as an example and said this voice was also Christ’s voice. I would like to understand where these forces emanate from and do they touch only some or all of us?”]
R: You must understand, Jung was a great pioneer; he was not a map-maker of established certainties. By that I mean, his maps were provisional, and he never said otherwise. So Jungian concepts may be easily made into obstacles if taken too far or “believed in” rather than lived.
[Another, well-remembered, “voice”] If I may have a word –
F: Of course, although I know this won’t do my credibility any good. It has always been a great honor, Dr. Jung.
CGJ: When I said “personal unconscious” or “collective unconscious” I was trying to stretch people’s awareness – and my own, no less – from the 19th century rationalism we had grown up with.
That is a mentality very far removed from those of you who were born 50, 75, 90 years after 1875! So my own efforts to break a path, which I may say took all the strength I had, were provisional, as all human thought must be. Collective unconscious, personal unconscious, meant different things then because the other end of the relationship – the mentality of the reader – was quite different. You must not think that any two people can read the same book, any more than any two people can have the same conversation that either can have with another. So, my books are changing before your eyes. So must my work. If you would do as I did, study the living evidence before you, not merely the formalized understandings – dogmas, really – that result from making a provisional statement for one age into a definitive statement for all ages. Such procedure is quite unscientific, no matter the credentials of those who proceed in that way.
F: Thank you. More?
CGJ: Not at the moment, and of course I am available for others, only let them have serious intent and willingness to re-examine what they think they know, and what they think I knew.
F: And this of course brings us back to the question of who can speak with authority of the thoughts of those no longer in the body.
CGJ: No one. The thoughts will speak for themselves, for good or ill. Stupid or ignorant words will not gain impact by being credited to Jung. And one’s self-importance that might like to be associated with Jung in so easy a manner, will soon meet a rebuke that will be remembered! In such matters it is of prime importance to remember to be servant of the truth, and not the attempted master.
F: I try to keep it always in mind. Again, thank you. Miss Rita?
R: That’s about enough for today. Let me add merely that if you will look back at Louisa’s second question and rephrase it recognizing that these autonomous voices are only seemingly autonomous, and that the source is always within yourself if only by resonance, everything changes – or, anyway, appears to.
F: Okay. Well, thanks as always, Rita. Our hiatus certainly didn’t last long! I’m not going to promise that it won’t resume.
R: No need to promise. Tomorrow is always another day – which in context means the ever-moving present moment always has new opportunities in store for you.
F: Rather too many, sometimes! Okay, till next time.