Rita on guidance and certainty

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

F: 2:45 a.m. So, Rita, I am fascinated to see you making sense of things I started to get more than a dozen years ago, but couldn’t bring through coherently. I spoke of crystallizing but could never make it clear and plain because I couldn’t understand it clear and plain. But you yesterday did it almost off-handedly, b saying that people either can or can’t hold it together when the bonds of the body are gone, and, if they can’t, it is not the constituent parts but the organizing principle for that soul, the personality that had expressed in 3D, that goes away. You didn’t say it in so many words, but that was the unspoken essence of it.

R: Another example of “the better the question, the better the answer.” And merely by us seeing the question straight, a lot of perplexities fell away, did they not?

F: They certainly did! At least, for me. Maye others would need to go through our sessions to see how hard we struggled with the question of what happens to the soul that doesn’t crystallize, with the guys assuring us that nothing is lost, but unable to show us why not.

R: And you see that your assumption that the answer to Suzanne’s question would involve left-over assumptions was wrong. I think probably I’m just making you up.

F: It’s interesting. In life I rarely say, “very funny,” but it feels like I’m always saying it here.

R: Here, as opposed to life?

F: Yeah, I heard that too. I don’t know where that came from. All right, shall we move on? Charles has provided us a list of questions, as you know. I’ll re-read it and you tell me what’s your pleasure.

R: Let’s start with the question on guidance, because it shows Charles enacting the role I took in our sessions with the guys – actively thinking about the material and then seeing logical problems.

[Charles said, “I’m confused about guidance. Because a new soul is comprised of differing traits, might there be several options given and is that why we sit with it until it `feels right’? Or, is it always consistent? And if it is always consistent, on what is it based?”]

This really is an excellent, productive question that will help us move the discussion along, and so will help many who have not thought of it, and perhaps never would have – which means they also never would have come to the additional clarification.

He is exactly right. That is just what does happen [that is, varying guidance for different strands], and all of your lives should furnish you examples of the process, to greater or lesser extent depending on your internal makeup.

What may seem disconcerting is the idea that there may be no objectively correct Guidance, no official-seal-of-approval gold-standard automatic right answer. What? Are we fallible “over here”? Can we make mistakes? Jon Hold is closer here than you know, but not exactly in the way he pictures it.

There is no one single Guidance, any more than there is one single version of reality, or, for that matter, one single constituting individual. Some thought in the new context [that she has been putting forth here since December, 2014] will show you that there can’t be.

F: Well, nudge us along a little.

R: It is as Charles intuits, a different associated non-3D source of information and bias for each strand, and if you are living a community of mutually antagonistic strands, how else can it be than that your internal gods are warring? But even if your various strands are more or less harmonious and cooperative, there is going to be variance among them, perhaps trivial in some circumstances and serious – maybe deadly serious – in others.

F: You’re right, that’s very interesting and pretty obvious and I never would have thought of it.

R: Good thing you imagined me, then.

F: I’m going to let that one go. More on that question?

R: That’s enough for the moment. As people sit with it and hopefully remember it and apply it in their “real” lives, it will sink in deeper, and they will become ready for more that will tie in to other things.

F: I get, “other things,” some or much of which hasn’t been said yet.

R: True, but only meant as a general statement. I’m not keeping secrets or holding out on you. I’m saying that new information always has the potential to shed new light on older information. You can’t get around it, everything connects.

F: I’m a little tired, and maybe now I can get some more sleep. Maybe we can resume later?

R: I’ll try to make time in my schedule.

F: 6:40 a.m. So, Rita, another go-round? Another half an hour, say?

R: No, it would be better for you to rest. There’ll be another day, and meanwhile you have enough practical things to do.

F: I do, but I would rather do this. I’m unlikely to get more rest for a while. What about Charles’ question on nomenclature?

R: All right, that ought to be short enough.

[The terms “threads, strings, ropes, cables, and combinations of the concepts” as well as “traits, and past lives” have all been used to describe the non 3D continuing entity. Would you please define these so they can be used consistently?]

F: Emerson once said his page on consistency would have been better written, “damn consistency.” But I don’t imagine that’s quite your response.

R: Not quite, but I sympathize. It is a quality very much two-edged. It allows for the possibility of precision, but it therefore tempts people to cut life into little boxes rather than recognizing flow and nuance. In this case, though, the lack of consistency flows from your efforts to get a handle on new concepts and their slippery qualities.

F: Just as when I tried to understand what I was feeling, vaguely, about crystallization.

R: That’s why, or one reason why, I chose this question to go with our earlier discussion today. Similar situations. Remember, contact is as much for the development of the participating individual as for the inherent value of the information.

F: I take it you include the reader, as well as the diviner.

R: Of course.

F: So, as I remember it, I was trying to express my sense of various gradations of intensity.

R: Let me tell it. Yes, that, but as I observe that moment now – from your point of view as well as mine, you know; that increase in vantage points is not confined to what people are calling “past life reviews” – you were also trying to make sense of it, and were drawing logical conclusions and mixing them with your perceptions. That’s one natural pitfall in the process, because how different is that from interpreting?

F: I think that may not be quite clear to people.

R: On the one hand, the perceiver must interpret what is perceived, much more so than is commonly recognized, or what is perceived will not make much sense in 3D terms. Bob [Monroe] said it well in Far Journeys. But it is a short step to move from interpretation to logical deduction, and that is a step that is taken frequently. Fortunately, it is not an irredeemable step. But it is something to be wary of, a naturally occurring hazard of this kind of navigation.

F: And I can see that I would be resistant to people questioning such deduction, too, just because it is such a small and easily unnoticed step.

R: Precisely. Beware Psychic’s Disease, yet don’t demand an impossible certainty either. That’s the balance to be struck.

Now, I wanted this to be short and we haven’t even gotten to the question yet. I don’t want to slur over the distinctions but I don’t want to go into it either. Perhaps the safest step for the moment is to say, disregard all analogies and, for the moment, re-read such passages as indicating varying strengths and complications of continuity among and within the community that seems to you to be an individual. There is much more, but that’s all you are going to get today.

F: All right, I can take a hint. My mother used to say, “Here’s your hat, what’s your hurry?”

R: There’s always another time, until there isn’t. You can’t hold back the moment, either way.

F: No. Okay, till next time, then.

11 thoughts on “Rita on guidance and certainty

  1. Love the discussion. Thought provoking and stimulating! Presently, I am at sea aboard the USS ESSEX. I am very much looking forward to sharing some perspectives and asking more questions. I just don’t have a lot of time during the day to really formulate a worthwhile email. These discussions are very important for me to reflect on during those moments of pause between my position’s requirements. That all being said, I have an unexpected moment to send off a question.

    Maybe I don’t quite understand the idea of a personality that fully forms/develops (crystalizes?) or does not. As a medium, when we hold Healing Circles, everyone who comes in to assist the 3D person at the center of the Circle is obviously fully formed and continuing. I have yet to see any circle where the entire non-3D family, of the focus of the circle, does not show up. Admittedly, I have only a relatively small population of examples. However, I find it unimaginable that what we are experiencing is not the norm. At least, at that stage, everyone and their entire non-3D family must be fully formed and continuing as set personalities. Strands, if you will. Am I missing something from what has been discussed before?

    Thank you and everyone who is contributing for all of the discussions. I don’t get a lot of that kind of thought or reflection out here. It is very much appreciated.

    1. We can ask Rita, but I’d imagine that only crystallized (i.e. permanent) souls, or minds, or 3D graduates, however you want to put it, COULD come through. If those who don’t crystallize cease to exist, they aren’t going to be answering questions. And their individual strands — if you happen to hit one of them — would manifest as the complete being that that strand came from, not the failed attempt that didn’t make it. That’s my guess, anyway. Does that resonate?

      Will be glad to see you again, whenever your career allows.

  2. I am working on getting out there. I am just stuck right now on the west coast supporting my unit. LOL!!!! I now have allies in Norfolk. I am getting them out to San Diego for some support in a couple of months and will expect them to return the favor later in the year to get me back to Virginia.

    That does resonate.


  3. Hi Frank, and continued thanks to you an Rita for this on-going conversation.

    I’m still not clear on crystallizing. Can Rita give is a definition of “holding it together”? What does that feel like, what are the steps to do that, how can we know if we’re ‘on the beam’ to accomplish that?

    What an adventure, thanks again ~

  4. Chey here again…. and, how unusual is it to crystallize? Is it terribly difficult to accomplish?

    Many thanks, as always ~

  5. I thought, when I asked the question, that i was asking how to have a “successful death–transition”, and if it matters what the circumstances are at the moment when we die. But Rita answered with even better answers on how to have a successful life, one that leads to successful transition to non-3D at the end of it. Is it, then, mostly irrevelant how one “dies”? I hope so, cause most of us won’t be lucky enough to slip peacefully away as a room full of monks chant!

    1. Suzanne, after a lifetime of hearing people say “I’m not afraid to die, but i’m afraid of the dying process,” and after sometimes thinking that way myself, it occurred to me that i trust life, so why stop trusting that it will be fine all the way through? I’ll get the kind of death i get, and i will be all right, and presumably will be exactly what i need. That’s faith, i realize, but i don’t know any better approach.

  6. Well, an interesting thing happened on the way toward trying to ask what for me was a perplexing issue. A change of perspective happened and it changed my question. I was going to ask about the nature of our Earth relationships with each other, such as a family, as we transition and become more aware of our greater beings and other aspects of non-3D. Then it hit me that these relationships were not created in 3D alone as we perceive it on Earth, but in non-3D to begin with. That puts a different perspective on the way we look at “family”. So the question is, when being formulated in non-3D, what is the nature of the thinking or other action that results in what we see as an Earth family, or any other tightly knit group of people in physical reality?

  7. Thank you VERY MUCH Frank, and all of you.

    I came to recall a Reading by Edgar Cayce again, and quote:”Not ONE THING happens without has been dream of (dreaming about) at first”.

    The Meaning of the Reading:Everything in the physical matters will be at first “made” in the non-3D-environment (before manifesting within the physical environment). Exactly the same as Rita says.
    If I don’t recall it all wrong, ACIM and Paramahansa Yogananda (the two SEEMINGLY all different teachings have the Essence in common as many others), also mentioned somewhere: All of us to live “a dream within a dream.” It must be within The Holographic Universe?

    I`m always looking forward to the questions and answers from Frank, Rita and all.
    The Jig-Saw Puzzle gatherings.
    The blog of yours Frank will be the very best blog ever! Because you are giving us the opportunity in to express everything which “rest(s)” upon our minds freely.
    Or else says as Rita once to have mentioned (before her transition), about the Computers/PC`s;”it is not my “favourite-thing.”
    BUT, my-oh-my, how VERY USEFUL it is!!
    lol,Inger Lise.

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.