Wednesday, March 25, 2015
F: 4:10 a.m. Rita, it isn’t that I am tired of doing this, but I wonder if maybe we have reached the point you and I got to in 2002 where we ran out of questions to ask. Not, obviously, because we’ve said all there is to say, or learned all there is to know – then or now – but because we’re sort of without direction. Answering questions from others is all well and good, but can we trust it to carry us forward? Yes, I realize you can use any stimulus to proceed where you are going, so I guess I don’t even know what it is I am asking, or why. So – over to you.
R: Perhaps it is time for you to re-read and consciously digest, as Charles is doing. You two are bookends, in a way. He is likely to do too much analysis, and you too little. Ideally, you would both do both. So, as I say, perhaps it is time for you to change gears. A few mornings spent re-reading and making your own list of things that occur to you would be well spent, and you needn’t worry that your readers will get bored and drift away – re-reading and analysis and questioning is what they will need to do, too, if they are going to get more than a passing amusement out of this.
F: Hmm. Starting today?
R: Why not? And of course you don’t need to make it an either / or. No reason you couldn’t alternate within the same session – half an hour of communicating, half an hour of reading and thinking. Only, if you do this, do it as methodically as you have been doing this, so as to gain the advantages of habit and inertia.
F: I’ll seriously consider it. Meanwhile I wish you could help me find the things I have mislaid in my move, that are making it impossible for me to get things shipshape again. Where are the fasteners that I so carefully put into envelopes, for instance?
[pause]
And why can’t you help me? Even if you didn’t exist — — my own unconscious mind should know, but I cannot dredge out the information. I don’t care why, particularly, I just want them to re-surface. But it is as if they ceased to exist.
R: An experiment for you. You know they exist but you cannot find them anywhere you look, and you have run out of places to look. So, both memory and logic have failed you, and you have only a desperate stab in the dark as your remaining resource – that is, you are asking unseen powers to return them to you. Why not remember and use Bruce Moen’s technique?
F: And describe it for people, I take it.
R: Of course.
F: Bruce said that as long as he said, “I can’t find it,” it was as if the universe would say, “okay, fine, if that’s the way you want it, you can’t find it.” But when he changed it to, “I need X,” he would find it, as if it appeared out of nowhere. And this has worked for me sometimes but does not seem to be working this time.
R: No, and here is the experiment. Instead of saying, “I need those fasteners,” and then proceeding to try to imagine where they could be – which you see is a sort of combination of logic and intuition, but one with the weaknesses rather than the strengths of both – try just putting out your clear statement of the need for the furnishings and then going about your business as if in confidence that they will appear.
F: But their absence is holding me up, in the meantime.
R: And their absence is not any less delaying you by your ineffective method of finding them.
F: True enough. All right, we’ll see. I’ll try to work around them until they show up. Meanwhile, I need to find a system to store and accumulate my questions on this material
R: Easy enough. By the way, you might describe for people how you proceed here, as formerly with Hemingway, and formerly with others and formerly with TGU.
F: Simple enough, and methodical enough.
I transcribe the material into the computer and I print it out, single-spaced with a space after each paragraph. I hole-punch the sheets, staple them together, and put them into a three-ring binder, and thus I accumulate the material in accessible form automatically, a few sheets a day, divided (by month, in my case) by the index dividers they sell, partly to keep it organized so I can find things, but mostly, I think, to prevent it from becoming one intimidating undifferentiated mass.
R: And on the computer?
F: I have a directory I call “journal and messages,” and within it I have subdirectories by ten-year periods, and within them, directories for each single year. Each day’s entry is a file labeled according to the self-sorting method I learned as a computer programmer long ago. So, today’s will be “2015-03-25 Rita” and will thus automatically sort out in place. Why are we detailing all this?
R: Because not everybody will have realized the advantages of such system, and because it will remind you that the same habits will help you accumulate questions and reactions. Make a subdirectory called questions and add it to your other directory, which, you will notice, you forgot to describe.
F: So I did. Every day as I finish spell-checking and re-reading that day’s entry, I save it in “journal” and then resave it in another directory I call “Rita’s book.” The file name automatically sorts it in the same way as it did for the journal directory, and thus I have an automatic backup.
R: Just for completeness, you might describe the rest of your system for accumulating material for books.
F: Why? What’s the point? Nobody is going to care. But – if you say so. I have a subdirectory called “books,” divided into others called “books being written” and “books completed and published.” The former is divided into “fiction” and “nonfiction” and is further divided into directories by title such as “Rita’s book.” Is this really necessary?
R: It is worthwhile to remind people that life is more than intuition, more than communication with the non-physical. System helps keep you grounded and oriented within the work, and will help others as they proceed.
F: If you say so. So, I just realized, no point in starting another journal book just for questions, as I was thinking I would have to do. I can just enter them here as I go along and then transcribe to a computer file and print out as I go along.
R: You can indeed. And it is just such work as will orient you and sharpen your understanding.
F: Well, we’ve spend 45 minutes on this. I hope it is worthwhile. I’m afraid people are going to be disappointed.
R: That isn’t your worry. All you are responsible for is doing your work as best you can. So – use your remaining 15 minutes to get a start on the re-reading / thinking / questioning process, and I will see you when you are ready next time.
F: All right, and no doubt by then my fasteners will have reintroduced themselves into my reality. Till then.
Believe it or not, Frank, I found today’s post to be very useful (“severely practical” to borrow one of your phrases)!
Believe it or not Frank, I found this entry pretty refreshing!
If nothing else it served to give us a little insight into your writing process/organization. I worked with tons of audio files at a previous job and organized them in a similar fashion on the computer.
I have a bit of a knack for organizing things and thought that that ability may be holding me back in doing non-physical stuff…like, I was *too* oriented in the physical/3-D and I needed to let that go to ‘learn’ how to communicate better with the non-physical/non-3-D world.
And we had the added bonus of learning you were a computer programmer! 🙂
It’s very interesting that people find things worthwhile that i have my doubts aobut while writing them. My sister told me that she had been interested, as well.
As to having been a programmer, probably we should say i was a programmer by courtesy — that is, I wrote in COBOL, in the cubicle next to Fred Flintstone.
Thank you for Bruce’s technique. I have a list of things to try it on. And your process for organizing your information is not boring. This reader is interested in what goes in behind the scenes and not just the end result. I’m as interested in Rita’s answers as I am in your process for receiving them and also how you use non-3D information to deepen your understanding of your life.
I have a friend who’s a concert violinist. I’m as interested in what the music means to him, and what he needs to do to prepare for a concert or a pre-concert lecture as I am in the concert itself.
Thank you, Thank You, Thank You. Haha Frank you wonder about the benefit, we can never know at the time what ripples move out from our work. In this case it might be me actually finding those tax papers!!
How these little droplets of ideas flow and swim among those that were already there. New perspectives, a greater sea to swim in. The information and ideas are threads too, and weave the tapestry that I am constantly becoming.
Much love and gratitude to you both.
Jude
Remember F12? I use this state of consciousness to find lost objects and it has never failed. I touch the centre of my forehead while I think about what is lost, then in an explosive out breath I say F12! And let the thought go knowing that my body will be guided to the the lost object.
There have literally been times when I have actually sat on the thing I was looking for …
Good luck!
Trying it. Will let you know.
In doing some re-reading today at Rita’s suggestion I came across these “markers”, hers, presumably for later follow up. I would be interested in what she has to say about them:
R: No I didn’t go through a life review process in the sense of a tutorial. Yes I received the understanding that would result from a life review process, merely by regaining access. Another thread to follow up on at another time: HOW WE BUILD IN MEANING AS WE GO ALONG in the same way and as part of the same process as we shape ourselves by choosing.
F: Which reminds me that I want to ask about the various versions of various realities and how that fits in.
R:In time. You have noted the question Remember it another time and it will be a fruitful topic of discussion.
R: Sometime we should talk about the Akashic record.
So these are three areas that you and Rita have seemingly book-marked for follow up.
Related, I have a follow up to one of Charles’ questions about where Rita “was”. It is very difficult for us to take away the spatial reference. So that makes asking this difficult. Within a continuous and connected consciousness, it sounds possible to “focus” on or to what was a completed individual, or alternatively, or perhaps simultaneously on a greater being, of which the completed individual is a part; and beyond, perhaps to a combination of greater beings. Does Rita find herself “home” in one or more focuses, or “states”, of consciousness, such as with the greater being? Does the essence of our greater being exist in a state of consciousness of combined compound and non-compound beings, and then “at a higher level” or “at a greater state of combining” is a part of combinations of greater beings? Do these “states” relate in any way to what Monroe was getting to with the TMI focus levels? I am using the language of “states” to try to get out of the spatial referencing.
All good questions. We’ll see.
Thanks so much, Rita and Frank. Many personal questions via-a-vis Earth changes and human response, but the answers are flowing, as it appears they are to many now.
“It is worthwhile to remind people that life is more than intuition, more than communication with the non-physical.” … had to grin at this one! As an engineer I know systems and organization and planning and work management … my struggle is to find and use that intuition and connection with the non-physical.
(To me) Rita and TGU have been clear about their ‘agenda’: to help the process(es) through which us 3D’ers become more and more conscious of/connected to guidance. They’ve been just as clear that we each grow in our own unique and personal way … yet I (like many here I suspect) feel a connection to the group that’s formed around this line of teaching. Another case of individuals making up the one?!
In the growth of ‘new directions’ there’s often a point where (although the questions and new information and growing abilities are fun and interesting) folks get a feeling that “we’re sort of without direction.“ I’m feeling any such direction must come from ‘us’: in 3D, Rita, TGU, and ????.
So I suggest we follow Rita’s suggestion to re-read/analyze/question/consciously digest the information we feel affinity for, then communicate insights here as we’ve been doing.
Jim
Yes, and if someone can think of a way to combine in one place comments from various posts, it may prove illuminating. I don’t know how to do it and would rather not undertake another chore, though i would be glad if someone else did.
Frank,
Seems to me the first step is to consider posing your question above in a different way: what can we trust to “to carry us forward?” … while recognizing that in 3D that consideration starts with ‘what does going forward mean to me.’
Agreement and shared vision of the way ‘forward’ grows out of those individual visions. Hopefully such vision will come out of the “re-reading and analysis and questioning” Rita asks of us. Perhaps the ‘combining’ method will come naturally out of that process.
Jim
Dragged kicking and screaming,eh?
You and i wouldn’t know anything about that….
Hello, I wonder if someone can help me. If this isn’t the place, please ignore the request.
I’m re-reading The Sphere and the Hologram, and in Session 6, 18/9/01, TGU say:
Suppose you look at the whole universe as a balanced system. In electrical terms, it has positive and negative, right? … And every polarity has to balance out. Otherwise there’d be something left over … and it couldn’t be.
There’s no such thing as being able to eliminate all the negative, and have even one atom of positive more than negative. It just can’t be done, you see.
~~~
I’m not super-bright, but I don’t see. The guys say that if there’s positive in one place, or time, there HAS to be negative in another to balance it. I don’t know why that’s true. They then go on to talk about moral relativity, which seems to make the balance argument even harder for me to understand. I’m sure it’s me, but can someone help me?
I’d be glad to try, but you need to spell out the source of your perplexity. What do you find hard to understand?
Now you say that, I feel sure I am being very dim, lol. Thank you for trying to help me. But, is the Universe a balanced system in that way, necessarily? I don’t know why there has to be a ‘countering event’, as though the Universe works like a set of scales. “Every polarity has to balance out.” I even went to look up how electricity works to try to see where I was not getting it, but that just made me more confused.
It seems they say that for every good thing, there has to be a bad thing. That the Universe can’t be more good than bad. Is that evolution or growth, though? It feels like something static. If I remember rightly, the ‘polarity’ section was after the part on the problem of evil (after 9/11) and now I feel that I am reading that all good stuff has to be balanced by bad stuff. I don’t know. I think I just don’t get it.
i think the ideas is that overall there is no lack of balance between what we see as good and what we see as bad;. which is not to say that the universe would necessarily sign off on our judgments. I think you are trying to think in terms of “progress,” which is a prime unconscious assumption of this dark materialistic age. But maybe that’s an illusory concept, like Universal Peace, or for that matter “inevitable progress.” Maybe each civilization is characterized by certain traits that allow or discourage certain specific behaviors, and maybe that is what each civilization is designed to do. i don’t think we’re in a novel and the point is waiting to find out how it all ends. i think we’re in a continuing serious of experiments, and previous ones don’t have much to do with later ones.
Does something with polarity have to be symmetrical? Or can something with poles (duality?) be asymmetrical in content? I’m making myself tired and will go to sleep now, but will try to find my own guys before I do to see if I can’t get clarity. Wish me luck. 🙂
always
I get your point about ‘progress’, thanks. I’m always looking for comfort.
If it was the guys and not just me, last night, they seem to suggest I am asking for the wrong reasons anyway and that I should trust more and stop worrying so much about what’s CORRECT. That’s true. I’m too much for theory and not enough about practice.
And that is practically a summary of the human condition in our age, too much theory and too little practice. Not me, of course. 🙂
Hi Tina,
I feel I’ve been about where you’re “at” lately–although, of course, our individual journeys are quite unique. Sometimes I read the info presented here (or from other sources), and wonder, “how am I doing? For much of my life had (past tense!) been about wondering “who/what had/was the CORRECT answers?” At this time, I’ve found that approach especially tiresome/wearisome (literally), and am making “Trust” and “Imagination” two of my touchstone words.
The question of “balance” is interesting; many things in our natural world (including electricity) seem to seek balance, but I also feel that some Ultimate Balanced State implies (to me, anyway) a state of “completion”, which I see as “no further growth/exploration possible”, i.e. “entropy”.
Seems I’ve read in Jane Robert’s “Seth Material” (in numerous sessions) where Seth wasn’t “big” on “balance” in our Human state. We look for it, and it gives “the pause that refreshes”, but then our curiosity (or dissatisfaction w/ status quo) kicks in, and we’re off exploring again! Seth had also said, FWIW, to “run away from” any practice/spiritual discipline which promises Nirvana as a “permanent state”! I find this resonates w/ me, as I continue my own “experiments”…
Craig
Craig, a thought.
You said: I also feel that some Ultimate Balanced State implies (to me, anyway) a state of “completion”, which I see as “no further growth/exploration possible”, i.e. “entropy”.
What if entropy is not a state of completion but also not merely “running down” the way people commonly think of it, but is progress in another (complementary) direction?
Thanks, Frank, for this thought; I will have to cogitate on it a while…I’m finding many of my old “belief systems” are failing lately. My definition of “entropy” is clearly rooted in the old Materialist Physics view. Having to live w/ much uncertainty…
…I also clearly need some “practice” for quieting the mind, and have to “concede the point” that the Buddhists seem to have “an edge” on this. Also, “clearly”, my thinking is not so clear today…Found myself upset last night, after a long conversation w/ Susan and a visiting friend; I had to leave the discussion (which continued btw the two of them for another three hours) to “go link up” via sleep…
Craig
i understand that one. i have always fled gratefully into sleep, and i feel about sleep as Churchill felt about liquor, when he said he had gotten far more out of it than it had gotten out of him.
I found what you wrote about your system very useful, too.
Believe it or not, not all people are like you, Frank – a few of us need guidance 🙂
And somehow I missed the entry where you let people in on where you were moving to. I hope it’s a nice place and that you are happy there.
I moved across town (Charlottesville) and am literally within sight of Monticello. It’s a very strange townhouse, only 13 feet wide but 40 feet long, with great light coming in from each end (roughly northeast and southwest). it has two full floors, then another floor half as long, which is, in essence, what would be the peak of the roof. No windows, which means lots of wall space for bookcases, and two skylights, which means wonderful natural light diffusing everywhere.
a friend asked me if i was lost or home, and i realized that from the very first night, even though all my writing and reading stuff is disorganized, it was already home. I think i’m going to be very happy here. But then, Abraham Lincoln once said he had noticed that most people were about as happy as they were determined to be.
Your house sounds very Dutch, judging from the long and narrow floors. Wonderful lighting and lots of bookshelves – how can you go wrong with that? 🙂
And I totally agree with Lincoln – happiness for me is having a perpetual smile inside, no matter what. But then right now I’m not standing in sh.t rising up above my chin and with my mouth open. Everything’s relative, but in principle I agree.
Just to throw a little Chinese thinking into the mix, based on my more than 25 years practice of qigong … Balance as a mixture of yin and yang in relation to physical health is always to have a little more yang than yin, as the yin is always seeking to dissolve and disintegrate. But not too much, if you have too much yang it is like holding your breath, you need to breathe out to get rid of the stuff you no longer need. So balance is always a dynamic process.
“Balance is always a dynamic process” — i like that.
Not knowing where to throw these into the pile, perhaps these best apply to potential “future Rita communications” for Charles.
I have questions about the Explorer Series that Rita and her husband Martin were likely involved in. Explorer Tape #19 on Love, Fear, and Higher Consciousness became an early “road map” for me to get on the path I’m on. I’ve always wanted to know more about it’s origins, which I understand came through an explorer. Could Rita shed any additional light on the non-3D source, which I believe is attributed to the Christ Consciousness, of that information?
Also I was listening to #29 on Aspects, which coincidentally was introduced and monitored by Rita’s husband. The question is whether the aspects as described by that tape are related to the strands that Rita has used as an analogy of our spiritual make up. What I understood from the tape is that there are energies that are a part of us that help to produce physical life, but themselves have never been a human or experienced human life as we do. So are there “energies” or other “aspects” of us that go beyond the physical DNA and the spiritual strands that Rita has described? If so, can Rita elaborate?
These questions aroused high anxiety in me, dealing as they did with factual information known to Rita and not me (I have never listened to the Explorer tapes), so i went looking right away, rather than adding them to the queue. That’s today’s session, just concluded. I will type it up and put it on the blog. Good questions, John, thank you.