Rita on communicating

Tuesday, March 31, 2015

F: 4 a.m. John Dorsey Wolf poses exactly the kind of question I have been dreading, one where Rita has to know the answer, and I don’t, and can’t surmise it. In other words, the question puts me on the spot and mobilizes and activates all my own doubts about the process. In short, “what if I’m only making this stuff up?” So – good questions. Miss Rita? You up to the challenge?

R: You mean – am I really here? Do I really exist?

F: More like, are we really in contact? Retrieving factual information has always been a big hurdle for me, and I draw my conclusions [from that fact].

R: The questions involve Explorer tape 19 on Love Fear and Higher Consciousness – who was the non-3D source – and tape 29 on Aspects – are they related to strands?

[Typing this, I retrieve them from the blog comment.

[John Dorsey Wolf: “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 its 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?”]

R: And you are worried lest your answers demonstrate that you have been only fooling yourself, all this time. But by now, that is a matter not of years but of decades.

F: Don’t I know it!

R: Well, what did I tell you 15 years ago, though not in the way you like to put it?

F: All right, I’m smiling. You said I wasn’t smart enough to be making it all up.

R: What I really said was that you were producing a consistent and logically connected body of information that was beyond your ability to fabricate.

F: Isn’t that just what I said? I always said you said it in the nicest possible way. 

R: I have never troubled to correct the nuance, because I knew the way you put it made it easier for you to hear, as well as easier to say. But we have moved on, now. It was never a matter of you not being smart enough, but of your producing material that clearly was not the result of fabrication.

F: All right, and thank you. So –?

R: So the question is an opportunity to do two or three things at once. One, it demonstrates to others that doubt and even fear are likely to accompany the explorer at any stage of the game, not that this is a bad or a good thing, just a fact of life. It shows that such doubts can be overcome, by the same process that produced them. And it shows that fearless or even fearful exploration will produce material that may be of value provided that the information and the process of demonstration remain central, rather than the credibility or prestige or even self-respect of the person asking the questions. [This meant not the person requesting the information, but the person engaging in ILC.]

F: Well, that has been my theme right along, hasn’t it?

R: It has, and that has been the value, a teaching tool.

So to proceed to the questions themselves.

First, remember that I might well be unable to give you a specific name of the explorer, or might give you (or you might postulate) the wrong one. Say you got that this explorer was Rosie McKnight. Whether that specific bit of information was right or wrong would tell you only one thing, that that, specific, bit of information had been right or wrong. It would neither confirm nor disprove that your process in the larger sense was accurate or dependable. If right, you might have made a lucky guess. If wrong, you might have made an unlucky guess. You know what a fine line it is between reception and guesswork. Your experimentation at DOPS [UVA’s Division of Perceptual Studies] showed you that in the process of ESP testing; your experience with Joseph Smallwood and the Battle of Chattanooga [described in my book Chasing Smallwood] showed you that (though you didn’t quite understand the implications) nine years ago.

However – to ease your anxiety a bit, notice that the two questions deal with conceptual information – where you are most at ease – rather than specific bits of data retrieval, which cause you high levels of anxiety. In this I would say you reflect your larger personality as reflected in the Myers-Briggs form. You easily grasp larger pictures; you stumble over detail.

F: The guys told me in my PREP session in Guidelines in 1993—I see the forest but overlook the trees.

R: They also advised you to pay more attention to trees! It is still good advice, which you occasionally heed.

Now, as to the first question, who was the non-physical source of the information. I am smiling myself, as I remember the first session you and I had, in August, 2001, when I asked a question based in the same assumption, and the guys refused to answer it in the terms it was posed, lest they reinforce us in an incorrect way of seeing things.

F: Oh, I remember, for sure! You thought it was such a simple question – and I gather that others (Explorers, I mean) – had been used to talking in terms of individuals, but the guys would have none of it. They were downright blunt about it.

R: Even in this series of communications, between two people who came to know each other very well, we ae allowing ourselves to proceed as if it was the individual Frank talking with the still-individual Rita, and in a way that is true. But the point is, in another way, it is not true, and it is for the purpose of leading people to a greater awareness of the specific nuance that we now begin to stress different ways of looking at it.

So, I would say to John Dorsey Wolf, what you – and others, usually including Frank – assume in posing the question in this way is that information flows from a given person, whereas in fact it flows through, not from, in the same way healing energies do. To lay too much stress on the question of who the information flowed through is to over-emphasize the nozzle and hose as opposed to the water. Even among the embodied, as of course all who read this are, information seeks its outlet by choosing nozzles at least as often as nozzles choose where the water is to come from.

F: You’re even more insulting in your analogies than the guys were, Rita! It was bad enough to be called worms, but hose nozzles?

R: I know you’re smiling, but your readers may not. But in fact an inorganic analogy just for this moment, and just for the sake of one momentary point of view, is actually very apposite, because we are making a very important point about process.

It is natural that anyone in a body experiences life as if proceeding from other bodies; that is, from other distinctive individual units. Natural, but inaccurate and insufficient, particularly as you refine your perceptions. And when you go to conceptualize the non-3D sources of information that you contact seemingly in a very different way than ordinary sensory communication, it is natural to carry assumptions over. But it is not accurate.

Suppose I said, “Oh yes, the non-3D source of that particular passage was John the Baptist?” Even if in fact it could be said to be John the Baptist (and, understand, I am using that name only as an example), what would that tell you?

F: Well, I don’t know, Rita. It seems to me it is of value that we here know that I’m talking to you rather than –. Oh. I get your point. It’s really less meaningful than we assume, isn’t it?

R: Even when we were speaking face to face, neither of us knew from one moment to the next where any given bit of information really came from. You never do. [This was not an insult. It meant, one never does.] Communities talking to communities, and giving attributions to the supposed unit through which the information proceeds.

F: You aren’t so much answering John’s question as taking it for a springboard.

R: Correct, and nothing wrong with it. I told you earlier, that is what I would do from time to time. But, in fact, I did answer the question. There is no ownership of ideas, and – think about this one – no ownership of ways of seeing and thinking and intuiting. It is convenient to pin a given thought to the lifetime it expressed through, but it is only convenient; it is not particularly accurate.

F: I thought a main point of 3D existence was to shape a unit out of disparate strands so as to create a new viewpoint.

R: It is. But a view point is not the same as the creation of the view.

F: Hmm.

R: It is a way of seeing and expressing, but what is seen and expressed is not created by the unit.

F: I see. And John’s second question?

R: That will have to wait for another day. You are well over your limit.

F: Okay. Thanks for all this. A lot to chew on. Till next time.

29 thoughts on “Rita on communicating

  1. “R: Even when we were speaking face to face, neither of us knew from one moment to the next where any given bit of information really came from. You never do. [This was not an insult. It meant, one never does.] Communities talking to communities, and giving attributions to the supposed unit through which the information proceeds.”

    This is huge. It makes me think of Tom Campbell who I love. I feel as I read this, as he says so often, “It’s just … DATA!” It’s as if the data/information is fundamental and we’re ‘God’s’ (the larger consciousness system’s) carriers of that. God’s thoughts, gathered together (in his name :))

  2. What jumped out at me was “information seeks its outlet by choosing nozzles at least as often as nozzles choose where the water is to come from.” What you (and Rita et al) are doing with these series of communications is quite remarkable, Frank! I have very much enjoyed having my viewpoint expanded!! Thank you so much for your willingness to share this experience.

  3. Thank you for your anxiety, and for the information. It was extremely helpful information about the nature of information and it’s sources as well as the process that I am trying to learn. I personally don’t mind being a “nozzle”, as I might be for the question in this case..

    Further, the idea of energy and information flowing through, gives me a feeling that Rita may be introducing part of the answer to Question 2. That being that there are energies that flow through us that contribute to the reality and even to our thoughts, but may not have “ownership” within any single “unit”.

    Thanks so much.

      1. …glad to hear I’m not the only one w/ an “ulcer specialist” (not really, all in good fun!) Hah!!

  4. Good information here! It is a reminder that, perhaps, when we “drop the physical form”, it isn’t so much a “dissolution” but “expansion” into our Whole Self, which has access to more information/data than (generally) I do while in a physical body, seemingly bound by linear time.

    I started to read “My Big TOE” some years ago, but set it aside; I found the concept that this may be nothing more than a “digital information field” disturbing. Of course, I only read so far, finding I was more interested in his early involvement w/ TM, and working w/ Bob Monroe, as the latter was setting up his early research center.

    And, of course I now recognize that I have an aversion to “theories of Everything”, and also see that these are just models, often filtered thru the “human tendencies and interests” of those presenting them. Thus, a Computer Scientist/Nuclear Physicist would likely produce a different-flavored model than an Energy Healer, for e.g.

    Just my observations of the moment…


    1. i agree with your first paragraph and your third. But not only do i think this is the way things work, i also think there’s nothing wrong with it. That’s the flavor of the month theory of cosmos building.

      1. Indeed; as stated, I didn’t finish “TOE”, so cannot really give an unbiased review; perhaps I just jumped to the conclusion that “reality” being “merely a digital information field” was equivalent to a “cold, impersonal universe”, which, in turn, sounded (to me) like the Materialists’ model of “reality”.

        As you’ve stated below, I can only test for myself if something “hits a resonate chord” w/ me or not. So far, at least, I’ve found when my old “belief systems” wear out, I’ve felt more expanded, rather than being squeezed back into the “Reductionists’ boxes”. And “being disturbed” seems to go w/ the territory…


    2. It’s not surprising that many on this site are “Seth” enthusiasts. I’ve read all the Seth/Jane Roberts books, most at least twice. I have no doubt that I could read them again, with even greater understanding. Frank and Rita’s The Sphere and the Hologram and Cosmic Internet were for me building and filling in from the Seth foundation; likewise, this current material via Rita and Frank is continuing to expand that understanding. As has been said, I’m not sure whether I’ve found this “goldmine” of information, or whether it’s found me, but I really appreciate it, and all the work that it takes by Frank to produce it. It might be coming through different “nozzles” but the water is coming from the same pool.

      The various experiences that you all have shared, such as the one Inger Lise just posted, are perfectly normal in the context of what we are learning and I appreciate hearing about them. But I have to admit that prior to eight years ago, I would not have been able to say that from either the heart or the head!

      1. John, the fact that you say that “prior to eight years ago, I would not have been able to say that from either the heart or the head” is merely testimony to how far you have traveled (to date). And thanks for the appreciation of the effort, by the way.

  5. This (can’t do links properly) helps me understand Tom’s model, if you’re interested:


    Not wanting to push Tom’s work on your site, so don’t worry if you don’t want to publish this comment. He has a great vibe and his advice to raise the quality of your consciousness and ‘become love’ suits my temperament. I don’t know science; it just feels right or it doesn’t. Wish I was more intelligent, as when it’s based on gut feeling it’s hard to articulate. Your work meshes well with his, to me.

    1. I have come to think we can’t ever prove anything, to ourselves much less than to someone else. All we can do (fortunately, all we NEED do) is test to see if it resonates. If something within us assents, then i’d say go until we get a stop signal, or even a caution light.

    2. Hi Tina,

      As stated above, I only read about the first third of “TOE”, so cannot really give it “a fair shake” as far as reviews go…it seems, like the works and theories of other contemporaries, to speak to scientists, mathematicians, and digital specialists, of which I am none. However, I do like what you said, in summarizing TC’s work, that it’s about the raising of consciousness quality to “become Love”.

      It’s interesting; currently “The Seth Material” is what really resonates w/ me; I make this observation because I had a quick peek at the link to “TOE” you posted. The little I read still left me “cold”, but yet it had some strong parallels to “Seth”….huh…Seth also stressed the need to wed intellect w/ intuition/emotion, which is what I feel I need to do myself…

      …and a big part of this for me is really trusting “what resonates”. I got “well-trained” to “be wary of intuition/impulse/emotion”; “the head must rule the heart”, et.c. So, I feel the current “struggle w/in” is that I’m trying to get the “science-y intellect within” to “shake hands”/make friends w/ the “mystic/intuitive” part. In my own communications w/ my Source Self (a “Seth”/Jane Roberts term), I am gradually realizing that this “Me” is so much more than “little me” thought I “was”…

      As always, thanks to Frank, Rita, et al, for such thought-provoking discussions and ideas…


      1. Craig ! I almost fell off the chair–I have picked up to read anew The Seth-Material TODAY (on impulse more or less).
        Well, well, speaking of wireless Radio-Transmitters to tell the least.

        Now it is bedtime for me, nighty, nighty, from Inger Lise.

        1. Hi Inger!

          Good to hear from you again! I just thought today, “it’s been days since I’ve read a comment from Inger, ” and hoped all is well, and there you are! Years ago, I thought of the term “Intunet” to describe how we’re all interconnected, and communicate non-physically (this was a few years before any version of “internet”). (Of course, I’m not caught up on all of Frank’s latest entries of the last week.)

          Currently, I just finished my first reading of “The ‘Unknown’ Reality, Volume 2” last night, and will begin “Psychic Politics” tonight for my bedtime reading. Still quite wintry here; seems Spring will be rather “hard-won” for us this year, though the birds sound optimistic…


          1. Craig, thank you, I`m still “going strong.” Hmm, all is life. It is all about the extension in Consciousness and the changes of focus.
            But have found of us never “to finish” with the interest in Seth/Jane, Frank`s, or everything about cases of “eternal life.” Because that`s US.
            Back in 1988 tried out all the suggestions by Jane/Seth in the books BUT do not try it out by your own, IF you do NOT have someone else with the same interest and similar experiences to be talking with the matters.
            Thinking about all my “weird” (and I mean REALLY WEIRD) experiences in the former years. If I told you half of it in public (ALL of it) you would never believe me (once I tried to explain the experiences for my husband)–but he almost called for “The Men in White Coats” (not The Men in Black though) bringing me to one of these so-called psychic “clinics.” I have learned the hard way to keep my mouth shut! And therefore am VERY Grateful for Frank AND Charles.

            For instance, a couple of years after my older brother did his “transition”–I was all alone in the house, and took my “afternoon-nap” (I was working as a Secretary at the time) with the sunshine coming through the windows (in the summer is it daylight all night long here)–THEN all of a sudden my deceased older brother came WALKING INTO my bedroom. I sat myself upraised in the bed and watched him. He was kneeling beside the bed, looking me straight into the face and said VERY SERIOUSLY to me:” Inger Lise, YOU HAVE TO WAKE UP” I FELT a overwhelming LOVE and a HAPPINESS, impossible to describe… and called out: “Peter!! YOU ARE ALIVE”!! And I can STILL remember EVERY DETAIL of his clothes (how he was dressed with the shoes and all). Peter looking as in his best age: He was a sports-athletic, slim and well-built, blond with his very star-blue eyes (he was born with the big blue eyes).
            And I wanted to ask him many questions,but to my questioning he only repeated the same sentence: “YOU HAVE TO WAKE UP.” And then he plainly walked out of the room and the doorway as any “ordinary person,” and disappeared! I jumped out of the bed and ran out of the bedroom to see of where he went–But of course he was gone–I COULD NOT believe it! BUT HE WAS REAL. I did NOT sleep.’
            I was sooo excited happy,and picked up the phone to call my younger sister (she was a medical Secretary for 4 doctors at a hospital for the psychic-patients). IMAGINE WHAT SHE must have thought)– and without thinking how insane it must be, telling her; “PETER IS TO BE ALIVE, and I have just seen him and talked with him in
            my bedroom” — GOSH,my-oh-my, how foolish and naive can anyone be??
            BUT, luckily my sister KNOWING ME very well (at first she thought of me joking as usual). But I insisted upon the same:Peter was alive! AND repeating to her: It is NOT a dream, and even then my sister replying twice to me, very calmly and persistent:” It is only a vivid dream. I have such dreams as well.” Well, then, if she is to say it is only a dream, then it is a dream! Afterwards I had to realize it must have sounded crazy for others. Thinking by myself: NEVER again to do the same naive mistake.
            Okay, it is “one of those things.”
            Inger Lise.
            P.S.”…we`ll meet again, don`t know where, don`t know when…BUT, we`ll meet again some Sunny Day….”

          2. Hi Inger,

            Thank you for sharing your experience w/ your brother; I’ve not had any similar experiences, but have read that they are not uncommon. And I for one would believe your reports of your experiences; again, my “experience (personal) base” is limited, but I’ve read of a lot of “far out” encounters (reading of Bob Monroe’s reports of Greater Reality, which I found perfectly credible, would stretch most peoples’ credulity to the max!)

            Your comment about caution in who I share such experiences with is very valid; I got some cautionary responses when I would casually mention (years ago, ca. 1986) “I think I’m trying to go out of body at night.” From family: “Watch out; you’ll go insane!” From a young woman Anaesthesiology Resident I dated a few times (also 1986): “Watch out, or they’ll put you on the Mental Health ward!” (end of relationship :))

            It was my Godfather who handed me a copy of Bob Monroe’s “Journeys out of the Body”, who seemed to “get it” (I think he’d had a few “spontaneous trips” himself).

            And, yes, having someone, or group, to share such experiences is very helpful. My wife, Susan (having read “Seth” for 40 years) is always interested in my dream and OBE reports. And next week, I’m headed to TMI to do the Near Death Experience Intensive, “to boldly go…”

            I’m currently reading “Psychic Politics”; Jane’s descriptions of her “library”, viewing a “probable self” at work in the “library” are fascinating! Also reading “Sphere and the Hologram”, which complements “Seth” nicely.

            Finally spring-like today!


      2. Hi Craig,

        Tom says it’s just ‘his model’ and we should find our own by trying out-of-body for ourselves. If you watch some of his youtube vids, and you’ll get way more from them or the forum posts than you get from the book, you’ll find that he’s the warmest, most love- and compassion-filled man, despite his model of reality being all scienc-y, lol.

        There are people who post on his forum who still say ‘God’ and not larger consciousness system, and that’s all good. Nobody knows anything other than what they’ve experienced or what gels in regard to all this stuff. Highly personal stuff, which we share in our own language, like Frank was saying 🙂 I am not AS interested in his model, being a right-brained type, as I am in his message of lowering entropy, growing in Love, which is a many-lives job. I’m trying very, very hard to lose fear and grow trust. That message is everywhere: here with Frank and Rita and TGU, and there, and in Seth.

        I LOVE Seth and Jane, have nearly all the books. And I can read Tom, Frank AND Seth without any problem. They all resonate and, to me, don’t argue.

        1. Tina, you say (and good for you): “I’m trying very, very hard to lose fear and grow trust.” Maybe try this. Instead of viewing less fear and more trust as a goal to be achieved, view it as something within you that you already resonate to (else where would the desire for more of it come from?) and choose to manifest. In other words, try viewing it as threads that already exist that you now wish to manifest, and its corresponding opposite traits — more fear and less trust — as threads that exist that you no longer wish to manifest. I have found that looking at it this way makes the conceptual change easier, as instead of having to manifest something new, you are merely manifesting something that already exists within you.

          1. Hi Tina and Frank,

            Thank you for your observations; they mean a lot to me (will type more later; have to run off to the dentist to see if I need some work done, prior to heading to TMI next week)!

            Frank, your idea of contacting “threads” so much echoes what I’ve been reading (and practicing when I go for a nap, or sleep), of “contacting that Probable Self, or Counterpart, who has all of my interests, and has lost the need for unnecessary fear and anxiety…More later!


    3. Well, as it turns out my copy of the My Big TOE Trilogy showed up in my mail when I returned from a trip today.

      I am looking forward to wading into it in a few places, and will start with the summary that Tina has provided.

      Thanks for your well-timed comments, probably not coincidental!

      1. Hi John,

        No coincidences, definitely!

        I wanted to say one more thing to add to my reply to Craig (I believe I’m talking too much and I’m getting out of my comfort zone now, but one more, lol.)

        Tom goes ‘there’ all the time, in mid-conversation even, and having gone ‘there’ for years, he’s made his model based on who he is and therefore what he has experienced, and I believe this stuff is highly subjective, has to be, surely.

        What I’m trying to do is follow Frank’s example and *contact* ‘over there’, which is here, of course, but I don’t think most of us will make a model of reality – simply making contact will be life-changing. It already is, for me, albeit a little slow for my over-exuberant, needly little self.

        I will stop talking now. Thanks Frank, for this wonderful place to chat and for all that you’ve done.

  6. Frank,
    Sooooo … all this time you’ve been “producing consistent and logically connected information beyond your ability to fabricate.” Does Rita have a way with words or what?!

    You might consider that a number of us (like Rita) have a lot of experience (and careers) in fields that require judging how “consistent and logically connected” information is; if what you ‘transmit’ wasn’t, you’d hear from us. To quote Dr. Warren, “Gentlemen, this is no humbug!”

  7. Frank, I am always amazed how you are able “to hit the nail on the head.” All of the material you are given (and have the gift to give out without a doubt) by TGU, Rita, and all the others, are truly about The Expansion in Consciousness to all of us.
    Edgar Cayce said:”Nothing will be given without a purpose.”
    Rita said something similar, if i do not recall it all wrong.
    All is energy,and all is made out of “vibration.” Every vibration has “a resonance” somewhere, and yours resonates with me (that`s for sure).
    I have always thought “The Law of Attraction” was somehow a fatalistic concept, but have come to see it is spiritual science. It is how the universe works.0
    We have talked about “the wireless radio-transmitters” once before (smiles). Why should we have “doubt” about it (or fear)? Yes, I know why–it is because– as Jane Roberts once told about herself when speaking with Seth: “To be afraid of leading the people astray.” It is the feeling of Responsibility for sure (the honest persons).
    BUT (me and the but`s), it is very true that everybody is accountable for their own ways; either in what to believe or not (not to mention in the daily behavior at home especially if not to be in agreement with myself (smiles).

    LOL,Inger Lise.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *