Rita on ILC and transparency

Monday, April 13, 2015

F: 5:10 a.m. Well, Rita, we still have some unfinished business – questions I should ask on others’ behalf. Or do you have your own preference?

R: Let’s talk briefly about the one you have in mind, unasked. You were told that perhaps this practice harms your health, or acts as a drain on it, as it did on Edgar Cayce.

F: I wasn’t told, at least not firsthand. Provi on the TMI list was told.

R: A distinction without a difference. She got it from “the other side” and you are wondering.

F: Of course. I don’t experience it as a drain but as a continuing enhancement of my life. Certainly a great gift. But something within me resonated to what she said.

R: So what more do you need? Oh, an explanation?

F: I don’t need one, but I’m sure we would all be interested, particularly if such practice is to become part of ordinary life.

R: Ah, but you see, the more it is part of ordinary life, the less of a strain it is.

F: No, I don’t see.

R: Just cast your gaze back through history. Your process takes far less out of you than trance channeling took from Jane Roberts, or before her Edgar Cayce, and that kind of communication took less from either of them than it had from all but a few of their predecessors in Western society. And before them – in the line of the West, now, not humans as a whole – the oracles of the Romans and Greeks had a much harder time of it.

F: You’re saying trance channeling became easier with time, and ILC is intrinsically easier than trance channeling?

R: That is one conclusion! I think it may be worth going into this a bit, even though it makes you nervous because you know you don’t know anything about it..

F: So what else is new? Proceed. I can always repeat to the cops, “it was her done it, officer, I was just standing here minding me own business.”

R: True enough, at that. Very well.

A large part of the strain in such communication comes from the need to fight one half of one’s nature with the other half. The engineer must overcome “scientific” training no less than the conventionally educated psychologist. This becomes muted but it never ceases to be in play. So, with you, though you were trained to neither discipline,. A part of you says, “I don’t want to be fooling myself or especially others” while another part of you rushes eagerly on, saying, “Oh come on, there’s treasure here!” This is a tension, not necessarily a cause of strain. Can you see the difference and the cause of difference?

F: I suppose it depends on emotional attitude.

R: Exactly. One may have a difference of opinion within one’s “internal community,” call it, but no tension around it, or that difference of opinion may be polarized and bitterly contested, something like external politics. The different attitude, or let’s say the different level of emotion between the two states, will translate into greater or lesser stress within you.

F: That makes sense to me. You can have conflicted opinions about anything and it not really make any practical difference to you unless and until something makes it an emotional conflict, and then watch out.

R: There isn’t really any such thing as a strictly internal conflict, you know. All conflicts vibrate to the same external strings.

F: Let me work on that one. I know what you want to say but I think I can find a way to make it clearer. I wish I could paint it, or sketch it, because it’s easier grasped non-sequentially than by means of words. But let me try to wrap words around it. If I can find the right words, it will come out quite simply, I think, and if I can’t it will come out cumbersome and vague.

R: That’s your forte, words. Go to it.

[Long pause, while I waited for the words and concepts to emerge. A curious feeling, as always, waiting for something to well up, feeling the mechanism working, invisibly to me.]

F: Let’s try this. The key is that there isn’t any inside / outside, not really. So, there isn’t really any “strictly internal, strictly private” experience, even though we usually think in such terms. Our “innermost” thoughts ae not the way the language leads us (tempts us) to see them. It isn’t that our “innermost” thoughts take place in a closed-up closet inside a locked room in an otherwise empty house, the way we tend to think. In fact, we are all performing out in the open, because there are no divisions. It’s just that the other 3D extensions – other people – can’t see it. But in non-3D all is known because all is shared. What’s most to the point, what Raymon Grace calls “mass consciousness” is a factor in one’s emotional conflicts precisely because the strings of the conflict are not separable into “out there” and “in here” the way we customarily think, but are the same though experienced differently.

I’m not terribly happy with this expression, Rita, but it’s the best I can do at the moment.

R: That isn’t so bad, and of course you, and Charles, and Nancy, and others can always work at / play at rephrasing for greater clarity, greater explanation and exploration of nuance. But the point should be clear. One’s psychic being is not a matter of being “inside” and hidden, with one’s exterior being what is seen. That works as an approximation in the 3D world, but the reality is that internally it is the opposite, which means that one’s non-3D self knows the reality that one’s 3D self may have been fooled into not seeing. You know what happens then; how the difference in perception manifests depends upon how much one trusts one’s own knowing in the teeth of sensory appearance.

So, we have moved from one subject to another along a smooth connection. You can see that the connecting thread is the issue of trust and of internal strain and of the fact that “internal” is only an approximation and not an absolute.

F: So the more one trusts, the less the strain of ILC and the fewer the deleterious effects.

R: Yes, but that isn’t the whole story. (Less stress is helpful in general to one’s health, until one gets to the lower end of the activity scale, where stress becomes a necessary spur to action or even perception.) But stress resulting from conflict of beliefs is not usually not a great problem. People live their lives in compartments if need be. What is not very avoidable is the result of conflict of values. Conflict of beliefs causes irritation. Conflict of values leads to wars. This is a slight overstatement for the sake of clarity, but only slight.

F: We have used up three-quarters of our time. Time well spent?

R: Well spent. And we still have time to clean up a couple of points.

F: Such as?

R: Bob Friedman wants my opinion about TMI either setting up its own book-publishing line or perhaps setting up a line of books within some other publisher’s list.

This is hardly my area of expertise, but I would say

F: Well, I can feel the hand-off, this time, and I think we’re back to the person who advised about non-profits.

TGU: TMI like any entity needs to keep its eye on the ball, concentrating on what it does best and letting all subsidiary efforts be performed by professionals, not by its own employees as (inevitably) amateur hour. So yes, the idea of a line of books – and other media, we remind you – is a good one. But TMI’s involvement should be limited to overall sponsorship and perhaps – perhaps!, not definitely – a veto of inappropriate material. If such a veto is provided for, it should be used most sparingly, to avoid falling into the “not invented here” syndrome and the amateur-hour supervision of professionals. And yet, some such veto may be necessary as a brake to avoid the professionals’ complementary error of trying to be all things to all people.

F: Could Monroe Products serve as the publisher?

TGU: You could consider this, or, I should say, TMI and Monroe Products should consider this: We are talking about to different things here that need to be separately considered.

F: Okay.

TGU: Books that have been published (and tapes, CDs, etc. and in the future other products, but we’ll say books for a more compact expression) may be of continued interest and value to the TMI community past present and future but be unattractive as a commercial proposition to publishers. Such already-published material could be kept in print by a TMI or MP sub-entity as part public service part on-going advertisement. The editorial judgments would have been made at the time of publication, so you would be dealing with a professional, not an amateur, product. The function of keeping such a product in availability is very different from the function of choosing, shaping, packaging, promoting that is inherent in publishing new work.

F: It would be mostly a matter of coming to agreement with an author who had gotten his rights back.

TGU: Conceptually yes. But new material is a different situation that would require a larger discussion and you are out of time.

F: So we are. Very well, Mr. Mystery Guest, and thank you Rita. Till next time.

15 thoughts on “Rita on ILC and transparency

  1. Frank,
    I really appreciate the discussions about the ILC process, especially the difficulties. Inevitably, I experience them; for example, the “tension” as Rita calls it between the desire and excitement of potentially accessing wisdom versus the ever-present “Am I fooling myself?” question.

    At some point It would be helpful to understand what it is that has enabled the process to become easier, as Rita noted “ILC” versus channeling. i was told by my Exco a few months ago that this type of “ILC” connection I was experiencing was a “prototype” test that I had volunteered for. As you might imagine, I’ve had more than a little difficulty processing that.

    Trust really is huge, in this case trusting one’s own thoughts. The idea that you were working to express about those thoughts not being closeted and for that matter not originating in the closet is helpful.

    On the other hand, I’ve had thoughts float through that I would be embarrassed to become “public”. Naturally I feel that I can “filter” them, at least not verbalize them. I suppose as long as these are not resulting from fundamental values conflict, they are more “manageable” and resolving them are part of the process of forming ourselves.

  2. Frank? It is a matter of “trust” I guess.
    I recall Edgar Cayce got “warnings” about his own health issues a lot of times.
    He was advised by his own Source(s) to give less readings during the weeks (and month/years), to listen more “to the need of the body (more rest).” But during the five years of war E.C. received a big amount of questions each day (bunches of letters), from families who had their sons/daughters as Nurses, overseas.
    As it is told by his wife and friends about him: E.C.could not but help all the people asking for readings, coming from all over the country, almost working day and night with it. He was putting his own needs aside to the last end. It is said that he was worried about his own two sons who were overseas in the war as well.
    As you know, he died in 1945 at the age of 67.

    I have always thought it is rather peculiar Jane Roberts did not manage to overcome her own sickness even with all the good advice from Seth. Jane was given “the healing-tools” by Seth all the way.
    But it seems (when one reads what her husband said in the books), Jane did not TRUST herself enough (the own ability in to overcome the illness). She was only 55 years old at the time “when passing over”.
    Seth have told in the books:”Trust Yourself and The Universe.”

    It`s late…Bedtime.
    B&B, Inger Lise.

    1. Inger Lise, I have wondered the same thing about Jane Roberts, over the years. Here is my very tentative conclusion. Cayce and Roberts were both trance channels. That tells me there was a difference between the conscious self (its values and its beliefs) and the part of themselves that was bringing through the information. Particularly in Jane Roberts’ case, she appears to have been an artistic intellectual, at a time when that kind of person would be particularly apt to succumb to materialism and / or scientism. So, her conscious beliefs were likely at odds with the information Seth was providing. Seth, remember, claimed to have had a long relationship with Jane and Rob — that is, with Rubert and Joseph — and this means that the Rubert part of Jane probably saw things the same way Seth did, hence Jane was divided within herself.

      Similarly, Cayce’s conscious mind was molded and formed in fundamental Protestantism, a long way from the source of information he brought through. Again — perhaps — self-division.

      Just a guess, in both cases. But, big difference between channeling and ILC. Perhaps i’m not as much at risk, or perhaps i don’t know what i’m talking about. I guess we’ll see.

  3. Maybe Rita is suggesting that ILC has an evolutionary dimension… the values/beliefs conflict would have been greater in the past

    There is an evolutionary aspect to the concept of the lifting of the veil, that it is an event that is part of a story, a developing story

    I got the image now of a wave forming in the ocean, at first it is a bulge in the surface, then rises higher, at some point, it fall over… what is pushing the water underneath to make that wave?

    What might be driving the evolution of ILC…

    Also wondering if there might be a method of making the belief conflict conscious, do some kind of “getstalt therapy” where the two parts can converse and work it out…

      1. Hello!
        Yes,indeed. I was taken by surprise when Henry Reed commented on your blog Frank….Hereafter I will be an all quiet listener, and never (any more) dare to mention another word.
        I have done courses (online) with Henry Reed “in the past”.
        lol, Inger Lise.

        1. Don’t you dare subside into silence and deprive the rest of this community of your insights and experiences. Henry is human — more or less — like the rest of us! 🙂

          1. Thanks Frank, I`m feeling a little better now by the words of yours…”boldly go where nobody has been before…”(Star Trek).
            A big smile, Inger Lise.

          2. I prefer Spock’s words in an early TV episode when Kirk said that something Spock had done was “very human.” Spock drew himself up and said, “Captain, I don’t have to stand here and be insulted.” 🙂

  4. Very interesting discussion on some aspects of this communication. I can see that a deeper conflict about the work might have existed for Jane and EC in their core beliefs could create stress on the body. Helpful to think again about the ‘no real division’ aspect to make this an easier process. This does bring a question to mind for me about this work…perhaps a rather old one but something that arises none the less. The safety factor….do you use TMI protocol, tuning, affirmation, etc or your own ritual before beginning? I understand that it is a vibration level of attraction thing but since we live in this sea of energy, where all is not always as it seems, I wondered how we can be sure of good contact. Perhaps just another trust question?


    1. I don’t know what would or should work for others. For myself, I don’t ever think about protection rituals, but trust that things will work out as they should. Pretty slack of me, perhaps, but i really do live in trust. That doesn’t mean I am advocating it (nor dis-advocating it) for others. We each have to find our own way in this life, seems to me.

  5. Rita says that communication with the other side is getting easier and easier, which is certainly my experience and those of several of my friends. With Henry Reed, I also suspect there is “an evolutionary aspect to the [] lifting of the veil”. Comments from Rita? Also, I notice that in the run up to 12/21/12, channels were reporting all sorts of wild happenings that didn’t in fact occur. As a result, rationalization ran rife. Is there some way to certify a channel? I suspect not, that there are as many nuts on the other side as this. Comment?

    1. I think any reported communication from anyone about anything is always subject to verification or rebuttal by the event. I also think it is very easy for people to let the ego get entangled with the receiver, so that they themselves don’t know what they have at the end of the process. That is, much of what thye get may be wishful thinking, and if they aren’t careful, they will take it for Gospel.

      1. The commentary and your responses are always added value and appreciated.

        “That is, much of what they get may be wishful thinking, and if they aren’t careful, they will take it for Gospel.”

        Frank, in the absence of an event, what do you find works best to sort out the wishful thinking, to untangle the ego from the receiver?

        1. Humility and intent.
          Humility, as in the knowledge that unlike Dr. Who you don’t necessarily know the answers even after the fact (may not even know the questions, let alone the answers).
          Intent, as in having your priorities set on knowing the truth as best you can, rather than the way you want it to be.
          Neither quality can save you from making mistakes, probably, but I think they offer you the best chance to recognize the mistakes and correct them.
          I sort of want to add the word “skepticism” as well, but that’s a very two-edged sword, easily misused so that you wind up cutting yourself. Maybe I should say balance, avoiding both Psychic’s Disease (confusing certainty for accuracy) and Denier’s Disease, call it (refusing to entertain any idea you can’t vet in advance).

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.