Thursday, April 16, 2015
F: 5:40 a.m. Rita? Shall we talk, or should I skip it for today?
R: It always depends on you. If your energy level is low and you want to take the time off to replenish, who is to say no? And, you know enough theoretically to say no to Cayce’s mistake of overdoing; Apply what you know.
F: Yes, but I don’t like seeing opportunities pass, either.
R: Opportunities pass you by – or you pass them by – all your life. It is not so much the ones you miss as the ones you seize that mold you.
F: Isn’t there such a thing as choosing by default?
R: Yes, of course. But is that what you would be doing, here, if you were to decide to take the day off?
F: No, I suppose not. Well, let’s do a little, anyway. This question from Karla, say.
[I do have questions relating to two quotes from The Sphere and the Hologram that could perhaps be added to the queue:
[“While you’re in the body, you have the ability to mingle with others of very vastly different vibratory levels, and we do not.”
[“People have direct experiences of God. They don’t have to go through us to God. And we don’t know what that experience is, necessarily, and they don’t necessarily know, but people recognize something that’s real.”
[Can Rita expand on this? Can she tell us more about the importance to our non-3D component of our ability in the 3D to mingle with others of vastly different vibratory levels? How does a direct experience of God in the 3D affect the non-3D component?]
R: The first part is easily answered. In the living-out of a close association of incompatible or at least very dissimilar strands is the re-knitting of the 3D universe – at least, it could be looked at that way. You [Frank] asked a while ago about fanaticism; here is one answer. If someone lives Extreme A and Extreme B, those two extremes have an example of living together, of being buffered, of recognizing that each is an answer not the answer. And if many, many people meld Extreme A and Extreme B, all in different circumstances, in different proportions, all [i.e. each] mixed with different other elements, you can perhaps see that the result is to tie both extremes into the whole, to make them not outliers but part of the mainstream.
This happens continually. It is why even in a scheme of things where events appear to be external, and are experienced consecutively and in isolation, matters do not proceed to fragment into shards but instead continually re-knit. It may seem sloppy as a piece of logic, but I assure you it works in practice.
F: Reagan’s joke about the economist was that he was concerned that even though something worked in practice, that was no guarantee that it would work in theory.
R: Yes, and metaphysicians and quantum physicists and logicians everywhere are of that school. But in practice, the world holds together, because the unseen influences discourage in-breeding in ideas and values no less than in genetics.
As to the second question, there are as many answers as there are “individual” souls to be affected. I am not going to talk about God as a concept or as a reality; there’s no point in it. All that I can say, really, is that people perceive God – if they do perceive God – in ways that are necessarily limited by what they are. Not so much by what they think or believe, nor even by what they hope or fear, but by what they are – and the vast majority of what you are, what anybody is, is in the unconscious realm, I remind you. You never really know who you are. At best you know some of what you are as a 3D-limited extension of your larger non-3D being.
People waste a great deal of time and energy promoting or fighting against the idea of God, usually (in those cases) in the image of God that they hope for or fear, respectively. I don’t intend to add to people’s opinions on the subject.
F: I am tempted to quit, tempted to continue. Let’s try John Wolf’s question.
[John Wolf’s context and question:
[I’m still trying to sort out the dilemma of multiple futures.
[“There is usually little point in predicting a future; never any point, really, save to offer insight into the tendencies of present behavior or to prepare people psychologically for coming events that are in practical terms not avoidable. Prophets, as you yourself have pointed out more than once, predict not in order to gloat but in order to persuade. They don’t want people to suffer, they want them to repent. If they will change course, they will visit a different future. It is all in the Book of Jonah.”
[Then I read the Book of Jonah and it tells of the people of Nineveh repenting and avoiding a harsh future, among other things.
[My interpretation of what Rita was saying was that all possible futures are experienced, by our alternate selves. If this interpretation is correct, does it imply that all possible futures for groups of people are also experienced? Is there an “alternate” people of Nineveh who did not repent, and experienced a harsher fate?
[It is not an issue whether the story of Jonah itself is factual – it is an example of raising again the question of whether our greater beings, and groups of greater beings experience “all” or just “some” possible futures.
[This message implies that some futures are “avoidable”.]
R: The short answer is that all possible paths are equally –
No, this isn’t quite as easy to speak to as it might be.
F: Yes, and I get why. What is clear when transferred directly isn’t necessarily so easy to put into words.
R: Indeed not. Why don’t you try and we’ll see how it goes?
F: I’d say all possible paths exist from the intrinsic nature of this reality. Maybe our reality is one game on its own CD-ROM, I don’t know, but at any rate this CD-ROM has all possible paths imprinted on it, by definition, at the time it is created. Each individual – no, strike the word “individual” — each version of reality, which for an individual is experienced as uniquely his, whether that “individual” is a person or a group of persons –
Dammit. Let me try again.
Any path taken on the holographic path within the CD-ROM is going to seem real; is going to be real, or as real, as any other. But they are projections, not movie sets or bits of matter having to be hauled here and there. Taking one path doesn’t obviate the paths taken by other players at another time.
R: Yes, and yet if certain paths are much more widely accepted than others, in effect those paths become more weighted, more real.
F: Hmm, I don’t know that you’ve ever mentioned that before.
R: It has been implicit in various things said and half-noticed.
F: So, the implication for John’s question?
R: It isn’t that some futures are avoidable nor even that they are less real; it is that they are less commonly encountered, hence have less impact upon the total group consciousness. If in one time in 100 million, Atlantis rises from the sea, that means that in all but one time in 100 million, it doesn’t. Which way would you bet, in trying to decide which future you will likely encounter?
F: Yet that one-in-100-million chance exists.
R: Yes, and exists as a reality, not as a chance. The “chance” aspect is in your encountering it.
F: That’s a new slant on things. I hadn’t looked at it that way. All right, I’m not sure we exhausted either subject, but that’s enough for me, for the moment. Unless you have more?
R: There is always more to be said on any subject, but that is enough for now, because there is always a good place to pause, as well.
F: Okay. Till next time, then, if ever.
R: Till then.