Sunday February 8, 2015
F: 6 a.m. All right, Miss Rita, we have another question, which I make to be #11 unless I have lost count, and #12 if you get to it today.
[#11 from Jim Austin: “I was struck by some of the things Rita said in the various parts of Question 5 and surprised no one has commented yet. Her idea about thinking “of angels as ‘beings’ who have not had and will not have the 3D experience” reminded me of those who suggest angels and demons are the same type of being, differing (maybe) only in their ‘regard’ for humans. It also brings to mind don Juan’s (Castaneda’s teacher) ‘inorganic beings’, although they had some penetration into 3D.
[But she strongly suggests we look beyond such ‘3D things’ in new directions. For example, at ‘the relationship’ between Larger Selves, those with 3D experience, and those without (later referred to as ‘unitary beings’). In Question 5 (4) she relates that Larger Beings are a unique factor, implying they/we (through the experiences gained in 3D life) are constantly changing.
[So how is this useful in daily life?]
[#12 from Charles: “Rita mentioned other dimensions so I’m wondering if there are dimensions more expansive than Rita’s that teach her larger being about their next experience.”]
F: As you see, they’re up to your old trick of actually thinking about your material rather than merely accepting it and allowing themselves to be unchanged by it.
R: Yes, and I’m very pleased to see it. Not much point in reading new material and not attempting to assimilate it, and the process of assimilation is naturally going to proceed better if underlying contradictions or vaguenesses ae brought to light.
F: And I have little doubt that you are going to take a given question mostly as a springboard and then proceed to elucidate what you want to elucidate, like a politician at a press conference.
R: Any sincere question is going to pose the opportunity to discuss some area of any given topic, because after all everything connects to everything. The big variable is a person’s ability to hold and interrelate various thoughts moment by moment, so that new links may be formed that will hold them together in the future as aspects of one thing rather than, as previously, as unconnected or relatively unconnected different things.
My point about angels and humans is simple enough, and is one of those things that was obvious to previous mind-sets in previous civilizations, but has been blurred or disbelieved by what was called “modern” thought, which of course was merely a transition between stable world views.
F: “Of course”? That’s a fairly large statement to throw in as an “of course.” I know what you mean, but don’t you think you should elaborate a bit?
R: Well, you are the historian! And after all, it’s only an “of course,” because a moment’s thought will show that different civilizations have different ways of seeing things, and some of them are relatively stable and may continue for generations, while others are relatively dynamic and may change radically within themselves every couple of decades – or faster – and may pass away entirely when another stable world-view steps into the place the dynamic interval has cleared for it.
F: If you are meaning that we had, in the West, the long medieval period as one stable world view, followed by the renaissance and reformation as a fast-changing solvent, that would make it –. Well, it gets tangled, when I try to apply what is a simple-sounding statement.
R: That’s the kind of analysis best done not horseback, as you always say, but slowly, pondering it. It is a different manner of thinking, analysis as opposed to association. If you let yourself think about it, later, a scheme will suggest itself, or several alternate schemes, because after all to generalize is to slur over certain distinctions and emphasize others.
Now about angels and human. Human are compound beings shaped by one or (usually) more 3D experiences. The human soul is created in 3D (that is, the elements may be chosen outside of 3D, but it is in 3D that the mixture is fashioned), it develops in 3D as it experiences choice through limitation and shared-experiences-in-living-together, and it continues to manifest its 3D-created characteristics after the body in which it was created and nurtured is no longer required.
The human soul is thus unique, in that it alone is a compound of previous elements that has changed and has the ability to continue to change.
F: And this is different somehow from animals, say?
R: Let us deal with the distinction from angels first. Angels represent entire classes of beings, many unsuspected from 3D, that are not compounds, but are purely what they are. Angels do not breed, and hence are not the product of past mixture of elements. They do not experience themselves as bound by time and space, hence do not form the habit of seeing themselves in isolation from others, do not experience their lives in disproportion as humans do because any present moment exaggerates its own importance relative to the past and future; they do not, therefore, change as human beings change. They may manifest different qualities at different times (or so it will seem from a 3D view) but they do not, because they can not, alter their basic attitude toward the world. They cannot sin and repent and sin a different way and repent again; they cannot suppress a part of themselves and favor a different part of themselves, in other words. That is a privilege and a predicament confined to compound beings shaped in the 3D pressure-cooker, or test tube.
F: As I’m getting all this, a part of my mind is saying, well, this somewhat accords with the Biblical story of the revolt of the angels who refused to admit the possibility that “made” beings like humans could ultimately attain a plane superior to their own. But wouldn’t that story imply sin and therefore change among the angels?
R: Try to stay with what I’m setting out, and don’t tie it to what else you know or think prematurely. You will want to be doing just that, obviously, only don’t do it too soon to get the full flavor of the new way of seeing it.
F: Don’t fly off in the heat of the day without a blanket. Okay.
R: Remember when you got that humans could be looked at as the tricksters in the universe? That was referring to 3D, but it applies to the rest of it, as well. Beings deliberately constructed out of disparate materials are going to provide something different than beings whose essence is not compound, hence is unchanging.
But be careful to remember that this description is leaving out important aspects of the situation that need to be kept in mind. “Human,” for instance, means ‘compound beings created and nurtured in 3D consciousness,” so don’t slip into thinking this refers only to one little neighborhood – planet Earth – and one little family – humanity as you know it. The 3D universe is filled with humans, most of which you will never experience contact with even vicariously.
3D means Earth, yes, but not only Earth. Humans means homo sapiens, yes, but not only homo sapiens. We don’t need to pursue the subject, but don’t let it slip entirely out of mind.
As to angels and demons being the same thing, yes in that they are two examples of unchanging beings not shaped by the 3D experience even when they participate in 3D events, for then they are in 3D but not of it. That is, they share the 3D dimensions but have not been confined to them as human consciousness more or less is or experiences itself as being.
But we could look more closely into the question of angels as they react to events. I can’t think of a way to put it that is clearer than that, and maybe this is too much to get into, but let’s see.
Take the story of Lucifer, the light-carrier, who refused to admit that compound beings could become sf greater worth than angels. (That’s one way of reading the story.) Lucifer and “the fallen angels” of the story rebelled against being placed lower in the scales. Taking that story as a given, see that they didn’t choose which part of themselves to follow. Instead, what they were chose a course of action. You see the difference? It wasn’t a matter of angels choosing what to be, as humans do; it was a matter of choosing how to express what they were and are and must always continue to be. The expression can change – they can change their minds and conduct, so to speak – but they cannot follow another fish, for there is no other fish to follow.
Now, the entire story of good and bad angels, and temptation and warfare over human souls, is true enough but cannot be seen correctly if forced into a 3D orientation that assumes human individuals to be integral rather than compound, for instance. But the 3D world is surrounded by non-3D beings who silently interact with it and attempt to sway humans to be more one thing and less another. In so doing, the angels are only acting as their natures dictate, and – remember this! – what is “good” and “bad” is still the fruit of the Tree of Perceiving Things As good or Evil.
Outside of duality, this would all look different, but how do we escape duality, except conceptually, given that the non-3D and the 3D are alike existing within it? I will leave that as a rhetorical question.
I will defer consideration of the Larger Beings and of Charles’ 12th question, until another time.
F: Thank you, Rita, it continues to be most interesting. I had a thought, overnight. Did you take time to plan all this? In other words, did the time between March 2008 and December 2014 go at least partially to your planning out a course of lectures?
R: That isn’t the simple question you think it is. Add it to the queue.
F: Okay. Till next time, then.