34th talk with Rita – 2-9-2015

Monday February 9, 2015

F: 4 a.m. Rita, Jim Austin poses the following question.

Well, I had gotten thus far when, re-reading the question that I had printed out for the morning, I realized that it was what we had worked on yesterday, and I had to re-read the previous session in order to remember where we were. So I guess we should resume with a discussion of this much:

[#11 from Jim Austin: “{Rita} strongly suggests we look … 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?]

R: The question is based on a partial misinterpretation of what I meant. I seem not to have made myself plain, and such questions serve a valuable function for any teacher, showing her where she has inadvertently led her students astray. Or “he,” of course.

F: That’s all right, I am not a masculinist, or whatever the equivalent of feminist would be.

R: Oh? I hadn’t noticed.

F: Smiling. Touché. Anyway –

R: I contrasted what we – following the guys’ nomenclature – are calling the Larger Being, on the one hand, with angels. The contrast was between a compound being, that by its nature changes continually, and a unitary or perhaps we should say internally consistent being that does not and can not change. Each has its function, and the functioning and the nature of each can be best illustrated by comparing one to the other.

Again – I dislike being so repetitious (to the point of tedium, it seems to me), but let me remind you to bear ever in mind in these discussions the nature of reality as undivided rather than physical v. non-physical. If you allow yourselves to slip back into the accustomed scheme dividing physical and non-physical as if they were different universes, rather than different parts of the same universe, your thought will split into two, probably unknown to yourselves, and rather than a reorientation you will experience merely a playing with words.

But if you can remember that reality is undivided and that what you are experiencing in 3D is really only a localized version of a more comprehensive experience, you will remember that there can be no true division into body and spirit, only a different placing of emphasis. You in bodies nonetheless inhabit the higher dimensions you are mostly unaware of. We not in bodies nonetheless inhabit the 3D world though our consciousness is not tethered to it by bodies, and is not limited to it by the tricks of perception caused by living in time-slices and relying primarily upon sensory data for our orientation.

Thus you can see two things. First, interaction is continuous, whether perceived or not. Second, your, as well as our, field of activity is not limited to 3D. (This sort of ignores the fact that, as I have said, “we” and “you” are not separate from each other; that fact alone should demonstrate that one cannot be in one place only and the other in another place only.)

So it will be worth your while to remember that when we say “the Larger Being” we refer to the beings of which you, and we, are part.

Now, this is such a simple statement that it requires considerable explanation to be sure that it is not misunderstood. And, a short digression to tell you why that is so as a general rule: The shorter the statement, the greater the chance that it will be accepted without processing. You might think, “well, that’s well and good,” but in fact it allows you to create your own version of what it means, because a host of unconscious associations will arise within you, and will be attached to the words, and it will seem to you that the short statement “obviously” meant something shaped by your unconscious assumptions.

F: Colin Wilson used to call TGU “the Man Upstairs” in emails to me, which showed me that he was thinking of them as singular, and probably thought I was employing a code-word for God. There is no way that TGU can spell The Man Upstairs, so it seemed clear to me that Colin, who was way too intelligent to make such an elementary error, was seeing what I was saying through his own filters.

R: As everyone does, of course. The trick is to become as aware of them as possible, so as to become able to correct for the consequent (and antecedent) bias. That is the value of thinking about these things rather than merely accepting or rejecting them by reference to the understandings you bring to the discussion ahead of time.

So, process the question of what “The Larger Being” suggests to your mind. Realize that there is no way you can trust unconscious assumptions to be correct.

Re-read that, if you will. I realize that it seems to contradict the very process of trusting intuition that we are engaged in (for how different is it, to trust intuition or to talk to “the other side” or to receive messages from one’s own non-3D self?), but in fact it is very much consistent with one of the major themes you have received, Frank, from the beginning of the process of active communication in the 1980s – use both processes, logic and intuition. Use both analysis and perception. Avoid Psychic’s Disease and Closed-Mind equally.

And so you can see that this is one reason why that is to be desired: Only by receptivity can you expand beyond sensory-driven logic, but only by conscious thought can you discover and correct for unconscious bias.

Bearing this in mind, among the many things “The Larger Being” does not mean are:

God
All humanity
All creation
Yourself and a few kindred souls only
The creator of the universe (if you conceive of this as different from God)

Any of these assumptions will send you down different garden paths. For our purposes, let us define them so:

Larger Beings incorporate smaller but similar consciousnesses and function in a way that is different and incomprehensible to those elements that comprise them.

Remember, you experience yourselves (usually) as if you were units, whereas it is at least equally true to say that you are communities. In fact it might be closer to the truth to say that an individual in 3D is a community learning to function as a unit, and the unit is designed to function as one unit in a larger community functioning as a unit, and so on and so forth, all the way up and down the chain of being.

[At first I wrote, “one unit in a larger community learning to function as a unit,” but then I stopped, went back and changed “learning to function” to “functioning.” I note this because it felt like a correction was being insisted on, and in the process of transcribing, I see that the two versions convey very different meanings. Apparently 3D is about learning, and from then on whatever we are, we continue to be.]

But “the chain of being” doesn’t include non-compound – integral – beings. It refers to compound beings.

F: Does this imply that our cells are themselves compound beings?

R: That is exactly what it implies and it is true, what you intuited, that you as an individual are the equivalent to them of their Larger Being, and your communications to them are equivalent (to them) of messages from TGU. That is, they experience communications from another order of intelligence whose true mode of operation is a mystery to them.

F: Again, as above, so below.

R: Yes, only bear in mind, the world is full of many things besides compound beings formed of 3D experience. And one way in which the Larger Beings are compound is that they may be composed of elements some of which have not been shaped by 3D, as well as some which have. Just because we examine any given element in isolation does not mean it may be rightly be considered to be truly isolated. All things connect. It is merely that for the purpose of close examination and analysis, you can only look at so much at a time.

F: I was struck by something you said in passing yesterday to the effect that any generalization is a slurring of certain differences and an emphasis, perhaps an over-emphasis, on certain similarities.

R: Given time and attention such distortions iron out, but it does take time and attention.

Now, your hour is over, and a bit more. I believe we have answered the question not as posed but as it would be better posed. If not, we can come back to it.

F: The only loose thread I see is “how is this useful in daily life?”

R: There could be two alternate answers to that. One, the answer is implied in the description of what the Larger Being is. (Consider the difference between our definition and the unconscious assumptions built into the term Higher Self, for instance.) The second is, “that’s a large topic in itself; either that, or it is the theme of this entire work.” Sorry to be so cryptic, but that’s enough said, at least for the moment. We can continue with question #12 next time.

F: Okay, Rita. Continued thanks.

8 thoughts on “34th talk with Rita – 2-9-2015

  1. Frank,this must be the equivalent of what Edgar Cayce said: “We are the cells in the Body of God.”

    And it is “a nutcracker” in what Rita says about The Larger Being in definition (and assumptions) in the term Higher Self…and if it is “unconscious”…what to do then? Hm, it must be what`s said in “to awaken the whole Self (including Angels).”

    Maybe it is a “chain-reaction”, so if enough of us”awaken” within The larger Being then the physical world as we will know it will cease to exist. We do not need it anymore (as Seth said).

    When it comes to the definition about “good&evil”…the same coin but two sides of “the same thing.” I came to recall (another time, another place) once upon a time having a private reading by one of “the famous” Scandinavian “mediums/psychics”… There are some very good ones in Sweden, Denmark and Norway … some of them are famous, and some working more “behind the lines.” And they are in “all categories.”
    It was the very first time in my life I went to meet with “a psychic medium.”
    I was absolutely “taken aback” by what she told me, and did not understood much of what she told there and then…. She was channeling ALL in ENGLISH to me (it was totally unexpected,I wasn`t THAT good in English, and I became very confused), even the medium was”a born Scandinavian”.
    I have it on the Tape still.

    Well, the lady went into trance with the cassette-player&recorder in her lap.
    The very first thing she said was: “There is a large Angelic Being standing behind you. It is a Seraphim, the Keeper/Guard, between Good and Evil. And then she continued to tell me “the coming of Internet” and how “the world-wide inter-connection” will be manifested.
    And after having told me these things, said with a very deep voice: “Ready for questions.”

    The medium still in trance. BY then I was totally shaken, and did not know WHAT to ask. The ENERGY in the room was felt as very “tangible” to say the least.
    I had NEVER heard about “Seraphim” before, not to mention “The Internet”.
    On the tape I can hear myself asking with a very thin and shivering voice (confused as I was): “What is “a Seraphim, and what is “The Internet”… is it NON-PHYSICAL or in the Physical world? And the Firm Very Deep Voice (through the lady sitting in the chair in front of me with the tape-recorder) said: “Yes, it is both physical and non-physical.” I was sooo SHOCKED,and did NOT ask more questions at all.
    The funny thing is “The deep Voice” felt as smiling in the end (and the face of the lady smiling as well) to me, and “the voice” ended the session with: “I believe this is enough for you to digest for now my dear, be well.”
    Remember, this was a happening back in 1982, and The Internet was NOT established or commonly known back then, at least I had never heard about it before. And I did not knew anything about the angelic world neither.
    Remember, I was raised as “a Lutheran”. And Martin Luther removed from the bibles all about Angels, except Gabriel, The Messenger of Christ, and Archangel Michael, the only two left in the Protestant bibles (Luther would not have “the worship” of “outer remedies”, such as statues and pictures; which Luther called superstition) … “Thou shall have no other Gods before me.”
    …I am certainly glad to have been raised by very tolerant parents that`s for sure. No pressure about religion at all, just “ordinary common sense” (and morals).

    Thanks a lot Rita&Frank.
    As Frank says:”The way of no Return,” when at first to have begun “the search.”
    LOL,Inger Lise.

    1. Inger Lise, there are a couple of places where your “Norweglish” doesn’t quite translate. Your use of “nutcracker,” for instance. Not quite sure what you mean. But I am so glad to have your commentary! You keep coming up with the most interesting things. I wish i knew more about what the medium said about the coming of the internet and the establishment of worldwide communication. What you need is a Frank to do the work of transcription! 🙂 Can you give us a summary of what she said about it?

    2. Inger and Frank,
      First again thanks for your teachings and your stories/examples. To me, your experience about the internet, “Yes, it is both physical and non-physical.” is a perfect example of Rita’s: But if you can remember that reality is undivided and that what you are experiencing in 3D is really only a localized version of a more comprehensive experience”. Interesting, to say the least. Many rhetorical questions come to mind, such as, is the internet a 3D version of the instant telepathic thought and information transfer going on in the non? Thought transfer among beings, among communities, between knowledge bases and beings?

      Secondly, to attest to the transforming nature of this material, I cannot reread this without thinking I’m reading a new chapter. Either I missed so much the first time, or I have progressed to be able to understand more, or (most likely) both have and are occurring.

      Third, as personal growth, the process is to me repeatedly enlarging then deflating, What I mean by that is (an example) I am able to glimpse the awesome nature of being part of a greater being, only to learn that being is to the next level up as a cell is to our body. Seeing first myself as “greater” than I had, only to find as that greater entity, I am but the head of a pin in comparison to the next larger entity. Furthermore, my ability to relate to the function of my own greater being is best described by “incomprehensible” It’s a poor analogy, but it’s like being a senior in high school, then “graduating” to being a Freshman in college. Oh well, we never stop learning!
      John

      1. Your experience sounds very healthy and grounded, to me. One of the worst and most dangerous temptations in this exploration business is getting inflated — identifying one’s 3D self with the non-3D self’s abilities and span (as opposed to identifying with it as something we’re part of, which seems to me natural and healthy). Somewhere someone compared Jung and Nietzche; their attitudes and fate. Jung retained his grounded humility; Nietzche became ungrounded, became inflated. The human container cannot hold divine energies; the fuse blows. You seem either naturally or by intent to be on the proper and safe and sane course. And so what if we keep finding out, all over again, that we’re still ignorant? I at least ma getting used to it. 🙂

        1. Frank and John, it could not be better told how it is.
          I have had the same “feelings.” And have come to the conclusion. “The more we learn,the less we know.”
          There is always “something new.”
          Well, about “the nutcracker” thing—It is a word (when giggles) to use for the fun of it, especially if it is something to ponder that is felt as a bit “complicated”.
          In the same way as “cracking the shell” of a hard nut, sometimes hard as a rock to crack.

          When it comes to my old cassette player, and the old tapes (I have several more of the cassettes channeled by the very same lady, because I knew her BEFORE she became famous, and later on lost contact with her) from the medium/psychic… I can try to find a quiet place in the house and listen to it more carefully later on. I have not listened to the old cassettes for several years .
          But I have been looking up on Angels in Wikipedia.
          There it told about “Seraphim” in Islam as well. Otherwise it was told to be looking it up in the Christian bible, Isaiah, 6.
          AND, if not to have been scared to death before…. Well, try to read what is told in Isaiah,6 about “The Seraphim”.

          In Kabbalah it is “a Seraphim” connected with the 5.Sephiroth.
          Frank? I am considering it as a GIFT in you to have time in translating my “Norweglish.”
          Sometimes just have to write it down in a hurry or else it takes hours to do it.
          Always grateful to you and all.
          B&B,Inger Lise.

  2. At one time Rita mentioned something about the relationship between unitary beings such as angels (who have not had and will not have the 3D experience) and the Larger Selves of 3D beings. I’m not sure if she provided some type of explanation about that relationship and I missed it somehow?

    Was there any information on the creation of the first compound being – from what did we arise? I could not find anything when I went back and read through the blogs and the question comes to mind every now and then.

    I have a funny note about the symbolic humor that sometimes appears in my dreams. I am still reflecting on a dream from Monday morning that relates to the conversations with Rita and Frank. The main character in the dream was Anthony Bourdain from the CNN tv show called “Parts Unknown” (one of my favorite shows). It makes me chuckle every time I think about the “Parts Unknown” reference but there is important meaning that is being revealed from the dream, just need to spend more time with it.

  3. I apologize Frank. I composed my questions yesterday and attached them here after reading Inger Lise’s angel/seraphim comments but didn’t have a chance to read the whole blog entry first. I see the answers to my questions are already there. Sorry about that.

    1. In the first place, no apology necessary, and in the second place, i am not at all sure that in fact the material has answered this question you posed: “Was there any information on the creation of the first compound being – from what did we arise? I could not find anything when I went back and read through the blogs and the question comes to mind every now and then.” at some point perhaps we will address that question more specifically.

Leave a Reply

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