38th talk with Rita – 2-13-2015

Friday February 13, 2015

F: 5:40 a.m. Good morning, Miss Rita. I’m going to try this on the computer again, since yesterday seemed to work out well enough. If we ever get to a patch where speed works against me, I trust you will advise me to go back to pen and paper.

R: I would be more likely to advise you not to change your environment but to change your stance within it. Changing your environment is all well and good, but it is a roundabout way to accomplish what may be accomplished easily and simply once you know how to do so, and you do know that. It is a matter of choosing your attitude. Just as you can choose to reject a mood that tempts you – you don’t have to be mad, you don’t have to be impatient, or depressed, or discouraged (nor, elated, exalted, or other varieties of emotional experience more on the manic end of the scale) – so you don’t have to fall into any habitual behavior, once your consciousness is aware of what is happening. So, now, if I were to say to you, “Frank, slow down a little; you’re moving too fast to sink into the connection,” you would know how to do it, and wouldn’t therefore react to the suggestion as a criticism, but as merely a helpful suggested course-correction.

F: Okay. I presume that hint was made for others as well, given that I got the gist of it long before I finished typing out the sentences.

R: Pretty much everything we’re doing is for others to benefit from as well, if they can. A distinction between what is meant for one and what is meant for all is usually an arbitrary one anyway.

F: So as you know, Charles has provided quite a queue of suggested questions around the topic of suffering, and the related topic of good and evil. And as you no doubt also know, we’re perfectly happy with you proceeding wherever you wish to go. What you don’t answer today in one way will probably be answered another day, in another context.

R: That’s right. You might think of this as a survey cruise.

F: Meaning, I take it, the peacetime cruises the U.S Navy used to make, and perhaps still does make, in which the ship is aimed down a specific line and soundings are taken every so many feet until they have a chart of depths along that line – and then they alter course, go over the same ground at a different angle, and do it all again, until they have a pretty accurate map of the depths beneath their keel. Thus, survey charts. Probably an obsolete procedure in this era of satellites, but of course I don’t know. In any case, a nice analogy to what we’re doing.

R: If you keep to that analogy, it should ease any anxiety you might have as to whether we will miss something important if we go left instead of right, up instead of down.

Also, I remind you, there’s no hurry. We are not having to hasten to catch up, lest we get left. The 3D world has been going for quite a while, and the non-3D world for quite a while longer than that, so it isn’t like there’s any rush, here. Impatience, yes, and well I remember it. But rush, no.

Very well, let’s look at a few of those questions and I will try to clear the ground of misunderstandings, and we’ll see where it takes us.

F: Okay, here’s the tag end of Charles’ earlier question that hasn’t been addressed yet, I think. After citing a couple of statistics on the prevalence of suffering in the world, he asked, “Is the 3D person choosing these circumstances? Is it true that no matter what happens, car accidents, cancer, etc., we in 3D are making the choice? Or, is non 3D making the choice and we in 3D are the focal point to see how we handle it?

R: Yes, this is a good starting place, and you might as well throw in the other question that he suggested might follow depending on what you got about the first one.

F: Martha’s question: “Every day I ask what in the world can be the purpose of all of the suffering in the world? After eons of time, haven’t these so called Larger Beings had enough of it? I’m sure their 3-D strands would appreciate a break from these never-ending plotlines of pain and war, disease and poverty, pollution and cruelty. And back to yesterday’s session, could she expand on the part about non-3-D entities that interact with us and how much influence they have as telepathic trouble makers or helpers?”

R: I hardly know how to address the question, as it is so laden with hot buttons wired to dynamite. Any given angle of approach – speaking of surveys! – presents problems not so much inherent in the material, though it will seem like that, as inherent in people’s ingrained automatic responses to approaches to the material. I mention this not as a complaint, nor really as a description of difficulty, so much as a red flag so that readers many be aware of their own part in their reactions. An emotional reaction usually seems inevitable, as if any right-thinking person would naturally have to respond to a given statement in a certain way. But in fact, just as I mentioned a moment ago, it is always a choice, but the individual may or may not be aware that it is a choice. So, reader, if you feel your hackles rising, it would be valuable for you to observe and choose your reaction. Valuable entirely regardless of what your finally chosen attitude is. This is not about opinions, but about consciousness.

Charles’ question rests on an assumption that is not true, and so does Martha’s. The assumption, all the more powerful for being unconscious, of course, is that there is a meaningful difference between you in 3D and we in non-3D. The very language asserts this to be a true distinction – the language of my previous sentence asserts it – but it is wrong, and I have been at some pains to build a picture of reality that would help overcome this linguistic bias.

This is one world. We all extend to all of it. There is no division between 3D and non-3D in the commonly accepted sense; no “veil” to penetrate, no bridge to cross to get to the other side; no “other side.” One world. 3D beings are part of larger beings that may be partly in 3D and partly not in 3D, but are of the same substance, and therefore of the same nature, functioning in different terrain and therefore appearing different.

I know it can be difficult to hold that in mind, but to the extent that you can, you will avoid many complications that are apparent but not real. That is, they seem real, but are actually optical illusions.

If 3D and non-3d beings were units, individuals, and could be validly considered to be different in nature rather than all part of the same thing, then it would be possible to look at life as a matter of “who’s responsible, here? Who is pulling the strings, and who is being made to dance to them?” but suppose you asked that of movements of your legs, dancing? Who is responsible for the movement? The brain directing? The localized intelligence executing? And what difference would the answer make? It would be an unmeaningful answer, because it is an unmeaningful question.

F: And it tempts us back into the villains-and-victims scenario.

R: It does. If one or the other is responsible, one or the other is to blame, or is being put upon. So, you are dancing. Is your brain to blame? Is your link to the non-3D (where your mind, rather than your brain, resides) to blame? Is it your legs? Is it your nervous system, your musculature, your acquired sense of balance? You could decide upon an answer, but it would be the result of a decision, rather than the necessary conclusion presented by an impartial review of the facts.

This doesn’t answer Martha’s initial question, “what in the world can be the purpose of all of the suffering in the world,” but it does dispose of the follow-up statements posed as questions. Since you are well beyond your hour, we can stop here and continue next time with just that question, which after all is the root of all the questions on the topic — what is the purpose of suffering in the world?

F: All right. It seems to me the process of typing directly into the computer continues smoothly enough to warrant further continuance. Yes?

R: I’ll let you know if I see a problem.

F: Till next time, then.

3 thoughts on “38th talk with Rita – 2-13-2015

  1. Thank you for the clarity here Ms. Rita.

    Are we saying suffering or pain is a given in all worlds as we know them?

  2. Hello Frank&Rita-&all.
    I have thought about what Louisa is saying about pain and suffering “is a given in all worlds as we know them”?

    And I have thought it is all “projections” of “something” within US as “BELIEFS” to become “true” and therefore “created” by the mass-consciousness…in the same way as all the mythical creatures.

    And it gave me “a hunch” to read something about what Seth said in book 9, The Early Sessions, November 24,1969.
    (Jane had been reading Experimental Psychology, by C.G.Jung, first American edition, published by Jung`s heirs in 1968,etc.)

    And Seth answers:
    “Now. There is one large point, underestimated by all of your psychologists, when they list the characteristics or attributes of consciousness.
    I am going to tie in this material with our discussion on what you call our EE.units (electromagnetic), as there is a very close connection.
    Now let us start with Jung for a bit. He presumes that consciousness must be organized about an ego structure. And what he calls the unconscious, not so egotistically organized, he therefore considers without consciousness, without consciousness of a self.

    He makes a good point, saying that the ego cannot know unconscious material directly.
    He does not realize however, nor do your other psychologists, what I have told you often–that there is an inner ego; and it is this inner ego that organizes what Jung would call unconscious material.
    Again, when you are in a state that is not the normal waking one, when you have forsaken this daily self, you are nevertheless conscious and alert (the last sentence underlined).
    You merely block out the memory from normal waking ego.
    So when the attributes of consciousness are given, creativity is largely ignored. It is assigned instead primarily to the unconscious.
    My point is that the unconscious is conscious.

    We will differentiate between normal ego consciousness then, and consciousness that only APPEARS (the word underlined) unconscious to that ego.
    Now the inner ego is the organizer of experience that Jung would call unconscious.
    The inner ego is another term for what we call the inner self. As the outer ego manipulates within the environment of physical reality, so the inner ego or self manipulates within an inner reality.
    The inner ego creates that physical reality with which the outer ego then deals.

    Now all the richly creative, original work that is done by this inner self is NOT UNCONSCIOUS (the words underlined). It is purposeful, HIGLY (underlined) discriminating, performed by the inner conscious ego, of which the exterior ego is but a shadow,and not the other way around.
    Jung`s dark side of the self is the ego, not the unconscious.
    The complicated, infinitely varied, unbelievably rich tapestry of Jung`s, in quotes “unconscious,” could hardly be UNconscious (underlined the first letters). It is the product of an inner consciousness with far more sense of identity and purpose than the daily ego. It is the daily ego`s ignorance and limited focus that makes it view so-called unconscious activity as chaotic.

    The conscious ego rises indeed out of the quote “unconscious”, but the unconscious being the creator of the ego, is necessarily far more conscious than its offspring.
    The ego is simply not conscious enough to be able to contain the vast knowledge that belongs to the inner conscious self from which it springs.

    It is the inner self, out of the massive knowledge and unlimited scope of its consciousness that forms the physical world, that provides stimuli to keep the ego constantly constantly at the job of awareness.
    It is the inner self, termed here the inner ego, that organizes, initiates, projects, controls the EE units of which we have been speaking lately, transforming energy into objects, into matter.

    This is not to say that the outer ego is a puppet. It is to say that the outer ego is far less conscious than the inner ego or the inner self, that its perception is less, that is far less stable, though it makes great pretense at stability; that it springs from the inner self, and is less rather than more, aware.”

    Okay,I`ll stop here (smiles)… But it is more about the strong force of Emotion(s)…”as becoming a Force bringing emotions into matter.”

    Is it not said somewhere: “Attitude is everything?”
    “The inner self is obviously not only conscious, but conscious of itself” (the sentence underlined in the book).
    Thanks a lot as always.
    Bliss&Blessings,Inger Lise.

    1. I can hardly tell you how much this long quotation interests me. I can see I will have to go back to reading Seth. I quite abruptly in 1997 while writing Muddy Tracks, after having read only one book — The Nature of Personal Reality — probably because it was important that I come to certain understandings first-hand rather than be forced to wonder if I was merely parroting or adapting something read from Seth. But I’m old enough now, perhaps, to continue my education! Thanks for the prompting.

Leave a Reply

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