47th talk with Rita – 2-22-2015

Sunday February 22, 2015

F: 5:30 a.m. Miss Rita, it occurs to me, maybe you would rather lecture than answer questions at some point. I assume you will let me know.

R: Of course. But for now this serves. It is always well to know where your students’ understanding is. And questions will reveal that.

F: Okay, shall we continue down the list?

R: We might as well. Charles may substitute questions as he sees fit, since the burden of shaping the material is going to fall on him. But at any given time, it is safe enough, easy enough, to see what has been given previously.

F: Okay, here’s the next on the present list.

[From Charles. {In the 17th session, Rita says} “This is simpler than it seems, in concept, but may not be so easy to grasp in detail. The short answer is, to the extent that a lifetime created a unique new window on 3D, it is valuable. But it if did not, not.” Just for clarification, a 3D life that did not create a “unique new window” isn’t lost but isn’t used again to create a new soul. Is this correct? For example, Hitler certainly created something unique, so would his 3D life be part of a “bundle” to create a new soul? I realize I’m using 3D judgment in my question.]

R: I think this isn’t coming from a clear understanding (and I realize that his level of understanding now has surpassed that that existed when the question was formed, but it will be useful to others to see the divergence and the course-correction, so to speak).

You mustn’t let the “individual” concept sneak back into your thinking when you are thinking of the progression of strands through 3D experience. That is true in a way, but is not true in a way.

F: You’re going to need to do some “’splaining,” Lucy.

R: Oh, I know it. (And bear in mind, most of your readers will never have seen “I Love Lucy,” ultimately. You’re dating yourself.)

F: You mean “Lucy, you’ve got some ‘splainin’ to do” isn’t going to pass into immortality?

R: That’s exactly where it is going! As opposed to remaining current! But to return to the question—

I remind you, reincarnation as commonly understood and described obviously is not false, or you wouldn’t have so many reports over so many centuries from so many people. But it isn’t to be seen only one way, either, or you wouldn’t see so many sincere searchers after truth rejecting the idea for good and sufficient reasons. When someone poses a question in the way this one is posed, it falls into just the assumptions that divide human opinion on reincarnation. It is hidden in the language, you see, and the language shapes perception in the same way that it [i.e., language] has been shaped by past perception.

F: Yes, you’ve said that more than once, and the guys before you.

R: And we’ll need to say it again, I have no doubt, because the habits that arise out of language are persistent.

“Hitler’s 3D life” certainly could be a strand in other bundles – not just one bundle, notice – it isn’t as if that life were a physical commodity that could only be transferred, hence could only go to one place or another, or even one place at a time. Any given life, once lived, is a resource from which other lives may be created. Those lives may incorporate that life (that strand) in greater or less importance. That is, the entire new package may include Hitler’s life to a small degree, or a larger degree, and with that, may emphasize this or that aspect of his personality. It isn’t a unit in the way language tempts you to think of it.

F: Let me see if I can rephrase that, so we know if I’m getting it right. Hitler comes into existence. He incorporates 100 strands, say, and who knows who they were. After he dies – whether in 1945 in Berlin or afterwards in Argentina or the moon – the mind that he formed during life may be used as one strand of other lives, and each of those lives will of course be different combinations of minds, and so will be dominated by different ratios of characteristics (that’s one way to put it) not only among the different strands, but within the different strands. But in any case, the use of a strand in one person does not in any way affect its availability for use in others.

R: That’s right. And that is one reason why particularly effective combinations may echo through history – not, exactly, that a person’s reputation leads others to emulate him or her; closer to the opposite way around – that person’s characteristics are used repeatedly for reasons of the Larger Being’s, and therefore many people in 3D find themselves drawn to accounts of the original life. And so you see Caesar and Napoleon echo down through the centuries – and Jesus and St. Francis and Muhammad.

F: As in Power versus Force?

R: He is reporting results rather than causes, but he’s worth looking into with this explanation in mind.

F: But how about Peter Novak’s The Division of Consciousness?

R: A valuable springboard for thought, but again proceeding from a very different idea of how things work.

F: Finished with the question?

R: Not quite. “A 3D life that did not create a `unique new window’ isn’t lost but isn’t used again to create a new soul” makes the mistake again of regarding as a unit what is not a unit. The point here is that when a particular mixture of elements proves not to be valuable as a window onto 3D, it is not necessarily used in the creation of others. But the elements of which it was put together obviously do not cease to exist; it is the particular creation that may be, essentially, disused. And once more I caution you not to assume that you or anyone can judge the uniqueness or value of any one window on the world. Most of what you are is hidden from all others, not by reluctance or stealth but by the nature of things. Judge not.

F: Lest we be judged?

R: No, just, judge not, because as the guys always told us, you never have the data. Most of anyone is always inaccessible and incommunicable.

F: Still waters run deep.

R: Yes, but so do rapidly running waters, and no one can plumb another’s depths. Now we may move on.

F: All right, the next one seems to be closely related to it.

[Rita said yesterday, “What is beneficial to the non-3D world, as I have explained before, is that the conditions of 3D life allow the creation of non-3D minds that could not have come into existence otherwise.” So, a 3D life is “successful”, adds a new perspective to non 3D and is therefore retained as a thread for a new soul. And this process continues on and on for what purpose? (I know … another fish question.) But, doesn’t everyone in 3D have an insatiable quest to know what all (3D, non 3D, unitary beings, etc.) this is for? Is it for “curiosity” as Bruce Moen suggests, “play” as Joseph Chilton Pearce suggests, or as Edgar Cayce said in a reading “God’s desire for companionship and expression”?]

R: The purpose may be simply stated as the cooperative construction of ever-more-intricate and versatile windows on 3D through the creation of ever-more-intricate actors in 3D.

Now, you may look at one or another aspect of this and come down with very different ideas about it. If you trace the Larger Beings’ purposes, life in 3D is seen as one thread in a tapestry. If you trace any particular thread’s “progress” through the weaving, life is seen as a journey, a progression, a rising or sinking in development..

F: The latter is closer to what people typically think of as reincarnation, I think.

R: Yes, because it is what it looks like when you proceed from that point of view. That’s why I am laying much more emphasis on the view from the Larger Being’s end, as balance.

Now as to the purpose beyond this immediate purpose, that may have to wait until the fish develop better TV reception. I’d prefer to stick to topics that actually bear on your lives as you live them. What use is it to allow yourselves to be distracted from what you can do (and, one might say, are responsible to do)?

F: Well, as Charles says, there is a certain natural curiosity.

R: Yes, there is – and I would prefer that it stays focused on what it can learn to understand and (in the positive sense of the term) manipulate, rather than be dissipated in idle speculation.

And that will do for today.

F: All right, Miss Rita. Thanks as always.

Leave a Reply

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