Thursday, February 26, 2015
F: Almost 4 a.m. Good morning, Rita. Am I right that I ought to take a break from this? If so, why, and do you mean (or do I mean) a day here and there, or a longer span? This, given that there will be a matter of a week or more soon enough, when I go to PD and then move.
R: There isn’t any “ought” about it, but there certainly is a “feel free” about it. That much is up to you. The material will wait, and our connection isn’t likely to evaporate.
F: Plus perhaps we’ll have at least a couple of others on the line. I find the prospect exciting, but I don’t know how discreet I should be about names in public. Suffice it to say for public consumption that I know of two of my friends who are talking to you, and I am encouraging them to post transcripts, and I have hopes that this public record will encourage others to try their hand.
R: This is material enough to fill a session.
F: Let’s do it. The questions won’t go away.
R: Very well – and said with a twinkle in my very-non-3D eye.
F: Because who’s to say what’s my idea and what’s yours.
R: And what is neither or both, correct.
Here is the hope and the intent that I have. It is one thing to communicate more fully. It is another to release the results of such communication to close friends. A third, to release it to the winds, so to speak – to the world. A fourth to encourage others to do the same, and it is yet another step to encourage them to practice together – which is what this could become. Such practice would have its difficulties and its opportunities, and would be the difference between a controlled laboratory experiment and uncontrolled everyday practice which could become everyday behavior.
Suppose you and – well, I would name them, but I feel your resistance and I have to respect it – suppose you and your three close friends, one of them very close – all begin to talk to me, first in private, then sharing the results among you (as you have already done), then – next – putting such communication on the public record. You all met me, and only one in-the-flesh meeting is required to set up an extremely powerful link if the link already exists in the non-3D.
F: You mean, I take it, that a physical meeting helps us to recognize a link that already exists but might not otherwise be recognized.
R: That’s right. So, even though you know one another and know me, the act of bringing forth information supposedly from the same non-3D source is going to have its tensions. Fear lest you are fooling yourself, of course. Fear that the material will be distorted by your expectations. Fear that what you bring in will not jibe with what another is getting – or, far worse, with what more than one other is getting. All these, over and above the usual concern lest you mislead others inadvertently (since you know you won’t do so deliberately).
But the overcoming of these obstacles is precisely what is going to make a further step possible.
In fact, you could almost make that a law of 3D life – it is the overcoming of obstacles that makes for change. Then it is up to you to determine the nature of the change, which you do by your chosen attitude as you address the challenge, the obstacle.
Such a controlled small-group experiment will illustrate the obstacles that will present themselves to a world of people routinely communicating with the non-3D in one way or another – and will, in its working-out, point toward helpful practices and attitudes that will arise from recognition of the obstacles.
For instance, authority.
There will be a tremendous temptation to oneself and to others to settle upon one or another person as “the authority on (in this case) Rita.” That is as natural as breathing, and couldn’t be less helpful to the process. Because, if Frank, say, is the authority on communications with Rita (or with Hemingway, or anyone else Frank develops a non-3D relationship with), then what of everybody else, very much including people who knew Rita (or Hemingway, or whomever) much better than Frank did?
You see? Who is to say who has a better connection at any one time?
Who is to say whose internal mechanism is unconsciously distorting which part of which message?
Who is to say that their connection, their overall sense of the person, their messages, are right, and others’ are wrong?
And – following from this and actually more important, but not always as obvious – who is to say that one’s own message is wrong, one’s own ability or authority is less valid, one’s own contribution is unneeded or unwanted or “only” one talking to oneself?
It is in the friction of multiple messages from (and to) the same source that you will find a new freedom, the freedom that comes with true sharing in an attitude of one among equals, where the only judgment is – because it is what you will have to come to – “does it resonate?”
Do you see what I am saying? In common 3D interaction, you may accept another person as an authority on this or that, but you accept no one as an authority over everything. (Or, if you do, you are in for a real disappointment at some point.) You should be grateful that this is so, or you would be perpetually in a subordinate role, the student to others’ teaching. But what true teacher wants his or her students to remain students all their lives? Far better for them to move out on their own, hopefully to surpass the teacher.
Another issue will be consistency of information. Weigh consistency to some extent. Indeed, you will scarcely be able to avoid doing so. But recognize that not consistency but resonance is the touchstone. If you wish to set up a religion, then yes, consistency will be, or will anyway seem to be, the most important thing, as any deviation from the words of the master, as recorded in scripture, will be an assault on the fabric. But if instead of preserving a monument to the truth as found previously, you wish to continue to progress toward an ever-greater truth, consistency will serve only as a very rough guide. You don’t abandon your compass, your GPS – that is, your inner certainty expressed as resonance with a given message – in order to remain faithful to a map someone else drew. To do so would amount to an implicit declaration that someone else’s connection, experience, and descriptive ability is automatically better than your own. And even if that were objectively true, where would living by that idea leave you? It wouldn’t help you pioneer new territory, that’s for sure. New territory (new to you, that is) may be marked on the map; it isn’t known to you until you traverse it.
Yet another issue will be the silent jockeying among individuals for recognition or precedence or status. The more you are aware of this as a potential problem, the less of an actual problem this will be. But it is complicated by the fact that valid information may come by means of an ego-driven individual. In other words, you will find yourselves separating the message from the messenger – and this is as it should be, indeed must be.
F: It has been 45 minutes. Do you want to stop here, to make one distinct message, or start on a question, or — come to think of it – do you have more you want to say about this? I sensed completion, but maybe I was wrong.
R: We can end here. It is true, I do want this to stand alone, because I want everybody who reads it to engage in the great experiment. I think you will find that some have been doing it already but have been loathe to announce it, lest they be accused of delusions of grandeur.
F: Just as they would be if we caught them talking on the telephone.
R: Just remember back to your own tentative first steps. It didn’t always seem so natural and obvious!
F: No, it certainly did not. Very well, Miss Rita, a very interesting session, not at all what I expected. Not that that is anything new! See you next time.