Sunday March 1, 2015
F: 7 a.m. Late start, this morning, Miss Rita. The dog ate my alarm clock. Actually, I was pleasantly surprised to sleep as late as I did. Continue with the questions? Something to say first? Your move.
R: You may go to the next question on the list.
[Jim Austin’s question:
[A. She seems to define compound beings as “anything created in 3D by sexual reproduction uniting different strains”
[– Does she mean the standard biological joining of gametes from two or more 3D beings … or are there more ‘complex’ forms of “sexual reproduction?”
[– Does this imply that compound beings are always created through sexual reproduction? This would seem reasonable, as the physical process starts with joining material ‘pieces” from different 3D beings.
[B. “Compound beings … are both battleground and reconciling force for opposing forces.” That reminds me of Rita’s earlier comment that the story of the Fall (Lucifer and the ‘fallen’ angels) is “true enough.” THERE is a (big time!) story of “opposing forces”; would she care to elaborate?]
R: In this instance, sexual reproduction means merely what it seems to mean – the creation of a new unique physical heredity by means of taking half from one individual, and another half from another individual. It is the continual mixing and matching going on in the gene pool that makes different opportunities for new individuals being inserted at any given time.
This is not to say that such new opportunities are the only reason for sexual congress, nor that bloodlines determine fate. I am answering the question as posed. New mixtures define the opportunities among which the individual chooses. If you are born human, you cannot decide among options limited to whales, say, or trees.
Part B of the question should have been answered by now (though after the question was posed, I recognize). Given that the non-3D world is a part of the 3D world (and vice-versa), it should be clear that it exists within duality, even though duality manifests differently outside the specialized conditions of 3D. Therefore all polarities are experienced in non-3D no less. So yes, there is the tension of opposites, but stopping at that leads people in misleading directions, so that they think of war rather than recognizing that war is one condition but never the only one. When a scale contains war, it also contains reconciliation, just as a scale containing competition also includes cooperation. These are not either/ or so much as either / or / both / neither.
F: In short, it isn’t as simple as good vs. evil, which is where we tend to go in thinking about dualistic forces.
R: No, but the reasons why it is not that simple are so complex, so intertwined with seemingly unrelated matters, it is hard to get a handle on the subject, and harder to keep it once you get one.
F: Which is why questions help?
R: It is why they can help. Whether they do or not depends largely upon the choice of question, and the order in which they are pursued. It is a matter of preserving and extending a line of inquiry.
F: I actually got a sense of your being overwhelmed by the size of the subject matter.
R: Not the size of it, exactly, but the complexity. To understand A, in this case, you must understand not just B but a whole alphabet, and the same for each of those letters.
F: Is it hopeless?
R: Nothing is hopeless, but it is necessarily not as straightforward as you might expect, because we have to continually go back and explain apparent contradictions, or sketch out essential but not obvious connections, or redefine material that was slurred over previously in order to continue on a previous line of inquiry.
F: So how do you want to go about it?
R: The only ways I know are either a prepared statement, or a close response to questions, or a loose response, using a question as a springboard, or, in practice, alternation among the methods. You will have to be prepared for a good deal of restatement, often seemingly redundant, because the process of explanation involves not merely the presentation of material but the presentation of that material in different contexts. To say it once and leave it is to leave it undigested, or at least over-simplified.
F: I seem to remember the guys often going back over previously covered ground using that background in new contexts.
R: Yes. We may have thought them somewhat plodding at times, somewhat dogged. I recognized what they were doing, but still sometimes it felt slow. And I was nowhere near as fast as you were! So the pace was not nearly as far from mine as from yours. Plus I was by temperament and training more methodical and careful, and that also made it easier. The years since have perhaps made you more able to participate in this process in the way I did then. Let’s hope so, because you will need to.
Even this explanation is an example of the process, and of the difference in you. You are not champing at the bit, saying, “get on with it! What about the question?” instead you are patiently waiting for it to be revealed. That patience, whether you know it or not, is rooted in a faith that the process will produce results. This allows you to go along for the ride without suspecting that you are merely traveling in circles and without wondering if I am merely evading a short answer for whatever reason.
F: In other words, description of the process – illustration of the process – is an important part of the explanation, and not a diversion,
R: That’s right. The process is the often-taken-for-granted illustration that will help you glimpse the situation behind the larger questions, regardless whether it illumines any particular detailed question.
F: It has been only half an hour but I am tired already. Is this because of the need to concentrate on this? Or some other reason? Or just one of those things?
R: Prolonged concentration on one detailed subject can produce fatigue, more so than concentration on first one thing, then another. And concentration on a message whose purport and intention is not clear may be more fatiguing than when you have a sense of where it is going. These are two different processes, and the difference is similar to the difference in effort required by thinking as opposed to associating.
F: So I am doing a different kind of work when I bring in unfamiliar material than when I bring in easier stuff?
R: It may look that way. It would be closer to say, different when you are bringing in material that is not clear to you over a long span, as opposed to material each bite of which is clear and makes sense and builds on (as well as towards) something easily comprehensible.
F: It is the working suspended in air that brings extra fatigue?
R: You could put it that way. But this small digression on process has restored your attention for the question, you will notice.
F: I thought it was the coffee. But, proceed.
R: When you consider good and evil, you tend to do so either as abstract concepts or as specific examples. Neither alternative is wrong, but neither is sufficient in itself. Every time you go looking into the nature of reality, context is all. Context determines how a thing looks. If you examine it always from the same viewpoint, in the same context, it will seem to you immutable and unquestionable. Indeed, this is a trap the true believers fall into; they mistake preferences for objective reality.
We will need to look at the subject of good and evil again (and, probably, again and again), each time reminding people to change contexts and see how it looks now. Those who will not or can not examine a thing as it actually presents itself in a different context will be unable to follow, and will drop away. Nothing wrong with that, everybody has a different path. But for those who can, greater understanding can emerge.
Look at it this way. The situation – especially as concerns you while in 3D – may be described as in the Bible, a war of good versus evil that spills over between non-3D and 3D, as it only to be expected. You or anyone could easily produce an overwhelming case for the truth of this by looking to history, or to the news of the day, or to one’s own experience. That is true, but not the whole truth, and so, [while] being true, it also contains implied falsehood, not from intent to deceive but from inability to express non-sequential reality in sequential terms without distortion.
F: I remember working hard to make sense of things as you elicited explanations in 2001-2002. You were not receiving the answers you expected, I seem to remember, and I was not equipped with concepts to explain the logic behind what we were being told.
R: You may consider this a rematch. Now, beginning with the Biblical view of good and evil, which as I say is accurate but inadequate, as a mythos must always be, consider in context the fact that compound beings are, by nature, compound! That is, we are not representatives of only one set of virtues; we are mixtures. Then add the fact that what deed is evil in one circumstance may be good in another. Add that the same is true for tendencies, like them or not, approve of them or not. Add that a physical situation is always more complicated than it appears and hence cannot really be accurately judged even by the most intuitive. Add that given “individuals” change moment by moment (in that different parts of the community that they really are may take charge for the moment, then be superseded, then may return, etc.). Where is the stable platform from which you can say, “this is good, that is evil”? And yet, in any given situation, that is not only what you do, it is what you should do, even must do – only, do it provisionally, because you can never have the data for a final, absolute judgment, even on an individual, even on yourself, let alone a complex situation.
F: This doesn’t seem an obvious place to stop, but I got the sense that you are pausing.
R: It is a good place to pause. Much food for thought in today’s material, little though you may think it at the moment.
F: I guess we’re going to continue with the question next time.
R: Perhaps, or perhaps not. Play it day by day and it will work out.
F: All right, I can do that. Our thanks as always.