60th Talk with Rita – 3-7-2015

Saturday March 7, 2015

F: 7 a.m. Feels pretty leisurely, not waking up till nearly seven. Miss Rita, ready to go?

R: Certainly. It isn’t as though doing any one thing prevents us from also doing another.

F: Not news to me, of course, but maybe sometime we can go into that for those who haven’t thought about what it means to be relieved from the continuing orientation to the ever-moving present moment. And when we talk about that, I’d like an explanation of what times that movement, what it is geared to. But anyway, here’s what we have queued up.

[Karla’s question: “From what Rita has said angelic beings are not compound beings and do not breed. But can an angelic being take on the appearance of a physical form and live a life in the 3-D world? For example could an angelic being be inserted in the 3D world under the guise of a Roman senator during early Christian times? Since the angel is not a compound being, could it act like a tuning fork with one resonant frequency that affects the 3D (& therefore non 3D) through resonance with particular strands of the compound beings they encounter? Also, is there anything Rita can add to help us understand the nature of the purity of angelic beings? They are pure beings but how are they different from each other and can she give us an explanation of them in regard to our classification of them as angels or archangels?”]

R: Not one question, but five, really. And let me say, there is no objection to several-part questions. They will sometimes help us to explore. Of course, if an initial premise is incorrect, subsequent questions may fall to the ground, but that may have its enlightening aspects as well.

Clearly this set of questions is based in some particular understanding of things, not in speculation. Nothing wrong with comparing what one knows or believes with what I have to say, either. Again, the comparison itself may bring enlightenment.

[By the way, in context it was clear that Rita meant enlightenment – greater clarity — not Enlightenment.]

I have to ponder the best approach to the subject. This is one case where the way the investigation begins will have a huge impact on the appearance of the explanation.

So let us start here: Unitary beings can appear within 3D and function there no less than compound beings. The distinction to be drawn is not where the being manifests, but what the being comprises.

F: In other words, the 3D dimensions are a part of the non-3D reality no less than the non-3D is part of ours. Obvious once you put it that way, but I don’t know that I ever happened to think of it that way.

R: That’s because the concept of one reality rather than two has not permeated your thinking to any great depth yet. Nor should you expect it to have replaced a lifetime’s assumptions – augmented by a culture’s assumptions, religious no less than secular – in so short a time. But you see, as you continue to apply these concepts to areas where they had not yet penetrated, the ramifications continue to widen, and the reorientation deepens and broadens, and you become more ready for the next level of uncovering.

F: The positive aspect of the “to understand A” process.

R: Yes. Progress fosters progress, as far and as long as you welcome it. Only when you say, “no more” do you pause.

F: Faust’s bargain!

R: Minus damnation as the penalty, and seen in a different context. Give the story in a few words, and we can use it to help the explanation begun by the question.

F: I haven’t actually read Faust, but everybody knows that Faust’s bargain with Mephistopheles (the devil) was that he could keep his great powers and live his new life unless and until he said to any passing moment, “stay, you are so beautiful.” I took it to mean, unless and until he decided to cling to a given moment, he could proceed, but if he did cling, his damnation followed.

R: Now, we don’t want to follow the question of damnation or even of the consequences of choosing to cling to a given moment rather than allowing life to bring you what it will. My point here is merely that the history of humankind is rife with stories of angels interacting with humans. To put it into our way of thinking about things, that would equate to non-3D beings interacting in 3D with 3D beings, in the same way that non-3D beings interact with 3D beings in non-3D.

F: You and I are interacting now in non-3D, I take it – my mind in non-3D interacting with you and transmitting the result to my brain and hand to record in 3D. That does not involve apparitions or any form of sensory interaction. But

R: No, wait. An apparition is not necessarily a sensory phenomenon. That mixes things.

F: Okay, straighten us out, if you will.

R: A human mind is, in effect, a junction-point of 3D and non-3D awareness. The mind may experience influences directly, not mediated by sensory perceptions, and this is what is understood as a vision, or, let us say in general, a “psychic experience.” It is not any less real for being not rooted in sensory data, but it is of a different order than perceptions that are of a sensory experience. But the 3D being may also experience 3D manifestations, apparitions, call them, that are not “only in your mind,” apparitions that have the same objective reality as the road to Emmaus they walk on – until the angel – the non-3D being – may suddenly disappear from the sight of the 3D observer.

F: Huh! That’s a lot to absorb, and I can feel major chunks of previously separate concepts clicking together.

R: Yes. Stick with the present question. Yes, angels can have a life in the world. But those lives cannot be expected to be the same as the lives of compound beings. They cannot be said to be born of diverse strands, as 3D beings must be – and it is no answer to say, “aha, virgin birth,” unless you can figure out how the mother can have been a non-compound being herself. (However, this should give you a hint as to what ancient mythology was trying to express by using concepts such as beings born to humans from divine fathers. Side-trail today, however.)

So if an angel cannot share the most elementary human experience – being born of parents – can it have a body, or, for that matter, a polarity that fits anywhere on the gender scale? Can it then have human needs? (Animal needs, I would say, only do not carry the meaning of the term too far.) In short, an angel leading a human life is human only in appearance, and only in certain contexts. Thus angels appear and disappear, as they will. They don’t necessarily commute to work.

Being “inserted” is a good way to look at it, provided you don’t let that way of looking at it go too far. The only way to be “inserted” into the world is through a female body, if you mean by inserted the creation of a new specific mind, a new soul, in specific circumstances, of specific heredity. But you may be “inserted” in a different way if you mean something closer to magical apparition than animal growth and development.

F: I’m struggling, here, and I’m not sure I am bringing tis in clearly.

R: That’s because you are also trying to make sense of new concepts while you write; it creates a split that distracts you. Don’t worry about it. Do the best you can, knowing that errors can always be corrected later. Remember, it is also up to the reader to think and feel and perceive.

The concept of a unitary being acting as a tuning fork to 3D beings is an interesting analogy that could be extended to other aspects of human interaction, and perhaps we will pursue this at another time. Here, let’s say merely that a non-compound being has not the problem of maintaining focused intent. Having no cross-currents, it is focused intent. In that sense, yes, it could be said to act as a tuning fork.

But the question of angels v. archangels, and interaction of angels, and in general the nature of the non-3D world as it exists beyond interaction at the 3D level is a theoretical rather than a practical question, and I do not want to pursue it unless and until it arises in an explanatory context for some question more closely connected to human experience and responsibility.

F: Not sure I understand why those final two words, but they came through clearly enough.

R: They got through, and that serves as an excuse for a brief statement before your hour is up. Your clarity of perception increases not as your character changes in one way or another, but as your continued focused intent manifests to assist you to crystallize an attitude. In effect, rather than your being led now by this strand, now by that one, all the alternations take place within an overall orientation that maintains an internal set of priorities. Your manifesting being is not as subject to flux as previously, hence it is easier for you to persevere. One could say, perseverance encourages the habit of perseverance, which encourages the ability to persevere.

F: That’s sort of chasing its own tail, that sentence.

R: No, actually it isn’t. Look at it later, after we are no longer linked actively, and you will see. Bu your hour is up.

F: That would be a pretty good book title, maybe. “But your hour is up” Okay, till next time. Our thanks, as usual.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.