68th talk with Rita — 3-24-2015

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

F: 2:45 a.m. So, Rita, I am fascinated to see you making sense of things I started to get more than a dozen years ago, but couldn’t bring through coherently. I spoke of crystallizing but could never make it clear and plain because I couldn’t understand it clear and plain. But you yesterday did it almost off-handedly, b saying that people either can or can’t hold it together when the bonds of the body are gone, and, if they can’t, it is not the constituent parts but the organizing principle for that soul, the personality that had expressed in 3D, that goes away. You didn’t say it in so many words, but that was the unspoken essence of it.

R: Another example of “the better the question, the better the answer.” And merely by us seeing the question straight, a lot of perplexities fell away, did they not?

F: They certainly did! At least, for me. Maye others would need to go through our sessions to see how hard we struggled with the question of what happens to the soul that doesn’t crystallize, with the guys assuring us that nothing is lost, but unable to show us why not.

R: And you see that your assumption that the answer to Suzanne’s question would involve left-over assumptions was wrong. I think probably I’m just making you up.

F: It’s interesting. In life I rarely say, “very funny,” but it feels like I’m always saying it here.

R: Here, as opposed to life?

F: Yeah, I heard that too. I don’t know where that came from. All right, shall we move on? Charles has provided us a list of questions, as you know. I’ll re-read it and you tell me what’s your pleasure.

R: Let’s start with the question on guidance, because it shows Charles enacting the role I took in our sessions with the guys – actively thinking about the material and then seeing logical problems.

[Charles said, “I’m confused about guidance. Because a new soul is comprised of differing traits, might there be several options given and is that why we sit with it until it `feels right’? Or, is it always consistent? And if it is always consistent, on what is it based?”]

R: This really is an excellent, productive question that will help us move the discussion along, and so will help many who have not thought of it, and perhaps never would have – which means they also never would have come to the additional clarification.

He is exactly right. That is just what does happen [that is, varying guidance for different strands], and all of your lives should furnish you examples of the process, to greater or lesser extent depending on your internal makeup.

What may seem disconcerting is the idea that there may be no objectively correct Guidance, no official-seal-of-approval gold-standard automatic right answer. What? Are we fallible “over here”? Can we make mistakes? Jon Holt is closer here than you know, but not exactly in the way he pictures it.

There is no one single Guidance, any more than there is one single version of reality, or, for that matter, one single constituting individual. Some thought in the new context [that she has been putting forth here since December, 2014] will show you that there can’t be.

F: Well, nudge us along a little.

R: It is as Charles intuits, a different associated non-3D source of information and bias for each strand, and if you are living a community of mutually antagonistic strands, how else can it be than that your internal gods are warring? But even if your various strands are more or less harmonious and cooperative, there is going to be variance among them, perhaps trivial in some circumstances and serious – maybe deadly serious – in others.

F: You’re right, that’s very interesting and pretty obvious and I never would have thought of it.

R: Good thing you imagined me, then.

F: I’m going to let that one go. More on that question?

R: That’s enough for the moment. As people sit with it and hopefully remember it and apply it in their “real” lives, it will sink in deeper, and they will become ready for more that will tie in to other things.

F: I get, “other things,” some or much of which hasn’t been said yet.

R: True, but only meant as a general statement. I’m not keeping secrets or holding out on you. I’m saying that new information always has the potential to shed new light on older information. You can’t get around it, everything connects.

F: I’m a little tired, and maybe now I can get some more sleep. Maybe we can resume later?

R: I’ll try to make time in my schedule.

F: 6:40 a.m. So, Rita, another go-round? Another half an hour, say?

R: No, it would be better for you to rest. There’ll be another day, and meanwhile you have enough practical things to do.

F: I do, but I would rather do this. I’m unlikely to get more rest for a while. What about Charles’ question on nomenclature?

R: All right, that ought to be short enough.

[The terms “threads, strings, ropes, cables, and combinations of the concepts” as well as “traits, and past lives” have all been used to describe the non 3D continuing entity. Would you please define these so they can be used consistently?]

F: Emerson once said his page on consistency would have been better written, “damn consistency.” But I don’t imagine that’s quite your response.

R: Not quite, but I sympathize. It is a quality very much two-edged. It allows for the possibility of precision, but it therefore tempts people to cut life into little boxes rather than recognizing flow and nuance. In this case, though, the lack of consistency flows from your efforts to get a handle on new concepts and their slippery qualities.

F: Just as when I tried to understand what I was feeling, vaguely, about crystallization.

R: That’s why, or one reason why, I chose this question to go with our earlier discussion today. Similar situations. Remember, contact is as much for the development of the participating individual as for the inherent value of the information.

F: I take it you include the reader, as well as the diviner.

R: Of course.

F: So, as I remember it, I was trying to express my sense of various gradations of intensity.

R: Let me tell it. Yes, that, but as I observe that moment now – from your point of view as well as mine, you know; that increase in vantage points is not confined to what people are calling “past life reviews” – you were also trying to make sense of it, and were drawing logical conclusions and mixing them with your perceptions. That’s one natural pitfall in the process, because how different is that from interpreting?

F: I think that may not be quite clear to people.

R: On the one hand, the perceiver must interpret what is perceived, much more so than is commonly recognized, or what is perceived will not make much sense in 3D terms. Bob [Monroe] said it well in Far Journeys. But it is a short step to move from interpretation to logical deduction, and that is a step that is taken frequently. Fortunately, it is not an irredeemable step. But it is something to be wary of, a naturally occurring hazard of this kind of navigation.

F: And I can see that I would be resistant to people questioning such deduction, too, just because it is such a small and easily unnoticed step.

R: Precisely. Beware Psychic’s Disease, yet don’t demand an impossible certainty either. That’s the balance to be struck.

Now, I wanted this to be short and we haven’t even gotten to the question yet. I don’t want to slur over the distinctions but I don’t want to go into it either. Perhaps the safest step for the moment is to say, disregard all analogies and, for the moment, re-read such passages as indicating varying strengths and complications of continuity among and within the community that seems to you to be an individual. There is much more, but that’s all you are going to get today.

F: All right, I can take a hint. My mother used to say, “Here’s your hat, what’s your hurry?”

R: There’s always another time, until there isn’t. You can’t hold back the moment, either way.

F: No. Okay, till next time, then.

4 thoughts on “68th talk with Rita — 3-24-2015

  1. I still have a question on the crystallizing. Suppose someone does not crystallize well enough to stay together after crossing; nothing is lost but the personality. So would that personality (oxymoron warning) perceive itself as having “died?” Obviously if it ceased to be cohesive it could not conceive of itself at all, but this seems to match the “death” people are afraid of. Don’t know if I have managed to phrase it in a meaningful way. It seems some do “die” in the sense of ceasing to exist in terms of awareness of self. ?? I think many who suicide are actually seeking this.

    1. Mary Ann and Frank,
      Similarly I would ask if the parents (for example) of this personality would be able to sense them after dropping the body, even as a part of their greater being? I was under the impression that the uncrystallized personality did not “die” or disappear; however, it did not become a strand in “downstream” lives.

Leave a Reply

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