[For this one, I guess I’ll use O: for other, though I suppose TGU would be just about as good.]
Saturday, July 25, 2015
7:15 a.m. I was getting ready to go upstairs and open up the computer, but I got that someone wants to talk to me, which mostly means wants me to listen, I think, and not get distracted by externals.
F: So, open for business. Rita, is it you? [Blank pause] No. very well, let’s start again. I’m open to anybody who wants to talk, subject to the usual proviso about good intent.
[Long ago, I set ground rules for communication, specifically being open to anyone of my own level of development or higher, and excluding anyone not of benign intent.]
Okay, since nothing is forthcoming, maybe this is the time to talk about the blankness I and others sometimes get after asking a question or when waiting for a communication. When we experience such a blank response, (a) what if anything can we do to overcome it and (b) how can we tell if the interrupt is on our end or your end or between the two and (c) how can there even be an interrupt between one part of us (the mind in 3D) and another (the mind in non-3D)? I think I overcame a great part of the customary obstacles merely by not worrying about identifying the source, and again by not worrying (as far as I can!) about whether incoming information is to be taken at face value or not. So what more remains to be addressed as obstacles?
O: A lot of questions, and a recognition of how far you have come – consciously, anyway – in 30 years.
F: I suppose so.
O: Also, recognition of traits and attitudes that enable communication, which is more valuable for others as hints they and their non-3D selves can use to draw closer.
F: Surely their non-3D self doesn’t need such hints.
O: You occasionally fall back into thinking that anyone and anything in non-3D is perfect, omniscient, and wise, merely by virtue of being outside of your constricting environment. But we would remind you of something you realized long ago, which has direct application, though you might not think it at first blush. Certain psycho-active drugs may act to inhibit inhibitors in the brain so as to, in effect, expand one’s 3D awareness of one’s larger mental self. (That’s one way to put it.) The drug does not change what they see; it changes how much they are allowed to perceive. In effect, it changes their awareness, but it does not in fact change what is there to be seen.
F: I’ve always said, after my mescaline trip, observing its effect on the other two and on me, that it magnified what was there to be seen. If you have chaos, it magnified chaos. If you were a mystic, you got mystical insights.
O: Not a bad way to see it. Closer would be, it may steer you toward unsuspected aspects of yourself that you happen to be attuned to at the moment. Hence, not as simple as looking at it as chemical truth serum. More like a chemical Rorschach test.
Now, the analogy is this. When your 3D mind releases from its 3D tether – when you drop the body – it does not thereby change what it has made itself in a lifetime practice of living the units into a new unit.
F: Integrating the strands by functioning together over time.
O: Yes. What it is – considered as a 3D-conditions-shaped unit – it continues to be. Only, that isn’t the end of it. It also (not instead, but also) reintegrates into the larger being from which it was shaped, and thus changes to incorporate those more encompassing insights.
F: I think you just said, the mind changes or it doesn’t change, depending upon the context we’re thinking of it.
O: Not so much depending on the context of the hypothetical viewer, but yes. Its new condition is both, and neither, condition. But viewed either way – or perhaps we should say, experienced either way – the mind does not magically become something other than itself, which is what it would amount to if a mind freed from the 3D were to become instantly, automatically, omniscient and wise.
F: I had to look back to remind myself of what we are talking about. You mean, some people’s non-3D component is wiser or more aware or more experienced, etc., than others.
O: You were told long ago
F: Lost it. Sometimes writing with a pen is too slow, and my mind moves along and I lose touch. Again?
O: You were told that people – that minds – in 3D are subject to passions, beliefs, even fanaticisms that are shaped and exaggerated by 3D conditions, but are not created from nothing. There is nothing in 3D that is not pre-existed in non-3D, only it is 3D that brings matters to a boil.
F: I hadn’t thought of it in terms of awarenesses as well as of beliefs.
O: That is why we are telling you.
F: Another lesson, eh?
O: You asked specifically why the process of communication is sometimes interrupted, and it seemed a good opportunity to point out that you are not all dealing with the same conditions all the time. Despite the fact that people think that “on the other side, there is no time,” in fact things change, and the 3D was crafted to help them change more, and faster, and in more intricate ways. If everything in non-3D were the unchanging bliss that it is sometimes pictured [to be], why would we need the 3D? if non-3D had no conflicts of values (arising from differences in makeup), where would they come from, in 3D which is created from the non-3D?
So, this is just another level of complexity to add to your emerging picture.
F: Understanding A by understanding B in a certain way, then continuing.
O: As usual. The only way to understand the elements of a complex picture is to present first its simplest elements, one way or another. You can begin with an image of the whole constructed of only the most elementary features – as we did – or you can describe the interrelation of a somewhat known unit (3D life) with the somewhat experienced elements of another somewhat known unit (non-3D life) – which we also did. Either way, and both ways at once, you are going to have to move on to a more nuanced, more seemingly contradictory view, as you absorb the base elements.
F: So you’re cautioning us not to think this throws out the baby with the bathwater.
O: We’re asking you not to do it! Contradictions in newly absorbed concepts will be discouraging to some; don’t let such discouragement get out of hand. Instead, reflect that any subject contains complexities that are not immediately apparent to a first glance.
F: Okay, a question. Your language – I’m having to fight it, here. I can’t cite examples, but repeatedly you have been on the verge of putting things in a way that is so awkward – repeating a work in different forms, for instance [one of which, I remember in typing this out, was “elementary elements,” which I changed in flow to “elementary features”), and not once but in several places – that I am aware not only is it not Rita – I get the impression it isn’t anyone I’ve ever talked to.
O: Which means you are better at hearing nuance – and that you are tempted to forget what you learned about the value of not attributing source.
F: I guess. Your use of language certainly is different. Maybe I should have let it come as it came.
O: No great harm done; you were careful to preserve the meaning. It is no more than one hesitating in choosing words to express a thing.
F: Which I have been known to do. So, looking back, what of my original question?
O: We have been answering the latter parts of it, how can there be a problem. The former parts, what can you do to overcome it, we have just demonstrated. Be open, let the material flow even while you are unaware of it, do not insist upon thinking you know who or what you have on the other end of the line. The more definitions you insert into the process, the more you constrict it to fit those requirements. So – remove the constrictions and perhaps the flow improves. Makes sense, does it not?
F: It does. But I doubt it is the whole story.
O: We doubt anyone ever gets to the end of knowing, which is what “the whole story” means in context.
F: Smiling. All right, thanks. I’ll send this around. Till next time. Thank you, Mr. Mystery Guest. I feel like John Daly on What’s My Line, except you never did sign in.
O: On the other hand, you didn’t have to sit through any commercials.
F: True enough. Okay.
“The more definitions you insert into the process, the more you constrict it to fit those requirements. So – remove the constrictions and perhaps the flow improves. Makes sense, does it not?” Our languages are clearly wonderful affairs, but so bound in culturally imposed meanings, i.e, definitions. Many have noted this and are trying to break this impasse. It appears that “feeling” is somehow an escape, I’m told, but how is that communicated. On the other hand, wordy language is not the rule upstairs, but meanings remain. I suspect it is all beyond our grasp, which reminds me of Taoist “non-doing” and simply letting loose and flowing. Thanks, Frank, for opening doors to mystery.
The sense I get is that it is up to us to grasp the gestalt — a right-brain activity for sure — rather than trying to cobble it together a piece at a time, sequential-left-brain fashion. Art will do that; so i gather will performance art such as music or dance. Meditation apparently can let some light into the structure. I prefer simple trust that all is well, all is always well.
Another interesting post, Frank…Are these (and the “Rita Communications”) ever going to be published, E-book or otherwise? I find I do best when resting w/ a book in hand (such as I do w/ the Seth material, and currently your “M.T.”, which I am re-reading at present.
I’m working w/ the “trust issue” myself, and am starting to dialogue a bit when I wake up in the mornings (plus review insights received in dream material, and my quasi-OBEs). So far I’m still at the stage of “yeah, well; I just read that in ‘Seth” or elsewhere,” but yet I don’t discount it, for the message, regardless of source (“Upstairs”, a book, a “Downstairs” conversation), will resonate intuitively w/ me. I’m currently working w/ my questions on “spiritual hierarchies” (the sense that we’re here to learn “harder and harder lessons each go-round”, which I’m having trouble with). The model of “offering a unique window, which our Whole (Non-3D) Self can use for its own expansion” is about as close as I’ve come to identifying a “current official position” (subject to addendum/revision, of course) of what I’m doing here, as a unique “Focus Personality”/bundle of strands, et.c.
I also find it important to use that part of the Monroe affirmation, when asking for assistance: “…whose wisdom, development, and experience are equal to, or greater than my own.” Like you, I feel that not all non-3D sources are “automatically Enlightened”!
Hope I am in a position, someday soon, to return to TMI for “Gateway”; I feel (in terms of the TMI programs), it would be my next “logical step”. With the NDE program, I “jumped in, both feet”, w/out necessarily being able to distinguish (let alone “stay in” the various Focus states. I still had wonderful experiences, much of that was the energy of the place, and the other participants, plus the program facilitators, and the massage therapist, and, of course, the whole staff at TMI present, or “around elsewhere”…
Craig
It sounds to me like you’re doing all right. I don’t know about “the sense that we’re here to learn harder and harder lessons each go-round” — that doesn’t resonate with me, but if it feels right, pursue it until it no longer does.
The first three months of the Rita material (Dec. 2014 thru Feb. 2015) will be published in October by Bob Friedman’s Rainbow Ridge Books. The intent is that the following three months’ worth of material will be published as a second volume, and he will republish The Sphere and the Hologram, possibly under a new title. After that, we’ll see. By then i may have another book’s worth of material or i won’t or, for all we know, i will be dead and dictating to somebody else.
Frank, I am grateful for all that you do.Why republish the S&H under a different title?
Some people think it isn’t a title that will attract readers. Bob as publisher would have the right to propose another title that he thought more commercial, and, if i agreed, why not? The only thing is, in such case, to be sure that it was made clear that it had been previously published as S&H, so that people were not misled into buying what they had already bought. Also, if S&H does get republished, there is no guarantee that it will come out in the same form as it is at present.
VERY interesting Frank as always, thank you.
It is reminding me about all of “the new age concept”, telling us “to go with the flow” (or, “to let go” of old habits and thought-pattern)….easier said than done, I thought once upon a time (and still do from-time to time).
But, the old truth/saying: “Exercise is the way to Mastery,” may have the kernel of ancient wisdom in it.
It IS “the lower regions” inhabiting different “thought-forms”somewhere, I am quite sure of it, as I have experienced it myself. But whether it is as illusory as “the time” aspect, and/-or created by the Mind of the mankind as a whole? That`s the big question.
I do believe (inner faith?) the ENERGY of Love (true love, formless, unconditional, timeless, eternal, neutral and omniscient) has to be acknowledged en mass: The famous “back-to-the Source.”
Agree Don, you mentioned “feelings,” and, I`m not quite sure the human “feelings” are trustworthy all the time…they can “play tricks” on you more often than not… sometimes it works, and sometimes not.
I have the impression in “to develop/to work with,”the trust”in Intuition instead of mixing it with “feelings.”
Discernment is to me “hard work,” and not take everything as “face-value,” which I did before.
B&B,Inger Lise.
And Craig, ditto to what you are saying about “the insights”… BUT, as to living “on the other side” of the globe… cannot be with TMI in the physical body (I can try out the Astral Body of course, or, The Mental Body).
> I have the impression in “to develop/to work with,”the trust”in Intuition instead of mixing it with “feelings.”
Inger Lise, this isn’t quite clear to me. Can you state it again?
Hello Frank….well, trying again: Intuition seems (to me) to “work”out in a completely different way from what feelings “feels” like.
The different feelings IN the physical body: The built-in bodily reaction or instinct for survival, as in combat/war. And when the sweat pours out of the body in fighting for survival.
The reaction will be all different when The Intuition arising.
The Intuition makes a very calm and centered “reaction” (FREE from any “feelings”) when in danger or during stress… And is not FELT as “the same” run or die-instinct about the body (called “natural-instincts”).
Intuition (on the other hand) seems to work upon another “level” completely:The Inner Knowing so to speak.
Such as: Come what may — you cannot die anyway, but I`ll do my best out of the situation.
The crystal-clear and calm thoughts arising as well as the calm/centered action (without panic).
LOL,Inger Lise.
P.S.
Hopefully my norwenglish becomes better this time around (a big smile).
Your Norweglish is still significantly better than my Ameriwegian! (What i can not figure out is why your comments often come without separations after punctuation, and even when i go in manually and insert spaces, it reverts to how it was.) Norse magic, no doubt.
Interesting distinctions you draw. They seem valid to me.
I identify with the discussion on process and find it very helpful, both in how the content comes in increasing complexity as well as the foibles of the connection. On the topic of “letting it flow” I’m experiencing a range of input: from “near” specific language, or more accurately “specific thought” to what Bob Monroe called ROTE’s, or “thought balls”. The latter seem to zoom in, and it takes me quite a while, sometimes even days to “unpack” them and put language around them. It adds further confusion to the source, which I totally agree with your comments we just have to get beyond.
I’m still working on a “thought ball” on one of our previous topics, reincarnation perspectives, that is in my head partly as mental images that I’m struggling to extract and eventually share.
We should not ignore the added layer of complexity you received about the conflicts in non-3D showing up in our experience in 3D, the forever changes occurring in the non, and the 3D contribution to those changes. I get similar inputs.
Thanks to all.
John.
Your experience and mine seem to track, though i seem to be somewhat more language oriented, and get fewer ROTEs, or perhaps don’t recognize them as such.
Not knowing exactly what to do with this, I put it in your hands.
Comments by several followers of Frank’s blog triggered a recent desire on my part to understand more about what we call reincarnation. The following is offered as a result of my “exploration” on this topic. As always, it is one perspective, no more, no less.
Part 1 is my transcription of what came from “greater intelligence” via thought transfer.
Part 2 was a “thought ball” that I have had to work to describe, recognizing I’m likely not giving the full sense to it. It’s been a struggle for me to extract and describe the mental image and intended meaning, I think as intended.
Part 1
“There are beginnings and there are beginnings. Reincarnation as it is currently discussed in 3D is in the context of some sort of Earth life progression, which itself has to be put in context. Earth life progression and that process for creating new souls is not the only game in town. Furthermore the concept you’re dealing with here often carries with it the hidden assumptions of sequence, state separation and progression from a lower to a higher state.
So the first (point) of greater understanding is to recognize that isolating or limiting the context to only that part of reality which constitutes the elements often referred to as reincarnation is highly distorting to begin with. How can Earth or other physical reality incarnations of a greater being be isolated from the context of the greater being’s own creation and growth? Consciousness that creates new souls has always existed, all ingredients present from the beginning, active or latent.” (Clumsy as this is, I left it as close to the way it came in as possible. The meaning I believe is that lives lived in Earth physical reality are a very small part of all reality, and even small when compared to those parts of reality that create souls or aid growth. Therefore to isolate our thinking to this tiny sub part of reality in order to address the subject of reincarnation will be highly distorting.)
“Every element of consciousness has within itself the capacity to be all. And consciousness is (inherent in existence), and not subject to limitations of any physical or non-physical reality. There is no limit to the number of ways that consciousness naturally seeks to create and experience and be all that it is capable of.
So a second (point) of greater understanding is to recognize that the growth or cycle you refer to as reincarnation is one of myriads of choices that can be made, that are made naturally as the tendencies inherent in consciousness activate.
Third, all connections exist (always, even when not sensed), so that it is difficult to speak to action or choice of a sub part of anything. Everything affects everything else.
Yet, here you are, in the middle, as you will always be, because there is no beginning and no end. You are consciousness of pure and limitless potential, and you are consciousness in process of becoming, and you are consciousness having uniqueness from experiences and paths chosen.
Physical Life, and Earth Life specifically, is a crucible, a fabric producer, so to speak. It doesn’t originate consciousness but it can blend and create and solidify for further use and for further creation and expression.”
Part 2
(What Follows came from a “thought ball” mental picture, not a picture sensed visibly, so describing it is not easy. Further, it was clear that the “picture” was for the purpose of putting what we call reincarnation into context with the on-going dynamics of consciousness. It is not intended that it be an analogy for understanding consciousness itself.)
Imagine a fabric that in a single instant or snapshot is like a flag waving in the breeze, and it’s made up of a maze of variation in color and texture. It is not static. It is spontaneously self-weaving new fabric, changing the fabric that existed, and ever creating new connections from one part of the fabric to another.
If these dynamics were temporarily frozen, and we looked at the fabric with a microscope, we would see “nodes” at the intersection of threads and strands (combinations of threads), and we would see a myriad of connections to each node. For the sake of the analogy, the node is a soul, formed from a single physical life. When that part of the fabric was being created, we would witness it coming into being in conjunction with the contribution of nearby nodes that connect to it and we would see it become a contributor to other new nodes subsequently formed. But even as these nodes were being formed, the fabric all around was changing, and their formation would be seen as part of even greater change.
During the creation of a node, it is possible to see the contributions of the previously formed fabric, and during that period a node could theoretically identify with its most dominant contributors. But beyond this short period, it would be seen that further connections and changes continue, in and around the local area as well as from broader regions of the overall fabric.
The impression I am left with from this mental construct, is that a reincarnation “life after life after life” view is not invalid, but is highly isolated, simplified and restricting.
A more encompassing view that sees reincarnation as the interweaving of the many threads and strands (communities in the Rita lingo) that contribute to a node (a formed soul) and to subsequent nodes in the area, provides a broader perspective but one that still is inevitably isolated from the dynamics of the even greater “fabric”.
I am also left with the impression that not just the “communities of threads and strands” interact in the formation and ongoing soul development but also the myriads of connections which “leapfrog” and extend far beyond the local region also have have significant influence.
We become a mind as part of one mind, one that is highly dynamic, with with vast variation, complexity and expression.
Well, first off, with your permission i would reprint this as another guest posting on my website, and would send to TMI Explorers, though really you could do that as easily as I. I like where this goes, i agree with much of it and have to think about the rest of it. One of the most important and self-evident sentences, to me, is “Consciousness that creates new souls has always existed, all ingredients present from the beginning, active or latent.”
Let me know if i can post it on my blog, to be then copied to Facebook.
Sure. Whatever you think is best