Year: 2016

Wednesday. March 9, 2016
F: 11:50 a.m. All right. Again?
R: Just a little bit, this time.
I emphasized that no two descriptions of the non-3D are going to be exactly the same, any more than any two people’s experiences of anything are the same. And I pointed out that we are beings that live, always, in All-D – that is, in every dimension there is. Living it doesn’t mean being aware of it, and being aware of it doesn’t mean identical interpretations (or even awareness of the same things, in the same way). And, the relation of non-3D life to the ex-3D soul is not nearly so simple or one-dimensional (so to speak) as often portrayed.
It is not an “afterlife” in absolute terms, only in terms of any one given 3D life. Is that much understood?
F: You are saying, yes, we can look at it as the afterlife of the particular 3D life we’re leading at the moment, but from any viewpoint but that one, the word is misleading and might as well be called the afterthought.
R: Not bad, the afterthought.
F: I kind of liked it.
Continue reading Rita — the 3D and the non-3D

Wednesday, March 9, 2016
F: 6 a.m. All right, enough of politics for a while. Let’s resume.
R: The point of talking about inevitable distortion of perception, and consequent disagreement of testimony, is to reinforce the fact that people should allow themselves to trust more, to intuit more, to – in a word – deepen their 3D connection to their non-3D knowing. Anything you get may be wrong, but maybe it isn’t. There is no reason a priori to assume that someone else is more tuned in, or is a better interpreter, than you are yourself. You may not (or you may, but you may not) be able to articulate what you know, and you may not even be able to make a lot of sense of your knowings, but you are as close to the divine – to the non-3D intelligence that informs and maintains us, if you’d prefer to think of it that way – as anybody else.
F: Seems obvious. Why should there be first-class and second-class citizens in that respect?
R: What seems obvious to one may seem unlikely to another and may be a revelation to a third. Because people experience differences in access and in expression, it is easy to unconsciously jump to the conclusion that there are differences in connection. “Access” and “connection” may seem to be the same thing, you see. They aren’t. Your mental habits may make it harder for you to realize the connection, to conceptualize it, to express it – but nothing can separate you from it. How could it? Without your non-3D component you could not live.
F: Rather like the way they describe God, in whom we live and move and have our being.
R: Correct. And it is the confusing the non-3D with the logically-deduced construct called “God” that much of the difficulty inheres for people in our time – your time, now.
F: For the moment.
R: It is always for the moment. By saying what I just did, I am not, of course, making any statement about the creator beyond this: Whatever God is, human description is pretty sure to be inadequate to comprehend it.
F: I am reminded of the saying, “God was created in the image of Man.” And the Sufi saying that I love, “Words are a prison. God is free.”
R: It is the divorce or at least alienation between religion and metaphysics and science and art and everyday life that is at once your time’s blessing and its curse. It is a blessing in that it creates spaces between belief-systems and leaves you free. It is a curse in that it greatly impoverishes your lives of meaning until you do the work – individually or in small groups – to work out what life is to you.
The main thing you and I are doing here is expressing a few of the glimpses out the window that are allowed by the cracks in the world’s belief-systems. It is up to each reader to decide what if anything to do about it.
F: So have we strayed from the ramifications of “fully human, fully divine”?
R: Not at all. People deciding what to do with our material are deciding in their human aspect, with silent or subtle or obvious input from their divine aspect.
F: In fact, we could just as well say that to be human is to include that divine aspect, right?
R: Right theoretically, impractical in common discourse. If people were already aware of the fact, yes. If they remembered it moment by moment, yes. But in that case, what need would they have of this?
F: I see that.
R: These explanations, like all explanations, are provisional. They are bridges, designed to lead from here to there. They are not, themselves, the “there.” People forget that, and it makes trouble for them.
F: We’re still the finger pointing to the moon.
R: We are more like the finger pointing to the reality behind the moon, the reality the moon symbolizes. That’s even harder to point to.
F: Only four pages, but I’m tired again.
R: I’ll be here when you’re ready. (6:20)

Tuesday, March 8, 2016
F: 4:10 p.m. Rita, shall we? I took a walk and it – and the 80-degree weather – seems to have energized me.
R: We can try whenever you wish – if it isn’t too often – and can quit whenever you wish, as well.
F: I counted something like 38,000 words since the 11th of February. It adds up.
R: Slow and steady wins the race.
F: So, more on fully human, fully divine?
R: You will find it a useful rule of thumb to assume that anything that has been believed has some kernel of truth to it. Every report of experience may have some useful clue. It is important to remember, always, that perception is one thing and interpretation another. Quite an elaborate misleading superstructure may be built upon some humble but rock-solid experience someone had. So, if you study scripture, or metaphysics, or science, or folklore, or even superstition – don’t think you need to accept the conclusions in order to consider the reports. If ancient Germans worshipped a grove of oak trees, the question is not whether they were right in whatever they concluded were the reasons for it; the question is what did they feel, and what if anything at this remove can we deduce.
Continue reading Rita on a difference in platform

Monday, March 7, 2016
F: 9:20 p.m. Rita, do you feel like another session now, as I will have things to do tomorrow morning?
R: It is important that you not let this get out of your control. Too much of it will take your vitality. You know you have been told this.
F: Yes. I don’t do more than one a day habitually. But I thought maybe we could make an exception. I could take the dictation, and type it up tomorrow morning instead of trying to do it all at once.
R: We can try. We should both monitor your stamina.
F: Okay with me. Where were you? I felt you were getting close to something really important.
R: Well, yes, I would say so. It ties up your loose ends between two ways of seeing what people call “the afterlife,” as if it were a long epilog, or afterthought, or dead end. One way sees the individually shaped ex-3D soul adjusting to new surroundings and presumably living happily ever after in some vaguely defined way. The other sees the ex-3D soul reabsorbed into the totality from which it was created, realizing that its 3D experience was very small potatoes indeed next to what else he is, and is part of. Where is the reconciliation of the two?
F: Fully human, fully divine.
R: Exactly. Both, not one or the other, and not a little of one and a little of the other. Now – although this may not be strictly accurate – let’s think of it as more a matter of terrain than of difference in nature.
Continue reading Rita — fully human, fully divine

Monday, March 7, 2016
F: 4 a.m. Well, here we go. Okay, Rita, you said we’d look at how the ex-3D soul experiences itself once it sheds its idea of being basically a creation of 3D.
R: You might as well mention the thought that came to you yesterday after our session. It has its relevance.
F: Well, I was thinking, they didn’t say Jesus was half human, half divine, they said fully human, fully divine. And somehow that seems to me to describe us pretty well. No wonder we’re so uneasy!
R: Half animal, half spirit, is how people often think of themselves. It doesn’t usually occur to them that they are fully 3D creatures, fully non-3D creatures at the same time – and, creators as well as creatures. Life-experience and words and sequential language are too much in the way of such understanding. But now perhaps we can begin to tie this all together if you bring in concepts I started with in December [2014].
Everybody and everything exists in all dimensions. Necessarily. There is no other way it can be. Therefore trees and moss and foxes and people are in All-D, not merely in 3D – and so are rocks and seas and nuclear waste products. Regardless which kingdom, animal, vegetable, or mineral, everything exists in all dimensions, and that include sub-atomic particles, galaxies of stars, and many things commonly perceived as relationships such as heat, light, etc.. I know that is puzzling but let’s not pursue that particular side-trail. The physicists among you may find it an interesting line of thought. Thought, too, exists in All-D.
F: I’m having a hard time holding on to the thread, here.
Continue reading Rita – the ex-3D soul, lost in space, so to speak

Sunday, March 6, 2016
F: 12:20 a.m. Miss Rita, I seem to be awake again, and there isn’t any way I’m going to be breathing well for a while, so – since I slept a couple of hours midday yesterday – why don’t we proceed? I’ll append my typed-up results from yesterday’s exercise.
[Saturday, March 5, 2016
[4:55 a.m. All right, I’ve made a beginning, anyway. I’ll write out what has come to me, but whether I get a lot or a little, I won’t post it until tomorrow, so as not to steer people’s experience.
[First I thought, “I could have made other choices from the things that happened to me,” then I went to “I could have been born into other circumstances” (I might have been the same bundle and expressed as a girl, or as a black or an Indian boy or girl, or a Canadian or from anywhere) and I would have been the same and not the same. In other words, I got first that “I” exist independently of my surroundings.
[So then I came to a sense of myself – the “me” of me, prior to circumstance, as a floating platform, call it, a localized consciousness available, say, for experience. Not so much a localized consciousness intent on doing something or even experiencing something, more like, available to be inserted into a situation to see what happened.
Continue reading Rita on what we really are