Wednesday, February 17, 2016
F: 6:45 a.m. Fashionably late, it feels like. But my sleep was interrupted at two or so.
Well, Miss Rita, here we are, and I have stage fright, so I really hope you are ready to proceed.
R: Yes, what if I am not here, or have nothing to say?
F: That’s about it. You will notice, I’m not saying what if I’m making this up? But it is slightly nerve-wracking, to be at the brink and have no idea what is coming. Certainly I can’t answer today’s question.
R: Well then, we’ll just have to see, won’t we?
There is a now-ness to our life that is perhaps more prominent than in yours, and a here-ness that is perhaps less prominent. That’s one statement. A second statement is, we live our lives very differently depending upon whether we are or are not dealing primarily with the 3D’s glare, as I alluded to. Let’s start with these two.
Even in 3D life, it is always here, it is always now. Teachers like Ram Das in my time came to remind us in 3D of that fact, because it changes everything. “Be here, be in the now,” was powerful as the way to begin to escape the mental trance that made life automatic, low-power, misdirected, desperate, empty. It was particularly powerful for those who had not realized that their ordinary life encompassed such adjectives even when it was not full of drama.
No one here can need such a reminder except those aspects recovering from the 3D trance.
F: I take it you mean, except those parts of non-3D minds that are unable to realize that the conditions they were used to living among (3D life, I mean) no longer applied.
R: What we in the Monroe community were used to encountering when we did retrievals, yes. Being “stuck” or being trapped in one’s own mental construction was not (viewed from this side) what it appeared when you viewed it as if that mind was separate, but it is a condition that could be alleviated easily from the 3D side. So –
Well, actually, we can use that situation, familiar to some on the 3D side, as seen from the 3D side, as an entry point. So let us look at it from this side, bearing in mind that we are moving to elucidate the first of today’s points about our now-ness and here-ness.
Our normal is a continual life of awareness within non-3D – or, I should say, centered on the non-3D. We – and I defer defining “we” for a while, but roughly say individual clusters or nodes or coalescences, not individuals one-per-3D-being, of course – we live our aware lives in the eternal now, not pulled from one moment to the next as in 3D, but still affected by changes in parts of us caused by just those changes caused by the lapse of time in the 3D.
F: Changes in your 3D-connected aspects, I take it.
R: Yes. Thus, it may be said we live in no-time (because we are always in the now), or in all-time (because we do change, which could not happen if our non-3D dimension were changeless which is what some people have hastily deduced), or in a sort of 3D-influenced time (because changes in our 3D components change us, and those who do not have a 3D component still deal with those who do, and thus with a changed environment).
But even though changes – induced by or led from 3D conditions, as described at some length last year – do affect us, they are not central to us, in the way they obviously and appropriately are to those within 3D. and that is the balance we are encouraging you to strike: We are not isolated from the 3D; neither are we peripheral to it. [I realize, typing this, “peripheral to it” may be misinterpreted. I got that it means, neither is the 3D central and the non-3D secondary.] Many a theological and philosophical argument arises from seeing only one half, or neither half, of this statement.
Just as a very young child cannot realize that adults live in a very different world, so a mind still in 3D may find it impossible, or at least very difficult, to realize that it is only a part, and a small part, of the reality we in non-3D experience. Not that it has no part, but that it is only one part, and usually (or I should say generally) a relatively small one.
F: Would you enlarge a little on that distinction or self-correction you just made?
R: “Usually” implies “once in a while,” but I meant, more, “generally,” in the sense of, “commonly.” I was trying to say that usually most of our attention is elsewhere [than 3D], but I wanted it understood that this means usually for most, and more often than that for some.
F: I may have hashed that explanation but that’s how I understood it. Try again? Or will that do?
R: For the vast majority of “us,” 3D existence is only a minor part of our life. For a relative few, it is greater. Leave it at that, lest we go too far off-course.
So the non-3D, in its eternal now-ness or perhaps we should say in its awareness of the eternal now-ness, is a very different environment than the 3D in its carefully constructed remorseless flow of moments. Urgency is gone; irretrievability is gone; competition except voluntary competition is gone.
F: That – I get – is what Bob [Monroe] was trying to convey in saying AA and BB, et cetera, were playing games. They were active, but there were no circumstances compelling them to do this or that, so anything they did choose to do could be considered to be play.
R: Yes, but don’t forget the massive distortion in the picture caused by treating various characters – AA and BB particularly! – as if separate when in fact their separate aspect was only relatively separate. But you can’t say everything at once, and he felt and feels he was lucky to get as much said as he did. Within those understood constructions, yes, all activity may be considered playing, just as they may be equally accurately considered as art.
But again, work to remember, we are not primarily engaged in picturing the non-3D as it would appear from within 3D, but as we experience it ourselves. So, again, see us not as individuals cooperating, so much as parts of a great entity, functioning together. Our relative individuality makes our differences and our – specialization, call it. Our essential unity makes the – well, how to put it?
R: Not structure so much as architecture, or our organic inter-relationship. That is, there is an inherent structure to the non-3D no less than there is to the 3D, and a few moments’ thought should convince you that this must be so.
F: I’ll bite. Why must it?
R: Because structure does not flow from created 3D (how could it?), but is the essence from which, out of which, the 3D was formed. I will let you and our readers chew on that for a while. Meanwhile, to conclude for now.
My point is that the non-3D (as a window on the All-D) is not merely a variant of the 3D. it shares characteristics but in different conditions, hence it manifests differently.
We are all one. (You may have heard this before!) We are all aware that we live in the eternal now. (You have heard this one, too.) We relate primarily to each other, which does not exclude the 3D directly or indirectly but does not make it front and center from our point of view. (You haven’t heard this, or if you have it more likely has emphasized the division between “earth” and “heaven.”)
F: “Directly or indirectly”?
R: Directly – meaning those of us in active contact with the 3D via parts of ourselves there. Indirectly – meaning, those without such contacts, dealing with those that do.
F: I see.
R: And that is a good place to stop.
F: Thanks for all this.
R: You see, I was here.
F: Smiling. Well, me too! Till next time.