Rita on what we really are

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.

[And that isn’t quite the right way to put it, either, but it’s closer than the way I usually think of myself. The strands to other lifetimes are more qualities than data. Everything I think I know of any of their biographies may be wrong. They may not have existed as I envision them. Perhaps “they” don’t exist at all, but are personifications of traits that I use for the story I tell myself. The story is the point, not the external manifestation or lack of manifestation of the story. What we feel we are is always true as a clue, not necessarily as evidence.
[It is the sense of being energy in suspension that is the point, but that doesn’t convey it. There is a real sense of being a unit, in a way, prior to and superior to the expression of that unit in a given body or in given circumstances. The bundle that was formed (if “formed” is the right way to put it) has less to do with 3D manifestation than I had thought. In fact, the bundle itself is less definite, less defined, than I had thought.
[But I get a sense, enough for now. Okay, I’ve done the experiment – a few minutes’ worth, anyway. Let’s see where we go from here. I do see that this will make me – allow me – to see myself differently, for as long as I remember the sense of it and not merely the words around it.]
R: You found it worthwhile.
F: I did. As I said at the time, it will depend on whether I retain the feeling of it rather than merely the words. But yes, it was worthwhile.
R: The purpose was less to express your shadow – your unexpressed personality characteristics, in fact your unexpressed essential characteristics – than to give you just a glimpse of what the dilemma feels like, wondering who you are what you are doing.
F: The lucid-dreaming workshop had an exercise asking us to imagine what we were when we were lucid dreaming, and the answer of course was — “awareness.”
R: Of course. And if your accustomed way of being aware depends upon senses that no longer seem to be functioning, where are you?
One place you might be for a while is “delusional.” That is, since you are accustomed to receiving your input from your senses, it will be very natural for you to continue to perceive that way, conceptually, even after the senses are gone, until the realization that they are gone sinks in. That is the basis of the “hollow heavens” as mentioned. But, as I said, at some point those illusions wear thin.
When the ex-3D soul realizes that it is not where it used to be, sooner or later it realizes that it is no longer what it thought it was, and, sooner or later, it further realizes that – it never was what it thought it was. At first it redefines itself in contrast to the previous ideas, and thinks of itself as what-it-was plus. That is, Frank was, all along, Frank as he experienced himself, plus unsuspected direct connection to others, plus connection to his (and their) past and future lives, plus interconnection with others via the non-3D mind that connects everybody.
Quite a definition, but it doesn’t last long, perhaps, because Frank is still on the sliding board, either exhilarated or frightened or a little of both, because there is no place for the process to stop.
F: You can’t stay half-born.
R: Correct. And perhaps in some ways a better analogy would be – you can’t stay in a coma forever. Even in 3D, a coma is going to end with a radical change in condition. That is, the platform is going to crumble, the body will die, and the unimpaired consciousness will be on its way toward whatever follows for it. It isn’t any different after you no longer have the body and 3D conditions to provide braking for your slide. You are going to move; the question is, easily or not, happily or not, willingly or not, and mostly
F: Mostly? I lost it there.
R: Let’s leave that and resume on another tack. Regardless how long it takes for you as an individual, at some point you will have crossed another River Styx – this time, a River Styx of self-definition – and from that point there is no danger of your mistaking yourself for something merely human, and no possibility of your being disoriented.
F: This sound like what we’re wanting to hear.
R: It should tie up some dangling ends. One is the need to reconcile the process from the individual side and the process from the point of view of the larger being. Another is to reconcile what is left after that transition. That is, is there a Rita, still available for contact? Of course there is. But is that Rita the same as the 3D person you knew? Of course she is not, even after you make allowance for the initial changes caused by transition to the non-3D conditions.
F: But I’m getting too sleepy to do this, so I’ll see you whenever I wake up again. (1 p.m.)
6 a.m. All right, let’s resume, if we can.
R: You will remember, I told you that my contacts with Martin after he made his transition [in 2000] had the flavor of Martin as I had known him, and yet the flavor wasn’t quite the same. He was himself, but the “himself” of him was different. I don’t want to lay down a rule for this – like any rule, it would be only a sleepy generalization – but I think this difference occurs to people – is experienced by them, I mean –
F: Care to bail out and try again?
R: People who are contacted by loved ones may experience them as unchanged (though of course not any more in 3D) at first but over time the feel of the person will change, if there are further contacts. In general, I’d say this is because the person’s sense of identity has changed in the non-3D with the passage of time over here.
F: In the non-3D, where “there is no time.”
R: I’m not willing to say that that expression is wrong. Neither is what I am saying wrong. It is one of those difficulties that arise because language leads you to think distinctions are other than what they really are. We could say “change of state” rather than passage of time, but what additional clarity would that bring? Let’s stick to the point.
Your brief sinking in to your true nature yesterday, Frank, led you to feel the distinction between what you think and what you know. It showed you that the “youness” underlying the experiences of your 3D life preexisted and underlay and gave substance to your 3D existence.
F: Yes, I’d been thinking sloppily, misled by the implied content of the guys’ telling us that a bundle was shaped and inserted into 3D at a given time and place. I thought that meant, that given bundle was created then and there (in connection with the physical 3D mechanism, I mean). But yesterday I recognized that this is a linguistic misunderstanding. The non-3D platform exists. It exists in non-3D, therefore exists outside of time-space, therefore exists outside of (independent of) time. That bundle, or platform, call it what you will, co-exists with the universe. In essence it always was and always will be, only that way of putting it is as misleading as saying it comes into existence for a given purpose. We are being misled here by the limitations of language shaped in the 3D.
R: That’s correct. And similarly, at the opposite end of a particular 3D experience, that platform exists and cannot cease to exist; it is changed and unchanged; has reshaped itself and has remained (as it must) what it always was in potential.
It is these seeming impossibilities that are so difficult for 3D logic to comprehend, and are in fact strictly speaking not possible for it to understand. But not everything that is true can be understood, any more than everything that can be understood need be true.
So now we are coming to the crux of things, and with luck we will complete this topic – if only for the moment – before you have to take a few days doing other things. We have made good progress in a month, and there’s no reason to think we can’t continue if you wish to.
Here is the crux of the question of “what’s life like on the other side?” You express your full nature, and your nature that you express is dual, not single.
F: Holy cow, am I getting what I think I’m getting?
R: Tell it, and I’ll correct as need be.
F: The church said Jesus had two natures, human and divine – two natures combined in one person. And Jesus (though not always his religious followers) said he was not different from anybody else, that we would do the same things he did, and more, etc. If I’m hearing you right, you’re saying that is literally true, both halves of it. Jesus had a divine nature as well as a human one, and therefore so do we.
R: Nothing there to correct.
F: You’d have been hard to convince when you were in 3D!
R: Make your transition and see if it leaves your ideas unchanged.
F: I’m smiling too. All right.
R: So you see, at one and the same time (although “time” isn’t really the best word here, given its distracting and misleading nuances) the ex-3D soul is what it experienced. The 3D life shaped it, profoundly. Think of a 19-year-old coming out of Marine boot camp. That experience shaped the person so profoundly that “once a Marine, always a Marine.” And yet it is also true (not true instead, or true from another point of view, but also, simultaneously, true) that the individual who entered boot camp is still the same individual who emerges. It’s difficult, in 3D logic and language structure, but it is true: He or she is changed, and unchanged. Equally true upon emergence from 3D. And even the words “emergence from” are misleading because they imply that one thing ceases to be and another thing begins. True – and not true.
F: I can sort of feel that. So where does this leave us?
R: It leaves us at the end of another half-hour, which, added to the other two segments, is quite enough for the moment.
F: Next time?
R: Next time we can look a little more closely at the new reality (but it is also an unchanged reality) that the ex-3D soul finds itself living once it has freed itself from its constricting bonds of belief in itself as primarily a 3D creature.
F: Deep waters. Much gratitude for all this, Rita. See you next time.

9 thoughts on “Rita on what we really are

  1. I am having this uncanny feeling, looking at all the anomaly jolting me often enough, what if this is already a bardo/hollow heaven state? And I am the dunce being spoon-fed reality in itsy-bitsy portions so that I can hold on to my marbles (as if there were any to start with…)? Is this a really different, a more real or more whatever, than other layers of being? Is there a possibility to know the difference between bardo and this/here/now? Ultimately, that probably doesn’t matter – only takes some pressure off, we’re living whatever our being is, anyways, be it bardo/real/layer or something I can’t even imagine. If this reality is just one layer in a vast, vast system… thinking about it that way just gives this strange, Lovecraftian tremor – a whiff of breath from Cthulhu going through my nostrils…making the little me have the slightest of inklings about the real-real where the human perspective is put genuinely in context. Not ancient as in 10 000 years, ancient as in aeons upon aeons…

    I seem to have done the homework, even though didn’t read the instructions, was out in Budapest for dance meditation workshop for the weekend. What is the not-me has been my theme for a long time, actually – seems to have led me to connect with ever new strands of me, giving a sense of being in movement, to an extent that I have resigned to the reality that there’s no feel of fixed me available anymore, just a cluster that constantly drops something and picks up something else.About ways to connect to different strands: art can do that, music specifically (to me, at the moment). Found this piece (https://youtu.be/7fD5hz8bHtU) recently and loved it, and danced to it, and while doing it, for the first time I wanted to see myself dance. I am going to find some way to film myself so I can see what I am doing. The music brought some entirely new flavour to my movement, and shifted something, so that filming myself shifted to yes from a definite no. Dropped a no, picked up a yes.

    Today morning, the knowing of the waking-up moment was this: the living pulsing tissue that keeps popping up in my head – the fuller process, life living itself. The feel of looking at: it you can’t make sense of it. What is it to be a participant there? The fullness makes for a unified sound that does not differentiate in any way. But the goings-on are so extremely varied. The only way to make the differenes experience-able (hope that is a word..finnsh is much more flexible that way) would be to have focal points of consciousness. Sort of like fingers feeling the pulse of life at specific points. And this would make for a different way to receive what is going on: more of being a conduit of consciousness, bridge between the specific/individual and fullness of all. And this happens better if there is not so much of opinion about what is going on.

    The instalments: I notice I want to and need to read them 2-3 times to really get ahold. There is something in the material so that one can’t just plonk it into some (hermetically sealed…) compartment and thereby “have” it. Needing to, in a way, make space for the contents. Extremely interesting and gratifying. Thank you R&F!

      1. Err…I’m a finn so I speak finnish. And we all learn at least swedish and one other language at school, which for most is english. And I can speak german, a bit clumsily, though. But around here, to impress anyone with language skills, you have to know at least 5 languages fluently.

  2. One could say “Wow! Rita went to all this trouble to tell us we are all both human and divine? Jesus and other teachers have been saying that for thousands of years?!” … but just listening to the words misses the point.

    What Rita and Frank have been showing is the process (‘the work’) needed (by each of us) to see and feel and begin to understand for our self the Reality behind the words. To paraphrase, “Give a man a fish and he eats for a day; help a man learn to fish and he can feed himself forever.” … thanks to Rita and Frank I get better at ‘fishing’ for larger-me every day!
    Jim

    1. Frank,
      Another perfectly good ‘paraphrase’ … as are “spend the weekend in a boat: sailing … diving … chasing women … tanning.” A minor (?!) example of Rita’s comment in the next session: “the best model recognizes that all other models are aspects of it, seen differently” ??

      I’ve been doing the ‘homework’ every day since Rita ‘assigned ‘it; I report:
      – my method is as different as the other descriptions I’ve seen,
      – I like having a routine I can incorporate into my daily practice,
      – the first night a (long-time) reoccurring dream contained clues that helped me resolve several of the major ‘symbols.’
      – my awareness of larger-me grows daily, changing in the way I see/perceive/understand the world.

      I appreciate you and Rita taking us along on this wild ride!
      Jim

Leave a Reply

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