Rita – people should trust their non-3D component

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)