Rita — the 3D and the non-3D

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.

R: Yes, that is what I meant. It is an appropriate way of seeing it, so long as the context is one 3D life and what follows. But in any other context – well, it is very much like describing 3D life as the afterdeath (considered from what preceded it) or the beforedeath (considered from what follows it).
The two stages of life – 3D and non-3D
[Interruption by a telephone call]
F: You were saying? I know it has been half an hour.
R: That isn’t the problem here that it was. It isn’t even the situation, exactly. It is very different when you don’t need to work to keep consciousness focused while being moved along the ever-changing-present-moment, as we discussed [when I was] in 3D. Here, we just put you on pause, you might say.
F: And no risk of stretching the VCR tape, either.
R: We have better technology than that.
F: I’ll mention, I know you were joking. I don’t want somebody wanting to know what kind of technology the non-3D has! But anyway –
R: Think of 3D life and non-3D life as two aspects of the same experience. Neither one is merely an appendage of the other. Like everything else in the world (that is, in All-D) they may be seen as the same thing, only on different turf. So –
Well, let’s go a different way, for a moment. You could, I suppose, imagine life to be one dip into 3D and then non-3D forever afterward. That would sort of make each experience a one-time deal. But tides don’t come in once, go out once, and call it a day.
If you think of 3D and non-3D as one reciprocating process, you might get a better view of it. And if we can stay on a rather narrow line of attack, we can clean up several remaining perplexities fairly easily.
F: I’ll try not to interrupt.
R: Envision life this way, beginning – as an arbitrary starting point – with your assembly (let’s call it) and insertion into 3D at a certain time / place. You live that life (and your non-3D components live it along with you, remember, seen or unseen, suspected or unsuspected) and at some point you drop that body and that particular life is over.
(This is measured from an assumed stable place to stand, watching it.)
Your choices during life shaped you. therefore your makeup relative to the non-3D community is other than what it would have been if you had made other choices. (That’s the point of living in 3D, after all!)
At some point another insertion into 3D takes place, and here we have to be careful to take into account the distorting limitations of language.
Is it you, the non-3D personality that was shaped in 3D, that gets inserted into a new situation? Up to this point we’ve been saying no, because we wanted to clarify certain relationships and situations that often get blurred or misstated due to logical overlay or hasty generalization. But we could just as easily say yes, it is – provided that you remember that this is not “yes, instead,” but “yes, as well.”
It isn’t you, going back for another dip, yet, it is. It’s all in how you want to look at it.
F: “Which `you’ are we talking about?”
R: In a way, yes. That ex-3D mind does participate in the continuing non-3D group mind. But the animating principle of which it is a specific example is able to use that same ex-3D mind in another insertion.
F: I messed that up a little, I think.
R: Only a little. It isn’t the same mind, more the same mind-behind-any-specific-mind.
F: I get that we’re touching on soul vs. spirit again.
R: We are, and I’m walking on eggshells, because it is perhaps too tenuous a distinction to make clear. Let’s defer that until next time so I may round this off, then try not to come back for more until tomorrow.
That second insertion completes. The mind from that second insertion is at base the same as the previous mind that emerged, but changed again by its choices and experiences. The second ex-3D mind takes its place in the continuing interaction in non-3D – alongside the previous mind that never ceased to exist [while the second insertion was in 3D, in other word]. And maybe the process goes on for uncounted numbers of insertions, not all on planet earth, by any means.
This is the reality behind the idea of karma, and progressive development of the successively incarnating mind, you see.
Only, to eliminate as much distortion in the understanding as possible, it is helpful to keep two views in mind, one as it appears from the 3D, one as from the non-3D, and soon enough we are going to add as seen from All-D, which isn’t the same as either of the others.
But now we must pause. Not until tomorrow morning.
F: Are you implying I might put impatience ahead of prudence?
R: Let’s just say, we both know your nature and your track record.
F: Smiling. All right. But I suspect you’re just clearing the deck so you can watch “As the World Turns.” Till tomorrow, then, or whenever thereafter. (1 p.m.)

One thought on “Rita — the 3D and the non-3D

  1. The language that comes to my mind is “mind layering”: a sequence of insertions, not Earth-time dependent. Each insertion layers another life of experiences on top of the previous “stack”. Upon “extraction” from each insertion, the completed, newly remodeled soul/mind rejoins its originating consciousness as a unique and sustaining perspective, even while its essence is available for reinsertion.

    It would be consistent with this model to have a first insertion, and a last one, at least from the perspective of what we have been calling the greater being. From the perspective of All That Is, there would be no end to insertions and consequential evolvement.

    A question regarding consciousness, already by definition “fully divine”, that moves to develop its “humanness”: “What constitutes “fully human”?

    One dip into 3D?

    Recognizing and bringing into harmony all the opposites within us, as Jung stated?

    Bringing forth and developing the potential of all primary strands?

    Merging all aspects of 3D souls, alternates, eras and alternate worlds, fully integrating and absorbing all within the greater being?

    Fulfilling our total human potential?

    At what point is there little additional gained from the layering via 3D, and
    appropriate to move on to other environs?

    The perspective that I get is there is no specific criteria to being “fully human”; our greater being is not independent and isolated with respect to this process, anymore than we are. It flows in concert with the movement above.
    John

Leave a Reply

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