Rita – Nobody goes anywhere

Friday, March 18, 2016
F: 1:05 a.m. Good morning, Rita. Tomorrow makes eight years since you left 3D (so to speak). A lot of water under the bridge since then.
I’ve spent several hours sleeping and now I’m awake again – and even though it is way too early for coffee, I thought we could try this, and if I get too tired we can always quit. I am assuming that the “daydreams” about what life is like where you are are inspired by you.
R: There is no ownership of ideas, I remind you, and not nearly the differentiation as to who “causes” thought as you might imagine. After all, at least a part of your mind is on the subject.
F: I was getting that community in non-3D could be compared to community in 3D – but I can feel that my energy is not up to this. I would be shirking difficulties and taking shortcuts. So, back to bed and we’ll try again later. This sure didn’t last long!
3:15 a.m. So, off we go. Miss Rita–?
R: By now you should have firmly in mind what happens, the first stage of which is that the soul in 3D loses its sensory connection with the world it has experienced through the senses and retains the connection with the world it has experienced in a non-sensory fashion. But now let us reconsider.
The soul always was in All-D, and death of the body does not affect that. In All-D it was, in All-D it remains. While it is convenient to consider the soul as if it were journeying, that is a 3D analogy born of our experience of separation of time and space.
In actual fact, nobody goes anywhere. And this statement is so simple that it will require some explanation if it is to be actually heard.
Nobody. Goes. Anywhere.

Nobody actually exchanges 3D for non-3D although we have to put it that way in order to express what is actually a change of state.
Everybody lives in all dimensions, all the time. Remember that, both in terms of any future explanations and, retrospectively, when reconsidering past explanations. Even the very concept of dimensions, I remind you, is more a way of making sense of things than it is a strict description. How many “dimensions” there really are is like saying how many colors there really are. How many depends upon the observer because – as in the case of colors – it is a matter of selecting a range from an unbroken spectrum and saying “from here to here is green,” or whatever, “and then we move to yellow.” Well, make different ranges of the same spectrum, and you define different colors. In effect, you define them into existence. Thus color is somewhat subjective, somewhat objective even in the 3D world, and more so when the perception is not affected by interaction with physical rods and cone and irises and lenses. You get the idea. Try to remember that dimensions, like color, are more a category of mental abstraction than an external fixed quality.
When you remember that, then perhaps it will be easier to remember that nobody goes anywhere, nobody really moves between 3D and non-3D except in their own perception. That is a big and important “except,” but still, the point is, the dying do not leave earth and move into a heaven or hell or The Park or anywhere. Movement is not involved expect perceptually. We will continue to use that language of movement and different places because either we do that or we invent another language – but remember that it is a linguistic convention, nothing more.
And why does this come up now? Because we’re going to go back almost to the beginning of the process, and look at it again in a different way.
It isn’t
F: Sorry.
R: We’re going to look through a different lens, for a different kind of analysis, and this “nothing moves” is going to be an important distinction.
Bear in mind what we have been through till now. There is a reason why I led us through it that way first. Only by readjusting your ways of seeing the world could you be ready for this new way, just as this new look will prepare you for any future explanations that might take this one for granted as a base. So in what follows, don’t think I’m contradicting what I have said – or, let’s put it a different way. Any contradiction is more in the angle of vision than in the thing being described or in the describer’s concepts. We’re slicing into reality from a different angle, so of course it is going to look different.
The soul is in 3D, living that life in a mixture of sensory and non-sensory input. It may have its own ideas about the mixture, and may have the idea that what isn’t sensory doesn’t exist, hence it may experience the world as split between internal and external, with the internal being either more real or, usually, less real than the eternal world as perceived. Many possible essays here, but we won’t stay to write them. Whatever the subjective experience of the subjective / objective split, with physical death comes an end to the physical senses, hence an end to input from the 3D via those senses.
But the soul is still in the 3D. It didn’t “go” anywhere. Its entire career henceforward will still be where it always was – in the only place (if we can call it a place) that exists, the All-D, the field of being that may be separated for our convenience of understanding into 3D and non-3D, but that is never separated because it cannot be separated. Just as you don’t physically separate a road by painting a center line dividing it into lanes of traffic, so you don’t physically (so to speak) separate the All-D into 3D and non-3D. Conceptually, yes. Experientially, yes, although not so much as often seems. But not in any sense of a real absolute separation.
Therefore the ex-3D soul (we still have to use these spatially oriented metaphors) still exists where it always did, in 3D as well as in non-3D.
This is a simple point and if I have belabored it, I do so only because it runs counter to many long-ingrained ideas.
F: All right, let’s consider that the point is made.
R: We will consider it so, but in practice I think you will find you (plural) need many reminders, because, again, it is counter-intuitive unless you have absorbed certain assumptions as preconditions.
Very well. Why do I bring up the fact that the ex-3D soul, though losing its sensory connection to the 3D world, nonetheless continues to reside there no less than in non-3D?
F: I thought I knew, when you began, but the long explanation led me away from whatever I was half-getting.
R: I mean now to describe the same process we have gone through from two angles at once – what it feels like from the 3D end and from the non-3D end.
F: That can’t be right. It was another of those sentences that lure me on to complete it neatly with an antithesis. Try again?
R: I suppose we should say that the ex-3D soul goes through a period of disorientation after losing its sensory connection to the world. It is still in the 3D world but does not know it until it adjusts its perceptual apparatus (call it) to depend upon the non-sensory perception it has always used but will have been aware of only to a limited or perhaps even a non-existent degree.
For a while it is lost in memories and judgments and re-evaluations; then in experiencing how much greater and different it is than it ever knew. (It may have had expanded concepts, but experience, and absorption of experience, is another matter.) During this process it may be in belief-system territories, or perhaps it ranges far and wide in the universe of time and space.
F: Do you really want to pause (as I am feeling you do) to follow that side-trail?
R: Yes, only a little, because it will mislead if not addressed. Ranging far and wide in time and space means, really, experiencing that new freedom of movement among moments that never went away no matter how it looked in 3D as the ever-moving present-moment tugged you away. The lure of revisiting, or of visiting for the first time, can be strong and may delay this next stage I mean to sketch. (However, such exploration continues after this phase, too. The difference is in the awareness of the soul doing the exploring.)
But once the ex-3D soul acquires the conscious control of its non-sensory perceptions, lo and behold, there it is where it always was, in a mixture of 3D and non-3D. Only now, it has the ability to interact in different ways.
F: As in disturbing people’s sleep so you can describe the non-3D?
R: I am smiling too, so to speak, but in a way that is very much one of the effects, and one of our de facto functions.
F: Guidance!
R: Of course. You remember the distinction you used to draw?
F: Oh yes. I said to people, non-sensory communication is not sensory. You won’t be watching your neighbor in the shower.
R: But you could imagine your neighbor in the shower – that is, naked – in life, and in so doing you were coming closer to perception in the absence of senses than may have occurred to you. We don’t perceive color or feel or smell or taste, etc.—except by way of a person focused in 3D experiencing them. But we do perceive people’s essence just as we always did (depending upon how intuitive we were) in 3D. And, just as when we were in 3D, we can interact with others “psychically.”
F: I’m missing some nuance, I think.
R: Well, only that while in 3D we had a combination of 3D and non-3D clues, or cues, to use to aid communication, while once we are centered in non-3D we are largely deprived of sensory cues unless we throw pots across the room or, more commonly, prompt a 3D person to say or do something to focus another 3D person on a given thought, or, more properly put, to focus the person on a mental wavelength – to help them make an intuitive leap.
And that’s where we will resume, with aspects of our interaction with the 3D world – the mental 3D world, I should probably say. Only, as we do that, remember that the 3D is not the only game in town, nor are we confined to “one thing at a time.”
F: And there is our hour. Thank you as always, and as always we’ll be looking forward to more next time.

9 thoughts on “Rita – Nobody goes anywhere

  1. Frank,
    I try to limit my gushing ‘this is great stuff’ comments so I’m not exposed for the unabashed ‘Rita and Frank’ groupie that I am. But once in a while a message speaks so deeply I’m ‘forced’ to say something; this is such a post for me!

    I’m one who has responded to Rita’s and TGU’s information with “Yes, yes, but what do I DO!” Today’s post brought the ‘doing’ into focus for me, showing the way forward. How well I do, how much I put into it is up to me, but it’s great to see the path!
    Thanks as always!

    1. Jim, if you’d like to say something about how it did that, I’d be glad to see it as a comment or if long enough as a post on my blog. And what’s so wrong with being exposed as a groupie? Rita may not want groupies, but that’s her problem. 🙂 And, for all I know, maybe she does want groupies.

      1. Frank,
        My connection with this particular post is so personal it didn’t occur it might be useful/interesting to others. Not secret or private, just (it seemed) totally unique like a glove fitting a hand.

        Let me work with it a little (‘let it marinate’ as you and John would say) and see if it ‘shapes’ into words. I suspect Rita and TGU are putting this voluminous information out for each of us to make our own unique connection. Perhaps mine is useful as an example.

  2. Frank and Jim,

    I look forward to more from Jim, following up on his comments. Also I am anxious to hear what Jane Coleman has to say based on her research and knowledge.

    As with Jim, this material affects me in several different ways, and it has been that way since I first started reading The Sphere and the Hologram, and subsequently the Rita material.

    First there is always “the lesson of the day”, sometimes what’s written, sometimes between the lines. Several times in the last few days Rita has almost “offhandedly” referred to what I will call the “joint” origin of thoughts, and those as a means of 3D and non-3D interaction and influence. It seems to hop out of the page to me, as if intended, which likely it is. While “Nobody Goes Anywhere” is the core subject on first reading, I find often these “bonus” lessons speaking to me louder than the subject itself. Several days ago I commented on my gradually increasing inability to distinguish my own thought origins, so when Rita makes a statement along those lines, it really stands out to me.

    Secondly, I find that rereading the material a second time, or better yet, after it’s had a chance to marinate, I find new levels of understanding. No doubt this is purposeful on Rita’s part: that the material is applicable to multiple levels of understanding. For example, little by little the concepts of “place” or “location” in non-3D is getting transplanted by the concept of “states of consciousness”, and as I digest the material it begins to sink in. We all bring our own presets to the material, and mine have been heavily influenced by Seth, by your previous books, and by rereading the material, including that not yet published. (It would be beneficial to any reader to go over this material multiple times.)

    Third, when I am “settled in” to the proper state as i read your material, other thoughts start flowing while I am reading, and I often try to listen to those as they flow and document them as best I can. That happened again this morning, and mental concepts were arriving that I have not found easy to get into words. The construct I was getting was from the perspective of greater consciousness. There was a mental image of matter and the physical world(s) forming in denser and denser states, our Earth being one of those states. These non-verbals came in, “You are getting an inkling of the intricacies of consciousness creating and interacting with matter and the construction of experience involving matter…consciousness interacting with consciousness via matter changes the consciousness involved.” A simple example: a human (consciousness inhabiting a living body of matter) can create tools of other matter and cut down a tree, which is another form of consciousness. That kind of interaction (there is more that goes on that what is perceived by the physical senses) cannot occur in the non-physical in that manner.

    1. I in turn find your message highly synchronous in light of today’s message (which, as I write this, I have yet to transcribe). Seems to me you are preparing to carry on the work, John (for its own sake as well as yours), and these speculations show me that you can go into realms of thoughts that would not come naturally to me.

      1. Many thanks also to you and to Rita. I have a taste of how much effort is required on your part. As far as Rita is concerned, it was very generous of her to reconnect through you and bring us to another level.

        There is so much I have learned about the process of this form of connection and from the material itself. There is much more to be learned on my part on both fronts. I will be at your weekend program at TMI in April and look forward to learning more there.

        I do plan to keep going; however, it should be noted that my body is older than yours!

        1. But perhaps you have lived a healthier life and are not as good at finding excuses, so it may even out. If I’m not mistaken, you are all of two years older than i am, and still younger than Bernie Sanders, who makes us all look like wimps.

  3. Again appreciating your blog Frank. It is some of the very best things ever have happened in my everlasting life. (smiles)
    Hm, well, it seems I am supposed to be “The Lone Ranger” in my local society.
    Ever grateful to Charles (Charles is superb, and I can recommend his blog titled:”From My Reading”) and Frank who have been “my guides.”

    And ditto to what John has said here. It is really remarkable how John is making the parables in living our lives.

    I recall something said in the E.C.Readings: “Life cannot be told but has to be lived,” or something like it ! The one cannot be without the other.

    Jim`s as well many a time hitting the point into my bone.
    To me a sort of the intuitive understanding coming from “within”. Such as of Rita`s conversations.
    I cannot put it into proper words at all but an intuitive responding to the material.

    I can recall once upon a time when I was a member of A.R.E. how the importance of repeating the material will be for the mind. And the Edgar Cayce Foundation (A.R.E.) had “a lesson of the Day” to always read. The Lessons are still there….in timelessness.

    BTW: I do believe “in groupings.” The effect is larger and wider (if positive that is).

    B & B, Inger Lise.

    1. And it has been pleasant having you and other thoughtful souls along for the ride. It would be nice to think that the conversation might continue after i am gone. Maybe someone could set up a site?

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.