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.
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.
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.