Rita — answering some questions about reality

Tuesday, May 24, 2016

F: 7 a.m. let’s move to questions for Rita from Bill Ebeltoft, beginning with his summary of his understanding of the material.

“My current understanding, based on several sources, is as follows:

  1. Everything is conscious. The ”decision space” for a particular entity varies;  g.  a rock has a much smaller decision space than say a dog. A dog has less decision space than a human.
  2. All consciousness exists in all realities.
  3. Any reality is created with all possible possibilities. Each reality has its own set of constraints; our 3D reality has more constraints than what we are referring to as “non-physical’ reality.
  4. All of these realities are here; the only difference is where we are focused.
  5. When we choose to enter into this 3D reality we are free to make any choices we choose as long as they are permissible within the constraints.
  6. What we often refer to as “creating our own reality” as Seth put it is in fact making a choice which changes our focus to one of the pre-existing possible realities.

“Given that everything is conscious, I assume that a rock is created in 3D reality in much the same way; only its choices are more limited. However, it has a component of consciousness in non-physical reality also.”

F: So, Miss Rita, his questions:

“1. Are these assumptions more or less correct?”

R: The concept of a “smaller decision space” is not as I would have expressed it, but, tentatively, we can accept it. It would be clearer, I think, if we merely said that different orders of being have different focus.

F: The pancreas on one kind of thing, the mind on another, etc.?

R: That, but not only that. Trees – the tree, with all its millions of individual iterations – perceive a different world, hence react to a different world, than you do. Similarly, stone, water vapor, woodchucks, anything. From a strictly human viewpoint, their world might well look like a smaller decision space – because less of their world overlaps with humans, hence the total seems smaller. But all the world is a giant complex thought, you know, so many of these distinctions are more appearance than reality.

“2. Now, given everything is conscious, when we, existing here in 3D reality, create something like a nuclear weapon, this weapon is also conscious and has a component of its consciousness in non-physical reality. Just as “The guys” state in the Sphere and the Hologram; to paraphrase, “Baltimore exists here as well as in 3D, it could not be otherwise.” What is the effect in non-physical reality when we detonate this weapon? The detonation is of course only the changes of matter into energy but do the effects extend into the non-physical or are they contained within our 3D reality?”

R: That is either a very naive question or a very subtle one. Or, to say it better, the mind one brings to the question will predispose to thinking it one or the other.

A physical event will have physical consequences in so far as it had physical causes, and non-physical consequences accordingly. You can’t blow a hole in the non-3D world, but you can blow a hole in the non-3D world, in effect, by what you do to the 3D bodies whose non-3D minds are affected. This answer will bear your thinking about in terms of karma, and retrievals, and M-Band noise, and many things.

“3. In the same vein, as stars are conscious and therefor have a conscious component in non-physical reality, what is the effect on non-physical reality of a star in 3D reality going super nova?”

R: In this case, the answer is more simple. What is the effect in non-3D or a rock falling down a hillside, or a tidal wave obliterating the trees from an island?

Directly? None. Indirectly (in that the non-3D consciousness of the 3D material affected continues to exist in non-3D) some, but not what you might think.

Tempted to defer this long discussion. Let’s say that humans are the trickster element in creation. Remember? The individual consciousness has been elevated and the group unity has been somewhat attenuated. This leads to wild, strange, unpredicted effects in 3D and hence in non-3D as well.

But a tree, a star, an atom, does not have the particular kind of individual consciousness that humans have, so what happens to one tree, one star, in effect merely modifies the general tree-ness, star-ness, rather than modify an individual mind as would be the case with the human.

But this is a long topic perhaps for another day, perhaps to be spurred by follow-up questions.

“4. In her Jan. 29th session, Rita stated “The world is created. (Not earth, here; I mean physical reality in general.) As it springs into being, all of its potentialities spring into being in exactly  the  same  way as an individual’s potentialities spring  into being with his  or her conception.”  Who or what is responsible for creating realities?”

R: There is no possible way to provide an answer to this question.

F: I remember asking the guys, once, about God, and they said in effect that the subject was above their pay grade.

R: Not that it is a taboo topic, but that it is intractable, and that not so much by the reality as by the filters each person will have on the subject.

If we say God, what does that actually mean? If we say The Creator of the Reality, what does that mean? If we say Joe the Bartender, it doesn’t say any more or any less.

Who or what is responsible for creating sunsets? It depends upon what level of observation and analysis you bring to the question. You might describe the physical mechanisms of air and light and dust and the rotation of the earth and all that, and that tells you in one sense how sunsets occur, but other than that, does it leave you any the wiser?

Who or what is responsible for creating an ecology capable of supporting human life (or, elsewhere, non-human life)? If you say God, if you say Natural Processes, if you say Evolution, are you any the wiser for having put a name to it?

Having said that, I realize that your question may be looked at in a different way, as asking how the various realities are created, but this is the same unanswerable question. The springing-into-existence of all possible realities takes place when the 3D universe is created. It all exists in potential from the beginning, like the map of possible paths that children’s games sometimes feature. So, asking how it is created asks the same question.

If you expect to know everything [once you are] in the non-3D, you may be in for a disappointment – until you realize that this means there is always more to learn. It could get dull, otherwise!

F: Thanks, Rita. I’ll post follow-up questions, if there are any. I don’t know, this looks like a pretty good morning’s work here, pretty fast.

R: That’s life in the rabbit hole!

F: Smiling. So it is. Okay, see you later.

 

5 thoughts on “Rita — answering some questions about reality

  1. I don’t know if this is turning out a question to myself or Rita, or something else. I’ve been churning in an emotional turmoil because a relationship ended. Trying to handle the intense emotions – something I’ve tried to avoid all my life, these intense emotions. And yet (and isn’t there always that) as I’ve gradually (in baby-steps) learned to let the more intense emotions in-form me instead of running/hiding/suppressing…life just bcomes more vivid. I feel more alive than I felt 10 years ago. But letting even this intensity flow through me – it is getting, somehow, so impersonal. Where is the precious little me that is so needy and easy to recognise? And wheneve I latch into that familiar me, I start feeling intensely unwell, and have to do something like yoga or sound meditation to regroup myself – and again, I am feeling: ok this is how it’s supposed to be, no need to take it personally, keep moving…A slightly scary impersonal fluidity that just keeps moving with what comes. The scariness is in seeing I have no (or very little) control over what comes over me, and that is how it always is, actually. The little me is just the shield that covers up this kind of realization – a feel for the vastness that is. Strange, interesting, scary and alive.

    Tryinng to creak my head around yet another corner: the hardworking farmer/laborer ancestral identity, the ethos of life forcing me to do things just to survive. A mold that is not working for me (and many others) anymore. The assumed worthlessness of what comes from the inside – that has to go now. Who am I to judge – in advance – what inner stirrings are valuable and what not. I am seeing a pre-fabricated shape that is just revolting – and I’ve lived in it almost all of my life. What am I without this mold?

    But now I am rolling with this question: What is it that keeps inspiration/breath/lungs/heart so closed – in our culture, especially in men? My faher has COPD, lung area quite collapsed: a problem with inspiration – spirit. My mother had part of her lung removed (long time ago) due to typhus: again breath/inspiration/spirit. There seems to be a lot of this kind of symptoms running in my family and even this nation. Don’t know if it is inability to take in breath or inability to let the inner breath out – there seems to be a pattern but cant’ discern it. There’s the symptom in breath/lungs/heart, but as the saying goes: the problem is not the problem…What is going on there?

      1. Thank you…the journey started probably 20 years ago (in earnest) when i started yoga. Since then everything has been constantly changing. At times I wish and try to get things settle but it never pans out. As if I were eating my path through identities. I used to think of that as simply failures but maybe that is not all of it.

        1. Perhaps it would be useful to look at your life with different eyes, with the eyes of a consulting detective like Sherlock Holmes, say, rather than with the eyes of one trying to be sure it comes out “right.”
          Holmes would be examining everything looking for how it all hangs together. “It is a capital mistake to theorize on insufficient data,” he said, more or less. Maybe consider it sort of theoretically: “If my life turns out to be perfect, how do i need to look at it in the meantime to see and feel the perfection rather than only the frustration of it?”

    1. I think it would be worth your time to distinguish between what you have observed first-hand and what you have absorbed second-hand from others, especially the mass media.

      First-hand you have learned that when you ” let the more intense emotions in-form me instead of running/hiding/suppressing…life just becomes more vivid.” Trust that.

      Second-hand you have been told that something in our culture “keeps inspiration/breath/lungs/heart so closed – especially in men.” To my mind, that is a useless generalization that does you no good if true, and less if not true. The thing to concentrate on is YOU. You are responsible for YOUR life, no one else’s. You have unique insight and shaping ability in re YOUR life, no one else’s. Forget the political generalizations for a while and concentrate on the reawakening life within you.

      The most valuable thing you have realized is “Who am I to judge – in advance – what inner stirrings are valuable and what not.”

Leave a Reply

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