It’s simple when you think of it

For the past several months, I have been invited to write an article for The Echo, a free-distribution paper that circulates in central Virginia. It occurred to me, perhaps others would be interested as well.

It’s simple when you think of it in a certain context

By Frank DeMarco

Years ago when I was still a book publisher, I met Hank Wesselman at an INATS (International New Age Trade Show) in Denver, and he and I traded copies of our books. I read his first book, Spiritwalker, with interest, as I did with the two succeeding volumes of trilogy – Medicinemaker and Visionseeker – when they came out in later years. In 2009, I did one of his weeklong workshops in Oregon, along with Dirk Dunning, a friend with whom I have done several programs at The Monroe Institute. So, I came to know his material pretty well.

I don’t know about you, but I judge a book’s information by its effect on me. Ernest Hemingway said every writer needs an internal crap detector, and in my view that goes for readers, as well. When I read Spiritwalker for the first time, not only did my crap detector not go off, it strongly indicated that these books were telling important truths. I am far more skeptical of “science” than Hank is (he is an anthropologist by training), but I found his volumes fascinating, particularly in that they are first-hand experiences of communication via non-physical methods. Of course, in those days, I had no independent way to judge the material.

But now I do. In the years since I first read those books, I have been exposed to a lot of first- and second-hand information from the non-physical world. First came the information that Rita Warren and I received in 201-2002, and then, in the past two years, the material Rita fed me, several years after her transition from the 3D to the non-3D world. That material changed the mental world I live in, as it has done for many others.

Last month, in response to a prompting out of nowhere I can identify, I reread Hank’s trilogy, and found that what I have learned from Rita have made Hank’s books read very differently. First-hand experience will do that! Some things that I puzzled over at first reading, or took on faith, now seem obviously, inevitably true. Take this sentence, for instance, from Spiritwalker:

“Kahunas believed that everything in the everyday world has an ordinary aspect `here’ and a nonordinary aspect in the spirit realms.”

When I first read that sentence, years ago, I didn’t know what to make of it. All it said to me was that certain men believed a certain thing for reasons of their own which they did not divulge, and which the author did not explain. I don’t think this came from any desire on their part – or Hank’s – to deliberately mystify the subject. I think they just took it for granted and didn’t think to try to explain. I didn’t have the key.

But now I do. In the light of my long dialogues with Rita and others, I saw that this is just simple truth. In light of Rita’s explanation of the essential unbreakable oneness that is the 3D and non-3D world, the statement is not only sensible, but obvious, almost too simple to need stating.

It really is simple. Even the great god Science knows that reality consists of more than three dimensions plus time. Scientists are arguing about whether reality consists of six dimensions, or 12, or perhaps more, but for our purposes, how many there are doesn’t matter. However many there are, we are in all of them, even though we commonly perceive only height, breadth and length, and time.

We are in all of them, whether we know it or not, because there is no way we can not be. If you are in any, you are in all, in the same way you cannot be in height and depth, say, but not length. Rita explained that those dimensions we do not experience directly, we experience as aspects of time. As our ability to experience additional dimensions improves, they are, in effect, subtracted from our experience of time, so that time itself seems to change for us.

And if we are in all dimensions, so is everything else. Thus we live in the ordinary world (what Rita calls the 3D) and the non-ordinary world (the non-3D). So of course everything has one aspect here and one there. “Here” and “there,” in context, are parts of the same indivisible oneness.

In the second book of the trilogy, Medicinemaker, Hank quotes mythologist Joseph Campbell:

“The great key to understanding myth and symbol is that the two realities, ordinary and nonordinary, are actually one. The deed of the hero is to explore both dimensions and then return, to teach again what has been correctly taught and incorrectly learned a thousand times throughout human history.”

Plain, simple truth, but as usual, truth is more easily understood in its proper context.



18 thoughts on “It’s simple when you think of it

  1. A tangent, as usual, but this hit my eyes in FB feed: “The human soul doesn’t want to be advised or fixed or saved. It simply wants to be witnessed — to be seen, heard and companioned exactly as it is.”

    This, being witnessed, and especially in our nonordinary aspects of consciousness, is getting more and more vital. I’ve been lately coming to terms with how different we are in our consciousness, seeing into how that affects everything – especially communication and being able to understand each other. In the tribal cultures children got to be received by the whole tribe, and had as mentors those who felt an affinity, a resonance (besides parents, of course). Now children just have parents, of whom there may be only one. And no acknowledgement of the need to be witnessed in the unusual features of consciousness. We are becoming more individualized (partly) because we have less community in awareness to support us. But that means we need different skills to be true companions to each other. I am no doubt over-sensitive in this, but seems like nowadays most everyone knows how it feels to be lonely in the middle of a crowd.

    So, how do we learn to see others and be visible ourselves also in the spiritual realms?

      1. Although I wrote it in question form, I did not expect an answer from you Frank. Stating a question sets me up to start receiving the answer.

  2. Hi Frank,

    Perfect timing. I’ve enjoyed reading your blog for years… especially the Rita conversations. I’m currently involved in a 7month online training with Hank Wesselman called Navigators of Light. The course exercises are exploring elemental clans, bardos and spiritual domains.

    Hank refers to soul pods as a family of souls who have frequent and ongoing connection with each other across countless lives. The ongoing process seems to be helping each other in our soul’s evolution across time.

    It really is simple when you think of it in a certain context.

    Thank-you for all the work you do, for sharing your experiences. Creating bridges between the here and there. I believe it’s how a culture grows and changes.

  3. …once again, this post finds an almost eerie “coincidence” w/ what I’ve been reading lately, in “The Nature of Personal Reality”, and a brief article I read y’day, concerning the actual conjecture of the idea of a “soul” by a scientist and a mathematician (Penrose/Hammerhoff). It also goes along w/ what I’ve been thinking, about existing in more dimensions, than our physically agreed-upon “3D + 1”.

    While I found the P./H. theory abstract (in short form, in the article I read) interesting, I intuitively felt “they haven’t quite gone far enough, but bless them anyway; here they are, a Scientist (Anesthesiologist) and a Mathematician, talking about the possible existence of ‘soul’, and they are, of necessity to their professional standing, constrained to speak in their own language.” What that long, run-on sentence means, for me, is once again, I personally don’t need (nor am I interested) to understand their equations in order to have my own experiences. Believe me, I do my own “unofficial science” (a Jane Roberts term I found in her “The God of Jane”) on my dreamscape/OBE meanderings!

    Indeed, it really is “quite simple”, although we’re allowed to “complicate things” in the “ordinary” world, by inventing all these fancy terms, equations, and specialized languages, w/ which to discuss/explain (maybe…) our experiences. For me, ATTM, my life is about Creating and Experiencing, thru my art, gardening, and my dreams and OBE explorations, as well as my daily interactions w/ the “ordinary” world.

    Again, for me personally, if a discussion/article gets “too science-y” for me, my own “inner crap detector” goes off, not in terms of the ideas being discussed are “crap”, but it’s a personal signal that I need to trust my own guidance, and not get bogged down in too much obfuscation, in the specialized terminology of Science and Maths. I can enjoy the onset of Spring, watch a good thunderstorm, marvel in the new growth emerging, without understanding all the scientific and mathematical descriptions of these Earth phenomena.

    Thanks, as always; “The Roots of Coincidence” run deep!


  4. Thanks for sharing this.

    I am nearly ready to read Rita’s World I and II for a 2nd time. I have not touched them since last fall (2016). I felt like I got conceptual bits and pieces the first time, but not much of a grasp of the whole.

      1. Thanks for the bread crumbs! This was part of my plan.

        The first time I absorbed Rita’s World I had to do it from a 7 inch Kindle without a hyper-linked Table of Contents … it was a bit dis-orienting … it was also difficult to get an energetic from the book … which I am noticing more and more when I read.

        I now have a much better set up for reading in my home office … a 39 inch TV screen … I tested the set up with the last book that I read and my absorption was excellent … the energetics were also there when I wanted to let them percolate.

        btw … congrats on the book finalizations … sounds like you really ‘made this book your own’ which often takes some extra effort from my own writing experiences … and enjoy your ‘planned gloating’ while at TMI! 😉

  5. So interesting, Frank, your response telling me what to do made me feel, how should I put it – invisible in communication. I started with “The human soul doesn’t want to be advised or fixed or saved…” And your response, to me, looks like suggestion on how to fix myself. Even though I agree with the fix, being offered that – even at no cost – it ignores exactly that part of me that I want to make visible. I felt I need to say this, as it feels so strange to get that familiar communication dead end when trying to pursue the question of how to make the invisible somehow more visible in social contexts. It is not a trifling matter to me. As social beings we have a sort of autopilot function that wants to “fit in” and whenever that seems to fail, fix it quickly so we don’t get punished by social isolation. And yet, everything new comes from outside the familiar sphere. A question is like opening a door, and answering it is slamming it shut.

    Trying to see into this more: to me, a question is like an invitation to explore – go through the door of the open question. And it is difficult for me to fathom others do not want to explore, go through the door. Or at least stop to look at the new perspective the question opens.

    1. Hi Kristiina,

      Your comment of today caught my eye, as I’ve worked w/ (read: Struggled at times!) w/ similar issues. The “wanting to fit in” to social circles, especially.

      In my own experience, I find I have to be rather careful about with whom I share unusual consciousness experiences. From my OBE “disclosures”, I’ve gotten anything from “watch out; they’ll put you on the mental health ward”, “watch out, you can be ‘possessed'”, and “(going out of body is) the sign of a weak mind”. Talk about your “spiritual nocebo (opp. of placebo) messages”! Of course, w/ Susan, and a select group of friends (online, as well as locally), I feel perfectly safe mentioning this aspect of my explorations (in fact, one friend is always surprised that I still “second guess” my own experiences.

      I wonder, if when we receive an answer, we are really “slamming the door shut” again; I would guess that may be when we “accept as dogma” an answer we get. In my process, I find that answers invariably lead to more questions. Where I have felt the door “slam shut” is when I share my non-ordinary states w/ those who gave me the “spiritual nocebo” messages; and in that case, it only “slammed shut” the door of relating any further experiences w/ the persons in question. That is okay w/ me; at this time of my life, I’m into “deeply questing”, and would rather not waste my energy trying to converse w/ those who have an ‘a priori’ opinion on the matter. We can still talk about the weather, the garden, and whatnot.

      And, like you, I’ve had difficulty in understanding that there are those who would “rather there NOT be anything more than physical 3D+1 reality”. That is okay, too. I’ve decided that if I have any title/definition for myself at this time, it is “Explorer of Consciousness”–beyond my “self-definitions of convenience” (name, where I live, what I do, age…)

      It’s not always easy, exploring these questions; there is a massive gestalt (at least from my viewpoint) of those who are NOT questioning/seeking. Having at least a few to share ideas w/, including this blog, helps greatly.


      1. Hi, Craig – of course the slamming the door shut is just one perspective. Making some kind of word-picture is one step in getting further through the door. This is what I gather you are indicating. It is like with names: it was a major step in botany when a naming system was created by Linné. Putting a name-tag is the beginning of the exploration. But still, to me many seem to consider the existence of the name-tag to indicate they know everything there is to know about the matter at hand. Right now I love the botany explorers who (like here are willing to research the parts of plants that are not so easily quantifiable.

        I am thinking more about the non-usual states of mind and being able to share them – even without words. Most people have some kind of experiences, but are afraid or simply not able to talk about them. Like feelings of deep connectedness to pets or places in nature. And the important thing about it is not that you talk about it but that you have the non-ordinary states. And that is not going to happen through any preaching. Would it be possible to keep that kind of opennes to the non3D-perspective in everyday situations? Without having any far-out words about it? That is what I want to explore now.

  6. Kristina, I have a similar issue with the purpose of questions which you stated so well in the last paragraph of your response.

    When a subject comes up in conversation where there could be a discussion of different ideas, I often hear flat statements of “how it is”. It leaves no room for exploratory thinking, or the fun of having a spontaneously thought come through with a novel idea which takes me down a different path altogether.

    “Fix-it” answers shut down my creativity and set up the start of resentment, which then gives me lots more inner work to do. :-)) Since most of my circle has an inkling of my work behind the scenes, it is always surprising and a bit of an ouchy soul bump until I remember Rita saying that each unique being will hold a different perspective as well as being a part of the whole. Then it’s a deep breath and All is Well.

    Happy exploring.

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.