Rita: The same and not the same

Tuesday, July 4, 2017

5:30 a.m. All right, Miss Rita, ready if you are.

Let us continue on the subject of people’s differences, for this is a subject which it is easy to casually give assent to, without really thinking it through. We say, everybody is different, and the natural response is, tell me something I don’t know. but – think about it.

Everybody lives and then dies. Everybody. Bankers, terrorists, school children, farmers, peasants, literati, soldiers, everybody. Indians, Cambodians, Chinese, Africans, Europeans, North and South Americans, Inuit, Laplanders – everybody. Materialists, animists, dogmatic Christians or Hindus or Muslims or whatever. The non-3D is populated by the same diverse elements that populate 3D, obviously, only discussions of this kind sometimes forget that, or slur over it.

More than that, as I remind you, the non-3D is filled with larger beings each comprising multitudes of 3D individuals. Thus each larger being is different from each other larger being by the nature of its contents. If you are a larger being primarily composed of accountants, your nature is going to differ from one primarily containing Viking warriors. That’s a humorous way of putting it, but you can see the point. “Heaven,” or the non-3D, isn’t nearly as homogenous as people sometimes think, and how could it be, and who would want it to be?

It is not the case that as soon as you wake up after dying you say, “Aha,” and all come to the same conclusion and experience the same reality. You don’t wake up Presbyterian, and you don’t wake up whatever it is that you, reader, happen to be assuming is “the truth” right as you read this. Remember, you are part of something grander in scope, which is part of something grander yet, and so on. Yes, you are still you, but the essence that was (is) you was never as simple as you imagined or experienced it to be.

So you might now be in some dismay, wondering where is the core of similarity that will pull all this together.

I well remember your own mild dismay, Rita, after our 2001-2002 sessions with the guys had changed our view of things. You said to me once that you had used to think you knew what was coming, and now you didn’t.

That was a reason for the days of coma at the end, I went scouting the terrain, you might say, getting my bearings before letting go.

Now, it is always a temptation – call it a reflex – to think things are going to be –

I think I lost the thread. I was about to write “more continuous” or something, but I think that was me finishing a sentence by using something plausible. I have to watch for that, always. I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s why people sometimes go wrong when doing this kind of thing. So, you were saying–?

If the 3D world is complex, can the larger non-3D world (which, I remind you, perhaps confusingly, includes the 3D world, or let’s say, contains it as a special case) be less complex? Once you think about it, the answer is, “obviously not.” And it is different in nature, just as you as an individual are different in nature from the organs and subsystems that maintain your body. The liver doesn’t read the Times. The intelligence that can read this doesn’t necessarily read the equivalent of the Times at the next higher level. We here in the unbounded non-3D cannot be bothered about tax returns, sports statistics, voting tallies, and all that. Those are things appropriate to your level of attention, as the various chemical and electrical processes that maintain blood sugar levels are appropriate to the level of attention of the various organs, or as the day-to-day details of photosynthesis are to plant life.

We have made the analogy, many times, but in this new context, once more: Everything is consciousness, or awareness (really there ought to be another name, because we are talking about the aliveness that experiences consciousness, or awareness); but every level of being has a different level of attention appropriate to itself. Icebergs, trees, foxes, stones, radioactive isotopes – everything is alive, because it is made of life. That’s all there is. But how could you (that is, anyone) expect a stone to experience its life in the same way that a drop of water or a three-day-old robin or a person does? It is because the various layers that comprise the world are so different in consciousness that communication among them can be so difficult. And in the absence of communication, it is easy for people to come to the conclusion that most of their life is “dead matter,” and that people who think or perceive differently are “animists,” meaning, in context, stupid, or at least superstitious and ignorant. That is the blindness of the “modern” materialist, and of course it is neither particularly modern nor is it accurate. Still, it is the experience they live in.

Now when people with such varying experiences and opinions die, how are they to suddenly change and become what they have not been?

I know at least the next couple of steps where you are going, Rita, but I think we need to go slowly again, if I can hold it and express it. There are a couple of things to be said. Can you say them? – for I feel them slipping away.

Yes. One thing is of course that when somebody dies to 3D, they waken to the larger being they are a part of, and that tempers their opinion and, in effect, changes the context of what they had experienced. So your diehard Republican Episcopalian may discover himself in bed with all sorts of people he wouldn’t have consorted with in 3D life. That is going to change him (or her, of course, but that ought to be understood). But—


The consciousness and expression at a new level is going to be different from those of an older level. So that same person will be what he was (as individuality is preserved) and yet will be something different (as he will be part of another level of being that lives a very different kind of life).

So as you think about life beyond your 3D life, try to realize that “you” will be yourself as you experience yourself today and also will be a part of something larger and different in nature. Even that sentence needs explaining, of course. “You as you experience yourself” is more like shorthand for  longer statement that would go something like, “You as you experience yourself including all the things that you are unconscious of but that nevertheless affect you: dreams, emotional cross-currents, connections with `other lives,’ interactions unnoticed but significant,” etc. but the shorthand will have to do, because it is always a matter of fitting an idea into a given mental space.

And that is enough for today.

Okay, Rita, our thanks as always. And, as always, still surprising to sit down with no idea of what is coming and emerge a bit later with a clearly expressed idea. Fun.


8 thoughts on “Rita: The same and not the same

  1. This leaves me with a feeling of excitement for what is to come. Imagine getting to know my history and meeting others in the larger being of which I am a part. How cool is that? And I didn’t have to use genetic testing. 🙂

  2. So interesting, thank you. Lately I have started to practice feeling into the undercurrents of consciousness. There is something there, something that is palpable but not part of any narrative, thought, or concept. It feels something like a living stream that has textures and fragrance, in a non-material way. Now that I look/feel for it (it is almost like groping in dark: stopping and sensing: is something moving?) I also see the many situations where it has been the nudge that changes situations, if I am able to catch it. Its language is not words, that is certain.

  3. There is something in this process – getting to read these interactions touches some part in me that seems to wake up, willing to express itself. It is like a touch-off that is needed for some layer that I have difficulty in bringing forth. This morning had this: the deeper layers/all-D wants the personality/surface ego to be the way it is. The incredibly varied permutations of interaction between all-D and the surface personality is the delicacy the all-D is looking for. So maybe becoming fully conscious in all-D is not what is sought for. But a more efficient interaction between the surface personality and all-D. My speciality seems to be that the deeper/all-D experiences have a quality that words really do not transmit. The surface personality wants to censor the attempts at expression, because it always (of course) fails. How could it be otherwise – all-D is really a different substance, so using words to describe will be inaccurate. But obviously, even the inefficient words can be the little magic that is needed for another to alight the connection to the deeper layers. So this is very valuable – it ignites my own work towards fuller embodiment.

    Another of my own peculiarities is a form of profound dislike of having to have a person/being a human. I have always thought it is a punishment for some crime I do not consciously know. Living in the surface personality just brought me to this conclusion: the culturally given reality does not have the kind of perks that appeal to me. Owning stuff and all that never really did anything for me. Anything that ever tickled my curiosity has been outside the culturally accepted reality. And now that there’s even other people who are doing the same: having a life starts to look less a punishment and more an interesting journey.

  4. If Rita/TGU has answered this, I must have missed it or don’t remember. We are communities, yet how were the communities we exist as put together? How were decisions made about that? Also can strands come and go from a soul, or are just some pushed to the background?

    Being me, with my personalities/strands feels like herding cats, constant inconsistency, and yet since there are no accidents, somebody-something, put the “group” together as a soul for a reason. While I feel the friction of the competing polarities drive me forward I still often feel as if I’m driving with the brake on. Yet we as ringmasters don’t assemble ourselves from choices at a buffet, so again can the process be described in a way that makes sense in 3-D sequential language?

    My Big C me says: “Your strand combination was called forth by your larger soul group as what is/was felt to be needed. Your soul was assembled as your potential was called (attracted together) into existence by the requirements of the larger groups of souls, and you accepted and continue to accept the calling. Your strands core values are not in conflict, though the interests and desires and skills and programming (belief systems) vary widely. Thus your many callings. Our best analogy for your “braking” question is that caution is in your nature, you read instructions before you progress, and it may feel slow and yet is not necessarily a bad thing!”

    I felt while I was “receiving” the above as if “I” was a potential that got called forth, and that the combo was tuned for the requirements for my function in the scheme of things. Interesting. I felt the answer to this question, and in no way clearly either, and if I had merely read the words would have missed the feeling. This is why I agree with Frank, the work is the reward.

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.