Rita: Sam and Life A

Friday, July 7, 2017

6:30 a.m. Miss Rita, we have a couple of questions, or we can proceed on your own schedule. Your choice.

Let’s start with Henry Reed’s question, because it has the potential to lead us in many directions, productive directions.

All right.

[Henry Reed:] Rita, I enjoy your conversations with Whashisname. This last couple of conversations, dealing with the idea that when we are in non-3D reality we are part of the committee a multi person unit has been very intriguing for me. The question that I use as a koan is “what is it in the non-3D world that distinguishes one soul from another?” Here in the 3D world our sensory perception helps create the sense of separate identities. If people have past life memories I’m assuming then that they are remembering their own experiences and not somebody else’s experiences. If there’s such a thing as soul development then there must be some way of keeping track of that soul’s activities distinct from other souls’ activities. I can imagine in the sense of as above so below moving from electrons to atoms to molecules to plants to people, that we could have committees as a spiritual unit on another plane. At the same time I’m wondering what is it though that keeps the record straight between the souls. This would be the question, it still is on my mind.

[Rita:] a good deal of confusion is caused by inadequate definitions, or incorrect definitions, or – mostly – silent, unnoticed assumptions implicitly leading to many distorted ad hoc definitions. In this case, the culprit is the focus on individual souls as if they were on their own.

Okay, I see where this is going. It is too much concentration on individuality and too little concentration on identity as part of the larger being.

That is the root cause of the misunderstanding, yes. To make it clear, perhaps we need to reiterate what we have said so many times before, this time specifically in the context of “who keeps track.”

I see an analogy politically or economically on our 3D level. Looking at only the supposed individual without realizing that an individual without social context does not exist. Concentrating on competition without remembering that cooperation is equally necessary.

In this case, it is looking at souls as if they were the disconnected individuals they may appear to be, forgetting that they are the creation of a larger non-3D being, out of its own substance, and are integrally connected with that larger being in all ways, before the 3D individual soul is shaped, and while that soul experiences a 3D life, and afterward when that 3D mind has been added to the larger being’s substance and experiences.

It is looking at the soul as if it were a finger, considering the finger without seeing that you can understand a finger in many ways without considering it as part of a hand, but you can’t experience it that way in any real sense, because the finger only exists in the context of its hand.

Disconnect the finger from the hand, and not only can it not function, but it makes no sense. Similarly, a soul, or mind, or habit-system, as the guys originally described 3D minds. But consider it in context and all the puzzles disappear (that’s how you know you have the proper context) – joints that bend only one way, callouses only on one side, the inexplicable fingernail on the opposite side, the blood vessels leading away from the finger, leading apparently nowhere.

But we don’t need to depend upon analogy. The explanation is simple enough, only for some reason it doesn’t seem to stick.

I think it is mostly because people don’t remember the larger context when asking that question.

Perhaps. Or perhaps we have never bothered to mention what ought to be obvious, that all creation spans uncounted millions of years. Put that together with your memory that larger beings are immortal, at least relatively. (No, I needed to insert the qualifier, but this is not the time to explain the need.) this process continues at least relatively forever.

Rather than look at the question from the point of view of the 3D soul, let’s consider it from the point of view of the larger being, and I think you will find that many perplexities sort themselves out.

Let’s call the particular larger being Sam. Samuel, Samantha, obviously all gender specifics are included and are, at that level, irrelevant. You don’t have male larger beings and female larger beings. So, Sam.

We ignore the question of Sam’s origin or destiny. Large questions, but you can’t answer every question at once. Sam is. Sam exists. And, since Sam exists in the All-D without the 3D restrictions on experience and perception, Sam

Got a little tangled? Or is it my background thought?

Well, you were holding that thought and indeed it belongs in there, but it doesn’t well fit into the sentence.

My thought is merely a qualifier: We in 3D actually exist in All-D, of necessity, since everybody has to exist in every dimension there is, but we just don’t consistently experience or recognize the fact.

Yes. Sam “assembles,” so to speak, a 3D mind, a soul, out of elements of itself. Those elements are inserted into 3D: Life A. Life A is born, lives, dies. It now exists as a specific subset of Sam. Now Sam does it again, and again, and again. (This is not exactly a sequential process, but 3D limitations make it very hard for you to conceive of it otherwise, so that is how we will proceed to describe it, for convenience’s sake, or one might almost say for coherence’s sake. That is, Sam creates multiple 3D minds, and we are going to consider them as if Sam proceeds sequentially.)

In each case, the 3D beings are formed from different or overlapping or identical combinations of elements of Sam’s being. But let us stick to following Life A, remembering that all those other lifes – original lifes, let’s call them, to clarify later developments – exist.

I imagine you have a reason for making me say “lifes” instead of “lives.”

I do. I always try to make distinctions as simple as possible, and “lifes” versus “lives” will be one of them.

All right.

Life A was never disconnected in any way from Sam, how could it be? While in 3D, Life A didn’t necessarily experience the unbroken connection, but without that connection Life A could not have existed. It isn’t like 3D birth. In this case, separation would be a mutilation of Sam and an abandonment of Life A; it couldn’t happen, in the nature of things.

“God in whom we live and move and have our being.”

That’s the sense of it, yes. Only don’t let your mind run off into theological speculations, but follow the arguments. Meant, of course, for all who read this.

Everything that happens to Life A registers with Sam. Every choice among possibilities that Life A makes, changes Sam so far as that choice changes Life A. Experience affects, in other words. But bear in mind, Life A in the larger sense is every mind resulting from every choices, not just the one-reality-or-lifepath-at-a-time that it appears. Life A is all paths taken, not any one path taken.

Sam uses Life A as template for another 3D voyage. Life A1 is born, lives, chooses, returns. Life A1’s experiences are no less a part of Sam than Life A’s. And so on and on, remembering as we think about this that there are all those other lifes doing the same thing.

From the point of view of Sam, where is the possibility of Life A (or any of them) getting lost, or forgetting what it has experienced, or needing an accountant to keep score?

This is an important point. While in 3D, and sometimes after returning from 3D, a given life may experience being lost, or amnesiac, or purposeless. That is why Bob [Monroe] invented the retrieval process, at the nudging of his own non-3D connection. But these disoriented states can only arise among lifes that have so strong a 3D orientation, or have some reason for blocking out signal that is too discordant to the 3D beliefs that persist as habit (and, in fact, as part of that life’s essence). It is not the case from Sam’s point of view. Sam cannot sever the connection, nor forget. But the life that is for any reason unable to remember (to reconcile its essence with) that connection, will not remember or recognize it.

I am looking for a 3D analogy, and not quite finding it. Time-sharing,  I suppose. A time-sharing terminal may lose its connection to the mainframe, but the mainframe cannot be said to have lost any stored data.

An imperfect analogy, but it may serve. So you see that in time you have a situation in which Sam has put forth innumerable 3D lifes. Each of these lifes has lived many lives. Each life, like A, maintains a continuity of consciousness among all its experienced lives. So it will make a difference to your understanding if you contact Sam, or Life A, or Life A1 or A100 or A1000, etc. Each will paint a different picture, until you realize that they belong together, not any one without the others. And just as there are more lifes than Life A, there are more larger beings than Sam. This is just to provide a little clarity about the situation. And that’s enough for now.

Many thanks. Very interesting.


2 thoughts on “Rita: Sam and Life A

  1. A really useful question for me, articulated before I could do so. For me, it’s hard to grasp and hold together all of this, while also thinking of it in terms of my life or lifes. Wonderful material.

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.