Rita: Religions and filters

Thursday, July 13, 2017

6 a.m. All right, Miss Rita, you were about to enter on a new topic? I hope you have it in mind.

I do, even if you don’t know what it is ahead of time. A nice reminder for your readers: Sometimes you in 3D [doing this] will know what is coming exactly, sometimes only vaguely, sometimes not at all. They’re all perfectly normal phases of the process and after all, isn’t that your experience in any other 3D pursuit?

Show up and see what happens. I can do that.

Yes you can, and it makes the work possible.

But these few paragraphs feel to me as if we are stalling, you waiting for somebody to arrive with your script.

Can you remember when pauses used to worry you, because if “on the other side, there is no time,” no one here should need time to think?

I do indeed.

It is all part of the process that might be described as, “it isn’t as different as your ideas may lead you to think.” You while remaining in 3D are going to process things as you always do, because your mental conditions are the same as they always are. The primary difference is that you are paying careful attention to sources of communication that ordinarily go unnoticed, or are taken for granted, or denied.

Well, that’s what I teach people. That’s my experience over 28 years of making mistakes. So, today?

Realize, what we are doing here has two poles. One pole is a description of life beyond the 3D as given by the non-3D experiencers. The other pole is how this information fits in with 3D ideas and assumptions, starting of course from the 3D perspective. It is in the tension and interplay between these two poles that insight may be obtained between the lines. It is people’s ability or inability to dance this dance that results in so many versions of afterlife descriptions, or (by derivation) stories of the meaning of life.

All right. This is part of the “religion v. spirituality” discussion.

Yes it is. And it is a big subject, difficult to treat with justice for all positions, because of course everyone tends to draw definitions making their own positions the only obvious correct one. That isn’t crooked argument, it is broadcasting a set of coordinates.

I take that to mean, they aren’t deliberately stacking the deck, but setting out things as they see it, which may be used to see where they are, what their standpoint is.

That’s right. But the temptation to see one’s own position as the only logical and true position is nearly overwhelming, because after all, it does represent your best attempt to express what it is that you know. That process leads to opinions, and what is religion or spirituality or organized atheism or any other point in the spectrum but organized opinion.

I think you mean, not so much “organized” opinion as group, or common, or shared, opinion.

That’s right. So now look at it. If all descriptions of life beyond the 3D – including the description that says there is no life beyond 3D – express sincere conviction arrived at by individuals and then reinforced by group-think (“if there are so many of us thinking the same way, it must be true,” ignoring how many think a different “same way”)

Sentence got kind of long. Maybe knock off the initial word “if” and proceed?

Yes. Well, that being so, they are all true in some sense. Again, as we have done in past discussions, we omit to consider charlatans, but in addition we ignore the fact that the vast majority of people merely follow the religion or agnosticism or indifference or hostility to religion that they inherited from their parents and perhaps see in their community. They don’t believe what they believe by accident, either, unless you think that a particular type of soul may be born into a particular belief-system “by accident.”

Now, this is not diversion, nor delay. It is a vitally important and easily overlooked point: Your own best, most-carefully-worked-out, hardest attained truth may be true for you but cannot be true for everybody. That would put  strait-jacket on the world.

Allow me, as I see what you’re saying. I hadn’t specifically thought this before. If I am not mistaken, you are saying, millions of souls – minds – means millions of individual windows on the 3D, each a little, or a lot, different. That is of course an advantage, and one reason why we are sent into 3D in the first place. Belief-systems act as a generalized filter, providing commonality among so many individual visions of the world, and if there were only one such filter for the whole world, the experience would be poorer.

What kind of painting can you do with only one color? Monochromatic painting has its appeal, perhaps, and black-and-white photos, with their infinite shades of grey, can be quite expressive, but there should be no need to point out the greater range of expression possible with a greater range of colors produced by shining the light of creation through different filters in different mental “places.”

So, no matter what your life has led you to sincerely believe, you are correct, and you are incorrect as soon as you attempt to generalize your truth into a universal truth. The universe is larger than your universal truth, no matter how broad-minded you are, no matter how firm your conviction. And the concomitant is, or ought to be, clear. How can you expect an unfiltered description of the non-3D world, any more than you can expect an unfiltered description of the 3D world? Being a filter, how can you get beyond filters?

So what are we doing here? By which I mean, what can we accomplish?

If you know you are using a red filter, it may at least  lead you to be more prepared to doubt the self-evident fact that your world is red. That doubt will help prepare you to be able to accept descriptions written under a blue filter; comparing the two may help farther. Don’t think you are going to be able to deduce white, however. Still, being able to make allowances for your own filter is an advance.

I can still hear the peanut gallery saying, “but what do you do over there?”

All I can say to that is, as long as they cling to a given vision, that’s what they will see. It’s self-evident.

So, a halfway-house attitude of, “I still believe this, but I’m willing to consider that?”

More or less.

Does that mean that the most we can hope for is a sensing of light without filtering?

No, no. What we hope to achieve is a description, or rather a process of description, that will enable anyone who wants to, to do their own exploring from where they are. (Where else can you begin from?) That may seem simple, but consider: Many belief-systems implicitly say, “Here is where the search for truth begins.” That’s if they aren’t saying, “No need to search for truth; here is the truth.”

I have no interest in doing that. I want to provide a telescope, or microscope, or just a good pair of field glasses, that can be used now, where you are. I don’t know what you will wind up seeing, how could I? nor do I care. But every sincere exploration is an achievement, and of course provides a model that the non-3D can use thereafter.

Yes, I remember a Dion Fortune quote in which her character says her task was to put certain ideas into the subconscious mind of men, and that is done by living them.

Do your exploration with confidence but with humility. Wrestle with the material. The work is worth more than whatever the result may be. And that is enough for today.

Very interesting, Rita, and not anywhere I would have thought to go. Thanks.

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.