Rita: Differences among Sams means difference in visions of the afterlife

Monday July 17, 2017

6:15 a.m. All right, Miss Rita, after a weekend off duty, I trust you’re ready to resume. J

Take a moment and quickly scan the past few entries. The firmer a semi-conscious grasp of the trend you have, the easier for us to proceed.

All right.

[One thing leading to another, I wound up scanning everything.]

We are filters, experiencing the world differently.

In non-3D, differences between separate and non-separate are less.

Still, the individuality achieved in 3D is retained.

Those differences produce different pictures of the “afterlife.”

Also, larger being are themselves different, somewhat as we in 3D, being communities.

Remember, in envisioning life beyond 3D, “as above, so below,” and draw your analogies.

Remember that we are both individual and part of a larger being.

Sam and Life A, then Life A1, etc.

Sam keeps track of Life A’s course in life.

Purpose involves origins, as well as results.

A better understanding than “crystallization.”

The perils of blind faith.

All true descriptions have some value.

“All is one” and the constraints on teachers.

And that is a fast skim of everything since June 30.

Always worthwhile to review. Remember, always, the limitations of 3D consciousness result in an inability to keep more than X amount of things actively in mind at any time. Therefore, any process of encapsulating a larger set of ideas into a few words in effect expands the 3D mind’s ability to hold it all.

I got the sense of that, but probably we should say, creating symbols gives us the ability to pack more into less.

Only, if you forget that the symbol is a reminder, a stand-in for a large cluster of ideas, the danger is that you may begin to idolize the symbol, thus assuring that you will cease to do the actual work, even while thinking that you are hot on the trail.

Yes, I can see that. So if we get confused or overwhelmed by the volume of data pouring in, we can summarize it and that process will allow us in effect to hold more than we could otherwise.

Isn’t that what you would do, in one way or another, when you set out to learn anything? Isn’t that one function of a crib sheet? It isn’t only so that no element will be forgotten. It is also to preserve the relationship among elements too numerous to recall at any given time.

So I guess what happens (examining what I feel as I go over the notes I just made) is that each note stands on its own, but, if you pause on it, the connections you have already made to it rise to the surface. It’s a way of turning the knob on the microscope, alternately looking at larger or smaller scales.

That’s a reasonable analogy. And if in the process a given item on the list does not give way on demand to pictures (so to speak) of the detail, that is an indicator that you don’t have that detail firmly in mind, and need to review.

So is it process you want to talk about today?

I know you’re tempted to broach the subject of the new exciting idea you developed with your new friend Martin, but let’s defer that for the moment. There is great potential there, but develop it in silence for a while.

For the moment, let’s continue to think about the implications of Life A100 and a given Sam – probably we should say within a given Sam – and conflicting reports of the afterlife.

If you bear in mind that every larger being, every Sam, comprises numerous Lifes in numerous numbered iterations, each of those in every conceivable version, you can see that no two Sams can be alike any more than any two 3D lives can be alike. There can be similarities; they cannot be identical.

Sure, it would be impossible. Any one different component would potentially be enough to cause vast rippling changes between the two.

Nor would clones be any more desirable in All-D than in 3D. If diversity is the goal, or let’s say the nature-of-things-supporting-the-goal, why would you damp it if you could?

All right. So let’s move for the moment to the point of view of the 3D individual who catches a glimpse of “the next world” in an OBE or an NDE, or perhaps even a drug-induced or non-drug-induced altered state. What he or she is likely to experience is, you might say, non-3D life within Sam. And every Sam is different.

Now, this could lead us down a long path exploring cultural differences as a manifestation of differences among Sams, and that would have its points of interest, and perhaps we will indeed explore that at some point. For now, bookmark it, because we want to look at the reason for different but widely shared visions.

I had a hard time with that sentence, but I think I got the sense of it. Reports differ widely, contradicting each other often enough, but any given report collects adherents, so it must have represented various people’s reports well enough.

Also, it represents an attraction, not only a resemblance.

By which you mean, I think, that people who haven’t had the experience are drawn to believe in the vision stemming from some other people’s experience.

Isn’t that what you see in religious development all the time? A relative few have a transformative experience. They preach the gospel perhaps more effectively by what they are than by what they say, and they convert people to this new faith. Long before it becomes an elaborate institution, it draws people by what it is. Something in that vision matches something within them. But others resist.

Okay.

Well, this process is universal, concerning not only large abstractions such as religious belief, but all aspects of 3D life, down to the seemingly trivial level of specialized argots among craftsmen, or common enthusiasms among hobbyists. Note I say seemingly trivial, because what is important and what is unimportant is not as obvious and commonsensical as it may seem.

I get it. The punchline is, so how could you expect to receive only any one description of the afterlife?

Well? How could you?

Shouldn’t, I guess.

So now, unless conditions change, we can begin to explore the specifics not of various constructs, but of the process that leads to the creation of (or perception of) those constructs.

That’s a little cryptic, but all right. Next time?

Next time.

Our thanks as always.