Thursday, July 20, 2017
7 a.m. As I suppose you already know from being connected to my mind (now, if not earlier), I had a great time last night speaking to the latest Guidelines group. You and our work and the resulting books and everything I have learned about obstacles to consciously connecting to guidance were front and center. I mentioned my weekend workshop next month and one of the participants said she would return for it. And I told them about the new idea for a longer program and they did catch the excitement. Very affirming experience. And now they have a pretty firm idea who you were in relation to TMI, and what you did for it, and therefore for them.
Yesterday I got a comment from a woman I did a program with last Spring. If you don’t have anything lined up, let’s start with it. I don’t know that we have ever discussed the question of limits in the non-3D.
Yes, let’s look at that.
[In 3D, limits – be they time, money, personal energy, etc. – shape our choices. We either live within them, or find a way to change those parameters, and this struggle plays a major part in shaping our selves. It is so tempting (wishful thinking, perhaps?) to think that in non-3D, many of the limits which vex us in 3D life are no longer an issue. Our ‘lifes’ are fixed, and may combine with others to re-experience 3D or/and experience a larger or smaller focus as part of communities or threads.
[But what of limits? (And by that, I suppose I could mean that which are in limited supply.) Are limits simply a constraint/tool of 3D, as catalyst? In non-3D, what role do limits play? Are there limits? Short supply? And in the scale of considerations, are they a driving force to development to any degree as they are in 3D? In non-3D is there any type of struggle against lack?]
[Rita:] Like nearly every subject we might talk about, the subject is going to reflect the differences in condition between 3D and non-3D. That is, after all, our recurring or perhaps I should say constant theme. Every difference between the 3D world you experience and the non-3D world that you experience much less consciously boils down – as you were told at the very beginning of your quest – to a matter of difference in terrain.
You know the limits in 3D life, and you know how they shape your lives by what they make possible or impossible. It is no different outside 3D in the sense that here, too, limits exists. But the nature of the limits is every different.
First, a word about limits. Without limitation there can be no form, no identity, no anything. Form, identity, purpose all depend implicitly upon limits. How could there be (to use 3D examples) a Greece if there were no non-Greece, or a “here” without a “beyond here”? If “all is one” were the unbounded statement that many think it, how could there be any “self” and “other”? Now, these statements are not quite true, but they will serve.
In the non-3D – or, it may serve better today to say “beyond the 3D world,” to remind you that it is all connected [which I took to refer to the 3D and non-3D] – beyond the specialized conditions of the 3D world, different kinds of limitations exist. Clearly there can be no
No, that isn’t the way to approach it. Let’s say it this way: Limits are far more fixed and immovable in 3D because the conditions of 3D life in general are fixed and immovable. But such relations as “near” versus “far” continue to exist even beyond 3D, only here we don’t need to ride a train to get to “far,” we merely intend it. This is true but is very easily misinterpreted, so we had better proceed slowly. If it seems like plodding, that is unfortunate, but I think necessary or at any rate desirable.
I have long wondered if 3D geography affects the non-3D. We hear of localized spirits (earthbound ghosts, say). Why should they bind themselves to a specific plot of ground? Or, on a broader scale, if there are 3D creatures living on a far planet somewhere, do their non-3D components not hover (so to speak) in that planet’s space? Do they not therefore exist in a different non-3D neighborhood? And, writing this, I am reminded of Bob Monroe’s adventures in what he called Locale II, zipping around from planet to planet and interacting with other energy systems.
Let’s start by implicitly dividing the non-3D experience into various versions of “near” and “far.” We can go a long way on that one distinction. Things may be near to us in many ways – in affinity, in our habitual thinking, in experience. We aren’t talking about geography, here, but a metaphorical sense of “near” or “far.” Perhaps you can see that our existence may be considered to be structured by affinity.
“Souls of a feather flock together,” I was told long ago.
That’s a good way to picture it, only realize that who you flock with depends to some extent upon what subject is being considered. In 3D I might have been categorized as a woman, or a wife and mother, or a teacher, or a student, or an informal researcher when I was working with Bob, or a resident of California or New York or Virginia or Ohio, depending upon what time you were looking at. In 3D such distinctions are sliced up and held by the unvarying dimensions of time and space. Here, the same divisions may apply, but obviously they are not subject to time / space segregation. So now you may consider me as a college student and you find that the college student that I was sorts naturally into a certain “community” (bearing in mind this is very imprecise). Consider me as teacher and it will sort out somewhat differently. I will have moved, in the sense that the things and people and traits that were near to me that are not necessarily near to me when considered in this new context. And the same for other distinctions, only more so.
This being so, you can see that we do exist within limits, just as you do, but, we being far more aware of the community aspect of ourselves and far less likely to see ourselves as a unit with fixed identity, the limits seem to vary according to the context in which we are being considered.
Interesting. Obvious (if a little hard to grasp in any detail) once you point it out.
But it would be misleading to leave it at that, so let’s return to your geographical query. If there is a 3D individual on another planet, and its non-3D component sort of centers on that geographical space in the way that yours does where you are, doesn’t that suggest great unbridgeable distance even in non-3D where space and time (time: other dimension of space) are permeable in a way they are not, in 3D?
I know where you’re going with this. Interesting.
It is in such interconnections that the world (that is, reality) is kept stitched together. Set it out and I’ll correct if necessary, as usual.
What I get is that Sam may have one Life on earth, another going on in a second planet, a third somewhere else, and it, Sam, is the common link. Life A12 on Earth, being in unbreakable connection with Sam, is therefore equally connected to Life B84 on Proxima Centauri’s planet, or Life C6 in the Pleiades. And so forth.
Yes, and it is an important distinction we have been ignoring so far. Rita’s non-3D component – considered in isolation – is bound by interest and affinity to the planet Rita was inserted into. But Rita as part of Sam has potential access to any other of Sam’s Lifes, hence has potential access to Lifes being led (past, present, future) on the other side of the universe. That being so, the factor determining near or far is her interest in those other Lifes. Not everything is going to be equally interesting, so some will be easier to get to (in that sense) than others.
A very stimulating question, with more that may be said if people are interested.
“But enough for now.”
It’s a reasonable place to stop, and your energy isn’t what it might be.
Okay. Thanks as always, and see you next time.