Wednesday, July 26, 2017
7:10 a.m. Rita, do you want to take Provi’s question, or do you want to continue on another tack?
We can take Provi’s and see where it goes.
[This question, sent Monday July 24, refers to our friend Bob Paddock’s experiments with purifying crystals by application of intense heat, and his intent to melt two crystals together to try to create new forms of crystal that do not occur naturally.
[Provi: Frank, I was just wondering if Rita might be able to share some insight on whether melting crystals (as Bob shared he’s doing) is no different than chopping down a tree to cure wood to build with. I realize one form of life comes from the mineral kingdom and the other form of life comes from the plant kingdom. How does consciousness play in all of this? I mean, if we took into account a human life value and a mineral/plant life value do we treat the consciousness of these life forms with the same value? And if we do…then why aren’t we all running around naked and homeless? Just wondering what Rita, how Rita, would respond to Bob’s post and what he noted in the A-B-C list.]
[Rita:] To begin with, remember that all the world visible and invisible is made of consciousness, and that the term animal kingdom or mineral kingdom is an earlier classification system invented by a scientist to bring order to your ideas and observations of nature. There is not the absolute difference among animal, vegetable, and mineral that the words might suggest. This will be obvious to some, not so obvious to others. Again, as so often, the naming of a thing makes that thing seem more definite, more separate, than it is. If you keep coming back to remembering that everything is thought, that the world is consciousness, you won’t get misled.
“All is one.”
I know, but it is true; it just isn’t the only truth. Maybe we should make up a new statement, a little more complete, that would say “all is one, in many forms.” Diversity is one fact of life. The underlying unity is another. The two do not contradict each other but may seem to.
So, begin by remembering that everything is interconnected. Then consider, “you have a right to be here.”
From “Desiderata.” [A poem by Max Ehrmann.]
That’s right. Everything that exists has a right to exist, and one of the twin laws of life is cooperate and compete. Not one only, not neither (which would be impossible), but both. Life is interaction. People tend to hedge life in with rules, but life is life, and has its own rules according to the nature of the individual – that is, according to the nature of the values and experiences and expressions the individual carried into the 3D from its Sam.
Also, consider that you rarely know the effects of what you do, but you are less likely to go wrong if you consciously hold an intent and allow the intent to guide you as you go.
Galen’s “First, do no harm,” for instance.
Yes, a good example. The physician confronting an illness faces a mass of unknowns. Holding to the creed or, say, the code of conduct, that says first, do no harm, his actions will have a guide to steady his hand. And this is true in most enterprises.
And finally – perhaps finally – consider that in being motivated to try something new, perhaps the experimenter is heeding a prompting from “the other side” – or, in plain words, his own non-3D self that has a wider view of potential.
It struck me somewhere in this discussion that in applying a blowtorch to a crystal to purify its structure, we also offer the stone energy, which may be a gift to it as (I gather) our attention is a gift to you in non-3D.
And perhaps that is not the least of the changes intended. You concentrate on the properties of the clarified stone; perhaps you do not consider that you are adding to its consciousness or perhaps we should say (allowing for some linguistic distortion) its awareness.
Yes, I think of my story “The Stone,” about a magician who puts his awareness into a crystal in order to preserve continuity of consciousness after his own physical death.
Same idea. And if now your friend creates new forms of crystal by mixing two crystals under the influence of intense heat applied to the two, new possibilities open up to the world no less than when copper and tin were first melted to form bronze. Bronze didn’t exist, and then it did. That didn’t open the gates of hell.
Unlike, say, trans-nuclear research and development.
Remember what we were told. Humans are the trickster element in creation, the ones who change things unpredictably. That is human nature and it is human function. Every system needs a wild card, and humans are it. On the other hand, no system can be all wild cards, so the realm of the trickster must be limited. It is a tension, but a productive one.
Until the morons who run things blow us all up.
Nothing too wrong with letting children play with matches or even with explosives, provided that it is under adult supervision.
And we are under that loose supervision? You see reports to that effect. Aliens disabling nuclear missiles or warheads from time to time, for instance. Ingo Swann said he was shown aliens doing something (I forget what) way off in the wilderness. My old friend Ed Carter wrote a novel that had as its premise ET’s helping us as much as they could without taking over.
Any ambiguous evidence – and evidence is nearly always ambiguous – will be interpreted one way by the distrustful and another by the more trusting. Let’s just say that children can’t grow up to function well if over-supervised, and, if under-supervised, may not grow up at all!
Okay, let’s clarify something here. Are we not–? Oh, I got it; as individuals we may be relatively old souls or young (or balding and middle-aged souls, I suppose J) but so may whatever civilization we happen to be in. We don’t necessarily fit the mass-consciousness of the society we live in.
Well, isn’t that your everyday experience? No matter what the civilization, few, possibly nobody, will fit into it exactly comfortably. Some will fit more comfortably than others, but everybody will see room for improvement! Only, one person’s improvement is someone else’s dis-improvement. Tensions between the individual and the expectations and constraints of society are every bit as real and as constant as those between individuals.
So it seems to me that we come back to the attitude of the indigenous societies of the earth. You have to kill to live, but it makes a difference how you do it. If you kill with respect, and reverence, the animal is still dead, but the intent is different and so the act and its consequences are different.
Look around you, if you doubt it. And look deeper into what you just stated, and stated correctly: In many instances the hunter is more correct than the vegan, perhaps. One’s attitude, one’s intent, is the primary fact, and all the rest is secondary consequence.
And this discussion should call forth questions and dissents, which is all to the good!
The better the question, the better the answer. All right, Rita, our thanks and we’ll see you next time.