Saturday, July 29, 2107
3:45 a.m. Miss Rita, we have several questions queued up, if you have no other plans.
Let’s proceed with them.
All right. First Lori’s.
[Lori SM: I continue to wonder about limits, and ‘energy’ in particular, especially because my own physical energy has been in limited supply for a couple of decades (although now improving). The day of a newborn requires one kind of energy, that of a toddler is vastly different. That of the mother of the newborn and toddler something else entirely. As a wife and mom and businesswoman and housekeeper and etc., etc., the more multi-tasking, the more diffuse my energy, the more exhausted I get. I suppose some in 3D thrive on this, but I feel the best in ‘flow’ – utter focus on something which fascinates and envelopes me.
[And in 3D, with the idea that we are the pinpoint, bright focus, this follows along. How about the non 3D? The thought of many strings of awareness/lifes (of many scales) seems the flip side – the diffuse, cloudlike consciousness. Is this, then, where ‘flow’ happens for that way of being? Is trying to focus in such a laser-like way for too long draining of ‘energy’? For me (3D) having too many roles at once is overwhelming.
[It seems as if a back and forth between 3D and non-3D, given the right rhythm and momentum, would then be beneficial to both sides, allowing a back-and-forth of focus and expansion that could propel us (as a 3D/non 3D unit) forward.]
An intriguing perspective, with only one slightly incorrect concept, the idea that in non-3D, trying to focus in a 3D manner would be “draining.” It isn’t so much that it would be draining as that the energy wouldn’t be available in the first place. And even that way of looking at it isn’t quite right. But finding how to make what seems a fine distinction, a delicate nuance, is not so easy.
Remember that when thinking about any particular mind in non-3D, you are at one and the same time thinking about a sub-unit (that Life) and the overall larger unit of which it is a part (the Sam). But how you think of it does not alter how it is. That is, a thing does not change its characteristics according to how you conceive of it. Instead, how you conceive of it changes the characteristics you are aware of. Your characterization leads you to unconscious assumptions, and thus subtly affects – warps, one might say – your thinking.
So, that mind you contact is still a part of Sam, drawing its maintaining energy from Sam. It isn’t like it is battery-driven and the energy could drain from it. But at the same time, that non-3D Life’s existence is in cooperative competition with all the rest of Sam’s components, and so will have de facto limits, the same as any other. What provides extra energy is the attention from 3D that, in effect, brightens the rheostat for the time that the 3D attention continues. There’s much to be said here, but awareness of mythology’s description of Hades would help.
And that I don’t have.
Still, we have been the finger pointing at the moon. Those who follow where the finger points will not be wasting their time, and could provide a service to others by reporting what they find.
Okay. On to a second question?
A second and third together, yes, Janey’s.
[“All this is a way of saying, it is up to each person to decide how he or she wishes to be in the world. It is useless to make rules for others to follow. Suggesting rules, fine. Insisting on them, trying to enforce them, judging others even internally on whether or not they follow rules that are valid for you, is all unnecessary and a waste of effort.” I’ve found much I can relate to in the Rita writings but not this. I cannot wrap my mind around the idea of human society with no rules for behavior, given the fact some of us are of so low in awareness we deliberately torture other adults, children, babies, and animals in the most barbaric, drawn-out methods as a means to gain pleasure and power.
[What do we say to those suffering children? Sorry, but we can’t really say whether it’s right or wrong for you to be molested over there. Could be your collective consciousness chose that “hat”. Not my place to judge actions at such great distance from myself or enforce ideas (like being able to play in your yard, live without fear of severe abuse) that others don’t believe?
[Predator/prey, hunter/hunted relationships are sometimes disturbing to me, but overall they make sense and are relatively painless (when I can believe mind consciousness moves out of body consciousness at the worst moments, which don’t typically last very long). What I cannot fathom is a type of group consciousness that JUSTIFIES severe, extended torture for animals with something like… “Humans need to learn. The furry life-forms chose this miserable hat, so they, too, could understand all the ramifications of mental and physical agony within their group. No need to insist on rules, because somewhere, somehow, torture of a four legged creature is necessary to human advancement. Let them create their hellish world any way, any where. It’s all about freedom.” Now…if only I could insert pictures and videos of assorted Asian animals being dismembered as they are consciousness, nail-gunned to walls through the paws because the meat tastes better if they suffer, American “show” horses with their mouths and limbs ties in painful positions for hours on end, struggling to escape until they realize the futility.
[Here’s what I learned… God exists on some overall, vast network of consciousness, which is where people go when they don’t wanna deal with the devil in the details.]
My sense is that she’s misinterpreting what you said, and certainly what you meant.
The crux of the misunderstanding – as usual – is in the distinctions or lack of distinctions caused by words. You will find it an immense relief, in non-3D, to be able to proceed meaning to meaning, without needing to code meaning into words on one end and decode meaning from words on the other. You have no idea how much slippage is involved in the process.
Well, that was my take on it. Janey heard you say it’s useless to judge others or to assume that what is valid for you will be valid for somebody else, and took that to mean (1) society could live without rules and (2) objectively there is no right and wrong.
She is also including overlay from various religious beliefs and attributing them silently to what we are saying.
And beyond that, she suspects that you are endorsing the view that pain is okay if it leads to growth, which in a certain sense, you do, but maybe not quite as she suspects.
All this ought to feel familiar to you. You certainly have been there!
Oh yes. Well, how would you respond?
Let’s see how it comes out. For one thing,
Yeah, I heard that. Too many things to say at the same time. Do you want time to think through how to say it?
No, not this time. There has already been a time-lapse between the time she wrote it and posted it, and when you read it and copied it. The necessary time was there. Besides, as you know
Yeah, “on the other side, there is no time,” and I know you’re joking, but then what is the cause of the delay? Oh. Me?
Not you, exactly. More like us. Syncing information between non-3D and 3D individuals sometimes requires a moment, and will appear to you like a hesitation, a pause. This is mostly because the 3D mind sometimes needs time to organize the download. It will seem to you in such instances that the gap is on the non-3D side.
Interesting. Okay. So it’s a matter of my subconsciously arranging the material?
Let’s say, you’re preparing the channels. So, see what you have.
All right. First, I get that there is a difference between what the individual perceives and what society requires. Then, that different natures have different values and behaviors that are natural to them. Then, that the relative reality or unreality of whatever is being discussed is always crucial to understanding, but is often misunderstood.
That’s right, and now that the rote has sorted itself into categories like that, you can handle it, you see, and in effect “I” am able to feed “you” the understanding that flows through these streams of understanding, or of orientation, call them.
I don’t exactly get what you are saying about process, but more or less. As I’m always saying here, interesting.
You used to say “fascinating” at one time.
So I did. Okay, so–?
First point, individual versus society. Bear in mind always that “society” is a generalization, and is not quite as real as you as an individual are real. Society cannot move from 3D into a larger 3D (by learning to recognize more of the non-3D, hence changing the world it lives in) as individuals can. Society is not real, it would be like trying to raise the consciousness of Economics or of Biology or of – oh, Geography. You know what I mean here? An abstraction does not become more real merely because you give it a name, so don’t think that what is true for an individual is going to be true for an abstraction, nor vice-versa.
Some of your readers are going to have a hard time coming to this particular bit of material with an open attitude, so I warn them here explicitly that their own values are going to raise resistances. As in most things, the ideal attitude would be to approach the information with openness, and not judge it until afterwards. If you judge too soon, or worse if you judge ahead of time, you can’t perceive.
You as an individual have your values. Others have theirs. It is conceivable that no two people have exactly the same set of values, but of course in practice there is much overlap, and people find themselves, in effect, on this or that “team.” If the issue is “hot” enough, all disagreements on other issues may be unnoticed or deliberately disregarded, and the world will seem pretty neatly divided into two or perhaps three sections: those who are pro, those con, and perhaps those who are indifferent. Surely that is clear.
But when you consider other issues that may be equally important but not “hot,” the true situation is far different. Now instead of two teams and an audience (so to speak), you have a mass of teams, anything from one or two people up to mobs of people, in all directions. It isn’t a polarity, or even a spectrum; it’s more like a field of stars. So where hunting may be a relatively “hot” subject, the value of book-learning may be much less so but may lead to equally deep divisions. (These are examples, only. Don’t let yourself get diverted to thinking of the pros and cons of the issues.)
Now, let’s say you, as Janey does, hold that torture is wrong. A particularly good example for you, Frank.
Oh yes. How well I remember trying to get those “spiritual New Age” people to think instead of parrot slogans, by saying “what about torturing children?” I never had much luck, though. They were well entrenched in their certainties.
And now you are seemingly on the other side.
Yes, seemingly, only what you are saying isn’t what they were saying.
And here it is. All values exist in the universe. No value that expresses in 3D can not exist in non-3D, it’s an impossibility. Like it or not, good and evil are going to exist in duality, and, existing, they are going to express. All you can do as an individual is to realize it and maintain your own values. If you value kindness and love and cooperation, surely you have the right – the duty, really – to maintain them against those who value cruelty and fear / hatred and destructive competition. That’s what you are here for, to uphold and live your values.
Unfortunately, that goes for those with the opposite values. So if you see things as they are, rather than how they may appear or how you’d rather they were, you see that in a way values are less a choice than a fate. You come into the world with certain values that flow from what you are, and you are going to begin [your life] by living them. In the course of your life you may wind up modifying them, or repudiating them, depending on how you choose as you go along, but initially you are going to express the values inherent in you. That is why it is futile for one individual to condemn another for the other’s actions or values. Somebody has to wear the black hat.
“Love the sinner, hate the sin,” I was taught as a boy. Nobody ever stopped to explain the logic behind it, though. And so–.
Society, as opposed to an individual, cannot make these distinctions. It cannot afford to say, “well, on a higher plane, we can see that good and evil are both going to express, so I guess anything goes.” Society is going to uphold good and suppress evil as best it can, and that is how it should be. But of course no two societies draw the line in the same place. What is good to one is bad to another. Still, the distinction remains.
We didn’t get to Janey’s addendum, so why don’t we start there next time? Meanwhile, thanks as always.