Sunday July 30, 2017
250 a.m. All right, Rita, let’s proceed. Janey’s Facebook comment, following up on the questions we addressed yesterday?
[Janey on Facebook: All this brings up the belief we are just actors in a play for the entertainment and edification of other aspects of our soul…another idea that frequently makes me cringe. If there weren’t a greater need, it wouldn’t happen. Why create beings that need to grow through intense suffering? Without the concept of time (measure of change in a system) there is no growth in the overall System anyhow. W.T.F. is the point? I can see why some come to the conclusion hedonistic living is as good as any other, since all roads lead to “Rome.”]
[Rita:] The ideas she cites are pretty cynical, or pretty defeatist, whichever way you look at it. None of them are realistic, although they may seem so, but they warrant examination.
“Actions in a play for the entertainment and edification of other aspects of our soul.” She didn’t get that idea here. It implies meaningless activity, passing the time, for the sake of passing the time. To the contrary, life matters for those living it, and that means the non-3D aspects as well as 3D. The idea she cites depends upon an unstated and perhaps unacknowledged split between actors and acted upon, or perhaps we should say between actors and those for whom they are acting. Remove that mistaken division, and what remains of the idea?
The next idea – a need to grow through intense suffering – compresses the range of experiences offered by the 3D world into one small sliver of the experience. Life is so much more than suffering. To look at it as described is like seeing learning to ride a bicycle as only the skinned knees that occasionally accompany the process. Suffering is not in itself the point of the 3D experience. It is, instead, an occasional aspect of the experience. And even such suffering as is part of 3D life isn’t as meaningful or real as it appears while you are undergoing it. Surely this is obvious upon some thought.
Next, how can anyone say there is no growth in the system, when the very point of the 3D world is the continual enrichment and complexification of the non-3D world?
So, all in all, I think we are best advised to regard these alternate ideas as only the product of a mood of discouragement or, as I say, cynicism. But if anyone cannot see that they are not compelling, presumably they will contact you and we’ll deal with their arguments at that time.
Okay. Then there is this from Liz Salen.
[Liz Salen: Rita’s message from today began to answer a question that I’ve been pondering lately: if human consciousness continues after death of the physical body, what of the consciousness of other embodied beings on this planet?
[RF posed this as “do we meet all these creatures in non-3D?” and “where does their consciousness go (upon death of the physical form)?” Apart from the kinds of relationships some of us have to spiders, roaches, mosquitoes, etc., so many people feel deep connections with dogs, cats, birds, etc. and wonder if those connections continue in non-3D. Rita started to touch on this at the end of this morning’s conversation. I’d be very interested in hearing her continue that thread.]
[Rita:] Let’s take this as encompassing more than the question of the future of pets and other species with whom humans may have attachments, and generalize as widely as we can without undue distortion. Everything that exists in 3D necessarily extends into non-3D as well. Remember? There can be no exception to the rule. If there are X number of dimensions, anything that exists, exists in all of them. That is why the division between 3D and non-3D is as much a mistake, a blurring of reality, as an accurate description. But it is nearly impossible for people to realize that they are already, necessarily, living in the non-3D (with its different rules of existence) when the 3D seems so evidently not the same thing.
However, the same thing in non-3D may appear very different from its 3D existence. The difference in turf described more than once in your material from TGU make differences in appearance seem to be differences in reality. And, as usual, words get in the way. The fact that we have to use words to differentiate 3D from non-3D is not much alleviated by the creation of the word All-D to try to remind you that the distinctions are as much distinctions in how you will choose to see it, as distinctions in how things are in actual fact.
And with that one reminder, you have put the question of survival of non-human souls into blinding new light. Or perhaps I should say, not blinding, but the opposite of blinding – you suddenly let us see what until then we had not seen, or had not seen clearly. Of course everything survives. If it did not, the question would be, how can it be that whatever you were considering could not survive [in non-3D]? How could something that appeared in 3D dis-appear in the higher dimensions? But I’m too tired to continue to pursue this. Maybe later?
Maybe later, or maybe this will suffice. What I just said, together with a reminder that plants, animals, etc. are less individual and more collective than they may appear in 3D, should take you far. By the light of this juxtaposition of ideas, it should be clear that minerals, too, have to be in the non-3D in that they are in the 3D.
Some food for thought there. Okay, thanks.