Rita on whether we have regrets after 3D life

Wednesday, August 16, 2017

6:40 a.m. So, Rita, regrets?

[Ellen Malkin’s second question: Does Rita have any regrets about the way she utilized her last 3D life? With her new perspective, is she satisfied with the way she spent her time or would she have done things differently?]

[Rita:] Bear in mind, the question still assumes a greater division between the 3D part of my life and the non-3D part. Perhaps she would phrase it differently after yesterday’s sessions. In light of what we said yesterday, everything should read differently. Again, there is one reality, one life, for everybody.

So, from my now expanded (or perhaps we should say decompressed) state of being, do I regret how I was when I lived, necessarily, like a coiled spring? Yes, in that much angst was unnecessary. No, in that that is what happens in the circumstances.

“That’s the kind of thing that happens in 3D.”

That’s right. But we need to move a bit slowly, to look at it.

Seems I’ve heard that before.

To the extent that you’ve heard it at all!

Very funny. Well?

As I look back on my life when my 3D awareness was in effect cut off from my wider awareness, I see so much worry, anxiety, indecision, second-guessing. I see times when I chose not to see clearly, times when for reasons stemming from my emotions I made choices that I knew were not the best I could make.

Let’s go into that last, a bit, because I can feel it sort of knotted up, like hidden depths to be uncovered. Speaking of going slowly.

When you are in the grip of strong emotion – either a momentarily strong feeling or a longer-term habitual way of seeing things – your judgment is skewed because your reality is skewed. You are operating from a reality that omits factors that in other times or circumstances you recognize.

“Blind” rage, for instance?

Blind rage, being beside yourself, but also a slanted construct – a prejudice, say. The reason why it is impossible to reason a person out of a rage or a prejudice is because while their mental world is shaped by that rage, or prejudice, the other rational factors that would normally counteract the rage, or the prejudice, do not function, do not exist, in that person. When the rage subsides (or is fought down) or the countervailing factors to the prejudice are effective again, then the person may be amenable to reason. Not before.

That seems a little backwards.

Only because what is actually the effect of the passage of time, even a very little time perhaps, is attributed to being reasoned with. But that is beside the point. The point right now is that 3D conditions enable and sometimes encourage such explosions, or such distorted perceptions. They are the effect of your having to function under the pressure of constricted time and perceived isolation. So naturally, once you are removed from such conditioning factors, you are inclined in a way to wince and say, “Did I do that?” But you are equally inclined, at least after the initial shock of seeing yourself as a whole, to say, “Well, that’s the kind of thing that happens in 3D.”

The important point is that such explosions or skewed reality (that is, the seeing-things-wrong that prejudice is) express what you are, even if they express what you are and would prefer not to be. They are the safety-valve that stops your boiler from blowing up under excess pressure.

But not everybody has a violent temper.

No, nor is everybody subject to the same prejudices and warpings of reality by emotional factors. But everybody blows off steam in one way or another. If not explosively, then perhaps chronically; if not obviously, then certainly subtly.

I’m not sure I’m getting this right. Aren’t there some people who are tranquil by natural disposition, or tranquil because they are in congenial circumstances?

Yes there are; the world is filled with all kinds of people, everybody knows that. But there is no one who is unaffected by the pressures generated by 3D restrictions on consciousness.

It still doesn’t quite fit with what I seem to see in the world. It sounds as if you are implying that if people don’t have a bad temper, they are repressing a simmering boil.

No. I can see how it looks that way, but that isn’t what I mean. Of course for some people it is that way, but it isn’t a simple either / or. Not everybody has explosions; not everybody has ulcers. The world is wider than that. I ask you to remember the globe we used as an analogy in other circumstances.

Was that you, Rita, or was it the guys?

Does it matter? Is it even a proper phrasing of the question?

I guess not. All right, I remember somebody telling us that everybody – it was in the context of a discussion of the seven deadly sins, come to think of it. They said you might use a globe marked with latitude and longitude as a model. Starting from the south pole, one’s place on any given line of longitude would represent a scale from 0 (at the south pole) to 100 (at the north pole), it being understood that polar positions were impossible for mixed beings. That is, nobody is at zero, nobody is at one hundred. But the use of the globe as a model was to show our individual differences across the board. So you might be at 4 in terms of lust, 2 in terms of envy, 6 in terms of anger, etc. The sums of the various plot would not be arithmetic but geography – that is, you would be a particular combination of virtue / vice, or to put it into more neutral terms, different susceptibilities.

Different susceptibilities, right. And that goes for more than the seven deadly sins. It goes for every measurement of individual or combined traits one might think of. It is a rough measure of your emotional / mental / spiritual composition, you might say. And the point here is that nobody is perfect (or, if you prefer, equally accurately, everybody is perfect in that they are living what they are, as best they can).

So on the one hand, not everybody must either express or repress internal conflicts triggered by external circumstances. On the other hand, everybody has challenges. If not this, then that. If not that, then the other. If may not be evident; it also may not be anybody’s business.

And so, to repeat, yes I have regrets – who wouldn’t want to play their role better? And no, I don’t have regrets – who is to say that what I lived didn’t need living? When you remember that all choices are explored, when you remember that reality is and was only relatively real, and that the –

Well, let’s go into that. We have time, I think.

Very well. Can you now see that what happens in one 3D life is only sort of real? That from an expanded view, your life in 3D is only an episode that isn’t over, and that will always continue to shape your life?

I doubt that is obvious to many people even yet.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Then perhaps we should reframe it, in light of recent discussions. Thus:

  • One continuing life, in 3D and outside of 3D, because 3D and non-3D are actually subsets of the All-D reality we live in.
  • Creation of 3D lives out of elements of Sam, thus the births of new souls or the reincarnation of existing souls, depending.
  • Constriction on awareness while in 3D, though that constriction can be overcome to greater or lesser extent.
  • Continuing interaction of 3D and non-3D because, again, they are part of the same thing. Life is not about 3D or about non-3D. It is about all, it is about everything, much of which is necessarily invisible to 3D perception and is at best difficult to grasp even abstractly from 3D.

Therefore, if you wind up getting killed by Nazis, or wind up as a Nazi killing others, that is only partly real in that it is only the 3D portion of what goes on. It isn’t that the suffering is not real within 3D. Obviously, it is. But it is that 3D itself is only partly real, in that it is in a sense an abstraction of All-D. You can’t help seeing that, once you regain your unobstructed perception, and it retrospectively alters your understanding of what went on.

People sometimes make the analogy to actors and movies. The characters are real within the context of the movie, but the actors are realer, in that they exist beyond the context of the movie.

More like improv, but a serviceable analogy.

So do you get tempted to regret, not the role you played, but the performance you put on?

You might, if you didn’t make all the possible choices! So, as always, it depends upon which “you” you’re talking about.

I see that.

And I hope that answers the question. We can continue to the third question next time.

It’s beginning to look like somebody planted the questions.

Would we do that?

I’m smiling too. Thanks, then, and until next time.


6 thoughts on “Rita on whether we have regrets after 3D life

  1. These can be such hard concepts to really grasp in a life-changing way–3D life is only sort of real; life is about All-D; there is no separation; etc.–but some light is shed with each post. I like Rita’s comment that 3D life is like All-D doing improv. That’s how I think of life.
    Thanks so much.

  2. “So do you get tempted to regret, not the role you played, but the performance you put on?

    You might, if you didn’t make all the possible choices! So, as always, it depends upon which “you” you’re talking about.”

    As always, I’m enjoying this continuing dialogue. This comment addresses directly something I’ve been thinking about through Smallwood and Hemingway, only having just finished the latter. So, about choices…is it ‘possible’ to not make all ‘possible’ choices? (That only sounds tongue-in-cheek. Perhaps not the best way to put it, but then again…)

    What is it that pushes us to choose differently? In simplistic illustration, at a choice point, do then our many different strands have an opportunity or vote in deciding what happens, leading to different possibilities? The product then is the cloud of all possibilities we’ve chosen/lived. Because of our makeup, are there paths that were not available to us because we did not have the strand that would have opened that possibility? Again at a choice point, are options only because of what we bring to the table, or are some choices built in – and yes, I guess they wouldn’t really be choices then – because of an agreement we’ve made outside of 3D? And finally (for this moment at least), if at the point we return to All-D and able to take in the many paths and outcomes, is it possible when communicating with those still in 3D to answer from all choices, rather than just the one line that led to the path the discussion arises from? Or does the lack of shared timeline negate that?

    Frank, I sure hope you understand what I’m asking – it makes sense in my head, I guess, but laying it out, it is less clear. The idea started when I was reading about Smallwood – when you realized that you might be communicating with him as he might have been in more than one timeline. I keep thinking about The Matrix movies. Especially the scene where Neo confronts The Architect. He is silhouetted against an enormous wall of screens, each playing out a different reaction to this same confrontation that has happened. As before, thanks for your work – I am enjoying reading each new encounter….

  3. Thanks. This all fits with what I was hearing (and commented on the other day).

    If we exist in all dimensions (and therefore all “times” as well), our current 3D self is connected to and probably always informed by our non-3D self. Remembering that our non-3D self is (more) aware of the all-time-all-possibilities view of self, I don’t see how the non-3D self could ever “regret”, which seems to assume unintended negative consequences.

    When you drop the sense of separation between “here and there”, “before and after”, 3D and non-3D, it does seem easier to trust that you will always have more perspective on your situation than you can be aware of. For me this isn’t to release one from responsibility, but the focus shifts to expressing your highest and best at any given time rather than focusing on the end results or outcomes desired.

    This last few days have really helped me let go of the framing of past lives, after-life, etc. I am enjoying seeing myself as alive in a hugely expansive all-times-all-possibilities sense looping back on itself endlessly until the only conclusion is “all is one”. Nice!

  4. So …

    our 3D focus (alone) is real enough (but “improv” from a non-3D focus)

    our non-3D focus (alone) is human subconsciousness

    our All-D focus is “being on the beam”, keeping your eye on the ball, alignment, etc (whatever you want to call that for yourself).


  5. So interesting…from questions I’d never think to ask.

    Sometimes reading these communications I feel I must be already dead and my life is a sort of wrapping up/epilogue that explains different strands of the original plot. A layer of understainding applied to things. As soon as I turn my attention to something an understanding starts to flow. These texts are so interesting, because my own attention flows differently from Frank/Rita&questioners. So I get new perspectives.

    Emotions are such an interesting thing. On one hand, they are the engine of the psyche, but such a tricky one to handle…Can’t live with them, can’t shoot ’em as they say about certain kind of spouses. As Jung said, it is not what happens to you but what you make of it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.