Tuesday, August 22, 2017
2:45 a.m. Well, Rita, I seem to be awake. Shall we talk?
I am not the one dependent upon coffee to wake me up. Certainly we may, if you feel up to it.
Well, I think I do. I guess we’ll see if I run out of steam. So what do you think of the weekend program we just ran? Or, anything you’d prefer to talk about instead.
We can talk about the program. It’s nice to watch, of course.
I don’t feel like we’re quite connected yet.
That isn’t quite what you are feeling. There are two things going on in a communication: Connection is one, content is the second. We are connected but the content isn’t here yet. (That’s a way of putting it.) So, you experience the hum of the carrier wave without the overlay of the voice or music or whatever information you look for in the connection.
I suppose people will realize that this was analogy. I wouldn’t want them thinking we’re talking about my hearing a hum or hearing a voice or music.
No, but that is a way of thinking about the moment of blankness that may come at the beginning of a conversation.
Yes, I understand. It can be caused by an awkward question, can’t it?
Well, by an unfocused intent that expresses as an awkward question, yes.
So, proceed on your own and I’ll follow wherever you want to go.
The difficulty in talking about your program doesn’t stem from this end of the telephone line. Your self-consciousness about it makes it hard. You’ve seen this at other times. One way around it is for you to do the talking – using your own authorial voice, in other words – and allowing me to comment, rather than trying to overcome the reluctance and putting it in my voice.
I’m not sure people will understand the mechanics of that, but I guess if they don’t, they will query it. Okay, well, let’s start with the fact that Dave Garland and my sister Margaret were participants, along with Scooter. You knew them. I don’t know if you knew anybody else, but I know you had met Dave and Margaret, and of course you knew Scooter well.
Did it make a difference, that I knew them, as opposed to others that I did not know in the body?
Well, I guess. I’m not really sure of my question, actually. Many or most of the participants knew of you through Rita’s World or The Sphere and the Hologram. I suppose that created a link. [I page back to our previous session of last Thursday and scan the last couple of pages.]
Seems a long time ago already, doesn’t it?
It does. So does my attempt to contact you Saturday in response to a suggestion from the group, which I’ll transcribe here.
[Saturday, 5:45 p.m. Rita, we did an exercise centering on the pipeline threat to TMI and somebody got “Lovely Rita Meter Maid,” which spurred Dave Garland to wonder what you think about the situation, affecting not only the place you were a part of, but the place you lived. I said I’d ask.
[There wouldn’t be any point in learning new ways to be in the world and then not using them. But with greater growth comes greater challenges, to seat in that growth and prepare for greater challenges and greater growth and greater challenges, and so on.
[The Institute can’t expect to be immune to the state of the world. So in a sense it is the old ways versus the new ways. Unlike old Western movies, there is no guarantee that the hero won’t get shot and killed, nor that the guys in the black hats lose. But, unlike watching movies, you get to affect the plot by continuous online voting, so to speak.]
I am such a creature of habit, it was hard to center in, in what amounted to a few minutes while they were doing an exercise. I was never convinced of that strength of our connection then, and at any rate was oppressed by the ticking clock, even though I would have had another half hour. And, I can see I’m not really awake enough to do this.
There is always another time.
Okay. Maybe we’ll try again in a while.
7 a.m. As we were saying –
As we were saying, this kind of communication is like anything else in life – it has its own rules, but those rules are different for each individual. What works for one may be wrong for another, and, for that matter, what works today may not work tomorrow and may not have worked yesterday. What will carry you through is intent, not any particular manner of execution.
Which is more or less what I set out to teach.
And, as you saw, which is a powerful form of giving people permission.
Well, in a way it’s so ridiculous, as I pointed out: Taking a course in how to get into better contact with guidance amounts to following instructions from guidance to do so. We are always being impelled (I didn’t say compelled, but impelled) to do this or that, and although we have rationalizations galore, we usually aren’t all that clear on why we feel we ought to do whatever it is that is drawing us.
In a very real sense, that is a special case of the theme of our book, assuming we continue this series long enough for it to become a book. Just as the previous series concentrated on “the afterlife,” though not in so many words, this series develops the way of seeing things that pulls together the reality of “this world” and “that world.”
This came up when I was talking with somebody. By describing things from the point of view of the All-D, you remind us that this life and the so-called after-life are part of the same reality. But where Awakening from the 3D World showed continuity in time, so to speak, this series sets out to show continuity in space. And, this is more than I said earlier, and seems to be clearer.
You should be used to that.
I am. Our temporary joint mind slipped that clarity in while I was thinking I was going to give what I already knew. All right, so, to continue, re-envisioning our lives as being lived in one, continuous, 3D and non-3D world will change everything in that it will show us what we know in different light.
And that is the only way one learns anything, really. Either you add detail to what you already know, or you re-envision what you know and it looks as much like correcting error as adding. Yet in a sense, anything new is always correcting error. It is never adding to an already correct picture.
But it doesn’t matter, because perfection is not part of our human experience.
That conclusion is true enough in one sense, but it made me pause, because to accept it as stated would be to discourage some people. You could as easily say, staying in any one position forever is not part of your (our) human experience. That is, it is as perfect to continually refine our view of things (which amounts to declaring that our previous views were at least somewhat in error) as it would be to immediately and absolutely know things in the only valid way they could be seen. If such a view is possible, surely it is possible only for a being above our own level of reality, or how could it encompass everything? And yet that implies that such a being could not encompass and comprehend its own level of being.
So not even God could understand everything, so to speak.
Actually, that could be a subject for a full session. For now let’s say (what I feel I have said before, and the guys too, before I became one of them for you), that the human-sized perception of the world is as important and in fact irreplaceable as a god-sized view. A blade of grass, for that matter, sends information from a part-of-the-physical-grass point of view that is vital information to whatever wants to see 3D life as a whole. Nothing is insignificant and nothing is the-only-significant thing, or even the-most-significant thing.
And – here is the punch-line, you might say, or maybe you’d call it the kicker – once you start remembering that everything in the 3D extends into the non-3D because it is part of the one, undivided, reality we are calling All-D –
Then there isn’t any “natural” versus “supernatural.”
Nor any spiritual versus mundane, except, in both cases, comparatively. Does this put a different slant on indigenous people’s thinking certain lands sacred?
But it would be a fine line between a sense that some land is sacred and a sense that all land is sacred. It’s a mistake, isn’t it, thinking that this or that is “the holy land”? At least, I’ve always assumed it is.
Well, “mistake.” What is a mistake but a way of seeing things that you don’t agree with? If it were more than that, it would include the assumption that you knew what was absolutely right.
And we can’t, I can see that.
That doesn’t amount to saying that everything is equally right, though. Some people might think so; it would be an easy enough mental slide.
Looking ahead to the work of transcribing this onto the machine, I think I’ll stop here.
There’s always another time.
Well, I hope so: We’re all profiting by your teaching. Thanks as always.