Rita: the compound reality

Tuesday September 5, 2017

3:50 a.m. Awakened by the full moon shining in my eyes, not an unpleasant way to wake up. I suppose full moon technically is tomorrow – that’s what the calendar says, anyway – but it certainly appears full, and bright.

Rita, I think we may be losing people to a degree, with the emphasis on the 3D and non-3D both being part of the same reality. I think it is being construed as blurring or erasing the very real distinction in experience between the two.

Yes, because we haven’t sketched the overall relationship between our All-D world and other levels and aspects of reality.

And that’s going to take some doing, as usual.

Well, again, these things require a good deal of spelling-out in order to keep relationships clear, and if you don’t do the spelling-out, people start doing it on their own in a distorted fashion, because they are piecing together a new insight and perhaps an old misunderstanding.

You aren’t saying “Take what I’m saying as gospel,” I know, because that would cut against your continued refrain of “Wrestle with the material.”

That’s right, but there is a tension between wrestling with the material and coming up with just anything. There is more than one valid way to see things, but that doesn’t mean that any conceivable way to see things is automatically valid.

It isn’t “one size fits all.” It reminds me of the tension between individuals interpreting scripture and an institution or college of individuals – a synod – deciding what is valid or invalid. On one extreme you come up with wild and crazy misreadings. On the other extreme you come up with rigid and politically determined readings that may fossilize into equally wild misunderstandings. You have to decide for yourself, and yet your own decisions are always subject to correction.

Isn’t this the case in every other aspect of your life? How could it be different here? All we can do is try to remain conscious and try to remain honest.

So, the context we haven’t sketched yet?

The All-D I am describing is a way of stitching together  two aspects of our reality that have become somewhat falsified by being considered in isolation. That doesn’t mean our particular level of reality, our particular sphere of existence, is the only one there is. It means that we, in our shared reality, have these things in common, hence our life is different than it appears. But beyond us is still the vast universe, in more ways than one.

The human experience is unique, as we have said. (By human in this context we don’t mean inhabitants of planet earth only, but inhabitants of 3D reality regardless where they are physically.)

Rita, I don’t think we can leave it as a parenthetical and then go on. It’s going to take more than that to get the idea across.

I suppose so. Well, you have the idea, you try it.

What I get is that you are harking back to the distinction between unitary and compound beings, and using the word humans as shorthand for compound beings – creations in 3D that comprise various strands as new units, having the ability to change who and what they are by the nature of their choosings as they proceed.

That’s true enough.

And those compound beings exist, as you have been stressing in this series, as part of the All-D rather than only the 3D they usually experience, therefore what they consider the non-3D is actually part of themselves that they will or won’t grow into awareness of.

Yes, again, true enough.

So all this stitching-together of 3D and non-3D experience refers only to the experience of compound beings such as ourselves, not of unitary beings that have not experienced 3D consciousness.

Well – you were doing fine up until “not of unitary beings.” But describing the life of unitary beings is beyond our scope here.  All we want to do is point out that in describing the fuller aspects of 3D life – that is, in describing the All-D so that you may see how much farther you extend than you may realize – we do not mean to imply that this is the entire universe, or scheme of things. You’d better explain that last.

Yeah, we need a word to mean “all the rest of reality” so that we can distinguish whatever we are talking about from the wider “world” beyond it. Any word we use – world, universe, reality – is subject to misunderstanding and wrong connotations, usually unconscious ones. Any ideas? Somebody called it “the unobstructed universe.” We’re doing something different here, stitching together both aspects of our condition, but an equivalent expression for “all aspects of life beyond the human experience” would be useful. Only, using what I just said as an example, saying “beyond the human experience” raises semi-conscious extensions to the animal kingdom (non-human) for example, which is not what is meant.

Perhaps we might consider using “the compound reality” versus “the unitary reality,” only that seems a bit clumsy. But it would encompass the all-encompassing

Sorry, the clunkiness of the repetition of “encompassing” threw me out.

We need a shorthand way to signal the distinctions, I agree. If “the compound reality” were shorter and cleaner, it might do. On the one hand, as always, we don’t want to complicate things by creating unnecessary jargon, but on the other hand, sometimes shorthand expressions are extremely helpful, even essential, as we have often discussed.

So we want one word rather than a phrase.

If we don’t find it, we can use “the compound reality,” but one word would be less unwieldy sometimes. Meanwhile, the point remains that in describing what the 3D and non-3D aspects of our lives have in common, we are not suggesting that there is nothing beyond our All-D experience. Far from it. But that “beyond” is not what we’re trying to describe. First things first.

This conversation seems to address two questions raised, though I didn’t specifically have them in mind:

[Ellen Malkin: Rita has stated that duality exists in 3D, non-3D, all-D… Here in 3D we are aware of evil by witnessing acts of violence, hatred, intolerance and cruelty. How is Rita aware of evil in non-3D? Specifically, what is her actual experience?]

[Subtle traveler: On August 4 to 6, Rita strongly suggested finding or formulating a metaphor for the All-D. … Did I simply miss this answer? … Can you ask Rita if we are heading  surreptitiously) towards this August 4 to 6 discovery? Has it been temporarily shelved to address important side trails and shrubbery?]

[Rita:] You didn’t have them in your conscious mind.

I take the distinction. So the answer to Ellen Malkin is that she is drawing too definite a distinction between the two aspects?

No, it can’t be dismissed that easily. It is a good question. Subtle Traveler’s question has been answered pretty much by implication: The answer is that we’re still searching for the way for it to emerge, which will be in whatever proper context allows it to happen.

But Ellen Malkin is asking a good question, the answer to which is probably going to be simple, but let’s see. We would say, she is implicitly contrasting actions in 3D with an unknown equivalent in non-3D. But that still silently assumes that they are different realms, rather than different aspects of one realm. The continuity is not in actions but in what is realer than actions, the underlying emotions.

I got that. A smack in the head is an action, and you aren’t going to have an equivalent without physical bodies to smack around. But the anger than motivates the smack is itself a thing, and that thing very much carries over into the non-3D.

My response is, “Mostly yes, but words are an awfully inconvenient and inefficient way to communicate.” You have the idea, but the words – as always! – will carry misleading connotations, so the reader should step carefully.

Also, I remind you that emotion expresses differently outside the 3D pressure-cooker with its relative isolation.

Yes, I’m rereading The Sphere and the Hologram and I came to their analogy about heat on the skin. In 3D (by analogy) heat may not transfer laterally fast enough to avoid a localized burn; in non-3D the heat would be spread over a wide area and so would have wider but shallower effect. Analogy, but not a bad one.

No, not a bad one.

Of course it begs the question of how that influence can extend into non-3D, given that all possible paths are taken, so that for every situation that invokes hatred, presumably there is a counter-balancing situation that does not.

Not quite, but let’s say that is so. Therefore, you see, the non-3D will have the same alternate timelines as the 3D. It’s obvious, once you think of it. Again, the non-3D we are discussing is your everyday reality, seen deeper. It is not a different world, not a different reality.

And, enough for now.

Pretty good session, I think. Must be the full moon! Thanks, and we’ll see you next time.


3 thoughts on “Rita: the compound reality

  1. So, are you saying that the real difference between 3D and non-3D is having a perspective, in non-3D, that transcends, for lack of a better word, emotional entanglements (that include blaming, side-taking, judgments, drama, etc.)? The non-3D perspective allows you to see the bigger picture–the heat is spread over a wider area.

  2. Here’s a model I use that might help to bridge the gap, so to speak… that our compound self is made up of four interpenetrating parts. The Clay persona (the physical body), the etheric layer (the template upon which the physical body is formed), the astral layer (where we experience dreams and out of body states), and what I term the mentat layer (apologies to Frank Herbert and the Dune series, but I like to use the term in relation to the mental/spiritual layer.

    Communication with the inner planes is biased by the layer or combination of layers that is most resonant with the inner plane messenger. The only part of this four layer cake that does not know it is part of the cake is the Clay layer, the physical, temporary space suit. This is why hemi-sync and other meditative techniques are basically designed to put the body to sleep while the rest of the gang (your guys upstairs) come out to play.

    However, once you can get the Clay layer to grudgingly accept that there might be more to life than fucking, fighting and eating you can carefully allow it to take part in multilayer conversations.

    Each of the four layers has its own area of expertise. Clay – physical/beta; etheric – electro-magnetic/alpha; astral – light plasma/theta/delta; mentat – mental-spiritual/gamma. None of these layers are essentially separate from each other, any more than the different wavelengths of visible light are different from white light.

    The way we attune to each layer is too complex to go into right now, but the focus levels of TMI are a good place to start. It took me many years to figure out the differences between focus 10, 12, 15 and so on and what they led me to were the four layers. Some days Clay will just not let go, other days I find it easy to float in an etheric wave of sensation; at times my dreams are lucid and within all there appears to be a presence that acts like a wise guide.

    The layers ebb and flow with the psychic tides.

    If you wanted to state the above in dimensional terms I would say that Clay is 3D, Etherea is 4D, Astra is 5D and Mentat is noD.

    Clay is subject to time; the other layers not so much. Without time the distinction between them and us dissolves in a way that is impossible to get across to the Clay persona.

    Anyway, just thought I would throw this into the mix.

    Best wishes…

Leave a Reply to Paul Blakey Cancel 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.