Rita on contention in the All-D

Friday, September 8, 2017

6 a.m. Rita, we have a couple queued-up questions we could address, or we could let people continue to ponder and I could do other things. Your choice. Or you could have more to say, I realize.

Three excellent questions, and we can probably deal with  them fairly easily. So, let’s see.

[Jane Peranteau: 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.]

[Beth Hines: Since 3-D is part of All-D, and “as above, so below,” then it makes sense that frictions we experience in 3-D are also present in the All-D.  I am to assume said frictions are less intense there, or perhaps just dealt with in a better manner since we have our whole self at our disposal?]

[Ramona Thiessen: As I consider this material another Jung quote comes to mind …. “One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious.”  The feeling I have in general, not just these specific sessions with Rita, coming from your writing/explorations is an intersection of magic, art, religion and science. Not separate boxes with clear cut lines, more so a sharing of boundaries. Each culture containing bits of all the others. A deeper understanding, not different worlds. The compound reality.]

[Rita:] Jane and Beth are asking more or less the same question. Given that the non-3D by definition shares the experiences of the 3D (being, after all, part of the same world), and given the difference in physical properties of the two parts of the world, how do manifestations differ? The question could be answered simply, but offers a springboard for a somewhat more complete answer.

I felt myself losing the thread there, just sort of saying “answer” to end the sentence.

You let your mind wander off into wondering how I intended to answer.

Can’t perceive and interpret or analyze at the same time. Okay.

The short answer to Jane would be, “yes.” Beth’s short answer would be – well, perhaps it wouldn’t be all that short. So, let’s address the underlying assumption that both questions share, that we in non-3D are more reasonable, less contentious, than when we same forces are operating in 3D as if individual and separate.

Ah!

Yes, it focuses things, you see. When you remember that “we” and “you” are the same substance, the same bundles of strands, the same compound beings, then you remember that differences in our reactions and actions are due to differences in terrain, not in our substance.

Which is what the guys told you and me right at the beginning. In fact, they told me that as I was writing Muddy Tracks in 1997-98. But in those days the same words carried very different connotations.

Which is why simple statements unaccompanied by sometimes lengthy descriptions of context do not always illuminate, or perhaps we should say illuminate only fitfully, in patches.

So, as you look at things from the perspective you have worked your way to over twenty years’ work, what do you see? Yes, emotional entanglement is damped somewhat by our environment. Or, not damped, but the manifestations here are damped. You in 3D experience the hot iron on the skin in less propitious conditions, you might say, but it’s just as hot here, in a way. And as Beth says, it is true that to a degree frictions are less intense here because the localized agents (i.e. 3D individuals) are aware of, and function as part of, their larger beings. However, there is an important caveat here that takes it all away, and that is that the larger beings themselves, even the Sams over them, are not neutral, calm, unbiased observers, but, just like you in 3D, partisans. You must not look for an end of strife and contention merely because you die to the 3D. “As above, so below,” only the manifestations are different.

That’s sort of what I had come to myself. Disappointing, though. It makes Plan B (death) less of a solution.

It isn’t any solution to the question of the meaning of life. It may be the way out of an intolerable local situation, perhaps. But this shouldn’t be disappointing: It should (or I suppose I should say, may) offer you a context that restores meaning in what may seem a meaningless existence. After all, if 3D struggles don’t mean anything, if once you die you say, “well, that dream had its unpleasant moments,” the only meaning it may have had (and you can’t even be sure of that) is personal. And is the whole 3D show nothing but what Shaw called an Englishman’s conception of it, a moral gymnasium?

Instead, recognizing that these struggles are (in a way) real, and recognizing that the struggle extends through All-D – that is, the entire world, not only that part of it you perceive through the senses –

Long sentence.

Yes. Those recognitions should help restore your sense of meaning. A sense of meaning cannot be grasped by an effort of will. You cannot merely decide, “I am going to see my life and the universe at large as having meaning.” Life would be simpler if you could. But you all know people who try to live by a code they can’t believe in. The disparity between what they really believe and what they try to believe sickens them.

Carl Jung’s pastor father.

That is one way it manifests, yes, loss of religious faith.

I seem to see it in people who are fanatically devoted to science as an abstraction. It seems to me they are trying hard to convince themselves that their abstraction provides them the sense of meaning we all need – and their tinge of hysteria tells me they aren’t quite able to suppress the doubts.

Same process, yes.

But if 3D and non-3D are engaged in a struggle of values (call it), but ultimately all paths are taken, where is the struggle? I mean, we emerge from 3D life as probability-clouds, I gather (regardless what it seems like to any of us in a specific version of our life), so don’t we cancel out?

No. You are confusing things, and it is a confusion that hasn’t come front and center yet, so, well done.

You’re welcome.

You were shaped before you entered 3D, in any particular life. You lived all the possibilities of that life, each different version expressing its own unique combination of coin tosses. You “arrive” back outside of 3D (again, so to speak) as the probability-cloud you describe, showing every single possible result of creating a Rita, or a Frank or whatever. But those were your possibilities.

Yes, I got that as we were writing it out. I don’t have it in me to be Hitler, say.

You are an expression of your possibilities, not of any possible combination that might be imagined. So, you couldn’t express as Hitler, Hitler couldn’t express as you. Your respective “probability clouds” will be different because the makeup of the respective individuals is different.

I think you are saying that the conflict of values continues at other levels.

“As above, so below. “ The world needs predators and scavengers both, as the guys pointed out to us long ago. The body needs red blood cells and white. Mathematics needs positive values and negative. That’s what a binary system is, it is a working-out of contraries. So don’t expect to evade it by dying to 3D. And this is why the popular idea of angels playing harps, sitting around on nothing, has no grip [later, I thought, “traction” might be a closer word]. It has no life, no appeal to that deep human need to contend. (I don’t mean to contend one against the other necessarily, though of course this is common, but to contend against something, even if it is the wood one shapes or the animal one tames or the obstacles to successful gardening.)

Well, I think that did clarify things. Did for me, anyway.

And Ramona’s is less a question than a comment, and we can let it stand.

Got more than I bargained for, this morning. I didn’t know if we’d do a session or not. Thanks as always.

 

8 thoughts on “Rita on contention in the All-D

  1. First, I am really blown away by, or rearranged by today’s post. I could feel/see that, with my “higher self,” you and me are me, and you, if that makes any sense at all. There’s no large gulf across which I must ‘work’ to connect. We really are one. Second, among many other ahas, is the sense of joy that brings. Being at the interface (I think you called it that, Frank) of 3D and non-3D brings such a sense of alignment that I call it joy. Wouldn’t that still be what we feel when we ‘cross over’? Even if we are still in the midst of the duality mire. Thanks so much for tending to my question.

  2. Frank,
    I’m glad Rita talks so openly about conflicts, passions, friction, and partisan viewpoints in the non-3D environment. Seems like many teachers gloss over that area in spite of all the evidence for its existence.

    In “Rita on evil and duality” (9/4/17) Rita says “The reason to consider the problem of evil is precisely because it is not adequately considered in your time.” I would very much like to hear what she considers evil, and her reasons for seeing it as a ‘problem.’

    After reading that post, guidance talked in unusually plain and open terms about one source of ‘evil.’ In my simple human understanding, some non-physical beings feel that it corrupts, degrades, and profanes consciousness to create 3D focuses (us physical manifestations). Those objections range from complete indifference to pretty strong inimical attitudes.

    Anything they (and 3Der’s they influence) might do ranges from ‘not helpful’ to outright manifestations of pain, fear, anger, and terror. Not sure how non-3D beings that don’t like 3D beings relate and connect to us, but then we see groups here in 3D that don’t like each other but act together for evil. Could/should we theorize about a Sam that manifests lifetimes to harm and injure 3Ders?

    However, I’m less interested in the reasons evil exists. My question: how does Rita sees evil manifesting here in 3D, and does she have ideas about dealing with “the problem of evil?”
    Jim

  3. I found this post clarifying. I suppose I should clarify by saying that this round of Rita communication has been indistinct and lacking force– or punch. That is, for me it has. No question though, my personal state of being and local conditions have shaped the sense I have of this round. So take it fwiw.

    That being said, a few observations elicited by today’s post and a question or two….

    “When you remember that “we” and “you” are the same substance, the same bundles of strands, the same compound beings, then you remember that differences in our reactions and actions are due to differences in terrain, not in our substance.”

    I feel like Rita/Frank have said this a number of times in so many words, but the clarity of this iteration is valuable–and I don’t think it can be emphasized enough. Changes in “terrain”, environment, external conditions definitively alter, if not the substance of our being, then our being’s responsiveness and scope of activity and reactivity. We kinda know this is true intellectually. However, much work needs to be done to perceive how pervasive and concrete this truth is, especially at the collective level.

    The implications are vast, but I’ll just point to one. One’s being is altered by immediate and wider environmental conditions, perhaps not fundamentally but significantly nonetheless. This fact highlights the interpenetration, if you will, of one’s being and the “terrain.” And if terrain more or less defines one’s scope of activity and reactivity then it follows that terrain and “environmental conditions” –at every scale– are decisive. A small hint perhaps as to why you, I, we are “here” at this time in this place….

    “However, there is an important caveat here that takes it all away, and that is that the larger beings themselves, even the Sams over them, are not neutral, calm, unbiased observers, but, just like you in 3D, partisans. You must not look for an end of strife and contention merely because you die to the 3D.”

    The 1st sentence is just so tantalizing, but I find it difficult to contextualize or analogize the practical meaning of it. Please expand Rita. For what “cause” are Sams partisans? What are the differing objectives for which they contend?

    2nd sentence I understand (I think) and is fine so far as it goes and perhaps it’s important for other people to hear it. However, I wonder whether it is strife and contention per se which we humans assume or wish to assume ends upon physical death. It seems to me that fear and suffering more accurately describe what many hope is extinguished post-death. Moreover, (and here’s an example where “terrain” appears decisive) strife and contention, but fear and suffering much more intensely, are rooted in and develop in myriad ways from a fundamental sense of death or annihilation. This sense may indeed be erroneous from other perspectives, but it is nevertheless experienced and acted upon endlessly round these parts. Perhaps the physical body has become too real for us, but the pain, fear, and attachments of the body are a game-changer. So, put simply, how can the strife of Sams, while incredibly interesting, or the contentions of non-3D be significant to 3D participants when fear (of death/annihilation) is not integral to the game?

    Last point on this. Rita has alluded to the strife/contention and good/evil resemblance between 3D and non3D quite a few times now. More context and detail would be helpful as the “war in heaven” analogy strikes me as overly Gnostic, Manichean, and provincially Christian. Also somewhat conspiratorial. Perhaps there is war in heaven, if so please spell out the sides and objectives. The fundamental interplay of principles–light/dark, yin/yang, male/female, et al– makes sense, but these imply the unity of differentiation. Whereas “war” and Manichean metaphysics denote an extremity in which one, both, or multiple sides seek total victory, control, and domination– if not annihilation of the other(s).

    Again, I’ll reiterate that strife/contention in non3D is comprehensible (what are games but formalized events of strife/contention–but also cooperation–?), but the physically-based fear, destruction, annihilation associated with “war” is much less comprehensible to me in non3D. In short, what are the stakes, considering the terrain?

    Can or does a Sam experience and act from fear? Not, mind you, some delimited quantity of a Sam, like me for example, but the whole being of a Sam?

    1. Not ” For what “cause” are Sams partisans?” More like for what values are Sams partisans.
      As to “how can the strife of Sams, while incredibly interesting, or the contentions of non-3D be significant to 3D participants when fear (of death/annihilation) is not integral to the game?” This question assumes the primacy of the 3D rather than the primacy of the All-D, of which the 3D is only a part. Think about that.
      Please resist the temptation to say “that’s nothing but…” in considering these things. You say, “strikes me as overly Gnostic, Manichean, and provincially Christian. Also somewhat conspiratorial.” Can you see that this puts the idea into accustomed boxes, and prevents you from actually thinking about it?
      Your final questions, I’ll ask.

      1. Thank you very much this is VERY interesting matters all of it !

        Frank ? I have been looking into The Sphere and The Hologram Book, as you recommended here the other day.

        But what fell into my eyes this selfsame morning when to continue re-reading your introduction to the book, where on the very first page in my book:
        “IF you see yourselves as holographically PART of the entirety of the universe, this doesn`t mean that you`re a tiny part of something huge, it means you`re an integral part of the whole thing, and SIZE is not relevant. It`s just really not relevant. And the sphere, again, is only used as an analogy of completion, of totality. It doesn`t mean that reality is literally a sphere.”
        —from Session 18, January 11, 2002.

        And by all of this coming to see(or felt), in us “to be the summary of “All That Is,” we are the totality of all its parts.
        In my opinion the interchange in “The Sphere and The Hologram” between TGU, Rita and you Frank, are among the very best ever written. The context is simple, plain and straightforeward after reading the book for the third time.
        Once again it is true: “We are looking at the world through your eyes.”

        The world will ALWAYS be as “looking through your eyes.”
        Hm, here comes the witty “other me” again, as came to recall right now. the one song from one of the “James Bond” movies: “For Your Eyes Only.”

        1. Thanks, Inger Lise. I have begun rereading it myself, for the first time since I got it printed nine years ago, and it is as interesting to me as someone else’s book — as indeed, in a way it is.

Leave a Reply

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