Sunday, September 17, 2017
5 a.m. Rita, yesterday’s remarkable experience seems to me to indicate that we’re off to the races in a new way. I jumped to the conclusion that we were at or near the end of a logical unit, perhaps, but a couple of people get that what you and I have been doing this time has not rounded off. What’s your take on the situation?
Your best qualification for the work we are doing is your willingness to proceed in the dark, and if you will remember your conversation yesterday with Michael and Sofia, you will remember what you realized, in talking to them.
Yes, I got that our very ignorance is sometimes an advantage, as it frees us from preconceptions that might warp our ability to see something new, or see something in a new way. That isn’t phrased well, but it is the gist of it.
And your emails from Dirk and your conversation with Nancy have showed you that differences in voice are quite palpable to others, even if not obvious to you.
And they showed why, or maybe I provided the “why”; it is the difference between essence to essence, as now, and personality to personality, which is what those overhearing the conversation are faced with.
And I believe we pointed out earlier, this difference explains why Martin and I would sometimes play back a tape we had recorded in an explorer session, only to find the content flat and even boring. Not the same thing exactly, but akin.
And when I got an email from Sue just now, entirely across the world from me, and blog comments from other friends who are right with the material, it is gratifying and reassuring in that what we are doing just can’t be without meaning and significance. As you know, this is a different place for me, unfamiliar, though I’m getting used to it. But I have never been able to take into account other people’s opinions of whatever I was doing. It was always too likely to be discouraging.
Bearing in mind that at least some of that effect on you came not from the intrinsic content of their reaction but from your own patterns of perception rooted in your childhood experiences.
Yes, I do realize that. But of course that didn’t make it any less real as a constraint.
Childhood trauma will do that. As you and I discussed with the guys long ago, when they gave us the “why” of such imprintings.
So, where are we in terms of what I have been thinking of as Rita 4?
If the first two volumes were designed to reorient people in general terms, and the third came to center on the process of dying to the 3D world and reawakening to the larger world it is part of, this one has centered on the fact that the bridging concept of 3D v. non-3D at some point loses its usefulness and itself becomes a problem. Once people grasp firmly that there is one undivided world in two aspects, 3D and beyond-3D (or perhaps we should say All-D and 3D-only, or 3D-mainly – no need to be too precise in our definitions), this work is finished, in that it provides, again, a solid place to stand.
For some it is already more than they can handle, and they will receive it mostly as interesting speculation. For others, it will help connect things in their own “inner” and “outer” experience, and, as I say, it will enable them to solidify new perceptions into a reality they can experience and work from. For yet others, it will be a way-station, a transition-process, a necessary bridge between prior concepts and those to come.
For any of those three uses, we have produced a unit that may stand on its own.
So, this really is an end to the book?
It is, call it, an invitation to continue. You know how sometimes we come upon a new topic to discuss and say, “No, let’s not start on that, let’s wait till you are fresh, at the beginning of a new session”? that’s where we are here. Yes, there is much more to come, assuming we succeed in bringing it forth. But where we go next – if we do succeed in going there – is not, as you would put it, a twenty-minute conversation.
So that pausing here is as much because what follows is long as it is because this is a natural place to pause.
That is why it is a natural place to pause.
I see. And are you going to continue to be an intrinsic part of the process?
I am tempted to say, “we’ll see,” which is also very like you, but I think a few words on that subject are in order, by way of a reminder, and then we are finished for the moment.
We’re going to get a “yes but no,” aren’t we? I can all but hear it.
Very useful phrasing, “yes but no.” Well, yes you are (only, no you aren’t).
Very funny. So—?
Our very first session with the guys brought up the question of “who are we dealing with?” They went to some effort to loosen our expectations of having discrete individuals on the other end of the line, as you always put it. They reminded us that on their side of the veil (as we thought of things in those days), on “the other side,” individuals and groups of individuals were not so much different things as they were, or seemed, on the 3D side. They told us, what we had not suspected, that often one would substitute for another even in the middle of a sentence, we not noticing. And they gave us quite an elaborate scheme of sources of guidance – by affinity, by blood relationship, by strands, etc.
Yes, I remember. In fact, I have incorporated all that, just as you had done before you transcended 3D.
Well, if you remember, remember! That is, what you know in theory, apply continually in practice.
And thus, my question is really without much meaning.
That’s right. Of course I will be here, but as to whether I will need to be here obviously, – we’ll see. If I am or if I am not, it will not stop me from doing other things.
Your endless research project, without the necessity of writing reports, continues.
It does, and glad I am of it.
Well, Miss Rita, if we do or don’t continue to talk (and I expect we will if only from time to time), you have the thanks of many people for what you have made possible.
And I didn’t have to write up any of it!
Smiling. Be well.