Wednesday, July 5, 2017
7 a.m. Well, Miss Rita, we’re starting to get questions. Shall I pose them as we go along, or would you prefer to follow your own agenda?
Let’s deal with Bob’s first, and we can get to Gordon’s at the proper time. It is, in a way, Bob’s distorted view of the “afterlife” that is guiding me in this exposition, because he has read far more of the popular understanding of such things than you have, and it sticks more firmly in his mind than in yours. And if it is a problem for him, it is a problem for many others – and it is to them that I’m aiming this, less as a convincing exposition than as an awakening nudge.
All right, here it is:
[Bob Friedman:] Frank, this is, as usual, intriguing material and wonderful fodder for intellectual inquiry. But – you know there’s a but – I keep wondering on the nitty-gritty level of the non-3D, how do they “relate.” No eyes to see, no ears to hear, nothing to touch, no food to taste, etc. How do they perceive each other, talk to each other? Just little balls of light hanging around the campfire telepathing (I created a verb) with each other? I’ve read entire books which describe non-3D people having another body (I guess they call it the astral body, but a body nonetheless) which talks, eats, poops, creates houses and whole environments with thought, flies to other dimensions at will, heals the injured from the 3D level, even eats food. So how is that done on Rita’s level? One can still be “you,” say that Episcopalian Republican who voted for Trump, and you “relate” with all kinds of individuals. What’s the method of communication if you don’t speak Serbian or Martian? Maybe these are dumb questions, and Beth pointed out that maybe we just can’t “relate” to an environment without the five physical senses. Or can we? Can Rita describe that “core of similarity?” Maybe that will indeed pull it together, and maybe that’s where she’s going with this new material. I’m glad to be along for the ride.
What Bob is doing is losing sight of the ancient Hermetic principle, “as above, so below.” That does not mean, whatever you experienced in 3D is what you will experience in non-3D. It means, the structure of reality repeats at all levels, so if you want to know what any particular manifestation is like at any level, examine it at the level you exist on.
And of course we’ve been through all this.
In a somewhat different context. It is always useful to repeat in different contexts, to seat the material in. Another maxim to remember is that “man is the measure of all things.” Again, not identity or even similarity of appearance, but of essence. If “man” – humans – are communities of beings at a lower level,
How about if we bail out of that sentence and let me say it? If each “individual” is actually a community of intelligences from a lower level – cells, say, and microbes, and whatever else we may be composed of –by the principle of “as above, so below,” we may expect to each be cells in a larger organism. What I have been calling the larger being. Just as our cells have consciousness, so do we, and so does the larger being – but the consciousness of each class of beings is particular to that level. Cells are not conscious of 3D politics or geography; we are not conscious of the higher being’s mental world.
That’s all right so far. It has all been said before, and not only here. But Bob’s underlying question is, why does my description not gibe with so many other things he has read. If I am right, they must be wrong. If I am wrong, this entire series may be delusion on your part.
Yes, you may not exist! 🙂
Everybody processes things differently. For clarity, list Bob’s stumbling blocks.
1 How do you perceive?
2 What is the nature of your existence?
3 How do you communicate?
Yes. But as soon as you remember “as above, so below,” and you remember yourselves to be individuals formed of communities at another level of being, you remember that beyond the 3D you are going to be an individual in a larger being – that is, the larger being is a community of individuals just like you – and that larger being is not going to have the same concerns that you do now. So,
(1) Perception is obviously entirely non-physical, in the absence of the physical. We will put an asterisk by this answer, for there is more to be said here, but not now.
(2) The nature of our existence is continual interaction among ourselves and, implicitly, with 3D life as it proceeds. I mean, that is what I am doing now. That is what Seth did, and Edgar Cayce’s sources, and the non-3D sources of inspiration that continually bring light, truth, and hope to the world by means of art, poetry, scripture, ILC, and any other such process you might mention.
(3) We communicate, as we perceive, not by limited 3D sensory methods (they being impossible here in the absence of senses), but directly, what you in 3D call intuition, or extrasensory powers of perception.
But Frank, you haven’t listed Bob’s primary stumbling-block, which is, “if what you are saying is so, why are there so many equally sincere reports describing a very different reality?”
“Who do you trust?”
Whom do you trust, really. (If I didn’t write that down it would be in the back of my mind, bugging me. Easier to clear it out.)
It is to answer Bob’s underlying question – for you know it is a naturally arising question in many others present and future – that I went to some length to remind our readers of the incredible diversity of human minds present and past (and future, naturally). Those differences are so great that you couldn’t possibly expect them to return from an excursion into non-3D with descriptions not colored by the accustomed mental grooves of the experiencer. If a Muslim sees Muhammad in the same circumstances a Christian interprets the being of light as Jesus, or an ancient Greek or Roman or Viking or animist or whatever, in whatever cultural context he or she lives in, how could we expect that the reality of the non-3D world could be grasped (much less expressed) accurately and without reference to the individual’s expectations?
I know that Swedenborg saw celestial cities, saw beings living on Jupiter and Venus, and brought back many other reports that “modern science” – or anyway analysis of planetary conditions on Jupiter and Venus – appears to have invalidated.
But maybe he was doing his best to report what he had been told, with his own cultural bias sneaking in below the level of his awareness – just as is happening right now, with you Frank and with each reader – and each individual is going to be living within a somewhat different reality, and so will have a somewhat different perceptual bias.
My primary point, though, is that radically different descriptions proceed from radically different perceptions, which are grounded in the fact that everybody’s world is just a little bit different from everybody else’s. This is not some mysterious saying, just common sense.
I’m getting a strong sense that Rita is being used as a conduit here rather than as the actual source of information.
It would be slightly more accurate to say that the intellectual / emotional / experiential bond between you is the conduit. But this is true. Don’t make that the focus of the session, however. Truth is truth however it comes.
It’s just that after a while it struck me, the sentences were longer and more involved than usual.
You were told a long time ago (in your terms) that we pass in and out of your communications more or less invisibly to you. We are not as individual as you are accustomed to thinking us. It would be like your arm or your leg or your neck – which is “you” and which isn’t? The question is illusory because the assumption of separation is illusory, or at least misleading.
If you look back at Bob’s question, you see that it is rooted in mistaken assumptions about the continuity of consciousness. Yes, your individuality persists; that’s why you were created in 3D, to create and develop it. But you are a cell in a larger organism, and as such you are qualitatively different from what you are when you consider yourself only as an individual. You in 3D life are a larger order of being, relative to the cells that comprise you. It is no different in regard to non-3D conditions, only now you are the cell, not the community.
Reminds me of the saying, “sometimes you’re the windshield, sometimes you’re the bug.”
More like, you are both, at the same time, and everything depends on which perspective you adopt. We are hoping to enable people to adopt both at the same time. You will find it freeing.
And that is enough for the moment.
Thanks, Rita, and thanks Mystery Guest. More another time, I trust. (8 a.m.)