Rita on sequence and intervention

Monday March 2, 2015

F: 6:30 a.m. Good morning, Miss Rita. Were you the one who put the idea into my mind last night that I should contact my old friend David, dead 45 years ago today?

R: There is no real use pinpointing the supposed source of an idea. Ideas are not property, and either they resonate or not. Either they are good ideas, or not.

F: However, good or bad is a judgment, and you can have an opinion about it.

R: That’s a different question. I have no objection but you may not wish to do so on the air, so to speak.

F: All right. While we are on the air, though, I want to mention And We Go On, by Will Bird, which was a gift from my friend Jim Szpajcher. It is by a Canadian soldier who survived World War I largely because he heeded repeated contacts from his brother who had been killed before Will enlisted. A book that is very honest about how often soldiers would know ahead of time that they would be killed that day. Someday when honesty returns to the subject of the human condition seen scientifically – and religiously, for that matter – such testimonies will be taken for granted, but it must have been an extraordinary testimony when published. Okay, do we continue with the list of questions? Or do we do something else? It’s up to you.

R: Let’s continue.

[Bob Friedman’s questions: I am fascinated by how time (or non-time) is experienced in non-3D. Maybe it’s impossible for us in 3D to grasp that, but can Rita give it a try? It would seem to me that even a thought following a thought (as consciousness goes) would have to be linear in some respect. But everyone who channels non-3D says that time does not exist, that all that happens in every dimension, happens in the present moment. Are all thoughts happening simultaneously in non-3D? If not, wouldn’t that constitute something like linear time?]

R: Bob is correct that change implies sequence, and that involves a structure holding, or enabling, sequence. And it is equally true that people are saying there is no time. The problem lies in language, and language (we keep coming back to it) reflects past understandings, perceptions, in its very structure. It also shapes – delimits – future understandings and perceptions in that what we experience in 3D, we tend to try to validate or invalidate by an unconscious process of comparison. If the language says something doesn’t make sense, the overwhelming temptation is to invalidate the something. “I was mistaken.” “That couldn’t have happened.”

F: Which is why they say to have a second language is to have a second soul?

R: What people mean by that varies by the person, but that is one thing they can mean. A language that has no word for past or future expresses, and shapes, a very different experience of the world than one which does.

So, “there is no time.” Take that as an honest and accurate statement, and put it next to the logical necessity of some kind of organizer of experience into sequence, and what do you get?

F: Arguments.

R: Yes, that, but what do you get when you accept both halves of a contradiction

F: A redefinition of terms

R: Well, at least a redefinition of terms in a particular context. In this instance, you have these pieces of the puzzle:

– There must be something linear, something to establish a sequence
– Everything happens in the present moment
– All life is “present” in that it is all alive, and persists in being alive
– In 3D, at least, there is something unique in that “present” moment, in that here is your opportunity to choose and thus, seemingly at least, reshape or confirm what you are and what you value.
– In non-3D, that “present” moment, as a traveling point carrying you along, does not exist
– Finally, you inhabit both 3D and non-3D at the same time, because non-3D is not a separate place but is an intrinsic part of 3D.

Look at all those conditions together, all of them true, and see if you can make sense of them.

F: I take it that last statement is rhetorical.

R: Not at all. Do the work of thinking about it. Only that way will it become yours. All I can do is point – that’s all this can amount to, because nobody can do someone else’s thinking. Unless you wrestle with the material, it will never be yours.

F: So how do you want to proceed?

R: Go to Bob’s second question, and you’ll see.

[Second question: this concerns God, angels, guides, higher self, etc. Does supplication (some call it prayer) from 3D to non-3D make any difference, and if so, who does one ask? Do non-3D beings interfere in the events of 3D, if only to answer a prayer? I remember a voice I heard from somewhere, while in my car, which actually saved my life when I was seventeen? It just said, “STOP!” when I was about to enter an intersection on a green light. Some car running a red light would have killed me for sure. What voice was that? How do “they” decide when to interfere and when not to? I know we don’t see the larger perspective, but who does, and how does that work if there is interceding in 3D events?]

R: Bob, your own example, your own experience, demonstrated convincingly for you that of course such contact exists. Whether it should be thought of as interference, however, is another thing.

F: I was struck, reading Bob’s second question, that I “just happened” to be moved to mention Will Bird’s book.

R: Yes. Was that impulse interference? Was it conformity to an unperceived but pre-existent pattern? Was it you foreseeing? Was it you unconsciously remembering what you had read when you printed out the list of questions several days ago? Is there any reason to try to differentiate the source of the impulse, whether me or your non-3D self or other “guides” or “angels”?

So yes, non-3D beings intervene, and far more often than you realize, because much of that interaction is taken for granted and attributed to “natural” processes. Well, they are natural, it is only the definition of “natural” that is too constricted.

Yes, prayer affects which reality you move to. Think of prayer as focused intent, stronger according to the intensity of the underlying feeling and/or the consistency of intent over time. Others have seen it as petition to God or petition to a favorite saint, and in other ways, but such definition says something about each person’s mental world, and nothing about the underlying reality. Each way of seeing things has its advantages and its corresponding defects, which is why no one way of seeing things has ever prevailed absolutely. (Many things that are conceded in public are disbelieved in private.)

If you will work to hold all the background and redefinition I have been providing, you will watch your understanding of these things appear before you as if by magic, because to see familiar ideas in unfamiliar contexts is to shake the kaleidoscope.

And, don’t forget, who says it is a “they” intervening? The difference between “they” and “we” or even “I” is more theoretical than real, because in a very real sense we are all one. You know that, but as long as you keep that thought in one container and these thoughts in another, they cannot illumine each other. Once you do, it becomes clear, first emotionally, then mentally.

So now let us return to the first question, even though it is too soon for most people to have done much thinking about it.

If time were the linear structure it appears to be in 3D, how could thoughts or foreknowledge or even a wider perception be passed along? Yes, it is true that

F: I’m muddling that. Try again?

R: You weren’t muddling it; it was going in an unfamiliar direction and you were trying to construct or deduce logical links in your mind, though to you it appeared that you were merely reaching for the right words.

If time was as it appears, there could be no communication across time as you experience it in 3D. The past would be gone, the future not yet created. What is there to communicate?

If time is as you have been thinking about it, Frank, following the scheme given us years ago, all moments exist and they are equally available to the non-3D, hence, potentially, to the 3D component of the non-3D. In such case, different questions arise, but not the question of how interaction across time is possible. That concept is more useful than the previous one, which is why it was given, but of course it is not ultimately and exactly true; it is reality as somewhat distorted to fit into 3D experience.

If you think of 3D’s experience of time as watching a movie frame by frame, and non-3D’s experience as absorbing the entire movie, or let’s say holding the entire movie in mind with the ability to then examine any frame or combination of frames, you can get closer to it. Only, the frames are not static but alive, and can continually be changed by focused intent.

But don’t get too enamored of this model either, because there is still the question of all those unlived possibilities (from any one life-path’s point of view) and what they amount to.

F: I get the feeling it is a good thing the hour is up.

R: You aren’t doing so badly. We have provided things to think about, and that is the real accomplishment. By the way this should explain why so often you get an elliptical or puzzling answer to questions about the nature of things. If you work for it, it will be yours. If you are handed it, you will keep on shopping.

F: At the end of a session, I go back and count the number of pages we’ve covered, and it’s always a surprise. Okay, Miss Rita, till next time.