59th Talk with Rita – 3-6-2015

Friday March 6, 2015

F: 12:30 a.m. I might as well talk to Rita now, rather than try to go to sleep again. That a good idea, Miss Rita?

R: No harm in trying.

F: Okay, let’s go.

[From Ann: “I wondered if it would be possible to ask Rita some questions about wellness and illness. My questions are of a practical sort, in terms of what we can do here and now to promote wellness. There are many consciousness-based and energetic healing modalities, including acupuncture, reiki, BodyTalk, Theta Healing, etc. that all work to re-establish an integrated energetic wellness within our whole self; body, mind, spirit and soul. Can Rita speak to the extent to which these healing modalities can help us be well, address injuries to our bodies or soul from this or past lives, and help us prevent, treat or address serious illnesses such as cancer? How do we ensure that our full consciousness can best be engaged in our total wellness in this 3D life?”]

R: The most practical advice deals not with specifics but with one specific, and even that will not give you the answer you think you are looking for, I’m afraid. The short and simple answer is to improve your communication between your 3D consciousness – the pilot of your life’s ship – and all the rest of yourself known and unknown.

That may sound like a contradiction on an impossibility, to become better acquainted with unknown parts of yourself, but it isn’t, really. And it is the key. Communication does not depend upon identification or upon definition. Just as Frank can talk to “the guys” without having to first define who “the guys” may be, so you can learn to communicate with your body’s intelligences, and your living strands currently expressing in other lives, other times, and your non-3D components including not only what you think of as guidance, but other modifying intelligences as well.

F: TGU as opposed to one’s own Upstairs?

R: That is one way to look at it. I don’t want to get diverted here, or I would point out how and why and to what extent it is easy to forget or overlook the practical ramifications of the fact that we are all one; hence, we all interconnect, even while we are each specialized nodules of the larger being.

But to stick to the question: Everything in your life is defined by your presence or absence of communication. Conscious communication, particularly, but not exclusively. A tremendous amount of communication goes on beneath or above or to the side of the little bit you can be conscious of at any one time.

F: I wrote Imagine Yourself Well specifically to persuade people of the possibilities offered by such communication.

R: Yes, to a degree. But this carries the argument farther, you will notice. It is much more than a matter of learning to communicate and interact with the various intelligence systems that comprise your bodies. That’s a good start, but only a start.

All the modalities you mention, Ann, and others you might have mentioned, and indeed anything anyone could think of, are effective in different ways, but they are effective to the degree that they enable one to move to a more productive relationship among all concerned. All else is detail. Detail is important, but detail in the absence of the fundamental reorientation must be mostly futile. In the presence of such reorientation, anything will work to some degree, anywhere from slight improvement to miracle, depending upon many things. If this does not answer your question, or if it suggests others, feel free to pose them – but be sure first to actually ponder what is given here

F: Onward?

R: Go ahead.

[Kate’s question: “How does the joy state and an expanded state of love (maybe recognition of love is a better word since it is always there) of 3Ders affect the non3D self or compound/larger being?”

R: An interesting question, the best answer to which would be, “indirectly, because the living in love and joy changes the 3D individual, and such changes are automatically fed into the non-3D component and hence, potentially, everywhere, just as a fall from joy or love is transmitted.

F: What you are, matters.

R: What you do matters, but mostly as a confirmation of what you are. (That is, living your intent turns intent into a pattern being lived out.

That’s all I want to say about that at this moment. Think about the implications.

F: Next, my brother posed a connected series of questions.

[Paul’s question: “{Rita said,}`It is the unnoticed consequences of extensive modification of your biological environment. that are most likely to end the human experiment, not bombs or weapons.’ Our dangerous modifications of biological systems spread wide. (Such as cross-species gene splicing, destruction of natural habitats, powerful drugs, chemical food additives, nanotechnology—to name just a few). Is Rita referring to all of them generically or to particularly dangerous types of modifications? What are these unnoticed consequences? Is there a single guiding principle that is being violated, beyond a blind attitude that says `if it can be done let’s do it?’ If these consequences are unnoticed, that suggests that we are not perceiving properly. What is the nature of this blindness or misperception?”]

R: That is at least four questions. We’ll take them one by one.

First, I was not referring to any of the specific challenges he mentions as one specific example. In a way, I wasn’t even pointing to the subject as a whole. The danger is not so much in any specific tinkering, but in the unconsciousness that assumes there are no consequences – unintended consequences are still consequences! – to treating the world as only a natural resource. It would be closer to say I am referring to the root cause of so many dangerous effects, and that cause is the taken-for-granted assumption that the world is partly alive and partly dead.

F: I’m not sure it would make much difference if scientists knew that all the world is alive. Think how they treat animals.

R: Well, as I said, treating the world as a natural resource, as if life were a giant gold-rush. That is why the world – or rather the human place in the world – is more threatened by an assumption than by a weapons industry or the rivalry of states.

The second part, the nature of unnoticed consequences, could be summed up as the on-going redefinition of life that takes place invention by invention, change by change, loss by loss. What you in the 21st century take for granted as life is a poor shell of what the 18th century, say, would have taken for granted. So species go extinct, forests become depleted [by which, I realized after a while, she meant become cut down faster than their replacement rate], fish stocks become depleted, etc. – and for each generation, what they are born with is taken as normal, and they measure losses only from there, rather than from a sort of complete inventory of the world.

F: I have often said, I’m glad I’m old and not young and won’t have to live in the world that is being stripped down. A world without tigers, or lions? A world where they will begin to become merely mythological beasts?

R: The net is being ripped in many places, and each one tearing the net tears only a small piece; may not think of themselves as tearing it; [each] certainly never sees the overall scope of the problem, and never looks a few decades downstream. But this is not a disquisition on ecology, except insofar as human consciousness is an integral and irreplaceable part of that ecology.

As to the guiding principle, it is the same as that mentioned earlier in the context of health. Unless human consciousness rapidly transforms into a realization of immortality and the responsibility that accompanies the ability to affect not only 3D ecology but the non-3D world as well, the drag will at some point exceed the ability of the system to overcome it, and this experiment will end and humans will find themselves incarnating elsewhere, because Earth will no longer be suitable. Not that I think this is likely to happen. I’m drawing far conclusions.

“If it can be done, do it,” is a natural result of the capture of science by technology. It wouldn’t have to be uncontrolled or even harmful – after all, it has had plenty of good effects, too – if there were a system of ethics, or let’s say design principles, that would serve as guidelines. That can only come with a wider, higher, more consistently connected consciousness.

Finally, the nature of the blindness should be clear from the foregoing. No science or politics or ideology or economics can sustain itself indefinitely if it is based on an understanding of reality that is so incomplete as to exclude half of what it is observing, or more than half. Once realize that 3D and non-3D are integrally connected and many things will become clear, and will arrange themselves in proper perspective.

F: And we’re going to have to stop here. Not only can I sleep now, I’m liable to go to sleep sitting up, and we’ve had our hour. I’ll type this up and sent it out later. Thanks, Rita.