70th talk with Rita — 3-31-2015

Tuesday, March 31, 2015

F: 4 a.m. John Dorsey Wolf poses exactly the kind of question I have been dreading, one where Rita has to know the answer, and I don’t, and can’t surmise it. In other words, the question puts me on the spot and mobilizes and activates all my own doubts about the process. In short, “what if I’m only making this stuff up?” So – good questions. Miss Rita? You up to the challenge?

R: You mean – am I really here? Do I really exist?

F: More like, are we really in contact? Retrieving factual information has always been a big hurdle for me, and I draw my conclusions [from that fact].

R: The questions involve Explorer tape 19 on Love Fear and Higher Consciousness – who was the non-3D source – and tape 29 on Aspects – are they related to strands?

[Typing this, I retrieve them from the blog comment.

[John Dorsey Wolf: “I have questions about the Explorer Series that Rita and her husband Martin were likely involved in. Explorer Tape #19 on Love, Fear, and Higher Consciousness became an early `road map’ for me to get on the path I’m on. I’ve always wanted to know more about its origins, which I understand came through an explorer. Could Rita shed any additional light on the non-3D source, which I believe is attributed to the Christ Consciousness, of that information?

[Also I was listening to #29 on Aspects, which coincidentally was introduced and monitored by Rita’s husband. The question is whether the aspects as described by that tape are related to the strands that Rita has used as an analogy of our spiritual make up. What I understood from the tape is that there are energies that are a part of us that help to produce physical life, but themselves have never been a human or experienced human life as we do. So are there `energies”’ or other `aspects’ of us that go beyond the physical DNA and the spiritual strands that Rita has described? If so, can Rita elaborate?”]

R: And you are worried lest your answers demonstrate that you have been only fooling yourself, all this time. But by now, that is a matter not of years but of decades.

F: Don’t I know it!

R: Well, what did I tell you 15 years ago, though not in the way you like to put it?

F: All right, I’m smiling. You said I wasn’t smart enough to be making it all up.

R: What I really said was that you were producing a consistent and logically connected body of information that was beyond your ability to fabricate.

F: Isn’t that just what I said? I always said you said it in the nicest possible way. 

R: I have never troubled to correct the nuance, because I knew the way you put it made it easier for you to hear, as well as easier to say. But we have moved on, now. It was never a matter of you not being smart enough, but of your producing material that clearly was not the result of fabrication.

F: All right, and thank you. So –?

R: So the question is an opportunity to do two or three things at once. One, it demonstrates to others that doubt and even fear are likely to accompany the explorer at any stage of the game, not that this is a bad or a good thing, just a fact of life. It shows that such doubts can be overcome, by the same process that produced them. And it shows that fearless or even fearful exploration will produce material that may be of value provided that the information and the process of demonstration remain central, rather than the credibility or prestige or even self-respect of the person asking the questions. [This meant not the person requesting the information, but the person engaging in ILC.]

F: Well, that has been my theme right along, hasn’t it?

R: It has, and that has been the value, a teaching tool.

So to proceed to the questions themselves.

First, remember that I might well be unable to give you a specific name of the explorer, or might give you (or you might postulate) the wrong one. Say you got that this explorer was Rosie McKnight. Whether that specific bit of information was right or wrong would tell you only one thing, that that, specific, bit of information had been right or wrong. It would neither confirm nor disprove that your process in the larger sense was accurate or dependable. If right, you might have made a lucky guess. If wrong, you might have made an unlucky guess. You know what a fine line it is between reception and guesswork. Your experimentation at DOPS [UVA’s Division of Perceptual Studies] showed you that in the process of ESP testing; your experience with Joseph Smallwood and the Battle of Chattanooga [described in my book Chasing Smallwood] showed you that (though you didn’t quite understand the implications) nine years ago.

However – to ease your anxiety a bit, notice that the two questions deal with conceptual information – where you are most at ease – rather than specific bits of data retrieval, which cause you high levels of anxiety. In this I would say you reflect your larger personality as reflected in the Myers-Briggs form. You easily grasp larger pictures; you stumble over detail.

F: The guys told me in my PREP session in Guidelines in 1993—I see the forest but overlook the trees.

R: They also advised you to pay more attention to trees! It is still good advice, which you occasionally heed.

Now, as to the first question, who was the non-physical source of the information. I am smiling myself, as I remember the first session you and I had, in August, 2001, when I asked a question based in the same assumption, and the guys refused to answer it in the terms it was posed, lest they reinforce us in an incorrect way of seeing things.

F: Oh, I remember, for sure! You thought it was such a simple question – and I gather that others (Explorers, I mean) – had been used to talking in terms of individuals, but the guys would have none of it. They were downright blunt about it.

R: Even in this series of communications, between two people who came to know each other very well, we ae allowing ourselves to proceed as if it was the individual Frank talking with the still-individual Rita, and in a way that is true. But the point is, in another way, it is not true, and it is for the purpose of leading people to a greater awareness of the specific nuance that we now begin to stress different ways of looking at it.

So, I would say to John Dorsey Wolf, what you – and others, usually including Frank – assume in posing the question in this way is that information flows from a given person, whereas in fact it flows through, not from, in the same way healing energies do. To lay too much stress on the question of who the information flowed through is to over-emphasize the nozzle and hose as opposed to the water. Even among the embodied, as of course all who read this are, information seeks its outlet by choosing nozzles at least as often as nozzles choose where the water is to come from.

F: You’re even more insulting in your analogies than the guys were, Rita! It was bad enough to be called worms, but hose nozzles?

R: I know you’re smiling, but your readers may not. But in fact an inorganic analogy just for this moment, and just for the sake of one momentary point of view, is actually very apposite, because we are making a very important point about process.

It is natural that anyone in a body experiences life as if proceeding from other bodies; that is, from other distinctive individual units. Natural, but inaccurate and insufficient, particularly as you refine your perceptions. And when you go to conceptualize the non-3D sources of information that you contact seemingly in a very different way than ordinary sensory communication, it is natural to carry assumptions over. But it is not accurate.

Suppose I said, “Oh yes, the non-3D source of that particular passage was John the Baptist?” Even if in fact it could be said to be John the Baptist (and, understand, I am using that name only as an example), what would that tell you?

F: Well, I don’t know, Rita. It seems to me it is of value that we here know that I’m talking to you rather than –. Oh. I get your point. It’s really less meaningful than we assume, isn’t it?

R: Even when we were speaking face to face, neither of us knew from one moment to the next where any given bit of information really came from. You never do. [This was not an insult. It meant, one never does.] Communities talking to communities, and giving attributions to the supposed unit through which the information proceeds.

F: You aren’t so much answering John’s question as taking it for a springboard.

R: Correct, and nothing wrong with it. I told you earlier, that is what I would do from time to time. But, in fact, I did answer the question. There is no ownership of ideas, and – think about this one – no ownership of ways of seeing and thinking and intuiting. It is convenient to pin a given thought to the lifetime it expressed through, but it is only convenient; it is not particularly accurate.

F: I thought a main point of 3D existence was to shape a unit out of disparate strands so as to create a new viewpoint.

R: It is. But a view point is not the same as the creation of the view.

F: Hmm.

R: It is a way of seeing and expressing, but what is seen and expressed is not created by the unit.

F: I see. And John’s second question?

R: That will have to wait for another day. You are well over your limit.

F: Okay. Thanks for all this. A lot to chew on. Till next time.