Rita on The Great Change, now in process

Reading Rita’s World with great delight. It has been long enough since I read proofs that I have forgotten it. When I came to this entry, I thought, well, that’s appropriate! More so in this dismal election year than when it was received, even. For instance,

“There’s your theme, then. Not a new theology or a new science or even a new philosophy, but a rough guide for people to use to orient themselves in this first chaotic period after the change. Later, new philosophies and consequences will arise, but it is not yet time for that. This is a time not for street maps or even surveys, but for the first orienting sketches of the previously unknown land.”

 

Monday, May 11, 2015

7:50 a.m. Okay, Miss Rita, starting at a leisurely pace this morning, as I get other things out of the way. I’d like to discuss the book or books that you envision coming out of this process. I understand that the process itself is one level of communication, and putting it out there as email and blog entries is another, and thinking about it and living the consequences is the third, but it seems to me it is headed for book form, probably once as transcript and again as interpretation. The first shepherded by me, the second probably by Charles or perhaps by Charles and me together. If this is roughly accurate, would you give us an idea of the general theme of the transcripts? The logical title (though not perhaps the right title, I realize) and the general drift of the book? I mean, I can’t believe even after all this time that Seth came to us via a book titled The Seth Material. I can’t imagine a similar The Rita Material title. Anyway, over to you. Your comments, suggestions, corrections?

Obviously the central theme of the book – of this work – is to provide an updated view of life. The age you are living in is unprecedented and one always needs new wineskins for new wines.

I don’t remember ever hearing you quote from the Bible.

You are silently interpreting for me in some details. I didn’t think you quite recognized it, moment to moment, though you do conceptually.

But I get your point. For us to hear, we need it said in words we can hear.

More than that. It isn’t rephrasing old ideas, though that comes into it. It is looking at old questions from a new point of view that never existed before. And that is the value of the lives you are all leading. Anyone alive in Bob[ Monroe]’s time, and most of mine, was there, as he said, because we wanted to be on the playing field rather than in the stands when the great change took place. But those of you that are still there are participating in the first days after the Change. Yes, it is disorienting, yes it is in fact chaotic. Yes, clearly things can’t go on as they have been.

But isn’t that what it is, to change and to live change and to live among changes? Change doesn’t come in a blinding flash, with everyone moving from state A to state B in a choreographed instant. Rather, it occurs one by one – how else does anything ever happen? But if several people change at the same instant, it can look like they change in response to an outside event, or at any rate in response to some timing mechanism outside themselves. That is true only in a sense; it is equally true that no one is ever coerced to change, regardless of appearances.

This is a very long subject which we can go into at another time if you wish. I mention it here only to remind you that where you are, relative to the Change, depends on you. Did the Change occur within you, or not yet? It is not, exactly, a matter of an external event that you did or didn’t yet witness. (Again, it can look that way.) It is a matter of how many drops of water on your head until your old self breaks and you break through.

A violent metaphor! And an unexpected thought.

Pain is real, within its context. Should you expect anything other than it having multiple functions?

As I was saying, the Change – changes everything. That’s what it is for; or, you might say, that is what it reflects. And any phenomenon from the smallest to the question of The Meaning of Life changes aspect when addressed from a new viewpoint. Correspondingly, a new viewpoint, conscious or not, is going to render things comprehensible in a new way, and is going to seem to invalidate old things seen in old ways.

Charles and I talked of his long studies in Buddhism, for instance, and he said he saw nothing there that seemed to be saying the same things you are saying.

“Seemed” was right, of course.

Oh, I remember how much stress you always laid on that word. You were never one to think you had a firm handle on anything’s true, hard and fast, final meaning. 

And in that I was absolutely, truly, finally right.

I’m smiling too. Okay.

Nothing that is explained from a point of view assuming individuals are units and time is a one-way stream of ever-disappearing units can express a reality that depends upon very different constructs. But in the absence of the perceptions that make it possible to entertain the new concepts, how can the deeper reality be conveyed? The new views of life depended upon the coming of new eyes to see, and new mouths to speak, and new hearts to understand and embody.

And at the same time, creating those new eyes and mouths and hearts depended upon experiences that had to happen.

We are galloping where we ought to tread lightly and carefully, but let’s put it this way. Experience modifies perception, and perception modifies experience.

In the same way that individuals affect mass consciousness and vice versa.

 In the whole universe, you will never find a one-way force. If something influences, it is also being influenced.

So to return to our theme? (And that probably would be a good and appropriate title for the book – “And To Return To Our Theme.”) J

 I never left it. Context is everything. Your title is your business, and your publisher’s, unless you decide to publish it yourself as you did Sphere and Hologram. But the theme is just what we were discussing here. After the Change, old ways of seeing things will not serve you – they will be as dead and irrelevant as the religion of the Romans and Greeks 2,000 years ago. People may still say “By Jove” (though I doubt it) but they don’t actually believe in the religion that worshipped Jove. They don’t structure their lives around such rituals and by such understandings. They have moved on. The Nazis attempted to revive the old Germanic religion, since Christianity clearly wouldn’t serve – how far did they get re-crowning Wotan?

 In our day, the culture worships the great God “Science” or maybe Physics, with its four archangels, matter and energy, time and space.

 For how much longer?

Good point. My disgruntlement aside, I see what you mean. The religion of No-Meaning and Nothing-But and This-Physical-Life-Only doesn’t have much future either.

 No, and that is what we are doing here! When Gods war, men die, someone said. But when Gods die – then what? Then, positively, there arise in the cracks opportunities for new understanding; negatively, nothing that used to help make sense of things serves to do so any more.

There’s your theme, then. Not a new theology or a new science or even a new philosophy, but a rough guide for people to use to orient themselves in this first chaotic period after the change. Later, new philosophies and consequences will arise, but it is not yet time for that. This is a time not for street maps or even surveys, but for the first orienting sketches of the previously unknown land.

Looking back, I see that this is the same thing you said right away in answer to my question this morning.

Should I have to change my mind in the scope of an hour?

No doubt it seems longer to me than to you!

 Of course. You are living it sequentially, and you are doing the twofold work of absorbing and recording.

Well, it’s a pleasure and a privilege as always, Rita. Unless you have more today, I’ll bid you adieu till next time.

 “Adieu” means “to God,” you know. In a sense, that’s where we’re all going, including God.

Is that a cryptic exit line, or do you want to continue?

 Let’s just say I’ve changed my mind about God, these past few years of your time, too. We are God, and I suppose it shouldn’t have surprised me that if there is a God, God would be ever-changing, ever-new, no less than ever-constant, ever-the-same. But I never thought about it. And that’s enough for the day, it’ll give people time to mull it over.

Okay. Till next time.