Rita: A couple of questions

Sunday, July 9, 2017

4:30 a.m. Rita, I think you answered this question within your answer to Henry Reed, but perhaps you’d like to comment?

[Ramona Thiessen: For context, it has been my understanding, that many organized religions create versions of heavens where souls find themselves in the afterlife. Places of transition conditioned by cultural frameworks and belief systems. Meeting familiar figures of ‘faith’. I’m thinking of Nosso Lar – Spiritual Home account of the Catholic faith in Brazil; Paradise of the Islamic people and so on.

[What are your thoughts on the challenges of these receiving spaces/bardo states? The idea that it may be possible to circle around and around there and come back into life from those versions of heaven, not moving into the upper worlds, missing the opportunity to re-connect with your own higher-self/oversoul (larger being)?

[I suppose the question I’m getting at is, along the same lines as Henry Reed this morning (love his whatshisname moniker). If soul development exists, what/who is keeping track of the soul’s activities? Monitoring the cycles of experiences? Who’s who sign-in book? Or not?]

[Rita:] A few words may put this into context, and that is always what is needed in any perplexity: context.

From a life’s point of view, it is perfectly possible to perceive its own experience as a process of cycling from life to life via any version of heaven. From a Sam point of view, though, anything the life does is part of a life lived within its existence as a part of Sam. Sam will know every iteration of Life A, no matter how high the number. Life A100,000 will be no less connected to Sam than life A1, regardless how aware or unaware the life is. The unbreakable connection does not depend upon the consciousness of the life, and many lifes are lived in just that unconscious fashion. The data isn’t lost, the results of various experiences, decisions, are not lost, even if the life does not remember them. Sam cannot be unaware of everything that happens to the life, any more than Sam can divorce itself from the life. But the life may easily perceive it as if that were the case.

In religious terms, a life is still part of God no matter what it believes or disbelieves. In cybernetic terms, a timesharing terminal may lose access, but—

No, your timesharing analogy breaks down, because a timesharing terminal could be disconnected. Data transmitted could be lost. That is not possible between a Sam and a life.

Okay, So Ramona’s question about who is keeping track can be answered simply, then. Sam keeps track.

You know how some psychics can trace a person’s soul-history life by life? You could say the psychic is reading the Akashic record, or you could say the psychic is reading the record in Sam’s archives; it is the same thing. The record is there to be accessed, because it cannot cease to exist. Its existence does not depend upon the life’s awareness of it, any more than the existence of any 3D individual’s life-record depends upon his or her awareness of that existence. It’s simple enough, once you consider things in their proper context.

Seems to be. Okay. And I take it Winter’s comment is right on the mark. (For the studio audience, Rita and Winter worked together as monitor and altered-state-communicator for many years.)

[Winter Robinson: Rita when you were my monitor the Source that initially spoke to us said that I was part of the Gandhi Cluster.  (I say initially because as we talked it changed to the Kryndon (I am nothing and I am everything energy.)

[I seem to remember that all clusters have a central energy figure we would remember and that it connects to our Soul purpose. (It’s been a while since I thought of this.) Would you ask Rita if the committee and cluster are the same thing?  From what I am reading they seem to be.

[This feels like old times.  I like reading this conversation!]

[Rita:] Yes. The only difference would be the initial assumption, or let’s say the initial orientation. Winter and I were moving from one 3D individual back to its larger context. In this discussion [now] we are considering things from the point of view of the 3D individual as part of Sam – that is, more from Sam’s point of view than from Life A’s. All other differences follow, and of course different metaphors lead to the appearance (not the reality) of differences in various schemes of things. You may see the guidance underlying a lifetime as a committee (if you think the constituent parts to be more separate individuals cooperating) or as a single larger being [engaged in] weighing and deciding on new experiences needed. It is the same thing, expressed in metaphors that make the underlying realities seem more distinct than they are.

I think I bollixed that up at little. Try again?

That should be clear enough. If not, you’ll hear about it.

Very funny.

But there is one more thing to be said about Ramona’s question, come to think of it. It’s a small point, and we have covered it before, but it is important. It isn’t so much that religions create versions of heaven as that they perceive different versions. Deliberate creation is not the same thing as an attempt to express a truth. Those religions that preach fire and brimstone aren’t preaching it because

No, we’re getting mired here, because that kind of statement blurs an important distinction.

Yes it does, and of course as you know I was very aware of it in life. Go ahead and state it.

The difference is between sincere and insincere. Many cold-eyed charlatans preach fire and brimstone because there’s good money to be made doing so. But the existence of charlatans does not invalidate the sincere beliefs of others.

This of course is a truism in any of the walks of life. So let me restate it with the shared understanding that we are excluding from consideration those who don’t believe what they preach, and are confining ourselves to sincere perceivers and expositors.

Any religion attempts to express the truth it perceives. Some perceive one aspect of things, others, another. The main variable is the nature and composition of the one perceiving. Reality cannot ultimately contradict itself, but it contains all contradictions. So, some are led by their nature to see things one way (or you might say, to see one aspect of things) and others another.

Seems obvious.

But many things that are obvious are revelations the first time they are encountered, as you should know.

I do. And unless I’ve lost track, that’s all the questions we have queued up so far. I may have overlooked one, I suppose. If so, I’ll mention it when it surfaces.

Do so, and that is enough to do at this time. No point beginning a new topic now.

All right. Actually, it’s nearly 5:30, so somehow we’ve used up nearly an hour anyway. Sky is getting light. Thanks as always.