Thursday, July 27, 12017
7 a.m. Well, Miss Rita, here I am at 71, who would have thought. I guess it may be true what somebody said, the best way to a long life is to have a great task to accomplish. Either that, or great stretches of boredom are good for you! Do you have somewhere you want to go, or should we deal with Bob’s questions? If they’re on his mind, presumably they are on other people’s, though they aren’t so much proceeding from what you said as merely suggested by it. It took me a little back-and-forth before I realized that.
As you say, what bothers one may bother others. And, as always, any sincere question will help illustrate some line of thought.
[RF: This does prompt a question. All of us have killed numerous living creatures, some inadvertently like stepping on ants, or washing spiders down the drain in the shower. First do no harm. Does that mean we can’t kill a Black Widow in the bathroom where the five-year-old goes to use the toilet; or mosquitoes bent on taking your blood or giving you a disease; or poisonous snakes in the yard; or roaches taking over the kitchen. We are certainly harming them. Do we meet all these creatures in non-3D? Where does their consciousness go upon being squashed? Lots of questions, actually.
[FD: “First, do no harm” doesn’t mean anything at all like that. It was Galen, a physician, giving advice to physicians. But I can ask Rita, if you wish. Let me know.
[RF: I know it was about physicians, but it would seem to apply to all of us, all the time, as Rita may have indicated.
[FD: But that isn’t what it meant! If it isn’t what it meant, how can what it didn’t mean apply to all of us?
[RF: I would think that “first, do no harm” would work for everyone on the planet, not just physicians. Didn’t mean to imply that Rita said that, just that it applies to everyone IMHO. I’m talking about harming other conscious beings like snakes, spiders, mosquitoes, etc. Does that fall under the “do no harm” thing?]
[Rita:] You have noted, in your own life, that with the best will in the world it seems to be impossible to live a life that never hurts people. Sometimes it is inadvertent, in the sense of collateral damage. Sometimes it is the result of inter-personal conflict. Sometimes it results from your doing something for reasons entirely opaque to you, which you later decide were you filling a role in a drama for the other person’s benefit. (Somebody has to wear the black hat.) Sometimes it is the result of their being in the way, so to speak, while you act out your own conflicts. (Somebody has to play the role of innocent or not-so-innocent bystander.)
It is very good to have an active conscience. It is not so good to have an over-scrupulous one. Forever wincing about what was not intended or could not be helped is actually no improvement over lack of conscience. Even in such things, moderation is better than the extreme, because flexibility is to be preferred over rigidity.
Did I get that last part right? It has the feeling of an over-generalization.
You keep getting better [at noticing] as you practice. No, not quite right. But I’m hesitating as to whether to go this way or that way, and that small correction could involve us in a long discussion on what is after all a small point. Let’s just say this: Anything that leaves you stuck in the past moment, as opposed to living in the present moment, is not desirable in itself, though like everything else it will have its compensations. Too much scrupulosity may continually entangle you in your past, fruitlessly ruing this or that, without allowing you to choose better in your future (which means, in future present moments). Lack of conscience implies lack of awareness (deliberate or otherwise) of the consequences of your actions, again a less than desirable state of mind.
I have come across the concept of scrupulosity from time to time, and I never understood why it was considered undesirable. Now I do. Thanks.
Maximum awareness means you live your life, rather than coasting through it half-asleep. But, we’re not here to propose rules for people to live. They will find their own. This is a side-trail this morning, but it was worth saying, if it could be said only in passing.
So, to Bob’s questions. You all know that some people carry too far the idea of not harming other creatures, even inadvertently but certainly deliberately. The only small question is – and of course I’m smiling here – how far is too far? [In typing this, I realize that some might not get that she was smiling over the word “small.”]
Exactly. Here too, we have to make our own rules, don’t we?
It’s less a “making your own rules” than a “discovering your own rules.,” and I see that you immediately know what I mean by that.
You mean, I think, what we are determines what we think, how we feel, what is or isn’t possible or desirable for us.
That’s right. As I’ve said before, where you find yourself at any given moment is the determined part of your life. Where you go when parts of that existing platform conflict with other parts (as they always do) is the free-will part of your life. So yes, in any given moment you will be impelled to act in a certain way; you will be held by certain values. Yet, conversely, at that same “any given moment,” you will have the ability to decide what you want to do – hence, what you want to uphold, what you want to move toward – to the degree that you are awake and functioning.
Robots don’t make choices, they follow programming.
Exactly. So long as you leave your robots to follow previous instructions, they will do so unless it becomes impossible. But your free will easily overrides automatons, that is how it, and they, were designed to interact. Only, how can you exert freewill if you aren’t present? How can you choose if you aren’t at the bridge?
Sure, clear enough. Not always so easy in practice, of course.
Not always so easy, no. but as with most things in life, greater obstacles lead to greater achievements (and I mean internal achievements, not necessarily external ones) if confronted and not shirked. So, ingrained habits may require you to discover and reprogram layer after layer of interconnecting robots before you can make that part of your life responsive to consciousness again, but none of that work will have been wasted even if you never succeed in getting to the core of it. Any increase is conscious awareness is always to the good.
All this is a way of saying, it is up to each person to decide how he or she wishes to be in the world. It is useless to make rules for others to follow. Suggesting rules, fine. Insisting on them, trying to enforce them, judging others even internally on whether or not they follow rules that are valid for you, is all unnecessary and a waste of effort. So, to answer Bob’s first set of questions, you have to follow your own nature, which you would do anyway even if I said otherwise, for how can somebody else dictate to your conscience? (Others may enforce rules by bringing you to fear the consequences of not following them; that is not the same as making you see a thing as right or wrong. That comes only from within.) Spiders, mosquitos, snakes, etc. are safer in some people’s neighborhoods than others! And try not to judge people for following the rules of their nature.
As to the next questions, they are almost fanciful but they do point out a fundamental error people make, in assuming a continuity of consciousness among different levels.
I get that you mean, a cockroach is at different level of consciousness, is a different kind of consciousness, than humans (except perhaps some congressmen). Just as a dead blood cell, though it was alive and though it had its own form of consciousness, is not going to rise up and confront us after 3D life.
Yes. And there is another aspect to the question which we won’t go into at the moment, but merely note, and that is that most consciousness of any class of being – animal, vegetable or mineral – is mostly collective and very little individual. So, not an individual maple tree so much as one living cell of the universal maple tree.
Like Plato’s archetypes.
That is what he was trying to express, yes, only without all this background explanation which made the insight well-nigh incomprehensible. And it should but doesn’t go without saying, this goes for humans as well. You are far more collective and less individual than any individual realizes.
Thanks, Rita. A productive session as usual. Till next time.
“It is very good to have an active conscience. It is not so good to have an over-scrupulous one.”
Loved this reminder …
“Except perhaps some congressmen” gave me a nice little chuckle this morning, Frank.
Been glad to see Rita back for more conversation. I do look forward to her missives.
This remarkable series of conversations has opened my eyes to a great deal, especially in light of the fact that shortly after my beloved husband died in February of 2017, we began having very similar conversations. In fact, much of the information is directly parallel although before that June of that year I was totally unaware of Frank’s and Rita’s work together.
I would very much appreciate being able to reach Frank so if he would connect with me at the email listed here that would be outstanding.
“Forever wincing about what was not intended or could not be helped is actually no improvement over lack of conscience….Anything that leaves you stuck in the past moment, as opposed to living in the present moment, is not desirable in itself, though like everything else it will have its compensations. Too much scrupulosity may continually entangle you in your past, fruitlessly ruing this or that, without allowing you to choose better in your future…”
That really addressed my situation of late, and helpful to think about right now.
I continue to wonder about limits, and ‘energy’ in particular, especially because my own physical energy has been in limited supply for a couple of decades (although now improving). The day of a newborn requires one kind of energy, that of a toddler is vastly different. That of the mother of the newborn and toddler something else entirely. As a wife and mom and businesswoman and housekeeper and etc., etc., the more multi-tasking, the more diffuse my energy, the more exhausted I get. I suppose some in 3D thrive on this, but I feel the best in ‘flow’ – utter focus on something which fascinates and envelopes me.
And in 3D, with the idea that we are the pinpoint, bright focus, this follows along. How about the non 3D? The thought of many strings of awareness/lifes (of many scales) seems the flip side – the diffuse, cloudlike consciousness. Is this, then, where ‘flow’ happens for that way of being? Is trying to focus in such a laser-like way for too long draining of ‘energy’? For me (3D) having too many roles at once is overwhelming.
It seems as if a back and forth between 3D and non3D, given the right rhythm and momentum, would then be beneficial to both sides, allowing a back-and-forth of focus and expansion that could propel us (as a 3D/non 3D unit) forward.
I will ask, and maybe we’ll see.
“All this is a way of saying, it is up to each person to decide how he or she wishes to be in the world. It is useless to make rules for others to follow. Suggesting rules, fine. Insisting on them, trying to enforce them, judging others even internally on whether or not they follow rules that are valid for you, is all unnecessary and a waste of effort.” I’ve found much I can relate to in the Rita writings but not this. I cannot wrap my mind around the idea of human society with no rules for behavior, given the fact some of us are of so low in awareness we deliberately torture other adults, children, babies, and animals in the most barbaric, drawn-out methods as a means to gain pleasure and power.
What do we say to those suffering children? Sorry, but we can’t really say whether it’s right or wrong for you to be molested over there. Could be your collective consciousness chose that “hat”. Not my place to judge actions at such great distance from myself or enforce ideas (like being able to play in your yard, live without fear of severe abuse) that others don’t believe. ?
Predator/prey, hunter/hunted relationships are sometimes disturbing to me, but overall they make sense and are relatively painless (when I can believe mind consciousness moves out of body consciousness at the worst moments, which don’t typically last very long). What I cannot fathom is a type of group consciousness that JUSTIFIES severe, extended torture for animals with something like… “Humans need to learn. The furry life-forms chose this miserable hat, so they, too, could understand all the ramifications of mental and physical agony within their group. No need to insist on rules, because somewhere, somehow, torture of a four legged creature is necessary to human advancement. Let them create their hellish world any way, any where. It’s all about freedom.” Now…if only I could insert pictures and videos of assorted Asian animals being dismembered as they are consciousness, nail-gunned to walls through the paws because the meat tastes better if they suffer, American “show” horses with their mouths and limbs ties in painful positions for hours on end, struggling to escape until they realize the futility.
Here’s what I learned… God exists on some overall, vast network of consciousness, which is where people go when they don’t wanna deal with the devil in the details.
I’ll ask, and we’ll see what Rita has to say.
Hi folks !
Love Rita & Frank as always.
And thank you very much Janey,
I would really like some clarifying replies to your questions likewise.
And what you are telling here will be something to have pondered on and off for many years by now, as for nowadays methaphysical science to become true: “Love IS All You See.” But, is IT the (d)evil in disguise behind it ?
Another question: IF we are “to Create Everything” in our environment, what ever it is, or might be in us to do…..?
What I cannot accept in us doing harm against each others (or the animals) with The Free Will concept, neither in the non 3D-world nor in 3D “for the learning.” I am more and more to refuse any suffering as “good.”
If not to recall it all wrong, but Edgar Cayce in one of his life-Reading Series, telling about “a war in the Heavens” at first, before in us “manifesting ourselves (as souls) into the physical bodies(also into the forms of the animals).” Seth is telling something of the same but with other wordings.
“A war between good and evil.” The legend about “The Fallen Angels.”
Nowadays is it called “The Force,” and in us “to Create with The Born Neutral Force of Power.” My belief-system more or less felt as to become aware of the innate goodness deeply buried inside of us. If to find it that is (smiles)….cannot find the icons.
B & B, Inger Lise.
You’ll find Rita’s response in today’s (Sat. 7-29) session.
Rita’s message from today began to answer a question that I’ve been pondering lately: if human consciousness continues after death of the physical body, what of the consciousness of other embodied beings on this planet?
RF posed this as “do we meet all these creatures in non-3D?” and “where does their consciousness go [upon death of the physical form]?” Apart from the kinds of relationships some of us have to spiders, roaches, mosquitoes, etc., so many people feel deep connections with dogs, cats, birds, etc. and wonder if those connections continue in non-3D. Rita started to touch on this at the end of this morning’s conversation. I’d be very interested in hearing her continue that thread.
Frank, as an aside, I want to mention that “Rita’s World” is one of the most important books I’ve read. Many thanks to you and Rita for making those conversations available to a wider audience.
Thank you so much (and others who have similarly said the work is helpful) for the reinforcement. I doubt you know how encouraging it is to hear that. As to your question, I have added it to the list, and we’ll see when it comes to the top of the stack. Maybe tomorrow, who knows? I wouldn’t mind, myself, hearing the answer to this one.