Wednesday, August 16, 2017
9 p.m. Rita, care to go again?
If you wish. We’ll see how it goes, and if we cut it short, no harm done.
[Ellen Malkin: As [Rita] has told us, she no longer experiences the tyranny of time. What are the possible options for Rita now? What kinds of experiences are open to her (acknowledging that she is now part of a larger being). Moment to moment, does she have different experiences?]
[Rita:] Perhaps it is as well to spell out, a little, what I mean by living outside the tyranny of time.
I took it to mean, not being dragged around by the ever-moving present moment that defines 3D life.
Well, yes, but think – what does that mean in detail?
I guess I thought it meant, you can range here and there in time.
But you see, that is looking at “the afterlife” as if it was an after-action report.
Never heard you use military terms when you were alive.
I didn’t used to have to come through your mind.
I’m smiling too. Go ahead.
If you think of “this life” and “the afterlife,” as people mostly do, then it becomes natural to think in terms of the departed soul looking back on its life, as if in an endlessly extended past-life review. But – consider. We are shifting our conception, are we not? You in 3D and I in non-3D both live in All-D. the 3D life is not a prolog; the non-3D life is not an afterthought. They are both vital, and continuing. They are both real and present-time. They are both significant.
You want to unpack that, a little?
Of course. But we need to shift our vantage-point. Rather than considering the subject from the 3D point of view (as would be only natural for you and for our readers), let us consider it from my vantage point. I sit in a web of relationships both 3D and non-3D, I live a life free to move in time and space. My life may be regarded as your life (my previous, 3D, life) only with fewer restrictions. Therefore my possibilities are not exactly extensions of modifications of yours, but have their own logic that is more basic to All-D and is less constricted by 3D circumstances.
And this means, in specifics?
It means there is more continuity between 3D and non-3D segments of a life than you may think.
“As above, so below”?
In a different sense, yes. But telling it, explaining it, isn’t a five-second operation. I shall try.
You tend to think, the afterlife has its own priorities and its own rhythms, its own imperatives. You don’t tend to think of it as a continuation of what you are (or were) in 3D – but why don’t you? Do you think the 3D was only a testing ground or a shaping force?
George Bernard Shaw said the English thought of the world as a moral gymnasium.
There’s something to that. But – again – consider. When you go exploring – in Lifeline, say – you find “past lives” still existing in their own present-tense state. Some may have gotten “stuck” and need retrieving. But when you have done them that service – what happens to them then? Have you really thought about it?
Maybe no. So, enlighten us.
You can see that various “past lives” interact with your present life – which is, after all, only another past life in the making. So your underlying Sam is, shall we say, accumulating experience taken from many different lives, interacting after the fact. What is that all about?
When you pose it that way, I realize that I don’t know.
If 3D-shaped consciousnesses – call them subset minds (subsets of Sam, that is) – interact in non-3D in a manner that continually affects them not only in non-3D but (retroactively, so to speak) in their own 3D lives, changing their decisions, altering their substance, how can they be considered separate?
Hmm. Continue?
Just because you don’t know what is happening, doesn’t mean nothing is happening.
I think you mean, the All-D has purposes and interactions we may be part of without being aware of.
Correct.
And our own lives, as we lead them, in some way contribute to this purpose, not as dupes or unconscious agents but as, like, natural phenomena.
Correct.
So therefore what religions say about the non-3D being seriously invested in our choices is also true.
The insight is true; the logical deductions, not so much so. logic is a great pitfall in such matters, because the logic necessarily proceeds from a lesser layer of consciousness (so to speak) than the insight.
Okay.
So, cast your eyes back at the question. You see the built-in assumptions that are in fact not warranted?
Well – tell us.
No, think about it.
I guess there is an assumption that your life is every different, and is concerned with very different things, but isn’t that true?
Truer to say concerned with the same things, in a different way and in different circumstances.
Hmm.
Let’s leave it at that, and next time go on to other things. But remember, the new vantage point is that we are all part of All-D, all part of Sam, all part of a continuing unfolding, and it is up to us now to build bridges to span divides that have resulted from logical and procedural and – largely – linguistic characteristics. The religion and philosophy and science of the future will describe the same reality from different viewpoints. And that is what we are practicing doing, right now.
Okay. Enjoying the ride. Thanks as always.