Author: Frank DeMarco

When we talk about “everything,” the words we use – “The world,” “the universe,” “reality” – mislead, and you can’t just throw in a paragraph of I-Mean-This-When-I-Use-This-Word without destroying the flow of the thought. So I guess I’ll have to invent a word for us to use.

[Rita:] Try “the All-D.”

Meaning both the 3D and the non-3D. Well, we’ll see if it works out. We are meaning to convey, as a concept, “everything.” Not only all physical reality but all non-physical reality as well. So rather than say “creation” – which implies only the 3D universe – or “the universe” – which may imply the astronomical usage – or “the world” – which certainly would leave people uncertain as to what we mean – we hesitated. Rita’s usage amounts to seeing the spiritual and physical worlds as organic, living, rather than seeing the physical world as mostly dead and the spiritual world as either living or (the materialist position) non-existent.

It is one thing to see the 3D world as mostly dead and the non-3D as non-existent. It is a second thing to see a mostly-dead 3D and a living non-3D. a very different third thing to see the 3D as fully alive, cooperating with and interacting with (and indeed being a part of) a living non-3D.

The all-D is alive. It is conscious. It seems to have purpose and will inherent in its nature. This is what mystics sometimes realize but rarely are able to describe and even more rarely are able to explain. Indeed, perhaps it can’t be explained at all, merely realized. It is what some call an all-pervasive God, the pantheistic or panentheistic position. People’s incomplete perception of the truth produces division in their opinions, divisions that cannot be bridged at the level they hold them.

Some people believe in God, and no matter what form that belief takes, it amounts to a sense of the all-D’s inherent living purposiveness without a sense of its indivisibility or its comprehensive consciousness.

Others believe only in what their sensory apparatus reports to them, which amounts to blindness to the non-3D and to the non-sensory interconnections within 3D, let alone the connections between the 3D and the (unperceived and hence presumed-to-be-nonexistent) non-3D.

Others believe in 3D and non-3D but do not believe in the purposive nature of the all-D, and may call themselves “spiritual but not religious.” They do not experience the 3D as inherently conscious necessarily.

Good enough to begin with. The point here is that we are exploring the nature of reality from a particular point of view that needs to be firmly established if anyone is going to be able to get anything new from it. It is one thing to be religious, another to be “spiritual but not religious,” a third to be materialist. We are postulating a fourth position that differs from any of these in the one vital respect of seeing All-D as a unity of conscious (hence, obviously, alive) parts. The difference doesn’t so much invalidate any of those other orientations as demonstrate them to be partial. They are each a way of seeing things, but are each an incomplete way; hence the conflict among them.

So let me ask: Does All-D mean All-That-Is, or are there different levels to be considered?

We are describing the world from TGU’s point of view. It may be that there are wheels within wheels, and indeed, there must be. Remember, any view puts into focus only what is at the scale of the viewer.

We have been given clues in scriptures and metaphysics, and we have to keep coming back to, “As above, so below.” We can have confidence that the All-D repeats at different scale, essentially as a fractal. But anything beyond our range is, by definition, beyond our range. We cannot know

I keep forgetting that this is The World As Seen by TGU.

This is intended to be a complementary approach to TGU’s view of “the world as experienced by consciousness limited to 3D. Complementary views allow you to shift perspective, and get to the view beyond perspective.

 

— From Awakening From the 3D World, available from publisher Rainbow Ridge Books (https://www.rainbowridgebooks.com) or from other booksellers.

 

Thursday, December 12, 2024

9 a.m. Perhaps we can continue from where we left off yesterday. So, sin as opportunity?

We smile. Yes, but not yes to everything that phrase may suggest. In this discussion we are going to have to stick closely to the main line of thought, and resist diversions, which will present themselves at every turn.

Something says, call Jon, to help provide that focus.

Yes. Thank you. The subject is huge, and it could be approached from so many angles – and it hares off into so many interesting connections to other thoughts – that this will indeed require vigorous pruning as we go along.

I am assuming that you are doing fine and would ask for help if you needed it.

I would – and it is a good thing that you remind people that 3D/non-3D interaction is a two-way street, just as you were told from the beginning. Each “side” of the great divide can help the other, and can be helped.

So let’s talk about sin. In what way could it be described as an opportunity?

You understand, I come at this from a certain point of view: I was Jewish – that is, not Christian with a Christian’s burden of belief – and a trained psychiatrist, and a Jungian in outlook, and a convinced experiencer while in 3D of the continued 3D/non-3D interaction. This is our angle of approach. A Catholic psychiatrist, or a Catholic counsellor who was not a psychiatrist nor even a psychologist perhaps, would see things differently – which means, would see some things I can’t, and would be unable to see some things that I see. And of course the examples could expand in all directions, according to people’s differences. The specific point here is that you and I share certain aspects, and it is these shared approaches that can be conveyed. This is what you mean (though you don’t think of it this way) when you say you “resonate” with someone or something. To say that something resonates is to say that you and it have something in common that facilitates direct connection.

Jews knew the concept of sin very well; that doesn’t mean they see it exactly the same way that Christians do, or Muslims. For our purposes, we will stick to the definition you like, as “missing the mark,” stripping away connotations of offending God or choosing evil. If you wish, later we can look at those (or other) aspects of the question, for remember, anything people have believed is worthy of examination.

Want to do this in bullets?

As an initial ordering device, yes, that will probably be useful.

• What you are in 3D – what you are calling the avatar-level of consciousness – is a particular blend of characteristics, traits, impulses, predilections, etc. as allowed in at your time and place of birth, as filtered through your parents’ physical heredity.
• That mixture is not uniform, and is not meant to be. It contains internal contradictions, unknown passions, traits that become weaknesses in certain circumstances or combinations.
• Your life you are given is the puzzle you set out to solve. It is the raw material for the artwork you are to create.
• It is also, unavoidably, something far beyond the personal, for you as individual are also you as threads extending in all directions, and some of those extensions may hate each other.
• These extensions are actively living in you and through you. They are also actively living in and through everything else they connect with. Can you see the complexity, the potential for conflict and cooperation, the potential for struggle and surprise?
• But you as avatar have to live your life in its own context. You may easily be unaware of these extensions; all you know, maybe, is that you are strongly impelled to do this or that, to be this or that. You don’t know why, but you do recognize compulsion when you experience it.
• I say “compulsion.” It may feel like it is externally imposed, and in a way that is correct. But – is anything really external? At most it is external to your
• And that gives you the clue for how to broaden your control over life. Widen your consciousness, extend your awareness, and your mastery of circumstance grows.
• And what prevents, or hinders, such growth of consciousness? Seven major tendencies have been called the seven deadly sins.
• You understand, as you and I are seeing it, these have nothing to do with “wrong because forbidden.” Just the opposite: They are forbidden because they are wrong.
• But – “wrong”? does that mean there really is God-the-judge-and-jury? Obviously you don’t think that, and neither do I. It means – at least to us – wrong because destructive and obstructive.
• The seven tendencies are, as noted, habits, or let’s say temptations. I know that usually “temptations” means temptation to sin; I am saying here that sin itself is temptation to underrate oneself, to shrink the productive work that can lead to freedom.

Very nice. I’d think some examples would help.

Well, nobody has to look very far to find examples! The person who has not sinned is like the house in the fable that has never known sorrow: Good luck finding one.

Let’s start with lust.

Understand, the sin of it has nothing to do with the act. When Jesus said the men who looks with lust in his heart has already committed fornication, he was trying to get people to realize that thoughts are things, that just because something isn’t expressed externally, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist and doesn’t have consequences.

But, someone might say, “What’s so wrong with lust? We even have a word – lusty – meaning whole-hearted appreciation.

The point is always, not what does this do externally, but what does it do to the person experiencing it?

Well, what?

All the sins have as common denominator a lowering of consciousness. What confuses the issue is that they often are associated with heightened energy. But sexual excitement, or the high-pressure intensity of anger, or the cocksureness of pride, may feel pleasurable (indeed, you could almost say they wouldn’t be indulged if they didn’t), but they are not you in your own fragile precarious consciousness. If anything, they are opposed to that consciousness, wanting to carry you along.

Like mob psychology.

Very much like that. It is well known that mobs will do what the individuals themselves would never do – and perhaps will be appalled, after regaining individual consciousness, to see that they have done. So with the individual and sin. The mob psychology, while it lasts, may carry you “beside yourself,” but when it ebbs, you rue the result.

I have thought that the difference between venial sin and mortal sin may be that the first sort of happens and the second is intentionally chosen. I don’t know if that’s what theologians mean, of course.

Can you see where this centers?

The more robots we have, the less conscious we are – and sins are habits rooted in robots.

Also you could say, creating or at least encouraging robots.

Tired now.

Yes, and this is not a bad place to stop.

I enjoyed it. Looking forward to more another time. Thanks.

 

[Rita:] What we are now attempting to do is like TGU attempting to give us an outside view of themselves.

I’ve been sort of thinking of you as one of TGU now.

We need to make a distinction between intelligences focused on a body versus those who aren’t. At first it appears to be physical versus non-physical, then you learn that all mind is in the non-physical, processing data from non-physical and physical sources alike. But there is another distinction to be made, one of scale, or focus. And a third, between compound and unitary beings, but for the moment we will stay with the difference of scale, or focus.

The central image to retain is one of communities of individuals, each one seen as a unit of a higher order of organization and, at the same time, a new higher level of organization for its comprising elements. Thus a parson is a community of past strands, and is a unit of an external community. Or, each person is a community of trillions of cells – a higher order of organization. Or (to re-cover familiar ground) a lung, say, is a community of cells organized at a higher level, and is itself a part of a human being, organized to a yet higher level of organization. Now carry that physical analogy over into the non-physical, remembering (have we ever said this?) that the non-physical includes the physical as a part of it.

I think we have said it by implication when you pointed out that everything must exist in all dimensions. But we’ve never said it so directly, probably.

Well, it is so. The physical is a special case of the non-physical. There are no absolute barriers. Every separation is both real and imaginary; tangible and yet permeable; arbitrary and yet functional. But let’s just keep that fact of the physical being part of the non-physical as a part of our background knowledge, and center on the organization of the non-physical as if the 3D did not need to be considered.

Everything is a matter of hierarchies. All organization is a matter of scale. All communities imply interaction of relative individuals. (The members of a community are necessarily relatively more separate and in a state of competition / cooperation.) Life of any kind is always organized, but organization is always porous and often only temporary or tentative. Life flows, it doesn’t get organized in one design and then remain that way forever. Just as in 3D, where the progress of the body from infancy through the end (whether from old age or accident or illness or whatever) is matched by the formation of the individual soul through the experiences of common life, so in non-3D, those souls do not remain forever what they have been before. Where would be the sense in that? But at any given stage, life flows through structure; it is never anarchy. But structure, too, is flow and not permanence.

So, take the level of TGU that is entangled with life in 3D. It has its own scale, determined by that focus. If you are centered on the creation and development of compound beings by means of the 3D experience, that is going to be the scale of your peer interactions, so to speak. True, you will have other levels of attention-focus, but primarily you will occupy yourself with those at your level.

It is very difficult to describe this, knowing that every word is a distortion. In many ways it would be better to write this as poetry or even as allegory, because for people to get the meaning requires that they get it between the lines. It can’t really be said in so many words. But since words are what we have available to work with, let’s continue.

If you think of this level of TGU – that is, the level associated with 3D beings at the human level –

Wait. Does that imply there are other levels of TGU associated with 3D below and above the human level?

Certainly. And we will get to that, in time.

Rocks have their own TGU? Grass?

All things in due time, but in short, remember that everything is an expression of consciousness.

To continue. This level of TGU consciousness, as an example, exists as a sort of community of interest. We come out of the same experience, we participate in on-going discussions about the same concerns, we assist the same 3D-bound consciousnesses as best we can, and we experience other levels of our own consciousness as other; that is, we identify more with one level than with others even though we recognize that the other levels are us no less. So, our on-going life is one of a community of being.

If I get your meaning, you are changing our previous emphasis on individual experience to one of group experience.

We are adjusting the telescope, yes. Our life may be seen many ways, and the more this is understood, the more its inherent complexity and organization becomes clear. Up until this series, we proceeded from the individual’s point of view, and extended it into its non-3D experience both during 3D life and after. Now we’re proceeding from the communal, or the cooperative aspect. Same reality, different focus, different emphasis, different interpretation.

Pulling it all together.

Well – recognizing and spelling out that it is together. But yes.

 

— From Awakening From the 3D World, available from publisher Rainbow Ridge Books (https://www.rainbowridgebooks.com) or from other booksellers.

 

Wednesday, December 11, 2024

4:25 a.m. Okay, let’s see if we can have an actual session. Yesterday’s drumming in the engineers’ group centered on the question, “Why do the things that spark my interest do so?”

Your answer was: “This is worth a full conversation when you are up to it. The question as posed assumes motion and intention, but it would be more accurate to say that the person and the interest are both points within a circle, and the question is more, what connects them. We realize this sounds like the same thing. It will take a while to express, so let’s wait for a quiet morning.”

So, “Why do the things that spark my interest do so?”

Recognition.

That says a lot that has been going through my mind since I got the answer to the question in yesterday’s drumming.

It isn’t that the concept is difficult, nor complicated. It is more that we felt the need to separate and combine a few idea-threads:

• You don’t change who you are, in the course of your 3D life, as we have said previously. You may change emphasis on which aspects you favor or present to the world and to yourself.
• “Who you are” always consists of vastly more than can be expressed. Herein is your freedom, for if you decide you want less of this, more of that, you don’t have to change what you are, you change what you express, that is, what you approve or disapprove among your innate totality of qualities.
• In effect, as we have said many times – in effect, there is no “external,” no “other.” Yet always it will seem so while you are in 3D. Indeed, that is the reason for space/time compression into “here, now.” Dividing yourself into “self” and “other” gives you a way of standing outside yourself, in a way.
• Considering these points, can you see that anything you long for, love, are interested in, admire, hate, fear – all of it is part of you, because you are only sort of individual. You are much closer to being a relationship of qualities held arbitrarily in a given moment of constricted consciousness, the crucible that is here/now.
• Within this unified way of experiencing the world, experiencing life, you see that everything is meaningful, necessarily. There can be nothing disconnected or accidental. Again, this doesn’t predetermine anything: It is there for your decision. “How will I respond to this yearning, this aversion, this abstract curiosity?”

How such attractions manifest is sometimes important, sometimes not, but it is never random.

I take that to mean, major landmarks in our life may be placed there in a way that we can scarcely avoid them, while other things may be left strewn around for us to deal with or not depending upon remote consequences of choices made for quite other reasons.

That makes it sound like littering, but, a reasonable view. Yes, your lives have major vectors predetermined by what you are. As Emerson put it, character is fate. But you aren’t walking a path so much as following an internal homing device.

Ah! And our homing devices may have to accommodate various strands within us, some of which conflict.

Again, opportunities for freedom. The very things that give you problems are the things that give you possibilities.

The analogy that comes to mind is an absurd one. We don’t spend a lot of time wondering whether to use both our arms, nor whether to have the pancreas function. But we may have to fight to control our temper, or our lusts, and we may have to decide whether to invest time and energy in picking up a new skill.

There you are. But the leap you just made may not be obvious to others, nor to you when not intuitively linked.

If we are led toward a new interest, presumably there is a reason for it to be found in our constitution. We recognize at some level (conscious or otherwise) that this new interest would fulfill an incompletion. That’s the light side. But, like “the force,” it has a dark side.. Compulsions.

Well, temptations, anyway. Yes. As we occasionally point out, you are not nearly the rational beings you think yourselves, nor the unvarying uninterrupted awarenesses that you sometimes imagine yourselves to be.

I was thinking about the seven deadly sins the other day, for the first time in a while, remembering that you described the sins as tendencies and the virtues as decisions.

We didn’t put it quite that way, but that’s true enough. A sin is something you fall into. A virtue is something you struggle to live. And you see the important thing.

Oh yes. It is a matter of awareness. A lowered level of consciousness easily falls into habits. It requires conscious awareness to live a decision. Much easier to smoke cigarettes (if you are in that habit) than to cease to do so.

Habits make excellent servants, and terrible masters. Perhaps you could more overtly draw the connection in your mind at the moment between sin and what we have been discussing.

Defining sin as “missing the mark,” and not as some blot on the copybook that is going to be condemned by some God-the-judge-and-jury, it is clear to me (at the moment, anyway) that sin is a “going with the flow” that doesn’t conduce to our benefit because it isn’t our agenda, but the agenda of habit, or robot, or lowered level of consciousness.

I remember the sins by my acronym LEG CAPS or LEG CAPE, standing for Lust, Envy, Gluttony, Covetousness, Anger, Pride, and either Sloth or Ennui depending on which you cite. It is clear that even at their most intense – and of course they can have overwhelming intensity, leaving us all but helpless – they are not the result of any conscious decision, but are always something welling up from below.

And thus churches had good reason to condemn them in people.

Well – I’m not sure it is ever productive to condemn others. And I don’t like the whole God-as-judge-and-jury thing. But as a practical matter, I can see that these are obstacles that need to be fought. Only, fighting things for the wrong reasons may cause more problems than it solves.

Yes indeed. Why else are we spending this time suggesting other ways for you to see things? The older ways have had their possibilities tried and exhausted, and the time is ripe for new approaches based in a new overall understanding.

There is much more to be said about sin and the struggle within yourself to express your values. In a sense it could be said that sin, like evil, like pain and suffering, presents opportunity.

Yes, I see that. And if one is concentrating on the world as if it were the important, the real, thing, one sees pain and suffering and says, “Something is broken.” Otherwise,  we see that all is well even when all is not good.

And enough for now.

First session in a while. Feels good. Thanks.

 

[Rita:] I’m hesitating at the brink, to find the pathway via your mind, to get where I want us to go. Anything coming in by non-sensory means is still subject to interpretation by the mind of the person in 3D, no less than if the person were interpreting (making sense of) sensory data. So the same information given to more than one person will take on not only a different “flavor” for each, but will be allowed in, or excluded in part, or will be combined with other data, in a preferential manner that amounts to individual “uniqueness,” or even “bias.” The very transmission of data through a given person flavors the information inevitably. It cannot come through in a theoretically pure fashion. I structure it on my end, you structure it on your end, the readers in turn structure it on their end, and, if they set out to convey to another their understanding of it, those they convey it to structure it in their turn.

So that transmission is a process of inadvertent modification.

It is, and that may be looked at as beneficial or harmful, and is of course both, as usual. If you are looking here for scripture, you are going to be disappointed, yet if you are looking for Divine Inspiration you cannot fail to find it.

I hear you saying, “the word kills, but the spirit gives life.” I don’t know that I’ve ever thought to apply the scripture in that sense.

What other sense is there? Didn’t the guys tell us that they didn’t want us treating their words as scripture? They meant, use the words to come to an understanding as best we could, but don’t petrify them, thinking they could have any particular meaning or any given number of meanings. Transmission always involves interpretation at the unconscious level, because the nature of those involved cannot be excluded from the process, but is the process.

So in seeking a strategy of explanation, I must consider my own bias (to the extent that I am aware of it) and yours, and that of the probable readers to follow. As you can see, it cannot be an exact science! I sit here, so to speak, in my newfound freedom from physical limitation, and I am only all the more aware of the limitations of individuality. So – I in turn hand over to the middle term of my Rita / TGU / All-That-Is equation, to try to get a yet broader perspective and have it to hand on to you. Thus – hesitation.

A lot there to think about. Presumably whatever your TGU level is, it has its own TGU level, and so on and so forth.

Precisely. And perhaps all we are doing, really, is seeing the expression of All-That-Is as it is filtered through various levels of interpretation.

 

— From Awakening From the 3D World, available from publisher Rainbow Ridge Books (https://www.rainbowridgebooks.com) or from ot

[Rita:] Let’s look at reality as it appears from a higher level, a more inclusive level, than the so-called individual.

I have been at some pains to reinforce what the guys told us [in our sessions in 2001-2002], that life is a series of monads in which aggregations of smaller-scale communities function as individuals within larger communities, each of which communities function as individuals at a higher level. By now that concept should be very familiar.

But of course in any model, looking through the opposite end of the microscope or telescope or binoculars, the same reality is going to present itself in very different aspect. What looks like communities of individuals seen one way looks like subdivisions of a great unity, seen another way. So, let’s look at things that other way.  And perhaps later we will look at things yet another way, for of course there are always more ways to see anything. It isn’t just looking up or looking down, so to speak.

Start with the idea of everything being part of one complete indivisible thing. I can’t describe All-That-Is, because I am not big enough to encompass it, any more than you are. But we are part of it. It is within us, as we are within it. So, you might say, it can recognize itself. We may not be able to describe or analyze it, but we know it. Some things can’t be said although they are so well known.

Is it like this? We experience the physical world, but how poorly we can describe it. The taste of seaside air, the sound of early morning stillness – well, you get the idea. There is a lot of life that can only be alluded to, and if you haven’t experienced it, you don’t really know it from hearing of it.

That’s a good way to put it. We always know more than we can say, and for that matter we always know more than we know we know.

 

— From Awakening From the 3D World, available from publisher Rainbow Ridge Books (https://www.rainbowridgebooks.com) or from other booksellers.

 

[Rita:] I said we want to re-cover the ground covered last year. So let us begin. You will recall, I began by insisting on the unity of all things. Separations are merely relative separations, separations of function perhaps, or even what we might call separations of convenience. Sometimes the only way to look at a thing is to look at any one (or more) separable part of it, in order to bring it into range. You cannot study the world’s oceans all in one place or time, but you can study a drop of seawater in a microscope, or a species of fish in isolation from other aspects of the total “ocean” experience, or the effects on ocean of atmosphere, or any of many other specialized studies. You see? This is what science does – it says, the whole cannot be studied; let us examine it in pieces.

Now, in examining any phenomenon or situation, we may begin from the familiar or the unfamiliar, from the closest or the most remote, from the most similar or the least. Also, we may move into analysis of ever-smaller subdivisions, or analysis (though it will seem to you synthesis) of ever-larger interconnections, larger systems. Ultimately you wind up hedging your inquiry in some way or another – if not by design, then by default, because of constrictions on your time.

You can’t examine everything and so you are forced to choose.

However – and here is the nub of what I want to get across this morning, a simple point that will be obvious to some but a new realization to others – what you examine need not be pieces. You may, if you wish to, examine the whole of reality, and although this means ignoring vast amount of detail, it may be done and done productively.

I think you are saying what we examine is a matter of scale, and we can examine things at a smaller or larger or in-between scale, and whichever way we examine things, we will see only things at that level, because the whole thing would be too much to hold.

Your understanding is correct, because passed mind to mind, but I can not be sure that the understanding has been passed merely by words [in the absence of direct mind-to-mind communication]. It will be worthwhile for you to restate that in different words, just to be sure.

I got an image of a microscope – and I suppose a telescope would be an equally illustrative metaphor. If you look at reality at any given focus level, what you will see will be whatever is in focus at that level, by definition. But that also means, that is all that you will see. Whatever is larger or smaller or farther away in any sense will be as if it did not exist, or existed only as a blur or as a distorting side-effect.

Yes, and so anything you study will exaggerate itself in importance. It is natural for you – for anyone – to tend to lose sight of all of reality outside the area of concentration. It’s just natural – and for that reason, it must be guarded against, for it is not a conscious but an unconscious choosing, hence beyond conscious control.

But, given that you cannot hold the whole in your mind at any one time, and given that anything sufficiently far from your experience will probably be invisible to eyes not expecting to see it, how are you to proceed?

Dropping the body does not thereby allow you to see and understand the entirety of 3D creation, let alone the entirety of All-That-Is. So don’t get your hopes up (and don’t fear) that your curiosity will be satisfied merely by waiting until you are safely dis-incarnated.  The part never understands the whole from its own point of view. That’s what a point of view is, a perspective, a place from which to observe everything else from an assumed stable platform.

And so you may ask, in that case, what’s the use of the inquiry?

We cannot see things except from our own point of view. So to look at Rita / TGU / All-That-Is, each layer has its own’ appropriate scale of examination, and each is constricted to that scale – but – at the same time we are intimately connected to the other levels, in the same way a body is intimately connected to trillions of individual cells.

And information and insights may be passed directly between levels, which is a definition of the reason guidance is available and — looked at another way — a definition of the function of humans in 3D.

 

— From Awakening From the 3D World, available from publisher Rainbow Ridge Books (https://www.rainbowridgebooks.com) or from other booksellers.