Intuitive Linked Communication (ILC)

[Excerpts from conversations between Rita Warren and “the guys upstairs,” in the years 2001 and 2002, edited from The Sphere and the Hologram.]

Blurring Distinctions

R: In Frank’s book Muddy Tracks, he seemed able to clearly distinguish between when he was speaking and you were speaking. When he speaks now, or when he’s in laboratory sessions, I find it difficult to know who is speaking. Is this increasingly true for Frank?

TGU: No. What’s happening is that he was required to make a Copernican worldview shift first, and to do that found it either necessary or convenient to almost over-emphasize the difference between us. That was the only way he could conceptualize it. But he began realizing that we’re often speaking through him, perhaps to say something important to someone else who had to hear it from a human voice because they weren’t able to hear it inside. Once he realized that, he began seeing it more, and then he began seeing other aspects of himself – other lifetimes, as you call it – going in and going out, in and out, and then he began to deduce, correctly, that he does the same thing there [i.e., speaking from other lifetimes’ point of view], unconsciously usually. The more he looked into it, the more he realized, it isn’t “me” versus “them,” it’s really I/them, or it’s us, or it’s me. You know, all the distinctions blurred.

Which is good! Because the distinctions were never accurate in the first place. They were, shall we say, a necessary detour, because if you are entrapped in a given logical structure, the only way out may be to go to an equally inadequate structure which nonetheless is different, so that the comparison frees you from both. So he initially said, “This is me, this is them,” then went to “Well, maybe this is me, maybe this is them,” and as time went on, found that in ordinary life – there’s only ordinary life.

That was another distinction that he had made as a halfway house, you know, the ordinary life versus talking with us! But there’s only ordinary life. Or, there’s only talking to us, whichever way you want to look at it; it doesn’t make any difference. Or there’s both. Or there’s neither.

R: So, then this has to do primarily with the extent to which Frank is conscious of it?

TGU: [pause] We would say it has primarily to do with a mental re-structuring. Your mental structures are ordinarily transparent to you, and therefore they are an almost infallible way of warping the world. That’s not necessarily bad or good, but it’s the way it is. Getting through the structures is always provisional, always incomplete, because you really can’t live in 3D Theater without structures. But it’s worthwhile to exchange them, to remind yourself that in fact you don’t have the structure; you know, the truth.

The Sphere and the Hologram, 15^th anniversary edition, published by SNN / TGU Books, is available as print or eBook from Amazon and other booksellers.

 

 

 

[Excerpts from conversations between Rita Warren and “the guys upstairs,” in the years 2001 and 2002, edited from The Sphere and the Hologram..]

 The Nature of Individuals

Rita: Once Frank crosses over, is there some reason to believe that he won’t join those of you who are speaking to him?

TGU: Well, he couldn’t help it. Oh, you mean, in our function?

R: In the functions that you’re engaged in right now.

TGU: [pause] Well, he’s an explorer and a teacher by inclination. It’s part of him. But he has lots of other parts that are other things. [laughs] We’ll give you a choice of answers: yes and no. [they laugh] Yes, in that that particular atom of our being will be on call for a specific person who needs to talk to him, when he’s the closest resonance to someone who’s talking. But the difference between him and Frank is so –

You think, because you’re in bodies, that the body makes a unit. But it doesn’t. The body has huge amounts of stuff inside it that function as a unit, sometimes better, sometimes worse. But the body holds together disparate things. Basically the body gives a point of view and a set of abilities and a locus in time and space. That’s really what the body does! So take away the body, and all those strands of the bundle – well, the analogy breaks down, but you see where we’re going with that?

R: There’s no reason to believe that these parts will hang together –

TGU: Well, they’re not going anywhere, but “there’s no reason to think of them only in that way” would be a better way to put it. Katrina would see them from Katrina’s point of view. It’s the same bundle. But there’s plenty more of that bundle that’s unsuspected and that does not manifest in that life, that would manifest somewhere else. So –

[At this point the tape ran out and a few seconds worth of plastic leader ran through until the cassette clicked off. We changed sides of the tape.]

R: Feel okay?

Frank: Yep. Where were we?

R: We were talking about the various bundles from different lifetimes. We could have a part of the energy moving across temporarily into the “there,” although that’s a time concept, which I assume you don’t want.

[TGU again]: The point is just that individuals are so much less individual than you think they are because they’re enclosed in a body. It would be like thinking that the electric components inside of a tape recorder are all inherently part of that tape recorder, but they’re not. They are, while they’re in a tape recorder, but the tape recorder could be taken apart and all the components reshuffled somewhere else. It’s a clumsy analogy, because that’s mechanical and not alive in that sense, but you understand.

So to talk about will “he” be doing this or that later, in a way we’ll say no, “he” is only here between the time that he’s born and the time he dies, which is a finite thing. That’s a slice of reality during which he functions in a certain way. That slice of reality doesn’t go away; it’s just that you’re not experiencing it. Thomas Jefferson functioned as a particular bundle in a certain place. He’s still doing it in that place, it’s just you can’t access that place.

R: You’ve talked a number of times about the idea of other lives, with the suggestion that parts of the energy field that represent Frank now have participated in other lifetimes – other experiences in different physical bodies.

TGU: With the exception of the tenses of the verbs, we agree with that. It’s more like, “are participating,” although we know that’s nearly incomprehensible to all of you.

R: Well, it is nearly incomprehensible, but I can understand that there is such a concept.

TGU:  New Jersey doesn’t cease to exist when you move to New York, but you can’t access it. And in the case of time, you don’t have the ability to go backwards to where you were. Seemingly.

— Edited from The Sphere and the Hologram, published by SNN / TGU Books. Available as print or eBook from Amazon. and other booksellers.

 

Tuesday, December 31. 2024

6:45 a.m. This is surely the first time I have tried talking to the guys while using the nebulizer! But, let’s see how it goes. The insight I got seems important. In fact, it seems like it may be the most important one I have had. It feels as though everything I have been given these past 30 years or so led to this.

Please help me spell it out and clarify my misunderstandings, and spell out connections I haven’t made yet.

First, damp your excitement.

Yes, I see that. Turning off the nebulizer (and breathing easily) helped. So, I’m calm. Let’s proceed.

There is only the eternal now. All seeming division into past, present, future, is the result of 3D conditions designed to confine attention, to focus choice, to enable permanent creation. But just as there are no absolute divisions in any other form in reality, so in time. There is only now. This has ramifications.

All limitations are mental.

That is true, but misleading as stated.

I got that all our limitations are the result of our own mental conditioning, hence may be removed by our action, in fact by our decision.

Life more abundantly follows the removal of such self-imposed limitations. The teachings of the masters – Gautama and Jesus in particular – are designed as a “how-to.” Do this, refrain from doing that, and you will remove the obstacles. It has nothing to do with crime and punishment. Rather, error and correction.

There is still so much swirling around my head. Bullets?

Not needed. It is simple at the core, and sometimes it is a mistake to explore the periphery, if it will distract from the core.

Here is the point, the entire point, all you or anyone need. And of course it is found in many forms, many contexts. If you’re going to scatter clues, scatter them as widely as possible, in as many forms as possible. What appeals to one may leave another cold. What suits you may be opaque to your neighbor. What phrasing one time – one culture – can identify with, another will be puzzled by.

Life is the art of going into 3D conditions, using those conditions to get what you cannot get otherwise, and then learning to stretch to encompass non-3D awareness while still within 3D conditions. If you will examine this very abstract statement in light of different contexts, you will see it applies.

Religion would say it is living in the present of God, in the awareness of that presence.

Psychology would say it is the healing of internal divisions and the growth into one’s full potential.

Same thing.

And it could be extended, but no need. Every science ultimately wishes to pull things together. This is the center everything is seeking.

Not sure how that would apply to physics, say, or chemistry, or any of the hard sciences.

Considered separately, it wouldn’t. but the whole point is, “separately” is only an interim stage. Science as one is the question of what is. The answer is, a 3D experience generated from, and contained within, an All-D experience, which may be experienced, lived, realized. Only, you have to go about it in the right way, like anything else.

This started with my trying to remember what my friend Frank Pasciuti told me yesterday. I couldn’t remember a specific. I thought, the memory exists, find it. In trying to recapture it – in trying to send my mind back to our conversation – I somehow was led to the realization that every moment being now means that I don’t need to go anywhere, I just needed to remove the barriers to connection to it. And that generalized; I realized, my whole life is barriers between now and all other time. How can you expect to remember past lives if you can’t remember last Tuesday? Yet it is the same process.

And one thing led to another. You saw how the sins – “missing the mark” – interfere with the process of removing barriers. You saw how memories tend to clump by moods or emotions or by logical or other common denominators. You saw that the real key is openness in all directions.

And I get a sense of how hard it can be to open in all directions. I wonder, can anyone do it. Or, I suppose that is what characterized Jesus, Gautama, and others known or unknown that we would call spiritual leaders.

There is nothing more deadly to spiritual advancement than secrets and false agendas, and self-division. If you want to advance, you have to put certain bad habits behind you.

Is it my restlessness, or should we end this session after only half an hour?

End here for the moment.

Thank you for your assistance over many years.

As we have always said, you are thanking yourself, for you are always interacting with yourself, whether your interlocutor is in or out of a 3D body.

Thanks in any case.

 

We are still pursuing what happens to the ex-3D soul, tracing its probable changes in awareness after physical death, so that we may sketch the nature of life in the new conditions. Fear of death is a part of what many souls bring to the experience, and a blankness of expectations, and a lifetime of outwards-looking attention that reinforces the idea of things happening to them, and of things being separate from them, and of things being somewhat arbitrary. All these misconceptions, or misperceptions, can get in the way of successful readjustment, which always depends, obviously, upon reestablishment of the ability to perceive accurately.

It should require no great intuitive leap to realize that in a non-physical-senses world – a world where there is nothing “external” to oneself – one’s connection to and communication with one’s non-3D component is vital. Therefore, reestablishing that contact is vital, and primary – and also often most difficult and unpredictable in nature.

Now, that is a little bit of a surprise. I guess I had expected that the readjustment would be seamless once the ex-3D soul was in the same environment as the rest of the larger being.

But then, what of all the other things you know of?

The need for retrievals, you mean.

That, and so many other things. Take a moment. Think about it. What other evidence do you have that readjustment is not necessarily seamless, nor painless?

[Pause]

Ghosts, I suppose. Hauntings. The dread itself (dread of death, I mean). I don’t know, you tell me.

Ghosts is not a bad place to begin. A ghost might be defined as a split-off bit of consciousness still fixated on the 3D world, not so much retaining freedom of action as mechanically reconstructing certain 3D habit-patterns of action and interaction. It is outwardly fixed attention in the absence of full consciousness and also in the absence of the external drag of time moving that bit of detached consciousness through “external circumstances” to move it along.

This definition also extends to the various destinations people arrive at as a sort of halfway house. That is, they live out a simulacrum of 3D experience, not interacting with the 3D in the way ghosts do, but unconsciously recreating 3D illusions because that’s all they know.

Now, we can profitably generalize from here. As long as a person’s perceptions are fixed in their ex-3D habits, they are going to be incompletely able to participate in their fuller being. Therefore to that extent they will find that their new reality conveniently matches their expectations – for a while.

The ex-3D’s consciousness has gaps in the hermetically sealed set of rules it attempts to set up (for its comfort), and the larger reality leaks in through those holes. At some point the discontinuities make it not possible to maintain the illusion, and things change. Life in 3D proceeds in much the same way, only with the active assistance of the ever-moving present moment, to provide “external” stimuli via the illusion of separation in place and time.

Now, generalize farther. The 3D environment encourages the soul’s consciousness to concretize metaphor. And when the “external” 3D world drops away, what is the soul left with? Its own mental world, as it built it up during its 3D life! Thoughts, ideas, memories, preferences, fantasies, conclusions – have consequences! You don’t think in one way (regardless how you act) and perceive in another way in the absence of externals.

“As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.”

Well, (I realize I’m on the other side of our old argument, here), isn’t it obviously so? Religions are not really based on descriptions of what the soul is going to find (though that is the popular assumption) – they are based on what the soul in 3D should do for its own good, so that when its time comes to graduate, it will be as prepared as possible.

The right mental habits – the right habits of character – will be vastly more important than the right preconceptions of what’s waiting for us.

The right habits will be more real. Metaphor drops away in so far as a soul is conscious and able to react to its true new circumstances. That’s why Christians, Muslims, Jews, Zoroastrians, materialists, worshippers of Odin and Ra and Quetzalcoatl and a million variations on the theme are equally able (or equally unable) to deal with “the next world,” because ability (or inability) to cope does not depend upon belief but upon on-going perception.  Members of any number of different, even violently conflicting, belief-systems will or won’t have trouble depending not upon what they expected, but upon what they lived.

It always struck me that Jesus was most emphatic against hypocrisy and unconsciousness. Woe to those whose insides and outsides didn’t agree, so to speak.

And now you see why. Remember, scriptures may be read in many ways, because one half of what is there is the set of assumptions the individual brings to the reading. But you know that.

Yes, I still say they aren’t a rulebook nor a physics textbook, but a set of instructions, much of which has to be inferred between the lines. It isn’t the organizers who write scriptures; often enough  I suspect the organizers don’t even understand them very much.

Well you see, the obstacles to readjustment were obvious enough, were they not? You knew them, but weren’t thinking of them in that context. And, in that, you were somewhat in the position of church officials protecting scripture they know is important but don’t necessarily know in meaning or intent.

[Pause]

So that’s our lesson. One stage of many people’s readjustment is a sort of unconscious or even semi-conscious clinging to the familiar, in new conditions that are not familiar. As long as the need for reassurance outweighs the need to see more clearly, there they may remain. [Emphatically:] And there’s nothing wrong with that! It is, you might say, merciful, or at least compassionate, that things are set up that way.

And it’s still “as above, so below,” isn’t it? Because that same choice – “explore or rest with what you know” – is how our 3D mental life has been described.

If you had chosen to rest on your oars after our work while I was in the 3D, there would have been no penalty, it wouldn’t have been seen as a wrong turning. You always have the right to choose – and the right to choose means, of course, the right to choose as you wish, not as some external force or abstraction wishes. But if you choose, you choose the ensuing consequences. Most of life’s miseries, and most of life’s annoyances, for that matter, stem from people wanting to choose but not accepting the consequences of that choice.

So now we may pause and you may proceed with your day.

 

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

 

We’re still looking at how the soul readjusts to its new environment.

Bear in mind, it isn’t “new”; the soul has been elsewhere. Everyone lives in all dimensions, all the time, as we said earlier. But that doesn’t mean everyone is aware of what they’re living. And here we are beginning to get into new trouble with definitions.

If we weren’t constrained by the sequential nature of language and language-processing, we could look at several things differently all at the same time, and it would be like a change of scene in a movie, only you would know that we weren’t changing the subject, only changing the lighting. You see, even the analogy is strained.

The IKEA method of explanation.

Yes, but as you will see, there are limits to such procedures. Think how long it took the guys to change our ideas, because there were so many elements to change, one by one, and then the process of getting us to see them when reassembled was as big a job as each individual piece had been. And even what we accomplished in Rita’s World took six months’ exposition.

Rita, it isn’t like you to complain how hard it is, or to throw up your hands and say, “I don’t know if we can do this.” That’s more my role!

As you often say, I’m smiling. You know that isn’t what I’m doing. I am pointing out a part of the process, not so much for you, because you have been involved in it for so long that you take it for granted, as for our unknown readers who come to the experience primarily as something they are reading. Those who do will already understand, or will come to understand, given enough experience, but as long as all this is only theoretical, it is little more than entertainment. So it is as well to throw in reminders from time to time that it is work. The thing to look at is the effort required to produce an effect. As in physics, for example.

I think you’re saying look at the process of transferring understandings, or the basis for understandings, in the same way we would look at the process of moving a weighted wagon, say, or lifting a burden. So many ergs of force expended in a given direction within a given time.

That’s the idea. Not a complaint but a measurement, or anyway an indication, of the fact that transferring understanding is in its own way a process with its own “physics,” its own inherent rules. Like anything in life, it doesn’t really happen free-form just because the wheels aren’t obvious.

I have noticed, along the way, that you tend to intersperse descriptive information with commentary on the process, rather than keeping them separate. A deliberate pedagogical technique, I take it.

One of the difficulties with communicating new ideas to minds always enmeshed with the continually-moving present is that of preventing ideas from settling into hermetically sealed compartments. So it is better to keep blending in, keep layering.

Okay, so, given our present difficulty—

As so often, the difficulty looks like a difficulty in definitions. More essentially, it is a problem of holding several variable definitions in mind and changing them repeatedly so as to look at them from more than any one side. Outside of the 3D moving-present, it is easy. Working from within sequential perception, not so easy. One variable is “mind” and another is “dimensions” and, in fact, another is “you.” We need to keep all three changing definitions in mind while we look at them, and do it without letting inertia fix us to any one way of seeing it.

Mind may mean the 3D portion, or the non-3D portion, or both together, or the All-D for that individual person, or the mind of the larger being as well. (Or more, but that will do for the present.)

Dimensions may mean 3D in the way you experience it – or it may mean merely a definition-of-convenience, because it isn’t like such definitions are ever ultimate; they are convenient ways to see things to make sense of things. They have no objective existence.

That isn’t quite what you mean. You mean the objective existence of whatever it is we experience as dimensions is not tied to our way of experiencing it as dimensions.

That’s right. And “you” may mean the 3D being in any of several senses, and may mean the 3D and non-3D component, together, considered in relation to the larger being. (And, again, we could go farther with this, but there is no point to it now.)

You are aware of the three-body problem in celestial mechanics.

Vaguely. For some reason it is impossible to calculate exactly the interactions of three bodies upon one another. They can approximate, somehow, but they can’t get it precisely, not because they can’t measure accurately but because of some difficulty inherent in having three simultaneous variables in play.

We are in a similar difficulty as physicists with their three-body problem as you have described it. We are needing to deal with more variables than language or even mental habits are intended to process simultaneously. We will fudge it by dealing with one at a time and will then attempt to approximate what things look like with all three changed, but we cannot well show them changing. You see the difficulty?

Oh yes, and we have run into it before. Our minds want to establish a static photograph rather than a movie.

It is worse than that, for a movie is only a sequence of static photographs. This is more like a flowing picture that doesn’t move frame by frame, but continually dissolves and reforms.

A kaleidoscope, as we’ve said before.

Perhaps a kaleidoscope more electronic in nature than mechanical, more fluid than a tumbling of solid materials.

So let us go all the way back to the beginning of today’s entry, as you have been doing repeatedly this whole time. What we are after is to describe changes in the ex-3D soul’s awareness, but as its own self-definition changes, our description has to become more careful, even more plodding, because it is ever easier to move definitions silently and unintentionally, thus confusing ourselves. People who describe these changes while seeing the ex-3D soul only as an individual avoid some of these difficulties, but only at the cost of some distortion.

You’ve got me looking at the clock and counting pages, going, “Can I get out of this yet?” It’s something of a strain.

Well, it is. But it’s good work. The very sitting-with-unaccustomed-ways-of-seeing-things is worthwhile, and is a good habit to acquire or deepen. But it is work.

Very well, let’s leave with this, and start here next time, hopefully remembering, at that time, the very limitations I have been at some pains to sketch here. It will do no good if when I resume sketching relationships and changes, you allow yourselves (for this is aimed at everybody) to slide back into comfortable mental habits. We are describing continually changing relationships and perceptions and self-definitions, and, therefore, experiences. Fixed in any one position, they are to that extent falsified. So, be aware of that potential pitfall. This is something I cannot help you with beyond warning you. You must make the effort, and must keep coming back to it and renewing your effort every time you realize that you have fallen off. This takes work, the way it takes work to be aware of your dreams and relate them to the rest of your life. And that is a hint as to coming attractions.

 

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

 

We were in the process of explaining how the newly ex-3D soul experiences and redefines itself as it gets oriented.

Yes. There is a need for such description, you understand, in that so many older ways of imagining it no longer speak to people, because they are ready and able now for more sophisticated explanations. You know that Bob [Monroe] was always saying our job is to turn our beliefs into knowns. But that isn’t so easily done, and the hardest step, in a way, is realizing that what we think is a known may be really only a belief.

So if people believe in science and believe that science has established certain things that mean that materialism is the only rational conclusion a thinker can draw, you are not going to be able to get them to think their way out of that box unless you (or life) can persuade them that the logical underpinnings do not hold. A world-shaking experience may do it – an NDE, say, or, as in my case, significant experiences during a Gateway. Or, a silent unconscious following of internal promptings may lead to a slow rejection of previously accepted ideas and their replacement by more alluring ones.

One way or another, new beliefs may supplant old, or new openness may supplant older rootedness. The “how” of it is not predictable and not particularly worth examining for clues as to how it may be spread more widely. That isn’t your job, nor anyone’s. People’s reorientation may safely be left to themselves; everybody has guidance that will work with them in ways no outside influence could equal in skill or perseverance.

But you have to keep in mind, the times demand (or you might equally say, allow) different people for different eras. It is a reciprocating process, as you like to put it. Beliefs shape minds and minds shape cultures and cultures shape beliefs and beliefs shape minds, forever.

A new civilization comes into being by altering what people believe, which alters what they experience, which alters what they do and what they want done. That is as true a way of looking at history as thinking the reorientations come about somehow at random, and certainly as true as thinking that each new stage of civilization is the result of “progress” in any absolute sense, rather than progression, which is not the same thing.

Now, none of this is a detour or a side-trail. It is important for every person who is reading this or ever will read this, because one of the most important concepts they need to absorb is that “the way the world is” is the most efficient prison ever constructed, but the door of the cell has the key on the inside!

Vivid metaphor.

You don’t move people by argument or by intellectual understanding alone. You do it by vivid images, easily grasped, easily remembered. The complication is that you also move people by a vivid image who haven’t heard, or wouldn’t have been able to follow, the arguments leading to the more sophisticated understanding. So in their case they have traded in one belief and drawn another belief from the deck. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with that – people are too quick to criticize the way the world maintains itself – but recognize, that is a very different situation.

A belief snatched at is a superstition, as opposed to a belief grown into?

In the absence of internal guidance that would be a true enough description. Let’s say rationality plays a smaller part in people’s mental world than they sometimes think it does – and there’s nothing wrong with that. In fact, it is often their saving grace, leading them to act better than their conscious beliefs would lead them to.

All right. I’m a little at sea as to where we’re going, here.

Surely you don’t think that what the ex-3D soul’s experiences as it reorients itself is unaffected by the beliefs that shaped it in its 3D years, do you?

[Pause] Meaning – so be careful what you let yourself believe?

No, not at all.  You won’t have all that much control over what you find yourself believing. Meaning, so maybe there is a purpose to the creation of various environments for 3D life. Maybe the creation of certain environments allows the formation of certain types of minds, and maybe the existence of different belief-systems in the 3D minds that result are valued in and for themselves.

I’m sitting here pretty much in neutral, trying to grasp so many implications. One of them is – our 3D experiences are meant to help shape or reshape the non-3D environment.

That’s correct. The 3D isn’t just an amusement park.

And that implies that the non-3D feels a need for 3D-shaped souls with certain biases, for some reason.

How often do people go to so much trouble to build something, if they don’t expect to profit from it? I don’t mean milk it, but get some good out of it?

That’s sure not the way we’re accustomed to thinking of it – either this world or the next world.

No, and look how “the next world” has gone dead on you. It doesn’t inspire, it doesn’t seem real and comprehensible. So, we’re doing our bit to alleviate the symptoms by addressing the causes of a sense of meaninglessness. But you can’t expect new understandings to spread in an instant. Well, you can, in a sense: People sometimes catch new understandings like wildfire, but don’t expect it to be a rational process.

 

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

 

Beginning your conscious life after 3D is a process of continuous redefinition, as I have said. Remember, I am not ascribing a sequence, nor a definite path, only a generalized rule of thumb. Either one is describing one’s own experience, or one attempts to generalize the path taken by the majority. Neither kind of description tells The way it is, only “a way it often is,” or even “the way it may be, more or less, in a lot of cases.” You can see that putting it these latter ways loses the punch that people prefer. People like to know, and knowing implies definiteness and it implies concise description and clear-cut choice. It is less emotionally satisfying to have what you always called a close focus on fuzz.

It’s funny, though. Real life has a lot more freedom than it would if it  were always a series of either/or situations.

In one sense, life is always a series of either/or situations. You turn or you don’t. You change speed or you don’t. You persevere or you don’t. But there are so many either/or situations, so continually, that in effect it isn’t binary at all. But in the context of any given decision (including the decision to not decide) it is going to be a choice between two.

The choice might be to turn or not turn, but that ultimately might result in turning any number of degrees in any combination of directions, as smaller binary decisions at lighting speeds cumulate.

So, people attempting to master an abstract description find it easier to imagine a path, even a path with variation and choice, than they do an infinity of options amounting to freedom of action. It is that way particularly when they set out to absorb a description of an afterlife, with its total lack of sensory orientation.

I’m getting a sense of Bob Monroe’s descriptions in Far Journeys. There was a sort of up-in-the-air quality to them.

[A different “voice” than Rita’s] He had a choice, you see.

Bob?

You are going to have to overcome your nervousness if we’re going to chat.

You know why I’m nervous.

Indeed I do. Quoting Bob Monroe is one thing, asserting that you are talking to him directly is a horse of another color.

It sure is.

Well, there’s no need to make any such attribution. Just say you were talking to the guys, or to Rita, and let it go. As you’ve said many times, there’s no proving such things, and it isn’t important.

But Bob Monroe had a choice, as I was saying. He could present a picture of what Rita is calling the non-3D anchored from the non-3D end, or from the 3D end. He didn’t have Rita’s advantage, or yours, of being able to read the book he was in the process of writing! After you read Far Journeys, you had a broader view of things than you did beforehand, as for instance you did after you read the Seth material, and recognized things.

So if I described an afterlife made comprehensible to people whose definitions were of individuals “doing their thing,” only without the limitations of the body, certainly it was going to be distorted. But if I tried to write it from a viewpoint that regarded Earth life only as a unique very specialized experience, not particularly important to the vast rest of existence, that was to be expressed in  a very different way.

It  was a translation of a translation of a translation, and it had to be expressed in words to people who were not at all what they thought they were, but were very certain about it all. Of course there were going to be distortions. In fact it was going to be distortion more than description, because the people reading it wouldn’t have the background to understand what they needed to understand before they approached it.

Rita’s dilemma about A and B.

Isn’t it always? But print has one advantage over more transitory media – and perhaps film has even more, if the film is preserved and accessed – and that is that an unchanging record always has more to reveal as the person reading it, or viewing it, changes. You can’t have an unchanged chemical reaction, you see, if one of the elements is not a fixed element, or known commodity. No book is an unchanged and unchangeable item except when approached by an unchanged mind. Since nothing in your 3D world can remain unchanged, it means a good book or a good record of any type can appear different, will be different, will have more to offer, whenever you come to it. So if you write in a necessarily cryptic way, you encode meanings that may become obvious to people only when they become ready to recognize a new aspect of what they have seen before, maybe many times.

Just like scripture.

Well, may the lord preserve my writing from becoming scripture!

Said with a smile, I recognize.

But seriously, scripture may be used or abused, like everything in life. If fixed and made arbitrary, it’s one thing. If flexible and seen as guidance rather than legislation, it is quite another. So if people want to use Far Journeys as a guide and a hint, well and good. If they want to make it an authoritative and infallible description of the way it is, well, good luck. But even then, maybe it will serve to move them along to a better understanding at some point.

What Rita is doing, as she does so well, is building a bridge between your everyday life and the reality I could only hint at in Far Journeys. But I could hope that you will remember not to overlook the element of strangeness that necessarily enters in to any description, however carefully drawn, of circumstances so different as to be scarcely hinted at and certainly not definitively laid out for you.

In other words, we’re on our own as usual.

Would you expect anything else?

No, I suppose not. Well, thanks for this. Any more at this time, or do we go back to our usual sponsor?

I guess you’ll just have to see, won’t you?

Smiling. Thanks, Bob. Rita?

One of the things you’re going to have to get used to, and adjust to, is that the difference between Rita and Bob isn’t as absolute as it appeared when we were in 3D together. So although it is easier for you to think of us either as separate or as part of one vast faceless conglomerate, a closer analogy would be the color spectrum, where one color shades into another even though each is still distinguishable as itself, depending upon your definition.

We have been using shared threads as our analogy.

Yes, but any analogy used too long may become concretized, appearing less flexible and less ephemeral, in a sense, than it really is. It’s fine to use analogies to help give yourself something to grasp, but remember that they are analogies, meaning “like something, in some ways, seen from certain viewpoints.” Analogies are not descriptions, they are guides to your intuition.

All right, got it.

You have it for the moment. The problem is, it is very easy to lose again. Mental processes have their own inertias, just like bodies. But notice the word “like”!

And that will have to do for this morning.

All right, Rita. Always enlightening. And thanks, Bob, as well. [slight pause] I sense you chuckling, Rita. What’s so funny?

He isn’t used to getting second billing.

That makes me laugh. Till next time, then.

 

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