Friday, March 16, 2018

Worlds within Worlds

“This divine psychological process – and “process” is not the best word here – this divine psychological state of relatedness forms from its own being worlds within worlds.  Your universe is not the only one.  Nothing exists isolate in nature, and to that extent the very existence of your universe presupposes the existence of others.
“These were, and are, and will be, created in the same fashion as that I have explained – and again, all such systems are open, even though operationally they may appear not to be.
“There are literally infinite numbers of sequences, faultlessly activated, that make the existence of your own world possible.”

(Dreams, “Evolution” and Value Fulfillment, Session 897)

Thursday, March 15, 2018

Constant Creation in a Spacious Present

This is a great description of the unending creative activity of All That Is reflected in what we perceive as "The Universe".  Physicists have resorted to such ideas as "The Big Bang", inflationary universe, Dark Matter, etc. to try to mathematically "explain" the continuous expansion of the universe;  when what's really happening is what Seth describes here!  How elegant!

“… we are speaking of a constant creation, even though I must explain it in serial terms.  We are discussing a model of the universe in which creation is continuous, spontaneously occurring everywhere, and everywhere simultaneously, in a kind of spacious present, from which all experiences with time emerge.  In this model, there is always new energy, and all systems are open, even though they may seem to operate separately.  Once again, also, we are considering a model that is based upon the active cooperation of each of its parts, which in one way or another also participate in the experience of the whole.
“In this model, changes of form are the result of creative synthesis.  This model is seen to have its origin within a vast, infinite, divine subjectivity – a subjectivity that is within each unit of consciousness, whatever its degree.  A subjective divinity, then, that is within creation itself, a multidimensional creativity of such proportions that it is itself the creator and its creations at the same time.”

(Dreams, “Evolution” and Value Fulfillment, Session 897)

Wednesday, March 14, 2018

Duality in non-3D

Duality in non-3D

DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World: A View from the Non-Physical (Kindle Location 3117). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition.

(A)  I was saying that duality is in the nature of all creation, and at this point I need to remind you of something we were told when we were doing this from the same "side" of the division of 3D from non-3D, and that is that it is a mistake to think that the non-3D side of life is somehow exempt from the conditions of duality that exist as ground rules.  At the time, we were thinking in terms of physical versus nonphysical and tended to think that the significant difference was whether one was in the body or not.  "The guys" informed us that the nonphysical was a part of the physical, and I don't know that we ever understood that properly, even after we were told that the chief difference between us on our side and the guys on their side was not in our natures but in the characteristics of the terrain we respectively inhabited.

You can understand that easier now, if you remember that we are conceptualizing it now not as physical versus nonphysical but as awareness of 3D versus awareness of all dimensions of which 3D is only some.  Of course we are part of the same thing.  We are in the same space, inhabiting the same world.  How could it be otherwise?  So now we move into wider ramifications by way of investigating shared duality as it manifests in the question of good and evil.  And what we're about to discuss could serve as a bridge between modern exploratory metaphysics - call it that - and traditional religious teachings.  As you have long insisted, those teachings contain valuable clues.  It is firsthand experience and reconceptualization that brings their inner truths and descriptive insights back to life again.

(Q)  The spirit of the teachings brings life, and the letter kills.

(A)  Literalism is idolatry.  I believe you read that somewhere.  I seem to remember your quoting it to me.

(Q)  I don't remember quoting it, but I do remember reading it, though I don't know where.  They could equally have said literalism is superstition.

(A)  Any words may be made into superstition, including these, if accepted and repeated without understanding.  And the greater the authority of the authors, the greater the danger of rote repetition and consequent unconscious distortion into something they were never meant to be.

I know this seems like a diversion from our topic, but it is not.  It is, perhaps, a clearing of skirts before going farther.

You will want to prove these words for yourselves, at least I hope you will.  One way to do so is to take the teachings you grew up with and reexamine them as if ("as if!") they were the record of people's experiences, a record that was distorted not for political reasons (though that could happen as well, after the fact) but because any experience and insight becomes distorted when seen as if [it were] a 3D experience, and the record becomes further distorted when read by those whose experience does not extend beyond 3D.

(Q)  In other words, by those whose lack of additional perspective prevents them from reading back into the scriptures what translation into 3D terms took out.

(A)  Precisely.  Well, as you know, Frank, I did not live in the Christian tradition I was born into, but in the modern Jungian understanding that I learned over time.  But anyone who knows anything at all about Christianity or Judaism or Islam knows that they center on the heavenly war between good and evil as it plays out "here on Earth".  They go about establishing the relevance to ordinary life in different ways and thus express, and create, quite different ways of seeing the world, as each one emphasizes different qualities, but what they have in common is this perception of the war between good and evil, a war that begins not in 3D but in non-3D; a war that moves into 3D because in a way it is about 3D, and is about humans in particular.

Other religions see the world - see the nature of reality - differently.  Shinto, for instance, or Confucianism, while observing the existence of disharmony, do not concentrate on good versus evil so much as harmony versus disharmony, or balance versus out-of-balance conditions, which has a slightly more accurate nuance here than the word "imbalance".

This does not make one view "right" and others "wrong", any more than looking up rather makes looking down wrong.  In fact, considering the fact that various valid religious traditions see the world differently helps you keep the wider view - the wider horizons of possibilities - simultaneously in mind.

So, let us proceed, as good Westerners, to consider the nature of good and evil as absolutes rather than as the matter of expression of tastes that is the most superficial end of the spectrum of behavior we are considering.

Duality and scripture

DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World: A View from the Non-Physical (Kindle Location 3152). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition.

Religion takes the principle of absolute good and identifies it with the creator, which it identifies with God.  It takes the principle of absolute evil and identifies it with the disrupter, which it identifies with the devil.  (Understand, I am simplifying and gliding over nuances, here.  I was no theologian and, in fact, was not even much interested in religious matters when in 3D, and as you will learn over time, we aren't particularly different "over here" and what would make us so? So, for me to connect to scriptural sources would be a farther stretch than it would be for any of you in the body, where you still have greater possibility of choice.)

...  Any body of knowledge must be explained at the level of understanding of those who listen to it.  Or put another way, you could say that any congregation - even if it is a congregation of one, reading the Bible, say - must, necessarily, understand whatever it is taught in the only way its level of being allows.  Scripture cannot bring a leap of reconceptualization; it can only serve as illumination at the present level.

(Q)  A lamp unto my feet.

(A)  Yes.  And as you used to insist, it is necessarily written to give people something, no matter what level they read it from, anywhere from reading a myth as a literally true history to reading it as a coded allusion to realities to which many are blind.  It is a translation designed to appeal to many levels of being - but still it is a translation susceptible to being grossly misunderstood especially if read from a level of being that assumes that its own is the only level that exists, and, therefore, whatever the scripture seems to those at that level must be the only "right" meaning of the words.

So, if we are to look at reality in a different way, it is important that you not jettison so much past description that will open up to you in a new way when you come to it with new eyes.

(Q)  I have been telling myself for years that I should study scripture, but it doesn't seem to happen.  Apparently, it is not my path.

Maps and explorers

(A)  Or perhaps it is a matter of timing.  Now, your hour is nearly up, and it may not seem like this discussion has brought us anywhere on the subject of good and evil, but, in fact, if it has awakened anybody to the fact, or reminded them, say, that this question of good and evil is integrally connected to the exploration of reality that is the scriptures, it will have served to anchor an abstract question in a wider context.  There is no use explaining without considering the rough maps provided by earlier explorers.  They may have gotten major features wrong; they may have guessed where this or that river arises; they may have put down descriptions with greater definiteness than their experiences warranted.  Still, their journals should be explored, their maps perused.  Why?  So that you can perpetuate their errors or omissions or misunderstandings?  No - so you may profit by them.

So, to end for now, I remind you that we really are moving to answer the question and the associated questions.  Good and evil may be considered to be absolutes within our experience of duality.  We in the higher dimensions (call it) who - I remind you - continue to exist in 3D even if we have no body to anchor our consciousness there, are as much in duality as you are in 3D.  That is an important fact that will at first be an obstacle for some of you.  Still, it is the truth, and will help explain some things as we go along.  Being in duality, we experience good and evil.  however, not being subject to the constraints of limited consciousness moving from one time-slice to the next, obviously, we experience it differently.  As I said at the end of yesterday's discussion, it can be an orientation, rather than a trap.

However, there is much more to be said on the subject.  Enough for now.

We live our life for all of Humanity

“Each person’s experience of a painful nature is also registered on the part of what we will call the world’s mind.  Each, say, failure, or disappointment, or unresolved problem that results in suffering, becomes a part of the world’s experience: This way or that way does not work, or this way or that way has been tried, with poor results.  So, in that way, even weaknesses or failures of suffering are resolved, or rather redeemed as adjustments are made in the light of those data.
“In that regard, each person lives his or her life privately, and yet for all of humanity.  Each person tries out new challenges, new circumstances, new achievements from a unique viewpoint, for himself or herself, and for the entire mass of humanity as well.”

(Dreams, “Evolution” and Value Fulfillment, Session 896)

Tuesday, March 13, 2018

Considering good and evil

Considering good and evil

DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World: A View from the Non-Physical (Kindle Location 3006). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition.

(Q) [From James Austin: "I'd appreciate hearing what Rita has to say about 'bad' guys, both here and in her nonphysical environment.  'Bad' is my generic term covering the range from 'I don't like what he/she/it does/thinks' through those who hurt and abuse others, to 'pure evil'.  Rita made strong statements about 'as above so below'; since we have 'bad' people in the physical, that principle would imply there are 'bad' nonphysical beings.

["Again, if specific questions are needed:

·      are there 'bad' larger selves?
·      if so, do they create 'bad' people in 3D?
·      can 'bad' people be a part of 'good' larger selves and vice versa?
·      is this sort of discussion confused by differences in what 'bad' means in 3D versus the nonphysical?"]

(A)  I agree with you, this is an excellent question, because it shows that he is thinking about the material, not merely accepting or rejecting it.  "If A be assumed to be true, wouldn't B logically follow, and if so, what about C and D?"  This is the only way to make this material or any new material truly yours.  You have to wrestle with it.

Only when you try to apply any new idea or set of ideas do you truly come to grips with it, or them.

This particular question won't get a "yes but no".  In saying that evil and good, existing in the physical, must exist in the nonphysical, he is correct.  However, as usual, for this statement to be meaningful, it must be explained.

Very well.  Good and evil.  The first thing to be said is that language does indeed use the same words to describe very different things.  The second, that everything is about viewpoints and choices.  And if more time remains today we will go beyond this, and if not, we will address it later.

Language as a problem

DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World: A View from the Non-Physical (Kindle Location 3035). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition.

So, language as a problem.  As James Austin accurately says, three categories of values are lumped together.  But this is another of those situations where, to understand A, you need to understand B, but to understand B you need to understand A.  We can't make the short, simple statements that would clarify the subject not because the subject is particularly complicated but because we have to describe one variable in terms of another variable, and the description gets tangled easily.  Only when you function outside of 3D will you realize the difficulties inherent in attempting such descriptions in sequential form (language within time), given to people experiencing reality one moment at a time - a reality that includes, in a way, their own consciousness!  Thus, for you it is a juggling act merely to keep your attention on one thing as you move through time.  It isn't like ADD so much as attention-diversion-disorder, and it is inherent in life in 3D.  But, to explain rather than complain -

(Q)  A joke, Rita?

(A)  A joke.  You'll get used to it.  Tell them of your insight into the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

(Q)  All right.  My friend Jim Marion, author of Putting on the Mind of Christ and The Death of the Mythic God, was in town visiting one day, and I told him I'd had a sudden insight and wondered what he thought of it.  (Jim is a trained theologian, a former Catholic priest, a scholar, and a trained psychologist, a student of Ken Wilbur, from which viewpoint he wrote his books.  They are not books of theology but of psychology.)  I said it had struck me that maybe the story in Genesis about The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was actually meaning The Tree of the Perception of (things as) Good and Evil, which would change the meaning of the story considerably.  In other words, rather than saying they opened their eyes, it would  say they fell into a condition of judgment based in duality.  Jim thought a moment and said - I can still quote him, so many years after - "Hebrew has very few abstract words.  That is a very permissible translation".

Tastes and values

DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World: A View from the Non-Physical (Kindle Location 3057). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition.

(A)  In other words, you see, my answer is that many things that are called evil or good are in themselves merely a matter of taste, arising from one's own values.  This is the first layer of the onion, a matter of taste.  If one person's value system is headed by truth and another's by kindness - to fashion a simple example - they will take very different views of a white lie.  If one chiefly values strength and valor, and another chiefly values harmonization and mutual accommodation, the one will think the other weak, the second will think the other unfeeling.  You understand.  The most superficial layer of this question of good and evil may be said to be a matter of tastes.

Such tastes are rooted in values, which themselves are rooted in the general composition of elements that make up the individual soul.  Thus, to some extent it could be said that one purpose of fashioning souls of many elements is to provide spokespeople for every possible nuance of feeling.  If you have 3D strands coexisting within you, and your life is the process of coming to an accommodation with them, your view of the particulars of good and evil at this level is necessarily going to be different from everybody else's.  You see?  It isn't only a matter of expressing every possible shade of preference along one given line from positive through to negative - it is a matter of expressing every possible shade of preference along many such lines, all that are active within the individual.  Hence you are going to find people whose values [on certain issues] are identical to yours, or close to them, yet very different - perhaps bewilderingly different - on other issues.  Also, thus you find your own values, no less than those of others, quite inconsistent within themselves.  Not that you or others fail to live your values; not that the values you hold are mere pretense; not that they are chosen or acquired at random, but that each of you is a representative not so much of any particular strand or combination of strands within you as, you might say, the ratio, of the final accommodation within you, of that bundle of strands.

(Q)  A lot in that paragraph.  More to unpack later, perhaps.

(A)  That's according to what people want.  But all that refers to the superficial level of, shall we say, good or evil according to preference.  From where you stand, certain values, actions, preferences, are undesirable because they offend your embodied values.  A pacifist may condemn martial expressions as if they were wrong, which to that individual they will appear to be, but those same qualities when they express as heroism in saving lives will not appear evil even to the same person.  A daredevil who likes to live on the edge may value risk-taking so highly as to underrate others whose prime value is nurturance or preservation - until, perhaps, an accident reveals the practical value and benefit of nursing!

You understand.  At this level, it is closer to a matter of opinion arising from what you are - a matter of taste, call it - than a moral stance.  But, as noted, there are deeper levels.  And rather than proceed through intermediate stages, it will be most illustrative to consider the question at its other extreme - pure good, and pure evil.

Pure good, and pure evil

DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World: A View from the Non-Physical (Kindle Location 3087). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition.

(A)  It may take a little more than that. ... Consider what the opposing poles of good and evil look like from the place of non-3D perception.

From non-3D, even duality itself is experienced differently.  It is seen but not experienced, one might say.  Or, it is recognized but not as an inescapable straitjacket but as a guide to clarity.  The nature and expression and consequences of positive and negative are very different when experienced in their totality than when experienced moment to moment in slices of time one after the next.

(Q)  I have heard it said that outside of the physical world there is no duality.

(A)  You have heard it said, and [have] argued against it.  Rightly so, from a deeper knowing.  But the argument is futile, because any argument conducted by two people who are using the same word to mean different things is going to be futile - except, perhaps in as much as the argument itself wakes one or both to the realization that the words are creating slippage.

Duality is a fact of created life, an ordering principle no less in intellectual than in physical life, no less in moral composition than in mental orientation.  But duality can orient you, or it can entrap you, depending upon your relationship to it, and this is where we need to begin next time.