DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World: A View from the Non-Physical (Kindle Location 3581). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition.
(Q) From Jim Austin: "Rita strongly suggests we look ... at 'the relationship' between larger selves, those with 3D experience, and those without (later referred to as 'unitary beings"). Earlier, she relates that larger beings are a unique factor, implying they/we (through the experiences gained in 3D life) are constantly changing. So how is this useful in daily life?"
(A) The question is based on a partial misinterpretation of what I meant. I seem not to have made myself plain, and such questions serve a valuable function for any teacher, showing her where she has inadvertently led her students astray. Or "he", of course.
I contrasted what we - following the guys' nomenclature - are calling the larger being, on the one hand, with angels. The contrast was between a compound being, that by its nature changes continually, and a unitary, or perhaps we should say, internally consistent being that does not and can not change. Each has its function, and the functioning and the nature of each can be best illustrated by comparing one to the other.
Again - I dislike beings so repetitious (to the point of tedium, it seems to me), but let me remind you to bear ever in mind in these discussions the nature of reality as undivided rather than physical versus nonphysical. If you allow yourselves to slip back into the accustomed scheme dividing physical and nonphysical as if they were different universes, rather than different parts of the same universe, your thought will split into two, probably unknown to yourselves, and rather than a reorientation you will experience merely a playing with words.
But if you can remember that reality is undivided and that what you are experiencing in 3D is really only a localized version of a more comprehensive experience, you will remember that there can be no true division into body and spirit, only a different placing of emphasis. You in bodies nonetheless inhabit the higher dimensions you are mostly unaware of. We not in bodies nonetheless inhabit the 3D world though our consciousness is not tethered to it by bodies, and is not limited to it by the tricks of perception caused by living in time-slices and relying primarily upon sensory data for our orientation.
Thus, you can see two things. First, interaction is continuous, whether perceived or not. Second, your, as well as our, field of activity is not limited to 3D. (This sort of ignores the fact that, as I have said, "we" and "you" are not separate from each other; that fact alone should demonstrate that one cannot be in one place only and the other in another place only.)
So, it will be worth your while to remember that when we say "the larger being" we refer to the beings of which you, and we, are part.
DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World: A View from the Non-Physical (Kindle Location 3605). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition.
(A) Now, this is such a simple statement that it requires considerable explanation to be sure that it is not misunderstood. And a short digression to tell you why that is so as a general rule: The shorter the statement, the greater the chance that it will be accepted without processing. You might think, "well, that's well and good", but, in fact, it allows you to create your own version of what it means, because a host of unconscious associations will arise within you, and will be attached to the words, and it will seem to you that the short statement "obviously" meant something shaped by your unconscious assumptions.
The trick is to become as aware of them as possible, so as to become able to correct for the consequent (and antecedent) bias. That is the value of thinking about these things rather than merely accepting or rejecting them by reference to the understandings you bring to the discussion ahead of time.
So, process the question of what "the larger being" suggests to your mind. Realize that there is no way you can trust unconscious assumptions to be correct.
Reread that, if you will. I realize that it seems to contradict the very process of trusting intuition that we are engaged in (for how different is it, to trust intuition or to talk to "the other side" or to receive messages from one's own non-3D self?), but, in fact, it is very much consistent with one of the major themes you have received, Frank, from the beginning of the process of active communication in the 1980s - use both processes, logic and intuition. Use both analysis and perception. Avoid Psychics Disease and Closed-Mind equally.
And so you can see that this is one reason why it is to be desired: Only be receptivity can you expand beyond sensory-driven logic, but only by conscious thought can you discover and correct for unconscious bias.