Rita on conflicting guidance, consistency and interpretation

Conflicting guidance

From DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World Vol 2: A View from the Non-Physical (Kindle Location 1634). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition

(Q) [Charles said, "I'm confused about guidance.  Because a new soul is comprised of differing traits, might there be several options given and is that why we sit with it until it 'feels right'?  Or, is it always consistent?  And if it is always consistent, on what is it based?"]

(A)  This really is an excellent, productive question that will help us move the discussion along, and so will help many who have not thought of it, and perhaps never would have - which means they also never would have come to the additional clarification.

He is exactly right. That is just what does happen [that is, varying guidance for different strands], and all of your lives should furnish you examples of the process, to greater or lesser extent depending on your internal makeup.

What may seem disconcerting is the idea that there may be no objectively correct Guidance, no official-seal-of-approval gold-standard automatic right answer.  What?  Are we fallible "over here"?  Can we make mistakes?  Jon Holt is closer here than you know, but not exactly in the way he pictures it.

There is no one single Guidance, any more than there is one single version of reality, or, for that matter, one single constituting individual.  Some thought in the new context [that she has been putting forth here since December, 2014] will show you that there can't be.

(Q)  Well, nudge us along a little.

(A)  It is as Charles intuits, a different associated non-3D source of information bias for each strand, and if you are living a community of mutually antagonistic strands, how else can it be than that your internal gods are warring?  But even if your various strands are more or less harmonious and cooperative, there is going to be variance among them, perhaps trivial in some circumstances and serious - maybe deadly serious - in others.

That's enough for the moment.  As people sit with it and hopefully remember it and apply it in their "real" lives, it will sink in deeper, and they will become ready for more that will tie in to other things.

(Q)  I get, "other things", some or much of which hasn't been said yet.

(A)  True, but only meant as a general statement.  I'm not keeping secrets or holding out on you. I'm saying that new information always has the potential to shed new light on older information.  You can't get around it, everything connects.

Consistency and interpretation

From DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World Vol 2: A View from the Non-Physical (Kindle Location 1679). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition".

(Q) [The terms "threads, strings, ropes, cables, and combinations of the concepts" as well as "traits, and past lives" have all been used to describe the non-3D continuing entity.  Would you please define these so they can be used consistently?]

Emerson once said his page on consistency would have been better written, "damn consistency". But I don't imagine that's quite your response.

(A)  Not quite, but I sympathize.  It is a quality very much two-edged.  It allows for the possibility of precision, but it therefore tempts people to cut life into little boxes rather than recognizing flow and nuance. In this case, though, the lack of consistency flows from your efforts to get a handle on new concepts and their slippery qualities.

(Q)  Just as when I tried to understand what I was feeling, vaguely, about crystallization.

(A)  That's why, or one reason why, I chose this question to go with our earlier discussion today.  Similar situations.  Remember, contact is as much for the development of the participating individual as for the inherent value of the information.

(Q)  I take it you include the reader, as well as the diviner.

(A)  Of course.

(Q)  So, as I remember it, I was trying to express my sense of various gradations of intensity.

(A)  Let me tell it.  Yes, that, but as I observe that moment now - from your point of view as well as mine, you know; that increase in vantage points is not confined to what people are calling "past life reviews" - you were also trying to make sense of it, and were drawing logical conclusions and mixing them with your perceptions.  That's one natural pitfall in the process, because how different is that from interpreting?

On the one hand, the perceiver must interpret what is perceived, much more so than is commonly recognized, or what is perceived will not make much sense in 3D terms.  Bob [Monroe] said it well in Far Journeys.  But it is a short step to move from interpretation to logical deduction, and that is a step that is taken frequently.  Fortunately, it is not an irredeemable step. But it is something to be wary of, a naturally occurring hazard of this kind of navigation.

(Q)  And I can see that I would be resistant to people questioning such deduction, too, just because it is such a small and easily unnoticed step.

(A)  Precisely.  Beware Psychic's Disease, yet don't demand an impossible certainty either.  That's the balance to be struck.

Now, I wanted this to be short and we haven't even gotten to the question yet.  I don't want to slur over the distinctions but I don't want to go into it either.  Perhaps the safest step for the moment is to say, disregard all analogies and, for the moment, re-read such passages as indicating varying strengths and complications of continuity among and within the community that seems to you to be an individual.  There is much more, but that's all you are going to get today.