Rita on the theme of the work

Theme of the work

From DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World Vol 2: A View from the Non-Physical (Kindle Location 3942). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition".

(Q) I've been talking with Charles about the book this material could become, and the central theme of the book is ...?  Bob Friedman posed the question and suggested I pose it to you.  I posed it to Charles and he quoted you [from past sessions], but how about it we take it from the top?  Grantedf it is about life after the change that is taking place, how would you describe the center that a book would coalesce around?  I mean, it would be possible to stop anywhere, if the transcripts came to a natural stopping point.

Boy, do I feel fuzzy.  I hope you feel sharper than I do.  I thought I was ready to go.  Maybe not?

(A) You could always just go back to sleep.

(Q) Boy, there's the title for a book about our lives!  You could always go back to sleep.  Except, probably we can't.

(A) Sleeping and waking, in the larger sense you mean, is an alternation like day and night, winter and summer.  It isn't an aberration or a mistake, let alone a tragedy.  There isn't a time schedule for these things.

(Q) Not even a don't-miss-the-bus time schedule?

(A) Not even a don't miss the bus - how can there be, if you can't miss the bus? There is always another schedule somewhen else, some other reality.  The nice thing about the real universe is that there's no pressure, no failure, no tragedy, no missed chances - unless that's what you want to experience for the moment.  There is always another timeline to jump to, whenever you get tired of the current programming.

So, to work.  The theme of the book is pretty simple: Life is more open, more simple, more filled with possibilities, than you commonly think.  Seth pointed that out for us, long ago.

Call it "Living the Change".

(Q) I kind of liked Charles and the Dogs: "Reality - What a Bitch".

(A) You can try that one, if you prefer.  It has the advantage of piquing the reader's curiosity.

(Q) No doubt.  Okay, "Living the Change".  And -?

(A) Well, it is a reciprocating process, you understand.  You broaden your understanding, and you experience the world differently.  Different experience leads you to live differently, to change.  Living differently leads to still greater difference in experience, and so forth and so on.

This Change that you and so many have been waiting for, hoping for, comes not as an external but as every person's internal experience.  Thus, for one person the change is yet to come, for another it is taking place, for a third it is yesterday's news.  They all live in the same world and in different worlds, depending on how you count and depending on who is doing the counting.

In a way, that is why you are experiencing some difficulty in seeing atheme.  It is really three different books, at three different levels of understanding simultaneously.  The same words mean different things at different times, in different contexts, to different people.

(Q) Living the change?

(A) It doesn't have to be that title; that's for your publisher and you to decide.  But that is the theme.  Can you see it now?

(Q) You want me to summarize my understanding I take it.

(A) I do.  It will be easier.

(Q) I suppose it is a bit like my life these past couple of months.  I was living in one place, and became dissatisfied with it for lack of space, I went looking for another place to live, and found it, and went through the massive dislocation involved in uprooting and re-rooting myself, and I began to settle in, and now I am again at home.

(A) A good analogy on many levels.

(Q) Don't think I don't know it was suggested.

(A) In a larger sense, that process of moving to a more satisfactory place - with all its attendant experience of dislocation and readjustment - describes your life, and not yours alone.

The manifest universe emerges from a subjective reality

“Remember, again, the manifest [universe] emerges from a subjective reality, one that is impliedin the very nature of your world itself.” … 

“All That Is has no one image, but is within all images (whether or not they are manifest).  Your thoughts are the invisible partners of your words, and the vast unstated subjectivityof All That Is is in the same way behind all stated or manifest phenomena.” 

(Dreams, “Evolution” and Value Fulfillment Vol 2, Session 916)

Session 916

When Joseph read the last session, he wondered whether or not the invisible particles I referred to were the same as the units of consciousness I have spoken of before.

He was supposed to ask the question, and so was each reader.  For one thing, while I realize the importance of specific terms, I do not want you as a reader to become so dependent upon terms that coming across one you have read before, you instantly categorize it.  For one thing, each time I reintroduce such information I do so from another direction, so to speak, so that you as a reader are meant to approach it from a different angle also.  In that way, you become familiar with certain knowledge from a variety of viewpoints.

As you read those passages the question itself – “Are these after all the units of consciousness referred to earlier?” – should have triggered your intellect and your intuition to work together, even if only slightly, in another way.  In other words, of course, I hope to inspire both your imagination and your intelligence in this chapter and in this section of the book, devoted to such subject matter.

Remember, again, the manifest [universe] emerges from a subjective reality, one that is implied in the very nature of your world itself.  I would like you, then to think of those units of consciousness from an entirely different scale of events.

Imagine, now, as far as you are able, the existence of All That Is, a consciousness so magnificently complex that what we may call its own psychological compartments are, literally, now, infinite.  All appearances of time, and all experience of it, must be psychological.  The “speed” of electrons, for example, would reflect their psychological motion.

All That Is, as the source of all realities and experience, is so psychologically complex, so multidimensionally creative, that it constantly surprises itself.  It is, itself, the invisible universe that is everywhere implied within your world, but that becomes manifest to your perception only through historic time.  All That Is disperses itself, therefore, so that it is on the one hand “a massive” subjective entity, a psychological structure – and on the other hand, it also disperses itself into the phenomenal world.  It is, in all meanings of the word, divine, yet it disperses even that divinity so that in your terms, each unit of consciousness contains within itself those properties of divinity.  All That Is has no one image, but is within all images (whether or not they are manifest).  Your thoughts are the invisible partners of your words, and the vast unstated subjectivity of All That Is is in the same way behind all stated or manifest phenomena.

In those terms, it is basically impossible for any given species to become extinct.  It can disappear for a time, become unmanifest for while in historic events.  The genetic patterns for any given species reside, of course, primarily in that species’ genetic bank – but that genetic bank does not exist in isolation, but [is] invisibly connected with the genetic makeup of each other species.

There are countless relationships between species that go unrecognized.  The generations of all species interact.  The genetic cues are not triggered on the proposition, obviously, that a species exists alone on the planet, but also in response to genetic sequences that operate in all of the species combined.  The genetic system, again, is not closed nearly as much as supposed.  That is, again, because the basic units of consciousness that build up matter – that form matter – are themselves endowed with a subjective acuteness.  This also accounts for my earlier statement, that in usually understood terms the environment and its creatures “evolve” together.  Your position on the scale of awareness inclines you to categorize consciousnesses so that only your own familiar brand seems to fit the definition – so again here I remind you that consciousness is everywhere in the deepest terms, because All That Is disperses itself throughout physical reality.  All portions of that reality have their own rights to existence, and purposes within it.  So, of course, do all peoples, and the races.

Your imaginations help you bring elements of that inner implied universe into actuality.  Your imaginations obviously are not limited by time.  You can imagine past and future events.  Your imaginations have always helped you form your civilization, your arts and your sciences, and when they are united with your reasoning processes they can bring you knowledge about the universe and your places in it that you can receive in no other fashion.

When you are determines where you are

Session 915

Whenyou are determines where you are.  Space is in many ways more “timely” than you think.  I am not speaking of the usual time concepts, of course, of consecutive moments, but of a certain dimension of activity in which your space happens.

As long as we are trying to explain the origin of your world in a new fashion, we will be bringing in many subjects that may not usually appear in such discussions.  The world as you know it emerges from an inner, more extensive sphere of dimensions into actuality.  It is supported then by a seemingly invisible framework.

Beyond certain levels it is almost meaningless to speak in terms of particles, but I will for now use the term “invisible particles” because you are familiar with it.  Invisible particles, then, form the foundation of your world.  The invisible particles that I am referring to, however, have the ability to transform themselves into mass, or to divest themselves of it.  And the invisible particles of which I speak not only possess consciousness – but each one is, if you will, a seedthat contains within itself the potential to embark upon an infinite number of probable variations of consciousness.  To that degree such psychological particles are at that stage unspecialized, while they contain within themselves the innate ability to specialize in whatever direction becomes suitable.

They can be, and they are, everywhereat once.  Sometimes they operate with mass and sometimes without it.  Now you are composed of such invisible particles, and so is everything else that you can physically perceive.  To that degree portionsof your own consciousness areeverywhere at once. They are not lost, or spread out in some generalized fashion, but acutely responsive, and as highly alert as your familiar consciousness is now.

The self that you are aware of represents only one “position” in which those invisible particles happen to intersect, gain mass, build up form. Scientists can only perceive an electron as it is to them.  They cannot really track it.  They cannot be certain of its position and its speed at the same time, and to some extent the same applies to your consciousness.  The speed of your own thoughts takes those thoughts away from you even as you think of them – and you can never really examine a thought, but only the thought of a thought.

Because you are, you are everywhere at once.  I am quite aware of the fact that you can scarcely follow that psychological motion.  As we will see later, your imaginations can lead you toward some recognition, even toward some emotional comprehension, of this concept.  While your reasoning abilities at first may falter, that is only because you have trained your intellect to respond in a limited fashion.

There are what I will call “intervals of perception”.  You are usually conscious of events that are significant neurologically, and that neurological timing is the end result of an [almost] infinite series of sequences.  Those sequences are areas in which activities happen.  Each consciousness within each area is tuned into its proper sequence.  Each area builds on the others.  The invisible particles are the framework upon which your body is formed, for example – they movefaster than the speed of light, yet you are not dizzy. You are aware of no such motion. You are tuned into a different sequence of action.

There are, then, different worlds operating with different frequencies at different intervals.  They are conscious in other times, though you are neurologically equipped to perceive your own interval structures.  When I speak of time, I do not merely refer to other centuries as you think of them. But between the moments that you know, and neurologically accept, there are other kindsof moments, if you prefer, other versions of time, and other kinds of accomplishments and fulfillments that are not dependent upon your usual ideas of, say, growth through time.

Some of this may seem quite difficult at first reading, but I know that you are all far more intelligent than you realize you are – far more intuitive. I know also that you are tired of simple tales told to you as if you were children, and that your minds and hearts yearn for worthwhile challenges.  You want to extend yourselves as far as possible, because each of you has been born with that urge toward value fulfillment.

It is only because, particularly in your times, you have trained yourselves to limit the nature of your own consciousness that such ideas seem strange. You have thus far believed that you must train your great imaginations and your intelligences to confine themselves and their activities to the physical world as you have been told it exists.  In childhood, before you so leashed your imaginations, however, you each had your own dreams – dreams that awakened you to other portions of your own identities. There are many experiences open to you now – ifyou can be free enough to allow them – that will give you glimpses of those other intervals in which you have a reality.

I will deal with some such exercises later on in the book.  All such methods, however, are useless if your beliefs hold you back, and so the main thrust of all of my books is to increase your own areas of thought and speculation.

Rita on prophecy

The misuse of prophecy

From DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World Vol 2: A View from the Non-Physical (Kindle Location 3882). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition".

(Q) So, what is appropriate for us to hear this morning?

(A) Beware applying Psychic's Disease to End Times.

(Q) Don't think you know what's coming.

(A) That's right, neither concept nor timing.  The desire to know ahead of time is understandable - I well remember it! - but really, useless.  It confuses the reason for prophecy with an advanced newscast.

(Q) Yes, I get that.  The purpose of prophecy is not to say, "You're all doomed!" but precisely the opposite, to say, "If you don't watch your feet, you're going to run off the edge so watch it, will you?"

(A) Precisely.  If the future were unavoidable there might be some reason to give you a preview of coming attractions, but - why?  It is because you can choose among futures that freedom exists, and it is the function of prophecy to remind you of it.

So, don't go putting all your money on Armageddon, or utopia, or anything in between.  You(in effect) create your future, by choosing who and what you wish to be.  And as alwaysremember that in any discussion the underlying question is "which you?"  You in your present body - how long do you expect to function in 3D?  Two hundred years further along, nobody will remember you, and why should they?  And why should you care if they do or don't? Your immortality is not a matter of reputation; it is inherent in your having been created in the first place.  Youwill survive and flourish; your body will not.  Be glad.

(Q) Not news to me.

(A) No, but this is aimed somewhat wider and deeper.  That is, to more people at this time, and to more at future times.

(Q) So - "don't think you know what's coming".  Why is that particularly appropriate today?

(A) It is not particularlyappropriate in the sense that this Wednesday morning it can be said and not the day or week before or after; only in the sense that this is among the thoughts that belong to this wider time.  To say it in 1950 would be to say it in a context that would probably envisage atomic warfare.  To say it in 1975 would be the cold war situation of the day.  And so forth.  Today, 2015, the message is appropriate.  That doesn't mean it is the onlytime it is appropriate, and it certainly doesn't mean it is the only message appropriate to the time, only that the two match up, as one example.

(Q) And yet - looking back at what we've written today - people do get glimpses of the future.

(A) They get glimpses of the future they later go to, and it's accurate pre-vision. They get glimpses of a future they don't go to, and it is incorrect prophecy.  Same process, same accuracy, different-seeming result, because of different outcomes of their navigation, not of different efficacy in perception.

(Q) So, Edgar Cayce saw the widespread destruction from 1958 to 1998 that did not happen.

(A) Did not happen where you are.  Your very fascination with the picture - your draw to it - shows you that you are also in touch with -

No, let me back off from that and say something different.

(Q) Why?

(A) Because what I willsay can be comprehended and what I will refrain fromsaying could not, and the resulting misinterpretation is unnecessary.

Catastrophic futures

You are fascinated with - almost desirous of - a catastrophic future.  In the same way, you were convinced of, and desirous of, Antarctica coming out from under the ice.  You do not fear or regret the earth changes, but look forward to them as facilitators of other things.  Do you see a common denominator here?

(Q) A wish for the transformation of this society, I suppose.

(A) A wish for the destructionof this society, and its replacement by a better.  Does this still strike you as such a good idea?

(Q) I get your point.  I used to believe in revolution.

(A) "Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose". [French: "The more things change, the more it is the same thing."]

(Q) Revolutions are dead-ends, perhaps the least desirable way to change. Political, military, revolution, I mean. In my lifetime, I have seen my society revolutionized repeatedly, until it scarcely resembles the one I was born into in any respect.  I'm not sure - or rather, I am quite sure that not all the changes are in the right direction.

(A) Yes, but just because you are sure is no guarantee you are right.  How can you know which changes lead to what?

(Q) Again, point taken.  I suppose, in a way, even having preferences among changes is a form of Psychic's Disease.

(A) Not quite.  But preference can certainly distort perception.

Imagination

“Mankind is a species that specializes in the use of the imagination, and without the imagination language would be unnecessary. Man from his particular vantage point imagines images and events that are not before his eyes.  The applied use of the imagination is one of the most distinguishing marks of your species, and the imagination is your connection between the inner worlds of reality and the exterior world of your experience.  It connects your emotions and your reason. All species are interconnected, so, as I said earlier, when you think you think for yourselves, you also specialize in thinking for the rest of nature, which physically sustains you.”

(Dreams, “Evolution” and Value Fulfillment Vol 2, Session 914)

Rita on possibilities and our desires

Possibilities and our desires

From DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World Vol 2: A View from the Non-Physical (Kindle Location 3850). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition".

(Q) I'm not sure I know where we're going.  Nothing new there!  If I had a more analytical mind and a more industrious nature, I would be searching the material for the right questions to ask, in order to illuminate the underlying issues.  Who has ever had a better resource than our working relationship, Rita?  But I don't really do much more than transmit what I get.

(A) Worthwhile in itself.

(Q) Sure, but not what I would like to be able to do.

(A) Nothing anybody does is what they wantto do; more like what they cando within a range of possibilities.  Happy the people whose range of possibilities covers their desires.

(Q) I can imagine people objecting to this idea.

(A) Name three things (as you always say) that couldn'tbe objected to.

(Q) Touche.

(A) In fact, people's reaction to any given input could be considered to be an example of the difference between their range of possibilities and their preferences.  If they like it, they adopt it.  If they don't, they change, or they reject it, or they search for a way to renegotiate reality, call it.

(Q) They try to square the circle.

(A) Often successfully.  It is in that attempt to renegotiate reality that change occurs.  Adaptation.  Progress, so called.  Change, anyway.  (There is no real such thing as "progress" if you mean gain without forfeit.)

(Q) Go on, then.

(A) Not at this time.  It is difficult to explain to you, but different times allow different concepts. You could look at it that "you have to be ready" for certain information, but that is only to treat a universal as if it hinged upon the individual.  And, well, that is true as well, but here the emphasis is, simply, at this timefor whatever reasons you like - your inability to add to context, or a wider disparity between context and content - I can't get across to you certain concepts.  But this is no big deal, as you would say, because the time that is wrong for some things is always right for other things.

(Q) Which is why the Seth material came to the culture in the 1970s and not the 1870s, say?

(A) You can't build the pyramids from the top down.

(Q) I understand that.  Foundations must be in place before superstructures can be added.

(A) Of course.  The analogy is too limited, however, because what is a foundation-stone for one thing may be a capstone for another, and a gargoyle for a third.  Simultaneously.

Balance between intuition and reason

“Man needs the feeling that he is progressing, but technological progress alone represents a comparatively shallow level unless it is backed up by a growth of emotional understanding – a progression of man’s sense of being at one with himself and with the rest of the natural world.

“There are people who are highly intellectually proficient, whose reasoning abilities are undisputed, and yet their considerable lack of, say, emotional or spiritual development remains largely invisible as far as your assessments are concerned.  Such people are not considered retarded, of course.  I will always be speaking about a balance between intuitional and reasoning abilities and, I hope, [be] leading you toward a wedding of those abilities, for together they can bring about what would certainly appear in your world to be one completely new faculty, combining the very best elements of each, but in such a fashion that both are immeasurably enhanced.”

(Dreams, “Evolution” and Value Fulfillment Vol 2, Session 914)

Rita on explanations, belief, and truth

Explanations, belief, and truth

From DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World Vol 2: A View from the Non-Physical (Kindle Location 3767). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition".

(Q) So, Rita, a simple question.  Why should anyone pay attention to anything you say - or, from their perspective, anything I report you as having said?  Why should anyone believe any of it?

(A) They shouldn't.  It isn't a matter of belief or disbelief.  And nothing I have to say in answer to this question is anything very different from what you have been saying for years.  Since we cannot know, we can only provisionally believe, and there is no resolution to it.  So, to seek belief as a goal is sort of pointless.  The question is not, "What can you make yourself believe?" but "What explanation explains and what explanation do I resonate to?"

The Church went wrong (and churches continue to go wrong) when they set out to reassure themselves of their own correctness by measuring how many people could be persuaded (then, eventually, coerced) to believe the same things.  It is the mark of truth that people gravitate to it, or toward it anyway, when they encounter it.  It is also the mark of truth that it is broader than any mind or set of beliefs can fully encompass; hence, it always appears different to different types of people.  But truth cannot be contained.  Hence, does not exist within containers.  Hence, cannot be fixed, but is fluid.

(Q) And for those whose psychology inclines them to need a fixed unchanging truth?

(A) They will find that aspect of truth, as those needing nuance will find the ever-shifting aspect of truth.  The thing to remember it that truth is larger, broader, deeper, more nuanced, more unchanging, than a human mind.  Reality is larger than our view of it, as fishbowls are always wider than the space they enclose and give form to.

(Q) So then, those who despair that they cannot come to an ultimate truth?

(A) They could, if it occurred to them, rejoice in a quest that cannot end leaving them without anything more to interest them for the rest of eternity.

(Q) [Lest this be misread, note that it could have been phrased this way: "If it occurred to them, they could rejoice in a quest that cannot end and thus leave them without anything more to interest them for the rest of eternity".]

Funny.  True, though. We're not going to solve the mystery and then be bored for lack of a mystery to try to solve.

(A) It's a little more challenging than that.

Reality is not a long rainy afternoon to be gotten through, playing in an attic.  The things we are led to do take place within the context of reality; they aren't somehow separate from it.  Your quest - whatever it is that you feel impelled to do by your deepest nature - that quest adds tothe whole, and stems fromthe whole.  It both changes and expresses potential.  You are creating.  That's what the whole dream is about, you understand: You are continually creating; creating yourselves and creating artifacts physical and non-physical. Just by remaining in the game you are creating, and how exactly would you cease to remain in the game?

(Q) Suicide?

(A) Not so.  Ask Papa Hemingway if suicide removed him from the game.  It merely moved him to another arena.

(Q) As a matter of fact, then, what of a child who starves to death in Africa?

(A) What of a child who starves to death in Charlottesville?  It is different only in your concept of it. The short answer is, don't forget that the child came from somewhereand returns to somewhere.  The child is part of a non-physical larger being; it is not an orphan in the universe.  It brings back its full experience, as do we all.  But don't get the idea that heaven is full of walking wounded or PTSD victims, or victims of any kind.

Victimhood is an idea that makes sense only within a 3D context.  Once transcend 3D and you transcend the limitations and the partial view.

(Q) So, no causes over there?  [In life, Rita was a great believer in causes.]

(A) You laugh, but 3D benefits from charity and reform when well applied; it is the misdirection of such efforts that is the problem and this - like all problems - is best addressed by elevation of consciousness which, by the way, does not mean "looking at higher things instead", as the Hindus are tempted to do, but "continually do the only work you can do, which is to wake up to reality, regardless what you do in the charitable or reformist realms".

In non-3D, however, you as the soul shaped in your most recent life interact with other families of you that were shaped in other lives.  You can see, I trust, that your perspective on your life changes pretty drastically when you change contexts.

(Q) So, a boring life may be a rainy afternoon, in effect, and a scary or painful or tortured one may be the equivalent of a painful or tortured episode in a life.

(A) Well, isn't that a more accurate description?  Your life is eternal, which doesn't mean "a very very long time" but means "existing outside the 3D time stream".  But at the same time, any given slice of that life is only one slice, not the whole pie. The particular constellation that was Napoleon still exists, still exerts influence, but do you think the elements that were fused into Napoleon were used onlyfor Napoleon?  That he has no mundane lifetime he was and is affiliated to, before and since?

(Q) Let me rephrase that, as I'm not sure we've put it as clearly as possible. If I do not mistake, you just said each lifetime is part of many lifetimes - "part of" meaning both related to and not separable from.

(A) Yes, and remember as well, no two individuals are exactly the same in composition - that is, everyone is a different bundle of strands.  So, don't let yourself forget that we aren't really talking about individuals so much as we are of one comprehensive whole of strand-material (call it) that is expressed in different combinations continually, and has adventures in 3D, and returns to add to the full experience.

(Q) And this description is also illusory or deceptive or misleading in that we don't go anywhere or return anywhere.

(A) True, and good that you've gotten to that knowledge being instinctive with you.

So, to return to our starting point.  Nobody shouldbelieve anything we say. Some will find that they do, and they should pay attention to that (and not be dismayed, either, if at some point they cease to believe in it).  But after all, this is all that ever happens anyway.  People believe (or recognize, perhaps) or they don't, and neither others nor they themselves can do a thing to makethem believe or disbelieve.  Beliefcannot be coerced, only the expression or suppression of belief.

(Q) I had a thought - oh, yes.  Jefferson said, "The earth belongs to the living".  What was the context that applied to?  I had it but lost it.

(A) It applied to beliefs, for one thing, and to perceptions, and goals, and everything in life.  Do not allow yourselves to be embalmed, or, worse, to embalm yourselves out of misguided loyalty to the past, whether it be your ancestral past or your past beliefs. A conscious choice to adhere to the old is as valid a choice as any other - it is the being embalmed I am warning against, not the nature of the choice.  But the warning is more or less useless.  If someone chooses to remain as they are, how likely are they to have brought themselves to this material?

(Q) And that's about it for today.

(A) Yes.  It's a good resting place.

Our one-sided view of evolution

In addition to what Seth says below, it would appear that we also grossly misunderstood the term "survival of the fittest".  In the true sense of the words, it means the survival of those species most in harmony with Gaia, with other species and with the evolution of the ecosystem.

Unfortunately, most scientists view "survival of the fittest" as meaning the biggest, baddest species which dominates others survives.  If that were the case ... there would still be dinosaurs around.  Dinosaurs were, in a sense, over-optimized for their environmental context and thus had no evolutionary potential to survive the climate changes of the ice age etc.  It was species living more in harmony with all other species, who were less optimized, that ultimately survived and thrive to this day.

“The trouble with most ideas concerning evolution is that they are all one-sided – all loaded, of course, at man’s end at the expense of the other species, and [with] all thinking in terms of progress along very narrow consecutive lines.  Such ideas have much to do with the way you think of yourselves, and what you consider human characteristics, and the light in which you view those who vary in one way or another from those norms.”

(Dreams, “Evolution” and Value Fulfillment Vol 2, Session 914)

Rita on "The Change"

The change

From DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World Vol 2: A View from the Non-Physical (Kindle Location 3674). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition".

(Q) ... would you give us an idea of the general theme of the transcripts? The logical title (though not perhaps the right title, I realize) and the general drift of the book?  I mean, I can't believe even after all this time that Seth came to us via a book titled "The Seth Material".  I can't imagine a similar "The Rita Material" title.  Anyway, over to you.  Your comments, suggestions, corrections?

(A) Obviously, the central theme of the book - of this work - is to provide an updated view of life.  The age you are living in is unprecedented and one always needs new wineskins for new wines.

(Q) I don't remember ever hearing you quote from the bible.

(A) You are silently interpreting for me in some details.  I didn't think you quite recognized it, moment to moment, though you do conceptually.

(Q) But I get your point.  For us to hear, we need it said in words we can hear.

(A) More than that.  It isn't rephrasing old ideas, though that comes into it.  It is looking at old questions from a new point of view that never existed before.  And thatis the value of the lives you are all leading.  Anyone alive in Bob [Monroe]'s time, and most of mine, was there, as he said, because we wanted to be on the playing field rather than in the stands when the great change took place.  But those of you that are still there are participating in the first days afterThe Change.  Yes, it is disorienting, yes it is in fact chaotic. Yes, clearly things can't go on as they have been.

But isn't that what it is, to change and to live change and to live among changes?  Change doesn't come in a blinding flash, with everyone moving from state A to state B in a choreographed instant.  Rather, it occurs one by one - how else does anything ever happen?  But if several people change at the same instant, it can look like they change in response to an outside event, or at any rate in response to some timing mechanism outside themselves.  That is true only in a sense; it is equally true that no one is ever coerced to change, regardless of appearances.

This is a very long subject which we can go into at another time if you wish. I mention it here only to remind you that where you are, relative to The Change, depends on you.  Did The Change occur within you, or not yet?  It is not, exactly, a matter of an external event that you did or didn't yet witness.  (Again, it can look that way.)  It is a matter of how many drops of water on your head until your old self breaks and youbreak through.

(Q) A violent metaphor!  And an unexpected thought.

(A) Pain is real, within its context.  Should you expect anything other than it having multiple functions?

As I was saying, The Change - changes everything.  That's what it is for; or, you might say, that is what it reflects.  And any phenomenon, from the smallest to the question of The Meaning of Life, changes aspect when addressed from a new viewpoint.  Correspondingly, a new viewpoint, conscious or not, is going to render things comprehensible in a new way, and is going to seem to invalidate old things seen in old ways.

(Q) Charles and I talked of his long studies in Buddhism, for instance, and he said he saw nothing there that seemed to be saying the same things you are saying.

(A) "Seemed" was right, of course.

(Q) Oh, I remember how much stress you always laid on that word.  You were never one to think you had a firm handle on anything's true, hard and fast, final meaning.

(A) And in that I was absolutely, truly, finally right.

Nothing that is explained from a point of view assuming individuals are units and time is a one-way stream of ever-disappearing units can express a reality that depends upon very different constructs.  But in the absence of the perceptions that make it possible to entertain the new concepts, how can the deeper reality be conveyed?  The new views of life depended upon the coming of new eyes to see, and new mouths to speak, and new hearts to understand and embody.

(Q) And at the same time, creating those new eyes and mouths and hearts depended upon experiences that had to happen.

(A) We are galloping where we ought to tread lightly and carefully, but let's put it this way.  Experience modifies perception, and perception modifies experience.

(Q) In the same way that individuals affect mass consciousness and vice versa.

(A) In the whole universe, you will never find a one-way force.  If something influences, it is also being influenced.

(Q) So, to return to our theme?  (And that probably would be a good and appropriate title for the book - "And to Return to our Theme".)

(A) I never left it.  Context is everything.  Your title is your business, and your publisher's, unless you decide to publish it yourself as you did "Sphere and the Hologram".  But the theme is just what we were discussing here.  After The Change, old ways of seeing things will not serve you - they will be as dead and irrelevant as the religion of the Romans and Greeks 2,000 years ago.  People may still say "By Jove" (though I doubt it) but they don't actually believe in the religion that worshipped Jove.  They don't structure their lives around such rituals and by such understandings.  They have moved on.  The Nazis attempted to revive the old Germanic religion, since Christianity clearly wouldn't serve - how far did they get re-crowning Wotan?

(Q) In our day, the culture worships the great God "Science" and maybe "Physics", with its four archangels: matter and energy, time and space.

(A) For how much longer?

(Q) Good point.  My disgruntlement aside, I see what you mean.  The religion of No-Meaning and Nothing-But and This-Physical-Life-Only doesn't have much future either.

(A) No, and thatis what we are doing here! When Gods war, men die, someone said. But when God die - then what? Then, positively, there arises in the cracks opportunities for new understanding; negatively, nothing that used to help make sense of things serves to do so many more.

There's your theme, then.  Not a new theology or a new science or even a new philosophy, but a rough guide for people to use to orient themselves in this first chaotic period afterThe Change.  Later, new philosophies and consequences will arise, but it is not yet time for that.  This is a time not for street maps or even surveys, but for the first orienting sketches of the previously unknown land.

(Q) Looking back, I see that this is the same thing you said right away in answer to my question this morning.

(A) Should I have to change my mind in the scope of an hour?

(Q) No doubt it seems longer to me than to you!

(A) Of course.  You are living it sequentially, and you are doing the twofold work of absorbing and recording.

(Q) Well, it's a pleasure and a privilege as always, Rita.  Unless you have more today, I'll bid you adieu till next time.

(A) "Adieu" means "to God", you know.  In a sense, that's where we're all going, including God.

(Q) Is that a cryptic exit line, or do you want to continue?

(A) Let's just say I've changed my mind about God, these past few years of your time, too.  We are God, and I suppose it shouldn't have surprised me that if there is a God, God would be ever-changing, ever-new, no less than ever-constant, ever-the-same.  But I never thought about it.  And that's enough for the day, it'll give people time to mull it over.

Existence needs to be meaningful

“Seeds are blown by the wind, and so reproduce their kind.  Many people speculate about the physical journeys of early man from one continent to another.  It is said that in “the struggle to survive” man was literally driven to expand his physical boundaries.

“The true motion of the species, however, has always been psychological, or psychic if you prefer, involving the exploration of ideas.  And again, the survival of the species in those terms is basically dependent upon its belief in the meaningfulness of its existence.”

(Dreams, “Evolution” and Value Fulfillment Vol 2, Session 914)

Rita on choosing our rules

Choosing our rules

(Q) Well, then?  So far it has all been prologue, and hasn't touched the point I reached as I was about to go back to sleep.  And, I'm losing that insight.

(A) Nothing is ever lost, not really.

Life is but a dream.  True enough. Life is real.  True enough.  You create (or, really, choose) your own reality.  To be sure, you do.  You are one factor among millions in how reality is chosen.  True too.  Life has its own inertia, its own momntum, vastly larger than individuals, groups, societies, civilizations.  True. Life is manipulated behind the scenes. Always, and from more than merely 3D or even "3D plus non-3D but at this level of eality".

All these mutually contradictory ways of seeing things are true.  Not "somewhat" true, as you're tempted to put it, but - true.

(Q) How can so many mutually contradictory things be true?

(A) Well, think about it, and you tell me.

(Q) The only thing I can come up with - or am being fed, maybe - is that we as individuals choose which set of rules we're going to live under, sort of what Thoreau said in that Walden quote.

(A) Not exactly, but that is on the right track.  Not that you choose which rules will be true, but which rules will affect you in which proportions.

In all this work, remember not to throw out your day to day experience of life! It's silly to theorize while forgetting your own first-hand knowledge.  What you have experienced may need to be interpreted differently than you did immediately, but still it happened, and it happened to you, so it must have weight.  Ideally (but impossibly) anyone trying to make sense of life would take into account all theology, all science, all history and biography, all of everyone's personal unique unshared experience.

Well, you can't.  All you can do is whatever you can do.  But you can- if you choose to, and if you can remember to - remember your limitations.  You can remember that you can't know enough for a final judgment.  Youin 3D can't.  Wein non-3D can't.  Maybe after we graduate to the next level - whatever follows this one - we will; I don't know.

(Q) You're going to seriously disappoint a lot of people hoping for a final answer and, for that matter, the prospect of rest after this life.

(A) The short answer to them is, lighten up.  It's all all right.  Those seeking rest will find it - but not eternal rest, only until they're ready to go back to work (or play).  In the meantime, life goes on.  It always does.

(Q) Have we wandered from the point?

(A) Not really.  You wanted to know how life "really" is.  That's the same question you always ask; it is what you started life with and you never quit wondering.  But you can't answer a perplexity sincerely entertained from the same level it is posed at, just as Einstein said in a somewhat different context.

(Q) And we can't get beyond this level, so can't get a good answer.

(A) That isn't true at all.  What have I been giving you, but good answers?  But you can't get a final, comprehensive, once-and-for-all, one size-fits-all answer, because at our level it doesn't exist.  Presumably it exists at a higher level, but that is only an assumption.

(Q) And here you take issue with a hell of a lot of different "channeled" material, to say nothing of theology and science.

(A) That is just not so.  Or, not entirely so, not absolutely so.  Other sources of material are limited too; so are their 3D expounders.  Didn't you hear me remind you that life is limitation? Nothing is ultimate at this level. Nothing.  That doesn't mean you can't use it to learn more about A so you can better understand B so you can re-interpret what you just got about A so that, etc.

(Q) It has been good to reconnect, but I don't feel like I even got my tentative insight expressed, let alone explored.

(A) I merely saved you from a long exploration of a logical conundrum that can't bring you anywhere but what I did say, which is that it is a matter of viewpoint. So, I answer your desire beyond your question, your continued wish to better understand the sea in which you swim.

(Q) Or drown.

(A) That's melodramatic, given that drowning is only one more doorway to the next thing on your journey.  Those who drown, overwhelmed by life, do not live the less thereafter.  It's just another form of the universal doorway. It's a distorting shame, by the way, that biographies are constrained to end at death, as if that were what it appears.  It is true that, relative to the external manifestations of the life, death puts period. But internally, it's another story, and which do you think individuals hope for (and, often despite themselves, know is true), limitation or eternal living?  This, by the way, is why biographies such as Adomnan's of [Saint] Columbia so little resemble modern biography - they are tracing different things, and therefore concentrate on what is essential to their purpose, which things are not the same as those investigated from the assumption that a given soul is born, lives and then dies, the end.

And this is enough for now.

Technology and value fulfillment

“There are, overall, some processes important in man’s development, and in the development of the species.  Efforts, methods that work against value fulfillment phase themselves out, for in the long run they do not work.

“There is nothing wrong with technology.  Man has an innate inclination toward the use of tools, and technology is no more than an extension of that capacity.  When men use tools in accord with the “dictates” of value fulfillment, those tools are effective.  Your technology, however, as it stands, has to some important degree – but not entirely – been based upon a scientific philosophy that denies the very idea of value fulfillment. Therefore, you end up with a technology that threatens to work no longer.”

(Dreams, “Evolution” and Value Fulfillment Vol 2, Session 914)

Rita on a higher reality

A higher reality

From DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World Vol 2: A View from the Non-Physical (Kindle Location 3580). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition".

(Q) My friend Jim Szpajcher gave me a book titled "To End All Wars", about World War I as Britain experienced it.  I sent him one called "Hidden History", on the secret history of how that war was generated.  In between reading the two, I read de Gaulle's memoirs of World War II and then a biography called "The General", putting his life into context.

It is all so dismal.  Then Jim and I exchanged emails about it.  What does it all mean, etc.  I said, I'm glad this life is only a dream, but it's a damn bloody one.  It occurred to me, just now - yes, maybe only a dream, but not an individually determined one but a jointly determined one, the result of everyone's input, just as it seems (but somehow different in meaning) and I thought, well I know who I could ask.

So, Miss Rita, what about it?  What can you tell us about the nature of reality in this context?

(A) The first thing to remember, always, is that there is no one valid view of anything.  Your entire life may be described as "to understand A", etc. "You" in this case meaning, everybody in 3D form.

Life is limitation.  That is the same as saying, life is viewpoint, life is perspective, life is fractional.  All-That-Is may have the complete viewpoint - maybe - or maybe that transcends our reality and hence our ability to understand.  Remember (as you so often forget) that non-3D is integrally connected with 3D, which means that ourreality is yourreality, only experienced without your limitations.  Just because we are now without form doesn't mean we now know everything, and it doesn't mean we live as some higher version of reality.  But that there isa higher reality, we cannot doubt.  If there is a summary view of our level of reality - let alone of 3D life in particular - it can only be from a higher level.  This may not have been self-evident, but surely it is obvious when once heard?

(Q) Perhaps.

(A) Well.  We're back to the old example of the fish in the fishbowl.  It isn't very likely that the fish created both (or either) water and fishbowl.  They can only have been created by a higher level of reality (a clumsy way to say it, but perhaps it will serve).  Similarly, a view of this level of reality can only be obtained from above it.

I don't need to persuade you of this, even if I could.  I mention it merely to remind you that everything has levels, and we are no closer to knowing everything than you are.  If we can live with it, so can you!

That first point is the vital one, as nothing can be learned by those who think that once they have learned something, it is a permanent and perhaps ultimate acquisition.  Thinking any given way of seeing things is "the truth" is the end of seeking, until after a while you start seeing fraying around the edges of the fabric. 

The second point is a little more philosophical - a little more abstract, or perhaps I should merely say broader.

(Q) And in writing out the intro to it, I have lost it.

(A) Nothing is ever lost, not really.

Man lives by those values that science ignores

“You are, I hope, coming toward a time of greater psychological synthesis, so that the intuitions and reasoning abilities work together in a much more smooth fashion, so that emotional and intuitive knowledge regarding the meaningfulness of life can find clearer precision and expression, as the intellect is taught to use its faculties in a far less restricted manner.

“No matter what science says about certain values being outside of its frame of reference, science implies that those values are therefore without basis.  The reasoning qualities of the mind are directed away from any exploration that might bring about any acceptable scientific evidence for such values, therefore. The fact is that man lives by those values that science ignores.”

(Dreams, “Evolution” and Value Fulfillment Vol 2, Session 914)

Rita on creativity and friction

Creativity and friction

From DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World Vol 2: A View from the Non-Physical (Kindle Location 3524). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition".

(A) Let's say a few words about friction.

(Q) All right.  I'm not sure I posted our convesation the other day where that came up.

(A) Doesn't matter.  You are not obliged to post everything that happens to you.  Are you going to start taking photos of your breakfast and posting them?

(Q) I'll take that as a rhetorical question.

(A) What I was getting at is simply this.  A main deterrent to creativity is internal friction, and a main cause of internal friction is blockages, and a main cause of blockages is - how shall I put it?  Fear? Disagreement?  A struggle among your constituent community?

Psychology knows very well the sort of situation or reaction that can construct blockages withn a person, but because it regards individuals as units rather than as communities functioning as units, it pathologizes what it sees as internal conflict, hence underplays the common.

No, put it, it underplays the fact that such conflict is inevitable, even health-giving.  But conflict is productive only if the parties of the conflict growas a result of it.  Grow in understanding, grow in sympathy, grow in ability to deal with one another with respect and even appreciation.

The conflicts that you experienced at Hampton Roads, for instance, or in any romantic or non-romantic relationship you ever had, or - more subtly but no less importantly - in any assimilation of new material that contradicted or modified what you thought you knew - all these "external" conflicts (for the book that changes you may be looked at as an "external" source of change) are of course internal, or they would not affect you.

So - conflict produces friction.  To the degree that friction wears down the rough edges, that's all to the good.  To the degree that it jams up the works, not so good.  And the goal is not to keep producing friction, but to keep producing greater harmony through (rather than despite) the friction.

If you will consider friction as a potentially productive factor and will willingly workwith it, you will make progress toward integration rather than producing greater blockages that will leave you feeling diminished and less creative, less productive.

This is true of conflict whether it seems to you to be internal or external, for of course they are the same thing.

That's enough for now about friction.  I thought it worthwhile to give you something to post, as your experiment is meeting response.