Saturday, March 31, 2018

More from Rita on suffering

Aside: Controversy

DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World: A View from the Non-Physical (Kindle Location's 3830). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition

(A) ... Of course I am aware of the controversy about the topic of suffering.  In such cases, the conclusions people come to are less important than the question of whether their thought processes were activated or not.  That is, when the subject arose, did their truth-detector, as you call it, engage, or did they play old tapes of opinions previously arrived at?  If the former, they had engaged with the material; if the latter, they have not.  Progress may come out of engagement, regardless of conclusions and final stances (assuming there could be such a thing as a "final" stance), but what could result from refusal or inability to engage?

The potential for static on the line comes not from others but from yourself of course.  When is it ever different in life?  "If only 'they' were different, or acted differently, then I wouldn't have to -" etc.  That often seems true and never is, and a good thing it isn't, or your free will would be dependent on outside variables.

(Q)  Viktor Frankl said the one thing no one can take from us is the ability to choose our attitude toward what happens to us.

(A)  And he learned that wisdom in a hard school.  So the point is, don't let your awareness of others listening in, and don't let your concern over their possible reactions, move you off the place where you need to be, to engage in this enterprise.  I, on my end, promise that I won't be thrown off the rails either.  There is a big difference, you see, between being flexible and responsive, on the one hand, and being dependent upon external feedback, on the other.

Delusions of competence

DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World: A View from the Non-Physical (Kindle Location's 3845). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition

(A)  To return to the subject of suffering.

(Q)  I just glanced back, to refresh my memory.  You said three things - the world is just, and then you were going to talk about the manifestation of hidden relationships and delusions of competence.

(A)  Many of the difficulties people have with this and related subjects stem from the mind's persistent pattern of reverting to thinking of people as unitary individuals rather than as functioning communities.  If you think in those terms - especially if you don't think so much as automatically (unconsciously) assume - you come up with logical sounding and often persuasive descriptions of the way things must be.  So, if you can't stand the idea of the universe being unjust, and yet you see bad things happening to good people, to quote an old book title, you invent the idea that everything that happens to you now is payback for something you did earlier, or, presumably, is an advance payment that you can use at a later time to amortize something you haven't done yet!

But even the idea of "bad" and "good" people is a distortion based on an inadequate concept of what we truly are and how we truly function.  We won't follow that up at the moment, but make a note of it.  The point will be obvious to some, less so to others.  And in fact, the previous paragraph is full of similar distortions all caused by unconscious assumptions.  That we know what a " bad" thing is, for instance.  That "bad" things shouldn't happen to "good" people if this were a just world.  That everything has to be repaid.  (It does, actually, but not in the way that is so often assumed when people begin throwing around words like Karma.)

So, let us talk about hidden relationships.  Or come to think of it, let's dispose of delusions of competence, since it will require only a few words and we're halfway there.

People have strong feelings about what they see or think they see, and those feelings are rooted in their values, and so far, well and good.  But that doesn't mean they are competent to judge what they see.  It doesn't mean they understand or that they even see clearly.  Think how scientists continually see more and more deeply, the more they investigate any phenomenon.  The whole field of chaos studies, invented about five seconds ago (in terms of a civilization's lifespan), suddenly demonstrated that what looked - well, chaotic - had implicit laws that it followed.  Think of it!  Chaos is rooted in order, and order in chaos.  The more closely you look at anything, the more complex it reveals itself to be, and the more interrelated.

Yet people think themselves competent to judge and even condemn, because it offends their sense of the fitness of things.

(Q)  I remember the guys telling you that just because you don't like sharks, that doesn't mean the world doesn't need predators, and also scavengers.  They said without killers the world would be awash with live bodies, and without scavengers it would be awash with dead ones.  As I recall, you didn't like the answer much.

(A)  No, I can't say that I did.  But I respected it, and that's the difference.  A scholar learns to respect the data, not quarrel with it, and to wrestle with the argument, not dismiss it.  It was easier, perhaps, because Bob [Monroe] always said Earth was a system of organized predation modified by the existence of love.

The point here is that there is a very big and crucial difference between rejecting an argument because something within you feels that it is untrue, and rejecting it because something within you says, "by rights, it shouldn't be true".  The latter amounts to pretending to know the dynamics of the system, and also sets up your own morality as presumably superior to that of the creator of the system.

(Q)  It still surprises me how easily people talk about making "a better world", as if they or anyone knew how to do it.  Working on our own stuff, sure; we can do that, and it's a lifetime job.  But reforming others?  Or putting some automatic mechanism into place that will fix things?  I don't think so.

(A)  But, you see, working on yourself is the way to make a better world, and thank you for that deft segue.

(Q)  You're welcome.  Any time.

Hidden relationships

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

(A)  Once you stop thinking of yourselves as unitary individuals and experience yourselves as communities, you begin to realize that you extend in all directions as well as backward and forward in time.  If you have uncounted strands, each of which was an "individual" comprising uncounted strands, which each -.  You see?  You change what you are and you impact parts of yourself that you will never experience until your consciousness centers on the non-3D and you can see yourself as you actually are rather than as you look in any one particular time-slice that you call "right now".  As you have experienced, Frank, and as many others have experienced somewhat less publicly, you, in your present, can impact and therefore change other strands of yourself in their present [i.e., the time in which they live], which in turn will have further ramifications, again usually unsuspected by you.

That is the power to change the world.  That is the only power to change the world.  The only power you have, and the only power you need.  Because, perhaps it may not have occurred to you, changing the physical world at any given moment is not the point of all this.  The physical is a subset of the nonphysical, created to serve a specific purpose, and doing so.  You are the purpose of the whole exercise, not foreign relations or the elimination of poverty or a cure for cancer.  All things pass away, but does the nonphysical pass away?

This is a part of what I mean by hidden relationships.  Another part is that you do not know the healing effects that suffering can produce, or the growth.  It is always a mistake to judge the suffering of others as if you knew.  You don't, you can't, and in a sense, it isn't any of your business.  To alleviate the causes of suffering is well and good.  Who can argue against it?  To want to alleviate it, however, is not necessarily any more than an emotional impulse.  At worst, a self-indulgence, reassuring yourself that you are a caring individual.  To condemn the world for containing what you perceive to be injustices is to arrogate to yourself the right to judge what is beyond your ability to understand, let alone to prescribe how to cure.  Actions always have unanticipated consequences.  The evil that you shut the door to here may come with redoubled force through the window there.

Friday, March 30, 2018

The Garden of Eden Legend

“The Garden of Eden legend represents a distorted version of man’s awakening as a physical creature.  He becomes fully operational in his physical body, and while awake can only sense the dream body that had earlier been so real to him.  He now encounters his experience from within a body that must be fed, clothed, protected from the elements – a body that is subject to gravity and to earth’s laws.  He must use physical muscles to walk from place to place.  He sees himself suddenly, in a leap of comprehension, as existing for the first time not only apart from the environment, but apart from all of earth’s other creatures.
“The sense of separation is, in those terms, initially shattering.  Yet [man] is to be the portion of nature that views itself with perspective.  He is to be the part of nature that will specialize, again, in the self-conscious use of concepts.  He will grow the flower of the intellect – a flower that must have its deep roots buried securely within the earth, and yet a flower that will send new psychic seeds outward, not only for itself but for the rest of nature, of which it is a part.”

(Dreams, “Evolution” and Value Fulfillment, Session 899)

Cruelty and suffering

Is there a theme for this book?

DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World: A View from the Non-Physical (Kindle Location 3736). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition

(Q)  ... would you care to point us toward the theme of the book - if it is to be a book - or of the conversations anyway?

(A)  Of course I have a theme in mind, but perhaps it is better if each person derives his or her own idea as we go along.  The danger, you see, is that if I explicitly were to say, "the theme is -" then everything said after that point, not to mention before that point, might be forced into conformity with what someone assumed I meant by the theme.  Fluidity in perception is much more important than consistency of thought.  In fact, the effort to enforce consistency would be a great impediment.  So, I think I will decline to state my intentions, and you will have to figure them out as best you can, in the only way you ever absorb new material - you will have to wrestle with it, question it, question yourself, be alert for your own possible unconscious assumptions and be willing to question them once they happen to come to light.

Cruelty and suffering

DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World: A View from the Non-Physical (Kindle Location's 3743). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition

(Q)  Charles: "Suffering: It's difficult trying to reconcile 'all is well' with the conditions in 3D.  Some statistics:  45.2 million people are living in refugee camps, 21,000 people die of starvation each day, 500,000 people murdered in a year.  Of course, I wouldn't know this if I didn't read the news on the Internet, because it's not my subjective reality.  Is the 3D person choosing these circumstances?  Is it true that no matter what happens, car accidents, cancer, etc., we in 3D are making the choice?  Or is non-3D making the choice and we in 3D are the focal point to see how we handle it?  And the question from Martha fits nicely depending on the answer you get."

[Martha: "Every day I ask what in the world can be the purpose of all of the suffering in the world?  After eons of time, haven't these so called larger beings had enough of it?  I'm sure their 3D strands would appreciate a break from these never-ending plotlines of pain and war, disease and poverty, pollution and cruelty.  And back to yesterday's session, could she expand on the part about non-3D entities that interact with us and how much influence they have as telepathic troublemakers or helpers?"]

(A)  As you may imagine, I see the question quite a lot differently now than I did when I was in the body.  As you will remember, I was quite concerned about all these things, and I ached to be able to do something effective to stop it all, but there was so little I could do.  Sending money to charities was about the practical limit to my ability, and that seemed so limited as to be almost pathetic.  I kept up with the news, more so as my physical mobility became more limited and my world constricted.  So, it was a reorientation for me when we heard the guys first say, "All is well.  All is always well."  It took quite a while before I came to believe it.  At first I took it provisionally, in the way one does, tasting it, feeling how we respond to it.  And I questioned them on it, I seem to remember, but gently.  I was asking the questions, and if I got answers I didn't expect or didn't immediately understand or agree with, should I quarrel with the answer, or pursue it until I was sure I understood?  And, in fact, over time I came to see what they meant, and came to at least provisionally accept it.

(Q)  But we did not have you "there" to explain to us.

(A)  We did, in a way, of course.  I was here then as you are here now.  But I know what you mean.  So, I will try to give the explanation that would have helped me then.

You, Frank, will remember the explanation about childhood trauma.  But others will not, so I'll mention it here.  I was bemoaning its lasting effects that could persist through a person's entire life, warping their perceptions and inhibiting their choices - their real choices, available to them - and the guys reframed it, saying that if someone came into life wanting to experience a certain set of things, of which feelings, emotions, reactions would all be part - a childhood trauma that enabled/required them to continually call to themselves reminders, or triggers, that would lead them to experience it again would be very useful, ensuring that they would experience the same thing, from slightly different angles, until they were through with it, either in that life or when the life was ended.

(Q)  Or afterwards?

(A)  They didn't say that, but it is true, in the form of unfinished business, it could continue into another life.  And bookmark this statement, it is important.  But to stick to the subject at hand:

It is in that sense that all is well.  Suffering is useful.

Now, that doesn't mean that inflicting suffering is justified, nor that observing it unmoved is justified.  One's reaction to observing the suffering of others stems from one's value system and one's ability to feel.  The fact that suffering is useful to the person suffering does not justify sadism or indifference.

However, the fact that suffering occurs in life is only to be expected in the world of duality.  But this is a very tangled subject, with interrelated themes.

·      Justice of the world
·      Manifestation of hidden relationships
·      Delusions of competence

Let's stop with just those three, for the moment.

The justice of the world

DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World: A View from the Non-Physical (Kindle Location's 3788). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition

The world is just.  However, any particular time-slice is apt to be very unbalanced, full of what looks like injustices.  It is as if you were, on Tuesday, to see all the week as Tuesday and think how out of proportion it is, for it never to be Wednesday.  An absurd example, but I meant to show that any judgment of a situation made from consideration only of a present moment is necessarily going to be so constricted, so short-sighted, as to be wildly inadequate.

As an example, tell the story of the man at Timelines in 2003.

(Q)  [Mick had been raised by parents who were abusive and allowed him no free will whatever. He was punished for the most trivial things.  After one of the exercises, he relived a memory of a life in which he had done the same things to others.  The point was not to punish him, but now he knew what it felt like.]

But as I'm writing that here, I'm seeing all kinds of reincarnation questions arising.

(A)  Defer them.  The point is, the world never seems just, and at any given moment it probably never is just.  But seen from a larger view, it is and must be.  Again, that doesn't mean it is all right to be cruel or indifferent.  It means, by all means, express your compassion, but don't think that because this person or that group of people is suffering, therefore the world is unjust.  They in this lifetime may have done nothing to "deserve" what is done to them.  But nothing happens to anyone that is not fully compensated, see it or not, believe it or not.

So, justice.  But we had better stop here and continue another time.

(Q)  All right.  I must say, "manifestations of hidden relationships" was clear to me as I wrote it down, but now I have no idea what it means.

(A)  I guess you'll have to stay tuned, won't you?

(Q)  I guess I will.  Till next time, then.