Sunday, April 1, 2018

An assumption of separation

Interesting that my recent Seth post talks about "the purpose of life" and this Rita session leads into the same subject!

Serendipity!  (Lazaris has said that serendipities happen when souls are at play.  I like that!)

An assumption of separation

DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World: A View from the Non-Physical (Kindle Location's 3947). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition

(Q)  "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?"

(A)  Yes, this is a good starting place, and you might as well throw in the other question that he suggested might follow depending on what you got about the first one.

(Q)  [Martha's question: "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 trouble makers or helpers?"]

(A)  I hardly know how to address the question, as it is so laden with hot buttons wired to dynamite.  Any given angle of approach presents problems not so much inherent in the material, though it will seem like that, as inherent in people's ingrained automatic responses to approaches to the material.  I mention this not as a complaint, nor really as a description of difficulty, so much as a red flag so that readers may be aware of their own part in their reactions.  An emotional reaction usually seems inevitable, as if any right-thinking person would naturally have to respond to a given statement in a certain way.  But in fact, just as I mentioned a moment ago, it is always a choice, but the individual may or may not be aware that it is a choice.  So, reader, if you feel your hackles rising, it would be valuable for you to observe and choose your reaction.  Valuable entirely regardless of what your finally chosen attitude is.  This is not about opinions, but about consciousness.

Charles's question rests on an assumption that is not true, and so does Martha's.  The assumption, all the more powerful for being unconscious, of course, is that there is a meaningful difference between you in 3D and we in non-3D.  The very language asserts this to be a true distinction - the language of my previous sentence asserts it - but it is wrong, and I have been at some pains to build a picture of reality that would help overcome this linguistic bias.

This is one world.  We all extend to all of it.  There is no division between 3D and non-3D in the commonly accepted sense; no "veil" to penetrate, no bridge to cross to get to the other side; no "other side".  One world.  3D beings are part of larger beings that may be partly 3D and partly not 3D, but are of the same substance, and therefore of the same nature, functioning in different terrain and therefore appearing different.

I know it can be difficult to hold that in mind, but to the extent that you can, you will avoid many complications that are apparent but not real.  That is, they seem real, but are actually optical illusions.

If 3D and non-3D beings were units, individuals, and could be validly considered to be different in nature rather than all part of the same thing, then it would be possible to look at life as a matter of "who's responsible, here?  Who is pulling the strings, and who is being made to dance to them?" but suppose you asked that of movements of your legs, dancing?  Who is responsible for the movement?  The brain directing?  The localized intelligence executing? And what difference would the answer make?  It would be an unmeaningful answer, because it is an unmeaningful question.

And it tempts us back into the villains-and-victims scenario.

It does.  If one or the other is responsible, one or the other is to blame, or is being put upon.  So, you are dancing.  Is your brain to blame?  Is your link to the non-3D (where your mind, rather than your brain resides) to blame?  Is it your legs?  Is it your nervous system, your musculature, your acquired sense of balance?  You could decide upon an answer, but it would be the result of a decision, rather than the necessary conclusion presented by an impartial review of the facts.

This doesn't answer Martha's initial question, "what in the world can be the purpose of all of this suffering in the world", but it does dispose of the follow-up statements posed as questions.  Since you are well beyond your hour, we can stop here and continue next time with just that question, which after all is the root of all the questions on the topic - what is the purpose of suffering in the world?

1 comment:

  1. The line "It would be an unmeaningful answer, because it is an unmeaningful question." reminds me of the limitations we have in our simple dualistic 'true-false' logical system. Lazaris points out that there is a "liminal" which is neither true nor false somewhere between the two extremes but a completely different state. Similarly, there is a 4th state where a statement is neither true or false. The fact that we can pose meaningless questions is testament to these other two, unrecognized, logical outcomes.