Monday, April 16, 2018

Unique windows

Unique windows

DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World: A View from the Non-Physical (Kindle Location's 4792). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition

(Q) [From Charles: {In the 17th session Rita says} "This is simpler than it seems, in concept, but may not be so easy to grasp in detail.  The short answer is, to the extent that a lifetime created a unique new window on 3D, it is valuable.  But if did not, not."  Just for clarification, a 3D life that did not create a "unique new window" isn't lost but isn't used again to create a new soul.  Is this correct?  For example, Hitler certainly created something unique, so would his 3D life be part of a "bundle" to create a new soul?  I realize I'm using 3D judgement in my question.}

(A)  I think this isn't coming from a clear understanding (and I realize that this level of understanding now has surpassed that that existed when the question was formed, but it will be useful to others to see the divergence and the course-correction, so to speak).

I remind you, reincarnation as commonly understood and described obviously is not false, or you wouldn't have so many reports over so many centuries from so many people.  But it isn't to be seen only one way, either, or you wouldn't see so many sincere searchers after truth rejecting the idea for good and sufficient reasons.  When someone poses a question in the way this one is posed, it falls into just the assumptions that divide human opinion on reincarnation.  It is hidden in the language, you see, and the language shapes perception in the same way that it [i.e. language] has been shaped by past perception.

(Q)  Yes, you've said that more than once, and the guys before you.

(A)  And we'll need to say it again, I have no doubt, because the habits that arise out of language are persistent.

"Hitler's 3D life" certainly could be a strand in other bundles - not just onebundle, notice - it isn't as if that life were a physical commodity that could only be transferred, hence could go only to one place or another, or even one place at a time. Any given life, once lived, is a resource from which other lives may be created.  Those lives may incorporate that life (that strand) in greater or less importance.  That is, the entire new package may include Hitler's life to a small degree, or a larger degree, and with that, may emphasize this or that aspect of his personality.  It isn't a unit in the way language tempts you to think of it.

(Q)  Let me see if I can rephrase that, so we know if I'm getting it right.  Hitler comes into existence.  He incorporates 100 strands, say, and who knows who they were? After he dies - whether in 1945 in Berlin or afterward in Argentina or the moon - the mind that he formed during life may be used as one strand of other lives, and each of those lives will, of course, be different combinations of minds, and so will be dominated by different ratios of characteristics (that's one way to put it) not only among the different strands, but within the different strands.  But in any case, the use of a strand in one person does not in any way affect its availability for use in others.

(A)  That's right. And that is one reason why particularly effective combinations may echo through history - not, exactly, that a person's reputation leads others to emulate him or her; closer to the opposite way around - that person's characteristics are used repeatedly for reasons of the larger being's, and therefore many people in 3D find themselves drawn to accounts of the original life.  And so you see Caesar and Napoleon echo down through centuries - and Jesus and St. Francis and Muhammad.

(Q)  As in David Hawkins's Power vs. Force?

(A)  He is reporting results rather than causes, but he's worth looking into with this explanation in mind.

(Q)  But how about Peter Novak's The Division of Consciousness?

(A)  A valuable springboard for thought, but again proceeding from a very different idea of how things work.

(Q)  Finished with the question?

(A)  Not quite. "A 3D life that did not create a 'unique new window' isn't lost but isn't used again to create a new soul" makes the mistake again of regarding as a unit what is not a unit. The point here is that when a particular mixture of elements proves not to be a valuable window onto 3D, it is not necessarily used in the creation of others.  But the elements of which it was put together obviously do not cease to exist; it is the particular creation that may be, essentially, disused.  And once more I caution you not to assume that you or anyone can judge the uniqueness or value of any one window on the world.  Most of what you are is hidden from all others, not by reluctance or stealth but by the nature of things.  

Judge not, because as the guys told us, you never have the data.  Most of anyone is always inaccessible and incommunicable.

(Q)  Still waters run deep.

(A)  Yes, but so do rapidly running waters, and no one can plumb another's depths.  Nowwe may move on.

No comments:

Post a Comment