Tuesday, May 29, 2018

Rita on an internal compass and healing

An internal compass

From DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World Vol 2: A View from the Non-Physical (Kindle Location 2359). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition".

(Q) Shall we begin as you advised me to yesterday, Miss Rita, with queued-up questions, or do you have something different in mind today?

(A) Everything connects. I think you will find, in the long run, that one's plans and short-term maneuverings mean little as opposed to one's deeper motivations and interests.  So, it amounts to saying, do what you want to do and you will wind up expressing who you are, and therefore and thereby, what you want to do.  It is how we live when the ever-moving-resent-moment goad and stimulus is removed from the equation.

(Q) I hadn't thought of that.  It sort of implies that if one has no internal compass, once can only be blown about by the winds.

(A) Well, it might be more helpful to put it this way: Once beyond 3D time as it is experienced, your array of choice is much experienced, and this has both agreeable and disagreeable aspects.  For those who have never had enough time to do everything they wanted to do, it is freedom. For those whose life was internal tedium stemming from lack of internal resources or direction, it can be a harsh and empty desert.  But either of these extremes is much modified, of course, to the extent that the newly arrived soul is in greater touch with the rest of itself, for all those other influences will modulate and to some degree contradict any extreme reaction.

(Q) But in any case, it means that preference, individual will, self-direction, is important to our afterlife.

(A)  To our continued, expanded, life, yes.  The new Marine just out of boot camp has been repaid for his recently endured hardships by a greatly strengthened self-reliance and a tightly formed or perhaps re-formed sense of self.  So, it is with compound beings emerging from the 3D life that shaped or re-shaped them.  (And just for the sake of a complete statement, I remind you and your readers that in my context, "3D" or "Earth" when used generically includes allmatter, not only one planet.)

We may return to this particular aspect of post-3D existence at another time.  Meanwhile, let's clear the queue a bit.

Patience and healing

(Q) [An email question from a person who had an unsettling experience with relatives and felt betrayed: She is "wondering what in my shadow land brought this about now.  I can only hope with patience and time I will be less distraught and angry.  Last night, I confronted my brother in a dream.  Despite all my work on forgiving, rationalizing, etc. I felt a deep betrayal from him."]

(A) Perhaps consider this. There is actually no hurrying psychic process beyond a certain point, any more than there is a hurrying of physical healing beyond a certain rate.  This is not an absolutelytrue statement - for miracles occur, and in the absence of miracles, still one can do better or worse at helping the process of healing - but relativelyit is true.  I'd say, simply, be patient with yourself and hold your intent at healing, and give yourself and the universe time, remembering that you will rarely have the full story of what is going on or why it takes time.

Life is a cooperative venture

“I am saying that the existence of each individual is important to the value fulfillment of the species.  And moreover, I am stating that the value fulfillment of the individual and the species go hand in hand.
“I am also stating that the species is itself aware of those conditions that lead to its own value fulfillment, and that of its members.  No species basically biologically considers its own existence with other species except in a cooperative manner – that is, there is no basic competition between species.  When you think that there is, you are reading nature wrong.  Whatever man’s conscious beliefs, on a biological level his genetic structure is intimately related to the genetic structure of all other species.”
(Dreams, “Evolution” and Value Fulfillment Vol 2Session 911)

Monday, May 28, 2018

Rita on the purpose of the work and new mindsets

The purpose of the work

From DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World Vol 2: A View from the Non-Physical (Kindle Location 2271). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition".

(Q) It occurs to me to ask, have we gone far enough that you can give us hints as to what you are up to? If this is to be a book, can you give Charles and me an idea of the central theme, other than "the way it looks from here"?

(A) I would not care to encourage the idea that this has only one intent, or is aimed at only one expression.  You naturally think in terms of a book, or books, and that is a possibility, but in thinking of a futurepossibility, you shouldn't let yourself overlook a presentreality.

(Q) The blog and the Facebook exposure.

(A) You don't know who reads what, nor what they do with it, nor how it affects them.  Nor do you need to know. Nor is it random, of course. That is, it is not - as it may appear to be - a case of someone in 3D happening upon information that then changes them.  They may come upon information that changes them, but I assure you, they don't "happen upon" it.

(Q) Communication is two way.

(A) Look at it like this. In fully forming your thought - in this case, in the two of us fully forming our joint exploration/exposition - we are publishing it in non-3D quite as much as (and, indeed, more, and prior to) in 3D.  People's 3D minds, call it, are influenced by their non-3D minds which is why they stumble upon the site and read the words, and why the words affect them.  And, of course, you can hear in this sentence how language pulls apart what is actually one thing, pretending for the sake of analysis and clarity that a person's mind could be divided into his or her 3D mind and non-3D mind.  In reality there is no such division, of course, but for the purposes of attaining greater clarity it is useful to consider things that way.

(Q) Thus, conscious mind, personal unconscious, racial unconscious, according to Carl Jung.

(A) Yes.  He was not making hard and fast divisions, nor was he oblivious to the fact that relativedistinctions were as arbitrary as they were helpful.  But it is inherent in the nature of 3D that the mind has to do a certain form of processing only be sequential - therefore fragmented - examination.

(Q) Just to be sure we're clear: I hear that as saying that our logical minds process through the left brain and therefore see things sequentially rather than as a whole, and therefore we can only put it back together by a right-brain perception of a gestalt.  We have to pick apart a flower in order to see what it is made of, but then in order to see it as a flower, we have to remind ourselves that the whole is not the sum of its parts.

(A) This is a long disquisition in itself, perhaps for another time, but yes, your understanding of my implied meaning is correct.  You aren't explicating what I said, as much as expressing the understanding from which I was proceeding.

New abilities and old mindsets

(A) So, to return to our main point here, it is a mistake - and a very wide-spread one - to think that minds do or even could function in isolation.  No matter how isolated the individual in 3D, there is no isolating him or her from the rest of his or her mind, hence from everything that mind connects to, which is - potentially anything and everything.

(Q) That will come as disquieting news to those who live by secrecy and disinformation.

(A) As well it should, to use your phrase.

(Q) Oh. Do I get a subtext, here?

(A) Well, think it through. Why do you suppose you were moved to talk to Joseph P. Kennedy nine years ago, and to publish that talk on the Internet in the middle of our explorations?

(Q) That's very interesting! Of course.  What could be more subversive of secrecy than expanding people's access?

(A) Yes, and now is the time for a few cautions and caveats.

(Q) I think I could predict at least a couple of them, but go ahead.

(A) Yes.  They all involve the proper application of abilities. It is so easy to be seduced by possibilities.  The most misleading ideas are those that result from new abilities conducted according to old mindsets.

(Q) May I?

(A) Feel free.

(Q) I think you mean to say, don't think that new means to connection are primarily a means of evading secrecy in 3D.

(A) You went to Joe Kennedy thinking to find out the truth that had been suppressed in 3D.  It is a natural first step, to assume that you have just discovered a short-cut through the swamp, or a spyglass through the fog. And those whose life and livelihood are intrinsically tied up in maintaining such secrecy are also likely to react in the same way, from the other side of the equation, seeing these abilities as a threat.  In both cases, this is a relatively trivial response.  Understandable as an initial reaction, but trivial.  It is as if one discovered how to fly, and thought of the new ability as primarily a way to get over a fence.

(Q) I see that, though perhaps not everyone will agree.  Colin Wilson wrote a novel, The Black Room, about a protagonist who discovers unusual powers that concern spy agencies, and whose only reaction to the spies was annoyance and impatience that their trivial concerns were interfering with his exploration.

(A) See it from our point of view.  You are learning to extend who and what you are in ways that will utterly transform the human species - you are barely at the beginning of it - and yet by reflex you are considering how this new reality will affect the stock market, or the congressional elections, or the global balance of power, or the Green transition, or anything else.  It's natural, for it takes time, experience, and imagination to transform one's mental world, but it verges on comical.

(Q) I'll tell you what verges on comical, Rita, it's the difference between what you're saying here - that I totally agree with - as opposed to your concern in life with politics and ideology and the whole CNN world.

(A) I wasn't wrong to be concerned and to cast my mental vote in favor of certain values, but of course you can't expect to see things the same way when your everyday reality has been transformed - including your definition of "everyday"!

(Q) So, it would be a mistake to advise people to lighten up in their obsessive concern for the political, economic, ideological, ecological, theological dramas playing out all around them?

(A) You mean, I think, advise everybody to be just like you?

(Q) Very funny.  And, in fact, that was very funny.  No, I don't expect everybody to become just like me.

(A) But - don't you? Not just you, of course, but everybody? Don't you all expect, subconsciously, that others will become more like you to the degree that they clear their heads?

(Q) Maybe so.  That wouldn't speak well for our intelligence, if so.

(A) It isn't a matter of intelligence, it's just human nature.  You assume homeostasis in everything, and one of those things is "what it is like to be functioning normally".  Naturally one's definition of functioning normally is going to be based on one's everyday experience - and there's that word "everyday" again.


“The most important aspects of individuality are those subjective characteristics that on the one hand distinguish each person from the other, and that on the other hand are each like sparkling psychological mosaics, giving separate, exquisite individual versions of that larger pattern from which mankind emerges.  The security, the integrity, and the brilliance of each individuality rises in these terms from that universal genetic language, and also from the inner subjective language of dreams.  There are great connections between the two, and both are spoken together.”
(Dreams, “Evolution” and Value Fulfillment Vol 2Session 911)

Sunday, May 27, 2018

Rita on life-planning, vectors and karma


(Q) Unless you have other fish to fry, let's talk about planning, since you bring it up.  People talk about life-plans and all that, and I've never known what to think about it.  Something in me says the concept isn't quite right, no matter how firmly people believe in it, and no matter what convincing evidence comes, such as Robert Schwartz's book about life plans, the title of which escapes me. [Your Soul's Plan: Discovering the Real Meaning of the Life You Planned Before You Were Born.]  Do we plan out our lives ahead of time?  If so - well, talk about it, if you will.

(A) Like so many other topics we have discussed, it all depends upon your viewpoint.  Where people go wrong - or, let's say, where the seeds of disagreement are sown - is in failing to recognize that any one particular way of seeing things is only one way, never the only way.  And isn't that the theme of this work?  If it were not so, how could anyone say anything new, anything helpful, on any subject that has been discussed since time began? If anything could be described once for all - well, that would be the end of the discussion.

Now, notice, this s not a question of some people seeing rightly and others not; it is a matter of attaining a higher perspective so you can make new maps.  And those maps are "new" only insofar as they are anchored, on one end, by the understanding of the person pondering them. That is, unlike an architectural blueprint, the thing being examined is different to each one looking at it.

And isn't that consistent with what we are saying here right along?  Every person is a unique window on the world, hence is potentially the source of irreplaceable information.  What is clear and plain to you may have been never clear or plain to anyone in the history of the world, for nobody has ever had your perspective to view it from.

(Q) I know you mean that for everybody, not just for me.  I'm only pointing out that I'm aware of it.

(A) That is yet one more value of the individual to the species, as an irreproducible window.

All right, now to the question of life plans.  Here - and on any topic you care to explore - it is well to consider the assumptions you bring to the question, as that awareness will help you separate out the essentials from the ephemera.

(Q) Come again?

(A) Observe as we do it.

If we begin from the assumption that time is as it appears to be - the present moment continually turning into the past, continually unrolling the future that will become the present - the subject will be as it appears.  And if we look at it as past, present, and future all existing and you experiencing them as the moving present carries you along, still they don't appear much different - you may see more possibilities, a wider field of action, as you interact with past and future in ways the first concept would have no scope to allow - but still you will be encased in a framework that seems to support such planning.  And, I repeat, that way of seeing things is not invalid from within that set of assumptions.  It works, and it is more correct than the view that sees life as meaningless collisions. It's a good halfway house to further insights.  (Indeed, what isn't?  You aren't going to find any ultimate truths, and neither am I.  The best we can do is reframe our understanding.)

(Q) Still pursuing A by understanding B, etc.

(A) That's the nature of it.

Okay, so how do life plans and life-planning look from a different perspective?  Take our analogy of reality as a CD-ROM imprinted with all possibilities, and any given life as one walk down those possibilities.  Look at things that way, and you can see that the "planning" is actually inherent in the original design of the game.

(Q) May I try?

(A) Go ahead; it will be easier than taking dictation.

(Q) What I'm getting is that all reality - all possible versions of everything - is created at once, and there's our CD-ROM (an analogy probably already obsolete, but there you are). Every possible path is there, which means more than "every possible decision for a given individual already exists"; it means, every possible variation of all individuals exists. Thus, Franks with very different characteristics also exist, so do versions without him.

In such case, how meaningful is it to talk of life-planning as if planning for only one person in only one version of reality?  It is more meaningful to say that every possible path - including the intuitive path often called the pathless path - is there for the choosing, and so the "life-planning" so called is actually merely the deciding among alternatives.

(A) Not quite.  Even here, your model is being silently influenced by other assumptions that lead you to treat a life as onepath; thus,onedecision and that's it, everything from that point is merely a run-through. Does that feel like the life you experience day by day?

(Q) No.  It sort of makes it seem all automatic-pilot, doesn't it? Well then?

(A) Merely recognize that your life is an endless series of starting points.

(Q) I get it, but go on for the sake of the studio audience, as it were.

(A) Isn't it clear? You could profitably look at your life - at anybody's life, of course - as a continual moment of choice.  No matter what you do, you leave yourself at a moment of choice among the next alternatives.  Your birth may be regarded as the first choice, as it places you within a certain reality-stream.  Obviously, by being born you obviate the streams that don't include you.  As you go along, you eliminate or shall we say by-pass the streams in which you die young.  Every new moment is the beginning of the choice of what comes next, as every new moment is also the culmination of all past choices.  So, your life plan cannot rightfully be seen as one inevitable blueprint, but as a continuous choice among alternatives.  And isn't that just how it feels?

(Q) Yes, it is. That's how I experience it.  Maybe that's why the concept of a life plan always sort of grated on me.

(A) But what we've said so far is not the end of the story, for there is in fact a vectorto your life, to everyone's life.


From DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World Vol 2: A View from the Non-Physical (Kindle Location 2182). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition".

(Q) So, Rita, you said, "There is a vector[1]to your life, to everyone's life." Would you care to explain?

(A) Of course, and you will find it obvious when once stated.  At least, I think you will.  It is the elaboration, and the implications on a wider scale, that may perhaps give you pause.

What I have said to date is accurate, or at least is an approximation, but it only goes so far. You - anyone living a life in 3D - continually face an array of choices stemming from past choices.  your past is determined (from the standpoint of your present moment); your future is absolutely free within the constraints of the possibilities presented by the situation as it exists.

(Q) What we did determines where we are.  What we choose to do next determines where we go next.

(A) True, from one point of view.  And after all, this is what a "common sense" point of view would portray as obvious and in fact inevitable.  However, if it were this simple, logical analysis would lead you, as it has led others, to conclude that free will is an illusion, because the situation you find yourself in at any given moment essentially boxes you in.  Not only can you not start from China if you start from Peru, but you can't reasonably expect to start as a salesman if you start as a mechanic or a college professor.  In other words, the existing situation exists in overwhelming strength, and all but determines what you will do.

(Q) That is common sense, indeed.  How often do we ever tear up our existing life and proceed down another path?

(A) Not often, perhaps, though actually more often (though slowly) than you might expect.  But in one logically defensible theory of human behavior, it should never happen.  Yet it does. The reason why it does - why it can- happen is that humans are more than puppets and extend farther than the bounds of 3D reality.  It is a complicated relationship to explain, though simple enough in reality.  Words divide what is one thing.

So, if you have the idea, try saying it.

(Q)  Frank is a human in 3D, stumbling along as best he can, reconciling or trying to reconcile divergent strands within him, responsive to what seem to be external forces, and aware to a greater or lesser extent of his connection, via his comprising strands, to other times, other compound beings, continually or anyway repeatedly interacting with him.

Yet he is also an extension of himself as he exists in higher dimensions; or we might say he is a probe for a larger being, living his life with and for his larger self, part of it no matter how independent he may feel himself to be.

(A) Good enough.  And talking of the 3D self and the non-3D self is only a small improvement over talking about body versus spirit, or this side and the other side, etc.  Words still blur the continuity and emphasize the distinctions.

The next logical step in our analysis, bearing that continuity in mind, is to see that the 3D self is not as independent as we have been implying.  It may be an autonomous state, able to exercise its will freely in domestic matters, but it is not independent, free to manage its international affairs as it wishes.  That isn't the best analogy, in some ways, but it will serve.

(Q) I begin to see what you meant by saying our lives have vectors.  Our non-3D components have preferences, and they bend us in certain directions, don't they?

(A)  Here you will want to be careful of nuance, for language will lead you in very different ways emotionally, depending on what you choose. And once you set off on a path, you will find it difficult to remember that alternative ways of seeing things are equally valid.

So, you may put it that our non-3D component bends you in certain directions, and the unspoken implication is one of interference.

You may think of it as guidance, and the implication is of protection or anyway of assistance.

You may think of it as conscience telling you what you "should" do, and you may regard that either rebelliously or with a certain guilt for not measuring up.

All these possibilities - and all others - stem from the linguistic suggestion that there is a distinction between you in 3D and you in non-3D.  There issuch a distinction, relatively; at the same time, it is an ephemeral distinction, almost a metaphysical distinction merely.  This is why you were told from the beginning that the difference between what you then saw as you versus spirits ["vis a vis spirits", I think; certainly not "versus" in the sense of an adversarial relationship] was the turf you functioned on.  At the same time, you didn't have the groundwork to understand a closer statement.

So, what I called a vector is established by the nature and purpose of your non-3D component - which, remember, includes you and all your strands and all the other "individuals" your stands connect you to, in a more active and equal relationship than you experience.

(Q) Let me paraphrase. I think you are saying that our conscious selves subordinate the existing reality of the other lives; we are the ring-masters of our life, and we get to drive.  Yet from a non-3D perspective, a strand that existed in the 1600s is as "now" as we are, and so exerts a stronger influence there than it can here.

(A) That's right.  Or, let's say, that's close enough for the moment. So now perhaps you can see that the larger being, as a whole, necessarily has a different reality than any one of its 3D pieces does, and its point of view encompasses them all.

(Q) We're edging toward a discussion of karma here, aren't we?

(A) Yes.  In effect, karma may be considered to be two things at once, or one thing in two aspects, put it that way.


Karma from the 3D point of view is leftover imbalance that must be righted.  Some see it as guilt to be atoned, but if it were that simple, what of those who get their good fortune first and their difficulties later?  The traditional view of karma is quite insufficient, but was all but inevitable as long as people were seeing the balancing but were thinking of past lives as if they were unit to unit, rather than community to community.

Karma from a non-3D point of view might be considered more like the effects of inertia than of a need for rebalancing.  After all, if no individual is really a unit, and no non-3D "individual" is only one 3D unit's non-physical component, where is the opportunity, let alone the necessity, of deliberately balancing?  Instead, balance occurs naturally, as in any functioning homeostatic system.

And a third point of view is premature to discuss, but should be mentioned if only for later consideration, and that is that what we are calling the larger being, the non-3D aspects of a 3D compound being, is not, itself, any more individual than anything else we are discussing.  You will find it hard to keep remembering not to let the discussion tempt you into reverting to thinking of beings as separate, but it is worthwhile to make the attempt, or else your ability to understand subtle relationships will be impaired.

And that's enough for now.

[1]Lazaris refers to seven focuses, two mandatory and five "electives".  These together would characterize a 7-dimensional "vector".  I think the mandatories are learning manifestation and fun (love) ... the synergy of these two results in creating fun (joy, love, Seth's exuberance).

Rita on communicating with self

Communicating with self

From DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World Vol 2: A View from the Non-Physical (Kindle Location 2104). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition".

(Q) Miss Rita, I hear you ready to come in, at just 6 AM, after I have been writing to myself for half an hour.

(A) It is the writing to yourself that I wish to remind you not to overlook.  One pitfall of regular communication with others is that you may neglect to communicate with yourself.

(Q) Thoreau said it long ago, something like, "Depend on it, the man who walks away from the post office with the most letters hasn't heard from himself in a long time."

(A) An overstatement, perhaps, but a pointed one, and obviously it resonated with you, enough that you remembered it well enough to be able to paraphrase it.  But it is not enough to be able to quote wisdom; not enough even, to agree with it.  You must life it, or what good is it to you?

(Q) Guilty, your honor.

(A) Of course, this is not just for you.  That would come as a private communication, for you are not required to say everything that happens to you, any more than one can be required to give out every thought that occurs to him or her (not that it would be possible, in any case). But you in your role as exemplar/encourager of this new way of expanding one's life experience are, therefore, ...

(Q) Lost the thread. That was going to be an involved sentence.

(A) I merely point out that you can teach easiest by setting out as example what happened to you.  Not that you need to be persuaded about it, that's what you have been doing right along, since Muddy Tracks.  The point is, what happens to one might happen to another.  One person's temptations, opportunities, insights, pitfalls, serendipitous occurrences, may serve as inspiration to another, only it is important that such experience not be prettied up or glorified or made "glamorous" - and such reporting happens to be right up your alley.  Of course, I say "happens to be", and smile, for of course that was all part of the plan.

Man's biological unity

“The genetic system is an inner, biological, “universal” language.
“In your terms that language speaks the flesh – and it speaks the flesh equally in all races of mankind.  There are no inferior or superior races.  Now dreams also provide you with another universal kind of language, one that unites all peoples to one extent or another, regardless of their physical circumstances or nationalities or alliances.
“The cataloging of separate races simply involves you in organizations of variances played upon a common theme – variances that you have used for various purposes.  Often those purposes led you to overexaggerate the differences between groups, and to minimize man’s biological unity.”
(Dreams, “Evolution” and Value Fulfillment Vol 2,Session 911)

Saturday, May 26, 2018

Frank Channeling Ed - Relationships

I particularly like the tapestry metaphor as an extension of the strands metaphor that Rita uses.

Lazaris refers to manifestation as a tapestry, but that is a different context.

The Seth material expands Ed and Frank's tapestry to include future lifetimes (implicit in their remarks) but also the interaction of the countless probable pasts and futures.

No wonder we constrained things to 3D, ever-moving time slices in this Earth plane ... we needed a major simplification of the vast complexity of reality in order to get a glimpse of one aspect of what we're all doing spontaneously in the spacious present.


From DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World Vol 2: A View from the Non-Physical (Kindle Location 2049). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition".

(Q) [Here, Frank is channeling Ed Carter, deceased, on what would have been his 100th birthday]

(Ed) Your father died at age 70.  You were not yet 40.  But next year you will have caught up with him.  Does it not change the possibilities inherent in the relationship? Similarly, you are catching up with me. Every year you live adds possibilities of new relationship between us.  Not that I am changing, necessarily, but that you change, necessarily.

Nor is that the end of it. Your friend David and you were connected by strands of yours and strands of his that had interacted long before, in a different kind of relationship, in which he was the elder instructor and you were the prized pupil.  That relationship played out in your present life - it colored your interaction without either of you knowing it - and it was reciprocally affected by your new interaction - and is stillbeing affected, and changed, as you continue to live your life and bring a changed perspective to it.

(Q)  This, regardless of whether he and I are in contact?

(Ed) Regardless whether you are awareof such contact.  It continues all the time.  Life is far more complex than you suspect even yet.

(Q) It's a lot to try to grasp.

(Ed) I know, and it will repay thought.  So, let me put it this way.  Everybody on earth at any time is a window into the world for those who are no longer active.  But just because we are no longer active - by which I mean, no longer moving through the years being carried by bodies - that doesn't mean we are not actively participating in many relationships.

(Q) Your strands all continue to interact.

(Ed) Not all at any one time necessarily.  Those with connections to those people presently embodied.  Not necessarily all, but, as you can imagine, quite a lot.

(Q) It makes my head spin. I have gotten used to the idea of us all remaining alive and available for interaction.  It hadn't occurred to me that of course this means that all the strands in all the people who ever lived are available for continual interaction with everybody they connect to.  There's no end to it.  It is all one vast interconnected tapestry, and it changes all the time.

(Ed) That's right.  But look at how many things you had to learn before you were ready for another turn of the kaleidoscope.

(Q) Wow.  And I thought I was merely saying hello to an old friend on his non-quite birthday.

(Ed) By now you must be used to being surprised by the difference between intent and what happens. That amounts to the difference between conscious awareness and all the rest of you.

(Q) So - well, enough for one day, I suppose.  I was going to ask about your relations with your daughter but I get the sense that some things are too private for public display.

(Ed) Not the way that sounds.  It isn't a cause for secrecy, and it isn't even that she would necessarily object to being mentioned here.  But that is between her and her mother and me, and this is going far and wide to people who didn't know and won't know any of us, and there's no point.  We've already said the essence of it, which is that continuing to live changes your relationship with those who have gone before you by adding layers of experience on the one side and therefore adding to your contribution to the relationship.  And perhaps we should have mentioned that in any interaction, all ages of both sides may come into play, not merely the age that you happen to be observing from.  Right now, you are in 2015.  That isn't any more or less important than when you were in 2014 or 2000.  Like those earlier dates, you will pass it, and it will be one more reference point, no more, no less.

(Q) My goodness. Well, Ed, see if I ever drop by again! A lot to chew on, and thank you.

(Ed) You're welcome and didn't I tell you I had a feeling it would be worthwhile for us to do Lifeline together?

(Q) You certainly did, and if you had not paid my way I couldn't have done it, and wouldn't have met Rich and Joyce or gone down this particular path in this particular way.

(Ed) Give my regards to Richard as well.  Although he isn't likely to realize it, I've been interacting with him over the years too, as our strands have held us in connection from other times.

(Q)  I sure wish I were a better thinker or had different training.  There is so much here to be deduced and elaborated!

(Ed) You bring it across; others can systematically make sense of it.

(Q) "Whoever isn't skinning can hold a leg", as Mr. Lincoln said.

(Ed) There's enough work for everybody, and it is rewarding work.

(Q) I am loathe to let you go, but my hour is up and anyway I don't know where I'd go next.

(Ed) If I'mnot going anywhere, why should yougo somewhere?  There's always time; it's just that every time is a different distinct opportunity.  I'll use your sign-off line: Be well.

(Q) And you.  And Happy Birthday, tomorrow, and maybe we'll talk some more another time.  Till then.

Humans are not a genetic master species

“[Mice] are bred and sold for experimental purposes. The intent of such procedures is to promote the quality of human life, to study the nature of diseases, and hopefully apply what is learned to some of the lives of human beings.  Mice are not considered human.  They are not.  So, like any animal, they are thought of as dispensable, sacrificed to a fine humanitarian end.
“… You cannot improve the quality of your own lives by destroying the quality of any other kinds of life.  There is no genetic master race.  The vary classification of the species into races to begin with is based upon distinctions that are ridiculously minute in the overall picture of the similarities.”
(Dreams, “Evolution” and Value Fulfillment Vol 2Session 910)

Friday, May 25, 2018

Rita on comparing systems and compound beings

Comparing systems

From DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World Vol 2: A View from the Non-Physical (Kindle Location 1912). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition".

(Q) [John Dorsey Wolf: "I was listening to #29 on Aspects, which coincidentally was introduced and monitored by Rita's husband.  The question is whether the aspects as described by that tape are related to the strands that Rita has used as an analogy of our spiritual make up. What I understood from the tape is that there are energies that are a part of us that help to produce physical life, but themselves have never been a human or experienced human life as we do. So, are there 'energies' or other 'aspects' of us that go beyond the physical DNA and the spiritual strands that Rita has described?  If so, can Rita elaborate?"]

(A) I won't compare the two ways of describing the same reality, for a couple of reasons.  One, most people will not have read the session or heard of it, so it would require some explanation.  But two, if you are describing the same reality, why compare systems?  A rhetorical question, that: I understand the impulse, but I am saying it isn't always profitable.  It canbe, if it results in the process of examining the two systems for common features so that you can see what they do nothave in common.  That's how the guys always used to give us two very different analogies and tell us to strip off everything they didn't have in common, so we could get closer to understanding things that couldn't quite be said.  But it can become unprofitable, even harmful, if it is used to try to "prove" or (more likely) "disprove" one system by testing it against the authority of another.

(Q)  That requires some explanation, for I can imagine ways to use the process that can be quite helpful.  Indeed, isn't that what I have always done?  Isn't that what we do when we try to expand our knowledge-base?  When the guys would tell us something, I always felt comforted if it seemed to agree with something Seth had said, for instance. I had only read a couple of the Seth books, but I take Seth as the gold standard for this type of information. If we don't judge something new against what we have come to trust, where is our place to stand?  Don't we wind up continually trying to start fresh? And, in fact rather than theory, doesn't that wind up in our not really comparing at all, but merely sticking to what we know rather than risking losing what firm ground we already have or think we have or hope we have?

(A)  Well, I saidit can be helpful.  My point is merely that it has its pitfalls like any procedure, and should be used with care.

(Q)  An analogy had come to mind but I lost it.

(A)  Comparative religions.

(Q)  Yes, that's it.  If you compare religions you can see their points in common and their distinctive points of emphasis.  But if you compare them from within one system, taking that system as the touchstone, all you do is - at best - get a new slant on what you believe; you are unlikely to see the other systems as their adherents do.

(A)  Let's look at that, and then we can proceed to the specific question of the day.

It is a mistake to judge other people's (or even one's own) system as relatively "good" or "bad" vis a vis another system.  There is no perfect system any more than there is a perfect human (in the sense of all advantage and consequent disadvantage).  Every advantage is purchased at the expense of inherent disadvantage.  We used to say that a thing had the defects of its qualities: That means, merely, that different specializations that make a thing better for one thing make it correspondingly worse for another thing.

(Q) I'm getting the vague impression of a bow and arrow versus a rifle or shotgun.

(A)  That's right, but we could use any example.  A bow and arrow is silent but doesn't have the range or rapidity of a gunpowder-propelled missile. ln some situations the silence is an advantage worth more than the disadvantage; in some, not.


(Q) Side note - what a quiet joy to look out the window as I sit here writing and see the sunrise, the line of red against the trees in the distance, reaching up into white and then deepening blue, after four years without a window looking out at a sunrise. It's as it was those years living in your house, Rita, only now with Pantops [mountain] as part of the horizon.

(A)  And, as I said here once, I think, we get to experience that sunrise in a different sense, for here the physical phenomenon mingles seamlessly with the perceptions and reactions of the window through which we are seeing it.

(Q)  Window, meaning me, in this case.

(A)  That's right.  We have no eyes because we have no limitations to the senses [which I took to mean, in the non-3D we are not limited to input from the physical senses], so in a way it cannot be said that we "see" a sunrise.  And yet we do, in the same way that a psychic who "knows" something has a more direct link than one who has a vision or an idea that then needs to be interpreted.  In short, we go directly to the sunrise as a combination of aesthetic experience and as trigger of our emotional and other associations - your years on Roberts Mountain Road, for instance - and do not have to do the work of association that you have already done, because you have already done it.

(Q)  ... Are we ever going to address that second question?

Life as compound beings

From DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World Vol 2: A View from the Non-Physical (Kindle Location 1968). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition".

(A) Right now.  Are there energies that affect compound beings beyond the physical ones that are more easily discerned and describe?  Of course there are, and indeed I can elaborate, but so can your entire lives, and that is one way you should use your lives, as elaborations of meaning.  What you have lived, you can know.  Nothing else. That is not the limitation it may seem to be, however, as you all live much more than you will ever have time and awareness enough to explore.

A more direct answer is this.  Remember in these explorations, always, as best you can, that everything is one.  Everything is connected, and nothing exists in isolation.  Therefore, if spiritual influences exist (and they do), then they must be connected to physical influences and both to you.  How else could it be?  Thus, you as compound beings are animal and spirit, if you wish to divide things that way, or are meeting-places of physical strands (heredity) and life-strands (your spiritual heredity, call it, or "past lives", or aspects) - and this compound being that you are is continually influenced by its environment, physical, spiritual, energetic - however you want to describe it (or rather, conceptualize it).  That, after all, is whyyou are in physical existence, to be influenced by such factors and react to those influences.  That is your function, and your predicament, and your achievement, and your joy.  Your joy, if you allow it, for that depends upon your reactions.  Some people rejoice in the beauty and promise of a sunrise; some grumble that the newly returning light makes it harder to keep sleeping.  It is all in your reactions.  And that's enough for the moment.

(Q)  Thanks as always, Rita.  Before I go upstairs to type this up, I think I'll give us both a few minutes to enjoy the rest of the sunrise.

(A)  Yes - except you realize, "the rest" of a sunrise is the entire day, including sunset and the night to come.  It's all one thing.

All life is sacred

“The reasoning mind, as you have used it thus far, roughly since the birth of Christianity, has confined its reasoning abilities to a very narrow spectrum of reality.  It has seen the value of life largely only as that life conforms to its own standards.  That is, the reasoning mind, as you have used it, considers that only reasoning creatures are capable of understanding life’s values.  Other forms of life have almost seemed beside the point, their value considered only insofar as they were of service to man.  But man’s life is obviously dependent upon the existence of life’s other species, and with him those species share certain values.  Life is sacred – all life – and again, all life seeks value fulfillment, not simply physical survival.”
(Dreams, “Evolution” and Value Fulfillment Vol 2Session 910)

Thursday, May 24, 2018

Rita on a question of source

A question of source

From DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World Vol 2: A View from the Non-Physical (Kindle Location 1783). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition".

(Q) [John Dorsey Wolf: "I have questions about the Explorer Series that Rita and her husband Martin were likely involved in.  Explorer Tape #19 on Love, Fear, and Higher Consciousness became an early 'road map' for me to get on the path I'm on.  I've always wanted to know more about its origins, which I understand came through an explorer.  Could Rita shed any additional light on the non-3D source, which I believe is attributed to the Christ Consciousness, of that information?

[Also, I was listening to #29 on Aspects, which coincidentally was introduced and monitored by Rita's husband.  The question is whether the aspects as described by that tape are related to the strands that Rita has used as an analogy of our spiritual make up.  What I understood from the tape is that there are energies that are a part of us that help to produce physical life, but themselves have never been a human or experienced human life as we do.  So, are there 'energies' or other 'aspects' of us that go beyond the physical DNA and the spiritual strands that Rita has described? If so, can Rita elaborate?"]

(A) The questions involve Explorer tape 19 on Love, Fear, and Higher Consciousness - who was the non-3D source - and tape 29 on Aspects - are they related to strands?

And you are worried lest your answers demonstrate that you have been only fooling yourself, all this time. But by now, that is a matter not of years but of decades.

(Q)  Don't I know it!

(A)  Well, what did I tell you 15 years ago, though not in the way you like to put it?

(Q)  You said I wasn't smart enough to be making it all up.

(A)  What I really said was that you were producing a consistent and logically connected body of information that was beyond your ability to fabricate.

(Q)  Isn't that just what I said?  I always said you said it in the nicest possible way.

(A)  I have never troubled to correct the nuance, because I knew the way you put it made it easier for you to hear, as well as easier to say.  But we have moved on, now.  It was never a matter of you not being smart enough, but of your producing material that clearly was not the result of fabrication.

(Q)  All right, and thank you.

(A)  So, the question is an opportunity to do two or three things at once.  One, it demonstrates to others that doubt and even fear are likely to accompany the explorer at any stage of the game, not that this is a bad or a good thing, just a fact of life.  It shows that doubts can be overcome, by the same process that produced them.  And it shows that fearless or even fearful exploration will produce material that may be of value providedthat the information and the process of demonstration remain central, rather than the credibility or prestige or even self-respect of the person asking the questions.  [This meant not the person requesting information, but the person engaging in ILC.]

(Q)  Well, that has been my theme right along, hasn't it?

(A)  It has, and that has been the value, a teaching tool.

So, to proceed to the questions themselves.

First, remember that I might well be unable to give you a specific name of the explorer, or might give you (or you might postulate) the wrong one.  Say you got that this explorer was Rosie McKnight.  Whether that specific bit of information was right or wrong would tell you only one thing, that that, specific, bit information had been right or wrong.  It would neither confirm nor disprove that your process in the larger sense was accurate or dependable.  If right, you might have made a lucky guess.  If wrong, you might have made an unluckyguess.  You know what a fine line it is between reception and guesswork.  Your experimentation at DOPS [UVA's Division of Perceptual Studies] showed you that in the process of ESP testing; your experience with Joseph Smallwood and the Battle of Chattanooga [described in my book Chasing Smallwood] showed you that (though you didn't quite understand the implications) nine years ago.

However - to ease your anxiety a bit, notice that the two questions deal with conceptual information - where you are most at ease - rather than specific bits of data retrieval, which cause you high levels of anxiety.  In this I would say you reflect your larger personality as reflected in the Myers-Briggs form.  You easily grasp larger pictures; you stumble over detail.

(Q)  The guys told me in my PREP session in Guidelines in 1993 - I see the forest but overlook the trees.

(A)  They also advised you to pay more attention to trees!  It is still good advice, which you occasionally heed.

Through, not from

(A)  Now, as to the first question, who was the non-physical source of the information I am smiling myself, as I remember the first session you and I had, in August, 2001, when I asked a question based in the same assumptions, and the guys refused to answer it in the terms it was posed, lest they reinforce us in an incorrect way of seeing things.

(Q)  Oh, I remember, for sure!  You thought it was such a simple question - and I gather that others (Explorers, I mean) - had been used to talking in terms of individuals, but the guys would have none of it.  They were downright blunt about it.

(A)  Even in this series of communications, between two people who came to know each other very well, we are allowing ourselves to proceed as ifit was the individual Frank talking with the still-individual Rita, and in a waythat is true.  But the point is, in another way, it is nottrue, and it is for the purpose of leading people to a greater awareness of the specific nuance that we now begin to stress different ways of looking at it.

So, I would say to John Dorsey Wolf, what you - and others, usually including Frank - assume in posing the question in this way is that information flows froma given person, whereas in fact it flows through, not from, in the same way healing energies do.  To lay too much stress on the question of who the information flowed through is to over-emphasize the nozzle and hose as opposed to the water. Even among the embodied, as of course all who read this are, information seeks its outlet by choosing nozzles at least as often as nozzles choose where the water is to come from.

... It is natural that anyone in a body experiences life as if proceeding from other bodies; that is, from other distinctive individual units.  Natural, but inaccurate and insufficient, particularly as you refine your perceptions.  And when you go to conceptualize the non-3D sources of information that you contact seemingly in a very different way than ordinary sensory communication, it is natural to carry assumptions over.  But it is not accurate.

Suppose I said, "Oh yes, the non-3D source of that particular passage was John the Baptist?" Even if in fact it couldbe said to be John the Baptist (and, understand, I am using the name only as an example), what would that tell you?

(Q)  Well, I don't know, Rita.  It seems to me it is of value that we here know that I'm talking to you rather than -.  Oh.  I get your point.  It's really less meaningful than we assume, isn't it?

(A)  Even when we were speaking face to face, neither of us knew from one moment to the next where any given bit of information really came from. You never do.  [This was not an insult.  It meant, one never does.]  Communities talking to communities, and giving attributions to the supposed unit through which the information proceeds.

(Q)  You aren't so much answering John's question as taking it for a springboard.

(A)  Correct, and nothing wrong with it.  I told you earlier, that is what I would do from time to time. But, in fact, I did answer the question. There is no ownership of ideas, and - think about this one - no ownership of ways of seeing and thinking and intuiting.  It is convenient to pin a given thought to the lifetime it expressed through, but it is only convenient; it is not particularly accurate.

(Q)  I thought a main point of 3D existence was to shape a unit out of disparate strands so as to create a new viewpoint.

(A)  It is.  But a view pointis not the same as the creation of the view.