A few short questions to Rita

Love and fear in duality

DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World: A View from the Non-Physical (Kindle Location 3680). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition

(Q)  "3D is not really a duality but instead a continuum in which we look at both ends of one stick.  Is this true of love and fear as well?"

(A)  The short answer is "yes", and for once there are not caveats or cross-currents to look at.  Although people talk about living in pure love, entirely banishing fear, that is more an ideal to be lived toward than a goal that can actually be reached.  This, despite what people claim.  If you are living in a world of duality, what makes you think you can station yourself on the extreme end of the spectrum and not participate in the other end, or rather, in gradations?

No reincarnation?

(Q)  "In one sense, there is no reincarnation.  Neither Rita, Frank, nor Charles will return other than as a strand in a new entity or soul.  Is this correct?"

(A)  Again, yes.  In this case, we need remind you that the question as posed says "in one sense".  Look at it another way and it looks quite different.  This, though, not for today, because we are not going to do a full session, or anything like it.  Just make a note that the question could be considered in more detail and from different starting places.

Memory

(Q)  "Andrew Bartzis says Earth is a 100 percent free will and no memory planet.  No memory presumably means we do not recall the strands and bundles that comprise us.  While in 3D wouldn't it make life easier if we could relate to the strands composing us?"

(A)  Remember, the fact that someone says something, even if with great certainty, has nothing to do with whether the statement is accurate.  Your own experiences, and those of so many TMI participants (that is, people whose firsthand testimony can weigh), tells you otherwise.  If it is a "no memory planet", how did the field of past-life review and NDE experiencer and psychic communication across time and space come to be?  And as to 100 percent free well, that is true in a certain sense of the words.  From any given moment of time (which, of course, is always experienced as "the present"), your free will is at least theoretically large.  However, it is hardly unlimited!  Everything that came before that moment could be regarded as a limiting factor.  This statement is at best somewhat true, but not very.

The demonstration of the fact that it is not very true is that, in fact, you can relate to the strands composing you.  It is a skill that can be learned, which means it is not closed off.

Is 3D functioning correctly?

(Q)  "Why was the 3D world created?  Is it working as it was planned?  If not, is it possible to change the direction and get it back to its original formation?"

(A)  This one makes me smile.  Do clouds work the way they were planned?  Do the elements of any system you can name work the way they were planned?  And if they did not, would 3D individuals, even working in close harmony with their non-3D components, know what to do to bring things back to balance?

... Save this one for another day.

Human's are "the Earth thinking"

“In a manner of speaking, the birds and the insects are indeed living portions of the earth flying, even as, again in a manner of speaking, bears and wolves and cows and cats represent the earth turning itself into creatures that live upon its own surface.  And in a manner of speaking, again, man becomes the earth thinking, and thinking his own thoughts, man in his way specializes in the conscious work of the world – a work that is dependent upon the indispensable “unconscious” work of the rest of nature, a nature that sustains him.  And when he thinks, man thinks for the microbes, for the atoms and the molecules, for the smallest particles within his being, for the insects and for the rocks, for the creatures of the sky and the air and the oceans.

“Man thinks as naturally as the birds fly.  He looks at physical reality for the rest of physical reality: He is earth coming alive to view itself through conscious eyes – but that consciousness is graced to be because it is so intimately a part of earth’s framework.”

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

Defining the larger being

Defining the larger being

DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World: A View from the Non-Physical (Kindle Location 3628). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition

(A)  Bearing this in mind, among the many things "the larger being" does not mean are:

*  God

*  All humanity

*  All creation

*  Yourself and a few kindred souls only

*  The creator of the universe (if you conceive of this as different from God)

Any of these assumptions will send you down different garden paths.  For our purposes, let us define then so:

Larger beings incorporate smaller but similar consciousnesses and function in a way that is different and incomprehensible to those elements that comprise them.[1]

[1] Much like Ken Wilber's "holarchy" of holons, Seth's "hierarchy" of gestalts (e.g. Seth, Seth 2, Pyramid Gestalts), Lazaris term "Higher Self" (there is no Highest Self!).

Remember, you experience yourselves (usually) as if you were units, whereas it is at least equally true to say that you are communities.  In fact, it might be closer to the truth to say that an individual in 3D is a community learning to function as a unit, and the unit is designed to function as one unit in a larger community functioning as a unit, and so on and so forth, all the way up and down the chain of being.

But "the chain of being" doesn't include non-compound - integral - beings.  It refers to compound beings.

(Q)  Does this imply that our cells are themselves compound beings?

(A)  That is exactly what it implies and it is true, what you intuited, that you as an individual are the equivalent to them of their larger being, and your communications to them are equivalent (to them) of messages from TGU (The Guys Upstairs).  That is, they experience communications from another order of intelligence whose true mode of operation is a mystery to them.

(Q)  Again, as above, so below.

(A)  Yes, only bear in mind, the world is full of many things besides compound beings formed of 3D experience.  And one way in which the larger beings are compound is that they may be composed of elements some of which have not been shaped by 3D, as well as some that have.  Just because we examine any given element in isolation does not mean it may rightly be considered to be truly isolated.  All things connect.  It is merely that for the purpose of close examination and analysis, you can look at only so much at a time.

(Q)  I was struck by something you said in passing yesterday to the effect that any generalization is a slurring of certain differences and an emphasis, perhaps an over-emphasis, on certain similarities.

(A)  Given time and attention such distortions iron out, but it does take time and attention.

Now, your hour is over, and a bit more.  I believe we have answered the question not as posed but as it would be better posed.  If not, we can come back to it.

(Q)  The only loose thread I see is, "How is this useful in daily life?”

(A)  There could be two alternate answers to that.  One, the answer is implied in the description of what the larger being is.  (Consider the difference between our definition and the unconscious assumption built into the term "higher self", for instance.)  The second is, "that's a large topic in itself; either that, or it is the theme of this entire work".  Sorry to be so cryptic, but that's enough said, at least for the moment.  We can continue with question #12 next time.

An undivided reality

DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World: A View from the Non-Physical (Kindle Location 3581). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition.

(Q)  From Jim Austin: "Rita strongly suggests we look ... at 'the relationship' between larger selves, those with 3D experience, and those without (later referred to as 'unitary beings").  Earlier, she relates that larger beings are a unique factor, implying they/we (through the experiences gained in 3D life) are constantly changing.  So how is this useful in daily life?"

(A)  The question is based on a partial misinterpretation of what I meant.  I seem not to have made myself plain, and such questions serve a valuable function for any teacher, showing her where she has inadvertently led her students astray. Or "he", of course.

I contrasted what we - following the guys' nomenclature - are calling the larger being, on the one hand, with angels.  The contrast was between a compound being, that by its nature changes continually, and a unitary, or perhaps we should say, internally consistent being that does not and can not change.  Each has its function, and the functioning and the nature of each can be best illustrated by comparing one to the other.

Again - I dislike beings so repetitious (to the point of tedium, it seems to me), but let me remind you to bear ever in mind in these discussions the nature of reality as undivided rather than physical versus nonphysical.  If you allow yourselves to slip back into the accustomed scheme dividing physical and nonphysical as if they were different universes, rather than different parts of the same universe, your thought will split into two, probably unknown to yourselves, and rather than a reorientation you will experience merely a playing with words.

But if you can remember that reality is undivided and that what you are experiencing in 3D is really only a localized version of a more comprehensive experience, you will remember that there can be no true division into body and spirit, only a different placing of emphasis.  You in bodies nonetheless inhabit the higher dimensions you are mostly unaware of.  We not in bodies nonetheless inhabit the 3D world though our consciousness is not tethered to it by bodies, and is not limited to it by the tricks of perception caused by living in time-slices and relying primarily upon sensory data for our orientation.

Thus, you can see two things.  First, interaction is continuous, whether perceived or not.  Second, your, as well as our, field of activity is not limited to 3D.  (This sort of ignores the fact that, as I have said, "we" and "you" are not separate from each other; that fact alone should demonstrate that one cannot be in one place only and the other in another place only.)

So, it will be worth your while to remember that when we say "the larger being" we refer to the beings of which you, and we, are part.

Discovering unconscious assumptions

DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World: A View from the Non-Physical (Kindle Location 3605). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition.

(A)  Now, this is such a simple statement that it requires considerable explanation to be sure that it is not misunderstood.  And a short digression to tell you why that is so as a general rule: The shorter the statement, the greater the chance that it will be accepted without processing.  You might think, "well, that's well and good", but, in fact, it allows you to create your own version of what it means, because a host of unconscious associations will arise within you, and will be attached to the words, and it will seem to you that the short statement "obviously" meant something shaped by your unconscious assumptions.

The trick is to become as aware of them as possible, so as to become able to correct for the consequent (and antecedent) bias.  That is the value of thinking about these things rather than merely accepting or rejecting them by reference to the understandings you bring to the discussion ahead of time.

So, process the question of what "the larger being" suggests to your mind.  Realize that there is no way you can trust unconscious assumptions to be correct.

Reread that, if you will.  I realize that it seems to contradict the very process of trusting intuition that we are engaged in (for how different is it, to trust intuition or to talk to "the other side" or to receive messages from one's own non-3D self?), but, in fact, it is very much consistent with one of the major themes you have received, Frank, from the beginning of the process of active communication in the 1980s - use both processes, logic and intuition.  Use both analysis and perception.  Avoid Psychics Disease and Closed-Mind equally.

And so you can see that this is one reason why it is to be desired:  Only be receptivity can you expand beyond sensory-driven logic, but only by conscious thought can you discover and correct for unconscious bias.

Body consciousness

“Your body consciousness is like the consciousness of any animal.  A pet cat running up and down the [cellar] stairs, is an example of the love of excitement and activity with which man and animals are innately endowed.  Animals enjoy being petted, stroked, and loved.  They react in their own ways to suggestion, and in that regard your body consciousness responds to your conscious treatment of it.  Think of your body, for the purpose of this discussion, as a healthy animal … Animals and your own body consciousness have little concept of age.  In a fashion almost impossible to describe, [those] consciousnesses – of the body and the animals – are ‘young’ in each moment of their existences.  I am taking it for granted that you understand that I am referring to the ‘mental attitude’ of animals and of the body consciousness, for they do possess their own mental attributes – psychological colorations – and above all, emotional ‘states’.”

(Dreams, “Evolution” and Value Fulfillment, Session 898)