R: We had a rather abrupt end to our session last week and so I didn’t get to thank the gentlemen upstairs for their participation in this, for allowing me to talk to them directly.
F: my theory is they’re a bunch of bums
R: well, we’ll see if we get bum information.
F: They’re giving the indication they don’t think it would be on their end.
R: What I was trying to do last week was to find out your sources of information, and your relationship to them, and I’d like to continue that a little bit this week. From the last session I got the sense that they are a group of energies. The number 30 came up. I didn’t understand exactly what 30 represented. Were those aspects who specialize in certain kinds of information, or play particular roles with you, or —
F: No, that was about the number of what you’d call people that are available to participate at any given time.
R: They are the sources of information.
F: Yeah, it’s like you’re talking to about 30 of us more or less, at any given time.
R: Very good, and then, the question I was asking in relation to that was, do the 30 of you specialize in certain kinds of information.
F: Well, we were tying to make it clear that it isn’t so much what we specialize in as what we are, which is a different way of saying the same thing. But we want to make that nuance clear. Just as, if you’re an historian by occupation, you could look at yourself as an historian by occupation or you could look at yourself as just resonating to that particular kind of information. It’s just a nuance, but we thought we’d make it clear. We’re specialists in the same way that you-all are specialists; not by occupation, by what we are. What we resonate to.
R: And this particular cluster of energies has been brought together because of their relationship to Frank?
F: This again is something we were trying to get across last time, and it can be very difficult because you all start from the assumption of separation, and so you think of us as being separate up here, but it isn’t that way, this side. And so it would be like you trying to make more of a distinction between the kinds of cells in your hand than there is. You could say that everything up here is available, and that would be true. You could say, some of the things up here resonate to a particular situation, and that would be true.
R: I’m trying to understand that and to think of you as not in your individual-ness but in your cluster-ness. Does the cluster of energies that you represent have a specialty mission?
F: [pause] We feel that it would be misleading to answer the question in the terms it’s placed. We know of Jane Roberts and the way they were explaining things, but we think that it came filtered through her language, because it has to come through language. And we just think it’s time to clear that a little, because it still sounds more like cooperating individuals than – how else could we be described?
The only analogy that we can think of is as parts of an organism; of one organism. So that what we’re objecting to is saying a cluster, because we hear all the associations in your languages about clusters. It brings in the idea of being an individual through the back door, and it’s not – [pause] How could you understand – We don’t see that you could, really. How could you understand one –Ah!
What do you call it, computer term, um, — timesharing! You have one major computer and you have all those different terminals. To a person typing at a terminal, it would look like he was dealing with one cluster of that machine, and in a way that’s true. But it isn’t really true. Do you see why we’re gagging at this? To call us a cluster is to sort of bring the idea of individuality back in through the back door, in a way that’s more misleading than it’s representational.
R: I’m searching for another word that doesn’t suggest bringing in individuals but representing a totality of some kind, in its operation with Frank, for example.
F: But, in its operation with you it’s not necessarily totally different. It’s not a different individual, it’s not overlapping, it’s not shared, it’s not separate. The words have to keep in mind the difference of what we call the playing field. And your language doesn’t have to do that because your language describes your playing field. We’re trying to [laugh] We’re playing an away game. It’s difficult to describe.
We know that it’s probably a little irritating for us to constantly be quarreling with the question, but to accept the question in those terms is to –
Frank: What the hell’s this? Oh, there’s music on the HemiSync tape [that he was listening to]. [laugh] That was a surprise! You know, you go through one of those focus levels? [they laugh] “Wait, what’s happening now!?” All right, hold on a minute. I don’t know where they were. [pause] Oh, they were apologizing for quibbling.
“Nope, nope, it’s not a quibble,” they’re saying. [laugh] Oh!– here’s what I’m getting. They’re actually trying to give you what you want; they’re actually trying to answer your question, and what they’re trying to do is change our point of view so that we can –
All right, if you see more from our point of view, then a lot of your questions will fall into line. But if we try to answer your questions and leave you in your point of view without also bending it, or extending it, or alternating it, let’s say, with our point of view, all it will do is reinforce – it’ll warp the picture.
R: Okay, I accept that, as long as we can keep struggling, trying to get an answer.
F: Well, this is good work, in fact. We approve of the work!
R: If I ask a question just simply using pronouns, I’ll use you or you-all, or something [they laugh] and say, do you have a mission with respect to Frank?
F: Ah! Now you do see the difference there. In fact, that’s one area in which your imprecise language works very well. [pause] By that we mean English, where you can’t tell the difference between singular and plural. That actually works very well in this instance.
You say “a mission.” There’s two ways of looking at that. And Frank will have warned you that we always go around the barn, if you will – but it’s important. When you say “a mission,” there are two kinds of missions; there’s the mission that is your life, and whether that’s our mission or your mission is really a meaningless distinction. And then, but you’re asking do we want to accomplish something over and above the living of the life. Yes?
R: Well, in the sense that it provides a direction to it, or has some impact on the life that we value.
F: [pause] To use your expression, we’re trying to wrap our mind around the concept, because it’s incomprehensible that there could be a separation between what a person’s life is [pause]
The mission that we sent him on, or that we sent you on, if you want to look at it that way, can be abstracted, could be described, and if that’s what you want we can do that; just that, it isn’t separate from the life.
R: So that one could say that the mission hasn’t developed with his experience and training, but rather that he brought the mission with him?
F: The mission flowers as you live it, but yeah, you go into it knowing the flower that you plan to grow, even though you don’t remember that when you’re here, necessarily. So that, if you look at him as an example, that’s the mission. You know? Not for him to be an example to everyone around, but he is a living-out of certain ideas, abstractions, ideals – and that is the importance to us, because that’s how we live it out.
R: Considering where he started when he came into the physical body in this life, how is the plan developing? Is it developing as expected? Put it that way.
F: [pause] Well, he’s missed some opportunities but he’s grasped others, and we don’t mean to be evasive but, the plan was more to put him in place, and the plan is for him to choose among the options. He might have been more forthcoming and overcome more tentativeness. On the other hand, he could have been unable to grasp the opportunities at all, and turned away from it. None of it is ever predestined. It can be set up as a preponderance so that the chances are, you’re going to follow the path up to a point, but to predestine it would be to destroy it. Nothing can be done without free will; you’re here to choose. That’s the point of the thing.
R: To what extent did Frank have a part in developing this plan before he came into this lifetime?
F: Before he was created into this lifetime he was part of us. You could look at yourselves as bubbles that come up off a boiling sea, or as – oh – wheat sprouts in a field from seed that’s been sowed. Don’t make the distinction between us and you as firmly as you’re making it. Because, you were us. And you are us, in an alien (well, to us seemingly alien, anyway) environment.
He was not so much sent as created, just as all of you are. That is, a little of this, a little of that, a little of that, put together, — those tendencies and abilities, and disabilities, and inheritance and all of those things are put together in a package. When the package dissolves, all of that original material is still there, and can be re-mixed to make a new cake. But the other, the germ that is the “him” –
When you die, if you’ve crystallized your soul you remain crystallized. If not, all of the ingredients can go back and do it again. There’s nothing really lost in that way, but nothing new’s been created. We don’t know if that’s very clear or not. That’s not lifetime by lifetime, either.
R: Okay, well I guess I was asking about lifetime to lifetime. When he leaves this physical body, — you’ve talked before about the choices that are presented to him in this process, and I was asking about the period when he is not in the physical body, operating with you – and I assume he’s making choices.
F: Well, when he’s not in a physical body, he is one of us; as you. He’s already crystallized, as you. We were attempting to make a fuller statement, is all. You’re beyond the point of trying to decide whether it’s going to crystallize or not. When he’s done with the body, he’s back with us.
R: And, I’m asking about how that process continues. He’s become part of you. There’s some point at which there’s a decision made for a part of you to move into a physical body, or not?
F: All right, we see that. Well, let’s back up just a little bit then. We’ll be a little more precise. We said last time, we extend there, you extend here, and there isn’t movement as much there’s change of focus and attention. So, your ceasing to have a functioning body is less movement for you than a sort of movement of your consciousness back to the part of you that it never had left. And so it isn’t like anything needs to be created again except another opportunity for you to come back into a body — either on earth or somewhere else, or in other dimensions, or whatever you want. Whatever we want. Whatever seems appropriate, let’s put it that way.
By our living, each of us is a different flavor, a different frequency, and there are certain situations that are more appropriate flavor, or that that flavor could be more effective. It’s for the benefit of the individual part of us (if you want to call it that) and it’s also for the benefit of the general situation. It’s the actor and the play.
R: At some point the focus of attention is going to shift from the Frank that’s part of you to, let’s say, another body, another lifetime. Can you say some more about the process that goes on there?
F: The process of decision, or –?
R: Yes. Decision. The process of choice.
F: Well [pause] You mean the process of deciding where to go next? Or the process of deciding whether or not he should go next? Of course he may not be a he, but you understand.
R: Yes. Well, either of those, but somewhere there are some decisions made that either result in a part of you taking physical form again, or not.
F: Okay. Again, resist the temptation to think of us as individuals. However, to conceptualize easier, you could look at it as a committee of people, including yourselves, looking over where you’ve been, seeing where you are, weighing what’s needed for growth or balance – and what could be contributed, and when.
But again, we emphasize, you might do better, as an analogy, to think of it as more of an intuitive process than a thinking process. In other words, more of an all-of-us saying “oh yeah, here’s a good slot over here,” or maybe a part of all of us deciding, you see? We’re trying to give you the sense of a collective weighing of opportunities, a weighing of progress, without unduly weighting it in a way that your minds are going to take to be individuals because of the analogy.
You, or he, let’s say, and a portion of The Great Us – that’s the best we’re going to do – will come together, weigh and review, look forward for progress, take into account what he wants, and also take into account what the opportunities are in our opinion, and sometimes, if there’s a serious enough deficit, he may get, you might say, overruled, and sent into a situation whether or not he particularly wants to, either because the need is great or more likely because his own need is great; because there’s an asymmetrical development of the personality, so to speak. If someone were sufficiently developmentally one-sided, that person might get to the point where it would be impossible by its own free choice to choose the experiences that would widen it out. But they would be assisted [laugh] whether they want the assistance or not.
R: When you talk about the need, are you talking about that from the aspect of the environment under which this part of the totality is coming, or are you talking about a new part of the totality for whatever could be gained from this aspect?
F: Different cases will weigh in different places, you know. Your expression about a boddhisatva would be someone who was sent for the need of the physical community, more than for its own need, or as a matter of fact at some small peril to themselves, because, being in the physical, they could lose ground. [pause] That’s why that’s a gift that they’re giving. It’s not free.
R: The peril that you’re talking about here has to do with some loss to the —
F: They could make bad choices and lose ground. Yes, they could. It’s not a matter of being punished for their sins, but of the natural result of certain choices you make. You could have a very highly developed person who has very high altruistic motives – perceptive ones, too – and go into a body and find the attraction of the physical unexpectedly strong. Various things could sort of warp or flaw the personality. Now, the personality’s not the essence, but it will affect the essence.
R: And is it possible to have a loss as well as a gain to the total energy we’re talking about here?
F: [pause] Well we don’t really see how, because everything is experience, and it’s a joke that he uses all the time, but it’s still true that if there’s nothing else you can say about something, you can say it was a good experience. [laugh] And you know, our perspective gains from experiences entirely. Don’t see how we could lose. Never thought of it that way. [pause] We’d say no.
R: No. All right.
F: But you on your end can lose only because everything is separated out in time and space and delayed consequences, you know. So you can lose things that way. Ultimately it doesn’t matter.
R: I’ve heard it said sometimes that a group energy like you represent, can be sending out a representative of your group to be in certain kinds of experiences that will bring back to the group the final experiences needed so that the group can in some way move on, and not continue to be sending —
F: individuals. Eventually. That’s the theory. We get tired of this too. [laugh]
R: Get tired of –?
F: We get tired of – well, how long do you want to be in sixth grade? At some point you want to graduate to seventh grade.
R: I see. Okay. So the group at some point will move into something beyond what it’s now —
F: Yes, and what you heard before is our understanding of it. That was accurately broad. We don’t really know what goes next, but we know that something goes next. And there’s a sense of trust in it, you know. There’s no dread of it, it’s just, some things have to be finished before new things open up.
R: One of the difficulties I’m having is that I understood last time you say that the membership of your totality changes from time to time. It’s not made up of the same sub-energies, or whatever.
F: The membership of those that are dealing with you; with earth; you know, with him, at any given time.
R: So there’s not a fixed composition of this totality.
F: You could say there’s like a center of gravity, but no, not absolutely. If you start talking about Cardinal Richelieu, we’ll bring in our specialist on French history. [laugh]
R: Uh huh. I don’t think I’ll do that. [they chuckle]
[material personal to Frank omitted here]
[continue next post, July 8]