TGU session 08-21-01 (2)

[continued from previous post, July 7]

R: I’d like to ask a question that has to do with the variety of lifetimes that an energy like Frank, or anyone else, goes through. Is there some continuity in the role in the physical world that this energy experiences in a series of lifetimes?

F: [pause] We know what you’re asking, but we’re thinking about answering something slightly different. Because the answer to your question as posed is “yes, but no.” This is why we’re going to rephrase the question a little differently.

Suppose you had a hundred lifetimes, just for a round number. Say there were five that had a common thread. And there might be another five with a different thread, and another ten with another thread, you see. When you are in a body at any given time, there would be some easy resonances that came through. And in his case, the only ones with details have come through are modern and either American or Western European – because it’s the closest.

On the other hand, the Egyptian and the Englishman have come through in a different way because their resonance is closest, you see? The externals of the life are very different but the internal dynamics are very close, so they can come in. So if you’re saying “is a Frank always of a monastic or a warrior or a scholastic disposition,” no. But if you were to say “is there a line of continuity from him back to several of his other lives,” yes.

You wouldn’t gain much if you came into life after life after life after life always with the same bias. You want – and believe me, when you’re not in, you do want – to be balanced in many ways. You want the spice of life; you want the experience. You wouldn’t want to be a schoolteacher 33 lifetimes. You wouldn’t want to be a galley slave, or a king, or whatever. No matter what it would be, it would get old, because you couldn’t learn anything from it. Well, you couldn’t learn as much; you can always learn something.

R: That sounds good. [chuckles] One isn’t committed to a —

F: This particular life is an experiment of sorts, and a difficult one.

R: [pause] Say some more about that?

F: Oh, it’s nothing he doesn’t know. It’s a life being led without external props, more or less, and therefore continuously uncharted grounds. In fact, when he was in charted grounds, it didn’t fit, which made it uncharted grounds, you see. To spend an entire lifetime not fitting in to things — without being a professional misfit, which would fit into things, you see — to be actually in a place where [pause]

It isn’t a question of paying Hamlet when you’re actually in the play that’s Macbeth. It’s more like [pause] It’s more like playing a role with blinders and earplugs. In other words, you’re walking into a stage and for all you know they’re playing Hamlet or they might be playing Macbeth [laugh] or they might be playing anything. And you’re doing what you can do.

This is not an accident; this was designed this way, but – you asked.

R: What could be accomplished in that?

F: It is a trying-out of abilities and a trying-out of patterns that many people will probably have to learn to do if we’re going to move on to the next thing. To get people relatively quickly out of existing patterns, it’s necessary to give them a pattern of not living in a pattern. Not necessary, but it’s helpful. [pause] Does that actually resonate?

R: I think so. This is what we’re trying to be developed on to do, is to move into doing that.

F: Don’t misunderstand us though to think that it’s necessarily something that he’s going to become famous for! It may not be ever known by anybody but himself, but that, still, is in the mind of man, so to speak. That’ll put him in the human subconscious, just as whatever was silently learned by anybody is in there. Everything that’s done by people, however unheralded or alone or totally anonymous, adds to the potential for everyone else, because there’s only one, and it can all be drawn on. This is why we really can’t lose, this is why we can only gain no matter what happens; no matter what choices people make. There’s always more experience.

R: Becomes part of the human library, so to speak.

F: Mm-hmm. Exactly. Or, better, you might say that each of you is a neuron in the human brain. Another way to look at it, a little more active and interactive analogy.

R: Mm-hmm. [long pause] People sometimes talk about collecting parts of themselves together. Can you – Sort of some aim, I suppose, of self-definition?

F: Wholeness.

R: Wholeness.

F: Becoming more whole, yes.

R: Is that a meaningful concept from your perspective?

F: Well, we would say yes it is, but we see it not as movement but as a movement of consciousness. If one had a part of oneself that has split off – well, even psychologically you understand that — the brain cells don’t move, the only thing that happens is, it’s the consciousness wrapping it back in with the rest of the bundle that is the movement, and that’s pretty nearly the same thing as what happens when people bring back parts of themselves.

And in fact, in a larger sense that’s what you all are doing for us, or we are doing for you, whichever way you wish to look at it, in the whole scheme of things. We are attempting – and we will succeed – but at some point we will have brought everything back into full interactive consciousness. At that point we will have brought all of our pieces back together. We will have recovered them all.

And, if you want to look at it from your end, if you expand your inter-active awareness to all of your other lives, and all of your other dimensions into which you fit, and all of your connection with us — to the degree that you do that, you’re bringing back – because you’re doing the same thing. It’s more than a lifetime job. But you have time.

R: I want to bring up something about the style of these sessions.

[change sides of tape]

Frank: You may want to ask the question again, because we may have lost it on the leader on the other side.

R: Okay. I was just pointing out that this kind of session we’re having here is different from what we did in the lab, where we would be asking you to go to a state where important information is available to you, and ask for you to comment on that.

F: We’re open to whatever you want to do. The mechanism wouldn’t be much different because unless he becomes a trance medium he’s going to be sort of feeling the answer and then saying it. But you’re certainly welcome to experiment.

R: One aspect of doing it the way we’re doing it is that I get information that I’m interested in, and it may well be that there are other areas that would be helpful for Frank to get in touch with through these kinds of sessions, where presumably –.

F: If we may paraphrase you, you’re saying perhaps you’re asking the wrong questions by chance and coincidence. [they laugh] We’re not concerned about it.

R: Okay.

F: We recognize the unselfish intent, but it’s misplaced. You’re being directed too.

R: I assume that that’s the case, but I don’t know whether I’m being directed on Frank’s behalf or not.

F: Well, you know, we don’t actually see a distinction there. And if you’re interested in that, we could look at it a little.

R: I would like to hear it.

F: When people get in trouble, it’s because they allow their personal interests to override someone else’s interests, because they feel they have to force something to happen. You know, “there’s only one acceptable solution.” In the absence of that, you can’t get in trouble. Your highest good and his highest good will mesh. They can’t help mesh. [pause] If that’s not clear, we’ll say more, but to us it’s so clear. [chuckles]

R: Well, I liked hearing that, but I’m not sure exactly how that works.

F: Suppose you had a bunch of large goldfish in a pond. You’ve seen how they swim and they look perfectly orchestrated. They don’t bump into each other, or – you know, there’s nothing clumsy about it; it really looks like a dance. And the reason why is because of minute, second-by-second adjustments that everyone makes, watching the other ones, you know. They know where each other are and they just sort of get out of each others’ way. The way to get awkwardness into a situation like that would be to have one fish to say “by god, I’m going this way right now, and you just stay out of my way.”

Now, even there, you could conceivably still have harmony, with everybody just saying “okay, well fine.” But when you have two of them [chuckles] the odds are less, and if you have three of them, the odds are less. You see.

Whenever you have people who are drawn together out of an affinity and are each operating out of the place that you’re operating out of, rather than assertion, the serendipity of it will be that what’s good for you is good for him, and it will always appear serendipitous. When you’re out of that place, anything can happen. But when you’re in that place, there’s nothing to worry about. Literally nothing to worry about. We’ll back off to this extent. We can’t conceive of a way in which two people, operating on the beam, can wind up where one has to win and one has to lose. It’s inconceivable to us. It’s like saying black could be white. In your terms. [pause] So in other words, don’t worry about it. [chuckles]

R: Okay, here’s something else I’ve been worrying about. I’ve been somewhat concerned about the possibility of these sessions getting in the way of sessions in the laboratory monitored by Skip. Is there something to be done to make this process easier?

F: Is it even conceivable that you might actually be following directions in doing this? [they laugh] In other words, why after so many months did you think of it just now? And why after so many months did it become possible, just now? And not only possible, but effortless. We think those are pretty blatant clues. [they laugh]

R: I can appreciate that. As long as that’s with this situation in mind.

F: Well, we’ll say a little more on that, actually. Just as he’s come to an end of doing Monroe programs, he hasn’t come to an end of doing lab sessions with Skip, but they’ve come to a plateau. You can go beyond the plateau, but they can’t. And there’ll be another time when he’ll go in, and there’ll be more – unless they don’t, but they could and probably will, at this point. It’ll be fine. We don’t mean to interfere with your feeling guilty. [they laugh]

R: I think that’s Frank’s role. All right, now I want to clear something up here. You’ve indicated – you, Frank – that essentially what we’re doing here is not that I’m directly speaking with the guys upstairs, but that I’m speaking to – And at least whoever I’m talking to, you are answering me.

Frank: Mm-hmm. I’m never out of the picture. I can hear it, let’s put it that way. Go ahead.

R: You’re hearing it. The voice that’s coming through is the voice that I heard when you wrote in your book that it was the guys upstairs speaking.

F: Hmm. Okay. So you can hear a difference in voice, huh?

R: My assumption has been that I’ve asked you to move your energy slightly aside so that it can be as direct as possible, and I thought maybe tonight you were saying that that really wasn’t possible. That it’s all coming —

F: No, that’s not quite what’s meant. There’s an extreme, which is the trance medium. And that person will be asleep and won’t know anything that comes back, because literally their consciousness will be elsewhere. The consciousness will not be participating.

The other extreme, from the way we look at things, is an everyday consciousness with no intuitive or other input. Which would strictly be rational thinking, aware on a conscious level. In between is this vaguer area, and Frank lives in that area normally. Just as Cayce’s talent was to be able to put his personality aside and bring it through, Frank’s talent [laughs] — talent or predicament, one way or the other – is to be here and there, to be every day in a conscious level at some point functioning instinctively rather than rationally, rather than thought—

There’s not a word for it. Well, if there is I don’t know what it is.

R: It’s constantly a communication that’s coming out of you and Frank together.

F: Yes. To a varying degree. And when he speaks, as he usually speaks, without first knowing what he’s going to say, that is very much close to what’s going on here. And that is rather unusual in our experience. People don’t usually function that way; they stop and decide what they’re going to say, and say it. They, shall we say, decided what image they want to project. We don’t mean that as a criticism, but you understand, it’s more of a thoughtful process; there’s an interposition between the impulse to speak and the way it comes out. There’s an interposition of their personality that will shape it, whereas with his it just comes. Usually. To a larger or lesser extent. That’s what’s going on here. That’s why the difference is less than you might expect. And it’s why he’s easily able to go in and out, but it’s also why he didn’t recognize it for all those years. Because it was so normal that he was looking for something that would be un-normal! He was looking for trance mediumship.

R: Mm-hmm.

F: “Well Jeez, I can’t do it.” [laugh]

R: I think that’s all I had for tonight. Unless you have something useful to add to this?

F: Yes, there is, actually. Your input you undervalue. And we’ll try to give you a sense of the input from the outside, because that will give you something to chew on intellectually.

From the outside, it would look like [pause] a person with acknowledged and undoubted intellectual ability, and emotional trustworthiness and rational trustworthiness. In other words, smart enough to know what to do, good enough to do what’s right, what’s in everyone’s best interest, okay? With the professional experience of being able to [long pause]

Frank: Well, come on, don’t just leave me there.

F: — structure. You know, the ability to – like Frank was a reporter professionally and can use those reporting techniques? You use the scholastic, or the academic techniques. The professional thinker, if you want to put it that way. And as you have already discussed, by so doing, you can bring better answers out of us because you ask better questions.

They are professionally pointed, if you see what we’re saying. If someone asks a vague question about good or evil, they might get better than a vague answer, but the chances are much better if you ask a pointed question, a sculpted, or a crafted, or a thought-out question, and follow it through. Well, you have by the differences between the two of you, enough to set up a polarity. Because, if too much were understood already, by being understood there’s no need for it to be articulated, and you can’t learn as well. [laugh] So actually you can learn better by two people who don’t understand each other than you can by people who actually do!

You understand each other emotionally, you know what we’re talking about. Intellectually. This pulling-out process is elucidating — eliciting this (neither of these words; something like that).

R: Elucidating?

F: No, not that either, really, it’s the “educe” in educating; the teasing-out of the implication of things is what will make the product for the end reader, whether it becomes a book, or goes on email, or goes nowhere. It’ll still be in the mind of man, as we say.

So, we just want to give you that kind of reassurance, because a) it’s not necessarily your idea [laugh] and b), you’re not scunching on other people’s time or interests. And we’ll leave it at that.

R: That was a statement that I really appreciate. And I appreciate the whole session tonight and I am full of gratitude.

F: Well, if you can realize it, so are we. It isn’t everybody who can do this, or will do this, for us. With us. Against us. Whatever.

Frank: [stretching] Oh, if they think I’m going to talk about gratitude to them, they’re wrong. [they laugh]


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *