[continued from last post]
R: Well then, one of the things that we think about is how to improve our world for the people in it, for the masses of individuals in it. And we think about that in terms of children, and how children’s lives are led, and how it impacts them and doesn’t, and millions of us have lived our lives trying to make a better world, if you will. And I’m hearing you say well of course, it makes sense that one does that with children. But the whole goal of making a better world doesn’t seem to make any sense from the perspective that you’re speaking.
F: Well, let’s be careful. We’ll say this carefully. We’ll try to say this carefully. Your trying to make a better world is good work, because of what you’re choosing. But – better world implies that you know how to make a better world. And
[change sides of tape]
R: All right, it’s on.
F: Your ability to know what a better world would be is very great for yourself; it’s pretty good for your family and friends; it’s somewhat good for your neighborhood, and it’s less good the wider the circle goes. Now, it’s true that abstractly you can have preferences and some of those preferences may be absolutely right. Certainly you want to have clean water rather than water that’s not safe to drink. But in actual human terms your ability to know what’s good and your ability to know what will bring the good, really, is very limited. We would say your major ability to make the world a better place to live in is one simple thing: Be a beacon.
R: Be a beacon.
F: Yes. Shine what you are. It’s very powerful. It’s very subtle and seemingly inconsequential. Many of the results are not in the physical plane at all. It’s physical but you can’t see it. We’ve never tried to express this, because you don’t have the words for it. What you are mingles with other people who are the same thing, and it creates a form – no, let’s say it creates a warp in the energy system. It creates a pattern, say. And that– [pause] Oh my.
Well, let’s go back to the basics. By being a beacon, it is your own example — not so much what you do, although that’s how it shows, as actually what you are — that encourages other people to be like that as well, and that creates a better world. Now, it’s true that goodness is as goodness does, but it’s the “is”ing not the “does”ing that’s the important – that’s the essence of it. A person could do good works and actually be a negative beacon. A person could do no good works, or at least none that were apparent, and be quite a positive beacon. So it isn’t the works, it’s the choosing to be what you are.
R: Somehow your essence is communicated out there.
F: Yes. Yes, yes. You’re broadcasting your essence every second of the day. You haven’t any choice about that.
R: Okay. Now I want to move from that to the idea of distant healing. It seems like that’s very related. The idea of our trying to use ourselves as a beacon, or however else one would conceive of that, to send healing energy to someone who’s at a distance.
F: We would say that the impulse to send the healing energy is a side-effect of what you are. In other words, that the altruism and the love expresses that way. All right.
R: So – but beyond the essence of the being, that energy doesn’t need to be directed in any particular way? For example thinking of a person communicates love, or – ?
F: Do you mean techniques, or do you mean -?
R: Well, maybe it’s techniques, but it’s the idea of how one can best use one’s self here, with a purpose in mind of healing someone who is not present.
F: The simplest thing is to overcome the illusion of distance. Having done that, that’s really all you need to do. Realize that you and the other person are literally – not metaphorically but literally — part of one thing, that literally there is no distance between you, at another dimension, no matter what there is physically. There’s another dimension in which there’s no distance. The idea of distance that’s in your mind because of the physical bodies tends to unconsciously make you think you have to overcome the distance. But you don’t. All you need to do is remember that there is no difference, and it’s an easy simple thing to then just attempt to be at a level of being that is healing, and resonate with the person so that they can rev themselves up to that level again. That’s really all they need to do there. You’re acting as a tuning fork for them, so to speak.
R: Okay. So then we don’t really need to make the distinction between the distance healing or the side-by-side healing.
F: There isn’t a distinction. It appears to be, because you’re in bodies, but there’s no distinction, it’s the same thing.
R: Okay, well my question is still the same then. Other than simply being, how does one best direct this being-ness to be helpful in some way to someone else? Even though we are the same?
F: Well, your easiest way is to look at your religious traditions, and that shows you a very good way to do it. They would not say this, but they’re saying, “my personal power, brought up to a higher power, and brought down again to the other power, to the other person.” And so what you might think in terms of is, you — not you in your Downstairs manifestation, but all of you – are in contact with the other person at all of their levels, and helping them. Assuming that they want the help. Assuming that you’re not actually interfering with them.
R: Yes, yes.
F: But that’s an important thing, though. It gets overlooked.
R: I recognize that.
F: You do. [laughs] But this record is for others besides yourself. (If we’re not giving away the store there.) [laughs]
But – that that’s really all that needs to be done. To the degree that you can remember how great you are, and not think of yourself as a limited physical body, then you’ll know that you have all you need. And they have all that they need to be able to receive. It’s really just strictly a matter of love. That’s all there really is. There are lots of complicated techniques that are invented. These things really are belief crutches for people. And if they work, that’s fine. But they’re not needed. Jesus was not a Reiki master.
R: I can see that the belief systems tie up with particular techniques or strategies for doing this.
F: And to the degree that they work for the people, well and good, but they’re not necessary. Well, shall we say they’re not necessary unless they’re necessary for that person.
R: When you say that the healer is trying to connect with a higher power, so that —
F: That is to say, other levels of themselves, you know? It’s the same thing. It’s not a different person.
R: Yes. Higher self, or whatever language one uses there, bringing forth energy through the person, or sending it directly, would seem to be the only difference between distant healing and —
F: It seems to you that you’re sending the energy, and there’s nothing wrong with that seeming. You know, it works for you, and there’s no reason not to use it. But that’s not really what’s happening. What’s really happening is, you are resonating at a state of health as we say like a tuning fork, and the other person is being able to sort of lean on that resonance in order to get back up to speed. Terrible mixed metaphor, but you see the idea. However, we recognize that for you – for people in general – it looks like sending healing. And there’s nothing wrong with that; it works. We’re just stating that’s not really what’s happening. Not from our point of view, anyway.
R: Well, I guess another way of going at that is, when one is aiming to do a healing with another person in one’s presence, and has a sense of energy flowing through them, say into their hands or through their hands to another person, is this this imagery that we use without it’s being necessary to use the imagery that way?
F: [pause] Well – [pause] well, we’re tempted to say that people don’t do things that aren’t necessary. In other words, that as your world that you inhabit changes, the experiences that you have change, so that you’ll notice that in the healing that you’re doing back and forth, the experience changes unpredictably. Neither of you know what’s going to happen, necessarily, until it does. That’s a pretty good sign that neither of you is intending it, you are just removing the barriers from it. Which is fine. You know, the intending is that help shall be given and help shall be received. But neither of you could do it in the way that you could write your name, or do any skill that you perform, you see? It’s not so much a skill, it’s a being. So sometimes you’ll perceive it as tingling, sometimes as heat, sometimes as transfer of energy, sometimes as something else. The experience is more a function of your concepts than it is of what’s really happening. So if you have a concept of putting energy in, and having the energy come in and rearrange things, there’s nothing wrong with that, and it works. Someone else with a different concept would heal in a totally different way and it would work.
Neither one is invalid, Neither one is imagination, it’s just that the phenomena are the product of the two of your states of being, really. If you were a good Catholic at Lourdes, you might have a broken arm instantly restored, and that would follow an unconscious expectation. But if you were in another context, it might be a slower process or it might be like the laying down of new nerves and things. A slower thing. The healing will manifest as a result of the belief systems. But it’s only a manifestation, it’s not the actual thing.
R: As you know very well, [chuckle] Frank is very interested in healing — others.
F: [laughs] That’s so true.
R: I’d like to know if you have any suggestions for him.
F: “Physician heal thyself.” [laugh]
R: Is that happening? With him?
F: Unpredictably. Or should we say, in a quite scattershot manner. Not at all systematic. He has no interest.
R: Then what kind of suggestions do you have? More frequent, or more frequent occurrence?
F: Well, he is what he is. He’s doing all right. I mean, he’s not going to take the advice anyway.
R: He’s not?
R: How about when he’s working to try to heal my leg? Do you have some suggestions for him there?
F: No, you’re both doing fine on that, because what’s happening is, we give the suggestion second by second and he follows; he’s learned to just go with it and that has unblocked the channel. There’s still more to be done, but what you’re doing is fine. And by the way, if you haven’t guessed, you’re part of a – oh, demonstration, you know; like a teaching hospital kind of thing. This is part of a demonstration that the two of you have set up.
F: That’s with him and N___, same thing. [chuckles] And they’re two of a kind, those two. Neither one cares about healing themselves. [laughs, and they laugh] Just interested in healing others. Which is of course why they’re there: mirrors.
R: Why is that? Why is there this resistance to self-healing?
F: Well it isn’t so much a resistance to self-healing as it is a matter of self-definition. They take themselves somewhat for granted, and they say “well, this doesn’t bother me much, it’s not worth fooling about – but that’s interesting over there.” [chuckles] This is literally what’s going on.
R: “It’s my pain so it’s not important,” or something like that? “I can handle it because I’m tough?”
F: No, no, there’s two levels here. When they’re really in trouble, they’re not in a position to help themselves. You know? It’s very difficult. When they’re not in trouble –
[laughs] You know what it’s like? It’s exactly like the man who never fixed the roof that leaked because it was too wet to fix when it’s raining and when it’s not raining it’s not leaking. [they laugh] That’s exactly what they’re doing. It’s – well, to be a little more serious about it – what we said is true, but there’s another aspect of it as well, and that is, they can see and understand when they have a place to stand, to move, working on someone else, because they can get outside of it and work on it. But when it’s themselves, — although Frank was doing something very interesting last night and little by little we finally got it across to him to actually move his awareness within his own body. We can’t say too much about this. [chuckles] Hostile ears are listening. [laughs]
R: All right. That’s fine, as long as he knows what it is.
F: No, that’s what we’re saying! [laughs] We don’t want him to know certain techniques. Or certain – enough said.
R: All right. [pause] We’re going to run out of tape here pretty soon, so let me see what else I wanted to ask about here.
F: The whole essence of healing is love. Everything else is just added on to it.
R: All right. There is something else I wanted to ask tonight. In this process that we’re doing, here and now – Frank’s conscious activity seems to move in and out and sometimes I feel like he really is able to step aside enough so that I can speak directly to you, and other times I feel him coming back in, and those are times sometimes when the humor is coming up – I’m asking questions about this generally without a very good way of putting it, but – what’s going on here? Is this to some extent a matter of Frank’s needing to or wanting to control what comes up, or is it just not wanting to miss anything? I’m asking why he comes back in when he does, I guess, and does this in effect get in the way?
F: No, you’re not seeing it right. It’s not going in and out at all, it’s having to say and then not. In other words, he’s never not here–
R: I understand that he wants to hear.
F: No no no no, he’s never not here. And we’re never not here. And the expression alters. [pause] The manner of expression alters so that sometimes it seems him and sometimes it seems us, but it’s always the same thing in different proportions. That’s the best we’re going to be able to do with that. You’re never going to get all him; you’re never going to get all us. It’s always going to be mixed. And the reason is, because that’s how he lives. That’s his normal life. And this disappointed him, really, when he was younger. There is no “him stepping all the way aside and us talking.” Because there’s not that much separation between him and us to make that possible. Or even desirable. But oddly enough, there is no talking to him and not talking to us. Because the separation is not there and not desirable. So even when you’re talking to him about tuna fish, we’ll be popping in and out all the time, because he’s not got the barrier there. You see?
R: And yet it seems sometimes that you bring up information that Frank is not aware of.
F: Oh absolutely! Absolutely. That’s the value, you know. The value is that we are a corrective point of view. Actually, he might not see it that way. In fact, he would prefer more information than we usually can bring. He tends to think of us as having all knowledge and access to all knowledge, which is theoretically true, but in practice it isn’t true, because it depends on the questions. You see? [pause] We wouldn’t answer for the results if you were to ask us a question in Mandarin Chinese. [laughs] We wouldn’t swear what would happen here. Given the right circumstances, we suppose we could go find somebody. But it would have to be real and not theoretical; I don’t know how to explain that.
R: Okay, so my question really was aimed at what we’re doing here, and I’m hearing you say that there’s nothing that interferes.
F: That’s right. What you’re getting is hard for people to believe because of your concepts. It’s only a very slight exaggeration of your own life. In your own life, your own gentlemen upstairs -–your ladies upstairs, whichever you prefer to call them – are popping in and out all the time; well, they’re not so much popping in and out as they’re there but they’re not always contributing. Sometimes they are and sometimes not, you know. Sometimes on call, so to speak. It’s just that your language and your civilization doesn’t encourage you to recognize the fact. And that’s one of the things that he’s here to do, perhaps. The “perhaps” is, perhaps he’ll accomplish it, perhaps not. If you all realize that you are “we” and that we are you, and that it’s not a question of a great occasional leap across a barrier, but it’s a question of everyday intercourse, well that will change your civilization radically.
R: Yes, that’s certainly true. And I’m encouraged to think in those terms. And yet most people are encouraged to pray –– to ask for help —
F: Yes, but, look what’s implied there. A prayer implies distance. You know? You’re praying to something else, which is a very strongly different nuance from opening your own channels and saying –
And it’s okay. You can call ‘em The Guys Upstairs, you can call ‘em God, you can call ‘em anything you want. But you also would be better off to remember that it’s part of you, it’s not something different. It is but it isn’t – you’re always going to get that. Because of the difference in playing fields, every answer is going to be, “well it is but it isn’t.” Because it depends on where you are when you ask the question. You are the same as your higher self. But you’re not. But you are. You pays your money and you takes your choice. [pause] We’ll go a little further with this if you want.
R: All right.
F: The whole mode of operation that assumes that there is a Frank and that there’s an “us” is incorrect. It’s a useful fiction, but that’s all it is really. Because when there is identity, there can only be relative distinctions. There can only be polarities, let’s say. So, to say “well Frank, you get out of the way, we want to talk to the guys,” what that really does is, it sets up a willingness to open up a little more, and a willingness to speak without pre-intent, and to let come whatever comes, but it does not in any meaningful way alter or in any meaningful way substitute one personality for another.
R: Or create any kind of separation.
F: Exactly. There is none. Now, for many people there is that separation. But it’s only of their own concepts. The separation vanishes when it’s desired to vanish on a deep enough level. In other words, people may be taught one thing and have all of their – let’s think about this.
Well, it’s as simple as this. If you define yourself as Downstairs, there will be a difference between Downstairs and Upstairs, because you will systematically ignore, or not recognize, or distort the input that comes from other than inside your definition. As you loosen the definition, the distortion lessens. That’s probably the simplest way to put it.
R: And at the same time, at the level at which we are all one, — there’s an additional set of factors that come in that we interpret as meaning that we are individual separate – and while you and Frank are the same thing, Frank and I are the same thing, and – um
F: And you and we are the same thing, yes.
R: Yes. And then the whole process of getting information from one aspect of all this to another seems relatively meaningless, and yet information isn’t available across those — what seem like boundaries.
F: Well, we would argue that if you want to get information most efficiently between one individual and another individual, the most efficient way to do that is to remove the barriers between yourself and other layers of yourself so that you do interact over here where everything is one, and then you’ll both know. And in fact you all do that, to an unrecognized extent.
R: We don’t necessarily take advantage of that, even though we would like to in many ways.
F: Well, you do, more than you realize. There’s much more telepathy going on down there than you think. You take it as intuition, or as instinct, or as hunches or whatever, but it’s nothing but – you know because you know, and one of the ways you know is, you’re on this side, and there are no secrets, on this side.
And if you’re both willing to listen, and both willing to share – to interact – then you can both have all the common knowledge that you wish. It’s not quite that simple, but it’s close to that simple. The only other complicating factor is, that to bring into consciousness things in your world requires a certain manipulation, but you can unconsciously know things quite easily. So that, for instance, this is why you can have a hunch about someone instantly, and that hunch can be entirely right, with no data. But it’s much harder to have a factual knowledge about that person — we would argue it’s probably impossible – without data. So the forming of concepts and of articulated knowledge is very much a 3D thing, but the instincts and the knowing is very much from our side.
R: What would happen if we had the totality of our selves available to ourselves and not secret. Secrets not existing. Is there some advantage to having part of ourselves secret from other parts of ourselves?
F: Not from our point of view. [pause] There could come a day. We hope there will come a day – well, we know there will – when in fact you will live your lives as individuals knowing that you’re connected. Knowing — not believing, but knowing — that you’re connected. And well, you can already see it. This is a small example of what it’s like. But it’s only a beginning state. And in fact right now you can see more of the complications of it than the promise of it, but you could live your lives, and someday will, knowing that you are individuals and knowing that you are not individuals. Simultaneously. That life would be paradise to what you have now. And will be. It’s a new stage you’ll come to. There’s no advantage to being sealed off from the other side. It’s a consequence of many things.
R: Well, living in a world of secrets, it seems to me, is about the most uncomfortable thing that I can think of.
F: It’s a subset of the word control. People keep secrets to try to keep control. In other words, secrets are the byproducts of fear. Fear is the byproduct of lack of control, of perceived lack of control. And that is the byproduct of perceived separation. Eliminate the separation and everything else goes. However, there will still be complications – it will still be interesting down here. But it won’t be the pain and the isolation and the cross-purposes.
R: Well, I thank you very much. This was another interesting session.
F: We thank you at the same time. This, as you say, it’s interesting. You gave us a new experience as well.