TGU session 09-11-01 (2)

[continued from previous post]

R: Okay, let me ask this. Would the events that happened in our time and space today change the energy at your level in some ways?

F: Well, you know, we’re not surprised by any of this. We know what’s going on that hasn’t happened in your area yet. We know converging probabilities to the degree that it might as well be set, okay? So, how should it change our energies?

R: Well, I guess I’m saying that there may be, on the earth level, lots of demand for your attention today.

F: But, but, you know — how many people died? When you have 15 or 20 or 30 billion at a time, then you might start taxing our facilities. After all, World War II didn’t tax us, this isn’t going to tax us. In the sense of a drain on our attention, if that’s what you mean,

R: This would be a small event, compared to the kinds of events in your —

F: In a way, you could kill everyone on the planet on the same day, and – the mission of the planet to the side, just considering that number of people –if we had to we’d react to it. (That is not likely to happen.)

R: Well, all the suggestions you made tonight about the future on our planet sound very grim.

F: You knew them a long time ago.

R: Well, I haven’t known them. I have really been an optimist. And when the question has been, well, are we going to end with being blown up by atomic bombs, or are the earth changes going to wipe us out, I haven’t come down on the side of either of those. But it sounds like you’re saying I’m wrong about that.

F: We didn’t mention either of those things. We’re [stops, starts and sputters] Want a little more definition?

R: Well I was using that as an example of the kinds of questions that had to do with how it all ends.

F: Well it doesn’t all end. [they laugh] It always goes on. But this next act, if you want to look at it that way, and it’s curious to us how while you’re in bodies it seems to you that anything that takes people out of bodies is not an optimistic end, given that you’re all going to come out of the body anyway, and if you didn’t you’d be stuck. You are going to have extensive disruptions, but your whole lives have been extensive disruptions and you’ve lived them fruitfully and with purpose. Looking back on them, one might say, “oh my god, it’s been one damn thing after another,” and in a way that’s true. But in another way it’s, “wow, it’s been the removal of one chain after another.” And in a way that’s true.

If your systems were currently functioning in an optimal or even a sustainable way, then disruptions to the systems would be bad in the sense that you would find it not only uncomfortable but retrogressive. But your systems aren’t sustainable, and most of them aren’t even humane. And disruptions of those systems we cannot see as anything other than a way forward, not backward.

R: By systems you’re talking about social institutions and ways of defining our livelihoods.

F: Indirectly, yes. Primarily, we mean, the way people are defining themselves, what they think they are. What they think the rules of life are. What they think the purpose of life is, or the purposes of life are, whichever. All of that is very dysfunctional, although – within the overall context, anything that happens is a flower, as we’ve said. But we prefer other flowers, and to see this one destroyed– Well, we’ll ask you a rhetorical question. Would you rather see your civilization destroyed, or the earth? Not that that’s the real choice. But you see what we’re saying. There are times when something being destroyed is not only the better of two evils, but in fact is not an evil at all, it’s a –

[change to other side of tape]

R: Thank you. [pause] Okay, something I wanted to follow up on has to do with what’s happening on your side. Do you have events occurring that are similar to, say, our past disaster as of today? Are there events that kind of seem to shake your universe on that side?

F: The immediate answer is, yes, when they occur in time-space. In other words, we’re not unaffected by this. We’re getting direct feed, so to speak. But if you mean are there equivalents, there can’t be the collision of forces when – not as an abstract thing but as a real thing — we know that it’s all one thing. You know?

When we’re all connected, and we’re all aware of the connection, and we form our purpose not by tension between component parts but by a sort of a bubbling forth, a sort of emergence, there is no mechanism for the equivalent of that on our side. Although Milton thought there was a war in heaven, there was a misunderstanding of the nature of things.

R: Okay, take the collision of forces out of it, and ask if there are events that seem to simultaneously affect everything in the There in a way that events can have that impact here.

F: Well, it still looks to us like a false distinction. The event on your side do affect us on our side. We don’t need anything more direct than that, because it’s as direct as can be. We’ve never talked about that, but – but – but – Supposing you were wearing gloves. Rubber gloves are like the equivalent of being on your side in bodies. The fingers wouldn’t recognize each other as being part of the same thing, because they would be separated by the rubber. But, down the nerve pathways, they would still know they were the same thing. So, we extend into time-space by way of you, and it’s a direct extension, so everything that affects you affects us, it’s just that we don’t have the same –

[sigh] You remember the time we visited emotions, briefly? Well, that was a visit; because we don’t experience it that way usually, that was very unusual. It isn’t like 3D Theater is off to the side somewhere. It’s central. It’s as central as anything else, let’s put it that way. So that’s the major events that rock our world. The same ones that rock your world.

R: Mm-hmm. But in saying “it’s as central as anything else,” you’re saying there is something else that affects you besides what happens here.

F: Well [pause] if you’ve got your hand in a glove and it’s in the water, there’s still the rest of you that’s not in the water.

R: Mm-hmm. So what are the nature of the events on your side that don’t involve it?

F: Well [pause] We wouldn’t – I don’t –You might not recognize these other events, but we’ll try. Supposing while – Well, you want something that’s not connected with 3D Theater

R: You were suggesting that this is a part of what has an impact on you, but it’s certainly not the only thing.

F: Supposing – oh, all right, look at it this way. We ourselves – the ones that are talking to you – which last count was 29 ½ or maybe it was 31 ¼

R: [chuckles]

F: We ourselves are the product of many things, many experiences, many choices. Now over here, there’s another part that’s the product of many choices. It may look to you like the blending of colors. That’s probably the best analogy, for the moment anyway. Our interacting with them –understanding that there’s not the separation that those words imply – the intermingling could either change both or could cause either to – maintain itself against the other: In other words, could increase this feeling of supporting the identity. And then of course that happens in all directions. We know that’s vague, but how else could we describe that?

R: Well, that’s speaking still to the interaction, I guess.

F: That’s all there is.

R: [Musingly] That’s all there is.

F: Well, it’s not a one-time thing, it’s a continuing thing. So every time something changes, everything around it potentially changes. You see? If something goes from blue to being light green, then everything around it either changes, decides not to change, or experiences itself differently or looks steadfastly in another direction. Because everything affects everything else. But there’s not the delay that there is with you, where you have time and space slowing you down  to do your part. We can’t talk to you about politics and wars and commercial trade or anything; that’s not what goes on. But —

R: Mm-hmm. Well, the way I’m getting it now is that – you’ll have to excuse the spatial references but that’s all I’ve got —

F: [laughs]

R: is that you and we are all inside some great balloon, or wall. And there may be things going on outside of it, but they don’t involve all of us in the balloon.

F: Well, we suspect that there is something going on outside, but we don’t first-hand experience that, any more than your blood cells experience your skin. In other words, we think you’re right, there’s more going on beyond the part of it that we all share, but we’re not the ones to know what that is. Again, we’re not all-knowing or all-anything.

R: Mm-hmm. Do you have any thoughts about what that might be out there at all?

F: Well, we know – we think we know – we feel pretty confident – we’re a unit. [laughs] And if that doesn’t cause you to smile, it should. One unit, so-called, implies others, and we wouldn’t be surprised if all those so-called units are not part of a larger thing as well. But it’s only supposition. There have been reports, but who knows.

R: You don’t know of your own experience.

F: Well, we don’t, yes, that’s right. [pause] Supposing you look at us as the continent of Asia. We may live in Bangkok but we don’t necessarily know something that happened in Sinkiang. You know?

R: Yes.

F: We know that from your end it looks like we should, but that’s not the way it is. The answer is, there is locality here as there is locality where you are, except that there’s not any illusion of distance and firm separation. Okay? So perhaps you can envision alternate localities without spatial analogy (and if you do, let us know). All right, another way of looking at it: Areas of affinity? Or different vibrations? There are all kinds of analogies that can be drawn. But it’s not one homogenous thing. It’s a very heterogeneous thing, and that’s the richness of it. That’s encouraged, that’s not discouraged. And one of the ways to get even more heterogeneous is to run you through time-space, which means all those choices, which produces all those flowers, even if some of them are ragweed.

R: All right now. But that statement you just made was all encompassed by this bubble, then. Together.

F: [Inaudible] For all we know, this bubble is a corpuscle in somebody’s veins.

R: Yes. Okay, I thought of that possibility. [chuckles] I find it not a very rewarding thought, but —

F: [laughs] Why not?

R: It doesn’t sound very interesting.

F: [chuckles] Well, we’ll see. [chuckles] “Interesting” is in the moment. If you put your interest only in the future, or only in the past, you lose the only reality there is. The reality is in the present, right now. Now, if you spend “now” thinking about the past, that’s okay as long as you’re “now.” And if you spend “now” thinking about the future, that’s okay as long as you’re “now.” But it’s when you forget it, you see, that you lose the reality and you become almost ghosts of yourselves. Happens a lot.

R: Well, I feel like I’ve had an interesting life–

F: So far.

R: So far. And I feel like, as I look out at things from my point of view, that I’ve a more interesting life than a lot of people, and so I don’t even know exactly what interesting means in that context – except that I would hate not to have an interesting life [laughs softly]

F: Then you’re not liable to have that problem, are you?

R: Oh. Okay. Again, that’s one of those choices.

F: Well, unless in the larger sense you decide “I need a boring stretch so I appreciate interest more.” But we’ll say it again, It’s always well. There’s really nothing to worry about. Even though worry itself is an interesting experience. [They laugh] If only by contrast. If you’re worried about, “when I die am I going to be bored?” we would say you’re wasting your time. [laughs]

R: Bob Monroe described such an experience of sitting on a cloud and being bored–

F: But, don’t you see, the only way he knew he was bored was because he had grown to the point that it was boring. That by itself tells you, it’s not static unless you don’t want to move. For those who didn’t want to move, they’re still there listening to the same cloud and the same music. And that’s fine for them too. There’s nothing wrong with that.

R: Okay, can we go back to the point again about what seemed like individual lives and the process of moving from a life into a hereafter and then returning to lives and so on, and the factors that make it possible for this to be done in very short order. We always hear that we’ve lived thousands of lifetimes and we don’t hear about those energies that have lived one or two or five. And I thought I heard what you said before, but I think I didn’t understand it.

F: Well, we would add one more thing, and that’s just because people think they’ve had thousands of lives, doesn’t mean that they have, necessarily! And because they would like to doesn’t mean that they even think it, but that they sort of persuade themselves. But all we’re saying is, this is not the only playground, and there are many ways –

All right, this is too arbitrary, but we’ll do it just to keep it simple. If we say that our life overall is a seed that grows and dies at a certain point, we’re talking about from our point of view, and that the process of the growth of that stalk is a series of lives, those lives don’t all need to be on earth, they don’t all need to be even in 3D Theater, and they certainly don’t need to have x number of them, or x number of years between them, or x number of different kinds of experiences. All those rules are just rules. They don’t have anything to do with real life.

R: Okay, but then on your side, the repetitions. Do those accumulate in some ways that are different for some than others?

F: Mm-hmm. Because – this is a very strictly limited analogy, don’t take this too literally –we’re all specialized tools, so what we are helps determine what we choose and what we do, which helps determine what we become, which helps to determine what we choose. You know. So a person who’s a monkey wrench is going to have a very different life from someone who’s a hammer, or a screwdriver. An inelegant analogy, but you get the idea. And, there could be somebody who’s tired of being a screwdriver and in the middle becomes a hammer. Or decides to alternate, or to become part pliers and part hammer, you know; something like that, to create something new. There are millions of paths. Myriads of paths. Every path is valid, because it’s all interesting. Anything that anything wants to become, is fine. Because it adds to the picture.

R: Mm-hmm. Okay, then that’s true where you are, as well as where we are.

F: Well, we would say it couldn’t be true where you are if it weren’t true where we are. You are us. It’s just that you’re over there right now. Again, of course, most of you isn’t over there right now! [they laugh] You’re still over here! But the part of you that we’re talking to experiences yourself as over there.

R: This has been an extremely interesting session [inaudible] get new ideas

F: Well, we’ll tell you again, you’re doing good work and we on our end appreciate your on your end’s doing your work, and you’re coming to a very interesting time. Don’t worry about it, or don’t fear it, just – be it. Just do the things that are closest to hand, be yourself and don’t lose yourself, and know that by so doing you’re doing what can be done. We approve.

R: [inaudible] And unless you have some other commentary, I would be [inaudible] for tonight.

F: Well, we want to take some time and count how many of us; we think there’s 26 ½ of us.

[they laugh]


Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.