TGU session 09-18-01 (2)

[continued from previous post]

R: Yes. I’ve heard two things from you here. The second one I’m hearing tonight, the first one I heard before. What I heard before was that you are aware of what will be happening to us. That you have a preview, somehow. You know before we know what’s happening. And now I’m hearing you say that you actually arrange this.

F: Both of those are true, but neither one of them is the full thing. Let’s back up a little.

You remember that all possible situations have their reality. Now that should be just mind-boggling to you, because it’s just staggering complexity. It all has its reality, and the question is, which of those will you go to? And so, looked at one way, yes we know the future because they’re all there, we can see where you’re going now. But tomorrow you might go in a different direction. In other words, we can predict the future, but you may not go there! [they laugh] But that future still exists!

R: So you’re still you’re trying to move things, but they don’t necessarily go your way. At least in the short run.

F: Well, — it’s not that simple either.

R: Of course time doesn’t exist, so that doesn’t apply either.

F: Well, more than that, both halves of every choice exist. So how can anyone say it did go our way, or it didn’t go our way? [laughs] It did both! It always does both! Only – not a “both,” it’s an infinite, you know? It becomes almost impossible to explain it.

R: Well, you’re saying that you have preferences for how it goes —

F: Yes. We’re trying to steer it.

R: –and it’s hard for me to think about that without thinking about a time dimension. Because it seems like when you move things, that’s obviously a time dimension.

F: [Slowly, with emphasis] This touches on an absolutely major misunderstanding. Absolutely. We live outside of time, but that doesn’t mean we live outside what we should call duration.

R: Okay, now you said something like that before, and I think I didn’t understand it. Would you try again?

F: Let’s closely define the word time to mean time in the way that you experience it, where you have no choice, you’re dragged along, piece by piece by piece. You experience time in slices. Or another way of looking at it is, it’s the eternal now, but you have no way of changing that. You can’t make Tuesday come after Saturday until you go all the way around again. You know what we’re saying. You are on earth in the thrall of the time machine, and time is going to go forward one moment at a time, click, click, click, click, click, click – and you’re not going to be able to skip around in it.

Now, that kind of time, we are not at all enmeshed in. We don’t see it that way, and we can see you that way because we’re outside of it. But as you very acutely pointed out, there’s a difference between that kind of time, and duration. There is duration, otherwise there couldn’t be change. Absolutely. But how do we define it? How do we talk about it? Everything that we will say about this will have to fight against all of your prejudices, totally unconscious, based on the fact that your entire life is lived with one experience of time.

Now, if you can stretch your mind to envision a kind of time in which you can go backwards and forwards at will, in the way that you on earth can go north, south, east, west, or southeast or southwest at will, you might get a sense of it. The duration is still there, but we’re not stuck in it, like flies in amber.

Now, [pause] If you – let’s see how to say this —  All right, we’ll use as analogy the situation you’re used to on earth and we’ll just throw in one variable. Let’s say you live fifty years, from 1950 to 2000. In those fifty years, you are present in every single moment of those fifty years. You couldn’t not be. All right? You couldn’t exist from 1950 to 1973 and then not exist until 1978 when you come back into existence again until 2000.

So you see, that’s the only principle that we want to establish here, is that as you are in time, we are in, shall we call it, “duration” in every moment of it. We can’t not be in any moment of it. But you can’t move from Tuesday to Saturday other than by waiting, and you can’t go back at all, except in your mind. If you were to look at us as a string, from the first moment of duration to the last, we could move anywhere along that string, because it’s not movement. It’s a movement of consciousness. We are wherever we concentrate on being.

R: I see.

F: Well –

R: I think.

F: — you’ll see until you think about it some more, and when you think about it some more,  the logical paradoxes will overwhelm you. Because you’ll say, “but how can that be? How can there be any meaningful action when it all has to be done ahead of time?” And we’ll say to you, that “there is no movement here either, it just looks like it. Given that you’re in the middle of a crystal that has all possible choices, all possible paths, all possible outcomes, and where you move your own intent, where you move your consciousness, is what makes it looks like the situation is – given all that, the only difference between you and us is you’re stuck in slices of time and slices of individuality, whereas we can see the whole thing at once.

If you can make sense of that, hearing it once, we’re surprised.

R: [laughs] I feel like I’ve gotten in very deep water tonight. You’re saying that you can see everything at once. From our perspective that would mean over time and over space and over – I don’t know, is space a dimension in it for you at all, or is there just a form of time that you deal with?

F: A better analogy would be the difference between you as a grown up and any given child that you were dealing with. It isn’t that you live in any different environment than that child, but your mental outlook is so much greater, and your ability to draw connections is so much greater, that you’re really not living in the same world as that child. That’s why you have such an advantage over it in terms of understanding, even if it has an advantage over you in terms of perception. So you, here, in time-space, may have the advantage of us in perception, because you’re right on the needle. You’re right on the moment. But we have the advantage in perspective because we see wider and broader.

R: You simply understand more. Is that–

F: Well, [pause] we would think so, but the question does give us pause, because everyone thinks so. [they laugh] Um, [pause] get back to us on that another time. It’s an interesting question.

R: All right.

F: It’s a longer question than you have time for tonight.

R: [pause] I have an area of questions I want to ask about illusion, but that might take a bigger chunk of time than we have tonight, also.

F: Well, begin, and we’ll see.

R: Begin? All right. Many people seem to think that all is illusion here on this plane as well as perhaps elsewhere. And usually they mean by that, physical objects are illusions; we as human beings are illusions. It’s never quite clear to me what advantage there is to thinking that way, except in the immutability sense. The notion, though, behind it is seemingly that the only reason we perceive physicality at all is because we have learned to perceive physicality, and it doesn’t just exist in its own right. That’s one set of things that are talked about, and that we would somehow all be better off if we were aware that this is so.

F: [pause] Well the short answer to that will be to tell them that their belief is an illusion. [they laugh] A somewhat longer answer would be, they’re making what seems to us is a logical fallacy. They’re shifting a definition in the middle. Because something is not what it seems to be is not the same thing as saying it doesn’t exist. We see you all as – remember we used the definition of octopus and tentacle, or a long worm–

R: [laughs]

F: — and those are not accurate definitions of you either, but they’re as accurate as your own. The fact that our definition is not accurate and yours is not accurate doesn’t mean you’re not there! It’s true that what appears to be matter is actually energy bound in forms, but that doesn’t tell you anything, that’s just changing words. What’s energy?

R: Well, that’s a good question; I’m going to ask you that. [they laugh]

F: Well we’re not going to go into that at the moment, but the point of it is that it’s important and valuable for you to see that things are deeper, broader, wider, different, more mysterious than they appear, but it to our mind serves no purpose to therefore define them out of existence, even while – continuing to eat!

R: [laughs]

F: They are professing in one world and living in another.

R: Okay now this is associated but different, and that is that I feel like one of the big events in my life was being told by the physicists that things that we perceive as solid are in fact in great movement within the molecules. I thought it was a very powerful bit of information for me, because it meant that our perceptions are, not inaccurate, but so incomplete.

F: Inadequate, yes.

R: Inadequate, yes. [pause] How’d we get in this fix? [they laugh]

F: Who’s we? [they laugh]What’s a fix? [they laugh]

R: The human race has come along for a long time, and not known that solids were not solids.

F: [Quietly] We deny that.

R: Oh, do you? Okay, I’d like to hear about that.

F: Western civilization has come along, for what seems to it a long time, and denies what all the rest of the society knew, but didn’t know in any fashion that’s recognizable to western science. That is, your natives, so called, the people who live close to the earth, have an invisible technology of mental communication, as is well known now even to your scientists. And those people did not live in the same world that your scientists are living in, and there was little or no communication between them. But when someone can communicate with the heart of a tree, or the DNA of a bird, so to speak – these are metaphors but not only metaphors – they learned things that they may have no way of saying, but they live. Your scientists in the west have no way of living it, but they learn it. Those are two very different ways of being in the world. And the world has use of both of them. They came into being for a reason and they will endure for a while for a reason. But we deny absolutely that for most of your existence people have had this illusion that what appears to be solid, is solid.

Having said that, we’ll back off from about half of it and say that what appears to be solid is solid – sort of. That is, you go to the refrigerator and eat also. Okay? You’re as solid as the refrigerator and the food, and as nonexistent as the refrigerator and the food. It’s all in which end you choose to concentrate on. The continuum exists regardless of the fact that you’re ignoring the other end of it.

R: Well, you know, this seems to me — one way of thinking about this is to think about something that we haven’t yet experienced, or have so minimally experienced. Take the Big Bang. We have an assumption that there are physical objects out there in the universe that came as a result of the Big Bang or something else that we don’t understand, but that created these physical bodies that are functioning, and that when we get the transportation that can take us there, we’ll find out that there they are. And they will be real, and they aren’t illusions and – we make these assumptions, but these are – this is an example of something that’s distant enough that we can’t verify it in the way that we can verify that the table seems solid.

F: But [laughs] listen to your statement. Listen to your statement! You said, “we can verify that the table seems solid.” [they laugh]

R: Okay, right.

F: That’s exactly what you can verify! [they laugh]

R: Ah ha.

F: That’s exactly what you can verify, and nothing more. There’s no need to go to Jupiter to see if Jupiter’s as real as your refrigerator. [laughs]

R: Because –?

F: Because it’s equally real and unreal. It’s on both ends of the continuum. If you look at it from one point of view it’s real; if you look at it from another equally valid point of view, it’s not even there. You know, this is the door we came in at: If you look at it from our point of view, everything is one. If you look at it from your point of view, everything is separate. They’re both sort of true.

R: Mm-hmm.

F: And as to the Big Bang, we don’t believe in that either.

R: You don’t, huh?

F: You have your mythology of Bob Monroe’s emitter. Now if you will think about the emitter mythology in terms of the Big Bang, then we think you might find that productive. We know full well there was no Big Bang out of nothing. Now there might have been a Big Bang out of something, and you might want to think about that, but if you’re looking for the ultimate creation of everything, we suspect that you don’t have a telescope big enough. [laughs] Or a microscope strong enough, you understand. You are in the position of a fish at the bottom of the ocean trying to imagine a man on a mountain watching television. There’s too many levels between where you are, and where the ultimate is, for you – or for us, for that matter —  to really be able to – There’s too much. Look at the difficulties in translation between our side and your side and it’s the same thing. There are some things that it’s interesting to speculate upon, but not too profitable. [pause] Ask us next if there is God.

R: I’m not going to ask you that tonight, you’ll probably just have a long lecture prepared on that. [laughs]

F: No, we’re known for our brevity. [they laugh]

R: I want to stay with this Big Bang thing for a minute here. [pause] Did you arrange that?

F: Which is the same question as asking you, so we’ll ask you: Did you arrange it?

R: Well you seem to have a broader perspective for giving these responses than I do.

F: Well, but we’re all one thing. Did we arrange it? Use your logic for a moment.

R: Well I – you’re saying as a totality, including us and you and whatever —

F: If we’re living in it in a matrix, how could we have arranged it?

R: Yes, all right, but —

F: If we’re the fish in the fishbowl.

R: But that calls for a lot of assumptions on my part, which I don’t think I can make.

F: Ours too. [they laugh] Okay, let’s go through it slowly. We would look at us – us meaning you and us – as fish in a fishbowl, and we strongly doubt that the fish created the water and the fishbowl. That doesn’t tell us a thing about who did create the fishbowl but it gives us a pretty strong inference as to who probably didn’t. On the other hand it may be a terrible analogy and this may be something we don’t know anything about. We did remind you that we don’t know everything.

R: Yes, I —

F: Well, we could probably find out, but it would take some – We might actually be told “no, you’re not going to get this information at this point.” We’re not an undivided thing, we’re a – oh, a federation of parts of something, or —

R: But this is still all us in a bubble.

F: Well, maybe. Maybe. Maybe we extend beyond the bubble.

R: Well that’s what I really would like to know.

F: Us too.

R: Well I tried to get at that, one time, asking you if you had a source of guidance, and I don’t know that would mean leaving the bubble but – I don’t know. Do you and does it?

F: We can only say we don’t know, and we’ll tell you why. The only reason that you become aware of a source of guidance is because you’re divided into time slices and individual slices. If you were not, what you knew would be what you knew. Now if some of that were being planted, how would you ever know? Not planted, so much as, you know, assisted. And so if you look at us – Think of us as one giant physical brain would look: One huge, complicated set of individual cells. This may not be the best analogy, but we’ll go with it. If we had guidance external to ourselves, how would we know it? And we’re not even sure that “external to ourselves” is a phrase that makes sense. Well, it does make sense, but we don’t know what sense to make of it. If you think this is unsatisfactory to you, try it on this side.

R: Well, you’re implying there that the only reason we know that we have guidance is because we are —

F: You’re sharper than we are.

R: We’re all inside this bubble together.

F: You’re sharper than we are. And we mean that without sarcasm. You are pointed. You are on one moment of space-time. And that’s why when you ask a question of us, we have more knowledge, but you can elicit the knowledge. Because on our side, it’s a little more – fuzzy, or – well it’s just not focused. All right?

Supposing you were to look at us as the equivalent of your unconscious brain, or as your subconscious brain. We might have vast knowledge and less awareness, and therefore when you bring your awareness into it, the vast knowledge is enabled to crystallize around the question. If we can be regarded in that way – and I think we can – then we would almost by definition be less likely to observe subtle injections of thought or –

Well, isn’t that interesting?  The word that came to mind was emotions.

R: Hmm.

F: Which suspects that we have emotions and that we’re not – [chuckles] The answer to your question is yes, we’re beginning to see their footprints, and wouldn’t at all be surprised if part of this is not designed to bring us to greater awareness of this. Well well. You remember the incident with us experiencing emotions?

R: I do.

F: And now the next little step. Suspicious footprints. You are increasing either our paranoia [laughs] or our self-analytical abilities.

R: Well you put it in terms of increased focus. That would help you look for footprints, I guess.

F: Well – you’re helping us to look for footprints, because the focus comes in relation to you. This is puzzling and interesting.

R: Is this a good time for us to stop tonight?

F: If you mean in terms of Frank, he’s fine. If you mean in terms of us, we’re fine. It’s up to you. If you mean in terms of the matter of how deep the water is we’re about to get into —

R: [laughs] Well, I guess I’m thinking of that, because I feel there was so much material here tonight that I had some difficulty keeping up with not just in the sense of remembering it but of getting it in the first place.

F: This may have more to do with our manner of presentation, but – Well, look at it and see. We can stop and – we’ll be back.

R: We can always come back another time, if you’re willing.

F: Don’t underestimate the value of your function to us as well as to yourselves. This is very interesting. [pause] But if you’ve had enough for the night, we’ll bid you goodnight and see you the next time.

R: Thank you so much. I feel so grateful for this contact.

Frank: Well, I rather think they do too.



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.