TGU session 10-02-01 (3)

[continued from previous post]

R: All right. Now there are a group of questions that have come in to Frank, based on their reading the material from past sessions. I’d like to ask some of these.

This came from a person who’s asking can he simply shift his consciousness, becoming one of his other versions – one of the other versions of him – and thus I guess be in a much happier life circumstance.

F: All right, that’s an interesting question. It’s founded, though, on a misunderstanding, we think. [pause] We’ll back up, as always.

Let’s say there are 50 versions of you – a vast understatement, but let’s say there are 50. We’re talking about 50 versions of you in your present lives, just because of different choices. All those versions exist and always did exist. It isn’t like they were only created when you chose, because when you chose you went down one or the other that already existed. To say “can I change my consciousness to move over to another life that has better choices, which took better choices,’’ which is in a sense is what he’s asking, is to think that he can leave any path. And in fact the actual reality is, you all are on all paths. As we’ve said earlier, we can’t answer a question that says will this happen or will it not happen because the answer is always “yes it will” and “no it won’t”!

So we know where he’s going, and we’re not avoiding his question, but it’s important to say first off that in fact he is on all those paths, because there’s no other way that it could be, just as you can’t not be in three dimensions. You know, you can’t decide you’re not going to be in height, you’re only going to be in depth and width that day. You have to be in all dimensions, all the time. We have to be. And all those alternate possibilities are, from our point of view, dimensions. Given that he’s in all those dimensions, it becomes a matter of him moving his consciousness to something that’s actually there. Remember, we talked about miracles being the moving from one state to another state, as moving from one reality, basically, to another reality that’s identical to the first except in the way that one wants it to be changed. Yes he could, but no he probably can’t.

Yes he could, because the potential is there. No he probably can’t because the belief required would probably be overwhelmingly difficult for him. If he wants to try an experiment, we suggest that he try changing very little things. Change the weather from moment to moment. Or change insignificant trifles that can’t be accounted for logically. It would be impossible for him to verify it, and he should forget about verifying it. But he can experience it, and that will get him on his way.  Bearing in mind, of course, that his question that “he” thought of to ask was undoubtedly prompted, [laughs] which means that it’s probably an important question for him as well as for those listening.

R: Now, all of those alternative paths have a consciousness attached to them, or not?

F: Remember, we said that all of those paths could be considered to be focus 23 until and unless you move your consciousness to turn them to focus 1. There’s no inherent difference in them. The inherent difference is in where you put your focus now. In the insane asylums, you will find people there who have inadvertently expanded their consciousness to the point that they are experiencing several different fluctuations at the same time, or in close proximity. And they have no idea what’s happening to them.

R: That’s interesting.

F: And there’s no way for them to explain it, because no one who hasn’t – you know.

R: I’m still – I don’t know if I got my question answered or not; let me ask it again.

F: Mm-hmm. Always a good procedure. It will always be slightly different.

R: All these alternatives are possible for this man who is asking about changing his consciousness. But the other alternatives by their nature don’t have a consciousness attached to them.

F: That’s not exactly true. [pause] The logical difficulty for you all is that you are aware of what you’re aware of, and you’re very much unaware of the huge amount that you’re unaware of. That’s what we’re talking about, about expanding the limits of your consciousness. You have your consciousness on all  those paths. When you pop out of this lifetime, you will have experienced all of those paths, not just one. But – Sort of. Well, wait a minute. [pause]

[laughs] Frank arguing with it.

No, that’s what we mean to say. [pause] All right, it will be easier for you to understand if we confine it to seemingly inanimate objects. Just as there is a reality in which a leaf falls on one side of a fence, another reality in which the leaf falls on the other side of the fence, a third one in which it doesn’t fall at all, a fourth one in which it never grew in the first place – all of those realities are equally real. They’re real only when, as, during, and because, you‘re walking down that reality – as far as you’re concerned. When you pick a path, or wander down a path, or get diverted down a path, the other paths might as well not exist for you but they do exist.

Now, in each of those paths, there’s a version of you. And you’re choosing which version you wish to animate, so to speak, by your choices. So that when you come out of your life, remember we’ve said you’re here to choose and choose and choose and choose? All of those choices will have in their aggregate determined your path. They will have determined the flower that you are by what has happened to you out of all the myriad possibilities – [pause] most of which by necessity are only shadows to you. The path not taken is always a shadow to you. But that doesn’t mean it’s a shadow to an outside observer looking at it, seeing you walking down it.

R: But the reason it’s a shadow is because you’re not putting your consciousness on that other path.

F: No, not exactly. It’s more like the reason it’s a shadow is it’s a shadow to you because you’re not aware that in fact your consciousness is on that path. Your consciousness is everywhere, but your focus of consciousness is only on one at a time. It’s very difficult to make that clear, we understand that. The easiest analogy for you who have Monroe backgrounds is to say that all given possibilities are focus 23, and walking any one of those turns it into c1 temporarily. That is to say, for yourself. But –

Okay, we’ll go on, this is interesting, we’ll go on a little bit. Let’s suppose that the three musketeers are in focus 23. Any three friends, relatives, whatever. They all take different paths, of course, but in each of those paths there are the three of them, except for the paths in which they diverge. But let’s say they all take paths in which they all stay together. But they all take different paths in which they all stay together.

From any one of their points of view, this is the only real thing, because there are their friends, there are they, they know they’re conscious; this is what it is; they and their friends could not have taken a different crossroads. But another one of those friends, having been in the reality that took a different crossroads, sees it exactly the same way: “This is obviously, self-evidently, the only real choice. The others were theoretical choices. Because here I am, here are my friends. I can see them, I can touch them, I can feel them” Okay? But the outside observer looks and he sees just this bit: all three paths, all three paths taken, all three paths animated. But there are paths a, b, and c, there are friends 1, 2 and 3, and 1 2 and 3 on b – Well, back up a little.

Tell us when this starts to lose you, and we’ll back up a little more. But, if your consciousness could extend to outside of time-space, as ours does, you would see yourselves so radically differently that you’d realize that you are simultaneously in all possible realities; you couldn’t not be in any of them. (Except the ones in which you don’t belong: If there’s a reality in which you’re dead, you’re not in that reality once you die.) But in all the ones that you belong, you’re in all possible realities. Always. You have to be.

R: Along with your consciousness.

F: Yes. But, you only are aware of the consciousness pertaining to wherever you are. The other ones are only aware of where they are. And so your next question – we can hear it – is which one is the real one. And the answer is, yes! [they laugh]

R: That wasn’t my question. My question is, you’ve made a distinction between consciousness and point of consciousness.

F: Yes. If your full consciousness is a hundred units, your effective consciousness at any given time may be only 3 units. The other 97 units are closed to your awareness. There’s no absolute change, it’s just that your light doesn’t shine that far.

R: Well, it seems an odd definition of consciousness, that one can be conscious in multiple realities without being aware of that consciousness.

F: Good! This is a perfect example of how shifting your analogy back and forth between our side and your side will help you see this. From our side, it’s perfectly obvious that at any given time, only a small part of your consciousness is lit up, even in one reality. But it’s also perfectly obvious that the other consciousness is there. Now, you often call it the subconscious. When you’re asleep and dreaming, what you call your conscious awareness hardly flickers. But you’re not any less aware from our point of view than you are when you’re in full waking consciousness. Again, and again and again, and not just for you but for your readers, it is so helpful to keep shifting viewpoints, because it stops you from making those inadvertent redefinitions in the middle of a statement. Well, it won’t stop you, but it’ll correct you after the fact. [they laugh]

R: Well then, how do we think about your consciousness?

F: How do you think, or how should you think? [laughs]

R: How would we? How is it possible to think of your consciousness. When you’re seeing this – everything, and you’re conscious therefore of everything, I guess —

F: You’ll remember, we said that our consciousness is of a more expanded version than yours, but less of a pointed version than yours. And we know we’ll never hear the end of it, but we’re somewhat in a fog in that sense.

R: [chuckles]

F: And so you could look at it perhaps that your ordinary consciousness is a background light, and your full awareness is a flashlight, or a beam of some kind, that is more intensely aware. Your conscious intent – your flashlight – is brighter than ours; it’s just that our background lighting extends forever. The difference between your flashlight and your background lighting is so great that it often seems to you that there’s no light but the flashlight.

R: Right. I see that. I’ll move on to another question here.

F: You’re making us work tonight.

R: Yes, that’s good.

F: We think so.

R: This notion about Seth has come up a number of times, equating what is happening here with the Seth energy that came through Jane Roberts. Is this an appropriate analogy?

F: We’ll set you an exercise, actually. We’ll answer this at another time, but in the meantime we’ll set you an exercise. Look at that question from our side. In fact, look at it from your side, then try to move your mind around it and see how we would see it from our side, and then move your own to see how you would respond to our theoretical response. Do this with pencil and paper. If you wish. If you don’t wish, that’s fine. This is a good exercise, actually, to get you started, because there’s no point in just listening to us. This is a good exercise to get you started to see how you can learn to dig, sort of. So if you don’t mind, let’s do that. Leave that as an exercise. We’ll answer it later, but in the meantime, people may find themselves surprised at how much they know that they don’t suspect they know. It would be better, when they’re trying to do it from our side, to get into a mild meditative state. Those who have tapes, put them in focus 10.

R: All right.

F: That’ll fix ‘em.

R: [chuckles] A little challenge there

F: It’s – it’s a big challenge. Because this habit could change their life, much for the better. We know that’s a large statement, but it’s true.

R: All right. [pause] Another questioner of Frank’s was asking him what your energy sounds like to him; how do you speak and so on, but he goes to ask what are your limits if any in regard to use of the body. [pause] Do you understand that question?

F: Oh yes. Well, Frank already answered that question on the internet. Apparently —

R: He answered about the nature of the voice and how that came across and sounded —

F: No, the other answer was actually a sufficient answer, and that was that, because he’s there, we’re not going to get away with too much. Meaning, in order for us to move his body, we would need his permission to such a degree that it would be the same thing as him moving the body, really. You, Rita, will notice that the gestures we make are his gestures, because he’s translating us, through him. If we were to be like – No, we’re going to stay away from Seth until we get people’s answers [laughs].

Without violating free will, we can’t take over a person. If we take over a person with their full consent, we can’t do as good a job as they can do, because it’s a complicated diving suit you’re wearing. It would unnecessarily take a lot of our attention and energy. Try running us from your side! [laughs]

R: Yeah. Well that wouldn’t be a fair challenge. Maybe the Seth challenge is a fair challenge. By the way, Frank doesn’t make many gestures when you’re coming through.

F: That’s because we’re not Italian.

R: [Ignoring that] – and very very limited, practically none at all. He talks about them as his normal gesturing, but there isn’t any gesturing [inaudible]

F: Well, hardly. There’s occasional movements

R: Very, very few.

F: Very few. That’s right. And this is because when he first began listening to the Monroe tapes, he made a particular effort not to move a muscle, out of– Well, we were sort of taking advantage in a way, using the idea that if he moved a muscle he would ruin the state. It actually was a back door way of getting him to relax at a level that he ordinarily didn’t relax at. He’s very high-strung, and we needed to unstring him somewhat. [they laugh]

R: Well, it works very well; that’s just an observation.

All right, now I have one more question here, and I must say, I don’t understand the question. I can read the words, but maybe you understand it. This gentleman says

“I would like to encourage folks to explore the notion of alternate realities as convergent, this juxtaposed to the notion of alternate realities as divergent. It is also significant to incorporate the notion of duration or extent — e.g. is the duration of a divergent alternate reality finite, i.e. does coherence/cohesion diminish through divergence.”

F: Well, we understand the question, but it’s based in a misunderstanding of what we’re saying, we would say. Let’s see if we can explain this.

That question is rooted in the assumption that you begin with one unit, and it splits, and splits, and splits. And his question is, do they then converge and become one unit again, or do they diverge continually and more so. And we would say that’s a misunderstanding. It appears to your consciousness that things split, but in actual fact all possible paths exist. It isn’t like they only exist at the time – Well, wait a minute.

Again, it’s a matter of viewpoint. You could look at it this way and say, “all paths exist before anybody has to make any choices,” in the way that the background for a video game is all on the CD ROM before anybody puts it in the machine. Or, you could say, “you exist in a wilderness of choices and every choice you make takes you to another place that may or may not have been in existence before the combination of choices created it.”

We know those sound like radically different situations, but actually they’re meaningless differences, because the center of creation is not material, but consciousness, so it’s more a question of “which way are you going to see it” than it is of “which way is it really that you’re finally seeing.”

Perhaps we didn’t say that clearly. It isn’t a question of which of those two realities is correct, it’s more a question of which way do you prefer to see it. Because it’s the consciousness that’s central, not the seeming reality. So this rather intelligent question comes from a point of view that assumes movement, whereas in fact the movement is actually a movement of consciousness among places, rather than a movement of things on which consciousness rides. That being so, the answer is, “sure they diverge!” and the answer is also “no, of course they don’t diverge!” All possibilities exist.

Did that clarify the question for you, by the way?

R: Yes it did. Very much so. There’s a continuation here, which is another question.

“Does the notion of consensus reality mean `we all agree’ or does it mean `our views integrate’? Are alternate realities a field of possibilities from which a time space stream arises? When a view concedes to integration, manifestation is possible. Again, consider the notion of alternate realities as convergent.”

F: Well, again we would say it’s still based on misunderstanding. [pause] Let’s take it piece by piece. Read the first sentence of that?

R: “Does the notion of consensus reality mean `we all agree’ or does it mean `our views integrate’?”

F: See? You should see by now that that is based entirely from your side. And a good exercise for him and for you and for others would be, rephrase that question seeing it from our side. When you do that you’ll see that it’s not the question that it appears to be. And the answer of course is, yes and no, because it’s not a real choice. It’s not a real “it has to be either/or”; it’s a choice of consciousness, is all.

R: All right, and this continued, “Are alternate realities a field of possibilities from which a time space stream arises?”

F: You see again, it’s based in the idea of movement. He’s clever about the duration, but it’s based on the idea of movement rather than on universal pre-existence, or universal creation on the moment. See, it’s not an important distinction, although it seems like it, but once you move your center to the consciousness rather than to what the consciousness is perceiving, you see that it’s strictly a matter of individual choice. All right. You should tell them that of course we’re willing to do more about any of these questions if they have supplementaries.

R: That’s all the questions I have.

F: Well that’s good, because we’re billing you for overtime.

R: We still haven’t run out of the second side of the tape, but we’re probably pretty close.

F: All right. Well, this is always a pleasure.

R: Indeed. Very much so.

F: And we’ll see you in a week.

R: All right.

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.