[continued from previous post]
R: All right, several people are asking — although Frank has already talked about this in the email to people, but we might want to think about it again — asking about out of body experiences and phasing that Bob talked about in his later years. Is there something worth commenting on here beyond what Frank has already put into writing?
F: [chuckles] Yeah, we’ll tell him that in fact, what makes him think his writing is his writing? [chuckles]
R: Well, all right, that part of what you wrote.
F: The major focus of what we’d like to get across to people is that you are all one huge being, seen from one point of view, and you all live as disconnected beings, seen from another point of view. It’s very worthwhile to think in terms of phasing and not out of body, mainly because it reminds you that you haven’t left home.
R: Uh-huh. Then I think he did a very good job in what he typed up.
F: He will disagree who did it. [they chuckle] And in fact, to be honest – to be serious as well – when people write, it is an example of a collaboration just as this is. The overall guidance may come from us. The tactical decisions come from you. Usually.
R: All right, well how about the Seth question, then?
F: Who’s that? [they chuckle]
R: I think the questions had to do with where is Seth, and what’s he up to, and —
F: No, the questions really had to do with how are we different from Seth?
R: Yes, and that was a part of it too, yes. Well, what I thought is, if Seth’s worst fears came about, he could be in the form of Rajneesh or Jim Jones or David Koresh or any of the individuals that Colin Wilson called Rogue Messiahs. Or if his worst fears didn’t come about, he could be Bob Monroe — who also said he didn’t want to be a guru.
F: [pause] Now this will give us a productive entry into Frank’s fears about are we real and do we know anything and why not, or do we know everything and why not. Because you’re asking us something, referencing things that we don’t know and he doesn’t know. Now, if he knew, we would already know. But if he doesn’t know, we may know or we may not, and in this case we don’t, and so what we could do is ask your angel “okay, what’s that all about?” You understand, your equivalent of the guys upstairs, and we can establish diplomatic relations and swap notes. But it’s round about, really, next to just asking. But this should – Let’s just –
It’s going to take a while to show you the everyday ways in which this works itself out, so we’ll mention them as they come up. Just as this, and then no more.
About Seth. [pause] It should strike you that Seth is an author without a body. And every author creates a persona in the writing of the book, whether he wants to or not. There’s no real choice. The part of yourself that you put into a book that people read is the persona. You can’t put everything about yourself in the book. For one thing it’s not relevant, and for another thing it’s not possible. So the selective elements of yourself that you project become a persona and that’s what people can react to. That’s all that they can react to.
Now, back that up a little bit. Seth has projected himself through Jane Roberts into print, but print’s not the distinction, it’s that he has interacted with consciousnesses in your world. And in so doing he has unavoidably presented himself as a persona, he has presented a portion of himself. Only because it couldn’t be otherwise.
You don’t really know any more about us than she knew about Seth. You don’t know whether we’re one or multiple, but you also don’t know whether he was one or multiple. But he chose to present himself as he; supposing we said, “he/they chose to present him/them selves as he,” or that “we/I chose to present ourself/myself as we”?
Again, we’re trying to just gently remind you that our turf is different from yours, and the necessity for any individual to preserve that individuality against others or in contradistinction to others, doesn’t really exist. So it is as though we are a reservoir with hoses leading from the reservoir, feeding you the water. The water of life, we would say. Which hoses you receive or how many is important on your end because that’s how you receive it, but on our end, do we –
Well, it’s an awkward analogy. Let’s back it up and try again.
If there are two rivers leading from the lake, it isn’t like the waters of the lake divide themselves and say “I’m going this way” and “I’m going this way” and they’re different. They appear different because they appear in different places. We’re much less individualized than it appears. However, having said all that, now we’re going to contradict it entirely. [sigh] There is, on the other hand, [pause] umm…
The chances of expressing this clearly are miniscule. On your end you accept that we have said that each of you as individuals is actually a part of a larger thing that appears to you inextricably as individual.
F: And you realize that if your individual life is one finger, your other lives might be other fingers, but you’re all part of that one hand.
F: And you realize that all of those hands in one dimension might be a part of something that has hands in other dimensions and other realities as well, so that you’re really a vast being. And again, ultimately you come back to the fact that we are all one, all right?
F: Well, the same thing is true on our side, looking at it from your side. So, if you want to look at it and find Seth, what you need to do is to separate out and separate out and separate out so that you’re only dealing with that part that you can think of as Seth. In other words, just because he’s saying to you that he is Seth, you mustn’t forget that he has other lives, other dimensions, other realities, all of which are just as real as Seth – and, all of which, is us.
So to make a distinction between him and us is valid enough and it’s also nearly a hypothetical distinction. You see? Individuality within total unity. It’s absolutely contradictory, it’s absolutely true both ways, and so it depends on what you look at.
In fact, to go a little further – go back to your Monroe states, your various heavens and all that – after all, when you’re looking at that, that’s a matter of how you’re looking. You’re looking at one aspect of yourself, in one place in one non-time shall we say. But all the rest still exists, you’re just not looking at it. So therefore if you look at what you call the afterlife in one sense, you have all these individual pieces in various belief systems, or in focus 27 so called, and if you look at it in another sense, you are back to the source and you are all undivided. Okay?
It isn’t that one’s right and one’s wrong; it isn’t that some go one way and some go another way, it’s that it is the same ambiguous reality delineated more by your concepts than by anything inherent to itself.
Sorry that’s a long answer, but —
R: Well, you’d said to us before that we are both in the all-one state and at the same time we’re in the individual state. And if you think about the distinction which you mentioned here, and I thought about before, that when we seem in Seth’s case to be talking about the individual aspect, why would we be talking about him unless we were talking about the individual aspect? Of course he’s part of the totality too, but —
F: Again, that’s his persona, shall we say.
R: Yes. The fact that he seemed to be coming from the same place you’re coming from as he worked with Jane Roberts, and a few people afterwards who also said they were accessing him in the same way Jane Roberts did, I can’t remember from those books whether or not he was the kind of energy that might want to come into a physical body again or not. If he did, and set up the criteria that he set up, he might have come into the kinds of individuals I was mentioning. In earthly form.
F: Well. We do, we really do see how it looks like it to you, but it isn’t really that he would take another life, it’s that – This will seem a fine distinction to you. [pause] We need names for these things. Suppose we call your over-all self, that has all lives, all dimensions, all realities, let’s call that the amoeba. [chuckles] Seth wouldn’t be taking on another lifetime, it would be Seth’s amoeba taking on another lifetime. Now, it sounds like a quibble, but —
R: No, I see what you’re saying.
F: — it’s important to avoid that. And the answer to that question is, did he or did he not. Sure he did, or sure he didn’t. [they laugh] Could he or could he not? Sure he could, sure he couldn’t. You’ll get used to that answer. There are realities in which he did one and realities in which he did the other. Or something else, sure.
R: All right, well, some other questions may come back on that one. We’ll read the text and see how it sounds.
F: There are realities in which you don’t read the text. [they laugh]
R: I have one more questions, but I’m wondering if this is enough for tonight.
F: We’re all right if you’re all right.
R: I wanted to ask some more about the next stage of human development. You’ve suggested that on the way to that next stage of human development we might begin by seeing things from many points of view including seeing things from your point of view, and that we might even be moving toward becoming like you. Now, is any of that what you said?
F: That’s correct except for the last part, because you already are like us, in fact you are us, but we know what you meant, which is that you will develop habits of consciousness that will make you more aware of your connection with us, on an ongoing basis. The ultimate is for all of us to be one again and to be functioning as one. The penultimate is for all of you to be still retaining your individuality with vast extensions of your psychic awareness (which implies awareness of all the rest of you) so that you will meeting amoeba to amoeba, shall we say, rather than person to person.
And, by the way, you’ll notice already how valuable a word shorthand is. We can start using that word amoeba and it will mean things now and it’ll make possible much more complicated dialogue, because we’ll each know what that means, and we can create an elaborate although hopefully not over-elaborate conversational structure. Beware lest you make it too whimsical, because you’ll be stuck with it. [they chuckle]
R: Well, but to be clear then, what amoeba means is that any one of us in individual form, but with all the lifetimes and experiences.
F: All the lifetimes, all the realities, all the dimensions, yes, that’s right. The over-all arching things that’s you, before it’s Rita. It is your largest sense while you’re still seen as separate. I think you would call it a monad.
[pause] By the way, this ought to clarify, eight or nine years later, something that bothered Frank a great deal, which is that occasionally we would say “I.” [laughs] And when we would say “I mean” or something like this, he would go into paroxysms of worry [laughs] for fear that he was really making it up. [laughs]
R: A language problem.
F: Well, it’s a form of integrity, but he worries a lot.
R: All right, well, that’s all I had on my list to ask about tonight. Is there anything you’d like to add?
F: Yes, this is just in the nature of an alert, for you. Watching Frank, if it’s happening to him it’s happening to you all as well. It’s very possible to begin to shake yourselves to pieces by on the one hand attempting to remain in multiple viewpoints but on the other hand immersing yourself more and more in news and in the media as it portrays things.
The inherent contradiction of the two activities is not necessarily bad, but when you notice that you are losing a little of your equanimity, then either spend more time meditating or in some way cooling down to remind yourself of who you really are. This is a widespread problem that will get wider, sooner.
Otherwise, we’re enjoying the experience, and we trust you are too, and we’ll see you next week.