TGU session 10-23-01 (1)

October 23, 2001

R: All right then, let’s start with a follow-on question from last week. You were talking about a belief system territory of the Monroe scale, and said that “people of the same electrical frequency create a comfortable environment around themselves.” Then you corrected this to say that environments were actually being created for them. How do those creations happen?

 F: Bearing in mind, as always, that this is an analogy, and we use electrical or we use specific gravity or whatever.

Well, it’s rather like when you first go doing retrievals, and at first think you are responsible for it, that you’re sort of thinking it up as you go along. And then with a little more introspection or sophistication you recognize that the scenario is being created and you are being inserted into it. Well, this is true of your whole life, and by your whole life we mean not just between birth and death at a given time, but the whole life of the amoeba. We are all under guidance. We are all under an overarching intelligence that creates the whole thing. Although we in practice act or even almost have to act as though we were responsible for our lives and our surroundings, in actual fact the circumstances of our lives precede us, and they follow us.

R: Well this raises the “choice” question. And I’m clear about the choices here on this side. How about the choice on the other side?

F: Hmm. A very interesting question. Since we’re learning to look with suspicion [laughs] on things that we’re taking for granted, give us a moment to think about that. [long pause]

 One could say, superficially, that because we are all conscious of our unity on this side, that things emerge – and I believe that we did say that at one point; that they emerge rather naturally. And your pointing of the question led us to realize that in fact that emergence was perhaps better stated as guidance from a level of consciousness and sophistication greater than ours. It would be an interesting exercise to determine if that consciousness is also somewhat less pointed than ours, as ours is of you. However, for it to be the case one would assume a difference in turf as that between us and you. The short answer is, “we don’t know the answer to that question.” But what we should look for is an opportunity for us to choose, one way or another, rather than doing what seems natural, which is the way it seems to us. On your side of the veil, as you say, you are much more conscious of choice, and in fact are artific — Okay, there’s the answer.

 You are able to choose primarily because you are suspended arbitrarily so that you can choose. That is, — [sighs]

 This is one way to look at it. This is one approach to the situation. You could say, because you are in bodies, you don’t sort out to your specific gravity, or to your electrical vibration, or to your, you know, pH – Because you don’t sort out according to what you are, not only are you enabled to associate with others of an unlike nature, you are also able to move. You can choose because you don’t have to stay at the same level. You see? If you were on our side, you not only associate with people at your same level, because that’s where you are, but if you looked at each of us as individuals over here, we can’t really choose because it would involve stepping out of the vibration that we’re in.

 That’s not very satisfactory. If you’d like we’ll back up and try it again. We have a clearer sense of it than that sounds. Where we are –

Take the guys that you’re talking to as your usual thirty and five-tenths people. Now, we 30.5 people, let’s say, have a specific gravity of 30. All right? This means we cannot associate with others at 50 or others at 20, except through intermediaries. They’re just not in the same place. This is rough, but it’s more or less true.

Now, for us to choose, we would have to have a – the choice would have to be able to be presented. In other words, —

Well, no, it’s not that simple, actually, is it? Um [pause]

Your situation is clearer to us than ours, now that we think of it. In yours, the ability to choose is what it’s all set around, and therefore we can see how clearly it’s been set to do that. And it’s true that that ability to choose depends upon pointed consciousness and upon the ability to associate unlike elements. Since we don’t have pointed consciousness, except in reflection to you, and since we don’t mingle unequal or immiscible elements, our choices are much more subtle and much less extensive than yours.

If we’re floating in a frequency of 50, we can’t have a choice one of which is 45 and one of which is 55, but we might have one, one of which is 49 and one of which is 51. If you see what we’re trying to say. If they can be small variants, but not large. At least not large quickly. Now, perhaps if our choices consistently led us to 49, then perhaps we could choose between 48 and 50 and in that case, our situation would be different from yours primarily in speed and intensity and range. Interesting thought.

But you know, we’re more like a school of fish, with fish on all sides of us, so it isn’t easy for one of us or even several of us to go off in a direction, whereas you can go anywhere you want, within the physical, physical, emotional, mental limits.

R: But it seems as you were describing the affinity connection with Frank or others in 3D Theater that it was clearly not an assignment, you said, but a collection by affinity.

F: Yes, that’s right.

R: It seems that there might be some choices in all this.

F: How do you see that involving a choice?

R: Well, your group is not assigned to Frank, it is somehow a matter of your feeling some connection with him.

F: We’re on the same wave length, we should say. Or on the beam, you know. That’s what we mean by affinity. Not fondness, but it’s more like we can resonate, as you say. But you’re seeing choice: Go on a little further. Perhaps we’ll pick something up here. How do you see that involving choice on our end?

R: Well, if it’s just a matter of vibratory rate or something like that that’s connecting you to Frank, then the others that you work with would represent patterns similar to Frank, and you would be relating to them? Or is there —

F: Ah! Well, now, remember, “a long time ago” [comic cough] [laughs]

R: All right, no making fun of the questioner.

F: Oh no, a rule! [they chuckle]

You will remember that we talked about how individuals come into the world. We don’t mean our 30 ½ here, but an individual emerges onto your side by elements of this, that and the other being drawn together from here. Do you remember that? We pick certain characteristics and certain elements and sort of put them together and package them. Well, [pause] this is a crude way to look at it, but supposing you as an individual comprise 30 different elements from our side. Each of those 30 elements will have a somewhat different vibratory rate, to use that analogy, and will therefore have elements on our side that correlate to that. That’s how we would describe an affinity. It isn’t that we ch–

Well, as usual. It depends on the viewpoint. It isn’t that we chose, exactly, but that in you being chosen, we sort of were chosen by default, in that we are the same kind of elements, you see.

R: I don’t see, but I’ll accept your word for it.

F: Well, if your frequencies ranged from one to 50 and we chose to use all the even numbered elements to create one given individual, then any of us who also were of those even-number elements would continue to correspond to those elements, even though they were in a body on your side. That’s where the affinity would come from between one side and the other. If you wanted to look at those elements as a filament, say, stretched into 3D Theater from there, we would be on the other end of the filament. That’s a way of looking at it.

R: Now, does this mean [pause] Someone moves over from this side and presumably goes to something like the belief territories. I assume that’s a step in a process, is that true?

F: It can be.

R: Or someone can stay there, is that what you mean?

F: No, it depends on the level of being that’s created by the time they die. They may not have to go to a belief system.

R: Yes, I see.

F: And, the experiment may have been unsuccessful enough that nobody bothers to bring to a belief system, and they cease to exist. Those elements being returned to the mix, you know.

R: Hmm. I haven’t heard about that before.

F: Well, not every so-called individual is by the end of its life really individual, is by itself really a success; we don’t know how else to put that. And if there’s no advantage to having that individual continue, then there’s no advantage. And so the elements can just be re-mixed. That is, allowed to dissolve on this side. You know, nothing’s lost, it’s as though you were attempting to form an ice cube and the water didn’t get cold enough by the end of the time period. Well; you’d pour the water back in with the water. It isn’t like anything was lost. It isn’t even like it was necessarily an unsuccessful experiment, whatever that means. It just means that the end result’s not promising enough to be worth continuing. It happens a lot.

R: Well, I’m sure I’m going to have questions about that, but I have three different questions I want to ask you at the same time. Let’s go back to what we were talking about before, a person moving over —

F: Dropping the body.

R: Dropping the body. And I understand from what you’re saying now there are a number of different paths that could occur at that time. A number of things could happen. But suppose a person does go into the belief systems territory  Is there a choice there?

F: Is there a choice of which belief system territory, you mean?

R: Yes.

F: Well, we need to back up a little bit. The first variable is, how old is this person that’s being referred to here? How large is their body of other lifetimes, other dimensions, other realities? You see? If conceivably this were their first time through, it would be different. They’d have a vastly more constricted full soul. The amoeba would be tiny. And if they’d been around a long time, done lots of things, the amoeba would be huge.

Let’s for the purpose of the exposition say it’s the person’s very first incarnation. They formed for the first time. They have nothing else they’re part of. And they live a life, and it’s an interesting enough and successful enough experiment that we decide to continue – not “we” exactly, but it is decided to continue, okay? They formed enough of a beginning of consciousness to keep going. And we’ll make some more assumptions, just to keep it simple: We’ll assume they were human, and that they were in whatever kind of form that they had to —

F: And the more we look at it, the more complicated the situation is. Supposing someone dies at the end of their first incarnation, and that incarnation was as a mental defective. That sometimes happens. Often happens, actually. It’s a sort of a trial run, you know?

Well, to say that they go to a belief system could be still true if you want to look at it that way, but really you have lots of levels that aren’t exactly belief systems, they’re just sorting-out stations. You know? This is where they sort vibratorally, and that’s where they are. And in the early stages, there’s not much consciousness there, and it’s mostly just a matter of waiting for another opportunity to get to earth, or some other earth, or some other system.

Now, take someone who’s been around the block a few times, when they drop the body, it depends on what you’re looking at. The part of themselves that just came out of a body could go to a belief system, or a sorting station, whatever you call them, depending not just on their consciousness level, but their level of being.

But don’t forget, when you drop your body, one part of you will drop the body, the rest of you won’t. The connection between “that rest of you” and you is much stronger once you drop the body. The body really in a sense is your insulator from the rest of your amoeba. [sigh] You can see how it becomes nearly impossible to talk about all this, but it’s a good exercise.

R: So is it the amoeba that is making choices at that point?

F: Well, you could look at it two ways. You could say the amoeba is part of your vibratory level, if you want to start from your end; you could say that your latest life that just dropped the body is part of the amoeba’s vibratory level.

Although you’re in the habit already of thinking that they’re individuals who separately go off into belief systems and then somehow automatically get pitchforked somewhere else, it’s a mistake, because they are still part of a larger being that never leaves them or could leave them unattended, shall we say. Just because you can’t see the rest of your being doesn’t mean that you’re not integrally connected with it, and must be, because you couldn’t live without it.

Everything we’ve said has been for the sake of attempting to make a clearer statement, but in a way it’s so wrong that it’s almost not worth going into it. To say that you drop a body and go to a belief system makes a lot of sense as long as you’re trying hard to forget about the amoeba! [they laugh] But when you realize that it’s one aspect of your larger self, —

Well, perhaps the easiest way to think of it is that it happens that way, but that the larger being feeds into the part of the being that just dropped the body thoughts and ideas and urges and perceptions, such that it is the usually unseen background. Does that make a little sense?

R: Yeah, I got into all of this because I was really asking who was setting up this environment that someone would be dropping into, and then the question of choice came up.

F: Well, it all mingles in together, but we came to it through the back door. The answer is always “you are, because we are, and there’s only one of us even though there’s many of us.” [they chuckle] Again, the exercise of changing viewpoints gives a little hint of clarity. Not very clear. We would give it to you in total clarity if we could.

We would say that it’s worth your while to think in terms of that larger being behind you as the scene-setter. Because it isn’t exactly true that it’s done to you, but since there is a perceived difference between you and your larger being, it will look to you like it’s being done to you. Or, it will look like it’s happening automatically. Which, we would say is the conclusion that most of the initial wave of Monroe people have jumped to, that it’s being done automatically.

And as you look a little closer, you’ll see “well, no, there’s much more going on behind the scenes than this.” And of course Monroe himself, shall we say, jumped to that conclusion after it was held in front of him long enough.

R: Mm. Someone has asked, about that, whether the amoeba could be defined as what Monroe described as the I-There.

F: Well [pause] we would say his I-There is a part of his amoeba. Not the whole thing.

Well, but it depends. Really it depends on what he meant by that, and we think he changed his mind on what he meant by that, maybe from day to day, maybe from year to year.

R: It did seem to include other lives he had, picking up the lives and maybe other dimensions as well.

F: Yes, it did although he didn’t fully realize that. What he called Locale III in a lot of ways could be looked at as other dimensions. But our question is whether he saw that ultimately his amoeba and other amoebas are all part of a larger thing. We would say he mostly did. [pause] So if you had to have a yes/no answer, we’d say “well, more or less.” [chuckles]

R: The question also asked about Bruce Moen’s disc; whether that’s also the same–

F: Yes, it’s much the same idea. Moen’s ideas are a simplified form of Monroe’s, actually. Monroe had many more years of experience than Moen has had, and he had the advantage – well, the disadvantage – of a lot of confusion and a lot of thought, plus he had a tremendous intensive tuition over many years that Moen does not have yet. So Moen’s job is more acting as a popularizer, an intermediary to Monroe. In giving a somewhat simplified form of it, he gives something that people can grasp, which will bring them to the next level when they think of some perplexities that haven’t been dealt with.

R: All right, now we also talked last time just briefly – casually, rather — about stages 23 through 27.

F: [laughs] We take that as a criticism. [laughs]

R: Not at all! It’s a casual remark in relation to another question. [chuckles] I want to go back to this idea that it seems as though you have accepted Monroe’s stages of 23 through 27 as something that you can recognize, although you may not define it in the way he defined it. Is that the case?

F: Well, let’s back up a stage and recognize what we’re doing here. We on our side are attempting to talk not only to the two of you but to anyone who may unpredictably read the material, in terms that will be comprehensible to them. And to do that, we’re working through what Frank knows, because the effort to put something through that he doesn’t know – there’s way too much distortion in that. So that if we need him to talk about quantum physics, he needs to study quantum physics first. You see?

Well, he has his understanding of the Monroe terminology and the Monroe concepts. Whether they’re exactly what others within the system would say doesn’t really matter to us, in a way. Because everything has to be conveyed by analogy, one analogy may be better than another, but this is fine. Were we talking strictly to Christians, we could talk – as far as Frank knew the theology – we could talk in Christian theology. Were we talking in terms of chemistry, he would not probably say a word, [laughs] because he doesn’t know anything about chemistry. But you see where we’re going.

So, yes – and after all, remember that much of the structuring that Monroe did around his experiences came from tuition in two different ways. One was directly, while he was what he called at the time out of body, another is through his various explorers bringing through people like Miranon, which is basically us! Right? And a third — the most indirect, and yet in a way the most graspable of the three — is reading and absorbing the systems that others have devised, trying to see what analogies there would be with what he had experienced, you see. And there’s another, the biggest reason of all: It is a flexible American vernacular in the 21st century, even though he himself never saw the 21st century. It’s in your language, not in terms of the words used, but in terms of the understanding of the universe. That is to say, if you’ll pardon us saying it, it shares the same distortions that you all take as accuracy. The Christians in the 1500s saw the world through their own filters. You see the world through your own filters, and this belief system shares your filters. That’s why it’s more useful to you. So, we’re fine using that. So, proceed then with your questions. [pause] Which is to say, we’ve forgotten what the question was.

R: Yes, well, I was asking if you see those distinctions along that scale, or 23, 24, 25, 26. You had some comments about the earlier sessions that suggested to me that they weren’t exactly Bob’s definitions that were being.

F: Well, he got glimpses of things over a 40-year period, or 30 year, whatever it was, he got glimpses of things and did his best to make sense of them, using his auxiliary resources such as reports from the other side and belief systems and, as we said, other people’s reports. But he himself should have realized, and probably did, that they were only provisional reports; that he wasn’t going to understand everything right away.

So that a minute ago, when we said that an inexperienced life that came out of its initial life as a mental defective would sort out to a place, but it wouldn’t exactly be a belief system: That’s something he didn’t happen to come across. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t fit into his system, it just means it’s one of the many things he never saw. That’s all. It doesn’t mean the system can’t be used, it just means it’s not complete and, like any system, it’s only an analogy.

R: Well, as an example, Frank seems to have quite a different definition for Focus 23 than Bob did —

F: He has quite a different experience

R: — and I would assume that some of the differences come from your coaching.

F: [chuckles] Who, us? [they chuckle]

Well, a very productive analogy would be for you to imagine that Monroe and Frank were two explorers, among others, of a new planet, the planet being earth. And Monroe happened to land in the Sahara Desert, and Frank happened to land in – oh, in Virginia, all right? So Monroe’s initial description of Planet Earth would be hot, barren, inhospitable, and brown. And Frank’s would be green, warm and wonderful. It would seem as though they’re absolutely contradicting each other. What they’re actually doing, though, is each describing one facet of an extremely complicated and extensive system. Future explorers are going to bring back much more that will at first confuse and complicate, until people shake them the right way and realize “oh, well, this is what this means. This is how this fits with that.” You know? If you have one exploration, it’s real simple, you just report what you saw. But if you have five explorations, there will be seeming contradictions and there will be different experiences. But when you have 50 or a hundred or 500, the contradictions and the seeming contradictions will all be understood in their relationship to the overall pattern. You’re just at the beginning.

R: Is it then a useful thing to start out with a scheme of some sort, or better off everybody go exploring without such a map?

F: Well we would say it’s best to start off with a vague scheme. Much like Monroe has now when people begin a Lifeline. He knew more than he said, and it was just as well not to put it in there, and that’s one reason why it wasn’t.

A major variable is the way people feel with the unknown or with their own attempt to find certainty. For some people, a very detailed map would be wonderful and they would give you great results. But for other people a very detailed map would just stifle their interest, let alone their ability to explore. So if you have to have only one kind of map, we would say a vague map is best. But there’ll be a time in which that will no longer help. It’s only because you’re in the beginning.

R: But you see progress being made in that direction? Of being clearer about these things?

F: Yes it is, no it isn’t. [laughs] Yes it will no it won’t.

R: [chuckles]

F: Well, we would actually say probably [pause] in most realities some form or other of this mapping will be successfully done, but there are huge differences among those realities as to what it comes to. There are realities in which this will come to nothing, because it will be shut off. Stifled. Purged. Persecuted. Stopped. [pause] Nothing to worry about.

R: [chuckles]

F: If you don’t like those realities, don’t go there.

R: [chuckles] Don’t go there.

F: It’s not meant as a joke.

R: I understand. [pause]

[continued in tomorrow’s post]

Leave a Reply

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