TGU session 11-20-01 (2)

[continued from previous post]

R: Okay, this is another “return to” question. You said that you were about to get into deep water because you were looking for footprints of guidance for you and we were helping you do that. You said you found this puzzling and interesting. I’m not sure if the puzzle and interest were because we were helping you do it or because you were on your own, looking for footprints.

F: No, it wasn’t at all because you were helping us do it. We were very glad of that. It was puzzling and interesting because it was a degree of introspection that on the one hand we’re not accustomed to exercise, and on the other hand weren’t even aware that we weren’t accustomed to exercise. And our own thinking has clarified as we’ve engaged in this process. It’s really a wonderful thing. It’s remarkable to have the fireworks answering you. At this point it’s almost inconceivable that we didn’t always see it this way. The answer presumably is that lots of other parts of us did, but this particular cluster did not. But it’s so obvious now that we are monads, and as monads obviously there’s another level of complexity which would by nature not even be able not to direct us, guide us, impel us.

That is, just as there are individuals at your level who do no introspecting and are therefore unaware of the guidance that comes to them even from their own conscience, let alone other levels of their being, it is still relatively rare for people to be aware that they are interacting with other levels of themselves in other lifetimes. It is somewhat less rare for people to be aware that they are interacting with a form of guidance which whether they call it God or their guardian angels or their higher self, whatever they call it – many more people know that. But probably a majority of people in the west are unaware of this. And this is of course what makes their life so difficult.

Well, we locally – the 30.5 of us that you’re always talking to, you know – were kind of in that unreflective position, and it’s a little puzzling as to why we should have been, in retrospect, because it’s so blindingly obvious, once we looked at it reflectively. Now it’s staringly obvious to us that we as an organized part of something larger obviously receive direction. Whether we’re receiving direction from the equivalent of hormones or electrical impulses, or whether it’s something on the order of intelligence guidance saying “okay now do this, okay now do that” – although there’s less difference between the two than might be thought – we don’t really have a firm opinion. But it’s remarkable! It’s just a little astonishing.

We were always well aware of the difference between us and you. What we weren’t aware of was the degree to which we at our level were functioning in a degree of ignorance common to your level. In other words, thinking of ourselves as more individual than we are, thinking of ourselves as more isolated than we are. So it’s quite productive. And we suspect, that like yourselves, we are flowers of another level and perhaps someone posed this question to us: “What would it be like to operate this way?” We don’t claim that; it’s just speculation.

R: As you’re describing this, it almost seems like it’s a kind of a matter of logic to figure this out, rather than some experiential thing, for you.

F: Well that’s exactly the borderline there. That’s what’s so puzzling. The logic is so obvious now, and we just described it, in fact, in terms of logic. The experience was there all along, but the experience in the absence of the logic was not noticed. It’s strange, really. You may remember, a long time ago [comic cough] when we talked about this, that we first realized that we had probably been under the influence of something that wanted us to do something. And that was a new thought to us. The logic followed the experience, it doesn’t contradict it or supercede it.

R: It’s a way of making sense of things.

F: Exactly. That’s exactly it. And perhaps not the only way to make sense of it. We may be totally wrong in the logic, but the logic seems blindingly obvious. As to the experience. That’s an implied question. As to the experience, we have no experience at this point – although it could change at a moment’s notice – of a consciously expressed guidance in the way that Frank might experience us as consciously expressed guidance. We’re beginning to recognize the experience of guidance in the form of a sort of a continued bias in a certain direction.

R: You called it “footprints,” before.

F: Well, what we meant by that was signs that something was around that we hadn’t suspected.

R: Well, but that is the experience, I guess. Observing footprints.

F: Well, it’s the process of going from thinking “what a bright idea I just had” to saying “I wonder who gave me that idea,” and I’m beginning to find their telephone messages to themselves around the house.

R: So is there any more you can say about the process of that awareness emerging?

F: Well, point us a good question, and we’ll see. [pause] Can be later, if it doesn’t come to mind. We’re not going anywhere, as far as we know! [pause] We can say this: The experiences that Bob Monroe reported in Far Journeys, the second book, will be suggestive to you of things that we can’t actually predict, but you must bear in mind that everything there is reported from the point of view of an individual, rather than from our point of view. There’s nothing wrong with that, just bear in mind that it was from one perspective, not two.

R: All right, I don’t have too much more tonight. Another question that came up when we were talking about your suggestion that you had manipulated the “disaster” scenarios, trying to move us in what you called a good direction. I was wondering whether there are people on earth who are aware of this kind of phenomenon, and who they would be.

F: Tell us first what you mean when you say “this kind of phenomenon.”

R: The fact that you are manipulating our scenarios in order to move us into a direction.

F: Oh, sure. Certainly there are. And the difficulty is, the interpretation that they place on it. Let us say that you were someone who is firmly stuck in level four, as you call it, where they only see one viewpoint. That immediately leads them, almost inexorably, to good versus evil. And that tells them the devil’s doing it. They jump to that conclusion, and they have enough emotional evidence, and enough psychic hints, to persuade them that this is what’s going on. And there’s no way out of that for them until they can raise their psychic level – we don’t mean psychic abilities, we mean the level of their psyche. If they can raise that to the point of seeing more than one viewpoint, that will automatically get them out of the “good and evil” trap, and then they’ll begin to say “well, maybe this was orchestrated from the other side for some reason that is considered beneficial.”

But the most likely people to see this are people who are stuck in level four and cannot and will not see it any other way than the devil doing it, just as, had it been something approved of, they would not and could not have seen it any other way other than God doing it. You see. They would make a firm dichotomy in motives and in agents, based strictly upon their own approval or disapproval of what they thought they understood of what they thought had happened.

We serious doubt they would put it that way.

Now, we don’t think that’s the question you were asking, but it immediately does clarify something for you. You’re asking more like, “do people have their access wide enough open that they can sense this?” And our answer to that would be, well, you did. Frank did. It isn’t difficult. The main variant there is trust, and if your emotional dial is set on trust, then you find reasons to trust. And if your emotional dial is set on distrust, on fear, on hatred, on separation, on accident, on coincidence, on chance, that’s what you’ll find. The setting precedes the interpretation of the data. Precedes and determines, mostly.

R: We just had a recent example of this in one of the ministers, attributing the disasters to God’s getting even with us for all sorts of in his view negative things like homosexuality and —

F: No, we don’t think so. You’re talking of Jerry Falwell? No, that’s a different –

[change sides of tape]

R: All right. You think that’s another scenario?

F: What’s happening with Falwell is different. He is not intuiting at all. Falwell is applying his logic to what he thinks the situation is. Do you see the distinction? Falwell is saying, “this disaster happened. Therefore it is because the vengeful god that I believe in is taking vengeance.” That’s not the same thing at all as the scenario you set up, in which people intuit – they sort of hear – what’s going on. We don’t believe that in his case it was a matter of him having his channels open and realizing that this had been set up. We think in his case it was a matter of his applying his own predetermined logic to the situation.

Now, we will also say to you there is a third category of people. One you might call religious, but some of them are devil worshippers, after all. They see it only one way; they decided that the devil did it, unless of course they’re Muslims, in which case they decide that Allah made it possible, but it’s psychologically identical. Then there are those like yourselves, who say, “all right, this has been sent forth as a drama for our own edification.”

There are a third category who, for whatever attributions they put into it, recognize that it happened but tend to put it in terms of chance. They are mixing things that are really incompatible, but don’t seem incompatible to them. It is as though they’re saying, “the other side is deliberately sending a pattern of chaos, and therefore we can’t trust anything.” That’s a clumsy way to put it, but that’s very clumsy thinking, too, on their part. Those people are almost not known; that’s why we mention them. That is to say, you could have your organized religious, you could have your metaphysicians, but these people are more like, oh, lost sheep in the hills. They have the perception, they don’t have any categories to put the perceptions in, and it leaves them more lost than if they were blind. Temporarily. Doesn’t mean that’s where they’ll wind up.

R: All right, let me ask another question and we can decide to talk about it or not tonight.

We were talking about prayer in an earlier session. You mentioned among a list of things electromagnetic fields. And this has been something that I’ve thought about asking about before, because apparently it’s one of the physical properties of the earth’s atmosphere – in the sense that people can measure it and so on – that seems to have some major impacts beyond other physical dimensions on human beings.

F: [pause] The question is –?

R: Is that true, that electromagnetic properties have major consequences for human beings? Or is this among just a list of things that includes temperature, and rainfall, and everything else.

F: Well, we’re trying to be sure we understand the sense of your question, rather than the specific of it, but here’s what we would say. All of your environmental factors – internal as well as external – have their own particular given sphere of influence. So that your heart’s pulse doesn’t particularly affect rainfall, to make an absurd example. Electromagnetic properties by their nature are fully physical and they’re also beyond mechanical or chemical. Therefore they extend wider and they’re more evanescent. On the  other hand, although they’re seemingly evanescent, they’re also in a way more permanent, because you live in a sphere of that.

So this is very difficult for us to answer, not so much because we couldn’t arbitrarily answer it in a way that would be absolutely true within the arbitrariness of it, but because it’s one of those questions that’s very meaningful to you from your side and nearly incomprehensible to us from our side. And since we play both sides of the fence, we really do know what we’re talking about here!

From our side, to ask a question of importance would be like ranking leaves on a tree, or flowers in a field or something. If you had electromagnetic forces and didn’t have the chemical or the hormonal forces or the blood coursing through your veins or all – what good would it do? You couldn’t live. So which one is more important? You see? You know how children at a certain stage in development will rank their friends and it will be very important to them? And to any adult it’s not only obviously nonsensical, but it changes by the second and the child hardly notices. You’re doing the same things! [laughs] If we may say so.

The electromagnetic field has, as one of its major functions, the interconnection of individuals in earth, in a totally unconscious way which can unpredictably become fully conscious. It is a way to facilitate mental, spiritual contact between people in two different bodies. It’s not the only way, but it’s a very good physical way. In fact, you can’t avoid it. Frank heard it at the conference, that your electromagnetic field extends as much as 10 feet outside of your body, you know.  So it is a natural harmonizing mechanism between individuals. But how could we say it’s more or less important than the flow of serotonin, or the function of the pituitary gland? We can’t rank things that way. We could if we wanted to, but it would be just so arbitrary it’s silly.

R: But you’re comparing it there with other properties of the physical body.

F: Perhaps we misunderstood the question.

R: Well, the electromagnetic force compared with other physical forces operating in the environment seems to have more impact on human beings than other elements in the physical environment.

F: What does “more important” mean?

R: Well, you’ve just talked about the way in which the electromagnetic field has an impact on relationships between individuals. Rarely is this true with other physical forces in the environment.

F: Well, that’s true. But if you were to ask us, “is the electromagnetic force more important than other forces in harmonizing relationships between individuals,” we might be able to give you a reasonable answer. But that’s not the question you asked. You said is it more important than other forces, and those other forces have so many other properties–

R: I did mean other environmental types of forces; other things we experience.

F: Well, for instance take humidity. Certainly seems innocuous enough. But given that the humidity interacting with other factors affects your ability to think – though it may not be obvious, but it does – it affects your level of functioning—

Well, we don’t know anything to say except that everything operates within its own sphere, and within its own sphere it is crucially important. Humidity, temperature, astrology, electromagnetic forces, the absence or presence of other beings in your life sphere – that is to say – the animals and plants around you affect your own being. You’re a part of them even though you don’t seem to be. That’s just one more element.

So given all of those things, it’s still hard to answer your question in any way that to us doesn’t seem arbitrary. But that’s not a bad answer in itself, actually, the fact that in fact they all deal within their own spheres. There’s nothing – we hesitate, but probably this is a safe statement – there’s nothing on earth that is not on earth for your well being. Doesn’t mean it’s the only reason it’s there, but among other things for your well being. When you have a functioning system that is a self-regulating system, it cannot but need all parts of it; and all parts function to the good of the whole, therefore all parts are essential to the whole, therefore all parts are important to you. And you, to it.

R: Okay, now if we think about the distance of seemingly individual energies on other planets, is it also necessary to have these same —

F: Ah. Do they have to have the same kind of climate and forces and things?

R: Right.

F: Well, no, but they need to have whatever comprises their own biosphere. So that if you have a planet in which there are silicon creatures, in an environment adapted to dealing with silicon creatures, those factors may not be the same as your factors, but they will need everything in that biosphere. It’s really almost by definition.

R: And this would be in part to do with why we find different kinds of creatures on different planets, presumably.

F: Also it has to do with why you find it relatively more difficult to interact with those even if they’re part of the same larger being that you’re part of, only because they’re farther away emotionally or rather in your expectations. You have less in common, and so it requires a little more effort to build the bridge, or a little more advantageous situation. Or someone loading the dice, which may be the same thing.

R: So we’ve been talking about the totality of ourselves including energies from other realties, other dimensions.

F: That’s right. And remember, you in planet Earth are part of a biosphere, and when you cast your net wider you realize that that biosphere also consists of the entire solar system – because you live in the sun’s atmosphere – and the earth, as a functioning biosphere, cannot live for a second without being in the sun, and without being affected by the sun, which in turn is affected by all the other planets, which makes your whole solar system part of your immediate environment. And just as you can immediately and intuitively see that the entire universe is one, just as you’ve been told, by extension of that same principle it really is, all in itself — it’s all interconnected, because it all is one thing, although it can be seen, and perceived, and experienced, separately. Your sun does not live in isolation in the middle of nowhere. Your sun lives within the atmospheres of other suns. We don’t mean that quite literally, but you know what we mean.

R: It’s part of a galaxy, which is then part of a —

F: Yes, but that’s not just a physical collection of things; it is a unit in the same way that the solar system is a unit; that your biosphere is a unit; that your body is a unit. Well, now, go on one more step. Just as that’s all one functioning biosphere, all physical realities are all part of one biosphere. In other words, it goes on forever. It really is literally true, that it’s all one thing. And it’s also literally true that it’s a million different things. Trillions of different things. Quadrillions of quadrillions of quadrillions of different things. But it’s all one thing.

R: But one of the —

F: “but”!? How can you possibly put “but” to that sentence? [they laugh]

R: I didn’t mean to put “but.” [they laugh] One of the levels of that oneness is what people have thought of resulting from the Big Bang, or some other —

F: We remind you we don’t believe in the Big Bang any more than you do.

R: But, I say, or some other form of a creation of an immensity that has to do with physical bodies.

F: What’s the implication there? What’s the question?

R: You were enumerating the onenesses. We got through galaxy and then I don’t know where we went next, but we were going I guess in terms of what looks to us in space like size dimension.

F: We’re saying that everything is all one thing, and what appears to you to be creation and destruction of stars, of universes, or galaxies, whatever, is very similar to what appears to you to be births and deaths into and out of 3D Theater. And within your own body there are trillions of births and deaths of cells, you know, and at any given level it looks like there are things being added and subtracted, and at any given larger level it just looks like maintenance.

R: And are you saying that there’s no end to this increasing?

F: We don’t remember saying anything about increase.

R: Increasing size is what was happening, as you described that.

F: We were just saying that ultimately every monad – Ah, we were saying that a solar system, a galaxy, a universe, a nebula, anything, is not single as it appears to be but is in fact a monad. Part of a larger —

R: I’m trying to find the end of that scale.

F: Everything.

R: Everything.

F: We don’t know any other end to the scale. Beyond creation, we can’t answer you. You’ll have to talk to someone a little better than that! [laughs]

R: See, at that next designation I was trying to say everything that seemed to be created by the Big Bang – you don’t buy the Big Bang – but it’s somehow created at that point.

F: We do buy creation. Okay, yes, if you mean, do we take as the ultimate monad everything that was created —

R: Yes. That’s my question.

F: Well – How do we answer that? We take it as the ultimate monad that we know of, but only because that’s what we know. For all we know, there might be scads of creations. But we don’t know, and there’s no point in our speculating and pretending we know. Although if it will help sell the book, we will. [they chuckle]

R: All right, I think that’s all the questions I want to ask tonight. Is there anything you would like to add?

F: Well, there is, a little. We continue to be delighted by the process because, not only are you doing good work, and not only are you enjoying it, and not only is it affecting your own lives, but it’s affecting our lives on this end too, whether you can accept that or not. So it ripples unpredictably in all directions. You’re not the only people doing good work, but it’s good work, and we just –

We’re delighted with that firecracker analogy, just as you are! In fact, you might look at it in either of two ways. You might say that fireworks analogy did not exist and we created it tonight together. Or you might say that fireworks analogy always existed, and we discovered it tonight together. Of course, you could also say [chuckles] that we went to the reality in which we discovered it, which would equally be true. But we think you will agree, it’s a pleasurable and an interesting and we think an important exercise. It’s good work. Onward and upward!

R: Thank you so much.

F: And the same to you.

 

Leave a Reply

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