TGU session 01-29-02

Rita Warren: Gentleman, good to be in touch again.

TGU: Always in touch.

R: We had some questions occur to us around the issue of other lives we wanted to bring up and try to get a few things straightened out about it.

TGU: You won’t mind if we snicker at the idea of “occurred to us.”

R: That’s all right. We don’t feel personally attached to being responsible for all the good things in life like questions. Let me ask the question I started with, and then we’ll go to Frank’s questions. [pause]

How useful is it for us or for you to have us try to bring into consciousness other lifetimes in order to integrate them?

TGU: Leaving aside, just for the moment “integrate them,” because there’s many things that might mean, we feel it’s very important because it’s your stretching to redefine yourself in a somewhat larger fashion than you did before. From our point of view, it isn’t so much your stretching as that you’re ceasing to limit yourselves to that degree. When you habitually are in contact with parts of yourself that are in other times, other spaces, other dimensions, you cannot see yourself in quite the same smaller way that you had before. And this is in itself valuable.

Valuable for a couple of reasons. You can’t increase contact with another part of yourself without in that very same motion, by definition, increasing the contact that other part of yourself has with you. You see? So, this good work works both ways.

You in the year 2002 naturally look at your own personal self as the center of your larger self. There’s no other way for you to see it. But another part of you that’s in the year 2102 sees itself as the center of the whole extended self, of course, you see? That’s how it’s supposed to be. Well, if you, from your end, widen the communication, the one on the opposite end also gains. So that from its point of view, it’s an unexpected grace, so to speak. You see, like the grace of God. It’s very good work.

Now, in terms of integrating. If by integration one were to mean only the melding together of parts that had previously functioned separately without awareness of each other’s identity, that by itself would be good work. But if, in addition to that, one is creating, so to speak, a larger consciousness, of which each of those individual nodes is a part, but neither of which is the center, nor perceived as the center, that’s a greater work. Okay? There’s two different versions of that integration there. And — to move forward to the real thing that’s bothering you both — you could argue that in fact since ultimately we’re all one thing, the whole process is a matter of integration, in a sense. So that as each autonomous, relatively unaware portion extends bridges or has bridges extended to it — either way — to other portions, and becomes equally autonomous but less isolated, then it moves closer toward the ultimate goal of full integration. Well, “ultimate” as far as we know, but “the ultimate goal of full integration” means all of us functioning without the barriers between us.

Does this answer what you needed? What you wanted?

R: Yes. An additional theme of this has to do with the feeling I’ve had that it was important for each life to emphasize its separateness, for learning purposes or something of that sort.


TGU: That’s right. In fact — not for your needs so much, as for others who may come across this record — we’d like to say a little more about that.

R: All right.

TGU: Supposing you were born into a Cherokee Indian family in the 1800s. It would not in the slightest aid your integration into that lifetime if you came into that lifetime remembering a lifetime as a white American in the 20th and 21st centuries. In other words, the answer to that perplexing question of “why don’t we remember other lives” is because to the degree that you did, it would it would interfere with your assuming the point of view of only that one time and place. Now, we’re going to contradict all of this in little bit, but for the moment we’ll say that. However, during the course of the lifetime, depending on your life plan, and the circumstances, you could — as is happening to both of you — integrate more of other lifetimes. But you’re integrating it, you see, into a base that’s already been established. That is to say, Frank didn’t in 1946 —

Well, we have to stop this. Let’s back this up. We always know that it’s a good explanation when we have to start it three times, because we keep thinking of new things.

R: [Laughs.]

TGU: When Frank was, let’s say, 15, it would have done him — Well, no, we can’t say that either. Here’s what we were going to say, but we will disown it in advance. [Laughs.] We were going to pick a given age, and say that the point it wouldn’t have done good, and would have been confusing, to have specific vivid memories of other times coming through. But there’s no such rule that can be given, because some people are born knowing other lives, for a very good reason. Other people go through their whole life and never come to consciousness awareness of other lives, for a very good reason. And everything in between those two. So there’s not really a rule that can be given, but what we want to give is an example, and say that in order for Frank to stabilize a point of view based in 20th century America, in an Italian family, in New Jersey — you see what we’re saying — in order to stabilize all of the specifics that make up a point of view, including prejudices, beliefs, customs, folkways, memories, all of that, the external –

It isn’t that any of you ever do this without having input coming in and out of your mind, but it is rare for you to recognize that it comes from another lifetime. You think it’s your own, you see. So you’ll come up with natural predilections, and the others in your family will be scratching their heads, saying where did that come from? Well, anyone who’s had more than one child knows that those two children — or three or four or five or six — can be each totally different from the others, in terms of not only their personality behaviors, but their predilections in general. So that one is a born aristocrat, and another is a born peasant, and a third is a born soldier, and a fourth is a born courtesan, or whatever. Well, all that coming in and out happens. The awareness of it happening varies radically because of people’s life plans.

R: I’m not sure what we mean there.

TGU: All right, question us and we’ll give you what we can give you. By life plans we mean, when you come into the world, your freedom is constrained specifically in order to set you on the path that you wanted to be on when you were on the other side. In other words, if you are born a woman, you can’t be a man. If you are born in the 20th century, you can’t at the same time be born in the 19th century. So all of those constraints on freedom are to set up a situation, and then the freedom within the situation is what you make of it. So, someone whose life is aimed at experiencing material success in a non-reflective manner will have all the — Everything will conspire that they will not have consciousness of other lifetimes, you see.

Someone whose life is set — and we mention no names, but he’s lying here — someone whose life is set to try to live it as intuitively as possible, with almost no grounding in ordinary social reality, will have an entirely different set of seemingly fortuitous external and internal circumstances that will push him in that direction, because that is what he wanted in the beginning. That’s all. That’s what we mean by life path. Now, that doesn’t mean that you are not free at every moment, but you’re free only within those constraints that we set up right at the beginning. “We,” meaning “you and we,” you know. It isn’t done to you, you do it yourself and then step into it.

R: Our plan that would have already established a challenge.

TGU: Mm-hmm. And you can change that plan anytime you want, and often do, but you don’t start from scratch when you do that. If you go 35 years down one road, and then Upstairs, shall we say, decide to change the plan, nobody will stop you from doing that, but you are starting from the place 35 years down the road. You’re not starting from scratch, that’s all.

We do want to emphasize your freedom on that. Nobody’s forcing anybody. Circumstances constrain you, but that’s why you’re there, to struggle against circumstance, or to struggle with circumstance, however you wish.

Is that still vague? Or is that more confusing?

R: No, I can understand that.

We have been struggling with the idea of all these lifetimes that Frank seems to be able to remember, and wondering, because those seem to take on a reality in his mind that has to do with time and space dimensions, we have trouble integrating that idea with the whole idea of operating in something going on in a non space/time arena.

TGU: Can we rephrase that?

R: All right.

TGU: We think your dilemma is that you can’t quite see how you can seem to experience a continuity of incarnations if in fact on our side we’re putting out a new pseudopod each time that may or may not use elements of the previous pseudopod. We are calling you pseudopods now instead of worms. You’re working your way up.

R: [laughs] That sounds much better.

TGU: [laughs] You’re working your way up the scale, that’s good. Is that a fair assessment of your quandary?

R: Well I think we have a number of questions about it, and I’m not really on top of them all, but as we talk about it I hope to be.

TGU: OK. As we’ve said, the better the questions the better the answers. That puts all the onus on you, you see, if you get bad answers.

R: I understand that. [They laugh.]

TGU: All right. Let’s — We’re going to surprise you somewhat. Both of you. Presumably all of you, if others hear.

What would you say if we told you that the number of incarnations that you are aware of had less to do with the number of times you had been on earth than it has to do with the degree to which your consciousness extends? It is the same thing from our side, in a sense, as it is on your side as we just described.

Does that take your breath away, or –? Or does it make sense?

R: Well I’m not sure if I understand what you’re saying, I guess. It’s been my assumption that we remember very little, and that when particular information comes to us about what seems like another lifetime, that’s a rare event.

TGU: Well, let’s put that off to the side just for a minute, let’s go a different way first. We’ll answer anything, but let’s go a different way first.

Here’s what we’re suggesting that you look at. From our point of view, we’re all one thing, and we’re all these different pseudopods that are set out. Now, you, inside the body, inside space-time, have that barrier that you may remember us talking about once upon a time, that more or less cuts you off from active participation with the rest of us. Now, “that barrier” is another way of saying that there is a sort of self-imposed isolation from the rest of what you are. But within that isolation, you have the ability to extend, as we have been talking about, and the more you extend, the more of the rest of us you can sense. Now, the reason that nobody in your scriptures or otherwise has ever been able to conclusively decide whether or not reincarnation is real, or whether it’s a sort of figurative statement, is because it’s totally — you may have heard this before — a matter of point of view.

If you, in the 21st century, resonate to a real memory of someone in the 18th century, you are resonating to another part of yourself, because everything is another part of yourself, all right?

R: OK, in that sense.

TGU: And the question then becomes, why that one? And it looks to you like it’s an inherited character flaw, or an inherited talent, or an inherited emotional link, or something like that. In other words, “I met this person, and we had a past life connection, and that’s why we were attracted to each other, or repelled from each other.” And that’s not exactly an invalid way of looking at it, but it’s equally valid to say, “I met this person and that person’s make-up and my make-up, looking at it in electrical analogy, were such that we were pulled together or we were repelled.”

And the memories that come, could be memories of — how do we say this? [pause] All right, you in the 21st century met another person in the 21st century, and you feel this past-life pull. And let’s say the 18th century, and there are two people in that 18th century. Well, those two people may have the same electrical vibration, so to speak, the same – [pause] we can’t find the word, but it means there’s a relationship, there’s a constant relationship, between the two.

R: Some kind of energy pull.

TGU: Yes, it’s like a multiplier, you know. Like 12 is three times four, and the other one might be nine three times three. Well the “three times” is what we’re trying to say, but we can’t find the right words. He’s not very good about technical stuff. [Pause.] Nor does he need to be. [Laughs.] It’s just that we find it hard to use scientific or mathematical analogies.

The resonance between you two in the 21st century and you two in the 18th century may be exactly similar, and so you feel the human warmth, so to speak. Or you feel the human coldness, if it’s a repulsive thing. But to say you had been them, or even will be them in a future life that will happen in the past — which some people say — is just a way of looking at it, it’s just clutching of it, because you’re connected with everybody.

R: mm-hmm.

TGU: But your awareness has opened up to those two particular connections. And we have pointed out, whether or not Frank’s really noticed it, he thought he did, but we point out in a way that he hadn’t thought of — we pointed out that he became aware of other lifetimes first from the familiar to the less familiar. First the modern American and British, and then the internal, shall we say the spiritual side, going again from the very familiar to the less familiar. So that he is not particularly attuned to an atheistic scientist, say, in the early age of the Enlightenment, or something like that. There would be a lot of repulsion there. There would be a lot of — well, if he has a lot of plusses, that one would have a lot of negatives. Or the other way around. So, do you see? We know that you it looks like you’re born, you die, and you yourself come back and are born again. And then you die and you yourself — and that’s true, but it’s equally true that the whole mix is doing that, and it’s all you. And it’s just a matter of where you put your attention. Now, there’s a – Well, go ahead.

R: One of the things that seems to complicate that is that these come along as memories, and so there’s a certain set of specific memories that seem to occur when you have these connections, and they may be a short time period.

TGU: We’re not saying the memories aren’t real, we’re saying your access to the memories don’t say a thing about you having lived that life. They just say that you have access to the memories, because you are resonating to that lifetime. They are real memories, and they are real emotional behaviors, and real scars. But you might think of it as — we don’t want this to see inflated beyond its importance, but — you all bear all of the sorrows, and all the guilt, and all the wounded-ness, of everybody, depending on how far you extend your awareness of it. And of course you also bear the accomplishments and you bear the genius and the love and the positive things. It’s all potentially there as you’re inalienable inheritance. Whether you want to alienate it or not, you can’t. Because we’re all one thing.

Now we know, that from your point of view it looks like you inherit certain tendencies left over from other times. It can look that way. And when you die now, when you drop the body now, you leave the mathematical equation unbalanced in one way or another, and so you come in again and work on it from there. There’s nothing wrong with looking at that way, but we want you to think of it at least another way, and that is that it’s all –

[pause] Well, it’s just too simple to say. It’s all one thing. We’re all one thing. All of the play of various parts of us —

[pause] The only way we can explain–

OK. Well, we’ll try this analogy out, we don’t know how this will work. Supposing you had a repertory theatre, and supposing the play went on for five nights a row. Not five performances, but it took five nights to do it. A different person might take the same part on different nights. Or — OK, a better one — supposing in a movie they are giving you the life story of someone from the time they were a baby to the time they’re grown-up. And they may have five different actors play different ages. Well, that mathematical problem we were talking about that has to be worked out can be dealt with using five different actors, it doesn’t have to be the same actor. Except that ultimately we’re all the same actor.

[Laughs.] All we can suggest is that you keep changing viewpoint, because you know there’s a saying Frank like a lot, “what can’t be said, can’t be said, and it can be whistled either.” [They laugh.]

R: This is a puzzlement, because when we think in those terms, that ultimately all of these interactions are part of ourselves, once you’ve said that, where you go from there? That being true, why are we bothering with the rest of this?

TGU: You have major religious and philosophical systems that say just that, because this is the aspect that they’ve noticed.

R: Well [pause.] But —

TGU: Ah, you want an answer! [They laugh.] All right, all right. We can only give you suggestions, we can’t give you an answer; but here’s our suggestion. If we extend ourselves into time-space and give ourselves the disconnected experience that you are currently living, there might be a reason for it. Now, many people say it’s just that God is playing, as though God would be bored otherwise, you see, and the play doesn’t mean anything.

R: Isn’t God part of this whole oneness?

TGU: There’s nothing else. God’s not separate from anything. Whenever God is. I mean, you have to–

R: I interrupted, but I —

TGU: We won’t get our feelings hurt. The question of God is a big complicater, because it has so many emotional aspects to it, it often stops people from thinking, because the emotional aspect is too overwhelming. A pious person fears blasphemy. An agnostic or a rebellious person fears superstition, and in any case since you’re in the habit of God as with ultimate attributes — all knowing, all seeing, all-powerful — there’s no modulation to it, it’s difficult to do anything with the concept. So if you can limit it somehow, we can talk about it. If you mean whenever created us — and we don’t know either — that’s one thing. If you mean something with specific attributes that has been created by religion, that’s something else.

R: I don’t mean that of course, and if you think of God as creator, there seem to be two basic perspectives on that. One is that we and God are all one. And on the other hand, we’re all one except God, and God somehow created this other energy which is the rest of us.

TGU: Well we would suggest to you that the answer to that dilemma is the same answer. Just change viewpoints back and forth. From one viewpoint, yes, God took part of himself and created you, and that part is still part of himself, which means you are God.

From another point of you, — and yes, we hear you saying “or herself” but we’re not going to pursue that — [they chuckle] From the other point, one could say God, seeing everything undifferentiated, wanted something different and withdrew himself — herself — itself — themselves — from the other, so that it could have an otherness, but this is really more a playing with logic than is real. The two statements don’t seem to have anything in common at all, and yet we would say they’re just two different points of view.

Now, the thing is though, it’s very tricky using the word God, because you could use the word creator in the sense that Bob Monroe used the word creator in one of his books, and it would mean — — you know, he called him Someone and he said that Someone created these things as an experiment. Doing that left out all of the overwhelming numerous qualities of the Deity, the ultimate creator, and it allowed you to think of it in a more emotionally neutral way. Because you’re not required to adore the creator if the creator is just an experimenter. And we would argue that that adoration, when it’s imposed by belief, is always negative. The only time adoration is a positive is when, having had the experience, you’re left with your jaw hanging down, and all of your being responds in this joyous loving embrace. But anything that’s imposed is — imposed. It’s not organic. Long detour there.


R: I wish my memory were better, but one of the Irish poets talks about God’s loneliness and therefore his need to create the rest of us.

TGU: Well, the same can be said humans, and so it may be true that humans are part of God, right? That is to say, sharing that creator aspect of God. You need to create or you are unfilled. Perhaps God did too. But we still argue you would be better off putting the word “God” on the shelf a bit and talking only about — however you can do it. Do what you want.

R: Usually I do that, but right now feeling like arguing with you a bit. [laughs.] It’s not so much argument as — One way of thinking about all of this is that, yes there’s a creator that created what we know of the universe. But he has brothers who’ve created something else.

TGU: possibly sisters.

R: Or sisters. — that we’re not as familiar with. And so you get into this kind of hierarchical thinking of, if these are siblings who are creating different worlds, then they must have parents at some level beyond. That’s another way that has been thought about to somehow explain–

TGU: That may be less hierarchical thinking that it is anthropomorphic thinking. After all, clouds don’t have parents. Nor mountains. We would remind you that we tried to give you an example, using the hologram and the sphere, to say that the spatial analogies of size and distance are quite misleading. Again, if you can imagine a marble cake, or you can imagine that picture of the neurons, as we suggested, to see that there aren’t levels as much as there are, shall we say, joyous interpenetrations. There is a part of you that is in a star and part of you that’s in a molecule and it’s not a metaphor. It doesn’t make physical sense –.

R: It does make physical sense to me. It doesn’t make sense beyond the physical. I guess, necessarily. I can believe that we’re all made of stardust.

TGU: Well, can you believe also then, that there is only one of us? And if there is only one of us, you’re right back to being part of stardust. You see, the difficulty is still –

Well, in this instance it’s the difficulty but really it’s the asset that you used in order to have your experience, and that is that you still have that barrier between you and the rest of us, so that although you are presently peeking over the barrier, or sort of burrowing through it, you know, you’re having to do that because the everyday moment to moment reality is that you are separate because of the barrier, and that’s what the barrier is there for, and it does perfectly well. Just as we said that a person being born into a Cherokee family in the 1830s would not profit by having active memories of living in 21st century America, so you, coming into earth anywhere, would not necessarily actively profit by having full access to all that we are on the other side.

R: Well go with an example there for moment. Just that part of it. That really imposes a time dimension.

TGU: mm-hmm. Well, say more about that.

R: Well it’s as though in any lifetime there’s a time span which makes it useful to you to “remember” what seem like previous lifetimes. It seems that that’s what we do what we think about other lives, but by and large we can stretch our minds and try to create something is seems like a future event —

TGU: You remember one.

R: Yes. See I wouldn’t use the word “remember,” though I wouldn’t reject it either.

TGU: [laughs.] What else would you use?

R: Create, I guess.

TGU: Ohhh, but now would you say you “create” a memory of the past?

R: No.

TGU: Then why would you say create a memory of the future?

R: Well because memory seems to be defined as an event touching with the past.

TGU: all right, well this won’t take long. This is worth touching on, and that is just simply, this is the same problem, your language was structured around an understanding of the way the world is. And now that understanding being implicit in the language, the language makes you tempted to think that it describes the way reality really is, rather than the way reality has been perceived till now. So that we would argue that — I mean, if you want to come up with a new word for “past-oriented remember,” that’s OK, and of course you know Neale Walsch using the word re-member, meaning to put back together. But if you remember the past, we don’t see any difference between remembering the past and remembering the future. If that hurts, so to speak, you might say “stretch to the past,” or “stretch to the future,” or “communicate with,” or something. You know. Something neutral.

R: It seems, to the extent that one is telling oneself a story about other lives, when one thinks about that in the future sense, there’s a lot more freedom there to create.

TGU: Well, as we often say, supposing you’re imagining it, why are you imagining that and not something else? [pause] You’re not necessarily as free in your imagination as you think. We suspect that you’d find it difficult to change that remembered lifetime and find the changes equally compelling. Now perhaps not, you might experiment with this though. A man instead of a woman, old instead of young, — no, not old instead of young, because that would change — a family of six instead of a family of two, you see what we’re getting at. Different time span. In fact, that’s not a bad way to test these things, is to try to change them. And what you’ll find is like a rubber band, it’ll sort of pull back to the right one as you try to change it. Same thing with the past, it’s not any different because it isn’t any different.

R: Well I guess what I was caught up in is that when we think in terms of other lives set in the past, we have a lot of information about what that time period might be like. At least we have some information. Whereas for future events we have a freedom to put the dimensions in as we wish.

TGU: What you say is theoretically true, and it’s sometimes true, but it’s not absolutely true, and it’s not always true. You don’t know thing about ancient Egypt, although you may think you know some things. You like, there are x number of dynasties, and this happened then, and there was Cleopatra and that — but, you know, what you really know about Egypt is basically nothing. What you know about Atlantis is more than basically nothing, it’s nothing nothing. And what you think is your degree of freedom at making up the future, isn’t really that so much as it’s looking in alternate place in the future. You’re not as likely to look in alternate places in the past because you sort of settle easier. Do you see?

If you were to find a past in which Mexico won the Mexican War, you wouldn’t be inclined to say, “oh, that’s an interesting past, I’ll look there,” you’d be more inclined to say, “boy did I mess that one up.” So what you’re doing, automatically, is self-selecting the pasts that to you appear to be accurate. But — and obviously we don’t mean you only as an individual, we mean all you — but what you know about England in the 1800s, or France in the 1600s, or Rome as an empire or China or Peru is nothing. It’s really nothing. You have what you think is an outline of things but it’s all based — and we don’t mean us contemptuously, although it’s soon going to seem so — but it’s all based in your starting place in 20th or 21st century America, or for those who are reading is elsewhere, wherever you are.

So a Japanese doing this exercise in 1953, and envisioning ancient Peru — you can see how much different from the real ancient Peru it’s likely to be from the Japanese beginning from his or her point of view. Well, you’re not any less biased than the Japanese is. What you’re doing is extending, but you’re extending over barriers of culture and time, so we would argue that although it seems to you that you have degrees of freedom in the future that you don’t in the past (and we know that you do experience it that way), we would argue that what is really happening is that you’re automatically rejecting anything that doesn’t seem to you to fit into that scenario. And you’re casting about for future, and because you don’t feel the future is fixed, you are free to go here or there or there or there, and you don’t really know from one moment to the next where you are. It doesn’t feel solid, he feels fluid. We would say to you that the past would feel equally fluid if you approached to the same way, because there are of course infinite number of pasts, as well as infinite number of futures.

Okay? Is any that persuasive, or do we need to —

R: Well I was remembering when I tried to record what this “memory” of the future what was, I was extremely careful to say nothing that went beyond the bounds of what I had pretty good evidence were scientifically correct assumptions. Which is really kind of ridiculous as I think about it, but that’s what I did. I said nothing about transportation, about how we got where we were, what the lifestyle was like, all of that that, that I couldn’t find a reference for —

TGU: Very scientific of you.

R: Yes, that’s the way I did it. And I guess those were the rules I was imposing.

TGU: And how could you did more productively? Because you still could, of course. It would be actually very amusing to you.

R: As you were talking about the things that we have to know about the past, that we don’t know, and so on, my experience when I think about a life time in Egypt is totally a felt response.

TGU: Bingo! Because why?

R: Because I don’t have any information about the external events —

TGU: Well, well, no, that’s not why. That is not why. [Laughs.] The reason why it’s because you’re feeling what’s real. What was your phone number three moves and 17 years ago? Who cares? But somebody who slighted you, or somebody who did you a kindness 43 years ago is as alive as it was yesterday. You see? So of course you picked up the feelings. That’s what was real about the life. As now.

R: And that’s harder to get for me, feelings about the future.

TGU: Well if you want them, it’s very simple, just imagine. Just fantasize, and go with it. And what will happen is, you’ll fantasize awhile, and then you’ll find yourself sort of editing your fantasies, you’ll find yourself tending toward a certain way. Now, it’s important not to do it because it’s respectable, or plausible. But it’s like, you’re dousing with your feelings. And your feelings will lean you a certain way. “We used to get to town on pogo sticks, there were these pogo sticks with some kind of external power source that allowed us just to sit on them casually, there were pogo sticks with a chair,” you see. And then your mind will be going “well no, that’s not right, you have to put something in there. Try not to let it do that, try to let follow the —

Your friend Joe McMoneagle can tell you how to do this. It’s a form of remote viewing because what you’re doing is trying to get the feeling without the overlay. All right? The feelings are there, the information is there, it isn’t necessarily important for you to get it, but if it will amuse you to get it, you can. But the first thing to do is, you have to try your best to neutralize your 21st century bias. And the way to do that is not to insist that the future follow your logic, because it won’t. If you had been trying this in–

[change side of tape]

Frank: What they said is, if you had been trying that in 1878, they don’t think you’d have got the Concorde, not logically, not technically. All right to give me a second. Oh, it feels so good to be doing this again. Okay.

R: Okay, well I feel we got off our main topic there, it was very interesting, but I don’t know, do we need to go back and catch up with what we’re talking about —

TGU: you’ve just defined life. [They chuckle.]

R: — was happening when we were —

TGU: Well, we fully realize we haven’t solved your dilemma, because you’re trying to find a way to get a handle around the idea that you as an individual essence either do or don’t reincarnate again and again. And the problem with that is that you’re seeing yourselves as individuals, but once that barrier’s down, when you drop the body — remember we talked about crystallization?

R: Mm-hmm.

TGU: If you haven’t crystallized, you’re back in the mixture, and you’re like raw materials, so to speak. If you have crystallized, then you’re a lens that we could use to –

Well, you didn’t get much out of that lens analogy, let’s find another one. Hold on.

What we wanted to say with the lens analogy was, we could shine it through the lens, which would shape the materials going into the physical next time around. But that’s kind of meaningless to you, so let’s — give us a moment here.

Frank: Rita, this is the funniest feeling. I’m sitting here waiting for something to come.

R: That’s all right.

Frank: Mm-hmm. But it’s really funny.

R: But it’s strange, yes.

F: Because I’m not doing anything to make it happen, I just lie here and wait. [pause]

F: All right. You have a sense of your own individuality, and you all are both – [chuckle.] “you all.” Now you got us doing it. You are crystallized so that when you go on the other side, there will still be a Rita personality, there will be Frank personality. Those personalities are not your essence. It’s as though your essence was a sculptor and that’s what you’ve sculpted this time. So you have these living sculptures, back on the other side, or rather you have movies, or holograms, of these living structures. Or perhaps you could – Well, we’ll try that analogy.

Anybody who goes back to the other side and has firmed up — has crystallized, has made valuable, has formed themselves; that’s the best we can do — there is this living structures that is a part of all of us but is of course a separate part of us, okay? Your knuckle is part of your total body, but it’s still a knuckle if you want to look at it as a knuckle.

When it comes time to form an individual, it may be instructive and may in fact be useful to take that structure that was already there, the — whenever we called it — sculpture. [pause.]

We need an analogy that’s a little more alive to you than that. All right, all right, supposing you think of yourselves as software. As computer programs. Supposing that you are down here as a programmer, and the whole life that you lead is a software program. [pause] Nope, that’s not going to work either. [Laughs.] It’s very difficult. Now you might think that we’d have this right on the tip of our tongue and we should be able to give it to you, but — we don’t.

R: Can I ask some intervening questions?

TGU: please!

R: Just to back you up a little bit, okay, so we’ve dropped the body and we’ve gone in and —

TGU: You’re back.

R: Yeah, we’re back. And there’s what seems like a time period.

TGU: Well we said there’s duration on our side, you know.

R: OK, So that this form, whenever it is, that represents a crystallization of some of us, in some space we’re unfamiliar with — or maybe very familiar with —

TGU: [laughs] Yes, very familiar with but not right now, that’s right.

R: — but at least different from now. And we’re spending some time there, in that state, awaiting the development of a plan, or awaiting the –

            TGU: No, no, no, no.

            R: We’re not awaiting.

            TGU: No, no, no, not in that sense, no. You’re planning — our planning — the planning — goes on all the time. It’s a continual ballet.

R: Yes, you’ve told us that we’re participating in that and that even as we speak, we’re doing it —

TGU: Right. But if you die on Dec. 31st, 2000, and you’re not reborn until oh, June 30th, 3000, there’s not any elapsed time as far as we’re concerned, it’s just — that’s the next place you’re inserted into.

R: OK, so that’s what I’m asking about. It’s no elapsed time.

F: Not in that sense.

R: Is there a time period in which we somehow in some form exist on the other side before we get it together for another —

TGU: Well, you see, the problem with that question — and it’s a good question — the problem with the question is the assumption that there’s a “you” that’s separate, and that’s what we’re trying to get across, and failing miserably. Let’s try one more possible analogy.

If you have a color slide, and you shine that color slide on — nope, it’s not going to work.

All right, we’ll to you what we’re trying to get at. And then maybe we can plug in the analogy after the fact! It’s not the way we usually do it.

What we can do, is use the net result of one lifetime, to set up a series of emotional and mental reactions for another lifetime. That is, you might look at it like, we use the results of the previous experiment to set up the next experiment. In fact, that’s not a bad way to look at it. And so, from the point of view of the second experiment, they had a previous lifetime as the first experiment. Seems very clear. And from the point of view of the first experiment, yes their unfinished algebra went into the next experiment, and so that algebraic process continues, and this is why people can remember — or conceptualize — a process of them going lifetime after lifetime after lifetime improving, losing ground, improving, losing ground, whatever.

But from our point of view, it is not a case that one person has gone in, come back, gone in, come back, gone in, come back. Although it looks like to you. From our point of view, what’s happened is, that experiment came back, it’s a part of us, we can use that to set up another one, which is also part of us, you see. Do you see, it’s only a difference in point of view, but neither point of view is quite the way any of you think of it. Because you’re not used to swapping point of view. And that’s why we were smiling in the beginning of this, because we wanted this discussion, because we realized that all this has been left very inchoate. That’s why we were bugging both of you emotionally.

R: All right, I want to go on with that, but I still want to go back, because we’ve recently received a report of someone having an experience with Dave Wallis, on the other side, doing a whenever he’s doing. I’m forgetting what he called himself – anyhow, some kind of an engineer.

TGU: An experimenter, anyway.

R: And at a party we had here on Sunday, several people have called to tell me how much they were aware of Martin’s presence. And last night in an exercise my daughter was doing, the presence of Martin felt very real. I felt it was [inaudible] feeling, and then very specific things that came back into memories about him.

Now, I’m saying, is there some state like that that exists that we can characterize in any way that’s part of this process?

TGU: No, you all made it up. [Laughs.]

R: Well, that’s – [they chuckle.]

TGU: See, here’s the thing. Remember how we just said that the one experiment that came out can be used to set up the next experiment? But it wasn’t used up, it didn’t go anywhere, it’s still with us. You see? And so, Martin, when he dropped the body and came over here, or Dave, when he dropped the body and came over here, they are available to work here, they’re available to visit you. They are still alive and kicking, so to speak, in that sense.

R: Somehow we aren’t exp — Well I’m  more with Martin than with Dave, but experiencing them as part of the larger self. I can do that with Martin. I can feel that it isn’t just the Martin I knew here in the physical, but a larger Martin who encompasses that and much more. That isn’t the way people usually think about that, though. They think about it much more in the way that they were thinking about Dave, moving around and taking care of things in very efficient form.

TGU: [laughs.] We cannot be responsible for what other people think. [They laugh.] People think some very stupid sayings. Not stupid — people think things, drawing analogies to what they’re familiar with, and these are totally unfamiliar circumstances.

            R: So, but thinking then about this person who we’ve been familiar with here who’s gone into – who’s dropped to the body and is now part of the larger sense in some way, probably you’re saying there isn’t any waiting period from your point of view, but in preparation for going into another lifetime –.

TGU: No, you’re — .No, no, no no, no no, no. No. No. [pause] No. [They laugh.]

R: I can see I’ve got that wrong, because what would be going into another lifetime is of course not that entity,

F: Exactly! Exactly!

R: — but some small aspect of that —

TGU: Or even the whole aspect of it, it doesn’t matter. In this case you can go and stay at the same time.

R: Yes that’s what I’m saying, so a small aspect of that energy might be coming back into another lifetime.

TGU: All of it could be going into another lifetime — but it’s still here. Your experience of Martin. There would be no point in your trying to explain it away. It’s there. You could persuade yourself you were wrong, but in fact, you’ve had the experience. And it isn’t so much that when you drop the body you go back to us, it’s that when you drop the body you are able to remember that you are us, because you are us right now, but you can’t remember in it in that way that makes it quite real because of the barrier that was put there specifically to make it hard to do just that! [They chuckle.]

Now, the people who are experiencing Dave’s presence — we would argue to you that people experience anyone from this side — more according to what they are, than according to any difference over here. So that someone with very sophisticated perceptions will perceive Martin differently from someone whose perceptions have been somewhat channeled by their own expectations or their mental structures. If they’re expecting to see Martin in a certain way, —

R: In physical form almost, or whatever, yes that would be —

Frank Whenever it is, yes, that’s right. Or they might be expecting only certain — They might bound him by what he was in life. And they might bound Dave by what he was in life. And, you know, people over here are pretty good-natured, and they might show you that way [they laugh] unless it’s —

R: If that’s what you needed or —

TGU: Well, partly yeah, partly.

R: But that still sounds to us such a very strange phenomenon, that someone not familiar with a particular individual comes up with a series of images that seem so connected to the person as we knew him.

TGU: We weren’t saying that’s not true, at all. They connected with Dave.

R: It seems strange to us.

TGU: [chuckles.] You know why? Because of your preconceptions that say that that person didn’t know Dave. They didn’t know Dave in the body. So what? [Laughs.] And we suspect that they might be part of the same overall total thing. [Laughs.] You see?

To see it as strange is a leftover of the old view – well, what will become the old view – that sees you only as disconnected. There’s a good part of themselves Upstairs that was here just to do that. We don’t mean that’s the only reason they’re here, but that was — [pause] wait a minute.


They had to be able to resonate to Dave closely enough to get the thing. You know how we said Frank would have a hard time resonating with an atheist scientist? Well, they had to be close enough to Dave’s vibratory level to be able to perceive it, and bring it down. And they did very well. The fact that they didn’t know him in the body is why it was valuable. If they had known him in the body, everybody would shrug and say, “well sure I remember Dave that way too.” We know your ways. [Laughs.]

We hope this is helpful. This is really good work, to try to sort all this out.

R: You just said “we know your ways,” and that brings me back to one of the things that’s not very convincing, when you say —

TGU: We are highly insulted. [They laugh.]

R: Sorry about that. When you say, “we are all one, just you’re playing a different function than we are right now, so you bring this to our interaction, and on the other hand we’re doing this, and we bring this to the interaction, and it’s just — we’re all the same and things like that.” It seems to us always you’re stemming from a perspective of greater knowledge, greater perspective, and so I find the other not very convincing.

TGU: That’s because you forgotten our fireworks analogy, which we were very proud of.

R: [whispers] That’s true.

F: [Laughs.]

R: How did that go again? [They laugh.]

TGU: The reason that we seem to you to be of so much more knowledge and so much more access is because we’re not bounded in time-space, and we are more interconnected but not at all centered in one moment, except when we’re talking to you. And that our questions to you, you will remember — you live those questions. Remember the fireworks? You are the fireworks that we send out. And — hey, it could have been sludge, you know? [They laugh.] You find it not convincing because you have emotional barriers against the idea of how grand you all are. We all are.

R: Why do we have emotional barriers against that?

TGU: Well, why shouldn’t you? You’ve got this barrier before you, that leaves you feeling alone and unconnected to the rest of us, and now we’re here saying to you, “oh no, we’re really together, it’s just this barrier you can’t get across.” Why shouldn’t you doubt it? It’s perfectly natural.

There’s no way ordinarily that one will be able to actually feel that oneness, outside of certain mystics and certain, shall we say, very simple people. The rest of you are constrained to, at best, believe it, or even to know it but know it at a remove. But, you know, it’s only a temporary problem. When you drop the body you’ll know. [Rita chuckles.] No, seriously.

R: That’s what you said.

F: It’s only a temporary problem. And it’s not exactly a problem, except in the sense of a mathematical problem. It’s an exercise. Your whole life could be looked at as an exercise. Exercise in more ways than one, too. Exercise like moving your muscles and enjoying yourself, that kind of thing.

You’ll notice – it used to disturb Frank a lot — we sometimes slip between I and you, and I and we, and you and you-all [they chuckle] — it’s because it’s just totally a matter of viewpoint. It’s a matter, really, of convenience more than viewpoint. We say “you” because we’re talking about that part of ourselves that’s on the other side of the barrier, or we try to. And you say “you” for the same reasons. But occasionally we say “we” meaning the part of us that’s on your side, so —

And of  course there’s no side, but it’s understood.

R: We have to keep reminding ourselves. It’s not so understood that we don’t have to keep reminding ourselves.

F: Well, that’s right, but don’t underestimate what you’re doing. You are redefining yourselves. That’s very difficult. It’s a form of death, in a sense. It’s a form of death and rebirth at the same time. A very big deal. Not something minor.

R: It’s very enjoyable.

F: Well, it would be more enjoyable if you remembered our analogies about fireworks! [they laugh]

R: Sometimes we seem like very slow –

F: Nope. That’s not how we see it at all. What astonishes us – we know why, but it still astonishes us, that you can’t remember things from one moment to the next, because for you it’s three months later. And for us it, “we just said that!” [chuckles]

[end of session except for some stuff not to be shared this way]

Leave a Reply

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