TGU session 02-09-02 in the black box (1)

Rita Warren and Skip Atwater monitoring, Frank in the black box

F: [speaking before tape begins] — possibility. The possibility of more awareness of contact with them. It’s like, they’re here all the time, but I don’t cognize it that way.

R: We want an especially good contact today to get some questions answered that have been bothering us.

F: Give me just a minute, and you can start. [Pause.] if we can get supporting stuff for 21, I think a lot of the session will be in 21 today.

R: All right, Skip has that underway.

F: All right, you can go ahead when you want Rita. [30 second pause.] ah, that feels good. [214 second pause.]

R: Without pulling yourself out of the state, can you tell us what is happening?

F: Well, I’ve been connecting things, extending my awareness beyond the booth and beyond the building, and I just went back to connect with Bertram, and I had this sense of St. Ambrosius, and I have no idea what that’s about yet. And I thought to rebuild the crystal, which it is doing nicely.

R: Very good. Let us know what you are experiencing from time to time.

F: OK. [pause] Basically, I was just waiting for you to start with the questions and then, while I was waiting, I drifted, it was nice. Is nice.

R: I would like to have you just stay within the range of my voice.

F: That’s up to the microphone. [35 second pause.] such a clear sense of the red hills on the other side of the river from the Egyptian. Had a warm feeling of affection toward them. Not a color you would ever see here. [45 second pause.]

R: We have some choices here. We can let you just continue with your experiences, and let us know what’s happening, or at some point if you’re ready for questions we could do that.

F: Well, let’s do the questions. I was just speculating about Iona, just sort of getting a feel of it, trying to. I’m ready for the questions.

R: Well, while you are in Iona, ask the guys what they think about a trip there, whether that would be useful to you and in what way.

F: [12 second pause.] I always underestimate the physical. And to actually get in the physical proximity of a place helps by aligning the external energy — that is to say, the body energy, the physical energy — with the internal energy; you might call it the spiritual energy. So that going to Machu Picchu and Avebury and Salisbury and Monticello, the actual going there helped align the crystal, so to speak. Even if I did or didn’t know anything about it mentally, or didn’t know what I was doing, to go to a sacred site in the right attitude of receptiveness, you don’t even need to know what you’re doing, in a way. Yes, it would be very helpful. You know, that’s where the idea came from anyway. Or let’s put a different way. Sometimes we get ideas, and they are waiting for us to get the ideas, and the resonance means, “yes, you got it.”

R: Is there something specific about Iona that is important to you?

F: Yes, the ability to be in a place where the veil is thin, to help consciously be able to wield the particular tool that is me, that is able to be here and there at the same time. When “here” and “there” are closer, it’ll be more easy to observe the interaction, and therefore to fine-tune it later. [Pause.] Internally.

R: Very good. It sounds very helpful.

F: The temptation for me would be to spend my whole life in a place like that. And that’s what it would be, is a temptation. Because it would make me irrelevant.

R: What would it make irrelevant?

F: Me. My function, however much I fight it, is to be somebody at Hampton Roads who can resonate to certain things as being true — even if I don’t understand them — and needing to be published. And if I were in Iona enjoying myself, I couldn’t be away from Iona doing that. You see? There is an advantage to functioning from a distance, in other words.

R: But a temporary stop in Iona, you are saying, would help you bring the layers together.

F: In experiencing living with the layers together, it will help me to sort out the differences between the –

I’m accustomed to functioning a little in each place, but this will help me to recognize which is one place and which is the other place, and how I can shift the balance appropriately. It’s almost like learning to skate or to ski or something. It’s a question of shifting my balance to help preserve my balance. To be able to shift to circumstance more adroitly. They’re sharpening their tools.

R: And you wouldn’t be tempted to just move to the other state?

F: [laughs.] Oh, you mean just go over? They’re not going to allow that happen anyway. But I might be tempted to live in a place, that would be all — to have it so close. [Pause.] But, as I say, it would only be a temptation. It wouldn’t be something I should do.

R: Is there any information there about how to organize this trip with or without others, or is that for a later discussion?

F: Hmm. [pause] We can adapt to whatever happens externally. In fact, that’s what we do all your lives. If the trip shapes up in a certain way, with a lot of people, then it’ll be a matter of you can learn certain things. And if it were to shape up alone or with only a couple of people, you would learn other things. We can always take advantage. So that’s really a matter of several people making decisions, and going with whatever happens. One trip might be a very contemplative trip, with great time spent silently in nature. Another might be a much moreseemingly raucous or at least boisterous trip, but we could get just as much out of it. That’s our dance. We do it all the time.

R: All right, very good. I feel like I’m talking to the gentleman upstairs now.

F: Well, a little of each.

R: I want to ask further questions — I know you’re not surprised — about our understanding of reincarnation ideas.

F: Not surprised, and not displeased either. This is still good work. We keep saying that. We don’t feel put on the spot, you know.

R: all right very good, I want to say just a few things before we start, to make sure that someone who’s listening to this will understand where we are. We have understood you to say that according to a pre-established plan, a part of the totality comes through barrier into the 3-D theater, lives a life, returns through the veil. However, during that lifetime, plans are being made for another lifetime that will involve the same process. And the individual will be working on that plan during the lifetime with your help.

F: Sort of.

R: Is there something that you want to correct about that idea?

F: Well, finish first and then we’ll — it’s a little — you’ll see, go ahead.

R: All right. Frank says, “well, why can’t it be that simple?” But you have said a number of things that indicate it’s not that simple. For one thing, what comes through the veil the second time, so to speak, is not the same package of energy that came through the first time. So that when we have “memories” of “other lives,” it isn’t the same energy at the two time-slices. Can I stop there to see how we’re doing?

F: Pretty well, actually. We would say that it’s not necessarily the same energy the second time, it theoretically could be. But, OK, so far, so good. In other words, we pick the things that show in your side as traits and characteristics for a given bundle. We might conceivably pick the same bundle twice, you see. If we wanted to. We are only making a small footnote there, that it doesn’t have to be different energies, it’s just that it usually is.

R: OK, when you say it could be the same or it could be different, are you talking about the quantities of various dimensions that go into that bundle?

F: Well, [pause] we’re fishing around for an analogy here. It’s not a good analogy, but suppose you had a sackful of marbles, and you took a fistful of marbles each time. If you wanted to, presumably you could pick the exact same marbles twice a row. It’s just, you usually don’t. It’s not a good analogy because marbles don’t have the differences that we’re talking about, but we are trying to put a little more emphasis on the fact that it’s all one thing on this side, and not individuals being sort of taken apart and reassembled. We know that’s difficult.

R: Yes, we are assuming that when we come back through the veil, that we are joining with the totality of ourselves, or the totality of everything, and that –

F: Go ahead.

R: You go ahead.

F: Of course we know the question about, “if that’s true what about all these belief system levels and what about the people that are stuck and all,” and we’ll talk about that if you want.

R: OK, I’m still trying to go at this piece by piece, and I’m asking again about the issue of memories, the memories of other lives that a person seems to have. You suggested that there may be a certain resonance there, but that the person seeing what seems to be a past life may not be seeing part of the picture.

F: Well, they are perhaps putting an inappropriate level of definiteness into that one way of seeing the picture. That’s what we really would be trying to say. You can see things as, “you go into a life and you come back and then you go into another life and you come back and then you go into another life and go back,” and you can see it that way, and we know that many of you do. But it’s only one way of looking at it, and we are trying always to give you alternative ways that are equally accurate, to get you in the habit of seeing things as approximations of the truth, or as one viewpoint of the truth. The difference from your point of view between a memory and a resonance is probably essentially impossible to tell one from the other. We would think. So, Frank picks up the Egyptian, or the other monks — he’s had lots of monks in there — in a way, you could say those are past lives, and in a way you could say those are the –

Oh, all right well here’s –

[Pause.] Now, you will have to bear with us, because we don’t know how to express this, but we’ll probably be able to. Do you remember how we once said, to you minutes go by minute by minute by minute, and you’re watching the minutes, and we are watching maybe a gold thread in the tapestry?

R: Yes.

F: Well, a kind of person could be considered a thread. That is, a monkish or a bookish or a womanizing or a drunkard or — you know, any of the things that you regard as characteristics — could actually be regarded as a thread that has its own being, regardless of the individuals that it visits. Do you see that? That’s a very strange way to look at things, we know, but for instance, if you took drunkenness as a character, and you said, “OK, drunkenness is this one gold thread that goes through our tapestry, and it sometimes hits this person or that person, or the other,” do you see? You are accustomed to looking at people as individuals, and you would say one of their characteristics was, “they liked to drink a lot.” But you could also look at it like, one of the characteristics of drinking-ness, shall we say, was that in one case it was George over here, that lived in 1740.

It’s no more arbitrary or mistaken to look at a characteristic as an individual, if you want to put it that way, than it is to look at a person in a body as an individual. It’s looking at it sideways rather than up and down. Does that make any sense all?

R: That’s helpful.

F: So that for instance, a scholar, or an author, have in common that scholar-ness, or that author-ness, and we could look at it sideways, and watch that author-thread, whereas you would look at it up and down and look at the author’s thread. That is to say, individuals who, to you, one of their traits is that they’re an author. To us, they’re one example of the author-thread. You see?

R: That’s very helpful.

F: Well, given that it’s just as valid to look at things that way from our side, you can see that we don’t want you sort of fixating on the idea that things can only be crystallized around the idea of an individual. There are other ways to do it, equally valid.

R: That’s very interesting. Another issue we have — and I think this question wouldn’t disappear with your last description — is the issue of time periods. If we look at this in the sense that there is no time, and all of the lives that seem to be related are happening concurrently, that gives us another problem with the notion of one life following another in time-slices.

F: Well, that’s because of your language. Your language is messing you up there in a way. Just because times are going on concurrently — and of course concurrently is a misnomer, but we’ll use it — doesn’t mean anything — doesn’t mean — Hmm. Hold on a minute.

Your geographical life right now is going on concurrently, so there are people living in Egypt, and people living in India, and people living in South America, and people living in North America, and you’re not bumping into each other, and getting in each other’s way, because your spread geographically. Well, you don’t bump into each other temporally either. What’s hard for you is that you think that the initial part has to precede the following part. Your language all but forces you to think that.

R: That’s right.

F: But supposing you could envision it as all popping into existence at the same moment — all of it, first to last, sideways to sideways, up to down. And then it’s a matter of playing out, and you see –

All right, we need to find a way to make that more plausible to you.

Let’s say that when God creates the world — and we’re smiling at the word God, don’t worry about it — when the world is created, all possibilities immediately exist. All alternative universes, infinite possibilities, all exist at the time of the creation. Therefore there’s nothing dependent on something previous before it can come into existence. It all exists. Much of it may exist, so to speak, empty, as far as you can see, because you haven’t gone there. Napoleon didn’t win the Napoleonic wars in your existence, and therefore all the things that potentially followed from it aren’t open to you. Napoleon didn’t win, the Kaiser didn’t win, Hitler didn’t win, Lyndon Johnson didn’t win. So it all those cases, huge amounts of the infinite possibilities are closed to you. But they weren’t not created, and they weren’t dependent on those reactions whether they would be created or not.

So, what happens is, your future lives from your point of view, are potentially being lived right now with all potential avenues taken. That is to say, the entire game on the CD ROM is there, and it only depends on which particular incidence of the game you’re going to play.

R: All right, but then when we have these experiences of feeling that we’re in touch with major aspects of ourselves in another lifetime, which seems to have occurred earlier, and those kinds of what we’ve called memories exist of that, this is still some kind of interconnection among the energies that those lives represented.

F: Remember we said — you sort of quarreled with our use of the word, but we said — that you remembered a life on Mars. To us, it’s the same. To us, it’s equivalent, because the same process is going on. You connected out to it, just as you might connect out to another one. Now, you could look at it as your life, you could look at it as a life that you resonate to, neither one is the full picture. But we don’t see a difference between what’s called a past life and what’s called a future life. That just depends on where you stand.

R: But the experience — whether future or past — seems to be one where we seem to be identifying certain characteristics in that energy bundle that relate to us in this current life. And it seems like specific bundles we’re picking up, not just recognizing certain characteristics in a lot of bundles.

F: Can you say something more specific about that, to show just where you are on that?

R: You said — going back to our concept of the one person coming through the barrier, and then another — that the one coming through the second time, you’re saying, has some of the characteristics of the first bundle. Others are not in the second bundle. Have I got that right?

F: But you see, the distortion that’s contained here is embedded in your language. Things like “then.” And we use your language because there’s nothing else to use, but to say you go into come back and “then” come in and go back again is a linguistic convention but it’s not – [pause]

R: Sounds like it isn’t very precise.

F: Well, it’s, shall we say, falsely precise. It’s putting a precision on it that isn’t really there. Let’s say, somebody went into a life and learned discipline. And so in their next life — we’re looking at it from the conventional way your side often looks at it — in their next life they were more disciplined, because of the past life experience they had. Or they were hurt emotionally, and they walked into their next life with that hurt to be dealt with. That’s how it seems to you.

We would say, in all those lives you’re sort of voting as to how you are going to respond to things. And it’s the voting that makes what you are, and sort of moves you around the various possibilities. And all that interconnects, and so although logically to you it seems inescapable that the future is built on the past, we would say nothing is built on anything, it’s all independently — or perhaps we should say interdependently –.

There’s not one moment that’s real and all the other moments aren’t real. They’re all real and they are all choosing. And it changes all the time. Nothing is ever fixed the way you think it is. You think, “OK there was the battle of the Marne and one side won and one side lost.” Well, yeah, in a lot of realities; but in other realities it was different. And just think, for every single person who was killed in the battle of the Marne, there is a reality in which the person wasn’t killed. That’s an exaggeration, but you understand what we’re saying. There are billions of alterations all the time. And so the next time through, that person zigs instead of zags, and gets killed or doesn’t get killed. All of which has implications, or doesn’t, you see?

What we’re trying to do is to sort of throw a hand grenade into your concept of causality and past/future relationships.

R: Okay, I’m getting that impact. [Laughs.]

F: Oh good, we’re not wasting our time.

R: I want to go back and try one more time on my question. I’m obviously not communicating it very well. Go back to a person coming through the barrier one time and then another time. Somewhat different set of energies the second time, because some decisions have been made about the plan; the plan calls for maybe half the characteristics coming through. And some not. Now we’re all in this space of all possible realities, and somehow a person coming through links up emotionally with another set of energies that represent to us another life, or that we’re calling another life. Why that connection, rather than to all the other possible ones?

F: Remember a while ago we said — not this session, another time — we said that one could look at one’s life as a mathematical problem, and the unfinished problem could be finished another time, and it wouldn’t necessarily imply it was you finishing it, just because you started it.

R: No, I had forgotten that last part.

F: See, we’re oversimplifying this too, because it’s true that there are intermediates between everybody as an individual and everybody all one. It’s even true here, I mean, it’s true by the nature of us –.

Remember, a long time ago — we smile, I don’t know if you remember that or not — but a long time ago we were saying not only the I/we stuff, but “this particular group of energies talking to you” and by implication there’s a difference between us in our local part of the whole thing, and other parts of the whole thing.

Well, what we’ve been sort of ignoring or slurring over, is that just as the ultimate crystal is made up of all the smaller crystals within it, that are locked together, and all of those crystals are made up of smaller crystalline particles that are locked together — and all the way up and all the way down — so it is on this side, it is true that every ultimately everything is all one, but it’s also true that intermediately, so to speak, we function as relative individuals, as monads. So that we on our side can be looked at as individuals or looked at as part of the organism.

Well, if you can hold that in your mind — supposing you could look at a part of the crystal putting forth repeated entry excursions into space/time. Really, one of your most valuable concepts will be Monroe’s INSPEC, because there’s a sense there of a cluster that is less than the whole but far more than an individual. In other words, you could look at it, regardless whether he did, you could look at as a monad, that INSPEC he was talking about, and we could be regarded as part of that monad, that, among millions of others, has certain individuals. Those individuals come in and out, and all of that experience shapes what we are. What we change from moment to moment also shapes larger than us, but enough is enough at the moment. Does that –?

R: Then we think of you as the intermediary for Frank? Between him and some larger component of the totality.

F: You could look at us as the liver of a larger being, and he’s a cell in the liver, if you wanted. That idea.

R: Okay, that’s helpful.

F: It gives a slightly more specialized flavor than perhaps is warranted, but it might give you the sense. It’s not just jello over here, but it’s not trade unions either. [laughs] It’s —

R: Oh, it’s not. [Pause.] All right, you’ve said it’s a good thing that we stretch ourselves to become aware of these other bundles that seem like other lives, even if they aren’t our other lives. But nonetheless that this is useful to us to stretch ourselves to enlarge our current sense of understanding. Am I closer?

F: Mm-hmm. You’re shining your flashlight in a wider area, so to speak.

R: Okay. And, are you part of the process through which that occurs?

F: Why, sure. We’re doing it right now. We’re helping on our end and you have to help on your end. And it is helpful of course to us by definition, because if it helps you it helps us. There is identity of interest here, after all.

R: Okay, very good. Now those were questions that I had, more than that Frank had. But he does have some questions too.

F: Well we know them very well. Let’s look at that a little bit. He has had the liberating experience — mostly connected with Monroe programs, at least as initiators — of experiencing these lifetimes. John Cotton first of all of course, and Katrina and others, and so he is saying to himself, “how can this that I have experienced be true, and how can what I feel I have experienced in Focus 23 and 25 be true, and yet, not have the continuity of experience implied by reincarnation as is conventionally understood?”

And it hasn’t struck him yet — it will now, as we say it — that he was given an unusual experience of Focus 23 at the very beginning of his experiences, partly for this reason: Partly so that he would keep his eyes open and not just think that he is going to experience whatever he’s been told he will experience. Not that he’s very likely to do that. But partly also because, he has an importance in clarifying Focus 23 for people, because it is more important than is realized, and Bob only touched a small part of it, and people have a tendency to sort of reify what Monroe said. Which is the last thing he would have done, he would have continued to explore, given time, had he –

Well, he was sort of deliberately distracted away from that, because there were other things to be done, but the point is, emotionally he would have been in favor of exploring.

If you now chew on this idea of functions and characteristics and traits being threads in a tapestry, that are as individual as individuals appear to you to be individual, some of your questions will be seen in a different light — and we would just as soon give you a little time to think about that, and we’ll talk about it anytime you want to.

His question for instance about Katrina: Is that the whole story, or can she go somewhere and live out her life? Well, a truer way to look at it would be that, given that there is an infinity of worlds, it’s obvious that every possible thing happened to her, from being miscarried, through living 100 years and having grandchildren, you see? The fact that you experience one iteration of the game means that you’re going to have things like truncated lives, because it’s only that iteration. But it doesn’t mean that that’s the only way that life is experienced. It’s experienced in all possible ways, because everything is.

So to answer his question specifically — you didn’t ask it but he’s been asking it, somewhat clamorously — you might look at it like this: if there’s a truncated life, you can be sure that life was lived out to the full all the way through in various realities. But by the same token, there are lots of realities in which Winston Churchill was miscarried or died as a child, or died as a young man, or died as a middle-aged man or died as a slightly older man, you see? All possibilities exist, and they’re lived somewhere. But in any given iteration of the game that you’re playing, you’re going to have this mixture. There’s not only no way around it, there’s no reason to have any way around it. It’s fine.

[change sides of tape]

R: The question occurs, what about consciousness — and still using Katrina as an example — consciousness continues for her in the eight-year-old state, as well as all the myriad states that she in?

F: We’ll go beyond that, it would be possible for you, if your filters would not be overwhelmed by it, which without preparation they probably would, it would be possible for you to contact an increasing number of those alternate lives. But then there’s hardly a need to do that, you would be overwhelmed with just the alternative numbers of the lives you’re living already, you know. But still, we say, it’s all possible, it all could be experienced. If you mean, does she feel like she’s an eight-year-old, in that iteration, — well –

[pause] We can’t think how to cram into your ideas about the way time and space is. We’ll tell you, but it won’t seem right, okay? To us, it’s as though every single moment of your life is a snapshot that can be played, but that runs against your idea of time, so it’s very difficult for you to get that, if you can get it at all.

You could play July the 12th when you were 14 years old. You could play 10:35 in the morning July the 12th when you were that age, but you have to be outside of time to do it.

R: It seemed like that was what Bob was trying to do with focus 15, is to take you out of that time lock —

F: That’s right, except of course, your body is still carrying you along. But that can’t be avoided until you drop it. So what we’re saying is, “yes, sort of,” but it’s more like you were in a fast-moving boat, trying to — well –

Hard to find an analogy to that. It’s as though you were in an airplane or a balloon or something, trying to fly formation with a cloud. Your body is moving you through time, all the time, and so you can’t stay still, so in order to stay still at one time, you have to actually go relatively backwards to what your body is doing.

You know how we talked about the switching system? This is an equivalent problem. It’s a clever thing to do, and it’s not a worthless thing to do at all, but it’s just you can’t entirely do it while you’re in the body because a part of you is being dragged into the future, is the way would look to you.

[continued next post, Aug 27, 2007] 


Leave a Reply

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