TGU session 03-25-02

Rita Warren: This is March 26th, 2002. And Frank is here, and the rest of the group is here.

F: Maybe. We’ll see.

R: All right. Okay. Let me let me start with something Frank and I were talking about the other day: Soul mates and twin souls. And I was wondering if there was anything at all to this sort of idea.

F: Well, just philosophically, there’s always a nub to any idea that many people have held, but that may be all that it is. The twin soul concept and the soul mate concept, if you look at them, are firmly rooted in this individuality that we keep repeating is overemphasized, not that it’s overemphasized, but that it’s like one end of a magnet, and it’s only looking at the North Pole and not the South Pole, which is equally valid. So if you take the concept of twin soul or soul mate and you look at it from our point of view, what is there to be? In other words, you could say, we group the energies and send them across. So maybe we group similar energies or even identical energies and send them across; you could look at that as soul mates. But does it mean more than that?

And “twin soul” implies, and we know that people say it’s a soul that actually split in two in the beginning and that therefore, they’re looking — and it’s usually seen in a romantic context, although not invariably — buta shorter answer for us than usual would be, no, we don’t think much of either concept because it’s a concept that can appear if you look at something as if individuals were real. And we’ve said more than once that individuals aren’t very real, they’re more like a convenient fiction. If you don’t stay within that fiction, what’s left of the concept of soul mate or twin soul?

R: Well, I guess with soul mate it would suggest that there are individuals who, operating in 3D theater are somehow meant to get together in some way.

F: If that didn’t carry the connotation with it — not exactly the denotation, but the connotation — that there’s only one, you know, that it’s only a pair (again, the romantic things slips in there usually), we wouldn’t have a problem with it. Obviously, as you can see in your everyday lives, there are whole groups of people who come in to function together and do something very elaborate, often. That, in a way, fulfills your definition of soul mate. But you know, soul mates means two people. And the two people probably have a romantic relationship. Again, we think it’s totally, inappropriately concrete idea of individuals.

R: Well, the idea of twin souls — I was thinking about this today — the definitions I’ve heard suggest that they somehow entered into the universe together, these two energies, as though there is a beginning entry into the universe. And so I wanted to ask you about that. Does that happen, or is this a phenomenon without beginning, without end?

F: We’re aware of that speculation because Frank’s read about that stuff, of course, but, it’s not in our experience. That isn’t to say “no, it’s not so,” it’s to say it’s not in our experience. We don’t know. We’ll welcome you pursuing it if you wish, but we don’t have any more to say about it.

R: Well, it does bring up this other question that I was asking, and that is this. Is it so that something happens like an energy soul enters into this at some point? Or is it as the Buddhists seem to say, that there is no beginning and no end to this process?

F: We need to know what you mean by — —

I mean, what is it that it’s entering? If you’re saying a soul entering 3D theater, which we know you’re not, of course, we would know the answer. But you mean a soul entering — what, reality?

R: The whole process of — yes, the moving in and out of various kinds of experiences. Is there some point at which that energy is not inside a system and then comes inside a system?

F: Isn’t it another example of the misplaced concreteness of the individual? The people who are saying, it seems to us, are saying “there is this individual unit that is somehow created, or at least somehow enters into our whole existence here,” and we don’t see any example of that. That is, where is the unit trying to come from? Not “where is it coming from,” but “where is a unit?” We see ourselves as monads, and we see you at all levels as monads, and we don’t see any reason to think that there’s a level either above or below where ultimately you run out of monads. It doesn’t mean it’s not true, but we don’t see any sense of it.

R: Yes. Although, I had gone beyond where people were talking about this and asking their own questions, so I’m responsible here for the questions.

F: As we understand the question, it is, are new energies created from somewhere else, or do they enter our reality from somewhere else? And all we can say is that we don’t have any experience of that that we know of.

R: So within your experience it’s all a recycling process of this energy?

F: Well, if you mean recycling between physical matter and nonphysical matter –-

R: Or into other dimensions, and then back into the realm in which you exist, or –

F: Well, we wouldn’t see it that way. We would say, we all exist in all places, and what recycles, if anything, is just our awareness. You know, we put more awareness here or we move more awareness over there, but there isn’t really movement. It isn’t like we are going from one place to another place. That’s why the movement of consciousness, as was reported by Bob Monroe, going here and there, that’s why it’s instant. Because there’s not really movement. It’s a movement of consciousness, it’s not a movement of –

R: It’s a movement of attention –-

F: But we all permeate the whole place, so it’s just a matter of where we want to put our attention, or the whole non-place.

R: Or the whole place. And certainly it raises the question of whether there are boundaries anywhere, and you’re speaking as though there are no boundaries.

F: Well, what would be on the other side of a boundary?

R: I don’t know.

F: That’s our response. We’re not asking you, but, I mean, how could you have a boundary, how could someone recognize it as a boundary if there is one? Maybe there is one, but how would we know that it’s a boundary? It isn’t like there’d be a brick wall there.

R: Anyhow, you don’t know from your own experience that there is such a boundary. You haven’t become aware of that, anyway.


F: We would put it a little more strongly than that and say that to the degree that –

We feel pretty confidently that there is none. Let’s put it that way. That’s more or less the same as you said, but changing the emphasis to say, we’re pretty sure there isn’t, rather than just only that we haven’t had any experience of it.

R: Because boundaries, after all, are a characteristic of physical matter, so we tend to think in that way. We don’t have to think about it.

F: Yes. But even there the boundaries that you have in physical matter are actually illusory, or perhaps we should say releative boundaries. The boundary between physical matter and nonphysical matter is porous, although you may not realize it.

R: I’m trying to think of what that means. I —

F: Well, like, there’s no absolute boundary between physical and nonphysical, as you see it. We are on both sides, which means you are on both sides, and that means that –

Well, where your mind stuff mainly is is sort of –

Well, okay. We’ve got ourselves in a little fix here. Let’s see if we can get out of it. Remember we said you could look physical matter reality as a wok, where Focus 35 as you call it, is at the edge, and it gets denser and denser in toward the middle, and we reminded you that mental states are still part of physical matter? But mental states are also part of our side — from a certain point of view. And so the closer you look at where the actual boundary is, the more it dissolves into ambiguity. There’s not a hard and fast boundary, really. It’s more like you go from where it’s 60/40 in one place to 40/60 right next to what you’re seeing.

R: Yes. The problem with that analogy is its suggests that there is an edge there somewhere.

F: There’s rather than quite an edge we’d say, like, a difference in emphasis. So that when you dream, you access the other side. And when we — remember the time we experienced the emotion with you?

R: Mm-hmm.

F: We were accessing your side. Well, there’s no hard and fast boundary between either, it’s just we each have our center of gravity.

Now, it’s convenient for speech and thought to see things as boundaries, just as we often said to you, you don’t have a shoulder, you just have an area of your body that you refer to as a shoulder. You know, but it’s not quite as concrete as your language leads you to think it is. Same thing here. In fact, this sheds light on what you asked a while ago about the differences between us on our side. It’s really a difference of emphasis, and — well, it’s a difference of emphasis. And at any point between two difference pieces of emphasis, you could draw a boundary. But you could draw it at other places, too, and it would be just as valid and no more. And no less.

R: I don’t want to get caught up with physical analogies, what you’re doing with this wok idea, but if we thought about something like that and at some point with the boundary not being manifest, there’s something beyond the wok. Is that more like moving into another wok-shaped phenomenon or is it more like just extending the sides of the wok indefinitely?

F: More like the second, but even more like attenuating them so that they cease to be solid metal and become porous metal, or a metal that’s half air, so to speak. Again, a physical analogy, but –

R: And yet you were saying within that realm, there are distinctions to be made.

F: Yes, but they’re all relative distinctions. They’re as distinct as individuals are. But no more. In other words, they are descriptions of convenience. So what you say is Focus 12, there’s no boundaries on either side of that, it’s just that the center of gravity of a certain kind of attention can be called Focus 12, but you’ll never find a sharp edge to it.

R: So in extending those boundaries we’d be thinking about a concept of moving to 43 and 58, if that kind of extension made any sense?

F: If it made any sense, and we’d find it 48 and 53 and all were so little physical matter and so much whatever we are that you couldn’t really recognize them. That’s why it sort of stops where it does. Now, maybe at another point in your gyrations — Frank doesn’t like the word evolutions, so we’ll skip that one. But maybe at another point, you’ll extend it, you know, and you’ll have Focus 100. And that won’t mean that reality has changed, but it will mean that what is convenient for you to group under certain terms has changed. Or, another way of looking at that, your ability to perceive differences and similarities will have extended itself to that point. We know that’s wordy, but we’re trying to be a little bit more precise. We’re failing probably, but trying.

R: I have a question written down here, but I was having trouble figuring it out.

F: Well, let us know how it works out. [laughs]

R: It’s going to take a minute here. [pause] Okay. I guess this goes back to the thinking about a time when the universe maybe didn’t exist, where the origins of the universe or something like that. That was part of my last question. Do those kind of boundaries make any sense?

F: We’re glad to hear you see that immediately. Exactly. It’s still a boundary, isn’t it?

R: So, okay. So my question is then meaningless, but I was trying to think about why in creation of this sort, time would be put into the picture at all. Was there a point of creation in which time didn’t exist as a dimension?

F: Are you referring to time as you experience it in 3D theater?

R: Well, in any sense, the way you experience it or the way we experience it.

F: Well — well, we are very pleased that you picked that dimension immediately, that in fact a beginning and an end is a barrier, a boundary, just as the brick wall at the end of the universe would be. You do understand, although we don’t think you can really internalize it, but you abstractly understand, that time is really a means of perception as space is. And so therefore to ask if there was ever –

If we were to literally answer you, the answer would be, well, there was a time when there was no time, because that’s when people hadn’t –

Well, we were getting snarled up on definitions because “people,” of course, we were thinking of ourselves, we didn’t mean in 3D theater. But it’s as hard for us to answer that question as it would be for you if we were to say, “was there ever a time when the earth had height and depth but no breadth?” You know, without time, you don’t have it all there, so how could you have it? Now, that’s not to say that time is what it appears to you, and you already know that it is not. But if you look at as a dimension that organizes reality — and here we can use your time space analogy. It’ll work well enough — you have three dimensions of space and one dimension of time that you’re aware of all the time. That is, everybody’s aware of those unless they’re —

R: Well, some parts of the globe still don’t think in terms of the time in the sense we do.

F: No. But they must live in time. They have no choice. We were thinking the only one who wouldn’t, perhaps, be aware of the perception of time might be someone brain damaged. But a normally functioning person must, no matter how they conceive of space and time, live in those dimensions. There’s no way around it. Just as you live in other dimensions without being aware of them. Because anything that lives in any dimension must live in all dimensions. You just couldn’t not do it. That doesn’t mean you’re aware of living in all dimensions.

Well, how could you live in flat world that didn’t have height? You see? I mean, how could the world –? It’s couldn’t. Even if the height were 1/1000th of one millimeter, it would be height. Do you see what we’re saying? So —

R: Once you’ve bought into the 3D thing, of course, that’s true.

F: Well, we’re using the 3D analogy because it’s what you can really feel, but see, where we are it isn’t like 3D – Hmm. All right. Wait a minute.

This is going to be very difficult to explain. We’ll take a shot at it. You mustn’t think that we, on our side, don’t have dimensions just the same as you do. The distinction is, we experience it all differently because we don’t do it in time slices or space slices — but it’s the same reality. It’s the same place, or non-place, because there’s no other place that there is. Okay. For instance – [pause]

We’re trying to think of an analogy that would work in 3D theater and we’re not coming up with one. We’re looking for something that would look one way to one person and another way to a person of more perceptive ability or at a higher level. Let’s see. [pause]

It’s absolutely true that we don’t have four dimensions that you experience in the way that you experience them, but just as every one of you has to live in all the dimensions there are, so do we, and that’s going to be really hard to explain. [laughs]

R: Yes. It’s hard for us not to visualize you, in some sense, like a big computer in the sky, or in the library, or the Akashic records of some form that is a document –

F: Well, but see, all of those things have enfolded in them an intuition of dimensions.

R: Yes. They do.

F: That intuition isn’t wrong. It’s just — it might take us a while to find a way to make a little more vivid, but it’s a good intuition. We do have dimensions. We do have duration, as we’ve said more than once. And the major difference is we’re not dragged along by this concept of the moment, and we don’t have too many consequences.

[pause] And the third difference, of course, is that we’re all interrelated consciously more than you are. Well, let’s go on to something else and come back to that whenever you wish.

R: Okay. Behind this question on my part was the question, is this all an experiment of some sort? Has this all been put together to see what would happen?

F: “This all” means — our side as well as your side?

R: Well, you could look at it either way. Just take our side for the moment, it seems somewhat less abstract.

F: Well, —

R: I’ve had trouble with the abstractness once I get in to try to write about this.

F: It depends on how much you mean by what you’re saying is an experiment. It should be clear to you that the physical matter universe is created. It didn’t happen by accident, because there aren’t any accidents. And anything that’s created presumably was created for a purpose. But when you say “as an experiment” it implies a lot of insight into the motives of the creator that we don’t know where that insight would come from.

R: Okay. But if there is a creator, one has to attribute some sort of motivation.

F: Well, yes. But there’s a difference between attributing it and getting the right attribution.

R: Yes.

F: — and, well, we’re confident that we would know what was in God’s mind, if that’s what you mean, using God as the creator. And we recognize, — and in fact we approve of — the distinction between the two, that not every creator is God, given that your creators yourself and we’re creators ourselves, you know. And given that God has so many impossible characteristics imposed on it as an idea that for your time it doesn’t work, although there was a time when it worked, and there may be time again when it works.

To say “experiment” sounds to us as to say, “we did this to find out either whether our hypothesis would be verified or maybe just to find out what would happen.” That’s the implication of the word experiment to us.

R: Well, I’ve gotten a sense from you that there so many different ways in which this could be put together. I called it an experiment not in the sense of keeping track scientifically of exactly what’s happening, but more that since there were a number of the infinite number of voices could be put together. Calling it an experiment has to do with the notion that one is in some way keeping track of the various components of what all is happening, knowing that those components could all be different.

F: Well, that’ll confuse at the moment. What do you mean when you say, “it could all be done so many ways?”

R: Well, you’ve said there are an infinite number of realities. And –

F: But they’re not alternative, they all exist.

R: They all exist. Yes. All right.

F: In other words, it isn’t like there could be any of an infinite number of realities. We’re saying that there is.

R: There is in fact.

F: Yes. Exactly. Although we –

R: And as far as you know, there’s no one keeping track of these in some comparative way.

F: Hmm. That’s a new thought to us, really. Maybe there is. We’re not it. [laughs] Why would one do that, we wonder. It seems to us that the one who’s keeping track of it is all of us – “all” including you — but, really we don’t know. We will say, by the way, just as an aside, we really dislike the word infinite, which is infinitely overused in your infinitely scientific world.

R: I meant it in a sense that one couldn’t count them.

F: Yes. Well, that’s the point that we’re about to make. There’s a difference between infinite as is used and the word uncountable or innumerable. There is a serious difference between innumerable and infinite, and we’re not accusing you of misusing it, but we’re saying that we have a real problem with the way “infinite” is used as a way of sliding –

It really clouds scientific thought in your time. There will be a time when that word is not used anymore because it’ll be seen how much damage it does. There’s a huge difference between innumerable and infinite. And we would argue to you that infinite is a slight of hand.

R: Okay.

F: It’s not that it has anything to do with what you are doing. [laughs] It’s just that this is a convenient time for our editorial. As to whether or not someone’s keeping track other than all of us together — probably that’s true. We’ve been thinking about that while we’ve been talking. Probably that’s true, because we often use the analogy of the kaleidoscope, and it changes all the time and we can’t swear to it, but probably it’s true because someone’s looking through a kaleidoscope. I mean, we have the feeling that we are, but –

And we think that’s a very good insight on your part. Something was created, and something created what was created, presumably at least to watch it if not doing anything else for it. It’s not something that occurred to us, though. [pause] You may notice that we’re a less self-reflective bunch than you might have expected, and if this demonstrates that we’re not all-knowing and not all-anything, then it’s all for the good.

R: I haven’t had the difficulty with that concept that Frank has had, apparently, but I don’t want to hold you responsible for knowing everything.

F: Well, that remark is made as much for the readers as it is for you as an individual — but we will say that we’re highly insulted that you don’t think we know everything. [they laugh]

R: We’re talking such big subjects tonight. I’m sort of ambivalent about that, but I wanted to go back to just pin down something that happened before. You’ve rejected the Big Bang Theory, and then you’ve rejected it because of the possibility that someone thought that the universe had been created out of nothing. So you weren’t rejecting the idea of the Big Bang, but simply that there had to be something there before that? Have I —

F: No. We wouldn’t quite put it that way. We would just say that really it’s just — again, the whole idea of the Big Bang is a boundary, is it not? There is this boundary in time before which there was either nothing – and they seemed to look at it as nothing. We don’t think —

R: Well, it was a tiny, tiny, tiny little speck.

F: [laughs] It’s so ridiculous. [they laugh] We’re sorry, but it’s so ridiculous. It’s –

Really, we think that Bob Monroe’s explanation is closer than science’s, and that is to say, the emitter –

Now, this is analogy, you understand, but the mechanism from a larger dimension that projects a smaller dimension. If you look at it one way, you could say that it projects it and there’s a time edge. If you look at it a different way, you could say it projects it as a time and a space edge. It’s really not a meaningful distinction, but — be that as it may.

The Big Bang seems to be scientific because what it does is spin elaborate mathematical rules and elaborate mathematical descriptions. But at the end of it, if you look at it, you come to a totally theoretical and totally, we would say, stupid conclusion, that there is a singular event made up of a singular and unobservable process that results –

Well, regardless of what it results in, the singularities are what should, by the nature of things, demonstrate the incredibility of the theory, and will. We’re not really exercised about it, but we’re just saying we don’t believe in the Big Bang. The universe — every universe, any given universe, especially 3D theater — was, indeed, spun from another – well, how should we say — from a higher set of dimensions. Let’s put it that way. That’s not at all true, but there’s nothing that we could say that would be true. It was spun from something else that includes it. That spinning means that at one point it wasn’t there and then it was there. So at least it was there nascently and then grew. That’s not the same thing as saying it grew out of nothing, it’s saying it grew out of another dimension.

R: I don’t know that you would find Big Band theorists arguing with that.

F: Well, we suspect that they would argue strongly whether there were other dimensions beyond the ones they are trying to account for. However, if they wouldn’t, that’s good.

R: There’s nothing about that perspective which, if I get what you’re thinking, of other big things going on.

F: That’s right. That’s right. In fact, we would argue if there’s any, there has to be more than one. We would say there are –

Now, from your point of view, there will only be one because they’re only living in one universe at a time. But from a non-physical point of view, there will be others because every time we spin out a different place, there it is. But — they’re not spun out of nothing. And they’re not exactly spun out of no time. Well, it’s difficult. Ask the question, we’ll try and answer it.

R: Well, I’m trying to think what the alternative is to thinking about it in that way. The universe seems to be, from whatever scientific evidence that’s obtainable, to be changing all the time. That is, there’s movement involved. You can argue for the unreality of physical matter but whatever is being measured there has that level of reality in it, that is measurable. And one explanation for all of this movement is the Big Bang.

F: Well, that’s right. Well, that’s one explanation.

R: What’s another explanation?

F: Well—[pause] Wow!

Movement — apparent movement — is, of course, a function of time. You know, that’s tautological. If there’s no time, there’s no movement. Or if there’s no perception of time, there’s no perception of movement. All right. Science doesn’t have a chance, it has no mechanism, it has no ability to measure anything beyond the physical using scientifically approved methods. AgreeD?


R: Yes. Although there are those who argue now that it’s possible to make some measurements of the realms we’re interested, but I I wouldn’t argue with that for the moment.

F: Well, we need an approach here. Let’s see. [pause]

It seems to you that all of you — each other, and yourself, your animals and plants and everything around you — is moving. It seems indisputable. And if we were to say to you that you weren’t moving, you’d be perplexed. Well, first you’d call us crazy, then you’d be perplexed. And yet we say to you that nothing moves. What happens is your consciousness moves from one created moment world to the next. And you sort of fill the lines in between the two and conclude that you have moved and you have observed movement.

And we would say to you that’s certainly relevantly true enough, because you can function and you can measure all the movement and all that, but that absolutely it’s not true at all. Absolutely it’s not true. Relatively it’s true. You can’t tell us that the sun revolves around the earth or the earth revolves around the sun. They’re both equally partly accurate and partly inaccurate. After all, who’s going to determine what’s the center, you see. But that’s a bias, that’s a diversion.

[pause] For you to see these galaxies receding from each other, which is inferred by Red Shift and other very indirect, but ingenious methods. For you infer that they are moving away from each other, you need to make certain assumptions, among them that time is what it appears to be; that space is what it appears to be. That is, some assume the entire universe is expanding. And the universe is the skin and the suns or the stars are various marks on the skin. And as the skin expands the distance between the marks gets greater regardless whether the marks are moving or whether they’re just on a skin that’s moving. But what if they’re not moving and the skin isn’t moving either? What if the appearance of motion comes because you’re moving to –

[pause] That’s not going to work. Go back. Point your question somewhat differently, if you can just any pointed object.

R: Well, I don’t know that I can go ahead with that. Because  I can give you all a lot of the indicators that we use that motion is occurring. And if you’re saying that’s not so, then I don’t know what to do with that.

F: No. No. Give us — point us what your concern is. You want to know?

R: Well, because the Big Bang Theory has been opposed as a theory primarily by the creationists.

F: Well, we wouldn’t say that’s true at all. In fact, he’s reading a book about it right now, it talks about plasma theory. And plasma theory– to the limited extent that that he understands it  — says that the universe is somewhere between steady-state and fluctuating, but it isn’t created and it isn’t destroyed, it just always is, and it’s always in a state of change. Creationists should actually be in favor of the Big Bang Theory, if they knew it, because, of course, there’s creation out of nothing.

R: Well, the creation was out of God.

F: Well, same thing. God created the world out of nothing according to them. Well, that’s quite compatible with their beliefs.

R: Well, I mean, I don’t think there’s an argument about how–.

F: Ex nihilo.

R: He doesn’t need to explain himself to us to say how he did it. But my feeling about it is that this is a topic — I started out earlier saying I didn’t really want to get into abstractions because they’re too hard to write about.

F: That’s right. But, you know, what you could do that would be productive for you and interesting for us, find from time to time, anything more or less concrete that bears on it, and say “how does that relate to the question of,” and that might –

You see, because it’s very pointed that way. And it’ll bring us the possibility, anyway, of grounding some of it. At the moment, we’re floundering, as you hear.

R: Well, the only thing that we’ve got here, as far as I know, is that we’ve put new equipment on the Hubble Telescope and the telescope sees farther back into time, closer and closer to that time of the Big Bang Theory. Implied in that is the suggestion that ultimately it’s going to be possible to move very close to that moment, those first three seconds that they have hypothesized.

F: If we had physical money, we’d lay a bet on that one, [laughs] because all that still implies one mode of time, one reality, one

R: It doesn’t in any way imply there isn’t another reality.

F: Well, it implies — not directly, but woven into it is the assumption that there was a time, and there is a present, and there will be the future. And in some ways that doesn’t matter, and in a couple of ways it does matter. If you’re using an advanced telescope to find light as far away as you can, and you’re inferring that this is the universe as it was way back then when that was sent, that’s true within those assumptions. But if you destroy those assumptions, or step outside of them, what have you shown? You see? If you assume that, in fact, all moments of time still exist, that all moments of time, in all probabilities, in all dimensions, still exist, your telescope is still only going to show you the one. But the data won’t change. But the meaning of the data will change.

R: We can only measure this one.

F: That’s where we began. We said your scientists are limited to —

[change sides of tape]


R: Well, I’m still wanting to change the subject.

F: Well, we haven’t been very good on this one, so we’ll gladly change the subject. But we do encourage you sometime whenever some seemingly unrelated subject comes up and you get the inclination to connect it, there might be a reason you get that inclination. And go ahead and do it, and we’ll see what happens.

R: Well, the first thing that comes up in that regard is thinking about the issue of time travel. Now, that’s all within this one universe that we’re trying to make some kind of sense out of. But the question of time travel. Is this something that you foresee as a possibility?

F: Well, you have to tell us what you mean by time travel. If you mean traveling in your mind to another reality, you’re already doing it. We don’t mean fantasy, we mean actually doing it. But if you mean taking your body and moving your body to another time, and having it function as an ordinary body, how would you do that?

R: Well, you’d have to deconstruct and reconstruct.

F: Well, there are a lot of serious problems with that. You’re taking your mass out of one place, one time, and adding it to another time. And you say, well, that doesn’t make any difference. Next to what the world weighs, I don’t weigh much! But –

The only words that come to mind are inappropriate movement. We continue to say there is no movement, and that would be movement, but how are we going to explain the difference between your walking around or flying or doing whatever it seems like you do on the one hand, and really moving, which would be to take yourself physically –

It would be like — it would be like — it would be like – [pause] Well, we can’t think of an example, but –

R: Well, maybe it wouldn’t have to require that. If you think about the fantasies that have been written about traveling to places within the universe that we now can’t imagine traveling to because of the time dimension. It would take too long to get there.

F: Well, now that’s kind of a different thing.

R: Then that depends on the creation of something that will move, equipment or bodies or something through space in a quite different way than we ever thought about.

F: [pause] Your assumption perhaps, is that space is this extension of a uniform surface, perhaps in all directions, but basically a uniform surface. And that’s not true. Your assumption is that you move subject to the laws of gravity and electrodynamics alone, and that’s not true. And your assumption is that your mental state has very little to do with how you’re transported, and that’s very much not true. And we don’t whether we’ll be able to explain any of that, but we’ll look at it.

When you travel, you’re traveling through space dimensions and a time dimension, unless you’re traveling instantaneously, which you cannot do. Agreed?

R: Mm-hmm.

F: Now, you can travel instantaneously with your mind — that’s the only way — because you’re not moving. But if you’re trying to move – [laughs] just for the record, again, we’ll say again, there is no motion, but we recognize you have to see it as motion. If you’re trying to move, you have to move through space and time. The more you move in some directions, the less you have to move in another direction to get the same result. Agreed? If you have greater acceleration — well, let’s see. That’s not the way to explain this.

R: Could we get specific about it? Suppose we wanted to go to Alpha Centuri.

F: Okay. Let’s do it.

R: And starting from where we are now and what we know now, we don’t know how to do that.

F: If you travel at the speed of light, let’s say it’ll take you four years. Okay? Not that you’re planning to travel at the speed of light, but say you do. And so your question becomes how to get there in less than four years, or how to get there at all, or what?

R: Does your question then imply that the trick here is just to think in terms of speed? I mean is this –

F: No. No. It doesn’t really. Supposing you wanted to go to Alpha Centuri and arrive tomorrow, the easy way to do it would be to travel in the right direction for minus four years at the speed of light. Minus four years would correlate with the four years it took you to get there and you’d be there tomorrow.

R: But we have no idea how to move at the speed of light.

F: Well, supposing you wanted to travel at 1/10th of the speed of light, it would then require going minus-forty years. And then that would balance out the forty years, and you’d be there tomorrow. And how are you going to go minus forty years? We’re not about to tell you. We can’t tell you, but just if you look at forty miles east as being minus forty miles west, could you?

R: It seems like would be eighty miles.

F: Well, all right. But starting from ground zero, if you go forty miles to the east, that’s minus forty miles if you’re counting it to the west.

R: If you were counting it from here it’s minus forty. If you count it from forty miles west it’s eighty miles.

F: Well, yes. That’s right, but that’s forty miles away. You see, starting from your base point, if you’re going somewhere, wherever you go in one direction, it’s that many minuses in the opposite direction. That’s all we’re saying. Well, right now, you don’t have any way of doing that. When you do have a way of doing that, then you will find yourself with the functional equivalent of time travel, and it will sort of be time travel. But what it’ll really be is travel in eight dimensions instead of in three, you see.

R: Yes.

F: [they laugh] All right. There are three dimensions of space and one dimension of time, and they each have a correlate. So you could look at like three plus dimensions and three minus dimensions, and one time dimension and one minus time dimension. If you can travel in all eight — that is to say if you have eight vectors from the central spot and you can go in any direction you need to go to — you can either get somewhere in no time, more or less, or you can go a vast amount of time in no space or anything in between the two.

Only conceptual, we can’t do any better than that. We’re not technicians either, but this is the way you’re going to –

When you live on Mars, you won’t be taking two years to get from earth to Mars, nor did you. Do you remember?

R: Well, yes. I mean I remember the experience.

F: And the experience was how long, or were you busy censoring it to make it probable?

R: Well, I’m working out the details and all. It’s about a weekend.

F: Well, you can’t get from earth to Mars in a weekend, can you? But they can. They did. Will. However you want to look at it. So that should tell you something. You know they didn’t accelerate — well, you don’t know, but anyway, but take our word for it. That’s what you’re going to wind up doing. It’ll be child’s play. Complicated child’s play, but how hard is it to use the telephone? But it was not simple to invent the telephone. Okay. We’re still a little off the beam here, this isn’t quite what you asked. You asked about how you get to Alpha Centuri.

R: I asked you about the whole notion of time travel and whether that is something that’s worth thinking about, and I guess you’ve said, yes, it is, and that actually we will be able to think up the kinds of inventions that could get us to some place that seems impossibly distant at this point.

F: That’s right. And impossibly distant can be in time as well as in space. In other words, you know, the age of the dinosaurs, if you go in the negative direction long enough, that’s where you would be. [pause] You see, here’s the trick. Remember, all times and all spaces exist. They didn’t cease to exist. That being so, there’s a way to get from one to the other. Now, right now you can do it easily with your mind, because it’s just a matter of moving your consciousness, because you exist in them all. But if you want to complicate matters and drag your body along — and there are reasons to do that, of course — then you’ve got to find a way to navigate between them. We can’t give you blueprints.

R: Okay. It seems like we’ve already, in previous discussions, we’ve incorporated the idea of parallel universes, although I’m not sure that we have. We’ve talked about other universes as a possibility, innumerable —

F: Yes. Yes. And we would say the difference between innumerable universes and parallel universes is, again, a special example of that same fallacy that keeps coming in about misplaced concreteness of individuality. Someone who believes that this universe is real can stretch to believe in another universe, or maybe five universes, or maybe a hundred universes. And those are parallel. But once you’ve realized that they’re innumerable, parallel becomes almost like small thinking, you know.

R: It’s like twin souls.

F: It’s like training wheels. The idea is a training wheel to stretch your mind to the point of realizing that there are, not infinite, but innumerable universes. Or, another way of looking at it, one universe with innumerable permutations. Exactly the same statement.

R: Okay. [pause] I’m going to change the subject. We’ve talked to some extent, about what happens when we drop the body. I was wondering if suicides are a special case of — what are suicides might impact, if anything at all.


F: Might impact where?

R: In the process of dropping the body and moving to your realm?

F: Well, there are several overlapping but really different things that are encompassed in that word, and we just want to sort them out a little bit.

A suicide who kills himself or herself to save others or because it’s an impossible situation and then they’re trying to help, or because they misjudge their strength and they accidentally kill themselves — all of those things are different.

We assume you’re talking about the suicide of the person who, for one reason or another, decides they don’t want to live anymore, and they’re not going to. We would argue that that is invariably destructive to the person’s mission that they came to do. Well, not invariably, but mostly, because when you want to pull the plug, we can pull the plug, and we will. And we will have a better view of “when” than you will on your end. Now, having said all that, we’re going to take it back, because you have as much right to make that choice as any other choice, and some lives, that is the appropriate end, and we’re doing it, so to speak. So you also can’t judge. That is to say, you. We’ll judge all the time [laughs], but we have better data.

If a person, out of despair or anger or desire to punish others or whatever, chooses self-destruction, in defiance, shall we say, of guidance, of the higher self, of the rest of him, her: that has consequences. If that is the natural flower of the life, that has other consequences that are not nearly as drastic. Remember we said every death is a birth? Well, so when you kill yourself on this side, you’re born in a certain amount of trauma on the other side — well, that’s not the right way to put it.

[pause] It isn’t so much the manner of arrival that’s the problem, to the degree that there is a problem, as that the person who went across, went across to experience something and then sort of aborted it. And yet, you could argue they made a choice, and that’s what they went over there to choose.

R: Okay. Well, then, let me ask you about some distinctions like what we’ve experienced now, particularly of the Palestinian suicide bombers.

F: Well, they’re killing themselves to get out of life, primarily. They’re killing themselves in order to kill others. They shouldn’t be regarded so much as suicides as, shall we say, soldiers on a suicide mission. That sounds like playing with words, but motivation is the important thing there. Not that their motivation is better, but that it’s different. Their motivation is to inflict damage, and the only way they can do that is by killing themselves. Their motivation is not, primarily, to escape life. That’s the distinction.

R: To accomplish some – what they consider to be more worthwhile goal.

F: With the caveat that, of course, there could be a tremendous amount of self-hatred as well as other kinds of hatred in there, too. And so that might be okay with them. But, yes.

R: I can see that there are a lot of distinctions one could make here. I’m asking over-all about the implications, and maybe there aren’t any general implications, that you’ve thought about, other than –

F: Implications for whom?

R: Implications for the soul that’s moving over.

F: Well, we don’t see it much different from the soldier who’s killing someone else.

R: So a person who is in tremendous pain asks the doctor to overdo the morphine, that’s —

F: That’s another case besides. That’s a case of someone attempting to escape, as you say, intolerable pain, making a choice to do it. Again, the distinction is motive. It’s one thing to escape emotional pain, a second to escape physical pain, a third to attempt to make others suffer, a fourth to escape the burden of choice. You could continue and every case really is different. In fact, we’re going to back off our initial statement because the more we look at it the more we’re saying, well, it’s a choice. It’s your choice.

R: Well, something you said that people who do that have, by definition, not accomplished their purposes in this life and somehow must face up to that by doing it over again, or whatever the implications are–

F: Well, that’s rooted in a way of seeing things that think there’s only one reality. That same person had other realities in which they didn’t kill themselves, you know. In other words, there’s that whole gamut. They died in childbirth all the way through they died at age 612, and everything in between. So to say that one particular iteration had to be relived, is based in an idea that says it’s got to be done sequentially and there’s only one running of it, and that’s not correct.

[pause] Besides, it also implies there’s only one correct mission, so to speak; one correct termination of the mission. Who’s to say that Abraham Lincoln who didn’t become president and instead, was a prairie lawyer and died in 1882 was less of a successful life for Abraham Lincoln than the one who was killed in 1865?

R: Okay. So that leads on to my next question. Is there a relationship between your idea about a person that’s crystallized and therefore [inaudible] and a suicide mission. Is there some implication in suicide there?

F: No. No. Because there’s too many possible motives. You’ll find that almost all of humanity’s religious and philosophical ideas are dependent upon their conception of the realities about time and space and other dimensions, other alternative realities.

R: Frank has asked what’s the relationship between the process going on here and the process that was going on with Jane Roberts and Seth. Is there anything over-all that you can say about that?

F: Well, sure. Jane Roberts had the ability to move herself out of the picture — that is to say, she had the ability to change her receptivity so that the energy that came in was not conducive to the continuation of her consciousness at that moment. Do you see? It was too discontinuous from an ordinary consciousness. She had the ability without fear to move aside, so to speak, and allow that energy to speak.

Seth, being purposeful, conscious, and intent on making certain ideas known, had an agenda to write books, came in with all of that and, of course, set it up so that he had his willing assistants, which is to say, Jane and her husband, Rubert and whatever his name was. He then dictated those books and in the interstices of doing that, talked to them in an encouraging manner to assist them in their own lives, not only as a friendly gesture, but as almost a sort of payment for the work they were accomplishing.

But it would not be accurate to say that Seth was always there with Jane, because the difference in brain waves — that’s a metaphor, but take it as a metaphor — was too great for both to be present at the same time, you see.

Now, what happens in a case like that, as happened with Edgar Casey, is that over time, there’s sort of accommodation, and it becomes relevantly easier for the two to coexist consciously together. And that becomes a matter of just how far apart they were when they started and how long it goes on and how willing they are and other things. In Frank’s case none of that applies. To his own initial confusion because the difference between us and him is nonexistent. Well, that’s not quite true. It’s more or less true. There’s so much overlap that the non-overlap is relatively small. So that when we say we’re always here, we’re always here. And when he says during these sessions, that he’s always here, he’s always here.

It’s true, as you have observed, that he’s not here in the sense that he kind of thinks he is: that is to say he hears, he listens, he participates, he throws in his own phrasing and things, he’s actively participating, but his emotional makeup is slightly altered during the course of this. First of all, reactions are suppressed. And we don’t mean that we’re suppressing them, you know, but the nature of the material, the nature of our interaction suppresses several aspects of his own personality. They aren’t gone, but they’re just not active, okay.

So we don’t come forth with a book to dictate, but in a way the only reason that Seth needed to do that was because Jane couldn’t just sit down and write it, whereas Frank can, because we’re right there, the more receptive he can be, the easier it is for us to come through, the less need for these concrete distinctions.

So we would say those are the major differences between the two cases. Oddly enough, there’s not much difference between his attitude and Jane Roberts’ attitude. Now, her initial assumptions were quite different from his, but their attitudes and willingness and of curiosity are quite similar, and necessary.

R: So Frank if he wanted could move completely aside and let some other energy come through?

F: Well, [pause] we doubt it, because you’re asking him to be unaware of too much. The connection with us is strong enough that he won’t lose the consciousness in the way that someone who is not consciously connected with the other side will lose consciousness if the energy pattern shifts. Can you see that?

R: But it’s not just a matter of willingness to participate, but —

F: No. It’s really a matter of, among other things, brain chemistry which is not an accident of course. [pause] That is to say, you have to be able to do –

If you’re going to play the piano, you’d better have ten fingers. If you’re going to play the piano brilliantly, it helps to have large hands than can encompass a greater amount. And if you’re really going to play it brilliantly, it helps to have fast reflexes, accurate nerves, you know about that. So we’re just saying willingness is absolutely essential, but not enough.

R: Is there anything special or different about energies like Edgar Cayce or Jane Roberts? If when they move across, do they move into any special roles or —

F: On our side?

R: In your realm.

F: [pause] Well, if you have a very talented piano tuner, he doesn’t have to continue to be a piano tuner all his life, but it’s a waste of time to have him change oil in a car, so to speak. When you have a crystallized personality that has learned to hold that balance so clearly, it’s a wonderful thing to shine other energies through, to help them get the abstract pattern that they will then have to animate. This is why when one person has become something it’s easier for later people to become it. We can shine it from the personal. That can only be done by experience. The experience needn’t be external experience, but it needs to be experience.

R: Does this have them participating in a particular role on your side, as the energy that moved across, or some variation of them?

F: They would participate in that they’ve acted those experiences and we can taste that. And they would be used, although not exactly participating, if we used them as a lens through which to shine other energies so as to give them the knack of putting it together in a way that’ll function, you see.

R: I’m still not clear whether you’re saying that that ability then exists in your realm, or that it’s only resting in that bundle of energy as its functioning there?

F: Well, it’s kind of a non-distinction really, because anything that exists on our side exists both in one place where it came from — you know, on your side — and also shared all through us. So again, be careful of the space analogy, like it’s in one place so it can’t be somewhere else. It’s –

[pause] Well, we can’t think of a good spatial analogy, but if you go onto the other side and we didn’t have the benefit of your experience, it’s true that you’re an individual with that experience. It’s also true that we as a whole have access to that experience. It’s not the distinction that it might seem. It’s both.

R: Well, is there some form of Edgar Cayce and Jane Roberts existing in your realm, or have they – when their personality changed, moved on, and that ability that they utilized is ?

F: Well, now remember, we said there’s no movement over here, so they never left when they were on earth, and –

They no longer exist on your side, but they’re still where they were on our side. But remember we did the two forms of using the Novak thing and we said that on the one side, there is all of the personality that was formed and lived on your side. And that’s here, but the underlying energy that went into that form and helped create that form is not the same thing, and it is not fixed. So it’s back here. It’s back here but it’s not here bound to that form. It’s bound to that form in 3D theater, not afterwards.

So it depends on who you mean. If you mean the underlying spirit that for a while was Edgar Cayce, that spirit is wherever it is. It’s not at all bound to Edgar Cayce. But if you mean the pattern, the crystal that was formed as Edgar Cayce, yes, that’s still here, and yes, that’s accessible, just as your friend Dave.

R: [pause] I think that’s all the questions I have this evening. Do you have anything else you’d like to tell me about?

F: Well, this was a difficult session for you, and a difficult session for us, actually. And we think that the difficulty itself is actually useful in demonstrating the difference in what can be brought across depending on the nature of questions.

There are some questions that are inherently easier to be explained, even if they’re quite different from what you expect, and even if they’re quite removed from your ordinary perceptions. And there are other categories of questions that get vague or non-answers, and it’s hard for you to see why there should be the difference between those two kinds of questions.

And we will say that as we explore that a little, the difference between the kinds of questions should become a little clearer, although that doesn’t mean we’ll get you clearer answers to a certain kind of questions.

What we’re looking at here is a boundary, actually. And it’s a boundary between the kinds of questions that can be somewhat answered and the kind of questions that really can’t be very well answered. At this time

Now, when your consciousnesses are different, when the veil is thinner, shall we say, that’s another story. But at this moment, there are certain kinds of things that aren’t going come across very well, if at all, just as eighty years ago, the whole ratio was different and there were many more things that couldn’t come across. It wasn’t a question that they didn’t have people of talent then, it was that the concepts weren’t there that — there’s lots of –

[pause] We do appreciate your continued efforts here and we wish we could do better than we can at answering some of the questions that you have, because we recognize that the questions come out of a sincere desire to know. And all we can say is, we’ll do our best, and you do your best, and we’ll see what we come up with. Until one of us gets tired. [laughs]

R: Yes. Well, I sometimes feel that I get the answers and the difficulty is because I’m not understanding enough about what I’m asking, and I think sometimes that’s the case. But there are other times when — well, I guess the material’s at such a degree of abstraction that it’s very hard to place it in the terms that we’ve been using.

F: Well, you’re giving us too much credit there. It’s also that sometimes you catch us thinking, you see. In fact, you set us thinking, And we start saying one thing, and we realize, you know, that’s not right. Why isn’t that right? And then we correct it some. And sometimes at the end of an answer, we’re at 90 degrees or 180 degrees away from where we were when we started. Now, you wouldn’t think that would be possible, but — sometimes you catch us thinking. The one with suicide actually was a good example.

As we thought –

[pause] Let’s see, what were we doing? We used the analogy “thought about it” because that’s how you would say it, but that’s not really what was happening. We were –

[pause] It’s like we were feeling our way to the answer. No, it was like we had the answer, and then we were attentive to the successive feeling that said, “no, you’re not taking this into account, or this or this or this.” And as we paid attention to those hues, our stance shifted. That’s all we can tell you at the moment. That’s the process. So sometimes you catch us thinking.

R: All right. Thank you very much.

F: Until next time.


Leave a Reply

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