Edited transcript of a PREP session in the Bob Monroe Lab at TMI held Tuesday morning, July 6, 2004, Skip Atwater at the controls, Rita Warren at the microphone, Frank in the black box.
[I began the morning coughing, an ominous reminder of past problems with asthma which had been in abeyance – I had hoped permanently – as a result of the healing efforts of my little eight-year-old guardian angel Karis. Also, my hearing was much impaired.]
Frank: Rita, we might ask if there’s anything special about this being sick. It’s annoying.
Rita: Well, the part of you that’s feeling the symptoms, we’d like to have some help with that from the guys.
Frank: [clears throat] [long pause] [clears throat]
I can feel just where it is. [a pain, a hitch, in my chest] It’s localized quite in one spot. And the thought had come while I was lying here waiting that maybe I was back to identifying with Bertam again, and I’ll bet you he had TB in his left lung, at least. I don’t know what TB feels like, but this is quite localized. It’s not – It’s like a pain, like a knife pain rather than an inability to get enough air. It’s different. [coughs] Although the wheezing’s there too.
All right, I’m ready whenever you’re ready.
Rita: Do you feel up to doing some resonant tuning today?
Frank: [yawns] Excuse me. Well, let’s find out.
[A period of resonant tuning, quite strong and steady, a bit to my surprise.]
That seemed to help, actually.
Rita: Ok, just continue to relax for a few minutes and, remembering the guys’ definition of illness, try to ask for help in both areas, the mental processes and the physical.
Frank: Rita, could you turn the volume down on the tuning – not on you, but on the tuning?
Frank: [coughs] Yeah, that’s better. I can’t remember their definition. You mean just about obstacles?
Rita: They suggested that it’s a combination of the interaction of the mental and the physical.
Frank: [yawns] Uh-huh. [long pause] [clears throat]
Rita: Are the gentlemen ready to speak with us?
Frank: Bunch of bums. “Who, us?” Yeah, go ahead, whenever you’re ready. [yawns] Yeah, we’re ready.
Rita: Sounds like Frank is getting relaxed enough to be comfortable.
Rita: Is there someplace that you would like to begin today, gentlemen?
Frank: Let’s do a lot of the session in focus 15.
Rita: All right, we’ll do that.
Frank: The reason being, it will be easier to move to the information and back. No, that’s not right. It’ll be – well, you’ll see as you go along. Focus 21 is a very good way to converse, and focus 15 is a good way to experience.
Rita: And the experiencing is something that’s most important today.
Frank: Today. And we might move out of it today, but right now – [yawns] in the initial phases, and then we might want to go up to 25 or 27, but we’ll see, it depends on where we go with it.
Rita: All right. Shall we then just allow you to spend some time interacting with Frank and getting some help for him in his chest problems.
Frank: Well, the first thing to remember, obviously, there are no coincidences, and so this happening today rather than yesterday or tomorrow makes it clearly connected with the session. And out observation is that there’s a certain amount of anxiety about the session, is all. Now, that’s not the only thing going on, but that’s the thing he can do something about, sort of. Like, we can do it right now, and he is doing it.
Rita: Is it worth our talking about what the anxiety is about?
Frank: Well, it’s the same anxiety about the material, you know. Will the material be there, do we really exist? [laughs] Part of it’s just a physical thing left over from being in the rain the other day, which he didn’t really pay much attention to, which may not surprise you.
Rita: Right. Some of it is left over from that, and the rest is concerned with whether the kind of material that we have been getting can be continued?
Frank: That’s right. Two things involved, and they both have to be involved. In other words, the being in the rain and being in wet material for a long time – the sandals especially – without doing anything about it or thinking about it was the physical component. And the other is the mental component. It’s important in that it can be used as a homing point for him as he learns about health and the body and the mind and all, but it isn’t important in the sense of “this will have important consequences” kind of thing.
Rita: Yes, we’re just concerned about it’s getting in the way.
Frank: [pause] Well, you’ll remember, he did sessions when he couldn’t hear and couldn’t breathe, and it didn’t get in the way. That’s not really a concern. He kind of has functioned that way so long that he takes it for granted.
Rita: However, we’ve been moving away from that.
Frank: Well, yes – but you don’t overcome 50-some years in a year. You don’t necessarily overcome the –
He’s accustomed to being not surprised if it goes back to abnormal. You understand? You don’t have the kind of trust in your own health if you’ve had 50 years of experience of not being able to trust it. You can have some, but you don’t have – It’s a belief rather than a known, so far.
Rita: All right, well the reassuring thing is that you’re saying that we can proceed even though the body isn’t as comfortable as we would like.
Frank: Well, it isn’t, but it’s more comfortable than it would be if you weren’t doing the sessions, so as far as he’s concerned, it’s a big gain.
Rita: Your voice is sounding good now. [pause] Let me ask again if there’s some area which you would like to continue what you have speaking about these past few weeks, or would you like questions?
Frank: The best way will be for you to ask whatever is in your mind, and then one way or another we’ll segue to the next segment. Your questions, though, provide a very good –
It’s like what would be when you’re stitching pieces of a quilt together, you know? It helps to –
Almost too much trouble to figure out how to say it, but anyway, it does help. We’ll get to the patch, but your stitching makes it easier.
Rita: All right. I don’t want to ask questions that are trivial and not worthwhile in terms of the general themes, but as I read over our last sessions, things occur to me to ask about. If these questions are too distracting from the way we should be going, just let me know.
Frank: Let’s have a word on that for the moment. We were puzzled when you said it, trying to figure out what a trivial question would be. Because, if the question is in the moment, it’s in the moment, and it can’t be –
Well, let’s see. Could it be?
Given your underlying intent, we don’t understand how a question could be trivial, but – we’re willing to be instructed.
Rita: All right, well I could give you an example. One of the things that came up last week in our discussion was your phrase “everything is animate” and when I read that I thought, “well is that literally true?
Frank: Literally true.
Rita: When we think of something like plastic, is that animate?
Frank: Mm-hmm. Sure, because you can’t make dead things out of living things and the entire world is alive. It seems to you dead because of your state of consciousness, but in the proper state of consciousness you’d recognize its alive-ness. You’ll see it in your shamanic materials, you’ll see it in drug experiences, you’ll see it in people who’ve had ecstatic experiences of a certain sort.
This is not at all trivial, but it would be a detour, so we’re going to put it off for now, but if you’ll bookmark it, we could come back sometime and say to you that what looks dead is because you’re experiencing it in the Dead Present rather than the Living Present. The Dead Present is what your senses report; it’s a thirtieth of a second after what happens; the Living Present is what happens before your senses can report it. All the magic in the world is in the Living Present, and in the Living Present there is nobody with the illusion that there’s anything dead. But as I say, let’s bookmark that for now. We’ll be glad to talk about it some other time.
In fact, Rita, to allay your anxiety, this is why we’re not worried about the questions? When we come across a question that is an important question to be dealt with but won’t lead us where we want to go, we’ll just do this. We’ll just bookmark it, so it’s neither wasted nor disregarded, but neither does it deflect our flow.
Rita: All right, that’s reassuring.
Frank: But you can see that that’s not at all a trivial question. That’s a question that is central to people’s understanding of what the world really is.
Rita: I don’t want to distract us from the lines that we’ve been running along.
Frank: You won’t. You won’t.
Rita: A question that’s more in line with the things we’ve been talking about also rises from this past session. Sometimes in the analogies we are using in this discussion, events occur and we wonder “who is bringing this about?” You’ve mentioned that yourself sometimes. For example, one of the phrases that was used last time was “bundles are collected.” Now, who is –
Shall we assume that this is somehow the grand self here, or the totality — ?
Frank: No. No, that’s too far.
Rita: Who is collecting?
Frank: [pause] It’s not a –
All right, first of all there’s not a “one” being that is doing all the collecting for the whole universe. That would be too extreme. Although, as we always say, you could look at it as “all of us are part of one thing,” but it won’t be helpful to your understanding of it.
Do you remember last time we said that “all that is” has structure. It isn’t just that once you get outside of time-space there’s no structure. You could think of us as –
Hmm, this might be a productive way to look at it.
You might think of all of us on this side – that is to say, not in time-space – as being cells in an organism. And disregarding for the moment just what comprises each cell, if you hold in your mind a sense of a tissue, that tissue is one cell next to another cell next to another cell next to another cell. Okay? In various dimensions. And if you were to think of the other side as a huge eternal tissue on the whole Plane B—
We have to think about this. The difficulty is that analogies tend to go beyond what they’re meant to say, so what we’re trying to do without a whole lot of success sometimes is limit the analogy as we go forward with it, which makes us stumble a little bit.
But all right, defining yourselves in time-space as Plane A, and ourselves as Plane B, recognize that it can’t be quite that simple at all. There are many, many planes outside of time-space. But we’re defining Plane B as a coherent – let’s call ourselves a tissue – that is primarily the closest one to time-space. And for the purposes of what we’re doing, that’s close enough.
Each of the cells in this tissue functions as a coherent unit, and also functions as a part of a larger unit. [pause] Now, holding that thought, go to your own body, and envision a muscle cell. Now, that muscle cell is created out of the general ambiance of the body. In other words, the body brings in nutrients, processes the nutrients, sends them down and generates a muscle cell. [coughs] This muscle cell is part of the muscle in general, which is–. You understand. All we mean to say here is that we’re looking at a muscle cell, but don’t forget that it also may be looked at as not at all a unit. It may be looked at as a part of a larger thing. But it may also be legitimately looked as a unit. Well, the muscle cell itself may be looked at as molecules, which means it’s a composite of units. This is the same theme we’ve gone at, almost tediously, for quite a while now.
How would you describe to someone “who created the muscle cells?” That is to say, “who bundled together the threads that became a muscle cell rather than a skin cell?” That’s a pretty good analogy to what happens when somebody’s incarnating. You ask, productively, who gathers the threads? And the answer, given this long context, is, “the larger organism gathers the threads as part of its automatic process of continually recreating itself. So if you were to look –
There are more planes, and those planes are to us as we are to you, with the exception of the physical/nonphysical barrier, but disregarding the larger planes from ourselves, if you look at us as the – let’s see. [pause]
Might be better to go from the other end, and say, “those that look to you to be individuals: your self, your friends, your family, strangers. Each of you are functioning as units, but each of you from our point of view may be looked at as one organism, let’s say, one coherent –
This might be a little misleading, but we’re going to try this. Let’s suppose you took all the human beings on earth and considered them to be one nerve, or one muscle, or one something. And you took all the human beings on a planet around Alpha Centuri and that was a different one. Supposing there are 50 billion planets that have sentient life on them – no, that have intelligent life at the level of humans – and that each of those connects back to Plane B where all together they form one nervous organism.
[pause] Don’t know if that’s going to work either. Going to have to think about this a little bit. This is where we want to go; the question leads right to what we’re trying to say, but as we try to say it, we see –
There’s too many steps to be filled in, and which one do you fill in first, you know?
Perhaps the best way [pause]
Think of yourselves, think of your own body. Now, you know that your own body is mostly space, although it appears solid to you. Most of the electronic structure is space, because you have a nucleus and you have an electron – at least, that’s how you can envision it – and most of the area is space. Holding that vision of your bodies as light, as light in an organized pattern that is mostly space between the light, you may begin to see the analogy between your own nervous system and what we’re talking about. What’s holding us up is, to make the analogy of the various planets all coming up to Plane B as though each one was a never, it’s a good analogy but it’s hard for you to accept it, or to get the sense of it, because of your habitual (we would say) misperception of your bodies.
Your bodies function in much the same way. You have an intelligence that suffuses the body, and it’s a non-local intelligence. It’s everywhere and nowhere. It is directed but it’s not exactly centralized, although you think it is. And that overall plan of your body keeps your body functioning. That is, there’s not one person sitting up at the top of your brain saying “okay, time for a new muscle cell; time for a new nerve cell.” But it’s as thought the body continually, automatically knows what it needs, and replenishes it. You could look at as, the body automatically knows how it has to gather strings and make a certain kind of entity and put that in place. Now the distortion here is that you all are in time-space and we’re not, but within that, perhaps you can begin to see where we’re going. The creation of individuals is not a whimsical thing, and it’s not done by what would be the equivalent of an individual here. It’s more like it is the [pause]
Let’s see; how would we say it? We’re hung up on the words “conscious” or “automatic.” You could look at it either way.
But anyway, it is the creation from other planes of replacement parts of the same organism. That’s an awkward way to say it. Let’s see how you understood that, first, and then we’ll go on. We did a lot of floundering so we don’t know – are you with us?
Rita: If we use the concept of co-creation, meaning that there’s a big plan and a little plan, the little plan referring to the individual level, and the creative force exists to some extent in the body as well as in the general forces (“general forces,” that’s not a good way to put that, but the forces, say) from plane B, with the help of that co-creative process, the individual develops. Or is continued in some way.
Frank: Well [pause] We don’t think that’s really a helpful analogy. For the moment let’s stay a little closer to the body analogy. Because you yourselves, as individuals, while you exist, have the creative ability and one of them is, of course, to go between realities; to choose what you’re going to become. Choose, choose, choose.
But it isn’t exactly – Let’s say it’s misleading to think that you co-create your own creation. That’s not entirely wrong, but it’s misleading, because it puts the emphasis in the wrong place. If your body needs to create a new nerve cell, it doesn’t so much consult with the atoms and molecules and nutrients and all that it uses to make the nerve cell, as it does – from its point of view – automatically create a nerve cell. Now, from the nutrients’ point of view, it may look different and they may say, “well, we chose to be here rather than there,” but it will be a relatively meaningless difference to the organism, which just needs a nerve cell there. [pause]
Now in this case, we’ll ask, are we in sync with you? Did we understand your meaning and respond to it?
Rita: I’m just trying to differentiate as you were. We’re talking here about two levels, although I understand, from what you said last time, that we’re talking about multiple levels and we’re just identifying these two at the moment. Saying is that creative power just totally at the next level and when you’re calling the bodily level, the process automatic – somebody set that plan in motion.
Frank: You will remember, we hesitated about “automatic”, but – see, all the variables just are moving around. [laughs] and it’s hard to pin anything down. What we didn’t want to do – we may do this just for the moment. You know, we said, we didn’t want to start from a major scheme and go back to your lives, because the gap’s so great, and we were going to start from your lives and back off an inch at a time. Just for the moment we’ll look at it this way. If you take the whole universe as one thing – this is our understanding of it at the moment, anyway – it has levels and levels and levels and levels, and each level is a sort of a [pause] recapitulation at a higher level of the level beneath it. Or if you look at it from the other way, each level is a miniaturized version of the level above it. [pause]
That gives entirely the wrong connotations. We can see people making boxes within boxes, but that’s not what we mean. Again, this calls for a picture? And the picture is on its way whenever Frank paints it. We’ll do the intermediate picture of plane A and plane B only, then we’ll try to give you a sense of it. But in plane B you will have bundles that are – each of the threads is a whole separate bundle from plane A. You see, that’s what we’re trying to get across. And then plane B itself, one of those bundles goes up to plane C, and a bundle in plane C has multiple bundles from plane B, each of which is multiple bundles from plane A. Et cetera.
Rita: Are we —
Frank: Endless hierarchies.
Rita: I see that, and I’m wondering, does it really happen the other direction? Is the flow from the larger to the smaller? Or is it both ways?
Frank: Well, it’s feedback. Feedback’s always both ways. That’s the point of choice, is that you are affecting things by what you create. In your own body, if some of your cells begin to function autonomously and pathologically and become cancerous, they can threaten the –
No, forget the threat. Let’s look at cancer without the implications about health; just as a phenomenon. If you have cells that function – that are multiplying themselves and are not in sync with the larger purpose of the organism, then what happens ultimately is, that part of the organism cannot function. We’re using that not in any – we’re not interested in talking about disease or health, we’re saying only, it is essential that there be continuous cooperation among levels, and that a lack of cooperation would be a form of a – You could almost describe it as a miniature death.
Now, your religions will describe this lack of cooperation as sin, and we would suggest to you there’s a very interesting discussion to be had by thinking of it theologically and then going back to our own discussion. You see, as a feedback thing.
In other words, those who say these kinds of activities lead to destruction: They’re thinking of it in terms of “you did wrong and somebody will punish you,” but you might look at it is, “you are off base, you are missing the mark” – the classical definition of sin – and that way leads nowhere good.
Okay? That’s a little bit of a side issue, but not entirely. Your initial question was, “who is bundling the bundles? Who’s making the bundles?”
Rita: Yes, I’m really asking the creation question.
Frank: And what we’re trying to say is, it’s almost impossible to really answer the question, because there are so many levels. It involves, “who created and interacts with us?” And who created and interacts with the next level up and up and up and up, you know?
Rita: So there’s a temptation always to move to the Big Picture, and I understand your not wanting to do that.
Frank: Well, no! No, we don’t object to going to the big picture starting from this end. We’re just trying to tie it all from this end rather than starting in space and trying to come back and find you, if you see what we mean.
Rita: You’ve always have trouble with that, you said.
Frank: [Not getting Rita’s joke] Well, that was a different thing; that’s talking about actually finding you in the given moment. But we mean, if we were to go conceptually and say, “and this is how things are” – and people have done that. And they have done it with great skill. But it becomes difficult for the individual sometimes to see how that connects with them. And that’s the only reason why we’re trying to do it backwards.
But within all that, there is no one creator — other than the ultimate Creator — in the sense that you’re asking the question. Because the question simplifies out too many layers of complexities, and so for us to say that ultimately something does choose – that’s true. But to say it is to mislead, so we’re trying to not mislead and at the same time not – mislead. [laughs] You can mislead one way or you can mislead the other way. Give us a minute and we’ll go over that again.
You may think of each layer, each plane, as being complicated organisms, a tissue, with cells that are interconnected but at the same time individuated. They ahve their own structure, which we’re not going to go into here, just as your own body has structures that connect muscles and nerves and various specialized organs into one functioning being. That’s way too complicated in a little session like this. If we were to try to explain biology to you, it would take forever. The biology of life on the other side is no less complicated, or intricate. And you don’t really need to know it, you know. But what you need is a vague sort of sense of the fact that there is structure on the other side, that it is not just jello, as we’ve said once, that within that structure things are created in an orderly fashion, and within the creation at another level, creation at lower levels happens as a part of the process. We know that’s still vague, but is that at least comprehensible?
Rita: Yes. It raises the question about whether human life is just a casual side-process, byproduct, of some other things that are going on, or is this the true purpose of the whole chain that you’re talking about.
Frank: Well – to us that’s a meaningless distinction. We don’t know what a by-process would be, as opposed to a primary result. Because, what is, is. You have a human – or I should say you have a space-time – tendency to say “this is important and that is unimportant,” or “this is primary and that is secondary,” or “this is trivial, you said, and this is essential.” And we can’t see things that way. The motion through time – going from one time-slice to another — tends to tempt you to prioritize moment by moment. That’s not the kind of temptation that we have. Prioritization implies saying “this is more important now than that,” but when “now” is out of the equation, it doesn’t mean anything to us. [pause] Now, it’s true that we can say “it doesn’t matter whether the leaf falls on that side of the fence or the other side of the fence,” but it’s more like you could say, the question of importance doesn’t arise. It’s not unimportant, and it’s not important. It’s not relevant. The question of importance isn’t relevant to a leaf falling. That’s a clearer distinction than we think we’ve made. Can you see what we’re saying? Or not? Because if not, we’ll keep working at it.
Rita: Well, I think I wasn’t asking about importance, so much as whether it was the main function or not.
Frank: But see, that’s the same thing. That’s exactly the same question.
Rita: Is it?
Frank: Sure. Sure, you’re saying is human life a by-product – meaning almost accidental – or meaning, something that happens but it isn’t the main aim, or is it the main aim? And to us that looks identical as saying, is it important or not important, is it primary or secondary, is it casual or is it causal? Now, we could continue with this; we’re willing to go wherever you want to go with it, but we don’t see the distinction in the way that you see it, at all.
Frank: We could go into your way of thinking if you want, and say “there is nothing casual or byproduct or unimportant about human life.” No, we couldn’t, because we could also say, “yes there is.” [laughs] Your language makes that seem absolutely different: by-product or central aim. But really, what is, is. And there isn’t any “ought” about it. So therefore there isn’t any main product-byproduct about it.
[pause] Now, it’s true that it sneaks into language all the time. We’ve said “you’re here to choose, and you can’t help learning but you’re here to choose.” Inherent in that is the same distinction that we’re saying to you doesn’t exist. This is why few people on our side try to do this. [laughs]
Rita: I see. That explains it.
Frank: Well, it sort of weasels around it, is what it does, but – [laughs]
Rita: This is maybe not the time to continue with this, but I guess – when you look at the big picture, you ahve to ask the question, “well, what’s the purpose of all of this? All of these layers and levels? Does the purpose get extended down to the level of Plane A? Is that the primary thing – and that “primary,” I know, you’ve already responded to that, but —
Frank: But see now, don’t take that as a linguistic quibble, but really see that it doesn’t exist for us.
Rita: Mm-hmm. But if I start at the level of purpose, then one should be able to ask, I think, are there many purposes of which the development of human beings is one, or is this the main purpose of the whole operation?
Frank: [sigh] [pause]
Rita: Have I —
Frank: Your question is clear, but the definition of all of the terms is totally wrong and misleading. Not wrong, I mean — That is to say, to totally define them would be impossible. What’s the purpose of the ocean? You could say, well, it provides a big sink for minerals, or it provides a source of evaporation for clouds or whatever, but the purpose of the ocean is to be the ocean. And [pause]
You are attempting to say nothing much less than “what is the meaning of life? What is the purpose of the universe?”
Rita: Right. That’s what I was asking.
Frank: The meaning of life is to live life, and the purpose of the universe is to exist. Those are totally unhelpful answers. But the happen to be true. But you –
Dead stop. New Sentence.
What is important and what is trivial? How could anyone say “the purpose of the whole cosmos is to create the human being and have the human being live” and how could anyone say that it wasn’t, or that humans are unimportant?
Everything is, and everything that is, is for the reason that it belongs, and has been created, and is – It just is.
It’s interesting. You shelled see this going on inside of Frank’s mind, because he’s always asking these kind of questions, and right now he’s identifying with us as we’re going “there is no purpose about it” and at the same time we know full well that as soon as we’re not here, he’ll be going back to “ah! But the real purpose is..” [laughs]
Again – Rita, we’re not saying this just to you, we’re saying this to everyone who hears and reads this, go to your scriptures. It doesn’t matter what religion you go to, you’ll find the same thing ultimately. It says that existence is here to exist. God created the world to enjoy it. And saw that it was good. The Buddhists would say that it’s illusory but it’s here, and after a while it won’t be here, and then it will be here again. You understand what we’re saying. Your science can’t help you too much here, but your spiritual heritage which has been largely neglected in the west — although not by individuals, but you understand what we mean, it’s not the predominate part of your culture at this moment – your spiritual heritage will give you –
[change sides of tape]
Frank: –each of you as individuals. Hearing what we’re saying and thinking about them, and then reading those scriptures in that light will give you more of a sense of the way things are than just hearing only what we’re saying, or than only just reading the scriptures without thinking about it as a description of reality rather than of pious wishes. Your scriptures are someone’s best shot at describing reality that has been revealed to them.
Sorry about that, but – go on.
Rita: [laughs] I’m just thinking about where to go next.
Frank: You do realize, what you’re doing here, what we’re doing, is exactly where we were going next. If you’ll look back after a while at the sessions, you’ll see that what we’ve been doing is pulling back one plane at a time, to try to show that what looks to you to be either random activity or the plan of one person is neither one. It’s really the way each organ is organized from a higher level, so to speak. The difficulty with this is you think all of your bodily organs are dead, or are automatic, and so the analogy goes dead, or goes automatic. But in actual fact – and you’ll notice that your “trivial question” pins this perfectly – everything is alive, everything contributes in the Living Present, and it is only the Dead Present that fixes things [“fixes” in the sense of immobilizing, rather than in the sense of repairing] and makes it looks like things are static rather than dynamic. When you remember that not only are all of your cells alive and intelligent, but everything down to subatomic particles (which don’t even exist, but say they did) your subatomic energy fixations, — when you remember that all of that is alive up and down, then that analogy becomes a little more alive to you.
You won’t be insulted at being part of a nerve tissue of a larger being, in other words.
Rita: Uh-huh. I think this is still in line with where we’re talking here. I’ve gotten the idea that at your level you are aware that we are all one. [pause] Or certainly more aware of this than we are. [pause]
Frank: All right.
Rita: Correct me as I go along. [laughs]
Frank: Oh, okay. Well, sure – because we’re not existing in time-slices, and the unity becomes more apparent.
Rita: Okay. And you have noted that eventually in our growth, at this level, we will become aware that we are one creature.
Frank: That’s right.
Rita: Does this have anything to do with why we came into physical bodies? [pause] Because presumably when we leave the physical body, we’ll know, because we’ll be at your level.
Frank: Yes! But what will have changed is that people in the physical body will know! Which will make more things possible that are not possible right now. [pause] It isn’t for the sake of you leaving the body and then becoming aware that we’re all one; it is that you are part of the transitional generation that is making it possible for that awareness to survive incarnation in the physical not as the exception but as the rule among individuals. So that you see, in the physical, everything about it will lead you to the idea that you are individuals. Having also the knowledge that you are all one will co-exist with knowing that you’re individuals, in a way that it won’t, outside of time-space. That’s the prettiness of the thing.
Rita: Which is where you are on this, that you recognize that there is an individual level also, but –.
Frank: We do, but our environment tends to make us more aware of the oneness than of the individuality.
Rita: Yes. [pause]
Frank: Now we have to say, you are so polite, you are continually saying “now I think this still goes in with it,” but we’re still scratching our head that we don’t have, as to how it could not fit in. Because it’s coming up at the moment.
Rita: That’s reassuring to me too. I never know. I don’t want to interfere with the development here, and —
Frank: But you see, that’s our question. How could you? If it rises in your mind at the moment, it’s part of the moment. Being part of the moment, it’s got to be part of the –
There’s something we probably ought to explore sometime here, because it’s so obvious to us, and not obvious to you, you and we are each missing something, or we would both be on the same page.
Do you understand what we’re saying?
Rita: Yes, I do.
Frank: Okay. Make a bookmark, and at some point we’ll look at this. There is no possibility of you bringing –
As long as your intent remains with the project, there is no possibility of your bringing up something disruptive or irrelevant. It just could not happen. We can’t imagine how it could happen. Now, if your intent were to wander, then it would be easy.
Rita: Well, the difficulty is that in a way I’m always trying to catch up from something that was said earlier that I didn’t get completely get, and so in a way I don’t know if this forwards our discussion or not.
Frank: But you see that your intent is still right there. You might think of it, if it helps you, as kneading dough. It’s like you’re going back in the past and bringing up something from inside that was later. That was—That was — [laughs] We can’t even do the grammar now, but you understand what we mean. You’re digging your fingers into the dough and pulling out to the outside what had been inside. Well, that’s not impeding the process at all; that is the process.
Rita: Okay. Something else at that level that came up in connection with our discussion of time last —
Frank: Sorry, this is totally irrelevant. [they laugh]
Rita: I got to wondering, the way you were talking about time, whether that only exists as an issue on Plane A. Or does it continue beyond that.
Frank: You mean about how, as you become aware of more dimensions, time compresses? Or do you mean something different?
Rita: I mean that so much of our discussion has had to do with the way things are different in Planes A and B, and that one of the major differences is that we’re operating in a time-space dimension.
Frank: That’s right. That is a primary difference that’s nowhere else than between time-space and non-time-space.
Rita: And is it only a distinction between A and B, or is it also a distinction between B and C, and so forth?
Frank: Distinctions between other levels don’t involve time-space. There are distinctions that are – they’re sort of, how would you say it, they’re inherent in the differences in scale between the two. That’s a spatial analogy, but we can’t help it, you have to have something. But it isn’t like we are relatively being dragged in time-slices, relative to Plane C. That’s not true. We also want to put in a notice here, for anyone who reads this, remember, Plane A does not refer to Planet Earth. Plane A refers to all physical-matter reality. So Alpha Centuri and Earth are both in Plane A, it is not a matter of Earth only. Rita, we know that’s not a problem for you, but this will be read by many people.
So to go back to your question, there are differences among planes, those differences are not equivalent to the difference between Plane A and Plane B. Plane A is really a unique –
We hardly know –
Plane A is – Well, think of it as a specialized workshop or a specialized laboratory or something. That doesn’t mean there aren’t other equivalent experiments elsewhere, but we don’t need to talk about those. You remember, Bob Monroe talked about Someone Somewhere making a garden, and he was talking basically about the creation of time-space? That’s a pretty good analogy, because there can be other experiments elsewhere, but you’ll never know of them, and what difference does it make? For our purposes, anyway. Except to know that there are others.
Rita: Well is this an issue you deal with, though?
Frank: Until you brought it up, no. [laughs] Being part of plane B, meaning being part of the non-time-space physical, we could conceivably dip into anything that was going on, we suppose. But in actual fact, it isn’t really our business. Our business is – we are the closest thing there is to time-space. That’s our business. That’s what we do attend to, it’s what we want to attend to, and that’s how we get our meaning in our life, being the interaction between Plane A and Plane C.
Rita: So you don’t have anyone in plane C that’s explaining to you why your perspective is difficult for them to understand?
Frank: The difference between plane A and plane B is unique. The difference between Plane B and any other planes doesn’t involve having to translate to explain differences in things like time segments, and delayed consequences, and stuff. So that although we are at a different level of being than other planes, it’s not qualitatively different experientially as it is between us and you.
And we will remind you, “us and you” is misleading, because us and you are the same thing, with part of us in one place and part the other.
Oh, we should maybe say that one of the reasons we give you tedious little repetitions like that – it is, we think, important to continually knead the dough, actually. (It’s a very good analogy) It’s important to continually bring stuff up that should be assumed but might not be thought of in that context, and since there are so many people who are unpredictably going to read this, there would be no way of knowing who needs what when.
Rita: [pause] Okay. Also, last time we talked for the first time as far as I’m aware about the issue of soul groups.
Frank: Well, that’s what we’re getting at ultimately. If you have a million different individuals in Plane A who are part of something in Plane B, from your point of view they will look like a soul group.
Rita: I thought I understood you to say last time that Frank’s soul group would include those other figures that represent his essence somehow in another lifetime. Or is a soul group something other than that, or only those incarnations that he had at other times and places?
Frank: If we said something that was interpreted that way, or if we said it, that’s terribly wrong. What we probably meant to say was that in a given lifetime you can form a sort of miniature cable yourself, and that cable – that is to say, out of your billion threads, you’ve taken 300,000 of them, and they have been made into what you might call a complex, and that complex can be shared with others. You’ve made a more complicated organism, or sub-organism. And anything up and down your threads particularly individuated pieces like that can be considered part of your soul-group.
But – beware of making this too individual again, so that the idea of Frank then becoming, or having been, another person sneaks in through the back door. That’s not the way it works, exactly. It is true, that there are elements that can be passed forth, and those elements are strong enough, important enough, individualized enough, that it appears, “oh yes, that was my lifetime.” Frank and Bertram, for instance. Frank and Columba, Frank and the Egyptian, Frank and David all share significant mini-cables, if we should call them that and in fact Frank, the Egyptian, and Bertram share one of the same mini-cables. That does not mean that we should now go back to looking at it as an individual, reincarnating.
Where you should look is in a right-angle away from that. That is to say, if you look at all of Plane A, and you’re looking sideways and going “well, here’s the Egyptian, here’s the British,” you can go at right angles straight up toward plane B, and there you will find an individual cell of Plane B contains many different threads, each of which extend to Plane A but don’t necessarily extend from one to the other of Plane A, but some might. If you will –
Let’s see, let’s give you a visual analogy here. Think of two planes, one being the Earth’s surface and another being a parallel plane above it. From the parallel plane above it, —
I know, let’s make it a UFO. From the UFO depends, I mean hangs, strings that go to 53 different cities in the United States, and each of those attach to a different person there. The inhabitant of that UFO – and please understand, we’re not really talking about UFOs, we’re just making a visual analogy – the inhabitant of that UFO is now tied to each of those 50 people at the end of the strings, and they are all — unbeknownst to themselves, perhaps – tied to each other. But some of them on the ground may be talking on the telephone to each other. Or may be – well, anyway, you understand what we’re saying to you. We hope you do, anyway.
And on the level of Plane B you may have one unit tying many units of Plane A. Within Plane A, many of those units may interconnect already. Or they may in the course of a lifetime form interconnections. Or they may not. In any case, they are one unit that don’t recognize all the parts of themselves as one unit.
Does that help at all?
Rita: Well, presumably though there is some reason why particular threads are combined into that cable? Or is this just a random matter?
Frank: No, no. Nothing in the world is random. No, you’re right, there is reason – but the reason’s different for each one. And the reason may not even be anything that you can even understand in Plane A, from any individual perspective. It is a form of us on Plane B throwing a question into Plane A and saying “what happens if you combine this, this and this? What kind of flower can we create? What kind of a firework would go off?” You know? And to any of the individual elements of that, it might not be a –
It isn’t that you’re dumb. It isn’t that you’re ignorant. It isn’t that you’re incapable of understanding. But it is that it’s at a different level of being that won’t mean anything to you. If you were to project a picture –
Oh, suppose you took some famous art and showed it to a dog. The dog might be able to see the colors but probably would not be able to get even the pattern, let alone the intensity of emotion that the pattern is intended to convey. Now of course you’re dogs, but you used to be worms, so you’re working your way up the scale. But you understand what we’re saying. The question would not be a meaningful question to you, because it’ll be too broad, to you it will seem too nebulous on the one hand and too broad on the other hand. It would be like saying, “what’s the meaning of the civil war?” There’s millions of meanings of the civil war. But who would ever be able to describe it, or to explain it? Particularly who would be able to explain it – hoo, boy. We’re going to drop this unless you need to continue with it. I mean, we’re going to drop our explanation and we can go about it again if you wish.
Rita: When you describe something like this and present it as an experiment, that changes the whole imagery for me. You’re saying, well let’s try this combination, put together all the reds and greens or something —
Frank: Let’s see what we come up with.
Rita: — and that’s, rather than having a plan, you’re testing various hypotheses. Is that the case?
Frank: Well, why don’t you just say we’re playing? We’re creating. We’re enjoying ourselves, with the proviso that we, in painting a picture, are also part of the paint. But still, we’re playing. Life is not as serious as would justify saying “an experiment or a plan or a workshop” – although, it could be. But it seems to us the nuance is better if we just say we’re creating.
Again, going back to the scriptures, there are scriptures that say God was enjoying himself creating, you know, he just was being God. He was doing his thing. Well, we’re all part of God, we’re all doing our thing. Being creative is part of being human. Since being human is part of us, being creative — you can surely see – is part of us.
Rita: I thought when we started I was trying to get our level A into the creative process also, and I felt you were saying “no, let’s not call it co-creation,” the creative level is your level, not our level.
Frank: Oh, I see. No, the nuance was different. Okay. The prime difficulty with language is that within the context at any given moment, the same word will actually mean something different. It’ll connote something different.
You, we, everything in the universe is creative, but creative within limits. And those limits are whatever the limits are that are around you. You are in Virginia today, you are not in Montana; you can only be creative in Virginia. You are in 1925 today, you’re not in 1834 today, you can only be creative in 1925. You know. You are part of a certain organism – seen from the point of view of Plane B – therefore you cannot be creative as part of a different organism that you’re not a part of.
We realize, that all sounds tautological and probably is tautological – but the creativity has limits that are the limits of your situation, but they shouldn’t ever be experienced as irksome limitations, because they just are [what they are, given the situation]. If you’re a male, you’re not a female. If you’re in one country, you’re not in another country. If you’re in Plane A at a certain time and space, you’re not somewhere else. Within the limits of where you are, you’re free to do as you wish. But within those limits, and there’s no way to get outside those limits, and no reason to get outside those limits.
We feel like we’re sort of going in circles here.
Rita: I feel like I understand what you said. [pause] Is there some direction now that you would like to move in before we finish up?
Frank: Are we close to the end then?
Rita: Well, we have over ten minutes, more than ten minutes.
Frank: Well, what I am getting, for the last couple of minutes I’ve been getting a really clear visual of a dome. Supposing you were looking at the skeleton of a dome, so that you have one central piece and then all of the pieces that go off at different angles, down to the ground of it. Only this dome is more like a spaceship, and outside the windows that connect the things, you see stars, you see outer space. Beautiful picture. Now whether that’s relevant to anything, I don’t know, but since they’re saying that nothing’s irrelevant, I’ll put it on the record anyway.
I would like to go to Focus 27 and I don’t know why, but presumably they’ll tell us. Or it will be become obvious.
Rita: We’ll see what we can do.
Frank: Do we have time?
Rita: We’ll try that.
Frank: [pause] By the way, you’ll notice for some while my breathing’s been perfectly fine.
Rita: It’s gotten gradually better it seems during the session and it’s been strong for quite a while. [pause] We’re moving up through focus levels.
Frank: [yawns] There’s no catch in my lung now when I breathe. [long pause]
Well, I’m in a chamber, and I’m lying in a chamber whose ceiling slants upward on one side. It’s like being under the pyramid again. Not under the peak of the pyramid, where everything would be symmetrical, but on one side. I painted this once. Where they would lie in the sarcophagus with the open top. It was a concentration –
There were two different uses for that. One was the initiation, where they would seal it and the person had to remain alive with what would normally be inadequate oxygen, and they either would survive and have moved to another place, or they would not, and would be given a hero’s burial. But there was another, more common use for that same place, which was much like what we’re doing. It was insulated by all that stone from everything and something welled up within that structure to make it easier for them to connect with the other side. And it is as though I am there now.
Bruce Moen and Stephen Iordanos and I had a discussion about this, about a machine that could be created that would thin the veils between the two sides, and I think that this thing is a stone equivalent machine. We don’t think of machines as being stone, but the stone was a huge carefully constructed insulating device that not only concentrated consciousness the way the black box does, but insulated in every direction except from the bottom, because what it was doing was like something welled up from the earth into the pyramid. They were at an apex of that energy. And it’s like you can –
The image that I get is that it’s like you can see right through the pyramid. Looking up in space. You move – non-physically of course – from being confined to the evidence of your senses to being beyond your senses without being out of your mind. In other words, you could bring the information back. And I believe that whoever I’m connected to, the Egyptian, that cable that connects us is the training that he got, to do this, and that he and I, connecting through Plane B, presumably – although I don’t know, but that’s my assumption – were part of the same, and Bertram, part of the same experiment on the other side’s part. I don’t know that we’re a particularly important or unimportant part of the experiment. I don’t have any sense at all that we’re unique. You know, there’s large numbers doing it. But that this is one of the strings that’s going to lead us as a people to an in-body consciousness of the fact that we’re all one, that we’re all connected upstairs and then ultimately that we’re one.
Obviously if there is no time as an absolute to be considered, it’s not difficult for them to be dealing with the Egyptian and me and Bertram and presumably all those others at the same non-time. It is as though they are a hidden thread in history. No, it’s as though they’re intersecting history at right angles. If you took all of our history as one long plane, they’re at right angles to the plane. Therefore since the light that they’re shining shines in all different places on the plane, it looks to us nonsensical and unconnected, because here’s a piece of light here, and then 13 years go by and there’s a piece of light here, and then three civilizations go by and there’s a piece of light here – well, what can they have to do with each other? Nothing. And of course, once you get outside of time and space, they have everything to do with each other. It’s the same phenomenon. Which has the interesting complication that the older one in time can influence the younger one in time through cables, and this is a –
I think this is where they may go next. Not this session, of course, but next time. They may go into the necessity for the past coming before the present coming before the future. How that affects things from their point of view. Because what I’m getting is a clear sense of them holding all the strings on their end and at the end of all these strings are us, but we of course are influenced by what’s happened before us. I mean, I wouldn’t be in the black box if Bob hadn’t had the black box built. So that will tie together some things that I don’t think we, anyway, have tied together, and we will see.
If I may have just a few minutes lying here, it would be very nice.
Rita: Yes, feel free to do that.
Frank: Call me when you need to bring me back.
Rita: All right, I will.
Frank: [six minutes, 37 seconds of silence] Okay.
Rita: All right. We’ll get things organized here for your return.
Rita: Let the sounds help bring you back.
Frank: [yawns] [long pause] [yawns]
Rita: I’m going to count you back from 10. [Does so.] One, one, awake and alert. Skip will be in shortly to get you unhooked.