Edited transcript of a PREP session in the Bob Monroe Lab at TMI held Tuesday morning, July 20, 2004, Skip Atwater at the controls, Rita Warren at the microphone, Frank in the black box.
Rita: Good morning.
Frank: I’m here.
Rita: We had decided to try this morning to see if it’s possible for Frank as he usually is, to be separated a bit more from the guys. We have no idea how this will work, but our intent was to see if I could talk to the guys with Frank playing off on the beach somewhere, or something. And Frank has some questions about whether or not this is possible, but let me start by asking to speak to the gentlemen.
Frank: [pause] Well, I don’t know what else to do but just respond as usual.
Rita: All right. Respond as usual, then. Let the interpreting or evaluating part slip away as much as possible and we’ll keep our eye on what is being perceived. We’ll see if that works.
We have some questions this morning from some individuals who’ve read the transcripts. I’d like to start with that if that seems okay.
The first questions were from Jon H.
One thing probably worth noting here is that many of the questions that come in are from individuals who haven’t read earlier transcripts, those that were done in 2002 and possibly 2003. So much of this material has been covered already, but of course since there’s a new group of readers now, and, gentlemen, you’ve said that it’s not irritating to you for us to ask questions a second or third time.
I think the questions from Jon have to do primarily with the relationship between Frank and TGU, and in looking at the relationship. You’ve said that Frank is part of your mind; that’s one of the quotes from last week. What is this role that you play? Can that be specified? As opposed to the role Frank plays, which we understand to be an attempt to voice your ideas. Can you speak about what parts you play in your relationship with Frank.
Frank: Sure. We gave an image a long time ago to him in the black box. He was in 27, paddling a canoe on a river, just for fun, and found that he couldn’t keep his perspective at canoe level. It kept popping way up in the air, and looking down on the canoe and the canoer, and then going back to the canoe and back and forth. And that was just our way of showing just what you’re asking. The person in 3D experiences everything immediately and vitally. The person outside of 3D experiences everything in a non-time-space perspective. So you might look at it is, the part of yourself that’s outside of 3D holds the page and keeps perspective, remembers what the game is all about, and gives off helpful hints as well as receives feedback. The part of you that’s in 3D is there specifically to not remember the perspective, but to react immediately to the life. Now, what we’re saying “immediately” may mean to you 80, 100 years, but it’s “immediately” in terms of it’s confined to that life.
[pause] Does that explain the difference in function?
Rita: I think Jon is asking specifically about roles like co-creation, execution, fate, manifestation – these are some of the examples he uses of things that he could imagine the guys being responsible for. Is that a possible answer to that question?
Frank: [pause] Well, we prefer to go to a different aspect of the question, because it will subsume all of those. You as an individual in 3D are containing elements, some of which are contradictory; some of which don’t even like each other; some of which have a tremendous tension, staying in the same place. And when you are contained within your body and your own psyche, you feel like it is you, even though you are at war with yourself. When you experience it in the part of yourself that’s outside 3D, you see the differences in the threads and strands and tendencies much more clearly, and, not recognizing them in your 3D aspect, you think that they are different than you.
You see? So all the questions about fate, and co-creation and all assume more of a difference between the in-3D part and the outside-3D part than is real.
Rita: Yes. Along with that is another question that seems to make that same assumption. He’s asking about disagreements between the earth-plane individual and TGU, and asking, if there is a disagreement, is there any way of negotiating that difference during a lifetime.
Frank: [pause] Probably the best way to say it is, you as an individual in 3D may choose which threads you emphasize and which ones you disregard. You either will choose it purposely or you will choose it by default, because you couldn’t possibly follow or emphasize every thread. As we told you, there are billions of them, so if you wish to choose yourself, if you wish to create yourself, if you wish to have certain elements dominant and others more recessive, it’s a matter of following those threads. This will then, depending on your own makeup, appear to you as conflict between you in 3D and them outside 3D, or between parts of them and other parts of them outside 3D, or conflict within yourself – all of which is sort of true, because it’s all a matter of viewpoint.
Rita: [pause] All right. Another aspect of this same question. Jon asks, is there any way we can pay back these TGU group or individuals or totality, whatever, is there some way in which we could thank them for their services.
Frank: Yes, you can live your life as best you do. That is the thanks. In other words, your active willing cooperation with God, if you want to put it in theological terms; your active willing collaboration with the part of yourself that’s outside time and space, if you want to put it in the metaphor that we’re using – that is your thanks. Anything else is just lip-service.
[pause] We could say a little more on that, actually. You’ll notice that Jesus said everything is contained in two commandments: Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself. If instead of looking at those as pious platitudes, you look at them as psychological directives, you’ll see that that is exactly what we just said.
Rita: [pause] Thank you for that. There’s only one other thing here from Jon. He asks for clarification of a number of terms, and I don’t know if this will be a meaningful question to you, since they’re our terms, but he asks for a clarification of higher self, soul, oversoul, I-There, for example.
Frank: Mm-hmm. Well, for the purposes of self-exploration, all of those things may be looked at as more or less, slightly different metaphors for the same reality. It still all boils down to the fact that the part of you that is inside time-space experiences things in time-slices with delayed consequences one moment at a time and chooses what threads it would follow. The part of you that is outside time and space, having set up that experiment by putting you into time-space, wishes you well, is interested in your choices, and welcomes you back when you flow out of time and space again. (At least, that’s a way of looking at it.) None of the other things – they’re all theoretically interesting, but none of them have any practical effect, because once you begin to connect with the part of yourself that’s outside of time and space, the more deeply you connect, the more satisfying a life, the more you function, the more open and loving a person you become, and the theory is just –
The only reason to give the theory is to give people a handle, to allow themselves to function. The older ways of explaining the world are dead to you, so we’ve had to come to a new way that would make sense to where you are from. And that’s all that’s going on. The myth of the Christian worldview is as dead to many people as the myth of the Grecian myths of Zeus, or the Egyptian myths. A myth is not a lie, and it’s not a fairy-tale; a myth is an attempt to clothe the reality that can’t be seen in comprehensible form so that it gives you a way to deal with your life. Don’t know if we can do much better than that.
Saying “an oversoul,” or saying “a higher self” is a way of reminding people that they extend beyond time-space. And anything beyond that may or may not be an accurate reflection of a detail, but it won’t have a lot of practical consequences.
Rita: One more thing, because of the fact that many have not read those earlier sessions. Many others refer to this energy beyond time and space as if it were something other than a part of the same individual. Can you speak a little bit to that issue, seeing that energy as either higher self or another creation altogether.
Frank: Well, one of our persistent themes for four years here has been, everything depends on your point of view. Something that is seen as one small part of something larger is a valid way to see it. Something that is seen as individual units cooperating is a valid way to see it. Neither is the only way to see it. Nothing in the universe is disconnected. There’s only one everything. And if there were two everythings, it would be two everythings that were part of a larger everything. So it’s just meaningless words. There isn’t some big dividing line and on one side is one thing and on another side is another thing. But there are many, many relative dividing lines. So, it’s just – if people will hold that in mind, they’ll realize that anything that appears separate may be relatively separate, but is still connected, and that anything that is connected may seem relatively the same, but there are still distinctions. It’s all proportional point of view.
[pause] Let us know when any of this doesn’t answer the question, and we’ll pursue it. Just help us by —
Rita: Yes, I will do that. [pause] I have a question from another reader of the transcripts asking about something that we have discussed before, about an individual energy that becomes crystallized at some point during their lifetime, and the question has to do with whether or not those lifetimes that don’t get crystallized – spools, I guess, that don’t get crystallized – is that because their impact on the world was largely negative?
Frank: No, not because – Well, if by negative you mean “negligible,” yes. But if by negative you mean undesirable, no. The only footnote we would put there is, when you say impact on the world, that’s not a matter of whether or not it was evident in 3D Theater. It’s more a matter of whether or not they were [pause] worth keeping (whether that experiment was worth recording, if you want to look at it that way) from our point of view. Many a flower blooms in silence and is never observed, but it’s still a beautiful flower and it’s worth keeping.
Rita: Is there anything that you can add here? I summarized this question a little too much, I think. Is there anything that you can say that would generally capture the idea of which forms – lifetimes, spools — might be crystallized?
Frank: [long pause] Well, it’s hard to get a handle on the question. From whose point of view? In other words, do you mean that question from someone saying, “what do I need to do to be sure that my life will be worth being crystallized?” And the answer would be, live your life as intensely and as sincerely and as [pause] integrally – we don’t know how to say it, really. Be yourself as much as you can be, and the chances are you will come up with — not by being eccentric or spectacular or famous or weird or anything, but just by being the most “yourself”, you will be more individual, therefore presumably more worthwhile. However, we would caution against the idea that it is: “I am alive and if I don’t do the right thing, they won’t keep me and I will cease to be alive.” Anyone to whom that question occurs is already individual.
[False starts.] This is one that requires a picture rather than words, because all the words mislead. The less said on this, almost, the better. Not because it’s a secret, but because it can’t be expressed without being distorted. We’ll go back to what we said originally. Live your life with intensity and integrity, and that’s what you need to know practically. The rest is theory.
Rita: Okay, thank you. There’s one other part to this that I don’t know quite how to interpret. He’s asking if something that’s worthy of becoming crystallized, a crystallized personality, can be drawn on in the future.
Frank: By whom?
Rita: Well, I assume he means by that individual who’s been crystallized. Can that be used in some way with respect to – Maybe he’s asking about other lives. I’m not sure.
Frank: Any crystallized individual, any lens, that has been formed, can be used by us on our side, but to ask, can a lens be used within the context of the lens is sort of contradictory. If you have a lens and you use it to magnify a star (or something microscopic; it doesn’t matter), that’s that the lens is being used for, and that’s why you keep the lens. But there’s nothing that –
The lens won’t even know it’s being used, in a way, if you see what we’re saying. To put it in terms of –
The question makes a basic mistake, and the mistake is rooted in your language. The mistake thinks of the individual life as something individual rather than as part of something, and that’s a mistake in perspective, and in point of view it leads to all sorts of seeming dilemmas, which don’t really exist.
[pause] Do you see what we’re saying? If you are a lens, and you think of yourself only as a lens, and you don’t think of yourself as also part of a system of someone looking through the lens, you’ll not make any sense of your purpose, or of the world, or of why you’re a lens or anything. To think of yourself as an individual to be maximized by living intensely and with integrity, is correct. To think of yourself as an individual that is not a part of everything else, is radically incorrect. Leads you to all the wrong conclusions.
Rita: I think that helps with that question.
Frank: You sound a little doubtful.
Rita: Well, because I don’t know quite what the person was asking. I hope that’s satisfactory to them.
Frank: Well, they can always come back, and we’ll look at it. If they re-phrase, you know.
Rita: One thing that we had raised, or perhaps you had raised, a couple of sessions ago, that we were going to return to at some time – and my question is whether this is the time or not – the issue had to do with the notion of time flowing only in one direction. Is that something we can talk about now.
Frank: Oh, sure. It’s not even a long discussion, but it would have been an interruption.
It’s just – you don’t realize it, but your body, being carried on the earth, is being carried through the absolute structure of time, because the planet is moving. So, given that the planet always moves in one direction – it’s a spiral direction, but it’s still a direction – you can’t go backwards. If the planet were to reverse and go back where it had been, you’d be back in that moment of time. That’s what makes your current experience of time.
So, your planet rotates around the sun; the sun rotates around the galaxy, and the galaxy rotates around something else. You see what we’re saying? Nothing ever goes backwards; nothing ever goes in arbitrary directions; nothing ever goes by fits and starts. Therefore, as you’re dragged through the space, you experience time physically as being uniform and one-directional.
Now, when you go out of your typical experience of time – that is to say, if you go to focus 15 and choose a time – you can’t do it entirely because of course your body is still being carried forward, but you can relatively see where we are; we are not being carried. We can look at what we want to look at.
[pause] It’s way too simple to seem plausible, but that’s how it is.
Rita: And if we were on a planet that rotates the other direction, would that make any difference?
Frank: [pause] Well. Hmm. We assume your question is, would you notice any difference. Because it would make a difference in that you would experience different places in the time area, but you would have nothing to compare it to, so it would still seem like the only normal way.
Frank: Which is good, because how would you function? Well, it would be a more complicated level of function. Actually, that’s an interesting point. As you move more into the fourth and fifth dimensions, that’s what you will experience, and you’ll have to learn to deal with that. Which is what you’re doing. That’s a private note almost to ourselves.
Rita: Mm-hmm. All right, rather than trying to continue with that, I’d like to go back to the area where we got into a discussion about “what is alive?” and you were saying —
Frank: Everything is alive.
Rita: Everything is alive. And I’d like to get into that area a little bit. You described the body as in a process of continual re-creation. And we think about Gaia that way, the Earth is in a process of continual adjustment, or creation, and those seem like characteristics of things that are alive.
Frank: That’s right.
Rita: Now, if you go beyond that to what seem to us things that are not alive, because they don’t involve a continual process of change based on interaction with other live things in the world, like plants for example, that interact with the soil and the sun and whatever the processes of gathering nutrients – if we come to objects that don’t have those characteristics, you’re still talking about that being alive in some way. I used the example of plastic. In what way can we define alive that would include things like plastic?
Frank: Hmm. Well, if you needed such a definition, it would be that anything that is made of living material cannot be non-alive, and that everything is alive because everything comes with the essence of the creator. The created and the creator are equally alive because it’s the same essence, and just because you in time-space with limited senses cannot perceive interactions doesn’t mean they don’t exist. You cannot sensorily perceive the aliveness of the earth, although you do perceive the interaction of its weather systems and things, but you don’t recognize the earth and the other planets and the stars as living creatures like yourself, as intelligences, as growing things.
You can conceptualize it, but you cannot experience it through the senses, although you can experience it though the heart (as a shorthand, you know). You can experience it through the –
Love is the connector, and as you expand your ability to love, you may experience an intuitive understanding – that’s the best way we can say it – of the fact that everything is alive. This is – Well, in fact, this is another example of your, so far, confused and fragmentary perceptions of another dimension. As you have more experience of that other dimension and you begin to organize your perceptions, you see that what has appeared to you as confused feelings are actually confused initial perceptions and you see that in fact everything is alive and everything is connected, and it is all connected through love because love is connection. That’s tautology, although it doesn’t seem like it to your language.
We’re sorry that’s not very helpful, but —
Rita: Well, I can get a picture of the way children react to some of their toys that from our point of view aren’t alive but the child reacts to the teddy bear or the doll or whatever as though in fact they were alive.
Frank: Well, no, it isn’t “as though” at all. The child is reacting to –
Well, we’re mixing many things with the same words. For the moment take the teddy bear and pretend as you do that the teddy bear’s stuffing and fur and button eyes and all are not alive. Even leaving that pretense there, the child experiences the teddy bear as a – [pause] the child interacts with the teddy bear through love. It recognizes the interaction and projects onto the bear a reality that your reality says is not there.
That’s one layer. Another layer, though, is, the very stuffing and fuzz of the teddy bear is made of material which is alive, because everything is alive. And because stuffing cannot procreate, cannot ingest, cannot exhale, does not mean it’s not alive, because it’s still made of a live matter. There’s no other –
I mean, ultimately, matter doesn’t even exist. As you say matter is energy. Well, what’s energy? Energy is angels pushing things around. Do you understand what we’re saying to you? You are all – we are all, because we are part of you – it would be truer to say we’re part of a dream than that we are part of something physical and material, because we’re well above the physical and material; and the physical and material is a part of the dream that is being dreamed.
That doesn’t seem to you at all responsive to your questions, and to us it seems entirely responsive.
Rita: Well, no in fact it does, —
Frank: Oh good.
Rita: — and that’s a very nice reminder to us of some of the things that we also believe and haven’t connected.
Let me try these while I’m thinking of them as part of a general theme here. They seem quite diverse, the questions, but let me try to continue on this theme of the notion of continual creation in the body. I don’t know if that’s creation or re-creation.
Frank: Don’t worry about those terms. We’ll follow your meaning.
Rita: Okay, once started in the body, this process of creation, the process continues as e live a lifetime. Presumably there was a force that started that process, and a force that ends it. That is, the physical form. Can we talk a little bit more about this force?
Frank: Yes, where did it come from?
Rita: You used the term “automatic” before, but that doesn’t seem like it answers our question very well.
Frank: Well, we don’t understand your question at all. Why are you postulating a new force?
Rita: What is the old force?
Frank: [laughs] Why are you postulating a new –? I mean, you come into the world, you live, and you leave the world. Where’s the need for an extra force, here?
Rita: We understand or at least can describe some of the physiological things that happen (if we stick to the body, now, here). At some point, through a series of forces which we don’t understand, a joining of the sperm and the egg happens and the process begins.
Frank: They follow the energetic process from the other side. That’s correct. That’s why they form.
Rita: And at the end, the physical body dies, as we think of it —
Frank: Because it’s following the energetic pattern from the other side. What Frank calls “pulling the plug.” So where’s the need for other force here?
Rita: Well, I at one time explored with you who’s doing the “pulling the plug”?
Frank: We are, always.
Rita: And you’ve said to us that the plug was pulled from the other side.
Frank: Always. That’s what’s wrong with suicide.
Rita: Okay. So this whole process we can say this is one of the differentiating characteristics between us and The Gentlemen Upstairs.
Frank: Well no, you’re making a false distinction there. Look, how can somebody inside time and space regulate time and space? So when we put a part of ourselves into time and space, we put it there and we take it out again. You can’t take yourself out again, and you can’t put yourself in again.
Rita: Okay, and then you get into the question of distinguishing those things that are our choice and those things that aren’t, at this basic physiological level.
Frank: What do you mean? Do you mean in terms of choosing what your body will look like?
Rita: We were sent here to choose and choose and choose.
Frank: Yes, but remember, we have always said your predetermination is, where and when and what you start as, and the limits from that. Your freedom is, within those limits you choose as best you can and we don’t care. Well, not exactly true that we don’t care, but you understand what we’re saying. We respect your choices.
But if you’re born in Africa, you can’t be born in Asia. We’ve gone through this many times. If you’re born now, you can’t be born then. If you’re a man, you can’t be a woman, you know, all of that. So those are the pre-determinants. You have to have pre-determinants in order to be a determined experiment, or, you know, to be something finite. Then from within there your freedom is what you’re all about.
Rita: But this is a question that seems on the boundaries somehow. If you say, a physical life begins, and physical life ends, is that more like “you can’t be a woman if you’re a man,” or is that more like “this is something about which you have no choice”?
Frank: Oh, but remember, now, we’re –
Okay, this is –
What happened here is, we’re talking about life as if any given variant were the only life. But you have to remember while we’re discussing this, all variants are real. Within the choice, some die young, some die old, some die in the middle. And within each of those variants that’s the limit of the thing. But that’s not to say that any one variation’s limits are absolute. They’re not. They’re only limits for that variant.
[pause] Did that confuse things somehow?
Rita: I don’t understand that.
Frank: All right. You were born at a certain time, and you die at a different time depending on the variation. In some variants you die when you’re 20, some when you’re 40, some when you’re 60, some when you’re 80, some when you’re 100, okay? In any given variant, it looks like the only real variant. So we’ve just been treating it as though life were one variant, just for the sake of simplification. But you have to take one variant as if it were a slice, and expand it sideways so that now instead of a slice it’s the full sphere. Within that whole sphere is the absolute limitations. But you’re only going to look at it one slice at a time, because you only experience one reality at a time.
Rita: [pause] Yes. It’s interesting how different that sounds if you’re operating as an individual and thinking about your individual-ness as you go through the process of birth, and death. And you’re speaking from a different perspective that —
Frank: Well, yes. [laughs]
Rita: — that is not holding the individual in mind, but the moving in and out of this larger context.
Frank: That’s right. And the only value to these discussions to you is that we are from a different context, from a different perspective. We’re just helping you to triangulate the way things are.
Rita: Yes, and we appreciate that. I think.
Frank: [laughs] You think?
Rita: How is the experience working for Frank, this experiment we’re running here?
Frank: Well, I don’t know that I feel any difference, really. It’s – I’m just lying here in the dark and occasionally –
Well, I don’t really feel any difference. I don’t see how I’m ever going to feel any difference. I’m perplexed about it, because when I’m required to hear and talk, I don’t see how I can –
Like, I’ve tried daydreaming, and I’ve tried leaving the box, and –
Rita: Well, that’s fine. It’s okay if the experiment turns out one way or another.
Frank: Apparently it depends on which variant you look at, which way the experiment turns out. I’m not lying here frustrated, but I really don’t see any difference.
Rita: This came up originally, as I recall, because in our last session I had used the word “ego” and talked about encouraging you to put your ego in the conversion box, and you said your practice was not to do that, but to leave the box open, and that you could proceed perfectly well with the ego, I guess.
Frank: Oh, that’s right, I forgot we were going to put me inside the box. Well, I can try crawling in the box if you want, and let’s see what happens. It’ll be different.
Rita: And what have you put in the box?
Frank: Well, me, but you seem to have followed me.
Rita: This is the total you, or part of you?
Frank: These are just words. I don’t know.
Rita: Well, we’re talking for example about, is it the left brain that’s being put in the box; is it your totality including your spirit?
Frank: I just envisioned the box and I put myself in the box and closed the lid.
[change sides of tape]
Frank: — I don’t know. I don’t see how it can be done.
Rita: Well part of the difficulty here I think is you were saying put yourself in the box, and I’m saying maybe it makes a difference which part of yourself you put in the box.
Frank: Well —
Rita: You had the visualization of putting your physical in the box?
Frank: I just visualized the box and I just climbed in and closed the door. Not necessarily a body at all, I just sort of put my whole energy inside of it.
Rita: Well, there may have been some difficulty that arose out of our definitions of ego. And I don’t want that to confuse the picture.
Frank: you want me to put my left brain in the box and see what happens?
Frank: I told you what happened with Ed [Carter}; he clicked out. All right, let’s find out. [pause] Okay.
Rita: And are you speaking to us now from the box, or from outside the box?
Frank: Rita, I don’t know.
Rita: All right, that’s okay. It seems the same as usual, though, the communication?
Rita: All right, well that’s apparently not a useful way of thinking about it. [pause] This is in an effort to–
Frank: Wait a minute, though, something is –. Give me a couple of minutes here. Something’s happening. [pause of 45 seconds] Well, maybe not. Started to feel feelings, I don’t know. The right side of my body just felt different, and so I thought maybe something was happening. Felt like it was getting larger.
Rita: Hmm. [pause] All right, well the point in this exercise I think had to do with my request to you to put the ego in the box had to do with trying to get you to not focus on a lot of the things that seemed to be agitating to you before you got into the box.
Frank: Like what?
Rita: Thinking about the political situation and so on.
Frank: When has that ever bothered us in the box?
Rita: Well, I don’t know that it has. But that you were coming into the session talking about this and talking quite involved emotionally almost —
Frank: “Almost?” [laughs] Almost?
Rita: — about the political issues, and my thought was that will interfere —
Frank: But you know —
Rita: –with the session, and I think you’re saying that’s not true.
Frank: You and I have had this argument now for three years. From the very beginning you’ve said, “put yourself aside and let’s talk to the guys,” and from the beginning I’ve said it doesn’t work that way with me. And I don’t think you’ve ever believed it, and so when we’re talking to the guys, I just talk in the third person about Frank, and then when I’m talking, I talk in the first person about Frank, but the only difference –. There is a little difference, but I can’t tell you what it is. But it’s not –
You’re making more of an absolute difference than exists. There really isn’t that distinction. Or if there is, I’ve never experienced it, let’s put it that way.
Rita: I’m very aware that’s true.
Frank: There’s another thing.
Frank: My early life was extremely difficult and confused and ineffective because I didn’t realize that this was going on. This has been true my whole life. And neither I nor anyone else had any framework to think of that. It wasn’t until I learned about what was going on – by way of the tapes and then Gateway – that I began to make sense of what my life had always been.
Rita: And you haven’t said exactly what that was that was going on early that you didn’t know about.
Frank: Well, in other words, the continual influx into my conscious life of input from the guys – there’s no way that our society ever recognized that. And so it couldn’t teach me, and I couldn’t tell it because I assumed it was true of everybody, that this was why my life was the way it is. Was. Is, whatever. Anyway, we can talk about it if you want.
Rita: Okay, and if you don’t mind talking about this a little bit longer, I think it might be useful to some people who are reading about this.
Rita: We’re somehow distinguishing between you and the guys, and they’ve said all along you’re one and the same.
Frank: And I have too.
Rita: Yes. You understand it that way.
Rita: However, when you start talking about subdividing “you”, saying there’s a left brain and a right brain, and that whichever side it is for you left-handers is a somewhat different operation than the other hemisphere of the brain, and that we think of one of these sides as being the analyzer, the separator, the evaluator, the phenomenon that is a temporary phenomenon during the lifetime, and the other part as more connected to the spirit and more connected to the other side. Are those distinctions okay with you?
Frank: I think they’re probably not literally true, but they certainly do work metaphorically. And I would also say that not only is the left brain temporary, but it’s also temporal. I think the left brain is what holds us in one time and one place at a time. If you look at Keli Lindelien’s book on autism, observing her son, she believes – I don’t know if she would sign off on this, but I believe that she believes that autism is a suppression of left-brain function. But I mean, other than that, yes, I more or less buy that.
In fact, you know, Frank, downstairs: what do I have as a way to judge it? It just sounds right to me.
Rita: So do the guys feel that they relate primarily to one side or the other of the brain?
Frank: Oh no. No, no. We – look, we put you into existence. We don’t put you –
The distinctions are distinctions for the sake of analysis, and they are relatively true in terms of function, but all of this is only relative. You are – as individual as you are, you’re all one thing within that individuality. And of course, it’s also true that the individuality isn’t true, but it’s relatively individual, all right? But within that, the part of ourselves that is inside time and space and is labeled one person is all feeding back to us, and we’re all feeding back to it. It’s not like we primarily relate to you through your right brain and then it gets interpreted and you deal with it in the left brain. It isn’t like we’re exiled out of your left brain. It’s that the left brain’s function is to hold you. And the right brain’s function is to hold you as well, but it holds you more in –
One of its functions is to hold you in an attitude, in a – what’s the word? There’s a word that’s the equivalent of attitude, but we don’t mean an emotional attitude. It holds you in a stance, between our side and your side. It also has the function of holding you in spatial relationships, on your side.
[pause] That probably didn’t help anything.
Rita: Yes. I think this discussion’s very useful, because maybe we’ve been making those assumptions, but I don’t think we’ve said it.
Frank: Well here’s our difficulty. And our challenge, and our opportunity; it’s all the same thing. What we take for granted is the world as Frank sees the world, and what he takes for granted is the way that he sees us and the world, and therefore there’s more of a set of shared understandings between upstairs and downstairs in the one individual you know as Frank than there is between anything and verbal description of that understanding. Again, pictures will help somewhat, but you are now getting things that he and we both thought had been obvious, and we’re beginning to see it’s because we’re taking him as more representative than perhaps he is.
Rita: That may be it, but it also seems to be a matter of our just not verbalizing some of the assumptions.
Frank: Yes, that’s what we just said. [laughs]
Rita: This is very helpful.
Rita: [pause] We had, a few weeks ago, talked, and you’d given us the notion that we were going to be moving into quite a different area now, and that you’ve introduced the concepts of Plane A and Plane B, and we’ve talked some about that. You seemed to be presenting that as the introduction to a whole new direction we were going to be going. We would like to hear more about what is involved in that new development if you’re able to tell us about that now.
Frank: Well, its’ just – a new direction is a good way to look at it. Think of it as a plane that’s at right angles to your existing plane. It’s just attempting to show you that in fact not only are you as an individual connected with the other side by the forces that shaped you, but also there are levels of meaning at right angles to what you’re accustomed to thinking of. If you will take you and we as one unit, now – in other words, de-emphasizing the difference between being in and out of time-space – and look at us all as one unit, we are a unit of something larger. As we’ve said. That’s where we’re sort of attempting to go to, here.
The temptation is for the concept of Plane A to morph in your mind so that you see it as all of you in time-space on Plane A, and us outside of time-space in Plane B. And that’s not exactly right, at all. You could look at it equally truly as, we and you, together, are on Plane A, in and outside of time-space, and we are all part of beings on Plane B that are of a different order of magnitude than we. So that we are the blood cells in their veins, so to speak.
You will remember, perhaps, that we told you that all the mental spaces that you’re accustomed to thinking of as non-temporal – Focus 21, 27, 35, 49, all that – we explained to you that all of that, and the environment in which those focus levels function are a part of physical matter, and at the same time not quite. It’s like a membrane. That might be a way of looking at it. A membrane, because it connects, integrally, time-space and non-time-space. At the same time, it can’t be regarded as not being either. So let’s call it a membrane. You have on the one extreme physical matter, on the other extreme, non-physical-matter, that is, non-space-time. And you have this membrane that is the interface between the two.
It’s difficult to draw analogies and then continually erase them, or modify them, and try and show you different aspects of the same reality, without at the same time tempting people to throw up their hands and go “I can never get this. Every time I start to get it, they change the analogy.”
On the one hand we’re attempting to stop it from becoming too fixed, so that we won’t encourage you to confuse the map and the territory. On the other hand, to continually redefine and change perhaps over-emphasizes the element of lostness. It’s not necessarily a good thing.
[pause] So, we were tempted to say all of you are in Plane A and on Plane B are us, choosing which combinations of threads will be put into time-space, and that’s somewhat true. But it’s equally true to say that we are on Plane A as well, and that it is we as well as you that are being gathered by Plane B.
That’s as much as we want to say about that at the moment. Give you time to think about that.
We’re always concerned lest there be an absolute barrier between time-space and non-time-space in your mind. That would not be accurate.
Rita: Mm-hmm. We’ve used the word “veil between the worlds” to think of that. Is that the same thing as the membrane you’re talking about?
Frank: No. No, the veil is a very good concept because it implies the hidden and the manifest. And if you go behind the veil, you’re seeing the hidden. And that’s a very good concept, but that’s not what we’re talking about by a membrane. We’re talking about the actual structure of the universe, not a way to think of the universe.
Although, having said that, we’re smiling, because of course, anything we’re saying is only a concept. But—the two concepts have radically different purpose.
Rita: Well, I’m still asking the question about structure here, I guess. But does the essence of an individual or a soul-group or whatever follow a path through the planes? Do we go from Plane A to Plane B, and then on to Plane C? Is that the process?
Frank: No, you don’t go anywhere. Nothing goes anywhere, except consciousness. We’ve tried to make that real, and we can’t figure out a way to do it.
Rita: Well, let’s assume we ask the question as moving consciousness, rather than thinking of moving bodies.
Frank: But – see, it’s not just a quibble on our part. We’re trying to give you something that you’re not getting. There is no movement in the universe. Even though all of your sensory experience says otherwise.
Or you could say everything is movement., but it’s probably—
Looking at it for the moment as, “there is no movement in the universe,” all that you’re thinking of in terms of motion – you know, “do we go ton this other plane, do we go to this plane there?” — you can move your consciousness by becoming aware of the fact that you’re part of something larger, and then you move your consciousness to that part of something larger. But it isn’t like you’re going from one thing, absolutely, to another thing, absolutely. And we say this, not meaning matter, when we talk about things. We understand you know that.
But if we’re talking about the planes of reality and you’re thinking – and your language is tempting you to think of it as jumping from plane to plane – the time-space analogy always sneaks in there, and it’s just radically – it’s so radically wrong that we really have to stop any tendency toward it. Even talking about moving consciousness gives you this image of this little ball of light moving from place to place. And that isn’t the way it is.
If you were to think of the universe as one vast crystal, you can move your consciousness along the facets, you can move through, you can move anywhere you want to move to, as you learn to do it, but nothing is actually going to move. And that is totally unsatisfactory, but we can’t —
Rita: Well, you’ve suggested that you’re composed – if we think about the painting that Frank did, representing us as spools – that several of the spools, some number of the spools, might be what your composed of.
Frank: Well, yes, we’re saying Plane B has super-spools that are all threaded to smaller size spools on Plane A. But that doesn’t mean there’s movement involved in that, it means you can move your consciousness up the thread – by talking to us, in a way – and now you’re talking to us. But the caveat is, we’re saying we also are a part of Plane A so—
Ah! Perhaps this will help you. In discussions of relationships, there is always the tendency for definitions to slide in the middle of the sentence. So that what we’re now calling as “we” might mean the non-physical component that is attached primarily to Frank. And in the same sentence that “we” may mean the non-physical component of Frank as it is expressed as being part of a larger non-physical component of which we’re only one part.
The word “we” is the same. The reference is different, and it slides around continually, and it’s not just because we’re sloppy talkers. Everyone does it. It’s the nature of language. It’s one reason why it’s so difficult to say any of this, anything like precisely. Not even close. The best we’re doing is giving you pointers. And we know it.
Rita: Well, I wonder is there some way that we could state as clearly as possible what the relationship is between Planes A, B, and C.
Frank: Probably not. [pause] [laughs]
Rita: And you don’t want to take a stab at it, huh? Because my stabs at it are not working.
Frank: Well, [pause]
Probably the best, most –
Remember now, all of this information is not just to fill a book or to pass the time, but it’s to be used by people, and there’s no use in going on endless theoretics, except in that it gives you a sense of where you are, which will then enable you to live your life. And so what we would say is simply that each plane might be looked at as, a larger, more complex organism, formed of the planes beneath it. It’s not true, but it’s sort of true.
And supposing we were able to spell out to you the whole way the universe is – and many people do – it doesn’t necessarily help you in your life. We come back to it again. Your life is to be lived with integrity and intensity, and all else follows. Everything that we’re doing here is only designed to bring you around – not you Rita, particularly, obviously – but is only designed to bring you around to making that experiment, or adding to your intensity and to your integrity. Once you’re doing that – you’ve got the flow in the right direction – your own guys upstairs, your own part of yourself that’s not in time-space, is more than ready to give you all the guidance, and feedback, and encouragement, and opportunity, that you could ever need.
The rest of it can easily become a diversion, that diverts you from doing your work and really almost lets you lie down and say “well, there’s nothing to be done. Nothing moves in the universe, so it doesn’t matter.” The temptations are there, they’ve always been there, I mean any time you’ve ever seen a philosophical or a spiritual description of reality, one of the unfortunate results is, it always provides people with false definite-ness as well as false definitions that encourage them to say, “now that I understand this, I don’t have to do anything.”
Rita: Well, avoiding that trap, if that’s what it is, it seems to me a perfectly reasonable thing and our experience bears out the notion, that it’s possible to look at things from a higher perspective. Now, you’ve said there are many perspectives from which to look at things. One of the things that happens at the Monroe Institute, through the processes of their tape experiences and so on, is that we do take things that we ordinarily look at from what seems like Plane A, and look at them from a higher perspective, and get quite a different picture of what’s going on there.
So that’s the path we’re on here. What can we – how can we move to this higher perspective in a way that will be useful to us in this life?
Frank: We just told you.
Rita: All right. I’m explaining our —
Frank: Lead your life with intensity and integrity and all else follows. Everything else is only designed as an encouragement to get you to do that. Once you do that, you’ll get – and people have gotten – what you need.
[pause] You’re thinking that’s a non-answer because you already live your life that way, but living your life that way is what’s gotten you where you are.
Rita: [pause] All right. We have a little more than ten minutes left, and I wonder if there are some things that would be useful for you to do.
Frank: I want to go play.
Rita: All right, feel free.
Frank: Let’s – well, put it up at 27, and I don’t know whether it will be needed or not, but that’ll be good. Call me when you need to bring me back.
Rita: All right, we’ll do that. Have a good time.
[pause of 12 minutes, 20 seconds]
Rita: Do you have anything you’d like to report?
Frank: Can’t quite remember, really.
Rita: We have a little more time.
[pause of about 70 seconds]
Frank: The one thing, I was in a bedroom, in a darkened room, and there was this massive corpse on a bed. Massive, by which I mean it was high, it was like twice as high as a person should be, seemingly. The body was. [Thick, I meant.] The body was covered, but –
I forgot all of what was going on, but — I was makiing no attempt to direct anything.
[pause of about half a minute]
[Rita counts back to C1]