This process of communicating

Sunday September 20, 2015
F: 6:45 a.m. Still too soon?
TGU: Not necessarily.
F: Well, that’s good. But I’ve pretty much forgotten where we were and what we were pursuing. No doubt somebody will remind me when I send this out – assuming we come up with something to send out – but in the meantime, you have something on tap?
TGU: It depends where you want to go, as always.
F: As always? It doesn’t seem to me to be “as always.” When I know where I want to go, sure. But when I don’t, it seems to me you[-all] are usually there with something.
TGU: And that can provide our theme for today, if you wish.
Very well. As so often, we must return to the question “which you.” We haven’t defined the possibilities and in general prefer not to define possibilities, lest people confuse a sketch for a road map.

F: Meaning, put it in a neat box.
TGU: Yes. That’s the recurring temptation. Well, one way to deal with that recurring temptation is to refuse to define things (which is a valid strategy but useful only in certain cases) or to repeatedly provide inconsistent definitions appropriate to the particular question, which is our preferred method. Thus over time a careful examination of answers and their slightly different questions will continue to provide an open-ended series of pointers, rather than a closed system.
So, in considering who “you” are, we could slice the pie various ways and – unlike pie – come up with different-seeming results. Today’s pie:
You the conscious but eternally flickering flame of consciousness, of awareness of your physical self and surroundings, together with a particularly activated area of your mental realm.
You the so-called personal unconscious, that is, the more conscious part of you not confined to 3D conditions.
You the combination of 3D and non-3D awareness.
You the preceding combination plus greater or lesser awareness of the underlying larger being, which includes greater or lesser awareness of various “past lives” – that is – other 3D beings with whom you have close resonances.
And so on and so forth. Again, this is very much not meant to be comprehensive. In fact, it is not even meant to be – is meant not to be – logically rigorous. Is it a pointer, not a road map, let alone a set of confinements.
Which “you” is it, do you suppose, who summons or attracts information and / or interlocutors from the vasty deep?
F: I’d suppose it would depend.
TGU: It would. It does. Now, for the sake of the discussion, we are going to pretend a certain amount of “therefores” – just be aware that it isn’t nearly this cause-and-effect except from this way of looking at it.
F: I understand. I have learned that. Viewpoint is everything.
TGU: You have learned it, it is true. But it is equally true that what you know effectively varies by time and circumstance. Nothing wrong with that and nothing to be done about it, just be aware of that fact as a limitation.
F: Okay.
TGU: When you sit down to chat, no matter how you prefer to do it – pen, recorder, whatever – you either have a question or topic in mind, or you don’t. If you do, it may be something quite specific, or it may be an implied continuation, as in, “okay, Rita, your move.” If you don’t, you are still asking the implied question, does anybody have anything to say to me?
F: Understood.
TGU: Well, where does that impulse to sit down and take dictation come from?
F: Sometimes it is a routine.
TGU: And you can lean on that routine for assistance, true. The routine and your showing up amount to an implied request for a continuation, not necessarily of a previous topic, but of communication as a process.
F: Sure.
TGU: But what may not be obvious as a question is – who is calling? What variant of “you” is on the line? Or to put it another way, what parts of that total being are active at that particular moment?
F: I begin to see why you gave us a heads-up about causality.
TGU: Sure, because you can look at it as, “I did this, therefore I brought that,” but you can equally well look at it as “this brought me into play, therefore I did that and other things followed.”
F: If I may?
TGU: We depend upon it, in fact.
F: I think you just said, we can look at it like we are the cause, with our self-definition silently taken for granted, and maybe assumed to be unchanging, or we can look at it like, something, some condition known or unknown or partially known, elicited a given part of our total self, which then elicited a response by means of the interaction between what that part of us is, and what it magnetizes.
TGU: Good. Better than we could have put it.
F: And I know why – because I can express it more freely when I am not trying to let it flow.
TGU: Not exactly. More like, you in 3D are naturally more tightly focused than we in non-3D. You are sharper, more pointed, and the result can show that. When you find people channeling famous authors, you find that the material brought in is usually less precise, less in the style of the author in life. This is because the person bringing it in, if s/he does not mingle his or her consciousness with the non-3D author, cannot bring that author’s words to the pointedness they would have had.
F: So if I talk to Thoreau or Emerson, say, I may expect the thought to be congruent, but not the polished words.
TGU: First drafts are first drafts, after all. Sometimes they are inspired and letter-perfect, but not often.
F: It occurs to me – occurred to me as I got up to refill my coffee cup just now – all these sessions aren’t really about providing a coherent picture of the afterlife at all, are they? Or even a coherent picture of our life as a whole? They are more like glimpses through a kaleidoscope.
TGU: Let’s say, like alternate entry-points. A somewhat coherent view of things – a relatively firm place to stand – is always a useful thing for people. The danger is in their turning it into something more defined and rigid than it was intended to be. What is of far more use is to show you various ways of using the abilities that all of you already have, by definition, so that you can do your own exploring. Necessarily, everybody’s conclusions and experiences will vary, and this is not a bad or even regrettable thing, but a good thing. Different vantage points are going to produce different vistas. That’s the point of 3D in the first place, or anyway that is one point.
F: Only 45 minutes, but I feel like stopping, unless you have more for today.
TGU: No, this is fine.
F: Thanks for this. It’s good to be back in harness. It seems like it has been a long time.
TGU: Righteous persistence brings comfortable habits, as well as reward.
F: So it does. Okay, till next time.

9 thoughts on “This process of communicating

  1. As usual the material from TGU is very interesting, thank you Frank.

    Now wonder if you have The Early Sessions, book 8 of The Seth Material ?

    It is on page 326(book 8), Session 419, June 26, 1968. And very much the same as to what TGU telling here through you.

    I can quote the first sentences by Seth:
    ” We are Seth, and whenever we have spoken we have been known as Seth.
    The entity had its beginning before the emergence of your time.
    It was instrumental, with many other entities, in the early formations into physical form.
    We are not alone in this endeavor, for through your centuries other entities like us have also appeared and spoken.

    Our entity is composed of multitudinous selves with their own identities, many of whom have worked in this behalf. Their material and messages will always be basically the same, though the circumstances and times and places of their communications may be colored accordingly.

    Here comes more (cannot let it be), and Seth continues:

    “You need not be concerned. You have your own situation and your own conditions to deal with. We taught man to speak before the tongue knew syllables. We adopt whatever personality characteristics seem pertinent, for in our own reality we have a bank of complete inner selves, and we are all Seth.

    Again, there are many others like us. We attempt to translate realities into terms that you can comprehend. We change our face and form but we are always the one. We are therefore always a part of the one entity which is the Seth entity.

    Many of us have not been born into flesh, as I have not been, but other portions of the personality have appeared in flesh; and some portion of us will always be born in flesh, because what one portion of us knows the other portions of us realize to some extent.

    Seth as you know him will not be reincarnated, but other portions of our entity will be born in flesh, FOR WE HAVE A PART IN ALL WORLDS AND ALL REALITIES. We are among the most ancient of entities in your terms.
    In one way we have seeded ourselves through endless universes. Physically you would find me a mass smaller than a brown nut, for my energy is so highly concentrated. It exists in intensified mass entangled and intertwined with moment points, perhaps like one infinite cell, existing however in endless dimensions at once, and reaching out through interconnections even from my own reality through others to your room.

    Yet in such small mass these intensities contain memories and experiences, electromagnetically coiled one within the other, through which I can travel, even as I can travel through other selves which have known and which are a portion of my identity—-even as you, so large and bulky in your size, are still a portion of those memories that exist within my identity, and yet so beautifully unpredetermined. For you do not exist as finished or completed personalities within my memory, but you grow within my memory.”

    There is MORE from Seth of course, but I do not have more time right now dear friends (it takes the time).

    Cheerio, Inger Lise.

    1. Cheerio? You turning Limey on us? 🙂
      No, I don’t have that book, but it sounds very interesting, in connection with what we have been trying to puzzle out — your really do have an unusually deep well of resources, seems to me.

  2. I’ll echo Inger Lise’s comments above, concerning the interest of this material for me ATTM. It does help to know others are exploring these questions, and not just coming up w/ another list of “You MUSTs, in order to become Enlightened.” (I guess the only “must” for me is a willingness to “go find out for myself”, Bob Monroe’s only “command”, along w/ being willing to entertain the idea that “I am more than my physical body”. “A Nod to Bob”, as it were!)

    And, Inger Lise, I’ve also read “The Early Sessions”, and the above passage you quoted appears in one of the other books (do not recall which ATTM). I believe Jane was bringing thru “Seth II” at the time–the sort of “oversoul” or “Guys Upstairs” for Seth. It is amazing what Jane Roberts brought thru in 21 years of “channeling” Seth; reviewing this, and Frank’s material is helping me to change my “view” of “who I am”.

    Looking forward to continuing these explorations; I may even share what I find as I go along. Thanks again!


  3. I forward this morning’s dialogue as another example (like yours) of greater wisdom picking up on “where we are at” and using it:

    Me: I’m the so-called focussed part of my amorphous consciousness, but I don’t feel very focussed this morning, in kind of a malaise at the moment.  I am plagued by lingering issues; for example, dualities, compartmentalization of memories associated with lives, and healing and healing powers.  

    Them: These are open ends, and you don’t like open ends.  When something is undone it bothers you.  There is a name for that…Zeigarnik! 

    (I hadn’t heard this for over 50 years, and I had to research the spelling.  From Wiki: “The Zeigarnik Effect is the tendency to experience intrusive thoughts about an objective that was once pursued and left incomplete (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008, pg. 122). The automatic system signals the conscious mind, which may be focused on new goals, that a previous activity was left incomplete. It seems to be human nature to finish what we start and, if it is not finished, we experience dissonance.”)

    Me: Yes I am that, it’s an obsession. 

    Them: All obsessions have their positives and negatives (note how dualities immediately enter in).  This (Zeigarnik) characteristic pushes you to act, to be impulsive, to not procrastinate, to complete what you started, to move things along and not let them stagnate.

    It works against marinating.  Sometimes doing nothing is the right thing.  You’re biased toward doing something, even if it’s running in circles.  In fact, while many are calmly waiting, you’re circling, even mentally.  It can be a waste of energy.  

    Impulsiveness leads you to stay on the leading edge, but also leads you to make wrong turns and run down self-invented side tracks.  They can actually delay you getting to where you thought you wanted to get to.  

    Me: So about these open issues …?

    Them: All issues (relative to understanding reality) are always open, as one’s understanding grows and never stops growing.  That’s why a self-professed sage’s (I’m leaving out the name, a person not associated with this site) material rings so true to you on one hand, and on the other grates at you because it’s (the material) stated in a way that makes something that is enlightening but incomplete sound complete.  You being the guy always looking for completeness, it creates an issue.  

    Each person’s insight is a place to stand for at least that one person.  Maybe it serves for more than one, but never for all. These “plateaus” are useful for people to build on, to use as a basis to live their life differently.  How can they put them to use in their daily life if they (the understandings) are constantly changing?  

    You and others who are interested in understanding (the nature of reality) to a greater extent and greater level of complexity are in a different mode.  You can’t wait for example to get a hundred different ways of looking at self, because the perspectives would enhance your insight and understanding.  

    This is commendable, but works against the effort to put into practice any part of the new understanding.  

    Many people would find it totally frustrating to have their platform (of beliefs) constantly turning to jello under them. There is a place for people, as sages, teaching wisdom that seems to be concrete.  It can help people step from their current base to new ones. 

    On the other hand, you can see, in fact are driven to see, that a perspective that is presented as nailed down, can’t be so.  You know it is incomplete, not yet “right enough”.  

    Me: Where is the balance?  

    Them: The balance for every person is different.  Your tolerance for complexity, for murkiness, your need for firm footing, your interest in completing what is incomplete, all are unique to you (not in the sense of special, but everyone has their own balance point).  

    Going back to principle: Consciousness is not and cannot be static.  The nature of reality is that it does not rest on dead center.  Purposeful “chaos” in the form of variability and differentiation exists.  

    Turning loose choice with free will (at certain levels) creates variability, assures new discovery, opens possibility for movement.  It gets us off dead center.  But that doesn’t mean that the free will is not somewhat biased or vectored. You are vectored in a general direction, but otherwise not constrained. There is a seemingly endless supply of dualities for you to choose from. (Meaning we get to position ourselves on each scale, such as between content with status quo/not content; belief in ourselves as separate/part of greater consciousness; and so on ad infinitum.)
    By virtue of living, you are by design put into the middle of chaos, in the midst of options and it’s your free will that determines where you “reside” within those options, and how long you reside there.  

    You are not an accident.  Your inclinations, your time, your place, your presented choices, none are accidental.  By choosing and living your choices you bring into reality specific points between the ranges of all the variables at your disposal.  That, along with the choices others make, moves consciousness.

    So do you want to stand pat, or go pick another point to be at?


    1. Great stuff again, John. Put it on TMIE!
      I am presently reading Jeffrey Kripal’s Esalen: America and the Religion of No-Religion with great interest, and i suspect that you would find it interesting also, unless you have read it already (which wouldn’t surprise me).

      1. I’ll add that to my list. I am through The Portable Jung’s introduction and into Answer to Job. It’s riveting reading having digested Rita and CGJ’s recent dialogues with you. It’s Jung’s approach and attitude as well as the content that reinforces what we are being taught.

        For example on p. 521, “This book does not pretend to be anything but the voice or question of a single individual who hopes or expects to meet with thoughtfulness in the public.”

        He wrote that statement a long time ago (in our time) but it’s completely consistent with TGU’s, Rita’s and CGJ’s “current” advice coming through you.

        TPJ will keep me occupied for quite a while.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.