Some advice on productive communication

Monday, November 30, 2015
F: 3:25 a.m. well, I don’t quite know what this is leading to. First, last December, it was Rita resuming our interrupted discussions. Then for a while only sporadic contact with anybody. Then, from late September, daily or almost daily talks with Hemingway. And now, we’re back to the days of TGU except we seem to be blurring even that very loose definition. It seems whoever is on the line truly is not interested in these newer communications being compiled into a book. As was said a while ago, come to think of it. So – what? You just want to talk day by day and let people draw their connections with their lives?
TGU: We felicitate you [originally it came out “facilitate you” which is a nice touch] on your diligence. That is its own reward, is it not? And you have put together an economical platform from which to get the word out to others who may be interested. Maybe the book is an outmoded form, and maybe the writing of books is an outdated ambition.
F: I hardly know what to say. I’m sitting here more or less blank, yesterday’s Nevil Shute running through my mind.
TGU: Different talents produce different results. Nevil Shute wrote a score of fine novels. That isn’t your forte. Does it need to be?
F: No, apparently not. Well, what do you want to talk about, then?
TGU: You are forgetting which is the record and which is the needle. Consider what is most important to you, and that is what we should talk about.
F: Well, that’s an interesting question, isn’t it? I mean, say I’m interested in the nature of the world, or life. I may not know what to ask. In fact, any questions I had might only lead us in the wrong direction, because I started from wrong assumptions. How can I – how can anybody, I mean – be non-directive and directive at the same time? Directive and receptive?

TGU: That question is an excellent example of the confusing nature of language, or rather it is an example of how language may express confusion in such a way as to increase it rather than clarify.
In the first place, what seems like a dichotomy, a crossroads only one of which may be taken, a choice between alternatives (even between opposites) may be defined entirely differently as a situation requiring two complementary attitudes together rather than a choice between them. Receptivity and direction, not one or the other. And a moment’s thought will show you that this is what you do – what anybody does – in any line of inquiry. Einstein or Edison or Newton or Kepler or Emerson or anybody seeking for answers did not come to their quest in an unfocused state. They had their attention generally or specifically focused on one specific problem, in fact often on one very specific aspect of a problem. They held in suspense the elements of what they knew, and they pondered or else went about their business with the surface levels of their attention perhaps on something else. By holding their basic preoccupation ever in mind, they allowed their daily activities to interact with it spontaneously – which allowed the possibility of a “random” – that is, an unplanned and unforeseeable – connection to make itself manifest.
They did not obsess in such a way as to try to force things. Neither did they allow themselves to become distracted at a deeper level from what they were pursuing. You see? It isn’t a choice so much as a combination of attitudes, or attributes of consciousness.
“Follow your bliss” may be interpreted in this context as “allow your attention to remain on whatever most interests it”; you don’t need to (probably shouldn’t let yourself be bullied into) cut against the grain. If you are led in a certain direction, probably there’s a reason for that. Do you have any good reason to doubt that your life, in leading you there, is self-guiding?
One man’s fascination is another man’s boredom. Isn’t it obvious? If everybody does what they find fascinating, everybody is happy and the work gets done – that is, from a universal viewpoint, all the bases are covered. You can get all the bases covered by being sure that everybody is doing what makes them miserable, too, but why in the world would anybody design the world so that everybody’s miserable?
F: So when we are most on the beam, it may feel to us like we are goofing off?
TGU: Suppose you conceived of the idea that your role in life was to investigate the intricacies of football.
F: I’d just shoot myself and get it over with.
TGU: Precisely. Yet others would be enthralled, and say “how did I get so lucky as to get paid for doing this?” But they, if tasked with reading histories and biographies, would pry the pistol out of your hand and use it on themselves. And anybody else – listen, here, and not just you, Franks, but anybody who reads this – anybody else will not match exactly your range of overlapping interests, hence will be at least a little bit disengaged at some places. Only you will be interested in precisely any one combination of topics, hence only you will be able to hold in suspension exactly a certain combination of ideas, concepts, experiences, speculations, daydreams, fantasies – in other words, nobody else will or ever could be exactly the same combination of receptivity and curiosity in specific areas. Thus, as we have said more than once, no two people can make the same impact on the world.
F: Buckminster Fuller said that decades ago.
TGU: He said it and you noted it. And long before you read it you realized that viewpoint was each person’s unique gift from the world and to the world. If you were to re-read your very early journals you’d find it.
F: I vaguely remember it.
TGU: At the time, did that particular insight seem valuable to you? You took it as sort-of-true because you were in the habit of simultaneously valuing and devaluing any thought you took to be “yours,” and that was that. Another item to be placed in your display case, so to speak. What you didn’t know and couldn’t have known is what might be built upon that building block. But first you would have to accumulate others, of course. That’s called life-experience, and it doesn’t refer only to “external” experience.
So – we can cut this short by saying, the better the question, the better the answer. If you want to pursue a subject, all the world will conspire and inspire and respire with you. It need not have anything to do with a book or a blog or a journal. Do you think the things people concern themselves with disappear from the Akashic record (so to speak) unless printed?
F: So I in particular should come to this with whatever is on my mind, however it may have gotten there, and that will focus things.
TGU: It always does. But the more preparatory work you have done, the farther your realignment can go. Yes, realignment. Isn’t that a perfectly valid way to describe the process?
F: I wouldn’t have put it that way, so I suppose that is an example of realignment, of how this process is a realignment.
TGU: That’s what thinking does, what receptivity, what living, do. You as a miniature version of All That Is can hold only a very limited amount of things in your mind. It is that very limitation that is the reason for the existence of 3D. You are a crucible. What good would a crucible be it if contained or could contain everything? Yet you are not a completely or permanently closed vessel that cannot interact with the world. How could your uniqueness work to anyone’s advantage?
So, till next time, whenever that may be – and it can be months, for all we care, because this is not the only thing you are really doing in the world – whenever you come to this, use the tool in the way it is meant to be used. Have a question in mind that interests you. (Emphasize each of those two words in turn. Interests you. Interests you. Different effect than emphasizing both together.) You are doing a search, not taking instruction or preparing for a test.
Do a search, but realize what that means. It means being interested and conscious (present) but also relaxed and non-directive, taking what comes but keeping your eye on the ball. You are taking advantage of everything you have become up to the moment – everything you have read, experienced, thought, wondered about – you see? Much of what you bring to the question will seem to you irrelevant – “only stuff from my ordinary life.” But you don’t know what is important to the question and what isn’t. So – don’t disregard anything that comes up, but view it in the context of “no accidents.” Just because you can’t immediately trace connections doesn’t mean there aren’t any.
This is not addressed only to Frank! Nor only to writers. Nor only to those sharing any specific combination of curiosities and obsessions. It is a general statement of how to facilitate communication between localized 3D consciousness and non-local consciousness which can’t quite be called non-3D, but certainly is not-only-3D.
Now there’s your hour, and ten minutes more. Next time, whenever that may be, bring your own priority – beyond communication itself, we mean.
F: And if my priority is communication itself?
TGU: Well, as you see, you get an answer responding to it.
F: I do see. Very well. I had a good time, most of yesterday, reading No Highway. I have seven more Nevil Shutes lined up on my desk, so who knows? And I think I’ll copy the three lines of John Maesfield from the front of the book. They speak to me and presumably they will speak to others. Till next time, then.
Adventure on, for from the littlest clue
Has come whatever worth men ever knew;
The next to lighten all men may be you.

10 thoughts on “Some advice on productive communication

  1. Earlier today after reading the advice herein I asked, “How can we all be identical replicas of All That Is, and be so (seemingly) different?

    Answer:
    “We may have the same mind, but we do not have the same state of mind. How many people can really know who they are when their knowledge is severely limited? There needs to be interest and curiosity in the subject, together with an intent and will to explore new territory. How many people even know of the possibility to obtain this knowledge? The awareness can vary from non-existent to vast; and don’t judge! It might or might not fit on a given individual’s path.

    As the soul portion of our being is formed, and as attention is purposely restricted and dragged through a moment to moment life for the purpose of bringing that exact experience into creation, each one of us will be limited. The fact that we are everything doesn’t mean that we can be aware of it all, and certainly not at the same instant as we experience “instants” in physical life.

    We are creating from the uncreated possibilities, and as we create we contribute to all. The time and space focus, and the level of attention to create fully our chosen path is inconsistent with the breadth necessary to experience significantly greater portions of one’s own mind, our shared mind, and the one great mind. We are in total, as a whole, identical, but we cannot experience that totality (at our level, or maybe any level).

    There is beauty in the knowledge that we are all identical; there is also beauty in the knowledge that our formation provides purposely different perspectives on the same “unchanging, unbounded” spirit. We form ever changing perspectives that can be individual or any combination of individuals, each unique.”
    John
    Noted: The pronoun changed today from “you” to “we”.

    1. This is perfect! John, would you like to start writing guest posts for my blog, on a regular basis? That’s a serious offer, and I’m not sure but that I am being prodded to make it. I may be moving into a quieter time, when i post much less, maybe nothing for all I know, and it would be nice to offer people continuing insights.

    2. John, I second Frank’s suggestion … the different perspectives your information brings helps a lot!

      My challenge is in the line “There needs to be interest and curiosity in the subject, together with an intent and will to explore new territory.” … in using this new knowledge to grow into ???? But then TGU addresses this too: live life, attend to what’s at hand, and all will be well, all will be very well. I’m giving it a try!
      Jim

    3. Jim, I think TGU in saying what you quoted and Rita as well in several places said we all have a compass and it’s there if we want to use it. It may or may not lead us to pursue deeper knowledge in this area, but we can trust all be well is we are in tune with that.

      Jim and Frank, with great humility and mild to severe trepidation I am willing to contribute some guest postings, if regular is loosely defined, maybe about once a week or so. Frank, I sent you some example material to your muddytracks email address.

      Jim, my thoughts are that there is significant learning and further insight to be gained by “marinating” Frank’s material of the last year plus. I had previously started reviewing Rita’s, Hemingway’s, and Jung’s material in light of specific questions or concerns I had, such as violence, pain and suffering. Some of my own direct input often kicks in. That combination forces me to think deeper about the material given, and adds some new and different insight as well. What would appear then would be extracts from Frank’s work, and some new thoughts from my “spigot” around a topic, which would hopefully trigger others to contribute their insights as well.

      That kind of format would be consistent with what I find myself doing (self-serving in other words), but also potentially useful for others.

      What do you think about that?
      John

      1. John, you send them and I will post them, unedited. And then we’ll see. No need to worry about frequency or a regular schedule. if a regular schedule would provide a routine for you to lean on, fine; if not, no reason for it. And maybe others will want to do the same thing. If so, write me at muddytracks at earthlink dot net and we’ll see. i may not provide immediate responses — i printed out what you sent, John, but haven’t looked at it yet — but i’ll get there.

    4. John,
      I started to object to the word ‘marinate’ as being too weak, but now see it symbolizes the right feeling: taking time to let the information grow into understanding. I’ve been doing that by following Rita’s messages, first as they came through then in the repeat posts.

      At the same time I reread “Cosmic Internet”, and am about to finish “Sphere and Hologram” for the second time … next up is Rita’s World (for a third ‘dose’). I cannot overstate how meaningful it’s been to work with the information Frank has been bringing through for over 15 years, comparing, contrasting, seeing and relating different viewpoints!

      Rita’s material, then Jung’s, Hemmingway’s, and assorted posts attributed to TGU (and even ‘unknown’) all fit with and compliment the ‘older’ material. When Frank worries ‘is this real?’, I just grin and want to say “So the stuff you made up 15 years ago fits with, compliments, and extends the stuff you’re making up today?! Damn you are good!!”

      Over the year I’ve worked more and more with my own guidance, and it also supports and corroborates that 15 years of written information. Most of my interaction with guidance is not verbal, so the words from you and Frank help my mind assimilate and understand what comes to me experientially.

      Letting things ‘marinate’ also helps with my concerns about finding “intent and will to explore new territory.” My guidance amplifies Rita and TGU’s words that there is no hurry, no pressure, no need to do any specific ‘thing’, just live life the best way we know.
      “TGU: You will find that the important thing to do is always right there. You don’t have to step across a thousand-foot gulf, it’s always right there by you. And you do that faithfully and it leads you to the next thing.” ‘The Matrix and the Individual” S&H
      Jim

  2. Frank,
    After reading this post and the comments many times, I have the strong feeling that a LOT is being said … both in the words and in the many deep understandings behind them.

    I get that TGU (gently) suggests we each be more conscious of our on-going realignment (growth, expansion, deepening understanding), and support and strengthen the process. “Have a question in mind that interests you. Interests YOU. INTERESTS you.”; for me this applies to all of life, not just connecting with guidance.

    Per Maesfield, “ … from the littlest clue … “; no matter how little or clueless we see our self, we are each part of/the image of/are something BIG. Perhaps ‘realignment’ is the deepening surety that that’s true!
    Jim

    1. Jim, it sounds to me like as you go through the material more than once you are picking up new insights. Probably not coincidentally, I think you will find some more on this subject in my first blog which has been sent to Frank for posting. Hint: the material isn’t changing, but likely you are.
      John

  3. I’m glad I came back to read and found a new book to buy as the blog format was a little difficult for me. 29 per cent of ‘Rita’s World’ on kindle is now read and I am frightened of getting to the end. Thank goodness there’s more coming. I’ll try to do a review on amazon uk but I’m not great at such things. Much love from a very grateful reader. You and Rita and TGU have helped me so much with my fears.

  4. You guys are on a roll here. I look forward to everyone’s input. It is deeply useful information to be putting out there. And a variety of voices seems to add depth and breadth (to use a 3D analogy!).

Leave a Reply

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