TGU — Seeing double, so to speak

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

F: 6 a.m. I’m ready if you are. And by the way, what happened to Rita?

TGU: The change in “voice” was for your benefit. Rita and you had very different views of religion, the afterlife, and the terms of your existence on earth, and of course you cannot un-know that. Whatever we would have said on these subjects, the slight friction of your wondering if you were influencing what you were getting would have been of no benefit.

[Typing this up, I notice that the implication that there is less difference between Rita and “the guys” or this particular voice than I might have assumed there would be.]

F: It isn’t like what I got from Rita over more than a year was the same picture she took with her in 2008.

TGU: No, but you and she did your exploring in those fields together, despite your having somewhat different initial views. Any two people are going to have different views as they begin an exploration. But the religious topic was somewhat charged, as you remember.

F: Not in the sense of our arguing about it, but as you say that, I remember, we did sort of tiptoe around certain things. Catholicism, for one thing. Anything that sounded like conventional Christian belief, for another. I suppose I had a sense of Rita holding a reserve, wondering if I were really just a good Catholic boy after all. And of course in some ways, I was, or am, just as in some ways I remain the boy who was excited and fascinated by space exploration. But we didn’t let it become an obstacle.

TGU: No, and we needn’t refer to it here except in passing, but it is worth noting that such mental reservations sometimes become greater rather than lesser in this kind of communication, because unconscious and hence not under your control.

F: I can see that. So, I take it, now [after it being called to my attention] it would be less of a factor?

TGU: It would be a factor more under your control. You could correct for it.

F: Like a navigator correcting for a cross-wind. Okay. But we are carrying on as we have been? [I meant, I would be talking to the same unnamed “voice” as in the past few conversations.]

TGU: Remember that many voices come into a discussion, mostly unperceived by you, and for the excellent reason that there is no need for you to know. It isn’t about individuals, except in so far as it will help you in 3D to hone in, to focus. It is about the information, specifically, and, in a larger sense, it is about your growth not so much as an individual in 3D as it is about you as a developing “individual” in non-3D, learning through your 3D component.

F: Interesting. All right.

TGU: In its own way, this isn’t a bad segue, or continuation of the theme, because from here on it will serve you well to keep focusing on yourselves as both 3D individuals and as All-D individuals.

F: No, you didn’t put that right.

TGU: One of us didn’t, anyway. You try it.

F: The sense I got was, there is me as a 3D individual (who actually extends into non-3D, thus making me an All-D being) centered on this one lifetime, this one collection of strands. But at the same time I am part of a larger All-D being that may have many such component All-D beings.

TGU: Not all of which have their 3D portions as human, and not all of which manifest on planet earth rather than elsewhere in the universe. That’s right enough, you are part of something vastly larger than yourselves, but you don’t yet (or most of you don’t, anyway) sufficiently realize how utterly strange this larger-being extension of your individual selves is. (Or are, because you are not necessarily all parts of the same larger being).

F: So we are partly alien to ourselves? I don’t mean “alien” in the ET sense, though I suppose it could mean that too. I mean what we are a small part of is as alien to us as we are to our own internal organs, say.

TGU: It remains a useful analogy. Can you imagine a kidney’s idea of heaven? It wouldn’t be any more distorted than yours, if you were to dream of “the afterlife” as a continuation or extension of the 3D lives you are leading.

F: That’s one reason we find it so hard to intuit the next phase, isn’t it?

TGU: Well, yes and no. “The next phase” isn’t as clear-cut and undivided as all that. It will include a sort of continued preoccupation with the 3D existence, as long as other parts are enmeshed in it. (It may include your becoming a strand in another life, you see, although that will not occupy you exclusively, or rather, totally. Still it will affect your “afterlife,” for how could it not?) But yes, in the larger sense, you will be once again beginning from scratch, so to speak, learning the ropes in an entirely new environment, experiencing yourselves as something quite different once outside the 3D constraints.

F: This is why when Rita asked, one time, what you-all do, she got (through me) the answer: “We relate.”

TGU: It was as close as we could come to something that was true but [was] also within the realm of what could be meaningful to hear at that stage of her understanding.

It is the difficulty that is the greatest in this. We have to start from where you are, obviously, and even if we concern ourselves with any one of you, that starting-place is neither as obvious nor as consistent as you may think. There are all those unconscious or semi-conscious wormholes leading from one association directly to another, without your being aware of it. Plus, there are all these firm ideas you have that may mislead even when they are true in some sense of the word. So, it is hard to make true and meaningful statements. But what are we to do? Should we refuse comment until you are better able to understand the answers to the questions that concern you?

F: So, sometimes you give cryptic replies.

TGU: And often we give replies that will mean one thing to you now but hopefully something else later. And you just heard something between the lines – and it is correct – so, state it as best you can.

F: Well, I just realized, we understand something one way now, another way later (presumably when we have changed) – and in each case our access to guidance is nudging us to help us understand.

TGU: Just as you just demonstrated. What is an intuitive leap but you stepping over a puddle and getting an unexpected assist and realizing that you somehow made a 15-foot leap.

And can that access to guidance –

No, we’ll have to go about this slightly differently. Let’s say this. Your experience of guidance is actually several different processes. Sometimes it is what you know but don’t know you know – it is your non-3D component keeping track and saying, “Here, this fits.” But at other times it is interaction with your larger being, providing you something that your non-3D component didn’t know either.

F: I think I get that distinction. On this level, we have our conscious knowledge plus whatever we can get from our cohorts via the –

Am I getting what I think I’m getting?

TGU: Not quite, but spell it out, because even a wrong understanding is sometimes productive.

F: Well, I just got a flash that what we have been thinking of as this network of non-3D intelligences, cooperating, is actually a distorted picture of us as part of a larger being.

TGU: And that is true and it is distorted, depending upon whether you keep yourselves in mind of the fact that it is a matter of two viewpoints, not one. It is you in the non-3D at your individual level, and it is – perhaps we should almost say “or” it is, because when you remember one, you tend to forget the other – you at the higher level, the larger-being level. It is one thing to separate a subject for the purposes of analysis, but it is another to then see those separated pieces as part of  a whole, as they really are.

F: Figuratively, though not literally, this makes my head hurt. It is a readjustment of something I’d gotten used to that I now see was only a halfway house. In a way we haven’t gotten very far in our thinking beyond Monroe’s belief-system territories.

TGU: Just keep considering incompatible images creatively and you will obtain insight. Thus, on the one hand the Monroe belief-system territories in which individuals continue their lives as if they were still confined to 3D. On another hand, the pearly gates of simple Christian belief, in which individuals transform their lives – doing what can’t really be well conceived of but remembering who they were (thinking that’s all they are). If you consider the two views together – and other religions’ ideas of “the afterlife” and materialists’ idea that there cannot be an afterlife, in the absence of the body – what do you see?

F: I see that what they all have in common is that they are seeing us as individuals carrying on as individuals. Or, in the case of materialists, being unable to carry on. None of these give a sense of what it looks like as part of a larger being.

TGU: And in that, you are wrong. These systems include implicit descriptions of life beyond the 3D and as part of something larger, only you have to be able to see what you’re looking at. (And, in any case, distortion always arises from seeing things in only one way.)

F: And here we pause, right?

TGU: It is too long and potentially too productive to go into as an afterthought.

F: Okay. See you next time, then.

 

2 thoughts on “TGU — Seeing double, so to speak

  1. This made me pull up Jane Roberts’ The Oversoul Seven Trilogy, which is all about the two-way (if not more) communication between levels.

  2. Hello all.
    Hm, well, I am recall Seth/Jane, said somewhere: “Two all different held belief-systems which is (within the kernel of the individual belief/faith) to become contradictions in their content/context, cannot but make a split mind: Either you`ll believe in it or you don`t, and nothing ” in-between the two`s ” can do other than confusion.”
    When I read all the books of Jane`s, it seems Jane really struggles with her own ” reality, ” even when she had no doubt about Seth’s teachings and guidance.

    I have thought it is about “making my mind up” in what to believe about life, or else I can “go on” forever (into eternity) pondering about what to believe or not. At ONE TIME in my life I trusted & believing in the good to be found about EVERYTHING ! I had not experienced otherwise.
    I was born naive, because of my protected upbringing; and became heavily burned later on in my life (and the strange experience of traumas, experienced as a ambush, something strange/alien, sneaking from behind so to speak), because of THE TRUST I was to have in all peoples and in my own life. Therefore I have learned to become ” on guard. ”
    Amen.

    B & B, Inger Lise.

    P.S. The sense of humour has saved me many a time.
    BTW: Paramahansa Yogananda is among the ones I really trust within his teachings of ” The Self-Realization.”
    I wonder if anybody here has read his two-volume books titled: The Second Coming of Christ, subtitle ” The Resurrection of the Christ Within You ” —- A revelatory commentary on the original teachings of Jesus.
    Frank have told something similar not long ago.

Leave a Reply

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