TGU – Beginning on the vast impersonal forces

7:05 a.m. Very well, where were we? You were rubbing in the fact that we will never know anything absolutely, only relatively.

We were weaning you of the habit of thinking that the answers to everything are available behind the right door, if you could but find that door. Although this very common delusion at first appears to be an empowering ideal, in fact it proves to be a source of quite unnecessary discouragement, as if an elementary-school-age child should first resolve to visit every town in the world in one lifetime and then, when this proves impossible, give up on the idea of going anywhere at any time for any reason. A better ideal is to do as much as is possible, and a little more as one’s capacity expands with practice.

Yes, I like that. Very well –.

So we begin conceptually with the idea that totality – in other words, reality – contains oppositions of forces. We did not succeed in coming up with an image sufficiently concrete, but perhaps with time we, or you, or one of your friends, will be able to snag the passing fish of an idea. Meanwhile, stay with the notion of terrifically charged opposites held within tension from springing apart. By opposites, we do not mean any one set of oppositions – good and evil, up and down, static and dynamic, etc. – but all opposites. It is almost a philosophical point, but although abstract it is not negligible.

No, I get it. “Everything” clearly has to include – everything. There can be no gaps in totality. If a thing could exist, it must exist.

You have the idea, but that is very badly stated so far.

I know, sink into it. Okay. [I do.] My, that’s a useful reminder, just the way I begin my talks at TMI with just a few seconds of silent group alignment that brings the energy together.

All right, to try again: Totality must include everything, by definition. That means – it may not at first be obvious – that no half of any opposite can be excluded. No up without down, no kind without cruel, no selfish without self-sacrificing, etc. There can’t be any energy not paired, in other words, because any quality is a sort of offset from center, so must be balanced by its complementary offset.

All true in 3D duality – and well stated, this time. Of course, even though your 3D-experienced minds find it hard to

I knew I wasn’t from here!

Go ahead, and we’ll fill in the intervening steps you just leaped over.

When I was a boy, or a very young man, one day I got tired of the everlasting either / or. I may have been at least 20, because I think I wrote about this in a journal. Everything I was reading was firmly embedded – quite unconsciously because obviously the author had never considered that there could be an alternative – in either / or logic. Everything was either this, or that. Never “This or that or another.” In other words, choice was never set out as a choice among three or more, always between two.

And now you see that this was experiencing the world according to binary logic. But, go slow here, and you will learn something.

I determined that whenever I came across such a “Choose sides, A or B,” I would look until I found at least a C. I experienced this binary choice all the time as false, constricting.

From which you concluded that you are from a universe not constructed on the binary principle.

I didn’t conclude it till just this conversation, but I did feel for a long time – maybe everybody does – that this system is alien to me in many ways.

So you could envision a tripartite system, say?

Easily. It’s just a matter of dividing reality into three 120 degree slices instead of two 180 degree slices. Instead of flat opposition you get nuance and complementary, fluid, relationships. What kind of color wheel would we have if our primary colors were two instead of three? Secondaries would be as oppositional and static as the primaries, if you could even derive them.

And in human relationships?

Hard to imagine three genders, but I’d sure prefer three political stances over two, three-way competitions and cooperations over two, three-way construction and reconstruction and demolition over two.

Yes, now let us return to where you experienced your leap, which, notice, was experienced as a spark across a gap, not as a careful construction of a pathway. Sparks are not restricted to binary pathways.

Which is why I am more comfortable with intuition and psychic functioning than with logic and sensory functioning, despite the perils of the path?

The question answers itself, so is rhetorical. And of course in this part of our discussion you serve as mirror for others, some of whom will never had had the experience of being mirrored in another. This form of dialogue is very useful for that.

The point we were making, or were about to make, is that not all systems are binary; they may be tripartite and may divide reality in various other ways, and of course how you experience the division of reality – which segments of the orange seem real to you – determines the possibility and limitations of a given system. But, divide all-that-is into twos, or threes, or seven-millions, one fact will remain, and if it cannot be proved, neither can it be refuted nor in practice doubted, and that is that whatever the system, when reality is sliced nothing can ever be left over, nor left out.

“Everything” means – everything.

Self-evident, we should think. Well, that fact has ramifications.

You can’t have a reality with only pleasant things, only constructive and uplifting ones. You can’t get away from the necessary existence of evil.

Correct. But what you can do is be a little more careful about defining things you don’t like as evil. It’s a bad habit – an evil habit, perhaps we should say, nonexistent tongue in nonexistent cheek. And it won’t be a blink of an eye before you’re doing the same to other parts of yourself, and there’s paradise lost, or you are blinding yourself to the things you can’t bear to see in yourself, and there’s a fool’s paradise. Better just to see things as whole, complementary, necessary, and all working for the sake of life itself, which is always good, no matter how you may feel about it if sick or discouraged or enraged or disappointed or just mortally tired.

And with all this, now we are finally ready to begin to speak of the forces of spirit.

The vast impersonal forces in the universe necessarily represent or embody every force there is, those you like and those you don’t; those you approve of, and their opposites; those what seem to you in 3D as constructive and good, and their complements that may (but needn’t) appear to you as destructive and evil. Before you can understand the world, before you can understand yourselves, you must remember that the cause of “the fall of man” was not the listening to the serpent, nor disobeying a god who walked with Adam and Eve in the garden, nor was it sex as people assume although this was not mentioned nor even hinted at in the fable, but eating of the fruit of the tree of Perceiving Things as Good and Evil.

It was the fall into the perception of things as antagonistic duality that led to your unsatisfying situation, nothing more. So, since an apple cannot be un-eaten, what to do? Your way forward is to incorporate that dualistic perspective but now transcend it. Use it not as obstacle or detour but as scaffolding. And the first step – for some a large one, for others not – is to accept the world as it is. “God looked upon what he had made and saw that it was good.” But then, God suffered from inability to cram things into a way of seeing that weighed and measured, approved and condemned. God was more easily pleased than binary man, evidently.

A little sarcasm, this morning.

Yep. A bad thing, no doubt.

Very funny. Okay, more next time?

There’s always more and there’s always going to be more, as long as life and willingness lasts (and after).

Okay. Thanks for all this.


8 thoughts on “TGU – Beginning on the vast impersonal forces

  1. Suggested image … maybe a “vortex” … swirling and spinning as if “everything” is coming a part, but it does not while influenced by the vast forces of the vortex. This would be much like images of a star going supernova. I do not paint or draw, so here is an example: (see image to the right **)

    Notice how many “off center” opportunities are available in the metaphoric swirl. This allows for lots of opposites or seemingly contradictory energies to be paired and yet remain on opposite sides of the swirl.

    What happens when the vast forces become more eventful? The vortex simply expands, but the opposites remain intact because they can remain positioned on opposing sides of the swirl. And another seemingly unintentional (but possibly important) feature of the vortex … it is a circle or sphere … a whole.

    OK. That’s all I got.

  2. Gee, I understand the this-or-that viewpoint, that everything is binary … or not. 🙂

    The core here is “when reality is sliced nothing can ever be left over, nor left out.” That has to mean binary AND every other way of ‘slicing the pie’ is present in reality.

    So I observe that a ‘successful’ 3-D (and beyond) life/existence includes coming to recognize the choices that are better/easier/more advantageous when made binary … and those that are not. Hmmmm … is that another binary decision ?!

      1. Yes, my weak humor was intended to point out that 3D life often adds to the illusion of binary choices: if you pick A, that was a binary choice between A and not-A, right?!?! Never mind the hundreds of things, thoughts, feelings, scenarios, etc. one considered/wrestled with in getting to that choice …

        I believe TGU is cautioning about conceptually dividing reality (totality) into a binary worldview: “ what you can do is be a little more careful about defining things you don’t like as evil.” [bad, wrong, good, right, etc.) Corroborates very well with Elias’ consistent (I’m up to the third year of sessions) warnings about the same, along with the problems with (fixed/rigid) belief systems.

  3. Frank? Something WEIRD happened in the early morning today.
    I was all alone in the room, when “A PRESENCE” was felt within me(upon my head) – and “THE PRESENCE” told: “It IS no Impersonal Forces, there WAS ONE, but no more.”

    GOSH !!!! RIGHT NOW something more of the weirdness happened when sitting here readibg yours—-I can`t believe my own mind !!!! In my mind, an clearly “setting” of an IMAGE OF SETH/JANE (lively/vividly), came forth upon my mind as “a Picture/Image.”
    REALLY??? Shall I BELIEVE in it ? Was it in “the spirit” by SETH/JANE who told me so?

    Clearly told: “….no Impersonal Forces – once was but no more…..”

    I`m in shock !
    Don`t be….Smile.

    Hard to sign this with Inger Lise.

    1. Take it as an opportunity. Put yourself in a receptive space when convenient and say you are open to receiving more. Maybe pencil and paper will help you; I certainly would use them. No need for fear, though perhaps a certain amount of awe is warranted! Go see what’s on your horizon, if the idea appeals to you. Who knows, perhaps it’s time for you to enter more actively into the conversations.

      1. Thanks a lot Frank- and the reply/answer, came upon my mind without hesitation, it came spontaneously as the word came as BODHISATTVA – This morning awakening with the advice: ” USE THE BODHISATTVA.”
        To tell the truth I could only vaguely recall what BODHISATTVA meant but not quite sure of its meaning(but looking up Wikipedia)…. And thereafter to find the Bhagavad Gita in my bookshelf…. My book, the Bhagavad Gita, is printed in Denmark 1987, and of course translated into Danish, with the splendid explanation of the Sanskrit wordings by the old Danish Professor….it is easy to read.

        Well, to tell the truth as it is — I have done “the conversations” before, but after being “burned” to shut “the door.”

        Again, as always, most grateful to you & all….

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.