Saturday, March 23, 2019
9:50 a.m. Mr. Porr poses questions not easily answered, and although I have the general idea, I’d prefer that one of you do the explaining – particularly of the parts I don’t understand and think I do!
[Although this email is rather long, I’m going to quote it in full before proceeding to TGU’s response.]
[Hanns Oscar Porr:]
Frank, thank you for your recent series on Egypt; and the highly poetic ending (?) .
I know we had talked previously about choosing, particularly with reference to tragic events. After having read Cosmic-Internet, Rita’s World 1&2, I am currently reading your book Sphere/Hologram, and the sections written on and after 9/11 are striking. However, there is one aspect that I struggle with. I see a contraction, and I can’t work myself through it. It is entirely possible that this was answered later somewhere, but I have not seen it. So I would like to ask the following for clarification, and maybe you can take it up to TGU ? If it has not been answered, I hope it would be a valuable clarification in general. (Or, if this was answered already, please let me know where, so that I can read it up).
I’ll post the question succinctly first, because I get that “the better the question, the better the answer,” and then below give some relevant references.
If every possibility already exists in “the crystal” of Being (TGU’s wonderful metaphor), then nothing can be added to it as far as any new situations or circumstances. At the same time, we have free choice, and at every choice point ( every second and nanosecond ) we branch off so that eventually all possibilities that are open to us ARE in fact explored. This may even include our thoughts: we do not really think but only choose, and thereby create ourselves. Thus, nothing is created, but explored in full through all of our choices. Nothing moves, but only consciousness moves.
Question 1:
So how does TGU create or alter situations? Or orchestrating opportunities? If all situations and all outcomes and all possibilities and all opportunities already exist, and will be explored? Or aid or give guidance, especially if all thoughts are already there in the crystal, from which we then choose (in fact, choose all variants) ? It seems, there is nothing that can be added as far as new situations / opportunities.
Question 2 (related):
Likewise, if TGU alters the weights of the strands ( recalibrates the settings), then how does this make any difference? Because at every choice point we still have all the same possibilities open to us and all choices will be explored no matter what. If they advise “me/us” somehow to go left, then this variant of “I/us” that heeds the guidance will go left, but another variant of I/us still goes right, so there is no difference at all: all versions of I/us will still get created, all possible variants of living “this” life will be gifted.
Do you see the contraction, or am I missing something? I have a hunch of where this may go, but I don’t want to lead the answer. Your/their answers always surprise me, and then I have to think myself though, and while this is hard, it has proven insightful. I wonder what change of viewpoint you/they come up with to reconcile this.
Below are some concrete references to show what I see as a contradiction; I picked Sphere/Hologram because I am currently reading it, but similar references are in other posts/books as well.
As always, I greatly appreciate your work
~Hanns
1) We always have free will.
2) We are “in the middle of a crystal that contains all possible choices…” (Sphere/Hologram p. 105, many other places. The implications are, as stated by TGU/Rita:
ALL things that can happen, are already there.
We do not create anything in reality, instead choose, and thereby create “ourselves.”
There is no movement, but only consciousness moves ( for example, Sphere/Hologram p. 120) , by “walking the possibilities.”
3) There are infinite versions of ‘me’ that explore all possible outcomes. (For example, Sphere/Hologram p. 118: Everybody takes all conceivable actions, or inactions. Also in many other places..) and then in later posts, all variants create a “possibility cloud” of all variants of “my” (our) lives.
But now we have this :
4) Sphere Hologram P. 137 ( and other posts) “We can create the events and we can lead you towards, but it’s up to you to choose.”
…
“we’re orchestrating the opportunities.” … “creating the situations that allow the opportunity for some people to wake up”… ‘those orchestrated incidents […] set up the circumstances in which people could make the choices.”
Of relevance are also your recent re-post of “An orchestrated incident”, plus its follow-up in 2007 about “An orchestrated incident – 2” where they talk about changing the strands, or the weights, and recalibrating the settings.
[TGU:] There is a fundamental misunderstanding at the base of these perceived contradictions. There is a difference between potential and actual, as well as between embodied (3D) and disembodied (non-3D either as part of something extending into 3D or as something entirely independent of 3D, such as the voice you call Nathaniel, that has not been human).
“All paths exist” means that at the creation of the world (at the creation of reality) everything is there; there is nothing added on after the fact. But that doesn’t mean “there in fact”; it means “there in potential.” The potential to have the pyramids constructed existed from the beginnings of the world, but they did not become actual until somebody built them. To say “all paths exist” is merely to acknowledge the completeness of the scheme of things from the very beginning. It doesn’t mean the pyramids existed in stone merely because the potential for them to be constructed existed.
Because a possibility exists does not mean it will be actualized in any given reality-stream, time-stream. The timeline that saw the pyramids built obviously is not the timeline that saw them never built. That should be obvious once stated. Any given timeline will consist of some paths taken and many paths not. It is only in considering all timelines together that you can see all possibilities actualized. After all, if Lincoln is shot in 1865, he cannot die of natural causes. If he is defeated in the election of 1860, none of the rest of his career will be unaltered, obviously. So in considering these things it is important to consider, are you talking about the reality made manifest in any one timeline or that which is theoretical to you (since you live in a timeline) and only evident from a point of view beyond timelines. What you see, and the conclusions you draw from what you see, are going to be quite different, depending.
So, in considering non-3D interaction with 3D situations (that is, your lives), bear in mind that such interaction will only be observed relative to a single timeline. If you change timelines, you will still be observing from a single timeline, and this regardless how many times you jump.
The discussion leading to “all possibilities are explored” concerns not any single timeline, but only all of them considered together. To consider single timelines and all timelines together will result only in confusion. It would be like confusing the letter A singly and the whole alphabet together. Each has its place. Each is integrally connected to the same scheme of things. Each actually is part of the other. But you can’t spell words using only one letter, and you can’t discern words using only all letters. Each in its place, and it all makes sense. Confuse the two, and only confusion can result.
Perhaps this will help.
I’ll type it up and send it, and we’ll see. Thanks.
I am grateful for Hanns’ clear questions, and their elaborations. I’ve had versions of them, too. I’m going to re-read and ponder them some more as we wait to see what Mr. Porr thinks of the answer.
Thank you, Frank! As Jane said above, I’ll have to ponder it as well.
There appears to be something new here that was never stated that way:
“Because a possibility exists does not mean it will be actualized IN ANY given reality-stream, time-stream.”
If so, this is big, and indeed important.
Because this may indeed resolve many contractions…. while at the same time raise new questions… (do you see that, too?)
Curious: Do you or any other reader know of a reference to this from TGU/Rita etc, where “they” stated something similar before, that is “not all possibilities are actualized?”
Upon first reading, it seems different to what TGU said before. I quote again: Sphere/Hologram p. 118: “Everybody takes all conceivable actions, or inactions.” This was said a few days after 9/11 and in reference to that event!
I also seem to remember similar statements from Rita, but would have to search for them.
I get what they say about single timeline vs all timelines, and I don’t think I mixed it. (Frank, you know I gave this a lot of thought).
I did in fact ask about the view from TGU “outside of time” where all timelines are seen. To me, the statement above (“everybody takes ALL conceivable actions”) could only be stated from outside of time.
Upon my first reading, their new answer is not aligned with what they said previously, and I would like to ask for more clarification from TGU (or anybody) why that is, or how the answers can be reconciled? If need be, I’ll write up specific questions.
Does anybody else have an insight about this?
Again, thank you. I will think this through in more detail.
I think you are misreading something, here. You quote “Because a possibility exists does not mean it will be actualized IN ANY given reality-stream, time-stream.” I think you take that to mean, it won’t be actualized anywhere. The sense I had was that it meant it wouldn’t necessarily appear “in any [one] given timestream,” not “in no timestream at all.”
I see. You interpreted it as (restated) “Because a possibility exists does not mean it will be actualized in ALL given reality-streams.” Since you received the communications , I trust your interpretation.
But I did specifically pose the question with regard to the point of view of TGU outside of time, seeing all timelines. Their answer is applicable more towards the downstairs view.
They did not address the core of the contradictions.
This is the central point: If from THEIR view the crystal is complete, and from THEIR view we take all variant paths, then the question is unanswered:
1) how do they add situations to something that is complete already?
… and thereby help or guide
2) and what good would be such guidance if all paths are taken?
#1 is arguably the more important question, and I would still request clarification. As always, thank you.
WOW and GOSH ! (and thank you very much Hanns Oskar Porr) – How many times not pondering the same, but impossible to me – given the difficulties in the wordings by my own ponderings within another language than my own ( my norwegian into the english language) !!! IF to have understood this particular askings by Hanns` – THEN, it is reminding me about ACIM and SETH !!! As long as you BELIEVE all things exists it will continue “to be there” … when you do NOT to have “The Belief” in what you see about you, it will NOT “be there” either. Once to read and study ACIM: If you BELIEVE to have the behoove of forgiveness and you`ll create “the need of it”, and;”There IS NOTHING to Forgive” in the first place, because there is nothing anyway – the Freedom from what-so-ever exists(and not to believe in restrictions by time & space). The Aborginies whom to have kept the ancient knowledge up to this date, to call it “a Dream World”. Seth: Nothing exists before it is “created in the dreams at first.” Well, the conclusion must be if we stop to believe in the world we see – it will not be there any more.
All empty space only consciousness or?
Thanks as always Frank for your thought-provoking books and your splendid website.
as always, Inger Lise
Try Paul Brunton’s remarkable book The Wisdom of the Overself.
I have a suggestion for Hann. Step back from your “specific” questions and logic for a moment (2 to 3 days). Then, come back to the “generalized” response that TGU provided. Maybe meditate 15 to 30 minutes each day, before you come back and re-read TGU’s response.
Here’s “why”. Notice how TGU is not taking on all the step-by-step detail that you presented. They began more simply with addressing an errant premise which ended up misguiding your questions (e.g., the step-by-step). TGU ended with a clue about a human limitation (e.g., using an alphabet analogy).
Here’s “how”. So to summarize what I generally suggesting: (1) detach from the detail you elaborately used to work out your questions; (2) clear your biological brain (not your mind) using some meditation; and (3) come back and read the “general points” made by TGU with a renewed mind.
Hope this is helpful. If not, feel free to ignore it.