TGU on paths and weights

Saturday, March 30, 2019

Hanns Oskar Porrs, in a PEM, asks me about a statement of Rita’s from Rita’s World 2, page 159. She had been discussing alternate futures, pointing out that since all possible paths are taken, what we see as probabilities is really something different. It isn’t that there is a 60% chance that we will go this particular way, but that in 60% of the futures, we do. That’s a very different statement! She used the CD Rom analogy and I said taking one path doesn’t obviate the paths taken by other players at another time. To quote Rita:

R: Yes, and yet if certain paths are much more widely accepted than others, in effect those paths become more weighted, more real. It isn’t that some futures are avoidable nor even that they are less real; it is that they are less commonly encountered, hence have less impact upon the total group consciousness.

Mr. Porr says “this implies that our variant lives (or possibly all lives of all people) take some paths more often than others. Some paths are more trodden, and some paths are less taken.” And he asks if it is true that “in the sum of our variant lives, some paths are taken more often?  Or, to let the cat out of the bag, and to highlight a word that Rita used above, carry more WEIGHT ?”

4:25 a.m. I can’t really see the question here. To me it seems obvious that some paths are more popular, and more populated, than others. For it to be any other way would require a mathematical equality that in turn would require a miracle of precision, to make everything balance out among all possible paths. Am I missing something?

Probably the distinction here is in assumptions. If one assumes a zero-sum game, then lo and behold, that is what the results will seem to show. But really, it is a deeper divide even than that. It is more the difference, again, between a motion-picture still and a photo.

In that our lives are a continuing stream that never ceases, never ceases to interact and choose.

More, that never ceases to rewrite, as you did Joseph from 1994/1863, thus creating new versions.

[To prevent misunderstanding, this necessary detour: Yes, all versions possible are inherent in the world (that is, in reality) when it is created. But that doesn’t mean manifest. Possibilities are not actualities until someone actually treads that path.]

So, if your life leads you to value certain things like kindness, or it hones certain skills like conveying healing energies, or it connects certain formerly unconnected dots that lead to a new awareness, not only is your present life affected, but potentially everything it connects to may be – and you all connect to everything, sooner or later, to greater or less degree.

Those changes cascade primarily among your own threads, but of course those threads connect to others within and not within your particular Sam, as 3D interaction provides.

So can we shortcut to what Mr. Porr is driving at?

What you decide (not once, but on a continuing basis) changes you, and one way of expressing it is to say that you become a person of more, or of less, gravitas, consequence, presence. No two people are equal in this, as your everyday experience will have told you. Well, that leads to unequal results when one person’s opinion is weighed against another’s. George Washington’s lifelong character development made him a vastly more consequential person than others of his wealth and fame (if there were any) would have been. And consequences cannot be restricted to the personal, regardless if the person is known to history (that is, to fame) or is entirely unknown.

A very short way to say it is: What you make yourself helps determine the fate of everything. Only, it is true of everyone else as well.

Do I get that in effect our decisions not only change us now (however long they take to change us) but also back and forth in time, and occasionally creating new versions as in 1994/1863 that in turn continue to affect us?

That is why – and how – seemingly insignificant decisions, by seemingly insignificant people, change the world. Cumulatively, the total weight of various traits, habits, embodied decisions (that is: actions), weights some potential paths heavier and others lighter. That is also why there’s no reason to give up even when all is lost.

All is lost but is nonetheless well.

Lost in one instant but not necessarily forever, and in any case, it isn’t like the game is broken, or reality is ruined.

I get it. We’ll see if others do, or if we’ve left it too cryptic.

Remember, if you can, reality is more like a dream than a construction site. Nothing is ever set in stone.

Okay. Thanks for this.

 

13 thoughts on “TGU on paths and weights

  1. Thank you, Frank and TGU! Much to think about. There is a lot of hope and solace in these statements.

    Can you just please clarify the inserted portion: “But that doesn’t mean manifest. Possibilities are not actualities until someone actually treads that path.”
    But all paths are still “eventually” treaded, and none are left unexplored, right?

      1. Well, my immediate answer (which I already hinted at in an earlier comment) is: Every choice has to be taken. For if it is not, then it is no longer a choice, but a certainty: I WILL go take path A 100%, and not even consider going path B. At that point, there is no more choosing. No more fluidity is possible. No more dream-state reality… Only concrete set in stone. What we would end up with is predestination — you would be destined to go that route. This would go counter to everything that has been said before, and counter to my own ‘inner knowing.’

        What do you think? Are you seeing it the same, or am I missing something? Thank you.

        1. No, I can’t agree with you here. I would say pretty much the opposite: If a given path is not taken now, maybe it will be taken later. This may be as simple as the difference between seeing this as a snapshot or seeing it as a movie.

          1. Maybe we are saying the same thing. I actually got the sense you state here as well (therein lies the great hope and solace).
            Note how I asked if all paths are >>eventually<outside of timealso< from outside the temporal aspect, guidance and interactions (potentially even also with another variant-self or future self ) changes the context and thereby resets the weighting of the choices. Thus what was a side-path "before" (to use your sense) may take on more significance "later", and vice versa, the path more trodden may become less significant. Therein lies the great hope. Not just for me, or you, but I am starting to see, for humanity.

            Thoughts?

          2. [ Sorry, something went wrong when this got sent. Weird… Trying again: ]

            Maybe we are saying the same thing. I actually got the sense you state here as well (therein lies the great hope and solace).
            Note how I asked if all paths are >>eventually<also< from outside the temporal aspect, guidance and interactions (potentially even also with another variant-self or future self ) changes the context and thereby resets the weighting of the choices. Thus what was a side-path "before" (to use your sense) may take on more significance "later", and vice versa, the path more trodden may become less significant. Therein lies the great hope. Not just for me, or you, but I am starting to see, for humanity.

            [and after I typed the first message that got mixed up, I got this here, so I add it now]: ……for humanity, and also for TGU, for SAM, and for all-that-is.

            Thoughts?

          3. OK, now the second message got mangled the same way, and I paid extra attention that it was typed OK! Something is going on… Once, a glitch, twice, I go hmmm. I’ll send it in via email instead, and hope it gets to you as i try to write it. Maybe somebody is trying to give me a lesson about redoing choices ? 🙂

  2. Love this session! Yoga tradition says that one taking up yoga practice will change the destiny of the family 10 generations forwards and backwards. I got the forward but only now starting to see the backward meaning: I have collaborated with my aunt to write family history for the generations still remembered, and that really is something! Discerning the strands of courage and wild trust to life from the misery and tragedy of life in previous generations – seeing how dreams and longings sometimes miraculously just get fulfilled in spite of everything. Next generation can (and in jungian view will) fulfill the dreams of previous generations. Feels like paying attention to my ancestors opens up something that was closed.

    Also about new paths: a new vision/path takes a lot of work (not right word but not catching any better) to pull/emerge into reality. The brain-thinking limitations are serious. Many traps there that completely block potential from emerging. Like the monsters devouring careless adventurers looking to achieve heroic deeds in fairy tales.

  3. Frank, I just received deep insight into all this, and it is more magnificent than I could imagine. Maybe you had it all along, I can’t say.

    the rabbit hole goes much deeper.

    It not just that we take every path, but we take every path with every possible weighting imaginable.

    The image of the still photo and the move is only the beginning. But it severed to remind me of something Seth talked about, for he used that analogy as well. He said ( something like) time does not move forward and backwards, but also in and out. At each frame of the move, time would also move in and out.

    At each frame of the move, at every choice point (!), infinite weighings are possible. Time and probability does not just go left and right, but up and down. And we take all of these paths. This includes also a weighting of 0% and 100%, and every other weighting in-between ( that was TGUs comment on the 4 piece logic the other day! It all fits)

    As TGU said (something like), we are the instruments that the universe plays though. And the winds of the universe, the animating power of Spirit, blow continually though our paths, in all weightings. That is another key insight: it is not like we (the universe) walks this path once and it is all done and over with, but continually.

    but here is the real beauty, that you picked on yesterday, the pragmatic part that has great hope for us: the weighing that we chose in this life can be changed by something else that happens — including an interaction with a future version of us.

    Thereby, if the weighting changes, the strength of a given path in the overall picture changes. A path less trodden can take on tremendous meaning. And that is the immense hope and insight. Alternatively, you could say, we just switch from one version of the same path with less weight to another version of that SAME path with more weight, and thus the consequences changes.

    For we, you, me, all of us, have within us that power. We can reset a weight (retroatively for us in this lifetime) and make something worthwhile out of life. We are the creators, or co-creators.

    Everything is fluent. And as they said: through these changes in weighing, new worlds come into existence all the time.

    If you can grasp it, its beyond magnificent.

    My questions on this topic of guidance and choosing have been answers. I am ready to go on to other questions. But I can see that others will have questions, so it may need clarifications for others.

    Namaste
    ~Hanns

    1. Additionally, religious dogmas would shed light on these things, if people were able to decouple from their anti-religious prejudices and examine the actual teaching. Thus, the efficacy of prayer; prayers for the dead; prayers for each other. Examined in the light of this analogy, doesn’t it make sense? Oh, for someone who took metaphysics, science, and religion equally seriously, and could do the work of interpretation needed!

      1. thank you, for pointing to prayer, and linking it to this discussion.
        I understand what you say. ( I also get the nudge).

        This is what came to me this morning: It is not just seeing past the dogma. It is also past the language. Much got lost in translation, for it is ALL translation, from something beyond language into language.

        So if you really get what is hidden in these key terms:
        “Ejeh Asher Ejeh” (“I am what I am”, yes and no), and “Elohim”
        “Tao” ( “The way”, yes and no)
        “Shunyata” ( “emtiness”, yes and no)
        And also “Brahman,” “Atman,” ( and Shiva, and Vishnu… )

        If you understand what stands behind all these words, then you see.

        For that matter, there is one more word to consider: “Ra”

        What lies hidden here? Have you ever inquired with TGU et. al. what “Ra refers to” ? Or who or why or when or how? And why it resonates? After all the heavy lifting about “choice,” maybe a little fun side journey? Not just to the place of Egypt, but to it’s inner spirit? (Wasn’t that why you stepped on the airplane? )

      2. I am thinking about the brain: such a complicated system developed upon the instinctual aporoach-avoid mechanism. How many shades can we develop between yes and no? And is it possible to completely transcend the yes and no? And still have a body? Yes and no belong to the flesh, the highly automatic will to survive as a biological system. That balloon ride Frank told about: is the brain/body the passenger of a multi-dimensional balloon? The limitations of the brain make it difficult to perceive what is going on in manouverig the balloon, and relaxing and just enjoying the views is hard for the survival system to accept. So, instead of getting completely carried away by the wonders and terrors of the journey, finding methods to communicate with the pilot is vitally important. Much more important than what I feel about the journey. And this would be what religions attempt to teach. But those attempts get constantly mangled up into the biological survival automatisms. As long as teachers are human, they want to survive and have a nice place in the monkey tribe hierarchy. It is always a question of who are we serving with our choices? The flesh-being needs its comforts, how is it getting them? Is it me first and then church on Sundays? Or is it a trust that the me here gets what it needs by learning to communicate with the pilot?

        1. Oh, the pilot has to direct the balloon in accordance with the receptive capacity of the passenger. So opening, space to receive without judgement is important. And mostly we are so bad at that that we need chemical drugs to help in suspending the automated brain pathways. Our thinking system has a strong preference for the same old. Because same old is also the safe old familiar that has kept us alive. So biology can run the show by sticking to the survival mode. Anything else requires a conscious effort. A continuous effort to choose differently. Something like a religious practice, I assume.

Leave a Reply

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