TGU – initial considerations

Friday, June 4, 2021

3 a.m. You said we’d begin with the moment after death, looked at this time not from the 3D shore we leave, or the ship that carries us, but from the non-3D shore we arrive on. Metaphor, I realize, but still I’m interested. Shall we dance?

We are tempted to begin with a series of bullet-points, emphasizing the things for you to keep in mind together, even though this may interfere with initial clarity.

• Remember, the “you” you are experiencing as a unity is actually a community, in so many ways. So it isn’t like you are a kid being stranded on an island, without even a man Friday.
• You have become accustomed to thinking of lost souls – people needing retrieval because they have forgotten who they are – but we remind you, these are not people who have arrived and are beginning their next phase of life, but are people who are unable to proceed to their next phase of life, until assisted back into relation with the rest of themselves.
• Remember (and it might be worthwhile to study) mythology and the scriptures of various religions, to see what they have to say about the new arrivals needing a guide on the farther shores.
• However, St. Peter and the pearly gates, or Charon and the River Styx, or even Virgil conducting Dante, are metaphors, remember, not literal descriptions. Scriptures and mythologies are not Europe on $5 a Day, they are attempts to translate a non-linear non-3D experience into terms at least semi-comprehensible to people who can’t remember ever having traveled.
• Remember that animists describe things differently, because the 3D reality they experienced in life was not divided and compartmentalized – hence, neither could you expect that their vision of the continuation of life would be. But you cannot disregard their testimony just because it is unfamiliar and may not gibe with other traditions. Indeed, it is all the more valuable for you because it is It describes not a different reality but a different way to experience a subset of reality – just as it did in 3D life.
• Finally (for the moment), consider descriptions of the differences between 3D and non-3D, between mortal life and post-mortal life. (You may find it difficult to find descriptions of pre-mortal life.) That is, 3D life followed by judgment? 3D life followed only by another 3D life? 3D life followed by oblivion? (And, in the latter scheme, what happens to the components of the soul being oblivion-ated?) As with previous points, comparison of various views will spark many things.

Many years ago, I published Peter Novak’s The Division of Consciousness, which used these traditions to argue that our conscious and unconscious minds go separate ways on physical death, and this is the cause of so much misery. I found his argument highly provocative. I told him at the time, that might be the most important book we ever published. For some reason I haven’t ever thought to get your views on the subject.

Except that he treated the spirit-soul-body as more of a unit than they are in origin, there is much to approve of. He got that the same split between conscious and unconscious, between spirit and soul, between, if you will, right-brain and left-brain, argued for a fundamental split in the human psyche, held together by 3D limitations and –if not integrated by the decisions of a 3D life – subject to being destroyed in effect by centrifugal force thereafter.

I see I may have to return to read his books from the changed perspective of 20 years’ experience talking with you. Original Christianity, for instance.

Still, your task is not to provide commentary on other people’s insights, but to help bring our insights into focus. “Our”  in this case means non-3D awareness focused through your particular 3D focus. Bear in mind, non-3D awareness always, by necessity, is focused through someone’s particular 3D mind. That is why testimony varies in intensity and color and culture-influenced metaphor; it also why every such testimony is valuable. You each offer a somewhat unique view of the same overreaching reality, because of course you each front upon a different subset of that reality.

• Therefore, add to our bullet-points: Remember Rita’s extensive description of the process of remembering what you really are. It won’t describe what you move into (we will attempt to do that, going on), but will at least show you initial impressions of the 3D soul.

Now, that’s a lot of try to keep in mind. We recommend that you not try to “keep it in mind” in the sense of holding it in momentary consciousness. The effort would exhaust you, and anyway would leave no mental room for truly considering things in any new way. “Keep it in mind” in this case means, refresh your memory from time to time, so that you will be able to associate the background with the new material as it surfaces. In other words, don’t slide into associating new material with whatever you happened to believe prior to the investigation.

Understood.

Your old friend Bob Friedman was forever asking “What do they do” once dead to 3D life, and we were unable to say more than “they relate,” unsatisfactory as that was as an answer. Can you now see why? It took Rita’s Awakening book merely to sketch the background the newly arrived ex-3D-soul brought with it, and how it adjusted. And perhaps it is going to take another book’s worth of material to begin to sketch out the world they move into. (“Move into” is of course metaphor.) And it would all have been wasted on him anyway, and you know why.

Yes, I do, though perhaps I have never had reason to mention it. Bob was always thirsty for new material, and as far as I could tell he was always willing to consider new schemes, but only as a sort of Aquarian mind-playing. He was not (as far as I could ever see) willing or able to depart from his firmly-held beliefs and reorient from there.

[New “voice”:] That’s not it.

Bob? I’ve been waiting for us to meet again. Hoping for it. As you know, I guess. Well, then, what did I misread?

The difference between us was that you were always willing to jump into something new, and I wasn’t, not in that way. You tended to forget everything you had believed or had known, because you had a new way of looking at things. That has its value, but it isn’t practical. You can’t keep inventing yourself as you go along.

You saw yourself as providing the stability, I guess, balancing my foolhardy exploration.

I didn’t say foolhardy. But somebody had to mind the store.

That’s in terms of us as businessmen. But what about Bob as individual looking for higher truth? For, as far as I can see from outside, that’s what you did all your life, from Seth to Poseidia to so many intuitive friends to Monroe. You were the one who – though initially skeptical of my TGU interactions – came to be interested enough to suggest making books out of the daily conversations Rita and I started having a few years ago. You, as an individual, were very open to this kind of material, but still I always sensed a drag within you against your exploring more. You told me, you had been described as having been a child oracle in some life, and you didn’t want to go that direction again. Does it still look that way from where you are?

We don’t need a Bob’s World to go with Rita’s World..

Why not a Bob and Rita’s World? The same advantages would obtain: You both knew me in 3D; you both were deeply interested in life and what would follow life; you knew each other, and we all knew a core of other players many of whom are on the same side with you now: Colin Wilson, Bob Monroe, Bruce Moen – a lot of them, not to mention ones you knew but didn’t know in person, such as Jane Roberts. And even there, Bob, you knew Rob Butts pretty well, it seems to me.

We can talk about it.

A very interesting development! Unfortunately, we’re past my usual hour. I hope we can continue this another time.

That’s up to you more than it is to us.

In that case, we’ll definitely be talking some more. It’s awfully good to be in contact again, Bob. And guys, our thanks as always, and see you next time.