Year: 2025

[Excerpts from conversations between Rita Warren and “the guys upstairs,” in the years 2001 and 2002, edited from The Sphere and the Hologram.]

Emotion as gradient

R: This is another question that came up around the disaster questions last week. [Sept 11, 2001] You had said that our 3D Disasters had some impact on you. I wondered if you could talk some more about that. Here we are experiencing fear, other emotions, questions about how to behave, how to feel and so on. What happens for you?

TGU: It’s almost too simple to be able to get across to you. What happens to you is what happens to us, with the caveat that it’s what happens to all of you, including trees, rocks, oceans, and air, all of which are sentient, as you suspect. What you feel is what we feel, but you only feel it one tentacle at a time, and we feel the whole octopus.

R: But without the emotional impact. Or is it the totality of the emotional impact also?

TGU: [sigh] Well, that requires – have you guessed? – another lecture.

What you experience as emotions are gradients. This is difficult, because Frank doesn’t have this language, really. Let’s move back up a little bit.

You know what a gradient does; a gradient takes something from one state to another. The slope of a hill could be considered to be a gradient between a high place and a low place. It connects them and at the same time its own nature describes how they connect. If you have a total discontinuity – a mesa, say, out west – that rises straight out of the surroundings, the gradient is radically different from the gradient in a gentle prairie that might still gain a thousand feet, but take a thousand miles do it.

Well, your emotions are gradients between what happens and what you would prefer to happen. This is very crude and it’s not exactly right, but it’s an entry into the subject.

We don’t have emotions in the way that you do because we don’t have the preferred option in the same way you do. We are trying to steer things in certain directions, and hoping that you all make certain choices, but we ourselves don’t identify with any one of you in the way that any one of you has to identify with yourself. You as an individual may become aware of your other lives and your other dimensions and expand the size of the part that you identify with, but while you’re in the body you’re only identifying with one part of the whole.

You will remember that we say that your purpose on earth in physical matter reality is to choose and choose and choose and to create yourselves, and that the creation of yourself is the gift. Well, it isn’t only after you come back as part of us. It’s a gift while you’re doing it. Now this is an analogy, but just as we taste cherry pie when you eat cherry pie, so we can experience the emotion of hatred and fear when you experience the emotion of hatred and fear. With the major exception – which invalidates the analogy – that we don’t experience things in one slice of time after another, and we don’t experience things in one slice of individuality, so-called, after another.

So the way we experience it is so different from the way you experience it, that until people make more of an effort to understand the difference in terrain, they’ll never understand that both sides are doing the same thing at the same time. If you have a life largely lived in fear, you will still experience that life moment by moment by moment. If we are experiencing that life largely lived in fear, we’ll experience the fear more as a color or a tint or a flavor or a shade, tingeing the whole thing, rather than one specific moment at a time. Now, that doesn’t mean we don’t see a moment. We’re here, with you, in this moment. But it means that what’s fluid for us seems solid to you; what’s fluid for you seems solid to us. As an example, your whole life looks to us as one unit, and we have to sort of focus carefully to get you at any moment in time.

Keeping all that in mind if you can – it’ll be easier when you read it – your emotions are a gradient between what is and what you want. Now, you could also say, it’s a gradient between what happens to you and what your previous experience has led you to think would happen to you. We’re not going to get very far here without examples, so give us an example that occurs to you of a strong emotion.

R: Well, there are people right now getting onto airplanes in a state of terror. They have to go someplace and yet they’re very fearful about that.

TGU: What is it we want to look at about the emotion?

R: My original question was, what are you experiencing on your side, when we’re seeing a disaster in terms of these strong emotions?

TGU: Well, the person boards the airplane in a state of advanced fear. The person next to them boards the airplane without fear, because they live in a different reality. They have a different belief system. You experience the moment as the overriding thing, because you live moment by moment, or rather, you live in the continuing now. But we experience the overall lengthwise flavor of it. So we see that person being brought to an opportunity-point of dealing with an ingrained pattern of fear that maybe until then has been unsuspected or has been dealt with casually. So that where you look at it as “how they feel right now,” we look at it as, “what opportunities does this give them to choose?” That’s really the way we look at it. Thus, we can be made to look very cold-blooded, to you. We assure you that we’re not.

R: It doesn’t sound that way when you explain it.

TGU: [lightly] We have good lawyers.

—

The Sphere and the Hologram, 15^th anniversary edition, published by SNN / TGU Books, is available as print or eBook from Amazon and other booksellers.

 

[Excerpts from conversations between Rita Warren and “the guys upstairs,” in the years 2001 and 2002, edited from The Sphere and the Hologram.]

Sept. 11, 2001 (3)

R: Would the events that happened in our time and space today change the energy at your level in some ways?

TGU: Well, you know, we’re not surprised by any of this. We know what’s going on that hasn’t happened in your area yet. We know converging probabilities are practically certainties. So, how should it change our energies?

R: Well, I’m saying that there may be on the earth level lots of demand for your attention today.

TGU: But, you know, how many people died? When you have 15 or 20 or 30 billion at a time, then you might start taxing our facilities, but – you know how many ex-people there are? World War II didn’t tax us, this isn’t going to tax us, in terms of a drain on our attention, if that’s what you mean.

R: This would be a small event, compared to the kinds of events in your –

TGU: In a way, you could kill everyone on the planet on the same day, and – the mission of the planet off to the side, just considering that number of people –if we had to, we’d react to it.

R: Well, all the suggestions you made tonight about the future on our planet sound very grim.

TGU: You knew them a long time ago.

R: Well, I haven’t known them. I have really been an optimist. And when the question has been, “Are we going to end with being blown up by atomic bombs, or are the earth changes going to wipe us out,” I haven’t come down on the side of either of those. But it sounds like you’re saying I’m wrong about that.

TGU: We didn’t mention either of those things. [stops, starts and sputters]

R: Well I was using that as an example of the kinds of questions that had to do with how it all ends.

TGU: Well it doesn’t all end. [They laugh] It always goes on. It’s curious to us, how while you’re in bodies it seems to you that anything that takes people out of bodies is not an optimistic end, given that you’re all going to come out of the body anyway, and if you didn’t you’d be stuck. You are going to have extensive disruptions, but your whole lives have been extensive disruptions and you’ve lived them fruitfully and with purpose. Looking back on them, one might say, “Oh my God, it’s been one damn thing after another,” and in a way that’s true. But in another way it’s, “Wow, it’s been the removal of one chain after another.” And in a way that’s true.

If your systems were currently functioning in an optimal or even a sustainable way, then disruptions to the systems would be bad in the sense that you would find it not only uncomfortable but retrogressive. But your systems aren’t sustainable, and most of them aren’t even humane. And disruptions of those systems we cannot see as anything other than a way forward, not backward.

R: By systems you’re talking about social institutions and ways of defining our livelihoods.

TGU: Indirectly, yes. Primarily, we mean the way people are defining themselves, what they think they are. What they think the rules of life are. What they think the purpose or purposes of life are. All of that is very dysfunctional, although – within the overall context, anything that happens is a flower, as we’ve said. But we prefer other flowers, and to see this one destroyed…Well, we’ll ask you a rhetorical question. Would you rather see your civilization destroyed, or the earth? Not that that’s the real choice. But you see what we’re saying. There are times when something being destroyed is not only the lesser of two evils, but in fact is not an evil at all.

—

The Sphere and the Hologram, 15^th anniversary edition, published by SNN / TGU Books, is available as print or eBook from Amazon and other booksellers.

 

[Excerpts from conversations between Rita Warren and “the guys upstairs,” in the years 2001 and 2002, edited from The Sphere and the Hologram.]

Sept. 11, 2001 (2)

R: It seemed as though that would be something that we could do that might be helpful for those people who were easily ready to move to a non-physical state. But for all the others, we often did what we called rescue missions. Do you have some comments to make about that?

TGU: You could say that the period you’re coming to now is unprecedentedly different. You are loaded with volunteers who came in to do just this part of the drama.

Okay, let’s go back. You will remember that the last time we were talking about a person bringing in the things that that person could handle – that you couldn’t bring everything in to deal with at one time. Well, another aspect of that is, the kind of death someone has can also help to put them into a situation on the other side, that they can learn from, that they can grow from. It’ll help them to smooth things out for themselves. Not that being smooth is the ultimate result, but you understand: Just as you come into this side, into a situation that is sort of planned for you, giving you certain opportunities so that you can grow, so when you go to the other side it’s the same thing. You’re being born into the other side, into a certain limited situation, and so just as in this life you might come in with cerebral palsy, in that life you may come in with a traumatic death in an explosion or something that gives you no time to make sense of it.

Interacting with your belief systems at that time – which is another way of saying interacting with the product of what you have made yourself – sets up the situation on the other side. We realize that it looks like all the action is in 3D Theater, but there’s as much action going on on the other side as here. The interaction between the two allows changes of scene, so to speak. But when you go to the other side, that isn’t taking off the makeup and sitting in the back room, kicking your heels. You’re involved in another play over there. It’s just different terrain, you understand? Time and space are different over here, but you’re not without constraints, they’re just a different kind of constraints. So all of that’s very complicated, but what we’re trying to say is, the deaths that people die are part of their birth on the other side. It’s neither meaningless nor accidental.

R: So I guess that’s why the Buddhists have so many ideas about what death should be like. Seems to me the Buddhists – I don’t know if others besides the Buddhists – are very concerned about the nature of a death of a physical person.

TGU: Well – we’re smiling. It’s true. All we can say is that people by what they are form preferences, without even knowing it. And so smooth will look preferable to someone as opposed to rough, but it’s only a preference. We wouldn’t say that the Buddhists have the final word on the subject. They have a final word, a way of looking at things. It is a productive way; it’s not the only way.

The Sphere and the Hologram, 15^th anniversary edition, published by SNN / TGU Books, is available as print or eBook from Amazon and other booksellers.

 

[Excerpts from conversations between Rita Warren and “the guys upstairs,” in the years 2001 and 2002, edited from The Sphere and the Hologram.] —-

Sept. 11, 2001 (1)

R: We’ve had an extraordinarily large number of people moving from the physical into the “there” today. And this raises for us questions about the best way for us to deal with such things as a disaster. Do you have some comments you’d like to make about that?

TGU: That’s an excellent question. It’s the best question you could ask, because this is only the beginning, as you know. From your own points of view, the central necessity will be to monitor your reaction to the events that are coming. Your choices are constrained by your prior emotional reactions, so that were you to react in fear, or in rage, or in any of myriad ways, certain lines of development would be opened and others would be closed. This is said less for the particular people who are in this room than for the record, because this is – as we’ve said before – a record for others.

Our primary advice would be, hold your center. Stay on an even keel. And this does not mean do not react, but, in the midst of your reaction, remember who you are – for your own sakes, but also because of the part that you came here to play.

R: Is there a way in which we can be helpful in counter-acting fears and anxieties – both our own and others’?

TGU: Yes. Maintaining what you are has its effect on all the rest. You must remember that you are a part of a thing, and a part can affect the whole, by what you are. You aren’t isolated individuals who can only influence each other by thoughts or words or actions. This looks innocuous and ineffective, but in fact it is the most effective response possible while you are in bodies.

R: It’s one thing for us to be here in Virginia listening to events that are happening elsewhere. It’s really hard to imagine that if we were closer to the events we wouldn’t be in states of fear and anxiety ourselves.

TGU: Oh no. There are people on Manhattan Island doing the same thing you’re doing, but for the same reason that they will not hear of you in the news, you will not hear of them. You were not left as a little island off to the side.

R: I understand that, but we talk about the idea of releasing fear, releasing anxiety, and that sounds great, but how do we do that? That seems a very difficult thing to do.

TGU: How did you do it?

R: Well, I’m at some distance from it. If my children were there, if I were there myself, I can’t imagine that I would be feeling as calm and relaxed and as centered as I feel here.

TGU: Well, that’s true – but there have been times in your life when you were in the center of things, and at those times, we ask again, what did you do? It’s only a rhetorical question, but the temptation in your country will be far greater from anger than from fear. Granted, the anger will stem from the fear, but more people will be in anger than will be in fear, and it will be a much stronger emotion, more easily manipulated.

However, if you ask, what can you do to help others maintain their centered-ness, we say again, maintain your own. It’s not ineffective.

R: Yes, that’s kind of the same theme we have for a lot of things; when we’re trying to heal, when we’re trying to send others good wishes, or love. You were talking last time about being a beacon. That struck a great nerve with me all week. And I thought about it in connection with the exercise that a research group used to do here, trying during a disaster to open a path for those individuals who were ready to move over [to the non-physical] with minimum anxiety and minimum fear; representing ourselves as beacons leading to a simple pathway for people to pass through. Children would be the easiest to think of moving in that way, because they wouldn’t be loaded with fear, and expectations.

TGU: Well, the children don’t miss anything, but they often misinterpret, of course. The beacon is an excellent way to do. You weren’t so much leading them through as you were, by what you are, letting them change to resonate to what you were. A minor point.

R: It seemed as though we were just pointing to an opportunity for them. In that sense just being a beacon.

TGU: In the sense that you were a stabilized point, that got them through; helped them get through. You understand, you were a stabilized point, and that is what we’re asking you to do now.

 

The Sphere and the Hologram, 15^th anniversary edition, published by SNN / TGU Books, is available as print or eBook from Amazon and other booksellers.

 

[Excerpts from conversations between Rita Warren and “the guys upstairs,” in the years 2001 and 2002, edited from The Sphere and the Hologram.]

Separation and Oneness

R: In this process that we’re doing, here and now – Frank’s conscious activity seems to move in and out. Sometimes I feel like he really is able to step aside enough so that I can speak directly to you, and other times I feel him coming back in. I’m asking questions about this generally without a very good way of putting it, but – what’s going on here? Is this to some extent a matter of Frank’s needing to or wanting to control what comes up, or is it just not wanting to miss anything? I’m asking why he comes back in when he does, I guess, and does this in effect get in the way?

TGU: No, you’re not seeing it right. It’s not going in and out at all. He’s never not here. And we’re never not here. [pause] The manner of expression alters so that sometimes it seems him and sometimes it seems us, but it’s always the same thing in different proportions. That’s the best we’re going to be able to do with that. You’re never going to get all him; you’re never going to get all us. It’s always going to be mixed. And the reason is, because that’s how he lives. That’s his normal life.

This disappointed him, when he was younger. There is no “him stepping all the way aside and us talking,” because there’s not that much separation between him and us to make that possible. Or even desirable. But also, oddly enough, there is no talking to him and not talking to us. Because the separation is not there and not desirable. So even when you’re talking to him about tuna fish, we’ll be popping in and out all the time, because he’s not got the barrier there. You see?

R: And yet it seems sometimes that you bring up information that Frank is not aware of.

TGU: Oh absolutely! Absolutely. That’s the value, you know. Well, not so much information, the value is that we are a corrective point of view. Actually, he might not see it that way. He would prefer more information than we usually can bring. He tends to think of us as having all knowledge and access to all knowledge, which is theoretically true, but in practice it isn’t true, because it depends on the questions. You see? [pause] We wouldn’t answer for the results if you were to ask us a question in Mandarin Chinese. Given the right circumstances, we suppose we could go find somebody. But it would have to be real and not theoretical; I don’t know how to explain that.

R: Okay, so my question really was aimed at what we’re doing here, and I’m hearing you say that there’s nothing that interferes.

TGU: That’s right. What you’re getting is hard for people to believe because of your concepts. It’s only a very slight exaggeration of your own life. In your own life, your own Gentlemen Upstairs – your Ladies Upstairs, whichever you prefer – are popping in and out all the time. Well, they’re not so much popping in and out as they’re there but they’re not always contributing. It’s just that your language and your civilization doesn’t encourage you to recognize the fact. And that’s one of the things that he’s here to do. Perhaps he’ll accomplish it, perhaps not. If you all realize that you are we and we are you, and that it’s not a question of a great occasional leap across a barrier, but of everyday intercourse, that will change your civilization radically.

R: Yes, that’s certainly true. And I’m encouraged to think in those terms. And yet people are encouraged to pray, to ask for help –

TGU: Yes, but, look what’s implied there. A prayer implies distance. You know? You’re praying to something else, which is a very strongly different nuance from opening your own channels. You can call ’em the guys upstairs, you can call ’em God, you can call ’em anything you want. But you also would be better off to remember that it’s part of you, it’s not something different. It is but it isn’t; you’re always going to get that. Because of the difference in playing fields, every answer is going to be, “Well it is but it isn’t,” because it depends on where you are when you ask the question. You are the same as your higher self. But you’re not. But you are. You pays your money and you takes your choice. [pause]

The whole mode of operation that assumes that there is a Frank and that there’s an “us” is incorrect. It’s a useful fiction, but that’s all. Because when there is identity, there can only be relative distinctions. There can only be polarities, let’s say. So, to say “Well Frank, you get out of the way, we want to talk to the guys,” sets up a willingness to open up a little more, and a willingness to speak without pre-intent, and to let come whatever comes, but it does not in any meaningful way substitute one personality for another.

R: Or create any kind of separation.

TGU: Exactly. There is none. Now, for many people there is that separation, but it’s only of their own concepts. The separation vanishes when it’s desired to vanish, on a deep enough level. If you define yourself as Downstairs, there will be a difference between Downstairs and Upstairs, because you will systematically ignore, or not recognize, or distort, the input that comes from other than inside your definition. As you loosen the definition, the distortion lessens. That’s probably the simplest way to put it.

R: And at the same time, at the level at which we are all one, an additional set of factors come in that we interpret as meaning that we are individual and separate. And while you and Frank are the same thing, Frank and I are the same thing, and –

TGU: And you and we are the same thing, yes.

The Sphere and the Hologram, 15^th anniversary edition, published by SNN / TGU Books, is available as print or eBook from Amazon and other booksellers.

 

[Excerpts from conversations between Rita Warren and “the guys upstairs,” in the years 2001 and 2002, edited from The Sphere and the Hologram.]

How to Make a Better World

R: One of the things that we think about is how to improve our world for the masses of individuals in it. And we think about that in terms of children, and how children’s lives are led, and how it impacts them and doesn’t. Millions of us have lived our lives trying to make a better world, if you will. And I’m hearing you say well of course, it makes sense that one does that with children. But the whole goal of making a better world doesn’t seem to make any sense from the perspective that you’re speaking.

TGU: We’ll try to say this carefully. Your trying to make a better world is good work, because of what you’re choosing. But “better world” implies that you know how to make a better world. Your ability to know what a better world would be is very great for yourself; it’s pretty good for your family and friends; it’s somewhat good for your neighborhood; and it’s less good the wider the circle goes.

Now, it’s true that abstractly you can have preferences and some of those preferences may be absolutely right. Certainly you want to have clean water rather than water that’s not safe to drink. But in actual human terms your ability to know what’s good and your ability to know what will bring the good is really very limited. We would say your major ability to make the world a better place to live in is one simple thing:

Be a beacon.

R: Say that again?

TGU: Be a beacon. Shine what you are. It’s very powerful. It’s very subtle and seemingly inconsequential. Many of the results are not in the physical plane at all. The closest we could come at the moment would be to say that your reactions – what you are – resonate with others, and that resonance is not just within time-space. We’ve never tried to express this, because you don’t have the words for it. The what-you-are mingles with other people who are the same thing, and it creates a warp, a pattern, in the energy system.

Let’s go back to the basics. By being a beacon, your example – not so much what you do, although that’s how it shows, as through what you do, what you are – encourages other people to be like that as well, and that creates a better world. Now, it’s true that “goodness is as goodness does,” but the “is” and not the “does” is the essence of it. A person could do good works and actually be a negative beacon. A person could do no good works, or none that were apparent, and be quite a positive beacon. So it isn’t the works, it’s the choosing to be what you are.

R: Somehow your essence is communicated out there.

TGU: Yes. Yes, yes. You’re broadcasting your essence every second of the day.

You haven’t any choice about that.

The Sphere and the Hologram, 15^th anniversary edition, published by SNN / TGU Books, is available as print or eBook from Amazon and other booksellers.