[Excerpts from conversations between Rita Warren and “the guys upstairs,” in the years 2001 and 2002, edited from The Sphere and the Hologram.]
Silent partners
R: You have explained that Frank is part of you and vice versa, but do you sometimes act as a council in order to advise Frank about something?
TGU: That would be one metaphor, but we would move more toward the metaphor of the automatic habit systems in your brain. It’s more like he is an extension of a certain neural function of the brain that is all of us. Rather than thinking of it as a council, which implies not only individual wills but conflict and clashes, we would think of it more as an automatic adjustment of energies. For instance, you asked this question. We don’t need to sit around and discuss how to answer the question; the question polarizes the answer. It’s a pooling of what we know from what we are. In fact, you could argue that you in bodies are largely responsible for our consciousness because you are limited, and because you’re pointed.
R: Implied in my question was the concept of you sometimes responding to something without Frank included and other times with him included.
TGU: Well, with him conscious and other times without him conscious. He may be off doing other things, too, from our point of view. And frequently is.
R: So the situation wouldn’t arise where Frank would be doing something and you all would be saying to yourselves “boy this is not a good thing for him to be doing.”
TGU: [laughs] This is a less theoretical question than you might think! But there’s nothing more absolutely respected than free will, because that’s what you’re there for. We can watch you play in traffic, and we can say “That is not a smart thing to do,” but we will almost never step in. There are occasions where we’ll step in for overriding reasons, but in general the rule is, “No, if you go play in traffic, take the consequences.” Even though we don’t like the consequences.
R: Okay, so that I understand. He’s operating on the principle of free will and you’re having some reaction to this, which doesn’t include him, at least at a conscious level.
TGU: That’s a very good qualifier, “at least at a conscious level.” Exactly. That’s the nature of conscience. It’s not only “Did I do the right thing or the wrong thing,” but it’s also “Am I on the beam or am I off the beam” in a morally neutral way. If your conscious mind wants to do something, and unconsciously you’re hearing, “No, this is not the best thing for you to do,” or “You could react better to the situation than the way you are,” the thinness or thickness of the barrier between that realization and your will determines how easy it is for you to stay on the beam. So not only we, but also another part of yourself, in a more direct way, is trying to give you guidance, and it’s always up to you to say yes or no.
R: This suggests that you may have an opinion of something that is quite different from Frank’s opinion about it, and different from his interpretation of events, and so on.
TGU: Oh, sure. In fact, even when we agree with what he’s doing, we have a different view. That’s inherent in the situation. Outside of time and space the threads that are separated by time-periods might seem clearer to us than the moment of time you’re in. To you while you’re in a body those threads in different times seem to be absolutely different. So we’re just saying that yes, we always see it differently.
R: You suggested a bit ago that by and large you wouldn’t call these differences to his awareness.
TGU: Oh no. We will always call it to his awareness if he’s interested in hearing it. That is, if he doesn’t block it out. But we almost never would override his will. That could happen, but it’s somewhat a last resort. For instance, supposing someone’s lifetime has important ramifications for the people around them, and for their own sake and the people around them it’s really important that they stay on the beam. If they are about to fall off the edge, it could happen that it would be decided, “No, that’s too disruptive to the whole pattern. It can’t be allowed to happen.” In that case it would be more a matter of that person’s own self over here invading his consciousness, you might say, and causing him to act in ways that would be inexplicable to the conscious person. But that’s a very rare situation.
R: Would Frank be aware of this intervention that occurred?
TGU: Well, it would depend partly on introspection, partly on the dissonance between the action and what that particularly active part of his own mind wanted to do. [pause] A lifetime of introspection will help you in that regard. It will make it clearer when you are receiving transmissions, shall we say.
R: But more typically, he’s asking for your input when you give it.
TGU: [pause] We’re talking about something a lot more than input. We could theoretically override what he wanted to do, so that he would not have his free will available to him. And that’s what is forbidden, almost always. That’s what we’re talking about. The input is always offered, and is always available. [pause] The input is really in a way only a more sophisticated version of his own – or anyone’s own – pondering and experience and wisdom and thought. It’s just from a larger perspective.
The Sphere and the Hologram, 15th anniversary edition, published by SNN / TGU Books, is available as print or eBook from Amazon and other booksellers.