Separation and Oneness

[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, 15th anniversary edition, published by SNN / TGU Books, is available as print or eBook from Amazon and other booksellers.

 

Leave a Reply