TGU on confusion of levels of discussion

Monday. March 25, 2019

4 a.m. Continuing to pursue Hanns Porr’s question. Lightly editing several emailed comments, it amounts to this:

[Hanns Porr: My original question was really about TGU’s point of view outside of time. That is where I sense there are some inconsistencies.  If you see the last comment, I am asking again, more succinctly.  Maybe it would be possible to take this up to TGU one more time. (PS: I do have an idea where this can go, but I don’t want to lead)

[As far as question 2, [“what good would be such guidance if all paths are taken?”] their answer is indeed going in to the direction that I felt it may have to. I could give you my direct take on it, but I feel I may be leading; or do you think I should comment? What would be more helpful to you/them/us ? My instinct says, you are interested in this question, too, and it is best to leave it to its natural course, and see where it will go. When you/they/all are done with the answer ( and I don’t think we are yet), I’ll chime in about what I was/am thinking about.]

As I sit here prepared to tackle it again, or further, I get that we have been omitting consideration of “As above, so below” in our thinking about “What difference would it make?” Something in the previous response (the Buddhists saying the world is endlessly created and recreated) leads me to think, each level of reality is shaping itself by its decisions, and in shaping itself is to some extent creating and limiting the possibilities of the next higher level. I don’t have any idea if this is more than a stray thought – maybe a strayed thought! But let’s pursue it. Your turn, guys.

You are reaching.

Don’t I know it!

But you are reaching in the right direction. No one level of understanding can comprehend everything.

Let’s concentrate on the sense of futility we experience when we think that every decision we make is automatically cancelled out by another version making the opposite decision. The question remains: What is the use of our lives then? If we are to shape who we wish to be, but our decisions apply only to any one version of our life, really what difference does it make?

Well, why do anything? Isn’t it because doing something is less disagreeable than not doing it?

Yes. So?

So aren’t you, in acting, attempting to move from a less desirable to a more desirable state?

Sometimes we are merely moving.

But in such case the less desirable state would be that of doing nothing.

Say it’s so.

Why wouldn’t you then at least speculate, if not conclude definitely, that your life as a whole resembles your life at any one decision-point? Particularly why not, given that your lives could be seen as an endless chain of decision-points, never static, always in motion?

So that our lives as a whole could be discussed as moving from a less-desirable to a more-desirable state of being?

At least, an attempt to move from less to more desirable, yes. Not every decision supports the goal, you understand.

Where are you going with this?

If your lives as a whole and in detail may be described as attempts to reach some better state of affairs, doesn’t that imply a knowing? A sensing? Doesn’t it imply that something within you knows better from worse, more comfortable or productive or satisfying (or whatever) from less? And if that is so, doesn’t it imply a more absolute scale of values than you may have evidence for?


More than maybe. Pretty strongly, we would say. And if this is so, doesn’t it suggest that the universe – reality – is inherently moral?

While I have a vague sense of what you’re getting at, you’d better spell it out some, I’d say.

What is morality but a firm sense of right and wrong? An orienting compass? We speak here recognizing that the question is complicated by the various confusions attending discussions of right and wrong, not least the confusion caused by people attributing rightness and wrongness to what is really merely agreeableness or disagreeableness. But you and we have explored this more than once, only now bring it to the next level, and realize that morality in the sense we are using it refers less to any individual’s necessarily flawed and partial judgments, then to the unchanging reality that any individual imperfectly senses.

The blueprint rather than an impression of the structure that must underlie appearances.

Yes. Good analogy.

Can it make no difference to the structure of a given timestream, or, let’s say, to a given reality-as-a-whole, the choices made within it? If most people choose anarchy and destruction (in effect if not in their intent), or choose tyranny and stasis, or choose vacillation between the two, can that make no difference to the world it creates and modifies?

But the question is, in fact, how can any of these be considered to occur, given that all possible decisions are taken both heads and tails, cancelling out?

It is very difficult to get across, because your implicit definitions keep slipping, resulting in your questions attributing different qualities to the same thing, unnoticed.

That sounded a little garbled.

Try it from our end!

You’ve said that before.

We’ve been in this situation before.

Well, can you work your way out of it?

Maybe. What if we put it this way? Either concern yourself with one version of yourself (the one you are living, obviously) or with all versions, which is mostly a theoretical construct, from 3D. But don’t go sliding from one to the other.

But it is the interaction between the two that concerns us here!

Yes, but you can’t understand two things and their interaction by trying to watch them interact before you recognize the qualities each possesses.

Don’t we [recognize them]? I would have said we do by now.

Then try to define yourselves as probability-clouds. The idea is familiar; that doesn’t mean you understand it merely because you recognize it when someone speaks its name.

So to speak.

Yes, so to speak, but the point remains.

To go all the way back to the question as posed, what good is guidance to us if all paths are taken?

And there you are right back confusing the two levels as if they were one. What good guidance does you as an individual is obvious to you, or, if it isn’t by now, we give up. But that, you see, is individual, present-tense, focused, real. Consideration of the overall effect of guidance on all possible versions is not individual but general, not present-tense but sort of outside of time, not focused and real but abstract and theoretical. It isn’t that the question can’t be addressed, it is that it can only be addressed from one side or the other at one time. That isn’t to say you can’t look at it more ways than one (and of course we would encourage you to do so), but any examination has to pin down what it is looking at; it can’t keep moving from one definition to another – not even quite realizing it is doing so – and come to any more coherent understanding.

When we resume, we shall have to examine (a) what good is guidance to the individual, presumably not at any length, (b) how does affecting individuals affect the larger reality in which they exist, (c) how does it not all cancel out, given that all decisions are taken one way or another, and (d) most importantly, the difference between examining a photo as a still picture or as one frame of a motion picture.

Sounds like a bigger project than it looked like it was going to be.

Everything connects.

And I’ll connect with you next time. Thanks for all this.


TGU on perceived contradictions

Sunday, March 24, 2019

7:30 a.m. Hanns Porr returns with a follow-up to the question addressed yesterday – or perhaps we should say, he feels you didn’t address it, exactly.

[From Hanns Porrs:

[… If from THEIR view the crystal is complete, and from THEIR view we take all variant paths, then the question is unanswered:

1) how do they add situations to something that is complete already? … and thereby help or guide

2) and what good would be such guidance if all paths are taken?

#1 is arguably the more important question, and I would still request clarification. As always, thank you.]

I kind of feel he may be right, and it may be because I didn’t concentrate on the question – certainly didn’t think about it, as that would be counter-productive – and so somehow the result may have been part you and part my own unconscious interpretation. Is that true? And, if not, is it conceivable in other circumstances?

The 3D part of the equation is always going to be there, as we have said many times. That’s just the nature of the process. Even an entranced Edgar Cayce was an integral part of the process, as may be seen by the fact that the information flowed through him in the archaic language he had made mentally habitual by so many readings of the King James Bible. That is, the information he received flowed through his mental channels (bearing in mind that “channels” is a metaphor, not a scientific description) because they were there to serve. There were no others. Or should we speak to you in Swahili, or Mandarin, or 13th-century English? The 3D mind – its mental habits, call it – is always going to be part of the equation. So, don’t worry too much about polluting the information stream, and on the other hand don’t ever be tempted to think that the process confers omniscience or infallibility.

Okay, I get that, and in fact I got it long ago. So should I re-read the original question?

Reread, but don’t feel obliged to cite it. We’ll do what is needed.

Okay. Reread the questions and not the supporting materials, and now it is clearer in my mind. Or is it that it is clearer in your mind somehow?

Defer that question, though it is an interesting one. Let’s concentrate on the one at hand. Your understanding of the difficulty is –?

Mr. Porr is changing definitions in the middle of the stream, unbeknown to himself. He is mixing an All-D view with a 3D view.

A fair summary, though not particularly helpful in context.

You do it, then.

His question centers on the perceived contradiction between all possibilities already existing, and our offering or creating possibilities at any given point. He asks how anything can be added if everything is already there. Surely you can answer this yourself.

I see it is a problem of language. Things you have said may be misinterpreted, and the misinterpretation is what creates the perceived contradiction.

Yes, but spell it out.

He is seeing you adding (or revealing) new possibilities to the total, whereas you meant you may add or reveal new possibilities to any given timeline. And even that is not an accurate way to put it.

No, a more careful statement would have been that for anyone, at any given time, we may reveal or seem to create new avenues – new to that timeline, which means, of course, an alteration of timelines, a jump, not necessarily perceived as such by the 3D individual.

By definition, if all possibilities exist from the beginning, no new possibilities can be created or discovered. This is true of the overall situation. It is not true of any individual timeline, because –.

Yes, I see it too. That has been a silent cause of confusion, hasn’t it? We – you – have been talking of timelines as if they were more set in stone than they are. In reality, they are more like the pathless path, discernible in retrospect but in no way laid down in advance.

You may have overstepped a bit at the end, there, but yes, calling a person’s particular experience a timeline may very well have been misleading.

So let’s state it more carefully. The video-game analogy? One over-all reality containing all possibilities, any individual game containing (in effect) only the choices that appear in reaction to a player’s prior moves?

It will serve. If, in playing a game, a player receives help from unseen sources – or hindrance, for that matter – the possibilities will change. But these are the tangible possibilities of the time and the place, so to speak, not the absolute and theoretical total number of possibilities contained in the game’s programming.

I think that takes care of the first question. But the second?

Express your difficulty.

My difficulty is that I can’t imagine an answer either, and I haven’t been able to in all these years, and I am half-afraid if I try to have you address it, it will turn out to be me making something up to try to make sense of it.

Aha. Perhaps we don’t exist.

That joke is getting as old as the problem.

Well, why not just relax, see what comes, and blot it all out if you don’t like it?

Because I wouldn’t.

Yet, being unable to discard it, you would remain fearful of misleading people.

That’s what it amounts to.

So what do you propose to do? We could defer comment, or comment with your explicit, even vehement, dissociation with the result, or just put it out there for people to use as they are able. Remember, everyone has a sense of truth or falsity – or we should say, for anyone, material will resonate or won’t.

I admit to a certain curiosity. Go ahead.

If you allow it in.

I can only do my best.

Let us restate the question, then, and see if the restatement does not shed some light on things. Is the second question not asking, what difference does it make if anyone on any particular path (even if a pathless path) chooses differently as a result of nudges seen or unseen?

I don’t know if Mr. Porr would accept that as a rough paraphrase of this question, but I can.

It cuts directly to the problem of perceived futility, you see. If all paths are taken (when life is seen from a higher perspective) then what difference can it make if we on this present moment choose to move left instead of right, choose love instead of fear, choose to express and even encourage this reaction rather than suppress or counter it?

I’m very familiar with the problem!

The answer is that you in 3D (we in 3D) are instruments playing the winds of the universe, and the same winds can be made to play different tunes.

I wouldn’t say that is spectacularly helpful.

You recall, we described vast impersonal forces as flowing through 3D reality, animating you, affecting your lives, and being slightly or greatly affected by your reactions. Every iteration is different, as every iteration of a video game will be different, at least until all iterations have been experienced. That doesn’t make “all possible iterations” a zero-sum game.

Hard to see how it doesn’t.

That’s because you are thinking in terms of either/or as if either/or were a choice of opposites. Often enough, it is merely a choice that is other but not opposite, except in the sense of not being the other. To choose red over orange is not to choose opposites, but tones, or, if you prefer, nuances. To say all choices are made is not to say every red is matched by a green, though at first glance that will seem to follow. It’s more like every choice will be matched by the anti-choice, which is not at all the same thing.

Lest people make a big deal over “anti-choice,” let’s say explicitly that all you mean is the opposite choice from whatever we are talking about. A choice of red may be instead of green, but it may be instead of blue or orange or any color, even white. “Anti-choice” as you just used it means, “the other thing one might have chosen instead.”

Yes, useful correction. Well, seeing that, perhaps you can see that every reality-in-total is itself an iteration, and so will have its own flavor as opposed to other “reality-in-total” worlds.

We’ll never get that one across.

It isn’t that difficult. Just remember the Buddhists saying that the world is endlessly created and recreated. It’s the same thing.

Did we answer Mr. Porr’s second question? Seems to me not, but I’m out of steam, here.

Fortunately there is always another time.

Until there isn’t. Okay.


America’s Long Journey: The Election of 1796

Many features of presidential balloting that we take for granted came to us only as the result of trial and (sometimes painful) error. We have seen that the election of 1800 showed the necessity of amending the Constitution to take political parties into account. It astonishes us that the founding fathers, with all their extensive theoretical and practical knowledge of government, should fail to foresee the rise of political parties. But think what else they had to learn the hard way. Take, as a good example, the election of 1796.

It was the first election without Washington, who was finishing his eight years of servitude and looking forward with longing to retiring to Virginia. Toward the end of the year he had published his final advice to the nation, which we will look at in the next section. But who could replace the father of his country?

The obvious candidates had been friends for 20 years, and for all that time they had been serving their country well. The rotund New Englander and the tall red-headed Virginian had many points of political difference, and each was at the head of a pack of snapping partisans who took every opportunity to try to establish or widen a breach between the two. In this first contested presidential election, the hounds didn’t quite succeed, but there were many straws in the wind, for those with clear prevision, or for us looking backward.

The election wasn’t held all on one day. That wouldn’t happen for decades. In 1796, voting among the 16 states stretched for more than a month, from Nov. 3 to Dec. 7. And the voting wasn’t what we’re used to, either. The Constitution said that presidential Electors should be chosen by the state legislatures, but it didn’t say how. Different states chose different methods. Some chose them by statewide election; other states were divided into districts, with voters choosing one per district; in others, the state legislature appointed them. Their world was much more local and independent than ours. To us, it seems an incredible hodge-podge.

And – what strikes us as even crazier — in these pre-12th-amendment days, there was no way to designate who was running for president and who for vice-president, so each of the two new parties had to run more than one candidate for president, hoping to win the top slot with their preferred candidate and bag the vice-presidency with their second-favored candidate. But this was tricky. If electors all voted for the party’s two candidates, you’d wind up with a tie, as indeed happened one election farther down the line. So the idea was that all the party’s electors would cast their vote for the man who was supposed to win, and a couple of them (but only a couple of them) would throw away their second vote on someone who couldn’t win, so that hopefully the result would be a one-two sweep in the right order. Politicians then being as trustworthy as politicians now, nobody quite knew if anybody (let alone everybody) would live up to his promises.

The Democratic-Republicans put up the same ticket they would win with in 1800, Jefferson and Burr, along with minor candidates Samuel Adams (Governor of Massachusetts), George Clinton (ex-Governor of New York), and John Henry (U.S. Senator from Maryland).

The Federalists named John Adams of Massachusetts and Thomas Pinckney of South Carolina. Also running but with no chance of winning, were not one but two justices of the Supreme Court, Oliver Ellsworth (Chief Justice) and James Iredell. Also John Jay (Governor of New York); Samuel Johnston (a former U.S. Senator), and Charles Pinckney, U.S. minister to France and the brother of Thomas Pinckney.

If one emotion fueled the campaign, it was fear. What became the Federalist Party feared French-sympathizing Republicans as the enemy within the gates, to be trusted neither with domestic tranquility nor with preserving independence from the French. The Republicans, in turn, said that the Federalists wished to re-establish monarchy and aristocracy, and were not to be trusted to maintain the county’s interests against the British Empire they held in so much awe.

On election day, Adams received 54% of the vote, and Jefferson 46%, a clear decision. The vote divided pretty neatly geographically, with Adams carrying every state north of the Potomac River except Pennsylvania, and none below the river.

But the electoral count was muddled, as a result of Hamilton’s machinations.

Hamilton evidently suspected that Adams might be hard to manage. He convinced the eight South Carolina electors whose first choice was Jefferson to cast their second votes for Pinckney, hoping that Pinckney’s total would surpass those of Adams. But when word of the scheme got out, many Adams electors withheld their second vote from Pinckney, hoping to foil Hamilton’s scheme.

They sure did. The final electoral count was 71 for Adams, 68 for Jefferson, 59 for Pinckney, and 30 for Burr, with the remaining 48 electoral votes spread among the nine minor candidates. Thus Jefferson, rather than Pinckney, would go on to be vice-president under Adams. (That Hamilton, he was some shrewd politician, wasn’t he?)

It wasn’t yet as bad as 1800, when after another four years of fear and counter-fear the country seemed on the verge of civil war, but it was bad enough. And — what can be hard for us to remember at the end of so many decades — each of these early elections seemed the more perilous because there had been so few of them. It was all new. Could it be maintained? The people remembered Ben Franklin’s words on the day the delegates had voted to submit the Constitution to the voters. A woman stopped him on the street and said, “And what kind of government have you given us, Doctor Franklin?” “A republic, madam,” he said, “if you can keep it.”

In 1796, they were a long way from knowing if they could keep it.

TGU on timelines

Saturday, March 23, 2019

9:50 a.m. Mr. Porr poses questions not easily answered, and although I have the general idea, I’d prefer that one of you do the explaining – particularly of the parts I don’t understand and think I do!

[Although this email is rather long, I’m going to quote it in full before proceeding to TGU’s response.]

[Hanns Oscar Porr:]

Frank, thank you for your recent series on Egypt; and the highly poetic ending (?) .

I know we had talked previously about choosing, particularly with reference to tragic events.  After having read Cosmic-Internet, Rita’s World 1&2,  I am currently reading your book Sphere/Hologram, and the sections written on and after  9/11 are striking. However, there is one aspect that I struggle with.  I see a contraction, and I can’t work myself through it.  It is entirely possible that this was answered later somewhere, but I have not seen it. So I would like to ask the following for clarification, and maybe you can take it up to TGU ?   If it has not been answered, I hope it would be a valuable clarification in general. (Or, if this was answered already, please let me know where, so that I can read it up).

I’ll post the question succinctly first, because I get that “the better the question, the better the answer,”  and then below give some relevant references.

If every possibility already exists in “the crystal” of Being (TGU’s wonderful metaphor), then nothing can be added to it as far as any new situations or circumstances. At the same time, we have free choice, and at every choice point ( every second and nanosecond ) we branch off so that eventually all possibilities that are open to us ARE in fact explored.  This may even include our thoughts:  we do not really think but only choose, and thereby create ourselves.   Thus, nothing is created, but explored in full through all of our choices.  Nothing moves, but only consciousness moves.

Question 1:

So how does TGU create or alter situations?  Or orchestrating opportunities?   If all situations and all outcomes and all possibilities and all opportunities already exist, and will be explored?  Or aid or give guidance, especially if all thoughts are already there in the crystal, from which we then choose (in fact, choose all variants) ?  It seems, there is nothing that can be added as far as new situations / opportunities.

Question 2 (related):

Likewise, if TGU alters the weights of the strands ( recalibrates the settings), then how does this make any difference?  Because at every choice point we still have all the same possibilities open to us and all choices will be explored no matter what.   If they advise “me/us” somehow to go left, then this variant of  “I/us” that heeds the guidance will  go left, but another variant of I/us  still goes right, so there is no difference at all:  all versions of  I/us will still get created, all possible variants of living “this” life will be gifted.

Do you see the contraction, or am I missing something?  I have a hunch of where this may go, but I don’t want to lead the answer.  Your/their answers always surprise me, and then I have to think myself though, and while this is hard, it has proven insightful. I wonder what change of viewpoint you/they come up with to reconcile this.

Below are some concrete references to show what I see as a contradiction; I picked Sphere/Hologram because I am currently reading it, but similar references are in other posts/books as well.

As always, I greatly appreciate your work


1)      We always have free will.

2)      We are “in the middle of a crystal that contains all possible choices…”  (Sphere/Hologram p. 105, many other places. The implications are, as stated by TGU/Rita:

ALL things that can happen, are already there.

We do not create anything in reality, instead choose, and thereby create “ourselves.”

There is no movement, but only consciousness moves ( for example, Sphere/Hologram p. 120) , by “walking the possibilities.”

3)      There are infinite versions of ‘me’ that explore all possible outcomes.  (For example, Sphere/Hologram p. 118:  Everybody takes all conceivable actions, or inactions.    Also in many other places..) and then in later posts, all variants create a “possibility cloud” of all variants of “my” (our) lives.

But now we have this :

4)      Sphere Hologram P. 137  ( and other posts) “We can create the events and we can lead you towards,  but it’s up to you to choose.”

“we’re orchestrating the opportunities.” … “creating the situations that allow the opportunity for some people to wake up”…   ‘those orchestrated incidents […] set up the circumstances in which people could make the choices.”

Of relevance are also your recent re-post of “An orchestrated incident”, plus its follow-up in 2007 about “An orchestrated incident – 2” where they talk about changing the strands, or the weights, and recalibrating the settings.


[TGU:] There is a fundamental misunderstanding at the base of these perceived contradictions. There is a difference between potential and actual, as well as between embodied (3D) and disembodied (non-3D either as part of something extending into 3D or as something entirely independent of 3D, such as the voice you call Nathaniel, that has not been human).

“All paths exist” means that at the creation of the world (at the creation of reality) everything is there; there is nothing added on after the fact. But that doesn’t mean “there in fact”; it means “there in potential.” The potential to have the pyramids constructed existed from the beginnings of the world, but they did not become actual until somebody built them. To say “all paths exist” is merely to acknowledge the completeness of the scheme of things from the very beginning. It doesn’t mean the pyramids existed in stone merely because the potential for them to be constructed existed.

Because a possibility exists does not mean it will be actualized in any given reality-stream, time-stream. The timeline that saw the pyramids built obviously is not the timeline that saw them never built. That should be obvious once stated. Any given timeline will consist of some paths taken and many paths not. It is only in considering all timelines together that you can see all possibilities actualized. After all, if Lincoln is shot in 1865, he cannot die of natural causes. If he is defeated in the election of 1860, none of the rest of his career will be unaltered, obviously. So in considering these things it is important to consider, are you talking about the reality made manifest in any one timeline or that which is theoretical to you (since you live in a timeline) and only evident from a point of view beyond timelines. What you see, and the conclusions you draw from what you see, are going to be quite different, depending.

So, in considering non-3D interaction with 3D situations (that is, your lives), bear in mind that such interaction will only be observed relative to a single timeline. If you change timelines, you will still be observing from a single timeline, and this regardless how many times you jump.

The discussion leading to “all possibilities are explored” concerns not any single timeline, but only all of them considered together. To consider single timelines and all timelines together will result only in confusion. It would be like confusing the letter A singly and the whole alphabet together. Each has its place. Each is integrally connected to the same scheme of things. Each actually is part of the other. But you can’t spell words using only one letter, and you can’t discern words using only all letters. Each in its place, and it all makes sense. Confuse the two, and only confusion can result.

Perhaps this will help.

I’ll type it up and send it, and we’ll see. Thanks.


As Ehab would say, Ensa!

Mohammad and Ehab Mahmoud (photo by Tom Waggoner)

Ehab teaching (photo by Ruth Shilling)

Early on, being persecuted by street vendors, I asked Ehab if Arabic had some equivalent of “Enough!” or “forgetaboutit,” and he said, “Enza!” I had to write it down to remember it, but the first time I used it on a vendor, he laughed out loud in delight. A good note to end on, maybe. You’ve seen a lot of posts; you may be thinking, Enza!

All things come to an end (Photo by Tom Waggoner)


A presence

No single thing, not pyramids alone,

Nor Sphinx nor modern street,

Nor black land’s donkeys

nor red land’s camels.


Instead, a cascade of whispers:

Antique shards and modern beginnings,

Unreadable hieroglyphs, unreadable Arabic.

And always the Nile, always the desert sand,


Awakening ghosts to the ruin of their world.

Arousing one feeling, resolute, calm,

Unshaken amidst desolation.

It said: “I still serve Ra.”


TGU — thoughts on reincarnation

April 20, 2007

I am in the process of putting several books into cyberspace. Friends, how am I going to make any money? For if not from them it will need to come from somewhere.

You heard the Dalai Lama’s quoted wisdom on the film last night – don’t worry. It’s a waste of time.

Yes, I do know that. When I am to do something, then it will be known what to do.

Certainly. What will leave you more able to deal with the circumstances of a given moment better than clarity?

Alright then, on to more important things, and I shall continue to trust.

Trust, discern and practice honesty and compassion. Anyone can do this; few will. Instead many trust to their discernment – their weakest natural gifts, if they only knew it – thinking trust in the universe (as you often put it) and honesty and compassion luxuries rather than reliable guides. For it is in the practice of trust, honesty and compassion that one clarifies one’s perception as a sort of side-effect: one spins away from the lens one is trying to see through.

We get out of our own way, as my father used to say.


This is a theme in itself, isn’t it? A post, I mean.

Anything in your life is grist for your particular mill, for in the wide world, no one else can ever be as centrally located in your thoughts as you yourself. Surely this is obvious, but the corollary is not necessarily so obvious. Only you hold the particular mixture of thought, memory, ideals, low practice, ideas, experiences that are yours. Surely self-evident? Therefore only you will produce whatever you produce on any given day, let alone your entire lifetime. Now, it is well possible that a given person produces nothing noticeable on any given day, or even in an entire lifetime. It is not however even possible for that person to produce nothing internally.

This is what we meant in saying that every given lifetime is a flower created by the living of it, through the successive choices a person makes. Every flower is different because every soul is different. And we smile to see you perceive so quickly that today we want to talk about the formation of a soul. This may be appended to similar discussions or set forth separately, as you wish. We are but the authors, oh editor! (And if this is true of spirit and soul no less, as you shall see.)

Let us define terms and illustrate them with homely examples. Since you saw the movie last night and had your thoughts that you had forgotten until now, that will be convenient.

I defer the question of whose impulse it was to buy “Seven Years in Tibet” while I was in the grocery store, but I have my suspicions.

We smile.

There is spirit. Spirit is eternal. It is the essence of life, the essence behind and underlying material life. Is the energy or essence of God, if you will, as it extends into, and creates, physical life. In so far as we are discussing human lives, Spirit is the animating principle, and it is as if separated into individual manifestations. Note the words “as if” because in fact spirit cannot be limited or bound or separated into discrete units. However, as you deal with your fellow humans, it will seem that way: As you recognize that each human incorporates spirit, your senses and your separation into time-slices and space-slices will lead you – mislead you – into seeing each as having a spirit particular to each, rather than the counter-intuitive but nonetheless more correct perception of each sharing in an undivided spirit.

So. When it came time for the 14th Dalai Lama to be born, Spirit animated the conception of the body, as it would have to animate any conception.

The body was formed of the substance of his parents’ bodies – specifically their physical inheritance, which provided and limited the traits available for him to manifest in this particular lifetime. Again, without the cooperation of the spirit there could have been no living child, but do not in your exploration of abstract relations forget that there could have been no living child, either, without a body!

But the child that was born was born a mixture of old and new, and here is where we may lose some. For what is a soul?

Remembering what you know of your own life, Frank, and your own life, reader of this – and remembering what you know of the lives of others, you can ground this difficult discussion so that it is meaningful and connects to your everyday life. What good is abstract theory that never connects?

The little boy who would become (or who already was, or who was and was not yet) the 14th Dalai Lama was a little boy! He was a child, without experience. He had certain noticeable traits such as curiosity and enthusiasm and mechanical ability. He was already fashioned in certain directions, one might say, yet he was an ignorant program as anyone must be, entering into human life.

And yet he was not! The reason he was discerned (not selected) as the reincarnation of the 13th Dalai Lama is that as an infant he passed many tests of knowledge, correctly discerning which of similar items had been the 13th incarnation’s possessions and which had not. Where did that knowing come from? Yet he was a child, not knowing how he knew. Indeed, early in life it is the things one knows that may be relied upon. The things one is taught by rote or experience are often far less reliable.

Try to stay with us here. This will produce an effect of fatigue because it is hard work to follow an unfamiliar working-out of a concept, particularly if it must be backed out of much that is (or seems) similar, or is intertwined with what is partially false or misleading. Make the effort and you will see that it is its own reward.

A soul may be regarded as being created with a new life. In other words, when spirit and body produce another individual, that individual begins to shape itself. Thus it, in being different from what created it, may be regarded as something distinct. If you have a child, that child is clearly separate from the parents, even though the child is a continuation in a way of the parents.

Each new soul is a separate creation, but not creation out of nothing. Use what you know of physical conception: Each new being contains half the genetic or remedy of each parent. Similarly, the soul is not created out of nothing, but out of other what we might call “soul stuff” – other bundles of experience of life. Some of those lives may be lives on earth, some, lives elsewhere. That is not our concern at the moment.

You, Frank, as a boy knew that if you read your history books a certain way (a way that you couldn’t actually discover) you could alter the past, and make it come out differently. Where would you get such a strange knowing? It was not a casual idea, not a whimsical thought, certainly not anything anyone would ever teach you. You knew even while your acculturated mind “knew better” because it “didn’t make sense.”

Similarly you “knew” that you could make your asthma attacks go away if you just mentally reached out in a certain way (a way that you couldn’t find) even though no one around you would have ever agreed or encouraged you to think so. In this case, half a century later you did find the way, and it was just as you had always known. How did that boy know?

How does anyone coming to life knowing certain things while at the same time being ignorant of the life they are going to lead?

We would have you take a break but we might not be able to lead you back to the space. Rest, if you wish, not moving from here – for moving changes your energy, as you also knew when you went to practice on Monroe tapes so “long ago.” (How did you know?)

Yes, this is a strain. I’ll just look out the window and to daydream for a few minutes.

Not too long or you will drift too far from this place to return.

Your souls are not “just” the continuation of other lives. Neither are they spiritual orphans, so to speak. They are new creations that are the repositories – trustees – stewards (it is hard to find a proper metaphor) for certain strands of soul-stuff that are to experience another human life. Just as your physical heredity combines half of one parent and half of the second parent, not all of either, so your non-physical heredity contains (not half, but some) of one strand, some of another. You are not born into lifetime after lifetime (changed by the experiences of each successful life) although it seems like that to you. Neither are you born into a lifetime with no heredity at all. It is a problem of definitions. As long as you put yourself in the center of your life, you will not understand. When you realize that “you” – your body, your soul – is only one facet of a far greater you, then you will begin to get a sense of at least how things are not, if you cannot glimpse how they are.

The child who became the 14th Dalai Lama is not typical of the average person because in his case you might say the container (the new soul) is composed of the same material that composed the previous soul. This is why there can be a recognition, because there is a continuity unusual. This will come clearer – if it can be made clearer – by visual analogy. Worth trying, anyway.

You. A ring containing many threads, as we have often said. Those threads may be from various sources. They are combined to produce a being with specific potential – your possibilities. Each thread is a result of previous combinations.

The Dalai Lama (and selected others). Great continuity life to life, with of course different characteristics in each but the primary focus continuity, not change.

I do see that. And it would have been harder to express in words. I will scan the page and include the diagrams in my posting.

This is enough for one session. Well done.

Thank you for this interesting discussion. It is funny how our life gives us what we most deeply desire – if we just get out of our own way!

That is the secret to life.