Wave 1 and general Phasing questions

[clandestino]

Hello there !
I also got frustrated, though having said that, I did have some success with Wave 1.

I got frustrated because :
a) I wasn't sure if I was following the exercises correctly, E.g. was my walk-through scenario "good enough" ? To what extent was I still aware of my physical body ? My constant analysis of each failure didn't really help me. Using wave 1 became a bit of a lottery, perhaps I had a 1 in 50 chance of having an OBE or getting close. This low success rate, combined with my inability to identify the factors that differed between each success and failure, slowly consigned Wave 1 to the "not-listened-to-that-often" shelf !

b) My expectations, looking back, were perhaps too high. I approached the exercise as if it were a cookbook recipe. Surely if I had all the ingredients in place, at the right time, I would succeed consistently, I thought to myself ! But this didn't happen.

Anyway, keep us all updated with your experiences ! I'll let you know when I begin again with Wave 1.

Kind regards,
Mark

[Frank]

Major Tom:

I absolutely agree and have taken on board your pointers, thank you.

I’m currently writing a book, well, I say a book but it’s largely a Phasing for Beginners Instruction Manual, which covers entry into Focus 12 in detail, as well as other states. I remember saying a couple of years ago that I was getting bored of entering the Monroe focus states and I was looking forward to spreading my wings a little, which I eventually did. I tried for the Focus 35 state but no joy there. It was all the talk of aliens that put me off, pictures of little green men in their flying saucers monitoring the “Earth changes”. Yeah right, and I am Father Christmas. I don’t mean to sound sarcastic, but I can’t help it sometimes. I don’t know, perhaps Monroe started losing it in his later years.

The level of explanation necessary goes too far beyond what I can fit in a post to a thread. But the main problem, as I currently understand it, is people are still trying to express these states based upon their expectations that have been gleaned from reading all manner of books and websites.

Doing this is all very well, in the sense that I am not trying to make out these people are wrong or anything. Whatever floats their boat, so to speak, and after all, that is how I too began from reading Monroe’s Journeys OoB 20-odd years ago. Unfortunately, however, following the more traditional teachings to too great an extent causes all manner of distortions, which ultimately upsets these subjective states and prevents people from experiencing them directly. Though I guess people mainly don’t see it that way (yet). You see, people still have to grasp the essential difference between objective (physical) and subjective (non-physical) reality.

Despite this so-called “new age” we are meant to be living in, people are still trying to objectify subjective reality in the same way they always did. All that changed was the terminology.

The other danger is we tend to place too much emphasis on the numbers and methods that made sense to someone in the past. For example, a while ago I found there were several of what I called “play states” that lie just alongside our ordinary physical state. Just recently, I realised that one of these play-states is, in fact, Focus 15. But it took the rather extraordinary experience I told you about of a few weeks ago, for me to realise this.

The reason why I never cottoned on, is because the true experience of becoming the Focus-15 state, is an incredibly more profound sense of reality than the somewhat puny objective notion of “no time”. Now that I’ve managed to put two-and-two together, so to speak, I can see that Focus-15 is a state where we actually manifest the very probabilities that go to creating the circumstances we experience within objective, i.e. physical, reality!

On the surface it would appear that by directly manipulating in the Focus-15 state, a person could literally forge his or her own physical reality. Though, at present, this remains something of, what you might call, a glorious possibility. I accept that each of us already creates his or her reality, but to actually access the very state in which we create the probabilities for that reality is something very profound indeed. The temptation to begin playing with my objective-reality control mechanism is proving very hard to resist! Needless to say, this has opened up a completely new avenue of research for me, and is something I shall be exploring over the coming months.

Anyhow, back to what I was saying, I largely get the idea from my interactions with people, they are thinking that Focus-12, for example, is something they experience in the sense of it being something they see/hear, etc. Like, when you sit on a hilltop and watch the sunset, or look out of your window and see the postman coming up the drive, that kind of thing. But these states, such as Focus 12, are not something we experience... they are something we become.

You do not experience the state, you BECOME it, and in this sentence lies the key difference between objective and subjective reality.

Now, each subjective state has a level of purity, let’s say, which must remain intact otherwise we cannot become the state. Unfortunately, it appears that what perhaps virtually all people do is “pollute” these states with objectivity. Therein lies the core of the problem.

When the state becomes polluted with a person’s objectivity, the person ends up in a position where they are attempting to “view” the state. This is, of course, impossible. But that doesn’t stop people trying. :)  And this neatly brings us to the situation we have today, where people describe these states in terms not of what they are… but in terms of what they see into them.

Essentially, where people put a BIG spoke in their own works, is the moment they perceive anything non-physical they try to objectify it. Rather than just allowing themselves to simply become it. In trying to objectify the state, the purity of the state is lost. For example, in trying to objectify subjective reality, we have developed constructs such as “astral realms” for example. In the broader reality, there are no astral realms! They are merely constructs that came about as a result of our attempts to objectify a particular mental state. Astral body, is another construct again where we attempt to objectify the mechanics of a particular kind of subjective experience.

I believe the core reason for the problems people have is that of not wanting to let go of what they see as their “identity” (this is where I believe all the fear comes from). Because to become a different state, you have to let go completely of the previous one, and that’s what people find extremely difficult. Problem is a LOT of ego identification issues suddenly begin coming into play. Another main obstacle comes about because when we enter these kinds of states, in effect, what we are doing is entering into the realms of what we, as physical beings, call the “sub conscious”. It is an unfortunate fact that most of us have pushed this area of mind way into the background of our awareness for good reason!

Another main problem is, people have to let go of everything they previously counted on as being “real” and enter a new state of becoming. Once you do that and revert to the physical state (C1) again, it’s never quite the same. Because you enter into a pure experience, and pure experiences are extremely profound events that change you in ways each time you enter them. In other words, the physical never comes back to you in quite the same way as you left it.

Bob Bruce, for example, in Astral Dynamics (I haven’t read it for a while as I lent my copy to someone a while ago, so I’m going on memory here) he talks about entering “higher” astral realms where you experience all manner of glorious events to do with light, colour and sound, for example. Here he is touching on the kind of pure experience I am attempting to explain.

Within these states, for example, you can become a musical chord, or you can become a kaleidoscope of colour. What mean is, you are not standing there seeing a kaleidoscope of colour, you BECOME it. Likewise, with sound, you don’t just stand there hearing sound, you BECOME the actual sound, you travel along the wave and your whole sense of being reverberates with it throughout multiple dimensions. Words simply cannot explain the sheer intensity of the beauty of these experiences. The feelings are profoundly intense and ecstatic to the point where you feel like every fibre of your being is dancing, singing, and revelling in the unexplainably intense and exquisite joy of the experience.

You feel like you are trillions and trillions of light years from the physical, revelling in dimensions of mind-boggling beauty… all concept, all notions, all idea of the physical is just completely, totally and utterly lost. When I am in these states, I feel like I am “home”, and there lies the danger. And that’s why the physical never comes back to you in the same way you left it.  

In this, Bob and I share a number of experiences, only the problem with Bob’s recount (as I see it) is he is explaining the experience of becoming these mental states, within the structure of traditional mysticism. I’m not saying he is wrong to do that, after all he openly describes himself as a mystic so it’s hardly surprising. But the big problem with traditional mysticism, in my view, is it clouds everything by wrapping up these experiences in a kind of esoteric language that puts ordinary people off. You don’t have to spend years and years following Tibetan monks or the teachings of Indian gurus, for example, to achieve what are commonly (and mistakenly) called “higher” states.

They are NOT higher states!

These profound mental states are right there, alongside all of us, just waiting to be experienced. But we pollute the purity of these states with our own objectivity, and that prevents us from becoming the true state. Instead, what we experience is our objective interpretation of the state, not the state itself.

Yours,
Frank

[JAW]

I cant wait to read your book, Frank. I volunteer myself as test reader in the mean time

I recently had a "low level" phasing experience, but when I go through creating an environment/scenario, I rarely get images of the intended location, but I regularly get flashes of images of random scenes. Ill get bored that Im not getting anything out of visualising my intended scene then, yeah, along come these random images/scenes. It feels like I enter a dream for a second or two, become aware that Im seeing something, then slip back out again (as commonly discussed). The other similarity is that its not easy to remember what Im seeing. Does your level of lucidity and recall increase as you practice? Also how do I know Im not slipping into and out of dreams? Two rare experiences Ive had I know are definitely not, but only because they were so overwhelming

[TheJza]

Frank:
I notice you have been using the words "subjective" and "objective" a lot lately in your posts, and I am wondering if I am understanding you correctly. When I think of those words in the usual materialistic sense, I usually think of "subjective" as something that isn't real in the objective world, and thus isn't real at all. Now, having read your posts where you say one of the rules is that everything you experience is "real",  I realize that this isn't what you mean by the words.
Would another way of describing these 2 states be more akin to saying a subjective state is where you lack self-reflection? For instance, in a normal dream I am doing things, and I am aware of doing things, but I am in a state where I don't have any self-reflection. If I am lucky enough to become lucid during the dream, the main difference to me between the pre- and post-lucidity is the addition of self-reflection in the latter state.
I feel I am grasping what you are saying, because many of my failed attempts (where I snap back to C1 while doing Wave 1) has to do with me becoming more lucid and remembering that I am doing an exercise and - using your terminology - trying to make the subjective state an objective state. This snaps me back to C1 as fast as checking my physical body does.
Now, given that this happens, I would say that there is really no way to have self-reflective awareness in F10 or F12, but I also imagine that F27 is a place more like the physical in the sense that you are somewhere with self-reflection and full lucidity. So it would appear to me that F10 and F12 could be buffer zones between C1 and F27, zones which you must "ride out" a wave of subjectivity (non self-reflective awareness) in order to arrive at a place that is more objective in nature (I think I remember you saying F27 is a place shared by all of us, where F10/F12 is a personal reality).
I also imagine you would say that you don't need to pass through this buffer zone to get to F27, unless your beliefs say you must, but currently the only other state I have experienced directly is F10, so everything else for me is conjecture.

[TheJza]

MajorTom:
Thanks for the post. I was thinking about it a little more and I wanted to add something. When Frank originally posted about people tyring to objectify subjective states, I think I see where I went wrong. I think what he meant was that objective states, like C1, have a subject and an object. The subject will be "me" experiencing the world (or whatever object is in the world). The subjective states, as Frank calls them, are where there are no subject/object relationships - no subject (Frank) experiencing an object (music) but just the experience of music (or the experience AS music).
I guess that could also coincide with what you just wrote about pure states. What do you think?

[Frank]

TJ:

First off, I just want to say that Major Tom you are absolutely correct.

I particularly liked your paragraph beginning, “Coming back to the pure awareness of focus states and the terms objectivity and subjectivity, you could perhaps even argue that physical reality is an objectification of an underlying pure subjective state that holds far greater reality than objective reality itself…” This is just absolutely bang on, but with one small change if I may, for you to drop the “perhaps”.

Also, I want to say thank-you for putting up further posts/thoughts regarding my Focus 15 experiences. I have taken careful note of what you say, but I’m in no position to reply yet. My experiences are still too new to comment with any degree of depth. So what I’m doing is letting everything tick over in the old mind-box for a while, and I’m getting some more hands-on experience with it, before making further comment.

Okay, regarding my usage of the terms subjective and objective: yes, this is correct. The adoption of these terms followed the need for me to differentiate more correctly between physical and non-physical reality. When I say more correctly, I mean as compared to the wider reality. In my earlier work, this distinction was provided by the terms physical and astral. But it came to a point where these terms, when looked at against the background of my ever-widening knowledge, became meaningless.

I understand fully where you are coming from because I have been through this stage of thought myself. Simply put, there is no part of a person’s reality that is not real. It’s like, for example, when beginners post on the forum the typical question, “Was this real or was it just a dream?” Against the wider reality, there is no such distinction. Understandably, beginners tend to base their thinking on the premise that the “real” reality is the physical, against which the “realness” of all other experiences is compared. This is a somewhat invalid comparison, but I can well understand why people do this. In the early years, I did the very same thing myself.

People may view their dreamscape, and later on, they may view their physical circumstances. They are both reality. The only difference being in the presentation, i.e. two realities, each presented differently. There are many, many, many different dimensions of reality within consciousness. All of which are no more, or no less valid a reality, as physical reality.

What was needed, therefore, was not a distinction for me in terms of “realness” of reality, but in terms that would spell out a distinction in relation to the two types of expressions of reality. That is to say, subjective expressions and objective expressions of reality, for it is ALL reality. The difference cannot, therefore, come down to a question of what is real and what isn’t (without incurring some *major* distortions in translation, of course).

The primary difference, then, is in the expression of reality, not its “realness”. The two basic expressions of reality are subjective and objective. Because we are (currently) primarily physical, and physical reality is a virtually 100% objective state, then I tend to call physical reality objective reality. Reasons being while physical, we engage in an underlying agreement that we shall view the C1 focus state as a more or less entirely objective expression. But as Major Tom quite rightly points out, C1 focus is an objectification of an underlying pure subjective state (ultimately).
 
The underlying pure subjective state is that of Essence or Self. This state is as pure a subjective a state as the physical is as pure an objective a state. In other words, the two could be said to be at the two extremes of the subjective/objective spectrum; where our current physical reality is virtually 100% objective… and Essence, is virtually 100% subjective.

So, for example, if you decide to drop a little objectivity you will enter what Monroe labelled the Focus 10 state, say. Drop a little more objectivity and you will enter Focus 12, a little more and you enter…. etc., etc. Eventually, if you were to drop all notion of anything to do with objectiveness, you would experience your becoming pure Essence (again). I suppose you could say doing such would be the non-physical equivalent of “going home”.

You see, that’s why the so-called “higher” states are not higher at all. They are just closer to the near 100% subjective state of Essence. Anyone can enter these states! You don’t have to give all your money to charity and live the life of a monk, or whatever. Though I am sure you can see where these primitive thoughts came from once you realise the truth of the process. Because the more a person would “latch onto” the physical, i.e. traditionally speaking, the more a person would be into money, sex, physical prowess, etc., the more difficult they would find it to release the levels of objectivity necessary in order to reach the more subjective states closer to Essence.

However, once you permanently disengage physical focus (in traditional terms, when you die) a slightly different set of circumstances applies. By definition, you can no longer hold the state of being virtually 100% objective, i.e. the C1 state in Monroe terms. But… a person will still hold a kind of “legacy” of objectivity, if you like, from their experiences here. The notions of objectivity don’t immediately dissipate upon disengagement. In other words, a person’s ideas about objective reality take some time to go away.  

This is the reason why, as Major Tom again rightly points out, the same mechanisms governing physical reality are generally replicated up until Focus-27. Reason being, Focus-27 is the “end” of the Transition Area of consciousness (which I labelled my-focus 3) that has been expressly laid out for the purposes of our re-engagement within subjective reality; following our intense objective-reality experience here.

This is also the reason why the focus-metaphor does in fact lose its value “after” Focus-27. Simply because the subjective element starts becoming too prevalent and, in a manner of speaking, too many realities start being incorporated at once to be identified as any one particular focus level. You see, the very notion of the expression of the term “any one focus level”, necessitates the involvement of a fairly high degree of objectivity that by mere definition is simply not present in the more subjective states.

I feel the main problem people have in shifting focus is their physical body in particular their feeling of it. The key is to concentrate on shifting focus within you; in the sense that what you do is create a kind of duplicate reality within the realms of your imagination which serves to draw your attention away from the physical proper. This puts you a few rungs up the ladder, so to speak, to the extent where taking the next hop isn’t all that difficult.

I often think this whole thing is a *lot* simpler than most people realise, and as a result they keep missing it. They try going down the traditional mystical roads of “separation” and “out of body” and all that jazz, and when that doesn’t work, they turn to dream analysis; which is simpler in a sense, but just as tricky in other respects. When all you really need is to create that scenario within yourself, and be happy with it, and trust yourself that you are really doing it. Because there is no separation within consciousness.

Yours,
Frank

[TheJza]

Excellent post! Thanks to both MajorTom and Frank for taking the time to post their thoughts on this thread. It has been extremely helpful to me.

[Frank]

Major Tom:

Apologies for the delay in replying. I have been particularly busy of late, but I did note what you said with interest and earmarked your post. The following are my thoughts, not all of which are strictly relevant to your post but it gives you a bit of background as to where I am at in this general direction.

There are elements of your experience I recognise. I especially like your phrase “emotional detachment” as this describes it perfectly and I know the state well.

I have been, for a while now, experimenting with entering “out of body” states while remaining within C1, which is possible but still largely elusive. I talked a lot with Stephen (EOL007) last year and picked up a number of pointers from his own approach. Stephen takes the more conventional mediumistic approach, and I have had some success in combining the ideas upon which his approach is based with my own work.

As you know, I started by following the Monroe model, more or less, but the past few years I have been branching out developing my own model of consciousness to incorporate actions/events that, to me, appear outside of the traditional Monroe framework of events. I’m not saying the Monroe model is flawed, so please no one get me wrong. But it is only a model of consciousness at the end of the day (albeit a darned good one) and time moves on.

The problem with the Monroe model, as I see it, is that it strongly suggests an entirely linear progression, from Focus C1 through to Focus 35. Now, I would suggest from my experience that, up to Focus 21, the various mental states do tend to flow as described with little discord from the published “ideal”. By ideal, I mean the official output presented by the Monroe Institute that everyone tends to parrot. You know, Focus 10, mind awake body asleep; Focus 12, state of expanded awareness; Focus 15, no time… etc.

Now, the big problem with the Monroe model, if I may be so bold as to fly in the face of the man himself, is that “beyond” Focus 21 the supposed linearity of the model begins to disintegrate rapidly, in my experience. The problem is, for most people, once you lose all semblance of physical grounding then everything just tends to get very, “here and there”. Maybe, if one could retain absolute concentration, the suggested linearity of the model could hold up beyond F27. But I just can’t see it, because I simply cannot find the structure that holds it up. Focus 27 is the practical limit as far as I am concerned. I’ve tried and tried and tried, and I just can’t make it work beyond F27.

From Focus 27, you have to incorporate the notion of parallel realities. As you know, what you don’t incorporate you blind yourself towards. But you can blind yourself to parallel realities all you like up to Focus 27, as there are no parallel realities you come across in that event… if… you are following the model construct as it is laid out.

Something tells me Focus 35 was the Monroe Institute’s attempt to create a “parallel reality” construct that rather went down okay with the people who were paying the fees for the courses. I’m not trying to infer any kind of dodgy dealing, or anything. But beyond the Monroe-model F27, everything expands out into an expanse that is difficult to encapsulate. No words can explain it, well, no simple strings of words, let’s say. You have to experience it to believe it; and if no simple strings of words can explain it then it can’t be sold, it can’t be marketed, and all the rest of it.

So the concept of Focus 35 was born.

Aliens, earth-changes, channellings from “supreme beings” and so forth, all of which I imagine would be popular constructs to the kinds of people enrolling on the courses. Not that there is anything wrong in engaging in this kind of wish fulfilment. People have been praying for the “second coming” for around two millennia, so such a deeply inbred feeling isn’t going to disappear overnight. And, given our technology, I suppose it is only fitting that big-G would appear in a specially adapted flying saucer, in a way like an intergalactic/interdimensional version of the Popemobile.    

Anyhow, I digress.

The Monroe model suggests a linear arrangement of various focus states, which is all very well. The problem I have found is it assumes a particular starting state then goes on to make a number of other assumptions and expresses these as “requirements” when in fact there are no such requirements… when looked at against the background of the wider reality.

I think what has happening with me, is I have outgrown the model. Plus, I feel there is a danger in that people are making the same mistake as the traditional mystics. Where people talk about Focus 27 as if it were a place you can travel to. When it’s not a place at all, it is just the model and our way of expressing it in modern terms. Whereas the “astral” was simply a way of expressing it in ancient terms. I know I have even talked about Focus 27, for example, as a place before. But my knowledge was relatively limited then compared to how it is today. Now, of course, I realise it is an area of consciousness. But even when people hear that I’m guessing they will still think of it as some area, like a place somewhere, where they can travel to or otherwise go to.

The problem is, there is no place in consciousness that we don’t currently occupy. So we can’t “travel” anywhere. We are already everywhere. Therefore, there is nowhere we can go to where we weren’t already at before we arrived. So the notion of travelling to a place must surely be illusionary. In other words, the act of engaging in a model of consciousness that necessitates “travel” must ultimately lead to some degree of perceptual distortion in the translation between the subjective and the objective states. I would also suggest that the more complex the model, the more perceptual distortion people would lend themselves open to.

I figured that if we already occupied these areas of consciousness, in other words, if they are not a separate place but they are a part of us already, i.e. there is neither separation nor barriers in consciousness, then it is not a question of focus; in the sense of where you point your focus of attention becomes your reality (Note: as I have said oodles of times on this forum, lol). Of course, that statement holds true within the constraints of the model.

The tantalising question is, however, can one completely step outside of, or entirely discard the whole concept of the model, i.e. any model?

I cannot present an extensive reply to that question simply because I do not know the full answer. I would suggest the answer in short is yes. As there are no limitations in consciousness, only those we place upon ourselves for the purposes of our experience. But as to how it is done, I truly don’t know right now though I do have a number of ideas.

What I do feel, and this comes right back to what you and I have touched on, is any kind of “access” to the wider consciousness must be performed from C1. The basis on which I say this, is that any notion of “travel” is illusionary, and illusionary scenarios lead to significant distortions in translation between the subjective and the objective.

The other reason is, C1 is what I call our default state. In other words, we are all happiest at C1 and suffer the least distortion. It appears the moment most people “step out” of C1 consciousness they lend themselves open to distortions and fluctuations galore. Unless, of course, you happen to have spent years and years learning how to control it all.

The above is just a small section of my thoughts and notes on this matter. I could go on for pages and pages yet, lol. But, in short, all the various models tend to suggest a departure, if you like, from the C1 state as being a pre-requisite to the experiencing of any other state. This is a notion I have subscribed to in the past, which I accept.

But my added experience is suggesting now that the departure from C1 is not an absolute requirement. It may well be a requirement for whichever “model” is being subscribed to, but it is by no means an absolute requirement. In theory at least, it should be possible to experience ANY state directly from C1. Without all the rigmarole of progressing from one to the other, to the other, etc.

Yours,
Frank

[Laurece]

Excellent thread!  

I read "Seth Speaks" and all of Jane Robert's others about 25 years ago and it changed my perception of reality(s) forever.  It sounds as though Frank and Major Tom are learning via AP experiences what is already very succinctly in those books.  Reading concepts such as:


But as Major Tom quite rightly points out, C1 focus is an objectification of an underlying pure subjective state (ultimately).

.....and that of parallel realities, "that every state can be accessed from C1 without the rigamarole", and oodles of major others concerning the deep subject matters has thread taken are like re-reading snippets of concepts presented in those books.  

I understand Major Tom owns the Seth books but probably hasn't read them since taking a major interest in AP (ditto for me).  My perception is that Frank---and other readers with an interest in the subject lines this thread has taken---can shortcut a lot of his/their deeper questions and ponderings of the hows and whys of what makes reality tick (ALL realities, C1 on "up") by at least reading "Seth Speaks" (likely available at larger libraries or most library loan programs....even through once you read it, you'll likely want to spring to own it).  

Those with the curiosity to read more about the inner workings of reality (without using AP and OBEs ) will want to read the others in the series.  By it's nature, Seth's writings are from the view point of an experienced soul traveler from [my term, not his]  "the other side" so you won't find mysticism, new age, religion, or any other man made misconceptions and terminologies to explain things that go beyond them all of them.

(NOTE:  The books build on previously explained concepts so, even though they are in extremely reader friendly terms and phraseology, they must be read in publication sequence or they almost certainly won't make sense.)

For those new to him, Seth was an incarnate human for many lifetimes (last lifetime as a school teacher in the 1940's).  After his last lifetime he and Jane Roberts collaborated for him to dictate a book (which turned into a series) which basically detailed how human kind's reality operates from pre-birth, their (mis)perceptions about their current reality, to post-death for their current incarnation's physical vehicle.  Overall, it's a loose road map to how reality operates in very much the same way that RAM's books are a loose road map of AP's focus levels (and all that lay beyond the physical body).  If memory serves correctly, I believe some of the important concepts on pre-birth [and their agreements, etc.] are in the "Seth Material" book (which was actually published before "Seth Speaks").  

From personal experiences, a frequent reader response while reading various passages/concepts in the book(s) is, "I already knew that!! [but have no idea how I knew since I've never heard of it before in my life]".   In other words, Seth's works seem to trigger an incredible number of "forgotten [soul] memories" in many people about the way reality actually *is*---more precisely, the way realities are--- versus the way that we perceive it/them (whether in the physical or astral or whatever).   Assuming he hasn't already, I feel Frank would have a great many of these moments while going through Seth's works.

Sorry to make this such a long off-the-subject rambling about a series of books, but reading one or more of them would take many question marks out of the deeper subjects being brought up in this thread.  For the small cost of a [few] book, it would be an excellent shortcut to relying *solely* on time consuming AP for (re)learning very deep information/concepts that have already been excellently explained by Seth (e.g. an entity who extremely familiar with the realities AP is attempting to access).

Unfortunately, reading the hows and whys of how reality(s) operates isn't the same (or as easy as) as actually exploring and experiencing them for ones self.  

Frank and Major Tom, you are both a wealth of information and experience.....I've learned a fantastic amount from the both of you since discovering this forum.   Keep up the excellent posts!!

Laurece

[Laurece]

Oooops!  Meant to say, "as personal knowledge gaining as" rather than "as easy as" (what a BIG difference between the two!) towards the end of that last post.

Laurece

[Amadeus82]

i just started on wave 1 this afternoon listened to orientation and intro to focus 10 for the first time.  was wondering how often to listen to these tracks? it just seemed too easy but was in a pretty deep state at the same time do i move on or listen to it again?

[mactombs]

Laurece is right. I got curious and went and got Seth Speaks. It is eerily similar to what Frank says about stuff ...

[mactombs]

i just started on wave 1 this afternoon listened to orientation and intro to focus 10 for the first time. was wondering how often to listen to these tracks? it just seemed too easy but was in a pretty deep state at the same time do i move on or listen to it again?

Amadeus, I think an important component of this is to go with your intuition and to understand that you are completely capable of achieving your goals in this area without your feeling desperate for detailed concrete instructions on what to do. Especially with listening to tracks. With time, you will develop your own "methods" that will best suit you.

So for now, I would go with what you feel your progress requires. Listen to the tracks as often as you feel you'd like to. If you move on and feel that you haven't gotten quite as deep, you can try going back. Whatever you do, try to just relax and enjoy, and don't feel rushed to arrive anywhere.

As far as attaining this states, you already do so much more than you imagine. It is just becoming aware of this, of helping your physical mind to understand and interpret them in a way you can remember and relate to. Don't feel like this should be difficult, or that anything is too easy. Think of yourself as an adept who is merely now peeling away layers of physical limitation to make these things more apparent in what you percieve as ordinary waking awareness.

With practice and persistance, you will invariably succeed.

[Smock24]

hi im new to this whole thing and after reading what u said about this wave-1 cd i am curious where i might obtain it. could u point me in the right direction?

[Amadeus82]

http://www.hemi-sync.com/shop/customer/home.php?cat=8 or you might be able to find it on a P2P sharing program.