I was talking to a friend the other day and we were recounting our favourite television shows when we wondered, why not project to some place other than the RTZ or Astral Realm? Why not to the world a book you've read was set in? Or why not invade the SCG from Stargate SG-1 just so you can take a trip through the wormhole?
What about a story you wrote or read? You have it all in your imagination, the world, everything!
A movie? Even if it was animated, or life action, like Lord of the Rings, APing there would be just :shock: .
Has anyone tried it? I knew there used to be a thread here once about AP to fictional places, but who else would want to go anywhere in their imagination/into a TV series/movie/book etc? I can't be the only one. Where would you want to go?
I've definitely visited the environments of a few video games, especially of the martial arts variety. There's not much I'm able to put into words, except that it was incredible and inspiring - giving me the urge to someday fund an animation project about various people astral projecting and doing that kind of unbelievable stuff.
Then the Matrix came out. And I no longer felt like I had an original idea. lol
As far as TV shows or movies, I've definitely visited the Star Trek universe (and flirted with Jadzia Dax), met a vorlon from Babylon 5 (they're always into people's dreams), and a whole bunch of really awesome anime. Wow, does anime look beautiful in dreams... I just can't describe it or replicate it. :/
QuoteI've definitely visited the Star Trek universe and flirted with Jadzia Dax
I'd bop on down to the stargate universe and take a trip through the gate and kick some Go'uld a*s*s!
Anime huh? How about the world of Disney animation? Now I so wanna go solar surfing! Treasure Planet!!!
Andali
Do these places exist when your not visting them or are they created by your own imagination at the time. Do these worlds have the same laws in reality, could you pick up a pencil and snap it in half and then grind it against a wall?
Its very fascinating :)
haha i use to dream about that...
to visit final fantasy 7 world
stargate worlds etc etc
Oh wait! I forgot how useful this could be.
In Star Trek, the holodeck is very similar to a controlled lucid dream. Often times, when I realized I was dreaming, I would say, "Computer," and it would beep in acknowledgment. Then I would say something, like, "raise the light level," and it would do so. "Delete this character," "create a river scene," "more rocks," "less water," etc., all worked as well.
And ReBoot! What I great show. For those who haven't seen the show, the characters often go inside a "game cube" (Nintendo stole the name from them, I think) and inside the game they would "reboot," double-clicking an icon on their bodies, and a wave of transformation would pass through them, changing their bodies into one appropriate for the game. I've used that a few times too, and got some pretty interesting results. ;)
Wow, I'm such a nerd lol.
Heh. The number of times I've wound up in a level of the Doom computer game in dreams or meditations is unreal.
It's gotten even worse since I got hold of Doom3. Just this lunchtime I got a demon jumping out on me as I went up a staircase :)
I don't think it's too uncommon to have vivid dreams or projections into video game or similar worlds. It just sucks when you can't control it. I mean, when you can't make it happen when you want, and you can't determine the length of the experience, or even the exact location you want to visit. Traveling to such worlds is definitely an interest of mine, but certainly not my main objective when it comes to going beyond the physical. I think the fantasy/video game world I'd most want to experience [while fully in control] would be Metroid. Zelda would be cool also, as well as a number of others. :)
Dont worry, im just as dorky as all you guys (I think im gonna try that reboot idea ~ I luv that show, hehehe)
Ive been wanting to visit hogwarts and not to mention a few other fantasy lands, Zelda is one i will add to my list =D
As far as imagination, i have summoned characters from my own fantasys (mostly because i know they are all friendly) but i havent been able to talk with them yet for whatever reason..
Im curious to know if these "universes" exist when we are not there as well. I think they do. I remember someone talking about how the Harry Potter universe is quite elaborate and vivid (probably because millions of children have read and dreamed of the place) I would think it to be like a belife system- sort of hovering up there =)
Hi:
Every idea, concept, invention, construct, etc., etc. that has been or ever will be invented or otherwise introduced within our physical reality is already lodged within Focus 2 of consciousness. So any story or animation, music, or whatever, can be experienced within this area.
Yours,
Frank
This form of astral projecting you guys are talking about looks like you've decided to slap the name on any kind of vivid dreams that you have. I mean, really, if you can't seperate the APing and some dreams from each other(or simply decide that they -must- be the same things), then you're going to be confusing the two more often, confusing any people who read this about them, and making people who just stumble across these forums jump to conclusions of how you think. The dreams that appear to be their own world, to be vividly detailed, and seem to be real, are either lucid dreams or ones that you have remembered particularily well for one reason or another.
--
I just checked the definition of astral projection to make sure that I hadn't gotten it wrong, but it seems that the definition of it has changed from what it once meant. That's too bad, because it also means that astral projecting can refer to fictional places, worlds from books, television shows, and other dream, which only continues to blurs the line between dreaming and APing, which are two different things, but the term has been used by those who dream because of the intensity, messing up the definition of the word.
There is no blurring of the line. If you can't tell the difference then you need to practice more. APing and dreaming may be looked at the same (because it's thought you AP when you dream) but there's a difference to it.
We're not 'slapping names on' anything. You can't choose what dreams you have but you can choose where you project to (if you're advanced enough). That's the difference.
Smart people don't leap to conclusions. They read up on what they're doing and develop their own ideas.
No one is confusing AP with dreams. Most dreams play out an abviously preset scenario where your subconscious mind draws what it's going to do from your memories, personality etc.
AP is done consiously and with an intent. Dreams take off on their own accord and only become lucid if you become aware that you acutally are dreaming. Even then you can hardly change the scenario and are limited to waht you can do because you're grounded by belief systems.
AP has a whole other set of rules.
Quoting Frank
Every idea, concept, invention, construct, etc., etc. that has been or ever will be invented or otherwise introduced within our physical reality is already lodged within Focus 2 of consciousness. So any story or animation, music, or whatever, can be experienced within this area. ,
is done consiously.
If you're confusing the two, or believing that you can, there are some good threads on the topic of Dreaming vs AP.
Though some AP experiences turn Lucid after a while, they can be forgotten if you go back to sleep because even though you are consious, your body is in sleep mode while you're away and won't retain the journey, like it doesn't retain the dreams you have at 2am depending on where you are in the sleep cycle.
No one is trying to blur the line or smush the two together. In retrospect, we're saying if you set the place you want to go, and go there with intent and full consiousness, how can you possibly be dreaming?
Andali
For me, I drop into dreams from thinking before I fall asleep. The thinking, visualizations, and the such just form into the dream I have. This happens with the first dream only, I assume. The rest of the dreams I have are stuff that is normal dream material; things thought about, or done during the day. I've never APed or had an OBE (never tried), all I know about them is what I've read about them before and the conclusions that I've drawn from that.
Are you saying that APing and dreaming are different only because one has the intent to dream about certain surroundings or events?
Sorry for sounding rude, I've always thought of APing and OBE as one and the same. I figured that APing was projecting your mind to the real world. When I found out that APing also had a different definition, I decided to leave in the first part I wrote. Maybe I should've lurked a bit more, but I find that this lends to learning faster, basing stuff less off of assumptions and possibly wrong information.
Frank, that makes sense, given how art already resembles Focus 2oC.
Lines~ i think you need to do more research on AP and OBE (they are the same thing). you can project into into the RTZ (Real Time Zone, your bedroom, ect) or into the astral where thoughts and dreams rule. Just because the setting doesnt exist here on earth doesnt mean you cant project to an imaginary/fantasy place and not be "dreaming" or unlucid as you put it. I suggest you read up of the other great posts on the subject, the possibilities are literally endless when your out of body =)
So you are saying that OBEs are exactly the same as APing, even to the extent that you can have an OBE to a place other than the real time zone the same as you can AP to a visualized setting? Yeah, I'll read up on them some more, but it seems that the definition keeps on changing. I may have not properly understood OBEs and APing to begin with.
QuoteSo you are saying that OBEs are exactly the same as APing, even to the extent that you can have an OBE to a place other than the real time zone the same as you can AP to a visualized setting? Yeah, I'll read up on them some more, but it seems that the definition keeps on changing. I may have not properly understood OBEs and APing to begin with.
I can understand the confusion. OBE (Out-of-Body-Experience) and AP (Astral Projection) are basically the same thing. AP is archaic, OBE more recent. AP, however, does imply the experience was consciously initiated, whereas an OBE might happen spontaneously.
The difference between dreams and an OBE is something that you have to experience an OBE to appreciate. There is a huge difference. I've heard that dreams are just a form of projecting, but I disagree completely. They might be distantly related, if anything.
Your sig makes me laugh, by the way. You're skeptical until someone proves you're not skeptical? :wink:
But, yes, I agree ... when people talk about this subject it does sound a whole lot more like dreams than anything. Who knows, though. I don't think you or me are going to find out unless we experience it.
Until then, I'll use my grain of salt.
Dreams are different from OBE's I know, but with APing it seems that two different definitions are used, one refering to an OBE that is purposefully initiated and occurs in the RTZ. The other AP can be to a different time, or to a fictional place, where the second seems to conflict with the definition of OBE's as I know it. I thought that OBE's happened in the RTZ, with the person able to view their body from their astral form. With APing to non-existent places seems to be much different from the AP that is similar to an OBE.
<edit>
Yeah, noticed that my signature didn't sounds like I was meaning it to. That'll teach me to use a sig that pops into my head at 5am without thinking it over longer. I'll end up changing it to what it was meant to mean soon.
</edit>
wow! If every idea and story exists already in the astral...then does that mean there is a fully functioning fully populated Tolkien's 'middle-earth' in existence where i can go and hang out?
apart from some temporary mental construct that i just created for myself i mean.. is there also a middle-earth world there that exists independantly of me, whether I go there or not?
Doug
-That's - the kind of thinking that makes me skeptical of this new definition of APing... not skeptical exactly, it makes the whole thing sound downright absured.
Hi:
There are no new definitions, just a wider awareness of subjective reality.
Yours,
Frank
Quote from: Gandalfwow! If every idea and story exists already in the astral...then does that mean there is a fully functioning fully populated Tolkien's 'middle-earth' in existence where i can go and hang out?
apart from some temporary mental construct that i just created for myself i mean.. is there also a middle-earth world there that exists independantly of me, whether I go there or not?
Doug
I know its crazy to comprehend! Do the people like Bilbo Bagins actually exist do they have a mind set of their own character, what would happen if you told him that the world he lives in was created by people from another world and actually in fact this world only exists in an illusion. Do the people their have free will. What does that say about our world? The questions and possibilities :!:
-lines-:
I rather think you are mistaken in your accusations of us slapping names on any old experiences we might have. There are a number of us here who are serious-minded practitioners of this art, who look very carefully and closely at the experiences we have and who take great care in our understanding of them.
I think confusion is arising these days because some people are becoming more aware of the fact that everything non-physical is not "astral". The term "astral projection" relates to a particular kind of olden-day belief construct that is usually enacted within an area known as Focus 2 of consciousness.
In the olden days, you had the astral that was said to be set out as 7 planes divided by 7 sub planes, blah, blah, blah, all with ubiquitous funny-sounding names that no one really knows the meaning of. This was their model of consciousness as existed in those days. A model that was filed alongside the one about the world being flat, and the sun revolving around the earth.
Now, our technology has brought to us the knowledge that the world is in fact a sphere, and we actually revolve around the sun. However, only a tiny number of people (myself being one of them) have discovered various facts about the traditional astral-planes model of consciousness, and the severe limitations of this model in relation to what actually takes place.
There are no "planes" there are no "levels", there are no "higher" or "lower" places, etc. All of consciousness is all the same. But when you view it objectively, it doesn't actually look like all of consciousness is all the same. And this is the big pitfall that all the olden day explorers fell into. You see, in those days, people looked up at the sky, they saw the sunrise and they saw the sunset, and it was SO obvious (to them) that the sun revolved around the earth. After all, anyone could objectively view this phenomenon for themselves simply by tracking the sun's movements throughout the course of a day.
In turn, other people went within themselves and saw many different "levels" of consciousness with all their attendant characteristics, like planes and sub-planes, etc. But there are no levels and there are no planes. Consciousness just is. It is all the same. There are differences, of course, but these differences are not to do with the nature of consciousness.
Differences come about because there are different focuses of attention, and in this there are created what we term areas of consciousness. Now, if you study the work of Robert Monroe, he was the pioneer in this. It is on his multi-focus model that my more modern-day Phasing model was based. Even though the Monroe model was a brilliant development on the traditional astral-planes models, it is not without its limitations. As in all things, knowledge widens and events move on. This topic is no different.
In my Phasing model, there are 4 primary focuses of attention within our system, which I have labelled Focus X of consciousness. Where X is the Focus number in question, i.e. 1 to 4 inclusive. I also add the suffix "of consciousness" (which I often abbreviate "oC") to separate it from the Monroe model.
An area of consciousness is not a designation of a level. It is an area that is associated with particular actions, explorations, and/or movements in consciousness. Within these designated areas, an individual may choose to focus their attention and move in directions associated with their choice of exploration.
Focus 1 of consciousness is the area of consciousness known as our physical world, which we are all familiar with so no explanation is needed.
Focus 2 of consciousness is the next area inwards, so to speak. Now, anything that ever has, or ever will come about within Focus 1 originates within Focus 2 of consciousness. This is the area of a person's imagination; it is where all ideas come about, all impressions, gut feelings, etc. Each and every manifestation that is brought into being within Focus 1 oC, absolutely all of it, every invention, every design, every piece of art of any description, etc. without exception originates within Focus 2 of consciousness.
Focus 2 oC is the place the olden day explorers termed the astral. It is perfectly possible to enter this area and engage in whatever belief construct you like. It's the place where most of us do our dreaming. Such that if a person develops a degree of lucidity while they are dreaming, then this is where they will have a lucid dream. Or if they purposely enact some kind of "projection technique" then they will enter this region with certain expectations, which will pan out as an "astral projection" experience as opposed to a dream or lucid dream. But these actions are all essentially the same. All that changes is your level of awareness and your expectations.
This is about as far as those olden-day inner explorers went. Some of them tried to venture "beyond" but by and large they were captured by their superstitions about The Void. Getting lost or getting mutilated by some monster hidden in the dark recesses of The Void was a big thing in those days. The tales of which would be filed alongside all manner of other scary "facts", such as, if a person travelled at more than 15mph their physical body would fall apart.
But these days the more forward-thinking practitioners realise the infamous Void of old is just an area of 3D Blackness situated between Focus 2 and Focus 3 of consciousness. In the same way, for example, the real-time zone is a kind of buffer area, if you like, between Focus 1 and Focus 2 of consciousness. To followers of the Monroe School, The Void is simply the 3D-Blackness at Focus 21. Simple as that. No superstitious nonsense getting in the way. Just place your Intent and away you go.
So when you "take off" into the 3D Blackness, you generally emerge within Focus 3 of consciousness. Or what is becoming commonly known as the Transition Area.
In the olden days people used to "die" and either go to heaven or to hell depending on how they were "judged" at the pearly gates. Within the Transition Area is where all those heavens and hells are situated, and a whole lot more besides.
Nowadays, more and more of us (albeit still a tiny minority) are realising that there is no death. What we call death is actually a belief construct we initiate within Focus 1 of consciousness, to be permanently disengaging ourselves from physical focus and to be entering Transition within the area of Focus 3 of consciousness. Transition is where we allow time to shake off all the now redundant belief constructs that we picked up during our physical focus experience.
People who are getting wiser as to the nature of the wider reality are spending progressively less "time" in Transition. However, in the olden days, people would enter Transition with all manner of notions about god, heaven/hells and judgements and such like. Many, many of these people can still be seen today engaged within their heaven and hell constructs. Significant numbers of people have been engaged in Transition for the equivalent of several hundred years. Whereas, someone such as myself would enter Transition with full knowledge of what was happening. So any "time" I spent engaged in this process would largely be under my control.
There are a number of other collective actions associated with Focus 3 of consciousness, but for the purposes of this post, my explanation above will suffice.
Next step inwards is Focus 4 of consciousness. This is where things really start getting interesting. This area is populated by all manner of "energy essences" that are no longer physically focused. This is where everyone's "connections" to all their other focuses are situated, and it is the first step "back" into subjective reality proper a person takes following their physical experience. In fact, I could write a whole book just on Focus 4 alone the area is so involved.
Anyhow, in a nutshell, the above is a brief rundown of the "map" of our system. It is quite a bit more complex than my explanation would suggest and I could have written pages and pages more. But the above should give people some idea.
Essentially, then, going "beyond" the traditional astral-projection construct entails switching your area of consciousness, as opposed to a person merely switching their perception within consciousness. As I said recently in a post to another thread, what many people have yet to realise is it is quite possible to change your perception in consciousness and not actually shift your area of consciousness.
To get outside the traditional astral-projection "box" it is necessary to learn how to shift your area of consciousness. This is what my Phasing approach is geared towards, and is the essential difference between Phasing, and the more traditional methods.
Yours,
Frank
Frank:
Thanks for taking the time to explain it me. I have a difficult time adapting my thinking to different ways, I guess. It probably didn't help that I didn't have the proper understanding of astral/OBE it in the first place. Going to take a bit before I can understand it more fully of course. That's what reading up is all about.
I'll now be able to think on this more often, muse over it when I get in the mood to switch my ways of thinking of how things work. It's easier for me to think of new ways that conscienceness and universal models, ideas, and the such work. Makes it easier than trying to figure out how they could be working at the same time. Hopefully that makes sense to you.
I also realized that my point to joining the forums was to learn more about these types of things, ideas, and concepts, and not to try to explain why they didn't seem to fit in my idea of how -it- works. I guess the amount of information here kind of overwhelmed me and I have to get adjusted to it a bit still. Don't get me wrong, I will still question things. It's what I do.
Again thanks,
c
Frank,
Please write a whole book on Focus 4 alone! :-)
Potatis
whooow!
Frank, once you get going there's no stopping you (which is great!)
I can't wait for the books, I think you will have plenty material. I think Monroe's method is a good way of publishing, ie a beginners book for those being introduced to the subject, an intermediate book and a third advanced book.
Although i feel that with the sheer amount of info you have, we could be looking at more than three books.
Doug
Wow, what a great thread!
Frank and MajorTom, will you consider putting your respective posts in the FAQ section?
I think they answer the classic questions, "What are the Focus of Consciousness?" and "What is the context and significance of different dream terminology?" (or similar questions). :)
"The experience....for the most part...remains the same..."
Absolutely, I couldn't agree more. Whatever a person calls it, it is still an objective viewing of subjective reality within Focus 2 of consciousness. Unless you happen to project to the RTZ, of course, in which case you are viewing objective reality, which by definition means you are at Focus 1oC.
The thrust of my thinking is, if people would know exactly what it is they are doing and "where" they are doing it, then all the confusion over the various terms would just fade away.
Telos: great idea, I'll add my post as a supplement to my Phasing post in the FAQ section.
Regards all,
Frank
I like what Frank has to say, too, and I'm looking forward to see how his book turns out. But I have to be honest, such long and complicated expositions are sometimes hard to get through. While I think the Focus models of consciousness are more accurate that the older ones, they are very difficult to remember what they mean, and can make reading about an exciting topic rather like a Math textbook...
If Telos is focusing at 4oC and Major Tom is focusing at 2oC, what is the probability that Telos will encounter Major Tom at the oC equivalent of F12 assuming time does not exist?
Maybe part of it is that less-experienced folks are more interested in getting there and reading about what happened than the minutia of a model for consciousness (even if that model does make getting there easier to understand in the long run). Not that the minutia isn't fascinating, especially if you have experience, but relatively few do, and even less have enough experience. That's why techniques are so popular, I think, although Frank's Jeet-Kune-Do of Projecting probably makes more sense.
I also don't understand how 2oC can have everything that has ever or will ever exist, and yet there's 3oC and 4oC somehow distinctly separate. And just what does separate these? Also, what's the difference between a dream or fantasy in 2oC and a lucid dream? Why are they different? Why isn't there just a physical state and a non-physical state?
What's the difference, in terms of reality, between someones experience reading this forum and their experience in a fantasy world like this thread is about? Are they equally valid?
mactombs, those are great questions. I'm not sure I
completely understand the FoC model, but I hope I can simplify it.
F1oC - Physical world
F2oC - Phenomenal Imagination and Emotional Subconscious
F3oC - Area of anticipation and transition to F4oC
F4oC - Really great area... I mean,
really great, so great that you probably need to spend some time in F3oC.
We could stop at F1oC and F2oC and just divide reality into the physical and the non-physical, but the reason that we don't is, I think, because non-physical reality stretches beyond imagination - phenomena and feelings that can't be justified as any old phenomena and feelings.
It would definitely be wrong, I think, to say that each area is like it's own little box. And it would also be wrong, I think, to say that they fall on a linear continuum. And of course, it
is a model, which means it's a way of describing something and talking about it, and is not how things actually are.
QuoteIf Telos is focusing at 4oC and Major Tom is focusing at 2oC, what is the probability that Telos will encounter Major Tom at the oC equivalent of F12 assuming time does not exist?
I don't know... is there probability without time? That wasn't meant to confuse you or dodge the question.
I've had a lot of really great experiences, but I'm not sure I understand F4oC very well (as a model element) except as having an exceptionally great myriad of essential feeling to it, and power. Well, I've had a lot of great lucid dreams like that... but for some reason I have not been very well awakened to all the "secrets" of reality creation... [Edit: but I feel pretty close!]
Telos:
Yeah, the FoC model is a good system but people should not just look at it and think its all neat and tidy, as one level of awareness flows into another.. so you get states inbetween various states, eg classic case is when you are in the rtz but experience reality fluctuations.. these might only be mild but if they get out of hand then you will phase right into FoC2
Also within each 'state' of consiousness there are practically an infinate number of 'areas', or realms or however hoy want to describe them, like what i was saying in another thread.. the upper FoC3 or monroes' f27 contains a myriad of different enviroments.. you could spend 'centuries' visiting them all (and only experience a few)... so its great fun. the more restricted areas of FoC3 are really fun to visit too, the 'belief' centre zones, although this is a slightly restrictive model as this region of awareness included an awesome amount of belief structures of all descriptions but the monroe/moen term applies to the more classic variety eg heaven hell etc... try checking those places out some time..
for example, i found myself in a war zone one time.. it was kind of fun joining in for a bit, but it was difficult because it felt so real that i would often forget i was an outsider so i can see how it could be easy to get wrapped up in such areas...
apparantly people can get stuck in these areas for centuries or longer in our terms..
I want to see if i can find anyone still stuck in a classical belief structure, eg wandering around hades or hanging out in the Elsiyum fields with the gods! I bet there are still some people in such enviroments! Sounds great fun!
There really isnt enough space to cover them all.. there is so much out there!
Doug
aw
MajorTom, thank you once again. Your insight on the usage of these terms is valuable.
QuoteOnce you start projecting frequently you will find these experiences no longer fitting into easy to swallow packs of information, and regrettably suddenly people start dismissing very valid experiences of their own.
Yes, I agree. I believe I have done this to myself regarding many experiences.
I think this problem as it exists in this forum is exacerbated by the description of the Dreams section. It states:
QuoteEverything pertaining to Dreams, Dream Journals, Dream Analysis, Lucid Dreaming, Wake Induced Lucid Dreaming, and related issues.
I don't know about the rest of you, but everything in that description has been and continues to be the bedrock for my studies on subjective reality. (It may have something to do with my youth and relatively recent popular acceptance of the term "lucid dreaming.")
Because of this, I think that all of those things are essential to keeping one's mind and possibilities open while also keeping a grip on things. And I think it's unfortunate that those topics seem couched in a middle and seemingly minor section of the forum - effectively distanced from the main sections.
Do any of you have an opinion on this?
I
Quotethink this problem as it exists in this forum is exacerbated by the description of the Dreams section. It states:
Quote:
Everything pertaining to Dreams, Dream Journals, Dream Analysis, Lucid Dreaming, Wake Induced Lucid Dreaming, and related issues.
I don't know about the rest of you, but everything in that description has been and continues to be the bedrock for my studies on subjective reality. (It may have something to do with my youth and relatively recent popular acceptance of the term "lucid dreaming.")
Because of this, I think that all of those things are essential to keeping one's mind and possibilities open while also keeping a grip on things. And I think it's unfortunate that those topics seem couched in a middle and seemingly minor section of the forum - effectively distanced from the main sections.
Do any of you have an opinion on this?
I totally agree! This is a awesome forum but the dream section is definitely to small. I think one needful step in the further development of the Astralpulse is the upgrading of the dream section. A more emphasized dreaming section would possibly draw more "dream experts" to the Pulse which, I believe; would make further discusions even more "complete"
I personally feel that dreams can play a significant role in the understanding of the wider reality.
Just a little off topic.
He he, :lol: :lol: I'm laughing now cause this is the second time I started a thread and it's been taken over by people who know me than me! I'm not bothered by it, I think it's great! keep going!
Andali
As I understand you guys you say:
1) describing reality via a modell is a problem cause the modell will never contain the whole picture and therefore we will start to dismiss experiences that do not fit the modell.
2) If we use a modell the phasing theorie is most accurate
This makes sense to me, but some problems will arise naturally from here:
-In order to commuicate about something in a usefull way, we need a modell and definitions
-The phasing modell is hard to gasp for me cause it appears pretty abstract. I personally need to picture things, my brain ( and I guess most otheres) loves to picture things and to think in modells.
This is were the 7-Plane-Modells and stuff like that came in handy. You fly up and you go to the next layer.......Blabla.....
To get me wrong I like Franks theorie and it might very well be more accurate then any theorie before. But how can I picture it?
How most I imagine these different Focus Levels? Are they all at the same place? Do I need to pass Level 2 to get to Level 3 or can I go from 1 to 3 straight? What comes beyond Level 4? Is there something outside level 1?
I also have difficulties to understand what actually is traveling around. In the traditionel theories you had the Astral Body.......what is it in the Phasing-Modell? Are we some kind of a point of consciousness? What are we really?
Then eventually questions like:
-How many focus Levles are there?
-Who created them?
-What porpose do they serve?
-What is a Soul?
and so on will arise........Well, I guess I might be talking to myself..........
In a nutshell: Frank, Please include some drawings in your book! :lol:
Cheers Tom
I also don't understand how 2oC can have everything that has ever or will ever exist, and yet there's 3oC and 4oC somehow distinctly separate. And just what does separate these? Also, what's the difference between a dream or fantasy in 2oC and a lucid dream? Why are they different? Why isn't there just a physical state and a non-physical state?
I'm going to answer Mactomb's points above, and hopefully this should give a little more infill in relation to the true structure of the wider reality.
This physical system was created from a set of archetypes or blueprints. There was no "big bang" that came from nowhere and started it all. We created it. When I say "we" I don't necessarily mean you and I. I mean "we" as in all of us but not as we see ourselves now, but humans in our natural state as energy essences.
The archetypes or blueprints are held within Focus 4 of consciousness. All the original models, all the original plans, etc., etc., in a manner of speaking, for our physical reality and every other physical reality within our system, are all held in Focus 4. Plus, there are millions and millions of people resident there as well. I don't know how many people there are. If it is not infinite then it's a huge number. Simply too huge for the mind to contemplate when held by the confines of physical focus. But when I say "people" they are not people in the sense of them taking a human form, or any other form for that matter.
Focus 4 can be thought of as the creative source for all physical realities within our system. Plus, Focus 4 is also the creative source for other realities that exist within consciousness that are part of our system, but these realities are realities that are not physically oriented.
The people who reside within Focus 4 have no form at all. They exist as energy essences, or what we might call a point of consciousness. I'm not sure how many people will remember the kids TV sci-fi series of about 30 years ago, or so. It was called Captain Scarlet and you had what were known as the Voice of the Mysterons. They were these mysterious beings that would talk to you out of nowhere. Well, that's a bit like how it is communicating with people who live within Focus 4oC.
You Phase into what feels like a huge interconnecting communications network. In a way it's like plugging your computer into the Internet. But you are plugging your mind into an infinite network of other minds. There is, of course, a LOT more to it than that. But in a nutshell that's the simplest explanation I can come up with. While it is an exciting thing to do, I have to mention that it is not for the feint of heart, or for anyone who is not totally grounded in themselves mentally.
The "problem" you might say, is you can get to feeling like you have "lost your own mind".
Thing is, we get so used to having only ourselves in mind. And communicating in this area is fully mind-to-mind. So what you do is merge your mind with another mind or minds (now multiple merging is really freaky, lol) and you communicate via thoughts, imagery, feelings, and so forth, in ways that are appropriate for the subject matter you are communicating about.
In a sense, though, it feels like someone is "invading" your mind, and the more egotistical parts of you may battle against it. With me it took about a hundred attempts before I became comfortable with the process.
Apart from Phasing to the place, there are two humongous challenges in thinking associated with Focus 4 of consciousness, as follows:
1) It is an area of purely subjective reality. So nothing actually exists as an objective observable form.
2) It is an area of simultaneous time, as opposed to linear time that we experience within this physical reality. So everything that is about to happen, has happened and is happening, is all happening at once within the same moment (within infinity everything happens an infinite number of times).
When it comes to setting up a physical world "system" certain "supply lines" and "structures" have to be put into place. Each physical world system has 3 basic areas of consciousness that ultimately "connect" to Focus 4. So the "main" area or ultimate creative source, is Focus 4. This area is common to all the physical worlds that are "connected" to it. Focus 4 is what you might call an "umbrella" area, and the other 3 areas of each physical world within our system are "nested" within that overall umbrella.
So say you had Focus 4 and 100 physical-world realities. Note: there is actually an infinite number of other physical-world realities within our whole system. But here let us say there are just 100.
Each physical reality has a Focus 1, obviously, because physical reality is Focus 1. So there are 100 Focus 1's, together with 100 Focus 2's and 100 Focus 3's. Each of these areas is nested within one Focus 4.
The best way of thinking of Focus 4, IMO, is to think of it as the ultimate creative source of all that exists within our entire system. In other words, all the original plans, archetypes, models, etc., etc. of all the physical realities "connected" to Focus 4, are held within this area.
Focus 3 is a Transition Area that is reserved for people "returning" from their physical experience. People generally have to go through a period of shaking off all the belief constructs they brought into objective reality during their physical experience, to enable them to merge fully with subjective reality again. At which point they can decide what to experience next. Focus 3 also has sections that serve as what could be termed areas of our "collective unconscious" but for the purposes of this post, thinking of it as a Transition Area will suffice.
Focus 2 is a rather interesting area, well, they are all interesting areas, but Focus 2 takes on a more "individualised" tone, which makes it a bit special.
Each person has a vast "section" of Focus 2 "reserved" for them.
The original archetypes held in Focus 4, that are to do with all the potential states and probabilities possible within our particular physical dimension, are "downloaded" into Focus 2. What people then do is pick and choose whatever actions they fancy and "play" with them within their area of Focus 2.
Essentially, the action of doing this creates a pool of individual probabilities within Focus 2, and each person in question decides which of these probabilities to bring into objective reality, i.e. bring into Focus 1.
In other words, each individual creates their reality subjectively within Focus 2, and then they "insert" it into Focus 1 on an ongoing basis.
Please note: not all physical realities are built on the same basis. Not all physical realities, for example, incorporate emotions like we do. So the potential states and probabilities possible for other physical dimensions will naturally vary. Therefore, each physical reality will have a correspondingly different set of potential states and probabilities "downloaded" into their Focus 2 area. But the ultimate source for all these potential states and probabilities, is Focus 4.
The 4 areas of consciousness are NOT distinctly separate. They are intertwined immeasurably, and each area is associated with particular actions, explorations, and/or movements in consciousness; while being fully connected to, and interacting with, each of the other areas.
An area of consciousness is not a designation of a level.
It is not a place or thing.
It is not an area in space.
An area of consciousness is a focus of attention!.
As I said in my other post to this thread, within these designated areas, an individual may choose to focus their attention and move in directions associated with their choice of exploration. If a person really wishes to confuse themselves, they can focus within all 4 areas at the same time. But the most productive way is to focus within one area at once. This typically means Phasing away from the physical (Focus 1) and focusing their attention within another area.
The difference between a dream or a lucid dream within Focus 2oC is simply the level of a person's objective awareness. These experiences differ in the manner of the extent to which each individual wishes to offer themselves an objective knowing, of their ability to become objectively aware within this area of consciousness.
A person can think of the divide, so to speak, as being the difference between the physical and the non-physical. But that is not entirely accurate. Likewise with the more traditional "astral" constructs. These are translations of what people objectively observed at the time, and were obviously related to their beliefs. But again they are not entirely accurate.
As human beings, we have progressively engaged in more effective belief constructs that hold the promise of getting to "the truth". This is why, over the past couple of hundred years, we have been progressively moving away from the old religious constructs, and adopting what we see as more "valid" constructs pertaining to our physical sciences.
This is why I always chuckle when I hear people talking about science and religion "coming together". They never do come together. In a hundred years time there won't be a religious construct to be seen. Like all the other dinosaurs they'll all be dead and gone.
Yours,
Frank
Thanks, Frank, that clarifies a lot.
I understand now what you're saying ... I just need to keep it in mind next time I read your posts. :)
I like this model, it makes more sense to me than other ones, and 4 focuses are so much easier to track than ... 24, is it?
QuoteThis physical system was created from a set of archetypes or blueprints. There was no "big bang" that came from nowhere and started it all. We created it.
This gets to the question you have with religion. If there was no Big Bang, God made everything, then were did God come from? Where did We come from? Or is it that we simply don't understand anything that isn't constrained by time?
Thanks for the insightful post Frank
There are two words a have a hard time understanding and I would be happy if you could help me out and explain them (again), because I think they are vital to understand.
I'm talking about objective vs. subjective
You use them quite often in your posts.
Thanks Tom
QuoteIn a hundred years time there won't be a religious construct to be seen. Like all the other dinosaurs they'll all be dead and gone.
Gotta disagree with you there Frank. If in a hundred years there's no religion I'd be very surprised. That would mean people would have to pretty much trash religious accounts such as the Bible and other such books and records. That would also mean that some things that have been 'predicted' in the bible, would also have to be considered false when evidence to prove them true is growing stronger. My opinion, the answers we
really want are in the Vatican. It's common opinion that they've edited the Bible over time, taking away things from it that may prove their religion false.
The only reason more and more people are turning away from religion is because they refuse to believe something that would remove them from their zone of comfort, so to speak. More things are becoming available that peak their interest away from religious things. Over time, the world is going to rack and ruin. If there was no religion and no belief in God in 100 years time, we'd be living in a world full for war, famine, disease (hmm, sounds familiar?) and we wouldn't be able to turn a corner without some government faction sticking its noes up our rears. That's not how the vast majority of the world wants to live.
QuoteThis gets to the question you have with religion. If there was no Big Bang, God made everything, then where did God come from? Where did We come from? Or is it that we simply don't understand anything that isn't constrained by time?
Is it too hard to believe that it was "always there?" Like a circle? No beginning, no end. If you're referring to God as Jesus then, obviously he had a father once, maybe in heaven as a spirit, or ethric being, or however you want to term it. Coming to Earth may have been the only way to experience the Physical, to progress beyond what we/he already knew. But in doing so, throw a spanner in the works and erase memory. That way, you have a choice. Live in the physical, discover the right way to go, when you die, return to heaven much much wiser then before on more levels than one. Like generations through time, maybe God's father had a father, and then his father had a father and so on and so forth.
I like the idea:
we simply don't understand anything that isn't constrained by timeIt's probably not even on the same time scale that we're used. Maybe 'God' exists in F15, state of no time, or maybe there is time, just not as we understand it. In a computer simulation I did once in a class at Multimedia, we decided to see how fast we could get an image to move. Eventually it was going so fast it was standing still. So the story goes, God created the Earth in seven days, six to be precise because on the seventh day he rested. You couldn't very well create a world in seven earth days so time in that sense must be something we don't understand.
Then again, another interesting theory someone I know came up with was that perhaps our entire world exists within someone else's focus whatever oC. Maybe 4oC or another like it. When we phase, or project or whatever, what we're going into is someone else's reality and when we create what we want in those levels, we're out of sync with the rest of the program, a matrix type thing but based on different laws.
We create our reality, true enough, but in a sense, our reality was there when we came to earth, and we built up from it.
I don't believe in the big bang theory, I can't understand the scientific concept that once there were two atoms, they got happy, and poof! , There's our world! Where did the atoms come from I wonder? Scientists are only beginning to suddenly realise that our Universe may be infinite. They grapple with that, trying to put a mathematic formula to it when it's something they'll probably never be able to understand because it exits beyond their level of thinking.
There may very well be a God but not a God in the bible sense but a God of our reality. The guy responsible for everything we are, discovered and have. Earth may be just another Focus oC, something small on a much larger scale that we may not understand.
I've wandered all over the place with this. I'm not trying to diss anyone's theories here, just presenting another point of view for consideration. Be open minded with this one people!
Andali
Andali:
I respect your view, all I would say is for you to prepare, then, for a big surprise. :)
Again someone has highlighted the very reason why I am working flat out to try and convince people to adopt the Phasing approach, and Phase to Focus 4 of consciousness. With respect, there is nothing in the Vatican worth knowing. Focus 4 is the place anyone needs to go if they want these kinds of questions answered.
Also, if I may put my mod cap on for a second, the thread topic is about having AP adventures beyond the norm. So I wanted to just say, not specifically to you Andali, but to say generally, for us to please not let the thread veer off topic, and start debating whether or not there will still be religion in however-many years, or whether god created the earth, etc. We can debate that if we like, certainly, if someone wants to start a new thread for that purpose.
Yours,
Frank
QuoteAgain someone has highlighted the very reason why I am working flat out to try and convince people to adopt the Phasing approach, and Phase to Focus 4 of consciousness. With respect, there is nothing in the Vatican worth knowing. Focus 4 is the place anyone needs to go if they want these kinds of questions answered.
I think that answers any questions I had left. :wink:
If there is no religion it will increase life span because religion only slows people's spirituality bible is partially true accounts part exaggerations and part lies as was in other mythologies of the ancients so the same would probably happen in the case of 100 years no religion. God Created laws of the universe , the universe, and the founders, founders created Lyrans and other extraterrestrials. From there we eventually came. When "Adam" was created by a group of Lyrans ,Vegans, Pleiadians. They used Pleiadian DNA to make us because their planet was most like ours and they. Many "Adams" were made and tested all around the world then from the "Adam" DNA "Eve" was made as a female counter part. Its all in the bible just some things are changed some things are taken out but its all in the "Prism of Lyra" you should pick it up some time it has enhanced my life
Prolatrevol, what are you talking about? Pleiadians are meant to be aliens or something!
On another note:
Frank
Quoteall I would say is for you to prepare, then, for a big surprise
Care to elaborate? :D I could say the same thing! :D
Andali
Wow, Andali. You make contradicting Frank look so easy. :)
Quote from: TelosWow, Andali. You make contradicting Frank look so easy. :)
LOL, yeah, she's standing up against the king of the AP forums. :D 8)
Quoteshe's standing up against the king of the AP forums
Now you're scaring me :shock: . He'll probably never help me with anything again!
Andali
P.S. I really see no harm in expressing what I believe in. I'm not trying to step on anyone's toes. I mean, people thought the guy who said the world was round was a nutter. Hearing all corners of the spectrum helps people develop their own views, and I greatly respect Frank's view, theories and the many other valuable things he offers this forum.
Quote from: Andali27Quoteshe's standing up against the king of the AP forums
Now you're scaring me :shock: . He'll probably never help me with anything again!
Andali
P.S. I really see no harm in expressing what I believe in. I'm not trying to step on anyone's toes. I mean, people thought the guy who said the world was round was a nutter. Hearing all corners of the spectrum helps people develop their own views, and I greatly respect Frank's view, theories and the many other valuable things he offers this forum.
LOL, no I thought it was pretty cool actually. And I think Frank is mature enough to harbor no ill will. You just stated your beliefs... no biggie. :wink:
Quote from: TomboThanks for the insightful post Frank
There are two words a have a hard time understanding and I would be happy if you could help me out and explain them (again), because I think they are vital to understand.
I'm talking about objective vs. subjective
You use them quite often in your posts.
Thanks Tom
An objective world is a world that appears to exist separate from you. A subjective world however responds to your thoughts, feelings and beliefs.
Nostic, I think Admin should crown him king or something. I mean, almost everyone would agree that without him, no one would get anywhere!
Sorry Major Tom :D !
Soooooooo,..... where do people wanna go when they AP?
Quote from: NosticQuote from: TomboThanks for the insightful post Frank
There are two words a have a hard time understanding and I would be happy if you could help me out and explain them (again), because I think they are vital to understand.
I'm talking about objective vs. subjective
You use them quite often in your posts.
Thanks Tom
An objective world is a world that appears to exist separate from you. A subjective world however responds to your thoughts, feelings and beliefs.
... just to be even more clear:
Objective- independent of your personal beliefs or feelings.
Subjective- dependent upon your personal beliefs or feelings.
Thanks for the reply Nostic. Could you please copie it to the Thread "couple of phasing questions" cause I would like to discuss the subject further but I don't wanna abuse this thread any longer :wink:
Nostic:
Thank you for your input on the subjective/objective question.
Tombo: I'm sorry I overlooked the necessity of a reply, but I've been a bit pushed for time the past few days and Nostic has answered it in a nutshell.
Andali: On this forum you are welcome to question whatever you like no matter who is saying it. Any debate on any subject is welcomed: provided the normal rules of respectful discussion apply... and it is ON TOPIC for the thread in question.
So if you would like to engage in a debate about anything else, then by all means go for it and open a new topic.
For the record:
Adrian is the boss who rules by "divine right". Major Tom is king, Nay is queen. The rest, well, we just fight amongst ourselves, lol.
Regards,
Frank
Adrian is the boss who rules by "divine right". Major Tom is king, Nay is queen. The rest, well, we just fight amongst ourselves, lol.
I make the tea!
:wink:
Good day fine people, a very intriguing thread to follow indeed...
I do, however, have a few thoughts that I would like to weave into this thread, concerning in particular Frank's assertations about the FxoC model of consciousness/ the Kosmos. As a brief disclaimer, I would like to point out that I am at this time not a conscious projector (though I am learning, and know on some level what this learning is merely an act of conscious remembrance, not a novel acquisition of skills), and thus I come from a perspective of philosophical curiosity, rather than being able to offer an actual alternative position. I would also like to state that I am not suggesting, as it may be interpreted, that Frank's ideas are inherently wrong, I merely seek clarification as to one or two points that trouble a peculiar feeling of the gut that many are inclined to call intuition. Whether my position is defensible, or merely stems from a certain degree of ignorance, which I am happy to proclaim, is open to question.
Now then, preamble over.
What intrigues me, and sets my little internal alarm bells ringing, is the certitude with which you assert your ideas. To quote an old adage, "The thing to be most wary of in the whole world is not people telling lies, but people who claim they are telling the truth." I am curious, exactly where and how did you arrive at this four-level system of consciousness/reality? If, as you say, this is a model you devised yourself, there are two possible answers to this initial question (there may well be more possibilities, and I accept I may indeed be entirely off the mark!):
1. You obtained this information from a 'higher being' either encountered on a level of reality higher/deeper/on a different focal resonance than this one, or the information/model was 'channelled' through you while in the physical plane, or some other similar set of circumstances.
2. Your model is based entirely on direct subjective experience of the proposed arrangement of focal points.
If the answer is, or is in the region of, the first point, then I am extremely dubious as to its credence and worth, as I would recommend you to be. In my earlier years when a desire to expand my interest and wonder in the universe compelled me towards certain areas of New Age thought that now seem rather tenuous, I encountered and read a lot of different channelled works - many of which had entirely novel, and completely contradictory 'secret histories' of mankind and the universe, and each providing a unique model for existence or consciousness. The important point being, depsite the probability that a lot of people channelled nothing more than the capitalist urge to sell books to slightly lost teenagers such as my earlier self, there were undoubtedly people among them who genuinely felt the made contact with other entities, and indeed did, and recieved the information which they faithfully wrote down and gave to the world, somehow thinking that what was provided them was unique, and certainly different to all the other various tales told by countless aliens from Lyra, the Pleidies, Sirius etc. and untold numbers of Angels and manifestations of God. Yet still, the contradictions illustrate the important point here...
If, however, as I would deem more likely to be the case, you have in your experience as a serious practitioner of the art of astral projection arrived at these conclusions via experiential empiricism, then a more pertinent, pressing question arises. (Please, for the purposes of this message, set aside the semantic differences of the various 'labels' applied to astral projection - I entirely agree with the points made on the matter, however, let AP suffice for this discussion!) While I agree with you when you say:
"... people went within themselves and saw many different "levels" of consciousness with all their attendant characteristics, like planes and sub-planes, etc. But there are no levels and there are no planes. Consciousness just is. It is all the same."
I find it interesting that you should propose a model for Consciousness having previously remarked:
"Every idea, concept, invention, construct, etc., etc. that has been or ever will be invented or otherwise introduced within our physical reality is already lodged within Focus 2 of consciousness."
For while you were of course referring specifically to the idea of fictional worlds, and their presence on the so-called astral planes or Focus 2oC (a topic I find most alluring - the possibilites are unbelievable!), you surely must see the contradiction inherent here. Assuming that there is indeed a physical world, or F1oC, (the likelihood of which it is not my purpose here to delve into), and that within or beyond that, or as you say, visible/attainable through a shift in focus, there is a subtler realm of Being wherein the subjective reigns supreme over the objective, and Mind and imagination take precedence over certain 'concrete' aspects of reality which we associate with this grosser, physical plane (something which, although I cannot project, have read enough about to take on faith), on the basis of F2oC's very nature, how can anything beyond it be concieved of as true? To put it in the form of another question:
How can you possibly know with any certitude that your model of F3 and F4oC are not products/constructs of your own imagination/creative impulse layered on to the Protean and malleable fabric of F2oC? How can you know for sure that you do not percieve the 'transition zone' filled with people enacting their personal Hells and Heavens etc. because that is precisely what you think should be there, and likewise with your perception of the transcendent realm above that? I hope the nature of my enquiry is clear enough. Granted, perhaps you would reply that cumulative inquiry by people has confirmed your theory. But how many of these people have read your ideas, headed off into the unknown and seen precisely the 'landscape' (not a very appropriate word I know!) that you have mapped because they expect it and nothing more? I am aware from one of your previous posts that Robert Monroe, whose work I have, I confess, not perused in huge detail, asserts a similar, if more elaborate, system of which yours is a more refined version. However, instead of there being empirically concrete aspects that fit the model, could it not be that something universal about the human psyche manifests in certain ways upon the malleable form of the subtler realms, thus giving it the impression of universality, which is however nothing more than universal in the human species?
I only ask these questions mainly because I can. I have been reading various different accounts of the more subtle dimensions of existence for about ten years now, many of which differ on details, some of which vary quite wildly, but all of which differences could be accounted for due to the Protean nature of subtler reality. And while I have been perusing this board for a while, and listened to many great speculations, this is one of the first times I have heard such assertion of truth - something that intrigues me indeed! I must stress that this is in no way an attack, certainly not in a personal way, and not even really an attack of ideas, I am merely offering myself as a devil's advocate to your position for the general furtherance of ideas. It may merely be that I am entirely mislead in my understanding :)
However, I remain intrigued, and look forward to your response good sir!
Muesli
PS. Although it is not the place, as I do not intend to violate the thread here in my first serious post, I do disagree with you about religion :) But I won't go into that here...! hahaha!
PPS. I haven't reread this through, I hope it makes sense, or that you at least get the gist of my qualms :)
"1. You obtained this information from a 'higher being' either encountered"
There are no "higher beings" if you had studied my past posts you would not be accusing me of receiving information from higher beings. There is no higher or lower in consciousness, beings or otherwise. Consciousness is not a place that is occupied by different "levels" of personality.
Many people subscribe to the notion of "higher" whatever... self, beings, blah, blah, blah, some have money taken from them in pursuit of that belief, more blah, blah, blah... that's their problem.
You say you are not a "conscious projector" which is kind-of obvious. I've been at this 22 years. During which time I have gone through every question you have presented myself, and loads of others besides. I take NOTHING at face value.
I am a scientist, not a mystic.
I take no offence whatever at what you say. On the contrary, you ask some *very* valid questions that I have asked myself oodles of times. Your construction is very sound to the extent where, I can definitely say, that if you would learn to explore the wider reality with the kind of attitude you have, you will go a long way.
I only wish I could present to you an objective provable model. Oh, wow, that is my ultimate dream. Alas, at present I cannot. All I can do is present an unproven model, and others will have to take my word for it.
Yep, I understand exactly how short that is of what is necessary. I live with the frustration of that thought on a daily basis.
That's why I am trying my hardest to teach people the same as I have discovered. Hopefully, a number of others will be able to "follow in my footsteps" so to speak, and see the same reality that I see on what is now, almost a daily basis.
Hopefully, one day, we will be able to present that objective, provable model. How that can be possible I do not yet know, but I will always live in hope that that one day it can be accomplished.
Yours,
Frank