Relative Plane

[Dagaz]

I projected out of a dream about a week ago and found myself in what I thought was the astral plane, however, when I asked a small creature that was there where I was, he told me I was in the relative plane. Does anyone know what the relative plane is?

[Frank]

Dagaz:

The astral is simply a term that describes a huge expanse of non-physical reality. It's the equivalent in physical terms of saying, for example, "The land mass of the Earth". People you meet generally have all kinds of terms for the place where they are. In all the people I came across and asked this question no one ever said, "I live in the astral". They reply with whatever they perceive is the name or label that is attached to their locality (or impression of their reality) or they give directions.

This is what we would do if asked the same question while physical. For example, if someone stopped me on the high street and asked where I lived I'm not going to reply, "On the land mass of the Earth". Nor am I even going to reply, "France". I'm going to say something like, "Take a left at the end of the high street down so and so avenue, and my house is number 4, about 150 metres on the right."

Typically, however, if a complete stranger came up of the blue and started asking a person where they lived, chances are, most people would firmly tell them to mind their own business. So exploring with a fair degree of tact and sensitivity is normally more productive than exploring without.

The other point that comes to mind is, you will find your forays far more productive if you realise the time to ask questions about various non-physical phenomena is... at the time. People often see all kinds of weird-looking symbols, for example, take great pains to remember what they look like, in order to come back to physical reality and ask if anyone knows what they are. What they should have done is ask that question at the time.  

HTH

Yours,
Frank

PS
If you projected from a dream I'd say you were definitely within the Astral.

[Dreamer]

You ask some very interesting questions Major Tom.

Sometimes I think we're so into getting proof, proving everything, scientific method that we lose sight of the "mystery." The wonder.

But it's difficult, never having solid proof. Isn't it? Concrete evidence this is "really" happening, not just my imagination.

I've just taken to asking whoever I come across on my travels if they have some information for me or something to show me. What is revealed is often something that couldn't possibly have come from my own mind. That and the fact that I am progressing by leaps and bounds since travelling and learning there is all the proof I need at this point.

But still--proof. I suppose you could set about doing this in a structured way. Have someone you know tuck something (you have no idea what) in an envelope and then put it in a certain drawer in a bureau. Travel to your level, find someone there, or work with the one you've been working with and ask them what the item in the envelope is...

Lots of interesting variations on this one...  My personal favourite is "finding" lost items.

Er...or am I missing a point here?

[Frank]

Major Tom:

You raise a number of key points and my "analytical side" appears to be as acute as yours is, so I can fully understand where you are coming from.

Ultimately, only personal experience can tell you what's what. Which I know sounds a bit lame but there is no substitute for actual hands-on experience. Perhaps someone, some day, will invent a kind of holographic simulator that enables a person to experience what it's like beforehand. But until then...

On the subject of your own selves, I very much doubt whether it is possible for anyone to research all of their alternate selves, as I'm not sure if you can actually put a number on them. Plus, there are just countless interactions between them all, far more than anyone could really catalogue. That kind of mind stuff is simply too vast to translate into physical terms.

The key to it all, to my mind, is being able to recognise your area of focus within consciousness. Things really started falling into place for me when I learnt to do this.

As you know, I'm a big fan of Monroe particularly in the way he discovered what he was perceiving was an area of consciousness. And that it was his own shift in perception or focus that switched him from one environment to another. As you also know he gave each area of mental focus he perceived an arbitrary number.

Personally, I like the attachment of a number concept, and the cataloguing of the various areas in consciousness by the events or actions that take place there. Reason being, I found it much easier to recognise which area of consciousness I was perceiving. Problem is, the level of detail Monroe was distinguishing was unnecessarily fine.

For example, Monroe labelled focus numbers 23, 24, 25, 26 & 27 to one area of consciousness that is known collectively as a Transition Area. From my experience, there is no real requirement to have so many different numbers to represent all the fine variations that naturally come about within one area of consciousness. For the purposes of cataloguing our experiences and recognising which area of consciousness we are perceiving, all we need to know is the general term Transition Area to which we can simply attach one focus number.

Anyhow, I condensed Monroe's original focus numbers to just 4, which represent the four main areas within our system (or at least I think there are four!).

My focus 1 is the physical, which includes the area people typically call the real-time zone, as this is actually part of the physical realm.

My focus 2 you could say was dream reality although it encompasses a lot more but this term will suffice for bare recognition purposes.

My focus 3 is the area of consciousness related to transition as I just described.

My focus 4 is the area occupied by what people would call our higher self. It's not really a higher self because there is no higher or lower in consciousness. I suppose you could call it the area of consciousness where we exist while having full awareness of a sense of connection with all our alternate focuses.

So to me, these are the four primary distinctions I use to determine where I am in the general design of our system. Of course, within each primary distinction you could perceive a number of sub-distinctions. But that is way too much detail for the purposes of successful navigation.

Number 1 we are basically familiar with.

Number 2 is a veritable minefield of subjectivity, which is ever so difficult to make sense of. I am familiar with the basic operation of the transfer of subjective activity, in it being brought into objective reality; in that the dream state is in continuous connection with the waking state, and serves to create our physical reality, and so forth. But there are ever so many different levels of connectivity its just unreal. Even the most basic dreams have many dimensions that can connect with all manner of individuals at all kinds of levels.

I said just recently on another post that every physical manifestation of consciousness was a mirror image of a known reality. Well, here you will find all those original images. I suppose that if people do ever begin to live for a thousand years, someone will eventually come up with a meaningful "map" of this area following a lifetime of continuous study. :)

Number 3 is an interesting area if you are looking for people to interact with. Many of the inhabitants at the top of the tree (F27) are very lucid. "Dead and proud of it" as I call them. It was meeting these people that really convinced me what I was perceiving was most definitely not just some aspect of "me" (and this touches on what you say in your post).

Everyone you meet, well, everyone I ever met (and I've met quite a few) knows exactly where he or she is (they still hold gender definition). They know they have physically died and have been through a process of transition. They are upbeat and happy, and many are living what look to be very normal physical lives.

So happy are they in fact that millions of people have chosen to colonise the area and have created a completely new world for themselves. Hence, the region has expanded to become what are now known as the "old" and the "new" Exchange Territories. The Old Exchange Territories being the original area Monroe talks about. But "alongside" a completely new populated area has come about they call the New Exchange Territories.

People at the bottom of the transition tree (F23), are generally encapsulated in their own drama to the extent you'll generally find they are not open to you at all, and the further in you dwell you'll find people becoming progressively more open to you. But, as I say, by far the most coherent, you'll find are those who have come out of transition and are resident in the New Exchange Territories.

Number 4 is very interesting. Here you can access all your other focuses, step into their lives; experience what they experience, etc. But, as I said at the beginning, everyone has many alternate focuses to the extent where there is just no way you could ever experience them all.

If I were you, I'd plumb for the top rung of my focus 3 (F27). I doubt you could fail to recognise the place. People chat to you like normal, everyone is open to you. The atmosphere is joyously charged. The place is bright, happy and colourful. Everyone is laid back and relaxed. You can't miss recognising the place. I mean, if you find yourself there you will not have to sit and ponder if you are there or not. It's something you will perceive right away.

HTH

All the best,
Frank

[Dreamer]

Hi Frank,

Nice ta meet you.

[Dreamer]

Grinning,

So this place you both travel to is all mapped out with signposts and everything?

A big sign on the highway saying: Two more seconds and you'll be in Focus 27?

I truly believe a lot of energy and time is wasted pasting our rigid constructs into the other side.

However, because I no speak academese, no one here seems to acknowledge I exist. Perhaps they on the other side feel the same way? Even though they be waving and saying hi?

[Dreamer]

That's cool, Major Tom.

;-)

[Frank]

Major Tom:

Tips and ideas, yes sure. I'll let my mind wander over what you have said and I'll type as it comes. Even if you find not all of it relevant, it may help others. So here goes:

People within F27 react towards me with a variety of typical human reactions. Some have seen it all before and are too busy with other things to pay much attention, some are fascinated, others start enthusiastically explaining things to you, etc. It's all very human like in nature. Which is why I think perceiving this area will be the best bet for you.

The spookiest feelings come about when people walk up and greet you like an old friend, and you haven't the foggiest notion of who they are!

The concept of "travel" is a belief construct that has been adopted by ever so many people and can cause all manner of problems. Well, not so much at first because people, at the same time, align themselves with support constructs. So when finding themselves flying around somewhere, to them they feel they have "succeeded".

I'm not knocking it, of course, each to their own and I've subscribed to a number of these beliefs myself, so I know how tempting they are.

I began by following Monroe's technique in Journey's OotB. It worked for me but I could never achieve a "real-time zone" perception experience. I did manage years later, but only after having had hundreds of what could be called "astral" experiences. Note: I truly hope this doesn't sound presumptuous, but I'm starting to be more careful about my use of mystical terminology. I still use it, where necessary, because that is what large numbers of people relate to, after reading the books and perhaps having had a number of initial experiences. But as my experience has grown, I now prefer using terminology that is more contemporary, because it tends to be aligned with actual non-physical reality, rather than mass beliefs about non-physical reality. Not in all cases, of course, but that does appear to be the general picture.

The more I read of your situation, the more strongly I feel you need to start getting to grips with where you are at in the general perception scheme of things. Perceiving the real-time zone (as it is generally called) is simple because it's so familiar. What I'd suggest is for you to resist the temptation to do this. Instead, think about widening your perception to incorporate the other areas of focus. It would be a mistake to think of them as a linear scale. Think of having lines of contact to all 4 areas of our system at the same time. They all come to you in parallel, and it's your choice which one you connect to.

There are no barriers in consciousness. So, for example, it's not necessary for you to achieve success at, say, a "lower" level before you can get to the "higher" one. There are no higher or lower levels. What we perceive are areas of consciousness we have constructed for a particular purpose, i.e. to perform a particular role in the workings of our wider reality. These areas are not higher or lower, they are just there. We attach numbers to identify them like TV channels on a tuner. The numbers merely identify the channel, and they are in sequence simply because it makes logical sense. Say we have TV channel 1 to channel 50. Just because channel 1 could be viewed as being at the bottom doesn't reflect its worth as a channel. Likewise, Channel 50 is not necessarily any more worthy a channel than channel 1 simply because it is a "higher" number. To get to channel 5 we simply switch to channel 5. We don't have to watch channel 1, 2, 3 & 4 in sequence for some time first, before we "qualify" to switch to 5.

I was confused over this for a while when I first started. I couldn't get to grips with where I was because, from reading Journey's OotB, I got the idea the being "out of body" bit had to come first as a kind of qualification stage. From the point of which I could then experience the locale thingies, as I thought of them at the time. People today often feel the only "proper" obe is a real-time zone experience and the rest is only a dream. They say "only" a dream, LOL. These people, of course, do not understand that all our physical reality is being created by our dreams. Pretty powerful stuff those dreams! The other one is where people say, "Oh, it's only imagination." They are not realising, obviously, that our whole sense of objective thought rests on us having an imagination.

As there are no barriers in consciousness, there is no separation either. We create notions of separation due to our beliefs. People feel they need to enact a "process" that they need to "follow" in order to become "adept". They are all mere belief constructs. I read once of a person who believed we have all manner of "bodies". He said we have an etheric body, an astral body, a mental body, and all kinds of other different bodies that were all roaming around the "astral planes". This person was so taken by this belief construct he actually wrote a whole book on it. Loads of people still firmly believe they have an etheric body that "separates" from the physical. Again, these are all belief constructs. In reality, we are a point of consciousness and we create whatever we feel we need for our purposes. If people feel more secure in a "body" then a body they shall create.

I no longer follow the focus numbers originally stipulated by Monroe. They are still valid, of course, and the original concept was brilliant. But it's far more complex than it needs to be and they are ever so confusing for beginners. But again, hats off to Monroe for his brilliant work.

Loved your joke BTW, regarding lucidity. Still chuckling as I'm typing.

Junk all elaborate mechanisms; yes, I think you are outgrowing them. People think of the non-physical as a kind of remote place we have to "travel" to. So they develop some kind of mechanism perhaps to bridge the "gap". There is no separation between them and us. Only the barriers we create in our thinking. I have them, you have them, and we all have them. It's darned frustrating for me because I realise all this, and yet I still have internal barriers! Okay, perhaps less than most, but clearing away the mental blocks is not an overnight process. I suppose it could be, but I don't believe it is possible, and so it isn't... Aaagh!

Beliefs are incredibly powerful and shape our reality in ways we find difficult to accept. People find it much easier to believe in the notion of a "creator" a god, or whatever/whomever. Sounds much more believable to them than we created it all. God did not create us in his own image; we created the notion of a god so we could blame him for the mess! And what a flaming mess we made, quite frankly. But times really are set to change.

You have set your definition of reality. The point at which you will accept it's a phenomenon or circumstance not merely stemming from yourself. Are you sure you really want this confirmation? Maybe a part of you does and another part of you doesn't. So you end up in limbo. The non-physical reality you perceive may be a representation of this. Not all of it. But maybe elements of conflict are woven into it. It's consciousness we perceive after all.

I often wonder if people realise that. Perhaps they never really thought of it. Maybe they picture it's something like space. The space between planets I mean, out there, in space, that kind of thing. Nope, it's consciousness we are perceiving in all its forms. The physical we perceive is one form. What we label non-physical is another form. It's all just different manifestations of consciousness. Like the areas we perceive that we attach labels to. It's just another manifestation of consciousness we have formed to suit a particular purpose or to perform a particular function, for example, Transition Area.
 
There is no "astral" as such, it is merely a belief construct that exists in the region of my-focus 2, along with each and every other belief construct, idea, myth, thought, emotion, etc., etc., ad-nauseum, that anyone either ever had, or ever will have; it's all lodged in our subjective consciousness area. Or the area of consciousness we have set aside to perform the function of holding all subjective reality pertaining to objective physical manifestation. In other words, my-focus 2 is our toy box, and my-focus 1 is our play area.

When people were building this system, they had to create a mechanism that would channel the conscious energy in a particular way, a kind of supply-line of conscious energy if you like. (Note: the universe didn't come about by chance we built it.) The 4 areas of focus I described before is the supply line. Consciousness does not merely become manifest into a human being, for example. We all have our consciousness-energy supply lines (bio-energetic links) that connect to various constructs in the non-physical background. These constructs had to first be put into place before we could create the finished product, i.e. our entire physical realm.

Every person has a bio-energetic link that connects to their physical brain via the various energy centres mystics usually call Chakras. That side of things people generally accept. People have created all manner of diagrams over the years and assigned these energy centres different colours and stuff. This is wonderful, because at least there is a region of common non-physical ground that people can largely agree upon.

But what you don't hear too much about is where the other end of the link connects. All you typically see on the diagrams is some kind of mysterious energy flowing in from the top of the head, as if it comes in willy-nilly from nowhere. It doesn't, it is directed through a bio-energetic link. This link connects to the person at one end, and "plugs into" a conscious-energy source at the other.

The necessary conscious energy doesn't just come from anywhere. What we did was create a specific area of consciousness that performs this connection and supply process. Everyone's link (everyone in this system I mean) "plugs into" the same area of consciousness, which I labelled my-focus 4. This is the area of consciousness where everyone's bio-energetic link terminates, i.e. plugs into their mind. What we call "mind" is nothing to do with the physical brain. Mind is an area of consciousness that we have constructed to serve the purpose of acting as the directing and/or controlling entity we call mind. In other words, "mind" is just another label we have attached to a particular area of consciousness, as we do, for example, with the term Transition Area.

Ultimately, what I'm trying to get across is these areas of consciousness are "the works" behind our system. They didn't just come about willy-nilly. It's not just some remote space that serves merely to enthral people, and create a never-ending source of speculative discussion. These areas of consciousness are part of our whole construction. They exist for specific purposes, to perform specific functions within our wider reality.

In a building, for example, if you want light you flick a switch. If you want water, you turn on a tap. You don't see all the workings that sit behind the scenes, all the wires, the pipes, the girders and all that jazz. All these are normally hidden from view by pretty wall panels, ceilings and flooring.

The physical is much the same. All the non-physical workings that go to servicing the demands of this physical reality are all in the background, and we build-up a pretty perspective for ourselves that is formed not from materials like wood and plaster obviously, but formed from beliefs.

When we widen our perspective, what we are doing is stripping away all the pretty panels (belief constructs) in order to reveal the raw workings.

HTH

Yours,
Frank

[Nick]

Hi folks,

There's just too much good information in this topic to let this puppy slide down the hill. I've gone ahead and made it a sticky topic.

Frank, as a fellow mod, if you disagree feel free to undo it, However, I hope you're comfortable with it as a sticky.  


Warm regards,
Nick

[Frank]

Major Tom:

A few more thoughts came to mind, which may be helpful either to you or to others. I'll just type as I think, so here goes:

After studying this topic at length, fear and doubt are the biggest non-physical experience killers there are. Doubt I have chosen to retain to a small degree. I suppose it's just the way my mind works. Unless I can categorically confirm the truth of an experience, I'm not happy with it. Which is a process that goes down well within the physical, but non-physical the doubt often gets in the way.

Deep down I believe a little bit of doubt is a healthy stance to take. (New Age la la land was never my cup of tea!) So I have this way of analysing my perceptions frame by frame. It's slower doing it that way. But at least it keeps me firmly rooted in reality, which to me is all-important.

There are an infinite number of physical-matter experience systems, but all work very similarly. Each system is composed of 4 basic parts. Each part is a particular manifestation of consciousness that is dedicated to performing specific tasks or functions. The 4 basic parts link seamlessly to create the overall structure of our system. We can view the areas of consciousness applicable to these parts. The easiest one for most people to view is the physical. After all, the creation of a physical realm is the end result of the process initiated by the other 3 parts, which are the ones that typically cause the most confusion.

Non-physical reality is the "norm" for us. It's where we "live". We create physical worlds so we can experience them. It should be fun, exciting, a definite adventure. Problem is, within this system, people lost track of their origins and began chasing their own tails.

When you strip away all the belief constructs the setup is not all that difficult to understand. After all, we were knowledgeable of it before deciding to have this physical experience. "Exploring new terrain" is a notion allied to the belief construct of separateness. Yes, you are absolutely right; it causes people to fall back on all manner of rudimentary beliefs, and I know that feeling only too well. In my early years, I fought in all manner of non-physical wars, grappled with every kind of demon, and slayed dragons galore. Ha ha, how I chuckle about it now. But at the time, hmm, that was serious stuff I thought.

The reason why Monroe's work was so brilliant, his later work I mean, is because he was the first person (to my knowledge) who went beyond having mere belief-construct incursions, and began perceiving the areas of consciousness relating to the actual structure of our system.

"Astral projection" is a belief construct. When people project, what they perceive is a graphical representation of that belief construct. All the notions of astral planes and all notions of sub-divisions, etc., etc., they are all belief constructs. Devils and demons are belief constructs. Near Death Experience "past life reviews" are belief constructs. All religious beliefs, and such like, they too are all belief constructs, along with zillions of others.

Every thought, every feeling, every emotion, every belief, every idea, and so on, ad infinitum, that has ever been and that ever will be, is held in an area of consciousness I labelled my-focus 2. It's like a humongous toy-box packed full of every possible variation of human subjective reality, which we have the option of bringing into objective reality, if we so choose. Well, that's the theory. Problem is, most people fail to realise they have a choice.

This is where virtually all people (including myself at first) switch their focus of attention (by whatever means) and call it "astral projection" or "mental projection" or whatever variation of projection people happen to choose, when they have a non-physical perception experience that is not to do with the real-time zone. There was a recent post to this forum from a person who said they were having experiences that didn't appear to "fit" with the generally accepted norm (i.e. group-consensus construct). So the person in question attached the label "energetic obe", which is a prime example of the way people attach all manner of labels to these experiences.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with wanting to be different. Though all manner of problems do tend to come about, when one person or group claims that their differences are more "right" than everyone else's. However, what all these people invariably fail to realise is, in reality, all they are doing is perceiving graphical representations of their very own belief constructs within the SAME area of consciousness!

There are all manner of groupings, such as singular consensus, group consensus, mass consensus, and so forth, when it comes to the determining of "astral projection" perception experiences. A mass consensus reality experience would be an action chain (the events these people initiate within my-focus area 2 are called Action Chains) based on belief constructs pertaining to mainstream religion, or mainstream political beliefs, for example. Group consensus experiences are similar to mass consensus but on a smaller scale; like of the kind you see on the Astral Pulse, where people subscribe to similar belief-constructs they may have read about in a number of books, and so forth. Individual consensus is where a person thinks of their action chains as being unique in some way, so they attach there own label(s).

A person may write a book and describe the "astral planes" (in fact, a post such as this happened to come up today). People may read the book and something in it harmonises with them in some way. This, in effect, can cause them to subscribe to the same belief construct. Following which the circumstances, etc., of that construct will begin to bleed into their reality. Reason being, what they do, in effect, is accept a particular construct of subjective reality that is already lodged in my-focus area 2, and then they bring it into the objective reality area of my-focus 1. At which point, the reality of the construct in question can be objectively experienced. Problem is, people do this so naturally and so seamlessly, hardly anyone realises they are doing it.

The result being, if enough people enact this process over the same construct, the originator of the construct will gain a "following" of "believers" who will "preach" to others of their "magical experiences" and encourage others to do the same... sound familiar to anyone?

Each one of us is born instilled with every belief construct that has ever been and ever will be.

All these constructs are already lodged within the area of my-focus 2, and we all have equal mental access to this area. Note: having mental access to this area, and perceiving the structure of it as a non-physical reality, are two completely different events.

We all mentally access this area so naturally and so seamlessly, no one realises they are doing it. That is, of course, until a person learns to perceive the actual structure of this area, at which point they can see the various mental communications that take place. This is something of a revelation to say the least. Plus, it's a heck of a tricky mental balancing act to perform, and probably one of the most testing exercises in mental gymnastics ever devised, i.e. objectively observing subjective reality. (Well, most testing in our system let's say.)

Individuals will only experience an infinitesimal fraction of possible belief constructs throughout their physical lifetime. When a person "subscribes" to a particular construct, the details of that construct "bleeds through" into that person's reality. All manner of influences can cause a person to subscribe to particular beliefs. Parents, books, magazines, mass media, and all that jazz. A person might develop opinions about a particular topic and, say, they chat with others about it. Given a little reinforcement, opinions can so very easily turn to beliefs - at which point they subscribe.

Then, slowly but surely, the belief construct they subscribed to will bleed into their reality. As it does so, they will take these "bleed though" experiences as confirmation of their original beliefs, i.e. that they were "right" to think that way, and so on. Problem is, they just became a classic example of a walking talking, self-fulfilling prophecy.

This is the reason why, for example, some people perceive all manner of demons and devils and all that jazz. Whereas, nowadays, I never come across anything even remotely like this. They don't exist to me, because, years ago, I cancelled my subscription to the "demons and devils" belief construct. Therefore, nothing about that construct can now possibly bleed into my reality.

This process can work well with physical-realm phenomena.

Say, half a dozen inventors get together to try to invent some widget. Each will adopt common beliefs about proposed widget-X then go off and study all manner of possibilities. What they are doing, in effect, is subscribing to the belief construct of the manifestation of the widget in question. The details of every widget that was ever manifested is held in my-focus 2. Therefore, what will happen is, slowly but surely, the details of the manifestation of that particular widget will bleed through into their objective reality. Which, once complete, the people in question will say they "invented". The whole notion of "invention" is, of course, a belief construct.

Like I say, the process works well within objective reality. Nothing would ever be "invented" without it for a start. Problems arise, however, when people apply this [objective] manifestation process to the non-physical, i.e. subjective reality, in their attempts to switch focus and view non-physical events. What happens is, rather than perceive the non-physical reality of the structure, they wallow in their own constructs about the non-physical reality of the structure. This problem repeatedly arises because people invariably fail to grasp the important differences between objective reality, and subjective reality.

The overall reason why these kinds of faulty circumstances come about, is because people, in the main, exist in a world of Creative Apartheid. A world where people employ all manner of bizarre mental contortions in an effort to justify the false notion of separation from themselves, and the reality they create.

On this forum (and on others I suppose) people have said many times, "We create our own reality". Practically, however, people do not comprehend the full gravity of that statement. They pay lip-service to the notion, but in truth they hold it in mind as an ideal; while remaining confused as to how to gain the necessary degree of understanding to allow themselves to attain it.

In their manner of thinking, they perceive themselves to be creating their own reality within the context of, for instance, getting a better job, or moving house, that kind of thing. Yes, those kinds of actions could be said to be creating one's reality. But all they are doing is merely skimming the surface. What has yet to dawn on people is the fact that we create ALL our reality!

I said before this fact is so darned difficult for people to comprehend, they far rather subscribe to the notions of all manner of weird and wonderful God-like figures; said to be instilled with a seemingly infinite variety of magical powers, which they use to create universes, and so forth. But the reality is, there are no gods... we did it, all of us, we constructed it from the base-material we call consciousness.

You see, again, that's why Monroe's work was so darned brilliant. Because he was the very first person (to my knowledge) who stepped outside the realm of the belief constructs and began to perceive the truth of the wider reality; as opposed to merely wallowing in the collective pool of subjective beliefs.

What Monroe began to observe were the areas that form part of our system's construction. These areas are not belief constructs. They compose actual non-physical reality.

HTH

Yours,
Frank

[TheJza]

Frank:
Thanks for such in-depth and detailed posts. I have one question for you...

I said before this fact is so darned difficult for people to comprehend, they far rather subscribe to the notions of all manner of weird and wonderful God-like figures; said to be instilled with a seemingly infinite variety of magical powers, which they use to create universes, and so forth. But the reality is, there are no gods... we did it, all of us, we constructed it from the base-material we call consciousness.

This "consciousness" must have originated from a particular source, where do you think this came from? And when you say "consciousness" - do you mean each non-physical being's consciousness or a singular "Consciousness"? What I am getting at is there has to be some beginning where everything sprang up from... don't you agree?

[Frank]

TJ:

Terminology at times can be confusing, I admit. I use the term "consciousness" to describe the Base-Material from which everything is constructed. But, as human beings, we also use this word to describe the feeling of being conscious. This base material is what you might call the ultimate element. It is a material that, no matter how great you magnify it, you see that it is made up of nothing else but itself.

Conventional science has brought itself to theorising as to its existence. But to give you an idea of what I mean, consider the following: magnify a substance and you see it is made up of all manner of chemicals (say). Magnify it further, and you see these chemicals are made up of different elements. Magnify further still and you see that all these elements are made up of what we call atoms. Magnify yet further, and you see that atoms themselves are made up of even smaller particles. Now, eventually, you reach a point where you come to what I call Base Material. It is a substance that, no matter how much you magnify it, you see that it is made up of nothing but itself.

Looking backwards along the magnification route, you see that Base Material ultimately forms every physical and non-physical thing in our system. Scientists once thought that atoms took on this role (in the physical realm that is, as they haven't yet acknowledged fully the non-physical). But then they discovered that atoms themselves were made from even smaller particles. Science will (eventually) discover that all the various layers of ever-smaller particles are ultimately formed from Base Material.

It is tempting to think in terms of a "source" and I can say everything that is, in our system, was created by us from this Base Material. Plus, from what I can see, it is the source of every other physical realm I have visited within our system. I've visited around a hundred-odd other physical realms but the actual number could possibly be infinite. So as you can see, I'm not even scratching the surface. But from people I have met from other systems, with a wider degree of awareness than I have, they say that basically my thinking is along the right lines, i.e. that it follows along the lines of their understanding as well.

From what I have seen of what we would call primitive societies in our system, they tend to follow along much the same evolutionary path as we did. The width of their focus is very narrow, so they have a limited understanding of their surroundings, with very basic technology, flint axes, living in caves, that kind of thing. If you shift further up the scale, you get the people who have a much wider mental focus than we have. This has allowed them to create what we would call advanced technology. One of the benefits open to them (which we are set to have this century) is they can basically travel between the various timelines within our system. This is much the same as what I am doing now, only the big difference with them is they can do it in a physical sense, not just in a purely mental sense as I do. In other words, they don't just switch their mental focus, they switch mental focus and their physical self literally goes with them!

From my experience of interacting with these people, which as I say is quite limited in the wider scheme of things, it would appear they are still manipulating or creating forms out of the very same Base Material as we do. The main difference being, their wider awareness of physical and non-physical reality has enabled them to create all manner of different types of forms, different materials, different power-generation and transportation techniques, and so forth. But ultimately, as I say, everything they create or construct is made from the very same Base Material.

Of course, this begs the question of where Base Material comes from. The short and simple answer is I haven't yet come across anyone in our system who knows. I have it on good authority that there are an extremely large number, possibly even an infinite number, of other systems. But to my knowledge, my explorations thus far have been contained within our system. Problem is, even if you would think that there might be a giant emitter somewhere of Base Material. Something must surely be supplying that emitter. So where do these supplies come form? Even if there is a "creator" then who or what creates the creators? In a sense, it's like the age-old question of, Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodies?

I just think the whole creation machine has been in operation for SO darned long that no one really knows, or could ever possibly know, how it all began. I mean, when you look at the structure of our system, in terms of system creation it's all what you might call bog standard. All you need do is think of it as a kind of civil engineering project, only on a much larger scale. In other words, in the wider scheme of things, it's all fairly straightforward. I know our ancestors were a little in awe, to the extent they thought only some God could be capable of creating a planet or a universe. But no, our capacity for creation goes way beyond double-decker buses and sliced bread.

If you think of it seriously for a moment: there are an infinite (or near infinite) number of different timelines in our system; and each timeline is an inhabited planet sitting in its own universe; and if there are an infinite (or near infinite) number of other systems... could any one person actually hold an awareness of ALL of it?

Within my current perception and understanding, and given the restrictions of communicating through language, I just cannot see how such a thing could be possible. But, as always, I keep an open mind. :)

Yours,
Frank

[Gandalf]

Frank, when you say 'a planet each sitting in its own universe', is it your belief, at least as far as you have discovered so far, that our physical earth is the only inhabited physical planet in our system, in our time line that is?
(I'm not refering to other 'earths' in alternate timelines here, although I know what you are saying).

Or are there many other physical planets similar to ours scattered around our physical timeline universe as the seti people hope there are?

I believe Monroe spoke of these various 'learning centres' as he calls planetary civilisations, and seems to have found that in our physical universe and in our timeline, there are many physical world civilisations, our earth being one of them..
Of course as you say, if you add all the alternate timeline versions of these worlds as well then the range becomes trully mind boggling.

Douglas

concerning 'base material'.. are WE also made up of this stuff? And if 'we' created this system, do we also create each other out of it?

[Frank]

Douglas:

The word "system" has two connotations here.

When I say "our system" I mean the entirety of all that is within our system in the wider sense. This would include all the different planet-earth timelines, as well as our own. Each timeline terminates, if you like, within the region of my-focus area 4. Traditionally, however, the phrase "our system" would only include our planet together with which we see as being our physical solar system.

For the sake of the discussion, let's say there are just ten basic timelines.

So each of these ten timelines is a physical planet Earth-style system. In other words, you have a habitable planet populated by people in a physical sense, just as we are. They have a solar system together with a sun that powers it all. In other words, a single planet, populated by people, hanging out in space with a load of other planets and stars, and a sun giving a natural cycle of night and day. This is what you might call the bog-standard universe model, i.e. the motoring equivalent of a Ford Escort.

It could well be that somewhere along the line; people have constructed modifications and/or enhancements to this basic model to include, say, a number of populated planets within the same minor system. I have not found any actual evidence of that yet, but as I stressed in my previous post and I do so again here, my explorations thus far have not even scratched the surface. There are an ENORMOUS number of timelines and I personally have explored only about a hundred and fifty. Also, regarding the possibility of other populated planets within our own minor system, again I have no evidence that would suggest there are. As far as I am aware, our system is a bog-standard model. :)

Now, each minor system or timeline is "separated" from one another due to the fact that it is on a different, what you might call, time-frequency. I put the word separate in double quotes because each minor system is not separate in terms of physical space. But separate in terms of what we would describe as time. It's like if you were standing in an area of physical space, contained within that area would be loads of different radio frequencies all occupying that same space. Using a radio receiver, we can tune-into whichever radio frequency we want to listen to. Like, if we want to tune into Radio 2 after listening to Radio 1, we don't have to go anywhere, we just stay where we are and retune the dial. Because all the various frequencies are there, in the same place.

A similar principle applies with minor systems. They are all basically sitting in the same place, but each one is on a different time frequency. By using our mind, we are able to "tune in" to different timelines. Which is basically what Monroe discovered and what I have managed to expand upon and clarify further.

Also, you may have read in another post just recently where I said that I condensed Monroe's original focus levels into 4 basic areas which I labelled focus numbers 1 to 4. Now, taking our example of a major system composed of ten timelines or minor systems: each minor system would have its own Focus-1, obviously, as Focus-1 is the physical; plus its own focus areas two and three... but is connected to the common area of Focus 4. Note: Focus-4 is where all the different timelines in a system "connect" so to speak.

So to recap our example: we have ten minor systems, which are composed of ten Focus area 1's, ten Focus area 2's, ten Focus area 3's; together with one common Focus area 4 that connects them all. Think of encasing all of this in one sphere and you have "a system" but in a wider sense of it being a major system, not a minor one. Practically, however, within our major system, there are possibly an infinite number of timelines or minor systems. If it's not infinite then it is a HUGE number put it that way. And that's just our system.

It is said there are an infinite number of other (major) systems. If that is the case then the numbers are just so huge they become meaningless. If there are other major systems then all manner of questions come to mind, like, do they operate completely autonomously, or are they all connected in some way? Are they all constructed along the lines of the basic 4-Focus area model, or are they radically different? Do the people look like us? Together with a zillion and one other questions, I'd dearly love to have the answers to.

Anyhow, in the meantime, as always, I'm keeping an open mind.

In answer to your final point, yes, we are also constructed from Base Material. As everything within our major system, as far as I can tell, whether it be physical or non-physical, is ultimately made from it. Think of Base Material as a kind of consciousness, only consciousness in its rawest possible form.

Yours,
Frank

[Gandalf]

I get you, so the 'bog standard model' for a 'minor system' is one populated planet per universe...
the only thing is, that seems like a lot of wasted space, ie we are one speck in this big physical universe, the huge size of it seems a bit of overkill if its just one populated planet in each..

mind you, perhaps this is so we have plenty breathing space... it might look massive at the moment but we might have technology very soon that allows us to settle all around the place, in which case maybe its good to have all the extra room just in case... Also, perhaps all the extra planets, stars etc may be 'raw material' as well for future projects that we may undertake as we advance... i dare say there is some logical reason for it in any case.

Very interesting findings in any case, btw I hope you sumarise some of this in your book!

Douglas

[Tombo]

Hi there
I enjoy reading this conversation! I have some thoughts/questions myself that I want to throw in.
I have some very difficult questions for you, Frank (Of course others are welcomed to reply as well). I believe you are very true when saying that basically all we experience are constructs created by ourselves, but these leads to some very far reaching questions. I wonder what your Ideas are on the following points. (I won't blame you if you have none, I have no clue anyway
I hope I don't stray to far from the subject. Here we go......

If we assume, like you said, that all we experience are constructs created by ourself (and I believe you are right), then I would conclude that we are NOT any of these things. We perceive them, yes, we can probably alter them,but we are something different.  You said that we are a point of consciousness. I thinks that is very true and we can verify this every second we live. But a point does not have any expanse, it is a mathematical construct not  subsumable for our mind. So me first questions. What are we? (When I say "We" I mean the always present point of awareness that never changes weather you are angry or happy, dreaming or awake) Who is it that constructs things with the base material(to adopt your terms)? Is there any solid entity  in the core of the being you call "Frank"? What is it made of? If it is the "one"  creating things out of the base material then it can not itself be made out of this stuff, I think (confusing..)
As you probably agree we should base our understandings upon experience. So do you have any experience that points to the direction that there is actually a soul, a solid entity not created by ourselves but being ourselves? How can we interact with the base matter then?

Another point that pops in my mind: If a thought comes to me mind, were does it come from?
If we are not the constructs but the creators were, does the construction plan, the initial idea come from? Whats is the source of it? Can there be anything created out of nothing?


I found it pretty fascinating how close your ideas actually are to the ones of the early Buddhism teachings. However, this seems pretty evident to me, if people explore consciousness , I guess they eventually come  up with similar insights. I like to make this connection here cause we all basically do the same "Exploring consciousness"
I'll try to sum up my understandings of the Buddhist teachings shortly to outline this (Using my incomplete english... ) at the same time I'll also try to answer the point Major Tom (nice Name) raised on how to experience "pure consciousness"
I would also wonder what you guys think about the following.
As I understand Buddhas words, he said...

........Things constantly appear and disappear within our field of consciousness. However if one  takes a close look one will see that this things have no solid identity they are not stable and have no self. We are the ones that label different experiences and separate them. If One understands this one starts to see that all things appear in "our" consciousness but that they are not consciousness, so to speak, meaning that we are not them. there is just a constant stream of  ongoing events without a self involved. There is no "ME" inside these events and therefore they can not really cause us any suffering once we understand this. Once we  do not misunderstand experiences as being "attached" to ourselves as being "ME" we then will be completely fee, "enlighted".......

This is, of course, very difficult to experience directly (and direct experience is the only way to understand it) Many years/Lives of deep meditations are needed. Probably shifting consciousness to other realms can shortcut this?!
So to answer your question Major Tom: One way to experience pure consciousness may be, to just observe things without doing anything, stop the construction process which fills your consciousness, so to speak until your mind becomes completely calm and you becomes completely mindful of everything. one way to do this is by many years of Meditation (Vipassna). On other way may be to to  explore consciousness in the "Astral" and just observe things there. Haven't done that myself ,-) (yet)

The last question then would be, what is the purpose of it all?
One answer I came up with goes like this. We can only know something if we experience it. In order to experience something there must be a subject and a object so therefore there is I "me" and a "world". But whenever consciousness believes to be a entity there is separation and suffering. Sounds like a catch 22 to me. Maybe the universe just plays out all options available and we are currently in the "experience section"
What are your thoughts on this?
Well I hope I did not confuse you guys, it is hard to translate thoughts into another language.....

Cheers Tom

[Mister Anjilek]

I get you, so the 'bog standard model' for a 'minor system' is one populated planet per universe...
the only thing is, that seems like a lot of wasted space, ie we are one speck in this big physical universe, the huge size of it seems a bit of overkill if its just one populated planet in each..

The funny thing is, while I find it very easy to concede to the idea of overkill, in the context of the post as I understand it, there are infinite numbers of systems, hence, infinite amounts of space. Not only that, but if we create our own reality, it could be safe to assume that as "scientists" created "scientific breakthroughs", they also help to create the vast expanses of space.

The question I wonder is, if we create our own reality, and others belief constructs help to form our reality, will it ever be possible to completely experience true  pure consciousness.  Isn't even the notion of having constructs a construct?  So, in order to experience true consciousness, you would have to give up all constructs, including the belief that there is such a thing as constructs. Which would mean you would have to quit believing in constructs. This in turn would lead to not working towards giving up constructs. I hope that doesn't look like rambling, but it seems like a hopeless catch 22. We who reside primarily in your focus 1 seem to be inherently doomed to never fully experience true self.

I have only had one intentional projection so maybe I am missing some of the insight that comes from experiencing "focus 4". I am interested in hearing your replies

[Frank]

Tombo:

Buddhism is a construct along with many other boxed sets of beliefs. What people do is box what they believe a wider reality entails, into confines they think they can understand. Which is all very well, I'm not knocking it. But do realise in doing that a person lends themselves open to experiencing quite severe distortions in translation. One of the most common distortions is that of "a creator".

The key, of course, is simply to view the wider reality directly, and without preconceptions of what you think that wider reality is. Which, in itself, is a heck of a challenge for most people as they read all the books and, in doing so, they gain what you might call a solid notion of "what to expect". Unfortunately, "what to expect" is a powerful construct that forms the person's reality and generally leads them to another equally powerful construct called, "I'm right".

Understand, that everything physical is formed from constructs that we create as part of The Game. Now, what I am about to say may well resonate with mystical teachings in some way or other. Thing is, there is only one absolute reality at the core of all that is. The only difference, really, is how explorers such as myself describe that reality. With me, as I have said many times on this forum, I am not all that "well read" when it comes to this topic. This I now feel quite fortunate about, because it has helped me a lot.

We are a point of consciousness. But don't get the idea we are just some point of nothing, floating in an eternal Void somewhere. The problem I am finding is, the closer I get to the core, the more difficult it becomes to describe the reality in words. Anyhow, there are two basic elements at Source, 1) The Cosmic Song and, 2) The Eternal Dance. Imagine everything of all that is, constantly entwined in a huge mass of perpetual motion. Every colour, every aspect every construct, every notion, just everything of all that is, constantly entwined in motion... and each of us forms a tiny part of that.

Within the Dance, there are an infinite number of levels, or areas, or places, and each place has its own "song". You might perceive one area, say; it could be a mass of whirling colours and abstract shapes. This visual scene may be accompanied by a sound, like, a near infinite number of chattering monkeys, coupled with the screeching of an equally huge number of birds. There are no actual monkeys or birds, of course, I'm simply using this to try to describe what it may sound like. As you focus in on a particular area, you find what was entirely abstract before starts taking on particular definitions. As you do so, the sound of the Song changes. The closer in you go the more definition you perceive. Eventually you can go from what was originally a swirling cloud of colour, say, and you travel inwards to find an entire physical universe.      

All of consciousness is in a constant state of unfolding. This perpetually unfolding process ultimately creates the Eternal Dance. It is the sum of every experience that ever is/was/will. Plus, the summation of every minor Song of each and every area, forms the entire Cosmic Song. In reality, however, it is impossible to describe in words. You have to actually see it and hear it for yourself. We are currently connected to the Eternal Dance. It is something we can readily perceive if we choose to. However, what we have done is create a mental barrier between here and There, so as not to spoil The Game.

The point of us being in the place we call "here" is to experience. We create physical worlds and revel in the experience of them as part of The Game. The Game is played in accordance with strictly laid down rules that we all agree to on an ongoing basis. Between us all, underlying what we have agreed to call our "physical reality", is a perpetual series of energy exchanges. We have all agreed to carry out these exchanges along certain lines in order to create what we call the, "world we live in".

Without such an agreement, the whole Game would collapse. In a sense, we are all living in a house of cards where the structure is held together by our agreements formed through these energy exchanges. If we would all suddenly decide not to play the game, for example, everyone's physical world would simply disintegrate.

Because of this, we create constructs that continually reinforce the reality of the physical realms. Being born, for example, is a construct. Of course, we cannot have people just suddenly materialising. This would spoil The Game, as it is too close to our actual reality. So we create a means of "entry" that we perceive is entirely physical based. In order to reinforce this we create all manner of other constructs such as "growing up", "going to school", "being taught". Problem comes as well at the other end. We can't have people just remaining physical forever. It would cause too many questions and spoil the illusion. So we created a construct of "physical death". But even this is not the total solution, because we can't have people just dying for no reason. So we created the constructs such as "disease" or "death by accident" for example, that allow people to die without raising suspicion.

As I say, our reality is formed from constructs upon which we all agree. But some constructs play a bigger part, you might say, than others. One of the most powerful constructs is "what to expect". This construct is massively reinforced by a veritable army of officials, such as scientists, for example, whom we nominate in order to feed us with information on "what to expect". Of course, our whole purpose of playing The Game is to experience. Doing this, we also want to explore as wide a variety of experiences as possible. So we set up circumstances where we are continually updating our ideas of "what to expect". This enables us to explore a far wider range of experiences. This leads to yet another important construct we call "evolution".

You could go on forever listing all the various constructs and the connections or relationships between them. There are so many I'm not sure if it is possible to create any kind of accurate map. But all a person needs is to grasp the basics and the rest follows on from there.

HTH

Yours,
Frank

[Tombo]

Frank:

Buddhism is a construct along with many other boxed sets of beliefs. What people do is box what they believe a wider reality entails, into confines they think they can understand. Which is all very well, I'm not knocking it. But do realise in doing that a person lends themselves open to experiencing quite severe distortions in translation. One of the most common distortions is that of "a creator".

agreed

The key, of course, is simply to view the wider reality directly, and without preconceptions of what you think that wider reality is. Which, in itself, is a heck of a challenge for most people as they read all the books and, in doing so, they gain what you might call a solid notion of "what to expect". Unfortunately, "what to expect" is a powerful construct that forms the person's reality and generally leads them to another equally powerful construct called, "I'm right".

agreed, but I think it goes deeper then just not reading books, I mean the whole education, the whole world we grow up, everthing our parents told us......... all this is constantly blocking our view of the direct reality unfolding. What I mean is this: when we see for example a tree. We say ahh, a tree, we see it as a certain solid object which has a certain expanse. But were does the tree really end? These are all constructs as well.

Understand, that everything physical is formed from constructs that we create as part of The Game. Now, what I am about to say may well resonate with mystical teachings in some way or other. Thing is, there is only one absolute reality at the core of all that is. The only difference, really, is how explorers such as myself describe that reality. With me, as I have said many times on this forum, I am not all that "well read" when it comes to this topic. This I now feel quite fortunate about, because it has helped me a lot.

We are a point of consciousness. But don't get the idea we are just some point of nothing, floating in an eternal Void somewhere. The problem I am finding is, the closer I get to the core, the more difficult it becomes to describe the reality in words. Anyhow, there are two basic elements at Source, 1) The Cosmic Song and, 2) The Eternal Dance. Imagine everything of all that is, constantly entwined in a huge mass of perpetual motion. Every colour, every aspect every construct, every notion, just everything of all that is, constantly entwined in motion... and each of us forms a tiny part of that.

Within the Dance, there are an infinite number of levels, or areas, or places, and each place has its own "song". You might perceive one area, say; it could be a mass of whirling colours and abstract shapes. This visual scene may be accompanied by a sound, like, a near infinite number of chattering monkeys, coupled with the screeching of an equally huge number of birds. There are no actual monkeys or birds, of course, I'm simply using this to try to describe what it may sound like. As you focus in on a particular area, you find what was entirely abstract before starts taking on particular definitions. As you do so, the sound of the Song changes. The closer in you go the more definition you perceive. Eventually you can go from what was originally a swirling cloud of colour, say, and you travel inwards to find an entire physical universe.      

All of consciousness is in a constant state of unfolding. This perpetually unfolding process ultimately creates the Eternal Dance. It is the sum of every experience that ever is/was/will. Plus, the summation of every minor Song of each and every area, forms the entire Cosmic Song. In reality, however, it is impossible to describe in words. You have to actually see it and hear it for yourself. We are currently connected to the Eternal Dance. It is something we can readily perceive if we choose to. However, what we have done is create a mental barrier between here and There, so as not to spoil The Game.

This is a very beautiful descripton, I like a lot since I'm a musican. But as you said I think I can not really inderstand what you are talking about. I guess, as long as one doesn't  experience this directly one can not understand it.

The point of us being in the place we call "here" is to experience. We create physical worlds and revel in the experience of them as part of The Game. The Game is played in accordance with strictly laid down rules that we all agree to on an ongoing basis. Between us all, underlying what we have agreed to call our "physical reality", is a perpetual series of energy exchanges. We have all agreed to carry out these exchanges along certain lines in order to create what we call the, "world we live in

Which experience makes you say that? I mean it is quite hard for me to imagine an experience one could possibly have, that lets him know that all others have done something specific ( "Agreed on the Game")

Without such an agreement, the whole Game would collapse. In a sense, we are all living in a house of cards where the structure is held together by our agreements formed through these energy exchanges. If we would all suddenly decide not to play the game, for example, everyone's physical world would simply disintegrate.

Have you ever considered the possiblity that the words "I" ,"world", "Game", "Others" etc are  only concepts as well?

Because of this, we create constructs that continually reinforce the reality of the physical realms. Being born, for example, is a construct. Of course, we cannot have people just suddenly materialising. This would spoil The Game, as it is too close to our actual reality. So we create a means of "entry" that we perceive is entirely physical based. In order to reinforce this we create all manner of other constructs such as "growing up", "going to school", "being taught". Problem comes as well at the other end. We can't have people just remaining physical forever. It would cause too many questions and spoil the illusion. So we created a construct of "physical death". But even this is not the total solution, because we can't have people just dying for no reason. So we created the constructs such as "disease" or "death by accident" for example, that allow people to die without raising suspicion.

And now you come and mess up the Game ;-P

As I say, our reality is formed from constructs upon which we all agree. But some constructs play a bigger part, you might say, than others. One of the most powerful constructs is "what to expect". This construct is massively reinforced by a veritable army of officials, such as scientists, for example, whom we nominate in order to feed us with information on "what to expect". Of course, our whole purpose of playing The Game is to experience. Doing this, we also want to explore as wide a variety of experiences as possible. So we set up circumstances where we are continually updating our ideas of "what to expect". This enables us to explore a far wider range of experiences. This leads to yet another important construct we call "evolution".

You could go on forever listing all the various constructs and the connections or relationships between them. There are so many I'm not sure if it is possible to create any kind of accurate map. But all a person needs is to grasp the basics and the rest follows on from there.

So do you consider that to be a good thing then, the game I mean? I mean, is everything like it should be? should we probably not even bother and just do what we ever did? But then why, I wonder, do you explore this things and spoil the game for yourself ?

Well, Anyways thanks for the very interessting read! I'll definitly try to experience my future Out of Body journeys with the least amount of concepts possible. I believe thats the important part, I'll try to remember.

Cheers Tom

[Selski]

The point of us being in the place we call "here" is to experience. We create physical worlds and revel in the experience of them as part of The Game. The Game is played in accordance with strictly laid down rules that we all agree to on an ongoing basis. Between us all, underlying what we have agreed to call our "physical reality", is a perpetual series of energy exchanges. We have all agreed to carry out these exchanges along certain lines in order to create what we call the, "world we live in".

Without such an agreement, the whole Game would collapse. In a sense, we are all living in a house of cards where the structure is held together by our agreements formed through these energy exchanges. If we would all suddenly decide not to play the game, for example, everyone's physical world would simply disintegrate.

If it is fair to say that we were non-physical before we decided to create the physical world to play The Game, then have the likes of "us" (those members on this Forum who have achieved/are attempting to achieve non-physical experiences) got the wrong end of the stick?  

I mean, shouldn't we, who have chosen to experience physical reality, be revelling in the physical side of it, and not spending all our spare time trying to experience non-physical reality?

Will we be the ones who are 'sent to Coventry' because we didn't follow the rules of The Game?  Will we turn out to be the culprits and those who live a total physical life (if you know what I mean) be the ones who condemn us?  

Hmmmm.  Interesting posts.

Sarah

[Tombo]

The question I wonder is, if we create our own reality, and others belief constructs help to form our reality, will it ever be possible to completely experience true  pure consciousness.  Isn't even the notion of having constructs a construct?  So, in order to experience true consciousness, you would have to give up all constructs, including the belief that there is such a thing as constructs. Which would mean you would have to quit believing in constructs. This in turn would lead to not working towards giving up constructs. I hope that doesn't look like rambling, but it seems like a hopeless catch 22. We who reside primarily in your focus 1 seem to be inherently doomed to never fully experience true self.

I think you look at it from a viewpoint that is too rational, so to speak. You must not do anything specific like believing that you need to give up constructs or something. All you need to do is stop constructing anything in your mind and just observe the "Now". I Believe pure consciousness is always present but clouded by ourselfs.
The mind can be trained to just observe the moment without wandering and then one should eventually realize true self. This needs  a lot of training but it can be done. I believe it is not necessary to shift conscious to another place to fully experience true self. Trained Projectors tell us that time and space are mere illusions, so why should we need to go anywere to truely realize ourselfs?

I'm very aware that above by itself is a believe construct as well, but one can test it by  meditation. If somebody is interested, "Mindfulness in plain english" is a excellent book on the subject

I have only had one intentional projection so maybe I am missing some of the insight that comes from experiencing "focus 4". I am interested in hearing your replies

I only had 4 intentional projections so far, so maybe I'm missing something too.........

[Mister Anjilek]

If it is fair to say that we were non-physical before we decided to create the physical world to play The Game, then have the likes of "us" (those members on this Forum who have achieved/are attempting to achieve non-physical experiences) got the wrong end of the stick?  

I mean, shouldn't we, who have chosen to experience physical reality, be revelling in the physical side of it, and not spending all our spare time trying to experience non-physical reality?

Will we be the ones who are 'sent to Coventry' because we didn't follow the rules of The Game?  Will we turn out to be the culprits and those who live a total physical life (if you know what I mean) be the ones who condemn us?  

Hmmmm.  Interesting posts.

Sarah

Isn't it more likely that we will achieve more clarity in our physical lifes purpose by connecting to our non-physical self. It seems that we could gain insight into our "lifes lesson" if we visit our more true self on occasion.

Also, I am not attempting to experience the meta-physical realms out of some desire to play with ghosts. There is a desire and drive that I do not know where it comes from. I believe that experiencing the Astral from the perception of a physical being has something to do with my rules for the game. If it wasn't, wouldn't I have made the rules different, so that I COULDN'T experience these things?

[Tombo]

I believe that experiencing the Astral from the perception of a physical being has something to do with my rules for the game. If it wasn't, wouldn't I have made the rules different, so that I COULDN'T experience these things?

Nice point! I like that  

[MontanaHayseed]

For a different perspective on the "problem of the kinds"

We tend to differentiate when we need to (the Eskimo's jillion different words for "snow" being the case most commonly used to illustrate the point); Yet also we try to avoid excessive differentiation when we are still very new to a concept, or have only a glancing interest in it. ( I have only a few words for "snow", and they are "what are the fares to Florida these days?"

So.. if I were new to the "twenty something" regions... I might tend to want to leave them blurred as one thing for the time being.... still trying to sort them out from the teens and what all.  But the more you learn about a thing, the better you know it eh?  Indeed, having a doctorate degree ought to imply something along the lines of "S/He knows his business to seven levels of differentiation, and the creatures that might populate those levels".  Here's another way to think of it:  To someone from outer Mongolia, Austin, Lubbock, Houston and Dallas are all "Texas"... but My!

ONE of the reasons, I fancy, and that is all that it is is fancy, that we incarnate on this bizzarro planet, is that it is a "Place of Kinds", that in  most regions of the multiverse, things don't seemingly self sort into kindness anymore than do objects of the physical plane glow with their own light.  That is part of the reason why this operation is such a sought ofter destination. So I fancy.

Happy Holidays all!

MH

[metaphysicist]

"Astral projection" is a belief construct. When people project, what they perceive is a graphical representation of that belief construct. All the notions of astral planes and all notions of sub-divisions, etc., etc., they are all belief constructs. Devils and demons are belief constructs. Near Death Experience "past life reviews" are belief constructs. All religious beliefs, and such like, they too are all belief constructs, along with zillions of others.

Frank, would your 4 focus levels also be considered a belief construct?  After all, I think you have said elsewhere that the ultimate reality is subjective, not objective.