Wave 1 and general Phasing questions

[TheJza]

Hello, I have recently started using Wave 1 again in order to give phasing another try. I re-read the entire Wave 1 tips thread that Frank started and have been using the cd 3-4 times a day for a short while now. I think I am able to get into a light Focus 10 rather easily, and one time I even startled myself by snoring. I do have a few questions, though, and I will number them to make things easier.

1. Imagining: Currently I am having a problem where I am always imagining myself in the 3rd person. When I try to imagine myself in the first person, I usually revert back to looking at the blackness in front of my eyelids, which I interpret as a snap back to C-1. How does everyone else imagine, 1st or 3rd person? I have tried figuring this out on my own, before posting, and this is what I have been doing recently: I don't imagine everything in detail. When I am walking, I just imagine feet walking and don't create everything else. I think I remember Frank saying in the Wave 1 thread that you should get more and more abstract with your visuals, so that you don't fall into creative visualization, so that is how I tried solving this problem.

2. When I am doing my rundown and walking along the stone walkway, sometimes I am stationary and the scene is moving and sometimes the scene is stationary and I am moving. When the walkway is stationary, I usually end up as a pretty small 3rd person character and I have to bring myself closer to be bigger again.

3. Also, another question I have is "where" do you all do your rundown? A specific problem I had and (hopefully) solved is with Frank's consciousness cone. I was imagining the cone above the physical head, but when I traveled up it to get the the attack with the energy conversion box, I was pretty far above my head and I had to move the whole attic to right above my eyelids in the middle of my forehead. I have since then just tried keeping everything there and it seems to work OK (for now). Has anyone else run into this?

4. Spacing out. I have noticed 2 areas where I tend to zone out during the CD. The first is when I am walking up to F10 from F3 and RAM is telling me to relax different parts of my body. I want to stay o task, so I am trying to do as he says, but there are relatively long gaps between his talking and I tend to start daydreaming. In not trying to force my concentration, I am also being too relaxed. The other area is when I get to my F10 hut. I just sit there and I get bored and usually fall into a slight dream. If I am not doing that, then I am imagining myself flying or throwing a ball or frisbee or something. What else does everyone do to keep their mind occupied instead of falling asleep?

5. Lastly, I have also tried getting the 3D blackness to come around by staring at the F12 stars from my hut. Whenever I do this (or am not active in F10) I usually snap back to looking at the black inside my eyelids. How do you all stare at the F12 stars without snapping back to C1?

Thanks for reading, I figure I am slowly getting the hang of things, and the biggest progress I have made is in my understanding of F10. I used to think of F10 as not being able to feel my body and being in a different world. Now I don't think that's the case, and I remember TMI people saying F10 is the same as when people get wrapped up into a movie and aren't focused on their physical body. While I am focused in my F10 hut, I am not focused on my body, and therefore I am in F10. I also stopped "checking" my body as much to see if I could feel it, because that would snap me back into C1 real quick.

[Selski]

Hi Jza

Like you, I have recently started out using the Wave I CD, also using Frank's tips.  Here are some thoughts that may help you.

1.  Imagining.  Predominantly, when I started using the CD, I was imagining in third person.  It takes quite a bit of effort and concentration to go to first person.  I tend to find that with me, I walk across sand at the beginning and looking down at my feet whilst feeling the sand between my toes and the heat of sand on my soles can take me to first person, at least for a little while.  So, like you, I concentrate only on my feet and forget everything else.  Even though I've only been practicing for just over a week, I am getting better at first person.  Some sessions are better than others.

2.  Rundown.  I decided for the 4-10 rundown to go into a laboratory type room where there was "bed" (rather like a psychiatrist's couch), with a pair of headphones.  I lie on the couch, put the headphones on and listen to Robert take me to F10.  This is because in physical reality, I am lay on my recliner chair with my headphones, so it is easier for me to imagine lying in a room, being gently taken to F10.  I tried walking the 4-10, but it just didn't work for me.  Personally, I think the 4-10 is scientific, so I add a scientific bent to it (laboratory, headphones and so on).

3.  Rundown.  See 2.  During the rundown, I imagine doors on the opposite side of my room from where I entered, being slowly opened to reveal the star-studded night.

4.  Spacing Out.  Luckily, I haven't had this problem.  During the rundown, I find I need to concentrate quite a lot on relaxing my face and body – in fact, it is one of my favourite parts of the CD!  And once you are in your F10 room, if you are feeling bored, why not try running from one side of the room and taking a giant leap into the starry night – with no expectations – and see what happens.  I did.  Great fun.

5.  It's difficult, but you need to be in first person to do this, otherwise like you say, you end up looking at the back of your eyelids.

I think the more we practice, the easier first person will be.

Good luck and keep me informed.

Sarah

[Frank]

TJ:

Forgive the delay in replying but I've been giving this a lot of thought recently. You see, since writing the original post, I have come to realise that I automatically engage my physical senses within the rundown to a higher extent that possibly most people might. So I'm thinking now that perhaps I should have dwelt on this aspect more in my original post.

The problems you highlight in your sections 1, 2 & 4, I believe have the same cause and therefore the same solution. What I have to say also touches on what Sarah advises in her reply.

In my original postings, I do say for you not to get too carried away with the visualisation aspect. All you need to do is create the bare structure. Remember, you are in an environment where thoughts become things, so if you start visualising to a great extent then this can cause all kinds of unexpected problems. For example, parts of the scenery you create may suddenly begin taking on a life of their own, and that kind of thing. So keeping it all fairly abstract avoids many of the potential problems.    

Now, when you create a scenario, you need to engage all your physical senses. And this is the aspect I perhaps should have placed more emphasis on in my original post. Because I realise now that I automatically engage my physical senses to a high degree, and I rather assumed, without really thinking about it, that other people were basically the same. And it appears that they are not.

When you create the structure of your rundown, you only need to create just enough detail to engage your senses. No more and no less. In other words, you need to see your immediate surroundings, smell the flowers, feel the cool breeze on your skin, hear the birds singing, and so forth. But you don't want to create something too detailed that you get lost in the creation of it!

For example, when I say "hear the birds singing" I don't mean for you to create a line of trees full of nesting starlings, and all the mummy birds are keeping the eggs warm while all the daddy birds are catching the worms, and so forth. All I mean is, just imagine somewhere in the distance you can hear birds singing and the sound of that is drifting over to you from somewhere. In other words, you hear the sound without creating all the rest of the scenario. So, like I say, just enough to engage the action of your senses within you.

The key aspect is to engage your physical senses, because this aspect is what makes it work. Engaging your physical senses within you, is what tends to have the effect of focusing your attention inwards. So you need enough detail to engage all your senses, no more and no less.

You'll find, I am sure, that the more you engage your physical senses within the rundown, the more easily you will find it maintaining a first-person perspective. This is what you should be aiming to maintain. I have experimented with all manner of mental rundowns since my beginning with the Wave-1 CD. What I found was the success of any rundown was dependant on the degree to which I could engage the experiencing of my physical senses within the rundown.

As I say, I do believe that the problems you highlight in your sections 1, 2 & 4 are caused by your failing to engage your senses to the requisite degree. It does take practice, I admit. Perhaps what you might want to try doing is going through a rundown where you mainly concentrate on just one sense only. Once you get the hang of that, then switch to another sense, and then another, and so forth, until you are familiar with bringing each sense into the forefront of your awareness.

You will probably find you are stronger on some senses than others. With me, I am very visual, but my other senses are quite strong as well. Once you have practiced using individual senses, start going through your rundown using pairs of senses and gradually work through to the point where you can handle all five at once. At which point you cannot help but be in a solid first-person perspective.

As regards your problem highlighted in your section 3:

I believe you are taking this too literally in a physical sense. You should be thinking more in terms of entering a mental space within you, not thinking of moving upwards in terms of physical space. Like, imagining anything above your physical head or anything like that. The place where you go is upwards into the expanse of your mind, not up in the sense of physically upwards.

The good news is, regarding your focus 10 experiences, you are absolutely right on track. Focus 10 is exactly like where your attention is focussed elsewhere to the extent where you are not thinking of your physical body at all. Of course, the moment you think about it, you instantly become aware of it again. At which point you realise that a moment ago you weren't feeling it, and then the realisation dawns that you just broke the state you worked so hard to get into in the first place.

Problem is, a person cannot actively not-think of the physical. Because the more you try to not-think about it, the more you think about it, and the more you think about it, the more your attention is captured by it. Like, if someone is lying down and they think, "I wonder if my physical is relaxed yet?" Instantly they are snapped out of whatever mental state they had previously achieved, and the physical body comes to the forefront of their awareness again.

The only way around this is to focus away from the physical, and concentrate on something else to the point where it captures your focus of attention. That's the reason for engaging your physical senses within you, during the rundown, because doing that greatly helps to hold your attention to the degree necessary to capture your attention and hold your focus. The physical grounds us to a high degree. In other words, it commands our attention and holds our focus like a powerful magnet.

If you have two magnets, one powerful and the other weak, and you place a piece of iron at the centre of them. The iron will go in the direction of the stronger pull. Imagine your focus of attention as that piece of iron. At the moment, your physical is that strong magnet. What you need to do is weaken the pull of the physical by allowing it to relax, i.e. shutting down your outer senses. This weakens the attraction of being in the physical. After all, what is there to focus on but the backs of your eyelids.

What you do next is create a more interesting set of circumstances within you, i.e. your mental rundown, which will attract your focus of attention. What you do, in effect, is present your focus of attention with a choice between either 1) staring at the backs of your eyelids or, 2) gravitating towards this engaging scenario "upstairs".

HTH, and apologies again for the delay in replying. If you have any further points you wish to put to me then please do so.

All the best,
Frank

[Sage Daedalus]

I've recently started using these CDs as well. Thanks for even more tips, Frank. Good thread.

-Matt

[Frank]

Matt:

Thank you for your kind comments. I think what I'll do is make this a sticky for now in this forum, and see if any further questions come up. Then I'll move it to the Sticky Thread forum with my original post so it's all in one.

Yours,
Frank

[mactombs]

Thanks for this thread, it's helpful for me, too.

Lately I've been working on Focus 10. The description about the movies is really helpful as well. It also made me realize something.

Focus 10 is exactly like where your attention is focussed elsewhere to the extent where you are not thinking of your physical body at all.

This is the ideal state for writing. You totally forget you have a physical body at all, that you have hands typing, or that you are looking at a monitor. This state is fantastic for any creative undertaking. The more I learn about Focus 10, the more I realize how amazingly valuable it is.

With the first-person vs. third-person I relate to that problem! I always think third-person when I'm trying. But when I get into Focus 10 without trying so hard, everything just clicks in naturally and I don't have to try at all. Like Frank says, engaging the senses from physical seems to be the trick, and I don't think you have to worry much about how you do it, just relax and enjoy, it'll come naturally.

What else does everyone do to keep their mind occupied instead of falling asleep?

This is hard for me too. I listen to the Astral Abyss and it always gets me in deep without fail. The problem is, near the end of the track I always lose awareness. But ...

What you do next is create a more interesting set of circumstances within you, i.e. your mental rundown, which will attract your focus of attention. What you do, in effect, is present your focus of attention with a choice between either 1) staring at the backs of your eyelids or, 2) gravitating towards this engaging scenario "upstairs".

My guess is that if you have a more solid engaging scenario you won't get lost. I think the reason awareness goes is because my mind goes chasing all these random daydreams like Alice chasing after the White Rabbit, and then follows to dreamland.

Again, great thread (there have been so many gems of late)!

[Selski]

Hello Reader

I thought I'd add an example of "getting too carried away with the visualisation".

A few days ago, I was going through my daily session.  As I stood at the energy conversion box, thinking about what I needed to put in, I realised that the Astral Pulse forums were on my mind (!) and I had to put them in the box before I continued.  I didn't have much time to pick a representation of the Forums, and I remembered the beautiful owl that is on the home page of Astral Dynamics.  

So, I imagined a real snowy owl, held it in my hands, and placed it in the box.

By this time, the owl had become a lifeforce on its own.  It flapped about in the box trying to get out.  The reality of the owl was incredible.  I could hardly believe I'd created this work of art purely from my imagination.  Of course, I realised my error and tried to turn it into a cuddly toy owl.  But I couldn't "uncreate" what I had created.

After some time I managed to close the lid and continue with the session, but unfortunately, my practice was all but ruined because in the back of my mind was the worry about the damned owl!!

So, the essence of this post - let this be a lesson to keep the imagination in check - and if you do "create" something, make sure it is inanimate - that way it is less likely to "come to life" on you!!

Ho hum.

Sarah

[Selski]

I have been using the CD daily for about a month, specifically Wave I, track 2.

My aim is to consciously create a screen and be able to simply observe the screen whilst being aware of my physical surroundings.

The CD is helping greatly by shifting my focus away from the physical.  I have created a rather basic rundown (the bare minimum) so as not to find myself "lost" in my own imagination.

Since starting the CD, I have had one session where I was doing quite well at being first person in the starry night in F10 when suddenly I realised there was a 3-D pattern on my eyelids.  Naturally (and most annoyingly), my physical eyes instantly tried to look at this pattern, and the pattern was gone, leaving me back in C1, very frustrated!!

However, since that session, I find I've lost the "naturalness" that was needed for the image (pattern) to appear.  I know I've got the ability – my dreams are full of levitation and control.  Also, I get screens fairly regularly when I'm either incredibly close to sleep or have just awoken.  These are wonderful reminders for me that I CAN do this, however, my real aim is to do this fully conscious.

I have a sneaky feeling that I'm trying too hard, in that sometimes I find 'holding' the starry night in first person quite a strain, and I have to remember to relax all my facial features (it's normally the muscles that control my eye movements/forehead that are not relaxed).  

So, what I've done on occasions is not bother with the starry night and instead "played around" with my eyes/sight.  I find that if I start to make my sight fuzzy (this is difficult to explain – and anything that is difficult to explain probably means I'm on the right track!), I start to experience blobs and colours, even though I still feel mentally physical.  Fuzzy sight is easy to explain actually – I've done it on a Major Tom Sticky a while ago – if you look at a page in a book, you have two ways of looking at it, either "normally" where you can see the words in the forefront and are aware of the white page in the background (even though you are not looking at the background), or you can "fuzz" your vision and you are aware of the white paper and the words, but you can't see either, so much so, that the words start sliding all over the place.  How I go about this fuzzy vision is to look "inwards" and the edges of my eyes/vision start curling in.  I go along with this "inwards/backwards" sensation and my eyes curl inwards in response.  Before too long, I'm not aware of the backs of my eyelids at all, but I am able to observe the blobs and colours I mentioned earlier.  I can see the blobs seemingly not with my physical eyes.  I'm not sure if this is F12 because I am still able to think stupid things like, "what's that blob", or "should I go back to the starry night," or "surely I should be getting a screen soon" or (if I've not put the oven in the energy conversion box!) "I wonder what I should cook for dinner."  

I think my first question is now:

My mental state still feels very "down-to-earth" at this stage.  Should I be doing anything to change that – to encourage the screen to appear?  Is the starry night preferable to the fuzzy sight, due to keeping focused (my concern being that going fuzzy could lead to mental drifting)?

In addition, I am finding first person has got harder since I started!!  Let me try and explain.  My "view" in the imagined "me" is all over the place.  Sometimes it is behind my eyes (where it should be, I guess), then it's behind my right shoulder, then about 2 ft away and so on.  I can't keep my first person view stable.  Of course, this first person view is intermingled with C1 and the back of the eyelids.  When I first started the CD, I thought it would be easy because I believed that one experienced first person, second person and third person.  However, I now find that when you are trying to be first person, outside of your physical first person, things can get a little tricky!

When I do my resonant tuning, I'm not sure whether "I" should be doing it (i.e. me sat in my chair at home in England), or whether it should be the imagined "I" (i.e. the girl sat in her red chair in the garden).  I find it incredibly hard to do both.

As a second example (and possibly a better one), for my 4-10 countdown, I imagine myself on a reclining chair with headphones on (exactly the same as in my physical reality), however, the location I am in is very different to my home.  I am now beginning to wonder whether this is the wrong way to go about it because at times, I find myself confused as to whether I am reclining in my wooden hut or at home!

Second question:  "Help?!"  Should I change my scenario?

And finally, as the sessions continue, I find I'm reluctant to "use" my imagination, in fear of creating my own experience.  I think this might be a hindrance, therefore should I at least have a few experiences where I "create" things, just to get me going, or is this bad practise?

Thank you for reading, and any advice is, of course, gratefully received.

Sarah

[Frank]

Sarah:

First off, you are making great progress and problems you are experiencing, such as having your perspective flitting about all over the place, are happening because of your progress. Thing is, when a person starts out, their sense of mental focus tends to be firmly stuck behind their physical eyes. Once you break that fixation, it can start hopping about like a spring lamb.

Resonant Tuning, you should do in your imagined "I" otherwise, yes, it can get confusing.

As you are discovering, there is a very fine line between too much, and too little concentration. Too little and you start drifting and risk falling asleep; too much and you become fixated and start trying to force it. None of which work. Ultimately, you must place yourself in a mental state where you allow non-physical reality to come into your awareness. Think of this reality as already being there (which it is!) all you need to do is look in the right mental direction.  

If we could simply look within, in that right direction, the reality of the non-physical would immediately reveal itself. Problem is, what all of us are battling to get through, to a greater or lesser degree, are the seemingly impenetrable layers of physical conditioning that cover the entrance to the place we need to be focusing within. But the more we accept our wider reality, and the more we attempt to make definite contact with it, the more of these layers we strip away.

The most beneficial tool we have to help us crack this, is our imagination. People tend to dismiss what they imagine as mere mumbo-jumbo. However, what actually takes place within our imagination is a highly important aspect of our reality, an aspect that happens to be situated right in the direction of where we are trying to switch our focus!

At this point we need to remind ourselves of Golden Rule number 1, which is:

There is nothing within your reality that is not real!

So when people dismiss their imagination, they are actually dismissing a vital part of themselves.

Now, when we imagine our rundown scenario, we develop a kind of split sense of awareness. There is the "you" that you perceive as being situated within your physical reality, i.e. looking at the backs of your eyelids; and there is the "you" who is perceiving whatever it is you are imagining, that is situated within non-physical reality. And because of this perceived split in your awareness, you feel a distinct sense of separation between them.

Note: the physical body does not have to be immobile to imagine going through a projection rundown. For example, I can easily imagine going through a rundown while washing up. It's just that, for the purposes of projection practice, optimally, it is best for the physical body to be relaxed and "switched off" to as large a degree as possible. That is how it appears to be for most people, let's say.

Right, so getting back to our split sense of awareness, there is "you" looking at the backs of your eyelids; and there is "you" perceiving whatever it is you are imagining in your rundown; and you feel a distinct sense of separation between them. At this point, you need to realise Golden Rule number 2, which is:

There is no separation or boundary within consciousness!

But even after knowing this, chances are near certain that you still perceive a distinct boundary between the "you" who is "here", and the "you" who is "there". And because you perceive there is a distinct boundary, you will also get a correspondingly distinct sense of separation. But that boundary exists only as something that you, yourself have created. When you perceive that boundary, what you actually perceive are all the layers of physical-realm mental conditioning that you have adopted in your lifetime, to date.

In reality, the "you" here and the "you" there, is all the same you!

In telling you all this, what I am trying to do is give you the background information on what is happening in the process. So, hopefully, the role that your imagination plays in the general projection scheme of things, will all start making more sense to you.

I don't want you to be frightened of using your imagination! By all means, use it to abandon (at first). But the closer you get to stepping into that definite first-person perspective, the less you should need to use it. In other words, when we are feeling that boundary the most, we need to lean on our imagination quite heavily in order to draw us through that separation layer, which we feel is sitting between our sense of Here and There. Not that there really is any separation, when viewed against the background of the wider reality. But because we distinctly feel we are separated, we have to use our imagination as a kind of tool that, temporarily at least, breaks a hole in this barrier and allows us to pass through (in a manner of speaking).

Now, the act of this barrier fully opening up and allowing us to pass through, is the transition between Monroe's mental Focus-level 10, to Focus-level 21. Incidentally, I believe what happened to Monroe is, after some time of passing through his own barrier, he broke it down to the extent where it no longer existed to any real degree.

So, as I say, use your imagination freely, at first. But you only want to be using it to trigger the transition (F10 to F21) process. Once you begin stepping into a definite first-person perspective (Focus 10), you have to be careful because you are actually entering the realms of your very own imagination. If you continue to use your imagination to the same high extent that you were using it before, in order to get you to this point, all manner of complications will arise. You'll begin creating things here, there and everywhere. So the trick is to modulate the intensity or extent to which you use your imagination, depending on where you are in the process.

All you need to do is think of easing back on the gas pedal. I'm assuming you drive a car. In which case, think of your use of your imagination in the same way you modulate your use of the accelerator pedal, relative to the distance versus speed of the traffic in front of you. Your imagination is like this. At first, you feel far away, lots of distance to cover (figuratively speaking) so you can give it lots of gas and away you go. But as you get closer, you need to start easing back. If you find you have backed off a tad too much, then give it some more gas to get the thing back on track and rolling again in the right direction. Then ease up progressively the closer you get. Ideally, you want to be at walking pace (so to speak) the point you slip into first-person. As you slip in, you want a slight momentum to keep you making forward progress. But you don't want too much intensity, as you need to leave a part of your awareness open to detect the next step in the process.

Of course, the next step is Focus 12.

The point where you can hold a definite first-person perspective is your entry into Focus 10. Now, what we want to do from this point is to trigger the transition to Focus 21. In my experience, this transition begins rolling of its own accord from the Focus 12 state. To a large degree, your achievement of the Focus 12 state is dependant on how well you can achieve Focus 10. If you can achieve what I call a neutral Focus 10, i.e. no revelling in your own imagination, just lock yourself in a solid Focus 10, releasing only a mild sense of curiosity, then this should trigger a transition to Focus 12. Then, once you reach Focus 12, as I say, the ball rends to start rolling of its own accord.

Yours,
Frank

PS
I think I answered everything, but if there is anything further you would like to ask then fire away, and I'll do my best to help.

[Astral_Raven]

Frank or someone can you explain what phase one and wave 1 is please pm me or just post it. It sounds good I skimmed over some of the stuff I just need help knowing what it is.

-Astral Raven

[TheJza]

Astral_Raven:
Wave 1 is a 3-CD set that is part of the "Gateway Experience" that is sold by The Monroe Institute. There are 6 Waves in all, but Frank found Track 2 of Wave 1 CD 1 to be the most beneficial for phasing. For further information, search the forums or visit www.MonroeInstitute.org.

[TheJza]

Frank:
Thanks again for such in-depth posts. One thing I noticed this afternoon while trying to follow everyone's advice, is that trying to use more than just the sense of sight also helped to cut down the internal dialogue a bit. I remember you posted a message a couple years ago about shutting off the internal dialogue, but I was unable to find it.
Basically, I have not been trying to do this on my previous attempts using the CD, and I noticed that I easily get distracted and start flowing into an unconscious dreamstate. For example, typically I will be going through my rundown, but also commentating on what I am doing: "OK, now I am stepping, stepping, walking up. Ah there is the F1 marker" in order to help me get into F10 easier. I am not sure if this is helping or hindering. Is stopping the internal dialogue necessary for phasing to be successful?

[Frank]

TJ:

Something you at all times need to bear in mind, is what we are involved with here is shifting, or switching, our mental focus of attention (switching focus, for short).

The Golden Rule that applies here is: where we point our focus of attention becomes our reality. Now, at the moment you are physically focused, therefore, the physical realm is your reality. Problem is people are not used to switching focus. They spend a number of years when they are children, getting the hang of how to switch to physical focus more or less absolutely, and that is it. The next time they would knowingly switch focus, is on permanent disengagement of their physical.

What we are doing, however, is learning how to switch from physical focus, but without having to permanently disengage from physical focus! As an aside, this is the primary reason why the exercise tends to generate lots of fear in the minds of those who try. Because what we are doing, in effect, is actioning the process of transition. Something that only normally occurs at the point of physical-body death.

This is why it takes a while for your mind to catch on with what, exactly, you want to do. I mean, it's obvious to your mind you do not wish to disengage physical focus on a permanent basis but, then again, you do not wish to switch to physical focus either. Okay, says the mind, then you must want to engage a subjective focus, which would normally mean, for most people, they go to sleep. But no, what you want to do is something in-between, which at first is mentally confusing. What you want to do is engage a subjective focus... but... have objective knowledge of your doing so!

The quick point I want to make here is that people who follow this line of approach (and I go into this in my book) need to start using the terminology associated with it, rather than the old mystical terms... which don't really translate, as these kinds of terms are all to do with notions of "separation", "leaving the body", "astral realms", and all that jazz.

Where we are going there are no astral realms, lol.  

Anyhow, with most people, the only reality they know is the physical. So for them there is no real need to make any distinctions, as making distinctions clearly implies more than one. But for us we need to be able to distinguish between the two different types of reality. So physical reality we term: objective reality. And any reality that is non-physical, we term subjective reality. These are the two primary distinctions.

So, in those terms, what you are attempting to offer yourself is: objective knowledge of subjective reality. And that's what you basically say to yourself, as being what you want to do. You want to offer yourself objective knowledge, of subjective reality.

Okay, so the main reason why I'm telling you all this, is because it doesn't matter a fig if you give yourself a running commentary or not. What we are engaged in here is an act of switching focus... not... quieting the mind! In the post you were looking for, I would have said (as I have said a number of times on this forum) I cannot understand where the idea came from that your mind should be "empty" for this to work. Because my own mind is far from quiet, and far from empty. I can hold a totally quiet mind if I wish to. I simply close my eyes, look out into the blackness and think of nothing. And guess what happens? Nothing!

However, when I close my eyes and actively involve myself in some kind of "imaginary" mental scenario, sure enough, it isn't long before my focus of attention shifts, and I find myself in a first-person perspective within the scenario I was previously "imagining" (the state of which is Focus 10).

So your mind should be focused on the task in hand. It doesn't matter how you do that. If you find that giving yourself a running commentary helps you focus, then do it for as long as it helps. I mean, if you find that standing on your head helps you engage your senses more within your rundown, then stand on your head. It really doesn't matter. What I am doing is giving you the basics, and the hands on, nitty-gritty application is down to you. Because people do tend to be different in that.

What I can say to you, absolutely without question, is the key to not being distracted, is to engage your senses within your rundown scenario. I cannot stress this too highly. In doing so, a person from the "quiet mind" school of doing things would be totally overloaded with all the mental goings on. Because, as I say, my mind is anything but quiet! The thing you have to bear in mind is our objective, which is, a shift in focus. To do this we don't want our mind to be quiet. We want our mind actively working towards achieving our shift in focus.

I tell you, often when I was first working on this, I wouldn't realise that I had actually shifted focus!

I was SO busy concentrating on my rundown and going along with the flow of it, that suddenly I would "discover" myself being in first-person perspective within my rundown. And I'd think, "Hey it's worked!" Of course, next instant the state would break and I would find myself back in the physical, kicking myself wishing I just hadn't done that.

The other problem that can come about, at first, is you'll be going through your rundown and suddenly you'll feel you might be in a kind of half-and-half situation. Not exactly physical, but not exactly first-person within your rundown either. So again you check whether the state you are in is really a different state, by comparing against how the physical state actually feels, and that too breaks the state. At which point you realise you were in a different state, but by then it's too late, and you have to start again.

Problem is, not only does it take a little while to practice getting into the state; it also takes a little while for you to feel okay about knowing you are in it. At first, there is a tremendous temptation to make a comparison with the physical "just to check" that you are not actually physical. I don't know why it's so tempting, it just is. Of course, the very act of checking breaks the state. Later on, when you achieve Focus-21, say, you can have these kinds of thoughts and remain within the state. But the Focus-10 state is easily broken.

Yours,
Frank

[clandestino]

Hi there TheJza !

I'm sure you were using Wave 1 a couple of years back, at the time I began using it ?! Or maybe I'm thinking of someone else. I haven't used it in a while, I simply can't get the free time these days....This will change soon though. And when it does, I'll be hot on your astral heels, I hope ! hee hee.

Hi Frank, hope you had a good xmas !

When you create the structure of your rundown, you only need to create just enough detail to engage your senses. No more and no less. In other words, you need to see your immediate surroundings, smell the flowers, feel the cool breeze on your skin, hear the birds singing, and so forth. But you don't want to create something too detailed that you get lost in the creation of it!

I recall practising Wave 1 & putting 95% of my efforts into "visualising" a scenario. Not only that, I was always looking to improve the quality by adding in details !

At the weekend, I was fortunate enough to awaken in the "right" frame of mind for practise. I simply imagined my non-physical hands "feeling" the environment, whilst at the same time I tried to engage my other senses. Hey presto, within seconds I was fully concious and standing who knows where, somewhere within the "astral" !

[TheJza]

Clandestino:
Yes, that was me using Wave 1 a few years back. I got frustrated and stopped, but hopefully I will use it until I succeed this time. Thanks for remembering me and congrats on your recent success - whenever I try doing  what you did I always end up falling asleep.

[clandestino]

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

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

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

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

Kind regards,
Mark

[Frank]

Major Tom:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They are NOT higher states!

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

Yours,
Frank

[JAW]

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

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

[TheJza]

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

[TheJza]

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

[Frank]

TJ:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The primary difference, then, is in the expression of reality, not its "realness". The two basic expressions of reality are subjective and objective. Because we are (currently) primarily physical, and physical reality is a virtually 100% objective state, then I tend to call physical reality objective reality. Reasons being while physical, we engage in an underlying agreement that we shall view the C1 focus state as a more or less entirely objective expression. But as Major Tom quite rightly points out, C1 focus is an objectification of an underlying pure subjective state (ultimately).

The underlying pure subjective state is that of Essence or Self. This state is as pure a subjective a state as the physical is as pure an objective a state. In other words, the two could be said to be at the two extremes of the subjective/objective spectrum; where our current physical reality is virtually 100% objective... and Essence, is virtually 100% subjective.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours,
Frank

[TheJza]

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

[Frank]

Major Tom:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So the concept of Focus 35 was born.

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

Anyhow, I digress.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours,
Frank

[Laurece]

Excellent thread!  

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Laurece

[Laurece]

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

Laurece