As much as I repsect Flemming, this posting is so superficial and
glib it made me roll my eyes reading it.

      Much of what is said is true, but the depth and reality on the
various matters is seriously lacking.

>      Take engrams and the time track.  Time is basically an illusion,
> there is nothing but NOW.  So, walking around being affected negatively
> by something that happened in the past is rather aberrated silliness.
> However, a lot of people walking in from the street would not agree to
> that just off hand.  Therefore, we take them on their word and track
> down what it is they say that they are being aberrated by, and we
> proceed to show them that there really is no reason to be aberrated by
> it.  We do it in a non-evaluative way and we let them draw their own
> conclusions.

      A person is not aberrated by the past, the person is aberrated by

      WHAT is effecting him are engrams of the past, but WHY they are
affecting him is because of his considerations IN THE PRESENT of the
future, and HOW They are affecting him is by his own operational
wizardry in present time.

      Past    = What
      Present = How
      Future  = Why

      Thus auditing the past can sometimes be a total waste of time, as
it is the future that has him tied down in solutions using his bank
recordings of the past.

      As the charge and emotion comes off his future, the past he has
been using and the mechanisms he has been using in present time to use
the past, will fall out into the open and run out.


      "How will it be on your last day?"


      "How do you feel about your future."

      Future includes this life, death, after death, other lives
and back to eternal sleep for a while.

>      After running a certain number of chains of engrams and finding
> that the effects could be removed just be changing one's considerations
> the pc would at some point catch the drift.  He would decide that he is
> really creating the effects himself and he doesn't have to do that
> anymore.  That is the clear cognition, and that is pretty much the time
> when the running of chains has served its use.

      All pity, accountability, blame, guilt, regret, fear,
irresponsibility, sense of no choice, and unforgiveness would have to be

      For example unforgiveness of others sticks you in other's
unforgiveness of you, most bank restim is not that something happened
that you wish hadn't, but trying to make sure it never happens AGAIN.

      You see, thats FUTURE in there causing concern.  Which is why
considerations can't just be changed, unless you are willing to toss
your debt to others by allowing everyone else to toss their debt to you.

      Then you are still stuck with your debt to yourself and your worry
about what YOU will do TO YOU in the future.

      People are completely burned by their own nature, they don't see
the beautiful intelligence, nor the humor to the joke they played on

      The light of 40 million suns barely holds a candle to the thing,
the joke of total irresponsibility.

      The bank is a recording of impacts with force over the long haul.

      The recordings in the bank are as real as the original impacts
were.  In fact recordings can be turned on again such as to play out the
entire original incident, with full force and damage.

      If he had his eyes burned out with a hot poker 20 life times ago,
and that recording gets turned on full force, his eyes will burn to
cinders again just as if it were happening in present time.

      Engrams don't usually get that restimulated, but they can.

      Engrams are restimulated BY the pc, he turns them on for a purpose,
either acutely for a while, or chronically for the long term, but a
little pain goes a long ways.  He doesn't need his eyes to catch on
fire, he does need them to hurt, get infected, and not be able to see

      So he pulls in the engram 1 percent instead of 100.

>      The pc was of course never really affected by the past engrams.  He
> just considered that he was.  Now he changed his consideration, and we
> don't have to run engrams anymore.

      This is disingenuous.  The pc is as affected by his recordings as
he was by the original incident.

      It may be that consideration is senior to both, but in fact the
engram won't erase until the pc comes to relate to it as he should have
related to the original incident to prevent the recording from forming
in the first place.

      Thus solving the engram's existence is the same as solving the
existence of the original incident.

      They both are real.

>      As a matter of fact, if we continued running chains of engrams
> where he was being effect, we might force him to change his
> considerations back and we would have wasted our time.

      When a being goes clear, he sees how he is using the bank.  He can
get in there between restim and use, and just simply not use.  The
engram turns on, but rather than dramatize it, he runs it out.

      This is a significant ability, as each engram handled is a
potential incoming reality handled in the future again.

      If he can handle being tortured to death in the past, he can handle
it again in the future.

      As life continues, various engrams remaining will become
restimulated, he will catch it as it happens, run them out, and pretty
soon most of his bank is gone.

      At some point he may be able to blow the whole machine to kingdom

>      A lot of people don't have any problem at all with entities.
> Convincing them that they do so that we can run them is a rather
> questionable activity.  Particularly if we never let them in on the
> secret that they certainly don't have to have them.  If we leave them
> better than when we found them I guess if could be beneficial, but only
> if we take apart the lies that we convinced them of after we are done.

      Again this is glib.  Life is like the sea, you may not believe or
have problems with plankton, but rest assured you are surrounded by

      Entities are as real as you and me, actually its you I wonder

      Pretending that others don't exist just because you don't believe
in them is highly glib and dangerous.

      One day someone is going to come up and bite you whether you
believe in them or not.

      A higher tone position is being able to be aware of others, and not
step on their toes, and not get involved with them if you don't want to.

      But anyone who is in this universe, is up to their nostrils in
other beings whether incarnate or not.

>      The subject of exteriorization is in a somewhat similar category.
> There is no such thing as far as a static is concerned.  A static is not
> inside or outside anything, it is not stuck or trapped in anything.  For
> that matter, it isn't aberrated at all.
>      But, a static can make considerations, it can consider things.  If
> for some reason it considers that it is stuck in a head, then it might
> be a good idea to change that consideration.  On the other hand, that is
> all it takes, the changing of a consideration.

      "That is all it takes' is an enormously glib understatement.

      You can think you are out of your head all you want, you can think
you are on the moon, but you won't be, you will still be in in your head
where anyone can come and torture you and regiment you and enslave you
to their ends.

      It may very well be true that a being who is fully exteriorized can
simply be anywhere he wants by choice alone, but again this is an
ability of deep significance that shouldn't be sloughed off as simply
changing one's mind about it.

      The POINT is that until the preclear reassesses his MOTIVATIONS
for being stuck in a head, he won't be able to get out.

      He might be able to change his considerations on why he wants
to be in and whether being in serves him properly, but until he
does that, he is stuck in like iron in concrete.

      Finding the WHY is the hard part.

      "Why are you in a body?"

      I dare you to run it successfully.

>      You are 'outside' if you consider you are outside, you are 'on the
> moon' if you consider you are on the moon.  Just about anybody can do
> that right off the street.  The only people who

      This statement is absurd.  Almost no one can exteriorize and be on
the moon at will.  Some might be good at imagining they are, but they
are many miles below 'whats true is what's true for you.'

      Have them report back what they see on the moon and you will find
most of the time it is uniformly wrong.

>      Many people, after hearing about the wonders of 'exteriorization',
> try frantically to move their eyeballs or their brain out of their
> skull, and think that that is exteriorization.  That is again a
> consideration.  If they can be helped to change their considerations
> they can realize that they aren't really having a problem, their eye
> balls are most appropriate in their sockets.

      This is true but seems degrading to the importance and reality of

      Yes, some may be trying to take their body's sight with them, which
ends up in failure.  True exteriorized vision is not the same as body

      But one is not exterior just because one pretends one is.

      >Again, if we hadn't brought it up most people
>wouldn't have considered themselves as interiorized.

      This statement is completely nuts, people may not have
a problem with it only because they never dreamed it was possible
to get out.

>     And presenting it as a sky high goal throws them off
>and they don't realize that they can already do it.  Processing on
>the subject of 'exteriorization' is only meaningful until the person
>realizes that he can put his attention in all sorts of places and that
>is exteriorization.

      It is one thing to merely put your attention on the moon, and
quite another to actually receive back correct data about what is there.

      But even remote viewing is not exteriorization, as the remote
viewer is still in his body and if a bomb hits it, he will feel it.


Sat Jul  5 22:55:13 EDT 2008
Sun Jan 17 16:24:03 EST 2016