I probably should being sharing some of events that occur during workshops here on the website to give visitors the flavor of some of the goings on.  Some of these are pretty tame, some them are pretty spectacular.  One of the spectacular variety happened during a recent workshop in Japan.  I happened during the first partnered exploring exercise.  

  Several years ago Rosalie and I created a nonphysical Meeting Place to be used as part of teaching partnered exploration.  We basically placed intent to create such a place and then imagined into being within nonphysical reality.  The Meeting Place is a building surrounded by specific features that contains lots of structures and other features.  It was created with lots of very specific logical incongruities so that participants would not be able to easily guess what is inside the building.  In the exercise workshop participants are exploring nonphysical reality in groups.  The Japan workshop had enough participants to have seven groups with about seven people in each group.  One of the groups were all women, one all men, and the rest were mixed.  Each individual is instructed to ask their Helper to guide them as they go, nonphysically, to the Meeting Place.  Once they imagine entering the Meeting Place building, during the exercise, they are instructed to gather together with the other members of their group and begin exploring together.  After the exercise each group member makes detailed notes of their exploration experience.  Then each shares their experience with the other members of their group and they compare notes in what is called a "small group debriefing."  After each member completes this as a group they look for "hits," which are defined as similarities in the experiences of participants.  Hits are classified in four categories: Stretch; Little; Big; and WOW! Hits.  After all of that is completed a spokesperson gives a verbal summary of their group's experiences and hits to rest of the groups in a large group debriefing.  Then it's my turn.

  I then give a verbal description of the features of the Meeting Place as Rosalie and I first created the place.  This is always great fun as participants discover that the logical incongruities they encountered were actually intentionally incorporated into the Meeting Place.  Sometimes as I am verbally guiding workshop exercises I discover I am taking part nonphysically and when this happens I also share my experience with participants after the large group debriefing.  My experience during this exercise was a bit odd.

  As I was guiding them through exploring inside the Meeting Place I suddenly realized that I was nonphysically standing with one of the the all-women groups of participants.  I took the opportunity, nonphysically, to get this group's attention and talk to them.  Sometimes participants will remember these encounters and there will be hits within the small group debriefing between those who remember.  Then when they hear me confirm their hits from my memory of the mutual experience they get more hits.  As I was talking with this group of women I noticed that there was another group of participants standing about 15 feet away, and I could clearly see that I was standing in that group also, talking them.  So, there were two of me taking part in the exercise.  Deciding I wanted to try to call the attention of both groups to the fact that I was in two different groups at the same time made a silly looking gesture with my left hand, waving it in the air.  When I could tell that everyone in boths groups was looking at the left hand of the Bruce in their group I made another theatrically silly movement.  This time I made a long, sweeping movement of my arm that ended with my outstretched arm pointing toward the Bruce in the other group.  I could see myself making this same movement simultaneously in both groups.  It worked!  The heads in both groups turned toward the other group to see what I was pointing at.  They registered a little surprise as they realized I was pointing at another Bruce, me, in the other group.  I got a little surprise too.  As I was pointing at myself in the other group I saw that was also in all the rest of the partnered exploring groups and that each of me in each group was pointing at another me in another group.  Pretty bizzare for some folks I suppose but you get use to these things after a while and they just become part of your "normal" experiences.

  I noticed that after the exercise and debrifing one of the participants, Ken, became very withdrawn.  Later he asked one of the workshop organizers, Uzin, for help in dealing with a belief system crash.  When we have an experience that conflicts with our beliefs, and we accept that experience as real, it can have profound, sometimes difficult to deal with effects.  We took a break from the normal workshop material, gave Ken the floor, and let him talk about his experience of the belief system crash he was going through.  He was experiencing a severe crash with the complete pattern of "symptoms."   It turned out that his experience during the Meeting Place exercise I described above was the cause of his crash.

  Since childhood Ken was kind of a loner and spent a lot of time imagining "fantasy lands" as he called them.  He spent so much time doing this as a child that he developed his nonphysical sense of sight to the point that it is always full color, holographic, 3D, clear and sharp quality vision.  Ken always believed that his nonphysical visions were only and always complete fantasies.  That belief was challenged and crushed by his experience in the Meeting Place exercise.

  As I had described the "as created" version of the Meeting Place Ken quickly realized that he had seen everything exactly as I described it in vivid detail.  There wasn't anything I described that he hadn't seen with his full color, holographic, 3D, clear and sharp quality vision, that he previously believed could only be used to perceive fantasy.  I think the final straw for Ken was that he had also seen the entire sequence of events I described about pointing at my multiple-location selves in all the groups.  At that point there had been no way out for Ken.  The verified nature of the experience forced him to accept that experience as real.  His belief about the only-fantasy nature of his nonphysical sense of sight was completely destroyed by that experience.  The resulting loss of identity left him adrift in a stormy sea with nothing to hang on to.

  Fortuitously, it was time for the lunch break soon after Ken shared his experience.  I asked Ken join Pharon and me, together with Kumiko and Uzin (the workshop organizers) for lunch so we could talk.  Uzin offered to translate for us and after about an hour of talking with Ken, sharing what I understand about belief system crashes and answering his questions, Ken emotions began to stablize.  By later in the day he was doing much better.  

  Well, that's a little of the kind of things that happen during workshops.  Hope you enjoyed reading about it.

Bruce

:) Thank you very much Bruce - thought provoking stuff. One perspective that the 'multi Bruce and Ken' story seems to raise is that there are problems inherent in presuming that 'out there' operates the same way as our cause and consequence based physical reality.

Our instinct  may be to set out dressed in a spiritual camo jacket to chart the afterlife wilderness - thinking all the while that it's a fixed objectively verifiable reality, that once it's done it'll be done. When actually all we may be doing is to create and sustain whatever reality we individually or collectively have decided exists (or doesn't exist) out there.

It kind of begs the question of how we are meant to use the afterlife. Point being the pitfall of developing rigid and limiting belief systems exists out there too. Ken was lucky enough to have his beliefs broken down, but we presumably can just as easily block spiritual progress by getting stuck in beliefs about it, by not remaining open.

Tibetan (and other) Buddhism is very strong on the point that no matter what exotic experience we have (whether spontaneous or as a result of visualisation) it's very important to treat it with a 'so what' kind of attitude. That's not to say that experience doesn't from time to time have a big part to play, or isn't an indicator of progress, but much of the benefit is perhaps delivered by indirect means rather than as a result of heavy duty rationalisation and theorisation about the 'reality'.

So teachers generally won't discuss it in anything other than the most minimalist terms - in order to avoid the possibility of the pursuit of experience becoming an objective or an obsession in itself.

This is wholly in keeping with the view that realisation is about developing an unconditioned awareness - one which as a result of the sense of self-hood and consequent egotistical urges fading sees reality as it is  - without the biased perception or striving which is the result of fear and belief. That the afterlife (as much as normal life), exotic and useful as  it can be is also part of samsara/the ongoing cycle of birth and death or this conditioned and pretty unsatisfactory reality we've ended up stuck in.

Meditation is unconditionally positioned as the only way  (there's forms of meditation that happen naturally to varying degrees in life that help too) to gain this unconditioned awareness - the ability to rest with equanimity as events play out in both internal and external existence.

My personal but limited experience has been that while much of the time I've not been able to make  conscious sense of experience (it tends to be colours, light or at best symbolic stuff which uses constructs from my own intellect); that it's often been followed by (sometimes quite raw) opening which tends to surface in the form of new insight and new ways of feeling about things.

But the process is often not conscious, and has so far had little to do (except sometimes when interpretation of symbolic stuff is possible) with conscious thought, or conscious process....

Vajra,


wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2007 at 4:33am:

One perspective that the 'multi Bruce and Ken' story seems to raise is that there are problems inherent in presuming that 'out there' operates the same way as our cause and consequence based physical reality. Our instinct  may be to set out dressed in a spiritual camo jacket to chart the afterlife wilderness - thinking all the while that it's a fixed objectively verifiable reality, that once it's done it'll be done. When actually all we may be doing is to create and sustain whatever reality we individually or collectively have decided exists (or doesn't exist) out there.

Vajra, as my dad use to put it, "you just said a mouthful."  Such few words that so nicely point out one of the most pervasive problems we human beings share in understanding more about who and what we really are and about the very nature of reality.  While incarnated Here our perceptual perspective becomes extremely narrow and limited.  The basic assumptions we develop and about the nature of reality become very limited as a result.  Those assumptions unknowingly (for the most part) become the unquestioned yard stick we measure our experiences with to determine if there are "real" or not.  For example, while living Here it is easy to take on the assumption that we only exist in one place at any given moment in time.  That's pretty much okay for experience within this area of Consciousness we call physical reality.  The difficulty comes when we automatically and unquestioningly assume that this one-place-at-one-time assumption holds valid for realities other than the physical.  We also take on the assumption that since physical reality appears to be solid with very persistent forms and structures (that physicists erroneously claim can neither be created or destroyed) that all other realities "obey" the same "laws."  Then along comes something like "multi Bruce and Ken' story."  

The whole story takes place within an area of Consciousness we label "nonphysical reality" in a "location" labeled the Meeting Place.  The Meeting Place was created out of "nothing" by imagining it into being.  While its creation and existence might defy the "laws of physics" it nevertheless exists in a way that is confirmed via direct observation by literally hundreds of  physical world humans across a broad range of years and cultures (American, German, Polish and Japanese so far).  As you rightly point out, "there are problems inherent in presuming that 'out there' operates the same way as our cause and consequence based physical reality."  

If this Meeting Place can be created by two people out of "nothing" by imagining into being and then be objectively confirmed by so many eyewitnesses the implications of that ought to stagger the mind of someone suiting up in their "spiritual camo jacket to chart the afterlife wilderness" and any other nonphysical realitiesy  The phrase "imagining it into being" really boils down to "holding and expressing the belief" that such a Meeting Place exists.  The implication is, as you point out, that in any such exploratory endeavor we may actually be creating and sustaining "whatever reality we individually or collectively have decided exists (or doesn't exist) out there."  The implications of that one still stagger my mind on occasion.  With that one questions about the very nature of who and what we really are quickly start moving to the front of the line.  


wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2007 at 4:33am:

It kind of begs the question of how we are meant to use the afterlife. Point being the pitfall of developing rigid and limiting belief systems exists out there too.

Yeah, we set out in our "spiritual camo jacket to chart the afterlife wilderness" and at some point we stumble into far more basic questions that grab our attention and guide us to completely unanticipated discoveries.  Perhaps it becomes clearer as to why I teach “afterlife exploration?”  Our afterlife is just one of an uncountable number of realities we might explore, but it is a convenient one.  Convenient because it is inhabited by human beings with whom we can communicate that may potentially cause experiences that will crash beliefs that limit, color, distort or completely block perception of all nonphysical realities.  And crashing those beliefs can eliminate them, as happened with Ken, and open perception to a much broader perspective.  Continue that process and at some point we stumble into far more basic questions that lead to greater understanding of who and what we really are.  


wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2007 at 4:33am:

So teachers generally won't discuss it in anything other than the most minimalist terms

I deeply admire Robert Monroe for the sneaky simplicity of his approach to passing on knowledge.  The fascination so many of us held for his descriptions of his OBEs in Journeys Out of the Body drew many of us onto a path we thought would lead to the ability to have such OBEs. But OBEs are just a minor landmark on the path he was really guiding us to. A path that leads to greater understanding of the nature of reality and who and what we really are.

And here I sit, frustrated at times by some of the loudmouth bullies who visit here just to argue over the details of the existence or nonexistence of realities they don’t have the foggiest notion that they “create and sustain” by the beliefs they hold and express.  They attempt to draw solid conclusions based on their analysis of realities created and sustained by beliefs held and expressed by whatever “expert” they’ve chosen to be their own personal “universally recognized authority figure.”  And then they attempt to jam their conclusions down the throats of others by brow-beating, bullying tactics that definitely lack the eloquence of someone like Monroe.  Thank God we humans come equipped with a built in gag reflex.

Oh well.  I guess, as an old musician buddy use to say, “I’ll just keep eat’in my burgers and play’in my music without much thought given to whether or not anybody listening might be enjoying the sound.”

Vajra, thanks again for your comments.  I really enjoy though-provoking conversations.

Bruce

Thank you Bruce. There's a little of my own experience in what I said, but in truth I was mostly floating my understanding of the Tibetan Buddhist view as taught at at my own level....

Thanks for relating that experience. Intriguing. I must admit to being a bit confused about how we can create a "real" place (we can share with others) just by imagining it into being though; it makes you wonder where the line is between fantasy and reality. And is the place we go after death just the same - a bizzarrely malleable one where people's thoughts shape the surroundings they find themselves in all the time? If that was true it would seem a bit confusing and you wonder how people would keep track of each other or not get a bit exhausted by the psycadelic oddness of such a life.

I suppose one sceptical view - in a sense - could be that your participant connected with your visions telepathically rather then going to a "place" you created. I'm not saying that's the case, just musing.

Still much to learn. No doubt will get round to reading some of your books before long, which might help all to become clear!

I enjoyed this story much Bruce! It's always good to get a reminder that we not only can create things in our fantasy, but that these are real, can be perceived by others too. I'm glad that with the assistance of your workshops people can experience it first-hand.

Vajra, since I've been at TMI Gateway Voyage, I'm doing what I call "mind journeys". It's one of the various ways of meditation. What I have noticed is that over the time I have become less interested in "traveling" to places which are, even only a bit, similar to the physical. In fact, sometimes I realized in meditation, I feel something like disgust about these earthly things; at some point I guess everyone who believes in the afterlife and thinks about what is to come, and practices meditation, will become tired of those things, and longs for these other regions (if regions at all) you alluded to, saying "so what" when seeing just another earthly place with earthly rules.

Orlando, yes this can be called telepathy, but then- what is telepathy at all? The simple model is like a sender and a receiver. But the consequences are quite broad: The sharing of thoughts without physical means is a whole new area. So, what is called "telepathy" is, in my view, a facette of the greater reality, meaning the basis is the mind. So, there is not a difference between viewing other's fantasies, nonphysical places, and getting telepathic messages. You can call the shared mind-construct a telepathic place cause it is a connectedness of, seen from the physical, individual minds. What in the normal use of telepathy isn't typically contained though is the kind of durability of thoughts, so that thoughts, or thought-creations can be perceived by others even when we are not aware to think about them or try to send them to another.

Spooky

Orlando said: I suppose one sceptical view - in a sense - could be that your participant connected with your visions telepathically rather then going to a "place" you created. I'm not saying that's the case, just musing.
____

this has been discussed before also. if you think about it, telepathy also is still a new thing also in our society which cannot be explained why this also would exist, but too many people get it, to dismiss it, that it's just a dream, or its just mental telepathy.
telepathy would go a ways to explain how we are energy beings at our core and that then our energy mind fields will perceive another's communication as in merge or overlapping signals.
having or experiencing telepathy as the receiver or the sender is still a mystery, and usually a welcome mystery towards figuring what we are, how we can have this capacity where it becomes normal sometimes.
I was looking forward to a time when we no longer have to purchase phone service!
always leaping ahead I guess. :)

thanks Bruce you always give us a lot to chew over. I was curious what goes on in those classes and it's always mind boggling.

one thing I noticed personally, that when I'm out and about and interacting with a friend, I noticed verbal communication is most often dificult, from them to me. I find myself, since it's my dream, my exploration, my own stomping grounds so to speak, I do most the talking, while they are doing sign language, gesturing, leaping to make a point, body language. so when I read you did the arm waving and pointing, it caused me to think of the nature of our communications out there.

I realize a lot of people are still in the question of believing it is real or not, but I've moved beyond whether its real, its real for me, period. and yes, I occassionally still feel a little crashing because it is so real, it is uncomfortable to be slipping in and out, but its getting more and more clear and with it a happy feeling, I'm doing ok.

we get over crashes, we're a pretty flexible people all in all. so this body language thing, I can conjecture we may be able to move into a more verbal communication or just straight telepathy and with memory intact upon entering once more C1.

body movements are valid language. so whatever. body language, waving, jumping, its just one step away from an actual dance language of the energy body. I should be satisfied? haha!

maybe the nature of creativity is to spin ourselves off, just like a religious person might say god spun us off to give us free will to be, to become. well, we are co-creators, so we spin ourselves off too as is the nature.
I know from doing self retrievals, integrating children back into my being, they were real people in the way I was affected by the childish thoughts; just until I retrieved them and allowed them inside me, to come home. so this too would be like self spin offs.
also Gordon's friends would say they saw him out there too and he didn't remember. same here, only I sometimes caught a glimpse I was there. or brought back a feeling.

so we seem to be at a crux here. fascinating would say Spock.
a lot to ponder on these days friends. love, alysia

Bruce, that's a wonderful experience.  Thank you so much for sharing it with us.  You know I always love hearing these stories!




orlando123 wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2007 at 4:27pm:

I suppose one sceptical view - in a sense - could be that your participant connected with your visions telepathically rather then going to a "place" you created. I'm not saying that's the case, just musing.

Hi Orlando, I want to have some fun and run with your musing.  What would the difference really be if that participant actually were only connecting telepathically?  Would that technique of connection really be less real than any other?  How we connect with one another, or how we connect with an experience, is really not of matter of quality but is rather a matter of perception.  Whatever we perceive, through whatever means available to us, becomes our experience through our own personal interpretation of that information.  I equate it to this...let's say your grandmother dies.  Does it matter in what form you get that information?  Is email less real or reliable than a phone call?  No matter how you get the information, if the information is true and real, then it is true and real, period.  If you were to sit on the sofa and get a hunch that you were picking up telepathic thoughts from your grandfather that your grandmother just died, does that telepathy make the information less real?  No.  

In your supposition up above, you're using "going to a place" as if the example of telepathy did not denote the same kind of "going" anywhere as partnered exploration does.  It is my opinion that meditation, partnered exploration, OBE, dreams, ESP, telepathy etc, all that stuff works along the same lines as far as how we are able to perceive and experience information.  We experience these forms differently and they are different from one another, however they are all means of perception.  Perhaps the way telepathy works is that part of your awareness does indeed go somewhere, and when the information is brought back to you you perceive, interpret, and experience it in a specific way that is different than what an OBE is like for you.  Because of the difference in how these two things are perceived, you might consider one less of a true form of perception.  

I once had a OBE where I saw what would be happening in my life 12 hours into the future.  The information played out precisely as I had experienced it in the OBE.  When I related this to my skeptical husband, his response was, "Well it was just a dream.  OBEs aren't real.  It must just be a coincidence."  My response was, "Does it really make a difference how this information was perceived?  Information is information.  Whether it was through an OBE or a dream, I still perceived true and accurate information of what was going to happen 12 hours into the future".  His idea of the meaning of "coincidence" is that if he doesn't believe in the way the information was perceived, then that makes what I perceived not real, even though it completely matched the physical reality event.  To me, that's just ridiculous.  

I think how we define the idea of telepathy meaning perhaps the participant only read Bruce's mind implies that because it was (possibly) only mind reading and not first-hand experience then that means the information perceived is not real.  But one thing we must remember to pay attention to is the fact that that participant did indeed experience that information, it's just that if telepathy were the means, then he experienced it through a connection to Bruce's mind.  

What Bruce is saying is that he and his friend Rosalie created a nonphysical place.  Now, whether that information is perceived by others through actual nonphysical travel of one sort or another, or whether it is perceived through telepathy, the fact of the matter is that Bruce and Rosalie created a nonphysical place, the information of which can be perceived by others.  The point I'm trying to make is that our thoughts can create.  The workshop participant Ken experienced nonphysical reality information, whether it was through reading Bruce's mind telepathically or whether it was through really "going" to this nonphysical place.  I guess it would be up to Ken to tell us which way he believes the information was actually perceived by him.  

I myself have had many varied nonphysical experiences, and I can honestly say that some felt like information was merely picked up on and some where the information was perceived as if I were actually there experiencing it.  When either means of perception can produce verifiable information, then that tells me that it doesn't matter how I perceived it, the point is I perceived it, had an experience with it, and now I'm left with deciding how to interpret/incorporate the experience into my consciousness.  

In the case of Ken in Bruce's story, Ken obviously is now faced with interpreting and incorporating his experience into his consciousness.  He could either throw it out altogether, or he could slowly allow it into his being and be open to the possibility that he had some kind of an experience with nonphysical reality that is real.  This choice leaves him either closed off or opened up to a new level of perception.  How he handles it is his choice.  When we look at it this way, the way in which he was able to perceive this nonphysical place becomes less important than what Ken's actual experience and subsequent reactions are.  

I figure there are places that only one or a few of us create, and places many people/spirits create. Some are created while in a state of delusion, some are created while clear minded. I figure that even this physical World is a very sophisticated mind creation.

The key is to get to the point where we can create according to love, wisdom, and freedom.

God story, Bruce.  Immediately I get the urge to find a way to run such constructs in an experiment - obviously, a reflection of my own mind set.

What I sense is that as we become more proficient in meditation and related skills, we are able to operate from a different location along the connection that ultimately links us back to God-Mind.  

I would guess that there is an implication that to do it your spiritual self must be rooted at a level more fundamental than the levels of those with whom you were interacting, and also more primitive than the structures in which you were appearing. This opens an interesting line of inquiry - the ordinal relationships of those who and those who perceive them.

The ability to be in multiple places at once is mentioned in Bardo Thodol and other Eastern traditions, but it is rare to encounter someone who has done it, even in a visualization. For example, I recall an OBE where I saw myself, and when I tried to wiggle a finger to test my perception I was zapped back into my body.  In light of your tale, it kinda makes me feel like a minnow swimming amongst whales.

dave

Maybe it's not so weird if you take it on the basis that mind creates, that everything we are conscious of (unless we achieve realisation and the ability to connect in some way with the absolute reality which underpins it all) is consequently the result of intention.

Bruce had several groups going at once, and he wanted to keep keep an eye on all of them. So he did. Perhaps the remarkable aspect is that he was open enough to perceive this, that the sight of several of himself didn't cause him to close down......

Bruce u also describe this multiple location theme in your book, think it was Beyond all doubt. this in relationship to helping the others in your group at TMI, with that intention, to be of assistance, must be a strong factor, the intention. along with this we might mention PUL. the intention to be of assistance has PUL in it.
PUL is my main focus of attention in this life, I just figured that out recently.

recently reading something about mind of C1, then the mind of the sub layer of consciousness, such as where dreams take place, then the author mentions another concept, that of the super-consciousness; this is probably the place where this type of phenomenon occurs, where intention is pure.

so I was gonna recount something..similar, a dream, I was dreaming I was on the board here typing and my head divided into 3 or 4 heads and each with form and slipped into the computer screen..lol....seemed to have some scientific implications but can't explain it yet.

then my favorite: I sent a dancer me to dance with my exploration partner. we did dance, but she also spotted another "me" the wall flower me, lol.  oh boy.
I like Bruces other selves story better.

next? :)

I was fascinated by Bruce’s with Ken's experience and the rest of the story.  Thanks Bruce for sharing it.  In addition to Ken’s facility with vividness and detail, it makes me wonder about the topography of the non-physical.  Everywhere we go is apparently a different place in consciousness.  I don’t think it makes any difference whether we pick up information from ‘there’ by direct experience or telepathically.  

What I find interesting is that Bruce and Rosalie’s Meeting Place is apparently static in that it isn’t changed by the various individuals who visit there.  Whereas my sense of some of the TMI areas is that they change over time because of all the traffic from TMI participants (The Park, Focus 27, TMI-There, etc.).  I mean if I saw too many anomalies in a place I visited, I’d be tempted to try and change them.  Maybe this place is preserved in consciousness as a teaching exercise.  

I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on why the Meeting Place Bruce uses in his workshops evidently doesn’t change.  

That's very interesting Rob, I've never thought of it like that, it being preserved as a place of a teaching exercise.  Maybe it is static simply because only a select few go there, those in Bruce's workshops.  While there they are observing, learning, and not likely to know how consciously or unconsciously how to make changes.  I would think that Bruce's intention in the workshop to take a group there would mean that they would go to the place of his original design.  

I would think that highly populated places like The Park could change because so many people go there and it would be natural for it to be influenced by so many, but perhaps only within the realm of possibility that is "agreeable" to that framework.

I would think that the library on focus 27 would never change and the hall of records either, and the crystal in the earth.

Well, this morning I got up and staggered into the kitchen to put on the coffee, muttering to anyone invisible paying attention, "I hope I learn something new today", that is, something about the Other World(s), and it is now almost 9:30 at night and I just read this topic through and now I have really, really learned some new stuff and can go back to bed feeling my day rewarded me with some great learning and a ton of new questions. I keep thinking about The Matrix, you know how they lay down in that chair with tubes coming out of them and entered the kinds of reality we are talking about here (I think) and did things there that changed the world they were in physically, I mean the stage set they were in that they used to construct the action of their lives and affected the outcomes of that world they were lying in, in that chair, where the machines were invading, that world changed because of their actions in the world they were actiing in in, um, fantasy...that word really doesn't exist any more, does it???? Vee

hiya Vee, that really works when you think "now, can I learn something today?" it works for me when I used to do it.

I don't remember the Matrix movie, I should watch it. I heard about it. I did see Freddie Kruger movie where he's chasing the heroine and she defeats him by saying "You're not real!"  she don't believe in him no more. yes I see your point we do create the afterlife right here and now, but it works in reverse too that we set up a general plan before we got here.
I'll be gone for a few, moving. see you soon, keep well and drink organic expresso, it taste better. love, alysia

Alysia.  I imagine that libraries used to be filled with scrolls, then with books and card catalogs, and I suspect pretty soon if not already they'll be digitized - haven't been to the library myself so I can't say what it looks like.  

Vicky.  What intrigues me is that when Bruce stated that the Meeting Place contained logical inconsistencies I knew I was that type that would want to go change a few things here and there.  But maybe because Bruce aka The Teacher is there watching you're careful not to change things.  

Another possibility is:
Maybe some visitors to Bruce's teaching PE place are actually altering something in it. This is very probable I think, it may even happen automatically together with the interpreting process. The groups being there, including multi-Bruce waving is already an altering. But every single person will change different things differently, while Bruce and Rosalie are maintaining it with very strong and focused imagination, overwriting the weak alterings of the visitors.
 Or, in the process of altering something, this place is multiplying, each visitor has an own version of it, but (I guess) it would still be connected to the original place, so that happenings in the original place would bleed through to the individual versions of it.

Spooky

Yes, if the purpose of the exercise is for multiple people to visit and bring back the same observations, it would defeat the purpose for individuals to see their own version of this reality.  If that were the case, then during debriefing everyone would have to pay very close attention to possible hits taking different guises.  

Vicky said: "...during debriefing everyone would have to pay very close attention to possible hits taking different guises."

 Yes, like we do in our PEs here on the board.
Actually, it's a good idea if one would create a place and then inviting others to it, let them post what they saw and finally the creator would post what he/she had created, like Bruce did.

Spooky

Good thoughts Spooky.  I imagine if different consciousnesses interact and a “place” even if it’s just “walking around and looking” some change would result.  But then you solved the problem with saying Bruce and Rosalie maintain it with the effect that it probably doesn’t change much or for long.  I imagine Bruce freshens it up every time he takes a workshop group there even if unconsciously.

Not so sure what I think about each visitor coming back with his or her own version – but still somehow necessarily connected.  That’s possible too.  

Now I think I’m going to have to take the PE workshop just to see this place.  Wonder if I can bring back or maybe leave a souvenir?

Fascinating stuff.  I wonder if Bruce has ever noticed changes in it – but then maybe he can’t tell us about it.