Copyrighted Logo

css menu by Css3Menu.com


 

Bruce's 5th book, a Home Study Course, is now available.
Books & Tapes by Bruce Moen
    Bruce's Blog now at http://www.afterlife-knowledge.com/blog....

  HomeHelpSearchLoginRegister  
 
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 6
Send Topic Print
Open discussion ... defining / refining what works (Read 24416 times)
Morrighan
Super Member
*****
Offline


Multidimensional Navigator

Posts: 505
Isle of Everywhere
Gender: female
Open discussion ... defining / refining what works
Aug 24th, 2017 at 9:12am
 
Hello. Posting this new topic in response to Vicky's experiences with Bruce and her own explorations beyond a structured approach:

Vicky wrote on Aug 23rd, 2017 at 7:33pm:
When Bruce leads a group PE in his workshops it’s a very detailed and organized activity.  We go to our nonphysical place, meet up, gather energy at the crystal, meet with our helpers, and then go explore whatever meeting place we agreed upon.  Usually there’s awareness of interaction between participants and of course using your imagination to get the flow going.   

For the experiments with the photos, I don’t do any of that nonphysical prep stuff and don’t try to meet up with anyone else.  I find that it takes me too much away from the physical as Bruce’s prep work puts me in a much deeper state.  I would rather use my nonphysical senses while being fully present in my physical surroundings.  I do use a lot of what Bruce teaches but I like to apply it in various other uses.


So this thread is, in part a reply to Vicky, who asks:

Vicky wrote on Aug 23rd, 2017 at 7:33pm:
Morrighan, you said you immediately pick up from everyone in your physical surroundings.  Do you typically do anything to “shut out” picking up info from people all the time?  If so what do you do?


and, in greater part, a thread for YOU to post your own experiences and questions about approaches to extra-physical communication.
Back to top
 

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over — Fudd's First Law of Opposition.
It goes in — it must come out. — Teslacles Deviant to Fudd's First Law
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Morrighan
Super Member
*****
Offline


Multidimensional Navigator

Posts: 505
Isle of Everywhere
Gender: female
Re: Open discussion ... defining / refining what works
Reply #1 - Aug 24th, 2017 at 9:44am
 
Hi Vicky.

Same as you, my first days of extra-physical exploration started with the TMI methodology that Bruce refined after his experiences with TMI. The primary difference between the two is TMI uses Hemisync (TM) and Bruce does not.

Both methods largely dispense with earlier OBE literature that variously describes a "silver cord", and other phenomena.

Like many of you, I immersed myself in all manner of afterlife knowledge literature over the years. Mostly the possibilities of extraordinary adventure were at the root of my curiosity. "Wouldn't it be cool to ...." fires the imagination and desire.

That's all a long way of saying I jumped into the TMI course with both feet and did everything "by the book." And slowly it began to dawn on me: I already know how to do this. For me, it became clear I was trying to teach myself something I was already expert with. D'oh!

Uncertain what, precisely, triggered this realization. Perhaps it was around the time years ago when I was doing all the usual prep to make contact with a freshly deceased friend. He was most impatient with all the rigamarole I was going through and I was immediately present to everything he needed to share with me long before I felt I was "ready". By "ready" I mean in a deep, relaxed state of stillness. That is a method still taught by many.

And as I looked at it I realized I'd been doing this sort of thing for decades - without instruction, without "ritual", without "guides" or "helpers". To me, it was just as natural as opening a (physical) door and stepping through. Please not to use this metaphor as a method. I cite the physical door metaphor because it's something we do without thought. At some point long ago (in our childhood) we learn what doors are, how they work and how to use them. And never give it another thought. We simply open doors, walk through and close doors. No real magic. It's a door.

To me, it's about setting intent. Bruce's Silly Little Finger Bending Exercise helps us discern the point of intent that triggers the action. Others learn to set intent by chanting (I'm looking at you, Seagullresting.) Within my terminology, setting intent is informing creation. We inform creation when we ask: Show me where it is when we are looking for lost objects: http://afterlife-knowledge.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?num=1501270335

Ultimately we find what works for you. And this is the thread to share these findings.

Back to top
 

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over — Fudd's First Law of Opposition.
It goes in — it must come out. — Teslacles Deviant to Fudd's First Law
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Morrighan
Super Member
*****
Offline


Multidimensional Navigator

Posts: 505
Isle of Everywhere
Gender: female
Re: Open discussion ... defining / refining what works
Reply #2 - Aug 24th, 2017 at 10:47am
 
Vicky wrote on Aug 23rd, 2017 at 7:33pm:
Morrighan, you said you immediately pick up from everyone in your physical surroundings.  Do you typically do anything to “shut out” picking up info from people all the time?  If so what do you do?


That's a qualified "yes" from me, Vicky.

I'm qualifying it because it's not necessary for me to get a "hit" on someone's resonant signal through physicality. That's a long way of saying there is no need for me to be in physical proximity.

My own experience in physicality is I am immediately present to everything about that "other" person. There are likely no end of philosophical alleys and other dead ends to be discussed about they why, wherefor and how that interest me not at all. In my experience there are no secrets. We are field beings being a field. And my own refinement of this is: we are multidimensional field beings being multidimensional fields.

We can certainly hide known infos from our conscious awareness. We really do know on some level. It's a matter of discernment.

Suppose I could call it a "niggle" that is triggered that may swing my desire to be aware of something. When I pass someone on the street - just a random anybody - and pick up on all sorts of "low vibrational" energy, I may experience a corresponding reaction of "I would really rather not know." I believe the word for this experience is "revulsion" LOL

So much for the "theory". On to actual, personal example. None of the following is to be understood as something you should experience, how you  experience it, or that something is wrong if you don't experience it. We are all different and we all find our own best methods.

My friend with whom I am honored to share so much work and I may hold an exchange that goes like this:

She: What do you pick up when I say the name [Joe Blow]
Me: I [see/feel/notice] [foo / bar / baz]

Now it may be there are 10,000 people named Joe Blow and I cannot tell you (general you) just how I hone in on the right Joe Blow. Actually that question does not interest me at all. I always do. When I nail a signal, I nail a signal.

***

If nothing is really private because we are all field beings being a field, what if I do wish to engage in something that is strictly private? This is actually a topic of concern my friend and I discussed only Wednesday.

"There's someone observing you," she says. "We can't continue this work today until you close that."

And I look and by golly she is right. We are engaged in work that some wish to monitor / record for their own reasons. We are definitely not good with that because their reasons include shutting us down / diverting us from our work / etc.

The countermeasures I / we employ are enabled outside the interspheres. This is a technical answer, and it is a correct answer.

Let me put it this way:

IRL (In Real Life) my Real Life Work is of a highly technical nature. (That line of employment is now in the past tense for me.) The probability that you (general you) are affected by my IRL work is 100 percent. It is not something you hold in any conscious awareness and I made sure of that. None of it bears my name. It bears my energetic signature but it is at such a low level it would escape the notice of all but very few who engage in the same work.

My present work is exactly the same but different. My work is not intended to be seen. It's not done for accolade. It's what is mine to do. QED.

So yes it is possible to do work that is not visible to the conscious awareness. I'd even go so far to say it is sometimes desirable to do so.

Should the actual need for you arise, the solution will become apparent.
Back to top
 

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over — Fudd's First Law of Opposition.
It goes in — it must come out. — Teslacles Deviant to Fudd's First Law
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Morrighan
Super Member
*****
Offline


Multidimensional Navigator

Posts: 505
Isle of Everywhere
Gender: female
Re: Open discussion ... defining / refining what works
Reply #3 - Aug 24th, 2017 at 11:18am
 
So how do I do it, really?

No-nonsense answer: I just look. That is all. Do I place intent when I look? I believe, for me, the act of looking is intent.

And of course there is no internal chatter going on. No mind to tell me / interpret what I see when I look. If mind pops in with its usual (unhelpful) advice / insight, then we engage in a new understanding. Remember, mind is not our enemy. It wants to please. Just a matter of giving mind something to do that makes it feel useful. Like a spouse .... LOL LOL

So here is a list of things that I don't do or require:

* no meditation etc. Just right here at my desk, eyes wide open.
* no ritual. No candles, no oracles, no incense, no bells, no altars.
* no interruptions. No radio, no telephone, no music: no peaceful sounds like waterfalls or wind chimes or any number of "awareness" recordings including Hemisync or related technologies.

In short, just [me]. When I am working with a client, the session is by voice in a Web application that is not Skype. I use a VOIP application that permits me to record the session for my client. There is no visual contact. I don't open the field with my client until I am specifically granted permission to look at their field. When the session is complete the field is closed.

How does this differ? Excellent question and not sure I can completely answer this. While I am aware of the fields of others, I do not interfere in their fields. Very clear about this. When I open the field with a client, I am looking much more deeply than with any old passer-by. I look in great detail. And I close the connection when the work is complete.

When my work calls for me to accompany an individual through their physical departure from their embodiment, it's only me. The last one I conducted took place on two continents. Physical proximity / contact is irrelevant, as is time.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 25th, 2017 at 11:09am by Morrighan »  

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over — Fudd's First Law of Opposition.
It goes in — it must come out. — Teslacles Deviant to Fudd's First Law
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Vicky
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 2155
Colorado
Gender: female
Re: Open discussion ... defining / refining what works
Reply #4 - Sep 8th, 2017 at 3:56pm
 
Hi Morrighan,

Sorry it's been several days since I've chimed in but I'm here now finally. 

I had such a HUGE success with one of your photo experiments, that's what I'm calling them, experiments, since I never know what's going to happen.  I believe it was #7 that was my huge success.  I'm not wanting to brag, LOL, and not wanting to post my results because it might spoil it for anyone else who comes along to try these at some point.  I'm also pleased it gave me a lot of research to work with for my personal psychic development.

But...I've been doing each of the photos you post and the last few haven't been hits at all.  And yes I know that it's possible that my "info" I get is real but just not stuff I can verify, however my intention is to pick up what can be verified.  Like I said, with #7 it was just incredible.  So I know "it" works, whatever it is. 

I'm like you, I don't rely on anything hokey or mystical conditions, I don't have any rituals or whatever.  Actually what works best is what you'd call beginner's luck.  I actually pick up more information psychically when I'm not even trying nor intending to!  And I think that's an important thing to note.  There's really something to that.  Because it's when I try that I get blocked and hung up. 

What I think is going on when "not trying" works better is more akin to why stage fright happens.  You try too hard to be prepared and you have expectations!  But if you don't have all that in your way and you're just being spontaneous, you do much better.  So now my new approach, instead of preparing and getting myself psyched up, is just going to be very spontaneous and literally the opposite of being prepared.  I'm not even going to get out my sketch book and pencil because even that is a form of preparation. 

And the other thing I'm going to change is how my intention is worded and what I mean by it.  I can't just rely on spontaneous good luck.  I want to actually get at the core of what is making it work when it does work.  And I think it all has to do with intention.  Not necessarily what we logically intend, but what it feels like before we're even logically thinking about it.  I'm talking about the state of being of what intention feels like.  Yes, just like what Bruce is teaching with the Silly Little Finger Bending Exercise.  In my own round-about way that is what it really comes down to for me, that feeling of intention.  No amount of logic, thought, and prep work is going to make much difference if you don't have the ability to spark and feel the intention.  Intention is like magic.  So, I personally need to spend more time focusing on noticing the feeling of intention. 

And I'm going to do that as much as possible throughout my day.  It's not enough to just try to do it for your photo experiments.  I need to be in the mindset of noticing the feeling of intention in anything and everything that I do.  I'm gonna play with that.  Like, pay attention to what I'm noticing and feeling as I intend and actually do something vs paying attention to what I'm noticing and feeling as I think about doing something but not actually doing it. 

I like to make experiments out of any normal thing.  So here's an example.  For a few days I've been wanting to paint my fingernails, but I just haven't gotten around to it.  I have been intending to do it but just haven't felt like doing it.  Every now and then I've looked at my nails thinking, "Yeah, I really need to paint my nails."  But I get busy doing something and it's just inconvenient because you know, when you paint your nails then you have to sit still long enough for them to dry and I have a hard time doing that, ha ha.  I just haven't really had the desire. 

But today I finally just sat down and did my nails.  But what I noticed was that it wasn't because I forced myself or because I planned it.  It was because the thought came again "I really need to paint my nails" and this time what came with it too was an actual desire to do it.  Finally. 

Does anybody else ever pay attention to how our desire to do something affects our intention?  I mean, you'd think desire and intention go hand in hand but they don't always work together.  I have lots of intentions that I actually carry out without having the desire to do it.  The same is true for having a desire to do something with no real intention for it.  I'm trying to think of an example....Ok, for instance earlier today I was desiring playing chess with my son.  The desire just kept popping up in me, but I have no intention of doing it and carrying it out today, mostly because I have other things I really need to get done.  And my son has stuff to do too.  I bet if I asked him, though, he'd say yes.  But again, I've noticed that just because I have a desire it doesn't mean I am actually intending.  That's probably because the other things I need to get done hold more of a desire, a stronger desire. 

I think what does tend to happen with desires that don't get carried out, is that if they are strong or if they persist, what it does is it creates intention.  It's like it'll become more and more desirable until the feeling of intention is there and makes you actually do something about it.

Back to top
 

Author of Persephone's Journey (Amazon.com)
www.kuwanareikihealing.com
http://www.vickyshort.blogspot.com/
WWW 198267046870499  
IP Logged
 
Morrighan
Super Member
*****
Offline


Multidimensional Navigator

Posts: 505
Isle of Everywhere
Gender: female
Re: Open discussion ... defining / refining what works
Reply #5 - Sep 10th, 2017 at 2:09pm
 
Thank you, Vicky, for this exquisitely timed continuation of this thread.

First, yes, that our "break" in weekly targets is not coincidental. No more than your need to defer painting your nails until the time is right to paint your nails. (And I need to paint mine to-day!)

What appears most important to articulate here is the need to abandon the idea we are speaking from a point of indiviuated personality. We are informing the field and the field is us. And in this we come closer to the realization we are multidimensional field beings being multidimensional fields.

This is new language to many here, for we are are in the habit of residing in language that is comfortable to us. In writing this I ping that part of you who does not need to understand every. single. word. The part of you who IS, and always has been and always will be.

From the standpoint of ourselves as limited beings - remember this is an experience we choose to have - the idea we are bound by .... permit me to rephrase this in reply, Vicky.

The idea we are limited is what drives us to look for repeatable results. We have success with this target and some part of us demands we do it again with equal success. And that's really not the way it works. That's the way it works in 3D. So yeah, it works that way and it doesn't.

In your direct link with creation nothing is real unless you say so.


This is how we inform the field. It pays to be attentive in how we inform the field. When we say: "I don't do [this] well/reliably"; I can never be as good as [famous person]" &c &c we inform creation with "not good enough".

And this is how we were taught - that we must always strive to be better; that [famous person] is the pinnacle of [whatever it is they did]" and every other iteration to ensure we are somehow imperfect/incomplete/flawed and on and on.

In doing these exercises, when we tell ourselves "I'm not good enough to do it right every time", we are informing creation.

Just like there are times when it is right to paint our nails, there are times when it is right to explore. Think: The Byrds. There is a season, turn turn turn

We know when the time is right. No need to consult the oracle, or our astrology chart, or great learned men.

We are multidimensional field beings being multidimensional fields.

Only you can give yourself permission to see this  Wink


Back to top
 

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over — Fudd's First Law of Opposition.
It goes in — it must come out. — Teslacles Deviant to Fudd's First Law
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Morrighan
Super Member
*****
Offline


Multidimensional Navigator

Posts: 505
Isle of Everywhere
Gender: female
Re: Open discussion ... defining / refining what works
Reply #6 - Sep 11th, 2017 at 5:43pm
 
A brief follow-up to my follow-up to Vicky's follow-up.

Stated every so slightly upthread:
In your direct link with creation nothing is real unless you say so.

Your response is clearly heard in my field, and in reply the exact same infos as in my previous post, re-languaged for your comfort.

Within the context of Bruce's travelogue of [some of] the "afterlife territories" we read of hollow heavens &c. And Bruce reports that when the individual is no longer resonant with the energetic that sustains the world [he/she] inhabits, out they go like green corn through the new maid.

When someone is in a [thief] "hell", that space releases its hold when [he/she] no longer holds the "thief" energetic, e.g. belief(s). If memory serves (been a long time since I read Bruce's books, but read them all with great interest), individuals who traverse and exit the belief system territories are, may we say: their services are in demand. No work shortage for them, hey? (Except it's another belief system - let's just skip that for now.)

Bruce reports his experiences within the language of the coalition of the personality matrix that is a "Bruce". And he languages the experiences within the extent of the experience of being a Bruce Moen. Just as I language what I see within the experience of being Morrighan.

We're saying the same thing, and none of this is news to you. (Except to your mind, clever that it is.)

My reply immediately preceding this annex is: you as a creator being create your personal reality. (Yes I hear the screams as you read this. Tough grid.)

When you (general you, or personal you, up to you) say: I am only able to nail a target once in a while, you inform creation that this is what you want. Be very careful when you say: I AM.

This is not about looking in the mirror like Jack Handy and telling yourself: "gosh darn it, I'm good enough." It comes from the core of your being. You can't get out of "thief hell" by saying: "whoops no more stealing for me," because there's a big difference between saying something and Being That. Still, words count, and we create as we language. We tell stories about ourselves as if we're really real LOL

You are not your story. You are only as much the story you tell yourself you are as you tell yourself you are.

Thank you for your indulgence.

Morrighan



Back to top
 

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over — Fudd's First Law of Opposition.
It goes in — it must come out. — Teslacles Deviant to Fudd's First Law
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Morrighan
Super Member
*****
Offline


Multidimensional Navigator

Posts: 505
Isle of Everywhere
Gender: female
Re: Open discussion ... defining / refining what works
Reply #7 - Sep 14th, 2017 at 11:13am
 
Indeed, we do what is ours to do.
Back to top
 

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over — Fudd's First Law of Opposition.
It goes in — it must come out. — Teslacles Deviant to Fudd's First Law
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Morrighan
Super Member
*****
Offline


Multidimensional Navigator

Posts: 505
Isle of Everywhere
Gender: female
Re: Open discussion ... defining / refining what works
Reply #8 - Oct 2nd, 2017 at 9:09am
 
As Vicky notes, anyone, embodied or otherwise, is accessible to a skilled seer. It's not magic. And it's not necessary to close your eyes to see.
Back to top
 

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over — Fudd's First Law of Opposition.
It goes in — it must come out. — Teslacles Deviant to Fudd's First Law
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Vicky
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 2155
Colorado
Gender: female
Re: Open discussion ... defining / refining what works
Reply #9 - Oct 2nd, 2017 at 7:16pm
 
I've written myself a little note that I now carry with me everywhere.  It reminds me to remember "scanning" is what I call it when I am consciously aware that I intend to use my nonphysical senses. 

And it could be for any purpose, doesn't necessarily have to do with afterlife or psychic stuff.  It could be something like, you walk into a giant department store looking for one item but you have no idea which direction it's in.  That's an example of when I would choose to "scan" the store, literally just standing there looking around and waiting til I get a feel for where exactly I need to go.  When it works, and it usually does, it saves me from walking all over the place or having to ask someone for help. 

So my little note is reminding me to do using this ability whenever, wherever.  It's great practice and it's something I already know I can do.  Might was well use it more and get better at it.
Back to top
 

Author of Persephone's Journey (Amazon.com)
www.kuwanareikihealing.com
http://www.vickyshort.blogspot.com/
WWW 198267046870499  
IP Logged
 
Vicky
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 2155
Colorado
Gender: female
Re: Open discussion ... defining / refining what works
Reply #10 - Oct 26th, 2017 at 3:22pm
 
I notice that works best for me is when I'm able to have a feeling sense of perception, meaning that I'd have a sensation of an experience and then describe what it feels like to me.  For instance, if I said, "I feel like I'm sitting behind the wheel of a car that's driving down a long, straight road."  When I perceive that way I can just describe literally what I'm sensing without trying to "be right". 

I always try to tune into picking up information by feeling the sensation of the experience.  I do sometimes get visual impressions or have words come to me, but the feeling sensation seems to be the strongest means of perception for me. 

What I'm trying to work on is figuring out a format or a way to tap into that particular sense.  Sometimes I just feel like I'm not getting anything at all, in which case I just set it aside and plan to go back to it another time.

I have a project I've set up to help me hone in on the process.  Every now and then I print random photos from the Internet, then take that stack (turned upside down so I can't see the pictures) and place each one into a separate mailer envelop.  I have over a hundred that I've collected.  They're easy to shuffle and mix up.  When I randomly choose one there's no way of knowing which photo it is even though I'm the one who printed them out and put in the envelopes, although on one of these large batches I actually had my daughter sit and stuff the envelopes for me.  So every now and then I print more to add to the stack of envelopes.

Then when I sit down to try to remote view one, I have a sketch pad and pencil ready to draw or write any impressions.  Then I open it to check for any hits.  Then I keep that photo in the sketch book so that my results are always there to look back on.  I either get zero hits at all, stretch hits, a mixture of some hits and no hits, or I get direct hits. 

The goal isn't to try to see the photo as a whole but to pick up on "information".  An examples of really good hits are one was a photo of a house with several windows, and the windows had one piece of wood going horizontal and one going vertical across the middle as a decorative look.  In my notes I had "windows" and "crosses inside".  That's all I picked up on but it was considered a direct hit because it can be taken literally.  I didn't have a sense or feeling of a house or anything else, only the "windows with crosses inside".  My meaning of "cross" wasn't a religious one, only that something crossed.  I think it would also be fair to consider it a hit had there been a religious kind of cross, or if it had been an "x" type of cross.  All of these are valid meanings for "cross", although I know that how my interpretation works is that if it was an X I probably would have written X's and not called them "crosses". 

But you can see my point that how we perceive is filtered by our way of understanding and interpreting things. 

One of my best remote viewing practices was when in my mind's eye I saw a squiggly line dividing two halves.  I knew that both sides were connected but were two separate things.  On the right side were a lot of tall things, long, pointy, skinny things sticking straight up into the air.  To me they looked like lines.  When I viewed the real photo, it was of a shoreline, with the ocean on the left side and the beach on the right.  On the beach were several small sailboats…their masts were what I saw.  There were no sails on them, which is why I saw the “lines”.  Even though everything about this was a direct hit, I still had no idea what it was I was viewing.  I didn't know about the water, the shore, the boats, none of that.  I was literally just perceiving these elements as pieces of information, not as a whole. 

Sometimes I do think I get a case of beginner's luck, but from all my practices I try to hone in on the process and details of what I notice about how I perceive.  Then of course try to replicate it, which takes just lots and lots of practice.
Back to top
 

Author of Persephone's Journey (Amazon.com)
www.kuwanareikihealing.com
http://www.vickyshort.blogspot.com/
WWW 198267046870499  
IP Logged
 
Morrighan
Super Member
*****
Offline


Multidimensional Navigator

Posts: 505
Isle of Everywhere
Gender: female
Re: Open discussion ... defining / refining what works
Reply #11 - Oct 27th, 2017 at 8:52pm
 
Great post, Vicky.

My general view is it helps a great deal if one has learned to meditate with eyes open.
Back to top
 

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over — Fudd's First Law of Opposition.
It goes in — it must come out. — Teslacles Deviant to Fudd's First Law
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Vicky
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 2155
Colorado
Gender: female
Re: Open discussion ... defining / refining what works
Reply #12 - Oct 27th, 2017 at 10:27pm
 
Morrighan wrote on Oct 27th, 2017 at 8:52pm:
Great post, Vicky.

My general view is it helps a great deal if one has learned to meditate with eyes open.


Thanks, and I agree and am starting to do that more and more so that I don't rely on needing my eyes closed. 

If you're into brainwave entrainment, try listening to a Theta metronome CD and keep your eyes open.  It's pretty wild!
Back to top
 

Author of Persephone's Journey (Amazon.com)
www.kuwanareikihealing.com
http://www.vickyshort.blogspot.com/
WWW 198267046870499  
IP Logged
 
Morrighan
Super Member
*****
Offline


Multidimensional Navigator

Posts: 505
Isle of Everywhere
Gender: female
Re: Open discussion ... defining / refining what works
Reply #13 - Oct 29th, 2017 at 3:48pm
 
One of the questions that often comes up as regards this sort of work is: what's it good for? You know, that and a nickel will buy a cup of coffee. Or that and a fiver will buy you a coffee at Starbucks ....

Matters not to me one bit of pocket lint how you (general you) do it, or if you (general you) believe it comes from here or there, or whatever theories and/or philosophies you (general you) ascribe to.

Is it useful in Real Life (TM)?

And this is an experience I had Saturday, and it dovetails with Bruce's reply regarding our right (or lack of rights) to end our lives. Because whatever you (general you) believe, we sometimes must make end-of-life decisions for our pets.

Spoke Saturday with a friend of mine who holds very tight relationships with dogs. She's always had a dog, and sometimes two. Her dog was nearing the end of her life.

"I asked her over and over, for the past two years, to tell me if she wanted to go," my friend says. "And I never got a response one way or another."

Around Thursday or Friday my friend said she found blood in her dog's stool. Her dog could no longer stand on her own. Very weak. Age, mostly. And my friend put her dog down on Saturday.

I found her that evening. She was crying. She and her dog were very, very close.

"Tell me what you see, Morrighan," she said.

And this is how it works for me: I answer straight away. No meditation, no consulting the spirit world, no rituals, no gazing, no smells and bells. I just look.

"Gratitude," I reply, never missing a beat. For that is precisely what I was present to.

The tears flowed and this was a great release for my friend.

"She [the dog] wants you to let her go," I added.

A great wave of grief was lifted from my friend at this point, and the healing was underway without a word more.

Just to be clear: I didn't go into this with any intention of healing my friend, "fixing" anything, blah blah woof woof.
Back to top
 

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over — Fudd's First Law of Opposition.
It goes in — it must come out. — Teslacles Deviant to Fudd's First Law
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Morrighan
Super Member
*****
Offline


Multidimensional Navigator

Posts: 505
Isle of Everywhere
Gender: female
Re: Open discussion ... defining / refining what works
Reply #14 - Oct 31st, 2017 at 8:11am
 
On getting "hits".

There exists a somewhat pervasive notion that only objectively verifiable information is valid when, let's call it "taking stock" of a "target". By objectively verifiable I mean a hypothetical situation like this:

We shift our awareness until we are in (depends on the language you care to use - focus number number, brain wave state this or that, level some number, any number of other descriptions). Now we are in the presence of our recently or not so recently departed, and ....

And what?

What is it I require to validate my experience? Do I need a name, a maternal grandmother's first name, place of birth, circumstance of death, the name of their first pet?

Parapsychologists and others have been playing this game for years. Decades. Centuries. And proved .... what?

Just what are you (general and specific you) attempting to verify? Mind is not your BFF here folks, IMO.

In my case - and this is 100 percent likely not to be in your case for we all perceive differently - the pertinent information I pick up is non-verbal.

Bruce talks about this as he learned to communicate with toning. TMI teaches the use of non-verbal cues.

Have you (general you) forgotten your pre-verbal state? Back when it looked to you like your parent appeared incredibly stupid? What do I need to do to get some food around here? and this is what we learn very early on.

Did you ever imagine the recently deceased might have other things to say that go beyond their personality in life?

Did you ever imagine you are able to go beyond your personality NOW?

Kiss
Back to top
 

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over — Fudd's First Law of Opposition.
It goes in — it must come out. — Teslacles Deviant to Fudd's First Law
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 6
Send Topic Print


This is a Peer Moderated Forum. You can report Posting Guideline violations.