************* The following message is relayed to you by [email protected] ************
Thank you very much for this. I now understand that I am more on the right track. I will continue to practice time breaking as the preceptics clean up, I will go up to level 4. Best Wishes. P.T.
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 3:59 PM, SPE <[email protected]> wrote: > My past scene perceptions are just as real as present time. Right down to > the slightest detail. But I will say this, I don't perceive things > spiritually the same way I do with my body. I only see the things I > consider important to see. If I think it's important to see you , I will see > you but I may not see the pen on your desk that is next to you. I may not > see what you look like since it's not important to know that but I may see ( > know ) what your intensions are , goals are or what your level of sincerity > is . If these are important to me. > > I don't see it like a body sees with it's eye balls. I know it. I know > things. To see is to know. To know is to see. > > I can read about a ship sinking back some time in the past and people > suffering but to get a good reality of the event I must go there ( > spiritually ) to the same place and time and know the feelings of others . > Feel the cold, the emotions , the desperations. It's very very real and just > as real as the events when it was happening. I can see ( know ) any detail > that I desire and not see things I don't want to see. ( know ) > > I do the same with my own past too . As I do , I vanish charge by ( > timebreaking ) the importance . I use the Postulate Failure Cycle Chart to > locate things ( material ) for time breaking. It's all about knowing, not > knowing , preventing or being prevented from knowing. Forcing or being > forced to know. It's not about what form of knowing, just knowing. > > The past is becoming more solid too. Not just real. The material I > timebreak is becoming more solid as I work my way back to the center of the > " onion " > > > > Sent from my iPad > > On Sep 18, 2011, at 12:06 PM, Philippe Trounev <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Slim, > Could you define real, this is the point where I get confused. People say > they are as real as they can be, how real can they be? Could you go into a > moment and reproduce it second by second with full preceptics and relive > it simultaneously with this moment, or is this memory real, which means > being able to recognize detail and experience it but not being fully > submerged into a full fledged time break. > Best Wishes. > P.T. > > On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Slim . < <[email protected]> > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Mine are as real as real can get or be. >> >> Its either real or its not. But its as real as the present is real. Not >> as solid but just as real. >> >> Sent from my Windows Phone From: Philippe Trounev >> Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 8:30 AM >> To: <[email protected]>[email protected] >> Subject: Re: [TROM1] Trom Digest, Vol 86, Issue 6 >> ************* >> The following message is relayed to you by <[email protected]> >> [email protected] >> ************ >> > >
_______________________________________________ Trom mailing list [email protected] http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
