Speaker 1: Okay, let's get into this. We've all sort of absorbed
this idea, haven't we? That sleep is just downtime. You know,
your brain switches off, recharges the batteries, maybe throws out
some weird dream fragments left over from the day.
Speaker 2: Right, it's the standard model, necessary rest, maybe some subconscious processing,
but fundamentally passive.
Speaker 1: But what if that entire picture is just wrong, not
just a little off, but fundamentally mistaken. What if the
time you spend asleep is actually the most dynamic, the
most communicative, even the most conscious part of your existence.
Speaker 2: It's a huge shift in perspective, and it really challenges
everything we think we know about self awareness. I mean,
think about it. Most people wake up, maybe remember a
snippet of a dream, but ninety nine percent of what
happened gone exactly.
Speaker 1: And the sources we're looking at today argue this isn't
a memory problem. It's not that you can't recall it.
It's a decoding problem. You experienced it. You receive the data,
but you haven't learned the language it was.
Speaker 3: Sent in a failure to interpret the mass.
Speaker 1: So our mission today in this deep dive is to
really explore some pretty radical material shared by one of
our listeners. We're looking at advanced ideas about sleep, about
dreams as a literal, structured language, and maybe most importantly,
this innate human ability to access information beyond our normal
senses of space and time. We're talking non local consciousness.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and these are definitely concepts that well, they've often
been kept very compartmentalized. We're going to unpack how some
really advanced thinkers view consciousness not just as a product
of the brain, but maybe as a fundamental field we're
all tapped into.
Speaker 1: And we'll get practical too. We'll look at specific techniques
people use to sharpen this ability, including something called the
box experiment, which you know, sounds simple but is apparently
quite effective for verification.
Speaker 3: And critically, we.
Speaker 2: Have to ask why why is this kind of knowledge,
if it's fundamental to us so often obscured, why is
it pushed to the fringes, you know, labeled mystical or unscientific.
There seems to be an intentional element there, according to
these sources.
Speaker 1: Okay, this is definitely a deep dive aimed at maybe
recalibrating how you understand your own capabilities. So let's jump
right in part one, the conscious reality of sleep and dreams.
Speaker 3: Let's do it.
Speaker 1: So the whole journey into understanding this non local stuff,
it seems to begin, maybe surprisingly not in some high
tech lab, but just when you go to sleep. I
was really struck by this claim in one of the
sources from Chris Langan, the guy often cited with the
super high.
Speaker 3: IQ the two hundred IQ claim.
Speaker 1: Yet right, and he apparently asserts that he remembers everything
when he sleeps. He doesn't talk about it like rest.
He talks about it like he's observing, actively watching.
Speaker 2: And that right there, that fundamentally flips the script on
what we think sleep is. If we take that claim seriously,
it suggests that for someone operating at a high level
of awareness, sleep isn't about shutting down. It's a dedicated
state for communication, for data transfer.
Speaker 1: Really, so it's not quite loose dreaming in the way
most people think about it, like trying to fly or
change the dream exactly.
Speaker 2: That's a key distinction the sources make. Langan and others
described aren't necessarily trying to control the dream narrative like
in typical lucid dreaming practices. It's more like conscious.
Speaker 1: Watching, conscious watching.
Speaker 2: Okay, Yeah, the goal is to be a purely passive,
receptive observer within the dream state, detached, just watch what unfolds.
Speaker 1: Well, why passive? Why not try to interact?
Speaker 2: Because the idea is the dream itself is the communication.
It's like a data packet being delivered. Interfering with it,
trying to change it might corrupt the message before you
even understand what it is.
Speaker 1: Ah, Okay, So the dream is trying to tell you something.
Speaker 2: That's the core premise. It's trying to communicate something vital,
maybe about something that's going to happen precognition, or something
that already happened that you need to understand differently retrospective insight,
or maybe even a situation happening right now but outside
your immediate physical awareness.
Speaker 1: So the skill is in paying meticulous attention during the dream.
Speaker 2: Exactly capturing the raw data, so to speak, so that
when you wake up you have something concrete to work
with to decode.
Speaker 1: Okay, but let's be honest, that level of conscious observation
during sleep feels pretty advanced. Not the everyday experience for
most of us, right.
Speaker 2: Definitely not the norm, No, but the sources point to
something that is incredibly common, almost universal, as proof that
this potential exists in everyone. And that's the experience of
the precognitive dream.
Speaker 1: Ah yeah, the dream that comes true precisely.
Speaker 2: This is the big flashing signpost. We tend to brush
these off, don't we. Oh, just a coincidence or deja vu,
or maybe I just thought about it so much it happened, But.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we rationalize it away.
Speaker 2: But the sheer number of people, across all cultures, all
times you've had these incredibly vivid dreams, crystal clear, full color,
emotionally charged, full of specific details, and then the exact
event or a very close match plays out the next
day or next week, or sometimes even years later. That
sheer volume demands better explanation than just chance.
Speaker 1: I think pretty much everyone listening can probably recall at
least one instance, maybe dreaming of a specific unexpected phone
call or seeing a place they'd never been before, and
then encountering it later.
Speaker 2: Exactly and that moment, that aha moment, or maybe that shivery,
uncanny feeling when you realize, wait, I've seen this before
in my dream. That feeling is powerful.
Speaker 1: It really is. It sticks with you.
Speaker 2: And the sources say that feeling is the clearest, most
undeniable signal you can get that you are more than
just your physical body locked in this present moment. Okay,
it's the first crack in that purely materialistic view of self.
It shows you're connected to something broader.
Speaker 1: It poses a real problem for the brain in a
VAT model of consciousness, doesn't it. If my brain is
purely physical, purely localized right here, right now, how does
it access information about a future event, like how does
my brain know what someone else is going to decide
to do tomorrow morning?
Speaker 2: It can't Within that model, logic just doesn't hold. If
you accept the reality of even one genuine precognitive dream,
you're forced to conclude that the consciousness experiencing that dream
isn't entirely bound by local space time. It has to
have access to information beyond the immediate physical input.
Speaker 1: So the connection is always there, but the dream state
just makes it easier to access.
Speaker 2: That seems to be the idea. The ego, the analytical mind,
the constant chatter. It quiets down during sleep, the filters
are lower, and this non local information, this signal from
the broader field, can actually get through more easily.
Speaker 1: Which brings us back to conscious watching. The job isn't
to get the signal it seems to come naturally, but
to receive it clearly without messing it up before you wake.
Speaker 2: Up, Precisely capture the data intact. The interpretation comes later,
which leads perfectly into our next part. Right, If dreams
are data packets, how.
Speaker 1: Do we read them exactly? Part two? Dreams as a
decodable language. If it's not just random brain noise, if
it's actual communication, then it must have structure, it must
operate like a language.
Speaker 2: That's the foundational concept we need to really internalize. We
have to discard the random byproduct theory. The source material
is adamant. Every single element in your dream, the people,
the places, the objects, the feelings, the colors, the actions,
every bit of it is a symbol. It's part of
a structured, meaningful language.
Speaker 1: So when you dream, it's like a specific intelligence is
literally speaking to you, but using symbols instead of say,
English words.
Speaker 3: That's a good way to put it.
Speaker 2: It's communicating a narrative, an idea, a warning, or an
insight using a symbolic vocabulary.
Speaker 1: Okay, let's use an example. Say I dream I don't
know of a huge maybe slightly menacing gorilla, and it's
smashing a particular antique table in my childhood living room.
That's not just a random, weird image.
Speaker 2: According to this framework, absolutely not random. The gorilla isn't
just a gorilla, it's a symbol. What could it represent?
Maybe overwhelming force, suppressed anger, a primal instinct, a challenging
situation that feels mon's or out of control. Okay, and
the antique table in your childhood living room that's also symbolic.
Maybe it represents family history, stability, a connection to the past,
something you value or feel protective of from that time.
And the smashing actions that's the verb in the sentence, right.
It shows the interaction this gorilla force is disrupting, destroying,
or fundamentally changing that table aspect of your life.
Speaker 1: For Psyche, huh, So the dream isn't literal, the grill
isn't actually going to show up, but it's using these
images very efficiently to convey a complex idea highly efficient.
Speaker 2: Think about how much information is packed into that single
image compared to trying to explain it rationally. The task
then shifts completely. It's not just about remembering the weird dream.
It's about rigorously interpreting the language it used, and that
takes work when you're awake.
Speaker 1: Right, And this is where a lot of people might
get skeptical, isn't it. Dream interpretation often feels so floaty, subjective,
like reading tea leads or using one of those generic
dream dictionaries. Is where snake always means betrayal or whatever.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and the sources really push back against that fuzzy approach.
They insist the interpretation requires rigorous logic. It's analytical, almost
like cryptography or code breaking. You have the encoded message
the dream, and you need to apply logic to decipher it.
Speaker 1: So how does that logic work in practice? With the
gorilla example, you started.
Speaker 2: Asking very specific questions connecting the symbols to your waking life. Okay,
what if my current life feels like an overwhelming, potentially
destructive force like that gorilla. Maybe it's a difficult boss,
a financial problem, and internal struggle. How does the feeling
I had in the dream fear, awe anger relate to
how I feel about that waking life situation?
Speaker 1: And the table?
Speaker 2: What aspect of my stability, my past, or my core
values represented by the table does this gorilla situation seem
to be threatening or changing. You're looking for the correlations.
How does symbol A relate to feeling, B relate to situation.
Speaker 1: C Wh's just free associating. You're systematically linking the dream
elements to concrete aspects of your reality, treating it like
clues in a puzzle.
Speaker 3: Exactly, it's synthesis.
Speaker 2: You take all the key symbols, the gorilla, the table,
the room, the action, your emotional response in the dream,
and you piece them together logically to arrive at a coherent,
reasonable interpretation of the message. What is this specific dream
trying to tell me about my life right now?
Speaker 1: You can't just focus on one element like the gorilla
and ignore the context.
Speaker 2: No, that would be like trying to understand a sentence
by looking at only one word. The whole picture provides
the meaning. And crucially, this decoding requires your active, conscious,
intellectual mind. That's why the sources stress this work has
to be done when you're awake. The sleeping mind delivers
the encrypted data. The waking mind needs to run the
decryption key.
Speaker 1: So if I just wake up, think huh weird dream
about a gorilla, and then I just you know, grab
coffee and start my day, I've missed the message entirely.
The communication happened, but I didn't pick up the phone.
Speaker 2: Essentially precisely, the system, the communication channel might be working perfectly,
but if the receiver, the decoder that's you, doesn't do
the work to understand the language, the message is lost.
And that, the sources suggest is why so many people
conclude dreams are meaningless, not because they are, but because
the effort required to decode them isn't applied.
Speaker 1: But if you do commit to it, if you start
treating dreams like this symbolic language and apply that logical analysis.
Speaker 2: Then apparently the clarity and usefulness of the interpretations become
pretty obvious pretty quickly. It becomes a productive dialogue with
a deeper part of your.
Speaker 3: Own consciousness providing guidance and insight.
Speaker 1: Okay, so decoding dreams is one major piece, but this
naturally leads to the really big the core claim here,
doesn't it about the fundamental nature of consciousness itself?
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 2: Once you start successfully decoding these messages, especially the precognitive ones,
it forces you to confront the implication you are not
entirely contained within your physical body body, locked in this
specific time and place This.
Speaker 1: Is where we get into non locality exactly.
Speaker 2: We move from analyzing the message format the dream language
to understanding the transmitter and receiver. The core idea presented
is that your consciousness, your essential self, is inherently connected
to essentially every point in space and every point in
time simultaneously.
Speaker 1: WHOA Okay, say that again. Connected to every point in
space and time. That's a lot to wrap your head around.
Speaker 2: It is a massive conceptual leap. It's not like a
theoretical connection like we're all stardust. The sources describe it
as an immediate operational presence. Your awareness isn't just here,
it's potentially everywhere and every when.
Speaker 1: If that's true, if I'm connected to all points in time,
then accessing the past makes sense like historical viewing, But
it also means accessing the future becomes possible. That's the
basis for remote viewing into the future.
Speaker 2: Isn't it. Precisely it reframes things like remote viewing and
precognition entirely. They stop being paranormal or psychic hours in
the spooky sense. Instead, they become logical, maybe even necessary.
Consequences of the fundamental nature of non local consciousness.
Speaker 1: So it's not magic, it's physics, or maybe metaphysics operating
by consistent rules.
Speaker 3: That seems to be the perspective.
Speaker 2: Your physical body and brain act like a localized terminal,
a receiver tuned to here and now, but the consciousness
itself is like an antenna embedded in this universal field,
capable of tuning into other coordinates in space time.
Speaker 1: Okay, this feels like a good point to bring in
that specific term from the source material raw progia. This
sounds important and maybe a bit obscure. What exactly is
raw proga supposed to be?
Speaker 3: Right? Raw progia?
Speaker 2: The sources define it as well, essentially the level, the field,
the substrate of reality where all things can be known past, present, future,
the information is potentially accessible there, like.
Speaker 1: The Akashak records concept.
Speaker 2: Maybe there are definitely parallels to concepts like the Acacak
records or Young's collective Unconscious. Perhaps, but verus is talking
about raur projects seem to frame it less as a
mystical library and more as a well, almost like a
fundamental information structure of reality itself, a verifiable and accessible
data layer.
Speaker 1: Verifiable and accessible okay, and it contains not just the past,
but the future potential that's key for precognition and future viewing.
Speaker 2: Exactly if you can access this field, this raw project,
the linear progression of time becomes less of a barrier.
The information about probable futures or even determine future points
exists there in some form, and.
Speaker 1: The sources claim that accessing this field is rare, or
the knowledge of how to do it is rare.
Speaker 2: Very rare, and highly compartmentalized. They state quite bluntly that
only a handful of people on Earth really know how
to consciously and reliably access and navigate this field. Particularly
they mentioned its use within certain classified intelligence projects.
Speaker 1: Why would intelligence agencies be interested?
Speaker 2: Think about the strategic advantage. If you can get reliable
information about future events or hidden current realities without deploying
spies or satellites, that's the ultimate intelligence coup, isn't it.
So keeping the methodology secret would be paramount.
Speaker 1: That makes a certain kind of cold logic sense. But
it raises a huge question if this ability, this connection
to our proga or the non local field, is truly innate.
If it's, as the sources claim, the default capability of
a higher intelligent life form, which presumably includes us. Why
isn't it common knowledge? Why do we need a deep
dive like this to even hear the term?
Speaker 2: Ah? And that brings us to what one source calls
the damnable lie, the big.
Speaker 1: Myth, the lie being, the lie being that.
Speaker 2: This ability is somehow special, esoteric mystical, that it requires
you to be a saint or a monk, meditating in
a cave for fifty years, or initiated into some secret society,
or possess some rare genetic gift.
Speaker 1: So the idea that it's hard or requires some kind
of spiritual purity is the lie.
Speaker 2: According to these sources, Yes, that myth propagated, they suggest,
sometimes by organized religions, sometimes by spiritual leaders wanting followers,
and even sometimes by parts of the scientific community uncomfortable
with non material phenomena serves as a massive barrier. It
tells people this isn't for you, You're not special enough, don't
even try.
Speaker 1: It creates self limiting beliefs on a mass scale.
Speaker 2: Exactly, it's the ultimate tool for preventing people from accessing
their own inherent power. If you believe it's impossible or
requires superhuman effort, you'll never take the first simple practical steps.
The biggest immedia barrier isn't the technique itself. It's the
internal programming. It's that monkey on our shoulders, as one
source puts.
Speaker 1: It, the monkey mind, the inner critic.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that voice constantly whispering, You're just physical.
Speaker 3: You're stuck here.
Speaker 2: This non local stuff is fantasy. Don't be ridiculous. That
self programming guarantees failure before.
Speaker 3: You even begin.
Speaker 1: So the first real step isn't technique. It's reprogramming that belief.
Speaker 2: It's hitting the internal reset button. It's moving from intellectually
entertaining the idea of non locality to achieving a state
of absolutely knowing that this is your fundamental nature. You
are a non local conscious being temporarily focused through a
physical body. Once that belief shifts from maybe to yes,
the sources say, the focus can turn entirely to mastering
the practical techniques because the primary psychological barrier has been dismantled.
Speaker 3: You stop fighting yourself.
Speaker 1: Okay, So assume we've hit reset. We accept, at least
hypothetically that this capability is innate. What are the actual practical,
repeatable steps. How do we sharpen this ability? This is
Part four techniques for sharpening innate ability.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: The how to the absolute foundation, stressed repeatedly, is mastering
the quiet state. You cannot access these subtle signals if
your mind is full of noise and chatter. So step
one is achieving a deep quiet state of focused meditation.
Speaker 1: What does deep quiet state actually mean in practice? Is
it just about having no thoughts, because that seems impossible
for most people.
Speaker 2: It's not necessarily about no thoughts, especially at first. It's
more about detaching from them, fighting the analytical mind, the
part that's constantly judging, planning, worrying. The sources suggest common
techniques focusing on your breath long slow inhales and exhales,
or using a simple mantra, a meaningless sound repeated silently
to gently occupy the thinking mind.
Speaker 1: So giving the analytical mind a simple job so it
stays out of the way.
Speaker 2: Kind of Yeah. The key is persistent, gentle effort. You're
not fighting your thoughts, you're just letting them drift by
without engaging, always returning your focus to the breath or
the mantra. And critically, the advice is when you're starting out,
forget about trying to remote view anything. Just focus on
the process itself. Get really good at experiencing your mind
in this quiet, aware, non analytical state. You're building the
muscle of inner stillness first.
Speaker 1: Okay, makes sense, build the foundation. So let's say you've practiced,
you can achieve this state of relative quietness. How do
you then aim it? How do you target.
Speaker 2: Something once you're in that deep quiet space. The instruction
is very specific and quite rigid. Do not guess, do
not imagine, do not intellectualize or try.
Speaker 3: To figure it out.
Speaker 1: Okay, so what do you do?
Speaker 2: You gently sort of rest your awareness on the target.
Maybe it's a question you need an answer to. Maybe
it's the location of a hidden object. Maybe it's just
an abstract concept and you simply ask to know, silently internally,
with intention, asked to know what.
Speaker 1: It is and the answer. How does it arrive?
Speaker 2: Not as a reason conclusion. The sources say it typically
arrives as raw data. It might be a fleeting visual snapshot,
a single word popping into your mind, a sound, a
distinct physical sensation or emotion.
Speaker 1: Often very simple, very basic, not a full explanation, just
a data.
Speaker 2: Point exactly, a fragment of direct knowing.
Speaker 1: Okay, this sounds interesting but also hard to verify, which
brings us to the practical exercise mentioned, the box experiment.
This sounds like something people can actually try.
Speaker 2: Yes, this is crucial for building belief and calibrating your perception.
It provides that objective feedback loop that the analytical mind craves.
You need ideally three or four people, though you could
adapt it. Yeah, well, a dos or a basket, something opaque.
Speaker 1: Right, So walk us through.
Speaker 3: It's step one.
Speaker 2: Step one target prep. One person is the sender or controller.
They need to leave the room where the others can't
see or hear them. They choose a simple common object
like say a key, a coin, small toy, a piece
of fruit, and place it inside the box. They must
not tell anyone what it is, and it's best if
it's fairly neutral, not something everyone expects.
Speaker 1: Okay, object hidden.
Speaker 2: Then step two quiet state the other people the viewers
sit down and individually go into their deep quiet state
of meditation. Really settle into that non analytical awareness we
talked about. The controller then brings a box back into
the room and places it somewhere everyone can see it
but obviously can't see inside. Got it.
Speaker 1: Viewers are quiet boxes present. Step three.
Speaker 2: Step three viewing and recording. Now the viewers gently rest
their attention on the box, no straining, no guessing, just
that asking to know what's inside. And critically, they must
immediately write down or sketch any impression that comes any word, color, shape, texture, smell, sound, feeling.
Speaker 3: Raw data only.
Speaker 2: Raw data meaning meaning, if you get an impression of
round and red, you write round red. You don't write apple.
If you have metallic, you're at metallic, not key. You
have to record the perception before your intellect jumps in
and interprets.
Speaker 1: It okay, that seems vital, keep it wrong, and the
final step.
Speaker 2: Step four verification only after everyone has recorded their impressions.
The box is opened. Now you compare did your raw
data points round red, smooth skin match the apple inside
or did you write key because you got metallic and
your brain filled in the blank. This immediate feedback is
how you start to learn the difference between genuine perception
and your mind's habit of guessing.
Speaker 1: And this leads directly to what you called the biggest pitfall, right,
the monkey mind trick.
Speaker 2: Confabulation, absolutely the biggest hurdle. This is where most attempts
to reil especially early on. What happens is this. Let's
say a viewer does accurately psue EVE a raw data point,
they get cold and hard. Instantly, the analytical mind, which
hates ambiguity and uncertainty, kicks into high gear.
Speaker 1: It wants an answer now exactly.
Speaker 2: It rapidly searches its memory banks for things that are
cold and hard, a rock, ice, metal, maybe it's a
glass paper weight. And suddenly the viewer isn't reporting the
raw data cold hard anymore. They're reporting their inference paperweight.
Speaker 1: Even if the object is just a smooth stone. The
mind leaped ahead, added complexity and context that wasn't actually perceived.
It confabulated an answer based on a tiny piece of
real data.
Speaker 3: Precisely.
Speaker 2: It's overlaying stored memory and logical deduction onto the faint
incoming signal. And the trick is, it feels like you
figured it out, but you actually stopped perceiving and started
analyzing and guessing.
Speaker 1: So how on earth do you learn to tell the
difference between the faint true signal and the mind's noisy guessing.
Speaker 2: Practice, practice, practice, and ruthless honesty. During that verification step,
you're to meticulously analyze how the information arrived. The sources
suggest that true non local perception often has a distinct feel.
It tends to be quiet, simple, often instantaneous or surprising,
and usually focuses on a single core aspect, like just
the color or just the texture.
Speaker 1: And it feels different emotionally or physically.
Speaker 2: Many practitioners report that yeah, it might feel like it
lands gently, maybe in your gut or your heart area.
There's often a sense of calm, certainty, even if the
information itself is.
Speaker 1: Unexpected, and the confabulation the guess that often feels different too,
might feel more mental, more in your head.
Speaker 2: It could be faster, maybe a bit anxious. Because the
mind is trying to solve a puzzle, it often comes
loaded with complex assumptions and narratives. The moment you catch
yourself thinking, well, if it's round and red, it must
be an apple, and maybe it has a leaf, you've
likely shifted from perceiving to intellectualizing.
Speaker 1: So learning that internal distinction, that feeling of true signal
versus mental noise, is the real skill to develop through
exercis like the box.
Speaker 2: Experiment, that's the core of the training. Calibrating your internal
awareness to recognize the signal through the static.
Speaker 1: Okay, so active meditation and practice like the box experiment
are key, But the source is also mentioned leveraging our
natural states, particularly around sleep, something called the junction.
Speaker 2: Yes, the transition states between waking and sleeping are seen
as incredibly potent for this kind of access because the
conscious minds filters the ego, the analytical overlay are naturally lowered.
So what's the technique there, Well, first setting an intention
before sleep, not just aiming to remember dreams, but actively
intending to be aware within the dream state lucid dreaming,
with the specific goal of using that state to seek information,
travel mentally, or solve problems. You're priming the subconscious.
Speaker 1: But the really key moment isn't necessarily deep sleep, is it.
It's the transition out.
Speaker 2: Of sleep exactly. That's what the source is called the junction.
That period usually in the morning, when you're first surfacing
from sleep, you're not fully awake yet, maybe still drowsy,
deeply relaxed, maybe feeling like you can't quite move easily,
but your mind is becoming clear and you feel rested.
Speaker 1: The hypnopompic state, that floaty.
Speaker 2: Feeling precisely physiologically you're shifting brainwave states, maybe from delta
or theta up towards alpha and beta, and in that transition,
the normal hard boundary between the conscious and subconscious mind
seems to become much more permeable for a short time.
Speaker 1: So how do you capitalize on that fleeting window.
Speaker 2: The advice is, when you become aware in that state,
don't move, don't jump up or immediately start thinking about
the day. Stay relaxed and in that quiet, receptive state,
gently hold an intention, ask to know something specific, Visualize
a problem and ask for the solution. Request insight on
a decision.
Speaker 1: And because the usual mental filters are down.
Speaker 2: The information the answer, the insight can often just pop
in almost instantaneously, sometimes fully formed, surprisingly clear. It bypasses
the usual analytical process because the intellect and ego haven't
fully spun up yet to interfere.
Speaker 1: So keeping a notepad and pen by the bed is probably.
Speaker 2: Essential, absolutely essential, because that state is fleeting. As soon
as you fully engage the waking mind start planning your breakfast,
the window closes rapidly. You need to capture the insight
immediately before it evaporates it gets rationalized away. It's like
catching a very subtle broadcast signal that only comes through
clearly for a few moments at dawn.
Speaker 1: Okay, these techniques deep meditation, the box experiment, leveraging the junction.
They sound challenging but doable with practice, which brings us
to the big So what part five? Implications and application?
Why does this matter beyond just you know, knowing what's
in a box or having interesting dreams?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 2: Why is this knowledge considered so important? And why, as
the sources claim, would powerful groups want to keep it suppressed?
Speaker 1: The sources mentioned intelligence agencies again here.
Speaker 2: Yes, there are two main reasons suggested for the secrecy,
especially within deeper elements of intelligence communities. The first is
purely pragmatic. This, when developed, is extremely efficient spycraft, period more.
Speaker 1: Efficient than traditional methods.
Speaker 2: Potentially, yes, think about it. Why risk sending a human
agent into a hostile area or spending billions on satellite
surveillance If you have individuals who can reliably remote view
a location, describe troop movements, read documents on a desk
from afar, or even since the intention of a foreign leader.
It's low cost, low risk, high reward intelligence gathering, so
naturally you wouldn't want your adversaries developing the same capability.
Secrecy and compartmentalization become vital for maintaining that strategic edge.
Speaker 1: Okay, that's the tactical reason. But you mentioned a second,
perhaps more profound reasons, something about the public.
Speaker 2: Yes, and this is where it gets really big picture.
The sources suggest that if the general public, a significant
number of people truly understood and began to access their
own innate, non local consciousness, their connection to this field
of information, this rare project.
Speaker 1: What would happen?
Speaker 2: It would fund literally shift the power dynamic on the planet.
People would gain a level of agency, intuition, and self
determination that could, as the sources claim, allow humanity to
completely change the direction of the planet.
Speaker 1: How does individual intuition translate to global change? That sounds
like a big leap.
Speaker 2: Well, think about the systems currently based on control, on
managing information, on generating uncertainty or fear. Political systems often
rely on controlling the narrative, keeping populations reactive rather than proactive.
Financial markets often thrive on information asymmetry. Some know more
than others. Even some traditional religious structures rely on mediating
the connection to the divine or ultimate knowledge. Okay, now,
imagine if a large number of people could intuitively sense
deception from leaders, or get strong gut feelings about upcoming
economic shifts, allowing them to protect themselves independently, or could
directly access ethical guidance or problem solving insights from this
deeper conscious field without needing an external authority to interpret.
Speaker 3: It for them.
Speaker 1: Those systems of centralized control would lose their power, wouldn't
they if people didn't need them in the same way
because they had their own internal guidance system.
Speaker 2: Precisely, it leads towards a kind of democratic intelligence, a
distributed cognitive agency. The artificial scarcity of information and insights
starts to break down, and that prospect, the sources imply,
is deeply threatening to establish power structures that depend on
that scarcity. Hence another powerful motive for suppression or ridicule
of these innate abilities.
Speaker 1: Wow, Okay, that's a massive implication. But let's bring it
back down to earth a bit. While changing the planet
is a grand goal, how does developing this ability help
the average person listening right now in their everyday life.
Is it just for spies and potential world changers?
Speaker 3: Not at all.
Speaker 2: The sources emphasize that This isn't some exotic, separate skill.
It's really about developing your core intuition to a very
high degree. And that enhanced intuition is incredibly practical for normal,
everyday work in life decisions.
Speaker 1: Can you give some concrete examples?
Speaker 2: Sure, Think about relationships, both personal and professional. You're heading
into a difficult negotiation or conversation. If you take moment,
get quiet and sincerely ask to know the true underlying
state or need of the other person, not just what
they're saying, but what they're feeling or fearing underneath. The
insight you get can completely change your approach. You might
sense their insecurity instead of their anger, allowing you to
connect instead of conflict.
Speaker 1: So better empathy, better communication definitely.
Speaker 2: Or think about teaching. A teacher develops this intuitive sense.
They might just know why a particular student is struggling,
sensing an issue at home or a specific learning block
that standard tests wouldn't reveal. That intuition allows for much
more targeted and effective.
Speaker 1: Help practical problem solving.
Speaker 2: Yes, and the sources even mention life saving potential. Trusting
that strong gut feeling that tells you not to take
a certain route home one day or intuitively sensing that
a family member isn't well, prompting a checkup that catches
something serious early. It's about developing and crusually trusting, a
deeper layer of intelligence that guides you towards well being
and effective action. It makes your whole life flow more intuitively.
Speaker 1: So the goal is to integrate this into how you
live day to day.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, it's not about becoming a psychic. It's about becoming
a more fully functional, aware human being using all the
faculties available to you.
Speaker 1: Now, Inevitably, some listeners will still be skeptical, and healthy
skepticism is good, right, Yeah. How should someone who finds
this fascinating but hard to swallow approach this material.
Speaker 2: That's a fair question. The key, I think is to
remember what the sources imply. This requires developing two distinct
but complementary parts of yourself. There's the objective, rational, analytical intellect.
That's the part that needs evidence, that performs the logical
decoding of dream symbols, that rigorously analyzes the results of
the box experiment, that filters out the wishful thinking and
the confabulation. It's absolutely essential. We need the c mind,
we absolutely need it. But then there's the other part,
the consciousness itself, the part that can directly sense, feel,
and know things non locally, the part that receives the
raw data signal in the first place. That intuitive, receptive
faculty also needs to be developed, primarily through practices like
meditation that quiet the analytical mind.
Speaker 1: So it's not about choosing one over the other, intellect
versus intuition.
Speaker 2: No, it's about developing both and getting them to work
together harmoniously. The intuition receives the signal, the intellect helps verify,
interpret and apply it effectively. You need the synergy of
both to make real progress and avoid self deception.
Speaker 1: That's a really important clarification. Use the tools, but use
the critical thinking too.
Speaker 2: Okay, we've covered a lot of ground here.
Speaker 1: We certainly have. It's a radical perspective, it really is.
Speaker 2: We've gone from sleep being passive rest to potentially our
most conscious state. We've talked about dreams as a complex
symbolic language needing logical decoding. We've touched on non local
conscious business, this idea that we're connected across space and time,
potentially accessing a field like raw prasia, and we've outlined
concrete techniques the deep meditation the Box experiment for verification
and using that powerful sleepwake junction state.
Speaker 1: But the crucial takeaway I think emphasized in the material
is that this isn't about mastering a technique and then
putting it on a shelf. The path to really developing
this ability is about continuous integration. It's not just a practice.
It becomes a way of being.
Speaker 3: Oh so well.
Speaker 2: The challenge laid out is don't just meditate for twenty
minutes in the morning. Try to maintain a state of
mindful quiet observation throughout your day. Practice that internal stillness
whenever you have a spare moment. Apply the ass to
no principle to small everyday uncertainties. Use the Box experiment principles.
Constantly pay attention to your first impressions, note them and
see how they correlate with reality. Later, develop that deep
quiet meditation, perhaps two or three times a day, even
if briefly so.
Speaker 1: It's about making it a constant background process.
Speaker 2: Exactly, a continuous refinement of your awareness and intuition. The
sources suggest that if you commit to that consistent, integrated effort,
the quiet observation, the rigorous self honesty about what's perception
versus confabulation. You'll actually be stunned at how quickly you advance,
how much more guidance, clarity, and insight start to flow
naturally into your life.
Speaker 1: It implies the potential is right there, just waiting.
Speaker 3: That's the final provocative thought.
Speaker 2: Isn't it this knowledge, this access to our progia or
whatever we call the field? It isn't locked away in
some classified vault or only available to chosen ones. According
to these sources, it's inherent within you right now. The
main barrier is just learning to quiet the noise, trust
the signal, and do the decoding work. It's about shifting
from guessing and assuming to simply knowing.
Speaker 1: So the question for everyone listening is what secret knowledge,
what deeper insight about your life, your path, or the
world around you are you already capable of accessing? And
what's stopping you from starting that process of unlocking it?
Speaker 3: A powerful question to end on.
Speaker 1: Indeed, a huge thank you for sharing these fascinating sources
and joining us for this really mind bending deep dive.
As always, keep seeking, keep questioning, and keep exploring the
incredible potential that lies within