by Maximilian Joachim Sandor, Ph.D.
Introduction by Dan Eden
A few months ago, ViewZone Magazine received requests for information on a phenomenon called "remote viewing" which has been, and likely still is, an area of great interest to the military and other covert intelligence gathering organizations. We interviewed and received letters from a number of people who were involved in this research. As a result of the information we gathered, it was clear that there was some validity to this ability to "see" things that were hundreds or, sometimes, thousands of miles away from the viewer.
While the military preferred to use words like "protocols," we were told that anyone could develop this ability with some instruction, and that this skill represented just one of many dormant abilities that reside in our brain and psyche.
The intelligence community has kept many of these "protocols" classified and unavailable to all but a handful of people. But these abilities are the birthright of every human and, thus, their teaching and development can never be kept secret.
The compiler of this series of lessons, Dr. Max Sandor, wishes to make it clear that he is not describing any classified protocols in these exclusive reports. In fact, he does not wish to use the term "protocol" and prefers to avoid the term "remote viewing," rather providing instructions on the development of "Straightline Remote Sensing."
Dr. Sandor is about to release an important guide that details these abilities— something he calls his "Little Purple Notebook On How To Escape This Universe," or "PNOHTETU." This whimsical title conceals some of the most prolific writing on a topic that will ultimately change our destiny.
For many years, only two photos existed showing this shy and modest man whom many call "Humble Max": A secret service photo made in Cambodia, and Gunter Zielke's historic "El Monte portrait." (Of course, there is also Diane Dornbusch's famous oil painting.) Now, with sheer luck, an off-duty paparazzi saw him riding into the mysterious Haines Canyon, known as the home of many strange creatures. Thus, this picture was taken on March 28th, in the Year of the Lord 1998, right after the revelation of Prep Trap Example 2.
Maximilian Joachim Sandor incarnated as a male bipedal mammal in Berlin, Germany, and was called Joachim Herbert Steingrubner until he, for some obscure reasons, decided to change his name. He holds an Engineers Diploma (E.E.) and a Ph.D. in Computer Science, and has studied such diverse topics as Mathematics, Indo-European Languages, Electrical Engineering, Life, Universe, and Everything. After roaming Europe for many years, he moved to California (in the fall of 1984) and worked there as a Computer Engineer and as a Consultant. He has worked exclusively for the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) since 1996.
Having had interested in the questions of life and death since early childhood, he came in contact with books of George Grimm in early 1977. Grimm's clear and concise presentation convinced him in a very short time that Gotamo Siddharto's teachings had a solid basis in reality, far from the many cultural distortions that make up the picture of today's prevailing "Buddhist" circles.
As early as Spring 1978, Max was thinking of writing a contemporary summary of Gotamo's ideas, still seen predominantly through the filter of Grimm's perception. It has taken twenty years— until the time seemed right— to finally start this project.
In the meantime, he has studied a variety of modern technologies of the mind, many of which are better not disclosed. Tired of pseudo-scientific attempts to forcefully bend Gotamo's teachings into the framework of contemporary "Science," as well as the romantic glorification and illogical myths around the "Buddha," he rarely engages in private or public conversations about the aspects of Gotamo's teachings.
It comes, therefore, as quite a surprise that he is now indeed compiling the "Little Purple Notebook On How To Escape From this Universe." Further details can also be found on his website at http://transmillennium.net/pnohteftu/
Who said that the way to spiritual freedom would be serious, dreadful, and boring stuff?
The joy of discovery surely lies at the root of any true progress!
And what could better describe this joy of discovery than snooping around in this Universe without the burden of having to drag around a human body?
The talk is about Remote Viewing-- a very intriguing subject which carries considerable emotional charge on all levels of human existence. As with all major paradigms, Remote Viewing could be taken just by itself as a theme for building a Bridge to the Beyond.
The Being, once it recognizes its existence in spheres of emanations that are different from, but yet connected to, the human experience, will naturally begin looking outward. The more its perceptions are spreading out and pervading the surrounding environment of the body it was previously chained to, the more the Being will establish its freedom from the world and its phenomena.
Thus, gradually, the Being frees itself by gaining a larger and yet increasingly more detailed picture of the world.
The term "viewing" could be interpreted as concentrating solely on the visual aspects of perceptions. It may come as a surprise but other perceptions are becoming very important, too, and the wording "Remote Sensing" may better capture the variety of astonishing perceptions that become available after resolving the hypnotic fixation onto one's current body.
Furthermore, there is an established school of Remote Viewing, Far Sight at http://www.farsight.org/ , which works by the principle of "funneled info packets" with the objective to gather intelligence data-- an approach which is not addressed in PNOHTEFTU at all since it is quite limited in terms of fostering the spiritual liberation of the Being. To avoid confusion with such indirect techniques to gain information, the set of processes introduced in PNOHTEFTU will officially be called "Straightline Remote Sensing" instead of "Remote Viewing."
Two dire warnings, though, before the fun begins:
Remote sensing was always regarded to be an ability that would be beyond the reach of the "average human." It is quite often a side effect of spiritual freedom and, as such, it can be easily confused with the latter. However, it is in no way an indication, or even a measure, of the achievement of individual, spiritual freedom.
On the contrary, having abilities that others don't have can quickly become a considerable trap for the Being. In particular, it can lead to an increasing identification with a Being's emanations on a "higher" level than the human body. Thus, the Being can wind up stalled half-way "home," and cease striving for liberation altogether.
This, probably, was the main reason why Gotamo Siddharto (now known as the "Buddha") sternly rejected the pursuit of any kind of supra-normal ability (Pali: "siddhi") as a goal in itself.
Secondly, and more from a down-to-Earth viewpoint, one's ability to see things far away or tucked away in concealed places is better kept a darn good secret.
Humans go through incredible efforts to hide things from others and from themselves. And nothing throws a human mind in a bigger loop than the uncertainty about whether someone else found out about such a hidden thing or not.
Therefore, if someone is being suspected to be able to gain knowledge of hidden things, he or she can be certain to become the distinct focus of the compounded wrath of fellow humans who feel threatened that some of their sacred secrets may become exposed, rightfully so or not.
Now, in the following there are some selected exercises to bring about or to increase the ability of remote sensing. The emphasis is put on breaking the fixation onto the current body and its organs. The actual outcome is of secondary importance in the context of PNOHTEFTU, the "Little Purple Notebook On How To Escape From This Universe."
Here is the first exercise, followed by its rationale:
"Imagine a mirror and see yourself-- in the mirror-- while you're doing whatever you're currently doing."
This can be done anywhere and at any time. The more places and the more different the circumstances, the better.
The angle and the distance of the imagined (!) mirror can be varied and played with at will. As a side note, it is generally not a good idea to stare in a real mirror for too long-- it is further interiorizing an already existing fixation.
This exercise, the "mirror trick," has too many benefits to list.
First and foremost, it leads to a diversion from the fixation onto one's "own" body. This alone is worth doing it.
Furthermore, it is giving an interesting and immediate feedback in daily life, fostering a variety of self-corrections in respect to personal appearance.
It also opens the path to "multiple viewpoints": holding several views of an event in one's mind at the same time. "Multiple viewpoint processing" is one of the most powerful tools that are out there.
Looking at a mirror "automatically" triggers the "observation mode" (Castaneda calls it the "stalking mode"). This means it prompts the person to "look" at what is there. This is in contrast to the predominant mode of operation amongst today's humans, which consists of "dreaming" and making-up what they think should be there instead of witnessing what's really there.
The mirror is a 2D visual reflection of a multi-dimensional environment, making it easier to digest the information as a visual experience.
Most people do not see "2 1/2 D" and even fewer see true "3D." The latter is sometimes called "holographic viewing," and exercises to bring about this truly spectacular experience will be described later.
Thus, reducing an event to an obvious two-dimensional picture filters out additional sensations and perceptions that could be overwhelming or distractive in the initial observation process.
Perhaps the most surprising result of engaging in remote viewing is the rediscovery of perceptions that, often, one wasn't aware that one had in the first place. Density, structure, weight, temperature, and emotional frequencies of materials are properties which suddenly, and unexpectedly, become rediscovered.
It's an amazing world out there, really!
In a nutshell, and quite ironically, the main obstacle to remote viewing is NOT the ability to look at a remote scenery, but the tendency of the human mind to construct a picture of what it is used to THINKING is out there WITHOUT even looking at it.
This tendency to "dub-in" a picture instead of perceiving an ongoing event as it unfolds needs to be resolved.
The above exercise goes a long way toward gaining certainty of accurate observation through immediate confirmation and corrective feedback. It is still bound to the immediate environment. But how can one accurately observe an event in a distance if the scenery at hand is not grasped?
The benefits of remote sensing abilities rely on, and transfer directly into, present time. In a sense, every "viewing" is remote to begin with and "remote viewing" is just changing some of the parameters of the general setup.
The next installment of the "Exercises in Straightline Remote Sensing" will cause one's vision to shift, probably, to the most unlikely place one could imagine...
In the meantime, have fun with "mirror trick"-- and be ready to be surprised!
by Maximilian Joachim Sandor, Ph.D.
Exercise in Straightline Remote Sensing - Second Installment
If the mirror in the exercise of the first installment is being moved to another location, a picture may pop up for the viewer, for example a vase.
What if there is no vase at the location where the mirror was pointing? What if there was a horse standing at that exact location? It seems that the result of the viewing must have been wrong! Right?
False! Whatever the viewer sees, the viewer is seeing!
If the viewer sees something different from what other people are seeing, then there are several possibilities to explain this circumstance:
a) The "other" people were grossly incorrect in their observation, or were intentionally trying to invalidate the viewer's perception;
b) A "true" viewpoint of an existing object has been seen which was hidden from the other observers (cp. "The Blind Men and The Elephants" parable in PNOHTEFTU);
c) The viewer saw the object(s) at the exact location, but it was in the past or in a future;
d) The viewer saw the object(s) at the exact (concurrent) time and location, but in a Parallel Universe;
- e) The viewer saw the object(s) at the exact (concurrent) time and location, but the viewer selected a different domain of perception (explained in the next installment);
Any combination of above possibilities is thinkable, and does occur in real life. One should also consider the following points, which are all accepted by "traditional" mainstream science:
Each and every spectator changes the events currently unfolding, willingly or unwillingly, by just simply observing them.
This was first expressed by Heisenberg's observation, yielding his famous "Uncertainty Principle." Most recently, CalTech's scientists supposedly changed the characteristics of a laser beam over a distance, without any time delay involved. This feat, if real, is attributed
to the "entanglement phenomenon," a "spooky action at a distance" (Albert Einstein).
If 10 people witness a car accident, there will be 10 DIFFERENT reports of what happened. Adding a remote viewer to the same will give an eleventh report.
- A tornado starts with a seemingly insignificant micro-event. The new science of Chaos Theory shows, in an astounding manner, how creations unfold from the nervous jitter of a single electron. The effect that may result from even a short and space-limited observation of a single person can have dramatic impact on the events to follow. In short, it "does" make a difference who else (other than the remote viewer) is looking at an event.
All this may even occur if the observation of the viewer was totally correct to begin with (which is close to impossible as it will be shown in the next installment of "Remote Sensing").
This means that the first order of business should be to gain the confidence of accepting one's perception as what they are: one's own perception.
Invalidation of one's perception is a severe aggression of one's own integrity. Since invalidations have happened to a person innumerable times in the past, it is a good idea to build up a certain level of confidence before even beginning with remote viewing exercises.
In any case, it is vital to figure out what may have happened when a new invalidation occurred.
In addition to all this above, the viewer's observation may have been distorted if:
f) the viewer saw a picture in his/her own memory from the past;
g) the viewer made up a picture instead of observing what's there (mockup)
i) the viewer saw a picture that SOMEONE ELSE, at the same or a different time/space location, was seeing;
j) the viewer perceived the memory of someone else;
l) the viewer perceived the mockup of someone else;
k) all of the above happened in a Parallel Universe;
- m) all of the above happened at a different domain of perception (see next installment).
After confidence in one's own perception has been restored to an acceptable level, the factors f thru m must be minimized.
While remote viewing, itself, is of little interest for individual liberation, per se, all of the above has very much to do with it.
It seems obvious that one should be able to look through and be untouched by invalidations of any kind. And it also seems essential that one becomes able to "see things as they are," or, since this is ultimately not possible, to at least come closer to a clear perception of unfolding events.
Gotamo (the "Buddha") promoted the ancient techniques of observations of things "as they are" as the most basic tool for reaching spiritual liberation. "Looking through" (Pali: vi-passana) is a practice that is finding, very fortunately, a much wider audience these days.
Most remote viewing experiments will attempt to investigate a pseudo-static event, such as the existence and modalities (color, form, etc) of a vase in a room. These are pseudo-static events that are error-prone because "reality" does not contain static events-- everything is in a constant flux.
At the time of remote viewing, a person is in a heightened state of awareness. In such a state, a person is dramatically more inclined to view things in a way that is closer to "reality," but which is hidden to the "common" mind. The latter is, more often than not, filtering existing perceptions to such a degree that abstractions occur which may have nothing to do with the actual observations of the person.
In the "Little Purple Notebook" (PNOHTEFTU), all exercises emphasize viewing dynamic happenings in a continuous, rather than literally jumping to conclusions.
For example, if the viewer sees a curved line, the perception should follow the line in a continuous, uninterrupted way. Let's say the line comes back to where the viewer started.
Instead of abstracting "this is a circle," the viewer is encouraged to take the sequence of perceptions as they happened, and to begin with exploring new avenues, based on the fixed point of the curved line.
The successful learning of a new skill happens through repetitive comparison of one's action with the emerging results.
Therefore, instead of jumping into the stars, it is necessary to train one's skills of remote viewing in an environment in which instant feedback and gratification is possible.
For this reason, the second exercise will still be carried out in the vicinity of one's current body.
"See what is in front of you by using parts of the body other than your eyes. Beginning at the head, select body parts in an increasing distance from your eyes until you can see through each of your toes (there should be ten of those)."
As a sidenote, it has been scientifically shown that the nervous system of the body can "reroute" and reinterpret any kind of signal. For example, there are devices that vibrate on the skin at any location of the body, and the person can learn to "hear" without using the ears. Likewise, there has been a crude but working experiment in which an array of mechanical stimulators on the back of a human body can produce the "vision" of a signal that controls the stimulators. (Both phenomena seem to work only for persons who have learned to see or hear earlier in life.) In short, "rerouting" nervous signals is an established phenomenon, and originally independent of "remote viewing" as such.
This exercise has a surprising side effect. It will flush out the so-called "prana channels" of the body. As a side effect of this side effect, it can prompt an opening and flushing of the so-called "chakras," the main energy nodes within a human body.
In short, its application is beneficial in itself, independently of enhancing remote viewing skills. Its main purpose here is to loosen the fixation on the eyes as a "via" for visual perceptions.
The next installment will address the different spheres or domains of perception itself, and will start an adventure of exploration into a probably unexpected part of this Universe.
Until then, happy remote viewing!
by Maximilian Joachim Sandor, Ph.D.
Exercise in Straightline Remote Sensing - Third Installment
Entering The Abyss
Beings, having lost their memories of their origin and yet, paradoxically, yearning for their return at the same time, will attach to anything that will help them to create the illusion of a "home."
They will avoid, ignore, deny, and reject anything that has the potential to trigger even a subtle reminder that their current, perpetually created illusion of "home" is nothing but a self-made prison, a web of silly lies, a house of cards that will fall apart at the slightest tug at its shaky foundations.
In this remote part of the Milky Way, many Beings find their artificial home in bipedal mammals with a rather short life span of rarely more than a hundred Earth years. Equipped with two frontal lenses and two lateral resonance chambers, the organism of the mammal provides enough visual and auditory cues to allow for a crude spatial orientation in its immediate local environment. Even though the limits and restrictions of perception, via humanoid bodies, offer the safe boundaries of a placebo home, the unnatural small focus of the mammal becomes somewhat irritating for many and they start looking around for ways to transcend these limitations.
Being profoundly scared of looking too closely at the exact mechanism of perceptions, because that could remind them of their loss of their original "home", they rather marginally extend the abilities of their mammal bodies by mechanical, optical, and, recently, with electronic tricks.
For example, if one of these Beings looks through the two eyes of the mammal it happens to hold onto frantically, it may conclude that "it is" at the foothill of a mountain. To look out from the top of the mountain, all the Being would have to do is to look out from the top of the mountain.
But, NOOOO!, the Being is so hypnotized by the mammal's vision instruments that it is thoroughly convinced it cannot have another perception concurrent to the ones from the mammal.
It would not want to let go of the mammal, either, in order to have a look from the top of the mountain, because this would, of course, break its illusion of its current identity. Even worse, another Being could snatch up the body in the short moment the Being would not be glued to it. What a dreadful thought!!!
The obvious (!!???) solution is this: move the body of the mammal to the top of the mountain and then look through its two eyes over the landscape. Never mind that this is a real drag, literally, especially since the body has to be moved back into its own proper "home" down in the valley to join the herds of the other mammals.
More recently, the idea is to build systems of mirrors, lenses, and automatic picture copying devices to redirect a visual copy of the original view from the top of the mountain directly to the front of the mammal's body where it can then safely stare at a cheap 2D copy.
Now, enough of this. What happens if a Being gets all its courage together, says to itself, "to hell with this all," and starts LOOKING without the eyes of the mammal?
The vision of a mammal is a reflection of a tiny sliver of the information that is out there and that could be perceived. It is like a radio dial that is stuck in one position, which forces the Being to listen to just one station only. With an ingenious trick of its mind, the Being convinces itself that this position on the radio dial is the only one that receives any station and, to justify its mad decision, the Being will fight any other opinion to any possible extent. If necessary, the Being may even direct its own mammal to crush the head of another mammal.
Now, if the Being is turning on the radio dial of its perceptions, it may happen that the new information is so overwhelming that it quickly abandons it and finds comfort in the stuck, but familiar, position of the dial again. The different "radio stations" are an analogy to the different "domains of perceptions." They are not just different sources of similar information, like the tunes from the "Classic Rock" radio station are minimally different from the "Rock from the 60's" station - no, they are farther apart than opera and Oprah.
What's worse, there is an annoying gap in between the stations or domains of perception. Before the perception of another domain can be received, this terrible gap must be passed through on the dial. This circumstance was apparently known for a long time in human history. The Latin word for this gap was "Chaos," derived from the Classic Greek word "chainein"("to yawn, gape").
In a semantic twist that makes one wonder about the development of human abilities in the last millennia, chaos now stands for "confusion" and "disorder." However, originally it just referred to the emptiness of the gap in between domains of life and, consequently, the domains of perception.
Now, a lot of smart people make a sport of it. They watch the "emptiness," "nothingness," "voidness" just for the fun of it. Some go even further and proclaim that this is the "true nature" of Beings, a frightening joke, that is. For lack of self-confidence they certainly don't admit that this is their own mental creation and they pronounce it to be the miraculous revelation of a super-human such as a "Buddha," in total disregard of Gotamo Siddharto's own lengthy refutation of this very claim in his own times.
It seems certain, though, that the "chaos" or "abyss" between the radio stations of the Universe must be crossed somehow.
In addition to the frightening perspective of "nothingness," there is another phenomenon that comes, actually, very close to today's concept of chaos: if the dial moves out from the void into the range of a "station," the signal is very distorted just prior to the correct tuning of the selected domain. There now, is truly disorder, random movements, lack of stable reference points, confusion.
The Being is not likely to get paralyzed by disordered states as it shunts them like the devil. The domain borders are therefore less of a problem than the potentially hypnotic effect of the "nothingness," the "chaos" in its original sense.
Let us dive into the abyss then, plunge into the chaos to cross to the other domains, let's swim through the abyss.
But which one first?
The natural tendency of Beings is to expand their perceptions and their sphere of influence. After their fall, they have tried for so long and so hard that they are now thoroughly convinced that they can't reach for the stars.
It is much easier to go the other way, however, and this is the Third Exercises in Straightline Remote Sensing.
"See your own body (the bi-pedal mammal) grow larger and larger, from room-size to the size of a sky scraper, the size of Earth, the size of the Milky Way."
At a certain point in this exercise, a floating sensation may arise with pieces drifting by left and right, not dissimilar to the opening screen of a Star Trek episode. This is called "entering the abyss."
If the shrinking of one's own size is maintained long enough, one can re-surface "on the other side": emptiness becomes the all-everything. If the shrinking rate is reduced, the possibility of zooming or tuning into another domain arises.
From the foregoing, it becomes clear that the approach to achieve Remote Viewing or "Sensing" as described here is quite different from other techniques that go under the same heading. For example, the techniques of the Far Sight Institute (www.farsight.org) use another domain of nature, the collection of Phi entities as it is sometimes called, to tunnel through to another location of the same reality that the "viewer" is located in. In other words, the "viewer" doesn't view-- directly-- but rather relies on the information packages that are messengered through another domain by Beings from another domain.
To eliminate a confusion between the two approaches, the techniques described here are being called Straightline Remote Sensing rather than just Remote Viewing.
In the course of engaging into viewing of either approach, the viewer will encounter phenomena of both. For example, the diver into the abyss will meet the helpful helper of the Phi domain sooner or later. And the domain tunnel expert may find himself hitting a different domain or a concurrent perception inadvertently.
Equipped with the experiences from the first exercises, we will be able to engage in retrieving perceptions from concurrent and remote event spaces within our currently selected domain, the amazing world of the bipedal mammals known as humans.
This will then be the fourth installment of the Exercises in Straightline Remote Sensing.
Until then, happy remote viewing!
by Maximilian Joachim Sandor, Ph.D.
Exercise in Straightline Remote Sensing – Fourth Installment
Abilities depend on a combination of numerous individual skills.
For example, it is not enough to know the traffic rules in order to be able to drive a car. Neither is a knowledge of the technology of automobiles sufficient to safely operate a vehicle. The motor skills to engage the brakes, the gas pedal, and turning the wheel of the car— all those must be developed, and the driver should have additional abilities such as a minimal eyesight, etc. as well.
Again, it is the combination of the various skills that makes driving a car feasible.
Likewise, in "Remote Sensing" there are different skills that must be developed. All of them are nurturing a higher awareness of Life, the Universe, and Everything— making them valuable far beyond the goal of roaming the landscape at will, without moving a body from place to place.
The first three parts of this series introduced exercises like branching into multiple, distant viewpoints using the mirror paradigm as a tool, using different body parts as sensory receptacles, and zooming into the microcosmos.
Each is a vital skills in its own right. Together they open the door to Straightline Remote Sensing.
In Remote Sensing, the experience of the exploration is paramount to any gathering of information (like "Intelligence" in the military sense). The experience, itself, is the reward, and any abstract information is nothing more than a byproduct of the process.
There is a significant difference between the immediate experience (sometimes called "extensional" knowledge) and the abstraction of extensional knowledge that results in a classification of an object.
To give an example, in Viewzone's '"Remote Viewing Challenge" the results of the October trial (see archives) were described as:
"We had several hundred submissions but only two people managed to get "gold and tall, but lying on side…" and "gold or bronze with a round part and a part that sticks up…" Several described the object as "metal, hard and cold to the touch" and "smooth on the outside but unfinished inside…"
From an extensional viewpoint, the results described were "true to the facts" except that it remains unknown if the participants sensed the object at Viewzone's office or another, similar object at a different site.
The usual expectation in a "Remote Viewing Challenge" may be to "guess" the abstracted significance of an object, in this case a brass bell. But the evaluation of the available information through remote viewing to yield a concrete, abstracted object is another, further step beyond the actual "viewing."
Later on, Viewzone's commentator noted that:
"… A vast majority of people guessed that it was, in order of frequency, an odd shaped rock, a coffee cup, an apple, and a small figurine with flowers."
The list of guesses above are abstractions. From an "Intelligence" viewpoint, such results, if they were correct, would be valuable. From a "Remote Sensing" viewpoint they are less meaningful than the extensional descriptions of the object as mentioned in the prior paragraph.
The object in question was in a box. This means that there was no light available. Within a "genuine" Remote Viewing setup, objects must be "lighted" in some way to give a visual expression if a "true" extensional image is to be obtained.
To make the difference between "truly experienced remote perception" and abstracted and evaluated "intelligence" information even more clear, here is another example:
A "Straightline Remote Sensing" session may yield a set of set of subjectively experienced perceptions, such as a big, cylinder-shaped object. A Far Sight session, using mediated information packages, may come up with an item such as "a bomb." It should be clear that "a bomb" is an abstraction based on an evaluation. An engineer who analyzes the report of a Straightline session may come to the same conclusion (that the object would be "a bomb," for example), but this would happen AFTER the session.
Any kind of abstraction processes belong to the class of "creative" processes. They will trigger the creation of thoughts (mockups) which, in turn, will significantly disturb an extensional observation.
Strictly seen, if a sensory image of any kind is not yielded, the name "Remote Viewing" is not correct. If only the abstraction of the object is obtained, it may therefore be better to talk about "Remote Information Gathering" instead.
The most difficult step in Straightline Remote Sensing is the connection with an initial distinct remote target. This, interestingly, appears to be the easiest part in the Far Sight protocol. It would be favorable if both techniques could be combined.
In any case, the greatest obstacle for both are "mockups"— thoughts created by the viewer during the process or the protocol.
The "average" human is mocking up pictures compulsively to such a degree that these pictures continue into the sleep phase of the person, at which time they are being labeled "dreams."
Turning off the compulsive creation of pictures is, therefore, a considerable feat which, when successful, translates directly into "spiritual freedom."
Once engaging in remote sensing, a person may be shocked how difficult it seems to distinguish properly between "reality" and internal thought constructs.
What now is the difference between internal thought constructs and reality, if there is any? One model that provides a functional description of the "reality" problem is the model of the "co-created Universe."
Beings maintain their own world in their thoughts, and, to the degree that the worlds of different Beings are overlapping, an objective "reality" comes into existence. To decide whether a "reality" is truly an accepted, hence "objective" reality, the viewer, using this model as a guideline, would have to ask a certain number of other observers whether they perceive something similar or not.
In praxis, this is not easy to do. But, fortunately, there is another clue to the "reality" problem:
- Since "reality" is formed through the congruence of concurrent observers, the emerging events cannot show discontinuities.
A more thorough explanation of this result of the "co-creation" model exceeds the scope of this chapter. In a nutshell, just as it unlikely that a bee hive is jumping from one place to another, the co-created Universe cannot change properties without showing inertia. This means, there are no jumps or gaps in neither the time, nor the space in which "reality" happens.
For practical purposes, once a connection with a remote sensing target has been established, any sudden shift of perception is likely to be caused by the viewer's thought processes. Or, from a different angle, every perception that persists in time or changes only slowly, is likely to be a perception of an "objective reality."
Let's put this to work by exploring a remote object such as a simple brick.
Sit in front of garden-variety brick or a similar object. Imagine a mirror that reflects your own body and the brick. Now, blur your vision (or turn it off if you can) and shrink your awareness to the size of a fly or another creature of similar size. From your body, move SLOWLY in a continuos, direct line towards the brick, and land on its surface. With blurred or no vision, explore the surface of the brick carefully, mentally keeping track of the routes taken and coming back to the landing point every once a while. In the end, move from the landing point, straight to your body, and expand again to your "natural" size of awareness.
It is helpful to turn off auditory and visual perceptions in the beginning since they are the most likely source of dubbed-in signals from one's own mind, and are thus distorting the observation of what's out there.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter how far the investigated object really is. It is easier to start with something nearby and compare the remote sensing results with "normal" perceptions.
The mirror in the exercise serves as a stable reference point through time and space. Besides helping in the orientation, it also diverts the attention from internal mental processes.
Of utmost importance is the ability to move without jumps, and to locate fix points in a remote environment.
Any sudden movements, or the loss of orientation, will cause the analytical mind to add its unsolicited opinion, and will thus de facto abort the entire remote sensing session.
The first explorations, as exciting as they may be, are yielding just vague impressions of the properties of the investigated object or environment.
To arrive at more concise and meaningful results, the ability to assess basic dimensional relationships of space and time has to be restored first.
This is the topic of the next Exercise in Straightline Remote Sensing, and, as with the other exercises, this exercise, too, is leading to some surprising revelations.
'Til then. Sense you in a week!
by Maximilian Joachim Sandor, Ph.D.
Exercise in Straightline Remote Sensing - Between Time and Space
Remote sensing requires astute observations, an ability that few people exhibit in daily life.
Any remote sensing training, therefore, enhances the ability to perform increasingly "objective" observations in "normal" operations as well.
Most people assume they see in a "three-dimensional" fashion (3D-viewing) and are easily insulted when it is suggested that may see, really, in two dimensions only (2D)-- and that they may not be aware of their own abstractions that lead to 2 1/2 D using perspectives.
The very few who can actually see in 3D do not use it at all times and they often refer to it as "holographic" viewing. It is a completely different way of "seeing space" or "feeling structures."
Straightline Remote Sensing can turn on "holographic viewing" suddenly and unexpectedly, throwing the viewer off their target.
To be prepared for this possibility, and because of the of the fun and enlightenment that holographic viewing offers, the following exercise are presented here:
(For additional information regarding the author, please see his web site).
First, realize the "normal" way of viewing by standing out in nature in a location that has a distinct background like a hill or mountain. In between the viewer and the background should be a tree or another slim but tall object. Now, shift your head parallel to the tree/background lineup without turning your eyes. The shape of the tree should move as a distinct, separate picture over the background of the mountain.
This exercise brings about the awareness of 2D viewing and can already turn on 3D viewing in some instances.
Look out at some large buildings, distant roads, or other object that extend away from your current viewpoint. Notice the exact angles that perspective viewing is forming. One should be aware of as many angles as possible at the same time. The picture may suddenly develop a depth without the viewer's intention. For the purposes of this exercise, the awareness of the angles in the picture should be maintained, however, regardless of other things turning on. This is 2 1/2 D awareness and it may also turn on holographic views.
The sole purpose of this exercise is to turn on holographic (3D) viewing. In the course of this exercise, the viewer may be exteriorizing from his or her body, sometimes with full perceptions. An exteriorized view with full perceptions obviously becomes the perfect "Remote Viewing" experience when the current viewpoint is shifted away from the body of the viewer. This is yet a different way of Remote Sensing.
Take a small to medium sized box, such as a shoe carton or a wooden cigar box, and put it up at a yard or two away from the eyes. One should be able to clearly see down to the bottom of the box. Now, try to see ONLY the two edges of the box that are the furthest apart. In a sense, this is an exercise in "multiple viewpoints": the viewer concentrates on two different objects concurrently.
As soon as holographic viewing turns on, the viewer usually abandons the multiple viewpoint of the two edges. After a while, the holographic view will disappear, too. The purpose of the exercise is to KNOW the feeling of holographic viewing and how to turn it on at will at any time in the future.
The size of the box is convenient for startup purposes only. The top edges of the room one is currently in can be used, too, of course. Anything that provides an "empty space" in between borders does the trick. The actual sensation of 3D viewing cannot be easily described, and I won't even try. Seeing is believing!
Now, this is all nice and exciting, but why would 3D viewing throw off a Remote Viewer?
In Holographic Viewing, domains of perceptions can overlap. One could literally see Beings without a current body (traditionally called "ghosts") on the background of the "real" landscape that is to be investigated. And it can become difficult to separate the domains of perceptions altogether.
It was mentioned that explorations during Remote Viewings session can turn on the 3D viewing mode.
Here is an example how this could happen:
Viewzone's recent Remote Viewing Challenge put a card from a common card playing deck into a box.
How would a Straightline Viewer approach this object?
Let us assume, the viewer connects with the target, perhaps with the initial help through Far Sight's strategy of using coordinates.
The "straight" viewer needs some light, even if it is residual light, especially since there are artificial colors involved (the paint on the card).
Optimally, there are two or more known objects placed directly next to the card. These objects should be an unlikely combination, such as an apple and a dead AA battery next to each other. For verification reasons, and to exclude a prank from another reader, an unknown object of similar size and of a simple shape could be put next to the card, the apple, and the battery.
Let's say the viewer "lands" on the lower right side of the card (we're not yet zooming out to have a larger perspective because this requires mastery of a small focus!). The viewer can sense the edge and work around the card, establishing an anchor point at every turn.
To establish the proper dimensions and spatial geometry, the resulting anchor points must be compared. But this can result in exactly the same constellation as we have encountered in the exercise #5c! If the viewer would turn on holographic viewing now, the focus would be lost and the viewer would be easily thrown out of the particular space/time configuration that was investigated.
The same is true for other domains and for larger scales. Looking at ONLY two stars at the same time (not at the space in between), will open a vision of Outer Space.
Back to Viewzone's Challenge:
Once the size of the card is known, the viewer can start sensing the surface of the card. If it is a 10 of Hearts, the viewer could recognize from the edges of the paint the shape of any one of the imprinted hearts, and then estimate the number of rows (without counting, which would be using the analytical mind!).
This may seem awfully complicated. The viewer seems to have to go back to square one, learning to see and recognize "things" just as a baby would do - only now in a different way.
The innocent reader may want to find a way to "see" things in a distance in exactly the same way he or she is now used to.
But this reader will at the same time be hard-pressed to explain how he or she is seeing now! It is a profound truth that one usually sees only what one expects to see.
To discover the unexpected and to unveil new, uncharted territory, requires a start from scratch.
Now, before everything falls into place, the next chapters will need to address at least the following points: Navigation by Landmarks, Zooming In and Out Within a Domain of Perception, Propulsion by Resistance, and the "Principles of Incremental Exploration."
Stay tuned and enjoy!
(all this and more coming soon at Viewzone!)
Note to the attentive reader: the title of this chapter was "5- In Between Time And Space," but time wasn't mentioned at all! Question: "How would you apply the 'space opener' exercise in 5c to the concept of time?" (The author's answer will be in the next Viewzone).
by Maximilian Joachim Sandor, Ph.D.
Exercise in Straightline Remote Sensing - Between Time and Space II
Holding multiple views of many different objects in one's mind during an extended period of practice of a process like the one described in Exercise #5a can result in a recognition of the linear time track as an illusion.
The resolution of this illusion has been called "time-breaking." This may not be the best possible name for this effect.
In any case, at the end of the last chapter we asked what would happen if Exercise #5a would be transferred into the time "dimension"?
(For additional information regarding the author, please see his web site).
Exercise 6a gives a possible setup:
Concentrate on two consecutive ticks of a noisy clock (ignoring what is happening in between the ticks), or...
Focus on the current breath (inhaling or exhaling) while, at the very same time, remembering one or more prior ones and, again, ignoring what happens in between.
The phenomenon that can take place is the contemplative vision of what is called the "boundless space." This is in a curious way similar to the end result of Exercise #5a, the so-called "time-breaking" effect, and we could call it therefore the "space-breaking" effect.
This is the first of the "higher visions" in Gotamo Siddharto's original teachings, now popularized in various forms as "Buddhism."
These visions are usually achieved over longer periods of exercises and combined with the cultivation of positive emotions and attitudes. Any shortcut bears the potential of 'moving too fast' for one's own sake. If individual, personal power is being increased without a raise in personal integrity, there is a danger of the person hurting itself or others. The person will usually stop itself before too much damage is done and some of the next exercises are helping work to ameliorate these problems.
It is often asserted that multiple viewpoint processes (including auditory processes like the Monroe HemiSync technology), are just stimulating on the physiological side of the brain in a way that brings about certain "mental illusions."
While this can happen, of course, the argument itself is limited to a rather narrow and mechanistical view of the world. Here is an analogy to demonstrate this view in a different context:
every time someone calls Joe,the phone rings.
- if the phone is being picked up when it is NOT ringing, nobody seems to be there to talk to.
Now Joe could get the following opinion if he wouldn't know already otherwise:
- the ringing of the phone is a summons for someone else to appear.
In short, Joe could see the ringing of the phone as the CAUSE for the communication in the first place and NOT as a side effect of an action within a larger context.
Or, in other words, if a certain part of the brain is being activated during a vision, it would be a rather limited view to postulate that it is 'only the brain' causing this vision to appear and to ignore that there may be a process going on which, as a side effect, makes some parts of the brain being more active.
For example, postulating effects of the "synchronization of the brain's hemispheres," a favorite buzzword since quite a while, doesn't explain in any way just how a synchronization would enhance the brain's function.
If the brain is seen as a giant, complex computer, any "synchronization" would WASTE resources and "brain power" in the same way that a dual-processor NT system would lose computing power if one of the chips would do exactly the same that the other is doing already.
Likewise, the perhaps most intriguing and powerful technique in applying the mechanisms of the brain, the amygdala clicking theory of T.D.Lingo presented to Viewzone readers in the #26 edition, can and should be broken out of the narrow context of "the brain is everything."
Then the amygdala can be seen as a crucial switch in the operation of a Being that uses the brain to perform tasks and to gain sensations and perceptions.
Lack of understanding and control of the body's central switchboard, the brain, can thus result in a trapped condition for the Being itself.
This view restores the larger context and makes the "amygdala switching technique" all the more powerful. Reestablishing a larger framework of reference is also the objective of the following:
Look at the body's physical proportions in relation to the room one is in. The body now appears to be "small" in comparison to other, larger object. Proceed with comparing its size to the house, city, state, country, planet, star, galaxy, Universe one is living in.
Another powerful process is to compare enumerations of identities:
See one's body as one body within the group that makes up one's family. Proceed with seeing it as one body within the group occupants of a house, city, state, country, planet, etc.
The view of #6d appears only as "humbling" from a body's perspective. For the Being, it restores a larger context for the evaluation of the 'game of life' and it can be tremendously empowering.
Let us now recap the tools at hand that were presented here for the purpose of Straightline Remote Sensing:
Developing skills using the exercises should enhance the abilities of:
zooming in and out spatial dimensions,
establishing time frames to look at,
viewing single identities within larger groups,
pursuing a continuos flow of action, avoiding "jumping around,"
facing the 'abyss' between the domains of life without getting hypnotized by it,
using vias of perception other than the head on one's body,
creating, utilizing, and holding multiple viewpoints,
- evaluating the type of one's current perception, breaking free from the invalidations of one's current perception by other parties.
All of these abilities are innate to the Being. It is more a question of restoring these basic abilities rather than to learn something radically "new." In a sense, there is nothing "new" in this Universe to begin with. Everything that can happen, has already happened. It is the process of "re-evaluation after re-experience" that makes life still interesting in many ways.
Self-invalidation is the killer - fear is a consequence of self-invalidation.
People will go through a lot of time and effort to learn a musical instrument or to perfect their skills in playing a certain game. The sharing of one's progressing skills is a rewarding challenge, and the validations of others are fueling an on-going strife for perfection.
When it comes to psychic and mental abilities, validation by others is rather limited but in-validation abounds.
In the course of lives, every person around has been invalidated heavily and since a very long time, resulting in a strong tendency to self-invalidate in every possible situation.
Undoing this tendency to self-invalidation without getting lost to hubris is the toughest challenge a person can face. It is this undoing of the chronic impulse of "doing oneself in" which is setting a Being free again.
by Maximilian Joachim Sandor, Ph.D.
What really is reality?
As pointed out earlier in this series, the main problem in "remote sensing" is not so much the ability to bring about sensations or pictures from another place, but rather the abundance of impressions that may flow in, making it difficult to differentiate between "facts and fiction."
The question arises: how do we know how to recognize reality in the first place?
It may come as a shock, but there has been no answer to this quite innocent, yet very basic question in the entire known history of mankind! Even worse: the more one is trying to nail down how to "really" recognize "reality," the more it eludes rational thinking.
Sure, there are plenty of definitions of "reality." One definition, the model of overlapping individual universes, was presented earlier in this series. Most definitions are quite limited, however, if one attempts to put them to practical use.
On top of this dilemma is another one: even if there would be "one and only one" reality, and even if this reality could be perceived by two different observers in an identical fashion-- the subjective comprehension, based on the subsequent process of abstraction of this "reality," would be different for each observer.
Abstractions are based on the socio-cultural environment that an observer is used to. A bushman who never saw a "chair" in his life can hardly make the abstraction "chair" when he sees one. Thus, the more closely one looks, it becomes progressively difficult to ascertain any common grounds for different observers.
Now, in "remote viewing" it is expected that two or more observers arrive at an identical (or extremely similar) "abstraction." This means that an outcome is expected that is already close to impossible to achieve when the observers are not remote. Perhaps it may be altogether more accurate to label "remote viewing" as "abstractions about distant events" instead.
All this means that no matter whether "reality" truly exists or not, and no matter how it ultimately manifests itself, it also appears to be impossible to determine with certainty whether an observation is truly based on an "objective reality" which is shared with others or if it solely exists in the mind of one (and only one!) beholder. If one would try to verify an observation with another observer, the observed "reality" might very well exist only for the two observers involved and not for anyone else.
The same is true for channeled and tunneled information sources: there is no guarantee that the information is "true" for anyone else other than the entity that provided the information and the recipient(s) of this information.
For the majority of humans these problematic questions have no relevance whatsoever. They are so firmly rooted in their immediate environment that they seem unable to conceive any thought that could possibly question their fixated set of mind. Thus they become slaves of mental constructs that they perceive as their "own" even though these constructs are mostly imprints from the prefabricated pseudo-world of the mass media.
The following, extremely powerful exercise goes a long way in gaining a better understanding of how one's own mind is perceiving "reality." It is derived from the technique of "instrument scanning" which is practiced by airplane pilots who fly "on instruments" (IFR) and it is the actual remote viewing procedure suggested here in the Straightline Remote Sensing series: ***
(For additional information regarding the author, please see his web site).
Exercise 7a (Remote Viewing):
0. Think of at least two remote places you want to look at.
1. Look around wherever your body happens to be in this very moment.
Do this quickly and stop immediately when you have any new or confirmed information about the place.
2. Now do the same with the first of the two remote places.
3. And then do it with the second one.
Go to Step #1 again and cycle through the viewing "scan."
For pilots flying on instruments this procedure is vital. It is the basic survival skill for flying in any weather condition that is not "severely clear."
Looking at only one instrument would result very quickly in a hypnotic effect and the pilot would lose control over the airplane within an amazingly short time.
In a sense this is exactly what happens to a Being which is fixated on a single body: it becomes paralyzed after a short time of looking at a single object (the human body), loses control shortly thereafter, and then tries to overcontrol even though it has already lost orientation and doesn't know where it is heading for.
The Being is then prone to hang on to the body just like a pilot often starts holding the yoke with cramped hands. Amongst pilots this is feared and known as the "death grip" or the "white knuckles." Unless resolved in time, the result will be a sure dive into disaster.
Actually, a straight dive is rare amongst humans and airplanes. More commonly, a "spin" will be entered. A spin is ironically the only "stable" condition for an airplane except when it is grounded: all forces are in an equilibrium. This is exactly why it is so difficult to recover from a spin.
While an airplane is spinning down to the ground in seconds or minutes, a Being may take many lifetimes. Time enough, one might think, to break the spin. But time is not that important in breaking the spin, except when it is getting really close to the ground already.
One must engage the "opposite rudder" with all force and hold it there until the spin comes to a stop. (And one should never forget to let go of the rudder when this happens-- otherwise another spin in the opposite direction would be initiated).
But back to the exercise... What makes the perceptions of immediate and remote environments different from each other? Some indicators have already been presented in this series, notably the paradox of the continuity of events that are, nevertheless, constantly changing. The human mind can change an illusion that is not being shared with other Beings. It can do so without warning and without any restrictions:
It can turn an elephant pink and a human face green without any temporal or spatial transition. And, at the same time, it can falsely insist that something never changed over time, even though this would clearly be impossible.
In "reality," things are changing at a certain rate; yet all objects that are part of an event will have a certain amount of inertia.
Indicators to look for during the "remote sensing scan" are therefore:
what is different in the picture compared to the previous scan(s)?
what remained the same in the pictures?
can submodalities (such as color, weight, speed, etc) be changed permanently in the picture? (This would be an indicator of a isolated mental construct).
- do the events take a course of its own and in a way that could not have been predicted? (This would be an indicator of a shared reality).
The checklist of indicators should be expanded by the reader according to his/her own preferences - nobody "works" exactly like anybody else.
This now concludes the mini-series Straightline Remote Sensing, written for the readers of ViewZone Magazine. More information on this subject can be found in the author's online book PNOHTEFTU - The Little Purple Notebook On How To Escape From This Universe at http://transmillennium.net/pnohteftu/. This site also contains a list of websites of contemporary thinkers and tinkerers who engaged in comparable quests.
Although far from being comprehensive or exhaustive, this mini-series nevertheless contains the outlines of the major elements and considerations regarding this subject. If there is one point that could summarize this outline, it would be the realization that "remote" sensing is just a special case of perception at large. It cannot be seen isolated from the already existing faculties of perceiving what is going on: in a strict sense - since there are no genuinely IMMEDIATE perceptions in the first place - EVERY sensing could be called REMOTE sensing.
The starting place for remote sensing is therefore necessarily the improvement of the perceptions of the environment in which the human body is currently placed. And, even more important: the perception of the perception process itself.
Once this perception process has been recognized as such, the concept of "remote" sensing becomes just a side condition-- namely the distance of one's own current body to an event that is to be observed.
Most importan of all: learning to perceive perception processes is the basic step to regain one's individual liberty from the self-made prison of mental constructs.
Now, when the barriers in the individual mind are starting to tumble down, something else happens, both wonderful and frightening-- and often unexpected: the barriers that appeared to separate us from all the other living beings that share this very place with us are breaking down at about the same rate at which our own internal limits are dissolving.
With the increasing ability of "Remote Sensing" comes thus a responsibility from which it seems impossible to escape:
- Without barriers of time and space, one is not only exposed to the curious, delightful, or fascinating aspects of events in distant places, but one also has to learn to share the fright, despair, loneliness, and sorrow of other Beings.
In a time where everybody glibly talks of global peace and the progress-- or even the survival-- of the human race, this question should therefore be raised and honestly answered:
"Can mankind as a whole become truly free as long as its proper members-- the individual human beings-- are not free, happy, and safe in their very own hearts and minds to begin with?"
It is the author's recognition that this world (and any possible world for this matter) can never be changed to a better place by means of guns, drugs, economics, or politics. Any true change has to start with freeing one's very own mind and heart first.
In the spirit of this thought, these notes about Straightline Remote Sensing have been written.
May All Beings Be Happy, Safe, And Free!
Maximilian J. Sandor, Ph.D.
Christmas Eve 1998,
Tujunga, California, on the planet Earth of the Solar System, somewhere in the outskirts of the galaxy known as the Milky Way.