I once met an Abramelin entity. I told him the story of the Flatlanders. I assumed that entities like him were just too multidimensional for us to understand or something, and I was explaining how this story had given us that concept.
He said that wasn’t so. And he showed me how finding him was actually a super thin, super specific layer of reality, or frequency. I could not possibly find it with my conscious intent because my intent was too clumsy — like trying to use your eyes to see molecules. Your eyes work fine, and molecules are visible, but that doesn’t mean that the tool is appropriate to the focus. My conscious intent included some degree of thinking I had a clue, just because I had a desire, and it skewed the search into looking for things I knew, I related to, that made even subconscious sense to me.
I had to set my intent to find him, but then LET GO, and let the parts of me much better at this kind of thing work out the exact address. Once I was there and it started coming into focus, then I could pick up control again, and use my intent to explore.
At the time it totally reminded me of those Magic-Eye (3D) pictures, as that was the same dynamic: I had to pick a focus and the intent, and then “let go” and let my brain work out the detail–not my eyes–and once the brain had worked it out and it started coming decently into focus for my eyes, then I could put my eyes back in charge again of the focus.
I was recently rereading Bewilderness (as I reformatted it for the modern world), and it reminded me of this guy and what he was trying to teach me, about “Will” being a root-layer of intent but separable from the rest of intent (specifically separable from ‘conscious trying’).
Showing me how I had many “layers” of intent, and didn’t have to use them all as one big club, but could separate layers of intent for more precise work–and for getting conscious intent out of the way in situations where it wasn’t equipped for the job, because it simply didn’t have the finesse or knowledge needed.
Like archeology. Sometimes you need a backhoe… but sometimes you just need a tiny little brush.
I had never before connected this to remote viewing until last night. In RV we have the same basic structure or challenge as finding something invisible:
1 – An arbitrarily created ‘target’ identity;
2 – A need to move our awareness to it, or it to us, or ‘find it within us’, or whatever the viewer’s personal model of how this works;
3 – A conscious intent that doesn’t know what that identity is (let alone where/how to find it).
Except unlike the Abramelin entity’s demonstration for me, and unlike the magic-eye pictures, in RV we don’t quite do it this way. We assume from the get-go that our conscious intent to describe ‘the’ target, whatever it might be, is what we need, and that’s the habit.
So for those sessions that turn out not to relate to the target, we say, “Apparently the intent wasn’t strong enough.” Or something.
This reminds me of a charismatic church I went to when I was young. No matter how sincere you were, if you were not speaking in tongues, then you had not given yourself to Jesus ENOUGH, you were holding back! If you weren’t holding back, you’d be babbling like the rest of them! And everybody accepted this because there was no known answer for why some people, some of the time, “spoke in tongues,” and some people didn’t very often, and/or didn’t always. You can bet a lot of people faked it lest it look like they were not truly devoted.
I never faked it. I said, “It’s just not happening for me Reverend.” Everybody looked at me in such sympathy. Such resistance to the love of Jesus! Poor young girl.
(It’s really a miracle I learned to appreciate the godform of Jesus despite religion.)
But remote viewing has about the same level of logic going for it on this topic: you didn’t connect with the appropriate target? You had a good session on the wrong thing? Your target “acquisition” was off? File 13. It happens to everyone. Everybody knows. Apparently your intent was not strong enough.
Is there some different means of focus that would change anything?