Source: Cephas/Wikimedia
I recently had the privilege of speaking at a Silva Method Graduate Meeting. It was an event that I had not anticipated participating in, as I have not been active within that community for quite some time. It was a lovely experience to be speaking to people of that particular mindset again, and in my own way, I was reminded of some key points regarding manifestation.
In particular, one person had 30 years' experience of using the Method and was very successful with regard to manifestation. Unsurprisingly, I was interested in his specific internal arrangement. It seems he only focussed on one particular technique - the mental screen. If you want to learn that particular technique, just buy the Silva Method book by Jose Silve and Philip Miele. It's in there. Most visualisation techniques are similar so I will not get into the details of the how. I was more interested in the nuances of application.
I discovered something particularly interesting - he has close to, if not 100% success, and it comes from just repeating the same process over and over again. This is almost a complete counter to my approach, which involves more open awareness and flexibility in application. I have my reasons for doing it the way I do, some of which are in parts of this blog, but that is not to say there is no merit to the other approach either. In his mind, he would simply hold the image of that which was to be manifested. Based on pacing his language patterns and metaprogram structures, I deduced a number of things of interest.
Firstly, he could hold the image remarkably steady. His personality was one that was steady to begin with. This is not to say that he was without fear, but rather that he sat naturally in his awareness within a place of relaxation, and thus power. I can only imagine that this power deepens when he actually meditates. And he meditates thrice a day, so it is quite possible that he is naturally in light meditation most of the time anyway. When he visualises sitting at that level of awareness, he can hold an image steady.
Secondly, he could project that image very well. You might think that this is essentially the same thing. I have come to suspect it is not. Jose Silva called his work Psychorientology, and every graduate will recognise the phrase "entering deeper, healthier levels of mind". This and many other nuances of the Silva Method suggest that different aspects of living function at different levels. It also means that you might, in fact, be holding a perfectly viable image in your mind, but because you are not connecting and projecting it into the relevant level of intelligence, it becomes less effective. Because this person had few or no mental blocks in the areas in which he exercised his abilities, the image communicated very well.
Some would accuse me of making a simple thing complicated. Indeed, the explanation of the process is probably more complicated than necessary. In practice, it is a matter of relaxing and connecting with intention to the level of existence and then trusting the subconscious to continue the work. Nonetheless, I find that three things need to be taken note of as a result of this: openness, steadiness and connection. This also interplays with the expectancy factor in the desire-belief-expectancy trio forming faith within the Silva Method system. Expectancy is more open than expectation, and that openness comes from having mentally connected to the level of intelligence/existence necessary and having already created the end result at the relevant level.
Finally, this gentleman differed from me greatly in one aspect. He was very specific in his visualisations. He would visualise, for example, the price he wished to sell his car for, and did indeed get it. He would put timelines on his projects. I have in the past pointed out the specificity also limits the extent of the manifestation. Nonetheless, in his context, one can see that using a model of steady projection, it would be of benefit to him to have greater objectivity. I am not quite convinced that these levels of specificity are ideal, but certainly it emphasises the importance of steadiness.
