Robert A. Monroe on his cryptic book inscriptions

This old conversation with Bob Monroe, recorded 11 years after he made his transition, is very appropriate for the day, which marks 20 years since he engaged in his ultimate and irreversible out-of-body on March 17, 1995. (Appropriate, too, since I am typing this at the Monroe Institute, before today’s session of the Professional Division.) I said at the time, in 100 years there won’t be an educated person on the face of the earth who doesn’t know his name.

Sunday April 2, 2006
F: 9:10 a.m. Bob – if you are available – why did you sign people’s books with formulas, and what do they mean, and how were people supposed to figure them out? Were they embedded rotes? Or what?

RAM: Hello, Frank. Took you long enough to figure out how to contact me, didn’t it?

F: [Big smile on my face.] Well, you were queued behind Mr. Lincoln and Carl Jung, after all.

RAM: Yes, I understand. [Said gravely, as if taking me seriously.] You should begin by understanding my position. People were giving me their power – you should certainly know what I’m talking about! [referring to my own attitude toward Bob while he was alive] – and thereby they were absolutely negating my achievement, you see. In fact you will see, and already are seeing. When you tell people “you can do this yourself” and they insist on asking you because you can do it better – you see?

F: Yes indeed. I become a crutch that weakens them instead of a help that strengthens them.

RAM: Exactly. So they present me with a book to sign. What shall I do? For some with whom I have a close personal relationship, I can write a personal message. But if it is someone who has just bought a book after doing a program, what should I do? If I sign “Best wishes, Bob Monroe,” they go away glad for my signature but perhaps a little disappointed not to have something to show others, something to make them feel special. But if I say “I’ll never forget the deep impact you have made on my life,” it’s ridiculous, you see. So how do I give an impersonal inscription that does not hurt their feelings or leave them feeling a little bit empty?

If I say “See you in 12,” or “see you in 21,” or “turn left at 15,” I accomplish two things. I give them something personal – it really is personal, for I follow guidance in choosing what to suggest – yet I do not inflate my importance or theirs. And, you see, the most important part, I encourage them to keep using what they just learned. “see you in 12” – well, they can’t do that if they don’t practice going to 12 every so often. Plus, it has mysterious overtones, as if something special is going on behind the scenes, and this is exactly true. It implies that they can be part of these goings on – and that is true too. So a simple inscription sometimes may help them along the way.

But for others, “see you in 12” or whatever has lost value, and it is “best wishes, Bob Monroe” all over again. So for them, formulas. Stockton said to the best of his knowledge no one ever figured out one of the formulas. He didn’t think to ask – how many people ever put any effort into it, for it was the effort I intended to foster.

F: If I copy one down from Catapult [the biography Bob is referring to, by journalist and author Bayard Stockton] can you tell me what it means?

RAM: Well, if we don’t try we’ll never know, will we?

F: Okay – picking at random, let’s try #4 (Page 305 in Catapult)

6N + L (R2 + 5) = STC
T + 2 p

Now, you were such a trickster, it wouldn’t surprise me a bit to learn that you made it up at random just to keep people moving.

RAM: Not quite right. More like I was talking to myself right in front of them knowing it would be years if ever before they heard me.

In the first place, he wrote the formula wrong. “STC” is the other side of the equation, the result, of course, not part of the numerator. So it is

6N + L (R2 + 5) = STC
T + 2 p

F: Well I guess that’s pretty obvious – once you point it out! So –

RAM: Standard Temporal Consciousness is the product. STC
It is the results of dividing the numerator by the denominator as in standard math.

6N – six levels of nature, plus
L = the level of consciousness represented by (R2 + 5) – or, your receptivity (ego times total self) plus five senses,
divided by
Time plus two times possibility.

In other words, your normal TSI consciousness is created by the interaction of your inner consciousness integration level plus your senses and sense data, as expressed in a given time, on two sides of the veil.

As mathematics it is meaningless, but I never meant it as math.

F: Six levels of nature?

RAM: Count ‘em. Mineral, vegetable, animal, human, elemental, energetic (like lightning, not the forces that created the lightning). By human I mean the TSI components of human, of course.

F: Well, that’s fascinating! Another?

RAM: Go ahead.

F: #3, p. 305

4L + N2 (S+3) = MVC
T + 6p

RAM: You went looking for equivalents from the other formula. Wrong way to look at it. It isn’t mathematics, and it isn’t meant to be consistent. Each message is a self-contained shorthand expressing what I was feeling at the moment. You might say “what I was receiving from the other side at the moment” but you’re seeing how inadequate and misleading that formulation is.

All right, MVC. Not Most Valuable Consciousness, though that isn’t a bad thought.

Multi-Valued Consciousness (MVC)
4L (4th-chakra love) plus
N2 (nature on both sides of the veil, working together), times
(S+3) or sensory data plus three extra inputs – intuition, other-life feed, and guidance,
divided by
T (the time you are living in), plus
6p or six times personality, or, the limiting factors on your psychic life: attention, emotion, responsibilities, dispersals, capacity, and interaction.

Again, I did not intend for these formulas to communicate on a conscious level to the person I wrote them to – I was talking to myself, as much as anything.

F: Thanks for all this. It gave me a workout. (If I don’t get anything, maybe I’m making this all up!) Very interesting. Good thing it can’t be verified, or I never would have gotten it!

RAM: You’ll find that this is just one more limiting belief. No reason you can’t get through that one any more than all the others.

F: No, I guess not. I’ll come bother you again when I get my energy gathered again. Meanwhile I’ll show this and we’ll see if we get feedback. Thanks – and good talking to you again after al this time.

RAM: Time? What is time? I don’t know that I understand that concept.

F: [Big smile] 10 a.m.

13 thoughts on “Robert A. Monroe on his cryptic book inscriptions

  1. Frank? Thanks.

    RAM certainly have had the humour as well as the universal consciousness.

    Once again to wish: “IF ONLY” to have lived a bit closer to The Monroe Institute—I would certainly have been there long ago.
    I have bought one of the meditation CD`s by The Monroe Institute, but it did not function on my CD-recorder, because it was something about a difference between the american CD`s and the European CD`s(???).
    WHAT the difference is do not know. But I have seen it mentioned from Amazon likewise—well,I DID bought it anyway(about 6 years back in time)—but it did not worked out sad to say.

    Do I need to buy an american CD-player? Or, is it not meant for me since of to be an European(at least this lifetime around)?

    B&B, Inger Lise.

  2. This must be Bob Monroe. He always had a way of writing that was unique…I recall his Inspec for his Higher Self and other Bob terms that were well his style, but not poetry. Loved that man and his dedication to our growth. However, while I heard him say many times, “you go and find out,” he often gave into our pleas and shared his journey. I believe he realized not all of us were going to devote our lives to this process like he did. Some may dip while others will read and listen. It is all good as I see it. Bob really is a hoot with his cryptic symbols. Glad you are in touch verbally. I get signs in my connections..dolphins may come around our area or feelings or NVC ..see that is Bob all over. Thanks again Frank. I don’t expect you to write poetry…or maybe I do.

  3. Really cool to read this, Frank. Had you posted this session on the blog before? If so, I missed it. I discovered Monroe’s books by “chance” a year after he had moved to other environs; utterly seminal for me, an important bridge which helped my younger self to expand and redefine the world.

    I do hope your prediction bears out…he was definitely a pioneer.

  4. Frank,
    This comment is kicked-off by my question yesterday, but really relates to the comments made by Bob Monroe in this session. I was wondering how to bring it up … ‘funny’ how we get those openings!?

    In reading your response yesterday I realized I’d phrased my question poorly; as I worked with it I ‘got’ the answer myself from guidance(?). As Rita and TGU say, ‘the better the question, the better (more available) the answer.’ Unfortunately, often we don’t know at first what/how to ask; the question/answer process helps arrive at better questions, yielding broader/deeper understanding.

    Bob found his way of keeping people from “giving [him] their power”, while responding to them the best way he could, and Rita and TGU constantly seem to work to walk that fine line. I suggest that we ‘question-ers’ work just as hard to use answers as pointers along the path, remembering that they are not gospel and certainly not ‘final.’

  5. Thanks for sharing this, Frank…the Monroe books have been influential to me, in my own “journeys”. I am glad he shared his own experiences so freely, w/ the caveat about “distortions in translation”, bringing back knowledge to TSI/ELS.

    I do like to read about the experiences of others, recognizing, as humans, we’re going to have our own individual “take” on such “travels”. As both Bob and “Seth” have pointed out, one can “travel” using the maps and travel guides written by others, but if we only followed these, we’d be mere “tourists”, rather than “explorers”, creating our own maps.


    1. And I would add, you can’t expect to know where you are and what you are doing if you are truly an explorer. By definition, at some point you’re going to wander off the map. That’s how maps get figured out.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.