Coherence – your gateway to the Miraculous (animated video)

Do miracles happen around you?

Of course they do! The question is, are you in control of it?

I’d like to introduce you to something very special, Coherence - the Science of Mastery.

I’ve already written about Coherence in great detail here.  In short, coherence is a simple, scientific way to understand concepts like “enlightenment.” Thanks to breakthrough research here at Reference Point Therapy, incorporating the work by teachers like Soleria Green and Grant McFetridge, we now have a very simple, very safe way to unite your minds as one.

When your whole Being speaks with one voice, you powerfully create your reality.  There’s no easier way to get what you want.  Consider that most people say they want “X” with their head but their heart manifests “Y” and their body manifests “Z.”  It’s no wonder that people so often manifest their fears -it’s lack of coherence.

We have created a simple structured guide to help you access your own source of miracles. We have created the road map for your success.  We call it Coherence – the Science of Mastery.   It forms the basis of our new Level 3 course.

Getting you there today

OK, I’ve shown you the road map, the million dollar question is how do I get there?

The best way by far is for you to join us for the experience of a lifetime, our Level 3 course in LA, from June 27 to July 10. That will be the most profound experience of a lifetime – guaranteed. (Yes we have a guarantee – email us for information.)

Of course I realize that not everyone can to make it to the course, and I will continue to share information here on the blog. Please understand though that some of the information is very advanced and requires techniques taught only on the Level 2 course. I’ll be sharing the road map with you, not necessarily every single twist and turn (that’s for hands-on class exercises).

For those who are ready for profound shifts in your Beingness, in being a source of the miraculous, I look forward to seeing you in LA!



Comments / feedback

Did you like the animation? Was the audio OK? (We are having a few issues which are being fixed.) What other animations would you like?

Email Marketing by iContact

Jeff Cooper

<object width=”425″ height=”344″><param name=”movie” value=”″></param><param name=”allowFullScreen” value=”true”></param><param name=”allowscriptaccess” value=”always”></param><embed src=”” type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” allowscriptaccess=”always” allowfullscreen=”true” width=”425″ height=”344″></embed></object>
May 27, 2010 in Coherence
Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

23 Responses

  1. Loved the animation. The contrast between in coherent puddle and coherent puddle. Especially the zoom out 1 circle to 12. I get it now. Thankyou!!
    Audio was great for me.
    Question – So in any of 6 or 12 minds, may an individual have trauma? Have a vibrational discord to acknowledge? Or is it only aligning the 6 or 12 minds into 1?
    Cheers sus


    simonrose Reply:

    Sus, take this as a very high level reply. “Trauma” is, in a sense, what brings the minds out of coherence.

    Very loose because in RPT 2.0 we don’t actually work on trauma, we go beneath it to the tones. So really it’s more accurate to say core tones and associations cause SYMPTONS like (a) trauma, (b) negative beliefs and (c) lack of coherence.

    Important to know that because people are trying to achieve mastery by working on other layers of symptoms like belief work or trauma therapy.

    Here’s something else we DO NOT do: we don’t “align the 12 minds.” I know you didn’t mean it literaly, but I’m just being clear that it is not a doing. You absolutely cannot do it, you would only traumatise yourself. (Read the introduction page to Peak States volume 1 if in any doubt.)

    You have to come at it a totally different way. Read the day-by-day prospectus to the Level 3 course (on the Level 3 page) for more informatoin.



  2. Hi Simon. Great distinctions. Thx
    further questions
    1) level 3 day by day PDF from web page refers to ‘body mind’. Is this R-complex in the animation video?
    2) in this PDF says ‘reconnect the brain mind and…’, ‘unite body mind with sexual (perineum) mind…’ – what is the distinction between reconnect, unite and align. I want to be confident I have your subtle but likely important point.
    3) any significant reason why use tones rather than vibration. The feeling-sense of these words are different to me but don’t want to assume.

    Lastly, my suggestions for other ideas for animation
    1) beingness theme — beingness v connecting — and be great to address beingness and ‘out of body’ — and perhaps include beingness v allowing
    2) acknowledging why so powerful and bring in the subtle difference to the two different ‘knowing’ eg knowing as ‘i know that’ (intellectual) and ‘a knowing’ as in a deep sense, or maybe there is a third a knowing as the intuitive sense

    thx sus


    simonrose Reply:

    1) body mind = R-complex = “reptilian brain ” in older books (I dislike that term for probably obvious reasons)

    2) no distinction, flowery language, either to avoid repetition or make it sound interesting. I wasn’t expecting anyone to read it as closely as you did!

    3) yes – feelings (heart) are a type of vibration, thoughts and beleifs (head) are a type of vibration. trauma is a vibration. Tones is just my own label given to a sub-category of vibrations which seem to lock everything in place.

    thanks for the animation suggestions. I’m looking at this now. There wont be more animations for a few months at least as the whole team is focussing on the new website development. Exciting stuff.



  3. Hello Simon and Sus- I appreciate (and acknowledge) the value and “inspiration” of the above: I wonder if I could toss my thoughts, as I realize I might have mis-interpreted, as you reference above. Above you mention: A) “we don’t work on trauma, we go beneath it to work on tones”… and B) “core-tones & associations result in: symptoms, neg. beliefs, and lack of coherence.”

    In regards to A) Does that mean you are using the term Trauma to only relate to something mismatching/held at “heart” level? I was interpreting it to mean “trauma/ref pt of withdrawl” at any “mind” -thus different levels (via diff minds) for a trauma (withdrawl from parts of exper- current based on a reaction from that prior ref pt/sensitivity). I can see the point about “not aligning” if that is interpreted as a doing/making aligned vs a “process” focused term of before/after? (via ‘doing’ an allowing: even if the allowing doesn’t seek to “do” something specific there is a before and after- with at least a forethought of reason for in order o “align”?) So if trauma was interpreted to mean a deep tone “reaction” vs being at the “feeling” or “belief/thought” level- is that different than what you mean?

    In regards to B) basically the same distinction as above- I’m wondering whether there is a word-meaning difference but I interpret (not only my “misunderstanding” coming-from, but also my own stuff- could be not clicking this) this to mean your saying core-tones/associations (gut-level/R-complex) results in feelings (heart-level) neg.beliefs (head/brain-level?) and thus all-aspects result in symptoms (experience/life situation) and lack-of coherence? But you aren’t just speaking of the 3lvls, but of 9 or 12 etc. (I realize this is clarified in the lvl3 course, as well as perhaps the new lvl1and2, but in case this question can help clarify what you are presenting here).

    Last comment thought- a concern I had (my process in regards to my experience with RPT, although I keep shifting how I perceive as I keep working the process upon my Self :) yes meanings within that phrasing) is that there seems to not be a distinction between expressing/communicating a “belief” -experience, feeling, and/or R-complex tone, etc… between expressing/communicating it (via words, indirect-experience Symbol-rep) and experiencing it directly as a sensation/perception.. (it seems it is easy to slip in to one asking the other to “name it” and them comingup with words and those words describing it as experiencing it: not that i see that in your actual demos on video, but in descriptions of RPT process, and how others can do it)… feeling it “beyond words- not have a word for it: to generalize” vs abstracting it/generalizing to a “known” term, allowing one to say-it/communicate it… thus seeming “more in touch” with the feeling..?

    does that make sense? (perhaps above is lot, but the key concept is the essence of meaning behind a word- and how our culture can jump on the words used and not continue to keep redefining/discovering what is being experienced: as my experience is that as soon as we say a term for X sensation, we disconnect from our “living-experience/contact with it” (ex: we feel a “feeling” of intensity, and think it is sort of an anger, or fear or whatever… either of those words: anger for ex- can tie to so many things- irritation, rage, upset, an inward smoldering, a pending “explosion” etc. yet which? and yet all grouped together, and it seems the contact shifts to the “all together” when that word is chosen, vs what is being sensed then? which may shift?

    I recognize that there is this shift from ongoing Now-exper to the ‘tone’ to earliest point– then to what is in the way of coherence… thus perhaps not holding that contact is part of the process, and yet not getting into the “word-machine/virtual-reality talk to ourselves” words away from what is actually being sensed seems to be what I’m not matching up…

    best wishes to all investigating this…


    simonrose Reply:

    hi Gary
    this is interesting but hard to answer simply as it’s hard to extract the questions. I’ll have a go, and please feel free to re-post and clarify the specific questions.

    > A) Does that mean you are using the term Trauma to only relate to something mismatching/held at “heart” level?

    I hadn’t thought it through that way. my gut feeling is no – there is mental trauma too, not just heart.

    what I said was that trauma is a symptom, the same way negative beleifs are a symptom. It simply means we have learned to get deeper. We used to clear beliefs without “belief work” by clearing trauma (that was RPT 1.0). Then we learned to clear trauma and beliefs without (trauma work) by clearing tones (that was RPT 2.0). Now we learned to clear tones/trauma/beleifs instantly just by acknowledging the association with survival (which is a form of secondary gain). That’s RPT 3.0.

    Regarding B) yes I think your explanation is clear. The logic solid for the basic 3 minds used in the level 1 course (brain-heart-body) or the 5 or 6 minds in the Level 2 course (soul – brain – heart – body – placenta – sexual mind). Same principle applies to 12 minds.

    I hope I have helped clarify what you are asking about.



  4. Simon,
    I appreciate the combination of animation and video to clearly illustrate the coherence concept…great way to communicate this basic principle.
    I hope there will be something soon to address your definition of “tone”.


  5. Oh peg, perfect suggestion. Animation on “tone”, would really help me get the subtlety I sense I am missing.

    Hi Simon
    one other suggestion
    address question “how are sure we are not just bringing something to life by calling (and thus) focusing on it, then uncreating it”.
    - This is valid in my view for any “healing” modality. Healing word for me is problem orientered (?spelling).
    - I do appreciate we are not seeing individual themselves as broken in any way (they are magnicient, the diamond).
    - We are saying in reference point approach the “projector” is the problem. So therefore in my reality we are saying the “vibration” or “mixture of vibrations” or “tone” is the problem.
    - I’d rather “see no problem” and thru the resonance of my being, influence another, to a different vibration. But eh! I have not the results you are saying you and other practioners have. So getting what I am missing, I eagerly call in.
    e.g. Trauma creation. If we or our client never gave trauma any awareness until they come and visit then if we see that/recognize it, then my sense we create it in that instant. Sure by end of session we have uncreated. So if the animation could show a case where individual comes with not knowing why they have been unable to create x in their life, they


  6. Continuing from above…
    They have done heaps of belief work and bored by it… they are eager, willing to change.

    So if we could show in the animation,
    - to resolve this
    - so the result the client experiences is to create the x they have wanted to create (albiet may not be instant)
    without any “trauma creation” …. would be super duper!!!

    Cheers sus


  7. Hi simon, 
    Coherence, Earliest reference point, TONE, Acknowledgment 

    I get the above concepts logically/cognitively now but i am baffled intuitively and from accessing all knowing consciousness it’s not gel-ing. I acknowledge your experience “of that RPT works”,  hence why I am asking.  Also I acknowledge the power of “acknowledgment” which i have experienced many times and learnt from landmark education in 2001.  There is a subtlety in RPT I sense would be helpful to highlight and i am not getting it (yet).  

    1- is your source for “practice of acknowledgment different” to mine?
    2- is the earliest reference point equal to your concept of TONE?
    3-  the earliest reference point appeared to be unaware to client, at beginning of session.  At end of session the practioner had drawn attention to “it”.  By “it” I am seeing the practioner lead the client to an “association”.  Am I observing correctly?
    4- how is (3) different to asking lead questions say in a business group where you want to create x but “something stopping”.  By lead questions, i am referring to what you question you ask will determine answer.   Power is in both who you are being in the moment and secondly the question asked.  Landmark called this “who you are being in the moment”.
    5- I wondered if you had explored the possibility that discoverying earliest reference point is pure distraction to client, enables them to  
    - be open to the possibility of ‘a shift’, 
    - to allow the change
    - allow potential energy flow to be received and embraced
    (all 3 items above are same thing said a different way for me.)
    6- do you have published the current effectiveness rating by practioner (given approach is wholly dependant on the being of the individual)?
    7- if you had discovered RPT at discoverying your ear tumor- do you believe it would of taken 1 session to eradicate?             

    Cheers sus


  8. Sus, thanks for multiple comments. I wont go into too much detail because you are doing the 3 courses this month. I feel you are jumping the gun by expecting to understand the course content completely before taking the course.

    high level answers:
    1) yes
    2) no – earlierst reference point has a what (association with note, not the tone itself) and WHEN it happened (Ancestral /epigentic trauma).
    3) no – you are confusing earliest reference point with association.
    4) we don’t ask leading questions, but we might ask “how does that feeling help you to survive” it’s point them to tone but it’s not leading because it does not assume the answer.
    5) yes it’s all just a Doing to mask the Being
    6) no – how would I do that as it would require extraordinary honesty from the practitioners
    7) impossible to know but I like to think so



    Sus Reply:

    All good. Many thx


  9. You haven’t really gone into the technique yet but, from what you’ve said so far, I take it that the main difference with RPT 3.0 is about understanding from the outset that the tone to be cleared is always ultimately about death/survival and that, as a result of that understanding, we can get there faster by cutting through the surface fluff. It would then also be a lot more obvious when we’ve identified the tone (as opposed to having uncertainty whether there’s still something further underneath). And, following on from that, the symptom is always going to be a form of secondary gain based around avoiding death/extinction. So, by acknowledging that, at its origin, the tone came into being as a strategy for survival but that it’s now reached its use by date, it clears.

    I suspect that’s only part of it as that doesn’t address the 12 mind coherence issue so I’m guessing there’s another layer of technique to do with acknowledging how the tone has assisted survival at the different “mind levels”.

    Even if I’m off track with the RPT 3.0 technique, I have to say that I’ve already been getting a sense of how important the survival theme is as I’ve found pretty much every tone, regardless of the name I’ve given it, to be about survival/death eg. nothingness, non-existence, exterminated, abyss or even literally “This will kill me” / “I won’t survive this” – they’re all death/extinction related! So if I reach “abandonment”, whilst that’s pretty deep, I know there’s something even deeper because abandonment, in and of itself, doesn’t relate to survival. It’s the spin on what abandonment means in terms of survival that’s the tone eg. what’s bad about feeling abandoned? – gut feeling (I won’t have anyone to support or help me – I won’t be able to survive without support or help – I’ll die – therefore I must avoid situations where there’s a chance of being abandoned – therefore I can’t open myself to a loving relationship because they’ll leave me in the end just like what happened to my ancestor etc. etc.) Acknowledge the tone, acknowledge the link to avoiding death / assisting survival etc. etc., acknowledge that, whilst it might have been of value at it’s origin, it’s no longer serving me and I can drop it etc. etc.

    Am I on track?


    Sus Reply:

    Hi shane, I found your post very helpful. Thankyou thankyou. I am also on same track as you describe in rel to Simon’s work. Plus for a long time not believed in “death”. So survival doesn’t trigger me.

    There will be a time when you won’t be wanting to talk about any of the things that hurt you at the time they were happening, because as you regurgitate them in the here and now you will feel them hurting you again. But instead, from those memories, that little twinge of something that hurt, you will remember something much greater, you will remember the conclusion that you drew out of it. You will remember the new decision that you made from it, and you will remember the stronger effort that you made to flow your energy toward that new decision. You will remember your successes.

    Do you know that when you die, when you re-emerge into nonphysical (there is not death, you know that) but when you re-emerge into nonphysical, and you look back on your experience, it’s only the parties, it’s only the ecstasies, it’s only the high times that you remember? Those are the only times you will have access to. You only are able to acknowledge the triumphs of your physical experience. So we cannot imagine why, as you are physically focused, that you would spend any time doing anything other than that. …..
    Abraham 6-5-93

    cheers sus


    Shane Marsh Reply:

    Thanks Sus. I don’t believe that physical death = extinction either (and I’ve been listening/reading the Abraham-Hicks material on and off since the late 90s as well). I can only speak for myself but what I’ve found is that, despite believing there’s ultimately no such thing as death, I don’t think I’m entirely congruent about that across all levels of my being. There’s still something underneath that says “what if?” and, in any event, physical death can’t be denied. Even though I strongly believe in life after death, the ego part of me (whatever that is) doesn’t seem to care and still fears physical death. Some people may have entirely overcome that (people who’ve had near death experiences come to mind) but, on the whole, I’d say most people experience it to varying degrees. Most of it’s subconscious so people usually aren’t even aware of it but I guess that’s the point of work like RPT – bringing awareness to those things that unconsciously drive our dysfunctional behaviours and fears that we wouldn’t otherwise be aware of and then clearing them.


    Shane Marsh Reply:

    Just adding – I think having absolutely no fear of physical death would be dysfunctional so we don’t need to get rid of it. However, perhaps “fear” is too strong a word because it conjures up images of trembling and anxiety so I’ll try the word “apprehension”.

    A person who literally has no apprehension whatsoever about physical death probably wouldn’t survive for long – there’d be nothing to stop them from walking in front of cars or jumping off a cliff. There’s an aspect of jumping off a cliff that actually looks like fun – you get to fly :) However, it’s the counteracting apprehension of death or serious injury that stops most people and that’s just kind of built into us – it’s part of the deal for being born.

    Where the dysfunctional behaviours come from is where we unconsciously and irrationally associate certain situations or experiences with making death or non-survival more likely. Often our associations are very irrational but the unconscious mind is, by definition, irrational.

    simonrose Reply:

    Shane, I have no fear of death but I clearly don’t want to die. There must be a distinction.

    I think the difference is between
    (a) fear of what’s on the other side (no fear for me as I was never raised Christian or in a hell-believing faith in the first place); and
    (b) fear of failing to finish your life’s work here. Sense of duty / purpose, etc.

    I’m clear that my issues are in the second category, which probably counts as “ego.”


    Shane Marsh Reply:

    Hi Simon

    There’s no reply button in your reply to my reply so this may go out of sequence.

    I think that’s a good way of putting it. It’s not necessarily a fear of death per se but about the meaning or consequences of death to the individual.

    Shane Marsh Reply:

    OK, so I just worked out you can’t directly reply beyond a 4th generation response post (or else the boxes would get infinitely thinner and unreadable) but you can keep it in sequence by replying to the post above it).

    That wasn’t a “problem” 2 weeks ago :)

    simonrose Reply:

    Shane I think you are spot on.

    What I like about this new method is that (a) the tone is cleared by acknowledging the secondary gain of it; (b) it is always about survival if it’s in the R-complex.

    That said there are insticnts in the other minds (let’s call them “tones” too) that are not about survival. The Sexual mind is about sex, funnily enough. So people with sexual guilt and shame need to clear it there (which is why it’s hard to clear if you aren’t going deep enough). Issues of loss, disconnection, aloneness can be from the disconnection of the placenta mind as you would recall from the Level 2. Spiritual delusions including spiritual disconnection and “hearing spirits” etc is often trauma of the Buddha Mind or Spirit Mind. etc..

    I have recorded my RPT 3.0 update for graduates, coming to your inbox this week.



    Shane Marsh Reply:

    Awesome! Thanks Simon :)


  10. Shane said:
    >That wasn’t a “problem” 2 weeks ago :)

    yes, for the first time we have some really discussions going. It has been noticed and you are all going to be rewarded this week with a free update.



  11. Hi Simon

    That second last post of yours in the comments made sense to me.

    I am doing a lot of R complex work, but not everything is about survival I thought. Unless I’m wrong. Digging is not my best skill.

    I noticed some associations on some other levels that I would like to clear.

    It seems the level 3 would help clear trauma in these other areas, eg spiritual, sexual etc.

    Hm. Great! Realistically at my current manifesting level I may not be able to afford Level 3. Would you consider breaking it up into shorter more affordable seminars?

    But will stand by for crumbs from the masters table in the form of blog articles. Thank you for your life’s work.


Leave a Reply


Using Gravatars in the comments - get your own and be recognized!

XHTML: These are some of the tags you can use: <a href=""> <b> <blockquote> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>