# The Question of Shelling

## You are here

+
Vote up!
-
Vote down!

“Shelling” is commonly taught as an important part of many tutorials on construct creation.  I’ve omitted all mention of it for a very good reason; using this method, it isn’t necessary.  For the sake of clarity, I’ll explain.

The method of construct creation I’ve described is different to that commonly taught and used in many circles.  The “normal” method goes something like this:

1. Gather energy.

2. Shape energy into a useful or meaningful form.

3. Form a shell or skin of dense energy on the outer surface, in order to hold it all together.

4. Program the energy.

My method, in brief, is as follows:

1. Mentally create the blueprint or programming in its entirety, by deciding what will be required and what attributes will be necessary.

2. Externalise the blueprint in an energetic form.

3. Energise the externalised blueprint.

Let’s revisit that first step.  We create the blueprint, by deciding what will be required, and what attributes will be necessary.  I think you’ll agree that maintaining a cohesive form is necessary.  Shelling is nothing more than programming the energy to do this.  Some may initially dispute this.  The outer shell is denser than the energy housed within.  Quite right.  But what is holding that dense energy together?  It is the practitioner’s intent for the energy to form that shell and hold it all together that causes it to happen.  In other words, programming.  This is covered, usually without actually thinking about it, in the initial programming stage.  This is an example of expectation as a more passive form of programming.  In expecting the construct to maintain its form, we are programming the construct to do so.  This means the formation of an actual shell is not necessary, and the proof is in the pudding.  If you’ve followed my instructions (and I really do hope you have) you will have created a construct already, and that construct will have maintained its form without the additional shell.

psionics