Notice first of all that I am going to use "Entity" in a broader sense than just meaning a spirit that is "stuck" in somebody else's space. Again, the regular dictionary definition can give us some insight:
"entity . [L. prp. of esse, to be] 1. ) being; existence b) the essence of something apart from its accidental properties. 2. thing that has definite, individual existence in reality or in the mind; anything real in itself."
So, we can say that an entity is anything that can be perceived to have some kind of individual existence. "Flemming Funch" is an entity; my body is an entity; "Mom" is an entity; "The United States" is an entity; a headache might be an entity; a problem might be an entity; "Santa Claus" might be an entity; "an angry mailman" might be an entity, etc.
The entity is not the title, the words we put on it. It is the actual existing "thing" in itself.
An entity might be part of something bigger and it might be sub-divisible into smaller parts, that doesn't matter. The main thing is that it can be perceived as actually existing as an individual unit. That is basically the same as what we could call a "Holon": something that can be considered as both a whole and a part, depending on how we look at it. "Entity" emphasizes it as a whole, an individual unit. If we wanted to look at it as a part of something bigger, then "Aspect" might be a good word to use. For example, my role as a "Father" could be regarded as an entity in itself, or it could be regarded as just one of many aspects of my beingness.
This might rub you the wrong way if you regard an "entity" or a "being" as some kind of absolute finite unit. Realize first of all that words aren't the real thing. Realize secondly that you can believe whatever you want and make it true. Why not believe what is most empowering to you?
I would prefer to believe that the real Me is Infinite Source who can be Whatever, Whoever, and Whenever I want, all at the same time. I would prefer to believe that I can BE anything, but that my real nature is beyond the realm of BEing altogether.
I am currently being a Flemming Funch who is sitting here writing by his computer here in 1992. In that beingness I have a certain past track of experience and I have a certain planned future ahead of me. I have certain qualities, certain abilities, certain weaknesses, certain interests, etc. However, I am not going to believe that this is the REAL me, who I have been all the time, whom I will have to improve to make things better. If something else would be more appropriate I could be that instead. There is not necessarily any requirement of continuity. I could forget all about Flemming Funch and become The Winds of Space, or Santa Claus, or a prehistoric anthill, or whatever I wanted to be. And maybe I already AM all of those things at the same time. I just happen to be focusing right now on a particular entity named Flemming, and I guess I can still get more enjoyment out of him, so I'll keep him for a while.
The basic idea in entity processing is to treat stuff as separate living units that we can communicate with. It doesn't mean that they REALLY are or aren't independent beings. We can pretend that they are all sovereign spiritual beings with native rights to a free existence. Or, we can pretend that they are all just psychological categorizations or conversational metaphors. The funny thing is that it doesn't matter. They are all true and all untrue, depending on which way you look at it. That is a paradox you have to figure out for yourself.
Trouble enters if you start taking any model seriously. If you are serious, you are stuck. If you HAVE to treat entities as spiritual beings, and you HAVE to save all the entities in the world from eternal damnation, then you are going to have a hard time. Or, if you HAVE to believe that all entities are chemical patterns in people's brains formed exclusively by their childhood conditioning, then you are in even more trouble. The moment you start believing that something REALLY IS a certain way you start painting yourself into a corner.
Nothing REALLY IS something particularly precise and conclusive. There are lots of existences and beingnesses that exist or could exist, either in somebody's "mind" or in the agreed-upon reality. Anything that can be perceived in any way has existence. There are zillions of possible perspectives to take. What appears as one thing seen from one perspective, becomes something totally different seen from another perspective. It is very practical to be able to address existences as individual units. But don't make the mistake of believing that what you decide to perceive is THE TRUE NATURE of what you are perceiving.
All, of that being said, let's see what we can actually do by addressing entities in processing. I will try to give a general procedure integrating a variety of different techniques into a uniform approach.
There are many different existing disciplines that address entities: Excalibur, Gestalt Therapy, NLP, Holodynamics, Shamanism, Magick, etc. There are a lot of different possible theories and principles and many different avenues one can follow. I will choose my own.
A facilitator would first off have to be able to determine WHEN to use entity processing. There will be many situations were other approaches might be equally appropriate, so it isn't necessarily a clear-cut choice.
If somebody has an unwanted feeling, what would we use? We could use re-experiencing and that would be fine. But, I might use an entity handling if anything indicates that there is some kind of system behind the feeling. If it was just a passive chronic feeling without variation I would think about re-experiencing first. If it continuously turns on or off in certain situations, then I might suspect that it is actively trying to do something, and I would think entity processing.
Entity processing is a bit more geared to respecting the integrity of what we are handling than re-experiencing is. We aren't just trying to eliminate an unwanted reaction. We would be more likely to want the entity to continue its work, just in a more optimum way.
We could liken an entity to an electrical circuit or an engine. It came into being to do something, to serve some purpose. If that is a useful purpose we would probably want it to continue to carry it out. But if there are some unwanted side-effects, we would want to fix them. Like, if an engine is polluting a lot, our first thought would not be to destroy the engine, unless we have plans for a better one. We would probably tune it up, or give it better fuel, or put it somewhere where it doesn't matter so much.
All beings a basically good. That goes for all entities too. Whatever the apparency is, if we dig deep enough, we find positive purposes. "Good" or "positive" aren't the best words to use, since they are often used as opposed to "bad" or "negative". I mean them in a more holistic sense here. The basic purpose of anyone or anything is to fill some need, fulfill a desire, accomplish something. The purpose always has to be good for something or someone, nothing is absolutely bad for everybody all the time.
This idea of basic goodness of course makes it less meaningful to "wipe out the bad guys" or to "get rid of" all issues. If everyone and everything basically have good purposes, then we probably have to treat them with respect.
This doesn't mean that every effect is desirable, of course. That is why we do processing. If things aren't happening right, if you don't like what you get, then we can change the circumstances. But just because things aren't the way you want them doesn't mean that somebody INTENDED for you to suffer. When you trace all the intentions back, you will probably find that they are positive. It is just that intentions might collide, get mis-understood, confused, etc. That is what creates the unwanted situations: mis-understandings.
It doesn't matter if it is absolutely true that all basic intentions are good. It just happens to be a very useful idea and it happens to check out every time. I would much rather have that belief than the belief that people are basically evil.
I am not saying that any intention is good. I am saying that any BASIC intention is good. If I get mad at my neighbor and I decide to "teach him a lesson" and I go and slash his tires, that is of course not a good intention towards him. But what is behind that, why would I do that? If we go deep enough we would find that I would do it in order to feel good about myself, or in order to make the world just, or something of that nature. I just happened to pick an imperfect outlet for my objectives that would create conflicts both for myself and others.
The general approach I would suggest for entities would be:
- Perceive that there is an entity there.
- Get in communication with the entity.
- Find out what it is basically trying to do.
- Decide if it belongs in your space or not.
- Find out what resources the entity is lacking.
- Link it up with those resources.
- Help it to have more choices.
- Align it with other entities as necessary.
- Let it go about its business.
There are variants, where slightly different approaches would be more appropriate. If the entity is part of a polarity we would work with two entities at the same time and integrate them, i.e. polarity integration. If an entity is missing, some variation of soul retrieval would make sense. We would track it down and persuade it to re-integrate with the rest of the person.
Actually we could say that there are always two parts, two entities involved. In polarity integration each polarity would be an entity, that would be very apparent. But if we apparently are working with a single entity, then we need a reference entity. That is, from who's viewpoint does this entity exist like that? That might just be a whole person entity like "Flemming". We would then optimize the other entity's relationship to the main entity. Processing makes a lot more sense if there is always an awareness of two entities present, even if it is simply "Me" and "The World".
So, we need to first perceive that that is an entity there. Part of that is to decide that this is how we will approach the situation. There is a person there who would like to improve something about her life, or there is something that isn't working quite right. You have lots of techniques to choose from: dialoguing, unblocking, re-experiencing, etc. But something tells you that there is something here that has a life of its own, something that operates away from the conscious awareness of the person.
In order to deal with something as an entity, it needs to be separated from the rest of the person. That is, the client needs to exteriorize those qualities that we will now address as a separate entity. To separate it out it would have to be recognized and labeled and we need some kind of distance to it.
The entity isn't the label. But still it is useful to have a good label for it. It is easier to perceive something one has a name for. The name should be a positive or neutral term, not a very negative one. It is kind of more difficult to access the good intentions of something we term "bad" or "evil". But basically it can be called whatever it seems to be, as long as we don't invalidate it. We need to, from the onset, grant it the right to exist as what it is.
An entity doesn't have to be regarded as a person. It doesn't have to be anthropomorphized. It just needs to have separate existence and to be accessible for communication.
To get started with the entity we would need some perceptions on it. Its location, its size, shape, color, structure, sound, smell, etc. It can be anything whatsoever: a cloud of smoke, an ocean liner, a person, a light beam, a planet, anything you can imagine. What it appears as might or might not be significant in relation to what it is there for, or what the problem with it is.
It is usually easiest if the entity is located in the body and there is feeling associated with it. As we would do in re-experiencing we would then get the perceptions specified in as great detail as possible. It is just that here it isn't a feeling we are trying to specify, but more of a "thing".
An illness might very well be sorted out with an entity handling like this. The person knows she is sick, and she wants it handled. We can inquire about the location of the illness. Does it seem to emanate or be controlled from some part of the body? Is the illness feeling most concentrated in a certain body part? What do you perceive in that area? What is its shape, is it hard or soft, does it move? Gradually we would get some idea of what it is manifested as, e.g. a hard, round, vibrating ball in the shoulder.
Depending on what we are trying to address we would get great variation in what the entity would appear as. If you were trying to address the mass-consciousness group entity of humankind to solve hunger in Somalia, you would get very different perceptions than you would with a personal illness. It might appear as a golden ball hovering above the United Nations building, or it might appear as a grid spanning the whole planet, or as a schizophrenic cigar-smoking giant, or whatever.
To identify the manifestation of the entity, it is necessary to perceive, not logically figure out, what it should be. It is not something you construct, it is something that appears. Along the lines of the auto-answer mechanism. You need to be willing to imagine what it is in order to perceive it well. Your rational mind needs to be out of the way to a certain degree to allow the perceptions to come in.
Once we have established that there is an entity there and we have some impression of what it is, next step is to communicate with it.
First off, be prepared that there might be information that it is not appropriate for the entity to communicate to you consciously. See, the reason that many of these things have been outside your conscious awareness is not just that you forgot. Your conscious mind doesn't always know better. There will be parts of your sub-conscious (your inner mind) and parts of your super-conscious (the external universe) that work perfectly well on their own but that wouldn't want to reveal their full nature to you consciously at this point.
Your conscious focus is only a small part of your overall beingness. It is by its nature the part that you have most awareness of and that you are most accustomed to regarding as you. But it is by no means the smartest part. Both the inner workings of your sub-conscious and of the world at large contain incredible complexities that are way beyond your current conscious capacity. Consciously you probably can't keep track of more than 3-7 different things at the same time. But the mental machinery that allows you to speak and that operate your body are juggling millions of pieces of information simultaneously, without faltering. They are still you, just the sub-conscious parts of you. Don't think that you can just consciously take over the responsibility for all of that stuff in your current state. There isn't particularly any reason to, either, most of those circuits work quite well.
Many parts of you that are out of your awareness have built-in safety mechanisms that will stop you from screwing them up consciously. Like, you are not likely to destroy your ability to speak accidentally. You are not likely to suddenly make planet Earth vanish just because you thought of it. Whether you like it or not, the conscious mind is rendered relatively harmless. Oh, you are indeed running the whole show by yourself, but that is sort of a secret you are keeping from yourself. The reason you aren't making the physical universe disappear is because you consciously don't know how it got there. Your conscious mind might entertain nice fairy tales that explain everything, but I am afraid they aren't exactly it.
Luckily it isn't necessary to fully understand an entity in order to help it. In a person to person processing session you don't fully understand the client either. All you need to know is how to ask the right questions, look for certain indicators, and notice when things improve, and so forth. Same thing with any entity. You need to respect its independence and integrity.
To communicate with an entity we need a system of communication. It is easiest if we can speak English with it, but that isn't always possible. It is probably the best place to start, though. So, we ask the client to reach out a line of communication towards the entity and say
or anything to that effect. We might also say "Wake up!" or "Attention please" or "I am here to help you" or whatever is appropriate. In the first place, what we want to accomplish is just to get a response. The questions and directions would generally be telepathic, i.e. intended through the mind. Sometimes the person would prefer to say things aloud, and that would be fine also.
We are expecting to get a response from the entity. It isn't necessarily a response that can be put into words. It might be just a slightly different feeling. That is one reason why we need to have some perceptions on the entity in the first place; then we can notice how the perceptions change as response.
We are trying to establish rapport. That is simply that when the client sends out a communication of some kind, then it is received by the entity, and it responds in a way that the client can recognize. If we can accomplish that, we can also do processing on the entity.
If we can get the entity to say "Hello" back, well great, it speaks English. If it just grumbles or changes shape or changes feeling, then that might be what we will have to work with.
If we don't get consciously intelligible answers at first, we can ask for them:
"Are you willing to communicate with us in consciousness?"
If it isn't, we just have to improvise a crude intermediary communication system. That is, we can establish a signaling system. A Yes/No system is the easiest. We could say:
"Give us a signal for Yes"
and notice how the perceptions change. If it was a bodily pain for example, it might get less intense as a Yes answer. Just notice what is happening as a response to the question. Same thing with No:
"Give us a signal for No"
Once we have a response that means Yes and a response that means No, we can do processing. Finding these responses is called Calibration, you link up the responses of the entity with something you know of, that is, the idea of Yes and No.
If you just got a Yes/No system, you of course must formulate all subsequent questions so that that simple answers like that will suffice. That is not as hard as it sounds. The Yes response would also signify agreement and the No answer disagreement. If you get more elaborate answers, i.e. English or maybe picture answers, then you can do more complicated questions.
There are many things you can do to establish and smooth out the communication line to the entity. Many regular session techniques can be very useful. Like, if the entity is not very communicative, you could ask:
"Why don't you want to communicate?"
And let it give any considerations and responses it has. Or you can use this one:
"Who would I have to be to communicate to you?"
Any common processing questions can be used. You can ask for upsets, problems, use unburdening keys, whatever you know of. They can be handled pretty much like with a "real" person. This would make the most sense if the client is already trained in such matters.
If we are now in good communication with the entity, we can start finding out if it is there to do something for you somehow:
"Are you doing anything for me?"
"Are you here to help me?"
That is particularly necessary if we are using the Yes/No method. We would have to take it in small steps then. We might not be able to get a clear statement of what it is doing, but it is useful to know at least that it is trying to do something for you. If it talks we could ask more directly:
"What are you trying to do?" or "What is your purpose?"
Or, if the entity talks, we could just right away ask:
"What is your function?"
This would get the entity to separate a bit from its own identity, so that we would then be able to adjust it. The answer would also start giving us an idea of what it is about if we don't already know.
None of this is a rote procedure. It all depends on what kind of stuff you get and what kind of entity you are dealing with. The examples I give here are mostly pre-supposing that it is a sub-conscious entity of yours that we are talking with.
I would start out by expecting that an entity is a part of the client and that it has a positive intention. We might get answers that indicate otherwise and would then have to change the approach accordingly. However, we might just as well look for what we would most prefer to find.
In getting the entity's purpose, it is important to get it actually from the entity. The client might have the preconceived idea that it is "bad" and might intellectually hallucinate an answer that corresponds to that. We don't want the answer that the client already consciously "knows", we want the actual answer.
If the answer we get actually is some kind of antagonistic purpose such as "I want to kill you", "I am trying to confuse you", or something, then we might start being prepared for that this maybe is an entity that doesn't belong to the client. It might also just be an upset part of the client. At any rate, any negative purpose would tend to get transformed as we process the entity.
A person really only needs stuff in her space that is part of the game she is playing, that is aligned with her own line of purpose. So, if she has entities around that appear to be against her, then either she isn't perceiving them as what they are, or she mistakenly is identifying with entities that belong in some other game that doesn't match with her. That is part of what we would like to clear up with entity processing.
If the entity doesn't belong here, we probably won't give it as full a treatment as if it is part of the person's own game. If it belongs somewhere else we will mainly work on clearing up the mis-understanding of who's who. If it really has nothing to do with you, you better get it back where it belongs and then find out what it is you are doing that collects other people's stuff.
Incident clearing might be part of the handling, mainly for foreign entities. The entities might be stuck in one or more traumatic incidents that somehow match up with something you keep in your space. If you clear the incidents on the entities they will probably realize the mis-understanding and return to their proper location.
Most of the rules used for re-experiencing on regular folks would apply just as well to entities, just in a slightly different packaging. You would ask them for the incident:
"What incident are you stuck in?"
You would then get them to experience through the incident, repeatedly if necessary. There might be earlier, more basic, core incidents that would be gone through and so forth. It is possible that the entity was a group entity, that then breaks apart into several smaller entities. The remaining entities would then also be sent through whatever core incidents they are still stuck in. When you have cleared the incidents, you might ask each individual entity:
"Who are you really?"
Which would make them realize where they belong. If they aren't part of your game they would probably return to the game they belong in. If they don't do it by themselves you can give them whatever guidance and nudging would be necessary. For example you can brief them on their rights to free will:
"You have the right to exist"
"You have the right to be free"
"You have the right to choose"
I don't regard the elimination of "foreign" entities as any very big and important thing in itself. It is a lot more powerful to optimize the entities that actually do something for you. Or rather, to start out with the expectation that entities are there because they do something for you. Really it doesn't matter a whole lot "whose" entities they originally were. If they are in your space and they do something worthwhile for you, then by all means, help them to do it better. "Getting rid of" entities doesn't provide very great benefits in itself. It is sort of like if you are running a company. Firing people is not only not very enjoyable, it is not something very useful to focus on. Sometimes it is necessary. However, it is much more productive to optimize what you are doing with the people you do employ.
The client is free to keep entities in her space or to send them off. However, don't put the idea there that all entities are bad stuff that she should get rid of. That will only do her a disservice. A company with employees is generally preferable to a company with no employees
The focus ought to be on what the client wants in her space and what is useful to her. However, planet Earth is a rather "polluted" place in terms of stray thought-forms. It is very easy to pick up other people's "stuff" through casual contact. If you go to a party or you just have a conversation with somebody, you can easily pick up or copy a bunch of their entities. It is practical to develop some sort of method of cleaning up one's space regularly and also to keep one's space protected so transference is minimal.
Clearing one's space of casually transferred entities is a somewhat different subject than full-scale entity processing. You really have no responsibility to process entities that aren't yours at all. You don't have to address them as individuals with their individual issues that you need to help them out with. Remember, an entity is just a logical construct that we use to refer to something with a meaningful separate existence for you. There is no reason to regard something as an entity unless it has a relation to your game. The viewpoint must always be taken into consideration. WHO is it an entity for? What might be an important and valuable entity for somebody else might just be random "noise" if it enters your space. You have no obligation to take on the other person's evaluation of the meaning of the entity. You are welcome to just clear it away without inspection. You aren't hurting anybody by clearing your space of stuff that really isn't yours. Actually you are respecting the integrity of other people by not taking on their personal entities as your own.
On the other hand, entities that have gotten a more permanent residence in your space are much more likely to be there for a reason. They are much more likely to be there to serve you somehow. If you don't recognize that, you are likely to miss out on something, or to get rid of a circuit that you actually needed for something. Again, it doesn't matter if the entities were made by somebody else or they "are" somebody else. If they have been a fixture in your space for a while, they probably mean something to you.
So, I would differentiate clearly between temporary, casually transferred stuff, and meaningful entities in your space. I would prefer not to regard the casual stuff as entities, but rather as stray energy or thought-forms to clean away. The latter shouldn't take a whole lot more than sitting down to relax for a few minutes and emptying your mind.
I think there is no reason to believe that there would be stuff in your space that doesn't serve you. There is no reason to make yourself effect unnecessarily. If you believe that there is a positive reason for anything in your space, and that anything to the contrary doesn't belong there, then life and processing becomes so much simpler. It doesn't really matter if it is true; by believing it you make it true. Interestingly, this works pretty much at any level. It is not just an advanced realization; I find that you can start out a client with that idea without much problem.
Now, assuming that we have an entity there. It is willing to communicate with the client and it appears to be a valid element in her space, a part of her so to say. What do we do?
We need to find the basic positive intention of the entity. What is it there for, what is it doing that is worthwhile? As mentioned before, if it is talking, we will simply ask it:
"What is your function?", or "What is your basic purpose?", or "What are you doing for me?"
We might get answers at first that aren't the real basic ones, and then we will dig deeper. Like, if the first answer is "To stop you from eating", we might inquire:
"If you do ___ what does that accomplish?"
We are after what the eventual positive benefit is going to be. We might find that the purpose is "To make you healthy". We will generally end up with something that IS valuable to the client, even if the surface activity isn't.
What is often happening is that the entity has a noble and worthwhile basic purpose, but it is lacking in resources or choices in carrying it out. It is doing what it best can with the available means, but that might not work all that well. If the only way the entity knows of keeping Joe healthy is to make sure he doesn't eat anything that could possibly be considered unhealthy, then it might be in conflict with many other purposes.
What we would want to do is to supply the entity with more resources, give it more and better choices, more means of accomplishing its basic purposes.
We might be able to just ask the entity to come up with some more choices on its own:
"Can you come up with 3 more ways of accomplishing your purpose?"
If it can, ask it do so and to signal when it finds each new choice. This doesn't even require that you know exactly what it does or what it needs. Some entities will not reveal what they are actually doing, but only that they have a positive purpose for you. We can help them just the same. It is not your conscious knowledge on the matter that makes the difference, it is the improved power of choice of the entity itself.
If we know more about the entity, we can be more helpful in linking it up with useful resources. We can either ask it, or we can guess at what it would be useful for it to have. Then we just need to locate those resources somewhere and to connect them up. We might find for example that the entity needs more compassion. There will probably be somewhere in the experience of the client where we can locate an example of compassion. There will be times when she had it, or there will be people she knows who have it. If nothing else, she can imagine how it would be to have compassion. If she can contact it or imagine it with some detailed perceptions to it, that will do the trick. Then we just do any kind of creative sleight of hand to get it in contact with the entity. Just intending that it becomes available to the entity might be enough. We could also string a line from the resource to the entity. Or we might move the representation of the resource into the space of the entity.
There might also be another full entity that we know of that already has the lacking resources. We can then connect up those two entities and have them trade resources. They might need to get in rapport first, before that can take place. They might have upsets or reservations about each other. The entity might have to be persuaded to take on new resources. It might be concerned that it will lose its beingness if it changes too much. It might have to be talked through it gradually, showing it that it will actually become more of what it is, and it can do its purpose even better.
An entity might have issues that stop it from willingly changing or accepting new resources. It might have unwanted feelings connected to it, that we need to do re-experiencing on. It might feel fear when we try to expand its choices. We could then locate the incident it has that has fear in it and clear it. Then we might be able to integrate the new resources better.
There is quite an extensive list of things one can do to process an entity. The central thing we want to do is to give it more resources so that it can better accomplish its basic purpose. There might be reasons for why it can't accept that, and we would have to deal with that with the appropriate technique.
Sometimes the basic purpose of an entity is not really needed. It might have been needed once, but no longer. One can then either:
- assign it a new, more worthwhile purpose
- uncreate the entity
- set it free to work on its own
Anything you do with the entity needs to be with its cooperation and respecting its integrity. Even if you might have created it, it will always to some degree have a determinism of its own, simply because it exists. It might be both a part of you that you control AND an independent being with its own rights. Those two possibilities don't conflict even though it might seem like it.
You can think up something new the entity can do for you, probably based on the specialized skills that you have found that it has. If the previous purpose was "To remind me of washing the dishes" and you don't need that anymore, you can maybe ask it to remind you of mowing the lawn at regular intervals. You don't just order it, you need to get its agreement to do it.
If the entity really isn't needed, you can uncreate it. That basically means that you change your mind about it being a separate entity. It doesn't mean that you destroy poor, live beings. You simply assume a different viewpoint about it, so that it is no longer meaningful to you as a separate entity. There are several tricks you can use for that. You could ask IT to do it:
"Return to your point of creation"
Or, if it makes sense for you to regard it as YOUR creation, you could pull it back into you, with the intention that it re-integrates with you, and ends its separate existence. The point is not destruction, but rather re-integration. You can not uncreate an entity unless its intended actions are finished. If there is any unfinished business or upsets, it will not re-integrate. That would have to be handled first.
You could also help the entity to be free as a separate being. You would first handle any issues that would stop it from doing so, and you would tell it about its right to choose its own destiny. You could tell it whatever else you feel is necessary:
"You are free to go. Thanks for your support."
There is nothing particularly more or less noble about any of the choices. There is no scarcity of existences. If you let it go, it doesn't mean that you lose out on anything. If you re-integrate it, it doesn't mean that anything is lost. There is an endless supply of Spirit.
Sometimes an entity has no idea what its purpose is, or it has forgotten it or something. You can treat it the same way. Negotiate another purpose with it, uncreate it, or set it free.
For large group entities outside your personal space you would probably play by somewhat different rules. You might not assume the same kind of position of authority as you might with your more internal entities, since you might perceive that many other people share the group entity. But really, there is not a great deal of difference. It is just that bigger group entities are likely to have more inertia and more of a will of their own. The entity being "The United States" might not be as easy to persuade to uncreate itself as some of your personal mental machinery would. But the idea is the same with any entity: you have to respect its own integrity.
Entities might be found in all kinds of constellations and structures. They will often recognize some kind of system they are part of. The relationships between entities and possibly the overall system might have to be taken into consideration in order to optimize things.
For example, our client might have an entity named "Mom". We can work with that individually and give it more resources and so forth. But maybe "Mom" is part of a bigger system containing "Dad", "Baby", "Teenager", "Pain", and "Respect", each one being a separate entity. Each one has an independent life of its own, but is at the same time part of the whole system. We might have to find out what each one of them is about, and what the relationships between them are. And then we might have to bring in resources for the system as a whole, and to negotiate relationships between the entities that are mutually agreeable and that serve the overall system. You could also step up and regard the system as a single entity if necessary.
Any entity could be regarded as a part of something bigger. Or, it could be divided into smaller pieces. How far you want to go in either direction all depends on what is meaningful to the person who is contemplating these entities. If "Mom" seems to make most sense as just a separate entity, that's what it will be. But if it is apparent that the overall "Family" and the other members are important, we would have to deal with that. The general idea is that the entity we are handling must also have harmonious relations with its surroundings in order to accomplish its purpose well.
When an entity has been processed and we bring it more resources and more ability to fulfill its purpose, we need to then let it go about its business without interference. An entity is a separate unit that can work by itself. You don't need to make it do what it does. If it has a purpose and you have made sure that it has some ways of accomplishing it, and it is in harmony with its surroundings, then you need to just trust that it will do it. You can check back with it from time to time, that is perfectly fine, and probably a good idea. But don't get the idea that you have to supervise it continuously.
The way of entity processing described here might seem weird, incomprehensible, or incorrect at first glance for somebody used to other types of entity handling. For example, I am intentionally using the word "entity" in its dictionary definition and introducing some different perspectives. But, it might very well be found to be the most satisfying and more far-reaching approach.
Personally I favor models that will work at any level. Principles that can be presented easily well to a new client in the first session as to a more advanced seeker of truth. The difference will be minimal if the model is basic enough.
In this article I have mostly talked about entities as if they were separate spiritual beings. However, one doesn't have to believe anything like that to handle them. All of this can be presented just as well in psychological terms. Or probably in business terms. Companies often draw up so-called Entity-Relationship Diagrams to sort out their business model. Entities would be "Customers", "Invoices", "Money", etc. Relationships would be "Buying", "Selling", etc. Positioned properly one could perform entity processing on businesses, without even changing the words used here much.
Overall we could say that entity processing is about getting in direct communication with the spirit of a situation. If you mean that literally or metaphorically makes no real difference.
If you choose to look at it spiritually, this view of entity clearing aligns well with the world view of native Indians, Hawaiian religions, or many other religious traditions: that everything has a spirit. Stones, trees, the weather, the planet, etc. You can strive to be on good terms with the spirits of the physical stuff you use and the relationship will be more mutually beneficial.
So, the next time your car won't start, and you don't know what else to do, you might want to try entity processing on it. Maybe the spirit of the engine really is angry.