True, this is what happens when focused here. However, once you are in an out of body, either from REM or meditation, it does not feel like that, believe me, I know what I have been experiencing.
You see, the term "consciousness" can mean a lot of things in english, depending on the context it is used. It can mean "attention" (i.e. the focus), it can mean the mind as a whole, it can mean the congnitive aspect (critical faculty, ruach), it can mean the part of the mind that you call "I" and you identify your "I" with, and so on. Other languages had words to differentiate them, as egyptian or sanskrit.
What you call "consciousness" in this case it is the "attention" part of the mind. What I call "consciousness" in this case it is the "I" part of the mind.
To move this part it is one of the most difficult things to do, either more if externally from the physical bounds. Differently from attention, then, consciousness remains in a place only by continued effort. If you discontinue the effort it will revert back to the habitual position (that's adopted from continue concentration on a position, usually coming from the visual sense). The attention can "switch" with a medium prolonged effort, then it resides there until an event (of whatever sort) brings it "back". Consciousness, instead, requires a continue effort of concentration to keep it elsewhere (or a full habit that overcomes the older, a very long process).
Now, what I call an OBE (in its explicit term of "Out of Body") is specifically this "consciousness" brought outside the body and kept there (and moved along) with an effort of concentration. Very difficult to do and very exhausting.
Either in meditation if you bring your attention on a scenery or image till your focus (the reality) merges with it, it just a changing of the focus, not a moving of consciousness.
But I understand that the two are difficult to differentiate until you cannot experience both things and experience the differences in there.
This is what I wanted to let you know. Metaphors or whatever are just another way to interact with the "astral". It does not mean they're true. The rope method is also just a tool. There's no actual rope there.
Certainly. Who ever said the contrary?
I always repeated that I don't know what it really happens or what's what. I always start from the assumption that I'm only relating an impresssion. This is the most you can do.
Still, in this interaction, there are structures that are similar to every individual. What they really are, what you decide to call them or from what you believe they come from, for me it doesn't really matters.
No. What I have been saying is that you can find your own structure and that you do not need a teacher to show you a structure. You can discover it on your own as "the first teacher" may have done.
You can do it, certainly. The problem is that since you have no other people to reference the structure upon, you cannot understand what's a real structure in there and what's only subjective interaction with it. However, whatever order you keep (either made by yourself) it becomes a structure, and that's much better than not having order at all.
For this the better structures are those that have been adopted by many people of different beliefs etc. and found what's common in there for everyone, so that users can immediately understand what's their personal subjective interaction and what's not, and either understand (because in the phase it happens) what's extraneous in that structure and what's not. You can either understand it by yourself, naturally by and by, but if you have a filter in it, it "waste" less time.
However, yes, a teacher can help you when you have trouble, but he/she may still not be able to help you with everything since you may experience something else, unless you OOBE the way he does.
It depends on what you intend with "OOBE the way he does". Usually in a teaching structure a method is learned to "enter" and that's common to the teaching method. However every method is grouped in a certain structure, so not necessarily a different method can be different at all.
For example a REM method is different than a meditation one in the things you can do in there, but there's no difference in a REM method if you reach that state simply looking at hypnagogia or if you look at an object. It can variate the subjective part, but the structure is invaried.
Yes, but still, there are many structures for experiencing the same thing. However, teaching someone your structure would make it easier to know what your "student" is experiencing.
Once you've got a structure you are already experiencing things. Those things can be subjective. For example you may hear stuff in SP, see things or feel presences. That's what I meant that it is subjective.
It's not really what you literaly experience in the structure that matters (or better, it matters, but the most important part is the order), but the way you approach the experience. In a non structure approach you have no order on where to draw a "map" of your experiences, with a structure you do.
For example, you use a pathworking. You begin by exploring every path, see what it happens in there and then you start understanding what thing produces what. The order of the pathworking in this case gives you a reference to understand how to reproduce a thing, where it is, what it is, what experience causes a certain result. Then you do another pathworking, find the differences in there and the similarities in there, ulteriorely refine what event produces what. This produces a "map" of your subconscious that you can use to give an order in your experiences and to know how to reproduce some results, what are the extraneous events and what is common.
If you instead worked with no structure how could you do the same?
Let's return at the metaphor of the cartographer. To start drawing a map he would explore the environments in an order. For example he will go south and will explore everything in there. Then he will go east and do the same and so on. In this way he can draw a map of the surroudning with points of referements. Now instead if the cartographer just did teleport from one place to another, without references and in a casual way what it will happen? Having no references he will lose the orientation, he could go in a direction thinking he is going in another, he can exchange a place already visited for a new one, and so on. The "map" will be chaos.
Also, SP is subjective because of your sleep schedule and mood. If I tried now, I wouldn't have any SP. For example, not everyone can OOBE at 4 am.
If your body enter sleeps, real sleep, than SP will be there. If you notice it or not notice it, it's another thing. At 4 pm if you stand there relaxing your body you usually enter SP before you enter the dream (it naturally depends on the context) for this you notice it. If it happens the contrary SP will be in the background, but while still being there.
In meditation (what I call meditation, and not for example "meditate on something, relax and relax till you fall asleep and your mind is awake", you can refer to Raduga direct techniques for an example of it and its graph that explains what I mean) your body doesn't enter sleep, so there's no SP. The trance will be different.
There is a difference in the structures, however, the OOBE is the same.
Not so, or only on the "idea" but not on the specifics. As I said to Xanth it depends on what you do in there. Depending on the approaches, then, the differences can be subtle or blatant.
In what I call an OBE the differences are blatant, since it seems all another thing. There is no fluctuation, you can visit the "material plane" as it is, in everyday live, etc.
In a certain sense the differences of approach when your attention is "moved" are subtle and you can either not notice them, depending on what you do. However if you utilize "consciousness" instead of "attention" then the differences are many and not subtle.
Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM