A different view on OBE/AP: an article.

[Xetrov]

Hello everyone.

I have not posted here before, but i want to share with you an article i wrote on the subject of OBE/AP. Be warned though, it does not include the generally supported ideas of this website/forum. My goal is also certainly not to offend or to persuade anyone, i only hope to start a friendly discussion on this subject and exchange ideas on it. That said, the article can be downloaded here

http://home.wanadoo.nl/xetrov/obe.doc


With friendly greetings,
Xetrov.

[edit:updated with new version]

[kiauma]

Hello Xetrov,

I hear and appreciate what you are saying in your article, however let me recommend the book 'Science and the Akashic Field' by Ervin Laszlo, then let us acknowledge that perhaps the transcendental phenomena is something far beyond both our understanding.

Yours in Love and Light,
-K

[Frank]

Xetrov:

People have the right to argue what they like, obviously. But it would be far more use, and their arguments would have much more of an impact, if they would inform themselves before deciding to put pen to paper.

It is obvious you have no real practical experience at all, and all you are doing, in the main, is arguing semantics. Anyone who is established at practising this art knows that we are on the borders of discovering a completely new science. As such, we do not (yet) have a concrete list of established terminology that is linked to however-many known definitions. Under such circumstances, and until such time arises, it should be fairly obvious there are going to be quite a number of misunderstandings when it comes to making comparisons between who described what, about whatever.

The term "Out of Body Experience" is today a blanket term used to describe any situation where you become conscious of being mentally focussed within any other realm but for the physical. So whether you "come awake" within a dream, or whether you find yourself floating on your bedroom ceiling looking down at your sleeping physical, or floating on the ceiling of the operating-theatre looking down at your dying physical, or whatever, whatever. If you find yourself focused within any other realm of reality other than the physical, you are said to be having an Out of Body experience.

But do realise that when we say, "Out" of Body we don't actually mean we have stepped beyond the physical in the sense of being outside of it. When we say "out" we mean out in the sense that we are "not in" or we're "not at home". In other words we are "away" or "absent". Anyone who is anyone in this field realises the physical is an end result. The knowledge of such is so basic, it goes without saying.

Unfortunately, a significant part of your argument appears to be primarily based on your confusion of the word "out" with "outside".

Your article is so lacking in structure I'm having difficulty following the thread of it. On the surface, it would appear you are in some way attempting to distinguish between what is a "real" obe and what you would say was merely a dream. Your narrative is confusing but, from what I can gauge, you are attempting to conclude the only "real" obe is one that takes place without physical brain activity. Well, if I may respectfully point out, you are wallowing in your own ignorance here. It is obvious you have no knowledge at all as to the true nature of the relationship between the mind and the brain.

I had to chuckle where you make a particular point of saying, "So an NDE-OBE occurs when there is no brain activity." Well, the person is undergoing a near-DEATH experience. After all, that's what the "d" stands for. I'm sure it must be obvious to everyone that the closer a person is to death, the less active his or her brain becomes.

In your conclusion, you talk about applying "common-sense logic". To be honest, I thought that is what the piece sorely lacked. I think a suitable display of common sense would be for you to get 5 or 10 years of hands-on experience under your belt, before trying to argue another case in public.  
 
Yours,
Frank

[Xetrov]

Hello everyone,

I will take my time to try and answer all of your critique and comments, because i enjoy a good discussion and i can only learn from it.

I understand the argument though. That is, if there is no activity, and yet a person experiences an OBE, then something non-corperal must be going on, and therefore it is real. Conversely, if there is brain activity, then it must be brain (body) generated, and therefore it is not real.

Indeed, the first argument may provide an argument as to the reality of NDEs, but the second does not discount the reality of the other type of OBEs.

I Did not mean to say that Out of body experiences as described on this site are not real, just that they do not take place outside the body on the astral plane, but inside your brain. So there is nothing actually leaving the body in my view, as opposed to NDE-OBE's, where there has to be something outside the brain while there is no brain activity. So you see, i do absolutely not mean that OBEs have not got some sort of reality, or have any less validity in my theory! Not at all, i think it is still an incredible way to explore consciousness and other spiritual matters. And i only make a distinction between NDE-OBE's and the OBE's Bruce etc describe because (and this we can all agree on), they seem to be two different phenomena which might look the same but are surely not exactly the same. And of course i also use it to try and validate my theory.

...brain acitvity occuring during an OBE to a conservative scientist (which I am) does not indciate the OBE is produced by the brain. In fact, neither would I necessarily see the absence of brain data as supportive to the reality of an NDE, but that's another discussion all-together.

This is of course true. I also admit that my theory isn't provable (yet) but that's why its only a theory for now. There is no way to scientifically prove either my point of view or that of Bruce etc. I am only pointing out a possible alternative way of reasoning and explaining, the scientific data i show are just to shine some light on a few points and do not show that either i or anyone else is absolutely right. In my opinion, my line of reasoning has as much validity as any other, like Bruce's, since both cannot yet be strictly proved in any way. But i do not want to cling to much to science, although from my article it might seem so. Science is only one tool we can use to form our ideas and theories. The other tool is experience, from ourselves and from others, and using logical thinking. In my article i have not mentioned my own experiences but i will return to this shortly because i have been accused of not having any. The point i am trying to make here is, since both ways of reasoning (Bruce's and mine) can hold as much validity as the other, we should not yet come to any conclusion at this moment! Unfortunately, from reading Bruce's work (his book and this site), it seems as though what he describes is the only possible explanation of the facts.

MajorTom, thank you for your constructive post, i look forward to continue this discussion.

...their arguments would have much more of an impact, if they would inform themselves before deciding to put pen to paper.

Dear frank,

I am of the opinion that i have a rather broad view on this topic, i have read information of several authors including of course Bruce and others, so this accusation is just not true. But let me continue to write down a further response to your posting.

The author of the document has no real practical experience at all, which is blatant, and he's doing little more than arguing semantics.

Frank, i would appreciate it if you would direct any critique to me, since i am the author of the article. Also, i do have quite some experience in Out of body experiences as described on this site, also i have extensive experience in Lucid Dreaming for years now, and in going into an OBE from there. It is actually my own experience and, i must admit, also that of a few other friends i know quite well that i have begun to doubt the general explanations as Bruce gives for these phenomena. So this accusation, again, is not true.

Anyone who is established at practising this art knows that we are on the borders of discovering a completely new science.

I agree that, for western science, the different concepts of spirituality are a new terrain to be explored. However, this does not mean that these matters are new in general, and that we haven't got any good established terminology or definitions. Already for thousands of years people have been experiencing and talking/writing about experiences like OBE's. As such, there are two possible ways to define what an OBE means. The first is what you propose:

If you find yourself focused within any other realm of reality other than the physical, you are said to be having an Out of Body experience... But do realise that when we say, "Out" of Body we don't actually mean we have stepped beyond the physical in the sense of being outside of it. When we say "out" we mean out in the sense that we are "not in" or we're "not at home". In other words we are "away" or "absent".

If you use this definition, then, of course, during a dream we are out of body. But as Laberge also said (see quote in my article), if you see it this way we are really never inside our bodies at all because we live in a mental construction, and always experience a world 'out' of our physical bodies (but 'in' our mental constructions).
What i propose as to the definition of an OBE, is the following (and let me quote from various online articles so i can proof to you that i am not just the first one making this up):

"when the etheric (invisible to the physical eyes) body of a person leaves the physical body" (www.victorzammit.com/book/chapter29.html)

or:

"When the consciousness leaves the body in this fashion it is virtually always in the here/now plane, and close to the physical body" (www.sgvpr.org/definitions.htm)

I could continue. but the point is, how i define an OBE (and as you see many others with me) is that our spirit/consciousness entirely leaves the body and is outside of it (so, do not confuse this with my definition of AP, which is remote sensing by a mind split where you do not leave your body). Of course we could continue about semantics and definitions but i assure you that this has not been my intention and if anyone came to that conclusion then i apologize for not have been more clear in my article.

I had to chuckle where he makes a particular point of saying, "So an NDE-OBE occurs when there is no brain activity."

No need to be rude Frank, i just made this line of reasoning to show that there are differences between NDE-OBE's and OBE's as described on this site. Many of you know this of course, but not everyone who reads this article (it is not only published here), so i put it in there anyway.

In his conclusion, he talks about applying "common-sense logic". To be honest, I thought that is what the piece sorely lacked. I think a suitable display of common sense would be for the author to get 5 or 10 years of hands-on experience under his belt, before trying to argue another case in public.

To me and to a lot of others (which you might be not aware of), this line of reasoning i have used in my article is actually following our common sense logic. Of course there are other ways to explain all these phenomena,  ways that of course also use some sort of decent logic (like Bruce's ideas) but that does not mean that you cannot try and seek out possible different explanations by using some sense of reasoning as i have tried to show. The whole intention of this article is to show that there is more then one way of explaining OBE's induced from sleep/trance. And yes, i think that my way of seeing things are closer to the 'truth' if there is any, but i am open to suggestions and ideas showing otherwise. This counts for me and many more others that all have extensive experience with these phenomena (for me, only 3 years, but some of my closest friends have experimented with OBE's and even NDE's for 15-20 years already).

As a conclusion i would like to point out that i have not come here to be insulted in any way, and that your post (Frank) goes a little into that direction. I treat everyone here with respect and also respect their ideas, and try to have a good discussion on the topic. If i have misinterpreted your post, Frank, then i am sincerely sorry but to me it sounded rather as someone who tries to bully me (if that is the correct expression, I'm not English you know, i can only do my best).

Looking forward to continue this discussion, with friendly greetings,
Xetrov.

[astralspinner]

I thought the article started out ok, while it was only on the done-to-death "APs are just vivid dreams" concept.

It's an old argument, but it's at least got some credibility.

Then it lost its way because of the "but there ARE real APs and sometimes during a dream-AP you have a real AP without noticing the difference" stuff.

At this point, you're simultaneously arguing both for and against AP, and it all falls down. In fact, your explanation becomes the equal of the one you're trying to disprove, in that any discepancies can be easily explained away. In this case, everything is always either "It was just a dream" or "It became a real AP at this point"

The other thing I disliked about the article, apart from the bad writing style, was the way it was presented as not "Here's an alternative hypothesis" - which is all it is - but as "Here's what really happens, everything else is wrong"

Lines like "there are a lot of people around that claim to have had (some) experience with AP/OBE, and do not fully comprehend what these phenomena are" don't do you any favours. You're not presenting an alternative view, you're making it vey clear that you're telling people "I'm right and you're wrong".

If you had compelling arguments and valid evidence, that might be justified. But instead, you've thought up a view with no supporting evidence other than the same "pink elephant" you accuse the common view of, and then argued it as though it were fact.

You need to drastically re-write that document before you'll get people giving it any credibility. The style is amateurish, the arguments tenuous, and the tone insulting. None of which will make the reader more inclined to your viewpoint.

[Xetrov]

But what does "in" the body mean? What if consciousness is not in the body or brain? Why make that assumption in the first place? In other words, if you question on one end of the spectrum, it makes sense to do so also on the opposite end.

I agree that this is a very interesting question you raise, one which i have already pondered on quite a bit. The point is of course that there are roughly two possibilities as you say,  the two ends of the spectrum. I am of the opinion however that, since our consciousness seems to be connected to our body (i mean, we are conscious and we have a body), we should use the following line of reasoning: if we accept that we are as well spirit as body (which i think to be true), then consciousness can be either purely a 'spirit thing' or a combination of body-spirit. I don't consider the option 'consciousness is purely a physical body matter', because that would leave no room for a spirit, nor for any form of OBE or any other spiritual phenomena. So, we  have 2 options left, either consciousness is purely a spirit phenomena, or it is somehow spirit and also connected to our physical bodies. I argue for the latter one, because how else can consciousness of spirit be connected to our physical bodies? I mean, it must be connected for sure, since in our daily routines all the physical senses render their information to our brain, and it enters our consciousness. So there must be some connection right? Also, to us it looks very much as though our consciousness is located inside our heads (except perhaps during OBE's, if there are real ones). Lastly, if spiritual consciousness would not be connected to our physical bodies in some rather enduring way (it might be severed during OBE or NDE, but thats again a whole other story), our spiritual consciousness should be able to ALWAYS move freely around anywhere, also outside the body!
When i look at the way i have been arguing here, to me, i come to the conclusion that our consciousness might very well be inside our physical bodies and connected to it in some enduring way (i have an interesting theory about this as well, how this would be possible, i could post this idea in a later post perhaps). This does not mean that the opposite is not possible, however i do not see how that could be possible. Perhaps you could explain to me how, during 'normal waking life', you might consider our consciousness to be outside the body? I'm open to suggestions and ideas of course, perhaps you could point me to some other sources that explain, what you call, these far more interesting possibilities that start to come to the foreground by no longer trying to locate consciousness in or out of the body.

...how far and deep does mental space go ... Some would argue, far enough to touch other people's (shared) mental spaces (aka astral planes), or this commonly shared mental space we are all so used to (waking life reality).

At this point, you're simultaneously arguing both for and against AP, and it all falls down. In fact, your explanation becomes the equal of the one you're trying to disprove, in that any discepancies can be easily explained away. In this case, everything is always either "It was just a dream" or "It became a real AP at this point"

I will give my reaction to both these quotes here simultaneously, because these matters are related. What MajorTom wrote is very truly a possibility, however it does not have to invalidate my points i raised earlier. Let me briefly explain why, and how i see this particular idea. First of all, it seems that i have to explain (again) that i see OBE and AP as two different phenomena. It should be clear by now how i think about OBE's, but seemingly not how i see AP, which is probably my fault for not being more clear. AP is a word that, to me, describes a way in which humans can collect or gather information from a distant location, without the necessity for them to have or experience an out of body effect. This is possible i think, because, although consciousness in my opinion is located during our lives inside our physical bodies, we can extend, or split, our consciousness to include sensing remote places. This is something totally different from an OBE where our entire consciousness and spirit leave the body! I gave some examples in my article, where i state that being empathic, which many spiritually active people experience, is an example of this. If for example you feel a dear friend of you is in trouble or feels bad, and this person isn't close to you in a geographic sense (something that many empathic people can relate to as far as i know), you have a conscious connection to this person so you can actually feel from a remote location how she/he feels.  AP, seen in this way, is actually a way to expand consciousness beyond our normal daily spheres of being (the area that we can sense with our normal senses). So in this way, as MajorTom wrote, our mental space can extend far enough to include or touch other people's (shared) mental spaces.

The other thing I disliked about the article, apart from the bad writing style, was the way it was presented as not "Here's an alternative hypothesis" - which is all it is - but as "Here's what really happens, everything else is wrong"

Ok, i can imagine this and i am terribly sorry if it looks this way (and yes perhaps i should consider rewriting my article then). But let me tell you that this was really not my intention at ALL, certainly not to insult people!!  The only thing is that, i am very much used to writing essays and thesis related stuff because of my study (in Anthropology, if you wonder). In such writings we always have to make sure that, if we make a certain point, we have to make it appear that we are certain about our ideas, and this might look like i say "everything else is wrong". But that is just part of the "bad writing style" as you call it (which luckily not everyone agrees on). One last point i want to say here is, that if you look at Bruce's articles on this site and his book, do you see anywhere where he doesn't use this "Here's what really happens, everything else is wrong" style of writing? Yes, of course he uses a different style as me, but still it seems from his writings (at least to me and i know I'm not alone on this) that he is convinced he is 100% correct. By the way, if Bruce would say "this is what i assume, but i might be totally wrong", i would never have written my article in such a way either, because i like to think that keeping an open mind and discussing about all the possibilities is a virtue, though from my article that might not have shown (again, thats why i consider your idea of rewriting it).

If you had compelling arguments and valid evidence, that might be justified. But instead, you've thought up a view with no supporting evidence other than the same "pink elephant" you accuse the common view of, and then argued it as though it were fact.

The judgment if an argument is compelling is subjective. My line of arguing is compelling to me an at least a dozen other people. Furthermore, "valid evidence" (if that can exist in such a discussion), i have given at least in quoting several other (albeit scientific) sources to back up my ideas (scientific proof of the difference between NDE-OBE and the ones describes on this site, and also proof of my way of viewing AP (which by the way i added later on so perhaps you missed that)). The pink elephant is just a philosophical idea to make clear one of my points (which you might of course not agree with).

Lastly i think i should perhaps briefly explain my spiritual background, since this differs from the majority of the people (also at this forum i guess). Personally i have begun exploring a shamanistic path (albeit a modern version of it, more inclined towards Buddhism for example), where i explore consciousness, energy, meditation and related issues on a daily basis. The ways of thinking i am defending here come directly from this background. I just thought this might help explain some of the differences of opinion i and the majority of the people on the forum seem to have (i must admit this is the reason why i posted this article here also, not to insult but to get into a good discussion with people of different opinion).

Thank you for your attention (if anyone read so far), I wish you all a fine day.

[Frank]

Xetrov:

I would like to make clear from the outset that I draw a definite line between expressing a critique and being insulting. If I have given you any reason for you to think I was expressing the latter, it was certainly not intended and I am sorry for any misunderstanding.

I have reviewed my initial response word for word, and note that my critique remains focussed wholly upon the article in question. I also note that it was you who posted the article, and you posted it knowing it may be controversial.

You are at liberty to doubt whom you like. But please understand that if you begin publishing information contrary to two protagonists of the art, Bruce and Monroe, you are going to need a lot more evidence in your bag than experiencing a number of lucid dreams, and having a few pals who do the same. Otherwise, don't be surprised if you come under some serious critique.

You say at the beginning of your article about how you should always ask questions. Of course, asking questions is all well and good. But at some point, you should begin developing some worthwhile experiences. Coming awake within a lucid dream is a popular pastime; however, if doing that taught us all we needed to know, every last one of us would be veritable connoisseurs of the art.

You conclude your reply by saying the whole intention of your article was to, "show that there is more than one way of explaining OBE's induced from sleep/trance." Err, no it wasn't. The heading of your original article clearly states how in that article you are going to tell us what "real" OBE's are, and you are going to tell us what "fake" OBE's are, and how they are generated.

Of course, again, you are at liberty to make these claims and then change them later on. But in all seriousness, before doing so, I would strongly suggest you remain congruent and back up your original claims with actual hands-on experience, rather than just accepting quotes from those you feel are pro your stance, and rejecting those you feel are contra.

Regarding your reply:

I'm not talking here about exploring different concepts of spirituality vis-à-vis the current day western scientific method; in the sense of the western scientific method finally coming around to accepting and embracing old-age spirituality, et al. That's just your assumption. What I actually said was, "... we are on the borders of discovering a completely new science."

You make a case for saying we already have good established terminology and definitions on the basis that people have been writing about OBE experiences for thousands of years. And in the next sentence, you say, "As such there are two possible ways to define what an OBE means." That doesn't sound definite and established to me.

You talk about my definition of the term OBE in relation to us never being "in" our body in the first place. Well, I forget how many times I said this before on the forum.

You say, "... if you see it this way we are really never inside our bodies at all." Yes, that is correct. The mind is located in a totally different sphere of reality and connects to the brain by what is known as a Bio-Energetic Link.

Your sense of consciousness never "leaves" the physical body, because it is never "in" the physical body in the first place. The only thing "in your head" is your physical brain. The function of the brain is to run all the physical processes of the body and serve as an interface between the body and the Energetic Link. No memories are stored in the brain, no thinking goes on in the brain, the brain has no consciousness, and so forth. All these kinds of mental faculties are characteristics of the mind. The brain, in a sense, acts as a kind of central processing unit that runs the myriad of physical processes that take place within the body.

In the wider scheme of things, we are always in a state of being "out of body". Physical body that is. It doesn't feel that way to most people because they choose to engage a more or less permanent physical focus, and only knowingly disengage at the point of final separation.

This is why trying to fathom which types of experiences take place within the body, and which types take place without (as your article sees fit to do) is just a useless exercise, IMO. Because no one is ever "in" their physical body in the first place.

Unfortunately, much of what you say in your article is based on a false premise.

In any event, you are arguing over soon to be redundant terms. In the early days, people would project within the astral and that was all they could comprehend. As more and more people develop a progressively higher degree of proficiency, the blanket, catchall term Astral becomes inappropriate. If someone said to me they had an astral projection, the first question that would come to mind is to ask where they were. Monroe was a bit of a pioneer in this. But even his work is steadily being superseded. The non-physical region he originally labelled as Focus 27 is actually termed the Exchange Territories, for example.

The term OBE is now a broad-based term that I suspect will become redundant in time. Nowadays, people are beginning to identify their non-physical position from describing whichever particular "focus" they have engaged. Modern-day practitioners no longer "project" they merely engage a different focus. The term Astral is becoming redundant too, as people substitute it with the term non-physical. Though I (for one) when answering posts, lean towards using the older terminology, for now, as that is how people understand it to be. But as people's awareness expands to incorporate the more modern-day concepts, they too will make the switch in terms - as the two go hand in hand.

The term "Out of Body Experience" came about as it best described the typical types of experiences people were having at the time. Nowadays, however, people are discovering different types of experiences and developing new terminology to suit. Monroe talks of this in his later works, where he coined the term Phasing in place of his earlier "out of body" sensations. It became to him not as if he were projecting to anywhere, but as if he were "switching phase". Today, as I say, the word "phase" is being slowly replaced by the word "focus".

It is simply not possible to "exit" your physical body by taking a step "out" of it or "beyond" it, as is often depicted in the more traditional works. The physical realm is an end result. In other words, nothing exists beyond the physical realm. You can take steps back from the physical, but you cannot step beyond it. Though I can fully understand how people have come to conclude otherwise. Take a step back into the real-time zone, and it does very much look as if you just took a step "out" of your body. It's a perfect example of how looks can be extraordinarily deceiving.

In a way it's like when people once looked at the line of the horizon and thought it was the edge of the earth; or they watched the sun rise and set, and thought the sun revolved around them. Such mistakes are ever so easy to make when you don't have access to the big picture. Your article is a perfect example of that, IMO.

Stick your article in a drawer, go and explore the non-physical for 10 years and then read it again. You'll soon see what I'm getting at.

Yours,
Frank

[mactombs]

This is one of the more useful and substantial threads I've read in a long time.

I don't agree with the article, but I will agree with Xetrov when he says "In such writings we always have to make sure that, if we make a certain point, we have to make it appear that we are certain about our ideas, and this might look like i say 'everything else is wrong'. " Anyone that has recently taken a college-level English course (and thereby wasted precious hours) knows this is true. Concrete. Say "I think" or "IMO" and you'll see red marker. Another example of how academic English doesn't communicate well with people other than academics.

But more on topic, I find Frank's discussion of focuses interesting. I've heard them before in Monroe's work, but not much from anywhere else. It's hard to see what kind of science can possibly derive from this, however, considering the subjective nature of it all.

Hopefully Frank will come out with some articles of his own soon. This kind of discussion is all too rare.

[Xetrov]

If I have given you any reason for you to think I was expressing the latter, it was certainly not intended and I am sorry for any misunderstanding.

Ok, let that be bygones then.

... if you begin publishing information contrary to two protagonists of the art, Bruce and Monroe, you are going to need a lot more evidence in your bag than experiencing a number of lucid dreams, and having a few pals who do the same. Otherwise, don't be surprised if you come under some serious critique.

I am not surprised at all, it is actually what i wanted. And yes, i know that i would need a lot of 'evidence' if i wanted to convince any of the people that share believes with Bruce and Monroe to believe otherwise. But convincing is actually not what i set out to do, as i have said earlier, i just wanted to open up a discussion on the topic. But as far as i see it, it is just my word (and that of my 'pals') against that of the rest. So far it doesn't look like there is any hard evidence for any of the viewpoints, so all we can do is exchange experiences, ideas and philosophies on the topic, which is what a discussion is about in my opinion. I also want to point out that it is just a matter of putting value and trust in other people's experiences, for example you decide that Bruce's and Monroe's experiences have more 'truth' in them then mine or that of the other people i spoke of. I sort of know what the experiences of Bruce, Monroe and a lot of people on this forum are (of course surely not totally), but you people do not know what my experiences nor those of my friends are and yet you dismiss them as not helping us to see any 'truth' (again, if there is such a thing) in this debate. And please, don't argue that, since my ideas are contrary to everyone else here, these experiences my friends or I had necessarily have to be limited and of less profound depth then anyone else's experiences.

Coming awake within a lucid dream is a popular pastime; however, if doing that taught us all we needed to know, every last one of us would be veritable connoisseurs of the art.

I totally agree. Since the sum of all the spiritual experiences (including a lot of lucid dreams, OBE's, AP's, NDE's etc) of me and my friends are way beyond the scope to write here, i would ask you to shortly specify to what kind of experiences you are pointing at (experiences you probably have had yourself, since you state that having these experiences is necessary to be able to see the 'truth' as you see it) that could enlighten me, or which conclusions i cannot draw by the lack of certain experiences you and others have had.

The heading of your original article clearly states how in that article you are going to tell us what "real" OBE's are, and you are going to tell us what "fake" OBE's are, and how they are generated...Of course, again, you are at liberty to make these claims and then change them later on.

True, but i have explained why i did this as you probably already read after you posted this, in my previous post (which we made simultaneously). I am not changing my claims either, and i still think my way of seeing things is closer to what's really going on then Bruce's etc, but i am as always open to debate, and who knows i will find information to change my viewpoints (a little or perhaps totally, i do reject to being dogmatic), that's not a shame, is it? In fact, it is one of the reasons i started this threat, because one can only learn from discussions.

I would strongly suggest you remain congruent and back up your original claims with actual hands-on experience, rather than just accepting quotes from those you feel are pro your stance, and rejecting those you feel are contra.

I did that to show that there exists an, in my idea, congruent alternative explanation of what these OBE phenomena could be about. This is a normal way of putting together a point of view, collecting 'evidence' that one feels to supports their case. Everyone does that i think.

I'm not talking here about exploring different concepts of spirituality vis-à-vis the current day western scientific method; in the sense of the western scientific method finally coming around to accepting and embracing old-age spirituality, et al. That's just your assumption. What I actually said was, "... we are on the borders of discovering a completely new science."

My mistake indeed.

The mind is located in a totally different sphere of reality and connects to the brain by what is known as a Bio-Energetic Link....Your sense of consciousness never "leaves" the physical body, because it is never "in" the physical body in the first place.....
It is simply not possible to "exit" your physical body by taking a step "out" of it or "beyond" it, as is often depicted in the more traditional works. The physical realm is an end result. In other words, nothing exists beyond the physical realm. You can take steps back from the physical, but you cannot step beyond it. Though I can fully understand how people have come to conclude otherwise. Take a step back into the real-time zone, and it does very much look as if you just took a step "out" of your body. It's a perfect example of how looks can be extraordinarily deceiving.

Your question pertained to how consciousness would be located outside the body during waking life. However, I never said consciousness is outside the brain during waking life. My point is, that inside and outside are relative concepts, which are not hard wired or fixed....the senses may to certain extent lock us into a perspective where consciousness is experienced as being in the body

I am beginning to see now where a part of our differences lie. Seems to be a matter of definitions after all! So we agree on this; consciousness can be focused on a remote location, a fantasy, a real place, the astral dimension even. This means that, subjectively seen, the consciousness is placed 'outside' our own physical local spheres because we do not focus there, and therefor it is not in our consciousness (unless we do a mind split, where we stay conscious of 2 or even more locations). Subjectively seen, you can define this as an OBE, which people here seem to do. It comes very close to what i have defined as AP, but i saw (see) an OBE as a different phenomena (namely, NDE, ill come to that again in a sec).You see, during an OBE in your definition, consciousness is still being generated by an interplay of our physical brain and our spirit, by what you seem to call a Bio-Energetic Link. So when i was arguing that consciousness is inside our body, i actually meant the process of generating our consciousness (yeah, thats my mistake). This process takes place at least partially in your body (head most likely) , exactly because of this Bio-Energetic Link (if not, it wouldn't be linked now, would it?). And this was exactly what i meant to prove at  the outset of my article, that the generation of consciousness never ceases to come from this BE-link and therefor never leaves our physical bodies, as some of the people seem to claim (or even know for sure) when they experience an OBE from trance/sleep. I see it indeed exactly as Frank says "It is simply not possible to "exit" your physical body by taking a step "out" of it or "beyond" it, as is often depicted in the more traditional works". But in my opinion, this is what so many people seem to claim, although i also agree it is very understandable! To resume on what I defined as a "real" OBE, this is to me an experience where there seems to be a temporal severance in the BE-Link, when there is no measurable brain activity or electricity. This happens for example when someone has a NDE, but it can also be induced from a very deep trance state. Of course you can say here, there is no proof that there is no brain activity at all at an NDE, because perhaps instruments are to weak to measure it, or cannot measure this BE-link activity at all. But i would reply to that, that once you are dead, we can assume that the link will be permanently severed, and that it seems plausible that at NDE, there is at least a temporary disruption in this link (why else would people call it near DEATH experience?).

So to resume my standpoints using terms and definitions people on this forum are familiar with (should have done so before, but you have to excuse me since I'm not familiar with some of your definitions); during an OBE your consciousness is being generated inside your body by the BE-link which is not severed or weakened at this time. So in some way you could also argue that, although consciousness is focused elsewhere, we define it still as being located in the brain. Your spirit doesn't actually leave your body, as real though as it might seem during an OBE. You are merely expanding your awareness to another level, be it the dream world/fantasy or "real time zone", or the astral dimension perhaps. Also, this way one could argue indeed that consciousness itself never really is "in" the body in the literal sense of the word. To me, an NDE-OBE is totally different from an OBE induced from a sleep/trance. I defined NDE-OBE as "real" because here, you sever the BE-link, your spirit leaves your body and ends up in the astral dimension. An astral dimension that is not prone to influence by thought, as opposed to the places you end up from sleep/trance OBE. Since for explaining what happens during these kinds of sleep/trance OBE's nothing "more" seems to be necessary then a simple theory of what sleep, dreams, REM etc is, i assume that no elaborate construction of an astral dimension is needed at this place where thought seems to shape forms, since in the astral dimension where we end up at NDE this is not the case. Although i do claim that we still can perceive the astral during a sleep/trance OBE through what i define as AP, this is still the same astral dimension as the one we go to in NDE and therefore any changes that happen by thought do not really happen in the astral but in our dream/mind/consciousness. Information from the astral just kind of "drips through" into your dream, and is mixed up with it. Nothing really changes in the astral itself. Although there is no proof for this there is no proof to the contrary either and this is where i invoked my pink elephant, i dismiss elaborate explanations for a simpler one (and to me more logical one) until evidence/experience proves me wrong.

This is one of the more useful and substantial threads I've read in a long time.

Thank you, also thanks for supporting my way of writing my article.

Also i would like to thank MajorTom for point me to some interesting information which i will surely digest as soon as I'm able to.

[Frank]

Xetrov:

I note all you say but it's largely based on a false premise, and I'm a bit long in the tooth for this kind of campus-style theorising. I prefer to sort out what's what through actual hands-on experience. Plus, all you appear to want to do is curve fit people's responses to whatever notion you happen to believe in at the time. And when you come out with blanket responses, like you, "... sort of know what the experiences of Bruce, Monroe and a lot of people on this forum are." That's just so presuming it's laughable.

You complain that I have decided to put more value and trust in Monroe and Bruce's experiences than I do your own. Which is correct. That decision was not just arrived at willy-nilly as you try to make out. I regard Monroe's experiences as having more merit than yours, for the simple reason I spent a number of years studying and replicating his work and found it to be highly accurate. I have also studied and replicated a number of Bob Bruce's experiences published in Astral Dynamics (the ones that cover my particular field of study) and found them to be equally accurate.

By comparison, all you do is say that your different way of thinking things is closer to what is really going on. Unfortunately, no matter which way I look at it, I see no merit in that statement at all. I think the mistake you made is to presume everyone is in the same position as yourself, i.e. pitching arguments from the point of view of having respective "pet theories". Of course, under such circumstances, who is to say whether theory "a" is any more or any less valid than theory "b" c, d, e... ad nauseum.

In the end, you talk about collecting evidence to support your case. Well, there is only one proper way to collect evidence to support your case and that is to drop all your fanciful theories in the bin, and get some actual hands-on experience.

Yours,
Frank

[clandestino]

hi xetrov !

Interesting article, & welcome to the astralpulse !

I also disagree with your conclusion that there is a "real" class of OBE as opposed to a fake group experienced as lucid-dreams. There is simply no evidence to suggest that this is the case.

Van Lommel gives a good example from his studies; "she was put on the heart-lung machine, with VF, with all blood drained from her head, with a flat line EEG, with clicking devices in both ears, with eyes taped shut, and this patient experienced an NDE with an out-of-body experience, and all details she perceived and heard could later be verified."

While this one example may be true, you have conveniently left out the hundreds, possibly thousands of cases where patients have NDEs but cannot accurately describe their e.g. hospital bed, surroundings.

Thus, we cannot conclude that there exists a "true" astral realm that is "probably as solid as our physical world".

Although I disagree with your conclusions, I enjoyed reading your article. For science to accept non-physical reality, we need an agreed terminology & a way to measure such phenomena. Clearly, we have some way to go !!

Perhaps the astralpulse should set about re-defining the OBE experience, as the sheer quantity of terminology is mind-boggling & often apparently contradictory. To do this, we would need to break down the experience into components & come to a broad agreement on the process that takes place.

These are the issues that I see constantly plaguing our consensus understanding of the OBE :

1) NDE - OBE - Lucid dream - Dream
2) Astral projection - realtime projection
3) The "reality" or "validity" of the experience
4) The existence of a "true" astral world containing "fake" mind-generated objects.
5) "Leaving" the physical body.
6) the non-physical realms as a product of the physical realms, & vice-versa.
7) The classification of the astral into focus levels.
8 ) The Akashic records, often perceived as a giant database of information.

I believe that we can reach consensus on these issues by examining the evidence (our experiences & those of others). I feel we need to get our house in order before science takes us seriously.

Kind regards,
Mark

[Major Tom]

...

[Xetrov]

Frank:

I don't think my premise is false, but i acknowledge that first hand experience is important. Also, if you do not wish to continue this discussion, that's fine with me, but let us agree that we are both entitled to a different way of seeing how things are, and part ways in peace. I did also not mean that i would know all your experiences, but at least i do know what *some* of them are about, where as i meant to say you do not know mine.

There are actually a lot of people that, to a higher or lesser degree, agree with what i have been posting here. I am also not the only one thinking these things up, in my group of (spiritual) friends there are at least 5 others who are very regularly exploring these issues and debating on what they mean for our views on them, some for over 10 years or more. The reason that you will find none of these people at this forum is simple, most of them do not want to because they know an entirely different way of viewing things is supported by the large majority of the people here. A particular way of seeing things also mostly attracts people that think likewise. I however did not let that scare me away and tried to open up a discussion here, which i do not regret. I am sure that there are even many topics on which we DO agree, albeit not the ones i raised in this threat (for exactly the reason that i knew you would not agree, so to create a discussion on it). Let me conclude this reply to your posts, Frank, by pointing you to the fact that our (my friends and mine) view on things is close to the ways many Buddhist yogi's (who spend many lifetimes exploring consciousness and spirituality) see these matters. I know you will probably laugh about this but i wouldn't care and know it to be true.

While this one example may be true, you have conveniently left out the hundreds, possibly thousands of cases where patients have NDEs but cannot accurately describe their e.g. hospital bed, surroundings.

True, but i used just one example to show my points. There are many cases like this one and many cases where people indeed did not perceive anything in NDE (both probably thousands). However, i picked those cases in which people actually DO see their surroundings etc, because i think they can provide us with useful information about the properties of NDE-OBE's in relation to what i call the "real" astral (and you the RTZ of  the astral, if I'm correct). Other cases just don't divulge any information on this issue. Its the same as a sociological study to the properties of twins where one doesn't look at single born people. Also i did not say that this example in my line of reasoning definitely shows that my points are right, just that it shows (i think) that the direction in which we should explain these issues is different from the general accepted ideas on this forum. I came up with many other points to 'solidify' my claims. So, your conclusion is not correct i think ( this conclusion was: we cannot conclude that there exists a "true" astral realm that is "probably as solid as our physical world"). I say this because the example of the NDE-OBE doesn't lead us to any definite conclusion at all,  neither mine or your standpoints are definitely proved by it!

Perhaps the astralpulse should set about re-defining the OBE experience, as the sheer quantity of terminology is mind-boggling & often apparently contradictory. To do this, we would need to break down the experience into components & come to a broad agreement on the process that takes place.

I think  that would be a major job but seriously a good idea. Certainly for newcomers here (like me!) it would clear up a lot of "definition issues" to start with. I agree that we can come to some forms of consensus on many of the 8 points you mentioned, and that it would indeed help to solidify our experiences as being more "valid" towards science (although as yet, i don't relay put my faith in science totally, as it consists mostly of a lot of stubborn people that do not wish to know anything about spiritual matters). Anyway, thanks for your input, Mark.

MajorTom:

I quoted you and Frank there together because it lead me to conclude that there were some definition issues that lead us to misunderstand each other a bit (at last from my side). As to your claim, i think you are right in that consciousness isn't dependent upon the brain (else death would be finite, which i think it is not), but i do think there are clues to argue that it is PARTLY produced by our brain, as i have argued, as an interplay between physical brain and spirit (linked by the BE-link). But i have already put forward this point so i won't repeat it.

[astralspinner]

Xetrov> Have you read up Robert Bruce's explanation of the mind-split effect?

It's of relevance to your "No brain activity and yet an OBE was occuring" argument.

[Frank]

Xetrov:

People are free to believe what they like and, as far as I am concerned, they can debate their beliefs on the Astral Pulse all day and all night. Provided they do so in the appropriate forum and keep to the rules. Your criticisms of the Astral Pulse are duly noted. But do bear in mind that in the world of non-physical/spiritual forums, we are one of the most popular. So whatever we are doing, we must be doing it right.

Speaking of myself, as far as non-physical exploration is concerned, I think not in terms of beliefs but in terms of what is. After all, a scientist is what I am, not a mystic. All along you try to raise the old chestnut that one person's beliefs are no more, or no less worthy than another persons, etc. But our differences stem not merely from beliefs, or sheer differences in terminology, but from our respective degree of hands-on experience.

In all seriousness, I would strongly suggest rather than aligning yourself to some aged belief construct, you cast off your shackles, as it were, and simply go exploring. Hands-on experience is not merely important, as you say; it is an absolutely crucial, vital aspect. Without that, what else can you do but argue over semantics, talk about who said what to whom, and discuss the relative merits of one belief construct over another.

I am aware you don't think your premise is false and the reason, as I have already said to you, is you are not seeing the whole picture. You are doing the equivalent of looking at the line of the horizon and thinking it is the end of the Earth. The myth was blown away only when someone actually sailed out there and found out for themselves.

So again, and I keep saying this not to be insulting, but in an effort to be truly helpful: go blow away your own myths by getting some proper hands-on experience.

Yours,
Frank

[Xetrov]

Hey people,

This will be my last post (in this threat in any case), since i don't think continuing here has much use. I thank the various people for pointing me to their ideas and other sources of information.

Have a nice day,
Xetrov.

[knucklebrain1970]

JHFC guys. This is so frign complicated. Seems the effort involved is not worth the end result, which of course is OBE. But how many have actually had an OBE with all the effort put in. Not bashing it by any means. I just read this stuff and it's as complicated as quantum mechanics IMO. But this is coming from a person who can't meditate, never get into a meditative state.

Kevin

[astralspinner]

I hate to argue, but if humans are deprived of dream/REM sleep for more than a few nights, their brains stop working.

You might not REMEMBER dreams, but you DO have them. . .

[Tombo]

Hello Xertrov

I like your article, but want to make a critical argument (No experience just Logic):

One Key issue is, wether it is possible to perceive the physical during a Projection. You yourself, as well as Robert Bruce say it is possible. Now, if you fell your conscious outside your physical Body correctly perceiving things remote from your body, perceiving a whole world. There are now 2 options.

1) your brain (or conscious) is able to generate a complete realistic world and perceive things from the physical and integrate them into this world.

2) Scenario like Bruce describes it

Now, is 1) really more logical then 2) ? If 1) is true, it is logical to conclude that your whole world might be gerated by the Conscious and that there is no physical world at all (scenarion 3).

So what I'm basically trying to say is that not 1) is more logical then 2)



I'm actually tempted to say that there is no real difference between 1) and 2)! And that 3) is the most Logical.

Any comments welcome (@People who favour experience over Logic: I do as well! )

[Xetrov]

Hello tombodenmann,

I said i wouldnt post in the threat anymore but since you're new to it and ask me some questions i will answer. I argue for your scenario 2) BUT give a different explanation. With 1) as you describe it (its all in your brain, so no outside info, just a mental generation of the world) one could never see things in the "obe" and then go and see in real life to check that they are valid observations, unless your scenario 3) would be valid aswell. I dont think  that everything is generated by our consciousness, so that there is a genuine world "out there" that we experience daily. But, there is no way to proof this point (Descartes set out to prove it once and he concluded that you can not prove it, the world might as well be an outside "movie" projected into our consciousness by a big hairy demon to annoy us). So indeed 1) and 3) arent more logical then 2). Also i do not think that there is a huge difference between 1 and 2 but that is just my presonal idea.

[Sampson]

Hi Xetrov,
I read your original post and found it an interesting read.

Descartes set out to prove it once and he concluded that you can not prove it, the world might as well be an outside "movie" projected into our consciousness by a big hairy demon to annoy us.

I am always a little wary of language, Descartes 'last apple', which concerns doubting is merely a formulation of the human races grammatical habit. It can be seen as a form of linguistic camouflage that hides the 'truth' or the underlying essence of 'things' from us.

Language is a self-contained system, which can tell us nothing about the world outside of itself, we can only have thoughts that are 'trapped' inside of it.

Personal experience is the way to tear down these linguistic barriers, as William Blake wrote in 'The marriage of Heaven and Hell':

"If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear to man as it is, infinite.
For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro' narrow chinks of his cavern."

Cheers

S

[Tombo]

Hello Xetrov, I'm glad your still around. I read your artikel carefully and want to make some remarks. I did not read the other replies so, I might repete things already said.

You say:


-It is possible to perceive info from the "real" world during OBE. cause a part of you conscious splits and travels ("shifts") there, (while one part remains in the body)

Now, I must say this is bascally what Robert Bruce says! I mean, you say a part of the conscious can leave the body to gather information! at least thats the way I understand you. If thats not what you mean you have to explain very clearly, how you believe remote sensing works cause thats crucial here.

Now you go on to say, that the brain creates the OBE-world and integartes the infos gathered.

What facts do you have, to backup that claim? Is there any real prove that dreams are created by the brain? Your argument seems to be that the brain is active. I would argue the other way: In NDE's conscious is still there without brain, so one can conclude that conscious is NOT a Product of the brain. This would mean that dreams, LD and OBE can NOT be a thing created solely by the brain.

On the other hand Nobody cliams that the brain does not play some part. The brain might be the converter that transfer the experiences to our body.

One can also ask of what significance that is for the person experiencing the OBE.  We experience a realsitic world and we know that some things in it are real, This fact remains whether one believs in Bruce scenario by Robert Bruce or in the one you created.

On the other Hand you say:

- There is a human spirit independant from the physical body (NED) able to perceive the enviroment like a point of conscious when seperated.

Folllowing this line of reasoning I actually find it more logical to assume that OBE and NDE are in fact the same thing, with minor differences explained very logical by Robert Bruce.
Like you said with the pink elephant, one should assume the most logical explonation.
If there is a spirit and if we can feel our conscious leaving our body and even gather correct info from the outside world while Obeing, then the obvious conclusion (at least for me) is that we (as spirits) leave our body during OBE.

[Xetrov]

Hey tombodenmann,

I read your questions and will try to answer them carefully. I have meanwhile been doing more research into Bruce's ideas and similar others, to get a better picture of the definitions used and the ways of thinking behind the ideas. I think this will also help me explain my viewpoints better.

... you say a part of the conscious can leave the body to gather information! at least thats the way I understand you. If thats not what you mean you have to explain very clearly, how you believe remote sensing works cause thats crucial here.

The difference is that I do not claim that the world you perceive once you are out of body (through trance/sleep), is the physical or the astral, as Bruce says. I say it is 'only' a mental projection which is created by you (whether in your head or not) , like a dream, it is purely mental space we explore here. This said, how do i define remote sensing (what i called AP earlier, this might have caused some confusion). You have to realize that in this explanation i have to use definitions and terms that i am familiar with, and others might perhaps not fully understand. Remote sensing goes like this, we connect through our subconscious with the unity that lies behind everything in the universe (the source of all), and this allows for a conscious direct connection (by feeling, especially emotion) to any place we can be currently aware of. So, we do not realy split our consciousness in 2 parts and send 1 part 'away', we merely expand it and use one part to make the connection. When we are in a mental projection, this information we have received about the remote location is transferred through our subconscious into our mental projection. The mental projection for a large part is also created by the subconscious, so in this way the information gets 'mixed with the dream reality of the OBE'. I hope this clarifies my way of seeing remote sensing.

...I would argue the other way: In NDE's conscious is still there without brain, so one can conclude that conscious is NOT a Product of the brain. This would mean that dreams, LD and OBE can NOT be a thing created solely by the brain.

This is actually what i was trying to say (if you got confused, my apologies). Consciousness is a 'creation' (or perhaps better, being maintained), by our brain + spirit, linked through the bio energetic link. When someone dies, or engages in an NDE, the link is (temporarily) severed and his/her spirit goes free, thus being able to perceive through the astral body's senses.

If there is a spirit and if we can feel our conscious leaving our body and even gather correct info from the outside world while Obeing, then the obvious conclusion (at least for me) is that we (as spirits) leave our body during OBE.

I agree that there is a very vivid sensation of our consciousness leaving our body, yet this does in my opinion (i explained why and how in the start of my article) not justify the statement that it is a fact. I have given all my arguments and explanations already now, so i hope you see why i claim this. But it comes down to 2 points: smooth transition from wake  into mental projection which creates very vivid OBE feeling, and remote sensing explanation through subconscious connection. So to me (and others) there definitely exists a plausible alternative viewpoint!

Have a nice day,
Xetrov.

[Tombo]

Hi  Xetrov

Yes I think your Viewpoint is a plausible alternative. I guess in the end everybody has to do his exploration.

Keep in mind that the differences between RB and you are, I believe, Subtle. When you rewrite (If you do) your article I suggest to make very clear definitions. As I understand RB, the Astral is a Fluid Medium which reacts on thoughts which is close to a mental space like you describe it. The difference being that if there is a real Astraldimension, there must be some inprints that are stronger (the ones, a lot of people contributed to) and some that are faint (personel ones). So it should be possible to create places together (See Astral pulse island Board). In your viewpiont this things should not be possible. Also,  there is said that one can visit real Spirits in the Astraldimension, an other possible exploration subject.
Lastly I wanna say that I had one unique OBE-experience were I perceived colors not existing on earth, I know I could not remember them cause my human brain didn't know them and that's what happened when I awoke. I just remembered the feel of the colors. Strange
Well Anyways, if you wanna verify your theorie you have to draw clear conclusions that are in contradiction to an Astraldimension and roadtest them. Then post your experiences and people will listen, as long as you don't do that, It remains a "menal game" in the physical.

Thanks for the interessting discussion! Cheers Tom

[Xetrov]

Hi Tombodenmann,

I shall just shortly reply here, but in reality there's actually a very elaborate theory behind al these things you mention (could probably write a book on it... hehe). RB's Astral is exactly the same as my mental space. In my viewpoint a project like the astral pulse island could very well be realizable, remember i explained that remote sensing (what i called AP before) makes use of subconscious connections to places, but this can also be to other people/spirits. In that sense it would resemble shared dreaming, where mental space is (partly) shared through a subconscious link. Your experience with colors and linked emotions is very interesting, it shows that we are able to make (more) use of emotional sensing etc while we are not awake. I would for example categorize heightened musical abilities, which i often experience in LD's, in the same group of experiences.

By the way i just thought of something, RB seems to imply that you have to develop your astral senses, in a sense that if you don't, you will be astrally blind, deaf etc. So how does that relate to people, born blind, experiencing an NDE-OBE and being able to see (yes there are examples of this phenomenon)? Just a thought...

Xetrov.