do astral kingdoms seem real?

[Gabe911]

i read in robert bruces book Astral dynamics that there are astral kingdoms on the astral planes with astral life. do these kingdoms seem real or does projecting into them seem like a dream?

[Stookie]

Yes they seem real, sometimes more real than physical. They may not be though, and just seem like it.

[Gabe911]

if they may not be, what could they be?

[Taoistguy]

Well, there's this one. Life, maybe; intelligent life, no, :\

[Stookie]

if they may not be, what could they be?

Your own "projection"

[AlanRK]

Those places are just as real as this world, if not more. In fact I would say they are far more real than the physical (here). If you go there you will feel completely awake and your senses will vibrate with the intensity of the world and its energies. The physical, in comparison, is a cold, dead wasteland.

[Xanth]

That's the thing about "real".
My opinion is that real is whatever you're experiencing at the time... nothing can seem "more" real than something else.

With that said... yes, these "astral kingdoms" are every bit as real as this physical world... they're just a lot more subjective, as I feel they're more Focus 2 type environments. 

I think that's what Stookie means by saying that they're YOUR projections.
I'm sure he'll correct me otherwise. 

[Stookie]

Exactly - a subjective world in a subjective state of consciousness, I'm not saying all experiences. I mean, that's what I think when I hear "Astral Kingdom", as the more objective areas I wouldn't imagine a "kingdom" with a king ruling on a throne.

[personalreality]

yea stookie,

when i use the word Astral Kingdom it's always been in reference to the subjective kingdom i created as a representation of my inner self.

[NickisDank]

So are there "kingdoms" that more than just 1 person claimed to visit? Or is every kingdom different because their your own "projections"

[Xanth]

So are there "kingdoms" that more than just 1 person claimed to visit? Or is every kingdom different because their your own "projections"

Well, now you're talking about "places" in the area of consciousness I call the "Collective Consciousness"... Robert Monroe labeled these areas Focus 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27, Frank grouped those together into his Focus 3 oC.

Basically, the places in these areas of consciousness can best be described as Objectively Subjective, in that they'll be stable environments that you can return to time and time again and contain real people, but the environment is shaped by the beliefs and experiences of those who reside there.

[CFTraveler]

There are various areas that are reported to be seen generally, and may be experienced differently.
For example, we've all been to schools in the astral, but I'm sure they don't all look the same to everyone.  There are bodies of water and caverns in the astral, but I'm sure they don't look exactly the same.  There are hospitals in the astral, but the ones I've been to will probably be different than others' experiences.
That's because the function of the places are more important than the appearance- a 'school' can look like an university, a library, and the dorm at Hogwart's- but the idea is that it's a place to learn things associated with abilities and travel (exploration) in the realm.
Most of the time that I've been to hospitals they seem to be a place of counseling, and the times I've been there it's usually been a place to counsel or help with processing of people who have recently passed on.
So you could say they are collective places, but the appearance is generally subjective.

ps. Talk about cross posting- you said objectively subjective, and I called them collectively subjective.   

[personalreality]

So are there "kingdoms" that more than just 1 person claimed to visit? Or is every kingdom different because their your own "projections"

archetypal kingdoms seem to be similar, like in the symbolism of tarot cards, rune stones, myths & legends, etc., multiple people have visited these types of realms.

[Xanth]

ps. Talk about cross posting- you said objectively subjective, and I called them collectively subjective.   

I actually confuse myself with the difference all the time.  >_<  LoL

[Greytraveller]

Greetings to 1 + All
Most of the places I have been to while out of body have appeared objectively real. Some of those places appeared very similar to everyday physical world locations and some places were certainly non-physical realms. Yet nearly all of them had an objective existence.
On rare occasions I would be in a place that seemed dream-like or surreal. IMO that was the result of dream imagery or distorted astral senses interfering with the OBE. I suspect that happens a lot, especially with novice projectors. In any event I would estimate that about 75 to 85 % of the unfamiliar astral realms or locations that I have visited Do have an objective existence.

Regards 
Grey

[Taoistguy]

Is Beauty real? Is fear real? What is beautiful to one person is different to another; it's all subjective. Is pain real?
I remember when once having acupunture, it hardly ever hurt. Yet the next person in the other room I could hear screaming! LOL
Either their idea of pain was different to mine? Or they had a very bad acupuncturist!

[personalreality]

which means that all experiences are subjectively real and if, like me, you're not entirely convinced of the existence of objective reality then, subjective reality is the only truth so everything is truth.

[Greytraveller]

Greetings
I read a passage in a book about magick written by a man named Brennan. He too was dealing with the subject of objectivity vs subjectivity. I do not have the book at hand so I will paraphrase.
He asked whether the nation of Poland was (objectively) real. Certainly most Poles believe that it is. Though he (Brennan) had never been to Poland he had read that Hitler's armies had invaded there in 1939 and he had read enough about it to postively conclude that Poland Was an objective location.
Brennan concluded that something (a place, a person or an event) can have objective reality even if you do Not directly experience it. This is something that I definately agree with. And, in fact, I would even go so far as to say that if two or more people agree about a subjective point of view then that subjective point of view has become an objective reality.

Hope this was enlightening and not confusing 
Grey

[manwesulimo2004]

So you're saying that if two people agree that Jews are the root of all evil (sticking to the WW II theme here) then that becomes an objective reality? 

I'm thoroughly confused about the way the terms "objective" and "subjective" are being used in this thread.

[Xanth]

So you're saying that if two people agree that Jews are the root of all evil (sticking to the WW II theme here) then that becomes an objective reality? 

I'm thoroughly confused about the way the terms "objective" and "subjective" are being used in this thread.

When something is "objective" it's stable, unchanging and can usually be observed by everyone.
When something is "subjective" it's usually unstable, changing as per an individuals perception and isn't the same when observed by different people.

[personalreality]

the only thing that makes anything objectively stable is mass subjective perception.  so the fact that so many people have been to poland makes it real.  a lot of people believe that this principle holds true in the astral.  there are "realms" that seem to have permanence because some many beings are focused on it as to give it "a life of it's own".  but when it all comes down to it, that realm is still a subjective experience that wouldn't exist if there weren't so much focus on it.

earth (physical reality) is difficult.  we've been habituated to perceive through our 5 senses only.  you have to consider the paradigm that everyone who is alive today formed their unique perception through.  and what is that paradigm?  scientific materialism and reductionism.  everything is fundamentally made of tiny particles of matter and that's really all there is too it. how else would you expect us to perceive reality?!  doesn't mean it's "true", it just means that from our perspective and experience, objectivity makes 'getting along in the world' easier.  I really think objectivity is a subjective "ghost in the machine" that developed because our language is sooooo symbolic (metaphorical) that objectivity became a necessity for group interaction.  but i do believe we'll grow past it.  i think that in the beginning we were individually aware of the subjectivity of things, then we developed objectivity as civilization grew and in the future i think that we'll be mutually aware of the subjectivity of reality (as a collective, as a species).

[Greytraveller]

manwesulimo2004, you wrote

So you're saying that if two people agree that Jews are the root of all evil (sticking to the WW II theme here) then that becomes an objective reality?  huh

I'm thoroughly confused about the way the terms "objective" and "subjective" are being used in this thread.

Yes, I get your point and it IS a valid point.
However, if two people Do agree that Jews are the root of all evil then to those two people that viewpoint is an objective reality. That viewpoint IS NOT something that I agree with yet the underlying principle Is basically sound. The same holds true for the theology of ALL religions and ideologies (Again Most of which I DO NOT agree with.
So If you and I agree that Jews are NOT the root of all evil (and here I am assuming that we can agree on that) then logically we can also agree that many 'objective truths' are based on erroneous beliefs and are therefore false.
I think that I can anticipate the next argument, which is that IF objective truths are based on erroneous beliefs then they CANNOT be objective truths. Perhaps I can agree with that in principle yet, unfortunately, that leaves hardly any difference between the terms 'subjective' and 'objective' except semantics. So I prefer the term 'false objective truths'. The term may seem misleading yet it perfectly fits the phenomena such as "Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, etc.

Regards
Grey

[manwesulimo2004]

Hmmmm... Interesting. So basically you're saying that you use the word "objective" when all the opinions in a given system agree on something (e.g. both people in our example). That may not make the issue "objective" in every context (like from our point of view) but within the given system it can be regarded as "objective"... Is that about right?

So that makes objectivity the subjectivity of the masses.

I think I like your definition.

[Greytraveller]

Hallo manwesulimo
So, basically....yes, that's about it.
Again, using Hitler's Germany as the example--- it was an objective reality because it DID exist. Yet that objective reality was based on lies, hatred and violence. Therefore I can label it a "false' objective reality.
That is as good of a definition that I can conceptualize.

Your statement

So that makes objectivity the subjectivity of the masses

sums it up very nicely indeed.

Regards 
Grey

[Fresco]

Yes they seem real, sometimes more real than physical. They may not be though, and just seem like it.

Thats right!  

If you're gonna research the OBE phenomenon properly you have to keep open the possibility  we're all dreaming while we OBE