Raduga's Phase is LD-ing, not OBE!

[ether2]

I'll delete you ether!    

thats not very nice...

i challenge ya to a dual, as in the deletion...
of course being admin to hermetics/minds abilities, i have this right, as ya know ...

good luck

love all man

[dotster]

i think i see whats goin on here

anyway NO, OBe's are not LD's...this is clear to those at a height of consciousness/abilities...

Xanth you have proved your point. It is a waste of breath.

[ether2]

Xanth you have proved your point. It is a waste of breath.

hay, how ya goin man, oh i'm not Xanth ...

good luck

love all

[Selea]

WHAT? Then what are those? LOL. What's the difference between REM oobes and "true" OOBEs? What can you do in "true" OOBEs" and not in REM OOBEs?

Many things. The way you "enter" the subconscious (talking in broad terms) change the way you experience the subconsious in the specific.

For example REM obes are not "stable". You look at a watch, there's an hour, you look around then look back, the hour has much probably changed. In "true" OBEs this doesn't happen. But this is only a little "external" difference. The real difference is in what you can do in there.

Indeed, but in essence they're the same one thing. When you are in an LD you just need to break out of the dream reality and you're in an OOBE already. As I've said, it is like a pie, it depends how much sugar you put in it. They'll have different tastes, but it still is just a pie.

Where you "go" it is the same (or it can be, also if there are "places" you cannot go depeding on what you do), how you interact with where you go it is different.

There's no energy body in fact. I've had OOBEs in which I did not have body at all. I was just consciousness! As you do not need a silver cord in an OOBE or dreams or whatever, you do not need a body either. There's no actual separation either.

Can be, or it cannot. Nobody can be sure one way or another, so why act as if you would?

[Selea]

You could as well suggest me authors that say you need to work on chakras, pray to weird Gods, make useless rituals, do some energy exercises and then you can OOBE! You do not need to read a lot before experiencing an OOBE. As Bedeekin said, that's like saying "Now I've read all I can read on UFO's, now it's time to see one!"

And this is exactly the problem. You are talking of a thing you know only a part from personal experience yet you think you already know everything.

So, you see, you are doing exactly this. You have a "theory" (like reading a book) but that doesn't mean much.

I listed the different approaches in entering what you call the phase. You, (and the Raduga school, among many others), only use the approach one and are experienced only in it, yet you are sure already of what happens in the others. Don't you think this a bit presumptuous?

[Selea]

Don't worry.  That's the last of me posting here.  I really don't see the difference between OOBEs and lucid dreams.  As I said to Ssergiu before, I have experienced the prominence and the absence of vibrations in both (vibrations are irrelevant anyway as I consider them to be a physiological symptom).  All I see is the different ways of entering the Phase (before, during, or after sleep) and the fact that sometimes anomalies are prominent in familiar surroundings (or environments are completely strange altogether) OR the environment appears to be congruent with the waking world (or anomalies have not been spotted).  Other than that, that's it!  The possibility that in one realm anything can manifest from belief and expectation still stands. I call it the Phase.

Also a chessboard is always a chessboard, but you can play chess, fischer's chess or chess960, or either checkers in it, depending on how you place the pieces.

Also the earth is always the earth but depending if you are an ant, an human or a bird your interaction with the same changes dramatically.

[Ssergiu]

Many things. The way you "enter" the subconscious (talking in broad terms) change the way you experience the subconsious in the specific.

For example REM obes are not stable. You look at a watch, there's an hour, you look around then look back, the hour has changed. In "true" OBEs this doesn't happen. But this is only a little "external" difference. The real difference is in what you can do in there.

Your awareness is still focused somewhere else than your body / physical body ==> OOBE. 

Where you "go" it is the same (or it can be, also if there are "places" you cannot go depeding on what you do), how you interact with where you go it is different.

What did this have to do with anything I said? O_o

Can be, or it cannot. You cannot be sure one way or another, so why act as if you would?

I've removed any stupid new age beliefs and here is I ended up. Of course I could create a fancy energy body and other stupid things for "Astral"'s sake. I do not act as I am sure, I am sure.

And this is exactly the problem. You are talking of a thing you know only a part from personal experience yet you think you already know everything.

So, you see, you are doing exactly this. You have a "theory" (like reading a book) but that doesn't mean much.

I listed the different approaches in entering what you call the phase. You, (and the Raduga school, among many others), only use the approach one and are experienced only in it, yet you are sure already of what happens in the others. Don't you think this a bit presumptuous?

How come my personal experience led me to the theory Xanth and many others have? We did not talk about this before posting here. On astralviewers I think I am the first one who came up with this idea and people kind of agree. Also, how do you think books were written? They also were based on experiences.

Anyway, as Xanth said, it's not worth trying to explain anything. In my belief, if there's an after life, you will go to what place you believe you'll go to for a while until you realize it is your creation and remove all your "human" or physical thoughts and accept the new "life". Hope you will be able to accept it as soon as possible.

[Pauli2]

What's the difference between REM oobes and "true" OOBEs? What can you do in "true" OOBEs" and not in REM OOBEs?

From the Peterson page:

"Lucid dreams are not easily remembered, unless one is conditioned. ... OBEs,
however, are usually remembered vividly for years."


There are more differences.  See the table.

"During LDs, sexuality is convincingly real. In other words, it feels the same as real sex.

OBEs, however, rarely have sexual content. When OBEers report having "astral sex,"
the experience is not anything like physical sex. It's more like an ecstatic mind-trip,
a transfer of energy, or a euphoria, but it doesn't feel like physical sex."


Ssergiu, your expression "REM OOBEs", do you have a reference page for that expression or
is it a home made construct of yours?

[Ssergiu]

Ssergiu, your expression "REM OOBEs", do you have a reference page for that expression or
is it a home made construct of yours?

I am talking to Selea about REM OOBEs. He said that OOBEing from REM (after a sleep, during a sleep, upon awakening, whatever sleep) are not true OOBEs and this is why I want to know what the difference is. However, I still can't find any, except that a "non REM" OOBE is harder to achieve, but not impossible.

"Lucid dreams are not easily remembered, unless one is conditioned. ... OBEs,
however, are usually remembered vividly for years."

True, however you can remember lucid dreams easily too. However, this does not prove they're a different phenomena, BUT the level of awareness was different.

[Pauli2]

... however you can remember lucid dreams easily too.

I can not, if my LD is long enough (more than 20 seconds).

I think others have reported the same loss of memory on longer LDs.

[Ssergiu]

I can not, if my LD is long enough (more than 20 seconds).

I think others have reported the same loss of memory on longer LDs.

I do not know... I've never stayed much in LD's. I usually turned them all into OOBEs for more freedom.

[Pauli2]

so what u say is that you experience some kind of difference?

[Ssergiu]

As I have said, Pauli.

Dreams < LD's < OOBE
|             |           |
|             |           |
--same phenomena--
Different abilities/feelings/awareness though.

Dreams do not feel like LD's neither LD's like OOBEs. However, they are the same basic idea.

[Selea]

Your awareness is still focused somewhere else than your body / physical body ==> OOBE.  

I already said that I use the term OBE also if I would not like to use it. The term has become too generic and it has lost its meaning.

As for the awareness (I think you use the term to mean the consciousness, and not just the external focus of your attention), this is one of the primary changes. In a sleep approach the bulk of the consciousness is still in the physical body. In an OBE (or what I call as such) the bulk of the consciousness is in the "other" body.

What did this have to do with anything I said? O_o

Everything. The problem is that you just consider the "external" part of the experience, while I consider the specific. For this the metaphors on the chessboard and the earth and how they are the same or completely different depending on the approach and the specifics.

I've removed any stupid new age beliefs and here is I ended up. Of course I could create a fancy energy body and other stupid things for "Astral"'s sake. I do not act as I am sure, I am sure.

The fact that you think you are it doesn't mean anything at all for me.

I bet how much you want that you are not able, for example, to do approach three that I explained. So, how can you be sure of something you don't either know?

I can do all three approaches and yet I'm not sure of anything as you are. How strange that people that usually are sure of everything are those that know less of the things they talk about, isn't it?

How come my personal experience led me to the theory Xanth and many others have? We did not talk about this before posting here. On astralviewers I think I am the first one who came up with this idea and people kind of agree. Also, how do you think books were written? They also were based on experiences.

A) It depends on how your personal experience it is structured and how you approach it. Many people in these sort of things do just a part of the whole (usually only what they find "right" on an intellectual basis) and then they pretend (in the same way, intellectually) that all the rest must necessarily follow in the same way. Probably they think that disciplines of the mind are somewhat different than other, more "pragmatic", ones.
B) Xanth it is more open than you are on this thing. He can think something similar to you, but he is not sure one way or another. This is a critical difference.

[Selea]

However, I still can't find any, except that a "non REM" OOBE is harder to achieve, but not impossible.

This "I still can't find any" comes from intellectual knowledge or from personal knowledge?

[Selea]

Dreams do not feel like LD's neither LD's like OOBEs. However, they are the same basic idea.

On this we agree.

Also a car is always a car on the basic idea. Yet, at the same time, a Ferrari is not the same as a Chrysler as every pilot can tell you.

[Ssergiu]

On this we agree.

Also a car is always a car on the basic idea. Yet, at the same time, a Ferrari is not the same as a Chrysler as every pilot can tell you.

That's what I've been saying in this thread all this time. LOL!

Also, as I've said, I describe OOBEs/LD's/dreams as "thinking/creating/being without a body or without being focused on any body". This can be achieved both in OOBEs and REM OOBEs. I've done it.

As for the term OOBE... I kind of like "out of reality experience" more or "The phase".

Are we done yet?

[Xanth]

It's against my better judgment, but I'm going to give this thread another 24 hours... since what resembles a partial discussion seems to be FINALLY emerging.

Everything. The problem is that you just consider the "external" part of the experience, while I consider the specific. For this the metaphors on the chessboard and the earth and how they are the same or completely different depending on the approach and the specifics.

You look at it from a different perspective, that's all.
We look at it in a "big picture" way... you look at it in a "little picture" way.
We talk about the experience as a whole.  You try to break down the experience into subjective portions.

In the end, all of this is subjective.  If someone chooses to place dividing lines in their experiences that's their own choice.  It shouldn't be forced upon others in the manner that it currently is in this thread (I'm not referring to you in that, Selea ).

When interacting with people on this forum, I feel it's more important to simply encourage them to have ANY experience than to sit there and judge their experiences and try to categorize them for that person.  That doesn't help... it only serves to confuse more than anything else.  The point is to give the individual the ability to have enough experiences for them to make *THEIR OWN* judgment call based upon their DIRECT EXPERIENCE... not upon what an AUTHOR says in his books.

Also, it comes down to this fact:  You can read all the authors in the world on any particular subject, but until you experience things directly for yourself, you'll never know.  There are so many different opinions on this subject, to simply say that "oh this group of people have to be right because they say so" is asinine and all you're doing it LIMITING YOURSELF.  Why?  Because this is a very personal and very individual experience... Pauli just quotes Robert Peterson above, well, his quotes LITERALLY don't apply to my personal experiences. 

Keep your options open until you have the direct experience to say "no, it's not that way for me, I experience things like <so and so> instead" like I can do above with Petersons quote.

[Stookie_]

I think it's important to see both the big and little picture, not just choose one. There's a microcosm and a macrocosm, both are real. You have to find balance.

[Xanth]

I think it's important to see both the big and little picture, not just choose one. There's a microcosm and a macrocosm, both are real. You have to find balance.

I couldn't agree more. 

[Ssergiu]

I think it's important to see both the big and little picture, not just choose one. There's a microcosm and a macrocosm, both are real. You have to find balance.

Yep, but the big picture let us find out more about the little one. Anyway, I am sorry if I sounded like I was forcing my beliefs over the others. I am not very open when it comes to OOBEs as there are many false things on the internet. People have evolved, so has consciousness.

[Xanth]

Yep, but the big picture let us find out more about the little one. Anyway, I am sorry if I sounded like I was forcing my beliefs over the others. I am not very open when it comes to OOBEs as there are many false things on the internet. People have evolved, so has consciousness.

That's why, in my opinion, people shouldn't lock themselves into a certain way of thinking or, in the larger sense, believe ANYTHING they read without first experiencing it directly themselves. 

[Selea]

That's what I've been saying in this thread all this time. LOL!

No, you have said that they are the same thing. Some things having the same "basic idea" it is not equal to them being the same.

Also, as I've said, I describe OOBEs/LD's/dreams as "thinking/creating/being without a body or without being focused on any body". This can be achieved both in OOBEs and REM OOBEs. I've done it.

The fact that you can feel to be without a "body" (that then you never really are, but this is a complicate thing) doesn't invalidate the theory of the "energetic body", the same as if a fish inside a vase would be thrown in the ocean it would not invalidate for it the existence of water.

[Selea]

You look at it from a different perspective, that's all.
We look at it in a "big picture" way... you look at it in a "little picture" way.
We talk about the experience as a whole.  You try to break down the experience into subjective portions.

I try to "break it down", yes, but not in subjective portions. The differences I'm talking about are objective, in the sense that they reside inside the structure of the experience.

For me there's no problem on people thinking a way or another, but this is different from being sure one way or another. Morover, to really start understanding the difference in this particular things you have to be able to control the experience much more than usual. It is the difference from having a thing done for you and having it done yourself.

Now, the "key" to have this type of control in mental disciplines it is full concentration (among other things, but this is the most important). It is like the color for a painter. If you don't possess it there are many things you could never experience first hand, and so you can just have a "broad picture" on these things, arising from intellectual knowledge.

As for "personal knowledge" I would like to talk on those parameters, but alas, depending on specific training this is not always possible. Concerning the "energetic body", for example, to let someone understand that maybe there's something more than just "a memory of sensory informations" personally I could advice on making a little experiment, as looking at that original subconscious image then with full concentration change it to something else. This will give the objective feeling of something around you molding like clay and so you will understand first hand that maybe there's more to it that you can just intellectually decide.

In the same way I could do for consciousness. What we call "consciousness" it is usually residing (at last on occidentals) vaguely behind the eyes, a little above the nose. With full concentration, however, you can change that place, so that it "moves", for example inside your hands or feet, or wherever else (so either "outside"). Doing this will give you probably another perspective on the fact that consciousness it is just a product of the brain.

So, lacking the possibility to have this sort of interaction it is difficult to come to practical knowledge instead of just intellectual debate. However, at the same time, I know that intellectual knowledge is what gives the input for people to maybe start being interested in these things and learn how to experience them themselves. So, in the end having a more open view is what can help you do more.

[Selea]

Yep, but the big picture let us find out more about the little one. Anyway, I am sorry if I sounded like I was forcing my beliefs over the others. I am not very open when it comes to OOBEs as there are many false things on the internet. People have evolved, so has consciousness.

That there are many false things on the internet this is sure, as it is sure, however, that they are also where some think "real" informations reside.

Then, I'm sorry to let you notice, but what you call "evolution" is not really such. You can think some views as archaics or limiting in the way you look at them, but that's only because you just look at them with a certain approach. All the theories about "planes", "bodies" etc. where created just as a terminology arising from direct experiences and the feeling arising in them. There was not intention to understand what things *really* were, because these people were usually perfectly aware that this is not possible and it would only lead to neverending intellectual debate. So they created a sort of "map" for people to experience the same things for themselves in the same way. This "map" was to be used, however, along with a structured learning process and not by itself.

In the "evolution", however, people started practicing indipendently on some of the processes of this structure, but without keeping the same structure intact. They just decided to do a part (or some) that they did find interesting, leaving the rest aside. Doing only a part, then, since the lack of structure couldn't let them replicate most of the parts of the "map" and, given that they didn't have enough theoric knowledge on that "map" to really discern what it really was, they discarded all the contents of that "map" as irrilevant or not accurate and called it "bogus" or "limiting" or "archaic". Yet their personal knowledge had not the structure that was there in the past. All their "experiments" were just chaotic takes on the structure, many times without either no linking between them. Morover, all the practical use of the "map" was completely lost. People just cared to wander around, aimlessly, and they either called it "progress".

Naturally there were some "evoluted" people that, while discarding the "map" altogheter, started recreating a structured experience  (if only partial and arising directly from just a process) in there, and in so doing, however, they recreated the same "map" in other terms, the same way, because there's no way outside of that. By doing certain things certain results happens. If you do those things in a structured way, the same "map" will arise. It will be just a sketch instead of a real "map", but the geographical aspects will be the same, no matter if you call Europe, "Akhanatati" or "New World".

So, you see, all you call "evolution" I call another way.

As for "sounding like imposing my beliefs" etc. don't worry about it. I usually sound always like this but that's only an inconvenient of debating of what you know, whatever it may be