Messages

Hi Bedeekin,

No, not redundant at all in my opinion. It does a good of job in relation to atonia, which is very relevant to OBEs, but less so when it comes to explaining "energy sensations", or all the hypnagogic phenomena.

It falls short as an explanation, also because of those with quadraplegia experiencing vibrations and so forth, which is part of why I would tend to favor a more mechanical explanation along the lines of the late physicist Isaac Bentov and his work on kundalini phemomena.

It's very interesting literature, and it meshes with my experience of these sensations being pressure pulses travelling through the body, which become apparant under extreme relaxation and atonia (which is the part where the neurological explanation are relevant). The pulses bounce all over the place, at varying frequencies, eventually reaching the inner skull, which is why they are rarely at the same beat as the heart itself.  

This is actually something you can test out for yourself from a first person persective (as opposed to the neurological explanation) which I know tends to be your approach to begin with. More detail is my book.

Best wishes,
MT

Hi all,

Thanks for the interest.

As far as I have been tell, vibrations, and "energy sensations" in general, have an internal bodily origin - at least at its source. Further downstream, it can translate into more complex experiences.

I don't think it's a neural phenomenon, however, but instead, far more mechanical, revolving around pressure pulses through the veins, bone tissue, and softer tissues, ultimately originating from the heart muscle - the thing that makes the most noise in your body.

It's not entirely a rejection of esoteric accounts, as I think it might be interesting to match the physiological pathways of least resistance with those of the chakras and energy pathways of eastern traditions, but I have found throughout several experiments that there is a physical explanation for them, or at least that there is a physical counterpart for these sensations.

It remains pretty magical, no matter how you look at it, and it continues to blow my mind.

Fred 

It's interesting to read. Do you explore this (your doubt) further in the book?

Hi Newmethod,

Yes, it's a common thread throughout.

I like to explore different avenues while staying close to the experience itself.

MT

Hi Newmethod,

Glad you were able to find it on your own.

Hope it will be useful to you.

MT

Beautiful blog...beautifully done..

I bookmarked it...

You welcome Stookie.

It's a small update, but long overdue, and I wanted to line it up a bit clearer with the Vigil method. 

Eventually, a more major update is in order I think, incorperating a few more recent ideas on the transition process, including the several different pathways by which the OBE can accomplished.

Press "refresh" if you visted the focus 10 page before...!

Hi all,

For those interested, I made a little update in the focus 10 paper in the last two sections, and linked it up a bit clearer with the OBE.

http://www.explorations-in-consciousness.com/focus10.html

For those who really want to get to the bottom of the transition process, I recommend you read my book which goes in far more detail (and not in terms of focus levels).

http://www.explorations-in-consciousness.com/book.html

Wow, now I can understand why I was told to drop the labels. This is almost like a conversation on Religion, where everyone is right to a point, but has their own way of saying it.

Yup.  

I had that thought about that the other day. It's important to a lot of people, because the topic of OBEs touches on so much more than just an opinion. It's deeply personal for many, very much like religion.

Perhaps for good reason, because most here believe it is related to survival and continuity after death in some way.

Noone does not get a little bit fanatic about that when push comes to shove.

MT

Hi Pauli,

This is just the term I remember him using, in reference to his past experiences.

The way I understood it, he initially had no good idea of how he ended up ended in an environment, usually quite suddenly, as is often reported by lucid dreamers doing WILDs as well, where they often find themselves becoming part of a dream environment rather abruptly.

I'm talking more or less wake-induced here, although often in clouded states of consciousness. DILDS would be different.

It goes to show, the price for best controlled transitions into any sort of "out-of-body state" still goes to the OBE community as far as I'm concerned.

Thanks for the info on focus 11. Sounds interesting.

MT

Hi Pauli,

I interpret the work of LaBerge to be less ambigious than that. He does appear to make the point that OBEs are more like dreams than anything else. Most other scientists in this area interpret it in the same way, and I haven't seen LaBerge deny it anywhere.  

e.g. http://library.macewan.ca/lucidity/LL%204.2/Out%20of%20body%20experiencesas%20lucid%20dreams-Rogo.htm

I think part of the ambiguity in those articles referred to in Jouni's OBE FAQ also stems from not clearly defining the terminology, as well as from the debate at the time whether or not you are really out of the body or not during an OBE, which I consider to be seperate issue.

Purely from a phenomenological stand-point, as per the experience itself, I consider (lucid) dreams to be an OBE (i.e. you experience yourself in a different location than that of the physical body). However, I do not consider all OBEs to be lucid dreams in the sense that the experience of being in a seperate location from your body always coincides with REM.

To put it in a way that would annoy my old math teacher:

(A = B) does not equal (B = A)

In any case, a lot can be said about this debate about the relationship between lucid dreams and OBEs. I had a longer disccussion with one of LaBerge's collaborators about it if interested:

http://www.explorations-in-consciousness.com/forums/index.php?topic=699.msg4259#msg4259

In the end, the conclusion may be that it may not matter a great deal. It simply depends on what you consider dreams to be, useless or valuable in some other way like many shamanistic traditions do for example as portals to "other worlds".

I have not heard of focus 11 or 13 before, but was aware Monroe locates his IThere both "in a slightly out of phase" location as well as beyond focus 27.

I think was part of his realization that there is no real difference between internalized and externalized modes of of travel in consciousness.

Where did your friend get the information about focus 11? I ask, because people have recently come up with all sorts of numbers, some of them self-invented, and not always originating from TMI.

MT

Hi gang,

Maybe I can shed some light on the topic.

First, it is important to realize that it all starts with experience. Labels have no value outside of it except when they clarify the experience.

With regards to focus 12, to understand its usefulness and inadequacy at times as a label, a little historical context:

You can look it up in various places or verify elsewhere if you want to provide a more complete picture. Or correct me where I'm wrong.

But, when Monroe started out in his laboratory together with the explorers like Campbell, during the early development of the Gateway Program, they knew that these various states were associated with decreased levels of sensory input, or facilitated by them. The body appeared to be asleep, or slightly out of phase of the physical, while the mind was awake, which is what the physiological date showed when measuring the subjects. They called the state focus 10 (Mind awake/Body Asleep).

At the same, another quantifier quickly appeared to have come in, where focus 10 not only referred to body asleep, but already applied when sensory input was slightly reduced. This is probably where some of the confusion already happened, where the body did not have to completely asleep to consider yourself to be in focus 10.

Perhaps this was because some participants reported experiences, like different imagery, but still found themselves connected to the physical body, which was not entirely asleep. Either way, the definitions of focus 10 did not seem as strict anymore as before.

To resolve some of that confusion, I much later made a distinction between a light and deeper focus 10 in my focus 10 paper. Although it was not ideal, since the term "body asleep" itself did not fully apply anymore, at least not in a light focus 10.

But back to the earlier history of Monroe. The concept of focus 12 was introduced, perhaps in an attempt to resolve the same confusion.

By this time, it seems that the idea of a lighter focus 10, where perhaps the body might not be entirely asleep had already creeped in, and focus 12 was often referred to a state where the body was more completely asleep than in a focus 10.

In other words, what was originally a strict focus 10 where the body was completely asleep, now became focus 12. It was also for the same reason that it was believed that the OBE either occured in focus 10, focus 12, or perhaps somewhere in between. The gateway tapes, if they have not changed since I have seen them, reflect that with out of body exercises both for focus 10 and 12.

To yet further confuse the issue, not every Gateway participants experienced the typical OBE as described by Monroe where he literally left the body.

Rather, they experienced all manner of imagery, and scenery, with varying degrees of immersion and presence. On some occasions these sound like remote viewing type of experiences, occuring in a partial state of sensory reduction (like a pre-body asleep state), and other times, they may go further similar to an OBE during which you actually find yourself in an entirely different location than the physical body (like a full body asleep state).

The latter situation is the most interesting, since for all practical intents and purposes, these are OBEs, which are defined as an experience where you find yourself at a location than your physical body (even though there is no literal seperation).

Then later on, in the 90s, LaBerge comes along with the term WILD, which refers to anything wake induced, after which you start to dream lucidly. The classic OBE fell within in the scope of that label, as did the situation where you for example find yourself in a different location without classic feelings of seperation.

The idea became hugely popular on the internet, despite the fact that it has been shown again and again there is no REM during an OBE with any adept projector, but let me stay on track here.

The gateway program developed further, as did Monroe, and new focus levels come into play. There's focus 15, which monroe describes as no time, and noone really has a clue to what it means.

More interesting was the idea of focus 21, which was the edge of time space according to Monroe. He suggested that you could no longer stay comfortably stay in contact with the physical body in focus 21.

So yet again, here we appear to have the 2nd or 3rd time where the idea of "mind awake/body asleep" is being stretched, to not only extent to focus 12, but now to focus 21 where the mind is fully being disconnected from sensory input.

The problem with all this is that while what the label 21 refers to seems clear, it puts the concepts of focus 10 and focus 12 in disarray, in the same way that the concept of focus 12, put the concept of focus 10 in disarray at the time.

The reality of it is that the transition into out of body state involves the body falling asleep, or otherwise disconnecting the mind entirely from sensory input. You can say it happens in focus 10, according to a strict defination of focus 10; you can say it happens in focus 12, according to the idea that only then the body is entirely asleep; or you can say it happens in focus 21, according to the idea that only then you are completely disconnected from the physical body. Take your pick.

What is far more interesting are the different pathways through which the out of body state can be established. It can occur through a literal sense of seperation, or by simply becoming part of some imagery.

These are the main two different pathways towards the out of body state, where during one you maintain body awareness in the course of the transition process, whereas during the other you do not. This is the fundamental difference in my opinion, which I elaborate on in my book, and resolves all of this confusion.

I call them asomatic and parasomatic transitions, which are accurate descriptors of the experience, rather than metaphors, labels or interpretations.

But with regards to the terminology used here, in terms of the focus levels, things can get a little bit confusing, unless you realize it is just about reduced sensory input, and "phasing" out of the physical. Noone is really or right or wrong, it's just that the labels have evolved and changed over the years.

Regarding Frank, since I was around at the time, he seemed to naturally take a more lucid dreaming, or WILD approach, in the manner that he induced his experiences.

He did not experience the classic seperation initially, although he later on learned how to do it.

Mind you, the label WILD can include the classic seperation, which is wake-induced as well, but Frank intially said he sort of just found himself projected or catupulted into an "astral environment", which is the case for most lucid dreamers as well who practice WILDS.

After a while, becoming more aware of the work Monroe and Bruce Moen, he refered to it as "phasing" instead, and the idea of a mental rundown, or visualization exercises to get the same effect.

I'm not sure whether the label of "phasing" was really entirely intended that way, and it is also a rather metaphorical term, not always representing the experience that well.

But the way Frank initially understood it was simply that the term captured his experience of ending up inside an out of body environment without any classic sense of seperation. It moved on from there, and became more elaborate.

It excited a lot of people, since many people had trouble with inducing the classic OBE, the occult and mystical approaches appeared to have become cumbersome, LaBerge's star was rising, and perhaps there were easier ways to establish the out of body state, similar to WILD induction methods (it's not easier), while maintaining some of the more metaphysical aspects of Monroe's phasing metaphor.

It was the perfect storm.

In sum, labels can be confusing if not aware of the historical context, and the various influences that brought them about. For that reason, I think the best labels are those that accurately describe the experience, since that is where it all starts.

It tends to get confusing when they refer to a theorectical concept, or an idea, such as for example the term Wake Induced Lucid Dream. It describes the experience to some extent, but there is also the assumption that you are dreaming.

The same goes for the term "astral projection", which is an interpretation of the experience as well.

In any case, hope this sheds some light.

MT

Hi EEthmane,

Yes, exactly as you said, fall asleep normally, and wake up later, and then go through the step sequence to trigger an OBE.

The reason is  simply that your mind will be fresher after having slept some. It is very difficult to induce an OBE at the usual time you go to bed because you have trained your mind for many years already to fall asleep at that time.

It can be done, if you go through all the steps, but it usually takes 2-3 hours, if you are succesful to begin with. Better to do it in the middle of the night when your mind has rested some.

The OBE state is triggered immediately before, or after the body falls asleep. You can call the transition into the out of body state going from 10 to 12 if you like, or any other number you want to put on it.

But it is simpler to simply look at it as the physical body falling asleep, since that after all is all that is needed for an OBE (Mind Awake/Body Asleep).

In that sense, the OBE would occur from focus 10, provided your body is indeed falling asleep.

I'm not sure whether going "deeper" is the right way of putting it. Your mind does not really go "deeper". It is simply awake.

It does move away from physical sensory input, however. So you could call that "deeper".

How far that goes, I'm not sure.

But I do know that you can move so far that sharp pain signals from the physical body will no longer enter your awareness while out of body. This seems to occur when moving beyond human consciousness, or what Monroe referred to as "beyond 27."

So there does appear to some sort of continuum there where you can move further and further away from the physical context.

MT

Hey Todd,

The historical context is very interesting.

I can take your comments a bit further, which is that a lot of the Roberts material is remnisicent of Alice Bailey, by some considered the founder of the New Age Movement, who in in turn seemed inspired by Blavatsky, dating back even further.

It can be a little upsetting the further back you go, in terms of that there seem to be so many sociocultural influences with respect to these ideas.

That's okay to an extent, but not when it is not easily traced back to actual experience in the present.

I don't disgree that Monroe presented these ideas as almost new in his first book, while that was not really the case.

But it was new, in the sense that was new to him, which is why he was able to take a fairly fresh approach,or atleast escape some of the old concepts in his later work.

Also, he made it mainstream, and without him, it may not that much of a stretch that forums like these and others would not exist, at least not in the same format.

Xanth would not even exist 

And of course, he does back up his conclusions with experiences, whether or not you agree with those conclusions. The same cannot be said for everyone.

But I really do believe that approach is the only way forward in area.

MT

And yes, I still hold Monroe in high regards, even if I feel he's made some eternal blunders which future astralnauts are paying for time and time again because they choose to read his books in order.  LoL
I do have to thank him for the phasing concept. 

Anyway, if we're gonna kill anyone off I imagine that David Warner fellow might be next on the hitlist!!  ^_~  LoL

That's a buddy of mine, and a very good projector at that. Be careful...

But eternal blunders? Really?

Hi EEth,

I agree with Contenteo you were pretty far in.

If your aim is to induce an OBE, hwoever, I would a more flexible approach like the Vigil Method, which does not require stopping movements, nor a specific time frame dictated by any tapes with sounds that might disturb you (even though the ultimate goal is a total focus 10 state from which you can project).

Here: http://www.explorations-in-consciousness.com/vigil_method.html

MT

The Astral Pulse has always been pretty good at killing off its gurus. It's an ambitious bunch, for better or worse.

But...Monroe did not invent the term Out of Body Experience. Just the abbreviation of it with Charles Tart.

The idea of something leaving the body, as well as the term, was already around long before that.

Besides, was it not Monroe himself who had some hand in changing that idea, long before everyone else, with claiming you were "travelling in consciousness" utilizing different focuses of attention?

He was more than a pioneer. His experiences and ability is off-the-chart in comparison any published writer I know, and untouched by everyone.

I admit it takes some personal experience to be able to recognize that.

So who's the next one to kill off? TC? 

Thanks Major Tom for the reply.

I think you're on the right track Todd with several of your observations.

There are simply different manifestations of the same "energy phenonenon", which can be tactile (for example vibrations), visual, or auditory.

Even if you have no vibrations, there is still a "vibrational" pattern to having visual or auditory sensations, whcich can for example manifest in terms of stroboscopic light effects, or beating sounds.

Usually, their frequency increases as you progress through the transition, whether tacticle, visual or auditory.

The white rings Szaxx mentions, for example, is a manifestation of such a visual energetic pattern.

Hence, I think it makes sense to refer to all these sensations as energy sensations, vibrational or otherwise.

If you experience none of these effects during the transition, in whatever form, then that usually means you lack control and are stumbling blindly into the out of body state.

I know it has become popular to claim "I don't experience energy sensations anymore" or I dont experience vibrations" because people feel that is somehow more advanced.

But usually it's the exact opposite, where the absence of energy sensations means you intiate the transition from a clouded state of awareness, or when you are already deep inside the hypnangogic state.

Transitions do become smoother over time, and it is even possible to keep energy sensations to an almost absolute minimum, but that is something quite different than what usually happens to most people, and quite difficult to do if you initiate the OBE in a controlled manner from the waking state.
 

Well what if we say "to realize that one is dreaming while the dream is happening"?

That's what "being lucid" means to me, at least.

That's the definition Stephen LaBerge popularized.

It actually dates back further than that, by Oliver Fox in who in 1962 referred to lucid dreams as "dreams of knowledge" - dreams in which you know you are dreaming.

And yet far before that, there was Frederick Van Eeden who coined the term lucid dream, and defined it has dreams with high mental clarity, similar to waking life.

The problem with the definition of LaBerge, as I seee it, is that lucidity is not solely defined by an awareness one is dreaming. I might call it an OBE for example, instead of a dream. LaBerge does not consider it a lucid dream in that instance.

It does not make sense to me.

But also, awareness and lucidity is far more complex than just a simple definition.

From an experiential level, it seems to have a lot to do with automatic and robotic behavior, where you can sometimes go through the motions, doing everything you ordinarily do during an OBE or lucid dream, but your mind is not entirely there.

Usually, upon waking up, people then wonder what the experience was all about.

You did mostly what you intended and planned to do, like during a regular OBE or lucid dream, and yet, it sort of felt non-lucid after the fact, almost like a regular dream, but yet not quite.

Conceptually, I think this is simply a case losing lucidity during an otherwise legitimate OBE, in an almost similar way that a non-lucid dream is also a legitimate OBE.

They are a bit more baffling, because you do seem act out everything you would expect from an OBE, which is not ordinarily associated with a non-lucid dream.

This is how it's best made sense off on a conceptual level I think.

To actually explain the phenomenon, is another matter. It gets complicated very quickly.

For example, DeGracia (with LaBerge) have proposed that perhaps lucidity is related to a continuity in memory with the waking self.

I think that makes sense to a degree, but perhaps not the entire answer.

I prefer to think of lack of lucidity as a dissociation between intent and perception, where almost anything goes in terms of perception, even while intent may remain constant.

In any case, it seems to be complex issue with mostly unsatisfactory answers sofar.

Semantics can be important, in terms of getting to the core of an issue, or at least the core of the problem.

In this case, it points to issue: "What is lucidity?

Or to put it in dialectical terms: " What is non-lucidity?"

The definition of "being aware that you are dreaming" doesn't really cut it down, because noone knows what awareness really means.

The term is practically synonymous with consciousness, and good luck with explaining that!

The semantics are important here.

The statement "to be aware of lucid dreaming" confuses the issue.

I am aware of my non-lucid dreams, whenever I remember them, including during the time I had them, so that term is confusing.

The experience is valid however, which can be more accurately put as not having same mental clarity that you ordinarily associate with lucid dreams.

That still doesn't explain anything yet, but it gets you out of the semantic bind.

MT

Hi Stookie,

A digital version might happen in the future, perhaps a year from now, but nothing firm on that yet. 

Hope you enjoy the paper book!

Best wishes,
MT

Hi all,

It's moving much faster than I expected. The book is now available on Amazon and Barnes and Noble.

I'm not sure about delivery time at the moment, despite it saying it is available.

Barnes and Noble has the biggest discount at the moment, which hopefully will soon be applied on Amazon as well.

MT

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/explorations-in-consciousness-Efrederick-aardema/1110505574?ean=9780987911902&itm=1&usri=0987911902

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0987911902/

Hi all,

A little update...the book should be available within 2 to 4 weeks at most online retailers.

In the meanwhile, I have updated the website with several free chapters and excerpts:

http://www.explorations-in-consciousness.com/book.html

Fred