Messages

Completely unprovable off course, but yeah, I also want to believe in infinity. It is.... comforting, somehow. Like the game can never be over.

Personally, the idea of going on forever scares me just as much as the idea of personal oblivion .

Hi Mattoid,

I don't know of any specific documentaries off the top of my head, but I have a fair few of them on youtube.

I haven't managed to find anything out regarding this other than he removed himself and posts from the site.
It's something I've noticed with people in this area, they change their direction and suddenly try and remove trace of their movements on their regular forums/blogs etc. I guess it's a "fresh start" kind of thing.

I've been patiently waiting for them to fire that baby up. There's the slight possibility of creating a black hole that will eat the world, but other than that...

There should be enough energy in the LHC to create many blackholes - but they will be so small, they will near instantly evaporate due to Hawking Radiation - so we should be safe!
The term "the God particle" is a name given to the Higgs boson due to a tongue-in-cheek book title.
There are lots of interesting theories sorrounding the LHC though, one of them being them being that it could accidently become a time-machine! The reasoning behind this is that the LHC could possibly create wormholes, so future civilisations with the tech could use them as a means of communicating with us by opening a connecting wormhole their end. So this year could be year zero for time-travel. If this is even a remote possibility - we won't have long to wait and see

I've currently have hair down to the middle of my back, and in the past I used to shave it on no#1 for years. No difference at all in OBEs in regards to long/shaved hair.

So perhaps ultimate enlightenment then, is the process of my shedding one ego after another until there is nothing left to shed.  At that point Buddhist annihilation has occurred and I am at one with the universe (pardon the cliche) in such a way that I don't even exist anymore.

The idea of not existing anymore might seem a bit distressing at this point to "Rob", but actually when it occurs it will just be that last ego finally acknowledging that it never had an objective existence to begin with, but rather that it (and all egos) are nothing more than passing thoughts in the mind of God.

Anyway, that's my .02

Hey RJA,

In the purest form, ego is simply self awarness. So at any level we are aware of ourselves as individual, we have ego of one form or another. Without ego we probably have no existence - or at the least, we wouldn't know that we exist, so we wouldn't be able to have 'feelings' about moving past the ego and joining with the source etc.
When I followed lines of thought like the above, I always face the conclusion that joining with the source and oblivion on death (the physical being all there is, and we being biological machines) are indistinguishable. Applying occam's razor here gives one conclusion. I'm content that both might be a possibility.

Good question Stookie! My own opinion is that to see past our own identity, we first need a self-awarness developed enough to do so i.e. a developed enough ego can see past themselves to others, wheras a less developed ego might not have enough self awarness to put other 'beings' into the context of being individual like themselves.
It's like the experiments (mainly done on children) which show that until they have a distinct self awarness (ego) they find it difficult to relate to others and their feelings (an issue also seen with autistic people).
I guess this where the 'refinement' bit comes in, we learn to see past the self to the feelings and emotions of others, rather than developing the ego in a purely selfish and self-facing way.

Hey Tayesin,

good post!
I've taken to seeing ego as a cumulation of our experiences, warped and filtered through predispositions to various stimuli - which gives rise to seeming individuality. I see the mechanics of consciousness as a universal - that is, we each have the same core mechanics which let us percieve and be self aware. Ego is an emergent property of each point of consciousness storing different experiences, and consequently interpreting new experiences in light of the old.
I believe there are also base predispositions i.e. some might be more fearful of certain situations/stimuli than others, which are represented genetically and allow for greater difference between those sharing similar experiences.
So our surface representations to the 'outside' world consist of seemingly unique instances of consciousness.
I also disagree with the idea of 'letting the ego go', to do such a thing is to devolve and if that goal is reached, to cease to exist. I think we should be aiming to refine the ego, letting go of traits we see as undesirable - which as ego-centric beings we have the ability to do so. A reduced ego would also mean a reduced ability to self percieve and perhaps move back into the more beastal pre-critical thought areas. For example, supposedly higher beings, or more spiritually advanced beings percived in OBEs have a very distinct (And sometimes overpowering) sense of individuality (ego), which implies their ego is well developed but controlled.

There aren't really any hard facts on this slipknot. Personally, I can't deny the similarity between DMT experiences and OBEs. Low dose DMT produce vibrations which sound exactly like the famous' vibrations'. High dose DMT experiences produce experiences which sound exactly like full blow astral plane based OBEs. It's an area I'd love for research to be done in. It's at least plausible that OBEs could be the result of low dose DMT release, the effects being magnified by the reduced sensory input of the sleep state or the trance state usually experienced prior to an OBE.
A book you might find interesting is: "DMT: The Spirit Molecule" by Dr. Rick Strassman. It details experiements with DMT on humans, and their resulting experiences.

Hi Johnny,

a book I recommend to everyone who is interested in starting meditation is:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Teach-Yourself-Meditate-Exercises-Clarity/dp/0749913282

This book could possibly teach 'seasoned' practitioners a thing or two too.
The book itself gets to the core of what meditation is, and what it isn't. It completely decouples it from belief systems and practices. A problem with meditation advice on the net (and in most books) is that it's usually deeply influenced by one belief system or another - so the techniques of meditation get lost or irrevocably joined to the belief system itself. Ones first experience of meditation colours the practice for life - which is why I recommend the above book. Once people get to grips with meditation itself, they can then go explore all the other forms and linked belief systems.

Hi Michael,

It's hard to say if you reached focus 10 as each of us can experience it differently. While some people experience a complete seperation from physical stimuli, others still have a sense of their body. Although there does seem to be common elements across all experiences. The open expanse you mention is one of them (this can be a feeling of expansion, or sometimes the blackness behind the eyes suddenly seems to open up and become three dimensional).
Personally speaking, F10 for me doesn't nessesarily have any visual elements (there can be clouds of dull colours and such forth) but the expansion is a sign. I also feel removed from my body, or my body can feel very heavy and vauge. Deeper F10 can lead to sensory distortion, such as feeling like my hands are merging into one, or i'm sinking into the bed etc.
F12 is usually considered the next step along, to me this *is* more visual, there can be hypnogogic images, and the feeling of expansion is a lot greater.
Regarding if you did move beyond it, it's hard to say (again). But it all sounds very positive! It also sounds like you are approaching the exercises in the right way. Don't try to analyse these things too much right now - just go with it and see where it leads you. Also, don't impose previous sessions experiences on the next - expecting things to happen is one way of stopping what might possibly happen.
Finally, something i've discovered over the past 6+ years is that regular practicing with F10 produces a deeper state year on year. What I took as F10 when I first started using these CD's is a lot shallower than what I can achieve with F10 now. Keep at it and good luck!

I will watch this when it comes out on DVD.
It is an updated version of the Omega Man.

The omega man was based upon the book of "I am Legend" by Richard Matheson (1954), and so was another film. The most recent version is based upon the book, and is more faithful than the earlier versions (the omega man changing quite a lot).
I enjoyed the most recent version, although felt it ended quite abruptly and it deviated from some potentially interesting plot routes (such as the increasing organisation of the 'others').

Hey Kiwibonga,

Great post. Not wanting to go into details, but I've been in more than one situation where death seemed imminent and totally out of my control. And in such times, previous held beliefs dissolved. I didn't fear death, but when it's facing you, it's a very different story. As someone said above, death itself doesn't really worry me; it's the method of dying and the reaction of the brain to the dying process. I've had experiences on psychedelics where time stood still, an eternity passed. I've also had experience during OBEs of unfathomable forces and pressures pulling and crushing my very essence. I feel when the brain starts shutting down for the last time, there's every possibility the dying process could last a subjective eternity including any distortions experienced as various brain areas malfunction and shut down. This could be very uncomfortable, and a situation nothing or nobody could remedy.
My OBE experiences have taken me from believing in existence after death, to sitting on the wall. When I first entered the OBE field I drank up the words of various Gurus and integrated their beliefs into my own without questioning. But my own questioning and searching have made me look fully into the possibility that death is the end. If we survive or not, it doesn't matter as one possibility sees us go on, the other sees nothing – and such nothingness could never be feared by pure definition.
Although to counter the above, I've also been in situations where I wouldn't have cared at all if I had died right there and then, as I was absolutely content with my place, myself, and the situation going on around me.

Hey, You didn't really judge! Your observations are on the whole correct in regards to his radical change . When you do get to a point where you project regularly, what you find is that projection itself becomes a norm of your world view, rather than this amazing concept you spent so long trying to attain. Other changes come too, these are more subtle and occur over a larger time period.

Great post Stookie!
This struck a chord: " I perceived everything to be a single consciousness. I've had this experience a few times before, but never so unexpectedly."

This has crept up on me quite a few times when i'm doing pretty mundane things, most recently was a few months ago. I was sitting on a bus - admittedly I was thinking about the nature of reality - when quite swiftly my awarness of self seemed to "bleed" away, it was like my boundaries had dissolved and suddenly I encompassed everything, and everything encompassed me - I literally stretched off into forever. If i'm honest, such a thing occurring on a bus caused me to panic for a few seconds . The feeling of having no boundaries lingered for some time after.

So the evidence would point to reality being the creator of the mind?

At this point in time it is all conjecture. All these beliefs and constructs of reality might have some truth, or might be absolutely wrong. They are mans attempt to draw meaning from the universe based upon what evidence is currently available, and until recent times, deciphered through mans own mystical systems.
There seems to be more evidence pointing towards reality being the creator of the mind – but only if one is totally rational and demands objective proof of anything which seems to bend or break the laws of physics.

or is the "source" just not perfect?

If the source did exist, attributing concepts to it (such as perfect) would be meaningless, as such concepts would only have meaning outside the source, and in an environment which had the sufficient complexity to comprehend such things i.e. perfection is a signifier relative to the observer.

If everything is part of the "source" then where does the collective unconscious come into play? is it the source? or if not then reality is either of the source or of the collective unconscious it cant be of both.

The collective consciousness would be some form of structure built from the stuff of the source, in such a view, reality would then be a creation of the collective consciousness, built from the stuff of the source i.e. for whatever reason some form of intelligent consciousness or consciousnesses spawned from the source, from these beings, various realities were created, one of which we inhabit.

Then if the collective unconscious creates or molds reality as we know it, then where does the source come into play?

As above, the source is simply the structure in which everything forms/is created. It is part of the creator and created.

No offense but i think you're going in circles.

Non-taken. I'm simply going over beliefs (not necessarily my own) which are used to support magic.

But there have been complete skeptics that have been down by magic or so I've read.
So either some where along the line they changed their beliefs radically or magic doesn't need to effect the other persons beliefs.

I'd be interesting in hearing about skeptics who have changed their beliefs to the opposite direction.
My previous example about beliefs being affected was a means of describing how one person can inflict seemingly magical events on another through natural means with no distortion of reality – although both parties might be convinced there was. Derren Brown has shown such things many times, such as completely controlling a woman by manipulating a doll. She believed he was magically controlling her, so she allowed herself to be controlled seemingly against her own conscious will. But Derren was simply utilising her own belief is such magic to make her do whatever he wanted.

As I mentioned above, these are not necessarily beliefs I hold, but they are the beliefs which are have been used to explain the existence and mechanism of magick.

I found the changes interesting. In his first book, Monroe seemed grounded and objective - but as his experiences unfolded, so did his previous world view. Reading about what he experienced first hand, I think it would be hard for anyone in such circumstances not to change in the way he did.
This is something many people don't realise with the whole OBE, energy work, and meditation area. Over time, such experiences will change you.
When I started out, my perception of reality (not just intellectually, but sensory) was radically different to what it is now. I still remain objective, but the techniques employed to induce OBEs* do alter ones 'reality filters' over time, so that after 5-10+ years of such repeated experience, one experiences and sees things very differently.

*I'd say that any technique which requires focused introversion will create these changes too.

OK, is there any know way to test philosophies such as these?

The only true way would be to find reproducible evidence of 'magic'.

How is the conscious fractured?

If the totality of everything was simply a formation in some conscious field, in an un-fractured state, there would simply be uniformity. The fact we have various constructs (universe, matter, energy, etc) and more so, we have created constructs to describe these constructs, uniformity does not exist.
Philosophies allude to this uniformity as the 'source', 'god' etc.

What are the names of these philosophies? Do you have any experience with them?

Most religious, spiritual, and mystical beliefs have at their core such a fracturing – the event is simply described differently. From the Abrahamic God creating the universe with a word, and then creating structures to support life, to the various models of the astral, with the source fracturing itself – remaining pure at the core, and crystallising into denser matter as one 'travels' further from the source – until physical matter arises.

So reality is a limitation to magic which is a way to bypass physical limitations?

If you have such beliefs, physical limitations, by definition, are enforced rules for creating a kind of order in 'physical reality'. Why this order was created, and by whom, once again varies from belief to belief. In this context, magic would be finding a way to bypass these rules.

But if magic and reality are of the same thing (i.e. the collective unconscious) wouldn't they cancel each other out?
An example would be if i wanted to pick up a box or something with my hand and my other hand is stopping it wouldn't i just remove the hand holding the other one back?

In such an example, it wouldn't just be your hand holding the other one back. It would be the accumulative belief of every living thing which has such rules of reality ingrained in them.

If reality is a total construct of the mind it would seem completely reasonable to be able to alter it with the mind,

Agreed - but there is an addition to it being a total construct of the mind: it is a total construct of everyone's mind.

but if it isn't and reality is the creator of the mind and we perceive and reconstruct it internally then it wouldn't make sense to be able to alter reality to affect things outside the mind.

This might be one of these reasons why after thousands of years, we are still talking about the possibility of such things, with no conclusive proof.

If a witchdoctor puts a curse on a victim and the victim later dies that would be using magic to effect something on the outside of your mind.

Firstly, everyone dies. So it would be hard to say for certain if the curse finished the victim off, or if they just died as they would have done regardless.
Secondly, if the victim believes in curse, he could effect change in himself which would ultimately lead to his death i.e. the witch doctor didn't change reality, he simply changed someone else's beliefs in a very negative way - leading to the victim changing themselves with the belief.

We know reality isn't what individuals perceive it to be because we can identify things in common like colors and objects.

The problem with colours is that we attribute names to specific perceived wavelengths (colours), so we can all point to blue or red. But we can never know if our brains interpretation of such wavelengths are the same in each of us.

Hey CF and Forgotten Purpose,

Hi MisterJingo

1) So the mind is the connection between the collective unconscious (i.e. god) and the practitioner, and through that
connection magic is performed?

In such philosophies, the mind, the collective unconscious and the practitioner are all borne of the same conscious stuff. Why consciousness takes such a fractured form is explained differently depending upon the philosophy or belief system.

2) So the limitations to magic are only what the practitioner and the collective unconscious put on it?

A better way of seeing this is that reality is the limitation enforced by some form of collective consciousness. Magic in such terms would be anything conceivable (or not) outside of this reality construct. Keep in mind that even concepts themselves, such as reality, are part of the construct.

4) How does magic have little or no effect other then transformation of the practitioner? If reality is a construct of the mind
then shouldn't things the mind alters effect everyone involved in the construction of reality?

In my previous post I mentioned either reality is a total construct of the mind (in which science has no reality outside of collective belief), or that the mind is a product of some external reality which we perceive through internal reconstruction based upon our limited sensory input. In this later view, only our internal experience of reality is a product of the mind, external reality would be independent. In such a view, magical belief would simply be a means of altering ones view of the world, rather than altering the actual world. In the other view (reality being the stuff of consciousness), magical belief would allow for (perceived) external reality to be changed.

5) So you are saying why use magic when you could accomplish your desires just as easily by physical means?
   or using illusions to accomplish goals the way Chris Angel amazes audiences?

Forgotten Purpose

As above, it's more a case of reality is what created us, or we are what created reality. If we created reality, then there's no reason why we shouldn't use this creative belief to alter reality. But if didn't, then we could spend a lifetime hoping for things which would never come . The problem is, how do you determin the nature of reality to allow you to chose one belief or the other?

An agnostic simply doesn't make any decision regardless of the presented evidence. An atheist decides that the probability of a god existing is incredibly small based upon the currently available evidence, but doesn't discount the possibility of a god existing entirely. For example, a Christian would be considered atheist in regards to ancient Gods such as Thor and Zeus.
An anti-theist disbelieves in the existence of any god. people usually confuse atheism with anti-theism.

At our current time and place, time is pretty much constant, it simply changes relative to the observer. Time does not speed up or slow, your perception of it does.
Something interesting to note is the area of the brain which is used for time perception degrades as we get older. It means we becoming less accurate in our estimate of times passage, and explains why when we're younger, even ten minutes seems an age, yet when we get older, time seems to speed up. Time remains at our childhood rate, we simply become less able to experience it accurately. This gives the effect of time speeding up as we age.

Hey Embodied Words,

Spiritual evolution is usually more than positive thoughts - it also implies a refinement of mind, consciousness and even EGO. Likewise, devolution would imply a reduction of these things - digressing into a simple, more basic, state of mind.
Regarding negative or black thoughts, I'd say it's generally a good thing to follow them rather than repress them – but only as long as you don't feel a compulsion to act on them. It's a fine line between working through something and wallowing in something.
When I was younger I'd generally see a lot of messed up things if I lay with my eyes closed, demons, death, that sort of thing. The source of it seemed to be my mind was uncontrolled and so kept throwing up things I felt I didn't want to see, or feared to see. By facing it, I eventually came through the other end with more control over my mind, and whatever issues were throwing up such images resolved.

makes me want to be sick!
All that putrid "i'll never look into your eyes again" blah yak!
The only thing that separates us is the width of an electron..hahahaha
u r a MAX plank

And with that, you miss the entire point of the poem.
It's not about "never looking into eyes again"; it's about the ephemeral nature of experience.
It's about how those people or objects closest to us are only ever experienced through our own sensory interpretations. Such as touching your lover or being touched: your body simply interprets a stimulated nerve ending which is combined with visual and auditory input, creating an experienced which is filtered entirely through ones own experience to date.
We have a brief respite from the void, non-experience, death, and even in this time we are totally and utterly alone – all contact and experience is ourselves experiencing ourselves, and then we are gone: on the longest timeline, even gods die.

I'll try answering your questions based upon my past experience with ceremonial magick of various sorts.

1) What is the source of magic and in what way is it controlled?

The traditional source of magic was/is the mind. The world view of a system which incorporates such beliefs usually sees the mind and reality as indistinguishable. More often than not, objective reality is some form of cohesive group creation in the greater spectrum of consciousness. With this view, the mind – with intent, could effect change in physical reality. Ceremonial objects, incantations, and ceremonies are usually a means of moving the mind into a specific receptive state – which will allow the intent of the magic to manifest in reality.

2) What uses does magic have? Both good and bad?

If you believe in magic, it can literally do anything you desire – although with the above world view, one must first counteract the accumulative beliefs of the other minds in this reality structure. This is usually the reason given for people not seeing miraculous things on a daily basis.
I'd also make the point that magic in this sense would purely be change, any good or bad labels would be relative to the observer.

4) Is there a large difference between science and magic, or is magic just another branch of science?

This is the crux of a very big problem. Either reality is a mind construct, which would render science as just another belief system. Or reality has some objective basis (whatever that might be), and the reason magic isn't prevalent is because it has little to no effect outside transformation of the person evoking the magic.
The fact the mind is geared to decipher reality based upon internal desires – to the extent that falsehoods can actively be believed and seen, makes this an area which is very difficult to reach any conclusions on.

Life can be distracting at times (I'm currently going through such a time myself!)

Welcome back .