Messages

Allrighty then!

It's a Bill Hicks quote . If you haven't heard of him, he's definately worth looking up.

I am not sure what this Kabala is, but I know the Jewish Kaballah has mention of something like Chakras, so maybe this is what you mean.

The spell checker respelt Kaballah for me and i didn't notice :p. I do mean the jewish mystical system. If you look at such exercises as this:

http://www.davedavies.com/splanet/magic3.htm

It shows a direct mapping of the tree of life to the body. Very similar to the idea behind the chakra system.

I don't know of the historic origins of the chakra system, but I see striking similarities between it and other systems such as the Kabala. Both systems have nodes and paths (the kabala can be mapped to the body i.e. the middle pillar) and both map the macro and the micro to each node. The chakra system in the west seems to be moving away from these associations into more of a meditative object.
It seems that such systems map the psyche to specific abstract ideas (nodes), mapping the cosmos to such nodes too and drawing associations between them.
I see this as a tool for spiritual advancement because when the associations between the chakras/nodes and the underlying psychological/physiological is strong enough, working on the chakra system as a visualisation would actually effect change to the associated systems. The mind works well with abstract concepts, and visualisation of energy cleansing and charging chakras would have the intended positive effect on associated part so of the mind and body etc.
In this respect, I see the chakra system as a belief system which one can reinforce to work more easily with areas of the human psych/body on an abstract level, rather than an innate structure in all life.
As alluded to above, it seems the western ideas of chakras in the mainstream are simply chakras being energy nodes without the underlying associations taking place – this will render the system weak at best. Belief might derive some benefits from it, but it's the belief rather than the system doing the work.

I know many people are going to debate this, but that is a good thing.

Lately, I have been thinking about existence and it seems to me that the proof for the reason that we're here is incredibly simple:

We have a desire to exist...

What's the difference between a desire to exist and an inbuilt desire to survive? Genetic propagation of physical beings (who might not even be sentient – just be built to believe so) is as good a reason as any as to why we're here. All metaphysical ideas are purely belief driven and unprovable outside of that belief.

Some part of us has not yet reached full expression.

Expression of what? To what purpose? By full expression do you mean perfection? If so, taking that perfection is a relative concept (perhaps only having existence within the human built sphere of understanding and knowledge) such a state is impossible to achieve. Also, if we look at reality, and see how it is changing – changing even on a quantum level (such that structured reality might only be a temporary phenomenon) what we experience right here and now might be but a fleeting moment. Perfection in such a construct is nothing. It is a temporary state.

Therefore, I think rebirth here happens to those who have not reached full expression of every potential that this phase of existence has to offer. But, I think it would be very premature to say that after the physical cycles, our evolution just stops. There could be experiences in store for us that we cannot even possibly imagine right now.

Why would it be premature? How can we surmise from a totally physical experience that there is more? How can we explain what neuroscience shows us regarding personality, behaviour and specific brain action? How can we explain region specific brain damage having devastating effects on peoples personalities – which implies at the least our brain directs a lot of who we are? There is so much which points in the other direction, that at the least, standard mystical models need a drastic overhaul.

However, not to digress, our desires are constantly being fulfilled by the universal mind. So therefore, why would existence be any different?

Desire is fleeting, so is mind and existence. You start from a viewpoint of there being more than physical but don't give any grounds for this belief. Conclusions generated from assumptions are baseless. Regarding existence, we might not actually exist at all. We might simply be biological mechanical beings confabulating our own existence, providing our own proofs of our own beliefs – and so the prospect of us actually being automations is forever inconceivable.

We desire to exist, therefore we do...

Many people desire for many things, yet, those things to not manifest. A mystical model can brush such things under the carpet by spewing rhetoric about lessons to learn (which in the context of temporary reality mean nothing), but they don't really explain anything. Many are simply relics of an age where lightening and thunder were Gods, where the wind through mountain passes were deities, and Earth was flat, covered by a crystal sphere and the universe revolved around ourselves (because we were the most important things in existence).

Also, recent research has shown that thought is not needed for one to be aware of mind and self. So that old statement "I think therefore I am" could be soon be proven false – in this light, anything built off it would be false too.


The point of this post? Read, research even outside of your own preferred beliefs. Question everything including that questioning, and start to worry when you fall into a rut of unchanging beliefs – because reality even at its most fundamental level is forever changing. Time itself might just be change (entropy). To think we have the answers, to perhaps think there are any answers outside of those we create ourselves, might lead us up illusionary paths.

Not wanting to get embroiled in web arguments, but when Robert Bruce was resident here, he actually had very little to do with the site and Adrian himself still ran it - just like he is doing now. If you don't believe this, please do a search on all Roberts's posts. He was rarely here, being busy with other projects. This is in no way a slight at Robert, as I respect the work he does do; I'm just stating the only thing which changed with Roberts moving away from here was the creation of a new forum. The engine which ran the site, the person who built and maintained the site is still here.
There might be more advertisements now, but Adrian dedicates a lot of his time to the forum and funds it himself. In today's world nothing is free, and if the advertisements bother you, simply ignore them.

Out of curiosity, I'd be interested to read the scientific evidence regarding subliminal messages which you have read, as it contradicts a lot of research into this area. Could you please link to any papers and journals I could read this at please?

Regarding non-lucid dreams, it has been shown that the areas of the brain responsible for higher brain function are actually not used in such dreams. This is why we mindlessly accept whatever the dream throws at us, including ludicrous events. We are passive observers because we don't have the faculties available for lucid thought.
Lucid dreams seem to have activity in these higher brain areas, so we gain the ability of rational thought, self reflection, coherence etc.

I for one spent 12 years of my life studying because I loved it so.  In college I kept switching majors because I enjoyed the process of learning, and would have continued it for the rest of my life if life didn't demand that I get a job and make money to survive.  But if I won the lotto I'd probably go back to college and study everything that I didn't  the first time, even the  stuff I'm not good at  like calculus and such. So I can resonate with what you're saying there.

I constantly learn, I study because I love learning. I am seriously looking at getting another degree (in a subject I wish to know more) and I luckily recently got a new job where they will fund a Masters and possibly a PhD, so these are avenues I'm looking into.

RE the original question. I don't think life has any meaning, direction or desire. These are human created concepts. We could say we are here to learn, but reality as we know it is changing, so life as we know it might only be possible in a very small window of certain quantum particles having certain energy values. There are potentially countless universes, many without the hope of ever producing consciousness of any kind. So what we are experiencing here and now is simply another blip in an unimaginable static of change and entropy. It is knowledge which only has meaning within its own sphere of understanding (an understanding generated over millions of years of direct experience within a very narrow range of experience parameters).
I don't think this distracts in anyway from life as we know it, it just highlights the awe-inspiring beauty of even the most mundane objects around us in our short stay here.

1 - Have you ever encountered more evolved beings?

Yes, on many occasions. If these beings are separate from me, or are just personalities within a psyche (such as I am) is unknown to me at this time.

1.1 - If so, describe the place:
       what were they like:

There are a lot of encounters. Some were i9ndifferent to my presence, some played with me as we might play with a lesser being. Some were nice, some just spouted what turned out to be incoherent nonsense (when I remembered the experience in rl). Many seem to be driven energies, perhaps a personification of base energies so single minded in that energies manifestation.

       what have you learned from them:

What I have learnt is that understanding arise from us. External knowledge can be gained, but we have to make sence of it in terms of ourselves and our own understanding to date.


2 - What have you found out about life on other planets?

Nothing (yet).

3 - What was the most interesting conversation you had? What did you ask/say and hear?

Would have to look over my journals for this. It sounds terrible perhaps, but projection becomes blasé after x amount of exits. Even amazing things can become part of normal life if experienced enough.

4 -  Describe 3 things/creatures that you saw there, but never saw here:

1) God. On a few occasions now.
2) The devil. (As above).
3) Death.

I take the above as my own interpretation of certain energies i.e. I perceived something which resonated with the above images in myself, they were not necessarily the beings they portrayed.

5 - If you've been able to read, what did you read about? How many consecutive words do you remember?

Reading always turns out to be nonsensical. Just 2 days ago I was reading a book OBE and on remembering the words in RL it was just a stream of random words with no apparent relationship. At the time they did seem to portray something deeper though (this could simply be an effect of experiencing an altered state of consciousness).

5.1 - Have you read words you haven't seen here before?

Not that I recall.

6 - Ever learned special tricks to be used there?

Lots. Only limitation is ones own lack of imagination. Just doing things usually sees them occur (rather than contemplating the mechanics of how to do something).

7 - Ever received a solution to a problem?

Would have to look through my journal. But I can't recall doing so atm.

8 - Describe the most amazing thing you saw:

One interesting experience saw me flying over the earth under creation. It was sped up, and so as I flew I saw the volcanic period, the lava cool, oceans form, life spring up and evolve.
I've also 'experienced' what seemed to be the (A) source. Can't really articulate such experiences though.

9 - Describe the most amazing thing you did:

This was more an inward experience (AP), but I entered what can only be called a 'God machine' and experienced the totality of everything (or perceived myself doing so), it was an awe inspiring and terrifying experience.

10 - Describe your most amazing validation:

Being seen by a family member while OOB, and them remembering the experience with no prompting. One thing I will say though is that this validates for me just OBEs, not the philosophies attributed to OBEs (such as proof of life after death etc).

11 - Ever had your astral body malformed or defective? What was it like?

I'm not sure I'd call it malformed, but I have found myself in other bodies, in animal forms, without a body (it was more than no body, it was like no boundary between me and reality – a body gives one a sense of bounds, in such experiences I was boundless).

13 - Describe the 3 strangest sentences you heard:

I'd have to look through my journal.

14 - Describe 3 things that you still want to try in the astral:


Would like more contact with other beings/civilisations.

12 - What interesting things have you found out about the Universe?

I haven't found out anything I would take as absolute. The astral has a way of validating our own desires, and doesn't necessarily show truth. It shows what we seek – and that is very different.

15 - If you believe in a God, what clues have you gotten about it's existence?

I don't. And perhaps as per my last answer, I have found evidence of their being no God in the religious sense. There are things which could be called a God, and Gods which could b created through belief but not necessarily a definitive creator of it all. As with anything, your experiences might vary .

16 - Ever been lectured on the process of Creation?

Yes, but more physical creation of our world. But seen many things which have alluded to creation itself.

Not really disagreeing with the above poster, but statements as that do not tell us anything. Or perception of the God concept is a product of our environment and education to date. To state we are God is simply stating we are our perception of what a God is. Not what God actually is (or might be) – word based understanding falls apart when one contemplates such concepts as they are very much in the realm of abstraction. Any understanding of such concepts on more than a syntax level really needs to leave the word layer of understanding and to work within the symbolic abstract levels.
Sorry for going a bit OT.

Agree with James S. I personally don't believe in a God in the traditional sense, but I can see the totality of everything could be interpreted as a God. I simply see the interconnectiveness of all matter/energy - not necessarily as a sentient being or creature, but as a collection of sentient beings/creators who have the same mechanics of existence at their core (experience seemingly causing separation).

I think the word God has become too loaded over time, and when we consider God, we actually get caught up in the semantics of the word rather than what we are referencing behind the word.

Merry Christmas all

Hi MisterJingo,
The retort to that would be how do you know the program was even taped until you actually watch it? Do you set a camera to watch and record the video recording? If so, how do you know that the camera even recorded the video recording the program until you watch that tape?
Hehe... who's watching the watcher!

Hehe, and this is why QM can be so interesting as it's hard to separate it from philosophy on some levels.

I guess the catch here is both scenarios can be as plausible or implausible as each other because the bottom line is it's not actually possible to know what's going on unless we're observing it. Which means it's still not possible to determine if it was environmental interaction that collapsed the wavefunction and we're observing the "post collapse" results, or if the collapse is the result of our observation.

Agreed. Although taking the moon example into consideration. Perhaps if it is a cloudy night so that no one can see the moon, in an observation creating wavefunction collapse philosophy, the moon would be in possibly an infinite number of states. Yet, the tides still move as we expect, and we can detect its gravitational pull on the Earth. This either means the moon is still as we last saw it (meaning conscious observation is not needed), or even observation of the effects of a body on other bodies is enough to collapse wavefunction – that has much larger implications.

To move on from this mind spinning conundrum, I agree that we need to tread very carefully when applying QM to spiritual beliefs, otherwise we'll end up worshipping QM like a religion. But I do feel that even with our very new understandings of QM, we are going much further towards explaining the possibilities of things like psychic phenomena (entanglement), and  manifestation & oneness (Grand Unified Field or Superstring theories). It is still very much supposition, but we're a hell of a lot closer to "mathematically" explaining the seemingly inexplicable than we ever have been before.

Totally agree. QM and similar sciences have a lot of potential for explaining such phenomenon. The only thing holding me back at the moment is the huge leaps people are making. Current QM only models a few particle interactions, yet, people are taking such interactions and scaling them to a macro level and utilising them in philosophies of consciousness. This is a huge (and apart from in a theoretical view) a blind leap – I'm more biding my time, and taking such things as possibilities until we learn about such proesses on a grander scale (and this will happen).

As for classical physics no longer working for us and looking now to QM for the answers, I apologise for phrasing that poorly. Classical physics definitely does work with respect to the macro world, but when we look to it as the be all and end all, as has been done for a great many years now, and as an unfortunate number of researchers and sceptics still do, then it does fail us. Its the addition of QM to classical physics that starts opening up an whole new world of possibilities. I will however maintain that the old religions don't serve us and should all be dumped as soon as possible. 

I agree with you . I'm one very much for discovering my own way/truths, rather than utilising older philosophies. This is not through pig headedness, its due to my belief that some philosophies have changed little in 2k years, and the world has changed dramatically. Things need to be seen through our current world view, not the worldview of a time now past.

Thanks for helping me take in some different perspectives on QM. Any time different thoughts or perspectives come my way I take them as a gift.

Blessings,
James.

I hope you don't take anything I'm saying as an attack on beliefs. I actually enjoy such conversations, I believe a lot can be learnt from them .

Best Wishes.

Hi Tvos,

I haven't seen any specific studies in this, although I do know of prominent occultists into the AP sphere who have died from various cancers, heart diseases etc. Dion Fortune springs to mind, and i'll have a think about the others whose names are currently escaping me.

Hi MisterJingo,

I've done a little reading on quantum decoherence, and the way I see it is it's trying to work as a kind of bridge between classical physics and quantum physics by trying to meld the classical concept of phase space into quantum mechanics. It doesn't actually negate quantum wavefunctions though. it's only suggesting that the wavefunction will be collapsed by environmental interaction, such as with a mechanical measuring / recording device. It doesn't actually go all the way to saying that whether we observe something or not, it's still there.

Hi James,

Our current models of QM all utilise wavefunctions. Although dechoherence does bridge the gap between classical physics and QM to an extent, it has much wider reaching implications which I'll detail below.

Decoherence theories still take into acount the human factor. Even if the wavefunction becomes entangled with the environment, that measurement / environment still ultimately has to be observed by a conscious mind in order to get the results. Fred Alan Wolf submits that if something like a double slit experiment is recorded mechanically rather than observed by a conscious mind directly, the recording medium effectively takes on the wavefunction itsself, and that wavefunction will not be truly collapsed until the recording of the event is observed. In other words, until someone views the recording of the experiment, the recording itsself is still in a "limbo" state.

The problem with the above is that there is no discernable difference between philosophising the experiment remains in limbo until the result is observed and decoherence collapsing the wavefunction through interaction with its own environment.
A few scenarios of decoherence and observer led wavefunction collapse are detailed below:

Scenario:

You are going to work and wish to record a program while you are away from home. You set your video recorder and leave. In a strict observer led wavefunction collapse scenario, once your observance leaves the video, it suddenly fractures into an infinite number of possibilities (virtual particles).
In this scenario, sometimes your program will record; sometime it will not, sometimes a program will record on another channel and even at another time.
When you get home and see the video, the wavefunctions collapse into a single coherent possibility and then you discover which possibility occurs. A problem with this is that because all possibilities exist until observance, the program is actually not recorded until viewed.
In a decoherence led scenario, you go away, and the video remains as it is, ticks over as it does, records your program as you expect, and you come home to find your video where you left it. The video interacts with itself and its environment, and this interaction acts as its own observer.

Another scenario is putting the kettle on to make tea and going to another room. Observer led wavefunction collapse once again sees the kettle and water branch into virtual particles etc.

Dr Wolf also goes on to submit that the thing about quantum wavefunction is they cannot be empirically proven to exist, because the actual act of observing them directly affects them. What can be empirically and mathematically proven however, is that if the premise were true that the physical world is established without our "conscious observer" involvement, that is everything is already particles, the particle interaction equations simply do not work. The only way they can actually work is by taking into account quantum wavefunctions.

Wavefunctions are a tool to explain the quantum world, they might have no reality at all. They are similar to imaginary time and space utilised in various mathematical problems. They are a means to an end. What has been proven is that virtual particles exist, they have been recorded in pure vacuum. The fact virtual particles exist (particles being created from nothing in the vacuum) suggests the whole wavefunction model  actually has a reality.
Observer led wavefunction collapse sees no difference from mathematically modelled dechoerence probability curves i.e. observer or not, the same thing happens regardless in the same experiments. The fact we can model a scenario mathematically, and it matches the physical results (which some might argue are not absolute until observed) show this.

I guess the big thing to note here is that the Copenhagen Interpretation is only one way of viewing  Quantum Mechanics. Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation is the one that makes more use of Quantum Decoherence theories, and at this stage either one of these interpretations could be correct, as both can provide their own explanation for the double slit experiment. Or indeed elements of both could be correct.

For me personally, I'm more drawn to the Copenhagen Interpretation. I guess you could say it "feels" right to me, and I personally find it to be more plausible over a wider range of experimental and theoretical applications, none the least of which are the ways I can apply these concepts to my spiritual growth (quantum wavefunctions work so beautifully in light of the laws of attraction and manifestation). That however does not make it the right way, and I guess only time will tell, when our levels of scientific knowledge and capabilities advance, what theories or interpretations will prove themselves true.

The only reason I jumped in here was not because I totally disagree with you . It's because on a lot of forums now I see people taking on possible views of QM as an absolute and a way of proving beliefs. QM is still a science in its childhood. What we know or think we know will change dramatically in the future. I have a keen interest in OBE/AP, and while certain interpretations of QM seem to give evidence for AP and similar philosophies, they are still only possible interpretations – and I think linking philosophies to such things in an attempt to justify them or prove their reality will be a lot more damaging in the long run. Also, people who don't read into these areas will take it as true because 'science says so' (when it doesn't really).

In the holographic universe, scientists were found who claimed such things as even the moon decays into virtual particles when its not observed (others were found who said it decays slowly over time). Such ideas fall apart when you can still detect the moons presence (or a celestial body's presence) on its environment (gravity waves) even without directly observing it. You observe a completely separate object and still see such a bodies influence.

I guess the main reason I put my opinions forward in this current debate was to support the views that the old scientific philosophies (classical physics) and the old religions really do not serve us any longer. If we are to move forward in our understanding we cannot afford to cling to the old and refuse to look at the new.

Blessings,
James.

Agreed that old beliefs and religions do not serve us, but classical physics still does very much. The anomalies seen on the quantum level actually cancel themselves out on the macro level. This is why the universe is such a consistent and coherent place. Classical physics is currently the only way to interpret the macro universe, while QM is used to interpret the micro.
As always, discussion on these areas is always productive

There would be no need for a reality if it were not for the conscious mind! 

James, I owe you a beer!

Reality is simply the action and reaction of base energies across the various dimensions expanded by the big bang. The conscious mind is a product of these energies. Reality has no need or reason, it simply is. If there were no minds to observe, these interactions would still occur in their process of entropy (time).

Hi Sharpe,

I thought I'd start with this one sentence as there's a key here.
"Common sense" forms the basis of Newtonian physics that has been found in years of Quantum Physics research to be no longer applicable where it comes to working with subatomic particles - stuff that our physical world is really made up of.

This is the whole point that physicists on the film such as Fred Alan Wolf and John Hagelin (one of the world's foremost quantum mechanics researchers) were trying to put across.
Their research isn't BS. It's experimentally verifiable!! This is the whole point of the film! Whether or not you agree with Dr Imoto's work, or whether or not you can accept JZ Knight's channelings, there are some serious hard core quantum physicists, engineers, neuro-biologists, psychologists, etc. who support these findings not just because it all sounds good, but because they are seeing first hand the results of properly conducted and repeatably verifiable experiements.

They aren't just making this stuff up, nor can they be considered "fringe" researchers with no clue as to what they're doing. They're PROOVING this stuff! They are actually proving the capacity of our minds as the conscious observers to affect the world we live in.

Before you start doing the whole stubborn sceptic thing, take some time to actually look into the research being conducted in these areas. Take some time to read up on the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Take the time to read up on Quantum Wavefunctions & the double slit experiment.

Read up on the experiments Dr William Tiller has conducted in the areas how groups of focussed meditators can actually affect the pH value of water, using "scientifically sound" research guidelines and controls.
Read up on the experiments Dr Dean Radin has done working with psychics, group consciousness and random number generators.

Please, take the time to look into the research of these highly qualified and experienced scientists that all support each others findings and conclusions as well as supporting the teachings of Ramtha and the findings of Dr Imoto, then come back and tell us why it's all BS and what experimental proof you have to support that notion.

Please, try and disprove the research John Hagelin (winner of the Kilby Award for Scientific achievement, only about one notch down from a Nobel Prize), has done in his time working at CERN (the European Center for Particle Physics) and SLAC (the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center), and his pioneering work on Grand Unified Field theories.
If you can convincingly disprove his work, I'll listen to your complaints here.

Sound fair?

James.

While I agree with QM being a very strange environment, the whole double slit experiment/many worlds theory interpretation of the uncertainty principle is very much pure belief with no empirical evidence to back it up. In fact, there is an increasing body of evidence which suggests conscious observers are not needed at all. Look into quantum decoherence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence

the truth of decoherence is that, regardless of whether there are any conscious observers around or not, objects which would be expected to behave in an essentially classical manner do exactly that. Interaction between objects and their environments, both external and internal, does the job of 'observation' erroneously accorded only to conscious observers, effecting a process which is experimentally indistinguishable from state vector reduction. However, the "truth of decoherence" depends upon the chosen preferred basis. There is no doubt that measurements and the evolution of quantum states continues without observers; the problem raised by Quantum Mind theories is which of these states is accompanied by your observing mind.

There is no need for a consious mind. Reality happily chugs along without it.

MisterJingo,

I thought that you experienced the vibrations during the obe?

My first 5-10 obe's, I didn't have any vibrations until I went over my friends house.
He had vibrations all the time, tell me about them, and how what a shock they
when first experienced.

Now, the vibes are lite, relaxing and plesant but the early days I was holding onto my
hernia belt...

Tvos

99% of my OBEs have varying degrees of vibrations, but I haven't found anything but belief to link them with energetic interactions between subtle bodies. People will disagree with this I'm sure, as their experience might of reinforced the belief of these energetic interactions until such subtle bodies are a part of their reality of OBE.
If we look at every single OBE technique, the one thing they have in common is taking focus away from the physical. This might be through the use of active visualisation (tactile or visual), or bordering sleep and getting immersed in hypnogogics, or even staring at the blackness until such dissociation occurs. At this point the 3d blackness is felt (altered state of consciousness interpreted as a 3d blackness), and then either separation and/or vibrations - which seems to be due to this dissociation (might possibly have roots in DMT release and sensory deprivation making the effects much more pronounced).
For OBEs, sleep paralysis (or the mechanism behind it) is triggered, and I guess we experience our body in this new creative environment (RTZ) due to expectation rather than base reality dictating consciousness needs an energy body to be separated. The fact we have bodies even in mindless dreams suggest this body creation reflex is pretty ingrained in our mind (we do experience sensation from body at every waking second reinforcing its shape and action). Proficient OBErs generally find they have no body as they become more experienced or can create any body at will.
For AP, the body is created for the same reason.
The above doesn't go into detail, but at least covers a few things I have found, and partly explains why I left beyond the whole subtle body /energy interaction belief.
The core is simply diverting sufficient attention away from the physical to invoke whatever default mechanism are contained within the brain to kick start the OBE/AP generation processes.

I've seen many people basing everything on this energy body model, and practicing making this model part of their core belief and consequent world view to little or no benefit to their OBE practices. This is because they are diverting their energy in the wrong direction. Energy bodies are a tool to divert attention, not a goal in and of themselves.

http://www.trufax.org/matrix5/welcome.html

I just happened to stumble upon this website. I was blow away. The source of this information was an aprentice to a shaman for 13 years and attended and worked with Robert Monroe. He not only validates Robert Monroes and Bruce Moens information, but has a vast amount of information on everything you could possibly want to know about. I'm convinced this guy is the real deal. And the information he gives makes so much sense. He learned this the way we all learn.. from experiences. The same way Bruce and Robert learned the things they have learned and shared, this man has done the same. But it seems he has learned much, much more. Everyone should check this out. Im buying the books asap.

I'd perhaps contact the Monroe institue and Bruce Moen to confirm what he says is true before spending lots of cash on these materials.

Regarding vibrations, something which others seem to have little interest in is the vibrations felt on low dose DMT experiences. It's not something I've experienced myself (DMT) but descriptions sound amazingly like the OBE (electric) vibrations. Even more itneresting is the similarity between higher dose DMT experiences (full obe episodes) and full obes.
I would really like more research done into this area.

I've had a few experiences which can only be attributed to spontaneous kundalini rising. They weren't particularly comfortable, consisted of a very altered mental state, intense and disorientating body sensations, and my mind felt slightly 'trippy'. For a while I was convinced i'd been drugged with something. The sensations actually make me wonder if kundalini events have any correlation with a larger than normal DMT dump into the brain (i.e. the experience had feelings akin to psychedelic exposure).

[very]

projektr is correct, building beliefs on the hearsay of others (however convincing it seems) is a very shaky road to walk down. Question everything, including ones own experiences, and always remain open to new viewpoints.

Hi Jeehad,

To date, astral projection simply consists of peoples own personal experiences and whatever philosophies they have chosen to construct to help explain these experiences. There has been a lot of attempts at verifying the reality of AP, yet there is little to no empirical evidence which shows AP is more than creative imagination – which utilises the brain constructs used to give perceived external reality its structure (i.e. the same pathways used for vision are actually used for internal visualisation too).
This doesn't discount the possibility of AP having a reality outside of what we give it, and doesn't discount the possibility of science finding proofs of it as it advances. But to date, all we have are our own experiences and belief.

a surge of grief washes my senses,
seeming to ride the dim,
blue, evening light, and
suddenly i realise, that
this moment will soon be over -
never to be replayed,
that this life will soon be over -
always to be forgotten,
and that which i am, will fade -
dissipate -
end.
caught forever, light is frozen on my eye, a picture of you
arms stretched, evening light tracing your pink flesh,
tracing your face, and
reflecting back at my own eyes
so that i may construct you
experience you internally
(for that is all we ever know) .
the very same light that washes your body, also
washes my mind
yet, forever and always, we are separated
by the width of a single electron.

hmm.. getting closer to the divine?  That's quite vague.  You say you want to experience and expand your knowledge of love?  Than do more loving things.  I would agree that WE are God for God is in and acts through all of us... God is not a being but the source of divine energy throughout the iniverse....I would argue   However, this is only our understanding as of today.

Putting this aside, the search for truth/God comes from within.  People tell stories of learning vast amounts about themselves and the universe through astral travel... so, err... couldn't hurt!

keep practicing...it's all a matter of intent

p.s.  --and yes, i believe I meant iniverse

I agree with the above for the most part, but I believe God is a concept, or set of concepts man has imposed on various aspects and energies of the psyche, ID, ego etc. One could call God the sum of everything – but that really has little meaning, and I increasingly don't see the need to label things God or not-God. Perhaps we need a new word as God has become irrevocably polluted my a billion differing interpretations and beliefs (or perhaps that's the point? ).

Hi Crimson Tears,

my first thoughts on this would either be a fear reaction manifested a 'shocking' image, or that being in a relaxed state, some negatively repressed material was bought to the surface mind and experienced as this vision. I've been projecting consiously for a decade now and still have fear reactions on occasion. Also, as one gets deeper into exploring altered states, one will encounter negative and dark material. This could be caused by anything from repressed anger or other emotions, to childhood experiences which negatively effected you and still sit on some level of your psyche.
Why a car and an old man was seen? It could simply be a random shocking inmage, which has beome stuck due to its effect on you in the first instance, or it could have a meaning for you symbolically or emotionally.