Messages

First of all we have the usual definition of a LD: Any dream in which the subject who dreams becomes aware of the fact that he or she is dreaming.

This is a bad definition cause it avoids to define "Dream"

Yet this doesnt cover all phenomenon that are related to lucid dreaming. Therefore I also propose to define the phenomenon itself as: Any state of lowered brainwave activity resulting in either sleep or trance during which the subject retains his or her awareness. This awareness can range from 'only' knowing that one is dreaming / in trance to full inclusion of all daily conscious faculties, including but not limited to all memories and full consciousness.

If this is your definition of LD, then  OBE=LD is fine with me..........

Hmmm... Just a thought: Your definition of LD automatically includes all Conscious Experiences That do NOT happen during waking Life or Brain dead. So basically all OBE's are now per definition labeled LD. Do you really want that?
Assuming it is possible to separate the spirit during Sleep and have a "real" OBE (in your terminology) , this would now still be defined as a LD! Do you see what I mean?

From a Physical Viewpoint, I think the following definitions are pretty good:

Vibration = A periodic process or A rapid linear motion of a particle or of an elastic solid about an equilibrium position.


Density = The quantity of something per unit measure, especially per unit length, area, or volume.

Since we do not know, what the Astral does consists of I see no reason to assume something is vibrating there. Same is true for Density. If we say the Astral has a different density the the Physical, we need to assume that the astral is build of the same "something" then our Physical world and that this something is measurable. No evidence to assume this, I think.

Thanks  for the link Telos!

I'm not very bright when it comes to this kind of topic, but this does remind me of this show I was watching last night about the 'String Theory'  

They never mentioned about vibrations..infact I was waiting for that.  Instead they kept mentioning density.  They say that the string theory proves that we are surrounded by parallel universes (which I can relate to)

There was also talk about something called the "M" theory.  They couldn't even say what it was..hehe.  Some call it the Mystical something or other. Can someone explain this to me, and please type it slowly so I can understand.

Nay

O.k. I now watched the last hour of the program, cause if thought that that would be the relevant part.
Hnmmmmmmm....
What would you like to understand specifically? I can't like explain you the whole M-theory or something (I do not have the mathematic Know How)
So if you could give a hint I could try to explain a part of it.
Basically I thought the show was very interesting and I thought about Astral Planes as well!
In a Nutshell M-theory predicts that we live in a 11-Dimensional Universe.
Imagine a Piece of Paper, now imagine People that live in this 2-D world, This guys have no clue what 3-D could feel like, they can not leave the paper plane into 3-D-Space. Now M-Theory suggest that our 3-D-Universe is just like a piece of paper in a higher dimensional room (they call it, "Branes" or Parallel Universes) , There may be other "pieces of paper" there in this Room (they call bulk) wich contain alien worlds (Like the Astral.......)
In order to communicate or go to these other "pieces of Paper" (or lets call them Planes) one needs to leave this Plane (our Universe) they suggest that this would be possible for closed Strings. They further suggest that Gravity is caused by Gravitons and that Gravitons are closed strings (they did not say that the Graviton is the only closed string)
Now they also said that they them self do not understand all possibilities that M-theory offers, so...............
I would pick out the raisins:
There are other Planes (Universes, Branes, or whatever you call them)
This Planes could be completely alien to our world, they could be populated and it could be possible to communicate with them or even go there! Since we do not know what conscious really is nothing is impossible.
The Astral is definitely in the game!
This may sound unscientific, but thats what I understood.....

First of all we have the usual definition of a LD: Any dream in which the subject who dreams becomes aware of the fact that he or she is dreaming.

This is a bad definition cause it avoids to define "Dream"

Yet this doesnt cover all phenomenon that are related to lucid dreaming. Therefore I also propose to define the phenomenon itself as: Any state of lowered brainwave activity resulting in either sleep or trance during which the subject retains his or her awareness. This awareness can range from 'only' knowing that one is dreaming / in trance to full inclusion of all daily conscious faculties, including but not limited to all memories and full consciousness.

If this is your definition of LD, then  OBE=LD is fine with me..........

I'm not very bright when it comes to this kind of topic, but this does remind me of this show I was watching last night about the 'String Theory'  

They never mentioned about vibrations..infact I was waiting for that.  Instead they kept mentioning density.  They say that the string theory proves that we are surrounded by parallel universes (which I can relate to)

There was also talk about something called the "M" theory.  They couldn't even say what it was..hehe.  Some call it the Mystical something or other. Can someone explain this to me, and please type it slowly so I can understand.

Nay

Havent seent he show    If someone could give my a link or something were the M-theorie is explained I would read it and try to explain what I understand. Not that I'm supersmart or something but I'm usually pretty good in explaining things.

I have to chuckle at myself (now that I've skimmed forward a couple pages) for even attempting to join this conversation, because of my lack of finesse in the scientific and mathmatician world.  

Half way through the program, I turned to my husband and said.. "ya know, if the scientist would just get together with people, like those on the Pulse I believe we could really learn quite a bit from each other."  But I think I understand now why that wouldn't work.  Scientist can't think in simple terms and will always feel superior to us no-brainers.  Not willing to give an inch, and heck... how does one argue with that, when you can't speak the language?

Don't worry about that. If someone (a scientist for that sake) has really understood something he should be able to explain it in simple terms (in my opinion   )
I once told my girlfriend I believe every body has 100 points brain power, But some have 50 points mathematics while others have 10 but the same may have only 10 points social live while the other has 50 points there. No need for the mathematician to feel superior

Sometimes not! You're catching on.  Philosophy often involves logical thinking but is not science. Mathematics is the same way. Mathematics uses deductive reasoning, but science uses inductive reasoning.

Good to hear, 'm still waiting for you to catch on on my ideas though  

Isn't that in your philosophy of science books? Funny, that was in one of the first ones I read. Surprized? I was reading philosophy probably before you learned how to read

.  

Yeah I'm actually surprised, Cause you seem to have a hard time understanding me, probably you should re-read the books .-P
Well o.k. Maybe I was unclear with my arguments so I try again:

If object A has mass Ma and object B has mass Mb,
then the force F on object A is directed toward object B
and has magnitude

F = G Ma Mb / r2

That equation is used to put rovers on Mars. So that's not a proven theory?

The theorie says that there is a Law of nature wich states F = G Ma Mb / r2, Law of Nature means that this equation is valid everywhere, anytime.
Now lets assume there is a other Law of nature ,which has not been discovered yet, that states that if the mass are far enough apart, lets say 20000 billion light years then there comes a additional force-component heavely into play. This force is always present but too small to be messured when distances are small. So no matter how many Rovers you put on mars, you'll not discover the fact that the law F = G Ma Mb / r2 is actually incorrect, Not a law of nature cause not valid in any situation. One can expand this line o reasoning on all Laws of nature. Therefore it is not possible to prove that a Theorie on a physical law is right. If you call that philosphy or whatever does not matter. It is not possible to prove a Physical theorie! Or do you think they call the electromagnetic theory, "Theory" out of sheer fun?

But I sure that science is not a steady climb up a hill, this has been shown by many cases.

Who said it was steady?

O.k. steady was the wrong word, but you said that Physical theories build upon each other. This is not always the case. On what theorie was the theorie of relativity build upon?

What (specifically) makes you think I'm biased?

Science is empirical, it continuously builds on existing knowledge

Why do they say astral is a higher vibration frequency? They say astral vibrates the same way physical places do but at a higher frequency. Frequency is not a vague word used to describe things you dont fully understand. It means 1 / wavelength. I and many others have felt "vibrations" OBE and other psychic things, but what we feel does not translate directly to a physics model. Where does this dogma come from that astral is vibrating that way?

Good point! I suppose the idea come from physics. If something vibrates higher (or lower for that sake) then the frequency we can see/hear then it disappear from our senses. For example UV-light or ultrasonic. I guess some people then figured that the Astral must have a different vibration rate then our physical world and since the Astral is considered to be something higher, better etc they figured "higher" I guess. But as you said there is no reason to assume this!

Like I said, you're philosophizing. Nothing wrong with that, but philosophy of science is not science.

Logical thinking is not science? thats a good one! fortunately I do not need you to tell me what science is.

But I can Tell you your picture of science and progress is also garbage.

Are you sure you're not just misunderstanding?

No I'm not sure. But I sure that science is not a steady climb up a hill, this has been shown by many cases.

I thought you are a logical person but it appears to be that you are biased

If someone appears biased it's because they have logic you don't know about.

what logic would that be?

I'm not sure what I think of carrying on a discussion with people who have such low expectations for understanding.

You don't have to..........

Good luck in your studies.

Thanks! Happy new year!

A physical theory is nor right or wrong. It is not possible to prove that a theory is right!

That's ridiculous nonsense. Do you see your world as that unstable and confusing, that your computer works as the result of magic - or because of a successful physical theory of electromagnetism that has been proven over and over again?

Only cause something is new to you doesn't make it nonsense! What I say are not my own ideas but actually well accepted ones in philosophy of science. But I won't go into detail here. Do you you know Popper? "When you observe 1000 white swans you still can not logically conclude that there are no black swans"

Most physical theories we use are known to be wrong, for example Newtons Law of gravity is wrong, one should apply the theory of relativity, but this theory is also only partly right, for example if we look at very small things it is not valid one must then apply the laws of Quantum Phyics.............

You're demonstrating that our knowledge of the universe is incomplete. Newton's law of gravity isn't wrong - it's just not the whole picture. The only thing that was wrong about Newton was the assumption that it explained everything.

No, it is wrong! If you measure exactly enough you see that it is wrong. But that doesn't make it useless!

A theory is meant to describe certain regularities in nature and foretell certain things but sooner or later we discover a incident were it does not work then we need a new more elegant theory which will sooner or later fail again, this has always been the case.

You make it sound like we destroy our theories and then start from scratch. That has never been the case. Science is empirical, it continuously builds on existing knowledge. Theories are provisional, so the ones that work are the ones that stick around. A lot of theories stick around.

That has very well be the case! You assume things that are wrong, sorry but you do not know what you are talking about. theory of relativity was something new not based on older stuff.

You're probably only talking about theories of everything.

No I'm not

I think your argument that the M-theory uses abstract concepts like strings etc. is not valid. Most physical theories use abstract things.

You guys keep saying this. What other physical theories use abstract things? The only one I can think of is relativity, which uses spacetime as a fabric that folds and makes bumps and curves - but then even that's not that abstact, because we can see light from a star bending around an eclipse, which is actually like seeing space becoming warped..

Nobody (at least no Physic t)knows what "mass" "a photon" "force" etc really is. This are just concepts of our brain.

The concept of a point is abstract.

All concepts are abstract. Since knowledge is abstract, there's no such thing as concrete knowledge, and therefore we'll never truly know the universe. Is that what you're trying to say? In that case, you're making assumptions and philosophizing on them.

No, if you experience something, lets say "Love" you have now, concrete knowlegde what Love is.

Mass, photons, and forces can be seen, measured, probed, observed, predicted, and manipulated. That makes them more than just concepts in our brain, which is all strings and extra dimensions are at the moment.

Einstein himself said that he tried to understand what a photon is for his whole Life but that he still has no clue. Only cause you can manipulate something doesn't mean you understand it. I can manipulate my girlfriend, but I sometimes don't understand her

It is actually plausible to assume that our brain can not understand the universe

Brains have been shown to be inferior devices for understanding, given how easily our faculties to learn can be easily damaged and deformed through brain damage or genetic mutation. In the future, we'll probably have to change or augment our brains to be more sturdy.

However, when healthy, our ability to create abstract concepts of already existing phenomena and then manipulate them in our heads before experimenting with the real thing is unmatched. We've gotten this far and continue to make accelerating returns on progress.

So, no, I don't think it's anymore plausible to assume that our brains can't understand the universe than it is to assume that they can. In fact, it's way more plausible to assume the latter. Way, way more plausible.

For me it is not plausible.....

M theory operates under the assumption that the phenomena it predicts (gravitons, sparticles, etc.) are "hard to find." Therefore, we could go on looking for them forever, never find them, and M theory would still be safe - unless we prove that gravity works by some other means and discard the notion of supersymmetry.

String theory would have weight if we saw a graviton, and then watched it disappear as it left our brane.

So, not only would we have to see something that we've never seen before that explains the most familiar force in the universe, we'd also have to catch it in the act of evading us. M theory assumes that what is right in front of us is naturally evasive to observation. I think that's garbage - that just means we've lost our focus and are looking in the wrong direction.

[/quote]

Yeah probably M-theory is garbage I don't know. But I can Tell you your picture of science and progress is also garbage. I thought you are a logical person but it appears to be that you are biased, read some books about philosophy of science an you'll see what I mean, I can give you some hints if you are interested to learn.

Hoi Catmeow Do you like the book?

My opinion is that the astral planes are not physical.  So I don't think the astral planes are part of a parallel physical universe.  I already gave my reasons which are simplistic but valid:

[catmeow

]


"Physical" is a unclear term. It is actually likely that a parallel Universe does have different laws of nature then our current Universe. This means that that world would be very alien to our known Universe, so the Astral  would fit in.

However, I think it is naive to think that the astral (and "higher") planes are part of the physical universe. The overwhelming observed facts indicate that astral planes, and ESP, operate independently of physical laws. For instance, telepathy appears to be independent of distance. It does not observe the normal square-law. Precognition breaks the laws of time. During astral projection we can apparently travel to distant galaxies in an instant, breaking all the laws of physical science.
As far as I am aware, wormholes apart, it is impossible according to  current physical sciences to travel to distant galaxies instantaneously....!    

I think you guys have a wrong view about the concept of a physical theorie.
A physical theory is nor right or wrong. It is not possible to prove that a theory is right! Most physical theories we use are known to be wrong, for example Newtons Law of gravity is wrong, one should apply the theory of relativity, but this theory is also only partly right, for example  if we look at very small things it is not valid one must then apply the laws of Quantum Phyics.............
A theory is meant to describe certain regularities in nature  and foretell certain things but sooner or later we discover a incident were it does not work then we need a new more elegant theory which will sooner or later fail again, this has always been the case.
So if the current theories say we can not travel faster then light, so what? ask again in 500 Years!

At Telos

I think your argument that the M-theory uses abstract concepts like strings etc. is not valid. Most physical theories use abstract things. Nobody (at least no Physic t)knows what "mass" "a photon"  "force" etc really is. This are just concepts of our brain.It is actually plausible to assume that our brain can not understand the universe therefore it is plausible that more advanced theories about the universe will talk about things we do not understand. However this theories should make concrete predicates we can eventually  test and I'm sure the M-theory does so as well. If it doesn't it would be useless.

Gravity doesnt affect things until light can get to them (gravity moves at the speed of light). Earth orbiting the sun makes a gravity wave with frequency 1 year.

Would be more useful if we could get a faster frequency, but still its a gravity wave and it exists.

gravity moves at the speed of light? is that really so? I heard different.


Is it possible that the Astral dimension is a Parallel Universe? (If We forget M-Theorie for a second)
I would say: why not?

Can someone please define the word "Dimension" and BTW: How can a dimension been curled up

Physicists use concepts to describe a real world isn't that doomed to fail? Oh did I mention that I studie Physics myself..........

But the "thought suppression" he teaches I am resisting. I think I may be afraid of going into a state of "non being."
"

So, you believe you are your thoughts then? I wouldn't count on that. There is always a small gap between two thoughts, do you stop "being" there?

Thank you every body for the input so far. I'm very aware that one should not demean the Lucid Dream by itself and that a lucid Dream and a Astral Projection are probably two sides of the same coin. Therefore I think I'll reformulate my initial question into...........

..............What techniques do you use, once you notice have a Lucid Dream, to heighten your awareness and gain more control and clarity and/or to shift from a mainly self-created world into a more "public" area and/or to shift into specific realms such as the RTZ or upper Astral.

I guess this is the  less restricting and more useful Question  

clearing the mind should calm the mind, if the mind is not calm you can not exit your Body consciously (I think).
Your resistance to it is probably partly due to the fact that you do not know the state of a calm mind (with almost no thoughts) So you fear the unknown. And, your rational mind is not in charge any longer when you clear your mind. The rational part doesn't like that cause he wants to control you like he used to do, but the rational mind will also stop you from leaving your body and besides that you are not only your rational mind so explore your other parts as well.
Clearing the mind is actually a nice state with no danger.

I believe that experiencing the Astral from the perception of a physical being has something to do with my rules for the game. If it wasn't, wouldn't I have made the rules different, so that I COULDN'T experience these things?

Nice point! I like that  

Xetrov, can you please define Lucid Dream.

Which link you mean? there are quite a few in this thread.

Sungazing may damage your eyes! Even if the sun is partly blocked by a thick layer of air in the morning/evening, It  still contains harmful UV-Radiation that can harm your eyes and cause cataract.

The question I wonder is, if we create our own reality, and others belief constructs help to form our reality, will it ever be possible to completely experience true  pure consciousness.  Isn't even the notion of having constructs a construct?  So, in order to experience true consciousness, you would have to give up all constructs, including the belief that there is such a thing as constructs. Which would mean you would have to quit believing in constructs. This in turn would lead to not working towards giving up constructs. I hope that doesn't look like rambling, but it seems like a hopeless catch 22. We who reside primarily in your focus 1 seem to be inherently doomed to never fully experience true self.

I think you look at it from a viewpoint that is too rational, so to speak. You must not do anything specific like believing that you need to give up constructs or something. All you need to do is stop constructing anything in your mind and just observe the "Now". I Believe pure consciousness is always present but clouded by ourselfs.
The mind can be trained to just observe the moment without wandering and then one should eventually realize true self. This needs  a lot of training but it can be done. I believe it is not necessary to shift conscious to another place to fully experience true self. Trained Projectors tell us that time and space are mere illusions, so why should we need to go anywere to truely realize ourselfs?

I'm very aware that above by itself is a believe construct as well, but one can test it by  meditation. If somebody is interested, "Mindfulness in plain english" is a excellent book on the subject

I have only had one intentional projection so maybe I am missing some of the insight that comes from experiencing "focus 4". I am interested in hearing your replies

I only had 4 intentional projections so far, so maybe I'm missing something too.........

Frank:

Buddhism is a construct along with many other boxed sets of beliefs. What people do is box what they believe a wider reality entails, into confines they think they can understand. Which is all very well, I'm not knocking it. But do realise in doing that a person lends themselves open to experiencing quite severe distortions in translation. One of the most common distortions is that of "a creator".

agreed

The key, of course, is simply to view the wider reality directly, and without preconceptions of what you think that wider reality is. Which, in itself, is a heck of a challenge for most people as they read all the books and, in doing so, they gain what you might call a solid notion of "what to expect". Unfortunately, "what to expect" is a powerful construct that forms the person's reality and generally leads them to another equally powerful construct called, "I'm right".

agreed, but I think it goes deeper then just not reading books, I mean the whole education, the whole world we grow up, everthing our parents told us......... all this is constantly blocking our view of the direct reality unfolding. What I mean is this: when we see for example a tree. We say ahh, a tree, we see it as a certain solid object which has a certain expanse. But were does the tree really end? These are all constructs as well.

Understand, that everything physical is formed from constructs that we create as part of The Game. Now, what I am about to say may well resonate with mystical teachings in some way or other. Thing is, there is only one absolute reality at the core of all that is. The only difference, really, is how explorers such as myself describe that reality. With me, as I have said many times on this forum, I am not all that "well read" when it comes to this topic. This I now feel quite fortunate about, because it has helped me a lot.

We are a point of consciousness. But don't get the idea we are just some point of nothing, floating in an eternal Void somewhere. The problem I am finding is, the closer I get to the core, the more difficult it becomes to describe the reality in words. Anyhow, there are two basic elements at Source, 1) The Cosmic Song and, 2) The Eternal Dance. Imagine everything of all that is, constantly entwined in a huge mass of perpetual motion. Every colour, every aspect every construct, every notion, just everything of all that is, constantly entwined in motion... and each of us forms a tiny part of that.

Within the Dance, there are an infinite number of levels, or areas, or places, and each place has its own "song". You might perceive one area, say; it could be a mass of whirling colours and abstract shapes. This visual scene may be accompanied by a sound, like, a near infinite number of chattering monkeys, coupled with the screeching of an equally huge number of birds. There are no actual monkeys or birds, of course, I'm simply using this to try to describe what it may sound like. As you focus in on a particular area, you find what was entirely abstract before starts taking on particular definitions. As you do so, the sound of the Song changes. The closer in you go the more definition you perceive. Eventually you can go from what was originally a swirling cloud of colour, say, and you travel inwards to find an entire physical universe.      

All of consciousness is in a constant state of unfolding. This perpetually unfolding process ultimately creates the Eternal Dance. It is the sum of every experience that ever is/was/will. Plus, the summation of every minor Song of each and every area, forms the entire Cosmic Song. In reality, however, it is impossible to describe in words. You have to actually see it and hear it for yourself. We are currently connected to the Eternal Dance. It is something we can readily perceive if we choose to. However, what we have done is create a mental barrier between here and There, so as not to spoil The Game.

This is a very beautiful descripton, I like a lot since I'm a musican. But as you said I think I can not really inderstand what you are talking about. I guess, as long as one doesn't  experience this directly one can not understand it.

The point of us being in the place we call "here" is to experience. We create physical worlds and revel in the experience of them as part of The Game. The Game is played in accordance with strictly laid down rules that we all agree to on an ongoing basis. Between us all, underlying what we have agreed to call our "physical reality", is a perpetual series of energy exchanges. We have all agreed to carry out these exchanges along certain lines in order to create what we call the, "world we live in

Which experience makes you say that? I mean it is quite hard for me to imagine an experience one could possibly have, that lets him know that all others have done something specific ( "Agreed on the Game")

Without such an agreement, the whole Game would collapse. In a sense, we are all living in a house of cards where the structure is held together by our agreements formed through these energy exchanges. If we would all suddenly decide not to play the game, for example, everyone's physical world would simply disintegrate.

Have you ever considered the possiblity that the words "I" ,"world", "Game", "Others" etc are  only concepts as well?

Because of this, we create constructs that continually reinforce the reality of the physical realms. Being born, for example, is a construct. Of course, we cannot have people just suddenly materialising. This would spoil The Game, as it is too close to our actual reality. So we create a means of "entry" that we perceive is entirely physical based. In order to reinforce this we create all manner of other constructs such as "growing up", "going to school", "being taught". Problem comes as well at the other end. We can't have people just remaining physical forever. It would cause too many questions and spoil the illusion. So we created a construct of "physical death". But even this is not the total solution, because we can't have people just dying for no reason. So we created the constructs such as "disease" or "death by accident" for example, that allow people to die without raising suspicion.

And now you come and mess up the Game ;-P

As I say, our reality is formed from constructs upon which we all agree. But some constructs play a bigger part, you might say, than others. One of the most powerful constructs is "what to expect". This construct is massively reinforced by a veritable army of officials, such as scientists, for example, whom we nominate in order to feed us with information on "what to expect". Of course, our whole purpose of playing The Game is to experience. Doing this, we also want to explore as wide a variety of experiences as possible. So we set up circumstances where we are continually updating our ideas of "what to expect". This enables us to explore a far wider range of experiences. This leads to yet another important construct we call "evolution".

You could go on forever listing all the various constructs and the connections or relationships between them. There are so many I'm not sure if it is possible to create any kind of accurate map. But all a person needs is to grasp the basics and the rest follows on from there.

So do you consider that to be a good thing then, the game I mean? I mean, is everything like it should be? should we probably not even bother and just do what we ever did? But then why, I wonder, do you explore this things and spoil the game for yourself ?

Well, Anyways thanks for the very interessting read! I'll definitly try to experience my future Out of Body journeys with the least amount of concepts possible. I believe thats the important part, I'll try to remember.

Cheers Tom

Last night I dreamt about a huge Hurricane that crossed Switzerland it was the strongest in History.

1.  Does it make sense to do energy raising before a Yoga class?  Would Yoga help when doing NEW?

I have been working on my secondary circuit for a little while now, and sometimes I feel progress, and sometimes I feel frustration at the lack of it.

I KNOW that slow and steady practise will get things working together.  I also do Yoga twice a week.

Now I'm not 100% sure on whats coming from where.  Does NEW interfere in anyway with ones emotions?

I know that in a Yoga class, one can release pent up or hidden emotions that have not yet come to the surface.

I feel like I'm on a constant emotional rollercoaster, and I am not sure whether its a combination of these two things or one or the other.  I have a feeling I have to ride it out and it will soon sort itself out but in the meantime its a little frustrating.

When I feel these emotions (depression) its not at the forefront, more like somewhere hiding inside but I can sense its there.  I will wake up and feel not quite depressed but not exactly happy.  Throughout the day I'll go up and down, happy and indifferent, but again, these emotions are all inside, somewhat out of reach if that makes ANY sense at all.

Should I just continue on, keep up my energy work, Yoga, and meditation (I have also started practising quietening my mind, boy its HARD!) and it should settle down??

Sorry if these are incoherant ramblings.... I'm not quite sure where I am right now!

Hello Laiana

I'm really not a expert on this but I believe there is a fairly good chance that your mood swings are caused by your meditation. This is called mental puking and it is actually a pretty well known phenomenon. I myself experience this from time to time. The theorie behind it is the following: When you calm your mind things that you stored anyway in your subconscious get the chance to raise to your conscious again. This is considered to be a good thing, cause they now can "burn away". Just observe it and it will pass. One way to actually determine if your meditation is really the cause is to stop doing it for a few days and see if the mood swings calm down.
Cheers Tom

Hi there
I enjoy reading this conversation! I have some thoughts/questions myself that I want to throw in.
I have some very difficult questions for you, Frank (Of course others are welcomed to reply as well). I believe you are very true when saying that basically all we experience are constructs created by ourselves, but these leads to some very far reaching questions. I wonder what your Ideas are on the following points. (I won't blame you if you have none, I have no clue anyway
I hope I don't stray to far from the subject. Here we go......

If we assume, like you said, that all we experience are constructs created by ourself (and I believe you are right), then I would conclude that we are NOT any of these things. We perceive them, yes, we can probably alter them,but we are something different.  You said that we are a point of consciousness. I thinks that is very true and we can verify this every second we live. But a point does not have any expanse, it is a mathematical construct not  subsumable for our mind. So me first questions. What are we? (When I say "We" I mean the always present point of awareness that never changes weather you are angry or happy, dreaming or awake) Who is it that constructs things with the base material(to adopt your terms)? Is there any solid entity  in the core of the being you call "Frank"? What is it made of? If it is the "one"  creating things out of the base material then it can not itself be made out of this stuff, I think (confusing..)
As you probably agree we should base our understandings upon experience. So do you have any experience that points to the direction that there is actually a soul, a solid entity not created by ourselves but being ourselves? How can we interact with the base matter then?

Another point that pops in my mind: If a thought comes to me mind, were does it come from?
If we are not the constructs but the creators were, does the construction plan, the initial idea come from? Whats is the source of it? Can there be anything created out of nothing?


I found it pretty fascinating how close your ideas actually are to the ones of the early Buddhism teachings. However, this seems pretty evident to me, if people explore consciousness , I guess they eventually come  up with similar insights. I like to make this connection here cause we all basically do the same "Exploring consciousness"
I'll try to sum up my understandings of the Buddhist teachings shortly to outline this (Using my incomplete english... ) at the same time I'll also try to answer the point Major Tom (nice Name) raised on how to experience "pure consciousness"
I would also wonder what you guys think about the following.
As I understand Buddhas words, he said...

........Things constantly appear and disappear within our field of consciousness. However if one  takes a close look one will see that this things have no solid identity they are not stable and have no self. We are the ones that label different experiences and separate them. If One understands this one starts to see that all things appear in "our" consciousness but that they are not consciousness, so to speak, meaning that we are not them. there is just a constant stream of  ongoing events without a self involved. There is no "ME" inside these events and therefore they can not really cause us any suffering once we understand this. Once we  do not misunderstand experiences as being "attached" to ourselves as being "ME" we then will be completely fee, "enlighted".......

This is, of course, very difficult to experience directly (and direct experience is the only way to understand it) Many years/Lives of deep meditations are needed. Probably shifting consciousness to other realms can shortcut this?!
So to answer your question Major Tom: One way to experience pure consciousness may be, to just observe things without doing anything, stop the construction process which fills your consciousness, so to speak until your mind becomes completely calm and you becomes completely mindful of everything. one way to do this is by many years of Meditation (Vipassna). On other way may be to to  explore consciousness in the "Astral" and just observe things there. Haven't done that myself ,-) (yet)

The last question then would be, what is the purpose of it all?
One answer I came up with goes like this. We can only know something if we experience it. In order to experience something there must be a subject and a object so therefore there is I "me" and a "world". But whenever consciousness believes to be a entity there is separation and suffering. Sounds like a catch 22 to me. Maybe the universe just plays out all options available and we are currently in the "experience section"
What are your thoughts on this?
Well I hope I did not confuse you guys, it is hard to translate thoughts into another language.....

Cheers Tom