Messages

*sigh*

this kundalini business always cracks me up.

"kundalini is no laughing matter!  if you do it wrong your head will explode through your genitals!!!"

lol.

It depends from what point you consider the term "kundalini". If considered as a whole, then Kundalini is just the use of the so-called "Prana", i.e. the manifestation of force/motion. In this sense Kundalini is especially meditation (and especially true meditation, "Dhyana"). When you concentrate (meditate) then "Kundalini" (intended as a whole) rises and the "centres" awake and generates "vrittis" - manifestations. If you meditate on one of these "centres", for example, a specific "vritti" will arise, causing a certain result (a certain manifestation). If you go beyond "vrittis" then "Kundalini" reach the top of the crown (and you have various stages of "Samadhi", going from the gross, to the subtle and to the seedless). In general, simplified terms, "kundalini" it is the phenomena behind the manifestations of the mind, what Wittgenstein called "fenomenology", or Sir Humprey Davy - after being overpowered by laughing  gas while giving a lecture - in a stupor, motionless, exclaimed "the world is made up by ideas".

However, if you regard Kundalini as a specific practice, then it has a specific practical application that differs from the concept as a whole. In this case the practice arises a very specific sexual "current" and this can be dangerous because, apart the possibility of breaking you emotionally if you are not ready for it (so not balanced), it is either a very strong experience that's tricky to manage. One of the worst things it can happen I already said, the one of being "stuck" in the head with no possibility of "step" back.

Kundalini has been referenced by good authors (as Vivekananda) both as in the whole concept, and both as in the specific term concerning a specific practice (others "not so good" authors instead, probably not understanding the differences, mixed one with another or exchanged the two as the same thing). In this thread I was talking about the specific practice (but I didn't include in it the sexual current and how to arise it, since it is not safe to do so without knowing what you are doing).

just live your life addict.  keep doing your meditations and your being will grow and develop as it should.  forget about buzzwords like kundalini.  just do what you do.  

That's true. Meditating (in the real sense of the word, Dhyana) "Kundalini" (on the whole concept) "rises" by herself (i.e. you "control" her, till the point of cessating the manifestation, or fenomenology, "rising to the top"). You don't need to do nothing else. Concentration (till it becomes meditation) is the key, since you direct the mind-stuff (the manifestation) in a direction. As they can be other more "external" practices as Pranayama (that many confuse with control of the breath in its literal sense, when it's not, it is control of prana with the motion of the lungs, in general terms). The "internal" practice (meditation), however, it is more direct to this point, for this it has been called the "Raja" (King) practice.

Kundalini as the specific experience instead is meant to work with a specific "current", and in general terms the sexual one, using the same "Prana" and directing it in a specific way.

I also am talking about the "I" part of the mind.

As I said it is difficult to differentiate the two if you don't experience the difference.

You think it is the "I" part of your mind because you attention, when switching, create a "body" (or anyway an external reference of your ego) as an image to work inside. But that's not the same thing.

When you look at the physical world with your eyes, you see the thing externally but your "I" is inside and it is inside your physical body. Now, when the "reality" switches so that you look at another "reality", the "plane" switches, your attention creates another "body" to work in it and it gives the impression that the "I" moves with it, but it's not so, it is just the outside that changed bringing along an image of the inside, but the "I" never moved, it is in the same position of before.

It is like in a racing game where the car never moves and the scenery does, giving the impression of movement.

In the other case, the "I" really moves.

True, this is what happens when focused here. However, once you are in an out of body, either from REM or meditation, it does not feel like that, believe me, I know what I have been experiencing.

You see, the term "consciousness" can mean a lot of things in english, depending on the context it is used. It can mean "attention" (i.e. the focus), it can mean the mind as a whole, it can mean the congnitive aspect (critical faculty, ruach), it can mean the part of the mind that you call "I" and you identify your "I" with, and so on. Other languages had words to differentiate them, as egyptian or sanskrit.

What you call "consciousness" in this case it is the "attention" part of the mind. What I call "consciousness" in this case it is the "I" part of the mind.

To move this part it is one of the most difficult things to do, either more if externally from the physical bounds. Differently from attention, then, consciousness remains in a place only by continued effort. If you discontinue the effort it will revert back to the habitual position (that's adopted from continue concentration on a position, usually coming from the visual sense). The attention can "switch" with a medium prolonged effort, then it resides there until an event (of whatever sort) brings it "back". Consciousness, instead, requires a continue effort of concentration to keep it elsewhere (or a full habit that overcomes the older, a very long process).

Now, what I call an OBE (in its explicit term of "Out of Body") is specifically this "consciousness" brought outside the body and kept there (and moved along) with an effort of concentration. Very difficult to do and very exhausting.

Either in meditation if you bring your attention on a scenery or image till your focus (the reality) merges with it, it just a changing of the focus, not a moving of consciousness.

But I understand that the two are difficult to differentiate until you cannot experience both things and experience the differences in there.

This is what I wanted to let you know. Metaphors or whatever are just another way to interact with the "astral". It does not mean they're true. The rope method is also just a tool. There's no actual rope there.

Certainly. Who ever said the contrary?

I always repeated that I don't know what it really happens or what's what. I always start from the assumption that I'm only relating an impresssion. This is the most you can do.

Still, in this interaction, there are structures that are similar to every individual. What they really are, what you decide to call them or from what you believe they come from, for me it doesn't really matters.

No. What I have been saying is that you can find your own structure and that you do not need a teacher to show you a structure. You can discover it on your own as "the first teacher" may have done.

You can do it, certainly. The problem is that since you have no other people to reference the structure upon, you cannot understand what's a real structure in there and what's only subjective interaction with it. However, whatever order you keep (either made by yourself) it becomes a structure, and that's much better than not having order at all.

For this the better structures are those that have been adopted by many people of different beliefs etc. and found what's common in there for everyone, so that users can immediately understand what's their personal subjective interaction and what's not, and either understand (because in the phase it happens) what's extraneous in that structure and what's not. You can either understand it by yourself, naturally by and by, but if you have a filter in it, it "waste" less time.

However, yes, a teacher can help you when you have trouble, but he/she may still not be able to help you with everything since you may experience something else, unless you OOBE the way he does.

It depends on what you intend with "OOBE the way he does". Usually in a teaching structure a method is learned to "enter" and that's common to the teaching method. However every method is grouped in a certain structure, so not necessarily a different method can be different at all.

For example a REM method is different than a meditation one in the things you can do in there, but there's no difference in a REM method if you reach that state simply looking at hypnagogia or if you look at an object. It can variate the subjective part, but the structure is invaried.

Yes, but still, there are many structures for experiencing the same thing. However, teaching someone your structure would make it easier to know what your "student" is experiencing.
Once you've got a structure you are already experiencing things. Those things can be subjective. For example you may hear stuff in SP, see things or feel presences. That's what I meant that it is subjective.

It's not really what you literaly experience in the structure that matters (or better, it matters, but the most important part is the order), but the way you approach the experience. In a non structure approach you have no order on where to draw a "map" of your experiences, with a structure you do.

For example, you use a pathworking. You begin by exploring every path, see what it happens in there and then you start understanding what thing produces what. The order of the pathworking in this case gives you a reference to understand how to reproduce a thing, where it is, what it is, what experience causes a certain result. Then you do another pathworking, find the differences in there and the similarities in there, ulteriorely refine what event produces what. This produces a "map" of your subconscious that you can use to give an order in your experiences and to know how to reproduce some results, what are the extraneous events and what is common.

If you instead worked with no structure how could you do the same?

Let's return at the metaphor of the cartographer. To start drawing a map he would explore the environments in an order. For example he will go south and will explore everything in there. Then he will go east and do the same and so on. In this way he can draw a map of the surroudning with points of referements. Now instead if the cartographer just did teleport from one place to another, without references and in a casual way what it will happen? Having no references he will lose the orientation, he could go in a direction thinking he is going in another, he can exchange a place already visited for a new one, and so on. The "map" will be chaos.

Also, SP is subjective because of your sleep schedule and mood. If I tried now, I wouldn't have any SP. For example, not everyone can OOBE at 4 am.

If your body enter sleeps, real sleep, than SP will be there. If you notice it or not notice it, it's another thing. At 4 pm if you stand there relaxing your body you usually enter SP before you enter the dream (it naturally depends on the context) for this you notice it. If it happens the contrary SP will be in the background, but while still being there.

In meditation (what I call meditation, and not for example "meditate on something, relax and relax till you fall asleep and your mind is awake", you can refer to Raduga direct techniques for an example of it and its graph that explains what I mean) your body doesn't enter sleep, so there's no SP. The trance will be different.

There is a difference in the structures, however, the OOBE is the same.

Not so, or only on the "idea" but not on the specifics. As I said to Xanth it depends on what you do in there. Depending on the approaches, then, the differences can be subtle or blatant.

In what I call an OBE the differences are blatant, since it seems all another thing. There is no fluctuation, you can visit the "material plane" as it is, in everyday live, etc.

In a certain sense the differences of approach when your attention is "moved" are subtle and you can either not notice them, depending on what you do. However if you utilize "consciousness" instead of "attention" then the differences are many and not subtle.

Apart from being crazy, he also had a creative side:

The "Hymn to Lucifer" is much better, it is on par with Swinburne poetry:

Ware, nor of good nor ill, what aim hath act?
Without its climax, death, what savour hath
Life? an impeccable machine, exact
He paces an inane and pointless path
To glut brute appetites, his sole content
How tedious were he fit to comprehend
Himself! More, this our noble element
Of fire in nature, love in spirit, unkenned
Life hath no spring, no axle, and no end.

His body a bloody-ruby radiant
With noble passion, sun-souled Lucifer
Swept through the dawn colossal, swift aslant
On Eden's imbecile perimeter.
He blessed nonentity with every curse
And spiced with sorrow the dull soul of sense,
Breathed life into the sterile universe,
With Love and Knowledge drove out innocence
The Key of Joy is disobedience.

I think this is the masterpiece of Crowley.

the media didn't label him wicked and evil, he did.  he took pride in being the "most wicked man in the world".  

Actually no. It was the local press that labeled him as such, after the Rites of Eleusis (that were open to the public and declared openly the "Do what thou wilt"). He just called himself "Master Therion 666" at that time, (i.e. The Great Beast 666) for numerical motives coming from the Book of Law and Aiwaz etc., and yes, also for provocation, naturally.

When he was called "the wickedest man in the world"  he rejoyed from the metaphorical/phylosophical meaning at beginning and either utilized himself the phrase with pride, but then, later, he was also sad when people did take that sentence in literal terms and in fact, many years later he hated the term greatly.

*EVERYTHING* you say on this forum, unless you have verifiable, tangible proof of... is a belief.  Everything.  EVERY SINGLE IDEA/THOUGHT/OPINION you make on this forum is nothing but a belief.  Anything anyone her has to say on Astral Projection "is a belief.

The verifiable, tangible proof is that everyone doing the same will have the same structure in the experience.

Then it depends on what people on this forum relate to. They usually relate only about the subjective experience, so in this case yes, but if they could understand the structure in their experiences (and you need a structure on where to work to begin with, to understand it) then they could be able to relate that too for others to replicate it. The subjective approach will change, but the structure of the experience will be the same.

Terms are used just to variate a structure from another; if this wasn't necessary why use terms at all? A rose is the same as a lemon in structure? Meditation is the same as sleep? Awake is the same as meditation? Maybe on the whole, everything is in all consideration the same as the other, but we are not speaking on whole terms now.

It may be your personal known, you may KNOW something yourself... but you can't share it in that capacity.  You can only share it as a belief to anyone here.

I can share it, if for only one damned time you will even try for yourself of what I talk about.

For example. Learn to concentrate all of your attention on your hand, fully, to the exclusion of all else. Keep at it every day. You will reach a point (usually if you keep doing it seriously in about six months work, starting from zero) where what you can call your consciousness, the mind-matter, the chitta, etc. will "transfer" in the hand (the part that you consider the consciousness, your "I", that's usually behind the eyes will "move" in the hand) and it will stay there until you let it go (and then it will return in the usual position by habit; there are people that have permanently "moved" it in another part by changing the habit, however, also if I don't know why one should do it). This is not a "belief", this is what it happens. And you will experience it too if you do the same. It is called Dhyana, the merging of the subject with the object, that it means the merging of the consciousness with the object of the meditation. Inside the result there are subjective variations in the way you can understand the experience for yourself, but the STRUCTURE of the experience, it is always the same.

Then does it really happens that the "real" consciousness transfers literally to the hand? It does it even really exists a consciousness as a "separate" entity? Who knows. I certainly don't pretend to know, one way or another, differently from others here, and I don't either care. But the above is what it *seems* to happen, and it will happen also to you if you do the same. I talk about "transfer of consciousness" because it is the most fidelty in expression in terms I can have about it to express what it seems to happen.

This is the assumption that I always made and that you cannot still understand just because you, on the contrary, behave in another way. If I talk of what it happens, it doesn't mean that it really happens so, I relate what it seems to happen, what it gives the impression to happen, etc. not what it really happens in there, because nobody can know and I surely neither care to know because it is a loss of time. I relate the impression with some terms that can make understand others the "feeling" of it, the structure of it in the impression given.

This "impression" will be the same for everyone. It can change subjectively on your approach to it, but the structure of the impression will be the same. You can use other terms, believe it's a thing or another and so tie yourself really in a belief or another, but the "impression" will not change. I prefer to don't think it's A or B, but just relate the feeling with some terms, that's all. Others can do differently, and they do.

I'm completely baffled as to why you can't grasp this simple concept.

As I'm completely baffled as how you cannot understand that the structure of an experience, whatever experience, it is the same for everyone, since we are all humans and "composed" of the same materials, chemicals, soul, mind, brain, kha, khu, etc.

If you put your hand in the fire the subjective reaction can variate, but the structure, i.e. your hand will burn etc., will not change.

Of course it's beyond you, Selea!  Because you are incapable of admitting that you are wrong sometimes and only your point of view matters to yourself.  You are the one who appears to be living in a fantasy of your own.  As for Bedeekin having the most popular view...LOL...don't make me laugh!  Take a look around!  How many people do you know that agree with his views.  And then look at your views and you will find that you are just another sheep following these shepherds who call themselves masters and whose methods are absolutely useless for the newbie (in fact, they only serve to daunt and complicate things).

As you like.

You didn't understand anything of what I said, as always, but that's fine.

As for me searching for Forums...well...I've already found them and yes, I do share my experiences.  It is all about that!  Sharing and learning as much as we can about something so elusive.  Nothing wrong with that.  I share what I've found as much as I can mainly to help others who want these experiences so bad.  There is nothing wrong with sharing.  In fact, I tell my kids to share their toys and this has helped them to socialise/harmonise with any type of child.

Good for you then. The problem is that all your "learn" from those "sharing" has no structure at all, so it serves nothing at all. A blind following another blind.

You, on the other hand, don't share and don't care as you said.  Or I could be wrong and perhaps you have nothing to share and nothing to believe in for yourself. From what I get from you, in your mind there is only you and your preferences on this matter which you have acquired from books - not from experience - and this I'm sure of the more I read (skim) through your posts.  

I see that you skim, in fact, because you never get anything at all of what's being written in there.

Could you then please point me where in books it is written some of the things I've written here, plainly as I've written them? I would be curious to know. I'm not you that quote Raduga's word for word everytime to backup your point.

As for what you said to Xanth...are you serious or are you just pretending to be the biggest hypocrite on Pulse?  Selea...you talk about belief systems ALL THE TIME!  

Where? Care to quote so I can prove you that as always you didn't understand nothing of what was written there?

Different approaches are NOT beliefs. You can do only your little REM approach and for this it makes you good to think otherwise.

I've just realised...this is the very problem you have with me and Bedeekin...the supposed "popularity" that we have in these Forums.  This is in your mind, mate.  If you believe that we are popular...don't worry...pretty soon you'll be popular too if you carry on like this.

Either another time where you didn't get nothing of what I said. I'm start to wonder what your IQ is, really.

I said I use people that are "popular" so that their point of view is shared by many and debating on that can reach more people. This has nothing to do with fighting against popularity.

Bah. Ever studied phylosophy in your life? I guess you had a lot of problems there, isn't it?

Only you will have no-one to talk to pretty soon.  Who would want to talk to someone who claims to be right all the time and refuses to accept that of others.  Who wants to socialise with someone who only looks at other people's posts in order to pick points for false counterarguments and to slander the author so that he makes himself look good (in his mind)?

First you say I will become popular, now you said all the contrary. Make up your mind.

The I'm right when I'm right, and since I talk only of things I know perfectly, yes, I'm usually right. If you want to prove otherwise you have nothing more to do to PROVE that I'm wrong, but with practical and specifics, not whole debukling without meaning as you always do. Make examples, as I do, and reply to the specific of why what I say is not correct, don't shield yourself on this fable of "beliefs" or non beliefs as you always do. Go to the source and fight it, as I do.

Maybe you will at last start sounding convincing.

You have a lot of growing up to do, kid.  You really do.

Well said! 

Brilliant!

And here it is yet another example of your great debuking on specific points, as always. Well done.

Two sentences thrown in there, and that's all, never daring to debate on the specific.

But you are either right, in a sense. Popularity comes at a cost, why destroy it showing that you know nothing in reality of what you are talking about or that you cannot either comprehend what the other wrote if it's not what you want to hear?

Dude... look. We all came from different beliefs. I also was with planes and lower astral and other stuff like this. However, in time, with experience we've realized they're nothing but beliefs and if we get rid of them, it will make things a lot easier.

You didn't get rid of nothing at all. You just replaced a "belief" with another, that's all. To really reach a "non-belief" status you must go beyond belief itself.

A "belief" is a belief because you believe in it, as a "non-belief" it is still a belief if you believe in it.

Also, in OOBEs from REM, you do feel you are "out", it's not just imagination as you may think. Because you have not had great experiences with REM it does not mean others can't. However, you can use metaphors to help you out such as guardian angels and other stuff.

What you call "consciousness" is not consciousness at all. Consciousness is not just attention. If you keep your attention on an external object your consciousness willl not "merge" with it automatically, just from your attention. You will need will and a lot of concentration, till the two becomes an habit and flow by themselves. For example, place you whole attention on the hand. It is your consciousness in the hand just for this? You can "feel" only the hand, but your consciousness will not have "moved" still.

In REM the bulk of the consciousness is still in the physical body. You just switch the attention on the "internal world" (or subconscious). If you would not be in SP your physical body will move when you move the "other" body, that's btw, what it happens in sonnambulism. In meditation, you can do the same or switch the consciousness altogheter.

You try to make me pass as an incompetent but you don't either know clearly the things you are talking about, I'm sorry for you and for all your "certainities".

As for "non belief" is a belief. If it is, then it still occurs, so no matter what belief you have it still happens in oobes, even if your belief is a "non belief" or an astral fantasy thing. The thing is that the popular view is what yours is. Astral stuff and this is why, hopefully everyone will realize they're just BS.

No, as I said a "belief" is only a belief when you believe in it. I said it 100 times already that, differently from you, I don't know what's real or not therein, and I don't either care, just for this. I just use something or something else depending on what I want to do.

My view, then, has nothing to do with the "view" in the way you look at it. It is just a different approach on the way to interact with the "astral", promoting a structure instead of "do what it comes). It is not a "belief" because I use terms only to promote a point, not to adhere to them.

You can self-teach yourself. The fact that you first started with "notes" as you said for the guitar, it's just a structure for learning easier, it doesn't mean I did not learn on my own.

Learning easier? Without a structure you would not have learnt at all, that's all.

You did learn something only because you used a structure, if by yourself or with the aid of others it doesn't make any difference. But now you, and others, suppose that in OBEs a structure is not needed and I would really like to know on what basis you pretend this.

I everytime posed this question, and nobody of you ever replied: if EVERY learning process has a structure for you to learn it, why for OBEs the thing should be any different? What makes you think that in this case, in the "phase" the process should be different? I'm curious to know your answer on this.

Also, and if everyone needs to be taught, who taught the first person on earth OOBEs? Do not tell me it was an angel then the angel was taught by god and here we can stop cause we know nothing about God.

I never said that you need others. I said you need a structure. A teacher is useful so that you don't do just what you want to do and to give you discipline in that and also to give you an experienced view when you can have trouble. But you don't need one.

A strucuture is born not by only one individual, but different individuals coming togheter in a sort with a "grid" on how to reproduce some results similar to everybody else. Then this structure is adopted so every other individual can start learning in an ordered way, to then come to a point that enable them to have a personal "map" (from their results on the structure) of the process.

A structure it's a sort of grid that enables the user to have an ordered approach to the experience, so that he can draw a map therein. Sort of like a cartographer drawing a map of the  undexplored surroundings. If the cartographer would teleport from one place to another, without any direction, what map could he draw?

As Ryan said, this is subjective, your method may not work for others. Bedeekin's method rarely works on me, but it worked few times when I had involuntary SP.

The approach cannot be sujective. The experience is, not the approach or the structure that comes from it.

Now, I have another technique, which, in a way, is the same as summerlander's. I am starting to think that if people did not believe you needed to have vibrations, when they meditated they would not experience any.

It depends in which way you do the "meditation". If you do it as the word means, then no, because your body will not enter sleep at all, if you do it in another way, as many does, then yes, you can experience them, but usually either in this case you don't because your attention is on the "internal" instead of the "external".

The problem is that if a newcomer tries oobes, every little 'strange' feeling will be associated to vibrations or whatever. I once meditated and thought I had vibes too, but when I had my SP's... I realized that those "vibrations" were nothing compared to SP's vibrations. Again, it can be different for everyone. From experience, we have created what we created.

So, all in all, you agree with me, it seems.

You, yourself, are now making a difference between "meditation" and "sleep" they are two different approaches, isn't it? So you did see that the structure of the experience is different in them, isn't it? Either if I cannot really understand if you have mixed a bit the two or not, still you have noticed some difference either there, isn't it?

Now, if you did have even more experience in there to know how to do a full concentration trance, you would understand that it will have yet another different structure in there.

So, what are you telling of different?

Either the trance state is different in structure if you reach it via sleep, meditation, or "real" meditation (that's dhyana in Patanjali's words, real because until this point what is called "meditation" is not properly such).

Selea...

I understand that you don't like me.  Fair enough.  But I would leave Bedeekin out of this as he is not here to defend himself.  Besides,  Bedeekin may be popular (and may even play on it - I don't know) but that doesn't mean he is not an extremely intelligent guy.  He has helped many people project over on Astral Viewers so I don't really understand why you felt the need "find points to work on" from him.  

What all this have to do with what I wrote is really beyond me. Either again another fine example of you not reading anything at all and just fabricating a fantasy about what you think I said.

I just said that I use your posts (and those of Beedkin the last year) to give people another point of view instead of the most popular one. This has nothing to do not with you nor with him. In fact I never said I don't like you, I don't know you and anyway either if I did, what you are is beyond you and your self. I implied I don't like what you *write* and they are two completely different things.

I don't go on AV because I don't need to go there. I don't care at all. I found this forum for a coincidence (I was looking around for all another thing and a window popped up with it, yet this forum is not linked with ads and there was no logical reason it was there) and for this (since as I said I don't believe in coincidences) I've started posting in it, and not for myself. I don't search forums to write in them as you do to "share your experiences", I don't care, especially because doing so in these sort of forums for me it will have the same attrative of talking about moving pieces in a chessboard when I'm interested on positional plans or special lines in an opening book. I don't think you will find Anand or Topalov talking about chess in chessclub, isn't it?

You can think this an act of "grandeur" if you want, but that's how things are.

He is also a very talented special effects artist and someone I greatly admire - something that you seem incapable of doing so far.  You seem to be in love with your own posts.  Am I wrong?

I studied art (specifically painting and then scenography) in the art academy in Florence and Paris, I'm sorry for you.

Then what this had to do with all of this discussion is beyond me, as always.

Ironically, Selea... I avoid your posts for the same reason.

Funny that.

Funny indeed. But I already know this, without you telling me.

That's because you never *read* them and just read what you want. This is often the case with guys who think they have "no-beliefs" when they have one stronger than all the others togheter. I already told you this: people who are supposed to think they go beyond these things are those that usually cannot go beyond them, and I see it time and time again.

You know, I never talk about "belief systems" you (in general) always do, in all your posts, in everything you write. So here it is the difference, plain to see. If I use some terms it is only to produce a point, if you use terms it is because you believe (and literally, and you are so sure about) in them. And yet you cannot see it and you pretend to be "free".

I suppose that if I say to one knowing these terms that the way to do phasing is to reach access concentration and then do a jhana therein that keeps your metta outside witha a rank-sa you will think me a buddhist, isn't it? Or I will be a buddhist if I live and preach as one? What's of the two?

It's ok, blis.  I'll just tell him that he is right all the time and that should keep him happy.  I obviously mean a lot to him if he dedicates so much time and so many words on me.  I'm flattered.  

You shouldn't.

I choose your posts usually because they are the most bigot and narrow-minded, also if you pretend to be the contrary, and they either come from someone that has a certain "popularity" (so a voice that others can follow) in these sort of forums, so they are perfect for my scope.

But don't take me wrong, I'm happy you are here, or elsewhere it would be an hassle to find points on where to work upon. Last time it was Beedkin, this time it's you. I'm lucky, what can I do about that?

P.S: A "non-belief system" it's a belief system the same, if you believe in it.

Selea, you're clearly a very inteligent and knowlegable guy(or chick idk).

Thing.   

How much of your time do you spend engaged in these pointless arguments?

I usually don't. But I'm on "vacation" from my personal working and I can spare some time replying to some points. I choose a post that I think can have some interest for people and I try to reply to it as specifically as a I can.

In two or three days my vacation will end and I will be gone and will return next year (if all goes well). I came in this forum last year, for a coincidence, and since I don't "believe" in coincidences I've decided to partecipate and return to it when I can.

As for "pointless", I don't think they are, elsewhere I will not reply at all.

Dont you think that time could be spent much more constructively? I'm sure you know all sorts of stuff that I, and many others would love to read.

The only way to implant a seed on something that's outside the spectrum of the ones who read it is to do so indirectly. The only way to give an different option to a general consensus is to react on the flow of it, not directly against it.

If you do so directly people will automatically shield themselves, thinking your are imposing something and they will not read a word. It happens the same also if you do it indirectly, in fact (and in fact it happens a lot with my posts), so now imagine what it will happen the other way around.

I find some of your posts very interesting. I doubt I'm the only one. But these massive posts on subjects like how Summerlander learned to play the guitar can put us off reading the others. Wading through the arguments to find the good stuff can be tiring.

You should read things less literally. For example in the "play guitar" point, the important "teaching" was that to learn something (of any sort) you need a structure to start with. Thinking structures as "belief system" it is an erratic concept that start from the wrong presumption that you are using the "belief" and not the structure behind it to do things in an ordered way.

There will always be people who disagree with you on the internet. Some people disagree in a grating manner. There's no point in arguing with them. There are better uses of your time.

I don't argue for me, I assure you. Maybe you can think this way if you look at the thing "externally", but watch the content of my "arguings" and you will see that there's a thread between them, for the particular point I want to make in the time I'm here.

Actually, this is not entirely true and you shot yourself in the foot here.  I can play guitar and I have never taken any lessons.  I have not started from the basics as do most people who pay for lessons and have a teacher.  I learned on my own and wen straight to doing what I liked.  There was nothing boring about it either.

Firstly, to what extent you "learned" to play guitar? Because, you know, I was talking about learning a thing in a professional way, not thump around.

Secondly, taking lessons or not lessons has nothing to do with this in the ample terms of learning in a structured way. You used a structured method to learn how to play, coming from the various notes, etc. That's a structure, my friend, created so you (and all others) could give order to the chaos and start a learning process. A real non structured learning process therein would have been to "buy the guitar and move the hands up and down until you learn something" (that btw, it is the same thing many people do in the "phase", metaphorically speaking). Good luck on that.

Thirdly I don't think you started from playing Randy Rhoads, Satriani or Malmsteen around, isn't it? You became with simple notes, then chords, etc by and by, in a structured way. This is a boring process, especially after a while, when you begin to have more experience in there. There are some people (most of those that learn by themselves, in fact, as you) that, in fact, skip it midway (or just do in there what they like) because they want to go to what they consider "serious things" in their pow or do only what they care in there thinking it's more appropriate for them and similar, but they usually never become neither a mile near as good as those that do the structured process fully, by and by. They learn in pieces, and the ones that instead learned the full picture, will be able to adapt to any situation and have a much greater understanding of the process. I don't think you consider yourself as a good guitarist as one that studied at the conservatory, or am I wrong?

Same as if you want to become a *good* writer (especially in a language that comes from it) you must know latin (and to an extent either greek) to the core, so you can understand grammatic to the core, and so on. Either Rimbaud, that was the greater example of breaking structures and turn them inside down, was a master of latin and greek. While he aborred all structures when he became what he became, he wrote extensively on the need to know the structures to hearth before breaking them. You cannot do a caricature of something you don't know.

Working without structure it is advanced (or either master) work, not beginner's one.

I have noticed that your posts don't make much sense and all you seem to do is to try to prove everyone wrong and tell the how much you are right.  You won't change their minds, Selea.  

On the contrary my posts make perfect sense if you read them instead of considering only what you care. One example is the reply of above by you. What I call "learning to play guitar" it is not what you consider as such. I don't consider "learning to play guitar" (or whatever other learning process) as a way to kill some time or to have a little of fun, or as an hobby, but a serious learning process, where you want to become very good in there. For this I talked about academies, etc.

Morover, you either tried to imply that you don't need a structure to start a learning process, without neither comprehending that in your example, learning to play guitar, you have used one yourself (what do you consider notes, chords etc. are?), or nothing would have come out of it.

If instead of reading the things in a superficial way you would read them fully and consider them fully, maybe you will start sounding a little less naive to me.

You are fighting a losing battle there and you have not even considered that what you perceive in that the way you do it yields certain results that others can't achieve could be nothing but belief.

On the contrary, I've considered it, it is only that I know that "belief" has nothing do to with it (or at last not in the way you consider a "belief").

Given however that I have personal experience (and not only mine) in what I talk about while you don't, maybe you should start considering that maybe you could be wrong or at last start considering on trying out for yourself and then understand if it's how you say or not, instead of already thinking you know the answer.

In fact, speaking in theoric and logical terms, I would like to know what "belief expecation" there could be from exiting with full concentration or exiting with sleep (where's the "belief" difference?). I would either like to know how can be that people that have different "belief systems" to begin with can do the same things and have the same results in the structure of the experience, indipendently from them.

In fact, I am telling you that it is because in the Phase, anything...and absolutely anything can manifest.  

The "manifestation" is internal to the structure of the experience. It is a subjective parameter. You cannot either understand the difference, it seems. The structure of the experience is external to the "manifestation", it exists by itself outside, while naturally reflecting in it.

Also, I find someone's claims very dubious when they start saying "you haven't experienced this, you haven't or can't experience that..."  when they haven't even read the journal entries of the people they are saying it to.  Very dubious...very dubious indeed.

The journal entries you speak about had nothing to do with what I was saying. It is possible that you really can't understand a simple thing as the difference between an approach and what you experience in it?

Those journal entries were using always the same approach to the experience, I'm talking about a different approach. If you always drive the same road to come to work how can you know what's in the other?

And my claim that you don't know how to experience it, it was just a constatation, nothing more. Or do you want to tell me now that you know how to "exit" with full concentration (and beware, it's not the same as simply visualizing an object until you are in the state)? Do you want to tell me that you are capable of doing the approach three I was talking about so that you can have a personal experience in there?

how much of this is just people wanting to sound clever,
does any of it help a beginner, or support anybody in there travels




:NoY:

Oh, it does help beginners, a lot more than just saying "oh, I throw in you in the middle, have fun with it".

in the same way that if you want to teach someone how to swin you don't throw him/her in the middle of the ocean with no points of reference whatsoever.

Limiting them by telling them that their experience is in "this" or "that" category really doesn't help with that goal.

I wonder if people read sometimes instead of pretending they do and just tie themselves around with words instead of the way they are being used. If what you said was not referred to me I apologize, but just in case (and because usually 1+1 = 2):

I say a thing, it becomes all another just because it has to be that way, I see.

But that's a reflection created by yourself about the thing or the thing in itself? Do you ever wonder?

Since, you know, I've reread what I wrote 5 times already and for the death of mine I couldn't see how one can interpret it as a way to imposing something or a way to declare specific "belief systems" or similar. The only way to read it that way is to have already a preconception on what's being written, without neither trying to understand the meaning beyond the terms used. But I guess that since you saw the words "planes" or "sub-planes" in the post you neither either cared about their use or why they were being used, isn't it? It was much simpler to just think "oh, this individual it's using these bogus terms, obviously all it is written it has no sense and it's just an imposition of a belief system", without trying to comprehend the context, am I right?

And this is a thing I've seen in these two years here, over and over again: people that presume and pretend they are more "open minded" and less tied up in "belief systems" usually are the ones that really cannot go beyond them, no matter what. Same as some kind of atheists that, while in theory declaring they should go beyond the concept of God as in the chrisitan view, when hearing the word "God" cannot go beyond the term as being used only in correlation with its christian connotation.

And seriously... we have people here whom either can't project or who have lots of trouble doing it telling other people what their experiences are!
I'm sorry, but honestly... who the hell are you (not anyone in particular) to tell someone else what their experience was?  You can make suggestions to them, definitely... but TELL THEM?  No... if you're telling anyone anything, you're on the wrong forum.

Again, the only one "imposing" something here is you, because you pretend to impose that the way you looked at my post it is the way it was. Actually, it was exactly the contrary and, since I always do so, it was meant to help people understanding a point. You naturally missed it, but it doesn't really matters. What I don't usually tolerate, however,  is those people that "defend" others while not really either understanding from what they are "defending" them for. You neithe either really cared to read what I wrote seriously, with no bias to start with, and now you either tell me that I was "telling other people what their experiences are".

In fact, if there are people that REALLY do harm to beginners, they are those that pretend to say what's "real" or not in things they neither either experienced themselves and neither cared to for a personal intellectual approach on the matter, and then pretend to teach others the reality of what they don't either know. People that REALLY do harm to beginners are those that pretend to teach them "how to exit in two days" but then explaining absolutely nothing on what they should do, or they way they should behave to begin a learning process in there, as if that would be a good thing to do. People that REALLY do harm to beginners are those that insist that a thing it's only a way and all the rest, no matter the way you do it, it's the same. People that REALLY do harm to beginners are those that, given the points above, teach a bad habit to them to only care about what they intellectually care to, because all the rest it's obviosuly not "pragmatic" or have little sense, and that throw them in the middle without absolutely no point of reference in there.

The point of my post, btw, was to let understand users (*especially* beginners, in fact) that the way you approach the experience is what changes the structure of the experience and that in the structure there's either a direction (that should be willingly decided, and not on "case"). Btw this simple point is much more important in practice than simply knowing how to "exit", *especially* for a beginner, because they way you approach your work at beginning it is the way you will continue your approach with more "advanced" things, and if you learn to behave without a structured approach in the beginning, you will keep the bad habit till the end, and this will result in an either worse outcome than not learning at all. Without direction and structure you will never have real practical results, only meaningless pieces, interesting maybe, but of little practical value, and those "pieces", outside the structure, would give you an outcome that could do you more harm than good.

It would be like if, for example, if you would strive (paradoxically) to enter the physical body only to find yourself "out" in a late stage of Alzheimer instead of a fully cognitive body. What a great practical value all you experience would have, isn't it? Fun, maybe, at beginning, but only nonsense would come from it, if you want to speak of practical applications, and the "pieces" you acquire will give you a picture that has no sense at all, while giving the outward impression of doing "great things".

What this forum really lacks it is another point of view from just "exit and that's enough" or "exit and experience everything as it comes, then draw your conclusions". If you really care about beginners then let them understand that sometimes having an experience just to have it, it's not the best way to act. Or even better, let them understand that after having the experience there's something more than just "having fun" with it.

A real "scientific" approach is one that explore the experience in a structured way, not on casualities, same as a real learning approach. But maybe people in this forum think that when you go in an academy you are teached to use the tools the way they go by themselves, or on your whim of the moment, without a structured path on the teaching, I don't know.

If you want to act like a moralist, at last know what "unmorality" you fight against. Elsewhere instead of Kant you look as the clochard in the street that yells: "The end is near, repent".

[Selea]

LOL!  

Selea...first of all, you have massively misunderstood my post and I think you should re-read it.  I don't say it should be and besides I never said Mode 1 = OOBE and Mode 2 = Lucid Dream.  This is what you never seem to be able to get.  I am saying that they are all OOBEs.  In case you haven't noticed there is usually a word in front of the type of mode:

Your thread has a title, isn't it? Then in the thread, to start the poll, you list the "Modes". I know you think they are the same, but still, to start the thread you used a subcategorization by the "modes", so this is the way you would look at the issue if you would have to made a difference. I was referring to this.

Morover, my post was not meant explicity for you, personally, but on a general note. Usually, in fact, many authors refer to what you call "Modes" as if they are the only parameter in there. I tried to let see the thing from another point of view, where also the way you enter (or approach, or execute) the experience (what you call the Phase) create a parameter in there that's usually not either taken in consideration (mostly because these authors know only one approach or way to enter it, so they cannot, obviously, have other parameters outside of it).

Secondly, what you say is your terms aren't really, are they? The terms you just posted are Kabbalistic terms, not yours, and I care not to address them because they are rooted in Judaism and I despise religion altogether. You have to give your opinion based on your EXPERIENCE, not religious belief or esoteric teaching.

A) Neither your terms are yours. I used the word "mine" in the sense that I think they were the most appropriate in this case, to explain what I wanted to say. Then, if I really used MY terms, how could you understand them? How would you know of what I'm talking about? You can refer to a terminology only if the one you relate to know it too (and in this case it's why I used the Kabalah one, because it is widely know, at last in the terms).
B) From where they come it doesn't matter. You missed totally the point, as always. Terms are just words, not experiences. I used those terms to evidentiate a point, but you instead preferred to dismiss it altogheter and became all tangled up with the terms I used.
C) My experience I've given, I even said it so. Re-read my post. The point was to make you notice that you don't consider at all the approach to the experience (i.e. how you create it) in your parameters and terminology. Then how can you relate an experience if not with words and terms? What you say makes no sense at all, I'm sorry.

On the meaning of Modes...whoever said I was talking about "planes" and "subplanes"?  Whoever said they were places or regions or zones?   The Modes I talk about have more to do with perception than anything else, and, as I've said to you before, I never claim to know for sure that separation from the body really occurs.

Why instead of becoming all angry at what I said don't you just read?  You are missing completely the point of what I said and continue grabbing up in this battle of planes vs. not-planes, when it has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

I used the terms "planes" and "sub-planes" as a metaphor to let you understand (hoping at last) that you are missing up a fundamental piece in your "categorization" (whatever that is). Instead (and as you always do) you did care about the terms only, discarding their meanings and their use in the message. Oh, well...

You are talking to me about something which is so theoretical (such as planes and subplanes) while I have repeatedly mentioned the possibility that Modes might have more to do with the activity in the brain hemispheres according to experiments performed on split-brain subjects.

A) It is not theorical. It is just that experience (as mine) have let some people see that doing some things some results happens. In this particular case they have seen that the way you approach the "astral" changes the structure of the experience, and the structure of the experience can also have "directions" taken inside. For this they used the term "plane" and "sub-plane" and the terminology in there. The term "plane" to describe the structure, the term "sub-plane" the direction. Terms are just terms, they are not important. Go through them and try to understand their meanings, instead.
B) What they are or not, for the now 1000th time I've said it to you, it's not important.

On the approach to the experience that you talk about.  Of course it changes what you call "plane"!!! Erm...duh!  Belief and expectation come into play...

No, that's the "direction" (and only on the external term if it's casual). The structure it's another thing. Using sleep methods (as you do), offers a structure, using concentration another, and so on.

In case you haven't noticed, the term Phase is very pragmatic.  There is no real evidence that OOBEs and Lucid Dreams are not the same phenomenon.  But that is not what was intended with this thread and I think you missed the whole point.  This thread is for statistical purposes and an opportunity for people to voice their opinions, not oppose and ridicule the opinions of others to reinforce their beliefs as the absolute truth.

Where I ridiculed your opinion? You are acting emotively again.

Then, again, I don't care about the "evidence" you talk about, because probably there would never be. What I care is that things are different depending on the way you do them, and this is a fact.

As for your street and city analogy, it made no sense whatsoever, it looks misplaced and it is uncalled for here.  You tend to speak as though you know exactly what one encounters upon entering the Phase.  It's amazing...

The street and city analogy was to make you understand that in the way you look at things you care about a general direction, but not from where this general direction come from.

As for what I speak, I tell you what I experience and other people like me experience and what we have found. In this case you, however, was the  one that did not care about the "experience" related in it, but only on the terms used, and now you either pretend that I was the one speaking about theories. If you are the first one caring and looking only at the theoric part, then you cannot blame the other on this approach.

By the way...what did you vote for?  If you haven't, do it because I will be locking the poll pretty soon.  And next time, please ask decent questions and make sure you have read my posts properly.

I will no vote because the meaning of the terms as they are don't have the same sense I could give to the words, so my vote could be misleading, one way or another. For example, if I take care of the meaning of the terms on how they are used in the majority of cases then I would vote YES, if I would take care of what the experiences represents in them (and not considering what the terms in general means nowadays) then NO.

I did read your post properly, it is you that never do with mine, or you would have replied something to the point instead of totally missing it and becoming all angry for something that had nothing to do (if not externally and semantics) with what I was trying to let you notice.

P.S: I never asked a question,  it was a rethotic one, not requiring an answer, so it was not question at all.

Now this is a more logical way of looking at things...and I can tell this is definitely from experience.   

No, that's logical to you just because it is conform to your point of view. You have this bad approach to things that if something relates to your pow then it must be correct, if something is not relating you cannot cope with it, become angry, don't understand nothing of what's being said, and then pretend it's obviously false.

Do you act this way for *everything* you think you know in life? (Now, this is a question).

[Mode 1 OOBEs]

Mode 1 OOBEs - Where environments appear to match the objective world and no anomalies are spotted.  This would be a more advanced version of remote viewing because you experience the sensation of being out of body

and...

Mode 2 OOBEs - Where the environments can display structural anomalies, where reality can outdo the physical one in appearance, and also where things can turn entropic. I consider DILDs and WILDs to be included in this category too.  Again, you can also experience separation here or, in the case of DILDs, you suddenly realise that you are not laying in bed (at least your perception tells you so).

I still don't get why you think the differnence from "LDs" and "OBEs" should be what you call "Mode 1" or "Mode 2". What makes you think so?

If I would give explain it in my terms the difference is that in a LDs you are in Yetzirah of Assiah, while in OBEs you are in Yetzirah (and in the case of what you call "Mode 1", in Assiah or Yetzirah). It is the "plane" that's different, not the "subplane" (or what you call "Mode").

But mine was a rethoric question, in reality. It was just meant to let you notice that the approach to the experience has no term at all in the terminology you (and others, as Raduga) uses because probably thought as having no impact, while, on the contrary, on my experience (and not only mine) the approach is what changes the structure of the experience (i.e. the "plane"), while where you "go", what you call "Mode", it is just a direction, and not the structure itself (that's the most important part, and the difference in what we are talking about here).

Like referring to a street in a city. You care not about the city, thinking it irrelevant, while caring only for the street. Problem is that the street can be there also in other cities.

Sleep paralysis is a requirement for projection because the only way of achieving projection is to be in deep enough trance, which means body asleep mind awake and you will know it when the sleep paralysis takes over. All this about projecting without the sleep paralysis seems incorrect from my past experiences an im not sure what sort of state they are referring too when they say you dont need it. Being really relaxed and focused alone wont cut it. The best way to achieve sleep paralysis is to try to stay aware as your falling asleep.    

You don't need SP at all to have an OBE both noticing or not noticing it. Using sleep it is just one of the easiest ways to have the experience, since your body does everything automatically for you. The drawback: it is passive.

Quoting what I did write in another thread on the approaches to enter the state:

Approach one: you use REM sleep to enter the subconscious and produce Sleep Paralysys (or the contrary). SP is needed (and done automatically) because the bulk of your consciousness is still in the physical body, only a seed of it it's in the "astral" body; so, without SP you will act in both "bodies" at once, moving also the physical. This is why sleep methods can cause indirect mind-split effects and such, because you are always in both "bodies" at once (also if you can think the contrary, depending where your attention is), with the bulk of your consciousness remaining in the physical (and this cause also "automatism" while in the "other" body).

Approach two: you use a self-hypnosis method (of whatever nature) to enter the subconscious then, if you keep with concentration your consciousness outside your body for long enough this last will take whatever form previously built, both directly or indirectly. The physical body will go in "automatic", i.e. it will be controlled by your subconscious, but, with a bit of effort, you can switch back and forth from it and the "other" body and act in one or the "other". In this case the consciousness is fully in one body or the other.

Approach three: you use full concentration to create an "imaginary" body by and by till it is as "real" as the physical body and then you use various practices to give this "body" all the senses. When you have done it using the same full concentration you can "switch" to it and use it as the physical body. In this approach you can be in "both" bodies at once (but differentiating the movements of the two, differently from approach one) or in one or the other. When fully mastered you can "switch" everytime you want, and from a full awake state of the physical body. The end to be sought is to be able to slip in and out of  that "body" as easily as you slip in and out of a dressing-gown.

The last two, especially the last, require full concentration. The second approach can be done also with simple "concentrated attention" (that's a little different), also if the results will be a little different.

hmmm or did I? This is what I meant by them being equal. This is what everyone meant by it! Again, LD's feel different than OOBEs! In essense, they are the same phenomena. I think I gave the pie example a thousand times.

I did read it, but it's not the same thing. The differences you listed are only "external" something like an apple being red or yellow, but remaining the same apple anyway, and not only on the "basic idea". I just wanted to say that's not so.

For example: there are two ways to enter so called "astral doorways". One is to have the subconscious by itself create the "door". The other is to create it yourself via concentration. The differences in the two is that in the first case the result will be mostly passive, in the second you will be a "master" of everything. It is the same difference from having a LD and a normal dream. Think of it as having a dream inside a dream, and the innermost dream being lucid or not.

Yes. Also, unicorns rule the astral. The fact that you cannot see them does not invalidate the theory. That's how Christians back up their beliefs too. They do not start with the idea that something may be false. They start with the idea it is true and then back it up sometimes using the bible as well. Same to you.

Christians don't back up what they say with practical things. I do, there's a world of difference. I don't say: "it is this way because such and such say so" (oh, look... isn't this then what others that have your same view are doing here? so in their cases it is right?), I say: "it is this way because doing such and such causes this". I either listed fully what to do to have some of the same results.

So, no, it's not the same thing at all, I'm sorry.

You already started with the idea of having something. You can't say / prove something doesn't exist once you say it exists. I also believed in energy bodies and stuff, but due to OOBEs and other things they have slowly been removed. Better OOBes, really.

Yes, I started with an idea, because everybody does, especially at beginning, but, you will be astonished to hear, my idea at beginning was exactly yours, having done only a little part of the whole myself. However, after, I discovered that ideas and terms are just nuisances, so I abandoned them altogheter in favor or the results of the experiences.

The difference is that I experienced many things more than just a part of the whole, and especially that, also with this structured experience yet I cannot be sure of nothing in the same terms used by you, so I just don't care and use what it works.

Then I never said that what I experienced it doesn't exists, I said that the literal meaning of term describing that experience can exist or not or be accurate or not, and that I don't care about it. I care about the results. What it is called "energetic body" can be something as something else, I don't care. I care that doing certain things I can experience the result called as such. Is the "energetic body" real in its literal sense of the term, or does it even exist in the literal sense of the term? Who knows, and, at last for me, who cares. However, with that experience I can do things I cannot without, so, at the same time, it is surely more real than an intellectual debate about it.

The only thing I'm sure of is this: that the more you experience both for yourself and what other people, with what you may call their "beliefs" and I call them their structured experiences, can do, the more you can't be sure of anything in the literal sense. What would you think for example if you would witness a Siberian shaman putting himself in the profoundity of an icy lake for 3 days, and then coming out alive and well after it, as if nothing never happened? I would see how your certainities on literal terms and his "illusions" will behave there.

You could say, in whole terms, that the mind is capable of anything, but that would not mean much in the end, isn't it?

Anyway, I do not think I am going to post in here anymore. It is not worth it. As Ryan said, experience for yourself and find out what they really are. Do not take everything that is said to you, experience and see for yourself.

I wonder sometimes. You did experience only a part of what I said, then discarded the rest altogheter, without having done things in a structured way and then you pretend to tell others to "experience everything" for themselves before deciding one way or another. Doesn't it seems this behaviour a little hilarious?

I told you this also to SL: if you want to learn music, painting, whatever, you don't do just some things in there depending on what you like more or it is more near to your view. You learn in a structured way, starting from the basics and doing things that are either boring, not conform to your pow, etc, and by and by you add pieces. This is the only way to have a real understanding of what you are doing. Elsewhere you will have just a confused bunches of ideas that will probably be completely different from the real, full picture.

I would change what you said to: "if it is something that's near your intellectual approach then test it personally, elsewhere it is naturally an idiocy, so so don't care". Where's the difference from what you were talking about Christians just a moment above I cannot see it, either if you insist on your approach being obviously better.

Leave alone Kundalini until you are not experienced in so called Raja Yoga (that it is just a name given to a collection of techniques meant to teach you full concentration).

There are people that work on what they call Kundalini without this knowledge, however all they experience it is usually all another thing and you can either do more harm than good to yourself, if for some lucky/unlucky (depends on the point of view) coincidence or case something works as it should (the worst being that you cannot "descend" no more, remaining in a state similar to coma).

To learn how to raise Kundalini you must know how to actively concentrate on something till your consciousness is "merged" with it (Dhyana). When you can do this you place your consciousness (what you call yourself, your mind, whatever) on the root chakra, on the base of the spine, then you willingly arise the spinal column one vertebra at a time, till the end of the head and above. In the process you reach some "gates" that you must pass. The first two are reached by will, the other two are automatic, the fifth is again achieved with will and the last is again automatic. The seventh is not really a "gate" but something else.

This was to give you an intellectual knowledge on what to do, after.

For more information on how to start working on Raja Yoga, the best summary (being the most to the point without too much embellishment etc.) I think it's in in Liber IV (Magick in Theory and Practice) of Crowley, in part I.
http://hermetic.com/crowley/book-4/aba1.html

The most important parts are Pratyahara, Dharana, Dhyana and Samadhi (also if you don't need Samadhi to raise Kundalini, on the contrary, you must not go there). Asana, Pranayama and Yama are just correlate and having to do with the physical counterpart of the learning process.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On this we agree.

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

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

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