Messages

For whatever reason, I just think that we are not intended to know all the answers from this point of view. It would somehow negate the purpose, whatever that is exactly. But I do believe we are only aware of a fraction of what we can know.

When I get the numb feeling I do try the rope method to get out, but I've never had any progression using it. Is there another technique that would maybe be better for someone new to AP? Should I just relax more and let whatever happen, happen?

Read this thread:

http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/welcome_to_out_of_body_experiences/a_very_easy_obe_technique_that_needs_some_fine_tuning-t38413.0.html

To me, this is a very easy method and is fairly consistent. It involves no exit technique in which you have to imagine any physical work. It's great because you can either phase with complete awareness the whole time or you may fall asleep but remember that you were imagining yourself "outside" of your body. It's all good from that point.

Understand that no technique will work until you make that mental switch as to what it is you are trying to really do.

Belief in the non physical reality or even the knowledge of it's existence is not required but it does help to believe as much as you can. Then one day, you will just know.

Mine first appeared to me as a female angel in the biblical sense. After my beliefs changed, so did it's appearance. Now, it's a very masculine, humpty-dumpty, looking thing called Sarak. The first time he appeared to me in this form, I took notice, but did not bring it up at first to him. I had no problem recognizing him because of his "energy". He had a bald head on top with tufts of reddish brown hair on both sides. His chrome dome is lightly freckled and he has a Gorbachev on it. It's rather large, actually. I wonder how anybody could be more comfortable in this form but he is. I always refer to him as a troll but he's not. I have seen his female companion and she is quite beautiful even though she is a reflection of him in most ways. Disturbing.

I always get upset and take it out on him in a grumpy sort of way. He is not a dwarf from Snow White. I have explored that angle to be sure. He's perfect because he has a grandpa attitude and never let's it bother him. He knows that it bothers me and tends to milk that for all it's worth but it's only about growing up-Says the guy talking about NP beings in la-la land.

Sarak was the first being that I finally believed existed objectively in spite of me in the NPR. He would still exist even if I never had.

Talking about the existence of guides is not easy to do for a modern human at first. It's the last thing I imagine I would tell a skeptical mind about.

I have two more but I have not seen them in years. I tend to believe that they were my own projections though because they were in a completely human form and wouldn't talk or address me unless I gave them the attention to "energize" them. At least, that's how I always viewed it. But ironically, they never told me anything I expected or even wanted to hear, so who knows.

Science itself at present doesn't appear to be giving Campbell's theory any serious attention.  AP-ers and would be AP-ers are his main audience and supporters of his theories and you are one of these by the look.

However when I hear AP-ers such as yourself and Ted Vollers say things which sceptics use in their arguments against 'believers' - it seems exceptionally ironic and more than a little weird.

I am a fan, that's for sure. I think he makes an exceptional case for his theory. That's all it is to me, a theory but a really well thought out one.

It's not weird at all in the context that I used it. Obviously no one has ever believed the easter bunny to be anything more that fiction. I can't believe I have to explain that.

I used it as a reference to show how absurd skeptics think we are for believing what most of us have accepted as objectively true from our own subjectivity. More than anything, I am playing the devil's advocate.

It's not a paralyzed kind of state, it's almost as if, I feel none of my body except my chest and my mind. Those seem to be "strong points" if you will. It feels like I don't have the rest of my body except my consciousness and my chest pretty much.

You see, that's exactly how most people describe being in SP but you went with numbness. This is all an indicator of being close to a projection.

I'm sure he was referring to a shift in his awareness or focus. This is what an OOBE is actually all about. Turning our focus away from the physical reality and focusing on the non physical.

Describe numbness because someone else may say paralyzed. Just trying to figure out what's going on

I was basically gonna say what Lion said. If nothing else helps, tell us what you are doing and we'll be glad to confuse, I mean help you.

Thanks for that.  Using love is not necessary.  I forgot that people use love because of fear they may have and it helps them.  I just have to use more intent and to be more demanding.  I also have to make sure I am aware when I am demanding it, otherwise the ap experience will end.   That happened later today.

Using love is not necessary but having love always is.

I too think they are silly to use and that is why I did. I was trying to make a point that trying to objectively prove what comes after physical death to close minded people is near impossible. Any attempt to do so, no matter how much scientific data suggest that it is true, is completely disregarded as fairy tales to these people. That's all.

Besides, I do believe that a case can be made for the Ester bunny being the source.

As far as you needing to defend yourself against anything you say against anybody, would have to stem from you. It's not place to say so otherwise.

But you did say that to not go further than he did was suspect in your mind. I considered it good science.

...and if you think my observations (related to thread topic) are incorrect then say so and point out exactly or as near as you can as to why, okay?

I have to admit that I have no idea what you are referring to, unless it's to the fact that I still consider all this theory and not objectively proven.


Yes, I'm referring to the dots. Do they not represent data that gets through in bits and pieces?

It might help. But I honestly never think about "using" love to do anything with it. I know that it's what's in my heart and is what drives me to be who I am without having to consciously use it. Some people like to consciously use love in the NPR because of their fear of seeing certain things. I think it is most appropriately used during retrievals to get the being to become more relaxed and open. This doesn't imply that there is a wrong time to use love however.

Actually, there is plenty one can do in order to prevent fear from gripping them.
It just needs to be taken care of BEFORE you get into the situation... and it involves becoming comfortable with, knowing and accepting yourself.

I understand what you are saying, but I don't believe we can ever completely conquer all of our fear. The attempt to do so strongly suggests that there is a fear of not conquering all fear. But I think grip was too strong of a word. I was just referring to that split second where "flight or fight" kicks in just before our physical senses kick back in fully.

My quote in it's full context explains why he keeps it mystical and that is because I believe he is trying to garnish credibility from the scientific academia in regards to his theory. He admits that it is just the best theory that fits all the known objective data along with his subjective data. I'm quite sure that he probably does have a theory that digs far deeper than he admits to on the record but that is my subjective opinion based on the objectiveness of his approach. In light of all he says and has shown, I think it's a fair assumption that he will refine his theory and further expand it based on new evidence or data. But to go any further than he already has with the current data would be just as credible as saying, from a scientific POV, that the current data suggests that Santa Claus and the Easter bunny are actually the source or origin of all consciousness. When it comes down to subjectivity, nothing can be more annoying than being told that this is how it is because I say so, regardless of what the best and current evidence shows.

I don't suspect him for not going further, in contrast I applaud him. He actually leaves it up to us to fill in the gaps for ourselves personally since there is nothing else that he knows objectively or subjectively to be true.

Would you rather he just lie about the matter instead of encouraging us to dig deeper personally? Since this is exactly what you are doing, I think you can give him a little credit for that. I think you would find a wider and accepting audience for your beliefs if you would accept much of what you are saying as just theoretical and therefore suggest that the audience explore for themselves. Keep in mind that much of what you are saying, though I believe some to be true subjectively, is equal to telling academics in their current mindset, that you believe the tooth fairy is real. They won't even give it a second thought and dismiss it outright.

But I do not put him on a pedestal or marvel at his insights. I just give credit where credit is due. I think we all do or should anyways.

I do like your newest diagram better even though the first was really close. Do you agree that it shows how data can stream through in smaller bits?

Actually, try one a month.
That should keep you busy for several years. 

You know the best advice is only realized as so, after success. That's something every beginner should really try to understand.

"A smart person learns from their own mistakes. A wise person learns from the mistakes of others and can avoid making some of their own"-from someone wiser than me.

Wow. That's actually pretty funny. They had no way to discredit you then. I'm like most of you. Started having OBEs at a young age and I never knew what they were. I still had no idea what they were up until about 2 years ago. I only talked about it a few times with my husband and then I let it go. He doesn't want to subscribe to a belief system and I don't want to freak him out either. Oh well. If he suddenly become fascinated with it one day, at least I'll be there to yank him out and go places. Most people don't have that opportunity. He doesn't know what he's choosing to pass up.

In the meantime, you can continue fascinating him with your amazing insights. Eventually, he'll have to wonder why this is so and possibly peak his curiosity enough to ask you some questions. People are more open when they personally bring up the subject so it doesn't feel as if we are pushing a belief onto them.

He accounts for them as one of many interpretations of "energy sensations".

Other interpretations being: perceptions of heat, heaviness, light effects, colours, voices, buzzing, bells and more.

Vessen Hopkins takes the view that these are in fact sensations caused by an outside energy source. Is that correct?

Lion, you like to use his method occasionally, don't you?

I have never personally attributed the sensations to an energy source externally or otherwise. But I guess, that it does take energy from our caloric intake to fuel the sensations, no matter how you look at it. It would be nice to objectively verify an external energy source to help initiate an OOBE.

I don't personally need it verified but it could help open more minds to the idea of having OOBEs which is what I believe would precipitate a new era in our modern thinking. Then out the door with so much ignorance, the archenemy of mankind.

Neat experience!  When I meditate I usually go OOB but if I just hold still (not try to leave my body) and keep looking into the void noticing the lights, patterns and such, I'll start to have a lucid experience.--like a crystal clear dream only I'm awake.  Am I phasing??

The only real difference between the two experiences is that in the OOBE I ALWAYS fly.  In the phasing (??) experience I have never flown.  Is this the same for everyone?  I'm sure the answer will be "no" but am curious how people will answer!

This description applies to many of my experiences because the more that it feels physically real, the more I limit myself to physical laws. But, understand that this is only self imposed and flying is just as easy. Thinking is what makes it so. Cliche because it's true!

I took the bait, guilty as charged. 

But you already knew I would on some deeper level! 

Not even fair, is it?

I can remember new data I collect but not the ambient understanding I have when present in the nonphysical. I don't always get deeply into the holistic state... the deeper I go the more intense it gets but the less I understand or rather the ability to find explanation for.

I think MYBTOE explains this perfectly by simply keeping this part mystical. From a scientific POV, there is no way to prove anything beyond a certain point in certain instances so it just becomes conjecture. He is trying to engage his scientific peers and trying to explain further would surely drop their interests as much of what Cambell says already teases scientific heresy. Sadly, most only think about their careers.

and this illusion being rudely broken.

*shudders* To say the least, exactly.

I always try experimenting with new ways to access the NPR consciously aware.

Not only does that stave off boredom, it can also help new members out as well! 

Another Win-Win! 

Consciously aware is what I mean by intent. When I project from a dream, these OOBEs are always more colorful or more bleak depending on the narrative I guess. My RTZ projections from a dream are almost always in the past so I guess that doesn't fit the bill since it is not the real time though it is of this Earthly world.

I respect and understand the points, but I have a question...

What is the difference between feeling fear of a percieved threat/situation, and simply being aware of an outcome.

For eg One doesn't get scared of placing a hand over a naked flame, becuase one knows, or is, 'aware' that their hand will get burnt.

Does this make sense? (let me know if it doesn't;-)

I think I understand what you are saying. Keeping with your example, we don't get scared of that particular thought because we believe we have control over it happening. In other words, it doesn't scare us because we can't envision that we would really burn ourselves purposely. But imagine someone you know that is capable of hurting you in this fashion and it can provoke a stronger response from within.

I think it comes down to our illusion of having control.

edit: What Beedeekin said did provoke a little fear in me.

I really like what the link says further about the word. This is the best that I have seen it explained as to what we mean about not having any preformed ideas about projecting.

The purpose is to establish, for the practitioner, a point of pure and clear reference from which to consciously comprehend and receive impressions; Impressions which then enter the individual's own psychological sphere or perception unaffected or unpolluted from anything else the person might identify with, which allows one to come to understand what a pure perception truly is, free from identity with anything else;

Huh, am I missing something here?  

This is the definition I found. http://wikibin.org/articles/apakhana.html

I think your both right!

edit: I see Beedeekin brought some of his own pudding for us to taste. I don't know why I didn't just look it up myself, I suppose it looked like a Native American word to me and sometimes those are hard to find definitions for.

What's the saying about the word assume?

Apakhana....interesting name. What's it mean?

And welcome, by the way.

This is still an excellent technique for those who need a technique (I guess we all do but I now just see it as doing and not trying) but like any other method, my RTZ experiences have dried up using it.

The search continues...