Hello to whoever is reading this thread.
To be honest i was very skeptcal about any paranormal stuff since i was very young when i used to question my parents about religion and god and things like that, latelly ive came to the point where i do whatever is possible just to prove myself that these things indeed exists. And im sorry if im just another person who is looking for a proof :/
Ive asked many people to prove every weird thing they clain but somehow i find them all being liars and astral projection is the thing that you have to prove it for yourself, ive been trying to astral project for the past 4 years but it doesnt seem to go nowhere past vibration state even when im calm. feel my body vibratong for few to tens of seconds and theb it just goes away when people clains this is the time you exit your body.
I had people who claimed they "summoned" spirits or something but when i asl them to do it again SOMEHOW when im there nothing happens... Same with hounted places where something suppost to be there, wheb im there that "something" isnt. Which always tells me the person who claimed it is a liar...
So this thread purpose is how come i cant do astral projection after four years where some other people claims it takes from few weeks to up to like two years before the first experience.
And besides myself travelling out of my body to prove it to myself, I was wondering would there be any other alternatves to prove myself that non physical even exists?
I know many people comes up with thread similar to mine and some of you might think of it as stupid but please if you could give me any ideas id really appreciate it. Thank you.
hey :p
first of all, i didn't project a single time in my life (2 years practising).
in my opinion, it comes all to believing it is true.
You just need to change your reason for wanting to project.
instead of wanting to prove it is real, find something else. Maybe you want to explore stuff? fly?
think of what you want to and don't question if ap can be done or not. you must believe, assume it can, and will, hapen.
to those experienced in ap: correct me if i'm wrong.
When someone tells me they have been trying to AP for four years and they haven't, I think they are lying to themselves. In other words they aren't trying as hard as they say they have.
If you want to have an OOBE then the reason why has to be important to you. You sound like the type of person where no proof is enough and this is a very powerful blocker in the mind.
I also doubt the people who say they can conjure spirits on command.
I think your best way to have an OOBE is through a lucid dream. Learn how to do that and your belief in it will raise a notch or two. Then you'll become more open to the idea and may then start to have an OOBE through phasing.
Good luck.
It might be just all of the mind. Belief systems seem to play a part in that process of wanting to experience AP but not always.
Anything you think of thats needed or has to be believed in first WILL hinder you. The same goes for fear, this being the biggest block to remove.
What goes on in a four year olds mind allows experiences to happen. Fear is not an issue with this age group. It happens naturally.
Remember keep it simple and you're well on your way.
Its as real as you are reading this and you can verify things seen too where you normally wouldn't have access until later.
@szaxx so you are able to see physical world at your will?
If that so may i ask you, are you advanced enough to AP any day and go to places at will?
Thanks for everyone who replied and i know belief takes very big part in AP but i nee a proof to believe...
It might sound weird to you but I have very religious friend who asked me to believe in god for my own good, but when i try, the thing that i dont have proof (and im not looking for huge one) I cannot take it to my heart to believe in it untill i know the person isnt lying :/
@its_all_bad i didnt mean that the person can "summon" spirits at command. What we did was use those tables to communicate to spirits and stuff that they claimed they called upon one but when they did it with me nothing happened.
When I was 4 years old I went on many local journeys with ease. Now things have progressed greatly.
Once you learn to drive a car your journeys become too great to walk.
I rarely go places in the world you know. There's far better travels to be made outside this world.
Quote from: Szaxx on March 09, 2013, 18:11:24
When I was 4 years old I went on many local journeys with ease. Now things have progressed greatly.
Once you learn to drive a car your journeys become too great to walk.
I rarely go places in the world you know. There's far better travels to be made outside this world.
Like..? :P
@szaxx im kinda being even skeptical about what you are saying...
4 years old are you serious? i can only remember my life since i was 5 and youre telling me you remember your astral travels of being 4 years old?
anyways i was wondering is there any possibility if i tell you a place that ive placed something on there and would you be able to tell me about it, cause that would be decent proof for me personally!
The general understanding is that we all AP as children because it is from that reality that we enter this and for a time it is quite natural but most grow away from this as the focus becomes more on the physical universe.
Some obviously don;t lose the natural ability.
Interesting for me is that a lot of reports regarding other places these sates of consciousness allow access to are often that they are untold better in all regards than this mere universe - yet something must compel the individual traveler to return to the mundane - just as surely as something must compel the AP-er to go experience better worlds etc...
Memory is a thing we all have. With some its poor with others its much better. A few however can remember their birth. (not I)
I can remember pre school, why can't you?
I could read before I started school at 5. My granddaughter is only 2 and can read some words already.
It's each to their own.
Ahh, interested in more than this world?
Have a read,
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/welcome_to_dreams/npmrs_ending_in_death-t39688.0.html;msg324961#new
This is the same world you know, just a week forward in time.
The other places are indeed mysterious, a few you visit, you never want to return from. You do naturally return and strive to return.
Learn the art and enjoy the experiences. You can make your own mind up as to the rest.
I have been trying for over 20 years . In my case I think its a lot of repressed crap , beliefs , programing , past life stuff , self guilt , ect. desert rat
Menex, there is already plenty of proof out there that many of things we call supernatural do exist. Skeptics always find fault with the results because they tear apart the studies. Many scientists in these fields use standards that are way beyond the accepted level used in other sciences in order to call something true.
Healthy skepticism is good and needed. Skepticism in the face of logic and proof is just stubbornness brought on by a cultural belief.
So without doing this for yourself, there is nothing in the world that you can look at and decide that this is real. You have to do it yourself to believe.
Quote from: its_all_bad on March 09, 2013, 19:50:23
Menex, there is already plenty of proof out there that many of things we call supernatural do exist. Skeptics always find fault with the results because they tear apart the studies. Many scientists in these fields use standards that are way beyond the accepted level used in other sciences in order to call something true.
Healthy skepticism is good and needed. Skepticism in the face of logic and proof is just stubbornness brought on by a cultural belief.
So without doing this for yourself, there is nothing in the world that you can look at and decide that this is real. You have to do it yourself to believe.
I haven't seen any evidence myself about the plenty of proof. Most stuff to do with the so-called 'supernatural' is subjective experience and subjective experience does not count as proof, except for the personality who has experienced it and for those who chose to believe them...belief though is not proof. As I heard recently, 'Science is truth even if you don;t believe it'.
Tom Campbell suggests that there are ways to verify subjective evidence in an objective manner and says in his trilogy that when working with Monroe and others in the early days they did indeed compile lots of objective evidence but alas, its seems the evidence is not for the public.
He suggests that rather than simply take his or anyone else's word for it, that the individual needs to experience for themselves the 'reality' of this altered state of mind - however, even given that you could do so and discover for yourself, it is still rather apparent that all AP experience is subjective and thus not really evidence other than to the personality experiencing it.
It seems to provide no real practical purpose in regard to this physical universe which at least is experienced so much more objectively than the non physical dimensions.
Thank you Will. You have an unusual talent of agreeing with the post that you are arguing against. The ability to pull this off is quite rare and is normally found in the work of some of the great literary masters.
You remind me of John Steinbeck and "The Grapes of Wrath" in particular.
Quote from: its_all_bad on March 09, 2013, 23:32:35
Thank you Will. You have an unusual talent of agreeing with the post that you are arguing against. The ability to pull this off is quite rare and is normally found in the work of some of the great literary masters.
You remind me of John Steinbeck and "The Grapes of Wrath" in particular.
Well I am not agreeing or disagreeing really. Just sharing my own observations and in relation to evidence, I simply know that subjective experience does not count as objectify-able proof.
Quote from: Wi11iam on March 09, 2013, 23:55:10
Well I am not agreeing or disagreeing really. Just sharing my own observations and in relation to evidence, I simply know that subjective experience does not count as objectify-able proof.
Yeah, that's the point i was trying to get across to Menex. The proof that is out there is mostly all subjective but it is very compelling. So I was pointing out that this is something that must be seen to believe and know for yourself.
If ten people say they like the color blue, then it is only an objective fact that they
SAID they like the color. No one can prove that they do or don't in fact like it regardless of what they say.
Menex's skepticism is only natural and is actually good in my opinion. He has indicated the desire to have an OOBE but too much doubt can close one's own self off to that possibility.
Quote from: its_all_bad on March 10, 2013, 00:08:56
Yeah, that's the point i was trying to get across to Menex. The proof that is out there is mostly all subjective but it is very compelling. So I was pointing out that this is something that must be seen to believe and know for yourself.
If ten people say they like the color blue, then it is only an objective fact that they SAID they like the color. No one can prove that they do or don't in fact like it regardless of what they say.
Yep
That is likely why there is not really
plenty of proof out there that many of the things called "supernatural" do actually exist.
Best proof of paranormal is just to try to experience it firsthand. There's a hospital around here where my mother works that is a local haunted hot spot. The entire second floor is known to be haunted. And, the hospital has weird oddities, too. Haunted fridge, entire haunted floor, people witnessing the same exact spirits in the same rooms. The place was even mentioned in a book. I went there, myself. The second floor is funky, indeed. The air there is so thick and heavy, you start feeling like you're swimming in water and gasping for air. Everything buzzing with electricity.
Of course, you tell your friends about it, and they go "Pfft, yeah freaking right" and just look at you like you're whacko. Even though you're not the only one to have experienced such things. Most people who go up to that floor experience weirdness, I bet. It's just in the air. People have reported things levitating, seeing spirits, chairs moving, being touched. But it's never enough proof for people. It's never enough.
And it will never be enough for some.
QuoteThat is likely why there is not really plenty of proof out there that many of the things called "supernatural" do actually exist.
Yep. That's exactly why there really is plenty of proof that exists. Because so many people are finding ways to gather objective evidence to support the subjective experience.
Don't forget. In the American judicial system, somebody saying that they saw something is considered evidence that something occurred. Sadly, it is all that's needed in some cases.
But it seems as though you may have a subconscious need to counter every statement or point that someone makes. It's understandable but I'm not trying to prosecute anybody in a court of law nor am I trying to convince someone to see things as I do.
Thanks again. You may be the reincarnation of Mr. Steinbeck after all. But that's meant as a compliment.
It sounds like you need to stop taking other peoples word as something you have to believe and follow your own path. Things have a way of opening themselves up to you if you in return are open to changes and new life experiences. I think apart of you is shunning such possibilities: a part of you does not believe thus you will not be conscious while having an OBE though you probably will without realizing it (while you are sleeping).
I also had my first OBE at four years old. I had no idea what to call it until I came across the subject of astral projection when I was 12. I still remember it very vividly, though there are quite a bit of OBE's that I do remember so well. I don't see how any of us can prove to you it's real!
In accounting there is a enhancing qualifying characteristic of measurement called 'verifyablity'. It is defined as:consensus amongst peers.
Remember, we are just evolved monkeys typing on basically 26 keys, and through the phenomenon of verifyability(alongside comparability & understanability), we are able to communicate to one another to a certain extent. This entire notion of understanding the reality the last sentence denoted is purely a subjective experience you just had in itself.
...yet it works...
So, Just remember to play nice and understand the constraints of semantics we all share on this forum.
Remember, most to all of the pain aliviating tests for Advil and Tylenol are based off of subjective research methodologies.
This forum is the perfect place to LOOK for verifyability, not contest it.
Cheers,
Contenteo
Quote from: Menex on March 09, 2013, 13:50:17And im sorry if im just another person who is looking for a proof :/
http://da-lai.lima-city.de/OBE/index.html
8-)
Quote from: Contenteo on March 10, 2013, 06:15:33
In accounting there is a enhancing qualifying characteristic of measurement called 'verifyablity'. It is defined as:consensus amongst peers.
Remember, we are just evolved monkeys typing on basically 26 keys, and through the phenomenon of verifyability(alongside comparability & understanability), we are able to communicate to one another to a certain extent. This entire notion of understanding the reality the last sentence denoted is purely a subjective experience you just had in itself.
...yet it works...
So, Just remember to play nice and understand the constraints of semantics we all share on this forum.
Remember, most to all of the pain aliviating tests for Advil and Tylenol are based off of subjective research methodologies.
This forum is the perfect place to LOOK for verifyability, not contest it.
Cheers,
Contenteo
Fair enough. :-D
Quote from: its_all_bad on March 10, 2013, 03:07:52
Yep. That's exactly why there really is plenty of proof that exists. Because so many people are finding ways to gather objective evidence to support the subjective experience.
Don't forget. In the American judicial system, somebody saying that they saw something is considered evidence that something occurred. Sadly, it is all that's needed in some cases.
But it seems as though you may have a subconscious need to counter every statement or point that someone makes. It's understandable but I'm not trying to prosecute anybody in a court of law nor am I trying to convince someone to see things as I do.
Thanks again. You may be the reincarnation of Mr. Steinbeck after all. But that's meant as a compliment.
1: First sentence seems a little oxymoron - can you expand upon this concept for clarification?
2: The American judicial system in relation to verbal evidence is not a good example of working with proof
as the evidence is most likely corrupted (even inadvertently) but certainly the propensity for someone to 'bear false witness' is fairly high - a more scientific approach is always necessary.
3: It is not a need. Little is known about the 'subconscious' and I suspect what is believed about it is based upon ego interpretation. I counter that which can be countered in order to keep a balanced perspective. I used to be young and impulsive. Too quick to believe, too stubborn to let go.
4: I don't believe in reincarnation. There is no evidence to support such belief. When evidence about anything is shown to be true, there is no need for belief. I can expand on this if you want.
On summing up spirits , you must know what you are doing . Even Aleister Crowley summed up a being he could not fully banish . It is my understanding he moved , leaving the demon there . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alister_Crowley . This is not something any one does just for fun . A.p. is a different matter , some say protect your self with white light , others state there is no need . Its a matter of personal beliefs . desert rat
To Wi11iam . On evidence of reincarnation , there is a boy that had memories of having died in ww2 as a fighter pilot . He had knowledge of aircraft at that ( mid 40s ) and had night mares of having died from a fire during a crash landing on an air craft carrier . As I remember the story he knew his wifes name and some of his famly . The story is on the net , I can post links if asked. desert rat
p.s. If any has not heard a e.v.p. it can be some of the freekiest audio to hear . I dont know if it is realy proof , but it can sound strange .
Quote from: desert-rat on March 10, 2013, 13:15:01
To Wi11iam . On evidence of reincarnation , there is a boy that had memories of having died in ww2 as a fighter pilot . He had knowledge of aircraft at that ( mid 40s ) and had night mares of having died from a fire during a crash landing on an air craft carrier . As I remember the story he knew his wifes name and some of his famly . The story is on the net , I can post links if asked. desert rat
p.s. If any has not heard a e.v.p. it can be some of the freekiest audio to hear . I dont know if it is realy proof , but it can sound strange .
DR
Reincarnation obviously came about as a belief system for reasons which do include what you have spoken of here.
However, there are models around which explain why this is so, which I find are just as plausible.
Tom Campbells model incorporates the belief system of reincarnation. However, this process comes from something called the 'Individual Unit Of Consciousness' whose dominant reality is the non physical.
According to that model, the IUOC uses physical life packages to learn how to lower its entropy and this IUOC is essentially who 'you' are - rather than the different life packages it experiences.
Upon dying, the data of that experience is examined and another life package chosen to continue the process and hopefully learn what previous life packages did not learn.
In this way the ego experiencing each life package gets to experience longevity, but as a process it seems woefully inadequate for the purpose of lowering entropy. As a model it tends to pamper the ego as it were...what ego doesn;t want to live continuously?
Another model I know of explains the IUOCs as simply 'entities' which are focused upon the physical - even obsessively - like a kid who cannot drag himself away from a computer game.
These entities are able to experience life packages simultaneously and are not limited to linear time, so they can play a variety of packages in different points along a time line.
Sometimes the life packages experience 'spill-overs' from these other life experiences which are happening simultaneously. The experiences are so real for the incarnate consciousness that they believe they must have lived another life in another time.
Either of these two models can explain 'reincarnation' as simple data of experience which leak into each other. Your own life package data of experience may even leak into someone else's, and they will believe that they have lived your life.
Again - as I continue to suggest - it is all about self identity. So you think you have lived a number of lives... which of these is truly who you are?
The correct answer has to be 'none of them' but also 'all of them' and by 'them' I do mean every single life package that has every existed.
If that is too much for the old grey matter to digest, not to worry. The easiest way to accept the possibility is to treat everyone as yourself - an aspect of yourself - regardless of whether they know it or not.
Do not deify any personality no matter that they are even obviously wiser and more knowing than your present self identity and neither demonize that which is obviously beneath your present sense of integrity - chances are that we have all been there and done that 'in another life package'.
Above all, do not accept that you are even altogether the sum total of the spectrum of demon (devil) to angelic (god) and everything between because that is part of a loop system which is tied intricately to duality (good/evil dark/light/ hot/cold/ male/female/ etc)
We are these things, but we are so much more than just these things.
Some think time is happing all at once , only the human mind sees it as linear . We could be living many lives all at the same time . Some think when some one is regressed in to a past life there reading info from the akashic reccords , not there own , so who knows . desert rat
Quote from: desert-rat on March 11, 2013, 16:54:43
Some think time is happing all at once , only the human mind sees it as linear . We could be living many lives all at the same time . Some think when some one is regressed in to a past life there reading info from the akashic reccords , not there own , so who knows . desert rat
Precisely - 'who knows' so remain open-minded and without particular belief regarding reincarnation seems the most logical option - it is like this with so many subjects really but does free the mind to investigate the tangible evidence available.
What if consciousness slows down the perception of time(speeds it up from our perspective) so much that the rate of evolution overtakes the linear nature of time. Would our new rate of evolution be the new time? Would consciousness itself then become time, the very thing it is built to perceive?
Sounds much like a derivative/integral relationship to me.
Cheers,
Contenteo
Quote from: Contenteo on April 11, 2013, 03:52:49
What if consciousness slows down the perception of time(speeds it up from our perspective) so much that the rate of evolution overtakes the linear nature of time. Would our new rate of evolution be the new time? Would consciousness itself then become time, the very thing it is built to perceive?
Sounds much like a derivative/integral relationship to me.
Cheers,
Contenteo
Time is something which Consciousness determines.
It is in itself not a living thing. Consciousness does not need to become anything in particular, it experiences.
Whose Consciousness?
My consciousness? Your consciousness? Our consciousness? AUM?
Don't forget the theory of relativity when you tackle this question.
Is all time created equal or is there two or more types of time?
Cheers,
Contenteo
Quote from: Contenteo on April 14, 2013, 13:15:53
Whose Consciousness?
My consciousness? Your consciousness? Our consciousness? AUM?
Don't forget the theory of relativity when you tackle this question.
Is all time created equal or is there two or more types of time?
Cheers,
Contenteo
Consciousness is consciousness, water is water.
Okay so I hear what you are saying - not all water is the same...it depends on what its been through, but at its source it is the same.
It is that Consciousness which I refer to.
Relativity is to do with the situation, but also the individual reaction to the situation and while Consciousness gives ego its ability to say 'I am' it also allows for ego to make claims as to what exactly 'I am' is - but only in regard to ego, not to Consciousness, which has its own knowledge of what 'It is' without the need for any egos consent.
'I am' is also something which Consciousness determines, both at individual ego level and AUM. Which would you consider the more accurate?
Time is determined by sets of measurements and is applicable to the situation. It is not a thing in itself but is a result of things interacting with each other plus Consciousness observing, acknowledging and making use of those material interactions.
QuoteRelativity is to do with the situation, but also the individual reaction to the situation and while Consciousness gives ego its ability to say 'I am' it also allows for ego to make claims as to what exactly 'I am' is - but only in regard to ego, not to Consciousness, which has its own knowledge of what 'It is' without the need for any egos consent.
So do you think consciousness can ever be free of an ego. Surely even at it's source, it will still have the identity of "I am" albeit the highest achievable "I am".
If not the only alternative would be to not exist. At the source, it's either "I am all" or "I am not".
Quote from: its_all_bad on April 14, 2013, 22:47:12
So do you think consciousness can ever be free of an ego. Surely even at it's source, it will still have the identity of "I am" albeit the highest achievable "I am".
If not the only alternative would be to not exist. At the source, it's either "I am all" or "I am not".
Ego would not exist if not for Consciousness. At the Source Consciousness is "I am" Within the aspects it is "I Am All". Note the divisive factor - the "I am" can - within the aspects - deny Source Consciousness if it so chooses to...yet the Source does not deny the aspects.
To me, ego is the "I". Consciousness is the "am".
Quote from: Xanth on April 15, 2013, 01:03:22
To me, ego is the "I". Consciousness is the "am".
:-D
Quote from: Xanth on April 15, 2013, 01:03:22
To me, ego is the "I". Consciousness is the "am".
In order to understand 'self' ego requires consciousness. Ego is a product of Consciousness.