Hello all,
In another post I said I would probably talk a bit about my little experience with so called Astral Projection and OBEs. I must admit that I come from an esoteric tradition and I used different methods to approach the argument. I knew nothing about Phasing till I read it in this forum. However I find interesting to note how so different looking approaches are in the end the same thing, as always seems to happen.
Take for example the "Body of Light" technique, also called "Rising on the Planes" of the G.D. and A.A. tradition (and others). On the first look the method of operation seems completely different from what it is used in "Phasing". Yet, in reality, the method is almost the same. What looks different are self-made obstacles, also if you can think now that I'm saying idiocies. I must admit that many of these obstacles are created also by authors (naturally trying to help others and not understanding it) with the intention of explaning what it's "felt" by them to let others recreate the feeling. While doing so can usually seem beneficial to people trying to understand how to do the same, more often than not these sort of explanations tend to have the opposite effect. This has to do with a threefold problem principally (for how I see it): primarly the mind has the bad habit of focusing on what it is told to discard from its focus, secondarily the process of trying to recreate what it's said usually has the effect of focusing only on the "external" part of it, and thirdly not all people are the same and expectancy on what it is to happen usually create a sort of subconscious effort to recreate the same instead on focusing on what it is really, individually, felt.
This is the motive why many experienced authors when exposing "techniques" try to remove from them as many particulars as they can. The first approach is believing that these authors try to be as cryptic as possible, or that they are not divulgating too many informations because they are bounded by some sort of secrecy given by their oaths. However that's not so. They remove as many particulars as they can, making the technique and the informations in it as barebone as possible for the aforementioned problems. These sort of states are all within the person. In reality there would neither be need of a technique at all. What methods are used for is only to focus the untrained mind in a certain direction. When this last is clearly understood and the experience is internalized the person would do well to adapt the same to him/herself because not two individual are alike, and the most refined ritual of another is never so effective as the most gross personal one.
To external obstacles then you must add, as I said, the obstacles made by people themselves. As I've anticipated in a precedent post one of the most commons obstacles made by those who approach these "techniques" is usually a subconscious "fear of success". Most of the time this "fear" is not noticed and on the contrary completely discarded. However it is usually experienced as a sort of "jumping" from the state one so hardly sought to the normal consciousness at the moment one notices that what is wanted is actually happening. The "fear" can have many faces, as for example excitement of what is about to happen.
But, sorry, I'm divagating. Let's return to the "Body of Light" technique and its analogies with "Phasing". To begin with let's first try to understand how is usually viewed the BoL technique and how it is performed. The person tries to visualize a body outside and then try to transfer the consciousness in it. The usual approach to the method is trying to recreate a feeling of being in that "other" body. Who have tried the technique probably know the difficulty of doing so. The effort of trying to "feel" in the other body actually makes one think only of his/her body or people tense themselves to no end trying to concentrate on that "feeling" with the result of feeling exausthed or thinking the "technique" too difficult to do.
However let's see the thing from another point of view. Let's put aside all that is usually understood about it. First of all let's see what an author says about how to approach the method (namely Crowley):
- ...The first thing to do, therefore, is to get the body outside your own. To avoid muddling the two, you begin by imagining a shape resembling yourself standing in front of you. Do not say: "Oh, it's only imagination!" The time to test that is later on, when you have secured a fairly clear mental image of such a body. Try to imagine how your own body would look if you were standing in its place; try to transfer your consciousness to the Body of Light. Your own body has its eyes shut. Use the eyes of the Body of Light to describe the objects in the room behind you. Don't say. "It's only an effort of subconscious memory" ... the time to test that is later on.
As soon as you feel more or less at home in the fine body, let it rise in the air. Keep on feeling the sense of rising; keep on looking about you as you rise until you see landscapes or beings of the astral plane. Such have a quality all their own. They are not like material things --- they are not like mental pictures --- they seem to lie between the two. -
So let's see the analogies with Phasing, and (hopefully) removing the "only for experts" tag from the method. The effect of trying to tranfer the consciousness on another figure has the same effect of letting you focus inward in Phasing, in reality. The transfer of consciousness is done slowly, it doesn't happen immediately (at last at first). If you think that if you do the technique in the "right" way you will immediately find inside the other body or if you concentrate with all your might to feel completely in the figure at beginning you create difficulties to no end, you are actually trying without knowing to go against the flow instead of with it. As I said there are many analogies with Phasing, the method must be done in steps, in a gentle way, the transfer in consciousness (be it real or not) is created automatically by and by. Only much later (also with other ways) the subconscious (and also the adopted way to do the "method" in your personal way) will actually "switch" instantly the senses in the other body.
There's no need to strain the mind trying to recreate the feeling of being in another figure. It will come by itself, naturally, in steps. At first all is mingled, but if the method is approached in a relaxed way by and by the focus will switch, just like in Phasing. Imagining the objects behind the physical body is not strictly necessary, it is meant as a first step to begin to turn off the physical senses and starting to turning "inward". Also in this case no need to strain. It will come by itself. The act of trying to imagine the objects must be done in a relaxed way, as it is done in Phasing in F2. You by and by merge with what you are visualizing. This step can last how much you want (it can actually be perpetuated till the result by itself) or you don't need to do it at all, just try to feel more and more in the figure (again, in a gentle way, turning your senses inward as in Phasing). When you think you are ready - if you notice closely Crowley says "As soon as you feel more or less at home in the fine body", he doesn't say "you must be absolutely feeling as if you are in it", then try feeling of rising in the air and "...keep on looking about you as you rise". Also this part is exactly the same of "Phasing", i.e. you begin to more and more turn inward in the act of observing what's happening.
The act of noticing what's happening around with the sense of ascending (also in this case no need to strain, be gentle, no need to concentrate hardly on this feeling, just know you are rising, after a bit you will naturally start ot feel it) will have the effect of making you more and more concentrate in that "body" (or inward, as you want). The blackness will start to have a "volume", you will start to perceive images or beings after a while. At this point you will "be" in the scene, same as Phasing. You can either notice at beginning that you seem to see the "other" body while also acting inside it. Don't worry, it's fine, it can happen sometimes the first times, don't mind about it (it is actually a dream status).
If you analyze how the method works you will understand that the steps are the same. Much difficulty has been self made (and as I said also by others) about the BoL technique. In reality it's very easy to do. It is a gentle method, not a forced one, again, same as Phasing. It is done in steps. Usually in esoteric circles also names and gestures are made in the "other" body at various points, making one once more focus on "that" body in a natural way. Lastly one finds him/herself step by step completely conscious in this "other" body in an astral plane.
The only real difference of Phasing and the BoL method are the different approach. The method of the BoL uses the approach of creating another "body". This has the benefit that after a while (if the technique is done gently) the person will automatically start to switch off the physical senses while inside the other figure. The "externalization" does this by and by without the person either noticing it. Turning inward is then done faster after the method is mastered because subconsciously the transfer of consciousness is tied to an interiorized input of switching all physical senses. In a certain sense while in Phasing you switch 180 degree changing focus, with the BoL technique the switch is actualized in the act of "exteriorization".
I must then add that the technique was usually learnt after the individual already had some knowledge of conquering a posture (Asana), controlling the breath (Pranayama) and to a less extent control of thought (Prathyara, Dharana etc.). Naturally all of this is not strictly necessary, however Asana and Pranayama above all helps a lot.
The control of a posture for example has the great benefit that when the individual adopts the same the body automatically cease to exists. You can understand that in this way the act of turning "inward" is easier and faster. The control of breath then I think everybody knows its benefits. Apart calming the mind the breath also energize the internal currents of the body.
So, you see, also in the case of the BoL (as in Phasing) there's no reference at all about Trance, mind awake/body asleep etc. All is done automatically. While you can naturally bring the mind to an internalized status using the body, usually it is much easier to do the contrary. Also exit sensations are almost never felt, the only usual symptom it's only a sort of metallic click or a "snap" seeming to come at the height of the neck when you "feel" fully conscious in the "other" body. But also this sound it's not always felt and maybe it's again a subconscious expectancy of the person that knew about the same.
I hope this (lengthy, I admit) post of mine has shed some light on the fact that also at first sight different methods can (and are) in reality the same thing if looked in a more profund way and I hope to have been of help to someone trying something new or approach also the most difficult looking "methods" in a different frame of mind.
Selea.
it's not that they're the same methods, more so that the BoL technique falls under doing a rundown in phasing. The author simply created a certain rundown in f2 to draw senses away from f1 and called it a technique, something I've been trying to fight against so far as it limits one's individual charged emotions and personal nuances from manifesting in their imagination when others mindlessly follow another person's rundown under the guise they will have the same success as the one who created it. Regardless, it was a well done analysis :-) You will come to find a lot of techniques authors flaunt are just rundowns they created.
Actually the BoL technique exists from a lot of time. It was not "created" by an author, certainly not Crowley (that anyway was born much before Frank was either alive, in 1875. The part of the book I quoted is from the year 1911-12). Nobody either know who "created" the "method". It was just in the corpus of some very ancient esoteric techniques, drawing back from egyptians. You find hints about it for example in the "Book of Dead". All the god-forms are to be assumed by "that" body.
Btw the approaches are different as I've already explained. While I can understand that you can like more Phasing for a motive or another, externalizing a Body has its great advantages in its own. While at beginning all it's much more difficult to do, after a while the "technique" has the great plus of drawing the physical senses away *at the moment* the consciouness is transferred in the "other" body. It will come a day that instantly after you *will* to go in the figure you are already there.
Actually the objective of Magick is just that. Making that "other" body as much "real" as this one, so that you can slip into it with the same easiness you change a shirt, going to every plane and in general making "it" do everything.
Anyway I understand what you mean, also if actually if you read well there's no rundown because trying to see the objects is absolutely no needed. Crowley suggested it only to let students understand how to use the "astral" eyes instead of the physical ones at the moment the focus is switched in the "other" body. In fact many times people that look behind closed eyelids are still using the physical eyes. Explaining how things works is difficult, sometimes to let students understand you must make them to learn it form themselves, also using "impositions" from the look of individuals that really know what's happening. When this is understood you just "see" with the eyes of the "figure" (i.e. the "astral" eyes, no need to imagine anything concretely, or you can just "see" what you want) and you learn by an by to associate all the other senses when you change focus in the "other" body. You sometimes need mental tricks at beginning, or people will just not understand, and the more you try to explain it plainly, the more all becomes intelligible. This is how it goes with things that are not properly explainable by language.
Quote from: Selea on May 16, 2010, 05:57:46
Actually the BoL technique exists from a lot of time. It was not "created" by an author, certainly not Crowley (that anyway was born much before Frank was either alive, in 1875. The part of the book I quoted is from the year 1911-12). Nobody either know who "created" the "method". It was just in the corpus of some very ancient esoteric techniques, drawing back from egyptians. You find hints about it for example in the "Book of Dead". All the god-forms are to be assumed by "that" body.
Only had Crowley to go by as I'm not going to delve into researching it, regardless we can say based upon what we've been talking about with individuality that Crowley had his own version of the BoL in his imagination as do you such that in the way he described it could or could not have been subtly different from the original method so you and him are the authors of the variant of the method described. Either way it doesn't really matter who created it... so I don't see why it needs to be said.
Quote from: Selea on May 16, 2010, 05:57:46
Actually the objective of Magick is just that. Making that "other" body as much "real" as this one, so that you can slip into it with the same easiness you change a shirt, going to every plane and in general making "it" do everything.
So you're saying you're using energy transference to create another body, a process that is already done automatically by the subconscious when anyone projects, maybe you're just then communicating to the subconscious that you wish for this body of energy to be created.
Quote from: Selea on May 16, 2010, 05:57:46
Anyway I understand what you mean, also if actually if you read well there's no rundown because trying to see the objects is absolutely no needed. Crowley suggested it only to let students understand how to use the "astral" eyes instead of the physical ones at the moment the focus is switched in the "other" body. In fact many times people that look behind closed eyelids are still using the physical eyes. Explaining how things works is difficult, sometimes to let students understand you must make them to learn it form themselves, also using "impositions" from the look of individuals that really know what's happening. When this is understood you just "see" with the eyes of the "figure" (i.e. the "astral" eyes, no need to imagine anything concretely, or you can just "see" what you want) and you learn by an by to associate all the other senses when you change focus in the "other" body. You sometimes need mental tricks at beginning, or people will just not understand, and the more you try to explain it plainly, the more all becomes intelligible. This is how it goes with things that are not properly explainable by language.
It's cool, I understand what the method seeks to do now, we can say that it doesn't fall into the realm of a rundown given my understanding of their visualization scope. I'll basically have to create another category for phasing methods in my head that involves the usage of thought communication instead of meta-physical imagery based thought communication which this method will fall under. It's not that I like phasing more, simply that phasing seeks to organize and categorize more so than it being one end all technique such as this. It is the pure function that is done which requires communication to be called, the communication being the various methods others have imagined. If there is not going to need to be visualization then I wouldn't even speak of it as it will only confuse others like me when it is a vast majority of the explanation of the technique. It would be the same as if I tried to explain something like kinesis with visualization, it would be better if I said, "just do it", because to our conscious awareness that is all that it feels like, which is ironically the only way to properly understand thought based communication to the subconscious. No visualization is ever strictly necessary, lol, it simply helps to understand intent. Phasing is not doing a rundown or noticing etc, those are just methods of communication used to phase. About the the transference of consciousness in phasing being done slowly part, that is entirely up to the one phasing and their experience. With that seemingly being your only differentiation with out factoring in visualization, means they are the exact same at their core function, transference of consciousness to an energy double in another focus of consciousness.
Quote from: soli on May 16, 2010, 09:27:37
Only had Crowley to go by as I'm not going to delve into researching it, regardless we can say based upon what we've been talking about with individuality that Crowley had his own version of the BoL in his imagination as do you such that in the way he described it could or could not have been subtly different from the original method so you and him are the authors of the variant of the method described. Either way it doesn't really matter who created it... so I don't see why it needs to be said.
I quoted a chapter of "Magick in Theory and Practice" of Crowley when he talks in more "beginning" terms about some mental tricks used to let the technique be understood by people who can have made nothing else before and can either know nothing of what he was talking about. In reality the "real" technique as explained by Crowley (and the G.D.) is this:
"1. Let the student be at rest in one of his prescribed positions, having bathed and robed with the proper decorum. Let the place of working be free from all disturbance, and let the preliminary purifications, banishings and invocations be duly accomplished, and, lastly, let the incense be kindled.
2. Let him imagine his own figure (preferably robed in the proper magical garments and armed with the proper magical weapons) as enveloping his physical body, or standing near to and in front of him.
3. Let him then transfer the seat of his consciousness to that imagined figure; so that it may seem to him that he is seeing with its eyes, and hearing with its ears.
This will usually be the great difficulty of the operation.
4. Let him then cause that imagined figure to rise in the air to a great height above the earth.
5. Let him then stop and look about him. (It is sometimes difficult to open the eyes.)
6. Probably he will see figures approaching him, or become conscious of a landscape."
So, as you see, completely barebone. It is the duty of the student to understand how the method works. I quoted that paragraph instead of the technique as given because it was more easy to understand the similarities with Phasing for someone that doesn't know how the method really works.
As for who created the method it was only for reference to the fact the method existed prior Phasing, or it can be that someone can think that it has been adopted after as a different form of it. I think you know that it has happened many times that some "authors" took the work of some other, just changed a bit it and published it as if it was his/her conception.
Quote from: soli on May 16, 2010, 09:27:37
So you're saying you're using energy transference to create another body, a process that is already done automatically by the subconscious when anyone projects, maybe you're just then communicating to the subconscious that you wish for this body of energy to be created.
In little words you train your subconscious to change focus immediately after you express the intent of tranferring to the "other" body. Again, a little mental trick. I know people who after many years of using the technique can transfer their attention to that "other" body either while walking.
Quote from: soli on May 16, 2010, 09:27:37
It's cool, I understand what the method seeks to do now, we can say that it doesn't fall into the realm of a rundown given my understanding of their visualization scope. I'll basically have to create another category for phasing methods in my head that involves the usage of thought communication instead of meta-physical imagery based thought communication which this method will fall under. It's not that I like phasing more, simply that phasing seeks to organize and categorize more so than it being one end all technique such as this. It is the pure function that is done which requires communication to be called, the communication being the various methods others have imagined. If there is not going to need to be visualization then I wouldn't even speak of it as it will only confuse others like me when it is about 90% of the explanation of the technique. No visualization is ever strictly necessary, lol, it simply helps to understand intent. Phasing is not doing a rundown or noticing etc, those are just methods of communication used to phase. As far as the transference of consciousness in phasing being done slowly, that is entirely up to the one phasing and their experience. With that seemingly being your only differentiation with out factoring in visualization, means they are the exact same at their core function, transference of consciousness to an energy double in another focus of consciousness.
My reference to slowly was only meant to help beginners to understand a thing. Given the fact that many authors have spoken about the method in various different ways and the fact that the technique is considered one of the most difficult to adopt. I naturally cannot know the experience of all the individuals in this forum, and their personal knowledge. Usually a total beginner if trying to immediately "feel" him/herself in that other body with all their concentration at first will only think of their physical body. Naturally this can change a lot if the person has a good power of concentration. So the slowly was said just to let understand that also if you don't immediately "feel" in the other body at the beginning all is fine, it will come by and by.
As for the two methods being the same as their core function we perfectly agree, I wrote this thread appositedly for this. For how I see it Phasing can adopt any method that enables the individual to switch focus. The BoL technique does this by making the person "feeling" in another body. If done correctly this withdraw the senses from the physical body. You can adopt any way you prefer to "feel" in the "other" body, be it visualization or kinestetic sensation. Experience has told me (and others), however, that for beginners in the majority of cases (there are exceptions of course) the visual and mobility senses are the most immediate to let one to immedesimate with the figure.
Best regards,
Selea.
Quote from: Selea on May 16, 2010, 10:17:42
As for who created the method it was only for reference to the fact the method existed prior Phasing, or it can be that someone can think that it has been adopted after as a different form of it. I think you know that it has happened many times that some "authors" took the work of some other, just changed a bit it and published it as if it was his/her conception.
I'm sure it existed prior to the model of phasing. It doesn't mean it can't fall into a category of methods for phasing, which is what I was trying to do as I said before I don't like how people create one technique and don't bother explaining it and basically just say do x and y as described on a perceptive and not analytical level will happen. If people understand the core function then they can come up with their own personal x to call y that they feel fits them the best.
Quote from: Selea on May 16, 2010, 10:17:42
In little words you train your subconscious to change focus immediately after you express the intent of tranferring to the "other" body. Again, a little mental trick. I know people who after many years of using the technique can transfer their attention to that "other" body either while walking.
Makes sense to me.
Quote from: Selea on May 16, 2010, 10:17:42
My reference to slowly was only meant to help beginners to understand a thing. Given the fact that many authors have spoken about the method in various different ways and the fact that the technique is considered one of the most difficult to adopt. I naturally cannot know the experience of all the individuals in this forum, and their personal knowledge. Usually a total beginner if trying to immediately "feel" him/herself in that other body with all their concentration at first will only think of their physical body. Naturally this can change a lot if the person has a good power of concentration. So the slowly was said just to let understand that also if you don't immediately "feel" in the other body at the beginning all is fine, it will come by and by.
By those means any method will be done slowly at first, so I don't really see a differentiation now in thinking.. a total beginner to the BoL method will not be able to transfer their consciousness instantly, but this will not be the case in reality. What is being done slowly is the communication to the subconscious for it to understand the intent and execute it. The "switch" once the subconscious understands the intent will always be instantaneous. The same is said for phasing.
Quote from: Selea on May 16, 2010, 10:17:42
You can adopt any way you prefer to "feel" in the "other" body, be it visualization or kinestetic sensation. Experience has told me (and others), however, that for beginners in the majority of cases (there are exceptions of course) the visual and mobility senses are the most immediate to let one to immedesimate with the figure.
Best regards,
Selea.
Using any kind of senses makes it a rundown though, which is why it falls under thought communication to me now since imagery is a type of thought communication, but you at the core are speaking of the BoL being thought communication in its purest form yet explain how one can use such imagery with it also :P
Quote from: soli on May 16, 2010, 10:48:28
I'm sure it existed prior to the model of phasing. It doesn't mean it can't fall into a category of methods for phasing, which is what I was trying to do as I said before I don't like how people create one technique and don't bother explaining it and basically just say do x and y as described on a perceptive and not analytical level will happen. If people understand the core function then they can come up with their own personal x to call y that they feel fits them the best.
I understand what you mean and what you states "can" be right, however, as always, every statement possess a contradiction. As I stated in the first post it's not said that saying more and telling what really happens "behind the scenes" actually will help understand the person. Every background is different, every personal experience differs. It's not a case that usually true Magick orders give a student a personal teacher that will follow him in everything s/he does. This way the teachings are personally adjusted for the student. I make you an example: if you tell a fervent christian that the angel he is about to invoking can or can't be a real macrocosm in itself, but it can or can't be a portion of his superconscious, will he be able to still invoke the being as before? Same happens in these sort of things. If you tell a student that he should withdraw the senses from the body, will he be able to not actually think continously to his physical body now that he knows the "secret"?
In initiation real keys are always personally comprehended, you cannot reveal a real truth or a real magick "trick" in real intelligible terms for another. Sometimes the less you say and the more you actually teach. Sometimes you have also to actually blatantly lie to let a student understand.
Quote from: soli on May 16, 2010, 10:48:28
By those means any method will be done slowly at first, so I don't really see a differentiation now in thinking.. a total beginner to the BoL method will not be able to transfer their consciousness instantly, but this will not be the case in reality. What is being done slowly is the communication to the subconscious for it to understand the intent and execute it. The "switch" once the subconscious understands the intent will always be instantaneous. The same is said for phasing.
Sure. However remember the objective of my original post. It was meant as a "total beginning" view of the technique, apart being a comparision with Phasing. I've seen in many books (for example by Robert Bruce) actually trying to let understand how to make the thing work in a too forceful way. The subconscious cannot be forced, it is said that "it opens only to love". The more you force the more you obtain the contrary.
Quote from: soli on May 16, 2010, 10:48:28
Using any kind of senses makes it a rundown though, which is why it falls under thought communication to me now since imagery is a type of thought communication, but you at the core are speaking of the BoL being thought communication in its purest form yet explain how one can use such imagery with it also :P
The subconscious works by symbols, images. While you can make it understand things by thoughts (or words), it is only an alteration of the formula. It is only that it has learned in all the years of language to associate thoughts to symbols, yet the thought is never as immediate as the image behind it. It is much faster to just use the language of the subconscious to make it understand. After the will just suffice because the "order" is automatically carried.
Best regards,
Selea.
And also, please note these posts by Frank:
"...So now my projections are a million percent more controllable and all I have to do is lie back in a comfortable position and imagine myself drifting upwards."
and
"If you can just let that rising sensation continue, it will mainly be automatic from then on. As you feel that rising, chances are you will begin to see all kinds of mental imagery. Stray energy, colours, shapes, anything. In other words, there will be lots of distractions that will almost certainly snap you back at first."
You see, Frank arrived at the same steps that are explained in the BoL technique, mainly switching awareness with the sensation of rising. Actually it is one of the most easy thing to do for beginners that can actually be modified *after* one has understood and internalized the trick. The problem is that if you try to explain to a beginner the thing without any tricks, s/he will not be able to do it. At first it is needed. You can understand only what it is known to your perception till now, all you see, hear, known is filtered by your experience.
Crowley stressed that all the process is in reality a thing extremely easy to do, and in fact it is true, if approached in the right manner. Authors (unwillingly naturally) tends to create all sorts of obstacles trying to explain too much and trying to explain the "core". While in reality the "trick" of OBEs and AP are only the projection of consciousness (awareness) beyond the physical body, it is difficult to let a beginner understand really what this means, so, to do that, experience has told that the "feeling" of rising is one (if not) the best, coupled with an exteriorazation outside the physical. Phasing is, another "method" to do these transference of consciousness, awareness, focus.
Anyway as I said in the first post there are also other motives why creating a so called "Body of Light" has a different purpose. But these are advanced things. Suffice to say that this "other" body actually can become quite real after intensive use and be used for many things.
just letting you know I will reply to this but don't have enough time in the morning, reserved~