Does Religon Play a Part in Astral Travel

[smudger1767]

Merry Christmas all,

I have been pondering an idea of mine for some time know and to my astonishment I found that over 90% of people that I asked said that they had an Astral Experience due to the fact that they were religous, ( being it christian, Hindu or any of the other religons ). This fascinated me, know Im not nocking religon of any belief but correct me if Im wrong but isn't the whole astral experience about more about finding out about yourself within yourself than god or anyone else helping you. In my personal opinion I think that it seems that alot of people tend to put the reason for them having an astral experience is due to their religon.

[Xanth]

In my opinion, no.  But then I don't have even the smallest of religious bone in my body... and that DIRECTLY influences what I experience in the astral.

So, in my opinion, the only correct answer is... religion only plays as much a part in the astral as you believe it will.  Eventually, you'll need to shed certain beliefs in order to advance... religion being one of them.

[personalreality]

if you want it to

[Stillwater]

Well... I think the reason why people who are fervently religious may have mystic / projection type experiences is because they will, in the case of the east, meditate for absurdly long times, or in the case of the Abrahamic religions, will pray in a repetitive and devotional manner for so long that it often amounts to meditation as well.

When you meditate for that long, you can begin to have your focus shift from your physical existence entirely, and that opens the door to all sorts of interesting, mystical-type experiences, projection and otherwise.

It is about the state of mind that these religious devotions procure, more than anything I would suspect.

[AlanRK]

I haven't noticed any correlation between religious people and possibility of a projection, however I do think that religious people tend to interpret their experiences in the most inaccurate, inobjective, idiotic ways possible. I wouldn't advise any religious person to bother astral projecting unless they are open to changing/destroying their beliefs entirely. Encountering truth and reality and making sense of it is not for the weak of mind.

[personalreality]

mighty judgmental Alan.  lol

there isn't much difference between religion and something we consider more concrete like 'science'.  just different ways of defining the world.  both impact morality and are extremely biased to the paradigm from which they sprang, so i don't really see how religious interpretation is any different than any other interpretation.  either way it's still an individual trying to make sense of their world.  who are we to judge how they cope?

[Killa Rican]

Well it certainly can influence how you interpret it. Especially from a 3rd party perspective IF your not descriptive enough on the experience. The First time i had sleep paralysis slightly before a short OBE for the first time. I heard People and women screaming right into my ears, and it even almost sounded like some sort of "Torture". I told everyone about this even my mother(Who's an extremely evangical devout christian.)  And She told me those were people in hell being tortured and it's a sign that i should go back to church...since i hardly ever go LOL.

I took it with a grain though, because even though that was my FIRST non-physical experience, i was actually educated to the knowledge of sleep paralysis(Thank You Discovery channel) months before this experience happened so i knew that occured excactly when it was happening. If i would of never known about "Sleep Paralysis" on television then it's very likely i would of picked up on my mother's believes on the matter as well.

[CFTraveler]

Which goes to show that everyone interprets their experiences from the context of their worldview, whatever that is.
I think the key ingredient of the original post is that while many people, whether religious or materialist, have the experiences, the religious people will tend to believe they are an objectively 'real' phenomenon, while the materialists will interpret it as possibly psychological, and everyone else will be on the fence about this. 
Meanwhile, another segment consisting of some members of all of the above will believe the other ones are 'wrong' or 'deluded' and mock them, or chastise them.  The rest of us will watch and wonder.

[AlanRK]

mighty judgmental Alan.  lol

there isn't much difference between religion and something we consider more concrete like 'science'.  just different ways of defining the world.  both impact morality and are extremely biased to the paradigm from which they sprang, so i don't really see how religious interpretation is any different than any other interpretation.  either way it's still an individual trying to make sense of their world.  who are we to judge how they cope?

It is not about judging, religious people generally are just extremely terrible at interpreting experiences such as astral projection due to their mindstate. At least, I've never seen a religious person yet interpret them correctly (and yes, it is possible to interpret something wrongly or correctly, enough of this "you create your reality" crap). If a Christian woman interprets the vibrations and the split as Satan coming to reap her soul for being a naughty meditation-practising witch, then she is interpreting her experience wrongly, incorrectly, badly, whatever you want to call it. No matter how you look at it through that "you create your reality" lens, it is completely and 100% false and an absurd conclusion on her part which she wouldn't have arrived at had she been a mentally capable human being. This is a real life example I've used, by the way.

I admit I'm slightly harsh when it comes to religious or traditional people, but that is irrelevant. I can tolerate them in most facets of life, but their input on spiritual or dimensional matters are utterly worthless and I will make sure they know it. I make no apologies for being revolted by people who make the world a much more ignorant place to live.

[Stillwater]

If a Christian woman interprets the vibrations and the split as Satan coming to reap her soul for being a naughty meditation-practising witch, then she is interpreting her experience wrongly, incorrectly, badly, whatever you want to call it. No matter how you look at it through that "you create your reality" lens, it is completely and 100% false and an absurd conclusion on her part which she wouldn't have arrived at had she been a mentally capable human being. This is a real life example I've used, by the way.

Well, it was true to her, and she was the one experiencing it. Ultimately, all we have are our own personal experiences, and how we interpret them. We don't even have actual contact with the phsyical world, since everything comes to us through the port of our senses, and is transformed and interpreted many times over by our brain processes, before we directly experience them. We all exist in our own personal consciousness, and have no direct contact with anything outside.

A Don Quioxte is no less heroic merely because others do not seem to share his sense of reality. The giants he overcomes and the selfless acts he commits are every bit as laudable.

[personalreality]

no no good sir.  i'm quite intolerant of religious folks myself.

but you seem to mistake your perception for objectivity.

whether or not there is such a thing as an "objective reality" that could be correct or incorrect is irrelevant.  psychologically speaking, we perceive said reality through the context of the worldview in which we were raised or in which we identify with as CFT said.  whatever the world is, we always interpret it through our psychological filters and therefore what we perceive is never 'right' because it's always a metaphor for what's really there (if there is anything there at all).  get it?  so i'm assuming (sorry, i hate doing that) that you feel something like science is "right" because it uses objective measurement and all that jazz right?  (if not, then i really am sorry, but bear with me for the sake of an example)  well, let's say there is an objective reality and scientific measurement can legitimately measure it.  even if that is true, the researcher still has to interpret the data.  that interpretation is going to be biased by the researcher's worldview/paradigm.  another good example is ancient engineering.  we would probably never think to do things the way the ancients did because the context of their work was completely different from ours, doesn't mean either is wrong or that one is better than the other, they were just born out of different necessity.  

don't get me wrong here, i wouldn't choose the perspective of a religious person, especially when it comes to something like astral projection.  but that doesn't mean they are wrong and i am right or even that there is a right.  and i'm all for enough of this "you create your own reality" stuff, but psychologically speaking it really is true.  you are the driving force behind the way you see your reality and so your reality does indeed reflect the context of your perspective.  so you really do "create your own reality" because you have certain expectations about how you see your world and you tend to find them.

but when it comes down to it, you seem to be a do-er while i am a thinker.  you are incredibly practical and i am incredibly abstract.  see, different ways of seeing the same problem.  you may think you're right but you're not and neither am i.  it's all about finding the metaphor for reality that jives with you.

but in the end, who cares.  i really was speaking in jest earlier, not super serious.  cool.

[AlanRK]

but you seem to mistake your perception for objectivity.

I'm not. I can note a lack of objectivity when I see it, but I don't declare myself completely objective. I even said above that I am definitely biased toward dislike and aggression towards religious people. This is not objective.

whether or not there is such a thing as an "objective reality" that could be correct or incorrect is irrelevant.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? Did you really just say that the existence of true objectivity is irrelevant? Really?

 

psychologically speaking, we perceive said reality through the context of the worldview in which we were raised or in which we identify with as CFT said.  whatever the world is, we always interpret it through our psychological filters and therefore what we perceive is never 'right' because it's always a metaphor for what's really there (if there is anything there at all).  get it?

Of course, and I would never say otherwise that people in general interpret things through their own personal filters. This does not mean that actual objectivity is non-existent, though. Simply refraining from forming a conclusion on something is in itself a type of objectivity. The vast majority of opinions will be subjective.

so i'm assuming (sorry, i hate doing that) that you feel something like science is "right" because it uses objective measurement and all that jazz right?

No.

don't get me wrong here, i wouldn't choose the perspective of a religious person, especially when it comes to something like astral projection.  but that doesn't mean they are wrong and i am right or even that there is a right.

In the example I gave above, the religious woman is complete and undisputably wrong. There's no getting around that. Anyone here knows that the vibrations are not Satan's way of claiming your soul for your sins. Do I claim to know exactly what the vibrations are? No, I have no idea, not even the slightest clue, thus I am not claiming total omnipotence. I DO know, however, objectively, that the vibrations occur around the physical-astral split. This is an objective knowledge based on observation, no perspective on that same thing will contradict that. It's a highly superficial piece of knowledge, but it is true objective knowledge nonetheless.

and i'm all for enough of this "you create your own reality" stuff, but psychologically speaking it really is true.  you are the driving force behind the way you see your reality and so your reality does indeed reflect the context of your perspective.  so you really do "create your own reality" because you have certain expectations about how you see your world and you tend to find them.

And I would never say otherwise, but there are limits to that, and yes, we as individuals can choose to be objective and to shut off those filters at will. It's not easy, it requires some effort, but it's do-able. Resigning oneself to the "well objectivity is impossible so may as well regard it as irrelevant" mindset is pretty counter-productive to exploring reality. It is NOT an inevitability to live in illusions 100% of the time, as some seem to think. The "finding what you expect" thing only goes so far as well. I needn't sit here and recount just how many preconceptions I had about the astral that were quickly shattered, and continue to be shattered.

[personalreality]

yea, i don't believe in an "objective" reality.  i think objectivity is a concept that evolved as human language evolved.  it's a necessity for communication.  but when it comes down to it, there is no concrete reality that exists whether or not i am there.  i should clarify that in most cases that's not true because the collective perception of that reality by all of humanity (for example, i don't know what impact "non-living" things have or animals, etc. etc.) makes it concrete, just like an astral world held in place by the collective creation of it by the inhabitants that live there.  but in the sense of an ultimate abstract reality, no, objectivity does not exist, it would be wasteful and unnecessary. 

but i think you may have missed the point.  you kind of just circumvented my point. 

but let's just forget about that and move forward.  prove to me that vibrations are not the devil taking you away for your sins. 

i don't believe that's what's happening, but do we really know?  by saying that she is wrong, no question about it, you are claiming omnipotence even if you say you aren't.  the only way to know anything 100% is to know all the possibilities.  i just think it's either unnecessarily pretentious or just sheer ignorance to assume that because something seems so silly to you that it's impossible.

(sorry about the assumption bit, really.  i hate making assumptions, but it helped me explain my argument, but i retract it)

[AlanRK]

but let's just forget about that and move forward.  prove to me that vibrations are not the devil taking you away for your sins. 

I, and I assume you and many others here, have experienced the vibrations and we are still here, we are not smouldering in some hellfire on the whim of a great evil being. Therefore, the vibrations are not Satan whisking you away to hell for being a sinner. Now, you know that this is not proof, this is evidence based on logic and collective experiences. I don't see at all where you're going with this subjectivity stuff. If everything is so subjective, how do you even function in your daily life? How do you operate electronics like computers, not knowing if one mouseclick will open up a browser window or drop a nuke on your house? For that matter, how are you typing even now when the letters on your keyboard are so incredibly subjective that you might even be posting unintelligible collections of letters? What you are saying to me sounds like highly theoretical and abstract concepts to the point of extremities and increduility. Basically, it's all style no substance; where's the substance to these "EVERYTHING IS SUBJECTIVE IT'S SO OBVIOUS" notions?

by saying that she is wrong, no question about it, you are claiming omnipotence even if you say you aren't.

No, she is wrong, completely. It is not claiming omnipotence to state such a basic fact. This isn't even one of those cases where you can remain open-minded and think "Well, the possibility exists that she's correct...", it is completely wrong and incorrect. I am tired of discussing this already since it just seems to go around in an endless loop. I don't see at all what the point is in belief of complete and total subjectivity in everything.

the only way to know anything 100% is to know all the possibilities.

Absolutely not. I know for sure that pouring gasoline on a fire will provoke the fire. I do not know all the possibilities; what will diesel do? What will vaseline do? What will coconut juice do? I don't know, I don't care. I know for sure that pouring gasoline on a fire will feed the fire, I don't need to know all the other possibilities to know that simple fact.

i just think it's either unnecessarily pretentious or just sheer ignorance to assume that because something seems so silly to you that it's impossible.

Speaking of "unnecessarily pretentious", how about all this "everything is subjective, nothing is true, everything is false, nothing is false" philosophy? There's subjectivity within reason, there's objectivity within reason... It seems like some people here take subjectivity to extreme levels to the point where it does not reconcile at all with reality.

I think the less time I spend on this the better. It is not possible to convey something to someone who keeps invoking the rule of "everything is subjective". Therefore my above post was probably detailing the licking habits of kittens to some people, and why would I bother wasting time describing the licking habits of kittens? You can treat all my questions above as rhetorical if you wish.

[Stillwater]

I, and I assume you and many others here, have experienced the vibrations and we are still here, we are not smouldering in some hellfire on the whim of a great evil being. Therefore, the vibrations are not Satan whisking you away to hell for being a sinner.

This does not constitute proof. It is quite possible that Satan's charms work in a protean fashion, and massage away one's resistance slowly over time. Perhaps it takes thousands of projections for it to happen, but maybe it will overtime, given enough progress. Maybe that is what happened to Frank kepple.

I don't see at all what the point is in belief of complete and total subjectivity in everything.

Well, what is it about the physical world that you could claim to know? You don't know what matter looks like... it is colorless, and probably formless as well, despite the many levels of organization binding it into particular patterns. We never get to see this matter, though, only the interpretations our brains make about photons sent and reflected from it, processed several times over. Nor do we ever get to contact the matter with our minds, but merely receive signals that our body tells us originated from a point of touch or pressure. And so with all of our senses or means of gathering information about the world.

Ultimately, if you really think about it, since all we have are our sense perceptions and our self-originating ideas, there is really no ultimate proof that there even is a physical world to begin with, in the Cartesian sense. It very well may be the case, although I am not arguing that here, that we are merely minds being fed perceptions which suggest the existence of an outside world in which we all live and interact; and there is no way to know for sure whether this reality is true, or if the mundane accepted view is true; odder still, perhaps they are both true simaltaneously, in different senses.

I know for sure that pouring gasoline on a fire will provoke the fire.

Only if there is air present. Otherwise the gasoline will just put the fire out 

[Xanth]

Subjectivity of reality is a concept that's very hard to grasp.
It took me a while to figure it out as well... then it took a little while longer to figure out how it applied to my projections.

http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/welcome_to_spiritual_evolution/what_i_think_is_true_and_youre_dumb-t30656.0.html;msg255591#msg255591
That's a post where we discussed it at one point earlier this year... and my responses there as well, mirrors yours nicely.
Suffice to say that, at the time, I was very incorrect. 

[personalreality]

I think the less time I spend on this the better. It is not possible to convey something to someone who keeps invoking the rule of "everything is subjective". Therefore my above post was probably detailing the licking habits of kittens to some people, and why would I bother wasting time describing the licking habits of kittens? You can treat all my questions above as rhetorical if you wish.

cool alan.  i'm getting bored too.  we have reached an impasse.  we shall call the issue settled  

onward!

ps: i gotta say two things alan.

#1 - you're totally right.  theoretically i absolutely believe what i said i believe.  but practically speaking you are absolutely right.  gas burns, the devil isn't taking your soul away, etc.  I think it will take a much more complex technical understanding of human consciousness before we can turn the theory i believe into practical knowledge.

#2 - i greatly respect that you see when an argument has turned into circles and subsequently recognize that as the time to stop.  a lot of times, people on this forum just keep beating a dead horse, thinking that if they express their opinion just ONE MORE TIME the other person will finally get it.  i salute you good sir.

[Fresco]

Lets keep in mind religion does not = spirituality.
And believing in God does not = religion. 

[personalreality]

religion is the collective expression of spirituality.

religious people get uppity when you tell them that religion and spirituality aren't the same.  i studied that topic in a class last year.

[smudger1767]

Some very interesting views there, but I tend to agree with what CFTraveler said that if you have religeous beliefs then  you are most likley to interprut the experiences you have as mystical, if thats the right word. But I'm glad to hear that not everyone puts their experiences down to religion.

[CFTraveler]

Some very interesting views there, but I tend to agree with what CFTraveler said that if you have religeous beliefs then  you are most likley to interprut the experiences you have as mystical, if thats the right word. But I'm glad to hear that not everyone puts their experiences down to religion.

That's not exactly what I said- I said that if you already believe in the nonphysical (which is true of many religions, at least in theory,  but not all) chances are that when you have a nonphysical experience, you will believe it actually happened (objectively) instead of assuming it was a hallucination.
Most religious people don't have an idea of what mysticism is, and would deny having the experiences anyway because of social embarrassment.

I consider myself a christian, but when I first I felt vibrations I didn't think it was the devil (mainly because I don't believe in the devil) I thought it was some sort of alien abduction, to tell you the truth.
That's why I don't like characterizations about others.  Too much assuming.
------------------------------------