The Astral Pulse

I thought Raduga was teaching how-to-OBE and used his own label;
"The Phase" on OBEs, but apparently he is teaching some kind of LD
technique, which is NOT an OBE (http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/welcome_to_dreams/lds_are_not_obes-t34172.0.html) technique.

To Raduga, the Phase is all in the mind, and NOT related to physical reality,
not even a bad copy of reality.


From Raduga's book School of Out-of-Body Travel, page 159:

"For example, in the phase, it is not possible to fly around to locations in physical world,
although it may seem so, the locations that are experienced are produced within the mind.

Nor is it possible to pinch someone in the phase and then to find a bruise on the person
while in reality."


I find this very interesting, as I thought Raduga was teaching something else,
but to find that his method is more a kind of LD, unrelated to the RTZ, was an
eyeopener to me.

Raduga goes as far as invalidating Monroe's pinch!

The Phase - it is ONLY in the mind!

Makes me laugh. :)

What's with the crusade, Pauli?

Quote from: Pauli2 on July 07, 2011, 09:22:47
I thought Raduga was teaching how-to-OBE and used his own label;
"The Phase" on OBEs, but apparently he is teaching some kind of LD
technique, which is NOT an OBE (http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/welcome_to_dreams/lds_are_not_obes-t34172.0.html) technique.

What is this technique that is different from an OBE technique? You go on to quote this random guy's beliefs about the "phase" but that has nothing to do with your opening statement. It doesn't even clarify a distinction between LDs and OBEs.

Pauli, I think most of us know that AP involves both subjective and objective experience, that one can seem like the other, and that a subjective experience can be turned into an objective one with some focus and control. So what are you trying to convince us of?

There is a blog entry (http://duplicitous46xyprimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/the-phase/) made by Ulysses Ronquillo, who brings this matter into more light.
He knows some more facts and writes:

"...Michael Raduga. ... He does not believe that OBEs are real. ...
He believes that NDEs, alien abduction and all the rest are identical "simulations"."


When I read further, things may not be as clear cut as I first thought. In fact, it seems
that Raduga leaves the door open for OBEs to be real, but he holds a skeptic mind about
this issue.

(Also, some of the blog entry comments were insightful.)


Stookie_, The Phase method has attracted some attention and I am one of those who
has believed it to induce OBEs. I would have liked to know a little better exactly what
I was expected to experience in advance. And yes, I read the methods in the book last
year, but had difficulties with absorbing the content (perhaps due to translation?).

Assume the following.

* I read Monroe's JOOB, and wanted to figure out if I can have an OBE.
* I find a book, which uses the concept out-of-body.
* I start to practice the book's method.
* I'm very poor at the method and it also requires a lot of time from my side to get any kind of success.

I later find out that the creator of the method, doesn't consider OBEs to be real.
And the method, isn't it aimed at inducing LDs instead?

Would I have wanted in advance to know the foundation for the method? Certainly.
If my foundation was Monroe, and I later tried to use a method which could be
considered to be invalidating the Monroe path, I would have wanted to know that.

Stookie_, is that an answer to your question?

What he actually means is that everything is simulated. Even the reality you see in an OOBE is not the real one, which is kind of true. Hardly can someone see a person in reality exactly what he or she is doing and also to be true. You're more likely to see the thoughts from that person manifesting in your OOBE. I guess he believes that OOBEs are just a thing of the mind and nothing else. However, I believe we are somehow connected, but we cannot see exactly what's going on in reality when in the Phase.

EDIT:

QuoteI later find out that the creator of the method, doesn't consider OBEs to be real.
And the method, isn't it aimed at inducing LDs instead?

No. Just because Raduga doesn't believe OOBEs are real, it does not mean his methods are for LD's and that he has never experienced OOBEs. You do not need to believe in OOBEs to experience one. Many people have OOBEs without even having ever thought about it. I can show you how to pray to God, but I can't tell you if He is real or not, but this does not mean the method I showed you was for something else.

EDIT 2:

Also, for the last time. OOBEs do not feel like LD's, they are totally different, I agree, but they, in general, are the same one thing. The awarer you become and realize it the better your experience gets, that meaning LD's turning into OOBEs. Objectively, dreams, Ld's and OOBEs are the same one thing. Subjectively, they're not. Each of them feel totally different. It is all a pie, it only depends how much sugar you put in it.

Quote from: Pauli2 on July 07, 2011, 09:22:47To Raduga, the Phase is all in the mind

he is right, it is all (in the) mind as consciousness is the base of all realities, where's the prob?

Pretty much.
Even this physical reality happens ENTIRELY within your mind.

Everything you experience in this physical reality is just data that enters your mind via the 5 physical senses and is processed by the brain/mind/consciousness.

i dont know exactly what this phase is as i dont or havent read any books on phaseing or what ever ya call it i was lucky enough to be shown the minds abilities without the use of books and CD's...

but some of these pricks that teach how to raise energy/meditate etc in certain ways are stealing the energy/processes that one trys to do, it's like sexual energy vampires same shlt man thiefs ripping ya off...
anyway they are pretty well shut off now as work over the last few days clarifies this :-D...

BY NO-MEANS AM I MAKEING ASSUMPTIONS TO THIS PARTICULAR PROCESS!...

good luck

love all

Raduga uses the term "out of body experience" to be exactly that: an " " " EXPERIENCE.

You have to understand that he is not concretely claiming to know what it is. I have spoken to Raduga and it has come to my understanding that, from his personal experience, and the many Phasers he has come across, that he deems such experiences as PROBABLY products of the subconscious. He bases this on the fact that we literally know more than what we think we know and he holds that our minds can create environments many times better than objective reality.

He may not be a big fan of theory but he is not affirming that "it is all in the head" as the absolute truth. His experiences lead him to think it's the most likely possibility. Each one to their own, Pauli.

As for Robert Monroe...Raduga is not necessarily discrediting him. The woman Monroe pinched in the Phase was indeed bruised in actuality...but whether one of her kids pinched her while she wasn't looking or the possibility that she bruised herself prior to meeting with Monroe in order to please him is subject to debate. Even Monroe himself stated that he didn't exactly know what had taken place...

Now...recently I heard that Bedeekin has had some sort of breakthrough with the Phase state. To cut a long story short, remember my PowerPoint analogy as to how reality could be structured (inspired by Campbell's TOE)? Well, it turns out that he's been reading the TOE too and now he claims that in Slide Master, he had the "apply to all" option that allowed him to make changes to Normal View...in plain English...he reckons the nonphysical template allowed him to make direct changes to physical matter reality.

I'm dubious of his claims. Recently, I've been experiencing accurate replicas of my house - even smashed up things in my neighbours' kitchen - nothing like this happened in reality or affected the course of events in the space-time continuum in anyway, of course. Another thing I was wondering - and I'm calling Bedeekin out on this one! - if in the Phase I get Stacey's house keys from her purse (where she keeps them most of the time) and place them in the backgarden, will she suddenly say to me in waking life "honey, sometimes I put the keys outside so burglars won't find it in the house"?

I'd like to hear what other experinents he's done that made him arrive at this conclusion and have a sudden paradigm shift after 20 years of experience, or if he's just getting excited with Campbell's big toe...

I only have 3 years of experience with the Phase state...so far the only evidence I've experienced is the possibility of telepathy and precognition...never the possibility of altering physical reality.

But, me, being the open-minded sceptic that I am, will attempt to recreate such experiment...;D

The only thing that is making me want to explore this is the fact that I experienced "poltergeist activity" and was even "possessed" at the age of 7 (which coincided with my parents' turbulent relationship at the time and I've got my theories on this) - something that Bedeekin scoffed at when he first heard of it because he hadn't experienced it himself. I repeat, wish brings me back to the point I was trying to make in this thread...HE HADN'T EXPERIENCED IT.

Well, there you go...that's my two cents.

Quote from: Volgerle on July 07, 2011, 16:47:15
he is right, it is all (in the) mind as consciousness is the base of all realities, where's the prob?

I'm pretty sure he's trying to put over the idea that LDs and OBEs are clear cut, metaphysically defined states of consciousness... poorly, however, because the "it's all in the mind" debate is irrelevant to proving the theory valid.

Quote from: Ssergiu on July 07, 2011, 13:03:45
No. Just because Raduga doesn't believe OOBEs are real, it does not mean his methods are for LD's and that he has never experienced OOBEs. You do not need to believe in OOBEs to experience one. Many people have OOBEs without even having ever thought about it. I can show you how to pray to God, but I can't tell you if He is real or not, but this does not mean the method I showed you was for something else.

Spot on. Do we need to explain the difference between interpretation and truth? The latter isn't something you're going to be able to quote from a book.

BINGO, Astral!

Quote from: Summerlander on July 07, 2011, 17:56:12
Another thing I was wondering - and I'm calling Bedeekin out on this one!

Maybe you could start another thread on that subject?


Regarding Raduga's method, what's important to me, was if he's invalidating the
Monroe concept: "I'm more than my physical body."

If so, I would have liked to know that in advance of spending time on the Raduga method.
If the phase is only in the mind/brain/head, then there is no afterlife and nothing outside the
physical world. But perhaps Raduga has more to say on this matter?

Quote from: Pauli2 on July 07, 2011, 18:23:06
Maybe you could start another thread on that subject?

No. Not really. I don't think it is worthy of a thread. But I will add this though (and Bedeekin will know what I'm talking about): I've been getting a six pack too! but not because I've been listening to some "oversoul" in the Phase state. I've been working out everyday. No pain no gain! :-D

Quote from: Pauli2 on July 07, 2011, 18:23:06
Regarding Raduga's method, what's important to me, was if he's invalidating the
Monroe concept: "I'm more than my physical body."

Raduga is not even there. In fact, Raduga is very pragmatic about this and he clearly states his thoughts on this. There is no evidence for this, but, at the same time, he doesn't rule it out.

Quote from: Pauli2 on July 07, 2011, 18:23:06
If so, I would have liked to know that in advance of spending time on the Raduga method.
If the phase is only in the mind/brain/head, then there is no afterlife and nothing outside the
physical world. But perhaps Raduga has more to say on this matter?

uh...the afterlife...Raduga won't have much to tell you on this other than the fact that there is no real evidence for it (though he states that it is not his wish to disprove it). I had a lot to say on the matter though and I will show you what I posted there on the subject:

"The afterlife...hmmm...

I have been pondering over this concept for a long time now and if someone was to ask me if there is an afterlife, my answer would be: "Maybe". I can't be sure even though I experience the Phase. I suspect that, when we die, we go back to being in the same state that we were before we were born, whether existent or non-existent.

Many people fantasise about an afterlife of otherworldly exploration, contact with other beings and the eventuation of their wishes. The Phase state is often surmised to be a glimpse of the immediate afterlife even though it is very much a condition of being alive in which the brain is active - more so than the delta waves of deep dreamless sleep - and the cerebral areas associated with waking states are often found to be functional during lucidity.

If death really is the cessation of being - and thus the end of experience and cognition - then it is also the end of suffering. You won't know that you are dead, you won't know that you are not suffering, you won't know that you are not perceiving, and you won't know anything. In conclusion: there is no you!

People find this hard to imagine and some even go as far as to say that such notion is more incredible than the idea of an afterlife in the spirit realms. Some even say that non-existence makes no sense. But the truth is that we were dead before we were born, alas, we already know what death is like. This could mean that death is simply going back to the pre-birth state.

Theoretically speaking, what constitutes us becomes something else which gives rise to the possibility of rebirth. I'll use the computer analogy in that, if death means deletion of a file (sentient being), the information it contains goes in the recycle bin, where, overtime, the data that constitutes it gets reconfigured. Being absent from life or any sort of interaction is a notion that can convey a sense of much needed rest from the living perspective, but, in death, you are not even resting - you are beyond that!

When something as important as the cerebral cortex is damaged, for example, one may very easily slip into a long-term coma. Individuals who have woken up from these were oblivious to how much time had passed due to their lapse in consciousness. Because they were unaware of the time that passed while unconscious, the coma experience from their experience was losing their senses in one moment and regaining awareness the next.

Confusion manifests as soon as they become conscious and suffering usually begins when they realise how much time has passed and wonder how much they've missed and how things have changed. Their nightmare begins in consciousness and effort is required to get used to their newfound status of loss and overcome their problems. If death is the cessation of being, then it is also the end of all problems.

On the other hand, consciousness could survive death if we consider the possibility that the existence of "I" is not dependent upon brain or bodily functions and that thoughts may operate on another frequency of reality. An afterlife then, would perpetuate experience and everything that comes with it. Do we tap into this hypothetical frequency of reality when we enter the Phase or is it all an illusion produced by brain chemistry and physics? Here's an interesting story for pondering purposes:

"My stepfather Sergio was an alcoholic who developed cirrhosis. Eventually he committed suicide and I started to have a series of strange vivid dreams, one in particular where he confirmed to me that the afterlife is real. In others he seemed unhappy and appeared to carry what looked like phantom black bags attached to his torso.

Then I learned about OOBEs and I set myself the goal of making contact with him. The first contact with what seemed to be him, after having entered the Phase, seemed to show me that he was living out some fantasy in a summer landscape which looked like Portugal and the sky was deeply blue and surreal.

I had separated into what looked like my bedroom and had the urge to fly at high speed in one particular direction. I found myself in an airport hovering as a floating head. I descended into the ground and went right through it. Underground I saw people in some kind of basement and they seemed to be cooking something. Embedded in some wall, I also saw a mouse or a rat scurry past me through some passage. I wished to leave that place and found myself elsewhere. There was a room and two people asleep on a bed. I then thought that perhaps I could visit Sergio and thought about nothing but him.

I found him in the Portugal-like environment. He was driving a car really well and fast, like a kid. When he was alive he was a terrible driver. Every time he drove accidents did or almost happened. But he always wanted to drive because if he didn't he'd feel worthless as a man. My mum and him would argue over this. In my Phase experience, he drove at an incredible speed and I could feel his excitement. He swerved away from obstacles and he was in total control, it was like his own lucid dream. He also had passengers in the car which he spoke to and they seemed to admire him and his driving skills.

I saw what was happening from the outside and then I was inside the car next to his passengers. They ignored me. I was still a floating head. Then I shouted his name. He turned and looked perplexed. Then I felt this huge force pull me back before waking up. I felt as though I had been a 'ghost' in his world.

The next encounter was in a strange room and he was crying. I asked him if he was alright and he told me he regretted many things he had done when he was alive. I patted him on the back and told him that everyone makes mistakes and that no one blames him for what he did. This put a smile on his face. Then he turned to me and asked in bewilderment how was it that I could visit him. I told him about OOBEs and he seemed interested.

The next experience was a lucid dream where I was observing a great landscape from a strange room which seemed to be the top floor of a tower. The sky outside was pink. Suddenly there was a knock on the door and this took me by surprise. I did not expect to see anyone. I opened the door and a strange man, who seemed Portuguese, told me I had a visit. I looked behind him and saw Sergio. He told me he was visiting. I asked him who the other man was and he said that it didn't matter, what mattered was that he was there. The other man entered what looked like a bathroom and disappeared.

Sergio's skin was white and slightly shiny. He then told me that he would have been "42" if he was still alive. He seemed wiser, there was something about him, almost charismatic. We started talking and I can't remember what was said as it seemed like we communicated through a mixture of words and telepathy. He seemed to be getting more out of the conversation than me.

Then we started to go down some stairs which appeared to never end and descended into darkness. He suddenly stopped and stayed at the top, smiling. I continued to go down as I looked back at the same time. There was light where he was but I was descending into a dark void. Sergio remained, as if the lit area was his world, and he was not coming with me because he simply had nothing to come back to. After a falling sensation I woke up.

I knew it had been his birthday recently but didn't know how old he would have been. When I asked my mother how old he would have been she said "42". There have been other experiences but this, so far, could be interpreted as pretty convincing evidence of an afterlife. Still, the uncertainty remains. What if it was all imagined and subconsciously I already knew how old he would have been? Whether real communication with the dead in the Phase state is possible or not, nobody knows, but such experiences are certainly exhilarating, and, at times, emotionally intense."

Koi, I understand where you are coming from. I have also visited people who are alive and they either told me that I had appeared to have seen what was on their minds (their thought forms) or even slightly inaccurate replicas of what they were actually doing at the time (the Phase seemingly provided the gist) and my experience appeared to make more sense to them than me.

But we must consider that our Phase visits are subject to a wide range of interpretations. What one might consider significant, or a validation, another might see it as coincidence, and, the latter, believe it or not, happens more often than you think in general - if it didn't it would actually be weird.

Then you have the subconscious as Michael pointed out...you know more than you think you know, koi! The subconscious is like a massive storehouse and holds information that you are not even aware of - so it is possible that in my story above I already knew how old my stepfather would have been. Have a look at this possibility too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptomnesia

I am not trying to disprove the possibility of an afterlife, by the way, but I am trying to get everyone to consider all possible venues and I know exactly where Michael is coming from. Whatever the truth, just enjoy the experiences. You can try to see if you can manipulate the speech of a dead relative or even change their appearance in the Phase - which would be indicative that it is your creation, or, regard such presences as being the spirits of the dead and treat them accordingly. Your choice."

Then again, in some cases, there has been no measurable brain activity and the individuals reported HD NDEs when, in theory, if it was all in the head, they should have been unconscious as there was less activity than in delta (deep sleep). On the other hand, bursts of energy have been observed in the brain a few minutes after an individual has died. Perhaps the "spiritual experiences" manifest and only last for the duration of those bursts. I don't know. Quite frankly, I don't care. If death is the cessation of being, so be it.

Quote from: Pauli2 on July 07, 2011, 18:23:06
Maybe you could start another thread on that subject?


Regarding Raduga's method, what's important to me, was if he's invalidating the
Monroe concept: "I'm more than my physical body."

If so, I would have liked to know that in advance of spending time on the Raduga method.
If the phase is only in the mind/brain/head, then there is no afterlife and nothing outside the
physical world. But perhaps Raduga has more to say on this matter?

The point here is *YOU CAN'T EVER KNOW*.

You're asking for a definable TRUTH... a 100% guaranteed TRUTH.

I'm sorry Pauli, but if you're looking for something absolutely concrete, I HIGHLY SUGGEST you stop learning to astral project and take up knitting.

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_9GvL_-hSLXg/SoXqRtE1b-I/AAAAAAAAAIc/KGpeXke34jY/s200/judgeJudy_258x280.jpg)

QuoteThe point here is *YOU CAN'T EVER KNOW*.

You're asking for a definable TRUTH... a 100% guaranteed TRUTH.

I'm sorry Pauli, but if you're looking for something absolutely concrete, I HIGHLY SUGGEST you stop learning to astral project and take up knitting.

:-D

Look, Pauli2, you are free to believe in whatever you want, but, just don't let your beliefs blind you and be willing to consider other possibilities. You may find yourself more at easy as you are not clinging so much to a view mainly for comfort. Remember the proverbial Indian story about the blind men and an elephant? It's a bit like that...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not discussing you in particular. This goes for everybody out there. There have been a lot of arguments lately. People have different versions of looking at the truth. If you want to believe that OOBEs and lucid dreams are different, so be it (to keep it to the topic).

If you want to believe that Raduga's techniques induce lucid dreams only, go for it, but remember that Monroe describes a similar technique - and even mentions a nap/sleep as a primer - in his first book. Do you consider Monroe's experiences to have just been lucid dreams from his first book? Because that is pretty much the technique that Raduga mainly teaches and promotes with a few extras as boosters.

The term "Phase" used there is a broad term which literally means OOBE/AP/LD. It is not to be mistaken as an experience employing the "phasing" technique - although the term Phase clearly comes from Monroe. Raduga doesn't actually say "we're phasing". He says "we are entering the Phase". The Phase term is used to describe the experience, which, in my humble opinion, is exactly the same as what you get when you use the phasing technique.

What is your view on this?

My view is today, that Raduga's "indirect technique" requires u to NOT move after having waked up.

Monroe's old technique was to induce direct OBE, but Monroe said in one (or more) radio interview(s)
that the Condition A, B, C, D technique is not done like that at TMI anymore.

So...

Raduga's technique seems more about going back to sleep in LD, while Monroe's is about directly
getting the astral body move free.

Finally, if the foundation of a technique seems wrong, I would avoid that technique.

Quote from: Xanth on July 07, 2011, 19:10:12
The point here is *YOU CAN'T EVER KNOW*.

You're asking for a definable TRUTH... a 100% guaranteed TRUTH.

I'm sorry Pauli, but if you're looking for something absolutely concrete, I HIGHLY SUGGEST you stop learning to astral project and take up knitting.

thats a statement of someone with very little depth of knowledge (insight) of the workings of various processes...

then what you can say is that i clearly said i dont know what phaseing is, hay thats a fair comment, but if i could be bothered i would know...

everything can be matched to see what is what and what does what, full proof, hold in any court of law...

ya wont ever get a job with us man, but you already knew that :wink:...

good luck

love all

Quote from: Pauli2 on July 07, 2011, 20:28:21
My view is today, that Raduga's "indirect technique" requires u to NOT move after having waked up.

Which is a very effective way to easily gain access to the non-physical.

Choose to not believe it all you want, but many people have had success with it. 
All you're doing is cutting yourself off from a method/exercise that could potentially help you.  That's YOUR loss.

QuoteMonroe's old technique was to induce direct OBE, but Monroe said in one (or more) radio interview(s)
that the Condition A, B, C, D technique is not done like that at TMI anymore.

So...

Raduga's technique seems more about going back to sleep in LD, while Monroe's is about directly
getting the astral body move free.

Finally, if the foundation of a technique seems wrong, I would avoid that technique.

It's all perspective, Pauli.

I simply don't understand how anyone can see these things as separate experiences.  THAT is what blows my mind.

Quote from: Pauli2 on July 07, 2011, 20:28:21
My view is today, that Raduga's "indirect technique" requires u to NOT move after having waked up.

Monroe's old technique was to induce direct OBE, but Monroe said in one (or more) radio interview(s)
that the Condition A, B, C, D technique is not done like that at TMI anymore.

So...

Raduga's technique seems more about going back to sleep in LD, while Monroe's is about directly
getting the astral body move free.

Finally, if the foundation of a technique seems wrong, I would avoid that technique.

Actually, Monroe said that Condition D is best achieved after a nap or sleep, ideally in the morning. It can be induced from a rested/refreshed state. Raduga says the same thing. Raduga also promotes the deferred method, which is the "wake back to bed" way (you wake up, get up and walk around to curb the sleep inertia symptoms, and then you go down a little later to induce).

The results are the same, Pauli. You either prime yourself with some sort of sleep and then induce later from a hypnagogic state that comes to you quicker than usual...OR...you wake up in the morning after a night's sleep, recognise that you have woken up, and remain still in order to enter the Phase from the hypnopompic state.

The result is the same thing to me. I see no difference and I have experimented with both several times. Once again, the term "OOBE", which was popularised by authors such as Monroe as an alternative to the belief-centric "Astral Projection", is only a term that describes what the experience feels like - it doesn't affirm in any way that we truly leave our bodies.

Now, DILDs and WILDs can be regarded as OOBEs too in the sense that, once you enter the dreamworlds, you have the sensation that you are not lying in bed any more. You feel as though you are out-of-body so to speak. WILDs can recreate the OOBE scenario purely from expectation. I don't see any difference between the two. Also, I'd like to add that, my experience has taught me that, in the Phase (OOBE/AP/LD), space is illusory like everything else in that reality. It is made of thought. Your movement is a thought. Objects are made of thought there. Distance is a thought. It is the realm of thoughts. It feels actual once you are fully focused there because you have altered your consciousness to match and absorb that perspective. It may emulate physical reality but they are thoughts.

In conclusion, when you shift yourself to separate from the body, you are not really moving (in the actual sense of covering physical realm distance). You are not really separating from the body because you are in the realm of thoughts and thought is action there. When you enter the Phase state, however you perceive the entrance, you are always changing the phase relationship between yourself and your surroundings...hence the term "phasing" being born. I thought I was separating from the body too, at the beginning...but then I observed certain things in the Phase environments such as turning 3D distances into flat 2D surfaces that I could rip apart like a Salvador Dali canvas...or entering paintings on walls to find myself in 3D versions of those paintings...the physical realm rules don't exist there unless you want them or expect them to exist. Period.

As far as I can tell, from experience, OOBEs and lucid dreams - although often conveying different entrances into the Phase - are basically the same thing.

Quote from: Xanth on July 07, 2011, 23:18:02
Which is a very effective way to easily gain access to the non-physical.

Choose to not believe it all you want, but many people have had success with it. 
All you're doing is cutting yourself off from a method/exercise that could potentially help you.  That's YOUR loss.
It's all perspective, Pauli.

I simply don't understand how anyone can see these things as separate experiences.  THAT is what blows my mind.

as a by stander or lets call it a jury to this scenario and heard/read alot of evidence on both sides more so yours xanth because i know pauli2 practises PUL and you clearly do not, therefore i dont pick his/hers work/post apart like yours, i have to say as many now know the more PUL ya have the more higher in consciousness ya become the higher in consciousness you are the more knowledge/wisdom MINDS ABILITIES/Qualifications you have, this is clearly spelt out in the gradeing/level/test- schooling of the minds abilities/knowledge/wisdom, practise PUL you are clearly higher in consciousness/knowledge/wisdom/minds abilities than someone who does not practise PUL, PUL = higher grade of mentality/knowledge/wisdom = higher Qualifications...

this here is inarguable/indisputable of how to get to the higher knowledge/wisdom/minds abilities, it's a schooling and will hold up in any court ruleing/system :-D...

http://thewayitisether.wordpress.com/existencedimensionsladder-love-all/
and
http://thewayitisether.wordpress.com/summary-of-ladder-of-consciousnessdimensions-2/

so therefore in a court of law your word would be like a mentally retarded 3 year old giveing a diagnosis of someone's psychological stataus/evaluation as against someone with 40 years of experience in the field of psychiatry...

good luck man with your supreme mis-guided tours

love all man love all :wink:

hay SL isnt lucid dream more like projection i always interpreted dreams to be like projection not OBe i know with my dealings with people that have written books on the subjects also agree with this...

to me projection is when ya see ya body in the plains/realms what ever ya want to call it doin it's thing...
i also know whilst OBe whilst driveing a car 100/110 km/h, i can see what i'm doing in an OBe conscious state from my Obe non-physical body and all so see my non-physical body in a conscious state from my physical body doing the required task at a close distance whilst driveing safely of course...
contradictory?, No...
i just worked something out so i'll leave it their...
now i got to work how to test peoples knowledge on this so i can see their developement, so as they too can OBe/AP whilst driveing a car safely...
the above link will help ya get their...

good luck

love all

Pauli, lemme ask you this... what if those authors are wrong?  I mean, sure, they have their published books (a fact that is meaningless to me, I've learned more from unpublished people than published)... they have their own experiential data to draw from.  Then we have the other side of the discussion...

But really, we all have to keep an open mind about *ALL* of this stuff.  I haven't seen any evidence that shows conclusively one way or the other... HOWEVER, my own direct experiences have pushed me off the fence into one distinct direction on the subject.

So really... Pauli, what happens if your authors are wrong? 
And what effect will that have upon your practices of Astral Projection?

Quote from: Xanth on July 08, 2011, 11:05:44So really... Pauli, what happens if your authors are wrong? 
And what effect will that have upon your practices of Astral Projection?

(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lfptyjeU2e1qbj46wo1_400.gif)

ROFL! Nice  :evil:

LD, OBE, Phase - They're just words. Since we cant agree what the words mean, they mean whatever you want them to.

If you think they're the same thing then they are. If you dont then they arent.

But they're all real. Everything is real. My thoughts are real. My visualisations are real. They exist. I might not know where they exist but they exist.

Just wanted to expand on Tom's quote from the other thread with the second part that was (conveniently) left out...

QuoteTom: They are fundamentally very similar. The main differences are generated by nature of the entry (from uninterrupted awareness or from unconsciousness) and the nature of belief attached to each entry process."

So the main difference is whether you become aware before or after entry into non-physical and the BELIEFS attached to each.

So Campbell is not a member of this bandwagon.

Thank you Astral316 for pointing that particular misquote out.  :)
It certainly does seem to point out contrary to Pauli's opinion.

By the way, I tried the experiment where non-physical reality affects physical. I entered the Phase and asked my "oversoul" to give me a six pac and make me look sexier. It worked. I woke up with a six pack coming through and bulging muscles:

(http://i1003.photobucket.com/albums/af154/Arlindobatista/sixpac.jpg)

:-D

You scare me sometimes Summerlander.  ;)

In any case... I was just thinking that even if, one day, they prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that astral projection is "fake"... y'know what?  I'd STILL practice it... because I know it has value "TO ME".  Even if that value is being able to fly around a "mind version" of the earth.  It's an absolutely FANTASTIC sensation.

However, this thread, and the others like it which you've created Pauli, have only served to strengthen what I already know to be true.  So in a way, I should be thanking you.  ;)

Quote from: Xanth on July 08, 2011, 18:28:52
You scare me sometimes Summerlander.  ;)

In any case... I was just thinking that even if, one day, they prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that astral projection is "fake"... y'know what?  I'd STILL practice it... because I know it has value "TO ME".  Even if that value is being able to fly around a "mind version" of the earth.  It's an absolutely FANTASTIC sensation.

However, this thread, and the others like it which you've created Pauli, have only served to strengthen what I already know to be true.  So in a way, I should be thanking you.  ;)

I totally agree with you. Movies are not real either, but we still watch them. We like to create and OOBEs are the best way as we have no limits.

Quote from: Summerlander on July 08, 2011, 18:10:11
By the way, I tried the experiment where non-physical reality affects physical. I entered the Phase and asked my "oversoul" to give me a six pac and make me look sexier. It worked. I woke up with a six pack coming through and bulging muscles:

(http://i1003.photobucket.com/albums/af154/Arlindobatista/sixpac.jpg)

:-D

Wow that looks like some sort of super hero, maybe superman :-D...
private joke man...
mm not really that private...

good luck

love all

Quote from: Ssergiu on July 08, 2011, 18:37:21
I totally agree with you. Movies are not real either, but we still watch them. We like to create and OOBEs are the best way as we have no limits.

Well really, the problem is what the average person considers "real".

It comes down to this... ANYTHING YOU EXPERIENCE IS REAL.

QuoteIt comes down to this... ANYTHING YOU EXPERIENCE IS REAL.

+1

A movie is a real thing. Unless it's a pretend movie - like if I lied to you and said that I made a film when I didnt.

I'm not a REAL superhero...just in my mind...which makes it real  :-D
To conclude: Raduga's Phase is both LD-ing and OBE! :evil:

Quote from: Summerlander on July 09, 2011, 19:36:58
I'm not a REAL superhero...just in my mind...which makes it real  :-D
To conclude: Raduga's Phase is both LD-ing and OBE! :evil:

Well, honestly... that statement is really as asinine as Pauli's original statement.

Truth is, nobody knows.
But the fact is that we're experiencing something... and if whatever we experience "IS REAL", then what that something is we're experiencing is, regardless of what/where/how it is, is also "real".  :)

There's no sense to say or believe one side over the other... just remain skeptically open regarding everything.

Quote from: Summerlander on July 09, 2011, 19:36:58
I'm not a REAL superhero...just in my mind...which makes it real  :-D

dont tell the pshchs (doctors) that :wink:...
otherwise i would have to tell the psychs about my super powers and my plane of dominanation of the world and the worlds power for all times so as to free ya from the psych ward after of course shareing with them how i come about of world domination of the worlds power...

http://thewayitisether.wordpress.com/existencedimensionsladder-love-all/
http://thewayitisether.wordpress.com/summary-of-ladder-of-consciousnessdimensions-2/

as ya can see that it is indisputable :-D...

good luck

love all

Quote from: Summerlander on July 07, 2011, 17:56:12
Now...recently I heard that Bedeekin has had some sort of breakthrough with the Phase state. To cut a long story short, remember my PowerPoint analogy as to how reality could be structured (inspired by Campbell's TOE)? Well, it turns out that he's been reading the TOE too and now he claims that in Slide Master, he had the "apply to all" option that allowed him to make changes to Normal View...in plain English...he reckons the nonphysical template allowed him to make direct changes to physical matter reality.

The way you put it is not exactly how it works.

Firstly to change something in a "plane" you have to change them in the "plane" and using the "body" just above the ones you want to change. So, in the case of the physical plane, you must change them in the "etheric" plane using the "etheric" body. The more "far" the "plane" and the "body" used is from the plane you want to affect the more the change is dilated in time and the more indirect the effect it is.

Secondly changes are never immediate to the point of being coincidental and then they don't work *directly*. For example: you break a bottle in the "etheric" plane using the "etheric" body. What it can happens (and not always, there are various factors, most of them I don't personally know yet) is that later (variable, let's say a day after in this case) in the physical plane something happens (as your child hurting the table where the bottle is in) that will cause the bottle to break. You don't affect "matter" directly, but indirectly. In short words, it happens working and looking as a "coincidence".

So, you see, if you mix the two things up you can understand that in a "common" experience (as the one you can have normally, using for example a sleep method without nothing else) the dilatation in time and the indirectness of the events will be so large that you could never discern real coincidence from supposed not so. For example, in the case of the bottle, it will happen (as it happens anyway, however) that the content of the bottle will be drunk, the bottle put in the recycle bin and then broken later, along the other trash when compacted.

Quote from: Summerlander on July 08, 2011, 07:22:17
The results are the same, Pauli. You either prime yourself with some sort of sleep and then induce later from a hypnagogic state that comes to you quicker than usual...OR...you wake up in the morning after a night's sleep, recognise that you have woken up, and remain still in order to enter the Phase from the hypnopompic state.

The result is the same thing to me. I see no difference and I have experimented with both several times. Once again, the term "OOBE", which was popularised by authors such as Monroe as an alternative to the belief-centric "Astral Projection", is only a term that describes what the experience feels like - it doesn't affirm in any way that we truly leave our bodies.

You didn't experience, however, what it happens with full concentration using a *direct* consciousness transfer method, directly from an awake state.

While the "truth" if the experience is anyway in your head (i.e. there's no "separation" at all) or not it's impossible to have (and neither personally I care) the result seems to be (either completely) different. Some of the diffferences I already described to you. Another difference is that the "separation" seems objective. If it is, really, it doesn't matter. What matters is that what you can do and the things you can experience are different in this case.

Also in the case of using hypnotic methods the experience seems to have some differences. Raduga didn't experiment in those two things. If you will do, you will discover that there are changes, both in the simil "objectivity" of the separation, and on the results you can have in there, both from an external (meaning the "planes" you enter and the way you can interact in them) and both in the "bodies" you can use.

If these differences are objectively real or not, if you really leave your body or not it's not important, at last for me, above all because nobody will probably ever know for sure, no matter what, so all in all I think that trying to intellectualy appurate if one of the two hypothesis is more "real" that the other it is just a waste of time better spent on working with what you experience.

QuoteYou didn't experience, however, what it happens with full concentration using a *direct* consciousness transfer method, directly from an awake state.

Oh yes I have, my friend. I have experienced it during the day and wasn't even primed on a few occasions. The result: it took ages for me to get into the state and the result, once I entered the Phase, was the metaphysical environment or that which appears to be the physical realm (see my Mode 1 and Mode 2 terms in my sticky).

QuoteThe way you put it is not exactly how it works.

Firstly to change something in a "plane" you have to change them in the "plane" and using the "body" just above the ones you want to change. So, in the case of the physical plane, you must change them in the "etheric" plane using the "etheric" body. The more "far" the "plane" and the "body" used is from the plane you want to affect the more the change is dilated in time and the more indirect the effect it is.

Secondly changes are never immediate to the point of being coincidental and then they don't work *directly*. For example: you break a bottle in the "etheric" plane using the "etheric" body. What it can happens (and not always, there are various factors, most of them I don't personally know yet) is that later (variable, let's say a day after in this case) in the physical plane something happens (as your child hurting the table where the bottle is in) that will cause the bottle to break. You don't affect "matter" directly, but indirectly. In short words, it happens working and looking as a "coincidence".

So, you see, if you mix the two things up you can understand that in a "common" experience (as the one you can have normally, using for example a sleep method without nothing else) the dilatation in time and the indirectness of the events will be so large that you could never discern real coincidence from supposed not so. For example, in the case of the bottle, it will happen (as it happens anyway, however) that the content of the bottle will be drunk, the bottle put in the recycle bin and then broken later, along the other trash when compacted.

You have just done me a favour and proved my point as to why Bedeekin didn't do what he said he did! :-D
Bedeekin does not approve of this model of looking at things where you have ethereal, astral, mental etc. - he despises it. The way he described how he "succeeded" in his experiment is contradictory to what you are saying there...

Also, when you say "the way you put it is not exactly how it works" doesn't say much to me because you yourself admit that you don't know exactly how it works. I don't think anyone does really. All I see is models of chakras, energies, higher planes, lower planes and other narrow-minded anthopological views and theories that do nothing but amuse me... :lol:

Even this Campbell guy...he is preaching something similar...only he uses different lingo. :roll:

Quote from: Xanth on July 09, 2011, 20:01:43
Well, honestly... that statement is really as asinine as Pauli's original statement.

No, it's not. Because it's a joke. :-D

Quote from: Summerlander on July 10, 2011, 15:01:10
Oh yes I have, my friend. I have experienced it during the day and wasn't even primed on a few occasions. The result: it took ages for me to get into the state and the result, once I entered the Phase, was the metaphysical environment or that which appears to be the physical realm (see my Mode 1 and Mode 2 terms in my sticky).

No, it's not the same thing.

Let me see if I can explain the differences in the approaches better.

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

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

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

Phasing can be both approach one or approach two. Usually it depends on how you approach the method when you use it. Since you said it took you a "lot of time" it means that it was probably a "masked" approach one, starting from an awake status (as in Buhlman, for example, or usually WILDs). Then, if in approach two you use a "scenery" to keep your consciousness outside the physical the "separation" is in the background, your attention is not focused on it, so you can either not notice it (also if sometimes you feel literally "sucked" in, as in a vacuum). If instead you use a "point shift" (as Robert Bruce calls it, and I use this term because you probably have a theoric background on it so you can know what it means) then the "separation" is felt strong and objective.

Now, the different approaches also changes, apart the "feeling" of separation, both the results and type of experiences you can have, especially using a point shift for approach two or using approach three.

Quote from: Summerlander on July 10, 2011, 15:01:10
You have just done me a favour and proved my point as to why Bedeekin didn't do what he said he did! :-D
Bedeekin does not approve of this model of looking at things where you have ethereal, astral, mental etc. - he despises it. The way he described how he "succeeded" in his experiment is contradictory to what you are saying there...

What he approves and not approves has nothing to do with this. People are capable of doing things that they don't either consciously know they exists, especially when using the subconscious. You can enter the experience called "etheric body" also if you don't believe or not care about it, if some circumstances (lucky, for the most part, if you don't know what you are doing) are right.

Then how did he described what he did? It can be just that you are reading it in a literary way or that maybe he didn't explain correctly what happened because he probably neither acknowledged it fully because he probably didn't either know what to look for. For example he could have changed something in the "astral" only to find it changed in the physical later, and in the meantime an indirect effect caused the result, without him knowing it and not looking for it.

Quote from: Summerlander on July 10, 2011, 15:01:10
Also, when you say "the way you put it is not exactly how it works" doesn't say much to me because you yourself admit that you don't know exactly how it works.

No, I said that I don't know personally what are the full parameters for always making the experiment succeed (or if it is even possible to have a 100% success there), but this is a separate issue from knowing the structure of the result and what it happens when you succeed in there

Quote from: Summerlander on July 10, 2011, 15:01:10
I don't think anyone does really. All I see is models of chakras, energies, higher planes, lower planes and other narrow-minded anthopological views and theories that do nothing but amuse me... :lol:

It doesn't matter what these things are, but how they seems to work. The "astral" seems to work in "planes" and the body seems to have different "levels" on where to work upon. If those are really planes and levels in the objective sense who knows and, at last for me, who cares.

Ok, mate! You've expressed your view - which may or may not be accurate/the truth. But there are so many ways of looking at something because we are all individuals. I won't provide a counter-argument for some of the things you said otherwise we may end up locking horns again and you are entitled to your own opinion. But fair comment in that people may stumble upon certain actions and succeed in doing things without necessarily understanding them.

Maybe, as of late, Bedeekin may have gone through a paradigm shift where he's more accepting of the etheric, astral, mental layers of existence and their corresponding bodies, I don't know...if he is, I guess he's more inclined to use Campbell's terminology.

If you are interested in what he said in regards to his experiment, you may find it on Astral Viewers. I won't post it here in case he decides to sue me. If you don't find it, I can PM it to you. And no, he is not my friend as you implied before, btw! ;D

One thing I wanted to add. Bedeekin believes that there is a separate consciousness that permeates the physical, which is different to the metaphysical one. Hence he's categorised OOBEs in this manner: 1st phase = RTZ zone; 2nd phase = astral.

I have also made these distinctions (like Monroe, Kepple, Bruce) and many others did. I noticed certain differences but...and a big but...where Bedeekin BELIEVES they are two separate types of consciousness...I remain sceptical. So far I still consider the strong possibility that both types are the same and linked to different areas of the brain. Mode 1, using my terms here, could be an accurate simulation of the left brain hemisphere...and Mode 2 would be more of a left brain product.

This is the current postulation I have in mind which I more readily accept than the theory that we leave our bodies and travel to lower and higher realms of existence. You need to understand, Selea, that what Bruce and Campbell preach, the latter which Bedeekin swallowed because it sounded good to him, isn't something whose existence has been established. This is why the many-worlds interpretation isn't the only one in the quantum theory zoo.

This is why I'm not jumping excitedly at the prospect of an afterlife of heavens and hells...

Quote from: Summerlander on July 11, 2011, 10:14:03
This is the current postulation I have in mind which I more readily accept than the theory that we leave our bodies and travel to lower and higher realms of existence. You need to understand, Selea, that what Bruce and Campbell preach, the latter which Bedeekin swallowed because it sounded good to him, isn't something whose existence has been established.

Never said they are, in fact. I said it *seems* (or it gives the illusion) to work in that way, in practice, nothing more. How it *really* works, nobody knows.

In fact, I don't even like to theorize on it, just for this. I use some terms instead of others because I prefer them on the fact that they are more exhaustive in explaining what it seems to happen, and also because, in words, you have to use a terminology so that others can understand what you are saying, but not because I believe in them or think them true in the literal sense.

Yes, I know what you are saying. I guess we share theories here because it is something to talk about - which is relevant to the main Forum topic -  and once in a while it is good to try to establish some sort of understanding or in the least share ideas.

Quote from: Summerlander on July 12, 2011, 16:13:02
Yes, I know what you are saying. I guess we share theories here because it is something to talk about - which is relevant to the main Forum topic -  and once in a while it is good to try to establish some sort of understanding or in the least share ideas.

I find that an important skill to have, whether it's discussing stuff on a forum or reading a book, is to be able to identify the terms and metaphors that other people use and match them up to your own if such a metaphor exists within your realm of understanding.  Then you can interact with people on their terms, which makes things a hell of a lot easier and less volatile.  :)

Hehe, what I meant by the movie thing is that even unreal things can be interesting and interesting. Wolverine is not real, but his story may be interesting and it does not mean I am not going to read it cause he does not actually exist.

Anyway, maybe Pauli will like this, since math is amazing, LD's = OOBEs.  :-D

It's as easy as 2+2. :-D

Quote from: Ssergiu on July 12, 2011, 16:53:22
Anyway, maybe Pauli will like this, since math is amazing, LD's = OOBEs.  :-D

Well, according to my experience, they seems to be not. So called LDs require REM (or either nREM), so called OBEs not.

There are also studies that share this point of view:

"Many OBEs take place when the person is wide awake, and physiological studies show that experimental OBEs are associated with a relaxed waking state similar to drownsiness, but not deep sleep and certainly not REM sleep". (S. Blackmore)

The main difference seems to be on the way the experience is produced. Blanke has made some studies within, where OBEs can be produced from a full awake state if a vestibular sensation is stimulated outside the boundaries of the body.

But apart theorizations, the differences, apart technical, are in the experience produced and what you can do in there.

Following Raduga methods you can reach the experience only with sleep, so you have no other references to compare the experience to. Then the experiences can either be the same (also if they look different in practice in many points, but they can be so only in appearance) but Pauli is right on the fact that Raduga has not enough parameters to declare the thing one way or the other, since he uses only a way to approach the experience, and that way is not what the term "OBE" really encompass.

So him saying "I've *proven* they are all the same" it's a litte presumptuos at best, since he experienced only a part of the question.

QuoteSo him saying "I've *proven* they are all the same" it's a litte presumptuos at best, since he experienced only a part of the question.

Or did he? You can have OOBEs from REM too, from SP. However, as Xanth said it depends on what's taking over, the conscious or subconscious. OOBE's would not require REM because you enter consciously the state. When you go in an LD you are unconscious and need to realize it is a dream. Of course an LD will never feel like an OOBE. OOBEs feel real, 3D and so on. But if they are total different phenomena, what's the big difference? 

I would have like some of these post moved to the now locked thread, as these posts don't
belong in a thread discussing Raduga's Phase method. They simple don't fit the thread subject.

Quote from: Selea on July 13, 2011, 02:08:47
But apart theorizations, the differences, apart technical, are in the experience produced and what you can do in there.

Some people have been tooting that... but in MY experience, the experience produced is only different due to the type of mind you have active (conscious or subconscious, or some combination of the two) and what you can do in the experience is identical to both.

So I'm interested to know, in your opinion what's different about the "experience produced" and what can you do in one experience that you can not do in the other?

Quote from: Xanth on July 08, 2011, 11:05:44
Pauli, lemme ask you this... what if those authors are wrong?  I mean, sure, they have their published books (a fact that is meaningless to me, I've learned more from unpublished people than published)... they have their own experiential data to draw from.  Then we have the other side of the discussion...

But really, we all have to keep an open mind about *ALL* of this stuff.  I haven't seen any evidence that shows conclusively one way or the other... HOWEVER, my own direct experiences have pushed me off the fence into one distinct direction on the subject.

So really... Pauli, what happens if your authors are wrong? 
And what effect will that have upon your practices of Astral Projection?

Pauli, I was wondering if you could provide a quick answer for my above question I asked you that you missed.  :)

Quote from: Selea on July 13, 2011, 02:08:47
Well, according to my experience, they seems to be not. So called LDs require REM (or either nREM), so called OBEs not.

There are also studies that share this point of view:

"Many OBEs take place when the person is wide awake, and physiological studies show that experimental OBEs are associated with a relaxed waking state similar to drownsiness, but not deep sleep and certainly not REM sleep". (S. Blackmore)

The main difference seems to be on the way the experience is produced. Blanke has made some studies within, where OBEs can be produced from a full awake state if a vestibular sensation is stimulated outside the boundaries of the body.

But apart theorizations, the differences, apart technical, are in the experience produced and what you can do in there.

Following Raduga methods you can reach the experience only with sleep, so you have no other references to compare the experience to. Then the experiences can either be the same (also if they look different in practice in many points, but they can be so only in appearance) but Pauli is right on the fact that Raduga has not enough parameters to declare the thing one way or the other, since he uses only a way to approach the experience, and that way is not what the term "OBE" really encompass.

So him saying "I've *proven* they are all the same" it's a litte presumptuos at best, since he experienced only a part of the question.

Selea...Susan Blackmore knows jack. Also, it could still be the same thing but just a matter of using the left or the right parts of the brain. By the way, try to tell that to Bedeekin with the sleep method when he clearly induces both Mode 1 and Mode 2 by employing pre-sleep. :-D

OOBEs/AP/LD (the Phase - to use the broad term) happen in REM! They do not happen in delta sleep! Dreams that happen outside of the REM stage are vague and thoughts-like.

Here's something relevant from that Lucidity link:

"The vivid body and world of the OBE is made possible by our brain's marvellous ability to create fully convincing images of the world, even in the absence of sensory information. This process is witnessed by each of us every night in our dreams. Indeed, all dreams could be called OBEs in that in them we experience events and places quite apart from the real location and activity of our bodies."

Also, OOBEs can be triggered from SP, which indicates the transition into REM sleep, and hence muscle atonia is activated to prevents us from acting out our...DREAMS! 8-)

I think you also need to revise my posts in the other LD versus OBE thread that Pauli2 opened. Sheesh... :roll:

Quote from: Selea on July 13, 2011, 02:08:47The main difference seems to be on the way the experience is produced. Blanke has made some studies within, where OBEs can be produced from a full awake state if a vestibular sensation is stimulated outside the boundaries of the body.

Just like Blackmore, Blanke is mere close-minded pseudo-science. And no, if you look closely, in one experiment (see link where we discussed it) they did NOT even re-create OBEs or APs, rather they created mere optical/tactile illusions, with computers and cyberspace goggles. Brain stimulation can of course bring Altered States of Consciousness, but so can drugs, meditation. The problem is that we have to differentiate between the INDUCTION/TRIGGER of an altered state and the EXPERIENCE itself.

http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/welcome_to_out_of_body_experiences/obes_just_a_product_of_a_confused_mind-t33253.0.html;msg274017#msg274017

Quote from: Summerlander on July 13, 2011, 15:55:35
OOBEs/AP/LD (the Phase - to use the broad term) happen in REM! They do not happen in delta sleep!

Too bad that you are wrong. In Monroe's own words, at 5:30 - 6:40 in this radio interview,
OBE to Focus 23 - Focus 27 has brain waves resembling delta sleep (stage 4):

Monroe about - OBEs with brain waves resembling delta sleep (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUkh1gIBl08&feature=related)

Real OBEs, not REM sleep LDs.

Pauli, have you ruled out *ALL* other possibilities then?

As I asked you above that you plainly ignored... what happens to you if your authors are wrong?

Quote from: Ssergiu on July 13, 2011, 05:13:38
Or did he? You can have OOBEs from REM too, from SP.

Those are not what I consider true OBEs.

Quote from: Ssergiu on July 13, 2011, 05:13:38
Of course an LD will never feel like an OOBE. OOBEs feel real, 3D and so on. But if they are total different phenomena, what's the big difference? 

The difference is what you can do in them.

Quote from: Xanth on July 13, 2011, 09:13:55
Some people have been tooting that... but in MY experience, the experience produced is only different due to the type of mind you have active (conscious or subconscious, or some combination of the two) and what you can do in the experience is identical to both.

If the "type of mind" is different the experience cannot be identical. Naturally to notice this difference you have to do something specific when you are "out" and not having a sort of passive approach on the experience, or you will probably not notice it, not "utilizing" it.

For example the demarcation of the "planes" is much more evident in OBEs, as it is the ability to be in control of what it happens.

It is difficult for me to relate the differences to you because I dont' know specifically what you do and don't do when you are "out", so we can have a completely different terminology. Depending on what you "do" the the differences can be, indeed, none (or almost none), or a lot.

Quote from: Summerlander on July 13, 2011, 15:55:35
Selea...Susan Blackmore knows jack. Also, it could still be the same thing but just a matter of using the left or the right parts of the brain. By the way, try to tell that to Bedeekin with the sleep method when he clearly induces both Mode 1 and Mode 2 by employing pre-sleep. :-D

I already discussed the approaches before, it seems to me, and their differences, isn't it? What you call pre-sleep it's always a sleep method as in approach one.  

Then I used S. Blackmore quote to evidentiate the differences from a purely ECG patter view. That quote was just coming from evidence from physiological studies as by Tart, Blanke etc.

Quote from: Summerlander on July 13, 2011, 15:55:35
OOBEs/AP/LD (the Phase - to use the broad term) happen in REM! They do not happen in delta sleep! Dreams that happen outside of the REM stage are vague and thoughts-like.

OBEs (or what I call so), again, don't happen in REM. You are not asleep when you have a real OBE (or anyway what I call an OBE myself). You (or your physical body) are not asleep at all, differently from LDs.

This is the difference you don't get.

Quote from: Summerlander on July 13, 2011, 15:55:35
"The vivid body and world of the OBE is made possible by our brain's marvellous ability to create fully convincing images of the world, even in the absence of sensory information. This process is witnessed by each of us every night in our dreams. Indeed, all dreams could be called OBEs in that in them we experience events and places quite apart from the real location and activity of our bodies."

I don't argue that. It can be that the "dream body" is just a subconscious image of ourself, naturally.

However there are three different ways to approach this experience, and two of them (the most powerful) don't require sleep at all and, especially in approach three, the "body" is not existent before but created by you.

Quote from: Summerlander on July 13, 2011, 15:55:35
Also, OOBEs can be triggered from SP, which indicates the transition into REM sleep, and hence muscle atonia is activated to prevents us from acting out our...DREAMS! 8-)

I don't consider them OBEs, they are still LDs for me. Your consciousness and the way you can use the same is different in them.

I don't either like to use the term OBE in reality because it usually denotes an experience that has already some wrong boundaries setted (for how I see it), or that sometimes denotes a thing completely different of what I'm speaking about now, but in this case I have to.

Quote from: Summerlander on July 13, 2011, 15:55:35
I think you also need to revise my posts in the other LD versus OBE thread that Pauli2 opened. Sheesh... :roll:

I've read them. Still, what you say is all coming from people that just experienced approach one, usually.

Quote from: Volgerle on July 13, 2011, 16:23:10
Just like Blackmore, Blanke is mere close-minded pseudo-science. And no, if you look closely, in one experiment (see link where we discussed it) they did NOT even re-create OBEs or APs, rather they created mere optical/tactile illusions, with computers and cyberspace goggles. Brain stimulation can of course bring Altered States of Consciousness, but so can drugs, meditation. The problem is that we have to differentiate between the INDUCTION/TRIGGER of an altered state and the EXPERIENCE itself.

The intention of that study was not to recreate a "full" OBE, but to demonstrate that a vestibular sensation outside the boundaries of the physical can produce a total different "image" of it.

Then the different "induction/trigger" is what differentiate the "experience/result", so there's no difference in there. In fact, the most trouble (and the terms being used interchangeably and in wrong ways, so that now they have no real sense no more) is because people are differentiating the two, when they shouldn't.

Alas, this happens because people (especially of a certain type) always experience only what they care to then they think they necessarily know already the rest. It would be like pretending that since you know how to drive a car in the city with assists you would automatically be a rally driver.

I'm with pauli on this one, LD's are NOT OBE's. When LD, your brain is in a different frequency causing you to be conscious and in control of your DREAM. When OBE you are transferring your consciousness over to an energy body. Get it? Good, i though so! : )

~astraladdict

Quote from: Selea on July 14, 2011, 01:51:36
Those are not what I consider true OBEs.

WHAT? Then what are those? LOL. What's the difference between REM oobes and "true" OOBEs? What can you do in "true" OOBEs" and not in REM OOBEs?

Quote from: Selea on July 14, 2011, 01:51:36
The difference is what you can do in them.

Indeed, but in essence they're the same one thing. When you are in an LD you just need to break out of the dream reality and you're in an OOBE already. As I've said, it is like a pie, it depends how much sugar you put in it. They'll have different tastes, but it still is just a pie.

QuoteI'm with pauli on this one, LD's are NOT OBE's. When LD, your brain is in a different frequency causing you to be conscious and in control of your DREAM. When OBE you are transferring your consciousness over to an energy body. Get it? Good, i though so! : )

There's no energy body in fact. I've had OOBEs in which I did not have body at all. I was just consciousness! As you do not need a silver cord in an OOBE or dreams or whatever, you do not need a body either. There's no actual separation either.

More details here:
http://astralviewers.com/obeap-chat/oobes-ld%27s-dreams/
If you cannot access the site
http://portaltoconsciousness.blogspot.com/2011/06/oobes-lds-dreams.html
Also what I mean by level of awareness can also be the idea of the consciousness / subconsciousness taking over, that Xanth told us about.

Quote from: Ssergiu on July 14, 2011, 04:34:51
What's the difference between REM oobes and "true" OOBEs? What can you do in "true" OOBEs" and not in REM OOBEs?

I hate to repeat myself so you will have to read this locked thread (http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/welcome_to_dreams/lds_are_not_obes-t34172.0.html) about LDs are not OBEs.

There are several skilled people, who have noticed that LDs are not OBEs:
Buhlman, Waggoner, Peterson, Gabbard & Twemlow, Scott Rogo, LaBerge,
Monroe, Campbell, Levitan and Susan Blackmore.

Quote from: Pauli2 on July 14, 2011, 05:30:36
I hate to repeat myself so you will have to read this locked thread (http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/welcome_to_dreams/lds_are_not_obes-t34172.0.html) about LDs are not OBEs.

There are several skilled people, who have noticed that LDs are not OBEs:
Buhlman, Waggoner, Peterson, Gabbard & Twemlow, Scott Rogo, LaBerge,
Monroe, Campbell, Levitan and Susan Blackmore.

I did not say anything about LD's, but OOBEs. Also, there are 432894209 christians and I still do not believe in their religion. No matter how many they are and how many miracles there are. Those authors can't change something I am totally sure of. Saying the difference between them is just what you can do is stupid. Of course, the terms OOBEs, LD's, dreams can be used as a metaphor for what you are experiencing/able to do, but that's not a good reason why they are different. You're playing with water, what you do with it can have different names, but in essence they all are water.

You could as well suggest me authors that say you need to work on chakras, pray to weird Gods, make useless rituals, do some energy exercises and then you can OOBE! You do not need to read a lot before experiencing an OOBE. As Bedeekin said, that's like saying "Now I've read all I can read on UFO's, now it's time to see one!"

Dreams < LD's < OOBE
|             |           |
|             |           |
--same phenomena--
Different abilities/feelings/awareness though.

Quote from: Ssergiu on July 14, 2011, 07:13:39
I did not say anything about LD's, but OOBEs. Also, there are 432894209 christians and I still do not believe in their religion. No matter how many they are and how many miracles there are. Those authors can't change something I am totally sure of. Saying the difference between them is just what you can do is stupid. Of course, the terms OOBEs, LD's, dreams can be used as a metaphor for what you are experiencing/able to do, but that's not a good reason why they are different. You're playing with water, what you do with it can have different names, but in essence they all are water.

You could as well suggest me authors that say you need to work on chakras, pray to weird Gods, make useless rituals, do some energy exercises and then you can OOBE! You do not need to read a lot before experiencing an OOBE. As Bedeekin said, that's like saying "Now I've read all I can read on UFO's, now it's time to see one!"

Dreams < LD's < OOBE
|             |           |
|             |           |
--same phenomena--
Different abilities/feelings/awareness though.

Well said. But it's obvious OP is covering his ears shouting "LALALALLALA CAN'T HEAR YOU... LALALALALA.... OBES DIFFERENT FROM LDS... LALALALLALALALA" so I doubt you're accomplishing much breaking it down in simple terms. Some people just need for something to be true and will only believe the evidence that backs it up...

Like Campbell said... beliefs are what create the difference between LD and OBE.

Quote from: Astral316 on July 14, 2011, 09:15:46
Well said. But it's obvious OP is covering his ears shouting "LALALALLALA CAN'T HEAR YOU... LALALALALA.... OBES DIFFERENT FROM LDS... LALALALLALALALA" so I doubt you're accomplishing much breaking it down in simple terms. Some people just need for something to be true and will only believe the evidence that backs it up...

Like Campbell said... beliefs are what create the difference between LD and OBE.

Pretty much.

And because there's nothing new going on AND this is pretty much a repeat performance of the last thread started by the OP... I'm gonna be nice and give this thread one more day before it's done.

I dont know where this trend of saying everything is the same came from. Sure they're similar experiences but there ARE differences. Might as well get rid of focus levels next - whats the point in differentiating? :roll:

Quote from: blis on July 14, 2011, 10:12:11
I dont know where this trend of saying everything is the same came from. Sure they're similar experiences but there ARE differences. Might as well get rid of focus levels next - whats the point in differentiating? :roll:

Personally, I've already ditched the Focus Models.  Both of them.
They're not bad for starting out, but eventually you have to move beyond someone else's model and find your own way.

As for the bolded part (my emphasis), I see no point in differentiating them. 
They're ALL experiences that happen not in this physical reality... that's really all that's important.

Quote from: blis on July 14, 2011, 10:12:11
I don't know where this trend of saying everything is the same came from.

Perhaps it is because people still look at the world and see separation instead of unity. How could one perceive unity/singularity when they can't let go of duality?

Quote
Sure they're similar experiences but there ARE differences. Might as well get rid of focus levels next - whats the point in differentiating? :roll:

There is no point in differentiating other than to relay a certain aspect of a whole that is perceived to be different.

Hey look it's a one  ---> 1

Here is a two (which is two ones) ---> 2

You can add, subtract, multiply or divide that 2 and that 1 any way that you want but in the end it is still going to be a number.

Well said, dotster! As Ssergiu pointed out as well, there is no energy bodies in what I call Mode 1 OOBE until you start to manifest one of some kind which usually leads to a perceived Mode 2 OOBE. While the Mode 1 environment APPEARS to match the physical realm very closely, Mode 2 would be where so-called "astral projections" and lucid dreams take place. They are all connected and there is no denying that from one, you can phase into the next.

Despite those distinctions and labels, however, I cannot say with a 100% certainty that there is a real difference! Why can't Mode 1 and Mode 2 be two sides of the same coin? Don't we have two brain hemispheres which appear to deal with (or could be viable expressions of) the realistic (logical) and the surreal (imaginative)? And, of course, we have the corpus callosum that unites them...

By the way, Anton posted this on obe4u.com which is far more riliable and provides food for thought in the right direction:

"Imaging transitions in consciousness: Neural correlates of lucid dreaming

Martin Dresler

Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry, Sleep Research, Munich, Germany
Common categorizations of consciousness distinguish between basal and higher-order aspects of this multifaceted concept. Basal consciousness comprises perceptions and sensations, whereas higher-order consciousness constitutes reflections on these perceptions. In rapid eye movement (REM) sleep, ordinary dreaming comprises only basal aspects of consciousness. There is conscious perception of dream content but higher-order aspects of consciousness are usually absent: The person does not realize that he is dreaming and has no perception of the self as an agent endowed with intentionality and free will. Higher-order consciousness therefore seems to be bound to wakefulness. However, a special type of dreaming - referred to as "lucid dreaming" - is characterized by full-blown consciousness, including all higher-order aspects: The dreamer is able to reflect on his state of consciousness and realizes that he is dreaming. Using a combined fMRI/EEG approach, we could reveal neural activity related to the genesis of higher-order consciousness by contrasting ordinary REM sleep with physiologically verified lucid REM sleep. We find increased activation in a range of neo-cortical regions, including bilateral precuneus, cuneus and parietal, prefrontal and occipito-temporal cortices, to be related to this categorical shift in consciousness. This activation shows remarkable overlap with neo-cortical regions that have highest expansion in humans relative to non-human primates."

http://www.mpipks-dresden.mpg.de/~codybs09/POSTER_ABSTRACTS/dresler.html

"Sleep. 2009 Sep 1;32(9):1191-200.
Lucid dreaming: a state of consciousness with features of both waking and non-lucid dreaming.

Voss U, Holzmann R, Tuin I, Hobson JA.

JW Goethe-Universität Frankfurt, Bonn, Germany. u.voss@uni-bonn.de

STUDY OBJECTIVES: The goal of the study was to seek physiological correlates of lucid dreaming. Lucid dreaming is a dissociated state with aspects of waking and dreaming combined in a way so as to suggest a specific alteration in brain physiology for which we now present preliminary but intriguing evidence. We show that the unusual combination of hallucinatory dream activity and wake-like reflective awareness and agentive control experienced in lucid dreams is paralleled by significant changes in electrophysiology. DESIGN: 19-channel EEG was recorded on up to 5 nights for each participant. Lucid episodes occurred as a result of pre-sleep autosuggestion. SETTING: Sleep laboratory of the Neurological Clinic, Frankfurt University. PARTICIPANTS: Six student volunteers who had been trained to become lucid and to signal lucidity through a pattern of horizontal eye movements. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Results show lucid dreaming to have REM-like power in frequency bands delta and theta, and higher-than-REM activity in the gamma band, the between-states-difference peaking around 40 Hz. Power in the 40 Hz band is strongest in the frontal and frontolateral region. Overall coherence levels are similar in waking and lucid dreaming and significantly higher than in REM sleep, throughout the entire frequency spectrum analyzed. Regarding specific frequency bands, waking is characterized by high coherence in alpha, and lucid dreaming by increased delta and theta band coherence. In lucid dreaming, coherence is largest in frontolateral and frontal areas. CONCLUSIONS: Our data show that lucid dreaming constitutes a hybrid state of consciousness with definable and measurable differences from waking and from REM sleep, particularly in frontal areas."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19750924
http://www.journalsleep.org/ViewAbstract.aspx?pid=27567

I think there is a lot of people mistaking the term "out-of-body experience" for "out-of-body state". There is no proof of the latter while the first one is pragmatic in itself. It is indicating that it is an experience and does NOT affirm, in any way, that one really leaves the body. You might as well consider dreams as being OOBEs too as they give you the sensation that you are no longer laying in bed.

One cannot really claim that OOBEs and LDs are completely different states! Especially when in an LD, one can create a realistic OOBE from desire. Also, I guarantee you that, even if you manage to induce an OOBE without having the pre-sleep that primes you, you will still enter the sleep state (GUARANTEED!). I'll tell you the difference between 'launching' from having the pre-sleep/nap and doing it from not having it. With the pre-nap, you can consciously enter REM sleep within 10 minutes when you go down to induce (due to the sleep inertia). WITHOUT the pre-sleep/nap, you normally wait around for a maximum of 90 minutes (especially when the adenosine levels are low during the day). Conclusion: the sleep/nap primer provides a short-cut!

Other than that, they are both entries into the same world: the Phase.

Period. I have no reason to believe otherwise! None whatsoever! :roll:

But I understand why certain people allow themselves to be swayed by bias...

:-D

Summerlander, as Pauli is doing, you're wasting your breath.  :)

Don't worry.  That's the last of me posting here.  I really don't see the difference between OOBEs and lucid dreams.  As I said to Ssergiu before, I have experienced the prominence and the absence of vibrations in both (vibrations are irrelevant anyway as I consider them to be a physiological symptom).  All I see is the different ways of entering the Phase (before, during, or after sleep) and the fact that sometimes anomalies are prominent in familiar surroundings (or environments are completely strange altogether) OR the environment appears to be congruent with the waking world (or anomalies have not been spotted).  Other than that, that's it!  The possibility that in one realm anything can manifest from belief and expectation still stands. I call it the Phase.

Just thought of something else too! Eyes water and may even crust during sleep, so, when one wakes up, he may find that vision is blurred. Isn't it funny that when you separate from the body sometimes, you are partially blind as though there is this dirty veil over your face or vision is fragmented?  It just goes to show how anything can manifest in the Phase from the slightest bit of doubt or expectation.  Sometimes the separation can feel as though one has moved physically and an individual may experience a brief doubt as to whether he was successful at the Phase entry or not.  This could well be the cause of blurred vision in the Phase - things can stem from doubt/belief/expectation even if it is for a brief moment!  Done!

8-)

i think i see whats goin on here :-)

anyway NO, OBe's are not LD's...this is clear to those at a height of consciousness/abilities...

and OBe's never will be in any shape or form of a LD/s...

LD's are just like a movie/script that are made up of projection of ya mini me's (i call it) that can/were (areas pending-controlled now :-D) be played out in the real world, not OBe man impossiable...

LD's are just to show ya (schooling) what ya real dreams do as they (dreams) play a big part in the outcome of this world as in it is the script (how it's played out), fact to those in the know...

it's just a schooling (LD's) to see if ya f* around or not with shlt ya shouldnt thats all Ld's are (schooling/TEST), for when/are (areas-now) we human are to take controll of the worlds workings in a full not half (Ld's to some) conscious state...

when ya understand the effect of ya dreams (sleeping) have (scripts) you will understand what i'm say'n, as it's just teaching ya how this world does/can work, thats all man...

remember schooling, the effect of dreams on the world the effect LD's "CAN" have on the world and then their are the thoughts ya only have to look at self help books that teach ya how to manifest as in loud voice repeating words/phrases ya get the idea of it (some will), and then their are ya silent speaking/thoughts can and one day will have the same effect as the dreams do, it's just a gradeing/developement of the mind, it's all determined by ya height of consciousness/abilities. described how to get their as in the height of height of consciousnesson on my website...

on average:
dreams powerful
Ld's less powerful
talking (loud voice) less powerfuller
thought less powerfuller again

untill ya develope ya consciosness...Love All :-)

then what someone can say is what happens when we are running the system in a full conscious state (not dreams) (in the pipe line now and happening in areas) and the dreams are no-longer doing this, hay thats a really good point and the answer is is umm not 100% sure "yet" so i wont say it, but it will be more on the personal side (one-self) as against as a whole/part effect on part/everyone, then someone can say if it effects one it effects all, yes but no-see...

hay Xanth ya going to delete this one as well :roll:...

good luck

love all

I'll delete you ether!   :evil:  :wink:

We are slowly drifting into another dark time on the Pulse...

Quote from: Xanth on July 14, 2011, 21:44:41
I'll delete you ether!   :evil:  :wink:

thats not very nice...

i challenge ya to a dual, as in the deletion...
of course being admin to hermetics/minds abilities, i have this right, as ya know :wink:...

good luck

love all man :-D

Quote from: ether2 on July 14, 2011, 20:59:04
i think i see whats goin on here :-)

anyway NO, OBe's are not LD's...this is clear to those at a height of consciousness/abilities...

Xanth you have proved your point. It is a waste of breath.

Quote from: dotster on July 15, 2011, 01:01:41
Xanth you have proved your point. It is a waste of breath.

hay, how ya goin man, oh i'm not Xanth :lol:...

good luck

love all

Quote from: Ssergiu on July 14, 2011, 04:34:51
WHAT? Then what are those? LOL. What's the difference between REM oobes and "true" OOBEs? What can you do in "true" OOBEs" and not in REM OOBEs?

Many things. The way you "enter" the subconscious (talking in broad terms) change the way you experience the subconsious in the specific.

For example REM obes are not "stable". You look at a watch, there's an hour, you look around then look back, the hour has much probably changed. In "true" OBEs this doesn't happen. But this is only a little "external" difference. The real difference is in what you can do in there.

Quote from: Ssergiu on July 14, 2011, 04:34:51
Indeed, but in essence they're the same one thing. When you are in an LD you just need to break out of the dream reality and you're in an OOBE already. As I've said, it is like a pie, it depends how much sugar you put in it. They'll have different tastes, but it still is just a pie.

Where you "go" it is the same (or it can be, also if there are "places" you cannot go depeding on what you do), how you interact with where you go it is different.

Quote from: Ssergiu on July 14, 2011, 04:34:51
There's no energy body in fact. I've had OOBEs in which I did not have body at all. I was just consciousness! As you do not need a silver cord in an OOBE or dreams or whatever, you do not need a body either. There's no actual separation either.

Can be, or it cannot. Nobody can be sure one way or another, so why act as if you would?

Quote from: Ssergiu on July 14, 2011, 07:13:39
You could as well suggest me authors that say you need to work on chakras, pray to weird Gods, make useless rituals, do some energy exercises and then you can OOBE! You do not need to read a lot before experiencing an OOBE. As Bedeekin said, that's like saying "Now I've read all I can read on UFO's, now it's time to see one!"

And this is exactly the problem. You are talking of a thing you know only a part from personal experience yet you think you already know everything.

So, you see, you are doing exactly this. You have a "theory" (like reading a book) but that doesn't mean much.

I listed the different approaches in entering what you call the phase. You, (and the Raduga school, among many others), only use the approach one and are experienced only in it, yet you are sure already of what happens in the others. Don't you think this a bit presumptuous?

Quote from: Summerlander on July 14, 2011, 15:01:52
Don't worry.  That's the last of me posting here.  I really don't see the difference between OOBEs and lucid dreams.  As I said to Ssergiu before, I have experienced the prominence and the absence of vibrations in both (vibrations are irrelevant anyway as I consider them to be a physiological symptom).  All I see is the different ways of entering the Phase (before, during, or after sleep) and the fact that sometimes anomalies are prominent in familiar surroundings (or environments are completely strange altogether) OR the environment appears to be congruent with the waking world (or anomalies have not been spotted).  Other than that, that's it!  The possibility that in one realm anything can manifest from belief and expectation still stands. I call it the Phase.

Also a chessboard is always a chessboard, but you can play chess, fischer's chess or chess960, or either checkers in it, depending on how you place the pieces.

Also the earth is always the earth but depending if you are an ant, an human or a bird your interaction with the same changes dramatically.

QuoteMany things. The way you "enter" the subconscious (talking in broad terms) change the way you experience the subconsious in the specific.

For example REM obes are not stable. You look at a watch, there's an hour, you look around then look back, the hour has changed. In "true" OBEs this doesn't happen. But this is only a little "external" difference. The real difference is in what you can do in there.

Your awareness is still focused somewhere else than your body / physical body ==> OOBE. 

QuoteWhere you "go" it is the same (or it can be, also if there are "places" you cannot go depeding on what you do), how you interact with where you go it is different.

What did this have to do with anything I said? O_o

QuoteCan be, or it cannot. You cannot be sure one way or another, so why act as if you would?

I've removed any stupid new age beliefs and here is I ended up. Of course I could create a fancy energy body and other stupid things for "Astral"'s sake. I do not act as I am sure, I am sure.

QuoteAnd this is exactly the problem. You are talking of a thing you know only a part from personal experience yet you think you already know everything.

So, you see, you are doing exactly this. You have a "theory" (like reading a book) but that doesn't mean much.

I listed the different approaches in entering what you call the phase. You, (and the Raduga school, among many others), only use the approach one and are experienced only in it, yet you are sure already of what happens in the others. Don't you think this a bit presumptuous?

How come my personal experience led me to the theory Xanth and many others have? We did not talk about this before posting here. On astralviewers I think I am the first one who came up with this idea and people kind of agree. Also, how do you think books were written? They also were based on experiences.

Anyway, as Xanth said, it's not worth trying to explain anything. In my belief, if there's an after life, you will go to what place you believe you'll go to for a while until you realize it is your creation and remove all your "human" or physical thoughts and accept the new "life". Hope you will be able to accept it as soon as possible.

Quote from: Ssergiu on July 14, 2011, 04:34:51
What's the difference between REM oobes and "true" OOBEs? What can you do in "true" OOBEs" and not in REM OOBEs?

From the Peterson page (http://www.robertpeterson.org/obe-vs-lucid.html):

"Lucid dreams are not easily remembered, unless one is conditioned. ... OBEs,
however, are usually remembered vividly for years."


There are more differences.  See the table.

"During LDs, sexuality is convincingly real. In other words, it feels the same as real sex.

OBEs, however, rarely have sexual content. When OBEers report having "astral sex,"
the experience is not anything like physical sex. It's more like an ecstatic mind-trip,
a transfer of energy, or a euphoria, but it doesn't feel like physical sex."


Ssergiu, your expression "REM OOBEs", do you have a reference page for that expression or
is it a home made construct of yours?

QuoteSsergiu, your expression "REM OOBEs", do you have a reference page for that expression or
is it a home made construct of yours?

I am talking to Selea about REM OOBEs. He said that OOBEing from REM (after a sleep, during a sleep, upon awakening, whatever sleep) are not true OOBEs and this is why I want to know what the difference is. However, I still can't find any, except that a "non REM" OOBE is harder to achieve, but not impossible.

Quote"Lucid dreams are not easily remembered, unless one is conditioned. ... OBEs,
however, are usually remembered vividly for years."

True, however you can remember lucid dreams easily too. However, this does not prove they're a different phenomena, BUT the level of awareness was different.

Quote from: Ssergiu on July 15, 2011, 04:55:08
... however you can remember lucid dreams easily too.

I can not, if my LD is long enough (more than 20 seconds).

I think others have reported the same loss of memory on longer LDs.

Quote from: Pauli2 on July 15, 2011, 05:20:04
I can not, if my LD is long enough (more than 20 seconds).

I think others have reported the same loss of memory on longer LDs.

I do not know... I've never stayed much in LD's. I usually turned them all into OOBEs for more freedom.

:)

so what u say is that you experience some kind of difference?

As I have said, Pauli.

Dreams < LD's < OOBE
|             |           |
|             |           |
--same phenomena--
Different abilities/feelings/awareness though.

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

Quote from: Ssergiu on July 15, 2011, 04:40:42
Your awareness is still focused somewhere else than your body / physical body ==> OOBE.  

I already said that I use the term OBE also if I would not like to use it. The term has become too generic and it has lost its meaning.

As for the awareness (I think you use the term to mean the consciousness, and not just the external focus of your attention), this is one of the primary changes. In a sleep approach the bulk of the consciousness is still in the physical body. In an OBE (or what I call as such) the bulk of the consciousness is in the "other" body.

Quote from: Ssergiu on July 15, 2011, 04:40:42
What did this have to do with anything I said? O_o

Everything. The problem is that you just consider the "external" part of the experience, while I consider the specific. For this the metaphors on the chessboard and the earth and how they are the same or completely different depending on the approach and the specifics.

Quote from: Ssergiu on July 15, 2011, 04:40:42
I've removed any stupid new age beliefs and here is I ended up. Of course I could create a fancy energy body and other stupid things for "Astral"'s sake. I do not act as I am sure, I am sure.

The fact that you think you are it doesn't mean anything at all for me.

I bet how much you want that you are not able, for example, to do approach three that I explained. So, how can you be sure of something you don't either know?

I can do all three approaches and yet I'm not sure of anything as you are. How strange that people that usually are sure of everything are those that know less of the things they talk about, isn't it?

Quote from: Ssergiu on July 15, 2011, 04:40:42
How come my personal experience led me to the theory Xanth and many others have? We did not talk about this before posting here. On astralviewers I think I am the first one who came up with this idea and people kind of agree. Also, how do you think books were written? They also were based on experiences.

A) It depends on how your personal experience it is structured and how you approach it. Many people in these sort of things do just a part of the whole (usually only what they find "right" on an intellectual basis) and then they pretend (in the same way, intellectually) that all the rest must necessarily follow in the same way. Probably they think that disciplines of the mind are somewhat different than other, more "pragmatic", ones.
B) Xanth it is more open than you are on this thing. He can think something similar to you, but he is not sure one way or another. This is a critical difference.

Quote from: Ssergiu on July 15, 2011, 04:55:08
However, I still can't find any, except that a "non REM" OOBE is harder to achieve, but not impossible.

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

Quote from: Ssergiu on July 15, 2011, 05:39:22
Dreams do not feel like LD's neither LD's like OOBEs. However, they are the same basic idea.

On this we agree.

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

Quote from: Selea on July 15, 2011, 06:10:39
On this we agree.

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

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

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

As for the term OOBE... I kind of like "out of reality experience" more or "The phase".

Are we done yet?

It's against my better judgment, but I'm going to give this thread another 24 hours... since what resembles a partial discussion seems to be FINALLY emerging.

Quote from: Selea on July 15, 2011, 05:51:24
Everything. The problem is that you just consider the "external" part of the experience, while I consider the specific. For this the metaphors on the chessboard and the earth and how they are the same or completely different depending on the approach and the specifics.

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

In the end, all of this is subjective.  If someone chooses to place dividing lines in their experiences that's their own choice.  It shouldn't be forced upon others in the manner that it currently is in this thread (I'm not referring to you in that, Selea ;)).

When interacting with people on this forum, I feel it's more important to simply encourage them to have ANY experience than to sit there and judge their experiences and try to categorize them for that person.  That doesn't help... it only serves to confuse more than anything else.  The point is to give the individual the ability to have enough experiences for them to make *THEIR OWN* judgment call based upon their DIRECT EXPERIENCE... not upon what an AUTHOR says in his books.

Also, it comes down to this fact:  You can read all the authors in the world on any particular subject, but until you experience things directly for yourself, you'll never know.  There are so many different opinions on this subject, to simply say that "oh this group of people have to be right because they say so" is asinine and all you're doing it LIMITING YOURSELF.  Why?  Because this is a very personal and very individual experience... Pauli just quotes Robert Peterson above, well, his quotes LITERALLY don't apply to my personal experiences. 

Keep your options open until you have the direct experience to say "no, it's not that way for me, I experience things like <so and so> instead" like I can do above with Petersons quote.

I think it's important to see both the big and little picture, not just choose one. There's a microcosm and a macrocosm, both are real. You have to find balance.

Quote from: Stookie_ on July 15, 2011, 11:27:05
I think it's important to see both the big and little picture, not just choose one. There's a microcosm and a macrocosm, both are real. You have to find balance.

I couldn't agree more.  :)

Quote from: Stookie_ on July 15, 2011, 11:27:05
I think it's important to see both the big and little picture, not just choose one. There's a microcosm and a macrocosm, both are real. You have to find balance.

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

Quote from: Ssergiu on July 15, 2011, 11:47:22
Yep, but the big picture let us find out more about the little one. Anyway, I am sorry if I sounded like I was forcing my beliefs over the others. I am not very open when it comes to OOBEs as there are many false things on the internet. People have evolved, so has consciousness.

That's why, in my opinion, people shouldn't lock themselves into a certain way of thinking or, in the larger sense, believe ANYTHING they read without first experiencing it directly themselves.  :)

Quote from: Ssergiu on July 15, 2011, 06:14:32
That's what I've been saying in this thread all this time. LOL!

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

Quote from: Ssergiu on July 15, 2011, 06:14:32
Also, as I've said, I describe OOBEs/LD's/dreams as "thinking/creating/being without a body or without being focused on any body". This can be achieved both in OOBEs and REM OOBEs. I've done it.

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

Quote from: Ryan_ on July 15, 2011, 09:29:43
You look at it from a different perspective, that's all.
We look at it in a "big picture" way... you look at it in a "little picture" way.
We talk about the experience as a whole.  You try to break down the experience into subjective portions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Ssergiu on July 15, 2011, 11:47:22
Yep, but the big picture let us find out more about the little one. Anyway, I am sorry if I sounded like I was forcing my beliefs over the others. I am not very open when it comes to OOBEs as there are many false things on the internet. People have evolved, so has consciousness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Selea on July 16, 2011, 01:54:59
No, you have said that they are the same thing. Some things having the same "basic idea" it is not equal to them being the same.

Quoteas Xanth said it depends on what's taking over, the conscious or subconscious. OOBE's would not require REM because you enter consciously the state. When you go in an LD you are unconscious and need to realize it is a dream. Of course an LD will never feel like an OOBE. OOBEs feel real, 3D and so on.

QuoteWhen you are in an LD you just need to break out of the dream reality and you're in an OOBE already. As I've said, it is like a pie, it depends how much sugar you put in it. They'll have different tastes, but it still is just a pie.

QuoteDreams < LD's < OOBE
|             |           |
|             |           |
--same phenomena--
Different abilities/feelings/awareness though

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

Quote from: Selea on July 16, 2011, 01:54:59
The fact that you can feel to be without a "body" (that then you never really are, but this is a complicate thing) doesn't invalidate the theory of the "energetic body", the same as if a fish inside a vase would be thrown in the ocean it would not invalidate for it the existence of water.

Yes. Also, unicorns rule the astral. The fact that you cannot see them does not invalidate the theory. That's how Christians back up their beliefs too. They do not start with the idea that something may be false. They start with the idea it is true and then back it up sometimes using the bible as well. Same to you. You already started with the idea of having something. You can't say / prove something doesn't exist once you say it exists. I also believed in energy bodies and stuff, but due to OOBEs and other things they have slowly been removed. Better OOBes, really.

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

Quote from: Ssergiu on July 16, 2011, 05:33:59
hmmm or did I? This is what I meant by them being equal. This is what everyone meant by it! Again, LD's feel different than OOBEs! In essense, they are the same phenomena. I think I gave the pie example a thousand times.

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

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

Quote from: Ssergiu on July 16, 2011, 05:33:59
Yes. Also, unicorns rule the astral. The fact that you cannot see them does not invalidate the theory. That's how Christians back up their beliefs too. They do not start with the idea that something may be false. They start with the idea it is true and then back it up sometimes using the bible as well. Same to you.

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

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

Quote from: Ssergiu on July 16, 2011, 05:33:59
You already started with the idea of having something. You can't say / prove something doesn't exist once you say it exists. I also believed in energy bodies and stuff, but due to OOBEs and other things they have slowly been removed. Better OOBes, really.

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Ssergiu on July 16, 2011, 05:33:59
Anyway, I do not think I am going to post in here anymore. It is not worth it. As Ryan said, experience for yourself and find out what they really are. Do not take everything that is said to you, experience and see for yourself.

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

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

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

QuoteI told you this also to SL: if you want to learn music, painting, whatever, you don't do just some things in there depending on what you like more or it is more near to your view. You learn in a structured way, starting from the basics and doing things that are either boring, not conform to your pow, etc,

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

I have noticed that your posts don't make much sense and all you seem to do is to try to prove everyone wrong and tell the how much you are right.  You won't change their minds, Selea.  You are fighting a losing battle there and you have not even considered that what you perceive in that the way you do it yields certain results that others can't achieve could be nothing but belief.  In fact, I am telling you that it is because in the Phase, anything...and absolutely anything can manifest.  Also, I find someone's claims very dubious when they start saying "you haven't experienced this, you haven't or can't experience that..."  when they haven't even read the journal entries of the people they are saying it to.  Very dubious...very dubious indeed.

Man I've had to turn of avatars cause your new one disturbs me so much.

I'll change it soon so you can sleep tonight.

lol you dont have to. It saves my bandwidth anyway(i'm on a metered account)

LOL!  It's ok. I've done it anyway.  The trickster is back.  :evil:

Quote from: Summerlander on July 17, 2011, 13:04:21
Actually, this is not entirely true and you shot yourself in the foot here.  I can play guitar and I have never taken any lessons.  I have not started from the basics as do most people who pay for lessons and have a teacher.  I learned on my own and wen straight to doing what I liked.  There was nothing boring about it either.

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Summerlander on July 17, 2011, 13:04:21
I have noticed that your posts don't make much sense and all you seem to do is to try to prove everyone wrong and tell the how much you are right.  You won't change their minds, Selea.  

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

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

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

Quote from: Summerlander on July 17, 2011, 13:04:21
You are fighting a losing battle there and you have not even considered that what you perceive in that the way you do it yields certain results that others can't achieve could be nothing but belief.

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

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

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

Quote from: Summerlander on July 17, 2011, 13:04:21
In fact, I am telling you that it is because in the Phase, anything...and absolutely anything can manifest.  

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

Quote from: Summerlander on July 17, 2011, 13:04:21
Also, I find someone's claims very dubious when they start saying "you haven't experienced this, you haven't or can't experience that..."  when they haven't even read the journal entries of the people they are saying it to.  Very dubious...very dubious indeed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I like reading it. Without people questioning us we don't question ourselves. I like understanding where others are coming from, even when I don't agree with them.

Quote from: blis on July 19, 2011, 06:39:08
Selea, you're clearly a very inteligent and knowlegable guy(or chick idk).

Thing.   :wink:

Quote from: blis on July 19, 2011, 06:39:08
How much of your time do you spend engaged in these pointless arguments?

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

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

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

Quote from: blis on July 19, 2011, 06:39:08
Dont you think that time could be spent much more constructively? I'm sure you know all sorts of stuff that I, and many others would love to read.

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

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

Quote from: blis on July 19, 2011, 06:39:08
I find some of your posts very interesting. I doubt I'm the only one. But these massive posts on subjects like how Summerlander learned to play the guitar can put us off reading the others. Wading through the arguments to find the good stuff can be tiring.

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

Quote from: blis on July 19, 2011, 06:39:08
There will always be people who disagree with you on the internet. Some people disagree in a grating manner. There's no point in arguing with them. There are better uses of your time.

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

Quote from: Summerlander on July 19, 2011, 09:29:47
It's ok, blis.  I'll just tell him that he is right all the time and that should keep him happy.  I obviously mean a lot to him if he dedicates so much time and so many words on me.  I'm flattered.  :-D

You shouldn't.

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

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

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

Quote from: Selea on July 20, 2011, 02:33:26
I choose your posts usually because they are the most bigot and narrow-minded

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

Funny that.

Selea...

I understand that you don't like me.  Fair enough.  But I would leave Bedeekin out of this as he is not here to defend himself.  Besides,  Bedeekin may be popular (and may even play on it - I don't know) but that doesn't mean he is not an extremely intelligent guy.  He has helped many people project over on Astral Viewers so I don't really understand why you felt the need "find points to work on" from him.  I'm pretty sure he does fine on his own and he has shown me that so far.  Go on AVers and you will find that he is an Administrator there and for a good reason.  He is also a very talented special effects artist and someone I greatly admire - something that you seem incapable of doing so far.  You seem to be in love with your own posts.  Am I wrong?

Quote from: Ryan_ on July 20, 2011, 09:28:51
Ironically, Selea... I avoid your posts for the same reason.

Funny that.

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Summerlander on July 20, 2011, 14:16:33
Selea...

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Summerlander on July 20, 2011, 14:16:33
He is also a very talented special effects artist and someone I greatly admire - something that you seem incapable of doing so far.  You seem to be in love with your own posts.  Am I wrong?

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

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

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

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

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

Also, my first OOBE was involuntary then learned from mistakes how to get one. I found out on my own what is the best method and time to OOBE. Bedeekin learned by himself to have OOBEs. You can self-teach yourself. The fact that you first started with "notes" as you said for the guitar, it's just a structure for learning easier, it doesn't mean I did not learn on my own. Also, and if everyone needs to be taught, who taught the first person on earth OOBEs? Do not tell me it was an angel then the angel was taught by god and here we can stop cause we know nothing about God.

My oobe started off as an LD, I was too excited and broke the state and ended up in SP. Then I just got next to my bed and was looking at my room until I freaked out cause I did not know what was happening. Hadn't this happened, I do not think I would be here and I'd still be stuck in new age crap.

As Ryan said, this is subjective, your method may not work for others. Bedeekin's method rarely works on me, but it worked few times when I had involuntary SP. Now, I have another technique, which, in a way, is the same as summerlander's. I am starting to think that if people did not believe you needed to have vibrations, when they meditated they would not experience any. The problem is that if a newcomer tries oobes, every little 'strange' feeling will be associated to vibrations or whatever. I once meditated and thought I had vibes too, but when I had my SP's... I realized that those "vibrations" were nothing compared to SP's vibrations. Again, it can be different for everyone. From experience, we have created what we created.

@ Selea:

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

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

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

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

Sure you did.  It wouldn't be you otherwise.  8-)

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

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

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

You are saying this...nobody else.  Talk about fantasies there, my friend.

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

I've just realised...this is the very problem you have with me and Bedeekin...the supposed "popularity" that we have in these Forums.  This is in your mind, mate.  If you believe that we are popular...don't worry...pretty soon you'll be popular too if you carry on like this.  Only you will have no-one to talk to pretty soon.  Who would want to talk to someone who claims to be right all the time and refuses to accept that of others.  Who wants to socialise with someone who only looks at other people's posts in order to pick points for false counterarguments and to slander the author so that he makes himself look good (in his mind)?

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

Quote from: Ssergiu on July 21, 2011, 04:44:30
Also, my first OOBE was involuntary then learned from mistakes how to get one. I found out on my own what is the best method and time to OOBE. Bedeekin learned by himself to have OOBEs. You can self-teach yourself. The fact that you first started with "notes" as you said for the guitar, it's just a structure for learning easier, it doesn't mean I did not learn on my own. Also, and if everyone needs to be taught, who taught the first person on earth OOBEs? Do not tell me it was an angel then the angel was taught by god and here we can stop cause we know nothing about God.

Well said!  :lol:

Brilliant!

Quote from: Ssergiu on July 21, 2011, 04:44:30
Dude... look. We all came from different beliefs. I also was with planes and lower astral and other stuff like this. However, in time, with experience we've realized they're nothing but beliefs and if we get rid of them, it will make things a lot easier.

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

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

Quote from: Ssergiu on July 21, 2011, 04:44:30
Also, in OOBEs from REM, you do feel you are "out", it's not just imagination as you may think. Because you have not had great experiences with REM it does not mean others can't. However, you can use metaphors to help you out such as guardian angels and other stuff.

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

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

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

Quote from: Ssergiu on July 21, 2011, 04:44:30
As for "non belief" is a belief. If it is, then it still occurs, so no matter what belief you have it still happens in oobes, even if your belief is a "non belief" or an astral fantasy thing. The thing is that the popular view is what yours is. Astral stuff and this is why, hopefully everyone will realize they're just BS.

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

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

Quote from: Ssergiu on July 21, 2011, 04:44:30You can self-teach yourself. The fact that you first started with "notes" as you said for the guitar, it's just a structure for learning easier, it doesn't mean I did not learn on my own.

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

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

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

Quote from: Ssergiu on July 21, 2011, 04:44:30Also, and if everyone needs to be taught, who taught the first person on earth OOBEs? Do not tell me it was an angel then the angel was taught by god and here we can stop cause we know nothing about God.

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

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

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

Quote from: Ssergiu on July 21, 2011, 04:44:30
As Ryan said, this is subjective, your method may not work for others. Bedeekin's method rarely works on me, but it worked few times when I had involuntary SP.

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

Quote from: Ssergiu on July 21, 2011, 04:44:30
Now, I have another technique, which, in a way, is the same as summerlander's. I am starting to think that if people did not believe you needed to have vibrations, when they meditated they would not experience any.

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

Quote from: Ssergiu on July 21, 2011, 04:44:30
The problem is that if a newcomer tries oobes, every little 'strange' feeling will be associated to vibrations or whatever. I once meditated and thought I had vibes too, but when I had my SP's... I realized that those "vibrations" were nothing compared to SP's vibrations. Again, it can be different for everyone. From experience, we have created what we created.

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

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

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

So, what are you telling of different?

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

Quote from: Summerlander on July 21, 2011, 04:58:08
Of course it's beyond you, Selea!  Because you are incapable of admitting that you are wrong sometimes and only your point of view matters to yourself.  You are the one who appears to be living in a fantasy of your own.  As for Bedeekin having the most popular view...LOL...don't make me laugh!  Take a look around!  How many people do you know that agree with his views.  And then look at your views and you will find that you are just another sheep following these shepherds who call themselves masters and whose methods are absolutely useless for the newbie (in fact, they only serve to daunt and complicate things).

As you like.

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

Quote from: Summerlander on July 21, 2011, 04:58:08
As for me searching for Forums...well...I've already found them and yes, I do share my experiences.  It is all about that!  Sharing and learning as much as we can about something so elusive.  Nothing wrong with that.  I share what I've found as much as I can mainly to help others who want these experiences so bad.  There is nothing wrong with sharing.  In fact, I tell my kids to share their toys and this has helped them to socialise/harmonise with any type of child.

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

Quote from: Summerlander on July 21, 2011, 04:58:08
You, on the other hand, don't share and don't care as you said.  Or I could be wrong and perhaps you have nothing to share and nothing to believe in for yourself. From what I get from you, in your mind there is only you and your preferences on this matter which you have acquired from books - not from experience - and this I'm sure of the more I read (skim) through your posts.  :-D

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

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

Quote from: Summerlander on July 21, 2011, 04:58:08
As for what you said to Xanth...are you serious or are you just pretending to be the biggest hypocrite on Pulse?  Selea...you talk about belief systems ALL THE TIME!  :roll:

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

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

Quote from: Summerlander on July 21, 2011, 04:58:08
I've just realised...this is the very problem you have with me and Bedeekin...the supposed "popularity" that we have in these Forums.  This is in your mind, mate.  If you believe that we are popular...don't worry...pretty soon you'll be popular too if you carry on like this.

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

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

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

Quote from: Summerlander on July 21, 2011, 04:58:08Only you will have no-one to talk to pretty soon.  Who would want to talk to someone who claims to be right all the time and refuses to accept that of others.  Who wants to socialise with someone who only looks at other people's posts in order to pick points for false counterarguments and to slander the author so that he makes himself look good (in his mind)?

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

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

Maybe you will at last start sounding convincing.

Quote from: Summerlander on July 21, 2011, 04:58:08
You have a lot of growing up to do, kid.  You really do.

Well said!  :lol:

Brilliant!

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

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

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

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

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

QuoteIt is just a different approach on the way to interact with the "astral"

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

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

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

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

No. What I have been saying is that you can find your own structure and that you do not need a teacher to show you a structure. You can discover it on your own as "the first teacher" may have done. However, yes, a teacher can help you when you have trouble, but he/she may still not be able to help you with everything since you may experience something else, unless you OOBE the way he does.

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

Yes, but still, there are many structures for experiencing the same thing. However, teaching someone your structure would make it easier to know what your "student" is experiencing.

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

Once you've got a structure you are already experiencing things. Those things can be subjective. For example you may hear stuff in SP, see things or feel presences. That's what I meant that it is subjective. Also, SP is subjective because of your sleep schedule and mood. If I tried now, I wouldn't have any SP. For example, not everyone can OOBE at 4 am.

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

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

Quote from: Selea on July 21, 2011, 06:10:59
Where? Care to quote so I can prove you that as always you didn't understand nothing of what was written there?

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

Sorry Selea, but this is exactly why I don't listen to anything you have to say.

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

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

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

Me too.  :roll:

Quote from: Ryan_ on July 21, 2011, 09:26:08
*EVERYTHING* you say on this forum, unless you have verifiable, tangible proof of... is a belief.  Everything.  EVERY SINGLE IDEA/THOUGHT/OPINION you make on this forum is nothing but a belief.  Anything anyone her has to say on Astral Projection "is a belief.

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

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

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

Quote from: Ryan_ on July 21, 2011, 09:26:08
It may be your personal known, you may KNOW something yourself... but you can't share it in that capacity.  You can only share it as a belief to anyone here.

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Ryan_ on July 21, 2011, 09:26:08
I'm completely baffled as to why you can't grasp this simple concept.

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

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

Quote from: Ssergiu on July 21, 2011, 07:11:54
True, this is what happens when focused here. However, once you are in an out of body, either from REM or meditation, it does not feel like that, believe me, I know what I have been experiencing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Ssergiu on July 21, 2011, 07:11:54
This is what I wanted to let you know. Metaphors or whatever are just another way to interact with the "astral". It does not mean they're true. The rope method is also just a tool. There's no actual rope there.

Certainly. Who ever said the contrary?

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

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

Quote from: Ssergiu on July 21, 2011, 07:11:54
No. What I have been saying is that you can find your own structure and that you do not need a teacher to show you a structure. You can discover it on your own as "the first teacher" may have done.

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

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

Quote from: Ssergiu on July 21, 2011, 07:11:54However, yes, a teacher can help you when you have trouble, but he/she may still not be able to help you with everything since you may experience something else, unless you OOBE the way he does.

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

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

Quote from: Ssergiu on July 21, 2011, 07:11:54
Yes, but still, there are many structures for experiencing the same thing. However, teaching someone your structure would make it easier to know what your "student" is experiencing.
Once you've got a structure you are already experiencing things. Those things can be subjective. For example you may hear stuff in SP, see things or feel presences. That's what I meant that it is subjective.

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Ssergiu on July 21, 2011, 07:11:54
Also, SP is subjective because of your sleep schedule and mood. If I tried now, I wouldn't have any SP. For example, not everyone can OOBE at 4 am.

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

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

Quote from: Ssergiu on July 21, 2011, 07:11:54
There is a difference in the structures, however, the OOBE is the same.

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Ssergiu on July 22, 2011, 05:36:26
I also am talking about the "I" part of the mind.

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

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

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

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

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

Well, I do experience this difference, I think everyone who OOBEs does. I first thought the "I" did not move in meditation until I experienced it there too. Again, I know what I have been experiencing, I know I am not creating the stuff, but moving in the stuff. What you are saying there sounds more like a lucid dream, from which I always get out very soon.