Mapping the Astral

[Blue Glitter Neon]

Has anyone thought about this?

Provided every OBE environment is not unique and subjective to the person experiencing it, it ought in principle to be possible to catalogue the 'worlds' in question and perhaps even their possible relation to one another.

So we know there is a 'physical double' world closest to us. This is where most people who manage to have an OBE apparently go most of the time, at least until they are able to 'raise their vibration' high enough to visit more distant dimensions.

Further out from the immediate physical double there are additional 'Earth' similar environments, gradually losing similarity to the physical plane, and beyond these the wish fulfillment planes or paradise environments. In the 'opposite direction' from the physical there are of course the lower planes of bleakness and suffering.

"Sideways", there are apparently environments not modeled on our material universe, but perhaps on other universes or perhaps just different free standing environments on their own.

The general picture is rather well known. However, would it be possible, perhaps through the sharing of OBE information, to establish the identity of distinct environments and something like a description of what they are like? Maybe some specific scenery/location that is known to likely exist only in that environment?

Of course, such a grand scheme is not pulled off in a heartbeat, but neither is it the point. Just a preliminary identification of a handful environments immediately beyond the 'double' would be a great achievement and of tremendous importance. Could we even speak of a fledging discipline of "Astralography"?

[Subtle Traveler]

A lot of this has already been done. Here is an example:

http://www.multidimensionalman.com/Multidimensional-Man/Model_of_the_Multidimensional_Universe.html

Jurgen (who is a member here) has several pages on his web site dedicated to answering your question. In addition, people like William Buhlman have also(see Secrets of the Soul). Most of this kind of conceptual work is already in books.

And unfortunately, since space does not exist in the higher dimensions, mapping that would eventually become futile. Finally, in regards to individual experience, my own map is already in my personal journal. Hope this helps and saves you some time in your search.

[Xanth]

With all due respect to Jurgen, you can't "map" the non-physical.

We ask these questions due to this physical reality... which we experience in all its physical-ness.
This is just ONE reality amongst an infinite number of realities which comprise the "non-physical" (or as you're calling it: the astral).

There isn't much I'll ever say you "can't" do... but,consciousness is ultimately an individual and unique experience.  You can't map it as much as you can't have someone elses experience.

[Blue Glitter Neon]

Thanks for great replies! Well, I have read Jurgen Ziewe's book and it's truly fascinating. I'm thrilled to learn he is a member of this board!

Thing is, as much as a value Ziewe's contribution in trying to posit a useful model of the 'beyond', I'm really asking for a whole lot more in terms of detailed information.

It's so great to read about his experiences, which naturally begs questions like, did several of those places he visited actually belong to the same major environment, or did each and every one of them take place in distinct worlds? Could another astral traveler end up in the same locations he visited? Ziewe himself seems to stress the objectivity of these environments, meaning they should exist on their own, irrespectively of the subjective observer.

Xanth, so in other words, you are more leaning towards the hypothesis that these environments are in fact in a non-trivial sense dependent on the subjective consciousness of the observer, to the extent that each visit consists of a single and unique experience not ever again to be visited by someone else?

[Xanth]

Xanth, so in other words, you are more leaning towards the hypothesis that these environments are in fact in a non-trivial sense dependent on the subjective consciousness of the observer, to the extent that each visit consists of a single and unique experience not ever again to be visited by someone else?

Not exactly. 

What you experience is objective.
But how you experience it is subjective.

Meaning, you could have each person "map" their non-physical and you would end up with 7 billion different maps.
Would you find similarities between some of them?  Of course you would.  We're all experiencing THROUGH the same "kind" of "human-ish" senses.  But that doesn't mean that they're the same experience, or even close. 

So what you're calling a potential "single and unique experience"... isn't really single and unique.  HOW you experience it will be single and unique, but the truth behind the experience is real.  Someone else might "visit" it and experience something completely different, but the truth behind the experience still doesn't change... only HOW they experienced it.  It's how you/they/us interpret what we experience and what filters we use to interpret them through.

Anything you can experience is "real".  There is nothing that you can experience that one could point at and say "that's not real".

[mac]

With all due respect to Jurgen, you can't "map" the non-physical.

We ask these questions due to this physical reality... which we experience in all its physical-ness.
This is just ONE reality amongst an infinite number of realities which comprise the "non-physical" (or as you're calling it: the astral).

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This.

[Blue Glitter Neon]

Not exactly.  

What you experience is objective.
But how you experience it is subjective.

(...)

So what you're calling a potential "single and unique experience"... isn't really single and unique.  HOW you experience it will be single and unique, but the truth behind the experience is real.  Someone else might "visit" it and experience something completely different, but the truth behind the experience still doesn't change... only HOW they experienced it.  It's how you/they/us interpret what we experience and what filters we use to interpret them through.

I'll throw out an example. Jurgen Ziewe mentions in his book that there are cities that are thousands of years old, formed from the pliable nature of the non-physical and kept up by what he calls "the power of consensus". This power is strong enough to create at least as powerful a persistence (or what I referred to as objectivity) to these locations as in the physical. (p. 225)

Now, if two explorers from the physical came upon these locations at different times, wouldn't they have visited the same place and be able to recognize it as such? Say there are landmarks, like an exotic palace perched on a hill or a spectacular complex of huge fountains of exquisite aesthetic design in a square somewhere, to which leads only a few very narrow and winding streets, couldn't they be used as markers to a certain location in a certain non-physical environment?

Or is the problem that, depending on their differing mental status, the experience would be so different that the visitors couldn't possibly tell if it was the same location? Maybe so different even, that the palace and square might perhaps even cease to be seen?

[Blue Glitter Neon]

And unfortunately, since space does not exist in the higher dimensions, mapping that would eventually become futile. Finally, in regards to individual experience, my own map is already in my personal journal. Hope this helps and saves you some time in your search.

Sounds rather interesting...

Sorry, but I must have missed this part. Is it possible to find this journal of yours somewhere?

[Subtle Traveler]

@BGN

No, my journal is private.

Do you practice OBE? I cannot currently, because I am healing from an injury, so I am spending some extra time at the AP forum lately. However, in my practice, I have found the Monroe Institute (TMI) very helpful. So, if you want to understand why "space" becomes irrelevant in the higher realms, I can (as a final kind gesture) suggest listening to this recording with Robert Monroe.

https://www.monroeinstitute.org/node/770

Good luck to you. Please note that I will not be responding here again to further questions.

[Blue Glitter Neon]

@BGN

No, my journal is private.

Do you practice OBE? I cannot currently, because I am healing from an injury, so I am spending some extra time at the AP forum lately. However, in my practice, I have found the Monroe Institute (TMI) very helpful. So, if you want to understand why "space" becomes irrelevant in the higher realms, I can (as a final kind gesture) suggest listening to this recording with Robert Monroe.

https://www.monroeinstitute.org/node/770

Good luck to you. Please note that I will not be responding here again to further questions.

I try to practice meditation (daily) since sometime last year and I try out various ideas, but generally speaking I feel I have a long way to go before I might achieve an actual OBE. You never know though.

Thanks for the link!

[Volgerle]

As regards 'maps' I guess no one can beat this...

Now, take that!

http://www.trufax.org/matrix5/segments/gradients.html

[Xanth]

As regards 'maps' I guess no one can beat this...

Now, take that!

http://www.trufax.org/matrix5/segments/gradients.html

How... linear. 

[Trepkos]

As regards 'maps' I guess no one can beat this...

Now, take that!

http://www.trufax.org/matrix5/segments/gradients.html

I've read The matrix 5. I found the concept of simultaneous incarnations interesting, but only the concept. One cannot describe this concept in words however. Only nonlinear dynamics can explain such things. And it seems the author is using the focus-level maps from the Monroe materials. Nothing new really. If one has to go for a linear map, then the theosophical one is the best one approximating a nonlinear world (represented by a curve). But i wouldn't rely too much on linear maps because "angles at each turn" fit ego patterns and thus limits experience.

[Blue Glitter Neon]

Thanks for the suggestions. None of that is what I would refer to as mapping, though. What I mean is the description of distinct environments, so they can be objectively identifiable. A "level", as in the schematics proposed by Monroe, would contain many such environments.

Perhaps that's an impossible task, which has been hinted at - I don't know, I've never had ab OBE - and I ought to admit it's all due to my scientific and aesthetic curiosity.

[Xanth]

I'll throw out an example. Jurgen Ziewe mentions in his book that there are cities that are thousands of years old, formed from the pliable nature of the non-physical and kept up by what he calls "the power of consensus". This power is strong enough to create at least as powerful a persistence (or what I referred to as objectivity) to these locations as in the physical. (p. 225)

Now, if two explorers from the physical came upon these locations at different times, wouldn't they have visited the same place and be able to recognize it as such? Say there are landmarks, like an exotic palace perched on a hill or a spectacular complex of huge fountains of exquisite aesthetic design in a square somewhere, to which leads only a few very narrow and winding streets, couldn't they be used as markers to a certain location in a certain non-physical environment?

Or is the problem that, depending on their differing mental status, the experience would be so different that the visitors couldn't possibly tell if it was the same location? Maybe so different even, that the palace and square might perhaps even cease to be seen?

Sorry BGN!  I didn't mean to seem like I was ignoring your post to me.  I had a long post written in response to the above... but then I re-read what I posted and what I wrote got me thinking.  So I deleted it all.    I do that often.  LoL

I'm just gonna start rambling my thoughts and see where this goes...

This physical reality is just one of those infinite number of "non-physical" (aka: astral) realities.  Your experience here is as unique and individual as any other experience you can have non-physically, but we know that if I told you to go to the corner of Bay St & Front St in downtown Toronto, that you would eventually be able to find your way there.  Why?  Because we agree upon certain aspects of this physical reality.

The question then is... can you do that same thing in another reality?  When I tell you directions here in this physical reality... it's through the expectation that we're both experiencing this physical reality in the same way.  Say we both project into another reality at the same time, are we then experiencing that reality the same way?  

In our projections, we find aspects such as our emotions, thoughts, expectations, beliefs, etc HEAVILY influence what we experience.  
Now, while experiencing this physical reality, those aspects STILL have an effect upon this reality, but it's not as heavily influenced by them.  

What makes this physical reality so stable that it keeps (mostly) that stability through those aspects being applied to it?  The rules that govern it?
What I've personally experienced about the non-physical says that it's much more pliable to those aspects, which would make going to a certain particular destination really difficult.  
Perhaps too then, when I say that "What you experience is objective, but how you experience is subjective" is really just a "per reality" thing.  Maybe some realities are more rigid than others?

In the end, I guess we can't say anything with any certainty.  

[beavis]

Its good to see someone else who believes in any kind of objective reality out there, even if its not shaped the same as around Earth.

The first question we need to answer, and this probably differs across various places, is:
How many places can be beside each place?
For example, a line has 2 ends, a square has 4 corners, a cube has 8 corners, and so on. It doesnt have to be an integer number of dimensions as it may blob together in other shapes, but I think most of us can agree that even in a place as strange as astral there are things closer or farther away from other things that we can phase between.

Many of these places are experienced as 3d, but that doesnt mean they are only 3d. They can have many variations of them or similar places you can phase between, and for every way it can vary thats a dimension.

What is the branching factor at each place? How many places can be beside each place?

Then we will know how to think about the shape of this map we might build.

[Blue Glitter Neon]

Sorry BGN!  I didn't mean to seem like I was ignoring your post to me.  I had a long post written in response to the above... but then I re-read what I posted and what I wrote got me thinking.  So I deleted it all.    I do that often.  LoL

Hehe, tell me about it! I'm doing it all the time! In fact, it's me who should apologize to you for waiting so long before I picked up on this thread again.

I'm just gonna start rambling my thoughts and see where this goes...

This physical reality is just one of those infinite number of "non-physical" (aka: astral) realities.  Your experience here is as unique and individual as any other experience you can have non-physically, but we know that if I told you to go to the corner of Bay St & Front St in downtown Toronto, that you would eventually be able to find your way there.  Why?  Because we agree upon certain aspects of this physical reality.

The question then is... can you do that same thing in another reality?  When I tell you directions here in this physical reality... it's through the expectation that we're both experiencing this physical reality in the same way.  Say we both project into another reality at the same time, are we then experiencing that reality the same way?  

In our projections, we find aspects such as our emotions, thoughts, expectations, beliefs, etc HEAVILY influence what we experience.  
Now, while experiencing this physical reality, those aspects STILL have an effect upon this reality, but it's not as heavily influenced by them.  

What makes this physical reality so stable that it keeps (mostly) that stability through those aspects being applied to it?  The rules that govern it?
What I've personally experienced about the non-physical says that it's much more pliable to those aspects, which would make going to a certain particular destination really difficult.  
Perhaps too then, when I say that "What you experience is objective, but how you experience is subjective" is really just a "per reality" thing.  Maybe some realities are more rigid than others?

In the end, I guess we can't say anything with any certainty.  

Okay, this was interesting and well explained. So, since the high degree of stability/consensus might just be part of the definition of the material world, would it be plausible to suggest that the stability factor in other environments might in fact be a gradual matter, like some astral environments being more "objective" than others, in the sense of being more or less influenced by our thoughts, expectations etc? Or is this stability essentially only a feature of the physical world and part of what makes it unique?

[Blue Glitter Neon]

Its good to see someone else who believes in any kind of objective reality out there, even if its not shaped the same as around Earth.

Great, then at least there are two of us!

The first question we need to answer, and this probably differs across various places, is:
How many places can be beside each place?
For example, a line has 2 ends, a square has 4 corners, a cube has 8 corners, and so on. It doesnt have to be an integer number of dimensions as it may blob together in other shapes, but I think most of us can agree that even in a place as strange as astral there are things closer or farther away from other things that we can phase between.

Many of these places are experienced as 3d, but that doesnt mean they are only 3d. They can have many variations of them or similar places you can phase between, and for every way it can vary thats a dimension.

What is the branching factor at each place? How many places can be beside each place?

Then we will know how to think about the shape of this map we might build.

Sorry, but I got hung up on that first question: "How many places can be beside each place?". Hm, I don't see why the purely immaterial would need to take up space at all, so the answer by me and Descartes would likely be an infinite number. Inside the various worlds, however, that would be another matter (even if you could instantly teleport around, might bend the very fabric of the local 'space-time' or whatever). Obviously, where there is form there must be space and hence distance.

You read The Magician's Nephew by C. S Lewis when you were young? Remember that scene where the children, after having tried on the rings from Atlantis, arrived in a tranquil, mysterious forest and between the blooming trees there were pond after pond after pond, each leading to a completely separate and different world or cosmos? These worlds did not exist in the same ontological reality at all. No sharing of space or interference needed.

The scene has stuck in my mind ever since I was a kid. Since I discovered Astral Projection I begin to see why...

Hm, I start to wonder what the old professor really knew about this place we call being...