Did anyone test the objectivity of their OBEs ?

[Nagual]

Some people claim they did...
But that will never replace first-hand experience.

[Nemo]

True, true. However, my question stays.

[Frank]

Once you become proficient at it you get so much "proof" of the reality of the experience all doubts just fade away and it's not something you ever think about. I (for one) respectfully disagree that your test would be proof of the reality of an obe experience... maybe the person supposedly doing the projecting just read the mind of the person doing the writing.

Yours,
Frank

[kiauma]

Hi Frank,  []

I've heard of the 'It's just ESP' hypothesis before, including the phenomena of past life experiences and clairvoyance.

Just what do you think would be 'proof of the (objective) reality of an obe experience'?

[astralspinner]

Maybe having your computer flash up a random number - I don't think ESP is considered to extend to reading computers' CPUs

[kiauma]

That would (could) be remote viewing.  Unfortunately, the 'it's just ESP' hypothesis is fiendishly hard to argue, because it really goes back to the very basic questions of our perception and existance.  

Basically, everything could boil down to a psychic solipsism (everything exists in your mind, you are the only thing that is real), but I am sure we would be forced to answer that the same way we do in standard philosophy - just agree it isn't true.   Any other theory is just a shade between the poles of solipsism and total objective/mechanistic reality.

I think the base question is Do we survive death?  Proving the 'reality' of various psychic phenomena could go a long way in establishing survival after death.   This is why you will see people fight so doggedly against it, coming up with things like 'it's just ESP'.   How do you prove that communicating with the departed, channelling, or other clairvoyance and supposed speaking with 'other' entities isn't just some psychic echo of once living beings, or out of the imagination of the person??

As many on this forum knows who have tried it, it takes painstaking care to research and verify such claims on this side, and much of it does appear bogus - but there is always just enough to leave one wondering, always just enough that cannot be explained any other way than as knowledge gained from some external source, by some unknown means.

Obviously, man's senses only barely scratch the surface of what is potentially going on even in his immediate vicinity, but it is going to take a long time to generally understand it, if ever.

Astraldynamics is a great start though, and astral studies are man's next great frontier.

[Rastus]

Twice in the same morning, hmmmmmm.

There are those people on this sight that are here for OBE/AP and that's all.  They don't consider anything else as being relavent.  Some of them are rather unenlightened spiritually, not even attempting to see the big picture.

Then there are those that consider everything else, of which OBE/AP is some small piece of it.

Once you understand how the physcial and astral realms inter-relate, you realize the test is meaningless and you move on with your work.  it seems this is an issue for people that can't OBE, wanting 'proof' before expending the effort to achieve something.

[Tombo]

I tried, and have failed so far. It is clear however that at least some big part of an obe can not be objectiv since the scenery mutates and most of the time does not correct represent the physical surroundings.  although it is still possible that one can train themself to perceive the physical correct, I don't know.

[kiauma]

I have OBE'd and Ap'd.  

For me, it raised far more questions than it answered.  I really was not ready for it, and I actually started to doubt my sanity.   I have only recently felt sufficiently grounded to begin again.

But that's not the point.  I too, having experienced it firsthand, do not doubt the 'reality' of OBE.  I thought most if not all of Robert Bruce's Astral Dynamics was right-on.  Though his experiences were far far more extensive than mine, I also found nothing to contradict my experiences, which I found very encouraging.

But, as you say, sooner or later the 'why' creeps in.  Yes, the experience is extremely subjective.  But underneath that, there is an external sensing and communication, which with practice can be developed to a high degree.  Still, the way is full of traps and pit-falls for the unwary.  

How to seperate the 'subjective' from the 'objective'?   That is the question to be explored in this thread.

[Frank]

quote:Originally posted by kiauma

Hi Frank,  []

I've heard of the 'It's just ESP' hypothesis before, including the phenomena of past life experiences and clairvoyance.

Just what do you think would be 'proof of the (objective) reality of an obe experience'?

That's a good question with an extremely difficult answer, IMO.

I suppose you'd first have to define precisely what is meant by the term "obe experience" and then set about putting together some kind of test criteria that would isolate any other variable.

The problem with this whole thing is, to a person who can project with a high degree of proficiency the proof is all around them. They don't need to seek it out or perform particular experiments and such like. They have bucketfuls of proof handed to them. So it's not something that really concerns me personally. But I do understand how someone could come to ask the question. I think Rastus makes a good point about the test being meaningless when you can just get on with your non-physical work.

The other problem, which I spoke about a couple of years ago, is it's very difficult (if not impossible) for a person to "doubt" the experience is real and then go and project in order to find the proof that will assuage their doubt. Reason being you are projecting within a realm where thought equals action. If you are having feelings of doubt, then that doubt will manifest all around you. Thus making you doubt it all the more. So that more intense feeling of doubt will further become manifest, and so on.

Now and again someone will come onto the forum talking about how they once thought the experience was "real" but they doubted it and after a number of projections they concluded it was all just in the head. Or something to that effect. People who do this just don't realise how classic a case they have become... living their very own self-fulfilling prophecy. Which is oh so very easy to do within non-physical realms; especially when you are unfamiliar with the basic ground-rules that apply. So if you believe in something (whatever that may be) you project and what you believe becomes manifest all around you... and so you believe it more, and so it becomes more intensely manifest... and so you believe it yet more... ad nauseum.

The original poster asked if anyone had tested the "objectivity" of their experiences. Looking at the meaning of the word a moment: Objectivity - judgment based on observable phenomena and not influenced by emotions or personal prejudices.

Problem is, the whole concept or standard of "objectivity" has been formulated from physical-matter concerns. For example, scientific experiments; where it is relatively easy to isolate the personal-prejudice aspect by the use of Double Blind testing procedures. Doing this holds the promise that no matter what the prejudices contained within the minds of the people conducting the experiment, the nature of the strict procedure ensures these prejudices can have no affect.

Within the non-physical, however, a person's surroundings can so very easily be changed about by the slightest release of emotion. So it is extremely difficult for a person to remain fully objective. It generally takes a LOT of practice for the majority of people (myself included). Thing is, two people could project to the same point within the astral and both have very different experiences. Which is great for the people concerned, but plays havoc when anyone tries to quantify that experience using physical-world expectations and procedures.

Like I say, it's a difficult one to get your head around.

Yours,
Frank

[kiauma]

Very well summed up Frank!

I agree completely that the controversey and criticism of OBE as 'real' comes from the fact that we are dealling with a very different set of laws.

Great point about the very concept of 'objective' coming out of our mundane physical perceptions.  This is indeed in stark contrast to the immediate emotional manifestation property of OOBE.

I had never really put together the reinforcing nature of our expectations either, though it makes perfect sense.  I too have read of those who have the experiences, then later dismiss them as fantasy.  Of course that is what they see, if that is what they believe that is what they are going to see.

My head hurts!  []

To take it a step further, I do not believe there is anything objective about the OBE experience at all.   As you say, two people could project to the same point within the astral and both have very different experiences. How could this be?  At the same time, the 'proof' of the reality of OBE to many people is precisely that they have prearranged to meet someone in the astral, came back and compared notes, and found that they really did share an experience!  Again, how could this be?

I think when OOB, we really are merely points of consciousness as RB says, and our 'experience' is largely merely our perception of the various forces, circumstances, or other points of consciousness around us.  At the same time, this sensing of our environment is a connection with something much more subtle - it is merely how our minds interpret this that gives it substance, that gives us experience.   The stimulus may be the same, but the interpretation, our experience, will differ, even if only slightly.

Again, however, being able to control the emotion which can so easily mask the subtle influences is the key.

That's my theory, anyway.  Of course, everyone has a theory.

What do you think?

[Frank]

kiauma: I think you make some good points.

The reinforcing nature of the experience is an important one because it is that which can utterly convince a person what they feel is real... absolutely beyond doubt. And the more they think that way, the more they believe it.

That is how people get "stuck" on the lower planes following physical death. Their emotional outpouring creates what I call a reality sphere within the lower astral. Which is the emotional scenario being played out all around them. The scene they are engrossed within will cause them to react in a certain way; which will cause that same certain circumstance to manifest; which will cause them to react in that same certain way; which will reinforce that same certain scene; which causes them to react in that same way etc., etc, ad infinitum... literally.

People can get locked in these kinds of emotional loops within dreams, but it's only a matter of time before their alarm goes off, or it gets so bad their protective sense of awareness zaps them back to physical, or whatever. Some people suffer from recurring dreams. Which is basically an emotional loop that gets broken during waking hours. But some kind of mental neurosis causes the person to outpour the same emotional feelings during sleep.

However, once you lose the ability to zap back to physical, i.e. following physical body death, it is possible to get caught in a loop for the equivalent of a good many physical years.

Your examples about two people meeting within the astral are both equally valid. The difference being the person's emotional involvement in the process. There is a way to have an entirely objective experience: that is to remain emotional neutral at all times. Which is a tricky thing to do (to say the least).

Now, two people may perceive each other, but perceive their surroundings differently... because their individual emotional state is different. If two people meet and both remain emotionally neutral, they should perceive each other and the same surroundings. That would be the most reliable from a conventional-science point of view.

But then, any conventional scientific study would get thrown if two people met yet described different surroundings. Conventional science would logically conclude that, as the people described different surroundings, they must have been in two different places. This would naturally (for them) beg the question how could two people correctly perceive each other, and be in each other's presence, but at the same time each person be in an entirely different place?

However, true-science tells us this is conventional science coming to a faulty conclusion. The two people are not in different places. They are at the same place, but the difference in each person's emotional condition is creating a particular reality sphere which each individual perceives and interprets as being their true surroundings.

With any astral experience you have your true astral surroundings, then, superimposed upon your astral surroundings, you create a reality sphere which is composed of and fuelled by your own thoughts-release-emotions. Now, once a person gets more adept, they learn to recognise which elements of the scenery are being composed by themselves, and which elements are true astral.

The key to doing this is to practice remaining neutral. Then, the elements of your surroundings that are being created by yourself will dissipate thus revealing your true astral environment.

Problem is, at first you can only hold this neutral state for an instant or two. Then the mind wanders and starts creating thought-forms again, or some unexpected circumstance will arise and catch you off guard.

So you are correct, being able to control the emotion is the key. The most productive state I found is to start from the standpoint of being emotionally neutral, and then release a feeling of mild curiosity.

Yours,
Frank

[Sampson]

quote:Originally posted by Rastus

Twice in the same morning, hmmmmmm.

There are those people on this sight that are here for OBE/AP and that's all.  They don't consider anything else as being relavent.  Some of them are rather unenlightened spiritually, not even attempting to see the big picture.

Then there are those that consider everything else, of which OBE/AP is some small piece of it.

Once you understand how the physcial and astral realms inter-relate, you realize the test is meaningless and you move on with your work.  it seems this is an issue for people that can't OBE, wanting 'proof' before expending the effort to achieve something.

I agree with what Rastus say's regarding the bigger picture and especially with "Once you understand how the physical and astral realms inter-relate, you realize the test is meaningless and you move on with your work".

I was too much in awe of the experience to look for evidence on my first projection into the RTZ, the experience in itself was proof enough for me.

I have also had evidence from the 'other' side too, in the form of spiritual experiences as a child and direct and indirect readings from spirit mediums one of these being from perhaps the most well known spirit medium in England.

The information and experiences I had upon receiving their information and my own experiences with OBE's leaves no doubt in my mind of the bigger spiritual picture.

If I had never had an OBE or any spiritual experiences and even if somebody did give me proof that they had read a hidden symbol or obtained some other piece of information (stories and examples of which I have already read and been told) that could only have been gotten by Projection, OBE, Remote viewing etc I would still want to experience it for myself to eliminate all doubt.

[Michael_E]

quote:Originally posted by Frank

Originally posted by kiauma

Hi Frank,  []

I think Rastus makes a good point about the test being meaningless when you can just get on with your non-physical work.

I dont think its meaningless at all to test reality in the way Nemo mentioned. even better if its done under a rigorous protocol. Gives you a chance to explore applications.

[Frank]

quote:I dont think its meaningless at all to test reality in the way Nemo mentioned

Michael: any chance you can expand on that and tell us why not?

quote:even better if its done under a rigorous protocol

Could you tell us what would be your idea of such a protocol?

Yours,
Frank

[des Jardins]

Hi..!
I think, Robert Bruce, at his "Treatise on OBE" has established a way leading to verify reality of "Out of Body Experience". He says:

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Raising During OOBE:
To increase out of body vitality and capability it is important to have enough energy flowing from the physical/etheric bodies to the projected double. This is best done by the projected double while it is out of body. It must reach out and 'feel' itself sucking energy into itself, feeling energy rushing into it from it's physical body. This out of body awareness action appears to create a strong energy demand in the projected double, which causes an increased flow of energy from the physical/etheric body to meet this demand. The increase in the clarity and ability this can cause during a projection can be quite amazing, and happens very quickly. This technique is especially useful if you have projection vision problems or blindness. Everything will noticeably brighten and light will be seen all around the projector, lighting up the darkness and following them about wherever you go. This technique can be used with great effect to solve or ease most common projected double related weakness problems, visual or otherwise.

excerpt from http://www.astralpulse.com/guides/oobe/oobe_7.htm#11
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, let´s suppose that before APing intent you activates a camcorder in a dark room, since you are a point of conciousness you can to exhibite just in front of the objective of such a camcorder and gather energy. Then, in a posteriori reproduction of recorded frames a point of light will can be seen.

I'm all right with this idea ? Or nature of light field related to an OBEer. is unable to get by physical instruments ? If so, how can spirits to manifest to mediums ?

Natalia des Jardins

[Nemo]

First I must underline that I was talking about an "objectivity test" not a test about the nature of OBEs.

That means that the test is about the question if there is objective reality in the phenomenon, not about the nature of the phenomenon.

That means that all those who embarked into a discussion ESP versus true projection missed the point completely, which is strange since the extremely simple test I was suggesting (reading an unknown text from a piece of paper) clearly wasn't about the discrimination between ESP and projection, but evidently about determining if there is "a" objective reality in the phenomenon.

Now, lets return to the topic.

I note that only a handful seem to acknowledge the obviousness of the interest in such objectivity test. Only one person present seems to have tried such test but unfortunately didn't succeed.

Lots of philosophizing about the subjective nature of OBEs of the type: "it's all subjective and two projectors can be in the same place but have totally different experiences".
Well, the question is precisely if they are in the same (objective)place or just in their heads having peculiar hallucinations (ESP or projection alike).

The "reading test" is to establish that there is an objective reality to the phenomenon (it doesn't matter if one would be projected to a real place or retrieving info by ESP from a real place/object - the piece of paper)


I wonder if some more experienced projectors did some test of this kind or would feel confident that they could succeed?
Perhaps Robert Bruce himself could answer that question?

[upstream]

quote:Well, the question is precisely if they are in the same (objective)place or just in their heads having peculiar hallucinations (ESP or projection alike).

There is no distinct difference. In fact, even at now "we are in our heads" and "out of our body" meaning that we don't perceive the objective reality as it is. According to Rudolfo Llinas and others we are living in a mental representations of our environment that made by "memory reflux" of our brain.

Seth has said many times that underlying consensus about our reality is distributed and syncronised "unconsciously" and "telepatically." I might add that the only difference between shared dreaming and waking states is the quantity of "real" ("external") sensory input. Externally directed awareness is even more undeveloped in our dreams than in waking states, therefore unconscious mechanisms supposed to play a greater role to fill sensory gaps.

In this sense, objective reality (real time zone) projections can be regarded as a more strictly shared types of dreaming with a more characteristic outward awareness, lesser interpretations and unconscious assumptations about the environment.

Like shared dreamings RTZ-projections do require a common entrance point to tune into. For this purpose  a mutually constructed, "virtual" environment is used in shared dreamings (see 'Beneath an Astral Moon' by unknown author or Astral Pulse Island for example). At first dreamers should synchronise some pictures of their dreams to let unconscious processes do the rest. On the opposite, in RTZ-projections one have to fit internally generated pictures with energy fields of physical objects. But again, according to Seth position of physical objects is maintained unconsciously by members of our waking society. So an RTZ-OBE is represent a greater shared dreaming with more participants.

Now let us see a classical OBE. If we succeed to hold body awareness all along, as a result of the gradual sensory shutdown at one point we would inevitably feel some separation from a sumberling, paralysed body, therefore the assumptation that separation takes place in the bedroom remain unquestioned. As I see it, this unquestioned belief would serve for the basis of the RTZ-entrance point.

A most straightforward method to prove OBEs would be an attempt to directly detect the projected energy field. Existence of  those field is evident because perception require physical interaction, interaction on which every measurements are based. I have had many experiences about electromagnetic interferences from hight tension power lines and wires in the wall to ionizers, electrostatic fields around my ventillators cage and monitors, so I know that EM-detection is possible.

I have no doubt in my mind that the double is composed from at least two part. One part is a body-bounded, honey-like substance that will be saved back through a cable like organ. The remaining part is not bounded to the body but supposed to emerge directly from the vacuum anywhere one able to believe in. Therefore a Faraday-cage could not impede an EM-meter that placed inside tha cage to detect the field.

According to Tart's EEG-measurements on Monroe and others neurophysical substrate of RTZ-OBEs are not REM-sleep. Just think about the fact that moving your eyes could ruin a projection attempt. Seems the projector body/consciousness have to remain in mental and physical stillness in order to not interfere the experiences of the projected double. Perhaps moving eyes could confirm types of shared dreamings that keep a real time connection with the brain. This connection is the only condition I'm currently aware of that could separate shared dreamings from real astral projections.

[Amethyst]

Hello

I didn't read most of the postings so sorry if someone already said what I'm going to say.

What you see in astral changes according to your own pshychology.

Our pshychological defects like lust, envy, pride, fear... etc and what we learnt down here, how we behave... all those things change our perception of astral. It is like we looking through lust or looking through fear (like coloured broken glasses). Also if you think something over there it will appear. That's just the nature of that place.
If you want to see the astral objectively... ie what is there you need to start living your life by being in the moment and stop daydreaming, also need to eliminate the psychological defects. That way you'll see more and more clear, objectively.
Also the physical dimension is physical, the astral is astral. Everything in the physical has it's astral form, and in astral there are more things that doesn't exist in the physical. I think with some pshychological work could be possible to see that paper...
There's something though you could verify that astral does exist... meeting a person in astral (on purpose if you are good at it or by 'chance') then verify it down here. Many times you will find out that they do remember meeting you, and the scene and happenings are more or less the same or at least similar. Time of course can vary, can be few days difference in between but the same occurence... after all astral is eternity.

Don't know if that was of any help.

Peace

Amethyst

[Nemo]

quote:Originally posted by upstream:  
There is no distinct difference. In fact, even at now "we are in our heads" and "out of our body" meaning that we don't perceive the objective reality as it is. According to Rudolfo Llinas (...) of that could separate shared dreamings from real astral projections.

So I take it that you never tested the objective reality of your projections then?

Now let's hear from people with a modicum of common sense?

[stephen~]

You seem to want a straight answer to a straight question, nothing wrong with that if you are dealing with a subject that is black and white to start with. Isn't the vibe you are getting from the answers so far suggesting to you that proof is in the general feel of the experience, in the hard to detail moments, but ones that ring true on waking? In my experiences, such as they are, you cannot prove this at will, and the conclusions that this is real come from subtle details, not from big flashing signs that say yes or no.

As I have said before here, I have done the card test. The numbers were wrong, though I could barely see the card in the late afternoon winter gloom, but there was so much about the experience that was accurate, but that is now difficult to put into words in a coherent manner why I believe it was 'objective' proof.

For instance, I placed the card without being able to see (eyes were closed) exactly where I was putting it - I had a vague idea. Having projected I could see the shape of it clearly, and it was part of a collection of objects that I could see when I scanned around - for instance the card itself, against the arm of the couch, which was a few yards from a large window with a plant pot outside, grass at angle etc. Now all these things were spatially accurate when I sat up and opened my eyes and looked at it (for the first time) from the same position that I had been hovering in during the projection. To my mind I was looking at the same set of objects all where they were during projection.

Does it matter that the card was wrong? It is awhile ago, but I think I got the suit right, and was 100% sure it wasn't a face card. Even Remote Viewers will tell you how hard it is to read numbers and words correctly, yet there is plenty of evidence that they are often accurate in many other respects.

I don't know if you have seen this before, but it was a lab test done by Charles Tart in 1968 on a young woman who succesfully read a 5 digit number. If you scroll down to Day IV you will see for yourself. You might also notice that she wasn't just able to pop out and read the number at will, so despite having quite well developed abilities it was no cakewalk for her:

http://www.meta-religion.com/Paranormale/OBE/psychophysiological_study_of_obe.htm

[astralspinner]

quote:Even Remote Viewers will tell you how hard it is to read numbers and words correctly

It has, in fact, been demonstrated scientifically that the part of the brain that allows us to read doesn't function when we're asleep, dreaming, or in a trance. That's why it's so difficult to read numbers & words when OOB - instead of our brain doing it all for us, we have to try and do it all by ourselves.

Perhaps the experiment should be based on Tarot cards rather than playing cards?

[Veccolo]

Pictures or objects are better, numbers and texts are too unstable. Playing cards are bad imo, everyone knows how they look like etc., so this could screw up the objectivity.

For "better" objectivity, the picture or object should be something the person _never_ has seen before. It would also be better if the person didn't have any physical contact with the object/picture (you never know what kind of informations are "transferred" this way, imo).

The person who draws or makes this object should not be known to the projector.

Last but not least, the object should be as far away as possible from the projecting person, like in another room or house (or even farther away).

This way one should get quite objective results, imo.

[Frank]

Nemo: We realise you are talking about an objectivity test. That's the crux of the problem, as upstream has already quite rightly pointed out. Against the background of the wider reality, there is no distinct difference. So we haven't missed your point. Our subsequent discussion went beyond it. And yes, we do like to philosophise here.

Myself, I'm not an expert in real-time zone exploration. However, I do now and again get information from people within the astral realms that I have relayed to people within the physical, who confirmed the information was correct. It is not something I ever consciously set out to do, it just happens to me now and again.

If my experience has anything to go by, the more reliably and frequently a person can project the less likely they are to be concerned with faffing about trying to prove it to themselves.

Now, taking your point about where you say, "Well, the question is precisely if they are in the same (objective) place or just in their heads having peculiar hallucinations (ESP or projection alike)."

To answer your question: within the physical, a person could be said to be in one place, say, London and another person could be said to be in Paris. Objectively they are in two separate places as there is an obvious distance between them.

People then try and relate what they think is simple physical-realm logic, to non-physical realms: which is something I call astral anthropomorphism.

In this case, what you have failed to take into account is within non-physical realms there is no such thing as time. So there can be no such thing as space or distance either. So every location within the astral could be said to be in exactly the same location. So no matter where two people were within the non-physical, they are always in one place and in every place, all at the same instant.

And you say, "or just in their heads having peculiar hallucinations". Why would anyone be in their heads? Your brain is in your head. No-one does any hallucinating there. Hallucinations are a product of the mind. Which lives in a place nowhere near your head. The mind resides in a totally different dimension of existence.

HTH

Yours,
Frank

[Veccolo]

quote:Originally posted by Frank


In this case, what you have failed to take into account is within non-physical realms there is no such thing as time. So there can be no such thing as space or distance either. So every location within the astral could be said to be in exactly the same location. So no matter where two people were within the non-physical, they are always in one place and in every place, all at the same instant.

I've read about that and I have my problems with the time- and spaceless concept. It would mean that the principle of causality doesn't exist in the "non-physical" realms, something that is hard to imagine or believe for me. So this principle doesn't really exist, yet most of the experiences which can be read here on this site indicate that causality does exist "over there".

How is that explained? Does our mind uphold ("create") the illusion of cause and effect while having an astral projection? And What after we die? Do we still perceive the "illusion" of cause and effect?

Other people say time and space do exist in the "non-physical", it's just that we perceive them differently.

The absence of causality, perceiving everything at the same time ... quite a scary thought, imo.

Sorry for being offtopic.