have i just masterd visulization ?

[astralee]

i just closed my eyes when relaxing doing mindfull meditation  and an image of a beach popped up with out me thinking off anything. then i  seen my 3erd eye was moving and i started to create images. so i read about creating a forrest meditation. so i did mindfullnes meditation and using my 3erd eye i strated to create a picture with trees in it with green leaves. wile moving my 3erd eye.

[Xanth]

You tell us.

http://www.astraldynamics.com/home/new-energy-ways/using-new-full-tutorial/73-part-2-no-visualization.html

That link is probably the best description and method for teaching visualization that I've ever seen.

The first thing to learn is that visualization isn't a 'visual' thing.  I'll let you read the rest. 

[roman67]

I haven't heard about mindfulness meditation. Is that possible that while doing mindfulness meditation, you can create images by using your 3rd eye...

[astralee]

it dose sound like clearvoyance. becouse last night after posting i had a kind of lucid dream i was in the front room of my house, i seen a wight light it was like a mist on my eyes i then heard a voice i dident hear what it said  it made me jump out of the dream.

[Stookie_]

The first thing to learn is that visualization isn't a 'visual' thing.  I'll let you read the rest. 

It is for me. I can see what I visualize, though not crystal clear like with my eyeballs... well, it is crystal clear, but "back behind" things, and when I go clairvoyant it comes "up front" to crystal clear, like with my eyeballs. (Oh, semantics make this so confusing).

Bruce redefines visualization in that article to make sense of his "tactile awareness" (and does an excellent job), though the original poster is straight-up visualizing (I'm not sure about mastering it though). If you want to learn about visualization, that is NOT the article to read. It's was written for tactile awareness.

If the term "visualization" is too strict, call it "picturing something in your mind".

[astralee]

It is for me. I can see what I visualize, though not crystal clear like with my eyeballs... well, it is crystal clear, but "back behind" things, and when I go clairvoyant it comes "up front" to crystal clear, like with my eyeballs. (Oh, semantics make this so confusing).

Bruce redefines visualization in that article to make sense of his "tactile awareness" (and does an excellent job), though the original poster is straight-up visualizing (I'm not sure about mastering it though). If you want to learn about visualization, that is NOT the article to read. It's was written for tactile awareness.

If the term "visualization" is too strict, call it "picturing something in your mind".

hi stookie do you have any exercies i could use for clairvoyant messeges in dreams how to decode them.

[Xanth]

Bruce redefines visualization in that article to make sense of his "tactile awareness" (and does an excellent job), though the original poster is straight-up visualizing (I'm not sure about mastering it though). If you want to learn about visualization, that is NOT the article to read. It's was written for tactile awareness.

If the term "visualization" is too strict, call it "picturing something in your mind".

I think Bruce does a wonderful job of explaining exactly why everyone gets it wrong in the first place when they ask/wonder "what is visualization".
It's NOT a visual thing.  If you're actually seeing what you're visualizing, then you're no longer visualizing and you're doing something else.  Call it clairvoyant... call it remote viewing... call it whatever... it's not visualization anymore.

That article was written as a companion piece that goes "along with" (not written "for") his tactile awareness stuff.  I don't even bother reading the part about tactile awareness and just point point towards the visualization portion.  It stands on its own as a great piece about what visualization is and why people are much better at it than they think.

Visualizing isn't a "visual" thing in that you're not actually seeing anything like you see your physical reality or when you project.
The best way I can describe is that you perceive... it's like remembering a memory.  You can "SEE" it and replay the memory in your mind... but you can't actually SEE it.  You visualize it.

The term visualization isn't too strict... it's a completely inaccurate word to describe what the act actually is.  Calling it, as you suggest, "picturing something in your mind", is much more accurate.  Or "Perceptualizing", seems better to me.

[Szaxx]

Hi,
Last night the visualisation routine proceeded quite quickly. The usual shapes etc then an image of a gap between some rocks started to appear below. This looked as real as that found in a dream. After a moment I imagined being there and started to climb down from my position above.
This is typical of visualisations, yet the link says not???
This scene was taking me into the astral and wasn't anything but a NPR initiated from SEEING something.
Where does this leave mqny of us who enter their visualisations?
Bemused!

[Xanth]

The mental rundown, for example, is a visualization up to a point.  Once you actually start seeing things those are either hypnogogic images OR you've actually projected.

Visualization is the perceiving of an image and not the visualizing (seeing)  of an image.
This is why people become extremely confused with this topic.

[Szaxx]

You're not kidding!

[Stookie_]

The mental rundown, for example, is a visualization up to a point.  Once you actually start seeing things those are either hypnogogic images OR you've actually projected.

Visitation is the perceiving of an image and not the visualizing (seeing)  of an image.
This is why people become extremely confused with this topic.

When I do a rundown I can see what I'm visualizing it in great clarity. I'm sure Frank was the same from his explanations of a rundown. Can you really not see shapes and colors in your imagination? What are you seeing in a rundown then? Is it a narration? It's hard to believe I'm one of a small few who can visually visualize.

In Bruce's article he says visualization isn't visual, and it's it's really a "mind's eye" thing. Well, I visualize in my mind's eye. And why else would it be called visualization? I think making up definitions is much more confusing than sticking with what's understood.

I've always told people if they aren't good at visualization to try tactile awareness. And really, that's what Bruce is saying in that article on NEW.

[astralee]

thats the  same with me black screen then light then colour  then shape then image then moving image. but i carnt enter it witch is what  im stuck at its  almost like a wild but no rem.

[Xanth]

thats the  same with me black screen then light then colour  then shape then image then moving image. but i carnt enter it witch is what  im stuck at its alme almost like a wild but no rem.

It kind of sounds like you might have already phases.
When you get to that point again try thinking about what it is you want to do.

See what that does for ya.

[Lionheart]

When I do a rundown I can see what I'm visualizing it in great clarity. I'm sure Frank was the same from his explanations of a rundown. Can you really not see shapes and colors in your imagination? What are you seeing in a rundown then? Is it a narration? It's hard to believe I'm one of a small few who can visually visualize.
In Bruce's article he says visualization isn't visual, and it's it's really a "mind's eye" thing. Well, I visualize in my mind's eye. And why else would it be called visualization? I think making up definitions is much more confusing than sticking with what's understood.

I agree 100% Stookie. I can close my eyes and I don't even need to imagine any more, there are visions there just ready to be seen. But, I can visualize anything I put my mind to. Once again all these definitions and titles. I know it helps people to understand, but it can totally confuse you as well. I have found that Astral Travel really comes down to a change in your "mind set", all these techniques and methods do great. But, once you change your "mindset", you will never have problems reaching the NPR again.
This is why it's advised to watch Tom Campbell's videos and also more than just once. Once you start to see the "big picture" or his real message, than you will truly be able to just let go and experience the NPR.

[astralee]

It kind of sounds like you might have already phases.
When you get to that point again try thinking about what it is you want to do.

See what that does for ya.

thanks i will tonight

[Xanth]

I think you guys are confusing words and concepts.

Are you actually "seeing"?   Seeing like you see in this physical reality, or in a projection?   Cause that's not visualization.  That's clairvoyance or remote viewing of sorts.  
Or are you seeing,  as in how you see a memory when you remember it?   That's more akin to visualize and it's not visual at all.  It's perceiving an experience.

I think there's a simple misunderstanding of definitions going on here.
Robert Bruce really does cover it perfectly in that single Page I linked above.   Give the whole Page a read, the see how it lines up.

It's this perpetualization of this seeing thing which is exactly why so many people end up confused about visualization. 

[Bedeekin]

Now I'm confused.

[Lionheart]

 Basically I am seeing images and scenarios and that's good enough for me, lol!  It's funny that you bring up this "seeing" thing. Every time I am processing info from any source now, a little voice comes into my head saying "see through". That really helps me keep my bearings on what's important and what's not.

[Xanth]

Now I'm confused.

I'm certainly not.

I used to be very confused as to what visualization was.  Then I realized it's not about anything visual at all, and it became much easier.

In my opinion, Bruce is dead on about Visualization.  In that webpage, he's correcting the misconception which a lot of people have about Visualization.  
He explains why the common misconception occurs and how one can fix it.

Basically I am seeing images and scenarios and that's good enough for me, lol!  It's funny that you bring up this "seeing" thing. Every time I am processing info from any source now, a little voice comes into my head saying "see through". That really helps me keep my bearings on what's important and what's not.

But HOW do you "see" them?

I can ask you right now to think of a pink elephant.  And you'll have no doubt seen a pink elephant, or at least an elephant in your mind.  You didn't *SEE* it, you *PERCEIVED* it.  You perceived exactly how it looks, how huge it is... and perhaps that it was pink.  That's the difference between "seeing" and "perceiving"... that's the difference between "visualization" and doing something else that isn't visualization.

[Bedeekin]

I hadn't even read the link... sorry Xanth.

I don't separate the two classifications though.

Visualisation for me is also the 'feel'... either the two go hand in hand... i.e. one following the other or they are one and the same thing. Again... outs perception splits these two qualities of 'visualisation' better.

Another reason I said it is because I have never really instigated an experience by visualisation.

I really find it hard to separate the two.

maybe because I am an artist... or... experiencing has made me that way. 

[Xanth]

I hadn't even read the link... sorry Xanth.

I don't separate the two classifications though.

Visualisation for me is also the 'feel'... either the two go hand in hand... i.e. one following the other or they are one and the same thing. Again... outs perception splits these two qualities of 'visualisation' better.

Another reason I said it is because I have never really instigated an experience by visualisation.

I really find it hard to separate the two.

maybe because I am an artist... or... experiencing has made me that way. 

The "feel" is definitely it as well.
That's the tactile thing Bruce explains on the following pages.

The perceptual and "feeling" are both part of Visualization.
What they're describing is seeing what they're visualizing as if they were looking at it physically.  At least that's how I'm reading their posts... someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Bedeekin]

No I get it now.. .cheers Xanth.

But I really think I have always treated them as one which was part of my ignition confusion. I suppose I never considered it till now. Interesting.

Rather than visualise by having an actual 'picture' against the backdrop of ones closed eyes... one perceives it as thought... or more the qualia...

Y'know... I think the perfect word to describe it is qualia. Using the qualia of the scene... instead of a visual system.

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

[Szaxx]

Hi,
The feelings are always profound. The visualisation itself changes from minds eye or imagined through stages to an actual view as real as the physical eye sees. This is the  point where you can enter the scene.
Its this point where the reference gets confusing, its not actually optically generated but is real as your conciousness is shifted into this NPR frame.
Ideas on interpretation?

[Lionheart]

Hi,
The feelings are always profound. The visualisation itself changes from minds eye or imagined through stages to an actual view as real as the physical eye sees. This is the  point where you can enter the scene.
Its this point where the reference gets confusing, its not actually optically generated but is real as your consciousness is shifted into this NPR frame.
Ideas on interpretation?

That's a pretty straightforward analogy there Szaxx. there's no need to interpret that one! 

[Xanth]

Hi,
The feelings are always profound. The visualisation itself changes from minds eye or imagined through stages to an actual view as real as the physical eye sees. This is the  point where you can enter the scene.
Its this point where the reference gets confusing, its not actually optically generated but is real as your conciousness is shifted into this NPR frame.
Ideas on interpretation?

I'd say when you're actually seeing like you do physically... That's when you have already entered the scene.