Hi all! :-)
I would like to know if other dimensions are considered a part of the astral? In one of my experiences, I met with an Ascended Master. It didn't look at all like what a lot of people describe when they AP... For ex. I couldn't have done the "card thing" as I wasn't even in the same dimension... during that experience, I found myself goint upwards in the skies, following a sort of spiral of bright white light. It went really fast and at one point, I was "somewhere" but it was really "a space", nothing tangible. I thought it was a sacred temple. It was just pure white light and there were what looked like stars and different layers of colors (purple, blue, pink and green) I could not SEE anyone but I could hear a voice and I clearly heard Kuthumi's name.
Also, I have read old diaries yesterday and I recall having visited our solar system with a guide. I have had other astral experiences as well, but only a few that took place in places where I normally live (like my house and surroundings).
Any views??
:-)
In my opinion, there are many other dimensions.
Some much like ours... some very different... and everything in between.
I think... there are an infinite number of them.
Each dimension has it's own Focus 1, 2 and 3... all under the umbrella of Focus 4 (obviously, speaking in terms of Franks Phasing Model).
~Ryan :)
this is my diagram of our "perceived reality"
(http://pics.livejournal.com/astrallyknown/pic/000038kc/s640x480)
and this is a 3-D view
(http://pics.livejournal.com/astrallyknown/pic/00004yad/s640x480)
I am unfamiliar with the term "density". Where does this come from and what doe it refer to? I don't recall it in any of my readings.
Another of those interesting terms that pop up to confuse me!
Thanks, and nice diagrams! I don't get em... Ive been up toooo long.
Quote from: Psilibus on May 12, 2010, 11:56:28
I am unfamiliar with the term "density". Where does this come from and what doe it refer to? I don't recall it in any of my readings.
Another of those interesting terms that pop up to confuse me!
Thanks, and nice diagrams! I don't get em... Ive been up toooo long.
Don't worry, I don't get'em either... and I've been seeing it for a while now. :)
Summoning higher dimensions is critical when you're in a bad place. I've ended up in some very strange brown and grey and black places with blobs and demons and parasitic things that just want to get ya! So running away to a higher dimension is a good skill.
I'm not sure about technique... you just call it.
One time I called a higher level and a bridge appeared from the dark worlds to a happy world full of raibows and clouds. Another time I called it and the sky opened like a heavenly vagina and streams of light and colored clouds poured down and sucked me straight into the eternal womb. lol :lol:
Anyway... the point is you can call your exit to a higher level by will. And then fly around happy and free. I'm sorta drawn to exploring dark places so it's a good skill for me to have.
As far as density goes, I guess it's lightworkers' terminlogy! :wink:
The higher the vibrations, the lower the density. Therefore, the third density (or dimension) is the denser and as you elevate your frequencies, you become lighter and lighter until you are light (or pure consicousness), and therefore, less dense. You can make a parallel with Einstein's E=MC2 theory which says that if you can have the molecules of a certain mass accelerate at the speed of light, it becomes pure energy.
What I understand from the first diagram is that, as you elevate your frequency (the idea is to embody higher frequencies, to ground them in the body) your waking state evolves (which I see as increased awareness, being more lucid, more receptive, more intuitive, thoughts that manifest more quickly, etc. (and on the other hand, having more responsabilities)) AND you can experience another "dimension" on the astral level...
Personalreality: Given the experience that I earlier described, would you say that I experienced another dimension on the astral plane because I had elevated my vibrations to a lighter density?
Cheers! :-)
Yeah I can understand density from the standpoint of matter. Consciousness, though, is a different matter :wink:
Always a new concept for this old dog!
Thanks
I think counsciousness is expanded as you embody more light, higher your frequencies and "become less dense". You then become conscious of things that you weren't before.
I see one as being the contrary of the other and therefore, the two ends of a same stick! I guess it's all relative (speaking about Einstein, huh? :wink:) and a matter of perspective...
It's an analogy that works for me! ;) Probably not the only one...
density = dimension
essentially.
It is a little complicated, i'll explain it later.
I think density comes from the physical description of how matter is 'dense' compared to, say, the molecular state, all down to the 'quantum' state, which is a state that has practically (or virtually, lol) no density, mainly because all matter is only perceived as a particle (with mass) when it's perceived or measured.
There is an erroneous but persistent observation by nonscientists that if you raise the vibrational level of matter you somehow make it less dense-or worse, turn into light. This is erroneous because when you raise the speed of matter to near the speed of light, matter becomes supermassive (close to infinite mass), and time stops completely, which is the opposite of what is popularly thought.
The only reason that light behaves the way it does (that is, high frequency, no mass) is because light has no resting mass, regardless of speed or frequency- scientists have been able to slow down light and the mass is still not there (hence, the term 'no resting mass'.
However, because the idea that molecular density is directly related to physicality, has translated into the idea that the more distant you are from physical reality the less dense you are, thus dividing 'perceptual distance' by using 'density' as a measure, instead of 'dimension', since 'dimension' sounds old-fashioned, and has a fairly fixed meaning in physics.
So really, it's just another label to mean the same thing.
---
Not disagreeing. My last post was a weak attempt at humor...
I would like to add however that in "modern" quantum mechanics the term dimension is widely used. It's use IS fixed and that is why I have preferred to use it. I KNOW what it means and how to use the term descriptively. It is actually not "old-fashioned". The understanding of dimensional theory is currently being tested at CERN as I'm sure you enlightened individuals know.
Density is mass divided by the volume of an object. I guess I don't understand what the heck that has to do with consciousness. My understanding of consciousness is that there IS no mass nor volume. The comparison of consciousness to light is perhaps more relevant but once again, no mass, it is a wave when in an excited or higher vibrational state versus "particle" in the lower vibrational or "resting" state. Once again though, I have never heard of "density = dimension". Just sayin.
I am relatively new in these forums and certainly will not try to reinvent the wheel but sometimes the terminology here strays from my understanding of what I know to be true. This old guy didn't just fall off the turnip truck. I am somewhat of a rube though.
Quote from: Psilibus on May 12, 2010, 18:58:29
Not disagreeing. My last post was a weak attempt at humor...
I would like to add however that in "modern" quantum mechanics the term dimension is widely used. It's use IS fixed and that is why I have preferred to use it. I KNOW what it means and how to use the term descriptively. It is actually not "old-fashioned". The understanding of dimensional theory is currently being tested at CERN as I'm sure you enlightened individuals know.
Yep, I am agreeing with that. When I say 'old fashioned' I am not talking about my opinion/worldview- I'm talking about a specific circle of people in this forum who think that words like 'levels' or 'dimensions' should not be used because they were used by theosophists to differentiate the 'realms, locales', or whatever you want to call them. I am not part of the group, I actually like the 'old fashioned' words, basically because they are usually more familiar to everyone.
I love this.
CFTraveler -
Specific circles go round and round. I want to accomplish something. Many years have passed through this website. Users have come and gone. People become familiar and communication becomes sacrosanct. What cracks me up is that if the "old fashioned" theosophists had not dared leave their "circle" then much knowledge would have been lost to the masses. To leave the noosphere to newbies leaves anything to chance. Experience dictates wisdom. It cannot be achieved without specific effort. "Only through the fire of acts is heaven brilliant and hell aflame" - just try to ply a young person with that and they will tell you "hell doesn't exist". They miss the whole point. I see a very young crowd here and I find that exciting. Problem is much of the incredible talent here hasn't actually forged their way through this maze sufficiently to espouse what they propose. Book smart is one thing. Getting your hands dirty is another. The more "we" stray from common terminology and develop our own linguistic approach the more ineffable it becomes - just like the "old fashioned' occult traditions. Everything veiled in florid language so that only those in the circle will understand. I want to change that. Or just leave it the same?
QuoteI want to change that. Or just leave it the same?
How about propose a crossover of terms that describes the 'established', 'new' and anything in between (some of us have already tried to start this, you know)? instead of looking to replace one with another? That's what I have preferred to do- to be as inclusive as possible, and to focus on the descriptive.
Inclusive AND descriptive. I think it increases the legitimacy of what is said here. I find many of the posts to be spot on. I think many have done their respective research. WE HERE need a common language. Something that solidifies the experience rather than leaving something in question. There is nothing worse than a perceived newbie with multiple projections who does not participate because he/she does not understand the terminology. This is not science class. This is not chemistry or philosophy. It is a growing trend of spiritualism. Growing for many hundreds of years. The culmination of our modern efforts should respect those who went before. We build upon an existing structure. We are not recreating something new. Anyone who argues with this point will have to come to scrutiny. There should only be learning here or it will fail.
Yes or No?
Why can't people describe their experiences with their own words and then the rest of us, be it, old fashioned or new..lol should be able to tell what is happening and move on from there.
Why force people to use Frank's, Robert's, etc method? I, for one, find all the level talk confusing, but others may find it is the holy grail, I'm cool with that. But to ridicule someone for not describing a method they do not agree with is..well, not cool. :-)
It's all the same thing. We are just talking about Roma tomatoes instead of plum, but they are all tomatoes.
Anything you see, read, taste, smell, hear is a basic discrimination. Methods and systems are just necessary crutches... I get it though.
I must admit that I somewhat feel aimed by this conversation (probably got something to do with me starting the post!) :|
I must admit in fact, that I often find words to be a bit an obstacle to communication as far as spirituality goes. I’m not sure words can even describe the magnitude of spiritual experiences I’ve had. I guess this is why words are, a lot of time, used as an analogy rather than strict sense.
When I visualize light entering my body, I don’t think I actually start to physically look like a ball of light. But light and colors help me visualize the spiritual work that I do. When I visualize a beam of light entering my body, when I visualize it clearing my aura, clearing my chakras, accelerating the cells of my body at light speed and when I visualize my body BECOMING light, I do feel that my consciousness is expanded and I actually do feel that it’s working great for me! :-) Is it erroneous to perceive that?
I am not sure if some of the comments previously made were even aimed at me, but just so we’re all on the same page, I am a newbie on this forum, but I am NOT new to OBE, not new to meditation, not new to lightwork and not new to the concepts of dimensions (or density or realm or however you like to call it). Even though I still have a lot to learn, I have rode both sides of the spiral (ooh… terminology!) and I think I have “dirtied my hands” enough to have sufficient perspective to casually share my views here. Take it or leave it, I am not pretending to know it all. But sharing could get us closer to that…
Cheers!
I'm with ya, LAL! May I call you LAL? :-D
Many of my experiences just cannot be explained in words for others to feel what I did. I'm looking forward to hearing more of your views.
Hey folks this guy was aiming this particular conversation at himself, me. I don't doubt for a minute anyone conversing in these forums is not using the best terms they have on hand. I am regularly finding that I can just as easily confuse myself with what I have to say. Heck, I'll just start keeping notes. I wasn't looking to start any trouble here or hijack another thread. I respect you all for your opinions and efforts to help those in need.
liveandlove - "I must admit in fact, that I often find words to be a bit an obstacle to communication as far as spirituality goes. I'm not sure words can even describe the magnitude of spiritual experiences I've had. I guess this is why words are, a lot of time, used as an analogy and not in their strict sense."
That was exactly my point, not a criticism of your post, please understand that. I too want to understand what is being said and how to better communicate it myself. Your post was excellent and started a nice thread, I think anyway.
So - density=dimension=realm=focus=?
Quote from: liveandlove on May 13, 2010, 11:18:22
I must admit that I somewhat feel aimed by this conversation (probably got something to do with me starting the post!) :|
I must admit in fact, that I often find words to be a bit an obstacle to communication as far as spirituality goes. I'm not sure words can even describe the magnitude of spiritual experiences I've had. I guess this is why words are, a lot of time, used as an analogy rather than strict sense.
When I visualize light entering my body, I don't think I actually start to physically look like a ball of light. But light and colors help me visualize the spiritual work that I do. When I visualize a beam of light entering my body, when I visualize it clearing my aura, clearing my chakras, accelerating the cells of my body at light speed and when I visualize my body BECOMING light, I do feel that my consciousness is expanded and I actually do feel that it's working great for me! :-) Is it erroneous to perceive that?
I am not sure if some of the comments previously made were even aimed at me, but just so we're all on the same page, I am a newbie on this forum, but I am NOT new to OBE, not new to meditation, not new to lightwork and not new to the concepts of dimensions (or density or realm or however you like to call it). Even though I still have a lot to learn, I have rode both sides of the spiral (ooh... terminology!) and I think I have "dirtied my hands" enough to have sufficient perspective to casually share my views here. Take it or leave it, I am not pretending to know it all. But sharing could get us closer to that...
Cheers!
I'm sorry you feel that way, it wasn't, really.
I don't think any of us disagree, and I propose we have a thread that compares how systems interlock, so that someone who comes in versed in one or another terminology can go to a chart and say 'yes, that's what I'm talking about.
Quote from: Psilibus on May 13, 2010, 11:59:54
Hey folks this guy was aiming this particular conversation at himself, me. I don't doubt for a minute anyone conversing in these forums is not using the best terms they have on hand. I am regularly finding that I can just as easily confuse myself with what I have to say. Heck, I'll just start keeping notes. I wasn't looking to start any trouble here or hijack another thread. I respect you all for your opinions and efforts to help those in need.
liveandlove - "I must admit in fact, that I often find words to be a bit an obstacle to communication as far as spirituality goes. I'm not sure words can even describe the magnitude of spiritual experiences I've had. I guess this is why words are, a lot of time, used as an analogy and not in their strict sense."
That was exactly my point, not a criticism of your post, please understand that. I too want to understand what is being said and how to better communicate it myself. Your post was excellent and started a nice thread, I think anyway.
So - density=dimension=realm=focus=?
I would say density=dimension= focus level=degree of psychological distance= level (as in astral or etheric)=enteryourfavoriteonehere.
Several of the AP books I have have a glossary of terms. I have Astral Dynamics here in front of me and there are 16 pages worth just in this book alone.
It might take a little work but I would be willing to help out if I could.
Thanks
No worries, I'm at peace! :) I just wanted to make sure I was well understood. I find that speaking through the web is always more delicate than in "real" life since you never really get the tone of the people you exchange with.
I'm all for contributing to a thread on different terminologies... I'll probably be more happy to read you than becoming a very active author, though! :-P But I'm more than willing to share my views. Who knows where it could lead? :wink:
Cheers!
Quote from: Naykid on May 13, 2010, 11:43:34
I'm with ya, LAL! May I call you LAL? :-D
You can call me LAL all you want! LOL :lol:
IMO an individual has to figure this stuff out on their own no matter the situation. A forum or teacher or guide is just that - a guide to push them in the right direction. And as we're all different, we all need to be pushed in a different direction. I don't think there ever will be a common language in this, as every individual can (and do) interpret the same words differently.
Most of what I do in my spiritual life I don't speak much of here because it's very different from what the majority of people on here are attempting - terminology and all. I'm not out to confuse, but to help people find their particular individual path.
Like for me, diagrams that illustrate consciousness are ridiculous. You can't "map" it. But it might help others in ways I don't get, so it's not for me to say it's wrong.
Quote from: liveandlove on May 13, 2010, 13:58:58
You can call me LAL all you want! LOL :lol:
:-D Thanks.
IMO the word "dimension" is missused. I don't want to give a lecture in maths because some of you would probably ask a moderator to ban me, but talking about dimensions is a serious subject that can lead to a huge philosophical discussion quite useless (a priori) to explore the consciousness.
Just think about a fourth ot fifth dimension...wow!!!...how can you perceive it?. In conscioussnes exploration I think we are limited by our three dimensions perspective. We are beings living in a 3D world. I can't imagine jumping to a 4 or 5 dimensions world as if you where moving in a storey building.
You are correct Bacterio, the proper deffinition of dimension really has very little to do with astral projection, or maybe it does since we cant percieve 5th dimension and up. I for one wouldn't have minded the math talk, but for whatever reason believing in any type of science and math means you're like a die hard fundamental skeptic around here and people try to critisize you, just a case of people fearing what they can't understand. Anyways, I sort of agree with Stookie that counciousness can't be mapped, it is too big and varied, but I still like the monroe/frank focus models, from my experience, they are a somewhat accurate set of guidelines for the more common out of body states, and I believe they genuinely formed them around their common observations.
I brought this up because when I AP, I am not in the same "world/realm/pick the word of your choice"... I go to different places that I refer to as "other dimensions" (simple terminology that works for me!)... Simply put, I wanted to know if some believed that those "dimensions" were also part of the astral... (I haven't read Frank and Bruce's litterature so I know just about nothing about Focus and phasing, so sorry if I don't use that terminology... these words are just chinese to me!!!) I thought it was a very basic question at first. I didn't think it would generate a whole debate on the definition and interpretation of the *word* dimension.
Bacterio: If there is a mathematical model that explains dimensions and that could help us all better understand your point, I'd be more than open to hear about it. I'm no math engineer but I've got a fair IQ! :wink: I also don't see why "one of us" (whatever that means...) would ask to get you banned... unless of course, it's brought up in a closeminded, unrespectful manner, which would be immensly surprising to me! :)
As far as mapping goes, I guess it helps us communicate our respective, complex, spiritual, unexplainable schemes with one another. If it can help us communicate, why not use them? I dare hope no one's ridiculous enough to present a map of universal dimensions as hard evidence.. :lol: Maps might not be perfect, but if they help us better understand and share more effectively, I don't see the harm...
Cheers! :-)
Quote from: liveandlove on May 13, 2010, 17:21:55
Bacterio: If there is a mathematical model that explains dimensions and that could help us all better understand your point, I'd be more than open to hear about it. I'm no math engineer but I've got a fair IQ! :wink: I also don't see why "one of us" (whatever that means...) would ask to get you banned... unless of course, it's brought up in a closeminded, unrespectful manner, which would be immensly surprising to me! :)
Cheers! :-)
There isn't a "mathematical model" to explain dimensions...mathematics works around and with infinite dimensions and physics too (as long as they use mathematical models!). Actually you will not find answers in maths but in philosophy working with the implications of them. Until the 18th century it was no sense talking about more than 3 dimensions in mathematics (euclidean spaces), but now think how working with "n" dimension have changed the world
Only to define what a dimension can be I would need 3 pages. To start, physical space is not the same as mathematical espace. For physics and scientist the space is related to material reality but in mathematics space is a wider concept. Limiting the concept of dimensions to a physical reality leads us to think the fifth dimension doesn't exist.
I recomend you read the Allegory of the Cave (Plato) and think about it...it seems to be useless for astral projecting but can help you once you decide to explore.
There is no fourth dimension, simply. Mathematical dimensions are only a method of measurement, so you can create as many as you want, but you can't live in one. Physical reality doesn't work that way.
So when people see a 'dimension', it's not an objective thing. They're just seeing something they haven't seen before
Quote from: zareste on May 13, 2010, 18:06:11
There is no fourth dimension, simply. Mathematical dimensions are only a method of measurement, so you can create as many as you want, but you can't live in one. Physical reality doesn't work that way.
So when people see a 'dimension', it's not an objective thing. They're just seeing something they haven't seen before
I don't agree mathematical dimensions are only a method of measurement.
Quote from: Bacterio on May 13, 2010, 18:03:39
I recomend you read the Allegory of the Cave (Plato) and think about it...it seems to be useless for astral projecting but can help you once you decide to explore.
I've read the Allegory of the Cave before. I don't exactly understand your point though... Can you clarify the part where you say "it seems to be useless for astral projecting but can help you once you decide to explore"???
I must say I do agree with Zareste: "So when people see a 'dimension', it's not an objective thing. They're just seeing something they haven't seen before".
I guess we all know that "OBEs and the astral", "dimensions", the "become more conscious" and the "bringing our frequency to a higher level" are all terms that mathematiciens would have a hard time make proof of. Hopefully they will one day, though! :) In that sense, all we can speak of is through experience. We could make a parallel with emotions. One cannot objectively understand what love, joy, sadness or fear is. One can only experience it. Yet, it exists...
Cheers!
lol, objectively similar subjective experiences should be enough proof for anything, otherwise nothing could ever be "proved". The problem is when one can not subjectively experience what is objective all they have to go by is the words of others, which draws much doubt. If everyone could phase, it wouldn't be an issue, and until the majority can, it will never be widely accepted as a "truth". The real question is even with objectively similar subjective experiences as means of proof why is it still felt that one's experiences need to be proven to those who have yet to subjectively experience them.
Quote from: Stookie on May 13, 2010, 15:13:52
Like for me, diagrams that illustrate consciousness are ridiculous. You can't "map" it. But it might help others in ways I don't get, so it's not for me to say it's wrong.
lol stookie
i like to create visual representations in my mind, it helps me contemplate depth in different ways.
Quote from: Bacterio on May 13, 2010, 18:18:25
I don't agree mathematical dimensions are only a method of measurement.
okay
You can't measure or put infinity on a piece of paper. Consciousness is infinite. You can't box it in. You can't view it or comprehend it. You can only experience it. No matter how much learning you do, that experience will never be found in words or books or thoughts. Just descriptions of something indescribable.
Quote from: Stookie on May 14, 2010, 12:02:19
You can't measure or put infinity on a piece of paper. Consciousness is infinite. You can't box it in. You can't view it or comprehend it. You can only experience it. No matter how much learning you do, that experience will never be found in words or books or thoughts. Just descriptions of something indescribable.
But do you agree that, although imperfect, it can help us better communicate our views with one another and hence, better share our experiences and deepen our understanding of it?
Cheers! :)
Absolutely, we need communication. :) I suppose I say this because a lot of the concepts I had learned before I had any experience, I now see I had completely wrong. But you still have to get there some way. I guess that's why the most simplest things can also be the hardest. But I do believe that practice and experience are more important than the learned concepts - they are likely to change as you do.
Quote from: liveandlove on May 14, 2010, 12:52:53
But do you agree that, although imperfect, it can help us better communicate our views with one another and hence, better share our experiences and deepen our understanding of it?
Now we are getting to the point of agreement. I have been researching through all of the old material I read over twenty years ago. It is amazing to see the correspondence between the "occult" and recently expressed knowledge. It is the same. I always knew and believed my past education but the years put it in doubt. I will be posting some links and whatnot to help create terminology suitable for learning. I will not do this alone for sure because constructive criticism will keep it real for sure. Any others who participate will become teachers as well. That's what were here for right? Or are some here to tout there superiority? I don't think so. I feel there is a talented team here who cares about this art.
http://thesilvercord.com/hu/books/astralworld.html?
http://thesilvercord.com/hu/books/ophiel.html?
Amazing I could find these online. Some of my early 1970's reading. Don't get lost in the "occult" feel. That is a mistake. Many of the masters you meet in the astral have gone before and learned to practice in secret. The rules have changed. The world can change. It must or the conspiracy theories that permeate some of the other forums will come to fruition simply through the energy put into them. I will post more links if anyone is interested. I have read these last to front to back. I create the time. I will begin some Rosicrucian reading soon and reread Monroe, etc.
Practice everyday and enjoy!
You guys baffle me...
Perhaps if you spent more time studying and working on mathematical models, rather than criticizing and critiquing others maybe you would comprehend the logic behind dimension.
Oh boy, there goes my karma...
KURT!
Hi.
Dimensional mathematics models and there goes the karma? Ewwwww. "Studying" and "working" math? Ewwwww.
I hope there is room for the golden child in whatever form and system that ends up becoming the paradigm. He doesn't understand the forms although he or she is adept in the full knowledge. He is just free.... and lives spontaneously in the moment. I think he would cry a little if you tried to hunker him down to a study desk. :-(
Eddie Murphy?
In all fairness, Im not sure anybody actually critisized mathematics in this thread, it was just stated that it probably would be met with criticism, which would be some what consistent with stating your "beliefs" in math or science on this forum. I have this theory that those people can't understand mathematics and so find it easier to dismiss it all as dogmatic fundamental skeptic science.... Welcome back Kurt.
why don't you put the picard and riker picture back on your profile?!
meh.
meh, whenever i get to it