Thread: Astral Projection and shared dreaming is nonsense

^^ All good points, Kadie, but I think you might be confusing AP -- as it is popularly defined -- with enlightenment or transcendental experiences.

Yes, the Buddhist mystics have been pursuing (and hopefully occasionally achieving) enlightenment for centuries, and part of their exploration includes transcendental experiences, in which they touch levels of existence that are beyond human experience or explanation. In none of these pursuits, though, are they projecting their consciousness or souls to other planes or dimensions, encountering new worlds complete separate from our own, and then coming back. In other words, enlightenment does not equal AP.

Even the Tibetan book of the Dead, which arguably offers a distant, slight nod toward such travel, says it will only occur upon earth, and that travel is essentially a very short loop right back to life on earth. Tibetan monks, or any other Buddhist monks that I know of, really do not pursue astral travel as we define it these days (and, as Verre noted already, is pretty much the same definition the Theosophists came up with just a century ago).

As I read through your post, I became pretty sure that what you experienced yourself were transcendental in nature, and not AP. And to me transcendental experiences are way cooler than AP anyway, so kudos to you!

^ I see what you are saying Sageous, and in a way the confusion is my point as well. Astral Travel is just a blanket term that people put a lot of sub experiences under. When we are talking about astral, it is just something/experience beyond what we experience here on earth. It's like my "who or what is God to you?" thread. God has different meanings to just about everyone. For me it is just a label to describe something divine whether an experience or a way of living to reach a more divine understanding of life. The same with what the monks call oneness or enlightenment. The same aa I experience with AP/AT. The problem I have is with the term and assumptions of what it is or is not especially by those that have never tried to experience it for themselves.
Most of the people here that I feel have had such experiences of enlightened understanding, or grace or pure love etc during so called AP have reached a transcendental state, but we are not monks, so can we really use the term that the monks do? The result is the same, just the name is different. As for all the claims about lower levels of AP, well I am suspicious that is something totally different. But that is just me. As I have stated many times, I have never had a negative experience with AP, so in my view, I cant say weather those lower levels are really AP or maybe should be termed something else. I have been struggling since I came to this site to differentiate between OOBE and AP and AT and the so called levels of AP/AT. There is no set terms for such things and it is frustrating not only to me, but I'm sure to others that want to experience AP. Its like calling every type of cancer, cancer. You have no way of knowing how to treat or put into remission cancer until it is classified into its proper categories. Same with AP/AT.
And yes, I do believe I have transcended and enlightened experiences, but to me those are Astral Projection (the term I use for actual separation..like being sucked through the worm hole, then AT which is reaching a destination. Sometimes the destination is not a place exactly but rather the culmination of the experience that was meditated upon. Sometimes the destination while AT is simply finding an answer to a question. It's the experience and not the name of the experience that really matters.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

The Theravada tradition holds that upon reaching the fourth jhana, the six Abhinnas become attainable. These are powers that exceed the normal (by quite some margin). One of these is the ability to touch the "Brahma world", where one may exercise psychic powers with, or without, a visible body. The Brahma world is a higher realm than the heavenly realms, so it must be at least as exalted as the astral plane. See e.g. "The path of serenity and insight" by Henepola Gunaratana, where there are further references to the ancient literature.

Helpfully, Frank and Mani Reynolds have the Trai Phum Phra Ruang for us, so that we can investigate the details of Theravada cosmology for ourselves without depending on a middleman. See Three Worlds According to King Ruang: A Thai Buddhist Cosmology (University of California, 1982). Here is an outline of the Theravada cosmos in a nutshell, from p.358:

I. World of Desire (11 Realms)

Realms of Loss and Woe:
1. Various hells
2. Realm of animals
3. Realm of suffering ghosts
4. Realm of asura

Realms of Happiness:
1. Realm of men
2. Realm of the four guardian deities
3. Realm of the thirty-three devata
4. Realm of the yama
5. Realm full of joy
6. Realm of those who delight in their own creations
7. Realm of those who delight in the creations of others

II. World with Only a Remnant of Material Factors (16 Realms)

Realms of the First Jhana:
1. Realm of brahma attendants
2. Realm of brahma ministers
3. Realm of the great brahma

Realms of the Second Jhana:
1. Realm of brahma with limited lustre
2. Realm of brahma with infinite lustre
3. Realm of radiant brahma

Realms of the Third Jhana:
1. Realm of brahma with limited aura
2. Realm of brahma with infinite aura
3. Realm of brahma whose aura is steady

Realms of the Fourth (and "Fifth") Jhana:
1. Realm of brahma who receive great reward
2. Realm of brahma who are without perception
3. Realm of brahma who do not fall from prosperity
4. Realm of brahma who are serene
5. Realm of brahma who are beautiful
6. Realm of brahma who are clear-sighted
7. Realm of brahma who are supreme

III. World without Material Factors (4 Realms)

Realm of the infinity of space (fifth jhana)
Realm of infinite mental process (sixth jhana)
Realm of nothingness (seventh jhana)
Realm of neither perception nor non-perception (eighth jhana)

As is evident from the outline, this is a comprehensive cosmological system that rests on a distinctly archaic set of intellectual foundations that offers little to no congruence with a post-Enlightenment world paradigm. To select one of these realms based on a few descriptive features and claim that it corresponds to the so-called "astral plane" is arbitrary and incoherent. Which isn't to say people haven't attempted to do so in the past...

Originally Posted by Voldmer

You're dismissing someone as a reliable source, because that person supported two related ideas, unpalatable to you?

With such a high standard, there won't be a single reliable source left in the whole world!

...Which brings us back to Ms. Blavatsky. I'm not ultimately dismissing her as a reliable source because she was a bit of an Aryan supremacist—although I do think that fact seriously undermines her claims to be channeling Asian mystical teachings. But you're right, if we dismissed a writer on the grounds of racism alone there would hardly be any reliable sources left in the nineteenth century, at least!

No, in the end, I have to dismiss Helena Blavatsky as a reliable source because her writings exemplify all the worst traits of nineteenth-century pseudo-scholarship. Have you tried to read Isis Unveiled? It's 1300+ pages (in two volumes) of superficial mishmash. Her method is akin to dumping the Encyclopedia Britannica in a washing machine and then trying to piece back together the pulp that comes out!

Originally Posted by Verre

Helpfully, Frank and Mani Reynolds have the Trai Phum Phra Ruang for us, so that we can investigate the details of Theravada cosmology for ourselves without depending on a middleman.

Who's the middle man? You asked for buddhists monks, and I gave you one: Bhante Gunaratana!?

Originally Posted by Verre

See Three Worlds According to King Ruang: A Thai Buddhist Cosmology (University of California, 1982). Here is an outline of the Theravada cosmos in a nutshell, from p.358:

I. World of Desire (11 Realms)

Realms of Loss and Woe:
1. Various hells
2. Realm of animals
3. Realm of suffering ghosts
4. Realm of asura

Realms of Happiness:
1. Realm of men
2. Realm of the four guardian deities
3. Realm of the thirty-three devata
4. Realm of the yama
5. Realm full of joy
6. Realm of those who delight in their own creations
7. Realm of those who delight in the creations of others

II. World with Only a Remnant of Material Factors (16 Realms)

Realms of the First Jhana:
1. Realm of brahma attendants
2. Realm of brahma ministers
3. Realm of the great brahma

Realms of the Second Jhana:
1. Realm of brahma with limited lustre
2. Realm of brahma with infinite lustre
3. Realm of radiant brahma

Realms of the Third Jhana:
1. Realm of brahma with limited aura
2. Realm of brahma with infinite aura
3. Realm of brahma whose aura is steady

Realms of the Fourth (and "Fifth") Jhana:
1. Realm of brahma who receive great reward
2. Realm of brahma who are without perception
3. Realm of brahma who do not fall from prosperity
4. Realm of brahma who are serene
5. Realm of brahma who are beautiful
6. Realm of brahma who are clear-sighted
7. Realm of brahma who are supreme

III. World without Material Factors (4 Realms)

Realm of the infinity of space (fifth jhana)
Realm of infinite mental process (sixth jhana)
Realm of nothingness (seventh jhana)
Realm of neither perception nor non-perception (eighth jhana)

As is evident from the outline, this is a comprehensive cosmological system that rests on a distinctly archaic set of intellectual foundations that offers little to no congruence with a post-Enlightenment world paradigm. To select one of these realms based on a few descriptive features and claim that it corresponds to the so-called "astral plane" is arbitrary and incoherent. Which isn't to say people haven't attempted to do so in the past...

I think you have a more specific view of the astral plane, than you would be able to find consensus for amongst the believers of this plane. I cannot fathom why you would see any material difference between the higher planes, according to the buddhist tradition, and the astral plane.

There is plenty of congruence between the astral plane and the higher buddhists realms - starting with the fact, that you would enter them the same way: through intense meditation, without letting the impressions of the physical world get in the way.

If the exalted realms of the ancient buddhists do not correspond to the astral plane (which many astral plane believers would of course expect them to do), then what would they correspond to? (Saying that they would correspond to the "mental plane" or "buddhic plane" would be a cop-out, in my view, since the average believer in the astral plane wouldn't know the difference between them anyway).

Originally Posted by Verre

Have you tried to read Isis Unveiled?

No, I'm not familiar with the writings of Blavatsky. It's not my thing.

Originally Posted by kadie

The same with what the monks call oneness or enlightenment.

Actually Theravada Buddhism is very specific in their definition of enlightenment, which is actually termed Nibbana or Nirvana, and the practices they employ are designed to bring an individual to attain essentially the same experience. Enlightenment is not a blanket term in Buddhism and the experience of it does not vary, just as the states of Jhana and other levels of achieving higher/more liberated states of mind all contain the same characteristics, regardless of the experiencer, according to those monks and practitioners who have attained these states and the teachers who speak of it.

Originally Posted by kadie

Most of the people here that I feel have had such experiences of enlightened understanding, or grace or pure love etc during so called AP have reached a transcendental state, but we are not monks, so can we really use the term that the monks do? The result is the same, just the name is different.

According to Buddhism, enlightenment, which is the goal of the practice, is to become completely liberated from suffering, eliminate all defilements from the mind, and reach a totally unconditioned state of being in which perfect insight and understanding of all things is attained. This is not a temporary experience and is not achieved by astral projection or any other mystical experience, but is rather the result of diligent practice following the Buddha's 8 fold path.

Speculating about the nature of nonphysical realms is not a part of the Theravada Buddhist practice because it does not contribute to a person's liberation, just as speculating about the nature of the self or the nature of God is not advised by the Buddha, for it leads to delusion and attachment to views.

I appreciate what you are saying vincefield, but I am not Buddhist and what is or is not true Buddhist methods are not what I am arguing about. My point is that for me AT/AP is an enlightening almost describable experience. I have seen you post something similar, so if I am not Buddhist nor practiced in it, how is it that via meditation and what I consider AP/AT I am experiencing something so awesome? Maybe what other people call Astral Travel or Astral Projection is really lucid dreaming, but as a very experienced lucid dreamer, I KNOW without a doubt that what I call AP/AT is not simply lucid dreaming.

Originally Posted by kadie

I appreciate what you are saying vincefield, but I am not Buddhist and what is or is not true Buddhist methods are not what I am arguing about. My point is that for me AT/AP is an enlightening almost describable experience. I have seen you post something similar, so if I am not Buddhist nor practiced in it, how is it that via meditation and what I consider AP/AT I am experiencing something so awesome? Maybe what other people call Astral Travel or Astral Projection is really lucid dreaming, but as a very experienced lucid dreamer, I KNOW without a doubt that what I call AP/AT is not simply lucid dreaming.

I simply wanted to clear up what seemed to be misconceptions about the Buddhist idea of enlightenment that you had expressed, namely that the states of "enlightenment" experienced during OBEs are not the same as the enlightenment that Buddhists strive to achieve.

Interestingly enough, as my experience with OBEs and lucid dreams increases, I realize more and more how little difference there actually is between these two methods of consciousness exploration.

I believe that we humans are limited in our capacity to acquire or experience true knowledge in an absolute sense. What we believe we know as truth is actually nothing more than a biased perception and interpretation of what we believe truth to be based on a very limited spectrum of experience and usually inadequate insight, our "truth" is simply a reflection of our own fabrications rather than a reflection of an objective reality. I believe it is wise to acknowledge our limitations in understanding truth, as it leaves our minds open to further investigate those aspects of reality and experience that we would otherwise shut ourselves off from as a result of believing that we already know the final truth. I recommend continuing your exploration of these AP and LD states without making any definitive statements about their true nature. You may come to have a different understanding from your current beliefs.

Metta

Originally Posted by Barry

There is no possible way shared dreaming or astral projection is possible.

Astral projection is not some special dream mode, it is simply a tool to describe your dream. Astral Projection or OBE are both dream/lucid dreams.

I was going to explain on shared dreaming, but something tells me he wont change his mind

Originally Posted by flowofmysoul

Astral Projection or OBE are both dream/lucid dreams.

How do you know this?

Originally Posted by VinceField

How do you know this?

Because you can move from dream to OBE and from OBE to dream without any problem. When you do it, you knows its the same playground.

Originally Posted by flowofmysoul

Because you can move from dream to OBE and from OBE to dream without any problem. When you do it, you knows its the same playground.

It is quite possible that dreams, lucid dreams, and astral projections take place in different dimensional levels and in different energy bodies. There are differences between these modes of experience which would indicate this. Although I agree that they are all valid ways to explore nonphysical reality.

Shared dreams probably go hand in hand with Satori Enlightenment IMO.

Originally Posted by flowofmysoul

Because you can move from dream to OBE and from OBE to dream without any problem. When you do it, you knows its the same playground.

I appreciate where your argument is coming from, but IMO your statement is rather shallow. Even if one could easily move from dream to OBE, and back again (I can't), then it is still not impossible that they are very distinct experiences. You can easily step from the pavement and unto the grass, and back again. Pavement and grass are still very distinct things.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

I appreciate where your argument is coming from, but IMO your statement is rather shallow. Even if one could easily move from dream to OBE, and back again (I can't), then it is still not impossible that they are very distinct experiences. You can easily step from the pavement and unto the grass, and back again. Pavement and grass are still very distinct things.

I gave you a short answer.
We cannot definitely say what exactly is OBE and how it operates. I've had thousands of OBE's, most of the time my first dreams start and end in OBE, I often use OBE as my choice for persistent realm in dreams. There are some odds of having OBE as persistent realm, for example tricky FA's, but for me its fine.
"Is OBE different from Lucid Dreaming?" I think its not a valid question and to me it makes no sense. If you are thinking towards different dimension, yes OBE could be in a different dimension. But any dream of ours could be in a different dimension too.

From my experience, OBE is no different from a dream.

It's a whole new topic, but lets go back to dimensions. Most of the time when you are in OBE, you are not in the same dimension that you are in waking life, not even close. In the beginning it seems like you are, but tale a look around, you will notice there are changes compared to the place where you are sleeping in waking reality.
There are OBE's where you feel you are close to your waking reality, everything is the same, you observe same decorations and events. In this case, remote viewing is possible and useful. And again, all what I said is based on my experience, you can disagree with me on some of the above, but I am not even sure my self. I believe nobody knows all facts on dreaming and beyond. And those are my thoughts

Originally Posted by flowofmysoul

I gave you a short answer.
We cannot definitely say what exactly is OBE and how it operates. I've had thousands of OBE's, most of the time my first dreams start and end in OBE, I often use OBE as my choice for persistent realm in dreams. There are some odds of having OBE as persistent realm, for example tricky FA's, but for me its fine.
"Is OBE different from Lucid Dreaming?" I think its not a valid question and to me it makes no sense. If you are thinking towards different dimension, yes OBE could be in a different dimension. But any dream of ours could be in a different dimension too.

From my experience, OBE is no different from a dream.

It's a whole new topic, but lets go back to dimensions. Most of the time when you are in OBE, you are not in the same dimension that you are in waking life, not even close. In the beginning it seems like you are, but tale a look around, you will notice there are changes compared to the place where you are sleeping in waking reality.
There are OBE's where you feel you are close to your waking reality, everything is the same, you observe same decorations and events. In this case, remote viewing is possible and useful. And again, all what I said is based on my experience, you can disagree with me on some of the above, but I am not even sure my self. I believe nobody knows all facts on dreaming and beyond. And those are my thoughts

I agree with a lot of what you said here. I'd say the main difference between an OBE and a dream is the presence of lucid self-awareness.

I raised the previous questions to you because you seemed to be making definitive statements about things that are nowhere near definite, at least not from the perspective of our limited understanding and experience. But despite that, it seems we share a similar outlook, at least regarding what you've said above.

Take care

Astral Projection or OBE are both dream/lucid dreams.

I don't know why people keep repeating this. OBE are "out of body experiences", they are not limited to the dream state, and thus, it is quite a stretch to say they are the same as lucid dreams (which are limited to and seem to be an ephiphenomenon of dreaming). Henrik Ehrsson proved as much by inducing OBE in awake subjects in a controlled setting.

Originally Posted by Zoth

I don't know why people keep repeating this. OBE are "out of body experiences", they are not limited to the dream state, and thus, it is quite a stretch to say they are the same as lucid dreams (which are limited to and seem to be an ephiphenomenon of dreaming). Henrik Ehrsson proved as much by inducing OBE in awake subjects in a controlled setting.

In my experience, there is nothing that indicates that lucid dreams are limited to the dream state. In the very least, the apparent fact that I can shift from a lucid dream to an OBE with no break in consciousness and without reentering the body shows that these states are at least interconnected.

Out of body explorer Jurgen Ziewe makes an interesting distinction between lucid dreams and out of body experiences, and my experience shows that there is a great deal of validity to it. His interpretation is that lucid dreams retain the narrative that the subconscious mind projects into the dream experience. There is lucid awareness, but the storyline of the dream remains. By grounding one's awareness in the present moment, the lucid dreamer can shift into a higher state of consciousness, eliminating the projections of the subconscious mind and entering the OBE state. From here, there is little to no experiential difference between this and an OBE.

I am not aware of any evidence which indicates that lucid dreams do not allow access to the same nonphysical realities as out of body experiences. My experiences indicates that they are equally valid means of exploring the greater reality.

In my experience

I am not aware

my experience

That's why first person observation can be so unreliable to the study of these phenomenons. Not that it's the only particular aspect of your post, but I'll leave behind the part of substance dualism.

there is nothing that indicates that lucid dreams are limited to the dream state.

It's simple, really: they are limited to the dream state because you can't have a dream while awake (unless you have a rare and serious disorder). During wakefulness, what you can experience are hallucinations.

In the very least, the apparent fact that I can shift from a lucid dream to an OBE with no break in consciousness and without reentering the body shows that these states are at least interconnected.

Not really. It shows (which is backed up by research) that OBE and lucid dreams are separate events that can occur at the same time.

I am not aware of any evidence which indicates that lucid dreams do not allow access to the same nonphysical realities as out of body experiences.

The logic here is backwards, and while AP is AP (since I said I wouldn't address substance dualism), the theory that lucid dreams are a physical event is as strong as the arguments for the theory of evolution.

Originally Posted by Zoth

It's simple, really: they are limited to the dream state because you can't have a dream while awake (unless you have a rare and serious disorder). During wakefulness, what you can experience are hallucinations.

So what is preventing a person who is fully lucid in nonphysical reality from leaving the "dream state" and shifting into, say, the astral dimensions? Many prominent consciousness explorers have found that this is very much possible. And who says that legitimate nonphysical realities cannot be accessed through the dream state?

Not really. It shows (which is backed up by research) that OBE and lucid dreams are separate events that can occur at the same time.

The line between lucid dreams and OBEs is actually not as crystal clear as you seem to indicate. It seems to be more a matter of the person's state of consciousness than anything else. The method of achieving lucidity in nonphysical reality seems to be the main difference between these experiences. There can be shades of characteristics of both types of experiences present in any one LD or OBE, and the qualities of the experience can shift from those prevalent during OBEs to those common in LDs and vice versa. OBEs can likewise seamlessly shift into normal dreams. All of this is likewise backed by research and experience, and indicates a connection between these states. The connection is rather easy to identify- it is consciousness which connects these states.

The logic here is backwards, and while AP is AP (since I said I wouldn't address substance dualism), the theory that lucid dreams are a physical event is as strong as the arguments for the theory of evolution.

You are confusing correlation with causation. It could very well be that the event of consciousness shifting into nonphysical reality causes the physical neurological events to take place associated with dreams and LDs, rather than the physical event causing the dream experience.

And here we go into substance dualism...

So what is preventing a person who is fully lucid in nonphysical reality from leaving the "dream state" and shifting into, say, the astral dimensions?

A lucid dream cannot exist in a nonphysical reality, do you even know what nonphysical means? You have enough troubles arguing in favor of substance dualism to use those expressions to actually think physical and nonphysical things can interact. So, unless you have some evidence or argument for that notion that "a person can leave their body while sleeping", you're arguing for either the impossible or the unknowable. Kind of shuts down any way of discussing it because you can make up anything you want.

The method of achieving lucidity in nonphysical reality seems to be the main difference between these experiences.

Once again, you can't have nonphysical lucid dreams....why? Because dreams are physical. Even if for the sake of discussion nonphysical dreams existed, you wouldn't be able to experience them. If you're gonna come with anecdotal evidence, then I guess it's another part of "you can say what you want" that I can't refute 0o

All of this is likewise backed by research and experience, and indicates a connection between these states. The connection is rather easy to identify- it is consciousness which connects these states.

Sure, do post the research then. Also, you're not making sense once again: you're essentially stating that consciousness connects the states of consciousness. Okay, but even if that made sense, it still doesn't explain the connection.

You are confusing correlation with causation. It could very well be that the event of consciousness shifting into nonphysical reality causes the physical neurological events to take place associated with dreams and LDs, rather than the physical event causing the dream experience.

An old argument of dualism advocates...except substance dualism has too many flaws to even be considered as a possible explanation of any brain phenomenon.
I'm sorry, but in the same way we don't say "but maybe the Earth is really flat and we're watching it round because it's an nonphysical optical illusion", we have pretty good grounds to say that all brain activity and processes ARE physical.

You know what's the ironic part? You use words like "correlation" and "causation", which are typical of the scientific method. Yes, the very same method you're avoiding to use when displaying your belief in nonphysical realities (which you can't prove in ANY way. Literally.). And nope, you can't have it both: unless you want to play by the rules and leave the "what if? but I saw; in my experience" aside and discuss actual verifiable/quantifiable/observable reality, I can't contradict anything you come up with, making this discussion pointless

Dreams are physical. Lmao. Alright, if you say so. Out of curiosity, have you ever looked into precognitive dreams? Shared dreaming? There is a whole list of "paranormal" phenomena that mainstream science simply writes off because it doesn't fit into their limited world view.

What I have said doesn't make sense to you because you haven't fully grasped what it is that I'm actually saying. By altering one's state of consciousness one can shift seamlessly from any one of these states to the other. In this way they are connected, as they are simply the experience of different angles of consciousness. Countless experiences have demonstrated that there are many shades of grey between these states as well. OBEs with dream elements as the out of body experience begins to shift into the dream state, lucid dreams with OBE elements as the lucid dreamer enhances their state of consciousness and begins to transcends the dream state, partially lucid dreams as the dreamer begins to gain lucidity, OBEs directly from the dream state, etc.

Anyway, I agree that this discussion is pointless. You have obviously made up your mind, and you certainly will not change what I know from years of experience of meticulously exploring these realities with these assumptions that are being posed as science. The fact that mainstream science is unable to prove the existence of the nonphysical is meaningless, as I experience and explore its reality on a daily basis and at this point scientific confirmation would simply be telling me what I already know.

Take care.

You are on a endless path, trying to define words with other words. And then you will try to define those words that you used to define previous ones.

Originally Posted by VinceField

Dreams are physical. Lmao. Alright, if you say so. Out of curiosity, have you ever looked into precognitive dreams? Shared dreaming? There is a whole list of "paranormal" phenomena that mainstream science simply writes off because it doesn't fit into their limited world view.

What I have said doesn't make sense to you because you haven't fully grasped what it is that I'm actually saying. By altering one's state of consciousness one can shift seamlessly from any one of these states to the other. In this way they are connected, as they are simply the experience of different angles of consciousness. Countless experiences have demonstrated that there are many shades of grey between these states as well. OBEs with dream elements as the out of body experience begins to shift into the dream state, lucid dreams with OBE elements as the lucid dreamer enhances their state of consciousness and begins to transcends the dream state, partially lucid dreams as the dreamer begins to gain lucidity, OBEs directly from the dream state, etc.

Anyway, I agree that this discussion is pointless. You have obviously made up your mind, and you certainly will not change what I know from years of experience of meticulously exploring these realities with these assumptions that are being posed as science. The fact that mainstream science is unable to prove the existence of the nonphysical is meaningless, as I experience and explore its reality on a daily basis and at this point scientific confirmation would simply be telling me what I already know.

Take care.

I noticed you mentioned both dreams and lucid dreams, in my examples I was talking about lucid dreams only. All my dreams are lucid since long time now, sorry if you got me wrong.

Originally Posted by Zoth

It's simple, really: they are limited to the dream state because you can't have a dream while awake (unless you have a rare and serious disorder). During wakefulness, what you can experience are hallucinations.

This clearly goes too far. Your claim can only be seen as correct, if ones definition of "dream" precisely excludes dreaming while awake. But there is as yet no universally accepted definition of what a dream is. As you yourself will be very well aware, there is not even in academia any definition of dreaming so precisely described - there are still heated debates between dream researchers as to the true nature of dreaming.

And, personally, I don't think it is a stretch to assume that the current level of understanding of dreaming, in the science community, is shallow, self-contradictory and underdeveloped, compared to the level of understanding that will exist in a 100 years time.