5000 year old WILD technique. Very easy, and very effective.

**potato991** · 01-24-2009 06:27 AM

Something worth mentioning is that the dreams of a blind person are auditory in nature. Find me a blind person (blind from birth), who can astral project, or can see anything and describe it; then you will have overwhelming proof of the mystical nature of dreaming. As it stands, I've heard of no such thing - which is overwhelming evidence of the alternative hypothesis, that dreams are nothing more than a distillation/representation of what a user has witnessed in waking life.

**spaceexplorer** · 01-24-2009 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by Phantasos

Actually, it is very doubtful that this will be sufficient to prove this ability to scientific community. One anecdotal evidence is not enough. To prove remote viewing (even if it was really possible) scientific way, serious work would have been done. For example, before LaBerge lucid dreams were considered by scientific community as New Age mumbo jumbo or just oxymoron, so he had to make large work and provide very solid proofs to prove reality of this phenomenon.

I completely agree Phantasos, my point really was that even such a simple self experiment would fail, let alone under the scrutiny of the scientific community. The crux of the matter for me, is that never are these "abilities" used in any practical way. Highly selfish of the remote viewers (if thier skills were true) to not be using thier powers to help out the Coast Guard, Mountain Rescue etc. etc. And before someone says "its because they wouldn't take us because they are closed minded non-belivers" (that classic phrase used by the paranormal community, which basically is just a hidden way to say "im better than you" or "if you dont believe what i believe then YOU are wrong" )
To counter the argument before it comes up, I think if you could really remote view or astral travel, you'd very quickly be able to prove your skills practically to those around you, even those who initially didn't think such things possible.

Originally Posted by potato991

Something worth mentioning is that the dreams of a blind person are auditory in nature. Find me a blind person (blind from birth), who can astral project, or can see anything and describe it; then you will have overwhelming proof of the mystical nature of dreaming. As it stands, I've heard of no such thing - which is overwhelming evidence of the alternative hypothesis, that dreams are nothing more than a distillation/representation of what a user has witnessed in waking life.

Very true potato991, also you would think that seeing as thier physical vision was absent that thier "psychic" senses would compensate. I'm not aware of any blind people who use thier psychic powers and 3rd eye to get around.

Glad other people think these things through too.

**A dreamer168** · 01-24-2009 05:53 PM

I don't get it, What should I encounter when doing this technique?

**Ajna** · 01-25-2009 07:21 AM

Spaceexplorer,

Have you read the Tibetan Book of Living and Dying?

I can see where you are coming from, but I don't think your motivation or intent is correct somehow... something about your argument seems wrong to me. There is far too much doubt in it. And yes 'doubt' has seen us progress in many areas and you do need a healthy amount of doubt when dealing with 'new ageism' at times. BUT in this case I think much more comes from positivism (finding things which prove something true) to develop a view, rather than trying to pick to pieces a position and playing the devils advocate...

Choosing Buddhism as an example which encompases alot of the phenomena we are discussing here;

The Dalai Lama said "If science was to prove Buddhism false, then Buddhism would have to change" - needless to say so far science has not proven Buddhism false.

On the contrary I have found many examples in my studies where science actually proves an aspect of the spiritual true - the merging between the reality sciences of Buddhism and Science is becoming increasingly well known. Alot of the scientific experiments which prove for instance the existence of an energetic matrix which is the cause for some of the phenomena such as auras etc and the true purpose of DNA is not widely known to mainstream science because it is so difficult to work into the context of what science have come to know at this point. The information being outside the goal posts is ignored or sweapt under the carpet until free thinkers such as Greg Braden come along and collect all the evidence together and present the spiritual in a scientific way. (see his book The Divine Matrix, also there are some interviews on youtube) Since the start of the modern scientific method our view of the universe has been continually shifting and it is not about to settle yet and in fact will move further forward and I believe eventually encompass the spiritual in a wider context.

But at the stage we are at, to pick on individual aspects of the spiritual, and try and prove things true or false is futile in the larger scheme of things. Gautama Buddha was noticably silent when asked about the true workings of the universe (inc spiritual phenomena) because it is apparently mere trivia compared to the goal of the transcendant non-dualism of a liberated mind.

We shouldn't believe everything we read or hear no, but being a 'doubting Thomas' or 'nay sayer' or playing the devils advocate can lead to a slippery slope of nihilism. I think thats my problem with your position spaceexplorer, whilst I can see you are searching for the truth as I am, your outlook and methods strike me as a little nihilistic.

I enjoyed reading that great parable but you used it to take out of context my comment about the value of direct experience. It is certainly just data of a subjective nature unless you put it into the context of a controlled scientific study such as LaBerge and lucid dreaming - but there is something about it, just like the meditative state of consciousness, which transcends this drama and you could say conveniently for my position; transcends language and therefor cannot be distilled into truths and falsehoods using 'rational' dualistic challenges and arguments. Why is it that all the spiritual masters through the lineage of thousands of years of practice come to the same conclusions - this is the kind of direct experience which starts pointing the way to the truth for us I think, when you have experiences which support their ancient wisdom.

It would be much more effective for us and the progress of science, if we continue slowly expanding the 'box' of our measurable reality rather than sniping at those subtle phenomena that lay outside it using the rules and instruments of everything inside the box as a justification - and that is indeed the direction I think we are heading in ...

Also, in response to potato991; Robert Bruce developed a tactile astral projection technique using the experience of climbing a rope specifically for a group of blind people. It ended up working for most of them and they indeed could see in the astral. Its in his large book Astral Dynamics if your interested.

Peace.

**spaceexplorer** · 01-25-2009 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by Ajna

Spaceexplorer,

Have you read the Tibetan Book of Living and Dying?

I can see where you are coming from, but I don't think your motivation or intent is correct somehow... something about your argument seems wrong to me. There is far too much doubt in it. And yes 'doubt' has seen us progress in many areas and you do need a healthy amount of doubt when dealing with 'new ageism' at times. BUT in this case I think much more comes from positivism (finding things which prove something true) to develop a view, rather than trying to pick to pieces a position and playing the devils advocate...

There is always the danger of Confirmation Bias if you only set out to prove something true. I've fallen victim to this myself on numerous occasions, it seems to be hardwired into the human psyche to think this way. I understand your point, and I can see how being critical can appear as negative. I don't really see it that way, in fact I think it's more actually an inherent problem with linguistics that adds the negative slant. The words "critical" and "skeptical" will to most, have a negative feeling attached to them. With the word "Critical" it's quite easy to see why, it's very clearly linked to the word "Criticism", which let's face isn't the most happy-cheery kind of word. Does that mean that critical thinking is a negative pursuit? I don't think it does, not if the aim is to widen and expand our horizons, to cut through the chaff and discover the truth. Human lives are incredibly short, and so we really do need to be a little ruthless in choosing what deserves our attention and what dosn't. Imagine spending your whole life dedicated to a particular worldview that turns out to be false, simply because you avoided the "negative" practice of critically testing your beliefs. To me it is more negative to spend a life wasted chasing rainbows, than it is to spend a little time testing your beliefs to see if they are worthy of pursuit.

One vivid memory I have of such an experience, and one which made me reconsider my own life a little, was visiting the Theosophical society headquaters in India. I remember meeting one of the older members of the society (in his late 60s early 70s it appeared), who gave a talk. One of his demonstrations was the use of pendulum dowsing, he was very enthusiastic about how the movement of a pendulum was "unexplained" and proof of the mysterious. Due to a quirk of circumstance in my life, as a child I was bought a book on parlour magic tricks, I remember one of the tricks being to build a pendulum. It always amazed me how the Ideomotor response could be amplified by a pendulum. Still, to this day, there are many people who believe in the pendulum without understanding the basics of Ideomotor response. So here i was stuck with an example of someone who had dedicated thier life to the pursuit of a certain world view, yet because of his confirmation bias, had never critically approached the subject of pendulum dowsing. How sad is it that this man will have spent his life preaching the virtues of this technique, without ever realising that a little research on skeptical approach to the pendulum would have uncovered for him a whole world of interesting psychophysiological responses. Not psychic, not paranormal, no... but proven and nearer the truth.

By the way, I never did bring this up with him, maybe I should have?
At the time I really wasn't in the mood to rock someones boat.

However, because I had been lucky enough to know the science behind the pendulum, It made me realise that I had to be more critical of the other subjects this chap was sharing as "fact", many of which I took quite seriously at the time.

It may seem "negative" or a "spoil sport" to be critical of such things. Is it really? Is it wrong to be want to help share the facts you know?
Of course nobody likes to be told they are wrong, illinformed or simply lacking all the facts. Yet if a child were to attempt to cross a road, without looking, because they are not yet aware of road saftey, is it negative to pull them back, and tell them that what they are doing is wrong, and then inform them of why? Of course not? Why then should it be any different with any subject in life. Life is short and precious, let us all help each other to make the most of thier lives and offer each other intellectual shortcuts around subjects and misinformation that would otherwise bog us down for years of wasted study.

Ignorance may be bliss, but it is not truth.
At some point we all need to make the choice, do we want to discover the truth or are we looking simply to make ourselves feel good?
The truth will not always produce happy feelings. It will not always be what we want to hear (hence phrases like "the truth hurts")
It is wrong to blame the messenger if the message if truth makes us feel bad, or makes us have to reasses our world views.

I've had to experience many painful paradigm shifts in my life. It can be a real struggle to put aside old ways of thinking when the facts contradict them (reminds me of another buddhist saying, the one about crossing a river with a boat, then deserting the boat, rather than carrying it over land)
It's like a mini-death, a death to an old self, an old world view. If i had been avoiding feeling bad, i would have never allowed these shifts in perspective to occur. I would have hung onto my old beliefs, because they would have reassured me, made me feel good, would It have made my life better?
I suppose that's all down to personal preference.
Again it harks back to that Carl Sagan Quote:

"it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. "

We have to approach the universe with critical, skeptical thinking. Not simply look for what makes us feel good.
Or to word it in a more positive way:
We have to approach the universe with the tools that will most rapidly get to the root of the matter, that will most swiftly add lucidity to the darkness.

It's like gardening or farming. You'll not grow a healthy crop, without weeding.
Our lives, like the soil, only have so much energy and capactity. If we do not weed out that which wastes energy or wastes space and time, then we will have a poor crop, and be left with much that is worthless.

It's not about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I still own and read a great deal on Astral Travel (for example), I find many of the techniques very useful for inducing lucid dreaming. Just because I do not adopt the conclusions that the authors have (that you are inducing astral travel), does not mean there is not a good deal of useful information that has been gathered by the authors. Its simply that they were struggling with a conclusion that was incomplete. Once you realise that "Astral Travel" is just "Lucid Dreaming", you can see where they were mistaken, how confirmation bias trapped them, yet, at the same time, they were dedicated to thier study. Thier methods may still work, even if thier conclusions about what and why things were happening were based on an incomplete set of facts.

I am still waiting for the many paradigm shifts that will come my way. I in no way think that what i know is the full truth. What i do know, is that i am closer now, than i was 10 years ago. Not because I held firm to that which felt good, but because i was willing to deal with the struggle and pain of dropping my past ways of thinking in favour of new evidence. Being critical, means above all, willing to accept that you can be wrong. If we cannot learn to face that, despite of the embarassment and pain it may cause, then one will never grow.

**DreamQueen** · 01-25-2009 07:25 PM

^ Damn! And I thought my IQ was high

Not only is this the most intelligent post I've read on any forum ever, it is also one of the best pieces of prose I've ever read

How very refreshing, and inspiring.

**DreamChaser** · 01-25-2009 10:53 PM

Yes Dreamqueen. Very good answers.
The thing with OBEs and such, is it is so hard to prove because it's like asking how big the universe is.
I am selfish because I have had a few what I call OBEs, as I have had many LDs, and the fact I had and have them, I could just enjoy and keep to myself.
Also I know from having both, the difference in OBE to LD.
It is like your energy body rips from your physical body and the clarity is way beyond any Lucid Dream.
You know it is you and leave your room and travel to one of the infinite plains of existance.
I have had no false awakening or LD start or feel like this, so whatever it is it is something more and something greater.
If anyone chooses to not believe, that's ok.
You have to experience it to realise how different it is.

**spaceexplorer** · 01-25-2009 11:37 PM

Originally Posted by DreamChaser

Yes Dreamqueen. Very good answers.
The thing with OBEs and such, is it is so hard to prove because it's like asking how big the universe is.
I am selfish because I have had a few what I call OBEs, as I have had many LDs, and the fact I had and have them, I could just enjoy and keep to myself.
Also I know from having both, the difference in OBE to LD.
It is like your energy body rips from your physical body and the clarity is way beyond any Lucid Dream.
You know it is you and leave your room and travel to one of the infinite plains of existance.
I have had no false awakening or LD start or feel like this, so whatever it is it is something more and something greater.
If anyone chooses to not believe, that's ok.
You have to experience it to realise how different it is.

You are assuming I havn't had these experiences.
I have.
Yet, I have experimented with them and can find nothing that suggests they are anything other than the construction of the human mind.
You are doing the human mind an injustice assuming it is not capable of creating such experiences.

I do not choose not to believe, I am forced to not take it as fact because of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
If i had a choice, I'd like it to be real. It'd be a great thing to be true.
Unfortunatly, it's not.
We cannot choose reality and truth. We have to learn about it and accept it as it is.

The feeling or conviction that something is true based on how REAL it feels to you, is not a good yardstick to measure things by.
If you don't agree, pay a visit to any mental hospital and see just how convinced many of these poor people are that there delusions are utterly true. It's very very real to them.

Personaly i think you are underestimating the power of both your own mind and lucid dreaming.
Which is a shame.

**DreamChaser** · 01-26-2009 12:16 AM

Originally Posted by spaceexplorer

You are assuming I havn't had these experiences.
I have.
Yet, I have experimented with them and can find nothing that suggests they are anything other than the construction of the human mind.
You are doing the human mind an injustice assuming it is not capable of creating such experiences.

I do not choose not to believe, I am forced to not take it as fact because of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
If i had a choice, I'd like it to be real. It'd be a great thing to be true.
Unfortunatly, it's not.
We cannot choose reality and truth. We have to learn about it and accept it as it is.

The feeling or conviction that something is true based on how REAL it feels to you, is not a good yardstick to measure things by.
If you don't agree, pay a visit to any mental hospital and see just how convinced many of these poor people are that there delusions are utterly true. It's very very real to them.

Personaly i think you are underestimating the power of both your own mind and lucid dreaming.
Which is a shame.

Firstly, I was talking about all answers, not just yours spaceexplorer. Sorry if it wasnt clear.
This one is a quoted response however, so firstly, you said you have had these experiences. You can't have had my experiences and what if they were profoundly different?
It is not all based and genericly bonded to your experience mate.
I was talking specifically about my experience and not saying all have the same.
In contrast we all probably have the same basic mechanism of separation take place but the following clarity, strength and following experience will differ, as will many other facets if one goes deeper into it.
Each has individual experiences and at obviously different levels.

Next, I am not saying the mind has nothing to do with it, and I agree we prob store our consciousness there.
When I said "I have had no false awakening or LD start or feel like this, so whatever it is it is something more and something greater", isnt it obvious I meant OBEs are something more than a LD?
I thought that was pretty clear. I think you saw something else.

Next, how can you say unfortunately its not true. Is your opinion more valid than others? Are you an Oracle?

Lastly, I am not underestimating Lucidity, just saying this OBE experience was something more and different. Please dont extrapolate what you want to see.
Many people have OBE'd from a lucid dream. This also shows the differring intensity and experience of an OBE (or how would know the difference in transition).
(PS: No personal offence - I value your opinion and enjoy debating)

**spaceexplorer** · 01-26-2009 12:36 AM

Originally Posted by DreamChaser

Next, how can you say unfortunately its not true. Is your opinion more valid than others? Are you an Oracle?

Don't shoot the messenger.

It's not true, because truth as we define it in the english language is "a fact that has been verified"
There is absolutely no evidence to back it up, there is no verification.
This isn't about opinion, it's about evidence, verification. It's not my opinion, it's not my evidence. Don't get fustrated with me because I'm accepting (after doing a lot of research into) the research and experiments of thousands of scientists (current, and throughout history) over someones "strong feeling" that something is true.

Try a simple experiment with yourself.
Do it in a lucid dream, and then do it in an OBE.
Take a pack of cards, shuffle them, then stick 4 of them, facing upwards on top of your wardrobe. Don't look at the cards, but next time you are in an OBE or a Lucid Dream... go find out what they are.
Write them down when you awaken, and then go and check if they are the same. If they are, keep trying this, rule out other ways you may know.
Once you are satisfied that you can do this, and you have truely left your body, then bring that evidence back to the rest of us. Then we can talk about reality, not feelings.

I'm also certain our experiences were different. That is the nature of being a subjective human being. However, like I said before, there is NO relevance in how real or vivid something feels, if something feels different, more real, more vivid, that does not MAKE IT more real... The feeling and experience is subjective and has no relevance to the reality of what is going on. Talk to someone with clinical paranoia or schizophrenia if you disagree.

Do you really think that not having provable, reliable evidence is a good thing? I just don't understand why people think like this.
If i were buying a car, i'd be pretty damn certain i wanted it to be proven and reliable!!

Also if you don't think that the mind can create very vivid, more than real experiences... try LSD or DMT. Both chemicals, both totally physical, both (in the right quantitys) will make you feel at one with the universe, and as if you are experiencing some unique spiritual, divine dimension.
Both are chemicals, both are simply altering your brain chemistry.

And refering to your last point, I do think that it is possible to underestimate Lucid Dreaming and the power of the mind.
Lucidity is not a set state, it can be very varied. It is a spectrum of awareness. Why is it not possible to have lucid dreams that feel more vivid, and different from others? I've certainly had them, I've also had very average mundane feeling lucid dreams. Why can there not be even more vivid more intense levels that we have yet to reach? Is it not MORE likely (occams razor and all that) that these experiences are in and of the mind? Generally the more likely answer is the correct one.
an OBE requires us to posit many many unprovable and unlikely reality models. The idea that it is all in the mind, fits perfectly into what is already known about the mind, perception and the world.
Which is best? choosing the option that least fits the rules of the universe as we know them, or the one that is the best fit?

**bushi** · 01-26-2009 12:42 AM

Originally Posted by DreamChaser

Next, how can you say unfortunately its not true. Is your opinion more valid than others? Are you an Oracle?

This is exactly what I was thinking.

It's fair enough to say that you don't believe that OBE's are more than the physical mind's creation.
But to say that you know better than anyone who disagrees with you is just lame and princess like.

**spaceexplorer** · 01-26-2009 12:55 AM

Originally Posted by bushi

This is exactly what I was thinking.

It's fair enough to say that you don't believe that OBE's are more than the physical mind's creation.
But to say that you know better than anyone who disagrees with you is just lame and princess like.

The truth isn't something we get to pick and choose, depending on what we want to be real.
This is not about belief, what I believe is utterly irrelevant.
We can't accept everyones belief as "equal" because that's not how truth works (there are people out there who believe that homosexuals, blacks and women are lesser beings... do we have to accept thier beliefs as equal and true too now?)

How about we stop having beliefs, and start KNOWING, start investigating, start looking for evidence. Backing up our beliefs (which is just another word for "personal theory") with evidence.

No one is going to take anyone seriously without evidence.
Unless you'd like the courts of law to start thinking that way too?
"no your honour, we don't have any evidence, but we definitely believe this guy killed the deceased"

Once again, don't blame the messenger.

It's not my fault that all of modern science contradicts the entire idea of out of body experiences.

Truth:"a fact that has been verified"

I didn't make up the definition of truth,
I also didn't make up Physics.

IF you want to be at odds with the world because your belief makes you "feel good", don't get grumpy with people who respect hard earned facts over belief.

One last thing...
If you're personal view of the world is being threatened by what I say... then please prove it to me. Give us some evidence. If it's real, if it's genuine, then you have absolutely nothing to worry about when people start testing it. Defensivness and falling back on calling people "princess" or other derogitory remarks, don't help your argument, they show as fear that you may not be right.

**DreamChaser** · 01-26-2009 01:22 AM

Originally Posted by spaceexplorer

The truth isn't something we get to pick and choose, depending on what we want to be real.
This is not about belief, what I believe is utterly irrelevant.
We can't accept everyones belief as "equal" because that's not how truth works (there are people out there who believe that homosexuals, blacks and women are lesser beings... do we have to accept thier beliefs as equal and true too now?)

How about we stop having beliefs, and start KNOWING, start investigating, start looking for evidence. Backing up our beliefs (which is just another word for "personal theory") with evidence.

No one is going to take anyone seriously without evidence.
Unless you'd like the courts of law to start thinking that way too?
"no your honour, we don't have any evidence, but we definitely believe this guy killed the deceased"

Once again, don't blame the messenger.

It's not my fault that all of modern science contradicts the entire idea of out of body experiences.

Truth:"a fact that has been verified"

I didn't make up the definition of truth,
I also didn't make up Physics.

IF you want to be at odds with the world because your belief makes you "feel good", don't get grumpy with people who respect hard earned facts over belief.

One last thing...
If you're personal view of the world is being threatened by what I say... then please prove it to me. Give us some evidence. If it's real, if it's genuine, then you have absolutely nothing to worry about when people start testing it. Defensivness and falling back on calling people "princess" or other derogitory remarks, don't help your argument, they show as fear that you may not be right.

I know the above is prob a retort to bushi, but I would also like to respond:

Well many of us believe we will Lucid Dream each night and even chant it to ourselves. So I bevieve belief is important. This is but one example.

It is funny you use the term "blacks" in a satire about people thinking they are lesser beings.

"Dont blame the messenger" is a cop out too. You yourself believe the non-proof methodology. Why not stand up and be counted?

Beliefs are what make us who we are, and what keeps us going instead of waiting in anguish for a proof to be revealed.

and what if we don't believe in ourselves, what then?

**spaceexplorer** · 01-26-2009 01:56 AM

Originally Posted by DreamChaser

I know the above is prob a retort to bushi, but I would also like to respond:

Well many of us believe we will Lucid Dream each night and even chant it to ourselves. So I bevieve belief is important. This is but one example.

It is funny you use the term "blacks" in a satire about people thinking they are lesser beings.

"Dont blame the messenger" is a cop out too. You yourself believe the non-proof methodology. Why not stand up and be counted?

Beliefs are what make us who we are, and what keeps us going instead of waiting in anguish for a proof to be revealed.

and what if we don't believe in ourselves, what then?

Good point about using the word "blacks", blame my greatgrandfather, he's a black guy, and I think I picked up the term from him. Never used in offence, always used in the same way that "blonde", "tall guy", "lucid dream obsessive" are.
- either way, good tactic for trying to undermine my character to try and undermine my argument. Shame neither are related. Wouldn't it have just been easier to offer some evidence in favour of OBEs if they are true and all that rather than go for character assasination?

Why do I believe in non-proof methodology? You need to back up statements like that. I'm not the one claming that the human being is a soul, that exists independant of the body and can pop out just for a stroll.
I am pretty sure I can back up all of my world views with enough evidence to make them convincing. Other than my Invisible friend, Howard, only he's definitely real, because I know and believe completely that it's true. I can't prove it, but other people have invisible friends... we can't all be wrong can we? Oh and he's a unicorn from Mars too.... although don't ask him to explain what mars is like... as he says that having to prove himself is pointless, and people should just believe... if they don't they are "closed minded"

Actually I disagree that beliefs are what make us what we are.
Do you believe yourself to be male or female? or do you just know it.
When you are in love, do you believe it? or know it?
When you are hungry, do you believe it? or know it?
When the sun rises, do you believe it? or know it?

I do not believe i will lucid dream, I know i will, given the right effort and circumstances.
I use facts and knowledge to try and induce a state. I HOPE that I will get the balance right, and that my brain chemistry, psychology and all the rest will work in harmony to produce one.

You're still not providing any proof for your beliefs.
Do you believe in gravity?
Of course not, you know it's there. You could prove it if required too.
Now, if OBEs are as real as gravity, then surely it would be as easy to prove!

Here are a couple of articles for people who want to expand thier knowledge on OBEs and don't limit themselves to reading that only backs up what they already believe:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/03/he...gy/03shad.html

http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Articles/si91nde.html

Both fascinating and worth a read.

What if we don't believe in ourselves?
Hmmm interesting. And actually if I take you literally, raises another question about OBEs. How do you define self?
Are you the same self you were when you were 5 years old?
What is it that leaves the body? your memories? your personality?
But if thats the case, why do drugs and electrical impulses directly into the brain effect those memories and personality traits?
Maybe there is no self at all, maybe the idea of self is an illusion caused by the information processing system we call a brain. And if there is no self (as the buddhists suggest) then who are you? what leaves the body?
Maybe Self is actually like the image you are looking at on the screen. A collection of pixels that seen in one way appear to make something bigger than the individual parts, but in truth are independant processes.

Peel and eat an orange... at what point during the process of peeling and eating does it stop being an orange? Is a single segment an orange?
is the peel an orange?
Is self like an orange?
Where does the orange go when it is eaten?
Does it reappear on the astral as a whole orange... free from its physical constraints? or Is an orange simply a collection of parts, and we use the linguistic and mental trick of seeing it as a singular entity. Maybe self is like that orange... maybe we are just a mental trick, an illusion.

You see, that's one of the philisophical dillemas with Out of Body Experiences. You have to define what the self is.
What is it that leaves the body? What is it to be human?
You see I know that by the end of my day in the physical world tommorow, my self image will have changed. It's changing every moment we have this conversation. I find it hard to pinpoint what this soul, this astral body, would actually be.
I know what it feels like to be a "self", but i also know that what it feels like to be a self will have changed in a few hours (well every second).

I think the "self" is a bit like "the internet". It's non physical in as such as you cannot hold it. But it exists purely in the physical realm, it is a network of interactions and impulses (all of which are physical - even if they are electrical and chemical), existing in a physical hardware.

**bushi** · 01-26-2009 02:00 AM

I'm just pretty much fence sitting mate.

I'm just stating that you are being very irrational and selfish.

I don't know whether OBE is real or not. I don't have proof and I haven't experienced it.

So don't get on your highhorse at me princess.

You're not the all knowing guru mate.

**linxx** · 01-26-2009 02:12 AM

Originally Posted by DreamChaser

So the pineal gland looks like it's our "Dream Clitoris".
Lets stimulate it!

HA!

**spaceexplorer** · 01-26-2009 02:13 AM

Originally Posted by bushi

I'm just pretty much fence sitting mate.

I'm just stating that you are being very irrational and selfish.

I don't know whether OBE is real or not. I don't have proof and I haven't experienced it.

So don't get on your highhorse at me princess.

You're not the all knowing guru mate.

You clearly havn't read a word I've written.

Do you seriously think I don't want OBEs to be real. of course I do.
I'm going to die like everyone else.
I don't want death to be the end of my existence.

But unfortunatly for me, it seems that all the brightest minds out there, all the most respected scientists, all say much the same thing.
That there is no evidence for life after death or the soul existing outside of the body (or the soul existing full stop!)
But, For OBEs to be real also implys that the death of the body is not the end of life.

Who in thier right mind WOULDNT want that to be true?
I want it to be true. But my wanting it to be true, however much, wont make it so if its not.

You think it's easy to accept that Death is the end of it all?
You think I want to be arguing for the case that my life is all i have, and death is the end of my contact with all I love and care for?
No.

I'm not on any high horse.
I'd just rather accept the truth, than live a lie. And all the evidence out there in the world, currently points to us humans living, then dying... and that is that.
It's a scarey prospect for us all... should it make us be irrational and belive things that arnt based on facts? just because it frightens us? No.

At least if i know this life is all I have, then I'll make the bloody most of it, and make the most of the brief lifetime i share with those I love, and the world i love.

**DreamChaser** · 01-26-2009 03:24 AM

Yes, space, we have read what you have written.

I don't need to help you with character assasination.
After your "black" comment you then allow having a relative of that descent the blame for your slander.
Ok, you don't need help with assasination as you call it. I was just looking at the hypocritical irony of the prior post.

Ok, the love example,
When I am in love, I believe in love and know it. Ok.
When I am not in love, I still believe in love. It is because I have experienced it.
I have experienced OBEs, and believe in OBEs. Ok.

Which leads to gravity, before it had a name or physics theory.
We believed in gravity because things came back down to the Earth.
I believe in OBEs because I go beyond the Earth. It has a name. Maybe soon too a physics theory.

If a life-long friend of yours said he sailed to a remote island last week on vacation (the island being on no map and no name) and had a lunch on it.
Would you believe him without proof? Many would. Maybe you wouldn't.
See it gets complicated to what and whom you believe without proof.

Rambling on about the Self, what it is to be human and answering questions with questions with tangents, is no more than a politicians technique to evade answering them.

Keeping on asking us to prove OBEs is tiring I must say.
There is no proof yet and if/when there is proof, it will prob be by the Monroe Institute or testing facility similar.

One thing I do find refreshing is you dont follow mindlessly like millions of others by the death scare tactics used by many religions(or promise of eternal life).
We are all scared by death. We would all like to find out that there is more too.

**juroara** · 01-26-2009 06:12 AM

Originally Posted by spaceexplorer

We have to approach the universe with critical, skeptical thinking. Not simply look for what makes us feel good.

some one save this poor soul from his boring left brain!

....science, math, these things don't matter. we don't need science and math, we were just fine throwing spears and living in caves!!

but men thirst for knowledge, because it makes us feel good to know more then what we did yesterday. I mean, how damn important is that that we count the stars? Its only important if its important to YOU.

the universe doesn't give a damn whether or not you know how it goes round. but we WANT to know. because we are curious beings and we are emotional beings with real emotional needs. look at the looniest of all scientists - look how EXCITED they get when they discover something others would call mundane and meaningless. yet that discovery to them, was the highlight of their life. more than sex. more than marriage. more than children

for many, science doesn't satisfy their emotional needs so they don't give a damn. for others it does. it gives them purpose and meaning. and thank God there are people who are interested in science, for the rest of us who take it all for granted!

but don't get lost in the objective reality science presents to you. because at the end of the day there is only one reality you partake in. your own reality.

and when you understand you can only know your own reality - and that this reality is subjective - then some people stop being as interested in the objective reality. and the truth they want to uncover is the subjective reality - the truest reality - because it is the ONLY reality you will ever know

Which is more important, understanding the world around you? Or understanding you?

So don't waste your time looking for objective truth as the only truth. Or waste your time thinking, that you can somehow understand truth through logic and critical and skeptical thinking alone. You can't. Thats left brain thinking. Thats how the left brain understands reality, by labeling things. Defining things and placing things in a logical pattern.

Thats only one way, just one way of understanding truth. It doesn't mean its the only way. Its actually a very limited way of seeing reality. Some truths are beyond logic. Some truths are beyond what the left brain can so easily define and label. Some truths have to be experienced to be understood, like love. This is the right brains way to understanding reality, experience it! Experience it!!

now I have a question to ask you.

how many people does it take to perceive the same thing for it to be an objective reality?

how many dreamers have to share the same dream, interact in the same dream space for the dream to be an objective reality?

four? five? six? seven? eight? nine? ten? eleven? let me know when I hit a number that makes reality objective. one hundred? one thousand? one million?

isn't the answer it only takes two?

why do astral projectors claim the astral is a real objective reality, such as this one? People who have astral projected claim they have been able to witness real time events happening in another room. People who have astral projected, have met other people who are astral projecting in the astral projection - and confirm it later in real time.

of course, this isn't good enough evidence for science, the testimony of others. but since when does science decide if testimony is important? Testimony is important!! Imagine if every single person heard the voice of God, at the same time, and the voice said the same damn thing - wouldn't everyone say - it was really the voice of God? But science can't prove a damn thing. Since science can't record the voices in our head, so there is no physical evidence anyone heard anything. And science doesn't have any way of measuring what is and what isn't the voice of God.

Or even..lucid dreaming. What objective proof do we have that lucid dreaming is real? Last I check there was NONE. Last I check, the only reason why we say lucid dreaming is real, because of the sheer number of people who testify to lucid dream. Remarkable! Yet we are too cowardly to do the same for other testimonies, like NDEs and OBEs, because they would burst someones bubble of what is and what isn't.

do you understand? Science, the objective study of reality, has no way of telling you what you did or did not experience. Science will never be able to tell you if what you are experiencing is ultimately real or isn't. And you'll never be able to use logic to figure that one out. Logic has to define things. And yet those definitions are themselves as illusionary as these words.

in other words

the greatest truth you can ever know, is not the truth you critically think about, but the truth you EXPERIENCE! don't be shy, its fun!

**potato991** · 01-26-2009 06:20 AM

Originally Posted by Ajna

the true purpose of DNA is not widely known to mainstream science

On what basis do you make that claim? Scientists have booted up a designer organism, using a synthetic DNA sequence - this was not a case of beginners luck. I think you underestimate the progress being made in genomics. I don't doubt fully synthetic organisms are far off (http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...ists-on-b.html). I'm not sure how this fits into the mystical belief framework (maybe it does, I'm just not seeing how).

Originally Posted by Ajna

Robert Bruce developed a tactile astral projection technique using the experience of climbing a rope specifically for a group of blind people. It ended up working for most of them and they indeed could see in the astral. Its in his large book if your interested.

Don't you think it would be in a peer reviewed paper if this were a legitimate claim? I think there's a good reason it is only backed by anecdotal evidence. I could send countless books your way making claims of UFO's, Yeti's and any number of phenomena. Would you accept these to be true? Wouldn't you demand physical evidence or reproduceable results from a controlled study? Why should, why would, I believe in the anecdotes of some mystic writer? How exactly do you personally separate the wheat from the chaff, when it comes to extraordinary claims? Do you rely on personal experience, or look to the evidence?

In any case, if there is any truth to these claims, science will reveal it in time. That's what science does, it does not discriminate. Scientists thought anaesthetics were pie in the sky rubbish, all it took was a simple demonstration, it wasn't that hard.

Do you believe in general the brain is some magical receiver (as in the intelligence is processed externally)? Brains respond to tissue lesions in quite predictable ways. Damage a part of the V1 cortex, and expect a blind spot in your visual field. Some brain damage can result in people being able to see and recognize a loved one, yet be convinced that person is an imposter - because some of their emotional centers are dysfunctional. Why would the brain have a huge chunk of the cortex dedicated to visual processing, when by your reasoning it's completely redundant, because you can 'see' quite happily during an astral projection without it. Did this third eye evolve with humans (our early ancestors couldn't have made much sense of the visual inputs we see today).

Let's put it another way. Someone born blind will, due to brain plasticity, have parts of their visual cortex reassigned to other sensory inputs. If you restore their sight, they will have to go through the process of 'learning' to see (http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedai...hose_visio.php). So your claim is there is a complete decoupling between brain function and the 'ethereal' representation. So if you get brain damage and lose cognitive function, no problems as in the ethereal realm all is good. Great, this means people with down syndrome can operate normally in the ethereal realm, because the brain damage is only applicable to their physical manifestation. People with severe personality disorders due to chemical imbalances or physical damage, suddenly become wholly different people in the ethereal realm. Do you see where I'm heading with this? The brain demonstrably defines 'us', how we behave in day to day life. If we had an ethereal representation, we must accept it would not behave, would not think, in fact would have very little in common with our physical self. Yet here we have people claiming they feel like themselves in these higher plains, while others don't - they can't both be right.

My problem is you're postulating theories without consideration for the great many holes that arise, you seem to throw consistency out the door. You're elevating ancient knowledge above modern developments. Some of the ideas of the great thinkers of the past look foolish by todays standards. This is not their fault, they just didn't have the tools and information to come to an accurate (rather more accurate) conclusion.

Science evolves, science isn't afraid to be proven wrong. As is the case with many of these supernatural claims, they are often presented as immutable 'facts', and it's considered some sort of sacrilege to prove elements of it wrong.

**marcher22** · 01-26-2009 06:33 AM

This seems pretty cool. How long does it take you to get into a Lucid Dream on average when you try this technique? and can you do it at any time of the day?

**Phantasos** · 01-26-2009 07:20 AM

Originally Posted by DreamChaser

Yes Dreamqueen. Very good answers.
The thing with OBEs and such, is it is so hard to prove because it's like asking how big the universe is.
I am selfish because I have had a few what I call OBEs, as I have had many LDs, and the fact I had and have them, I could just enjoy and keep to myself.
Also I know from having both, the difference in OBE to LD.
It is like your energy body rips from your physical body and the clarity is way beyond any Lucid Dream.
You know it is you and leave your room and travel to one of the infinite plains of existance.
I have had no false awakening or LD start or feel like this, so whatever it is it is something more and something greater.
If anyone chooses to not believe, that's ok.
You have to experience it to realise how different it is.

Have you considered that while your experience is true (ie that OBE is different to regular LD), interpretation of the phenomenon is not or, at least, just one of the possible ones? For example, it may be an LD but in another "mode" than regular ones (trips for different drugs may have very different general feeling so LDs probable can also be different, actually, if one read DV he may noticed very strange LDs which are different to regular ones) or LD with "unnatural" high clarity. I remember I read on DV an exercise to get LD to such degree of clarity and stability that RCs start to pass

.

**Ajna** · 01-26-2009 07:29 AM

Spaceexplorer, I think your ego and emotions are starting to get in the way of your judgement and ability to articulate your position. You are obviously quite passionate about convincing the rest of us that there is nothing beyond what can be objectively measured by science... is that to make your confirmed, researched, logical reality more real for you? Maybe it is unfair to be saying this but its what springs to mind for me immeditely when I read your posts. It's definitely exciting my own ego and playing to it.

You gave the example about the Pendulum and in doing so have revealed to me that you are not as well read as you first appear or simply reject other areas of your beloved science. Namely Psychology, even though it is a soft science I still think you should consider it a science. You have basically discounted depth psychology, all of Jungs work and the conscious brains ability to communicate with the subconsious. And going one step further outside the realms of all the little trivial facts about the universe the scientists have managed to collect onto their databases (so far) - even communication with something beyond your subconsious mind. This is facilitated through the Ideomotor response;

So you have looked at this guys beliefs of the pendulum and put them in the context of your own world view, which must be correct, and because it is more limited you actually felt sorry for the guy. You have used a small detail of human physiology which he sounded like he knew nothing about to discount a larger reality. But really he didn't need to know anything about the Ideomotor response to communicate with his subconsious or I would even say higher self - this didn't mean what was actually happening wasn't the truth (I will clarify that apparently the higher self communicates through the subconsious and via the physically involenatary ideomotor response to manifest motion in the pendulum relevant to the observer holding the pendulum, a communication free of the conscious ego mind.) Pendulums are just one of many methods to get this conscious mind out of the way, I feel your investing too much into your conscious mind and its ego framework, it loves facts and figures. As juroara said, it is very left brained.

I think I'm beiginning to put my finger on what it is about your arguments that strike me as a bit strange. You display all the marks of a learned intelligent individual who has refined their view of reality through careful observation and scientific method. But what I really see is your ego (being the framework of your conscious mind) grappling with the fact that there are things outside your understanding, and things which you cannot control, and that scares it. Everything is in a constant state of change. It is one of the only consistent laws of the universe that everything is in that state of change.

You say that it is an injustice to the human brain to deny the fact that astral projection is a subjective local phenomena and simply a product of its working.

I say it is an injustice to yourself that you feel the human spirit and higher self does not have a place in your world view or is not the truth, that you do not have an etheric body which can dis-integrate from your temporary physical one.

You keep saying "no evidence", "no evidence", "overwhelimg evidence to the contrary" but I have read enough to know this is just not the case at all... and you seem to be using those broad statements more and more... Confirmation Bias is indeed affecting both of us in the same way my friend... I realise the psychology that we naturally cling to our established views and beliefs so we are both automatically affected by it in this debate, enough said on that...

To those who are looking for scientific evidence I'll site another source. Declassified CIA research papers on the use of Astral Travel for espionage are an interesting start, I managed to download them from the internet. They were definitely interesting in qualifiying the experiences and gaining tangible information from the physical. That card experiment that spaceexplorer mentioned has actually been done in hospitals with near death experiencers and other places. Just search for it... google it... I don't know if this is just co-incidence or if spaceexplorer actually tried it for himself and it didn't work therefore its a false hypothesis.

References keep getting made by yourself and others to 'great thinkers of the past' and how they were eventually proved wrong, or their view is now seen as limited. I'm not talking about the great thinkers which subscribed to the mechanistic Newtonian view of the universe i.e. scientists. I would call these free thinkers more correctly; great spirits, or to use a newageism Ascended Masters and I feel for you if when you read those words you instantly felt aversion to the truth which you know deeper down.

You conscious logical mind is never going to convince the rest of us who are trying to transcend its limitations - by your process of deduction and critical thinking. Your own conscious logical mind is never going to get enough evidence to prove the spritual for you or prove the existence of your higher self. But if you start to listen to your right brain, your intuition, your emotions, your love, your spitit. Then your view of the universe may shift once again. As I asked before, have you read the Tibetan Book of Living and Dying? If you have not, and if you do, it will provide an interesting arena for a nice little debate between your conscious ego and your subconsious intuitive self. It did for me.

I really wish you the highest happiness spaceexplorer and that you find what you are looking for.

Namaste

**potato991** · 01-26-2009 07:32 AM

Originally Posted by bushi

I'm just stating that you are being very irrational

Interesting, I found them to be the polar opposite. Even juroara (who doesn't agree with his sentiments) seems to agree - they are heavy on logic.

Originally Posted by DreamChaser

Keeping on asking us to prove OBEs is tiring I must say.
There is no proof yet and if/when there is proof, it will prob be by the Monroe Institute or testing facility similar.

Glad to hear it. The point that has been raised is not to declare OBEs as fact, when they're not quite at that stage yet. There may be proof, and I'm sure it will be uncovered if it's a real phenomena. The inability to provide proof to date just hints that, at the very least, many of the reported OBEs are simply LDs.