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

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.

^ 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.

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.

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.

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)

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?

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.

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.

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 .

Originally Posted by Phantasos

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 .

Yes, quite possibly.
But from a lot of reading of specific OBE experiences, mine fit perfectly to many many others experiences of OBE.
The fact many have gone to OBE from Lucid Dreams makes me believe it is beyond a Lucid Dream.
As in above threads, there is no clinical proof of OBEs, but so many similar experiences (individually detailed ones) make me believe it is OBE.

To be honest I don't really care what it is called. I am very happy I am, and can experience it.
I am now working on bettering myself as a human being during OBE by looking into myself purely with no waking world persona clouding my perception, and also trying to break out of the Earthly hold into space.
(Again I don't even care if it is a hallucination - it is so cool)

Originally Posted by Ajna

or to use a newageism Ascended Masters and I feel for you that fact that when you read that 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 by your process of deduction and critical thinking. Your conscious logical mind is never going to get enough evidence to prove the spritual for you or prove the existence of your higher self.

Ok, how about I replace 'Ascended Master' with Jesus and Allah. The rest of your reasoning can remain as is. Based on this 'evidence', explain to me why do you not believe in both Christianity and Islam. The precise arguments you have given for these claims of mysticism apply (quite literally). So how is it ok for you to accept one and not the other, on what basis do the claims you support have merit, but not these others?

Originally Posted by Ajna

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.

Look up synaesthesia, then get back to me on whether you honestly think there is some kind of 'universal' modality of vision. Vision is a subjective experience, subjective based on wiring of our brain; this is how synaesthesia is able to come about. So how does a blind person see how 'normal' people see, when the definition of normal vision is not a constant. Who knows the entire human race might evolve to see in this way on day. Will our ethereal representation, or third eye, begin to 'see' colours - even though it's alleged to be decoupled from our physical form? Science tells us what it means for a colour to be 'red', the sensory qualia we experience as red is subjective; there is no universal standard as to how the light wavelength representing red should be experienced.

Maybe we have an ethereal representation - but it's a bit narrow minded to think it perceives the world just as humans do, that there is some standard model of vision that blind people can tap into.

Originally Posted by Phantasos

To play devil's advocate, I will remark that until LaBerge LDs were in the same basket as remote viewing and telekinesis. We (LD community) were really lucky that scientific person devoted himself to this issue. And LaBerge was really lucky with rapid eye movement. If eyes as other parts of the body would be paralized as well, LDs could not be proved that way, and then now LDs were

I've also read the scientific community was not at all accepting of the notion of lucid dreams. This seems the responsible course, as if you accept something based on conjecture alone, where do you draw the line? Reports of lucid dreams could merely have been a mental disorder along the lines of schizophrenia. I don't think anybody was in denial *something* happened (they were just dreams, after all), just whether the control was real or imagined. That's the problem with the brain, they're well capable of seeing anything, but did they really see it (experience it), or was it imagined..

Originally Posted by DreamChaser

I would ask you when you have children if you haven't already, to tell them you will only believe in them when they prove themselves to you.
Dont sit in a chair till you check its structural integrity and prove its supportive enough.
Dont get in a plane till you personally check the engines.
Oh, wait, you believe the chair and plane will be fine without proof?

Let's reverse this. Peter Popoff offers you his miracle water, for a nominal fee of $10 (plus postage and handling). Guaranteed to fix any of your ailments, as long as you have the faith. Now Peter has tons of followers, there must be something to this, right? Lots of people believing in something makes it true, yes? So next time you're not feeling well - will you go to a doctor, or order Peter Popoff's miracle water?
True story, look him up (even though he was exposed as a fraud 20 years ago, and went into hiding for a while).

Originally Posted by DreamChaser

Lastly, By reading yours and spaceexplorer's posts, I would think maybe your two IP addresses are quite similar.

Just for you DreamChaser, in case you can't see why someone would respond in that manner

Originally Posted by DreamQueen

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.

+1

Then again why would you require proof with an IP address, you should just go with your gut instinct, right?

Sorry that was a bit personal, but accurate considering the response.

Originally Posted by potato991

Let's reverse this. Peter Popoff offers you his miracle water, for a nominal fee of $10 (plus postage and handling). Guaranteed to fix any of your ailments, as long as you have the faith. Now Peter has tons of followers, there must be something to this, right? Lots of people believing in something makes it true, yes? So next time you're not feeling well - will you go to a doctor, or order Peter Popoff's miracle water?
True story, look him up (even though he was exposed as a fraud 20 years ago, and went into hiding for a while).

A simple placebo, similar to many even here on DV say works.

I am not religious either, so millions of followers dont sway me either.

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!

Originally Posted by juroara

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.

There is scientific evidence to support lucid dreaming. Stephen LaBerge conducted an experiment in a laboratory setting. Electrodes were placed on subjects' scalps to measure brain activity. The subjects were able to communicate a pre-set pattern to the experimenters using eye movement whilst they were lucid dreaming. Their brainwaves showed they were in REM sleep at the time (which is of course impossible for a subject to fake). No matter how skeptical somebody is about the experience of lucid dreaming they just can't argue with facts like this.

I know many people want there to be "something more" out there but simply deciding to believe that fairies, goblins and OBEs are real doesn't actually make them so. Sorry. I'd love to find out they were true, just as I'd love it if someone proved conclusively that there is life after death. What a welcome surprise that would be (although I dare say I would be a little concerned at how I am going to fill eternity. Even bodyboarding would get a little boring after a few trillion years).

Originally Posted by DreamChaser

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

So you are admitting you will believe something simply because it is less anguishing than waiting to discover the truth? Hmmmmmm. Personally I'd rather believe something because it has been proven to be true. Not just because a lot of people say it to make themselves feel better.

Anyone reading this thread who wonders about the existence of OBEs, ghosts, God, astrology, spirit mediums, tarot readings, psychics and any other paranormal phenomenon might want to check out this video. It demonstrates how convincing something may seem but how in one moment it's credibility can be completely blown out of the water. Jim Callahan delivers quite an energetic and seemingly sincere performance as he allegedly converses with the deceased "Raymond" on live TV. Many audience members were no doubt quite impressed. That is until Criss Angel pulls out an envelope and offers $1m if Jim can channel Raymond and get him to tell him what is written inside! It nearly causes a rumble!

http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=ebtMDu...eature=related

Thanks for reading

PS: I hate to have to say it but picking on someone because they make a slightly non-PC comment really is getting desperate. Sorry Dreamchaser, no disrespect. Just keeping it real.

Originally Posted by DreamQueen

There is scientific evidence to support lucid dreaming. Stephen LaBerge conducted an experiment in a laboratory setting. Electrodes were placed on subjects' scalps to measure brain activity. The subjects were able to communicate a pre-set pattern to the experimenters using eye movement whilst they were lucid dreaming. Their brainwaves showed they were in REM sleep at the time (which is of course impossible for a subject to fake). No matter how skeptical somebody is about the experience of lucid dreaming they just can't argue with facts like this.

To play devil's advocate, I will remark that until LaBerge LDs were in the same basket as remote viewing and telekinesis. We (LD community) were really lucky that scientific person devoted himself to this issue. And LaBerge was really lucky with rapid eye movement. If eyes as other parts of the body would be paralized as well, LDs could not be proved that way, and then now LDs were treated like all other paranormal stuff.

OBE's actually is not that hard to proved or disproved: we just need to wait when passionate enough scientist(s) will find enough skilled volunteers and carry out required experiments.

Personally I think that LDs have different types: the most general one is what we usually call LD, and there are some more rare which diverse so much from common type that people (as expected) try to find "mystic" explanation. "OBE" maybe one of them. Actually, there may a whole spectre of them, and regular LDs are just a tiny bit .

After all, until LaBerge LDs were (and still is) are one of fundamental methods for many occult practices. Ball lightning for a long time was not recognized by scientific communty, and one of popular explantion was that it is UFO .

DreamChaser
Which method do you use for inducing it? I would like to try it myself to see the difference.

Originally Posted by DreamQueen

So you are admitting you will believe something simply because it is less anguishing than waiting to discover the truth? Hmmmmmm. Personally I'd rather believe something because it has been proven to be true. Not just because a lot of people say it to make themselves feel better.

PS: I hate to have to say it but picking on someone because they make a slightly non-PC comment really is getting desperate. Sorry Dreamchaser, no disrespect. Just keeping it real.

Well.
My quote was referring to not waiting for every thing to be proven before taking something on faith.

I would ask you when you have children if you haven't already, to tell them you will only believe in them when they prove themselves to you.
Dont sit in a chair till you check its structural integrity and prove its supportive enough.
Dont get in a plane till you personally check the engines.
Oh, wait, you believe the chair and plane will be fine without proof?

I would be a sheep and scared by death and the scare tactics of most religions if I were the man you say, that would just rather believe.

It just so happens I have had a few OBEs, so I believe.

The non-PC comment was accurate considering the response, but was probably a bit personal yes.

Lastly, By reading yours and spaceexplorer's posts, I would think maybe your two IP addresses are quite similar.
I have never heard someone say " 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."

I hope I am wrong.

Originally Posted by DreamChaser

Well.
My quote was referring to not waiting for every thing to be proven before taking something on faith.

I would ask you when you have children if you haven't already, to tell them you will only believe in them when they prove themselves to you.
Dont sit in a chair till you check its structural integrity and prove its supportive enough.
Dont get in a plane till you personally check the engines.
Oh, wait, you believe the chair and plane will be fine without proof?

I would be a sheep and scared by death and the scare tactics of most religions if I were the man you say, that would just rather believe.

It just so happens I have had a few OBEs, so I believe.

The non-PC comment was accurate considering the response, but was probably a bit personal yes.

Lastly, By reading yours and spaceexplorer's posts, I would think maybe your two IP addresses are quite similar.
I have never heard someone say " 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."

I hope I am wrong.

Well you can believe that me and dreamqueen are the same person.
Or you can look for evidence.
Now, which will you choose?
In the pursuit of truth, I'm quite willing to ask a Moderator to look at mine and DreamQueens IPs and clear the matter up for you.
Which ironically proves the very point i've been trying to make about OBEs.
The simple point that: Evidence settles an argument.

(funnily enough, having just got back to the computer and having read these posts, I was expecting someone to say something similar, only about me and potato991... even I though he came across a bit like me.)


What you seem to forget is that those of us who choose not to believe, but would rather see proof, actually have the most powerful personal interest in being proven wrong. Being proven wrong means that we all get to live on after we die. When it comes to the crunch the real matter is: is this life all we've got? If it is then it is very important we know that and live accordingly.
If I can be proven wrong, I'll be the happiest man alive, I'll possibly get to meet all my dear relatives and friends when I pass away.
What you need to be asking yourself is: if someone like myself, has a huge vested interest in OBEs being real, yet wont accept that on belief (even though it would be in my best interests for it to be true)... then why not?
Isn't it odd that people would choose the least personaly-pleasant answer to argue? Why would we do that? Is it because we're "boring cold logical people" (whatever that means... has anyone who thinks like that ever seen some of the beauty revealed to us via the hubble telescope and other scientific endevours? Personally I cant find one thing borne out of religion or evidence-free-thinking that comes close to rival the wonders of the universe as revelaled by Astronomy)

As for some things being taken on faith. I think thats taking the argument too the point of absurdity. Once something has been proven, and tested working on several occasions, of course It's ok to assume (which is a better word than faith IMO) that it will remain the case. OBEs however are an extrodinary claim, made without any evidence to back them up. Extraordinary claims require Extraordinary proof.

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?

Actually none, objective reality exists without perception. Perception isn't required for objective reality to exist. (The earth was round, before anyone knew it was). However, because of that very nature, if ANY NUMBER or percivers witness this reality, they should recive the same data (how thier senses and pesonal psychology then interpret that data is down to who they are). If the dream world is an independant place (which it appears that Judora is tryint to say), then It' would be a very handy thing to discover, It'd no doubt be pounced on by any number of scientists and companys looking to make a new form of wireless comunication. I could go into dreamworld, carve my telephone number on a stone wall somewhere famous... and wait for someone I don't know to call me out of the blue (because they dreamt the number.) Considering the 6billion plus people dreaming each night, it probably wouldn't take long before I'd have to change my telephone number!


But back to my main point:

Making personal attacks on peoples moral standing, or authenticity
(essentially implying that I am a racist or an IP con-man)
Is the kind of thing that tabloids and dodgey politicians do, when they are trying to sidestep the issue.
I am neither a Racist (I find any kind of discrimination utterly vile - we all make verbal slipups now and then. However using racism as a card to win points in an argument, is to me more offensive.)
And I am certainly not DreamQueen or anyone else involved in this conversation.

If there is any moderator who could quickly clear that up, Would be much appreciated. It would nicely point out that evidence, is a quick way to settle an argument too.


Oh and as for being a boring left brainer:
I actually live quite a creative life, my friends refer to me as a "hippy"
due to all of my painting, music etc.
It's not like we have to choose either creativity or logic. But we do need to know which tool is best for the job.
Approaching a new painting with nothing but logic is probably going to be a bit of a faliure. BUT I'd also personaly prefer for the nuclear physicists, to stay nice and logical and not get "too creative" around the nuclear power stations.

Thats cool spaceexplorer.
Just saw some similarities and/or hero worship in sync with your ego.
Oh wait, potato has got even more similar traits to you.
No offence.
I do enjoy our debates and I admitted the racism thing was a bit personal.
We all slip up here and there not meaning to.
Maybe we can side-step to another edge of this debate as we have repeated our beliefs and points over and over.

On the whole use of the word "Blacks"
Maybe its just an English thing, but during the whole Obama election, I'm certain the BBC and all the other reporters were using that term. I don't actually see it any more offensive than the term "blondes".
Again, maybe it varies from country to country...
for example, read the first paragraph of this article in the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-advisers.html

Originally Posted by DreamChaser

Thats cool spaceexplorer.
Oh wait, potato has got even more similar traits to you.
No offence.

Now you're saying spaceexplorer is like me

That's just taking the personal digs too far

Originally Posted by Robot_Butler

After catching up on this debate, I'm seeing quite a bit of hypocricy from DreamChaser and Ajna. One minute you are trying to claim that OBE/Astral travel is "Real". That some part of yourself is leaving your body and interacting with a discrete world. A wold separate from your own perception. By doing this, you are creating a distinction between yourself and the world around you. You are placing importance on the world you interact with in order to give validation to your own experiences.

Then, the next minute, you are claiming that your personal belief matters more than evidence from the "Real" world around you. You would believe in yourself enough to dismiss (or not require) evidence from a discrete world. You trust your perception over evidence.

Do you see the contradiction? You've locked yourself into an impossible pickle.

I actually try and disolve the distinction between myself and the 'world' because to think you are distinctly seperate is an illusion created by the ego. Where is the ego? We think it is so real but it doesn't exist anywhere but in our individual gross perceptions, we just normally perceive via it. So as much as I can I actually chose not to accept my perceptions, because most of the time if I feel negative emotions its the ego getting excited. It causes us to get into our own little pickle of reality

Who is it that knows there is no I?

Like a tree cannot grow without the sun, water from clouds and the nutrients from the earth etc, I cannot exist without everything around me in co-dependence. So maybe I didn't articulate myself well enough on this point, I respect scientific process and it has givien us so much. I also think science and spiritual support each other and are converging more all the time, but science just needs to catch up and make some instruments which can measure more of the universe. Maybe the LHC will help there? I hope so... I can see there are some of us here who think science is moving further and futher away from the spiritual and it intrigues me as to why this is so after everything I have learnt so far. Spiritual in my view isn't the same as pure creationism which science tends to systematically throw a question mark onto. It just the larger reality we haven't discovered yet, like when we thought the world was flat because we didn't know better yet. It may turn out the universe is actually a hologram and the flat landers were ironically closer to the truth lol, google it.

Originally Posted by potato991

Ok, how about I replace 'Ascended Master' with Jesus and Allah. The rest of your reasoning can remain as is. Based on this 'evidence', explain to me why do you not believe in both Christianity and Islam. The precise arguments you have given for these claims of mysticism apply (quite literally). So how is it ok for you to accept one and not the other, on what basis do the claims you support have merit, but not these others?

Look up synaesthesia, then get back to me on whether you honestly think there is some kind of 'universal' modality of vision.

When did I ever say I didn't belive in Christinity and Islam? I just don't believe it in the way that those three guys are worshipping Ronald in one of those amusing pictures space posted :-)

Modern institutionalised religion has taken all the true essence and individual connection with self away. That connection to yourself and everything you are capable of, and so the essence of most religions is the same. Unfortunately all the good stuff was taken out of Christinanity for some reason around 400AD, the Art of Dying which was a treatise on death and reincarnation amazingly similar to other spiritual works but I won't get annecdotal on you, along with instructions on meditation, physical detox, energetic healing etc etc. I don't know why the people who label themselves Christians don't know this... all their power was taken away and they became subservient to a system and a world view that holds everything outside themselves in higher regard and that we are sinners. I don't know enough about Islam to comment but the true concept of God and Allah is really the same. But the miss understanding of those words means its a whole other thread.

What is interesting is Dr Usui who 're-discovered' Reiki (a japanese system of energetic healing) started off as a university professor lecturing in Christianity. He once had a particularly critically and logically thinking student, a really double whammy, who put the question to him "how do you know any of this is true, its only what you read, have you experienced any of the miracles Jesus performed or witnessed them first hand?" I imagine he really tore him appart with logic and was a bit like space . This caused him question himself and he quit his post as a professor to go in search of the truth, for him he ended with Buddhism (being the science of reality that it is with its own experiments; ... see... Buddhism...) and eventually the discovery of the energetic healing system he called Reiki. So being forced to think critically about something, and then go prove it for yourself beared fruit for that individual.

I have read much on synesthesia mainly in Scientific American Mind and I find it very interesting, particularly how savants have an individual cross pollination of perceptions unique to them. Fortunately this doesn't disprove third eye vision at all, or actually anything spiritual We are not just the biological organs and cells which make up our bodies. As divine as the biological machine of ours is, we are it AND also much more. I'll get back to you when science catches up and I can satisfy the curiosity of your left brain with facts and figures. As with your example of DNA you are siteing a limited view, there is much more convergence with the spiritual in this area if only you would look at the sources I have previously mentioned in other posts, the people joining the dots and putting together the pieces of the puzzle.



So basically what I am saying is we should lay some critical thinking to bear on ourselves. I mean really onto ourselves and not what we think we are, too much may be getting invested here into investigating 'things' and 'stuff' outside of ourselves. Some old sages said the truth can be known by going deeper inside, maybe their wealth of experience is enough reason alone that we should try and prove it to our selves by trying their method of quieting the mind. Rather than filling it with all the measurements about the universe and waiting for everyone else to tell us what we already know if only we could hear it. It just seems like a healthier, happier option to me more in tune with our deeper humanity.