Thread: Lucid Dreaming book reviews and recommendations

Castaneda's "The art of dreaming" (if you're the close-minded type, who automatically sides with the neurologists, then you will most likely not be able to read this book through)

You're misusing the term "close-mindedness"....I haven't read the book, but have read several excerpts, along with many reviews: the book is a bit more on the fictional paradigm of things, but that doesn't diminish it's value. There are concepts that don't seem to have a logical underlining cause, like many reality checks, and they do indeed work. So advocating for "close-minded" or neurology (you know neurology refers to disorders right ? You probably mean neuroscience) for saying someone will probably not like the book....Besides, I think certain lucid dreaming books are very useful in a sort of "inspiration" perspective.

That goes along with Robert Wagner's book (Gateway to Inner Self): a less "scientific" kind of book, but nonetheless an excellent read, and this opinion is from a "close-minded" onironaut

Originally Posted by Zoth

You're misusing the term "close-mindedness"....I haven't read the book, but have read several excerpts, along with many reviews: the book is a bit more on the fictional paradigm of things, but that doesn't diminish it's value. There are concepts that don't seem to have a logical underlining cause, like many reality checks, and they do indeed work. So advocating for "close-minded" or neurology (you know neurology refers to disorders right ? You probably mean neuroscience) for saying someone will probably not like the book....Besides, I think certain lucid dreaming books are very useful in a sort of "inspiration" perspective.

That goes along with Robert Wagner's book (Gateway to Inner Self): a less "scientific" kind of book, but nonetheless an excellent read, and this opinion is from a "close-minded" onironaut

I am not sure, that I completely understand your point, so please forgive me, if the following makes no sense, in relation to your comment.

I don't mean that only close-minded people will have difficulty with these books, but that they certainly will. Some others may also not like them. YMMV.

I wrote neurologist, but should probably have written neurobiologist. It is - for these purposes - more or less the same: namely people, whose interest is the brain, with the mind not being a factor (or even as much as a meaningful concept).

The reason for specifying "close-minded" is that an awful lot of people completely reject the idea of "shared dreams" etc. without having the foggiest ability to prove, that these things are not possible. I should maybe have written "anti-scientific", but that would also have been question-begging.

If you are open to Waggoners book, then it seems to me that you could not be in agreement with neurobiologists/neuroscientists, for whom - at least in general - the ideas of mind, telepathy and a non-physical "realm" are to be rejected with a vengeance. And hence, I would not consider you amongst the "close-minded".

^ But there are also close-minded people who believe in Castaneda and astral projection etc but don't believe in science.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

It seems there is in this thread a kind of bias against books that deal with the wider possibilities of dreaming - whereby I mean launching OOBE's from dreams, investigating ones own unconscious, etc.

No bias. Link for OBE books is here http://www.dreamviews.com/beyond-dre...endations.html

And before we had the thread about OBE books, there are some OBE book recommendations in this, LD books as well.

If you are open to Waggoners book, then it seems to me that you could not be in agreement with neurobiologists/neuroscientists, for whom - at least in general - the ideas of mind, telepathy and a non-physical "realm" are to be rejected with a vengeance. And hence, I would not consider you amongst the "close-minded".

Hmm...but I am in agreement with neurobiologists/neuroscientis The thing is that this agreement doesn't make me or any other supporter of their views close-minded. Maybe the bias which you referred to in the previous post (which I honestly don't see at all ) is nothing more than a healthy dose of skepticism, clearly common in such a subject like dreams. But just because this kind of people rejects the ideas of shared dreaming or telepathy, or this kind of approaches to dreaming like the ones presented in Castaneda's and Waggoner's books, doesn't mean they are close-minded, and for certain the burden of proof doesn't rely in their shoulders. Close-minded is not a "science thing": it can be present in complete opposite sides of the spectrum ^^

And for last, it doesn't "certainly" mean they will have difficulty reading these books. We get it, they are more esoteric than many others, but like I mentioned above, you don't need to read these books as "right or wrong": just enjoy the ideas and maybe use the less "down-to-earth" content as inspiration.

I believe we're getting into a lot of nit picking over the meaning of words, but I would like to clarify my view.

When I say "close-minded" I mean "prejudiced", whereby I mean biased, whereby I mean "has taken a view or position in disregard of available information", whereby I mean "has up-front made his/her mind up, and will not change it, come hell or high water".

What I am of course referring to, is the fanatical crusade, which seems to be prevalent in the neurosciences, against the idea that mind exists separate from brain.

It find it hard to believe, that people in this group would be able to sit through all of "The art of dreaming", because it implicitly has as its theme, that mind exists apart from brain. That book would - probably - have the same effect on neuroscientists that a red cloth has on a bull.

Of course, it may be that there are people in this group, who would be able to sit through it - after all not everyone is the same. But my comment was meant as a warning to those who side with the neuroscientists, because - in my view, they are unlikely to find the book palatable.

As DarkMatters pointed out above, there are also close-minded people, who would lap up Castaneda. But I did not refer to those (I haven't seen trace of them here on DreamViews, but maybe I just haven't come across them yet).

However, where Zoth and I apparently completely disagree is most clearly captured in the statement "But just because this kind of people rejects the ideas of shared dreaming or telepathy, or this kind of approaches to dreaming like the ones presented in Castaneda's and Waggoner's books, doesn't mean they are close-minded, and for certain the burden of proof doesn't rely in their shoulders."

I completely disagree: if you up-front reject some theory, without having the ability to prove it wrong, then you are close-minded - as I see it, it is virtually the definition of the concept. And the burden of proof is on everyone - if a person believes proposition A is true, whereas another thinks A is false, then neither can reject the others position - and remain open-minded - unless s/he can prove the other position wrong.

Specifically, in the present context, neuroscientists can not simply lie back and say: "We're right, and you're wrong", without displaying exactly the same kind of close-mindedness that is so often recognised in the various religious views in this world. If they want to win the argument, they have to prove that mind cannot exist without physical brain.

And, finally, just to disclose my own view, I am unconvinced by both positions, but tend towards believing more in the "esoteric" view than the "neuroscientist" view. Maybe to the tune of 60% to 40%.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

As DarkMatters pointed out above, there are also close-minded people, who would lap up Castaneda. But I did not refer to those (I haven't seen trace of them here on DreamViews, but maybe I just haven't come across them yet).

Ok, I know this is just a side-topic, but I just want to point out that there have been many people who come in and claim to have had all kinds of weird experiences, dreaming and waking life both, and refuse to accept that it might have some rational explanation - instead they're adamant that it was precognition or ghosts or whatever, and refuse to even consider anything else. Alright, I don't want to disrupt the actual conversation any further, so I'm out!

Maybe rejection was the wrong word. I don't know if it's a translation problem, or simply a definition one (which would be my fault xD)

On the other hand, you have wrong ideas about the exact concept of burden of proof. I'll advice you to watch this video instead of reading a wall of text of my Again, if you and I were encouraged to disagree based on my choice of the word "rejection" instead of "disbelief and lack of creditation", then I guess we're good, because if rejection here means "It's wrong!", then I completely agree with you that it's close-minded. I just want to say that dualism is indeed wrong, there's loads of errors in reasoning and logical in that position, and it's not only neuroscience that talks about it. It's physics, psychology, neuroscience, etc. Again, look at this and this video ^^ And you don't need to prove how many humans there are in the planet to state that someone's guess of 10 is wrong do you ?

Maybe we should end the conversation here, as like Darkmatters said, we're going a bit off topic. But if you feel like continuing, I'm sure one of us wouldn't mind creating a topic where we can discuss this disagreement of ours more in depth, as it's certainly an interesting discussion ^^

Originally Posted by Ctharlhie

The best book on lucid dreaming out there, imo.

I'm 100% with you on this!!!

Originally Posted by moonlightress

Thanks Joanna, I had a look at on Amazon with their Look Inside feature and it looks great, if expensive. Very good reviews, too. I think I might get this one too.

One thing I do wonder, though, is how much that is in books is already here on DV... from what I have read around the forum, in various tutorials, there are some very experienced teachers here.

Still it's probably worth it for the extra bits that night not be mentioned here, and each individual author's take on LD.

I think you answered your own question but I think that forums and books both give their own little flavour so both are good. I work in a library, so I prefer books for well researched facts and forums for opinions and the fun of being social. Oh yeah, that book looks a little expensive but it's totally worth it as it's got so much in it! I'd agree with Ctharlhie and others that its the best out there.

Originally Posted by Zoth

Maybe we should end the conversation here, as like Darkmatters said, we're going a bit off topic. But if you feel like continuing, I'm sure one of us wouldn't mind creating a topic where we can discuss this disagreement of ours more in depth, as it's certainly an interesting discussion ^^

Hey guys, probably polite to start a thread for that topic, but can you share the link I'd like to join in!

Just ordered 'Are You Dreaming?' by Daniel Love. Eighteen bucks for a book is a bit hefty for me, but if I get even one tidbit I can use, it'll be worth it. Stay tuned.

I have ordered Castaneda, LaBerge and Daniel Love, so it seems I am getting a bit from both the neuroscience and esoteric sides, which suits me fine.

I must say Amazon has its s**t together. I ordered 'Are You Dreaming?' yesterday. And it just arrived in my mailbox. Can't wait to delve into it.

the best ever books in lucid dreaming is:
#1:Exploring-The-World-Of-Lucid-Dreaming(Stephen-Laberge)
#2:Tenzin-Wangyal-Rinpoche-The-Tibetan-Yogas-Of-Dream-And-Sleep
#3:lucid dreaming _ gateway to the inner self(robbert_waggoner)

Originally Posted by mehrdad

the best ever books in lucid dreaming is:
#1:Exploring-The-World-Of-Lucid-Dreaming(Stephen-Laberge)
#2:Tenzin-Wangyal-Rinpoche-The-Tibetan-Yogas-Of-Dream-And-Sleep
#3:lucid dreaming _ gateway to the inner self(robbert_waggoner)

I've got to disagree with your 3rd choice - Robert Waggoners book is pretty poor, it's all "you can see the future in dreams" and "hold this crystal between your buttocks and you'll have superpowers" OK, maybe not that second one, but the whole book is more new age and filled with nonsense than the crystals hanging from a burnt out hippies rainbow underpants. It's actually one of the few books on lucid dreams that made me want to throw it away.

I agree that your first choice belongs in there, that's kind of obvious. The 2nd choice... I guess MAYBE if you want to learn Tibetan dream yoga, but I've never seen why lucid dreaming always has to be sold as some kind of spiritual thing. Probably less of that would be better you know? Yeah it can be used that way but it seems like people just buy into this stuff without really giving it any thought. OK Tibetan Buddhists may have known about lucid dreaming, but they also believe in demons. I'm sick of people looking at me like I'm an idiot when I talk about lucid dreaming and mostly it's cause they've seen books like Waggoners and think that we're all a bit stupid and gullible. I'll stick with the more modern and scientific books myself, I kinda like living in the 21st century where we understand a lot more about our brains and how things work.

Originally Posted by spaceexplorer

I've got to disagree with your 3rd choice - Robert Waggoners book is pretty poor, it's all "you can see the future in dreams" and "hold this crystal between your buttocks and you'll have superpowers" OK, maybe not that second one, but the whole book is more new age and filled with nonsense than the crystals hanging from a burnt out hippies rainbow underpants. It's actually one of the few books on lucid dreams that made me want to throw it away.

I agree that your first choice belongs in there, that's kind of obvious. The 2nd choice... I guess MAYBE if you want to learn Tibetan dream yoga, but I've never seen why lucid dreaming always has to be sold as some kind of spiritual thing. Probably less of that would be better you know? Yeah it can be used that way but it seems like people just buy into this stuff without really giving it any thought. OK Tibetan Buddhists may have known about lucid dreaming, but they also believe in demons. I'm sick of people looking at me like I'm an idiot when I talk about lucid dreaming and mostly it's cause they've seen books like Waggoners and think that we're all a bit stupid and gullible. I'll stick with the more modern and scientific books myself, I kinda like living in the 21st century where we understand a lot more about our brains and how things work.

I agree completely on Waggoner's book, it's very poor. He makes unrealistic assumptions and supports them with weak evidence. I find it unacceptable that the book is loved by the lucid dreaming community so much. A lot of what he rights makes me cringe just by how new age it comes across.

However the the second book is a good choice. I know what you mean about it making us lucid dreamers seem new age, but it really is a good book. Spirituality aside the Tibetans dream yogis where masters at meditation, and reached levels of awareness that we could only dream of (). While dream yoga might have the wrong end result for most lucid dreamers, it does house some very special and effective techniques for lucid dreaming.

Personally I don't think that ETWOLD comes close to the holy grail people make it out to be, it has good tips in it but in the end I learned more by searching 20 minutes through site and bit of reasoning and common sense. It has it's place for beginners, but it is fairly lacking in many areas. "introduction to the world of lucid dreaming" might have suited it better.

I don't see a reason to trash Waggoner's book. First it's not a how-to book, and second, he's not presenting precognitive dreaming as a fact, nor does he talk about shared dreaming as something that is verified. He simply presents his experiences, and cites the experiences of his friends and collagues. There is much interesting material in the book. Actually I found the book very insightful.

That being said, I personally think most of the threads in DreamViews' "Beyond Dreaming" are much more "out there" than anything in Waggoner's book.

Originally Posted by mehrdad

the best ever books in lucid dreaming is:
#1:Exploring-The-World-Of-Lucid-Dreaming(Stephen-Laberge)
#2:Tenzin-Wangyal-Rinpoche-The-Tibetan-Yogas-Of-Dream-And-Sleep
#3:lucid dreaming _ gateway to the inner self(robbert_waggoner)

Haven't read the second one, but I agree with #1 and #3.

I agree with Empedocles, as I also see no reason to trash Waggoners book. The man is a psychologist, and the book reads very much like a psychologists effort to make sense of lucid dreaming. It does not in any way seem "New Age" to me, but of course we may have varying definitions of this concept.

To me, "new agers" are people who think that by buying organic produce and attending groups meditating on loving kindness, mankind will very soon transcend to a higher level of consciousness, and we will all love one another with unwavering purity. At least if we sound "AUM" a lot.

Waggoners book does not really cater to that crowd.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

I agree with Empedocles, as I also see no reason to trash Waggoners book. The man is a psychologist, and the book reads very much like a psychologists effort to make sense of lucid dreaming. It does not in any way seem "New Age" to me, but of course we may have varying definitions of this concept.

To me, "new agers" are people who think that by buying organic produce and attending groups meditating on loving kindness, mankind will very soon transcend to a higher level of consciousness, and we will all love one another with unwavering purity. At least if we sound "AUM" a lot.

Waggoners book does not really cater to that crowd.

Really? it doesn't read that way at all to me. With chapter titles such as "consciously connecting via telepathy" and the endless poor examples of making vague dreams fit future events, it really seems very unscientific. Still, everyone has different tastes. I think actions speak louder than words and seeing as Waggoner seems to have started to build his career around talking at "OBE" conventions among shamans, OBE believers etc. it's pretty clear that he's choosing the more lucrative new-age crowd as his target audience and not people who are interested in dreams without all that paranormal fluff. Is it good for lucid dreamers that we're always put in the same box as the paranormal? I don't think it is and I don't think Waggoners book is helping. It's not very objective and seems like he's just using it as a soapbox to push his paranormal beliefs.

We should probably get this thread back on topic though, it's supposed to be book reviews.

Just before we get "back on track", I'd like to chip in, that the "OBE-believers" - in my view - are primarily of three categories: distinctly non-spiritual thrill-seekers, devotees of occult theories of existence - or people who desperately wish to believe that there is life after death. New agers are not really to be found amongst those, as far as I am concerned.

Also, and this is of course just a reproach invited in by your comments, considering Waggoners insights "fluff" seems unnecessarily demeaning. The guy is simply trying to make sense of experiences far outside the realm of the normal.

I think you are right, though, that he is addressing those, who are open to the possibility that the physical universe, as we presently understand it, is not all there is.

And, getting "back on track", Waggoners book is clearly not limiting itself to material that has been scientifically proven about lucid dreams. But then, that would hardly be able to fill one single page - let alone a complete book! And, incidentally, such a book, once somebody has gathered enough material to write it, would probably not inspire anyone to lucid dream (as they would never read it).

I'm gonna jump in and try to return this conversation to book reviews

Being ill this last week I've had a chance to re-read and skim over some of my lucid dreaming books. Bit of a sad attempt to try and distract myself from feeling awful but it kinda worked.

What I found happening was given the choice of my pretty big collection of books I kept being drawn back to ETWOLD by LaBerge and Are You Dreaming? by Love. So it seems I've found my two favourite books on lucid dreaming

Both give a nice balanced and broad coverage of the whole subject. So these are the two books I'd suggest to any lucid dreamers. AYD is probably a better guide but ETWOLD is an old classic and it makes me a little nostalgic to the days when i first started out.

When I was feeling a bit more spiritual I turned to Lucid Dreaming by Waggoner and The Lucid Dreamer by Godwin. Like others in here, I didn't like Waggoners approach much, I'd not bash it quite as much as others but it's not to my tastes and I'd definitely not recommend it. Godwins book is what I'd suggest to those looking for an opening into spiritual matters on lucid dreaming, it's beautifully illustrated too which really gets the imagination fired up, it's more human and not preachy, which is one of the things I disliked about Waggoners. Strange, it's rarely mentioned.

So if I wanted to give a list of what I think are the three best books that cover lucid dreaming from science to spirituality, I'd say these are the best, the cream of the crop:

The Lucid Dreamer - A waking guide for the traveller between worlds. By Malcolm Godwin

Are You Dreaming? - Exploring lucid dreams, a comprehensive guide by Daniel Love

Exploring the world of lucid dreams by Stephen LaBerge

Hope that helps. I'd like to hear other peoples ideas.

ps. if you get a really bad cold try a mix of whiskey, blackberry juice and ginger before bed it'll make you feel a lot better and give you some pretty strange dreams!

Originally Posted by Empedocles

I don't see a reason to trash Waggoner's book. First it's not a how-to book, and second, he's not presenting precognitive dreaming as a fact, nor does he talk about shared dreaming as something that is verified. He simply presents his experiences, and cites the experiences of his friends and collagues. There is much interesting material in the book. Actually I found the book very insightful.

Waggoner's book is terrific. And while he may not offer proof of OBEs, precognitive dreaming, etc. he does make an effort to set up his experiments so that the influence of chance, coincidence and wishful thinking are minimized.

The great thing about lucid dreaming and OBEs is that it is experimental. You are not asked to believe ANYTHING. All you have to do is EXPERIENCE these things.

I've had lucid dreams in which I was totally conscious, and the dreams were as vivid as physical reality, if not more so. I experienced an alternate reality in these dreams. To dismiss them as simply "brain noise" is absurd. Comtemporary physics talks about multiple dimensions and alternate universes, something the yogis have been talking about for 4000 years.

Originally Posted by DawgBone

Waggoner's book is terrific. And while he may not offer proof of OBEs, precognitive dreaming, etc. he does make an effort to set up his experiments so that the influence of chance, coincidence and wishful thinking are minimized.

The great thing about lucid dreaming and OBEs is that it is experimental. You are not asked to believe ANYTHING. All you have to do is EXPERIENCE these things.

I've had lucid dreams in which I was totally conscious, and the dreams were as vivid as physical reality, if not more so. I experienced an alternate reality in these dreams. To dismiss them as simply "brain noise" is absurd. Comtemporary physics talks about multiple dimensions and alternate universes, something the yogis have been talking about for 4000 years.

The books is great if you are reading it like his journal, otherwise not so much.
1)He does in fact say that the book serves as a How-to book, specifically in the preface he writes " I hope to act as a dream anthropologist of sorts - explaining the lucid dream terrain, the local customs, the rituals, and something of the dream inhabitants. I provide advice and guidance for those who wish to become lucid dreamers." - The book is far from helpful for someone who has just started lucid dreaming, it's filled with multiple accounts where he asserts something is true, while in reality it is something that you must experience yourself to believe it or not. A beginner would be much better off without knowing about separate entities, talking to the deceased or mutual dreaming. Yet no where in the book does he outwardly show that it is all just his opinion and that you would be better off exploring the lucid dream world normally without any expectations.

2) It's not that he doesn't provide proof for OBE's why many don't like his book. It's because he misinterprets information and resorts to logical fallacies. A case that particularly caught my eye was when he was stopped midway through a dream by another dream character, he assumes that this simple event can only be attributed to some other kind of entity or force. He finds it easier to believe that an independent agent stopped him in his tracks, than that the dream happened to summon the thought of a man stopping him, because he had seen a similar event somewhere else. While it is true that both are a possibility, the example dream was weak and didn't support either case more.
Also the use of Carl Jung's (20th century, largely unsupported) hypothesis doesn't help backup his claims. His seemingly selective irrationality is what turns many of us from the book.
None the less he does make some accurate points throughout the book and there are a few very helpful comments on dreams.

3) About your last comment on contemporary physics and yogis, you are misinformed. When a physicist talks about "multiple dimensions" or "alternate universes" you are pretty much in the deepest fringes of theoretical physics you can get, nothing about them is certain. A "dimension" for instance that you hear about, is actually an incomprehensibly small folding in space time according to some physicists, interestingly though we've never even been able to sense a quark, imagine the difficulty in sensing something 1000000000 smaller.
Not just that, but the difference between a dimension according to a yogi, and a physicist is inconceivably large.

Now to add the book list:

Dreaming: a very short introduction By J Allan Hobson
I recommend anyone who has an interest in the current stance of science on dreaming to read this book, it's excellent. Despite being a little hard to read sometimes there's a wealth of information in there, Allan goes through every aspect of dreaming meticulously, even the history and how Freudian and Jungian theories stand up today. It's extremely interesting, and he touches on lucid dreaming for a chapter in the book, but really the whole book is applicable. There's not much in terms of techniques you'll get out of it, but you will definitely gain a better understanding of the brain and the current theories which describe it.

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

The books is great if you are reading it like his journal, otherwise not so much.
1)He does in fact say that the book serves as a How-to book, specifically in the preface he writes " I hope to act as a dream anthropologist of sorts - explaining the lucid dream terrain, the local customs, the rituals, and something of the dream inhabitants. I provide advice and guidance for those who wish to become lucid dreamers." - The book is far from helpful for someone who has just started lucid dreaming, it's filled with multiple accounts where he asserts something is true, while in reality it is something that you must experience yourself to believe it or not. A beginner would be much better off without knowing about separate entities, talking to the deceased or mutual dreaming. Yet no where in the book does he outwardly show that it is all just his opinion and that you would be better off exploring the lucid dream world normally without any expectations.

I couldn't disagree more. The possibilities Waggoner describes are inspirational. But then perhaps you prefer a more sterile approach.

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

About your last comment on contemporary physics and yogis, you are misinformed. When a physicist talks about "multiple dimensions" or "alternate universes" you are pretty much in the deepest fringes of theoretical physics you can get, nothing about them is certain. A "dimension" for instance that you hear about, is actually an incomprehensibly small folding in space time according to some physicists, interestingly though we've never even been able to sense a quark, imagine the difficulty in sensing something 1000000000 smaller.
Not just that, but the difference between a dimension according to a yogi, and a physicist is inconceivably large.

I would recommend you read The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra:

The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism: Fritjof Capra: 9781590308356: Amazon.com: Books

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

Also the use of Carl Jung's (20th century, largely unsupported) hypothesis doesn't help backup his claims.

You don't find Jungian Psychology to be relevant to the theories of dreaming??? That is frankly unbelievable.

Sorry to moan but can we keep this on topic. Book reviews people! this thread is about book reviews

There's a whole forum to discuss this other stuff. By the sounds of it some of it belongs in Beyond Dreaming, which is where I'd put Waggoner's writing myself. Maybe mods could tidy this up, or create a thread called "book reviews discussions".

For the record though I agree with DutchRaptor on all his points and I don't think he's being sterile at all