Auras, once again;P

**Nick89** · 03-05-2010 03:39 PM

Sorry for another topic on auras, I know it's a controversial issue. Anyway, some time ago there was a fierce argument on the forum, where basically spaceexplorer was 'against' auras. I couldn't help but make some things clear.

For anyone, who is sceptical about auras:

Firstly, basic arguments against auras

1. Auras are an optical illusion, an after image
[...]Auras have a pretty weak basis. Take a pencil. Hold it up against a well-lit white wall for about a minute. You'll notice a green or red "aura" around it momentarily.[...]
2. Experiments to test auras:
a) [...] get the person who claimed to see Auras (you can do this yourself at home try it), to pick two people with very different Auras.
Then you get those two people to walk into the other room, leaving the door open. They will then stand to the side of the door (hidden by the wall), but close enough so that the aura should be visible through the doorway by the "aura seer".
Taking it in random turns to stand by the doorway... it should be a simple matter for the Aura Seer, to see the colour of the Aura through the doorway and say which person is there.
Can they?
Nope, under hundreds of experiments, no-one, absolutely no-one has ever been able to pass this simple test.[...]
b) a similar experiment, this time an alleged psychic could firstly examine auras of 20 people, then they would hide behind 20 partitions, but only some of them, and he was supposed to point the partitions behind which people were hiding. He chose all 20 partitions, however, only 6 of them had a person behind.

My reply:

1. - Auras aren't just afterimages, auras simply FORM afterimages, as well as a normal object. Why wouldn't they?. It's something we see, something our cones in retina receive - hatever we stare at for a long time, let it be aura, or just an object, it 'stays' in our vision as an afterimage.
- Auras can form within few seconds. Read Robert's Bruce 'Training to see auras' (it's on the net). He experienced it, measured it (4 seconds), I've also experienced it, you only need some practice. After-images can't appear so quickly.
- All objects have auras (an aura around a pencil is all right), because everything, all matter is energy at the same time. Maybe you remember, E = mc2, one scientist, considered at his times crazy when he proposed the theory of Special Relativity, only to be called a genius 9 years later, when they got the Scientific evidence (capital letter intended as for some people science is equal with revalation from God) and auras is 'kind of' energy. The higher the frequency of vibrations, the higher the energy, an enlightened person has got high vibrations (this is esotheric 'knowledge'

, I know, but you see, it makes sense here), so more energy, so a bigger and more visible aura - that's why saints were depicted with auras around their heads. Thought it was logical and fully comprehensible.;P
2. Experiments unfortunately contain a basic methodological error. In order to prove or disprove the existence of something, you've got to have a proper definition of what you are examining. I mean, precisely, you CAN'T see aura of something when you don't see this 'something' at all. You can't. Aura seeing is not seeing through walls, come on, folks! I'd love to see through walls, believe me!;P Those psychics possibly saw auras of the obstacles, or maybe tried other psychic abilities, like remote viewing to pass the test.

Moreover, it would be quite strange to know, for a sceptic, that the more I focus my body-awareness on the area where the pineal gland is located ('the third eye) and the more I try to mentally make this point 'vibrate', the clearer I see auras. It is true. It is my genuine experience. I can sense my third-eye vibrating, literally, I feel it. I KNOW auras exist and are no kind of optical illusion and whatever.

I know sceptics will say or think 'You're nuts'. I don't care much except I don't like this phenomenon when someone knows something which is contradictory to common knowledge or discovers something new and revolutional and people say that he's crazy or that it' is bullshit, only because of their closed-mindedness.

To learn the ability to see auras, I have read Bruce's guide. It works! At present, I can only clearly see auras around bright objects, and very subtle ones around plants. But I'm getting better.

If you want evidence of auras existence, read the guide. And experience the phenomenon yourself. First give it a try, then argue and call people crazy.

One more thing, if you still don't see auras, and you also consider this to be just an optical illusion and what-not, I remind you that it won't at all prove that auras don't exist; assuming auras are an optical illusion, it would only prove that there's something wrong with your eyes or processing of visual informatio in the brain.

Sorry for an agressive style of speaking in the post, I got a bit angry, simply

Thanks for reading.

**saim** · 12-30-2010 07:43 AM

Yeph u r right its not optical illusions people dnt have ivformations and idea about this power i agree with you

**Replicon** · 12-30-2010 05:06 PM

I can totally get after-images that quickly. And then if I remove the object completely, the after-image stays. In fact, read the afterimage wikipedia page, and also look at the examples for far less than 4 seconds. It'll work just fine.

So the question is, how do you know when it's an aura, versus the well-known after image you get when your cones/rods adapt? In 100% of my experiments with it, once I saw the "aura" I could look away, and still see it (i.e. it's an after-image). Is it safe to assume that if it's a real aura, and not an after-image, then averting your eyes or removing the object, and looking at a wall, will make it so you do NOT see the after-image-like effect? After all, if it's not an afterimage, then I shouldn't see it when the source object is not there.

**Dannon Oneironaut** · 12-31-2010 12:20 PM

Because you can see the auras of the internal organs. You can see the auras of emotions. You can see when someone is trying to influence you. You can see the aura of someone who is happy versus the aura of someone who is angry. You can see streamers and sparkles with their thoughts and feelings. You can influence their aura with your aura. Because you can heal people. You can tell when people are lying. You can tell when a woman in pregnant. You can tell if someone abuses drugs.

**Replicon** · 12-31-2010 05:28 PM

How do you know that what you call auras are not actually synesthesia? Just like some people see numbers in different colours (I think Richard Feynman was in this camp), or someone on this board said they see some sound as blue. Well, since we're subconsciously picking up people emotions from all those micro-changes in the body language (we call that "vibe"), could it be just a colourful synesthesia where vibe gets translated into colour? That kind could make more sense. It's definitely more interesting than reading an aura website that says, "If you do this exercise <involving placing an object on a highly-contrasting background>, you can see an aura, which looks like <exact description of after-image effect you get when putting an object on a high contrast background>"

**ChaybaChayba** · 12-31-2010 08:20 PM

How do you know, what you call synesthesia, are not actually auras? Maybe synesthesia is actually an advanced mechanic of the mind which is not yet understood, as people with synesthesia actually can remember everything much better. They have more to work with, while 'normal' people have less.

If everything you say is true, that the aura is a production of the imagination based on subconscious perception of micro-changes in the body language of other people, then the whole point of seeing auras still remains, it still gives you a superior perception of the world.... You might argue, but ok, since it's all just the imagination, it's not accurate. But then you could also argue, that since all your logical thinking that you are doing now right, is all just in your imagination, that this logical thinking, is not accurate either as it is also based on your imagination.

Anyway some very interesting points you made there replicon

future science someday might come to the conclusion that seeing auras and synesthesia are basically the same thing. Personally I prefer a scientific explanation, and to me it seems the different scientific theories are out there to explain the aura, they just haven't been put together yet. The aura probably is the electromagnetic field of the body.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro..._consciousness

**Dannon Oneironaut** · 01-01-2011 02:08 AM

Call it aura, call it synesthesia, but it still works especially for healing work. But it can't be synesthesia. BEcause one can see meridians and internal anatomical organs and pregnancy and things there would be no way of knowing. And it can't be the electromagnetic field, because it doesn't behave like electromagnetism. The only explanation that I feel makes sense is that it is like a corona that is revealed by the body eclipsing.

**ChaybaChayba** · 01-01-2011 02:42 AM

It doesn't behave like electromagnetism, but it might be a finer form of it, as there are multiple layers to the aura, the physical body might as well be another layer. You could then have an electric layer, each layer representing the interaction with a finer form of energy. I've seen different types of auras, from smoke clinging to the skin, to bright light shining out of people as if they are glowing. So I'm assuming they are different forms of energy.

But what you just said there is a really interesting explanation, a corona revieled by the body eclipsing! It does look like that. But what is the body eclipsing?