From: david@edenroad.demon.co.uk
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 07:45:31 -0700, obe1990 wrote:
> It's not necessary to go through all the motions of determining whether or
> not OBEs are dreams by investigating OBE itself. You can simply become
> aware of the overall truth as explained in The Disappearance of the
> Universe, and everything else will come into perspective as your
> understanding of the truth increases. Here are some of the things about
> OBEs and lucid dreams and such that I've become aware of, or become strong
> enough to accept, since becoming aware of truth.
Ah, this doesn't sound too promising...
>
> Notice that some OBE authors had a more definite theory about astral
> projection than other authors. You can read the book The Practice of Magic
> by Draja Mickaharic. On pages 87 thru 89 in this book he mentions that
> while OBE one can lift physical objects generally up to about a third of
> their physical weight, write messages to leave for people in locked rooms,
> and eventually do just about anything they would otherwise be able to do
> if they were physically there. And he definitely insists that concrete
> results can be obtained with astral projection, and that if concrete
> results cannot be obtained one is just indulging in self-delusion or
> fantasizing. He advises that these projected fantasies can very well
> involve a number other people.
>
> Yet contemporary literature and authors, like Astral Dynamics by Robert
> Bruce, and his subsequent 90-day training manual Mastering Astral
> Projection, mention things like reality fluctuations and slipping into the
> astral planes. How can you ever determine if it is a dream or not if you
> can simply explain away the dreamlike nature as a part of the experience
> itself?
> Whereas before like with Draja you are either OBE or not, and if
> you are OBE you are seeing definite things and can do objective things
> like move physical objects (see The Practice of Magic, pages 87 thru 89),
> now if you 'get out' and everything is different that what you would
> expect, you are at the least experiencing a lucid dream, or you are either
> experiencing reality fluctuations, or you have faded into the astral
> dimension (see MAP page page 226). Where is there room to determine if it
> is anything but a dream?? [You can use the 'search inside' feature at
> Amazon.com to review these pages.] The REAL alternative is much better
> (See The Disappearance of the Universe).
IMO, the _only_ way to distinguish OBE's from other dream-like states is
to determine whether information can be gathered "paranormally" during
them (or "paranormal" action performed).
Note that this isn't complete proof either way, but it at least provides
an indication, IMO.
>
> I've have personal discussion with a prominent author on OBE literature,
> and even after writing his book and teaching workshops and stuff as if
> it's all real, he told me he's still trying to find out if its real- still
> professing publicly that it's all real, even in the face of direct
> assessment that his experiences are dreams.
Never underestimate the profit motive, nor the pull of kudos.
>
> I had relations with a less prominent but very proficient 'out-of-body
> traveler', and when I was a rookie he had a rock solid veneer of knowing
> its true and real and having definite experiences. But as the years wore
> on and my own experience and literary knowledge increased I began to see
> where his enlightened discourses to me were really just rattling off of
> impromptu hypotheses about stuff he hadn't even experienced or developed
> yet. And as we became actual friends he let down his guard some and
> informed me that he was still unsure of his experiences, trying to get me
> to master OBE so we can experiment together so he can determine why his
> experiences are different than several things as is written in books by
> others. Written accounts make the experience seem a lot more definite, or
> even a lot more fluid, than we often like to admit to ourselves is really
> the case with our own experiences.
>
> How many OBE authors and practitioners are just putting forth theories, or
> actually trying to convince themselves with their own writings, being less
> than honest about their knowledge, surety, and/or abilities, or even just
> outright lying?
Noone knows; and the informal nature of books like this tends to make it
impossible to judge the likelihood.
A good clue is, as you've noticed, how little original work most of these
books contain - they are consist, mostly, of regurgitated drivel from
others in the field.
> And because many people are not aware of the REAL
> alternative, as clarified in The Disappearance of the Universe,
Oh ohh.
Oh dear.
> There is a better way..
Yep, it's called science.
-)
> *******************
>
> Your thoughts please?? I'd especially like to hear your thoughts David, as
> well as on the two books mentioned if you're aware of what's in them, or
> after you become aware of what is in them..
Really, Cezyl, you're about to trade one group of charlatans for another.
Apply the same tests to this book as you should any other: are there any
onjective facts in it? Does it make testable hypotheses? Does it rely on
other, un-proven, works or theories?
Seems to me, DU fails on all counts.
--
=======================================================================
= David --- If you use Microsoft products, you will, inevitably, get
= Mitchell --- viruses, so please don't add me to your address book.
=======================================================================
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
