What is Astral Travel

reply to post by sirnex

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by v01i0

 

True, I can't necessarily speak for the whole of humanity, but I figure we're all alike enough that this should be a trait achievable by anyone regardless of gender, race, color, or belief..

I mean, is the effect only realizable by those who strongly believe or create enough of a positive/negative thought towards the changes in the PH level of the water? If say, negative thoughts bring about certain PH imbalances that can be construed as having been caused by negative thoughts, then should I not have at least had a 'positive' result in that regard?

Yes, maybe it is achievable through practice, I don't really know - as well as I could learn to play chess if I practice properly.

I haven't got personal experience about this and many other things so I really don't have an opinion whether it is possible or not.

Nevertheless we can all observe the power of faith (I am not saying this in positive or negative sense, it is merely an statement) in people and in the world. The faith can heal and it can hurt, as many of the examples shows. Even physical appearing defects can be healed if the healed has strong faith and the healer can "abuse" the faith in certain way. I think it is even scientifically proven. But I guess this physical defect has to have psychological causes - as many of them do.

Best regards,

-v

Something along similar lines but with a medical twist to it:




Same energy fields at work, different use.

Well, I feel inclined to depart this topic as again I see it transforming from a conversation and examination into convincing and persuation. Others believe in god, others in science - I believe only to my own observations; so it seems I have nothing to give to you and nothing to receive from you.

Have fun with your mutual reassurance.

Best regards,

-v

reply to post by v01i0


I was reading one of your links in your sig, I agree with what you said there but I haven't finished it yet. That astral travel is a conscious meditative dream state that does not reflect reality. That makes more sense to me considering the nature of lucid dreaming being a close approximation of astral states.

Sorry to see you go, the whole point of me conducting the experiment myself was to validate for myself the effects reported. I know I don't have the $250 for his special device, but I figured I didn't need to store my 'intentions' in the device if I was attempting to directly effect the PH balance outright. In essence, I was examining the claim itself and for myself the claim fails and so now I am attempting to discover why it failed for myself.

reply to post by v01i0


Critical examination went out the window as soon as sirnex started relying only on logical fallacies to make his case against work he has never even seen before and has made it clear that he does not understand.

I am up all for a logical debate, but I have yet to see anyone explain the logic that if science has yet to validate astral projection, then it isn't real. That was the case sirnex was pushing and since he was unwilling to explain where the logic was in his argument, maybe someone else can pick up his slack. Anyone? Explain the logic in asserting that if science has yet to demonstrate something, it must not exist? Any to be had?

It's ok if you don't believe in this stuff. But an opinion isn't a fact. That's where you are all getting tripped up.

reply to post by bsbray11

Explain the logic in asserting that if science has yet to demonstrate something, it must not exist?

Did you miss my post or am I on the almighty ignore list? This was never an assertion of mine. I'm calling into question the logic behind the claims themselves. By your definition and admittance, Tiller is a scientist who has demonstrated something. I call into question the logic behind the reasoning of how only a few pseudo-scientists are able to discover these things compared to the rest of science.

I mean come on, acupuncture activates the weak electromagnetic force? I'm not sure if he covers that in the book, but it was part of the book review. Can you enlighten me to why the review would state something like that about the book, since you own it? Everything I have ever learned about this force dictates that if it were the opposite of being 'active', we wouldn't exist period.

reply to post by sirnex


No that is not what I am suggesting. Obviously the chemical triggers the electrical signal. I was suggesting that we give a bit more time to the study of this matter and used pheromones as an example of discovery over time. These particular mammal chemicals were discovered in 1956 but the understanding of how they worked happened in 1986.

I am not about to get caught up in your brand of semantics.

Originally posted by Witness2008
Obviously the chemical triggers the electrical signal.

Chemicals/molecules are just electrical bonds. The bonding is to do with the electrons and their electrical charge/energy. There are positive ions and negative ones, and they "hook" together using these forces. Just as your body is made of organs, your organs are made of their own specialized parts, and those parts are made of specialized cells, and those cells are made of molecules, molecules are held together by chemical bonds that are electrical in nature.










Free-flowing electric current is a more subtle form of energy since the electrons become free from the atoms and are able to move about without carrying so much mass with them. It goes without saying that electrical current took longer for science to find and learn to quantify than did chemicals, which "alchemists" studied in the Middle Ages without any knowledge of the electrons or electrical energies holding them together.

It's also been proven in even more recent times that there exists electrical currents within our bodies, and that these can be directed by intention. Lab studies over and over again have measured currents induced on or within a subject's body simply from them focusing on that part of their body and drawing awareness and intention to it. Our bodies have worked this way all along, all throughout thousands of years, but it was only recently actually discovered that this happens. That would not have prevented a cave man from making use of it, though, if he only had the insight or intuition to notice the effects, such as stimulating self-reparation of the cell and the like (which goes along with the placebo effect and self-healing video I posted above).

reply to post by bsbray11


Thanks for the information...good old fashioned laymen terms...just like I like it. I have followed your posts and have gained some insight into the scientific study of all that I have experienced.

I suppose I am that cave man that only knows that it happens.

reply to post by bsbray11


Okay, maybe I should then clarify the reasons why I don't feel comfortable in this thread.

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by v01i0

 

It's ok if you don't believe in this stuff. But an opinion isn't a fact. That's where you are all getting tripped up.

Well, first of all - I don't believe in anything. Opinion isn't fact, that is true - but nor are facts the researches and stories of others. Only direct personal experience is a fact! Thousand year ago it was priests and church that was the authority for facts for believers, today it is science. To me, only authority in this matter is my own experience and I will invent the wheel again if I have to. My suspicion to astral travel raises from my own experiences - I am above of believing. I don't need an authority to tell me what to think. If one day I wake up in astral and then can subjectively experience it, then I am ready to admit the existence of astral plane as you understand it. But I think that sirnex had a point when said:

Originally posted by sirnex
Do you have to 'believe in it' in order for it to 'work'?

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by v01i0

 

I am up all for a logical debate,

See that's the whole problem. I am not here for a debate. I am not here to assure others that my or some other's well established scientific based opinions are correct. I was here to inquire, but it is impossible with the attitude where people have pre-existent beliefs about the matter. It is really the same situation where atheist and believer are having debate - it's baseless, fruitless and doomed to lead into nothing except perhaps into chance of others views. What good it is to post some research, to rely on the 'experiments' of others? To believe what have been suggested? It's merely for fortifying your own establishment; there is no truth in that, there's only calcification and blinding in that way; eventually you'll have to wear classes if one goes further that direction...

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by v01i0

 

Critical examination went out the window as soon as sirnex started relying only on logical fallacies to make his case against work he has never even seen before and has made it clear that he does not understand.

Go on and blame other people when they don't suck up in your opinions. As somewhat acquainted in psychology, I see your dissatisfaction towards sirnex reflecting your own attitude. Again I might be wrong.

From the first post I have been stating that I don't know what the truth is about the matter, but most people - that are active on this debate - seems already to know the truth. This is so with most threads on this forum. The old slogan of ATS, 'deny ignorance', should be changed to: 'fortify reassurance'. Well, sometimes there are decent conversations when people are willing to actually look upon the phenomenons, not just pushing and justifying their own beliefs.

Well, I am not saying that I will completely abandon the topic, but I will refrain from 'debate' in order to assure my opinions to others. I am sorry if I have made myself appearing in the way that I don't regard astral travel as possibility. I don't deny it - I don't deny anything. Yet according to my own experiences and experiments, astral travel is more like psychological game, perhaps misinterpreting the capabilities of human psyche.

Well, now that I have ranted and perhaps annoyed someone, I lay back to see if I can catch more constructive conversation. I apologize if I have caused resentment to anyone.

Sincerely,

-v

[edit on 27-10-2009 by v01i0]

reply to post by v01i0


I hope you come back as you provide a nice middle ground here.

Perhaps I need to hold tight to my ignorance as that has been the state I have been in concerning astral travel.. but still experience it. My mind is jumping too many opinion hurdles here, but feel it is a worthwhile thread.

I like you would like to keep this conversation at the personal level (experiences) as I believe this is where the clues to understanding are.

After reading all the posts one thing gnaws at me...how is it that young children can experience OBE's or astral travel with no knowledge and training or even the belief of such.

I have noticed throughout my life that when I am faced with stressful situations or drama I do not travel, I feel anchored, and no matter how much I want or need to it doesn't happen.

I have a daughter that began to have OBE's early in life. She is one of the most peaceful people I know, very empathic and at an older age can at will travel.

Perhaps we can all experience this but the weight of the world and all it's machinations hold us tight to the surface. The world can be a pretty negative place.

reply to post by Witness2008


I appreciate your sincerity to come up with personal experiences. I concur that the experience itself may be real and exist - well, not due my own experiences, but so many people are talking about this that it cannot be all false. I merely suspect that the 'diagnosis' of the experience is false when labeling it to 'astral travel' - but then again, many classics of esoteric literature describes it merely as a psychological factor, a visual trip to the inner worlds, which is the stance I am ready to accept until further personal experiences.

It seems that my psyche is constructed in a way that I cannot enter these realms of astral, may them be objective or subjective realities - I have no idea. Because I cannot, I feel inclined to suspect the authenticity of whole phenomena, yet I cannot say for sure...

I guess I have to concur that it may be true to others, but it is not true to me. Therefore it is not a truth (for me, at least for now!).

Anyway I have personally experienced precognitive dreams and had experiences of conscious clairaudience, I tend to think that astral projection or travel is nothing more than visual daydreaming where precognitive hints may be extracted from subconsciousness. This is why some people can predict future events in such state; because the weak sensory signals that goes past consciousness - which are not consciously perceived - are perceived by subconsciousness, and therefore it is sometimes possible to predict future accurately.

But when it comes into things like communication with aliens and such, I tend to think here fantasy is mixed with the belief that this astral real is anyhow objective.

Again, only my opinions which may be more or less truthful.

-v

reply to post by v01i0

Only direct personal experience is a fact!

That's a cop-out BS answer if you ask me. So all these various religions and personal experiences for everything under the sun that are in direct contradiction of each other are all fact solely because they were personally experienced?

Despite that scientific model for the water cycle, it is more correct to assume that it's not the water cycle at play but instead some invisible rain God simply because thousands of primitive tribes have had personal experience of prayer to these rain Gods has produced rain?

If one day I wake up in astral and then can subjectively experience it, then I am ready to admit the existence of astral plane as you understand it. But I think that sirnex had a point when said:

If belief would be the motivating factor for a change in an outcome, then it should be equally valid regardless of which way that belief lays. When I attempted to change the PH level of the water through intention of my own mind, I failed equally in intention of both positive thought and negative thought. If anything, following the logic that intention can become causation through the mental plane alone, the negative thought towards the experiment should have produced a profound change ion the PH values of the water. I can't have a positive negative intention to create a negative change, it's either-or.

I was here to inquire, but it is impossible with the attitude where people have pre-existent beliefs about the matter.

The whole matter of debate is to inquire, to learn what is right and what is false. I was under the pretense that this was a false belief. I validated that, yes by appealing to authority, but also through my own personal experiences with psychic phenomena. I don't describe my personal experience as personal experience is moot when discovering the truth as it can be contradictory to reality.

Well, sometimes there are decent conversations when people are willing to actually look upon the phenomenons, not just pushing and justifying their own beliefs.

That argument can be either in favor for or against to be honest. When I pointed out to bsbray11 the acupuncture claim, he never once touched it. Why? Because he has so much pride in his own belief that he can see the false claims made in it.

Yet according to my own experiences and experiments, astral travel is more like psychological game, perhaps misinterpreting the capabilities of human psyche.

I agree with you one-hundred percent. When we look at how we 'achieve' astral travel, we certainly see something more akin to a self-aware meditative dream-state than an actual detachment of consciousness. Yet, without debate in either case, how can we actually 'inquire' as to what it is?

reply to post by sirnex

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by v01i0

 

Only direct personal experience is a fact!

That's a cop-out BS answer if you ask me. So all these various religions and personal experiences for everything under the sun that are in direct contradiction of each other are all fact solely because they were personally experienced?

Subjective truths perhaps, not objective though.

You must forgive my manner to rely only on personal experience - without it, subjectively it can as well categorized as belief. You can do all the 'scientific' experiments you want yet still I won't be taking your word for it. I must do same tests myself in order to validate it as a fact.

You see, it was only few hundred years ago when religious priesthood were the definers of truth and fact - today we (well not me) tend to give that authority to the 'science'. In my opinion, it not any better. We have had many kind of scientific facts later to be proven BS.

I only rely on personal experiences and my own reasoning - I don't require it from you tho. You can believe in whatever presumptions you like but don't expect me to enter in debate with you.

I know that many people will give me remarks of stubbornness or even ignorance by not believing in established science. It must've been so with those that were not believing in whatever explanation the church gave few centuries back. I must say I have nothing against scientific methodology itself, but I am all against in believing in whatever has been scientifically proven, without better personal knowledge.

I know I am bad person to debate with as I often outwardly cast aside scientific research what other people try to present as evidence for their beliefs. But as said, believing in science is no better than believing in some religion - they both are dogmas and authorities that tend to bend masses on their side in order to fortify their unquestionable authority.

Well, I could dribble along day and a night about my view on this matter, but I concur that this must be sufficient in order to reveal my stand point in the grounds of conversation. I might be bad individual to debate with, but then again, no one has the obligation to converse with me.

Sincerely,

-v

reply to post by v01i0

You must forgive my manner to rely only on personal experience - without it, subjectively it can as well categorized as belief. You can do all the 'scientific' experiments you want yet still I won't be taking your word for it. I must do same tests myself in order to validate it as a fact.

Yet, what should we except as being more true?

Millions of personal experiences that directly contradict each other?
-OR-
Thousands of scientists conducting the same experiments reaching agreement of each other?

If reality was dictated by personal experience alone, we would still be primitive in my opinion. True, if you and I want to validate the science we would have to conduct the experiments ourselves. Yet, if I wanted to validate your personal experience I couldn't. I can't experience what you experience, there is no reproducible effect to obtain from experience.

You see, it was only few hundred years ago when religious priesthood were the definers of truth and fact - today we (well not me) tend to give that authority to the 'science'. In my opinion, it not any better. We have had many kind of scientific facts later to be proven BS.

That is the nature of scientific inquiry. Some thing's thought to be true are proven false, but in then end what is considered true, is considered true not on personal experience but upon reproducibility.

I only rely on personal experiences and my own reasoning - I don't require it from you tho. You can believe in whatever presumptions you like but don't expect me to enter in debate with you.

Debate and inquiry go hand in hand in my opinion.

I know that many people will give me remarks of stubbornness or even ignorance by not believing in established science. It must've been so with those that were not believing in whatever explanation the church gave few centuries back. I must say I have nothing against scientific methodology itself, but I am all against in believing in whatever has been scientifically proven, without better personal knowledge.

Do we all need personal knowledge for reality to work the way it does? I personally do not think so. The computer your using and the scientific discoveries made aren't going to change whether you understand it yourself or not. Yet, the fact that science has discovered something you are unaware of and has given you something in return to show that the science works, does that not say something in favor of the science?

What has your personal experience given me for validation? Nothing, as no one can experience what you experience. How would you explain something like a computer if you lack any personal knowledge in all of it's inner workings? How would you explain genetically engineering a cure for a disease if you don't have personal knowledge? Do we just discredit the scientists because you don't personally know how it's done?

I know I am bad person to debate with as I often outwardly cast aside scientific research what other people try to present as evidence for their beliefs. But as said, believing in science is no better than believing in some religion - they both are dogmas and authorities that tend to bend masses on their side in order to fortify their unquestionable authority.

I disagree to a point, I don't view the methodology of discovery as dogmatic. People of science may hold firm to the current knowledge as it is discovered, but that's not to say it won't change. We can't redefine God or change our concept of him, but science is constantly changing and growing.

reply to post by sirnex


Of course you have many valid points in your post, but I hold it as my right to constitute my personal experience of reality. What is real for me is real for me, I don't care a damn if it's not real to you.

About science, yes it usually works in a way where thousands of scientist agree in certain aspect of reality - but science is not always unanimous on topics. To a certain degree, it can be effective in defining the objective world, but in the end, it cannot really say a lot about nature of the existence.

Well, I have feeling that I am derailing the conversation in wrong direction and hence apologize. I've stated my stance on the matter of 'what astral travel' is, and until it is further examined, even proven false, I don't have much to say.

Take care,

-v

Originally posted by v01i0
Well, first of all - I don't believe in anything. Opinion isn't fact, that is true - but nor are facts the researches and stories of others. Only direct personal experience is a fact!

I couldn't agree more, and this sets a perfect stage for personal exploration of this subject.

Is belief required to be able to do it? I'll put it this way: if you really want to try to personally validate this stuff, and you go in believing it isn't going to work, then you are probably going to be too distracted by that mentality to notice or work with anything, because yes, you do have to be very much aware of sensations in your body and things of that nature that most people normally ignore or just associate with parts of falling asleep.

Do you have to believe it 100% to be able to get results with it? No. You only have to be open-minded and work with what you feel in your body, as I said.

The longer I do these practices, the more intense the energy I can direct within my own body. It's exactly no different than exercising your muscles, or your brain, or anything else: practice makes better. My belief hasn't grown any stronger, since I was already sold honestly, but that doesn't matter. As long as you don't go into this with the mentality of "this will never work" (in which case you probably would not even attempt it in the first place), there should be no real issue with you getting results. Not astral projection in the first night, but increasing body awareness until you are able to differentiate parts of you that you were formerly unable to.

I was here to inquire, but it is impossible with the attitude where people have pre-existent beliefs about the matter.

My pre-existent beliefs are based on personal experiences. Even if you think it's no different than lucid dreaming, it is still an immensely enriching and rewarding experience just to be able to become aware of and control your dreams.

No one's personal opinion here is stopping you from trying this stuff yourself. I recommend to start off listening to guided body relaxation meditations either in the morning after you wake up, or at night before you fall asleep. I have a CD player with headphones next to my pillow, and I just lay there on my back and do this. This will get you used to becoming relaxed, and releasing tension all throughout your body. I can link you to good meditations for this. They will generally start at your feet... a very calm and soothing (though alert..) female voice guiding you through this.. tensing and then relaxing your feet... calves.. knees... thighs.. on up until your jaw, your cheeks, relax your scalp... and after some practice with this, you will begin to feel like a huge chunk of lead laying against the bed/floor/couch/whatever. You can feel your weight against whatever is holding you up. Your body literally goes to sleep, a feeling almost as though blood has been cut off (you know, the "tingly" kind of "asleep," but without the "tingles") but in reality it's only your awareness that has been affected.

Anyway... after you get down this initial stage of mind awake/body asleep, you continue deepening your relaxation. For this point I can even send you some hemi-sync recordings where they put one tone in one ear, and a slightly different tone in another ear, and you brain has to synchronize hemispheres to be able to differentiate. And it's about a 4 Hz difference. So the hemispheres of your brain become (a) alert while your body is still asleep, and (b) start working together, and (c) are affected by this 4 Hz wave that serves to put you in a very deep relaxation. 4 Hz brainwaves corresponds to some deep state of relaxation if you look it up, 8-13 Hz is a normal waking state, etc.

I tell you this stuff not because I am "a believer" but so you may actually get efficient results if you start practicing this yourself. You don't have to make your mind up right away.

The developer of Hemi-Sync, an electrical/broadcast engineer native to my home state of Virginia, named Robert Monroe, said he had OBE's for over a year before he was finally able to convince himself that it was a real phenomena and that his awareness was actually leaving his body. So obviously belief is not a pre-requisite. But on the other hand, a fervent lack of belief, let's call it, or fervent disbelief, is counter-productive for reasons that should be obvious. The biggest problem is that people who do hold grudges against the idea don't even attempt to take up practice of it in the first place. Which is why I am attempting to explain this so easily to you, so that you may be motivated to actually see for yourself if you are so inclined. It takes effort on the part of the individual, no different than climbing a fence or baking a cake, and no real effort can be expected when the individual is not cooperative.

It is really the same situation where atheist and believer are having debate

Sure, but what if I told you, you could leave this debate room, enter that door over there, and what you will experience will help you make your mind up much better. Nothing to do with me or my beliefs. Would you be willing to go explore what's through that doorway, or will you stay in the debate room complaining? I'm really not sure what you are complaining about. You said you were inquisitive. You come here and you get two sides of a debate. What's the problem man? This stuff is very easy to try for yourself.

Go on and blame other people when they don't suck up in your opinions.

A logical fallacy is a logical fallacy. If you can differentiate "logic" from "opinion," what I am stating is a fact about his arguments, not an opinion of them. If you look up "logical fallacy" you will find lists of classic fallacies, demonstrating the form of the fallacy, and I summarized on previous pages the fallacious nature of all of his implied and explicit arguments. But unless you would like to take up his sword for him, you can just leave that between me and him. Which I left behind completely. In other words I am no longer interested in what sirnex has to say unless YOU are, and even then you don't have to bring it up to me. Unless you WANT to argue on his behalf.

Yet according to my own experiences and experiments, astral travel is more like psychological game, perhaps misinterpreting the capabilities of human psyche.

Regardless of your cerebral analysis of the phenomena, are you looking in from the outside, or have you had lucid dreams/astral projections before? You don't have to answer on this thread. I am not particularly interested in your answer. But you know simply whether or not you have achieved it before. I am simply suggested you practice as I explained earlier if you are truly interested in an experience like nothing else. Whether it is no different than a dream or not, it is still an extremely powerful experience. Not just "interesting," once you have done it.

[edit on 27-10-2009 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11


I appreciate your open minded approach whilst I may have been rude in my choice of words. Nevertheless, your claim:

Originally posted by bsbray11

Regardless of your cerebral analysis of the phenomena, are you looking in from the outside, or have you had lucid dreams/astral projections before?

Your claim is unjustified. I have made every effort to enter the state we are talking here, to no avail. Sometimes I have precognitive dreams - I am unsure what the term 'lucid dreaming' means. I know it is too much asked people to read replies that are not directed to them personally; but as I replied to Witness2008 above:

Originally posted by v01i0
reply to post by Witness2008

 

It seems that my psyche is constructed in a way that I cannot enter these realms of astral, may them be objective or subjective realities - I have no idea. Because I cannot, I feel inclined to suspect the authenticity of whole phenomena, yet I cannot say for sure...

Originally posted by bsbray11
You said you were inquisitive. You come here and you get two sides of a debate. What's the problem man? This stuff is very easy to try for yourself.

So, I've tried and I have explored, inquired and made serious attempts in this. So I either must conclude that it is not possible for me or it isn't real in the sense people are describing it.

So maybe I just can't get 'inside' or the 'astral travel' is something else. Somehow I am inclined to think that I know myself to a certain degree through self observation and examination; all I can really say is what I said in my initial post to this thread - which was mainly composed of my previous thoughts that are available in this thread.

Originally posted by bsbray11
I recommend to start off listening to guided body relaxation meditations either in the morning after you wake up, or at night before you fall asleep. I have a CD player with headphones next to my pillow, and I just lay there on my back and do this. This will get you used to becoming relaxed, and releasing tension all throughout your body. I can link you to good meditations for this. They will generally start at your feet... a very calm and soothing (though alert..) female voice guiding you through this.. tensing and then relaxing your feet... calves.. knees... thighs.. on up until your jaw, your cheeks, relax your scalp... and after some practice with this, you will begin to feel like a huge chunk of lead laying against the bed/floor/couch/whatever. You can feel your weight against whatever is holding you up. Your body literally goes to sleep, a feeling almost as though blood has been cut off (you know, the "tingly" kind of "asleep," but without the "tingles") but in reality it's only your awareness that has been affected.

Thank you for your kind advices, but I must mention that body relaxation is quite familiar thing to me. I do various kind of practices, but my relaxation usually starts from face muscles. But what I concur from your advices is that it is form of auto hypnosis. I have always been quite stubborn, yet I haven't never been to a professional psychologist that is skillful in hypnosis. I should really go and see for the sake of experiment, whether one can break my 'defenses' against this kind of action. Maybe I am missing some vital part of brain or something is damaged within since I cannot enter these states..

Even if have failed to achieve this stated personally, I have made effort to examine it. I don't deny the phenomenon itself, it is easily explainable in psychological terms; what I find troublesome is that people tend to keep it some kind objective playground, even it appears to me that is merely a visual trip into one's (sub)consciousness.

Is this your opinion on it?

Originally posted by bsbray11
Astral Projection is going into deep inner spaces when in meditation.

What do you mean by inner spaces? Your personal (sub)consciousness? Or some objective reality that penetrate physical reality?

-v

Originally posted by v01i0
What do you mean by inner spaces? Your personal (sub)consciousness? Or some objective reality that penetrate physical reality?

In your opinion, what is the difference?

I'm of Jung's school of psychology. Everything that is literally not your conscious awareness, is your subconscious, including the entire external world. There is no dividing line between the physical parts of your brain you are unaware of, to the chemicals in your body you are unaware of, to the skin surrounding your organs and holding them in, to the environment outside of that. Because you are equally unaware of all of those things, except where your neurons feed your conscious awareness, but they aren't fully covering all of those things, only partially.

I am talking about an expansion of awareness to include other things you would not normally be aware of.


As far as the body relaxation stuff, like I said, practice makes better. The relaxation in itself is so soothing, and I find personally that I even get better sleep when I go through the relaxation meditations before I go to sleep. It's your choice whether or not to pursue it, but you say only personal experience can validate things, well this is what I am talking from. But my personal experiences are not your personal experiences, and I am always fine to agree to disagree if you don't feel this is anything worth pursuing for you personally. But otherwise I would just think that you should work more with it. For some people it comes so naturally that they don't even have to go through the relaxation stages, they are naturally so relaxed. That's not my story, though. I still have to use the relaxation CDs like a crutch, and some nights I'm already so tired and drained that I don't even have the energy to do that much. But when I do, I still get personal results. But that's all I can speak from.

[edit on 27-10-2009 by bsbray11]

reply to post by esteay812


I believe I know there is an 'ethereal' multidimensional 'body', and it does perceive itself in bodily form often, 'attached' to our physical bodies that travels when required, in the form of a like in like solution that has the ability to re-attach to the physical body.

This 'soul' has the ability and the desire to 'tap into' or reconnect to the 'matrix' as appropriate to it's purpose.

The 'soul' is also connected to the consciousness and is able to communicate with other souls on multi dimensional levels.

The 'soul' communicates with the consciousness with messages, pictures in a dream like way, almost if it were to be visualised it would be something slightly outwith and above the physical body to be grasped at and if one actually tries it has connotations of buddhist / yogic / prayer poise.

All part of everything belonging to the whole, the very atoms that make everything physical are part of the same, the creator, and are all in essence trying to return there to be at one with the creator.