I saw your post on the Astral Void regarding the Free-floating state of mind.Summerlander wrote: Contenteo's model also appears to violate the free-floating state of mind (which goes against the practicality that Michael promotes). If it doesn't, the model is incomplete. It is surely very biased by New Ageism and Monroe's theoretical model.
is most definitely something supported by the model as it's not linear. Such movements of your conscious awareness are highly expected.During such state, your mind is constantly jumping from wakefulness, to deep sleep, to dreaming, to the phase, to unconsciousness, false awakenings and even, at times, frightful sleep paralysis moments.
This is out of context though, Rudolph. You can dream of Alaska (because you have heard of it or been there and can also imagine it) and then in the real world you can verify that the place has an actual existence. that's one thing.Rudolph wrote: How the heck would it be possible to "prove" realms above the astral exist?
Many projectors enjoy one brief visit to a place high above the astral and then never succeed again and subsequently dismiss that singular experience.
Of course it is possible to mock up a dream level experience of any type of consciousness state.
But if I Lucid dream of going to Alaska and it really feels like Alaska... does that mean Alaska isn't real?
Ryan wrote: You don't always progress from one step forward. You can go forward and backwards in it, multiple steps.
How does it not?Summerlander wrote: It's not that I'm taking it as an attack on my beliefs. Don't get me wrong. It's the fact that you mentioned that it fits well with Raduga's teachings very well when it doesn't. I'm just making that clear to everyone because I have a responsibility to this site.
I so hope science catches up one day. heheSo far, on the other matter, it is good to remember that the existence of spiritual realms have not been proved. Perhaps science will one day establish the existence of another frequency of reality dwelt by "spirits". In this case proof could become possible. Until then, there is no reason whatsoever to accept its existence. This site is about questioning the veracity of theories and taking into account what's practical.
Good to hear you say that you're not closing yourself off.You are interpreting what I'm stating your way. In no way am I closing off all possibilities and we should never leave that for other people to discover. I think you are contradicting yourself there as you are one of the first ones to encourage people to find out for themselves. So far, the current conclusion is that, in the phase, it is possible to simulate anything and the more we study this phenomenon the more it loses its mystical halo.
One thing that I've learned over the years of studying Projection is to never put all my eggs in a single basket. There is no one source that has "all the answers". I've found bits and pieces that resonate very well with my direct experiences and others which haven't. I take that which is helpful to me and leave the rest. As you say, I'm always the first person to tell others to read everything they can and come to their own conclusions. I believe non-physical exploration is as unique as a fingerprint.Rudolph is a believer by choice and, pragmatically, he is not necessarily correct. I recommend that you read SOBT as I can tell that you have not given it a chance. Trust me, Ryan, it is the best thing there is. Everything there is verifiable by practice.
Summer, you have no idea what it is that I believe. You remain as presumptuous as ever on this. Seriously, you continually make statements that imply you know what I 'believe' but you are nearly always wrong in that detail.Summerlander wrote: Rudolph is a believer by choice and, pragmatically, he is not necessarily correct. I recommend that you read SOBT as I can tell that you have not given it a chance.
Of course this requires all sides to keep a lid on emotion and proceed with an open mind to the degree that our personal experiences allow-or just try on other view points for brief moments.Summerlander wrote: Well, if hypnosis is what's going on in the phase in regards to apparently sentient characters, then we must be masters at manipulation when we apply it. We can even transmute their appearance at will! Interesting theory, though. In regards to hypnosis, in the physical world, we cannot hypnotise someone who does not wish to be hypnotise (although there are cases where people can be easily persuaded or made an impression).
I'm a little antsy to get some more input. Was wondering if we could jump back to this question I put above.Ryan wrote: Could you explain some other ways it differs? Perhaps I can provide the metaphors of the Concept and see if I can explain them... or even better, Contenteo can incorporate them into the model.
Yes there is, solid evidence anyways...Another thing. There is no proof of "real-time zone". Very rarely are phase environments exact copies of the real world and further exploration can reveal inconsistencies.
I don't see how that is even remotely the case. It looks like it supports it really well, with perhaps some minor adjustments.Summerlander wrote: The black void is the phase. The perceived categories by practitioners who buy into Monroe's model of consciousness are also considered to be mere manifestations of the same thing: the phase. It is all in the phase - the same state of consciousness. So, if Contenteo was to incorporate SOBT, he would have to discard his model altogether. His model only exists for people who believe in it.
Sure could. That's the wonders of "conceptualizing". I don't understand how what's presented here isn't as "malleable" as the Phase.Likewise, one can conjure up another model that contradicts Contenteo's and turn it into a reality in the phase. The phase is not limited like our conceptualisations are (but it will reflect them if we hold them close to our hearts). The phase world is very 'malleable' and can exceed the expectations of the conscious mind.
While I don't completely disagree with you... I don't completely agree with your stance either. As Rudy pointed out before, you can't prove a negative. You can't prove the non-existance of the RTZ. Keeping your options open and not cutting yourself off entirely to the possibility in this regard would seem to be the smartest idea.Another thing. There is no proof of "real-time zone". Very rarely are phase environments exact copies of the real world and further exploration can reveal inconsistencies. Similarities are usually very localised as though the phase is imitating a very small and immediate portion of the physical universe. Anyway, unless it can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that a real separation into the physical realm does occur, the likelihood of such experiences arising largely from memory, expectation and scarcely from the surrealism of dreams stands as a strong candidate.
I just wanted to point out that this is an opinion, and doesn't constitute fact. And if I may be so bold as to point out, with all due respect, that it's not a very open minded opinion either.In SOBT, Michael Raduga points out how certain authors' blunders are the product of failing to perform deepening and maintaining techniques. They flounder frequently from a lack of understanding of effective techniques. Different depths of the phase state can lead someone to erroneously conclude that they are travelling to different dimensions of varying vibratory frequencies. An experienced phaser who has acquired a good understanding of what works soon realises that it is all a matter of "tuning" into a phase environment.
My definition of a "higher" state has little to do with lucidity or persistence or length of OBE travel, etc.Of course,like others here,I have experienced extreme lucidity along with extremely lucid phase characters.This is consistent with a 'higher' level' 'ground state' or 'higher realm' I'm thinking......
hmmm...Ryan wrote: To me, "higher" is a direct reflection upon the clarity of your consciousness. The more focused you're able to become, the "higher" you can experience, ...
Yes, simply "clarity" is probably a tad too simplistic.Rudolph wrote:hmmm...Ryan wrote: To me, "higher" is a direct reflection upon the clarity of your consciousness. The more focused you're able to become, the "higher" you can experience, ...
One can experience the lower realms of Dante's hell in a very high state of clarity. It is still far from a "Higher" Consciousness, imho.
I think awareness of more subtle realms require "Higher" states of Awareness. Intent, Detachment, focus and clarity all combine with discipline and Inner Strength to allow for Awareness of the more subtle realms beyond materialistic Duality.
Coincidence?!there is such a thing as coincidence.
You can't have it both ways, Summer. Either you are pretending to be scientific or you're not.Deal with it.Miss Z's correctly calling a five-digit number (P = 10^-5) [i.e., odds of 1 in 100,000] was the first strong evidence that her out-of-body experiences contained a parapsychological element,
I prefer to categorize them separately due to level of awareness, but yes, in the end, I do believe the same... that they're the same experience. And even further to the point, the categorization is meaningless. An experience not in this reality is to be cherished and logged as is an experience none-the-less.Summerlander wrote: Interesting response from you two which gives me an idea of where you stand. Just to clarify, Ryan, OOBE, LD and AP are not three different things. they are all one and the same. There is no need for a model like Contenteo.
Well, it's an opinion that I disagree with. You're "pragmatically" making assumptions upon their interpretations.On other author's, yes, it is an opinion from comparing their experiences to many inexperienced phasers out there. Many experiences by other authors are described in SOBT. Once again, read the book. It is pragmatically pointed out there, from the way they describe their experiences, that there are many errors being made, particularly in the lack of deepening and maintaining techniques. Perhaps, of course, Stephen LaBerge is an exception. Opinion or not, you can see where it is coming from especially after researching and observing thousands of volunteers for the OOBE Research Center. Authors like Monroe certainly helped to lay the foundations and popularised the phenomenon but our understanding of the phenomenon has come a long way since. If you disagree and choose to ignore this simple fact, then perhaps a pragmatic forum is not for you. Many prefer mysticism or the esoteric view.
)... it's not open minded enough for my tastes. Best of luck to everyone here. And if anyone wants to find me, they know where to look. I don't know what kind of picture your mind has painted about this forum and the staff but its approach to the phase phenomenon is a healthy one in my opinion. It is the best one you can have. In this day and age, you can't be too open-minded or your brains will fall out."Due to the nature of this practice, the techniques in this book are not copyrighted. Up to 25% of the techniques in this book may be encountered piecemeal in other sources. Meanwhile, even the procedures developed by the author and the OOBE Research Center cannot be copyrighted, as in most cases they are intuitive and have probably struck somebody's mind in the past.
This book contains a composition of both compiled and independently developed methodologies whose main distinction consists in having tested them under real conditions when teaching them to a mass audience of novices and experienced practitioners. In other words, this book contains only verified information on techniques that will be the most up-to-date until the next edition of the book. With such an approach, copyright is not even a secondary concern - it's practically a moot point."
The problem here, Summer, is that you do not understand the concepts at issue. I rephrased for you as "evidence" to simplify. Because in this sort of analysis pure "proof" is not going to be easy to come by. But strong evidence is compelling in this sort of study.Summerlander wrote: To Rudolph:
sure, I'll deal with it in this way. Even if the odds are one in 100 thousand, it doesn't mean that such a coincidence will never happen. In fact, if it never happened, it would be weird. The fact that we are here at all is often interpreted as a miracle in itself. Hence, you have not presented me with any proof whatsoever.
In other words if you repeated the experiment every day for the next 137 years you would have a 50/50 chance of getting lucky and it just repeating (getting the correct numbers in sequence) by "coincidence".Miss Z's correctly calling a five-digit number (P = 10^-5) [i.e., odds of 1 in 100,000] was the first strong evidence that her out-of-body experiences contained a parapsychological element,
