(mostly) astral theory
m-urana
am I looking into my own mind...
or is it my mind being inspired by certain forces...?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
objectively I think the brain is obviously involved, and perhaps
depended upon... and so are energies and received information via
energy bodies... but I donno if what we see in an astral vision is a
reflection of a reality like physical experience is... inspired by
higher centres or even by other beings + archetypes at best?
it's possible we can detach or create a "body of light" which travels
in and reflects back to us the astral ether, I guess, but I can't
conclude yet.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Does this light body depend on the physical body?
If it's created it appears to be. Maybe it can be made independent with
work.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I want to add the astral dimension to my life experience, whatever it
is.
I also want to upgrade my physical perception to include more clearly
aura/energy fields in vision and feeling, and then develop my aura
"reading" ability.
In the visions I've had I don't think I've had body consciousness,
astral or otherwise, just the vision and maybe my mind in the
background. Except once or twice?
Are these visions purely subjective, or of another world...?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Once I consciously contact the energies they become easier to
consciously direct... psychics see it, magicians use it.
So... not only is a new dimension of experience opened up, I have
tapped into an energy which has an effect upon the material world and I
can more easily manifest my desires... and I also have more control of
the energy-realm itself, able to heal myself and others on a purely
energetic level for instance.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
the feeling energy experience is real, unlike purely mental image,
reflecting a subtler reality than physical sense reality.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
the subtle states can prolly be had directly as a feeling, but also may
project itself into mystical visions inspired by these
feeling-energies.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
there is an energy for every level of experience, but they all depend
on form experience (mind-body) until the soul levels where the energy
can be experienced in itself... or with the use of inspired imagination
freed from physical-mental constraints...?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
are these "upgrades" extensions of our life experience only, OR an
extention into reality...
and are they from a deeper level or not...
and are they really upgrades, or simply psychological "bugs"...?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
the feeling (even) is not the thing... the experience is personal and
empty of thinginess.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
these days subtle feelings, etc, can easily be explained by neurology
and psychology with no reference to a metaphysical reality of objective
souls and energies.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm lost in all the software, and the self-awareness program isn't the
most stable. Need to centre in the human feeling behind experience, not
just mental self programs. tune into the felt-self reality /
experience.
body -> mind -> soul -> god
the heart will lead to the master.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(stages of mind-body mastery and transcendence)
power user -> inspired genius -> ueber master -> bob
psychic -> subtle -> formless -> nondual
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Energy may be bound to matter, and it may occur at the atomic level...
but depending on how evolved the level of organization the structure is
which the atoms make up the energy fields emanating from the atomic
level will be different also?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think many people who are theoretically spiritual don't believe
consciousness really connects to the physical body until physical
experience itself arises. Unlike the neurological view that all levels
of experience depend upon the brain, though they may not reflect the
physical world.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This destroys the basic idea that meditation is taking one further and
further away from the body... this is only subjectively true... because
the objective reality our idea of matter often falls into is put into a
whole other "realm"/quadrant of the kosmos, out from the bottom-rung
EXCEPT AS AN EXPERIENCE. though every level depends on this objective
reality, apparently. soul and spirit awareness may not, but they do
depend on energies in the objective "realm" atleast.
this subjective-objective distinction isnt very clear in spirituality.
All experience can be separated from existence...
thougg the physical level reflects existence, supposedly.
this frees matter from the lowest rung, and makes more sense of the
brain-mind correlations at ever level.
the chakras, etc, are also more separated from experience and may be
seen more as the brain is, as the inspirer of consciousness... not a
body in a realm directly reflected to us.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mind-Body-energy
An enlightened human has... higher energy fields and brain circuits,
functioning more powerfully atleast... a deeper soul or spirit
centredness of awareness, identity, feeling, etc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Our higher energy centres can apparently recieve a descending current
of shakti, and also project it to other energy systems.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
mind, body, spirit usually refers to....
mind=mental... spirit = soul &or emotion... body=sense &or objective
Body. all mixed up.
my view is Mind=spirit, mind, body, as experiences. Body=the objective
hardware for all levels of experience, and the objective robot for
interaction with the world, different to the conception of the
lowest-rung "body/sense-world"...but experienced thru it of course.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
existence+experience subtle -> physical VS
experience subtle -> physical .. existence matter+energy physical ->
subtle, correlated to experience as supports not as the objective
realms experienced.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
matter and energy are parallel objective lines of development...
matter is not under energy bodies...
and matter-energy support every level of interior experience, physical
to spiritual, though matter is only reflected in the physical window of
experience (bottom floor?).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
atoms VS images.
BodyLand VS DreamLand.
suggested objective reality VS subjective reality.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have to interpret the experiences people have of projection etc into
my own view of whats most likely, and of reality. And I have to see all
their POV's too, and see how they went wrong.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Whatever the theory books can still be useful for methods, descriptions
of results, advantages/uses. Consider anything other than that
food-for-thought but not vital to experience etc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Life Expansion VS Mind Expansion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just cos someones theory is all fucked up doesnt mean what they say has
no value at all... or that it is a lower or unevolved value... the
experiences theyve had could be legitimate and the methods may be
effective, totally apart from how accurate their theoretical view is.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
expanding and deepending life experience (and control).
tasks:
see / feel and read energy fields.
direct energy currents.
lucid dreams + astral projection + the 3rd eye visions (astral?).
mantra meditation. concentration.
pranayama.
body scan + drop.
mind awareness-control. mind drop.
and interpreting the above into worldviews (and choosing!).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
the Hardware-Software interpetation of the Chain.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
metaphysics -> post-metaphysics =
"vapourizing" the spectrum of existence-experience, pulling the rug of
matter out into the "realm" of objective reality as apart from the
spectrum, though having a spectrum of its own correlated to the levels
of internal experience, and relected through the physical-experience
window. the levels above physical but including physical have
objective energy correlations, but only in the same way the brain is
correlated... not the way physical reality is reflected in the lower
window. though in some instances it could be. and the feeling of these
objective energies could span the experience-spectrum.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hardware-Software.
reflecting and supportive (coevolved) relationships.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
levels can be evolved to in stages or jumped to for moments in states.
states glimpse levels, stages lock them in. Unlike wilber I think the
word "levels" shouldn't equate to "stages", both stages and states
involve levels.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Learys 8 Circuits are preexisting brain structures and potential
"reality-tunnels" sorted by spiritual depth from surface->Self,
activated either in states triggered by drugs or meditation etc, or in
gradually unfolding stages. there isn't much difference in the sense
that both stages and states are talking about the same levels.
Reverend Al
All it takes is some visual imagination. You can 'astral travel' because you
imagine it so. THat's how it works, for what it's worth.
m-urana
Reverend Al wrote:
> m-urana wrote:
>
> All it takes is some visual imagination. You can 'astral travel' because you
> imagine it so. THat's how it works, for what it's worth.
>
they say from a subjective dream state you can go into an OOBE, is that
what you mean? or do you mean projection is merely imagination (or
imagination is as real as projection)?
the visions ive mentioned didnt take any conscious imagination, but a
receptive looking outside of my mind and beyond the darkness of closed
eyes... i'd stare into the darkness til i found that spark of light.
whyzard
people are so eager to experience trans-human states that they throw
away their humanity. Tisk Tisk Tisk. Humanity is already transdivine.
Like immodest youths throwing away their virginity.
m-urana
lol... if i were THAT eager i would have dipped more than my little toe
into the ocean of experience.
if there has been any eagerness shown in my posts it has been to
understand. even worse! :)
m-urana
of course i am interested in taking a look at different states, but i
am cautious about anything trans-human sucking away my humanity...
i have had to deal with a premature glimpse beyond my "reality tunnels"
before and it was the worst thing to ever happen in my life. i have all
the mixed feelings about enlightenment one has about death, and dont
plan on wearing a halo anytime soon.
Reverend Al
>
> Reverend Al wrote:
>> m-urana wrote:
>>
>> All it takes is some visual imagination. You can 'astral travel' because you
>> imagine it so. THat's how it works, for what it's worth.
>>
>
> they say from a subjective dream state you can go into an OOBE, is that
> what you mean? or do you mean projection is merely imagination (or
> imagination is as real as projection)?
If your creative imagination is good enough for you, and you can be in a quiet
space where you are not moved out of your 'state' by noise other other things
like that, then yes, astral projection is the result of your imagination. If
you can turn yourself into a bird and fly over a presidential rose-garden press
conference, then you surely can poop on the president's head while he's on
national TV. If you can picture yourself doing this totally, then it is done.
Getting other people to go along isn't the object of astral projection, though.
>
> the visions ive mentioned didnt take any conscious imagination, but a
> receptive looking outside of my mind and beyond the darkness of closed
> eyes... i'd stare into the darkness til i found that spark of light.
WHat if the spark of light was the farthest away galaxy and it grew larger and
larger as you approached it. Chose a star in the galaxy, move closer to that
star, see a planet orbiting and go land yourself on that planet. Don't need a
space ship or suit, and if you want, the planet is covered in Tasmanian Tree
Ferns.
Adam Weiskauph
"m-urana" <kosmi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126030571.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> tasks:
> see / feel and read energy fields.
> direct energy currents.
> lucid dreams + astral projection + the 3rd eye visions (astral?).
m-urana
Reverend Al wrote:
> m-urana wrote:
>
> >
> > Reverend Al wrote:
> >> m-urana wrote:
> >>
> >> All it takes is some visual imagination. You can 'astral travel' because you
> >> imagine it so. THat's how it works, for what it's worth.
> >>
> >
> > they say from a subjective dream state you can go into an OOBE, is that
> > what you mean? or do you mean projection is merely imagination (or
> > imagination is as real as projection)?
>
> If your creative imagination is good enough for you, and you can be in a quiet
> space where you are not moved out of your 'state' by noise other other things
> like that, then yes, astral projection is the result of your imagination. If
this reminds me of how in complete darkness your imagination tends to
have no reference point of "reality"...and it becomes as real to you as
anything else.
but i am getting the idea you think this state of imagination can lead
to a really real projection out of body..
the flying over the presidents head and doing a poop idea seems a bit
far fetched, though!
> you can turn yourself into a bird and fly over a presidential rose-garden press
> conference, then you surely can poop on the president's head while he's on
> national TV. If you can picture yourself doing this totally, then it is done.
> Getting other people to go along isn't the object of astral projection, though.
> >
> > the visions ive mentioned didnt take any conscious imagination, but a
> > receptive looking outside of my mind and beyond the darkness of closed
> > eyes... i'd stare into the darkness til i found that spark of light.
>
> WHat if the spark of light was the farthest away galaxy and it grew larger and
> larger as you approached it. Chose a star in the galaxy, move closer to that
> star, see a planet orbiting and go land yourself on that planet. Don't need a
> space ship or suit, and if you want, the planet is covered in Tasmanian Tree
> Ferns.
ok so you're more of a lucid dreamer than astral traveller. which i
think may be all there is to it, but i dont know.
m-urana
oh.. the old conception of the chakras does seem similar to the modern
idea of levels of brain structure. the way it anchors levels of
internal experience to objective centres.
purple petunia wrote:
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > the Hardware-Software interpetation of the Chain.
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> To quote a popular song -->
>
> "You must never break the chain"
>
> And a favorite teacher -->
>
> 'Remember the chain rule'
in a sense the chain was already broken into experience and
existence... levels of reality and corresponding levels of experience
reflecting these realities in the same way physical consciousness
reflects a physical reality.
though in this way they include both physical reality and physical
experience they limited the objective physical reality to the bottom
rung, corresponding to physical consciousness... because they linked
experience-existence by levels of reflection, rather than structural
support. without denying that there are levels of reality
corresponding to each level of consciousness as a reflection...though
it is in doubt...we can correspond brain structures and energy centres
to levels of consciousness,, and in this way both energy and matter
stretch from the very bottom rung to the very top...and i think this
correspondence is more natural, i think reality is being ranked in the
same way as the internal levels... atleast it is a proven
correspondence of coevolution between internal and external reality
(the brain structures anyway, if not the chakras). this correspondence
of internal with external reality (experience-existence) is much the
same as the relationship between hardware and software function...VS
the old external-internal correlation of reflecting-experience with
external-realms. in this view the level of the experience of objective
realities doesn't tie the objective reality down (or up) to the same
level. the video link to the world may be a lower level of OnScreen
experience, but the world itself corresponds as a structural support to
EVERY level of experience.
Aiwass
>
> m-urana wrote:
>> whyzard wrote:
>> > m-urana wrote:
>> > > Reverend Al wrote:
>> > > > m-urana wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > All it takes is some visual imagination. You can 'astral travel'
>> > > > because you
>> > > > imagine it so. THat's how it works, for what it's worth.
Regrettably this is not all that is involved. There are some good books on
the subject but also some real nonsense. Remember that Path-working in
whatever form it is done is not the same as OOBE.
A
m-urana
the old realms of existence ARE considered structural supports for the
corresponding experience of that realm.
in this view there is/was no dependence on the physical body except for
physical consciousness. the higher brain structures have to be
considered more like footprints of the actual higher levels...perhaps
integrating higher consciousness with lower physical consciousness,
strengthening the vessel, but not depending upon these developments of
the brain for anything other than that. the body (objective, not just
the "lived body") is only the lowest part of our whole being.
the cosmos is made up of planes of different frequencies, the material
plane being the lowest.
our body in each plane supports the experience of its own level.
in the other view ive been using matter matches energy for every level,
it isn't the lowest level of reality. they are alongside each other as
two different aspects of the cosmos, supporting every level of
consciousness from physical to spiritual...and the energy isnt
necessarily reflecting its own realm in this view, experience doesnt
rely on anything but a supportive relationship to reality...it isnt
necessarily reflecting a mental or astral realm, but it atleast has
mental and astral energy signatures and brain structures.
changing minds between these views isnt that big a revolution. atm i
have no reason to prefer one over the other except that everything
seems to fit better in the the latter view. the grossness of matter vs
the subtler and subtler frequencies does tempt me to shove matter back
to the bottom, going back to that awkward view of brain structures as
foot prints of the higher realms, corresponding to higher levels of
experience but not as directly as the higher frequency realities. the
physical world grows and coevolves as we deepen into the higher levels
of experience and frequency, but remains cramped on the bottom floor.
Reverend Al
>
> Reverend Al wrote:
>> m-urana wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Reverend Al wrote:
>> >> m-urana wrote:
>> >>
>> >> All it takes is some visual imagination. You can 'astral travel' because
>> >> you imagine it so. THat's how it works, for what it's worth.
>> >>
>> >
>> > they say from a subjective dream state you can go into an OOBE, is that
>> > what you mean? or do you mean projection is merely imagination (or
>> > imagination is as real as projection)?
>>
>> If your creative imagination is good enough for you, and you can be in a
>> quiet space where you are not moved out of your 'state' by noise other other
>> things like that, then yes, astral projection is the result of your
>> imagination. If
>
> this reminds me of how in complete darkness your imagination tends to
> have no reference point of "reality"...and it becomes as real to you as
> anything else.
>
> but i am getting the idea you think this state of imagination can lead
> to a really real projection out of body..
> the flying over the presidents head and doing a poop idea seems a bit
> far fetched, though!
It works better if they're bald.
>
>> you can turn yourself into a bird and fly over a presidential rose-garden
>> press conference, then you surely can poop on the president's head while he's
>> on national TV. If you can picture yourself doing this totally, then it is
>> done. Getting other people to go along isn't the object of astral projection,
>> though.
>> >
>> > the visions ive mentioned didnt take any conscious imagination, but a
>> > receptive looking outside of my mind and beyond the darkness of closed
>> > eyes... i'd stare into the darkness til i found that spark of light.
>>
>> WHat if the spark of light was the farthest away galaxy and it grew larger
>> and larger as you approached it. Chose a star in the galaxy, move closer to
>> that star, see a planet orbiting and go land yourself on that planet. Don't
>> need a space ship or suit, and if you want, the planet is covered in
>> Tasmanian Tree Ferns.
>
> ok so you're more of a lucid dreamer than astral traveller. which i
> think may be all there is to it, but i dont know.
That's all their is to it. Astral travel is a wee bit overrated.
m-urana
what do you think about the idea that it may not show a reality like
physical experience does, but it can be influenced by information
transfered from other human "energy systems"? which would explain
telepathy and multiple witness hallucinations or astral journeys. sort
of an internet-multiuser interpretation of psychic information exchange.
whyzard
when i first bought the first pop lucid dreaming book by laBerge so
long ago in the 80s/90s. The first week i read the book i started to
lucid dream. You don't need to pay $60 bucks to lucid dream. Just make
"lucid dream" your mantra and you will see that when you pray (or
mantra), eventually someone "up there" will listen. The key is in
waiting long enough for your prayer/mantra to be heard.
Perhaps do a ritual. Or do a symbolic act of some sort. Wear special
clothing. Do special things. Eventually, with enough obsession, you
will see that the people "Upstares" will heed your call.
NEver give up.
Jake Wade
whyzard wrote:
> when i first bought the first pop lucid dreaming book by laBerge so
> long ago in the 80s/90s. The first week i read the book i started to
> lucid dream. You don't need to pay $60 bucks to lucid dream. Just make
> "lucid dream" your mantra and you will see that when you pray (or
> mantra), eventually someone "up there" will listen. The key is in
> waiting long enough for your prayer/mantra to be heard.
>
> Perhaps do a ritual. Or do a symbolic act of some sort. Wear special
> clothing. Do special things. Eventually, with enough obsession, you
> will see that the people "Upstares" will heed your call.
>
> NEver give up.
****SPV......Yes with enough programming you can convince yourself you
are doing anything. Now look, there is Piph who refuses to believe she
is ordinary which we all are at best. Ordinary. But we convince
ourselves like Ray K. that he is the Christ and knows the truth and he
is clueless. Then you have the hecklers that heckle about things they
know nothing of and if you press them to prove their points they say,
"Well it is common sense because Saints and Christ Consciousness does
not exist so I am just making it all up anyway." Then you have the
others that think they are God. The Rodents the Brucies that if you
press them too hard so their delusions start to show they just start to
call around to the authorities to see what is hot or on the log for
easy arrest nowadays. Then you have all the rest but at best we are
all ordinary. You know what I did today? 4 hours of paperwork to
straighten out all my work for the serves I am going on in a few
minutes and I watched golf and now I am watching Space Cowboys. I am
an ordinary guy doing ordinary things. Just absolutely ordinary.
But you can program yourself to do anything to see anything, or believe
you see a saint that comes to you in a vision. Why do you think the
Hindu see Krishna and the Christian sees Jesus and the Muslim sees
Mohammed in his dreams, his lucid dreaming.
No, it is a total waste of time. You have Gordon having coffee taking
a shower and then going for breakfast. You have Allison working
working working and doing his workaholic program so that he will not
feel who he is. They think that where they are at is all there is
because they have not be programmed from birth to think anything else.
If they lived their life in Inida they would be taking me very
seriously and you could not get them to stop bowing to me.
It is all programming and I am just outside that programming so I am
strange, a nut. But I tell you I am ordinary that has energized the
Self. What Allison doesn't even know exist I have energized and
because they are less and unimpowered they have to be extra-ordinary.
Because they are lacking Allison has to have the best hot tub in town
and Gordon has to have the luxuary of the best breakfast in town
because that is what makes them and their lives extra-ordinary. But
the key is in being ordinary and to be just naturally ordinary. And
then from there you have the time, because you have nothing to prove to
yourself that you are extra-ordinary so you take that time focus it
inward and you start to prepare the human machine for the voyage for
the next step of the way. And then after that you are on your own.
Jim Elder
"Jake Wade" <svsli...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1126481902.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> ****SPV......Yes with enough programming you can convince yourself you
> are doing anything.
like being enlightened and
bringing down crime with
your babblefield?
> Now look,
naw, you look. i'm busy napping
my life away thank you very much
> there is Piph who refuses to believe she
> is ordinary
and believe it or not, there are those
who think they are enlightened and are
bringing down crime with their babblefield
[ is there an echo in here? ]
> which we all are at best.
still a shade better than what we can
be at our worst with those shadow dog
memories from our genetic heritage
nipping at our heels with a darker side
deep within that for the most part
really shouldn't see the light of day
in most people
> Ordinary.
disordinary.
> But we convince
> ourselves
are there 2 basic selves? one
that convinces the other, or is there
really no dividing line in psyche
focus gravitation strategy?
> like Ray K. that he is the Christ and knows the truth and he
> is clueless.
well as miraculous as the real christ
was said to be, a few nails and he got
pretty helpless himself awful quick
> Then you have the hecklers that heckle about things they
> know nothing of
+heckle heckle heckle+
+heckle heckle heckle+
[has jeckle shown up yet?]
+heckle heckle heckle+
> and if you press them
no starch please.
no tickee
no laundry
> to prove their points they say,
no proof needed for points. points are
only good for one thing, pointing. you
can prove that a point is pointing if you
want to but there must be better things to
be obsessed about. oh wait, that's right,
you're the shit freak who's poundin' all that
shit into them ratholes must be exhilirating
work.
> "Well it is common sense because Saints and Christ Consciousness does
> not exist so I am just making it all up anyway."
you're just pissed cuz when you
were a kid you couldn't be superman
and now you're pissed as an adult
because you can't be buddha
> Then you have the
> others that think they are God.
prove that i'm not god circusboi. but
that's it isn't it? since you can't
prove i'm not god and you haven't
ever before mentioned that i am god,
it must be that you respect my godness
and won't reveal that to anyone, so that
proves that i am god.
> The Rodents the Brucies
wah wah wah. here we go again kids.
about this far into the gooroo's p0asts
is where he tries to raise up a pity
party for himself and tries to blame everyone
and everything under the sun for his self
inflicted misery of a life....yawn yawn yawn
Aiwass
"whyzard" <why...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1126475104.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
true and good advice, but it isn't the same as astral travelling (if OOBE is
what one means by that awful expression).
A
Aiwass
"Reverend Al" <sp...@swnews.net> wrote in message
news:12%Ue.323024$x96.41100@attbi_s72...
it is but not for the reason stated I think. Astral travelling is not lucid
dreaming and it is not daydreaming, which appears to be what the original
poster means when he says: "All it takes is some visual imagination. You can
'astral travel' because you imagine it so. THat's how it works, for what
it's worth."
There is a bit more to it than that.
A
Reverend Al
If you expect it, then it can very well be an experience in the astral.
Reverend Al
>
> "Jake Wade" <svsli...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1126481902.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> ****SPV......Yes with enough programming you can convince yourself you
>> are doing anything.
>
> like being enlightened and
> bringing down crime with
> your babblefield?
Ahhh, Veneer has the 100% uncontrolled astral travel experience 100% of the time
(except when he's sleeping)
Aiwass
Astral travelling per se involves a separation of the astral body from the
physical body. It is different from imagining, daydreaming or idle fantasy.
I am told it is a quite distinct feeling and cannot be confused with any of
the other mind games people play.
A
Tom
"Aiwass" <Aiw...@aiwass.com> wrote in message
news:lWxVe.39094$e95....@fe08.news.easynews.com...
>>> physical experience does, but it can be influenced by information
>>> transfered from other human "energy systems"? which would explain
>>> telepathy and multiple witness hallucinations or astral journeys. sort
>>> of an internet-multiuser interpretation of psychic information exchange.
>>
>> If you expect it, then it can very well be an experience in the astral.
>
> Astral travelling per se involves a separation of the astral body from the
> physical body. It is different from imagining, daydreaming or idle
> fantasy.
> I am told it is a quite distinct feeling and cannot be confused with any
> of
> the other mind games people play.
It is in fact a distinct feeling, but that doesn't mean the experience
cannot be confused with something it is not.
Dreams during sleep, for example, feel distinctly different from daydreams,
imaginings, and idle fantasies, too. That doesn't mean that, when one
dreams, one's "astral body" is in some other physical location different
from one's physical body. So it is not at all certain that when one
experiences what is called "astral travel", an OOBE, that one has actually
"separated" from one's physical body.
A number of very good experiments which have addressed this "travel"
hypothesis have been made. None of the results of these experiments support
the belief that astral travel involves consciousness leaving the body and
travelling to another physical location. See Susan Blackmore's excellent
book, "Beyond the Body", for details of many of these experiments.
Aiwass
"Tom" <askper...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:6f-dnQsDk_8...@comcast.com...
In your experience. Mine is different. In the real world there are
satisfactorily demonstrated cases. you just don't know about them - which is
unsurprising given the company you keep.
A
Tom
>> daydreams, imaginings, and idle fantasies, too. That doesn't mean that,
>> when one dreams, one's "astral body" is in some other physical location
>> different from one's physical body. So it is not at all certain that
>> when one experiences what is called "astral travel", an OOBE, that one
>> has actually "separated" from one's physical body.
>
> In your experience. Mine is different. In the real world there are
> satisfactorily demonstrated cases. you just don't know about them - which
> is unsurprising given the company you keep.
Feel free to cite any reference you may have to these "satisfactorily
demonstrated cases".
Any takers on the bet that he won't provide any?
Hunter
In 1969, I was involved in a study at UCLA. pertaining to the
concept of out of the body experiences. The experiment entailed several
people that claimed the ability to accomplish the state at will. The
task required the reading of a randomly generated number (created by a
computer to rule out possibility of any kind of telepathic connection
with any of the researchers) in a room other than location of the
subjects body. Of all the participants test, none were able to perform
the chore. Although it is not definitive proof, it suggests that the
condition either does not exist or that the contention that it is a
governable action is very doubtful. I am inclined to believe it flight
of fancy or an example of the lucid dreaming hypothesis. -Hunter
Aiwass
Satisfactorily demonstrated to me Tom, to the extent that I saw the people
work and verified the results. I
don't really care very much what you think since you aren't awfully
important or anything.
A
Aiwass
"Hunter" <vmstr...@aim.com> wrote in message
news:1126655712.0...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Not at all. It only suggests that the group involved were unableto do what
they had claimed; anythong else is pure conjecture. I repeat that imho,
those able to do this are very unlikely to participate in experiments. In my
experience these people do not feel they have anything to prove.
> I am inclined to believe it flight
> of fancy or an example of the lucid dreaming hypothesis. -Hunter
Not unreasonable given your experience of investigation, but my experience
is different, though it is not something I have ever really been interested
in doing myself.
--
A
Terms of business: The management regrets it cannot discuss serious matters
with smackheads like Douglas ("I am a mate of Chris Hyatt so you better
watch out" duh) Grant or idiots like Thomas ("I eat spirits and demons so
you better watch out. It is easy and quite safe, I can teach you to do it
too. Trust me. All I need is your credit card number" duh) Schuler on
account of how dumbing down to their level gives me a headache. So if you
are like either of them don't even bother answering my posts because I will
not hear you.
Tom
>
> "Tom" <askper...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:dJmdnVs9jdr...@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Aiwass" <Aiw...@aiwass.com> wrote in message
>> news:k8CVe.45734$yd.1...@fe11.news.easynews.com...
>>>
>>> "Tom" <askper...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:6f-dnQsDk_8...@comcast.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dreams during sleep, for example, feel distinctly different from
>>>> daydreams, imaginings, and idle fantasies, too. That doesn't mean
>>>> that, when one dreams, one's "astral body" is in some other physical
>>>> location different from one's physical body. So it is not at all
>>>> certain that when one experiences what is called "astral travel", an
>>>> OOBE, that one has actually "separated" from one's physical body.
>>>
>>> In your experience. Mine is different. In the real world there are
>>> satisfactorily demonstrated cases. you just don't know about them -
>>> which
>>> is unsurprising given the company you keep.
>>
>> Feel free to cite any reference you may have to these "satisfactorily
>> demonstrated cases".
>>
>> Any takers on the bet that he won't provide any?
>
> Satisfactorily demonstrated to me Tom,
Oh, I see you're using a different definition of "the real world" than the
usual one. You apparently mean the world of your beliefs, not the one that
other people actually live in.
That's why when you say "satisfactorily demonstrated cases" you don't mean
the satisfaction of anybody but yourself and why you can't actually provide
any reference that anybody else could check to see if your conclusions are
at all warranted by the actual evidence.
> I don't really care very much what you think since you
> aren't awfully important or anything.
Yet you spend so much time railing against unimportant little me. You must
not have many important things to do. That's OK. I don't begrudge anyone
their leisure time.
Aiwass
No you dont see Tom, though I am trying to make it simpler for you. I am
satisfied as to the veracity or otherwise of the phenomenon. What you think
is unimportant, what a few other people think is unimportant. End of
conversation really.
> That's why when you say "satisfactorily demonstrated cases" you don't mean
> the satisfaction of anybody but yourself and why you can't actually
> provide any reference that anybody else could check to see if your
> conclusions are at all warranted by the actual evidence.
That is correct
>> I don't really care very much what you think since you
>> aren't awfully important or anything.
>
> Yet you spend so much time railing against unimportant little me. You
> must not have many important things to do. That's OK. I don't begrudge
> anyone their leisure time.
Good. you are worth unmasking, like a cockroach in the corn flake packet.
Unimportant but life is measured in small victories. When you have some then
you will know.
A
Tom
>
> "Tom" <askper...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:6PCdnTWvp-e...@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Aiwass" <Aiw...@aiwass.com> wrote in message
>> news:pPVVe.67226$j34....@fe07.news.easynews.com...
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Oh, I see you're using a different definition of "the real world" than
>> the usual one. You apparently mean the world of your beliefs, not the
>> one that other people actually live in.
>
> No you dont see Tom, though I am trying to make it simpler for you. I am
> satisfied as to the veracity or otherwise of the phenomenon.
Yes, I get that. It's just that equating your personal beliefs with the
"real world" is a bit of a stretch.
> What you think is unimportant,
Then perhaps it is a waste of your valuable time to keep objecting to what I
think.
>> That's why when you say "satisfactorily demonstrated cases" you don't
>> mean the satisfaction of anybody but yourself and why you can't actually
>> provide any reference that anybody else could check to see if your
>> conclusions are at all warranted by the actual evidence.
>
> That is correct
And here you thought I didn't see.
>>> I don't really care very much what you think since you
>>> aren't awfully important or anything.
>>
>> Yet you spend so much time railing against unimportant little me. You
>> must not have many important things to do. That's OK. I don't begrudge
>> anyone their leisure time.
>
> Good. you are worth unmasking, like a cockroach in the corn flake packet.
Hey, if it makes you feel useful or happy, I won't begrudge you your efforts
to "unmask" me.
> Unimportant but life is measured in small victories.
Especially for those who have nothing larger to measure.
Aiwass
>
> "Aiwass" <Aiw...@aiwass.com> wrote in message
> news:yNWVe.5496$vo5...@fe01.news.easynews.com...
>>
>> "Tom" <askper...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:6PCdnTWvp-e...@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> "Aiwass" <Aiw...@aiwass.com> wrote in message
>>> news:pPVVe.67226$j34....@fe07.news.easynews.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Satisfactorily demonstrated to me Tom,
>>>
>>> Oh, I see you're using a different definition of "the real world" than
>>> the usual one. You apparently mean the world of your beliefs, not the
>>> one that other people actually live in.
>>
>> No you dont see Tom, though I am trying to make it simpler for you. I am
>> satisfied as to the veracity or otherwise of the phenomenon.
>
> Yes, I get that. It's just that equating your personal beliefs with the
> "real world" is a bit of a stretch.
I didn't mention 'real world' but as it happens I do live in the real world,
being psychosis-free. In any event, I am satisfied as to the authenticity.
You aren't? That's a bit of bad luck then..
>>> That's why when you say "satisfactorily demonstrated cases" you don't
>>> mean the satisfaction of anybody but yourself and why you can't actually
>>> provide any reference that anybody else could check to see if your
>>> conclusions are at all warranted by the actual evidence.
>>
>> That is correct
>
> And here you thought I didn't see.
Well, even the thickest piece of wood gets wet if immersed in water for long
enough.
> Hey, if it makes you feel useful or happy, I won't begrudge you your
> efforts to "unmask" me.
Thanks. it does.
> Especially for those who have nothing larger to measure.
Oh I dont know, unmasking you is useful enough to warrant the effort. Your
impact on newcomers to occultism is pernicious and stupid. I think I will be
doing the community a favour by demonstrating that you are a dishonest and
psychotic man, one not to be taken entirely seriously.
Tom
>> "real world" is a bit of a stretch.
>
> I didn't mention 'real world'
Another example of how your personal beliefs do not equate with "the real
world".
Let me demonstrate.:
"Aiwass" <Aiw...@aiwass.com> wrote in message
news:k8CVe.45734$yd.1...@fe11.news.easynews.com...
>
> In your experience. Mine is different. In the real world there are
> satisfactorily demonstrated cases. you just don't know about them - which
> is unsurprising given the company you keep.
Do you see the words "in the real world"?
Let's repeat with some emphasis added so that you have an easier time
perceiving it:
"****In the real world**** there are satisfactorily demonstrated cases. you
just don't know about them"
Now let's see what you say now.
" I didn't mention 'real world'"
And what you wrote before:
"In the real world there are satisfactorily demonstrated cases"
Let's see that comparison again, so there's no mistake:
What you wrote previously:
"In the real world there are satisfactorily demonstrated cases"
What you write now:
" I didn't mention 'real world'"
> but as it happens I do live in the real world,
Apparently your "real world" has very little to do with what actually
happens outside your imagination.
> Oh I dont know, unmasking you is useful enough to warrant the effort.
Yes, we can all see how much good it does you to "unmask" me by revealing
the complete lack of congruency between what actually happens and what you
claim. I wish you happiness in your imaginary "real world".
> Your impact on newcomers to occultism is pernicious and stupid.
You know, I think your impact on those who read this newsgroup is quite
beneficial. After all, if you can't be a good role model, you can always
serve as a horrible example of just how badly one can screw up.
By all means, continue this fine work. As you say, it's a small victory,
but it seems to be the best you can hope for at this point.
Aiwass
>
> "Aiwass" <Aiw...@aiwass.com> wrote in message
> news:d0eWe.101498$L04....@fe06.news.easynews.com...
>>
>> "Tom" <askper...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:PMSdnbfq1Jq...@comcast.com...
> Another example of how your personal beliefs do not equate with "the real
> world".
Not me Tom, I live in the real world son. Or have *you* decided that astral
projection is not of the real world? A touch arrogant for a self-confessed
failed occutlist I would have thought.
>> Oh I dont know, unmasking you is useful enough to warrant the effort.
>
> Yes, we can all see how much good it does you to "unmask" me by revealing
> the complete lack of congruency between what actually happens and what you
> claim. I wish you happiness in your imaginary "real world".
After a brief period of lucidity you start ranting again. Not on old son,
better up the dose. Of course it may make you a bit groggy but who could
tell the difference?
>
>> Your impact on newcomers to occultism is pernicious and stupid.
>
> You know, I think your impact on those who read this newsgroup is quite
> beneficial. After all, if you can't be a good role model, you can always
> serve as a horrible example of just how badly one can screw up.
>
> By all means, continue this fine work. As you say, it's a small victory,
> but it seems to be the best you can hope for at this point.
Well, belting the shit out of you is a small enough challenge so I suppose
that succeeding is a small victory. I thought so anyway. I dont know Tom,
you arent your usually vitriolic self so I think perhaps the psychosis may
have receded a little. You need to watch the outbursts though.
A
Aiwass
I am deeply flattered however that you make the time to trawl backwards
through my posts to find some words I had forgotten about. However, your
obsession with me and trying to repair the damage done to your street cred
in here seems a little out of proportion. Excessive attention to detail
*is* a symptom of psychosis isnt it? Yes, I thought so.
A
A
Tom
>
> "Tom" <askper...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:NtmdnbT6Z_A...@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Aiwass" <Aiw...@aiwass.com> wrote in message
>> news:d0eWe.101498$L04....@fe06.news.easynews.com...
>>>
>>> "Tom" <askper...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:PMSdnbfq1Jq...@comcast.com...
>
>> Another example of how your personal beliefs do not equate with "the real
>> world".
>
> Not me Tom, I live in the real world son.
Heh.
Martin Swain
One of a bunch then. At least he isn't charging people for his 'abuse',
which puts him ahead of 99% of occult authors.
Long story short, 'wheat from the chaff' kid. Which is standard fare for
students of the occult. If they can't manage it, then so be it.
P.S.
No-one is to be 'taken seriously'. Every person is capable of folly, and
indeed all engage in it at some point or another. Every statement must
be evaluated in context, and individually. This is called
discrimination.
P.P.S.
I know my comments are brief. I also know you, Awaiss, understand them.
Ergo, you already know these things. Not that I'm saying anything,
I'm just saying...
Aiwass
"Martin Swain" <martin...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:5lBWe.252260$tt5.79704@edtnps90...
Yes indeed, though it isnt just the dishonesty, dishonesty can be avoided
by non-association. It is the bullying attacks on people that I dont like
and why I
have been giving him some of his own medicine. The way he bullied Calla for
instance was disgraceful and deserved a kicking on its own. (I have never
met her btw, just seen her on-line and she certainly isnt a mouthpiece for
me). Anyway, not a justification, an explanation which I suspect wasnt
really
necessary.
A
Tom
>
>
> Yes indeed, though it isnt just the dishonesty, dishonesty can be avoided
> by non-association. It is the bullying attacks on people that I dont like
> and why I
> have been giving him some of his own medicine. The way he bullied Calla
> for
> instance was disgraceful and deserved a kicking on its own.
Another self-styled knight in shining honor, protecting women and children
from the depredations of self-defined evil. He's big on romance, but
demonstrably short on both brains and power. That's what happens when you
mistake talk for reality.
Aiwass
Not psychotic though Tom, and I dont bully people. In both respects I am
considerably unlike you. Oh yes, and I actually know something about Magic.
No wonder you are envious.
Bassos
>
> "Tom" <askper...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Xp-dneWLDtf...@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Aiwass" <Aiw...@aiwass.com> wrote in message
>> news:QMVWe.93733$e95....@fe08.news.easynews.com...
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes indeed, though it isnt just the dishonesty, dishonesty can be
>>> avoided
>>> by non-association. It is the bullying attacks on people that I dont
>>> like and why I
>>> have been giving him some of his own medicine. The way he bullied Calla
>>> for
>>> instance was disgraceful and deserved a kicking on its own.
>>
>> Another self-styled knight in shining honor, protecting women and
>> children from the depredations of self-defined evil. He's big on
>> romance, but demonstrably short on both brains and power. That's what
>> happens when you mistake talk for reality.
>
> Not psychotic though Tom, and I dont bully people.
You are not trying to bully tom ?
Aiwass
"Bassos" <zebaz...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
news:432d374b$0$11072$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
yep. of course I am. And succeeding as well. As soon as the stupid psychotic
man realises that I will keep doing this until he changes his attitude to
people (particularly newcomers in here). I will happily point out his
deficiencies (intellectual, emotional and Magical) until he gets a brain.
Bassos
>
> "Bassos" <zebaz...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
> news:432d374b$0$11072$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>>
>> "Aiwass" <Aiw...@aiwass.com> wrote in message
>> news:I74Xe.86667$U_5....@fe03.news.easynews.com...
>>>
>>
>> You are not trying to bully tom ?
>
> yep. of course I am.
Nice mate.
medusa161
Assuming for a moment that the terms "astral magic", "astral projection" and "astral travel" may bleed one into the other, because this aspect of magical technique has suffered from brain-addling bungee-jumping with a silver cord for too long ... the reality may look a little more sophisticated than some folk give credence. Let us call this body of techniques "Astral Magic" and afford it proper respect.
I would have to consider that anyone who says: "Astral travel is a wee bit overrated" has not actually thoroughly investigated and developed this level of mind and magical function. When you stop to consider that Astral Magic can/does involve techniques such as progressive muscular relaxation; self-induction and self-hypnosis strategies; sophisticated levels of visualisation and concentration; inhibitory gnosis of the get down deep and silent kind etc. I would hardly call this "overrated".
Medusa (or you can call me Su)
medusa161
In modern terms, Astral Magic equates to a level of disciplined magical operation using visualisation and gnosis i.e. "a singularity of consciousness", a state in which everything becomes so focused as to exclude all other awareness and stimuli. The magician utilises the most fundamental gnosis technique i.e. sitting still and clearing the mind, in preparation for work with evocation, divination, enchantment, invocation and illumination, unencumbered with physical equipment. "Have mind, can travel" offers a unique opportunity to gain knowledge or push back the boundaries to possible actions with the singular use of mind and visualisation. This may seem easier than it looks, when to an observer, the astral magician sits quietly in a chair with eyes closed. Nothing would seem further from the truth however. In actuality Astral Magic requires an enormous amount of self-discipline, dedication, attention to detail, considerable preparation and effort in order that results happen as intended. We do not intend some foray into fantasy or psychosis.
In effect, the magician develops and maintains a series of skills that disciplines the mind. With these skills in situ, imagination weaves a canvas on which we can design/paint landscapes and environments that suit the intent of any magical working. Imagination transforms to clay in our hands in which we shape and manifest/fire our intent. Sounds and words create hypodermic sigils with the precision of a steady mind. We can scry into the depths of the Graal or invite deities to tea, should we choose.
"Nothing is true. Everything is permitted."
B). PRE-REQUISITES FOR ASTRAL MAGIC
Peter Carroll, in his Liber Kaos, has the following to say on the subject of Astral Magic: "This magic is performed by visualisation and altered states of consciousness or gnosis, alone. Physical paraphernalia is not used although the tools and instruments from the previous levels can be used in the form of visualised images. At first the magician will probably require seclusion, silence, darkness and considerable effort at concentration and trance to succeed with such magic, but practice will allow it to be performed anywhere." p 160.
Note these "probable" tools that Carroll mentions i.e. "seclusion, silence, darkness and considerable effort at concentration and trance." If you stop to consider that these specific elements, plus visualisation, seem intrinsically significant to any successful outcome in Astral Magic, then you have the ingredients at your disposal with which to operate.
Let's put these pre-requisites to Astral Magic under the proverbial microscope:
Extract from "Canvas, Clay and Memes: Astral Magic Unveiled" by Su Leybourn © 2005 (published in the Konton magazine, chaosmagic.com)
Aiwass
By over-rated, I am referring more to the actual objectives, and the comment
was certainly made in the context of High Magic. I am happy to refer to this
as Astral Magic, but would be interested to know wat can actually be
achieved by its use. Not being a practitioner of Astral Magic I am open to
any suggestions you may have...
A
"medusa161" <medu...@echoforum.com> wrote in message
news:43311275$0$1899$6cce...@news.echoforum.com...
LaBlueGirl
> Su, hi
>
> By over-rated, I am referring more to the actual objectives, and the
> comment was certainly made in the context of High Magic. I am happy to
> refer to this as Astral Magic, but would be interested to know wat can
> actually be achieved by its use. Not being a practitioner of Astral Magic
> I am open to any suggestions you may have...
>
> A
>
Hiya, A.
Orb servitors come to mind.....
LBG
Aiwass
"LaBlueGirl" <Yeahy...@com.com> wrote in message
news:dgrijq$4om$0...@pita.alt.net...
Hey LBG. Not sure about this. How?
A
LaBlueGirl
Well, you can create orb servitors as thoughtforms.
Or, you can create them as astral entities to protect, notify/warn or fight
back. This is especially useful if you vacation astrally often enough...
My .02 cents.
I have invited someone via email to join a.m.
If they show up, you can have a muuuuch better explanation than the one I
gave you:)
How've you been?
Plan on sending emails tonight. Have so many to keep up with, along with
USENET, local news and Go ( a game, check out www.Dragongoserver.net )
LBG
medusa161
Su ... (shaking head in disbelief)
ceilede
Hunter wrote:
"Of all the participants test, none were able to perform
the chore. Although it is not definitive proof, it suggests that the
condition either does not exist or that the contention that it is a
of fancy or an example of the lucid dreaming hypothesis. -Hunter"
I'd think it would be difficult to do such a thing in a lab. There's that fear of having to perform that makes such functions very tricky because you *know* you are being watched. I don't know what astral projection is, but I've done it spontaneously a few times. Could be just a profound dissociation from the body. Still, I never expected to be viewing myself from above and behind myself. Rather startling, I must admit.
-Ceilede
Tom
"medusa161" <medu...@echoforum.com> wrote in message
news:43311275$0$1899$6cce...@news.echoforum.com...
>
> travel is a wee bit overrated" has not actually thoroughly
> investigated and developed this level of mind and magical
> function.
He's admitted that he has no personal experience with astral travel and, of
course, he hasn't made anything like a systematic study of what others have
experienced. So his opinions on the subject are sheer speculation colored
by his preconceptions and can be discounted as idle chatter.
> When you stop to consider that Astral Magic can/does
> involve techniques such as progressive muscular relaxation;
> self-induction and self-hypnosis strategies; sophisticated
> levels of visualisation and concentration; inhibitory gnosis
> of the get down deep and silent kind etc. I would hardly
> call this "overrated".
I completely agree as to the utility of the techniques that you mention.
There is tremendous value to a careful investigation of the imaging system
by which we represent reality to ourselves. However, it's also important to
get a good grip on just what it is you're investigating, instead of being
seduced by the illusion that the map is the territory. Hence I recommend a
skeptical inquiry into the underlying assumptions that astral travel
involves some sort of physical detachment of one's POV from the body or that
the objects one encounters during astral travel are truly accurate maps of
the physical reality they are intended to represent.
Aiwass
Yes. Unto all things a due season, and for all things a good reason. If you
dont see the reason and dont know the season, then you are welcome to ask
but not to jmp to conclusions. Welcome to the newsgroup by the way... :-D
A
>
Tom
> A). DEFINITION OF ASTRAL MAGIC
>
> In modern terms, Astral Magic equates to a level of
> disciplined magical operation using visualisation and
> gnosis i.e. "a singularity of consciousness", a state in
> which everything becomes so focused as to exclude
> all other awareness and stimuli.
Two ways this can be accomplished are dharana and sleep.
Dharana can be induced by devout contemplation of some highly engaging image
for an extended period of time until the image has become so enthralling
that it overwhelms less interesting perceptions and totally absorbs one's
attention. Hindus usually use their favorite god, but almost anything will
do so long as it strongly attracts your attention. Pretty much everybody
knows how to induce sleep.
Of course, when you induce sleep, you have a tendency to lose a POV that
includes volitional control of the images you encounter. This is still
useful if you regularly keep a dream diary, but it is even more useful if
you develop the ability to dream lucidly.
http://www.lucidity.com/LucidDreamingFAQ2.html#techniques
> In actuality Astral Magic requires an enormous amount of
> self-discipline, dedication, attention to detail, considerable
> preparation and effort in order that results happen as intended.
What one considers "enormous self-discipline" may vary. Personally, it
didn't take me all that long to learn the basic techniques and achieve
moderate success. Of course, practice hones the ability and improves
perfomance, just as it does for any skill.
Tom
"ceilede" <cei...@echoforum.com> wrote in message
news:43316e3b$0$1886$6cce...@news.echoforum.com...
> [quote author=Hunter link=topic=2771.msg33172#msg33172 date=1126652112]
> Hunter wrote:
> "Of all the participants test, none were able to perform
> the chore. Although it is not definitive proof, it suggests that the
> condition either does not exist or that the contention that it is a
> governable action is very doubtful. I am inclined to believe it flight
> of fancy or an example of the lucid dreaming hypothesis. -Hunter"
>
> I'd think it would be difficult to do such a thing in a lab. There's
> that fear of having to perform that makes such functions very
> tricky because you *know* you are being watched.
Actually, in the case of most ordinary behaviors, there is a tendency in
most folks to do better when they're being watched. This is referred to in
psychological research as the "Hawthorne Effect".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect
Of course, when one is not actually capable of doing what one claims to do,
close observation and heightened expectations tend to create a lot of
anxiety.
> I don't know what astral projection is, but I've done it
> spontaneously a few times. Could be just a profound
> dissociation from the body.
That's my best guess at present. This is not to discount it's great utility
as a magical tool.
Aiwass
ah. A changed tune. Good. The first part of rehabilitation is to admit you
were wrong. Well done lad.
A
Aiwass
>
> "medusa161" <medu...@echoforum.com> wrote in message
> news:43311275$0$1899$6cce...@news.echoforum.com...
>>
>> I would have to consider that anyone who says: "Astral
>> travel is a wee bit overrated" has not actually thoroughly
>> investigated and developed this level of mind and magical
>> function.
>
> He's admitted that he has no personal experience with astral travel and,
> of course, he hasn't made anything like a systematic study of what others
> have experienced. So his opinions on the subject are sheer speculation
> colored by his preconceptions and can be discounted as idle chatter.
Well, no. that isnt what he said. What he actually said is that he hasnt
ever projected himself but had been in the company of others who did and was
satisfied as to the veracity of the process.
Not *quite* what Tom said but then he is a psychotic so we must be patient
and make allowances.
> I completely agree as to the utility of the techniques that you mention.
> There is tremendous value to a careful investigation of the imaging system
> by which we represent reality to ourselves. However, it's also important
> to get a good grip on just what it is you're investigating, instead of
> being seduced by the illusion that the map is the territory. Hence I
> recommend a skeptical inquiry into the underlying assumptions that astral
> travel involves some sort of physical detachment of one's POV from the
> body or that the objects one encounters during astral travel are truly
> accurate maps of the physical reality they are intended to represent.
Ah. The charm offensive for the benfit of a new poster. lol. It must be
hateful to be so predictable Tom. And so transparent. For Medusa: he will
suck his way around you for a while until he gets your measure. Then if he
decides you are a bit too serious for his liking he will abuse you. Same as
always. What will really get up his nose (and what he will react to most
ferociously) is if he thinks you know more than he does. Which wouldnt be
hard - he is, by his own admission a failed occultist (though he hugs a mean
tree).
A
Aiwass
Tom, try to distinguish between Astral projection and travelling in dreams
or the imagination. And try extra hard not to create the impression you have
succeeded at anything, I am afraid the grip on reality is loosening again.
Time for a nice lie down before you have to make another trip to the
'mountains' lol
A
Tom
>
> Tom, try to distinguish between Astral projection and travelling
> in dreams or the imagination.
How would you know? You've already admitted that you can't do it at all, so
you don't have a clue what's different or the same about them.
Tom
>> of course, he hasn't made anything like a systematic study of what others
>> have experienced. So his opinions on the subject are sheer speculation
>> colored by his preconceptions and can be discounted as idle chatter.
>
> Well, no. that isnt what he said.
Yet another example of Aiwass trying to rewrite Usenet.
medusa161
Su, hi
By over-rated, I am referring more to the actual objectives, and the comment was certainly made in the context of High Magic. I am happy to refer to this as Astral Magic, but would be interested to know wat can actually be achieved by its use. Not being a practitioner of Astral Magic I am open to any suggestions you may have... A
G'day Aiwass
You can use the techniques of Astral Magic to achieve the same goals as you might have when working in your own personal temple, sacred space etc. In a nutshell (almond perhaps) you can do invocations and evocations. You could work with divination or enchantments/spells. Illumination has its place here, as well. All the skills acquired through sorcery, shamanic practices and ritual/ceremonial magic can/do translate into this medium of mind. Only, in this instance i.e. Astral Magic, you dispense with the physical hardware (tools/weaponry, candles, incense, altar, pillars, runes, tarot, your personal mojo etc) and utilise a focused mind alone. Everything that you have ever done/mastered in magic will translate to this medium of Astral Magic.
I actually use Astral Magic techniques these days for most of my magical workings. I have two astral temple constructs that I started creating just over 20 years ago, in which I operate, once I hit a deep level of inhibitory gnosis (trance). These astral temples have everything inside that you could imagine, in situ, and then some more.
Using imagination and repetitive concentrated focus, I can develop equipment for magical purposes eg a sigil cannon; a scrying device that affords me the opportunity to examine anything in the space-time continuum; a magical mask/head that I can mentally wear to explore how someone else views things etc. This equipment stays locked in situ and gets used over and over again. If I want something else by way of a tool, I create that with my mind as well.
So you see ... "Have mind, will travel" barely cuts the mustard when you stop and think about it (winks).
Su
scott
Since development, over trial and error, for near on 3 years (a slow/distracted learner perhaps) we have managed to develop a system of gradual detachment from physical self and into an astral state. Over the subsequent 5 years this process has been refined a little to better experience and transcend into state. There appears to be a great deal of individual difference in the way that folk achieve astral states. Looking at these relationships has been the cornerstone of the way our own practice was formed. As such, merely stating that one should attain gnosis prior to transcendence is a humorous understatement.
Our first experience in attempting astral magick was during our first round of Liber MMM. The most challenging part of this was that attaining no mind was nigh impossible for us. This frustration caused us to be a tad sloppy and side step this absolute no mind state (and I would say sombunall of us do ;) ) and achieve a state of concentration of more basic thoughts such as viewing objects. Once 'suitably' relaxed we attempted to move ourselves away from our physical self. In this process we feel a warm rush flood our body as we imagine a deep blue hue (perhaps this is something simple to concentrate on to enable this transition) as our body floods we begin to rise, separating our conscious self and entering an astral form.
As an aside, this transformation was later changed to an absolute flooding of self that merged us completely into the quanta before reforming in the astral state.
To anchor our selves to our astral form we then begin to look down at our hands; as they begin to form then we appear to develop this altered state of dimensionality representing the more physical realm. This astral state of the representation of the 4 dimensions seems to allow us to more efficiently interpret the experiences in this astral state. We might add that the forth dimension of 'time' seems to be the most vague and malleable in this state.
Once we are comfortable in our new dimensionality we begin to create our astral temple or, as Su has mentioned in other works, our 'hub' from which we begin our exploration of the astral and carry out our magick.
Now returning to the no mind thingy. About 8months after our defeat with LiberMMM no mind, we stumbled across a book by the name of Quantum Consciousness by Stephen Wolinsky. In his book he suggests that we first subtract our mind from our self by stepping back and observing the contents of our mind, ie thoughts, feelings. In doing this we continue to ask the 'why' of our thoughts and in doing so we find that there is space from where one thought stops and another begins. This 'space' in them becomes the focus of our attention as it would seem that is takes us further and further to the state of no mind or possibly more importantly begins to remove ourselves from that part of consciousness that interacts with our 'physical self'. Wolinsky writes further on these ideas but this is the crux of it is in those points mentioned above. In achieving this state it not so much as separates you from your physical self but rather awakens you to an altered state of self that runs parallel with your physical
This is our experience of what works successfully. Others may have success using different means and that is applauded. Take what you want from it and discard the rest.
Cheers
scott
medusa161
There appears to be a great deal of individual difference in the way that folk achieve astral states. Looking at these relationships has been the cornerstone of the way our own practice was formed. As such, merely stating that one should attain gnosis prior to transcendence is a humorous understatement.
I do so agree with the observation that we have many variations to a theme! To date we have a number of ways of achieving an astral (deeper, bigger, larger) state of mind outside of the conscious mind. Austin Osman Spare called this "vacuity", for example.
If something works, on repeat, again and again, go for it! This should make a basic tenet of magic practices.
Astral Magic does run a line to Lucid Dreaming, as one way of operating. Personally, I opt for the get down and get real still and silent, trance style mode. But then ... I spent 9 years in British hospitals as a kid, trapped in an oxygen tent and I played with visualisations (back then) to keep myself amused. What else could a little kid do?
So, I do not want to get seen as touting "one way" ... 'cos that does not make my style. If it works, use it.
Now ...
testing
what we do ... that makes another story worth starting, she muses.
Su
Aiwass
yet another example of Toms loss of touch with reality.
A
Aiwass
yes yes. It isnt a case of can't Tom, it is a question of haven't and have
no plans to. Try to stay in touch with reality and not go off on one of your
little 'journeys'.
A
Aiwass
ah yes. This is more or less standard practice. When you said Astral Magic I
(wrongly) interpreted that as Magic performed while astrally projected. I am
sorry for the mistake.
A
Tom
"scott" <sc...@echoforum.com> wrote in message
news:433208c4$0$1907$6cce...@news.echoforum.com...
> Hey sis Su,
>
> Since development, over trial and error, for near on 3 years
> (a slow/distracted learner perhaps) we have managed to
> develop a system of gradual detachment from physical self
> and into an astral state.
Is this the royal "we"?
Dr. Susan Blackmore studied OOBE's for ten years before announcing her
conclusions. Perhaps she is even a slower learner than you, since you
managed to understand it all in only three years. Congratulations.
Exactly what do you mean by "detachment from the physical self"? Is there
some other "self" that exists on the astral? Does this astral being seem to
be someone other that yourself? Who is it?
Exactly what is "the astral state"? Is it in a different physical location
from the body? Is that why you conider yourself "detached"?
> Over the subsequent 5 years this process has been refined a
> little to better experience and transcend into state. There
> appears to be a great deal of individual difference in the way
> that folk achieve astral states. Looking at these relationships
> has been the cornerstone of the way our own practice was
> formed. As such, merely stating that one should attain gnosis
> prior to transcendence is a humorous understatement.
Can you explain in common parlance what you mean by "attain gnosis" and
"transcendence"?
> As an aside, this transformation was later changed to an
> absolute flooding of self that merged us completely into
> the quanta before reforming in the astral state.
This sort of jargon obscures your meaning. Put it in plain terms. What
does "merging into the quanta" mean, exactly? What is the "astral state"?
What does "absolute flooding of self" mean?
Tom
>
> "Tom" <askper...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:qu2dnYmptK4...@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Aiwass" <Aiw...@aiwass.com> wrote in message
>> news:D4fYe.146288$vo5....@fe01.news.easynews.com...
>>>
>>> Tom, try to distinguish between Astral projection and travelling
>>> in dreams or the imagination.
>>
>> How would you know? You've already admitted that you can't do it at all,
>> so you don't have a clue what's different or the same about them.
>
> yes yes. It isnt a case of can't Tom, it is a question of haven't and have
> no plans to.
A basic skill developed by magicians for centuries, you claim to have
practiced magick for decades, and yet, you haven't gotten around to it and
don't intend to. That's the hallmark of the armchair occultist.
LaBlueGirl
I agree, it would prolly be difficult in a lab.
Performance anxiety and all that.
I have found unless you are either (somewhat) proficient in astral
projection/travel/"magic" or posess a CNS of steel, then it usually is
startling. :)
LBG
LaBlueGirl
I'd rather pull the roach outta my cereal than bite it in half while eating.
Dif'rent strokes for dif'rent folks, I guess :)
LBG
Aiwass
Dont be any more stupid than you absolutely have to be Tom, this is not a
basic skill, it isnt even a required skill. It is a phenomenon of passing
interest. No wonder you were no good at occultism, no wonder you failed.
Stupid man.
A
A
scott
Aiwass and Tom,
I would suggest that you speak to the topic or keep your bickering for the bedroom. One of the core parameters for successful magick is control of will and that includes self control of emotions and childish banter. I suggest that both of you pull your heads in and lead by example or leave.
scott
Tom
> "In the name of the Cnidarian Emperor"
>
> Aiwass and Tom,
> I would suggest that you speak to the topic or keep your bickering for the
> bedroom.
Stop your bickering with Aiwass and Tom. I suggest you speak on topic and
keep your bickering for the bedroom. You homo.
scott
Tim
The study of magick is unfortunately/fortunately riddled with the semantics and jargon. To provide an operational definition for anything during one of these minor discussions would be an inconvenient waste of time, and as with life, certain assumptions must be made. However, here is a brief reply.
-The term 'we' is used in this case as appose to 'I' is a long story. In a nutshell it would seem from our perspective that using the meme of collective selves when working on multiple levels of thought is an effective way of separating experience to view them and better interpret them. No doubt other people use different methods but this is what has been most effective for us. We try not to spout what 'is' or 'should be' rather offer our experience to any who take interest.
- Managing to understand it 'all', as you say, is a null point. There does not seem to be absolutes in any understanding. Even the foundations of science and mathematics look to rest on strong probabilities rather than cold fact. Funnily enough we all seem to make decisions and interact in the world with out consciously knowing absolutes. Mind you, deeper understanding does seem to prove to be more efficient in processing, though still neve absolute and dependant on the resources your working memory must deal with.
-To our mind, and it appear to be also from the mind of, some but not all, scholars, yogi, etc, 'detachment from physical self’ resides in a state of third person. This seems to be a level of detachment from what Jung describes as our 'primary' being or consciousness. We then become the observer of ourself or perhaps the observer of our physical self as I mentioned.
-Tim wrote, "Is there some other "self" that exists on the astral? Does this astral being seem to be someone other that yourself? Who is it?”." We would best draw an example from the concept of culture. Cultures definition resides in its organic nature. This means that a culture has a constantly changing inter-connection of identity that forms to create a loosely bound identity know as culture. In this way we believe that self reflects this concept of culture. Thus these multiple selves all loosely interact at varying levels to form the prototype we know as "Self". Perhaps it is best to think of them as sub selves in the same way we refer to subculture. In our meme we see this entire self exists in all states of dimensionality, one of which being the astral. The astral sub self then exists as apart of the whole but also has its own loosely bound identity that seems more greatly tied to that plain of existence. So this astral being does not seem to be someone other than myself in its absolute sense but it still lies separate.
-Tim wrote, "Exactly what is "the astral state"? Is it in a different physical location from the body? Is that why you consider yourself "detached"?" - Again there does not appear to be an exactly, though that could be influence in our beliefs in quantum theory. We see the astral state as a detachment from the general physical dimensions that appear in our 'Normal-physical' sub self state (though we believe that we mentioned this in the earlier post). Perhaps we move our attention (focus) from one self to another. In this sense we may well detach our attention from one sub self and move it into another. Our astral state seems to be an alternate set of dimensions that our senses form to attempt to interpret this state. Much in the same way our taste, touch, feel, smell etc attempt to experience this physical self, though never exactly or precisely.
-Tim Wrote "Can you explain in common parlance what you mean by "attain gnosis" and "transcendence"?" Again "gnosis" and "transcendence" has many meanings. In this sense we draw from the chaos magus prototypes. One meaning of 'attain gnosis' in this context is: the closest state of no-thought, no-feeling and no-emotion that one can possibly attain. In the broader sense this in one means to understand the spiritual mysteries, but there seems to be many. 'Transcendence' in this context could easily be taken from a dictionary meaning such as: independence from world: existence above and apart from the material world.
-Tim wrote, "This sort of jargon obscures your meaning. Put it in plain terms. What does "merging into the quanta,” mean, exactly? What is the "astral state"? What does "absolute flooding of self" mean?" All meaning seems to obscure no matter how plain one attempts to ‘term’ it. An interesting article on this can be found in 'Quantum Psychology' by Robert Anton Wilson'. Quanta in this sense follow, again, a fairly standard dictionary meaning. Quanta represent the smallest amounts of energy possible. Again this proves amusing, perhaps because that factor may well be infinite ;) . Nevertheless it merging into the quanta makes an attempt to understand gnosis at its most primary energy source. We believe 'astral state' was answered earlier. The 'absolute flooding of self' seems to be most commonly interpreted as a metaphorical device, something to inspire the reader to, perhaps, think of our experience as something akin to warm water rapidly flowing into our body. Most often when one does not have an absolute definition of something they may use metaphors to try and explain it. We believe it is a common and effective tool in communication.
Questions answered, but never sufficiently ;) .
Perhaps you can share your experiences with us all so then we may learn what we will from them.
Cheers
scott
medusa161
We communicate in E-Prime most of the time ... although getting swamped by dorkish posting from alt.magick we have tried the friendly "I" approach so that you do not feel too intimidated.
Would you like some urls on the subject?
Screw this Royal We ... AND your (and your ilk's) incessant crap!
"In the name of the Cnidarian Emperor" ...
WE have arrived with 21st century magical approaches and techniques at max. Now sit back, all comfy, and get ready for the ride of your life. Ask questions; offer your what-ifs ... and kiss the old alt.magick crap goodbye (grins).
Su
medusa161
Back off Tom, right now ... before your mother finds out that you have stayed up too late on the computer playing games, and grounds you.
Aiwass
Yes. Let me see if I have this right Tom. For some days now you have been
deriding astral projection. You dismiss it as dreaming, imagination,
delusion, hallucination. Now, when it suits you to make a thoroughly
spurious (and completely stupid) statement, you say it is a basic skill
which has been developed by Magicians for centuries.
Did I get that right Tom? Yes, I thought I did.
Tell me... you dont see anything slightly abnormal in this behaviour?
Nothing a little 'odd' about it at all? Because most normal, rational and
psychosis-free people would do.
A
Aiwass
Well, I for one am exercising my will. And my Will. Have a heart son, it
isnt easy you know, unmasking the fraud of the century. It takes effort and
persistence....
A
Aiwass
seemed a perfectly reasonable post from scott. And he got a perfectly
reasonable response from me. Response from Tom? Abuse.
Enuff said. QED.
A
Aiwass
> In the name of the Cnidarian Emperor
>
> Back off Tom, right now ... before your mother finds out that you have
> stayed up too late on the computer playing games, and grounds you.
>
not his Mom he is afraid of son. It is his wife. Tommy is a battered
husband. Not sure if this is what made him psychotic or if being psychotic
is what makes his missus batter him. Could be either.
A
Tom
>
> The study of magick is unfortunately/fortunately riddled with the
> semantics and jargon.
Like calling a mental picture a "dimension" or using pretentious
pseudoscientific phrases like "quantum consciousness". These terms do
nothing to improve our understanding of what's really going on,. They are,
however, helpful in convincing ourselves that we are analytical and
sophisticated, instead of gullible and confused. There are two reasons why
people study magick and practice its related skills. One is to reduce
confusion. The other is to increase confusion.
That's why magick is riddled with semantics and jargon.
> To provide an operational definition for anything during
> one of these minor discussions would be an inconvenient
> waste of time,
Well, it's a not waste of time if one wants to reduce confusion. It's
imperative not to operationally define anything if you want to increase
confusion.
> and as with life, certain assumptions must be made.
Magick has its greatest power when one can successfully challenge
assumptions. That's what makes it possible to do the seemingly impossible.
Once you assume that something must be a certain way, you impose limits on
what you're able to accomplish.
> -The term 'we' is used in this case as appose to 'I' is a
> long story. In a nutshell it would seem from our perspective
> that using the meme of collective selves when working on
> multiple levels of thought is an effective way of separating
> experience to view them and better interpret them.
OK, I understand what you're getting at. It also gives you a neat little
semantic trick to deny that you're operating out of plain old ego
consciousness by making yourself appear to be many selves. Externalizing
bits of one's consciousness and attributing them with the quality of
independent operation is a very large part of magical practice. It is
deliberately induced dissociation, a kind of hypnosis. It has many positive
uses, but it's very helpful to be able to recognize its drawbacks, too. By
separating yourself into many selves, you simply complicate the process of
attaining awareness of consciousness which transcends ego boundaries, since
now you have to reabsorb all those new ego boundaries, too.
> - Managing to understand it 'all', as you say, is a null point.
> There does not seem to be absolutes in any understanding.
This is the process of doing magick by increasing confusion.
> Even the foundations of science and mathematics look to rest
> on strong probabilities rather than cold fact.
That isn't the foundation of science. That's the process of formulating
theories. The foundation of science is to *test* those theories rigorously
against the cold, observable facts and continually reformulate them in the
light of those observed facts.
> -To our mind, and it appear to be also from the mind of,
> some but not all, scholars, yogi, etc, 'detachment from
> physical selfâ?T resides in a state of third person.
Supplanting one self with another is not transcending self.
> -Tim wrote, "Is there some other "self" that exists on the astral?
> Does this astral being seem to be someone other that yourself?
> Who is it?â? ." We would best draw an example from the
> concept of culture. Cultures definition resides in its organic nature.
> This means that a culture has a constantly changing inter-connection
> of identity that forms to create a loosely bound identity know as
> culture. In this way we believe that self reflects this concept of
> culture.
> Thus these multiple selves all loosely interact at varying levels to form
> the prototype we know as "Self". Perhaps it is best to think of them
> as sub selves in the same way we refer to subculture. In our meme
> we see this entire self exists in all states of dimensionality, one of
> which being the astral. The astral sub self then exists as apart of the
> whole but also has its own loosely bound identity that seems more
> greatly tied to that plain of existence. So this astral being does not
> seem
> to be someone other than myself in its absolute sense but it still lies
> separate.
That's full of semantics and jargon. You're simply imagining yourself in a
different context. It isn't the self that has changed, but the context in
which that self is visualized.
If you want to consider yourself to be many selves, you can meditate on the
fact that your body is composed of millions upon millions of separate
organisms, your cells. These organisms each have their own agenda, to
survive and complete their unique processes. Yet, when they work in
concert, a larger, unified, gestalt being of vastly superior power comes
into being. That being identifies itself not with its tiny component parts,
but with the gestalt. There are huge advantages in so doing.
> -Tim wrote, "Exactly what is "the astral state"? Is it
> in a different physical location from the body? Is that
> why you consider yourself "detached"?" - Again there
> does not appear to be an exactly, though that could be
> influence in our beliefs in quantum theory.
Quantum theory is not designed to be believed, but to be used in a
progressive attempt to figure out what's going on. Once it is believed,
especially outside of its subatomic context, it no longer is helpful in
finding out what's going on, but serves to keep one from finding ourt what's
going on by obfuscating one's descriptions of one's experience.
> We see the astral state as a detachment from the general
> physical dimensions that appear in our 'Normal-physical'
> sub self state (though we believe that we mentioned this in
> the earlier post).
Detached in what way? That was not mentioned. What is being detached?
> Perhaps we move our attention (focus) from one self to another.
Might it be more accurate to say that you change the context in which you
image yourself from the sensational world of your physicality to the
representational world of your imagination and memory?
> -Tim Wrote "Can you explain in common parlance what you mean
> by "attain gnosis" and "transcendence"?" Again "gnosis" and
> "transcendence" has many meanings.
That's exactly why I asked you what you mean by these terms.
> In this sense we draw from the chaos magus prototypes.
> One meaning of 'attain gnosis' in this context is: the closest
> state of no-thought, no-feeling and no-emotion that one
> can possibly attain. In the broader sense this in one means
> to understand the spiritual mysteries, but there seems to
> be many.
Is the "one meaning" you just described what you meant by the term, or is
that just one of many meanings you might have meant but not necessarily? I
don't think you really answered the question very well yet. Let's keep
working on it.
The term "gnosis" comes from the Greek word for "know". It traditionally
refers to a sudden influx of information about God's purposes and
activities, which comes directly from God into the mind of the one attaining
gnosis. No thought/no feeling/no emotion is not knowing. It is preciselty
the opposite of knowing. It is as much not knowing as it is possible to
achieve. So to call that state "gnosis" is as far from accurate as it could
possibly be. Yet, we each invent our own labels, so of course, that's our
choice. If we want to call white black and up down, we are free to do so.
However, if we are to communicate in any meaningful ways with others, we
must try to make out labels coincide with one another's.
> 'Transcendence' in this context could easily be taken from
> a dictionary meaning such as: independence from world:
> existence above and apart from the material world.
Is that what you actually meant, or is that merely one possible meaning you
might have meant, but not necessarily? Are you seeking to increase or
decrease confusion here?
> -Tim wrote, "This sort of jargon obscures your meaning.
> Put it in plain terms. What does "merging into the
> quanta,â? mean, exactly? What is the "astral state"?
> What does "absolute flooding of self" mean?" All meaning
> seems to obscure no matter how plain one attempts
> to â?~termâ?T it. An interesting article on this can be found
> in 'Quantum Psychology' by Robert Anton Wilson'. Quanta
> in this sense follow, again, a fairly standard dictionary meaning.
> Quanta represent the smallest amounts of energy possible.
That's not the standard definition. A quantum is the smallest amount of a
physical quality that can exist independently, especially a discrete
quantity of electromagnetic radiation.
By applying the term "quantum" to consciousness one is taking it completely
out of its proper context and applying it to a context in which it may be
completely absurd.
One cannot merge with the tiniest quantity of consciousness unless you can
establish that consciousness indeed has quantity, what that quantity is, and
what one means by "merging" with it. As it is, you haven't even provided a
good meaning for the term "consciousness" let alone measured its quantity.
> Again this proves amusing, perhaps because that factor may well
> be infinite ;) . Nevertheless it merging into the quanta makes an
> attempt to understand gnosis at its most primary energy source.
What "primal energy source"? What kind of energy? If consciousness is
energy, what kind of energy is it? Eneergy can be measureds. All energy
can. There is no kind of energy that cannot be measured because energy is
the capacity to do wiork. Work is observable change. So, if energy is
present, it produces work. What observable work does consciousness produce?
> We believe 'astral state' was answered earlier.
Not clearly. As far as I can tell you mean imagining yourself in an
imaginary setting. Is that correct? If not, then you haven't been very
clear about wat the "astral state" is.
> The 'absolute flooding of self' seems to be most commonly
> interpreted as a metaphorical device, something to inspire
> the reader to, perhaps, think of our experience as something
> akin to warm water rapidly flowing into our body.
Imagining warm water flowing into your body is "absolute flooding of self"?
> Perhaps you can share your experiences with us all so then we\
> may learn what we will from them.
I'm asking questions about your theories of the astral. I don't see how
sharing my experiences would improve those questions or your ability to
answer them. In fact, it seems to me that this would only muddy the waters
rather than clear them.
Tom
>
> WE have arrived with 21st century magical approaches
> and techniques at max. Now sit back, all comfy, and get
> ready for the ride of your life. Ask questions; offer your
> what-ifs ... and kiss the old alt.magick crap goodbye (grins).
A song that gets sung regularly by newbies to this newsgroup. They come and
they go. Let's see what you've got.
Tom
Is that all you've got? You sound just like Aiwass. Pathetic.
And here I thought you were going to talk about magick. Perhaps not.
Aiwass
There. Didnt take long for Tom to revert to type now did it? He wants to
know what you got so he can abusively demolish it and give himself comfort
that you dont know more than he does.
A
Aiwass
hrmmm. Not sure you would understand it if she did. Actually I *am* sure.
A
Aiwass
>
> "scott" <sc...@echoforum.com> wrote in message
> news:4333a86f$0$1900$6cce...@news.echoforum.com...
>>
>> The study of magick is unfortunately/fortunately riddled with the
>> semantics and jargon.
>
> Like calling a mental picture a "dimension" or using pretentious
> pseudoscientific phrases like "quantum consciousness". These terms do
> nothing to improve our understanding of what's really going on,. They
> are, however, helpful in convincing ourselves that we are analytical and
> sophisticated, instead of gullible and confused. There are two reasons
> why people study magick and practice its related skills. One is to reduce
> confusion. The other is to increase confusion.
At least these are the only two you know about Tom. Being a self-confessed
failed occultist.
>
> That's why magick is riddled with semantics and jargon.
If you study medicine, computer science, physics, plumbing or architecture,
there is jargon. Dont decry jargon Tom, Even in your janitor's job you have
jargon (toilet... mend, drain... unplug, leaves... sweep, that sort of
thing).
>
>> To provide an operational definition for anything during
>> one of these minor discussions would be an inconvenient
>> waste of time,
>
> Well, it's a not waste of time if one wants to reduce confusion. It's
> imperative not to operationally define anything if you want to increase
> confusion.
Exactly. My reasson for spending so much time getting exposing you as a
fraud, charlatan and huckster, and hopefully retiring you off. That ought to
reduce the confusion around here by about 80%
>
>> and as with life, certain assumptions must be made.
>
> Magick has its greatest power when one can successfully challenge
> assumptions. That's what makes it possible to do the seemingly
> impossible. Once you assume that something must be a certain way, you
> impose limits on what you're able to accomplish.
Good point Tom. Example. A surgeon knows the way to cut out a gall bladder.
It is good, it works and after a lot of work and practice the surgeon is
proficient at it. Along comes Tom who says "you fool! why be limited by
superstition and prejudice, dont go in through the abdomen, go in through
the rectum. That will be much better and demonstrate to everyone that you
are not shackled to the outdated notions of the quack medicine of the 20th
Century". Naturally, everybody takes a lot of notice of Tom, who in this
case, as in most others, knows the square root of bugger all about the
subject he so happily gives advice on.
>> -The term 'we' is used in this case as appose to 'I' is a
>> long story. In a nutshell it would seem from our perspective
>> that using the meme of collective selves when working on
>> multiple levels of thought is an effective way of separating
>> experience to view them and better interpret them.
>
> OK, I understand what you're getting at. It also gives you a neat little
> semantic trick to deny that you're operating out of plain old ego
> consciousness by making yourself appear to be many selves.
Decoded: I dont like the way you use 'we' instead of 'I'. You didnt have my
permission. I am king/God around here and dont you forget it.
> Externalizing bits of one's consciousness and attributing them with the
> quality of independent operation is a very large part of magical practice.
> It is deliberately induced dissociation, a kind of hypnosis. It has many
> positive uses, but it's very helpful to be able to recognize its
> drawbacks, too. By separating yourself into many selves, you simply
> complicate the process of attaining awareness of consciousness which
> transcends ego boundaries, since now you have to reabsorb all those new
> ego boundaries, too.
Well, it is a large part of Tom's Magic but then his psychosis means he has
trouble staying in touch with reality. He does seem quite well informed on
the drawbacks of MPD though, doesnt he?
>> - Managing to understand it 'all', as you say, is a null point.
>> There does not seem to be absolutes in any understanding.
>
> This is the process of doing magick by increasing confusion.
A non-existent approach.
>> Even the foundations of science and mathematics look to rest
>> on strong probabilities rather than cold fact.
>
> That isn't the foundation of science. That's the process of formulating
> theories. The foundation of science is to *test* those theories
> rigorously against the cold, observable facts and continually reformulate
> them in the light of those observed facts.
This is complete bullshit. Science has repeatedly been shown to be at best
approximations or probability based on the knowledge available at the time.
When better knowledge becomes available, the foundations are adjusted. Did
you ever hear of Albert Einstein in your BA 'with an emphasison
sociology..." Tom, he is the guy that showed that Newtonian Physics was an
approximation based on the best knowledge of the time.
Science 101.
>
>> -To our mind, and it appear to be also from the mind of,
>> some but not all, scholars, yogi, etc, 'detachment from
>> physical selfâ?T resides in a state of third person.
>
> Supplanting one self with another is not transcending self.
It is difficult to tell if Tom really did miss the point and is thick, or if
he is deliberately missing the point and is stupid. Perm any one from 2.
>> -Tim wrote, "Exactly what is "the astral state"? Is it
>> in a different physical location from the body? Is that
>> why you consider yourself "detached"?" - Again there
>> does not appear to be an exactly, though that could be
>> influence in our beliefs in quantum theory.
>
> Quantum theory is not designed to be believed.
I suspect that a good few scientists may actually believe in it Tom. How are
you going to break it to them that they are gullible fools? Will you be
taken seriously if you do? I mean, a BA 'with an emphasis on sociology...'
isnt really going to cut it is it?
<quite a lot of shit snipped out here>
>> The 'absolute flooding of self' seems to be most commonly
>> interpreted as a metaphorical device, something to inspire
>> the reader to, perhaps, think of our experience as something
>> akin to warm water rapidly flowing into our body.
>
> Imagining warm water flowing into your body is "absolute flooding of
> self"?
>
>> Perhaps you can share your experiences with us all so then we\
>> may learn what we will from them.
>
> I'm asking questions about your theories of the astral. I don't see how
> sharing my experiences would improve those questions or your ability to
> answer them. In fact, it seems to me that this would only muddy the
> waters rather than clear them.
Decoded: I havent got any and the last time I pretended to have some
experiences by explaining to someone how to eat spirits and how the
digestion of said spirits happens, that awful Aiwass and 104 made me eat
shit instead.
Good God Tom, this is really quite a bad day for the reality thing. Have you
had your afternoon lie-down yet or is it still morning on the planet you
live on?
A
LaBlueGirl
>
> hrmmm. Not sure you would understand it if she did. Actually I *am* sure.
>
> A
Inclined to agree with you, A.
LaBlueGirl
I suggest you remember this is a public forum.
Yawn.
Tom
"LaBlueGirl" <Yeahy...@com.com> wrote in message
news:dh3mp3$pee$3...@pita.alt.net...
> Aiwass wrote:
>>
>> hrmmm. Not sure you would understand it if she did. Actually I *am* sure.
>
I agree also. Aiwass is sure. He's not right, of course, but he is
definitely sure.
Tom
>
> "Tom" <askper...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:8tudnfliE9L...@comcast.com...
>>
>> "medusa161" <medu...@echoforum.com> wrote in message
>> news:4333a87d$0$1871$6cce...@news.echoforum.com...
>>>
>>> WE have arrived with 21st century magical approaches
>>> and techniques at max. Now sit back, all comfy, and get
>>> ready for the ride of your life. Ask questions; offer your
>>> what-ifs ... and kiss the old alt.magick crap goodbye (grins).
>>
>> A song that gets sung regularly by newbies to this newsgroup. They come
>> and they go. Let's see what you've got.
>>
>
> There. Didnt take long for Tom to revert to type now did it?
I guess that "current" you claim to have started than was supposed to change
me or destroy me or whatever it is that you want to claim it was supposed to
do isn't working, what with me "reverting to type" all the time.
> He wants to know what you got so he can abusively demolish it and give
> himself comfort that you dont know more than he does.
Yes, I am evil incarnate. I'm the very Devil himself in human guise, here
to demolish you all for my personal satisfaction! *evil laugh*
Bassos
>
>
> Yes, I am evil incarnate. I'm the very Devil himself in human guise, here
> to demolish you all for my personal satisfaction! *evil laugh*
Oh, the joy of a worthy adversary.
I can only hope you meet one in alt.magick.
Not a high chance though.
wychipu
.....As I mention science does not look for absolutes it looks for things that have a high rate of probability and in this sense all science is grounded on only the semantic interpretation of theories.
I don't think he's ever read of Unified Theory, Scott. I also seriously doubt he's spent much time with the concepts of symetry occurring because of asymetrical patterns.
T: No thought/no feeling/no emotion is not knowing.
S: Is it? The Hindu would probably disagree
I fear mentioning Jungian collective consciousness might set him off into another tizzy.
Rice@echoforum.com Tim Rice
In the name of the Cnidarian Emperor:
Greetings Tom,
Interesting.
You have great skills in turning criticism back on people. I project that this helps you feel "on a par" with them. If others have flaws equivalent to your own, then surely you couldn't need too much psychiatric help, could you?
And here I thought you were going to talk about magick. Perhaps not.
I interpret this as an utterance of disappointment. Care to get the ball rolling? What magic have you done today, Tom?
Oh, and spell magic like this next time: "Maejjykh" You will find that spelling it like this satisfies the Law of Fives and will make you look way way 733t3r.
(Oh, did I start this post with the word "interesting"? I actually meant sad... oops)
scott
Your reply reverberates with passive aggressive questioning this is often answered by you own rather flat process of questioning. If this is not your intent then it is suggested that you stand back from your writing and evaluate it critically. It is also recommended that you look at some anthropological writings on cosmology to help you understand differing points of view on subjects, we can recommend Alan Dundes, Jean-Pierre Vernant, Erich Neumann, Nancy D. Munn, Victor Turner, Rene Girard and Marecel Mauss. There are many others and we do try and look at the many sides of belief as we can before selecting a paradigm to follow.
>I'm asking questions about your theories of the astral. I don't see how
sharing my experiences would improve those questions or your ability to
answer them. In fact, it seems to me that this would only muddy the waters
rather than clear them.
A discussion requires a sharing of ideas and concepts. If you find this intimidating or you have no experience of these concepts, as you confusion seems to portray may I suggest that you swallow you pride and admit you ignorance and move on. It would seem that much of what I have written has been understood by many of the members of this newsgroup. This may be an indicator that you may not be as well schooled in this are as you would hope.
>Like calling a mental picture a "dimension" or using pretentious
pseudoscientific phrases like "quantum consciousness". These terms do
nothing to improve our understanding of what's really going on,. They are,
however, helpful in convincing ourselves that we are analytical and
sophisticated, instead of gullible and confused. There are two reasons why
people study magick and practice its related skills. One is to reduce
confusion. The other is to increase confusion.
In my own scientific school, psychology, it would seem that what you call psudoscientific is being called scientific practice. Perhaps you can write to the American Psychiatric Association or the Australian Psychological Society to let them know of the errors. It would seen here, as much to the general public that my communications have warranted some level of success. To the may what has been written and the references that I have drawn from have found clarity in other peoples eyes.
>One cannot merge with the tiniest quantity of consciousness unless you can
establish that consciousness indeed has quantity, what that quantity is, and
what one means by "merging" with it. As it is, you haven't even provided a
good meaning for the term "consciousness" let alone measured its quantity.
What is the quantity of light? Is is a particle or is it a wave? As I mention science does not look for absolutes it looks for things that have a high rate of probability and in this sense all science is grounded on only the semantic interpretation of theories.
>The term "gnosis" comes from the Greek word for "know". It traditionally
refers to a sudden influx of information about God's purposes and
activities, which comes directly from God into the mind of the one attaining
gnosis. No thought/no feeling/no emotion is not knowing.
Is it? The Hindu would probably disagree.
There are other comments that I may address later. I am a practitioner of magick, not a magus of discussion boards, as such my time devoted more to my practice.
cheers
scott
wychipu
Tom
"Tim Rice" <Tim Ri...@echoforum.com> wrote in message
news:4335eca4$0$1872$6cce...@news.echoforum.com...
>
> Greetings Tom,
Hiya.
> Interesting.
Well, sometimes.
> You have great skills in turning criticism back on people.
> I project that this helps you feel "on a par" with them.
We are all on a par in an unmodrated newsgroup. Any sense of superiority or
inferiority is entirely the responsibility of the viewer.
> If others have flaws equivalent to your own, then
> surely you couldn't need too much psychiatric
> help, could you?
There are a number of contributors and subscribers to this group who require
psychiatric help. They are on a par with the rest of us, too. Let's not
pretend we are superior to them either.
> > And here I thought you were going to talk about magick. Perhaps not.
>
> I interpret this as an utterance of disappointment.
Well, some have indicated that they might, but I'm still waiting. It's not
disappoinment yet, but perhaps a little impatience.
> Care to get the ball rolling? What magic have you done today, Tom?
I awoke in the real world. The whole thing is magical. It didn't always
seem that way to me, but I got over that quite a long while ago.
> Oh, and spell magic like this next time: "Maejjykh" You
> will find that spelling it like this satisfies the Law of Fives
> and will make you look way way 733t3r.
Have you noticed the name of the newsgroup? Want to newgroup your own with
whatever spelling you like? It's easy.
> (Oh, did I start this post with the word "interesting"?
> I actually meant sad... oops)
If you'd rather be sad than interested, that's your choice.
Tom
"wychipu" <wyc...@echoforum.com> wrote in message
news:4335ecea$0$1907$6cce...@news.echoforum.com...
>
> .....As I mention science does not look for absolutes it
> looks for things that have a high rate of probability and
> in this sense all science is grounded on only the semantic
> interpretation of theories.
"It" doesn't look for anything. Science is not a person.
Postmodernist bullshitters love to reduce science to semantics, because
postmodernist bullshitters are largely word-slingers who couldn't design a
decent experiment to save their asses.
> I don't think he's ever read of Unified Theory, Scott.
Now there's some semantic bullshit for you.
> T: No thought/no feeling/no emotion is not knowing.
>
> S: Is it? The Hindu would probably disagree
Which Hindu would that be?
> I fear mentioning Jungian collective consciousness might
> set him off into another tizzy.
You fear. I see.
Tom
> Tom,
> Your reply reverberates with passive aggressive questioning
Oh cut it out. Pseudointellectual polysyllabics. Bah.
<snip>
Talk plain and I may actually read your whole post next time.
Rice@echoforum.com Tim Rice
Aiwass
"Tim Rice" <Tim Ri...@echoforum.com> wrote in message
news:4335eca4$0$1872$6cce...@news.echoforum.com...
Did Tom sound just like me?
Ah well, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery I suppose.
A