Out of Body with Light & Sound?

[Marisa]

I don't totally believe one way of the other. As he years go on, "proof" matters less and less to me. I do know a few things; that meditation brings one closer to the "source", be that a collective unconscious, God, or just one's own soul. It doesn't really matter which one of those it is... I have the innate drive to go towards it - whatever it is.

In order for you to feel you are getting closer to "the source", you have to believe a source (or something to that effect) exists. Nevertheless, I can appreciate what you are saying about finding something that brings you to a good state of being.

Proof and belief are secondary to me. Prove what... to whom? Why do I even care about that? I'm searching and traveling toward something, some realization and meaning... as long as I feel I'm progressing, proof is almost meaningless.

And I am of the opposite mindset. As I get older, I find myself more curious about the science of the world and want to know more about the intricacies of how and why things work. Proof is meaningful to me because it represents facts. Facts represent truth. I want to know what actually is, not what I believe it to be.

It kind of reminds me of the movie the Matrix. On the one hand, I wouldn't want to know the "truth" about the Matrix as the world I was living in was comfortable, secure and more fun. There is something to be said about those states of being. Truth isn't always comfortable.

On the other hand, if you know about the "Matrix", ugly and harsh as that reality is, then you can empower yourself to do more when you enter the "Matrix".

So in the end, knowledge is power because only it, can provide true understanding. You can not fully understand anything until you know it and you can't truly "know" it by just belief.

I do give them credit... using intelligence takes a lot of work and training. But I wonder if that effort just lets one discover things and ideas that already exist (e.g., Einstein - the theory or relativity already existed, he just defined it) or if it truly allows one to access new things. I go back to music as an example. Does intelligence just allow one to rearrange existing notes in new pleasing patterns, or is there a real, new essence being formed that truly did not exist previously?

In a sense, those things did already exist and we are merely figuring out how they work. That the universe already exists means that the formula to how and why it exists also exists ... we just haven't discovered it fully yet. Very few people can pick up an instrument and play it without first learning how - so you would need more than just the right frame of mind to play an instrument well. So yes, I would say that intelligence and/or the brain allows the person to rearrange notes in new pleasing patterns. Without intelligence, we would not be able to understand how to play an instrument, talk or sing.

If so, where did it come from? When an artist, explaining how she came up with her new work, says, "It just came to me", where did it come from?

It came from the person's brain, which is highly creative and capable. Each of us, though we have many things in common, are also highly unique. Why "should" the best of our abilities have to come from an outside source? Why isn't it enough that we are capable of creating such beauty or brilliance all by ourselves? Is a beautiful song less beautiful if it was inspired by the human, than if it was inspired by "the source"? Do you not believe that we, as humans are capable of creating beautiful works of art or brilliant inventions or discoveries on our own?

Could we not be just that great?

Back to you.

M.

[C-shore]

Proof is meaningful to me because it represents facts. Facts represent truth. I want to know what actually is, not what I believe it to be.

So you're saying that belief doesn't equal truth? And how do you know whose "facts" equal truths? Sometime you should look up 'facts' that turned out not to be so, as they were tainted by current thinking (earth is flat, man can never fly, etc). Or by current beliefs. I think it turns out that beliefs are as valid as truths... it just depends whose you are talking about. If you are vigorously exploring something yourself, then your research - and therefore beliefs - are as good as anyone's.

You can not fully understand anything until you know it and you can't truly "know" it by just belief.

I know that the sky is blue - from observation. But I can't prove it as fact to you. The scientific method is just that - a method (and a good one). But personal observation can create a level of belief that is just as valid... in my mind anyway.

Why "should" the best of our abilities have to come from an outside source? Why isn't it enough that we are capable of creating such beauty or brilliance all by ourselves? Is a beautiful song less beautiful if it was inspired by the human, than if it was inspired by "the source"?

My point is that it IS ourselves. We ARE the source. We are extensions of the creator... the source... whatever. You are part of me, visa versa, and we're both part of the earth, the sun and all the thoughts and intelligence and creativity that exists. It's not "us" versus "it". It's just "us".

Do you believe in the "big bang"? If so... then we're a small part of what came out of that bang, inexorably intertwined with everything else that came out of it. (BTW, I loved The Matrix as a metaphor for much of what we're discussing.)

[Marisa]

So you're saying that belief doesn't equal truth?

Although a belief is often perceived as true by the person, that belief may actually be untrue. The funny things about beliefs is that the believer is convinced that the belief is truth, even when that belief has been proven false. Christians believe the earth is only a few thousand years old, when there is scientific evidence that proves the world is much older.

So, yes belief equals a believed truth but belief does not necessarily equal a proven truth.

And how do you know whose "facts" equal truths?

A fact is something that is scientifically proven to be true. For example, we breath air is a proven truth. We can not breath underwater - another proven truth. These facts will produce the same results time and time again.

The dictionary says that a fact is something than can be proven (or verified beyond doubt).

"a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened "

Sometime you should look up 'facts' that turned out not to be so, as they were tainted by current thinking (earth is flat, man can never fly, etc).

Those are not facts, they were scientific hypothesis and/or beliefs. Many people believed the world was flat until it was proven not to be.

Concepts such as there is or is not a God is a belief. It can not be a fact (either way) since it can not be proven either way.

Or by current beliefs. I think it turns out that beliefs are as valid as truths... it just depends whose you are talking about.

A fact can not be subjective. The dictionary defines truth as "a fact that has been verified". So it appears that the words "truth" and "fact" are related.

A belief can be subjective. A belief comes from a perception of truth. Perception can be flawed. We can have false beliefs. We can have untrue beliefs. We can also have true beliefs. Because beliefs are not always a reflection of a factual truth, they are not a reliable measure of truth.

An anorexic believes that s/he is fat. A dog lover believes dogs are better than cats. Each model on America's next top model believes that she should win the prize. Christians believe that evolution didn't happen. Beliefs are subjective.

A fact is indisputable. Fact: Each of us will one day die. Fact: I was born. Fact: I drink water. Each of these things can be proven to be true. The proof does not depend upon belief as it is so regardless if anyone else believes it or not. This is not the case with beliefs.

Mind-bendy isn't it.

If you are vigorously exploring something yourself, then your research - and therefore beliefs - are as good as anyone's.

One's research could be faulty. One's method of research or sources of information could be faulty. So it really does depend on your research and the research you are conducting. The bible, for example, is not a good source for conducting research as much of what is in it can not be verified as truth.

I know that the sky is blue - from observation.
But I can't prove it as fact to you. The scientific method is just that - a method (and a good one). But personal observation can create a level of belief that is just as valid... in my mind anyway.

Personal observation is not a good measure of reality because our brains can be easily tricked into seeing things that are not there and believing things that are not so. Your u/c mind has no way of distinguishing truth or fiction on its own. The conscious mind does a pretty good job but it often gets things wrong as well ... that is how misunderstandings are formed and we have all experienced that.

My point is that it IS ourselves. We ARE the source. We are extensions of the creator... the source... whatever. You are part of me, visa versa, and we're both part of the earth, the sun and all the thoughts and intelligence and creativity that exists. It's not "us" versus "it". It's just "us".

That is your belief. It is not a fact and it may or may not be true. It can not be a fact until it can be proven true or false, therefore it is a theory or belief.

Do you believe in the "big bang"? If so... then we're a small part of what came out of that bang, inexorably intertwined with everything else that came out of it. (BTW, I loved The Matrix as a metaphor for much of what we're discussing.)

I support the big bang theory. I'm not sure if it's been proven to be a fact yet but it certainly makes more sense then the alternative explanation (god plunked us down on earth after our ancestors got in trouble for eating apples).

[C-shore]

Concepts such as there is or is not a God is a belief. It can not be a fact (either way) since it can not be proven either way.

Try this out: There is grass on my lawn. Fact. It was created by something/someone. Fact. Now the only open question is who or what? Some people say that's god, some say chemical reaction, but what's really the difference?

I said: My point is that it IS ourselves. We ARE the source. We are extensions of the creator... the source... whatever. You are part of me, visa versa, and we're both part of the earth, the sun and all the thoughts and intelligence and creativity that exists. It's not "us" versus "it". It's just "us".
You said: That is your belief. It is not a fact and it may or may not be true. It can not be a fact until it can be proven true or false, therefore it is a theory or belief.

I say fact. We're all made up of the same chemicals, particle, molecules, atoms. When you die you will burn/decompose and the chemicals will become another person, dog, quarter-pounder w/cheese, etc. The soul... that's another question.

[Marisa]

Try this out: There is grass on my lawn. Fact. It was created by something/someone. Fact. Now the only open question is who or what? Some people say that's god, some say chemical reaction, but what's really the difference?

Well, the word "created" is a bit of a funky word in that it implies that grass didn't just come into existence through an evolutionary process. The word "created" implies that some being had a hand in the making of the grass. Therefore your statement "grass was created by someone or something" is actually not a fact because of the word "created" -- we can't prove that grass was "created".

It's a tricky argument, for sure. A fact would be: Grass exists. We can prove that statement. Grass, I'm sure has an evolutionary origin which would mean that "grass" was not created, that grass evolved from sea moss or whatever it is that it evolved from.

So, the origin of anything can probably be traced back to space dust and one could say that God created the space dust but then that would be a belief, not a fact because we don't know what "created" the space dust or if it was created at all.

There is a difference because one statement implies that there is a "god" or "creator" and the adverse argument is that we don't know if there is a creator. It may seem like a petty difference but it isn't because the meaning changes with the words used.

I say fact. We're all made up of the same chemicals, particle, molecules, atoms. When you die you will burn/decompose and the chemicals will become another person, dog, quarter-pounder w/cheese, etc. The soul... that's another question.

Ah but we don't know what the soul is or if it exists outside of the living being. The "soul" could be a component of personality that dies with the person. I would like it if we had a soul that survives our physical death but just because I would like that to be so ... does not make it so.

[C-shore]

So, the origin of anything can probably be traced back to space dust and one could say that God created the space dust but then that would be a belief, not a fact because we don't know what "created" the space dust or if it was created at all.

If space dust wasn't created, then it's not real. If it's not real, then neither are or you. Or I. Therefore, if we think it is real, since we exist, then someone/thing had to create it.

I would like it if we had a soul that survives our physical death but just because I would like that to be so ... does not make it so.

I agree with you on that... I tend to think that the soul does survive. Maybe that's wishful thinking, but so what? If I'm right it will give me something to live for until my dying day, and if I'm wrong, I'll never know.

Meanwhile, I keep meditating and searching to prove it to myself. I've had many experiences that lead me to believe that there's a lot of stuff going on outside of our human existence. But that gets back to some of your earlier comments asking are those experiences real, or from my imagination?

At minimum, even if they are "just" from my imagination, I'm still really happy about it as I've learned to tap something deep inside of me that is a never-ending source of surprising creativity, ideas, images, people and other cool stuff.

[Marisa]

If space dust wasn't created, then it's not real. If it's not real, then neither are or you. Or I. Therefore, if we think it is real, since we exist, then someone/thing had to create it.

It appears we are back to a semantic argument concerning the word "create". Earlier I mentioned that the word "create" implies that there is a creator (a being who creates) involved. Do you accept this definition of create?

If so, then let's look at your statement and continue our argument.

"If space dust wasn't created, then it's not real"

So, you would conclude that in order for something to be real, it has to be created by a being of some sort? That's fine. It's a belief though, not a fact.

I agree with you on that... I tend to think that the soul does survive. Maybe that's wishful thinking, but so what? If I'm right it will give me something to live for until my dying day, and if I'm wrong, I'll never know.

I can appreciate what you are saying. Believing in "god", the soul, an afterlife etc. is much more comfortable than the alternative. This being the case, it is dangerous for you to walk this path of argument because sometimes when you shine the spot light on beliefs - you do run the risk of opening the door to question them and once you choose that path ... you can never go back. This I know from experience.

Meanwhile, I keep meditating and searching to prove it to myself. I've had many experiences that lead me to believe that there's a lot of stuff going on outside of our human existence. But that gets back to some of your earlier comments asking are those experiences real, or from my imagination?

Hey wait a minute ... didn't you say earlier that you didn't need proof? Did you change your mind?

In some ways it doesn't matter if an experience is physically real or a creation of your mind. It is still an experience. It can still be enjoyed and you can still learn from it. Here is where the discussion can take an interesting turn about reality. Did you know that the unconscious mind does not know how to differentiate between what is real (of this physical world) and what is imagined?

At minimum, even if they are "just" from my imagination, I'm still really happy about it as I've learned to tap something deep inside of me that is a never-ending source of surprising creativity, ideas, images, people and other cool stuff.

Amen to that.

M.

[Marcuz]

I am new to this forum and am wondering if anyone has had out of body experiences using light & sound machines? In a book I'm currently reading, the author mentioned that they can he helpful.

I would be interested to read about any experiences and/or techniques that others would like to discuss.

Thanks.

Hi

I have had OOBE but in all those cases it happened just after using an AVS machine, when i kept lying down without moving (glasses and headphones still on) after the session. In all the cases i felt very peacefull and "high" after the session so i dind't want to moove. I started slipping in and out of sleep and vivid dreams. Later when i decided to get up, i sure got up and walked a few steps but was sudently "sucked" back into my body and i realised i had an OOBE, later i tried geting up again and the same thing happened.. over and over.. maybe 5 times. During other sessions i have experienced lifting my hand to grab or adjust something but i only mooved my "astral" body-arm and the "real" arm didn't moove, and i could see this through my closed eyelids. The session i used for this is posted by me in the library section under sessions -> procyon with a description of the meditation i did during the session before the OOBE's.(created the session myself).

Kind regards,
Marcus Knudsen

[Alfred]

Thanks Andy.

I did check out the 'similar threads' area but didn't see anything there that addressed what I'm looking for.

I would think that a certain percentage of people are using L&S machines to try to do OBE... i.e., bought their machine specifically for that reason. That's what I'm interested in. I've been meditating for many years and am ready for the next 'level' and am hoping these machines can help with that.

Anybody out there who feels comfortable discussing this?

http://www.godsdirectcontact.org/

[noob]

Hi, just dropping my .02 here on this topic.

I have OBEs pretty often by using a mind machine I have called InnerQuest (it's old). I haven't have one using procyon but I hopefuly will after I get my editor to connect.

There is no mistaking lucid dreaming with OBEs. They are very different experiences. If you are not sure you had an OBE is because you didn't have one.

I have noticed that if I think/worry too much about material things (money, status, etc) the OBEs are much more difficult to achieve. But that's my personal experience, I don't know if it has to do with anything, but at least for me when I am a less involved in the mundane worries OBEs are very easy to achieve.

The first time it happen I freaked out but after some reading I understood what was happening. It's a wonderful experience and it can greatly help on one's development. Trust me, when you have an OBE you will know you had one.