On another thread, 1796 wrote the below (after the x's).
Clearly what 1796 wrote is a long intellect-based explanation, rather than actual experience.

Within Bruce's video, I believe he provides a clear example of how the imagination method can work as a precursor to an actual nonphysical experience. In the example he provided, he started with his imagination, but then he ended up experiencing very specific details that he was able to verify later on. The very fact of how he was able to obtain details he didn't know about, proves that the imagination method doesn't have the traps that 1796 intellectualized about below.

(below is the link to Bruce's video)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDjRJ5NA2jY

I don't mean to suggest that the imagination approach can never go awry, but going by my retrieval experiences (when I did them in the way Bruce speaks of them) it can get the process of actual spirit world contact started. It is important to remember that when we travel around the spirit world, we don’t do so in a physical-body based way. Rather, we use our intent to travel to wherever it is we want to go. Using imagination is a detailed way to set intent. If we go to an astral realm, we go to a realm that was created by the imagination of whatever beings exist there. When two or more beings interact with each other, they use their combined imagination to experience whatever manifestations they experience.

As far as subconscious interference, that can take place even when we don’t use our imagination, if we are emotionally attached to viewing things in a specific way. This is why some recently deceased spirits might experience a hollow heaven. This is what their subconscious imagination creates.

On the other hand, a person who chooses to use his imagination, takes conscious control of his intent, rather than allow his emotional attachments determine what he experiences. It is important and very significant to add, that the imagination method is used with the intent of being the starting point for experiencing something that is actual. Whenever I used the imagination method I never had the intent to keep imagining. I was open to see what would take place next, and what would take place would be quite different than what I initially imagined.

It is puzzling that 1796 spoke against the imagination technique, because when Justin and I wrote that we have doubts about Robert Bruce’s credibility on the below post, 1796 wrote a bunch of posts that seemed to serve the purpose of hiding our posts in a morass of other posts. Yet, in his book “Mastering Astral Projection,” Robert Bruce speaks of using imagination as a precursor to going OBE.

Go ahead 1796, say that Robert Bruce gave bad advice.

http://afterlife-knowledge.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?num=1440608438/3
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Here is Bruce's method:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDjRJ5NA2jY
The downside of Bruce's imaginative method is that it does not automatically differentiate between the subconscious and reality. The two are mixed together, and then need sorting out.

Bruce's method relies on a sorting process, as rational and reasonable as that sorting process may be, it still relies on a sorting process to sort reality from subconscious with its myriad of potential images, impressions and all manner of mental and emotional clutter.

Why mix reality with fantasy then try to sort them out again?

This is a world of illusion as it is, comprised of truth and falsity blended together. Surely we want to separate truth and falsity, not blend them further.

If we have lived before birth and continue to live after death, then birth and death are illusions, and everything in between is illusionary too. Then life as we know it is an illusion, and yet life exists, we exist, and existence is reality. So life is illusion and reality strangely mixed together, is truth and falsity blended.

All of our priorities, our values, and what we think is important in this life are all mixed up, the true ones with the false. Our feelings, emotions, and sentiments, every little comfort and preference that pertains to our physical living are all tangled up the true ones with the false, and each one of us must sort it out our self and find the truth amongst the falsity, the reality in the illusion.   

It is already hard enough to separate truth from falsity, reality from fantasy, so why make the puzzle harder by deliberately concocting fantasies within our mind, then looking into those fantasies and hoping to detect some hidden truths.

Why make the puzzle of life even harder than it is by painting pictures on the window of our perception then trying to peer through our painted window to see reality?
That makes no sense to do, except for those who are averse to certain possibilities of truth, who even just in case the view of truth might be what they do not wish to see, they refuse to wipe their window clean and see things as they are. So instead of wiping their window clean they search for truth amongst their painted fantasies.

This imagination method purports to find the truth in fantasy. It is a dabbler's method. Truth is not found in fantasies. Snippets of truth are all we might find there. It might be a useful beginner's step perhaps, a blind alley to explore, to perhaps find some appetising morsels, and then back out of that alley with a wiser understanding of where to look for a greater view of truth.

Truth is reality, reality is truth. Truth stands all around our self, well camouflaged by falsities, and truth is within our self tangled with delusions. But when we value truth above all else, a change takes place within our self, our soul becomes transparent, our mind and perception clear, so we can see clearly as if through clear glass and truth can pass through us, we become a medium for truth, we become truth-full.

We in effect become our own filter, our highest value being truth causes us to automatically separate superimpositions from reality.

Value truth above all else and you will come to see it for yourself.

This method requires no sorting through mental-emotional filters and interpretations. It requires no looking for evidence. This method simply clears our vision, and enables us to see things as they are. It is the truest and surest method.

crossbow

I would like to add that what Bruce refers to as "Helper" can play a role in what takes place. Going by my experience, this is so.

Also, in the below thread, reply # 10 , Bruce stated that over 90 percent of his workshop attendees obtain a confirmation. I figure it is safe to say that some of these people used the imagination method.

http://afterlife-knowledge.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?num=1496368948/10#10

"It is puzzling that 1796 spoke against the imagination technique, because when Justin and I wrote that we have doubts about Robert Bruce’s credibility on the below post, 1796 wrote a bunch of posts that seemed to serve the purpose of hiding our posts in a morass of other posts. Yet, in his book “Mastering Astral Projection,” Robert Bruce speaks of using imagination as a precursor to going OBE. Go ahead 1796, say that Robert Bruce gave bad advice."

The logic in your post is puzzling:

It is puzzling to you that someone else has a different view of the imagination technique of Bruce Moen because: you and your friend gossiped in the linked thread > you were made aware of the act of gossiping > other post that contrasted with gossip were made > the person you gossiped about has an imagination technique in a book > the one you accuse for seemingly hiding your posts recently stated to your friend "I have not read any of his work and I have no interest in doing so" > finally asked to state that a technique one doesn't know about is bad advice.

Am I getting it right or wrong?

Uno:

Again you sound as if you aren't a different person than 1796 or have some close connection to him.

Noooooooooooooo, we didn't gossip. Try not to let 1796 influence you to believe that this is so.

If I were standing on the street and I saw that somebody was about to be hit by a bus, I would warn them about that bus, not because I'm into gossiping about buses, but because I want to help others. I KNOW that Justin has the same intentions.



Uno wrote on Jun 16^th, 2017 at 2:32pm:

"It is puzzling that 1796 spoke against the imagination technique, because when Justin and I wrote that we have doubts about Robert Bruce’s credibility on the below post, 1796 wrote a bunch of posts that seemed to serve the purpose of hiding our posts in a morass of other posts. Yet, in his book “Mastering Astral Projection,” Robert Bruce speaks of using imagination as a precursor to going OBE. Go ahead 1796, say that Robert Bruce gave bad advice." The logic in your post is puzzling: You and your friend gossiped in the linked thread > you were made aware of the act of gossiping > other post that contrasted with gossip were made > the person you gossiped about has an imagination technique in a book > the one you accuse for seemingly hiding your posts recently stated to your friend "I have not read any of his work and I have no interest in doing so" > finally asked to state that a technique one doesn't know about is bad advice. Am I getting it right or wrong?

Recoverer 2 wrote on Jun 16^th, 2017 at 1:39pm:

On another thread, 1796 wrote the below (after the x's). XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Here is Bruce's method: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDjRJ5NA2jY The downside of Bruce's imaginative method is that it does not automatically differentiate between the subconscious and reality. The two are mixed together, and then need sorting out. Bruce's method relies on a sorting process, as rational and reasonable as that sorting process may be, it still relies on a sorting process to sort reality from subconscious with its myriad of potential images, impressions and all manner of mental and emotional clutter. Why mix reality with fantasy then try to sort them out again? This is a world of illusion as it is, comprised of truth and falsity blended together. Surely we want to separate truth and falsity, not blend them further. If we have lived before birth and continue to live after death, then birth and death are illusions, and everything in between is illusionary too. Then life as we know it is an illusion, and yet life exists, we exist, and existence is reality. So life is illusion and reality strangely mixed together, is truth and falsity blended. All of our priorities, our values, and what we think is important in this life are all mixed up, the true ones with the false. Our feelings, emotions, and sentiments, every little comfort and preference that pertains to our physical living are all tangled up the true ones with the false, and each one of us must sort it out our self and find the truth amongst the falsity, the reality in the illusion.    It is already hard enough to separate truth from falsity, reality from fantasy, so why make the puzzle harder by deliberately concocting fantasies within our mind, then looking into those fantasies and hoping to detect some hidden truths. Why make the puzzle of life even harder than it is by painting pictures on the window of our perception then trying to peer through our painted window to see reality? That makes no sense to do, except for those who are averse to certain possibilities of truth, who even just in case the view of truth might be what they do not wish to see, they refuse to wipe their window clean and see things as they are. So instead of wiping their window clean they search for truth amongst their painted fantasies. This imagination method purports to find the truth in fantasy. It is a dabbler's method. Truth is not found in fantasies. Snippets of truth are all we might find there. It might be a useful beginner's step perhaps, a blind alley to explore, to perhaps find some appetising morsels, and then back out of that alley with a wiser understanding of where to look for a greater view of truth. Truth is reality, reality is truth. Truth stands all around our self, well camouflaged by falsities, and truth is within our self tangled with delusions. But when we value truth above all else, a change takes place within our self, our soul becomes transparent, our mind and perception clear, so we can see clearly as if through clear glass and truth can pass through us, we become a medium for truth, we become truth-full. We in effect become our own filter, our highest value being truth causes us to automatically separate superimpositions from reality. Value truth above all else and you will come to see it for yourself. This method requires no sorting through mental-emotional filters and interpretations. It requires no looking for evidence. This method simply clears our vision, and enables us to see things as they are. It is the truest and surest method. crossbow

Albert I could not find 1796's exact quote in the thread you linked, but I would like to respond to his quote.  So 1796, this is for you:

You said: 
<<It is already hard enough to separate truth from falsity, reality from fantasy, so why make the puzzle harder by deliberately concocting fantasies within our mind, then looking into those fantasies and hoping to detect some hidden truths.>>

My reply:   
Bruce doesn’t teach his method as a way of being the best, better, or a replacement for any other method.  He merely shows how easy it is for anyone to use.  Its design is for the purpose of training and teaching you to become aware of your nonphysical senses of perception, what they are, how to use them, how to open perception further, and how to experience proof for yourself that what you experienced is real.  Think of this method as a stepping stone.  Think of it like a tool someone gives you.  It's up to you how you decide to use it, what you use it for, and how often you practice using it and getting more experience with it.

You said:
<<Truth is reality, reality is truth. Truth stands all around our self, well camouflaged by falsities, and truth is within our self tangled with delusions. But when we value truth above all else, a change takes place within our self, our soul becomes transparent, our mind and perception clear, so we can see clearly as if through clear glass and truth can pass through us, we become a medium for truth, we become truth-full.>>

My reply:
This seems like a bunch of jargon that makes no real sense.  You are saying that “truth” and “reality” are synonymous, which they clearly are not.  That may be your interpretation but that doesn’t make it so for everyone.  Reality is our experience of what we perceive.  Therefore it is different for everyone.  Inherent within everyone’s ability to perceive are natural filters which shape, form, and color our experience of what we are perceiving, thereby naturally affecting our experience of reality.  One cannot every fully know if what one is perceiving is actually the way it exists outside of one’s own ability to perceive it.  In other words, I cannot perceive anything outside of my own filters of perception.  I can only ever perceive within the framework of my own perception, or my own ability to perceive. 

Let’s make it simple.   My daughter’s favorite colors are certain hues of what I call green but what she calls blue.  Shades that are a mix are things like aquamarine and turquoise and various shades like these.  But she sees them as being more blue in color and automatically calls them blue.  To me, they are more green in color, meaning I see more of the green in them than she does and she sees more of the blue in them than I do.   What’s the truth?  What’s the reality?

The truth is that they are shades that are mixtures of both blues and greens.  The reality is that I can only perceive them how I am able to perceive them, and she is can only perceive them how she is able to perceive them.  We could discuss it all day long and I will never be able to make her see these colors the way I see them, and vice versa. 

So you see, truth and reality are not synonymous words and meanings.  So your next question should be, “Well what do those colors really, truly look like?”  Great question!  Guess what the answer is….

None of us can say that we know what those colors actually really look like.  We can each only perceive them in our own way, through our own senses of perception, through our own filters. 

Everything you experience, be it physical-world based or nonphysical-world based, is going to be experienced by you through your own filters of perception and interpretation. 

You said:
<<This method requires no sorting through mental-emotional filters and interpretations. It requires no looking for evidence. This method simply clears our vision, and enables us to see things as they are. It is the truest and surest method.>>

My reply:
Which method are you referring to by saying “this”?   

I realize this quote of 1796 was copied and pasted here and therefore is taken out of context of its place in another thread and I can’t seem to locate where it is from, but I’d like to know what “this method” is referring to.

Your statement quoted above misses the point and purpose of Bruce’s method of using the imagination as a means of perception. 

If you’re comparing Bruce’s method to astral projection or OBE, then you are comparing two different methods but one is not automatically better, or more real or more clear than the other.

I have used Bruce’s methods for years and many times it has produced uncharacteristic results in the form of clairvoyance and out-of-body experiences.  This is not what Bruce teaches nor is it what his methods are meant to teach.  This anomaly is merely a byproduct of using his methods because his methods are merely a means of opening one’s perception via the use of nonphysical senses.  Your jargon is a misappropriated use of terminology, meaning, and intention which is kind of like blaming a car accident by a reckless driver on the guy who sold him the car. 

The results of whatever method you use are going to be surprising and unpredictable in some cases, as mine are.  It may not work that way for everyone.  But the point of Bruce’s method is to give you a simple way in which you can learn to use your nonphysical senses of perception, learn how to distinguish between everything our imagination is capable of perceiving, and to open perception beyond its normal limits.  What you do and learn and gain after that are up to you!

Vicky:

1796's quote is reply 7 from the below thread.

http://afterlife-knowledge.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?num=1496042155/0#0

R2:

Gossip - casual or unconstrained conversation or reports about other people, typically involving details which are not confirmed as true.

"Again you sound as if you aren't a different person than 1796 or have some close connection to him."

Sound as if = insinuation. I'm different to him as you are different to others on this forum. I like his posts and I'm comfortable with this.

"Noooooooooooooo, we didn't gossip. Try not to let 1796 influence you to believe that this is so."

So you were posting what were confirmed to be true?

Regarding confirming what is true, each person can find out for his or her self. They can check to see if a bus is actually coming their way. Considering how new your user name is to this forum (March 20, 2017), when did you take the time to see what the Robert Bruce thread is about?

I wrote my post at 1:39 p.m. At 2:32 p.m. you responded.  Therefore, in less than an hour you had time to appear at this forum (I can't recall seeing your member name shortly after I wrote it), read this thread, read the long Robert Bruce thread, and then form an accurate understanding of what the Robert Bruce thread is about?




Uno wrote on Jun 16^th, 2017 at 3:14pm:

R2: Gossip - casual or unconstrained conversation or reports about other people, typically involving details which are not confirmed as true. "Again you sound as if you aren't a different person than 1796 or have some close connection to him." Sound as if = insinuation. I'm different to him as you are different to others on this forum. I like his posts and I'm comfortable with this. "Noooooooooooooo, we didn't gossip. Try not to let 1796 influence you to believe that this is so." So you were posting what were confirmed to be true?

R2:

Like your friend I've had different avatar names on this forum:

Volu, God (seen in the thread you mention), Bob Moenroe & Ambivalent.

"Regarding confirming what is true, each person can find out for his or her self."

So you don't want to confirm whether or not you were making unsavoury and unconfirmed posts in the thread? Before this post you stated that you did not gossip.

Uno:

Uknow you are playing games. If people could speak only when they are  absolutely certain of something, then there would be a lot less words written and spoken not only on this forum, but elsewhere. It is okay that there are many words, because sometimes it is possible to speak in a non gossipy way, even though one isn't completely certain. I believe I have good reasons for not considering Robert Bruce a good source of information. More than I stated on the thread I linked.

I know for a fact that Justin and I did not have the intent of gossiping when we wrote about Robert Bruce.

It's odd, supposedly it is okay for 1796 to sneak in a post where he tries to discredit Bruce's imagination method, but when Justin and I speak of Robert Bruce, we are supposedly nothing but gossipers.






Uno wrote on Jun 16^th, 2017 at 3:42pm:

R2: Like your friend I've had different avatar names on this forum: Volu, God (seen in the thread you mention), Bob Moenroe & Ambivalent. "Regarding confirming what is true, each person can find out for his or her self." So you don't want to confirm whether you were making unsavoury and unconfirmed posts in the thread? Before this post you stated that you did not gossip.

R2:

"Uknow you are playing games."

No I don't, and the short thread is easily reviewed.

"I know for a fact that Justin and I did not have the intent of gossiping when we wrote about Robert Bruce."

Intent has to be followed by action. Even if the intent is noble, to find truth, it's not done by making unconfirmed unsavoury posts about a person.

"It's odd, supposedly it is okay for 1796 to sneak in a post where he tries to discredit Bruce's imagination method, but when Justin and I speak of Robert Bruce, we are supposedly nothing but gossipers."

The premise of what is seemingly odd: someone has a different view of the imagination method (sneak in a post), uses their intelligence to describe their view (which you say is to discredit), but when you and your friend make unconfirmed posts (which you have) you are supposedly NOTHING BUT gossipers (your conclusion).

Our posts weren't unconfirmed? When it came to the Sai Baba part, I provided links that have the words that Robert Bruce wrote about Sai Baba. He stated that Sai Baba is in fact an incarnation of God. He wrote that Sai Baba appeared to him as a being of light. When accusations of Sai Baba's child molesting ways came out, he wrote that they weren't true. Eventually he reached the point where he could no longer deny the truth of the accusations, and he still tried to maintain that Sai is an Avatar, and defended his child molesting ways in ways that an ethical and reasonable person wouldn't use.

At his site he promoted a Da Free John book, another man who claimed to be God incarnate, a man who was one of the most unethical gurus the United States has ever had. He took drugs, had a harem, and forced his disciples to perform all kinds of sexual acts in front of him, including relations that involved forced infidelity. Therefore, I said that Robert Bruce has poor discrimination.

There is more, but this thread is about the imagination method.

Conclusion: if a report about a person is unconfirmed, then it's not confirmed to be true. I agree, this thread is about the imagination method, and it's time sleep.

It was my understanding that Bruce never wanted his forums to sing his praises or become a shrine to him.  He always welcomed everyone's opinions as long as they were respectful.  I do not see where CB said the imagination method was a "trap" as Albert mentioned.  After all, no thing would exist if it didn't exist in someone's imagination first.

What CB said was that there is a "downside" to using the imagination method.  I would agree, and that is not to talk against Bruce or the method he teaches at all.  Certainly using the imagination method can relax a person enough to slip into a state of consciousness that enables that person to interact with another being, such as a guide, helper, or an individual needing retrieval.  It can also be a means for an individual to access the record of an individual's life and even see and interact with the record of that person in a very real sense even though it is not the actual entity.  Since there is no way for us to know every detail of a person's life it is certainly possible for us to learn something about that person we did not know and be able to verify that information.

The downside I believe CB brought up in his post is that it is also possible for our own consciousness to become mixed up with the information we are attempting to discern, so then we need to sort through it all to get to the relevant information, the truth as he put it.  This is like taking the long scenic journey, which is fine if one is so inclined.  I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, but there is a way for us to interact within the non-physical that bypasses the need for sorting out truth from fiction. 

CB has not yet given his answer to how to do that, though he did say he would start a new thread to do that.  I'd planned on waiting for that thread to reply.  I don't know CB's answer, and my answer may be different, in which I will likely learn something new, but my answer is to set an intent, or ask a question, or pray, (which is what I do) then let go of all our prejudice, all of our preconceptions, all our expectations and simply fearlessly observe without making any judgments, but simply experiencing whatever is presented.  By doing this initially instead of imagining something, it will eliminate the need to sort out what are actual occurrences from the imaginary occurrences.  If I'm not mistaken, this may be Bruce's point of view as well.

Trap, shortcoming, imperfection, let us please not make too big of a deal about a word.

I did not say that Bruce has objections to people offering differing opinions.

I started a new thread to state that I don't agree with 1796's assessment of Bruce's imagination technique.

To be perfectly frank, one of my motivations for starting this thread is because 1796 has been a part of the same group that had used this forum to discredit what Robert Monroe and Bruce Moen taught, and to promote their form of Christianity. I have never seen Don, Dude (in recent times), Roger, or 1796 speak up for Bruce's teachings.

I care about the spiritual welfare of other people, and I care about the spiritual progress of this world. I believe that Bruce Moen has played an important role in helping positive changes take place. Therefore, it troubles me when people who seem to have no interest in Bruce's teachings, use this site for other reasons, and only speak of him when they try to discredit what he says.

Kathy, I have seen you defend Don etcetera, but not Bruce, so I can't say I understand why you are here. Justin and I speak up for Bruce and Robert Monroe, and instead of considering what we do, you throw stones at us because we had the audacity to speak up for Bruce. If you have more of an interest in Don's congregation than what Bruce started this site for, then perhaps you are not in the correct place.

Another thought, it is one thing to question a viewpoint or technique when you are open to considering an answer that differs from what you believe and understand, and quite another thing to bring up a subject when you have made up your mind and have no interest in considering  another possibility.

 

Well I don't know if anything is directed at me, but I'm not singing praises or making a shrine, although I've been accused of taking his side too much.  But I only speak from my own experience, and that's why I support Bruce's work and want to pass it on.  I always say, try it yourself and see if it works for you.  It doesn't work for everyone. 

My reason for replying to 1796's quote was because of my wanting to correct some of the assumptions he seemed to make.  And by CB I'm assuming you mean 1796?  Is he going by CB now?  Anyway, I interpreted his statements about Bruce's method as being something more than what it is intended to be, so I felt I was doing a service to Bruce by explaining in detail what his method is intended to be for and why it works.

Like I said, 1796's quote seemed to be taking sides with someone/something else to which I wasn't sure...which is why I asked what 1796 was referring to.  Is he referring to OBEs?  We all know that Bruce doesn't teach OBEs.  And if that's a comparison that some people make...asking "Isn't exploring via OBE more of a valid, true, truthful way to explore than just Bruce's imagination method?" then I qualify as saying no, one is not better than the other.  They are both just means of perception.  Some people can OBE very well, some can't.  This is why Bruce came up with his way of teaching a simple way to get you focused "there".

I have heard from Bruce himself that he doesn't want me literally trying to make people believe that his methods will result in an OBE, and I've told him that's not my intention.  But, his methods have worked for me in producing OBEs.  Maybe that's just me, who knows.  Maybe it's not something that works that way for everyone.

And... maybe that's not even what 1796 was comparing Bruce's method to. 

Albert,

The best discussions come when people present differing points of view/perspectives and people learn from each other.  Kathy's post does not at all seem to me to be negative toward Bruce's methods.  You are doggedly trying to drive people off this site who have no other objective other than to join the conversation. 
First Don, Roger, and Dude.  Now Kathy, Uno, 1796.  At the risk of being next, I must now weigh in or my conscious won't let me sleep well.

For me, the site was the most enjoyable when a spirited discussion could be had when we could all learn from each other.  No need to take offense if a position went against your own, since it was all a matter of sharing and perspective.  Were there various camps and factions?  Sure  But that can be healthy. 

Bruce's imagination method combined with setting intent is a powerful way for many people to get results.  The idea that one can't discuss the pros and cons of the method without being labeled sinister partisan, and being asked to leave is, well, narrow minded.  I won't sit by and watch that happen.

Albert, I'm asking you as a long time fair minded contributor to the forum to stop making this personal.  The net effect has been to remove points of view that are different and thereby harm the discussion (from my point of view). 

Vicky, I like the idea of trying the imagination method and people exploring on their own.  I hope, on a personal level, you can read through the replies here and see that there is something very wrong going on.  Rather than banning people, let me suggest something different.

Let the discussions address the topics and be calm enough to know that we can engage in discussion without having to "be right" or win anything.  I was
saddened by Don's removal from the board, as I thought it was not deserved. Judging from the replies on this thread, I think it fair to say that removing people with different views is not the way to go; rather stick to the issues, give no offense (and take no offense) and don't make it personal.

Matthew

DocM wrote on Jun 16^th, 2017 at 11:14pm:

Albert, The best discussions come when people present differing points of view/perspectives and people learn from each other.  Kathy's post does not at all seem to me to be negative toward Bruce's methods.  You are doggedly trying to drive people off this site who have no other objective other than to join the conversation.  First Don, Roger, and Dude.  Now Kathy, Uno, 1796.  At the risk of being next, I must now weigh in or my conscious won't let me sleep well. For me, the site was the most enjoyable when a spirited discussion could be had when we could all learn from each other.  No need to take offense if a position went against your own, since it was all a matter of sharing and perspective.  Were there various camps and factions?  Sure  But that can be healthy.  Bruce's imagination method combined with setting intent is a powerful way for many people to get results.  The idea that one can't discuss the pros and cons of the method without being labeled sinister partisan, and being asked to leave is, well, narrow minded.  I won't sit by and watch that happen. Albert, I'm asking you as a long time fair minded contributor to the forum to stop making this personal.  The net effect has been to remove points of view that are different and thereby harm the discussion (from my point of view).  Vicky, I like the idea of trying the imagination method and people exploring on their own.  I hope, on a personal level, you can read through the replies here and see that there is something very wrong going on.  Rather than banning people, let me suggest something different. Let the discussions address the topics and be calm enough to know that we can engage in discussion without having to "be right" or win anything.  I was saddened by Don's removal from the board, as I thought it was not deserved. Judging from the replies on this thread, I think it fair to say that removing people with different views is not the way to go; rather stick to the issues, give no offense (and take no offense) and don't make it personal. Matthew

I agree about sharing and expressing and discussing without the arguments and making things personal.  Everyone should be more careful with how things are worded because it's easy to get offended.  But a lot of people have been getting away with things far too long.  I'm guessing Bruce just hasn't been able to be moderating much for a while now. 

And I'm sorry that Bruce hasn't been able to help get the new changes in yet.  Things will happen eventually and I hope they help.

I don't want to talk publicly about anyone, but Don's banning was Bruce's decision for his reasons.  I'm not taking sides per se, but the new forum changes were designed by me and will demonstrate how I feel for what I think will clean stuff up around here.

Ok, that's enough off-topic stuff.  If anyone wants to continue talking about this thread topic, let's just discuss our views on this topic and be civil and kind.  As in my response above where I explained my experience and knowledge about Bruce's methods, I said it in the spirit of explaining what it is meant for. 

I may have taken 1796's meaning out of context, and he can correct me if I did...but I just felt that his quote was saying that Bruce's method makes knowing the truth about reality confusing, difficult, and too much work.  I want to show that it's not, that it's a great tool for anyone, especially people who haven't had anything else work for them. 

Have a good night everyone  :)

Doc:

I understand about being able to share differing viewpoints, but if I see things that don't seem right, I find it hard to keep quiet.

I see 1796 say negative things about liberals and butch lesbians, take pot shots at Justin and I, group himself with people that say negative things about the key viewpoints Bruce wrote about (the Disk viewpoint, PUL, retrievals, the imagination method) and then promote another way of thinking; and then he tries to discredit Bruce's imagination method, and I wonder why he is here.

If somebody other than Justin and myself would've SPOKEN UP and told him to stop saying rude things, perhaps he might've gotten the point, and stopped doing so.

What would you do if he (along with Roger) took potshots at you? Would you speak up for yourself? Would you hope that somebody else would speak up for you?

I don't understand why Justin,  Vicky and myself are the only people who have spoken up for Bruce (and Robert Monroe), when Don says that they were misled by lower dimension beings and that their viewpoints are arrogant and evil, and when Dude says that all New Ageism is Satanic, and that the Disk viewpoint comes from Satan and his demons.

Really? Am I just supposed to act as if nothing is going on.

Perhaps if Don, Dude, Roger and 1796 learned to have some consideration for where they are posting, I wouldn't feel the need to keep speaking up. If somebody kept showing up at my house when they have no interest in me other than discrediting me, promoting another way, and taking pot shots at some of my other guests, I would tell them to leave.

Sometimes in order for civility to exist, you have to deal with the people that don't want to be civil. It isn't okay to keep hanging out at a person's house, if you don't value and appreciate that person.

If I am wrong about anybody on this thread, and you love and appreciate Bruce, I apologize for suggesting differently.

"I agree about sharing and expressing and discussing without the arguments and making things personal.  Everyone should be more careful with how things are worded because it's easy to get offended."

I would like to add that it's easy to take offense and as a result try to shutdown people and topics.

"Have a good night everyone smiley"

Good morning, Vicky.

Personally I do not like the airing out of things out in the open for all to see.  I don't like the arguments and bickering. 

But if what Albert is saying is true, then at the very least there needs to be another way of discussing and expressing viewpoints that don't include strong language and what I call "trigger words" that are going to invoke feelings and reactions that can only lead to defensiveness.  I'm not singling out any person or groups of people by saying that.  I mean it for everyone. 

After bickering has been going on for as long as it has here, it's very easy to fall back into past fired-up emotions and reactions with every conversation.  What happens is that things just get perpetuated rather than worked out.  Sometimes you need to just agree to disagree and stop airing it all out over and over.  And certain words need to stop being used and then defended.  It's one thing to defend your viewpoints, but it's another to use trigger words. 

For instance, the viewpoints shared that included the terms "satanic" and "evil" etc. was flat-out wrong.  It's intention notwithstanding, it was just wrong to say it.  Maybe it could have been said differently or maybe not, but since this particular topic just won't be let go, I'm choosing to say this publicly to you all...Bruce didn't like those statements and he took them as a personal jab at him.  He regretted not having banned those involved when it first happened. 

Since then I've seen so much rehashing of this, and of other bitterness.  Then the arguing just perpetuates.  Nothing is ever solved. 

I think what's best is that certain trigger words aren't used.  Have any of you been in counseling?  That's what they tell you.  Don't use certain words that you know are trigger words. Find another way to communicate what you mean without causing harm and making things worse.

Don too said some things that really hurt Bruce.  No, Bruce doesn't want people bowing down to him, but he also doesn't want to look like a fool.  His life's work should be respected here even if you disagree with him in some way.  It's about respect and choosing better words to say what you want to express.  Of course it's ok to have differences of beliefs and opinions.  But to utilize disparaging words to make your point?  That's not respectful.  We all know this. 

For now, that advice will have to do.  Until we can get some changes made here, please go talk about something else, go do something else. 

If anyone says anymore of these trigger words to make their point and then try to defend their right to have their opinion, I see it as a direct violation of the posting guidelines.  Because the real point is, it's not about not being allowed to have, express, and discuss differing opinions...it's simply about being respectful.  Find a way to express yourself without being disrespectful.

I'd also like the rehashing and airing out to stop, on all threads including off-topic. 

For goodness sake, I hope that is clear-cut enough for everyone. 

PS--If anyone thinks it's not right for me to speak for Bruce, that's my business.  Given the condition of his health, which he has made publicly known, this time right now while he's still here is a time to speak up for him as well as speak for him.   

I'm crying now just writing this.  We all know that Bruce won't physically be here much longer.  So I have a right to speak for him especially when he doesn't feel well enough to speak up for himself.  And I'm not embarrassed about it.  I'd do anything for him.  And I'm just so honored that I get to help keep his site going.  It's why I've been working so hard these last few weeks doing things behind the scenes.  I'm sorry that you've had to be patient, but please continue to be. 

Thank you,
Vicky

Vicky:

My heart chakra area is bugging me now. I feel like crying.

I am not against Bruce Moen and Robert Monroe. They have both done good work, particularly Monroe.

***

We should endeavour to think and communicate in clearly defined terms. Doing so keeps our thinking clear. Socrates taught us that.

So I will define and describe judgement, because that is what this thread is about.

Judgement is the ability to weigh one thing against another. 

That includes weighing items not known to be facts, so judgement has a wider scope than reason which is the ability to weigh up known facts.

Judgement is the ability to discern options, and to assess and compare them one to another, and in accordance with a standard/objective/aim/priority.

Judgement is comparison, comparison done rationally.

Go to google images and do search for “judgement + statue”, and have a look at the symbolic representations of judgement.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/38/74/f4/3874f4e21bff332f1429fa00d762a6dd.jpg

She will help you understand. See her sword, her blade represents her ability to divide or to dissect, to distinguish or differentiate between one thing and another. See her scales, they represent her ability to weigh things up, one against the other. The sword differentiates one thing from another, the scales compare and weigh.

In some depictions she is blindfolded, to symbolise her not being swayed by appearances or portrayals, but by substance.

***

In his opening post above, Recoverer copied and pasted my comments on Moen’s imagination method from another thread. But he left out my description of the truth method which was in the same post. So a sensible comparison is not being made above. In fact no comparison is being made.

I wrote on both methods in the same post, so if Recoverer had wanted to present a balanced comparison he could easily have do so by copying my whole post.

Recoverer is not exercising rational judgement, he is just having an emotion.

For some people emotion is enough. They don’t need to be right, they only need to feel right, and that is their certainty.

I prefer truth, however it makes me feel.

I will copy my entire post here so that readers can discuss both the methods that I mentioned, can compare and weigh them, the pros and cons of each, in accordance with a standard, whatever the reader’s standard is. Submit them to rational judgement.


1796 wrote on Jun 15^th, 2017 at 9:20am:

rondele wrote on May 30th, 2017 at 7:10pm: We can look for ourselves as long as we are aware of not only our own filters (or interpreters as Bruce says) but external influences that can totally throw us off. Sometimes the evil entities live in our own paranoia. In that sense we really do create our own reality. R "our own filters" and "interpreters" are not the best terms for over coming the problem. Think of them as superimpositions that we place over reality, and which prevent us seeing reality as it is. These superimpositions consist of our own preferences, likes and dislikes, wants and not-wants, desires for and against. These superimpositions are like trying to look through pieces of coloured and patterned glass placed upon a clear glass window. They prevent us seeing clearly through the window. They obstruct, colour, distort and prevent our seeing things as they are. What we need is a clear window of perception, a window of pure transparent glass with no colouring or distortion, so that we can see things as they are, not coloured and not distorted. Sure, it is good to be aware of our superimpositions, of our own preferences of how we might prefer the truth to be; to be aware of our own likes and dislikes, wants and not-wants, desires for and against, our own irrational aversions and attractions. But to always be looking for these superimpositions is too much work, too detailed and prone to error and distortion in itself, for it distracts our attention, makes our focus too small in comparison to the wider picture that there is to see. A more overall and blanket approach is required for dealing with such superimpositions. We need to remove all superimpositions, so that our window of perception is clear - unobstructed, uncoloured and not distorted, so that we see things as they are. We achieve that with honesty. Honesty is not a behaviour, it is a condition of mind, soul and perception. Honesty is the ability to see things as they are. Speaking things as they are is merely the continuation of honesty, a living out or manifesting of honesty on a material or behavioural level. But honesty itself is in the soul and mind. Honesty is clarity of mind, and transparency of soul, and hence is clarity of perception. That is why honesty can see things as they are. And here is the key. Honesty is not acquired through honesty itself, not by valuing honesty, not by trying to cultivate honesty, for honesty, although it is a behavioural practice, its condition in the soul and mind is a result of something else. The condition of honesty in the soul and mind results from our valuing truth above all else, no matter what truth may be, and no matter whether we know the truth of a issue or not. Before we ever know the truth we value it above all else. When we value truth above all else, no matter what the truth may be or turn out to be, then right across the field of our perception from left to right, from top to bottom, all around and within, our superimpositions are swept aside, are dissolves, are vaporised, our soul and mind becomes transparent and we become able to see things as they are. Valuing truth above all else leads to the quality or condition of honesty, which is clarity of vision, which is the ability to see things as they are. Then, on whatever level we are focused, be it physical, mental or other, and in whatever direction we look, reality is visible, we see things as they are. Remember, we must have no preferences, except for truth, whatever truth may be. This will give us clarity of vision. We tend to have a multitude of preferences that are so subtle that they are below our even being conscious of them, and the most subtle preference distorts our view of reality, prevents us seeing things as they are, prevents us seeing truth. We cannot deal with a multitude of subtle preferences distorting our perception when they are so subtle we do not even know they are there. But when we value truth above all else, then all our preferences, no matter how subtle they are, through all our likes & dislikes, wants & not-wants, desires this way and that, to all our aversions and attractions no matter how strong they are, are all swept aside and made weak and subservient to our highest value, our first priority, that which we hold most important - Truth. For then our soul and mind is clear, and reality is what we see, for reality is truth, and truth is how things are. *** Here is Bruce's method: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDjRJ5NA2jY The downside of Bruce's imaginative method is that it does not automatically differentiate between the subconscious and reality. The two are mixed together, and then need sorting out. Bruce's method relies on a sorting process, as rational and reasonable as that sorting process may be, it still relies on a sorting process to sort reality from subconscious with its myriad of potential images, impressions and all manner of mental and emotional clutter. Why mix reality with fantasy then try to sort them out again? This is a world of illusion as it is, comprised of truth and falsity blended together. Surely we want to separate truth and falsity, not blend them further. If we have lived before birth and continue to live after death, then birth and death are illusions, and everything in between is illusionary too. Then life as we know it is an illusion, and yet life exists, we exist, and existence is reality. So life is illusion and reality strangely mixed together, is truth and falsity blended. All of our priorities, our values, and what we think is important in this life are all mixed up, the true ones with the false. Our feelings, emotions, and sentiments, every little comfort and preference that pertains to our physical living are all tangled up the true ones with the false, and each one of us must sort it out our self and find the truth amongst the falsity, the reality in the illusion.    It is already hard enough to separate truth from falsity, reality from fantasy, so why make the puzzle harder by deliberately concocting fantasies within our mind, then looking into those fantasies and hoping to detect some hidden truths. Why make the puzzle of life even harder than it is by painting pictures on the window of our perception then trying to peer through our painted window to see reality? That makes no sense to do, except for those who are averse to certain possibilities of truth, who even just in case the view of truth might be what they do not wish to see, they refuse to wipe their window clean and see things as they are. So instead of wiping their window clean they search for truth amongst their painted fantasies. This imagination method purports to find the truth in fantasy. It is a dabbler's method. Truth is not found in fantasies. Snippets of truth are all we might find there. It might be a useful beginner's step perhaps, a blind alley to explore, to perhaps find some appetising morsels, and then back out of that alley with a wiser understanding of where to look for a greater view of truth. Truth is reality, reality is truth. Truth stands all around our self, well camouflaged by falsities, and truth is within our self tangled with delusions. But when we value truth above all else, a change takes place within our self, our soul becomes transparent, our mind and perception clear, so we can see clearly as if through clear glass and truth can pass through us, we become a medium for truth, we become truth-full. We in effect become our own filter, our highest value being truth causes us to automatically separate superimpositions from reality. Value truth above all else and you will come to see it for yourself.   This method requires no sorting through mental-emotional filters and interpretations. It requires no looking for evidence. This method simply clears our vision, and enables us to see things as they are. It is the truest and surest method. crossbow

When a person uses the imagination method, experiences things that are quite different than what they imagined, and obtain information they can verify later, more than emotion is involved.

1796,

I still don't understand what "the truth method" entails.  Can you describe the method without giving all the long talk about definitions and such? 

Has Bruce Moen explained other techniques than the one in the video? Imagination used as a visualization tool?

In my teens I remember borrowing a book from the library, can't remember the name, but it contained study techniques I was interested in before starting a new school semester. The book also had several breathing techniques that I tried out, with specific intervals between breathing and pauses. Got bored while doing one exercise and decided to play around with visualization. Saw myself as standing on a diving board high above my body lying down in bed and pictured diving downwards and into the physical eyes. Did this several times with my eyes closed. One time while diving into the eyes, I could suddenly see the black screen (seeing with eyes closed) move and it caught we with such surprise I almost jumped out of bed. Had a lucid dream the same night and think it was the first to my recollection.

Uno wrote on Jun 17^th, 2017 at 12:24pm:

Has Bruce Moen explained other techniques than the one in the video? Imagination used as a visualization tool? In my teens I remember borrowing a book from the library, can't remember the name, but it contained study techniques I was interested in before starting a new school semester. The book also had several breathing techniques that I tried out, with specific intervals between breathing and pauses. Got bored while doing one exercise and decided to play around with visualization. Saw myself as standing on a diving board high above my body lying down in bed and pictured diving downwards and into the physical eyes. Did this several times with my eyes closed. One time while diving into the eyes, I could suddenly see the black screen (seeing with eyes closed) move and it caught we with such surprise I almost jumped out of bed. Had a lucid dream the same night and think it was the first to my recollection.

Specific techniques?  Bruce's Guidebook has lots of tools and techniques which build on each other and are geared toward helping you learn how your nonphysical senses of perception work and why. 

Your diving into the eyes experience sounds neat.  Have you experienced the black screen before?  Was it 3D?  I believe your visualization practice is what led to your lucid dream that very night.  It's very typical that practicing a technique like this becomes a catapult for triggering something else!

There is a lot of useful techniques out there for practicing and strengthening visualization for various uses.  I too like to use them, sometimes just for the fun of it and sometimes I use them for specific purposes.  I find that the more I practice, the more it becomes a second-nature mechanism which can propel me into an amazing experience such as an OBE.

Uno, I hope you don't mind me posting your question to CB from the other thread.  I'm interested in his response as well.


Quote:

Re: Is there is other life forms in the universe? Reply #9 - Jun 15th, 2017 at 9:57am  "1796: Value truth above all else and you will come to see it for yourself." Very good post. But my mind and understanding move slowly, and with a clear but yet abstract concept like this; what do you when you value truth above all else, how do you do it?

Vicky, I agree that trying various techniques and tools can be fun.  They also can help us to focus our attention.  I remember Bruce saying something like, the best tools are the ones that work for you since each of us is a unique person.

Lights, we share the same interest in this matter. Before responding to you I thought about the question again, and thought about my best friend. She has a sentence tattooed on her arm which says "the truth lies beneath your beliefs". As a person one of her qualities is being honest. I have got a new colleague at work and she is also honest but less tactful, brutally honest.

Lights of Love wrote on Jun 17^th, 2017 at 1:55pm:

Vicky, I agree that trying various techniques and tools can be fun.  They also can help us to focus our attention.  I remember Bruce saying something like, the best tools are the ones that work for you since each of us is a unique person.

I will try just about anything!  I think what goes hand in hand with trying something is that sense of beginner's luck, or dumb luck.  Just diving in without preconceived beliefs or expectations which usually tend to cause blocks.  The point is to be open and to open ourselves up.  Too much analytical thinking is also a barrier. 

Regularly practiced meditation is key in training ourselves for shifting our awareness.  It's another great tool to add to one's repertoire.

Quote:

"Vicky:Your diving into the eyes experience sounds neat.  Have you experienced the black screen before?  Was it 3D?  I believe your visualization practice is what led to your lucid dream that very night.  It's very typical that practicing a technique like this becomes a catapult for triggering something else!"

Black screen = the image when having the eyes closed. 3D? Now that you mention it, yes, I remember before the movement the black screen was a 2D plane in comparison. The movement was followed by a very short and pleasant sensation which happened multiple times in the lucid dream where I was engulfed by white light.

I think this is absolutely crucial. The beginner's mind, like a child, etc. etc. There is nothing more powerful than an approach like this. It is sometimes difficult for people to understand, because they are distracted. The technique is not so important, as the approach, in my opinion.


Vicky wrote on Jun 17^th, 2017 at 2:19pm:

Lights of Love wrote on Jun 17th, 2017 at 1:55pm: Vicky, I agree that trying various techniques and tools can be fun.  They also can help us to focus our attention.  I remember Bruce saying something like, the best tools are the ones that work for you since each of us is a unique person. I will try just about anything!  I think what goes hand in hand with trying something is that sense of beginner's luck, or dumb luck.  Just diving in without preconceived beliefs or expectations which usually tend to cause blocks.  The point is to be open and to open ourselves up.  Too much analytical thinking is also a barrier.  Regularly practiced meditation is key in training ourselves for shifting our awareness.  It's another great tool to add to one's repertoire.

I observe meditation is one of many practices that opens discernment of awareness, and awareness of focus. It's also a highly personal affair. We each find what works for us.

What I find is Bruce's recommendations lead me to remembrance of what I do (circa long time ago LOL). It's not something I learned. It's something I remembered.

The truth method is seeing reality as it is.

It is described above in my previous post. It is clear but hard to see. If you see it, it will be clear and you may wonder why you could not see it sooner.

I doubt I can make it clearer but I can talk about it.

***

I used to be troubled by the “Why me?” question. Why would I leave my body? why would I have episodes of second sight? and why am I seemingly freely being given lessons? Although for many years I had put all my energies and decisions into the quest, I was receiving back far more than seemed proportional to my efforts. The result was worth more than my efforts and worth more than me, so “why me?” plagued me. Surely others were trying as hard as I am, so why am I being spoon fed?

When I learnt the answer I found my question had been wrong in many ways. Few people search for truth whatever truth may be; most have a preference, which is a barrier to truth.

I have no preference but for truth.

***

The idea that truth is unique to everyone is an erroneous idea. There is only one truth, only one reality, not two or more, there is not a different truth/reality for everyone.

There are different perspectives/directions/angles/levels/frequencies of view. One man views a building from the north and sees it as a certain shape, another views it from the east from where it is seen as a different shape, so they both describe the building differently from their viewpoint. One man may have coloured glasses on, the other may have differently shaded glasses, each filtering out different shades. But the reality is that the building is what it is, regardless of where it is viewed from, regardless of the viewer’s glasses, regardless of whether it is viewed or not.

***

Truth is reality, it is what exists, it is how things are, it is the sum total of all things in their unity and in its parts. Nothing that exists is outside of truth, for everything is part of truth.

Only our perception can be wrong, beliefs, opinions, interpretations….

Understanding what truth is corrects our perception, makes our perception realistic, frees us from false beliefs and delusions and puts us in touch with reality.

To know truth we must first believe in truth, believe that there is truth, that there is one true reality.

To believe in truth is not an irrational belief but a rational belief, for it is believing in something that has to be. It is a belief that leads to realisation. 

Truth makes itself known to those who put it first, who value truth above all else, for truth corrects perception, not just by the effect upon the consciousness of believing in and valuing truth above all else, but also by the fact that truth is conscious, for Truth is God. God is the sum-total of all things, with purpose. And that purpose, crudely put, is the benefit to all things of their living.

As conscious individuals we can know that we exist, and we can rationalise and believe that the greater existence exists. When we believe in the reality of our consciousness and in the reality of truth in its total and its parts, and when we understand our relationship with that, then we become tuned with truth and every truth between our self and greater truth becomes clear and fathomable, at least at times. But first we must believe in truth and value truth above all else, for that is the tuning and the clearing process. 

***

Our values consist of everything we can conceive of, arranged in order from least to highest value by our judgement. Our values are subject to our judgement, they are arranged by our judgement, and are in a continual state of reorganisation as we come up against and deal with one life dilemma after another. We make less conscious decision according to our values, that is, according to our more conscious prior judgements of what should be the order of our values. And those habitual decisions are repeatedly tested in increasing difficulty until we make a more conscious judgements of which value is more important than another. In this way our values are brought into conflict with reality, until we learn to match our values with truth and universal order. Then we come to see things as they are.

Likewise, we cannot think outside of or beyond our beliefs, it is simply impossible to do so. So unless our belief is in truth then we cannot see things as they are. And unless our highest value/priority/importance is for truth and our outlook and decisions made accordingly, then we cannot tune our self with truth. But if our belief is in truth, and our highest value/priority is for truth, then whatever truth may be we will come to see it.

***

We must, of course, learn to differentiate between what we know and what we only think we know. We must learn to shed what is not our self, for we are only what we know, and we can get back to that, then start building again with truth.

***

One method is imagination based, the other is purely awareness based.

Vicky wrote on Jun 16^th, 2017 at 3:09pm:

... This seems like a bunch of jargon that makes no real sense.  You are saying that “truth” and “reality” are synonymous, which they clearly are not.  That may be your interpretation but that doesn’t make it so for everyone.  Reality is our experience of what we perceive.  Therefore it is different for everyone.  Inherent within everyone’s ability to perceive are natural filters which shape, form, and color our experience of what we are perceiving, thereby naturally affecting our experience of reality.  One cannot every fully know if what one is perceiving is actually the way it exists outside of one’s own ability to perceive it.  In other words, I cannot perceive anything outside of my own filters of perception.  I can only ever perceive within the framework of my own perception, or my own ability to perceive.  ...

That's fine. If you believe in that limitation upon yourself then that is your limitation. No one can think and function outside of their beliefs, they are always contained by them. And it is for people like yourself that Bruce's method is satisfying. It gives you the results that you will accept. But for those who want more, who want the full view, there is truth. 

Quote:

1796: We must, of course, learn to differentiate between what we know and what we only think we know. We must learn to shed what is not our self, for we are only what we know, and we can get back to that, then start building again with truth.

Plato’s Apology (21a-e): Socrates reports that his friend Chaerephon went to the oracle at Delphi to ask if any person was wiser than Socrates. The oracle apparently answered, no. After having cross-examined lots of people who had a reputation for wisdom and having discovered as a result that their reputation was undeserved, Socrates drew the following conclusion about the significance of the oracle’s answer: “I am wiser than this man; it is likely that neither of us knows anything worthwhile, but he thinks he knows something when he does not, whereas when I do not know, neither do I think I know; so I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know when I do not know”.

http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/506

1796 wrote on Jun 18^th, 2017 at 1:23am:

One method is imagination based, the other is purely awareness based.

1796,

Any method that I use is awareness based, obviously, because it is through my awareness that I am aware. 

Darn.  I'm really disappointed.  I thought we were talking about the same thing, how to explore nonphysically.  I thought maybe you were going to divulge some new method of inducing an OBE or something. 

I was under the impression that you had learned some really great method of how to perceive nonphysically in which to do afterlife exploration and show us how you gather information that you could then come back and find truth and proof about as evidence that your experience was real, so that others could see it as a useful method for themselves.  I was really interested in hearing what your method was because like I said, I'll try anything. 

But all you're talking about is your beliefs and philosophies, your belief in God and in seeking to know the truth.

Well that's the thing isn't it.  We all aspire to know the truth of what's really out there.  It's actually exactly why when I find something that works, I go with it.  I do this by exploring, having experiences, asking questions, and having more experiences, all of which expand my perception and conscious awareness. 

It sounds to me that your belief in God and in wanting to know the truth is enough to satisfy any curiosity you have about what exists.  To me it just sounds like your use of terminology is merely showing us what you think and believe in, but it is not describing any actual or useful method in which you can teach anyone to do something. 

Sitting around having beliefs in God, truth, reality, and perception are great, but one must actually get up off the couch and do something with what they know in order to have actual experiences. 

We all aspire to want and to know the truth.  It's actually kind of a given!  It's silly to talk in circles about what truth is and what reality is when actual experience is the key in exploring and discovering all we can about consciousness.   

1796:

Did you watch the Bruce Moen video that you provided a link for? You speak of people putting a limitation on themselves and not functioning outside of beliefs, yet during his described experience Bruce found out about very precise details that he didn't know before hand. How could such knowledge be the result of his putting a limitation on himself and not allowing himself to function outside of his beliefs?



1796 wrote on Jun 18^th, 2017 at 1:42am:

Vicky wrote on Jun 16th, 2017 at 3:09pm: ... This seems like a bunch of jargon that makes no real sense.  You are saying that “truth” and “reality” are synonymous, which they clearly are not.  That may be your interpretation but that doesn’t make it so for everyone.  Reality is our experience of what we perceive.  Therefore it is different for everyone.  Inherent within everyone’s ability to perceive are natural filters which shape, form, and color our experience of what we are perceiving, thereby naturally affecting our experience of reality.  One cannot every fully know if what one is perceiving is actually the way it exists outside of one’s own ability to perceive it.  In other words, I cannot perceive anything outside of my own filters of perception.  I can only ever perceive within the framework of my own perception, or my own ability to perceive.  ... That's fine. If you believe in that limitation upon yourself then that is your limitation. No one can think and function outside of their beliefs, they are always contained by them. And it is for people like yourself that Bruce's method is satisfying. It gives you the results that you will accept. But for those who want more, who want the full view, there is truth.

I have talked with guy in Europe who claims to have visited his disk (or I-There in Monroe terms) and beyond many times. His view is that the disks are malevolent beings that benefit at the expense of their human hosts. In a nutshell: separating truth from fiction is essential, whether you do classical OOBE, out of body focus while in body, remote viewing, or live an ordinary life.

R2,

You are quick to judge, without facts mind you, and rely on fantasy and rehashing your bitterness.

Do you know why the guy made the claims he did?

Recover asks:


Recoverer 2 wrote on Jun 18^th, 2017 at 10:53am:

1796: Did you watch the Bruce Moen video that you provided a link for? You speak of people putting a limitation on themselves and not functioning outside of beliefs, yet during his described experience Bruce found out about very precise details that he didn't know before hand. How could such knowledge be the result of his putting a limitation on himself and not allowing himself to function outside of his beliefs? 1796 wrote on Jun 18th, 2017 at 1:42am: Vicky wrote on Jun 16th, 2017 at 3:09pm: ... This seems like a bunch of jargon that makes no real sense.  You are saying that “truth” and “reality” are synonymous, which they clearly are not.  That may be your interpretation but that doesn’t make it so for everyone.  Reality is our experience of what we perceive.  Therefore it is different for everyone.  Inherent within everyone’s ability to perceive are natural filters which shape, form, and color our experience of what we are perceiving, thereby naturally affecting our experience of reality.  One cannot every fully know if what one is perceiving is actually the way it exists outside of one’s own ability to perceive it.  In other words, I cannot perceive anything outside of my own filters of perception.  I can only ever perceive within the framework of my own perception, or my own ability to perceive.  ... That's fine. If you believe in that limitation upon yourself then that is your limitation. No one can think and function outside of their beliefs, they are always contained by them. And it is for people like yourself that Bruce's method is satisfying. It gives you the results that you will accept. But for those who want more, who want the full view, there is truth.

Recoverer, of course I watched and listened to the video.

And you have watched it too but you so value your belief in Bruce Moen that you cannot see and hear that video for what it is. 

It is not a true account. He is talking hypothetically. 

You are one who cannot see truth for the sake of your belief. Maybe you will see it now, or maybe you will continue to believe it is a true account.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDjRJ5NA2jY

1796:

I believe it is reasonable to conclude that Bruce used an example that had some similarity to the kind of verifications he has actually received.

R2:

You didn't answer a most important question: do you know [...].

I don't truly know why he made the claims either. But I noticed that the claims came soon after a falling out that happened between him and another person, both whom had been to TMI.

"His" disk is my wording.

Did I state I believe the same? No I didn't. Here is what I believe: his view is a distorted view of reality.

Now, this:


Quote:

Earlier on this thread Vicky wrote that Bruce finds it offensive when people speak in such a way. She stated that he is close to death. Yet you chose to write what you wrote without knowing what you are talking about. Who is being malevolent now?

I do indeed know what I'm talking about, I've talked to the guy and he has explained his view.

So, the facts are presented and truth is separated from your fiction. Do you at all notice how quick you were to use your fiction mixed with reality (in the quote) against me?

Recoverer 2 wrote on Jun 18^th, 2017 at 12:08pm:

1796: I believe it is reasonable to conclude that Bruce used an example that had some similarity to the kind of verifications he has actually received.

Then why did you ask:


Recoverer 2 wrote on Jun 18^th, 2017 at 10:53am:

1796: Did you watch the Bruce Moen video that you provided a link for? You speak of people putting a limitation on themselves and not functioning outside of beliefs, yet during his described experience Bruce found out about very precise details that he didn't know before hand. How could such knowledge be the result of his putting a limitation on himself and not allowing himself to function outside of his beliefs?

You are all over the place like a mad woman's custard.

R2, do you notice the nutshell part? That was the point of the post.

The video doesn't start at the beginning of Bruce's talk, and I missed the part where he was providing a hypothetical example. Since I do not believe that he would provide an example that has no similarity to what he has actually experienced, I believe this is somewhat of a mute point. Therefore, saying that his example is hypothetical, doesn't support what you said on an earlier post, as seen below.

------------------

1796 said: "That's fine. If you believe in that limitation upon yourself then that is your limitation. No one can think and function outside of their beliefs, they are always contained by them. And it is for people like yourself that Bruce's method is satisfying. It gives you the results that you will accept. But for those who want more, who want the full view, there is truth." 







1796 wrote on Jun 18^th, 2017 at 12:25pm:

Recoverer 2 wrote on Jun 18th, 2017 at 12:08pm: 1796: I believe it is reasonable to conclude that Bruce used an example that had some similarity to the kind of verifications he has actually received. Then why did you ask: Recoverer 2 wrote on Jun 18th, 2017 at 10:53am: 1796: Did you watch the Bruce Moen video that you provided a link for? You speak of people putting a limitation on themselves and not functioning outside of beliefs, yet during his described experience Bruce found out about very precise details that he didn't know before hand. How could such knowledge be the result of his putting a limitation on himself and not allowing himself to function outside of his beliefs? You are all over the place like a mad woman's custard.

Quote:

R2: I will not apologize about emotion being a part of my response, because I am not Spock from Star trek, and I believe that emotions have their place. It is okay to care about things.

Spock would maybe have asked this question beforehand: do I know this? I haven't demanded an apology, but as far as the topic goes, there is a real life lesson to be found here instead of just theory alone.

Albert, please stop it. 

If you thought something was wrong with Uno's post notify Vicky.  Please stop airing your grievances on the board.  Let Vicky take care of it.

R2, if you don't know something, try questions first. As opposed to: making assumptions + questions relating to assumptions + accusation. This advice is free and you're welcome.

R2, it should be clear by now and I can't take responsibility for you assumptions and actions. I'm done with this.

Bruce's video is him giving an example of how to use your imagination as a means of perception. 

The example he made up about his grandfather having robbed a bank and burying the money isn't meant to prove or disprove the validity of the method he teaches since it is merely an example used to demonstrate how you would go about deciphering truth from fantasy for the sake of showing yourself that the imagination can allow you to perceive information that is verifiable.   

Bruce's demonstration of this method of using the imagination as a means of perception is also important because it points out that you as an individual are learning how your own perception works.  You as an individual are learning how to develop your senses and how to use them.  You as an individual are gathering information that you can use to validate and verify as evidence to you that the afterlife exists.  It's not necessarily that you have to pretend and fantasize but that those are one way in which you can learn to engage yourself with your imagination.  It's the "priming the pump" analogy.

So it's not about fantasy getting in the way of reality.  You're missing the point if that's all you take away from this method.  After the pump is primed, the water runs freely, remember?

The philosophical discussion about what "truth" and "reality" really are and what they really mean has nothing to do with what you as an individual can do, can experience, can learn, and can discover for yourself.  It is up to each individual to do his own work, to gain his own experience and knowledge, in order to discover the truth for him and for his beliefs. 

Merely telling someone what and how they should believe, think, or feel is of little importance in my opinion.  Doing and experiencing for yourself holds much greater value in my opinion.  The nature and fundamental purpose of Bruce's method is for you to gather your own experience and knowledge.

One reason it's important to always do your own practice and experimentation is because only you know what's true for you. 

Albert and Uno,

Please give up the arguing and stick to the topic.  If Uno doesn't want to explain further or answer your questions then please stop persisting that he do so. 

My advice to everyone is that some replies within a thread are ok to skip if you don't like or understand their meaning, just as it's ok for someone not to reply if they don't feel like it.  Sometimes it's the only way to avoid arguments.   

Please stay on topic.  I have.  I'm trying to add value to this thread.  You guys arguing between yourselves isn't adding anything of value because whatever Uno believes about the man, his disk, and the aliens is all just belief.  It's not "the truth".

Please stop debating about terminology and syntax and beliefs.

Okay Vicky, I will delete all of my related posts.


Vicky wrote on Jun 18^th, 2017 at 1:17pm:

Albert and Uno, Please give up the arguing and stick to the topic.  If Uno doesn't want to explain further or answer your questions then please stop persisting that he do so.  My advice to everyone is that some replies within a thread are ok to skip if you don't like or understand their meaning, just as it's ok for someone not to reply if they don't feel like it.  Sometimes it's the only way to avoid arguments.    Please stay on topic.  I have.  I'm trying to add value to this thread.  You guys arguing between yourselves isn't adding anything of value because whatever Uno believes about the man, his disk, and the aliens is all just belief.  It's not "the truth". Please stop debating about terminology and syntax and beliefs.

Albert,

Thank you.  That's your choice, you don't have to do so.  Or you and Uno may just simply carry on as normal just without the argument.

Uno:

Could you please clarify what you mean by the below?

Did you have the intention of saying that the guy you wrote of is an example of a person who wasn't good as separating truth from fiction,  or did you mean that people who think of the Disk viewpoint in a positive way aren't good at separating truth from fiction?

Since I am uncertain about what you mean, other people might be uncertain, and it would be good to clarify.



Uno wrote on Jun 18^th, 2017 at 11:21am:

I have talked with guy in Europe who claims to have visited his disk (or I-There in Monroe terms) and beyond many times. His view is that the disks are malevolent beings that benefit at the expense of their human hosts. In a nutshell: separating truth from fiction is essential, whether you do classical OOBE, out of body focus while in body, remote viewing, or live an ordinary life.

Vicky,


Quote:

You guys arguing between yourselves isn't adding anything of value because whatever Uno believes about the man, his disk, and the aliens is all just belief.  It's not "the truth".

It was a real life example how hard it can be to separate fact from fiction. And to be fair it wasn't my beliefs about the man & disk, but I have indeed had beliefs about aliens and it's probably a good time to deal with that. But that is for another thread and in the off topic section.


Quote:

Or you and Uno may just simply carry on as normal just without the argument.

Keep calm and carry on.

R2, see reply #42. Now I'm done with this.

Uno wrote on Jun 18^th, 2017 at 1:57pm:

Vicky, Quote: You guys arguing between yourselves isn't adding anything of value because whatever Uno believes about the man, his disk, and the aliens is all just belief.  It's not "the truth". It was a real life example how hard it can be to separate fact from fiction. And to be fair it wasn't my beliefs about the man & disk, but I have indeed had beliefs about aliens and it's probably a good time to deal with that. But that is for another thread and in the off topic section. [quote]Or you and Uno may just simply carry on as normal just without the argument.

Keep calm and carry on.[/quote]

And to be fair, I was merely pointing out that arguing about beliefs is pointless.  Everyone is entitled to his own beliefs.

I know a man who has explored the spirit world extensively, he used to be a part of TMI, and he has found that Santa Claus is the creator of all universes.

But don't quote me on that, I am simply reporting what another man told me.

R2, hehe, more fantasy doesn't add much to what you've already have posted.

Vicky wrote on Jun 18^th, 2017 at 9:26am:

1796 wrote on Jun 18th, 2017 at 1:23am: One method is imagination based, the other is purely awareness based. 1796, Any method that I use is awareness based, obviously, because it is through my awareness that I am aware.  Darn.  I'm really disappointed.  I thought we were talking about the same thing, how to explore nonphysically.  I thought maybe you were going to divulge some new method of inducing an OBE or something.  I was under the impression that you had learned some really great method of how to perceive nonphysically in which to do afterlife exploration and show us how you gather information that you could then come back and find truth and proof about as evidence that your experience was real, so that others could see it as a useful method for themselves.  I was really interested in hearing what your method was because like I said, I'll try anything.  But all you're talking about is your beliefs and philosophies, your belief in God and in seeking to know the truth. Well that's the thing isn't it.  We all aspire to know the truth of what's really out there.  It's actually exactly why when I find something that works, I go with it.  I do this by exploring, having experiences, asking questions, and having more experiences, all of which expand my perception and conscious awareness.  It sounds to me that your belief in God and in wanting to know the truth is enough to satisfy any curiosity you have about what exists.  To me it just sounds like your use of terminology is merely showing us what you think and believe in, but it is not describing any actual or useful method in which you can teach anyone to do something.  Sitting around having beliefs in God, truth, reality, and perception are great, but one must actually get up off the couch and do something with what they know in order to have actual experiences.  We all aspire to want and to know the truth.  It's actually kind of a given!  It's silly to talk in circles about what truth is and what reality is when actual experience is the key in exploring and discovering all we can about consciousness.

Anyone without a hang up about beliefs can read my above posts on this thread and see that I am not talking about the kind of beliefs that Vicky the moderator says I am talking about.

Vicky, you have little idea what beliefs are and how the mind works. But that is not unusual. It is not common knowledge. But you should at least be aware that you don't know, for ignorance that believes it knows is foolishness.

By the way, there is a significant difference between imagination and awareness. One should be able to differentiate between those two. That is basic.

Would-be “Afterlife Explorers”, depending on their degree of seriousness, aught to have knowledge of how the mind works.

Would you drive deep into unexplored territory with none or only basic knowledge of how a motor vehicle works? If you were sensible, then of course you would not do that. You would ensure you knew mechanics first, and make sure you know how to rectify mechanical problems. 

If you don’t know the mechanics of how the human mind works, its component parts, what they do and how they interact, then how can you rightly use your mind, even mundanely, let alone rightly use it as a vehicle in which to venture into unknown worlds more confusing than this world? The answer is you cannot do it. You will get lost, bogged, stuck or break down at the first test, and probably not even know what has happened.

And if you have no idea how to navigate by nature and landmarks then how will you find your way? How will you even know if you are travelling in circles? You won’t know.

Here is an introduction into values and beliefs, which some readers might find useful. It follows on from my previous posts on this thread:

Values

All things conceived of have value to the individual, and are arranged in the individual’s spectrum of values from highest to lowest value. We have our ideal values and our operative values. Our ideal values are those we cite when asked what our values are. (Even rotten people cite good values like honesty and family, but they do not operate by them.) Our operative values are those we function by, those that drive our automatic thinking and behaviour.

Our value spectrum is in a constant state of rearrangement and development, governed by our judgement. We have conflicting values, that is, different items of the same value but on different spectrum fragments, which we must subject to our judgement and make a choice between those items, and so our spectrum develops, slowly over time and trial to become unified and reflective of reality.

Few people value truth above all else. Most have preference which is a barrier to truth. Most people value feeling good above all else. Most people value emotion over truth.
    
Beliefs

Included among values are beliefs. Beliefs are unknown convictions. Beliefs can be imprisoning or liberating, depending on the kind of belief.

There is rational open and liberating belief such as the belief that there exists unknown truth (which is the belief I described in the previous posts which opens and readies the mind for truth), and the rational belief that oneself exists; and there are irrational closed and imprisoning beliefs such as a belief in a particular limited truth.

And there are static beliefs that are closed particular beliefs about oneself and/or about others, about surroundings and circumstances; and there are dynamic beliefs (delusions of change, transition, events) that automatically arise within the individual to reconcile differences between two or more static beliefs or between static beliefs and reality.

Static beliefs are like protrusions on the mind, and as the mind does not like protrusion on itself there naturally arises between such protrusions dynamic beliefs to fill the spaces between static beliefs and thereby round itself out. Like scar tissue forms to heal a wound, dynamic beliefs arise to fill the gaps between static beliefs so that the mind can cycle itself without having to stop at the gaps.   

People on this forum talk about their familiarity with Robert Monroe and his work including binaural beats – binaural beats demonstrate how the sound of a note (an audible thought) automatically arises within the mind to reconcile the difference between two other sounds/thoughts – and yet people who claim to understand binaural beats fail to see the significance of that natural and automatic mental process.

You fail to see how your own static beliefs about yourself and about reality, your own protrusions on your mind, cause your mind to automatically generate dynamic delusions about change and transition to fill the gaps and reconcile the differences between your beliefs about yourself and reality.

Just like with hemi-sync, that illusionary third note that automatically arises to be heard in the mind between the two different notes played in each ear seems so real, so too, your delusions that automatically arise in your mind between your static beliefs seem so real to you.   

Beliefs are the drivers of individuals and nations. No one can think outside of their beliefs. It is impossible to do. An individual’s mind conforms and accords exactly with their beliefs.

We need to be able to differentiate between what we know and what we only think we know. We need to understand and be able to identify kinds of belief, so as to make sure our mind is functioning optimally.

When the consciousness is condensed to its purity, when it knows itself and understands what it is and what it is not, then instead of being opaque with protrusions and prone to delusions, it becomes clear and naturally round, and receptive to truth.

It is consciousness holding a logical belief in its own existence and in the existence of truth, and holding that belief as its highest ideal value and highest operational value, that enables the consciousness to become clear, rounded and able to see and know truth.      

1796,

Maybe you should read my book so you can see all the experiences, knowledge, and beliefs I have and why I have them.  It'll give you a better idea into who I am and why I think, feel, believe, and know the way that I do.

My truth, knowledge, experience, and belief doesn't have to be the same as yours, and vice versa...yours don't need to be the same as mine.  Which is precisely the whole concept behind "go out and explore and gain your own experience and knowledge for yourself."

Don't knock hemi-sync until you've tried it.  And if you have tried it, then you didn't get out of it what you could.  Sometimes you have to try it several sessions, or be in a more relaxed and open frame of mind.  Being too stuck in your own head isn't the best way to be if you truly want to open yourself up to new experiences.  Clearly you aren't open to allowing yourself to gain the benefits of it.  Which is also clear to me why you are so set in your ways about your beliefs.  You call me static and delusional, but anyone reading what you're saying can see that you are projecting your own fallacies onto me in your reply here.  I say that not as a criticism but as an observation.  When someone uses critical judgement about another as a way to backup their own beliefs, it says more about themselves then about the other person.  For who are we to think we know another person better than they know themselves?

I think I know plenty about how the human mind works.  One doesn't need to be a psychologist to rightly use their mind.  Just as one doesn't need to be a mechanic to drive a car.  Heck, I'm not an electrician but I can flip a light switch just fine.

You see, your banal analogies and overuse of defining things still cannot do anything to convince me that the things I've experienced are not real, knowledgeable, and valuable in gaining awareness and beliefs about what lies beyond our physical existence.  I've seen and experienced things beyond your imagination.  You'll never be able to believe them for yourself, for they are my experiences, not yours.  It's ok that you cannot understand them in the way that I've experienced them because it's not necessary.  I share what I know and have learned not to convince anyone of truth and validity but to simply guide and encourage others to do their own exploring. 

1796, you and I are still talking about different things.  I'm talking about how I've gained my experience and knowledge and beliefs, while you're still stuck in your head about the definitions of terminology of your beliefs.  I've been there.  I used to do that too.  But too much sitting and thinking doesn't get you far.  My methods of experience, i.e Bruce Moen's methods as well as the use of hemi-sync, have given me lots of experience to continue guiding me as I continue to explore, and it is by all those experiences that I've had something to base my beliefs upon.  It is because of those experiences that I've been able to see, judge, know, evaluate, investigate, learn, understand, and grow.  And I continue to explore.  Continue to gain knowledge, experience, and beliefs upon which to continue exploring. 

You can do it your way, and I'll do it mine.  There's nothing wrong with either of our choices.  We each need to move at our own pace.  However, the leaps I've taken and the experiences I've had might to someone like you seem too unbelievable to be real.  But like I say, you really won't be able to understand until you try it for yourself.  It's why I don't expect you to just take what I say and believe it.  Whatever works for the individual is what's best.  I think that's a good rule of thumb for anyone, don't you agree?

Vicky

1796 said: "Vicky, you have little idea what beliefs are and how the mind works. But that is not unusual. It is not common knowledge. But you should at least be aware that you don't know, for ignorance that believes it knows is foolishness."


Recoverer responds: "The above reminds me of the same sort of thing 1796 has said to me in the past. After a person speaks in such a way, I find no need to continue to read his long intellect-based post.  It isn't a matter of my being defensive, it is a matter of not wanting to read words from a person who speaks in the way that 1796 will sometimes speak.

In the second paragraph I certainly used the term “you” to refer to yourself. And as I said, to refer to others too. For anyone to believe they can function consciously out of body in other dimensions without knowing how the mind works and expect to be able to tell illusion from reality is fanciful thinking. If one doesn't know how to see truth and falsity in this world, how can one hope to know truth and falsity in more unfamiliar worlds? That is directed to anyone.   

In the paragraphs about driving, mechanics and navigation, I used the term “you” generally, to mean anyone.

There has been an ongoing culture on this site pushing that beliefs are for non-spiritual fundamentalist Christians, and that we at this forum are above that because we here are spiritual not religious, and we here don’t need beliefs because we are into knowledge instead.

In the two paragraphs (5th and 6th from the end) I used the term “you” clumsily. I wanted to refer to everyone on this site who has been part of that culture, and who think they are somehow above beliefs, who have been continually putting down those they say do have beliefs, and yet they don’t see that they have beliefs of their own, and don’t even know what beliefs are, or how they work, and clearly do not understand the concept of cognitive dissonance on a belief level (two static incompatible beliefs) and how the dissonance automatically reconciles itself with automatically arising beliefs of transition between the static ones, so that the mind can cycle itself without stopping at its own gaps.

Cognitive dissonance on a belief level between two beliefs is reconciled automatically with an arising third belief unconsciously and without discomfort, unlike on a cognitive level where the dissonance is felt as discomfort and reconciled by various conscious means.

I did not knock hemi-sync. I commented on people’s inability to learn a vital lesson from it about the workings of the mind that hemi-sync demonstrates – the mind’s ability to automatically generate delusions to reconcile incompatibilities whether those incompatibilities be of sensory inputs or of beliefs. 

I am perfectly open to people using hemi-sync if they want to; any tool that does the job is worth using; I have no problem with it. And as I have been making clear, it demonstrates a common automatic function of the mind that people can benefit from understanding. Your making out that I have a problem with hemi-sync, then arguing against the problem you say I have is pointless to do.

And I am not the least interested in trying to convince you that your experiences are not real or knowledgeable, so you needn’t worry about that.

1796 wrote on Jun 25^th, 2017 at 10:58am:

For anyone to believe they can function consciously out of body in other dimensions without knowing how the mind works and expect to be able to tell illusion from reality is fanciful thinking. If one doesn't know how to see truth and falsity in this world, how can one hope to know truth and falsity in more unfamiliar worlds? There has been an ongoing culture on this site pushing that beliefs are for non-spiritual fundamentalist Christians, and that we at this forum are above that because we here are spiritual not religious, and we here don’t need beliefs because we are into knowledge instead. I wanted to refer to everyone on this site who has been part of that culture, and who think they are somehow above beliefs, who have been continually putting down those they say do have beliefs, and yet they don’t see that they have beliefs of their own, and don’t even know what beliefs are, or how they work, and clearly do not understand the concept of cognitive dissonance on a belief level (two static incompatible beliefs) and how the dissonance automatically reconciles itself with automatically arising beliefs of transition between the static ones, so that the mind can cycle itself without stopping at its own gaps. I did not knock hemi-sync. I commented on people’s inability to learn a vital lesson from it about the workings of the mind that hemi-sync demonstrates – the mind’s ability to automatically generate delusions to reconcile incompatibilities whether those incompatibilities be of sensory inputs or of beliefs.

Beliefs are subjective things.  And I think everyone has some sort of belief, whether they are conscious or subconscious.

You suggesting that hemi-sync automatically generates delusions is not a fact, it's your opinion.  Which is fine for you to have.  I'm just saying that for myself, I can look beyond what you're focusing on as a hindrance and I can utilize the benefits of the altered states that I have achieved via the use of hemi-sync or via the use of Bruce's methods.  So that's what I'm demonstrating.  I see that you're demonstrating that people should evaluate their own experiences with a keen eye for deciphering what may be false.  I agree.  Just like being able to recognize what's real.  Maybe it's a half glass full sort of thing.  I look for the things that propel me to achieve, excel, and soar, not the things that hold me back from doing so. 

Vicky wrote on Jun 25^th, 2017 at 11:15am:

.... You suggesting that hemi-sync automatically generates delusions is not a fact, it's your opinion.  Which is fine for you to have.  I'm just saying that for myself, I can look beyond what you're focusing on as a hindrance ....  I look for the things that propel me to achieve, excel, and soar, not the things that hold me back from doing so.

Vicky. You are wrong, It is not an opinion, it is a fact.

How many times do I have to say that I don't see hemisync as a hindrance or as any other sort of problem. I said hemisync demonstrates how delusions and illusions are automatically generated to reconcile incompatibilities in the mind.

I think you are pretending to misunderstand. I wont play such a silly game with you.

Others might be interested in this:

"A binaural beat is an auditory illusion perceived when two different pure-tone sine waves, both with frequencies lower than 1500 Hz, with less than a 40 Hz difference between them, are presented to a listener dichotically (one through each ear).[1] For example, if a 530 Hz pure tone is presented to a subject's right ear, while a 520 Hz pure tone is presented to the subject's left ear, the listener will perceive the auditory illusion of a third tone, in addition to the two pure-tones presented to each ear. The third sound is called a binaural beat, and in this example would have a perceived pitch correlating to a frequency of 10 Hz, that being the difference between the 530 Hz and 520 Hz pure tones presented to each ear.[2]"
Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binaural_beats

Some might wish to try this:
Plug some earphones into your computer and listen to the binaural beats on the website link.
Remove one earphone and listen to the pitch of the note in one ear.
Then put on the other earphone and listen to the pitch in the other ear.
Notice the difference in pitch of the two notes in each ear.
Then with one earphone on, slowly lower the other earphone onto the other ear too.
You will then notice a third note sounded in your head that is different from the other two notes that you hear in each ear.
That third note is an illusion. As real as it seems to be, it exists nowhere except as an illusion in your mind.

The same thing happens with incompatible beliefs.

Here is a commonly seen example:

When a person believes that he or she is the beholder of a societal ideal, that belief is in two parts; the belief in a societal ideal, and the belief that he is a beholder of that ideal. One part is about self, the other about surroundings. Those two beliefs are static beliefs, and they require reconciliation or bringing together to make them dynamic and proceeding. Within such a mindset there always arises a conviction of impending societal change. This conviction is an automatic psychological arising whereby a vision of an event, a means or a process of societal change/transition automatically arises to fill the gap in the mind between his belief in himself as the beholder and conducer of a societal ideal and his envisaged societal ideal, and between that ideal and material reality. (Otherwise the mind could not cycle without jumping ditches.) This automatically arising vision, conviction or belief in a changing event occurs due to the natural rounding out of the mind because the mind does not like irregularities in itself, it is the natural joining and harmonising of ideas and filling the gaps between them. When the mind holds two separate and static beliefs or convictions, a third and dynamic belief will always automatically arise to reconcile the two. The bridging belief that arises between the two static beliefs to reconcile them, is naturally one of action, transition and change; and therefore serves to activate and bring to life the full threefold belief, being the beholder, the societal ideal, and the transition. It arises automatically, comes as a conviction, a hope, an "ah ha" moment, a vision, in day dreams and night dreams, in meditations, etc etc. And due to its automatic self generating, it has life of its own, it feels more real than the static beliefs, more alive than ordinary thought, even feels divinely inspired. This is the reason why all people who hold that first mentioned static belief of themselves beholding a better societal ideal have visions of societal destruction, change and transition, and of themselves playing a role in it. It is an automated delusion - a dynamic (dynamic meaning it involves change/transition) belief that arises to reconcile incompatible and disconnected static beliefs (static meaning beliefs that have no motion/change/transition in them, and which one is about self and the other about surroundings), and also to reconcile those beliefs not just with each other but also with reality. So then all the incompatibilities are made possible and harmonised by the delusion of impending societal change to the ideal. We have even seen a severe case of this condition and several lesser cases on this forum. And you can see these cases rife among people who think themselves spiritual. It is a common trap.

I'm not pretending to misunderstand, I just don't agree with you that "this = that".  You seem to be trying to point out that some beliefs can be delusions, and you seem to be trying to apply that to hemi-sync based on the third sound.  I just don't see how you jump from the sound effect to delusions to beliefs and how you have found some common thread there. 

I've listened to a lot of hemi-sync and binaural beats.  I know of the third sound you're talking about.  However, I disagree with you in jumping to the assumption or belief that because of the effect of the third sound that it means that the experience (and beliefs that stem from such experiences) that follows is delusional. 

Not all analogies are useful.  It's much more helpful to just speak plainly and say what you mean.  Your using psychobabble about incompatible beliefs as an analogy for hemi-sync is a poor argument that doesn't hold much water.  Just because there is that third sound doesn't add up to there being delusional or incompatible beliefs involved.  I'm confused about the connection you're trying to make. 

You can clearly see where I'm coming from in all my replies to you, can't you?  You are only commenting to further describe and demonstrate what you are wanting to show, but you're not going further into what I'm trying to show.  The third sound in hemi-sync is not a concern.  How and why it's there has nothing to do with the real point of hemi-sync, which is the opening of the nonphysical senses due to one's altered state of consciousness, and the experiences that follow as a result.  You do understand that that is what my replies are about, right?

So simply put, I have no problem with the third sound being there.  It has nothing to do with the validity of my beliefs and experiences.  I am not speaking in generalities of what some people might possibly experience or what some people may or may not believe and that some beliefs may not be best or most truthful.  I'm only talking about my own direct experiences.  My beliefs, most of which lie at the core of my identity, are what make up who I am.  Conflicting beliefs causes changes which we call growth.  Having experiences and gaining more knowledge often lead to such growth. 

So, why we're "arguing" I have no idea.  I still say we're having two different conversations.  The logic you're trying to apply to what I'm talking about is what's confusing.  I don't see how your descriptions and definitions and analogies have anything to do with how and why hemi-sync or the imagination method techniques work.  If you do, that's fine.  But I'm not pretending to misunderstand you.  I'm not playing games.  I just think we don't see eye to eye on the whole concept of the discussion of methodology. 

Vicky wrote on Jun 25^th, 2017 at 11:15am:

Beliefs are subjective things.

And I know people who believe cookies for breakfast is appropriate. But beliefs don't affect empirical knowledge. In my experience Hemi-sync works very well toward the intended outcomes. So do Bruce's methods. And others as well. They're all ways to get started. At some point we ditch the tricycle for training wheels. Then ditch the training wheels for a two-wheeler. And then we realize we never really needed the bike ....

Morrighan wrote on Jun 25^th, 2017 at 3:07pm:

Vicky wrote on Jun 25th, 2017 at 11:15am: Beliefs are subjective things. And I know people who believe cookies for breakfast is appropriate. But beliefs don't affect empirical knowledge. In my experience Hemi-sync works very well toward the intended outcomes. So do Bruce's methods. And others as well. They're all ways to get started. At some point we ditch the tricycle for training wheels. Then ditch the training wheels for a two-wheeler. And then we realize we never really needed the bike ....

So true.  Now there's a great analogy!

;)

So, to say that there is an "illusion" of hemisync is a misunderstanding of how it works.  When two different frequencies are presented to each ear, the brain integrates them and produces a heard thrid "sound" heard of the summation frequency.  Sort of a resonance.  When objective EEGs were studied in early hemisync research, the brainwave patterns recorded in patients listening to binaural beats, the EEG (brainwave recordings), mirrored the hemisync summation frequencies.  In other words, if the frequency was 20 hz in one ear and 15 hz in the other, a frequency of 5 hz was often recorded on EEG studies.

To call this an "illusion" when objective studies were done, is therefore is not accurate.  The brain can be thought of as a biological machine.  As such, if a resonance or subtraction/summation frequency occurs as a result of processing in the corpus callosum (literally the neural connection between the hemispheres), this should not be dismissed as an illusion.  The author of the Wikipedia article cited, uses the term illusion, but that is their description; one which appears to be somewhat inaccurate.

Furthermore, it does seem to serve a belief system to conclude that the technology itself must be less real in some way due to the very nature of hemisync. 

At least some preliminary have studied binaural beats in peer reviewed scientific journals.  Many spiritual practices are not subject to this kind of objective research.

This is another instance where i think it is fair to say that a person can easily try out and explore with hemisync/binaural beats when meditating and decide for themself.  Or, alternatively, they can say it is "not for them," but then, why criticize it?

M

DocM wrote on Jun 25^th, 2017 at 8:47pm:

So, to say that there is an "illusion" of hemisync is a misunderstanding of how it works.  When two different frequencies are presented to each ear, the brain integrates them and produces a heard thrid "sound" heard of the summation frequency.  Sort of a resonance.  When objective EEGs were studied in early hemisync research, the brainwave patterns recorded, mirrored the hemisync summation frequencies.  In other words, if the frequency was 20 hz in one ear and 15 hz in the other, a frequency of 5 hz was often recorded on EEG studies. To call this an "illusion" when objective studies were done, is therefore is not accurate.  The brain can be thought of as a biological machine.  As such, if a resonance or subtraction/summation frequency occurs as a result of processing in the corpus callosum, this should not be dismissed as an illusion.  Furthermore, it does seem to serve a belief system to conclude that the technology itself must be less real in some way due to the very nature of hemisync.  At least some preliminary have studied binaural beats in peer reviewed scientific journals.  Many spiritual practices are not subject to this kind of objective research. This is another instance where i think it is fair to say that a person can easily try out and explore with hemisync/binaural beats when meditating and decide for themself.  Or, alternatively, they can say it is "not for them," but then, why criticize it? M

Thanks for putting it into a logical and scientific explanation Matthew.  I understand the basics of the subtraction/summation frequency, but I guess I never thought of it as being something that they can actually record with an EEG and see it. 

So Matthew, do you know what if anything else was gained or learned from these kinds of scientific research studies?  I'm only familiar with it for the technology for the purpose of what TMI teaches, but not aware of in what other ways this is useful.

As a side note, I bought some various Hemi-Sync CDs and the brain wave entrainments (delta, theta, alpha, and gamma) and gave them to my medical oncologist.  He's very much into many spiritual beliefs and practices.  He had never heard of any of this and was really fascinated by it, although he has admitted he still hasn't "dared" to try listening to any of it.  I've assured him that it's not going to do any damage to his brain or change him in some way. 
:)

Most of the studies are preliminary showing benefits of binaural beats to treat anxiety, help with concentration, help ease chronic pain, help to treat headache, fibromyalgia pain, and the like. 

There are claims that binaural beats (Hemisync is the trademarked name given by Robert Monroe's group) can treat whatever ails you; and youtube.com you can find different frequencies touted as healing nerve endings, treating headache, stress, etc.

The EEG studies are there, which show that the actual EEG pattern is effected by the binaural beat.

DocM wrote on Jun 25^th, 2017 at 10:47pm:

Most of the studies are preliminary showing benefits of binaural beats to treat anxiety, help with concentration, help ease chronic pain, help to treat headache, fibromyalgia pain, and the like.  There are claims that binaural beats (Hemisync is the trademarked name given by Robert Monroe's group) can treat whatever ails you; and youtube.com you can find different frequencies touted as healing nerve endings, treating headache, stress, etc. The EEG studies are there, which show that the actual EEG pattern is effected by the binaural beat.

And yet, just a tool.

An effective tool; a demonstrably proven tool; but still a tool. It is we who bear the responsibility of wielding such a tool, and the responsibility of what we create with it. The greatest good is rarely (if ever) the greatest good in my experience.

Morrighan wrote on Jun 26^th, 2017 at 2:30pm:

DocM wrote on Jun 25th, 2017 at 10:47pm: Most of the studies are preliminary showing benefits of binaural beats to treat anxiety, help with concentration, help ease chronic pain, help to treat headache, fibromyalgia pain, and the like.  There are claims that binaural beats (Hemisync is the trademarked name given by Robert Monroe's group) can treat whatever ails you; and youtube.com you can find different frequencies touted as healing nerve endings, treating headache, stress, etc. The EEG studies are there, which show that the actual EEG pattern is effected by the binaural beat. And yet, just a tool. An effective tool; a demonstrably proven tool; but still a tool. It is we who bear the responsibility of wielding such a tool, and the responsibility of what we create with it. The greatest good is rarely (if ever) the greatest good in my experience.

The word "springboard" comes to mind for me.  Something to help get you going, moving. 

Many years ago and friend and I decided we'd do an experiment.  We'd each listen to a Theta CD each night for two weeks.  I tell ya, after that we didn't need the CD anymore!  But we also needed a break.  That was kind of an overkill of immersion.

And always a good idea to check for water in the pool before the springboard commit ....  :-?

God "imagined man" or "imaged"----man"