Hey guys, I've been exploring the world of lucid dreaming for a little while now - in lucid dreams I am able to feel the enviorment physically. I'm very skeptical of this afterlife exploration due to the complexity of the human brain, and I'm curious if its actually possible to be lucid dreaming instead of actually crossing over to the other side.

Just wanna make clear I'm not shoving anything down your throats, just curious - very openminded but skeptical.

Also, to those who explore the afterlife - do you have controll over certain things such as physical appearance and so forth?

I'm so interested in learning more and how to explore, but I am not able to attend any workshops - Bruces book seems to explain his experiences (haven't read it but I think thats how it seems), so are there any that get into detail on how you yourself can with a partner explore?

Thanks,
Sam

ah k, so when you explore with the partner - do you actually meet with eachother out there and compare notes with what you did and saw with eachother? or are you both seperate and compare notes of your seperate experiences?

Bruce,
Hey, good to see you on the board.
I have considered this exploration and wondered if we could talk about making it more effective as evidence?  Personally, I look for hard evidence that does NOT come through me. IMHO, I'm not any better than anyone else as a data point.

You suggest that the people discuss what they are going to do together before the attempt. I don't see the value of this. It seems like a way to generate common data that hides the real data. I'm rather see it limited to time and date and maybe a topic.

It seems like a good thing to add to this board if you can implement a web page that lets two people make appointments, define their goals and then after the event, they each write results, and only after both are entered, does anyone see the results. And the results are then available to anyone for comparison. The people could be anonymous.

John

>You could all agree on a day and time you will meet at the monkeyhouse at the zoo.  You could agree on how you'll observe the monkeys, and so on.  After your meeting at the zoo each of you could go home and separately make detailed notes of everything that happened that night.  Things like who arrived first, what everyone was wearing, what each of you said and did while you were together, and what you observed each of the monkeys to be doing, what each monkey looked like, etc.

John,

>> Personally, I look for hard evidence that does NOT come through me. IMHO, I'm not any better than anyone else as a data point.  <<

From my experience I'd disagree.  In my opinion the only evidence that will ever be useful to you in proving to you that our afterlife exists is evidence that comes through your own direct experience.

It is just too easy to find reasons to dispute evidence gathered by someone else.  We can easily believe they are:  biased, deluded, fraudulant, misinterpreting their experience, swayed by their beliefs, etc.

As someone from a workshop once said, I could always believe that the supposed evidence gathered didn't prove our afterlife exists, until it happened to me.  When I had evidence I'd gathered verified as real, that there was no other way for me to know except by communicating with a dead person, I couldn't explain it away like I could other people's evidence without lying to myself.

>> You suggest that the people discuss what they are going to do together before the attempt. I don't see the value of this. It seems like a way to generate common data that hides the real data. <<

Using my example of visiting the zoo to observe the monkeys, there are lots of things that can potentially happen to verify the reality of the shared experince.  Who arrived first, second, etc.  What each person was wearing,  What each monkey looked like and what each one was doing, etc, etc.

Talking ahead of time provides a framework, a location and time as well as defining the kind of information to be targeted.

For example, targeting only the zoo could mean each member went to a different area of the zoo, reducing the potential for shared experience.  One partner descibes watching the monkeys, another the lions, another the hyenas, someone else the popcorn stand.  It's better, in my opinion if they at least start out in the same, previously discussed and agreed upon place at the zoo.

>> It seems like a good thing to add to this board if you can implement a web page that lets two people make appointments, define their goals and then after the event, they each write results, and only after both are entered, does anyone see the results. And the results are then available to anyone for comparison. The people could be anonymous. <<

  I'll think about that one, the new Board software would make that easier to do.  But in the beginning of learning the technique it is more important to see similarities in experience than it is to be precisely accurate.  Even at the expense of credability, at least early in learning the technnnique.  There are lots of conflicting beliefs to be overcome and Interpreter overlay to learn about.

Bruce

John,

  Yes, what you're saying makes sense to me.  If I only look at the Universe from my single, individual perspective it's easy for me to have a pretty warpped understanding of it. 

  If I look for and find my experience described in the words of someone else who is describing their own experience, in a sense I am seeing my experience from a different perspective.  In doing that I may get some insight into whatever the Truth about the Universe really is that I would not get without the experience of others.

  Early in my search for the Truth, before I had much experience of my own, my approach was to read as many descriptions of it, by as many authors as I could find.  My feeling was that the common threads running all the author's descriptions was closer to whatever the Truth is than any one of the authors could be.

  As I gathered my own experience I began to get a little cocky, thinking I had it right and everyone else had it wrong.

  Where I am now is that I'm kind of always on the lookout for the anomolies.  I'm more sensitive to the bits that "obviously" don't fit my image of the Truth.  Exploring these bits, usually delivered up by "crackpots," often leads to insights and understanding only the "lunatic fringe perspective" could point to.

  In the end if I can integrate the understanding from other perspectives into a fit with my own experience I can accept it.  If I can't it either goes in the undecided column or I reject it.

Bruce