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

"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?

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



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!

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.

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).

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.

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.