Astral Projection VS privacy

So you see clothing, actions, locations?

Actions are easiest to define since they are obvious. Clothing and locations are usually very faint unless I focus extremely hard on the weight and density of things within my aura (which usually ends up draining me) to define the shape and distance between one thing and the next. I can also use other skills to get extra information (clairvoyance or connecting to the senses of the individuals nearby..etc.)

More often than not, people see phony environments or situations that are only half true (always with certain degrees of inaccuracy). However, asking other "entities" to give you information on another, especially the ones who always want something very serious in return...it's scary how correct they can be, and they're always quick to find you if you have such an inquiry. :S The inability to do it on your own and having to go through "them" is reason why the "astral" is such a suspicious "realm".

Originally Posted by IsleWalker

So you see clothing, actions, locations?

L

I don't want to butt in or anything, but I've asked her questions like this before. =3
She said that she "has no physical senses" when I did ask her to find something out in the physical...funny she never mentioned having her "own ways"... Clairvoyance and telepathy maybe - but I know how this works.

[IsleWalker]

Originally Posted by earthatic

More often than not, people see phony environments or situations that are only half true (always with certain degrees of inaccuracy). However, asking other "entities" to give you information on another, especially the ones who always want something very serious in return...it's scary how correct they can be, and they're always quick to find you if you have such an inquiry. :S The inability to do it on your own and having to go through "them" is reason why the "astral" is such a suspicious "realm" to me.

Earthatic--

I'm with you on the first half of this. It's what I was trying to say to Embrace originally: Don't get too bent out of shape about someone "seeing" you because each perception has it's own "inaccuracies"--if you can say that anyone's perceptions are "inaccurate".

Although i don't "see" that way I would think it would be similar to OBEs or dreams--you get the jist of a place but there may be details that are "off". Likewise, you might be able to pick up parts of someone else's dream but you will be inaccurate about how it feels and what it means to them.

But when you said about "going through someone else"--are you talking about the person's guides/angels/entities? I would think they would be accurate--maybe even more than our own consciousness might be able to be.

When do you run into some astral entity around your "target"--and why would you ask them about the target unless you were sure who they were? Maybe I'm not understanding.

Lora

Originally Posted by IsleWalker

Earthatic--

I'm with you on the first half of this. It's what I was trying to say to Embrace originally: Don't get too bent out of shape about someone "seeing" you because each perception has it's own "inaccuracies"--if you can say that anyone's perceptions are "inaccurate".

Although i don't "see" that way I would think it would be similar to OBEs or dreams--you get the jist of a place but there may be details that are "off". Likewise, you might be able to pick up parts of someone else's dream but you will be inaccurate about how it feels and what it means to them.

But when you said about "going through someone else"--are you talking about the person's guides/angels/entities? I would think they would be accurate--maybe even more than our own consciousness might be able to be.

When do you run into some astral entity around your "target"--and why would you ask them about the target unless you were sure who they were? Maybe I'm not understanding.

Lora

You might be annoyed with me for saying this but...

Who says that it's actually our perception that is to blame for the false information? As if it has anything to do with "senses"... it might not have anything to with it. I use the term "entity" just so you may have an inclination of what I am talking about, but the ideas are trifling. If you want to entertain this notion, there should be no reason for one person to see something as simple as a six-sided die so differently than another...the only thing that is consistent is how inconsistent people are. There are actually million-dollar rewards for anyone who can perform such feats as "remote viewing", yet nobody can do it coherently...don't you find this a bit odd? With a six-sided die, you'd be looking at the same object every time.

Going through "entities", or in other words...going through "whatever resides there" is really what I mean. The way the "astral" works is rather inconsistent and in conflict with it's own functions (as people interpret them). You may be sure of a "guide" --- people come up with a multitude of excuses that are rather unspecific to support those concepts, but I have a very different understanding than pretty much everyone else on this forum.

[IsleWalker]

Earthatic--

OK. So one of your doubts has to do with why people can't just manage to "see" a die as a die--or a room as a room.

I will say that my understanding (and my personal experience) has been that "astral" is not really just an energetic (but slightly higher vibrationally) copy of physical earth, it is merely the thought projections of millions and millions of people. So, the thought creates the reality, even to the physical. I know that's a big supposition to swallow.

When I had my (only) OBE experience to date, I created a "target" spot by visualizing a room or place I was very familiar with until I could see every piece of furniture, every doo dad on the shelves, every picture, feel every carpet, couch, etc.

I did this over 45 days, mostly at night. But one night, as I was asking my "guide" (we'll get to that later), whether he would assemble all my "guides" in one place--at a table, say. Then I started thinking that there was no table in the livingroom target place I had been preparing, and that one night I thought it would be nice to have a table in front of the window with a view of the harbor.

Cut to me finally "waking" into total blackness, realizing I am totally salient, clear-thinking, have all my plans still in my head. I struggle around for a long time trying to get out of body, ask for energy and clarity until finally, instead of having to walk I am projected into this target livingroom.

There is a young man standing in front of me. But I can also see behind him, around the room. And I see a glass table (not there in reality) in front of the window. The whole room is extended out so that the table will fit.

I think it was there because I "thought" it there. Likewise, others will see the room pretty much a direct copy of what's in physical, but there will be a wall a different color or a piece of furniture from a different era. I can only guess that these are the thoughtforms of others (?in previous times in that place?) who put them there.

As for a guide, you're right--I can't prove to you or even myself that they are there. I feel it. But my own conception of "who" is there is always changing so it's like describing who I am--today. Two months from now "I" am a different person. More importantly, physical representations (like bodies) are just interpretations of energy, so it really doesn't matter how you see them. OR--you may interpret these energies in different ways depending on your "beliefs" at the time. I wish we could get rid of beliefs entirely, but for humans, it's a tough thing to do.

Why do people say they experience hell or heaven during "astral projection"? Because hundreds of millions of people have believed in the concept over millenniums and expect to see it. Or not. It's really not that important why we see or don't see what we expect. What we experience is important.

And, as to your question, someone doing remote viewing may get internal information about a dice on a table, but in their experience, that is a red plastic dice. Others may expect (and see) one of ivory, or white plastic.

That's why no two people will ever be able to replicate or verify anyone else's experience. You are unique energy. It's not about our senses, it's about how our energy interprets information--it's different for everyone. It's why we can be "found" by anyone who knows our energy.

So the Scientific Method--it's **** and always has been. There is never such as thing as recreating the identical, double-bind situation--it's impossible. And no two people will see/interpret the "same" set of "facts" in the same way.

I am pretty sure this will not change your mind about anything. You have heard of the quantum mechanics Observer Effect? The observer affects the results of any test just by "watching". And in spiritual or scientific terms, that's because we all have an infinite set of possibilities of what we can be. This applies to molecules of copper or people. But once you look at copper in seaweed or copper in a pot, you have created a specific incarnation for that molecule. It still has an infinite amount of other possibilities, but you can no longer see them, you can only see the specific incarnation you focus on.

I'll stop. I get carried away with this stuff. I actually think that between String or M Theory and quantum mechanics, what many experience here on this site--can be explained by them. There are just a few missing pieces!

Lora

IsleWalker,

When it comes to thought being of influence, I have a similar view to yours. I think the correlation is undeniable; however, I'm not sure if it is thought-form itself that makes up the reality. I think the forms experienced are only inspired and fabricated from them. What forms this seems to be very subtle, and is therefore easily shaped (compared to gross physical matter) but this also means that it would be unstable and consequently requires support (from our own thoughts). From my own experience, this seems to be how it works...but this doesn't explain everything.

I do wonder if getting "familiar" with the dice would change the outcome of remote-viewing results, but maybe it wouldn't. Our physical eyes and brain are structured similarly to one another, but that is the reason why we perceive colour/light ect in similar ways to each other. The difference between "astral bodies"/senses would have to be very extreme to get such varied results.

[IsleWalker]

Originally Posted by earthatic

I do wonder if getting "familiar" with the dice would change the outcome of remote-viewing results, but maybe it wouldn't. Our physical eyes and brain are structured similarly to one another, but that is the reason why we perceive colour/light ect in similar ways to each other. The difference between "astral bodies"/senses would have to be very extreme to get such varied results.

Earthatic,

When you say our brains are structured similarly to one another, I even begin to question that. And Sangress's energy portraits are one reason. I do think she has a unique skill in this area. If you notice, everyone's "circulatory" and "chakra systems" are totally different--but they all do the job. I think her interpretations of the various screens, shields too are pretty accurate. Basically, everyone adapts in a different way.

How do you know that what I know as red is what you know as red?

I experience myself and the only other entities I see as "orbs"--but most others don't. I am constantly amazed by the differences between us when I've gone along the majority of my life with the premise that everyone basically functions like I do.

I don't think that's true anymore. And the more I discover other people the more I feel how unlike we are (within certain basic parameters of function).

BTW--I still don't get what you meant about astral --whatever was there. So, you would ask "whatever was there" to try to fill you in on the entity you were trying to read? Why? There could be lots of entities or energies around all of us, that really have very little to do with us. It's just that we're basically unaware.

What am I missing?

Lora

Originally Posted by IsleWalker

Earthatic,

When you say our brains are structured similarly to one another, I even begin to question that. And Sangress's energy portraits are one reason. I do think she has a unique skill in this area. If you notice, everyone's "circulatory" and "chakra systems" are totally different--but they all do the job. I think her interpretations of the various screens, shields too are pretty accurate. Basically, everyone adapts in a different way.

How do you know that what I know as red is what you know as red?

Assuming there is no form of blindness, we do differentiate colours the same way. I do not know your mind or your perceptions, but certain assumptions can be made based on what we describe to eachother.

Do you see the number 45 as I do? I may not see the orange and green the way you do, but the differentiation should be the same... assuming there are no physical/perceptual abnormalities (resulting in colour blindness). Again, I do not know/experience your perceptions, so I only know what you describe to me. This goes for all senses...hearing, touching, tasting, ect...

I don't mean to offend, but I could care less about Sangress's energy portraits. Due to my own understanding of the "astral", I cannot trust any information that comes from it...that includes others who are influenced by it.

I experience myself and the only other entities I see as "orbs"--but most others don't. I am constantly amazed by the differences between us when I've gone along the majority of my life with the premise that everyone basically functions like I do.

I don't think that's true anymore. And the more I discover other people the more I feel how unlike we are (within certain basic parameters of function).

Our experiences (as they are described) can be similar, but our understandings/subjectivities/interpretations of those experiences are what can be so different. I've seen orbs as well.. but just because others haven't, it doesn't mean they won't in the future... or if exposed to what ever creates those impressions, it doesn't mean they won't perceive them as you do.

Unless you are capable of telepathy, it is impossible for us to know certain things about each other...for instance, how do you even know that I am a human being typing these words? All you know is your perception of the light which your computer monitor generates --- which creates the formations you perceive (with your eyes) and then you interpret these formations as "words" with your brain...
Even that assumption I just made might be false so I can only go off of your confirmation as "Yes, that is true." or "XXXX is correct, but my understanding of XXXX is different" or "I do not agree at all.", ect...

BTW--I still don't get what you meant about astral --whatever was there. So, you would ask "whatever was there" to try to fill you in on the entity you were trying to read? Why? There could be lots of entities or energies around all of us, that really have very little to do with us. It's just that we're basically unaware.

What am I missing?

Lora

It all comes down to what you call an "entity". This is enigmatic because we might be conditioned to respond to stimuli in ways that we do in the physical..IE: a form that resembles a monster is being created in your mind...Is that an entity? I can create a picture of a monster with a piece of paper and a pen...would that image be indicative of an actual entity? If the astral functions off of "thought-form"...how do you discern what is what and make the distinctions that you do? This is very confusing to me, so I'd rather be vague and say "whatever resides there"...

[IsleWalker]

Originally Posted by earthatic

Assuming there is no form of blindness, we do differentiate colours the same way.

Do you see the number 45 as I do? I may not see the orange and green the way you do, but the differentiation should be the same... assuming there are no physical/perceptual abnormalities (resulting in colour blindness). Again, I do not know/experience your perceptions, so I only know what you describe to me. This goes for all senses...hearing, touching, tasting, ect...

Earthatic--

It's getting to semantics now and I don't accept the basis of your hypothesis above, which you can't prove and neither can I.

Best to leave it there and say we agree to disagree.

Lora

Originally Posted by IsleWalker

Earthatic--

It's getting to semantics now and I don't accept the basis of your hypothesis above, which you can't prove and neither can I.

Best to leave it there and say we agree to disagree.

Lora

I have been studying Gestalt psychology and psychophysics. It seems you have ignored quite a bit of what I had said, and I haven't a clue of what it is you are disagreeing with or why. "the differentiation should be the same" , as in the differentiation between colour, which would allow you to see the number 45 in that visual test. For all I know, you might be seeing different shades of what I'd call "grey". The hypothesis may not be correct (what would you take as proof?), but it does explain how this area of perception works.

I base all of my understanding on what works, so I am not disagreeing or agreeing with you.. but you can remain in your indecisive state of mind if you wish.