How to obe from a lucid dream?

Discuss paranormal activity linked with sleep and dreams, such as out of body experiences, astral projection and psychic dreams.
User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 4067
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: How to obe from a lucid dream?

Postby Summerlander » 19 Jan 2017 14:23

I'm game for coincidence when it comes to all matters paranormal. Because there is no paranormal. :mrgreen:
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

nickbor
Posts: 15
Joined: 16 Jul 2016 02:28

Re: How to obe from a lucid dream?

Postby nickbor » 23 Jan 2017 09:23

Im answering the original post of how to have a OBE. I have heard of others who could have them by making their bodies and minds really relaxed and their body would fall asleep while they had an obe. In my case I havent had as many lucid dreams as some of you on this post but I spent years trying to loose my ego to just plain old get to the truth. but this is coming from a self aware perspective where I dont identify myself as a body or name or social security number but as a soul having a human experience here with all of the world. but back to the point. there was this time in my life where I was really stressed out so i started to meditate very intensely trying to master my own mind and way of life while beating some temptation problems. I stayed awake but in a relaxed state of being for a week. evrery day I meditated for hours for enlightenment. heck I even ate nothing but plants just like the bhuddist people for a moral reason. at least so nothing sentient would have to die for me or suffer to sustain my life. on the seventh day I was sitting on my couch indian style meditating in a very self diciplined way.Ii had to gain some level of control over my own thoughts which turned into me trying to still my mind and have no consious thoughts at all. no thinking or philosophising mind just seeking inner peace as opposed to the opposite. I then left my body for a few minutes and immediately my brain could not comprehend this as possible. I had the inner peace but there was no real me (that is the soul in the body) and I was wide awake. My bodily and mental sensation could only be described as feeling litterally empty of the spiritual essence which I am. and no I was not under the influence of any drugs or intoxicants of any kind. At immidiate thinking command I could re enter my body at the speed of thought. I proved to myself the immortality of the soul although that was not the intention behind the mission to lose my ego and beat my temptation problems. anybody can do this it just takes self dicipline as opposed to others diciplining you. and yes I am one of those guys who have faith in heaven and heaven has told me the golden rule is right for me. but I love to love people unconditionally of my own free will. Heaven is why you can eat food withought needing to grow it or fish it yourself, I hope you are as thankfull for youre food as me. although I do grow and and have fished my own food before. you are eternal life and so am I. youre body can die but you the soul cannot. those of us who are going to heaven seem to be pretty good at being incredibly helpfull to people around us. ive been doing it my entire life. god offers it to me dispite having made mistakes before in life.

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 4067
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: How to obe from a lucid dream?

Postby Summerlander » 24 Jan 2017 02:50

Nickbor ... :D

If you are seeing yourself as a soul (in the spiritualist sense) with a human experience then you are merely suffering from a form of delusion---and one where you have clearly constructed another identity to satiate your ego! You have not become selfless; you are merely seeing yourself in a different way and clinging to an interpretation of reality that has no evidential foundation (which tells me it panders to your ego). :)

Your out-of-body experience was an illusion entirely generated by your brain and most likely hallucinatory---and I'm willing to bet that the idea of detachment in your psyche played its role. You have not proved anything and certainly not the immortality of a soul (let alone its existence). The mental scenario that unfolded had its roots in imagination. :ugeek:

Faith, by the way, is a non-virtue. It is believing without evidence. It is the temptation to hold on to a fancy. It comforts the ego. It is a temptation in itself to which you have succumbed to. What's worse is that you oxymoronically follow this expression with the delusive non-sequitur that 'heaven told you the golden rule is right for you'. :lol:

The 'golden rule' is what human beings call something they have come to recognise, in evolution, as a great survivalist boon for our species which comes attached to electrochemically generated emotions in the brain---nothing more! :geek:

Other people grow and fish the food you eat, pal! If you want to be thankful, thank them and not some imaginary realm or mythical supernatural being. The willingness to believe that you are special to a higher power who chose to communicate with you and let you know that you are eternal is egotistical wishful thinking. If you knew anything about being humble you'd accept the high likelihood---according to neuroscientific evidence---that you are mortal and death means death. 8-)

Epicurean philosophy has killed the paradoxical notion of God a long time ago. :twisted:

What crock spouted by blind sheep! :mrgreen:
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

User avatar
Pilgrim
Posts: 608
Joined: 10 Apr 2016 10:24

Re: How to obe from a lucid dream?

Postby Pilgrim » 24 Jan 2017 11:45

Ahh...yes. Sorry to be third wheel, but to bring balance to the force, Obi-One...

I agree with neither of your worldviews. But to counter this blatant overconfidence of Summerlander with respect to the bizarre, unsubstantiated statements: "Epicurean philosophy Epicurean philosophy has killed the paradoxical notion of God a long time ago." (--As well as weirdness on "faith," as if believing something has no evidence.)

Here is a nice video that demonstrates the problem exactly. And, no, I do not agree with every opinion of Ravi Zacharius. This video explanation of the singular emphasis of science, with minimal skill any other disciplines, hits the nail on the head.

https://youtu.be/8Wdq-fvkf5c

In continued thought on new atheism, John Lennox was quite generous with Richard Dawkins in debate with respect the strange claim by Dawkins that there is realistic doubt that Jesus existed based on historical examination.

Convenient, lack of knowledge of basic evidence was likewise cited by Sam Harris. He implies that copies of copies of copies of Scripture make it unreliable. I seriously doubt that Sam Harris has studied manuscript evidence even one day of his life. Dissemination of New Testament manuscripts in various directions, including early translations into several languages, and including external citations, provides comparative verification that is a tad more significant than Harris claims.

This recurring lack of even basic knowledge to other disciplines is an end-justifies-the-means approach to support only the atheist worldview. It is not open-minded.

The recurring idea that "human free will" is core to Christianity, too, is false. Basic knowledge of major historical significance discredits this attack. Reformation "Grace Alone" from a "Scripture Alone" approach has been discussed, historically, ad infinitum for bondage of the will.

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 4067
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: How to obe from a lucid dream?

Postby Summerlander » 24 Jan 2017 14:12

I've already said in another post why Ravi doesn't have a leg to stand on and on numerous accounts stated that even Thomas Paine trashed scripture as not constituting evidence at all when he published The Age of Reason about three hundred years ago. :D

Epicurus let's us know an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and infinite being cannot be---hence why the many contradictions in books like the Bible. The Epicurean claims I made earlier clearly have compelling substance and remained unchallenged when I posted them ...

Remember my Excalibur analogy on why an omnipotent god could never create such object and therefore make any reasonable and sane person question his omnipotence, Pilgrim?

And if he is all powerful and omnipresent, isn't he required to also understand and be omnimalevolent? If you say he's neutral, then he is neither and he might as well not be.

Like I said before, no theodicy in the world can vindicate a good God in the face of evil. 8-)

The god of scripture is manmade and certainly does not exist. If this universe is found to be designed, its designers are not gods. More likely that they too evolved like us and engineered a virtual reality. But even this hypothesis has no evidence to support it. :)

I also recommend that you read God Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens where both the Old and New Testaments are trashed. (Remember, although Sam Harris grew up in a secular home, both Dawkins and the Hitch had strictly religious upbringings.)

On free will ...

I agree with you. In a physical universe of cause-and-effect, free will is absurd. There is no free will. But you are dismissing the many Christians who believe that a god gave them free will---who take the view of St. Augustine and would tell you that without liberum arbitrium it would make no sense for a god to establish a day of reckoning. ;)

You have not tied up as many loose ends as you think you have, my friend. :mrgreen:
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

User avatar
Pilgrim
Posts: 608
Joined: 10 Apr 2016 10:24

Re: How to obe from a lucid dream?

Postby Pilgrim » 26 Jan 2017 01:13

It is not even a matter of Christianity or even theism. It was an agnostic who Ravi cited to demonstrate the fundamental problems of New Atheism. Do agnostics have a leg to stand on?

The Excalibur is just an argument of words that I highly doubt is the actual reason or had any weight as to whether one believes in God. Logical absurdities are meaningless data.

God's power is consistent with His nature as described in Scripture. True meaning in how we communicate in language is more on the paragraph level and is highly dependent on the relational associations of paragraphs and larger clusters of propositions. "All powerful" is the easiest starting point to explain the intent of Scripture as opposed to beginning with "not all powerful" and then describing that as really all powerful except consistent with His nature. Virtually any statement can be described in some way as being technically incorrect. People make short statements including the words "all" and "every" as a convenience or for emphasis regularly without being technically correct in some way. "They use such statements all the time." Is it really so hard to see intent of language?

We looked before at Augustine's change, admitted error, and explanation. If you fairly consider the biblical data, New Atheism cannot be eager and capable of reading plain meaning only when it can be used to impugn the Scriptures--as with slavery and war.

And, to be fair, one must acknowledge that authorial intent is not a concern for many Christians. Traditions, philosophy, and emotion are common to govern.

The problem of evil I do see as a legitimate issue. I do not claim to know the reconciliation, even though I clearly relate to God's wrath and justice giving profound meaning to corresponding grace and love.

Part of the reason that Christians engage in philosophical thought, as I read CS Lewis recently, is attempt to make sense of the feeling of freedom, the problem of evil, perceived necessary equal treatment to all people, etc. It is an attempt at reason, but it is simply not a train of analysis within Scripture. I see the intent of Lewis, but I think the reasoning is false and creates many problems that would not exist otherwise.

I read Wikipedia just now on Hitchens. Since he is not a theologian and spent a lot of time attacking politicians and such, I assume that he is simply citing the fruit of Higher Criticism schools on the Scriptures. I am sure that he summarized it well.

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 4067
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: How to obe from a lucid dream?

Postby Summerlander » 27 Jan 2017 13:47

Agnosticism in my view is a weak position because, as things stand, the probability of God according to evidence or lack thereof is not even 50-50---as explained in the topic 'Lucid Dreamers and God'. The most reasonable position you can take on the Dawkins scale is de facto atheism (a disbelief in God/gods because there is no reason to believe).

You can't just dismiss the Excalibur argument as a 'logical absurdity'---it seems like a copout to me to do so. Why is it absurd? Saying that it comes from human reasoning is not good enough. It's like dismissing the logic behind 2+2=4 because that's what human beings find.

There is literature out there on the inconsistencies and contradictions of scripture that you ought to look at. If anything, God's description is consistent with that of a flawed human personality---the psychology of a barbarian which contradict the paradoxical ideal that humans aspire to. It's the antithesis of Kant's summum bonum.

Hitchens despised theology anyway. He was an anti-theist and abhorred the idea of God. In fact, he once said that if it were true, it would make him depressed. To understand the Hitch, it's no good just reading Wiki. Critical thought is a pragmatic tool and you'd do well in giving books like Letters to a Young Contrarian a go.

The main point being, you don't need religion nor a belief in God to be a good person and to do well. Even Freud and Marx would encourage you to think for yourself and question every proposition---including the notion that scripture is divinely revelatory.
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

User avatar
Pilgrim
Posts: 608
Joined: 10 Apr 2016 10:24

Re: How to obe from a lucid dream?

Postby Pilgrim » 27 Jan 2017 22:15

Excalibur...Let me put it this way. You are the first and very likely the last person who I will ever encounter to have any concern for this argument.

The problem of evil, on the other hand, is a real problem. Many actually wrestle with the relate issues, such as: "Why do I suffer?".

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 4067
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: How to obe from a lucid dream?

Postby Summerlander » 28 Jan 2017 00:04

Copout. You are dismissing the implication posed by Excalibur. The god described in scripture could not create an object like it because omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence are paradoxical qualities. And a god with limiting parameters is no god at all. (Certainly not one worthy of worship either since an infinite being would require the contradictory traits of omnibenevolence and omnimalevolence---which doesn't even invoke the Excalibur argument.) Ergo, God does not exist.

I want to see you refuting this. Who's blasted now? :twisted:
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

User avatar
Pilgrim
Posts: 608
Joined: 10 Apr 2016 10:24

Re: How to obe from a lucid dream?

Postby Pilgrim » 28 Jan 2017 02:56

What philosophers find significant and worth arguing huge number of pages, I simply do not agree sometimes. The same is true of the ontological argument for God. Of course, it works in the opposite direction as an attempt to prove that God exists. (I refer to the argument that a being must exist than which none greater can be conceived.)

I honestly find these to be word games that appear disconnected to reality. Both use semantics as an excuse to argue.

Take my option as you wish, but I believe the value of Excalibur analogy is more as way to catch theists off guard and make them look stupid on your way to work. You are actually just countering what Christians, like Ray Comfort, do when they catch atheists off guard to sound dumb. I can see how Excalibur would mobilize enthusiasm within your movement, which is its only actual value.

Edited: Should read "my opinion," not "my option"


Return to “Paranormal Activity”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest