Jump to content
The Corroboree
Alchemist

Are YOU able to visualize very clearly for real???

Recommended Posts

Sort of. The Tao of Physics is a favourite book of mine that uses scientific results to explain and ponder Zen and other forms of Eastern thought. There was another by the author, Fritjof Capra, that discussed Gaia theory.

I'll add a more thorough treatment at a later time. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes please do ,very interested.

Getting back to the original topic of strong visualization, thank you once again for your posts. It seems that I really have an underdeveloped visual imagination and need to work hard. Its been good to know that some of you are capable of it to a reasonable degree. I shall try the afterimage intensification of a single spot initially and see how go for a few months.

If anything it should help me with Astral projection using Ophiel's 'little system'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

your mind is probably trained to work better in the abstract. i'm a bit more visually inclined than average, i frequently experience heavy visual hypnagogia and sometimes use the "backs of my eyelids" to help me think.

i think you can conceptualise things, "visually" in your mind, without them literally appearing. you can imagine something without visualising it. visualising seems to be one of those things that just flows sometimes before you necessarily know its happening, because it's just beyond conscious intent (unless you have trained yourself).

anyway, it's very difficult to do what you're asking. even if i become lucid in a dream, sometimes the dreamscape just starts to disappear and i can't make it do what i want.

i favour different types of meditation now but i do remember once, while stoned, the harder i tried to maintain a particular image the more twisted it became.

why do you have to astral project using a visualising meditation? in robert monroe's method his recommendation is meditating on the heart beat (you can feel it beat if you focus your mind on it). visualising skills might make an OOBE less confusing when it happens but i can't see why other kinds of meditation wouldn't be just as effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sort of. The Tao of Physics is a favourite book of mine that uses scientific results to explain and ponder Zen and other forms of Eastern thought.

Peter Woit, a mathematical physicist at Columbia University, criticized Capra for continuing to build his case for physics-mysticism parallels on the bootstrap model of strong-force interactions, long after the Standard Model had become thoroughly accepted by physicists as a better model:[7]

The Tao of Physics was completed in December 1974, and the implications of the November Revolution one month earlier that led to the dramatic confirmations of the standard-model quantum field theory clearly had not sunk in for Capra (like many others at that time). What is harder to understand is that the book has now gone through several editions, and in each of them Capra has left intact the now out-of-date physics, including new forewords and afterwords that with a straight face deny what has happened. The foreword to the second edition of 1983 claims, "It has been very gratifying for me that none of these recent developments has invalidated anything I wrote seven years ago. In fact, most of them were anticipated in the original edition," a statement far from any relation to the reality that in 1983 the standard model was nearly universally accepted in the physics community, and the bootstrap theory was a dead idea ... Even now, Capra's book, with its nutty denials of what has happened in particle theory, can be found selling well at every major bookstore. It has been joined by some other books on the same topic, most notably Gary Zukav's The Dancing Wu-Li Masters. The bootstrap philosophy, despite its complete failure as a physical theory, lives on as part of an embarrassing New Age cult, with its followers refusing to acknowledge what has happened.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised you dug that up. :P

I'm fully aware of this particular criticism, and I agree that the strength of this book lies not in matching a particular physics model. It provides an introduction to the idea of synthesizing science and mysticism - showing you how one might go about such a task, and while it may not be perfect - it's so far the best I've found on the topic.

What the book is about, transcends the author's unwillingness to adapt quickly to new theories. In case everyone forgot, that's what Einstein did when he rejected the new path of physics towards nondeterminancy (summed up succinctly as "god does't play dice"). Einstein still might even be right, but we won't know until we unwrap the next layer of the onion. This book is no substitute for studying quantum physics it should go without saying, but personally I found it a very useful accompaniment to resolve the apparent dichotomy of science and mysticism.

Lastly, if anyone hasn't learned to take everything you read with a grain of salt, it's not too late. ^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am always willing to listen to hard scientific evidence that can back up any sort of extraordinary claim to do with any mysticism like telepathy, astro traveling, ghosts, god, predictions of the future and similar "do-whacky" as James Randi likes to put it.

However yet i have seen no hard evidence to back up any such a claim. I am always open to someone proving me wrong in this matter! A good start would probably be someone claiming that $1 million that the James Randi foundation offers, hell you could even have the cheque written out to a charity so those people who claim these powers do not work for self-gain do not have a leg to stand on.

I find the subject of mysticism quite interesting, but mostly from a psycological perspective as i do not beleive in any of it.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence ! No pinches of salt when backing up such claims for me sadly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, when I wrote mysticism, I didn't mean all of it. The main thing the book deals with is the concept of Brahman. Which is that everything is fundamentally, the same (or as one), on some level. This is a nice working hypothesis. This concept has ramifications that everything is related at at-least this fundamental level.

We will be unable to prove/disprove this concept for probably our entire lifetimes. Thus either we leaves holes in our knowledge, or fill them with hypotheses (which we acknowledge as hypotheses). Your choice. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if it came across that i thought you meant all of it, that was not the case at all :)

Hypothesis is an important part in science and i do strongly encourage it, however like you say we need to acknowledge is as just an hypothesis until there is enough experimentation to back the hypothesis up - I think it is a bit far to common for hypotheses to crawl a bit too deeply into peoples belief systems without strong evidence to back them up (at which time it stop's being a hypothesis and becomes a theory).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if you experience something that others claim isn't real, does that make your experience false if science cannot quantify it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we are talking about the CEV/OEV kind of visualising then it's my understanding that it can indeed be/ has actually been shown, quantified, visualised.

It's my understanding that these visuals actually exist as electromagnetic standing waves and the ability or degree to which an individual can see CEV/OEV can be quantified (based on how pronounced these standing waves are) or compared with the ability of others to do the same thing.

This is a bit hard to explain but don't worry they have pictures, also it helped me initially to watch some youtube videos on the subject of electromagnetism , standing waves, EEG, also the fact the neurons (just like a live wire) generate electromagnetic field.

In fact I think I might have first seen this link posted here or at the nook.

Uncoiling the Spiral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if you experience something that others claim isn't real, does that make your experience false if science cannot quantify it?

 

Yes, because human experiences are not to be 100% trusted either. We hallucinate and create false memories which accounts for a lot of "eye-witness" accounts of mystic happeinings. Capturing something on audio or video is a lot more trust worthy than someones (and even my own) experiences.

If Mystic happening were really real then i see no reason why no one (let alone nearly every man and his dog) has been able to provide tangible evidence to convince the vast majority of the scientific population that it was real.

As for the whole seeing something by pure thought (where the only place it real is in your own mind) I would not be surprised if it was real and some people could do it. It is difficult to prove though !

Edited by BentoSpawn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also have trouble with visualisation and these things. I've been interested in visualisation and manifesting for ages, but haven't really made much progress. I have also tried to learn lucid dreaming and astral travel, but nothing really; although a few experiences where I think something started, but I get pulled back. Anyway, after some Aya ceremonies, I felt that I understood the secret to visualisation; suspended the critical/analytical mind and just being open to anything. But now I am quite skeptical again, although to be honest, I haven't even really tried to visualise since. I do feel more confident in visualisation now, and I feel that I know it's possible; which is a big deal. Although, I think the most important thing is to be yourself and not be swayed by other people's experiences. You need to be true to yourself, and not put to much pressure on yourself. So other people might be better visualisers, so what? When it gets down to it, we are all in our own universe and there's no reason to think that what other people do, you should do also. This attitude might also help you visualise better anyway, as you're focusing on your own experiences, not other peoples'. I always listen to others and appreciate their experience and knowledge, but to me it's all like fiction; there are useful ideas and signposts, but there's no reason to take it as real. Thanks for the great thread guys!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i've done some Vajrasattva, some chi kung & a whole heap ov dwugs; & have no problems w/visualisations.

the ones i use day to day are the "body ov light", if sick & the "see youself from above & start going higher", if trying to sleep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×