He claims to have traveled outside his body to bring back art… and much more |297|

What is the opinion of sleep paralysis? Does anyone experience this? Does it fall it to its own category or can it be lumped in with OBE?
A couple of threads where sleep paralysis is mentioned:
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/out-of-the-blue.2225/#post-66291
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/the-strange-world-of-felt-presences.1990/#post-66243

... though both those threads also cover the idea of unseen or felt presences, which could be considered another topic in its own right.
 
The more dramatic parts of this thread remind me of an episode of The Walking Dead...

"A walker got Jurgen!! We lost him!"
"Damn!" "Argh!" <sighs and head shakes>
"I'm so sad. He had just joined our little group and had so much experience to offer us... but we failed to protect him. :("
"How could this happen? Who let that walker inside the gates?! :mad:"
Hurmanetar: "...Well... uh... I wasn't sure if he was a walker. ...Doesn't everyone deserve a chance? Besides... if Jurgen couldn't handle one little walker, he was a liability..."
S.R.R.: "Yeah, let's all remember this IS the apocalypse... no safe spaces. Don't be a sissy."
"Whatever. I've had enough of your tough guy B.S."
"Who was on watch?"
"...David! :mad:"
David: "You guys left me alone to defend the 2 mile perimeter with a rusty butter knife. I'm only one guy... and I'm retired!"
 
The more dramatic parts of this thread remind me of an episode of The Walking Dead...

"A walker got Jurgen!! We lost him!"
"Damn!" "Argh!" <sighs and head shakes>
"I'm so sad. He had just joined our little group and had so much experience to offer us... but we failed to protect him. :("
"How could this happen? Who let that walker inside the gates?! :mad:"
Hurmanetar: "...Well... uh... I wasn't sure if he was a walker. ...Doesn't everyone deserve a chance? Besides... if Jurgen couldn't handle one little walker, he was a liability..."
S.R.R.: "Yeah, let's all remember this IS the apocalypse... no safe spaces. Don't be a sissy."
"Whatever. I've had enough of your tough guy B.S."
"Who was on watch?"
"...David! :mad:"
David: "You guys left me alone to defend the 2 mile perimeter with a rusty butter knife. I'm only one guy... and I'm retired!"
Lol . . . a rusty butter knife :D
 
Another excellent interview Alex; thank you.
Everything Jurgen said rang very true to me. I especially liked his open-minded approach and his very clear disavowals of absolute knowledge; and his avoidance of the God question. To my perception he takes a very scientific approach; and as I have said many times here, in my opinion that is the correct approach for those who want to really study this phenomenon. Of course people can and will take other approaches, for example faith and belief; but those can never constitute real knowledge; no more than theology can be part of science. I share Jurgen's hope that humanity will eventually study these matters in a systematic scientific manner. I think that time is still far ahead of us; but Jurgen and many others you interview Alex (including yourself; you are a pioneer too) are keeping the flame alive and doing valuable preliminary work.
 
Another excellent interview Alex; thank you.
Everything Jurgen said rang very true to me. I especially liked his open-minded approach and his very clear disavowals of absolute knowledge; and his avoidance of the God question. To my perception he takes a very scientific approach; and as I have said many times here, in my opinion that is the correct approach for those who want to really study this phenomenon. Of course people can and will take other approaches, for example faith and belief; but those can never constitute real knowledge; no more than theology can be part of science. I share Jurgen's hope that humanity will eventually study these matters in a systematic scientific manner. I think that time is still far ahead of us; but Jurgen and many others you interview Alex (including yourself; you are a pioneer too) are keeping the flame alive and doing valuable preliminary work.
I used to feel quite strong that the writers who adhere to the current ideas about after-life or non-physical reality were really onto something. These ideas have become so common that at times it seems a done deal. After death we may join in some various types of consensus realities based on our conceptions or beliefs. In these regions, assuming we have some semblance of "spiritual" maturity, we may enjoy various comforts as we continue our growth processes even perhaps planning our next incarnations for our next sojourn to the "physical."

I think it is important to reexamine ideas that have become so well trodden that they morph into a kind of law. Ideas like:

1. The all-loving "light of god" that "feels like going home" is a good thing. Completely surrendering to the light may in fact be a final reintegration of your "self" into the source. It is not difficult to find sources that view Eastern ideas of the dissolution of the self with suspicion. Just because one "knows" deep down that "something is right" doesn't mean it is right. I'm quite sure that the deepest throes of an opiate journey also feel quite right. But that doesn't mean it is ultimately the truth.

2. That mediums are truly channelling the energies of deceased loved ones and not nefarious entities who have access to some kind of akashic records.

3. That soul or spirit is eternal.

Of course there are many other contemporary "spiritual" ideas that have become part and parcel of the modern canon. These ideas may or may not be true. But I think it is a mistake to think that "explorers" like Jurgen or any of the other OBE writers are somehow so free of bias that they aren't influencing the manifestation of these worlds with their own expectations and preconceptions, no matter how careful they may be.

Death is the ultimate battle. Many, many sources contradict the idea that we go quietly into the afterlife to settle in for a cup of tea with beloved elders. Ignore these sources at your own peril.
 
I used to feel quite strong that the writers who adhere to the current ideas about after-life or non-physical reality were really onto something. These ideas have become so common that at times it seems a done deal. After death we may join in some various types of consensus realities based on our conceptions or beliefs. In these regions, assuming we have some semblance of "spiritual" maturity, we may enjoy various comforts as we continue our growth processes even perhaps planning our next incarnations for our next sojourn to the "physical."

I think it is important to reexamine ideas that have become so well trodden that they morph into a kind of law. Ideas like:

1. The all-loving "light of god" that "feels like going home" is a good thing. Completely surrendering to the light may in fact be a final reintegration of your "self" into the source. It is not difficult to find sources that view Eastern ideas of the dissolution of the self with suspicion. Just because one "knows" deep down that "something is right" doesn't mean it is right. I'm quite sure that the deepest throes of an opiate journey also feel quite right. But that doesn't mean it is ultimately the truth.

2. That mediums are truly channelling the energies of deceased loved ones and not nefarious entities who have access to some kind of akashic records.

3. That soul or spirit is eternal.

Of course there are many other contemporary "spiritual" ideas that have become part and parcel of the modern canon. These ideas may or may not be true. But I think it is a mistake to think that "explorers" like Jurgen or any of the other OBE writers are somehow so free of bias that they aren't influencing the manifestation of these worlds with their own expectations and preconceptions, no matter how careful they may be.

Death is the ultimate battle. Many, many sources contradict the idea that we go quietly into the afterlife to settle in for a cup of tea with beloved elders. Ignore these sources at your own peril.
"I especially liked his open-minded approach and his very clear disavowals of absolute knowledge; and his avoidance of the God question."

I felt I made it very clear that I admired the lack of certainty in Jurgen; and his honest admittance that what he was saying was his own opinion.
Etc
 
"I especially liked his open-minded approach and his very clear disavowals of absolute knowledge; and his avoidance of the God question."

I felt I made it very clear that I admired the lack of certainty in Jurgen; and his honest admittance that what he was saying was his own opinion.
Etc
It is exactly writers like Jurgen that I am talking about. He can claim open-mindedness all he wants. It is clear reading his books and listening to him speak that he feels he has quite hit upon "it." He may well have. I just have deep reservations about the current crop of writers who all buy into the contemporary afterlife mythology. They not only buy into it, they are actually part of its creation. I find that worrying. It is not beyond the possible that these folks are being manipulated into promulgating these ideas.
 
It is funny to hear Jurgen so very excited about all the folks having OBEs now and how finally all this data is being gathered and we may finally be reaching some conclusion. Do you think that for the nearly thousand year time period when people participated in the Mystery Schools that they were unaware of what we call out of body travel? Read Peter Kingsley for heaven's sake. This has been going on forever. Now all of a sudden with our superior intellect we are able to "truly" see the nature of the afterlife. That makes me laugh. If anything our vision is skewed entirely away from the truth in comparison with the ancients. All I am saying is caveat emptor.
 
It is funny to hear Jurgen so very excited about all the folks having OBEs now and how finally all this data is being gathered and we may finally be reaching some conclusion. Do you think that for the nearly thousand year time period when people participated in the Mystery Schools that they were unaware of what we call out of body travel? Read Peter Kingsley for heaven's sake. This has been going on forever. Now all of a sudden with our superior intellect we are able to "truly" see the nature of the afterlife. That makes me laugh. If anything our vision is skewed entirely away from the truth in comparison with the ancients. All I am saying is caveat emptor.
Why not just read or listen to what they say and take it for what it is - their expressions of their experiences.
Why the suspicions and conspiracy theories?
Have you a dog in this race?
A religious conviction perhaps?
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

It is exactly writers like Jurgen that I am talking about. He can claim open-mindedness all he wants. It is clear reading his books and listening to him speak that he feels he has quite hit upon "it." He may well have. I just have deep reservations about the current crop of writers who all buy into the contemporary afterlife mythology. They not only buy into it, they are actually part of its creation. I find that worrying. It is not beyond the possible that these folks are being manipulated into promulgating these ideas.
Manipulated by who though?
 
It could be that the Mystery Schools, more recent channeled materials and medium-produced descriptions as well as NDE and OBE experiences are all describing a reality that is purely subjective. If that is the case, then we should expect the stories to reflect the subjective conditioning of the observer. The Book of Enoch tells a story of ascending through various heavens. The language and scenery are typical old testament. Jurgen describes the super dimensions (he also used the term "heavens") - you can view his artistic impressions of his visits on his web site.

I think we tend to be very analytical and demand objective proof. We want our stories to be consistent because proof has to be consistent. Yet subjectivity doesn't work like that. Two artists can paint the same scene in completely different ways. They interpret what is in front of them subjectively: one might produce a photo-real representation, the other a swirl of colours with both bold and delicate brush stokes conveying meaning.
 
Why not just read or listen to what they say and take it for what it is - their expressions of their experiences.
Why the suspicions and conspiracy theories?
Have you a dog in this race?
A religious conviction perhaps?
I'm not at all denying that Jurgen or the others have had these experiences. I'm happy to read them. I'm keenly interested in any related experience of "non-physical" reality. I do wonder about the objectivity of any experiences related from the "non-physical."

I am not suspicious. I am deeply skeptical of everything.

I don't have any religious convictions.
 
It could be that the Mystery Schools, more recent channeled materials and medium-produced descriptions as well as NDE and OBE experiences are all describing a reality that is purely subjective. If that is the case, then we should expect the stories to reflect the subjective conditioning of the observer. The Book of Enoch tells a story of ascending through various heavens. The language and scenery are typical old testament. Jurgen describes the super dimensions (he also used the term "heavens") - you can view his artistic impressions of his visits on his web site.

I think we tend to be very analytical and demand objective proof. We want our stories to be consistent because proof has to be consistent. Yet subjectivity doesn't work like that. Two artists can paint the same scene in completely different ways. They interpret what is in front of them subjectively: one might produce a photo-real representation, the other a swirl of colours with both bold and delicate brush stokes conveying meaning.
That may be so.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

It is an interesting question. Kripal, at the end of Authors of the Impossible, goes into the ways Our Lady Fatima seemed more in line with an alien than with the Virgin Mary.

My guess is, assuming we can accept the different accounts of these other realities as valid, that the afterlife is more like a role playing manual cosmos than anything akin to the major world religions' versions.

So you have your Good planes, your Evil planes, and a bunch of weird stuff in between. (Which isn't to say Good planes can't become Evil and vice versa.)
 
It could be that the Mystery Schools, more recent channeled materials and medium-produced descriptions as well as NDE and OBE experiences are all describing a reality that is purely subjective. If that is the case, then we should expect the stories to reflect the subjective conditioning of the observer. The Book of Enoch tells a story of ascending through various heavens. The language and scenery are typical old testament. Jurgen describes the super dimensions (he also used the term "heavens") - you can view his artistic impressions of his visits on his web site.

I think we tend to be very analytical and demand objective proof. We want our stories to be consistent because proof has to be consistent. Yet subjectivity doesn't work like that. Two artists can paint the same scene in completely different ways. They interpret what is in front of them subjectively: one might produce a photo-real representation, the other a swirl of colours with both bold and delicate brush stokes conveying meaning.
The reality of this world is objective; but it is experienced subjectively. Ditto with the spirit realms.
Science is a methodology to overcome the distortions of subjectivity and attain a degree of objectivity (never absolute).
Our technology works because there is an underlying objective reality and there is a way it functions (ie it is lawful)
 
m
The reality of this world is objective; but it is experienced subjectively. Ditto with the spirit realms.
Science is a methodology to overcome the distortions of subjectivity and attain a degree of objectivity (never absolute).
Our technology works because there is an underlying objective reality and there is a way it functions (ie it is lawful)
On the other hand our experience of "being" (used here as a verb) in this world is wholly our own and absolutely not shareable, and the world only exists through our "being" in it. To what extend does it even make sense to speak of an objective world that exist without us? Or even to speak of an objective world that exists outside of us? Would the world even exist if there were no beings (noun) that existed in it, perceived it, were aware of its existence? Would an "objective world" without conscious beings (noun) to experience it, be any different from a world that does not exist? Doesn't the existence of the world depend on our experience of it?
 
m

On the other hand our experience of "being" (used here as a verb) in this world is wholly our own and absolutely not shareable, and the world only exists through our "being" in it. To what extend does it even make sense to speak of an objective world that exist without us? Or even to speak of an objective world that exists outside of us? Would the world even exist if there were no beings (noun) that existed in it, perceived it, were aware of its existence? Would an "objective world" without conscious beings (noun) to experience it, be any different from a world that does not exist? Doesn't the existence of the world depend on our experience of it?
"Doesn't the existence of the world depend on our experience of it?"

I would say, No. The existence of the world does not depend on our experience of it
But our experience of the world does depend on our existence.
Also, our existence as living physical creatures in the world depends on the existence of the world.
Our bodies are made by and of the world; made by and of the biosphere; the living matter of the Earth.
Our spirit or consciousness however is not made by the world and is not of this world.
We are visitors to this realm.
The world existed before we were born into it; and it will continue to exist after we die.
 
Last edited:
"Doesn't the existence of the world depend on our experience of it?"

I would say, No. The existence of the world does not depend on our experience of it
But our experience of the world does depend on our existence.
Also, our existence as living physical creatures in the world depends on the existence of the world.
Our bodies are made by and of the world; made by and of the biosphere; the living matter of the Earth.
Our spirit or consciousness however is not made by the world and is not of this world.
We are visitors to this realm.
The world existed before we were born into it; and it will continue to exist after we die.
But how certain of that can you be? Maybe the following can help to pry some of this open. Let's take any so called subjective experience. In the first place we say it is "subjective" because it is only available to the experiencer. Let's say I have an OBE and it comes with its own peculiar vision. I explain my vision to you, but to you it seems far fetched and fantastical because my vision is of a herd of wild unicorns wearing bowler hats. Let's pretend further that you say, "no that was just a distortion of your subjective experience of the world because a) unicorns don't exist, I've never seen one except in fantasy movies, b) if unicorns were real, they certainly would not be wearing bowler hats, and c) no one but you saw the unicorns and clearly for something to objectively exist independent of the experiencer, then someone else, at least one other person, must be able to confirm and corroborate all, or at least a substantial portion of your vision. This argument in its essentials is not different from my original argument: if there is not a single being to experience the world, then it cannot exist. Maybe rephrasing the argument: How can we say something exists, if there is no one to experience that thing?
 
Top