--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <no_re...@...> wrote: > > Turq, > > I find it strange that you are being somewhat "pro lucid dreaming" > when I compare that to your POV about oogabooganess in general.
Edg, I have *no problem* with oogabooganess. I have a problem with *unexamined* oogabooganess. :-) That is, I have respect for those who accept their out-of-the-ordinary experiences as valid experiences. But I have little for those who buy into someone else's ego-stroking "explanation" of what those experiences "mean." To quote Blade Runner, "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe." But I don't claim to "know" what those things "meant." And I don't claim that having seen them makes me "special," or "highly evolved," only lucky. > I've but dabbled with lucid dreaming, so I can't go toe to toe with > you, but I can ask questions of you that should clarify some things > for me if you honestly answer. > > If you truly believe that you and others were "meeting in the > astral" or "were in the same dream" . . . whatever, then there's > easy and scientific experiments you could conduct that would prove > if such an experience is real or merely imagination. Yup. I suggest you get in touch with some group that practices Lucid Dreaming and propose your experiment to them. I'm not involved with such a group. > So, here's an experiment: All you have to do is come out of a lucid > dream and tell what you saw in another physical location and then > check to see if that is true. Been there, done that many times. But for me to say so now means as little as for me to say that I've seen real levitation. Both are true, from my subjec- tive experience, but I can't prove it to you. I don't even care to try. I'm merely reporting my experiences; you can make of them what you want. But I agree with you that some of the Lucid Dreaming experiences could be objectively verified. I hope you get in touch with some group that is interested in putting them to the test. I'm not in touch with any such group at this time, so I can't help you. > I have four statues on my desk, so presumably an adept at lucid > dreaming should be able to hover over my desk and wake up with > information about the statues. I'm betting you'll say you > personally cannot do this... I wouldn't want to. Besides, in my experience I was usually only able to "dream teleport" to the *astral counterpart* of places I'd been to in real life, for the most part. It was rarer for me to be able to "go" to somewhere I'd never been before. As for "astral counterpart," I'm saying that sometimes the "quality" of the place was different in dreaming than in waking state. Lighting could be different, doors could be present in dreaming that aren't there in "real life," that sorta thing. Again, I'm not trying to "explain" this stuff or "make excuses" for it; I'm merely reporting what my experiences were. > ...but it seems you'll also say that IT CAN BE DONE. I have no idea whether it can be done or not. I think yours is an unrealistic test. If you find someone who cares enough about "proving" things to take you up on your challenge, based on my experience I'd suggest giving them the option of going somewhere they have been able to "go" before. You can control what appears in that location you want, as part of the test, but picking an arbitrary location they've never been before seems like a bad test to me, based on my experiences. > I'm saying that if someone cannot pony up the correct information > about my statues (or meet other such testing challenges) then > "astral traveling" remains unproved. And I'm saying that yours is an unrealistic test. See above. > But you seem to be a cheerleader for the validity of the concept, > and that seems at odds with your other POVs. Not at all. I am merely at odds with accepting one and only one interpretation of one's experiences as the "correct" one. I continually examine and reexamine my experiences, and am open to many ways of seeing them. It's only when someone declares "*This* is what my experience 'means'" that I give them a tough time. > I'm shocked that you are being such a "pushover" about the > reports about lucid dreaming... I'm shocked that you can't read. I have said *nothing* about "reports about" lucid dreaming. I have merely reported my own subjective experiences. > ...and I'm at the same time fascinated and wanting > to know how that all works inside your logic systems. Your statement > about actually doing lucid dreaming that is, to you, valid, and that > you are saying that almost anyone can gain this skill, makes it > astounding that science hasn't nailed this phenomenon down pat by > now. Makes sense to me. But it is not my interest to do so. Never has been, never will be. If it's yours, by all means pursue it. I only dabbled in lucid dreaming for fun. > In fact, I would challenge ANY lucid dreamer to pass The Great > Randi's test and collect his cash reward -- surely, also, the NSA > and other black-op governmental wogs would be all over this ability > as a threat to national security -- some terrorist should be able > to dream about, what?, passwords, account numbers, conversations > the President is having with top militarists, spy on any operation, > etc. Again, you don't seem to be able to read. "Going some- where" in dreaming has nothing to do with mind-reading (passwords, account numbers), and my personal experience does not suggest to me that I'd be able to "astral travel" into the Oval Office if I've never been there before. (I haven't.) If you want to get on your high horse with someone who claims to be able to do all these things, I suggest you ride your horse to someone who makes such claims. I didn't. In your haste to be all superior, you "read things into" what I was saying that I never said. You do that a lot. > The whole thing stinks of scam when real world concerns would have > discovered and used the ability to "astral travel" for many many > many reasons. Where's the beef? Edg, all you have done here is erect straw men that have nothing to do with what I said and them try to get me to respond to them as if they did. Again, you do this a lot. As for "scam," was I trying to sell you anything? Was I even trying to change your mind about anything? No, I was not. I was merely reporting my experience. > All that said, how's 'bout this: If someone can guide their dreams, > then why not simply have the intention to "be enlightened," or, say, > "meet Krishna," or, hey, my favorite, "have the dream character > meditate and see what happens, cuz, in the astral, why, you're right > next door to ritam levels, and the siddhis surely must be far more > intense and productive etc. when one can mindfully be at that lesser > state of excitation that, by definition, the astral state must be." > So??? Got beef? All good and excellent straw men. Of course, none of them have anything to do with anything that *anyone* who has ever studied lucid dreaming has ever claimed to be able to do, but that doesn't stop you from erecting them, does it? :-) Most people who study lucid dreaming aren't interested in "enlightenment," by the way. There is no such concept in Native American shamanism, and none I could see in any of the lay students of lucid dreaming. > But these things are not commonly attempted by lucid dreamers, and > in fact, a brief survey of lucid dreamers' accounts of their > experiences will yield a vast profusion of the most ordinary kind > of dreaming material... Well, duh. They're ordinary dreams. Just waking up in them, that's all. What were you expecting? :-) > -- there is almost no clamoring in the lucid dreaming > community for having their "best dreamers" be tested as The Great > Randi might suggest. Then you "go get 'em" Edg. Give 'em hell. Make 'em do what *you* want them to do because you're so damned important. :-) But leave me the fuck alone. I'm not trying to sell you anything. I'm merely reporting my experiences. I'm sorry that those experiences have pushed your buttons and made you crazy, but that's your issue, not mine. > I do agree that witnessing dreams is possible, but I think it's a > skill that only the most adept yogi-types can be expected to have > much skill in doing. Again, you don't seem to be able to read. I made a *clear* distinction between "being able to witness dreams" and "lucid dreaming." The latter requires interactivity within the dream and the use of intention to *change* the dream. I think you'll find that's rarely spoken of among "yogis" who "witness their dreams." > I'm convinced that it is a case of "what happens in meat, only > happens in meat." Well, duh. That's what I said. What happened in the dream plane happened in the dream plane. I make *no* claims about what those experiences "mean," and I'm not trying to sell you anything or change your mind about anything. You are reacting -- I think most would say *overreacting* -- as if I were. I think that what I said pushed some major disbelief button in you and you went a little crazy, as you are wont to do. > Imagination is incredibly powerful, and the willingness to > be fooled is commonplace. T'would seem that the willingness to "read into" what someone else said the things you want to rant about is also commonplace. :-) > A good lucid dreamer should be able to completely convince any > scientist in short order -- but it simply has not happened, right? I don't know whether it's happened or not? It's not my interest one way or another. I was "in it" just for fun. Back when I was in touch with some of the people who had worked with Carlos Castaneda personally, a lot of them were into lucid dreaming. I have a vague memory of them talking about scientific experiments that had been done on it, but I have no idea when or if they were, and what the findings might have been if such experiments took place. If you care, try to look them up. I don't. What I would suggest is that I did exactly what I've said in this post I did -- describe my experience. YOU went ballistic and "read into" what I actually said a bunch of stuff I never said, and tried to make me all defensive. I'm not. I merely described my experience. YOU were the one who went crazy.
