Michael Raduga

[sono2]

Has anyone read Michael Raduga's book on OBE? He has some interesting tips on maintaining "the phase", as he calls it, but is totally opposed to the idea of anything metaphysical. Still, I found some of his views interesting & thought-provoking. Here's a link:

http://books.obe4u.com/

[Sinera]

I don't think he denies the metaphysical. It is more that he leaves all explanations and interpretations open and concentrates on the practical issues to reach these states / have these experiences. (Personally I think it's the same case with LaBerge and his Lucid Dreaming books.)

[Beekeeper]

Yes, I played with his exercises for awhile and had tremendous success with them but, like everything with me, it always works best at the novelty stage.

[sleeper]

that book is enormous.

why do spiritual people write such gargantuan books? it takes them forever to get around to a point.

btw the book seems fine. i didn't delve much into the subtleties of it; i merely scanned it. it has basically the same stuff that all modern obe books have, except he must subscribe to the notion that it's all just 'brainstates' or something not 'real,' which i disagree wholeheartedly with.

[Sinera]

hm, does he really say it's not real?
brainstates does not necessarily mean it's not real, because you have different brain states (theta, delta, etc.) to access (experience, download, memorise etc.) different 'bands' (=dimensions) of reality, such as the 'astral' or whatever

[sleeper]

hm, does he really say it's not real?
brainstates does not necessarily mean it's not real, because you have different brain states (theta, delta, etc.) to access (experience, download, memorise etc.) different 'bands' (=dimensions) of reality, such as the 'astral' or whatever

i don't know if he says it outright; but he implies it with his notion of 'the phase.'

just my 2c

[CFTraveler]

That's funny, I was thinking that most people that write in descriptive terms (in the sense of teaching or explaining something) are long-winded; mainly me. :lol2:
The reason I do it is that I usually write in stream-of-consciousness, and after I'm done I go back and correct the more atrocious grammar errors and try to divide the paragraphs to not hurt anyone's eyes, but sometimes I can't help myself; I keep going and going and going.....
:mrgreen:

[sono2]

Hahaha - me too, only I get all verbose & pretentious when I write, especially anything "spiritual". . (slaps self on cheek)

Re M Raduga, he definitely does say that it is not "real", & in his forum, he defies anyone to prove the reality of the astral, challenging them to look at digits or writing in "the phase" - he says it simply can't be done.

Apparently at first, he did believe it was astral projection, but after more experience, concluded it was all mental "phasing" . Yet he agrees that one can learn information previously unknown to one while in the phase; & he mentions a mind-blowing experience he had with some sort of dinosaur when he went back in time. (It seems the prehistoric world was hot, humid & stank appallingly!) I'm not denigrating Robert's work btw, but Raduga's techniques can be applied as well.. . .

[sleeper]

saying that it's all phasing is a bold claim, especially since there are hundreds of thousands of conscious projectors, and he's basing his opinion of them on his personal experience.

i know people that say "it's all in your head" and they only believe that because they sucked at projection. period. oh and they're arrogant.

furthermore we don't have to prove that it's real. must we prove that a crying baby is actually sad and not making it up? must we prove that mathematics is real, even though 95% is purely mental and doesn't directly apply to anything physical? must we prove that memory is distinct from the brain?

there are many things that have practical and scientific legitimacy but are unproven, including astral projection.

ulitmately, i'm aggravated at the notion that everything is delusion. that, to me, is a scientific scapegoat.

~dale

[CFTraveler]

look at digits or writing in "the phase" - he says it simply can't be done. Maybe he can't do it, but I often do. Sometimes I can't, sometimes I can, but I don't know why this proves anything.
I do agree that it's impossible to 'prove' the AP is 'real' in scientific terms, but for other reasons not germane to this thread.

[sleeper]

Maybe he can't do it, but I often do. Sometimes I can't, sometimes I can, but I don't know why this proves anything.
I do agree that it's impossible to 'prove' the AP is 'real' in scientific terms, but for other reasons not germane to this thread.

start a germane thread then!

i'd enjoy reading your thoughts.

[Sinera]

I'm still not so sure if he really says that. I have read a few lines in his forum and also of his book. I still think he leaves it all open with question marks, which (for me) is still a respectable position (although I don't share it, either!).

Just keep in mind:

Saying you cannot prove that it's "real" (what's real-ity anyway?) is NOT saying that it is proven that it is not real. You see?

I still think that he moves along this (thin?) line. The reason for this is simple: marketing. I think he wants to address a larger group to sell his product(s) (books, seminars, whatever..). It is the same thing that LaBerge does. They want to address the "all in the brain" guys (still an outrageous and stupid concept... the brain is an intricate organ, but still a peace of meat, it cannot produce consciousness or thought, but ok, I digress...) as well as the 'metaphysicals' (most of us here) alike.

As I see it, the phase-concept itself does not say anything about "not real". Actually I have the same concept! Many projectors and mystics too. E.g. Kurt Leland does it when he calls everything "adventures in consciousness". The concept just says that it all (lucid dreaming, AP, RTZ-OBE, telepathy, Remote Viewing) is a 'continuum' which he coins "the phase" (it's got nothing to do with Monroe's phasing btw). However, he makes (for me) the mistake to leave out "normal" dreams, as the 'continuum' for me also includes all non-lucid/subconscious experiences like dreams and hypnagogia, etc. So his equation seems to be phase = lucidity (in non-physical state), but maybe I'm mistaken here.

And if he really actually claims that it is "not real" because not "provable" (which is a logical fallacy) then he should work on his astral capabilities to do validations! Or take a look at my little collection (see sig) ;). Many validations have been done and are being done (let alone in NDEs or by Remote Viewing only!) and can only be 'explained away' if you're superstitious (which is what many skeptics and the whole 'it's-all-the-brain'-bunch are!).


my2c

[sleeper]

i'm not really opposed to m. Raduga, his obe stuff seems kind of solid. generic, but solid.

i'm just opposed to the position that the placebo effect/delusion is responsible for every spiritual thing that happens.

that belief is prevalent and increasingly so.

many people who say: "every thing is phasing" subscribe to the above position, to varying degrees.

i disagree, and consider that notion to be very dangerous to personal spiritual growth. there are too many obstacles to growth already, why add another?

that's my 2c

~dale

[Korpo]

It was LaBerge's conclusions that made me put his book aside before ever finishing it. It's nice to know some scientists do studies on lucid dreaming. When it comes to proponents of "it's all in the brain", however, I just don't have the nerve to bother with that anymore. What I learn about the human experience itself matters to me. Can't see how reading cards in the RTZ would add to that. ;)

[CFTraveler]

i'm not really opposed to m. Raduga, his obe stuff seems kind of solid. generic, but solid.

i'm just opposed to the position that the placebo effect/delusion is responsible for every spiritual thing that happens.

that belief is prevalent and increasingly so.

many people who say: "every thing is phasing" subscribe to the above position, to varying degrees.

i disagree, and consider that notion to be very dangerous to personal spiritual growth. there are too many obstacles to growth already, why add another?

that's my 2c

~dale Interesting thoughts, and I'll add mine-
First, I just meant that 'yet another thread' about the 'reality' of the OBE and other liminal experiences bore me- I just can't feel too strongly about it.
I personally feel that we do get out of our body (or part of us, the 'information gathering' part) but I don't think it can be proven given today's scientific rules:
First, it's a subjective experience, and from a theoretical point of view, you and I can go to the same 'place' and see our version of this- provided we can really plan to get out at the same time, which is number two:
Testability- I don't know anyone who can project every single time they decide to do it, and I don't know anyone who doesn't get reality fluctuations, subconscious symbology, or simulations based on their level of development. That means that if it can't be falsified it can't be proven under scientific rules. And to tell you the truth, I don't care if it's proven, because scientific rules are valid for the physical world and should not be relaxed.

As to the idea that 'everything is phasing' I imagine you mean that the experience is solely a focus of consciousness that happens in the mind/brain- I also feel this is a modern take on the type of thought process that was prevalent when the scientific method was legitimized and materialism became 'the paradigm' - Nowadays no one wants to be labeled 'A Mystic' (except mystics who realize that's what they are, lol) so they use what they know about science to prove that it's a brain phenomenon, and not feel like they're going back to the Middle Ages. So to not look like a 'New Age Whacko', a 'Woo Woo', or worse, an 'Occultist' :jawdrop: , *gasp* then things are explained as being merely in the brain.
But just to redeem Robert Monroe, which was the first to coin the term (I think) to him the term phasing inferred 'moving out of phase with the material environment', and wasn't seen as 'something that only happens in the brain'. These ideas came later, with other authors who focused on brainstates to classify focus levels. (Pun not intended).

I understand the fear of that, it's very hard to maintain a stable middle when it comes to worldviews, as the world constantly shows us- and I don't know what's more dangerous- a materialistic mindset or a Medieval mindset. Neither is good. I suppose I should say they're both forms of fundamentalism.

So, when the 'Nouveau Materialist' tells you it's all in your head, just smile and nod, and continue knowing better.

[sleeper]

whenever i see even a glimmer of hope in someone, i try to expose them to alternatives to the mainstream, which usually is some form of dissidence.

korpo, we agree about that!

cft thank you for sharing.

volgerie thank you as well.

i have plenty to think about.

[sono2]

Agreed. Simply because one can't do something oneself is no proof that it can't be done.

I have already dropped many "friends" because of their sneering when I tried to share the sheer delight I find in being out of body. . .

[sleeper]

Agreed. Simply because one can't do something oneself is no proof that it can't be done.

I have already dropped many "friends" because of their sneering when I tried to share the sheer delight I find in being out of body. . .

they will come crawling back in 20 years once they become interested and remember that you know how to do what they want to do!

[Sinera]

That means that if it can't be falsified it can't be proven under scientific rules. And to tell you the truth, I don't care if it's proven, because scientific rules are valid for the physical world and should not be relaxed.
Although I agree with the first sentence I do not with the conclusion. It subverts everything that is and was done in the field of parapsychology, paranormal research, such as e.g. Dean Radin's work who works according to scientific method. I think there are possibilities, also to extend the scientific rules and include new epistomological methods, because we simply have to if we want to find out how "reality" works.


As to the idea that 'everything is phasing' I imagine you mean that the experience is solely a focus of consciousness that happens in the mind/brain-......
As I already said above, I think that Monroe's "phasing" has little or nothing to do with Radruga's "the phase".



But just to redeem Robert Monroe, which was the first to coin the term (I think) to him the term phasing inferred 'moving out of phase with the material environment', and wasn't seen as 'something that only happens in the brain'. These ideas came later, with other authors who focused on brainstates to classify focus levels.
It is not wrong (and not even materialistic) to focus on brain states or brain actions. Why not examine a radio or tv set how it receives a radio/tv program? And what you do to receive a different program / switch channel so to speak? Exchange channel for reality and you know what I mean by that. So it is not wrong to examine brainstates, it just would be wrong to draw the wrong conclusions by it, which is what materialists like to do.


So, when the 'Nouveau Materialist' tells you it's all in your head, just smile and nod, and continue knowing better.

I have already dropped many "friends" because of their sneering when I tried to share the sheer delight I find in being out of body. . .
Taking these both quotes together, my comment on this: I avoid discussions about these topics with friends as I do not know how they feel about any metaphysical stuff. Sometimes I caught myself letting sneak in a slight remark in conversations that might hint to sth metaphysical, but I don't do more, especially when I think that they don't catch on to it or get interested and ask what I mean with that. Sometimes it can be even relaxing to be more "shallow' and not talk about these things (which I normally think about "in my head ;)" all day long...) but rather have chats on on jobs, sports, other friends, personal issues, politics or simply the weather, instead.
However, if any one touched on this topic (friend or acquaintance or anyone I happen to be in discussion with) and with it propagates a materialistic worldview or interpretation of things (just in his/her view common mainstream "knowledge") I could not react as CFT proposes. I'd have to stand my ground and object even if I run the danger of beeing regarded as a whacko afterwards, I might even tell about my own experiences. It's worth it. If we always retreat and stay shy, how can we ever expect to change the paradigm?
I also think it is sad to lose friends due to different worldviews or beliefs. This should not happen. It might even be ok for a friendship to have different standpoints and sth to argue about on certain topics. And if friends drop me for my experiences and world view, then it's their prob, not mine, and they were never real friends in the first place. They should be able to keep up with a 'whacky' friend like me (cuz I do keep up with them although I think their restricted close-minded world view is whacky, too).

[CFTraveler]

I didn't mean "nod as if you agree" I mean I "nod as in I don't care what anyone thinks" and drop the subject. Unless someone says something that is obviously wrong. Then I can't stop myself and will get in an argument.
You know I do every once in a while, you must have read some of them.

[sono2]

As regards discussing these matters with one's friends, I have lately taken the radical stance that if I can't talk about what really matters to me, then I am in the wrong company. I'd rather have no "friends" than pretend to be other than the way I am, nowadays. . . I spent too many years trying to please others & fit in with their perceptions because I didn't want to upset anyone. I am not good at small talk in general, & often find it boring in it's petty personal specifics; am becoming ever more reclusive.

[Beekeeper]

I'd rather have no "friends" than pretend to be other than the way I am, nowadays. . .

I hope that hasn't been necessary.

[Summerlander]

Hi, folks!

I read the whole book and I can vouch for the accuracy of the techniques that he promotes. Michael Raduga doesn't necessarily say with 100% conviction that it is all in the head. He merely points out the brain activity observed which discerns the difference between wakefulness; dreaming; and the phase state (OOBEs/AP/LD).

He is very pragmatic and is not much for theory. He only cares about the practical side of things. Oh, yeah...I work with the guy. He is really down-to-earth. People are allowed to believe in whatever they want. For Raduga, the phase is PROBABLY governed by the subconscious mind...which is a fair statement and very honest in admitting that such altered state of consciousness is elusive. On the afterlife, he simply states that he doesn't know if there is one but, OOBEs and lucid dreams are certainly not proof.

For more on Raduga's views:
http://www.astraldynamics.com.au/showthread.php?12750-Was-this-an-OBE-or-LD-(shadow-crature)

O (http://www.astraldynamics.com.au/showthread.php?12750-Was-this-an-OBE-or-LD-(shadow-crature))h, by the way, Raduga doesn't use Monroe's term. Monroe came up with "phasing" but he was referring to something else. Raduga never uses such term. He only uses the term "phase" or "phase state". You either enter the phase or you exit the phase. He never says to apply techniques for "phasing". He merely means such state to be a phase that occurs between waking and sleeping.

He also gives his review on Robert Monroe, Robert Bruce, Stephen LaBerge, Sylvan Muldoon and many others. I seriously recommend that you guys read the whole book and there is an updated version of it coming out soon!