From: "Louis Ruiz" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: higher planes Lines: 27 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Message-ID: X-Trace: /K49oEyTS8tEcuCfktQNTld3IYXQ3Nu6lPUXyuoxHc2iYC0upYDvnxrnW7L64h7FpGIi7rFuOz/q!xZnuxv+ZyvEkpVEs5CJX/A0gxo5cG/+KhlR+2GdQy9BexIuyvzrIiJ0bACV02KblVL56iD3EGkuT!iRi+ X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 06:00:45 GMT Distribution: world Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 06:00:45 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.home.com!news.home.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!paloalto-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!paloalto-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:76628 excerpts from a site As stated previousley, different 'planes' operate at different frequencies. I.e. The physical plane is the lowest frequency, the etheric body operates at a slightly higher frequency, the astral plane and astral bodies operate at still higher frequencies. Although there are many sub planes and divisions, it is generally accepted that there are seven known planers or levels of frequency : Physical, Astral, Mental, Buddhic, Atmic, Anupadaka, and Adi. I cannot personally vouch for the validity of most of the higher planes, having yet to reach that stage, however a number of people have confirmed their exsistance to me. Travel to these planes is often referred to as 'Mental Travel'. The reason for this is the mode of operation at these levels. As we acheive higher rates of vibration we do not have a 'body' per se. We are simply exsisting as a consciousness, thus this bodyless state is often (perhaps misleadingly) referred to as 'Mental Travel' It is after much practice, and sometimes good luck (if such a thing exists - Synchronicity?), that we can raise our vibrations to these levels. Keep up the practice... ###### From: Ian H Spedding Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: higher planes Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 11:52:50 -0000 Message-ID: References: X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.50 NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-225-72-102.friaco.access.uk.tiscali.com X-Trace: 24 Jan 2002 11:49:55 GMT, ppp-225-72-102.friaco.access.uk.tiscali.com Lines: 22 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!skynet.be!skynet.be!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com!ppp-225-72-102.friaco.access.uk.tiscali.com Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:76634 In article , louis_ruiz@hotmail.com says... > excerpts from a site > > As stated previousley, different 'planes' operate at different frequencies. > I.e. The physical plane is the lowest frequency, the etheric body operates > at a slightly higher frequency, the astral plane and astral bodies operate > at still higher frequencies. This is meaningless unless you define what is meant here by "planes" and "frequency". Both words have been borrowed from science but they are not being used in the way that they are used in physics or geometry. Ian -- Ian H Spedding What did the mystic say to the hot-dog vendor? Make me one with everything. Lawrence Kushman ###### From: "William Bliss" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: Subject: Re: higher planes Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 10:41:26 -0500 Lines: 67 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 NNTP-Posting-Host: nopics.sjc Message-ID: <3c502b58$1_1@nopics.sjc> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!surfnet.nl!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!netnews.com!xfer02.netnews.com!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!telocity-west!DirecTV-DSL!nopics.sjc!directvdsl.com Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:76647 Hi Ian, Stealing words from science does seem easier than creating new ones. On Frequency: IMHO there is no anecdotal evidence to support the use of this word "frequency" over the many others that lucid projectors use. We just need to find some form of commonly understood terminology. The concept behind "frequency" has rather strong usage between people who have projected to multiple "worlds" in one OBE. Some other terms used to describe "movement" between these worlds are "moving inward", "shifting", "energy adjusting", "focus", "intent", etc. Some of the general agreements between these projectors seem to be: 1) The change is not associated with lateral movement. 2) There is a consistent linear or ordered feeling to these worlds, and the feeling of the intent to go in the "up" direction remains the same. 3) Going "up" (away from physical level) is progressively more difficult. 4) Worlds become more mental and less material as we go "up". 5) There is a tendency to slowly and automatically slide back to one particular level which is different for each of us. 6) This "particular" level often is more solid feeling while the others (including the physical) feel less solid. On Planes: I've talked to dozens of projectors about this term. None of them have reported any distinct grouping of these "higher" worlds. The existence of a spectrum of these worlds is agreed upon but not any subdivisions. OTOH, projections where we have no astral-body seem to allow us to go "higher" in this spectrum and remain more lucid. My conclusion is that either the ancient eastern mystics were significantly more advanced than today's projectors or their categorization scheme was simply wrong. Please speak up people if your experiences don't jibe with the above. Wm "Ian H Spedding" wrote in message news:MPG.16b9f8d3449fc00198979e@news.lineone.net... > In article , > louis_ruiz@hotmail.com says... > > excerpts from a site > > > > As stated previousley, different 'planes' operate at different frequencies. > > I.e. The physical plane is the lowest frequency, the etheric body operates > > at a slightly higher frequency, the astral plane and astral bodies operate > > at still higher frequencies. > > This is meaningless unless you define what is meant here by "planes" > and "frequency". Both words have been borrowed from science but they > are not being used in the way that they are used in physics or > geometry. > > Ian > > -- > Ian H Spedding > > What did the mystic say to the hot-dog vendor? > Make me one with everything. > Lawrence Kushman ###### From: Ian H Spedding Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: higher planes Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 19:39:07 -0000 Message-ID: References: <3c502b58$1_1@nopics.sjc> X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.50 NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-225-74-97.friaco.access.uk.tiscali.com X-Trace: 24 Jan 2002 19:36:11 GMT, ppp-225-74-97.friaco.access.uk.tiscali.com Lines: 19 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!newsfeed.online.be!isdnet!newsfeed.icl.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com!ppp-225-74-97.friaco.access.uk.tiscali.com Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:76638 In article <3c502b58$1_1@nopics.sjc>, CUTwbliss@telocity.com says... > Hi Ian, > > Stealing words from science does seem easier than creating new ones. Undoubtedly. :) I have no objection to the use of the words providing that, if they are being used to mean something other than the scientific usage, an alternative definition is offered. Ian -- Ian H Spedding What did the mystic say to the hot-dog vendor? Make me one with everything. Lawrence Kushman ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: higher planes Date: 24 Jan 2002 22:45:16 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 51 Message-ID: <6uk7u7h18z.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <3c502b58$1_1@nopics.sjc> NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 1011908716 570 10.0.3.2 (24 Jan 2002 21:45:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Jan 2002 21:45:16 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:76649 Ian H Spedding writes: > In article <3c502b58$1_1@nopics.sjc>, CUTwbliss@telocity.com says... > > > > Stealing words from science does seem easier than creating new ones. Not to mention that some new-invented word is meaningless to the listener, while an borrowed word will at least connect up to the listeners previous experiences. Sort of an "reminds me of". So for the purpose of communication an borrowed old word is superior, not just easier. Of course science itsself used this same method, when it was new. For example the word force was borrowed. Its original meaning is still visible in police force or airforce. Frequency is also related to the far older frequenting (going regularly to an place). > I have no objection to the use of the words providing that, if they > are being used to mean something other than the scientific usage, an > alternative definition is offered. Try defining something that quite a lot of the readers have not experienced anything like it. You can only define, if you have common elements that the other knows, that you can arrange to make the definition. I assume that those who have been "out there" have no problem understanding what he is referencing (something that also reminds them of some vibration). Why not read a text, ask "is this the scientific definition being used", "no", and then switch accordingly (do not interpret as if it were). Or simply assume as default non-scientific use, unless there are resons to assume the opposite. It makes writing a lot easier than having to insert continuous disclaimers (which is very dificult for people who do not live in your mental/experience world). Of course literalists (lateral thinking challenged in PC terms) people may get into trouble that way. Those will just simply have to be a bit less trigger-happy. Just observe, try to figure out what you can, ask questions aimed at getting descriptions (how does this look/feel?). Or try the experiments yourself and get first hand experience to use for interpreting. -- Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ Hacker, Unix Guru, El Eng HTL/BSc, Sysadmin, Archer, Roleplayer - Intellectual Property is Intellectual Robbery ###### From: Ian H Spedding Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: higher planes Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 00:00:19 -0000 Message-ID: References: <3c502b58$1_1@nopics.sjc> <6uk7u7h18z.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.50 NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-225-58-231.friaco.access.uk.tiscali.com X-Trace: 24 Jan 2002 23:57:24 GMT, ppp-225-58-231.friaco.access.uk.tiscali.com Lines: 92 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!proxad.net!proxad.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com!ppp-225-58-231.friaco.access.uk.tiscali.com Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:76671 In article <6uk7u7h18z.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>, neil@franklin.ch.remove says... > Ian H Spedding writes: > > > In article <3c502b58$1_1@nopics.sjc>, CUTwbliss@telocity.com says... > > > > > > Stealing words from science does seem easier than creating new ones. > > Not to mention that some new-invented word is meaningless to the > listener, while an borrowed word will at least connect up to the > listeners previous experiences. Sort of an "reminds me of". So for > the purpose of communication an borrowed old word is superior, not > just easier. It also invites the suspicion that such terms are being used, either consciously or unconsciously, to lend a veneer of scientific respectability to a subject which has not earned it. > Of course science itsself used this same method, when it was new. For > example the word force was borrowed. Its original meaning is still > visible in police force or airforce. Frequency is also related to the > far older frequenting (going regularly to an place). True, science has co-opted all sorts of words for use in particular fields, we have the use of 'colour', 'charm', 'up' and 'down' in particle physics, for example, but in these cases they have narrow and carefully-defined meanings. A term like "etheric body" is obviously making reference to the now- discredited concept of the ether. But this was thought to be a fluid, or possibly elastic, substance which permeated the entire universe. It wasn't thought to form bodies any more than gravity or electromagnetism are thought to form bodies. Of course, there is nothing to prevent paranormalists from postulating the existence of an "etheric body" but if they do they should explain what they mean by it. If it is conceived of as a substance, that implies it should have mass, however small, which means that the departure of the "etheric body" from the physical body should be measurable as a loss of weight. If, on the other hand, it is thought to be pure energy then, by definition, it should be detectable by the changes it effects on some aspect of the physical world. > > I have no objection to the use of the words providing that, if they > > are being used to mean something other than the scientific usage, an > > alternative definition is offered. > > Try defining something that quite a lot of the readers have not > experienced anything like it. You can only define, if you have common > elements that the other knows, that you can arrange to make the > definition. I assume that those who have been "out there" have no > problem understanding what he is referencing (something that also > reminds them of some vibration). If, by "frequency", they are refering to a physical sensation of vibration like that associated with the onset of lucid dreams or OBEs it would be more informative to say so. > Why not read a text, ask "is this the scientific definition being > used", "no", and then switch accordingly (do not interpret as if it > were). Or simply assume as default non-scientific use, unless there > are resons to assume the opposite. This is what I usually do. The problem is that if it makes little sense by assuming the scientific usage, the text becomes almot meaningless if a non-scientific, but undefined, usage is assumed. > It makes writing a lot easier than having to insert continuous > disclaimers (which is very dificult for people who do not live in your > mental/experience world). > > Of course literalists (lateral thinking challenged in PC terms) > people may get into trouble that way. Those will just simply have to > be a bit less trigger-happy. Just observe, try to figure out what you > can, ask questions aimed at getting descriptions (how does this > look/feel?). Or try the experiments yourself and get first hand > experience to use for interpreting. I'm not asking for continual disclaimers just that novel terms are defined or, at least, described as far as possible. After all, the process of description and definition is in itself a useful discipline for clarifying what you mean. Ian -- Ian H Spedding What did the mystic say to the hot-dog vendor? Make me one with everything. Lawrence Kushman ###### From: "William Bliss" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3c502b58$1_1@nopics.sjc> <6uk7u7h18z.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> Subject: Re: higher planes Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 10:15:09 -0500 Lines: 36 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 NNTP-Posting-Host: nopics.sjc Message-ID: <3c5176af_2@nopics.sjc> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!colt.net!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!telocity-west!DirecTV-DSL!nopics.sjc!directvdsl.com Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:76682 Ian and Neil, IMO both of your are making good points here. "Ian H Spedding" wrote in message news:MPG.16baaf65100ba7c99897a7@news.lineone.net... [...] > It also invites the suspicion that such terms are being used, either > consciously or unconsciously, to lend a veneer of scientific > respectability to a subject which has not earned it. I understand and agree completely. When I first started taking classes with the IIPC (to better understand their viewpoints) I was appalled at the seemingly indiscriminant use of technical words but also the renaming of established terms like astral-body to psychosoma, etc. After a while I realized that they had fairly good reasons for these actions and that to a certain extent it was my own scientific ego and intransigents that was doing the complaining. A similar affrontery sometimes occures when scientists from one field are invited to speak at a conference on another field. Often the conference attendees will be annoyed if the visiting scientist doesn't bother to learn and use the correct indigenous vernacular. To a certain extent that is what may be happening here. us woo-woos have a way of speaking (and thinking), logical or not, and I suspect most of us are more interested in coming to agreement on descriptions and definitions rather than inter-field etiquette. Even a thin veneer of scientific respectability has the possibility of doing what acorns do. Wm [...] ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: higher planes Date: 25 Jan 2002 22:38:07 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 170 Message-ID: <6uvgdqf6ww.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <3c502b58$1_1@nopics.sjc> <6uk7u7h18z.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 1011994687 411 10.0.3.2 (25 Jan 2002 21:38:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: 25 Jan 2002 21:38:07 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:76685 Ian H Spedding writes: > neil@franklin.ch.remove says... > > > Of course science itsself used this same method, when it was new. For > > example the word force was borrowed. Its original meaning is still > > visible in police force or airforce. Frequency is also related to the > > far older frequenting (going regularly to an place). > > True, science has co-opted all sorts of words for use in particular > fields, we have the use of 'colour', 'charm', 'up' and 'down' in > particle physics, for example, But still borrowed. Same mechanism. > but in these cases they have narrow and > carefully-defined meanings. Science also had the simpler situation of talking about stuff which is easily visible (possibly with large machinery) to anyone involved, not just to a small group of people who have mastered meditation techniques. Not to mention that science has a _few_centuries_ of systematic research and new practitioners spend years getting up to speed at special educational institutions. Not exactly the situation here with a few amateur discoverers and an large pile of non-experiencers. > A term like "etheric body" is obviously making reference to the now- > discredited concept of the ether. Now that "obvious" I will dispute. Most paranormalists do not even know of the scientific ether theory of the 19th century. And even if they do, they only know the name (and associate it with the general public concept of "ethereal" (sort-of material, but not solid)) and not the proposed mechanism, or anything about light waves and their speed. Same Ethernet does not "obviously" point to an belief in ether either :-). Yes: such scientific terms like "ehter" are not universal knowledge. That is something any scientifically educated person has to learn: that their knowledge is something unusual. General public knowledge level is mostly 19th century science or even 18th! Yes: language is a very imprecise thing. One of the things I learned in my profession (programmer). I am not surprised that AI failled. > Of course, there is nothing to prevent paranormalists from postulating > the existence of an "etheric body" but if they do they should explain > what they mean by it. Which they have, many times. Something body-shaped that is not solid (ethereal :-)) and seems to "peel out" of the physical body. And then some report seeing something even less solid (astral body) peel out of that. The 2 step observation is not universal. For someone who has experienced an OBE (not me, and I assume not you) the term most likely fullfills the purpose of words: to point the listener to one particular "thing" in their (assumably[1]) common experience. [1] when reading a.oob I sometimes get the impression that there a few different things all being called OBE. > If it is conceived of as a substance, that > implies it should have mass, however small, which means that the > departure of the "etheric body" from the physical body should be > measurable as a loss of weight. If, on the other hand, it is thought > to be pure energy then, by definition, it should be detectable by the > changes it effects on some aspect of the physical world. You are demanding from a bunch of beginners to formulate an theory, while they are still trying to nail down the phenomena. Look at the days when the old greeks 2000 years ago tried to do physics, without any of modern theories and next to none of the equipment. All this "other worlds" stuff seems to be still at that stage of discovery. I suppose a few scientific minds trying to explore this stuff could change this, over say 100 years. That is IMHO the biggest problem with science: the scientists have got too used to an world where everything has detailled observations and theories predicting them, so they simply do not function properly anymore when something is still largly uncomprehended. I suppose they have optimised away ambiguity-processing to gain more precision and detail. But that makes them incompatible with the general public. Becoming aware of that is an difficult step, but after that one understands the rest of humanity a lot better. > > definition. I assume that those who have been "out there" have no > > problem understanding what he is referencing (something that also > > reminds them of some vibration). > > If, by "frequency", they are refering to a physical sensation of > vibration like that associated with the onset of lucid dreams or OBEs > it would be more informative to say so. That is generally called "the vibrations" around here So I assume this frequency stuff to be something different. Due to lack of personal experience I can not place the term anywhere. But I assume that those with experience must be able to recognize one of their experiences in it, else the term would not be copied and spread! > the text becomes > almot meaningless if a non-scientific, but undefined, usage is > assumed. Meaningless to an non-experienced person, such as me or you. To an other experienced person, these terms seem to point to something they have experienced. So they are meaningfull, to their target audience. > > can, ask questions aimed at getting descriptions (how does this > > look/feel?). Or try the experiments yourself and get first hand > > experience to use for interpreting. > > I'm not asking for continual disclaimers just that novel terms are > defined or, at least, described as far as possible. After all, the > process of description and definition is in itself a useful discipline > for clarifying what you mean. Sure. That is what I also said: "ask questions aimed at getting descriptions". But small caveat: take into account that many here are allergic to skeptics, lots of roughed up nerves around. So any bluntly formulated question will be maximally missunderstood as attack. Just look at the difference of these two questions: --------- from your first post in this thread This is meaningless unless you define what is meant here by "planes" and "frequency". Both words have been borrowed from science but they are not being used in the way that they are used in physics or geometry. --------- and: --------- You are using terms "planes" and "frequency" that I do not understand, as non-OBEer. Could you describe what these things look/feel like? --------- Note the absense of "attacking" words such as "meaningless" (= bad words) or "borrowed ... not being used in the way" (implied: "way" = properly, i.e. "not" = wrongly). I have had a lot more success in trying to (semi-)comprehend people here with such an approach. Think of it as coaxing an answer out. P.S.: I am off on holiday tomorrow. So I will only see your answer after that. -- Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ Hacker, Unix Guru, El Eng HTL/BSc, Sysadmin, Archer, Roleplayer - Intellectual Property is Intellectual Robbery ###### From: none@spam.is.not.nice.org (ao) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: higher planes References: <3c502b58$1_1@nopics.sjc> <6uk7u7h18z.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 Lines: 21 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 01:40:00 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.92.65.194 X-Complaints-To: abuse@sympatico.ca X-Trace: news20.bellglobal.com 1012009182 65.92.65.194 (Fri, 25 Jan 2002 20:39:42 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 20:39:42 EST Organization: Bell Sympatico Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!torn!webster!nf1.bellglobal.com!nf2.bellglobal.com!news20.bellglobal.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:77185 On Fri, 25 Jan 2002 00:00:19 -0000, Ian H Spedding wrote: >A term like "etheric body" is obviously making reference to the now- >discredited concept of the ether. But this was thought to be a fluid, >or possibly elastic, substance which permeated the entire universe. >It wasn't thought to form bodies any more than gravity or >electromagnetism are thought to form bodies. Hi Ian, such terms might seem strange until you do a little bit of research into their origin. Much of the terminolgy used even today such as astral projection, astral bodies, and astral planes, etc., is drawn heavily from the terminolgy and theories put forth by the theosophists such as Madame Blavatsky (1831 - 1891) in the latter part of the 19th century. Madame Blavatsky in turn drew heavily on information she gathered while travelling in India and other parts of the world. There is an interesting summary of her life and travels at: http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/madame-blavatsky.htm in case anyone is interested. /ao May all your thoughts be good ones... ###### From: "couscous" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: Subject: Re: higher planes Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 01:56:24 +0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Lines: 38 Message-ID: <3c52edc9$0$22353$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.142.136.117 X-Trace: 1012067785 22353 198.142.136.117 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.gamma.ru!Gamma.RU!image.surnet.ru!surnet.ru!news1.optus.net.au!optus!spool01.syd.optusnet.com.au!spool.optusnet.com.au!210.49.20.122.MISMATCH!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:77403 "Louis Ruiz" wrote in message news:hqN38.23$WJ.36011@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net... > excerpts from a site > > As stated previousley, different 'planes' operate at different frequencies. > I.e. The physical plane is the lowest frequency, the etheric body operates > at a slightly higher frequency, the astral plane and astral bodies operate > at still higher frequencies. > > Although there are many sub planes and divisions, it is generally accepted > that there are seven known planers or levels of frequency : Physical, > Astral, Mental, Buddhic, Atmic, Anupadaka, and Adi. I cannot personally > vouch for the validity of most of the higher planes, having yet to reach > that stage, however a number of people have confirmed their exsistance to > me. > > Travel to these planes is often referred to as 'Mental Travel'. The reason > for this is the mode of operation at these levels. As we acheive higher > rates of vibration we do not have a 'body' per se. We are simply exsisting > as a consciousness, thus this bodyless state is often (perhaps misleadingly) > referred to as 'Mental Travel' > > It is after much practice, and sometimes good luck (if such a thing exists - > Synchronicity?), that we can raise our vibrations to these levels. > > Keep up the practice... > > > Can you please post the address of the website. ###### From: "Louis Ruiz" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3c52edc9$0$22353$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> Subject: Re: higher planes Lines: 52 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Message-ID: X-Trace: +4AzTawxILpSjisw4St8eoU3FAMku/SVQlr99bV7xPBiIeR04gAjXe8iw6zgwG5z552FGRzc+SMq!RSc9+QXSDjK50p6EUPs0YPoucb1EqRiKfndvq4U430cDtS8co7SRcoV5+ceg+HLcSXkW4oVRo1Xn!nE00FIaTDg== X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 20:25:22 GMT Distribution: world Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 20:25:22 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.he.net!cyclone-sf.pbi.net!131.119.28.146!paloalto-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!paloalto-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:77070 http://www.xsite.ltd.uk/wren/whatisap.html "couscous" wrote in message news:3c52edc9$0$22353$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au... > > "Louis Ruiz" wrote in message > news:hqN38.23$WJ.36011@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net... > > excerpts from a site > > > > As stated previousley, different 'planes' operate at different > frequencies. > > I.e. The physical plane is the lowest frequency, the etheric body operates > > at a slightly higher frequency, the astral plane and astral bodies operate > > at still higher frequencies. > > > > Although there are many sub planes and divisions, it is generally accepted > > that there are seven known planers or levels of frequency : Physical, > > Astral, Mental, Buddhic, Atmic, Anupadaka, and Adi. I cannot personally > > vouch for the validity of most of the higher planes, having yet to reach > > that stage, however a number of people have confirmed their exsistance to > > me. > > > > Travel to these planes is often referred to as 'Mental Travel'. The reason > > for this is the mode of operation at these levels. As we acheive higher > > rates of vibration we do not have a 'body' per se. We are simply exsisting > > as a consciousness, thus this bodyless state is often (perhaps > misleadingly) > > referred to as 'Mental Travel' > > > > It is after much practice, and sometimes good luck (if such a thing > exists - > > Synchronicity?), that we can raise our vibrations to these levels. > > > > Keep up the practice... > > > > > > > > Can you please post the address of the website. > > >