Multiple "Dimensions"

[Meedan]

I agree with Tom when he says:

The concept of "higher dimensions" is very vague and ambiguous. Since it doesn't really explain anything about Reality of the Universe, I avoid it.

I currently think that - apart from accidental parallel universe(s) - there is only one so called 'dimension': the universe that we perceive. However, from some posts on this forum it seems that not everyone shares this view, and I may be missing something.

I cannot see a purpose or a possibility for other dimensions, so if anyone could enlighten me, I'm all-ears .

[Zark]

I am no expert here, but, string theory requires many dimensions. Previously they needed about 11 dimensions, and then a new theory called "M Theory" came along and managed to knock it down to 6 dimensions. There was an excellent documentary about M Theory and String thoery on pbs (america). I will try and find it...

I did see a nice picture that tried to describe a dimension beyond time. I believe it was in the NewScientist magazine (10 May 2003). This article had a a circle and in it you could see all timelines, including our current timeline moving like a caterpillar through this dimension. To me that dimension comprised ALL time and space: past and future for all space.

This was all very interesting for me as it seemed to represent the 'Eternal Present' because from your perspective all existence was visible at the same time. I am not sure if I am explaining this right .. But it did bring to mind this part of the book at about pg 54:
‘For the moment, I was trying to explain the Creation to you. During billions of years (for the Creator of course, it is eternally the ‘present’, but it is more at the level of our understanding to count by billions of years)

cheers,
z

[Lachie]

If you exist as a piece of code in a folder on a hard drive, you won't be able to see into the other folders, let alone conceive of the reasons for HAVING other folders.

I think there are many dimensions that we do not know about. Why assume that there is only one way to create life, and one way to have creatures? Surely there can be creatures of light, of sentient microwaves, or etheric matter we cannot conceive of yet (to use examples that i just made up)?

Isn't it a little restrictive to think that our own limited, narrow channel to the Creator is the only one in existance?

Lachie

[Meedan]

The existence of 'parallel universe(s)' shows that it is possible for there to be other universes, but as Thao said, those are purely accidental. Why would there be other 'dimensions'? (the word 'universes' may be more appropriate)

Obviously, I have no reason to think there is any other universe apart from the accidental ones. So, while you think it is possible for there to be other purposeful ones, what makes you think there are others?

The universe makes sense, it was designed to make sense to us. Nothing about this universe strikes me as limited or narrow. Nothing makes me think the great intellect would need a seperate universe for creatures of light etc...

[Zark]

well... we already have two examples of alternate dimensions in the book. First was the dimenion without aging, and another would be the akashic records (psychosphere). ok, so maybe the two can't be lumped together? maybe they are like chalk and cheese..

Here is a documentary on String Theory and M Theory :
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html
hope you have broad band as it is xomposed of video streams.

And more background text on these theories here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/everything.html

regards
z

[Meedan]

The psychosphere a dimension? I thought that viewing the psychosphere is just accessing information (images,sound,etc) stored somewhere.

Thanks for that link Zark. I remember watching that series on TV a few months ago. The problem with these tutorials or documentaries is that they present certain theories as fact in the build up of the new theory. This is why I am trying to get hold of Tom's paper on gravity (does anyone have a copy? ).

I notice that a lot of theories are based on the current model of gravity, which is obviously very limited. I've learned not to trust 'scientific' TV documentaries, I have seen so many ridiculous programmes intent on presenting theories as fact and effectively acting as propaganda. I am currently reading 'Superforce' by Paul Davies, which will tell me more about the theories.

[Vesko]

The existence of 'parallel universe(s)' shows that it is possible for there to be other universes, but as Thao said, those are purely accidental. Why would there be other 'dimensions'? (the word 'universes' may be more appropriate)

Obviously, I have no reason to think there is any other universe apart from the accidental ones. So, while you think it is possible for there to be other purposeful ones, what makes you think there are others?

The universe makes sense, it was designed to make sense to us. Nothing about this universe strikes me as limited or narrow. Nothing makes me think the great intellect would need a seperate universe for creatures of light etc...

Oh yes, dimensions do exist. Not only one, probably there are many of them, each with a different purpose.

1. I know that dimensions exist, because I've been consciously to the astral dimension as opposed to moving my astral body in the physical dimension like what is described in Michel's book. Beyond the astral dimension and its planes some very trained people report that other dimensions exist but I have still not verified that. I have no reason to doubt that they are telling the truth.

2. They are dimensions, not separate universes. Dimensions are also parallel to the physical world, because everything in them happens simultaneously with the events that we see in the physical world.
I now better understand why in his book, Michel uses the term parallel universe for the "accidental" world that lies beyond areas such as the Bermuda Triangle. This is because such a world can be said to have no real connection to the meaning and purpose of our Universe in comparison with dimensions such as the astral.

It is reputed that so-called creatures of light, as you name them, do exist in the higher astral planes and the higher dimensions.

[Vesko]

The psychosphere a dimension? I thought that viewing the psychosphere is just accessing information (images,sound,etc) stored somewhere.

But in fact every action involves accessing information stored somewhere, so this cannot be definitive of a dimension.

Technically speaking, the psychosphere must also be a separate dimension. As I see it, to access it the astral body must accelerate and achieve a stable vibration at a speed, according to Michel's book, seven times that of light. The astral dimension is easier to access and stay in, likely because it vibrates at a lower speed. Why do I think so? Time in the astral passes slower than in the physical dimension. But what we find in the chapter "Delving into the Psychosphere", page 106, is very slow-passing time:

[Michel]'...I am very surprised that it is still light outside.'
'Of course it is still light, Michel. How long do you think we were away?'
'I really don't know. Five or six hours?'
'No,' said Thao, amused. 'No more than fifteen lorses -- about fifteen minutes.'

[Vesko]

Regarding Tom Chalko:

I agree with Tom when he says:

The concept of "higher dimensions" is very vague and ambiguous. Since it doesn't really explain anything about Reality of the Universe, I avoid it.

This only says that Tom avoids the concept, it does not say that he denies their existence. My personal opinion is that the concept of higher dimensions is NOT vague and ambiguous. There are higher dimensions with a higher purpose. They are thought to be vague because they can be accessed and understood only by a few advanced people that are capable enough to astrally project to them. They require far higher state of consciousness and training than the one required for achieving ordinary out-of-body experience, or plain detaching of the astral body, as it is called in Michel's book.

[Meedan]

People's descriptions of the 'astral dimension' seem to be simply a distorted version of the 'physical dimension'. This makes me wonder if that is all they are seeing. Surely it takes a lot of concentration to maintain the 'correct' non-distorted image, therefore many times there will be major distortions.

I have not projected yet, so I obviously can only consider testimony that i have heard. It's just that I haven't heard anything in astral projection accounts that suggests to me higher dimensions.

I have heard many accounts of higher-dimensions that seem completely nonsensical to me. With either no purpose or a purpose I could never imagine the great intellect giving. I will never 'believe in' something that doesn't make sense to me. This is why I agree with Tom's use of the word 'avoid'.

[Meedan]

Technically speaking, the psychosphere must also be a separate dimension. As I see it, to access it the astral body must accelerate and achieve a stable vibration at a speed, according to Michel's book, seven times that of light. The astral dimension is easier to access and stay in, likely because it vibrates at a lower speed. Why do I think so? Time in the astral passes slower than in the physical dimension. But what we find in the chapter "Delving into the Psychosphere", page 106, is very slow-passing time:

I don't see how it must be a seperate dimension from this. Don't forget that the great intellect encodes information electro-photonically (using light). The psychosphere absorbs information through light, so the psychosphere cocoon itself is probably also made up of electrons. I see no need for a seperate 'dimension' here.

We 'access' the psychosphere by exchanging photons (using our astral body) with it.

[Vesko]

We should have first made it clear what our definitions of the notion dimension are. My definition of dimensions are connected parallel realities within the Universe that vibrate at different speeds, are subject to a distinctive set of natural laws and peculiarities, and form a tangibly distinct environment from any other for a particular, distinct purpose. I say connected because those dimensions influence each other and one can switch between them.
Here is my answer from the point of view of my definition.

People's descriptions of the 'astral dimension' seem to be simply a distorted version of the 'physical dimension'. This makes me wonder if that is all they are seeing. Surely it takes a lot of concentration to maintain the 'correct' non-distorted image, therefore many times there will be major distortions.

Read more about it and try to achieve it yourself. In the beginning of the book, Michel is introduced to astral travel in the real-time zone. I have read that most people, when they go out of body, end up in this zone. I have been there. It is called real-time because time passes as it passes here in the real world. It is completely like the physical world but it is also heavily influenced by thoughts and fantasies, which appear solid although they are not so. For example, if you are distracted, images from your subconscious will be conjured up and often you will not even know if it's your subconscious that conjures up those images or if the images are real, objective. Suppose that you project and lose orientation, and start wondering if the wall in front of you has a door. The subconscious may instantaneously create a door for you, and you can actually pass through this door. If you enter, subjectivity starts snowballing and generating unrealistic scenarios at an exponential rate, and it's very difficult to restore your objective perception. So that is the reason why many inexperienced projectors see a distorted version of the physical dimension. I have seen distortions, too (e.g., an open door when it is actually closed), but I have also experienced a stable projection in the real-time zone that cannot be distinguished from physical reality.
The real-time zone is not the astral dimension. The astral dimension is not related geographically to the physical dimension and has completely different laws and environment from the real-time zone. Thought builds things easier, different stable structures exist, ways of navigation are different (through the astral tunnels and planes -- I have previously posted information on the latter elsewhere on the forum), and an objective perception of the environment can be kept for longer periods than if you were spending your projection time in the real-time zone. People find more confusion in the real-time zone and at the same time it very much appears to them like the physical world. Can we call the real-time zone another dimension? I think there are not enough differences in the governing laws of nature there to differentiate it from the physical dimension. Yes, you are lighter than air and can defy gravity (believe me the feeling is great), but almost everything else is just like normal. Can we call the astral dimension a separate dimension? Definitely yes, because it has a distinct set of governing laws.

I have not projected yet, so I obviously can only consider testimony that i have heard. It's just that I haven't heard anything in astral projection accounts that suggests to me higher dimensions.

Then just read more. Higher dimensions usually appear to be more abstract and symbolic. They are distinctly different from the astral and the real-time zone. There are higher level projections described in Robert Bruce's book "Astral Dynamics." He calls some of those the Rainbow level, the Summerland, etc.

I have heard many accounts of higher-dimensions that seem completely nonsensical to me. With either no purpose or a purpose I could never imagine the great intellect giving.

It is likely that they would appear nonsensical just because they are higher dimensions! That one can never imagine something that the Great Intellect can do is one's problem and one's problem alone. We are not on the level of the Great Intellect, so chances are we do not comprehend quite a lot of things at this very moment! We are studying, aren’t we? We are not the teachers on this yet.

I will never 'believe in' something that doesn't make sense to me.

I wonder why you have written this statement when you know very well that you must not believe -- you need to know and true knowledge is attained only through personal verification. It's your choice, but first of all you have to go there, if possible of course, and find out yourself. And you can't say that they don't exist until you have trained hard and done your best to access them. There are also other people to learn and apply advice from.

I don't see how it must be a seperate dimension from this. Don't forget that the great intellect encodes information electro-photonically (using light). The psychosphere absorbs information through light, so the psychosphere itself is probably also made up of electrons. I see no need for a seperate 'dimension' here.

It is we who have thought up the term dimension. Nowhere in nature it is written on billboards -- this is the astral dimension, this is the psychosphere, etc. It is convenient for us to term the psychosphere a separate dimension, no matter if it's made up of electrons or not.
Of course, you are free to avoid the term dimension and call it just the psychosphere. But regardless, it provides completely different experience than what you can have in the physical world. I term it a dimension because substantially different rules or laws are acting there: time, reaction to thoughts, etc. Also, read this on page 98, when Michel is in the psychosphere: "we were spectators in another dimension." Page 97: "the words saw, heard and felt were not appropriate, merely useful, as sensations occur 'spontaneously' in a very different way from that which we normally experience - and even from that which we experience when we travel in Astral body."

[Meedan]

I have read Astral Dynamics and while I feel Robert Bruce has to be a bit more skeptical about certain experiences, he has provided some excellent techniques.

There may be more to the astral dimension than you described, but my 'theory' would still explain everything you said about it. As I said in my first post - however - I am open minded about these dimensions, I am just saying what does not convince me about higher dimensions.

These higher dimensions were not mentioned in Thiaoouba Prophecy once, which is suspicious. TFOC and Thiaoouba Prophecy both explain the creator's motives for creating the universe, and there is no need for higher dimensions there. I accept that I don't have enough information to really make a judgement call on it yet, but naturally I will not think (that is what i meant) the higher dimensions exist until I have reason to. (believing is not enough)

[Vesko]

I have read Astral Dynamics and while I feel Robert Bruce has to be a bit more skeptical about certain experiences, he has provided some excellent techniques.

There may be more to the astral dimension than you described, but my 'theory' would still explain everything you said about it.

To be clear, you mean your theory that experiences in the so-called astral dimension are nothing but distored perception of the physical? You find no reason for the astral to exist?

These higher dimensions were not mentioned in Thiaoouba Prophecy once, which is suspicious.

"Thiaoouba Prophecy" is a book that aims to teach us basic things to get us started on the right path. You cannot expect it to contain very advanced material (there are a few certain exceptions that are evident in the book). If Michel was introduced to complex symbols and ways of perception, Michel would get confused and the book would have become less believable.

[Meedan]

To be clear, you mean your theory that experiences in the so-called astral dimension are nothing but distored perception of the physical? You find no reason for the astral to exist?

Pretty much. Although, it's not just distorted perception of the physical, it could also be a total mind construct (similar to lucid/normal dreams). Just to be clear, I say " 'theory' ", since it's more of a suspicion.