21 Days

In comments, Småfornå referred me to an online book, downloadable in PDF format, called 21 Days. Written by Piero Calvi-Parisetti, a medical doctor, it presents a case for life after death in a clear, readable, and well-researched series of chapters, with each chapter covering another day in an ongoing discussion between the author and an open-minded skeptic.

I liked the book quite a lot. It's an excellent contribution to the field of afterlife studies, and may well be the best general introduction to the subject I've seen. Calvi-Parisetti covers most of the major lines of investigation into postmortem survival. He starts with evidence for psi, presenting the case for telepathy, remote viewing, micro-PK, precognition, and distant healing, then moves on to NDEs, OBEs, mediumship (mental and physical), reincarnation, EVP and ITC, deathbed visions, and poltergeists. The only obvious omissions that occurred to me are apparitions and hauntings.

I particularly admire the author's cautious and reasonable tone. He admits that much of what he has to say is "unbelievable," and makes allowances for the reader's doubts. He carefully distinguishes between strong and weak evidence. For instance, in discussing EVP, he notes that the great majority of "voice phenomena" that crop up in a Google search consist of dubious and probably worthless recordings - random noise misinterpreted as fragments of speech by over-enthusiastic amateur researchers. But then he discusses the work of professionals in the field, which cannot be so easily dismissed.

Among the book's many strengths is its analysis of two cross-correspondence cases, which are laid out in sufficient detail to convey the impressive quality of this often overlooked evidence. Another plus is that the author's international background as a Red Cross administrator has exposed him to research that is not often aired in the USA. 

Naturally, when so many subjects are addressed, there will be room for disagreement. Although Calvi-Parisetti acknowledges that he has mixed feelings about materialization mediumship, and still considers it a somewhat "borderline" subject, he does devote a chapter to it. To my way of thinking, his defense of the medium Eva C is not entirely convincing; I continue to think some kind of fraud was probably going on, for reasons I've indicated elsewhere. The author's other major example of materialization mediumship is David Thompson; longtime readers of this blog know I've had many doubts about his séances, especially pertaining to the method of restraint used to secure him to his chair.

At times I felt insufficient attention was paid to possible skeptical objections. For instance, in Calvi-Parisetti's brief examination of Florence Cook's mediumship, he does not mention the fact that Cook was unquestionably caught cheating later in her career. (In one of her séances, the "materialized spirit" was seized by a sitter and turned out to be Florence in disguise.) In a long discussion of the Scole phenomena, he does not include the bizarre end of the experiments - which were abruptly concluded after the"spirit communicators" claimed their transmitting station had come under attack by hostile forces! Rather suspiciously, the termination of the work occurred just as researchers were planning to introduce infrared cameras into the séance room.

Finally, I would not be as dismissive of macro-PK as the author is. I think the evidence for metal-bending, especially in the PK parties hosted by Jack Houck, is very strong.

These quibbles do little to detract from Calvi-Parisetti's book. Clearly it is a labor of love by a serious, sensible, and knowledgeable professional, and I think it will prove quite convincing to open-minded newcomers.

Plus, it's free! Download yours today.

Comments

[Michael H]

Free is Good!

Seriously - I also thought it was an excellent overview of a wide range of data that was presented in an objective fashion. I did grow weary of the conversational format, though (as if 'skeptics' actually considered evidence with an open mind!). All in all it's a clear, persuasive summary, and the numerous source references provides plenty of material for additional investigation for those so inclined.

One of the most interesting comments he made should be encouraging to those who do consider these things to have basis in fact. After discussing the full range of observed positive changes in values and behavior exhibited by NDE survivors, there is this exchange:

"Skeptic": . . . it would be nice to have one [an NDE]. All the psychological changes you mentioned seem very desirable.

Calvi-Parisetti: Yes, very, very good! They are indeed very desirable. Only, research shows that you don’t need to go near death and then come back to achieve such transformation. There is solid evidence that just learning about NDEs can bring about these changes. The more people get to know about this particular subject and study it, the more these psychological changes become apparent, without the need of having an actual NDE.

So . . . keep reading those NDE accounts, folks!

[Vitor]

Prescott,

another great book is in this link: inhttp://www.4shared.com/file/56929227/f5dbd746/irreducible_mind.html

Best wishes,
Vitor

[Vitor]

Sorry, the link is:
www.4shared.com/file/56929227/f5dbd746/irreducible_mind.html

[Michael Prescott]

Vitor - it's very interesting that the full text of Irreducible Mind is online and available for free download as a PDF file. I just wonder if this is an infringement on the authors' copyright. I wouldn't want one of my books being downloaded for free ...

I may contact the publisher to ask them about this.

[Troy]

Not to mention the fact that people should buy it to support further research.

[Kevin]

I'm with Michael on this, as I spent nearly $90 on my copy of Irreducible Mind (which also included the CD-ROM of Frederick Myers' hard-to-find Human Personality). I don't regret a dime of the purchase price. However, if the online access to the book compels self-professed skeptics to actually READ the book, I can accept its availability. Furthermore, I agree with Michael H. when he notes Calvi-Parisetti's observations concerning people who only encounter information ABOUT NDEs. tell everyone you know to read, read, read...soon.

[Michael H]

Myers' classic Human Personality and Its Survival of Bodily Death is available at Google Books. It can be downloaded as a PDF from the link (23 MB).

[Zerdini]

"The author's other major example of materialization mediumship is David Thompson; longtime readers of this blog know I've had many doubts about his séances, especially pertaining to the method of restraint used to secure him to his chair."

David Thompson is NOT a materialisation medium and has admitted that he is not. It is Victor Zammit who keeps making this claim.

Neither Victor Zammit, David Thompson nor any members of his circle have ever seen a materialisation.

The same applies to the Scole phenomena and its circle members.

[Tony S]

(as if 'skeptics' actually considered evidence with an open mind!)

Skeptic has become such a dirty word, unfortunately. A true skeptic would have an open mind, but also a need for good evidence.

But yeah, when we here the word, the Randi-esque types come to mind.

[Michael H]

You're right, Tony. You may have noticed I almost always scare quote the term.

Genuine skepticism is the healthy application of reason, which is a very positive thing. Unfortunately, the 'skeptics' have hijacked the term to where it is now nothing but a means to defend reductionist scientism and promissory materialism. It's clever - anyone opposing the 'skeptic' is automatically branded as credulous, while the 'skeptic' arrogates 'reason' to himself.

[Leo MacDonald]

Also he forgot to mention the newspaper tests and book tests, also afterdeath communications and induced afterdeath communications. But besides that is truly is a good book.

[Leo MacDonald]

He forgot to mention too Xenoglossy, The Newspaper Tests and Book Tests and Induced afterdeath communications and afterdeath communications.

[Vitor]

Leo,

xenoglossy has not any strong evidence. Read this:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~thomason/papers/xenogl.pdf

Best wishes.

[Piero Calvi-Parisetti]

Dear Michael, I find no words to thank you for the extraordinary review you have written about my very modest contribution to the popularisation of psychical research.

This came completely unexpected - I just noticed a dramatic increase in the number of downloads of my e-book, tried to find out what the reason might have been and landed on your almost embarrassing critique.

It is heartening to see how widespread the interest on these subjects is, and I am overjoyed with the public's interest for my work.

Thank you again and very warm regards.

Piero

[Teri]

"Unfortunately, the 'skeptics' have hijacked the term to where it is now nothing but a means to defend reductionist scientism and promissory materialism. It's clever - anyone opposing the 'skeptic' is automatically branded as credulous, while the 'skeptic' arrogates 'reason' to himself."

Good point Michael H, but I'm not sure what "promissory materialism" means?

[bailer]

The book is a very good introduction to the evidence but the skeptic in the book is an ignorat skeptic. Informed skeptics have much more difficult objections to overcome. Dealing with those issues is not appropriate for such an introductory book but the book may give someone a false sense of certainty and when they come up against some of the better arguments against the evidence they may have the belief shaken. I don't know how to deal with this in an introductory book except to warn the readers about the problem and suggest they be skeptical about skeptics, and always try to see what rebuttals may exist for new skeptical arguments that they may come across.

[Teri]

Actually, bailer, I wonder if anyone here has a list of ready-made rebuttals to typical skeptical argumuents. Now that would be useful. I know that skeptics often use the same arguments, and I suspect they copy and paste them from somewhere. I don't think just copying links to helpful sites is any good - people won't open a mass of links, and they don't have a ready impact. A list might save time in the long run...

ITS GOING TO BE A LONG POST, HERE IS A LIST AND I DON'T TAKE ANY CREDIT FOR IT AS I HAVE FOUND IT ON OTHER SITES.

The extreme skeptics of the paranormal have a tendency to refute the least credible of paranormal examples; they seldom try to take on the best evidence and if they do they do not give very credible alternative explanations. To do the former, is easy, the latter, near impossible. They also unfairly (and unscientifically I might add) tend to group all of the paranormal together and reject it all. Its not all or nothing and the same applies to the various evidence types for life after death. For instance, mediums communicating with the dead could be true but this has no relation with astrology being true or not - the two are independent of one another but this gets lost on some of the extreme skeptics in their overall outlook.
In fact, with the paranormal as it relates to life after death, there clearly are many cases of both deliberate deception (as we would expect due to the nature of the subject) and where there are alternative explanations. But these are not the cases we need to be scrutinizing to determine if they constitute evidence for life after death - although this is unfortunately what some skeptics do to present their conclusions against the paranormal. The cases that have no other plausible conventional explanation are the ones that need to be held to the test.
We also have to be careful with paranormal phenomena in that, even if the particular phenomena or, more commonly the case, elements of it can be induced, it does not necessarily mean or follow that this is the cause of the paranormal phenomena and the explanation for it. A non-paranormal analogy being, for example, certain drugs can induce euphoria in a person but when one normally is experiencing euphoria, it is real and occurs naturally without the effect of any drugs. Therefore, drug intake is not the explanation for euphoria normally experienced even though drugs can induce it.
It should be noted that the various aspects to the best paranormal phenomena cases have thus far been very difficult to account for collectively using natural scientific models.
Some people will believe paranormal activity at face value with even the weakest of evidence. On the other hand, there are skeptics who are very closed-minded and biased and will not even allow for the possibility, no matter how convincing the evidence (and thus, maybe to an extent, possess irrational mindsets). A good example showing the mindset of a certain group of ultra-skeptical individuals who refuse to accept any paranormal explanation is the following quote from an August 27, 2001 article in the online magazine Salon.com interview with Michael Shermer editor-in-chief of Skeptic Magazine:
"If we asked, what would it take for me to believe in ESP? Would it take a single experiment? How about 10 statistically significant experiments in which the guy picked the right playing card? That still wouldn't quite do it because there's no way to understand how this could possibly happen in the brain. We understand how neurons and brain centers work but we don't know how something would transmit through space out of your skull into somebody else's skull. So those guys need to come up with some mechanism to explain it."
So even if the best explanation is a paranormal one, ultra-skeptics will not accept it because they do not understand the underlying mechanism for it.
Ultra-skeptical scientists start with the assumption that something which contravenes the laws of science (as they are currently understood), cannot occur. They are not open to the possibility of non-material mechanisms explaining the data. Their lack of belief is a form of belief in itself.
In science, a new scientific statement is only accepted if it either agrees with established scientific laws or replaces rival statements with superior evidence and theory. Psychic phenomena clearly don't fit the first and haven't succeeded so far in the second. Not to make excuses for it, but due to it's nature, what is needed is a new framework to examine the claims for the various psychic phenomena rather than the existing limiting experimental science we have. Of course, ultra-skeptical scientists would rather not do anything that might accommodate anything to do with the paranormal and would therefore reject any such suggestions.
The logic of scientific inquiry must always allow for the possibility that the existing scientific laws are incomplete or even wrong.
Science is what we always need to use as the basis to start with, and if it fails to explain the phenomena, only then should we go outside of mainstream science and look at the possibility of paranormal explanations.
Much of the paranormal evidence types for survival of consciousness can be explained by normal means, some of it is not possible to determine, and some is very likely to be evidence for survival. It is as if, on the surface at least, one can interpret however one wants - almost as if it is supposed to be this way.
Near Death Experience
In fact the NDE is actually against evolutionary survival - it is a state which is highly pleasurable (in most cases) from which one would not necessarily want to escape from. If there were no NDE for the dying person, then they would fight death as much as possible instead of succumbing to it. And in fighting it, would be more likely to survive.
Interestingly, the cause of near death or clinical death (heart attack, head injury, etc.) nor other factors such as drugs in the system or oxygen and/or carbon dioxide levels in the blood does not seem to impact the NDE experienced. This makes the case for the NDE being real as experienced stronger.
The longer the clinical death, the more expansive and prolonged the NDE. Again, this gives more strength to the argument it is in fact consciousness separating from the body. If it were just in the brain, then the opposite would be expected.
In the NDE going through a dark tunnel may be explained by the cut-off of blood to the occipital lobes at the back of the brain. Entering a world of darkness makes sense for a dying brain to which sensory input has been stopped. But what explains the brilliant light and emotions filled with such bliss after the darkness? Hardly what you would expect a dying brain to produce.
The dying brain hypothesis breaks down when the brain is clinically dead. Since there is no break in consciousness and it is continuous, then the dying brain hypothesis cannot account for the NDE as occurring just around death and/or resuscitation.
It could be possible that God may have made our brains so that they allow us to experience the NDE so that we can make a smoother transition from this life to the next.
One explanation given by scientists is that the NDE is a universal recall of the birth experience - travel down the birth canal (dark tunnel) and ending up in bright light at the moment of delivery. The problems with this theory are patients born of caesarian section are reported to have this NDE and the bright light upon entering the world is hardly a wonderful experience (that's why the baby cries so much). Also, a babies eyes are closed during birth and it is not known what the baby experiences. And why would humans undergo a repeat of the experience when dying?
One problem with trying to understand the NDE being real as experienced is that there is some variability among different cultures in one or more of its components. For example, a tunnel is common in the west but not in Japan. Existing religious knowledge or beliefs can also influence any religious figure one may encounter on the other side. Nevertheless, the experience could be real and tailored such that the transition to the other side is easier.
Not all people who reach clinical death recall a NDE (the reported range is only 10-18%). The possible explanations are: (1) Everyone does have an NDE at this stage but the brain 'filters' the NDE memory out for some people when revived or the NDE is not always 'recorded' onto the brain (ie. 'access' is either given to the memory or its not), and/or (2) There is a lag time before many of us would experience consciousness again after physical death (even after consciousness has left the body), and/or (3) Consciousness does not always separate from the body right away, or (4) Only some of us survive physical death but this would be completely irrational as we would expect all to do so or none. My guess is that the most likely explanations are one or more of (1), (2), and (3).
Expanding on (3) further, people who experience NDEs and OBEs are more likely to leave the body quickly at or near death or even possibly under other circumstances. Thus NDErs stay trapped in the body for lesser time after it has stopped functioning and this is probably determined by a biological predisposition somehow (at least to a certain extent). For the rest, they had not been dead long enough and an insufficient amount of time had elapsed for them to have an NDE.
The explanation of particular chemicals being in the brain at death as being the reason for the positive NDE doesn't explain why some people experience a hellish (or negative) NDE (the range for reported NDE cases is 1-2% as the lower estimate and 10-15% as the upper estimate). If the NDE were 'hard-wired' into our brains, we would expect them all (except for the odd anomaly) to be of the same type.
When elements of the NDE are induced in people in experiments (note: all aspects of the NDE have never been induced collectively to the best of my knowledge), the resulting experiences are not well remembered. The actual NDE is of great clarity and vividly recalled well into the future which is the opposite of what one would expect if it were just a dying or impaired brain.
There is commonly a spiritual transformation in the person who has experienced the NDE which has not been explained in any other way nor repeated in laboratory experiments. This profound transformation simply cannot be replicated in a drug-induced state and this suggests it is likely more than just brain chemistry at work.
For someone experiencing an NDE, the whole universe typically opens up more to them - which is the opposite of what one would expect considering the brain is closing down or has closed down. The NDE in fact seems to be more real than life itself. Our brains may in fact be limiters of our consciousness. Not all NDEs are necessarily consciousness separating from the body. Some might be hallucinations triggered by drug induced states, some could be vivid dreams (although NDE experiencers overwhelmingly deny this to be the case) triggered by a trauma, and some may be non-NDE transcendental experiences.
The explanation that the NDE is caused by carbon dioxide overload or oxygen starvation, even if it were possible, is inadequate because many NDEs occur without either of these conditions present.
It may even be that the hellish NDE is experienced only because the person is to return to this life and may need this experience for the remaining life to be lived here. It could even be that hellish experiences do not happen if the soul is not to return (actual death takes place and the soul is not to return back to the physical body but to move onto the spiritual realm and not just have a NDE). Or alternatively, if the soul is not to return, are less frequent relative to the positive experience right after leaving the body (ie. compared to NDEs).
NDErs experience the actual negative and positive feelings they inflicted upon or gave others throughout their lives during the life review in a 'full' NDE and as its happens. This is truly amazing and I hardly can see any biological reason or explanation for this; and only a spiritual one is (by far) what would make sense.
There has not been a plausible alternative explanation for the out of body experience (OBE) that often occurs with NDEs. This is probably the single most convincing component of the NDE to suggest the NDE is exactly what people who experience it claim it to be - a round trip to the 'other side'. Though the weakest NDE with OBE cases, which do not have the clarity or the narrative quality about them and are paranoid in nature, are likely just hallucinations and therefore not NDEs.
A sensation that one is leaving or has left ones body has been induced under laboratory conditions without such actually taking place (without undergoing an OBE) - as have certain other elements of the OBE but never collectively to replicate an OBE anywhere even close to the full expansiveness of it. In fact, some OBEs (the weakest cases) are probably just a form of disorientation of spatial self. The latest research from two separate sets of experiments published in the August 24, 2007 magazine/journal Science showed that by using virtual reality technology, researchers were able to trick the subjects sensory system by creating a very convincing illusion so that they were perceiving their bodies from a new perspective which was outside of their actual physical bodies. The experiments only provided subjects with an image of disembodiment which was believable to them. Only a touch sensation (not an OBE) was induced which fooled the subjects. The subjects understood it to be just an illusion whereas people who have an OBE consider it to be a real experience. Something like this type of illusionary experience could account for some or even all of the OBEs some people occasionally report when experiencing sleep paralysis and even in certain medical conditions.
Having an OBE and obtaining information otherwise not attainable (eg. from another room) has not been replicated under laboratory inducement. And there is no reason to believe it can be without it actually taking place as a real OBE. Further rationale for the OBE that occurs with the NDE being real as experienced is that the NDEr often is looking back at their body they have just left behind and not just 'floating up'.
With OBEs, some do occur when the person is not near death. Persons have reported leaving their bodies and going to some other place (sometimes distant) that is out of range of their normal senses and observed and later reported on events (such as a conversation between two people) that they could not have learned about by normal means. In a small number of cases, the person experiencing the OBE may be 'seen' by another person at the place where the experiencer had claimed they had been (these cases are referred to as "reciprocal").
Even better evidence for life after death is the veridical NDE in which the person undergoing it acquires information not known to them prior that could not have been obtained by normal means and is later verified to be correct. The experiencer may see events at some other location (for example, another room in the hospital they are in). Or the person might meet a deceased loved one who communicates information unknown previously to the person undergoing the NDE which is later verified to be correct. A more common example being they report encountering people whom they did not know were dead but who were later confirmed to have been at the time they had the NDE.
The evidence is showing that the NDE is occurring during 'flat line' (no brain activity which happens within 11 seconds of the heart stopping) since (1) The NDE is continuous and there are no blackouts or cutoffs; (2) Cannot happen only while brain activity dying out or coming back periods only due to continuity issue; and (3) Aside from the continuity problem, the NDE would not make sense to be happening in the dying or recovery periods due to insufficient oxygen in the blood in and to the brain and lack of brain activity for such a vivid experience for a materialistic explanation. If consciousness is solely a product of the brain, then I do not see how the NDE could occur during either of these periods. But if consciousness is separate from or can exist outside of the brain, then the NDE can occur during these periods.
If the NDE is occurring only before brain function ceases, there would after this be no consciousness and would hit a blank state and then when resuscitated would regain consciousness. The cases reported would be that a NDE occurred, followed by death and ceasing to exist, and then life again. In other words, if one had ceased to exist, then one would remember the NDE, then no recall, and then would awake to find oneself in their body and would have had a discontinuity of consciousness which is not found in the reported NDEs. Unless this abrupt change shows up as the 'snap back' into the body (and as expected the blank state will not be recalled). But our understanding of the brain shows if consciousness is part of the brain, then consciousness slowly comes back when a person is resuscitated and not all of a sudden. And the 'snap back' cannot be explained like this as it is too abrupt and sudden.
If the NDE is occurring after the person is resuscitated, then the NDEr would say it occurred after recovery as they know they have recovered (and the discontinuity of consciousness would still be there also). With B) and C) (but not A)), would have periods of firstly decreasing and secondly increasing consciousness (as well as a discontinuity in between) which is not what we find to be the case.
I wanted to outline some thoughts on a study by Dr. K. Nelson published in April 2006 (Nelson, K., et al, Neurology, 66, 1003-1009) which tried to establish a link between NDEs and REM intrusion (rapid eye movement dreams while the person is typically actively dreaming while half awake and just falling asleep or waking up). It received a lot of sensationalistic mainstream media coverage at the time from ‘journalists’ who did not really understand the study. Many of the worlds leading NDE researchers were not happy with the misinformation in the media that resulted (nor with the poor quality and what appears to be a study setup to try to get, or come close as possible, to a predetermined outcome) and pointed out the flaws in it and why REM intrusion is not an explanation for the NDE as follows.
[Note: If you are not familiar with this study, then my recommendation is to waste little or none of your valuable time on this, at best, mediocre ‘research’ as the only things possibly learned are that REM intrusion could only be an explanation for the weakest NDEs (which really are not NDEs at all) and after experiencing an NDE a person may be more predisposed to REM intrusion]
NDEs occur in various circumstances and sometimes in conjunction with REM intrusion but the two are fundamentally different. 40% of NDErs do not report to have experienced any aspect of REM intrusion. Therefore, REM intrusion by itself could not explain all NDEs and at best only some. It appears that the researchers thought they were getting some responses about REM intrusion which were not actually REM intrusion and this is more so with the NDE group and therefore skewed the results in favour of a correlation between NDEs and REM intrusion. The NDE is very different from REM intrusion in that there are unknown aspects to it that may have meaning later and is experienced as being real, coherent, of great clarity, meaningful, and remembered in detail for life. Unlike REM intrusion, the NDE has a consistent fundamental structure that is basically the same across differing age and cultural groups. REM intrusion is based on a known environment, one realizes it is hallucinatory and not reality, and it is unrealistic typically. The NDE has profound life changing effects while REM intrusion never does. Nelson, et al. talked about the fight-or-flight response due to the nerve pathways in the brain which are also associated with REM intrusion. He then suggested that there could be a possible association between NDEs and REM intrusion. But this could never account for REM intrusion underlying the NDE occurring where there is no chance beforehand to assess danger such as an unanticipated blow to the head resulting in immediate unconsciousness leading to an NDE. Or in cases where the person was not aware they were in an immediate life threatening danger such as surgery or illness from which an NDE resulted. The hypothesized link between NDEs and REM intrusion does not seem plausible.
NDEs commonly occur eventhough the person undergoing the NDE is under the influence of medication known to suppress REM.
People born blind from birth who have never seen anything (not even blackness) have reported NDEs. Their dreams have no sense of sight and have been shown to have no REM while they dream. Moreover, NDEs experienced by these people often include sight.
People have reported NDEs while under general anesthesia for which the brain functioning necessary for REM intrusion to occur would not be expected.
In REM intrusion, the person often feels terrifyingly trapped in ones body whereas with NDEs people do not and it is commonly reported by NDErs that their consciousness was no longer associated with their physical body. NDE researchers do not report of anyone feeling frantically trapped in ones body while undergoing an NDE.
REM intrusion experiences do fit the profile of hallucinations based upon the visual and auditory data whereas the vast majority of NDEs do not. NDErs rarely report anything (other than a subsequent NDE) reproducing any part of their NDE and this further suggests that NDEs and REM intrusion are different experiences.
Only about 10-18% of people who clinically die report NDEs but maybe all experience them but not all remember them. This may be due to the fact the NDErs brain allowing them to do so. Thus possibly some peoples brains allow them to experience REM intrusion. The NDE alters the brain and may sometimes reduce the ‘filter’ on consciousness. This may partly explain reported greater psychic abilities after an NDE and/or REM intrusion being more likely to occur. People who remember their NDE are more likely to recall REM intrusion as happening to them.
REM intrusion could not account for most NDEs and certainly not the best ones. REM intrusion could never account for veridical perception.
For the strongest NDE cases, a skeptic would have a lot to try to explain away which cannot in all likelihood be done without invoking the paranormal. Aspects of the best NDEs which I think an alternative explanation is very hard to see forthcoming include: (1) No measurable brain activity while the NDE occurred and the person was clinically dead, (2) No discontinuity of consciousness of the experiencer (even though they were clinically dead and had no measured brain activity), (3) OBE with a 'birds eye' perspective looking back at ones own body, (4) A life review often with feeling the effects one had on others at specific times in their lives, (5) Coming across beings one knows who have pre-deceased them who are likely in their 'prime' in terms of the earthly existence they had, (6) A reluctance to return (and there seems to be a point of no return which if crossed the soul could not come back into the body) which is also against what evolution would predict. (7) Encountering a 'Being of Light' with whom there is a communication by direct exchange of thoughts, (8) Life changing, and (9) Veridical nature.
Entities (ghosts, spirits, angels, etc.)
Entities are reported in all cultures and parts of the world and have been throughout the ages independently (for the most part) of the knowledge that they have been observed elsewhere. This makes their existence, that much more probable.
Though ghosts do seem to be connected to an individual who previously died in the same physical location. Also, sensing smell and touch as well as sight and sound from entities is very strong evidence that these are not just apparitions.
If in fact magnetic fields were the generators, then we would expect to see many more apparitions with the electrics in buildings of more recent times producing electromagnetic fields (unless of course there is some inherent difference between the magnetic fields generated from electromagnetism vs. geomagnetism which should be not the case). And in industrial settings where we have large magnetic fields generated from things such as electric motors, transformers, industrial magnets, and various machinery we should see apparitions as a result, which we do not.
Some ghost sightings can be explained away as being hallucinations. However, many cannot. For example, where there has been more than one person seeing the ghost at the same time or when someone else reports a similar or exactly the same sighting at a later time (especially when they have no prior knowledge of the previous sighting so there is no expectation that one will experience such and therefore they are not simply hallucinating what someone else has already seen). The same applies to paranormal activity in general. It seems that more than one explanation would have to account for the observations.
There could be a 5th or another dimension (beyond the 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time; note that string theory predicts 10 or 11 dimensions depending on the version) or other dimensions that could contain the spirit world. Entities may be able to travel back and forth from the other side (or this other dimension). They may not be trapped here as is often assumed about ghosts and only 'visit' us in order to convey a message(s) - the major theme possibly being that there is a continuation of the spirit after physical death.
There are many cases of people reporting to have seen a life like apparition of a relative or friend right before, when, or just after they die in cases where the living person does not receive news of the death (or even have any prior knowledge the person is in poor health or danger) until sometime after the sighting. This is known as a crisis apparition. This appears to be more common when the two persons (the one seeing the apparition and the just deceased) are physically far apart (eg. on different continents) - as if it is more imperative to let the loved one know that they have passed on otherwise they may not find out until too much time has elapsed.
People have reported contact with angels who have come to guide them.
Assuming reincarnation happens, from what I have read and tried to rationalize, it seems the soul has a choice whether or not and when to reincarnate (to some extent at least) and typically does not do so right away after death.
Mediums in the west who are claiming to be able to communicate with the dead are in conflict with the predominant Judeo-Christian beliefs of the societies they are in (for example, no belief in reincarnation in the dominant religions in the west). Further, they generally tell us there is a lag time typically of several decades where people connected to one another 'reunite' in the spirit world prior to their next incarnation which is not necessarily even taught in the major eastern religions. Because they are not just trying to go along with what most people already want or expect to hear, I think it gives them a bit more credibility. Unless, they are being forced to 'tow the line' laid down by psychic mediums historically so as not to be in disagreement with it.
Communications with the Dead
Mind reading (telepathy). Mediums are reading the minds or 'picking up' the thoughts of the people who they are 'connecting' with their loved ones. If this were the case, the medium would most likely just be reading what is on the person's mind at the time but this is not often the case. In addition, the medium relays information which the person could not and does not know at the time and later finds out to be true.
We can effectively rule out mind reading as the sole explanation because of the research done by Dr. Gary Schwartz (presented in his book "The Afterlife Experiments"). He tested mediums and found them to give information about the subjects being read not known to the subjects and later found to be true.
(7) Pool of consciousness (super ESP or super psi). Another highly improbable, but worth considering, possibility is that mediums are somehow 'tapping into' the collective pool of consciousness that may exist in the universe (or even just picking up thoughts 'floating' around connected to the person being read). But how would super ESP account for relaying information of events in the future? A reason they may not be doing this is that the departed souls give us information in readings that is from both before and after their passing. This would only make sense if there is a survival of consciousness; otherwise by what mechanism would thoughts associated with a person when they were alive be combined with that since their death?
Dr. Gary Schwartz, a professor of psychology at the University of Arizona, has conducted a series of experiments on communications with the dead. His results thus far are that mediums are in fact communicating with departed souls and further experiments are to be done in the future.
The ultra-skeptics will argue that there is no evidence to support communication with the dead and all information received can be accounted for by (1), (2), and (3). The ultra-skeptics are atheists (though some will claim to be agnostic) and follow a very orthodox approach to science who instead of saying the evidence is not strong enough to support the claims the mediums are making, just dismiss it all as fraud. This is despite the fact they have not been able to make the case for fraud. It is good to be a skeptic and all should be encouraged to engage in healthy skepticism but to be so stubborn and narrow-minded so that you dismiss anything which does not fit your particular view of the world as simply being fraud is ignorant and self-defeating.
There is no adequate scientific explanation for the vast array of psychic phenomena. It has not been quantified by science, but demands some sort of explanation. But psychic phenomena which has a spiritual realm to it cannot simply be refuted just because it does not fit science's existing artificially limited scope.
The evidence from hospice medical personnel is that many (maybe even all) people who are dying and can talk and are not in a drug induced and altered mental state report receiving death bed visitations from spiritual beings. This is found throughout the world and the experiences are very similar.

Atheism has no more logical foundation for it than religion and in fact, less so. It has its own belief system - that of science and materialism (only the material world exists). Atheists have turned disbelief (of a Creator or God) into a belief system in itself. Science has become a religion on to its self as it is practiced by its followers who accept nothing else unless it adheres to conventional science as we know it today and materialism. Having said that, atheism challenges religion and faith based systems and can be a positive influence in the enquiry of what may or may not be true.
People will typically adopt an atheist belief system due to the following factors: they have a greater than normal 'block' on awareness of a spiritual existence and implications of ceasing to exist thoughts; they acquire a belief in or are taught to believe in materialism; they develop a distaste or even hatred for religion; and they have a suspect or somewhat deficient rationalizing ability (I'm not referring to intelligence or IQ here but giving too much weight to lesser factors and not enough to bigger and more important factors). For the only rational positions to take are either to be agnostic or to believe there is sufficient evidence present that shows we possess souls that survive physical death.
It is only rational to be an atheist (note that some atheists are actually agnostic eventhough they may incorrectly label themselves as atheist) if one has some type of special knowledge (if it were to even exist which seems extremely improbable) that would completely refute every single one of the evidence types for survival of consciousness. And I do not see how anyone on earth would have such special knowledge.
A fundamentalist religious approach on evidence of life after death is asking what does my religion say about this and then explaining the evidence within that context which fits that religion. Atheists do the same with life after death evidence - they look at it and say what does materialism say about this and then fit their interpretations to suit their materialistic belief system. If there is no materialistic explanation possible, the evidence is still rejected and no real plausible alternative is put forth. Both are wrong in their approach as they are not at all objective and 'make' the evidence fit what they already believe.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
For those of us who want there to be an afterlife (there's something wrong with your thought process if you don't), we should take strong comfort in the fact that there actually is such strong and varied evidence for it (if needed, please refer to the "Life After Death Top 11" in this section for a quick summary). Although not one of these types of evidence by itself would constitute absolute proof, the sum total of all the evidence is so much more than what we should expect if there were no survival of consciousness. Maybe we would not have any of this evidence whatsoever if there were no survival of consciousness (ie. why is all this varied and diverse evidence present at all in the first place?).
It is interesting to observe that people who are atheists and are normal intelligent people seem to have no more fear than people with spiritual beliefs that they will cease to exist when they die. And often do care about what are really insignificant things in life which have no bearing on them or their survival and also they may have no impact over. It is quite possible that the soul which might fear that while on earth it may not have peace of mind without the knowledge of an afterlife, chooses prior to birth to have belief in life after death while a mortal being. The soul which is not amenable to these fears while on earth might choose to have no belief in an afterlife in order to make a greater improvement in empathy for other living things. So in other words, just maybe we are 'fixed up' to be comfortable with our knowledge of our mortality or immortality. And if our thoughts on this change during our life here on earth so that we are no longer comfortable, we can still be accommodated by, for example, by finding God through religion. From what I have observed, almost everyone who is anxious for a time (say more than a few days) about whether there is life after death is somehow 'rescued' and finds comfort through religion or spiritual beliefs. The odd time someone doesn't, the anxiety is only in the short term and over the long term is bearable and either at a low level or only sporadic.
I personally am leaning towards the belief that no single type of evidence for life after death by itself will convince everyone among us. If looked at objectively, every one of the evidence types is, to varying degrees, incomplete or inconclusive and some of it is even ambiguous - almost as if it is all supposed to be this way. Some will believe in life after death based on a single or few pieces of favourable evidence (as already mentioned, this may have been chosen in the spiritual realm prior to coming here). Some will not believe no matter how strong and varied the evidence for life after death if it is not 100% conclusive according to the scientific method. Instead, most of us will have to weigh the sum total of the different types of evidence as I have attempted to do on this site. This is because if there is life after death, why have we not been shown it to be the case without any doubt whatsoever to the satisfaction of all? It would probably have to be due to the reasoning previously discussed in this section.
A very far-fetched hypothesis is that aliens (if there is other intelligent life in the universe or elsewhere able to access our world say from another dimension) not God created life on earth. They brought life from elsewhere in the universe to earth and allowed evolution (or some other mechanism) to run its course or created it all right here including new species (including man) which replaced ones gone extinct (naturally or from the aliens doing). They then gave us evidence for life after death such as sending messages through Moses, Buddha, Jesus Christ, etc.; producing entities; having us experience NDEs; communications with the so called dead (so we were led to believe), etc. The reason they would do this would be hard to fathom. However, this would still not explain out of body experiences (OBEs) during the NDE for which such a mechanism of fraud would seem to be so improbable (though still a possibility that cannot be ruled out). Aliens would have to be simulating demonic possession (if there is such a thing as possession) and upon exorcism putting an end to it (usually). It would be very difficult to account for some of the miracles performed by Jesus Christ such as raising a man from the dead or giving the blind sight. But you would think that whichever (or all of) the various types of evidence for life after death they are manipulating would come across more 'clear cut'. And ultimately what answer would there be for the question, who created the aliens? Although aliens could have come about through random chance in their world and either created us or stepped in to the picture to do their manipulations on us after we became a species. Nor would it explain the origins of matter and energy or the reason for the Big Bang and what was before it.
Our gut instincts may be coming directly from our souls.
Maybe it is no coincidence that the common occurrence of NDEs in the past couple of decades and mediums like John Edward on television are giving us evidence for life after death. It could be because the pendulum had swung too much to that of less belief in much of the world in an afterlife or God because mainly due to advancements in science (and thus materialism being more plausible to many). Possibly this new evidence for mass consumption is presented to return man to a more balanced view (or the pendulum is always being kept in balance).
There is too much similarity between the four major races of humans (and no personality differences). This is also the case in terms of values, fundamentals of language, etc. between the various cultures of the world. Evolution would predict that there should be more variation. Thus, this would give more support to the Biblical version of man's divine origins.
Just to let the reader know, when I am away from this subject for an extended time period, I get some doubt (more so when I hear or read arguments against life after death), but when I examine the collective evidence again, it always sways me back to where I was when I am immersed in the subject.

Probability of Life After Death
We start with zero probability of life after death and then see what evidence for it is before us.

The above illustration shows us that for us to make the conclusion that there is life after death, only one type of evidence for it has to be true. To conclude that there is no life after death, every one of the different types of evidence have to be false (this makes it even more important to evaluate each of the different types of evidence independently of each other and without bias); and yet we still would not be able to absolutely make the conclusion since there may be another type(s) of evidence we do not know about or that evidence does not necessarily have to be revealed to us for there to be life after death.
Taking the illustration, one step further, we can ask statistically, what are the odds that there is life after death (LAD)?
Probability (as a decimal fraction) there is LAD = 1 - (Probability there is no LAD)
= 1 - (a x b x c x d x e,...etc.)
Where a,b,c,d,e,etc. are independent of each other and represent as fractions the likelihood that each of the various types of evidence for LAD are NOT TRUE. And (a x b x c x d x e,...etc.) are the fractional probabilities multiplied by each other. Let us do a calculation using the LAD Top 11 from above:
"1." = a = 1-0.95 = 0.025
"2." = b = 1-0.95 = 0.05
"3." = c = 1-0.95 = 0.05
.
.
.
"11." = k = 1-0.10 = 0.90

Probability of No LAD = 0.025 x 0.05 x 0.05 x 0.10 x 0.15 x 0.50 x 0.80 x 0.80 x 0.80 x 0.90 x 0.90
= 1.9 x 10-7
= 2 in 10 million
= 1 in 5 million

Probability of LAD = 1 - 1.9 x 10-7
= 0.9999998 = 99.99998 %
Note: I have used values that I personally believe to be representative; though liberal, in my opinion, in favour of no LAD (ie. erring on the side of no LAD). Most of the people who would be considered the worlds leading researchers and scholars in any of these areas would, in private and 'off the record' at least, give a higher probability for their (chosen) area being evidence for survival of consciousness than I have. Therefore, if we were to take a representative sample for each of the 11 evidence types from 11 separate groups of these experts and then do the preceding calculation with the values each group would assign, I would expect the probability of life after death would come out higher than 99.99998%. You, the reader may substitute any numbers from 0 to 1 in the calculation based upon your personal evaluations (to try to ensure independence, input parameter values as if have no knowledge of other types of evidence) and any number of evidence types you believe to be relevant. If I had used more than the eleven types of evidence I did in the calculation, then the odds in favour of LAD would be a bit higher (though not so much that they would be increased by an order of magnitude).
We need to be aware that if there is alien or inter-dimensional being manipulation (no matter how improbable this being the case might be) of the evidence (in whole or in part unless it was for only one evidence type manipulated or fabricated) for an afterlife, then these evidence types would no longer be independent of one another and this probability calculation would no longer hold up.
For curiosity (although it does not tell us the probability of life after death), let us estimate the probability that all of the 11 different evidence types mentioned above are all true:
Probability they are all true = 0.975 x 0.95 x 0.95 x 0.90 x 0.85 x 0.50 x 0.20 x 0.20 x 0.20 x 0.10 x 0.10
= 2.7 x 10-5
= 1 in about 40,000
= Which works out to a very low probability even though with the very same inputs the probability of life after death is extremely high - this is because throughout we have treated each evidence type as being independent of one another.
Anyone who inputs "1" above for any of the evidence types (ie. 100% probability that particular evidence type shows there is life after death) is either bringing some faith into it and/or has some special knowledge in the area which some may potentially have. The same applies even more so for someone entering zero (ie. 0% probability that particular evidence type shows there is life after death) - as it cannot be done scientifically and rationally and would require some sort of special knowledge to do so (I do not see how anyone could be in possession of such for most if not all the evidence types). Entering zero might also be improperly done by individuals who even know nothing or virtually nothing about that particular type of evidence.
Not knowing of this analysis, atheists would simply answer zero for all the evidence types but that is where their irrational bias would be clearly exposed for to do so would require a special knowledge and understanding of these evidence types which no one I can see on earth possessing in the negative. Mere mortals, no matter how dismissive they are of the particular evidences, would still have to input numbers greater than zero (such as 0.01, 0.005, 0.02, etc.; though the odd zero could still be rationally inputed). They may end up with say a 5 to 10% chance of life after death but their atheist belief system would be no longer (mathematically and logically at least).
However if they had read this analysis prior and understood how it worked, one would have to get them to answer to each of these evidence types separately to get their honest opinions (though this probably would not still work) otherwise they would probably be clever (but not honest and objective) and input very small numbers close to zero and some zeros to get their probability of life after death estimate as low as possible and yet rationally still plausible - so as to be as close as possible to zero probability of life after death as they can get away with.

The glorious resurrection of plants and vegetation year after year has shown us definitively that there is life after death. What is the responsibility of all humans in light of this? How we live our life in the present will determine the "quality" of life after death. In Genesis 2:7 God breathed life into newly created man. In Ezekiel 37:5, God promised to breathe life into the lifeless bones in the valley. It is God who is the author of life, present and future. It is the imperative of all humans to give their lives to Him.

[Michael Prescott]

Winston Wu has a long article on "debunking the skeptics," which has been posted on Victor Zammit's site. It can be found here.

I appreciate Piero Calvi-Parisetti's comment, and I'm very glad that downloads of the book have increased since it was reviewed here. The real credit, however, goes to commenter Småfornå, who brought the book to my attention.

[Zerdini]

Winston Wu's arguments are certainly worth consideration.

[Zerdini]

Xenoglossis DOES have some strong evidence - for example the voices who spoke through the mediumship of Etta Wriedt had no linguistic limitation - Dutch, French, Spanish, Norwegian and Arabic were often heard.

Judhe Edmonds daughter, Laura, was the first medium in modern Spiritualism with the gift of tongues.

Foreign sitters could converse through her with spirits in their native language whether it was Greece or Poland.

Dr Whymant's book "Psychic Adventures in New York" is a most convincing record of the gift of tongues includinf Archaic Chinese spoken by "Confucius" through the mediumship of George Valiantine.

[Zetetic_chick]

"Winston Wu has a long article on "debunking the skeptics," which has been posted on Victor Zammit's site"

The article of Winston Wu have been updated (in 2007). His new website is:

http://www.happierabroad.com/Debunking_Skeptical_Arguments.htm

It includes a section of reader's responses. Some of the reader's comments are very good.

[Zetetic_chick]

"Actually, bailer, I wonder if anyone here has a list of ready-made rebuttals to typical skeptical argumuents. Now that would be useful. I know that skeptics often use the same arguments, and I suspect they copy and paste them from somewhere. I don't think just copying links to helpful sites is any good - people won't open a mass of links, and they don't have a ready impact. A list might save time in the long run..."

Hi Teri, maybe you have interest in the following article where the author rebuts the most common skeptical arguments against NDEs:

http://www.nderf.org/NDE%20Rhetoric.htm

It seems to be an adaptation of Winston's arguments to NDEs debunking. But the author has his own original ideas.

Also, Chris Carter has in his website two articles dealing with the typical skeptic's philosophical objections to afterlife:

http://www.parapsychologyandtheskeptics.com/reprints.htm

[Art]

NDErs experience the actual negative and positive feelings they inflicted upon or gave others throughout their lives during the life review in a 'full' NDE and as its happens. This is truly amazing and I hardly can see any biological reason or explanation for this; and only a spiritual one is (by far) what would make sense."
--------------------------------------------
All that and no mention of the holographic universe? In Dr. Kenneth Ring's course on near death experiences at the University of Connecticut he required his students to read Michael Talbot's book The Holographic Universe. An explanation of NDE's is incomplete without at least some mention of the holographic universe. Dr. Oswald Harding in his book Near Death Experiences: A Holographic Explanation calls the Life Review a holographic experience par excellance. The answers to some of life's most perplexing questions can best be answered by some understanding of the implications of quantum physics and the holographic paradigm. One can't truly begin to understand near death experiences without first understanding The Holographic Universe and to do that you have to read the book. In a hologram each piece contains the whole and everything is infinitely connected to everything else. Our separation is an illusion. If you don't have time to read the book one should at least read the online essay about the holographic universe. http://www.earthportals.com/hologram.html#zine I reiterate, if you want to understand near death experiences you should understand the implications of the holographoic universe. 360 degree vision, being everywhere in the universe at once, feeling others emotions and hearing their thoughts, all knowledge, seeing colors they've never seen before and hearing sounds they didn't know existed, overwhelming feelings of oneness and connectedness, are easily understood when one understands the holographic paradigm.

[Michael H]

Good point Michael H, but I'm not sure what "promissory materialism" means?

I can't recall who coined the term, but it essentially encapsulates the extreme faith that goes along with accepting the metaphysics of materialism as absolute. The materialist will make the argument that since materialism has led to so many positive advancements in science, technology and lifestyles that we have to assume that any and all phenomena that contradicts materialism will eventually be explained in the future.

It's a matter of continually issuing 'promissory notes' which are backed by an absolute faith in materialist philosophy. These promissory notes will be satisfied at an unknown future date by the methodology inherent to scientism, "objective science", which will eventually prove that everything can be understood through the reductionist approach. Promissory materialism is founded on the assumption that materialism must be true. Charles Eisenstein explores how this premise has infected society in the first few chapters of his excellent The Ascent of Humanity. (The full text is available at the link).

It seems to me that it is pointless to engage a 'skeptic' while granting their basic premise that objective science is beyond reproach. All 'skeptical' arguments are based on that core assumption. I think it's necessary to bring that assumption into play, and to point out that in matters of anomalous phenomena relating to consciousness itself, objective science has failed to a spectacular degree, and that anyone who looks at the data with any sort of genuinely open mind must assume that the metaphysics of materialism has already been falsified. Further, despite all of the technological advances that have accompanied the rise of the scientific theocracy, consciousness itself remains completely beyond its reach. We now have a tremendous amount of knowledge about the physical cosmos and its workings as a result of the last few centuries of investigation. Yet, we know almost nothing about the capacity of consciousness that has been doing all of the investigating.

Of course, if this is pointed out to the ‘skeptic’, he will immediately issue a promissory note telling us that we’ll understand it soon enough, and “by the way . . . speaking of consciousness . . . did we hear that Ray Kurzweil thinks we might eventually be able to download our consciousness into a computer in order to achieve immortality?” Today’s skepticism has no more relation to reason than Islamic fundamentalism, and those who adopt materialism as absolute will defend it with the same emotional vigor, though thankfully don’t generally share the proclivity to violence – with the exception of occasional school shooting sprees.

I’ve personally reached the point with materialists that I no longer have any qualms about pointing out that they have absolutely no understanding of how their own minds work. The ‘skeptical’ defense of materialism plays a critical role in supporting the unspoken acceptance of nihilism that infects large segments of Western population today, which manifests all around us: rampant depression, contempt for education, drug and alcohol abuse, brutal crime, moral relativism and the general pointlessness that too damn many accept as absolute. Propping up materialism as philosophically beyond reproach goes well beyond denying supernormal phenomena: it literally provides the foundation for the absolute worst aspects of contemporary society.

At the same time, those who interpret these phenomena as supportive of dualism unwittingly provide philosophical support for religious extremism. To that end, the most important chapters of Calvi-Parisetti's book are the last two.

[Tony S]

On rebuttals, check out 'Zen... and the Art of Debunkery' at http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/scepticism/drasin.html

It's kind of UFO-centric, but much of it applies here too.

[Teri]

Thank you Zerdini and Zetetic Chick for the anti-skepticism arguments. I’m going to save some of them…

Your arguments too are strong Michael H but I wonder if sometimes we don’t go too far. The 2 ideas below are prompted by reading this very interesting recent NDE:
http://www.nderf.org/henry_w_probable_nde.htm

1. If everything is “perfect in its imperfection” as William has said, then skepticism is part of the divine plan. If we are here to experience negative stuff we can’t get any of it in the afterlife then maybe live and let live is the answer. On the other hand, doubtless the likes of us battling the materialist paradigm is also part of the plan. So I suppose what I’m saying is… you should keep up the good work, but don’t get too worked up about it?

2. Dualism must actually be true, up to a point. If we retain our identities after death, as both mediums and NDEs suggest, there’s a long soul existence before you get to ultimate spirit (assuming you ever do). And presumably, that’s all part of the plan too, in that only a finite soul can choose to undergo experience, because it doesn’t already automatically know everything?

[Vitor]

Prescott, about materialization, give a look at this site: http://felixcircle.blogspot.com/2008/07/eclectic-margery-crandon.html

[Vitor]

Zerdini, about xenoglossy, is very interesting what you said, but I think Valiantaine's mediumship very controversial:

http://www.answers.com/topic/george-valiantine

[Ulysses]

The term “promissory materialism” was coined by philosopher of science Karl Popper during his collaboration with physiologist John Eccles on the principle of dualism applied to the mind-body problem.

[Zetetic_chick]

"David Thompson is NOT a materialisation medium and has admitted that he is not. It is Victor Zammit who keeps making this claim"

Hi Zerdini,

Regardless of our opinion about David Thompson (I think some of Michael P. criticism about him are correct and pertinent), I can't see how DT isn't a materialisation medium, if Zammit "shaked hands" with Conan Doyle.

I mean, if DT said he isn't a materialisation medium, how could he explain the materialised hand of Doyle?

The point here isn't if the materialisation was real or fraudulent. The point is that the séances of Thompson have provided "materialisation phenomena" (real or fake), not only mental mediumship.

It seems that if DT claimed not be a materialisation medium, he's contradicting himself when he produces materialised hands and other objects...

"I think it's necessary to bring that assumption into play, and to point out that in matters of anomalous phenomena relating to consciousness itself, objective science has failed to a spectacular degree, and that anyone who looks at the data with any sort of genuinely open mind must assume that the metaphysics of materialism has already been falsified"

It's correct, Michael H. I also think materialism have been refuted by empirical evidence (of afterlife and psi).

But materialism is weak even in their philosophical assumptions and grunds. Also, many materialists rely on a mechanistic worldview, a view falsified by quantum mechanics. It explains why they can't explain consciousness:

http://psyche.csse.monash.edu.au/v2/psyche-2-05-stapp.html

It's interesting to see how many materialists even deny the existence of consciousness. It's like arguing that we're not arguing...

[Teri]

Thank you too, Kevin S for that funny link and Ulysses for where "promissory materialism" originates.

Don't overlook my point about the reality of dualism, boys and girls. Don't be too dismissive of it. Dualism might not be the basis of the Ultimate Unmanifest, but it's the basis of everything else we're likely to experience in the forseeable future. You need to think about that one...

[Teri]

I meant Tony S, sorry!

[Michael H]

Dualism must actually be true, up to a point.

The qualifier "up to a point" negates dualism as absolute, Teri. What is true is the appearance of dualism, which is the same problem the materialist is faced with: they are blinded by the appearance of materialism, just as the dualist is blinded by the appearance of dualism.

While full realization of the One may take a long time, it can also happen for anyone in a heartbeat. It's simply what remains when one looks beyond all appearances to the contrary. Also, the argument that everything is part of a divine plan carries an implicit suggestion of an 'planner' external to creation, which in itself supports dualism.

Higher-level NDE accounts as well as volumes of mystical testimony make it clear that the idea of an external planner is a human concept. Two examples of the former, keeping in mind Henry W's comment that "Our life is just a thought providing circumstances for this existence", especially while reading Anita's:

http://www.nderf.org/anita_m's_nde.htm

http://www.nderf.org/nanci_d_nde.htm

What gets tricky is that even accepting "All is One" conceptually can prevent us from actually seeing it, though there are certainly worse concepts to accept as true. This all ties in with Matt Chait's discussion of concept vs. context in understanding the Self. I'd also suggest that accepting the idea that dualism is "the basis of everything else we're likely to experience in the foreseeable future" will almost certainly become self-fulfilling. It's one thing to recognize that we are experiencing dualism at the moment, it's quite another to conclude that we must do so indefinitely.

By the way - thanks for the source Ulysses. I think it was in writings of Eccles that I first encountered the term.

[Zetetic_chick]

Teri, I think dualism is true. But I don't know if, ultimately, we'll retain our individuality forever, or we'll integrate us in a cosmic whole. So, I don't know if the ultimate substance(s) is dualist or monist in their essence.

By the way, one of the aspect of Ken Wilber's views that I don't understand yet is that, in his theory of holons, each new holon has emergent properties not reducible to the inferior holons. But superior holons CAN'T exist if inferior holons are destroyed, because they depends on them for their permanence.

In that view, mind is a holon emerging from material holons (e.g brain). But if it's true, mind can't exist after the material brain is destroyed.

So, afterlife doesn't seem to fit very well in Wilber's theory. (Maybe I'm wrong, and he's has some way to integrate afterlife evidence in his integral theory, but I fin it very hard)

So, Wilber's holonic theory seems to be contrary to the dualism implicit in afterlife research.

[Ben]

Well, two good answers, so you pays your money and you takes your choice, Teri. I might as well add my two cents worth –(that was a challenge you issued wasn’t it? Any prizes for the best answer?)

Stretching a point into a line means it now has two ends. Duality is accomplished by polarising what was once a Unity. But something seems to be missing here….

Aha! For a Subject to experience and Object, there must also be Relation (or space between). Could that be the answer – a trinity?

Brahma, Siva, Vishnu;
Father Son & Holy Ghost;

No -not quite….

Because the Experiencer, the thing being experienced and the experience -or the Cognizer, the Cognized and the Cognition- are still part of, and an expression of, the original underlying unity.

So there are four – the tetraktys, which is the primeval Triad (or Triangle) merged in the divine Monad. . . . this leads on to the mystic Decad, the resultant of the Tetraktys, or the 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 10 – the 10 dimensions of the Cosmic Manifestation as proposed by superstring or M theory (with the 11th as underlying unifier).

See how you can link theosophy, Kabbalism and Physics if you try?
I don’t reckon those Skeptics would buy it though ;-)

[Teri]

Tricky, tricky, tricky.

Funny, but sorry Ben, you don't win. Your arithmetic is wrong. You added one twice to get eleven. That's cheating.

And anyway, the others didn't ask for a prize ;-)

Competition not yet closed.

[Michael H]

It's interesting to see how many materialists even deny the existence of consciousness. It's like arguing that we're not arguing...

LOL!!! - I've thought the same thing.

Dennett publishes entire books arguing that the aspect of himself that wrote the damn books is illusory. And Susan Blackmore actually considers his to be the best analysis of consciousness yet articulated!

What's scary, is that these are two highly intelligent people.

[David]

Michael, you say “For instance, in Calvi-Parisetti's brief examination of Florence Cook's mediumship, he does not mention the fact that Cook was unquestionably caught cheating later in her career. (In one of her séances, the "materialized spirit" was seized by a sitter and turned out to be Florence in disguise.)”

Firstly this event did not happen under the controlled experiments conducted by Sir Williams Crookes. Secondly how on earth do you know that she “was unquestionably caught cheating later in her career”? We know for a fact, because of Crookes work, that she did go under a trance and we do know that some mediums walk around in a trance. I have even read of people on the other side being able to dematerialize their medium out of the room! The allegation that Florence Cook was caught cheating was just that and allegation, and does nothing to dent the work and study of Sir William Crookes one bit. Even if she did engage in fraud latter in her career, that is neither here nor there.

[Zetetic_chick]

"In one of her séances, the "materialized spirit" was seized by a sitter and turned out to be Florence in disguise"

I'm familiar with the testimony of Mr.Volckmann, who grabbed Florence's arm in a seance and "exposed her".

But that testimony is rebutted by Zammit in his article defending Crooks. Specially, his points 3, 4 and 8 are pertinent:

Point 3: "There was NO evidence during the incident that the materialized person was not Katie King. Volckann did not ever claim that he ever saw the face of the materialized person (that of Katie King) or Florence Cook during the scuffle"

Point 4: "Barrister Henry Dumphy, stated inter alia, that Katie King "glided " out of Volckmann's grip, leaving no trace of corporal existence or surroundings in the shape of clothing"

Point 8: "Critically relevant: Volckmann married rival medium, Mrs Guppy, who was according to Inglis "paranoically jealous" of Florence Cook's success, immediately after this incident"

http://www.victorzammit.com/articleskeptics/1sirwilliam.html

If the above points are true, it seems that Volckmann's testimony isn't very realible.

[Michael Prescott]

how on earth do you know that she “was unquestionably caught cheating later in her career”?

She was found to be impersonating the spirit. That's cheating, in my book. You might argue that a mischievous spirit made her cheat. But it's still cheating, even if (and it's a big "if") it was involuntary.

[Michael Prescott]

I'm familiar with the testimony of Mr.Volckmann, who grabbed Florence's arm in a seance and "exposed her".

I'm not talking about Volckman. That incident occurred before Florence was tested by Crookes. The definitive exposure came some years later. Here's an excerpt from an online article:

"At a séance in 1880, Sir George Sitwell noticed that Marie’s spirit robes covered corset stays, so he reached out and grabbed hold of her. He held on tightly to her and when he pulled aside Florrie's curtain, he found that the medium's chair was empty. He was not surprised to discover that he was holding onto Florence, clad only in her underwear."

And yes, I know that Florence Marryat sat with Florence Cook in the cabinet the next night, and testified that Cook was the real deal. But I have doubts about Marryat's credibility.

[David]

Michael, you will forgive me if I take the account of Sir William Crookes (whose articles I have) over your “beliefs” and “doubts”. Sir Williams Crookes studies stand a fact, your views are just views and doubt.

[Zetetic_chick]

Thanks for the clarification, Michael P.

Reading the article of Zammit, he also comments about Sir George Sitwell's account, in the following points:

"1. It is also well known that newspapers are in the business of shock, drama, exaggeration and taking things out of context AND are the least reliable sources! Further, that the reports in the newspapers were written by the skeptic Sitwell himself who stood to be a judge in his own cause. Sitwell's account was rebutted by contemporaneous other writers including the editor of The Spiritualist.

2. As a result of Sitwell's action Florence Cook insisted that someone was to stay with her in the cabinet and thereafter Mrs Marryat was tied to Florence Cook in the cabinet throughout her séances in which successful materializations continued.

3. Further, in 1899, Florence Cook was invited to Berlin by the Sphinx Society to undertake séances under test conditions. The materialisations from these séances were most successful (Fodor 1966:63).

4. One has to see the Cook sittings in their respective longitudinal perspective - as long term credibility is more acceptable than an allegation of a one-off subjectively reported fraudulent claim.

5. In 1900 a number of sitters testified in writing that they has seen Florence Cook and 'Marie' at the same time and that "Before this seance, Florence dressed in the garments provided, was not left a moment alone. She was most securely bound to her chair, which was fastened to an iron ring in the floor and each hand was tied to an arm of the chair...everything was found intact afterwards' Cit. Medhurst and Goldney (1964) pp 84-85.

6. Gambier Bolton in his documented Ghosts in Solid Form (Bolton 1919) provides primary evidence that he himself repeatedly tested Florence Cook (then Mrs Corner) when she was in her forties. He states that her materialisations were genuine, proved and repeatedly witnessed by highly critical sitters in the light, NOT in darkness.

7. Bolton applied the same stringent controls on to Florence Cook as Crookes did himself: the séances took place in the homes of himself or a friend which was searched prior to the sitting by an architect; the medium herself was searched in her clothes and body by a doctor before the sitting; the medium was dressed totally in black (even underwear); the medium was bound with all knots sealed; the medium was seated on a self-registering weighing machine to which an electrical alarm was secretly hidden"

It would be of help if Zammit could give the exact reference of the rebutting of Sitwell's testimony by The Spiritualist. In my opinion, Cook could have cheated in some cases; but it seems so many positive testimonies and controlled tests exist as to compensate the negative cases of cheating.

Of course, contradictory evidence makes the case for Cook as non-conclusive. And many people (not only hard-nosed skeptics) will think of Cook as a fradulent medium.

On Florence Cook's real or fake powers, I can only say... I DON'T KNOW.

[Michael Prescott]

Michael, you will forgive me if I take the account of Sir William Crookes (whose articles I have) over your “beliefs” and “doubts”.

Sure, I forgive you! :-)

[Zerdini]

Zetetic Chick said: Regardless of our opinion about David Thompson (I think some of Michael P. criticism about him are correct and pertinent), I can't see how DT isn't a materialisation medium, if Zammit "shaked hands" with Conan Doyle.

I hope you don't believe everything Zammit says.

Materialisations have to be seen - David Thompson sits in darkness. How on earth would Zammit know he wasn't shaking the hand of an earthly person? Because a voice claimed to be Conan Doyle minus his Scottish accent?

You're pulling my leg - right!

There are so many discrepancies and anomalies in Thompson's mediumship which have all been enumerated on various Spiritualist websites that it's beyond a joke.

[william]

“he does not mention the fact that Cook was unquestionably caught cheating later in her career.”

It appears that integrity is not always a condition for being a medium. Being caught cheating does not necessarily mean all paranormal phenomena the medium manifested was fraud. Especially later in a mediums career as it appears they can lose their abilities.

I lean in the direction that she was one of the great mediums of human history because so many others of high integrity besides Crooke’s witnessed her manifested phenomena.

What I find most interesting many of Crookes peers refused to attend these séances even though they lived close to where these séances were taking place. Belief and non-belief can be powerful filters. Finding that middle path between belief and non-belief may be a Buddha challenge.

[A. Bridged]

Vitor,

Do you know if "Human Personality and Its Survival of Bodily Death" is available on 4shared? "Human Personality..." was on the CD with Irreducible Mind but it is in the public domain (the copyright has expired). The version on Google books is a one volume abridged version not the original two volume book.

[Zetetic_chick]

Hi Zerdini,

In fact I don't believe everything Zammit (or anybody) says.

I only saw a contradiction in DT when he claims about don't be a materialisation medium and at the same time "materialising" hands and other objects in his séances.

I'm not sure that materialisation have to be seen, I suppose materialised objects can be touched too (because, as material objects, they have extension and occupy space, and in principle they can affect our sense of touch).

Also, many mediums work in darkness (including John Sloan), but it isn't a sufficient reason to see them as a fraud. (However, I agree that in cases of materialisation, the use of infra-red glasses and other means to avoid fraud or trickery should se allowed)

It's truth that in DT's seances there are many problems. This is why I agree with many of Michael P. (and others) criticism of them.

[marcos f]

Human Personality And Its Survival Of Bodily Death Vol I (1903)
Human Personality And Its Survival Of Bodily Death Vol II (1903)

(to download, click on the "PDF" link on the left hand side of those pages)

[Filip Van Droogenbroeck]

By the way, one of the aspect of Ken Wilber's views that I don't understand yet is that, in his theory of holons, each new holon has emergent properties not reducible to the inferior holons. But superior holons CAN'T exist if inferior holons are destroyed, because they depends on them for their permanence.

Just thought of something if you see a seed of a tree as an inferior holon and a full grown tree as a superior holon with new emergent properties it's impossible to destroy the inferior holon because the seed has become the tree. This could be the same with the mind and the body. But kind of reverse, the body has become the mind for a while. Where the mind existed before the body and got into a symbiotic link with it and the body is in this way an emergent property of the bigger mind.
You see what I mean zetetic?

greets,
Filip

[Zetetic_chick]

"Where the mind existed before the body and got into a symbiotic link with it and the body is in this way an emergent property of the bigger mind"

Yes, it could be. In fact, I think it's a very good possibility.

Problem with it is that it's contraty to Wilber's holoarchic theory. In his theory, the mind is a emergent property of a material brain, not the reverse.

"Just thought of something if you see a seed of a tree as an inferior holon and a full grown tree as a superior holon with new emergent properties it's impossible to destroy the inferior holon because the seed has become the tree. This could be the same with the mind and the body"

In your analogy, if the seed becomes a superior holon (tree), it's not an inferior holon (seed) anymore. So, you can't destroy a non-existent inferior holon (but you can destroy the new superior holon, or its integrating inferior holons)

But in the case of mind and body, we know for sure that the inferior holon (brain) can be destroyed. It's out of discussion. And if it's so, the superior holon (mind) can't exist anymore.

This is the implication of Wilber's theory as explained in Sex, Ecology and Spirituality.

I think in that point Wilber's views are wrong.

[Zerdini]

Hi Zetetic chick

Materialisations HAVE to be seen otherwise they are not materialisations.

John Sloan was NOT a materialisation medium, he was a Direct Voice medium.

Thompson does not materialise objects either.

Everything takes place in total darkness.

Z

[Zerdini]

Have a look at:

http://spiritualismlink.forumotion.com/ under Physical Mediumship and The Curious Case of David Thompson and Victor Zammit.

[Michael H]

Problem with it is that it's contrary to Wilber's holoarchic theory. In his theory, the mind is a emergent property of a material brain, not the reverse.

I've always found Wilber to be unnecessarily complex, but if he actually claims that the mind is an emergent property of the brain, all I can do is shake my head. Sideways, not up and down.

I guess I'd need to see the context. If he were to say that the lower self (ordinary consciousness) identifies with the brain and body, I wouldn't disagree, and I suppose one could argue that the lower self might appear to be somewhat emergent from the brain. Jill Bolte Taylor's description of the 'left brain' in the TED video kind of suggests this. But anyone who directly experiences the higher consciousness to a significant depth intuitively understands that the entire cosmos, including all prior concepts one has of the self and mind, is actually emergent from the higher consciousness. It's this understanding that leads to the confusing statements of 'everything arising from nothing', or the 'formless that precedes the form', as well as the overwhelming sense of the interconnectedness and unity of all things.

As Filip said, from the perspective of the higher consciousness, the body (which includes the brain), is seen as an emergent property of the bigger mind, as is everything and everyone else. If Wilber claims otherwise, then I just have to respectfully disagree.

[william]

“I've always found Wilber to be unnecessarily complex” amen to that statement. Sells lots of books through. It always has appeared to me that his writings are the best case out there as an example of intellectualism defined. One has to wonder if he has ever researched spiritualism and what his response would be to someone like the medium Sloan.

[Filip Van Droogenbroeck]

Zetetic_chick said: By the way, one of the aspect of Ken Wilber's views that I don't understand yet is that, in his theory of holons, each new holon has emergent properties not reducible to the inferior holons. But superior holons CAN'T exist if inferior holons are destroyed, because they depends on them for their permanence.

In that view, mind is a holon emerging from material holons (e.g brain). But if it's true, mind can't exist after the material brain is destroyed.

I think you shouldn't see it so linear because that's limiting reality to a linear nature everything building up on its previous thing.
If you see a seed of a tree as an inferior holon and a tree as a superior holon because it has totally new properties than the seed and can create seeds. Still the seed can't be destroyed as it has turned into the tree, they are so interconnected one can eventually ask which was first the seed or the tree.
As Wilber also said, there is evolution and involution. It works on 2 ways.
With the mind body thing, it depends which was first, the mind or the body. You can theorise about holons where the bigger mind goes down into the body, the more limited waking mind growing out of the body and so on but able to reconnect...
It also depends what one sees as the inferior holon and the superior holon.
You see what I mean Zetetic_Chick?

Greets,
Filip

[Filip Van Droogenbroeck]

ignore previous didn't saw there were 2 pages

[Zetetic_chick]

"John Sloan was NOT a materialisation medium, he was a Direct Voice medium"

But he could materialise objects too. In his book, Findlay wrote: "His mediumship during these years has embraced trance, telekinesis, apport, direct voice, materialisation, clairvoyance and clairaudience" (p. 25)

So, Sloan's mediumnic powers weren't limited to direct voice alone, but it included materialisation too. And his seances were in darkness.

"I think you shouldn't see it so linear because that's limiting reality to a linear nature everything building up on its previous thing."

But it isn't how I see it, Filip, but how Wilber sees it. On the 20 tenets of holons, Wilber writes in his tenet number 9: "Destroy any type of holon, and you will destroy all of the holons above it and none of the holons below it"

http://www.esalenctr.org/display/confpage.cfm?confid=10&pageid=113&pgtype=1

As far I understand Wilber's system, mind is a holon above the brain. So, by logical implication of the tenet 9, if you destroy the brain, you destroy the mind.

However, I've reading on the net about it, and it seems that Wilber has written something about it (in his book integral psyhcology). In the following article, a follower of Wilber writes:

"In fact, we can not only use this model during our earthly lives, but even after death. For we, as well as our fellow-spirits, will always be embodied in some subtle body. The same logic applies here as well: we only see as much as our senses allow us to see. On the astral plane, for example, we will see our fellow men and women in their astral bodies. The Upper Right quadrant will typically be occupied by the astral body/brain. The Upper Left quadrant will be the same as it was during earth life. A clairvoyant sees these things even while embodied in the physical body, so for him the Upper Right quadrant contains both physical and astral phenomena. As long as we are clear about how we define the Upper Right quadrant, there is no need to argue about this anymore"

http://www.integralworld.net/visser8.html

So, the 4 quadrants theory is applicable to afterlife bodies. But in my opinion, the problem is with the holonic theory, not with the quadrants.

If mind can exist as a independent substance, but interact with the brain (interationist dualism), mind can't be an superior holon regarding the brain (because superior holons depends for their existence and permanence on inferior holons, according the tenet 9)

"but if he actually claims that the mind is an emergent property of the brain..."

Actually, Wilber doesn't use the concept of emergence as most materialist philosophers. He uses a general concept of emergence applied to holons, and includes the notion "trascend and include", where the new holon has new properties (emergent properties) no reducible to the inferior holons.

As explained in the above link, Wilber examine the mind-body problem using the theory of "4 quadrants". But he concludes that brain and mind are two aspects of the "Spirit", and that the mind-body problem can't be solved.

But the idea that mind-body problem can't be solved suggest that Wilber doesn't know the afterlife evidence, because in this case, he should conclude that all the materialist theses about mind are false, and dualism is the only real solution.

But in Wilber's system (as far I know) "The Spirit" isn't an individual being, but the ultimate substance and dynamic force of the universe. So, saying that mind and body are two aspects of "the Spirit" is to affirm a triviality, not useful to resolve the mind-body problem or to know if mind survives the body.

I think Michael H is right about the complex of Wilber's theory...

[william]

"But in Wilber's system (as far I know) "The Spirit" isn't an individual being, but the ultimate substance and dynamic force of the universe."

Sounds good to me. I suspect God is not a Being but an infinite Isness. I.e. the vitality and substance of the universe. The mystics tell us we are that that is. The enlightened Hindus call us the play of God.

Kind of hard to look at dinosaurs or mosquitoes as the play of God.

[Bill I.]

So much thought, so much verbiage -- what does anyone here require in order to accept that physical death is but an end to one experience but not all experience?

At times I have my own doubts, my own skepticism, but these vanish under certain circumstances and it's entirely possible to create those circumstances.

We spend a great deal of our waking moments in a stopped-down condition -- skepticism is only natural in this state.

Possibly there are those who have found some way to never exist in this condition -- I don't know, but this doesn't matter to me.

I don't see anything at all "wrong" with the usual narrowed waking consciousness; knowing that it's not all I am capable of experiencing is sufficient to dispel doubts.

I'm as fond of thinking, pondering, and writing as anyone; more so than most, in fact.

These activities have their limits, however; after all, this is part of the restriction of consciousness associated with the materialism so many here rail against!

If you limit yourself to the input of your physical senses and mentation, you may as well consider yourself a materialist, no matter how open minded you may be.

Bill I.

[william]

“I'm as fond of thinking, pondering, and writing as anyone; more so than most, in fact.” Me to Bill I.

It appears there is a delicate balance between too much thought about life after death, the meaning of life, etc,and doing research into areas that most people rely on faith or just don’t think this is important reading or research.

I personally don’t think humankind can be held back from its search for truths and its advancement of consciousness. Maybe it is Buddha’s middle path or sense of balance that must be observed when discussing and researching paranormal phenomena or any phenomena.

I suspect that there are many neurotic and psychotic behaviors demonstrated in any society due to the fear of losing our identities after we cross over or the lack of understanding of the meaning and purpose of our lives. I am amazed that the Buddhists have any followers considering they love to talk about nothingness as the ultimate outcome of life.

I personally find the research into paranormal phenomena challenging and fascinating. You begin to think you are on to something as a truth and then some information comes along and pulls your new cherished belief rug right out from under you.

[DMDuncan]

Skeptic Michael Shermer has a video on YouTube of him attending a spoon bending party, and then actually bending a spoon and then trying, I think, unsuccessfully to explain how he did it (adrenaline). In another video he takes on remote viewing with a test whose results are not as clear cut as I am sure he thought they would be.

The videos make him seem like the Super Dave Osborne of skepticism, with his own stunts backfiring on him.

On his own site Michael Crichton explains his experience bending a spoon and his description of it, which seems less strained and thus more honest than Shermer's, leaves the mystery of it intact.

[Michael H]

I don't see anything at all "wrong" with the usual narrowed waking consciousness . . .

I completely agree, Bill I.

Where I object is when someone becomes so attached to ordinary consciousness that they conclude that their given perspective is absolute, and that any suggestion to the contrary is simply a product of fraud or hallucination. And then position themselves as an authority on consciousness, ala Pinker, Dennett, Blackmore, and their devout followers.

Also . . . I'm not sure I agree that thinking, pondering and writing is necessarily an indication of a restricted state of consciousness. It seems to me that the most powerful literature, poetry, music and art are all expressions of the higher consciousness that's been unleashed through the tools available to the physical senses. I've often thought that one of the reasons creative types often struggle with life in general is that they spend their working hours in a state of inspiration, and feel a profound emptiness in the other aspects of their life when they drop back into ordinary consciousness. There sure seems to be an inordinate number of troubled creative geniuses throughout history.

I think Michael H is right about the complex of Wilber's theory...

After reading your last explanation, ZC, I'm reminded why I put the single Wilber book I own aside after a few chapters. He should have just stopped after this statement:

"The Spirit" isn't an individual being, but the ultimate substance and dynamic force of the universe.

Now compare . . .

Materialistic science believes that life appears only be accident, out of a mere combination of chemicals. Spiritual 'science', however, discovered long ago that, at the heart of everything, dwells the infinite consciousness

Paramahansa Yogananda

And finally . . .

I am of the oldest religion. Leaving aside the question which was prior, egg or bird, I believe the mind is the creator of the world, and is ever creating . . . that mind makes the senses it sees with; that the genius of man is a continuation of the power that made him and is not done making him.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

I am amazed that the Buddhists have any followers considering they love to talk about nothingness as the ultimate outcome of life.

Must be pretty special nothingness. Reminds me of another Yogananda quote:

"The truth is, nothing is really created anyway! The Spirit simply manifests the universe. Ultimately, nothing causes anything, for nothing, in actuality, is even happening!"

So, like Bill I. says, "all this talk, all this verbiage" . . . for nothing!

[Zetetic_chick]

"The videos make him seem like the Super Dave Osborne of skepticism, with his own stunts backfiring on him"

Yes. You can include this video where vedic astrologer Jeffrey Armstrong passed Shermer's controlled test for a TV program:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N1dIUTbZTo

"I'm reminded why I put the single Wilber book I own aside after a few chapters"

Wilber is a very controvertial author, but I think some of his ideas are very interesting. While I don't consider myself an expert in his theory (maybe some expert in Wilber could think that I misrepresented or misunderstood some aspects of his philosophy), I think his approach of integrating knowledge is positive. However, there are some holes that deserves severe scrutiny and criticism.

Other authors (like Steve Mcintosh) are doing a great job exploring the philosophy of integralism in an independent way.

I think it's wise to try to integrate western and eastern philosophy, science, misticism and religion. I support that philosophical project, but I think afterlife and psi research should be a very important (in fact, essential) part of it. Leaving aside that evidence is a serious mistake when trying to understand man, consciousness and the universe.

In any case, of Wilber's books, I'd recommend the book "The Marriage of sense and soul: integrating science and religion". I think it's the best of the Wilber's books. It's very good book.

[william]

“I am amazed that the Buddhists have any followers considering they love to talk about nothingness as the ultimate outcome of life.”

“Must be pretty special nothingness.”

From my point of view nothingness is pure awareness. I suspect that the word nothingness does not translate well with the English language. The mystics do not see nothingness but see and feel a oneness in everything they experience.
I often wonder if the teaching of nothingness is used by some followers of Buddhism as an escape from the harshness of continual human rebirth that the Buddhists teach. One book I have on Buddhism states by the author who has a PhD in Buddhism that human life is not only worthless but also disgusting.
I lean in the other direction that human life is a necessary step in the evolution of consciousness. But only a step not a final destination. We may indeed be gods in the making creating our own planets, galaxies etc. Maybe much or all of that creation we see in the universe may indeed be a creative process of a god or gods. Or not.

[Michael H]

I think it's wise to try to integrate western and eastern philosophy, science, mysticism and religion.

I agree, but I also think that Bill I's right in that there's a tendency to do too much intellectualizing. The integration will probably only occur through simplification, not complication.

The wisdom that really matters is that which occurs to us alone. Wilber, Yogananda, Emerson or anyone else can only give us an interpretation of their wisdom.

I often wonder if the teaching of nothingness is used by some followers of Buddhism as an escape from the harshness of continual human rebirth that the Buddhists teach.

I think it's clear that I appreciate the eastern cosmologies, but I've often wondered if the emphasis on countless lives and lengthy meditative practice to 'awaken' is counterproductive, or self-fulfilling somehow. The Buddha made a comment to the effect that one shouldn't believe anything he said, yet it seems the various schools have been busy telling people what to believe ever since.

(Just to clarify: by 'not believing' the Buddha meant one should test his understanding for themselves, and not just take his word for it.)

[william]

“(Just to clarify: by 'not believing' the Buddha meant one should test his understanding for themselves, and not just take his word for it.)”

I have read where many Buddhist monks call the Buddha the perfect one. I did some research about 4 years ago to test Buddhist monks on their understanding of what the Buddha realized, which of course was the origin of suffering. Now of course the Hindus were already teaching the origin of suffering but the Buddha realized it not just intellectual understanding of this Hindu teaching.

Well I contacted 30 temples and asked one question “what is the origin of suffering?” fifteen Buddhist monks responded and four answered it correctly. The other 11 monks responded with such answers as attachment, craving, grasping, and one answered desire. Now attachment craving and grasping are symptoms of ignorance. It appears that even Buddhist monks confuse symptoms with origins.

My point: there is a profound difference between knowing about something and understanding. I suspect understanding comes through realization not memorization. But maybe intellectual knowing is a prerequisite for realization that leads to understanding.

I.e. maybe discussing and research into the paranormal and meaning of life topics can be beneficial to future understandings.

[Zerdini]

Hi Zetetic Chick

Re: But he could materialise objects too. In his book, Findlay wrote: "His mediumship during these years has embraced trance, telekinesis, apport, direct voice, materialisation, clairvoyance and clairaudience" (p. 25)

"So, Sloan's mediumnic powers weren't limited to direct voice alone, but it included materialisation too. And his seances were in darkness."

We may be talking at cross purposes here.

By materialisation I mean full form walking, talking materialisations SEEN in good light. John Sloan, to the best of my knowledge,never held a materialisation seance and I have all of Findlay's books.

Art, you are really into this 'holographic universe' and such...well, I had an NDE, was outside of myself, went throught the void (outer darkness), saw the light, saw people who had passed, spoke at length with one...and I WAS NOT in all places of the universe at once, I did NOT have 360 vision, I did NOT hear sounds that I never knew existed or anything else that you speak of. It was very 'sensible' and ordered and much more detailed than many of what you have read, I think. The fact is...I was ME, still was ME, an INDIVIDUAL..no identity loss, nothing of what you speak of...you seem to be 'stuck' in this 'holograph' thing, perhaps it's because it appeals to you...I can assure you what happened to me is as profound as most others, and it was 'sensible' unlike many I've read myself. I don't think they are all 'real' and according to what happened to me, anyone who thinks they're going to 'dissolve' or 'merge' into a sea of 'something' after they pass, is going to be disappointed and surprised. I also learned, Art, that there are those in that 'outer darkness' who are not exactly, how should I put it...that intelligent or nice...when 'someone' in the outer darkness says 'you must kill your mother'...what would you think about this? It seems to me what you speak of is a lack of understanding of what happens when this event occurs. I can assure you there indeed is 'reality' and things are NOT an illusion.

Further, I personally know people who are ont flakes, who have been with family member who passes and have actually SEEN their etheric body rise up out of their physical one...SEEN it. Why this phenomenon as well as apparitions is so ignored and so much is devoted to other people's opinions and speculations is odd to me. How would one explain this? How would one explain this occurence with some NDEs that are bizarre at best...it is MY opinion that many NDEs are simply OBEs and are not the same 'event' as really, really, REALLY dying. I wonder if this is where all this 'opinion' and philosophy comes from about what sounds like a lack of 'reality' or something.

FOR INSTANCE, HOW WOULD ONE SQUARE STORIES LIKE THESE TWO WITH A SEEMING LACK OF 'REALITY'..OR REINCARNATION FOR THAT MATTER AS WELL...

Monday morning, my bedroom door opened...I thought it was my cat pushing open the door. My fiancé and I both leaned over to greet him, (my cat), and a man stood there with a kind smile and his hands in his pockets. We both sat there knowing that he did not belong there. Speechless, he and I just stared at this male figure and started to lean backwards. The man was my grandfather. I never knew him-but he looked just like my brother. He did not say anything but my boyfriend and I clearly heard, “call your mother and tell her I love her”. He just dissolved. I turned to Jon and asked him if he saw it what I just saw. He just said...call your mom! I called my mom and she was frantic...she said that she just saw her dad and he scared the shit out of her. She was having a full panic attack. It was like she had just caught him peaking in on her. He popped around a corner and she jumped out of her chair and nearly poked her eye out as she applied eye shadow. She immediately started calming down as soon as I told her about our experience moments earlier. I think she was on the verge of a heart attack. I told her he came to Jon and I. I know he came to me to calm her down…doesn’t hurt that my future husband is a cardiologist and he ran over to the house to verify that her heart rate was too dangerously high and took her to the hospital. No heart attack to report, thank GOD! I have an MBA and my fiancé is a doctor. Purely terrifying and exhilarating all the same time! There is definitely life after death and my grandfather looks great! I am officially not afraid to die…my grandpa showed me so!

As I sat holding my son's hand, I noticed some subtle changes in the sense of things slowing down. I was aware of these changes in my body and mind was couldn't comment nor communicate them to those around me. I also noticed that the sounds in ICU, the machines and moments the noises from other patients and staff seem to slowly fade away. I also started having this strong sensation that someone was standing behind me. As I sat looking at my son's face and was sending him my love and support. I felt so powerless and helpless at that moment. I knew he was in God's hand because I had prayed that morning that God's will be done no matter what it was. And I knew it wasn't what I wanted, I wanted my son to live. I then felt this strong pulling sensation coming from behind me. So I turned around with my head to glance back into the space behind me. The way the nurse and the doctor and my husband were standing they couldn't see into the room behind me because the curtain was pulled back but not all the way so I was the only one who could see into the room. I saw an IV pole and thought oh that is what is drawing my attention away so I turned back to look at my son. But the sensation grew even stronger so I turned my head a little further around and saw the table the nurses use and then again turned back to my son. But the sensation then grew so strong that it was as if the hair on the back of my neck was standing straight up. I have heard that expression before but never knew what it meant until that moment. My entire body felt this strong pulling sensation. So I turned this time around with my entire body so that I could fully look at what was behind me. It was then I saw him. It was my deceased father, full form, glowing. I felt confused at first thinking, I see my father? But then I took inside all the details of seeing him. I slowly looked him over from head to toe, taking in all the details of his body, the clothes he was wearing, and the position he was standing in room. He actually wasn't standing directly on the floor. He was raised up somewhat but yet it appeared as if he was standing on solid ground but I saw nothing beneath his feet. And I noticed he had shoes on with shoe laces. He was so ill before he died that he no longer wore his shoes but had slip on leather house shoes he wore. I saw that my father wasn't looking directly at me but almost through me as he looked at my son. (My son was very closed to his Papa as he called him, and he was three years old when my father died and he never forgot him, my son also had several visions of seeing my father before we found out why my son was so ill, that prompted me to take him to some different doctors several states away because the doctors had no diagnosis yet. It was there we found out my son had a terminal heart condition, he was only 14 years old he died 16 months later). He never saw my father again after the diagnosis. After looking my father from head to foot, I then turned to look again at my son as if I knew I should turn back. Just as my eyes laid on my son's face, he flat lined on the heart monitor. He died. And then it happened, all the sounds and sensations returned to my body in full force. I then heard the doctor yelling for my husband and I to "get out" of the room as she rushed towards my son. And then some nurse pushed us out of the room. Code blue was called and a team came to again work on his body. I stood outside with my husband holding me as I cried "he can go, he can go." I thanked God for his vision and it has brought me the peace of mind in knowing we aren't alone when we die and we are with those we love, our love lives on and they still are involved in our lives, the experience was definitely real.

He looked young, about 45. He was smiling warmly. We were in a room with dozens of other people. Someone in charge was making some kind of public address to us all, so Dad and I couldn't speak for a moment or two. It was apparent that this was a visiting area, with about a dozen others like myself, and their deceased relatives/friends. Finally, when the speech was finished, I was able to turn to Dad and ask, "So...what's it like...?"He still smiled, though he knew I was asking him what it's like to be dead. "It's not so bad!" "Do you-are you able to think? Are you aware and conscious?" Although the answer was self-evident, the question was not as ridiculous as you might think, because that question or some form of it is something every still-living person is continually dying to know. Besides, I didn't mean "are you aware and conscious" just right now, but also before and after this visitation. They are continually conscious. They keep their identity. No sleep-death. They are alive. "Is there Hell?" I fearfully whispered. "No." At one point, Dad referred to the fact that he was no saint and has done many things he's ashamed of, but that he was not in any hell. We agreed that while we're in our mortal bodies, that we are driven by all sorts of influences that are not wholesome. "Is there reincarnation?" He shook his head, "No." I was sad at this, because reincarnation is an elegant solution to many problems. But on the positive side, it appears that you don't die, you stay aware of yourself, and you are apparently happy on the other side--so what's the problem with not reincarnating? "Your Dad, have you seen your Dad?" I expected to hear of a great reunion with my grandfather who died 40 years ago. My father had mourned greatly for his father all these many years. Surprisingly, his answer was No. Now this was unexpected--especially if there is no hell and no reincarnation. I would have thought that would have been Dad's first priority. Dad didn't seem all shook up by the fact he hadn't seen his dad yet. I got the feeling that there was plenty of time for that and it would happen, but in it's time. "Your mother?" (My grandmother died a few months after my Dad). At this, Dad beamed and told me how he sees her a lot. And she's doing well. And she was very happy to see a big red X on Dad's calendar for today, which implies to other residents that he's not available, because he's "Visiting”. Now, why had Dad not seen Grandpa? Why was this not an issue to him? With some thought, I figured that maybe that's because Dad's Dad has been dead so long that he's farther along in whatever process they go through. Grandma was right there, you know. Maybe later he'll see his Dad. Dad looked pretty darn good, Dad looked vigorous and young again. He died frail and 70. Here, he was at his prime again!!

[ikumi]

@william:

The four "wrong answers" boil down to just two terms in the Sanskrit: upadana (attachment/grasping) and tanha (craving, desire).

Buddha referred to both of these as "origins of suffering" in explaining the Four Noble Truths, so I'm not surprised you got those answers from monks.

Together with ignorance (avidya) they are among 12 spokes on the wheel of samsara; they are linked in a circular causal chain (ignorance leads to desire, desire leads to attachment, attachment leads to death and rebirth, rebirth leads to ignorance...). It is this repeating cycle which gives rise to suffering, not any single element of the cycle.

Talking about "the origin of suffering" is like asking which point of a circle marks the beginning. A causal chain which stretches back indefinitely doesn't have a privileged "primary origin"; you can try to single out ignorance, but that ignorance was caused by rebirth which in turn was caused by attachment, which was caused by desire...

I'm missing out the intermediate links because the ones we've mentioned so far are the ones given special emphasis in the recorded teachings of Buddha. They are basically useful "intervention points" in breaking the cycle; if different monks emphasised different parts of the cycle, it's because they felt these are the most effective starting points for an outsider to consider.

It's not that they were contradicting another or that some of them had "the wrong answer"; that view only arises from your assumption that there's a linear hierarchy of causes starting from ignorance and leading towards desire and attachment, whereas one of the key teachings of Buddhism is that the causes of suffering are cyclical.

Well, I'm not so sure that it's so wise to incorporate Easter, Western and other philosophy together..because that's all it is...philosophy. And philosophy is nothing more than exactly that. With all due respect, I haven't seen very much posted by some on this blog, that is even remotely close to 'reality' when a very profound and sensbile NDE happened to me, I'd never even heard of them before, never read about one in my life when it happened, at first I didn't really understand how it could possibly be happening...fully aware, fully whole, a transparent form, very much like 'living' here but going through a dimension wall that begins RIGHT HERE. It is a part of 'here' but yet not quite 'here' and we in physical bodies are cut off from it, it is my 'belief' that we always will be, we will never be able to physically enter that dimension no matter how much we want to..and it is also my 'belief' that all the 'dreamer's who claim to be exploring the life after this are simply, well...dreaming.

CYCLICAL? PHILOSOPHY MAYBE? To reiterate:

"Is there reincarnation?" He shook his head, "No." I was sad at this, because reincarnation is an elegant solution to many problems. But on the positive side, it appears that you don't die, you stay aware of yourself, and you are apparently happy on the other side--so what's the problem with not reincarnating?

[ikumi]

I was replying to william's post further back, the "cyclical" stuff wasn't a reply to what you said. He made a point about Buddhism and I was explaining what Buddhists believe. I don't necessarily believe in it myself.

You might want to type a name into the box marked "Name" above the box where you type in your post, it makes it less confusing to see who's saying what. It can be anything, it doesn't have to be your full name or real name.

[Bill I.]

My above comment was a bit of an emotional reaction, an expression of exasperation.

The question of survival has been debated endlessly. Our particular Western version of this became much more intense with the rise of modern science, as anyone would expect -- the pat answers of religion no longer sufficed, while maybe someone could figure out how to successfully apply the scientific method to this question.

I suggest present science (and that of the Victorian psychical investigators) simply isn't up to the task, owing to its nature, its hidden assumptions.

You can review what others did and thought in their investigations endlessly and still never reach any conclusion whatsoever, save perhaps that some phenomena is genuine but unexplained and, within the framework of modern science, unexplainable.

(Explanations -- various theories and possibilities -- may be offered, but these shall very likely remain nothing more.)

Regarding what I wrote about thinking, pondering, and writing: It's possible for writing to be an expression of deeper regions of self, much as with the inspiration of poets or songwriters.

My comment didn't refer to such, but rather to the analytical processes we usually categorize as the workings of intellect.

These are fine (who would wish to lose such natural abilities, refined by practice, the interactions of life, the exposure to other minds?) but, in my opinion, ultimately incapable -- by themselves -- of enabling anyone to apprise the nature of self and reality.

My overall point is that "getting anywhere" on topics like survival, psi in general, and so on, will not be accomplished by using what Seth calls "the rational approach."

It doesn't matter what investigator X thought in 1890, or how skeptic Y rudely castigated him or her in 1895 or 1965.

Neither have gotten to the heart of the matter.

The same is true for the efforts of the Susan Blackmores of the world.

It doesn't matter, either, how many intricate frameworks Ken Wilbur constructs to explain reality.

These may be quite interesting and likely Mr. Wilbur derives great fulfillment from creating them; even so, how does this impact what you or I actually know and can know about survival?

I'm a proponent, then, of experimentation with altered states of consciousness and methods for achieving them.

I could carefully qualify any of my remarks in posts here and there and on my simple RealityTest.com website and, to an extent, I've done so.

Still, the price I pay for expressing myself is to open myself to criticism and dismissal, a price I accept.

I have no reputation to lose, no career to damage.

I don't claim to be "enlightened" and my personal explorations into trance states and mediumship, for example, are primitive, my limited skills absolutely dwarfed by the talents of the many gifted amateurs I've encountered over the years.

This doesn't matter to me, either; what does matter is a willingness to put aside the books and discussions and get on with the doing of this stuff, whether you view it as "spiritual," "psychic," "occult," or philosophical in nature. I view it all as a grand exploration.

I can only devote a certain amount of time and attention to these areas, as I'm not independently wealthy and must work for a living, but when I review all I've experienced over my lifetime I'm impressed -- this is one of my few accomplishments in life, and this is on-going.

So I ask again: What does anyone here require in order to accept that physical death is but an end to one experience but not all experience?

I can offer suggestions from my own experience, nothing more; each must determine this in their own way.

Close to each of us, closer than any dearly departed personality offering "proof" that they've passed through the curtain and survived, is our own soul, but what is soul?

The word has religious connotations, but the reality it refers to exists, nevertheless, and can be experienced without reference to any religious beliefs.

More than anything else I'd suggest that an immediate experience of your own soul is the best "proof" of survival, or at least the best route to such proof.

Regards

Bill I.

[Michael Prescott]

Bill,

Personally I think the answer is "different strokes for different folks." Some folks may need personal experiences; others are satisfied with reading.

A study was done in which people who'd had NDEs were compared with people who had only read about NDEs. The same kinds of personality changes (greater altruism, reduced fear of death, enlarged sense of purpose, more spirituality) were effected in both groups, in more or less equal measure.

(Offhand I don't have a link to the study, but it is referenced in 21 Days.)

[william]

Ikumi

I take a more Hindu approach to the origin of suffering. My research and I suppose my beliefs at this time are more in line with Hindu thinking than Buddhist teachings. They are very close but the Hindus are more in line with the concept of the soul residing in an astral body between physical lives than the Buddhists.

Here is a link that best explains much of my thought on the origin of suffering at this time. I have communicated with this person on many occasions and he seems very knowledgeable about this subject.

http://www.hinduwebsite.com/buddhism/buddhaonignorance.asp

“According to the Buddha, the very origin of life in this world is rooted in ignorance. Since life arose out of ignorance, ignorance is the first problem to be solved in order to find a permanent solution to the problem of suffering in our lives.”

Plus I spent six years on the origin of ignorance and my discovery revealed to me that for infinite oneness to express its awareness and vitality must “create perceived identities” that are unaware of their true self or identity. A synonym for unawareness is ignorance.

[william]

“"Is there reincarnation?" He shook his head, "No." I was sad at this, because reincarnation is an elegant solution to many problems”

From my point of view someone that has just crossed over is not in a position to state if reincarnation exists. Some spirits teach reincarnation some do not.

From my point of view at this time it exists. This knowledge (belief) did not make me a happy camper many years ago. Physical life is very harsh for most but I suspect there is much to learn in love and compassion in that harshness.

According to many books that I have read those that want a faster track to this love and compassion often reincarnate to achieve that or I suspect as the Buddhists and Hindus teach such things as attachment and etc will bring us back to a physical life.

[Michael H]

(Offhand I don't have a link to the study, but it is referenced in 21 Days.)

If anyone have the source of this study, I would be interested in the details.

Personally I think the answer is "different strokes for different folks." Some folks may need personal experiences; others are satisfied with reading.

I agree with MP. And Bill. :-)

I think there's tremendous value in learning about all of these things, but absolute certainty comes only through realization. If there's a problem with trying to achieve realization it's that the 'trying' gets in the way, and there can be a tendency for people to assume that because they haven't yet realized it there's something 'wrong' somehow. There isn't.

I think all anyone can do is learn as much as they can, live their life, and try not to over-think things. Just learning about all of the afterlife evidence can't help but influence someone towards acceptance. The amount of empirical evidence is overwhelming. The choice is to decide whether all of the evidence taken as a whole is faulty, or not. If the answer is 'not', then one knows where they stand.

I'd think that alone would make a big difference.

[Bill I.]

Michael: "Personally I think the answer is "different strokes for different folks." Some folks may need personal experiences; others are satisfied with reading."

Dear Michael:

I'd say this is a question of degree plus there are what might be called "critical mass" experiences.

Reading can contribute to these, but reading alone is insufficient to initiate them, in my opinion.

For some years I read voraciously, absorbing material from a number of traditions, but -- with certain exceptions -- it was rare for any of this to contribute to major provocative experiences.

Reading about "astral projection" is one of those exceptions, whether older material or the more recent writings of Robert Monroe.

I never became a master of projection, although I had one very strong experience. (I found it frightening).

Reading about George Gurdjieff also triggered some powerful experiences, but the actual experiences had little to do with the activity of reading in the moment in which they happened. In order to create those experiences, it was necessary to temporarily suspend that region of mind we usually associate with reading. (In hindsight, I was too young and inexperienced to be playing around with what turn out to be very powerful exercises, particularly by myself.)

I did read a little book entitled "How to Meditate" and followed its instructions, but once again, the powerful experience that ensued didn't happen until I turned off the "reader" part of myself.

The same holds for the many exercises found in the various Seth books, particularly those found in _The Nature of Personal Reality_ and _The "Unknown" Reality_.

I find something cumulative about my personal searching for truth, as though at particular points I crossed a line or lines, after which all was changed.

(I believe this is true of some forms of meditation, too; that is, you might practice a version of meditation for years with no obvious changes in self or beliefs, but then, one day, you change, as though all of this prepared the ground.)

One very fertile period involved interacting with others, as though our shared intent combined to produce experiences none of us would have experienced independently.

I can't say that reading, in general, might not open one's mind to possibilities of which they might not otherwise be aware, but again, I believe this will only take you so far.

My visits to the strange old Italian hills come to mind.

During the first visit, my companions were very much down-to-earth types, not the more ethereal folks I have sometimes hung out with. (I do feel a bond with these two, believing we share life experiences as Romans in Roman Britain -- I can't prove this, but as Romans we tended to be quite practical and "down-to-earth.")

I found nothing of interest, until one of my friends reminded me to meditate. This I did at the tale end of my last visit on my first trip, with intriguing results. (The tale is available here.

In other words, during my first visit to the hills I was physically focused and at all times thinking, thinking, thinking.

Only when I changed my focus did the unusual nature of these hills begin to emerge. (I look forward to my long delayed third visit.)

(I apologize for rambling -- I really should be dealing with corporate America today, but everyone seems to be away on vacation and I've been mentally drifting around a bit all day.)

Back to survival and its proof, which is the blog topic, yes?

In some "places" of consciousness, this is obvious to me; in others, much more dubious.

At times I, too, play with ways to demonstrate beyond the slightest doubt that indeed there is life after death.

These would demonstrate this, irrefutably, to the general population, even if they would be unnecessary to anyone who's ever had very strong moments of knowing.

(I include "reincarnation" in the last, even though I've concluded that the word is used to greatly simplify that which is almost beyond words.)

Despite devoting a great amount of thought to this over many years, I've never come up with anything that would do the job.

(It's long struck me that as techies die, sooner or later some startling breakthrough will materialize. We have yet to see this, while even if something like this did appear, a great many would simply refuse to believe it.)

In my more expansive moments, my own awareness of my own deaths is sufficient for myself, but this is exactly the sort of thing that is more or less unbelievable to anyone who had not experienced it. They have every right to be skeptical of that which they have not experienced, personally, while somehow contriving to "objectify" such realities is no simple task.

(I don't such objectification is impossible, however, but it would be completely unnecessary if sufficient numbers of the human race were to become consciously aware of what some call the "inner senses.")

More later.

Bill I.

[Art]

"Is there reincarnation?" He shook his head, "No." I was sad at this, because reincarnation is an elegant solution to many problems."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Marineboy said it best:
"I suspect that it is a time-based misreading of "interconnection". Also, when people say they felt that "I" had all these past lives, I think the I is not the I they think it is, but the I of interconnection, the I of universal presence incarnating in myraid forms everywhere. Because there are no absolute boundaries to this "I" it seems in an nde as if it is THEY personally."

I think the soul is here simply to experience duality and separation, time and space, and imprint what it means and how it feels to live in a 3 dimensional + 1 time universe. Reincarnation conflicts with this idea because it seems rather schizophrenic.

[william]

“Reincarnation conflicts with this idea because it seems rather schizophrenic.”

The whole of the human race appears schizophrenic until one begins to see that within that schizophrenic chaos are opportunities to learn love and compassion. One only has to look at politics and religion to see this schizophrenic effect in action.

“"I suspect that it is a time-based misreading of "interconnection".”

This does not explain the research into scars of a person from a past life being in the same location as the wound in a previous life. There is tremendous resistance to the very concept of reincarnation and rightly so. Many advanced spirits that come through a medium talk of reincarnation whereas less advanced spirits appear to not know little about reincarnation.

At this time we cannot rule out a spirit controlling the memory of a child but that does not tend to explain the scar issue on a child for a past life wound.

[Småfornå]

"Reincarnation conflicts with this idea because it seems rather schizophrenic."

Strange, I feel the opposite. It seems that if something is here to understand duality, separation, and what living in our universe is like, it would need to experience life from a vast array of viewpoints.

Besides, what of a soul whose body dies after a few days of life, because he was unable to be supported? Does the soul experience separation? Does it experience time? Does it experience duality? No, it simply cannot in that short a time frame. Nor, do I believe, it can experience it in 75-85 years either.

[william]

Småfornå:

Interesting insights you have given.

The thought of reincarnation is very disturbing to most people. It was to me many years ago. Took me years to accept it as a possible reality. It is interesting that most spirits know nothing abut it.

One of those intriguing questions I have been unable to find a cross-validated answer to.

My research indicates reincarnation is a reality for most souls and there are many days I hope my research is wrong. But I have many things I would like to accomplish in this physical world so I suspect I will come back and be my same sweet self. :-)

William, could you logically and empirically explain to all, exactly HOW you or anyone else knows with certainty that the so called spirits who teach reincarnation ARE the ones who are so much more advanced than the ones who dont? You state this, yet where is the PROOF of this? I will answer it for you, there is none. It is simply what you CHOOSE to believe because you are searching out a philosophy and it fits into the philosophy you are searching, no? There is no proof of what you have said, yet you choose to BELIEVE it, but just because you believe it or your philosphical 'teachers' believe doesn't mean it is true. Would you also be able to provide a LOGICAL and EMPIRICAL proof of reason as to why the so called birthmarks are from a past life? A befuddled way of saying "it just must be" doesn't suffice.

Reincarnation is amoral, senseless, and hopeless. It is amoral because it perpetuates evil. If a husband beats his wife, the cause-and-effect law of karma will require him to be reincarnated in his next life as a wife who is beaten by her husband. That husband will have to return in his next life as a wife beaten by her husband and so forth endlessly. The perpetrator of each crime must become the victim of the same crime, thus necessitating another crime, the perpetrator of which must in turn become a subsequent victim at the hands of yet another criminal, ad infinitum.

Reincarnation is also senseless because no one recalls the many past lives he or she has supposedly lived nor the previous mistakes and lessons supposedly learned. What then is the point of living again and again, only to bear the burden of bad karma due to misdeeds one can neither remember nor correct? It is argued that subconsciously we have such memories and are thus benefiting at an unconscious level. If that were true, we should see evidence that mankind has gradually progressed morally. Obviously, this is not the case.

That reincarnation is also hopeless follows logically. The karma built up in the present life must be worked off in a future reincarnation. In that process more karma is accumulated, which must be worked off in a subsequent life, and so it continues endlessly. The cycle offers no release. As for escaping through yoga, there is no explanation of how that practice could abrogate the immutable law of karma nor any proof that anyone has ever effected such an escape.

Ian Stevenson states:
In my experience, nearly all so-called previous personalities evoked through hypnotism are entirely imaginary and a result of the patient's eagerness to obey the hypnotist's suggestion. It is no secret that we are all highly suggestible under hypnosis. This kind of investigation can actually be dangerous. Some people have been terribly frightened by their supposed memories, and in other cases the previous personality evoked has refused to go away for a long time (Omni Magazine 10(4):76 (1988)).

Let’s take an example and see how the two objections actually work in the case of a real person. If we take the case of Adolf Hitler, the results are astounding. (For a detailed study of this case and other important aspects of reincarnation see Mark Albrecht’s book Reincarnation - InterVarsity Press, 1982.) All adherents of reincarnation agree that many lives are needed for consuming his karmic debt. Hitler died in 1945 and had to reincarnate as a child in order to bear the consequences of his monstrous deeds. The two objections can be stated as following:

1) The person of Hitler ceased to exist at the moment of his physical death. Only the impersonal self will reincarnate, accompanied by its karmic deposit. However, there is no continuity between the person of Hitler and that of the individual who has to endure the hardships imposed by Hitler’s karma. The newborn person doesn’t know that he has to work out Hitler’s karma. After the cruel life and death of this person, other millions of reincarnations will succeed with the same tragic destiny. The most intriguing fact is that the person of Hitler, the only one who should have endured at physical and psychical level the results of his deeds, was dissolved at physical death, while other persons, totally unaware of this situation and innocent, have to work out his bad karma.

2) As a result of the hardships that have to be endured by the new incarnations of Hitler, it is almost certain that they will react with indignation instead of resignation to their situation, and thus will accumulate a growing karmic debt. Each new reincarnation of Hitler becomes a source of newly acquired karma, initiating a new chain of individuals who have to endure the consequences. Hitler himself was the one that had karmic debts to pay. Whoever he had been in a previous life, he made his karma a lot worse during the years of The Third Reich. Therefore, instead of solving the puzzle of global justice, the problem worsened. Starting with a single individual such as Hitler, we reach a huge number of persons who pay his karma and accumulate a new one. And this is just one case in human history. An attempt to imagine what happens at a larger human scale would reveal a catastrophe that could never be solved.

As a result, karma and reincarnation cannot provide real justice. Reincarnation cannot solve the problem of evil but only amplify it, leaving the original evil unpunished. If reincarnation were true, Hitler would never be punished for his deeds because he ceased to exist before any human person or circumstance of life could truly punish him.

Even if disagreement persists about the growth of evil as an effect of karma and reincarnation, at least its conservation should be admitted in human history. This results from analyzing the links that exist between people and their karma from a global perspective. There are two points to be made here.

First, there is a moral issue involved. As suffering is the result of one’s bad deeds performed in previous lives, reacting consistently with the law of karma might lead to a lack of compassion toward people who suffer. One might think that the person who suffers deserves to be justly punished for what he or she had done in previous lives.

Second, the person who is the instrument of karma’s punishment acquires more bad karma and therefore will have to be punished in turn, in a next life. Then the next person who acts as the instrument of karma will have to be punished in turn, etc. A possible solution to this endless cycle would be that one who acts as the instrument of karma in another one’s life should do it in a completely detached manner, without any interest in the results, according to the demand of Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita (2,47; 3,19; etc.). In this case it is considered that they wouldn’t acquire new karma. However, such a solution would be limited to the few "detached" people that actually follow this rule, and thus has no significance on the larger scale of human society. Most people are far from considering themselves as detached executioners of karma in their neighbor’s life.

Let’s examine how these two points apply in the case of the millions of Jews killed in gas chambers by the Nazis during World War II. First, it would seem absurd to have any feeling of compassion towards them, because they deserved to be killed like that, as a result of the alleged crimes they committed in previous lives. One could conclude that, after all, the Nazis did the right thing against the Jews. The dictates of karma were fulfilled. Following this reasoning, any conceivable crime of the past or present could be justified, which opens a horrifying perspective on the past and future of mankind, with implications difficult to grasp.

Second, the killing of millions of Jews requires that their executioners should be killed in their turn, in a similar way, in further lives. But this implies that the executioners of the reincarnated Nazis will be killed in their turn, etc., etc. The cycle would never end. The same reasoning could be used also back in time, which would require finding in each generation those millions of people executed and their executioners. An objection to this scenario could be that killers may be punished (killed) in turn by impersonal means, not necessarily by involving other new acquirers of karma. Natural calamities such as earthquakes could be the instrument of karma. This option sounds acceptable, but it would solve only a minor part of the problem. Therefore, if reincarnation were a logical concept, it would imply that it has neither a beginning nor an end. This cannot be a solution for justice, but only a kind of an eternally ongoing drama.

A further analysis of karmic justice proves that it undermines the basic principle of Hindu morality, that of non-killing (ahimsa). According to this principle we should not participate in the killing of a living being, or we will reincarnate in order to pay the consequences. (This is the basis of religious vegetarianism.) For instance, the butcher who slaughters a pig will have to reincarnate as a pig in order to be slaughtered in his turn. According to his karma (but contradicting ahimsa), the pig had to be slaughtered, because he probably was the reincarnation of another butcher, who had to be punished that way. The only way in which karma and ahimsa could be reconciled in this case would be that the butcher is totally detached in his act (according to the demand expressed in the Bhagavad Gita 2,47; 3,19; etc). But the butcher has a direct interest in killing the animal, as it will be his food or it is the way in which he earns his salary. Since karma must be at work in such a case, the infringement of the non-violence principle becomes a necessity in order to fulfill karmic justice. The butcher is at the same time the instrument of working out one’s karmic debt and the generator of a new one for himself. In a strange way, the fulfilling of karmic debt requires the punishment of those who fulfill it. In other words, karma paradoxically acts through condemning those who carry out its "justice."

I am a spiritualist, and a medium, I do not accept reincarnation as being factual or even logical from a scientific standpoint, and whilst I accept that crystals have the ability to amplify energy (as scientifically know through things such as the old crystal radios) I can't see that they have any practical application within healing - someone would have to prove that to me before I will think they are anything but pretty looking rocks.

They are people's personal beliefs - spiritualist or not, medium or not.

REINCARNATION MEMORIES ARE:

A. Having a dream set in another time and place, which as far as I am concerned is not evidence of anything. We imagine up all sorts of things in our dreams.

B. Having a vision or what seems like a memory of another time and place, ... which can be done with psychic ability picking up on the energy of that and it’s meaning is absolutely nothing. Seeming to know about another's life does not mean it was our own life once upon a time, it would be the life of someone else in spirit that we are picking up on.

C. Others just want to believe in it with nothing to support it because they either like the idea of having many lives, think we need to have every imaginable experience, think we can only possibly learn from our mistakes by copping some sort of pay back or chance to correct a wrong doing in the form of Karma, or as one spirit I have spoken to put it "they can't yet conceive of another way of living so they hold a physical life as the pinnacle of existence".

So whilst some people think that evidence enough, I think it is no evidence at all. What strikes me -in no particular order - as illogical about reincarnation tho is ...

A. The amount of people who all claim to be the same historical figure - Cleopatra, Napoleon, etc, etc, .. they can't all be right! However, if they have had some experience which has led them to believe that, then it only backs up one of the points above, ... that they are dreaming something not true, picking up a thought energy that is just there to be tapped in to by anyone without it being applicable to themselves, or they just want to think they are based on pretty much nothing.

B. Reincarnation is going around in circles when the natural order of things is evolvement and progression.

C. If people come back here, who are mediums speaking to when giving messages? If people have no individuality/ identity, then how can mediums speak to them and identify them? Also how can mediums tell if they have one, two, three, etc, spirits linking to them if their separate uniqueness can not be sensed? It can - we can have more than one spirit link to us at the same time and be able to tell them apart simply by feeling the different energies.

D. The fourth reason, and the one that clinches it being totally illogical to me is unfortunately a concept that is clear in my head but hard to externalize to explain to another as the spiritual side of it really has to be experienced to truly understand that there is no time beyond the divisions we apply based on our physical environment and our planets revolution (but divisions that do not apply when not on a revolving planet in a physical environment - making no time really) , other aspects that all tie in here refer to light and it taking what we perceive as 'time' to travel, our ability to literally see the past as it is unfolding due to technology such as the Hubble telescope based on light as it reaches it, and it also needs an understanding of Einstein’s time space continuum. You can at least read up on that last bit, (which will give you the cornerstone to understand a concept of an eternal now in which past and future are fluid and RE incarnation can not fit in to the reality of an eternal now) but people can spend ages trying to arrive at this understanding from a spiritual side of things and it takes a lot of deep contemplation, and possibly even a state of expanded consciousness. I sat and thought about this and nothing else for 4 days straight before it all clicked in to comprehension, so as you can appreciate, I can't exactly spill 4 days of thought processing out that easily. I can only say I don't 'believe' this, for me it is a ‘knowing’ as clear as knowing water is wet. I wish I could find words to make it make sense to someone who has not arrived there themselves, but I think that may be the only way to FULLY get it - for it to click in to knowingness for one's self.

Clearly I see no evidence to support that we come back, certainly not as animals (will get to that later) ... I don't buy in to karma either - cause and effect yes, but not this eye for an eye, do and have done to you thing, ... we don't need to cop something back to arrive at the conclusion we have done something un-ideal and learn from it, we don't need to eat well in this life and then starve to death in Africa in another to understand hunger, etc, ... and there are experiences beyond the physical we can experience too but none of us ever would if we kept having to come back here until we got everything right, coz I don't know a single person once out of childhood who can say they have led a faultless life.

I have done regression and had gone back to 'past lives' and believe it even less because of those experiences. I also allow that my mind is pretty powerful and its capabilities, heights, depths and limits are just not known. 'Akashic Record dipping' seems to have taken over from Angels in the psychic arena at the moment and, contrary to books, courses, or even experiences, no one can access another person's life. We are told by Spirit Teachers that when we leave our physical bodies and are ready to review our lives then we will do so with the assistance of an evolved spiritual being who will help us with what may be a pretty traumatic experience. Do you think for one minute every Tom, Dick and Harry on the earth has the right, or even the ability, to access our life records? Many people confuse psychic readings with reading Akashic Records. I find it strange that in 35 years of spirit communication, not one spirit contact i have had, has ever mentioned reincarnation. I do think if it is as important as a lot of people think it is, some mention might have been made.

Have you ever tried living outside the physical laws? I think it's not us insisting on being bound by them, it's the laws doing the insisting. Try jumping of a cliff and insisting on not being bound by the law of gravity. And if space and time are an illusion, as are past and future, then the possibilities aren't endless, they all happen at once, in one flash, and everything would be gone done and finished at the instant they started. We need time as a reference, and I think you'll find that physicists don't say time and space are an illusion, but are interdependent on each other, and not the immutable fixed frames as was thought. However I doubt this makes much of a case for reincarnation. You make the afterlife sound like a playground, and we return to the earth for a bit of a lark, though I think if you had been the victim of an earthquake in the mountains of Pakistan you may have a different outlook. There are a lot of "I think's", "Perhaps's", and "I believe's" in your post, but a shortage of "I know's".

Stevenson believed that birthmarks and birth defects occur with undue frequency in children who remember past lives. In 43 of his 2,500 collected cases, Stevenson found "a medical document, such as a postmortem report, indicated the location of the wound on the deceased, which sometimes appeared to be strikingly close to the location of the birthmark or birth defect in the child" (Mills and Lynn: 294). He also claimed that there are birthmarks or birth defects in about one-third of the cases of children who report a PLE and that some of these are not genetically explicable (Mills and Lynn: 298). Stevenson constructed a grid for the average adult body that divides the skin into 160 squares of 10 centimeters each. He then calculated the odds of finding a birthmark that would correspond to a wound in a previous body as 1/160. Two corresponding wounds would have odds of 1/25,600. He had 18 cases of the latter. Even so, I think that he would have to admit that this kind of measuring is not rocket science but guesswork. Also, Stevenson had no explanation for why bodily wounds would carry over to the body of a personality that was reincarnated or why an experience in one life would carry over to a phobia or philia in another. Nor was he an expert in the languages and cultures where his stories originated, necessitating his use of translators whose flaws he was not qualified to observe or identify. He was not an expert on languages. Hiring a linguist to listen to a tape, as Stevenson did with the best of his xenoglossic reincarnates, was a good idea. But he might have considered that Uttara Huddara, a Marathi woman in Mumbai (Bombay) who could speak Bengali, could have acquired her ability by natural means. In any case, it is not unusual for someone to speak several languages in a country that is populated by people from many language groups. Linguist Sarah Thomason noted that Bengali and Marathi are closely related languages, the woman had a life-long interest in Bengali language and culture, and had many Bengali acquaintances, and people in Bombay often see films that were made in Bengali. The rest of Stevenson's cases, according to Thomason, involved people whose linguistic display was minimal and could be explained by casual exposure (Thomason 1987; Kelly 2004). A person may be able to utter 100 or so words in a non-native language, but that hardly counts as speaking or understanding that language. Stevenson listened to a tape where a woman uttered some German words while hypnotized but couldn't answer questions in German and didn't indicate any knowledge of grammar, and he declared this is evidence for reincarnation. He blamed her poor language skills on her poverty and illiteracy in a previous lifetime. A linguist listened to the same tape and noted that even the poor and the illiterate use some grammar. She declared that the woman's understanding of German was minimal and consistent with a casual acquaintance with the language.

Is There Reincarnation?
The writings of 18th century Emanuel Swedenborg who claimed to have seen into the other side for 27 years do not support reincarnation. He wrote that we have one life - eternal - and that we are born into this physical world to prepare us for our eternal life. In the book, Heaven and Hell, Swedenborg explained that these memories of what is now called "past lives' are the memories of those who have gone before us. Very often, we sense these past memories and believe them to be our own. Swedenborg's explanation does not discount the experience - this life was lived - but not by the person claiming more than one life. We have one life - eternal life - and we are ourselves throughout eternity. Swedenborg also wrote that God, being Divine Wisdom, in addition to Divine Love, is always rational. In other words, God always makes sense. If something doesn't make sense, it is not from God.
I have been made aware that a reincarnationist website has quoted my above paragraph without identifying this article. The point was made that the above explanation does not take into consideration why some people are seemingly healed emotionally by "past life healing." Well, there is an easy explanation - it's called the placebo effect and it has been documented in medical studies. If a person believes that something will help them, it very often does - even if that something is a sugar pill. It's not a stretch of the imagination to see if someone believes that they have past lives - then going to past lives therapy will help them.

Tom Harpur also points out that people who are trying to prove reincarnation from a Biblical standpoint often misrepresent history. They often times will cite that either the Council of Nicea of 325 AD or the Second Council of Constaninople in 553 AD voted to strike passages from the Bible that supported reincarnation. According to Harpur, who holds a Doctorate of Divinity and who has devoted years of study researching the original Greek translations, there is no evidence of any kind that any passages relating to the doctrine of reincarnation or any other theory were expurgated from the Biblical text.

The center of Swedenborg's works is the process of regeneration. The most detailed treatment of it is in his twelve-volume Arcana Coelestia [Heavenly Secrets]. In regeneration we move from the conception of the unitary spiritual self into the more heavenly world of usefulness and networking toward the experience of God. I think one of the most pervasive errors in theology is that many think moving from awareness of self to awareness of God must represent a loss of self.

Yet, according to Swedenborg, that is NOT what a spirit is. A spirit is merely a person that has died - and is now residing in the spiritual world. Our spirits have form - human form and we look very similar to what we look like now - only without physical or mental defect. The spiritual bodies that we reside in are merely the spiritual bodies that we were born with - and have developed in - when we leave this world, we merely cast off our physical bodies (like a pair of pajamas) and are then in the spiritual world. We have all the faculties of sight, sound, taste, smell, and touch. Indeed Swedenborg wrote that the spiritual universe looks very similar to our material universe.
Swedenborg wrote that there is a correspondence of all things in nature and spirit.
who doesn't, in their heart of hearts, long to be reunited with loved ones in an eternal Afterlife - never to be parted again? The idea of one individual/one life gives worth and dignity to each person.

What exactly is evil?
According to Swedenborg, evil is the opposite of love to God and love to our fellow person. It is the excessive selfishness that puts ourselves ahead of others to their detriment. It is the ego [or to use his term: proprium] out of control.
Is there reincarnation?
According to Swedenborg's writings - no. He wrote that we are surrounded by spirits - and that sometimes we access their memories and believe them to be our own. This would explain why sometimes more than one person has claimed to be a famous person in a past life. Swedenborg's explanation does not discount the experience - this life was lived - but not by the person claiming more than one life. We have one life - eternal life - and we are ourselves throughout eternity. We retain our personality intact. Swedenborg wrote that God always makes sense and is never confusing. If you find something confusing, run from it.
"People who have had near-death experiences peek through the door of the afterlife, but Swedenborg explored the whole house."

Sundar Singh wrote to the Secretary of the Indian Swedenborg Society, A. E. Penn, to claim that he had in fact been in contact with the "spirit" of Swedenborg for some years, without knowing it:
I saw him several times some years ago, but I did not know his earthly name. His name in the spiritual world is quite different just according to his high position and most beautiful character. He is exceedingly happy and always busy in helping others.33
A few days previously he had written to the same A. E. Penn to thank him for sending him Arcana Coelestia (a copy of which, as we have seen, he had had in his possession for a number of years already):

I value this great treasure very much and shall read carefully as told by the most venerable Swedenborg... After I have finished touring I hope to write something about my conversation with Swedenborg in the Spiritual World.34
We have previously seen that late in 1927, John Goddard of Newtonville, Massachusetts, had opened a correspondence with the Sadhu. This continued for a couple of years, indeed until the Sadhu's final disappearance in 1929. More copies of Swedenborg's books were sent to him (by the end of his life Sundar Singh must have had a very considerable Swedenborg library). I am glad to see that many things which I have seen in the spiritual world and heavens are exactly the same as Swedenborg has described and written in his works... Yes, I have seen the venerable Swedenborg in my visions several times . . .35

And on January 2, 1929:
With regard to the doctrine of reincarnation and transmigration also, I have conversed with Swedenborg and some other Hindu souls. They all say that reincarnation is impossible . . .37 It is incidentally in this letter that Sundar Singh makes what is perhaps the only direct reference anywhere in the correspondence, to the writings of Swedenborg. And in a still later letter, dated March 11, 1929, he confirmed that he had found in the spiritual world "... scenes and things almost the same as Swedenborg has described.

Skeptics challenged Swedenborg’s ability to receive such premonitions. His sister had died without his knowing it. When chided about this, he explained that he was emotionally distant from her at the time of her death and, in any case, had not asked his angels about her. When he did ask his angels to reveal when someone would die, he received accurate clairvoyance. Two episodes illustrate this:

(1) At a Stockholm gathering, ES was challenged by skeptics to a test: he was asked to identify who of those present would die first. ES immediately entered a profound state of meditation. After a while, he shared the angels' reply: "Olof Olofsohn will die tomorrow morning at 4;45 AM." This confident prediction transformed the mood of those present to one of anxious expectation. One of Olofsohn's friends went to his house the next morning to test the prediction. En route, he met one of Olofsohn's servants who informed him that his master had just died from a fit of apoplexy. The clock in his home had stopped at the very moment he had expired and the hand pointed to 4:45!

NO REINCARNATION:
Swedenborg said that a person’s spirit does not come back to earth in a different form, repeatedly, until it is perfected, however, that when a person dies, their spirit is continually growing and perfected to eternity. Eternity is not some stagnant location where one’s spiritual journey plateaus.
This quote from Emanuel Swedenborg’s work confirms this point: "An enlightened reason can also grasp something of the infinity of God from the absence of limits to the growth of any science, and so to the growth of an individual’s intelligence and wisdom, each of which is capable of growth as a tree grows from seed, and woods and gardens from trees, for here there is no limit. The human memory is the soil in which they are planted, the understanding the medium in which they shoot, the will that in which they bear fruit. These two faculties, the understanding and the will, are such that they are capable of being cultivated and perfected throughout life in this world and afterwards to eternity."

Swedenborg supports only one model of life after death, that is, that we continue to live as people in the spiritual world immediately following the death of the physical body.

He writes, “[most people] cannot conceive of entering the next life immediately after death and appearing there as people complete with face, body, arms, feet, and all the senses outward and inward. Still less can they conceive of wearing clothes and having homes and places to live in. The sole reason [for this] is that the thought of the majority is confined to the level of the physical senses, and therefore they think that things which they cannot see and touch have no existence; and also that few of them can be drawn away from things perceived by the outward senses to those more internal levels and thereby be raised to the light of heaven.” (Arcana Caelestia, paragraph 10758) He continues, “I have also talked at times to spirits whom I had known when they were living as people in the world. I have asked them whether they wished to be reclothed with their earthly body, as they had previously thought they were going to be. On hearing this the very idea of being joined to that body made them flee far away, struck with amazement that in the world blind belief devoid of all understanding had led them to think that way.” (Arcana Caelestia, paragraph 10758, subsection 4) The use of such beliefs remaining, and the reason Swedenborg says they are permitted to remain, is that they allow people to preserve an idea of life after death. I would add that they also maintain an idea of continued spiritual growth and development, rather than the traditional, static Christian concept of heaven.

To those who seek contact with spirits, Swedenborg says, "Woe to those who do so!" (Doc. II, p, 208). They may easily "be led astray" (Ibid., p. 210). People who contact spirits are "speedily in danger of their life ....I would dissuade all from cherishing such desires" (Ibid., p. 232). "It is most dangerous" (Ibid., p. 387). "It is dangerous,...for evil spirits desire nothing more than to destroy a man, both soul and body" (HH 249). "When spirits begin to speak with a person, he must beware lest he believe them in anything .... They lie .... deceive, and seduce ....Let people beware!

But I have many things I would like to accomplish in this physical world so I suspect I will come back and be my same sweet self. :-)

This statement, below, William, is where it seems to me that you fit in, based on what you have written:

...they either like the idea of having many lives, think we need to have every imaginable experience, think we can only possibly learn from our mistakes by copping some sort of pay back or chance to correct a wrong doing in the form of Karma, or as one spirit I have spoken to put it "they can't yet conceive of another way of living so they hold a physical life as the pinnacle of existence".

[Michael Prescott]

Nameless commenter, please stop posting such incredibly long comments. They interrupt the flow of conversation. If you want to air your views at such length, why not start your own blog?

[william]

"This statement, below, William, is where it seems to me that you fit in, based on what you have written:"

Nice to know I fit in somewhere. :-)

If my ideas on using technology as a form of vibrational healing can work it might eliminate much suffering in this world. Or not.