Twofer

Two unrelated things:

First, there's an interesting discussion about life after death at the Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature blog. I've posted a few comments myself. The positions taken run the gamut from supporting belief in the afterlife (my view) to considering it at least a theoretical possibility (the bloggers' view, I think) to dismissing it as pure nonsense (the views of at least two contributors).

You might want to check it out, just for fun.

Second, it occurred to me that there is another meditative technique I've found helpful. If I find my mind wandering into pointless ruminations about the past or future (a frequent occurrence), I can bring myself back to the present moment by thinking, "I'm here now."

These simple words remind me that what's past is past, and what's in the future is purely imaginary. Regardless of anything that has happened or will happen, I'm here now.

Comments

[Michael H]

Reading through the link is enough to make my head explode. No lack of dogmatism going on there, is there?

Dragonfly might provide the best example: "There isn't any doubt that thoughts originate in the brain."

Well, that settles it, then.

I'm here now - One of the most fascinating discoveries of my entire life was the realization that both the past and future exist only as thought in the moment.

[Zerdini]

Thanks for the link, Michael. The polarisation of views is quite fascinating never mind the dogmatic statements, as already illustrated.

[Bryan.A]

One anonymous dude said;

But for fun let's consider the supernatural. Nobody has ever described it correctly (If it exists mind you, which I doubt), and nobody ever will. The brain of a human is made of matter like everything else and the mind is dependent on the brain, it's only going to hold thoughts about natural things. Anyone's conception of God, Near Death Experiences (To include people who say they have had them), Spoon bending (not the magic trick kind), or anything else will have to be wrong at best. If it is not literally blowing your mind to the point of smoke coming out of your ears and you babbling like a loon but speaking no words, it's probably closer to wish fulfillment than truth.

What i've noticed is that people don't wish to inform themselves of the evidence there is for different psi phenemena which is why u get these kinds of comments.It shows that they're not willing to have an informed opinion going into a discussion.

This is what basically annoyed me more,Alot of the times skeptics deny paranormal phenomena out of hand without understanding the evidence.So first I have to educate the skeptic on what the evidence for the psi is including what some "difficult" words mean and then I have to convince him that there are no fraudulent or physical loopholes in the evidence.This has proven thus far fruitless as i'm sure many of you have experienced too.

But let me relate with u a different skeptic.One which is more dogmatic then the materialist skeptic.These people are the religious.I've met a many religious people which accept many aspects of the paranormal but only to their interpretation.Ghosts?No chance,they are demons.Whatever your cross-validation may be and conclusions from the really good evidence on psi the religious will use their bible,quran or torrah to show u you're wrong.Now tell me how u would debate with these guys?

[Henry Scuoteguazza]

Along the same vein as Michael's "I'm here now" technique is one recommended in The Happiness Trap by Russ Harris. When distracted by random or self-doubting thoughts he recommends saying this to yourself: "I having the thought that ..." This helps you take a step back to be a bit more objective and putting a little distance from your thoughts.

[TShan Doyle]

Here's another simple technique- one that is not so much observation/deconstruction of egoic patterns as feeling 'divine source' very directly.....a very feminine practice-

Sit up, relax with a few breaths, close eyes. Don't let your chin drop or tuck.

Put one or two fingers on the middle of the chest between the arm pits- feel for the most sensitive spot, one that feels energetically tender.

FEEL what's under your fingers. Without knowing how or where, smile towards your heart, the feeling under your fingers, and simply enjoy. Let it radiate and don't just watch it radiate- be the radiation, and most of all, FEEL and enjoy.

It's a great complimentary practice to the mindfulness/observing ones.

[Zetetic_chick]

On afterlife, I have more doubts than certainties. But as I've commented in the blog of objetivism, there are good books and references showing evidence for afterlife (I said evidence, not conclusive proof.)

Most debunkers don't have doubts about these topics, but total confidence in the inexistence of psi and afterlife. It's why they're not real skeptics, but believers (in negative propositions, e.g "it doesn't exist").

Also, the materialist thesis of epiphenomenalism seems to me very weird.

Can any of you think of any examples where the mind have a causal power over the brain, behaviour or the own mind? I'd suggest:

1)The cognitive-conductual psychological therapy to treat phobias is based on the idea that change in thoughts (cognitive process) will affect your emotions (will cure or relief your phobia). It has proved effective in most cases of phobias (or some types of it).

2)Yoguis and meditators who control their cardiac rythm

3)Psychosomatic diseases.

4)Other psychosomatic reactions. For example, many people with hay fever can have an "reactivation" of their allergy with only think in hay.

Also, the visible anxiety (and the corresponding physhical changes) we experienced when, consciously, we think in dangerous situations or past traumatic events.

We can think in other examples.

[The Major]

People with the pure O form of OCD are informed that they are 'not their thoughts' and that they cannot make judgements based on emotion.

[claus]

Wdqbmp wqen894jvps93nld741f0nkd

[Michael H]

But let me relate with u a different skeptic.One which is more dogmatic then the materialist skeptic.These people are the religious.I've met a many religious people which accept many aspects of the paranormal but only to their interpretation.

Neil Grossman discusses the resistance he's encountered regarding NDE evidence with both the "fundamaterialists", whose attitude is encapsulated in Bryan's short excerpt, and the religious fundamentalists. The following is excerpted from Who's Afraid of Life After Death, available in its entirety at AntiMatters, Vol. 1, No. 1.

One would think that a Cartesian dualist, or a Platonist, would eagerly devour the wealth of data that strongly support their point of view. I would like to share a few more personal experiences that highlight some of the attitudes involved. In the late 1970s, when the early research on the NDE was just being published, I was involved in team-teaching a course with one of the campus chaplains. Excitedly, I shared what I was learning about the NDE with the chaplain, thinking that he would welcome empirical data that, at the very least, constituted strong prima facie evidence for much of what he believed in — soul, afterlife, ultimate responsibility for one’s actions, Higher Power, and so on. To my astonishment, he was just as dismissive of the evidence as was my fundamaterialist colleague. When I questioned him about why he was so resistant to the data, he said, in effect, that his belief in God and the afterlife is based on faith, and if these things were decidable empirically, there would be no room left for faith, which for him was the foundation of his religious convictions.

I knew then that the NDE was between a rock and a hard place, as far as being taken seriously by the two disciplines, philosophy and theology, that should be the most interested in it. On the one hand, fundamaterialist philosophers believe in the truth of materialism a priori; empirical evidence is not relevant to them, and they are committed to ignoring and/or debunking anything that looks like evidence. On the other hand, theologians and other intellectuals who do believe in an afterlife tend to base their belief on faith, which they feel would be seriously undermined if empirical evidence were relevant to their beliefs. Moreover, once theologists and religionists open the door to empirical evidence, they allow the possibility that the evidence may contradict some aspects of what was believed solely on the basis of faith. Indeed, this has already happened. The evidence from the NDE, for example, suggests that God is not vengeful, does not judge us or condemn us, and is not angry at us for our “sins”; there is judgment, to be sure, but the reports appear to be in agreement that all judgment comes from within the individual, not from the Being of Light. It seems, in fact, that all God is capable of giving us is unconditional love. Because the concept of an all-loving non-judgmental God contradicts and undermines the teachings of some religious denominations, and it is no wonder that some religious fundamentalists are up in arms about the NDE.

Grossman goes on to express his frustration following an exchange with a Plato scholar, when he writes, "In the first place, here was a Plato scholar, who, like the chaplain, was summarily dismissive of even the possibility that there could be evidence that Plato’s views, the views of the philosopher about whom he is an expert, might actually be true".

One planet, 6.7 billion worldviews.

Sometimes I'm amazed that we've accomplished anything at all, given that most everyone appears to already know everything.

[Zetetic_chick]

"One planet, 6.7 billion worldviews"

I think specific worldview corresponds to specific emotional backgrounds. One choose one specific worldview, because it satisfy emotional necessities.

There is a thinker exploring this interesting topic, Jeff Meyerhoff. In his paper "Arguments beyond reason", he argues that the ultimate basis of our worldview is emotional, not rational (because reason ends, ultimaly, in circularity, regress or assumptions. You can't establish a rational foundation for everything)

Meyerhoff's paper:

http://www.philosophos.com/philosophy_article_96.html

Meyerhoff's blog:

http://philosophyautobiography.blogspot.com

If we assume (for the sake of the argument) that Meyerhoff is right, it follows that you can't convince people that they're wrong in their basic beliefs. They'll misrepresent your criticism, stablish double standards, argue with irrelevant objections, insult you, etc. The reason: their worldview is connected with a emotional structure of beliefs, and when it's challenged, it causes a emotional defensive response.

The only way that these people change their views is through of a previous emotional experience. It's create the possibility of change (the effective and actual change will depend on other concrete factors)

Michael Prescott had a previous emotional experience before he left randian philosophy. According to his own admission: "What was it that gradually altered my point of view? The simplest answer is that while practicing Objectivism, I didn't attain the contentment, the sense of being comfortable with myself, that ought to be the hallmark of a successful philosophy of life. Instead, I found I'd developed character traits that made me unhappy - and which were probably unhealthy, to boot"

In the case of hardcore materialist atheists, most of them have suffered of a negative experience related to religion. Shermer was a "new age believer" in his youth and he left that position from his negative experiences with it.

And in the paper about organized skepticism, this author says: "The theme that has emerged time after time, as I become closely acquainted with individual PhACT members is this: Each one who has disclosed personal details of their formative years, say up until their early 20’s, has had an unfortunate experience with a faith-based philosophy, most often a conventional major religion. Very often, their family or community has (almost forcibly) imposed this
philosophy on them from a very early age; but then as they matured, they threw off this philosophy with a vengeance, vowing at a soul level never to be so victimized again. Less often, it appears that they have instead voluntarily and enthusiastically embraced, for example, a New Age cult, or have become say, a born-again Christian. Then after a few years, they become convinced of the folly of that infatuation with the same basic result. They throw off this philosophy with a vengeance, vowing at a soul level never to be so victimized again"

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/pdf/16.1_leiter.pdf

I've known some hardcore atheists, and when you mention them religion, God or psi, their corporal language change and they talks to you with a hostile attitude. There's a sign of resentiment. I've confirmed that most of them have suffered from a negative experience with religion in their childhood (e.g being forced to pray, or being manhandled by a fundamentalist preacher)

It doesn't say anything about the vality of their beliefs. The point is the ORIGIN of their worldview.

The above is valid, mutatis mutandis, to all of us (our emotional experiences have been important to the type of worldview we defend). And change of this worldview will depend on a previous emotional change.

The above isn't applicable to superfluous or non-basic beliefs. In this case, we can change opinion by rational factors only (e.g: reading contrary information).

Maybe there are exceptions, but I think most people follows the above pattern.

[Art]

One planet, 6.7 billion worldviews. - Michael H
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Duality and separation. Inherent and inescapable properties of the physical universe. Teaches the soul what it means and how it feels to be separate. It's why we are here. It's so simple it's mind boggling. Everytime someone gets up to use the restroom their soul is imprinted with a little lesson in separation. Over and over again in millions of different ways.

[Michael H]

Excellent post, Zetetic chick. Thanks for the links.

I've noticed that, just like the hard-core atheists you mentioned, certain evangelical types that I've interacted with undergo a change in affect when ideas conflicting with their faith are mentioned. It's an interesting phenomenon to observe, the person literally seems to lose 'presence' in a very real sense, and nearly recites verbatim what they have been taught to accept. The eyes seem to glaze over, and the individual is beyond reaching on any sort of human level. Jehovah's Witnesses are among the most afflicted, in my experience.

Atheists recognize this tendency in religious types, but rarely will ask themselves if they are just as susceptible to accepting their own core beliefs as absolute. If someone draws attention to this, the atheist's response is very similar to the illustration given above. The biggest difference is that they invoke "reason" in defense of their various positions, while the religious will invoke faith.

It all leads me to believe that genuine open-mindedness is exceptionally rare in our world, or even if it's possible for any of us to fully achieve.

[william]

"There is a thinker exploring this interesting topic, Jeff Meyerhoff. In his paper "Arguments beyond reason", he argues that the ultimate basis of our worldview is emotional, not rational "

When I started teaching many years ago I was told do not talk about politics, religion, or sex unless of course you wanted to shorten your career in teaching. Well they could have included paranormal phenomena. For many reasons our emotional intelligence appears to be lagging far behind our rational intelligence. I.e. our critical thinking skills.

We are gods in the making and in the making part we stumble, we miss the mark and our beliefs overwhelm our rational minds but without the stumble and the missing the mark there is no us, just isness.

Would isness be static without us and do *we make isness dynamic. If this is so I must admit there are days I would like this isness to be a little less dynamic.

How could oneness express itself without our unawareness? At this time I see an infinite cycle of an involution of awareness to manifest an evolution of consciousness.

*perceived we

[william]

“The biggest difference is that they invoke "reason" in defense of their various positions, while the religious will invoke faith.”

The atheists tend to have much faith in their reasoning abilities.

[Ross W]

Zetetic Chick: Jeff Meyerhoff's views are reinforced by a study quoted previously on this blog in relation to Democrats and Republicans, and how in listening to arguments, emotion entirely rules there too. It kind of suggests there's no point in debate at all. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11009379/

William, this is from Edge of The Etheric...I'm sure it won't sync with 'your research', but here it is...

Q.Do we re-incarnate again?

A.Now that is a question I find difficulty in answering. I have known no one who has. I passed over many years ago, and I have round about me those who lived thousands of years ago on earth. That is all I can say, because my knowledge does not permit me to say more.

Q. Do we always retain our individuality?

Think of a country-side with glens and hills. The rain falls, and gradually trickles down into small streams, which streams gather volume until they enter a brook, which brook in turn enters a river, which in turn enters a larger river and sweeps onward to the sea. Each individual can be compared to an atom in the raindrop. The atom retains form and individuality throughout the whole course, from the hill to the sea, and even in the sea is does not lose it's individuality.

[william]

Well the second analogy I think is very good in fact I posted it earlier on this blog or at least intended to post it. The last sentence I think is misleading. What need would we have for individuality if we become part of the sea?

But for me it matters not as this time other than a good intellectual discussion as we are so far away from that reality I think we may have many dimensions to experience before we become part of the sea.

The first comment on reincarnation is very interesting and yes I did read this spirit’s comments. Spiritualism very seldom supports reincarnation the exception being the spirits book. The evidence I have read over the years supports reincarnation.

Here is what I think at this time. If a spirit is at very high level in an astral world then I do not believe they come back to earth. If on the other hand we have many attachments and desires for earthly pleasures or things left undone I suspect we come back until we no longer have a need to have a physical existence.

I lean in the direction that reincarnation is a realty, if it is not I will not be that disappointed. I believe I will be back because there are many things I was unable to do in this life. Example I believe light and vibration healing will be done in the future due to technological and mental advances and I would like to be part of that discovery and movement.

[Teri]

"People do not lose their individuality in the afterlife and don't suddenly become omniscient or clairvoyant," he states. "They don't change. They also don't transform into being good or angelic. They carry their fears, conflicts, and problems into the afterlife." The environment one finds himself in depends on the person's state of being when he leaves the earth realm.”

This is a quote from Craig Hogan’s “Your Eternal Self”, published this year.

Can anyone square that with “entering into the light”, experiencing perpetual bliss and becoming one with everything? Where is the merging with a higher self? No wonder there are skeptics.

I would prefer, Art (if you answer) that you actually address the apparent contradiction instead of just restating what you have said before.

[Michael Prescott]

Can anyone square that with “entering into the light”, experiencing perpetual bliss and becoming one with everything?

My personal view, based mainly on NDEs and the work of Robert Crookall, is that after death we do indeed enter the light, but we do not thereby become one with everything. Instead, we experience a
"life review," in which we evaluate the various choices we made in light of their effect on other people. We learn from our mistakes and develop a sense of perspective that may have been absent or incompletely developed on Earth. This tends to resolve some, but not all, of the issues that weighed us down in our earthly lives. We then move on to whatever plane of existence is best suited to our stage of personal development, where we will find new opportunities to grow.

It is true that some NDErs report a sense of mystical union with the cosmos, but these cases seem to be a small minority. I can't account for them. Perhaps some people who are more spiritually advanced have this kind of experience, while the average person doesn't. I don't know.

As for reincarnation, I suspect that it does not happen to everyone, but only to those with a strong inclination to return to Earth. If you look at Ian Stevenson's research, most of the past lives recalled by children were unexpectedly cut short by violence or a very sudden illness. In other words, most of the past-life personalities seem to have died before their time. I suspect that they were not reconciled with dying and so they came back. Someone who has time to come to terms with death - someone who dies peacefully - may have less incentive to return. There are comparatively few cases like that in Stevenson's work.

Other times, someone with a very strong attachment to something on Earth may choose to come back. This may account for cases of reincarnation within the same family, as studied by Carol Bowman. Most of these cases involve a deceased family member with an unusually strong commmitment to family ties.

[Michael Prescott]

I should add that there is another way of interpreting Stevenson's and Bowman's work - namely, that everyone reincarnates, but most of us do not recall our past lives except perhaps under hypnosis. The few who do remember having lived before are the ones who either a) were traumatized by their passing, or b) had a strong personal desire to return. The rest forget their past lives, though the memories can be brought to the surface by a hypnotist.

This interpretation makes sense if we believe that hypnotic regression provides valid evidence of hypnosis. I have mixed feelings about this. Hypnotized subjects are notoriously prone to confabulate, and many hypnosis cases have been explained by cryptaesthesia (the ability to retrieve details from books, movies, etc. that have been consciously forgotten). But some hypnosis studies do seem to hold up. Helen Wambach's studies, for instance, are intriguing in their collective statistical results.

Copy and paste this into your web browser and read the story entirely before dismissing it off as religious babble...elisabeth kubler ross and bruce greyson will enter the story...trust me. Here it is...Proof of Life after Death

http://www.edconrad.com/lifeafterdeath/index.html

Terri: Can anyone square that with “entering into the light”, experiencing perpetual bliss and becoming one with everything? Where is the merging with a higher self? No wonder there are skeptics.

ANSWER: Common sense. Which sounds more sensible Terri...merging to a something and becoming a nothing? Or the very same thing that mediums tell us...people do not change when they leave here...which sounds like it makes more common sense? Wouldn't God make sense? Wouldn't life after life have to make at least some kind of sense? Would you look forward to becoming a nothing lost in a sea of "something"? If the other were true, how would there be communication and visitations from "deceased" many decades after they have passed?

Just becaues we are all children of God doesn't mean we must dissolve away into nothingness. I think a certain amount of common sense has to be applied to spiritual things just as it needs to be applied in this world.

And why are there mediums who tell us (that I have seen) that there is no such thing as reincarnation and they have been told that, and they also can't square it logically in a scientific sense themselves either? You will find one of those such mediums on the paranormal forums, one of the monitors.

William, why is the last sentence misleading? Isn't Silver Birch considered a 'high soul'? Didn't he also dictate in numerous books that individuality is retained? I know this is so. So he would have to be misleading as well then.

ANOTHER TAKE ON IT FROM A LADY NAMED MARIA SIMMS WHO HAS SEEN & SPOKEN WITH DECEASED FOR ALMOST 60 YEARS, SHE PASSED AT 89 NOT LONG AGO.

Maria, what advice would you give to anyone here on earth?

Be very humble. We must not be occupied with ourselves. Pride is evil's greatest trap.

Maria, I would like to ask you: at the moment of death, is there a time in which the soul still has the chance to turn towards God, even after a bad life, before entering into eternity — a time, if you like, between apparent death and real death?

Yes, yes! Several minutes are given to each one in order to regret his sins and to decide: I accept, or I do not accept to go and see God. Then we see a film of our lives.

Maria, you know, many people today believe in reincarnation. What do the souls tell you concerning this subject?

The souls say that God gives only one life.

But some would say that just one life is not enough to know God and to have the time to be really converted, that it isn't fair. What would you reply to them?

All people have an interior faith (conscience); even if they do not practice, they recognize God implicitly. Someone who does not believe — that doesn't exist! Each soul has a conscience to recognize good and evil, a conscience given by God, an inner knowledge — in different degrees, of course, but each one knows how to discern good from evil. With this conscience, each soul can become blessed.

What happens to people who have committed suicide? Have you ever been visited by these people?

Up to now, I have never encountered the case of a suicide who was lost — this doesn't mean, of course, that that doesn't exist — but often, the souls tell me that the most guilty were those around them, when they were negligent or spread calumny.

At this moment, I asked Maria if the souls regretted having committed suicide. She answered yes.

Often, suicide is due to illness. These souls do regret their act because, as they see things in the light of God, they understand instantly all the graces that were in store for them during the time remaining for them to live — and they do see this time which remained for them, sometimes months or years —– and they also see all the souls they could have helped by offering the rest of their lives to God. In the end, what hurts them most is to see the good that they could have done but didn't, because they shortened their lives.

FURTHER:

What is the role of contrition at the moment of death?

Contrition is very important. The sins are forgiven, in any case, but there remains the consequences of actions. If one wishes to receive full indulgence at the moment of death the soul has to be free from all attachment. Those who have a good heart towards everyone. Love covers a multitude of sins.

[Michael H]

The environment one finds himself in depends on the person's state of being when he leaves the earth realm.

Precisely. Consider the following excerpt regarding the teachings of Hermes, taken from Manly P. Hall’s The Secret Teachings of All Ages. Before exploring the Divine Pymander, Hall writes, “One outstanding point in connection with Hermes is that he was one of the few philosopher-priests of pagandom upon whom the early Christians did not vent their spleen. Some Church Fathers went so far as to declare that Hermes exhibited many symptoms of intelligence, and that if he had only been born in a more enlightened age so that he might have benefited by their instructions he would have been a really great man!”

"Let the man endued with a Mind mark, consider, and learn of himself, and with the power of his Mind divide himself from his not-self and become a servant of Reality."

Hermes asked if all men did not have Minds, and the Great Dragon replied: "Take heed what you say, for I am the Mind--the Eternal Teacher . . . By means of the Word, the world is saved. I, Thought (Thoth)--the Father of the Word, the Mind--come only unto men that are holy and good, pure and merciful, and that live piously and religiously, and my presence is an inspiration and a help to them, for when I come they immediately know all things and adore the Universal Father. Before such wise and philosophic ones die, they learn to renounce their senses, knowing that these are the enemies of their immortal souls.

But to the wicked, the envious and the covetous, I come not, for such cannot understand the mysteries of Mind; therefore, I am unwelcome. I leave them to the avenging demon that they are making in their own souls, for evil each day increases itself and torments man more sharply, and each evil deed adds to the evil deeds that are gone before until finally evil destroys itself. The punishment of desire is the agony of unfulfillment."

"The path to immortality is hard, and only a few find it. The rest await the Great Day when the wheels of the universe shall be stopped and the immortal sparks shall escape from the sheaths of substance. Woe unto those who wait, for they must return again, unconscious and unknowing, to the seed-ground of stars, and await a new beginning. Those who are saved by the light of the mystery which I have revealed unto you, O Hermes, and which I now bid you to establish among men, shall return again to the Father who dwelleth in the White Light, and shall deliver themselves up to the Light and shall be absorbed into the Light, and in the Light they shall become Powers in God. This is the Way of Good and is revealed only to them that have wisdom.

As Hall writes in concluding this chapter, “The Vision of Hermes, like nearly all of the Hermetic writings, is an allegorical exposition of great philosophic and mystic truths, and its hidden meaning may be comprehended only by those who have been "raised" into the presence of the True Mind.”

Whenever I come across examples like this one, I’m reminded of the tremendous wisdom realized by nearly all ancient cultures, which was subsequently destroyed by those who followed. The losses are staggering to consider. The extant Hermetic writings are just one example: what remains are fragments of what had once been 42 volumes.

[Michael H]

What need would we have for individuality if we become part of the sea?

The capacity of awareness remains; the ability to experience.

The change that occurs is in one's interpretation of their individuality: the answer to the question - "who am I?" - is completely and permanently realized, but there's still an "I" that's realized it.

[Teri]

"evil each day increases itself and torments man more sharply, and each evil deed adds to the evil deeds that are gone before until finally evil destroys itself."

All the baddies shoot each other, do they? That's all right then.
It would of course be most convenient if evil were actually to destroy itself, instead of preying on the innocent. Or are you like William, believing that innocence is ignorance and deserving of punishment?

[Michael Prescott]

I just checked the Ayn Rand site. Yowzah. What did I unleash? :)

In all seriousness, it may be better not to throw too many links and case histories at a basically skeptical crowd. Sometimes it's better just to gently suggest that there is an alternative way of looking at things, and then walk away. Let their own curiosity motivate them to look into it further, if they wish. People are more inclined to accept something if they have found it out for themselves.

[Ross W]

"I just checked the Ayn Rand site. Yowzah. What did I unleash? :)"

It's called herd instinct, Michael P. Art did us proud. Mine was the computer in the scrapyard.

"Or are you like William, believing that innocence is ignorance and deserving of punishment?"

This is unfair, Teri. You can't call William sweet one minute then make accusations like that. If reincarnation is a fact (and I'm not saying it is), then choosing one's destiny to further one's soul aims is better than being dropped in it without any say at all.

[Leo MacDonald]

Lol I posted a large amount of evidence on the Ayn Rand site.

[Michael H]

It would of course be most convenient if evil were actually to destroy itself, instead of preying on the innocent. Or are you like William, believing that innocence is ignorance and deserving of punishment?

I think I've been quite clear before, Teri, that as it pertains to life on earth, (which is where we all happen to be at this moment), that society has every right to protect the innocent from harm, and to punish those who do choose to harm others. And I'm like many others who struggle to understand the why of apparently innocent human beings who are victimized by those who do evil things. It may be that it’s an unanswerable question.

What the above excerpt is concerning itself with is the spiritual reality, however. And it clearly states that the spiritual reality is the true reality: "Let the man endued with a Mind mark, consider, and learn of himself, and with the power of his Mind divide himself from his not-self and become a servant of Reality."

He goes on to address the cause, and what drives those who do evil with the statement, “But to the wicked, the envious and the covetous, I come not, for such cannot understand the mysteries of Mind; therefore, I am unwelcome." In other words, it is nothing but the failure in understanding their own minds that causes those who engage in evil to do so.

We then learn of the consequences of evil: "I leave them to the avenging demon that they are making in their own souls, for evil each day increases itself and torments man more sharply, and each evil deed adds to the evil deeds that are gone before until finally evil destroys itself. The punishment of desire is the agony of unfulfillment."

Both the difficulty of understanding “who we are” and the consequences of accepting our self-created demons as absolute are then addressed: "The path to immortality is hard, and only a few find it. The rest await the Great Day when the wheels of the universe shall be stopped and the immortal sparks shall escape from the sheaths of substance. Woe unto those who wait, for they must return again, unconscious and unknowing, to the seed-ground of stars, and await a new beginning."

The last sentence is important, in that it states, as explicitly as possible, that those who choose to engage in evil will remain trapped in their own delusions. There is no death, only experiences. Some people are very busy creating some rather distasteful experiences for themselves.

The problem of evil has been addressed ad nauseam by philosophers throughout history. Hermes is just one of literally dozens of examples of the ancient wisdom that exists, dormant and forgotten, behind the mythology of every ancient culture on earth. And every ancient wisdom tradition that we continue to ignore - as the materialists continue to issue their promissory notes and the religions make dogmatic proclamations about their various ‘truths’ - every ancient tradition says the same thing about evil: Every human being contains a divine spark within their own consciousness. Those who locate and cultivate that divine spark will awaken from their delusions to discover that they are the divine itself, while those who ignore their divine spark will succumb to their self-created delusions with severe consequences. The more deluded they are, the more evil they become, and the more severe the consequences they create for themselves, both here and in the true reality.

Those reading and contributing to these threads have already begun to realize their spark, which is why they’re here in the first place. I have serious doubts that there’s anyone here who just pops in to discuss afterlife realms and esoteric metaphysics between axe-murdering sprees.

Solving evil on earth involves what it always has and always will. It involves drawing attention to the divine spark that exists within each person, and helping them to recognize and then cultivate their own divine spark. And the more we cultivate our own, the more we’re in a position to help others find theirs, while those who choose to ignore or deny their own spark will continue to suffer from their self-created delusions until they too choose to “mark, consider, and learn of himself, and with the power of his Mind divide himself from his not-self”.

Finally, I’m afraid that until that simple lesson is fully integrated into the global culture, there will continue to be instances of innocents victimized by savages, and those of us who aren’t savages will be left trying to locate some measure of compassion for everyone involved.

[william]

My take on individuality is that when we reach a plane of pure awareness then “our” awareness becomes the same as pure awareness that most call God. I.e. I prefer isness.

We never lose our identity our identity becomes the “identical” as that that is.

Identity is an "illusion" to allow this Oneness to express itself in an infinite variety of ways. But oh what a convincing illusion. Illusion is a very futile and ineffective term to express our individuality. I do not believe we have any words or concepts to express our individuality in relationship to the whole at this time.

Not to worry we never lose our identity our identity becomes that that is. We are extremely far far away from becoming pure awareness. God I suspect prefers long journeys but then God’s time is not our time. My point is we never give up our identity. We never become less but only awaken to more awareness. This awaking process is more of a spiral curve then a performance curve.

It is my belief at this time that on-going gradual continuous improvement and realizations means our souls never stops progressing until we reach this pure awareness i.e. the sea. Before we ever reach that sea of pure awareness we become gods that create life forms and planets from the vitality of this pure awareness. We awaken and learn how to utilize our divine potential.

Disclaimer: these are my beliefs at this time subject to change hopefully. :-)

[Ross W]

"The punishment of desire is the agony of unfulfillment."

This is scarily profound, especially if Buddhism is correct in that desire rules our Earthly lives.

"I have serious doubts that there’s anyone here who just pops in to discuss afterlife realms and esoteric metaphysics between axe-murdering sprees."

Speak for yourself!
There's nothing like a good dose of William ("We awaken and learn how to utilize our divine potential") to get the adrenaline going. Excuse me while I go and wash off the blood...

[Art]

"Dragon replied: "Take heed what you say, for I am the Mind--the Eternal Teacher . . . By means of the Word, the world is saved." - Michael H
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This reminds me of a really neat experience by a Medical Doctor on a site called "Transcendental experiences of Scientists." It happened to him while he was at medical conference. It really is a neat story and well worth reading. Trust me on this! It's one of my favorites!

Riding the Dragon:
http://www.issc-taste.org/arc/dbo.cgi?set=expom&id=00070&ss=1

And of course it has a certain "holographic" flavor to it?

[william]

“Solving evil on earth involves what it always has and always will. It involves drawing attention to the divine spark that exists within each person, and helping them to recognize and then cultivate their own divine spark.”

Very well put.

All evil has its home in ignorance. Ok unawareness. Now I believe the universal law or principle based in divine love is karma. Or as Jesus so well stated: what we sow we reap. Karma is not punishment but it often feels like it. It is a universal principle based in love not punishment.

Punishment has many ill side effects but acknowledgement of the good of God may be more effective as a means of helping a person change their mode of being in the world. (Dr. Hora.)

Karma is so powerful that anything not based in love gives us or even a country feedback until that person or country is willing to change their mode of being in the world.

Now Teri the origin of our ignorance or unawareness is innocence. Without our innocence there is no us, just Isness. We were created in innocence of our true identity. How else could Oneness express itself without our innocence? Because we are “only” a divine spark; we often miss the mark and do selfish and “evil” things. Because of variation and choices some do more evil things than others.

I suspect that those people that do those “evil” things have profound self-hatred that they are projecting onto the world. There is no such thing as an evil person but there is such a thing as a very very ignorant person that does what we call evil things. And now to open another can of worms are some of these “evil people” being controlled by evil spirits. And so it goes.

The concept of evil is based in duality not oneness.

[Michael H]

This is scarily profound, especially if Buddhism is correct in that desire rules our Earthly lives.

Maybe the most sobering aspect is the suggestion that desire will continue to rule many even following our earthly lives.

This reminds me of a really neat experience by a Medical Doctor on a site called "Transcendental experiences of Scientists."

I thought of the transcendent experience you linked to while reading Hermes account of his awakening as well, Art. Hermes full account of his encounter is fascinating:

Hermes, while wandering in a rocky and desolate place, gave himself over to meditation and prayer. Following the secret instructions of the Temple, he gradually freed his higher consciousness from the bondage of his bodily senses; and, thus released, his divine nature revealed to him the mysteries of the transcendental spheres. He beheld a figure, terrible and awe-inspiring. It was the Great Dragon, with wings stretching across the sky and light streaming in all directions from its body. (The Mysteries taught that the Universal Life was personified as a dragon.) The Great Dragon called Hermes by name, and asked him why he thus meditated upon the World Mystery. Terrified by the spectacle, Hermes prostrated himself before the Dragon, beseeching it to reveal its identity. The great creature answered that it was Poimandres, the Mind of the Universe, the Creative Intelligence, and the Absolute Emperor of all. (Schure identifies Poimandres as the god Osiris.) Hermes then besought Poimandres to disclose the nature of the universe and the constitution of the gods. The Dragon acquiesced, bidding Trismegistus hold its image in his mind.

Immediately the form of Poimandres changed. Where it had stood there was a glorious and pulsating Radiance. This Light was the spiritual nature of the Great Dragon itself. Hermes was "raised" into the midst of this Divine Effulgence and the universe of material things faded from his consciousness. Presently a great darkness descended and, expanding, swallowed up the Light. Everything was troubled. About Hermes swirled a mysterious watery substance which gave forth a smokelike vapor. The air was filled with inarticulate moanings and sighings which seemed to come from the Light swallowed up in the darkness. His mind told Hermes that the Light was the form of the spiritual universe and that the swirling darkness which had engulfed it represented material substance.

The entire chapter these excerpts are from is overflowing with esoteric wisdom. Nearly every sentence contains a deep store of contemplative fuel.

[Michael H]

the origin of our ignorance or unawareness is innocence. Without our innocence there is no us, just Isness. We were created in innocence of our true identity.

You might appreciate this tidbit from Hermes' Vision of Poimandres, William:

"Then Hermes desired to know why men should be deprived of immortality for the sin of ignorance alone. The Great Dragon answered:, To the ignorant the body is supreme and they are incapable of realizing the immortality that is within them. Knowing only the body which is subject to death, they believe in death because they worship that substance which is the cause and reality of death."

By the way, I seem to recall reading somewhere that the original meaning of the term 'sin' was: "to miss the mark".

[william]

“By the way, I seem to recall reading somewhere that the original meaning of the term 'sin' was: "to miss the mark".

Yes I have read that definition of sin also. It appeared to be a word that had something to do with archery.

“Knowing only the body which is subject to death, they believe in death because they worship that substance which is the cause and reality of death."

As Dr. Hora has stated many times on tape every one has a god. To the materialists it may be matter to the atheist it may be their intellect. To the religious it may be a personal god and if they worship this god he will reap favors upon them.