Turning off the light

Tonight the sitcom Scrubs, which has moved to ABC for its final season, featured a long scene in which two doctors talk to a dying patient. The patient asks if they think there's anything after this life. Both doctors say yes. One says he visualizes a happy, carefree (albeit semipornographic) heaven, while the other doctor talks about the many NDE-like deathbed visions he's heard - a white light, a sense of peace.

Kind of refreshing, I thought. Here you have two young, hip characters talking earnestly (well, except for the pornographic stuff) about life after death.

Ah, but it was not to be. When the patient says he still has fears, the doctors change their tune and admit they've been lying about everything they said. Actually they're terrified of death. Everybody is, they tell the patient, and we all come up with elaborate defense mechanisms to guard against our fears. But in the end, maybe the best we can hope for is that our last thought will be a good one.

Somehow this bit of wisdom calms the patient, who dies peacefully a short time later. But I wonder how many people would really be reassured by those words.

I guess it would be too much for the show to suggest, even half seriously, that there might be something to the idea of an afterlife. It's so much easier to break into another rendition of the "stiff upper lip in the face of a meaningless and uncaring universe" routine, which has been around for more than a century but shows no sign of going away.

Oh, well. It was still a good episode, overall.

Comments

[Art]

I taped Scrubs and plan on watching it tomorrow. Bonnie and I watched the movie "Jumper" starring Hayden Christensen. What was interesting about the movie was that it was somewhat similar to something I've read in near death experiences.

excerpt from Mark Horton's NDE:
"From this vantage point, I had to merely think of a place and time and I was there, experiencing everything about the place and time and people present.

I have always, I don't know why, had a very strong "pull" toward Scotland. I have some Scottish ancestry, but no more so than English, Swedish, and Prussian, but I don't know why I have such a strong affinity for the land, its history, its culture, and the music. (No sound in this world can stir the feelings that the sound of bagpipes arise in me!) Well, one of my first "trips" was to Scotland, on a high cliff overlooking a grey, crashing sea during a violent thunderstorm. I was there! I could feel the wind lashing at me and the driving force of the rain while I could see and hear the crashing of the thunder and the sea. All I had done was have the mearest fleeting thought of the land and I was there!"
http://www.mindspring.com/~scottr/nde/markh.html

I also thought both the movie and Mark Horton's NDE have a very "holographic" flavor about them!

[Michael Prescott]

I taped Scrubs and plan on watching it tomorrow.

There were two episodes, back to back. I thought the first one, featuring Courteney Cox, was very funny. The second one (which includes the scene described in my post) didn't have as many laughs, but it was still a decent half hour of TV.

[dmduncan]

"Everybody is, they tell the patient, and we all come up with elaborate defense mechanisms to guard against our fears."

Yes, this is the popular way of thinking. But ironically, it can be turned as easily against the user of this idea.

Believing that there is no afterlife could just as well be a defense mechanism for materialists to avoid the horror that there will be consequences in death for the way they lived in life.

That is, thinking that there is no afterlife provides comfort to those who think "It's all good," and that right and wrong are just matters of taste or established by the hardest marching, or the biggest, loudest mouths.

[Greg Taylor]

The popular medical (melo)drama series "Grey's Anatomy" devoted an episode to the main character's (veridical) near-death experience a year or two ago. Which went against a trend in TV to do the skeptical thing ('House' especially seems to set every second episode up with a possible paranormal theme, to knock it down in the latter half of the programme, and 'The Mentalist' is the latest debunking-themed program) - I'm not sure whether it's just the "cool" thing to do in TV these days, or whether CSICOP's stated aim of subverting the medium (pardon the pun) is finally coming to fruition....

[The Major]

For those of you interested, my girlfriend awoke yesterday with a sudden panic for the state of well-being for my grandmother.

The strange thing is my grandmother has never been ill in the three to four years I've been with my girlfriend. Also, my other grandmother is constantly ill, suffering with a very weak heart, and my girlfriend's own grandmother has been ill recently. Therefore, it seemed odd that her concern appeared to be for my grandmother on my father's side, who we had seen only a week ago and seemed fine.

As it transpired, my grandmother had had a heart attack in the night, and passed away peacefully last night. It came as a complete shock to everyone as she had been fine only the day before.

Skeptics or atheists may say this was mere coincidence. However, that's merely a point of view. I definitely believe there was more to this.

[TomC]

for Scrubs, i think that even though they were terrified of death, i didnt get the impression that they dont think afterlife is real at all- i thought that they were expressing doubts- it was the uncertainty. and i think that no amount of assurance is going to take that doubt or uncertainty away...so even though in the end they openly admitted how terrified they were- i dont think that they completely deny the existence of afterlife.

for 'the mentalist,' there was actually an episode where a medium was implicated in the murder and the mentalist was totally hostile to her and wanted to disprove her in every way- but at the end of that episode, she came to him, and said she had a message for him- which was very evidential and meaningful to the mentalist- the show ended with him crying after hearing what she had to say.

after that episode, i think that the show was actually good in a way that it promotes true skepticism- way better than 'ghost whisperer' or 'medium' where those shows just take the concept of afterlife at face values...

however, i do think that some of the stuff the mentalist did was far fetching...i really doubt that he was able to come up with some of the things solely based on 'paying attention.'

for grey's anatomy, the whole dead boyfriend coming back to one of the main characters...that bit was just a bit too much.

i'm such a tv junkie- i should watch less tv now.... sigh.

[Michael H]

My condolences on your loss, Major.

It's so much easier to break into another rendition of the "stiff upper lip in the face of a meaningless and uncaring universe" routine, which has been around for more than a century but shows no sign of going away.

I've been working my way through the new issue of AntiMatters, and happened to read Ulrich Mohrhoff's review of Marc Luycks Ghisi's The Knowledge Society last night. It turns out that the entire text of the book is available in a two-part MS Word format at the author's site.

Although the book itself is concerned with the economic and environmental future of humanity with a focus on the sustainability question, what I found most hopeful was the writer's premise that "the Mind of the world is changing and ushering Humanity to a new level of consciousness."

At first glance, this may not appear to have any bearing on the topic of this post, but Ghisi makes the argument that there is a wholesale shift in consciousness underway, that cuts across all cultures and religions. As a matter of fact, he arrived at his premise when it became clear to him that his original idea of discovering common ground between the religions regarding the question of the proper role of science and technology was untenable. What he discovered shocked him, and tanked his original premise: he couldn't discover a common ground, because of the dramatic differences in the "beliefs of the believers", which repeated across all cultures and religions.

He proposes, and backs up with some very interesting observations, that the postmodern worldview is collapsing at this very moment, even while those in the positions of greatest influence cling to the current view. I see this as applicable to this topic because the writers and producers responsible for the content of network television are nothing but representative of the dominant view that is currently collapsing. MP's reaction to the program is, on the other hand, representative of a manifestation of a different paradigm. I suspect that there were millions watching last night's episode that were questioning the character's conclusions, true though it may be from the perspective of today's still dominant worldview.

What I found most impressive regarding Ghisi's conclusion was that, unlike writers like Pinchbeck, he remains unwilling to speculate too deeply on exactly what the new understanding of and approach to reality will actually look like, although he does close with some compelling thoughts. Taken from the Mohrhoff's review:

Changing a global paradigm is a delicate, painful, and laborious endeavour. After all one does not change culture — the way to see and judge other beings and things — as easily as one changes ones shirt. The birth of a new world is always difficult and dangerous.

In addition to (or as part of) a new metaphysics, a new epistemology is needed. The image Ghisi suggests for it is that of a “hollow-centred table” (think of a CD including the hole at the center). The center, “full of life and light,” represents Truth.

Everybody is invited to proceed toward the centre, but no one is able to own or possess the ultimate truth (the divine). . . The more one proceeds towards the center, the more one lives out powerful experiences that are beyond words, and the less one is able to speak and to "know", the less one wants to formulate the truth in theological terms, and the less one remains attached to his own theological formulation. . . . and the less [one] tries to impose it on others. This is the concept of truth that one finds again with the mystics of all world religions. They all witness the same vision of truth in their deepest inner experience. It seems also that the new generation finds itself much at ease with this new vision of truth, because they are much more transmodern than us . . .

It is evident that we are far beyond the postmodern conception which, by decomposing the truths, ends up dissolving the possibility of truth and leads us toward relativism. . . . Truth exists, but nobody controls it.

I agree with Ghisi that the transformation he's writing of - if it is in fact occurring, and I think it is - may be very disruptive initially. My hope though, is that those viewing reality from the emerging paradigm will no longer wish that their last thought be a good one, but will instead look for their next thought to be so.

[Tony M]

I second TomC's point. I think both statements by the doctors were true. I believe that they do believe in an afterlife...but it is BELIEF and not KNOWLEDGE. I think they were honest about their fear despite their belief and hopes - which is not uncommon.

I think the comfort the man took from their confession of fear was that they gave him permission to acknowledge his own fears. At first their quick assurances actually put him off. Rather than reassure him, it made him question how he was handling his own death.

The ambilvalence (and essentially hope) of the doctors is seen when they fire the flare at the end. I don't often watch Scrubs, but I thought that episode was outstanding.

[Art]

I think both statements by the doctors were true. I believe that they do believe in an afterlife...but it is BELIEF and not KNOWLEDGE. - Tony
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In Alison Krauss's song "There is a Reason" (written by Ron Block) one of the lyrics says "I do believe but forgive my unbelief." I feel like that a lot. I like to think I believe more than unbelieve, but sometimes this old world seems to make it very difficult.

There is a Reason by Alison Krauss:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWXNm9b6pKs

[Bill I.]

I can't bear to watch commercial TV, lack the desire to purchase a technological work-around like Tivo, and undoubtedly overloaded my subconscious mind with ads and their jingles at an early age, this despite watching various StarTrek series over the years.

Thus Michael's blog and the comments are like reports from some other reality.

There's that, then there's the fact that this blog is chugging along -- I'm still immersed in Republican politics, Simon Bar Kochba, the myth of Jesus, and their many and curious interconnections, even as everyone else has moved on and left me behind.

(William: It's true that Bar Kochba was definitely a more militant -- in a martial sense -- personality than the mythical Jesus, based on what little is known about him. This may have been lost as I got a bit sidetracked in our minor tussle.)

So -- do popular commercial television shows serve as good indicators of changes in belief for such basic human realities as life, death, and whether there is anything after death?

I can't say. A version of me once said of television: "No good can come of it."

Despite this (now) subconscious antipathy, I watched so much of it as a kid as to be able to still sing any number of jingles and recite such things as "If you like peanuts, you'll love Skippy Peanutbutter" with ease, decades and decades afterwards.

I can't comment on contemporary television series, however, as I don't watch any.

The "no good can come of it" remark does serve to illustrate part of my own response to the underlying blog question, however.

If I can access earlier versions of myself, then they have survived and there most definitely is some kind of post-death survival.

It's true that in my densest, most egoic moments, I can accuse myself of imagining this, but even in those moments I still realize that there are other moments in which such "remembrances" exceed mere exercises in imagination.

In fact, I suspect these aren't exactly remembrances -- these definitely can't reside in present organic memory while the brains of previous editions have long decayed into dust.

_Maybe_ there is some unknown process by which my present self can penetrate time and connect with the living brains of predecessors, but I find the idea of an inner non-physical region of awareness, to which all versions of self are connected, more plausible.

This all suggests that, possibly, the best way for anyone to ascertain whether or not there is anything beyond death is by scanning their own subconscious mind.

In this way, the question becomes a very personal and immediate question (of course it already is, particularly at that moment just prior to death).

Of course the question remains of proving whether any resulting "finds" are anything more than imagination.

Proving this one way or another would require resources few of us possess, say the time and expense required to research details of some "past" personality, unknown to us consciously, that match these finds, or to hire and work with a hypnotist (doing this might validate such finds for self, but not necessarily for anyone else).

_Knowing_ this is achievable, but again the sense of firmly knowing any such thing has a way of evaporating after returning to a thoroughly grounded egoic condition such as that required to earn a living.

We will have reached new ground, collectively, when large numbers of us can walk around in sustained expansive conditions, even continuing to "work" in such states.

It's likely that, under those circumstances, we'd recognize each other from other times and places in a matter-of-fact sort of way, not the way this is currently for many of us, that is only rarely, during "special" moments.

Regards

Bill I.

[Michael Prescott]

I'm sorry to hear about the loss of your grandmother, Major.

I agree that your presentiment is hard to ascribe to mere coincidence, and having had such premonitions myself, I do believe in them.

Maybe I was too hard on the Scrubs characters, but the patient does ask, "Why have you been lying to me?" and they don't deny it. Anyway, it was an interesting episode. I hardly ever watch that show, and found it smarter and funnier than I'd expected.

[Michael Prescott]

Bill I., regarding Jesus, you might be interested in a book I'm reading now - Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, by John Dominic Crossan. Crossan is definitely in the revisionist camp and expresses doubt about most of the content of the gospels, including nearly the entirety of the passion narrative. I'm not quite sold on his arguments, but I suspect you would find much to agree with.

[Bill I.]

Thanks for the book mention, Michael; first I must read a newly acquired copy of _The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot_ by Bart Ehrman.

I'm aware of some of the more obscure takes on Judas including that he was Jesus' twin brother, that he, not Jesus, was executed, and how this aligns, somewhat, with the odd Japanese tale of how Jesus moved to Japan and died there.

I'd love to own a time machine to assist getting to the bottom of these riddles but then this might not help at all, owing to the existence of probable realities.

Bill I.

Close Our Eyes to the Octopus Ride!

[Art]

I'd love to own a time machine to assist getting to the bottom of these riddles but then this might not help at all, owing to the existence of probable realities. -Bill I.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Time doesn't exist on the other side like it does here. You will be able to "visit" any time period in history simply focusing your attention on it. How do I know this? NDE's of course! - Art

"Time as I had known it came to a halt; past, present, and future were somehow fused together for me in the timeless unity of life ... I could be anywhere instantly, really there ... I felt it necessary to learn about the Bible and philosophy. You want, you receive. Think and it comes to you. So I participated, I went back and lived in the minds of Jesus and his disciples. I heard their conversations, experienced eating, passing wine, smells, tastes - yet I had no body. I was pure consciousness. If I didn't understand what was happening, an explanation would come. But no teacher spoke. I explored the Roman Empire, Babylon, the times of Noah and Abraham. Any era you can name, I went there." - Dr. George Rodonia, from NDE's and Time, http://www.near-death.com/experiences/research13.html

[Tony M]

the patient does ask, "Why have you been lying to me?" and they don't deny it.

Michael, I thought the lie was in their confidence and lack of fear. The "lie" was that they were expressing their hope as if it was a certainty.

[Michael H]

As someone who's also found the traditional interpretation of Christ to be particularly difficult to swallow myself, I'd recommend The Gospel According to Jesus, by Stephen Mitchell.

Mitchell is revisionist to the extreme, going so far as to draw a distinction between what he considers the authentic Jesus (with a capital "J"), who emphasizes unconditional love and forgiveness, and the other "jesus" (Yes - that's a small "j") of the gospels, who is all too often focused on damnation and hellfire.

I found the book extremely valuable in helping me find some forgiveness for Christianity, which is admittedly an area with which I still struggle at times.

Interestingly, even some Christians appreciate Mitchell's effort. The first review at the Amazon link closes with this observation: " . . . while the whole book is technically blasphemy, it helped me return to my faith after a long hiatus. Make of that what you will."

Although I didn't read them to confirm, I suspect the 9 single star reviews beg to differ.

[Michael Prescott]

The "lie" was that they were expressing their hope as if it was a certainty.

You may be right.

I'd recommend The Gospel According to Jesus, by Stephen Mitchell.

I haven't read that one, but I'm a little suspicious of any book that ends up "proving" that Jesus shared the author's own philosophy. One reason I'm partial to N.T. Wright's books is that his Jesus seems authentically grounded in the worldview of 1st century Palestine.

[Bill I.]

Art: "Time doesn't exist on the other side like it does here. You will be able to "visit" any time period in history simply focusing your attention on it. How do I know this? NDE's of course!"

Dear Art:

I agree, although I've never had an NDE. I'm of the belief that time as we know it is a parameter of physical reality only.

When I mentioned a time machine, I was imagining _physically_ visiting some other moment, while I'm still alive.

Here probable realities must definitely enter the picture, while I'm sure I could easily get into all kinds of serious trouble were I to own such a device -- this is probably best left to imagination.

Bill I.

[Art]

When I mentioned a time machine, I was imagining _physically_ visiting some other moment, while I'm still alive. - bill
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From what I've read in many NDE's the other side will feel just as real to us as this side does. The main difference will be that we won't be limited by time and space like we are here; trapped in physical bodies. We will be able to "experience" any time or place simply by focusing our attention on it. It's a holographic universe thing....

"I had to merely think of a place and time and I was there, experiencing everything about the place and time and people present. ... ... All I had done was have the mearest fleeting thought of the land and I was there!" - excerpt from Mark Horton's NDE, http://www.mindspring.com/~scottr/nde/markh.html

[Michael H]

I haven't read that one, but I'm a little suspicious of any book that ends up "proving" that Jesus shared the author's own philosophy.

There's no doubt that Mitchell's Zen training heavily influences his interpretation. Still, I found it quite helpful, especially in his efforts to draw parallels with various eastern schools of thought, as well as with Christian mystics such as Blake. His discussion of Thomas Jefferson's search for truth is also fascinating.

I'm sure that I found the book especially accessible because my own particular point of view is much closer to Mitchell's than to Christianity as traditionally interpreted. And it did help me understand that Christianity isn't entirely misguided, which was quite a personal revelation at the time. I lived with a great deal of anger towards Christianity for some time, and I still revisit it occasionally. Mitchell's book definitely helped me find some perspective, as well as furthering my appreciation of Christ.

[Markus Hesse]

@ Major:

I had a somewhat similar experience with my then-girlfriend a while back when we were holidaying on the Adriatic.

One night at 4 am she suddenly woke up in an absolute panic insisting we had to return home immediately. After I inquired as to the reason why she said she'd just had an "incredibly vivid" dream of her beloved Jack Russel writhing and yelping in agony and that she had to see him ASAP.

Naturally, I told her that it was just a dream, that her dog is fine and eventually managed to convince her to relax and go back to sleep.

In the morning we received a phone call from her parents: her dog had apparently died sometime during the night due to ingestion of a toxic substance (probably administered by the belligerent next-door neighbour, tho this was never proven).

It turns out that this was the first and only time she'd ever had a dream featuring her dog so I find it hard to buy the "it was just a coincidence" schtick, she dreamed her dog in pain at virtually the exact same time her dog was likely dying in pain....but I guess I just "don't understand" probability theory like the rest of you woos. :D

[Art]

And it did help me understand that Christianity isn't entirely misguided, which was quite a personal revelation at the time. I lived with a great deal of anger towards Christianity for some time, and I still revisit it occasionally. Mitchell's book definitely helped me find some perspective, as well as furthering my appreciation of Christ. - Michael H
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I thouroughly convinced that Christianity is basically just a highly embellished Near Death Experience Religion. Jesus and Paul were basically two near death experiencers and Steven had a death bed vision while he was being stoned. That's why Christianity appears so bi-polar, because beliefs common during the first century were mixed up with the Love and forgiveness of NDE's which led to the contradictions we see in the New Testament.

[Leo MacDonald]

I like everyone know their is a new skeptiko podcast and who is interviewed is Michael Tymn.

http://www.skeptiko.com/index.php?id=72

[Brian Joseph]

I think that Jesus and Paul were likely NDE experiencers. Also that the original intent of baptism by immersion in water was an attempt to induce an NDE as in 'he who loses his life will find it'. The 'spirit as a dove descending' in the account of Jesus baptism may be a poetical way of describing the light experience. When a dove lands it opens its wings - like a flutter of white light.

Many of the world's major religions seem to have been influenced by NDE experiences. Krishna's 'light of a thousand suns' sounds like the light of an NDE experience as in 'noe I have become death, the destroyer of worlds' -- similar to what Jesus said.
In original Buddhism nirvana may have been the acceptance of death.

There is some research that indicates that many Near Death Experiencers are not actually physically close to death but believe that they are close to death.

What I see as being much more important than what happens after death is what happens before death. NDE experiences are consciousness expanding experiences for many people.

[Michael Prescott]

It's not necessary to have an NDE in order to experience mystical transport. Bucke's Cosmic Consciousness gives many examples of people who achieved Unity Consciousness (a sense of oneness with the the cosmos) without having to nearly die. Another book along similar lines is The Interpretation of Cosmic and Mystical Experiences by Robert Crookall.

I have no doubt Jesus and Paul had experiences of Unity Consciousness, but we need not presume that the experiences were death-related.

I also find it highly unlikely that Jesus was taken down off the cross alive (having had an NDE). The Romans were experts at killing. Crucifixion was "the extreme penalty" (as the Romans called it) precisely because it meant the absolute certainty of a horrible death. The "swoon" theory of the crucifixion (that Jesus swooned but did not die) reappears every few years in popular works like The Passvoer Plot and , but as far as I know, it has gained no support from the scholarly community.

Anything is possible, of course, but I don't see why we should try to force all mystical insight into the very narrow parameters of the NDE. Isn't it more likely that Jesus - like Buddha, Socrates, Plotinus, etc. - had a moment of insight (Unity Consciousness) that set him on the path of his ministry, and that his unconventional teachings eventually got him killed?

[Bill I.]

I'd quite agree that an experience of "gnosis" needn't require someone to be clinically dead, then revive. (Is that is the official definition of a Near Death Experience?)

There are endless ways to induce such experiences or similar experiences, while it can also be argued that such experiences can cover quite a broad range, each as unique as the person experiencing it, with certain common characteristics.

What Paul experienced, for example, may have been quite different from Jehoshua's experience and likely was.

If we had a few really good trance writers commenting, they might allow variations of these personalities to speak for themselves, although whether that was actually the case or not would be for each reader to decide.

At the very least, this would be interesting and entertaining, and possibly quite provocative as well.

Bill I.

[william]

“When I mentioned a time machine, I was imagining _physically_ visiting some other moment, while I'm still alive.”

Me too.

That would be so interesting to physically return to a certain time and place. Wow I can think of several time and places I would want to visit. Share a dinner with Jesus, Buddha, our civil war, World War II, the Wild West, sit with some great mediums; the list is almost endless. And to know what I know now but I would want to be able to return on a moments notice.

And of course there are several time and places in my own life I would like a do over. But it appears my soul or fate or whatever had different plans then my ego did then and now.

[Art]

The Romans were experts at killing. Crucifixion was "the extreme penalty" (as the Romans called it) precisely because it meant the absolute certainty of a horrible death. - Michael Prescott
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Somewhere in the New Testament it mentions it was the sabbath and the Romans were in a hurry to get the bodies down because it upset the Jews. At the time they were placating the Jews and trying to keep them from rioting. In the book of John there is a passage about a soldier sticking a spear in Jesus's side and "water and blood" pouring out. I saw on an episode of ER a few months ago where a boy (girl?) had gone into cardiac arrest because fluid accumulation in the pericardium. The way that they dealt with it was by sticking a large bore needle in the sack (the pericardium is the sack surrounding the heart) and sucking out the fluid. Perhaps what happened when the soldier stuck the spear in Jesus side was to somehow pierce the pericardium and release the pressure, then for a few seconds Jesus appeared dead, and then, in a hurry to get the body disposed of before the Sun set, they quickly flopped the body down on the ground and when He hit the ground it was enough to restart His heart, which at first was beating slowly enough that it was imperceptible, then they tightly bound his wounds which stopped the bleeding and laid him in the tomb where he recovered and three days later walked out of. It's the only thing that makes any sense to me. I'm thinking that the Sermon on the Mount, which has a very NDE like flavor, took place AFTER he came out of the tomb. Then as stories do, it got mixed up and embellished and they made the crucifixion come later in the story to make it more interesting; since no one would believe that a man could be crucified and live.

[The Major]

Thanks for the condolences, guys. Much appreciated.

This must be the only website where a review of Scrubs turns into a view of the Bible as a NDE!

[Art]

This must be the only website where a review of Scrubs turns into a view of the Bible as a NDE! - The Major
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm sorry. I'm obsessive compulsive and pretty much everything reminds me of duality and separation, NDE's, and The Holographic Universe! I'm surprised my brain couldn't find some kind of connection between William Shakespeare and the above! Maybe there is some duality and separation in the fact that folks are still arguing over who they think he was? "grin!"

[The Major]

I meant no offence, Art, just a humorous observation.

[Michael H]

I'm obsessive compulsive and pretty much everything reminds me of duality and separation, NDE's, and The Holographic Universe!

Have you ever asked yourself what it is that recognizes that? In other words, if you see yourself as obsessive compulsive, who's doing the seeing?

[The Major]

This is a subject quite close to heart for me as I suffer with OCD as well, though mine is a purely mental version, known as 'Pure O'.

This condition means that, in a heightened state of anxiety you are flooded with worrying or disturbing thoughts, as with anyone suffering from anxiety or depression, but that you constantly doubt yourself and believe that having the thought is enough for it to be true.

However, as that person is in a state of anxiety, both their thoughts and feelings are misfiring. The key to living with the problem is to observe the thought as not yours, and that you must live in the choice of what you do, rather than guiding yourself by emotion.

I should point out, this is only relevant to those suffering with OCD. People without the condition are able to use their emotions to guide their choices- it's just OCD throws the sufferers off.

I'm probably not explaining it very well. However, the essence of it is, you are not your thoughts. You have to make a choice about which of your thoughts are true or not. For a better explanation, read here:

http://www.ocdonline.com/articlephillipson7.php

The more I read of this condition, it's really made me think about who it is who makes my choices and defines who I am as a person.

Also, just to clarify, I'm not looking for sympathy with this. I deal with the problem and I'm fine. Michael H's question really got me thinking.

[Michael H]

That’s interesting, Major. For some reason, as I was reading your post I thought of George Pransky’s short article, Thinking Outside the Box: What is the Box and How Did it Get There?. Although intended for a general or business-oriented audience, it does reiterate our tendency to trap ourselves in our own thinking. I think this is common for most everyone - those diagnosed with OCD may just be more susceptible to, and personally experience as more severe, a tendency that’s much more common than is currently recognized.

I’m also not sure that I agree that people without the condition do particularly well in using emotion to guide their choices. It seems to me that much, if not all, of the chaos that occurs in our society is a consequence of people acting out reactively to whatever thoughts come hurtling into their heads. I can’t help but think that we’d live in a happier place if more people in general learned a bit of thought recognition.

[The Major]

I understand your second point, and I did think about addressing that but it just muddied my overall point.

Anger, jealousy, envy definitely affect people's decisions. I guess people without OCD just don't question their emotions as much.

[Ronnie Lee]

I can sympathize with The Major as I seem to be a victim of "Pure O'". I get excessively paranoid over any negative thoughts that frighten and disturb me. I think in some sense my unconscious mind is sometimes influenced by the negative emotions of our society.

[william]

“In other words, if you see yourself as obsessive compulsive, who's doing the seeing?”

That is an interesting question. If that who is doing the seeing is critical of itself or blaming or judging itself it may be our ego or “one of our many egos”? The ego appears to love to judge and blame (others and itself) and be critical of itself and even feel massive guilt. Why is this?

According to one source I studied the ego at its very deepest level knows it is not the real self but a perceived self and these feelings of guilt and shame or whatever allows it to do “self confirmatory ideation”. Although I do believe that guilt, shame, blaming, judging, and self critical behavior is part of the journey of the soul back to its source. Life is about process and “overcoming” these self-confirmatory attributes to one degree or another are part of that process.

I suspect that the older the soul the less self blame and self-judgment and more compassion and understanding of the human condition.

If that who is doing the seeing is only aware of our own or others behavior with no judgment, compassion, and understanding then maybe it is this pure awareness or whatever that many call that that is, God, Spirit, or the Absolute.

Major I wrote this before I read your posting so my response was not due to your most recent posting. Thank you for being so open about this condition and feeling comfortable enough to share with the rest of us.

Human life is full of so many struggles and suffering is it any wonder that most Buddhists consider rebirth a condition to be avoided.

[Art]

Have you ever asked yourself what it is that recognizes that? In other words, if you see yourself as obsessive compulsive, who's doing the seeing? - Michael H
___________________________________________

Huh? I don't know but it's lunchtime and I'm hungry so I think I'm going to go heat up some leftover Mexican pork stew over rice for lunch.... I'm salivating just thinking about it.

[dmduncan]

I hadn't read the book, but while I was in Blockbuster I saw a DVD of the film version of his own book which Lee Strobel narrates, "The Case For Christ," and watched it last night.

The film was short, but good. He asked a lot of the right questions, and his journey away from being an atheist who was extremely skeptical of Christianity's claims was interesting to watch.

He is definitely not someone who had pro-Christian conclusions which he then worked backwards to prove.

And I'd say he did a good job of defending the classical Christian set of beliefs as reasonable to have coming from the opposite direction as someone who was actually hostile and resentful towards those beliefs.

I can relate to that because I was that way too.

[Art]

I am 56 years old and married into the church of Christ when I was 21 years old. I have been attending Church with my wife's family for ~ 35 years, and the Church of Christ is a very fundamentalist bible believing church. That means I have been exposed to A LOT of bible, and especially the New Testament. I have only been interested in and studying NDE's since about ~ the year 2000, but in that time I've been amazed at the number of verses in the New Testament that seem to parallel, support, and corroborate near death experiences. Many of them sound very similar to the life review. Such things as "you reap what you sow", "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", "judge not that you be not judged for in each measure that you judge you shall be judged in return", God is Love, God is Light, etc. could all be stuff straight out numerous NDE's. I don't think it's coincidence. The Life Review is a holographic experience par excellance and you essentially become the other person. You feel what they felt and you think their thoughts. You become them. The way you treat others is how you will be treated.

[Cyrus]

"'stiff upper lip in the face of a meaningless and uncaring universe' routine"

This sums up our predisposition to be skeptical of the afterlife. People who say we are prone to wishful thinking are confused. Many of us are very pessimistic creatures. We don't like getting our hopes up about anything. So we're inclined to take the most negative views and routes in order to be 'prepared just in case'.

[Larry Boy]

Michael Prescott reveals his true ambition:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiDDyiEPZgs

[Cyrus]

Larry Boy stop boozin' at the computer.

[Brian Joseph]

I don't think that there is much if any difference between unity consciousness experiences and NDE experiences. It seems that the resulting states of consciousness are similar. Many NDE experiencers are nowhere near clinical death but think they are about to die. I think the NDE experience fits within the Unity Consciousness experience and that Unity Consciousness experiences are related to what some call ego-death.

I think that Jesus may have had an NDE /Unity experience as a result of baptism. The whole physical resurrection thing may be an allegory, but who knows it could have been something similar to what The Passover plot says or embellishment and story propagated by followers.

[Michael H]

I agree with Brian that NDE's are a form of mystical experience. There are many similarities between the NDE and the experience of unity consciousness, especially in regards to the emotional or "feeling" component and the perception of absolute certainty.

Still, it seems to me that unless and until someone has experienced a higher than 'normal' state of consciousness themselves, it is much easier to accept a mystical understanding that arises from a near death experience as valid.

I personally agree with Bucke's conclusion that historical examples such as Christ, Buddha, Plotinus, Paul, Meister Eckhart, Lao Tzu, Boehme, Blake, Ramakrishna and Whitman, as well as more recent examples like Black Elk, Teilhard de Chardin, Aurobindo, Maharshi, Yogananda, Krishnamurti, Eckhart Tolle, Peter Kingsley and Sydney Banks are simply individuals who have all experienced what is essentially the same state of consciousness to varying degrees. Whatever divergence there may be in their messages can be attributed to their particular culture and era, as well as to the particular level of consciousness that they each respectively reached.

It's also true that looking past the various editorial interpretations of any given school of thought or religion can make the discovery of the common message extremely difficult.

As Tolle puts it, "Some teachers might even tell you, 'You’ll be enlightened in only a few more incarnations, just wait.' There’s no time to wait. There’s no need to wait. Time cannot get you to the timeless state of consciousness, so if you’re looking to the future that sometime you’ll be in that state, no you won’t. You can simply be in that state now simply by no longer living in antagonism with the present moment."

Having said all of that, it's also true that like Bucke, I'm not at all sure that I would be able to recognize any of this if I hadn't experienced the unity state myself. It's a very strange position to be in when I consider that if I were to read some twenty years ago what I'm now writing at this moment, I would almost certainly regard it as complete nonsense.

I'm convinced that it is the very simplicity of it that prevents more from realizing unity consciousness themselves. We love to complicate things. Yet, the state of mind that is known as unity consciousness is notable for its complete lack of complication. It is nothing but a quiet mind and a positive feeling state. That's it. At the moment of the experience itself, it's seen as perfectly natural, simply the way people are meant to live - there's nothing that's even seen as unusual. It's only when someone returns to their 'normal' state of consciousness that the unity state is evaluated as particularly profound.

People are free to believe whatever they wish, and in many ways we can't really avoid our beliefs. We can only look in whatever direction makes sense to us. If we accept that we will become enlightened in just a few more lifetimes, then the chances are that we will become enlightened in a few more lifetimes. And if we accept that the state of unity consciousness can occur only upon death, then we'll likely not experience it until death.

In the big picture, it doesn't really matter. As Bucke wrote over a century ago, ". . . the universe is so built and ordered that without any peradventure all things work together for the good of each and all, the foundation principle of the world is what we call love and the happiness of every one is in the long run absolutely certain."

[Michael Prescott]

I don't think that there is much if any difference between unity consciousness experiences and NDE experiences.

Jenny Wade, in Changes of Mind, disagrees. She finds that most NDEs reveal a much lower stage of consciousness than Unity. She speculates that this is because very few people have achieved Unity here on earth, and they tend to carry over their existing level of consciousness when they die.

Most of the NDEs I've read about would support her thesis. There are some that seem to involve Unity (like the ones that Art has pointed out), but they seem to be fairly rare. And if mediumistic communications can be trusted (and I think they can), the typical person continues to enjoy more or less the same level of awareness after crossing over, at least for a while.

[Art]

Most of the NDEs I've read about would support her thesis. There are some that seem to involve Unity (like the ones that Art has pointed out), but they seem to be fairly rare. - Michael Prescott
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I remember reading somewhere (can't remember exactly where though) that the other side will feel just as real to us as this side does. I find that comforting. However it will be, I'm sort of looking forward to it. I lost my mother when I was 15 1/2 years old and I still miss her! And yes, I was a momma's boy! I'm looking forward to seeing her again.

[Michael H]

And if mediumistic communications can be trusted (and I think they can), the typical person continues to enjoy more or less the same level of awareness after crossing over, at least for a while.

This makes sense to me. On a somewhat related note, MP's choice of terms reminded me of a something that occurred to me while canoeing last week: as long as we're immortal, we'd might as well try to enjoy it.

[Pete]

"I don't think that there is much if any difference between unity consciousness experiences and NDE experiences."

As MP says, the difference per Jenny Wade is this: high-level NDEs are transcendent, which she says is the linking of ego-self to the transcendent Other; Unity is when the ego-self disappears, and we become the Other (or manifest the will of God without ego).

[Art]

I'm confused. What's the difference between completely losing your sense of "self" and being completely and utterly dead? If "I" no longer exist, then for all practical purposes, it's the same as being bloody dead now isn't it? So, I might as well be an atheist?

[Zetetic_chick]

I'm confused. What's the difference between completely losing your sense of "self" and being completely and utterly dead?

It's a good point, Art. Losing your sense of self (including your personal identity, the "who you are") is similar to death: annihilation of individual consciousness that implies lack of recognition of the self as an independent entity.

Look that it's different of "feeling separated from". You can feel united with all the universe, without loosing your own identity, because union doesn't mean identification.

For instance, we're united through the internet, but it doesn't mean we're all the same people or the "same person". In fact, our union suppose differentiation (of the entities subject to the process of union).

If my consciousness dissapears in a universal conciousness (but losing my concept of "self"), then I don't see any spiritual diference with death as seen by a materialist (there are theoretical and conceptual differences, but not in a spiritually meaningful way for each individual).

Repeat: the key concepts to me in this point are union vs. identification. I find a sense in a trascendent/universal consciousness that "unite" all of us (but without losing a basic sense of personal identity), but I find hard to accept a universal consciousness where your "self" will be annihilate. If I accept it,
I'm accepting too (for all practical purposes) that my spiritual destiny is the death.

[Art]

I figure our lives are like a song. Each not individually has very little meaning, but grouped together they can be a very beautiful song. Our memories are like that. When you add up all my memories together - they identify me as "me". The self that is "me" is the sum total of everything I am, all my thoughts, fears, dreams, memories, beliefs, my self. I was an empty slate when I was born, but have spent my entire life becoming "me" and I am of the opinion it has a whole lot to do with "why we are here." All the notes together are what make me a separate, unique, individual and I don't want to lose one single note.

"I was unique yet I was the tiniest part of the whole." - excerpt from Mark Horton's NDE, http://www.mindspring.com/~scottr/nde/markh.html

[Pete]

"I find hard to accept a universal consciousness where your "self" will be annihilate. If I accept it,
I'm accepting too (for all practical purposes) that my spiritual destiny is the death." -ZC

This seems to suggest that you identify with your separate ego. The real you is the whole Universe. There is only "One real you", because, in the end, there is only One Universe / Cosmic Consciousness / God). The Real You can choose to identify with a separate form or forms; or not.

It seems to me that the alternative viewpoint is that there are lots of gods; but I prefer One BigOne (Occam's razor).

[Zetetic_chick]

This seems to suggest that you identify with your separate ego

Yes, it's the only evidence that I have of me. :-)

The real you is the whole Universe. There is only "One real you", because, in the end, there is only One Universe / Cosmic Consciousness / God). The Real You can choose to identify with a separate form or forms; or not

I don't discard that possibility, but it is not known to be true. That is the point under discussion.

It seems to me that the alternative viewpoint is that there are lots of gods; but I prefer One BigOne (Occam's razor).

Not neccesarily. An alternative is the existence of lots SOULS (each with different degree of evolution), but without the classical attributes of a Divinity (omniscience, omnibenebolence, omnipresence, omnipotency, etc.)

As far I prefer the "many souls" idea, I'm agnostic regarding which possibility is more probable or true. And I don't know if it can be settled or not by rational means alone.

I suppose that a "deep spiritual experience" is needed too, but these experiences are colored by personal concepts, beliefs and interpretations, make them not fully reliable as the "source of the truth"

[Pete]

Yes ZC.

Perhaps by organisational and hierarchical analogy:
chemicals > cells > brains > herds (societies)> Gaia

egos > souls > group souls > angelic hosts (archetypes) >
Cosmic Consciousness

[Art]

If we lose our individuality, our sense of self, after we die than the materialist-atheists have won and they have been right that there is no life after death.

[Steen Bundgaard]

>If we lose our individuality, our sense of >self, after we die than the materialist->atheists have won and they have been right >that there is no life after death.

This statement summarizes the problem with this whole debate. You and others are clearly biased towards accepting any anecdotal story suggesting that consciousness survives bodily death rather than trying to make a rational judgement from scientific facts.

There does not exists a materialist-atheists fraction trying battle any hope of an afterlife. Rather this type of people does not let fear of death cloud their judgement of the observable part of our existence. They are in their right to claim that we have not reproduceable evidence that death is nothing but the final stop and that mind and brain aren't 100% correlated matter.

On the other hand many para psykologists are clearly 'believers' willing to reduce the level of 'good science' to accomplish the results they want. This has led parapsykolgy to being a non-accepted field of study in the world of science because the produced research from parapsykolgy does not meet acceptable quality criterias.

We need better research, less fraud/doubtable conclusions if we want to move this field forwards.

[Art]

You and others are clearly biased towards accepting any anecdotal story suggesting that consciousness survives bodily death rather than trying to make a rational judgement from scientific facts. - Steen
___________________________________________

We will never be allowed to know absolutely 100% for certain that there is life after death. Why? Because the death of someone we love is the ultimate lesson in separation - and if we knew absolutely 100% for certain that there was life after death, the death of someone we love would cease to be the powerful lesson in separation that it is. The whole purpose of life is to experience separation. Separation teaches the soul what it means and how it feels to be separate, something it can't learn in the Spiritual Universe due to those overwhelming feelings of oneness and connectedness that so many near death experiencers comment on in their NDE descriptions. Life is a never ending lesson in separation, from the moment we are born and we separate from our mothers and the umbilical cord is cut till the day we die and our deaths become a lesson in separation to our loved ones we leave behind. Separation is the theme to almost every book, play, movie, poem, and the lyrics to almost every song. We experience separation in a myriad of ways, and it's not just about people. We experience separation when we lose a pet, or get rid of an old car, or even when we pick a grape off a vine or a tomato, or when we wake up during the night to use the restroom. There is no separation in heaven due to it's holographic nature, so it may be impossible to learn what it means and how it feels to be separate, with that sense of "self" in Heaven, so it has to be learned here. I believe it has everything to do with "Why we are here."

[The Major]

I find this argument quite interesting. I think arguing atheism versus a sense of spirituality that suggests that personal identity doesn't survive death and that we are absorbed into a cosmic consciousness... then what's the point? It's like arguing red apples and green apples.

Some atheists believe that everything is connected, except its connected in a materialist sense. When you die, you become part of the earth. No identity, no nothing.

I believe that identity survives death. Looking at mediumship, reincarnation evidence, NDEs, I think its the strongest likliehood.

[Ronnie Lee]

Isn't it the ego - the false self - that dies, but your very spirit, soul, whatever you wish to call it, that lives on? I'm pretty sure that is what ego death is if I recall correctly... please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Michael Prescott]

There does not exists a materialist-atheists fraction trying battle any hope of an afterlife. Rather this type of people does not let fear of death cloud their judgement of the observable part of our existence. They are in their right to claim that we have not reproduceable evidence that death is nothing but the final stop and that mind and brain aren't 100% correlated matter.

I think there clearly is "an atheist-materialist faction trying to battle any hope of an afterlife." CSI (formerly CSICOP) is a good example.

Yes, people on the pro-paranormal side can be biased, but people on the anti-paranormal side can be biased, too. We all have biases. I've found that the materialists are often (though not always) simply less aware of their biases - perhaps because the prevailing materialism of our age makes it harder for them to recognize their own assumptions.

Although research is good, I'm not sure there's any amount of evidence that will convince people determined to remain unconvinced. But for a start, I'd suggest perusing the 800 pages of Irreducible Mind, by Kelly & Kelly, et al, or looking at the decades-long investigations of mediums Leonora Piper and Gladys Osborne-Leonard (the former is well covered in Ghost Hunters, by Pulitzer Prize-winning science writer Deborah Blum).

[dmduncan]

Steen, there's plenty of evidence. What there is not is the will to see it for what it is.

[william]

"Death is a part of life and pretending that the dead are gathering in a television studio in New York to talk twaddle with a former ballroom dance instructor is an insult to the intelligence and humanity of the living."

Found this on victor’s website as a quote from Michael Shermer. As I don’t consider that New York medium that gifted compared to some mediums that have lived in the past after watching every show he did on sci fi channel it appears there is more going on there than cold reading.

Would love to watch a Michael Shermer or the amazing one try to do what a John Edwards does with a group of people. I have heard the amazing one tried to do this in England but it got so bad they had to stop the taping.

Please note most atheists think they are the only ones with a rational mind and they often attack religion rather than research. Some of their (professional skeptics) explanations for unexplained phenomena on TV borders on the ridiculous and does not qualify from my point a view a rational mind but a very bias mind.

Without realizing it they are as biased as that preacher that holds up his black book and says very word in this book is truth. And from my point of view they don’t have a clue they are that bias.

Just as the preacher picks and chooses what he or she wants to preach on from their black book these ultra skeptics pick and choose what part of the unexplained phenomena they want to reply to and each believes the other does not have a rational mind.

[Bill I.]

What little I know on this topic from my own direct experience cannot be proven to anyone else, to the best of my understanding -- not yet, anyway.

Perusing the most relevant experiences, I come up with two categories:

o Those moments when I experienced myself as a kind of "multi-person;" and

o Those -- definitely related -- moments when I became consciously aware of what I might call my "greater self."

This "greater self" has many terms. Those I'm most familiar with include:

o Oversoul (See Ralph Waldo Emerson)

o Entity (See Jane Robert's Seth)

o Essense (See George Gurdjieff. Per "G," Essence exists at birth but is usually occluded by "personality" by the age of 6-8)

o Soul (A term rife with Christian associations but rarely, if ever, spelled out with any precision in the body of belief associated with that religion and its variations -- many words in many languages have been translated as "soul" but what they all refer to is likely distinct from the usual Christian concept of some kind of wraithlike inner being that flees a body upon death or the similar Egyptian concept)

o Psyche & Daemon -- examples of terms from the ancient world sometimes translated as "soul."

Having experienced this, I feel comfortable _inferring_ the existence of "All" -- really a soul's soul or a soul's soul's soul.

Also, amongst my friends and associates are a number who are quite skilled at accessing another's entity.

Entity, per Seth, is that region of self of which we, as physically focused personalities, are aspects.

As such, its experience is vast, encompassing in some cases nearly endless life experiences.

We are, then, expressions or aspects of our own soul or entity.

What's a bit confusing is how we _are_ our soul or entity even while being a distinct aspect. This is a simultaneous situation, then, but it's not too common (in my experience, anyway) to be consciously aware of this.

I must assume that the same applies to even larger regions or constellations of self, up to and including what I call "All."

One way of picturing this that works for me is imagining our selves as the equivalent of networked devices.

All, in this analogy, is the entire Internet; a soul or entity roughly equivalent to a server.

What you have is a set of overlapping regions of identity.

Variations of basic schemes from a variety of sources suggest the actual connections from conscious self or egoic self to all are through inner self or personal subconscious then through entity or greater self, as though these are gateways much as our electronic gateways, routers, and switches.

Per Seth, nothing is ever lost, and this includes our unique personalities and their experiences.

We are connected to the whole, however, such that again we are both the whole and just particular regions of self or experience of it.

The confusion arises owing to our beliefs in our own separateness, something that is reinforced by our language, our thoughts, our beliefs, and in fact almost every experience we have/create.

This extends even into our dreams. For example, I had a rather powerful experience of connection with my particular entity in 1996 (for the first time in many years).

Immediately afterwards, I had an extremely vivid dream in which I was hanging out with my entity. In the dream he was symbolized by a somewhat portly and Germanic fellow of a severe disposition, while I dreamt of myself as I was at, say, age 12 or so.

The dream included precognitive elements, some of which were immediately confirmed (via an early List Serve mailing list) while other elements didn't match physical reality for a number of years.

I certainly had a fear of a loss of my own unique self that long served as a kind of barrier to deeper inner explorations, but for the most part this has greatly lessened over the years.

It's difficult to discuss these things, again owing to the way our physical separateness is so deeply ingrained in our thoughts, beliefs, and languages.

I suggest we are All and we are one, separate individuals and yet not truly separate all all, simultaneously.

The "multi-person" experiences are related but a bit different, and possibly even more difficult to express with any clarity.

These involve an awareness of self combined with a simultaneous awareness of being a number of others.

In short, our usual ideas of personal identity are extremely rigid and restrictive, giving rise to fear when contemplating other possibilities, or imagining what might become of us upon our physical demise.

Of course a sceptic will say that the above is all entirely subjective and, since it can't be proved -- in a narrow sense -- is not worth considering.

This doesn't really matter to me, even if I occasionally battle sceptics, if only to improve my expression while releasing just a wee bit of hostility that encounters with such personalities tend to generate.

Those who insist on laboratory proof for absolutely everything tend, in my opinion, to be amongst the most boring folks alive.

They absolutely refuse to consider other possibilities, while also refusing to engage in any of the rather basic activities that can enable powerful experience suggesting that there's much more to reality than they might imagine.

Have they no imagination? If they do, why do they so greatly devalue such a potentially powerful gateway? This is, perhaps, a side effect of the industrial revolution and the scientific thought associated with it. Sure, a great scientist might employ their imagination to conceive of some new invention, theory, insight, or process, but there is so much more to our imaginative abilities above and beyond such activities.

I suppose another way to say this is that the pathway to vast inner realms lies within the personal subconscious and the deeper so called unconscious, imagination one gateway to those regions.

Bill I.

[Art]

Would love to watch a Michael Shermer or the amazing one try to do what a John Edwards does with a group of people. I have heard the amazing one tried to do this in England but it got so bad they had to stop the taping. - william
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LOL! James Randi is kind of scary looking and he always seems so angry! He is also always so negative that it causes people to turn away from him. John Edward on the other hand is charismatic, funny, likable, fun to be around, and he draws people to him. I love watching John Edward's shows and every once in a while he even makes some amazing hits that make me go "wow!" Is it real? Well since I've had a few mystical experiences of my own I see no reason that other people are not capable of tapping into the information stored in the Akashic Records or holographic universe or zero point field, or whatever name one feels comfortable in calling it.

[william]

“If we lose our individuality, our sense of self, after we die than the materialist-atheists have won and they have been right that there is no life after death.”

Art it depends on what you mean by individuality. The mystics and those that have mystical experience tell us that losing one’s sense of self is a gain not a loss. As CMC stated in cosmic consciousness “I let go of myself” and she saw a oneness and a connection to all. From that gain not a loss she received bliss and healing that she was almost unable to fathom.

So it appears that our greatest fear may become our greatest gain. It appears that most if not all of us are our same sweet or not so sweet selves when we cross over. It depends on what level or dimension we vibrate to as like attracts like. The higher the vibration the higher the level of love and compassion hence the higher the dimension we live in.

It also appears we live and have our Being in soul clusters or bands and that band may be small as an intimate group (5 to 12) then expand out into increasing larger clusters of friends or acquaintances. I.e. maybe even into thousands.

These statements come from my research but with some limited experience of my own.

“Well since I've had a few mystical experiences of my own”

I find it interesting that if you have had mystical experiences of your own you would talk about losing your identity. Mystical experiences do not erase our perceived individual identity. Maybe briefly but not permanent.

I suspect as we rise in vibration levels we are more in touch with that essence of oneness with all.

[Michael H]

The real you is the whole Universe. There is only "One real you", because, in the end, there is only One Universe / Cosmic Consciousness / God). (Pete)

I don't discard that possibility, but it is not known to be true. That is the point under discussion. - (ZC)

The real problem, as I see it, is that Pete’s position is known to be true, but only by those who have experienced Cosmic Consciousness to one degree or another. This won’t be broadly accepted a true, as I think ZC is intending, until we reach a critical mass of individuals who have experienced the state of mind themselves. The other problem is that if someone yet to experience the higher state tries to imagine what the experience is like, there’s a tendency to imagine that it involves a loss of personal identity. I’m a bit puzzled as to why this is, in that I’m not aware of any of the great mystics claiming any such thing. In every single case that I’m aware of, it is stressed that the experience known as ego-death involves an expansion of identity, not a contraction, let alone annihilation.

It is also stressed that it can’t be understood through the use of reason, because what experiences the higher state is a higher aspect of the self that hadn’t been recognized or realized before, while reason is an instrument of the ego. As a result, rather than Pete’s suggestion that “The Real You can choose to identify with a separate form or forms; or not”, I’d suggest that the Real You already knows what’s going on and already identifies with all forms. The experience of unity consciousness involves the identification of the self with everything that is, and it’s perceived as entirely natural while it’s occurring. It’s the separate form that we tend to identify with (the ego) that prevents us from realizing who we really are. Jacob Boehme articulates this particularly concisely: “Not I, the I that I am, know these things: But God knows them in me”.

As far as what to expect following physical death . . . I honestly don’t know, but I’d guess it’s all over the map. I suspect that our experiences “there” are even more diverse than our experiences “here”, and also that they are quite likely to appear even more “real”. To expand on what ZC wrote above, I think that all of “our experiences are colored by personal concepts, beliefs and interpretations, making them not fully reliable as the ‘source of the truth’”. I think this is true now, and I think it will continue to be true following physical death. I don’t think that most people will simply shed their egos and become instantly enlightened following death.

What I do know is that consciousness survives and endures, so we might as well relax. It also seems to me that rather than concern ourselves with what we may experience after death, we’re more likely to make progress if we try to recognize that we’re living in a spiritual reality right now.

[Pete]

"we’re more likely to make progress if we try to recognize that we’re living in a spiritual reality right now." -Michael H

Hear, hear. But this involves some hard choices!

When I suggested that the Great Mind can "choose to identify or not", this implies that It can allow Itself to identify with ignorant forms like 21st century humans (William: you have said this). Any identification or manifestation is a lessening; it implies ignorance of what is not identified with or not chosen. Naturally I agree with Michael H that at the Unmanifest level, all is known, because all is One.

[Art]

"we’re more likely to make progress if we try to recognize that we’re living in a spiritual reality right now." - Michael H
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I find it very difficult to believe that when I have to get up during the night to pee, or when I wake up in the morning and the arthritis in my back and hips is killing me. I think the whole purpose of this life is to experience the physical. I'm fairly certain we are "spiritual beings having a physical experience" and in order to do that we have to believe it's real. If ever came to the point that we don't believe it's real, the jig is up, and we might as well just go ahead and shed our physical bodies and cross on over into Spiritual Universe.

[Steen Bundgaard]

I think we can all agree that there is a lot of e.g. fraud mediumship going on. I think this is a huge problem for the creditability of mediumships. The same problem goes for afterlife science in general.

How can any non-scientist evaluate and judge the 'real' evidence for himself when so much bogus science is around. E.g. I read yesterday about the Global Consciousness Project. Another 'study' suggesting proof of paranormal activity. If you go to their website http://noosphere.princeton.edu/ you might quickly become convinced that they really have valid results here. However there are severe methodology flaws in their experiment. A good discussion(not too arrogant) is discussed here http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4049
Only after I read the criticism did I realise that yes, the egg experiment does not meet satisfying scientific criterias.
Ofcourse the skeptic response should also be reviewed and I did a little of this. And yes, the website does hide some things from the unsceptical reader, e.g. they do not provide a public standard for what constitutes a correlation in their data.

The Global Consciousness Project is just an example. There is a lot of doubtful research like this going on.

[Pete]

"There is a lot of doubtful research like this going on." -Steen B

I suggest that all research is doubtful if it ever expects a definitively "objective" answer. Was Newton "objective"? Was Einstein "objective"? No.

The experimenter effect (either unconsciously or unconsciously influencing the results) is very powerful. Any research paid for by a company to prove the value of their product is going to produce biased results. There is also the paradigm effect: researchers are blinkered by what they want to find; they only choose from among parameters they believe are useful or possible.

I don't necessarily say this is bad, because I don't believe there is such a thing as a purely objective result. Every experiment is a result of interaction between self and environment. The whole manifest universe is (as Teri said) a psychophysical continuum: choice from the quantum probabilities drives experience.

[Teri]

"I suggest that all research is doubtful if it ever expects a definitively "objective" answer." ...Pete

Sympathetic as I am to this viwpoint, what about chemical reactions? They're always the same, aren't they?

[Pete]

what about chemical reactions? -Teri

We manifest on Earth to limit ourselves to certain types of experience. We add to these experiences cumulatively and call it progress. If we manifested on Titan, water would be a very hard rock. On Venus, we'd experience sulphur rain.

[Steen Bundgaard]

Pete I have to disagree with you. There is good research and bad research. Einstein based his theoretical research on a few basic assumptions that appears to be valid even today. Experimental research is much more influenced by bias - therefore we need to be critical. These days a lot of results utilizing functional neuroimaging(fMRI) is getting published. A lot of the conclusions these people do are completely scientifically unfounded but still they find their way to the headlines e.g. this article about NeuroPolitics getting published in nytimes. Here is the original article http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/opinion/11freedman.html, and here is the response published a few days after by the neuroimaging community:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/opinion/lweb14brain.html

I believe in 20 years we will realise that using functional neuroimaging to study Consciousness is as usefull as studying the shape of the skull.

[Michael H]

I'm fairly certain we are "spiritual beings having a physical experience" and in order to do that we have to believe it's real . . . we might as well just go ahead and shed our physical bodies and cross on over into Spiritual Universe.

Everyone experiences the "real" Art. What's difficult to understand is that we each experience it differently to one degree or another. Anyone who wants to challenge that claim need only look at the divorce rate. Those who experience particularly high levels of consciousness just experience a reality that has expanded to encompass a greater understanding of reality. In a sense, if we define “mystical” as “having spiritual significance”, every experience anyone can or will ever have applies.

The day may very well come, far in the future, when men learn to transcend their physical bodies, and the ability to do so is entirely common. There are plenty of stories, especially in the Hindu faith, of adepts doing exactly that. Bi-location, traveling between planes of existence, manifestation of physical objects, acquiring nutrition from light and not food, it goes on and on. Still, for anyone who has yet to experience, at least briefly, the Greater Mind within themselves, these stories are outlandish. Conversely, anyone who experiences the power and depth of the Greater Mind understands that absolutely anything is possible. But it’s only possible for the Greater Mind to do these things through us – Art, Michael H and everyone else can never do them, because we’re identifying with the lesser form of our egos.

It is the simplicity of it that prevents more from realizing that we’re already in a spiritual reality. A couple of threads ago, while discussing my unity experience, I wrote that I’d love to experience it again. What’s confusing, and almost impossible to get across, is that the “I” that would love to experience that is entirely incapable of experiencing that. Only the Greater Mind can experience that, either through me, or through anyone else. As profound and overwhelming as the experience was, what I realized is nowhere near as important as the fact that I realized that we all have the capacity to realize it. If I’m attempting to do anything with my contributions here, it’s to get that point across. Others can either accept that or argue with me, and in either case it’s exactly as it should be.

the Great Mind can "choose to identify or not", this implies that It can allow Itself to identify with ignorant forms like 21st century humans

The Great Mind has no need or ability to choose anything, Pete. It is perfect and complete in itself, and encompasses absolutely everything. The choice always lies with us, as to what thoughts we choose to give life to. Art chooses to celebrate duality and separation, so he experiences duality and separation. I identify with my particular form as well, but I do try to look for common ground, empathy, compassion, humor and at least sense of unity. There’s nothing else to do, nowhere to go, and I don’t even think the choices are that hard. For me, it’s about trying to entertain positive feelings, just because it feels better. That doesn’t mean that I’m a pushover, or that I don’t experience low moods and negative feelings, or that I don’t have disagreements. I just think that the only real choice anyone has is to look for a higher perspective themselves, and if they find one, try and share it.

Einstein based his theoretical research on a few basic assumptions that appears to be valid even today.

Invoking Einstein is a bit perilous, Steen, as his accomplishments arose not from assumptions that he arrived at through intellectual effort, but rather through insights that arrived “out of the blue”. One of the most obvious manifestations of the Great Mind is in the phenomena of genius, where an individual accesses original thought, ideas that have never occurred before. It’s interesting that Einstein was obsessive about keeping his mind clear – I remember reading a story about him refusing to memorize his own phone number because it was information that he could find by looking in the phone book.

Those who look to science to answer the mystery of consciousness will always be frustrated. Anyone who truly wants to understand consciousness has to embark on the investigation of the only consciousness they have direct access to.

[Bill I.]

Whether asking ourselves whether our present personality -- our immediate sense of "I am" -- survives death or if the "One" or "All" concept of mystics has validity, what can we actually know, and how can we know it?

I don't believe disciplines such as functional neuroimaging can help.

This isn't to say these have no value or don't provide all kinds of very interesting information, but rather that they are part of an approach to understanding reality that has strict limitations or boundaries.

They would peer in from the outside, examining as if from the perspective of a detached, impartial observer.

Knowing, as applied to the two questions above, requires employing a subjective approach.

The immediate experience of "I am" can't be measured or weighed, or examined on the screen of an oscilloscope.

If we limit ourselves to what we can know in a direct way, temporarily discarding all else -- including theories from sources other than our own experience, theories regarding the nature of self, what "ego-death" may or may not be about, the existence of a singular all encompassing being, and so on -- we place ourselves in a position of seeking and trying out suitable methods or techniques.

What works, for us? (It doesn't matter if some esoteric technique from this or that sacred and ancient tradition is alleged to have worked for some long ago famous mystical personal, now legendary, if this doesn't work for us.)

Few of us can truly say, regarding ultimate truths, what is theory, what is belief, so why not table such questions until satisfactory answers can be obtained (and only by us -- anyone else's answers must be provisional until personally validated, no matter the source.)

For inner explorations, there is no exact equivalent of the scientific method and the peer-review process of science, but there is no end of literature, narratives, anecdotal reports, and so on, stretching back thousands of years.

In the massive accumulated scrap pile, what is useful? What is true? What can any of us truly know?

Quite a bit, actually.

Maybe individuals exist who have reached the end-of-the-line, the ultimate, in terms of knowing. I imagine they might smile, unceasingly, and particularly when asked about any of these questions, much as Siddhartha in the Hesse novel of that name.

Although I have met a few individuals who claim to have achieved something in this department, I don't believe them, although I do allow for the possibility that maybe they do "know" in an ultimate sense.

I can't, at present, know whether what they say is true or not, so it really doesn't matter.

Techniques and methods for inner explorations are different.

These can be personally tested, personally validated. The techniques can be shared and taught, while resulting experiences can be compared and discussed.

I believe this is a good as it gets, at present, for the development of some kind of "science" of inner development.

Returning to the two questions at the beginning of this ramble (for which I apologize):

Does the sense of "I am" survive death?

First, which technique is the best for answering this? I'm aware of a number of methods and exercises that can illuminate this.

Having tried these, I have to answer "Yes."

Once again, however, my "yes" isn't good enough for anyone else, but this begins to change when a great many try these and similar techniques and methods and agree with me.

Is there any validity to the mystical idea of the "One" or the "All?"

I'm not 100% certain, but I definitely lean in this direction, while it accords with what I do know, in a kind of inference or surmise. I've come at this from a number of different directions

Does any here know with any certainty? If so, how did they arrive at or obtain this knowing?

Bill I.

[Robbie]

Michael Im just wondering, if someone asked you the question that the patient asked the doctors in Scrubs, what would your answer be? After looking at all the evidence of life after death in greater detail then most what is your belief?

[Art]

The vast majority of the human population spend their entire lives scrounging for a living and probably spend less than 1% of their lives thinking about life's more profound spiritual questions. The only thing that allows us that luxury is that we have our physical needs met which frees us up to sit around contemplating our belly buttons. I believe the Creator of the Universe is so smart that He/She has created a world where the soul learns (is holistically imprinted) with what it needs to learn whether we want it to be or not. Everyone experiences duality or separation whether they want to or not. They seem to be inherent and inescapable properties of the physical universe. All life is suffering and a lot of times that suffering is caused by separation. If you want to be a monk and escape attachment the way you do that is by separating yourself from the world.

[Michael Prescott]

Michael Im just wondering, if someone asked you the question that the patient asked the doctors in Scrubs, what would your answer be?

I would say that you will find yourself floating out of your body and hovering above it with a great sense of peace, and with no desire to return to physical life. Then you'll make a transition to your next stage of existence, where you'll be reunited with loved ones from this lifetime and possibly from other lifetimes, as well. This transition can be accomplished by traveling through a tunnel, or simply by going through a doorway, or by a momentary blackout followed by an awakening in your new environment. If you need time to adjust, you will have the opportunity to rest and orient yourself. The whole process is gentle and natural.

I base this on NDEs, OBEs, mediumship, etc.

Am I 100% certain of this scenario? No. But then, I'm not 100% certain that the sun will rise tomorrow, or that the physical world is real, or that my memories are not illusions. Outside of some mathematical and logical propositions, 100% certainty is hard (maybe impossible) to come by. In ordinary life, we are usually content with reasonable certainty based on a preponderance of evidence. (One of the tricks played by skeptics is to demand a level of certainty for evidence of psi phenomena that would never be demanded, and could never be met, in any other area of research.)

[william]

“I believe in 20 years we will realise that using functional neuroimaging to study Consciousness is as usefull as studying the shape of the skull.”

Excellent analogy. A materialist will go to great lengths to prove their beliefs. This research may have some benefits in the future for physical healing modalities.

“(One of the tricks played by skeptics is to demand a level of certainty for evidence of psi phenomena that would never be demanded, and could never be met, in any other area of research.)”

The scientific method is about probabilities and the ultra skeptics apparently know little about the scientific method and its relationship to calculating probabilities. Actually many do but to keep their materialistic paradigm intact they must try to convince others it is not about probabilities. It is a slippery slope for the religious, materialists, and atheists’ paradigm.

No one can even predict with 100% accuracy that the sun will be here tomorrow.

“and with no desire to return to physical life.”

I am not sure I have read where someone who has crossed over has had a desire to come back to the physical with maybe a few exceptions. Some feel they have a need to come back (i.e. mom with children) or are told to come back but most find it so peaceful they would rather stay and experience that peace and love.

That dream or visitation or whatever I had I can only say there is nothing like that experience that I have had on earth. Just the telepathic communication was remarkable as it allowed such instant understanding between the participants. Look at the difficultly we have on this blog trying to communicate our thoughts using written symbols.

Also the scenery was breathtaking. Nothing was dead or dying and all beautiful colors. Keep in mind I had this dream visitation before I started my research. My research since then has validated for me at least that there are dimensions that have such beautiful scenery.

[LM_Rose]

"From what I've read in many NDE's the other side will feel just as real to us as this side does. The main difference will be that we won't be limited by time and space like we are here; trapped in physical bodies. We will be able to "experience" any time or place simply by focusing our attention on it. It's a holographic universe thing...."

Interesting comment, I personally believe that while we are in this body, we can see glimpses along our own string of life/time continuum. These glimpsed can manifest in our dreams, visions, and feeling of deja vu. Some people are more aware or tuned into traveling along this line and may see how it crosses others. People who have the premonitions or inklings that may seem unexplainable at the time, in my humble opinion, have been there before and recognize or are startled by them when they're happening.

[Michael H]

Few of us can truly say, regarding ultimate truths, what is theory, what is belief, so why not table such questions until satisfactory answers can be obtained (and only by us -- anyone else's answers must be provisional until personally validated, no matter the source.)

I agree entirely with this conclusion, Bill, especially the parenthetical addendum. Here’s the rub about ultimate truth: once it’s been expressed in language, it’s been converted into a concept, yet to understand ultimate truth, one has to look past all concepts. It would be a much happier world if the various religions understood this simple point. Everyone who has ever experienced especially deep spiritual insights struggles with the barrier of language. Bucke’s book revisits this point time and time again.

Is there any validity to the mystical idea of the "One" or the "All?" . . . Does any here know with any certainty? If so, how did they arrive at or obtain this knowing?

This is where I have to provide a qualified “yes”. It’s qualified by the fact that the “I” that says “yes” is not the same “I” that actually knows. That sounds like absolute nonsense even as I type it. Still, what I mean by that is that from my current perspective, I know only from the memory of the experience of knowing. The “I” that actually knows has always known, and it doesn’t belong to me any more than it belongs to anyone else.

As far as how I arrived at the experience of knowing, I have to say it was quite accidental. While working in middle management in the mid-nineties, I was exposed to the school of psychology currently known as Health Realization, as our company had retained a counseling firm to work with management in order to increase productivity and reduce stress levels. HR is based upon the insights of Sydney Banks, who, following his own epiphany in the early seventies, described the three fundamental principles that are operating moment-to-moment to produce all human psychological experience: Mind, Thought and Consciousness.

In my case, the experiential understanding of these three principles led to very rapid and profound insights over the course of a single weekend. I arrived on a Thursday as a driven, “Type A” manager, an atheist with a strong materialist mindset, and left the following Monday calm, relaxed and certain that there was a powerful spiritual component involved in our psychological make-up. Over the months following, my state of mind, or consciousness level, might best be likened to a helium balloon, continually drifting higher. There were numerous profound insights and experiences that followed over the next several months, which culminated (to this point) in a powerful unity experience in the spring of 1995.

I’ve often wondered if the fact that I’ve always been an introspective sort, not to mention quite fascinated by human psychology, played a significant part in how quickly I grasped what HR has to say about how people are wired up. I’ve no idea if that’s the case, but what I do know is that their understanding of human psychological functioning represents a complete paradigm change, and I do expect that a few centuries from now it will be a common understanding, despite the fact that current HR practitioners are often accused of being simplistic and mystical. They are simplistic and mystical, if someone evaluates what they’re teaching intellectually and not experientially. Conversely, those who investigate HR from an experiential standpoint will discover that it is both pragmatic and profound.

To get back to your question, Bill, I think that the real question most people ask when they hear someone claim that they “know” runs along the lines of “how do you know that you know?” Unless they’re really pissed off, at which point they might ask how you don’t know you’re deluded, or just flat-out tell you that you are. The only answer I can give to these questions is that the experience has a feeling of validity that cannot be doubted; it feels “realer” than real, while the overwhelming feelings of humility, compassion, exhilaration, love and joy make quite an impression. The questions I had when I returned from the unity state never once involved the validity of the experience. The questions I did have were: “Why didn’t I see this before?”, (it’s experienced as obvious when it occurs), “Who else has known this?”, “How did they try to explain it?” and “What am I supposed to do with this now that I do know it?”

So . . . the answer to your question is a qualified “yes”, which also “must be regarded as provisional until personally validated”.

[Bill I.]

Michael H: "So . . . the answer to your question is a qualified “yes”, which also “must be regarded as provisional until personally validated”."

Thanks for posting about your experience, Michael, and thanks for the Sydney Banks reference. I'll check that out.

Over the years I've had quite a few unusual and often powerful experiences, sometimes by myself, sometimes with others.

I've surveyed a great deal of material, too.

What seems to be very difficult to accomplish is replicating any of these experiences at will.

It's true I can attain a "level" now, without expending too much effort, that is well beyond what I could reach some time ago, but the more profound experiences remain elusive.

I can analyze past experiences and note certain elements present in them, but still fail to repeat them.

I suspect there are unknown and hidden "rules" to such things.

I have learned that certain types of "psychic" experiences are easier to replicate, when a group is gathered and collectively focused, but that's a bit different. (The problem with that, for me, is that those I've experienced such things with were those I met on-line; the magic of the Internet, in connecting distant people, has a downside -- often these people live quite far away. Of course it's possible to achieve certain things in the psychic department on-line, but that can run into its own impediments. I prefer to do group work live and in-person.)

Have you ever tried to replicate your experience?

Bill I.

[Pete]

“The Great Mind has no need or ability to choose anything, Pete. It is perfect and complete in itself, and encompasses absolutely everything. The choice always lies with us, as to what thoughts we choose to give life to.” -Michael H

I cannot accept this statement without some qualification. It begs the question: “If the Great Mind had no need…why would it manifest at all?” Part of the Gnostic tradition is that the Unmanifest in some sense precedes or underlies the manifest. If you are suggesting that the Great Mind has no choice but to manifest because that is part of what it is, then I would be more inclined to agree.

[william]

The great mind appears to have a necessity to create and be dynamic rather than maybe just static as pure awareness. What would pure awareness be aware of if we did not exist? Nothingness? Itself? We are the manifestation of that necessity to create. Maybe the universe is one creative thought and what happens between thoughts we do not know.

There are many theories as to why creation exists from a perfect mind but the fact that we exist suggests that some form of creation occurs. Because this great mind is infinite and therefore perfect in awareness to create entities that perceive themselves as separate and capable of relationships with one another, all creation must have some element of unawareness.

Without ignorance (unawareness) we do not exist as perceived separate entities. What a paradox some say ignorance is the enemy but without it we do not exist as perceived separate selves.

Moving beyond ignorance to perfect awareness is the journey. But as one of my students once commented, “but oh what a ride”.

[Michael H]

What seems to be very difficult to accomplish is replicating any of these experiences at will . . . Have you ever tried to replicate your experience?

I think the willing involved has to do with releasing our will, Bill. As I've tried to express before, unity or cosmic consciousness is the state of pure awareness that exists behind and beyond all of our thoughts, beliefs, concepts and memories. I'm quite sure that I arrived at the experience precisely because I wasn't looking for it. I wasn't doing anything, besides evaluating produce in a market while experiencing a particularly good mood.

My exposure to HR had taught me to learn to identify with my consciousness, not my thoughts, and to instead notice the way our consciousness interprets our thoughts, thus influencing our perception of reality. What I discovered quite quickly is that by noticing consciousness in action, our thoughts about anything and everything lose their hold on us, and are then replaced by new thoughts. Those thoughts are then released as well, and to use George Pransky's analogy, the whole process begins to look like bubbles rising to the surface of a pond that is becoming more and more still.

Once I noticed this going on within myself, there was an instantaneous release of feelings of stress and other upset that was replaced by deep feelings of humility and compassion. The humility resulted from recognizing that I'd been busy fooling myself for years; the compassion from recognizing that others are innocently busy doing the same. As time went on, my mind just kept clearing, and long-held beliefs continued to burst like bubbles reaching the surface. I just began to live in a very deep, very positive feeling state, while my mind grew quieter by the moment. To use another analogy, I began to see my personal thoughts as clouds that were obscuring an otherwise clear blue sky. Time went on, feelings deepened and the sky kept clearing. The unity consciousness experience occurred when the final cloud drifted beyond the horizon. At that moment, the sunlight literally burst through, within and without, and I knew. It felt entirely natural, and I responded by continuing to shop for my groceries, despite the fact that my surroundings were permeated by an indescribable radiance and I was experiencing a flood of incredible realizations. I remained in that state of mind for twenty or thirty minutes.

Now comes the irony. Once I noticed that what I was experienced was especially exceptional, I then settled in to a slightly lower state of mind. It was from that perspective that I evaluated the experience as profound and overwhelming. The unity experience itself created a memory, which, to use the previous analogy, became a new cloud. The reason that the experience has not replicated is because the cloud created from the powerful memory of the experience continues to obscure the sun. The sky’s still pretty clear, and I still live at a reasonably high level of consciousness, but my personal experiences in the years following have involved little more than occasional and brief glimmers of sunlight. (Not that there haven’t been occasional thunderstorms as well). If I do notice a glimmer, the memory of the experience comes to mind, and the sunlight slips behind that cloud again.

In looking back, what’s most interesting to me about the experience was the completely natural and obvious feeling to it. It was perfectly clear to me that the state of mind that I was experiencing was how human beings were meant to live. Everyone on earth has that same sunlight deep within them. We don’t live in the sunlight because we’re obsessed with the clouds, and our obsession with the clouds (our thoughts) keeps the sunlight at bay.

It’s for these reasons that I don’t think we can “try” to discover a higher level of consciousness or replicate any we’ve experienced before. The experience known as unity consciousness is nothing but the perfectly natural state, the birthright that is ours before we get busy looking for all of the answers. In order to find it we have to stop looking. I think it’s that simple, but simple isn’t always synonymous with easy.

“If the Great Mind had no need…why would it manifest at all?”

I don’t have a clue, Pete, although I do think the question itself implies that the Great Mind is “something else” that is “somewhere else”. What I realized is that we’re both inside of it and it’s inside of us . . . it’s “right here, right now” . . . and we all have the capacity to realize it. That said, I only went deep enough to know that time and space are constructs, and that what we call reality arises from a formless essence of pure love that we call God under various names. What it is, why it’s here, how it can be . . . I’ve no idea at all. I just know that it is. As I wrote in the “Seeing the Light” thread, I also went deep enough to know that no matter how profound my particular experience was, there was no end to what I was experiencing. Any given person can go much deeper than I have at any moment, and many have done so. In the end though, as Bill suggested above, what anyone else has experienced is irrelevant. The only thing that has genuine relevance to us is our own experience. I find all sorts of parallels to what I know to be true in other mystical testimony, but I also find statements with which I don’t necessarily agree. I those cases, I have to trust my own experience and common sense.

The statement, “The Unmanifest in some sense precedes or underlies the manifest”, happens to be a statement with which I agree, but I will repeat that I think it’s fruitless to try to understand the source of existence through intellectual means, because the intellect is a manifestation of the Unmanifest.

[Steen Bundgaard]

Actually it is up to debate whether we actually got a 'free will'. This article in Nature http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v11/n5/abs/nn.2112.html
suggests it is possible to predict a decision using a brain scanner long before we actually are aware of it. It is an absurd thought but still an idea many matrialists supports.

[Art]

Actually it is up to debate whether we actually got a 'free will'. - steen

I am deeply suspicious of free will and lean heavily towards fate and predestination. I think "free will" may be a trick our brains play on us. We may be more like actors in a play. My belief is based upon the numerous precognitive dreams I've had, plus the precognitive experiences and dreams of many other people I've read about. One of my favorites is about the little girl in Aberfan Wales who dreamed about her death the day before it happened. She woke up and told her mother she was buried under blackness. It's pretty dad gum amazing.

[Bill I.]

Michael H: "It’s for these reasons that I don’t think we can “try” to discover a higher level of consciousness or replicate any we’ve experienced before. The experience known as unity consciousness is nothing but the perfectly natural state, the birthright that is ours before we get busy looking for all of the answers. In order to find it we have to stop looking. I think it’s that simple, but simple isn’t always synonymous with easy."

I can relate to your description of your experiences, Michael; it includes much in common with the results of my own practices of self-observation and mind quieting techniques, although those have never yielded any experience that might be an ultimate nature.

Crown chakra expansions, rare visits to other systems of reality, dramatic instances of pre-cognition and telepathy, close conscious connections made with any number of other versions of self -- these I've experienced. I don't believe I've ever had the "grand gnosis" experience, however.

What you refer to also sounds similar to what is often called "allowing."

The seeming paradox is that we can _intend_ to enter into allowing, just as sitting and meditating is an actualized intended action, as is the doing of any of the endless available exercises for achieving some kind of expansive consciousness.

Directing conscious attention inwardly is a long established technique for heightening certain types of awareness, while some very old traditions amp this up in activities in which initiates combine the two activities of observing outward self carefully while simultaneously directing their attention inwardly.

Although I can recall some powerful experiences brought about by doing the above "watch yourself and remember yourself" type of exercise, I also confess to having fallen asleep many times after attempting to meditate when I've been out of practice.

Maybe Gurdjieff was correct when he stated that we are naturally quite lazy. Jane Robert's channelled Seth wasn't quite so hard on humanity, although he often pointed out how our conscious beliefs are quite "invisible" to us, such that we rarely notice them (and their powerful effects).

He encourages his readers to carefully examine their beliefs and attempt to modify them; he also chides readers, gently, for merely reading his exercises instead of actually doing them.

I'm not convinced the unity experience must always be spontaneous in nature, a kind of allowing, but until a simple and effective "unity experience in only 10 easy steps!" method is shown to work for nearly everyone who tries it I really can't make a strong case.

Meanwhile, in a somewhat related area, I'm in the process of organizing a group probe, involving meditation and trance writing, of Saul of Tarsus, his experience on the road to Damascus, and the curious statements made by Seth in _Seth Speaks_ regarding the activities of a modern incarnation.

Per those, this personality will -- in a way I find difficult to understand, let alone write about -- change the historical basis of Christianity.

Seth speaks of methods this personality will promote, something I've been very curious about ever since I read the relevant sections in 1982.

(I've tinkered with the idea of approximating these methods -- see Exercise 5. at http://www.realitytest.com/doors.htm -- but my crude efforts aren't likely to even slightly resemble whatever Seth was alluding to.)

It's not too difficult to imagine that the methods that, per Seth, this new edition of Saul promulgates, lead to an experience of what you're calling "unity consciousness," but before going that far, first we have to see if we can access the methods, then try them out.

So far as I know, the relevant section in _Seth Speaks_ is the only place in the entire Seth material where Seth appears to make a kind of prophecy (and one involving a very well known historical figure closely associated with a major world religion), even though he does carefully qualify his comments.

One reason this has always struck many Seth readers as being a bit odd is owing to his later exposition of the nature of probable realities, where every choice leads to a branching of reality. (Seth mentions a specific year -- 2075 -- in his 1971 channelled remarks. How could this be, considering that, per Seth, there can be no single version of 2075, while might the incarnation of Saul or Paul not even happen in any particular probable reality?)

A number of intelligent Seth readers, aware of the way channelling is necessarily "colored" or "filtered" through the channeller's mind, have posited that this section of the Seth material was influenced and/or distorted by Jane Robert's severe Catholic upbringing.

One way or the other, the little group I'm organizing will attempt to pierce this little mystery.

Bill I.

[sonic]

One of the people I revived during heart attack looked at me and asked, "Why did you do that?, I was almost there."
She was very upset with me and made me promise not to do that again.
(She died less than an hour later)
In my own experience I felt I could go or stay. I'm still here because I thought I had more to do.

[Robbie]

Recently I went on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_death_experiences
and found some biological theories on the causes of NDE'S that i've never read before. I wonder what everybody's thoughts are on these? Sorry if this is seen as slightly off topic.

[Art]

"and found some biological theories on the causes of NDE'S." - Robbie

None of these arguments ever address the mind boggling and amazing parallels, support, and corroboration between NDE's and the holographic paradigm. It's impossible to fully understand NDE's without an understand of the holographic nature of the Universe. Read the short online essay about the holographic universe http://www.earthportals.com/hologram.html#zine and then read Mark Horton's description of his near death experience. http://www.mindspring.com/~scottr/nde/markh.html The parallels are obvious.

[Zetetic_chick]

Independently of if free will exists or not, recent empirical evidence suggests that people who believes that free will doesn't exist and that we're fatally determined are more probable to cheat.

According to this study: "Surprisingly, the link between fatalistic beliefs and unethical behavior has never been examined scientifically -- until now. In two recent experiments, psychologists Kathleen Vohs of the University of Minnesota and Jonathan Schooler of the University of British Columbia decided to explore this knotty philosophical issue in the lab, and they figured out an innovative way to do it.

Vohs and Schooler set out to see if otherwise honest people would cheat and lie if their beliefs in free will were manipulated.

The psychologists gave college students a mathematics exam. The math problems appeared on a computer screen, and the subjects were told that a computer glitch would cause the answers to appear on the screen as well. To prevent the answers from showing up, the students had to hit the space bar as soon as the problems appeared.

In fact, the scientists were observing to see if the participants surreptitiously used the answers instead of solving the problems honestly on their own. Prior to the math test, Vohs and Schooler used a well-established method to prime the subjects' beliefs regarding free will: some of the students were taught that science disproves the notion of free will and that the illusion of free will was a mere artifact of the brain's biochemistry whereas others got no such indoctrination.

The results were clear: those with weaker convictions about their power to control their own destiny were more apt to cheat when given the opportunity as compared to those whose beliefs about controlling their own lives were left untouched.

Vohs and Schooler then went a step further to see if they could get people to cheat with unmistakable intention and effort. In a second study, the experimenters set up a different deception: they had the subjects take a very difficult cognitive test. Then, the subjects solved a series of problems without supervision and scored themselves. They also "rewarded" themselves $1 for each correct answer; in order to collect, they had to walk across the room and help themselves to money in a manila envelope.

The psychologists had previously primed the participants to have their beliefs in free will bolstered or reduced by having them read statements supporting a deterministic stance of human behavior. And the results were just as robust. As reported in the January issue of Psychological Science, this study shows that those with a stronger belief in their own free will were less apt to steal money than were those with a weakened belief.

Although the results of this study point to a significant value in believing that free will exists, it clearly raises some significant societal questions about personal beliefs and personal behavior."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080129125354.htm

I guess that If we feel that aren't free to choose our decisions and behaviour, then any sense of personal responsability dissapears. We'd be only mechanical automata determined by (physical) forces (or cerebral processes) that we can't control or alter. And we can't feel personal responsability for events that we can't change and modify.

The above study empirically supports this conclusion.

[Pete]

sonic: that's very moving. It must have deeply affected your life.

ZC: Very good! Free will is philosophically desirable. Without it, nothing here would have any meaning beyond an endurance test. David Bohm said that electrons make choices. Stapp says the brain is quantum, owing to “certain structural features of ion channels critical to synaptic function”. Art: I don’t follow your position. Just because we might see a probable future doesn’t mean it’s necessarily set in stone: we still have to choose an actual future. It may be that if the Aberfan girl’s mother had told kept her off school, she would still be here. I personally know someone who was briefly visited by a deceased aunt, who sat in a chair in her room and told her not to go to work that day. So she stayed at home. I guess sonic had the choice to stay or return. Don’t give up on the value of choosing. It’s what gives everything meaning.

[Michael H]

I'm not convinced the unity experience must always be spontaneous in nature, a kind of allowing, but until a simple and effective "unity experience in only 10 easy steps!" method is shown to work for nearly everyone who tries it I really can't make a strong case.

I don’t know that it’s always spontaneous or not, Bill, although most of the examples in Bucke’s book suggest that it is. In my case, I arrived at a particular peak after several months of steadily ascending higher, and there were numerous powerful insights along the way. To use another analogy, it’s as if there was a dike within my own mind that I had been busy building for years. The dike was built with bricks kilned of “thoughts and feelings about reality”. Over a period of several months, I started to deconstruct that dike, brick by brick. Every brick I removed resulted in a trickle of insight, which was accompanied by a warm, positive feeling, and each additional brick I removed added to the flow. At a given point, a particular brick was removed, the dike collapsed, and a flood occurred. And to repeat, what I experienced was not the ultimate, end-all, “grand gnosis” level by any means. It was very clear that the depth of the state of mind I was experiencing was, for all intents and purposes, infinite; that I was just wandering along in the surf of an endless ocean, enjoying the waves breaking across my ankles.

The only thing I might suggest that others take from this is an understanding that conscious experience is endless, and that cosmic or unity consciousness, when experienced, is seen as an entirely natural state of mind, not as unusual or mystical in any way – it’s only evaluated as such from levels below unity consciousness. I also think it’s helpful to understand that it can and does happen. Beyond that, I’d suggest it’s best to forget all about it.

I suppose there’s no harm in looking, but my take on this is that that anyone who’s searching for unity consciousness has turned “unity consciousness” into a concept, and to use the sky analogy again, that concept then becomes an effective cloud obscuring the sunlight behind the clouds. It’s the sunlight that actually is unity consciousness, and the sunlight’s always been there.

Another observation is that it does seem to me that young children, from maybe three to six years old, are very close to the state of mind until they learn their way out of it. I don’t think we’ll ever develop a methodology to arrive at it, because it’s something we already have; but as more realize it, we may very well learn to teach people how to stay in it, or at least close to it.

Without ignorance (unawareness) we do not exist as perceived separate entities.

Christ, Buddha and every other mystic in history all continued to exist as "perceived separate entities", William, and I don’t think they were blinded by ignorance or unawareness. The difference between mystical perception and ‘normal’ perception is only in perception. Mystical perception just expands to encompass “All that Is” . . . and “All that Is” includes everything one has been before. Whatever level of perception anyone happens to arrive at, they will discover that they are still there. It is absolutely impossible not to exist, or to exist in a state where one doesn’t perceive a self. Where we all will end up is in a state where what we continually perceive is that we’ve always been All that Is, and we’ll still be there perceiving it.

[Barbara]

Michael H >>"It is absolutely impossible not to exist, or to exist in a state where one doesn’t perceive a self."

Judging by some NDe accounts, we do perceive how ignorant we were on earth. Your statement is self-defeating because lacking full perception means exactly the same as "blinded by ignorance or unawareness". William is right.

[dmduncan]

ART, this one's for you. While updating my site I came across a story that I thought you might like, and although I realize encouraging you to read a science article with the words "hologram" and "universe" in it is probably something I will regret, here it is anyway:

"Our world may be a giant hologram."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126911.300-our-world-may-be-a-giant-hologram.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

[Michael H]

Your statement is self-defeating because lacking full perception means exactly the same as "blinded by ignorance or unawareness". William is right.

I agree that "lacking full perception" is the same as "blinded by ignorance", Barbara. But I interpret William’s statement, which he has made before, as suggesting ignorance is required in order to perceive a self. I don’t think this is true. I think that we not only always perceive a self, but that that we have no choice but to perceive a self.

You are entirely correct that NDE testimony, as well as mystical testimony, does indeed state that the realization included recognition that they had been ignorant prior to the event. They don’t claim that they didn’t exist prior to the event though, nor do they claim that they no longer exist now. What they do claim is that their understanding of the self, of “who they are”, has expanded to encompass more than they had previously understood. The ignorance might be described as ignorance of their true nature, or as ignorance of a higher aspect of the self, or as of ignorance of the existence of the divine, any of which I would fully agree with.

While I agree that there is ignorance of the true nature of the self, where I disagree is that there is no perception of self without ignorance. It may be that William intended a meaning that is different from how I’ve interpreted him. If so, he can clarify that. Still, when he writes that “without [ignorance] we do not exist as perceived separate selves”, I have to disagree. Those who do reach the highest levels of consciousness, who move beyond their ignorance, still see themselves as themselves. The Mark Horton excerpt that Art posted above is an example of that. Another statement supportive of this is made by Sri Yukteswar, in Chapter 43 of Autobiography of a Yogi, when, after discussing the astral and causal realms in his conversation with Yogananda, describes the final ascension from the causal realm as follows: "When a soul finally gets out of the three jars of bodily delusions," Master continued, "it becomes one with the Infinite without any loss of individuality".

Given that a great deal of this thread has been revolving around whether we lose our sense of individuality either at death or through realizing a higher level of consciousness while alive, William’s statement suggests that if someone were to entirely transcend ignorance they would no longer exist as a perceived separate self. I consider that to be in error, but, as mentioned, it could be that I am misinterpreting him.

[Art]

ZC: Very good! Free will is philosophically desirable. Without it, nothing here would have any meaning beyond an endurance test. pete
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm sorry but that's not true. It's not necessary for us to have free will for the soul to learn what it needs to learn. It's holistically imprinting what it's like to live in a 3 dimensional + 1 time universe, learning what it's like to be a separate, unique, individual, and making memories of what it's like to see, hear, taste, feel, and smell, making memories of what it's like to live in a universe where stuff exists rather than live in a universe where nothing exists. There is so much to this life that can't be understood unless you've experienced it. You can't really know what an olive tastes like unless you've put one in your mouth and bit into it. You can't really know what it's like to make love to another person unless you've actually experienced it. Just reading about it or even watching a dvd of two people making love is not enough to say that you truly and fully understand what it's like to make love to another person. The only way you can full understand what it feels like to make love to another person is if you've done it. What about driving a car? It's not enough to just read a manual or watch a video. You have to actually get in the car and develop the skills to drive. Riding a bike, same thing. The other side is a place where thoughts become things and consciousness creates reality. But, before you can create your own reality you have to have some idea about what kind of reality you might wish to create. The alternative is to live in eternal nothingness, which sounds horribly boring to me. The whole purpose of this life is to learn what it's like to be alive, what it's like to be inside a body. What time and space look and feel like. What it feels like to physically love a person, what it tastes, smells, sounds, and feels like to eat delicious food, to physically love another person - and we will use all this information to create some kind of reality on the other side - and the beautiful thing about it is that we won't be limited to just the information that have learned but will have access to all the information in the entire universe. In a hologram everything is interconnected. Everything interpenetrates everything. We will be able to select information gathered from trillions of lifetimes on trillions of planets and soar like an eagle or swim like a porpoise or dolphin and know what it's like to love and be loved. We don't live for just ourselves. The soul's lessons are embedded in our everyday lives and it learns holistically or is imprinted holistically with what it needs to learn whether we want it to be or not. Just as we go about our daily lives the soul learns about duality and separation, time and space, and makes memories of what it's like to be alive and live in a 3 dimensional + 1 time universe.

[Art]

I'm not even sure it's necessary to be sentient or conscious for the soul to learn what it needs to learn. Perhaps dinosaurs, birds, reptiles, etc. have "souls" and those souls what they are supposed to be learning? It's just that if you are sentient and conscious you are more fully able to experience duality and separation - and the more emotional the experience the more powerful and long lasting the memory it creates. Emotion seems to be the energy of the soul. This may be why we are not allowed to know absolutely 100% for certain that there is life after death. If we knew for sure that the purpose of this life was to experience separation - and that one day we were going to be reunited with all our loved ones we had lost - we might not mourn quite as much and death of a loved one would cease to be the powerful lesson in separation that it is. We mourn and while doing so our souls experience separation, thus learning what it means and how it feels to be separate. NDE'ers report that we on this side can't begin to understand the overwhelming feelings of oneness and connectedness on the other side, and I believe that those feelings of oneness are so powerful that it may be impossible to "become" a separate, unique, individual while "living" in heaven.