IMG_0569
Blog powered by Typepad

« NDE top forty | Main | Segway to the afterlife »

Comments

"I must admit that the concepts his patients elucidate while in trance somehow "ring true" to me. Of course, the fact that something feels right doesn't prove that it's actually true."
------------------------------------------

All the evidence for reincarnation can be 100% completely true - and yet our interprertation of what the evidence means can be 100% wrong. Sort of like Betty Eadie's belief that the Light she encountered was absolutely Jesus Christ. It may have been Jesus Christ, but it could also be all the other "gods" that humans believe in too. Sort of like a kaliedoscope and what you see depends on how you turn the knob at the end. In a hologram the angle at which the light enters the holographic film dictates what is projected from that piece of film.

excerpt from Mellen Benedict's NDE:
"The light kept changing into different figures, like Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, mandalas, archetypal images and signs. I asked the light, "What is going on here? Please, light, clarify yourself for me. I really want to know the reality of the situation." I cannot really say the exact words, because it was sort of telepathy. The light responded. The information transferred to me was that your beliefs shape the kind of feedback you are getting before the light. If you were a Buddhist or Catholic or Fundamentalist, you get a feedback loop of your own stuff."
http://near-death.com/experiences/reincarnation04.html

We see what we expect to see. I seem to encounter or run into a lot of people who absolutely love reincarnation and are endlessly fascinated by it. A lot of my wife's friends have an endless fascination with it and like to talk about soul groups and all that stuff. Me? Not so much. I'm hoping it has more to do with that oneness/connectedness holographic thing instead of actual souls having to come back. Why anyone would want to come back here is completely beyond my comprehension?

Seth's statements on reincarnation are the most interesting I've ever come across, especially the idea that because there's no such thing as time, we are all living our multiple lives at once. Not only that, but we each have a higher soul to which all of these lives are a part of. I do like his idea that we experience life as all different kinds of people, different races, male and female, rich, poor, all designed I think to show us different aspects of physical life and human experience. I've read most of the Seth books, and for the life of me, still can't figure out how Jane Roberts came up with all of it.

"Seth's statements on reincarnation are the most interesting I've ever come across"

I agree, Michael and Kathleen. Seth speaks so beautifully about the reincarnational scheme—with such clarity, consistency, logic, insight, confidence and optimism (how's that for a list!)—that it's hard to think of him as anything other than what he claims to be: one who's observing it all from a larger perspective, delighted to share what he sees.

Reincarnation being true,that part can be swallowed down.(though it was hard for me to accept)

The way reincarnation works however many people have differing views over.

I dislike Seth's philosophy on this basically because choosing when and as who you will be born means completely disregarding cause and effect and thus harmony of the universe,and all forms of life in it.

Instead there is a view that those who die either pass over into the afterlife spheres of light or darkness,and the(mayority) who need to reincarnate are automatically attracted by another sphere,a sphere of unconsiousness before being born on earth where cause and effect and karma are meant to take place.

Especially knowing that people don't always understand the new conditions they are in,in the afterlife,how would their choices not be based on chaos?Mankind doesn't exactly make the best options when they have all the options in the world available to them.

To me,everything about the afterlife from lightspheres to darkness shows an elegant form of progress of harmony,not always by choice of men,but by evolution of creation itself.

My bad about the spelling,english is not my native language and i'm half asleep,oh well hope you understood what I meant :)

To what extent can "life after death" be said to be true if we forget who we were after we reincarnate. I don't consider reincarnation to be "life after death." If I don't remember being "Art" then for all intents and purposes "Art" ceases to exist. If there is not some kind of continuity with this life, like a song with notes that all smoothly transitition from one to another reincarnation is NOT life after death.

The general idea is that you have a sort of amnesia during each incarnation, but the amnesia wears off between lives. So there is continuity, but it's the continuity of what we might think of as the oversoul, rather than the small, earth-bound ego. Plato reflects this view in his story of the soldier Er, who traveled to the afterlife and saw souls sipping the waters of the River Lethe in order to induce forgetfulness before reincarnating.

The Seth books claim that our true personality is multidimensional, and that each incarnation is a facet of this larger self. The channeled entity Silver Birch said something similar, comparing the true self to a diamond and each incarnational personality to one facet of the diamond.

Art, do you remember your first few years of life? Or what it was like to live in the womb? All those wonderful, terrible, events happened, and yet when you try to recall that period now, it is (I would assume) a complete blank.

Your forgetting them doesn't make those portions of your existence less valid or less important. It seems that forgetting, in various ways and for various reasons, is an important part of the cosmic game we play.

Actually, if we remembered everything, life might be pretty dull. I think that's why movies and stories about people with amnesia are so popular. We're ALL amnesia "victims".

Hi Michael, I noticed your blogs have been light lately. (didn't want to ask). I hope, though, that whatever is "getting in the way" is not horrible and that you and those you live are well.

Bruce makes an interesting point in the lack of memories while we are infants. I think something that goes with it is assuming materialism is the correct model and an infant dies at an age before he/she is old enough to develop an episodic memory, from their perspective it will be like they never existed. But to everyone else, they were a laughing, crying, eating, baby. Weird, eh?

"an infant dies at an age before he/she is old enough to develop an episodic memory"

Actually, Aftrbrnr, I don't think that we're *incapable* of remembering our infancy, I think we choose not to. (Subconsciously, of course). Many people do have clear verifiable memories of their infancy and even their birth.

I once had a girlfriend who was astounded, in deep psychotherapy, to recover memories of her mother's attempt to abort her with what was likely a knitting needle.

It's a controversial area, I know, but I, for one, have no doubt that such memories are valid.

At the other extreme, I've met people who can't remember a thing before they were 10 or so. It always amazes me, but that too is a true fact. And my guess is that one reason we may choose not to remember our early years is that there's too much emotional pain attached to them.

My mom has difficulty remembering my childhood mishaps. She totally forgets that I fell out of a tree when I was five, or that I hit a car while I was speeding downhill on a red wagon with my best friend when I was four. I have the scars to show for my adventures, but poor mom just can't remember those events. Dad says she barely survived my childhood.

Interesting, Sandy. Do you think your mom blocked out the memory of those events because they were painful for her? I'm assuming her memory of your childhood is otherwise good?

Yes, poor mom still can't stand to see me do anything dangerous. According to dad she refused to stay and watch my plane take off the first time I had to take a float plane up north for a job. He wanted to watch, but mom didn't want to be seen crying, so she insisted they had to head back home right away. The summer I joined the military mom wouldn't even talk to me for the first couple of weeks. She was that upset about it.

That being said, she's seen me close to death on more than one occasion. You can hardly blame her for not wanting to think about such things. I did have a happy childhood, and that's what's important.

One of the things I found interesting about Seth is that he didn't seem to take his many "lives" very seriously. I was thinking that maybe if this is the way it really is, when we're in that "in-between" state, our lives may just seem like different games to us, because we know we can't be destroyed. It might be similar to playing a video game. I don't know if anyone's had this experience, but years ago I used to play the "Aliens" video game; my friend and I would turn out the lights to make it even "scarier." I'd find myself almost looking over my shoulder and jumping a few times (and earned the nickname of Trigger Happy), it seemed "so real." Then when the game was over, it was all just laughing about it.

Maybe the only way you can really experience amnesia is being born on Earth, so that's why people do it. Otherwise, I'd think all the different planes are enough variety of experience to keep me going a while.

I suppose, eventually, I would feel like redefining myself. That's when it might be time to give myself a clean slate. Short of shake the cosmic etch-a-sketch.

Infinity is a long time to exist. It's hard to wrestle with, but eventually 'Cyrus' has to die. I just sort of like the idea that whether I am amnesiac or not, there's always a part of 'me' that is fundamental; like a fundamental aspect of the universe, as essential as the color red, or the feelings of heat, cold, pleasure, pain.

Cyrus, are you saying that the prospect of being you forever kind of scares you? I know some people who don't like the idea of an afterlife for that reason.

"Maybe the only way you can really experience amnesia is being born on Earth, so that's why people do it."

I don't think of amnesia as an on/off phenomenon, but rather, as a matter of degree.

My guess is that the depth of forgetfulness varies according to the level of existence in which we find ourselves. The earth game entails heavy amnesia, the lower astral levels or afterdeath states less, while the higher planes—Nirvana, perhaps?—offer the greatest remembrance of who and what we really are.

"I suppose, eventually, I would feel like redefining myself. That's when it might be time to give myself a clean slate. Short of shake the cosmic etch-a-sketch."

Nice way to describe reincarnation, Cyrus!

Although I'm always changing (comparing me now, versus when I was 18 and awkward, shudder), my core essence remains the same.

I can understand why this scares people. Infinity is a very big word. Try to wrap your mind around it (or a better idea, don't): Imagine 100,000,000 trillion years, and then multiply that by 100,000,000, and that's still not infinity. We better damn well hope time really-REALLY doesn't exist like many NDE reports suggest.

But if some semblance of time remains... and I think it does.. what's the maximum time that you will be 'you'? I think it's all based in free-will. But, for whatever reason spatial consciousness has elected to be aware of itself as 'Cyrus', this will someday change.

I think we're all the same entity... the same being... and this adds some comfort. So, we are not trapped as some single individual for 'infinity'. Rather, we're everyone. I'm you, you're me. We are the same mind interacting with itself. And, this concept used to frighten me even more than infinity did! But now it just feels like the way it has to be. Existence would be strangely lonely if we didn't have the ability to be anybody, anything. This gives an infinite variety to fill an infinite bubble of things-to-do.

And, when I think of it like that, life doesn't seem so bad!

But I do think it means in the 'hereafter', we are still going to wrestle with concepts like death.

Imagine, you've known somebody for... a thousand years. Now, she decides to re-join the cosmic soup, and get born again as some new identity. You think it's bad when people die here, imagine when it happens after you've had a millenia to bond with a person. This life might just be training wheels for the level of intensity of the next.

But, I also think it's good. There's always going to be light with dark, tragedy and love. Sometimes chaos and conflict is necessary for creating unique experiences. Which is why I still consider myself something of a 'left hand' spiritualist. Not exactly a 'satanist', but I understand the importance of darkness.

/tangent-off

I realize the post I just made seems to suggest that perhaps we go to the afterlife, and in a way-- we are still mortal.

Guess what? I actually believe that. While our essence may be eternal. Socially and objectively speaking, I still think we die.

Plot-twist

Micheal (About Micheal Newton)

I meantioned this to you before. Two guys from the UK did a research project on LBL hypnosis. The used 5 people who had once read newton and 5 who had not. About 80% of the time they answers were similar in nature.

Still I think N.D.E. and child cases of reincarnation are better evidence that LBL.

Here's the Book.

http://www.amazon.com/Wisdom-Soul-Profound-Insights-Between/dp/0954917618/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1285965287&sr=8-1

Thanks, Matthew. I've read a couple of Ian Lawton's books, but not that one. Maybe I'll pick it up when my current reading list has been completed.

The only question I would have (not having read the book) is whether the therapist could have unwittingly led the hypnotized subjects to supply the desired answers.

they really go into that quite a bit Micheal, they also look into "conscious interference." That try to use very open ended questions and they try to detect conscious interference. They even started with 14 subjects and took 4 out of the experiment because they believed that there was conscious interference involved. They really did try to account or control for other variables.

Ian Lawton even said "I still cannot control for the possibility that the subjects are (downloading) these ideas from my own mind."

Also, some of the answers were even different from Micheal Newtons. The introduction of the book is available for read on Amazon.

Thanks for the valueable blog listings.This is a very good list. More than useful links for Blog can find on their my site there nearby 60.
Thank you for a very useful site... I have you bookmarked, and will keep my fingers crossed that I may generate traffic to my site!
Nice list. I will use it in future. Thanks for the efforts to make this list!Nice list. I will use it in future. Thanks for the efforts to make this list!
Added to delicious and my blog. Thanks for the info.

ian looks to be malfunctioning. ;)

The bots are here, it's kind of a shame because if it weren't for that, the comments section of blog posts could be open indefinitely.

The comments to this entry are closed.