I've now read more than half of Nanci L. Danison's book Backwards - enough to make a few provisional comments about it. I've also read parts of her blog, which is quite interesting.
I can't evaluate the biographical details of her book. I don't know what the facts surrounding her near-death experience might be. All I can do is assess her claims on a subjective basis - namely, do they make sense to me? Do they help to explain things that are otherwise inexplicable? Do they cohere with other accounts that I find basically reliable?
There's nothing particularly "scientific" about these criteria. I'm not sure that metaphysical speculation about the nature and purpose of reality fits within the confines of science or of the scientific method. Answering these questions is a personal journey that each of us undertakes on our own.
Danison's main point is that, while we think of ourselves as human beings who have a soul, we would be more correct in viewing ourselves as souls who temporarily inhabit human bodies. This may sound like a distinction without a difference, but it turns out to be pretty important. What it means is that there are two loci of consciousness in each of us - the limited, reflexive, instinctual, not especially reflective or self-aware consciousness of a human being, and the larger, more comprehensive, nonjudgmental, unconditionally loving consciousness of the "Light Being" that inhabits its human "host." What we think of as the soul is a complex interplay or blending of these two levels of consciousness, with one or the other predominating in any given situation.
Personally, I find this idea useful in explaining humanity's dualistic nature. Most of us have probably had the experience of feeling primitive, raw, violent emotions at one time or another, and may have been a little shocked at ourselves for exhibiting this animalistic quality. And there is no doubt that the human organism can behave much like an animal; the fight-or-flight response, for instance, is not controlled by the reasoning mind, but originates in a more primitive part of the brain. A great deal of human experience seems to be the product of biology, and yet purely biological explanations are hard-pressed to deal with the higher accomplishments of the human species. It's hard to see how there could be any Darwinian survival value in the ability to compose a symphony or perform Fourier analysis. To all appearances, it really does seem as though we are composed of two parts: our biological, animal nature, which is mechanistic, limited, and oriented toward survival and reproduction; and our higher spiritual self, which cannot be explained by reductionism and is not necessarily "practical" in terms of everyday earthly existence.
If you think about it, I suspect you will find many examples in your own life, and in history, of the tug-of-war between the animal side of human nature and the spiritual side. This is not to say that the animal side is "bad." Danison takes pains to explain that, as a living organism, the human being is naturally motivated to defend its own interests and secure its own safety, to compete with other humans for scarce resources, and to favor close biological relatives or sexual partners over strangers from different tribes. Without the instincts for self-preservation and reproduction, without the sometimes cruel qualities required for survival in the wild, human beings would have faced extinction long ago. Just as we would not regard a pack of wolves as "bad" because they don't adhere to "civilized" standards of conduct, we shouldn't regard natural human behavior as bad simply because it fails to live up to the more advanced, but (in earthly terms) sometimes impractical, standards of the Light Beings.
In this respect, it's worth pointing out that the greatest messengers of spiritual truth often counsel us to do things that seem quite impractical. Jesus' admonitions to turn the other cheek, "resist not evil," and leave our livelihood to Providence ("the lilies of the field ...") are beautifully expressed, but probably could not be carried out as an actual design for living - at least not for very long. Perhaps a few advanced individuals could live that way, but most of us would probably end up as victims of more aggressive persons or at the mercy of nature. The advice, in other words, seems to relate to another sphere of existence, in which ordinary human concerns over self-preservation and practical planning are irrelevant. The sphere of the Light Beings, perhaps.
The idea that there are two levels of consciousness in each of us may be hard to accept (though personally I find it quite plausible); but Danison goes further, explaining that there are many more levels of consciousness. She writes,
During my beyond-death experience I was astonished to experience a transition from the "self" I had known in the body through higher and higher levels of consciousness, each of which I remembered having lived before. Each one felt like the "real" me, only with far greater mental capacity, memory, and abilities as I progressed through the process. I understood at last that what we really are is a compilation of multiple levels of consciousness, each of which perceives itself to be a singular, unique person. Each has its own method of origin, lifespan, and innate nature.
In other words, each Light Being undergoes many incarnations, experiencing an almost infinite variety of situations. But why? The answer, according to Danison, is deceptively simple: God, which she dubs Source, has split itself into countless Light Beings for the purpose of experiencing everything that can be experienced. Although in our human incarnation we may long for a feeling of oneness with the universe,
... the human experience is about separateness. Individuality. We are here precisely to experience that feeling.
In Danison's view, there can be no bad experiences when viewed from the perspective of the Being of Light. The most miserable, wretched earthly life will still yield a trove of sensations, perceptions, insights, and memories treasured by our higher self. In fact, the whole idea of good and bad is a strictly human perspective; and while necessary to bring order to human society, it's not part of a higher plan. The higher plan is simply to maximize experiences of all kinds, whether "good" or "bad."
This viewpoint reminds me of Gnosticism, which similarly holds that God wishes to have a broad variety of experiences and is not interested in traveling a narrow, moralistically defined path. The early Christian Gnostics were classed as heretics by more conventional Christians in part because they did not believe that any behavior was actually good or evil when viewed from a higher perspective.
But why would anyone choose to incarnate if the life in question will be one of misery and pain? Danison suggests that the experience could compared to watching a horror movie or reading a depressing novel. Many of us seek out these experiences because we know that the movie or book is only a fantasy, and it takes up only a little of our time without any lasting negative effects. From the point of view of a Light Being, Danison says, earthly life is not quite real, but more like a dream, and a lifetime of pain and deprivation is only a passing, momentary event.
If there is no good and evil from a spiritual perspective, then how can we explain persistence in the belief in eternal punishment, which finds some support in nightmarish or hellish NDEs? Danison writes,
Some year-death experiencers (NDErs) report trips to hell after they leave their bodies. My understanding of our nature as Light Beings leads me to believe that those NDErs may not have gone far enough through the transition from human to Being of Light to lose their combined human/soul personalities. So they manifested events born of human fear, as though they were still in the body.
Alternatively, these NDErs may consider the life review, with its associated emotions, to be a form of punishment expected only in hell.... Yet it is temporary. All hellish or unpleasant events experienced after permanently leaving the body after its death are temporary, and last only so long as it takes you to come to terms with the end of your human adventure and make emotional peace with yourself.
Presumably, so-called earthbound spirits who remain attached to the earth plane or who wander in limbo also have not completed "the transition from human being to Being of Light." Since time is a quality of the earth plane but not of the spiritual world, they may remain lost and confused for what seems like a considerable amount of time by earthly standards. (This is my interpretation; so far I haven't come across anything in Danison's book that addresses this issue.)
Overall I find Backwards intriguing and helpful in resolving certain questions about dualism, morality, and the purpose of life. That's not to say I agree with everything the author says. One area where I differ involves her assertion that we all manifest our own reality. She writes,
Tomorrow morning, when you awake, you will manifest into reality precisely what you went to bed believing about your world. You do it from memory. From habit. If you are not sure about this, remember that for centuries Europeans lived on a flat Earth. They experienced our planet as flat, saw it ending at the horizon, and therefore believed Earth to be a plate. Reality stayed that way until Christopher Columbus and others disproved human perception by sailing past the horizon without falling off.
I have some problems with this. To begin with, educated Europeans of Columbus's day did not believe that the Earth was flat. They knew it was round; their disagreement with Columbus was that they believed the circumference of the globe was too great for a voyage from Europe to India to be practical. Columbus disagreed, thinking the Earth was small enough to allow a direct westward voyage. In fact, the authorities were correct, and Columbus was wrong. Columbus's voyage would have ended in failure if he hadn't come across the Americas, which he mistakenly believed to be India.
Leaving aside this historical issue, I don't believe that anyone has ever "lived on a flat Earth." Certainly many people have believed the earth was flat, but I don't buy the idea that their belief changed physical reality. External reality on spiritual planes does appear to be a direct projection of consciousness, but I don't think the physical world is equally malleable. Indeed, I think this is one of the key differences between the Earth plane and spiritual planes.
For that reason, I'm skeptical of the idea that we can change material reality by adjusting our thoughts and expectations, by saying affirmations, or by meditating intently. I'm not saying these practices have no effect, but I'm not convinced they can yield tangible benefits in most cases - though in some remarkable (one might say "miraculous") cases, they do.
Another thing I don't particularly like about Danison's book is the title. I realize this is petty, but I just don't think Backwards is a very good name for the book. I understand that the author is telling us that we've got it all backwards, starting with the idea that we are human beings with souls rather than souls (or more correctly, Light Beings) enjoying a symbiotic relationship with human organisms. Nevertheless, if I'd published the book, I would've called it something else.
So that's my two cents about the fifty percent of the book I've read so far. I know that one or two commenters are reading it, and others have looked at Danison's blog. What do you think?
Michael said:
"Another thing I don't particularly like about Danison's book is the title. . . . I understand that the author is telling us that we've got it all backwards"
That's funny--my first impression was that the name has a different rationale entirely. It wasn't until I got further into the book that I understood the title the way you do.
The other way of explaining the name is that it describes the journey we take to re-unite with Source.
Source sends us forth into the universe as parts of itself, so that we can be its arms and legs--its extensions into the physical dimension. And then we spend our lives reversing direction--traveling backwards--until we finally merge once again with Source.
I wasn't impressed by the name either, til I came to understood the other meaning--the one you're referring to. But now that I think of it as having TWO sides, I think maybe the title isn't so bad.
After all, the word describes our life's--or multiple-lives'--project, right? Traveling backwards, making that elusive return trip to the Home we left long ago.
But maybe I should trust you on this one, Michael. I've always been impressed by your feel for titles--the names you come up with for your posts. They're to-the-point, fresh, and often have a clever twist.
So maybe you know a bad title when you see one.
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | August 05, 2011 at 12:27 AM
A good resume, Michael.
The overwhelming impression I got from Danison’s book was that if she went so far into the light, why did she come back with so few answers, and why do the answers she gives raise so many questions.
Aside from the issues you raise, I particularly regret her lack of information about exactly what the “human animal” is. She says that it’s been designed to be different from Source so that Source can experience what it already knows intellectually. Really?! As Art says (in the previous thread), the emotional immediacy of life for many makes it almost unbearable. It’s a huge cop-out to say that from Source’s perspective, it’s only a dream and we’ll soon get over it. That’s no better than saying that your pain isn’t real because I’m not feeling it! Or that it’s not really pain at all, it’s just the imagination of pain.
She doesn’t explain how, if everything derives from Source, human animals can, in fact, be different from Source. What are the mechanisms for the limitation of the human animal’s responses?
Footnote 30, which says the human animal can exist without a soul, is a shock. So some humans are bots in the computer game. How many, she doesn’t know. If you’d gone into the light, wouldn’t you have tried to find out? And do other animals have souls? Again, unclear.
How was the Earth set up? By mathematical algorithms? She doesn’t say.
I say Nanci needs another download.
Posted by: Ben | August 05, 2011 at 12:49 AM
Michael, have you read her NDE yet? One of the things that struck me was her immediate nostalgia for life in the body. Even as she describes the ecstasy of her initial embrace by the Light, she also says:
"Much of what happened to me was breathtakingly surprising. Like the fact that I missed the feeling of being alive in a way only a human body can feel. No more could I snuggle into another person's loving embrace, or feel soft breezes on my face, rain pelting my head . . ."
I've heard after-death communicators talk about missing the physicality of life on Earth, but i've never known how to take those remarks. So this is an interesting confirmation, and rather surprising too, I think, given how soon into her experience she feels that loss.
Her words might also be support for the idea that reincarnation really does have its perks--pleasures we take for granted here on Earth that simply can't be enjoyed in the spiritual realm.
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | August 05, 2011 at 01:14 AM
Ben said:
"So some humans are bots in the computer game. How many, she doesn’t know. If you’d gone into the light, wouldn’t you have tried to find out? And do other animals have souls? Again, unclear."
So, Ben, you know exactly what you'd investigate if you had a near-death experience, is that right? I think you might want to re-consider that.
Anyone who's had an extraordinary experience like an NDE--an event that involves an unimaginable alteration in consciousness--understands that there's not the slightest way to predict how you'll feel or what you'll do under those circumstances.
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | August 05, 2011 at 01:16 AM
Normally, I'd agree Bruce, but Nanci claims she went further into the light than anyone else, she didn't know she was coming back, and then had another download later on.
So I expect more data.
Posted by: Ben | August 05, 2011 at 01:25 AM
Ben, two other factors you have to consider:
1. How is possible for you to know what, or how much, information is available to an experiencer? What possible basis for determining that do you have?
2. How can you know how much any experiencer will be able to REMEMBER of the things they learned? NDErs all say they learned so much more than they were able to bring back. So you may "expect more data" but I truly can't see how you have any reasonable grounds for doing so.
By the way, I do remember her saying that she went very deep into the Light. Did she really say that she went further than anyone else? You may well be right, but could you find that quote for me?
Thanks!
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | August 05, 2011 at 01:57 AM
Maybe she is just making everything up? You got to ask yourself that question too...What should her motivation for sticking to what she truly experienced in her NDE (maybe just a tunnel and a life review) be?
Posted by: sbu | August 05, 2011 at 01:58 AM
"Maybe she is just making everything up? You got to ask yourself that question too"
To be honest, it's a question I often ask myself about anyone who claims to have a psychic or deeply spiritual experience. I really am a skeptic, you see.
But then I remember my own experiences, and those of friends whom I deeply trust. How do I explain away those?
So that helps me trust people like Nanci D.
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | August 05, 2011 at 02:11 AM
But then I remember my own experiences, and those of friends whom I deeply trust. How do I explain away those?
So that helps me trust people like Nanci D.
I can only envy you for your spiritual enlightment. Having never experienced anything slightly paranormal at all it's hard to trust others experiences. That's why I prefer the more structured approach of PSI research and the AWARE study to these things.
Posted by: sbu | August 05, 2011 at 03:45 AM
Did she have any veridical experiences?
Posted by: jshgfcre98ijyds | August 05, 2011 at 03:47 AM
That's why I prefer the more structured approach of PSI research and the AWARE study to these things.
Someone recently asked me why I bother being a research participant because it wasn't like I needed to see research done to know what I already know. And of course there are people who are going to disregard the findings outright, just because they are "skeptics" (but not in the true sense of the word).
My answer is that I think it's important. In part because it's helped me to cope with my own experiences better. It's helped my marriage because my husband gets a lot of comfort from the fact that there are scientists trying to make sense of things that used to freak him out quite badly. But I also think it's important to do what I can to help people understand and learn about psi/pk.
I can't change the world. The paradigm will not change on my account. But a few people interested in learning about anomalous phenomenon will learn something. I think that's important.
Posted by: Sandy | August 05, 2011 at 04:46 AM
"By the way, I do remember her saying that she went very deep into the Light. Did she really say that she went further than anyone else? You may well be right, but could you find that quote for me?" -Bruce
I exaggerated when I said she went further into the light than anyone else; but on her blog she does say she thinks she went very deep (at times calling it a “death” experience rather than a ‘near death’ experience).
In the end, what has she told us? That Source is unconditional love. That we are aspects of source, experiencing on Source’s behalf. That humans are dual body/soul creatures. That there are multiple incarnations.
Original? No. Lots of happy-clappy, not much nitty-gritty. But that seems to be the NDE way. I agree with you, Bruce. I expect too much.
This is because in the one area where she is notably original – that some humans don’t have souls, I would have liked more detail, or evidence. I’d settle for that.
Posted by: Ben | August 05, 2011 at 05:06 AM
"Original? No."
I think her take on the relationship between the Light Being and its human "host" is somewhat original. The idea that there are two loci of consciousness is helpful to me. YMMV.
"Maybe she is just making everything up?"
It's possible, but if so, she's come up with an interesting perspective. She doesn't seem to be doing this for money; her newsletter is free, and her books are not bestsellers (check the Amazon sales rankings).
Posted by: Michael Prescott | August 05, 2011 at 07:03 AM
Hi Michael,
The 'creating your own reality' bit has been covered by Seth in more detail decades ago. The idea that Seth presents is that we DO create our reality but it is not as simple as doing a bit of positive thinking and a beer fridge appears in the next room.
Seth says we have an inner ego and an outer ego. Beliefs held by the inner ego are then reflected into the outer ego and from there we experience the created world.
We can hold all kinds of beliefs in the outer ego, but this won't change our reality. Only by altering the inner ego can we effect changes. This is VERY difficult: it takes a lot of practice and long term commitment. It is not a simple case of positive thinking.
Even more importantly, Seth says we create cooperatively as well, and we come into this world having made an agreement to accept the 'officially accepted reality'. This core set of beliefs about physical reality (indeed it creates physical reality) is programmed into our inner ego.
It is possible to change this hard wiring but it won't be easy.
Regarding the physical body's own awareness, Seth and Elias say that the physical body has its own awareness, known as the body consciousness. The body consiousness is self-aware but not in quite the same way as we are. It operates more as a cooperative structure made up of minute units of consciousness who agree to come together to form your body for the duration of your experience. Once you are finished, the units of consciousness go their seperate ways and move into different agreements.
I think this description of two types of awareness are quite close to what Danison is talking about.
Posted by: Douglas | August 05, 2011 at 07:04 AM
sbu said:
"I can only envy you for your spiritual enlightment."
I wouldn't call myself enlightened, except perhaps, in a relative sense. "Spiritual growth"--now that's a phrase I feel more comfortable with.
"Having never experienced anything slightly paranormal at all it's hard to trust others experiences. That's why I prefer the more structured approach of PSI research and the AWARE study to these things."
I really hear you on that. Back in the early 1990's, when I was just opening up to spirituality after decades as an atheist, it took me a while to gain confidence in the existence of psi. And the thing that finally did the trick for me was a lengthy experiment I did over a period of months through which I ultimately ended up proving--to myself--that I was having precognitive dreams.
So that gave me the best of both worlds: a structured approach (your words), combined with personal experience (my dreams).
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | August 05, 2011 at 08:09 AM
"The 'creating your own reality' bit has been covered by Seth in more detail decades ago. The idea that Seth presents is that we DO create our reality but it is not as simple as doing a bit of positive thinking and a beer fridge appears in the next room."
-------------------------------------------
LOL! The Powerball jackpot is up to $180 Million dollars and I am fixing to go out in a little bit and buy a few tickets ($3.00 worth). I'll try visualizing myself as a winner and see how that works! What the heck? It's not like I've got any other vices like cigarettes, alcohol, or illegal drugs. I don't even go out to eat all that often. Mostly I stay home and eat chicken leg quarters and Ramen noodles........
Posted by: Art | August 05, 2011 at 08:22 AM
There seems to be some agreement amongst mediums (or psychics that have been examined by the SPR) that space and time are not the same in the next world (or are not perceived to be the same). This would seem to severely limit the applicability of philosophy of science, as developed on this world, to the next world.
That the science of this world has abolished the "Ether" does not affect its possible existence in the next world.( the ability of aports and apparitions to move through walls would suggest that the "Ether" of the next world has no resistance)
If we have no knowledge of science as it exists on the next world, there is almost nothing we can say with any certainty; except perhaps that a survey of psychic phenomena that has occurred in this world may , by sheer numbers, give us a base.
In this light Mrs Crowe's book "The Night side of Nature" may be a lot more valuable than as just a collection of ghost stories.
Robert Dale Owen, in his book "Footfalls on the Boundary of another World" also advises that an historical survey of psychic data is a necessary first step
Posted by: Jack | August 05, 2011 at 08:30 AM
Ben said:
"Original? No."
So many thousands of NDE accounts later, maybe it's asking a lot for an author to be very original. And let's face it, if her account were TOO different, we'd be saying, "Wow--where's THAT coming from. I never heard about that aspect of the NDE. Maybe she's mistaken or making it up."
Think about it.
I haven't finished the book yet, but I agree with Michael that she talks with unusual depth about the relationship between the human host and the spiritual entity that inhabits it.
In addition, she gives new insight, in my opinion, into the reunion that occurs between the (dying) soul and the other members of its soul group that are awaiting it on the other side. I enjoyed that part of her account a lot.
I also appreciate her confirmation of the basic fact that Source splits itself up into an infinite number of entities, each of which is gifted with amnesia as to its origin, so that each can experience the adventure of re-discovering its divinity. (Ok, I admit it--I added that because no one on this forum seems to take me seriously when I myself bring up that concept.) :o)
And there are smaller things, like what I described in my comment (August 05, 2011 at 01:14 AM) about her nostalgia for being in a body, that I find fascinating.
Is the book deeply original? Think of it this way: people have been having, and describing, spiritual experiences for thousand of years. After all this time, maybe the best an experiencer can do is to re-affirm the fundamental spiritual truths--what Huxley calls The Perennial Philosophy--that lie at the heart of reality.
And hopefully, in the process, give an honest account of a personal journey--the quirky details that make each story fresh. And though I'm only about halfway through the book, I think Danison is doing pretty well.
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | August 05, 2011 at 09:13 AM
"This would seem to severely limit the applicability of philosophy of science, as developed on this world, to the next world."
Actually, our science might be more applicable in the next world. Many equations in physics are time reversable, that is they work just a well if time is increasing or decreasing. However as biological consciousnesses we never experience time decreasing. For example, an anti-matter particle is mathematically the same as the corresponding normal partical going backwards in time. Anti particles are detectable by our psyical instruments but we see/experience them as anti-particles moving forward not as particles moving backwards in time - because our brain can only percieve time moving forward.
"That the science of this world has abolished the "Ether" does not affect its possible existence in the next world."
The theory of ether, to a mainstream physicist, made very specific predictions that could be detected by experiments - and those experiments did not detect any ether. However the same word ether is often used in spiritual discussions to describe the "matter" of which the spirit world is made from. I think whether or not you can say ether exists, just depends on how you define it.
Posted by: jshgfcre98ijyds | August 05, 2011 at 09:36 AM
"Regarding the physical body's own awareness, Seth and Elias say that the physical body has its own awareness, known as the body consciousness. The body consiousness is self-aware but not in quite the same way as we are. "
I used to go to a Spiritualist church where one of the members used to lead a healing meditation where he would have people talk to each of their bodily organs and thank them for their work in supporting life.
He didn't invet this. I forget who did but they have a school, and followers, and stories of miraculus healings etc.
Posted by: jshgfcre98ijyds | August 05, 2011 at 09:42 AM
"Danison's main point is that, while we think of ourselves as human beings who have a soul, we would be more correct in viewing ourselves as souls who temporarily inhabit human bodies."
Yepper, that's pretty much what I believe.
--------------------------------------------
"the human experience is about separateness. Individuality. We are here precisely to experience that feeling."
Yep, that too. If not then the creator of the Universe is quite stupid and inept since life seems to be one big long lesson in separation - from the moment we are born and separate from our mothers till the day we die and our deaths become a lesson in separation to the loved ones we leave behind.
--------------------------------------------
"But why would anyone choose to incarnate if the life in question will be one of misery and pain?"
Because without it you can't exist as a separate, unique, individual. It takes the suffering to overcome those feelings of oneness and connectedness in heaven - and it has to be emotional because emotion and memory are linked - the more emotional the experience the more powerful and long lasting the memory it creates.
Life is the way it is on purpose. This earth life is a school and we are all here for the same reason - to experience duality and separation, time and space, and imprint memories of what it was like to be limited to or by a physical body and live in a 3 dimensional + 1 time universe.
The physical laws of Heaven or the Spiritual Universe are very different than they are here. They are the laws one would expect if the other side is the holographic film and this side is the holographic projection.
Posted by: Art | August 05, 2011 at 10:31 AM
"I've heard after-death communicators talk about missing the physicality of life on Earth, but i've never known how to take those remarks. So this is an interesting confirmation, and rather surprising too, I think, given how soon into her experience she feels that loss." - Bruce
--------------------------------------------
I think that's one of the purposes of this life, to learn how it feels to have a body, to holistically imprint the parameters of the body. Every scrape, cut, itch, mosquito bite, burn, hitting your funny bone, etc. imprints on the soul bits of information, like pixels on a TV screen, the more pixels the more clear the picture. Teaching the soul, which comes from a place where nothing exists unless it is first thought of, what it is like to be limited to and inside a body. If you've spent eternity as some kind of ethereal gas inside a cylinder, occupying the entier cylinder, being everywhere at the same time, how could you know or understand what it is like to be inside a body, to taste, see, hear, feel (touch), and smell?
After we die we will merge back into the original holographic film but instead of being limited by a body our expanded consciousness will allow us to experience everyone's experience, past, present, and future simply by focusing our attention on them. We will know what it's like to be an eagle, a blue whale, a dolphin, or a falcon simply by thinking about it.
"That was really cool! I kind of felt as though my body exploded - in a nice way - and became a million different atoms - and each single atom could think its own thoughts and have its own feelings. All at once I seemed to feel like I was a boy, a girl, a dog, a cat, a fish. Then I felt like I was an old man, an old woman - and then a little tiny baby." - excerpt from Randy Gehling's NDE, http://near-death.com/experiences/animals04.html
Do ya'll see how holographic the above description is?
Posted by: Art | August 05, 2011 at 10:45 AM
Perhaps interestingly, to me anyway, most purported communicators through mediums such as Leslie Flint, Emily French and others, talk about their lives (including 'physical' sensations), as being so like those when alive on Earth, that many do not realise what has happened to them at all. This is true also for those who say they have been dead for a long time. The world described by Nanci (as reported here) sounds very different.
They do not report 'knowing everything' - quite the reverse, even for Silver Birch who said he had been a long time over 'there'. I wonder if perhaps those reporting NDEs are reporting experiences when separated from their physical body that do not 'play back' accurately when they are reunited with their physical existence - maybe they are doing the equivalent of playing back VHS recording on a Betamax machine? :)
Posted by: Paul | August 05, 2011 at 11:20 AM
MP:``The answer, according to Danison, is deceptively simple: God, which she dubs Source, has split itself into countless Light Beings for the purpose of experiencing everything that can be experienced.``
Argh...again this forces me to ask: is it REALLY working THIS way ?(i.e. we are are souls splitted from the Source),and not just some ``mirror matter`` copies of regular bodies,or something like Wassermann theory..
Posted by: Alexander1304 | August 05, 2011 at 11:30 AM
"The answer, according to Danison, is deceptively simple: God, which she dubs Source, has split itself into countless Light Beings for the purpose of experiencing everything that can be experienced."
"Danison suggests that the experience could compared to watching a horror movie or reading a depressing novel. Many of us seek out these experiences because we know that the movie or book is only a fantasy, and it takes up only a little of our time without any lasting negative effects. "
I can't say that is a very uplifiting explanation. Is there no greater purpose to life? Is the realm of pure consciousness so tedius that they have to invent holocausts to amuse themselves with? I don't think that would inspire anyone to strive to develop spiritual qualities while enduring the difficulties of life.
The conventional spiritual wisdom is that the purpose of life is to develop the spirit to make it fit to enter the higher realms of the spirit world.
But what is the point of that? To eventually merge back into the Source while maintaining identity. But why? Is the Source just collecting experiences as a form of amusement? Or is it collecting identities to grow in power and wisdom? Is there any purpose to it?
Does Danison address this question?
The Source sounds like a civilization of light beings. When they enter the source presumably they have their own interests, projects, competitions whatever those may be.
It would be interesting to know more about the Source. Is there only one, or is there a civilization of sources that interact and develop and have their own projects and activities and competitions - what ever those unimaginable things they might be?
Posted by: jshgfcre98ijyds | August 05, 2011 at 12:48 PM
"Is there any purpose to it?"
Danison says again and again that the purpose of life is to experience it!
If you're having a difficult life this time around--and I count myself in that crowd--I know that can sound cruel. But there it is.
I guess that's where a reasoned faith enters the picture--knowing that the overall picture is balanced and beautiful. And that pain is temporary, even when it doesn't feel that way.
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | August 05, 2011 at 01:42 PM
"Is there no greater purpose to life? Is the realm of pure consciousness so tedius that they have to invent holocausts to amuse themselves with?" - jshg
----------------------
Holocausts cause separation. Separation teaches the soul what it means and how it feels to be separate. Can't learn what it means to be separate in heaven because of those infinite feelings of oneness and connectedness. It's got to be super-duper emotional so that it imprints on the soul what it means to be separate.
We here in the physical universe can't begin to comprehend the overwhelming feelings of oneness and connectedness in heaven.
You can't become a separate unique individual unless you spend time in the physical universe. Otherwise you're just a Borg drone connected to the hive mind.
Posted by: Art | August 05, 2011 at 01:45 PM
"Danison says again and again that the purpose of life is to experience it!"
But what is the reason we bits of consciouness enter into having these experiences?
This gets into what M.P. said in the other thread that he thought she was a bit too sure of herself.
I would describe it as having learned something by rote without understanding it. She states a dogma or a tenet but it has no explanatory power no logical relationship to anything else. She can't convince anyont with reason so she substitutes an emphatic manner and repition.
Maybe there is no more to the explanation, maybe reality really is a pointless diversion from eternal ennui, or maybe I don't understand the significance of what she is saying, but I have to say I'm not impressed with her teaching because to me it seems vaccuous.
Posted by: jshgfcre98ijyds | August 05, 2011 at 01:55 PM
""Danison says again and again that the purpose of life is to experience it!"
Me: Why should I eat dinner?
Dannison: To take in food!
Me: Why?
Dennison: To have a meal!
Me: Why?
Dannison: Because you ate lunch at noon and it's now 6:00pm!
Me: But why should I eat at all?
Fredrick Myers: Because the body needs chemical nourishment to maintain life.
Posted by: jshgfcre98ijyds | August 05, 2011 at 02:03 PM
"She can't convince anyone with reason so she substitutes an emphatic manner and repition."
Sorry for this anti-religious rant but I call this "church thinking". I think it may be caused by studying catachisms as a child which results in mental disability because it interferes with the development of rationality and stunts intellectual development.
Posted by: jshgfcre98ijyds | August 05, 2011 at 02:15 PM
Danison's teaching is intriguing, but as usual there are problems of consistency with reality and human experience. The matter of physical reality being a matter of belief systems is especially hard to swallow. As Michael pointed out, the world was round even when millions believed it was flat, or that it was perched on the back of a cosmic tortoise. There is an objective external reality that is responsible for the whole edifice of modern physics. And as has been pointed out, her teaching conflicts with the picture of the afterlife given by many reputable psychic mediums.
The biggest problem is that her picture completely devalues the ordinary human experience of suffering. To the point where human beings are just vehicles for souls to experience the physical world, with suffering being just as OK as pleasure - just grist for the mill of the soul. Of course a spiritual philosophy's being unpleasant or abhorrent is not logical refutation.
Unfortunately this teaching, like many others I have encountered, is hard to accept because it contains certain parts that conflict with reality, and other aspects that conflict with other seemingly plausible teachings (like the reincarnation issue in the previous thread). Of course you can pick and choose just the parts that seem right, and assume the wrong aspects are distortions from the mind of the originator, but this is just too convenient. It seems that a system should stand or fall as it is propounded by its originator. One false part contaminates the entire teaching as a little poison contaminates the entire well.
Posted by: doubter | August 05, 2011 at 02:17 PM
Sometimes teachers who feel the need to prove their intelligence by giving reasons for everything fall into a similar trap. I knew a woman who picked it up from her father who was a school teacher. She would constantly make statements like, "I have to get home soon because .... because ... because ... I need to be at my house." Or, I'm so tired because ... because ... because ... I feel exhausted.
Some people just don't understand how reasoning works and I tend to be very skeptical of what they say particularly when they are teachers.
Posted by: jshgfcre98ijyds | August 05, 2011 at 02:25 PM
I said:
"The purpose of life is to experience it."
jshgfcre98ijyds said:
"Me: Why should I eat dinner?
Danison: To take in food!"
There's a huge difference between what your little dialogue implies, and saying that the purpose of life is to experience it.
To "take in food" is a mechanical act. Something a robot could do, or for that matter, a garbage disposal. It doesn't in any way suggest an experience.
In contrast, Danison's point, along with countless other spiritual teachers, is that the purpose of life is to FEEL what it's like to do all the things a human being does. To feel happy, sad, loving, excited, triumphant, defeated--the entire spectrum of possibilities.
Does that make sense? It does to me and many others. If it doesn't make sense to you, I can respect that, but the point is probably not one that I'd care to debate.
doubter said:
"It seems that a system should stand or fall as it is propounded by its originator. One false part contaminates the entire teaching as a little poison contaminates the entire well."
Good luck in finding a teacher or teaching that feels 100% right to you. In my experience, it doesn't work that way.
The one time I DID have a guru who I perceived to be 100% in line with my own thinking, I later came to understand that I was responding to this teacher as a cult follower would. Seeing only the positives because I desperately needed the simplicity of finding one source that would answer all my questions. Much as a fundamentalist Christian clings to the Bible.
I think you'll find that one aspect of growth is learning to live with ambiguity. To accept teachers who have something to give you, while allowing them their human imperfections.
Or as some would say: learning not to make the perfect the enemy of the good.
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | August 05, 2011 at 04:22 PM
"In contrast, Danison's point, along with countless other spiritual teachers, is that the purpose of life is to FEEL what it's like to do all the things a human being does. To feel happy, sad, loving, excited, triumphant, defeated--the entire spectrum of possibilities."
Me: Why incarnate?
Danison: To experience life!
Me: Why?
Danison: To FEEL!
Me: Why???????
Fredrick Meyers: To make you fit for the higher planes in the spirit world.
Posted by: jshgfcre98ijyds | August 05, 2011 at 04:37 PM
"To make you fit for the higher planes in the spirit world."
And what's the purpose of those higher planes?
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | August 05, 2011 at 04:43 PM
Excellent review MP. Something I find niggling: if our light being's primary purpose is to grow through saturating itself with every kind of life experience over many incarnations, where does this leave morality? Somebody who commits a heinous crime is punished and viewed with contempt in this life but from a wider perspective they are just slotting in another piece of the experiential cosmic jigsaw. I personally find such an approach disturbing. In fact I'm not too keen on this multiple light-being idea at all.
Posted by: Michael Duggan | August 05, 2011 at 05:23 PM
@Michael
I must not be thinking. What does "YMMV" mean?
Posted by: j9 | August 05, 2011 at 05:28 PM
I get as far "as your message may" and I get stuck!
Posted by: j9 | August 05, 2011 at 05:32 PM
.....and me!
Posted by: Michael Duggan | August 05, 2011 at 05:33 PM
"I must not be thinking. What does "YMMV" mean?"
Your mileage may vary.
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | August 05, 2011 at 05:54 PM
Oh ok I am an idiot.
Posted by: J9 | August 05, 2011 at 06:44 PM
'And what's the purpose of those higher planes?'
Dannison: To experience! To FEEL!
Frederic Meyers: They give you different qualities of experience that make fit you to eventually enter the Source.
Socrates: Why enter the Source?
Me: I dunno, everyone else is doing it and if you don't you will be disintegrated? Resistance is futile!!!1!
Marlin Perkins: It is instinctive, like salmon swimming upstream or parasitic nematodes crawing from the gut up the digestive tract into the respiratory tract and down into lungs of their host.
Posted by: jshgfcre98ijyds | August 05, 2011 at 08:12 PM
We are making memories of what it's like to be in a body, to see, hear, taste, feel, smell. To make love, what time and space look and feel like.
We are spirit beings. Pure consciousness. How can you create something if you have never experienced it for yourself? The reason our ancestors didn't make airplanes, telephones, cars, etc is because they had no experience of them. They didn't know what metal was so before they could shape it they had to experience it. Some human ancestor threw a rock in a fire that metal ore in it and the metal ran out and cooled and they picked it up and it was hard and they played with it and eventually figured out how to shape it.
A new born baby is born and doesn't know how to control his body. They explore their universe by tasting it, feeling it, learning what it's like to be inside that little body, and they are intensely interested in everything around them because they only have a little while to take in as much information as possible about what it's like to inside that body.
Why? Because after that body is worn out they merge back into heaven, or the spiritual universe, the original holographic film - they are able to maintain their uniqueness because they know what it means to be separate. They don't lose that sense of uniqueness. Simply by thinking about a thing they can create it. A guy named Mark H (not the same guy as Mark Horton by the way) says he thought of a mountain and one appeared. A near death experience that I read long ago said they went into a "hall of learning" and it seemed as if the building itself was "made of knowledge". We are gods in training.
If you had never been exposed to individual things before and all you knew was this sort of gaseous mixture - like a piece of holographic film - before you can create something you have to have some knowledge about what matter looks like, what time and space look and act like, what it feels like to be inside a body, to see, hear, touch, smell, and taste.
The purpose of life is simply to experience being alive, being inside a body. What it feels like to be separate, what time and space look and feel like, make memories of what it's like to be alive. And the really great thing is that we will share all these memories on the other side due to those overwhelming feelings of oneness and connectedness - and yes you will have "all knowledge." It's a by-product of the holographic film that heaven is made from.
Posted by: Art | August 05, 2011 at 08:12 PM
Michael, I believe you have misread the concept represented by "Tomorrow morning, when you awake, you will manifest into reality precisely what you went to bed believing about your world."
About a year ago, I decided to actively work to change my cynical, critical attitude about other people. It's my worst feature, and a treasured one because I'm so skilled at it, so it was a good one to attack.
The response has been interesting. The quality of my life has gone up quite a bit. First, people respond differently when you act differently towards them. Negative actions nearly always reap only negative responses. Positive actions can reap either negative or positive responses, but that's better than an assured negative.
Second, the way you view the world affects the way you feel, and that affects your experience. I am much more positive about my surroundings (and the people inhabiting them), and feel more positive. This make me more productive, and happier, and the result of this is a better life. Because of my different attitude and the resulting actions, better things happen to me.
You said "External reality on spiritual planes does appear to be a direct projection of consciousness, but I don't think the physical world is equally malleable. Indeed, I think this is one of the key differences between the Earth plane and spiritual planes."
From my experience in the last year, I would completely disagree with you. This is not magic; it's cause and effect, a direct result of my projection of a different consciousness, with different results. You WANT it to be about magic, but you have overlooked the very real ability we have to actualize our desires by changing our perceptions of situations.
It would be easy to say that this is a different category of action, but I'm not so sure. Uri Geller maintained that to bend a spoon, one had to really WANT the spoon to bend, on an emotional level. It isn't just a matter of magic, it's a function of desire superimposed on the exterior world. On a very simple level the quality of my life has become the result of my desire for things to run smoothly rather than roughly, visualized over the environment around me.
Who's to say that the process involved isn't analogous? One of the reasons I attempted to improve my attitudes about people was because I have led, by some measures, a charmed life. Things I have visualized have, in many cases happened just as I have visualized them. In many of these situations, I do not feel like I've had direct control.
The current experiment is just an extension of that. Please at least consider that there may not exist the definite line you've drawn between the possibilities of this life, and the possibilities of the next. There's no reason the transition should be as completely abrupt, on/off, as you have visualized it. It may just be a difference of degree and skill rather than process.
Posted by: Michael D | August 05, 2011 at 08:29 PM
"It would be easy to say that this is a different category of action, but I'm not so sure. Uri Geller maintained that to bend a spoon, one had to really WANT the spoon to bend, on an emotional level."
Yes, I would say it is a different category of action. Changing your attitude towards other people is not the same as materializing a beer fridge in the next room.
Even at the psychic level, I've intentionally manipulated people psychically but I have not been able to intentionally manipulate physical objects psychically. In junior high I wanted to get good grades so I tried focusing my mind on my intentions every day. It seemed to work. In one class I had a b+ average and the teacher gave me an A. When I asked her why she said she didn't know why. I stopped doing this. I didn't realize I would be manipulating real people so I stopped. I don't think it is good for your karma to manipulate people psychically - you are interfering with their free will.
Also, are you saying that Uri Geller wanted to bend a spoon more than most people?
I think a better explanation that some people have abilities that other people do not have. Maybe some people can create a material reality, maybe you're one of them.
But, many people fully expect certain things to happen which don't actually happen. We have a word for it: "Surprise!". If this theory of creating a material reality was true, no one would ever experience surprises. So, I think this theory of creating a material reality has been proven wrong over and over and over.
Posted by: jshgfcre98ijyds | August 05, 2011 at 08:51 PM
" I didn't realize I would be manipulating real people so I stopped. "
I though I would be causing myself to study harder, I didn't realize I would be influencing other people.
Posted by: jshgfcre98ijyds | August 05, 2011 at 08:56 PM
I am skeptical, everything seemed perfect until you mentioned that she believes we can change reality by changing our thoughts. This is absolutely untrue, i would also like to know what are her thoughts on evolution? Does Nanci L. Danison accept that human beings evolved from earlier life forms?
Posted by: Seeker | August 05, 2011 at 11:02 PM
None of the NDE experiences show mental activity in the absence of brain activity. Even if we assume that all of them are 100% accurate, all they show is the memory of mental activity during a period of reduced brain activity. The memory may have been constructed at another time and the perceived timing of that memory altered to correspond to the period of reduced brain activity.
I can change the origin date on files on my computer to before the time that my computer existed. Does that mean my computer is “remembering” pre-construction experiences?
Posted by: Seeker | August 05, 2011 at 11:09 PM
I often wonder about the emotional need many people seem to have, to believe in some invisible soul-stuff beyond the physical brain. To me, the facts as revealed by science are way more exciting than all these made-up stories and speculations about something ‘beyond’. Billion of years of evolution formed complex nervous-systems and brains. Organisms become self-aware, got rich inner lives and awesome cognitive abilities. And all this, just happened on its own. About 3 Billion years of evolution resulted in me, my girlfriend, my friends….how can someone contemplate about this, and not be excited!?
I don’t think that science based naturalism and emotional fulfilment are exclusive. Maybe science, naturalism and skepticism just need to sell itself better and recognize that most people have emotional needs of connection, meaning, wonder (and they are very important to them)…I am sure that people can learn to direct these emotions towards facts and the real world instead of the imaginary and probably non-existent (even after years of cultural and religious brainwashing that thought them otherwise).
Posted by: Seeker | August 05, 2011 at 11:10 PM
If I recall correctly, Carl Sagan reflected in one of his books on the concept of an afterlife. What was interesting about it was that he didn’t just rule out an afterlife on the basis of the mind’s dependence on the brain and end there (although I think he mentioned that, too). He illustrated some of the problems associated with trying to pick out an essential “self” from all of the different mental states that occur during one’s life time – especially at the end, if one’s mind has virtually been lost – say, to of dementia from Alzheimer’s disease – and then project that into a post-mortem scenario.
Posted by: Seeker | August 05, 2011 at 11:12 PM
For me, this is one of the biggest problems with the idea of an afterlife.
I mean, let’s postulate for a moment that an afterlife is true. For someone who is of completely sound mind at death, everything is great. Your soul moves on to heaven with all of the personality, knowledge, memories, etc. that you had at the moment of death.
But what of someone who dies at the end of a long slide into Alzheimer’s? There are only two possibilities, either that person spends eternity in heaven with the mental faculties they had at the moment of death (an idea that, I’m sure, anyone would find abhorrent and impossible to accept), or they are magically “restored” to full mental acuity.
But then the next problem is, what exactly would that mean? If the mind does not arise from the brain, then doesn’t that mean that the Alzheimer’s deterioration resides in the mind? Or do believers somehow rationalize that the physical deterioration of the brain has that horrible effect on the mind, but then once the mind is freed, it springs back to “normal”? What would “normal” mean in this context? The way your mind was before the Alzheimer’s started? How do you define the exact moment it started? Would the person lose their memories of the intervening time? In the early stages, a person with Alzheimer’s suffers intermittent short-term memory loss; their personality is still all there, they experience life and joy and all that. It can take years to get to the point that they have difficulty functioning. Does the soul get deprived of all the memories of those times? Or in the after life, does your soul get restored to what it was when you were 10% into Alzheimer’s? 25%?
But let’s even put Alzheimer’s aside and go back to the person who is of completely sound mind at death. What does it even mean to be of “completely sound mind”? Doesn’t everyone, as they age into their sixties, seventies, and beyond, suffer from some decline in mental acuity and/or memory function? Do you live eternally in heaven, forever forgetting where you put your car keys?
Posted by: Seeker | August 05, 2011 at 11:15 PM
Seeker, I'm sure you think you're making very strong points, but all the issues you've raised have been dealt with countless times on this blog. For some reason, skeptics seem to think that these very obvious objections have never occurred to anyone outside their camp.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | August 05, 2011 at 11:36 PM
We get it all back. It's called "Terminal Lucidity." Some folks get it back before they have even completely left their bodies. Do a google search. Folks "wake up" right before they die. They are connecting with the great holographic collective consciousness. It's a real thing.
Posted by: Art | August 06, 2011 at 12:16 AM
We can hold all kinds of beliefs in the outer ego, but this won't change our reality. Only by altering the inner ego can we effect changes. This is VERY difficult: it takes a lot of practice and long term commitment. It is not a simple case of positive thinking.
Even more importantly, Seth says we create cooperatively as well, and we come into this world having made an agreement to accept the 'officially accepted reality'. This core set of beliefs about physical reality (indeed it creates physical reality) is programmed into our inner ego.
I think this makes a lot of sense.
I suspect our life plan is also programmed into the inner ego also.
Posted by: jshgfcre98ijyds | August 06, 2011 at 04:35 AM
jshgfcre98ijyds said:
" If this theory of creating a material reality was true, no one would ever experience surprises. So, I think this theory of creating a material reality has been proven wrong over and over and over."
That's a complete non sequitur. You seem to believe that someone who controls parts of their life is required to control ALL of them.
Posted by: Michael D | August 06, 2011 at 07:49 AM
I believe it's more like a DVD of a movie; only holographic instead of 2-D.
"At its deeper level reality is a sort of superhologram in which the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously."
http://www.earthportals.com/hologram.html
The education of the soul is too important to leave up to chance. The soul's lessons are embedded in our everyday lives and it is holistically imprinted with what it needs to learn regardless of who we are, or where we live, or what we believe.
"Why we are here" is Universal - meaning it is the same for everyone. Duality and separation are inherent and inescapable properties of the physical Universe. Everyone experiences duality and separation, time and space, and imprints memories of what it was like to live in a 3 dimensional + 1 time universe.
Posted by: Art | August 06, 2011 at 10:05 AM
"That's a complete non sequitur. You seem to believe that someone who controls parts of their life is required to control ALL of them."
Ah, but the surprise is often life-changing. Utterly unanticipated. Presumably, this hasn't happened to you...yet.
Posted by: Barbara | August 06, 2011 at 12:04 PM
The part of this discussion that I've found most striking is the point several posters addressed, how this experience is strangely different from the afterlife we read about through mediumship.
This begs the question: "So which afterlife IS it?"
The author's version of the afterlife poses some very serious philosophical problems. The most obvious is her yearning for the physical world again: "rain on her face, cuddling with somebody".
If her experience is real, this would indicate there is still a "self" operating in awareness of her new form that is part of the (as Art put it) Borg-like collective. And, this 'self" was able to recognize that, in fact, this new environment has limitations. This raises the question of whether this afterlife is, in terms of diversity of experience, actually better than Earth life.The answer appears to be "no".
The world that mediums like Leslie Flint, or even Maurice / Silver Birch describe, is the semi-physical world, or the astral. This is where you can still feel rain on your face, take a swim, cuddle with somebody, yet also have the power to be part of a God / Source consciousness in some way.
An afterlife with only two options: crummy Earth existence or cosmically plain Borg-collective light-existence, does not paint a positive picture of reality.
This is the meaning of why a "Summerland" type environment, existentially speaking, must exist to satisfy the creative needs of the soul.
I'd thus be cautious of any NDE experiencer, or even spiritual teacher, who attempts to downplay the 'physical' or 'semi physical' experience. Our longing appears to be for diversity of experience and sensation, and I believe this desire outweighs the desire to return to a collective oneness with God.
Think about it, from the collective oneness came the desire for individuality and diversity. Returning to God will just return you to the point of desiring that same thing all-over again.
Posted by: Cyrus | August 06, 2011 at 01:15 PM
while I agree with this:
The higher plan is simply to maximize experiences of all kinds, whether "good" or "bad."
It also needs to be put into context.That is, this might be the ultimate goal for The Source,just not for the individual.Sure we feel seperate and that is what we have to learn like Art frequently mentions but I think thats also not the core thing.We are on earth for cause and effect and karma and learning to love,whether this means to feel what it is to be seperate is just semantics to the detaills.
"What it means is that there are two loci of consciousness in each of us - the limited, reflexive, instinctual, not especially reflective or self-aware consciousness of a human being, and the larger, more comprehensive, nonjudgmental, unconditionally loving consciousness of the "Light Being" that inhabits its human "host."
The higher plan is evolution in all forms.
I don't think we might be light beings to start with.I'd say the spirit starts rather raw without barely any potential for doing the right thing.
For this we need to go not only "backwards" (get it? ) in incarnations,but also in our biological evolution to our former states currently as homo sapiens,previously as ape-form and before that frequenting the waters as aquatic creatures and cell-form life before that.
During all of these stages minus what we consider the human stage our feelings were quite raw and focused on survival.All our toolkits were based on animal impulses to keep us alive.
I doubt during this time our spirit,i.e. aura,manifested in different colors that correspond to the spiritual evolution had equal part light and equal part darkness for us to draw upon.Even now that part which might be considered "Light being" is just tints of light in each individuals aura that is tinted in a variety of colors since no individual is the same this "Light being" part can also not be the same for all.
If we are to accept that spiritual evolution goes hand in hand with natural selection and evolution in biological life then aura,personality,temperament and what spirits consider love is something that grows over a thousand,millions perhaps livetimes in every form we frequented earth.
You start with a small drop of water,and it grows to become,a stream,the river,the sea.
From darkness to light,from hate to love.
The same goes for each individual.
Posted by: Bryan.A | August 06, 2011 at 01:26 PM
"And, this 'self" was able to recognize that, in fact, this new environment has limitations. This raises the question of whether this afterlife is, in terms of diversity of experience, actually better than Earth life.The answer appears to be "no". - Cyrus
--------------------------------------------
I don't quite know how to put this into words? I'll try to explain though.....
This is why we have to first spend some time here in this so called physical 3 dimensional universe. By experiencing being inside a body, and learning what a body feels like, we are making memories of what it's like to touch, feel, taste, see, hear, etc. Imprinting on the soul what all these things "feel" like.
We will use this knowledge after we cross back over into the Spiritual Universe to "create", simply by focusing our attention on them, whatever universe we might wish to experience. Even the feeling of riding a wave at the beach, or making love, or tasting a plate of spaghetti.
This Earth life is a school and what we are sent here for is the physical. Before that we were pure consciousness. Consciousness with no idea what a body felt like, or what taste, touch, smell, or hearing were. Or even what time and space or separation meant or looked like.
And have you ever asked yourself why people are sent back? Maybe it's as simple as they weren't ready to graduate? Like a cake that isn't ready come out of the oven? Maybe the reason Nanci was sent back was simply because she hadn't gathered enough "pixels" yet? Not enough "bits of information" about separation, time and space, or memories of what it felt like to be alive and inside a body?
The really great thing is that I don't think we lose our "uniqueness" once we have experienced enough separation. I think once we have broken from the Borg collective we maintain our separate, individual identity.
"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
Posted by: Art | August 06, 2011 at 02:19 PM
Seeker - I am sure that people can learn to direct these emotions towards facts and the real world instead of the imaginary and probably non-existent (even after years of cultural and religious brainwashing that thought them otherwise).
The main problem with your arguments is that you think we can ever know and understand 'the real' world. That your subjective experience of reality equals the absolutely truth about reality. Science has already proven that what we perceive of the world with our awareness and intelligence conflicts with the physical laws. A good simple example is special relativity - completely counterintuitive but yet true. The paradoxes you describe above doesn't really exclude the possibility of an afterlife (even though the thought of an afterlife seems to good to be true)
Posted by: sbu | August 06, 2011 at 02:19 PM
Cyrus said:
"If her experience is real, this would indicate there is still a "self" operating in awareness of her new form that is part of the (as Art put it) Borg-like collective. And, this 'self" was able to recognize that, in fact, this new environment has limitations.This raises the question of whether this afterlife is, in terms of diversity of experience, actually better than Earth life.The answer appears to be "no"."
Interesting points, Cyrus, as always, but I question some of them. Why would you assume, from reading Danison, that in terms of diversity of experience, the afterlife is lacking? Is it because she says that it's missing some of those physical pleasures she talks about?
I have not the slightest doubt that Danison herself would disagree with you. I think she'd say something like: "Yes, I missed certain aspects of the Earth experience. But at the same time, I was suddenly introduced to such an enormous wealth of new possibilities, abilities, feelings, knowledge, ways of communicating--not to mention my dearest eternal friends and soul-mates--that despite some nostalgia for Earth, I was ECSTATIC to be there!
"The world that mediums like Leslie Flint, or even Maurice / Silver Birch describe, is the semi-physical world, or the astral. This is where you can still feel rain on your face, take a swim, cuddle with somebody, yet also have the power to be part of a God / Source consciousness in some way."
Now this is an interesting point. And you may well have more exposure to these communications than I.
But two things: I remember clearly in a book I'm really fond of--Letters to the Light--a communicator who came through via automatic writing talks clearly about how he misses holding physical objects in his hands, and similar things. (I wish I had the quote.) And I think I've read similar comments often. Can anyone back me up on this?
Also, could you quote me some passages where after-death communicators talk about still being able to experience physical sensations?
Nobody, for example, talks about afterlife sex, per se, do they?
"Our longing appears to be for diversity of experience and sensation, and I believe this desire outweighs the desire to return to a collective oneness with God."
Maybe the two aren't incompatible, at least in regards to diversity. Here's a quote from Backwards:
"When we merge back into the Source as a Collective Being, we will know THROUGH EXPERIENCE all there is to know, to feel, to live, to create, and to love. We will know it from the perspectives of every other little Sourcebeam radiated outward to live its own separate illusory life away from Source.
We will float in a tidal wave of experiences from which to choose, moment by moment. And we will know complete unity with all of creation."
In other words, she says (here and elsewhere) that even when we merge into large groups, we retain the ability to experience ourselves individually WHEN WE WANT TO.
And if you take seriously her phrase "a tidal wave of experiences from which to choose, moment by moment," then, in terms of diversity, merging with the Source seems pretty darned cool.
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | August 06, 2011 at 06:04 PM
Before getting too confident i suggest all of you read this line by Sam Harris:
The mere existence of psychedelics would seem to establish the material basis of mental and spiritual life beyond any doubt—for the introduction of these substances into the brain is the obvious cause of any numinous apocalypse that follows. It is possible, however, if not actually plausible, to seize this datum from the other end and argue, and Aldous Huxley did in his classic essay, The Doors of Perception, that the primary function of the brain could be eliminative: its purpose could be to prevent some vast, transpersonal dimension of mind from flooding consciousness, thereby allowing apes like ourselves to make their way in the world without being dazzled at every step by visionary phenomena irrelevant to their survival. Huxley thought that if the brain were a kind of “reducing valve” for “Mind at Large,” this would explain the efficacy of psychedelics: They could simply be a material means of opening the tap.
Unfortunately, Huxley was operating under the erroneous assumption that psychedelics decrease brain activity. However, modern techniques of neuroimaging have shown that these drugs tend to increase activity in many regions of the cortex (and in subcortical structures as well). Still, the action of these drugs does not rule out dualism, or the existence of realms of mind beyond the brain—but then nothing does. This is one of the problems with views of this kind: They appear to be unfalsifiable
3.Physicalism, by contrast, could be easily falsified. If science ever established the existence of ghosts, or reincarnation, or any other phenomenon which would place the human mind (in whole or in part) outside the brain, physicalism would be dead. The fact that dualists can never say what would count as evidence against their views makes this ancient philosophical position very difficult to distinguish from religious faith
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/drugs-and-the-meaning-of-life/
Posted by: Seeker | August 06, 2011 at 07:17 PM
All i am asking is for strong repeatable experiment results suggesting that consciousness can act independently of the brain. Due to lack of any evidence my current position is that the mind is what the brain does is the most parsimonious interpretation of all available evidence.
Adding a mind separate from the brain is unnecessary.
Empirical evidence from the natural sciences favors the materialist hypothesis of the mind (i.e. inasmuch as the mind is shown to be dependent on the brain, which is by definition composed of matter, with little or no evidence to the contrary)
The point isn’t what the idea of an afterlife is, but whether there is an afterlife/soul/conscious outside the brain at all. Skeptics have not found any reason to think any of that exists because there isn’t any compelling evidence. It’s not a matter of ideology or preconception, but skepticism in the light of no evidence.
Personally, I could care less if a person wants to pontificate on a soul/afterlife, though I think it’s ridiculous to want to put so much stock in the belief in something that has no evidence for it, rather than trying to find out what’s really true; I’d much rather spend my time on finding out what’s really true based on the evidence than spending my time trying to find evidence for my beliefs.
That is just my humble opinion
Posted by: Seeker | August 06, 2011 at 07:29 PM
Doubter said, "The biggest problem is that her picture completely devalues the ordinary human experience of suffering. To the point where human beings are just vehicles for souls to experience the physical world, with suffering being just as OK as pleasure - just grist for the mill of the soul. Of course a spiritual philosophy's being unpleasant or abhorrent is not logical refutation."
I have to agree with Doubter on this. She does seem pretty slick and superficial in this regard - though I admittedly only have a cursory familiarity with her work developed over the past couple of days.
My own sense is a lot more biblical then hers; and I'm not a religious man. I think there is more to it than simply experiencing and then moving on. Life, seems to me, to be a test. A test one can fail and that many do to varying degrees. The soul is either strengthened or weakened depending on how one handles the test. And the strength of the soul, IMO, determines what the afterlife will be like. This perspective, I realize, does not sell books or fill symposiums.
What is tested? The ability to maintain one's spiritual awareness and decency and love despite the trials and tribulations that are heaped upon each of us in this physical realm. This includes not only the intense hard times we all must endure sooner or later and also the more subtle, even tempting, distractions that are constant.
What I am not liking at all about Danison is what I don't like at all about new agerism generally. There is a tendency to downplay the spiritual results of wickedness and meanness and cruelty.
So there they are basking in the eternal light of the after life - child molester and victim, together.
Molester: "Wow. What a cool experience. My animal side really went wild. I'm glad I got to do that because now I can integrate the sensation of sodomizing children into the larger consciouness of the source"
Victim: "Hey. I'm just glad I could be there for you to sodomize so you could have that experience to upload into the eternal memory bank. Being sodomized is another excellent contribution to the mind of the source. And, of course, all is forgiven and just hunky dory now that we are in the totally loving light and all".
Molester: "I love you."
Victim: "No man, I love YOU".
Source/God: "Right on you guys. That's what it's all about. I really want the souls I send to earth to experience everything and anything - doesn't matter what. Pretty funky what those old human hormones will bring out in you, huh? Any how, all the same to me. I love you both and you both get exactly the same afterlife. Good job. I'm really grooving on those molestation memories. Can't get enough of that."
Molester: "Well gee boss, that after life review had me a little worried for a second or two. I mean it seemed like I was feeling a little ...um er...discontent, shall we say, coming off those darn kids I messed with. What's up with that. It was kind of, you, uncomfortable?"
Source/god: "Hey, sorry about that. I hope it wasn't too rough on you. But, what the heck, it was just a couple seconds in the sea of infinity and now you know it's all forgiven...I mean, I love you man.....let's go down to the harp bar and grab a glass of cosmic ambrosia. I'm buying. I hear Mother teresa is the main gig. That old gal sure can jam. It's this east meets west fusion thing... She'd love to meet you after the show.
Feh. opiated fairy tails.
Posted by: no one | August 06, 2011 at 07:37 PM
Seeker, you are demostrating a pronounced lack of familiarity with the material you seek to discuss/debate. You should follow our host's suggestion. Read the archives thoroughly.
I do not understand your - or many others like you - emphasis on repeateability. It doesn't signify what you think it does. It is not a holy grail. Much in human experience does not follow that which pertains to test tubes in labs. Many experience falling in love once; just once. Perhaps you have had this experience? Perhaps your parents did. The fact that falling in love was not repeatable should not - I hope - in your mind make the relationship less real. I think we have all been moved by a piece of music only to find that listening to that same piece later has less of an effect. Does this lack of repeatability delete the reality of the rapture that we experienced at first listen?
Any how, several paranormal phenomena, like psi, have been repeatedly shown to be in effect in experimental settings. I would also say that NDEs are repeatable to some degree. A certain % of individuals in certain circumstances will experience NDEs and the NDEs will have common elements.
Honestly, I am about sick and tired of people trying to reduce humans to elctro-chemical machineryrobot/computer just to make some juvenile atheistic argument. I know that the very people making this argument don't live like robots. They don't live rational lives. The fact that they feel a need to surf the net and make their atheistic arguments is sufficient to confirm that such people are driven by passion as much as anyone else; as opposed to calculated rationality. I see them all the time. Assembling the world according to their testable and repeatable hypotheses and then, once no one is looking, forgetting all about the equations and diagrams on their white boards and delving into the same all so human dreams and fears and cravings and joys and needs as anyone else.
There is ample evidence of psi and survival of consciouness. A large amount of that evidence - actually what is considered true evidence by serious people - is not tainted by the problems you have brought up in your various comments. You should know this if you wish to be taken seriously.
We could safely say that, at this point, from a scientific perspective, the reality of survival is much like the reality of the Americas circa 1500. We know it's there. We can't map it yet. We can't even begin to fully describe it yet. We can't even sail our primitive ships - ahem... repeatedly - to the same costal point. yet we can be certain that the Americas exist.
Posted by: no one | August 06, 2011 at 08:14 PM
Seeker, "Unfortunately, Huxley was operating under the erroneous assumption that psychedelics decrease brain activity. "
No. He wasn't. He said no such thing.
This is what I am talking about. You don't know about that which you criticize. Huxley only speculated that psychedelics altered or disrupted the reducing valve/filter of the brain.
"Due to lack of any evidence my current position is......"
"...but skepticism in the light of no evidence."
Lack of "Any" evidence?.... "no" evidence...?
This is what I am talking about....and you are talking to the wrong people if you are going to make such statements.
Please go seek some education....
Posted by: no one | August 06, 2011 at 08:30 PM
And, while I am on a roll, my issue with Danison also applies to Art's theory. Come to think of it, my issue with 'seeker' also applies to Art's theory. Art's take on the holographic universe is both robot/computer mechanistic and an amoral perspective.
This lesson of 'separation' has no purpose. What one does while 'separated' has no meaning or consequence.
I think it is wrong.
Posted by: no one | August 06, 2011 at 08:50 PM
LOL! Belief is irrelevant. Agreement is irrelevant. Acceptance is irrelevant. You will become a separate, unique, individual whether you want to or not.
We live in a holographic universe which means it's a great big fat illusion! Maya. A holographic projection somewhat akin to a Netflix DVD of a movie. A learning DVD to teach the soul what it means to be separate.
How an argument with Hawking suggested the Universe is a hologram
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/07/how-an-argument-with-hawking-suggested-the-universe-is-a-hologram.ars
"If this doesn't blow your socks off, then Hogan, who has just been appointed director of Fermilab's Center for Particle Astrophysics, has an even bigger shock in store: "If the GEO600 result is what I suspect it is, then we are all living in a giant cosmic hologram."
http://quantumphysics.tribe.net/thread/7c1b85e4-b6f8-4d41-9a51-d236144e27aa
Posted by: Art | August 06, 2011 at 09:05 PM
no one said:
"Life, seems to me, to be a test. A test one can fail and that many do to varying degrees. The soul is either strengthened or weakened depending on how one handles the test. And the strength of the soul, IMO, determines what the afterlife will be like. This perspective, I realize, does not sell books or fill symposiums."
But it DOES sell books. Untold millions of them. And it does attract followers, and has for thousands of years. In fact, during much of history, it was heresy to think otherwise.
I hear you about this, no one. But I think both perspectives are useful. Depends on the situation, the people involved, and the lessons to be learned.
And remember, too, that Danison is very clear about "the utter humiliation and guilt you feel during your life review when all your secret and not-so-secret failings have been displayed for all to see."
How painful is that? Well, we see evidence again and again of lives being turned around by difficult life reviews.
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | August 06, 2011 at 09:12 PM
seeker said:
"Skeptics have not found any reason to think any of that exists because there isn’t any compelling evidence."
THIS former skeptic, to his infinite surprise, found lots of compelling evidence. My opinion was a lot like yours for decades. The only difference is that I never went to forums like this one because I didn't even think the matter worth discussing. (That, and the fact that there was no internet in those days.) :o)
"It’s not a matter of ideology or preconception, but skepticism in the light of no evidence."
If you think there's no evidence, then you haven't studied, in depth, the data we've been examining and debating on this blog forever.
"I’d much rather spend my time on finding out what’s really true based on the evidence than spending my time trying to find evidence for my beliefs. That is just my humble opinion"
Humble? I don't think so. Sounds like you're saying you're the only rational man in the room.
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | August 06, 2011 at 09:15 PM
Bruce, OK. Yes. The Bible is the all time best seller. Fire and brimstone has a solid following.
I was referring to modern, less traditional, writings/marketing/publishing. It's a different market.
Like I was saying, a few moments at the door of infinity of unpleasant life review seems like paltry consequence for real pain and suffering inflicted on other souls. Why live the physical life at all - if there is something to be developed - if all the work can happen in an instant in the life review?
Art; was your last a response to me? If so, I don't get it. Want to address what I said? I'm interested in your thoughts. Thanks.
Posted by: no one | August 06, 2011 at 09:26 PM
Art, "We live in a holographic universe which means it's a great big fat illusion! Maya. A holographic projection somewhat akin to a Netflix DVD of a movie. A learning DVD to teach the soul what it means to be separate."
So, the child molester's molestations are just an illusion?
I see....It's all the god head. How can god molest god? How can the hologram harm the hologram?
They can't. It's all ok.
Thanks for clarifying.
Posted by: no one | August 06, 2011 at 09:34 PM
You have some thorough misconceptions about Atheism/Humanism. We are not angry about other people’s beliefs. If we act against someone’s beliefs than that is because he is causing significant harm to others with them. Homeopathic practitioners create an Atmosphere, where extremists flourish who indoctrinate their peers to forgo treatment for cancer. When I get up at 9 in the morning on a Sunday to make it to a mass homeopathic “overdose” at 10:23, then I am driven by moral outrage.
Thus there is no hatred for you to cure.
Saying that there is nothing supernatural and saying that life is meaningless are two fundamentally different matters. Life has all the meaning you give it. I do that by making goals and living by them. You may think it silly, but I want, in my life, to build very large rockets. I currently study for a master in mechanical engineering, and I am confident that I’m one day employed by a EADS or even SpaceX and help them build the biggest, baddest rockets ever made, so my descendants may one day visit the Stars.
Your see life not meaningless only because it has a definite end. It may at first be a burden to abandon the safe haven of an eternal afterlife, but once you think about it, the message of humanism is a positive one: We do what feels right to us, unbound by someone else’s special interpretation of some millennia old scripture. We may not believe in the power of confession, but we use reflection to determine when we have punished ourselves enough with our guilty conscience. We do not fear the devil’s whip because of that.
Posted by: Seeker | August 06, 2011 at 09:40 PM
Seeker,
?
Posted by: no one | August 06, 2011 at 09:48 PM
I just don't get this "trying to find evidence for my beliefs stuff" that people who THINK they are being skeptical (when of course, REAL skeptics actually read the literature) like to use to suggest they are they only rational ones out there.
I can tell you that I've tried to find evidence for my beliefs and it didn't work. I wanted to believe that PSI/PK were not possible. I read the literature. I did some experiments. I repeated the experiments with stronger controls. I went to a lab for testing. In fact, I did that more than once too.
As much as I would like to dismiss the possibility of anything like psi/pk, I can't do that with any kind of intellectual honesty.
So if you want to keep your worldview safe and sound... Don't follow my example. Don't do experiments or participate in research, and for goodness sake don't read the literature. Because if you do, well, you're screwed.
Posted by: Sandy | August 06, 2011 at 09:50 PM
no one said:
"I was referring to modern, less traditional, writings/marketing/publishing. It's a different market."
Why bother making the distinction? Your point was that she wouldn't have made as much money if her book were more conventionally moralistic. You were implying that she chose the more profitable approach.
And after reading her apparently heart-felt account, I don't think that's accurate or fair.
"Why live the physical life at all - if there is something to be developed - if all the work can happen in an instant in the life review?"
It can't. Though the Light Being (on the Other Side) may not suffer punishment, apparently the souls that it sends out into the physical do. If one of those incarnating souls is a molester, another is likely to be molested.
My understanding is that there's an exquisite balance to the whole scheme that's impossible for us to see from our perspective.
Rather than punishment, the operative word seems to be balance.
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | August 06, 2011 at 09:55 PM
@ Sandy: Are you aware that top Parasychologists like Ray Hyman admit that “the evidence for psi is inconsistent, irreproducible, and fails to meet acceptable scientific standards.” Read this: http://www.csicop.org/si/show/anomalous_cognition_a_second_perspective/. Furtermore the history of psi research is also generously sprinkled with fraud.
When such results are considered in the light of prior probability—which they rarely are, as far as I can tell—the reasonable conclusion is not merely that psi remains unproven, although that is the polite thing to say and is what we can know with certainty; the reasonable conclusion is that psi doesn’t exist. Even if we hedge, for politeness’ sake, we must argue that there is no justification for spending public monies on further psi research.
Posted by: Seeker | August 06, 2011 at 09:59 PM
seeker said;
"We do what feels right to us, unbound by someone else’s special interpretation of some millennia old scripture. We may not believe in the power of confession, but we use reflection to determine when we have punished ourselves enough with our guilty conscience. We do not fear the devil’s whip because of that."
Have you heard anyone here talk about scripture, or confession, or the devil? Do you even know what this blog is about?
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | August 06, 2011 at 10:01 PM
"we must argue that there is no justification for spending public monies on further psi research."
Oh no, Sandy! There goes your government funding.
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | August 06, 2011 at 10:07 PM
Seeker, since when is Ray Hyman a "top parapsychologist"? If all you have read is CSICOP material, then you haven't read the literature.
The thing is, I've participated in this kind of research. I've also conducted my own experiments. Having someone who has no first-hand familiarity with this kind of work tell me it's all fraud not because he is familiar with the literature, but because someone else who doesn't do parapsychological research (a.k.a. Ray Hyman) said so isn't very convincing.
I just have to watch a little foil wheel spinning inside a sealed jar to know that some things aren't that easy to explain.
Posted by: Sandy | August 06, 2011 at 10:19 PM
Oh no, Sandy! There goes your government funding.
hahaha....
As far as I know, my government hasn't spent a dime on psi research. Your government probably isn't spending money on such things these days either. (How long ago was Stargate?)
It's hard enough to get funding for any kind of science these days. The lab I went to for testing was funded out of pocket by the university professor in charge the lab.
Posted by: Sandy | August 06, 2011 at 10:26 PM
"we must argue that there is no justification for spending public monies on further psi research."
What about research into the nature of consciousness? What if that suggests (as Michael Persinger's work does) that there really is something along the lines of psi functioning?
http://youtu.be/9l6VPpDublg
Posted by: Sandy | August 06, 2011 at 10:36 PM
"So, the child molester's molestations are just an illusion?" - no one
-------------------------------------------
This Earth life is a school and bad things happen to create separation. It has to be emotional enough and powerful enough to overcome the feelings of oneness and connectedness in Heaven. We here in the physical universe can't begin to comprehend the overwhelming feelings of oneness and connectedness in Heaven which is due to its holographic nature.
Posted by: Art | August 07, 2011 at 01:48 AM
Bruce, "Why bother making the distinction? Your point was that she wouldn't have made as much money if her book were more conventionally moralistic. You were implying that she chose the more profitable approach."
You are right. What I said regarding her crafting a story for profit motive doesn't make sense.
Then again again, by your logic, Bruce, anyone looking to make bank off a spiritual angle would just put out something that conforms to and confirms traditional texts like the Bible. Why do we have these Rolls Royce driving Indian gurus? Every con has a schtick; some are traditional bible thumpers, some are navel gazers, some wave crystals around in clouds of sage smoke with Hearts of Space music setting the ambiance.
So, while my original statement doesn't make sense, I do think that there is something to the notion that she has shaped a story that has an appeal to an available (from a sales perspective) market segment.
There are a lot of people who are eager - and will pay good money - to hear that regardless of how they conduct their lives on earth, god loves them and heaven's doors are wide open to them.
Art, "So, the child molester's molestations are just an illusion?" - no one
-------------------------------------------
This Earth life is a school and bad things happen to create separation. It has to be emotional enough and powerful enough to overcome the feelings of oneness and connectedness in Heaven."
So, Art, by your logic, the child molester is the one doing god's work (because he is causing sufficient pain to create the intended illusion of separation) and the saint is working against the creator's purpose.
Hitler must be sitting at god's right hand. He did god's work so well; helping millions of souls to experience the critical lesson of separation.
If there is a hell, Mother Teresa must be in it. her kindness - that touch of grace - smells of oneness and we can't have that on this here people farm. It is not what god wants.
I think I've got it now......
Posted by: no one | August 07, 2011 at 06:13 AM
P.S. Art, I don't really mean to be that snarky. I know you feel strongly about your beliefs. I have never commented on them in the way I wanted to because I respect that we are all just speculating to some extent. However, now, I do want to discuss because one of the aspects of your beliefs - the amorality - is also one of the aspects of Danison's position that troubles me most.
Not only do I find it unacceptable, but it is also contrary to what we are told by established religions as well as the bulk of spiritualist communications, that a soul who had a focus of inflicting pain, or a soul whose focus was selfish while on earth would ascend to the same astral plane as someone whose focus was loving and giving.
But this is what you and Danison would have us accept.
Posted by: no one | August 07, 2011 at 06:29 AM
The amorality thing bothers me a great deal too. I came back from my NDE much less tolerant of behavior that hurts other people. And much more willing to put myself at risk to set things right.
Posted by: Sandy | August 07, 2011 at 07:09 AM
Thanks, Sandy.
My own experiences (OBEs, psychedelics, deep meditation and just living life generally) have had the same effect on me. While I think that hurting or killing in defense of those who are weak and cannot defend themselves is justifiable in some limited circumstances, I also think that even that mode of inflicting pain usually results in some form of spiritual harm to the defender (though not necessarily).
Another aspect of Danison that bothers me - and maybe you can relate to this as well - is that it seems to me there is a dangerous arrogance in someone who has had a single experience like hers and then comes back claiming to know what it's all about. In fact, that strikes me as proposterous. How could anyone gain a full understanding of the other side from one brief trip there? She couldn't even gain a full understanding of something as mundane as Columbus, Ohio from a single visit.
And, if you don't know what it's all about, but you just want to share you personal experience, then I think the caveats should be many and explicit. Really, I think you should not be writing what could be mistaken to be authoritave books on the subject.
Posted by: no one | August 07, 2011 at 07:41 AM
OT (slightly) I think this article is pretty fascinating
RE: current DBV's & NDE's
http://tinyurl.com/43hp3v2
-Marty
Posted by: -Gilgamesh | August 07, 2011 at 07:55 AM
Well, Gilgamesh, Danison says there are no angels or being of light. So your link must be full of false info. The girl with cystic fibrosis is terribly mistaken about what she has learned from her multiple NDEs ;-)
Posted by: no one | August 07, 2011 at 08:10 AM
(because he is causing sufficient pain to create the intended illusion of separation)
Sadly this IMO leads to the "Oversoul" theory... when Hitler,Pol Pot,Bundy or Dahmer die (preferably killed IMO)
the Oversoul says to itself
"eeww douche-bags need to be cut out!"
I just have a hard time with the whole
"Adolf you did a good job shocking the whole world into the realization that Racism is a bad thing, here is your atta-boy sticker!"
argument.. sounds pretty politically messed up on the other side, may very well be a "war" going on over there..
I am 7 Billion parts evil and 68 billion parts good so say the Oversoul Borg Collective!
I dont think Time is Linear, what if, every murder was a soul killing itself?
can the same soul exist at the same time? why not?
maybe the killer is killing him/herself?
If this is nothing more then "Pain school"
Posted by: -Gilgamesh | August 07, 2011 at 08:22 AM
sometimes to escape the constant "Intellectual Masturbation" on the afterlife boards or political boards I like to check out vintage photography sights,
one of the best is Shorpy.com you can blow the picture up real big and it looks almost like the picture was taken yesterday even if it was in 1905 or 1893
today's is a good one...do you think any of these folks are worried about over and undersouls?...reincarnation or not?
http://tinyurl.com/3mn2hms
Pretty cool huh?
Posted by: -Gilgamesh | August 07, 2011 at 08:33 AM
Ugghh......now I have been to Danison's blog.
This woman is, clearly, an arrogant scam artist. One NDE and she's serving up answers to life's biggest questions, authoritatively, like McDonalds serves up cheese burgers.
And downplaying - if not plain denegrating - the thousands of NDE experiences that have been recorded (e.g. Long's study) that contain elements different than her version.
What a ridiculous ass.
I am going to bite my tongue and sit this thread out from now on.
Posted by: no one | August 07, 2011 at 08:40 AM
no one, I agree about the dangerous arrogance. I came back different, but I didn't have all the answers. Mostly I had a lot more questions, probably better questions than what I started with, but the NDE was more of a nudge in the right direction than a final destination.
The other NDErs that I've corresponded with have had very similar reactions to their NDE. It's a great experience, but the experience itself isn't all that important when compared to what it does to you afterwards and how you choose to live up to that challenge.
I think it's a mistake to concentrate so much on the NDE and forget about the NDErs. What we experienced isn't as important as who we have become as a result. And who we are in the process of becoming.
Posted by: Sandy | August 07, 2011 at 09:00 AM
I am going to bite my tongue and sit this thread out from now on.
lol I adopted that strategy too. I have now unfortunately reached my own epiglotis.
Posted by: Paul | August 07, 2011 at 09:12 AM
"Danison says there are no angels or being of light."
No, she doesn't. Her whole book is about Beings of Light, which, as she says, may be interpreted as angels by some experiencers.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | August 07, 2011 at 09:16 AM
Here is an interesting webpage trying to register all attempts at reproducing Daryl Bem's precognition experiment. This approach at registering attempts of reproducing an experiment before it actually takes places is quite an interesting new angle to some of the issues with meta analysis of psi studies.
http://www.richardwiseman.com/BemReplications.shtml
Posted by: sbu | August 07, 2011 at 10:18 AM
"No one," I know you said you'd keep mum on this thread, but I have a question. On an earlier thread you said (IIRC) that you believe you have the dharma of a warrior, and would be a warrior in any incarnation. (My apologies if I'm misremembering.) If this is so, doesn't it tie in with Danison's view of incarnation as a means of experiencing certain aspects of life, even if these are not necessarily the most positive aspects? After all, being a warrior often entails inflicting pain and death on others - even on innocent noncombatants.
If one person's purpose in life is to experience combat, maybe another person's purpose is to experience the life of a criminal, even a sadist. I'm not saying that warriors are equivalent to criminals, only that, to someone in a bombed-out village, the warriors in their planes overhead might seem every bit as awful as the child molester seems to his victim.
Seeker, I think building rockets for the exploration of space is a great ambition. I'm glad you've set your sights high, and I wish you success.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | August 07, 2011 at 10:19 AM
Sbu, I wonder what you think about the fact of that we live in a multiverse not a universe. That there could very well be an infinite number of universes with very different laws of physics some with the exact same laws. This greatly increases the chances that their is an afterlife. Also, I should add what do you think of the cross correspondences? Great physical mediums such as DD Homes, Eusapia Palladino, Franek Kluski whose molds provide strong evidence for the survival hypothesis. As well as the fact that he was able to materialize not just humans but other animals as well. These physical mediums were able to do their physical materializations in broad daylight.
Posted by: Leo | August 07, 2011 at 10:28 AM
"No one," I know you said you'd keep mum on this thread, but I have a question. On an earlier thread you said (IIRC) that you believe you have the dharma of a warrior, and would be a warrior in any incarnation.
I did say that, MP. And I meant it. However, perhaps I wasn't clear about the context.
So, removing teeth from tongue....ah that feels better....I feel that my dhrma was created by my karma - cause and effect; not by some god that wanted me to be a warrior so it could have that experience.
Furthermore, having created that karma, and lived the dharma, I have learned something. I also said in a subsequent comment that I am a "recovering warrior". I do not want to inflict pain and death. I do not want to train for that. I do not want to go arround always prepared for martial engagement. I have learned that it makes my soul sick. I want, instead, to grow in my understanding of love and love is what I want to share with this world (and the next). I want to have as a tool of my self expression a musical instrument instead of an M16.
Yes, the warrior is still in there, but it gets less with passing time. I hope that some day it will be gone. A distant memory as if it belonged to someone else with the lesson an integral part of my being.
The difference between me and Danison is that I am pretty much a straight up Buddhist regarding these matters. Danison is not. She has a totally unique spin. She sees these experiences as pre-ordained by the source for the purpose of the source's enjoyment/entertainment. I see, instead, the law of cause and effect acting on my choices. Choices that I made in this life time and in past ones.
My perspective is in line with ancient wisdom passed down through, and presumably validated, the ages.
I see that my choices, driven by desires, can harm my soul and lead to unpleasant afterlife conditions and unpleasant reincarnations. Danison is as morally equivalent as possible. Saint, criminal, warrior, pedophile....all the same. No personal repsonsibility. No karma. No soul sickness.
Posted by: no one | August 07, 2011 at 11:12 AM