« Ouch! | Main | »

Comments

....the whole idea of striving for spiritual perfection is downplayed in these communications. Instead, we are told that in the extra-dimensional world of the other side, we have already achieved perfection even while we still progress toward it. This is a paradox in terms of earthly time, but not in terms of the "No-Time Zone" that constitutes the afterlife.

I don't see this as making any sense. But then I guess the communications say they aren't supposed to, in Earth rational time/space deterministic terms. Unfortunately my rational mind is what I have to work with. Other channellings have also expressed this concept, but there must be something missing. If the Oversoul has already achieved perfection beyond Earth time, why bother to engage in a long, brutal series of Earth incarnations creating different personalities? What the source of Marks's channelling may have left out (perhaps deliberately) is that the underlying purpose is simply to alleviate boredom, the need for entertainment on the part of the Oversoul. A world of limitation and complex interactions and risks and all sorts of experiences is a lot more exciting to the Oversoul than eternal bliss. Then one issue could be why should this be considered to be a good thing by human beings, as Marks presumably assumes.

hmmmm........in simultaneous time/timeless dimensions does 2+2 still = 4?

{:-)

Excusem wah but who/what are the verified identity(s)of this communicator(s) that Marks is channeling? Zetas? To write a post and gloss over without detail "Marks brought through enough evidential material to satisfy the sitter and himself that he had made legitimate contact with the other side " is a bit of silliness, no?

"who/what are the verified identity(s)of this communicator(s) that Marks is channeling?"

The purported communicators are deceased loved ones (usually relatives) of the sitters.

Excusem wah but who/what are the verified identity(s)of this communicator(s) that Marks is channeling? Zetas? To write a post and gloss over without detail "Marks brought through enough evidential material to satisfy the sitter and himself that he had made legitimate contact with the other side " is a bit of silliness, no?


Hi Forests how's your Rationalwiki compilation of irrational tirades going?

I suspect this could also be Phinuit with that French/English combination :)

'... we are told that in the extra-dimensional world of the other side, we have already achieved perfection even while we still progress toward it. This is a paradox in terms of earthly time, but not in terms of the "No-Time Zone" that constitutes the afterlife.'

Very, very interesting, Michael, but for your comments, not for what Marks comes up with. And:

I am always suspicious when this, the classic time concept of physics, long the playground of poets:

Time present and time past/Are both perhaps present in time future/And time future contained in time past (TS Eliot),

gets bandies about in afterlife contexts. To my mind, the timelessness of the afterlife is surely that. So 'past', 'future', etc., inherently temporal time concepts, are unlikely to be useful as elucidations of the nature of afterlife timelessness. That in turn makes very strange the idea that my soul can at once be in its state of perfection in the afterlife, and here in this life. Claims to this effect strike me as Eliot-like playing with the classic time concept than as a channeled truth about the afterlife. It is as well to remember that this classic time concept is a temporal one, not an afterlife-regarding one. We have no business trying to understand afterlife timelessness in terms of it. Yet that is what Marks seems to be doing.

http://www.amazon.ca/Beyond-Death-Conditions-Philip-Solomon/dp/1571742026

Here is another book that porputes to describe the afterlife from mediumistic communications. I haven't read it.

A bit of irony in the Amazon review is that the book is said to be a non-glamerous description of what it's like over there. However, the communications are also alleged to have come from Marylin Monroe, Al Capone, Hitler, Elvis, Princess Dianna and other famous (or infamous) people.

If I could believe the book is legit, I'd buy it. It provide a perspective on the much debated question of what happens to a "Hitler" - same nice afterlife as anyone else or some form of punishment/hellish existance?

"the communications are also alleged to have come from Marylin Monroe, Al Capone, Hitler, Elvis, Princess Dianna"

My alarm bell goes off whenever famous people are being channeled. Marks's book is more credible in that respect, because he is channeling ordinary people who were well known to the sitters.

Princess Di may not be an entirely unrealistic source, since she did have an interest in New Age-type stuff when she was alive. The others? If he can get in touch with Jimmy Hoffa and find out where he's buried, I'll be more impressed.

- She says, "I see and I can talk to that consciousness that I would perceive in a Time-sense being another lifetime two lifetimes down the river. Over here, that person is here with me; she has individual experiences and stuff that are unique to her.

The afterlife could not be really "timeless" or "No-Time", as Marks seems to be channelling. Ever since Aristotle time has been understood to be the measure of change. Change and therefore time must occur in the afterlife in order for entities to have thoughts and experiences, no matter how alien to our three-dimensional experience. Marks's communication shows that in that realm time (defined in the same way as on Earth) still exists, but the message claims it somehow proceeds independently and above our time dimension. A "place" of one or two additional spacial dimensions might be an extremely limited analogy, where time measured as change also takes place along those additional dimensions. Mind-bending and probably impossible for humans to really understand.

"If I could believe the book is legit, I'd buy it. It provide a perspective on the much debated question of what happens to a "Hitler" - same nice afterlife as anyone else or some form of punishment/hellish existance?"

Don't waste your money no-one.

Thanks. That is what I thought, Zerdini.

The afterlife could not be really "timeless" or "No-Time", as Marks seems to be channelling.

I think you're right, because I have pondered this question and I think the time is a requirement of consciousness, so that in the afterlife remains another conception of time different from the ordinary conception of time, it is not without time. Look at the conversation I had with Douglas in this post:

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2013/01/excellent-interview-of-afterlife-researcher-titus-rivas-detailed-focused-and-probing-questions-lengthy-serious-answers.html

If we consider that the world is ordered in a series of planes, each with a dimension more than the previous, plane of ordinary matter is the plane of least dimensions and the more dimensions have the plane more we distance of linear time, but no plane is entirely free of time, except perhaps the last plane that would be God.


If we are talking about 'flagging' however, then for me, when we are given a description of some feature of the afterlife which is seemingly incomprehensible to us, then this flags up for me that the account is probably nearer the truth.

I am suspicious of those accounts that appear to be easily understood by us here. For me, we must be dealing with a higher order reality, and any higher order reality must, by definition, be difficult for us to undertand, otherwise the description is probably false, or at best, simplified.

We struggle to understand everything through rational thought, but it has been understood since antiquity that total gnosis lies beyond rational thought, that rational processing only takes you so far. The Neoplatonists recognised the limitations of rational thought almost 2000 years ago.

I'm not saying that we throw rational thought out of the window, of course not, but recognise that you will fail in your attempt to define everything from a purely rational basis. Some aspects of reality can only be understood experientially.

The Neoplatonist philosopher Plotinus achieved this extra-rational gnoses a couple of times in his life.


Nice blog post for readers.

On Coast to Coast radio Monday night:

10pm - 2am PT
Evidence for the Paranormal
Mon 01-14

George Noory returns to chat with Professor of Mathematics at California State University Long Beach, Dr. James D. Stein (book link), about why 57% of Americans believe in psychic phenomena such as ESP and telepathy, yet scientists have still not proven it exists. He'll cover the various ways scientists have attempted to study the supernatural, as well as the many rational reasons why certain phenomena must exist.

What these supposed spirits relate sounds very similar to what Jane Roberts' Seth related. Does that make it more believable, or have just so many people read the Seth books? It does seem that if true, the spirit in the Afterlife does get bored and material life is seen as exciting. Seth seemed to imply such, noting that he spent one life hundreds of years ago as a very poor single mother with many children, scraping by for meals, and yet he seemed to think such a life was fun. Strange.

@Kathleen:
I don't think Seth described this experience so much as "fun" as "exhilarating" - the life that carried the most intensely alive experience.

"There were some [people] who doubted that love was so full and wanted to know whether this was really true. In order that they might find out, they were let into a state of heavenly love with all obstacles removed…they talked with me from there and told me that they felt deeper happiness than words could express, sorrowing that they would have to return to their former state. Other people as well have been raised into heaven, and the deeper or higher they have been taken, the deeper and higher they have penetrated into intelligence and wisdom, becoming able to grasp things that were incomprehensible to them before."
-Emanuel Swedenborg, Heaven and Hell

Kathleen,

the thing is, it's GOT to be something along the lines of what Seth describes. It's the only source I've read that actually makes sense and, crucially, is inclusive of all that has gone before (and after).

While individuals might not agree with everything he says, Seth's model has got to be along the right lines IMV, or at least it is closer than any of the traditional religious models out there.

I find that Seth and Silver Birch are on the same wavelength, the only difference being that the Silver birch source is couched in more traditional spiritualist language and metaphors - nothing wrong with that if you like that approach.

For me, Seth works better.

PS, Seth himself even admits that not everyone will accept his particular approach, and that's alright. People choose what approach best works for them. Who else says that?

i dont know if is apropiate for me to be commenting in this blog since:

1.- my born lenguage is not english, so sometimes my ideas will not be delivered as i want

2.- i really want to belive in life after death but to be honest i am more inclined to belive that there is nothing once we die and i scold myself for looking evidence of what i later retionalize as wishfull thinking.

but here i go, something that has always bother me in the idea of life after death is precisely the time itself, this universe (according to scientifics). is around 13 thousand million years old and humans are few thousands years old. So What about the souls in all those years, they were just waiting to humans to be created to have the earthly experiences?.

So i think that the idea of no time as we know it may have some sense, but then again if as he said my past and futere encarnations are already in there, so by that logic i already in there at the same time that i am in here, because i too am the past and futere incarnation of others, and that just dont make sense in any level, if there is no time line to follow and even the future me (incarnations) is already in there, then by that logic mediums also would have the ability to contact someone who has not even been born yet but at the same time already had a life time of experiences.

So i find difficult to accept the premises explained by this medium.

I'm a wavering skeptic/believer, but I've found the Seth books to be highly compelling. Can I 100 percent believe it? No. But there is something about that material that has just struck me as "true." It's something that will puzzle me forever. The other thing I did was to compare Jane Roberts' writing to Seth's discourses, and without a doubt, Seth's discourses and writing were much superior (no offense to Jane Roberts, RIP). If there's an afterlife, I wouldn't be surprised at all to find it much like Seth describes.

Hi Kathleen, what are the Seth Books?

"my born lenguage is not english, so sometimes my ideas will not be delivered as i want"

Welcome! I understand you just fine. :o)

"So What about the souls in all those years, they were just waiting to humans to be created to have the earthly experiences?."

Why do you think souls would be just waiting around? In this vast cosmos, I'm sure they had lots of stuff to do and experience before Earth was created. Though since time is not an absolute, "before" is really just an approximation.

"if there is no time line to follow and even the future me (incarnations) is already in there, then by that logic mediums also would have the ability to contact someone who has not even been born yet but at the same time already had a life time of experiences."

People often claim to be in touch with beings who have never incarnated on Earth. Robert Monroe, for example,, and folks who have had contact with extra-terrestrials of various kinds.

Extra-terrestrial is a funny word if you think about it, because every single one of us was an ET at some point.

mbmanticor, the Seth books were written by Jane Roberts. If you're interested, I'd recommend "The Nature of Personal Reality" by Jane Roberts, I think it's the most interesting read in the whole series.

I believe the concept that "You create your own reality" was popularized in modern times by Seth. If one gives it creedence, it has truly enormous power, along the lines of that engendered by the word "infinity". It literally says anything is possible. It means I can create a reality where tiny orange alien frogs run the universe. Such a reality would probably be shared by relatively few individuals (probably only me unless I can convince others), but it is a possibility nonetheless. OTOH, established religions, belief for/against an afterlife, etc are also possible realities, and have validity for the individuals involved.If you believe you will have an afterlife, you will have one. If you believe it will be a blackout, it will be. If you STOP believing in a particular reality and adopt a new one, your reality will change. This is the real power of the statement. That it is never locked in and can always change to be whatever you want it to be. In accordance with this kind of thinking, Seth also points out the importance of recognizing belief systems. Belief systems lock you in to a particular reality and are therefore limiting. They're not necessarily bad, and might serve a temporary purpose, but they are inherently limiting.

It's intriguing stuff to think about, considering how much of what we argue about has to do with who has the better, more evidentiary, more real, more whatever belief system. Mine is right but yours is wrong. Maybe everybody is right.

Tsavo.

Bear in mind though that the goal is NOT to eliminate belief systems. It is only to recognise them. In fact, belief systems are necessary in order to create physical reality!

So the goal is not to eliminate them - this is in fact not possible, but to recognise that belief systems are the building blocks of physical reality. Once this is realised, then it is possible to re-arrange the building blocks to suit.

If you think about it, this is the fundamental principle of Magick as well.

The reason people often doubt this principle is that it is not easily recognised. Much of our lives appear to run counter to what we seem to want.

Seth makes the distinction between the outer ego - our conscious selves, and our inner ego - what we usually refer to as the subconscious or unconscious.

Our outer reality is generally driven through our inner ego, which explains why so many things happen to us which appear contrary to what we appear to want.

Reprogramming the inner ego is the great task, and again, what magick is all about. Theory and practice are two different things and I've found that this isn’t easy.

That’s why you tend to find much magickal practice involves trying to bypass the conscious mind so that the subconscious can be reprogrammed. This is what all the rituals are about.

In my view Seth is right. But the principle is so devastatingly simple that people fool themselves into thinking they can just think positive thoughts and the world will change. When it doesn’t, they get disillusioned and walk away from the idea.

In actuality, 'positive thinking' is not enough' whatever the self help books say. It takes hard work.

Regarding the aforementioned Philip Solomon book, he is the resident psychic medium in my local newspaper who responds to people's letters with psychic readings and ends each response by firing off six or seven Christian names (never surnames) saying he feels they'll mean something to the writer. He is definitely no John Edward I'm afraid.

But the spirits in John Sloan seances (in the books of Arthur Findlay) reject reincarnation process. Whats your opinion about it Michael?

Alex, this is because both reincarnation or non-reincarnation can be be said to be the case, depending on your perspective.

From outside time, all our lives are happening simultaneously. This means that this life, the one you are living now, is only happening once. You don't come back. In this sense, no, there is no such thing as reincarnation.

From the silmultaneous perspective however, you are sending out hundreds, possibly thousands of focuses/facets into physical reality in order to explore all its possibilities - each is a different human lifetime, so in this sense, there is a form of reincarnation.

It all depends on the perspective you take, which is why, I think, there has been some confusion over the issue - it is a complicated subject.

Regarding John Sloan, bear in mind that many spirits may not have the full picture. Many may only recently have crossed over and full realisation can be a gradual process. Just because a spirit says something, that doesnt make it true, just as with anyone residing in the physical. Many may *think* they know and be more than happy to let you know about it, but that doesnt mean they are correct. Many spirits may not know that much more than we do, at least to begin with.


@ Douglas:
Very nice. As you say, it is not possible to remove all belief systems. If I believe I have done so, then I have not. However, transcendence in its better guises must have something to do with getting beyond belief systems, an important point.

Considering what you say here:
"So the goal is not to eliminate them - this is in fact not possible, but to recognize that belief systems are the building blocks of physical reality. Once this is realized, then it is possible to re-arrange the building blocks to suit."
What you end up talking about is simply creating the reality that you prefer (ie"to suit"). All the difficult"reprogramming" has as its aim "creating your own reality".

Seth only talks about getting rid of personal belief systems that cause you problems. As you point out, these are frequently buried in the subconscious and difficult to identify, much less eradicate. However, he never articulated a particular belief system or set of such that were correct, ideal, or in any way to be preferred over others. It therefore makes intuitive sense [to me] to try and get rid of as many as possible, consistent with functioning in the physical world. I obviously wouldn't want to get rid of my belief in gravity and walk off a cliff. But in terms of having a worldview about one's existence, why is there a need to adopt any particular belief as the one and only? Each individual might have a reason that works for them, but it should be recognized for what it is:

appropriate:
I personally NEED this particular belief system because for me ....

inappropriate:
THIS IS THE CORRECT belief system for everyone because we all .....

BTW, Magick is something I've not looked into at all. Do you have a couple good references for someone wanting to be "enlightened"? :)

Hi Tsavo,

I agree with your points. But, while I agree that eradicating negative belief systems is what Seth is really on about, it’s worth noting that you couldn’t remove all belief systems, because you could then no longer function in physical reality!

I agree therefore, that it comes down to trimming them down to the bare essentials required to live as pleasant a life here as possible.

As far as magick is concerned, you really need to check out Crowley. Yes he's arrogant, loud and quite irritating at times, but he's also right!

Forget all the 'satanist' stuff. People forget that he was a bit of a joker and came out with a lot of that just to annoy christian fundamentalists.

He's actually a very good philosopher and magickal practitioner - probably one of the best. His work can be a bit hard going and long winded at times though.

Mind you, you read Seth and he can be long winded at times too, so you may be alright.

tsavo - I believe the concept that "You create your own reality" was popularized in modern times by Seth. If one gives it credence, it has truly enormous power, along the lines of that engendered by the word "infinity".

Douglas - ....belief systems are the building blocks of physical reality. Once this is realised, then it is possible to re-arrange the building blocks to suit.

I don't give this much credence. The vast number of interactions with the world show it is a real objective reality existing independent of human consciousness. The world was still round when people believed it was flat. The earth still revolved around the sun when people believed in the Ptolemaic system of epicycles. The development of science is where old beliefs about reality finally gave way to new understandings based on experimental data measuring how things actually work.

An old saying: if wishes were horses beggars would ride.

Refutation of Bishop Berkely
After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it -- "I refute it thus."
James Boswell: Life of Samuel Johnson book 3.

doubter - "The vast number of interactions with the world show it is a real objective reality existing independent of human consciousness."

That is a very common belief system ;)

However, if you adhere too strongly to it, it will blind you to other possibilities. All belief systems are exclusive in one way or another, and trying to eliminate as many as possible from your life is wonderfully liberating. Each belief system I encounter, even a very personal one, is like a new specimen to examine, or a different facet of a cut gem, to appropriate Michael's metaphor.

The trick as always is to play the game, but to realize it's a game, perhaps a never-ending one.

tsavo - However, if you adhere too strongly to it, it will blind you to other possibilities.
.....The trick as always is to play the game, but to realize it's a game, perhaps a never-ending one.

Different belief systems have different likelihoods based on logic, internal consistency, the principle of parsimony, and other kinds of evidence. I prefer to settle on whatever belief system appeals to me mainly based on these factors (rather than what might be the most uplifting or comforting, for instance), realizing that the only thing we can ever know absolutely to be true is that we exist. This latter observation is not just a belief, but a self-evident truth.

All information about the outer world including obvious cases where it impinges upon us (like getting kicked in the shin), is derived in one way or another from perceptions received in consciousness. We can never by definition observe something or interact with something other than by receiving sense impressions. This even applies to psi, because of course even telepathic or clairvoyant impressions must be registered in consciousness.

Since this is true, in principle we never can be absolutely certain that the apparently "objective" external world is not somehow also a construct of consciousness.

But the principle of parsimony given the vast preponderance of multitudinous types of interactions with the external world would indicate that it is much more likely it is real and separate from consciousness. But of course this isn't proof.

It has even been discussed that this world could be something remotely analogous to a supercomputer interactive simulation created by vastly advanced intelligent beings. "Objective reality" would be ultimately a production of the intelligence and power and imagination of these unimaginably superior beings. Or the world could be simply the direct creation of supernatural beings. In these schemes reality would not be a truly objective and unchangeable "stuff", but it also would still be truly independent of human consciousness. I think this conceptual approach is more likely than that reality is a product of human consciousness.

doubter - "I prefer to settle on whatever belief system appeals to me..."

Exactly my point. That's what most everyone does. Hiking a path is always easier than bushwhacking.

Doubter,

You seems very sure of an independent, objective reality, along with your pal Dr Johnson.

Far be it for me to disagree with the man himself, but perhaps both he, and you, could benefit from a pinch of Bernardo Kastrup:

http://www.bernardokastrup.com/

He makes a good case for an idealist interpretation.

A quote from Kastrup's blog:

What are the objects of the world that I perceive around me? According to the ("membrane") metaphor, all that there is is a single ocean of Mind and the ripples of experience that propagate through it. As such, there is no separate, truly objective, autonomous world 'out there.' The illusion of objects arises as an artifact of folded consciousness: Objects are merely the recursively reflected images of ripples in the ocean of Mind. It is the recursive reflection that creates the illusion of something separate from Mind. If there were no reflections, all experience would be unambiguously subjective, though lacking self-awareness. According to this notion, even your own thoughts are objects, for they are themselves recursively reflected in Mind. This, indeed, seems to match our personal experience, given our ability to judge and critique ourselves.

Another quote:

....if we are to be consistent with the scientific paradigm, we cannot trust that what we see is what is actually going on; we may, for all we know, be living in an elaborate, brain-constructed hallucination of reality that happens to maximize our chances of survival. However, the very scientific paradigm that tells us this was itself built upon the very assumption that what we perceive corresponds accurately to nature. If that assumption cannot be made, then can we trust the conclusions of our scientific paradigm to begin with?

These musings are not to my taste. It is true that we can't be absolutely certain of an objective reality. But Kastrup ignores the vast body of scientific physical experiments and resulting predictive theory that give numberless confirmations of an invariantly external, interactive self-consistent reality going back billions of years. This mountain of data may not be absolutely conclusive, but it makes the existence of a truly objective reality very much more likely. And whatever it really is, say "an artifact of folded consciousness" this certainly isn't human consciousness. The existence of an objective reality is a brute fact of the physical universe that we inhabit. I think Kastrup's sort of speculation is into a level of existence forever unknowable by humans and is therefore pointless.

@doubter:
Self-consistency says nothing about a possibly bigger picture.

I have not read this Book but I did read the Afterlife Unveiled by Professor Stafford Betty.That painted a picture of the afterlife based on early 20th century mediums. It was heavily flavored by the subjective unconscious of the mediums and the spiritualism of that time.

I Am gnostically Agnostic about the nature of human consciousness after physical death. mean I believe mind continues but I have no idea exactly about the reality of its form and content on a non corporeal form.
Micheal's comments " always possible that the medium got the evidential material from the other side (or via telepathy, clairvoyance, etc.) but relied on his subconscious mind to supply the non-evidential communications. Most mediumistic sessions seem to consist of a mixture of legitimate messages and subconscious invention "

Are the same as my experiences and I share the same opinion.The most verifiable evidence is that which reveals a heretofore unrevealed bit of evidence that could not be known by the medium nor the one receiving the reading. Example grandpa left a stack of letters in shoe box and buried it under the Oak tree in the back forty, You dig it up and there it is, However one can always answer super psi.

When you examine life closely it is hard to find a solid self that you can say this is it. Our body's change every cell after three or four years ,our minds change in an instant and then there is memory.Buddhism argues against the reification of subject and object and argues for a continuum of consciousness based on karmic energy.

Essentially this follows the cosmos-genisis theory that existed at the time of Buddha in India.This is not idealism as conventional reality is taken as a given but it is distorted and incomplete based on our limited understanding. Form (nama rupa) is created by mind,one might say mind and matter are two sides of one coin or concomitant.

Karma as usually understood is a kind of moral justification but in deeper Buddhist teaching it is merely a kind of thermodynamics,if a then b.The simplistic idea if I punch you someone will punch me is not accurate. The state of mind that causes me to punch you will create io form which I will experience someway or other.

In the best cases we have of evidence for reincarnation the work of Ian Stevenson there is no evidence of any tit for tat moral karma. Near death experiences have a heavy cultural element to them. So I am wondering if the afterlife in a non corporeal state is also a form Cosmo Genesis. Then there is the subjective distortion of the mediums belief system. One school of Buddhism the Yoagcara school holds that a a collective unconscious called the alaya vijnana. All thoughts are collected there all form all that was exists similar to the idea of a Quantum mind.

I know the following things:

***Organized religion is false
***Our general conceptions of God are false/inaccurate
***Religion is often used as a means to control people, not liberate them

HOWEVER
***I've had a LOT of weird shit happen in my life...precognitive dreams, telepathy, shared dreams, veridical afterlife communications via a medium who told me things that she could not have possibly known, bizarre "coincidences"...things that simply CANNOT happen if the materialist, atheist conception of the universe is correct. Yet they did happen and continue to do so.
***The only explanation for some of the things I have seen and experienced is that Consciousness is not limited only to material brain functions. Human minds (souls?) somehow can communicate with each other in a non-material way.

THEREFORE, my position is
***Religion is incorrect.
***Atheism, in the sense that the universe is only material and "psychic" events don't happen, is also incorrect. These things do happen.
***The truth is a LOT more complicated than we understand
***There is some sort of spiritual reality/alternate dimension beyond our own which occasionally interacts with ours.
***Given that i am certain beyond a doubt that consciousness is more than just a simple brain function, it seems plausible, indeed likely, to me that consciousness survives bodily death in some form.

doubter,

||f the Oversoul has already achieved perfection beyond Earth time, why bother to engage in a long, brutal series of Earth incarnations creating different personalities?||

The oversoul has "already" achieved perfection *because of* the work that you and its other incarnations have done.

Similarly, the Universe itself has achieved a perfect state because of the "work" it has performed in the realm of infinity.

Michael,

Great post! Yes, this all jibes so well with your writings and my own thoughts that it is uncanny.

"The oversoul has "already" achieved perfection *because of* the work that you and its other incarnations have done.

Similarly, the Universe itself has achieved a perfect state because of the "work" it has performed in the realm of infinity."

For someone who has previously expressed a liking for statements to be falsifiable, these metaphysical speculations are surely unwarranted. I know of no evidence to justify them. Do you?


||For someone who has previously expressed a liking for statements to be falsifiable, these metaphysical speculations are surely unwarranted. I know of no evidence to justify them. Do you?||

Yep, but I ain't gonna get into it with you. :)

Matt Rouge - The oversoul has "already" achieved perfection *because of* the work that you and its other incarnations have done.
Similarly, the Universe itself has achieved a perfect state because of the "work" it has performed in the realm of infinity.

This is a metaphysical belief that must be held as a matter of faith. Unless the reports from certain deep NDEers and other experiencers of "cosmic consciousness" (and certain mediumistic communications) are to be taken as evidence. While having to ignore other reports and communications.

Some might like to believe such transcendental experiences, but ultimately they are totally convincing mainly to the experiencers themselves.

Anyway, I must point out that even if this belief is the truth, what is to the benefit of the oversoul is not necessarily to the benefit of human beings. There is evidence for this, rather than it being purely a matter of faith - namely, the human condition.

FDRLincoln - THEREFORE, my position is...

Your position is reasonable, and I think about as far as the actual evidence and reasoning from it go. Unlike Marks's type of broad transcendental cosmology. I would just insert the caveat that you presumably don't mean atheism - what you describe as untenable given the evidence is materialism. And it is also plausible and likely that some form of reincarnation occurs.

Doubter: That's right, I am not an atheist. The evidence does not support materialist atheism.

What I laid out is what I think with my logical mind.

My spiritual self has had many mystical experiences which confirm to me the interconnection of everything and the primacy of love. This side of me has no doubts at all.

But my logical self still struggles with the problem of pain in the natural world, as Barbara apparently does.

The comments to this entry are closed.