On the road

Since 1997, I've been intensely interested in spiritual issues -- the whole question of the "meaning of life" -- why we're here, what it's all about, and whether it matters. I've tried different paths with differing degrees of success.

One of the routes I explored was "nondualistic mysticism," a venerable tradition in both East and West, but probably more commonly associated with Eastern religions. Though I've read some books on Buddhism, my main exposure to this way of thinking comes from the popular writer Eckhart Tolle, who's become something of a cultural phenomenon, especially after being embraced by New Age diva Oprah Winfrey.

Tolle offers some valuable insights and is no doubt correct in many of his criticisms of the ego-driven modern world. The meditative techniques he describes so well can be quite helpful in shutting down the stream-of-consciousness babble of the mind and providing some much-needed "inner peace."

That said, I must add that I don't find Tolle's overall philosophy or worldview very satisfying. For me at least, it seems to lead to a certain lassitude, a feeling that nothing matters much or at all; and this feeling slides pretty easily into a depressed state of mind. I'm sure many of Tolle's admirers are not depressed, so this may just be a personal quirk of my own. Nevertheless, it's enough to keep me from adopting the Tollean perspective.

Another thing turns me off Tolle, as well -- namely, the fact that his viewpoint doesn't seem to match up very well with the information provided by mediums and near-death experiencers. For Tolle, the personality is an artifice that will dissolve upon death -- yet mediumistic communicators emphatically state (and demonstrate) that personality persists after death. NDEs usually indicate the same thing; it is rare that a near-death experiencer reports losing the sense of self in a transport of mystical oneness, though occasionally such claims are made. For the most part, NDErs (like those who come through mediums) seem to remain who they were during life, but with access to a different perspective that gives them new insights. I can't see any reason to discount all this evidence, some of it very compelling, simply to adopt the Tollean viewpoint -- a viewpoint that strikes me as enervating and dispiriting anyway.

Of all the major world religions, Christianity is the one I've looked into most thoroughly. I went through a period when I was reading a good deal of New Testament scholarship and Christian apologetics. Much of the apologetic material is quite sophisticated, but I can't shake the feeling that the same kinds of arguments could be employed just as easily to prove the truth of any other faith tradition.

Moreover, any belief system that depends ultimately on ancient texts is problematic. Who can say if the texts are accurate, or if the events they described took place at all? I don't doubt the historical reality of Jesus, and I think he was probably "resurrected" in the sense that his etheric body was seen by his followers. I even think it's possible the tomb was empty, and the earthly body vanished in some miraculous way. And I've read enough about the Shroud of Turin to think that it may be a genuine relic, preserving Jesus' image at the time of and this event. (Yes, I know about the carbon dating, but see here for more on the story.)

So I am obviously very sympathetic to Christianity and to claims for the extraordinary nature of Jesus. Still, I think his story has probably been somewhat misinterpreted. To me, he was -- or is -- a spiritual master of the highest order, someone whose insights, teachings, and powers were far beyond those of nearly all other people. But I don't think he was infallible, omniscient, omnipotent, or part of a triune deity.

Actually, Jesus' teachings have something in common with the messages received by some mediums. It has often been noted that mediumistic communicators, in trying to deal with earthly problems, can be rather impractical -- suggesting solutions that would work in an ideal world but not in the world as it is. In particular, many of these spirits seem to have lost their understanding of money and the role it plays in human life. Jesus' teachings strike me in somewhat the same way -- lofty, idealistic, powerful, but not altogether practical. It is easy enough for a spirit, or a spiritual master, to advise us not to fret about money -- "the lilies of the field, they neither toil nor spin" (Matthew 6:28) -- but in our practical day-to-day lives financial considerations can be pretty darned important. We can't actually live like the lilies of the field, but it seems that those persons, incarnate or discarnate, who reach a certain level of spiritual advancement have trouble relating to the practical problems that dog the rest of us.

In any event, I take the story of Jesus as the (imperfect and embellished) record of an advanced spiritual teacher who, after his death, was able to manifest himself to his disciples -- many of whom were probably chosen for their latent psychic abilities in the first place. A complicated theology arose out of this episode as those followers and others who came after them tried to make sense of it, but this theology, overlaid with both traditional Hebrew and neo-Platonist formulations, may be more misleading than helpful.

If I don't go in for traditional Western religion, as represented by Christianity, or for the Eastern mystical tradition, as represented in popular form by Tolle, then just what is my belief system at present? I would have to say that of the various worldviews I've looked at, spiritualism -- the movement that began in the 19th century and enjoyed its heyday during the First World War -- is the one that most appeals to me. That's not to say there isn't a lot of nonsense in spiritualism -- of course there is. There have been fraudulent and self-deluded mediums, and there are inconsistencies in messages received even by genuine mediums. But when we strip away the doubtful or discredited mediums and look at the essence of what the best mediums had to say, I think we find a a worldview that is largely consistent with itself and with the best evidence from other sources, such as NDEs, OBEs, IADCs, and Stevenson's reincarnation research.

The worldview of spiritualism essentially holds that "we are spiritual beings having a physical existence." (The quote is from Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. I don't think he was a spiritualist in the sense in which I'm using the word, but his statement sums up spiritualism very nicely.) Spiritualism doesn't deny the existence of physical reality with all its travails and challenges, but it does say that this phase of our existence is temporary and serves a purpose. The purpose is for us to learn certain lessons -- lessons that vary from person to person depending on the individual's stage of spiritual growth. Reincarnation is part of the plan, though the details are a bit murky and -- according to some communicators -- impossible for the earthly mind, bound by space and time, to fully comprehend.

There are heavens and hells -- more precisely, different planes of spiritual existence -- but these too are temporary. What we may think of as heaven or paradise is not a final destination but more like a way station, a place to rest, recuperate, and recharge the spiritual batteries before continuing to new challenges and opportunities. (In this respect, it is interesting to recall the cryptic saying attributed to Jesus, "In my Father's house are many mansions" [John 14:2]. The word incorrectly translated as "mansions" actually means "resting places" or "way stations.")

Those who've done their best to be good and decent in their earthly lives will make the journey faster than those whose cruel and malicious behavior has stunted their spiritual growth. The worst offenders will have to undergo a change of heart and sincere repentance and atonement, perhaps throughout several incarnations, before moving on. But no one is left to languish in misery forever, even if that misery is self-inflicted.

This sort of thing is rather abstract, but I've found that some of spiritualism's claims can be tested in a private, introspective (and necessarily subjective) way. Spiritualist teachings emphasize that we all have one or more spirit guides available to help us, if we only ask. I've found that if I put myself in a suitably relaxed frame of mind -- an almost trancelike state similar to the hypnagogic stage that precedes sleep -- and address a specific question to a (vividly imagined) "spirit guide," I can receive meaningful answers that clear up the question very satisfactorily to me. Some of the insights I've received via this method have been enormously helpful, and I've come to rely on it whenever I'm faced with a problem or a dilemma. Am I "merely" accessing otherwise hidden portions of my own mind? Possibly, but even so, this would not contradict spiritualism, which places great importance on the "higher self" ordinarily concealed from our view. To me, the crucial point is that the method works. Understanding exactly how it works is less important to me than actually being able to use it.

Some people say rather indignantly, "I've never sensed any spirit guides or guardian angels. I've never met any beings like that!" A question to ask would be: "Have you ever tried to meet them?" Some ideas can be tested only by personally seeking the answer with an open mind. The person who insists there is no spiritual world because "I've never seen it," when he has never actually looked, is like a person who insists there's no such thing as music because "I've never heard it," while he resolutely holds his hands over his ears.

Spiritualism can be criticized on various grounds; advocates of more traditional religions call it shallow, while those inclined to mysticism call it crude. Both camps seem to regard spiritualism as simplistic, almost childish, and there is some justice in this criticism. But then, many great truths have a disarming simplicity, an almost childish quality. The Golden Rule, probably the greatest moral truth ever enunciated (and one found in many traditions around the world), is simple enough that even a child can grasp it. Its very simplicity is the key to its power.

Besides, might we not expect the ultimate truth about our spiritual nature to be consistent with the thoughts and feelings of childhood? Childhood is when we are probably more closely in touch with our spiritual side than at any later time. Arguably the fairy-tale, happily-ever-after quality of some spiritualist messages is a point in their favor. Children may enjoy fairy tales precisely because they are young enough to dimly recall -- and yearn for -- the kind of heaven that such stories re-create. Perhaps Jesus was alluding to something along these lines when he said that only by becoming childlike could one be ready to enter "the kingdom of heaven."

At any rate, of the approaches I've investigated, spiritualism remains the most compelling to me. I don't think it is the whole truth, but I do think it takes us closer to the truth than ancient texts or Zen-like mindfulness (though these approaches, too, have their place).

Of course, we all have to travel down our own road -- and your mileage may vary.

Comments

[william]

I also studied Buddhism for many years and stayed for a short time with Buddhist monks. I found Buddhism a worthwhile study, especially in its knowledge and teachings into consciousness and the symptoms of ignorance or unawareness such as attachment, craving, and grasping.

Now I disagree with the Buddhists on desire as a “taint”, from my point of view it is misguided desire that is very troublesome. Without desire the soul would not long for spiritual growth and I think the law of progress depends on this inner desire for perfection, not in a physical sense but in a spiritual sense.

Now maybe the concept of longing is a better term than desire but this idea to eliminate all desire did not appeal to me. The pleasures of physical life can be fulfilling if we don’t get too attached to them or crave them. (Granted easy to state but hard to live by) These physical attachments can become cravings if we think they will substitute for spiritual peace. The concept of moderation comes to mind.

Jesus who appeared to be a very advanced master with his teachings and these teachings have been misapplied and I suspect some changed; then why do we not think this did not happen with the original Buddha’s teachings. I think the Buddha being a Hindu was trying to move his followers away from a form of Hinduism of gods with four arms and elephant heads etc. The Buddha I think taught of other worlds and if souls do not reside in those other worlds then what part of consciousness does.

As far as Tolle his teachings are very Buddhist oriented and why he thinks he can teach others his enlightenment I do not know. It appears he was suffering greatly with his mind or body before his “enlightenment” came about. I think the term enlightenment can have many meanings to many different people.

On his tapes I did hear Tolle state that we have fallen from the grace of God but could not find that statement in his book. Sounds like some Christian memory to me. I suspect he was raised Christian with a statement like that.

[Sam]

I have trouble believing that are moral choices in this life could have consequences in the next. It doesn't seem fair, because not all of us are born on equal moral ground. Some of us are genetically predisposed to a short temper, for example. And people with psychopathic personality disorder may not even understand why their actions are wrong, because they are physically incapable of empathy.

The same thing applies to the idea of personality surviving death. Is our personality not just the sum of our memories and genetic predispositions? I don't see how something as ephemeral as personality could have an eternal existence.

I'd like to hear and alternate take, though.

[Susan]

I really liked your post, Michael.
I agree. Sam-I also have trouble with our moral choices having consequences in the next life. I believe we can learn from bad choices and fix or erase our karma in our present life. Do we have to start from scratch every time? I don't think so.

[sonic]

Very interesting- I don't know any spirit guides, yet everything else you say here seems to match my thinking quite closely.
Beautiful post.

If there are different levels in the afterlife - ie. higher levels for more advanced souls - then something must make one fit for a certain level and unfit others.

It is our experiences on earth which we learn from and because of that learning we change and become fit for a higher level.

It is hard for many of us to understand why we incarnate because we seem to lead ordinary lives. But when we return to the spirit world we are able to remember why we incarnated and then we see how our lives changed us and how we affected other people.

If we incarnated to learn a certain lesson and didn't learn it, we won't advance. If our actions had negative effects on other people we may regret that and want to work while in spirit or in a next incarnation to rectify those effects.

[dagezhu]

"Some of us are genetically predisposed to a short temper, for example. And people with psychopathic personality disorder may not even understand why their actions are wrong, because they are physically incapable of empathy."

Sam, I totally agree and I think about these issues a lot.

I think some very spiritually advanced people can be held "responsible" for their actions, because they are unencumbered by cravings and aversions.

Most of us are deeply mired in cravings and aversions; most of us aren't very free to act beyond a very narrow range of alternatives, IMHO.

[steve wood]

Very interesting post.
I don't know enough about Buddhism to comment on it.
Christ did something that most of us find almost impossible to do, standing firm and bearing witness (to the truth) under pain of death. How many of us(if we'd lived in second world war Germany)(I'm not trying to start another argument about Adolf) would have marched up to Hitler and told him that he was a vicious murderer.Not me Lord(ME). Take this cup away,let me run and hide.I don't want to be hung up on a meat hook,please.
But Christ didn't run. He was terrified, sweating blood the night before his execution which he knew would be the most horrendous, agonizing ordeal.But he didn't run.
That, in my opinion, gives 'Christianity' a great edge.

Michael,

When you discuss Spiritualism, you don't mention the principles of Spiritualism. Are you referring to spiritualism in some general context or do you mean Spiritualism as defined by the established religion with churches etc?

The principles of Spiritualism are slightly different in the US and UK. The Spiritualists' National Union web site has the UK principles, and the National Spiritualist Association of Churches web site has the US principles.

[Michael Prescott]

"Are you referring to spiritualism in some general context or do you mean Spiritualism as defined by the established religion with churches etc?"

I mean the movement that is usually said to have started with the Fox sisters in Hydesville, NY,* and which became incredibly popular across the US and Europe within a short period of time. Kardec used the term "spiritism," which might be preferable but is less familiar.

I didn't capitalize the word because I'm not referring to any specific church or denomination. I'm not too interested in creeds.

*I know the Fox sisters are controversial, especially since, late in life, they made a public confession that all their phenomena had been fraudulent. The confession, which seems to have been motivated by a desire to spite their older sister, was later recanted. Personally I think the phenomena in Hydesville were genuine even if some of the sisters' later performances, after they turned professional, were partly or wholly faked.

[william]

“That, in my opinion, gives 'Christianity' a great edge.”

It may or may not give Christianity a great edge but from my point of view it is the following and the hard part living by the teachings of Jesus that may be of great value to a person that calls himself or herself a Christian.

We humans tend to make the messenger God. As Mark Twain stated God made man in his image and then man returned the favor.

“If there are different levels in the afterlife - i.e. higher levels for more advanced souls - then something must make one fit for a certain level and unfit others.”

That something appears to be some type of vibration level. The higher the vibration the more advanced the soul the higher the realm of existence. A very low vibration level might be a Hades environment.

“It is hard for many of us to understand why we incarnate because we seem to lead ordinary lives.”

It may very well be that it is often the little or ordinary things in life that we can learn from. If we set our sights on the big things in life we may miss many opportunities for advancement.

I remember reading where a young girl after crossing over to the other side during her life review one of the most loving things she had done in her young life was cover a weed that had grown up in the crack of a sidewalk and the sun was causing it to wilt. Who would have predicted that covering a weed with one’s palm to protect it from the hot sun would be in a life review as a profound act of love.

If covering a weed with one’s palm is an act of love what might it be to keep farm animals penned up in small cages their entire lives to maximize efficiency? I.e. factory farming. I read once that it is possible to tell the maturity and compassion of a nation by how it treats its farm animals.

[steve wood]

Yes, the covering of the weed sounds a bit like Tom Sawyer's bugs on his eyes 'revelation.' It seems that the 'micro' is also important.

[william]

“It seems that the 'micro' is also important.”

Yes I suspect very important for soul development. Our day-to-day activities I suspect offer a vast variety of opportunities to demonstrate love and compassion to others. I have noticed that strangers even enjoy an exchange of smiles that we meet in passing. Of course if we smile expecting some type of reward I also believe that smile is of little use in the overall scheme of our lives.

“I mean the movement that is usually said to have started with the Fox sisters in Hydesville, NY,* and which became incredibly popular across the US and Europe within a short period of time”

An outcome of that popularity was the formation of thousands of home circles and in those home circles many mediums of variable talents in mediumship abilities were discovered. One has to wonder how many mediums are walking around today with such mediumship abilities completely unknown to them as home circles is no longer a popular pastime.

“The principles of Spiritualism are slightly different in the US and UK. The Spiritualists' National Union web site has the UK principles, and the National Spiritualist Association of Churches web site has the US principles.”

Both have interesting principles but if I had to choose I would lean more in the direction of the US spiritual principles with the exception of principle number six of the US principle, which states:

“We believe that the highest morality is contained in the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Also the words love or compassion is not contained in either set of principles.

But their principles beats the principle I heard recently from a Christian minister that stated the only way to heaven is through Jesus. No other way according to him.

[Cyrus]

Great article, Michael.

Beliefs must always yield to testing and objective reality. To rely on ancient scrpitural texts using 'blind faith' is a very tumultuous path. Spiritualism, as a religion, must be embraced with grains of skepticism. But, it's designed in such a way that aspects can be doubted for the purpose of continual learning, versus the blind faith which those who adhere to scripture must practice.

For scientific backing, one can simply recite the endless archive of psychical research, from mediumship to NDEs to everything in-between, to validate an objective reality. Spiritualism is simply the philosophy that underscores it.

Personally, a belief (or rather, recognition) of life after death adds a new flavor to life which many do not experience. To me, even the worst experiences in this life take on a subdued nature, as I realize the temporary nature of experiences here, and the learning opportunities which are constantly arising.

As such, I continually plan ahead to the next life. I even make decisions based on how it may benefit me in the distant future, long after I have died on Earth. For instance, career-paths. Perhaps learning skills in the creative, or psychological disciplines (therapeutic, artistic, etc) will have practicality in the next life versus something of a more terrestrial nature (retail, sales, etc).

Although I am not naive, as while I believe in the perpetual existence, I understand that 'death' is a transition to the point where the "me" I am today may eventually be unrecognizable from the "me" of tomorrow. So everything still is temporary, so I am compelled to live each moment to its fullest before it escapes me.

Yet, being reassured of the next world vindicates me from the fear of death which plageus so many. Rather, I see death as something to be excited about. I am afraid of it only because it plays with my boggle-threshold. It's one thing to write about the next world, but to actually experience it viscerally--to smell and taste the environment of a paralel dimension--is something which is very hard to comprehend. It's like a blind person anticipating when her sight will return, yet she has no understanding of what 'sight' is.

So to return to your post, many religions--as philosophy--can apply to the objective aspects of transdimensional studies of which religion and spirituality is based upon. Religion should be grounded in these studies, and not ancient texts. In this respect any religion, Christianity to Islam, can be peacefully practiced.

My biggest dissapointment is that so very few people share the way I feel. Although I think there are more people in my generation than ever before, it's rare to meet somebody else with an equal fascination in life after death.

[Cyrus]

As a follow-up, I wanted to mention that it would be nice for a convention of some sort to be created where people of like-mind can sahre their ideas and points of view. Maybe the Michael Prescott Blog Convention?

[pec]

My spiritual quest has led me to some similar conclusions. I think Jesus was a typical holy man/prophet who happened to become world famous. St. Paul, the converted Pharisee had a big role in promoting Christianity because he was literate and articulate. And of course immortality is always a good selling point.

I believe Jesus had supernatural powers and I think his teachings about heaven might be true (who knows). But he did not give us a practical guide for living in this world. Both Christianity and Buddhism are concerned with escaping this world and avoiding its problems.

We have egos and desires for good reasons. Buddha and his followers lived by begging for rice. How many of us would choose that as an honorable way to live?

I have found partial answers in different places. Like you I experiment with the higher self/guiding spirit, with miraculous results.

I like it when spiritual ideas make sense scientifically and logically, so I have been inspired by writers such as William James, Carl Jung, Arthur Koestler, Rupert Sheldrake, for example,

I have attended some spiritualist meetings and churches, and it was too optimistic for me, in general. But of course I don't know, and neither does anyone. My personal spiritual and mystical experiences have convinced me that the supernatural is infinitely bigger than anything we can imagine, so I have given up trying to fathom it.

But of course I consider whatever information we can get from mediums, holy men, prophets, etc. I just don't believe all of whatever anyone says. Maybe parts.

Another perspective I have been interested in is the basic universal sort of spirituality and magic found in all primitive tribal societies.

[Michael Prescott]

"Maybe the Michael Prescott Blog Convention?"

LOL. That would be a pretty small gathering, I'm afraid.

We could convene in a phone booth ... if there are still any phone booths around.

[Leo MacDonald]

I support spiritualism as well as the more plausible view to take. All other views that pretty limited.

[Cyrus]

"LOL. That would be a pretty small gathering, I'm afraid."

Well

There's a lot more people interested in these subjects.

Over here at University of Arizona there was a pretty big conference on life after death hosted by Dean Radin and Julie Bischenel (sp).

I wanted to go (it was in literally the building across from where I park / go to work etc) but attendance was $150.00. And, that would mean eating ramen for a while.

[dmduncan]

"We could convene in a phone booth ..."

Or the foyer of a Motel 6. If we time it for the early morning, there might be pastries.

[sonic]

Sam-

You have nurture and nature as the causing elements of personality. Spiritualists believe in a third element- the causing spirit. This causing spirit is the source of ‘free will’ and influences and is influenced by both nature and nurture and manifests to some extent in what we call personality. (Personality being the end result of the interplay between all three elements).

The notion of free will has been considered unscientific historically, due to the fully deterministic nature of Newtonian physics. But with the advent of modern physics (about 100 years ago), the notion of free will existing in this universe is more acceptable- see Max Born’s Nobel Prize speech or the writings of Neils Bohr- for examples.

Moral choices made now have consequences for your life- the entirety of it. Changing your name doesn’t fully erase your past. Changing your body and your name may not either.

[william]

“Moral choices made now have consequences for your life- the entirety of it. Changing your name doesn’t fully erase your past. Changing your body and your name may not either.”

Very well stated as we are an evolving consciousness that has evolved from a series of experiences that has given us a self-identity. The present body and name are mere window dressings but we can become very attached to that window dressing.

My only concern would be with the words moral choices as morality might be in the eyes of the beholder. One person’s moral choice might be viewed by another person, government, or religious leader as sinful or as having a lack of morality.

[steve wood]

Pastries ? If it's hot meat pies, I'm on my way.

[Roger Knights]

MP: Here's a book you can get used for a buck:
The Turin Shroud: How Da Vinci Fooled History by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince, here:

http://www.amazon.com/Turin-Shroud-Vinci-Fooled-History/dp/0743292170/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248100467&sr=8-1

[sonic]

william-
I share your concern with the choice of the word moral, but it is the one Sam used and I hope that it communicates what I am trying to say reasonably well.
When it comes to morals and ethics, the words are as confused/confusing as the people using them. Which in my case is quite a bit ;-)

[Sam]

"Those who've done their best to be good and decent in their earthly lives will make the journey faster than those whose cruel and malicious behavior has stunted their spiritual growth."

My point was that some people are simply born much less likely to engage in cruel or malicious behavior, for reasons they don't really have control over. The examples I used were people genetically predisposed to anger problems, or people with psychopathic personality disorder. It doesn't seem right that people with these issues should suffer the consequences of their actions in the next life. Or at least they shouldn't be held to the same standards as people without those problems.

Is our eternal spirit itself supposed to have some kind of personality? This notion also bothers me, because it seems totally arbitrary what kind of personality an eternal entity would have. It's like asking what kind of a person god is. Why should god be any one particular way? I hope that makes some sense.

[william]

“The examples I used were people genetically predisposed to anger problems, or people with psychopathic personality disorder. It doesn't seem right that people with these issues should suffer the consequences of their actions in the next life.”

That is an excellent observation. What many spirits tell us is that life is much more fair than we realize. I agree it certainty does not look fair with all the human suffering in the world. I see consciousness as an evolving life force from a low level of awareness to greater degrees of awareness. The lower the level of awareness the more suffering we bring on to ourselves. We often learn from that suffering.

This is why the personal devil concept has no validity. If an entity is that evil the karma would be profound suffering and sooner or later all entities learn from their suffering.

This I why I believe reincarnation may be a reality. The two books I highly recommend that I just finished reading are testimony of light and 50 years a medium; both are stating or their spirits are stating that reincarnation is a reality. We in our unawareness tend to judge by appearances and many spirits tell us there is an underlying reality to those appearances.

The mysteries of life are truly very hidden from our awareness. Maybe discovering those mysteries is part or much of the soul’s journey. My point on this blog has been it is our unawareness that makes us unique. The evolutionary process of almost infinite experiences to learn molds every soul to be the only one of its kind and different from every other soul. Infinite unique souls from an infinite source. It appears to me at this time that this process of involution and evolution creates these infinite number of unique souls. Profoundly interesting process.

Genetically predisposed anger problems or psychopathic personality disorders may have come from our past lives or choices we make in this life or both. Or could they be choices we made between lives to have these problems to help develop our soul. With problems come opportunities for growth. Life does seem unfair but it may be we do not see the underlying reality of each life.

And some spirits and humans are stating that many psychopathic personality disorders are the result of malevolence or evil spirit possession. Not a pleasant thought. I have caught myself resisting believing this for many years but it may very well have some validity.

“Is our eternal spirit itself supposed to have some kind of personality?”

Would pure awareness or cosmic consciousness have a personality? I don’t think a personality as we have a concept of the word personality.

[Art]

Or God is in control, everything happens for a reason, and this physical earth life is a holographic projection, an illusion, little different than a DVD movie one might watch and then put away after it's over or as Michelle M calls it in her NDE description, "a dream in itself."

Duality & Separation teach the soul what it means to be separate and physical sensations, pain & pleasure, imprint on the soul the parameters of the physical body and what it feels like to inhabit a body so that after we cross over into the Spiritual Universe the soul can use the information to create it's own reality. And experiencing time and space teach the soul what it means and how it feels to live in a 3 dimensional + 1 time universe.

[z]

Great post, Michael!

I must confess that, at the moment, I consider myself an atheist, but I'm very interested in NDEs, life after death, free will and such, so I'm totally open to different views and opinions.

Here are a couple of my own thoughts/questions on this matter (note: I'm sure that most of you have ran into these many times before, so excuse me if you can):

a) How do you know that any of what the spiritualists say is true? How is it any better than other religions?

b) While spiritualism is a theory trying to make sense of this world, almost any theory - however absurd - can be constructed coherently and SEEM plausible at face value, yet be totally false.

c) I wonder why do people always automatically assume that God must necessarily be good/perfect/benign?

d) How do you know that your "spiritual experiences" aren't simply examples of self-delusion? We DO know that there are lots of self-deluded people out there and we know that our brains are capable of absolutely stunning things.

[Art]

For me it's like a puzzle framed by quantum physics and the holographic universe theory. The pieces inside are made up of such things as near death experiences, death bed visions, the work of some Mediums, EVP, etc.

What is most interesting to me are the connections between NDE's and quantum physics and the holographic paradigm. Near death experiencers routinely come back after their experience and describe it in terms that can only be termed "holographic" and sometimes they say things that seem to parallel what I've read in some popular physics books. For example the overwhelming feelings of "oneness and connectedness" or "I literally felt like I was everywhere in the Universe at once" or "it was strange because I could see everywhere at once" or "I had 360 degree vision." The Life Review especially seems to be a holographic experience par excellence. Seeing their lives replayed in 3-D and feeling like they were the other person, hearing their thoughts, and feeling their emotions. Telepathy can also be easily explained holographically.

One last thing, some NDE's say things like "it was realer than real" or "I had more consciousness than normal" or "everything was clearer". I often wondered how this was possible but then I recently read an article in New Scientist magazine where they were talking about how in a holographic projection (our physical universe) there is a certain amount of blurriness that inherent in the hologram. That may be why on the other side that blurriness disappears?

New Scientist magazine article about holographic universe:

"Hogan realised that in order to have the same number of bits inside the universe as on the boundary, the world inside must be made up of grains bigger than the Planck length. "Or, to put it another way, a holographic universe is blurry," says Hogan.

http://gizmodo.com/5131839/physicists-believe-our-universe-is-one-big-hologram-and-they-may-have-spotted-the-pixels

[Michael Prescott]

"a) How do you know that any of what the spiritualists say is true?"

I don't know for sure, but if you look at the evidence, the best mediums have produced a lot of detailed, verifiable info that they had no normal way of knowing. Deborah Blum, a Pulitzer Prize-winning science writer, became curious as to why intelligent people like William James and Oliver Lodge could be taken in by mediums, so she investigated and wrote a book about it, called "Ghost Hunters." Her conclusion was that the evidence was surprisingly good and that James and co. may not have been "taken in" at all. I think most (but not all) people who look at the evidence would come to the same conclusion.

"b) While spiritualism is a theory trying to make sense of this world, almost any theory - however absurd - can be constructed coherently and SEEM plausible at face value, yet be totally false."

That's true. What we have to do is see if the empirical evidence supports the theory or disproves it. I think a good deal of evidence supports the idea of life after death.

"c) I wonder why do people always automatically assume that God must necessarily be good/perfect/benign?"

If he's not, we're all in trouble!

:-)

"d) How do you know that your 'spiritual experiences' aren't simply examples of self-delusion?"

I can't know with absolute certainty, but then again, how does a materialist know that his convictions aren't self-delusions? How do any of us know the physical world is really there and not an illusion? We all take certain things for granted in order to get anywhere. One of the things most of us assume (rightly or wrongly) is that we're not crazy. Of course if we actually are crazy or hopelessly deluded, we'll never know it!

[Barbara]

"Of course if we actually are crazy or hopelessly deluded, we'll never know it!"

Unless when when we go mad, we actually become sane.

[Michael A. W.]

I, too, enjoyed and identified with Michael Prescott's blog. The "non-dual" cosciousness movement, ala Advaita and Buddhism, have been problematic for me for some time. I 've benefited from meditation and still practice it, but all this "no self" vs "self" and "non'ego" vs "ego" gets quite convoluted when genuinely wrestled with. For some, I'm sure this is a life long path, but for me it was a fruitful waystation only and it's time to move on,.

I've recovered from a traditional Christian upbringing long ago[though, I see great value in much of the "New Thought" Christianity that's now around]. Now, it's a "recovery job" for much of traditional Buddhism and Hinduism for me. I'm glad to find some like-minded people along these lines.

Life After Death, reincarnation, genuine mediumship and other dimensional realities have long been an interest of mine. I could respond to many of the comments above, but will just say for now that they are all pertient and worthy of consideration.

So many forums like this devolve into name calling and statements of arrogant absolutisms. It's a pleasant change of pace to find some geniality in these types of discussions. I'll be checking Mr. Prescott's Blog site more often.

[jack]

2 books by Henry Holt:

Cosmic relations and immortality
(total about 1000 pages)

http://www.archive.org/details/cosmicrelationsi01holtiala

http://www.archive.org/details/cosmicrelationsi02holtiala

Holt gives a LOT of quotations from the proceedings of the S.P.R.
Much more detail about their investigations (up to about 1912) than I have seen elsewhere.
I also feel as Mr. Prescott does about generic spiritualism.

Total

[Michael Prescott]

Thanks for the links, Jack. I'll take a look.