Blog powered by Typepad

« Pyramid power | Main | »


Hi Michael,

I have no intention of getting involved in a debate again, but just felt the need to counterbalance popular, 'hot' ideas on these matters.
With all due respect for Moorjani and her veridical experiences, these things do not belong to the verifiable elements of her NDE. They are a matter of interpretation which in her case clearly seems to be affected by (popular notions taken from) Advaita Vedanta. Whether that interpretation is valid or not depends mostly on the extent to which it is rational, and is therefore primarily a philosophical matter in which she cannot claim authority just because she experienced something as true. This is comparable to the fact that seeing Jesus Christ during an NDE does not automatically imply Christian theology is correct about him, or that seeing Krishna during an NDE does not by itself imply the truth of the doctrines of Krishna Consciousness, etc.

Anyway, I would like to point out that the question there really is such a thing as personal reincarnation primarily depends on the question of personal identity. If there is - unlike what it said about this in Advaita - a substantial personal self that ultimately persists independent of any existential change, there still can be reincarnation in a simultaneous sense, i.e. in the sense of the non-temporal persistence of that same self through many experiences organised in various lifetimes (all belonging to that same self, I mean). If time does not exist objectively, the self who seems to have experienced something say two hundred years ago can still be the same self who is experiencing something now. And in the subjective sense, in that case there would be no difference with reincarnation as commonly understood. Meaning that time as a subjective, experiential element would still organize all the events linearly and someone's incarnations would still be experienced as a temporal sequence. The non-existence of time (in an absolute sense) is therefore less relevant to the question whether one goes through a linear series of reincarnations than Moorjani and many others seem to think. It does not affect our day-to-day temporal experience of this earthly life, so why should it affect the experience of many lives?
The main thing is that eventhough there would not be any (absolutely) real time sequence, the personal experient could still be the same, and subjectively, reincarnation would still be as 'real' as it would against the background of a theoretical framework that does allow for some objective time sequence.

Besides, the total non-existence of time (sequence) is in itself quite problematic from a philosophical point of view. Not only is it completely counter-intuitive, but it also implies that we never causally influence the events we experience or vice versa. This means that whatever we say or do is not influenced by what we think, want or feel. And, even more importantly, it implies we can have no valid reason anymore to believe anything, as the epistemological ground of our knowledge collapses. Nothing is caused by anything else, so why should we trust any empirical observation? We wouldn't be able to claim they are caused by events anymore.
See this short paper of mine:

Anyway, I just wanted to stress that we do not need to accept certain Advaitin conclusions just because anyone has had experiences that seem to confirm them. Some questions are best left to philosophers.

Warm regards,



question there really is such =

question whether there really is such

Here's a more general comment on noetic monism:

Good luck with the blog,


Hello Rivas,

I also I have problems with the notion out of time or a non-linear time and I think the study of NDEs should focus on issues verifiable by others, such as extracorporeal experiences which provide information not obtained by the normal senses, memory or chance.

Still, I do not think the absence of linear time implies that we never we affect the course of events, due to the following. Imagine that there is no linear time and that past, present and future are simultaneous for one observer. So as I'm doing now will affect the future if the future is already fixed? It is possible because the future will not be so if we're not doing what we're doing now. That is, although all events may be simultaneous to an observer, some of them may determine to others, although none is before or after, which means that the relationship of influence is independent of temporal relations of before or after. Hence we can influence in a world in the absence of linear time. This argument is presented in this book on the philosophy in Star Wars when it comes to the question of whether Anakin Skywalker is free when he was fulfilling the prophecy: # v = onepage & q & f = false

Anyway, I do not believe that some plane is completely free of linear time, as I wrote in another post.


Hi Juan,

We seem to agree on several things in this context.

Thanks for the interesting tip.

In my own view, the objective non-existence of time leads to a (in this sense) Parmenidian ontology. In other words, if you take away time, you take away change. Any action presupposes change and therefore time, so that the ultimate non-existence of time implies the ultimate non-existence of action. There is action, but only in an 'illusory' sense, not objectively. In other words, everything that is real belongs to the realm of static Being, and Change and therefore Action and Influence are mere illusions.


Titus Rivas

Titus & Juan,
I agree that time is always necessary to allow change, and that time may even be fundamental. Different dimensions have different temporal rates, that's all. A whole physical existence could be contained in an astral second. Why not.

I agree totally with Titus. Having psychic experiences myself, I am aware that although some can be very clear in understanding, others leave much to interpretation. I have also experienced something of a timelessness in one experience I had, in that in a vision I felt I had always known the information I was given, but in reality didn't know of it at all. But like I say, its open to interpretation. Having all time experienced at once as in Anita's case, all you's could very likely be felt as one- in fact in a sense they really are. Having read a lot of books on reincarnation by children and adults alike, I tend to think it fits with the idea that we come here to learn, and multiple lives would surely serve to enlarge the learning. Lyn x

Titus and Juan - you may be right, but your assumption seems to be that we ought to be able to understand and explain conditions on the 4th Plane in human terms. But if those conditions are radically different from our earthly experience, we may simply not be able to grasp them, just as a Flatlander could make no sense of a Sphere's description of a 3D world. The best we could do, in that case, is to reason by analogy and symbolism - a very imperfect solution, but the only one that is available.

As far as investigating the veridical aspects of NDEs is concerned, we've done a fair amount of that on this blog, but eventually I think we have to move beyond that stage if we're going to get anywhere interesting.

The concept of non linear time is quite complicated and absolutely not intuitive for us mere mortals, apparently stuck in the forward only motion of clock-time.

However when NDErs talk about "no-time" or "linear time doesn't exist" etc... it shouldn't be taken too drastically. If some sort of "before" and "after" didn't exist at all then the idea of evolution itself would vanish and with it free will and a few other things.

I would propose that NDErs and spirits in higher dimensions simply can access time from a higher "place" where it can be experienced in a richer way, let's think of it as 3D time, where you not only can see backward and forward but also take a look at all the other possible times that never made it into our reality.
It's like the infamous "flatlanders" moving within a square in 2D space, they don't even have an idea that they are travelling around the perimeter of a square because in order to perceive the shape they should see it from "above", which is a forbidden experience for them.

In 3D time we would be able to see each of our own's timeline crossing into each other's life paths and not only. We would be able to see those still-in-the-realm-of-possibility timelines becoming stronger or weaker depending on our personal and collective choices.

I know... it requires a bit of a stretch of imagination but not so big actually, once you have spent some time with the idea.

I really wish I could convey the idea much better than this, but due to time restrictions and language limits (cheers from Italy, btw) my best attempt is to point to this interesting book that I have also linked in another post of mine.

Don't expect it to be a physics book, and neither a purely metaphysical books, it's both, that what makes it great, in my opinion.
The guy also runs a very popular video blog on YouTube which discusses some very fascinating concepts on higher dimensions where science and metaphysics melt into one big mistery! :D

I have already posted a few links to those videos in another post and I feel a bit like spamming reposting the again. Just look for that book's author name on youtube to learn more and get prepared to be amazed.


Rivas and Lynn have an important point, because one thing is to experience something and another thing to interpret. That is, the difference between know-how and know-why: those who have experienced an NDE have to know-how, while scientists and philosophers who interpret the ECM have to know-why. Thus the knowledge of experience should not be neglected because it is the first thing we have, but can not be the last word, because people can make mistakes in interpreting their experiences.

About the assumption that the higher dimensional planes can be understood and explained in human terms, I think we need to distinguish between imagination and conception: indeed the fourth plane is unimaginable, but it is conceivable through mathematics. That is, geometries of more than three dimensions are understandable in human terms, though not imaginable. Hence it is not so unreasonable to consider that we can understand the fourth plane in human terms.

And over the non linear time, it may be a matter of degree, according to the book Our Invisible Bodies by Jay Alfred. Maybe the more we go up to dimension, becomes less linear time, but at all planes would have linear time except in the larger, perhaps inhabited by God. But I explained a problem that is to be conscious implies moving from one state to another, and moving implies linear time, so not only the evolution and free will depend on the linear time, but also consciousness.


'It's like the infamous "flatlanders" moving within a square in 2D space, they don't even have an idea that they are travelling around the perimeter of a square because in order to perceive the shape they should see it from "above"...'

In the book, they can recognize a square by its angles. They need to "feel" only one angle, because all Flatlanders are regular shapes; irregulars are destroyed to maintain order. So they can differentiate between a square, a triangle, a circle, etc. (They also use "sight recognition," which is rather complicated and involves estimating the brightness of a line as it recedes from them, which allows them to judge the angle.)

is it me or are we getting a lot of new guests?

"all Flatlanders are regular shapes; irregulars are destroyed to maintain order."

Little bit of social commentary there, huh?

Just to clarify- I know from my own experience, visions etc can be hard to interpret and I find it pays sometimes to see more than one interpretation. I love this site however, because I feel that everyone uses very logical arguments in discussion and its refreshing to hear opinions and insights from a variety of people.

Personally I feel science is stymied by their rather linear acceptance of string theory,and think they would benefit from bringing people together from different fields to allow for more open ended questioning and a comprehensive input.

You could say a site like this gives valuable insight into the human experience.
Cheers Lyn.

The Moorjani case is riddled with uncertainties, from the initial diagnosis (most likely stage 2 Hodgkins lymphoma - a highly treatable condition) to expert confirmation. It now looks like a Dr Ko doesn't actually exist!
See the comments thread:

Here's my two cents:

This story, and other NDEs, suggest that when you die you 'become' your higher-self furthermore, and gone are all your prior Earthly imperfections. Hmm. I think this is a misinterpretation.

Many other cases suggest people who die remain very much the same as before they died, and re-attaining their state of 'higher self' is something that takes considerable time within other planes.

This is why there's ghosts. Some die and are not met by any light or higher sphere. They're cold and afraid, and stick to one place for sometimes centuries before moving on.

Some people who have NDEs have their one powerful experience and believe "Oh, this is the way it is for everyone".

I also think the subject of time is a bit funky. I think there's some type of 'akashic record' perhaps where anyone can experience memories from any other point. But when an experience occurs, it cannot be further meddled with or else we're looking at impossible-to-define paradoxes that I don't even want to begin to describe.

Dr. Ko is discussed in this article, which has nothing to do with Moorjani:

He's a real person. It took me less than 3 minutes of Googling to find him.

Michael D, how can you say a person doesn't exist and support the assertion with a statement you made in another website?

Someone else on that site said they had talked to a person at USC who was unable to identify a Peter Ko on the faculty. But the news article I linked to (dated 1998) makes it clear that Ko exists and was affiliated with USC's School of Medicine at that time. He also was active in Asia, which dovetails with Moorjani's account. Perhaps he is no longer at USC; I don't know. It probably wouldn't take much more digging to find out.

Here's my take on things....

After reading articles by astronauts on returning to earth, many talk of having a massive life review which makes the 40 year itch pale in comparison. A number also experience life changes in comparison to NDERS. As one put it, on leaving earth's atmosphere, you look back at the dot that is earth and realize how miniscule it is in comparison to a giant universe. Having coffee at starbuck's therefore, kind of seems irrelevant.

Scientists it seems have also come to realize that time does not pass or go anywhere. So I guess if you got high enough even on earth and had laser vision, you would see all of time contained there.

Spirits seem to have ethereal bodies whilst ours in comparison are heavy and take up space, and as a result I assume they feel the effects of gravity etc more. Whereas spirits seem to be able to move instantly and seamlessly through space much like neutrinos. So it makes sense to me that they would be able to defy the mechanics of time etc somewhat anyway.

"But you're always home, darling, he impressed upon me. You always were, and you always will be. I want you to remember that."

My take on this is that in the macrocosm of things like time, she always is home i.e. she hasn't gone anywhere. As life on earth is only an interval along the journey.
Cheers Lyn.

I should amend that slightly, I mean -

"in the macrocosm of space and time, she hasn't gone anywhere."

In other words if you had gods view of the universe rather than being contained in a miniscule part of it like us, we would understand we are just a tiny community part of a larger world. Lyn x

A new comment by Carl on Penny Sartori's blog (linked by Michael Duggan at 12:18 PM, July 3, above) provides additional verification of Peter Ko's existence. Carl's comment is near the bottom of the thread.

....I might have been a bit hasty there.

Michael, I'm delighted that you're reading the Moorjani book. As you may remember, I spoke highly of it here several months ago, and I was just looking over my notes for it, and remembering how much I like it.

I agree with you that it's repetitive in places, especially the post-NDE parts. But as with the Danison book and many others, the best part is the NDE report itself, and that's pretty wonderful, I think.

And I know in mentioning the D word I will raise the hackles of at least a couple of your loyal readers, but these are my two favorite NDE books in recent years, and they share the same worldview. Matt and no one, I'd be interested to know how you feel about this book, and if you like it, what you feel is significantly different about Moorjani's experience and conclusions than Danison's.

Unlike Nanci, Anita is not a lawyer, so you will no doubt find her personality more to your liking. :o)

Interesting comments, Michael, about how Moorjani describes time as she experienced it. If I may be permitted to ramble a bit myself on the subject . . .

What is time? A way of structuring reality, or our experience. And, according to all accounts, what time loses in the afterdeath state is its rigidity. We no longer find ourselves in an environment where experiences or relationships happen once, and are then forever lost to us.

Nor do we have to wait for future events to happen.

Instead, our experience is determined by *how we direct our attention*, as in the quote you included:

"… time, space, and solid matter don't always exist as we normally think of them. During my NDE, I felt that I could focus on any point in time that I needed to access."

I think it was Seth who said that different worlds or systems are structured differently. Time is just one of the many means that consciousness employs to get to know itself, to enjoy itself.

You might say that time doesn't exist on the other side, or you might say that it does exist, but in a different form or forms (as Matt's guides have suggested). People will come to different conclusions, depending on how comfortable they feel stretching the notion of time.

And all the above is true for space, as well: experiencers are always saying that all they have to do to arrive at a specific location, is to think of it.

Back to Moorjani: There's only statement she makes that I disagree with. She says: "It seemed to me that we aren't meant to forget who we are."

So clearly, she does agree with me on a point that I've brought up often here. Our earthly predicament is that we have forgotten who and what we are--portions or manifestations of the One.

But if we aren't meant to forget that, then how can we exist as separate entities, even temporarily? If I remember my divinity with ALL my being, then where's the division between you and me, and where's the journey?

A new, lengthy comment on Penny Sartori's blog provides even more evidence, if any is needed, that - yes, Virginia - there is a Peter Ko:

The comments to this entry are closed.