Four bodies

In The Supreme Adventure, Robert Crookall summarizes a great deal of evidence pointing to the idea that matter, in some sense, is part of the soul's experience throughout nearly all if its journey. Some kind of "body" is necessary, he argues, even at higher levels of development. Specifically he argues for four bodies, initially intertwined. They are:

1. the physical body
2. the vehicle of vitality, or the aura, which enshrouds the other bodies and serves as an interface between the physical and the spiritual realms
3. the soul body, which shines brightly once the vehicle of vitality has been cast off; and 
4. the spirit body, the highest and most sensitive vessel. 

As he sees it, at death, the latter three bodies disengage from the physical body, which is left to decompose. Sometime later — usually three or four days, but occasionally much longer in cases of "earthbound" spirits — the vehicle of vitality is sloughed off, in what Crookall calls "the second death." Until the vehicle of vitality has been shed, the discarnate person may be confused, existing in a dream world similar to the bardo described in the Tibetan Book of Dead. Crookall notes that many mediumistic communications originate from this realm and from this state of consciousness, which accounts for their confusing and sometimes even nonsensical nature. 

Once the vehicle of vitality has been shed, the soul body is free to shine without the distorting and veiling influence of the auric field. It is as if blinders have been taken off. Confusion is replaced by expanded awareness, and this change in consciousness is matched by a change in "location," as the discarnate moves into the Paradise or Summerland environment. 

According to Crookall, most people will experience two life reviews. The first, occurring at the point of death, is unemotional and without moral significance — one's whole life flashes before one's eyes, but with no judgments being rendered. Crookall interprets this experience as the vehicle of vitality imprinting itself on the soul body. The second life review comes after the vehicle of vitality has been discarded, when the soul (now in touch with the higher self) is able to survey the panorama of its earthly life and form mature judgements about it. To distinguish it from the first life review, Crookall calls this one the Judgment. 

Crookall acknowledges that some people have experienced the Judgment at a surprisingly early point in the dying process. Even in his day, before the term "near-death experience" had been coined, there were scattered reports of people who had nearly died but had been revived, a few of whom had reported a life review complete with moral judgment. He says that such reports pertain only to a minority of cases, which still appears to be true; most NDEs do not include the Judgment. In his opinion, NDErs who undergo the Judgment are those whose vehicle of vitality is unusually "loose" to begin with. Mediums, psychics, seers, and people of elevated spiritual awareness are characterized (he thinks) by a looser vehicle of vitality, which accounts for their spiritual or paranormal gifts. Such people may experience the Judgment right away, but others must wait until the soul body has entirely cast off the vehicle of vitality. 

Throughout all these changes, there is still a body of some kind. As noted above, Crookall argues that a bodily vessel of one sort or another is necessary until one arrives at the very highest level of spiritual evolution. He writes, 

On earth, the subjective (or thought) aspect is subordinate to the objective (or environmental) aspect: as the 'spheres' are ascended, the importance of the subjective increases and that of the objective decreases … Only the 'Father', the Infinite Absolute, Transcendent and Unmanifested is purely 'subjective', pure 'Spirit', unconditioned by even the finest 'matter'.…

The importance of the physical body, and the corresponding physical environment in the development and evolution of the human 'soul' was indicated by Phoebe and Dr. L.J. Bendit (Man Incarnate, Theosophical Publishing House Ltd., 1957, p. 5). They said: "Without a body, man, as naked Spirit, would be left in a subjective state, with no consciousness and hence no possibility of gaining objective experience or realizing himself for what he is."

The idea here is that matter plays the largest role in our present, physically incarnated existence; a somewhat lesser role in the transitional state that Crookall calls "Hades" (i.e., limbo, the bardo), when the vehicle of vitality maintains a tenuous connection to the earth; a still lesser role in the Paradise or Summerland environment; and an increasingly minimal role as the soul ascends to higher realms. But only the very highest realm (or state of consciousness), that of the divine, is entirely free of any dependence on what we call matter.

In order to make some sense of this, I'd like to suggest two different models. They both say essentially the same thing, but in different terms. First, the information-universe model.

In this model, our experience of the physical world is analogous to our interaction with images on a computer screen. The images may appear like real objects, but they are actually only arrangements of pixels dictated by the underlying computer code. Likewise, our experience of the physical world consists of sensory impressions in which we are immersed. These impressions originate in matrices of information that are constantly undergoing changes (information processing). Ultimately the information itself is what is real, while the sensory impressions (like the images on the computer screen) have only a secondary, dependent, and – in a sense – illusory reality.

The "rendered" images that surround us are what Crookall calls "matter" or "the objective." What he calls "consciousness" or "the subjective" is the mind that apprehends these images. Thus it is perfectly true that "without a body" a person would be left with "no possibility of gaining objective experience or realizing himself for what he is," since there would be no way of perceiving any sensory impressions and therefore no way of obtaining any contents for consciousness. The mind would still exist, but it would be empty – a blank – a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of.

As the soul climbs higher in the planes of spiritual development, it becomes less dependent on the "rendered" images and more aware of the underlying information – the source code. If a given consciousness were to become completely conversant with the source code, to the point where the source code constituted the entire contents of the mind, then it would be, in effect, God. That's because in this model, the source code or fundamental information is held in the mind of God – that is, in a universal, primordial consciousness that transcends time and space.

So, in this model, the slow climb toward the spiritual heights involves shedding one's dependence on quasi-illusory "rendered" imagery and apprehending the source code directly. This corresponds to a gradual lessening of reliance on "matter" or the "objective environment," and a gradually deepening apprehension of pure information.

For those who don't like the computer model, here's an alternative. We can see the world as a manifestation of ideas in the mind of God. We apprehend these ideas in the form of sensory impressions. We don't directly perceive abstractions; we perceive concretes and imaginatively extrapolate abstractions from them. As the soul climbs the ladder of spiritual development, it gradually becomes less reliant on sensory impressions or concretes and more able to apprehend the underlying abstractions. This brings the soul closer and closer to God, because only God has unimpeded, comprehensive access to these ideas. 

In either analogy, whether we see the "objective environment" of "matter" as an expression of information or ideas, the basic concept is the same. We are intended to eventually lose our dependence on quasi-illusory forms and to become fully conversant with the supporting reality, the ground of being, which is the mind of God and its contents — or Source and source code, or the Thinker and its thoughts. 

Comments

[Michael Prescott]

I agree that we aren’t saved by our beliefs, though I’d argue that the better we understand "the other side," the easier it will be to navigate it and adjust to it.

I’m not really trying to change your belief system — just pointing out what I see as holes in your argument, so that other people will see both sides of the story. In general, I’d suggest caution when it comes to simple one-size-fits-all explanations of psi and the afterlife; the more I look into the subject, the more I’m convinced it’s immensely complicated.

[Bruce Siegel]

Hi Michael!

Couldn't resist responding briefly to this:

"What Wade calls "unity consciousness" (which roughly corresponds to Horton's NDE) is all but unknown in the NDE literature ..It may be the case that mystics with highly advanced consciousness will experience an NDE (or an actual dying experience) of the transcendent type, but it’s safe to say that the vast majority of us will not."

I find this startling. My favorite source of fresh NDE’s these days is the vast repository of “exceptional accounts” at NDERF. And while I admit that I do focus on reports of this kind, (what I would call) transcendent NDE’s featuring revelations of oneness and unity are extremely common.

“All but unknown” seems out of the question!

The good news: I’m glad to hear you say (I think somewhere in these comments) that you see consciousness as primary. Rather than “information” or some such lifeless thing.

So I give you 50% on this annual checkup. :)

Bruce

[Paul]

I don’t think we’re saved by what we believe but we’re certainly shaped by it and so is the way we interpret the world and our relationships with others.

As far as I can see, if there is an afterlife, our attitudes (which are shaped by our beliefs) will probably have a significant impact on our experience and how we interpret it, no?

[Michael Prescott]

//My favorite source of fresh NDE’s these days is the vast repository of “exceptional accounts” at NDERF. And while I admit that I do focus on reports of this kind, (what I would call) transcendent NDE’s featuring revelations of oneness and unity are extremely common.//

I’m not too familiar with NDERF, though I did read a book issued by the site's founder a few years ago. The problem I have with sites like that is that there’s seldom, if ever, any fact-checking. Anyone can tell a story on the Internet. There may even be a kind of informal competition to get the most page views by telling the most spectacular story. We see this in some book-length accounts, which can appear to be embellished for greater popular appeal or even made up entirely.

I may be wrong, but I’m guessing the majority of NDERF stories, especially the more quotable ones, are invented. A similar thing happened when a letter attributed to Jack the Ripper was published in a London newspaper near the start of the Ripper murders. Suddenly, hundreds of letters and postcards from Jack the Ripper started flooding police stations and newspaper offices. Virtually all were fakes. It was a fad.

So when I say transcendent NDEs are very rare, I’m talking about documented, investigated cases, not self-submitted accounts that haven’t been confirmed. A proper investigation usually involves interviewing the patient, the patient's family, and any doctors, nurses, or orderlies who can be tracked down, as well as reviewing the patient's medical records. This is the kind of work Michael Sabom (an MD) did, for instance.

[Amos Oliver Doyle]

Nice caution, Michael. - AOD

[Bruce Siegel]

"I may be wrong, but I’m guessing the majority of NDERF stories, especially the more quotable ones, are invented. "

A pretty strong statement for someone who's "not too familiar" with the site. I've read hundreds of those accounts over the years, and my own guess is that they're predominantly real.

[Juan]

>The holographic universe theory explains everything.

then it is useless because it supposes the death of science, because what sense would it have to continue investigating? It's like the idea that everything is answered by affirming "God did it."

>And I'm not saying that I disbelieve the evidence for reincarnation, only that the implications of what that evidence means is misinterpreted as to what it means.

But the problem is that your interpretation of the birthmarks and memories of past lives would be much more forced for impartial people than the simplest interpretation for the majority, that is, that these children have those marks because their spirits print on their bodies the wounds that killed them. But as interpretation, it is subjective.

>A little bit of it is "real" from the other side, but like Myers said "it's like talking to an obtuse secretary through a frosted glass."

Yes, but the evidence on the NDEs also have weaknesses, which you insist on not admitting, as many seem hallucinatory, that people have not died irreversibly, that we do not know in many cases when they occur and in what state the nervous system is when they happen. The cases of mediumship also have their weaknesses, such as discerning whether the information comes from the medium or the deceased, or all the garbage that many have said, but at least the supposed spirits have died irreversibly and there are "drop-in" cases that they could hardly be explained as actions of biological beings and that they suppose a much harder evidence than the NDEs cases.

[Michael Prescott]

"A pretty strong statement for someone who's 'not too familiar' with the site."

On reflection, I probably should say I mistrust many of the NDERF reports, not necessarily most of them. I don’t spend much time on the site, but I did read the book by NDERF's founder and site admin, Dr. Jeff Long, who collected many of the cases in one volume.

https://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Afterlife-Science-Near-Death-Experiences/dp/0061452572/

I can accept the likely validity of the more mainstream NDEs, but I’m suspicious of the outliers if they are only self-reported with no follow-up.

"I've read hundreds of those accounts over the years, and my own guess is that they're predominantly real."

But have they been investigated? I give more credence to cases that have been verified by an outsider than to cases that are simply written up on the Internet by anonymous or pseudonymous individuals. In part, this reflects my cynicism about the sheer quantity of made-up stuff that people post online.

However, I’ll take another look at NDERF, now that the subject has come up. Maybe I’m being unfair to them.

[Bruce L Siegel]

"However, I’ll take another look at NDERF, now that the subject has come up. Maybe I’m being unfair to them."

Glad to hear you’re keeping an open mind, Michael. I suggest you sample the ones chosen by Jeffrey Long as "exceptional":

https://www.nderf.org/Archives/exceptional.html

 “I’m suspicious of the outliers”

You’ll have to read quite a few to know which ones those are. It seems that you have more acquaintance with channelers than NDEr’s, whereas I’m the opposite.

Which reminds me: since your favorite sources are usually published authors, one might say that these anonymous writers—with no money at stake—have one less reason to make stuff up.

[Michael Prescott]

"You’ll have to read quite a few to know which ones [the outliers] are."

By "outliers" I mean accounts that are well outside the professionally researched cases — not just self-reported accounts that may differ from other self-reported accounts.

I did take another look at NDERF, but I’m afraid it still strikes me as more of a feel-good site than an objective research option. One of their books (by Jody Long) is even advertised as a "feel-good" collection. There’s a lot of talk about God, and an emphasis on "extraordinary" NDEs, which probably results in attracting more of them.

I wouldn’t use it as a resource.

"Since your favorite sources are usually published authors, one might say that these anonymous writers—with no money at stake—have one less reason to make stuff up."

Some of the published accounts are made up — there was a Christian NDE book by a young boy with the unfortunate name of Marlarkey, which was exposed as a fraud — but the sources I’d rely on are those written by NDE investigators who publish in peer-reviewed journals and give detailed info on the cases.

Again, anybody can make any claim online, especially when posting anonymously or pseudonymously.

[Amos Oliver Doyle]

It is becoming more and more obvious that we live in the Age of Misinformation. It has been very informative for me over the years to see how humans like to elaborate their stories---any story---and how they like to play a game of one-upmanship, telling a better story than others. I don’t think NDEs, especially those reported on the internet, are any less likely to exhibit those weaknesses than any other “fake news” that we see so much of today in the media. Some NDE-ers become media darlings in some circles and go on to write and promote a book about their experiences. Eben Alexander is a recent example. But, it is likely that some people who experience an NDE are accurately reporting what they experienced. It is just difficult to sort them out. I tend to believe the video accounts more than the written accounts on the NDERF site.

I like the information published by Karlis Osis, and Erlendur Haraldsson in a book titled “At the Hour of Death” which based on a four-year study documented the reported experiences of almost 50,000 terminally ill patients observed by hundreds of physicians and nurses in the United States and India. The book was published more than 40 years ago but it has been reprinted several times and I think is a reliable source of information about NDEs.

I would just like to say a word about the Malarkey story which has been thoroughly discussed on this blog previously. I still think that the reported fraud is questionable. The relationships among the family members were very complicated with the disabled boy totally dependent upon his fundamentalist religious mother for his care. The parents apparently went through a contentious divorce and the father is now deceased I think. I think it is possible that the young boy was coerced by his mother to recant his near death experience considering her fundamentalist religious beliefs - AOD.

[Art]

I'll tell you what else is a good read, deathbed vision and nearing death awareness stories. Something about them just strikes me as true. There are several really good books about deathbed visions that I have really enjoyed reading, Final Gifts by Maggie Callanan and Patricia Kelly, Visions, Trips, and Crowded Rooms by David Kessler, Going Home, Irish deathbed vision stories by Colm Keane, The Art of Dying by Peter Fenwick, One Last Hug Before I Go by Carla Wills-Brandon, Glimpses of Eternity by Raymond Moody, etc.

[Bruce L Siegel]

Michael, with regard to your comments about NDERF:

”There’s a lot of talk about God”

Not a problem for me. When approached in the right way (i.e. separately from religion), God is one of my favorite subjects. Long’s second book, in fact, is called “God and the Afterlife.” And kudos to him for having the courage and good sense to write it.

“There’s . . . an emphasis on ‘extraordinary’ NDEs.”|

*Many* NDE’s are extraordinary. And they just might be the ones that can teach us the most.

Now admittedly there’s a fine line between what I would call extraordinary, and the sort of one-of-a-kind weirdness that makes it hard to take seriously what someone is reporting.

But you and I apparently have a different understanding of what such an “outlier” account is. Maybe that’s partly because I’ve read more of these NDE stories than you, and partly because much of what they contain reminds me of my own amazing experiences.

“One of their books (by Jody Long) is even advertised as a "feel-good" collection . . . I’m afraid it still strikes me as more of a feel-good site than an objective research option.”

Could it be both? Is it possible that discovering the true facts of our larger existence might tend to make us feel good? Apparently, that’s precisely the message virtually all NDEr’s would like to shout from the rooftops.

Now admittedly, if I were writing a book, I might hesitate to play up any *individual* NDERF account, because of the very question you raise: how do we know they’re all real? I *might* hesitate—I’d have to think about it, and take it on a case by case basis.

But to use this material as Long does in both of his books—as a data pool for observing larger trends and truths? I think that makes good sense. Just as I’m justified in saying (to get back to the point that began this discussion) that NDERF offers strong support for the notion that transcendental NDE’s featuring unity consciousness are far from unheard of.

But you’ll have to read *many* of these accounts—with all their quirky medical, personal, and emotional details—to be properly convinced (or not).

[Bruce L Siegel]

Michael, I concede a point to you: it is harder than I thought to find direct expressions of unity consciousness in the works of some well-known NDE investigators.

On the other hand, a quick search does turn up this quoted experience on the IANDS site, which, steeped as it is in the work of Moody, Ring, et al, is not a place one would expect to find information that’s not well-supported in the literature:

“I went into a flow of oneness that I think is God, (I called that the isness); it is a state of bliss where I am all there is.”

That’s powerful, and is exactly the sort of thing one finds again and again in the NDERF exceptional accounts.

Then, under “Features of the NDE,” IANDS says:

“More than 15 common characteristics of an NDE have been reported by near-death experiencers . . . [including] a sense of oneness and interconnectedness”

I think it’s particularly meaningful that IANDS would include “oneness” in their list of core features.

And Pim van Lommel, certainly one of the most respected NDE researchers says: “It’s an experience of oneness, of unity . . . Everything is connected.”

But again, you are at least somewhat correct about this, and I admit to being surprised. I wonder if some NDE researchers have simply chosen not to emphasize this aspect of the phenomenon.

[Bruce L Siegel]

By the way, this quote is exactly the sort of God-talk with which I—and Jeffrey Long—feel comfortable:

“I went into a flow of oneness that I think is God, (I called that the isness); it is a state of bliss where I am all there is.”

I mention this because you say that all the talk about God on NDERF puts you off. Yet you seem to be indulging in it yourself:

"For those who don't like the computer model, here's an alternative. We can see the world as a manifestation of ideas in the mind of God."

And:

"the ground of being, which is the mind of God and its contents"

Excellent!

[Art]

\\"God is one of my favorite subjects." - Bruce//

The universe is permeated by consciousness, "the collective consciousness", and that universal consciousness is what we call God. It is "all that is." Everything that is emanates from that consciousness, and we are a part of that universal collective consciousness. When we talk about God we use language that seems to assume that we are separate from God but the truth is that oneness that people who have mystical and transcendental experiences so often describe belie that assumption.

Those overwhelming feelings of oneness and connectedness that so many near death experiencers describe are a byproduct of that universal collective consciousness. In this life we experience so much separation that is how we think the universe really is and we assume that is how all reality is. The other side that is described by near death experiencers seems to belie that assumption.

From the moment we are born and separate from our mothers and the umbilical cord is cut in two, till the day we die and our death becomes a lesson in separation to the loved ones we leave behind life is one great big long lesson in separation; what separation means and how it feels. Religion, politics, language, dialects, gender, sexual orientation, wealth, I.Q., education, looks, culture, war, etc. the list is endless. Even message boards quickly turn into lessons in separation when people start arguing and debating the smallest points.

And the funny thing about it is that we don't have to go looking for duality and separation - it will find us all on its own? If life has meaning experiencing separation must be what it is because it seems to be a universal human experience.

[Bruce L Siegel]

Art said:

"We . . . assume that we are separate from God . . . but transcendental experiences belie that assumption."

I like this! (Forgive the editing, Art.)

[Art]

The funny and strange thing about it is that this Universe, the place we are now, seems to be awash in duality and separation. Which is exactly the opposite from what many near death experiencers and people who have transcendental experiences describe they felt during their experience; and also exactly the opposite from what happens in the world of the quantum where subatomic particles seem to communicate with each other, and the people who investigate them.

Even the internet, a relatively new thing, turns out to be an excellent vehicle for experiencing separation. I can't post anything on a message board without someone wanting to argue about it. I could say the sky is blue and someone would figure out a way to disagree. Duality and separation seem to be inherent and inescapable properties of where we exist right now. And we don't have to go looking for them, they will find us all on their own.

So, I wonder if there is a reason for that? Does that difference exist for a reason? And since this life is only temporary, the blink of an eye compared to eternity, is this Earth life just a school? A place where we learn what it means and how it feels to be separate, and become separate unique individuals? Which is something that can't be learned in heaven due to those overwhelming feelings of oneness and connectedness?

From the moment we are born and separate from our mothers till the day we die and our death becomes a lesson in separation to our loved ones we leave behind life seems to be one great big long lesson in separation. The death of someone we love, divorce, religion, politics, language, dialects, gender, sexual orientation, wealth, education, status, looks, height and weight, the color of our skin and hair and eyes, and the major them to almost every story, the lyrics of many songs, movies, etc. The ways we experience separation in this life seems to be endless.

[Kamo]

Just a random question. I’m not sure if anyone on here has taken dmt.
I’ve never taken it, and I don’t want to.
But I’ve heard that some people, like atheists, have taken dmt at some point, and had their beliefs reinforced, like the experience from the drug just confirmed them that brain=mind.
Why is that?

Read examples here: https://www.quora.com/What-would-happen-if-an-atheist-or-hardcore-rationalist-materialist-were-to-take-a-high-dose-of-a-psychedelic-such-as-DMT-Might-they-wonder-if-there-is-more-to-the-mind-than-just-the-physical-brain-What-if-Richard