Mission Statment

click me to Open or Close
"This is a non-profit, non-denominational and apolitical online discussion site, designed to support research and study of consciousness experiences, such as near death experiences and other spiritually transformative experiences, support experiencers and spread the message of love, unity and peace around the world. We do not allow proselytizing or bullying (please refer to our Joining Rules). We welcome and encourage people of all backgrounds, nationalities, countries and/or religions to bring up any topic they feel fit for this place and to read and participate in the conversations held here, in a relaxed and friendly atmosphere."
22 posts Page 1 of 1
NDEs certainly transcend religion in many of its dogmatic aspects. I am finding so many spiritual truths, especially in the exceptional accounts on nderf.org.

I have been reading NDE accounts since the 70s, and when I retired, after forty years as a school librarian, I finally had more time to read in earnest. This reading quickly turned into inspiration and real research.

I am in the long process of writing a book: Connections: NDEs and MBE – Eternal Life Answers from NDErs and Mary Baker Eddy. Spiritual truths are throughout every religion in some form, but have been misinterpreted and twisted with mortal and personal ignorance. Most NDEs are so pure and lead us on the right path.

Connections refers not only to our connection with God, our connections with each other, but also the connections between NDE accounts and the writings of Mary Baker Eddy over 140 years ago. She expected the churches to adopt her proven ideas on healing, but when they did not, she started her own church, Christian Science, which today many feel is more a way of life, a way of loving, thinking and praying, than just a church or religion.

In my book there are seven chapters with 73 subheadings organized by the order of the NDE: Love (unconditional), Life (life review and hereafter environments), Soul (sense perceptions), Principle (law, purpose and progress), Mind (eternity, not time; infinity, not space…), Truth (reality and religion), and Spirit (illusion of death and matter). Within these chapters are quotes by Mary Baker Eddy, interspersed with comments by eternal life experiencers.
I agree there is often a stark contrast between organized religion and personal spirituality.
The big challenge IMHO is to prevent the same from happening to the NDE. How can we talk and write about NDEs without crystallizing them into dogma of our own? Can NDEs be organized without becoming institutionalized and described without becoming canonized and "dogmaticized"?
I believe the reason is the way people's minds work. To make sense of the world with the limited abilities we have while incarnated requires a reduction of "the whole truth" to something much simpler that we can handle. Its bad enough when an experiencer is forced to do so in their own mind, but it gets progressively worse as more people seek to come to a consensus on "what really happened". The result ends up becoming a reduction of the "whole truth" to something so simple as to be simplistic. A process which ultimately results in a reduction of the Truth to an absurdity.
Perhaps it is only logical that any attempt to communicate the incommunicable should result in absurdity.
On the other hand, I know in my very being that nothing could be more important!
Hopefully humanity can learn to transcend dogmatic thinking and finally quit "making graven images" of anything that is real.
The philosopher Hegel saw that human thought moved from thesis to anti-thesis to synthesis (which then becomes the new thesis ad infinitum). To me the old dogmatic modernist way of seeing and grasping the truth collectively has given way to the everyone has his or her own truth of postmodernism, which results in no objective Truth at all. Maybe a synthesis can be found by taking the collective approach 'there is One Truth" and combining it with "which we each experience Uniquely".
Such discussion is problematic for me as it is suggestive of a "trickster universe."

Many (including NDEers themselves) claim that we incarnate to learn lessons.

Along with this, it is commonly maintained that this world is not the true or full reality.

But if so, then if this reality (as opposed to an afterlife) is not "the full truth" or is "lesser than truth" or the lesser reality, then arent lessons learned here suspect ?

If the "other side" is "truth" and the true or truer reality, then incarnating here to a world of synthetic reality (lesser truth?) would seem to be problematic. (More so even if there is no past life memory.)

A case could be made that it would seem to have the needless effects of creating guilt, misleading down irrelevant paths (eg, religions, cults, harmful political and philosophical orientations, etc.) coming to erroneous conclusions about life (at least in many many cases).

All of this more so would seem closer to a form of a punishment.

Isnt it better to stay closer to "the" reality and "the" truth and save the virtual reality (holodeck) for fun, games and maybe sport?
Rey, Well said.
NDEr Anita Moorjani's famous description about the utility or sense of her NDE was well liked/received and should be meaningful/helpful to some. (I dont believe Ive seen it posted per se in these forums yet.)

I now know that a lot more exists than we are consciously aware of or are capable of understanding. Each day, I am understanding more and more since the NDE. I am finding out that there are things I now feel I ‘know’ or ‘understand’, which I never did before. The best example I can think of is: imagine there is a huge warehouse, which is dark, and you live in this warehouse with one flashlight. Everything you know about this warehouse is seen through the light of this one small flashlight. Whenever you want to look for something, you may or may not find it, but it does not mean the thing does not exist. It is there, but you just haven’t flashed your light on it. You can only see what your light is focused on. Then one day, someone flicks on a light switch, and for the first time, you can see the whole warehouse. The vastness of it is almost overwhelming, you can’t see all the way to the end, and you know there is more than what you can see. But you do see how all the products are lined up on all the shelves, and you notice just how many different things there are in the warehouse which you never noticed, never even conceived having existed, yet they do, simultaneously with the things you know existed (those are the things your flashlight had been able to find). Then, even when the light switch goes back off, nothing can take away the understanding and clarity of your experience. Even though you are back to one flashlight, you now know how to look for things. You know what is possible, and you even know what to look for. You start viewing things differently, and it is from this new springboard that your experiences start to happen. And so I find that in my daily life, I am referring to different aspects of my experience at different times, and I am understanding things in a different way, and knowing things I did not know I knew.”

— NDEr Anita Moorjani
These are all very good points, Dennis and Rey.

The warehouse analogy by Anita makes a lot of sense to me, when I think of the powerful effects that NDEs and other transpersonal experiences can have.

I have come to a point where I feel that we, our experiences and the way we live our lives are all unique and precious, that “lessons” and “punishments” are words that we might have coined in order to make sense of otherwise meaningless circumstances, from our current perspective, and that the word truth is customised for our physical waking time understanding.

On the other hand, I have found that many people gain tremendous benefit from religious beliefs, as they offer a safe harbour, which can be available throughout one’s physical life.

Of course I have no answer about sadism, straightforward evilness and the like. This is a mystery that will stay with me for the time being, but I find comfort in the expectation that there is something that goes beyond truth, where everything makes sense and that we are ALL in the very process of contributing to the creation of THAT colourful multifaceted “something”, irrespective of the pain that being in the here and now may involve.
Hello from Italy - How I found out about NDERF - A Strange Experience
DennisMe wrote: Hopefully humanity can learn to transcend dogmatic thinking and finally quit "making graven images" of anything that is real.
The philosopher Hegel saw that human thought moved from thesis to anti-thesis to synthesis (which then becomes the new thesis ad infinitum). To me the old dogmatic modernist way of seeing and grasping the truth collectively has given way to the everyone has his or her own truth of postmodernism, which results in no objective Truth at all. Maybe a synthesis can be found by taking the collective approach 'there is One Truth" and combining it with "which we each experience Uniquely".

Rey wrote: Isnt it better to stay closer to "the" reality and "the" truth and save the virtual reality (holodeck) for fun, games and maybe sport?
Giulia wrote: I have come to a point where I feel that we, our experiences and the way we live our lives are all unique and precious, that “lessons” and “punishments” are words that we might have coined in order to make sense of otherwise meaningless circumstances, from our current perspective, and that the word truth is customised for our physical waking time understanding.


I have been intrigued by this word 'truth'. And about the fact that everybody has its own truth.
Do we really need one objective truth? Fact is that every human being ist actually living it's own truth, depending on many factors, but limited mainly by our own senses (i.e. our visual sensors are only able to see a part of the spectrum of light, same with hearing and touch and......etc). And by what our brain is doing with the informations coming from the senses. And so we can NEVER know the full truth of what is surrounding us.
How can we expect to bring an objective truth along?
My own opinion is that we should be aware of this facts and remain open for more.
The NTEs comfort me in this thinking that there is more.
As a painter I'm often thinking in pictures.
Here my picture:
Suppose there's an enormous sphere, and in this sphere there is a multitude of holes. In each hole there is a tiny window and each consists of glass, each one of a different kind, and even precious stones. Inside of the sphere we have a huge and very strong light and this light is shining through the windows. Each window will only be able to let pass light according to it's type, colored, thin, thick, specked, dirty, even almost untransparent. Now suppose each one of us is one of those windows, and we are looking at the outside, and what we see is the type of light we are letting through, and we see only so far as our own window light is reaching. What will we see? Bright light? Colored light? Even darkness? If we become aware what we are seeing, we might think to clean our window, and lo what we can see is getting much brighter and cleaner.
Now we become aware that this light is coming from the inside, and is shining through us and if we want to know this light we should turn towards the inside. If we are able to go this way, we will experience the full spectrum.
No doubt about it, paying attention to inward self is critical.

But isnt this just part of it all (ie, the big picture - albeit a major part)?

Are we not required to also look outward and even beyond?

Maybe beyond even what we are able to see.


"I'm not asking you to believe anything. I'm simply telling you what I believe. And I have no idea what the next life will be like. Whatever I saw was only from the doorway, so to speak. But it was enough to convince me totally of two things from that moment on: One, that our consciousness does not cease with physical death; that it becomes, in fact, keener and more aware than ever. And secondly, that how we spend our time on earth, the kind of relationships we build, is vastly more important than we can know."
-- George G. Ritchie, M.D. (excerpt from his famous NDE)



"I was climbing on some sort of golden edifice, something like a tower with intricate carvings decorating a series of niches. As I ascended this structure I was feeling very exhilarated (I used to love to climb tall trees as a child, but cannot tolerate heights any more).

I was very high up. When I looked down the golden edifice disappeared into a blue distance like the sky. When I looked up it was the same. I could not see the base of it nor the top of it. I was joyful at the beauty of it, at the wonderful height of it. I felt it was my Heavenly Father's building and that I was greatly privileged to be climbing it.

Soon I came to a niche that I knew was mine and I was overjoyed that I belonged there.

I somehow was convinced that in some way I was helping build this wonderful structure and that I was a part of it.

I had a place in it.

I was building a part of it, I was a part of the building material itself.
"

- Mary B's OBE/STE
Rey,
Anita's story is here, at least I think so, it used to be. She started out here. A very nice person. Frequented, the forum before her book came out.
Giulia,

I have come to a point where I feel that we, our experiences and the way we live our lives are all unique and precious, that “lessons” and “punishments” are words that we might have coined in order to make sense of otherwise meaningless circumstances, from our current perspective, and that the word truth is customised for our physical waking time understanding.


I feel much like this. I always have felt led by, 'bloom where you're planted.' But, I know others seem to have another guideline.

On the other hand, I have found that many people gain tremendous benefit from religious beliefs, as they offer a safe harbour, which can be available throughout one’s physical life


I totally agree with this. Not only a safe harbor, but as a means of communication with the holy spirit. Many people do not have an nde; but religion, I believe, offers them a means of communication with the one I communicated with during my nde. I love having the spirit with me.
I think inside of each of us we can sense a knowing of the truth and we somehow can have a sense of recognition when we are within it.
Rey,

No doubt about it, paying attention to inward self is critical.

But isnt this just part of it all (ie, the big picture - albeit a major part)?

Are we not required to also look outward and even beyond?

Maybe beyond even what we are able to see.


"I'm not asking you to believe anything. I'm simply telling you what I believe. And I have no idea what the next life will be like. Whatever I saw was only from the doorway, so to speak. But it was enough to convince me totally of two things from that moment on: One, that our consciousness does not cease with physical death; that it becomes, in fact, keener and more aware than ever. And secondly, that how we spend our time on earth, the kind of relationships we build, is vastly more important than we can know."
-- George G. Ritchie, M.D. (excerpt from his famous NDE)


As an nder I agree 100% with Dr. Richie's quote. I sometimes feel disturbed that people may turn the nde into some sort of religion. To me it is not and never will be that.

It is a personal visit. A private encounter. An amazing gift. A short glimpse.

As for shining outward...I think that is exactly what we as nders and anyone who recognizes the love of God, should be doing. I came back knowing that love and relationships are absolutely the most important things we can do here. Not one of us can take any possession with us, no matter how precious here, it will be meaningless there...but, relationships, and love are more precious than any 'thing' and they do mean something, there.
Interesting discussion. I have watched it develop, waiting for a place to enter.

I've studied astrology for the better part of 44 years. I didn't choose it, per se; it was the first thing I encountered post-NDE that (a) helped me understand my self as the multi-dimensional being I felt like but couldn't describe (too immature), and (b) it made sense "in light" of what I had experienced (pun intended!). I'm not talking about newspaper horoscopes, but serious and thoughtful consideration and investigation into the nature of life (and, incidentally, mankind) as reflected in the motions of these great beings we call planets, moon, and Sun, in whose lives, purpose, and destiny we participate willy-nilly, like it or not, understand it or not.

A study of most of the great religions of the world will show them all the be astro-theologies at their core.

Astrology + NDE blurred the lines between seeing things in terms of "inner" and "outer", or "spiritual" and "material", or any other duality you want to cook up, and encouraged more of a "unified field" perspective, one in which even One-ness is relative, and where man does not play a central role.

And from this perspective, I do not agree with Dr. Ritchie's belief that "our consciousness does not cease with physical death". Not in the personal sense. And that was the profound message from my NDE too; that yes, consciousness lives on, but it is no longer "ours", it can't be because there is nothing for it to refer to anymore in the personal sense, and it takes its rightful place and becomes One with the source of life and consciousness in our system, the Sun. Compared to our brief appearance, such beings feel immortal, but they are not. Everything has its time, its period. Science has been great in sussing this out. We now know that, at some point, our star, the Sun, will also exhaust itself, no longer be able to re-create and support the life within the solar system as it does, and will give itself up to its Source. What that is, is beyond our comprehension. We see numerous possibilities in the life of other stars, but how Sol will come to an end is unknown. But manifesting as the source of consciousness in human beings on earth will cease long before that point.

On a personal level, astrology helps me to understand and accept differences in people in ways that I might not otherwise. To appreciate that what constitutes a positive, desirable growth, development, and expression is not the same for all of us. That diversity is real and natural and desirable, and is an essential characteristic of the being that manifests through us. That perhaps the best thing we can do with each other is to encourage self-trust and fearlessness in manifesting ourselves. That we are all creatures of time, place, and circumstance beyond our control and choosing, and we have to make sense of ourselves in that context, whatever it is. As ano1 said succinctly "we bloom where we are planted". It's not reincarnation; it is manifesting the patterns and tendencies proper for that arising. This is not to say that everything (so-called "fate") has been decided ahead of time. But it acknowledges the real difficulty for someone to become something completely independent and/or contrary to their surroundings and conditioning factors if they feel that need.

The point I'm leading to is that so-called "spirituality" is not an ultimate human goal, like some describe it; "other-worldliness" is not the highest and best, as some would have us believe; not something that everyone needs to or even should aspire to. It looks more like a "phase" that some beings pass through as they come to a greater acceptance and understanding of this dance and their place in it. Do we really want to start making judgments about how individuals have manifested themselves during their life on that basis (and a vague basis it is)? Do we want to say to someone like Kepler, who first described mathematically the proper motion of the planets around the sun, who designed and made the lenses that Galileo used in some of his telescopes; "sorry Johannes, nice work, but not spiritual enough"? There are many paths to Integration, to Self-expression, Self-realization under the Sun. It takes faith in Self and courage to become the first of your kind, no matter what it is. And that's what we all are. Individual points of light on a mission that only we can comprehend.

"There's no time to witness the emergence of you." - Sons of Champlin
To Rey in your post of July 23rd and 24th -
Thank you for your several posts here. You have given me more ideas to ponder. I find your idea interesting that lessons learned here may be “suspect” or “problematic.” That’s a twist I had never thought of although I have asked myself “why are we here?” if this “here” is an illusion. I never thought of it that way, but rather as the individual unfoldment of what is needed for our ultimate spiritual progress that continues in the hereafter. Maybe our paths, no matter what they are, are not irrelevant after all and we learn the lessons we are meant to learn. We all do need to search for ourselves and we can do that and also “stay closer to ‘the’ reality and ‘the’ truth as these unfold.

Anita’s NDE account on nderf.org was the one single one that made it absolutely essential for me to write a book! I read and studied and made notes throughout her book, but then found after downloading her book through Kindle and doing a word search that all of the ideas I’d like to quote (and will paraphrase) are not in her book – only this warehouse analogy which is truly the best for understanding it all. I am hopeful that the parts from nderf.org will be in her new book, What If This Is Heaven? If not, maybe I will ask her permission to quote from her nderf account. I just don’t want to encroach on her legal rights to her ideas for future books = part of the fair use copyright law.

One more thing – loved this:
“No doubt about it, paying attention to inward self is critical. But isnt this just part of it all (ie, the big picture - albeit a major part)? Are we not required to also look outward and even beyond? Maybe beyond even what we are able to see.”
Precaud wrote: Astrology + NDE blurred the lines between seeing things in terms of "inner" and "outer", or "spiritual" and "material", or any other duality you want to cook up, and encouraged more of a "unified field" perspective, one in which even One-ness is relative, and where man does not play a central role.

And from this perspective, I do not agree with Dr. Ritchie's belief that "our consciousness does not cease with physical death". Not in the personal sense. And that was the profound message from my NDE too; that yes, consciousness lives on, but it is no longer "ours", it can't be because there is nothing for it to refer to anymore in the personal sense, and it takes its rightful place and becomes One with the source of life and consciousness in our system, the Sun. Compared to our brief appearance, such beings feel immortal, but they are not. Everything has its time, its period.


Hi, Precaud. Congratulations for all the work you have done since your NDE and thanks for your thought-provoking post.

I have never had a NDE, but I have spent most of my life wondering about a few of these topics, recklessly challenging standard notions, and testing different paths. My favourite challenge is time: I am regularly late when I have a serious deadline, but, so far, I have somehow always made it irrespective of the task.

May I respectfully suggest that “time” may indeed play a key role in explaining the differences between Dr. Ritchie’s belief and yours?

Based on the NDE accounts I have read so far, and also based on mediumistic accounts delivered in deep-trance by mediums in the second half of the 19th century and in the early 20th century, about what happens “after” physical death, I have started to wonder about the possibility that we may play for eons with our personal identities, if we so wish, beyond what we call physical death, without this interfering with any religion, belief or system we may naturally feel in harmony with during this physical life. Also, based on some unsolicited pre-birth memories, I have also come to suspect there may be a core personal identity there beyond space and time, which has nothing to do with our earthly egos.

Many mediumistic account of what happens after “final” death (some produced by illiterate people using automatic writing and showing amazing points in common with NDEs) suggest that there can be a “time” very similar to sleep, before or after a life review and meeting with the light, during which the experiencer loses consciousness completely and after which they wake up feeling fully refreshed and aware that they are “dead”. It is often at that point that very emotional meetings with deceased loved ones are reported, along with wonderful reunions and playful experiences in a spiritualised version of earth, which seem to be fully available for as long as one pleases and offer personal points of reference.

I understand that time is often experienced like an elastic band during a NDE and I have also had such an experience upon waking up one morning (not sure whether I have reported it here) when I felt in time and out of time at the same time, at a time when I had a very important impending deadline. Really weird.

I used to take it for granted that we enter time with incarnation and exit it with physical death, but I am no longer that sure about it, as I have started to question the possibility that there may be forms of time other than the “linear” version our watches and clocks need to comply with.

Just my two cents (or should I say pennies?)
Hello from Italy - How I found out about NDERF - A Strange Experience
Giulia wrote: Based on the NDE accounts I have read so far, and also based on mediumistic accounts delivered in deep-trance by mediums in the second half of the 19th century and in the early 20th century, about what happens “after” physical death, I have started to wonder about the possibility that we may play for eons with our personal identities, if we so wish, beyond what we call physical death, without this interfering with any religion, belief or system we may naturally feel in harmony with during this physical life. Also, based on some unsolicited pre-birth memories, I have also come to suspect there may be a core personal identity there beyond space and time, which has nothing to do with our earthly egos.


Hi Giulia,
I feel quite unable to respond to this positively, in large part due to the skepticism I feel about mediumistic activities. I've known several of them over the years, and only felt that one had integrity (well, maybe one-and-a-half). She knew how to turn it off. The others I felt were 'lost in space", ungrounded and undisciplined tellers of tall tales, feathers in the wind.

When I was a kid, my dad was a ham radio operator, and always had a large antenna atop a tall (75+ ft.) tower in the back yard. A radio antenna is analogous to a medium. They both receive signals. But there are significant differences. 1. A real antenna is grounded on one end ("grounded" literally means attached to earth). 2. A real antenna is discerning, it's size and geometry are designed to receive signals in a certain frequency band and coming from a certain direction. 3. A real antenna feeds a "tuned receiver" which eliminates all of the signal except the one of interest. All of this is necessary to receive a clean, uncontaminated, intelligible signal.

I could go on, but I think this paints the picture of how nearly-impossible real, accurate mediumship is.

Many mediumistic account of what happens after “final” death (some produced by illiterate people using automatic writing and showing amazing points in common with NDEs) suggest that there can be a “time” very similar to sleep, before or after a life review and meeting with the light, during which the experiencer loses consciousness completely and after which they wake up feeling fully refreshed and aware that they are “dead”. It is often at that point that very emotional meetings with deceased loved ones are reported, along with wonderful reunions and playful experiences in a spiritualised version of earth, which seem to be fully available for as long as one pleases and offer personal points of reference.


I don't know, it sounds pretty far-fetched to me. The "very emotional", "playful experiences" sounds to me like they never actually merged with the Light Being. Perhaps the difference between "meeting" and "merging"?

I understand that time is often experienced like an elastic band during a NDE and I have also had such an experience upon waking up one morning (not sure whether I have reported it here) when I felt in time and out of time at the same time, at a time when I had a very important impending deadline. Really weird.


This illustrates part of the difficulty. In your one sentence, we have time as a continuum, time as a single moment, time as something you can be in and out of, and time as a general way of referring to a particular situation. Obviously, time is more than one thing.

I used to take it for granted that we enter time with incarnation and exit it with physical death, but I am no longer that sure about it, as I have started to question the possibility that there may be forms of time other than the “linear” version our watches and clocks need to comply with.


Anomalies in the subjective perception of time are much more understandable. I think we slip in and out of "it" frequently and on a daily basis. And it is quite a separate thing from "clock time". I think we conflate the two by careless thinking and habit. (Consider that clocks only started being used in Europe in the 1600's; very few households had one until the mid-1700's, and not in widespread use until the 1800's. Churches everywhere seized the opportunity and started being the community's timekeepers. If only the atheists were so clever...)

Back in the 1970's there was a comet Kohoutek that created quite a stir in occult circles. It was said that Kohoutek was ushering in "an acceleration in the speed of time", that we would feel our lives passing by more quickly from then on. Like the pronouncements of mediums, it's one of those things you can't prove or disprove; it is entirely subjective.

Einstein taught us that time is relative and inseparable from matter, space, gravity, and interactive with them. One inference is, that is is dependent on the revolution rate of our planet on its axis. Go to a different planet, time changes and bodies adapt to it.

What interests me more about "time" is "continuity of consciousness". Why do I remember myself every morning? Why not wake up in a different body tomorrow, with a different set of habits, concerns, life conditions? Why do I retain details of past experiences and assemble them into something I call mine, that refers to me? Why are some people completely unconcerned about having continuity from one day to the next, and I tend to steer clear of them whenever possible?

I enjoy it when questions create more questions than answers :)
Good Morning to you all

you guys have Too many Topics in One Post and its ( hard for me ) to follow everything.

So I will comment on one thing only here

Precaud wrote: What interests me more about "time" is "continuity of consciousness". Why do I remember myself every morning? Why not wake up in a different body tomorrow, with a different set of habits, concerns, life conditions? Why do I retain details of past experiences and assemble them into something I call mine, that refers to me? Why are some people completely unconcerned about having continuity from one day to the next, and I tend to steer clear of them whenever possible?



Here is a question for you regarding " Time " ?
Anomalies in the subjective perception of time are much more understandable. I think we slip in and out of "it" frequently and on a daily basis. And it is quite a separate thing from "clock time". I think we conflate the two by careless thinking and habit. (Consider that clocks only started being used in Europe in the 1600's; very few households had one until the mid-1700's, and not in widespread use until the 1800's. Churches everywhere seized the opportunity and started being the community's timekeepers. If only the atheists were so clever...)


Was this " Churches everywhere seized the opportunity and started being the community's timekeepers" , the beginning of the Control factor that churches have on the Sheep that they lead .....


Back in the 1970's there was a comet Kohoutek that created quite a stir in occult circles. It was said that Kohoutek was ushering in "an acceleration in the speed of time", that we would feel our lives passing by more quickly from then on. Like the pronouncements of mediums, it's one of those things you can't prove or disprove; it is entirely subjective.


The passing of " Time as we Know it ", never changes, but how " we perceive Time on an individual basis does change based on what stresses we have controlling our individual life "


Einstein taught us that time is relative and inseparable from matter, space, gravity, and interactive with them. One inference is, that is is dependent on the revolution rate of our planet on its axis. Go to a different planet, time changes and bodies adapt to it.


Yes if we lived on a different Planet and had a ( Man Made Clock ) that had been adjusted to the rotation of the Planet , we would adapt to it ...... I agree

What if we lived in " Space " , with " No Man Made Clock " ????

I myself only ware a watch because I am forced to at work ( timing how long something runs for )

I couldn't care less what day or time it is , but my wife is constantly asking me , " What time did you get home from work at " ( My answer ) is " who cares and why "

We are forced into submission of the " all mighty " Time Keeper of Man " , where we are controlled to submit to a schedule " or appointments, or whatever...... ( all in the disguise of Making a Living )

Close your mind, to the " Concept of Man Made Time " , and live by the " Concept of ( No such thing as Time ) and enjoy the Freedom that it creates......

Instead of Making a Living , learn how to " Making a Life


Yes I have a Job that starts and ends at certain times , and I also must conform to the system,

But only my Body conforms, as my Boss is well aware of my complete " DISREGARD ", of the concept of time when it comes to " Me and how I live my ( Non Working Life )
Image




Why Am I Here




One Look Dictionary
Precaud wrote: I could go on, but I think this paints the picture of how nearly-impossible real, accurate mediumship is.


I see your point, Precaud.

Indeed, I am not aware of any such thing as “accurate” mediumship, because I have found that most of what comes through the brain (including the state of deep trance) is invariably filtered by the brain. The same could be said about NDE accounts: once a person is revived, they may have forgotten the experience, they may remember part of it, they may start remembering about it after a while, or they may unconsciously pollute it.

Nonetheless I find these are all precious, private experiences which often change the life of a person. Children’s NDEs are a great example of the existence of innocent genuineness in what some experiencers report.

Precaud wrote: I don't know, it sounds pretty far-fetched to me. The "very emotional", "playful experiences" sounds to me like they never actually merged with the Light Being. Perhaps the difference between "meeting" and "merging"?

That’s a good point. As usual, our dictionaries don’t always offer the whole range of nuances required to describe things and situations.

Precaud wrote:
I understand that time is often experienced like an elastic band during a NDE and I have also had such an experience upon waking up one morning (not sure whether I have reported it here) when I felt in time and out of time at the same time, at a time when I had a very important impending deadline. Really weird.

This illustrates part of the difficulty. In your one sentence, we have time as a continuum, time as a single moment, time as something you can be in and out of, and time as a general way of referring to a particular situation. Obviously, time is more than one thing.


Right! I will dig out that account in a separate thread and refer to it so that it makes more sense.

Precaud wrote: What interests me more about "time" is "continuity of consciousness". Why do I remember myself every morning? Why not wake up in a different body tomorrow, with a different set of habits, concerns, life conditions? Why do I retain details of past experiences and assemble them into something I call mine, that refers to me? Why are some people completely unconcerned about having continuity from one day to the next, and I tend to steer clear of them whenever possible?


That’s exactly why I wondered whether the notion of time may be related to the notion of “continuity of consciousness”. “Very emotional” and “playful” may sound words that are not serious enough, but maybe some people’s consciousness is emotional and/or playful, maybe God/The Source/The Universe/The All That Is is emotional and playful, and maybe we will find out one day (impossible not to refer to time :D) that merging doesn’t necessarily mean losing features we might have deliberately come to create or strengthen in this world, and that our points of reference have in fact increased and made us safer and happier.

Like ano1 suggested:

ano1 wrote: I think inside of each of us we can sense a knowing of the truth and we somehow can have a sense of recognition when we are within it.


Precaud wrote: I enjoy it when questions create more questions than answers :)


Me too!!!

Garry wrote: Good Morning to you all

you guys have Too many Topics in One Post and its ( hard for me ) to follow everything.



Good Morning, Garry! You are right!
Hello from Italy - How I found out about NDERF - A Strange Experience
Garry wrote: Good Morning to you all

you guys have Too many Topics in One Post and its ( hard for me ) to follow everything.


Hi Garry, yes, it has tended to spawn out into interesting topics... it's the sign of a good thread... some no doubt will find a future life in a thread of their own :)

Here is a question for you regarding " Time "
Anomalies in the subjective perception of time are much more understandable. I think we slip in and out of "it" frequently and on a daily basis. And it is quite a separate thing from "clock time". I think we conflate the two by careless thinking and habit. (Consider that clocks only started being used in Europe in the 1600's; very few households had one until the mid-1700's, and not in widespread use until the 1800's. Churches everywhere seized the opportunity and started being the community's timekeepers. If only the atheists were so clever...)


Was this " Churches everywhere seized the opportunity and started being the community's timekeepers" , the beginning of the Control factor that churches have on the Sheep that they lead .....


Well it was not the beginning of it, but it certainly was a continuation of the Church embedding themselves into the very fabric of society everywhere, in any way they could. They made themselves indispensable in the lives of their followers. IMO, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Many a good, healthy relationship are based on it. The Church's functions within the community are generally quite beneficial. We might take issue with the messaging that goes on while the services are being rendered, but they do have a long history of addressing real needs within a community.

What if we lived in " Space " , with " No Man Made Clock " ????


Ask NASA - one of the many things they're studying intently on the ISS inhabitants is the effects of living in a zero-gravity environment without the filtering provided by our atmosphere. What I've heard so far is - the body elongates and the heart gets weaker. The latter is a major concern of theirs, and may prove to be a limiting factor on long-duration space exposure.
Giulia wrote: Nonetheless I find these are all precious, private experiences which often change the life of a person. Children’s NDEs are a great example of the existence of innocent genuineness in what some experiencers report.


So true. And I don't mean to detract from the sanctity of the experience at all. It's the interepretation of it that concerns me.

That’s exactly why I wondered whether the notion of time may be related to the notion of “continuity of consciousness”. “Very emotional” and “playful” may sound words that are not serious enough, but maybe some people’s consciousness is emotional and/or playful, maybe God/The Source/The Universe/The All That Is is emotional and playful, and maybe we will find out one day (impossible not to refer to time :D) that merging doesn’t necessarily mean losing features we might have deliberately come to create or strengthen in this world, and that our points of reference have in fact increased and made us safer and happier.


The idea of a laughing, playful "God" is interesting. But since I don't believe in "God" I can't go there :)

Other than that, I was with you until the part in bold. It depends on what you mean by that phrase.

I must admit, there is a part of me that is humored by watching others continually come up with stories that would have the individual identity outlive their personal death. It's exactly what the Church has been peddling to its believers for centuries. The promise of an individualized eternal life. It pulls on the deepest insecurities we have. Impossible to prove, or disprove; the ultimate koan.
Precaud wrote:
Giulia wrote: That’s exactly why I wondered whether the notion of time may be related to the notion of “continuity of consciousness”. “Very emotional” and “playful” may sound words that are not serious enough, but maybe some people’s consciousness is emotional and/or playful, maybe God/The Source/The Universe/The All That Is is emotional and playful, and maybe we will find out one day (impossible not to refer to time :D) that merging doesn’t necessarily mean losing features we might have deliberately come to create or strengthen in this world, and that our points of reference have in fact increased and made us safer and happier.


The idea of a laughing, playful "God" is interesting. But since I don't believe in "God" I can't go there :)


Hi, Precaud. Thanks for your comments. Of course this is just theoretical speculation, but, when I mentioned the possible features of God/The Source/The Universe/The All That Is I was just trying to make a list of the most common words used to describe some kind of special Being we might feel we belong to or come from. I could have called it the “Light Being”: it would not have made any difference. I was just speculating.

Precaud wrote: Other than that, I was with you until the part in bold. It depends on what you mean by that phrase.


What I meant with that phrase was again some kind of speculation about the possibility that, as we come from the Light Being (or God/The Source/The Universe/The All That Is) and then merge back, we might have allowed “it”, with our physical lives and experiences, to acquire or strengthen the understanding of features, such as joyfulness and other emotions, and that this task (co-creating with God etc.) may not necessarily be over in whatever is in store for us when this physical body ceases to function.

Precaud wrote: I must admit, there is a part of me that is humored by watching others continually come up with stories that would have the individual identity outlive their personal death. It's exactly what the Church has been peddling to its believers for centuries. The promise of an individualized eternal life. It pulls on the deepest insecurities we have. Impossible to prove, or disprove; the ultimate koan.


Having had unsolicited memories of having a personal identity beyond this life, irrespective of whatever the various Churches say, and finding confirmation of this in NDE accounts I have read, all I can say is that, having been in touch with so many bereaved people over the years has led me to a point where the fact that a parent who has lost a child, or a child who has lost a parent, etc. may expect their loved ones’ personal identity to survive physical death is very serious: this may be why so many people are attracted to what NDErs have to say on the subject of the continuity of consciousness, rather than to what religions may say about the need to worship gods (which I understand is a practice that has been in existence long before the major monotheistic religions were established) so as to avoid punishments and other negative events. From the point of view of a parent who has lost a child, for instance, the idea of merging with a light and possibly being recycled into something or somebody else may well come across as terrifying as what I have heard some churchgoers call the “second death”.

Based on my personal experience, I feel a more democratic regime may be in place, as far as the ultimate truth is involved, and that is all I was trying to suggest.

Having agreed that there is no way to know what the truth ultimately is, provided only one truth exists, my suggestion is that we may have a form of free will we are unaware of in the here and now, and that this has absolutely nothing to do with the various Church leaders’ agendas.

Also, as Dennis put it:

DennisMe wrote: How can we talk and write about NDEs without crystallizing them into dogma of our own?


and

DennisMe wrote: Maybe a synthesis can be found by taking the collective approach 'there is One Truth" and combining it with "which we each experience Uniquely".


I hope this clarifies what I meant to say.
Hello from Italy - How I found out about NDERF - A Strange Experience
Hi Giulia,

Thanks as always for your thoughtful writing. I do very much appreciate your desire to "get to the heart of things". It presents each of a great opportunity, should we choose it, to clarify our understanding of things. So I'll take a shot at it.
Giulia wrote:
Precaud wrote: The idea of a laughing, playful "God" is interesting. But since I don't believe in "God" I can't go there :)

Hi, Precaud. Thanks for your comments. Of course this is just theoretical speculation, but, when I mentioned the possible features of God/The Source/The Universe/The All That Is I was just trying to make a list of the most common words used to describe some kind of special Being we might feel we belong to or come from. I could have called it the “Light Being”: it would not have made any difference. I was just speculating.

Understood, thanks. I think you can see by the "smiley" attached to my one-liner that I was simply "making light" of the whole God aspect of the question and skipping by it, because other things in your post were of more interest to me. Sorry if that offended you in any way.
Giulia wrote: What I meant with that phrase was again some kind of speculation about the possibility that, as we come from the Light Being (or God/The Source/The Universe/The All That Is) and then merge back, we might have allowed “it”, with our physical lives and experiences, to acquire or strengthen the understanding of features, such as joyfulness and other emotions, and that this task (co-creating with God etc.) may not necessarily be over in whatever is in store for us when this physical body ceases to function.

I really appreciate the "co-creating" core of what you have very well described. I just don't see it as extending over past death.
Giulia wrote: ... all I can say is that, having been in touch with so many bereaved people over the years has led me to a point where the fact that a parent who has lost a child, or a child who has lost a parent, etc. may expect their loved ones’ personal identity to survive physical death is very serious: this may be why so many people are attracted to what NDErs have to say on the subject of the continuity of consciousness, rather than to what religions may say about the need to worship gods...
<snip> From the point of view of a parent who has lost a child, for instance, the idea of merging with a light and possibly being recycled into something or somebody else may well come across as terrifying as what I have heard some churchgoers call the “second death”.

Based on my personal experience, I feel a more democratic regime may be in place, as far as the ultimate truth is involved, and that is all I was trying to suggest.

Thank you for sharing your perspective, and some of the context that informs it. Counseling others who are suffering from the loss of a loved one certainly lends a different angle to it, one that I have not contemplated deeply. Discussing matters of 'attachment' and 'identity' are no doubt difficult for most folks in that state.

Starting back at an earlier point, sure, I agree, some day we may find that Source is primarily a laughing, playful being who doesn't take things too seriously (including us), and this particular drama-on-Earth is all some kind of side-show/hobby for It, and It may in fact have several of these dramas playing out simultaneously in different places. I mean, why not? The incredible acceleration of discovery in astronomy, astrophysics, cosmobiology, etc. increasingly suggest that Earth is not an isolated case.

(Note: English really does need some better gender-neutral personal pronouns; many people are offended by referring to their favorite god-like being as "It". And I don't like calling it a "He").

It's fun to speculate on this God question, even though many credible spiritual traditions counsel us not to waste too much time trying to grasp the ultimate nature of God. "Let the mystery remain a mystery, honor it, and concentrate on more useful things". By definition, in order to grasp even a fragment of it, we have to let go of (un-identify with) our own personal perspective (ego) for long enough to make the connection.

In NDE terms, I view the "detachment of awareness from ego" as the OBE part of the event. It is not "either-or", "in or out", like an "on-off" switch, but a continuum, a gradation, like the mixing of colors. Rarely is it in "fully attached" or "fully detached" state.

And I view the "touching a piece of God" as equivalent to "contacting the Light Being". And again, it is a continuum with many gradations, from "sensed" to "merged". We might describe one extreme as "still mostly self-identified but sensing Its presence", and the other is "complete loss of personal identity and merged with It."

And then, having had such an experience and returning to our "normal" personal perspective and identity, how much useful information we can glean from the contact is a "whole 'nuther question". It now gets filtered by our ego (our "point of view"), personality (with its mental, emotional/feeling, and physical aspects), and gets "personalized"; it becomes our own "unique experience". The Being we touched a piece of is One and The Same, but each one of us gives it our unique flavor, expresses it in our own way.

I see the questions you raise basically comes down to a) "the duration or persistence of the individualized identity after death". And, more to the point, b) "the fact that I experience an image of something 'beyond this life' and identify with it, does that mean it 'actually happened', either in a previous life to a personality/ego that 'I' sense as 'me', or in 'another dimension' quite separate from our normal base of operations?"

For many years I definitely wanted that to be the case. Everything I was studying had reincarnation as a fundamental feature. And the idea of extending life is pretty irresistable; I mean, who wouldn't want it? I have had several "past life readings", one of which was quite compelling and very much aided my self-understanding; the others, not so much. And I have had several "waking dreams/OBE" in which I saw "myself" in a completely different time/place and experienced it as if I were there. That is to say, I strongly identified with it. Again, deeply influential experiences, and this time presented directly to my own awareness 'from within'.

Linear thinking says "I was once there. This happened to me. The image of it has persisted all this time, and I am recovering it".

What I call cyclic or unified-field thinking says "The conditions for the creation of this image were right, and it occurred. There were corresponding conditions in your nature and in the 'greater energy field' in which you are immersed, and that is how the image appeared in your awareness. The image lasted as long as the conditions that created it lasted. It is a true reflection of an aspect of your "essential nature", as shown by how readily you could identify with it. We live and move in several such 'greater energy fields'. Identifying which one we are resonating with at a particular moment is a skill that takes practice."

Linear thinking leads to the conclusion that "something personal" persists through earth-time and re-manifests in different forms.

Cyclic thinking suggests that these images are the stuff of "inter-dimensional correspondence". Every thing is in constant ebb and flow, from emergence from Source to appearance to expression to completion to reabsorption into Source along with whatever has been created in the cycle. Each cycle is independent yet interactive with or immersed in other such entities. Things happen when the cycles interact and correspond; attraction and repulsion in all their variations. The nature of the correspondence determines how the event manifests: Now an image or vision; now an insight; now a feeling out of nowhere; now an urge or motivation. I find that linear thinking works pretty well within a particular part of a cycle but not too well outside of it, and not in relativity.

It's just a different way of seeing the same thing. "Way of seeing" = perspective = "point of view" = ego. Everyone has one and needs one; the bigger, the better. Feed it, don't kill it. Ego is the ultimate gift to Source at the end of your cycle; make it a good one. That is how we repay Source for our existence, it is the "return" in the feedback loop. It is the "self-sacrifice" that is a (poorly-understood) part of so many religions and spiritual traditions.

This basic concept also ties into why reincarnation is unnecessary and un-natural, and how the so-called "immortal soul" lives on, or at least has the possibility to, if only for a while. But that's a whole 'nuther matter...

Happy weekend,
My goodness, Precaud. This is a really long post. :o Thank you for clarifying so many points. :)

Precaud wrote: Understood, thanks. I think you can see by the "smiley" attached to my one-liner that I was simply "making light" of the whole God aspect of the question and skipping by it, because other things in your post were of more interest to me. Sorry if that offended you in any way.


No offence at all. The amusing thing about this is that I was trying my best not to sound offensive to start with by lumping together various people’s unique experiences with any transcendent being, whatever name we may call them by. ;)

Precaud wrote: I really appreciate the "co-creating" core of what you have very well described. I just don't see it as extending over past death.


That’s fine. We are all entitled to our personal point of view. My only aim was to suggest that “time” as we know it and call it may be at the core of how we understand words such as “over” or “past”.

Precaud wrote: Discussing matters of 'attachment' and 'identity' are no doubt difficult for most folks in that state.


Thanks for your understanding. To be honest in my opinion continuity of consciousness and personal identity is more than just attachment. It may well be a form of love and partnership that has nothing to do with being attached, it may well be at the core of being alive. Again, just speculating about the Truth.

Precaud wrote: Starting back at an earlier point, sure, I agree, some day we may find that Source is primarily a laughing, playful being who doesn't take things too seriously (including us), and this particular drama-on-Earth is all some kind of side-show/hobby for It, and It may in fact have several of these dramas playing out simultaneously in different places.


If that were the case I guess I would really take offence :shock:! I was only suggesting that we might be an extension of the Source and that we may be teaching it new things, such as for instance what being children opening their presents at Christmas feels like (to mention a happy memory), out of our choice (though I still feel I was tricked into this co-creation business, assuming it is the case).

Precaud wrote: (Note: English really does need some better gender-neutral personal pronouns; many people are offended by referring to their favorite god-like being as "It". And I don't like calling it a "He").


Agreed!

Precaud wrote:

  1. our own personal perspective (ego)
  2. ego (our "point of view"), personality (with its mental, emotional/feeling, and physical aspects), and gets "personalized"
  3. personality/ego that 'I' sense as 'me'


Thanks for this interesting dissertation. My use of the word “ego” is disconnected from what I call “continuity of consciousness” or “personal identity”. What I call the “ego” is just a piece of equipment I need in order to function in everyday physical life and has nothing to do with the personal identity I sense to be “me”. Some features of it could be the fight/flight instinct, the ability to focus on one thing at a time, to drive a car in the traffic, to cook a meal, to use my keyboard and not to be aware of what everybody else is thinking.

Precaud wrote: For many years I definitely wanted that to be the case. Everything I was studying had reincarnation as a fundamental feature. And the idea of extending life is pretty irresistable; I mean, who wouldn't want it? I have had several "past life readings", one of which was quite compelling and very much aided my self-understanding; the others, not so much. And I have had several "waking dreams/OBE" in which I saw "myself" in a completely different time/place and experienced it as if I were there. That is to say, I strongly identified with it. Again, deeply influential experiences, and this time presented directly to my own awareness 'from within'.


As you know, I am very interested in hearing about waking dreams/OBEs in a dedicated thread, but I tend to be suspicious about past-life readings and linear-time reincarnation, because in my opinion linear time is an illusion, though my understanding is that, if we have free will, we may also choose to reincarnate within linear time (though that’s something I do not feel attracted to :D).

Precaud wrote: "Way of seeing" = perspective = "point of view" = ego.


Thanks for your long dissertation about linear and cyclic thinking. As I explained, I do not use the word “ego” this way and my “democratic” speculation about how the Truth may be viewed in a unique way by each of us and provide for free will as an essential part of existence, without losing its power, was just a suggestion that may well provide for other options beyond the dual linear/cyclic thesis (such as colour versus black and white).

I once again thank you for explaining so well your point of view. I now feel I have a much clearer understanding of what you meant.
Hello from Italy - How I found out about NDERF - A Strange Experience
22 posts Page 1 of 1

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests