Does individual consciousness survive transition

[serge]

Up until now all my readings have led me to believe that individual consciousness survives death and that physical life (lives) is a training ground for individuals to evolve away from their attachment to form and other physical traits (summed up in Tibetan faith as the Bardo). The goal being to reach a higher level of consciousness .

The question however is: in all these transitions what do we carry over to the next level. In other words does individual consciousness survive. I had been taking this for granted until I read a book :«Soul Flight» by Donald Tyson, 2007 . I liked the book which focuses on AP with a shamanic-magic twist. On page 278 however Tyson states that he does not believe that individual consciousness survives death. This was a disappointment to me (understatement ) . Trying to put his statement in perspective I felt that he was perhaps in slight contradiction with himself  where elsewhere in the book he expands about shamans keeping an open line of communication with their dead relatives. Perhaps what he means is that individual consciousness (as in waking awareness, with physical experience and memories) does not survive any more at death as it does at birth. This last statement is mine of course.

I would love to hear from more experienced members of this forum what I should believe and why. And of course if Donald Tyson reads this forum it would be wonderful to hear clarifications about his statement.

PS. This question was also asked on Exploration in consciousness forum.  

[baro-san]

Up until now all my readings have led me to believe that individual consciousness survives death and that physical life (lives) is a training ground for individuals to evolve away from their attachment to form and other physical traits (summed up in Tibetan faith as the Bardo). The goal being to reach a higher level of consciousness .

The question however is: in all these transitions what do we carry over to the next level. In other words does individual consciousness survive. I had been taking this for granted until I read a book :«Soul Flight» by Donald Tyson, 2007 . I liked the book which focuses on AP with a shamanic-magic twist. On page 278 however Tyson states that he does not believe that individual consciousness survives death. This was a disappointment to me (understatement ) . Trying to put his statement in perspective I felt that he was perhaps in slight contradiction with himself  where elsewhere in the book he expands about shamans keeping an open line of communication with their dead relatives. Perhaps what he means is that individual consciousness (as in waking awareness, with physical experience and memories) does not survive any more at death as it does at birth. This last statement is mine of course.

I would love to hear from more experienced members of this forum what I should believe and why. And of course if Donald Tyson reads this forum it would be wonderful to hear clarifications about his statement.

PS. This question was also asked on Exploration in consciousness forum.  

I don't consider myself "more experienced", but I have in my mind a model (which will always be work in progress).

For me, consciousness is a dimension, so "my consciousness" means my range of focus I can experience, and my capability to focus on the consciousness dimension (which is infinite).

From this perspective, when we die our range of focus expands back to our higher self's range of focus. So it isn't like we lose "our Earthly consciousness", but that our range of focus was much smaller than the one we wake up to.

In my experience with altered states of consciousness, it seems that when we die is like waking up from a dream, not even a lucid dream. I believe that the Earthly life is like an incubated dream that we have in order to learn / experience something we choose to. Enlightenment, and similar states are like becoming lucid in your dream: you know that you're dreaming. Continuing the comparison, when we become lucid in a dream (life in this case) we realize that we can, and we should, explore and experience possibilities we can learn from in this state, that will help us grow in our waking life (non-physical, or afterlife in this case).  

[serge]

I don't consider myself "more experienced", but I have in my mind a model (which will always be work in progress).

For me, consciousness is a dimension, so "my consciousness" means my range of focus I can experience, and my capability to focus on the consciousness dimension (which is infinite).

From this perspective, when we die our range of focus expands back to our higher self's range of focus. So it isn't like we lose "our Earthly consciousness", but that our range of focus was much smaller than the one we wake up to.

In my experience with altered states of consciousness, it seems that when we die is like waking up from a dream, not even a lucid dream. I believe that the Earthly life is like an incubated dream that we have in order to learn / experience something we choose to. Enlightenment, and similar states are like becoming lucid in your dream: you know that you're dreaming. Continuing the comparison, when we become lucid in a dream (life in this case) we realize that we can, and we should, explore and experience possibilities we can learn from in this state, that will help us grow in our waking life (non-physical, or afterlife in this case).  

Thanks for your thoughts.
My understanding of the big picture is comparable to yours (using different words). By individual consciousness I understand my ability as a single entity to think. Think of me as... the unique  center of all my thinking which includes my concept of a World, Universe, and all creatures and creations. In other words (solipsism): what we call the physical order cannot be dissociated from our individual thinking.

The perception of a "physical existence"  with all its limitations is the product of  our waking  thinking process.

Altered states and dreams provide us with the opportunity to "see" and experience  a much broader picture which is not limited to the rules of the physical World. The thought reacting Astral environment offers a clear indication of this.

And for those of us lucky enough to have OBEs and lucid dreams...it becomes obvious that we as individual consciousness are essentially "multidimensional" (right here and now), with  waking physical existence being only the pale shadow of the whole "being" which you are right to call "infinite".

With all this in mind I do believe (as you do)that the physical life is meant to be temporary...a trial or an accident , if you want . And  at the time of transition we no longer have to wake up to this plane. In other words we can enjoy the  permanent  environment of the spirits... That is until (as some believe) we have to incarnate, again!

[Volgerle]

With all this in mind I do believe (as you do)that the physical life is meant to be temporary...a trial or an accident , if you want . And  at the time of transition we no longer have to wake up to this plane. In other words we can enjoy the  permanent  environment of the spirits... That is until (as some believe) we have to incarnate, again!

I do not believe it is an 'accident'. Regression hypnosis tells us that it is planned in advance. I also do not think that we are forced to incarnate again. There might be some 'force' that is felt (like 'karma' or what Robert Monroe called 'work load') but free will is still there. As a "Higher Self" we have a 'different overview' (again quote Monroe) so we might 'think' and feel different about physical lives as we do now due to all the hardships we have to endure.

This being said I agree to all other things that is said above.

[Stillwater]

I'd say in a sense yes, and also no.

A huge part of what we consider our waking identity is connected to our physical bodies and its needs and drives. We might retain the same perspective as a being we had, but be totally changed in terms of sense of identity, because all of that is tied up in our life here.

Consider when you play a computer game... you go out and race cars, or fight orcs, or w/e the thing you do in the game involves. When you step away from the game, do you still race cars in your normal life, or fight orcs? Do you think about how great it would be to win the grand prix, or about your character's family members? Do you still have the same goals and desires your game character had? You don't identify with that character at all. You remember being them, but their identity was only a small part of you. I think this is probably similar to that. You retain memories of it all, but you don't identify with this life at all, because you are bigger than that. You don't have the same drives and needs and desires anymore.

This is all speculation on my part, and that goes for what anyone else would tell you, whether they admit it or not, but that is what base reasoning tells me.

[serge]

I do not believe it is an 'accident'. Regression hypnosis tells us that it is planned in advance. I also do not think that we are forced to incarnate again. There might be some 'force' that is felt (like 'karma' or what Robert Monroe called 'work load') but free will is still there. As a "Higher Self" we have a 'different overview' (again quote Monroe) so we might 'think' and feel different about physical lives as we do now due to all the hardships we have to endure.

This being said I agree to all other things that is said above.

Thanks Volgerle for your points. About incarnation I sometimes feel that way too.
What maybe an accident or a lottery  perhaps is not that we incarnate (or reincarnate) but where we do it. But there again I may be wrong. My general impression is that we are on a learning path and that terrestrial life is primary school.

[serge]

I'd say in a sense yes, and also no.

A huge part of what we consider our waking identity is connected to our physical bodies and its needs and drives. We might retain the same perspective as a being we had, but be totally changed in terms of sense of identity, because all of that is tied up in our life here.

Consider when you play a computer game... you go out and race cars, or fight orcs, or w/e the thing you do in the game involves. When you step away from the game, do you still race cars in your normal life, or fight orcs? Do you think about how great it would be to win the grand prix, or about your character's family members? Do you still have the same goals and desires your game character had? You don't identify with that character at all. You remember being them, but their identity was only a small part of you. I think this is probably similar to that. You retain memories of it all, but you don't identify with this life at all, because you are bigger than that. You don't have the same drives and needs and desires anymore.

This is all speculation on my part, and that goes for what anyone else would tell you, whether they admit it or not, but that is what base reasoning tells me.

Thanks,

Yes it is all speculation on my part too. I like your game  analogy.
One should indeed remain flexible in speculating on the subject of post mortem identity. What drove me to broach the subject was Donald Tyson's statement that individual consciousness does not survive death. One may debate the nature of  "individual consciousness" , but IMO not the survival of  the soul or individuality (under one form or another). Rejecting the notion of individual perennity would amount to rejecting as well  the notion of one individual's path towards enlightenment or higher self.

[Stillwater]

Rejecting the notion of individual perennity would amount to rejecting as well  the notion of one individual's path towards enlightenment or higher self. smiley

What is to say there is such as thing as enlightenment, or that we are on an upward journey, and not just here having experiences?

Enlightenment wouldn't be the first concept from the old religions to be discarded. A lot of folks automatically seem to assume it as foundational that we are here to improve, but on what proof?

I feel like humans naturally have this concept about getting better over time, and we apply that to a lot of places it may not fit, like evolution, for instance.

[baro-san]

What is to say there is such as thing as enlightenment, or that we are on an upward journey, and not just here having experiences?

Enlightenment wouldn't be the first concept from the old religions to be discarded. A lot of folks automatically seem to assume it as foundational that we are here to improve, but on what proof?

I feel like humans naturally have this concept about getting better over time, and we apply that to a lot of places it may not fit, like evolution, for instance.

For me "enlightenment" means becoming lucid in this dream that is the Earthly life. Once enlightened (lucid) you'll remember who you are in the non-physical, and what was your plan to do / experiment before falling asleep (being born).

The point is that without having an idea what's your life lesson, you might not learn it.

"Getting better over time" is a natural law, not a human concept. 

[Stillwater]

But natural laws are based on observing nature. Nothing in nature follows that pattern... the stars are slowly decaying away to iron, less useful over time as they go; animals are getting more complex, but no better at surviving- they go extinct at the same rate, and some of the most primitive ones are the best off; evolution doesn't appear to be intrinsically improving creatures, only changing them; the universe tends toward high entropy and low-development as a system. If there was a natural law about improvement, it seems to be its negation: things fall apart to greater and greater degrees the longer you run the system... nothing seems to keep.

[serge]

But natural laws are based on observing nature. Nothing in nature follows that pattern... the stars are slowly decaying away to iron, less useful over time as they go; animals are getting more complex, but no better at surviving- they go extinct at the same rate, and some of the most primitive ones are the best off; evolution doesn't appear to be intrinsically improving creatures, only changing them; the universe tends toward high entropy and low-development as a system. If there was a natural law about improvement, it seems to be its negation: things fall apart to greater and greater degrees the longer you run the system... nothing seems to keep.

Thanks Stillwater.

What is your own sense of humans individual destiny?
If we were not born (or reborn) to the physical plane for the sake of learning, or for lack of a better word, for bettering ourselves, what is the purpose of incarnation? How can we extrapolate  observable entropy in the physical plane and what happens in the non physical where natural laws do not seem to apply?

Do you believe in Karma? Now if Karma is a dimension in the non physical, how  would one position individual destiny outside a learning curve.

Here I am however  indeed beginning to argue against my own point: In the non physical we are not necessarily on a path of improvement (neg-entropy) but also potentially on a negative path (following observable physical entropy)...the right course being a matter left to the individual. 

My own view is that I should be flexible about the non physical, since anthropocentric rationality draws me ( us) not to see the forest for the tree

[Stillwater]

What is your own sense of humans individual destiny?

I would suppose a mind wanders from place to place, much as they do in this life. Did I live in Rome in order to live in Pennsylvania, in order to in Virginia, then Belgium, then Virginia again? I think it is more like I was in one place, then another, then another.

If we were not born (or reborn) to the physical plane for the sake of learning, or for lack of a better word, for bettering ourselves, what is the purpose of incarnation?

Who said it had a purpose? Maybe each of us did for our own reasons.

Do you believe in Karma?

Neither believe nor disbelieve- I try not to believe in things I can in no way test or prove.

How can we extrapolate  observable entropy in the physical plane and what happens in the non physical where natural laws do not seem to apply?

When I say nature here, I am using it to describe the nature we know in this existence (and thus natural law would apply to that system only). Technically all of existence would constitute nature, but lets call the stuff beyond this reality frame something like "supernature", or "metanature" for clarity.

[baro-san]

... Neither believe nor disbelieve- I try not to believe in things I can in no way test or prove. ...

That adds up to a very small amount, if any. 

I obviously have a different take on "things", "natural laws", and working with assumptions and beliefs.

Have you ever had an obe, or a lucid dream? Did you ever had a past-life or a life-between-lives regression? Such experiences dramatically changed my views.

For me it is important to have an idea where I'm headed, why I'm here, what I should I with my life, and such.

On the other hand, science and scientists, that are supposed to rely on "facts", demonstrations, proofs, were repeatedly proven incorrect.

Anyway, each with his own ...

[ThaomasOfGrey]

That adds up to a very small amount, if any. 

I obviously have a different take on "things", "natural laws", and working with assumptions and beliefs.

Have you ever had an obe, or a lucid dream? Did you ever had a past-life or a life-between-lives regression? Such experiences dramatically changed my views.

Be careful not to fall into false assumptions regarding past-life regression experiences. We have a tendency to connect experiences to ourselves when in reality that "past-life" may just be someone's experience that happens to be useful or relevant to your experiences.

I believe Tom Campbell said that the larger system is not above lying to you for you own good. If it predicts that you thinking you had a past life will result in growth it may produce an experience that conforms to what you are willing to believe.

On the other hand we have to keep open minds on the real life value of a re-incarnation system as it seems to have benefits. Can I ask what it was about these past-life experiences that made you feel connected to them personally?

For me it is important to have an idea where I'm headed, why I'm here, what I should I with my life, and such.

On the other hand, science and scientists, that are supposed to rely on "facts", demonstrations, proofs, were repeatedly proven incorrect.

Anyway, each with his own ...

That fact that a given assertion under scientific method can be proven incorrect is a good thing. In contrast, look at how many aspects of the first and second testament of the bible appear to be incorrect - yet people continue to believe in every word of it without any reason bar the book being self proclaimed untouchable fact.

Following the scientific method allows you to let go of outdated beliefs and saves you from falling into new beliefs. The purpose of the method is not to put your fingers in your ears and sing to yourself whenever you encounter something potentially unknowable like Karma. The purpose is to keep an open mind on the possibility of such a mechanic being true or false and not throwing in with either side until all of the evidence has been collected and the verdict is out.

[Stillwater]

hat adds up to a very small amount, if any.

Bingo, lol.

Have you ever had an obe, or a lucid dream?

Course...decades of each (much more lucid dreams, but I consider them to be the same experience, with a different starting method). The striking thing about them is the sense of hyper-reality. The feeling that they are more real than waking life. But I think this is only a feeling... since we are dealing with visions our mind constructs directly with no middleman (our eyes). People tend to take a point of data, and then to extrapolate that point out to proving more than it actually does. For instance, feeling hyper-real does not make the experiences the base reality (Although I do think that it can serve as a medium for having a discourse with the base reality).

On the other hand, science and scientists, that are supposed to rely on "facts", demonstrations, proofs, were repeatedly proven incorrect.

Not every scientist applies scientific reasoning perfectly. Scientific theories are not facts, they are best guesses based on available evidence and proof. Clearly you can be wrong about many things, but then you reject those things if the best current evidence doesn't support them.

But let's look at the reasons why a person applying scientific principles soundly, and without bias can be wrong:

-The data they were relying on was in error, or fabricated by someone, perhaps with their own goals

-The data wasn't precise enough to describe the fuller reality (replacing Newtonian dynamics with relativity)

-They broke a law of logic

None of these things are a refutation of the reasons for using this approach to begin with though. Pointing out that a person committed to using reason and evidence in an unbiased way can sometimes be wrong is like pointing out that shoes can get holes in them... it is sort of missing the point. Just as the fact that shoes can get holes in them doesn't cause you to go barefoot everyplace instead, the idea that a person attempting to use reason and evidence to reason the structure of the world can sometimes be wrong doesn't imply you should stop relying on reason and evidence to test the things you believe.

It is important to point out that the scientific community as a whole doesn't represent science, as strange as that sounds. There is this notion called "scientism", which is the tendency to value the findings or writings of a certain group labeled scientific at the level of revealed religious texts. It is a very unhealthy thing, and it amounts to worshiping the idea of scientific endeavors, rather than actually applying the principles themselves in evaluating the claims. There are plenty of people who commit this error, of course.

But in lieu of reason and evidence, what else would you rely on?

[baro-san]

I don't care enough to convince anybody of anything, some posts are a little too long, and you seem too convinced of your positions.  Sorry that I won't reply to your arguments.

[ThaomasOfGrey]

I don't care enough to convince anybody of anything, some posts are a little too long, and you seem too convinced of your positions.  Sorry that I won't reply to your arguments.

Bummer. The point of my post was to present the idea of not being too convinced of ones position.

We don't have to care about convincing other people because it isn't a contest. I do care however about the personal growth of others and thus continue to share ideas knowing you may not reply.

If you don't care enough about my personal growth to spend the time sharing your ideas that is fine, but if everyone takes on that attitude the spiritual evolution section will remain limited by "belief group" opinions.

[serge]

Stillwater your answers to my questions seem to reflect a strong set of personal  opinions , and there is of course  nothing wrong with that, except....

.. that posters like me expect to find here on this forum  a range of subjects and ideas discussed in a way which reflect the extraordinary complexity of what some call the  non physical. I am honestly puzzled by some of your answers and I would be curious to read how other members (who stay away from this spiritual  evolution sub-forum) feel about what you said.

To my question: How can (you) extrapolate observable entropy in the physical plane  ( what you were doing) and what happens in the non physical where natural laws do not apply?

You replied: "when I say nature here. I am using it to describe the nature we know in this existence (and thus natural law would apply to that system only). Technically all of existence would constitute nature, but lets call that stuff beyond this reality frame something like "supernature" , or "metanature" for clarity" end of quote.

Comment:
I do not see much clarity in your reply. By renaming the non physical "supernature" you are not answering my question, you are avoiding it . The question again was, how can you describe as entropic the "supernature" (your word) plane since you and we don't know much about this order of things, and in your own admission you  quote:"try not to believe in things (you) can in no way test or prove".

There are many things that I myself cannot "test" nor "prove". My modest incursions in the non physical (astral vision, obe, lucid dreams ,distant vision) suggest to me that as a waking human entity there is not much that I can test or prove in a plane where human rationality, the three dimensional space and the notion of time do not apply...Yet it is All there (and abundantly discussed as real by most posters on this forum). I understand that some participants on this forum do not like the notion of "belief or faith". I am not fond of these words either. They refer to traditional blind adherence to cults, dogma and superstitions. I value straight rational thinking as much as you do, except that where rationality, human science and history cannot explain something, my attitude is: there may be something there. I cannot make sense of it because I am a human in
the waking state. But I won't reject it.  When I dream for instance, some of this unexplained stuff makes sense and I don't question it. When I dream I am in a separate paradigm, when I dream I remember previous dreams in a sort of life-like continuity. I can't explain any of that ,yet I know it is there.

[Stillwater]

To my question: How can (you) extrapolate observable entropy in the physical plane  ( what you were doing) and what happens in the non physical where natural laws do not apply?

You replied: "when I say nature here. I am using it to describe the nature we know in this existence (and thus natural law would apply to that system only). Technically all of existence would constitute nature, but lets call that stuff beyond this reality frame something like "supernature" , or "metanature" for clarity" end of quote.

Comment:
I do not see much clarity in your reply. By renaming the non physical "supernature" you are not answering my question, you are avoiding it . The question again was, how can you describe as entropic the "supernature" (your word) plane since you and we don't know much about this order of things, and in your own admission you  quote:"try not to believe in things (you) can in no way test or prove".

But that is exactly it. I wasn't extrapolating at all. I was describing what can be known (nature) from what we can observe and test. Differentiating between nature and supernature, nested reality and base reality, etc, the point was to explain that the larger system has no obligation to resemble the smaller one. I'd say my comment was more about indicating that the concept of natural law is heavily based on the known world, and the known world is a certain way (but also not necessarily the way the larger system is). But I think that got things off rails a bit.

There are many things that I myself cannot "test" nor "prove". My modest incursions in the non physical (astral vision, obe, lucid dreams ,distant vision) suggest to me that as a waking human entity there is not much that I can test or prove in a plane where human rationality, the three dimensional space and the notion of time do not apply...Yet it is All there (and abundantly discussed as real by most posters on this forum). I understand that some participants on this forum do not like the notion of "belief or faith". I am not fond of these words either. They refer to traditional blind adherence to cults, dogma and superstitions. I value straight rational thinking as much as you do, except that where rationality, human science and history cannot explain something, my attitude is: there may be something there. I cannot make sense of it because I am a human in
the waking state. But I won't reject it.

Of course. From these projection experiences a lot can be taken away. I think we should be open to seeing what can be shown to us- that is why almost anyone chooses to be here on this forum. Very few people can be indifferent about what they see though, and they tend to take things at face value. They have an experience, for instance where they visit a place where there is a city built of blue crystal, and then come to the forums and ask if anyone else has been to the blue crystal place. There are many underlying assumptions behind such a question:

1) They visited a place that has a constant reality

2) It is a place they didn't author themselves in any sense

3) They stumbled into something that fits into a map someplace- there is some way to find it, or a natural way to get to this specific place

Think about what can actually be known about that crystal place. Literally nothing probably. But it is still a neat experience to have, and gathering information and experiences like this does help you to better evaluate what is real and what isn't. We are all here to explore the bounds of reality through a neat tool we found.

[baro-san]

...

There are many things that I myself cannot "test" nor "prove". My modest incursions in the non physical (astral vision, obe, lucid dreams ,distant vision) suggest to me that as a waking human entity there is not much that I can test or prove in a plane where human rationality, the three dimensional space and the notion of time do not apply...Yet it is All there (and abundantly discussed as real by most posters on this forum). I understand that some participants on this forum do not like the notion of "belief or faith". I am not fond of these words either. They refer to traditional blind adherence to cults, dogma and superstitions. I value straight rational thinking as much as you do, except that where rationality, human science and history cannot explain something, my attitude is: there may be something there. I cannot make sense of it because I am a human in the waking state. But I won't reject it.  When I dream for instance, some of this unexplained stuff makes sense and I don't question it. When I dream I am in a separate paradigm, when I dream I remember previous dreams in a sort of life-like continuity. I can't explain any of that ,yet I know it is there.

Interesting ...

What if we turn it around? What if you were the leading character in "a dream" of your "higher self"? Your past lives would be other "dreams". You wouldn't remember them, and you wouldn't remember about your "higher self", as you don't remember about your waking human you, in your human dreams.

Your human waking life might be an "incubated dream" of your "higher self", who wanted to use it as a tool to learn / experience a lesson, and grow. That is your life lesson as human, but you forgot about it because you're in a "dream".

Ideally, you realize that you're in a "dream", you become lucid, you recover your "higher self's memory", and you start doing what you remembered you planned to do when you "went to sleep". I believe this is called enlightenment.

If you don't figure out what's your life lesson, and you miss it, then you wasted this opportunity, and will have to try it again. Fortunately, you don't really need to be enlightened to have a good guess what is your current life lesson, as you don't need that to get glimpses of your past lives, your "higher self's past dreams".  

A "false awakening" would be when you believe you know, when you believe you're enlightened, but you're actually still "dreaming".

[serge]

Interesting ...

What if we turn it around? What if you were the leading character in "a dream" of your "higher self"? Your past lives would be other "dreams". You wouldn't remember them, and you wouldn't remember about your "higher self", as you don't remember about your waking human you, in your human dreams.

Your human waking life might be an "incubated dream" of your "higher self", who wanted to use it as a tool to learn / experience a lesson, and grow. That is your life lesson as human, but you forgot about it because you're in a "dream".

Ideally, you realize that you're in a "dream", you become lucid, you recover your "higher self's memory", and you start doing what you remembered you planned to do when you "went to sleep". I believe this is called enlightenment.

If you don't figure out what's your life lesson, and you miss it, then you wasted this opportunity, and will have to try it again. Fortunately, you don't really need to be enlightened to have a good guess what is your current life lesson, as you don't need that to get glimpses of your past lives, your "higher self's past dreams".  


A "false awakening" would be when you believe you know, when you believe you're enlightened, but you're actually still "dreaming".

Thanks,

I am not aware of this dream (for that matter all of my dreams) to be the stage of a self higher than my current humble waking Me. To the contrary, in my dreams my life is quite pedestrian and certainly no different from my daily life. I am always a 20-21 st century male of European descent. The places I end up in are all in the Western World. A lot of my life there weaves distorted memories of my past waking life. I also meet a lot of new people; some I like, some I don't...etc

The dream I was refering to could be called a semi-lucid dream. I  noted that the situation I was involved in was featuring very clear and articulated memories of people and places that I had met in another dream (that is nothing to do with my waking life. The difference between  these memories (from dreams vs waking life was 100% clear) and ....I said to myself: how interesting, I should make note of this  and try to remember it when I will wake up. I did.

[serge]

Interesting ...

What if we turn it around? What if you were the leading character in "a dream" of your "higher self"? Your past lives would be other "dreams". You wouldn't remember them, and you wouldn't remember about your "higher self", as you don't remember about your waking human you, in your human dreams.

Your human waking life might be an "incubated dream" of your "higher self", who wanted to use it as a tool to learn / experience a lesson, and grow. That is your life lesson as human, but you forgot about it because you're in a "dream".

Ideally, you realize that you're in a "dream", you become lucid, you recover your "higher self's memory", and you start doing what you remembered you planned to do when you "went to sleep". I believe this is called enlightenment.

If you don't figure out what's your life lesson, and you miss it, then you wasted this opportunity, and will have to try it again. Fortunately, you don't really need to be enlightened to have a good guess what is your current life lesson, as you don't need that to get glimpses of your past lives, your "higher self's past dreams".  

A "false awakening" would be when you believe you know, when you believe you're enlightened, but you're actually still "dreaming".

:-)I have picked up a conference on the internet that may be germane to the idea of consciousness being  independent from the brain (generally speaking) and yet heavily dependent on the brain in waking physical life. The main speaker is Dr Bruce Greyson, a neuroscientist who has a vast knowledge and  clinical experience in near death experiences. He reflects on various models, one of them being that the brain acts as a reducer (or transformer) to enable physical life. In his experience, consciousness (thinking, observation, memory) does not stop at clinical death. Thousands of medical reports demonstrate that humans in clinical death situation (no heart beats and no brain waves) continue to be conscious (observe the physical world as well as the next) and are capable of reporting about their experience. Research on NDE of course  is not new, I am aware of this, however I find that Dr Greyson is offering   to the layman a perspective on the survival of individual consciousness  that deserves the attention of people who are interested in Astral life.

Enjoy:

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2017/01/29/neuroscientists-believe-theyve-found-proof-for-life-after-death-present-it-to-the-united-nations/