Messages

They dont clear past knowledge, it is there for you to find if youd like

Memories from past lives can be remembered through meditation etc., just like memories from your early childhood can be remembered.

You say "They clear past knowledge" like someone else does it to you. You make a concsious decision IMO.

As for only seeing the bright side, there are 2 sides to everything. Pain and pleasure only control you if you let them, again IMO. There is no "system" of pleasure and pain, you bring these things upon yourself.

Well, I thought about it, but I dont see it. Just think about your school, what would be your condition if you forget completely the things you learnt in the past standard, as soon as you enter the next standard ?

Thats not a very good metaphor. I guess a more accurate metaphor would be, you go through kindergarden, graduate, and decide wether or not you want to move on to 1st grade. Once you start 1st grade you can of course remember all the past teachings,(this knowledge we call intuition) but you forget things like conversations you might have had with classmates, the grade you recieved in K, etc. etc. But using a school as a metaphor isnt very reliable in itself

HE COULD DIE AROUND THE YEAR 2012!

please not again... its getting embarrassing.

Doug

Haha, just tryin to stir things up a bit

Yeah, but all your sarcasm aside, how long do you expect someone that's already 78 to live in the position of Pope? It was also of relative importance as to whether or not he would continue with a conservative policy or be more free with church policy. I don't know where you come off deciding to be so damned sarcastic

Really, I dont give a damn. But im glad you care so much about my opinion.

OMG THE POPE IS 78! HE COULD DIE AROUND THE YEAR 2012! OMG OMG OMG!

seriously though, they probably just couldnt find anyone better

And is a 78(!) year old conservative?

FROM GERMANY! AHHH!

Having said that, why would anyone build such a horrific training school? And why would one still like to come here after a single experience.

Have you asked yourself how much fun it would be to be an eagle? Or ride the wives as a dolphin for a day?

If you really wanted to learn something it could have been at least painless and a little bit pleasent, with an option to painlessly abort the training.

"pain" is something we created ourselves and only exists in this physical realm ;P More important, pain contrasts pleasure. Because what is pleasure without pain?

Oh, and most importantly, I dont see a need to destroy all the knowledge of youself before going to a school.

If you were learning a lesson on catholic monotheism, and were brought up in Islam, you would be reluctent to accept any facts or beliefs based on catholic knowledge. So, for the purpose of the class, you decide to keep an open mind and explore the subject further.

What im trying to say is, we cannot learn anything if all we are doing is looking at the situation and saying "Gosh, when my brother was murdered in my past life and i then went out and murdered his killer, things didnt turn out so well." and yada yada yada.

I mean think about it, if we remembered our past lives we would make NO progress as a species.

I could say the same thing of you. If one of your great yogis were alive today, you would indefeinitely look to him as a source of your answers. So what is the difference with people asking the more experienced members of this board?

Anyway, if this model helps you project into the astral, then it is the right model for you. I personally think it is unnecessary as there is a much more advanced system available that not only deals with technique, but the entire science of consciousness and the subtle worlds. As I said earlier it is for people who have a serious intellectual interest.

What kind of astral experiences have you had with your "more advanced system"?

Please, let's keep this civil. I stand firm on my beliefs, because you have not given me reason to change them.

No one can give you reason to change your beliefs. To think so is foolish. Only you can interpret information in a way that causes you to think differently. All the information that you need to change your way of thinking is right here on this message board(The same could be said of, say, the bible), you just refuse to interpret it correctly, which is your problem, not mine.

Excuse me for asking, and i dont mean to sound cynical or anything, but why not just do what that one lady did and find out the lottery numbers in the astral? then, you can move to panama or something and you wont have to worry about any war or any of that crap.

Just regarding your first question:

The base chakra can be activated easily with certain sitting positions such as yoga.
Visualization also works well, but I have heard that not many people have success with it.
Also just using mobile body awareness can be at times enough to activate it.

And Ben: It is a common misperception that the base chakra is associated with sexual energy, the second chakra just below your tummy is associated with sexuality and emotions.


Alex

Ah okay, well whatever that one is, the way i described is DEFINITELY the way to go if you want to feel some funky energy in your groin area!

As of this moment, I hold no beliefs. I have a completely open mind. I only choose to consider what makes sense to me, and that is the phasing model. What about this do you not understand?

I guess what im trying to say is im not stating my own beliefs here at all, iam merely questioning yours. And the fact that you stand firm on them tells me something is very wrong indeed.

If you would like for me to get back to you when i have been able to experience things(not merely "contemplate" or "Logically conclude"), i will surely shoot you a pm when i feel i have a firm set of beliefs, which is definitely not now, and i hope is never, because the moment a man stops questioning his own beliefs is the moment he becomes ignorant. i hope to come to some conclusions however, that I could conclude as being "true" and i would love to get back to you on those points when the time comes.

Who knows, maybe Frank or adrian or major tom will come in here and lay the smack down on your beliefs. But i cannot claim to do that as i cannot claim to have a set of beliefs myself.

Hoping you will analyze your own thoughts,

Ben

whoops, meant to quote there...anyway here is the thread i got it from, which you may find interesting.

http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=157994&highlight=creation#157994

Not, another one of the "Frank says" I might as well talk to Frank. I am talking to you, not Frank. I am interested in your opinions. What Frank is saying is his opinion. His opinion is that people in the past had a limited view and he bases this on the bible. He's right. The bible is full of many contradictions and it is based on blind faith, fundamentalism, here say and lacks science, logic and reason. It is also didactic and dogmatic. So I agree with Frank on his opinion on the bible.

However, Frank is generalizing by saying all religions and spiritual texts are the same. It is fairly obvious Frank hasn't read the Buddhist, Hindu, Jain, Zen or Sikh texts then, and if he has, not enough, As Eastern religion is based on spirituality and philosophy. That is open-minded exploration of philosophical and scientific matters. The Hindus religion is based on knowledge, science and logic. The Sikh religion is based on meditation, service and prayer. Buddhism is based on self-transformation.

As I continue to tell you. This knowledge that you call new today is not new at all for the Easterns. It has been perfected over thousands of years. The entire new-age phenomena and resurgence into spirituality is because of the Eastern systems being re-learned in the west and studied largely due to the transfusion of yogis, swamis in the west. Before then even meditation was a relatively unknown concept. A simple search on the history of the 'new-age' will show that I am right. It's not that they who had a limited view. It's modern people who have a limited view.

Well i just started studying this whole theory mere days ago and im only telling you the knowledge i have gained so far. So perhaps it would be better if you talked to frank himself, as i really might not have the answers. anyone that claims this should be stoned to death.

It is clear that your argument is not standing against reason or the facts. So it would be wise to re-examine your beliefs on the origin of god.  

I completely agree with you. In fact i would call it odd that you do not question your own beliefs.

And as for you saying that gravity is real, it reminds me of a scene from the matrix.

What is real? If you are talking about what you can taste, what you can touch, see, then "real" is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.

Prove to me that gravity is real. Alright you say, and hop off a cliff. All this proves to me is that you believe in gravity. You made yourself fall to your doom.

You say i need to come to terms with the physical, yet if i were "creating my own reality" as you have said, would that not mean that reality IS subjective? And that the mere fact that i can live in my own little word proves that what i have said is true. again, just using some logic here.

If points of consciousness are interconnected they form a whole of consciousness. This is a basic natural phenomena where aggregating particles create emergent properties. So this absolute consciousness lies beyond what you call (F4oC) and therefore the interconnected state is not an absolute. The unified state is the absolute. The interconnected state is like atoms arranged in a lattice. The unified state is the lattice. Which is a complex aggregate. This is again simple logic. That supreme consciousness is what the yogis and I call god. So, based on your beliefs you actually do believe in the same god that I do.

I have been saying this whole time that our beliefs are very similar. Only difference is, you went through 100 people to get to your beliefs, leading to much misinterpretation(logically, there is NO WAY to deny this) and i went through 1 with far far far far less mis-interp.

Because Santa is not a natural concept that one questions when they ponder over the universe and explore causality. Nor is Santa a universal belief.

Actually, i came to the conclusion last night that santa is a part of everything. This was a natural conclusion that i arrived at after pondering over many things. So naturally, he must be an innate concept, correct? Also, whilst pondering the nature of the universe i came to the conclusion that there is no god. Does that make it a universal belief?

You said consciousness creates the physical. This is the causality. Now, you are saying the physical built itself by evolution. Then consciousness entered it?
Then you say we entered our physical constructs? I can't even begin to synthesize that. What you need to do is not research, but thinking. The contradictions and inconsistencies in your thoughts are clear enough. You are holding into false information and impressions and this actually has subtle ramifications. Every false idea we harbor is like a stumbling block on our 'path' and we can never progress without removing them through logic, reason and experience.

The semi-apes were not conscious? Animals are not conscious? I disagree. My dog is as conscious as I am. Dolphins are as intelligent as humans(if not more)

Actually for the most part i was just brainstorming. I dont claim to know the answer and like i said, its something il have to experience for myself before i firmly create any sort of belief.

By the way, define "enlightenment" for me.

Can you imagine another colour beyond the colours that we know?

Not until you experience another color.

No, you can't. Yet, that does not mean that another colour does not exist. You can only know what is within your reality. Not what is outside it. If we were a dream or a holographic simulation. We would only know what we have been programmed to know.
This is actually the real nature of the universe. Everything is holographic.

If we can only know what we have been programmed to know, how can you claim to know more than that?

You cannot explain feelings as abstract thoughts. I could easily say why would we even care if another person dies or not. You say when we visualize ourselves in the same situation, and feel what it would be like, the operative word here is 'ourselves' we are not visualizing them, but ourselves, and thus we do not 'empathize' as we alienate them. We could just as easily then say "This is not me, so I'll move on" and that is what tends to happen.

Empathy is not abstract thought. Empathy is a feeling. It has a touch. All feelings have a touch. Love liberates you and fear suffocates you. This touch is being felt at a soul level. When you glance over a homeless man on a street, at a soul level, where you are interconnected, you feel his emotions, and that is why you act. Empathy and love are not physical phenomena. They are universal phenomena.

And there you go. You just said it. You made a distinction between right and wrong. Welcome to the real world. Where everything is not relative.

I found this interesting:

When the traditional works say that love is truth, what they mean is, love is a Truth. Now, when something is defined as a Truth, what they are defining is a particular kind of reality. They are making a specific distinction between what we might call a local, physical-focus reality. Say, for example, a chair. This could be said to be a reality, it exists as a physical truth. But it is not a truth in the wider sense of it being a Truth. This distinction is sometimes made more apparent by capitalising the word Truth, when it is meant in a wider sense.

So a Truth, then, has a reality in a wider sense. In other words, a Truth is a reality that is not limited to any particular realm of existence; but is a reality that is present in all realms of existence. So in every realm of existence, you will find there is the expression or manifestation of love.

Love is a fundamental energy, that permeates all dimensions. However, within our physical dimension, we experience merely one aspect of the reality of this Truth we call love.

Given certain conditions, it is possible to adopt an alternate mental state that will allow us to merge our sense of consciousness with the energy of love. Thus we can allow the feeling of this mergence to become manifest within our objective awareness. The actual sensations we feel as a result of this merging (which are rather nice!) we interpret as a particular range of feelings.

There are many other reams of existence where people consciously merge with the energy of love. While their interpretations of the experience may be different from our own interpretations, the actual energy they interact with is the same... it's just their interpretation that is different.

It is unfortunate (though perfectly understandable) that we then put two and two together, and conclude that love is merely a feeling... because that is how we interpret it. But we fail to recognise the wider reality of love as a Truth. This, of course, is something that basic spiritual teachings have been trying to point out for thousands of years! But, like I say, for some reason people took the basic teachings and made religions out of them, and we are only just now learning how to unravel the mess.

So you are right, empathy is a universal energy that we manifest in different ways. I hope that makes sense

Belief is a strange animal. People believe for various reasons.

1. They like the belief
2. They like the person who created or follows the belief
3. The belief carries collective weight
4. They are told to believe
5. They are duped into believing
6. It is logical and makes sense
7. They have experienced their belief
8. A belief has been tested

Now for me my beliefs are based on logic and that it makes sense. When I think any belief is proven knowledge I categorize it as fact. Another form of belief is intuitive knowledge. When you receive an intuition and know it to be true you feel it to be true as well. You may feel a surge of energy through your body. You could feel goosebumps or the hair on the back of your neck stand. This can be called a knowing.

In my case, I believe only what i experience. I believe if there is a god, he did not intend for us to have to learn of himself. The mere fact that we are not born with the knowledge of(even though we may come to this conclusion ourselves) and belief in God, refutes his existence. This is of course, referring to the classic monotheistic view of God.

Yes, an orange skin is separate from an orange, because it can be separated from the orange. The skin of an orange and the orange have a different taste, texture, colour. They are very separate from each other. And yes your physical body is separate from your astral body. They have a different vibration, they are governed by different laws of nature, they have different views, different structure. They are different personalities.

But it is not seperate. I would question your definition of "seperate" in this case. If we follow your logic of seperate, then every little molecule in this physical universe is seperate. All you are is simply many different atoms working together to form this body. Because you can pull one atom out makes it seperate from you?

I don't see how any of the above makes anyone more qualified to discuss consciousness. However, I am just showing you that scientific and logical thought at that time was as advanced as it was today and simply because they are ancient systems, does not mean they are inferior to modern systems. Einstein's theory of relativity is now 100 years old. Yet his theories are still some of the most complex today. Again, consciousness sciences are still very underdeveloped vis-a-vis eastern systems.

Einstens theory is still widely accepted because there has not been a more reliable theory to explain what Einstens theory explains. It is human nature to evolve and change beliefs. Someday, someone will create a theory that surpassess Einsteins, or modifies it, or proves it wrong all together. People will study einsteins theory like they study indian texts.

If your astral and physical weren't separate. Your physical would cease to function when you project. It is only functioning because it has it's own consciousness. What you are doing are simply connecting to your astral. This a very simple and logical truth. It beats me why you don't understand it.

Umm I would say in your shoes that if the astral and physical werent seperate, then both could STILL function simultaneousley. In which case that is correct, monroes talks about projecting while having conversation, or projecting while eating a meal. If these two aspects were seperate then the aspect you are participating in at the time would involve your full awareness, and the physical would cease any action. Am i missing something?

This kind of blind belief in what Frank says closely resembles the blind belief of Christians in the church and bible If the Church/bible says this is right - it's right. If the church/bible says this is wrong - it's wrong. I am not about to take that argument seriously. How on earth would Frank be able to say what experience anyone was having? And considering that Frank does not even know what the higher astrals are like, he is not qualified to make any judgment on others experiences. You are really embarrassing frank. It seems you have a religious belief in him.

Your belief in the yogis closely resembles the blind belief of Christians in the church.

I dont believe in frank, i believe in the model that he came up with. The simple fact that he knows more about this model than i do causes me to quote him so many times. As i said i am still learning and have alot of ground to cover.

How do you know frank does not know what the "higher astrals" are like?  would not be surprised if frank or monroe conversed themselves with some of these yogis that you know of. It seems like you have a religious belief in the yogis.

And who created us? And if you say we just are. Then sorry, but I don't accept it. How can we just be. We are obviously made of something. What is it?

You have to think deeper. No one created us. We just are. And im sorry if you dont accept it, but you just have to think critically. MATTER is a physical concept. There is no such thing as matter in the astral, so how could we be MADE OF IT?

No it doesn't. The scientific western age just started a few hundred years ago. Till that point it was believed the Earth was flat. The Earth revolved around the sun and the age of the Earth was 5000 years. Quantum theory, cyclic universe and multiple world theory and studies in consciousness is very recent and it is simply based on experiences of people. Meanwhile, the eastern systems are thousands of years old and since thousands of years old quantum theory, cyclic universe, multiple world theory, even basic facts like the Earth is round, is billions of years old, and the universe is a cycle of creation and destruction, the existence of atoms, even the relativity of matter and energy and space and time were known.

I really hate talking about eastern and western philosophies like we are comparing christianity to hinduism. The only thing that matters is the concepts. And in the beginning, we all shared the same concepts. The only difference between the eastern world and western(In MY Opinion) is that the amount of religious mumbo-jumbo that the west has had to endure is far greater than the amount the east has. At least the east held on to there core concepts.

How does anyone learn information? Through observation, inference, contemplation and meditation. The science of meditation was the highest science amongst the Indian philosophers. They studied the non-physical subtle bodies, it's physiology and anatomy and how the mind worked. [.quote]

Usually it is a matter of a fath:experience ratio. Some people ratios are different, some people have a 2:95 ratio like me. For instance, you have faith in the indian philosophers that what they learned and meditated on was correct. This requires more faith than i have, so i can have faith that what frank, monroe, adrian and others EXPERIENCED in the astral(the same place most of the yogis did there learning) is correct.

I am telling you to accept this physical reality. You don't have any choice anyway.

If i dont have the choice then how am i able to not accept this. These 2 sentences are a contradiction. The mere fact that i can choose not to accept physical reality is proof that it is subjective, IMO.(not that i choose that, i find this physical reality to be a GREAT place ;0)

What other terms am I going to use to explain the non physicals. I can only use the terms that exist in the English language. Again, it is very easier to prove that higher and lower are correctly being used:

Dont try to explain them at all. Experience it for yourself. That is what i am in the process of doing right now. Which is why i am reluctent to believe anything i hear, including Monroe, frank, etc, etc's view on reality.

Higher Self is many things to many people. Whatever people choose to believe is their business, of course. But, ultimately, Higher Self is a mystical and/or religious belief construct.

People who adhere to the more traditional mystical models tend to think in terms of "higher" and "lower" in consciousness. Like there are "higher beings" and stuff like that. But in truth, there is no such thing... consciousness is not higher or lower, it just IS. Unfortunately, what people in the main have yet to realise is that if you are going to talk in terms of higher and lower, then we are ALREADY our highest expression of Self. But thousands of years of religious conditioning is not going to go away overnight.

In the past, people have created actions in consciousness, such as "higher self" and "gods" and such like, to the extent where they have become what are known as Group Constructs. These group constructs are lodged within the area of Focus 2 of consciousness, in an individual sense, and en masse within a particular "layer" of Focus 3.

Many of these constructs keep being repeatedly played out both within Focus 1oC and, following disengagement from physical focus, Focus 3oC.

Within F3oC you can view all manner of people engaged in the old heaven/hell constructs. But because people today are now "dying" with different ideas about what is going to happen to them, you can see all manner of other circumstances besides.

When people talk about notions such as "higher self" or "higher beings" what they really mean (although most people don't actually know what they really mean, as they just read about it and subscribed to the belief) are people resident within Focus 4 of consciousness. This is a purely subjective area of consciousness and, if you are not careful, all manner of distortions in energy translation can take place. You'll start seeing angels and gods and stuff, lol. Which is whacky, it's wild and a whole lot of fun. But not something that is meant to be taken literally. They are just distortions in energy translation between the purely subjective and the objective.

Focus 4 of consciousness is the very source of all that exists within our total system. The energetic blueprints or archetypes of all possible actions in consciousness are "stored" there. This is basically why people have misunderstood over the years and thought of an almighty creator that creates every "thing" on the planet. Well, in a sense they are right *if* you hold out a huge allowance for their limited viewpoint, and people's ever-present tendency to objectify every subjective phenomenon they come across.

Every "thing" or action-in-consciousness that we engage on our planet does, in fact, have a particular subjective "source" yes. This is because we are known as a, "source/manifest system". The subjective source of the objective actions pertaining to the creation of any one individual, is Focus 2 of consciousness.

However, the ultimate source, or the actual "blueprints" for all possible actions in consciousness that can possibly be brought about within our physical reality, is Focus 4 of consciousness.

So when people talk of "god" what they really mean is Focus 4oC, which they have objectified as people tend to do (but I guess there is no telling them that, of course!) This area of consciousness is the ultimate source of ALL actions in consciousness within our system. Therefore, your own actions will have their source there as well. Hence the reason why some people subscribe to the idea of a "higher self" as a notion of some kind of "source" pertaining to the person.

Within Focus 4 of consciousness is also where you can find all your "connections" to your other focuses, which will be resident within other physical realities within our system. There are a huge number of other physical realities and you will have many, many other focuses resident within them. This has led many mystics to believe in the idea of your Higher Self being a kind of "collective entity" that somehow encompasses all of your focuses.

Some mystics even take this notion a stage further saying that, at present, i.e. while physical, you are a kind of "fragment" of some kind of "whole". Then, when you die, you kind of become "one" again and "rejoin" this all-encompassing whole entity or Higher Self. This is, of course, a complete load of dingo droppings. But I do, of course, very much understand why these people have come to these kinds of conclusions over the years.

Some more modern-day mystics have even taken this contorted notion yet a stage further. To the extent where, they are claiming that when your "final" incarnation is complete, you "gather together" all the various "fragments" of yourself. Then the whole of you, sort of, comes together within a kind of huge "mothership of beingness" and off you travel to your next adventure. This is, again, just yet more dingo droppings.

What the people who subscribe to these notions all completely fail to take account of, is the rather significant matter of Simultaneous Time that exists within subjective consciousness. To grasp the notion of Simultaneous Time, in your thinking you have to get a good grasp of the idea of Infinity. You see, everything that ever will be, has already been. Because in infinity, everything happens an infinite number of times.

In infinity, notions such as Beginning and End are meaningless. That is why I always chuckle when I hear people talk about consciousness "expanding". All of consciousness is all of consciousness. Consciousness already encompasses all that is. There is nothing consciousness could possibly "expand" into, therefore, that it would not already encompass. We may well consider ourselves to be expanding, but we are expanding within consciousness. Consciousness itself is not expanding. Consciousness is how it has always been, and is how it always will be... infinite.

There are no boundaries or limitations within consciousness. The only limitations that exist are those we place for the purposes of our experience. Which is all very well, no harm in doing that I suppose, but major difficulties arise when people subscribe to beliefs about consciousness (and the way we set up particular areas within our system) that don't actually concur with what really takes place.

Here are some quotes of a living , breathing human who has experienced all of this and i believe would not lie to help. If you can get me a physical person who has experienced your beliefs word for word I will give you a cake.

Consider this post free, recomended reading.

Regarding your "higher self" you cannot get any closer than you already are. The key is to realise that. Your higher self is that which is left after all the mental junk is cleared away. When I say mental junk, I mean all the ego-driven concepts; ideas, preoccupations, and such like. Allow all that to sink back and what is left is your higher self.

Getting closer to "god" now that I'm not sure about, i.e. in the sense of whether you are religious or not. To my mind the concept of "god" started out as a good idea, but then people got seriously carried away. Smile

In my non-physical travels, I observe there is no such thing as religion in the higher realms. Well, not religion as we know it. People still have concepts which they believe in. But the bases upon which their ideas are formed are radically different.

In these places people just are. In the sense they have gone beyond religion. So I suppose religion, or at least the early basic religious teachings, maybe did serve as a means of progress. But, as I say, all that has long gone. Well, apart from little pockets of goodness here and there.

Interesting:

The following article is copyright the person named below. I found it an interesting read and the author makes some very good observations about the attitude of scientists in general towards the obe/nde phenomenon.


"On Materialism as Science Dogma"
by Neal Grossman, Dept. of Philosophy, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago
(to appear in Journal of Near Death Studies as "Who's Afraid of Life After Death?")

(The following essay focuses on the Near Death Experience (NDE) as evidence that science has -- to its detriment -- become a dogmatic belief system wedded to reductionist materialism rather than being a neutral, objective method for investigating reality of any sort. One could effectively substitute the three letters "UFO" for "NDE." The advantage of dealing with NDE is that there is no doubt whatsoever as to the existence of the phenomeon; the interpretation, of course, being another matter.)

When researchers ask the question "how can the Near Death Experience be explained", they tend to make the usual assumption that an acceptable explanation will be in terms of concepts -- biological, neurological, psychological -- with which they are already familiar. The NDE would then be explained, for example, if it could be shown what brain state, which drugs, or what beliefs on the part of the experiencer, correlates with the NDE. Those who have concluded that the NDE cannot be explained mean that it cannot, or has not yet, been correlated with any physical or psychological condition of the experiencer.

I wish to suggest that this approach to explaining the NDE is fundamentally misguided. To my knowledge, no one who has had a NDE feels any need for an explanation in the reductionist sense that researchers are seeking. For the experiencer, the NDE does not need to be explained because it is exactly what it purports to be, which, at a minimum, is the direct experience of consciousness -- or minds, or selves, or personal identity -- existing independently of the physical body. It is only with respect to our deeply entrenched materialist paradigm that the NDE needs to be explained, or more accurately, explained away. In this paper I will take the position that materialism has been shown to be empirically false; and hence, what does need to be explained is the academic establishment's collective refusal to examine the evidence and to see it for what it is. The academic establishment is in the same position today as were the cardinals who refused to look through Galileo's telescope. Why is this the case?

Before addressing this question, it is probably incumbent on to me to say a few words about the kind and strength of evidence which refutes materialism. Cook, Greyson, and Stevenson [1] "describe three features of NDE's -- enhanced mentation, the experience of seeing the physical body from a different position in space, and paranormal perception -- which (they) believe might provide convergent evidence supporting the survival hypothesis."[2] They then go on to describe 14 cases which satisfy these criteria. From an epistemological perspective, the third criterion, paranormal perception, is the most important. The materialist can, in principle, give no account of how a person acquires veridical information about events remote from his or her body. Consider, for example, the kind of case where the NDEer accurately reports the conversation occurring in the waiting room while his body is unconscious in the operating room. There is no way for the relevant information, conveyed in sound waves or light waves, to travel from the waiting room, through corridors and up elevators, to reach the sense organs of the unconscious person. Yet the person wakes from the operation with the information. This kind of case -- and there are lots of them -- shows quite straight-forwardly that there are non-physical ways in which the mind can acquire information. Hence materialism is false.

Perhaps the "smoking gun" case is the one described by Michael Sabom in his recent book.[3] In this case, the patient had her NDE while her body temperature was lowered to 60 degrees, and all the blood was drained from her body. "Her electroencephalogram was silent, her brain-stem response was absent, and no blood flowed through her brain."[4] A brain in this state cannot create any kind of experience. Yet the patient experienced a profound NDE. Those materialists who believe that consciousness is secreted by the brain, or that the brain is necessary for conscious experience to exist, cannot possibly explain, in their own terms, cases such as this. An impartial observer would have to conclude that not all experience is produced by the brain and that therefore, the falsity of materialism has been empirically demonstrated. Thus, what needs to be explained is the abysmal failure of the academic establishment to examine this evidence and to embrace the conclusion: materialism is false, and consciousness can and does exist independently of the body.

Moreover, the evidence against materialism comes not only from the NDE, but from other areas of research as well. Both mediumship, which has been extensively investigated since the time of William James, and Stevenson-type cases of children who have verified true memories of past lives, offer an abundance evidence against materialism. The best epistemological analysis of the evidence is given by Robert Almeder. After a lengthy and detailed discussion of Stevenson-type cases, he twits Stevenson for concluding only that "it is rational to believe in reincarnation, given the evidence."[5] The proper conclusion, according to Almeder, should be "it is irrational not to believe in reincarnation, given the evidence."[6] I agree with Almeder.

Our collective irrationality with respect to the wealth of evidence against materialism manifests in two ways: (i) by ignoring the evidence and (ii) by insisting on overly stringent standard of evidence, which, if adopted, would render any empirical science impossible. The refusal of academics to examine the evidence against materialism is not new. Writing one hundred years ago, William James complains

I invite eight of my scientific colleagues to come to my house at their own time, and sit with a medium for whom the evidence already published in our proceedings had been most noteworthy. Although it means at worst the waste of an hour for each, five of them decline the adventure. I then beg the 'Commission' connected with the chair of a certain learned psychologist in a neighboring university to examine the same medium, whom Mr. Hodgson and I offer at our own expense to send and leave with them. They also have to be excused from any such entanglement. I advise another psychological friend to look into this case, but he replies that it is useless, for if he should get such results as I report, he would simply believe himself hallucinated....This friend of mine writes ex cathedra on the subject of psychical research, declaring (I need hardly add) that there is nothing in it; ...and one of the five colleagues who declined my invitation is widely quoted as an effective critic of our evidence. So runs the world away! [7]

More recently, Michael Grosso reports a similar experience in attempting to get colleagues to read anything on the evidence for life after death.
The type of person I have in mind will come up with weak, if not irrational, excuses for not reading the book I place in his hand. In one case, the argument ran: "It's only words on paper; no reason to take any of it seriously." Another academic said he didn't have the time. "You mean you can't find a few hours to read a book that might change your basic outlook on life and death?" I asked.

How strange that these intelligent people should be not merely indifferent but resistant to the data. It's as if there were a conspiracy against this information, a need to make it harmless, irrelevant, or nonexistent.

One of my earliest encounters with this kind of academic irrationality occurred over twenty years ago. I was devouring everything on the Near Death Experience I could get my hands on, and eager to share what I was discovering with colleagues. It was unbelievable to me how dismissive they were of the evidence. "Drug induced hallucinations", "last gasp of a dying brain", "people see what they want to see" were some of the more commonly used phrases. One conversation in particular caused me to more clearly see the fundamental irrationality of academics with respect to evidence against materialism. I asked:

"What about people who accurately report the details of their operation?"
"Oh", came the reply, "they probably just subconsciously heard the conversation in the operating room, and their brain subconsciously transposed the audio information into a visual format".

"Well", I responded, 'what about cases where people report veridical perception of events remote from their body?"

"Oh, that's just a coincidence or a lucky guess."

Exasperated, I ask, "What will it take, short of having a Near Death Experience yourself, to convince you that it's real?"

Very non-chalantly, without batting an eye, the response was "even if I were to have a Near Death Experience myself, I would conclude that I was hallucinating, rather than believe that my mind can exist independently of my brain." He went on to add that Dualism (the philosophical thesis which asserts that mind and matter are independent substances, neither of which can be reduced to the other) is a false theory and that there cannot be evidence for something that's false.

This was a momentous experience for me, because here was an educated, intelligent man telling me that he will not give up materialism, no matter what. Even the evidence of his own experience would not cause him to give up materialism. I realized two things in that moment. First, this experience cured me of any impulse to argue these things with recalcitrant colleagues; it is pointless to argue with someone who tells me that his mind is already made up, and nothing I can say will change it. Second, this experience taught me that it is important to distinguish between (a) materialism as an empirical hypothesis about the nature of the world, which is amenable to evidence one way or the other (this is the hallmark of a scientific hypothesis -- that evidence is relevant for its truth or falsity) and (b) materialism as an ideology, or paradigm, about how things "must" be, which is impervious to evidence (this is the hallmark of an unscientific hypothesis -- that evidence is not relevant for its truth). My colleague believed in materialism not as a scientific hypothesis which, qua scientific hypothesis might be false, but rather as dogma and ideology which "must" be true, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. For him, materialism is the fundamental paradigm in terms of which everything else is explained, but which is not itself open to doubt. I shall coin the term "fundamaterialist" to refer to those who believe that materialism is a necessary truth, not amenable to empirical evidence.

With respect to (a) materialism held as an empirical hypothesis about the world, the evidence against it is overwhelming. With respect to (b) materialism held as an ideology, evidence against it is logically impossible. A complicating factor is that the fundamaterialist typically holds the metabelief that his belief in materialism is not ideological, but empirical. That is, he misclassifies himself under (a), while his behavior clearly falls under (b). The debunker and skeptic believes that he is being "scientific" in ignoring and rejecting the evidence against materialism. He claims that the evidence is weak, that it is not compelling, that it can be easily explained away by the materialist paradigm. But when asked what kind of evidence it would take to convince him that materialism is empirically false, he is, like my colleague, usually at a loss for what to say. If he's not familiar with the data, he'll come up with a criterion of evidence which in fact has already been met. When it is pointed out to him that there exist many well-documented cases which satisfy his proposed criterion, he will simply make his criterion more stringent, and at some point he crosses the line between the reasonable demand for scientific evidence and the unreasonable (and unscientific) demand for logical proof.

This is not a minor point. Fundamaterialism is so deeply ingrained in the academic establishment that most researchers on the NDE fall prey to it. For, after presenting case after case which would satisfy any reasonable standard of empirical evidence against materialism, even sympathetic researchers almost always deem it necessary to add the disclaimer that their research does not prove that there is life after death. But no scientific hypothesis is ever proven in this sense. Theorems in logic and mathematics can be proved. In science, hypotheses are not proved; rather, empirical evidence renders a given hypothesis more or less probable. There is no such thing as logical, or mathematical certainty in science. The fundamaterialists are correct in that the hypothesis that consciousness exists independently of the body cannot be proven with mathematical certainty. But neither can any other scientific hypothesis, because empirical science deals with evidence, not proof. Evidence never "proves" a hypothesis, it just makes it more probable. And, when evidence for a given hypothesis accumulates to a certain degree, we accept the hypothesis as true. But "true" in this scientific sense never means "proven"; it means very very probable. In science there is always the possibility that a given hypothesis may turn out to be false. The fundamaterialist will not accept the hypothesis of an afterlife until it is "proven" beyond a logical possibility of being false. That is, he is using a concept of proof which belongs in logic and mathematics, not in science. And NDE researchers are playing the fundamaterialist's game when they utter caveats that their research does not prove the hypothesis of an afterlife. What researches should say, in my opinion, is simply that they have amassed sufficient evidence to render the hypothesis of an afterlife very probable, and the hypothesis of materialism very improbable.

In the above paragraphs, I have been using the terms "science" and "scientific" in its epistemological sense. Science is a methodological process of discovering truths about reality. Insofar as science is an objective process of discovery, it is, and must be, metaphysically neutral. Insofar as science is not metaphysically neutral, but instead weds itself to a particular metaphysical theory, such as materialism, it cannot be an objective process for discovery. There is much confusion on this point, because many people equate science with materialist metaphysics, and phenomena which fall outside the scope of such metaphysics, and hence cannot be explained in physical terms, are called "unscientific". This is a most unfortunate usage of the term. For if souls and spirits are in fact a part of reality, and science is conceived epistemologically as a systematic investigation of reality, then there is no reason why science cannot devise appropriate methods to investigate souls and spirits. But if science is defined in terms of materialist metaphysics, then, if souls and spirits are real, science, thus defined, will not be able to deal with them. But this would be, not because souls and spirits are unreal, but rather because this definition of science (in terms of materialist metaphysics) has semantically excluded nonphysical realities from it scope.

Peter Fenwick uses the term "science" in this metaphysical sense when he writes

So far we've taken a largely scientific, and therefore a rather limited view of the NDE. We've been looking at mechanism, and almost everything we have said has been based on the assumption that the NDE takes place in or is constructed by the brain. We've confined "mind" to the brain because, scientifically, we have no other option. When the brain dies, the mind dies; the scientific view does not allow for the possibility of a soul, or for any form of personal survival after death.

It is only by looking at some non-scientific views that we might find a wider explanation of the NDE....[9]

If the term "materialistic" is substituted for "scientific", then the above passage is an accurate statement with which I have no quarrel. The last sentence becomes "it is only by looking at non-materialistic views that we might find a wider explanation of the NDE...." And this is absolutely correct. Materialism is a woefully inadequate framework in terms of which to understand the NDE. And, I wish to insist, it is science itself, understood epistemologically as a metaphysically neutral method of inquiry, which has discovered the limitations of materialism. After all, the primary researchers in the field are not philosophers or theologians, but well-trained scientists and physicians, who, using standard scientific methodology, have been forced by their data to conclude that materialism cannot be the whole truth.

I stress this semantic point about how the word "scientific" should be used in part because the term carries a lot of emotional weight. To be labeled "unscientific" is sufficient for having one's work or one's self dismissed and ignored by the academic establishment. And I think this is part of the reason academics are in fact dismissive of the research on the NDE. The reasoning goes something like this: to be scientific is good; to be unscientific is bad. Science = materialism. To believe in souls and spirits, or even to talk about souls and spirits, is to talk about and/or believe in something which is not materialistic. Therefore it is unscientific, which is bad, and hence we shouldn't waste any time on it. I believe that most of my colleagues think like this. The false premise, upon which the argument hangs, is the equating of science with materialism, an equation so deeply ingrained that it is difficult to root out. But I think even the most die-hard materialist ought to grant the following hypothetical: if souls, etc. are real, that is if non-material objects exist, then it should be possible to study them, to acquire data about them, to construct generalizations and theories about them, etc., which is to say, it should be possible to study them scientifically. Hence science ought to be construed as a method of inquiry only, not as a metaphysical theory which stipulates by definition what there is, and what can or cannot exist.

I wish to turn my attention now to the discipline of philosophy. It would seem that, of all the disciplines, philosophy ought to be most interested in, and meticulously study, all the research on the NDE. After all, isn't philosophy supposed to be concerned with questions of ultimate meaning, of the purpose of life, of the relation between mind and body, of God? NDE research has data which are directly relevant to all of these questions. So how is it possible that philosophy has collectively managed to ignore and even ridicule this research? To those outside of academic philosophy, it may come as a surprise to learn the great majority of academic philosophers are atheists and materialists. While, as I have argued above, they incorrectly use science to support their materialism, they systematically ignore the findings of science [10] which refute their materialism. Since their materialism is not empirically based, I call it fundamaterialism, to make explicit comparison with fundamentalism in religion. Fundamentalism connotes an attitude of certainty towards one's core belief. Just as the fundamentalist Christian is absolutely certain that the world was created in the manner described by the Bible (fossil evidence notwithstanding [11]), so also the fundamaterialist is absolutely certain that there exists nothing that is not made up of matter (NDE and other evidence notwithstanding). In fact, and this is the crucial point, their respective beliefs have nothing to do with evidence. As my fundamaterialist colleague put it, "there can't be evidence for something that's false."

And, more surprisingly, even those philosophers who are not materialists (and their number, I think, is growing) refuse to look at the data. One would think that a Cartesian Dualist, or a Platonist, would eagerly devour the wealth of data which strongly support their point of view. I would like to share a few more personal experiences which highlight some of the attitudes involved. In the late seventies, when the early research on the NDE was just being published, I was involved in team-teaching a course with one of the campus chaplains. Excitedly, I shared what I was learning about the NDE with the chaplain, thinking that he would welcome empirical data which, at the very least, constituted strong prima-facia evidence for much of what he believed in -- soul, afterlife, ultimate responsibility for one's actions, Higher Power, etc. To my astonishment, he was just as dismissive of the evidence as was my fundamaterialist colleague. When I questioned him about why he was so resistant to the data, he said, in effect, that his belief in God, afterlife, etc. is based on faith, and if these things were decidable empirically, there would be no room left for faith, which for him, was the foundation of his religious convictions.

I knew then that the NDE was between a rock and a hard place, as far as being taken seriously by the two disciplines, philosophy and theology, which should be the most interested in it. On the one hand, fundamaterialist philosophers believe in the truth of materialism a priori; empirical evidence is not relevant to them, and they are committed to ignoring and/or debunking anything that looks like evidence. On the other hand, theologians and other intellectuals who do believe in an afterlife, tend to base their belief on faith, which they feel would be seriously undermined if empirical evidence were relevant to their beliefs. Moreover, once theology and religion open the door to empirical evidence, then the possibility arises that the evidence may contradict some aspects of what was believed solely on the basis of faith. Indeed, this has already happened. The evidence from the NDE, for example, suggests that God is not vengeful, does not judge us or condemn us, and is not angry at us for our "sins"; there is judgment, to be sure, but the reports appear to be in agreement that all judgment comes from within the individual, not from the Being of Light. It seems, in fact, that all God is capable of giving us is unconditional love. Well, the concept of an all-loving non-judgmental God contradicts and undermines the teachings of many religions, and it is no wonder that the religious fundamentalists are up in arms about the Near Death Experience.

One more story: a few years ago, a Plato scholar from England gave a colloquia at my university. Afterwards, I found myself sitting next to him at dinner, and he politely asked me what my interests were in philosophy. I replied that I was interested in examining the various kinds of evidence suggestive of an afterlife.[12] He, assuming falsely that my interest was in debunking the paranormal, proceeded to tell us of a recent lecture he had attended in England. The lecturer, he said (with a slight sneer of contemptuous ridicule which only the British have truly perfected) was a certain neuropsychiatrist who talked about the Near Death Experience, and (with heightened tone of ridicule) actually believed that it was real. Even though I am quite used to the limitations of my metaphysically challenged colleagues, his attitude surprised me. In the first place, here was a Plato scholar, who, like the chaplain, was summarily dismissive of even the possibility that there could be evidence that Plato's views, the views of the philosopher about whom he is an "expert", might actually be true. The first recorded NDE is at the end of Book 10 of The Republic, so I would have thought that a Plato scholar would at the very least be curious about it. But even more disturbing to me was his implied reasoning. Whenever I hear that a highly trained scientist has studied some sort of esoteric phenomena, and has come to the conclusion, based on his research, that there is something to it, my curiosity is piqued, and I want to investigate.[13] My reasoning is that, if respectable, well-trained scientists have concluded that there's something to it, then maybe there is something to it, and I proceed to read what they have to say. But my colleague, the Plato scholar, was reasoning quite differently: if a respectable, well-trained neuropsychiatrist has come to the conclusion that there might be life after death, what this shows is, not that there might be any empirical reason to believe in an afterlife, but rather, that even a rigorous training in neuropsychiatry cannot protect an individual from believing in such foolish absurdities as an afterlife. This is the reasoning of a closed mind. With respect to the question of an afterlife, his mind is already made up; like most academic philosophers, he believes a priori that there is no afterlife, and since there can't be evidence for something that doesn't exist, anyone who believes otherwise betrays a mind that has fallen victim to superstition, wishful and fuzzy thinking, irrationality, and so forth.

One conclusion I have come to over the years is that both the atheist and the believer, from the fundamaterialist to the fundamentalist, share something in common. In fact, from an epistemological perspective, what they have in common is much more significant than what they disagree about. What they agree about is this: beliefs pertaining to the possible existence of a transcendent reality -- God, soul, afterlife, etc. -- are based on faith, not fact. If this is true, then there can be no factual evidence which pertains to such beliefs. This metabelief -- that beliefs about a transcendent reality cannot be empirically based -- is so deeply entrenched in our culture that it has the status of a taboo. The taboo is very democratic in that it allows everyone to believe whatever they want to believe about such matters. This allows the fundamaterialist to feel comfortable in her conviction that reason is on her side, that there is no afterlife, and that those who believe otherwise have fallen prey to the forces of irrationality and wishful thinking. But it also allows the fundamentalist to feel comfortable in his conviction that he has God on his side, and that those who believe otherwise have fallen prey to the forces of satan and evil. Thus, although the fundamentalist and the fundamaterialist are on opposite extremes of the spectrum of possible attitudes towards an afterlife, the extreme positions they hold unites them as "strange bedfellows" in their battles against the possibility that there are matters of fact about the afterlife which empirical research might discover. The very suggestion that empirical research might be relevant to beliefs pertaining to a transcendent reality -- that such beliefs are subject to empirical constraint -- runs strongly against this taboo, and is hence very threatening to most elements of our culture.

So, at the very least, there is a failure of curiosity among the academic establishment with respect to a large body of data suggestive of an afterlife. And if I am right, if, to paraphrase Almeder, it is irrational not to believe in a transcendent reality, given the evidence, then academia is permeated by a widespread and recalcitrant irrationality which blinds it to the findings of science. I think there are three inter-related factors, or causes, which converge to generate the resistance with respect to this issue: (a) resistance to paradigm change, (b) intellectual arrogance, and (c) social taboo.

(a) Resistance to paradigm change: Ever since the publication of Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions, the concept of a paradigm has been a familiar, useful, albeit sometimes controversial, tool. The concept of a paradigm helps us considerably in understanding scientific revolutions, when dramatic changes occur involving deep-rooted assumptions about how things are or how things must be. All academics matriculate within the context of a specific discipline which trains its practitioners to think in terms of the currently operating paradigm. Once the operating paradigm has been internalized in the mind of the individual, other, competing paradigms appear wrong and/or foolish. For example, I seem to remember, as a graduate student, spending a pleasant afternoon ridiculing phenomenology, which is a different way of approaching philosophy than the analytic paradigm which is dominant in America. None of us had read any phenomenology, or understood what it was about, yet to us it was meaningless gibberish, foolish French philosophy. Examples, historical and personal, could be multiplied without limit. Indeed professional meetings, both in science and humanities, not infrequently degenerate into mere debunking sessions. It seems there is something very deep in us humans that causes us to dismiss and ridicule any way of thinking which is different from our own. There is a natural resistance to forms of thinking which differs from what was internalized during the educational process.

Academic philosophers matriculate within a paradigm which is largely atheistic, materialistic, and reductionistic. There is no God, only material objects and processes exist, and human experience and behavior is to be explicated mechanically in terms of brain states. Books with the terms "mind" or "consciousness" in their title, for example, tend to have as their primary goal the "reduction" of mental and conscious experience to neurophysiology. To one who has internalized this paradigm, this way of approaching things appears to be right, reasonable, objective, and sensible. The paradigm itself is rarely questioned; it is the very water in which the academic philosopher is swimming, which is why it is so difficult for one who is immersed in the paradigm to see it as a paradigm, rather than as the way things "must be". Someone operating out of a different paradigm appears to be out of touch with reality, irrational, and so forth.

So, one of the forces which cause academics to ignore, dismiss, and ridicule the evidence for an afterlife is the force of the paradigm which the individual academic has internalized. The force of a well-entrenched paradigm has, throughout history, always caused scientists and humanists to actively resist both (i) paradigms, theories and hypotheses which are different from their own, as well as (ii) information which runs counter to the general contours of their own paradigm. Indeed, I think the concept of a paradigm partly explains why philosophers are, as a whole, much more resistant to the concept of an afterlife than are scientists. (It is scientists, not philosophers, who are actively engaged in this research). It is because atheism plays a much more central role in the contemporary philosopher's paradigm than it does in the scientist's. In today's academic climate, a physicist could write a book called ``God and the New Physics'' [14], but not a philosopher.

(b) Intellectual arrogance: In addition to the normal kind of resistance with which any paradigm defends itself against change, the atheist paradigm of academia generally, and Philosophy in particular, feels especially threatened by the findings of paranormal research. This is because intellectuals like to regard themselves as the highest manifestation of intelligence on the planet, if not in the Universe. Embracing an evolutionary model according to which consciousness is correlated with brain development, intellectuals regard the human brain as the highest development of evolutionary forces [15], and an educated human brain as the highest of the high. Intellectuals like to feel that they are riding atop the crest of the wave of Evolution. This intellectual smugness is greatly threatened by paranormal research, especially the NDE, the results of which strongly suggest (I am tempted to say "clearly show" instead of "strongly suggest") that the human intellect is by no means the highest form of intelligence. The Being of Light is Itself often described as infinite intelligence and love; moreover, intermediate between the humans and God there appear to many forms of non-embodied intelligence, greatly superior to our own. And furthermore, NDEers report that they feel themselves to be more alive and intelligent while out of the body than when in the body. NDE research seems to be confirming Plato's view that the body acts as a damper on the soul's native intelligence, weighing it down, so to speak, such that the soul is not able to manifest its full intelligence as long as it is embodied in material form.

All this is deeply unsettling to us academics. When we were younger, we may have been poor at sports, we may have been frequently teased by other children for being "squares" or "nerds". But we were smart, and our whole sense of self-worth got tied up in being smart. We were praised by our teachers for getting A's, and we worked hard to achieve the highest possible academic honors and rewards. It is thus quite natural for us to desire theories which support and justify those qualities which are strongest in us. It is therefore very comforting, although blatantly self-serving, to embrace a paradigm according to which we intellectuals are the most highly evolved beings in the Universe, or at least, on the planet. So to ask us to take seriously current research on the Near Death Experience is to ask us (i) not only to entertain the possibility that the atheist paradigm in terms of which we were raised and educated might be inadequate, (ii) but also that human intelligence, of which we academics are the supreme manifestation, is not only not the highest form of intelligence in Creation, but may very well be among the lowest. No wonder there is so much resistance!

(c) Social and cultural taboo: This is the most serious and powerful source of resistance, because it involves not only the university system, but our whole culture, indeed, our whole way of life. Despite avowals to the contrary, we live in a completely atheistic and irreligious culture. To be sure, most people profess a belief in a Higher Power of some sort, and many people attend religious services regularly, but religion, by which I mean religious values, plays no role in shaping the economic and political forces which structure and control our culture. Let me explain: the primary religious value, common to all of the world's religions, is love. The religions of the world agree that Divine Love is the force which creates and sustains our world, and that our primary purpose while embodied is to grow in our ability to understand and express this love. The world's religions advocate that we practice compassion and forgiveness towards others, that we treat people as ends in themselves, and that we not value material possessions. The "goodlife", according to religion, consists, not in the pursuit of wealth, reputation, or power, but rather, in the pursuit of right relationship with the Divine.

Now, the values of our culture are diametrically opposed to the values of religion. Success in our culture is measured by wealth, reputation, and power; and the desires which are requisite for obtaining this success are greed and ambition. Religious values have been safely shunted off to at most one hour a week on Sunday morning, where they are completely ineffective in mitigating the forces of greed and ambition which drive our culture economically. The primary religious values of love and compassion play no role in shaping the economic and political life of our culture. Politicians and corporations seek only to win fame and fortune for themselves; they do not value kindness, they do not seek to share their wealth, and most importantly, they, like everyone else in our culture, measure their self worth according to their wealth, status, reputation, etc. No one gets rich by being kind to their competitors; no one gains political office by being loving towards their opponents. Religious values may be paid lip service to, but they are inoperative in our culture. Indeed, they are fundamentally incompatible with the values which do, in fact, drive our culture.[16]

The reader can probably already see where I'm going with this. Research on the NDE has yielded the following unambiguous conclusion. NDEers confirm the basic values of the world's religions. The purpose of life, NDEers agree, is Knowledge and Love. Studies on the transformative effect of the NDE show that the cultural values of wealth, status, material possessions, etc., become much less important, and the perennial religious values of love, caring for others, and acquiring knowledge about the divine ascend to greater importance. That is, the studies show that NDEers not only verbally profess the values of Love and Knowledge, but they tend to operate in accordance with these values, if not entirely, then at least more so than before.

As long as religious values are presented as merely religious values, then it is easy for popular culture to ignore them or give them minimal lip-service on Sunday mornings. But if these same religious values are presented as empirically verified scientific facts, then everything changes. If the belief in an afterlife were to be accepted, not on the basis of faith, nor on the basis of speculative theology, but as a well-confirmed scientific hypothesis, then this could not be ignored by our culture. In fact, it would mean the end of our culture in its present form. Consider the following scenario: further research on the NDE confirms in great detail what has already been established, many more cases of verified veridical perceptions while "out of body" are collected and documented, advancing medical technology makes possible many more "smoking gun" cases of the type discussed above, longitudinal studies on NDEers confirm the already observed behavioral changes aligned with their newly acquired (or recently reinforced) spiritual values, and so forth. The studies are replicated in different cultures, with the same results. Eventually, the weight of evidence begins to set in, and scientists are ready to announce to world, if not as fact, then at least as highly confirmed scientific hypotheses:

There is an afterlife.
Our real identity is not our body, but our mind or consciousness.
Although the details of the afterlife are not known, we are reasonably certain that everyone will experience a life-review, in which the individual experiences not only every event and every emotion of his life, but also, the effects his behavior, positive or negative, has had on others. The usual defense mechanisms with which we hide from ourselves our sometimes cruel and less than compassionate behavior towards others seems not to operate during the life review.
The purpose of life is Love and Knowledge -- to learn as much as possible about both this world and the transcendent world, and to grow in our ability to feel kindness and compassion towards all beings.
A consequence of (3) is that it appears to be a great disadvantage to oneself to harm another person, either physically or psychologically, since whatever pain one inflicts on another is experienced as one's own in the life-review.
This scenario is by no means far-fetched. I believe there is already sufficient evidence to present the above propositions as "probable", or "more likely than not", based on the evidence. Further studies will only increase the probability.
When this happens, the fallout will be revolutionary. When these findings are announced by science, it will become impossible for our culture to do business as usual, either economically, or politically, or in the universities. For our universities, as I have written elsewhere [17], are institutions of our culture, and as such, manifest and perpetuate the values of our culture. It would be interesting to speculate what an economy, or a university, which tries to align itself with the above five empirical hypotheses might look like, but that is a project well beyond the scope of this paper. It is sufficient for our present purposes simply to note that acceptance of the findings of NDE researchers would mark the beginning of the end of a culture whose driving forces have been greed and ambition, and which measures success in terms of material possessions, wealth, reputation, social status, etc. The present culture, therefore, has an enormous vested interest in undermining NDE research, which it does through ignoring, debunking, and otherwise marginalizing the research.

More subtly, our culture has created an atmosphere of "taboo", for want of a better name, around any serious discussions of spirituality. This is why we tend to feel uneasy and awkward in discussing these things with colleagues. We can discuss spirituality in the academy as something that other people believe, but not as something for which there could be empirical evidence and which might be empirically true. Even the former is difficult. I remember attending a conference on Spinoza some years ago. A member of the audience wanted to ask the speaker whether he thought Spinoza was a mystic. But the questioner could not bring himself to utter the word "mystic". He stuttered and stammered until someone else asked the question for him. The taboo against spirituality is so strong in academic philosophy, that we feel awkward and embarrassed even to say the word "mystic". And this is why I say that something like a taboo is operating here, something which we have all internalized, and which generates feelings of unease and anxiety whenever spiritually is discussed as something that might be true, rather than merely intellectually, as sociology, history, psychology, or literature.

To avoid these feelings of discomfort and anxiety generated by the taboo, academics try to protect themselves by employing the same strategies that everyone uses to avoid anxiety. The first strategy is denial. By paying no attention to the research, by ignoring it and dismissing it a priori, the academic is spared the uncomfortable feelings which would arise from violating the taboo. The second strategy is to debunk, to explain away, and to otherwise marginalize the research, and sometimes even the researchers themselves.

I believe I have identified several of the major factors which are involved in academia's collective refusal to take seriously the results of research into the paranormal. Those disciplines which would be most affected by this research, such as Philosophy and Psychology, are the most resistant to the data, because the data calls into question their most fundamental presuppositions of what a person is and of what life is all about. There is thus much for academics generally, and philosophers and psychologists especially, to fear in this research.

I would like to close by telling a little story I heard about C.D.Broad. C.D. Broad was a famous British philosopher who wrote in the 40s, 50s, and 60s. He served as president of the British Society for Psychic Research, and was the last philosopher with an international reputation who believed there was something to it. Towards the end of his life he was asked how he would feel if he found himself still present after his body had died. He replied that he would feel more disappointed than surprised. Not surprised, because his investigations led him to conclude that an afterlife was more likely than not.[18] But why disappointed? His reply was disarmingly honest. He said, in effect, that he had had a good life: that he was comfortable materially, and that he enjoyed admiration and respect from students and colleagues. There is no guarantee that his status, reputation, and comfort would carry over intact into the afterlife. The rules by which success is measured in the afterlife might be quite different from the rules according to which success is measured in this life. And indeed, NDE research suggests that Broad's fears were well-founded, that "success" by afterlife standards is measured, not in terms of publications, grants, or reputation, but rather by acts of kindness and compassion to others. Perhaps those whose sense of self-worth arises primarily from their status within academia have, as Broad expressed, something to fear from the findings of NDE research.

Footnotes


"Do Any Near-Death Experiences Provide Evidence for Survival of Human Personality after Death?", Emily Cook, Bruce Greyson and Ian Stevenson, Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol.12, No. 3, p. 377, 1998.
Ibid, p 377
Light and Death; Zondervan Publishing House, 1998, chapter 3
Ibid, p.49
Robert Almeder: Death and Personal Survival
Ibid:
William James: Frederic Myers Service to Psychology, in The Works of William James; Essays in Psychical Research, Harvard, 1986, p.194
Michael Grosso, PhD. Fear of Life after Death in What Survives?, Gary Doore (ed); Tarcher, 1990. (Italics mine)
Peter Fenwick, The Truth in the Light, Berkeley Publishing, 1997, p.249

I think it is time to be quite candid about this; there is a tremendous body of research on the paranormal, accumulated since the time of William James, which should properly be called the "findings of science", because the researchers have been trained scientists who adhered to strict, methodologically scientific rules of evidence. When I say that the findings of science refutes materialism, I am using the term refutes in the standard empirical (not logical or mathematical) sense in which a hypothesis (in this case materialism) is said to be refuted, or falsified, by strong evidence to the contrary.

Fundamentalists are just as inventive in explaining away fossil evidence as fundamaterialists --at least those who bother to look at paranormal research --are at explaining away NDE research. One particularly ingenious fundamentalist explanation is that, when God created the world 5000 plus years ago, He created it with fossils and dinosaur bones in place, to make it look as if the world were older, as a sort of test of our faith. The Creationist then challenges the evolutionary scientist to "prove" that God did not in fact create the world in this way. One does not need to be an astute logician to see that the Creationist's hypothesis is unfalsifiable in principle, hence unscientific, and hence, the evolutionary scientist does not need to show (because it cannot in principle be shown) that God did not Create the world with the fossil evidence in place. The arguments of those fundamaterialists who look at the evidence from paranormal research are just as convoluted, involving unfalsifiable premises, confusing evidence with proof, etc. See Almeder, op. cit., for a more detailed examination of some of the convolutions the fundamaterialist must undergo in order to save his materialism.

As an aside, I must say that it has taken me twenty years to gain the courage to be able to reply simply and honestly to questions pertaining to my interests. The taboo against having any interest in the paranormal except for the purpose of debunking it has persisted in academia since the time of William James; and the punishment for violating this taboo is to be ridiculed and marginalized by colleagues. My fear, which has now left me, of being on the receiving end of such ridicule has kept me silent for many years.
Everyone desires approval from their peers, and I have nothing but admiration for those researchers whose love for truth gave them the courage to publish their findings despite fears of their colleagues' disapproval.
e.g. William James on mediumship, John Mack on UFO's, Brian Weiss and Ian Stevenson on reincarnation, etc.
Paul Davies

Although, it must be noted that intellectuals are not consistent in their application of their own criteria. If species intelligence is to be correlated with brain development, then dolphins and whales must be regarded as the most intelligent life forms on the planet.

I do not mean only the corporate and political culture, but popular culture as well. Consider, for example the value of forgiveness, common to all religions. In what per cent of our movies is the protagonist a hero because he has successfully applied this value and has forgiven his enemies? Compare this with the percentage of movies in which the protagonist is a hero because he successfully applied the opposite value of vengeance and destroyed his enemies.

See my Context & Content in Academia; Parts 1 and 2, as yet unpublished.
C. D. Broad reached this conclusion based on studies of mediums and apparitions. The evidence available today, through NDE research and Stevenson-type cases, is even more compelling

Youll like this one:

t has been suggested that "science" is merely discovering what (as is generally termed "eastern") philosophy has known for years. But people forget that we developed our modern-day sciences to present us with provable repeatable constructs. To me it's kinda like someone making multiple entries in a lottery. They look at the winning numbers, say, 6, 16, 22, 23, 26 and 42. They see their total card and exclaim to their friend, "Hey, I had 6 and 16, oh, and 22 and 23, 26 and 42." But the key thing is, of course, not only do you have to guess 6 winning numbers but you have to guess them all correct, on the one line, on the relevant week.

In other words, it's all very well cherry picking certain aspects from previous belief constructs, saying, hey look, these guys were right on this aspect. But that's like me betting on a hundred spins of a roulette wheel. I won't make money overall. But I'm not going to be wrong every time either. In the same sense it's like the people who continually claim the world is going to end. Yes, it will eventually end one day, and someone will be right. But only in the same way a broken clock tells the right time at least once a day.

Our belief constructs of science were created to provide us with definitive answers. This is why science, in the main, is emphasised over what is typically judged to be spirituality.

People will accept less and less the old explanations given by scientists. Of course they will. For there is nothing knew in that. I remember some body of scientists saying the practical limit for the clock-speed of microprocessors was 250 megahertz! Ha ha ha ha, what a laugh.

Within the body of science as a whole, there is at least the concept of "time moves on", new discoveries are made, and it's out with the old and in with the new. Science has embraced this concept admirably and passed in on to the mainstream. After all, who uses the same mobile phone of 20 years ago? Come to think of it, who uses any technology from 20 years ago? Yet as far as Spiritual and religious understanding is concerned, most people are still in the Dark Ages.

That's the core problem. In the sense that religions have yet to give way to the "new technology". What new technology have we had in religion in 2000 years? Nothing, it's the same old claptrap. But they will move on (or rather move aside) eventually. It's a bit messy in the way it happens but so what. Humankind lives on to create some immense discoveries. That's why I always chuckle when I hear people talking about the end of the world. What nonsense. It's finally the end of people talking about the end of the world, and all other such ridiculousness.

And also this one:

In the physical, if I wanted to explain to you about water, for example, I don't need to present you with a model of its properties. Because anyone can just turn on a tap, or go for a swim in a lake, or stand in the rain, or something. But with inner realms of reality you can't just point to an objective example and say there, take a look at that. So to explain what we mean, we have to develop a model that represents the inner, i.e. subjective, reality.

Monroe was the first person, to my knowledge, to realise that the areas of consciousness we project to are not places, as mystics typically (and wrongly) assume. They are focuses of attention. Monroe, therefore, developed a model of consciousness that took account of this. In his work, he noticed that the various focuses of attention had certain individual properties, which were objectively viewable and repeatable. So he labelled these states with an arbitrary series of numbers, in an effort to help other people understand the wider reality.

The Monroe model is really good in many ways, but it still falls short of taking account of the true extent of the wider reality.

For example, the Monroe model is excessively individualistic. This makes it ideal for beginners, but each of us is a focus-personality participating in a simultaneous cycle of manifestation. As opposed to the reincarnational cycle that Monroe appears to support, along with mainstream religious and New Age models. Not that I actually know much about mainstream religion or New Age, but from what I gather they generally support the somewhat incorrect reincarnational model, as opposed to the correct simultaneous model.

So the challenge, then, for anyone like myself, trying to map the inner reality in a more straighforward scientific sense (as opposed to the somewhat convoluted religious and mystical constructs) is how to translate the typology of all-that-is in a true sense, into some kind of model that people can relate to.

The Monroe model is very good. For a first attempt by a lone explorer it was something special, and it is still very applicable today. But it was my frustration with the Monroe model in my attempts to "go beyond" Focus 27 that led me to develop a completely new model that I call the Phasing Model.

The Phasing Model does away with the arbitrary numbers of the Monroe model and labels just the 4 primary focuses of mental attention, within our system as a whole. It can be loosely related to the Monroe model as follows:

Monroe C1 – Phasing Model Focus 1
Monroe Focus's 3;10;12;15 & 21 – Phasing Model Focus 2
Monroe Focus's 23; 24; 25; 26 & 27 – Phasing Model Focus 3
No direct translation with Monroe – Phasing Model Focus 4

Like I say, it was my frustration in trying to go "beyond" F27 of the Monroe model that led me to discover Focus 4 of consciousness. Nothing about this area of consciousness, as far as I can tell, directly relates to anything Monroe published in Far Journeys and Ultimate Journey. So on that basis I am assuming it was not part of his knowledge. Which should not be taken as a criticism, as there was just so darned much of the wider reality that was a part of his knowledge. And I, for one, would never have got as far as I did without having Monroe's work as a launch pad.

From knowledge gained from my being able to "plug into" Focus 4, I've managed to find out facts such as how the 4-Focus model can be related to early religious models. Amazingly, it would appear that all the major religious schools of thought based their thinking on a 4-Focus model of some description. Or what I mean is they held the notion of 4 primary areas in consciousness.

For example, Focus's 1 to 4 can be directly related to the early Christian model of Body; Psyche; Soul; Spirit, respectively. Though I'm not saying that everything they said from then on was necessarily correct, lol. Just that their primary thinking was based on the right lines, at least at some stage in the beginnings of their quest. But it all just developed into the ideological mess we see today.

The idea you always have to hold in mind when adopting any kind of model, is that the words and the models are NOT the actual territory! My Phasing Model, is merely my best attempt yet at presenting a map of the wider reality, or what some people call "all that is". In your explorations, you must hold the idea of the map or model in mind, while simultaneously seeking to "remember" what that model signifies.

Never forget, the map is NOT the territory.

I'm making a particular point of this because I see people fall into this trap all the time with the more mystical models. Which is all very well, I suppose, but I don't want people making that mistake with my own model, as it would defeat the whole purpose of my developing it.

data, i will read your links if you promise to read mine. hopefully we can come to some sort of mutual agreement, if only for the sake of argument. Im not big a fan of agreeing to disagree.

Ben, there seems to be a lot of inconsistencies in your thought. Please do clarify:

Earlier you said: It is a very easy concept, and If i had never known about religion or if i grew up in a forest, I could still believe in God.

So do you learn the concept of god or create the concept of god?

Which ever one comes first. I suppose if i had the intelligence to ponder such issues when i am 6 years old i might create the concept. But for the most part kids learn about God through there parents, they dont think about things like that. If your asking about how the whole concept came about, some guy thought it up and the word spread.

Later you say: You are correct. The physical is nothing but an "end result". It is what you choose to "download" into the physical from Focus 2 (your imagination) that shapes what you do.

So does consciousness precede the physical or does the physical precede the consciousness? Further, are you arguing for the theory of evolution or the theory of eternal souls?

The consciousness preceds the physical, naturally. You were around before the universe was created. I am arguing for the theory of both. I dont claim to know how we get into our body, or at what point humans started to have consciousness. Maybe everything in the whole physical realm has consiousness? These are the questions i plan to seek out once i can get out of my body

Earlier you said: Surely you don't believe in infinity? Something was built, the mere fact that we are here shows it.

So were we 'built' or not built?

Infinity is a human construct created to show a mathematical number, that is infinity. "No time" does not mean infinity. It means all and nothing at once. Yes its a difficult concept for us to concieve, but nonetheless, so was the world being round a couple hundred years ago. What i am saying is we built ourselves, and choose to experience this aspect of ourself for whatever reason.

You said we were intertwined. Then you said there was only one self. You have actually not said what this absolute self is. Please elaborate for me.

Please do clarify the above. As it will make it more comprehensive for me. Now, to proceed with the rest of your points:

WE are not intertwined. The different focuses of consciousness are intertwined. I.E. your "physical body" and your "astral body" are one. But both of these things are merely constructs that we choose to subscribe too. I, of course, subscribe to the physical body construct, or else I wouldnt be here, hehe. When we are here on earth, heck when we are anywhere in our physical universe(and maybe beyond?) we are participating in Focus 1 of consciousness, and thats what takes up most of our awareness, counting out dreams, daydreaming, etc. Me and you, as "souls" are not intertwined. On a certain focus level(F4oC) we can be "connected" like one computer may be connected to another on a network. Hope that clears that up.

This really is the argument that god is a device of ignorance again. I already covered it earlier, refering to the universality of the belief in god.  I will pose the same question to you: why is God still a universal belief even in the age of nanotechnology and transcends all socio-political and intellectual groups.

The argument of ignorance or need does not stand against the facts. God is a universal and timeless belief and pervades all of humanity.  This is a fact.

Are you implying that everyone believes in God? If that were the case then your argument would be settled, but as i do NOT believe in "God" you are wrong. If you mean that all across the world every religion has a form of God, you are wrong. Most of the early religions used the same constructs as the 4-focus model, merely different words. Read this:

In the past, I have read a number of religious-release-spiritual works. I once went through a phase of reading the bible, for example, and spent ages trying to make out where these writers were coming from. What I was attempting to do is step in their shoes, and go back to the times when they were writing these works, to try as best I could to view life from their perspective. Then I would compare what they were writing about, to my own hands-on experiences, in order to try and find parallels in our respective work.

I was amazed at how, when you compare what you might call the core-teachings, these people were really quite knowledgeable as regards non-physical reality. Though a lot of misunderstanding arises directly due to distortions caused through their faulty interpretations. Well, to be fair, people such as myself, today, view it as faulty interpretation. But at the time, to them, they obviously would not have seen it that way.

I guess that's how it all started: ordinary people, viewing non-physical reality, and writing about it. But: with a very much more limited perspective (overall) compared to the more forward-thinkers of today. Problem is, people latched onto this early work and made "religions" out of it. And here we all are, a couple of thousand years down the line, trying to unravel the mess.

So i guess what im saying about the early indian philosophers that you hold in such high regards is what frank said. They merely had a much more limited perspective.

Why don't you believe in God?

Why dont you believe in santa?

I don't think it has personally, for you as well. As you seem to have become dependent on the terminology and have not understood the concepts, which are otherwise quite simple. As I am telling you exactly the same, except different semantics. In fact the belief of having many egos is a very old eastern belief.

the only difference between our thoughts are the constructs that you use to "seperate" your different levels of awareness. You create a seperation between mind and body that could easily be torn down.

Umm, didn't you say that consciousness creates the physical and consciousness has always been?  Therefore, there would not be a random chance. It seems you are trying to hold onto the beliefs of
scientific evolution and spirituality at the same time, not realizing they are contradictory. It would be wise for you to choose which you want.

consciousness isnt all-knowing. And again, this could be before our consciousness even entered the physical body of the human construct. Before consciousness, humans could have been primal semi-apes, using the tools theyd been givin by evolution. Ever heard of the missing link? Ever wondered why humans evolved so fast compared to other animals? Perhaps it was us entering our physical constructs? We do not need to be in a human body to create it. Again, I dont claim to be well versed and I supposed my if my views are contradicting themselves I will have alot of research to do. I only know the facts.

Anyones. We would not be able to know, because we would exist within their imagination, and be confined to it.

The fact that we possess consciousness is the fact that we cannot be someones dreams. When you dream of someone, you arent actually calling upon them, it is simply your thoughts projecting the objective image of that person into your dream. These beings cannot and do not possess concsiousness.

This actually sounds silly to me. How do you observe reality, without differentiating? How do you progress without having values, morals, ethics? How do you advance without having wants/desires? How do you qualify anything without making distinctions like higher and lower.

The way humans have always done it: abstract thought. I know that if i kill someone they wouldnt like it. So i dont. I know that paying someone to have sex to me is only hurting there development spirtually and as a person. So i can say that it is wrong, IMO.

It sounds good on paper: We are one; We are intertwined; I am free of desire; I am ego-less; I am a spiritual being; However, it is delusional. You are an ego. A physical being.  You have wants/desires. This is you. Accept yourself for who you are in this reality

Ha, i wish i were free of desire and ego-less. As a part of the human species i have these things just as much as you do. We all do. its what makes us human.

If that were true, would there be beauty pageants and consistent winners. Psychological studies have shown that attraction is based on symmetry's

When did i say anything about beauty? Beauty is a physical trait, and i guess you could say has a certain objectivity, and as such as a human of course i can tell between beauty and ugly. Good and Bad, are but concepts. What would you say about a society that uses human sacrifices? are those "Bad?"

You still have not answered my question: Do you want love or fear?

In fact let's reframe this question. Do you want to go to heaven or hell?

Answer the questions my friend, don't equivocate.

Well, if i had to choose, i would pick in order, love, heaven. But what does that prove? That i can choose? Yeah, i know that. I am confused =(

No, I don't accept it as proof, because it's entirely your subjective experience and I have no way of verifying it. And I do not beleive blindly in anything. Further, there are betters proofs than this.

Then experiance it for yourself. IMO to hold any belief, truly, one must experience it. That is why there is of course, doubt in my mind, about every model of reality. Be it christian, buddhist, or the phasing model, etc. But i do know that when i lack the experience i can choose between what makes the most sense and what doesnt. And for now, this definitely makes the most sense of all the religions, and philosophies ive studied.

However, if the time comes that i phase to the astral and learn that this isnt how it goes, i will have no trouble re-aligning my beliefs.

What experience do you have with your particular belief system? Why does it hold more merit over mine? What experiences have you had that caused you to believe what you believe? Or are you like me, simply adapting whatever one seems to make the most sense?

Well then you could always demonstrate to me by jumping of a cliff or high rise building with the belief that gravity is just a construct of your mind. I will be sure to read it in the paper for either "the man who could fly" or "the man who thought he could fly and jumped to his death"

By the way, why a faith in monks now? I thought they did not understand anything, remember? It 's just their interpretations, right?

I am sure there have been many who have learned the truth. But you did not read any of there teachings in the books you read. Simply saying "I dont trust monks" is a silly thing to say.

And i would advise you not to follow through with your cliff plan, you would indeed die a horrible death. Like i said, this idea has been ingrained in your head since the moment you were born, and the mere fact that everyone else on the planet accepts the same belief is only going to reinforce it. im sure it takes ALOT of meditation and scouring your beliefs and what you have been conditioned to believe before you can even imagine of doing any sort of that stuff.

Umm, if you lose your physical, doesn't that mean it's separate from you? You can't lose something, if it's not separate from you.

Is an oranges skin seperate from an orange even though you may peel it off? They are of course different ASPECTS of you, so in that sense the word seperate may be used, but seperate in the sense of an astral body and a physical body, no they are not.

Now, I now you have not read Indian philosophy. How can you make such conclusions on Indian philosophy, without even reading it. That is very ignorant. Just a very simple search on the web is all it takes to educate yourself. In fact, it's obvious you did not even read the links I posted.

The Vaisheshika  system, which was founded by the sage Kanada postulates an atomic pluralism. In terms of this school of thought, all objects in the physical universe are reducible to a certain number of atoms: (Source: Wikipedia)

Vaisheshika ("noting characteristics")
One of the Six Schools of traditional Hindu philosophy, and a school whose special concern was the elucidation of physics and metaphysics. The Vaisheshika analysis of the categories for the universe was later combined with the stress on reasoning in another of the Six Schools, the Nyayas, to form the Nyaya-Vaisheshika school, sometimes called the Naiyayikas. The Vaisheshika school was atomistic--that is, they believed that all things were made up of a few basic constituent things--and this atomism was the root of the school's metaphysics. Philosophically speaking, the Vaisheshikas were realists--that is, they thought that the world was made up of many different things, and that these things actually existed as perceived, except in cases of perceptual error. They believed that all things were composed of nine fundamental substances--the five elements, space, time, mind, and selves, and that whatever exists was both knowable and nameable. The Vaisheshikas subscribed to the causal model known as asatkaryavada, which posited that when a thing was created, it was a whole new aggregate, completely different from its constituent parts. This causal model tends to multiply the number of things in the universe, since each act of creation brings a new thing into being. It also admits that human efforts and actions are one of the causes influencing these affects, making it theoretically possible to act in a way that brings final liberation of the soul (moksha).
According to the Vaisheshika analysis, the objects of experience can be divided into six categories: substances, qualities, activity, universals, particulars, and inherence (samavaya); some later Vaisheshikas add a seventh category, absences. The first three categories can be perceived, while the others must be inferred, but the concept of inherence is central to their system of thought. Inherence is the subtle glue connecting all the elements of the universe: wholes and their parts, substances and their qualities, motions and the things that move, general properties with their particular instances, and most importantly, pleasure and pain to the self. The philosophical problems with inherence--particularly the notion that it was one single principle, and not a collection of things--caused them great difficulty, and were ultimately responsible for the rise of Navyanyaya school, which attempted to explain these relationships in a more sophisticated way. For further information, see Karl H. Potter and Sijiban Bhattacharyya, Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies: Nyaya-Vaisesika from Gangesa to Raghunath Siromani <1992>, and Radhakrishnan and Moore, A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy <1957>. (Source: http://www2.carthage.edu/~lochtefe/vaisheshika.html)

More on the Vaisheshika school of philosophy:  http://vaisheshika.biography.ms/

The Vaisheshika not only deals with atomism, but also chemical theory, states of matter and subatomic particle interactions. It also deals with light and mechanics.

http://www.phy6.org/stargaze/Ls7adisc.htm

If you are telling me that history as we know it is wrong and indian philosophers discoevere the atom hundreds of years before we did, then i take back the statement about the atom.

If they did indeed discover the atom, it lends credence to my thought that modern science is just today starting to re-discover things that we already knew in the past. However, you can see even from what you posted that the Vaisheshikans used terms that they could understand(space, time, mind, and selves) to describe the atom. So would it not follow that they used terms they could understand(all the philisophical essence, substance etc.) to describe other things?

Actually nobody knew what the speed of light was. Even in Newton's time the speed of light was thought to be infinite. However, Indian philosophers/scientists had an exact figure for the speed of light. It is not known which methods they used to arrive at it however.

Splendid, lends more credence to my thought.

As soon as you said that, I recalled a passage in the Mahabharata:

Protap Chandra Roy's translation(1889)

...a single projectile Charged with all the power of the Universe. An incandescent column of smoke and flame As bright as ten thousand Suns Rose in all its splendor... ...it was an unknown weapon, An iron thunderbolt, A gigantic messenger of death, Which reduced to ashes The Entiure race of the Vrishnis and thr Andhakas. ...the corpses were so burned As to be unrecognizable. Their hair and nails fell out; Pottery broke without apparent cause, And the birds turned white. After a few hours All foodstuffs were infected... ...To escape from this fire The soldiers threw themselves in streams To wash themselves and their equipment...

Now, whether this is a description of an ancient nuclear holocaust is another topic all together. However it is suffice to say they could imagine atomc bombs. In fact they could imagine more than that. You need to read the Hindu epics. There are references to everything from human cloning, space travel to artificial intelligence

It doesnt matter wether or not they could imagine its effects.  Anyone can imagine a "projectile" smashing into the ground and eradicating everything. I would say it would be weird if they didnt imagine it. They werent stupid. But could they tell my how a piece of plutionium becomes a bomb? Hell, could they describe the properties of plutonium?

I think ive realized that alot of it has to do with misinterpretation. Alot of it went down through history and left us with all sorts of weird beliefs and mumbo-jumbo. I think you are using age-old terms to describe the same thing i am, but with a few misenterpretations. It is natural that these arise because the mere act of writing this creates interpretations. That is why one would even reply! If you could interpret my post the way i meant for it to be interpreted then you would immediately understand, the same way if i were to read your post i would be able to immediately understand what you are saying.

Now, imagine if what i  typed was shown to another person, and they had to retype the whole thing for another person, based on the concepts they got out of it. Now, imagine this happens a million times. This is what happens with religion. With every construct as a matter of fact. its all in the interpretation.

Hmm, you don't subscribe to any of it, yet here you are telling me about astral realms, astral beings, intertwined states, and superhuman powers. I am sure that includes Kundalini and Chakras too. All of which are part of the new-age belief system.

Iam merely telling you what makes the most sense to me. The sooner you realize that you create your own reality the sooner you realize that everything you do, ever single act, is simply an interpretation of one thing or another.

Why are their astral experiences thought manifestation, and Frank, Bruce, Monroe and other modern astral projectors, real? The account I gave to you involved the interaction of two astral bodies in the real time zone. Either it's a lie it ever happened, or it really happened.

How do you know it was the real time zone? They simply could have been interacting in F3oC, in a group construct. Theres simply no way to know, and with that wide of a margin of error, i choose not to believe.

With all due respect to Frank, Bruce and others, they are doing an excellent job in bringing the subject of astral projection and the energy bodies to the masses, but they certainly cannot take credit for the knowledge. This is a very old knowledge system. It has been known for thousands of years and complete treatises have been written on them by ancient yogis. There are complete and exact sciences on metaphysics. To, simply deny them, simply because they are ancient, to even go as far as denying every ancient mystics experience, is ignorance in it's extreme.

I dont believe they take credit. All they are doing is "updating" what we know, with less error of interpretation, IMO. And as for denying mystic experiences, its irrelevent. Frank could look at an ancient indian philosophers experience and tell you wether or not it was withing F2oC, because they have experienced the teachings of others and can tell you if what the ancient says fits into the "real" view. They only deny the ones they know are BS. i deny every experience because i dont know wether or not what they say fits into the "grand scheme".

Do you believe Robert Bruce is having a real astral experience? Because everything he has said about the astral planes is identical to the what the yogis have said, even the symbols Bruce uses to represent each plane, is the same.

I dont know anything about robert bruce, havnt read any of his books so i dont believe i can comment on that.

Further, I was meaning to ask you for a while. What is your opinion about Bruce comment that the astral realms are so perfect and beautiful, that only an intelligence could have designed them?

I do believe an intelligence created them. We created them.

As I said go and read the Bhagvad Gita, Upanishads and Patanjali's Yoga Sutras. You will have a much better understanding of spirituality. As you are learning from the masters themselves.  Frank, Bruce nor I, are a substitute for them. As good as Frank's focus business is for beginners or people with a casual interest. If you are serious about metaphysics, spirituality, bioenergetic circuits, meditation, psychic abilities, enlightenment, space, time, mind and soul, causality and astral dynamics and to know how you relate to the universe and want to study in them in great depth then you need to study the yogic texts. Many of the great scientists, philosophers and intellectuals have.  However, I only recommend this, if you have a serious academic interest or are serious about 'enlightenment'

It follows that as humanity evolves, its understanding of the earth and the non-physical evolve. Do you agree? If so then i would take the teachings of someone in the here and now over the teachings of someone who lived in the past who didnt know that there was a continent across the ocean.

The Yoga Sutras in particular explain everything about minds, egos, distractions, imagination, intelligence, memory, faculities and gives solution to common problems in meditation.

Where did they learn this information?

I believe that everything that happens in our life, happens for a reason. If you are getting this information from a stranger, it is because you need
to see this information to progress. However, you don't give me the impression you are progressing. It sounds like you are living in another reality. A reality that does not belong to you. A reality that you have not attained. A reality you have not earned. Rather than living in the moment of now; the physical. You need to accept yourself for who you are this moment. You are not an astral. You are Ben, you live in US, you are a human being in a part of the changing tides of time and you are different from everyone else.

It is impossible to not live in this reality. Of course I accept who I am. Are you telling me i should accept your reality because it makes more sense to you? Sorry, il go with what makes the most sense to me.

You asked me how is it if you are physical, that you can still have an imagination. This is where the word connecting comes in. You are physical, but also connected to your other subtle self every moment. Think of water cascading down from the summit of a mountain to the ground below. The ground is receiving the water because it is connected to the mountain top, but it is also lower than the mountain top. Your physical self is lower than your higher self. However you are connected to your higher self. Your imagination is constantly receiving information from the higher self. Because your higher self is higher, he has a greater field of vision in every sense. Again, think of it as being on top of a mountain and on the ground at the same. At the top you have a greater field of vision.

How are you connected? A rope? hehe. How you can use purely physical terms like lower and higher to describe the non physical astounds me. But we do tend to think linearely and if this fits your belief system then so be it.

This is why the distinction of higher and lower is important. The higher beings have greater knowledge and understanding of the universe and are free of karma and space and time.  They are also sometimes called the angels, sanat kumaras, ascended masters. Than lower beings(you and I) have limited knowledge, understanding, exist within the frame of space and time and are part of the wheel of karma/desire.

This is all very simple to grasp. You don't even need all this focus business to understand this. It can be explained in simple non-technical language. And by the way, isn't phasing, a technical physical construct? You are full of contradictions.

Phasing is indeed a construct. Everything we participate in is a construct. How am i contradicting myself?

Now my turn to ask you some questions

1. If we have a higher being, where does he/she/it reside? In another dimension? And if so, how are thes dimensions connected?

2. How is it that you think physical terms like higher, lower, connect, etc, have any weight in the non-physical.

Anyway thats all i can think of, im tired

Yeah, im about to head off to bed but this is a link where i just (tried) to explain the for foc's.


http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=18559&highlight=

Wow that sounds like a fun time! Its amazing the way our thoughts and emotions totally shape the environment. I cant wait to get into F2oC myself, but i gotta take it one step at a time

1. I think the base chakra is the sex chakra, so engage yourself in a deep sexual fantasy and you should feel your base chakra light up (no joke, it works for me, but im a male and you know we are all apes that think about nothing but sex every 30 seconds or whatever, haha)

2. Have you tried phasing? When you phase there is no "vibes" or exit sensations of any kind. And once you phase to the astral you can go right back to the RTZ if you want.

3. This might be a long one and i dont know if i have all this information correct, but ive been reading alot. ALOT.

There are FOUR Focuses. F1 Is the physical, everyday focus. C1 in monroes model. F2oC is the area set aside just for your personal use. This is also the 3d darkness everyone talks about. This is also where memory is stored. You put images onto a blank "canvas" in your area of F2oC and you can recall them later. This is where we do most of our dreaming.

F3oC Is where there are actual entities. This is 21-26 or something in monroes models. It holds all the BST(belief system territories) where people go after they "die" in the physical. There, people participate in whatever belief construct they subscribed to in life. Heaven, Hell, etc. etc. I think it is only the fundamentalists that arrive here, so chances are if you even reading these boards you are safe ;)Also, people are here who do not know they have passed on and continue to live normal lives in there own constructs.

F4oC is a place where you are nothing but a point of consciousness, and there are no constructs that apply here. So any concept you can think of, you can not only participate, but you can become. So you can, for instance, become the concept of music. Im not really sure how this works, as i havent even projected yet =\

To get to these seperate areas all you have to do is shift your awareness. This is where the whole concept of phasing comes in. You merely shift your awareness from F1oC to F2oC. This holds many pros compared to the typical OBE, like much better memory retention, since you arent "copying" your whole body. You are the same person, same concsious state, just a different environment. You become aware of these other focuses of conscioussnes.

Yawn...g, night

Ben

Instead of focusing on your immediate area- i.e. your room, do a mental rundown. For example, imagine yourself walking in the country and try to use all your physical senses. Imagine you hear music coming from a house, or smell a pie baking. Engage your senses withint yourself and pretty soon you should find yourself at the famous "3d blackness" The first time you get there you will probably shoot right back to C1 just because of the shock of it(at least i did last night).

But if you can learn to hold the 3d blackness, which i think is F2oC, im told great things can happen. You can let your imagination run wild, and engage in any construct youd like. You can also go "backwards"(in linear terms) to the RTZ if you wish. But if you want to go further you can phase further into F3 or F4. And there is much more info in some other posts if you want to use the search feature to find them. Im off to bed

time to practice phasing I say!

I for one choose the demon war in the astral. noxious gases would be too kooky.

Ben:

So you will also make better progress if you imagine something you enjoy doing. Well, apart from the obvious, of course... ha ha ha... sex, I have found, has a very powerful pull but it has the detrimental effect of also engaging the physical. The two can easily end up in conflict, i.e. the physical is pulling you one way, and your non-physical rundown is pulling you the other, so to speak, and you end up locked in the middle of them.

Haha, I too have tried using sex as one of my ways to engage myself. But, and this is a little strange to admit on a public forum, as soon as i actually started to engage myself with my senses, i STARTED TO ENGAGE MYSELF if you know what I mean!

Lol, so i guess that is out of the question. I will try some other senses next time I practice. Maybe sound would be best, Im a very musical person.

Anyways, thanks for the great re:!

Ben

Ben:

Yeah, that's right. In a way, we are all very much individuals but we're plugged into the same "network". Just like my computer is connected to the Internet and can communicate to other computers on the network, but I do not lose the individuality of my machine. Our minds are surprisingly similar. The main connections, so to speak, are held within Focus 4 of consciousness.

I've never taken any drugs apart from the odd prescription medicine and a moderate amount of alcohol. I certainly wouldn't recommend people take drugs in order to have experiences. Fresh mushrooms are legal in the UK, and when I used to live there, I have known people who have taken mushrooms. Unfortunately, they all simply end up having whacky experiences that they are not mentally and emotionally prepared to handle. Plus, I cannot for the life of me understand how people can eat those things. They actually smell of rotting flesh and blood. Just smelling them makes me want to puke.

In any event, the crux of this whole thing is not merely to have whacky experiences. It's all about learning how to become a serious practitioner of the art. In my view, the drugs aspect is highly detrimental to our credibility in our becoming of a legitimate science.

Yours,
Frank

Aha, I learn fast eh? Well the subject really captivates me(cant wait for your book btw!)

Techinically speaking, we are all part of a big consciousness network in F4oC. So Gekko you are part right.

And these things prove what exactly?

1. Student.

2. It will balance itself out.

3. It will balance itself out.

Haha, Major Tom. Well said.

However, when you look at the effects drugs have i think it ties in really closesly with the phasing model. And yeah, in some cases it can in effect, tear down some of the veils we have created for ourselves.

To answer your question, yes, we are all related on a different level of awareness.