Tom Campbell

[Ricochet]

I've noticed that Tom Campbell is referenced quite a bit here. Maybe I'm venturing into dangerous waters but......

I don't really have so much a quarrel with the "nuts and bolts of how reality works" of his videos, but I find the his overall MBT view very disturbing and depressing. How we check out, meet a hologram representation of our loved ones for 15 minutes, before we are patted on the bottom and forcibly shipped down the reincarnation chute for another go-round at lowering entropy for the great cosmic consciousness like some poor cows at a massive dairy farm.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmkPBrHwQWI

It also goes against the views of others, such as Frank Kepple and Jurgen Ziewe, who paint (for me anyway) a far more possibly pleasant view of reality, reincarnation and what really happens after physical death.

How do you guys see it?

[LightBeam]

I disagree with many of Tom's theories. I am not sure if he can fully AP. But remember that these are just theories. Actually no one knows exactly what happens. First, because our NP experiences are based on personal state of mind and beliefs. And second, because none of us have died and remembered what it was. Temporary focus in the NP while still possessing a physical vehicle is different than being completely dethatched from one.

Another argument is that time is completely different in the NP than here. Tom seems to not take this into consideration when he speaks about reincarnation.

I have interacted with my diseased father many times and that was not a hologram or created image by me. The conversations we had strongly suggest that his spirit's existence as him are in synch with my current situation here. So, however you want to look at the time factor between the physical and non-physical, I strongly believe that our loved ones are with us spiritually and will be reunited in the NP when we die, and there will be another journey on the other site for another transition whatever that is. So, don't get depressed over theories that people assume based on their own logic as humans living in the physical world.

[Xanth]

I've noticed that Tom Campbell is referenced quite a bit here. Maybe I'm venturing into dangerous waters but......

I don't really have so much a quarrel with the "nuts and bolts of how reality works" of his videos, but I find the his overall MBT view very disturbing and depressing. How we check out, meet a hologram representation of our loved ones for 15 minutes, before we are patted on the bottom and forcibly shipped down the reincarnation chute for another go-round at lowering entropy for the great cosmic consciousness like some poor cows at a massive dairy farm.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmkPBrHwQWI

It also goes against the views of others, such as Frank Kepple and Jurgen Ziewe, who paint (for me anyway) a far more possibly pleasant view of reality, reincarnation and what really happens after physical death.

Let me ask you this then... why do you find that particular perspective "disturbing and depressing"?

Essentially, the answer will tell you how YOU view this reality.  You're viewing all this from the perspective of an individual, physical human.  Reality, and consciousness as a whole, is so much more grand than that.  When you begin to see it as such, you'll begin to realize you role in everything and why "becoming Love" is so very important.

How do you guys see it?

In a nutshell... I see everything as consciousness.  That "great cosmic consciousness" (as you put it) is as much YOU as it is ME.  Actually, we're both just small parts of it. 

[Ricochet]

Let me ask you this then... why do you find that particular perspective "disturbing and depressing"?

I'll give room that I may understand his "theory", but the short answer is because, according to him, my individual point of awareness is being used as a means to an end for the greater consciousness. Continually being recycled until I "get" what I am supposed to. Love is not a grand idea, but simply the most efficient way to lower entropy. All this for what? So finally my consciousness packet can just be reabsorbed or snuffed out entirely if I don't cooperate? I guess I'm not seeing the wonder in that.

I'm not sure myself as to how I view this reality. I would like to think of it as part/the beginning of a grand (infinite?) journey of evolution of consciousness. I realize at some point the ego and sense of self must go, some find some of that here in the physical. But to have no choice, to be duped, to be used; no, thats not my ideal of reality.

[Xanth]

I'll give room that I may understand his "theory", but the short answer is because, according to him, my individual point of awareness is being used as a means to an end for the greater consciousness. Continually being recycled until I "get" what I am supposed to. Love is not a grand idea, but simply the most efficient way to lower entropy. All this for what? So finally my consciousness packet can just be reabsorbed or snuffed out entirely if I don't cooperate? I guess I'm not seeing the wonder in that.

I probably would have chosen different words and described it slightly different, but yeah, in a nutshell, that's about right.

What do you "want" to happen then? 

I'm not sure myself as to how I view this reality. I would like to think of it as part/the beginning of a grand (infinite?) journey of evolution of consciousness. I realize at some point the ego and sense of self must go, some find some of that here in the physical. But to have no choice, to be duped, to be used; no, thats not my ideal of reality.

But that's exactly what it is.  Your existence here *IS* part of a grand journey of the evolution of consciousness.

I see your confusion.  Tom isn't saying that you get duped or tricked into having these physical lives.  Through his perspective, you chose to come here.  This physical reality (and other realities like it) seem to be a "fast-track" for spiritual growth.  Yes, you can completely screw that up and end up, through your decisions, regressing spiritually... it happens.  But, on the whole, this reality provides the best and most direct way to spiritually grow.  How?  It happens through your interactions with other consciousnesses through a confined ruleset provided here.  You make a decision (either a love based or fear based choice) and see an outcome, then you have to live with that outcome based upon the decision you made.  THAT is your grand journey of the evolution of consciousness in action!  Live and in your face! 

But yeah, I don't believe for a second we're forced to experience anything.  I think you just have a small misunderstanding of Tom's MBT.   

[Ricochet]

Let me back up just a bit and clarify for anyone who may be reading this.....I really have no clue what I'm talking about. I'm formulating from outside any actual experience as I've never consciously APed or OBEd. I'm working on achieving lucidity in my dreams and hopefully exploring from there. I came here to gain insight and learn.

That being said, I'm not free of opinions and there are some things I think I think.  

One is that there are more evidentiary sources that need to be taken into account. Much of after death contact, numerous NDE as well as OBE accounts seem to indicate that direct reincarnation is rare and/or the whole reincarnation process is not linear but rather all happening at once. What you are experiencing now is most likely a one-off. This directly contradicts Tom. Lightbeam's post factors in with this too.

I haven't ready any of his experiences and my understanding is that Tom doesn't share them. If true, why? That is definitely counter-intuitive.

What do you "want" to happen then?

That's difficult. I know it isn't about what I "want". Yet there are concepts we tend to naturally "receive" that "feel right". The MBT just doesn't resonate with me. Its easier to say what i don't want.  I don't want to be a consciousness packet shipped out to dutifully lower entropy for AIM and AUM and have my individuality discarded when I've served my purpose.

[Xanth]

I think you should further explore, within yourself (no need to post here, it might take a long while), why those issues seem to bother you so. 
Even if they were true, those concepts don't bother me one bit.

In the end, I think the statement "To each their own" sums all of this up nicely. 

[Lumaza]

I haven't ready any of his experiences and my understanding is that Tom doesn't share them. If true, why? That is definitely counter-intuitive.

Tom doesn't share his experiences for the same reason that most experienced members here on the Astral Pulse Forums don't and that's because we don't want people to "mimic" and "expect" to see our experiences there. What you see is personal. It's what "you" need to see at this time in your evolution. If Tom told you he was first experiencing some kind of "tunnel. Many people would search for that tunnel, instead of seeing or experiencing what they "needed" to see. You never want to have "expectations" when you project. You just create the proper "atmosphere" needed to project and see what you see, go where you "need" to go.

I have shared a couple of things here on the Astral Pulse, but only as examples. Like the others here, I realize the importance of keeping things to ourselves.

We here at the Astral Pulse will help anyone that is serious to learn this "Art". We will give you tips to project. We will help you understand what you are seeing. You said you haven't projected yet, so this may be hard for you to understand. But once you do, you will realize what we are saying here. It completely gives you a different "mindset" on what is and what isn't. But you need to see it for yourself. Only then will you know. Please understand though my statement here isn't meant to "demean" you. It's only to help you understand.

Tom has helped me via email to understand some of the things that I experienced and I am grateful for that. I'm not "all in" on all of his theories. But I understand what he is saying.

[tomek]

Let me start by saying, this is a very interesting conversation! Thank you all for sharing:)

I've been reading Tom's Big TOE for some time now, bit by bit, so I don't get too overwhelmed.

I've got only one comment after reading this threat: perspective! We tend to approach ideas from human (i.e. intellectual) point of view and therefore it may be difficult to grasp intellectually some aspects of Big TOE. Intellect is only one of the tools that can be used to explore reality. There is so much more beyond that and using intellect to understand everything would be like applying Newton's laws on the quantum level: it simply doesn't work this way.

I wish all of us openness of the heart in exploration of the realities that don't belong to this world:)

[Ricochet]

We here at the Astral Pulse will help anyone that is serious to learn this "Art". We will give you tips to project. We will help you understand what you are seeing. You said you haven't projected yet, so this may be hard for you to understand. But once you do, you will realize what we are saying here. It completely gives you a different "mindset" on what is and what isn't. But you need to see it for yourself. Only then will you know. Please understand though my statement here isn't meant to "demean" you. It's only to help you understand.

I get it, no problem. I do appreciate the discussion. As I said in the opening post, some of the "nuts and bolts of how things work" make sense to me as well. I wonder though, for those of you who are "all in" with the MBT, how you square this concept of love as just the most efficient means to an end vs the concept of love being purely altruistic. Meaning, are you OK with that?

In the end, I think the statement "To each their own" sums all of this up nicely.

Do you feel that ultimate truth/reality/what really "is" is relative?

[BranStark]

I wonder though, for those of you who are "all in" with the MBT, how you square this concept of love as just the most efficient means to an end vs the concept of love being purely altruistic. Meaning, are you OK with that?

Now, this is very interesting when you think about it. What does it mean to be altruistic? It is essentially helping other people in a selfless fashion, isn't it?. But why do you do that when you get nothing out of it? Well, you do it because you actually do get something out of it. And that is that you feel good doing it and so, by your words, it is "efficient" for you. You also love because it feels good, right? I mean, would anybody be altruistic if it didn't make them feel good? I don't really think so. And so, is it really selfless to love and be altruistic if you get a reward for it? So to say, is it really altruistic to be altruistic? 

Happy New Year to everyone btw

[Ricochet]

What does it mean to be altruistic? It is essentially helping other people in a selfless fashion, isn't it?. But why do you do that when you get nothing out of it? Well, you do it because you actually do get something out of it. And that is that you feel good doing it and so, by your words, it is "efficient" for you. You also love because it feels good, right? I mean, would anybody be altruistic if it didn't make them feel good? I don't really think so. And so, is it really selfless to love and be altruistic if you get a reward for it? So to say, is it really altruistic to be altruistic?

You make a good point, and I'd say that probably accounts for a substantial part of what we label "altruism". But if you are making the argument that nobody would "be altruistic if it didn't make them feel good" you are saying that we are incapable of truly selfless acts. That kind of sums up what disturbs me about the MBT. I read a lot about "unconditional love". Is it really unconditional if I (or the higher consciousness, whatever that may be) really do it only for a benefit?

[Volgerle]

My advice would be to take from TC's work what resonates with you and leave out the rest.

I like TC and have read his work about 6 years ago, 2010 or so. Since then I am an occational watcher of his talks and discussions on youtube. I am rarely posting on his forum even, although it is a bit boring there. The Pulse is better.  

I also do not agree with everything he says or writes. I don't know even if he is a good or frequent APer since he mostly calls it all "meditation". Still, I believe as a long-time student of the TMI laboratory and colleague of R. Monroe he is very skilled moving and getting info in the non-physical, which he uses to gather his experiences and from which again he derived his theories and ideas. But these are HIS experiences. As he says by himself, you should make your own and ffrom that derive your own "Big Toe". That's why he called the book "MY big toe". It is subjective.

[Szaxx]

Once you have mastered the flitting around into different non physical environments and have the ability to stay in one for a while, some of Toms' explanations will show themselves as a personalised perspective expressed in a general way.
The hologram thing is to show you its all in 3D and not flat as many authors can give the impression.
I would like Tom to explain first person clairvoyant dreams with the basic analogy offered. It can't be done unless you've experienced it for yourself. It's almost like attempting to read a technical paper written in German with basics of the language. Some parts may be understood, the depth of the material will be missed or worse, misinterpreted.
I like Tom's generalisations but haven't read his big TOE.
I have my own and it changes with the complexity of my experiences.
The whole is so immense that it is incomprehensible to the human mind. Living in linear time being the largest obstacle.

[Lumaza]

I have my own and it changes with the complexity of my experiences.
The whole is so immense that it is incomprehensible to the human mind. Living in linear time being the largest obstacle.

This right here is soooooooooooooooooooo true. Just when you think what it going on there, everything changes. It is incomprehensible to the Human mind. The deeper you delve into it, the more bizarre everything gets.

[BranStark]

You make a good point, and I'd say that probably accounts for a substantial part of what we label "altruism". But if you are making the argument that nobody would "be altruistic if it didn't make them feel good" you are saying that we are incapable of truly selfless acts. That kind of sums up what disturbs me about the MBT. I read a lot about "unconditional love". Is it really unconditional if I (or the higher consciousness, whatever that may be) really do it only for a benefit?

I don't really understand what feels so wrong to you about it. Every selfless act is motivated by something. Even when you do not directly feel elated, you kind of know it is the right thing to do and that makes you do it, because you then feel at least better if not good. If it was not that way, it would make no sense for anyone to do it. I am really not disturbed by that. Quite on the contrary. Imagine you did something really selfless and didn't feel anything after doing so. Would that not feel kind of hollow. So I do not see a motiviation fueling every single act of ours as a bad thing. That is, if the benefit you get out of it is mutual. Everyone is happy, so what is the matter.

Furthermore, I see the term "unconditional love" as you define it as kind of a nonsense. Love has to feel good, it just doesn't make sense to me for it not to. You might disagree that you can actually feel a lot of pain yourself by selflessly sacrificing your personal aganda to help someoone else. But I could say that the pain you are feeling might actually be about giving up the material values or your greed and, in bigger picture, also about personal development and the good feeling of doing something for others (and therefore yourself, if you go with the theory that we are all just one). So no, sorry, but that kind of love does not exist in my opinion and I don't see why I shouldn't be okay with that.

Try to prove me wrong, I am seriously intersted if you can come up with something that contradicts what I said above

[Ricochet]

Try to prove me wrong, I am seriously intersted if you can come up with something that contradicts what I said above

I'm not really interested in proving you wrong, sorry

Every selfless act is motivated by something. Even when you do not directly feel elated, you kind of know it is the right thing to do and that makes you do it, because you then feel at least better if not good. If it was not that way, it would make no sense for anyone to do it. I am really not disturbed by that. Quite on the contrary. Imagine you did something really selfless and didn't feel anything after doing so. Would that not feel kind of hollow. So I do not see a motiviation fueling every single act of ours as a bad thing. That is, if the benefit you get out of it is mutual. Everyone is happy, so what is the matter.

I agree that every selfless act is motivated by something and that that is not a bad thing. However "selfless" is defined as "having little concern for one's own interests". I am seeing a difference between extending a kindness (or whatever) based on what I benefit from it, i.e. "feeling good" "knowing I did the right thing" vs compassion/empathy and love for the other individual being the primary motivator. I'm not dissing feeling good about it at all, just saying that in my view its secondary. Thats what makes it "selfless"

I can help a little old lady across the street because I know it will make me feel good or because I have empathy and compassion for her predicament. Many times its probably both, agreed. Win-win. But if my benefit is the primary driver, its going to be easier to look the other way. It has to jostle with all of my other self interests at the moment. Is "feeling good" worth being 5 minutes late to the important job interview? Not today! 

Furthermore, I see the term "unconditional love" as you define it as kind of a nonsense.

I didn't define unconditional love, I just asked a question, so I'm not sure what you mean by this. I would like to see your definition though. 

[Xanth]

I don't really understand what feels so wrong to you about it. Every selfless act is motivated by something. Even when you do not directly feel elated, you kind of know it is the right thing to do and that makes you do it, because you then feel at least better if not good. If it was not that way, it would make no sense for anyone to do it. I am really not disturbed by that. Quite on the contrary. Imagine you did something really selfless and didn't feel anything after doing so. Would that not feel kind of hollow. So I do not see a motiviation fueling every single act of ours as a bad thing. That is, if the benefit you get out of it is mutual. Everyone is happy, so what is the matter.

There's a big difference between a "selfless act" done to feel good and a "selfless act" done because it's the right thing to do.

You can usually tell within yourself which you're doing... generally speaking, if you have to THINK about the good act before you do it (in ANY capacity), then it's generally the former.  If you DON'T think, you simply act, then it's the latter.  Don't get me wrong though, as long as the Intent is positive, there is always room for spiritual growth.  For the most part, we all have to ACT nice before BEING nice becomes the norm for us.

Or as you put it... not feeling anything after doing something good is probably the ultimate act of selflessness.  The kicker being just that... it's the act of simply allowing everything to be as it is.

But in the end, there is a big difference between the two acts you and I mention above. 

Furthermore, I see the term "unconditional love" as you define it as kind of a nonsense. Love has to feel good, it just doesn't make sense to me for it not to. You might disagree that you can actually feel a lot of pain yourself by selflessly sacrificing your personal aganda to help someoone else. But I could say that the pain you are feeling might actually be about giving up the material values or your greed and, in bigger picture, also about personal development and the good feeling of doing something for others (and therefore yourself, if you go with the theory that we are all just one). So no, sorry, but that kind of love does not exist in my opinion and I don't see why I shouldn't be okay with that.

As most people do, you're confusing the emotion "love" with what people call "Unconditional Love".  They're NOT the same thing.  Unconditional Love has nothing to do with the emotion and has to do more with accepting "what is".  It's a language barrier issue more than anything else.

Try to prove me wrong, I am seriously intersted if you can come up with something that contradicts what I said above

There's no need.  It's all opinion and perspective anyway.  You choose to take it on or you choose not to. 
Whatever YOU choose to do is meaningless as it doesn't effect me at all... it only effects YOU. 

[BranStark]

I'm not really interested in proving you wrong, sorry

I meant for the matter of discussion, not for the matter of feeling good beating me or anything, of course

I agree that every selfless act is motivated by something and that that is not a bad thing. However "selfless" is defined as "having little concern for one's own interests". I am seeing a difference between extending a kindness (or whatever) based on what I benefit from it, i.e. "feeling good" "knowing I did the right thing" vs compassion/empathy and love for the other individual being the primary motivator. I'm not dissing feeling good about it at all, just saying that in my view its secondary. Thats what makes it "selfless"

I can help a little old lady across the street because I know it will make me feel good or because I have empathy and compassion for her predicament. Many times its probably both, agreed. Win-win. But if my benefit is the primary driver, its going to be easier to look the other way. It has to jostle with all of my other self interests at the moment. Is "feeling good" worth being 5 minutes late to the important job interview? Not today!  

I agree, I just think that feeling good is an essential part of this. You can have little concern for your own interest, but then again, if that is the case, you eventually will feel good about helping people.
The example with the old lady is a good one. However, I think that it is about priorities. The former option is materialist-based, the latter more love-based, therefore... let's say better for the spiritual development or whatever. So again, both actions are motivated, it is just about you choosing which is more important to you. Either you choose to hurry to your interviw, but that is going to make you feel bad for the lady, or you help her out, come to the interview late and feel bad about it, but you know you helped her and that is going to make up for that.

I didn't define unconditional love, I just asked a question, so I'm not sure what you mean by this. I would like to see your definition though.  

Fair enough, I probably misunderstood you. It is hard to "define" anything like that, I just think (maybe unlike you) that unconditional love still feels good even though you might not seek that feeling at all. It is just like the concept of Nirvana. It is about dissociating yourself from emotional ego-based load completely, but in the end, it is supposed to be blissful. I hope you get what I am trying to say

[BranStark]

There's a big difference between a "selfless act" done to feel good and a "selfless act" done because it's the right thing to do.

You can usually tell within yourself which you're doing... generally speaking, if you have to THINK about the good act before you do it (in ANY capacity), then it's generally the former.  If you DON'T think, you simply act, then it's the latter.  Don't get me wrong though, as long as the Intent is positive, there is always room for spiritual growth.  For the most part, we all have to ACT nice before BEING nice becomes the norm for us.

Or as you put it... not feeling anything after doing something good is probably the ultimate act of selflessness.  The kicker being just that... it's the act of simply allowing everything to be as it is.

But in the end, there is a big difference between the two acts you and I mention above.  

Again, I don't think there is that much of a difference.   If you feel something is the right thing to do and you do it, you feel good. If it also includes something unpleasant too, it has to do with ego, nothing else. So again, it is benefitial to you in the sense of development.

Yes you can also feel good about doing something greedy, but that is ego stuff again and not what I meant really.

The act of allowing everything to be as it is.... well, fair enough. I will again use the nalaogy to Nirvana. Buddhists seek the cessation of all ego-based feelings. And by doing so, they are supposed achieve that blissful state. So I would say that if you succeed in achieving that kind of state where you are just an observer and are dettached from eveything, you will probably feel pretty good, perhaps not in the usual emotional sense that we know as you would be dettached form emotion as well, but somehow else. For that matter, when I for example help someone, the feeling that comes along with it is not really an emotion. It is hard to describe but I think you know that feeling too. You just feel it was right and you feel good. And these tho feelings are not separate, they are the same thing and they are kind of devoid of any emotional load. It is hard to describe but I think you know that feeling too.

As most people do, you're confusing the emotion "love" with what people call "Unconditional Love".  They're NOT the same thing.  Unconditional Love has nothing to do with the emotion and has to do more with accepting "what is".  It's a language barrier issue more than anything else.

Again, I didn't mean that greedy kind of love that is in fact not love at all but rather ego. And again, what does the  accepting "what is" feel like?  

There's no need.  It's all opinion and perspective anyway.  You choose to take it on or you choose not to.  
Whatever YOU choose to do is meaningless as it doesn't effect me at all... it only effects YOU.  

As I have said, I meant is as a kind of a challenge for further discussion. I don't really care who is right or wrong. I just just find the conversation entertaining and... well not sure if benefitial, so I will just go with entertaining.  Sorry I didn't make myself clearer  

[Xanth]

Again, I don't think there is that much of a difference.

I'm not sure I can say this without sounding like an donkey's behind LoL, so please forgive me... but, that's because you simply don't understand.
It's the difference between ACTING good and BEING good.  But meh, in the sense of as long as you're doing good, it doesn't really matter THAT much.

One is done as part of the journey, and one is done after the journey has been completed (for the most part).

[Bluebird]

Ok I want to get in on this!

Ricochet I get you on the TC stuff. He kind of tires me out watching him. His slowness and the way he's aloof and sharp at the same time. Some things he says, I like and somethings, I don't. I don't like when he says the wider reality is "finite". But what do I know?

The whole selflessness thing is an interesting topic. There's something to consider and that is the mind and body have different motivations but are linked. The body is the expression of life itself and is truth in motion. The mind cannot be that truth. If it stands still to be in unison with the body, it ceases to observe, therefore ceasing to be, and the body cannot function without the mind. I think the body is the feel good part of love. The body's function is to survive and procreate, it has no good or bad or selflessness, it is life itself. It is physical and in that sense, It is immortal, as long as there is a physical universe. There is no death for it, just change.

Without the body and as a point of consciousness your motivations don't matter because all your interactions are essentially with yourself. If I help a little old lady across the street in my dream, even if it is a lucid dream, I'm only helping myself across the street. Like you I have not projected to the astral proper, or have not been aware enough to perceive it yet, so I cannot speak for the wider reality, but I imagine it is an extension of dreaming, an extension of me.

And to that end I am starting to get the feeling that I am me no matter what and the reason some of TC's stuff bugs me a little is it doesn't fit into my fantasy of what the afterlife may be or what enlightenment may be or WHATEVER IT IS I WANT TO BE... THAT I AM NOT NOW. The thing is... I will only ever be WHAT I AM now.

[Xanth]

I will only ever be WHAT I AM now.

That's a cop-out and I get the feeling you know it.

You are a consciousness playing the part of a human being, correct.  But, you have the power to mould that human being.
You can be a good person or a bad person, or anywhere in between.  Whatever suits your fancy and your spiritual goals.

[personalreality]

It's cool Ricochet, I never dug Tom Campbell either.

[Xanth]

It's cool Ricochet, I never dug Tom Campbell either.

LE GASP! 

No worries, I still love ya. 

Definitely good to see ya back!