Here’s the latest thing to think about:
Are near-death experiences real? A recent study at the University of Liège (Belgium) compared the characteristics of memories of near-death experience with those of memories after coma without NDE, and after both actual and imagined events. Although the samples were small, the findings are surprisingly strong. The memories of NDEs included significantly more detail, a greater sense of personal involvement, and far higher emotional content than any of the other memories, including those of actual events.
The researchers observe that NDEs have too many vivid characteristics to be considered imagined events; they acknowledge the NDEs as real perceptions. However, the research conclusion is that as the NDEs did not occur in reality, they probably result from a physiological dysfunction and are actually hallucinatory.
An article at the website (IANDS.org) of the International Association for Near-Death Studies is entitled, “Study finds NDE memories are not of imagined events.” The author, who is not credited, describes the Liege study briefly and clearly, and responds:
The researchers’ conclusions are based on two assumptions that are inconsistent with other evidence from NDEs: (1) that the perceived events do not occur in reality and (2) that NDE phenomena are determined neurophysiologically. Therefore, other interpretations are possible.
The first assumption, that perceived events in an NDE do not occur in reality, is not consistent with the veridical [truthful] perceptions that are reported by NDErs. In fact, nearly all “apparently nonphysical veridical perceptions” (AVPs) are verified when checked. Janice Holden (2009) reported that of 93 veridical perception cases in the NDE literature, 92% were completely accurate, 6% were accurate with some errors and only one case was completely erroneous.
Furthermore, previously unknown veridical information received during the “transcendent” part of the NDE (e.g. meeting deceased relatives) is frequently later verified. For example, a man saw and interacted with an apparently deceased person and later found out the man was his biological father who had died in the holocaust (van Lommel, 2010, pp. 32-33).
You can read the entire IANDS article (it’s not long) here.
Regular readers of this blog will probably have guessed the direction my comments will take: We need some new vocabulary.
To believe that “NDE phenomena are determined neurophysiologically” is a logical assumption from within the prevailing materialistic view of most academic researchers and their audience. For anyone who has grown up surrounded only by the materialist worldview, that is a foregone conclusion. The only “real” there is, is physical.
Say that an NDE is occurring for an individual who is lying unconscious directly in front of us. The person is obviously, physically present, in the real world; we can see her. But whatever is going on with her is invisible; we cannot see what she is seeing, or measure or authenticate its events as observers. We are not part of what will later be reported; any landscapes or deceased family members are with her, not with us. Remember, “It’s all in your mind” means, “It isn’t real.” From the logical, materialist perspective, that NDE is by its nature unreal.
Ironically, something of the same thought process creeps into the arguments put forward by NDE experiencers and apologists who continue to report elements of near-death experience as if they were physically real. And so we get statements like, “a man saw and interacted with an apparently deceased person and later found out the man was his biological father.” This is how NDEs are reported, and how sympathetic researchers talk about them, as if they were physical events.
Leaving aside the curious question of how one identifies a person as being “apparently deceased,” other than his looking like a zombie, the problem is simple: In common speech, a person/“a man” is a creature, a personality encased in a physical body. We can know an individual’s personality, but we cannot see it, for without a body it is invisible. We may intuit the existence of an individual’s spirit, untied to a body; but that is generally also invisible. A body, being physical, must inhabit some location in the time/space universe, where the only place currently known to be inhabited by bodies is either Earth or in a space capsule. And obviously, despite the movies, there is no known place on Earth populated by resurrected bodies.
It is my belief that the experiencer did not see a person; he did not interact with a man. What he saw was a meaningful image, a perception of a person. What he saw was not the physicality of his biological father but an image, a perception, a message–like a dream image but moreso, from a related neighborhood where symbol carries the weight of being.
That much is simple. What is not simple is the cry of the experiencer, “It was so real! It was realer than real!” And that is the way the experience registers. The far deeper problem is that we have no specialized vocabulary in which to express the reality of the non-physical “something” which he saw and with which he interacted in such a vividly memorable way that even materialist researchers recognize that it was clearly not imagined. Make no mistake: the “something” is phenomenologically real, though it has no corporal existence.
So researchers must logically reject the physicality of NDEs; yet we continue to contribute to the confusion by speaking of NDEs as if they were occurring on some physical plane, as if they relied on a kind of planetary travel. Until we can find a way to make the distinction, researchers will continue to believe, in all good faith, that NDEs must be hallucinatory, and family members and health care professionals will continue to believe that experiencers have suffered some physiological dysfunction. The least we can do, it seems to me, is to be meticulous about referring to the visual objects in NDEs as perceptions rather than as physical entities.
I am convinced that we do experiencers, the research, and the entire field of near-death studies a great disservice by speaking the language of materialism to discuss non-physical reality. Until we can do otherwise, we will continue to mislead ourselves and our hearers about how veridicality works, and where it is these experiences take place, and what they actually mean.
Two things are giving me hope for humanity these days: One is the mainstream attention being given to NDEs, as through Eban Alexander’s big best seller. Even though the book is titled “Proof of Heaven”, which would seem to be a religious book, readers quickly surmise that the experience has transcended religious dogma. It’s a big step in the right direction. If you look on the Amazone comments page, there are thousands of comments- there is a groundswell out there of interest.
The study noted in this blog is just another step towards a connection between science and spirituality, a small step and mixed in this case, but still progress. The interfaith movement is strengthened by anything that shows the ‘reality’ of NDEs, even if we don’t have the language yet.
The other aspect that gives me hope would be a spiritual/ecological interface, sort of a ‘Gaia’ movement. Plus, many people who have had visionary experience are given the message of the beauty and vulnerability of Earth. Obviously it’s of big concern on the ‘other side’.
I’m glad you mentioned Gaia. Not to be overlooked! Thanks.
As readers of this blog certainly know, some say the spirit world is *more* real than this physical one on Earth. Physicality reduces some of our inherent vitality and realness temporarily. It is the densest, most limiting form of existence.
We certainly are raised to privilege physical reality over any other. Yet, physical realness may be the Kindergarten version of realness. 🙂
(Amazing stats from Janice Holden!)
Yes, she always has great stats. What a resource!
I have never had an NDE and am still just looking around. I had downloaded this article a few days ago:
http://www.coma.ulg.ac.be/papers/vs/thonnard_charland_NDE_PlosONE_2013.pdf
It’s disappointing that innocent children’s NDEs are not included in “deep” studies for a comparison; they know nothing of the subject and yet have very similar if not the exact same experiences. Logic would dictate (to me at any rate) THAT is an impossibility.
If the “memory difference” is looked at regarding the “quantum body” (what I call it for lack of a better term right now) two things are apparent: 1) is that memories are kept – somehow – and 2) these stored memories, when brought back into the physical body show a profound difference – they can be compared (more or less) to normal memory quality like the difference between the old black and white grainy movie pictures and todays high def full color pictures.
I could see “speculation and doubt” if the pictures were the same, but something is profoundly different here on a bio-mechanical level after the “return.” This, to me, suggests data input from a completely different source. It’s like a modern laser printed page with full color pictures compared to a dot matrix printed page.
Why would there be a difference – unless something in the mechanics WAS different?
Jim, you might be interested in this, reprinted 12/29/12. http://dancingpastthedark.com/after-newtown-children-and-ndes/
Jim, you might be interested in this, reprinted 12/29/12. http://dancingpastthedark.com/after-newtown-children-and-ndes/
…………
Excellent … 😀
And the “absent life review and sense of judgment (at least in the experiences surveyed here)” makes SO much sense.
I liked this: “… the other, an eight-year-old boy, reported entering a garden and meeting a girl somewhat older than he who identified herself as his sister. Asking his parents about her later, he discovered that an older sister had died at birth.”
Hard data … always wins. 😀
I think the theosophists and many people in the western esoteric tradition have created a pretty robust vocabulary for discussing these sorts of experiences. Some Jungians (e.g., Monika Wikman) talk about the “subtle body.”
Wikman recently did an interview on the shrink rap radio podcast: http://shrinkrapradio.com/344-archetypal-phenomena-surrounding-death-with-monika-wikman-phd/. I highly recommend anyone with an interest in NDEs to listen to it, as she discusses her own NDE as well as gives a Jungian view on the topic. Wikman theorizes that we experience the subtle body when we have NDEs as well as when we are dreaming. NOTE: She is not saying NDEs are dreams – just that we have access to the same vehicle which retains our conscious awareness during both sorts of experience.
This is very similar to theosophical concepts. Such concepts can be problematic in their own right, but they do offer us some manner of discussing NDEs without automatically reducing them to something absurd (i.e., physical) when attempting to discuss them.
Woohoo–I’m off to check out the link. Thank you!
Omigosh, I just read the transcript. There’s no way to thank you enough! And she’s right about the Grof book–Beyond Death: The Gates of Consciousness is gorgeous and helpful in so many ways. I’ve gone through two copies!
I’m glad you enjoyed the interview, Nan – I thought it would be right up your alley! Wikman has other interviews with Dr. Dave as well – and of course there are many other guests who also talk about subjects that are directly related to much of what you discuss here on your blog: NDEs, spirituality, non-local consciousness, etc.
I have Grof’s “When the Impossible Happens” as well as his “Holotropic Mind” – both of which I bought 5 or 6 years back when I first started sinking considerable money into books on these topics. Being a broke graduate student these days, I’ll see if I can get my hands on “Beyond Death” via the library system – sounds interesting!
Hi Nancy,
I wrote the commentary on the IANDS article and have added my name to the article. I’d like to respond briefly to your comments.
First, regarding the wording of “a man saw and interacted with an apparently deceased person and later found out the man was his biological father.” I agree that “apparently deceased” is awkward but this is derived from the NDEr himself who said, “During my NDE following a cardiac arrest, I saw both my dead grandmother and a man who looked at me lovingly but whom I didn’t know.” So he saw his grandmother whom he knew had died and a man whom he didn’t know. What is a better way to describe this? Was the man physically present before the NDEr? No. Was he also “deceased” like the grandmother? Apparently yes.
Second, I want to mention that Suzanne and I presented a talk at the 2012 IANDS Conference that touched on this issue in a broader sense, called The Future of NDE and Consciousness Research. See http://selfconsciousmind.com or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgelyOlaNGo
We argue that it’s time to extend NDE research to the “transcendent” or non-physical aspects of the NDE (also SDEs). There are veridical aspects of the physical realm in NDEs and also veridical information from the transcendent realm (veridical information obtained from deceased persons — as the man meeting his biological father, veridical life previews, etc.)
The study of the transcendent aspects should be phenomenological; transcendent reality is a different reality in many respects from ordinary physical reality. Commonalities among the accounts – themes – imply there is a common transcendent “landscape” that NDErs experience.
The study of the transcendent aspects of NDEs should be fruitful for unraveling the mysteries of consciousness and the true nature of reality.
We should add that in doing this well, the proper terminology for the transcendent aspects, which you are seeking, can be developed.
Possible sources for guidance in this process — which has already been alluded to in an earlier comment — are the variety of esoteric traditions. Suzanne and I prefer anthroposophy for this because we find Rudolf Steiner’s view of the spiritual realities is more clearly delineated and explained.
These esoteric traditions have both a “cosmology” and a corresponding terminology. One can use the cosmology as a guidepost for things that we might encounter in NDE accounts. For example, most esoteric traditions talk about different “bodies” or “levels” of the human being — physical, etheric, astral (or soul), ego (or spirit), etc.
What we find in the NDEr entity would be called the astral and ego, which appear to be a unity in the NDEr. We haven’t encountered any evidence of the etheric body of a person in an NDE account, which is consistent with the esoteric notion that the etheric is associated with the physical body. (There are other lines of evidence which seem to give independent support to the “reality” of the etheric.)
I want to emphasize that NDE researchers should use the esoteric traditions as guideposts or suggestions for possibly what to look for, not for imposing any tradition or teaching on reality. If we keep the esoteric traditions in mind, then NDE accounts that speak of encounters with spiritual or angelic beings, a Being of Light, various religious figures, cities of light, etc., etc. will seem natural, since these elements are mentioned in esoteric writings, frequently in great detail. (One could argue that the esoteric traditions were derived from NDEs and related transformative experiences, so there is a danger of circular reasoning. We don’t believe this is a problem.)
So now the problem arises, what do you call the non-material NDEr entity? Some researchers have called this entity the “essence” (Arnette), the “mind or soul” (Parnia), or “consciousness” (van Lommel). We chose “self-conscious mind” or simply the “mind”, to point to the fact that the NDEr has aspects of soul and selfhood (ego or spirit). We are hesitant to use “soul” or “astral” or “ego” because they have too many other connotations.
If the research is done properly, i.e., phenomenologically, then the terminology will eventually sort itself out.
Robert, so many thanks for this response! I should have guessed you might have written the article. Brain warp on my part. And thanks for the link to your conference presentation. (I think our sessions were at the same time, so I missed yours.) The careful study you and Suzanne have been making seems to me a groundwork for moving the understanding of reality forward to include general acceptance of veridical information as something more than a parlor trick or psychotic episode. The parlor trick at the moment, it seems to me, while we wait for the eventual terminology to sort itself out, is finding the vocabulary that will convey the sense of non-physicality but not send materialists into full rout. I wonder if that’s even possible! Thanks again for your work, and for taking time to comment so clearly here, and hi to Suzanne.
Robert Mays said: “One could argue that the esoteric traditions were derived from NDEs and related transformative experiences, so there is a danger of circular reasoning. We don’t believe this is a problem.”
I’m just some random guy on the internet, but this is exactly what I would argue. I don’t see it as a problem, either. I think it makes complete sense.
Some times you have to stop thinking, and agonizing over things in order for their true reality to become realized within you. It’s almost like in an unguarded moment they seize the chance to get through. When all is said and done, as the song says, further along we’ll know all about it.
Yes. It doesn’t do (though we insist on trying) to get everything neatly wrapped up. What we really need is to pay attention to those unguarded moments. Thanks, Dave.
“Some times you have to stop thinking, and agonizing over things in order for their true reality to become realized within you. It’s almost like in an unguarded moment they seize the chance to get through.”
……
I agree to a point that eureka moments are part of the overall cognitve process. However, the problem with “stop thinking, and agonizing over things” is that when you find the answer because you have been “thinking and agonizing” – people don’t hear you. I have gone through this for years with what I have been working on, at which time I say “here is your answer” – and people don’t believe it. Then I say prove me wrong … and they can’t – they refuse to actively think and believe their inner unproven eureka moments are the sum and substance of everything.
NDEs are only part of a vast overall picture of what life around us is all about – things we see and hear every single day but have NO clue what’s going on.
I’ll continue to think and agonize … as well as wait for eureka moments. In the end, hard data always wins.
Do you know that many people are afraid ti believe anything? Better to keep your eyes on the material prize of the moment. Avoid any thought of death.
“We need some new vocabulary.” – Nancy
I agree wholeheartedly! And while we’re at it, we need a whole new way of thinking. There are too many contradictions in how we describe the ‘reality’ of near-death experiences. By sticking to a materialist vocabulary, we create what a friend of mine calls “The PlayStation effect”.
When a hospitalized experiencer see’s a relative at home performing tasks that the experiencer could not possibly have known about unless they had ‘been there’, we assume the experiencer was actually present in the room with the relative.
When the same experiencer see’s deceased relatives, including one’s that they have never seen before, we take it as proof that they were in the presence of the ‘essence’ of those people. So far, so good.
But on the rare occasions when Visions of the living arise, we call it an Avatar. We tend to explain conflicting encounters with various holy entities (Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, the Light) as “symbolic” – designed to fit the needs of the experiencer.
Okay, is it real, or is it symbolic? Is it a mixture of both? Or is it simply a Grand Video Game with God? What do we mean by ‘real’? At the end of the day, what are we doing here?
Part of me is inspired, but part of me is screaming “Admit it, we’re not making sense!”
I see the language conflict going even deeper. Spirit, energy and light are materialist-style words. We speak of the spirit leaving the body, energy exchanged in healing, and God as an Uncreated Light. When a materialist hears words like this, they reasonably assume that if these entities and their effects were ‘real”, they could be quantified and measured.
I’m not saying we should kowtow to materialist misperception, or throw the baby out with the bathwater and quit using these words, but we definitely need a whole new way of phrasing things.
The problem is, too many people would have to start looking at consciousness more critically, and stop using NDE’s as “proof” of their faith (religious and otherwise).
You’re spot-on Nancy – We need some new vocabulary.
Couldn’t have said it better! Thanks.
“But on the rare occasions when Visions of the living arise, we call it an Avatar. We tend to explain conflicting encounters with various holy entities (Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, the Light) as “symbolic” – designed to fit the needs of the experiencer.
Okay, is it real, or is it symbolic?”
……………..
First off, allow me to ask one question … do any of these entities ever introduce themselves as Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha? Or is it that we perceive them as such?
For me the connection between who they really are and what we seem to see (if they haven’t said, for instance: Hi, I’m Jesus) is all between our ears. If, for instance, one says that he is Jesus, there is (for me at any rate) a major problem. Understanding this problem would have to take into account over 5000 years of history (with a background that goes at least to the 40,000 BC mark), as well as the findings of modern non-biased biblical scholars.
I know why it would be impossible for this being to be the biblical character “Jesus,” and as long as he didn’t introduce himself as that person, and the picture is really in our heads, the real question would be “why weren’t we corrected?”
We weren’t corrected because there would be no profit in correcting us … it would only lead to massive confusion and denial here when we told other people after our “return to earth-life.”
In the overall scheme of things, it doesn’t matter if we believe these characters are really who we think they are or not – there is too much information to be reviewed and relearned for the average person to deal with. I know this as fact because I have cracked the subject over the last 40 years, and it is 100% impossible to convey this picture to anyone. The bottom line is, it doesn’t matter – you can believe what you want – it isn’t going to change anything regarding what happens after death.
Not only vocabulary but concepts. Every thing is “Here” or over “There”. I think there could be many, other realities we could experience.
In mine I felt like I was on a different planet. No lights, angels deceased relatives, and yet it seemed and felt totally real. My consciousness was intact.
This is a really great topic, great point by Nancy and everyone. This is my first post here, I’m not an experiencer just someone who has grappled with my own mortality after some heart problems.
I don’t take any particular religious perspective as my own currently but have found Buddhism to have some interesting perspectives, in particular that this world isn’t real either and its all just a set of perceptions. So are NDEs any different than that? I know Buddhist would say the NDE is a transitory Bardo state, before reincarnation, which is where I start to struggle. Anyway some of the Eastern philosphies and religions may be a useful mine of vocabulary and ideas for NDE discussion maybe?
One book I found very helpful as a scientist is called “Quantum & the Lotus” which is a discussion between a scientist and a Buddhist monk looking at where the two might have common ground and where they differ: – http://www.amazon.com/The-Quantum-Lotus-Frontiers-Buddhism/dp/1400080797/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1366281481&sr=8-1&keywords=quantum+lotus
The reason we don’t have a language to express the intricacies of near-death experiences is because we don’t have a single, homogeneous frame of reference to begin with. Different folks have different motives for approaching the subject, and their agendas get built into their expression of what they want an NDE to be.
Ultimately, I think that understanding God, NDE’s, the paranormal, and spirituality at any level isn’t an I.Q. thing, although a measure of logic is definitely useful.
How many times do NDEr’s have to tell us that their experience was ineffable? They. Don’t. Have. Words. To. Describe. It.
But we (I’m guilty) keep asking. We continue trying to put spirituality under a linear logic microscope and relate to it using everyday words and expressions.
Maybe our five major senses simply aren’t prepared to understand Everything. When we demand the universe to open up and “make sense”, we quickly miss out on the whole show.
And our lack of understanding isn’t limited to spirituality. Hard science doesn’t ‘get’ much of the information it infers from the quantum world. The illogical mysteriousness shared by quantum physics and spirituality leads many smart, perceptive people to conflate the two.
Perhaps the quantum world does give tantalizing clues to the nature of the Divine, but ultimately, I think it would be more useful to respectfully take more confidence in our own experiences, our own intuition, and the wondrous awe that is right before our eyes.
God really is hiding in plain sight.
“The reason we don’t have a language to express the intricacies of near-death experiences is because we don’t have a single, homogeneous frame of reference to begin with. Different folks have different motives for approaching the subject, and their agendas get built into their expression of what they want an NDE to be.”
…………….
I am not an NDEer, however, I am on the same boat as everyone else – the SS Death, and for that reason I would like to know what’s going on.
As far as usable “language” goes for me, and as far as “what” exactly is going on, I don’t have a problem. I use what I call place saver words and place saver definitions. I call the “body” the quantum body, and the base definition the quantum effect. Is it right? If we knew I wouldn’t need place saver words. The idea is, stop making this harder than it is.
As far as “religion” goes, I don’t have a problem there either … I am well aware of the error in history that created the mess we are in … I know where all the religious characters came from and why – end of story. So when someone says “I saw Jesus in my NDE” … the first question I have is: Did he introduce himself as Jesus? I haven’t seen one episode yet where that was the case … and that includes the “God” character. If I come across an experience that has an “introduction” then I know there is a problem because history shows exactly what the story is … and that “introduction” is a lie. So, who lied? Then the fun begins.
Stop making this a confused mess for yourselves … keep it simple. As knowledge becomes available you can retire your place saver words with hard data.
What about Ghosts and NDE’s? I mean what about the spirits of people who cross over and don’t return to their physicial bodies, but who are seen by and communicated with mediums and people like that.
Could communicating with them and getting their stories of what happens on the other side help at all in solving the afterlife puzzle?
Are there differences between what NDE’r’s experience and what they experience?
I would love to undertake a massive project of trying to put together as many stories from both sides as possible. I don’t know if that would help or not. or if NDE’s are the same as actually dying. Maybe they’re just experiences to help people with their lives, but when we really die it the experience is completely different?
Especially if people who have multiple experiences have different experiences each time. But then I guess the universe is a pretty massive place.
I think you’ve hit a good perspective in your last sentence: “The universe is a pretty massive place.” So much room for mystery!
About ghosts and such, you might enjoy reading Hello from Heaven, by Bill Guggenheim and Judy Guggenheim. Also, deathbed visions suggest that there is a good deal of similarity between NDEs and the actual death experience; try One Last Hug Before I Go, by Carla Wills-Brandon.
Angie, (now I have the Rolling Stones song playing in my head)
Several books that come to mind that take something of the approach you are considering include: “Is There an Afterlife?” by David Fontana which I highly recommend. Also, “Handbook to the Afterlife” by Pamela Rae Heath and Jon Klimo. I very much recommend all three books by Chris Carter: Science and Psychic Phenomena, Science and the Near-Death Experience and Science and the Afterlife Experience. The last two take into account all the things you are talking about and the first one also considers psychic phenomena as evidence for mind being irreducible to brain.
Second to the Chris Carter books (I haven’t read the others.)
ooh Thank You for the suggestions, Nan! 🙂
I enjoy your blog muchly. You articles are very thought provoking and I always look forward to the next one.
I think if I were to ever have an NDE experience it would be very dark because I tend to harbor so much fear inside me. Although fear and guilt, which I think is just fear repackaged, maybe, can only take one so far in life before they Have to find another way.
I desperately want to be believe in the large, expansive, forgiving and experiential universe where anything is possible and nothing is final, but sometimes the fears of my evangelical background hold me back.
I know this is off topic, but how do you feel about soul contracts? Where in the afterlife/beforelife our souls make a contract about what we want to learn in this lifetime and then our lives are basically engineered or guided by this mandate?
I’m not certain I believe, but I find the idea intriguing. Maybe an NDE could be a part of that contract somehow, an affirmation or something drastic to get us back onto the path where we need to be?
Will definitely check out those book, thanks again, Nan, for responding and for writing this blog!!!!!!!!
Angie, the same way I don’t make absolute predictions about an afterlife, I don’t get into soul contracts. I haven’t got a clue. Without having definitive information, I see no way to make emphatic statements. As I’ve said in Dancing Past the Dark, I think of these kinds of topics as being up on a high shelf, out of my reach. So I leave them alone. Other people find them interesting and maybe have access to different information, but the discussions only make me frustrated.
Nan said: “As I’ve said in Dancing Past the Dark, I think of these kinds of topics as being up on a high shelf, out of my reach. So I leave them alone. Other people find them interesting and maybe have access to different information, but the discussions only make me frustrated.”
Wow, this is so in line with my own experience. I once thought I could unravel these mysteries on my own steam and many of the books I have strewn around my apartment are on OBEs and inducing mystical states. Lots of books speculating on reincarnation, etc. I’ve even got “Soul Contracts” by Carolyn Myss somewhere.
But many of these books I started picking up at the beginning of my “spiritual trek” and many are now yellowed and coated with dust. I’d sell them if I could get any money for them, but many are sold used on Amazon for less than a dollar – some for a single penny!
I think that tells you something about the value of the material within. If we as non-psychic individuals have no means to confirm anything within such books, we are left with a bunch of colorful speculation but nothing to really improve our life in any practical way. Some people seem content gabbing about colorful ideas they’ve picked up in such books – but when you really want to KNOW what is going on, such books become incredibly disappointing – almost mocking. It’s incredibly frustrating, as you say, Nan.
Nonetheless, many of us hunger for some way to derive a praxis from all of this information coming to us from NDErs, OBErs, psychics, mediums, mystics, occultists, magicians, alchemists, and regular people who are hit by spontaneous experiences which came unbidden. We’re lonely for the beyond. So long as people keep writing books suggesting they can help us reach the fruit on the tree of life, many of us will be drawn to read them because we are so, so hungry for it.
Amen! Do I hear another…AMEN! And those of us who share this approach cling to each other because it’s not a popular position. So–hangin’ in (and sometimes hangin’ on), Philemon!
The books we read on these topics are not going to lead to mystical experiences themselves; yet they confirm something that we all need to be reassured of at least intellectually- that consciousness is fundamental in the universe, and non-local.
That’s where the line is being drawn in terms of the basic paradigms we have to choose from. The materialists lump the mystical and religious together, without discriminating between pre-rational superstition and post-rational mystical insight. This is a grave error, and is tough to correct in the folks who hold these views. But for the rest of us, even if we are not fortunate enough to have actual experience, we can make those experiences more likely by having an understanding of them. And, death will come sooner than we think! We’ll all have our chance to understand directly at that point, and may we all be ready, with loving hearts full of trust in the basic goodness of life.
Tharpa, you and Jim are making wonderfully useful (and related) points today. Good work!
I’ve read everything here by us, and I agree. I think music and a quest to become a spontaneous improvisor put me on the right inner track. I’m still forever searching.
I once asked a guy who though a total nut, was a great improvisor, what is the best thing to think about when you play? he said “nothing”.
The more you think, the worse it gets. I think this applies to all creative moments. What are these? Within each of us is the gateway to the universe. You can only connect with it when you stop thinking and ALLOW it to happen.
OK, what stands in your way? Fear, doubt, Ego (a fabricated image of yourself), and I’m sure there’s others that I myself still have to deal with.
In our quest for understanding, these if not perceived and dealt with, influence our perception, both inner and outer. One tries to understand with these impediments acting to distort what we feel as reality.
To make it even worse, we may not even be consciously aware of them. As I said in an earlier reply some are afraid to believe in anything.
Instead, they look to others to pound their beliefs into them. This same fear makes them burn people at the stake who they THINK believe differently,
“The more you think, the worse it gets. I think this applies to all creative moments. What are these? Within each of us is the gateway to the universe. You can only connect with it when you stop thinking and ALLOW it to happen.”
………….
Regarding “thinking” … the best way to look at this is a topic called “constructivism.” You should look into this topic as it seems the so-called “universe” wants you to figure out everything yourself … this is why the brain is designed the way it is.
There are several guiding principles of constructivism:
1. Learning is a search for meaning. Therefore, learning must start with the issues around which students are actively trying to construct meaning.
2. Meaning requires understanding wholes as well as parts. And parts must be understood in the context of wholes. Therefore, the learning process focuses on primary concepts, not isolated facts.
3. In order to teach well, we must understand the mental models that students use to perceive the world and the assumptions they make to support those models.
4. The purpose of learning is for an individual to construct his or her own meaning, not just memorize the “right” answers and regurgitate someone else’s meaning. Since education is inherently interdisciplinary, the only valuable way to measure learning is to make the assessment part of the learning process, ensuring it provides students with information on the quality of their learning.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/51699395/Constructivism
‘Piaget defined a schema as the mental representation of an associated set of perceptions, ideas, and / or actions. Piaget considered schemata to be the basic building blocks of thinking (Woolfolk, 1987).’
http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Piaget%27s_Constructivism#Schemata
According to Piaget, two major principles guide intellectual growth and biological development: adaptation and organization. For individuals to survive in an environment, they must adapt to physical and mental stimuli. Assimilation and accommodation are both part of the adaptation process. Piaget believed that human beings possess mental structures that assimilate external events, and convert them to fit their mental structures. Moreover, mental structures accommodate themselves to new, unusual, and constantly changing aspects of the external environment.
Piaget’s second principle, organization, refers to the nature of these adaptive mental structures. He suggests that the mind is organized in complex and integrated ways. The simplest level is the schema, a mental representation of some physical or mental action that can be performed on an object, event, or phenomenon. http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Piaget%27s_Constructivism#Schemata
…………
The idea is that what is going on here is what should be done – looking / questioning. I have had my own experiences in a related topic (which I am not going to go into here) and it’s the reason I wound up here. Everything is connected and we are being confronted with clues – it’s what you do with these “clues” that makes all the difference. Either they are handled correctly, or, you fall into a category, as described by Bacon: “Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true.”
Sit back and get comfortable, take a deep breath and relax. My experiences ran in three phases from 1955 to 2010 … and what I call phase one took 20 years.
Constructivism is the key … relax, this is going to take awhile LOL.
Clues abounding! Ah, but which bread crumbs to follow through the forest? There’s the challenge.
“Clues abounding! Ah, but which bread crumbs to follow through the forest? There’s the challenge.”
That – is constructivism 😀
If I had a nickel for every wrong road I went down, I’d be sitting on easy street right now. After 58 years I STILL have no clue WHO I have been dealing with. As I said in my notes:
I am dealing with “someone” who is well aware of the capabilities of our brain, thinks in real time, and forced me into a picture where I had to develop those capabilities in order to learn. Whoever this is, in my opinion, they are the ultimate teachers.
I don’t have to worry about following the “crumbs”. In my life the “crumbs” have followed me. You’d be amazed at some of the people I’ve learned from.
I can also add that once you have learned, it comes down to having an inner feeling that tells you what it is that you’ve learned.
Words and intellectual definitions for it are no longer necessary. What changes is your behavior towards others, and yourself. Love and laugh it off.
“I can also add that once you have learned, it comes down to having an inner feeling that tells you what it is that you’ve learned. Words and intellectual definitions for it are no longer necessary.”
…………
While what you have said can be taken two ways, I want to add one idea here. The brain is a highly complex organ, with different parts giving access to different ideas and approaches. For me, the rudimentary picture of “knowledgeless life” is a new born baby. That child “knows” absolutely nothing, and it’s the brain that will teach that new life as she / he grows. The problem here boils down to the proper utilization of that brain and what it can do. The picture here is kind of like driving a car – you either do it correctly, or you crash. It’s that simple.
There was an early study done back in the 60s I think it was, called the triune brain theory. It it a gross over simplification of “thinking” to be sure, but it lays an excellent foundation for anyone who wants to further study the workings of the brain to get a better understanding of what actually goes on up there in your head.
The base idea states that there are three areas of the brain: The r-complex from which comes primal ideas of “reaction and not thinking” like fear for instance. Then the mid-brain from which comes our emotional aspects, also reacting and not “thinking,” and finaly the neo-cortex from which comes our rational and picture-based thinking.
Using the over simplified triune brain theory as a picture here, when I tell people things I am met with a reaction, and this reaction could be based in “non-thinking” fear (r-complex) and they simply “back away.” Then too, I am met with the line “I don’t FEEL you are right.” That would be the mid-brain talking. Then there are the rationalists, who use the neo-cortex left hemisphere to figure out everything via hard data.
History proves which method of thinking is best. For instance, there is a study on what is called mythopoeic thinking, which connects to a base problem, and this problem is a complete lack of hard data. When the ancients tried to define something they saw, like the river drying up, they simply did not know how that nature system worked – so they gave the river a personality. It was angry with them for some reason, and they would do things like “make an agreement” with it.
For a baby, using the brain to learn is like a teenagers first attempt to drive a car. Learn correctly, and there is no problem. Learn incorrectly – and crash.
Everything we think MUST be based on hard data. If you don’t believe that, ask yourself why.
Jim, thanks for this observation. Very helpful.
You are welcome. Now, I have a question. Regarding NDEs and children (because for me this has to be the starting point), would you say, based on everything you have looked at, that children are looked after more closely because they are children? We do this because we understand how vulnerable they are … does this idea of “added protection” (for lack of a better term) translate in any way to the “other side” during children’s NDEs?
In all honesty, I don’t know. It does seem, though, that adults as well as children report encounters with guides and helpful others; is the difference that children are likelier to call them angels?
Nan, I don’t want to disrupt your talks here about this subject … I’m going to email you 😀
I met my spirit guide. While I was having my heart attack, I was being pushed in a wheel chair into the trauma center by an intern.
My wife was walking about three yards in front of me. An intense whispering irate female voice started up right behind my head. It hissed “it didn’t have to get to this!!” “You’re fat and you’re lazy!”
The vibe was you’ve still got a long way to go, and you’ve shot yourself in the foot. the guy pushing the chair was just looking straight ahead, not paying any any attention to me. I do believe we have guides.
“…Some people seem content gabbing about colorful ideas they’ve picked up in such books – but when you really want to KNOW what is going on, such books become incredibly disappointing – almost mocking…” – Philemon
“Almost mocking”. That’s a good way to put it.
Add another “Amen”!
I hear a lot about the brain here. My recognition of things happens more in my chest. This seems to be the consciousness receptor. I guess for want of a better term, it could be called a “gut reaction”. I sense energy fields.
I also believe that children are not born as “clean slates”. I have looked into the eyes of very young children, perhaps only a month or so old and felt incredibly deep wisdom there. Perhaps, this gets lost, and has to be re discovered again through life.
Dave said:
“I hear a lot about the brain here. My recognition of things happens more in my chest. This seems to be the consciousness receptor. I guess for want of a better term, it could be called a “gut reaction”. I sense energy fields.”
…………
What you call “sensing energy fields” is kind of like the TV show Perception, where it is said that Dr Pierce “gets information from a part of his brain trying to tell him something” via hallucinations; in his case he’s schizophrenic. Note, I’m not saying you are schizophrenic, I’m just saying the same base “message from the brain” idea is in play.
Then you said:
“I also believe that children are not born as “clean slates”. I have looked into the eyes of very young children, perhaps only a month or so old and felt incredibly deep wisdom there. Perhaps, this gets lost, and has to be re discovered again through life.”
……….
The idea that you “felt” a particular picture involved with young children, is not hard data based – it is feeling based. I would tend to think that anyone who could perceive this kind of picture would also know (or could “feel”) why it gets “lost” and has to be redicovered.
The idea is, I lived through the “New Age” rhetoric that popped up in the 1970s, and it was all basically “feelings” based assumptions. While I do believe the brain can quantum leap to interpretational facts faster than you can consciously “think” (hence eureka moments) one still needs to prove these ideas with hard data, so that the entire idea can be explained logically, step by step.
I don’t have a problem with what people “see,” I have a problem with their inability to explain what they see rationally.
Since returning to the NDE picture, I “see” something MUCH larger lurking here, which as usual began with my brain yelling – YO, LOOK OVER HERE! It’s kind of like saying NDEs are like holding an automobile carburetor in your hands and marveling over it; but the carburetor is a part of the engine, and the engine is part of a car. All people see are the NDEs … but there is more. I want to discuss this with Nan, but I want to be sure what I see is right.
It’s all about data … the harder the better 😀
Jim,
If you had ever been close to death, and had an experience, you’d have faith in your perceptions.
A cave man looking for hard evidence, might bash open a TV screen to see if there were really people inside, never realizing that an invisible signal was coming in from outside.
Dave Woods said: “It hissed “it didn’t have to get to this!!” “You’re fat and you’re lazy!” The vibe was you’ve still got a long way to go, and you’ve shot yourself in the foot.”
This is very interesting, Dave. My thought is that any full-on New Ager would insist that this couldn’t be your spirit guide precisely because it was hissing and perturbed with you – that a bona fide spirit guide would be all sweetness and light.
When I was a senior in college – which is about a decade ago now – I spent a couple moments one morning plotting out what bars I was going to visit that evening with my friends. Suddenly a booming voice – though it was a voice within myself – demanded of me, “WHAT ARE YOU DOING WITH YOUR LIFE!?”
I nearly fell to my knees in panic and remorse. I couldn’t calm myself down. I felt as though I was on the brink of failing to fulfill the reason for my existence. I was truly filled with horror. A split second earlier, I was living in a world where I pretty much focused only on trivial pursuits and, ever since that moment, I have been on this spiritual journey I’ve been on.
Are such convicting experiences brought on by spirit guides? I wonder…
Philemon said:
“Suddenly a booming voice – though it was a voice within myself – demanded of me …”
“Are such convicting experiences brought on by spirit guides? I wonder…”
………….
Welcome to my life LOL. Since I don’t know, I call them by the place saver name of intrusive thoughts, and they have been in my life since 1955.
The first question one should ask is: Are they from “me” … or “someone” else? A single experience doesn’t give the full picture needed to figure it out, but, in my life this has been popping in and out of my picture for almost 60 years. The bottom line, created by an analysis of all intrusive thoughts mixed with outcomes regarding the overall picture I have worked on is – without a doubt – it’s “someone” else.
Next question … OK, who is it? Answer – unknown. Over the years I have inserted “God” – “ET” – “mental illness” – and finally gave up trying. As much as I can say is that when “whoever” speaks … which isn’t often … I listen.
Next logical question would be: Why are we confronted with so much confusion? Answer: We are the victims of the worse one-time case of cognitive dissonance ever, and the picture we should focus on is Egypt and Sumer. Is it, as as David Rohl (Legend – the Genesis of Civilization, 1998) brought up:
“The origins of pharaonic civilization have always been shrouded in mystery. What caused dynastic culture to burst forth in the Nile valley within such a relatively short period of time? … There is little evidence of kingship and its rituals very much before the beginning of the 1st Dynasty; no signs of the gradual development of metal working, art, monumental architecture and writing – the defining criteria of early civilization. Much of what we know about the pharaohs and their complex culture seems to come into existence in a flash of inspiration.”
Was it a flash of inspiration? Or, was it “something else?”
The short story is – it was “something else.” From that point, history as we know it began, and we have been tossed into the cognitive darkness. 5000+ years later, here we all are, just waking up, and wondering what’s going on.
NDEs is a topic that desperately needs to be finalized, and people like Nan should be applauded for their work. Once this topic is finalized and proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, we will have a connection to a picture of life and the universe unlike any known before – one that is created by hard data instead of mystical rhetoric.
Mystery!
Nan said: Mystery!
A mystery is only caused by a lack of information. The true problem involved was summed up very well by Martin Luther King Jr.
“Rarely do we find men who willingly engage in hard, solid thinking. There is an almost universal quest for easy answers and half-baked solutions. Nothing pains some people more than having to think.”
It’s like the story of Adam, Eve, and the “serpent.” How long have we listened to “the serpent was satan?” The Hebrew people knew what was said here originally, and since it doesn’t pop up today I would guess the meaning was lost by them too.
This “serpent” is a reference to Egypt and the god Atum.
“Atum was thought to be a self-created god, who made the whole of creation out of himself. He first took shape as a serpent which came into being in the primeval waters of the Nun.”
http://www.panhistoria.com/www/panaegypt/dictionary_of_ae_religion/atum_article.html
So, it “creation time” and God, Adam, Eve, and Atum are there. (Two creation stories combined to get a message across.).
The entire story, without getting into the linguistic problems that exist here too, deals with “choice” which brings confusion, what is right and what is wrong, and the idea that if you allow yourself to believe another doctrine by saying one is good (something that functions properly) and the other is bad (which means to destroy that thing; to break something into pieces and destroy it so it no longer is functional) … best of luck regarding “the outcome” (dying you shall die). So … no “tunnel” for you LOL.
All my life I’ve instinctively avoided all organized religion like the plague, and am I glad. I believe that Jesus was real, but I get sick in the stomach when I see what’s been perpetrated in his name. Probably He does too.
Mine was definitely NOT me. It came from outside of me. It was an irate female voice. Not a mental voice in my head. The vibe was “OK dumb ass” you lazed around, and let it get to this, and you’re not done yet.
Since then, I’ve been in the hospital having five abdominal aneurisms repaired. I went into the operating room fearing nothing. They messed up on my meds and my blood pressure shot up to 190 / 200. I was not afraid. Two weeks later, I walked out.
Lately, I came down with an intestinal block, spent 9 days with a tube in my stomach, and nothing to eat. They wouldn’t operate because of my age and heart condition. I was told “you either make it or you don’t” I was not afraid, I walked away from that too.
I’m not afraid to die. I just worry about my loved ones left behind. Maybe that’s why I’m being allowed to stay.
Dave Woods said:
Jim,
“If you had ever been close to death, and had an experience, you’d have faith in your perceptions.
A cave man looking for hard evidence, might bash open a TV screen to see if there were really people inside, never realizing that an invisible signal was coming in from outside.”
………………
Anything that exists can be explained. Believe me I understand what you are saying, I have been through my own experiences from ’55 to 2010 – I know how it works. I also know (from an experience) that the only way to look at things is via the left hemisphere because anything less leads to confusion. That does not mean you are wrong if you have perfected what you do … it just means it lacks a proper explanation, and without a proper explanation anyone can say anything and push it as truth. Religion has survived using this method for millennia … what do you think the root understanding is for the word faith? Today we would say: “Just take my word for it.”
Jim, I couldn’t agree with you more. I have no faith. I never went for the con. To me, “Faith” is a blind fold perpetuated by organize religion.
But one thing I as an individual do know is that my individual consciousness exists out of my body. Where it goes once out, I don’t know.
During my experience, I was still “me”, and ready to deal with what ever was going to happen next. This has taken a lot off of my mind. I’m ready for what comes next.
Let’s face it, contemplating our physical demise is scarey, and the urge to verify what come next is natural. The main thing for us both, is not to have our urge driven by fear. Speaking for myself, I’m looking forward to it, as part of life.
Dave Woods said:
“All my life I’ve instinctively avoided all organized religion like the plague, and am I glad. I believe that Jesus was real, but I get sick in the stomach when I see what’s been perpetrated in his name. Probably He does too.”
………………….
Just as an add on to my above post, hard data (which does exist for that subject) would allow you bypass “instinct” or “beliefs” to come to conclusions. In other words, I don’t instinctively avoid religion … I know why it’s wrong, where the error originally came from, why it happened, and how far back into history the archetypal idea goes.
I’m not trying to be argumentative, I’m just trying to show the difference between “feelings,” which could be right, and hard data, which shows HOW a picture is formed and why a picture is right or wrong.
Too much of “feelings” leads to unsubstantiated, feet-off-the-ground fantasizing or psychosis. Too much of “hard data over all” has led to scientism. Closed-mindedness can exist at either side of that balance beam. There is good reason that the human brain has its two hemispheres, and good reason that whereas the communication system of science is mathematics, and that of everyday living is language, the language of spirit is symbol, which goes beyond them both. Some things operate beyond feelings (2+2 in its arithmetic sense) and some operate beyond hard data (values, purposes, the numinous). And when dealing with religion, it is vital to distinguish between the underlying values and intuitions that function out of the reach of hard data and the structural necessities (hard data territory) which enable the values to hold together and take form. Dealing with the human conceptual realm is not a straight-line enterprise in any single direction.
What five decades of dealing with numinous experience (in this case, NDE) has demonstrated to me is that every experience is a story carrying a message to that individual experiencer. The messages tend to be incredibly powerful and persuasive; however, they are not identical. In other words, each of us is subject to the temptation to believe that our own understanding is conclusive. It is not until we can see a whole collection of experiences–or an extended conversation among experiencers–that we are able to identify overall patterns and commonalities, along with their differences.
Nan said:
“The messages tend to be incredibly powerful and persuasive; however, they are not identical. In other words, each of us is subject to the temptation to believe that our own understanding is conclusive. It is not until we can see a whole collection of experiences–or an extended conversation among experiencers–that we are able to identify overall patterns and commonalities, along with their differences.”
I agree, which is why I had said to you, with regard to to the subject of NDEs, and the allegedly connecting subject of “ghosts,” I wasn’t “into it” I was “circling it.” Based on everything so far, between these two subjects, there’s a “massive” problem.
Nancy, your comment (where you respond to Dave Woods about feelings and data) needs to be in your next book, word for word.