It seems to me that what we belive before we die is gonna determine what kind of expierence we have. Id like to know why can't it be after we die

Greetings Wonderful,

We can change our minds in the afterlife.  But we might get distracted by our first surroundings, so it might take awhile to remember what we want to change.
Maybe sort of like when a tourist first gets to a new place, there's so much to see that they forget to visit some part of it that a friend recommended.
Is there a particular reason that you want to wait until after you're there?

Betson

[Wondeful:] "It seems to me that what we belive before we die is gonna determine what kind of experience we have. Id like to know why can't it be after we die"
______________

The question is the extent to which that conjecture is true.  One of the most unique and convincing scientific books on NDEs is Dr. Osis and Dr. Haraldsson's "At the Hour of Death." In a massive study, they compared 500 NDEs in the USA with 500 NDEs in India.  One of their important findings is that these experiences tended to contradict prior religious beliefs.   None of the Hindus had any experiences suggestive of reincarnation.  In both cultures, the dying were typically greeted by deceased relatives.  But there is nothing in either tradition that teaches this specific expectation.  

It is commonly claimed without evidence that the dying encounter major figures from their religious backgrounds.  But in my research on Muslm MDEs, I have not found a single case where Huhammad was part of their greeting party.   Several months ago, I heard an expert on Asian NDEs discussing the research on Asian NDEs.  IN the thoiusands of cases he had investigated, he had been unable to find a single example of the Buddha (Siddartha Gautama) greeting a daying Buddist!  Some, threatened by such unexpected results, perform intellectual contortions to try to explain this away.  In my view, their efforts amount to the fallacy of special pleading.   There is nothing in traditional Christian expectation that teaches a future encounter with a Being of Light who leads the dying through a past life review.  More telling is the frequency with which avowed atheists who expect extinction instead encounter Christ in their NDEs.   I even know of one case in which a militant Islamic mullah (Ahmed) who hated Christians experienced an unexpected vision of Christ in a hospital where he was dying of AIDS.  This encounter transformed him into a devout Christian.  So far his witness has transformed 3 Ethiopian mosques into churches.   But Muslims are striking back with a lawsuit to regain their mosques and with beatings of Ahmed and his converts.  Also, his Canadian mentor, Keith, reports that Ahmed's zeal has caussed him to neglect his marriage  to pursue his missionary work.  So Ahmad needs some spiritual maturation.  

Still, the so-called Being of Light may in fact concist of many other beings, depending on one's spiritual development and background.   And even the Bible teaches that God can adapt His manifestations to the beliefs of seekers from different traditions.  So the NDE experience is probably far more complex than we can imagine.

One mistake to avoid is to take ADCs shortly after a loved one's death as a defenitive indication of their ulitmate fate.   Astral adept, Emanuel Swedenborg, learns that even those ultimately bound for hellish realms initially tour glorious parks and gardens before the principle of like attracts like gradually takes over and leads to their "ascent" of "descent."   I'm afraid that there is too much that we don't really know to write an adaquate manual of human destiny on the basis of mere glimpses of the initial stage revealed in NDEs.

Don

P.S. Are you any relation to the pro wrestler, Mr. Wonderful, Paul Orndorff?  :-)

Quote:

I even know of one case in which a militant Islamic mullah (Ahmed) who hated Christians experienced an unexpected vision of Christ in a hospital where he was dying of AIDS.  This encounter transformed him into a devout Christian.  So far his witness has transformed 3 Ethiopian mosques into churches.   But Muslims are striking back with a lawsuit to regain their mosques and with beatings of Ahmed and his converts.  Also, his Canadian mentor, Keith, reports that Ahmed's zeal has caussed him to neglect his marriage  to pursue his missionary work.  So Ahmad needs some spiritual maturation.

Don, this makes no sense.  Ahmed was dying of AIDS, and then a few years later, he was a Christian missionary.

Shirley,

You're right.  I forgot to mention an important detail.  The Ethiopian hospital where Ahmed was staying was visited by a young Chrstian couple, who just wanted to pray for the healing and happiness of the patients.  When they arrived at Ahmed's bed and prayed for him, he was incensed and wrongly considered Christian prayer an insult to his Muslim faith.  He would later say that he wanted to kill the couple on the spot.  But he was not far from death and  was too weak to respond.  When the couple left and it got dark, Christ entered his hospital room and laid hands on him.  You might expect Ahemd to identify this being as Muhammad or some other angel celebrated in the Muslim faith.   But the being communicated his identity as Jesus Himself.  The love channeled by Jesus' touch was so overwhelming, Ahmed was converted on the spot and soon felt much better.  He was eventually discharged from the hospital and sought out the young Christian couple to celebrate what had happened.   Though he felt much better, he still did not know that he was cured of AIDs.  The couple prayed for him again and Ahmed took several tests which confirmed that he no longer had AIDs.   That realization set his heart ablaze and transformed him into a Christian missionary.   His spiritual mentor conveyed these events to my parents.   Sadly, I wonder whether Ahmed's wreckless courage will soon get him killed.   Gut when Keith warned him to place it safer, Ahmed replied, "what's the difference?  I was already dead before my cure."

Don

Regarding what deity we may encounter after physical death, I feel compelled to respond to Don's comments.  A study of 500 or 1000 NDEs is certainly impressive, but not by any means definitive.  However, there are examples of NDEs where buddhists see the buddha: one example is posted on the web from Mellen Thomas Benedict in the 1980s (posted on the web).

"A Light shone; I turned toward it, and was aware of its similarity to what others have described in near-death experiences. It was magnificent and tangible, alluring. I wanted to go towards that Light like I might want to go into my ideal mother's or father's arms. As I moved towards the Light, I knew that if I went into the Light, I would be dead. So I said/felt, "Please wait. I would like to talk to you before I go." The entire experience halted. I discovered that I was in control of the entire experience. My request was honoured. I had conversations with the Light. That's the best way I can describe it. The Light changed into different figures, like Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, mandalas, archetypal images and signs. I asked in a kind of telepathy, "What is going on here?" The information transmitted was that our beliefs shape the kind of feedback we receive: If you are a Buddhist or Catholic or Fundamentalist, you get a feedback loop of your own images. I became aware of a Higher Self matrix, a conduit to the Source. We all have a Higher Self, or an oversoul part of our being, a conduit. All Higher Selves are connected as one being, all humans are connected as one being."

Examples of Mohammed's own NDE can be found here, along with a discussion of the Muslim NDE in general; http://www.near-death.com/muslim.html.

There are further examples as well.  However, a key point is that Buddhism is a very different religion.  To be as a Buddha means to release one's connection to individuality.  Thus a Buddhist does not expect to meet friends and relatives on passing; to them that is part of the illusion of separateness.  The Buddha himself is not a figure to meet, but part of an understanding of the universe.  In contrast, Christ said " I  am the light and the way, and there is but one way to the father through me."  Many therefore see JC as their personal saviour - if they are schooled in christian thought there is but one way to heaven.  

Many describe the light as God, but in an impersonal general way.  Many children describe meeting the family dog after a NDE - this is not to disparage any religion, just to note what has been described in the literature.  There are certain commonalities behind all NDEs, however there are very personal attributes as well.


Matthew

Berserk wrote on Dec 21^st, 2006 at 9:41pm:

Shirley, You're right.  I forgot to mention an important detail.  The Ethiopian hospital where Ahmed was staying was visited by a young Chrstian couple, who just wanted to pray for the healing and happiness of the patients.  When they arrived at Ahmed's bed and prayed for him, he was incensed and wrongly considered Christian prayer an insult to his Muslim faith.  He would later say that he wanted to kill the couple on the spot.  But he was not far from death and  was too weak to respond.  When the couple left and it got dark, Christ entered his hospital room and laid hands on him.  You might expect Ahemd to identify this being as Muhammad or some other angel celebrated in the Muslim faith.   But the being communicated his identity as Jesus Himself.  The love channeled by Jesus' touch was so overwhelming, Ahmed was converted on the spot and soon felt much better.  He was eventually discharged from the hospital and lsought out the young Christian couple to celebrate what had happened.   Though he felt much better, he still did not know that he was cured of AIDs.  The couple prayed for him again and Ahmed took several tests which confirmed that he no longer had AIDs.   That realization set his heart ablaze and transformed him into a Christian missionary.   His spiritual mentor conveyed these events to my parents.   Sadly, I wonder whether Ahmed's wreckless courage will soon get him killed.   Gut when Keith warned him to place it safer, Ahmed replied, "what's the difference?  I was already dead before my cure." Don

Thanks, Don..that brings more clarity.  

I am grateful for your reply, Matthew, and eagerly await your further replies to my questions below:

[Matthew:] "However, there are examples of NDEs where buddhists see the buddha: one example is posted on the web from Mellen Thomas Benedict in the 1980s (posted on the web).

"The Light changed into different figures, like Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, mandalas, archetypal images and signs. I asked in a kind of telepathy, "What is going on here?" The information transmitted was that our beliefs shape the kind of feedback we receive: If you are a Buddhist or Catholic or Fundamentalist, you get a feedback loop of your own images."
_______________________________________

(1) On what basis do you idenitfy Mellen Benedict as a Buddhist?  I have read his NDE story.   The narrative identifies his religious background as Christian.

(2) In any case, he speaks in general of a changing mandala of archtypes.  His use of ther conjectural term "like" suggests that he is merely speculating on the identity of these archetypes.

(3) As you are well aware, not all reported NDEs derive from those whose  hearts have stopped beating.   The line between an NDE and a hallucination will at times be blurred. I've even read some alleged Christian NDEs that seemed more like hallucinations shaped by wishful thinking.   For that reason, it is the overwhelming NDE patterns that are important.  One would expect at least one NDE appearance from Siddartha Gautama (the Buddha) in this Asian NDE experts 3,000 cases.  But I'd like to hear about one alleged case of the Buddha's appearance to a Buddhist   Where have yoiu fuond such a case?

(4) The problem with conjectures as to why the Buddha might not show up is twofold: (a) Like most Christians, most Buddhists are not well immersed or trained in their traditions.  Ordinary Buddhist and Taoist devotees often invorporate occult and magical beliefs into their traditions.  So one might well expect many nominal and superfiicially immersed Buddhists to identify the Being of Light as the Buddha.  As I said, the notion that Christ will appear to the newly dead as a Being of Light who takes them on a past life review is not a standard Christian belief.   In fact, many Christians I know shrink in horror at such an idea.  

(5) Still, I would expect NDE evidence to be more diverse than it actually is.  When God commissions Moses to liberate the Hebrews from slavery, an insecure Moses asks the Presence at the Burning Bush what name He wants to go by.  The answer, "Tell them I will be whatever I will be has sent you (Exodus 3:14)."  To me, this answer implies that God can present Himself under many different symbols and images to peoples with different belief systems.   But I want to know what the actual NDE patterns are and have read several books and NDE websites to discover these patterns.  Also, I would expect the newly deceased to encounter different beings, depending on how loving or hateful they were in this life.

[Matthew:] "Examples of Mohammed's own NDE can be found here, along with a discussion of the Muslim NDE in general; http://www.near-death.com/muslim.html."
_________________________

The report of Muhammad's alleged NDE is not in the Koran and is a much later legend.   In any case, that point is irrelevant to my point.   Find me a single  example of Mphammad appearing to a Muslim in an NDE.  I thorougly surveyed the website you cite before I created my post.   Did I miss something?  Where does your source document Muhammad's appearance to a dying Muslim?

Finally, Matthew, I have a suggestion for a new Matthean thread.   The philosophical outlook that informs your monism is perfectly respectable.  But my question is this: how is your perspective even in principle falsifiable?  What positions on what issues would have to be demonstrated to your satisfaction to get you to change your mind?  If your position (or mine) cannot submit itself to such tests even in principle, then surely that position is epstemologically meaningless.   Let me offer two possible definitive issues in the hope that this will stiimulate your own reflection on the decisive issues at play.

(1) Suppose you could be convinced that there really is a non-human demonic realm that wars against godly people and everything God represents.   Would that change your outlook.  If so, why won't you read the case histories in Malachi Martin's book, "Hostage to the Devil."   As I keep saying, I've met no one who has read that book and rejected Martin's demonic inrepretation.  

As you know, the Iranians recently hosted a conference disputing the reality of the Holocaust.  Clearly, these anti-Semitic people refuse to read the definitive testimonials to the opposite viewpoint (b00ks by Elie Wiesel, etc.).  How can we have rational dialogue if the interlocuters refuse to engage tho evidenc for the contray position?  

(2) Astral explorers with widely different belief systems (Bruce Moen, St. Paul. atheist Howard Storm's NDE) claim to have discovered the possibliity of postmortem soul annihilation.  Does annihilationsim contradict your monisstic philosophy?

At the same time, I must confess that my own attempts to explore how my beliefs are in principle falsifiable has at times led to painful rellection and uncertainty.   Any fundamental change in beliefs can be threatening and depressing.  But I am forced to engage this examination precisely because I am asking others to do the same with their own perspectives.  I don't want to be a hypocrite!   In my view, spiritual quests are debased by a refusal to leave one's comfort zone.  A truth quest motivated more by a desire for comfort rather than the real facts seems comparatively ignoble to me.

Don

Greetings,

What influence would our (or Ahmed's) point of inner attention ---that we call  curiosity--- have on what form of divinity showed up?
Is the story of Christ so broadly spread in the world that people of various faiths have a curiosity about Him that would bring His image to some of them?

Reading Bruce's work and the thoughts of people on this board have shown me that I've been handicapped by a lack of curiosity. One can have enough talent and intelligence to get by, but the spark of curiosity is what carries you all into amazing realms. I now see it as a very very important component of consciousness, sort of like the arrowhead on the arrow. ( ;D Hey, without it all you get is the shaft!) To me it spans the gap between beliefs that is behind this discussion.  Just my take on it.

Betson

Betson,

Good question!  Of course, there are various types of curiosity: voyeuristic thrill seeking, the discomfort of nagging doubts, a profound desire to make a loving difference,  etc.   No religious tradition or New Age movement has a corner on the highest type of curiosity.   I would expect the right kind of curiosity to make a dramatic difference in one's NDE; e. g. on how open one is to the true identity of the Being of Light.  

In times of stress and doubt, I often long for comfort and hope.    The danger here is that I treat God as little more than a dispensable working construct that gives my life meaning.  On that view, it is easier to play with new ideas.  But deep down inside, I long for the real God behind all His mystery.   In my many encounters with the terminally ill, the grieving, and others in deep crisis, I realize that the healing power of my own love is very limited unless it is reinforced by a higher presence that comforts the suffering.   It is so easy to get trapped into playing a role based on a working construct like God that no longer seems as real and potent as it once did.   So the purity of one's longing for a real encounter with the divine is vital, regardless of how frustrating it can be when satitisfying answers elude us and we are trapped in the dark night of the soul.  So we must all face an everpresent danger: the temptation to settle for  a shallow sporituality that gives us just enough hope to inoculate us against the real thing: genuine intimacy with the divine with all its love and power.

Don

Don

Berserk wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2006 at 5:03pm:

In times of stress and doubt, I often long for comfort and hope.    The danger here is that I treat God as little more than a dispensable working construct that gives my life meaning.  On that view, it is easier to play with new ideas.  But deep down inside, I long for the real God behind all His mystery.   In my many encounters with the terminally ill, the grieving, and others in deep crisis, I realize that the healing power of my own love is very limited unless it is reinforced by a higher presence that comforts the suffering.   It is so easy to get trapped into playing a role based on a working construct like God that no longer seems as real and potent as it once did.   So the purity of one's longing for a real encounter with the divine is vital, regardless of how frustrating it can be when satitisfying answers elude us and we are trapped in the dark night of the soul.  So we must all face an everpresent danger: the temptation to settle for  a shallow sporituality that gives us just enough hope to inoculate us against the real thing: genuine intimacy with the divine with all its love and power. Don

Beautifully stated Don.  It is good to be reading your posts again.

Merry Christmas.

Kathy

Hi Don,

You misunderstand me when you imply that I have a fully worked out monistic theology/theosophy all worked out in my mind.  I have as much doubt and vexation as all the other seekers on this board.  I have, however, felt/experienced certain events in my life through meditation and exploration which do seem to validate, at least on an emotional level that there is a unity of all things.  I do think that at the deepest level of understanding, many major religions, including judaism and christianity have tones of monistic thought that override the dualism we find in the physical world.  

I plan to make a more in depth response to your questions later tonight or tomorrow when I have more time.  However, in brief I would say that I do not doubt the existence of various "players" including the demonic in the universe.  I believe that the unity of all things is an understanding and awareness that supercedes the "us vs. them" dualistic thought.  One can acknowledge the existence of the physical world and dualistic thinking at one level while recognizing there is a bigger spiritual picture (monism).

More to follow.

Matthew

With respect for both Don's excellent points, and those Doc is making, it seems that the social and cultural matrix has been understated. Buddhists, for example, formally disavow the existence of either a "God" (in the sense of an immanent material Creator) or a "soul" (in the sense of an invariable structure similar to a spiritual body), both of which tend to make Buddhists unlikely to have "religious" seeming experiences. Further, Siddhartha (the Buddha) was, by his own claim, not anything unusual. He just said that he had awakened (literally the meaning of "bodhi"). Thus it is unlikely that Buddhists would encounter the Buddha.

There is a personal variable in addition, since most Buddhism has been infiltrated by a combination of ancestor worship in previously Taoist regions, and by spiritism and magic in regions associated with Bon Lamaism, and has retained much of the Hindu faith from which it sprang in India and similar regions. That means that each individual NDE or OOBE is likely to be as strongly influenced by the personal beliefs of the actor who creates a BST as is it likely to be an indicator of underlying principles of spiritual existence that lie beyond our present world.

The most telling idea, to my my mind, is Don's  insightful query, "How can this be falsified?"

As a methodological problem, what is needed is either of two things. First, a clearly controllable situation in which we can test some treatment of the actors against those not receiving it. The confounding of personal beliefs and creation of BSTs suggests that striking case example may be fun, but that they offer little ultimate insight. Second. a Bayesian expectation that given the array of information available, the commonlities occur with an evidenced probability far greater than due to chance alone, which is also confounded by the tendency of all of us to see things as individuals embedded in a cultural matrix, so that we might simply be observing a cultural BST.

C G Jung tried to escape this by his development of a theory of archetypes, primitive characteristics of all psyches that carry forward their formative relationships with the ultimate generative matrix, which is what this discussion verges on. And although we can develop and use Jungian concepts quite nicely in many cases, they totally lack objective concreteness (Russel's principle of "the fallacy of misplaced concreteness" applies)  nor are they falsifiable.

Trance mediums, past life reporters, spirit rescuers, those who converse with angels, and even our very own, totally convincing, transcendent experiences, are equally unfalsifiable. Ya pays yer money and takes yer choice.

Perhaps the simplest approach would be to look at the specific elements of the content of these reports, superficial content analysis, and then look for an underlying universal content, a secondary or tertiary etc analysis. This is what we claim when we use a spectacular example (eg: Ahmed) and then make comparisons, but what is needed is a universal content analysis that seeks out the nature and frequency of primitives from which this stuff can arise. We seem to have limited access to the truly "universal". That brings us back to our personal beliefs that "something is going on" and that it "leads to repetitions" governed by "we need to get it right" with a terminal state "when we get it right we become 'co-creators with God', or 'merge into God' or become 'free of the material world forever'" and so on. That doesn't sound like anything new to me.

There is a synthetic approach which I personally like, which begins with a study of the logic that is both necessary and sufficient for the development of an emergent reality ex nihilo. But here too, there is more than one way to handle the logic, which leaves us with a logical framework within which reality MUST occur, but gives no information on the actual occurrence. Thus we have a topology uniting a nearly endless array of specific geometries, and that comes back to the individual again. Moreover, this brings up Einstein's question, whether God could have done it differently, or was the world constrained to be as we find it. (My answer is, "Yes".)

My personal opinion is that Everybody is Right. I suspect that this is not the desired outcome to the discussion, but there is a methodological wall past which everything must be taken on faith.

dave

Implications for meeting a being of light in near death experiences (NDEs) - a prologue to Don's request for a "Matthean thread" about the unity of all things and falsifiable evidence:

At first blush, Don's implication appears to be that most NDEs support the divinity of Christ above the founding leaders of other religions because of the numerous times people identify JC by name when they are revived.  There is a presupposition that hardly anyone has identified the being of light as Buddha, Moses or Mohammed.  Dave points out that a person's identification of this being as a specific entity may be related to what was in the person's mind.  I believe this to be the case.  In how many NDEs, Don did a person who had truly never heard of JC, come back and say "I was approached by a being of light who identified himself as Jesus or Yeshua, but I never heard of that name"?  This would provide impressive scientific verification.  If, for example a member of an aboriginal tribe came back and identified this figure of light as JC, with no prior knowledge of him (missionaries, books, etc), there would be no other logical explanation for this vision.

Jesus is apparently encountered/recognized in between 31 and 37% of all encounters in NDEs (reference available).  This is impressive, although given that there are literally billions of christians on the planet and many other religions/peoples who greatly respect the teachings of Jesus (In the Islamic faith, Jesus is seen as a true prophet of God, though not divine - and there are an additional 2 billion people of Islamic faith in the world) it is to be expected.  To me, given the gospels and his teachings of universal love, it makes perfect sense for christians, buddhists, muslims and jews to associate this light of love with Christ, based upon the above.  

Don, your challenge to find even one case of Buddha appearing to a buddhist or Mohammed to a Muslim is difficult only because one would have to have access to the interviews of thousands of survivors of NDEs.  I have, however found such evidence:

Dr. P.M.H. Atwater has over 3000 case reports of NDEs in her database; this far exceeds the impressive study Don mentioned of 1000 cases in which he cited a lack of evidence of encounters with Buddha and Mohammed.  

When speaking about the NDEs of children, she says: "Children sometimes describe an animal heaven they must visit before they can go to the heaven where people are. And they tend to be explicit about skin tones when talking about any religious figure who visited them. By that I mean, Jesus is seen as a man with tan skin (adults are the ones who usually see Jesus as white); Buddha's skin is more often seen as somewhat yellowish; Mohammed is described as having brown skin (yes, there are little ones who claim they saw Mohammed). Children seldom deviate in their description of such coloring regardless of their own skin tone or cultural exposure; adults do."  Game, set and match Don.  I am certain that we can pull the specific references where Buddha or Mohammed were seen from Dr. Atwater, however to me the reference is enough (available in two place, the main being http://www.cinemind.com/atwater).

The other evidence of encounters with other famous religious figures can be found in the Tibetan Book of the Dead.  Paul Badham, a professor from the University of Wales, Lampeter, UK, wrote an enlightening article entitled: "Religious and near death experience in relation to belief in a future life," published in the Journal Mortality, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1997.  In this article, he discusses that the database on NDEs from Kubler-Ross and Becker exceed 25,000 documented cases (this is the largest database I have yet encountered).  Professor Badham states:  
[b]Concerning the Being of Light which contemporary experiencers see and name in accordance with their own tradition, this also is in accord with the Tibetan Book of the Dead  where we read:  'The Dharmakaya (The Divine Being) of clear light will appear in what ever shape will benefit all beings'>  Commenting on this verse for his English translation, Lama Kazi Dawa-Samdup says: "To appeal to a Shaivite devotee, the form of Shiva is assumed; to a Buddisht the form of Buddha Shakya Muni; to a Christian, the form of Jesus; to a Muslim the form of the Prophet; and so for other religious devotees and for all manner and conditions of mankind a form apporpriate to the occasion' (Evans-Wents, 1957, p. 94)[/b]

[size=10][b]Badham goes on to say:  "When we examine contemporary near-death accounts, this is precisely what we find.  What is seen appears to be cross-cultural, but how it is named depends on the religious or non-religious background of the believer.  Thus it is only to be expected that a Christian evangelist in the Anglican "Church Army" would say that he had seen Jesus (BBC, 1982), whereas the notable atheist philosopher AJ Ayer would say "I was aware that this light was responsible for the government of the Universe (Ayer, 1992).  What matters is that both contemporary observers seem to have had an experience which had much in common."[/b

Don may chide me for not giving the specific case examples from Badham and Atwater by name, but alas, without further purchases of the books and databases, I can not give case by case the reports in detail.  Suffice it to say that the above examples referenced by Atwater, Badham, and Moody - who I did not reference - all support concrete examples where people who experienced NDEs from across the world have seen the Being of Light as Budda or Mohammed - though not as often as Christ.  

Don, when I cited Mellen Benedict, it was not to say that as a Buddist he saw Buddha, but as a documented NDE, he saw what to his interpretation was a Being of Light which at first looked like JC, then the Buddha.  He was informed by his divine source that "The information transmitted was that our beliefs shape the kind of feedback we receive: If you are a Buddhist or Catholic or Fundamentalist, you get a feedback loop of your own images."  If you seek documentation, such as his, why would you doubt the personal feedback he relates from this being of Light?

I think then, that my response and the references cited clearly establish then that the Being of Light encountered has been named by people of differing cultures as Jesus, Mohammed and Buddha, (as well as others).  None of this lessens the impact that this encounter has on the individual.  Survivors of NDE as a group generally lose their fear of death, and believe that there is a unifying love in the universe that comes from God.

Matthew

Having done considerable research on this subject (and not about to go dig out the books on Christmas Eve morning, but I will in a day or two), I'd have to say the NDEs seem to actually follow pretty closely the ratio of religions in this world.  Hindus seem to have Hindu (or "non-denominational" ) NDEs, Christians Christian ones, etc.  There is actually a lot of this info on the 'net, anyway.  Just enter "Hindu NDE" or "Jewish NDE", or whatever.

I would also expect that there would be a cultural bias to reporting...not very spiritual people would be more likely to go around telling everyone, because of the surprise (to them) factor, whereas people (like me but less mouthy, for instance ;>) who just assume that's the way it is, and who are in a culture that does also, would have less reason to bring it up, because it's just assumed.

If I ever have one, I'll come back and let you all know if it was a pagan one.  I think that's an experiment just a little past my dedication to science to actually initiate, however!

I'm still looking at things as a methodologist. As a socio-cultural problem, it seems that we go forward into what we think we'll get, modified by personal preferences. The same is true of daydreams, so as a methodological problem, we have nothing finite. All statements, from avatars, prophets, or the Gods Themselves (since they are always arguing about the nature of values and truths in their homes on Olympus, Dear Euthyphro), lack any background references against which to judge them. In the end we're stuck with only our own willingness to see it this way or that way.

I personally was struck by the similarities of NDEs, especially when they were unexpected. I really like to see these independent studies publ;ished on someone's site, or put out here in one of the "Miscellaneous" forums. This is great stuff. The statistics from Duke have verified that there is a fraction of variance unexplainable except as ESP. My experiences have been overwhelmingly convincing, both in a positive sense, and occasionally in a highly negative one as well. Because I often practice in Bardo Thodol and related Vajrayana disciplines, I can verify that my experiences are appoximately those traditionally mentioned in Bardo Thjodol and related Buddhist scripture. But I can neither prove their validity, nor suggest that others will have similar experiences. Maybe I simply have vivid dreams.

In fact, I'm still wondering whether we can prove the existence of extended matter over its ideational imagery, since the two are totally covariant, and thus indiscriminable at a superficial level..Thus, I simply choose what to believe because it works for me. If this is true for everyone, then we're back to cultural norms again.

After a lifetime of seeing only black crows, and having the total certainty of their blackness, it opnly takes one white crow to disprove my theory of crows. The same with the spirit world phenomena. This is true even though we can collectively discuss similar experiences in the spiritual realms as we rescue souls, interview the dead, recover prior histories and compare them with facts (eg: George and the Titanic and his possible shipmates) and so on. At some point we move beyond the ability to test and experiment into the world of hearsay and hope.And that means that we might be sampling something far different than it appears. This is also true for the prophets, avatars and so on. Perhaps, in spite of their excellent advice, they too were deluded and their visions of the Infinite no more than what was expected in their culture. Then our dogmatism is a "....Vanity of vanities, saith the Prophet."

I don't mean to dismiss these things, nor argue that in truth they are invalid, but instead, we've gotten into a level in which we can't do much more than gather data and hope that it means something. I'll easily accept anything said after an NDE or OOBE as being totally valid to the actor. That includes Jesus, Swedenborg, Moses or Krishna, just as a start. What is difficult is to say that "this is true", and to establish a dogmatic posture. It isn't epistemically possible. And that fact too was written by an ancient prophet who told us, "Thou shalt not test they God."

So in the season of Solstive festivals of al our sundry faiths, My best wishes for the Season, and Godspeed.

PUL
d

First, let me say that the contributions to this thread are very profound and thoughtful--as good as any exhanges I've encountered on any website.   Matthew, don't worry about being unable to pinpoint a case history from Atwater documenting an NDE appearance of Muhammad to a young child.   I can seek out her book.  But given the possibility of mere hallucination, it is the larger patterns of religious figures in NDEs that matter and large replicated  studies are needed which ask better questions.  In Ahmed's case, his hatred of his Christian visitors makes it less likely that he would have a healing encounter with Jesus rather than Muhammad.  But this case is obviously far from typical.

So what type is issues need further exploration?  For example, in the Osis/ Haraldsson study, it was found that the Being of Light generally did not identity itself; rather, the perciepients imposed a familiar identity from their upbringing.   Yet I've encountered many cases in which Christ identifies Himself to atheists and other Westerners.   Is there a pattern that determines when the Being of Light does and does not identify itself?   What variables determine this self-identification?  

I would expect the Christian God or Christ to allow Himself to be identified by labels familiar to devotees of other religions.  Mellen-Benedict's "Mandala" epxerience is interesting in this respect.  It reminds me of a famous ancient Greek oracle at Claros.  When the prophetess was asked about her divine source of information, she replied that the divinity she mediates operates under many different names, including Jehovah and gods of  the Greek pantheon.  When the earliest Christians affirmed Christ as the Word (Logos), this simply means the rational self-expression of God as opposed to God in His unknowability.  This perception opens the door to symbolic manifestations adapted to the expectations of other religious traditions.   And as already noted, God initially refused to identify Himself to Moses by a name; instead, God instructed Moses to tell the Hebrew slaves, "Tell them I will be whatever I will be has sent you (Exodus 3:14)."  Later when Israel neglects social justice, God warns that He called the Ethiopians, the Phillistines, and the Arameans out of their lands into a new land just as He did for Israel (Amos 9:7).  Again, the implication is that God has been revealing Himself through the myths and relgious symbols of these traditions as well.   Such insights may have profound implication for what happens in NDE encounters with the Being of Light.

On the other hand, consider just two very typical revelations from the Being of Light to percipients whose NDEs are attended by outstanding verifications:

(1) "Of all knowledge...there is none more essential than knowing Jesus Christ.  I was told that He is the door through which we will all return.  He is the only door through which we can return.  Whether we learn of Jesus Christ here or while in the spirit, we must eventually accept Him and surrender to His love (Betty, Eadie, "Embraced by by the Light," p. 85).

(2) Atheist Howard Storm gains a similar insight from "Jesus and the angels:"

"In our progression towards God we will meet the Dvine Activity of God, who is known to Christians as Jesus Christ.  Poeple who were not Christians must know the Christ as well.  No one approaches God who does not know the mediator of God.  The Christ is the creative action by which the world was created.  The personification of God has been everywhere thoughout all time and space ("My Descent into Death," p. 55)."

Both revelations remove the urgency of establishing a relationship with the Christ of Christianity in this earthly life.  Yet both seem to imply that a bond with Him is essential in the next life.  Storm's revelation implies that people of other faiths may have NDEs in which they experience Christ through the names and symbols of their own tradtions.  But does the Being of Light identify Himself by these other names?  Or do the percipients impose their own identificaitons on the Being of Light?   Those who dislike this teaching will inevitably dismiss this the pericipient's input.  Of course, in doing so, they nudge their position to the murky metaphysical swamps of unfalsibiability in principle.  On the othe hand, Christian apologists who use such revelations to establish the superiority of Christian revelation make it nearly impoosible to set up a decisive test to check out their claim.  The way out of this impasse is more and broader cross-cultural and inter-religious studies of NDEs that ask better questions.  Also, both sides must find creative ways to address the troublesome issues of falsifilability in principle.  

Don

To lead up to a new thread, I will pose this question:

 For those who look for scientific verification of NDEs, how would you feel, if 100,000 cases were collected (an order of magnitude higher than ever done) and it was found that in the vast majority of cases from across the world, the Lord Krishna was encountered by most people and named as the being of light?  If you are a practicing christian, Jew or Muslim, how would this scientific data alter your personal religious beliefs.   Would such an encounter, or the scientific confirmation from others be enough to change your views of God and the universe?  If not, why not?

The answer is complicated.  Science is helpful, reproducible, however it never gives the whole story.  The lines blur, and belief is based on personal experience.  Thus we all search, everyone on this site.  But we are, in our hearts not looking for a study telling us who is God, but rather we all wish for, yearn for the personal epiphany of the divine.  We all want to be in front of that being of light, surround by love, and simply KNOW the answer.  Not by being told the result of a scientific survery but by the grace of this trascendent moment.  

What say you?

Matthew

W27--- wow-- you opened a can of religious worms!! ::)
I don't think you wanted such  philosophical answers??? If an infant dies immediately after birth, what do YOU think the infant will experience in the afterlife?  Perhaps a celestial cradle? From that point on, how will that soul be allowed to grow?  Do you think that the young soul will search and find teachers that would instruct the soul to its liking and allow the soul to choose what course of "belief" is most comfortable during it's growth peroid? And what would limit that soul from experiencing many different belief systems until it finds one that is most comfortable and compatable?
If you talk to a child that is dying of cancer, that child may not have a set "religious" point of view about the afterlife. Does that mean that the child will go into a limbo and just idle there?  
In other words, what do YOU think the afterlife will offer you?  I was brought up in a religious belief, but ALWAYS questioned its validity. I couldn't bring myself to beleive that no child could go to heaven or see God's face if it weren't baptized.  I couldn't see my God turning a good, rightous person away because he/she didn't believe in Jesus or Buddha or any other demi god or demi godess. Even though my religion was very strict in its teachings, I didn't believe.  I KNEW that there was more to the afterlife that any conventional religion could teach me.  
Don't think that just because you were brought up in a particular religion, that will restrict your growth in the afterlife. You will ALWAYS for eternity continue to grow in your spirituality and knowing.  You aren't condemed to go to a certain corner in heaven because of your religous belief.  There will come a point in your existance where you will say, "Is this all there is?" and once the question is asked, it will be answered with angelic heralding: "Horay!!! He finally has realizaiton that he is more than religious matter!" And you will grow.   Love Carol Ann  

[Matthew:]  "For those who look for scientific verification of NDEs, how would you feel, if 100,000 cases were collected (an order of magnitude higher than ever done) and it was found that in the vast majority of cases from across the world, the Lord Krishna was encountered by most people and named as the being of light?  If you are a practicing christian, Jew or Muslim, how would this scientific data alter your personal religious beliefs?"
_______________________________________________

Your excellent question proves that you have a firm grasp on the problem of discerning honest and appropriate falsification tests.  If most of these Krishna appearances happened to non-Hindus, I would immediately conclude that sacred Hindu texts express utlimate truth more thoroughly and accurately than the Bible.   I would also immediately suspect that my rejection of reincarnation is misguided and would rethink my critique of Dr. Ian Stevenson's research on childhood past life recall.  i would not reject biblical revelation, but I would have to rethnk how much of it can be salvaged and what role I would allow Jesus Christ to play in my life.  

Of oourse, as my faith crisis intensified, I would consider the possibility that this study was faked or that its revelations derive from a demonic spirit.   But resort to that suspicion would have to be well founded because its use as an excuse to cling to my prior beliefs would otherwise make my Christian outlook unfalsifiable in principle.

So far the best NDE eivdence for a Christian perspective is the great frequency with which Christ appears to atheists as a Being of Light which transforms them into believers.   But replication of even this finding on a larger scale is essential to its use as a significant argument.

Don

well i belive if consiousness left this physical realm totally beliveing they were gonna go to heaven they would see this they expected to see this if a hindu expected to see the lord krisha ( i know i mispelled it) they would see it. I dont belive everyone is immediatly reenlightened that depends on ones reality i really think all of us are a step ahead of the game and will be able to transcend the lower focus levels and even the higher heavenly planes to get to the sorce im sure those in heaven will wonder if theres more and possibly wink out and join us but that all depends on them but to sum it up its all expectation

Question: what if we don't know what our beliefs are, but just know that there is more to life than this physical one on earth?
=) Aras

Greetings Aras,

Do you know what you  *don't* expect in the Afterlife?  I bet you could narrow down those options pretty easily.  
These times we live in don't give us much encouragement to think out such beliefs, but if you can take some time, you'll find you know what is paradise and what is not. And since the Afterlife has differing areas for differing beliefs, you don't have to match what you've been told in the past; there'll be a place for you anyway.  You could even start a list now so you don't use up some 'heavenly' time later.  :)
Reportedly, there's a 'reception area' when you first arrive. Perhaps they continue to discuss your options with you.

Betson

Betson--- in the Welcoming Center/ Reception area, that is exactly what takes place.  "There" is where a spirit can first wonder around and enjoy the sites, kick back and relax.  When that spirit's guide "feels" the spirit is ready to take on more--- the spirit is guided into the reception hall where "the past is viewed" by the new arrival, while the guide waits "outside" because the guide will not judge.  After the review, the guide will join the new arrival again and discuss what options are available to the new arrival.  This will include further education, a look at different belief systems, rejoing other departed spirits.  We graduate from grade 3 (this third dimentional world) to grade 4. If you are an acceptional student, the you are able to skip some grades to continue at a much higher vibration.  
Most "religions" also teach this, though maybe not so simplistic.  In the Catholic Church, angels are described as the lower and the higher angels. And, they too may advance in God's heaven.  ---L&L cat

Identcat,

Swedenborg has frequently visited Paradise and its Welcoming Center near spectacular parks. He locates this region in the World of Spirits, not in the Heavens.  And he observes that the principle of like attracts like only gradually engages these new arrivals.  Consequently, many of them still eventually wind up in lower hellish planes as their core personality unfolds with all its lusts, preferences, and affinities.

But let me ask you a more basic question.  Why do so many ssume that a Welcoming Center is unique to the so-called Focus 27?  Is it not likely that most Belief System Territories would have a Welcoming Center,  lovely parks, a Healing Center, and a Hall of Knowledge?  A doctrinaire acceptance of the limited explorations of Robert Monroe and Bruce Moen can inflict a false impression on newbies who won't take the time to explore  the variety of insights of the best astral explorers with fantastic verifications.  A humble and open mind is needed which allows the truth to be more complicated than initial impressons and distorted by the inevitable inconsistencies resulting from premature inferences and bogus astral experiences.   The quest is eminently worthwhile, but more complex that we would prefer.

Don

The welcoming center was a description given by Robert Monroe and he used the focus level of 27 as a guide to those who need reassurance that there is a spiritual ladder to climb (hence the counting from 1 to 27) and as a security enhancement to the mind.  When I read T. Lobsang Rampa, some 25 years ago, he describe the Welcome as thus: When the person dies, the spirit goes to a huge room.  In the center of the room is a circular crystal globe that the deceased will look into.  The guide who has been sent to bring you to this room will leave so you may view your life in privacy. You are your most hash judge. (In my mind, once a snob, always a snob. If you think you did no wrong on earth, why would you judge yourself harshly?  A snob would still say "Oh I was so perfect". My thoughts on that.) After reviewing you recent past life, all other past lives are then shown to you.  You will then have time alone in this crystal review room to adjust to your new dimention.  Your assigned spirit guide will then reenter the room and take you outside where you can talk things over with your guide and make a decision on which course of action you will now take.

In my Catholic upbringing, I was told that when I die, I first go to limbo.  If I was baptized, I will pass through this level (the impression I always had was flat levels of clouds in layers) and go to purgatory, where, if I have any venial sins, I must stay an suffer until all those sins are forgiven by God, at which point my guarduan angel will bring me to paradise.  If I had mortal sins, I would be sent to hell with no way out. (I never beleived this). Once I reached paradise, it would reflect MY conception of what paradise should be.  I would be able to join all my relatives and friends who have died before me.  If I disliked someone (very un-catholic of me) then I wouldn't have to see that person in paradise.  I would still have to earn my way to heaven and only God's angels could see his face.  I could never become an angel.  Only God makes angels to serve him directly.  

So --- here are three different view points.  What do I think?  All of the above hold some validity.  I will know my heaven when I get there. I choose not one way, but many.  Love and Light--- Carol Ann