Are there "thought police" in the afterlife?

I am interested in your thoughts.

love, blink

Dear lord, I hope not! There is to a certain extent "thought police" in most countries today, and I do not wish to experience that in the afterlife. To quote Bob Dylan:

And if my thought-dreams could be seen
They'd probably put my head in a guillotine
But it's alright, Ma, it's life, and life only

Blink


Quote:

Are there "thought police" in the afterlife? I am interested in your thoughts.

I don’t think so; as I am sure you know over there the means of communication is by telepathy and all minds are open to each other.

If a soul began to think bad things the group mind would stop it very quickly.

The group mind would not tolerate it I think

Love

Alan

Perhaps it is a question of what a spirit wants to learn. Does it want to continue to hold onto its false beliefs, or does it want to find out how things really are? False beliefs come in many forms.

Hi Blink. My best sense (and the teaching of various traditions too) is that the afterlife as a mind made creation is no different to the physical - other than that the creative dimension of mind results in much more rapid emergence of whatever reality the being/entity concerned grasps after.

It seems likely too that while the beings inhabiting it (existence as a being is of itself indicative of a belief in self and hence ego - excluding influences from higher realms that are free from the cycle of physical birth and death, and have manifested to help) are all in some way bound by ego and the associated compulsion to avoid suffering by external means.

This being the case it seems likely that there is no thought police, at least not acting on behalf of Spirit. This would violate the principle of free will that seems very sacrosanct to Spirit even here. That's not to say that as here that there are not beings that will seek for egotistical reasons to manipulate others for their own ends, but as here the motive is presumably selfish.

The result of all that is presumably as R says that beings/entities are to be found in the afterlife representing a wide rage of beliefs and levels of accomplishment - ranging from the almost realised to the highly unpleasant. 'What you believe is what you get'.

Another common sense view is that all level of being seem eventually to cycle through the afterlife and back into the physical - suggesting that at least all earthly persuasions are to be found there.

The good news is perhaps that we seem to be drawn to realms that reflect our own view/level.

Is this the true picture? I don't have enough experience to know, it's more my personal interpretation of my own bits of experience, what's taught in some quarters, and stitching together what others report...

Hi Blink  I think theres to much love in the spiritworld for any spirit to cast out bad thoughts for long as the love will take the thoughts away but saying that there may be spirits that are really set on being evil that they say goodbye to love,but i think theres a chance for all to change for the better in the spiritworld eventually.

I agree with what alan said about the group mind would stop it and would not tolerate it.

God never gives up on us even in the spiritworld,Gods love is eternal.

Love and God bless   love juditha

I don't believe it is a matter of being bound to ego. Such a viewpoint contends that our problem is that we think of ourselves as being individuals, and we need to give up being individuals.  Unless we came into existence by mistake, why would we seek to disolve our individuality? Even if our individuality is a mistake, why would we want to bring it to an end so that in the end only one center of consciousness exists? I figure a huge number of very happy eternal Souls is a much better idea than just one being all by itself.

If one reaches the point where one can live completely according to love, then one can be a distinct Soul and a part of the oneness at the same time. Consider the Soul mergers people speak about. Could such mergers exist if there weren't at least two distinct Souls to merge with each other? The I we experience during physical life is just one little finger of who we are as Soul based beings. When we start to understand who we are on a larger scale, it doesn't make sense to think in terms of having to overcome our ego/individuality.

The viewpoint which contends that our existence evolves to levels that are hard to fathom while human, doesn't support the everything is a mistake viewpoint.

Our self-defense instinct is something we are equipped with while human. It helps us survive in the challenging play of opposites that exist in this World, and also helps us learn about what is possible when it comes to the creative aspect of being. I'm not absolutely positive about this, but I believe that our self-defense instinct stays behind with our body when we die.  It isn't a sense of self that binds us. The limiting ideas and emotional attachments we have bind us. The fact of how each of us has our own limitations and attachments to overcome, shows that we do exist as unique Souls.

The concept of ego has become the scapegoat for our temporary self-defense instinct, limiting ideas, and emotional attachments.

Here's another way of looking at it.

Perhaps existence is a mixture of awareness and the energy with which everything is created. Even though you can focus on either awareness or energy, these two aspects of being aren't seperate from each other.

Existence is set up like a giant grid. There are many points on this grid and each of us represent a point. We can be aware of as much of the grid as we allow ourselves to be aware of. If we allow ourselves to become aware of all of it, we experience cosmic consciousness.  When multiple points experience a particular part of the grid, they all use the awareness and creative energy that make up that part of the grid.

We are free to think as we want, but then we only get to experience the part of the grid we create as we think in a particular way.

wrote on Oct 8^th, 2008 at 4:16pm:

Are there "thought police" in the afterlife? I am interested in your thoughts. love, blink

Greetings All. I don't know! But I do know there is the Thought-Police in this the Afterlife-Knowledge Forum....Try speaking you mind, under their new rules?! No matter how polite or otherwise. You'll get banned or temporarily suspended! ..Harvey..."Freedom of speech does not apply here!"

What 'New Rules'?
Seriously, I must have missed that.
If *I* can go out on a limb here with my Threads and Posts then anyone can.  ;)

Blink, I would think that areas could be created that have such things. If you were to have fixed beliefs about religions or the sort then a sort of thought control could be realised. Say if you believed in a religion that God was a reptile. When you died and went to this area of the BST's, and then your prosess changed to believe that there is no such thing as reptilian God then poof.., your out of there. Like a retrieval of a sort. If you are doing a retrieval of someone who believes in a christian "doctrine" or cult, and is stuck in a BST as envisioned by their beliefs....you retrieve then..isn't that sort of the same? When we do retrievals are we attempting to change others beliefs/thoughts? Are we thought police in the afterlife?

To your point I guess Hawkeye that as ever it takes two to tango.

One side pushes a storyline/creates a reality that suits its ends, the other is likewise for ego reasons attracted to that same reality.

It's probably not possible to encounter 100% one sided compulsion. Even when it looks that way it's just that the other party falls in line because the price of not doing so seems too high.....

theres a retrieval a friend of mine did where a man put himself in jail and there was a guard guarding him. thats not thought police, but it' having a jailer. but it was his own guilt made him go to jail. sometimes retrievers come into these places to help them out.

there a focus level I read of in Bruce's books. it shows the creativity of the place. if he thought large, suddenly everything turned small. whatever he thought of, it's opposite appeared. so anything goes in that level. don't know what level it was, but I remember, the birds flew backwards!

I think there are no thought police, yet every one goes to where their own grouping is, of the likeminded. retrievers are not thought police, but in certain lower levels, say, a criminal type may think that there are thought police everywhere. it just depends on the individuals consiousness.

Harvey, there are no new rules here. it's a peer moderated forum. that means if you have a problem with someone here, you push the button where it says peer moderator input. you explain your problem, the administrator looks into it, and if there's a genuine problem, it will be taken care of. I suggest you read the guidelines. It just says be respectful of everyone's beliefs, don't call each other names, etc. very easy rules to follow. I think its a very democratic process here and it's been functioning many years, while I've seen other forums do belly flops in no time at all. so something good must be happening here for it to last so long.

Dood, I like you, theres a spaceship coming on the 14th to Alabama, did you read my post? I mean, it's supposed to. we'll see.

WE are our thought police. WE defend our beliefs and thought constructs like they were real. WE imagine a struggle, and that it is possible that God would lose this imagined struggle. WE think this 3-D world is "real."

No, there are no thought police, unless you think there are. Then there might be. Getting it? You see what you want to see, and you hear what you want to hear (to quote Firesign Theater). WE (our collective Mind) is making it all up.

"Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily...
Life is but a dream."

Just my opinion....

Thomas

we're reaching a consensus agreement theres only thought police in the individual mind.

just something to pass on I learned about our minds and our choices we make about who we think we are, as in self image.

there's perception. perception comes from our 5 senses.
it's what we see, feel, taste, touch, hear. yet these are only perceptions, we file away in our data system mind.

then we look at what is knowledge? knowledge and perception is not the same thing. it's to say, we perceive a book cover. we then judge a book by it's cover.

We cannot escape from doing that. but we can perhaps gain something like knowledge if we consider to open the pages of the book, just to make sure we are not judging that book by it's cover.

what happens in the mind is that we have a paradigm, a bunch of perceptions which equal a belief system.
a belief system is like the steam which propels a steam engine along.
As years go by our mind is able to find support for the belief system we possess and more perceptions are generated.
the belief system is not right or wrong. we all have several in place.

the point of all this, is if you one day change your belief system your mind will then begin to gather new perceptions to support the new belief system, as you are now focusing in another direction.
it can be uncomfortable as there may be conflicting belief systems residing together.
however it helped me to consider perceptions follow knowledge rather than knowledge following perceptions. it's like a sequential development you can rely on.

about PUL, that is a mind expanding consideration also, as the more PUL in a situation, the more is expanded the senses, which are perceptions, to see more, taste more, feel more, hear more, etc.

which I think is why Bruce's books will talk about this PUL, because it is connected to our mind's ability to expand awareness.

On thought police, self reinforcing perceptions, beliefs and the like - not just in the afterlife, but right here, even on this forum. I'm borrowing from a bit I wrote recently to a good friend.

Debate/discussion surely becomes utterly sterile if everybody is herded towards agreement of a single view or set of beliefs - it becomes dogma.

That's even when it appears like a competitive if disciplined academic debate - because that sort of engagement is usually driven largely by a suppressed ego urge to control, or to belong to the controlling group.

It's important to try not to get too attached too specific beliefs or views, at least not anyway to the point where we feel we have to defend them too agressively.

To have lots of views at all sorts of levels in flow together is potentially far more constructive - even quite simple views often provide new insights, and the resulting mix must surely illustrate any topic far more comprehensively, and promote far more self enquiry and progress than a single view can.

Accepted dogma creates a culture where people no longer feel free to express a view, even tentatively.

A more open environment leaves everybody free to speak, and if they are taking responsibility for themselves, and not just looking for a winning team to join they can draw from it what's relevant to self and situation. (we each have quite different needs)

That's not to say there shouldn't be debate on topics, or that we shouldn't say so if we disagree with a point. But there's a point beyond which its possible to become too aggressive, one that shuts things down.  

We should perhaps bear in mind too that as above that there's strength in a diversity of views.

Put another way - there's very few spiritual truths that can be expressed without many intersecting views to delineate the territory and its inevitable nuances and possibilities. Openness is so important...

Very well said Ian.  :)