My apologies for being skeptic  :-/ , just trying to provoke some discussion here. I have a question to ask you, people...

Assuming that we are eternal, spiritual and fully conscious beings at all times and our body is just a “carrier”. Assuming that our souls enter the body at birth and leave it with the last breath, my question is:
What happens during the first months (years) of life? The new born babies are not capable to communicate, comprehend the reality until later when the brain is developed enough.
Same with the people who’s mental capabilities are very limited due to severe brain damage or illness – one may be physically alive, but mentally absolutely incapable.

Does that mean the soul is not present in the body?
Maybe it means that there is no such thing as a SOUL and mature and healthy human brain is the only source of the consciousness?

Please, your input…

Thank you,
SL

SL, I think that you may be a little confused. You must be a man. Like myself. Ask a mother if she has communication with her new baby. Because someone like Stephen Hawking doesn't speak, does that mean he has no soul?
What do you mean by "comprehend the reality"?

Hi Hawkeye,

Yep, I am confused...  :-/
By "comprehend the reality" I meant "Adequately respond to external disturbances".  :o
Phooooo....I'm pushing my English language capabilities to the limits here.... ;D >:(

Oh, and Stephen Hawking is another side of the coin... With phisically disabled body, but perfectly healthy brain he is one of the brightest minds in modern history... if not ever...

Cheers,
SL

I see babies as having a phyical impairment also. When we choose to exist in a new body and enter it at some point. (not sure when) learning to control and use the body effectively would take some time. That includes all the complexities of learning language and that sort of communication.
If I made the choice to exist in a cats body...it would take time to learn the complexities of tail movement. Or walk using four legs. I would think anyways.
When you look into the eyes of a newborn baby, you feel their discomfort when they need a change of diapers or their hungry. Or cold. Or even just need some love. This NVC sort of communication starts at the beginning. Now the soul entering the body at birth...I am not so sure about. It could enter well befor that time. Perhaps not at conception....but that is an argument for the right to life/pro choice.

Hi Still Living,

Here's one experience regarding your question. I have such early memories because I was taught to self-hypnotize by a psychiatrist I was seeing for flashbacks etc:

My first ever memory is a big blue eye or two swimming above me. I thought they were God, so I tried to open my eyes. That did'nt work so I tried to open my third eye. I was becoming more conscious by the minute but was so young I had no control over anything. I heard voices yelling No! No! and people calling out "She's opening! Too soon!" then groaning.

I've found that I was leaving an early semi-conscious state that's given to us for the first few months of life while we adjust to physical sensations. It also is to keep us from getting bored while our bodies are so uncontrollable.

It turned out my earth dad had blue eyes and he looked at me so intensely that it caused me to ''wake up" prematurely.   :)

The soul was there before consciousness.

Bets

Hi Still Living,

Read the following post by tom campbell. It may enlighten   you.: http://www.my-big-toe.com/phpBB34/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3254&p=7406&hilit=brain#p7406

Hawkeye, Betson, PhantasyMan...

Your replies are very much appreciated. I will definitely look closer into Tom Campbell publications.
Well... I have one more question  ::) I'll post it later though  ;)

Regards,
SL

I see it the same way Campbell does in that post of him.
In short: The soul (or whatever there may be beyond the physical) can manifest itself in the physical only within the limitations of it's physical body and the physical rules. If a soul doesn't have a physical body, it can't manifest physically. The body in turn is the physical "agent" through which the soul can directly act in the physical.

Interesting memory Bets.

Spooky

spooky2 wrote on May 9^th, 2009 at 10:16pm:

The body in turn is the physical "agent" through which the soul can directly act in the physical.

Thank you, Spooky2

This triggers my next question:

What about all sorts of murderers, rapists, child molesters and those who simply find their pleasure observing others to suffer? Are they also manifestations of Love, Kindness and Compassion?  >:( I don't think so.
So, what are they here for? What the lesson they have come to learn and experience to gain? >:(

Those creatures are not even animals as no animal on Earth would kill for pleasure.

Regards.
SL

just a thought: perhaps not for pleasure, but certainly for curiosity

every individual a new generation, characteristics not completely known

perhaps for some, a moment of curiosity is quite enough on this earth plane, hard to say what is 'enough' for another individual, for the experience they chose

often, consequences are not known for a long period of time, understanding is not possible until then

Hi SL,

If Tom Campbell helped with your previous questions you might find this thread interesting for your last question.

http://www.my-big-toe.com/phpBB34/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3621

Kathy

I like Campbell more and more, maybe one day I'll even try "My Big TOE"...

Spooky

spooky2 wrote on May 10^th, 2009 at 10:37pm:

I like Campbell more and more, maybe one day I'll even try "My Big TOE"... Spooky

Agree...

Thanks all for your input  :)

I noticed that people at that site ask Tom Campbell a question, and then they seem to accept the answer as if it's gospel. I don't care who a source of information is, a person doesn't do his (or herself) a favor if he becomes overly dependent on what another person says. People need to learn a way to find out for themselves.  

One example, somebody asked Tom Campbell if Jane Roberts made up Seth or is Seth a real being, and he answered that Seth is a higher level being.  

Fortunately,  I don't find it necessary to rely on what somebody like Tom Campbell said, because I found my own way to determine what Seth is about, and various things lead me to believe that Jane made up Seth. Even if she actually channeled Seth, and Seth says numerous things that are true, he has certainly said enough things that are false, that he shouldn't be thought of as some infallible light being.

I guess if a person wants to take Tom Campbell's word for it and accept what Seth has to say accordingly, he will be influenced accordingly.

A day will come, perhaps another incarnation, where such a person/soul will find that it isn't a good idea to put other people on such a pedestal that you forget to think for yourself.

Actually Albert, TC encourages people to be skeptical, even of what he has to say. He also encourages them to "taste the pudding" and find out for themselves.

His website is dedicated to answering questions about the books he has written so naturally his answers reflect and explain MBT in a more understandable way.

Personally he doesn't say much that I would disagree with. It all depends on how much of the big picture you're able to understand. Few people have progressed far enough for complete understanding. We are all still in kindergarden. :D

That's good to hear Kathy.

I know very little about him. Does he have a TMI background? Is he an afterlife realm explorer?

Regarding people asking him a question and then just accepting it, I figure this can happen to just about any source of information. One of the things I like about Robert Monroe and Bruce Moen is that they don't seem to be in the believe me mode. They would be more inclined to suggest that people find out for themselves.

I do believe it was misleading for Tom Campbell to tell somebody Seth is a light being without explaining why he believes this is true.   Because an explanation wasn't provided, the questioner might assume that Tom Campbell has a way of knowing about Seth that is beyond opinion. When people such as myself stated things against Seth in the past, at least ways we provided explanations, rather than expecting people to simply take our word for it.

Regarding the post you provided, it seems as if he provided an explanation for his way of thinking. Whether or not people agree with it is another matter.


Lights of Love wrote on May 11^th, 2009 at 3:32pm:

Actually Albert, TC encourages people to be skeptical, even of what he has to say. He also encourages them to "taste the pudding" and find out for themselves. His website is dedicated to answering questions about the books he has written so naturally his answers reflect and explain MBT in a more understandable way. Personally he doesn't say much that I would disagree with. It all depends on how much of the big picture you're able to understand. Few people have progressed far enough for complete understanding. We are all still in kindergarden. :D

Hi

A 'higher level being'  need not be a 'light' to other highly evolved beings.   (That's a compliment to you, Albert.   ;)  )

What is a higher level being really higher than, we might ask? Perhaps to the norm or average ?

Bets

Yes to both questions. He helped Bob develop the technology back in the 70's. There's thousands of taped recordings of contact with other entities that was made during various sessions including those with Rosie MacKnight and others. The ones I've listened to were very interesting and informative.

I don't recall TC saying Seth is a "light being" whatever that label means. We are all light beings as far as I'm concerned. We are all "chips off the ol' block" of God consciousness. What I recall is he said the Seth entity does exist and that Jane Roberts misinterpreted a lot of what Seth was trying to communicate to her. I can accept that even though I've never had personal interaction with Seth.

I think most people that have read his books and participate in his forums consider him to be an authority on his theory, since afterall, he is the one that wrote it.

Kathy

Let's face it Betson, people wouldn't take the time to read a source such as Seth if they didn't believe such a source represents the truth. That being the case, they are liable to give such a source a lot of credit when they develop their own way of thinking, and will be influenced accordingly.  

Why would somebody take the time to read something to a significant extent, if they don't intend to be influenced by it in some way?



betson wrote on May 11^th, 2009 at 4:30pm:

Hi A 'higher level being'  need not be a 'light' to other highly evolved beings.   (That's a compliment to you, Albert.   ;)  ) What is a higher level being really higher than, we might ask? Perhaps to the norm or average ? Bets

Kathy:

Now that you mentioned the explorer sessions, I remember seeing Tom Campbell's name in Far Journeys. Regarding his being an authority on his theory, well that makes sense. I haven't read it, so I don't know what it's about.

Regarding Seth, perhaps I worry too much. If as I believe, for a number of reasons, Jane Roberts made up Seth, then perhaps their is no ill intent behind Seth, it is a matter of what Jane Roberts and her husband Robert Butts came up with.  Much of what they had to say wasn't new.

As I'm sure you know, I believe they mischaracterize Jesus' life in various ways, including when they stated that a drugged and mentally disturbed man was crucified in his place. Going by what my heart and the spiritual messages I received say, Jesus was crucified. For reasons I believe are reasonable, I'm inclined to believe what my own intelligence, heart and messages have told me before I believe Jane Roberts. After wondering about her quite a bit, I received spirit messages that seemed to suggest that Jane made up Seth. There are other reasons for believing this is the case. If Tom Campbell believes Jane Roberts actually channeled Seth, perhaps this shows that he is infallible just like anybody else.

I believe people go too far when they sugggest that a channeler got some things wrong, because he or she misinterpreted what a supposed channel being is saying. In the case of Jane Roberts, supposedly Seth spoke through her body. This being the case, how could mistranslation take place? When Seth supposedly smoked cigarrettes and drank wine while supposedly speaking through Jane's body, was this a mistranslation?  Plus, some of the things channelers tend to say are very specific. For example, Jane Robert's crucifixion hoax "fable" has a lot of details.

If information from a channeled being can be misinterpreted by a channeler to such an extreme where a person goes from being crucified to not being crucified with an illogical explanaton provided, then I don't see how the process of channeling can considered to be reliable.  Sometimes it is important to consider whether an explanation is a matter of convenience, or factual.



Lights of Love wrote on May 11^th, 2009 at 4:37pm:

Yes to both questions. He helped Bob develop the technology back in the 70's. There's thousands of taped recordings of contact with other entities that was made during various sessions including those with Rosie MacKnight and others. The ones I've listened to were very interesting and informative. I don't recall TC saying Seth is a "light being" whatever that label means. We are all light beings as far as I'm concerned. We are all "chips off the ol' block" of God consciousness. What I recall is he said the Seth entity does exist and that Jane Roberts misinterpreted a lot of what Seth was trying to communicate to her. I can accept that even though I've never had personal interaction with Seth. I think most people that have read his books and participate in his forums consider him to be an authority on his theory, since afterall, he is the one that wrote it. Kathy

I haven't ever read any of the Seth material. I couldn't say what I might think of it.

Unless I'm judging something for myself I prefer to think everyone is doing the best they can all things considered including what they have to work with... themselves.

K