These 6 criteria can of course be greatly expanded, and I would appreciate your suggestions on other validation principles.

(1) The only case of an OBE in which someone identified a random 5-digit number concealed near the ceiling is open to the charge of possible cheating and, in any case, could not be replicated by the adept (Miss Z).  In general, lab tests of OBE ability have been appallingly disappointing.  (I have read several books on such research.)  It will not do to rationalize this failure by claiming that astral matter does not coincide with physical matter; so verification is impossible.  Swedenborg proves this cop-out wrong.

(2) A woman (Maria) experienced an OBE when she was just 5.  She was led down a path lined with trellises containing gigantic beautiful flowers.  In her 50s, she painted a picture of the scene and told her doctor about it.  He asked for a copy, framed it, and hung it in in office, together with 10 other paintings.  Another female patient was drawn to it because she had been to the same locale during her NDE.  Both women were just 5 during their NDE!  So they apparently went to a portion of Paradise for newly arriving 5 year-olds.  This implies that "geographical" criteria can serve as verifications for genuine spirit planes even if they are mental. 

It has been claimed that Robert Monroe created a TMI-There in Focus 27 at a site with a special crystal.  Astral travelers have given inconsistent descriptions of the site and the crystal.  These astral partnered explorations should be viewed with skepticism.  They are precisely what would be expected from a purely imaginative lucid dream adventure.  And there is evidence of geographically consistent descriptions of NDE travlers who have not influenced each other's NDE.   

(3) Many Christians and no doubt others claim that during their NDEs theBeing of Light and the  colors of Paradise were bright like the sun, though this did not hurt their eyes. Brightness seems to be one indicator of a higher vibration heaven.  Correlation studies are needed to determine what factors, beliefs, insights, and experiences are a function of brightness of the plane.  Robert Bruce admits that he has merely glimpsed the higher heavens thruogh an apparent "portal."

(4) If OBEs are real, it should be possible to contact a discarnate soul and ask him to reveal the same cryptic thought independently to several different astral explorers.  If these explorers have not consulted or been influenced by each other, they should be able to visit the same spirit and get the same message without consultation.  The fact that such replicated experiments have not succeeded casts seriously doubt on the genuineness of the astral travel in question.

(5) Claims about a House of Knowledge in Focus 27 should summarily dismissed unless verifications can be obtained.  For example, the size an shape of the buillding, the "landscaping,"  the geographical context (surrounding buildings and scenery) should all be indepedently verifiable.  And previously unknown verifiable facts should available from the House of Knowledge itself.  It won't do to rationalize that different adepts have different perspectives.  Swedenborg and the best NDEs have established common features that can be independently identified. 

(6) It should be possible during astral travel to ask discarnate spirits to outline 10 consecutive different activities they might typically perform on their plane.  How odd it seems that even something as simple as  this has little attestation.  Even the seeds of a coherent astral lifestyle are evidently too much for our limited imaginations masquerading as portraying genuine spirit planes.

The alternative to such rigorous criteria is to pander to the New Age Ghetto by embracing all sorts of unverifiable experiences and believing that mutual affirmation from the gullible herd is suifficient grounds for belief.  We must always begin our quest by asking: what would we expect if all these astral claims were a cruel hoax based solely on an overactive imagination fueled by wishful thinking.  Sporadic minor ESP experienced during alleged astral travel simply does not pass the smell test.   

Don   

Don-

I come at this from a totally different direction.

I've long ago given up on getting verifiable information on OBEs or for that matter on the existence of the afterlife.

For one thing, we could make it our life's work to get that kind of information and end up wasting our life as a result.

We are here for a reason and I seriously doubt it's to prove that we survive death.

For myself, it's enough that I was born in the first place.  That's a rare gift, and when we spend our time worrying about the afterlife, we diminish that gift.

It's kind of like winning the lottery and then worrying that we didn't get enough to buy all the things we wanted.

So here's my bottom line- if I survive death, that's great.  That's a bonus.  If I don't, then at least I've had the rare opportunity of being born with human consciousness instead of that of a flea.

R

Don,

"We must always begin our quest by asking: what would we expect if all these astral claims were a cruel hoax based solely on an overactive imagination fueled by wishful thinking."

I'll leave 'we must' for Dark Age Knee Benders. Bada bing bada boom. The first post-C1 focus levels are subjective areas, and imagination and wishful thinking very much apply as they reflect one's personal thoughts coming to life. Focus levels where the personal beliefs held can be explored. So a cruel hoax it is not, but they may seem as objective areas. Letting out a little emotion of fear in this personal space, it manifests and seems objective, which can create more fear, and so on. The tricky part can be getting to know when overlays happen when focusing beyond C1. Not being able to maintain a calm emotional state of mind, a subjective focus level can then overlay F23-F27++. A subjective focus level can also overlay C1, and for some this can seem painfully real when not realizing they are dealing with their own animated fears.

Belief and Faith Don. Its all about belief and faith. Proof will never come to you while you are in body because you have your mind set that it is not possible. For myself, having been to TMI there and seen the crystal, along with a number of others also there with me, know its existence to be true. I cant proof it to you Don. Nor can anyone else. When it comes to the crystal...its about perception. That's why the differances in its appearance. Its like your belief in what you read in that book of yours, the Bible. Or in religions themselves. Differant religions, differant perceptions of truth and faith. Prove any of it though Don. I know you believe and have have faith in it, but you have never offered any proof of its legitimacy. So for me when it comes to "proof", like that which you seem to be so desperately seeking.....you most likly will never find it. Perhaps just opening your heart to the possibilities might just be enough. You never know, you might even find a little of your God there as well.   

Hawkeye,

My point is this: astral travelers who visit the crystal in TMI-There share contradictory, not merely different perspectives on this encounter.  The same contradictions show up in partnered exploration experiments.  On the other hand, some NDEs and Swedenborg's astral travels reveal verifiable "geographical" landmarks that can be revisited and independently verified.  So the confirmation is available, but true knowledge is quickly aborted by those who mistake lucid dream consciousness and its waking equivalent with the real thing.  Psychological certainty counts for nothing in the absence of supporting evidence.  The world is full of mentally ill people and religious extremists who are absolutely certain that their experiences prove their belief system.  If astral exploration were genuine, we should be steadily increasing our knowledge of different planes.  Instead, astral explorers seem to be able to do little more that reaffirm their New Age doctrines and have little regard for contradictory testimony.  I want to work towards a world that works for everyone.  But I have learned that one must always consider the source and that, most of the time, the source is an uncritical New Age fundamentalist with no reliable astral knowledge to offer.

Don   

In a way, one doesn't need to worry about everybody else's verifications. It is enough to find out what's going on for one's self.

Regarding verifications, I've said it before, it is possible to become certain without following a protocol that is similar to what Don (Berserk) provided.

Just as I won't become more certain that I'm alive by having a doctor take my pulse, I won't become more certain with what I dealt with spiritually by following the protocol Don suggests.

I'd like to add some more.

Initially I received some verifications that pacified the doubtful part of my mind, but it didn't take long for the need for verifications to go away.

Once you understand that the friendly beings you communicate with don't deal with tomfoolery (even though they have a sense of humor), it would be impractical to expect them to come up with something you can verify on a regular basis. Doing so would be the same as asking a friend or family member to prove his or her existence to you everytime you meet.

It is incumbent on those without faith to demand proof.  Where does that leave you, Don?  Without faith does Christianity not fold upon itself?  I am comfortable enough with the veracity of my experiences and the truths they have provided me to live happily with whatever fate becomes me after death, whether it follows what I expect or not.  And it will occur regardless.  How can any "man of God" hope for anything more for any member of his, or any flock? 

It is incumbent on those without faith to demand proof.  Where does that leave you, Don?___________________________________
One of the characteristics of the New Age Ghetto is their absurd need to project a demand for proof on their critics when no such demand has ever been made.   That irrational projection excuses them from the hard work of addressing the crucial question they always avoid: How can the honest seeker distinguish the absolute psychological certainty that the characters in one's lucid dreams seem real from the absolute certainty that OBEs seem real?  This question becomes all the more urgent when lucid dream experts like Stephen LaBerge can have OBEs at will, and yet, have the good sense to recognize that no real discarnate spirits are being contacted in thsse imaginary dream worlds. 

New Agers are either too dense or too close-minded to realize that alleged conversations with astral discarnates automatically offers a possibility of soliciting verifiable information about that person's earthly life.  The consistent failure of astral explorers to pose such questions is proof of their lack of intellectual integrity because they are relying on an illustory self-authentication that is itself dubious, given the comparable certainty offered during the actual experience of lucid dreams.  Astral explorers don't ask such questions because they know they won't receive evidentiary answers and they enjoy the cheap comforts that derive from naive acceptance of alleged astral experiences that deserve the same critical scrutiny of all forms of knowledge.  Proof is of course unattainable and therefore irrelevant.  But the need for "evidence" and "logical coherence" cannot be ignored by intelligent seekers.  The ability of some astral explorers to routinely gain astounding specific verifications calls into doubt the genuineness of astral wannabes on this site who cannot deliver the goods like others can (e. g. Swedenborg and many NDEs).  One must always strive to develop criteria for distinguishing the real from the counterfeit.  The Ghetto's failure to take this seriously exposes the sad truth that posters on this site have rarely, if ever, experienced genuine astral realms or genuine contact with discarnate humans.  Proof be dam-ned!  Stop ducking the real issues.

Don   

Why do you continue to post your angry tirades here? If you want evidence, get it. Do your own research, and verify it for yourself. It's a bore listening to blatant insults and accusations by you or anyone else, and I don't think anyone comes here to this site to be 'entertained' by this kind of thing. Blah blah rant blah blah rant. If I hadn't heard this exact same argument about a thousand times I wouldn't reply. Do you think that the people who come here, some of whom are troubled or bereaved, find any comfort in reading what you have to say here? One would think someone was paying you to harass people on this forum. If you're trying to be a 'hero' is this the way? You don't inspire my trust, and I'm not interested in propping up these displays of yours. It doesn't appear to me that anyone is. I think there's a word for this, and it's called coersion. Some people are sensitive to this type of 'criticism' and no one here deserves it. I  won't encourage it, as I think it creates an environment of hostility which is not helpful here or anywhere else. Only openness and careful attention to detail on your own part will get you what you want, in my opinion.

Berserk2 wrote on May 4^th, 2010 at 1:16am:

It is incumbent on those without faith to demand proof.  Where does that leave you, Don?___________________________________ One of the characteristics of the New Age Ghetto is their absurd need to project a demand for proof on their critics when no such demand has ever been made.   That irrational projection excuses them from the hard work of addressing the crucial question they always avoid: How can the honest seeker distinguish the absolute psychological certainty that the characters in one's lucid dreams seem real from the absolute certainty that OBEs seem real?  This question becomes all the more urgent when lucid dream experts like Stephen LaBerge can have OBEs at will, and yet, have the good sense to recognize that no real discarnate spirits are being contacted in thsse imaginary dream worlds.  New Agers are either too dense or too close-minded to realize that alleged conversations with astral discarnates automatically offers a possibility of soliciting verifiable information about that person's earthly life.  The consistent failure of astral explorers to pose such questions is proof of their lack of intellectual integrity because they are relying on an illustory self-authentication that is itself dubious, given the comparable certainty offered during the actual experience of lucid dreams.  Astral explorers don't ask such questions because they know they won't receive evidentiary answers and they enjoy the cheap comforts that derive from naive acceptance of alleged astral experiences that deserve the same critical scrutiny of all forms of knowledge.  Proof is of course unattainable and therefore irrelevant.  But the need for "evidence" and "logical coherence" cannot be ignored by intelligent seekers.  The ability of some astral explorers to routinely gain astounding specific verifications calls into doubt the genuineness of astral wannabes on this site who cannot deliver the goods like others can (e. g. Swedenborg and many NDEs).  One must always strive to develop criteria for distinguishing the real from the counterfeit.  The Ghetto's failure to take this seriously exposes the sad truth that posters on this site have rarely, if ever, experienced genuine astral realms or genuine contact with discarnate humans.  Proof be dam-ned!  Stop ducking the real issues. Don

May you be as successful in your search for answers as I have been in mine, and may your desire to abuse those to whom you speak dissolve into the love and acceptance espoused by Jesus, the Christ.  I wish you well.

I don't read Don's posts/critiques as coming from a position of anger, but that of loving concern.  Hmmm... now how can I say this?  Because what you see outside of you is only a reflection of what is inside of you. 

Don actually makes a valid point that I agree with.  Most lucid dreams are not "true" OBE's, but are reflections of personal human consciousness that are misinterpreted as OBE.  Even RAM said that you do not "go" out of your body.  OBE is a term he coined that has led to a great deal of fascination along with misinterpretation.  What we do is follow a line or stream of consciousness.  We can intersect, even merge with other streams of consciousness and what we see, feel, think we know is not necessarily what we believe it to be.

Roger also makes a good point.  Life here is about living, it's about improving the quality of our human consciousness by growing in the kind of love that changes our being. It's about the intent we act from when interacting with others. 

Kathy

So, Kathy, I take it that you are okay with verbal abuse of people Don doesn't even know personally? You are okay with name-calling? You think it shows loving concern? I don't really know how else to interpret what you just said. Are you implying that I am only seeing a reflection of who I am, 'angry-person'? Maybe I have very good reasons for making a point out of this 'persuasive quality' of his.

The problem with brushing such things under the rug is that they escalate. They get worse over time. I think it's important to make the case for a more civil kind of conversation here, and that is exactly what I have done. Have a nice day, everyone.

B2, you are taking Don's post personally, therefore you see anger and abuse directed at you and others that post here. I doubt that Don's intent has anything to do with causing harm to another. 

K

Lights,

I can applaud striving to not take something personally. On the board and in everyday earth life, we've got images of each other, so it can't be personal even if that was the intent. What is said and done are projections of our own worlds/realities. You have an image of your self, and so does everybody around you. Some you disagree with, some close, some almost there, and so on. And so in turn it's with everybody else. Nothing other people do is because of you, it's because of themselves. Something can be emotional garbage, but if not taken personally, it stays with the correct character to deal with it. Eat garbage, and it becomes your garbage. Pat on the back? It's not really personal either, as they still have an image of your world, the action is based on their world, not on yours, but the acceptance/external validation may feel good.

You make an excellent point Lights. The OBE is an exploration of personal consciousness. Trying to explain my beingness, and have it relate to a non believer makes little sence. If I made that attempt, it would be an attempt at conversion. I will leave that up to the Christians, as they have been attempting for the past two thousand years. I see Dons attempt at looking for his proofs as unobtainable. To do so he would have to enter my conchesness. (Or who ever he was studying.) I see it similar as those who continue to look towards Christianity and organised religions. Never finding what they are truly looking for because they are looking for what others have found. I see this as the difference between a true Christian and one who knows nothing of God nor has the Holy Spirit within their soul. A true Christian send out a message of love and tells their story of how they have opened their heart and soul to God. A seeker is looking for God because he/she is still empty inside and without Gods light within them. Sometimes people never end their search because they haven't found a belief that fits into their core belief system. Those who find truth end up happy and willing to shair their experiences. Those who haven't found the truth continue to search up and down endless dusty roads, kicking the dust off at every opportunity when their personal beliefs are not met. This goes for the afterlife and for such things like the OBE's experiences and proof that Don is looking for. Instead of discounting others experiences, I suggest the opening up his heart to personal consciousness to the endless possibilities out there. But sitting so high in the saddle will not get him anywhere consciousness wise, or in the eyes of God. His attempts at belittling others beliefs and education makes me believe he may be far less of a true Christian than he makes out to be. I hope you find what your looking for and seem so desperate to find Don. Sometime when you look so hard, you lose the ability to see whats right before your eyes. That goes for spiritualy, and physically. 

Kathy:

I don't get it. When I speak against something such as ACIM with good intentions you speak as if I'm some kind of jerk, but when Don says things like new age ghetto and dense it's A ok. I think you're being inconsistent.

I agree there are new age sources of information that are very questionable, but on the other hand I went to the New Living Expo in San Francisco this past weekend, an event that is attended by many new age people, and I believe these people are a big part of what is going to change this world for the better.

Don on the other hand seems to think that new age people are a bunch of quacks that don't have anything significant to add to this world.

Perhaps Don's claims about communicating with the spirit world would be taken more seriously if he had significant conscious contact with it. When you communicate with a spirit being it doesn't matter whether you do so with an OBE, lucid dream, regular dream, or while awake. Regular, actual and significant contact makes this point clear.



Lights of Love wrote on May 4^th, 2010 at 10:39am:

B2, you are taking Don's post personally, therefore you see anger and abuse directed at you and others that post here. I doubt that Don's intent has anything to do with causing harm to another.  K

Albert,

I don't believe I have ever said you have bad intent because I know when you speak your intentions are honorable, which I believe I have said several times.


To all,

We all understand other's points of view from our personal inner perspective. Our personal understanding of how we view the external world and each other is most of the time based on our own personal bias.

Try reading posts from the other person's point of view instead of projecting your point of view on others.  Then maybe... just maybe you can understand what I said.

K

Well, I agree with the initial post. Scientifically we cannot trust any OBE experience as more than a mental make believe land, unless we can put it to a true test making people float over and read off numbers, pictures, etc.

Other than that, it is technically something the person has "faith" in unless they have personally experienced an OBE.

Let us say that you are put under for an operation and you are "dead" for seconds or a few minutes. After the operation you recall an amazing NDE "dream"

Does this automatically make you a believer? Not necessarily!! Let's face it, as an intelligent human being which relies on science... you need testable verifiable information.

Now let's say during your NDE you are told when you wake up you will hear some terrible news cause someone close to you died, and that the lamp on the table will be red, and that the moment you wake up the stupid telivision will be on and your children will be watching spongebob with your wife.

And ALL OF this happens.
Sure, then you WILL believe.  :D

Sadly, information this accurate is NOT given to most of us.... ever.

Hi

OBEs and retrievals are 'legitimate' because they put us into situations where we are not of this world. We leave behind the physical realities and all the learned laws of dealing with this world's matters. Our physical bodies lie waiting for our return, reminding us that although we may be in this world, we are not of it.

While OB or retrieving we use invigorating aspects of our being that inspire a need to continue these experiences.   We find there that we are connected to intelligences that we cannot claim as part of our consciousness.   To go into these unknown realms we must rely on our courage, will power, and PUL. We become more than we were --we become more whole.

To me that makes these experiences legitimate.

Bets

I have seen a lot of people who past on,and all were friends of mine.so I do not care what don says.I have the provef I need.

Of course, one could argue that an OBE is completely non-psychical, therefore what you see and experience is completely unverifiable because you are no longer within a psychical plane of existence.

This would make OBE's 100% completely non-verifiable in a scientific sense, as science requires testable, verifiable information.  ;)

Don says:  << One must always strive to develop criteria for distinguishing the real from the counterfeit....failure to take this seriously exposes the sad truth that posters on this site have rarely, if ever, experienced genuine astral realms or genuine contact with discarnate humans.  Proof be dam-ned!  Stop ducking the real issues.>>

Suppose that very stringent criteria to identify genuine OBEs were developed and applied.

And suppose further, at some point, that even the scientific community and hard-line skeptics agreed that some people actually are able to travel out of body, into astral realms.  And that they are able to have genuine contact with discarnate humans.

I'm not speaking for Don (and he may not agree), but I can understand the benefits from having such a rigorous study.

For one thing, we can eliminate all of the ego-driven arguments that currently insist that their experiences represent objective reality.  After all, no one wants to admit that maybe....just maybe....there are other explanations to account for their own experiences.

Second, we would then be able to put together a coherent body of work that would begin to answer so many of the heretofore unanswerable questions.

For instance, is reincarnation real?  Do we really belong to a soul family or "disk" as Bruce calls it?  Is karma real, and how does it work?  Do we really choose our parents and the type of life we will lead?  Does intelligent life exist on other planets?

And on and on.

The point is, we lack such a body of work.  It doesn't exist.  Or at best, it exists in bits and pieces here and there but often, those bits and pieces contradict each other.

So, if we can put own egos aside, I think we can agree with the value that would derive from Don's proposal.

Or at least I would hope so.

R

Everything is a mirror. Take a long look:

“The alternative to such rigorous criteria is to pander to the Christian Ghetto by embracing all sorts of unverifiable experiences and believing that mutual affirmation from the gullible herd is sufficient grounds for belief.  We must always begin our quest by asking: what would we expect if all these claims about Jesus were a cruel hoax based solely on an overactive imagination fueled by wishful thinking?”

I would  say that people who have made contact with their disk are in a better position to comment about it than people who haven't.

A person can't confirm that he (or she)  made contact simply by obtaining information he can verify, because it is possible that he received the information that is verified from a misleading being.

On the other hand, if a person finds that he makes contact with a being or beings that clearly live according to qualities such as love and respect, he'll know that he isn't going to be misled.

A person can determine if he has made contact with a being (or beings) who live according to love, by how it feels to be in contact with them. He will feel what contact is like with his heart; this is a much more certain way of confirmation than any amount of intellectual acrobactics. It is the only true way to know.

There is also the matter of the results that are obtained by being in contact. If a person finds that he grows in a very positive way, then he knows that the contact he makes is well worth while.

It is hard to believe that an unfriendly being would help a person grow spiritually. It is hard to believe that it would know how to do so. This becomes especially clear when the knowledge that is shared represents a level of love, humility, integrity, and devotion to that which is divine that an unfriendly being wouldn't understand and know about.

If my imagination is responsible for some of the experiences I had rather than the assistance of spirit guidance, well then, I bow to my imagination, because it understands about things that my world based mind doesn't know about.

It is possible to become certain that you communicate with spirit beings, just as you can become certain that you communicate with other people. In fact, in some ways,  spirit communication can be more certain. Especially since telepathy becomes a part of the communication.

When you communicate with a spirit being, you can often feel its presence in a way where it is hard to believe that your imagination is responsible.

Therefore, if you reached the point where you know you can trust the being (s) you communicate with, verifications in the manner Don speaks of become secondary at best.

When it comes to proving things to the rest of the world through emperical evidence, such an approach goes only so far.

I've found through communicating with people in person that no matter what I tell them about  my experiences including things I have verified, they still doubt the existence of the afterlife. This includes people who know that I'm an honest person with good mental health.

The only way for a person to become certain is to have his or her own experiences. Even then, it can be a process because the doubtful part of our mind tends to put up a good fight.

Rondele,

"For one thing, we can eliminate all of the ego-driven arguments that currently insist that their experiences represent objective reality.  After all, no one wants to admit that maybe....just maybe....there are other explanations to account for their own experiences."

..confronting a fear of being wrong about what could be the most important element in one's life. Taking stock without getting stuck in the seeming importance of the matter. Confronting a structure built one brick/experience/belief at a time, putting your heart or desire into it, a structure becoming gradually harder to rearrange as it grows bigger and more solid. It's perfect just the way it is, right. Though I like experience, it could be equally wrong as a belief. Someone experiencing a hard life, and a truth could be that life is hard, which it subjective. As subjective as life is good. Life is, for better or worse. Though objective can be pedestalized, it's an agreement about something. Objective in a town could be that shop a is the best one. Little would I care if I preferred shop b. Generally people I meet are very wrapped up in mundane physical events, and little do I care about that objective focus. But I do care if I'm building a house for myself that could become so much more, even if that meant changing parts or redoing the whole arrangement of planks and miscellaneous stuff. Like holding on to a rock before the tip of a waterfall, easier said than done to let go, or look at the same object from different angles.

And as Lakeman pointed out, this doesn't only apply to this topic. So one thinks one's child is what the world evolves around, but it could be that the daughter is well on her way to become a major league asshole. Save the niceties for her funeral. Jeez, that's so offensive. No other explanation for it. I think I'm spot on, but it could be I'm expanding the concept of being wrong. And god and jesus aren't just comfortable concepts to avoid taking responsibility for one's life, it's THE way and truth, while OBE is New Age Disengage. No wishful thinking in either. Because love is all there is and in the beginning there was zzzzzZZZZZZ.

Btw, the argument that their experiences might not represent objective reality may be.. just maybe.. as ego-driven as any word on the board.

Recover stated:

“When it comes to proving things to the rest of the world through emperical evidence, such an approach goes only so far.

I've found through communicating with people in person that no matter what I tell them about  my experiences including things I have verified, they still doubt the existence of the afterlife. This includes people who know that I'm an honest person with good mental health.

The only way for a person to become certain is to have his or her own experiences. Even then, it can be a process because the doubtful part of our mind tends to put up a good fight.”

I agree with this way of looking at it as it allows for our natural skepticism and miscalculation of our personal file of interpretations of our experience. That's why the ALK Guidebook address' the section on the perceiver and the interpreter and interpreter overlay. 

Don did it again and got us all thinking and posting by playing a good central negative role. It's funny how we each play our part and sometimes switch roles as we contribute to these heavy people issues.

I wonder how much Starcraft's untimely exit prompted this thread. He too seemed very upset that no one could guarantee that there is an afterlife beyond doubt.

Recover, I do want to tell you, thou, that others I tell of my studies and experiences regarding the afterlife off this board, still doubt the existence and my good mental health. ;D

Jean

george stone wrote on May 5^th, 2010 at 12:06am:

I have seen a lot of people who past on,and all were friends of mine.so I do not care what don says.I have the provef I need.

Bravo!

Eyewitness testimony seldom constitutes proof, whether it is testimony to a crime, an astral world, or a discarnate loved one.  So the question becomes this: which theory makes the best sense of all the data?  Now when we ask this question, we immediately encounter the self-contradictory nature of astral reports.  This in itself casts suspicion over all such reported experiences--unless there is a way out.
The way out is to seek criteria to distinguish the real from the counterfeit, for example, between OBEs and mere lucid dreams and their imaginative equivalents.

During my most vivid lucid dreams, there is unequivocal certitude.  Only upon waking is that certitude rightly questiioned.  Therefore, psychological certainty in itself provides no basis for pontificating the genuiness of one's OBEs!  New Agers who find such observations hareful or uncompassionate are simply threatened by anyone who has an honest and open spiritual quest whose insights clash with their own.  They apparently prefer gullible comfort to hard-won truth. 

Robert's Monroe's OBE verifications are generally unimpressive, including his "pinched lady" example which can just as easily be explained as a nervous twinge.  On the other hand, Swedeborg's verifications are spectacular even if they cannot constitute proof.  He repeatedly contacts deceased spirits and brings back paranormal information about them that blows the minds of surviving loved ones.  More impressively, he brings back information that no living associate knows--information that can best be attributed to either geniine contact with the deceased or contact with the so-called Akashic records or Universal Mind.  Many NDEs also measure up to this high standard.  Astral explorers whose verifications don't meet Swedenborgian standards should consider the possibility their psychological certitude is self-delusory.   Otherwise, their astral claims are meaningless in every way except the psychological comfort they derive from them.  I believe I have had more paranormal experiences with high-quality verifications than any of this site's New Agers.  These experiences, though far from proof, are quite consistent with the view that our mindreach extends far beyond our bodies.

Don

Don,
your standards regarding verification of ooBE's are crystal clear. But it is impossible to verify anything under these standards.

When someone gains informations about something one can't know through physical means (and this is regarding spontaneous experiences, often impossible to prove) you can always say that one had a look at a universal database, and it was not an ooBE.

I have told you more than one time that such a proof you want to have can't exist. You are focusing on a hunt for something, which you made sure it can't be found. Don't waste your time furthermore on this, but learn, what is really important. It is to let go of old repeating thought patterns.

Spooky

“New Agers who find such observations hareful [sic] or uncompassionate are simply threatened by anyone who has an honest and open spiritual quest whose insights clash with their own.  They apparently prefer gullible comfort to hard-won truth . . . . I believe I have had more paranormal experiences with high-quality verifications than any of this site's New Agers.”

Mine’s bigger than yours! Mine’s bigger than yours!

Wow, so much spiritual Viagra you take!

You must be very hard to top! (Puns intended!)

Lakman,

New Agers here routinely assume that my skeptical questions arise from the poverty of my own experiences.  Collectively, my experiences, though far from proof, convince me that the survival hypothesis is more plausible than poetmortem annihilation.  My Christian contemplative practice and beliefs led to my paranormal experiences, but they are not a divine reward for personal merit.  If you were an honest seeker, you would be delighted by anyone who had paranormal experiences that point to an afterlife.  Every once in a while I encounter Christians who routinely experience more miracles than I do and I am so grateful for this reinforcement of an afterlife and the possibility of discerning their breakthrough insights.  Since you have expressed an interest, I will reactivate my old thread on the most convincing paranormal experiences that I or others I have encountered have enjoyed.

Don

Most of these so called miracles can not be proved, and many that seem anything but and more likly, just coincidences. By the way did you talk personally with Swedeborg? Or are you taking more books to be the only truth? Of course I expect this from the viewpoint of one who looks at the world and spirituality through the shaded glasses of organised religion where lies, hate, persecution, and now sexual perversion is the norm from the top right down to the bottom. We are all honest seekers here Don. But just because we don't follow your path, or need your so called proof, dosent mean our experiences are any less meaningful, spiritually fulfilling, and many of them bring the expearencer closer to God. Why do you feel this need to belittle them? Proof is a personal thing. Just as beliefs are. When you say to Lakeman "If you were an honest seeker.....", are we to take it you don't beleave him to be honest,  or you beleave him delusional,  or are you just spouting off through those rosary glasses again? Perhaps its time to take a look at your own beliefs and conciter what is delusional. You must be quite something at the pulpit Don. 

Hawkeye: "Most of these so called miracles can not be proved, and many that seem anything but and more likly, just coincidences."
_____________________________
Duh, read through my survey of paranormal experiences in my thread "A Recent Healing of a Cripple" and explain to me how these experiences can be dismissed as mere coincidences.  I doubt that even the New Age Ghetto members here would agree with you on that!

hAWKEYE: "organised religion where lies, hate, persecution, and now sexual perversion is the norm from the top right down to the bottom."
____________________________________
Insipid bigotry!   The church is the source of the greatest kindness and altruistic service in a world.  For example, last Sunday after church most of our congregation fanned out to the homes of the poor and elderly and performed spring cleaning and repair work for them at our own expense.  Your penchant to define the norm by the worst examplars exposes how utterly incapable of honest dialogue you really are.

Hawkeye: "We are ALL honest seekers here Don.
_______________________________________
I can hear your readers giggling at the presumption of this absurd generalization.

Hawkeye: "But just because we don't follow your path, or need your so called proof."
_______________________________

You must learn to read. I have repeatedly insisted that proof is impossible.  Indeed, it is a word used by New Agers to prevent a rigorous quest for evidence-based truth possible.  In the absent of proof, we must determine which interpretations make the best sense of the relevant data.  But first, of course, we must determine which date are evidentially relevant.

Hawkeye: "Proof is a personal thing."
__________________________________
No, proof of an afterlife is impossible, but psychological certitude is irrelevant in the absence of evidence and logical coherence.

Hawkeye: "When you say to Lakeman "If you were an honest seeker.....", are we to take it you don't beleave him to be honest,  or you beleave him delusional?"
______________________

Your silly inference, not mine.  the jury is out on Lakeman.  He has not yet seasoned his penchant for bluster with a modicum of rigorous analysis.

Don

Don,

"Insipid bigotry! The church is the source of the greatest kindness and altruistic service in a world.  For example, last Sunday after church most of our congregation fanned out to the homes of the poor and elderly and performed spring cleaning and repair work for them at our own expense.  Your penchant to define the norm by the worst examplars exposes how utterly incapable of honest dialogue you really are."

Was the congregation directed to be altruistic, or was it a spontaneous event? As with New Wagers, I read the gloss, but also wonder if it's an opportunity to spread the word about a belief - make sure who's their sponsor, a way to make oneself feel good but claiming it's for the benefit of others, if the action is done because the carrot/reward is a stairway to a heaven, if it's a command/requisite of the subscribed belief without an inner anchor. 'At our own expense' suggest a sacrifice, and and giving when not feeling it's a sacrifice is more along the lines of not wanting something in return, like new recruits. Am I altruistic, or do I want something in return, if so, what is it I want in return?

"the jury is out on Lakeman.  He has not yet seasoned his penchant for bluster with a modicum of rigorous analysis."

Ah, so much "witnessing" to do, and so little time!

You are a braggart and a bully. There's nothing remotely spiritual, or even paranormal, about that. Too many of you types around as it is!

Lakeman wrote on May 7^th, 2010 at 8:14am:

"the jury is out on Lakeman.  He has not yet seasoned his penchant for bluster with a modicum of rigorous analysis." Ah, so much "witnessing" to do, and so little time! You are a braggart and a bully. There's nothing remotely spiritual, or even paranormal, about that. Too many of you types around as it is!

...this...

Don:

Just because you had lucid dreams that didn't prove anything to you, this doesn't mean that other people haven't had experiences that are convincing.

Your assumption that you know what other people experienced better than they do, is a bit arrogant.

Consider this. Kurt Leland wrote that he doubts that George Ritchie had contact with Jesus, it was simply a matter of how Ritchie interpreted things.

Who's in a better position to determine who Ritchie was with during his NDE? Kurt Leland or George Ritchie?

Who's in a better position to determine what others have experienced? Them or you?

Your distaste for new age people doesn't leave you in an unbiased state of mind.

Volu: "Was the congregation directed to be altruistic, or was it a spontaneous event?"
___________________________________
Like Muslim terrorists, New Age fundamentalists like Volu and Hawkeye need to create an insane caricature of their adversaries to justify the intellectual bankrupsy of their close-minded dogmatism.  Duh, no, Volu, our Sunday workday of repair and cleaning services for the poor and elderly was planned because we first needed to discovered where the needs were.  And no, our loving service is offered unconditionally without any exposure to doctrine or even an invitation to join us in church. 

And our overtures to serve never stop.  This morning I met with a grant writer from a government agency to organize a tutoring-mentoring program for the poor and homeless.  I offered our church facility free of charge, to host a proven recently developed program, including the use of our restaurant-grade kitchen to provide free meals.  And duh, we won't even be saying grace over the meals!  I already tutor all who ask me to help those trying to get their lives together to handle college courses. 

In addition, we offer a free lunch every Monday to the poor before which we DO say grace.  We offer weekly programs for Alcoholics Anonmous (2 groups), Narcotics Anonymous, and Scouting programs.  We also regularly offer our facilities for Blood Bank, Drivers' Ed for Seniors, and Habitat for Humanity (several new homes for the poor built!).  Next week, we will sponsor a class on child abuse.

Volu: "Am I altruistic, or do I want something in return, if so, what is it I want in return?"
___________________________________

It's fascinating that New Age narcissists like Volu and Hawkeye do nothing on a regular basis to help the poor and the needy, and yet, they presume to sit in righteous judgment on those who do whom they have never met.  Actually, we are too busy helping others to take the time to root out all possible impurities in our motivation.  But then we are providing these services to make a difference for others, not to buttress a holy self-image.

Don

People who speak to each other on websites, who are not facing each other in a room of their peers, fully accountable for what they are saying, often take things much further than what they would normally do.

How's about everyone thinking, right now, about how to resolve this argument in a peaceful way, without anyone else being compared to a terrorist?

Remember peace? No? Well, how's about we make some peace here, so we can show people how it's done. Otherwise, we're just wasting the people's time.

“Like Muslim terrorists, New Age fundamentalists . . .intellectual bankrupsy [sic] of their close-minded dogmatism . . . New Age narcissists . . .”

Hoo hah! Terrorists? Fundamentalists? Dogmatists? Narcissists? Makes you kind of wonder why someone so high and mighty and "spiritual" would want to hobnob with such lowlifes! "Does not play well with others," as the report card used to say. If it were me, I'd go elsewhere, if I felt like that. Judge not lest ye be judged!

I just want to acknowledge all of you who support my efforts in Private Messages to expose the mindset on this site for what it really is.   It truly is a remarkable cultic phenomenon.  New Agers will do just about anything to avoid the hard task of carefully scrutinizing the available evidence and attempts to make coherent sense of the most significant experiences.  That is why in the 10+ years this site has been here, there is no expansion whatever of our knowledge of afterlife territories and the principles that govern them. 

Don

Don:

Perhaps the PMers like you because they like it when people speak to others in a condescending way.

A sane person wouldn't want to be married to a person who speaks to he or she in an abusive and condescending way, no matter how much data the abusive one has to offer.

If a person doesn't speak to people with love and respect, why should others bother to listen to he or she.

You speak of Christian charity, yet you speak to people here in such an un Christ like way.

Do you really think you're going to accomplish anything with such an approach?

Can you actually help people you have such disdain for?

When I speak against something such as ACIM, it's because I believe the people who visit a site such as this site are people who can help make this world a better place, and it troubles me to see them get involved with something that might be misleading. Notice that I don't try to get them to believe in something other than ACIM.

If you looked into the hearts of a good percentage of the people who visit this site, you would see that they have a lot to offer.

That's one man's opinion, Don. But, the tone is certainly more reasonable. If your intention is to 'expose' this website for whatever 'you' think it is, well, that doesn't really interest me. And, truly 'wise' people are not interested in the 'applause' of others. It so easily leads to other less agreeable outcomes. Peace, however, is always worth the effort, or lack thereof. I doubt that it results from 'trying' too hard. Most likely, it results from shared goals and accomplishments, and from mutual respect. For example, how are those who work together in space supposed to 'just leave' if they have a disagreement on a long-term mission in space? Do they 'physically' leave, or do they 'mentally' leave, or do they 'spiritually' leave? Is there 'time' to 'meditate'? What kind of conversations do we want to have on long-term explorations in our solar system, if that becomes possible? What about undersea living? If that becomes possible? What are the limits of our ability to put aside our fixations about 'superiority' or 'hierarchy', and what model will we use for long term success? Already, our resources, and our ability to 'tap' them are being tested. How will we work together in a major worldwide catastrophic situation? These are only a few areas in which our ability to 'rise above' petty accusations and childish, manipulative tactics are crucial. Have a nice day.

Sticks and stones can break my bones...........

Psst, I love you Don.

Don,

"Like Muslim terrorists, New Age fundamentalists like Volu and Hawkeye need to create an insane caricature of their adversaries to justify the intellectual bankrupsy of their close-minded dogmatism."

That is indeed an insane caricature, but thanks for the giggle. Wondering if, questioning the proposed kindness and altruism is as valid as questioning proposed obe/lucid dreams.

"Duh, no, Volu, our Sunday workday of repair and cleaning services for the poor and elderly was planned because we first needed to discovered where the needs were.  And no, our loving service is offered unconditionally without any exposure to doctrine or even an invitation to join us in church."

Duh, directed altruism. Anyway, no advertising sounds nice.

"It's fascinating that New Age narcissists like Volu and Hawkeye do nothing on a regular basis to help the poor and the needy, and yet, they presume to sit in righteous judgment on those who do whom they have never met."

Righteous judgement on those who do whom they have never met is the premise of this thread. Can't speak for Hawkeye, but you're right about doing nothing to help the poor and the needy. Neither do I use them on a regular basis for a CV to make me or any organization look good.

"In addition, we offer a free lunch every Monday to the poor before which we DO say grace."

Right, no free lunches.

"Actually, we are too busy helping others to take the time to root out all possible impurities in our motivation."

Like being too busy travelling the astral to take stock of what is happening.

"I just want to acknowledge all of you who support my efforts in Private Messages to expose the mindset on this site for what it really is."

We experience the outside world through our individual slant of perception of it, so that's what it really is, exposing one's perception.

Don, you know nothing about me except what I have posted here on this site. I don't need to bang on my chest in order to pump up my ego over what charity works I do. I know them in my heart and they are between me and my God. It would seam on the other hand you feel the need for recognition over your works. Thats called ego Don. I am happy that "your" church is doing good works. But, I personally beleave that "your full of it". In more ways than one. I still love you Don. Not that I would bend over in front of you, but I still love you. I might even get kicked.