Hi there.

I wanted to mention the idea present in many esoteric ideas and literature, which Bruce also mentions. It's the idea that somehow it is possible to be "outside time" and take actions in past or the future. To be honest, it never made any sense to me, and I will tell you why.

I don't really think anything besides the present moment actually exists like a separate dimension or whatnot. For the simple reason that that would negate free will - you can't have any "future" pre-existing, for that would require for every atom to be perfectly predefined forever. Future is our word for the unrealized potential - the change that will happen in the present moment. Past might be possible to explore as a history record, and future possibilities might bee seen in visions, but they're more like a weather forecast, not a sci-fi movie thing.

I think eternity means time. Eternal time, for without time no sequence of anything can take place, and everything is frozen, so to speak.

Would love to hear your thoughts on this.
Thanks :).

http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/welcome_to_astral_chat/the_universe-t32104.0.html;msg263485#msg263485
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/welcome_to_quantum_physics/astral_time_a_definition-t32111.0.html

That's the best I can come up with. Problem is also when someone mentions that they've lived a whole life in another Locale III during a 5 minutes OBE..

To be outside of time but take action in the past or future just doesn't work for me. The past and the future are within the sphere of "time"

It is my understanding that there is something about being incarnate and on earth that makes our consciousness see time in a linnear pattern.  In other states of consciousness, many people have described a sense of timelessness - it is said that focus 27 and the heavens are an example of this.  People don't measure time, but rather events are measured by a change in state from one state of being to another (this was mentioned by E. Swedenborg in the 1700s).

Princeton's P.E.A.R. center was founded decades ago to study the effect that human intention had on random number generating machines.  Among the routine studies that they performed were several interesting experiments showing that human conscious intention could have an effect on past or future events.

The P.E.A.R. lab consisted basically of several shielded random number generating machines.  Imagine a machine that was shielded from all interference that would randomly flip a coin heads or tails millions of times.  Statistically, you could say that close to exactly 50% of the time, the machine should throw a "heads" and 50% of the time a "tails." 

Princeton had thousands of volunteers sit in front of these machines and try to effect the outcome of the coin toss.  What they found and published was that there was a small but statistically significant effect of human intention on the outcome of these shielded random number generating machines - unexplainable by any known physical means.  This was published in peer reviewed journals.  In other words, some people or groups could make a shielded random number generating machine flip more "heads" or more "tails" as an outcome than the machine was programmed to do on its own.

The P.E.A.R. lab also took the results of tests that had been run, and put them in an envelope and asked volunteers to try to change the outcome of events in the envelope (I am doing this from memory).  what was found when they broke the seal of the envelope was that when they randomly generated numbers and then, at a future time asked people to try to change the outcome (which had been performed in the past), there was a small but significant difference in the outcome.  This only could have happened if the human being's conscious intention changed events or probabilities in the past!

So what does this mean?  To me, it does NOT mean that free will is invalid.  But what it does show is that our conscious mind, which exists outside of the physical plane, can change probabilities and outcomes independent of linnear time.  Thought creates reality, and is independent of the measurement of time to some extent.

Matthew

Tom Campbell talks about the realm of probabilities and how one can tap into that realm but not actually predict the future but make a highly probable guess based on the information attained before the outcome is realized. As for past events he has some interesting information on changing a present outcome by concentrating on the past event and changing it there so that the result is a new and different outcome in the present. But as with Matthew's statistics there was only a small yet significant difference in the outcomes.

Well, our friend Seth says that there is no one single time line as we think of it.  Instead, there are an infinite number of pasts and futures.  I believe he called them probable pasts/futures.

In other words, there was a world where the atom bomb was never dropped on Japan, and there was a world where the Cuban missile crisis did plunge the world into nuclear war.

There is also a world where I married X instead of Y and bought a Chevy instead of a Ford.

In essence, any decision point of any magnitude, great or small, spins off all possible consequences of all possible decisions, not just the decision that we think was made.

I'm not sure how the string theory fits into this, but I believe there are some correlations.

Of course, that also means there was a probable past where Jane Roberts wasn't born and the Seth Material was never written.  ;)

R

Oh, I definitely think the past can be changed, as well as the future. It is simply a matter of what you are willing to let go of, what you are willing to forget...right now. Right now is the 'road to infinity', and it's certainly not a Mr. or a Ms.

Open to interpretation. :)

Thanks for your replies, everybody.

DocM said: "People don't measure time, but rather events are measured by a change in state from one state of being to another".

But that is what we are doing right now! What we call "time" is an experience of constant change of state.

All other teories you guys referred to are just theories :). And a PROABABLE future isn't the same as THE FUTURE you could travel to. That's what makes reality consistent. There are a gazillion of probabilities in this universe, chance and choice play their roles. And that's what makes it interesting.

Erm, yes I will humbly stick to my understanding :).

b2: Forgetting something that happened doesn't make it un-happen. Past can not be changed (in my opinion), and future can be chosen, but again I must say - future is just a word for what NOW will be. Now is the only time that exists. Eternity is NOW.

I can't see how one could argue for the contrary without creating semantic paradoxes :).

Lauris wrote on Mar 8^th, 2011 at 4:08pm:

Hi there. I wanted to mention the idea present in many esoteric ideas and literature, which Bruce also mentions. It's the idea that somehow it is possible to be "outside time" and take actions in past or the future. To be honest, it never made any sense to me, and I will tell you why. I don't really think anything besides the present moment actually exists like a separate dimension or whatnot. For the simple reason that that would negate free will - you can't have any "future" pre-existing, for that would require for every atom to be perfectly predefined forever. Future is our word for the unrealized potential - the change that will happen in the present moment. Past might be possible to explore as a history record, and future possibilities might bee seen in visions, but they're more like a weather forecast, not a sci-fi movie thing. I think eternity means time. Eternal time, for without time no sequence of anything can take place, and everything is frozen, so to speak. Would love to hear your thoughts on this. Thanks :).

There is no past and no future... now is all there is... therefore everything is always happening at once... one shifts ones attention back and forth... only one tenth of one percent of earth population is aware and in control of this... Eckhart Tolle describes the phenomena in 'The Power of Noe'...  i.e.. Monroe's Facilitator is an example. also. There are others of course...

S.

I agree, S. Tolle's description is  a very good one. I've seen many try to put the idea in perspective and he does a great job. There is only this moment.

  So far my perception is that time, or rather our perception of the degree of connection or lack of same, between different events, experiences, etc. is relative to the consciousness "bandwidth" one is primarily perceiving from.  (this gets interesting and tricky when one is switching back and forth, in a primary sense, from rather different perspectives).

  The slower vibratory, or more separatist (because of selfishness) one's consciousness and perspective, the more time seems very linear and the more one perceives separation between "this and that" whether it be an experience, event, or whatever.   In sooth, everything becomes, or rather just seems to be more separated and unconnected in ones perceptions.

  Conversely, the faster vibratory, or more Oneness and PUL Consciousness attuned one becomes, the broader and more encompassing the perspective and perception between "this and that" becomes; it ALL becomes more unified & connected. 

  So, in the level or perspective and consciousness of pure Spirit or Source, time doesn't seem to exist in the way most in physicals often perceive it as. 

  Because it becomes all time.  It becomes all time because one is fully conscious of the interconnection between self and the All. 

  In a reality of Oneness and complete interconnection, purely linear based time perception won't happen.   

   But i think there is still a cognizance of the difference in vibratory patterns, and one can still "dip into" different flows based on different dimensional interactions and perspectives. 

  I'm just theorizing on the above, since I'm not yet consciously fully there in complete Source attunement. 

  Honestly, it doesn't seem to be a very important issue to me anyways, and one can wrack ones mind about it till the cows come home to no avail.   It's a intellectual distraction from the important stuff--living that which truly opens up ones perceptions and consciousness to an ever growing truth and the real knowing of same.

Yeah I agree Justin. It can be a distraction. I was just thinking that too.

wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 10:29pm:

Honestly, it doesn't seem to be a very important issue to me anyways, and one can wrack ones mind about it till the cows come home to no avail.   It's a intellectual distraction from the important stuff--living that which truly opens up ones perceptions and consciousness to an ever growing truth and the real knowing of same.

Hi: This is precisely the point. The Absolute Truth just IS and is beyond intellect... it is all experiencial and until you experience the NOW or self-realization in all its glory there are no intellectual codas that can encompass it... thus Monroe emphacized that 'establishing personal 'experiential knowns' is the best you can hope for... it is not tranferable.

S.

I agree with Seraphis.  Actually, even the title of this Board is misleading since "knowledge" of the afterlife is really quite unobtainable.  At best we can only get bits and pieces and even those are highly distorted by our own internal filters.

The best description of what lies beyond this physical plane is the word ineffable.  Seraphis is right...there are no words and no intellect that can even begin to understand.

That's why books such as Ninety Minutes in Heaven have meaning only to the author.  To assume that his experience is something the rest of us will have is comforting, but highly misleading.

In the meantime, all we really have to do is try to live by the Golden Rule.  Spending time (and money) thinking that we can understand the nature of reality and what lies beyond is a fool's errand.

R

Perhaps it is helpful to think of time as a painting. If you look at just one part of the painting you see only one moment of time. If you look at the entire painting you see all moments at the same time.

All generations of time happening in the same now doesn't mean that we don't have free will. Rather, it means that in reality we make all decisions in the same now, it just seems as if we make them at different moments.

I say this, yet I believe there is such a thing as chronological succesion. For example,  it wouldn't make sense to say that the possibility exists that Lauris could look at this thread, decide it was best not to create it, and then go back in time and not create it, because he couldn't come to the conclusion that it was a bad thread to create if he hadn't done so.

Plus, it is hard to imagine that he would have the ability to alter all of our histories to whatever degree he would've done so if he went back in time and didn't start this thread. Some of us, instead of taking part in this thread, might've taken part in another activity that might've changed the flow of our lives in a significant way.  On the other hand, this thread might effect somebody in a significant way that he (or she) otherwise wouldn't be effected.

If any of you don't like what I wrote, please let me know so I'll go back in time and not write it. :D

Lauris,

some have described states where, as they said, there were no time. Yet their descriptions were full of notes which require time. Without time there is no now...then, there is no cause and effect. Most confuse the full meaning of "no time" with no aging or to have no dates or something like that as far as I can see.

You said you're of the opinion that there is only the present, because if there was a predestined future it would negate free will.
   This opinion of yours of course is a decision coming from what you like and/or dislike.
   The free will turns out to be a theoretical construct which is contradictive in itself not only when we suppose a predestined future, but even when we suppose linear time only, no matter if "open" or not, as long as there is cause and effect there is just no space for free will, as everything we do then is preconditioned by our past, and that cannot be called "free". A person with free will is a contradiction, as to be a person you have to have a history, traits, something which endures time, something others can recognize. If one had free will, this one's will and acts were totally unpredictable due to their independence of any personal (and otherwise) history, which would be required to be called "free". And, can someone imagine that something happens with absolutely no reason? As this as well would be required if something happens truely freely.

Let's not make a big debate around this. Let's just admit that "personal free will" is a concept which is just plain contradictive and therefore silly, and bury it as Immanuel Kant did over 200 years ago.

Spooky

I believe we have free will, it is a matter of whether we know how to use it in a wise way. The wiser our soul becomes, the more we can live according to love, wisdom and freedom.

There have been occasions I could've acted according to a lower possibility, but I instead allowed myself to consider such occasions with freedom,  and accordingly made the  most appropriate decision.

I have found that there are people who will allow themselves to do just about anything with the rationalization that they don't have a choice. They'll create karma accordingly.

Not believing in freewill = being a self-defeatist

Believing in freewill = opening up to your soul's potential

This is it! This is the answer. It says here... that a bolt of lightning is going to strike the clock tower at precisely 10:04pm, next Saturday night! If... If we could somehow... *harness* this lightning... *channel* it... into the flux capacitor... it just might work. Next Saturday night, we're sending you back to the future!

wrote on Mar 12^th, 2011 at 2:46am:

This is it! This is the answer. It says here... that a bolt of lightning is going to strike the clock tower at precisely 10:04pm, next Saturday night! If... If we could somehow... *harness* this lightning... *channel* it... into the flux capacitor... it just might work. Next Saturday night, we're sending you back to the future!

LOL!

Really enjoyed reading this thread this morning...all the posts are understandable with lots of humor, which is not always the case on some threads...or at least I am not smart enough to follow some threads and enjoyed this one. One thing is unarguably clear anyway: Now is always all there is. Our buzz of activity in life is all efforts to make Now nicer than it was a minute ago. Wait a minute...did I just say minute? There's that darn time thing again..Vee

Vee wrote on Mar 12^th, 2011 at 2:43pm:

Really enjoyed reading this thread this morning...all the posts are understandable with lots of humor, which is not always the case on some threads...or at least I am not smart enough to follow some threads and enjoyed this one. One thing is unarguably clear anyway: Now is always all there is. Our buzz of activity in life is all efforts to make Now nicer than it was a minute ago. Wait a minute...did I just say minute? There's that darn time thing again..Vee

Here is an interesting factoid to contemplate... there is a 1/10,000 of a second gap between the past and the future... all you have to do is slow your ability to experience life to that 1/10,000 of a sec and stay in that state... tell how it feels... LOL!!

S.

Recoverer, if you don't open up to the full potential of your mind, I guess you're the one who gathers the appropriate karma. I don't think it is appropriate to counter a philosophical thesis with phrases like: "I believe...", "...rationalizations", "defeatist", without even touching the matter. Open up, and leave obviously senseless phrases behind you.

Sigh, I know we had that before. Sorry.

Spooky

Spooky's point about freewill is well worth considering - just phrased differently (in my humble opinion).  He is not truly countering the proposal that we make choices - we obviously do.  We are conscious beings, and choose to act in the physical plane (or in the spiritual plane).

If my understanding of Spooky is right, he is merely suggesting that we all have evolved from various background experiences, and that these experiences will, to some extent change the probabilities of our decision making process.

But Spooky, you must consider that is different from a pre-determined outcome - i.e., if I have been badly burned by a fire, I may decide that I will avoid lighting a charcoal grill, due to my awful experience.  There is a mathematical probability, based on my experience in the past, my "baggage," so to speak that I will not want to light a match and risk getting burned again.

Yet this probability is only that, and there is something inside me, the "I" part of me, that makes choices not just based on past experience, but on where I want to go with my life.  And so, while our past experiences "color" our choices, there are other factors involved in making decisions, that allow us to overcome the effect that our past experiences have.

Maybe, I love to cook, but I fear having been burned by a flame!  Can one calculate the likelihood that I would choose to become a chef?  Perhaps, because there are probabilities to consider.  But then there is the "I" inside me who also decides based on something deeper.

So, yeah Spooks, I do think that our "will" isn't free of the effect of our experiences, but it is still not predetermined.  Those past experiences only change probabilities of outcomes, but ultimately, there is a soul who presses the "yes" or "no" button about what we are going to do.

Matthew

Reply @ Vee

You said how with time "now" is what's important and I do agree but it's interesting to consider how Humans are one of the few forms of life capable of understanding not just "now" but three facets of time:

1. What was.
2. What is.
3. What will be.

Furthermore, could there be some other unknown, non-understood facet of time? Or perhaps our own perception of these facets could in fact be an incorrect illusion?

Regardless.....

This knowledge is a double edged sword as it is both a blessing and a curse. Humans have the benefit of truly knowing and planning life with some degree of accuracy for how much time we have. However, we also have the burden that time is always ticking away, working against us.

I think it is safe to assume scientifically that the majority of humans on Earth only begin to  understand (1. "what was") when language is comprehended. At this point the biological human brain begins to retain information. Some people say that children can remember past lives, but, since it is almost impossible to prove that this information was not fed to the child, I cannot trust such information. Furthermore, such assumption that children remember past lives most likely only exists in a minuscule fraction of children. The only way to verify this information as being factual is to perhaps raise test tube children in a fully enclosed, controlled, laboratory environment under 100% constant video and audio surveillance.

(Obviously humans rights and the general public will frown upon such a test, therefore I suggest the statement that past lives will never be scientifically proven to any trustworthy amount.)

2."What is" well, duh, I mean, I could blab on about what we experience in consciousness and even present theories and conjecture that perhaps what we perceive as consciousness is in fact an illusion or a small fraction of reality. But who knows? ::Shrugs shoulder:: This is pseudoscience and most likely unprovable from current day to the end of the world.

3. "What will be"
Oh boy, this is the one. This is the grand daddy of them all. You will die. I will die. This is what happens. If you are cremated, ashes will remain. If you are placed in a box, well, gross stuff will happen. Consciousness, memory, the active you as we perceive it, has scientifically ended.

But does it? That is the question. I assume that all of us are here because we "hope" "think" or "believe" there is more to death than ceasing to exist.

My personal standpoint on this is that death is most likely the end of consciousness, memory, and self existence. However, I do entertain the theories that the afterlife does exist, so I am here in the hopes that it does.

Finally, I end with the statement that the afterlife is not something that can be proven on a mass scale.

Proof of the afterlife must be received on an individualized basis. Some people require less proof than others. For me, a personal NDE would fail to prove the afterlife, unless said NDE contained pages of verifiable data. Let us say I have an NDE and when I wake up I instantly recall 5 complex forms of data which I can then check on in real life. Such as, while NDE, a friends dog is hit by a car, another friend dies from a heart attack, another friend dies in an airplane crash, and so on. If I could obtain roughly 5 forms of data such as this, I would than accept the NDE as proof of the afterlife. Simply seeing loved ones and Jesus / God would NOT BE SUFFICIENT data for me. I can DREAM something like that, I need something I can verify and it must be something I do not already know.

I have meditated but I can explain away all of the effects scientifically as being mental illusions and psychical effects. Meditation and higher levels of consciousness will require the same type of data I spoke of in the NDE's. Information, and A LOT OF IT, I do not know, must be obtained and later verified. Frankly, this is highly unlikely to happen with me. In fact, it is so unlikely the final test seems the most relevant:

Testing Psychics that claim to have abilities mediums/clairvoyants etc. I think this is the best bet for a scientific test, and I know it has been done....

But, Like I stated, proof needs to be on an individual basis. Therefore I need to test this possibility personally.

Phew! Sorry I got off on a tangent there!

Matthew,
actually, my point isn't predetermination at all. You are right, I see the "person"-aspect is not compatible with the "free will" aspect in the phrase "personal free will" or "free will of a person". But as well I see all other influences, may they come from wherever they may be; these, as well, are not compatible with freedom. To sum it up, cause and effect isn't compatible with freedom of will, and if one would have free will, it actually makes the idea of cause and effect impossible, as well as the idea of the person, as it would mean this will would be uncaused.

When you consider that there is the "I" which makes personal free will possible, I see these consequences:
Whether the I has a will or these two are one is not important in this regard. We come into the same calamities as we are in when we talk of a "person" instead of "the I". This will can only be free if this I is free, and this requires that this "I" won't be anything like a person, but an entity which has absolutely no properties, no experiences, memories etc. because only then it's will can be called free, as otherwise it would be again dependant on it's properties; this will would appear as chaotic, and we had a will which is uncaused, without reason. Everyone who lives within space and time will admit that this isn't so.

It is not that I want to spread a metaphysical opinion, it is just that to me it appears like someone is saying "1+1=3" and I see clearly that this isn't the case. The more I think about the conventional "truths" which comes in form of phrases, the more I see that these "truths" are not substantial, even contradictive sometimes. We cannot rely on language when we want to find the ultimate reality. But especially for this reason I think it is important to think about these phrases we use so often, if they make sense at all, and if not, to drop them.

Spooky

I believe Doc's example is a good one.

I believe it is a matter of our souls learning what possibilities exist, and then choosing the possibilities that are most fulfilling and beneficial not only for ourselves, but also for others.

I figure a soul will believe and feel that the needs of others are important once it learns the importance and value of loving others.

I'll say there isn't freewill to the extent that there isn't something better than love. If you want to have the best existence possible, there is no choice but to choose love. I'm not complaining.

I figure there isn't anything wrong with being souls who acquire knowledge until the most fulfilling existence possible is found.

Here's an example of free will at work (with "work" having a double meaning).

There is man at work who is being difficult. The egotistical part of myself wanted to be confrontational. Fortunately, the part of me that knows better decided to have love and respect for his soul and to allow him to have the chance to learn to be easier to work with. I figure if he knew better he would act better.

Because my soul has learned to consider the needs of others, I was able to respond as above, rather than being forced to act according to my egotistical self.

When I responded as I did, I did not feel as if I was choosing one form of psychological conditioning over another. Rather, I opted for an approach that considered all of the factors involved. On the other hand, the thought patterns of the negative approach "didn't" consider all of the factors. If I would've listened to them, I would not had been able to tune into my soul at a level that connects to divine universal knowledge that isn't limited by cause and effect in the way that egotistical thinking is.

It's a process, we need to learn to listen to the wisdom, love and freedom of our soul, rather than limited psychological conditioning. I believe we will have more success doing so when we try to find out how much freedome we have, rather than seeing ourselves as bound by destiny.

Perhaps some of us are destined to obtain certain goals, but this doesn't mean we lack freedom. Rather, it means we are free to obtain our goals. :)

Yes, Recoverer, this is a good approach to people and life. But you said it yourself, you (or your soul) has learnt to act this way, it's a process. And that's what I'm saying, too, the will of a person depends on what this person consists of, what this person has learnt, this person's history. This implies therefore, the will of this person isn't free, but bound to this very person,  it's experiences, insights etc... . Therefore, the will isn't free. It's within time, within cause and effect. I'm sorry but, you said it yourself. Let's just throw away this "personal free will"-phrase and I'd agree to what you've said.

Spooky

Let me put it this way Spooky.

I don't feel judgmental towards people who don't know the value of living according to love and instead live in a negative way, because I figure once they understand the difference, they'll choose a loved-based way.

Our souls tend to need time before they are mature enough to have the freedom to choose a positive way.

As far as I'm concerned, it's pretty much etched in stone that living according to love is better than living according to hate. I'm glad it's this way because I wouldn't want hate to ever be a favorable choice.



spooky2 wrote on Mar 17^th, 2011 at 7:16pm:

Yes, Recoverer, this is a good approach to people and life. But you said it yourself, you (or your soul) has learnt to act this way, it's a process. And that's what I'm saying, too, the will of a person depends on what this person consists of, what this person has learnt, this person's history. This implies therefore, the will of this person isn't free, but bound to this very person,  it's experiences, insights etc... . Therefore, the will isn't free. It's within time, within cause and effect. I'm sorry but, you said it yourself. Let's just throw away this "personal free will"-phrase and I'd agree to what you've said. Spooky

Spooky, you say "let's throw away this "personal free-will" phrase", but it seems you're the only one who's using it ;).

Anyway, saying that we have free will doesn't mean that it's not influenced by ANYTHING, as in 100% free (what would that even mean?). It means that amidst these influences there is a "me" who chooses, basing my choice on various emotions, thoughts, knowledge, intuition, history, etc. Some choices are less conscious than others, some are just reflexes, but in general we make many choices every day.

I think the idea that free will is impossible comes from observing the material universe of cause-and-effect, and, assuming thay only matter exists, everything is 100% cause-and-effect. But the trouble here seems to be the very simple fact that we experience CHOICE (with varying degrees of freedom in it) all the time. And saying that it's an illusion doesn't really make the necessity to make genuine choices go away.

It seems to me that if there exists free will (which only means we can make conscious and genuine choices, not that they're 100% free of any outside influence), the source of that must can not be material, for all that is material is subject to totally predictable (with sufficient knowledge) system of cause-and-effect.

Thank you :).

Hi Lauris,

I might be the only one who uses this exact phrase, but only because I like to precise on that. I think it's necessary to be precise here, as otherwise it just won't get us anywhere.

Yes, we can make the approach to split off personal decisions into a part which is preconditioned and one which is free. But then, when we focus on what the free part is, and how it works, the problem remains the same.

To make choices doesn't imply at all that these choices are made freely. It seems more the contrary: "Making choices", as it is used in a common sense, seems to imply to think about what to chose, and therefore to make use of what we've experienced and learnt in the past; and even intuition and subconscious processes are something which depend on past experiences, and/or influences from other sources; if not, we would make choices without reason, without a cause; and this then can't be called "personal" choices, as this very type of choices (without reason, without cause) won't got together with the concept of "person"; it would far more resemble randomness and chaos.

Of course, the material system of cause and effect, time and space in the end might just be one of many existing systems. But in other systems, where cause&effect, time and space don't exist, "free will" won't have any meaning. So, no matter how I turn it, it just doesn't make sense- to me anyway.

Thanks for reading (the few who still follow this  ;) ),
Spooky

   I can see how the term "freewill" is a bit of a misnomer from a few different perspectives.  I also understand that past conditioning often influences our choices to some or a large extent.

  But i think people can learn to change that conditioning to a large extent if there is enough desire to do so, and degree of openness to "higher forces". 

  I think attunement to Source and PUUL is a bit of a "wild card" in all this.  I think such attunement can help a person to transform limited aspects of self which in turn can influence the kind of choosing one does. 

I had a very powerful and vivid dream awhile back when i was doing a lot of intensive, consistent meditation--particularly i was doing the In home Gateway set a lot (the one with focus 21).  It's not a dream i talk openly much about because of the nature of same, but it's the only thing i can relate to this issue. 

  In the dream I was standing in a circle with other people or beings and we were all holding hands in a prayerful, meditative type way.  I somehow intuitively became aware that I should step into the center of the circle. 

  I knew as i was stepping into the middle of the circle that i was supposed to become a channel of the Christ Spirit or of the Christ Consciousness within.  Actually somehow felt like both at the same time oddly, like it was both an inner and outer thing simultaneously. 

  I felt this happen within the dream after stepping in the middle of the circle.  I can't really explain the feeling very well in words, but i felt like i was both me and yet not me at the same time.  I was still me, but a much more expanded, transcendent version of me.  I felt filled with power, life, and pure expanded awareness.  I felt such a connectedness, but i still had an awareness of an individualized sense of self. 

   So i imagine that if such attunement is possible within an in-physical life, it can really change how one makes choices--particularly being free of past conditioning, habits, etc. 

But, then again, it's not truly free either because then your will, desire, and choices align to the Creative forces.  One becomes a pure vessel of that creative energy and consciousness.  At this point in the game, you realize your greatest joy lies in channeling this purely creative-constructive, loving energy and consciousness and why would you choose or do anything other than that?