my undying gratitude to Doc for contacting PM Atwater. I have read one of her books and would like to read more, she has a bunch of books to read. I really like that she has such balanced, left to right logic going on in her book. I do believe she knows what she is talking about and I highly reccommend her books to all seekers.
but thanks to Doc I now have 3 of her websites bookmarked! yay!
Doc, you amaze me for doing this for this board..I would never have thought to bring in an author like this.

Everything is perfectly clear to me now. I feel a great weight lift off my heart. I'm rather emotional about this board and I agree with her that when we, newbies or oldies but goodies here try to tell our experiences, we too are protective, so protective are we, that the least resistance to what we try to share can shut down communication entirely insofar as this field of consciousness exploration.
Have seen it happen over the years.

Now I feel we can express ourselves, and I came to this conclusion a while back, we can be self expressive and share as we wish according to our perceptions, and we can welcome each other in that spirit.
again, thanks Doc with all my heart

Regarding what Atwater wrote, I don't get the feeling that somebody like Howard Storm was simply experiencing his interpretation of the light. If you read his book he is very clear about meeting with Christ. I do believe it is important to understand that Christ is more than the body that visited the earth about 2,000 years ago. Regarding others, as I suggested before, I believe there are lots of beings of light.

[Atwater:] "All of my cases are confidential, as with other researchers, and this man knows that.  That is why he is making this particular type of challenge.  He knows you cannot answer."
_________________________

Atwater's comment exposes her as just another dogmatic New Ager who makes unwarranted and unkind assumptions, which in themselves call her work into question.   "This man knows that" [her NDEs are confidential]?  A c onvenient way to avoid crtical scrutiny.  I own several books that reproduce NDEs in the percipient's own words and naturally assumed that Atwater was also free to quote them.   NDEs can also be reported anonymously.

[Atwater:] "Most Christians will report being visited by Jesus, Buddhists by Buddha, and so forth. "
____________________

Notice carefully what Atwater does not claim.   She does not even allege a single example of the BL identifying itself as Buddha to an adult Buddhist or as Muhammad to an adult Muslim.  By contrast, the BL often clearly identifies itself as Christ to Christians, atheists, and, in my limited research, even to a dying Jew and Muslim. 

But do dying Buddhists project a Buddha identify on to the BL?   The NDE expert on "Coast to Coast" cited 3,000 Asian cases which Buddhists never projected this identication on to the BL.   So Atwater's claim here is of dubious value without specific examples and with no acknowledgement of how many Buddhist NDEs she has catalogued.   In any case, what is decisive is not what the dying Buddhist projects, but what the BL actually claims about its identity. 

[Atwater:] "Refer to "Beyond the Light" and the case of Jeanie Dicus.  She was a Jew yet she was visited by Jesus.  This so surprised her and confounded her that she promptly challenged Jesus, and continued to do so throughout her near-death experience, saying:  "I don't believe in you.  Why are you here?"  Of note, atheists report the same type of visitations as do religious folk.  In other words, you don't have to believe in anything to be surprised at what you find when you die or nearly die."
________________________

This Jewish case strikingly parallels my Muslim example of the Chrstiian-hating Ahmed's unexpected encounter with Jesus, his resulting conversion, and Christ's healing of his AIDs.  And as Iive noted, Osis and Haraldsson's study finds that what Hindus experience in their NDEs does not fit well with their religious preconceptions.

[Atwater:] "Where arguments arise amongst various peoples and groups is over the interpretation of that light and any form it may take, and how to regard it.  ...Muslims say it is fantasy; religious fundamentalists of any "stripe" say it is Satan (Lucifer)."
_____________________

Atwater's lack of success in interviewing Muslim NDE cases is offset by many such cases reported by other researchers.   And as I've reported, the host of near-death.com has found from his research that Muslims identify the BL as God (Allah) and not as Muhammad.  Can this be explained on the basis of cultural bias?  Hardly!   3 arguments weigh against such an inference:
   
(1) Even Atwater admits that people of one faith can be shocked by an unexpected encounter with a BL, who identifies itself as Christ! 
(2) Despite the fact, that most conservative Christians identify the BL as Satan, Fundamentalists who experience NDEs are routinely and convincingly assured by the BL that it is Christ Himself. 
(3) So the excuse that dying Muslims don't expect to be greeted by Huhammad just doesn't wash.   In NDEs even deceased loved ones often appear as luminous beings.

So far I feel totally vindicated in the theses I defend in this thread.  But the nore I research NDEs, the less impressed I am with its quality and scope.  As I've said, we need several massive studies of both Muslim and Buddhist NDEs that poses better questions.

Don

[Matt:] "Incidentally, why does it seem so telling to you that Muslim NDEs may describe the BL more as Allah, and not Mohammed?  Mohammed was a man, and their main prophet, and was, according to Dr. A. named in instances of NDE.  But if Allah was named mostly and not Mohammed- so what?"
___________________________________________________________

"Allah" is the Arabic equivalent of the biblical Hebrew term "El," which simply means "God."   Identification of the Being of Light (= BL) with "God" seems virtually universal, but the significance of this remains unclear.   Christians, for example, would often use the terms "God" and "Christ" interchangeably due to their doctrine of the Trinity.   Also, God and God's representatives Ie. g. angels) are often not clearly distinguished in Judaeo-Christian tradition. 

Your question just inspired a simple but stunning thought: I'm aware of several cases in which the BL identifies itself as Jesus, but I know of no NDE in which the BL directly identifies itself as "God."   This august identification truly does seem to be a projection from the patient.   I'd be interested if anyone here can come up with an example of the BL directly claiming to be "God."   I suspect that the BL generally mediates an experience of God's presence, regardless of whether it is technically just a divine representative.

I believe that Jesus often appears as the BL to both Christians and non-Christians alike.  Jesus' recently mentioned appearances ot to a Muslim, a Jew, and many atheists are just some examples.   Apparently, the earthly Jesus did not overtly claim to be the Messiah even to His closest followers until they discerned His Messianic identity spiritually.   I see no raason why Jesus should reverse this practice in His NDE role as the BL.    Consider the case of loving  people of integrity who, for whatever reason, never believed in the divinity of Christ.   It might be a harsh shock to suddenly be confronted with their error.   

I am partcularly impressed by independent verification of astral insights.   Swedenborg and the NDEs of people like Betty Eadie and atheist Howard Storm independently confirm that Christ's majesty and atoning ministry will eventually be confirmed to righteous non-Christian souls in a postmortem school.  But they are only lovingly enlightened when they have adjusted to the next life and are emotionally ready for this surprise.   This means neither that they are sent to a Christian heaven nor that they must abandon their earthly religion.   Jesus is a person, not a religion.

Besides Jesus, other light beings might greet the newly dead, depending on their background and level of growth towards PUL.  The circumstances under which Jesus shows up incognito to pagans cannot be settled on dogmatic grounds and must be determined through rigorous analysis of NDE case histories. 

I have often heard New Agers claim that the BL is identified as Jesus by Christians, as Muhammad by Muslims, as Buddah by Buddhists, etc.  My research suggests that this claim is factually incorrect, or at least, a great exaggeration.   You rightly press the question of what is at stake if I am correct.   The question of whether Muslims and Buddhists are heavenbound or hellbound cannot be expressed in sweeping generalizations.   As I have often documented on this site, the Bible teaches the possibility of salvation apart from formal profession of faith in Christ. 

The issue is the postmortem role of Muhammad and Siddartha Gautama (the Buddha).  For a variety of reasons, it is questionable whether the Buddha ever existed.  If he did not, then the genius of Buddhism is inherent in the many nameless Buddhist mentors from the early history of this movement.  Still, if Siddartha Gautama neve existed, he can't be expected to show up as the BL!   If he did exist, the philosophy oor mataphysics of Buddhism might preclude his acceptance of the BL role. 

Clearly, Muhammad existed, but from my study of his life and the Quran, I have concluded that he was a violent and temperamental prophet.  I can prove that the Quran's portrait of Jesus was ripped off from bogus Christian infancy Gospels composed from the late 2nd to the 5th centuries.   Modern scholarship is unanimous that these Infancy Gospels are historically worthless.   If Muhammad never identifies himself as the BL, I suspect this is because he is not worthy of this role in the same way that Jesus or perahps other "ascended masters" are who serve as the BL. 

But my more basic reply to your question is twofold.  (1) Jesus is clearly as major a player as any named figure we know in the postmortem transition.
(2) The BL might be more than one figure.  (3) It is wrong to claim that the BL does not identify itself, perhaps because it is simply our higher self.  The BL often itelepathically identifies itself as Jesus.  I simply don't know whether the BL also telepathically identifies itself as other discarnate beings, human or angelic.   I consider NDE research to be seriously flawed and in its infancy stage, despite the fact that it is also absolutely thrilling and inspiring.

Don

Albert,

The question of relative astral brightness is complicated by the possibility that, as we raise our vibration and ascend to higher heavenly realms, the brightness we perceive increases.   I have read NDEs in which members of the greeting party offer to tone down their brightness for the NDEr's comfort.  So relative brightness may not always signify spiritual stature.  But I do think it is an index of how "high" the astral explorer has ascended into the heavenly realms.  

Don

Yes, Matthew, I agree.  Here are just 3 questions that I wish future NDE research and astral exploration might answer.  I encourage readers to ask themselves which of the possible answers I speculatively list seem the most likely to be commonly true.

(1) Why do so many NDEers never encounter the Being of LIght [= BL]? 
a. They were never clinically dead.
b. They were not clinically dead long enough to encounter the BL.
c. But  why do some who have a prolonged in depth NDE not encounter the
    BL?    The BL normally supervises their past life review and many may not
   be ready to handle this yet. 

(2) But what might it mean that many souls are not yet ready for an encounter
     with the BL and the accompanying past life review?
a. They may be too close-minded or frankly evil to be open to self-growth
    through this past life review.
b. Or they may be decent people with poor self-esteem who can't yet handle an
    in depth confrontation with the negative impact of many of their choices. 
c. They may be so intellectually or emotionally limited that they simply lack the
    introspective skills needed to make a past life review effective and profitable.

(3) Family members often help shape an NDE greeting party.  But often key
     family members are inexplicably absent (e. g. a deceased parent, sibling, or
     spouse).  What are the most common reasons for such absenteeism?
a. The missing family members are trapped in Hell and may not be able to
    make the reunion either because they don't know about it or because they
    cannot escape their hellish soap operas to greet their family members.
b. OBE exploration has revealed that souls often lose their earth memories.
    Perhaps, the loved ones missing from the NDE reunion are in a Heaven, but
    simply don't recall their newly arrived loved ones.   If so, one wonders about
    the circumstances under which their earth memories are restored.
c. Perhaps the missing family members simply have a prior astral engagement
   that forces them to miss the NDE reunion.
d. Perhaps, the missing family members often grow emotionally aloof from their
   earthly relatives after death and therefore lack the bond that might attract
   them to this NDE reunion.  Or perhaps, they never felt as close to their
   earthly relative as that relative imagined.

Don

Most often we describe humankind’s fear of death as a fear of the unknown, however many times I have thought this existential fear of death went deeper still.  So deep in fact that it was somehow solidified in reality.  If Novak is correct in soul (unconscious) and spirit (conscious) separating at death, then our belief in separation and our existential fear of death is implicitly justified.

Aside from bits and pieces from Novak’s site, his views on NDE are the only section I’ve had time to read thus far.  These views seem to shed a whole new light in which further research would be required although from what I have read Novak does seem to be able to provide plausible answers to many questions regarding NDE, ADC and memory loss.  In fact, whole belief systems may need to be re-evaluated including my own.  I’m just not sure at this point.

Even the idea of OBE and astral exploration would need to be re-evaluated in light of this.  For example do we leave our body or do we split our consciousness?  In one section he discusses retrievals and retrieving fragments of self.  Even reincarnation seems plausible in this theory.  I scanned the section on ghosts, poltergeists and hellish realms in which this theory seems to make a great deal of sense.

One thing that struck me right away is that this would certainly present a new view of reconciliation in Jesus’ death and resurrection.  I’m not familiar enough with the other world religions to know what if any implications this theory might include.

I’d love to hear others thoughts about this.

Love, Kathy

Kathy,

I had read Novak's theories before; Chumley/Brendan has a thread on it here - he rightly labeled it one of the most ghastly possibilities in the universe.  Intuitively, it does not feel right to me.  I think it is because intuitively I believe in a unity of all things, and Novak wants to create a division where none exists.  He is calling the unconscious another me, and saying that we are binary creatures.  He cites the split anatomical brain as proof of this; interestingly enough, the brain's function is grossly discernable, but many areas of thought, memory and motor control have accesory pathways, and people can understand and function with severe brain injuries.  Lashley and others actually developed a holographic model of brain function, and he burned various parts of a rat's brain after it had learned to use a maze.  To his surprise, the memory of the maze was not eraseable; rats who had learned the maze were able to traverse it more quickly even after Lashley had (unfortunately) fried most of their cerebral cortex. 

I see our subconscious as our connection to the universe.  It is completely passive, it is receptive to symbolism (dreams) and it is the area where our conscious intent makes its impression which then creates our physical world (thought creating reality). 

Novak's model does not account for the connection of our mind to change events/probabilities in the physical world; he merely divides us in two, and claims our subconscious is a separate consciousness.  Rubbish.  You and I have seen the effects of obtaining clarity through meditation and then impressing a thought onto our shared collective subconscious.  What happens?  Our intent manifests.  A prayer may be answered.  Thus, for me, the subconscious is a shared connection we all have to the universe and each other. 

Binary theory (Novak's) is deeply flawed because it assumes we are diseased as a race and it divides us, and instills fear of mindlessness in the post mortem world.  All experiences, be the NDEs, experiences during meditaiton, channelings, you name it, that have any merit do not support this idea. 

I think it is deeply flawed, and just plain wrong.

Matthew