I respect Patty [Tempestinateapot] and regret her departure from this site.  I thought you might  be interested in this repost of a segment of my debate with her on another site.  

Tempest, you claim, “The almost unanimous conclusion is that people "see" either who or what they expect.”  This consensus reflects New Age bias and is refuted by more careful research such as the massive cross-cultural research of Osis and Haraldsson on 1,000 NDEs from the USA and India:  

“The phenomena within each culture OFTEN do not conform with religious afterlife beliefs.  The patients saw something new, unexpected, and contrary to their beliefs....Several basic Hindu ideas of an afterlife were never portrayed in the visions of Indian patients. The various Hindu `loci’ of an afterlife--Hindu Heaven--were NEVER mentioned.  Nor were reincarnation or dissolution into Brahma (“At the Hour of Death,” 192-93).”

[Tempest: ] “In cases of other religions, rarely does someone who has an NDE see Jesus.  They will see the leader of their own religion, i.e. Buddha, Krishna, etc.”
___________________________________________________
This New Age cliche does not stand up very well under close scrutiny.  I heard an NDE expert on “Coast to Coast” discuss research on over 3,000 Asian NDEs, including many Buddhists.   Not a single case reported seeing Siddartha Gautama (the Buddha) during the NDE.  Also, in Islamic NDEs, the BL (= Being of Light) is rarely identified as Muhammad.  True, there are a few minor exceptions that prove my point. P. W. Atwater points to a couple of Muslim children who claim to have seen Muhammad during their NDE.   I am unable to discover a single case of an adult Muslim who identified the BL as Muhammad.   Other NDE research may produce such examples.  But obviously, many alleged NDEs are full of hallucinations.  So it is the pattern of appearances of religious figures that is most relevant.  Even here, there are striking exceptions.  In another post, I have recounted the story af a Christian-hating Muslim who was converted to Christianity by his unexpected encounter with Christ during an NDE.  
 
[Tempest:] “The point of all that is that in all of my readings, the general consensus is that while people may "believe" they are seeing Jesus, they are actually seeing a "being of light".
_____________________________________________________________
You forget that in Bruce Moen’s case, it is his astral guide who reports on the real Jesus’ role in supporting retrievals.   Why would a light being want to deceive a discarnate worker in “the House of God” in Focus 27?   Monroe’s routine encounters with a Christ figure neatly fit the description of others (e. g. William Booth) to whom the BL’s identity as Jesus is made clear. Your comment begs the question and overlooks the menacing fact attested, among others,  by Swedenborg and channeling  research that spirit impersonation is a common malevalent phenomenon in astral contacts.  The BL may not disclose His identity to non-Christians, but I doubt a loving presence like the BL would tell a series of lies.  In any case, it begs the question to assume that an NDE BL is normally the same person for everybody.

NDE researchers like Ray Moody often recklessly claim that the BL does not identify itself, but is instead subject to a projected identity from the dying. This generalization is routinely refuted by NDEs and is already refuted by the case of George Ritchie (now a psychiatrist) that inspired Moody’s first book “Life After Life”  and, indeed, the whole modern NDE research movement.  In his forward to Ritchie’s book “Return from Tomorrow,” Moody celebrates this  book as “the chronicle of one of the three or four most fantastic and well-documented `dying’ esperiences known to me.”  In the presence of the BL, Ritchie recalls: “The words came from inside me, yet they had an authority my mere thoughts never had.   `You are in the presence of the Son of God.’ (49).”  Any question about whether Ritchie projects this identity onto the BL is removed when he complains, “Why hadn’t someone told me?”  The BL’s reply clearly implies that He is Jesus: “Idid tell you.  I told you by the life I
lived.  I told you by the death I died (55).”

Your generalization is also unwarranted for 3 other reasons:
(1) Communication from the BL is telepathic rather than the result of an auditory voice delivered through moving lips.  This fact alone makes the distinction between the identity projected by the BL and the patient’s projection of a comforting identity methodologically elusive.  Though your generalization no doubt applies to many cases, it also seriously begs the question.

(2)  This ambiguity infuses non-Christian identifications of the BL as Jesus with particular relevance.   Your generalization ignores the finding I reported of the NDE researcher on “Coast to Coast.”   To repeat, he found that Jesus often identifies himself to atheists, who typically respond with a confession like “But I don’t even believe in you,”  to which Jesus typically replies, “But I DO believe in you.”     .  

(3) Your generalization is often refuted by the most in depth NDEs. which last long enough for an extensive interchange in which the BL makes its identity as Jesus crystal clear.  Dr. Ritchie’s NDE can be supplemented by several examples, but I will confine myself to 2 more.  (a) Atheist Howard Storm immediately picks up the BL’s identify as Christ: “He was King of Kings, Lord of lords, Christ Jesus he Saviior (“My Descent into Death,” 26).”  This identification is confirmed by Storm’s other communications in the presence of the BL: e. g. “In our progression toward God, we will meet the Divine Activity of God, who is known to Christians as Jesus Christ.  People who are not Christians must know the Christ as well (55).”  “No one will go to God except through the Atonement of Christ, the love of Christ, and the way of Christ (67).”  

(b) During her NDE, Betty Eadie realizes: “There was no question who he [the BL] was. I knew he was my Savior and friend and God.  He was Jesus Christ...I knew I had known him from the beginning, from long before my earth life, because my spirit remembered him (42).”  Any ambiguity in this identication is soon removed: “I was told the he [Jesus] is the door through which we will all return.  Whether we learn of Jesus Christ here or while in the spirit, we must eventually accept him and surrender to his love (85).”

These 2 NDEs independently illustrate Jesus’ role in postmortem retrievals and neither requires a formal profession of faith in Christ before death.  This mutual support is particularly impressive because few Christians are aware of the basis for this postmortem access to Jesus in biblical and early Christian tradition, which I have provided in this thread.  Jesus in effect informs Storm that He communicates to people from non-Christian cultures under different symbols and mythologies.  Tellingly, when Storm asks, “`Which is the best religion?’...They answered, `The religion that brings you closest to God (73).’”   That said, Swedenborg’s astral exploration independently confirms the NDE insights of Eadie and Storm that postrmortem instruction on Jesus’ redemptive role is a standard part of the transition of rightous non-Christians to the heavenly realms (HH #512).  In a murky and methodolgically sloppy field like NDE research, independent confirmation of unpredictable NDE insights is one the two best forms of evidence available.

Of course, the second valuable form of evidence is verification.  Betty Eadie meets her unborn adopted daughter during her NDE.   More impressively, angels (perhaps discarnate saints) save Storm from almost certain death after his NDE and a discarnate Thomas Merton hands both Storm and an independent eyewitness a book of his poetry at the Gethsemane monastery.  And no one has more impressively verified astral credentials than Swedenborg.  

Don

Matthew,
\
Please reread my thread and notice that your reply ignores my main points.

[Matt:] "I have remarked on this forum how P.M.H. Atwater has quoted children as seeing Mohammed or Buddha in NDEs, describing their appearance and drawing pictures."  
________

Only the overall patterns need be taken seriously.   Many alleged NDEs in fact involve mere hallucinations.   Drs. Osis and Haraldsson have demonstrated this in detail.  Maurice Rawlings too has amassed a huge collections of NDEs.  But he argues that 50% of these are hellish and that negative NDEs are less likely to be reported because they are embarrassing to the patient.   As a cardiologist, Rawlings has the advantage of hearing about the hellish NDEs as they develop.  Still, other NDE researchers report fewer hellish NDEs and Rawlings' claim cannot be accepted apart from replication by other researchers.  The same is true of Atwater, whose research is not corroborated by other researchers.  In any case, I challenge you to post a Muslim adult NDE in which the BL is not merely identified as Muhammad, but even identifies itself as Muhammad.  In the most developed NDEs, the BL often identifies itself as Jesus.  For that matter, just post a Muslim adult NDE in which the patient idnentifies the BL as Muhammad.

[Matt: ] "One of the best rational tests for your theory of the ubiquitous role of Jesus in NDEs would be...to document NDEs where Jesus met someone from a culture who had never heard of him and had no real familiarity with christianity or the teachings of Jesus."
__________________

On the contrary, I am arguing that Christ would communicate with people who have never heard of Jesus either in terms of their own symbols and mythologies or by abstaining from any self-identifciation.      

[Matt:] "You are making it an exclusive heaven then."  
______________________________________
This comment is an irresponsible misreading of what my thread alleged.
I do not argue for a religiously exclusive heaven.

[Matt:] "The title of this thread, "New Age misconceptions about NDEs" implies that beliefs in other encounters with light beings who are not JC  are "hallucinations."
___________________

On the contrary, I argue against the assumption that the BL  is the same "person" in each NDE.   For example, Christ identifications are usually reported as brighter than the sun.   But in other cases, the BL is not described as particularly bright.  Different "persons" with differing statures might show up, depending on the background and spiritual level of progress of the newly deceased.

Don

Don, what exactly is the purpose of your challange to show adult muslims or buddhists having NDEs seeing other light figures, other than Christ?  It sounds as if you doubt that these NDEs occur at all.  The inference then, would be that the being of light who meets people in NDEs is almost always Jesus, and that NDEs support the view of christianity's truth about God and the universe.  (Stop me if you disagree with these suppositions).

If you ask any person on this site to show you examples of specific NDEs, unless they are involved in research, they would be unable to comply.  You know this.  You are somewhat dismissive of Dr. Atwater despite the fact that her database is more than four times the number you cited in your far east study.  (By the way, her website states she is reading emails, and as such, I have taken the liberty to emaill her about our current debate - so be careful what you wish for, Don). 

Moses, revered as he is as a prophet and law giver, was not seen to be God.  So why should he greet Jews when they pass over?  Mohammed was a holy man, but never felt to be God incarnate.  If a muslim has a NDE, while he/she may see Mohammed, there would be less of a reason to identify the figure of light with Mohammed (since Mohammed never was thought to be God).  The same is true for the Buddha. Despite this, we are told that these figures are encountered in NDEs.

Jesus was considered to be God incarnate, and indivisible from God, even when manifest as a man.  Therefore does it not make sense that he may be identified more frequently by Christians and Muslims?  Don't forget that Islam accepts Christ's teachings as a representation of God, though they may not see him as God incarnate.  There are 1-2 billion Christians on the planet and more than two billion Muslims by report.  All revere Christ in their holy books.  Is it any wonder that as a personal manifestation of God, people of these faiths encounter Jesus in NDEs?

I am open to the possibilities, but I think you make judgements based on incomplete information.  Atwater and Moody's documented data encompass close to 8000 NDEs, dwarfing any other database on record.  You have not reviewed their cases, and are not therefore equipped to make sweeping generalizations about who is or is not encountered in different cultures. 

My challange to you stands; that is show me one, just one "noble savage," who is not schooled in Knowledge of JC (muslims are), who has a NDE and brings back an encounter with JC or the son of God (or any other suitable appellation from historical sources).  Failure to do so will support the very New Age ideas that you love to call "misconceptions."

Matthew

Caryn,

While I am a great believer in faith in God, and respect the teachings of Jesus, I do not believe that in the old testament we share there is a veil over the eyes of Jews when we read it (which can only be lifted by being a christian)  You and I both believe in the God of Abraham; I also believe in a God of love and a universe of love. 

On a public forum one certainly can state one's religious views unless it impugns, maligns or calls into question the validity of another's views.  No one comes to this site to have the religious beliefs of another rammed down their throat as the "real truth."


Matthew

Don, when I read your post I felt the same things Matthew mentions.  Quite often you tell people to reread your posts implying that they are the ones misinterpreting what you’re saying when it seems to me that it is your responsibility to make yourself clear and understandable.  Ok… enough said.

I agree with what you are saying here:  “On the contrary, I argue against the assumption that the BL is the same "person" in each NDE.   For example, Christ identifications are usually reported as brighter than the sun.   But in other cases, the BL is not described as particularly bright.  Different "persons" with differing statures might show up, depending on the background and spiritual level of progress of the newly deceased.”

A while back you made some comments in regards to Swedenborg that inspired me to read HH.  Granted I’m only about halfway through it, but I must say that I am impressed.  The reason for this is that this material provides a lot verification of my own experiences.  I don’t propose to understand everything he discusses however, one thing he talks about is innocence and how in the innermost heaven the angels are naked, while in the outer heavens the angels are clothed.  He also speaks of how the interior of the angels is shown on their face.  This leads me to wonder if any specifics regarding this are seen in those who have encountered beings in NDE. 

I have not studied NDE to any great length and I’m wondering if you have come across any descriptions such as Swedenborg describes.  Also, could you explain more of your view of what new age bias is, including your opinion of where you agree and/or disagree?

Love, Kathy

I'm going to take a third posture in this discussion - Given my outlook, rather predictably I wonder whether we are dealing with only one level of reality here, but are mistaking it for two or more, which means that we might be asking the wrong questions.

If we view reality as innately dualistic, where God is the Infinite Stranger,  then the various appearances of God will be at best confusing. If we assume that spirits are of the same dualistic sort, infinitely removed, or largely so, then we still are going to be hard put to understand who or what is manifesting to us because we and they are of different sorts. In that case, the arguments can rage on forever, but without resolution. Further, given no  common organizational principle, all their manifestations will be more or less chaotic - unordered in our eyes, regardless of their ultimate (inaccessible) origin.

If we view reality as monistic, starting with God at one end, as Caryn emphasizes, and continuing into the material world at the other end where we live,  we are dealing with degrees of manifestation of the Single Nature which pervades all of us. (I personally like this idea best.) Then any reference to  any of the sages, prophets, avatars etc, is somewhere along a continuum between totaly God and totally human. Let's call it a "God-vector."

Some of the various avatars and such, Siddhartha and Mohammed are good example, have totally denied divinity, yet they have manifested it by their lives and lessage. Others, Nisargadatta Maharaj and Jesus are good examples, have accepted and acknowledged their divinity. Derpending on who you speak with, Buddhists might have thoughts of Siddhartha as a divine being or as a common person. So, by espousing monism, we have a long  range of both perceived and actual Godliness as a primary parameter, with offshoots of personal expression of this Godliness according to the individuals in specific (I'm reminded of Teilard de Chardin's "tree", where the root is God and the fresh leafy shoots are you and me, more or less.)

If proceed along the "God-vector" from everyday human diferences, we eventually see these differences vanish as everything turns into a singler God-locus, which is the point of origin of the "God-vector". 

Personally, I feel that as we approach the God end of the line, we encounter more beings of the sort that are identifiable with Jesus. This does not necessarily mean that they are specifically the same previously-human-but-now-absorbed-into-God Jesus. However, at the God end of the vector we do find the Christ into which we presuamably are asorbed.

A sidebar here - By Christ is meant one of the three aspects of God. There is the substantive and obdurately enduring aspect which we call "God the Father" because it is the essential nature from which all arises. There is the logical ature that ties together and makes rational and true the and in that sense, is the Mediator, which we usually call the "Holy Spirit". The third aspect of God is the projection of "beingness" into the mundane world which we call the "Christ". This role is adopted by avatars such as Jesus and by yogis, sinats, prophets etc who follow the same route of "carrying their cross" by progressively  abandoning the perks and pleasures of being human, and in their place accept a "here and now" definition at the pleasure of the whatever God tosses at them.

In this sense, everyone who manifests the Christ is a "Son of God". I think it was St Paul who put it when he met with some apostles,"I know ye all, all Sons of God."

Now we get into the question of whether all Sons of God are Jesus, at least in the figurative sense of being the personal name given to a state of oneness with God,  hence equally well known as one with the Christ. Or is Jesus the "one and only", to which no others are alike, in which case the Jesus to which we refer has retained human attributes by which he stands out and is identifiable,  To me, the discriminable and unique personification called Jesus must then mean Jesus-the-man, as opposed to the projected Christt, or Jesus-as-God.

I happen to be a Radical Monist, I suggest that all the saints and avatars of all religions of all planets and galaxies are identical to the Son of God, and that Jesus is one of that group. Thus, despite birth, creed, nation or whatever, all resolves into the same undifferentiated state at the God end of the vector, and into individual actors like us at the other end. (And, because I'm Very Radical, I suggest that the only difference between you and me and God is a matter ofawareness and acceptance. As a simple supporting argument, what else could we say about an avatar saving the arachnoid populace of Star Beta-4 of the M47 galaxy? From that, the rest follows.)

This argues with Matthew's idea that Moses was not a "Son of God", because it places him along the God-vector at the God end, or very close to it. As Bishop Berkeley argued, there has to be contact for there to be intereaction. I also place Mohammed there (despite the evident misunderstanding that led to mullah's ruling by Sharia and Hadith instead of rational monotheism). And, I place everyone else who has a divine revelation at the same general end of the God-vector.

Given all this preliminary BS, I suggest that what we are involved in, as we try to make sense of the various apparitions, is both a degree of Oneness plus a degree of Humanness, extreme states of the God-vector. The result would seem to be a combination of these qualities assembled in the manner best suited to the individual having the experience, which means that (1) we are going to have to know a lot  more about their personal psychology to understand precisely who and what each has encountered.  After removal of the specific individuals that were claimed, we are left with a common experience that appears to be transcendental, to bring access to higher spiritual values, and to lead to good results for the vast majority.  (2) The names given to the various apparitions are very likely those that seem tobest fit the circumstances for the individual. I suggest that these arise from inability to express the experiences in a better manner. At the same time, the degree to which the experiences seem to bring the person closer to God will probably be reflected in the "Godliness" of the apparition, and in turn, will be a reflection of their proper spiritual maturity.

Aside from these rather general concepts, we may be discussing something mor like what color clothing was the avater wearing at the time of manifestation, and whether this has a bearing on the weather in the spirit world.

You guys bth have keen minds - this is fun!
PUL
d

My error - At risk of being banal, maybe Moses doesn't happen to have a good  publicist in modern society- I hear a lot more about modern rabbis and their wisdom.
dave

Dave:

It is interesting that you bring up Nisargadata Maharaj during an NDE disscussion. I have several of his books, used to be into him, and in more than one place he states that we experience duality only because pure consciousness occupies a body for a while. Once a person's body dies their consciousness merges with the one self. Or in other words, he doesn't believe in the World of spirit.  Therefore, he would probably think of NDEs as nothing but a hallucination. I've had too many experiences with the World of spirit to agree with his denial of it.  When he spoke in such a way it wasn't a matter of his speaking from a nondual "nothing is real" perspective.