This is a topic that had to come out in its own thread, and I may just be the right guy to put it out there, and then put the whole thing to rest.  Often in discussions on this forum, we hear criticisms of retrievals and other mystical experences referred to as bogus daydreams or the imaginings of a New Age quackadoodle (Don tends to alternate between the word "wackadoodle" and "quackadoodle").  There are erudite discussions citing alleged verifications and "proof" of firsthand mystical experiences.  If what one person says doesn't pass the sniff test - it is dismissed by another as a lucid dream or self delusion.  When some contributors, like Dave-MBS, or Mairlyn bring up their own experiences with either past live regression or past lives, they are at times unfairly dismissed altogether.

Meanwhile, the majority of open minded people on this forum listen to each other, read the posts, throw in their own comments, and share their experiences.  Some have their own bend.....the Chumleys with their negative spin on immortality or the Darths with their anti-religious zeal.  But at least there is a sharing of ideas - a resonance of open minds tossing things out there to be taken as they will.  Over time, many of us take concepts, and when they ring true to us again and again, we decide to accept them into our thinking.  Certain terms such as "like attracts like" to describe the afterlife and how people move after death, or "as above, so below," to describe how certain fundamental laws of the universe likely apply in the afterlife as well.  Other concepts such as Swedenborg's dictum that chritian spirituality is about love of God and love of one's fellow man resonate with Bruce Moen's finding that we are here to learn to express pure unconditional love.  

As the ideas are bandied back and forth, our consciousness expands and grows.  Some call the incorporation of various concepts from christianity, buddhism, zen, taoism, etc. "New Age thought."  Don has called it a "ghetto mentality," and doesn't realize how many of us he insults by doing so.  The main criticism levied against this New Age thought is that in it, everyone's point of view may be correct - as such, anyone's experience, be it a retrieval, lucid dream, or partnered exploration, is taken at face value as being a true experience.  One senior member here said at one point that she was a reincarnation of St. Peter.  A critic scoffed at this notion - yet the same critic described in detail how a deceased relative (of a member of his parish) entered a car of a loved one in "materialized form" and drove a certain distance after death, before dissolving again into the afterlife.  Somehow, that was believeable, yet the St. Peter reincarnation was not.

If you go back through this forum far enough you will see much written about thought in the physical plane and the afterlife.  Many sources have found that in areas like focus 27 or the heavens - thought is immediately translated into reality.  Swedenborg described this centuries before Monroe and Moen.  In the "real world," the translation of thought and belief into reality is less direct, but just as real - and this has been the topic of a number of good threads on Bruce's forum.  

We also see that in the afterlife there are belief system territories, where individuals who adhere to rigorous religious doctrine find their own heavens, until something comes by that shakes their rigid belief structure enoguh that they realize there is more to consciousness.  At that point, we are told, they move on to different focus levels (heavens, or planes).  

So what is the difference between a New Age Wackadoodle, and a conservative fact driven explorer of spirituality?  The answer, my friends is that of belief systems.  The fact driven explorer wants everything proven, referenced and verifable.  This is his/her belief system.  If it is not supported by documentation and hard evidence, it is imaginary.  For the New Age explorer, it is not the written documentation that is sought in exploring spirituality - it is the direct experience itself!  It is the direct contact with the divine, the direct exploration that provides verification and spiritual growth.  Is it possible, that the New Ager will be more prone to error and daydreaming?  Of course - but the open mindedness is bound to let thought develop into reality (as it is want to do).

Daydreaming is part of the imagination method that Bruce teaches both to make contact with the deceased and to explore.  The trick is to start off with an open mind, and allow things to unfold without forcing the process of imagination beyond a certain point.  Then, when verifiable facts come out of the experience, it is clear that the ability to open one's mind and heart to imagination was not mere fakery, but an essential part of the mystical experience.

I have been raised in the United States to believe in and respect logic, documentation and reason.  Most of my medical practice is based upon case control studies showing what is the best way to treat people.  Yet the spiritual side of medicine - the intangibles of healing not easily explained by controlled data has become just as important and interesting to my practice as the textbooks of facts that I have studied.

If one could only choose to either be a New Age Wackadoodle, or a fact and documentation driven explorer, I suppose that I would have to be counted among the "Wack pack," if it were just one or the other.  I still am striving to combine both, however, true spirituality can only be assesed from the direct experience.  If I only count on written documentation, I am using logic to adopt a belief system of someone else rather than try to explore with my own open mind.  Until we merge with the divine, we all go from one belief system to another - like trying on new clothes.  The least restricted belief system, the better for spiritual growth.

I will be happy to debate anyone on the virtues behind what is commonly termed New Age thought - I am hopeful, but doubtful that this thread may put an end to the belittling and demeaning remarks I have seen out of one corner of the forum.  But we'll see.

Matthew

Quote:


So then a little question, that comes to my mind from time to time, is the direct experience really more valuable than facts? One could argue that the approach, driven by experience, could be self betrayal, because there are much things that one can imagine and hold on to, even if they are simply not true. It lacks objectivity. It lacks a certain principle, that appeals to everyone, a law, that everyone is involved with.
It seems more of a dream, that is that easy to shift from here to there and back, and mostly bringing back with you, that what you asked for before going on a journey.
Therefore it is so easy to refuse.
Only because I believe, that means not that it really is like that. And that is the general problem, to verify, if that, we are searching for, really exists, or if it is just to comfort our fears. Even if it sounds morbid, some day everyone will get the correct answers to the big question of if there is an afterlife or not. Here we can only assume, from what we learned or experienced (what is for sure imperfect, to fully understand  our/the universes' origin and where we/it will "go".
Another issues are the impressions one gets from the place he seems to go after passing out. NDE e.g., there is one thing that is the same in every of these experiences, the tunnel and the light, but the visions of heaven, or how it looks are that far away from being the same, that one could really argue, if it is just imaginary, I assume that "heaven" must be the same for everyone, just like it is on earth, we share the same planet, it is not a mix of different realities crashing together. There might be differences in thinking, but it is the same place.
There is obviously also much emotion involved, always (in the eye of what we learned about what serious evidence is) leaves room for suspicion.
Might be that the feeling when entering the afterlife via oob/nde/ap is the same, but to the travelers disadvantage, feelings are not measurable, or listed, only the words that try to express what the traveler has experienced, but this is also arguable.

That is at least a few of the doubts I have concerning what you said, no offense to be taken, only the doubts of one, who has never reached what you already did (have to add that I received Voyage Beyond Doubt and Voyages Into The Unknown today, it may help to get rid of ONLY thinking after facts).

Yours sincerely,

pulsar

There will alwas be people  that come to boards like this one because of the desperate need to have their egos pumped up and their need to control other souls. Some closed minded people who can not except realities other than there own religious fundamentalism will revert to the name calling and demand that only their beliefs are correct. Some of these people are even start their own churchs or cults and can be some of the most dangerous people on the planet. For example Jim Jones. The message was all about God but the end result was all about his ego and the necessity to die for him and his twisted beliefs. There easier to spot if you look closely... They start their own churchs, have very fundamentalist beliefs...say that they can heal a lot of times...only their way of believing is the right way...everyone else is wrong, stupid or inferior to them and what they belief in. Etc etc. Their beliefs will bring You closer to God. Sound like someone you know here? Well guess what, he's/she's most likely here and you might want to consider keeping your kids locked up. Was most likely kicked out of his/her church for inappropriate behavior but has never seen himself/herself as wrong. Most likely was a bully growing up. Probably has a church or prayer group. or both, going on right now. I will bet can't see these thing as even being related to him/her. Dangerous, dangerous, dangerous. I've seen one here and he knows that I know just what he's all about. He's collecting souls for his belief system territory so that he won't be alone. I hope he enjoys his own hell someday without trapping to many. I will be there to help get them out and to move on.
PS: I like my life in the Ghetto. A lot of really nice people live/visit here.  
Joe        

I have mixed feelings about this.  I'm with Don in that I don't like it when sources of information, wherever they come from, deny the life of Jesus and his crucifixion. Some of them are intentionally deceptive, some are irresponsible.

On the other hand, I believe there are a lot good hearted, well meaning people who visit this board. I'm certain that God, Christ, the divine powers that be, love them very much.  I don't believe you get people to change their ways by being judgmental towards them. If you seriously want to help somebody, the way to begin is to love them as much as you can. Once you do this, you'll see how wonderful they are, even if they don't share your viewpoints, and you won't feel the need to demonize them.  If satan does in fact exist (???),  when we demonize others because we're afraid they're being influenced by him and his supposed demons, we accomplish what he has in mind, rather than what God and Christ have in mind. They want us to love everybody. Jesus was pretty big on telling people to not throw stones.

Whatever spiritual truth is all about, in the end, as long as we live according to love, each of us will find what divine truth is in our own time.  Certainly the amount of love we have in our hearts is more important than what we believe.  Fear and a judgmental attitude prevent us from living according to love.  Whatever dark spirits exist, they can't harm us if we choose to live according to love and goodness.

P.S. to Don. I love your Biblical knowledge and devotion to God and Christ, so I hope you stay around.

Albert (not Don Dave )

It is possible that critics simply cause more solidarity to arise here. No one is trying to "prove" anything by putting their experiences on the forum. They are simply reporting their experiences, and that is perfectly appropriate.

The experience is the message, to my point of view, and everyone here has the same right and opportunity to report whatever they choose.

Therefore, I am unconcerned about such criticism. Some critics choose to berate and shame people, not only in vague and derogatory language, but also with harsh words toward individuals. This is nothing new, unique, or really very interesting at all.

We can find this sort of thing everywhere if we allow it to divert our attention from our own paths. Not that it is wrong to be diverted. But it is our choice whether to allow our own selves to be diverted in such a manner.

I am interested in what makes people happy. For me, it is this present moment, inclusive of all that it contains.

Therefore, I love critics, when they complain, and when they don't. They are really reaching for the sublime in their own way. I suppose we can applaud their honesty; however, from my own personal experience, I know that even when we think we are being honest, that is not always the case.

love, blink

Hi Matthew-
I tend to tke the "everybody is right" attitude, but I also realize that the realm within which they are right might be limited.  Still, when I get a lot of roughly similar reports from serious literature (not the popular kind that is about "he said that she said" or the parrotting of cliches ) by serious authors, such as Swedenborg and Tibetan writings, and the comparisons with the Judeo-Christian Bible, and the mystical writings of the Sufis, then I tend to view that as a moderately good guide toward truth.

My approach is to try to describe things in terms of math, lambda calculus, quantum effects, thermodynamics and so on. I can generally describe the surrounding limits within which reality must lie (for example, as I was telling someone else recently,  reality is surrounded by emptiness and exists between the "ultimate beginning" and the "ultimate end") but this is little better than the more popular mythic expressions of all major religious groups.  So I doubtless qualify for at least one Quack by virtue of saying this. My history started with agnosia, and then Christian beliefs which eventualy led me to Hindu philosophy and then Buddhism  - not in violation of any of the prior tenets, but rather as a mens of refining them. I tend to find some truth in all of these, but nobody seems to have a monopoly on it yet.

I do get the impression that we can make a fair estimation of what is true and not by paying attention to those aspects of belief that are self-supporting, and by eliminating those that are clearly self-negating - and then maybe taking the rest with a grain of salt. In this respect I feel that participating on the Forum here has been valuable - even when it's dealing with a more negative focus - and that through it I personally have grown. That may have nothing to do with ultimate truth, but it seems to work for me. 
dave

Hi rondele I think thats a good idea and i am going to try that tonight and if anything is on my computer in the morning ,i will put it on here as i beleive that can happen.

Love and God bless      love juditha

Sincerely.....I mean it. Would we pose a question to "the universe" or how would we accomplish such a thing?

Are we still afraid to succeed? Would that affect the outcome?

How would we feel, collectively and individually, if we were successful, together, and attracted a great deal of outside attention because of it?

Would we be ready for it? Would we be able to handle it? Would we inspire others?

Or would critics find a way to destroy what we achieved honestly, by discrediting it somehow?

I believe in the power of the group, and the availability of spirit to communicate to each of us individually, and collectively. What is this group willing to do to achieve its aims? Do we have a common aim?

love, blink