In true scientific fashion, afterlife research should be approached with he initial assumption that it should be explained away as illusion if the evidence does not compel a more credulous conclusion.  This thread focuses on 10 basic assumptions that are usually not evidentially analyzed, but rather embraced or rejected through a doctrinaire Ghetto mentality.  I hope this thread can be discussed sequentially (1)- (10) for purposes of coherence.  I hope you will allow me to serve as moderator in the sense that I'll only shift the discussion to the next assumption when the current discussion seems to have run its course. So let's begin with a focussed discussion on Assumption #1.

1. The assumption that the Being of Light [BL] is the same entity for everyone—that if love radiates from the BL, the NDEr must be a loving or spiritually well developed person: (a) Some NDErs describe the the Being of Light [BL] and their Paradise [= park] as brighter than the sun.  For others, the BL and Paradise are not experienced as unusally bright.  Is this difference due to different BLs of varying eminence?  Or is it due to the spiritual development and perceptual skills of the NDEr? 
(b) Is it possible that ecstasy gets confused as PUL and that different Beings of Light radiate different emotive experiences?  Is the PUL designation often just jargon rooted in wishful thinking rather than actual experience?

2. The assumption that the NDEr's identification of the BL is always projected on the basis of expectations: In most NDEs, the BL  does not identify itself; rather NDErs project a comfortable identification onto it.  Yet in other cases, Jesus explicitly identifies Himself as the BL to Christians, atheists, and in one case a Muslim.  Yet Muslims never seem to see Muhammad;  rather, they identify the BL as Allah (their word for “God”).  Does the BL often lie or deceive in the name of love so as not to alarm the NDEr with an unknown or disturbing identity?

3. The assumption that Paradise (the Park) is generally the same plane (e. g.. Focus 27): Why not instead assume that each BST has a Park, a Reception Area, and Rehabilitation Center?  (a) Some NDEers experience Paradise as containing many colors unknown on earth; others experience no new colors.  (b) Some Christian NDErs experience the flowers and water (including waterfalls) as not only alive, but as producing musical harmonies.  The NDEr can experience these harmonies individually or collectively as one all-encompassing cosmic harmony.  One NDEr insists that these musical harmonies even surpassed reunions with loved ones as ultimately satisfying.  Should these differences be explained as different spirit levels? Or should they be explained as varying levels of spiritual development and perception skills focused on the same plane?  (c) ES learns that even evil people can begin their postmortem journey by exploring the beautiful Park region, before they are drawn down to lower planes through the gradual application of  the principle that like attracts like. 

4. The assumption that PUL is a basic force in the universe: Love is by nature reflexive in that its reality depends on being  other-directed.
How can PUL exist as an impersonal force?  Does it not assume a conscious or self-conscious Source that gives and receives love and thus presume the existence of a loving God?  One of the Monroe doctrines is this: “There is no good; there is no evil.  There is only experience.”  But do not the “purity” and “unconditional nature” of PUL imply a set of moral principles that are the equivalent of absolute truths which imply the existence of both good and evil, depending on the extent of the application or violation of these implicit moral rules?

5. The assumption of a monism in which there is no past or future, only an eternal now: some NDErs claim to experience themselves as one with all  that is.  In that mystical union, some claim to discover the [soon repressed] answers to all their most profound questions.  Are these monistic experiences metaphysically profound?  Or they symptoms of mental dissociation caused by an impaired brain w ith delusions of grandeur?  What implicatons do these monistic NDE experiences have for apparently contradictory linear NDE experiences of a self enduring over time that has sequential experiences, whether the same as our time or a different type of time perception?

6. The contrary assumption that detailed knowledge of afterlife “geographies” or “patterns of lifestyles” is impossible due the mental nature of these realms: Some NDErs and astral projectors experience a sequence of events in Paradise.  Why can such sequences be collected and compared thus allowing us to piece together a profile of life as a series of events in Paradise? During OBEs to spirit planes, why are patterns of typical life events so hard to establish?  Can the nonphysical aspect of these planes adequately explain why the many “geographical journeys” are not conducive to mapping in a way that assists future astral travelers?

7. The assumption that structural models of the afterlife are inevitably contradictory due to the diversity and complexity of the many planes:
Why are there so many apparently contradictory models of the astral planes (Monroe-Moen vs. Eckandar, vs. Swedenborg, vs. classical occultists (e. g. Rudolph Steiner)?  In my view, it seems woefully inadequate to explain these contradictions in terms of the fact/ interpretation muddle, the elephant/ blind man analogy, or spirit deception.  But how can we discern the bogus from the genuine without better verifications? 

8. The assumption that most of the newly dead do not try to contact their earthly loved ones in a convincing way that reassures them:  Most of us would want to do this; yet truly compelling ADCs are erlatively rare.  Still, some dead spirits confirm their survival in truly spectacular fashion.  Why is their method or skill not routinely taught by astral guides in the name of love?  Do the new discarnates find it undesirable or impossible to perform ADCs?  Or does this prospect seldom even occur to them in the confusion and trauma of their newly discarnate condition? 

9. The assumption that discarnate spirits have good recall of their earth lives and thus communicate with chatty ease through mediums:
Yet some astral exploration suggest the opposite—the severe impairment of earth memories [ES] or even memories of astral planes from which one has descended (Robert Bruce].  Are most of the newly dead unable to recall their earth lives, beyond a vague dream?  How can they face their new challenges with an intertwining of earthly and postmortem memories?  In my view, this discrepancy is another nail in the coffin of mental mediumship. 
 
10. The assumption that past life recall and Soul Disks are realities in the astral planes: (a) What could life possibly be like in a Soul Disk?  To me, it sounds suffocating, but what do I know?  (b) Some NDEs contain past life recall; others do not; still other astral travelers (e. g. Swedenborg) are assured that reincarnation memories are misunderstood spirit mergers in which the invasive spirits memories seem like one's own.  In another NDE, (e. g. Howard Storm's), the traveler is assured that reincarnation is not the norm, but possible.

Berserk2 wrote on Jan 18^th, 2013 at 6:36pm:


  Oh Lordy Don, you are a stubborn one aren't you?   Here it goes one more time.  The mainstream, traditional kind of reincarnation IS somewhat rare e.g. "not the norm".   The I/There and Disk concept of Consciousness and incarnations is a fairly new concept.  I do think there may have been something like it before, in relation to a concept and term called "Monad", but generally speaking up till now, reincarnation has generally and widely been thought of in the traditional way-- an individual gets born into physical, dies and goes into the nonphysical, and then gets born again. 

  What the Light Beings told Storm is absolutely correct, reincarnation as it is thought of in the typical and usual way is "possible, but not the norm."  I couldn't AGREE more. 

  While i suspect you probably think me a deluded, imbalanced megalomaniac (probably a pretty common perception here of me), i've had some interesting experiences and verifications relating to guidance about this issue, and not just from me, but also from my wife Becky whom i've been with for 12, almost 13 years now. 

  Here is an example and i will briefly summarize it.  Becky had a dream wherein she knew she was communicating with a sensitive, guide type.  She told her some stuff about us, and Becky was like in her mind, "yeah, yeah, i know that."  Then the woman told her our "spiritual names".   She could only remember mine sounded like a version of "William" in Russian. 

  Well, surprisingly, i didn't delve too much into it for quite awhile.  But i did end up doing some research, and i found that "Vasya" is a common Russian derivative of the name William. 

   A Norwegian friend of mine, a very psychic and sensitive lady who also deeply respects and is very drawn to the Cayce work, pointed out to me one day that "Vasya", if pronounced in the correct way, sounds a lot like "Was Ra" (in Russian, "V's" sound more like "W's").  So, tricky guidance was in a sense giving me my "spiritual name", but more so was telling me my original name that i had in another life. 

   I think Becky had the dream, to make it have a more powerful impact on me.  The fact that neither of us "got this" for quite awhile, also made it more affecting to me. 

   In other words, i am one of those somewhat rare cases of literal reincarnation of a Disk "member" or "probe".  My other self was born with the name Ra Ta and later changed it to just "Ra".  Ra is a Disk member of Cayce's, but i am definitely not the "literal reincarnation" of Cayce, just as Bruce Moen is not the literal reincarnation of Bob Monroe.  They are part of the same Disk. 

  This actually was confirmed to me some years ago when i had a dream wherein i was in a class in which Bruce was teaching.  His face morphed into Bob's for a bit, then back to Bruces, mixed for a little while and then went back to Bruces.  The message was very clear, the Disk concept is correct and Bruce was telling the truth about his connection to Bob.  Just even look at the sounds of their commonly used names.  Bob Monroe, Bruce Moen, there is a similar phonetic sound/cadence and rhythm there.  (not that this necessarily has to be a connection, but i find it interesting).

   But, i am fully, fully aware that i'm wasting my breath on this with you, but i write more for any newbies, or people who may be more open mindedly on the fence about the differences between Disk incarnations and literal, traditional ones.  Re: my connection to Cayce's Disk, well both my wife and i have had so many synchronistic experiences, verifications, and "coincidences" with this, i have stopped doubting it.   

  Here is one just really simply and cosmically funny little coincidence.  Gladys Davis, Edgar's secretary was said to be Edgar's "Twin Soul".  In one reading for her, it clearly stated that in their next lifetime together, they would be together in the way they yearned for in that life (as they had been in some other lives--"mates"), but couldn't be because Edgar was already married to Gertrude. 

   Each person who got a reading from Edgar, was assigned a number sequence to protect their identity.  Glady's was 288.  Since there is no such thing as a 0 reading, well the start of Glady's readings from Cayce was 288-1--the moment of the creation of her reading set and existence. 

   Becky's birthdate in standard, American number sequence and usage is 2/8/81 (Feb. 8th 1981) aka 2881 the same number sequence of the above.  By itself, probably doesn't mean much, but we both have had so many experiences which have blown our minds, stuff we couldn't possibly have made up because it involved other people, etc. 

  Interestingly, Gladys was born under Aquarius Sun, and she also died when the Sun was in Aquarius.  Becky also happens to have been born under Aquarius Sun.  Cayce's guidance noted a few times, that such cycles or patterns sometimes happened.  In one specific reading, a young baby had died on August 31st.  A number of years later, a young couple came to get a reading for their newborn, and was told that their newborn was a former newborn who had died very young.  The new, newborn's birthday was August 31, and Cayce's guidance specifically said, "hence a cycle, as recorded in holy writ".  (some of the Biblical Prophets and seers were quite interested in such cycles, like Solomon).  Cayce died Jan. 3rd approx. 7 p.m.  I was born Jan. 8th approx. 7 p.m.   

   I'm not saying this happens all the time, and like i said before, if any one of these incidences were taken alone, they wouldn't amount to much, but taken altogether with a bunch of experiences, dreams, and various other "guidance" messages, well we have become fairly sure there is something to it. 

   But yes, literal, traditional reincarnation is fairly rare.  Once an individual finishes an inphysical life, usually they feel something akin to, "ok, that's done with and out of the way, thanks for the experience but i would rather not hop on that ride again, pretty damn intense it was." 

     The one other case of literal reincarnation that i know of in my Disk "history", was a case of one of my selves screwing up so much in that life, that it was like he wanted and got a "re-do" to try to redeem himself, and was born under eerily similar circumstances, same first and last name, born in same area in England, traveled to the same places in America, lived a very similar life as a soldier of fortune, originally came to America as a mercenary, created quite a havoc with the native Lasses, etc, etc. and both were pretty selfish, and at times hurtful people.  The one big difference though, is that the 2nd John, died saving others.  That was the redemption that we were looking for.

    In my case, aka Ra to Justin, it's because i wanted to help out as a facilitator during this very momentous, extreme, opportunity and potential transformation filled cycle.  I came less for myself and more for others, but hopefully in helping others i can get to the "next level" so to speak--full Christ Consciousness (i've received many dreams and other messages relating to this, also Becky has had dreams for me related to this).   

  RE: the nature of such a connection to a "semi famous" person, Edgar Cayce, in all honesty, most of my life i have prayed to God earnestly to be more "normal", to be able to fit in, etc.  This is much like how Edgar felt most of his life, even before he considered the validity of reincarnation. 

  Re: the Disk concept, it's not specifically outlined in the Cayce readings, however, it is very, very, very strongly hinted at.  Here is the case, Cayce's guidance rarely, rarely ever "named itself".  However, in one unusual case, it listed off a number of individuals involved in helping with a particular reading.  One of the  individuals listed was "Ra Ta/Ra".  Wait a minute, Cayce's guidance said that one of his "past lives" was as Ra Ta/Ra, so how could, from a traditional, literal reincarnation standpoint could Ra and Edgar be in the same room or space with each other?   What's strongly inferred from current knowledge is that they are fellow "Disk members". 

  I don't think people were specifically ready for that concept back then, Cayce's guidance was already blowing enough minds with all the info it shared, and so "they" simplified things and spoke of incarnations in a more traditional way usually.  After all, we ARE our Disk and vice versa--there is no real separation there. 

   Since you have currently come across at least a couple of sources you have a deep respect for that say that reincarnation is possible and occasionally happens, why are you so resistant to the fact that maybe it's more often the Disk member process..but... with the occasional, rare literal reincarnation?   

   Like Albert said on another thread, it just makes sense that one, or even just a couple of physical lifetimes isn't enough to help an entity to grow to the point of being fully One with the Creator and a true Co-Creator. 

 

   

   

Quote:

Ok, in a thread about assumptions, let's make one, even if it doesn't make completely sense:

Becky's sequence, backwards, is 1882. The alpha and omega numbers add up to the number 3. That's the platform for my assumption. Now, anything special about February 3 1882?

P. T. Barnum purchases the elephant Jumbo. The London zookeeper association leader Anoshan Anathajeyasri gave Jumbo his name; it is likely a variation of one of two Swahili words: jambo, which means "hello" or jumbe, which means "chief".

But I digress. This is a hot topic -> hot -> Australia -> "hot" band from Australia -> song title: mind mischief, or mind misjumbe, if you will.

Phew. That was quite a stretch, but finally, I present to you the above song. Obviously I can't play it from 2:81, but surely from 2:18. "She remembers my name", the guy sings. Maybe your norwegian friend was correct. Maybe it isn't an assumption. Though, she didn't point out though how Vasya sounds like was ya/you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF5E2X55_kg#t=2m18s

People who have had a number of spiritual experiences that showed and told them that in some way the disk viewpoint is true, wouldn't be true to their own experience if they gave up the viewpoint simply because it doesn't make sense to somebody else.

It is possible to find out about this disk thing in a way that is much more than one's imagination spinning out.

Should've Moses received an 11th commandment that says, "Thou shall not believe in the disk concept, because God wasn't allowed to use such a mode of creation"?

Of course not. Why should God, the Creator, Source Being, whatever term you like to use, be able to use such a method? There isn't something inately evil about it. Plus eventually we reach the point where we share information with many beings without being rigidly defined by what we learn, except for maybe the important stuff like love.

Below are some responses within brackets.

[quote author=5D7A6D6C7A6D742D1F0 link=1358548603/0#0 date=1358548603]In true scientific fashion, afterlife research should be approached with he initial assumption that it should be explained away as illusion if the evidence does not compel a more credulous conclusion.  This thread focuses on 10 basic assumptions that are usually not evidentially analyzed, but rather embraced or rejected through a doctrinaire Ghetto mentality.  I hope this thread can be discussed sequentially (1)- (10) for purposes of coherence.  I hope you will allow me to serve as moderator in the sense that I'll only shift the discussion to the next assumption when the current discussion seems to have run its course. So let's begin with a focussed discussion on Assumption #1.

1. The assumption that the Being of Light [BL] is the same entity for everyone—that if love radiates from the BL, the NDEr must be a loving or spiritually well developed person: (a) Some NDErs describe the the Being of Light [BL] and their Paradise [= park] as brighter than the sun.  For others, the BL and Paradise are not experienced as unusally bright.  Is this difference due to different BLs of varying eminence?  Or is it due to the spiritual development and perceptual skills of the NDEr?

[[Going by the NDEs I read, people experience different beings of light. A few first met a being of light and were later introduced to Jesus.]]

(b) Is it possible that ecstasy gets confused as PUL and that different Beings of Light radiate different emotive experiences?  Is the PUL designation often just jargon rooted in wishful thinking rather than actual experience?

[[It is possible that some beings of light are more evolved than others. It also possible that some people are more open to receiving light than others. The way that many NDEers describe their experience of love sounds like more than just jargon. Surely it possible for a person to know if he (or she) is actually experiencing love. Especially if one experiences it in a profound way.]]

2. The assumption that the NDEr's identification of the BL is always projected on the basis of expectations: In most NDEs, the BL  does not identify itself; rather NDErs project a comfortable identification onto it.  Yet in other cases, Jesus explicitly identifies Himself as the BL to Christians, atheists, and in one case a Muslim.  Yet Muslims never seem to see Muhammad;  rather, they identify the BL as Allah (their word for “God”).  Does the BL often lie or deceive in the name of love so as not to alarm the NDEr with an unknown or disturbing identity?

[[There might be occasions when a BL shows a  person what the person is open to seeing. Nevertheless, I've read NDEs where it seemed clear that a person actually did meet Jesus. There are also the cases I mentioned earlier, where a BL introduces a person to Jesus and people are quite impressed with how much love, light and vastness Jesus radiates.]]

3. The assumption that Paradise (the Park) is generally the same plane (e. g.. Focus 27): Why not instead assume that each BST has a Park, a Reception Area, and Rehabilitation Center?  (a) Some NDEers experience Paradise as containing many colors unknown on earth; others experience no new colors.  (b) Some Christian NDErs experience the flowers and water (including waterfalls) as not only alive, but as producing musical harmonies.  The NDEr can experience these harmonies individually or collectively as one all-encompassing cosmic harmony.  One NDEr insists that these musical harmonies even surpassed reunions with loved ones as ultimately satisfying.  Should these differences be explained as different spirit levels? Or should they be explained as varying levels of spiritual development and perception skills focused on the same plane?  (c) ES learns that even evil people can begin their postmortem journey by exploring the beautiful Park region, before they are drawn down to lower planes through the gradual application of  the principle that like attracts like.

[[I once had an experience that made the point that each Soul experiences what it needs to experience after it dies. I believe this relates: The NDE hell-like experiences I read about and listened to (youtube), each NDEer experienced hell in a different way, each asked for help, and each received it.]] 

4. The assumption that PUL is a basic force in the universe: Love is by nature reflexive in that its reality depends on being  other-directed.
How can PUL exist as an impersonal force?  Does it not assume a conscious or self-conscious Source that gives and receives love and thus presume the existence of a loving God?  One of the Monroe doctrines is this: “There is no good; there is no evil.  There is only experience.”  But do not the “purity” and “unconditional nature” of PUL imply a set of moral principles that are the equivalent of absolute truths which imply the existence of both good and evil, depending on the extent of the application or violation of these implicit moral rules?

[[I don't believe that love is impersonal in the way you mean because it would be meaningless if there aren't any conscious beings to experience it and live according to it. "Impersonal" could mean "not selective" and "self serving."

Regarding good and evil, the more one lives according to love, the more one is going to care about others. As a result one will "care" when others experience negative things, such as people who are effected by the evil actions of others.

If we're going to have freewill, the negative possibilities can't be avoided. Therefore, if one wants to accept the creative process, one has to except that negative things are going to take place. This is okay if in the end everything works out.

I believe you (Don) make too big of a deal of Robert Monroe's statements about good and evil. I don't believe he was fooled by a dark being, and I don't believe that he didn't understand the difference between right and wrong. It's important to consider the context.]]

5. The assumption of a monism in which there is no past or future, only an eternal now: some NDErs claim to experience themselves as one with all  that is.  In that mystical union, some claim to discover the [soon repressed] answers to all their most profound questions.  Are these monistic experiences metaphysically profound?  Or they symptoms of mental dissociation caused by an impaired brain w ith delusions of grandeur?  What implicatons do these monistic NDE experiences have for apparently contradictory linear NDE experiences of a self enduring over time that has sequential experiences, whether the same as our time or a different type of time perception?

[[I believe that some people do experience oneness with all that is. We can experience as much as we allow ourselves to experience. The problem occurs when people try to interpret the meaning of such experiences afterwards. For example, afterwards, one might mistakingly believe that individuality doesn't exist at all. This might lead such a person to believe that he is the all. Rather, we are all just small parts of the all, and as I already said (with different words), it is possible for a part to become aware of the all. Sort of like a wave in an ocean can take a peek and see that many other waves exist, and all these waves and itself are a part of the same ocean.]]

[[I'll respond to the other questions at another time. I already responded to the disk issue.]]

Don:

If you look again, you'll see that I did an okay job of responding.

hi don  love you all juditha xxx


Dear Sweet Universe...

I send my prayer, with all that I am
Empty me completely so that I may be filled to overflowing
With only beautiful Love
I wish not to know fear or pride
I only wish to know Love
In the air I breathe, with every breath I take
In the world I see, with every glimpse I take
In my hands, with everything I touch
In my heart, with every beat
In my spirit, with every vibration
Let it flow like a river through my being and never cease
I want nothing else
Because there is nothing more
Love is the answer
Love is the key
Love heals all wounds
Love never fails
Let me always radiate Love
Let my heart beats to its rhythm
For Love will always be enough

i dont know who wrote this but it is so true

love and god bless  love juditha xxx

I like this:
Quote:


_____

I had a particular life experience that for me was exceedingly violent. It tossed me into a place I had never been before. It was as thought I could constantly hear the nazgul screaming. Rage and terror were constants in my memory. Reality had a rip in it. In reading Bill Moyers interview with Joseph Campbell, I found Campbell's discussion of  the firebombing of Dreaden; people there described the horror and then said the experience was sublime; I knew what they meant. I had gone to a place I never knew existed.

See, there is one of the problems of perception. I was an adult and I thought I knew enough about reality to say that I understood fear and anger and sort of tried to eliminate both. But there was this other experience...there is always some other experience... you can never assume you know all experiences. That is one reason it is difficult to quantify perception.

So one evening during this time period (which lasted measured in years not months) as I was trying to fall asleep, I somehow slipped into this wonderful ecstatic state of inner peace. I had sought this kind of relief but hadn't found it, and here it was. As I drifted off to sleep, I thought, oh, it is all going to be OK.

Except that the next morning it was gone, and I haven't quite yet found the way to get back to the ecstacy.  But I do wonder, not only how do I get back there, but also, how did I fall out of it? Why didn't it stay?

Yes it would be nice to have a near death experience...without the near death part of course!

But I think the question of why we don't experience the PUL state, why do we fall out of it, is somehow just as relevant here as is asking why do individuals see what they do when they find their way back to it.