Hello Dina:

It is hard to say what is always correct, but I believe what you said is true most of the time.

Thomas Sawyer had an expansive NDE and he stated that he could remember only a small portion of what he experienced during his NDE. Memories of what he experienced came back in pieces.

During one of her videos Nanci states that as her NDE came to an end she tried to remember everything and the beings that were with her told her "don't" because she won't be able to. They told her to remember the love part.

Albert


dina wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2014 at 11:00am:

  Well, finally got around to reading Nanci's first book.  Impressions, first part very dry and lecturing, with some interesting and insightful parts, sort of reminded me some of Tom Campbell's MBT in that sense.

   Overall, very much agree with her main message, that "love is all that matters" or what matters most, rather.  Much that i agree with.  It's not that there is much specifics that i would disagree with, more the emphasis of certain parts.

A number of parts confirmed my earlier impression that she tends to be a bit over polarized to the Yin side of consciousness in her perceptions and translations.

  There are some major contradictions with other respected sources of info. 

  For example, she says that it doesn't matter what you do or don't do, etc each individual will merge with Source, that there is no discriminating, nothing to rectify, etc. 

   Contrast this with Bob Monroe's experience with going beyond the aperture, starting to merge with Source, and communicating with some Consciousnesses that already were consciously within that state.  *We made the transition as a species at the same time*

    Bob was told by some of these completed Beings that he was still yet small and incomplete (and thus could not stay).  In a sense, he did not yet belong there, he had work to do, parts of both the smaller self and some of the larger to gather.  He was to bring "gifts" back to the Whole.

  In other words, according to the Like attracts, begets, and resonates with Like Law that Source built into reality as a universal law.  Bob was not yet in full resonation with Source. 

   Neither was or is Nanci.  She didn't get to merge fully with Source, and if she had, it would have been temporary, like Bob's experience (well, Bob didn't fully remerge either). 

    This is a consciousness law that cannot be side stepped.  To be fully One with Source consciously, you have to be fully like Source again. 

   Anyone who understands and is attracted to the life, example, and teachings of Yeshua, knows and understands that is what his whole life here was about, to show and demonstrate what this full Source attunement looked, acted, and was like.  And he out and out said, if you want to be One with Source like me, you must be like me, must live and choose like me. 

    It is not enough to just "know", say, or perceive that we are One with Source, a part of same, etc, but to live it.  The "way" to same, is via pure, universal, unconditional love.  But "Love" is bigger than what even Nanci perceived.  There is a tough love, or Yang side of Love too.   

  See Aramaic to English translation below in my signature area of a quote of Yeshua to the misleading, corrupt, self serving, and spiritually harmful Pharisees, etc. 

    Strong words, no?   Yet, while he called them out and pointed out to them and to the people in general that these groups were largely in league with the serpents of old, aka the "Reptilians", he still loved them.  He wouldn't do anything to truly harm them, except to hold a mirror up and call them out. 

  He had it within his power, to just think them dead.  He even had it within his power to dismantle their Soul's consciousness--a true and final death.  Neither did he do.  Yet, the people who had let themselves become dependent on these needed to be warned what and who they were dealing with.  Tough love, tough words. 

I have not read her books but only listened to most of a video a while back. I think that, regardless of her way of illustrating what she experienced, there is always a personal compass which is a preferable guide over any outside information about who you are, and that is your own personal exploration of your internal life. Meditation is an excellent way to begin and, if you are successful, you will always have a place of comparison in order to know "how you are doing" in your daily life. The "real" you is the part of yourself you will encounter during meditation, and it is beautiful. This is not the only method, but it is one which has merits, I believe, over studying charts or other interpretations of human character available to us here.

Additionally, I don't know you personally, or anyone else on the forum, so this reply is no assumption about you, just a random personal opinion prompted by my reaction to your question. That's all it ever is.

I kind of understand what you are saying. It's a pretty complicated version of 'we are here now' -- and I don't actually have a clear explanation of why that is, only that it is so.

Our greater consciousness extends into the human animal body, as does the greater consciousness of any other living creature, and even what we perceive as nonliving entities. It's a very strange situation to be in, in which we perceive ourselves as being the center of reality, but we are only viewing a tiny layer, as if we were each an outer layer of an onion which can only view the rough brown surface of ourselves. However, in some circumstances, we can see through some of the layers.

What the 'human animal' part of myself experiences itself as is always flawed. It must be. It is the nature of the 'unreality' of what we are experiencing here, which can be considered a kind of simulation, and one which is uniquely personal to us.

That is not going to make sense to a lot of people, so they will not want to believe it, and will want to create their own manageable boundaries and understandings of their situations.

So, I'm not sure there is an answer to your question, but maybe there is, from a different perspective than I have.

BTW, is there no provision on this forum to edit typos on posts which have just been made? I see no edit button anywhere. That is highly unusual.

It would also be nice if there was a separate modify button for when someone leaves the board and then re-registers with a new name....

R

Regarding what Nanci says about everything being okay (MarkyG spoke of this a bit), perhaps to some degree what Eban Alexander wrote in his book “Proof of Heaven” applies  (the words within brackets are explanations of what he means by the words “Orb” and “Om”, my translation).

From page 48: “Through the Orb [a light being], Om [God] told me that there is not one universe but many—in fact, more than I could conceive—but that love lay at the center of them all. Evil was present in the all the other universes as well, but only in the tiniest trace amounts. Evil was necessary because without it freewill was impossible, and without freewill there could be no growth—no forward movement, no chance for us to become what God longed for us to be. Horrible and all-powerful as evil sometimes seemed to be in a world like ours, in the larger picture love was overwhelmingly dominant, and it would ultimately be triumphant.”

My feeling is that we can’t completely comprehend what is good if we don’t also understand what is bad.

Nanci speaks as if God is a being who lacks judgment.  She doesn’t mean judgment like in “good judgment.” She means it in a negative sense.  I believe that being able to discern what is and what isn’t good isn’t the same thing as being judgmental. Going by what she wrote, Nanci seems to have missed this point.  Certainly the Source of all is capable of having good discernment without being judgmental.

Nanci wrote that she used to speak to some people in an unkind way.  If she was able to have the discernment to see why it isn’t good to speak to people in an unkind way, then why couldn’t God/Source/Om have such discernment?

I’d like to add that I recently read much of Nanci’s first book. I didn’t read the parts about spiritual growth a lot because I didn’t feel like I was learning anything. I don’t mean that she didn’t have anything good to say, rather, to a large extent I already knew what she was talking about.

Couldn't edit?

I just did, that's what the Modify button is for. 

R