I'm interested to read this E2B, I sometimes ask 'what does this do for you - if anything' in terms of the second hand nature of reading about these experiences.E2B said: However, what NDE reports DO, is allow us (in my opinion) to have a clearer understanding of reality and perhaps give us more insight in order for us to lean towards a certain position on the nature of reality/consciousness as opposed to clinging to something as a belief by stating as 'truth'.
Did you used to view these things in a totally 'disbelieving' way? (make enemy, obstacle, means to an end of it, or those who viewed it differently?) Can you illustrate changes in your awareness, capacity and willingness that this new(er) perspective feeds into?
I guess the thing about 'proven' and 'not proven' I know in other jurisdictions near enough is good enough either way and totally irrelevant considerations can 'skew' the understanding or even the deny the presentation of evidence (or heaven forbid (lol!! 'terminology') eliminate people that hold a different awareness, capacity and/or willingness to subvert the information from being known / used.
The same happens in scientific or spiritual 'investigation' if the premise is 'not proven' but treated as if it is.
I understand the way religions and philosophies get all zealous, but the scientific appreciation is supposed to also have these notions of proven correct, proven incorrect or not proven either way. And what I tend to find is folks on both sides try to fit the 'not proven either way' into one box or another to support their 'case' irrationally.
Which is why I still have the 'either - or' premise that I posted earlier in this thread.
Neither of these premises have been 'proven' or 'disproven', not even in my own experiences or any other that I've read about. I do tend to lean towards the first hypothesis because it just explains more of my own experiences within my cultural experiences, but I do not exclude any of the evidence of the second hypothesis where they do provide actual evidence. And yet some in both camps base their whole existence and world view as if one or the other have been 'proven'. In doing so they 'leave out' evidence to the contrary of their perspective, and in my experience create 'suffering' and 'bigotry' to unfold by their choices. That is neither scientifically, or spiritually 'honest'. That's my point.smiileyjen101 wrote:
Here's the thing - either awareness is everywhere and eternal, with everything 'tuning in' and vibrating/energising at different frequencies in which time, space, 'individuation' are to varying degrees, known and experienced as 'constructs' of an impermanent 'play', playing and responding to stimuli and information to the degree that it is known as such and not believed as permanently 'real'. This 'awareness' transcends physical life in death, and can be transcended in 'life'.
Or, the individual human brain awareness has the capacity to transcend 'time', 'place' 'physicality' and access or create intelligent information and experiences outside of its physical sensory 'parameters' and when the brain dies, that's the end of the dream/experience/life.
Still, absolutely, no 'choice' is wrong, within our own awareness, capacity and willingness, experience based on whichever premise will make sense and not make sense. It just 'is' what it is.
The 'thing' for me with Dr Alexander's making sense of his experience, is that he is still making scientific assumptions that we know the capacity of the 'reptilian' brain, and that's just not true. And 'something' about that niggled at me. 'Niggles' are felt when intuition butts up against the physical awareness density. It just says 'Oi, pay attention here, there's something you're not seeing or accepting'. That's all. That after reading his book the 'new knowledge' being evidenced about the capacity of energy continuing in and throughout the brain after flat line.. that was also a 'head snap' ....pay attention!! There's 'new information' here.
Appreciating that you have expressed a discontent with uncertainty -- (see I 'remember' stuff that is important in perceiving)E2B said: Considering there are likely multiple layers upon layers upon layers of reality/awareness/dimensions, is there actually a 'true reality'? I'd say it's merely Source itself that projects it all. Reality is whatever is appearing in this moment in whatever dimension we are experiencing.
I'd say there are not 'likely', but there are, even just in human intelligence layers upon layers of reality/awareness/dimensions of perspectives. This is absolutely easily proven in terms of ask 500 people their perspective on a thing and you will find 'stuff' 'new information' for and by each of them, in all manner of their individual perceptions of 'reality'. And yes, reality to each is what is perceived by them in whichever 'dimension' of the information that they are aware, capable and allowing to be experienced.
To 'jump to' the the assumption that 'it's merely Source itself that projects it all' is flawed. Sorry, but it just does not stand up with any evidence that supports it beyond reasonable doubt. Firstly, we have no idea there even is a 'source' outside of the collective energetic awareness of all living things expressed and experienced in the physical.
Secondly then we do not know the awareness, capacity or willingness for a 'source' to 'project' and on what scale and to what 'effect'.
And thirdly, we are then 'excising' the physical capacities of all living things to create their own experiences within their own awareness, capacity and willingness.
Understand, I'm not saying you're 'wrong'. I'm saying it's 'not proven' and therefore any hypotheses using it as a premise, will be flawed by the degrees of uncertainty. It's this that allows for 'beliefs' rather than 'knowledge' to be built upon. Whether one abdicates the response ability of our awareness, capacity and willingness in experience to some 'God', or some 'Source' it's pretty much the same thing (to me). That 'source' energy is in motion and does change 'form' is different - there's no 'allocation' or 'abdication' of elements feeding into and out of it.
Can you see the distinction?
As are many terms, - 'life' 'death' 'consciousness' 'source', love, (yum, pfffftttt! ) only when we have a shared understanding of what it 'means' to each, can we truly evaluate premises and hypotheses.I think the term 'afterlife' is a bit mis-used.
So as well as not understanding consciousness (which has to be a baseline factor) we also don't understand what 'death' is or even elements of awareness, capacity of 'life' either. The notion of life occurring between birth and death is only factored in the physical, and as we know only 5% is 'physical' as we deem it.
Any hypotheses using perspectives of these things can only be a 'belief'.
However, among the stories and the experiences yes there are really freeing 'truths' - information that is gained that does change the material aspects of life experience and perspectives.
Well yes, for me in my experience too.Pam Reynolds in her NDE was able to identify numerous items in the operating room to a TEE that her doctors are completely stumped by this day.
Although I've also done that while breathing and sitting up, or standing, or laying down awake 'viewed' things to a TEE that were not physically manifest here and/or now and 'supposed' to be cognitively processed by me. So there's something apart from the experience in the body, and apart from the experience in an nde that 'allows' this 'wider' awareness.
I do think it's niggly-funny, that the nde 'stuff' is gaining 'respectable' and 'respectful' attention and the 'clair' and 'precog' and physical empath and nature of synchronicity stuff still isn't. And yet it's far easier to experience - unpack, 'test for accuracy' etc than nde is.
I just remembered when I was thinking about this this morning (not 'blaming' science, but maybe 'bemoaning' a little) that the morning after the episode where my stomach was not being cut open, a neurologist came to see me in my hospital bed and asked if I wanted to discuss what happened. Nothing within my physical 'tests' explained the 'physical reaction' I was exhibiting. So maybe someone in the emergency room thought of it along neurological lines (which is great, the psychiatric or the religious lines had nothing to contribute on the nde 'stuff' )
So there I had an opportunity and I shut down. Me - I shut down. I was exhausted on every level and said no thank you, I was fine now and just wanted to go home and sleep. I didn't even bother taking her card to discuss it later. In honesty when this woman first entered my room I 'assumed' she'd be a psych of some sort - how it's been viewed or intimated before. So this was a little 'surprise' for me, even in my weary state, maybe we are progressing, widening our enquiries. We all respond according to our awareness capacity and willingness in any given moment. At that moment I neither had the capacity or the willingness - how easily 'opportunities' are missed.
Sorry, it's funny when you don't even know the question, let alone the answer.Jen said: So while the 'effect' has been proven, the 'cause' - not in the medical or situationally different 'causes' as individually experienced and made sense of, the actual 'cause' of this awareness - the 'capacity' for this awareness, as yet is not proven either way (to me) scientifically or spiritually beyond all reasonable doubt. If I can raise 'doubt', then it hasn't been proven, and so I'm left that I'm 'open', not closed in belief, either way.
E2B said: hmm, not sure what you're looking for here. It's good to be open as am I. But, Cause? clarify perhaps?
I guess maybe the known possible options of the 'cause' of all of us who have these experiences of wider awareness, regardless of how it's individually achieved/experienced. The wider 'wider picture' of what these sharings are pointing to.
Here's some of my concrete questions at this point of my understanding -
- is the cause something 'unknown' about our reptilian and/or other brain and 'empathy' capacities - --- how do crocodiles know where to build their nests as discussed in that thread, that animals 'sense' changing energetic forces - pre tsunamis etc and respond accurately, that the efficacy of energy healing and diagnoses is correct, that precognitive awareness can be proven 'real' as experienced and 'real' as in unfolding at some other time, place; and that information gleaned and shared in clair ability experiences are accurate beyond the normal 'knowing' capacities that we assume are 'normal'.
Again I'm not saying the individual brains create the 'thing', but do possibly 'tune into it' differently
What is the cause of our 'sensitivity' to energy in motion creating a sense of 'knowing' or experience? Just in really basic terms. That's what I tried to detail the known aspects of our sensory capacities, in the Being Human thread, that many are unaware are basic capacities.
It is 'basic' and yet when these knowings emerge in modern humans and are applied and used, we deem it 'superhuman' or unusual instead of basic animal instinct and intelligence.
What are we missing sans all the 'beliefs' based on unproven premises?
Sure. As I said earlier I first shared about it in any detail in the NDE, Clair abilities and synchronicity thread in the 'Beyond the Physical' section in response to discussions about the movie the Hereafter. It too, like this one, like the Being Human thread (and don't they all?) starts with an understanding and then spreads out organically wherever it will. I would now that I've shared a little more here, suggest that you do follow the link on the first page of it to a tiny thread where a young member was getting all 'spiritual' about experiences he was having and his girlfriend was having that was (I felt/ tasted / smelled when reading his original 'assessment') neurological in origin and I 'suggested' ---- it's not for me to 'prescribe', but I suggested that he consider neurological aspects and have her investigate the 'physical' rather than 'spiritual' side of it.Jen, I'd like to read more about your NDE. I didn't know about it until very recently and I've been following this board since 2012. Can you send me a link to a post which references it? Thanks
link to it .... http://eckhart-tolle-forum.inner-growth ... =47&t=8712
And as I'm like to do have scattered other 'details' in other threads as they've been relevant, mostly I guess in that 'Beyond the Physical' section as that is where these things are mostly raised in openness, rather than closed parameters. More detail and discussion about the 'life review' 'stuff' in response to Webby supplying a gorgeous 'what was learned' link in this thread http://eckhart-tolle-forum.inner-growth ... =47&t=9482
That thread discusses the nuances of the sense of 'judgement' and how that's just skewed here. Like your 'aha' moment about rocks' it's just realising a 'mis-take' that fed into experience, not punitive or anything in my experience, in fact the reverse, freeing all sense of 'wrong' doing.