Webwanderer wrote:I sense that you miss the point. It is the jury that decides on the evidence presented by others. The jury rarely ever goes to the actual crime scene.
I think the jury goes to the actual crime scene everyday, because the scene is in the world. “X-man was seen in X-place in New York” for example. New York is not questioned. If a case came to court and eye witnesses were to give imagined evidence, it would not be admissible, but if the jury were to be moved by some imagined evidence, the judge will tell them that it is inadmissible, and will tell them to put their feelings aside and consider the concrete evidence, which must not be imagined.
Unlike a jury however, you don't have to decide true or false. You simply have to do a fair investigation and consider all the evidence you can.
I'll be happy to call it imagination and not evidence. How much research is required to get this basic distinction right?
You're still trying to make a choice to believe or reject.
Since we're both using words, we must come to terms with the words we're using, otherwise we may be having two separate conversations. So, what am I trying to accept or reject? I think I'm trying to say that the information contained in the reports is imagined, therefore not evidence.
I think getting an agreement on this is increasing understanding.
"Me" in this context is a human perspective of being based on thought constructs and entrained beliefs. It will one day be transcended somewhat like waking up from a dream. The consciousness underlying that perspective is what transcends. You were conscious of being a dream character while in the dream, and that same conscious awareness survived the end of the (nightly) dream world while maintaining its sense of self. It awoke from one world of experience to another, transcending worlds to return to the physical human perspective.
How does this knowledge help me to be completely free from fear?
Nothing was lost but a thought construct of the dream world. Consciousness and self survived with little concern for what was left behind - a temporary perspective. You went and washed your face and continued about your business. Waking up to a yet higher octave of being is similar. You leave behind your human perspective in favor of a greater one, but you carry on with your innate sense of self and being unhindered.
I think that if I drop the thought construct of this dream world, I'll be dropping it and not replacing it with anything, which means the thought construct that this world is a dream will be dropped, therefore the thought that points to that which comes after the dreams gets dropped too. This is without going into the process of dropping, which is another question.
What you say about the dream world and the waking up from it, all that is based on what? We can see this world and the dream world, that is why you're able to talk about it and relate using that example, but what makes you use this analogy to that which we don't know about?
Interesting question. What makes any event or condition an experience and not an imagining? When one gets right down to it, experience is all that there is. Even imagining is experience. Experience is reality. We are essentially a perspective within Awareness. We 'are' aware of the conditions present within our focus of attention, colored by beliefs that create the perspective held. As beliefs change and evolve, perspective shifts.
Are you saying that as you've evolved you've come to the realization that imagination and reality are the same thing? What is imagination?
Experience can be based on reality, and from reality on imagination, but it cannot be based on imagination without a reality on which to stand on, right?
I don't know if the truth will make me free but you said that it will, and that I have it somewhere but I don't know where it is, but it is in those reports, they have it, therefore someone else and what they imagine will set me free. If their imagination is what set them free, doesn't that mean that it won't work on me? Shouldn't I instead be tapping into the truth that is in me that will set me free? We can imagine something which is true and something which is false. What's the point of imagination if it is false, in relation to the truth that will make one free? It must also be true.
If we agree that imagined experience is reality, what does that mean? Aren't we running into the danger of passing falsehood for truth? If it is reality, why even make the distinction between different levels of reality when all experience is reality, imagined and not imagined? There would be no levels at all. That is why I asked the question. You said that all of us will have a death experience, and I asked whether reading intermediary reports is what that death experience will be for everyone, (because we won't all have NDEs or TDEs), most people just die. I think reading those reports will create the experience of reading those reports, which is different from the experience they had, which is different from what they remember.
What makes death an experience and not an imagining? Because imagining is an experience as well. The question is, which represents the greater reality? Actual death experience, or imagining experience? I would suggest one follow what feels most likely. Of course feelings will change over time as well with the inclusion of more information and knowledge.
Right now, the body of your knowledge is such that it brings you consternation and fear. With more knowledge, your fears, and your perspective, will adjust accordingly. As children we once feared the monster under the bed or in the closet. Eventually, greater knowledge, and consistent experience of surviving the night uneaten, alleviated those childhood fearful imaginings.
You said that being afraid of death was based on ignorance or a false belief, and that not being afraid of death would best come from understanding and clarity.
I think what I’ve been trying to say is that actual death experience is imagination, while reading about it is having an experience of reading. I think that if the actual death experience is what brings about the change from fear to no-fear in those who experience it, then without that experience I won't have a chance to change from fear to no-fear like you say they did, no matter how much reading of the experience I do; in fact, I think that if I go down the reading reports route, I wouldn't be dealing with the problem of fear itself at all. I actually think that the nature of those reports will sustain the fear. If they appear to bring about any kind of small change, one will be under the impression that it is working, and will keep on going back; and I think that as long as I have these reports I'll be free from fear, but if I lose them I'll fall right back into fear, so that creates fear, sustains it, feeds it, and I run back to the reports, depending on them, all the time.
So I don't see how depending on something like that will make me free. If I have the courage (maybe that's not the right word) to break dependency, breaking dependency will make me free from it. If you say to me that I am ignorant and there is a vast and endless ocean of knowledge that is waiting to be tapped into, I'll be terribly afraid, and I'll obey and go chasing that knowledge.
Consider that what you name things and the meaning you assign is born out of your existing belief structures. These beliefs were adopted and entrained into your perspective throughout you life. You now see them as the basis of truth simply because you believe them to be so. But are they? Are the names and meanings applied genuinely representative of the events and conditions at hand, or are they more representative of the entrained beliefs you have? I suggest it is the latter.
It's not after all, just about memories in isolation. It's about the meaning applied to memories, and those meanings are a choice we make, consciously with consideration, or unconsciously through our existing conditioning. The fast track to our growth of consciousness has a high degree of willingness, and active review, of what we consider true and how we came to such 'truths'.
It might be the latter, I agree, but I am not saying let's not question the existing beliefs and only question the TDE's. Just like you say there's a lot of knowledge that I don't have at the moment about “temporary death experiences”, I think that there's a lot more to know about fear. If I'm trying to find out about TDE's, I know that I would need to go and do my research there, but if I'm trying to get to the heart of fear, I think I need to do my research where fear happens, and why it happens.
If you disagree and say, “no, you need to do your research into TDE's in order to deal with your fear” I'm going to present the arguments that I've presented above, that it won't deal with the fear, but it will keep it in place. If you think that it won't keep it in place, why not?
“You already know. The question is, can you tap into that existing knowing.”
Is that the question? If I already know, can I tap into it, or do I have to depend on him, on her, or on them who have tapped into theirs to tell me what I don't know? If I don't tap into mine but borrow from theirs, what will that do?
Or is the question: If I can't tap into mine, can you help me do it?
Let's say all the world but one person doesn't know. Can you, as the one who knows, help me on how to get to the existing knowing that is in me that will help me to be free from fear? Or do you, as the person with higher understanding tell me “The question is, can you tap into that existing knowing? If not, come right in, I hold the key that keeps your fear in place or removes it”.
And if I am really afraid, I'll come to you, and I'll get attached to you, and I depend on you to tell me everything... which eventually, after years, might include you telling me that I'm attached to you, etc, and that I need to think things for myself, which brings us back to the same question (can I tap into that existing knowing with or without your help) which would mean that I'd still be the same stupid person that came to you in the first place, only I have borrowed from you certain thoughts and ideas, but that dependency is now stronger than ever, because if I stop getting my fix from you, I'll be in trouble.
“Is your fear so important to you that you would protect it through avoidance of the very information that would shed light on its possible fallacy?”
Can you help me on how to get to the existing knowing that is in me where this information is, or do I need to get this infromation from you (books, reports, etc)?
Just look at the length you are going to in order to defend the very thing you want to be rid of.
Aren't you creating the idea that the information you say I'm avoiding, (which would be the life-time study of such information) is what will free me from my fear that I'm defending, therefore creating the idea that without that information I will never be free from fear?
This fear is your creation. It's you who holds it close. It's you who won't give it the same degree of skepticism that you apply to that which could dissolve it. It's only you who can choose to move beyond it.
OK, I think what you're saying is that I should give my fear the same degree of scepticism, that this degree of scepticism should be applied to the fear itself, right? Therefore I don't need to go to this information that is there on the reports, but that I should look and seriously question my fears, right?
you demonstrate significant reluctance and dwell in criticism of the phenomena without a fair hearing on the breadth and depth of the evidence such accounts present. You don't take experiencers at their word in the little you have read, not as proof of greater reality necessarily, but as a genuine experience they had and the effects that experience had on their lives in the greater perspective they came away with.
I think I've tried to give clear reasons relating to that kind of information. I also don't think I ever said that their experience didn't have any effect on them. I think I said it did, and so much so that it made them to a certain extent act in the way that they did. Though I questioned whether they came back as changed beings, and I gave some reasons for that too. We have to ask the question “what are changed beings”.
The experiencers of TDEs let an external impression of beauty affect them deeply and they have grand ideas, just like an external frightful impression can affect one deeply with ideas of fear and death, right? And I think you've supported this view earlier, in talking about the perspective which serves one best. And I think what I'm saying is how to be totally free from the effects created from external or internal impressions, because what is freedom if not that? At least it is freedom from those impressions.