Charlie Morely, Why His Buddhist Teacher Told Him to Dream Into Hell |455|

Alex

Administrator
#1
Charlie Morely, Why His Buddhist Teacher Told Him to Dream Into Hell |455|
by Alex Tsakiris | Jul 8 | Spirituality
Share
Tweet
0SHARES

Charlie Morely is an expert at lucid dreaming, and he’s gone places most wouldn’t dare to go.
photo by: Skeptiko
[Clip 00:00:00- 00:00:34]
That’s from Inception, a movie that explores a lot of the topics we’re going to be talking about today, in terms of dreaming, lucid dreaming, the extended consciousness realms of dreaming and what those might mean for how we could engineer or explore those with various kinds of technology.
Our guest today is lucid dream expert Charlie Morley, and I’m also joined by Richard Cox from The Deep State Consciousness podcast.
Here’s a clip.
Charlie Morley: [00:01:03] When he was watching one of these people in the lucid dream trying to prove lucid dreaming, at one point he saw their eyes flicking left, right, left, right. Really kind of synchronous. And he woke them up and said, “What were you dreaming about?” And they said, “Oh, I was dreaming about a tennis match.” And he was like, “Oh, that’s cool.” So he made the first discovery. The eyes physically correspond to what you’re dreaming about.
So then he thought, “Okay, right, so maybe I can send a signal, kind of a Morse code signal from the lucid dream state to the waking state saying, “Hey guys, I’m in here. I’m doing the test, and I’m doing the experiment.” And he managed to do that.
And I said, “So how did it work?” and he said, “I spent eight hours looking at this,” he said, “suddenly on the paper it went ‘dun, dun, dun, dun’.” And I said to him, “How did it feel when you saw those eye movements come through?” And he was really sweet, he went, “Charlie, you know those movies, when they’re in the NASA control room and they finally get the thing from Mars and they all give each other high fives,” I said, “Yeah,” and he went, “It was like that, but I had no one to high five. And I kind of leant over and gave him… we actually missed, we had this awkward missed high five, and he went, “Oh well, 40 years too late, but thank you.”
I wanted to say about entities. Because I realized, I gave you the Jungian view on entities. I gave the Buddhist view on entities. I didn’t actually give you my personal view on entities. Which is like, yeah, man, anyone who’s had a DMT experience or moving into, kind of, psilocybin therapy, or ayahuasca or something, these are not internally generated experiences. Like, when people are all having the same experience of mother ayahuasca coming over to them and she appears in the same way and often is offering the same guidance, you’re thinking, this is existing dude
.
 
#2
I wish there was a mechanism on this forum to keep the current podcast discussion visible - because otherwise a nice discussion like this can be effectively hidden.

At one point Charlie said:
Yes, I mean, straight off the bat, I don’t believe in any objective existing external evil. I don’t even believe in evil as a concept. I believe in traumatized people acting out unintegrated trauma, which manifests as seeming human evil. But as far as like an objective existing evil or kind of satanic archetype, yeah, I don’t really believe in that.

I believe that there is probably, in the collective unconscious, an archetypal energy of Satan because so many people have believed and projected this belief out of the collective that this thing exists, that it probably does, just as enough people believe that there’s a God concept, that that probably exists too.
Alex - do you think that is an adequate answer to your search for the nature of evil?

David
 

Alex

Administrator
#3
I wish there was a mechanism on this forum to keep the current podcast discussion visible - because otherwise a nice discussion like this can be effectively hidden.

At one point Charlie said:


Alex - do you think that is an adequate answer to your search for the nature of evil?

David
it seemed to me like charlie reversed this position for the end of the interview :)
 

Alex

Administrator
#4
I wish there was a mechanism on this forum to keep the current podcast discussion visible - because otherwise a nice discussion like this can be effectively hidden.
yeah, I feel like I've kind of been throwing too much stuff out there... but it doesn't do any good to hold back either... just letting the chips fall where they may :)
 
#5
I think Charlie can tell us a lot, but he should trust his own experiences a bit more, and be more wary of both neuroscience and Buddhist teachings!

Charlie wavered on the issue of whether certain entities he encountered were truly separate from him, or whether they were complete entities - the conversation got a bit vague at times.

It seems to me that you need some kind of overall theory of consciousness - however vague - before any of these questions make sense. For example, if consciousness is analogous to water - or indeed an electron - (I'm not saying it is), then asking whether this bit of water is distinct from that bit of water doesn't make sense. Likewise it probably doesn't make sense to ask where a particular 'chunk' of consciousness is located!

Without some personal theory of consciousness, people just get sucked into sets of ideas that were created by materialistic science, or by the science - such as it is - of psychiatry. The latter felt itself constrained not to say anything that obviously stepped outside materialism - which is probably the only reason Jung is not more mainstream, and that Tom Zinser's work has not triggered an avalanche of research and treatment innovations all over the globe, and given him a Nobel Prize.

Like many people, I have a pretty solid idea of how a computer works - right down to the individual bits - something I share with most programmers. However, nowadays, it is obvious that you don't really need such knowledge to fix computer hardware. For that job, you need a swathe of practical rules of thumb and lots of experience and manual dexterity. So for example, if you get talking to a guy who just fixed your computer, you might find that he knew about bits and bytes and machine instructions etc, or you might find that he did his job perfectly well without any ontological understanding of computers. I became aware of this very many years ago when mainframes filled rooms and had to be repaired on site. The technicians would share our tea room, and it was interesting to chat with them. However when it came to the level of machine instructions, they were disappointingly vague. This, I think, is a perfect analogy to neuroscience. Neuroscientists can be very successful at helping patients, but they may or may not have any ontological understanding. Some neuroscientists like Eban Alexander or Maureen Caudill have clearly jumped beyond neuroscience, but others are in the position of a computer technician who doesn't understand the thing he can repair!

So to me, once you break out of materialism, it really makes no sense to ask such questions as whether this entity is a broken off piece of your own consciousness, or comes from somewhere else unless you conclude that space is still meaningful in the extended consciousness realm, and that consciousness is not analogous to water or a sea of electrons.

I do wish Charlie and/or Richard would join this discussion.

David
 

Alex

Administrator
#6
Like many people, I have a pretty solid idea of how a computer works - right down to the individual bits - something I share with most programmers. However, nowadays, it is obvious that you don't really need such knowledge to fix computer hardware. For that job, you need a swathe of practical rules of thumb and lots of experience and manual dexterity. So for example, if you get talking to a guy who just fixed your computer, you might find that he knew about bits and bytes and machine instructions etc, or you might find that he did his job perfectly well without any ontological understanding of computers. I became aware of this very many years ago when mainframes filled rooms and had to be repaired on site. The technicians would share our tea room, and it was interesting to chat with them. However when it came to the level of machine instructions, they were disappointingly vague. This, I think, is a perfect analogy to neuroscience. Neuroscientists can be very successful at helping patients, but they may or may not have any ontological understanding. Some neuroscientists like Eban Alexander or Maureen Caudill have clearly jumped beyond neuroscience, but others are in the position of a computer technician who doesn't understand the thing he can repair!
nice. And I can relate although I probably can't go quite far down as you can. but maybe this is a folk turtles all the way down "kind of situation and that we somehow have this false sense of security / reality when talking about consciousness... as if we were somehow different than tech guy sent from the local electronics store windows how to swap hard drives but not much else
 
#7
I suppose what I am getting at, is that I think Charlie would be best advised to ignore neuroscience except where it delivers a practical result - such as detecting the moment when a lucid dream starts. That is practical knowledge, but it ultimately depends on a correlation - when this happens the person reports that he has entered a lucid dream. That is great, but it doesn't tell you anything deeper, just as knowing how to change a hard drive, doesn't mean that the guy has a grip on computers.

David
 
#8
I enjoyed the program with Charlie and Richard. I thought I would jump in here Alex about the term 'entity.' I very much agree with Richard, there is confusion about the meaning of the term. I think it's another instance where we lack an agreed-upon language and concepts by which to talk about these realities. I suspect there are many points of view or definitions. A distinction that grew out of my work with Gerod was between 'souls' and 'entities.' I have found this to be an extremely valuable distinction in my clinical work. When I encountered an external intrusion, the question would be whether it was a soul or a 'created entity.' A 'created entity' is a being created by a soul for particular purposes, and they can come in all shapes and sizes—monstrous forms, animal forms, human form, etc. Given a soul's creativity, I don't know what the limits are to the kinds of entities there can be. As Gerod said to me before, "thought is the most powerful force in the universe." One might think of them as projected thought-forms, elementals, psychic robots, sophisticated or programmed automatons... I think of tulpas as created entities as well. Some people call sub-personalities (ego-states) 'entities.' Charlie seems to be saying this about parts of himself also. I think Robert Monroe did the same thing—not a clear distinction between inner beings that were part of his soul and external beings that were separate souls or entities. In my work with clients, when I identified a created into interfering or intruding on a client, the aim was to remove it, like with a spirit, or have higher self or guides dissipate it, and remove the energy from the client.
 

Alex

Administrator
#9
I enjoyed the program with Charlie and Richard. I thought I would jump in here Alex about the term 'entity.' I very much agree with Richard, there is confusion about the meaning of the term. I think it's another instance where we lack an agreed-upon language and concepts by which to talk about these realities. I suspect there are many points of view or definitions. A distinction that grew out of my work with Gerod was between 'souls' and 'entities.' I have found this to be an extremely valuable distinction in my clinical work. When I encountered an external intrusion, the question would be whether it was a soul or a 'created entity.' A 'created entity' is a being created by a soul for particular purposes, and they can come in all shapes and sizes—monstrous forms, animal forms, human form, etc. Given a soul's creativity, I don't know what the limits are to the kinds of entities there can be. As Gerod said to me before, "thought is the most powerful force in the universe." One might think of them as projected thought-forms, elementals, psychic robots, sophisticated or programmed automatons... I think of tulpas as created entities as well. Some people call sub-personalities (ego-states) 'entities.' Charlie seems to be saying this about parts of himself also. I think Robert Monroe did the same thing—not a clear distinction between inner beings that were part of his soul and external beings that were separate souls or entities. In my work with clients, when I identified a created into interfering or intruding on a client, the aim was to remove it, like with a spirit, or have higher self or guides dissipate it, and remove the energy from the client.
thanks for clarifying this Tom.

I just did an interview with Jurgen Ziewe (recorded, not yet posted) and he said almost the exact same.

related... how tightly do you hold on to any of this stuff? I mean, even though we can see some similarities in the patterns it seems like we can really get lost in the details.

for example, in the original interview richard did with charlie ( you can find on his deep state consciousness podcast) he got into all this buddhist stuff about how one day on earth is 16,432 days in hell ( paraphrasing, but you get the idea)... or like in this interview where he says they've mapped "85,000 different aspects of mind that they’ve mapped, labeled , and showed how you can experience." so, I get his point regarding the confidence in Western psychology, but I think we've all encountered buddhist and other religious people who take this stuff literally... and that seems out of sync with the big picture message which is that we live in the unreal state versus the "realer than real" state of some of these other realms. when here, we need satisfy our obsession with measuring / control by saying stuff like this, but that doesn't make it "real."

then again, it sounds like Gerod was pretty precise... then again, Gerod was just a spirit and there's always a little trickster/lost-in-translation element to all this stuff.

what do you think, Tom?
 
#10
thanks for clarifying this Tom.

I just did an interview with Jurgen Ziewe (recorded, not yet posted) and he said almost the exact same.

related... how tightly do you hold on to any of this stuff? I mean, even though we can see some similarities in the patterns it seems like we can really get lost in the details.

for example, in the original interview richard did with charlie ( you can find on his deep state consciousness podcast) he got into all this buddhist stuff about how one day on earth is 16,432 days in hell ( paraphrasing, but you get the idea)... or like in this interview where he says they've mapped "85,000 different aspects of mind that they’ve mapped, labeled , and showed how you can experience." so, I get his point regarding the confidence in Western psychology, but I think we've all encountered buddhist and other religious people who take this stuff literally... and that seems out of sync with the big picture message which is that we live in the unreal state versus the "realer than real" state of some of these other realms. when here, we need satisfy our obsession with measuring / control by saying stuff like this, but that doesn't make it "real."

then again, it sounds like Gerod was pretty precise... then again, Gerod was just a spirit and there's always a little trickster/lost-in-translation element to all this stuff.

what do you think, Tom?
I agree 100% that there is a translation issue from what I would call ego-consciousness (trickster?) to soul consciousness. The best analogy I can think of is the dream where you wake up and you are so far into the dream it takes a bit to reorient and get back to the everyday world and realize you were in a dream. When we cross over, I believe we will move into our soul level consciousness like this awakening. We will remember the life just lived as well as the much bigger picture of lives lived and spirit reality. People may glimpse that level from NDEs, or mystical experience, or sacred medicine, but I'm not sure how many humans, if any, live in that consciousness while incarnate. So, to your point—I think all our religions, philosophies, metaphysics try to be the best metaphors/symbols of that spirit existence but are always a limited vessel trying to get a fix on the Divine. I think they can guide us in connecting to the Divine Light, but I'm just not sure we can comprehend that reality. This was also my position when I worked with Gerod. It was only because I could check out Gerod's information independently of him and Katharine, and that the same phenomena were presenting in individual clients unbeknownst to one another, that I had confidence in the 'inner mapping.' These thoughts also would apply, I believe, to mediums and channelers. We just need to be aware of the limited lenses through which we are viewing and engaging these infinite realities.
 

Alex

Administrator
#11
I agree 100% that there is a translation issue from what I would call ego-consciousness (trickster?) to soul consciousness. The best analogy I can think of is the dream where you wake up and you are so far into the dream it takes a bit to reorient and get back to the everyday world and realize you were in a dream. When we cross over, I believe we will move into our soul level consciousness like this awakening. We will remember the life just lived as well as the much bigger picture of lives lived and spirit reality. People may glimpse that level from NDEs, or mystical experience, or sacred medicine, but I'm not sure how many humans, if any, live in that consciousness while incarnate. So, to your point—I think all our religions, philosophies, metaphysics try to be the best metaphors/symbols of that spirit existence but are always a limited vessel trying to get a fix on the Divine. I think they can guide us in connecting to the Divine Light, but I'm just not sure we can comprehend that reality. This was also my position when I worked with Gerod. It was only because I could check out Gerod's information independently of him and Katharine, and that the same phenomena were presenting in individual clients unbeknownst to one another, that I had confidence in the 'inner mapping.' These thoughts also would apply, I believe, to mediums and channelers. We just need to be aware of the limited lenses through which we are viewing and engaging these infinite realities.
thx. boy oh boy... we're gonna have a lot to talk about next time :)
 
#12
This was also my position when I worked with Gerod. It was only because I could check out Gerod's information independently of him and Katharine, and that the same phenomena were presenting in individual clients unbeknownst to one another, that I had confidence in the 'inner mapping.'
First, it is really great that you are still with us on Skeptiko!

I am really curious about Gerod. Can you still work with him - because I am interested in how great is his knowledge of this world. I mean if he were really interested in cementing this phenomenon, he could provide a wealth of information, rather like Seth seems to have done - but hopefully more explicitly. For example, do you think you could have asked him whether minds couple with matter at the Quantum Mechanical level, as seems extremely plausible.

David
 
#13
Hello David,
When Gerod, Katharine, and I agreed to collaborate, the focus was on healing. That didn't mean I couldn't ask all kinds of other questions, which I did, but he could get very detailed in guiding me in who or what to look for, etc. However, Gerod would not get ahead of my client because that information might violate the client's free choices. These rules also seemed to apply to other topics, areas, or current events in which Gerod also was limited in how much he could say. A third limitation was Katharine's "lens." It's as though Gerod had to operate within Katharine's—her vocabulary, education, personal experience, etc. If I asked about quantum mechanics, my sense is that Katharine would not have had the requisite make-up for Gerod to use. This goes back to a previous post on my need to have a valid confirmation. It wasn't because I didn't trust Gerod, it was always a question of being as precise as possible in translating into language from Gerod's level, through Katharine's matrix, to me, and back and forth.

To the easier question: Katharine and I continued to have sessions after our collaboration ended in 2002. However, those sessions were ones I requested when I was hitting a brick wall with a client. In that case I requested a session with Gerod and focused only on that client situation. These sessions were not very frequent and I tried to only ask as a last resort. If it were up to me, I would have loved to keep right on working with Gerod, but who am I to know the larger plan? BTW, thanks for your compliments on SCH and my work.
 
#14
Tom,

First just a technical point - if you reply it really helps to use the 'Reply' button (bottom right on the post you are replying to). This sends that person an alert that you replied, and so makes a conversation much easier.

When Gerod, Katharine, and I agreed to collaborate, the focus was on healing. That didn't mean I couldn't ask all kinds of other questions, which I did, but he could get very detailed in guiding me in who or what to look for, etc. However, Gerod would not get ahead of my client because that information might violate the client's free choices. These rules also seemed to apply to other topics, areas, or current events in which Gerod also was limited in how much he could say.
When you question Gerod on business, as it were, do you have to identify the client you are discussing, or does he just pick that out of your head? If he does, that is one way telepathy, and I wonder if that could be extended to a full telepathic exchange (possibly not requiring Katherine).
BTW, Please be very careful here, because if you got Gerod 24/7 in your head, I suspect that would be seriously overwhelming.

So basically he was just constrained not to inform you about the future?

That leaves a lot of interesting topics to discuss. The ultimate would be to have him here on Skeptiko (via Katherine), but I guess that would probably be a bit challenging!

However, suppose we thrashed out a series of questions on the forum, and you put them to Gerod - that would also be amazing.

I know I am being a bit cheeky, but hey, if you don't ask, you won't get.

I'd love to ask him the QM/consciousness question if you succeeded in direct telepathy (see above).

It would be nice to know if Gerod ever incarnated on Earth.

Also, I wonder if he has any information about alternative planets to Earth - do they have the same physics?

I'd also like to know if time is simply linear, or contains branch points to form a tree that we navigate - or maybe not a tree but a directed graph (where some branches come back together again).

Also I'd like to know how that works if you have multiple entities, each making their own free will choices.

Finally (at least until I have slept on it), I'd really like to understand better the overall plan - why are we here, and what is it all about. I mean "going into the light" sounds awfully vague and dare I say, rather dodgy to me, and how does that work if we reincarnate? Actually I suspect that question would probably exceed what he can tell, but he might say something interesting.

David
 
Last edited:
#15
Tom,

First just a technical point - if you reply it really helps to use the 'Reply' button (bottom right on the post you are replying to). This sends that person an alert that you replied, and so makes a conversation much easier.



When you question Gerod on business, as it were, do you have to identify the client you are discussing, or does he just pick that out of your head? If he does, that is one way telepathy, and I wonder if that could be extended to a full telepathic exchange (possibly not requiring Katherine).
BTW, Please be very careful here, because if you got Gerod 24/7 in your head, I suspect that would be seriously overwhelming.

So basically he was just constrained not to inform you about the future?

That leaves a lot of interesting topics to discuss. The ultimate would be to have him here on Skeptiko (via Katherine), but I guess that would probably be a bit challenging!

However, suppose we thrashed out a series of questions on the forum, and you put them to Gerod - that would also be amazing.

I know I am being a bit cheeky, but hey, if you don't ask, you won't get.

I'd love to ask him the QM/consciousness question if you succeeded in direct telepathy (see above).

It would be nice to know if Gerod ever incarnated on Earth.

Also, I wonder if he has any information about alternative planets to Earth - do they have the same physics?

I'd also like to know if time is simply linear, or contains branch points to form a tree that we navigate - or maybe not a tree but a directed graph (where some branches come back together again).

Also I'd like to know how that works if you have multiple entities, each making their own free will choices.

Finally (at least until I have slept on it), I'd really like to understand better the overall plan - why are we here, and what is it all about. I mean "going into the light" sounds awfully vague and dare I say, rather dodgy to me, and how does that work if we reincarnate? Actually I suspect that question would probably exceed what he can tell, but he might say something interesting.

David
Thanks David for the tip on "reply." (I should find a tutorial on forums and how to navigate the threads.)

I have to say first that you sound like me when I first began communicating with Gerod. Questions flooded my mind and it took a while to get my bearings. The fifteen-year collaboration with Gerod involved approximately 650 sessions and resulted in about 7000 pages of transcript. Themes, topics, phenomena, specific cases were carried on through our many dialogues. Somewhat like the forum, I would look at them as threads that wound their way through those years of dialogues. It took quite a long time to begin to see how the threads wove together from the personal incarnate level to the soul level.

In regard to clients, when I asked Gerod I would give him the client's name. Often, I would describe to Gerod where I ended a session being stuck or blocked or receiving some kind of strange information and ask whether there was information he could give to help resolve the problem so we could move forward. Other times, he would offer information on where to look for the source of a problem or the name of an ego-state or a spirit that I should try to engage. If I encountered a new phenomenon, I would talk with Gerod about also in general, maybe for several sessions, separate from the client's treatment.

Gerod said he has been a guide from the beginning. He has never lived an incarnate life, but said (as best I remember) that he had manifested a body at least a couple of times just to experience it.

As to why we are here: Gerod said that each soul is on a journey of awakening to what it is, i.e., the Divine Light. He said when souls were created, they were perfect but not complete. He saw the journey through lifetimes as a soul, through its experience of free choice. I sometimes have the image of the Buddha, at the moment of enlightenment, having knowledge of all his lifetimes. I think it's fair to say that that consciousness transcended ego-consciousness.

I believe that "going into the Light" is vague because it is beyond ego comprehension. Just as the NDEers say, it can't be put into words. To hear more from Gerod, you can order a book, Soul Awareness, that Katharine channeled and her husband transcribed. Here is the link if you're interested.

https://www.amazon.com/Soul-Awarene...ywords=katharine+mackey&qid=1595330518&sr=8-1

I have to stop here. Duty calls, so I'll leave some questions for another time.
 
#16
In regard to clients, when I asked Gerod I would give him the client's name. Often, I would describe to Gerod where I ended a session being stuck or blocked or receiving some kind of strange information and ask whether there was information he could give to help resolve the problem so we could move forward. Other times, he would offer information on where to look for the source of a problem or the name of an ego-state or a spirit that I should try to engage. If I encountered a new phenomenon, I would talk with Gerod about also in general, maybe for several sessions, separate from the client's treatment.
However, at some point he must have been able to make the leap to access the client's mind - otherwise his advice would have only been able to give very general advice at best.
Gerod said he has been a guide from the beginning. He has never lived an incarnate life, but said (as best I remember) that he had manifested a body at least a couple of times just to experience it.
Wow!
As to why we are here: Gerod said that each soul is on a journey of awakening to what it is, i.e., the Divine Light. He said when souls were created, they were perfect but not complete. He saw the journey through lifetimes as a soul, through its experience of free choice. I sometimes have the image of the Buddha, at the moment of enlightenment, having knowledge of all his lifetimes. I think it's fair to say that that consciousness transcended ego-consciousness.

I believe that "going into the Light" is vague because it is beyond ego comprehension. Just as the NDEers say, it can't be put into words.
That sounds plausible, but I can't be the only one who cringes at the idea. Jurgen Ziewe talks of something vaguely similar, but before you get there he reports there is masses of non-physical realms that resemble Earth plus a lot of other physical environments.
To hear more from Gerod, you can order a book, Soul Awareness, that Katharine channeled and her husband transcribed. Here is the link if you're interested.

https://www.amazon.com/Soul-Awarene...ywords=katharine+mackey&qid=1595330518&sr=8-1
Thanks for the book recommendation - it is probably not a book that would have come to my attention otherwise, and is now on its way to my Kindle. I'll read it as my next book.

I look forward to your thoughts on my other questions.

David
 
#17
However, at some point he must have been able to make the leap to access the client's mind - otherwise his advice would have only been able to give very general advice at best.

Wow!

That sounds plausible, but I can't be the only one who cringes at the idea. Jurgen Ziewe talks of something vaguely similar, but before you get there he reports there is masses of non-physical realms that resemble Earth plus a lot of other physical environments.


Thanks for the book recommendation - it is probably not a book that would have come to my attention otherwise, and is now on its way to my Kindle. I'll read it as my next book.

I look forward to your thoughts on my other questions.

David
I really need to back up. Gerod made clear in the beginning he was able, with permission, to read a person's soul. When I talked to him about a client, he was reading my client's soul in present time regarding whatever situation or issue I was asking about. That's the information I took back to the client's next session. I would say Gerod was also picking up information from me. There were plenty of times when my connection to the client seemed to guide Gerod also.

I would have to hear Jurgen Ziewe's description to see if there were some kind of correspondence or overlapping in our views. I know Gerod did agree there are other physical and non-physical environments inhabited by souls.
 
#18
I really need to back up. Gerod made clear in the beginning he was able, with permission, to read a person's soul. When I talked to him about a client, he was reading my client's soul in present time regarding whatever situation or issue I was asking about. That's the information I took back to the client's next session. I would say Gerod was also picking up information from me. There were plenty of times when my connection to the client seemed to guide Gerod also.
I get a bit lost in the terminology. Some people talk of an over-soul that is aware of the whole progression of incarnations - is that what you mean by soul?
I would have to hear Jurgen Ziewe's description to see if there were some kind of correspondence or overlapping in our views. I know Gerod did agree there are other physical and non-physical environments inhabited by souls.
He has been interviewed by Alex at least once before, but Alex said there is another interview with him waiting to come out.

David
 

Alex

Administrator
#19
He has been interviewed by Alex at least once before, but Alex said there is another interview with him waiting to come out.

David
I would have to hear Jurgen Ziewe's description to see if there were some kind of correspondence or overlapping in our views. I know Gerod did agree there are other physical and non-physical environments inhabited by souls.
thx for this great exchange guys... learning a lot.

Jurgen won't be up for a few weeks. I'm backlogged. but I'm happy to share it with you privately if you want to hear the raw version... or we can just wait.
 
#20
It seems to me that you need some kind of overall theory of consciousness - however vague - before any of these questions make sense. For example, if consciousness is analogous to water - or indeed an electron - (I'm not saying it is), then asking whether this bit of water is distinct from that bit of water doesn't make sense.
I get this - totally... yet also, I find nature seems to present the most amazing forms, relationships of those forms and changes of those forms that can be perceived as metaphors to metaphysical questions like the question of consciousness.

I have resolved the "water as an analogy for 'being'" (for myself). The primary credit goes to Tim Freke interestingly enough. The initial light went on when I watched this video from Tim -


And then, over time, in other videos and other ways, Tim emphasized the "both/and" potential. Not long after I began to see the idea of "perception" having three primary reference points instead of two (the third being what some call "soul").

And so in the analogy of water, if one looks at the ocean and asks the question, how does water know it is water (implying all there is is water and thus how can water differentiate itself), all there is is water, so we assume it can't. Furthering the metaphor, we know water also evaporates into the air. We can measure water in the air but either cannot see it or, it is a haze, fog or cloud. Consider what happens when we see water accumulating under a roof gutter in the form of condensation? It forms into drops. And eventually, gravity breaks a drop away from the rest of the accumulation of water. The drop is, as it is falling, distinct. This is the same for raindrops, snow or hail that fall from the clouds.

For me, the analogy fits well as when water is the ocean, that is like "the ground of being" to me. When water is evaporated into the air it is like the realm of soul. It is there yet unseen. As it forms a cloud, it is easy to see the distinct form of the cloud albeit constantly changing (individualized and yet also, always changing its form... like a soul on its soul journey).

A drop from that cloud is like a lifetime... and many drops fall (many lifetimes).

When I consider water as consciousness, I also can see consciousness as fundamental, as "arisings" forming conscious agency and as "that which I perceive in this world to be 'you' when I pass you on the street." It's all still consciousness as, in the metaphor, it's all still water.

Also, this always reminds me of this - "As above, so below."
 
Last edited:
Top