Dr. Penny Sartori, Are NDEs All Light and Love? |374|

Discussion in 'Skeptiko Shows' started by Alex, Mar 6, 2018.

  1. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,481
    I tend to be optimistic, and I think we really are approaching a point where there will be a sudden sharp drop in the unquestioning belief in science. This will immediately impact on the censorship of things that appear unscientific.

    An interesting example of what I mean, can be found in the orthodox scientific view of the supposed danger posed by saturated fats. Without going into all the gory details, it would seem that this idea was launched on very poor evidence, and maintained partly for political reasons - to help the corn growers. As time went by it became more and more difficult to reverse the official position. The demonisation of fat, popularised 'low fat' products in which much of the fat had been replaced by sugar - thus causing serious harm to vast numbers of people.

    http://www.silverfrost.com/ftn95-help/clearwinp/gdialog/drawingtext.aspx

    https://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/1124.aspx?CategoryID=51&SubCategoryID=167

    Despite these and many other protestations, the official position hasn't changed, but more and more people have learned the truth. Some reverse their T2 diabetes by adopting a high fat, low carb diet, against official medical advice!

    There are a number of other scientific scandals vying to be the first to explode!

    Once that explosion happens, together will all the associated lawsuits, it will send shock waves through science - as it becomes widely known that science isn't always truthful.

    David
     
  2. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,481
    Well technically NO! I mean, a group of people would not need to agree about who the idiots and lunatics were, in order to agree that the internet had given a voice to a range of idiots and lunatics! Indeed I think we would all agree that it has.

    However, I think the internet has done more good than harm, opening up discussion to points of view that were barely heard before.

    David
     
    Judith likes this.
  3. Wormwood

    Wormwood Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2017
    Messages:
    398
    I was thinking about this a while back and mentioned it in at least one other post. This increase in communication and technology (people able to share ideas and converse) and maybe with some help from quantum physics, I THINK, will lead to widespread spiritualism and a marriage of science and spirituality, where that sort of thing will become the norm. It wont happen this year or the next year, or probably next decade. But the seeds are being planted.
     
    Charlie Primero likes this.
  4. Mishelle

    Mishelle Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2017
    Messages:
    246
    Home Page:
    A heightened sense of awareness is the mark of receptivity, which is neither active nor passive. One has 'created space' usually by being inactive. Love and light are passive in that one need not do anything at all to experience them. No effort required. It happens to you, to the NDEs, they do not need to seek it out.

    What I have heard in the data so far is a 'bliss state' which has been experienced, similar to that experienced on certain drugs or when one has fallen 'in love' (for the brief period of infatuation), but I have not yet seen much evidence of that carrying over into the real world with 'love and light' then being actively projected back into the field of reality with any level of efficacy.

    What other books can I read about how the 'love and light' of one's NDE bringing about a personal transformation that then actively contributes to the individual pursuing something greater than oneself in the community or world?

    For every story I've heard talking 'light and love' I've heard one of denial and disease. Two famous ones right off the top of my head: Mary Baker Eddy, I believe one of the very first to profess in her scriptures "God is love" and God/love heals. She was ill most of her life. Debby Ford, one of the hugest 'love and lighters' of recent decades talks about her own chronic denial and reality glossing that led to her premature death of cancer. Marian Williamson, well known for her new age love and light preaching, rarely ever, if ever, speaks about her monumental failures of judgment, of which there are many. A Course in Miracles channeling author (co-authored by a CIA agent) was another who was plagued in real life with a clear lack of love and light.

    It is imperative if we want true scientific light shed on this topic we must tear it from the claws of the bankrupt and withering New Age community and its campy language.
     
    AryaS and morvern_c like this.
  5. Mishelle

    Mishelle Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2017
    Messages:
    246
    Home Page:
    If your child had to choose between being 'loved' by you, or 'cared for' by you, which would he choose?
     
    AryaS likes this.
  6. Michael Patterson

    Michael Patterson New

    Joined:
    May 1, 2015
    Messages:
    274
    Home Page:
    I think my language was intemperate here, but I do not resile from my position. I have spent the past few weeks deep diving into conspiracy theories and the amount of utterly risible speculation is overwhelming. Yes I know that points of view are dissed by classifying the person with the contrary position as stupid or mad. Merely resorting to personal insult as a means of addressing an argument is pretty pathetic. That does not mean that there are not people who lack the intelligence or education, emotional or mental stability who are holding forth on all manner of subject on the net.

    I know we live in an age when everyone is entitled to their opinion and these days we have the means to publish our opinions and detect communities of common interest with ease. I am not arguing against that liberty. But I am plainly saying that this liberty comes with a very plain risk - it exposes many people to predation by people who are not necessarily of sound mind and not necessarily telling the truth.

    I don't by the "extreme skeptic" line. You are a skeptic or you are not. Skepticism is a personal and intellectual discipline. For example, from a recent thing I was looking into - it is one thing to be sceptical of what NASA says, because it has been exposed as lying at times. It is not skeptical to declare that NASA lies all the time - which is what a lot of self-proclaimed skeptics are saying.

    I am going to lazily rely on Wikipedia to make a point here: (because I am selective about what I doubt about its contents)

    · Skepticism is generally any questioning attitude or doubt towards one or more items of putative knowledge or belief.

    · Skeptic philosphers from different historical periods adopted different principles and arguments, but their ideology can be generalized as either (1) the denial of possibility of all knowledge or (2) the suspension of judgement due to the inadequacy of evidence.

    If I add "extreme" to any of these descriptions I would have to conclude that I was moving into the domain of unreasonableness and ignorance. And I see that pretty often. I might add that I am also particularly partial to "the suspension of judgement due to the inadequacy of evidence."

    So as I write I am thinking that while I must still affirm the dignity of the 'extreme skeptic' as a person entitled to an opinion and a vehicle to express it, I cannot have any regard for ideas that are incubated in unreasonableness and ignorance. Right at the moment I am pretty cranky about the way that well-meaning folk are taken in by liars and deceivers. You may think we have a problem with organised deception from governments and beyond, but you need to know how much opportunistic freelance predation comes from those who style themselves as truth finders and protectors. The net is riddled with their deception. A lot of it is carefully contrived to deceive people who are otherwise very intelligent and critical.

    I plainly see this as a way bigger problem than many others do. I have seen how I have been sucked into believing something that is actually exposed as complete bollocks when I have taken the time to deep dive into the claims. I was being smug about my own ability to operate a really good BS sensor - but I was drawn in through my complacency and biases. It has been a good reminder about being a proper skeptic.

    So do please forgive my intemperate language at the moment. I am feeling very angry at the moment.
     
  7. dpdownsouth

    dpdownsouth Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2017
    Messages:
    219
    Ah, after death communication like mediumship etc. I misunderstood, thanks.

    But I would definitely still be keen to read your observations on the differences between NDEs and after death communication if you'd care to share them. :)
     
  8. dpdownsouth

    dpdownsouth Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2017
    Messages:
    219
    @Mishelle, thanks for the challenging reply. :)

    Sure, but isn't it what we do with these undeniably powerful experiences that counts? Research and anecdote reveal that 'peak' experiences have lasting effects and can fundamentally change people's view of reality.... and it's our fundamental beliefs that determine how we act in the world!

    You mentioned Martin Luther King Jr in an earlier post - I think the man is a perfect example of a philosophy grounded in love not necessarily being passive. Ram Das is another one (I'm waiting for the CIA claim) who takes love seriously and has been politically engaged for most of his life.

    Really, history is littered with people who have acted from their love-and-light-style spiritual beliefs (sometimes successfully, too).

    Also, I reckon that when something comes up again and again in the data we just have to take it seriously.

    I'm not going to stand up for new-age fuzziness, but we do know that consciousness and conscious intention can and does impact reality. As for the new-age as a whole - yes, lots of rubbish, but it also brought some interesting stuff closer to the mainstream (even Rupert Sheldrake claims to have been influenced by the new-age movement). And when new-agers warble on about vibes and resonance..... are they really that far off the mark?

    Ok, sure. But we also have to be careful because many leading lights in the PSI and humanistic psychology fields have had funding links to the CIA in the past.... but couldn't this reflect some of the CIA's past interests and not indicate any nefariousness on the part of the funding recipients (not all of them, anyway)? Also, William Thetford did not write/channel the A Course In Miracles material (and I'm not a devotee, btw).

    Thanks again!
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2018
    Mishelle likes this.
  9. Radish

    Radish Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2016
    Messages:
    25
    Okay, David, I don't think we would disagree on much when it comes to love in material incarnation. I think you actually get it more or less in one in your first delineation of what you mean by love:
    Generalise that a bit and you get something like, "Love is the active care and concern for the growth and well-being of that which is loved." I might have got that quote a bit wrong in precise wording but not in essence. The quote is from Erich Fromm's The Art of Loving which I read many years ago but that definition always stuck with me. It can, I think, be applied, as a containing dynamic, to all the 'categories' you mention - if it's being done properly. Fromm was quite a writer and his short book on this covers a lot of ground, culture-wise, on why very few people on this planet can actually 'do love', 'practice love' - we have an entire cultural system around us that actually mitigates against being able to love and creates astonishing confusion for us because this is so.

    When you say:
    I think you are right but only up to a point - not all things are amenable to description via scientific method and (wordy) language. Ask a scientist for a definition of love and what you could get is a long list of hormone-driven neuronal-firing brain activity. Sure won't explain what love is. I doubt very much that most scientists would hazard a guess at what love is once we're dead and free of the body (What! Are you nuts? might be their response) - yet love does exist in the afterlife (in spades!).

    Leaving material incarnation aside my own experience of having an NDE revealed the sheer primitiveness of (wordy) language. It's not necessary to communicate using it, in fact, once it gets dumped, communication capacities increase to a degree that is simply unbelievable in Earthly terms. And NDErs can't write about that directly because if they try to translate that into words the attempt will fail. They can point in the general direction, and that can be helpful, but they can't actually show what they mean in words (because words aren't necessary there - it doesn't come in words). It's just not possible and, from my point of view, no attempt at the application of science is going to change that. (Wordy) Language, as we know it, can't do anything other than stand as symbols for the phenomena being discussed. That's the most it can do, be a symbol - it never gets to the thing itself. There, the afterlife, you get the thing itself - but you can't translate that to language as we use it here.

    In my own experience love there is quite complex in some ways. There is love expressed between individuals (beings/entities) that is to some extent personal in nature. Though this happens within a framework whereby those individuals are actually united (as a group) within a greater 'meta-mind' that is in some ways an individual in its own right - though it is comprised of all the individuals in the group, it kind of seems to coordinate the group in some way, gives it unity. And that meta-mind also expresses love to the entire group - but it isn't quite so personal as the love the individuals are expressing. Difficult to explain. To be honest I can't explain it. However, I would hope that you can see in what way this is different to human love; already, even at this level, you can see that it is literally part of the environment. It's an energy, a power (though don't confuse "power" with "force" it's more subtle than that), inside the environment itself. So as you can see when you say, "... normal human love is normally inextricably linked to something else ..." well that is happening here, yes, but also that line is starting to become blurred. (I hope you can see that.) It's like, mmm..., like another being transmits to you their love for you and you experience that directly inside you as a property inside you, it's actually inside you, you can identify it, in you, but it's not you - it's that other being. Now I'm going to contradict myself, I have to because this is so subtle: I've said it's not you, but the rub is that now it is, because it's in you (even though it's another being) and you respond in kind back to that being. And this happens to hundreds, thousands of beings (I doubt it has a limit) all at the same time. So you can have say, a hundred, whatever, beings inside you all at the same time. Do you see, it becomes the 'glue' that unifies the individuals into a group (and ultimately to a meta-mind). Exactly the same dynamic happens between you and the meta-mind - it's above you, yet is is within you too. (Do you see, that is different from human love.) However, that meta-mind love is less discernable as an individual and that love isn't quite so personal it is a little bit (in my experience) but the 'personal' part is attenuated by quite a bit (it has a kind of abstract quality to it - but it definitely isn't abstract in its manifestation as love) - so now that is acting a bit like love for the sake of love itself, because it is of very high value. See, it's starting to become a force, a power, in its own right. It's like there is no requirement for an intermediary (a personal 'target') in respect of it being the recipient of the love - the love starts to get generated because it is worth-while in and of itself, it is sufficient for its own sake. This is very different from what humans do. It is also an astonishingly beautiful state to be in.

    Again dealing with my own experience and 'the light' in particular. There were two 'stages' to that with respect to love. In the first stage, for want of a better way to describe it, I merged completely into the light. That is to say, I totally, utterly, completely disappeared - I became the light itself. (I was gone, totally gone.) And what was the light, that I had become, doing? It was generating love the like of which we just could not generate as human beings - can't be done. Curious thing about it though was that the love didn't have a 'target' of any description at all. Here your statement (which is fair enough) that "... normal human love is normally inextricably linked to something else ..." is completely blown away. Love was being generated for no reason at all other than this was completely fundamental to what that light was. I should also add that that love was also completely non-personal. It couldn't be directed at me, because 'I' had 'vanished', I became the light. But nor was it directed at anything else either because there was nothing else but the light - and it was unspeakably vast, it was utterly, utterly massive. I had no conception of myself while this was happening and, here is the rub, that light had no conception of itself either - what it did was generate love, directed at it knew not what, and that was sufficient - that was it's very nature. That was a very brief phase of being in the light but it was very distinct.

    What happened immediately following that was that I sensed myself to come into being again - like as if I was extruded out of the light. Then the being did interact with me, in a very loving way, strictly speaking that interaction wasn't personal in any sense other than one: it was concerned that I felt totally safe with it. So there it did have a 'target'. Other than that it wasn't personal at all - it was though still love of a kind that I had never experienced as a human. All the love there was like that it was well beyond the human.

    I would have to say that love is the fundamental motive force in the afterlife. It is quite literally a power in the very structure of the afterlife realms. That said it isn't coercive, it would never try to force you to act in a particular way - it is accepting of you, as you are at that point in time, without reservation. However, I am sure that to progress in the afterlife it will most certainly be to the extent that you can give and receive love - that will determine where you can be there, where you can go, and what your associated state will be. Some of that is speculation on my part (though with some direct experience feeding into it) but the same theme keeps popping up in afterlife literature and, from my experience, I have no doubt that theme is in essence totally right.

    I dare say that what I've said doesn't answer your question but it is the best I can do. All I can do is point a finger and hope that you look in the direction it is pointing in, not at the finger itself.
     
    AryaS, dpdownsouth and Judith like this.
  10. Judith

    Judith New

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2013
    Messages:
    114
    Unfortunately, that is often the case. The experience (and I've had an NDE plus several OBE's) is not easily translated into words, because it is ineffable. It is not arrogance on our parts....that is (IMO) a projection on your part.
     
    Obiwan, Typoz and Radish like this.
  11. Judith

    Judith New

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2013
    Messages:
    114
    Yes. Love is a state of being...an energy if you will.
     
    Radish likes this.
  12. Judith

    Judith New

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2013
    Messages:
    114
    Yes. I posted something about this earlier.
     
    Radish likes this.
  13. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,481
    This is very true, and it extends beyond love, to any emotion or to any mental activity at all. If you ask how one of the entheogens work - say cannabis - they will tell you about certain receptors in the brain. However, a receptor is no more than relay - passing a message on - and those explanations are useless at actually explaining what is going on in the brain.

    We shouldn't talk about 'scientists' too glibly though - there are those who realise only too well the explanatory gap involved - including some physicists, who can view neuroscience from a certain distance.

    David
     
    Radish likes this.
  14. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,481
    Reading through this thread, it occurs to me that it would be helpful if those who have had an NDE (or maybe an OBE) would indicate that on the top of your first post (remember you can always edit your posts), because obviously those who have had this experience know more than those, such as myself, who have not!

    David
     
    Obiwan and Judith like this.
  15. Mishelle

    Mishelle Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2017
    Messages:
    246
    Home Page:
    Thanks back, I appreciate the exploration of this topic which I haven't revisited for about 5 years or so. I had looked into that text specifically and remember the contrary even coming from inside sources. But, I do not trust much anymore, including my own past research, and am always willing to re-explore any territory that still holds me at some level. Which says a lot actually, b/c I did learn from my 3 years of 'new age school brainwashing' attempts. Which I did completely voluntarily and with the same gusto I do anything I commit to doing. And turned out to be a lot of spiritual bypassing on every leader I personally came across. :) I try to say that with some lightness, b/c there are many there I respect still, even though their lives seem a constant chaos and not really worthy of selling as great exemplaires to the rest of the world in the way they do.

    And I did learn some real skills and capacities and language of value. I had some teachers I still value as 'great' influences in my small (by choice) life. That's the beauty of the greatest teachers, they expect a student to move beyond, otherwise, what's the point. The best teachers show you where to look, not what to see. That's when I know these teachers of what's still left of the new agers, they are not what we need now, they are not authentic, they are too many of them like all the other lifetime actors the public is left following to their demise.

    I don't know the NDE research and am excited to explore it! And, I do know the New Age rhetoric, and it really turns me off. That's the paradox I'm currently experiencing in this topic. And further, I'm a bonafide 'conspiracy theorist' and I admit without shame or humility, I see a conspiracy under every rock. And still, open to hear all opinions!
     
    AryaS, morvern_c and dpdownsouth like this.
  16. gabriel

    gabriel New

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,644
    A side step from the light-love theme, I've often wondered at the nature of the tunnel perceived in NDEs and the way it suggests travel as we understand it. Passing through what seems like a kind of wormhole on the way, with places and people, or at least entities on the journey. Heaven and hell are often emphasised as states of being, could they be places?
     
    dpdownsouth likes this.
  17. Obiwan

    Obiwan Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2013
    Messages:
    1,226
    Well from my own reading which is extensive (after death communication) but I wouldn’t say exhaustive , there seem to be some similarities in the initial stages. For example: viewing one’s own physical body, attempting to communicate with living people but not being heard or felt, moving rapidly to different places, finally travelling to some place clearly different from where they were living when alive, and communication with entities who seem vastly more knowledgeable and older than the communicator and which are much more ‘advanced spiritually’ (whatever that means).

    On the other hand, I haven’t read any accounts where there is access to some kind of universal knowledge, absence of some sort of ‘body’, a feeling of bliss or connectedness with the universe. In fact the impression I get is of a change so gradual that often people do not realise they died at all. Progress appears to be a natural progression but there seems to be no pressure to progress and for many it seems very slow indeed. I haven’t read any after death accounts that talk about the kind of transformation that NDE experiences seem to encounter. It could that the communicators do have the same experience but report it differently.

    I’m not inclined to prefer one type of experience and exclude the other but it does puzzle me sometimes.
     
    dpdownsouth likes this.
  18. When people die, the initial stages are designed to help them adjust easily to prevent confusion and disorientation. If you went from a physical earth existence to a realm that was purely non-physical, it would be confusing and disorienting. It is one thing when you are taken on a visit to a new realm of existence and shown things to help you (and others) when you come back to your physical body, and another to find yourself in a permanently changed condition.
    Do you think this contradicts what people learn during NDE's? Do NDE's cover "rate of progress" or "presure to progress"? (As a side note, I've read accounts of people not wanting to reincarnate but after all their friends progressed to higher levels in the afterlife and they are left behind they eventually decide to do it.)
    I don't think you can really compare the effects of an NDE on a person and the effects of really dying. It is like comparing apples to oranges. NDErs are changed by their death experience, but spirits are also changed by their life experience. People retain their personality after death but the knowledge of the afterlife and all that entails does often change people who are open to change. But it varies from person to person. Someone who has a lot of strongly held beliefs might be resistant to change after death. Some (not all) materialists refuse to believe they are dead and instead believe they are having a dream. But not everyone is inflexible, some people (not all) who are brought up with religious views that do not match what they experience in the afterlife don't have any problem accepting the new reality.

    The biggest difference I am aware of between NDEs and a full transition to the afterlife is that in a full transition, the life review is more of a methodical process of study and occurs after one had had time to adjust to the afterlife, rather than being blasted with it at the beginning of the experience.
     
    dpdownsouth likes this.
  19. Charlie Primero

    Charlie Primero Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2017
    Messages:
    774
    Richard Cox and Mishelle like this.
  20. dpdownsouth

    dpdownsouth Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2017
    Messages:
    219
    Yes, it's very interesting.... we come into this world through a tunnel (birth canal), we leave through one (NDE).

    I also dig the wormhole and heaven as a place idea.... it's similar to the concept of disembodied intelligences being the consciousnesses of distant stars, planets or galactic fields. I find this romantic and appealing.

    Speaking of tunnels and wormholes, the mandorla:

    [​IMG]

    This reminds me: Terence McKenna said that the entities he encountered on DMT/mushroom trips were particularly interested in expanding his/humanity's language in an effort to increase our ability to grasp the ineffable.
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2018
    AryaS and hypermagda like this.

Share This Page