Discussion split from: NDE Multimedia Resource Thread

This is a common New Age view of crime and punishment - that it essentially is the soul in the afterlife creating its own redemptive processes of understanding and forgiveness (both on the part of the perpetrator and of the victim). The understanding part supposedly includes being compelled to experience at least some of the anguishing suffering in others caused by the previous personality. I have always thought such a system lets the guilty off much too easily, but maybe that underestimates just how difficult such an experiential review might be. 

The perspective of this philosophy is of course that the physical life, no matter how filled with suffering (or for that matter cruelty to others), is extremely temporary, an eyeblink, in the life of the soul, and the former human personality after physical death sooner or later comes to a deep realization of this as his personality merges with soul consciousness. In this process the human personality supposedly never loses itself, never loses its sense of being "me". This is very hard or impossible to understand, and has to be accepted on faith. Anyway, this deep realization includes putting the importance of this suffering in its proper place as a very temporary circumstance that was intended or at least accepted by the soul for its learning value, or as an inevitable concomitant to other but positive results accomplished by the physical life. As can be seen, in this philosophy the soul is a very much different being from the human personality, and the human personality does not persist indefinitely as the central core of the being. 

So in this New Age philosophy, from the perspective of the soul, suffering on the part of the last human personality is of limited importance, being very temporary and experienced by just a tiny part of the total soul consciousness. 

Just how we as humans are to take this (its justness or otherwise) is another matter entirely.

I'm not sure whether you are using the term "New Age" as a pejorative but I think that the notion of non judgement exists in some religions too. Buddhism, for example, teaches non judgement. I copied this from a Buddhist information site:

There is no almighty God in Buddhism. There is no one to hand out rewards or punishments on a supposed Judgement Day.

On the other hand, I would say that we are conditioned, both by our religious teachings and our secular justice systems, to think in terms of punishment. The Old Testament is one long treatise on punishment and vengeance. If you follow the New Testament, Jesus admonished those who would be quick to judge but this is advice to mortals, not about whether God will judge us. Certainly Catholics and evangelicals seem to be obsessed with sin and punishment. 

My personal view is that we are here in this world to experience all the lessons that arise out of our mortality. These lessons could not be learned in a spiritual reality in which we don't run the risk of death. And death is, after all, the ultimate punishment. I think that we are beings with free will, allowed to make mistakes and allowed to experience everything that the mortal life can throw up ... from natural disasters to disease to crime to wars. I maintain that we have the freedom to be kind and compassionate or selfish and cruel. 

That does not mean that there are no consequences to our actions. I am quite taken with the idea of karma although, again, I don't see it as some kind of comeuppance. I imagine karma to be a kind of natural law - a reaction that follows naturally from an action. If that action is negative and destructive, the reaction - or rather the restitution of balance - would be for the personality involved to perform positive, constructive and loving acts, either involving those who were harmed by the original action or towards others in general. Failure to do so would leave such a personality mired in a negative and destructive cycle. I envisage that karma is the path of personal and soul evolution that we all experience, however unlikely it may seem at any one point in this life or in the cycle of reincarnation.

It seems to me that human personality isn’t eternal in the sense that it’s seems to change all through our lives. I’m the same individual I was born but I’m not the same person.

It seems to me that human personality isn’t eternal in the sense that it’s seems to change all through our lives. I’m the same individual I was born but I’m not the same person.

Yes, I agree. I think this is why there is a distinction in spiritual discussions between personality and soul. The soul seems to be the essence while the personality is transitory. How much can be identified as a "soul trait" as opposed to something only seen in  the current personality is not really clear to me. I am pretty convinced that reincarnation is real and that we all have lived through various incarnations, each with its own personality (and even that changes over a lifetime). It seems to me that these all contribute to the soul evolution. Again, the difficult question for me is how this evolution happens if we accept that time does not work the way we think it does (or not at all). Anyone who has read Seth will know that he maintains that all these lives actually happen simultaneously and, while that might be the case, I can't get my head around it.

There is also the question in my mind about whether the soul belongs to another collective, another gestalt - some kind of super-soul. And further whether the ultimate collective is what we call God.

Yes, I agree. I think this is why there is a distinction in spiritual discussions between personality and soul. The soul seems to be the essence while the personality is transitory. How much can be identified as a "soul trait" as opposed to something only seen in  the current personality is not really clear to me. I am pretty convinced that reincarnation is real and that we all have lived through various incarnations, each with its own personality (and even that changes over a lifetime). It seems to me that these all contribute to the soul evolution. Again, the difficult question for me is how this evolution happens if we accept that time does not work the way we think it does (or not at all). Anyone who has read Seth will know that he maintains that all these lives actually happen simultaneously and, while that might be the case, I can't get my head around it.

There is also the question in my mind about whether the soul belongs to another collective, another gestalt - some kind of super-soul. And further whether the ultimate collective is what we call God.

What do you see as the distinction between ‘soul’ and ‘individual’ (if any)?

What do you see as the distinction between ‘soul’ and ‘individual’ (if any)?

I don't think that we have the adequate language to define these concepts so we use what words we have available. I can only go on the terms I've seen used and mostly there is a distinction between the personality and the soul as I mentioned above. 

However, the word "individual" seems to me to imply a stronger sense of separation. My whole approach to this is that we are all part of this ultimate super-soul we often refer to as God. The separation itself is an illusion which is maintained by the "individual" soul or the "individual" personality but "God" is aware of all and my experience and your experience is God's experience. I'm pretty much convinced that God does not experience me or you as separate any more than I am separate from my thoughts. I am not separate: I am my thoughts.

A recent interview with Bruce Greyson on his work and his book After. It's just under an hour long:

That was pretty nice. Bruce Greyson is a real nice talker, but he does ramble a little sometimes. That might just be because I'm younger though. I feel bad for the guy recounting some of the stories he's heard, he always seems to choke up a little at that nurse car crash one. 

Also interesting to hear about him being more of a committed materialist before his research, I never knew that.

I've posted this German woman's NDE previously but here is a much more lengthy interview by Thanatos, to which he's very kindly provided English dubbing.

Thanks for posting this Tim, this NDE story is one of the most interesting ones I’ve heard. 

Very interesting. Something has clearly happened to this lady. It certainly seems to have transformed her view of the the world. I find it difficult to construct a meaning behind her experience that explains it in mundane terms. Thanks for posting it Tim.

Thanks very much, Stan and Obiwan ! I'm glad you and others liked it. I thought it was interesting that she described (in her out of body state whatever that is) being able to "sit" on the bed next to her body but also to go through the bed, depending on her intention.

That might be a clue as to why some people report being "stopped" by the ceiling (when they're floating upwards) and others just go through it, or whatever else they go through (walls, floors, I've heard it all). Is it what you believe you can do, in this state? 

Also, she reports having a complete etheric? body, hands, feet, even eyes etc. Is this a mental construct or is there actually some kind of astral body composed of something beyond our scope and comprehension (fairy dust). Of course, it's completely unscientific to even suggest such a thing but this is what many of the experiencers report.

Obiwan said "I find it difficult to construct a meaning behind her experience that explains it in mundane terms."

And good point, me too and I've tried.

That might be a clue as to why some people report being "stopped" by the ceiling (when they're floating upwards) and others just go through it, or whatever else they go through (walls, floors, I've heard it all). Is it what you believe you can do, in this state? 

I don’t know, and to be honest, I am not that interested. I don’t think we’re ever able to do things like this in our present state, but have little doubt that the rules change significantly in other dimensions. That’s why I can see the possibilities of such states being involved in alien abductions, or even seeing UFOs and so on. 

The event certainly seems to have changed her a lot. Would the medical fraternity treat such cases with sympathy? Or would they, as they often appear to do, put her on heavy medication?

One thing that possibly makes me slightly cynical, is the price of her book on Amazon. £13+ and £8+ on kindle. The price may be set by the publishers, but it’s still pricey. More Bezos than Jesus?