Famous Psychiatrist Reveals How You Live NOW Affects Your Afterlife

I'm a fan of the Akashic records being experienced, and mistaken for previous lives.

How can [a] record hold a memory?

A diary doesn't have memories, neither does a computer disk. 

Even a brain holding memories is a strange idea to me.

How can [a] record hold a memory?

http://www.theosophy.wiki/en/Akashic_Records

The akashic records were first mentioned in 1881, in Col. Olcott's book The Buddhist Catechism. There, he talks about "a permanency of records in the Akasha, and the potential capacity of man to read the same when he has evolved to the stage of true individual enlightenment."

An example of this ability can be found in one of the letters from Mahatma K.H. Referring to an accusation of plagiarism the Master received, he explained the following to A. P. Sinnett:

I have a habit of often quoting, minus quotation marks — from the maze of what I get in the countless folios of our Akasic libraries, so to say — with eyes shut. Sometimes I may give out thoughts that will see light years later; at other times what an orator, a Cicero may have pronounced ages earlier, and at others, what was not only pronounced by modern lips but already either written or printed — as in the Kiddle case.[1]

Many claim to have seen these libraries, but I have to wonder how reliable or genuine it is, and whether it can be veridically-verified.

http://www.theosophy.wiki/en/Akashic_Records


Many claim to have seen these libraries, but I have to wonder how reliable or genuine it is, and whether it can be veridically-verified.

But even a spiritual object is still an object. What is it about the object that holds the memory? If the answer [is] its structure, this is also confusing because this would invoke the Hard Problem.

Or is the idea here that these "objects" are themselves minds or part of some Ur-Mind, and it is this mind that holds the memories?

If the latter, why would we think the person who died is just living as this object somewhere? And can an Ur-Mind really hold memories of multiple experience streams?

Of course as you say there is no way to verify these records exist, which is a problem in itself. Maybe reincarnation isn't true but I find these types of explanations yield even more problems.

How can [a] record hold a memory?

A diary doesn't have memories, neither does a computer disk. 

Even a brain holding memories is a strange idea to me.

Interesting question.

My ideas are that the experience of the Akashic can be simple information flow, but it can also be experienced, as if you are the person, with a deep immersion into the experience that feels very real, similar to many types of dreams you remember.

For example, I remember being shot in the chest, with all the details and the pain, and then dying. It was very traumatic, but it is likely recorded as the complete experience, with all the bells and whistles. That still doesn't mean that this was my own experience, or my own previous life. It could be, but that is biased and assumption. It could belong to someone else. It could be something imaginary. And we can go on with other possible scenarios, and we should.

When people like the late Sean Harribance can and do tap into this data and present it accurately, it opens up even more questions. Is he reading my mind, or my memories? Is he actually reading the Akashic records? Is he really talking to an angel or is this actually his own mind and skill?

When you experience things like this, they tend to take on whatever your energetic clarity allows, or blocks, and they tend to use your sensory systems to present.
What is usually missing is the complete picture, or the clarity of what you are experiencing, and to whom it belongs, if it ever actually existed.
We have no evidence on most of these that would put it clearly in the zone of one rational explanation or theory.
What we do have are multiple possible explanations, and to steer clear of bias, we need to entertain all of them until evidence shows fact.

Picking one because you want it to be true is a human issue, and unless we can update our information when presented with new evidence, our critical thinking is then offline.

We have even more of a tendency to become biased when we experience these things. Subjective experiences are proving to be very difficult to study, and are often colored with our own brainwashing.

My ideas are that the experience of the Akashic can be simple information flow, but it can also be experienced, as if you are the person, with a deep immersion into the experience that feels very real, similar to many types of dreams you remember.

It's interesting, but this ignores the real possibility that memories of past lives are just that ~ real memories from a real past that you were. Such cases studied in parapsychology are of most interest here: https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/artic...-research/

For example, I remember being shot in the chest, with all the details and the pain, and then dying. It was very traumatic, but it is likely recorded as the complete experience, with all the bells and whistles. That still doesn't mean that this was my own experience, or my own previous life. It could be, but that is biased and assumption. It could belong to someone else. It could be something imaginary. And we can go on with other possible scenarios, and we should.

What is the point in just automatically assuming that it could be not your own memories? That almost feels like a psychological defense against having to heal the pain.

In my experience, strong, vivid traumatic memories are quite often real and personal. And our minds have no shortage of looking for ways to protect us from the pain.

I have experienced rather pain past-life memories that left me shaken, yet with the realization that I had been holding on that pain my entire life unconsciously.

When people like the late Sean Harribance can and do tap into this data and present it accurately, it opens up even more questions. Is he reading my mind, or my memories? Is he actually reading the Akashic records? Is he really talking to an angel or is this actually his own mind and skill?

It is rather interesting, but I would start from a basis of it being his own mind and skill ~ it seems to be the best place to start, from my perspective.

When you experience things like this, they tend to take on whatever your energetic clarity allows, or blocks, and they tend to use your sensory systems to present.
What is usually missing is the complete picture, or the clarity of what you are experiencing, and to whom it belongs, if it ever actually existed.

We do not necessarily need the complete picture, perhaps ~ just enough to help us consider that something happened, but our mind shields us from the full picture, because it can be deeply painful to recall traumatic memories.

We have no evidence on most of these that would put it clearly in the zone of one rational explanation or theory.
What we do have are multiple possible explanations, and to steer clear of bias, we need to entertain all of them until evidence shows fact.

We do not need to necessarily entertain all possibilities, not when the data available on reincarnation and past-life memories presents a certain picture, even if there is no explanation for why it should be that way, rather than something else. Confusion does not invite clarity.

Picking one because you want it to be true is a human issue, and unless we can update our information when presented with new evidence, our critical thinking is then offline.

Parapsychology does not pick whatever they want to be true ~ they go with the data, looking at the common patterns, and working with that towards whatever conclusion the data pulls them towards. They do not rely on religion for their conclusions, but draw from what the data suggests. Which is best, I think.

We have even more of a tendency to become biased when we experience these things. Subjective experiences are proving to be very difficult to study, and are often colored with our own brainwashing.

"Brainwashing"? Subjective experience is all we have ~ even if those include second-hand accounts from others, whether spoken or written.

Experiences of genuine spiritual and paranormal phenomena do not result in "bias" ~ not unless we are entirely uncritical.

That is precisely why I am so cautious about accepting just anything ~ I take care when examining new experiences, because I seek a rational, logical understanding, tempered by intuition, in the genuine senses of the words.

Interesting question.

My ideas are that the experience of the Akashic can be simple information flow, but it can also be experienced, as if you are the person, with a deep immersion into the experience that feels very real, similar to many types of dreams you remember.

For example, I remember being shot in the chest, with all the details and the pain, and then dying. It was very traumatic, but it is likely recorded as the complete experience, with all the bells and whistles. That still doesn't mean that this was my own experience, or my own previous life. It could be, but that is biased and assumption. It could belong to someone else. It could be something imaginary. And we can go on with other possible scenarios, and we should.

When people like the late Sean Harribance can and do tap into this data and present it accurately, it opens up even more questions. Is he reading my mind, or my memories? Is he actually reading the Akashic records? Is he really talking to an angel or is this actually his own mind and skill?

When you experience things like this, they tend to take on whatever your energetic clarity allows, or blocks, and they tend to use your sensory systems to present.
What is usually missing is the complete picture, or the clarity of what you are experiencing, and to whom it belongs, if it ever actually existed.
We have no evidence on most of these that would put it clearly in the zone of one rational explanation or theory.
What we do have are multiple possible explanations, and to steer clear of bias, we need to entertain all of them until evidence shows fact.

Picking one because you want it to be true is a human issue, and unless we can update our information when presented with new evidence, our critical thinking is then offline.

We have even more of a tendency to become biased when we experience these things. Subjective experiences are proving to be very difficult to study, and are often colored with our own brainwashing.

1. What is information?

2. Do people really want reincarnation to be true? In the book Old Souls, describing Ian Stevenson's research, one woman is murdered by her abusive husband only to reincarnate into extreme poverty.

I take care when examining new experiences, because I seek a rational, logical understanding, tempered by intuition, in the genuine senses of the words.

But your comments appear to be the opposite of unbiased and rational logic, which would be to leave all options on the table until you have actual facts.

I have not "ignored" the possibility of reincarnation. I'm speaking from one point of view. Your the one who is stuck assuming that these must be real past lives, and real memories, and refuse to accept that some are not, which can be seen by that statement. All the while claiming to be rational and logical.

Your experiences are not the measure of anything. If you have ever suffered from delusions, hallucinations, or other issues, you can't trust anything subjective to be real or accurate. And I know you have. 

I was not even speaking of your injected "parapsychology doesn't this or that" statement, I was speaking of human beings in general, like you.

But your comments appear to be the opposite of unbiased and rational logic, which would be to leave all options on the table until you have actual facts.

What is an "actual fact", exactly?

I have not "ignored" the possibility of reincarnation. I'm speaking from one point of view. Your the one who is stuck assuming that these must be real past lives, and real memories, and refuse to accept that some are not, which can be seen by that statement. All the while claiming to be rational and logical.

I have not stated that I do not accept that some are not ~ some purported memories do appear to be such, as in the case of multiple instances of people claiming with certainty to be the same deceased individual, or multiple people claiming to have memories of being Jesus, or having lived in that time period.

I do not automatically discount these memories as false ~ but they do not exactly have veridical evidence, either. I seek a middle ground where they may be inspirational experiences for souls to learn from in some way.

Many memories have been verified and confirmed through corroboration ~ which is more interesting, precisely because they can be verified.

Your experiences are not the measure of anything. If you have ever suffered from delusions, hallucinations, or other issues, you can't trust anything subjective to be real or accurate. And I know you have. 

I could accuse you of the same ~ and where does that get us? Nowhere.

I have spent years examining my experiences, worried that they could have been just that. But they are not delusions or hallucinations if they have stability and focus to them that have not shifted in what is now a decade. Such experiences, I can trust to not be delusion. The entities I commune with said that I was best off not having blind faith ~ I needed to rely on experience and time, examining their nature, their existences, in order to come to my own conclusion. They guided me towards finding my own answers, encouraging me to not commit to any decision blindly.

1. What is information?

2. Do people really want reincarnation to be true? In the book Old Souls, describing Ian Stevenson's research, one woman is murdered by her abusive husband only to reincarnate into extreme poverty.

1. I don't think you are actually asking as much as trying to make people think. I like it.

2. I don't like the way reincarnation is presented, or the beliefs surrounding it, or the proposed rules and manner in which people assume it happens. That doesn't mean I get to decide if it works, how it works, or what the purpose would be, or even if it exists in any form like we think it might. I just don't have the Psi depth or Psi insight there, or the energetic Psi clarity. I can see quite a few giant holes in the theories, and that so much of this obviously appears to be hogwash nonsense. When they have so many excuses for why this or why that, it appears the supporters or believers are making things up and they know it doesn't make sense on any level.
 
I could swear I recently ran into a 13 year old that is likely the reincarnation of John Wayne Gacey. The level of disgust that was immediate on sighting them, and the dark aura oozing from them, made me seriously detest the idea of reincarnating with any sort of tendencies or memories being carried forward. But I don't get to decide how the system works, or why it works, or if it works. This can just be my sensory system pointing out similarities, or I could be completely wrong in my energetic assessment of them. I'm not the gate keeper.

With all the people who can do much more than I ever have been able to, like Edgar Cayce, speaking out on the subject, I do try to listen and adjust my knowledge as needed. But I don't agree with everything Edgar Cayce said, or anyone else for that matter, lol.

1. I don't think you are actually asking as much as trying to make people think. I like it.

I am genuinely asking, but I do have a motivation. I don't think the concept of information can justify these kinds of "astral" record objects. 

I can see quite a few giant holes in the theories, and that so much of this obviously appears to be hogwash nonsense. When they have so many excuses for why this or why that, it appears the supporters or believers are making things up and they know it doesn't make sense on any level.

Can you elaborate?