Is the human self nonexistent?

When you use the term 'deception' here, I'm not sure of the context. Do you mean that since this life is (by comparison) less real, that we are currently deceived? That does overlap with ideas of this life being an illusion, and the river of forgetfulness, the Lethe plays a role in Greek mythology.
https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-h...7#pid43817

In my case, what I mean is nothing less than deliberate deception, because such a radical or profound difference between the experience of NDEers and the truth would presumably require a highly engineered and deliberate effort of deception by somebody or somethings, not just a difference in perspectives due to levels of consciousness, etc.

In my case, what I mean is nothing less than deliberate deception, because such a radical or profound difference between the experience of NDEers and the truth would presumably require a highly engineered and deliberate effort of deception by somebody or somethings, not just a difference in perspectives due to levels of consciousness, etc.

Ok. My apologies, since this is a long thread and I joined it very late. (My attention has been elsewhere recently,) I might then ask, what is truth? I think I'm safe in saying others have asked 'what is truth' for thousands of years. If you're saying the NDE experiencer is receiving something other than the truth, that is one thing. What I was suggesting in my last post, again something which has thousands of years of at least some people considering it so, is that it is in this physical world that we don't necessarily see the truth. Whether one considers it a highly engineered deception or just part of the mechanics of being here is another matter.

For example, we don't as human beings have perfect communication. One person says something with a particular meaning. Another person hears the words but receives a different meaning. Is this deliberate or just the way things are are in this physical world? It may be either. But even in the best case, our human communication can be primitive and flawed. I may have half-a-dozen thoughts flowing through my head, but am able to speak only one of them at a time, and to do that quite badly. This does poor service to any kind of truth.

I'm more inclined to believe that the instant, telepathic sharing of thoughts with complete understanding as described during an NDE, that is closer to truth than our clumsy human words can manage.

Also important is something I came to a slow realisation of many years ago, that truth is not absolute. That is, when two people have a difference of opinion over something, it is possible and sometimes essential to recognise that both parties see and express the truth. It is not always the case that one is right so another is wrong. That would apply in mathematics. But in human affairs these things are very complicated. Again, this is described during an NDE where a person is for the first time able to grasp and understand both or multiple sides of such events simultaneously. That is where the apparent (but false) contradictions of our human affairs can be understood. That would seem to me a closer approach to truth.

I don't know that I can summarize that in a few paragraphs! I would like to, however, eventually make some kind of document for myself writing in point form, as concisely as possible, that picture.

I think if you read A Walk in the Physical pages 21 to 35 (the link lets you read for free all those pages) you get a big picture summary that I can't find any fault or inconsistencies with in terms of other "data".

On the topic of hellish NDEs you brought forth in a previous post, my take, again based on all those sources, is that like a lot of other NDEs, they represent at least to a large extent manifestations by the personality/soul that's not very far along the journey, definitely has not entered the Light, so that all of the incarnate turmoil and beliefs and cultural baggage is being projected. In some cases, like Howard Storm, they are also likely the result of feverish mind states where it's not even clear the soul has actually "left" the body.

I won't vouch for the truth for all of the details in the channelled Michael Teachings, but on their webpage I think this comment about NDEs in apt:

It seems to me some of the statements about the divisibility of the One into Many are possible, though I am not sure this has clearly been shown by NDEs or any other paranormal/mystical encounter. I recall a paper trying to claim Christian and Muslim visions of God were in fact visions of some "Awareness" from which everything arises...of course these long dead mystics would not agree.

As for the idea that One Consciousness is wanting to experience everything...not sure I would want that to be the reasoning behind the suffering of the world...if I were someone who was downtrodden by the evil people of this world that wouldn't comfort me at all.

In my case, what I mean is nothing less than deliberate deception, because such a radical or profound difference between the experience of NDEers and the truth would presumably require a highly engineered and deliberate effort of deception by somebody or somethings, not just a difference in perspectives due to levels of consciousness, etc.

Well, using my analogy above, would you describe films, novels, VR to be deliberate deception? All of these involve agreement on the part of the person being 'deceived', even if the person more or less loses awareness of the deception while undergoing the experience.

Well, using my analogy above, would you describe films, novels, VR to be deliberate deception? All of these involve agreement on the part of the person being 'deceived', even if the person more or less loses awareness of the deception while undergoing the experience.

But consider the clear implications. Ghastly lifelong suffering would be the inescapable result of certain hypothetical between-lives choices by the soul for the next life, such as being born into a poverty-stricken family in some hellhole on the Earth, with genetic deformities and disease. This is a worst case scenario, but certainly possible if we as our souls make the choices of who, where, what and of the genetic complement of the infant to become the next incarnation. In fact such chains of events are certain if reincarnation works that way, because there actually are such extremely unfortunate human beings, born to a life of suffering.

Then the issue naturally becomes, no human being in his/her right mind would make such a choice. Therefore, whatever makes the choice is not the human self but something separate and very different in nature, with different goals and desires. The human self of the last incarnation would necessarily be only a small part of this much greater being, or such a bad (from the human point of view) set of choices would not be made by this being. 

So, either the above conclusion is the case, or there really isn't any sort of agreement by the human self, and this worst-case but real example is due to Karma or sheer bad luck, or (?). Whatever it is, it doesn't seem to have the well-being of the human self in mind.

Through our nascent faith in the goodness of Reality, we may struggle to find ultimate goodness in this plan of existence, but it is hard. I generally reject this line of reasoning because it is too uncomfortable, a downer, and I speculate that there are limits to human knowledge and the applicability of human reasoning to problems, that this thinking has exceeded.

But consider the clear implications. Ghastly lifelong suffering would be the inescapable result of certain hypothetical between-lives choices by the soul for the next life, such as being born into a poverty-stricken family in some hellhole on the Earth, with genetic deformities and disease. This is a worst case scenario, but certainly possible if we as our souls make the choices of who, where, what and of the genetic complement of the infant to become the next incarnation. Certainly possible because there actually are such extremely unfortunate human beings, born to a life of suffering.

Then the issue naturally becomes, no human being in his/her right mind would make such a choice. Therefore, whatever makes the choice is not the human self but something separate and very different in nature, with different goals and desires. 

So, either the above conclusion is the case, or there really isn't any sort of agreement by the human self.

Again there is an interesting analogy with human activity on Earth. Some people will climb extremely high mountains where they can get damaged by frostbite, fall into a crevasse, or whatever. If they are rescued, they will have another go. Others will try to cross the arctic on foot, with similar risks. Even when we only know that we have the life we are in, we seem willing to risk it - just for fun!

I think humans between lives, sometimes want to take on a challenge - crazy as it seems.

There are other milder activities that involve being scared for fun - wild funfair rides and ghost trains for example.

We all do this sort of thing to a lesser extreme and with self imposed limits - for example at age 73, I take a risk when I go out on my bicycle on rough tracks of various sorts, but I don't ride on the roads because they can be too dangerous for my danger limit!

Again there is an interesting analogy with human activity on Earth. Some people will climb extremely high mountains where they can get damaged by frostbite, fall into a crevasse, or whatever. If they are rescued, they will have another go. Others will try to cross the arctic on foot, with similar risks. Even when we only know that we have the life we are in, we seem willing to risk it - just for fun!

I think humans between lives, sometimes want to take on a challenge - crazy as it seems.

There are other milder activities that involve being scared for fun - wild funfair rides and ghost trains for example.

We all do this sort of thing to a lesser extreme and with self imposed limits - for example at age 73, I take a risk when I go out on my bicycle on rough tracks of various sorts, but I don't ride on the roads because they can be too dangerous for my danger limit!

But these are examples of the soul knowingly taking risks, with there being a good chance of a good outcome including a rewarding experience. My example is where the soul, due to the chosen circumstances, would be able to predict absolutely that the life would be one of unending suffering, and still makes that choice. Incomprehensible and wrong, from the human standpoint.

But consider the clear implications. Ghastly lifelong suffering would be the inescapable result of certain hypothetical between-lives choices by the soul for the next life, such as being born into a poverty-stricken family in some hellhole on the Earth, with genetic deformities and disease. This is a worst case scenario, but certainly possible if we as our souls make the choices of who, where, what and of the genetic complement of the infant to become the next incarnation. In fact such chains of events are certain if reincarnation works that way, because there actually are such extremely unfortunate human beings, born to a life of suffering.

"Clear implications"...? Hmmmmm... not so sure about that, personally.

It is only "ghastly" or "unfortunate" or "worst-case" or "a life of suffering" when looked at purely from a human perspective, completely detached from any context of why a Soul would choose to experience poverty or genetic deformities or disease.

It is also your particular burden of perspective on such circumstances, where you perceive that as the... seemingly only possible perspectives one could or should have on the matter of such a life.

Meanwhile, the Soul, knowing such conditions are temporary and short-lived, chooses such circumstances for very different reasons ~ maybe it's because they want to understand what poverty is like. Maybe they came from a lifetime where they were rich and had everything, but wanted to experience the other extreme. Maybe they wanted to understand how they can see the world from a particular lens.

When you're living it, from day zero, there's no burden of perspective. Your perspective would come entirely from living in such a condition. It wouldn't be considered "ghastly" or "unfortunate" or "worst-case" or even "a life of suffering". It would be considered "this is how things are".

I can't speak for why the Souls of such incarnates would personally choose these circumstances, but each Soul has its peculiar reasons.

If it were me... I'd want to understand what such conditions are like, and how they shape an individual to perceive the world around them. I know it would be temporary, so why not seek a first-person comprehension and understanding? I wouldn't see it as "poverty", but rather having what I have in the circumstances I find myself in. I'd quite probably be grateful for the small things, even though I may have very little in terms of material things.

For me, it would be about... the spiritual richness I seek in that material void, perhaps.

Being a shaman in a shamanic culture would have a similar circumstance, perhaps. Who would need material goods when you have the beauty of spiritual richness that cannot be taken from you?

Then the issue naturally becomes, no human being in his/her right mind would make such a choice. Therefore, whatever makes the choice is not the human self but something separate and very different in nature, with different goals and desires. The human self of the last incarnation would necessarily be only a small part of this much greater being, or such a bad (from the human point of view) set of choices would not be made by this being.

Correction... *you* wouldn't make that choice, because your perspective perceives it to be unthinkable.

The human self is merely an aspect of the Soul ~ it only **appears** "separate", when in reality, the "separation" is more just curtains being put down, causing an experience, an illusion, of detachment. A necessary one, because a physical form cannot possibly contain the vastness that is a entire Soul.

The human self is not particularly different from the Soul ~ the human self doesn't have different goals or desires, either. Rather... as a small portion of Soul, it carries a portion of the Soul's desires and goals, the ones pertinent to the desires and goals the Soul has for incarnating time and time again. That's how the human self starts out ~ carrying the Soul's desires and goals, but also being capable of learning new perspectives and ideas from the lifetime as a human.

This is how the Soul enriches itself ~ by sending aspects of itself into incarnation so that it can have experiences and grow from having a variety of experiences that will teach it various things, whatever they may be. Sometimes, it's just... experience for experience's sake. Sometimes, the lessons will not be purposefully sought, but rather arise from the experience itself, as a consequence of the experience.

So, either the above conclusion is the case, or there really isn't any sort of agreement by the human self, and this worst-case but real example is due to Karma or sheer bad luck, or (?). Whatever it is, it doesn't seem to have the well-being of the human self in mind.

There is no "karma" or "bad luck", when it comes to reincarnation. There is only the choice of the Soul to try out new experiences, or carry on with a set of current experiences, or otherwise.

Pretty sure Ian Stevenson and his successors found that there was no such thing as "karma" or "bad luck" when it comes to reincarnation.

Through our nascent faith in the goodness of Reality, we may struggle to find ultimate goodness in this plan of existence, but it is hard. I generally reject this line of reasoning because it is too uncomfortable, a downer, and I speculate that there are limits to human knowledge and the applicability of human reasoning to problems, that this thinking has exceeded.

"Ultimate goodness"... this is an entirely subjective thing. Something that is measured, so to speak, differently according to each individual's perspective.

Everyone has their own ideas on what "good" means, and why.

But these are examples of the soul knowingly taking risks, with there being a good chance of a good outcome including a rewarding experience. My example is where the soul, due to the chosen circumstances, would be able to predict absolutely that the life would be one of unending suffering, and still makes that choice. Incomprehensible and wrong, from the human standpoint.

People will take completely crazy risks. For example, there are mercenaries going to Ukraine right now (I'm not talking about those that go for reasons of conviction) - some mercenaries go from war to war. If they don't get killed, they may indeed undergo a life of unending suffering.

An 'over-soul' or whatever would inevitably see things with a longer perspective - they see things in terms of spans of many lifetimes - a lifetime spent in hideous conditions may seem like just the thing to toughen them up.

My big question is what exactly it is all for - what are we supposed to do with all that experience - although again atheists with no expectation of an afterlife may take some crazy choices.

"Clear implications"...? Hmmmmm... not so sure about that, personally.

It is only "ghastly" or "unfortunate" or "worst-case" or "a life of suffering" when looked at purely from a human perspective, completely detached from any context of why a Soul would choose to experience poverty or genetic deformities or disease.

It is also your particular burden of perspective on such circumstances, where you perceive that as the... seemingly only possible perspectives one could or should have on the matter of such a life.

Meanwhile, the Soul, knowing such conditions are temporary and short-lived, chooses such circumstances for very different reasons ~ maybe it's because they want to understand what poverty is like. Maybe they came from a lifetime where they were rich and had everything, but wanted to experience the other extreme. Maybe they wanted to understand how they can see the world from a particular lens.

When you're living it, from day zero, there's no burden of perspective. Your perspective would come entirely from living in such a condition. It wouldn't be considered "ghastly" or "unfortunate" or "worst-case" or even "a life of suffering". It would be considered "this is how things are".

I can't speak for why the Souls of such incarnates would personally choose these circumstances, but each Soul has its peculiar reasons.

If it were me... I'd want to understand what such conditions are like, and how they shape an individual to perceive the world around them. I know it would be temporary, so why not seek a first-person comprehension and understanding? I wouldn't see it as "poverty", but rather having what I have in the circumstances I find myself in. I'd quite probably be grateful for the small things, even though I may have very little in terms of material things.

For me, it would be about... the spiritual richness I seek in that material void, perhaps.

Being a shaman in a shamanic culture would have a similar circumstance, perhaps. Who would need material goods when you have the beauty of spiritual richness that cannot be taken from you?


Correction... *you* wouldn't make that choice, because your perspective perceives it to be unthinkable.

The human self is merely an aspect of the Soul ~ it only **appears** "separate", when in reality, the "separation" is more just curtains being put down, causing an experience, an illusion, of detachment. A necessary one, because a physical form cannot possibly contain the vastness that is a entire Soul.

The human self is not particularly different from the Soul ~ the human self doesn't have different goals or desires, either. Rather... as a small portion of Soul, it carries a portion of the Soul's desires and goals, the ones pertinent to the desires and goals the Soul has for incarnating time and time again. That's how the human self starts out ~ carrying the Soul's desires and goals, but also being capable of learning new perspectives and ideas from the lifetime as a human.

This is how the Soul enriches itself ~ by sending aspects of itself into incarnation so that it can have experiences and grow from having a variety of experiences that will teach it various things, whatever they may be. Sometimes, it's just... experience for experience's sake. Sometimes, the lessons will not be purposefully sought, but rather arise from the experience itself, as a consequence of the experience.


There is no "karma" or "bad luck", when it comes to reincarnation. There is only the choice of the Soul to try out new experiences, or carry on with a set of current experiences, or otherwise.

Pretty sure Ian Stevenson and his successors found that there was no such thing as "karma" or "bad luck" when it comes to reincarnation.


"Ultimate goodness"... this is an entirely subjective thing. Something that is measured, so to speak, differently according to each individual's perspective.

Everyone has their own ideas on what "good" means, and why.

Thank you for this thorough explication from your (soul) perspective. The trouble is, I don't think it is very reassuring. I would never have chosen the particular trials and tribulations I have undergone in this life, or the high likelihood of them occuring. It couldn't be and certainly wasn't me that made these choices, and therefore it very much seems a mistake and unfair to the human me. I sense myself as the human not the soul. Maybe a serious limitation I know, but I think that is the common experience of mankind, and therefore there is a great injustice.