Why not? Given the above choices, my claiming that your experience is false would (loosely) fall into the category 2. Now, it might be rude to claim that what you experienced is false (in the sense of my denying the legitimacy of your experience). However, what I think scientists and others are trying to convey is that what you experienced and your interpretation of your experience might not be what you think it is. In other words, if you had an NDE experience an make the claim that “I felt the presense of God and this is unequivical proof that the spirit world exists”, a scientist could rightly state that you “experienced something”, but that this someting can be better and more easily explained in other ways (for example, a neurochemical change in the brain). Ockham’s Razor, and all that…
I think many people could be safe in concluding that OOBE’s and NDE’s are real in the sense that “something” has happened. But what exactly that something is can best be explained based on the current available empirical evidence.
How do you know? From what I gather, you are similarly rejecting other people’s (and scientists) experiences that conflict from your own. What makes your “interpretation” of your experience more thruthful/valid than other people’s interpretation’s of their experiences? Again, by what criteria are you basing your interpretation as more valid/truthful than others?
I’m quite sure that there have been scientists and others who have had NDE’s or out-of-body-experiences (or whatever). Would you reject their conclusions if they differed from your own? If so, on what basis?
The link deals with NDE’s - it doesn’t address whether an individual is totally self-aware at all times - even during the non-REM (non-dreaming) stage of sleep. I can’t possbily fathom how a person can be aware of themselves as an individual self while unconcious.
While I can’t prove anything to you --physical measurements don’t work in the spiritual – I have meditated many times to the point of total self. No thoughts, no memories, just total peace, actually ecstasy for as long as you want. I am more self-aware at this point than ever before. Yoga literature also describes this state.
Love
I forgot to post about personal experiences. What you say is wrong. It does not fall in catagory 2.
No. 2 simply states you don’t believe it, it is not a judgement whether what I said is either true or false. You can not make a true or false judgement, since it was not your experience and you were not there when it happened. A very important difference.
What you’re describing is the state of ego dissolution. You’re mistaken in your interpretation, though. Buddhism covers this. There are no individual selves, only a common “Brahman” or “Atman”.
Now, it is true that we are all a part of the whole. But distinguishable parts.
There may be a time when we reach such a high level of spiritual growth that we merge with the whole. I, of course, have never talked to anyone that high. All the master teachers I am aware of say they don’t know what lies that far ahead.
So, for now we learn and grow and understand our own selfhood.
Remember I am telling what I learned in my near death experience, and many spiritual experiences afterward. I follow my experiences not religious doctrine.
Well, it appears we are at an impasse. There is no way for either of us to come to some sort of consensus as to how we are to determine the validy/truthfulness of our experiences.
For example take you follow-up post:
I’m quite aware of some of the literature regarding this state; however, much of it is in the realm of Buddhist philosophy and practice. In fact, the above experience could be equated with achieving a total state of non-self (the dissolution of oneself as an individual self - or alternatively dissolution of one’s personal ego).
II Gyan II - an important element of Buddhism is the concept of anatman - a rejection in the belief of a permanent “godhead”, so to speak. Hence, a rejection in the idea of an eternal and permanent “self” (both in a physical and spiritual sense).
It appears lekatt is comfortable with his/her belief in NDE’s and a permanent “self” (whatever that may be). In any event, this type of debate was hashed out thousands of years ago between Hindu and Buddhist philosophers. No need to go back over ground that’s been covered in detail by better minds than me on the subject at hand.
I will say it yet again, without any hope that it will be understood.
lekatt, your personal experience was a Normal Dream. A hallucination. The other personal experiences you link to were also Normal Dream Experiences, with some confusion about who knew what when which has been blown out of all proportion.
This is the explanation for Normal Dream Experiences like your own. Positing entities such as the ‘spirit’ is unnecessary according to the principle of Ockam’s Razor.
If it were possible as you say to dissolve self, you would no longer exist.
There is a sharp distinction between self and ego. Yes, it is possible to dissolve the ego, NDEs point out the difference between “real self” and “ego self”.
Ego is the accumulation of physical indoctrination and learning as you grow up in whatever culture. Ego is an illusionary self. Your beliefs, posterings, masks, the way you play the part of being you in the world. When the ego is dissolved, the real you unfolds. When we talked about “who are you” debates, who you are is the real self. No fear.
If you will read the whole post here, you will get more information.
I have been told by spiritual beings, however, that Buddhism is the closest religion to being correct with the spiritual world. But it is not a perfect example of what happens.
Your judgements of what my experience was, or was not is only your opinion. You were not there, you have not had the experience, you speak from a position of no knowledge of what you are talking about.
But your opinions keep me going, Fighting Ignorance, it is just taking longer than I thought.
I don’t want to call cite, but I will. It was probably my doing when I synonymized Brahman and Atman earlier. According to Wikipedia, atman is the individual essence(“soul”) of the human being and that is indeed nonpermanent. The Brahman(“Ultimate Reality”) is eternal and unchanging.
Sorry if I wasn’t clearer. Atman is the individual essence/soul/selfhood of the human being. However, it is a Hindu concept and it postulates a soul which is an unchanging and permanent essence. This is related to the Hindu concept of Brahma - the ultimate unchanging and permannent reality for all beings.
However, atman and braham are (largely) Hindu concepts - a central tenet of Buddhism is the rejection of the concept of atman; hence the term anatman to refer to the self/soul/essence of human’s as ever changing and impermanent. By implication, Buddhism rejects the Hindu concept of Brahma as well (or rather, the Buddha didn’t really address it as it wasn’t central to his teachings; I’m going from memory, but I think it was picked up and debated by Buddhists well after his death).
I think part of the problem is that Buddhism originated in India and as such, can be considered to be an Indian religion/philosophical belief system. However, Buddhism sprang forth as a reaction to the prevailing religous/philosophical thought that was prevalent at that time (Jainism also sprang up around the same time as a reaction to the prevailing religious/philosophical thought at the time as well).
However, Buddism spread beyond it’s original boundaries to become more of a universal religion/philosophical belief system (ironically almost entirely disappearing from South Asia as Buddhist tenets/philosophy were “reabsorbed” back into the prevailing Hindu religion/philosophy). Unlike Hinduism (and Jainism), which largely remained within the confines of the Indian sub-continent.
Then it’s helpful to make the distinction clearer when discussing what is meant by “false self” (ego) and “true self” (trancendental ego?). Personally, I feel the term “true self” often confuses rather than enlightens in these types of discussions. But that’s just because I lean more towards the Buddhist conception of self-hood and ultimate reality (anatman, or the rejection in the belief in a permanent and eternal soul/self/ego).
If you will read the whole post here, you will get more information.
I have been told by spiritual beings, however, that Buddhism is the closest religion to being correct with the spiritual world. But it is not a perfect example of what happens.
Then it’s helpful to make the distinction clearer when discussing what is meant by self - “false self” (ego) or “true self” (trancendental ego?). Personally, I feel the term “true self” often confuses rather than enlightens in these types of discussions. But that’s just because I lean more towards the Buddhist conception of self-hood and ultimate reality (anatman, or the rejection in the belief in a permanent and eternal soul/self/ego).
The eternal/unchanging unity thing is not limited to Hinduism, and rejection of the physical is not limited to Buddhism or Hinduism either (about which I know just shy of zero). Various gnostic religions (Christian, Muslim, and others) have also posited a transcendental realm of, well, whatever, that is the “place” of the godhead. It has been a fairly common theme throughout history, so much so that the church in Europe never really managed to stamp it out, no matter how many they killed. Mystery schools and private magical orders also have such gnostic ideas embedded in their teachings, from what I understand.
The soul, in that sense, is much less a personal identity than a piece of the unity that is the transcendental “god” (or essence or whatever one cares to call it). For gnostics, as I understand, it is finding this spark which can spur us to leave the physical plane, either in a literal after-death sense or a metaphorical sense of being free of the pain of existence (by acceptance or any number of metaphorical roots). There are many parallels here with Buddhism and Hinduism, though not knowing much of either of those schools of thought it is not for me to say. Just been reading up on gnosticism lately and thought it was an appropriate time to mention it.
From what I can tell, we would give up identity when we gave up the physical, and this is desirable.
You may be right. I have not read a lot of Buddhist material, but my understanding is one much achieve a very high spiritual level to merge with the whole. If a high or pure level of spirit were not obtained, then merging lower spirits would lower the whole, which is not a desired effect.
One must accept responsibility for one’s spiritual growth until such levels are achieved. That is the reason for reincarnation.
Righty-o, reincarnation is pretty much the order of the day. The “goal”, as such, is to escape physical existence by awakening the spark. If we fail, we remain. The spark is recycled, though I don’t think many gnostics ever felt that the spark was part of what made me me, so it is reincarnation in a “learn your lessons” sense. You only have one lifetime to get it right.
