http://www.near-death.com/experiences/r ... ion04.html
Thanks.
Please comment on this Near Death Experience
Moderator: Moderators
Re: Please comment on this Near Death Experience
There is nothing to comment about. It is his experience and that is it. Ofcourse, we could have endless philosophical discussions, we can even look into the old religions and see their standpoint in all this, but it would be useless. Just like a 8 year old reading stuff about sex. He doens't understand sex, he will only understand it when he reaches puberty and when his body changes. THEN he understand. Before that it was just speculation.
Same with this, we don't understand death because we aren't death yet. We can do all the research but trust me, we will only understand it when we go through it. It is like studying the taste of apples without eating an apple.
So, now we can comment. (I know I am contradicting myself, but that was just to make you understand that it is all speculation, there is no final answer until you die. With that in mind it might be good to meditate over your death. Socrates had a wonderfull thing to say about it when he, on his dying-bed, was asked: "aren't you afraid, socrates?". Upon which he replied "There are 2 options, either I go death but continue to live on or I really go death, period. In the first case I don't have to worry about it because I continue to live on, and in the second case I don't have to worry about it either because if I really really die, who is there to worry??")
Somewhere in the beginning Mellen-Thomas Benedict says:
Now something else.
Somewhere above this he said:
Makes you wonder what would happen to him if he died. Would he see 'reality', or simply what he believes in??
He saw a light and interpreted it as his Higher Self. So he saw something and collapsed it all into ONE concept: Higher Self. This is all fine for him, because HE knows what he means with it. But we DON'T. This causes the idea we have of his experience to be completely inaccurate with the experience he actually had (which is what it is going to be anyway). He might as well have called the light 'shumbalatahata', because we don't know what it is anyway. We don't know what he saw, we don't know what he experienced. Simply because you can only talk about an experience if BOTH of you have had it.
We are back again to my analogy of a 8-year old trying to understand sex. This Mellen-Thomas Benedict tries to explain it to us but we will NEVER, NEVER understand it unless we go through it ourselves. So all of his words are meaningless to us.
In a way ofcourse it is good to have people say that there is more than this. It allowes us to open up, to see beyond our self-imposed limitations. But while it opens you up there is every danger of you misinterpreting it, which ironically closes you down again.
Conclusion: It may have all sort of values and benefits to Mellen-Thomas Benedict, but to US, it has none. Just metaphysical clutter. Give us something to work with!!
p.s. But I guess we rather read than do something right??
Same with this, we don't understand death because we aren't death yet. We can do all the research but trust me, we will only understand it when we go through it. It is like studying the taste of apples without eating an apple.
So, now we can comment. (I know I am contradicting myself, but that was just to make you understand that it is all speculation, there is no final answer until you die. With that in mind it might be good to meditate over your death. Socrates had a wonderfull thing to say about it when he, on his dying-bed, was asked: "aren't you afraid, socrates?". Upon which he replied "There are 2 options, either I go death but continue to live on or I really go death, period. In the first case I don't have to worry about it because I continue to live on, and in the second case I don't have to worry about it either because if I really really die, who is there to worry??")
Somewhere in the beginning Mellen-Thomas Benedict says:
Well, perhapse he can't figure this out, but if he hadn't done this, he wouldn't have his near-death experience. If he hadn't died, he wouldn't have seen 'the light', or whatnot. So if he really thinks that his limited worldview, him perceiving all humans as cancer, cause him to die, he should be thankful about that worldview, instead of resenting from it. Simply because that worldview cause him to die (that is what he believes, not me). Consequently, his death enabled him to see all the glory in the world and his own immortality, etc. So, he should be thankful of his former worldview.I perceived all humans as cancer, and that is what I got. That is what killed me. Be careful what your world view is. It can feed back on you, especially if it is a negative world view. I had a seriously negative one. That is what led me into my death.
Now something else.
So, he is saying that if you believe heaven to be full with grass and trees, it will be.The information transferred to me was that your beliefs shape the kind of feedback you are getting before the light. If you were a Buddhist or Catholic or Fundamentalist, you get a feedback loop of your own stuff.
Somewhere above this he said:
So, before he actually died, he investigated into various religions and philosophies, AND they gave him hope. In other words, he bought into them.So I started reading on various religions and philosophies. They were all very interesting, and gave hope that there was something on the other side.
Makes you wonder what would happen to him if he died. Would he see 'reality', or simply what he believes in??
Now this is where the subte error comes in. He interpreted his experience by saying that it was our Higher Self matrix, whatever that may be. (The concept of this Higher Self I imagine he has borrowed from his investigation into various religions and philosophies. Interestingly, the philosophy where the concept of an Higher Self comes from divides human actions and says that every good action comes from the Higher Self and the bad actions from the Lower Self, it never speaks of an Higher Self you can actually meet! But throughout the years the Higher Self has be materialized outside of us, so now it is perfectly fine to meet your Higher Self, which, according to the people who invented the word, is downright impossible.)As the light revealed itself to me, I became aware that what I was really seeing was our Higher Self matrix.
He saw a light and interpreted it as his Higher Self. So he saw something and collapsed it all into ONE concept: Higher Self. This is all fine for him, because HE knows what he means with it. But we DON'T. This causes the idea we have of his experience to be completely inaccurate with the experience he actually had (which is what it is going to be anyway). He might as well have called the light 'shumbalatahata', because we don't know what it is anyway. We don't know what he saw, we don't know what he experienced. Simply because you can only talk about an experience if BOTH of you have had it.
We are back again to my analogy of a 8-year old trying to understand sex. This Mellen-Thomas Benedict tries to explain it to us but we will NEVER, NEVER understand it unless we go through it ourselves. So all of his words are meaningless to us.
In a way ofcourse it is good to have people say that there is more than this. It allowes us to open up, to see beyond our self-imposed limitations. But while it opens you up there is every danger of you misinterpreting it, which ironically closes you down again.
So, why not share it?? This is sad, he neves gives any method or technique or anything. Instead of giving us hints he fills our heads with metaphysical BS.Since my return I have experienced the light spontaneously, and I have learned how to get to that space almost any time in my meditation. Each one of you can do this. You do not have to die to do this. It is within your equipment; you are wired for it already.
Conclusion: It may have all sort of values and benefits to Mellen-Thomas Benedict, but to US, it has none. Just metaphysical clutter. Give us something to work with!!
p.s. But I guess we rather read than do something right??
Don't read my signature.
Interesting read.
Have you read "Beyond The Tenth" by Lobsang Rampa; you may find manysimilarities.
http://lobsang-rampa.net/rambeyond.html
There is also the mention of 'black-holes'.
Below, Tom Chalko has this to say about black-holes;
"Physics deals with simplified (and sometimes very primitive) MODELS of Reality. Most physicists get so attached to models (and associated theories), that they cannot even begin thinking about the Real Universe, especially the Great Intellect and its MOTIVES.
Take for example gravity. Even though every competent scientist knows that no one on Earth understands the origin of gravity, people USE the MODEL of gravity developed by Newton to explain the Universe.
To cover up for the obvious lack of agreement with observations, they invent "black holes", "missing dark matter" and other miraculously unverifiable objects, not even noticing that their conclusions are based on the TOTAL lack of understanding of gravity.
Result of this acivity is a totally confusing picture of the Universe, full of "black holes", "missing matter" and other purely imaginary things that have no purpose whatsoever to exist. Would you like to study this?
Would you trust your tax calculations to someone who openly admits the lack of understanding of arithmetic? Why should we believe scientists who openly admit that they cannot explain gravity but try to explain the Universe? Keep thinking.
A wise man @2000 years ago said: "If what can be seen is obscure to you, how can you comprehend what cannot be seen?" [2]. It applies to gravity - everyone experiences it everyday and yet - no one can really explain how it is generated"... [Tom]
http://www.thefreedomforum.com type black holes into search engine.
Have you read "Beyond The Tenth" by Lobsang Rampa; you may find manysimilarities.
http://lobsang-rampa.net/rambeyond.html
There is also the mention of 'black-holes'.
Below, Tom Chalko has this to say about black-holes;
"Physics deals with simplified (and sometimes very primitive) MODELS of Reality. Most physicists get so attached to models (and associated theories), that they cannot even begin thinking about the Real Universe, especially the Great Intellect and its MOTIVES.
Take for example gravity. Even though every competent scientist knows that no one on Earth understands the origin of gravity, people USE the MODEL of gravity developed by Newton to explain the Universe.
To cover up for the obvious lack of agreement with observations, they invent "black holes", "missing dark matter" and other miraculously unverifiable objects, not even noticing that their conclusions are based on the TOTAL lack of understanding of gravity.
Result of this acivity is a totally confusing picture of the Universe, full of "black holes", "missing matter" and other purely imaginary things that have no purpose whatsoever to exist. Would you like to study this?
Would you trust your tax calculations to someone who openly admits the lack of understanding of arithmetic? Why should we believe scientists who openly admit that they cannot explain gravity but try to explain the Universe? Keep thinking.
A wise man @2000 years ago said: "If what can be seen is obscure to you, how can you comprehend what cannot be seen?" [2]. It applies to gravity - everyone experiences it everyday and yet - no one can really explain how it is generated"... [Tom]
http://www.thefreedomforum.com type black holes into search engine.
an act against {free will} is an act against nature
I thought the Mellen-Thomas account was interesting and wanted to hear other's input.
I think all near-death accounts are interesting but what troubles me are the differences between them.
Survivor, I'll read that later thanks for the link. I am aware Tom Chalko doesn't believe in black holes, and I do not think that TP and the Mellen-Thomas account (and like Alisima said, interpretation) can both be true.
I think all near-death accounts are interesting but what troubles me are the differences between them.
Survivor, I'll read that later thanks for the link. I am aware Tom Chalko doesn't believe in black holes, and I do not think that TP and the Mellen-Thomas account (and like Alisima said, interpretation) can both be true.
I think BLACK HOLES exist. Observations of effects of black holes on bending of light, the active galaxy and quasars are abundance. They must be a strong gravitational field to cause such effects.
Neutron stars, white drawfs are all observable and verifable objects which exhibit high gravitational field. You cannot see black hole because no light can escape out of it. Its effect can be felt.
Is gravity produced solely by mass, then I have no idea. In particle physics, it is the Higgs particle that gives mass.
Neutron stars, white drawfs are all observable and verifable objects which exhibit high gravitational field. You cannot see black hole because no light can escape out of it. Its effect can be felt.
Is gravity produced solely by mass, then I have no idea. In particle physics, it is the Higgs particle that gives mass.