While listening to a couple lectures on youtube I noticed some inconsistencies in what Tom Campbell is saying. One inconsistency is the amount of time he says he spent with Monroe. In one lecture he says 8 years and another he says 5 years. To me that's a major inconsistency..

In another interview he is asked if he misses Monroe and he replies yes , he was like a father or father figure. If Campbell is spending almost half his time obe here and there why is it he has not visited with his friend?

And then all the generalities and lack of any real information regarding the dimensions or other realities he has visited but i suppose if you have a book/books to sell maybe one would purposely leave that sort of information out of a lecture?

Good to see the skeptism, shortbuff.
I was in the same boat a while ago and think it is the only way to go :-)
Have a serious search of this forum and you will find an answer to one of your questions, maybe all of them.
Don't be too cynical as this will blind you and then may find yourself getting no answers either way. I have seen this first hand.
Remember "Knowledge and truth will never drive you insane -- only ignorance and fear can do that" ,someone named Tom once wrote here;-)


Good luck,
Peter

_________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Those who know do not talk.
Those who talk do not know." - Tao Te Ching

shortbuff,

We are pleased to hear that you are one who has never made a numerical mistake when speaking off the cuff on stage regarding something peripheral and not considered for perhaps 30 years.

Tom has reported speaking with Robert Monroe extra PMR. Read more extensively and not expect everything to be in just that part you have seen and heard so far.

The specific reasons for this omission have been extensively discussed. They are good reasons. Read around the Discussion Groups and you will find this.

Tom has spent his present life developing the experience and accumulating the knowledge that he has put into what he is making available to us. Not to mention the accumulated previous life times developing himself to the level at which he operates. How many hours have you spent deciding that there is a deficiency and upon what personal knowledge? I suggest a little more patience and effort. You will find that many of us participating in these Forums have very good reasons to know just how complete and valuable the information that Tom provides is and what he is capable of.

Ted Vollers

I would think If I was in a position, such as Campbell is, I would have all my ducks in a row when giving a lecture. I would not at one point say my book had 900 pages and at another point say it had 850 nor would i say I'd worked with Monroe for 8 years at one point and 5 years at another point.. Inconsistencies are the stuff lies are made of.

Whenever there is money involved in anything there is always the chance it is the prime motivation and the information or product the key to achieve that motivation.
Monroe is selling books.

Having said all that, I haven't come to the conclusion that Campbell is not sincere or dishonest. When someone makes the claims he does I like to see things consistent, that's just me. These things are basic.

I will look into the rest of the site for sure, thanks.

shortbuff: "Whenever there is money involved in anything there is always the chance it is the prime motivation and the information or product the key to achieve that motivation.
Monroe is selling books."

If you have read any of the Monroe biographies you will see that Monroe was a millionaire after his broadcasting and cable television businesses and then lost a lot of his fortune pursuing his later interests. Sure he wanted the Monroe Institute to make money but if that was all he cared about then you can be sure he would have continued working in the other area. It was something he had to do.

As far as Tom Campbell goes, I seriously doubt that his lifetime working as a professional physicist with the government has left him a pauper. I have no personal way of knowing this but I don't think the return on writing this trilogy, spending untold hours answering our sometimes trivial questions on this forum (and all of the private messages I personally have sent him along with a lot of others) would make it worthwhile if he wasn't sincere in wanting to get the information out. The DVD's he has sold of his London lecture were dirt cheap with FREE shipping anywhere in the world. Sounds like a money making scheme to me. Riiiiggghht.

I applaud your skepticism but there is no question that Tom spent many years with Monroe in the 70's though. It's documented in too many other sources, including Monroe himself. Not to mention the audio recordings that exist of the two from that time. A numerical slip would be easy for anyone to make.

Tom always says here that the proof of the pudding is in the tasting. The pudding I have found here is pretty darn tasty. MBT and Tom himself have been a great aid to me and my life. Stick around. Read the books. If it still smacks of lies or fraud then maybe it isn't for you. Only you can decide that. Good luck.

Ramon

Shortbuff,

I am an skeptic by nature. I refuse to take for granted anything unless I have experienced it myself or seen some hard evidence to prove it and, even then, I sometimes have a hard time accepting it. I tend to disagree - and sometimes dislike - with some of the things Tom states about ego, the meaning and purpose of life, etc. However, if there is something I am absolutely certain is that Tom cannot be making all of this up for the sake of profit. In the first place, the books are sold at a nominal cost; I can tell you that, when I bought the complete triology, I was amazed at how cheap it was, especially taking into account the quality of the writing, whether it is true or pure fiction, I don't care, the books are amazing to read and absolutely inexpensive... I just don't see how Tom was going to profit selling such inexpensive books (bear in mind that these books are far from being bestsellers, which makes them even less profitable).

Secondly, Tom has devoted many time intervals of his life to answering some of my questions. This, to me, has always been amazingly unbelievable: being able to discuss a book with his author online absolutely for free and receiving long and quality replies, even when he is a very busy man with almost no spare time. I mean, damn it, I am way less busy than he is and sometimes I tend to avoid discussion groups in general because I consider that they take up too much minutes from my time management schedule. Is he doing all this looking for profit? That wouldn't make any sense whatsoever. I don't know why he does it but if there's something for sure is that it is not for profit.

Third, he sells the lecture DVDs at a nominal cost as well, but he has also uploaded the videos to youtube for free so that anyone can watch them without spending a single dollar. Does that look like someone looking for profit? No way.

If you buy the books, you will realize that there's no way to put together all that information in a lecture. Moreover, even in the books, you will find that Tom gives almost no specifics about the many NPMR and PMR dimensions because he believes all that would be entertainment and little else and he prefers to derive a Theory of Everything and give the information the reader needs to access those places himself if he or she wants those kind of data.

Skepticism is good (I practice it on a daily basis), but focusing on details like whether or not he visits Monroe in the non-physical or whether he recalls correctly the amount of time he spent at the Monroe institute is not the path such skepticism should follow, from my point of view.

This is my first post in this forum:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2728

I raised some issues about what I believed to be inconsistencies in his theory and why I thought that extra-sensory perception couldn't be something real. You will find lots of useful information there.

Shortbuff,

My advice to you is take the time to at least read book 1, before making such judgments. In fact I'll make you a deal, if after reading book 1 you are not convinced Tom is absolutely "legit" PM me and I send you a check for the cost of the book.

~Ron

Ive let that consideration go already after having read many more posts. Thanks for the offer:)

Shortbuff,

Welcome to the MBT forum. Unfortunately much of the significant content available here will be difficult to understand until you have read the MBT trilogy.

Shortbuff: While listening to a couple lectures on YouTube I noticed some inconsistencies in what Tom Campbell is saying. One inconsistency is the amount of time he says he spent with Monroe. In one lecture he says 8 years and another he says 5 years. To me that's a major inconsistency.

Tom: My time spent with Monroe depends on the context and phrasing.
Helping build up Monroe laboratories -- basic research -- 5 years
Exploring the larger reality several times a week with Bob -- 8 or 9 years
Time spent with Monroe -- at least 15 years (I was an active member of the board of directors of TMI for years after I left Virginia)

And even now, I am more or less guessing at these numbers -- they are accurate enough but certainly not precise. Precision appears to me to be irrelevant -- none of the ideas I present are dependent on these numbers and I had no idea that anyone would find issue with perceived inconsistencies. I probably should be more careful in what I say and try to be more precise in how I say it -- and I appreciate that comment, I think you are right. That is difficult to do in a lecture format where delivery is mostly extemporaneous. The books, on the other hand are more carefully written. At any rate, I will try to take more care not to confuse people with such statements. Thank you for that.


Shortbuff: In another interview he is asked if he misses Monroe and he replies yes , he was like a father or father figure. If Campbell is spending almost half his time obe here and there why is it he has not visited with his friend?

Tom: Your assumption that I have not communicated with Monroe after his death represents an erroneous belief.
Your assumption that if Monroe was a dear friend of mine and if I could communicate/visit with those departed, then I would certainly spend time with him after his death is also an erroneous belief generated by extrapolating PMR to NPMR. NPMR is not just a continuation of PMR in a different framework. When one has little direct knowledge one tends to bridge that gap with assumptions. When one makes assumptions, the assumptions must conform to ones limited experience, those assumptions, without skeptism, become beliefs. Beliefs drive erronious conclusions that seem obviously true from the perspective of the believer.

Shortbuff: And then all the generalities and lack of any real information regarding the dimensions or other realities he has visited

Tom: I do purposely leave out descriptions of the dimensions and realities I have visited. To do otherwise would be a great disservice to my readers -- even though it is what most of them want me to do. This statement probably makes little sense to you because you do not understand the nature of the larger reality or the nature of our interaction with it. Making more assumptions to find a way to make sense of my statement in terms of your experience, will only lead you to another erroneous belief. There is much written in these forums that will explain my answer. Many are looking for the same description that you are, not realizing the drag it would add to their efforts to become aware in the bigger picture.

As long as you try to rationalize my statements in terms of your experience and beliefs, you will find contradictions and things that don't make sense. Like trying to understand how to win a game of soccer solely in terms of foosball strategies. You would be better served by trying to understand my statements within the context of my explanations -- by looking for big picture understanding that resonates, or not, with your personal experience. Only then will you know if there is value for you in what I have to say. Taking pot shots with your belief gun from afar at misunderstood details is a waste of your time.

Shortbuff: but i suppose if you have a book/books to sell maybe one would purposely leave that sort of information out of a lecture?

Tom: That is a conclusion you might come to when your assumptions are false. There is little to no description of NPMR in my books either. If you want to be entertained by such accounts or form beliefs based upon them (what else can you do if they are not your own experience?) you will have to go elsewhere. If you want to understand the larger reality and get started on gaining your own experience (something that could actually be valuable to you), then you may find some value in MBT.

Tom

Tom: That is a conclusion you might come to when your assumptions are false. There is little to no description of NPMR in my books either. If you want to be entertained by such accounts or form beliefs based upon them (what else can you do if they are not your own experience?) you will have to go elsewhere. If you want to understand the larger reality and get started on gaining your own experience (something that could actually be valuable to you), then you may find some value in MBT.

Kai: Being an entertainer of sorts, at least in this PMR, I can see the value of such entertainment for the sake of entertainment. You might try Monroe's "Journeys" series if you're interested in that. Should probably keep in mind not to take it literally, however. It's like watching a "B" movie - at least for me. I rather enjoy "B" movies. Not because they are particularly good at conveying a story with the way a proper film might, but because I appreciate them for what they are. In other words, remember that Monroe's accounts are very likely camouflaged (to use some Seth terminology) and probably even fictionalized to some extent. Still - highly entertaining if you can appreciate it for what it is.

That being said, MBT is entirely different beast. It's like apples and oranges, in my opinion.

_________________

------------------------------
http://www.bookofkai.com

Speaking of inconsistencies, here is one more : In an interview with Nicole Whitney (http://www.newsforthesoul.com) TC said that as a youngster he had a piece of clothing in a closet that apparently materialized money, a few bucks now and then.

The funny thing is this: Robert Monroe wrote the same thing in his book "Journeys Out of the Body". So I guess they just had the same experience by coincidence. Or what?

On Newsforthesoul.com - its one of the earlier interviews.


Peace Out

_________________
"Knowledge rests not upon truth alone, but upon error also"

That sounds more like a consistency, to me. Have you ever found any money? If so, I don't know, it may be worth it to look there again to see if it is your money spot. Maybe we all have a money spot, or a metaphorical money spot. I don't know how I have twisted this to be related to my growing concept of there being something like models (types of bodies) that consciousnesses pick from to incarnate into according to what best fits their plans for the type of experience they are here for, but I did. I think it was the sameness aspect, Bob and Tom having the same 'type' experience, that took me here to my growing theory of basic models of 'types' according to desired life experiences. My idea is from there being look alike people. I see us picking a model before incarnation, then the parents chosen DNA gives us our uniqueness in our features. For instance, there could be a Danika model which is a female very much into and good at typically male roles such as race car driver, physicist or scientist, who is also beautiful (hot) and gets others interested in the thing. One of my brothers picked a model that is very common, I have run into people, more than once that startled me with their likeness to him. I would call it the Russell Crow model, it gets skewed well by DNA but holds its basic shape as there are many people that resemble him. It's the whole everyone has a twin thing taken further. Just start looking at people with this in mind and hopefully someone will see what I mean. It isn't 'bad' at all there being models to pick from, and is just a theory of course.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

I am really happy to have found Tom on youtube............in 1969 I had a nde and several experiences since. When I bought my own computer, the first thing I did was Google NDE and from there was able to add my own experience to nderf. If you google VV'S NDE you can read a very naive but honest account of my experiences of being in another reality. Years ago I contacted a Dr. Peter Fenwick who was researching for a book on NDE's and I told him that the body was just like a "vehicle" and the basic stuff of what happened to me, but did not mention my life review as I thought I would not give him all I had experienced. However, I have been doing my own research and after reading Fritjo Capra naturally moved toward science/ metaphysics/astrology/Bible/Buddhism and anything else I could get my hands on to try to explain what had happened to me. The spiritual and other aspects of my experiences have been explained extremely well by Thomas Campbell and as he says, no amount of discussion in this reality can even hint at the big picture beyond but it's great to know that there are quite a few of us out there that know and are trying to explain it in a way that although most people have not experienced this type of consciousness. it can promote investigation. The most important thing is the understanding of our own individuality within the interconnectivity, what we are all here for and what happens when our consciousness leaves our body.

Welcome Vivienne,

Great to see you have found Tom and this forum. I read your NDE and experiences and for anybody else here is the link http://www.nderf.org/VV%27s%20NDE.htm
You can find more interviews Tom has done on the homepage of this site :-)
Have you read/bought the book/s yet?



Peter

_________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Those who know do not talk.
Those who talk do not know." - Tao Te Ching

dkrizt,

Speaking of inconsistencies....
You find consistency in methodology by intelligent beings with a similar purpose to be inconsistent? That assertion is logically inconsistent. Why would you think that an NPMR to PMR interaction should be a random purposeless process? That is the only sort of process where consistency would be inconsistent. In MBT, I also describe a series of tests that both Bob and I were given -- identical to the last detail. I have also run into several others who were given that same identical test. Is it not reasonable to assume that some of the beings in NPMR have found certain procedures, processes, and tools of interaction to be effective and that these are shared and applied where appropriate and as needed. If you polled the world's population you would probably find at least 100,000 people who have had that same "money in the pocket" experience. What a perfect way to gently stretch a child's mind to the possibility of a larger reality -- it has all the right components to be a very effective training device (attention, focus, credibility, non-intrusive, provides value, and covers psi uncertainty nicely).

Tom C