Return Home
It is currently Sun May 26, 2024 4:17 pm

All times are UTC-06:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 9:52 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 1285
Often I have been asked whether or not animals have souls and if so, do they exist as individual souls like ours or only as a group or species soul. Such an inquiry came to me again recently; because the question of animal spirituality represents such a common interest, I thought I would post my reply here.

By definition, all sentient beings are conscious, thus all sentient beings have a non-physical part called consciousness. If one calls the non-physical part a being a soul, then all sentient beings have souls. In MBT terms, all souls reside in NPMR/TBC/AUM, i.e., the larger consciousness system of which we are all a part. If you poke a clam, it will pull in its foot demonstrating its sentience (albeit at an incredibly low level), consequently, even a clam has a soul residing in TBC just as you do. The souls of conscious critters have always resided in TBC ever since there were conscious critters.

Now, though all souls are chips off the same consciousness block, they are not all the same in their awareness, capacity, functionality, or entropy (quality). There are no 'guides' guiding the day to day spiritual development of vaguely aware clams. Though individual clams have an individual non-physical part, there is so little decision-space involved that clam souls are all pretty much the same; so they can be treated, or interacted with, or ignored as a group. Because there is so little differentiation between one little clam soul and the next, individual treatment/attention/tracking would not be a good use of AUM's resources. Same for bugs and slugs and most of PMR's trillions of sentient entities. Perhaps a brilliant (relatively speaking) clam might every now and then get a little special attention, but surely that is the exception and not the rule.

Dogs and chimps and dozens or other species are different, there is enough individualization there to allow the 3 sigma winners (unusually highly developed members of their species) to individually advance themselves in consciousness evolution (increase their quality, grow spiritually) while the majority of each of these species may be dealt with as a group. Perhaps a very evolved dog consciousness will one day earn the right to incarnate as a chimp or a dolphin or a human. In this way consciousness evolution flows upward, individuals work their way up -- from the lowest (and slowest to grow) to the highest and speediest evolvers. All have been in TBC from their beginning and all have opportunity to improve themselves at least infinitesimally. Economics allows some of the slower changers to be dealt with in groups, group soul if you like to express it that way. Not all humans have individual guides, sometimes groups of humans (slow growers) share a single guide or have part time guides. Other individual humans have several full time guides. Here a 'guide' can be seen as rough measure of the degree of interaction with the larger consciousness system.

So the bottom line answer to this questions is that it depends on the size of the decision space of the individual (quality/potential) and of the species (capacity). Humans are not the only species that has individual members actively climbing the ladder of consciousness evolution. It is also not the only species that has members making little to no progress. Many species participate in consciousness evolution in their own fashion and at their own rate. All souls are individual but dealing with groups of individuals as if they were one -- Group mind and group soul -- is a practical matter of investing resources where they have the highest rate of return. There are sometimes exceptional individuals who stand out from their group (species) and deserve (and thus get) individual treatment. The higher up the ladder of consciousness evolution you go, the greater the number of standouts.

I hope these ramblings in some way answer your questions about the nonphysical (spiritual) side of our critter friends.

Tom C


Top
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2007 9:30 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 2:18 pm
Posts: 284
What about plants?


Top
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2007 11:04 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 1285
See Book 2 chapter 7, pages 95-97 for a discussion of the fundamental attributes of consciousness
See Book 2 chapter 22, page 273 for a discussion of plants and consciousness
See Book 1 chapter 25, page 207 for a discussion of plants

Individual plants do not meet all of the criteria for possessing sentient consciousness (as we define it here)‚ i.e., enough memory to define change, to differentiate one state from another; enough processing capability to learn from experience; enough awareness of self to have a finite decision space that can be utilized by a free will, and some way to transfer energy and information between itself and its environment (an ability to intentionally interact with its inside and outside environment). In other words: a conscious entity must be able to modify itself based on its own individual free will intent‚ it has the ability to evolve by intentionally lowering the entropy of its system. Notice that a species of plant comes closer to satisfying these requirements in a very rudimentary way than does an individual plant (by virtue of its evolving species specific genetic material) but that all consciousness is individual.

Also notice that organizations meet all of the criteria except their free will decision space is a weighted sum of all the individual consciousnesses making up the organization and is constrained by the organizations culture/rules/purpose. No doubt that the sum is greater than the whole, but a sum just the same. Again, consciousness, as we have defined it here, is individual.

Don't confuse consciousness with an artifact of consciousness. A rock is an artifact of consciousness, a perception that comes with a rule-set, but that does not make the rock conscious.

Other views: Reasonable people may differ in the way they define consciousness, or what they mean by vague terms like 'group soul'. Unfortunately, semantic issues burdened with personal preferences and beliefs often get in the way of clear communication. The way I define consciousness and its limitations in MBT suits my purpose of describing the clearest and most meaningful Big Picture that I can communicate to the largest number of people‚ however, it is not the only way that consciousness could be defined, categorized, and modeled. If one really wished to include plants (especially as groups or species) and organizations among the conscious, it wouldn't require too large a shift in the definitions employed here. I find that such a model tends to muddy the focus I wish to achieve on sentient beings more than it gives us in return by unifying all evolving animate life-forms under one consciousness umbrella. That's a judgment call, not something really worth arguing about too strenuously.

Tom


Top
 Post subject: Critter Consciousness
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 4:54 am 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 3:37 am
Posts: 1
Location: Alaska
Tom,

Interesting thoughts. I don't have sufficient experience with OBE's to comment from that perspective; and I have only just ordered your trilogy. So, I speak from what might be considered profound ignorance.

I too am a professional researcher -- PhD in Ecology, specializing in the behavior of bears (bear-viewing-in-alaska.info). Most of what I observe with bears is no more startling than what one observes with dogs. However, there are moments when I sit back and wonder whether we really know much at all about these animals and other species of relatively high intelligence.

That said, I am intrigued by the whole question of how organic evolution might relate to "spiritual" evolution. Does intelligence in “spiritual“ dimensions predate similar levels of intelligence in material reality? The notion of “God“ as creator would suggest so, as does the very idea that consciousness is more fundamental than material, and that every quark and atom and molecule has enough “consciousness“ to respond to the “intent“ of humans and perhaps of other material, as well as “spiritual“ entities. Indeed, it must take a great deal of intelligence to translate simple intents (e.g., I want to be healed of cancer or I need the solution to a math equation) into actions -- as anyone knows who tries to program a computer, much less a robot).

Second, I don't really see "spiritual" entities needing experience in the material realm to somehow evolve or mature. What's so special about material dimensions that entities need to experience it? What can they do here that can't be done in other dimensions? If I simply follow the "logic" of material reality having especially high "inertial" resistance to change by individual intent, one might argue that experience here is analogous to exercising at very high altitude to build up your red blood cell count prior to an athletic competition at lower altitude. Other analogies include exercising with heavy weights (or swimming through a viscous fluid) that forces you to work especially hard and thus develop your muscles more than would be readily done with normal activities (or swimming through water).

Another possibility is that inertia here is related to consensus more than is true in other dimensions, such that altering this reality requires more of a team effort -- and therefore forces you to learn how to work as a team member in the creation of realities.

My own speculation is be that “spiritual“ entities are colonizing material reality, in some sense, and that their ability to act on this plane is limited by the capabilities of organic bodies. Experience here does not aid evolution on a spiritual plane, so much as spiritual entities are somehow tweaking organic evolution for purposes above and beyond those of organic entities.

That said, I question whether material critters need a spiritual connection in order to be conscious of — responsive to — their material environment. I suspect that their brains suffice for that kind of consciousness, much as a computer might serve in a robot.

I am also skeptical of the idea that consciousness exists independently of brains. On the one hand, it is easy to understand the idea that a brain is not the source of consciousness, but a transmitter analogous to a radio. However, when one gets down to the details of neurophysiology, one discovers that even tiny changes in the levels of neurotransmitters, hormones, pheromones, ions, lesions, etc. can have major influences on conscious experience — above and beyond what would make sense for disrupting the functioning of a mere transmitter.

Can a person who loses sight in the physical realm still experience sight OBE? What about other sensations? Can a person who becomes emotionally insensitive ("affect" deficient) experience a full range of emotions OBE?

Which then takes us to the question of why one would have emotions OBE akin to those in material reality? Many emotions, to say nothing of sensations (balance, nausea, hunger, fatigue, fear, sexual arousal), are evolved and physiologically developed to serve specific functions related to survival, reproduction, etc. Put differently, emotions represent conscious awareness of physiological "states." What is their relevance in the "spiritual" realms where those physiological states do not exist?

Now to the nature of good and evil. To what extent is this issue just a product of conceptual myopia? If you are a deer, predators are evil. If you are a wolf or lion or human, preying on deer might be good if not essential. Is good to be defined in terms of the individual or the individual’s ego in the material realm? Are evil entities in other dimensions basically analogous to the predators and parasites we face in material reality? Or are there more fundamental kinds of good and evil? Are there entities inimical to all “life“ (material and spiritual) or that thrive on human misery? Are there entities that are somehow beneficial to all forms of life, including predators and parasites?

So much for such speculation. In closing:

As you may know, David Boem and David Peat became interested in Native American views of reality -- sufficiently so to join with Native elders in convincing the Fetzer Institute to host a series of "Dialogues Between Indigenous and Western Scientists." My wife and I were participants in the last of those dialogues, just after Boem passed on.

My own intrigue is with shape-shifting. This wasn't because I want to be able to assume the shape of an animal (although who wouldn't want to be able to fly like an eagle or swim like a dolphin now and then?). Rather, I wanted to know how animals — especially highly intelligent critters like bears, whales and bonobos — experience life; I wanted to glimpse life through their eyes. I’ll be interested to see what astral projection / OBE has to offer along those lines.

Hail the high peaks, and dance on the wind.

Laughing Bear

_________________
Laughing Bear


Top
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 10:36 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 1285
Laughing Bear (LB),

What a long but excellent list of questions! Your post seems like a data dump of big picture questions. The good news is: you will find that the clear and logical understanding of consciousness you will attain by the time you finish Section 5 in book 3 will provide solid answers to all of them .

Find my comments intermingled with yours:

LB: Does intelligence in “spiritual“ dimensions predate similar levels of intelligence in material reality?
TC: Yes. The “nonphysical “ leads and the physical follows. That is because the physical is a dependent derivative of the nonphysical — i.e., of consciousness. Consciousness is fundamental, while our physical reality is a virtual reality created by consciousness constrained to implement a specific rule set.

LB: Indeed, it must take a great deal of intelligence to translate simple intents (e.g., I want to be healed of cancer or I need the solution to a math equation) into actions -- as anyone knows who tries to program a computer, much less a robot).
TC: Translating one’s intent into action does not require much intelligence — an earthworm can do it. Intents only become intellectual when awareness and understanding are sufficient to support it. Most humans are unaware of the fundamental intents (motivations) that drive their actions. Healing one’s own or someone else’s cancer with a focused intent generally requires only an average intelligence but a much better than average quality of consciousness (an unusually low-entropy consciousness). Developing consciousness (spiritual development) is not about developing intellect or even developing knowledge. It is more about growing up.

LB: Second, I don't really see "spiritual" entities needing experience in the material realm to somehow evolve or mature. What's so special about material dimensions that entities need to experience it? What can they do here that can't be done in other dimensions? If I simply follow the "logic" of material reality having especially high "inertial" resistance to change by individual intent, one might argue that experience here is analogous to exercising at very high altitude to build up your red blood cell count prior to an athletic competition at lower altitude.
TC: It has nothing to do with material reality having especially high "inertial" resistance to change by individual intent. It has to do with a simplified, straightforward virtual physical reality more clearly connecting the dots between intent, action, and result through an immediate feedback mechanism. It’s about making the action and reaction pair more transparent and more personal. Think of our virtual physical reality as an elementary or pre-school where simplicity, repetition, and immediate feedback help the beginning students grasp very basic concepts.

LB: Another possibility is that inertia here is related to consensus more than is true in other dimensions, such that altering this reality requires more of a team effort -- and therefore forces you to learn how to work as a team member in the creation of realities.
TC: It is not about a team effort. Consciousness is individual and personal. Interaction with others is the primary generator of learning opportunity — where intent most easily leads action to results and feedback. For that reason working with others cooperatively is important -- but as part of the learning process, not as a goal.

LB: My own speculation is be that “spiritual“ entities are colonizing material reality, in some sense, and that their ability to act on this plane is limited by the capabilities of organic bodies. Experience here does not aid evolution on a spiritual plane, so much as spiritual entities are somehow tweaking organic evolution for purposes above and beyond those of organic entities.
TC: Your implicit assumption is that spiritual entities (nonphysical reality) and physical entities (physical reality) are two separate things. Both are virtual pieces of a larger related whole, both are consciousness — one thing with different defining constraints and rule-sets. Experience here does aid evolution on a spiritual plane — that is the whole point of experience here. The whole point of creating a virtual physical reality in the first place is to do just that.

LB: That said, I question whether material critters need a spiritual connection in order to be conscious of — responsive to — their material environment. I suspect that their brains suffice for that kind of consciousness, much as a computer might serve in a robot.
TC: Critters need a spiritual connection to exist at all within this physical reality. Otherwise they would be inanimate objects. There consciousness is their spiritual connection. Again, seeing the spiritual, mental, or nonphysical world and the physical worlds as separate independent “places“ creates the apparent problem.

LB: I am also skeptical of the idea that consciousness exists independently of brains. On the one hand, it is easy to understand the idea that a brain is not the source of consciousness, but a transmitter analogous to a radio. However, when one gets down to the details of neurophysiology, one discovers that even tiny changes in the levels of neurotransmitters, hormones, pheromones, ions, lesions, etc. can have major influences on conscious experience — above and beyond what would make sense for disrupting the functioning of a mere transmitter.
TC: Skeptical is good — necessary even. Without being skeptical, you won't learn much. I suggest you go to the Physics topic in this forum and look at the subtopic Consciousness And Physics . There you will find a discussion 3 or 4 posts down that is focused on this very point. The brain as a transmitter has some merit but is much too narrow a concept. You will find that the brain’s function is more than a “mere transmitter.“

LB: Can a person who loses sight in the physical realm still experience sight OBE? What about other sensations? Can a person who becomes emotionally insensitive ("affect" deficient) experience a full range of emotions OBE?
TC: Awareness in nonphysical realms is not related to sensory awareness in physical realms. As far as being emotionally deficient goes it would depend on the cause of the deficiency. If the deficiency were fundamental to the being, it would be a reflection of the consciousness quality and exist in all realms; if it were fundamental only to the physical body (say the result of a brain tumor) there would be no carry over to nonphysical realms.

LB: Which then takes us to the question of why one would have emotions OBE akin to those in material reality? Many emotions, to say nothing of sensations (balance, nausea, hunger, fatigue, fear, sexual arousal), are evolved and physiologically developed to serve specific functions related to survival, reproduction, etc. Put differently, emotions represent conscious awareness of physiological "states." What is their relevance in the "spiritual" realms where those physiological states do not exist?
TC: Emotions can represent more than physical states. They may also represent one’s quality of consciousness.

LB: Now to the nature of good and evil. To what extent is this issue just a product of conceptual myopia? If you are a deer, predators are evil. If you are a wolf or lion or human, preying on deer might be good if not essential. Is good to be defined in terms of the individual or the individual’s ego in the material realm? Are evil entities in other dimensions basically analogous to the predators and parasites we face in material reality? Or are there more fundamental kinds of good and evil? Are there entities inimical to all “life“ (material and spiritual) or that thrive on human misery? Are there entities that are somehow beneficial to all forms of life, including predators and parasites?
TC: Yes. There are more fundamental kinds of good and evil. Good and evil has to do with intent not action. Who eats who for dinner is mostly irrelevant.

LB: My own intrigue is with shape-shifting. This wasn't because I want to be able to assume the shape of an animal (although who wouldn't want to be able to fly like an eagle or swim like a dolphin now and then?). Rather, I wanted to know how animals — especially highly intelligent critters like bears, whales and bonobos — experience life; I wanted to glimpse life through their eyes. I’ll be interested to see what astral projection / OBE has to offer along those lines.
TC: You don't have to shift shapes to directly experience the existence of others (see through the eyes of others) you only need to shift consciousness — something you can learn with practice. It has nothing to do with OOBE.

TC: Most, if not all, of your questions will have resolved themselves after you have read MBT. Unfortunately, some of the above answers will also not make much sense until after you have read MBT. That cannot be helped. Your conceptualization of reality is so far afield of that presented by MBT that we do not yet share enough concepts to productively speak a common language within the limited venue of this forum. I hope to hear from you again after you have had a chance to digest MBT. You are a thoughtful and eloquent contributor — and we (the readers of this forum) look forward to continuing these discussions.

Tom C


Top
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:14 am 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 12:33 am
Posts: 5
Location: France
TC-A rock is an artifact of consciousness, a perception that comes with a rule-set, but that does not make the rock conscious.

Does MBT support the idea that minerals such as quartz crystals have frequencies and information that can be tapped into?

Do they,as some claim,amplify the life focre energy?

Sounds a little new agey,but curious.


Top
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 12:02 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 1285
jurdoc,

Power objects, the placebo effect ,and crystals
Correct, rocks are not conscious -- they have no decision space in which to exercise free will. However, conscious entities can attach meaning, i.e., information, to inanimate objects (sentimental or otherwise). Then the object appears to act like an automatic URL redirector to the consciousness energy associated with that object. The object, or rock in this discussion, itself is not actually holding or storing the information or redirecting anything -- the rock is simply a symbol, an association (like a tab on a folder, or perhaps a file name) contained within one or more units of individuated consciousness.
Thus if one powerful individual or many less powerful people have a strong association (great energy or emotion or strong belief with a clear and focused intent) with a given object, that object may become a "power object" with apparent "powers" — historically, a magical, or enchanted, or sacred object. The Power does not really flow from the object, but from the consciousness associated with the object. Power objects are rare — even a very large number of people with strong feelings but normally scattered consciousnesses will not assemble enough coherency and consistency behind an intent to leave much of a lasting residue.

Quartz crystals have the property of oscillating at a precise frequency related to their size and structure when energized by an electric potential. That is how your digital watch works (the electric potential is provided by the battery). Their attractive appearance, high tech electrical properties, and association with the word frequency makes them cooler than ordinary rocks and thus the New age community has adopted them. That they are just rare enough to support a good price but are not too hard to get doesn't hurt either. Of course, the placebo effect is a real effect — mind follows intent. Beside the placebo effect and a potential application of the power-object effect, crystals do not, as some claim, amplify life-force energy.

Tom C


Top
PostPosted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 6:19 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 5:18 am
Posts: 214
Tom:Now, though all souls are chips off the same consciousness block, they are not all the same in their awareness, capacity, functionality, or entropy (quality). There are no “guides“ guiding the day to day spiritual development of vaguely aware clams. Though individual clams have an individual non-physical part, there is so little decision-space involved that clam souls are all pretty much the same; so they can be treated, or interacted with, or ignored as a group. Because there is so little differentiation between one little clam soul and the next, individual treatment/attention/tracking would not be a good use of AUM’s resources. Same for bugs and slugs and most of PMR’s trillions of sentient entities. Perhaps a brilliant (relatively speaking) clam might every now and then get a little special attention, but surely that is the exception and not the rule.
Does this mean a lower quality individuated chunk of consciousness may be a clam in PMR because that is all the quality can handle until it's entropy is further reduced ? Or does an individuated chunk have a human,clam,fly etc in the same PMR at the same time ? Does/can one Ant be an individuated chunk's primary focus whilst in this PMR ?
If it is a ladder of evolution then we as a PMR human must be of a lower entropy individuated chunk of consciousness or are we the ones in need to lower entropy more than the clam? Maybe the critters are running in parallel with an Oversoul's primary VR experience elsewhere? But then serial is better I've read...

Thanks,
Peter

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


Top
PostPosted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 12:22 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:35 am
Posts: 9999
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
Hi Peter,

Check this out, if you will ;). I plan on reading it after posting this to you. Serial vs parallel http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/p ... 6/art00005

I have to wonder if wondering about clam consciousness is productive, but then recall that everything matters. All I can think of is that Tom is pissing off a huge group consciousness, and he might want to be careful if he plans to eat any clam chowder as they might eat him instead after he irritates them into growth, Tom Chowder :). I wonder if oysters are lower entropy than clams since they have the whole pearl thing going on...

Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.


Top
PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 4:15 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 5:18 am
Posts: 214
Check this out, if you will ;). I plan on reading it after posting this to you. Serial vs parallel http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/p ... 6/art00005
Thanks Bette :-)
I have to wonder if wondering about clam consciousness is productive, but then recall that everything matters.

Yeah I know but when I do eat, spray, kill these little critters/insects. Am I ending a fragment of an individual consciousnesses experience just as important as my human VR incarnation ? I think if I knew this it would change my perspective greatly.
The big cockroaches that were walking around the house the other day have found out I am not very compassionate towards them yet although I don't go out of my way to 'get rid' of them they do scare my young daughter so appropriate action is taken.
I once read where a Buddhist monastery was overrun by cockroaches because the monks wouldn't 'get rid' of them out of compassion. I can see their point but I can also see the impracticality of it also.

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


Top
PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 6:55 am 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
To All,

Wake up and notice what you are saying. As participants in a VR, neither you, (if you happen to slip on a slick spot, fall and crack your skull and 'die' immediately) nor the large cockroach (the putative slick spot with which you have just interacted) have done anything other than just transition back to your NPMR consciousness. Your present PMR consciousness track has terminated, but YOU remain as before as does your small friend. PMR concepts can sneak up out of the wood work and control your thinking. Ahimsa is a nice concept, but very impractical. Should we take pity upon the rats and mice and other disease vectors and revive the Black Death and increase the prevalence of the Hanta Virus? As we advance into the next 25 or so years with the 1.4 billion increase in human population projected, we are going to be facing the questions in our governments of whether the elderly, especially the burdensome ones with Alzheimer's Disease or the equivalent should not be euthanized. Add to this list of potential disenfranchised the low end of the bell curve for intellectual ability and physical or mental problems. Otherwise, a lot of procreating has to be foregone in one way or the other. The majority, faced with immediate pleasure versus delayed pain, will opt for the present pleasure.

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 1:32 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:35 am
Posts: 9999
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
This conversation brings to mind the death penalty in the US states that have it. While I understand the truth that what I am will keep going at its death here, it is still an issue as we as a people have been trained to see death very differently, we have been controlled with this training. We try and teach our children reverence for life, while at the same time keeping our home free of ickies which requires killing them most of the time. The way I see it is that I don't bother them unless they come in uninvited, and I don't go out of my way to kill them in their homes. On a practical note boric acid will clear up the worst infestation of lacocka roaches, aka water bugs (nicer for little ears to hear). Fear of bugs usually comes from watching our parent/guardian freak out and be fearful of them (lightening too), funny bugs. My mentor had ants that she made a deal with, she took an offering to them at the edge of her fence line and they stayed out of her house, it worked. There are so many people and there are probably 20 more in just the last few moments worldwide coming in. I watched a population clock and it moved fast, a unit a second or so coming in. The earth has to have a limit and when that is reached she might shake us off her back, or sneeze perhaps.

LB: Can a person who loses sight in the physical realm still experience sight OBE?

This brings me to my question, does my son who has autism "talk" to me when we are both OOB during our sleep. Do we hang out together there? This itself is my motivation to start starting doing "it". Actually it is more a matter of clearing and practice I must start. I really don't know what the hold up is unless I'm just intent challenged.

Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.


Top
PostPosted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 6:26 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 6:32 pm
Posts: 815
Location: Statesville, NC
Tom,

Have you observed what happens to animals/pets on exit? I have read of several authors who describe seeing their old pets in NPMR, sometimes just hanging around nonphysically and some in a place especially for animals in NPMR. I figure as more of a group soul that they might lose individuation pretty quickly.
I have a pet not doing so good right now. He has a heart murmur that has worsened and is affecting his breathing. If any of you animal lovers out there wouldn't mind trying out some healing intent on Tommy (wiener dog) it would be much appreciated. I have been working on him every chance I get. I know he doesn't know it but he is testing me hard on being this stuff and not just talking about it. I love him dearly.

Ramon


Top
PostPosted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 9:01 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:35 am
Posts: 9999
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
I've had an idea that our animal companions receive a portion of our soul, a small piece that is part of and goes with them when they pass so they can use it to find us again as a new companion. It is why it's so hard to lose them, so heart wrenching like losing a piece of yourself. This idea has been with me for a long time, and still after finding MBT I stand by it as it resonates. Reading the Robert A Monroe books, Ultimate Journey specifically (I think), hopefully will allow me to not absolutely lose it when my Benji goes like I did when Simon before him went.

Ramon, I would say that Tommy knows he is testing you hard. He is doing so out of love, you already knew that though. He's lucky to have you to have him.

Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.


Top
PostPosted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 1:15 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 6:32 pm
Posts: 815
Location: Statesville, NC
Thanks Bette.
Thanks to anyone who thought of trying to help but we had to put Tommy to sleep tonight. He had just gotten really bad and the vet at the emergency clinic seemed to think there wasn't much that could be done at this point. I couldn't let him go on suffering the way he was, selfishly trying to postpone it for my sake when the best thing for him would be to just let go of his malfunctioning body. This is some test. I am absolutely broken right now. He was my buddy. I truly thank him for all of the joy he brought me and know that he will always be a part of me on some level.
Thanks guys,
Ramon


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 Next

All times are UTC-06:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited