The Beginning of the End for The Secret?

[renie408]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

That's what Dr Elizabeth Kubler Ross wanted too. She was a doctor and psychiatrist with a list of qualifications that looks like this:

Doctor of Science, H.C., Albany Medical College, New York 1974
Doctor of Laws, University of Notre Dame, IN.,1974
Doctor of Science, Smith College 1975
Doctor of Science, Molley College, Rockville Center, NY, 1976
Doctor of Humanities, St. Mary's College, Notre Dame, IN. 1975
Doctor of Laws, Hamline University, MN. 1975
Doctor of Humane Letters, Amherst College, MA. 1975
Doctor of Humane Letters, Loyola University, IL 1975
Doctor of Humane Letters, Bard College, New York, 1977
Doctor of Humanities, Hood College, MD 1976
Doctor of Letters, Rosary College, IL. 1976
Doctor of Pedagogy, Keuka College, NY 1976
Doctor of Humane Science, University of Miami, FL 1976
Doctor of Humane Letters, Bard College, NY 1977
Doctor of Science, Weston MA., 1977
Honorary Degree, Anna Maria College, MA., 1978
Doctor of Humane Letters, Union College, New York 1978
Doctor of Humane Letters, D'Youville College, New York 1979
Doctor of Science, Fairleigh Dickinson University, 1979
Doctor of Divinity, 1996

Well, she probably got her Big Sleep. Because she had an intense mystical experience, where a non-physical being told her that this lifetime on planet earth would be her last lifetime on planet lifetime. She passed away in 2004.

I am sorry, but what does that mean for this discussion? That because she was a professional student and believed in reincarnation, the rest of us should?

Did you also know that in her later life she was really into using mediums to contact the dead?

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by renie408

My problem with past life regression is that the mind is very complex and very suggestible.

You are right.

That is why Dr Weiss's accounts of independent verification are very striking.

There are many different examples, here is one example of how it might go.

1. X has a brother, Y.
2. X undergoes past-life regression hypnosis.
3. In his past life, X sees that he was living in a place called ABC and Y was his best friend who lived next door.

4. Later, Y is asked to undergo past-life regression hypnosis.
5. Y is not told anything about X's hypnosis results.
6. Y relates that in his past life, Y lived in a place called ABC and X was his best friend who lived next door.

One of Dr Brian Weiss's interesting discoveries is that "souls" apparently seem to travel in small groups. That is, they seem to meet again and again in different lifetimes.

The most striking feature of Weiss's work is not merely that the patient recalls his past life. He also recalls his past death, and what happens immediately thereafter. In other words, Weiss has been exploring that space between one person's life, and his next.

I know at this point, you will be tempted to respond with another ten questions. In a forum like this, it will be difficult to answer them with the degree of detail that they deserve. I recommend that you read Brian Weiss's books for yourself.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by renie408

Did you also know that in her later life she was really into using mediums to contact the dead?

This accidentally happened to Brian Weiss too.

Well, not exactly. His patient, under past-life regression hypnosis, accidentally channeled .... ummm, let's call it a non-physical being. Something like Esther's Abraham.

The NPB that Brian Weiss met proceeded to tell Brian Weiss things about his own personal life, that Brian's patient could not possibly have known.

This experience convinced Brian that past-life regression hypnosis wasn't merely the result of the patient imagining things while in a deep state. Something more was at work here.

And so Brian decided to start his very serious research into this field.

[renie408]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

You are right.

That is why Dr Weiss's accounts of independent verification are very striking.

There are many different examples, here is one example of how it might go.

1. X has a brother, Y.
2. X undergoes past-life regression hypnosis.
3. In his past life, X sees that he was living in a place called ABC and Y was his best friend who lived next door.

4. Later, Y is asked to undergo past-life regression hypnosis.
5. Y is not told anything about X's hypnosis results.
6. Y relates that in his past life, Y lived in a place called ABC and X was his best friend who lived next door.

One of Dr Brian Weiss's interesting discoveries is that "souls" apparently seem to travel in small groups. That is, they seem to meet again and again in different lifetimes.

The most striking feature of Weiss's work is not merely that the patient recalls his past life. He also recalls his past death, and what happens immediately thereafter. In other words, Weiss has been exploring that space between one person's life, and his next.

I know at this point, you will be tempted to respond with another ten questions. In a forum like this, it will be difficult to answer them with the degree of detail that they deserve. I recommend that you read Brian Weiss's books for yourself.

That is interesting and I would like to read more about it. I have to confess that a lot of my mental resistance to ideas like this is a simple knee jerk reaction to things that feel unprovable.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by renie408

Did you also know that in her later life she was really into using mediums to contact the dead?

Oh, that sounds like the wife of somebody we know well and generally seem to respect. We even participate on his forums.

[renie408]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Oh, that sounds like the wife of somebody we know well and generally seem to respect. We even participate on his forums.

You had me with Brian Weiss, you lost me with 'Steve's wife believes in it and you post on his forum, so you should believe in it, too."

[Acting Like Godot]

Just to add on to this:

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

The most striking feature of Weiss's work is not merely that the patient recalls his past life. He also recalls his past death, and what happens immediately thereafter. In other words, Weiss has been exploring that space between one person's life, and his next.

You should compare this part of Weiss's work, to research on the near-death experience. The accounts are highly consistent.

The difference is that the PLR people really died, and went all the way. The NDE people "turned back". Up to the point of turning back, the accounts are remarkably similar.

[Dani]

Back onto the original question of the girl 'wanting' to be raped and murdered.

LoA doesn't give you what you want it gives you what you think about.

As a parent how many times do you tell your children to be careful it's a dangerous world?

How many times might this girl have been subjected to people worrying about her safety that -she- may have started to worry about her safety.

Any psychologist will agree that our parents and school teachers are responsible for the vast majority of our personality, especially at an early age.

Even babies dieing in the womb could be explained by this, where the parent's beliefs influence the childs. 'I am unfit to be a mother' , 'The doctor said I might have troubles carrying a baby full term' etc.

It is possible.

[renie408]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Just to add on to this:



You should compare this part of Weiss's work, to research on the near-death experience. The accounts are highly consistent.

The difference is that the PLR people really died, and went all the way. The NDE people "turned back". Up to the point of turning back, the accounts are remarkably similar.

Ok. I will check it out.

[Antiventurecapital]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Just to add on to this:



You should compare this part of Weiss's work, to research on the near-death experience. The accounts are highly consistent.

The difference is that the PLR people really died, and went all the way. The NDE people "turned back". Up to the point of turning back, the accounts are remarkably similar.

Over a lifetime almost everyone is programmed by countless stories and TV shows about the "white light" that you see upon dying and the tunnel you pass through.

If there was anything of substance in this area we would see substantial research being conducted on NDe and PLR. The fact that just a handful of eccentrics is doing it, speaks volumes.

[renie408]

Originally Posted by Dani

Back onto the original question of the girl 'wanting' to be raped and murdered.

LoA doesn't give you what you want it gives you what you think about.

As a parent how many times do you tell your children to be careful it's a dangerous world?

How many times might this girl have been subjected to people worrying about her safety that -she- may have started to worry about her safety.

Any psychologist will agree that our parents and school teachers are responsible for the vast majority of our personality, especially at an early age.

Even babies dieing in the womb could be explained by this, where the parent's beliefs influence the childs. 'I am unfit to be a mother' , 'The doctor said I might have troubles carrying a baby full term' etc.

It is possible.

I think I need to let this argument go. I have said what I think. Everybody else needs to think what they need to think.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Antiventurecapital

Over a lifetime almost everyone is programmed by countless stories and TV shows about the "white light" that you see upon dying and the tunnel you pass through.

What will surprise you is that NDE/PLR accounts are substantially the same across people of different religions and cultures.

In other words, you could be a Roman Catholic who expects to see Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary when you die. Or you could be a Hindu who expects to be reincarnated in your next life, and not necessarily as a human. Or you could be an atheist, who expects death to be "the end", no white light, no heaven, no hell, no angels, no demons etc etc.

However, under PLR/NDE, all these people end up reporting the same experience.

By the way, it's a lot more than "a white light at the end of the tunnel" - for both the NDE and PLR folks, but especially for the PLR folks. I'm deliberately not telling you any more, because it's fun to see you disbelieving without even knowing what it is that you're disbelieving.

If there was anything of substance in this area we would see substantial research being conducted on NDe and PLR. The fact that just a handful of eccentrics is doing it, speaks volumes.

The research isn't that insubstantial. If you are not arguing for the sake of arguing, and are actually genuinely interested in the topic, you should be open-minded enough to try to find out a little more for yourself.

However, the simple truth is that scientific research in any field these days is heavily subject to commercial considerations. I'm quite aware of this, because in my country, there's been plenty of public debate on these sorts of issues.

What's becoming increasingly clear to me is that Modern Science is basically driven by Money. If you say you want to research ABC, and you demonstrate that there could be a commercially valuable application for your research (eg you are going to invent a new handphone technology), oh you'll get your funding, alright.

If you say you want to research something where the commercial application is less obvious - eg why meditation increases brain size or the breeding habits of the red-spotted Brazilian tree frog - you're going to have a much more difficult time getting your funding.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by renie408

I don't think reincarnation is total rubbish. But I also don't think that children who are raped and murdered are 'getting what they deserve' because they earned it in an earlier life. That sounds like a way to make people accept bad things and still believe in the multiple religions you mentioned. That kind of thinking has that 'opiate of the masses' feel to it to me.

I'm not saying children who get raped are "getting what they deserve". I'm saying that they come here with the same fears they left their previous life, and that is how it is possible for them manifest such a thing in a universe governed by LoA.

Nobody "deserves" ANY suffering. For LoA to be true you have to accept that ALL suffering in self-imposed suffering, so all I was explaining was how a child, even an infant can self-impose such suffering on themselves by carrying energy from a previous lifetime into this one.

Some call this Karma, which is just a label for it, but really all that's needed to transcend Karma is forgiveness. Forgiving yourself, and forgiving everyone else.

[Antiventurecapital]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

I'm deliberately not telling you any more, because it's fun to see you disbelieving without even knowing what it is that you're disbelieving.

Well, good for you.

To be honest, I have never been able to muster any interest in past lives, after lives, NDEs, or any of the other related stuff.

This life and how to make the most of it is the only thing of interest to me.

[annie]

phew.

there's a lot of mini topics in this thread....

but here's a small thing to add to the NDE segment of this thread

Near-Death and the Afterlife Bulletin Board :: Index

[Antiventurecapital]

Originally Posted by impaul99

I'm not saying children who get raped are "getting what they deserve". I'm saying that they come here with the same fears they left their previous life, and that is how it is possible for them manifest such a thing in a universe governed by LoA.

Nobody "deserves" ANY suffering. For LoA to be true you have to accept that ALL suffering in self-imposed suffering, so all I was explaining was how a child, even an infant can self-impose such suffering on themselves by carrying energy from a previous lifetime into this one.

Some call this Karma, which is just a label for it, but really all that's needed to transcend Karma is forgiveness. Forgiving yourself, and forgiving everyone else.

The far more likely explanation is that a deviant with an interest in abusing children selected that little girl, stalked her for some days or weeks, and then abducted her when the opportunity presented itself.

Honestly, I find it unbelievable that adults have to make up such log-rolling BS about a child "attracting it" to explain such a tragedy.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Antiventurecapital

Nonsense. Total rubbish.

Here's why babies have terrible things happen to them. Babies are born in Original Sin and therefore deserve only suffering and hell because some teen bimbo ate the forbidden fruit 6000 years ago.

Very sorry to have offended you with my nonsense. Forgive me. Your explanation seems so much more insightful.

[Antiventurecapital]

Originally Posted by impaul99

Very sorry to have offended you with my nonsense. Forgive me. Your explanation seems so much more insightful.

That's because it is.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by renie408

And why exactly are we supposed to assume that?

No reason. Just that I didn't feel like writing 5 more pages of explanation. I just wrote a summarized version of an assumption I'm making in part 1 to explain part 2, so what I meant to say was to assume part 1 was right for now (hypothetically, not because I've proven it), and then read part 2 based on that assumption and at the end make your decision if you believe the whole thing.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by renie408

You had me with Brian Weiss, you lost me with 'Steve's wife believes in it and you post on his forum, so you should believe in it, too."

The basic point is very simple.

I used to work within the criminal legal system. I met a fair number of crazy people. I'm no psychiatrist, but in my opinion, based on the crazy people that I've met, craziness isn't confined in watertight compartments.

What I mean is this. A person believes in ABC. You don't - in fact, you think that it is quite crazy, quite utterly stupid, to believe in ABC. So you are tempted to believe that the person is stupid, unintelligent, crazy, insane etc.

However as I said, craziness isn't confined in watertight compartments.

If a person tells you something like this: "I met a non-physical being yesterday. His name is Abraham. He shared with me strange accounts of how our thoughts affect reality ....", and this person appears unkempt, has a psychiatric history of delusions, is on drugs, cannot speak or write clearly, can't hold down a job, appears to be suffering from memory loss etc etc -

then I think it would probably be smart of you to disregard his Abraham story.

If however, a person tells you this: "I met a non-physical being yesterday. His name is Abraham. He shared with me strange accounts of how our thoughts affect reality ...." .... and the person appears intelligent, coherent, articulate, in control, happens to have five degrees from highly reputable universities, writes very well, types quite accurately on a computer, appears fully capable of logical reasoning on all matters apart from his Abraham story ....

then I think it would probably be smart of you to pay some serious attention to his Abraham story.

Dr Kubler Ross's writings show her to be an extremely lucid, intelligent, clear-thinking person. A mad person wouldn't even be able to organise sentences properly into paragraphs. I don't think that Kubler Ross is mad (and I don't think Erin Pavlina is mad either) - far from it.

Therefore when they keep telling you that they have had certain mystical experiences, again and again, with non-physical beings - well, either they are lying through their teeth, or they did have those experiences.

By the way, about communicating with the dead ........ Share a bit of trivia with you. Thomas Edison's last project was to invent a device to communicate with the dead. Unfortunately he died halfway.

Once again, I ask you to consider whether it is so far-fetched to conceieve that (1) the dead are not really "dead", and (2) it may be possible to communicate with them. If a great mind like Edison believed that it might be possible .... might it not be possible?

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Antiventurecapital

The far more likely explanation is that a deviant with an interest in abusing children selected that little girl, stalked her for some days or weeks, and then abducted her when the opportunity presented itself.

Honestly, I find it unbelievable that adults have to make up such log-rolling BS about a child "attracting it" to explain such a tragedy.

Then you obviously don't believe in LoA at all. Which is your perogative.

I'm just talking to those who do believe in LoA but didn't understand how Joe Vitale could say that a 5 year old girl attracted rape. You can't say that LoA is at work when you attract money or a car into your life, and then turn around and say that bad things are just crappy luck.

It would be incongruent for a teacher of LoA like Joe Vitale to say to Larry King "Oh, the little girl? Oh that was just ************ luck." is all I'm saying. If you believe LoA then you have to believe that you attract EVERYTHING.

If you don't believe in the Law of Attraction, then none of this discussion matters.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Antiventurecapital

That's because it is.

Yup, you're right. It all makes sense to me now, thanks.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Antiventurecapital

Well, good for you.

To be honest, I have never been able to muster any interest in past lives, after lives, NDEs, or any of the other related stuff.

This life and how to make the most of it is the only thing of interest to me.

Surprise. Actually I share your view.

In fact, this is why my hypnotherapist discouraged me from doing PLR. I didn't actually have any problems or issues in my present life, that I hoped to resolve by understanding my past lives.

She said, "Then all you're going to get is a lot of memories from past lives, but they won't necessarily be of any practical value to you in your present life."

I said I'd do it once, anyway. And I did. I think it was worth it, because it definitely opened my eyes to some Big Things, and importantly, in an experiential sort of way, rather than, say, just reading a book or arguing with people on an internet forum.

But she was right in that it didn't give that much to me, in terms of "practical value" for my present life.

Like you, this life and how to make the most of it is my predominant interest.

[Antiventurecapital]

Originally Posted by impaul99

Then you obviously don't believe in LoA at all. Which is your perogative.

I'm just talking to those who do believe in LoA but didn't understand how Joe Vitale could say that a 5 year old girl attracted rape. You can't say that LoA is at work when you attract money or a car into your life, and then turn around and say that bad things are just crappy luck.

It would be incongruent for a teacher of LoA like Joe Vitale to say to Larry King "Oh, the little girl? Oh that was just ************ luck." is all I'm saying. If you believe LoA then you have to believe that you attract EVERYTHING.

If you don't believe in the Law of Attraction, then none of this discussion matters.

It's news to me that LoA requires a belief in reincarnation and karma.

Or is this your personal spin on it?

[Antiventurecapital]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Like you, this life and how to make the most of it is my predominant interest.

The only thing I concern myself is the "death bed test". That's where you review your life and judge it: Did I live fully or am I full of regrets over missed opportunities?

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Antiventurecapital

Well, good for you.

To be honest, I have never been able to muster any interest in past lives, after lives, NDEs, or any of the other related stuff.

This life and how to make the most of it is the only thing of interest to me.

Is it alright with you if some of us are interested in those things though? Or are we limited to discussing things you're interested in?

You know what would be really cool on these forums, is if there was some way to organize people into different discussion groups. For people who are not intersted in anything to do with spiritual matters, psychic phenomena etc. for there to be a place to discuss the "practical" aspects of LoA, and then for people who are open to those things for there to be a different area etc.

2 years ago if someone told me about psychic phenomena I would be like "Go away, I don't want to hear it....tell me how to use LoA to attract money.", but today I do want to hear about all that stuff because I've already taken care of the money aspect of things.

So instead of all of us at different belief levels to keep tripping over eachother I wish there was some way to discuss things.

Right now, these forums are like a conglomerate of people at ALL different levels of consiousness belief and they're tripping all over each other.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Antiventurecapital

It's news to me that LoA requires a belief in reincarnation and karma.

Or is this your personal spin on it?

No, LoA only requires the belief that we attract EVERYTHING into our lives.

That is why Joe Vitale said that the girl must have attracted the rapist into her life, because he believes in LoA and that we attract good things and bad things.

People on this forum and out there watching the show all went "wooo...that's a bad thing to say!" like Joe Vitale is being mean by saying that, but if he didn't say that it would mean he doesn't really BELIEVE in LoA.

It's kind of like gravity. If a little girl jumped off a roof and she hit the ground and died because gravity pulled her down, nobody would blame the person who believes in gravity and say that he's MEAN or insensitive for saying that gravity pulled her down to earth and killed her, right?

So, why explanation with re-incarnation is to answer the question of HOW could a little girl attract a rapist, not whether she did or not. LoA states that she did. We all attract everything. So the question just becomes HOW did this happen? How does a little girl who hasn't even probably heard of something called Rape, because she hasn't even learned what sex is yet or any of that stuff attract such a thing to happen to her.

My explanation is that this life we live is not our first, and that we carry things from one life to the next, that's all.

[Antiventurecapital]

Originally Posted by impaul99

Is it alright with you if some of us are interested in those things though? Or are we limited to discussing things you're interested in?

You know what would be really cool on these forums, is if there was some way to organize people into different discussion groups. For people who are not intersted in anything to do with spiritual matters, psychic phenomena etc. for there to be a place to discuss the "practical" aspects of LoA, and then for people who are open to those things for there to be a different area etc.

2 years ago if someone told me about psychic phenomena I would be like "Go away, I don't want to hear it....tell me how to use LoA to attract money.", but today I do want to hear about all that stuff because I've already taken care of the money aspect of things.

So instead of all of us at different belief levels to keep tripping over eachother I wish there was some way to discuss things.

Right now, these forums are like a conglomerate of people at ALL different levels of consiousness belief and they're tripping all over each other.

I prefer the challenge of engaging with those who have opposing views. It enables me to continously test my own beliefs as well as better understand why they may disagree with me. For example, rather than spending time on DailyKos, where everyone just agrees with everyone else, I prefer mixing it up on the Freeper site and FauxNews. That's a lot more fun and intellectually stimulating than being agreed with on everything.

[annie]

Originally Posted by impaul99

No, LoA only requires the belief that we attract EVERYTHING into our lives.

????

I'm pretty sure you made up that definition. Because I for one believe in the LOA but I absolutely do not believe that LOA REQUIRES the belief that we attract EVERYTHING (your emphasis) into your lives.

This is a better definition:

The Law of Attraction is a theory commonly associated with New Age and New Thought philosophy. It posits that one should never dwell on the negative, as the metaphysical principle of life is embodied in a "law of attraction": "you get what you think about; your thoughts determine your destiny."[1] From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Antiventurecapital]

Originally Posted by impaul99

It's kind of like gravity. If a little girl jumped off a roof and she hit the ground and died because gravity pulled her down, nobody would blame the person who believes in gravity and say that he's MEAN or insensitive for saying that gravity pulled her down to earth and killed her, right?

You need a time out if you don't understand the difference between the Law of Gravity and the Law of Attraction.