Connecting with spirits after death

[Divi]

Hi Steve, being new to this site, I'm not sure if I'm posting this at the right place. Also i dont know if a question of similar content has already been posted. So let me first apologize if anything is wrong with my question.

I happened to read about your blog on how you connected with Ron Lewison after his death. Though I have my own suspicions regarding the existance of spirits, I felt what you wrote made sense. But there is a long prevailing notion that such happenings are creations of the living human mind, and not an act of any spirits. Just in case you dont feel offended, would you mind trying an experiment the next time you happen to connect with Ron, and share with us the result of it.

I came across it in a Hindi movie "Lagey Raho Munnabhai". Can you ask Ron to tell you of an incident that happened in his life that you(Steve) dont know of, but can be clarified by someone else who knows about it. This way we can be sure that its indeed for real.

Regards
Divi

[Steve Pavlina]

Sorry, but I can't do this because it would violate your free will. You cannot be shown proof of something you decided to doubt. The very nature of reality makes that impossible. You'll only be able to have such experiences when you no longer regard them as potential proof.

I'll probably write a new article about the nature of free will further down the road. It's too rich a topic to adequately cover in a forum response.

[wulph]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Sorry, but I can't do this because it would violate your free will.

I think this may well be my new favorite quote.

[Divi]

Hi Steve,
The moment you start being philosophical, you stop being practical.
When scientists first established that the earth is round, not flat, they could have kept it a secret saying we dont want to violate the free will of the people.

They didn't do that because they were practical people and they knew the only way to clear doubts is to show proof.

If you are gifted with an ability to talk to spirits, why not use it to clear our ignorance? Why not get Ron's help in getting a better idea of the other world?
Dont you think Ron would be more than happy to service humanity in this way?

Divi

[24evita]

It is amazing, but not at all surprising that many of us still need "proof" for various things. As good as science is and as much as it can prove, it cannot prove the many fundamental and basic things that govern the spiritual universe.

Especially at this time as we are embarking on a new awakening on the planet and quantum physics is at a peak - many scientists are baffled more than ever as there just is no way to prove some things simply because they are FELT.

You cannot prove feelings such as love, fear, etc. There is just no way to quantify them mathematically, visually or for that matter any other way - either you feel it or you don't and no one else can prove whether you felt it or you didn't.

Hence - many of us are still looking for proof to everything that seems "odd" or "out of the box" or "new" but we have to remember there simply is no proof for some things such as those that are felt - nor should there be.

These are personal experiences and either you feel them or you don't.

[Sentient]

I agree a lot with this response. I think a lot of other people agree with it too. I'd even venture that Steve would agree with it. I mean, it is pretty typical for a skeptic to say something along the lines of "show me X and then I'll believe." You show them X and then they say: "Wait a minute, there is a chance that Y or Z could've effected the outcome. That's still not good enough."

Unfortunately, now that we know this is true, we are agreeing to the fact that even showing "proof" of the type that Divi requested would still leave him an out. Therefore, it would not violate his free will as Steve said it would.

So, is this REALLY violating his free will? I'll admit, I would feel condescended to if I asked an honest to goodness question and I got back something like this.

I think it would be much more authentic to say "Divi, I could provide you proof, but my past experiences have shown me that providing proof to skeptics isn't a wise investment of my time. Nothing tends to convince someone and they just continually up the requirement for belief. Perhaps you're an exception but I can't always take that gamble as it comes up."

Originally Posted by 24evita

It is amazing, but not at all surprising that many of us still need "proof" for various things. As good as science is and as much as it can prove, it cannot prove the many fundamental and basic things that govern the spiritual universe.

[Steve Pavlina]

I encourage you to try providing proof to a skeptic. It won't work. You'll be amazed at the ways the proof gets blocked or botched as you try to deliver it.

Do the same thing with a non-skeptic, and you'll be astonished at how effortless it is by comparison.

[Spartan]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

I encourage you to try providing proof to a skeptic. It won't work. You'll be amazed at the ways the proof gets blocked or botched as you try to deliver it.

Do the same thing with a non-skeptic, and you'll be astonished at how effortless it is by comparison.

That is because non-skeptics don't need much convincing, they are credulous and naive.

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by Spartan

That is because non-skeptics don't need much convincing, they are credulous and naive.

I understand that POV. It's a valid one to choose, albeit rather limiting in terms of practical application. Many people end up there because they've been victimized by their own gullibility in the past, so skepticism is adopted as a shield. It's sort of like closing your eyes because you saw something unpleasant.

However, in this case I'm talking about the ability to have direct experiences, not merely the interpretation of third-party data. So it's not about convincing. It's about imparting the skills for direct application. Skeptics essentially render themselves impotent when it comes to learning and applying what non-skeptics might consider basic skills. It's like being unable to type on a keyboard because you don't believe it's possible to move your fingers that fast. Normally you could convince the skeptic it's possible via a quick demonstration. But imagine trying to convince a skeptic who refuses to even look at a keyboard because he *knows* typing is impossible. Until the skeptic decides to loosen up and get curious about typing, there's no basis for demonstration.

So you can't teach a skill like astral projection to a skeptic who already *knows* there are no astral worlds or astral entities. The skeptic will refuse to even look.

At the same time, you can take a non-skeptic and get them having personal experiences with a bit of training. Then they'll have a new skill for life.

[Sentient]

While I'm not entirely sure whether I'm on board with all of your metaphors, I do agree with your point that it is entirely impossible to convince someone of something who isn't open to it.

I don't think we even need to talk about paranormal things to make this point. Look at anything growth related. How often has someone offered us an excellent piece of advice and we've thrown it away because it didn't mesh with our views for one reason or another. Then, later on, when the situation changes for us (likely because of our firsthand experiences) we suddenly accept the advice as brilliant. Who knows, we may even claim falsely that we hadn't even seen the idea before if we're really not being honest with ourselves.

Yes, many believers are naive and would just as readily accept spurious explanations in any realm. Just because a few are like that, doesn't mean everyone is.

Also, for a story of my own. I recorded my reading with Erin a while back. I showed it to close friends and family to ask their opinions. Every believer was wowed with how accurate it was. Every skeptic responded "well I guess we at least know it's not for real now." I don't think anything has ever driven this point home for me like that firsthand experience

For all of these reasons, I think you could have given Divi what he was asking for without any worry about his "free will." Of course, I still doubt you would (and you'd be right not to) because it's hardly likely to accomplish anything. While Divi could be a special case, I'd say with about 95%+ of people it tends not to be.

Still, in Divi's defense, when I was already open to exploring but was short on my own experiences, I had a few spiritual friends who just laughed at every question I asked of them. After they were done ridiculing me, they refused to answer. I found it incredibly discouraging and with the benefit of hind sight, I actually think much of their behavior was for the benefit of their ego. I know that's not what you're up to Steve, but it doesn't stop me from wanting to give some encouragement to anyone who feels like they need permission before they go explore on their own. I know I could have used some.

P.S. Just as a sidenote, I read a few more threads after I was done here. There was a lot of poking fun at skeptics there. I could trot out quotes, but I'm hardly that determined. I'll admit that I don't get it. If you believe and you're frustrated with them, why not just leave them alone? Answer any heartfelt questions you get when you receive them, but beyond that leave it be. Sometimes I get the feeling that people enjoy teasing others "less enlightened" than they are on this site. Of course, I could say that many skeptics enjoy calling believers stupid idiots, but if you really believe you know something that they don't then isn't the burden on you not to react?

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by Sentient

Also, for a story of my own. I recorded my reading with Erin a while back. I showed it to close friends and family to ask their opinions. Every believer was wowed with how accurate it was. Every skeptic responded "well I guess we at least know it's not for real now." I don't think anything has ever driven this point home for me like that firsthand experience

You may find this hard to believe, but the fact that you did that very likely reduced the depth and specificity of the reading you received. You'd only have been able to get a reading that was capable of leaving enough room for doubt to sufficiently validate the skeptics.

If, on the other hand, you committed in advance to keep the reading totally private or to only share it with those who'd naturally expect a strong reading, you'd probably have gotten a more specific and detailed reading, one that a skeptic might have considered way too accurate to be a cold reading.

The best and most accurate information I've received is that which I never shared publicly (and never intend to, except with people I'm certain can handle it without it being a blow to their reality). This keeps the skeptics' dampening field out of the equation and allows for much more accuracy and detail to come through.

[Acting Like Godot]

Steve is right ....

Originally Posted by Divi

They didn't do that because they were practical people and they knew the only way to clear doubts is to show proof.

... whatever proof Steve might provide, the skeptic will say one or more of the following:

1. "It was a lucky guess"
2. "It was mere coincidence"
3. "You cheated"
4. "That was a camera trick."
5. "Ahhh, yes ... but can you do it again?"
6. "But how do you know that was Ron, and not some other spirit?"
7. "Has this been published in a reputable scientific journal yet?"
8. "The information you supplied is so general that anyone could have said it."
9. "What kind of special effects did you use?"
10. "All of you are crazy."
11. "There is a proper scientific explanation for this. Science just hasn't found it yet."
12. "Since you haven't tried to claim $1,000,000 from James Randi, this can't be true."

Etc etc.

[supertom]

steve, have you ask spirits to verify if your life purpose is your true life purpose ?? Which i have noticed has changed what process do you use to consciously unfold it

[Adelina]

Steve should do it!! Just to post the experience for all the believers on the forum!!

[Sentient]

Hah, I joked the other night that I find nothing hard to believe anymore. I see how, according to what you said, a more hazy reading would definitely be the outcome. Of course, I don't know one way or the other if the point you bring up is actually true, but given all the increasingly crazy things that seem true to me, I certainly won't discount it.

It makes me wonder how fine a line you have to walk when you're "testing the waters." Just to appease my own sense of logic I often try the middle ground. I'll live as if an idea were true, keeping in my head the notion that it could also easily be false. I wonder how much feedback that creates distorting any of the experiences the belief may generate.

hah, I also see how this discussion will fully tick off any skeptic. "So now you're telling me that I have to believe and not only believe but abandon ALL DOUBT. Sure, and while we're at it here's my SSN and bank account #'s."

Interesting thought though. Thanks for pointing that out, Steve. I really hadn't thought about that before and I'm very grateful for you bringing it up.

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

You may find this hard to believe, but the fact that you did that very likely reduced the depth and specificity of the reading you received. You'd only have been able to get a reading that was capable of leaving enough room for doubt to sufficiently validate the skeptics.

[24evita]

Originally Posted by Sentient

P.S. Just as a sidenote, I read a few more threads after I was done here. There was a lot of poking fun at skeptics there. I could trot out quotes, but I'm hardly that determined. I'll admit that I don't get it. If you believe and you're frustrated with them, why not just leave them alone? Answer any heartfelt questions you get when you receive them, but beyond that leave it be. Sometimes I get the feeling that people enjoy teasing others "less enlightened" than they are on this site. Of course, I could say that many skeptics enjoy calling believers stupid idiots, but if you really believe you know something that they don't then isn't the burden on you not to react?

What an amazing thought you provided here Sentient - I think it should give everyone something to think about.

If you are still poking fun at others (i.e. non-skeptic to skeptic) then I think it is obvious that you are not as "enlightened" as you would think you are as you are clearly STILL acting out of your EGO.

If you truly believe what you believe, if you truly feel more, are enlightened - then there is no way you will be making fun, ridiculing or whatever anyone else no matter what their thoughts are as you realize that everyone is entitled to their own experience and no one's is better than the other. If it is right for you, then so be it - whatever it may be. It is only when we openly allow the other to have their own thoughts and experiences without judging that we have gotten somewhere in our personal enlightenment.

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by 24evita

What an amazing thought you provided here Sentient - I think it should give everyone something to think about.

If you are still poking fun at others (i.e. non-skeptic to skeptic) then I think it is obvious that you are not as "enlightened" as you would think you are as you are clearly STILL acting out of your EGO.

If you truly believe what you believe, if you truly feel more, are enlightened - then there is no way you will be making fun, ridiculing or whatever anyone else no matter what their thoughts are as you realize that everyone is entitled to their own experience and no one's is better than the other. If it is right for you, then so be it - whatever it may be. It is only when we openly allow the other to have their own thoughts and experiences without judging that we have gotten somewhere in our personal enlightenment.

I don't believe I'm more or less enlightened than anyone else. The enlightenment lens is rooted in separation/isolation. It's less empowering than a lens based on oneness.

Enlightenment is a fanciful goal anyway. The irony is that if you believe in enlightenment, you'll never become enlightened.

My goal is to grow, not to achieve enlightenment. On the path of growth, you learn to poke fun at pretty much everything... especially yourself.

Poking fun at skeptics is how I poke fun at my own skepticism. Whenever I tease others, I'm prodding myself to grow more.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by 24evita

If you are still poking fun at others (i.e. non-skeptic to skeptic) then I think it is obvious that you are not as "enlightened" as you would think you are as you are clearly STILL acting out of your EGO.

One of the first series of books I read in the area of personal development was the Seth Material, Seth Speaks, and the Nature of Personal Reality. I was very engaged by this stuff, not least because the entity called Seth continually poked fun at us earthies, and it really was fun. "Abraham" does that, too. Now when I read the work of an author who has no capacity to see humor in his own behavior or the behavior of others, I move on.

Striving for enlightenment ( -- don't you think that's funny? Striving for enlightenment? ) or even funnier, announcing that you are enlightened -- it's just a comedy act waiting to happen! hmmmm, this is giving me ideas for improv ignition......

If you're bugged by someone poking fun, don't you think it might be valuable to enlighten up a little?

[24evita]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

I don't believe I'm more or less enlightened than anyone else. The enlightenment lens is rooted in separation/isolation. It's less empowering than a lens based on oneness.

Enlightenment is a fanciful goal anyway. The irony is that if you believe in enlightenment, you'll never become enlightened.

My goal is to grow, not to achieve enlightenment. On the path of growth, you learn to poke fun at pretty much everything... especially yourself.

Poking fun at skeptics is how I poke fun at my own skepticism. Whenever I tease others, I'm prodding myself to grow more.

Well Steve you have me scratching my head as I was completely not thinking of you when I posted that comment - I would not have labeled it that you were poking fun at skeptics, but responding to Sentient's comment on others who seem to poke fun at others.
Hence it is interesting to me that you chose to see it that way. But we all see everything of course through our own perception

And just one more thing about enlightenment, I have to say that my personal belief is that true enlightenment encompasses oneness better than anything else.

[24evita]

Originally Posted by Angela

One of the first series of books I read in the area of personal development was the Seth Material, Seth Speaks, and the Nature of Personal Reality. I was very engaged by this stuff, not least because the entity called Seth continually poked fun at us earthies, and it really was fun. "Abraham" does that, too. Now when I read the work of an author who has no capacity to see humor in his own behavior or the behavior of others, I move on.

Striving for enlightenment ( -- don't you think that's funny? Striving for enlightenment? ) or even funnier, announcing that you are enlightened -- it's just a comedy act waiting to happen! hmmmm, this is giving me ideas for improv ignition......

If you're bugged by someone poking fun, don't you think it might be valuable to enlighten up a little?

I was thinking whether to respond to your comment Angela or not... and I decided to do it as I think there is a tad of miscommunication here as often happens with our limited use of words, especially when they are done through emotionless media (i.e the computer)

I too read the Seth material and read Abraham's material on an ongoing basis and it appears to me that we are talking about two different types of "poking fun at others" - there is the harmless poking that originates out of humor and then there is malicious poking that tends to undermine another's self worth.

I guess it seems the two got greatly mixed up in this discussion - at least from my perspective that is.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by 24evita

... there is the harmless poking that originates out of humor and then there is malicious poking that tends to undermine another's self worth.

I agree! And whichever place it originates from, you can count on it that someone will be amused and someone else's old pain/limiting beliefs will be reactivated by it. Which is beautiful! Getting reactivated is such a huge opportunity for growth!

And our friend Steve sure is a huge Growth Opportunity Generator, isn't he?!

( just realized I have endowed you with a new acronym, Steve: GOG. "I swear to GOG, you'd better stop making fun of me." )

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by Angela

( just realized I have endowed you with a new acronym, Steve: GOG. "I swear to GOG, you'd better stop making fun of me." )

Don't stroke my EGOG.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Don't stroke my EGOG.

Oh my GOG, that was horrible!

[Sentient]

You guys are cornballs.

I'm happy if my words sparked a discussion.

I'm with the rest of you in the light hearted poke fun camp, since in the end, most of what we do during a lifetime is pretty ridiculous anyway. However, sometimes reading the poke fun comments do remind me of how discouraging it was to have people belittle remarks that I was making in all seriousness. As a result of my past experience, I try to at least keep my sarcasm reserved for situations in general (not targeting an individual), or others who have already transcended something. The most fun, of course, is to be sarcastic with myself since I'm pretty sure my self esteem can take it

There is some merit to prodding someone a bit so that they start thinking for themselves. I mean, look at the religion article Steve wrote. Look at how the number of views and posts that thread has received DWARFS every other topic by an unbelievable margin. Clearly, this stuff is provocative. On balance, even with some hurt feelings it's probably helped more people question their own beliefs than it has caused other people to drive their heads further in the sand.

I guess if you listen to yourself, you'll know which one you're actually doing. We can debate forever about how to tell the difference, but I bet each of us can sense it within ourselves if we're honest when we say "it's to help the other person grow."

Yay for honesty.