introduction

[mac]

Many find accounts of near-death experiences fascinating and those who have such experiences often report life-affirming changes to their former approach to death.

NDEs are not equivalent to the experience of death of the body but they can provide startling insight and may lead on to investigation of what actually does happen. In that I believe they have unquestionable value but seekers should be wary of believing the experiencer of an NDE visited the afterlife and returned - they didn't. That doesn't happen. Death is a one-way trip and those who are around to tell us about their experiences did not die.

 

[mac]

It may make no difference anyway but I've now unlocked this thread so as to encourage readers to offer their thoughts or ask questions without needing to start a new thread.

 

[BruceAdama]

Here’s a question I hope won’t seem off-topic. As you say, an NDE isn’t true death. It’s said that death only happens when the silver cord is broken. How exactly does the silver cord break? Like does the deceased just “realize” it’s time, and breaks it, or does it break on its own? Can a soul try to “hang on” for lack of a better term to the cord?

 

[bluebird]

Assuming that souls, the afterlife, and NDEs exist, then personally I don't see much difference between an NDE and actual death. I mean, physically there may be some differences, but in terms of where the soul goes during an NDE vs. where it goes at death, I don't think anyone can know for sure that in those two instances souls would not go to the same "place" (albeit for a shorter time, in the case of an NDE). I'm not saying that the soul necessarily goes to "heaven/afterlife" during all NDE experiences, but I think it may be the case in at least some NDEs. In some of those cases, the body is so nearly permanently dead that the soul can visit the afterlife, in my opinion (again, assuming that the afterlife, souls, etc., actually do exist). It may not be what some people consider a "true" or "real" death, but in my view that doesn't matter much -- if the soul sees the afterlife, whether it actually ends up returning to the body doesn't negate that.

 

[mac]

great, insightful questions, guys!

Bruce asks questions about a situation I've often written about but about which I don't know of any authoritative spirit guidance. My own references to near-death-experience have usually been when making the point that those who have had an NDE did not actually die and then return to life. In such discussions I've also made the point that death occurs when body and soul separate permanently. But I haven't ever considered the mechanism, the actual point when this so-called silver cord is said to break.

I can't remember anyone asking about the chronology of the event either, the "What comes first, the chicken or the egg?" situation. Here we're considering whether death comes first followed by the cord breaking or whether the cord breaking results in death. I'll offer my thoughts but first the preamble.

I see an individual as a composite of "body and soul". The individual's spirit/soul animates her/his body and maintains (what we consider to be) life. When we die separation of body and spirit/soul occurs, the body decays, the spirit carries on to do something else. In my model of life incarnate it is down to a deliberate separation, a 'pulling-away' from the body by the spirit, that brings about the death of that body which we view as the death of the person. The reasons for this will vary.

As I see the situation, it's the decision to make the separation that then leads the spirit/soul to part company with the body by severing the 'tether', the 'umbilical', the 'silver cord'. The actual severing of that cord defines the point of our death, the "no going back" point. (Exactly how a soul/spirit brings about the separation is as unclear to me as the way it brings about the fusion of itself to the egg/embryo inside the mother to be.)

Several reasons for severing the cord appear immediately obvious. The first might be because the soul/spirit concludes there is nothing useful to be gained by continuing to struggle on in a worn out body.

The next might be because the spirit/soul simply cannot maintain the processes needed to keep its body alive, even if it would prefer to continue. That might also apply in the case of someone deliberately ending their life for whatever reason.

Or it might be that the soul/spirit recognises that it has fulfilled enough of its intentions and/or the plans it made before entering life as an incarnate. Or maybe that it had met the commitments it made towards others as part of their so-called life plans.

And there might be any number of other reasons.

 

[mac]

Assuming that souls, the afterlife, and NDEs exist, then personally I don't see much difference between an NDE and actual death. I mean, physically there may be some differences, but in terms of where the soul goes during an NDE vs. where it goes at death, I don't think anyone can know for sure that in those two instances souls would not go to the same "place" (albeit for a shorter time, in the case of an NDE). I'm not saying that the soul necessarily goes to "heaven/afterlife" during all NDE experiences, but I think it may be the case in at least some NDEs. In some of those cases, the body is so nearly permanently dead that the soul can visit the afterlife, in my opinion (again, assuming that the afterlife, souls, etc., actually do exist). It may not be what some people consider a "true" or "real" death, but in my view that doesn't matter much -- if the soul sees the afterlife, whether it actually ends up returning to the body doesn't negate that.

There are some interesting aspects in your piece, bb.

As I've just 'said' elsewhere my involvement with NDE accounts is usually to say they don't show someone returning after they'd died. But exactly where an individual's awareness does get to during an NDE is - I agree - moot although spirit communicators have told us it's not the exact same place as spirit/souls reach after death of their bodies. I also agree the difference may not be great but that might be just my view rather than something I've heard from an authoritative source.

Again as I wrote somewhere else recently I'm minded nowadays to acknowledge that NDE accounts may be far more helpful to today's generations in understanding the principle of survival than the evidence that helped this old fart get to grips with the life / death / afterlife business. There is absolutely no doubt that an NDE can be a life altering and life affirming experience for many and even if there are some areas where detail is sketchy I can live with 'em. If reading about NDEs means someone escapes the despair of bereavement - even if what they hear isn't exactly accurate or authenticated - then I consider it a very acceptable outcome.

I do have concerns, however, that there is nonsense 'out there' online which may mislead seekers who want to learn more but actually read the words of individuals whose own understanding is - shall we say? - somewhat sketchy but who can write volumes about it anyway. The 'never mind the quality feel the width' principle can overwhelm some individuals where a 'less is more' approach would leave them actually understanding more even though more may still be a modest amount.

In life we may be better off settling for a little less but a little less that's right.

 

[bluebird]

Well said, Mac, and I largely agree. One does need to be discerning when reading NDE accounts.

 

[BruceAdama]

Also, why a silver cord? Why not gold, lol. And where exactly is the silver cord connected within the physical body? Is it connected to the heart, the brain, where? Also, Mac brought up the chicken and egg paradox, which made me think… at what point in the evolution of our infant bodies is the cord installed? Does it become a part of the body the same time as the soul is implanted, or earlier?

 

[mac]

Also, why a silver cord? Why not gold, lol. And where exactly is the silver cord connected within the physical body? Is it connected to the heart, the brain, where? Also, Mac brought up the chicken and egg paradox, which made me think… at what point in the evolution of our infant bodies is the cord installed? Does it become a part of the body the same time as the soul is implanted, or earlier?

why silver? That's the effect, the appearance it has when it's been witnessed by those able to psychically see it.

The notional main connection point is said to be the solar plexus but I fancy it's linked into all organs. Your choice of words is bit clunky, Bruce. It's not like a motor vehicle's wiring harness that gets installed by a technician at the most appropriate point in a vehicle's build.

Guides have indicated the connection between animating spirit and embryonic individual-to-be occurs at a very early stage on/during conception. I doubt the exact point could be defined or established using physical measurements and it may anyway vary slightly between individuals. The soul isn't "implanted" but it's rather that the invisible (to most of us) connection develops 'organically' between spirit and embryo.

We have no means of detecting that occurrence and it likely happens (I suggest) before the earliest sign of a new life can be detected even by our experts. At or after that point the soul/spirit commits to its role and interpenetrates the totality of the developing and microscopically small infant. It marks the "point of no return" and a withdrawal from the animating role of the spirit would result in the death of the infant.

 

[bluebird]

I have always assumed the "silver cord" to be metaphorical, symbolic -- and I still hold that view.