science 'over there'

[mac]

On several occasions I've made the point that we have no idea if the sciences of the so-called afterlife are in any sense compatible with those of this dimension. I raised this question in connection with things folk believe they'll want to own, things they'll want to do, after they have passed over.

For some time recently I've been sensing that the so-called afterlife dimensions are not what I'd pictured, even though my pictures were vague anyway. I've recently been 'seeing' them more as 'virtual worlds', worlds of mind-creation where science - the way we understand our physical dimension science - plays no part. Today I read in Jenn's piece a sentence that said it all for me, something I had been unable to articulate: "What we call ‘the afterlife’ is more akin to a mental state than a physical location."

Of course the afterlife dimensions have no location other than a virtual one. They are as illusory as our dreams yet our dreams mostly feel real when we're experiencing them, living in them. What we see, what we feel, what we create, what we own, what we share 'over there' - there is of course no "there"! - in the Summerland and beyond we experience through our psyches, in our minds.

Life in the Summerland appears similar to our dreams; did I miss reading that, hearing that, in the past? Perhaps folk here and elsewhere got it a long time ago but for me realisation arrived only today.

 

[mareke]

On several occasions I've made the point that we have no idea if the sciences of the so-called afterlife are in any sense compatible with those of this dimension. I raised this question in connection with things folk believe they'll want to own, things they'll want to do, after they have passed over.

For some time recently I've been sensing that the so-called afterlife dimensions are not what I'd pictured, even though my pictures were vague anyway. I've recently been 'seeing' them more as 'virtual worlds', worlds of mind-creation where science - the way we understand our physical dimension science - plays no part. Today I read in Jenn's piece a sentence that said it all for me, something I had been unable to articulate: "What we call ‘the afterlife’ is more akin to a mental state than a physical location."

Of course the afterlife dimensions have no location other than a virtual one. They are as illusory as our dreams yet they feel real when we're experiencing them, living in them. What we see, what we feel, what we create, what we own, what we share 'over there' - there is no "there"! - in the summerlands and beyond we experience in our psyches, in our minds. Did I miss reading that, hearing that, in the past?

Perhaps everyone here got it a long time ago but for me realisation arrived only today.

That’s a pretty good summation of it. The only reality is consciousness. The ultimate consciousness is ‘All that is’. Our consciousness is a tiny portion within the all-encompassing consciousness of the creator with each consciousness having its own unique signature.

Once we've had sufficient experiences of positive and negative here we can experience wholly positive experiences in the level that Mikey is in. If Mikey wants the experience of going snowboarding he creates it in his consciousness and the experience feels as real as it does here but without the negatives of falling and hurting himself etc. If he wants the experience of going to a library he creates it and reads books which may be very different from those we read here that contain vividly alive scenes on whatever topic he wants to read about. When doing this he is probably tapping in to a vast field of possible experiences contained within 'All that is'. We will be able to do what Mikey can do after we have had sufficient positive and negative experiences in our current physical dimension to appreciate positive experiences.

Seth the highly advanced spirit chanelled by Jane Roberts revealed that he and his contemporaries take on different shapes that reflect what they are thinking. If one of his contemporaries decides that he wants to be a tree for 100 years he can become one. Why would any of his contemporaries do this? Because they can.

Our higher self contains the memory of all of the important experiences we had during our earth lives. Once we merge with our higher self we can create experiences that are much more magnificent than those in say the summerlands can create. There is probably co-operation between higher selves. For example if one becomes lost in a dimension (which according to Seth can happen) one of your contemporaries can rescue you.

Our consciousness is evolving and growing more capable of perceiving and experiencing new realities (which are mental creations) that we are currently not capable of perceiving and experiencing. This includes the dimensions that we will be able to perceive and explore that are mental creations of 'All that is'.

You are not a miniature self, an adjunct to some super being, never to share fully in its reality. In those terms you are that super self - looking out of only one eye, or using just one finger. Much of this is very difficult to verbalize. You are not subordinate to some giant consciousness. While you think in such terms, however, I must speak of reincarnational selves counterparts, because you are afraid that if you climb out of what you think your identity is, then you will lose it.

― Seth session 740​

The above quote suggests that our consciousness is growing towards that of the source. In theory if it was to catch up we would realise that we are the source and always were but didn't know it. If however ‘All that is’ consciousness is also evolving like ours is (which Seth suggests is the case) then we can never catch up and it’s a never ending journey. Mikey believes this to be the case.

M Scott Peck in his book 'The Road Less Travelled' expresses the same idea:

If we postulate that our capacity to love, this urge to grow and evolve, is somehow ‘breathed into’ us by God, then we must ask to what end. Why does God want us to grow? What are we growing toward? Where is the end point, the goal of evolution? What is it that God wants of us? It is not my intention here to become involved in theological niceties, and I hope the scholarly will forgive me if I cut through all the ifs, ands, and buts of proper speculative theology. For no matter how much we may like to pussyfoot around it, all of us who postulate a loving God and really think about it eventually come to a single terrifying idea: God wants us to become Himself (or Herself or Itself). We are growing toward godhood. God is the goal of evolution. It is God who is the source of the evolutionary force and God who is the destination. That is what we mean when we say that He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end.

-M Scott Peck The Road Less Travelled​

 

[mac]

That’s a pretty good summation of it. The only reality is consciousness. The ultimate consciousness is ‘All that is’. Our consciousness is a tiny portion within the all-encompassing consciousness of the creator with each consciousness having its own unique signature.

I like your style! But I am a little confused. I thought you said recently that English is not your first language yet you write as if it is.....???

Once we've had sufficient experiences of positive and negative here we can experience wholly positive experiences in the level that Mikey is in. If Mikey wants the experience of going snowboarding he creates it in his consciousness and the experience feels as real as it does here but without the negatives of falling and hurting himself etc. If he wants the experience of going to a library he creates it and reads books which may be very different from those we read here that contain vividly alive scenes on whatever topic he wants to read about. When doing this he is probably tapping in to a vast field of possible experiences contained within 'All that is'. We will be able to do what Mikey can do after we have had sufficient positive and negative experiences in our current physical dimension to appreciate positive experiences.

quite so - What's experienced appears to be virtual but is experienced in a similar way to what we're familiar with here in this physical world. I like your description of tapping into a vast field of possible experiences but the phrase 'all that is' I find a horrible mouthful. I'll just say 'source'. As for being able to do in future what Mikey can do I say we may already have had sufficient experiences before we incarnated this latest time. As incarnates many, probably most of us, are ignorant about our previous experiences.

Seth the highly advanced spirit chanelled by Jane Roberts revealed that he and his contemporaries take on different shapes that reflect what they are thinking. If one of his contemporaries decides that he wants to be a tree for 100 years he can become one. Why would any of his contemporaries do this? Because they can..

They're both interesting notions and chime with the words of Julie Gale's channelled source in 'Soul Trek'. The reference to "100 years" though is meaningless given there are no years.

Our higher self contains the memory of all of the important experiences we had during our earth lives. Once we merge with our higher self we can create experiences that are much more magnificent than those in say the summerlands can create. There is probably co-operation between higher selves. For example if one becomes lost in a dimension (which according to Seth can happen) one of your contemporaries can rescue you.

Now this is going beyond what sits comfortably for me.

Our consciousness is evolving and growing more capable of perceiving and experiencing new realities (which are mental creations) that we are currently not capable of perceiving and experiencing. This includes the dimensions that we will be able to perceive and explore that are mental creations of 'All that is'.

no further comment

The above quote suggests that our consciousness is growing towards that of the source. In theory if it was to catch up we would realise that we are the source and always were but didn't know it. If however ‘All that is’ consciousness is also evolving like ours is (which Seth suggests is the case) then we can never catch up and it’s a never ending journey. Mikey believes this to be the case.

Some coincidence of ideas and guidance in this section. Eternal life is - of course - ever evolving. I've long been persuaded that we are of the source, from the source and identically similar to the source. It just appears we're not. As I perceive matters there is nothing to catch up anyway because what's experienced is shared across all and available to all. None are 'ahead' of others just at different points on a never ending odyssey of experiences.

M Scott Peck in his book 'The Road Less Travelled' expresses the same idea: