Robert Schwartz, Are Past Life Regressions Scientific? |400|

#21
There’s also a lot of consistency reported amongst UFO abductees who undergo hypnosis with regards to simarties in their experiences. While it’s possible that there is some leading going on on the part of the therapist and/or some people undergoing hypnosis who have some knowledge regarding the phenotypical experiences of others abductees, after you scrutinize the testimony taken from these sessions, they do come across as more genuine and less made up (generally).

Of course that’s a tricky thing to discern, so who’s to say for certain. But the consistency is striking, PARTICULARLY with regards to the amount of high strangeness reported. I think if a bunch of people where going to make up some abduction stories, they would make them up based upon our everyday experiences, which are devoid of high strangeness. Adding in all these bizarre details makes one seem less credible and believable. So, I have to believe that they are reporting them simply because it’s what they experienced. It’s an enormously small portion of the population who is in tune with the reality of high strangeness with regards to close encounters and abduction scenarios. Even many “top” researchers do not consider or talk about what appears to be the paranormal and bizarre aspect of the phenomenon. But yet it’s very widely reported. If I’m going to make up a story about being abducted and want people to believe me, it’s going to sound a lot like an e everyday Earth kidnapping, and less like a bizarre ghost story.

Of course a lot could be said about what I’ve written and it could be analyzed a million different ways, and while I’m certain that regression is an imperfect practice, I also feel that it’s potenfially valuable. And I do feel that it works, GENERALLY. The skill of the therapist and the state of mind of the subject being the key variables.
I keep pointing back to Rey Hernandez because he's the only guy I know of who's actually tried to apply scientific standards to understanding the contact experience. I think he's legit and working without an agenda.
The Foundation for Research into Extraterrestrial and Extraordinary ...


Skeptiko - 260. Miami Attorney Rey Hernandez Supports UFO ...


 
#23
Bottom line is that encountering a spirit/medium combo that has asked the big questions, objectively explored, hypothesized, analyzed, tested and formulated an answer is going to be a very rare event. So we get a bunch of junk and half-baked, poorly communicated concepts. And that's before we factor in the tricksters, psychopaths/demonic deceivers. As below so it is above.
I think so much also depends on what our sources are as well. There are quite a few purportedly high quality sources, but they are not part of the popular reading material. There is a lot of junk 'channelling' that conforms to all the rules for doing it badly. Still, the high quality stuff is not only rare, it is often unappealing because it is difficult to read and requires openness to propositions that can be discouraging.

If we look for what is specific and definitive we can miss the fact that the reality of 'the other side' is so unlike 'this side' that witness accounts can vary even more greatly than they do here. Trying to match reports as if there is a one fixed reality that is subject to uniform description is a fool's errand. It is better to seek shared attributes and characteristics to come up with a 'sense' of what is.

A lot of us reflexively insist on knowing on our terms and prefer to 'doubt', rather than speculate and engage. Doubt is essential if the alternative is gullible belief. But doubt also can express a rigidity of thought - in the sense that its not really doubt, but demand to be informed on one's own terms. Proper spirit guides couldn't give a damn about our demands and conceits. The ones that do are the ones to be afraid of. They will, pander to our delusion and flatter us. Then they hook us and reel us in.

I didn't mind Robert's approach overall. I was disappointed that he fell for the tsunami thing. For me that's the kind of BS that lower level influences pull. There are two reasons I say this. The first is that the 'information' is not useful in any way that does not demand a surrender to the acceptance of the proposition. These random bits of informational spectacular titbits that are not accompanied by a useful teaching - they have a wow factor and no other value. The second is that the 'information' is essentially sentimental - and that's a danger signal.

I am not saying the 'information' is not true - just that it is useless. The truth of the proposition is another matter. The notion of noble sacrifice is not invalid, but then proposition that sundry souls who would have to gather in a geographic region in order to fulfil a collective sacrifice could not know the result of their 'plan' for me beggars belief. Its a 'nice' idea. But I suspect the bulk of listeners felt it was untrue.

This does not invalidate Robert's works - if untrue. It points up the degree of difficulty in knowing whether you are in tune with the real thing or spouting BS. The inner guides will not interfere to correct. I had it pointed out to me that most of what I was writing at one stage was too distorted to be really useful, but not so bad as to be toxic - just useless. But then I had asked. That advice was not offered.

This is important, because sometimes the worst problem is not some external bad actor, but one's own conceit and delusion.

I noticed Andy Paquette's presence on an earlier forum. I hope he's still around, because what he recounts in Dreamer is powerfully pertinent to this conversation.
 
#24
I would really like some ground truth established so we can have some hope of generalizing the reports made by this technique. I mean quantitatively, not qualitatively. As an example, if a remote viewer has a history of 80 percent accuracy, then perhaps one would expect the same accuracy for discovering gold deposits.

There are past life regression therapists where I live. It's quite popular.
 
#25
I think so much also depends on what our sources are as well. There are quite a few purportedly high quality sources, but they are not part of the popular reading material. There is a lot of junk 'channelling' that conforms to all the rules for doing it badly. Still, the high quality stuff is not only rare, it is often unappealing because it is difficult to read and requires openness to propositions that can be discouraging.
.
Which channeled materials are you referencing? Which do you recommend?
 
#26
I think so much also depends on what our sources are as well. There are quite a few purportedly high quality sources, but they are not part of the popular reading material. There is a lot of junk 'channelling' that conforms to all the rules for doing it badly. Still, the high quality stuff is not only rare, it is often unappealing because it is difficult to read and requires openness to propositions that can be discouraging.

If we look for what is specific and definitive we can miss the fact that the reality of 'the other side' is so unlike 'this side' that witness accounts can vary even more greatly than they do here. Trying to match reports as if there is a one fixed reality that is subject to uniform description is a fool's errand. It is better to seek shared attributes and characteristics to come up with a 'sense' of what is.

I didn't mind Robert's approach overall. I was disappointed that he fell for the tsunami thing. For me that's the kind of BS that lower level influences pull. There are two reasons I say this. The first is that the 'information' is not useful in any way that does not demand a surrender to the acceptance of the proposition. These random bits of informational spectacular titbits that are not accompanied by a useful teaching - they have a wow factor and no other value. The second is that the 'information' is essentially sentimental - and that's a danger signal.
One possible explanation for the so called 'problem of evil' is conveniently transformed into a western style legal agreement before birth (according to my interpretation of Robert Schwartz). That is an uncomfortable statement. My sister is close to suicide do to mental illnesses, the worst of which are voices that try to harm her every day.

But don't 'they' also say we are ancient beings with many lives? Don't they claim time passes much faster there or that its timeless? How easy to justify! How effete our words without power to know.

If we have many lives than this isn't me and this world no matter how painful isn't real. We cannot see what it's for besides survival. I imagine the other side is just a more advanced civilization we are perhaps a part of -- but in what manner is hard to say. That last statement is likely an error.
 
Top