He claims to have traveled outside his body to bring back art… and much more |297|

[tim]

Jurgen. Just wanted to say thanks for the podcast with Alex and your participation in this thread. I have been following you for years since the release of MM. Great work.

Just curious. Now that you've found something that you believe in (that's presuming you accept the reality of Jurgen's experiences) ...will you be applying the term "zealot" to your good self, as you applied it to me because I accept the reality of Pam Reynold's near death experience ?

 

[soulatman]

I personally loved this episode.

For me it really feels like a major piece of the puzzle bieng presented here, although it also feels like the puzzle just got bigger too lol.

In answer to the questions Alex posed at the end of the podcast, I absolutely loved Jurgen.

I fell he was incredibly honest and humble in his presentation of his experiences. There was something about his recounting of his experiences and his musings on their meaning that helped me see a thread linking and drawing closer so many seemingly divergent accounts from different people over the years. I found myself thinking about Emmanueal Swedenborg, Edgar Cayce, the NDE phenomena, Tom Campbell, the "holographic universe", Vedanta, Buddhism, and so many other themes in relation to Jurgen's story.

Perhaps the reason I was thinking about these things is that Jurgen is presenting nothing more than a landscape - no dogma, no law, no theory - but just a believable landscape where all of these afformentioned and often conflicting or contridicting accounts and ideas can actually exist and even coexist.

I really liked Jurgen. What he was presenting seemed to compliment and offer a backdrop for much of the information and experiences that past guests have shared on Skeptiko over the years.

I found Alex's mentioning of Ian McCormacks NDE not very fertile, only because for me, his account has always seemed slightly untrue and unbelievable. It is not the details. It is not the Christian fundamentalist subject matter, and the fact that Jesus is supposed to in no uncertain terms basically said, fundamentalist Christianity is the way to go, I could believe all these things as being experienced in an NDE. It is Ian himself. He does not strike me as a careful thinker, or a sincere man. It is to put it plainly, that I get a gut feeling that I don't trust the man. Wheras I believe entirely someone like Howard Storm, who also saw his experience as somehow providing validation of the Christian message. Nevertheless, I get why Alex brought it up. I just don't believe Ian.

Jurgen though was wonderfully accomodating to all questions. I believe he is a man who simply has had real experiences of a deeper reality, or an underlying reality, and is recounting them for what they are. It seems that Jurgen is a rare type of man who does not need to fit his experiences into an established dogma, or make appologies for those experiences not fitting with or challenging those of another, but calmly and authentically can say I know only what I have experienced.

I will be getting his book(s).

Thanks Alex and Jurgen for a wonderful show and topic.

 

[SciFiFanatic101]

Just curious. Now that you've found something that you believe in (that's presuming you accept the reality of Jurgen's experiences) ...will you be applying the term "zealot" to your good self, as you applied it to me because I accept the reality of Pam Reynold's near death experience ?

Isn't the Pam Reynolds NDE one of the most airtight NDE case present in the literature?What's the argument between you two? I'm genuinely curious.

 

[SciFiFanatic101]

I personally loved this episode.

For me it really feels like a major piece of the puzzle bieng presented here, although it also feels like the puzzle just got bigger too lol.

In answer to the questions Alex posed at the end of the podcast, I absolutely loved Jurgen.

I fell he was incredibly honest and humble in his presentation of his experiences. There was something about his recounting of his experiences and his musings on their meaning that helped me see a thread linking and drawing closer so many seemingly divergent accounts from different people over the years. I found myself thinking about Emmanueal Swedenborg, Edgar Cayce, the NDE phenomena, Tom Campbell, the "holographic universe", Vedanta, Buddhism, and so many other themes in relation to Jurgen's story.

Perhaps the reason I was thinking about these things is that Jurgen is presenting nothing more than a landscape - no dogma, no law, no theory - but just a believable landscape where all of these afformentioned and often conflicting or contridicting accounts and ideas can actually exist and even coexist.

I really liked Jurgen. What he was presenting seemed to compliment and offer a backdrop for much of the information and experiences that past guests have shared on Skeptiko over the years.

I found Alex's mentioning of Ian McCormacks NDE not very fertile, only because for me, his account has always seemed slightly untrue and unbelievable. It is not the details. It is not the Christian fundamentalist subject matter, and the fact that Jesus is supposed to in no uncertain terms basically said, fundamentalist Christianity is the way to go, I could believe all these things as being experienced in an NDE. It is Ian himself. He does not strike me as a careful thinker, or a sincere man. It is to put it plainly, that I get a gut feeling that I don't trust the man. Wheras I believe entirely someone like Howard Storm, who also saw his experience as somehow providing validation of the Christian message. Nevertheless, I get why Alex brought it up. I just don't believe Ian.

Jurgen though was wonderfully accomodating to all questions. I believe he is a man who simply has had real experiences of a deeper reality, or an underlying reality, and is recounting them for what they are. It seems that Jurgen is a rare type of man who does not need to fit his experiences into an established dogma, or make appologies for those experiences not fitting with or challenging those of another, but calmly and authentically can say I know only what I have experienced.

I will be getting his book(s).

Thanks Alex and Jurgen for a wonderful show and topic.

My general stance towards Christian interpretations of near death experiences is simple a priori rejection. When you have a stong religious upbringing or faith in a particular belief system your whole reality is colored and limited by that meme complex. The same happens with NDE's. Jurgen had a secular upbringing and a solid meditation practice that was meant to penetrate the samsaric illusion we call physical reality. So, obviously he is more trustworthy as an objective observer than a fundamentalist Christian. Really now, all this talk of devils, Hell and Armageddon is childish and absurd.

 

[Far.From.Here]

Just curious. Now that you've found something that you believe in (that's presuming you accept the reality of Jurgen's experiences) ...will you be applying the term "zealot" to your good self, as you applied it to me because I accept the reality of Pam Reynold's near death experience ?

Actually I don't accept any of what Jurgen says at face value. And I doubt he would want me to. I accept the validity that consciousness can exist in a non-physical manner because of my own OBE and dream experiences. I read the rest of Jurgen's work with interest, but I remain very skeptical. I would need to experience these realities as deeply as he has in order to come to any sort of conclusions about the true nature of these non-physical spaces. But even now I remain deeply skeptical of my experience in physical reality as it seems clear to me that there is an occulted nature even to physical being. This has been my life's work for nearly five years now and I hope to achieve some level of mastery in the non-physical before my physical body dies.

So if I am a zealot, then I am a zealot of doubt. So yes. I am a kind of zealot.

 

[tim]

Actually I don't accept any of what Jurgen says at face value. And I doubt he would want me to. I accept the validity that consciousness can exist in a non-physical manner because of my own OBE and dream experiences. I read the rest of Jurgen's work with interest, but I remain very skeptical. I would need to experience these realities as deeply as he has in order to come to any sort of conclusions about the true nature of these non-physical spaces. But even now I remain deeply skeptical of my experience in physical reality as it seems clear to me that there is an occulted nature even to physical being. This has been my life's work for nearly five years now and I hope to achieve some level of mastery in the non-physical before my physical body dies.

So if I am a zealot, then I am a zealot of doubt. So yes. I am a kind of zealot.

Are you the same chap as the young kid with the grey beard ?

 

[JKMac]

Actually I don't accept any of what Jurgen says at face value. And I doubt he would want me to. I accept the validity that consciousness can exist in a non-physical manner because of my own OBE and dream experiences. I read the rest of Jurgen's work with interest, but I remain very skeptical. I would need to experience these realities as deeply as he has in order to come to any sort of conclusions about the true nature of these non-physical spaces. But even now I remain deeply skeptical of my experience in physical reality as it seems clear to me that there is an occulted nature even to physical being. This has been my life's work for nearly five years now and I hope to achieve some level of mastery in the non-physical before my physical body dies.

So if I am a zealot, then I am a zealot of doubt. So yes. I am a kind of zealot.

Not trying to pick an argument but-
If you are convinced in the existence of a non-physical reality then what is the basis of your hesitance to accept Jurgen's statements?

Is it just that you haven't personally done these things?

I haven't circled the earth in spaceship but I concede it has been done, is being done, and it is also completely in line with what I believe is currently possible based on a multitude of data. Consequently, I generally accept the descriptions of those who have done it. Same rules apply regarding the infinite number of things that have been done but which I have not yet done.

Of course I also normally apply various other discernments based on whether the particular person seems expert and credible. and for me, Jurgen easily passes those tests...

I agree that there is nothing like having experienced something yourself. OTOH- on the subject of something that fits your world view as possible, to remain "very skeptical" just because you haven't done it yourself?? Seems a bit rigid to me. But that's your choice of course.

 

[tim]

Isn't the Pam Reynolds NDE one of the most airtight NDE case present in the literature?What's the argument between you two? I'm genuinely curious.

The Pam Reynolds IS air tight, that's correct but many, probably most people are given wrong information about it. Everything will be clarified in the forthcoming book from researchers Smit, Rivas and Dirven. (What a dying brain can't do)

 

[Far.From.Here]

Not trying to pick an argument but-
If you are convinced in the existence of a non-physical reality then what is the basis of your hesitance to accept Jurgen's statements?

Is it just that you haven't personally done these things?

I haven't circled the earth in spaceship but I concede it has been done, is being done, and it is also completely in line with what I believe is currently possible based on a multitude of data. Consequently, I generally accept the descriptions of those who have done it. Same rules apply regarding the infinite number of things that have been done but which I have not yet done.

Of course I also normally apply various other discernments based on whether the particular person seems expert and credible. and for me, Jurgen easily passes those tests...

I agree that there is nothing like having experienced something yourself. OTOH- on the subject of something that fits your world view as possible, to remain "very skeptical" just because you haven't done it yourself?? Seems a bit rigid to me. But that's your choice of course.

As I said, I don't really even accept the nature of physical reality as it presents itself. So I doubt I would accept the nature of non-physical reality simply because I had experienced it. I'm not willing to draw a lot of conclusions about anything. Just the way I am. It's not better or worse than anyone else. Just different than some.

I spent years piecing together a metaphysics based on what the OBE practitioners, mediums and channelers reported. Finding common ground and building a conception of the world based on that. Then I decided to tear it down. There are other occult writers who contradict much of what is reported in today's commonly held afterlife scenario. I prefer to draw as few conclusions as possible about the nature of reality.

 

[Far.From.Here]

Are you the same chap as the young kid with the grey beard ?

No.

 

[Ian Gordon]

No.

Good one.

 

[tim]

No.

You sure ? You look an awful lot like him ......

 

[panpsychist]

I am curious, so I just downloaded the above book. I am not always convinced by channelling and found that a fair number of channellers seem to "channel" their own confabulation. I have been disappointed by books which attracted a massive readership. The authenticity often becomes clear to me when getting to a certain stage of the work after making the inner connection to the author. I still think attaining full lucidity during OBEs is the best way to tap into areas of consciousness yourself, first-hand, and everything that is said, my own work included, should be tested via experience. I have noticed when new ideas surface, such as the multiverse etc, a number of ideas are quickly attached to it which have no basis in experiential reality. A number of claims made in this manner I tried to test via OBEs but failed to find conformation of what was claimed. Fantasy has its own level of reality based on imagination, but we shall see.

Reincarnation, Past lives, parallel universes, infinite universes, Akashic Records are spiritually 101 really.

I don't think there is much debate on this, all the main channelled texts agree on all the basics.

I would be interested to know which books you've been disappointed by that have attracted a mass readership?

As all the key channelled works I've read all pretty much agree with each other.
For example like " The true nature of Personal Reality" by Seth / Jane Roberts.

What is boils down to as explained by Seth and others ( Bashar, Kryon et al )
Is BELIEF.
Your reality is extremely personal - if you don't believe in, say, past lives, you aren't going to be given evidence.

Whether you are in your physical body or not!!!

It would be fantastic to know what claims you tried to test via OBE. What experiments did you try? To find out what ?

And, naturally your personal true belief of them!

Ultimately though, the first step is to achieve an OBE for people really.

Once you've proven yourself that you aren't your physical body that you can indeed live outside of your physical body - then your beliefs change and you are more open to the greater truths.

For example a lot of comments here don't understand you have to have enough belief and open mind to at least try an OBE. Nobody or nothing is EVER going to walk up to you and prove it.

The only way is through personal experience, there will never be a mass proof.

As for example, your true concious self does not exist in this physical dimension, so cutting up a brain will never ever reveal your soul.

In the same way, there are infinite realities. You don't notice unless you really look.

But the real truth is most people don't understand string theory and quantum physics to even accept that - even through the maths is perfect and plenty of experimental evidence already exists to prove parallel worlds.

In the same way, it took over 250 years for people to accept the earth went around the sun, and the sun was just another star.

People got burnt at the stake alive for saying such things!

Even though the hard experimental evidence was in science journals all those 250 years!!!

See? It's your pesonal belief that creates your reality.

Your reality is truly what you believe reality is - that is a very neat trick God has pulled off you've got to admit !!!

People just need to put some beliefs aside and just try an OBE for themselves, I did and they really are just as life changing as a NDE etc...

I just wish I had more of them. I'm very jealous of natural OBErs like your self.

:)

 

[Jurgen]

Reincarnation, Past lives, parallel universes, infinite universes, Akashic Records are spiritually 101 really.

I don't think there is much debate on this, all the main channelled texts agree on all the basics.

I would be interested to know which books you've been disappointed by that have attracted a mass readership?

So far we have build up a pretty good understanding of non-physical realities, most of it initiated by talented and dedicated mediums, long before OBEers started writing books, no doubt about it. Now we are getting a big body of testimonies coming from NDEers who crossed over briefly and come back to tell their tale. Especially the first few minutes during the first phase of their OBE provide the best veridical proof as well as some later ones when reporting back other anecdotal facts not known to them before. The same can be said from many of the more talented mediums who provided proof.

I began to question some medium reports when I found some of their sweeping statements did no match my own experience, such as no night nor day, no pain, even temperature, only heaven or "Summer-land" and so on. When I first started off with my OBEs these statements made me even doubt my own experience until I got deeper into them and started to learn more about the deeper realities and the multidimensional aspects of exploration.

Because we are dealing with realities which on one hand are exactly as fantastical as our dreams, when we enter these via lucid dreaming, whilst on the other hand are as solid and hard as our physical reality, some people think almost anything goes and whatever you can imagine must also be real. To some extend this is so, because lucid dreams make it so and there are areas on the astral levels where fantasies of artists, filmmakers etc and their audience are virtualised and become tangible. But this is where some writers think they have card blanche, because whatever they imagine and write a) must be real on some level and, b) nobody can prove that they've made it all up anyway.

We may not be able to disprove it, but with some experience we can detect its authenticity. Some writers who consider themselves "channellers" use established consensual reports of the afterlife and then mix their own made-up versions into it, perhaps even believing themselves, or telling themselves, that what they imagine has been channeled from a higher source. And this is where the whole thing breaks down. At the same time serious investigators are discredited because of this "anything goes" scenario.

For example some hypnosis subjects in Michael Newton's books, which sold millions of copies I believe and has a large devoted following, claim that dead people turn into fuzzy balls of light and float around in featureless mists, congregating in hives of souls like bees etc etc. whilst none of the often mind-boggling environmental features to be found on the non physical levels are even hinted at. This is a layman's idea of an afterlife imagined without a physical body, who has a very limited imagination on top of that. In my forty years I have not (yet) come across this form of afterlife condition, not once, nor have I found it reported by any other OBEer I know and have spoken to. So clearly this person has fallen victim to his own confabulation.

And yet, not even amongst experienced explorers of consciousness has such testimony brought into question. It reminds me of the fairy photo con trick of the twenties, but it totally undermines other serious research. We already know that hypnosis has been proven in court to be an unreliable tool for testimony because of false memory syndrome. Though who would argue, the man is a doctor, a phd, right?

There are many other things which don't jell in popular "channelled" books, where I shouted out loud "C'mon!" whilst reading. Where people talked about cosmic consciousness and describing it like a rocket trip through outer space without the slightest hint about the far more prominent aspects of the uniquely transformative changes and expansion in consciousness.

We really need to be more serious, more dedicated and more genuine here in order to BE taken seriously. What I often find is regurgitated cliches and confabulated junk, shielded by the author's unspoken statement: "Prove me wrong if you can." and off they go, depositing their cheque at their bank, laughing all the way.

Meanwhile, serious reporters are left standing, looking stupid to anybody else who may have entertained a vague notion that there might be something in it, still maintaining a critical and discriminate mind and then turns away thinking what a load of BS.

 

[JKMac]

As I said, I don't really even accept the nature of physical reality as it presents itself. So I doubt I would accept the nature of non-physical reality simply because I had experienced it. I'm not willing to draw a lot of conclusions about anything. Just the way I am. It's not better or worse than anyone else. Just different than some.

I spent years piecing together a metaphysics based on what the OBE practitioners, mediums and channelers reported. Finding common ground and building a conception of the world based on that. Then I decided to tear it down. There are other occult writers who contradict much of what is reported in today's commonly held afterlife scenario. I prefer to draw as few conclusions as possible about the nature of reality.

Oh. I misunderstood. I thought the existence of the non-physical had become a baseline understanding for you.

Now I get it.

 

[JKMac]

But this is where some writers think they have card blanche, because whatever they imagine and write a) must be real on some level and, b) nobody can prove that they've made it all up anyway.

We may not be able to disprove it, but with some experience we can detect its authenticity.
....
Meanwhile, serious reporters are left standing, looking stupid to anybody else who may have entertained a vague notion that there might be something in it, still maintaining a critical and discriminate mind and then turns away thinking what a load of BS.

Jurgen: You are putting your finger directly on what, for many, is a very uncomfortable aspect of all this.

10 years ago I was a quite comfortable scientific materialist. The doorway to all these odd things was guarded by "proven" scientific theory, and further by the scientific method. Life was good. : ) I knew what was true and what was false and I had a pretty iron clad way of differentiating the two.

Then after several experiences that couldn't be explained and subsequent research uncovered thousands of contradictions and inconsistencies in my world view, I rather quickly decided to "follow the data". I decided that current science would not only not incorporate these strange new (to me) things, it would work hard to discredit, or ignore them in order to preserve its status quo. Essentially I decided that the in the end, science could not be fully trusted to illuminate the truth.

That's all well and good, but here's the rub many of us are dealing with:
Once the door is flung open, left unguarded, and we accept many of this new data, this new world view, we have lost our "filter". We are left with very little with which to discern. After all, once we start to accept some of these things, where to stop? and for what reason? It's as if we have destroyed our own immune system and we are now open to any number of good and bad things.

Seems like you have acquired enough depth of experience to know where to draw the line, but most of us are stuck in the uncomfortable position of loosing faith in science as a filter, but are left without a suitable one as a replacement.

I guess its similar to the situation in the middle east. Once you overthrow that which you think is wrong, you are left with a vacuum in which any manner of thing can take root.

Any suggestions?

 

[Andrew Paquette]

It would be helpful if Andrew Paquette was taking part in this conversation. He reports the most number of verified OBE observation, although he labels them as dreams.

Robert Monroe's reports of OBEs in the physical world are not fully convincing.

Many reports of OBEs do not seem to be in connection to the physical world, for example Oliver Fox's book.

It is interesting to read various explorer's reports from the non-physical realm. But without some community of shared experience the objectivity of the explorer's reports is hard to assess.

For what it's worth, I have not had much success with OBE experiments. My records of veridical OBEs are almost all spontaneous examples. Also, keep in mind the possibility that many of the dreams I have identified as 'spiritual' could also be classified as OBEs, but they lack veridical components because they don't reference our shared material reference points.

AP

 

[Andrew Paquette]

Isn't the Pam Reynolds NDE one of the most airtight NDE case present in the literature?What's the argument between you two? I'm genuinely curious.

The key element of the Pam Reynolds case is that there is extensive evidence available to attest to her physical condition. That evidence makes it highly unlikely that she could have somehow physically made the observations she claimed when she regained consciousness. It is not the most spectacular in other areas. In my own records, I have many examples of OBEs that involved observations of things occurring thousands of miles from my location. Because of the distances involved, any argument that ambient sensory awareness would have allowed the observations falls flat. However, then it becomes an issue of trustworthiness (of me and the person whose actions I observed). This is where the Reynolds case beats most other examples because of the many witnesses and the volume of documentation. I have documentation of my own (as do others), but this is not made independently, thereby introducing at least the potential for some kind of deception, at least in the minds of those inclined to assume deception in these cases. There are arguments to overcome those suspicions, but it is always nicer when the bother is unnecessary, as with Reynolds. The problem then becomes an issue of the reliability of her doctor's records and the proximity of her body to the events described.

My personal take on these things is that although they were interesting when I first discovered I was having OBEs, proving them is not something I care that much about. The really interesting material does not come from veridical OBEs, but the more spiritually themed ones.

AP

 

[Jurgen]

Jurgen: You are putting your finger directly on what, for many, is a very uncomfortable aspect of all this.

10 years ago I was a quite comfortable scientific materialist. The doorway to all these odd things was guarded by "proven" scientific theory, and further by the scientific method. Life was good. : ) I knew what was true and what was false and I had a pretty iron clad way of differentiating the two.

Then after several experiences that couldn't be explained and subsequent research uncovered thousands of contradictions and inconsistencies in my world view, I rather quickly decided to "follow the data". I decided that current science would not only not incorporate these strange new (to me) things, it would work hard to discredit, or ignore them in order to preserve its status quo. Essentially I decided that the in the end, science could not be fully trusted to illuminate the truth.

That's all well and good, but here's the rub many of us are dealing with:
Once the door is flung open, left unguarded, and we accept many of this new data, this new world view, we have lost our "filter". We are left with very little with which to discern. After all, once we start to accept some of these things, where to stop? and for what reason? It's as if we have destroyed our own immune system and we are now open to any number of good and bad things.

Seems like you have acquired enough depth of experience to know where to draw the line, but most of us are stuck in the uncomfortable position of loosing faith in science as a filter, but are left without a suitable one as a replacement.

I guess its similar to the situation in the middle east. Once you overthrow that which you think is wrong, you are left with a vacuum in which any manner of thing can take root.

Any suggestions?

JKMac, you've put your finger on it, and I think it's beyond any doubt now that there is a very powerful shift taking place at present and which seems to crop up wherever we look, and not just in the field of the greater consciousness. I think nature, or if you like, consciousness is making it more clear to everybody, that reality is a dynamic process without fixed borders, a process which cannot be intellectualized or defined. I think that is why there is such a hardening of stances and a desperation in holding on to reliable structures, to hard and clear rules, sometimes extremes (just look at ISIS). Also perhaps it may show up in other ways, for example the reason why tattoos may have become so popular. People are no longer able to clearly define themselves so they cover themselves with logos and other identifiers, stating that's what I am and what I am about. But the moment we build our sand castles on the beach the next wave is washing it away (more tattoos needed).

I personally see this as a great positive, having practiced meditation which teaches that reality is fluid and dynamic and the only real sense of reality is achieved by letting go of all identification and entering the stillness of the moment. There you have it. Perhaps this is what nature and its Zeitgeist is trying to put across, we are incentivized let go of the old rigid paradigms and become one again with nature. By nature I mean the flow of the present moment.

There are so many changes taking place, accelerated changes, technology, social, environmental etc, that a new resting point will have to be found and it is already showing up by the increased uptake of "Mindfulness Meditation" in businesses and schools right across the world. So the old filters are going and with it our faith in the old paradigms.

 

[north]

For what it's worth, I have not had much success with OBE experiments. My records of veridical OBEs are almost all spontaneous examples. Also, keep in mind the possibility that many of the dreams I have identified as 'spiritual' could also be classified as OBEs, but they lack veridical components because they don't reference our shared material reference points.

My personal interest is more in exploring the non-physical realms under the guidance of someone with extensive knowledge from spiritual traditions and experience.

But I have some curiosity about the OBE within the physical realm. It seems notable that Andrew Pacquette's veridical experiences are spontaneous.

Joe McMoneagle wrote about an experiment he did with Laberge, where McMoneagle transitioned from an LD to an OBE to view a physical painting. My impression is that Laberge is not as certain as to the success of the experiment as McMoneagle was. It seems McMoneagle uses a different process for RVing.