Life and Death in a Nutshell: It's all Perspective
Bruce Snyder
Peter Jones
Bruce Snyder
Peter
=====================================================================
@Bruce Snyder
Thanks for pointing out how the the content of the forum works from your perspective (though I'm wondering if you have posted into the right thread given that your explicitly referring to my NDE, maybe it should be in the other post I made). As it stands I don't think that I'll be able to contribute much to the group, beyond the a couple of random thoughts as I worked my way through Bernardo's books, I'm no kind of a philosopher, not that clever (well, not in that way). As I read my way through the books I really have to work at it and sometimes do fail to follow the argument - ah well. That said I do think "Rationalist Spirituality" and "Why Materialism is Baloney" (WMIB) are contemporary masterpieces and I can actually follow the argument in them, they are extraordinarily well written and accessible because of it. WMIB in particular actually lifted an underlying depression I've had for decades as I could never really square my beliefs with the foundational aspects of science. WMIB allowed me to do that and I feel much lighter because of being able to do so - huge thanks to Bernardo on that score.
The only thing that strikes me as being 'missing' from Bernardo's books is that he doesn't go into a full consideration of love as possibly being a fundamental component of mind-at-large - or at least of mind-at-large when it somehow reaches a particular state/stage of realisation. I can see why consciousness itself has to be the fundamental - without that, and it being possible to be self-reflective, we couldn't be aware of anything - fine. However, I did in the past help to tidy up some NDE accounts - only regarding spelling and faulty grammar that made that account difficult to read and tidying up some characters that browsers displayed incorrectly in the accounts. Because of doing that it meant that, in the end, I had read through quite a bit more than a thousand NDE accounts - all written by the experiencers themselves. One of the things that got me was that it was overwhelming the case that love would be repeatedly mentioned as if it were a fundamental of being in those kinds of environments and meeting 'beings' in those environments. (There were occassional NDEs that were 'bad' NDEs and where love wasn't mentioned but those were very rare, I only saw a handful of those.) Into the bargain of that I had on one occassion read in a book a comment by someone who had done a fair amount of research into NDEs, including gaining first person accounts, and she said that it was frequently the case that such NDE researchers often played down the 'love component' of NDEs because the researchers found that difficult to deal with - i.e. they would frequently reduce it to 'unconditional love' as a summary of what the experiencer was describing, which, from my point of view, ends up missing the point of what experiencers are trying to say. Either way, having worked through Bernardo's books, and bearing in mind that I obviously have bias in the matter, it seems to be a bit of a blind-spot in Bernardo's consideration of mind-at-large. (In saying that, it's not a criticism of Bernardo's work - I really do think his work outstanding.) I'd love to see Bernardo tackle that head-on in a future work, if that were possible. (I hope what I've written here makes sense.)
In any case, Bruce, I'll look forward to reading your essay. Good luck with it.
Peter Jones
Hi Peter - What you say is interesting. Perhaps you are making the same sort of comment that some of us would make about the lack of connection to the religious traditions. Bernardo carefully stays clear of a religious expression of his cosmology, for good reasons, but it does mean that some topics might seem underrepresented and love would be one. But this is not his concern. Afaik his view would be compatible with those who put love at the core of the issues.
Bruce Snyder
Comments on Peter N’s NDE , Part 1: Perspectives
Peter N,
For some reason I feel the need to
define my perspective a bit, before I comment on your NDE. Frequently in the
past on this Forum I have used the phrase “In my world,” or something like it,
to denote my standard disclaimer that any comment or statement I make is not
necessarily related to truth or reality, and might be anything from an opinion
to a wild ass guess. However, I probably never defined the phrase sufficiently.
So, in this discussion, and any discussion that I participate in on this Forum,
this is always my position, or perspective: “I don’t care for the concept of fundamental
or absolute truth, and relative truth. I think this thing called “relative
truth” is confusing, and in the in the pursuit of understanding the nature of
reality, which I think is what this Forum is about, it is superfluous. The only
Truth I am interested in is that in the absolute domain, the Truth out of which
Reality flows. So, all of my comments, and everyone’s comments, are in the relative
domain, though they may be referring to the absolute domain, they are
perspectives, content, and whatever value they may have is whatever value you
assign to them. Inherently they are neutral in value. In this light, when
someone claims certainty about a comment, a conclusion, a concept, a metaphor, a
paradigm, etc., it tells me they have spent a reasonable amount of time,
energy, and focus on that particular subject, and their certainty has to do
with the accuracy and repeatability of how something looks from their perspective,
“in their world.” And I have no problem with that, as I have said often, “It’s
all perspective.” But it may, or may not, have some relationship to the ineffable
things we call Truth and Reality, and at best it is a pointer at this target.
In summary, all of my comments on this Forum only show what the view is from my
perspective, which by the way, is changing continually.
Another consideration; As we continue
to offer our expressions of our perspectives on this Forum, there seems to be a
sort of consensus that Truth and Reality are related to ‘subjective experience,’
and I am with the majority on that issue. As you have probably noticed, I have
offered a write-up of a couple of my transcendent experiences as part of my
reply to your NDE (I consider NDEs a category within the spectrum of
transcendent experiences). This gives us some common ground on which to begin a
discussion, independent of possible widely differing perspectives. But, taking
a close look at these experiences, I realize that my original experiences were colored
(distorted, limited and restricted) by my perspective, and, the process of
going into my memory, retrieving those particular experiences, translating them
and writing them in my choice of languages, is also colored by my perspective.
Add onto that the fact (or idea if you wish) that the God of materialists, the
brain, is a huge obfuscator of conscious experience, and you have at least
three degrees of separation between those experiences both you and I have
offered, and Reality. So, what we are talking about, the discussion already
underway with the sharing of experiences, is merely more content with no real
value.
So why even have this discussion? Well….From my perspective, these are
some of my favorite subjects, transformation of consciousness, Reality and
Death, so it’s fun. I also believe this is one of the most potentially transformational
type of conversations that individuals can engage in, and my goal in life is individual
and collective transformation. But, that brings up the challenge. The challenge
is, that there is no inherent real value in either the experiences or the
discussions, except for the value we bring to it in our dialogue. And if we are
to bring real value in this discussion, it is the Reality we can impart by our
focus on “the experience of being the experiencer” as we read, write and
contemplate in our dialogue. So, my recommendation to you in this discussion,
and what I will be doing, is to focus, at least occasionally, on the experience, not of reading,
writing, and contemplating, but on the experience of being the experiencer who
is reading, writing, and contemplating. It takes a little practice, but can
turn into being fun. By the way, if you ever want to add real value to your
life, try this focusing technique on whatever is going on. It works at any time,
and under any circumstances. The more you can focus, the more value you create.
Here is a quotation from an unknown source that has influenced me.
“..it is proposed that a form of free dialogue may well be
one of the most effective ways of investigating the crisis which faces society,
and indeed the whole of human nature and consciousness today. Moreover, it may
turn out that such a form of free exchange of ideas and information is of
fundamental relevance for transforming culture and freeing it of destructive
misinformation, so that creativity can be liberated.”
To be continued….
Bruce
Bruce Snyder
Comments on Peter N’s NDE , Part 2: Perspectives (continued)
Peter N,
Additional information on my perspective, cutting to the chase: Because of the experience of “being Oneness, or being Non-duality” for a week straight as described in my Experience 1, and validated by a wide variety of additional experiences, my fundamental position (perspective) is, “Reality and non-duality are synonymous. As part of that position, my attitude is that all knowledge and wisdom, among other things, reside within me (for the moment leaving out the definition of “me”), and are available at all times and under all circumstances. In addition, I have both a truth detector and a bullshit detector built in, and both seem to be reasonably reliable for both my own brain droppings and others’ droppings as well. One reason I am attracted to Bernardo’s work, is that while reading or listening to his stuff, my truth detector is often humming and my bullshit detector seldom goes off. Like you, I don’t always follow his line of reasoning, but if my truth detector is active, I often don’t bother trying to figure it out, I just integrate it wholly into the picture being painted. Enough foreplay! Get on with it! (says my inner voice).
Comments on Peter N’s
NDE , Part 3: NDE Analysis from my Perspective: My best wild-ass-guess.
I think it’s important in a discussion
like this to begin by defining “the turf we will be playing on” (to use a
sports analogy), so I want to offer my perspective of that “turf,” and I am
open to your interpretations, modifications and other perspectives.
We seem to have experienced two
different worlds, you and I. One is the common, standard, ubiquitous physical
world, that nearly everyone seems to spend most, if not all, of their time in.
And that one has some different states of consciousness such as dreaming, deep
sleep, and maybe some hybrids with the normal waking state. In this world almost
everyone, in this day and age, generally seems to experience it similarly and
there is widespread agreement of how it works, and what it is. It is the
physical world, the world of time and space, and matter.
And then, there is another world. A
world that you and I, and millions, if not billions of people over the last few millenia have experienced,
and in both your and my case, we never knew this world existed until our first
experience. This world, and the experience of being in this world, seem much
more real than the first world, yet our experience of being there is often
difficult to understand and frequently impossible to describe. A very common
phrase is “we don’t have a language to describe it.” I think it is appropriate
to call this world “ineffable.” In the past, and up through the present, the
usual practice in discussing the ineffable, is to pick a label, such as Mind,
God, Reality, One, Consciousness, Now, etc., which are all labels or metaphors for
“the ineffable,” from different perspectives. In this discussion I would like
to lump all of those labels into one category, or context, and call it “The
Timeless Domain,” and lump all of the labels of the Physical world into another
context called the “Time Domain.” The reason for this is, these Domain
categories are less perspectival, or more aperspectival, and thus are closer to
Truth and Reality.
I think it would be helpful to
understand some of the functional characteristics of the two Domains in order
to get more clarity on your experience. The Time Domain characteristics
include, individual, linear, sequential, relative operations. The Timeless
Domain characteristics include, multiple, parallel, non-linear, absolute
operations. The Time Domain is limited, largely visible, and dimensional (time,
space, and separation). The Timeless Domain is unlimited, largely invisible, and
dimensionless (non-local, timeless, and non-dual).
Looking at your NDE:
Overall, I am amazed at your ability to describe an ineffable experience in such detail and with such clarity. Kudos!
I thought I would start off with some
observations of a general nature and then come back and cover a few details. Over
the duration of your experience, the arc of your perspective seems to go from:
Time, to Time plus Timeless, to Timeless, to Time.
In the Time plus Timeless segment, it
is difficult to understand the chaos, but I think the gigantic communication
system is at least in part an experience of being your body at the cellular
level, i.e., 30 trillion plus cells, each communicating with each of the other
simultaneously. You experienced telepathy type communication which in my
experience is pretty much the norm in the Timeless Domain, as is the
strangeness of time (or timelessness). And it seems that for most of this
segment you had the experience of both being one with, and also separate from,
the other “beings.” That would be the combination of having two perspectives,
time and timeless, at the same time, like seeing both sides of the coin at one
time.
And that combination continues on
until what I think is the most interesting phase, the appearance of the big
rock with rough surface, which morphs into bright light and then into unconditional
love, and then begins the merging process. I think that morphing process is the
dissolution of your perspective, and that in your merging you seem to reach a
point that might be considered as an intermediate level or state. It is the
point where you are completely one with the rock/light/love (the One) and at
the same time you still have an individual identity. At this point I think the
only possibilities are dissolution of this final piece of perspective and merge
completely with the One, or return to the individual being consciousness in the
Time Domain. And, I think the thing you refer to as judgment, is not you being
judged, but judgment of this remainder of the illusion of separation, to determine
which option comes next. As I’m sure you are aware, many NDEs at this point talk
about a voice that says something like, “It’s not your time. You must return…”.
And, I think in every case I have read about, the individual is opposed to leaving
this experience of bliss. I think this communication in regular language is
only a piece of perspective the individual brings to the experience or brings
to the interpretation of his or her memory of the experience. In your case,
separation began with no communication which seems to me like a less
perspectival process (closer to Reality).
So, in summary, I would say you were
right there, right on the edge, as close as you can get and live to tell about
it. Overall, it didn’t sound like an unpleasant experience. There was pain for
a short time, but that seemed to be largely overshadowed by indescribable
feelings of joy, peace and love.
I have more to say, especially on the subject
of Love, but I thought I would give you a chance to get a word in, and let any
other commenters have a shot.
Bruce
Peter
Hi Bruce,
I've taken my time and read through what you posted with some interest. With respect to your way of categorising sections of the experience I think your categorisation into "timeless domain" and "time domain" is pretty neat and useful in some ways for trying to get an intellectual frame onto the content of the narrative. However, that kind of thing isn't something that I personally do much, I've actually avoided doing this over the years - in the end I just see it (and feel it, really) just as it was. It was real and that is all that really matters to me in the end. But, okay, I tip my hat, you have a good way of looking at it and I have no problems with that.
There is only really the content of one paragraph that I would like to comment on. The paragraph is the third from the end, where you say:
"And that combination continues on until what I think is the most interesting phase, the appearance of the big rock with rough surface, which morphs into bright light and then into unconditional love, and then begins the merging process. I think that morphing process is the dissolution of your perspective, and that in your merging you seem to reach a point that might be considered as an intermediate level or state. It is the point where you are completely one with the rock/light/love (the One) and at the same time you still have an individual identity."
That I still had an individual identity is not true for the 'time' that occurred just following the instant that the light appeared. To quote the narrative itself it says:
"I was lying, suspended, drifting in nothing but light. I could see that my bodily position was one of lying as if at an angle of around thirty-degrees with my arms, like my legs, lying outspread from my body. I was, if you like, lying in a 'prone' position. Seeing myself this way lying in that light lasted only what could have been a fraction of a second. Suddenly, almost instantaneously, on this light exploding, coming into being around me, my sense of expansion of self rocketed to unbelievable proportions, it was as if I had just suddenly exploded outwards in all directions; I could not identify where my 'self' was. (This happened very, very quickly on this light coming into being.) It was in this state that I first became aware of wave upon wave upon wave of love moving into and through me from every spatial direction imaginable. I became aware of love coming into being inside me and radiating from me in wave upon wave upon wave without remission, and directed at, I knew not what. Then I became aware of the presence of a being of a power, magnitude and intelligence that was utterly indescribable and that was this light that I now knew to be here. (What I am trying to indicate here is that on first finding myself 'inside the light' is that I 'exploded' in size to unbelievable magnitude and that, in terms of having an identifiable 'form' I just completely disappeared. Literally, I became one with what that light was, strange though it may sound it was as if I in some way became the light, I was completely merged with it. That lasted I do not how long, it could have been twenty seconds, it just as easily have been for eternity. Once that 'having no form of my own' ended it was like I re-formed into an identifiable form 'out of the light', as though I was extruded from it, though I was still in the light and still experienced my self to be, psychologically, massive in size, but I had 'regained' an identifiable form. Sorry, I'm finding this extremely difficult to put in words. It was like, briefly, becoming the light itself, and losing form because of that, then, once that part was over, reforming again but still being left in the light.)
"Then it came upon me that I knew I was inside this being and it inside me. We were merged so that there was no separation - and yet I also knew that I existed, as did it, as a discrete entity. (This I know sounds like an impossible paradox to us here. But there, this is easy. There this is perfectly natural. I had, after all, already experienced this to some extent with 'the stars'.) As I became aware of this being that was moving in me and around me and I in it; as I became aware of its properties and of its indescribable magnitude I felt arise in me a sense of reverential awe. I also felt rise in me a sense of my own indescribable thankfulness to be united with it again. I have to say that this was a strong sensation in this experience - it really was as if some part of me knew about this place already. As if some part of me did have a sensation of knowing of these things and beings from before. (Though I did not know how I could be coming to think-feel these things, nor did I question this in any way - that was a matter of no interest to me at all.)"
What was I trying to say in writing that? I was trying to say there was a point where I ceased to exist - I quite literally was the light but It wasn't aware of itself like you or I would be - It was only aware of love coming into being. So when I write, "I became aware of love coming into being inside me and radiating from me in wave upon wave upon wave without remission, and directed at, I knew not what." I am trying to allude to the awareness that It wasn't aware of itself though it was aware of love coming into being. I am also alluding to the fact that at that point in the experience I didn't exist - the love was directed at "I knew not what." I wasn't there, but nor was It (at that point It wasn't aware of itself in same way that we would normally experience ourselves to be). Drawing from "Rationalist Spirituality" this where I find Bernardo's argument compelling when he says to effect that mind-at-large (which I'll just refer to as 'It') would have no awareness of itself - It needs us, other conscious beings, to effectively become aware of itself - then a point of comparison is gained. (I hope that makes sense, and the I'm representing Bernardo's position correctly.) It's also the reason why I think Bernardo has a blind-spot, based on this (my) experience, because, though It isn't aware of itself, in the way that we are, It sure is aware of love, so much so that It is love. Unbelievable, indescribable love is fundamental to it. (I hope this is making sense.) It is only after I am 'extruded' back out of the light that I become aware of it as a 'separate' entity and also re-aware of myself as a 'separate' entity. It is from that 'extruded' point that It and myself could actually interact - because I became aware of It as 'separate' from me (and I was in utter awe of its indescribable beauty - It is magnificent).
Therefore, Bruce, when you say, "I think that morphing process is the dissolution of your perspective, and that in your merging you seem to reach a point that might be considered as an intermediate level or state. It is the point where you are completely one with the rock/light/love (the One) and at the same time you still have an individual identity." I think, if I'm reading you correctly, that you may have missed that there was a point where 'I' had moved beyond an "intermediate level or state". (I hope that makes sense and that I'm expressing myself in a coherent way.) Other than on that point, I'm kind of enjoying your view of this experience - it's interesting to see how someone else sees it.
One other thing that might interest. I just re-read "Rationalist Spirituality" and the part where Bernardo speaks about mind-at-large perhaps might have a "memory of qualia" jumps out at me in relation to this experience. I've long puzzled over why I can't get a proper intellectual handle on that 'communication system'. From my point of view (and dare I say point of feeling) I don't actually regard that communication system as being like anything that I would ordinarily consider 'telepathy' to be. I was extremely rich, vivid, very subtle, and well beyond simple transference of thought (alone) - which I think is what is meant by 'telepathy' (maybe I have the wrong definition of telepathy). In any case, when it think of "memory of qualia" and try to link that into an aspect of the communication system that I was experiencing then, yes, I really do think that Bernardo is on that right track with that line of argument. (In effect, that it might be that the communication system does have that in it as an element - it's a way of communicating without using words, and an extremely powerful one that goes well beyond our capacities to communicate with words.) The "memory of qualia" do even feel right but not entirely so. It would feel a bit more right if "memory of qualia" allowed within its 'system' a means of producing 'qualia that are summaries of other groups of qualia'. That would feel a bit more correct to me. (I'm particularly struck by the 'judgement' part of the experience - It was definitely looking for something that had a summative sense regarding love. If I'm going to go along with the idea, and feeling, of qualia then, for me, there needs to be some respect in which it is possible to summate collections of qualia.) However, again, I have to say it, love is missing out of this and love was very much a part of all the communications there - and I don't think that should be ignored. There is something fundamental about love that again, in my view, and it is only my view, seems to be missing from Bernardo's writing. Mmm... Right I'm going to have to leave it there.
Nonetheless, Bruce, I'll look forward to what you have to say about love from your perspective. (Hope what I've written makes sense.)
Bruce Snyder
Hi Bruce,
I've taken my time and read through what you posted with some interest. With respect to your way of categorising sections of the experience I think your categorisation into "timeless domain" and "time domain" is pretty neat and useful in some ways for trying to get an intellectual frame onto the content of the narrative. However, that kind of thing isn't something that I personally do much, I've actually avoided doing this over the years - in the end I just see it (and feel it, really) just as it was. It was real and that is all that really matters to me in the end. But, okay, I tip my hat, you have a good way of looking at it and I have no problems with that.
Hi Peter,
I think it’s necessary in discussions like this, where you are transitioning through several different perspectives, and sometimes combinations of perspectives, to keep track of where you are so that you don’t end up with something that resembles total chaos, and something that helps in communication. In my interpretation of your experience, I think I have proven one of my most frequent remarks, “you just have to be there.”
A couple of brief comments:
Your overall description reminded me of my experience and the feeling of “coming home,” which I have also read in other accounts of transcendent experiences. Did this phrase occur to you?
My use of the world ‘telepathy’ meant “communication by means other than using the normal senses and methods.” My best example would be in my “Experience 2,” where it was more of a communion with my partner and me and the world we were in, we were not separate. And as for “qualia,” my description of the communication, or communion, included, “...Grace, Love, generosity, perfection, uniqueness, compassion, audacity, gratitude, integrity, playfulness, humor, goodness, truth and beauty are a few of them. But, even combined they don’t begin to scratch the surface of the “magnificence beyond words” of the ‘world of who you are,” So it definitely was not absent.
Nonetheless, Bruce, I'll look forward to what you have
to say about love from your perspective. (Hope what I've written makes sense.) I feel the same. I hope what I
have written makes sense.
Funny thing about this “Love” subject. I got started, and things got out of control. My issue now is to whittle this blob down to a manageable size and try to have it make sense. All I can say is “hopefully soon.” In the mean time, please give me your quickie definition of “Love.”
I would like to discuss this subject, before I ask you about your evaluation of your experience and the effect that it has
had on your life and your worldview since.
Bruce
Peter
Hello Bruce,
Bruce said:
"Your overall description reminded me of my experience and the feeling of “coming home,” which I have also read in other accounts of transcendent experiences. Did this phrase occur to you?"
Yes, "coming home" was very much part of the NDE. In my narrative I do mention it (but didn't dwell on it, though I could have). For the NDE narrative I wrote:
"There was nothing there that was not conscious. This did not seem to surprise me in any way at all. I did not regard it as curious or as bizarre in any way. Far from it, I seemed to regard this as in some way entirely natural - which is the nearest expression that I can think of that even remotely points in the correct direction - and my feeling sense was of like 'being home and now completely safe'."
Also in the questions and answer section of NDERF questionnaire (following the narrative itself) I noted the following:
"(a) On leaving the 'immediate space' and finding myself in the conscious space I knew that I had been here before, so much so that I regarded this a [sic - this should have been 'as'] 'home'. This was a crystal clear perception on my part."
Now that you raise it I would also note that this was part of the feeling that I had (now in conscious everyday life) when I was being introduced to meditation (mentioned in the Q & A section of the NDERF form). This too was like a home coming, though this was now happening in my day-to-day life on earth.
I would note that in both the NDE and in my 'enlightenment experience', generated by being introduced to meditation, that 'feeling safe' was very much a part of the experience of 'being home' (though in the NDE this sensation was very, very much magnified - Mmm... more concentrated, struggling with words now, I'm not hitting it bang on, just trying to point in a direction).
Bruce said:
"And as for “qualia,” my description of the communication, or communion, included, “...Grace, Love, generosity, perfection, uniqueness, compassion, audacity, gratitude, integrity, playfulness, humor, goodness, truth and beauty are a few of them. But, even combined they don’t begin to scratch the surface of the “magnificence beyond words” of the ‘world of who you are,” So it definitely was not absent."
Yes, this is precisely the kind of difficulty I had with trying to describe this state. There is so much going on, threads of different emotions and qualities interweaving and combining all at the same time, and creating meta-communications (with their own distinct properties) at the same time, it is not possible to sort out the strands in language that in any way actually describe the experience. With language you are pressed to the linear trying to describe a situation in which it doesn't apply and into the bargain we don't have the necessary language anyway.
Bruce said:
"Funny thing about this “Love” subject. I got started, and things got out of control. My issue now is to whittle this blob down to a manageable size and try to have it make sense. All I can say is “hopefully soon.” In the mean time, please give me your quickie definition of “Love.”"
Yup, I know how it could go that way, Bruce, good luck with it :). I have tried once to sort out the love thing in writing and I am never going to try it again so I'm kind of going to jump over this one - I'm not a poet and even less of a philosopher so I'll just have to be forgiven for not making the attempt. That said, I got this out of the "Shorter Oxford English Dictionary":
"love: That state of feeling with regard to a person which manifests itself in concern for the person's welfare, pleasure in his or her presence, and often also desire for his or her approval; deep affection, strong emotional attachment."
I think I'll just go with that save for the "with regard to a person" (it is possible to feel a most astonishing love for 'something' that isn't a 'person') and one other thing, "and often also the desire for his or her approval". This seems to me to from a day-to-day human perspective. However, in the NDE (and for what there was of love in the meditation introduction experience) this looking for approval was entirely absent - in either direction, love was there, most held in high regard, and that was enough, maybe even the whole point. At that point where I 'disappeared in the light' there was a point in that where there was nothing there at all but love - aimed at nothing, but still being generated into infinity nevertheless without any need or regard for a 'target', complete in itself and totally, utterly magnificent.
Bruce Snyder
On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 10:31:26 AM UTC-7, Peter wrote:
Hello Bruce,
Bruce said:
"Your overall description reminded me of my experience and the feeling of “coming home,” which I have also read in other accounts of transcendent experiences. Did this phrase occur to you?"
Yes, "coming home" was very much part of the NDE. In my narrative I do mention it (but didn't dwell on it, though I could have). For the NDE narrative I wrote:
"There was nothing there that was not conscious. This did not seem to surprise me in any way at all. I did not regard it as curious or as bizarre in any way. Far from it, I seemed to regard this as in some way entirely natural - My experience was, "this was the natural world, the world we are meant to live in. That other world is insane. Life is not worth living unless I can live in this world."
which is the nearest expression that I can think of that even remotely points in the correct direction - and my feeling sense was of like 'being home and now completely safe'."
In my main experience, everything was part of me, and for the first time in my life I was conscious.
Also in the questions and answer section of NDERF questionnaire (following the narrative itself) I noted the following:
"(a) On leaving the 'immediate space' and finding myself in the conscious space I knew that I had been here before, so much so that I regarded this a [sic - this should have been 'as'] 'home'. This was a crystal clear perception on my part."
Now that you raise it I would also note that this was part of the feeling that I had (now in conscious everyday life) when I was being introduced to meditation (mentioned in the Q & A section of the NDERF form). This too was like a home coming, though this was now happening in my day-to-day life on earth.
I would note that in both the NDE and in my 'enlightenment experience', generated by being introduced to meditation, that 'feeling safe' was very much a part of the experience of 'being home' (though in the NDE this sensation was very, very much magnified - Mmm... more concentrated, struggling with words now, I'm not hitting it bang on, just trying to point in a direction).
I know what you mean, I began meditating shortly after my first experience and have had many tastes of that world.
Bruce said:
"And as for “qualia,” my description of the communication, or communion, included, “...Grace, Love, generosity, perfection, uniqueness, compassion, audacity, gratitude, integrity, playfulness, humor, goodness, truth and beauty are a few of them. But, even combined they don’t begin to scratch the surface of the “magnificence beyond words” of the ‘world of who you are,” So it definitely was not absent."
Yes, this is precisely the kind of difficulty I had with trying to describe this state. There is so much going on, threads of different emotions and qualities interweaving and combining all at the same time, and creating meta-communications (with their own distinct properties) at the same time, it is not possible to sort out the strands in language that in any way actually describe the experience. With language you are pressed to the linear trying to describe a situation in which it doesn't apply and into the bargain we don't have the necessary language anyway.
Bruce said:
"Funny thing about this “Love” subject. I got started, and things got out of control. My issue now is to whittle this blob down to a manageable size and try to have it make sense. All I can say is “hopefully soon.” In the mean time, please give me your quickie definition of “Love.”"
Yup, I know how it could go that way, Bruce, good luck with it :). I have tried once to sort out the love thing in writing and I am never going to try it again so I'm kind of going to jump over this one - I'm not a poet and even less of a philosopher so I'll just have to be forgiven for not making the attempt. That said, I got this out of the "Shorter Oxford English Dictionary":
"love: That state of feeling with regard to a person which manifests itself in concern for the person's welfare, pleasure in his or her presence, and often also desire for his or her approval; deep affection, strong emotional attachment."
I think I'll just go with that save for the "with regard to a person" (it is possible to feel a most astonishing love for 'something' that isn't a 'person') and one other thing, "and often also the desire for his or her approval". This seems to me to from a day-to-day human perspective. However, in the NDE (and for what there was of love in the meditation introduction experience) this looking for approval was entirely absent - in either direction, love was there, most held in high regard, and that was enough, maybe even the whole point. At that point where I 'disappeared in the light' there was a point in that where there was nothing there at all but love - aimed at nothing, but still being generated into infinity nevertheless without any need or regard for a 'target', complete in itself and totally, utterly magnificent.
(Hope what I've written makes sense.)Yes! Definitely.
I cannot give you a "quickie definition, however, I think I can give you a definition you might like, in probably... upwards of 10 pages (and I am a big fan of parsimony, but like to add a bit of human interest so it doesn't read like a textbook). I have been thinking about this "thing" a lot, and for a lot of years. I don't have it written down, but I have put it together in my alleged mind, because it is a key element, if not THE key element, in this discussion we are having.
Peter Jones
I also had a feeling of coming home when first meditating, and before anything notable happened. Even the very first twenty minutes was an eye-opener. Took me completely by surprise.
Bruce Snyder
On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 3:49:43 AM UTC-7, Peter Jones wrote:
Well, Bruce, if this is going to be a porn flick then a member of the opposite sex might be an idea.
I also had a feeling of coming home when first meditating, and before anything notable happened. Even the very first twenty minutes was an eye-opener. Took me completely by surprise.
At the risk of repeating myself, this world is so natural and normal (and seemingly real) that the everyday world of time and space seems weird by comparison. The space-time world seems to be back-asswards, insane. My method to validate this, is to turn on a TV, anytime day or night, anywhere in the world and tune it to a News station. What is presented is some combination of local, national, or global insanity.
Peter Jones
On Monday, 19 October 2015 17:19:55 UTC+1, Bruce Snyder wrote:
Peter J, see, there's your problem right there.
I have a problem? Or a sense of humour?
Bruce Snyder
But let's get serious for a moment, and answer your question, "add a member of the opposite sex?" Of course that would change the whole genre. But, I'm fine with that, and in the spirit of absolute freedom and absolute fullness, I suggest we add ALL members of the opposite sex. Here's how I suggest we get started:
Send out, or post a communication to all members of the opposite sex in your field of contacts, inviting them to join in thisconversation, and ask that they invite their friends to join also (gender unimportant)flick
Begin your communication with a 'grabber' such as, "Are you interested in Life? or Death? or Nutshells? If so, please join in the conversation at.....yada yada, yada
Peter Jones
I think that would to take a joke a lot too far.
I was responding to your 'porn flick' comment, not making a serious comment on gender inequality!