truth journal

7/30/2019 Truth Journal

1/27

Truth Journal

The Case for Life After Death

Professor Peter Kreeft

Can you prove life after death?

Whenever we argue about whether a thing can be proved, we should distinguish five

different questions about that thing:

1. Does it really exist or not? "To be or not to be, that is the question."

2. If it does exist, do we know that it exists? A thing can obviously exist without our

knowing it.

3. If we know that it exists, can we be certain of this knowledge? Our knowledgemight be true but uncertain; it might be "right opinion."

4. If it is certain, is there a logical proof, a demonstration of why we have a right to

be certain? There may be some certainties that are not logically demonstrable (e.g.my own existence, or the law of non-contradiction).

5. If there is a proof, is it a scientific one in the modern sense of 'scientific'? Is it

publicly verifiable by formal logic and/or empirical observation? There may beother valid kinds of proof besides proofs by the scientific method.

The fifth point is especially important when asking whether you can prove life after

death. I think it depends on what kinds of proof you will accept. It cannot be proved like

a theorem in Euclidean geometry; nor can it be observed, like a virus. For the existence oflife after death is not on the one hand a logical tautology: its contradiction does not entail

a contradiction, as a Euclidean theorem does. On the other hand, it cannot be empirically

proved or disproved (at least before death) simply because by definition all experiencebefore death is experience of life before death, not life after death.

If life after death cannot be proved scientifically, is it then intellectually irresponsible to

accept it? Only if you assume that it is intellectually irresponsible to accept anything that

cannot be proved scientifically. But that premise is self-contradictory (and thereforeintellectually irresponsible)! You cannot scientifically prove that the only acceptable

proofs are scientific proofs. You cannot prove logically or empirically that only logical or

empirical proofs are acceptable as proofs. You cannot prove it logically because itscontradiction does not entail a contradiction, and you cannot prove it empirically because

neither a proof nor the criterion of acceptability are empirical entities. Thus scientism (the

premise that only scientific proofs count as proofs) is not scientific; it is a dogma of faith,

a religion.

I.


2/27

The first reason for believing in life after death is simply that there is no compelling

reason not to, no objection to it that cannot be answered. The two most frequent

objections are as follows:

(a) Since there is no conclusive evidence for life after death, it is as irresponsible to

believe it as to believe in UFOs, or alchemy. Perhaps we cannot disprove it; a universalnegative always is difficult if not impossible to disprove. But if we cannot prove it either,

it is wishful thinking, not evidence, that makes us believe it.

Now this objector either means by 'evidence' merely empirical evidence, or else any kind

of evidence. If he means the latter, he ignores all the following proofs for life after death.

There is a lot of evidence. If he means the former, he falls victim to the self-contradictionargument just mentioned. There is no empirical evidence that the only kind of evidence

we should accept is empirical evidence.

In most supposedly scientific objections of this type, an impossible demand is made,

overtly or covertly-a demand for scientific proof-and then the belief is faulted for notsatisfying that demand. This is like arguing against the existence of God on the grounds

that "I have not found Him in my test tube," or like the first Soviet cosmonauts'

"argument" that they had found no God in outer space.Ex hypothesi, if God exists He is

not found in a test tube or in space. That would make Him a chemical or a meteor. A taxitrip through Cleveland disproves quasars as well as a laboratory experiment disproves

God, or brain chemistry disproves the soul or its immortality. The demand that non-

empirical entities submit to empirical verification is a self-contradictory demand. Thebelief that something exists outside a system cannot be disproved by observing the

behavior of that system. Goldfish cannot disprove the existence of their human owners by

observing water currents in the bowl.

(b) The strongest positive argument against life after death is the observation of spirit atthe mercy of matter. We see no more mental life when the brain dies. Even when it is

alive, a blow to the head impairs thought. Consciousness seems related to matter as the

light of a candle to the candle: once the fuel is used up, the light goes out. The body andits nervous system seem like the fuel, the cause; and immaterial activity, consciousness,

seems like the effect. Remove the cause and you remove the effect. Consciousness, in

other words, seems to be an epiphenomenon, an effect but not a cause, like the heatgenerated by the electricity running along a wire to an appliance, or the exhaust fumes

from an engine's tailpipe.

What does the observed dependence of mind upon matter prove, if not the mortality of

the soul? Wait. First, just what do we observe? We observe the physical manifestations ofconsciousness (e.g. speech) cease when the body dies. We do not observe the spirit cease

to exist, because we do not observe the spirit at all, only its manifestations in the body.

Observations of the body do not decide whether that body is an instrument of anindependent spirit which continues to exist after its body-instrument dies, or whether the

body is the cause of a dependent spirit which dies when its cause dies. Both hypotheses

account for the observed facts.


3/27

When a body is paralyzed, the mind and will are still operative, though deprived of

expression. Bodily death may be simply total paralysis. When you take a microphone

away from a speaker, he can no longer be heard by the audience. But he is still a speaker.Body could be the soul's microphone. The dependence of soul on a body may be

somewhat like the dependence of a ship on a dry-dock. Ships are not built on the open

sea, but on dry-dock; but once they leave the dry-dock, they do not sink but become freefloating ships. The body may be the soul's dry-dock, or (an even better metaphor) the

soul's womb, and its death may be the soul's emergence from its womb.

What about the analogy of the candle? Even in the analogy, the light does not go out; it

goes up. It is still traveling through space, observable from other planets. It 'goes out' as achild goes out to play; it is liberated.

But what of the need for a brain to think? The brain may not be the cause of thought but

the stopping down, the 'reducing valve' for thought, as Bergson, James and Huxley

suppose: an organ of forgetting rather than remembering, eliminating from the total field

of consciousness all that serves no present purpose. Thus when the brain dies, more ratherthan less consciousness occurs: the floodgates come down. This would account for the

familiar fact that dying people remember the whole of their past life in an instant withintense clarity, detail, and understanding.

In short, the evidence, even the empirical evidence, seems at least as compatible with

soul immortality as with soul-mortality.

II

According to the medievals, the most logical of philosophers, "the argument from

authority is the weakest of arguments." Nevertheless, it is an argument, a probability, apiece of evidence. Forty million Frenchmen can be wrong, but it is less likely than four

Frenchmen being wrong.

The first argument from authority for life after death is simply quantitative: "the

democracy of the dead" votes for it. Almost all cultures before our own have strongly,even officially, believed in some form of it. Children naturally and spontaneously believe

in it unless conditioned out of it.

A second argument from authority is stronger because it is qualitative rather than

quantitative: nearly all the sages have believed in it. We must not, of course, answer the

challenge 'How do you know they were sages?' by saying 'Because they believed'; thatwould be begging the question pure and simple. But thinkers considered wise for other

reasons have believed; why should this one belief of theirs be an exception to theirwisdom?

Finally, we have the supreme authority of the teachings of Jesus. Belief in life after death

is central to His entire message, "the Kingdom of Heaven." Even if you do not believe He

is the incarnate God, can you believe He is a naive fool?


4/27

III

Arguments from reason are logically stronger than arguments from authority. The

premises, or evidence, for arguments from reason can be taken from three sources, three

levels of reality what is less than ourselves (Nature), ourselves (human life), or what is

more than ourselves (God). Again, we move from the weaker to the stronger argument.

We could argue from the principle of the conservation of energy. We never observe any

form of energy either created or destroyed, only transformed. The immortality of the soul

seems to be the spiritual equivalent of the conservation of energy. If even matter isimmortal, why not spirit?

IV

The next class of arguments is taken from the nature of Man. What in us survives deathdepends on what is in us now. Death is like menopause. If a woman has in her identity

nothing but her motherhood, then her identity has trouble surviving menopause. Life aftermenopause is a little like life after death.

IV. A.

The simplest and most obvious of these arguments may be called Primitive Man'sArgument from Dead Cow. Primitive Man has two cows. One dies. What is the

difference between Dead Cow and Live Cow? Primitive man looks. (He's really quite

bright.) There appears no material difference in size or weight immediately upon death.Yet there is an enormous difference; something is missing. What? Life, of course. And

what is that? The answer is obvious to any intelligent observer whose head is not clouded

with theories: life is what makes Live Cow breathe. Life is breath. (The word for 'soul', or'life', and 'breath' is the same in many ancient languages.) Soul is not air, which is still inDead Cow's lungs, but the power to move it.

Life, it is seen, is not a material thing, like an organ. It is the life of the organs, of the

body; not that which lives but that by which we live. Now this source of life cannot die as

the body dies: by the removal of the soul. Soul cannot have soul taken from it. What candie has life on loan; life does not have life on loan.

The 'catch' in this argument is that this 'soul' may in turn have its life on loan from a

higher source, and transmit it to the body only after having been given life first. This is in

fact the Biblical teaching, contrary to the Greek view of the soul's inherent, necessary andeternal immortality. God gives souls life, and souls can die if they refuse it. But in any

case the soul survives the body's death.

IV. B.

Another quite simple piece of evidence for the presence of an immaterial reality (soul) in

us which is not subject to the laws of matter and its death, is the daily experience of real


5/27

magic: the power of mind over matter. Every time I deliberately move my arm, I do

magic. If there were no mind and will commanding the arm, only muscles; if there were

muscles and a nervous system and even a brain but no conscious mind commandingthem; then the arm could not rise unless it were lighter than air. When the body dies, its

arms no longer move; the body reverts to obedience to merely material laws, like a sword

dropped by a swordsman.

Even more simply stated, mind is not part of the system of matter, not measurable bymaterial standards (How many inches long is your mind?) Therefore it need not die when

the material body dies. The argument is so simple and evident that one wonders who the

real 'primitive' is, the 'savage' who understands it or the sophisticated modern materialistwho cannot understand the difference between mind and brain.

IV. C.

A traditional Scholastic argument for an immortal soul is taken from the presence of two

operations which are not operations of the body (1) abstract thinking, as distinct fromexternal sensing and internal imagining; and (2) deliberate, rational willing, as distinctfrom instinctive desiring. My thought is not limited to sense images like pyramids; it can

understand abstract universal principles like triangles. And my choices are not limited to

my body's desires and instincts. I fast, therefore I am.

IV. D.

Still another power of the soul which indicates that it is not a part or function of the body

and therefore not subject to its laws and its mortality is the power to objectify its body. Ican know a stone only because I am more than a stone. I can remember my past. (My

present is alive; my past is dead.) I can know and love my body only because I am morethan my body. As the projecting machine must be more than the images projected, the

knower must be more than the objects known. Therefore I am more than my body.

IV. E.

Still another argument from the nature of soul, or spirit, is that it does not havequantifiable, countable parts as matter does. You can cut a body in half but not a soul;

you can't have half a soul. It is not extended in space. You don't cut an inch off your soul

when you get a haircut.

Since soul has no parts, it cannot be decomposed, as a body can. Whatever is composed(of parts) can be decomposed: a molecule into atoms, a cell into molecules, an organ into

cells, a body into organs, a person into body and soul. But soul is not composed, therefore

not decomposable. It could die only by being annihilated as a whole. But this would becontrary to a basic law of the universe: that nothing simply and absolutely vanishes, just

as nothing simply pops into existence with no cause.


6/27

But if the soul dies neither in parts (by decomposition) nor as a whole by annihilation,

then it does not die.

IV. F.

One last argument for immortality from the present experience of what soul is, comesfrom Plato. It is put so perfectly in the Republic that I quote it in its original form, addingonly numbers to distinguish the steps of the argument:

1. Evil is all that which destroys and corrupts. . .

2. Each thing has its evil . . . for instance, ophthalmia for the eye, and disease for thewhole body, mildew for corn and for wood, rust for iron . . .

3. The natural evil of each thing . . . destroys it, and if this does not destroy it,

nothing else can . . .(a) for I don't suppose good can ever destroy anything,

(b) nor can what is neither good nor evil,

(c) and it is certainly unreasonable . . . that the evil of something else would

destroy anything when its own evil does not.4. Then if we find something in existence which has its own evil but which can only

do it harm yet cannot dissolve or destroy it, we shall know at once that there is no

destruction for such a nature. . . .5. the soul has something which makes it evil . . . injustice, intemperance,

cowardice, ignorance. Now does any one of these dissolve and destroy it? . . .

6. Then, since it is not destroyed by any evil at all, neither its own evil nor foreignevil, it is clear that the soul must of necessity be . . . immortal.

V.

We turn now to a stronger class of arguments: not from the nature of Man but from thenature of God; not 'because of what I am, I must be immortal' but 'because of what God

is, I am immortal.' The weakness of this type of argument for practical apologetics, of

course, is that it does not convince anyone not already convinced, because it presupposesthe existence of God, and those who admit God usually admit life after death already,

while those who deny the one usually deny the other as well. Yet, though apologetically

weak, the argument is theoretically potent because it gives the real, the true reason or

cause why we survive death: God wills it.

V. A.

We could first argue from God's justice. Since God is just, His dealings with us must bejust, at least in the long run, in the total picture. ("The long run" is the answer to the

problem of evil, the apparently unjust distribution of suffering.) The innocent suffer and

the wicked flourish here; therefore 'here' cannot be 'the long run,' the total picture. Theremust be justice after death to compensate for injustice before death. (This is the point of

Jesus' parable of the rich man and Lazarus.)

V. B.


7/27

The next argument, from God's love, is stronger than the one from His justice because

love is more essential to God. Love is God's essence; justice is one of His attributes-one

of Love's attributes.

Love is "the fulfillment of the whole law." Each of the Ten Commandments is a way of

loving. "Thou shalt not kill" means "Love does not kill." If you love someone, you don'tkill him. But God IS love. Therefore God does not kill us. We want human life to triumph

over death in the end because we love; is God less loving than we? Is He a hypocrite?Does He refuse to practice what He preaches?

Only if God does not love us or is impotent to do what He wills, do we die forever. That

is, only if God is bad or weak-only if God is not God-is death the last word.

VI.

Whether the premises be taken from the nature of the world, of man, or of God, the last

three arguments were all deductive, arguments by rational analysis. More convincing formost people are arguments from experience. These can be subdivided into two classes:

arguments from experiences everyone, or nearly everyone, shares; and arguments from

extraordinary or unusual experiences. The first class includes:1. the argument from the demand for ultimate moral meaning, or long-range justice

(similar to the argument from God's justice, except that this time we do not

assume the existence of God, only the validity of our essential moral instinct)- thisis essentially Kant's argument;

2. the argument from our demand for ultimate purpose, for a meaningful end, or

adequate final cause-this argument is parallel, in the order of final causality andwithin the psychological area, to the traditional cosmological arguments for the

existence of God from effect to a first, uncaused cause in the order of efficientcausality and within the cosmological area;

3. the argument from the principle that every innate desire reveals the presence of itsdesired object (hunger indicates the existence of food, curiosity knowledge, etc.)

coupled with the discovery of an innate desire for eternity, or something more

than time can offer-this is C. S. Lewis' favorite argument.4. the argument from the validity of love, which insists on the intrinsic,

indispensable value of the other, the beloved-if love is sighted and not blind and if

it is absurd that the indispensable is dispensed with, then death does not dispensewith us, for love declares that we are indispensable;

5. finally, the argument from the presence of a person, who is not a thing (object)

and therefore need not be removed when the body-object is removed-theIdetectsa Thou not subject to the death of theIt.

From one point of view, these five arguments are the weakest of all, for they presuppose

an epistemological access to reality which can easily be denied as illusory. There is no

purely formal or empirical proof, e.g., that love's instinctive perception of the intrinsicvalue of the beloved is true. Further, each concludes not with the simple proposition 'we

are immortal' but with the disjunctive proposition 'either reality is absurd or we are


8/27

immortal.' Finally, each is less a demonstration than an almost-immediate perception: in

valuing, purposing, longing, loving, or presencing onesees the immortality of the person.

These are five spiritual senses, and when one looks along them rather than at them, whenone uses them rather than scrutinizing them, when they are innocent until proven guilty

rather than proven innocent, one sees. But when one does not take this attitude, when one

begins with Occam's razor, or Descartes' methodic doubt, one simply does not see. Theyare less arguments from experience than experiences themselves of the immortal soul.

VII.

Three arguments from unusual or extraordinary experience are:

1. The argument from the experience of medically 'dead' and resuscitated patients,

all of whom, even those formerly skeptical, are utterly convinced of the truth oftheir 'out-of-the-body' existence and their survival of bodily death. To outside

observers there necessarily remains the possibility of doubt; to all, who have had

the experience, there is none. It is no more deceptive than waking up in the

morning. You may dream that you are awake and in fact be dreaming, but onceyou are really awake you are in no doubt. Unfortunately, this waking sense of

certainty can only be experienced, not publicly proved.

2. A similar sense of reality attaches to an experience apparently even more commonthan the out-of-the-body experience. Shortly after a loved one dies (most usually a

spouse), the survivor often has a sudden, unexpected and utterly convincing sense

of the real here-and-now presence of the dead one. It is not a memory, or a wish,or an image from the imagination. It is not usually accompanied by an image at

all. But it is utterly convincing to the experiencer. Only to one who trusts the

experiencer is the experience transferable as evidence, however. And that link canbe denied without absurdity. Again, it is a very strong and convincing experience,

but not a convincing proof.3. What would be a convincing proof from experience? If we could only put our

hands into the wounds of a dead man who had risen again! The most certainassurance of life after death for the Christian is the historical, literal resurrection

of Christ. The Christian believes in life after death not because of an argument,

first of all, but because of a witness. The Church is that witness; 'apostolicsuccession' means first of all the chain of witnesses beginning with eyewitnesses:

"We have been eyewitnesses of His resurrection. . . and we testify (witness) to

you." This is the answer to the skeptic who asks: "What do you know for sureabout life after death anyway? Have you ever been there? Have you come back to

tell us?" The Christian reply is: "No, but I have a very good Friend who has. I

believe Him, and I follow Him not only through life but also through death. Comealong"

Monday, 23 October, 2000, 09:24 GMT 10:24 UK

Evidence of 'life after death'


9/27

Seriously-ill patients reported "near-death" experiences

Scientists investigating 'near-death' experiences say they have found evidence to

suggest that consciousness can continue to exist after the brain has ceased to function.

However, the claim has been challenged by neurological experts.

The researchers interviewed 63 patients who had survived heart attacks within a week

of the experience.

Of these 56 had no recollection of the period of unconsciousness they experienced

whilst, effectively, clinically dead.

However, seven had memories, four of which counted as near-death experiences.

They told of feelings of peace and joy, time speeded up, heightened senses, lostawareness of body, seeing a bright light, entering another world, encountering a

mystical being and coming to "a point of no return".

Oxygen levels

None of the patients were found to be receiving low oxygen levels - which somescientists believe may be responsible for so-called "near-death" experiences.

Lead researcher Dr Sam Parnia, of Southampton General Hospital, said nobody fullyunderstands how brain cells generate thoughts.

He said it might be that the mind or consciousness is independent of the brain.

He said: "When we examine brain cells we see that brain cells are like any other cells,

they can produce proteins and chemicals, but they are not really capable of producing

Memories areextremely fallible

Dr Chris Freeman,Royal EdinburghHospital


10/27

the subjective phenomenon of thought that we have.

"The brain is definitely needed to manifest the mind, a bit like how a television set can

take what essentially are waves in the air and translate them into picture and sound."

Scepticism

Dr Chris Freeman, consultant psychiatrist and psychotherapist at Royal EdinburghHospital, said there was no proof that the experiences reported by the patients actually

occurred when the brain was shut down.

"We know that memories are extremely fallible. We are quite good at knowing that

something happened, but we are very poor at knowing when it happened.

"It is quite possible that these experiences happened during the recovery, or just before

the cardiac arrest. To say that they happened when the brain was shut down, I thinkthere is little evidence for that at all."

Introduction

"...There is rebirth of character, but no transmigration of a self. Thy thought-forms reappear, butthere is no ego-entity transferred. The stanza uttered by a teacher is reborn in the scholar whorepeats the words.Only through ignorance and delusion do men indulge in the dream that their souls are separateand self-existent entities. Thy heart, O Brahman, is cleaving still to self; thou art anxious aboutheaven but thou seekest the pleasures of self in heaven, and thus thou canst not see the bliss oftruth and the immortality of truth."

BuddhaThe Gospel of Buddha, According to Old Records
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0875482287/worldmyster07-20http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0875482287/worldmyster07-20


11/27

While some believe it's impossible to know whether there is life after death, belief in

immortality is timeless. People of all times and places in history have believed that thehuman soul survives death. If there is no consciousness beyond the grave, then life has

fooled almost everyone from the Pharaohs of Egypt to Jesus of Nazareth.

When we talk about rebirth or reincarnation, some people laugh at the idea. They

consider such belief is passe and obsolete. Others may think such question is in arena ofreligion. After all, it concerns what is after death.

All Existence is Spiritual

The following text comes fromThe Gospel of Buddha, According to Old Records By Paul Carus,Chicago, The Open Court Publishing Company, 1894
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0875482287/worldmyster07-20http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0875482287/worldmyster07-20http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0875482287/worldmyster07-20http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0875482287/worldmyster07-20


12/27

THERE was an officer among the retinue of Simha who had heard of the discourses of

the Blessed One, and there was some doubt left in his heart. This man came to theBlessed One and said: "It is said, O Lord, that the samana Gotama denies the existence of

the soul. Do they who say so speak the truth, or do they bear false witness against the

Blessed One

And the Blessed One said: "There is a way in which those who say so are speaking trulyof me; on the other hand, there is a way in which those who say so do not speak truly of

me. The Tathagata teaches that there is no self. He who says that the soul is his selfand that the self is the thinker of our thoughts and the actor of our deeds, teaches a

wrong doctrine which leads to confusion and darkness. On the other hand, the

Tathagata teaches that there is mind. He who understands by soul mind, and says

that mind exists, teaches the truth which leads to clearness and enlightenment."

The officer said: "Does, then, the Tathagata maintain that two things exist? that which weperceive with our senses and that which is mental?"

Said the Blessed One: "I say to thee, thy mind is spiritual, but neither is the sense-

perceived void of spirituality. The bodhi is eternal and it dominates all existence as the

good law guiding all beings in their search for truth. It changes brute nature into mind,and there is no being that cannot be transformed into a vessel of truth."

The Gospel of Buddha, According to Old Records
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0875482287/worldmyster07-20http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0875482287/worldmyster07-20


13/27

Identity and Non-Identity

The following text comes fromThe Gospel of Buddha, According to Old RecordsBy Paul Carus, Chicago, The Open Court Publishing Company, 1894

KUTADANTA, the head of the Brahmans in the village of Danamati, having approached

the Blessed One respectfully, greeted him and said: "I am told, O samana, that thou artthe Buddha, the Holy One, the All-knowing, the Lord of the world. But if thou wert the

Buddha, wouldst thou not come like a king in all thy glory and power?" Said the Blessed

One: "Thine eyes are holden. If the eye of thy mind were undimmed thou couldst see theglory and the power of truth."

Said Kutadanta: "Show me the truth and I shall see it. But thy doctrine is without

consistency. If it were consistent, it would stand; but as it is not, it will pass away." TheBlessed One replied: "The truth will never pass away."

Kutadanta said: "I am told that thou teachest the law, yet thou tearest down religion. Thy

disciples despise rites and abandon immolation, but reverence for the gods can be shown

only by sacrifices. The very nature of religion consists in worship and sacrifice." Said the

Buddha: "Greater than the immolation of bullocks is the sacrifice of self. He who offersto the gods his evil desires will see the uselessness of slaughtering animals at the altar.

Blood has no cleansing power, but the eradication of lust will make the heart pure. Better

than worshiping gods is obedience to the laws of righteousness."

Kutadanta, being of a religious disposition and anxious about his fate after death, hadsacrificed countless victims. Now he saw the folly of atonement by blood. Not yet

satisfied, however, with the teachings of the Tathagata, Kutadanta continued: "Thou

believest, O Master, that beings are reborn; that they migrate in the evolution of life; andthat subject to the law of karma we must reap what we sow. Yet thou teachest the non-

existence of the soul! Thy disciples praise utter self-extinction as the highest bliss of

Nirvana. If I am merely a combination of the sankharas, my existence will cease when Idie. If I am merely a compound of sensations and ideas and desires, whither can I go at

the dissolution of the body?"

Said the Blessed One: "O Brahman, thou art religious and earnest. Thou art seriously

concerned about thy soul. Yet is thy work in vain because thou art lacking in the onething that is needful. There is rebirth of character, but no transmigration of a self. Thy

thought-forms reappear, but there is no ego-entity transferred. The stanza uttered by a

teacher is reborn in the scholar who repeats the words.

"Only through ignorance and delusion do men indulge in the dream that their souls areseparate and self-existent entities. Thy heart, O Brahman, is cleaving still to self; thou art
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0875482287/worldmyster07-20http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0875482287/worldmyster07-20http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_3.htm#top%23tophttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0875482287/worldmyster07-20


14/27

anxious about heaven but thou seekest the pleasures of self in heaven, and thus thou canst

not see the bliss of truth and the immortality of truth.

"I say to thee: The Blessed One has not come to teach death, but to teach life, and thoudiscernest not the nature of living and dying. This body will be dissolved and no amount

of sacrifice will save it. Therefore, seek thou the life that is of the mind. Where self is,truth cannot be; yet when truth comes, self will disappear. Therefore, let thy mind rest in

the truth; propagate the truth, put thy whole will in it, and let it spread. In the truth thoushalt live forever. Self is death and truth is life. The cleaving to self is a perpetual dying,

while moving in the truth is partaking of Nirvana which is life everlasting."

Then Kutadanta said: "Where, O venerable Master, is Nirvana?" "Nirvana is wherever theprecepts are obeyed replied the Blessed One.

"Do I understand thee aright," rejoined the Brahman, "That Nirvana is not a place, and

being nowhere it is without reality?" "Thou dost not understand me aright," said the

Blessed One, "Now listen and answer these questions: Where does the wind dwell

"Nowhere," was the reply.

Buddha retorted: "Then, sir, there is no such thing as wind." Kutadanta made no reply;

and the Blessed One asked again: "Answer me, O Brahman, where does wisdom dwell?

Is wisdom a locality?"

"Wisdom has no allotted dwelling-place replied Kutadanta. Said the Blessed One:"Meanest thou that there is no wisdom, no enlightenment, no righteousness, and no

salvation, because Nirvana is not a locality? As a great and mighty wind which passeth

over the world in the heat of the day, so the Tathagata comes to blow over the minds ofmankind with the breath of his love, so cool, so sweet, so calm, so delicate; and thosetormented by fever assuage their suffering and rejoice at the refreshing breeze."

Said Kutadanta: "I feel, O Lord, that thou proclaimest a great doctrine, but I cannot grasp

it. Forbear with me that I ask again: Tell me, O Lord, if there be no atman [soul], how canthere be immortality? The activity of the mind passeth, and our thoughts are gone when

we have done thinking."

Buddha replied: "Our thinking is gone, but our thoughts continue. Reasoning ceases, but

knowledge remains." Said Kutadanta: "How is that? Are not reasoning and knowledge

the same?"

The Blessed One explained the distinction by an illustration: "It is as when a man wants,

during the night, to send a letter, and, after having his clerk called, has a lamp lit, and gets

the letter written. Then, when that has been done, he extinguishes the lamp. But thoughthe writing has been finished and the light has been put out the letter is still there. Thus

does reasoning cease and knowledge remain; and in the same way mental activity ceases,

but experience, wisdom, and all the fruits of our acts endure."


15/27

Kutadanta continued: "Tell me, O Lord, pray tell me, where, if the sankharas are

dissolved, is the identity of my self. If my thoughts are propagated, and if my soul

migrates, my thoughts cease to be my thoughts and my soul ceases to be my soul. Giveme an illustration, but pray, O Lord, tell me, where is the identity of my self?"

Said the Blessed One: "Suppose a man were to light a lamp; would it burn the nightthrough?" "Yes, it might do so," was the reply.

"Now, is it the same flame that burns in the first watch of the night as in the second?"

Kutadanta hesitated. He thought it is the same flame, but fearing the complications of a

hidden meaning, and trying to be exact, he said: "No, it is not."

"Then," continued the Blessed One, "there are two flames, one in the first watch and theother in the second watch." "No, sir," said Kutadanta. "In one sense it is not the same

flame, but in another sense it is the same flame. It burns the same kind of oil, it emits the

same kind of light, and it serves the same purpose."

"Very well said the Buddha and would you call those flames the same that have burnedyesterday and are burning now in the same lamp, filled with the same kind of oil,

illuminating the same room?" "They may have been extinguished during the day,"

suggested Kutadanta.


16/27

Said the Blessed One: "Suppose the flame of the first watch had been extinguished during

the second watch, would you call it the same if it burns again in the third watch?" Replied

Kutadanta: "In one sense it is a different flame, in another it is not."

The Tathagata asked again: "Has the time that elapsed during the extinction of the flame

anything to do with its identity or non-identity?" "No, sir," said the Brahman, "it has not.There is a difference and an identity, whether many years elapsed or only one second,

and also whether the lamp has been extinguished in the meantime or not."

"Well, then, we agree that the flame of today is in a certain sense the same as the flame of

yesterday, and in another sense it is different at every moment. Moreover, the flames of

the same kind, illuminating with equal power the same kind of rooms, are in a certainsense the same." "Yes, sir," replied Kutadanta.

The Blessed One continued: "Now, suppose there is a man who feels like thyself, thinks

like thyself, and acts like thyself, is he not the same man as thou?" "No, sir," interrupted

Kutadanta.

Said the Buddha: "Dost thou deny that the same logic holds good for thyself that holdsgood for the things of the world?" Kutadanta bethought himself and rejoined slowly: "No,

I do not. The same logic holds good universally; but there is a peculiarity about my self

which renders it altogether different from everything else and also from other selves.There may be another man who feels exactly like me, thinks like me, and acts like me;

suppose even he had the same name and the same kind of possessions, he would not be

myself."

"True, Kutadanta, answered Buddha, he would not be thyself. Now, tell me, is the person

who goes to school one, and that same person when he has finished his schoolinganother? Is it one who commits a crime, another who is punished by having his hands and

feet cut off?" "They are the same, was the reply.

"Then sameness is constituted by continuity only?" asked the Tathagata. "Not only bycontinuity," said Kutadanta, but also and mainly by identity of character."

"Very well, concluded the Buddha, then thou agreest that persons can be the same, in the

same sense as two flames of the same kind are called the same; and thou must recognize

that in this sense another man of the same character and product of the same karma is thesame as thou." "Well, I do," said the Brahman.

The Buddha continued: "And in this same sense alone art thou the same today as

yesterday. Thy nature is not constituted by the matter of which thy body consists, but by

thy sankharas, the forms of the body, of sensations, of thoughts. The person is thecombination of the sankharas. Wherever they are, thou art. Whithersoever they go, thou

goest. Thus thou wilt recognize in a certain sense an identity of thy self, and in another

sense a difference. But he who does not recognize the identity should deny all identity,and should say that the questioner is no longer the same person as he who a minute after


17/27

receives the answer. Now consider the continuation of thy personality, which is preserved

in thy karma. Dost thou call it death and annihilation, or life and continued life?"

"I call it life and continued life," rejoined Kutadanta, "for it is the continuation of myexistence, but I do not care for that kind of continuation. All I care for is the continuation

of self in the other sense, which makes of every man, whether identical with me or not, analtogether different person."

"Very well," said Buddha. "This is what thou desirest and this is the cleaving to self. Thisis thy error. All compound things are transitory: they grow and they decay. All compound

things are subject to pain: they will be separated from what they love and be joined to

what they abhor. All compound things lack a self, an atman, an ego."

"How is that?" asked Kutadanta. "Where is thy self? asked the Buddha. And whenKutadanta made no reply, he continued: "Thy self to which thou cleavest is a constant

change. Years ago thou wast a small babe; then, thou wast a boy; then a youth, and now,

thou art a man. Is there any identity of the babe and the man? There is an identity in acertain sense only. Indeed there is more identity between the flames of the first and the

third watch, even though the lamp might have been extinguished during the second

watch. Now which is thy true self, that of yesterday, that of today, or that of tomorrow,

for the preservation of which thou clamorest?" Kutadanta was bewildered. "Lord of theworld," he said, I see my error, but I am still confused."

The Tathagata continued: "It is by a process of evolution that sankharas come to be.

There is no sankhara which has sprung into being without a gradual becoming. Thysankharas are the product of thy deeds in former existences. The combination of thy

sankharas is thy self. Wheresoever they are impressed thither thy self migrates. In thy

sankharas thou wilt continue to live and thou wilt reap in future existences the harvestsown now and in the past."

"Verily, O Lord," rejoined Kutadanta, this is not a fair retribution. I cannot recognize the

justice that others after me will reap what I am sowing now."

The Blessed One waited a moment and then replied: "Is all teaching in vain? Dost thou

not understand that those others are thou thyself Thou thyself wilt reap what thou sowest,not others. Think of a man who is ill-bred and destitute, suffering from the wretchedness

of his condition. As a boy he was slothful and indolent, and when he grew up he had not

learned a craft to earn a living. Wouldst thou say his misery is not the product of his own

action, because the adult is no longer the same person as was the boy?

"I say to thee: Not in the heavens, not in the midst of the sea, not if thou hidest thyself

away in the clefts of the mountains, wilt thou find a place where thou canst escape the

fruit of thine evil actions. At the same time thou art sure to receive the blessings of thygood actions. To the man who has long been traveling and who returns home in safety,

the welcome of kinfolk, friends, and acquaintances awaits. So, the fruits of his good


18/27

works bid him welcome who has walked in the path of righteousness, when he passes

over from the present life into the hereafter."

Kutadanta said: "I have faith in the glory and excellency of thy doctrines. My eye cannotas yet endure the light; but I now understand that there is no self, and the truth dawns

upon me. Sacrifices cannot save, and invocations are idle talk. But how shall I find thepath to life everlasting? I know all the Vedas by heart and have not found the truth."

Said the Buddha: "Learning is a good thing; but it availeth not. True wisdom can beacquired by practice only. Practice the truth that thy brother is the same as thou. Walk in

the noble path of righteousness and thou wilt understand that while there is death in self,

there is immortality in truth."

Said Kutadanta: "Let me take my refuge in the Blessed One, in the Dharma, and in thebrotherhood. Accept me as thy disciple and let me partake of the bliss of immortality."

The Gospel of Buddha, According to Old Records

Related Links:

What is I? - The Bodhisattva's Search

Ego - The False Center

Re-Incarnation

By Robert Bruce

Copyright 1994-1999 by Robert BruceReprinted with permission

Reincarnation is in my opinion an overly simplified concept, designed to be easily

understood and accepted by the general population. But the theory of reincarnation falls

down sharply when closely examined. That is, if you understand how standard linear timesense behaves in higher dimensional levels, i.e., time sense fluctuates.

As far as it goes, the theory of reincarnation is clear enough to explain some very

complex esoteric matters in a simple way; without giving people headaches wheneverthey think about it. It also allows for the illusion of the continuation of present

consciousness, unchanged and progressive, with only an occasional memory loss to mar

its course; marking the division between each Re--Incarnation. This makes it easy forpeople to accept the bones of the incarnation process.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0875482287/worldmyster07-20http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_11.htm#BODHISATTVAhttp://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_11.htm#Egohttp://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_3.htm#top%23tophttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0875482287/worldmyster07-20http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_11.htm#BODHISATTVAhttp://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_11.htm#Ego


19/27

It gives them the benefit of a rational afterlife belief-system containing the simplified

essence of the whole truth. This allows a measure of independence and security, and a

reassurance of the continuance of self, i.e., life after death and reincarnation = a kind ofimmortality theory that people can easily accept and relate to.

But the whole truth of reincarnation is so extraordinarily complex it is not so easilygrasped.

At the top of the dimensional structure is ONE consciousness. A SINGLE mind (call ituniversal consciousness, The Great White Spirit, the mind of God: pick one?). Or split it

into three if you like: Father, Son & Holy Spirit, or many more if you prefer the demigod

perspective, i.e., Hindu beliefs, etc. However you conceive this structure, at the top of itall rests a single consciousness: the original spark of consciousness that created and is

continually creating the entire multi-dimensional universe we call home. But grasping

and relating to the ONE is not an easy thing to do. The ONE is so far above our

understanding of what consciousness is, it becomes incomprehensible to the human mind:

except of course in the abstract; which is the only realistic way this can be perceived andrelated to. The most popular way of relating to the ONE is through abstract simile, i.e.,

God is like the father of all fathers, or, God is like the mother of all mothers, et cetera.

Beneath the ONE are layers of consciousness (relating to subtle dimensional levels, i.e.,the astral dimension, mental dimension, etc) where the ONE fragments and splits into

multiple parts, with each lower layer splitting again and again into many more layers and

parts, and so on, until you get to the physical dimension, the dimension of Maya, thedimension of solid illusion where we as energy-cum-physical beings can experience the

limitations of the physical universe through our physical bodies. This, in a way, makes us

human beings the myriad eyes, ears and consciousness' (in the physical dimension) of the

ONE great universal mind above us.

At the very top of the dimensional spectrum, at dimension ONE, there is NO time.

Mystically, this is understood and experienced as The Eternal NOW. This means there is

NO TIME. There, time does not exist and everything, the past, present and future, arehappening all at once in the eternal NOW. Every layer beneath this takes on a little more

time sense (steadily increasing in time sense) until we get back down to the physical

dimension; to our Real-Time dimension of solid illusion (our normal physical universe)where time becomes relatively linear once again.

To support this: whenever you experience higher dimensions, say during OBE, you will

always notice a significant variability in time; in your sense of time passing during each

experience. Modern physicists are already working mathematically in several differentdimensions above but related (or linked) to the physical universe. The great physicist

Einstein stated that at some point in the dimensional spectrum there must be a point

where time does not exist, where past, present and future coexist simultaneously.

I have traveled to and experienced higher dimensional levels where there is NO conceptof time at all. But the sensation and perception of time passing is also quite variable in the


20/27

physical universe, and time sense is entirely relative to your state of mind. Look at how

time flies when you are happy, say when you are spending time with someone you love.

But oh how it drags and drags like a heavy stone while you are bored, or while you arewaiting or experiencing something you dislike.

In a way this can be likened to a simple pyramid structure:

The above diagram shows the ascending and descending layers of the ONE

consciousness, splitting into more and more parts as it descends into the real time

universe (the here and now). Each part of the layers directly above the physicaldimension can be more easily related to, if you consider each as being an Overself or

Oversoul, or Higher Self (pick one?). In our dimension, each of these split into manyseparate parts (hundreds or even thousands of people; how many is unknown). And if you

take into account this flow of multiple consciousness units from above, from the eternalNOW, it is also likely this spreads throughout all of time and space: possibly with each

Oversoul splitting into countless people; all who have ever lived in the past, all those

living in the present, and all those that will live in the future. The bottom line is that theseare all living simultaneously in the shadow of The Eternal NOW. And if you also take

into account the countless worlds in our universe that probably contain many other race,

not to mention a plethora of parallel universes, the mind simply boggles. And yes, I thinkI am definitely getting a headache at this point!

If you look closely at and ponder the mind-split effect (see Astral Dynamics, or The

Treatise on OBE parts 7 & 8) you'll see before you the underlying principle of

incarnation at work. As above so below. And if you apply the mind-split effect toincarnation, you'll see the ONE great mind splitting and reflecting (or incarnating) into

many billions of parts, into many billions of people.

Now, if you take the above as read, you will see that the linear concept of reincarnation is

just a little off the mark in explaining the higher nature of reality. It leaves too many


21/27

questions unanswered and has too many holes in it's logic. Its way too simplistic an

explanation to fit the enormity underlying the reality of incarnation.

In my opinion, what is really happening is this:

We are all essentially a part of the ONE at the very highest level of consciousness. Thereis NO time at the top (or you could say there is ALL time at the top) so everything

happens in the eternal NOW. Therefore, logically, a single person would incarnate

throughout time: past present and future, living and experiencing multiple lives. But theseare lived all at the same time, all at once, all in the eternal NOW. And therefore, if all

lives are lived at once, then it is also likely each 'person' incarnates many times in the

same timeframe, i.e., that you are incarnated many times in the present, and are livingmany different lives simultaneously in this present time, in the present NOW. This also

applies to the past, present and future; meaning you are now currently living throughout

all time. Scary concept maybe, and definitely headache material, but its also extremely

logical.

I believe the above, with a healthy application of like-attracts-like and opposites-repel,

also accounts for what are commonly called Soul Mates. Individual incarnating spirits

would logically attract like-minded spirits to them from among their own spectrum of

incarnating brethren, i.e., from among those incarnating from their own shared Oversoul.

The Buddhist concept of the Overself is fairly accurate in describing what is happening at

a higher level of consciousness. This is a step up from the simpler concept of linear

incarnation, living life after life, as taken for granted by most NewAge people today.Although the Buddhist theory also includes linear reincarnation, you will find there are

many gray areas between fact, theory and experience.

Past life memories...or past life associations?

In my opinion these may be caused by closely related links (call it a soul family clan)

between some spirits contained within a single Oversoul unit. These links are not limitednor divided by our primitive concept of linear time, but are all connected through the

higher soul clan in the eternal NOW. They are all existing simultaneously at the higher

level where they connect. Therefore, when a person remembers or feels connected with,or affected by, dramatic events from what is considered a past life filtering through into

their present reality; these events are actually happening right now, in the eternal NOW.

This may account for why these links can be so keenly felt. Even though the actual events

that are affecting or being felt as stemming from a past life that may have happenedthousands of years ago, it is actually happening right now, in the eternal NOW. And this

goes a long way toward explaining why past life memories can have such a profound

effect on us.

I think past life experiences can also be felt and experienced (shared) in varying degrees,

by all the individual members of a closely related soul clan. They are not remembering


22/27

events that happened a very long ago, they are being 'felt' and experienced by all parts as

if they were actually a part of that other time, as if these events were happening NOW.

The above hopefully sheds some new light on the ancient but little-realized belief that weare all brothers and sisters in spirit, all God's children; regardless of sex or race; or even

of species for that matter. Ultimately we are all ONE at the highest level, all ONE in theeternal NOW. (RB)

Copyright 1994-1999 by Robert BruceReprinted with permission

The Catch Basket Concept

By Robert Bruce

A New Approach to Life and The Greater Spiritual Reality

Copyright 2000 by Robert Bruce

I found the following article, yet again, while searching through my computer files. I hadcompletely forgotten writing it. It seems a shame to waste it, so here it is. It explains a

little about who I am and where I am coming from, and why I write the books and articles

I do. My life; it's been a learning process in every sense of The Word.

In the mid-to-late nineteen-eighties, I experienced a serious belief system challenge.

Glaring contradictions arose at every turn, between my ongoing hard-life experiences and

popularly accepted New Age concepts of spiritual reality. I struggled to comprehend and

integrate my experience with this paradigm, being forced time and time again to acceptillogical compromises. But adaptation of my life experience soon became impossible and

I began suffocating under its awkward burden. The popular model rapidly became

unworkable in a practical sense. Either I was going crazy and experiencing consistent,repeatable delusions, as were all the people I was helping, or something was decidedly

rotten in downtown Denmark.

Like many people down through the ages, I had spent my life searching for spiritual truth

and meaning to life. For many years, I had sat in development groups, prayed, meditated,visualized and read until my eyes burned and my mind reeled under the massive

contradictory onslaught. I developed psychic abilities, had spectacular OBE's, visions and

mystical experiences. I made good progress, but still I need more. . .

I was eventually reborn and transformed when I raised my kundalini to its highest levelaround 1987 (this was when the enigma of my life became apparent to me). But raising


23/27

kundalini, in itself, does not bring instant enlightenment. Kundalini has to be raised

regularly and mastered, just like any other ability. The first time kundalini is raised it

causes 'abstract' enlightenment, not actual enlightenment. You know everything whilekundalini is raised, but cannot realize this when you return to a normal level of

consciousness (the base level of consciousness in the normal waking state). There are no

shortcuts, and there is no way of avoiding all the hard work and hard-life experiencenecessary for the abstracts to filter down into your conscious mind and physical reality.

All of this gleaned me glimpses of the greater spiritual reality above, with a few

tantalizingly abstract snippets of abstract higher truth thrown in for good measure. But

my increasingly strong contact with the greater spiritual reality provided me with a floodof contradictions to the popularly accepted model. This intellectual burden grew and

grew as my belief system was stretched way beyond its design limits. It rapidly

approached critical mass.

I was offered a solution in 1990. I had a major experience where an angel, or my higher-

self (hard to tell which, and somewhat of a moot point really) manifested to me as apowerful objective voice. I could have recorded this had I a tape recorder handy; it was

that audible. I was wide-awake and standing up. I had just stepped out of the shower andwas about to start my evening meditation, around 9 pm. It was the most beautiful voice I

have ever heard: deep, masculine, eloquent, loving, forgiving and wise. The atmosphere

was intense. I felt like a small child might feel when standing before God in a greatcathedral for the very first time. The sense of awe and loving fatherly forgiveness is

overpowering. As I write, just revisiting my living memory of this causes tears of deep

spiritual longing to flood down my face; such is the emotional impact of this experience.

NB: This was the same objective voice that had spoken to me a couple of years earlier,

when it then instructed me to begin teaching myself how to write. Since I barely finishedgrade eight, this was no mean feat in itself. I had worked hard, and by the time of the

second visitation, had already mastered the basics of English and grammar. Even so, Istill felt I had not done enough. But direct contact with spiritual beings from the greater

reality always has this effect, especially when they come to you.

The voice asked me to sit down, and then proceed to explain a great many things to me,

the most important of which was advice on how to proceed on my quest for higherspiritual truth and knowledge. I was instructed to dismantle my belief system, and then to

intelligently rebuild it from scratch. I was told to be disciplined in my approach and to

use personal experience, logic and commonsense to build a new foundation belief system,

upon which to continue my quest for true enlightenment.

The foundation belief system lies deep within the subconscious mind. This comprises a

set of conceptual mental filters and shields, which are fundamental to one's physical and

spiritual existence. These shape and affect your thoughts and perceptions by filteringideas and inspirations, making these conform to a central theme, as set by your

foundation beliefs. All knowledge lies within your heart. But accessing this is


24/27

extraordinarily difficult. Everything has to pass through your conceptual filters before it

can be perceived or realized.

If one's fundamental beliefs are even slightly flawed, information trying to pass throughbecomes distorted or blocked. Imagine new truths as being delicate square crystals, and

flawed conceptual filters (contradictory beliefs) as being coarse round holes. New truthsare effectively blocked. If one forces them through, the results are splintered octagonals,

i.e., fractured, distorted or incomplete truths.

Therefore, if a higher intelligence (be it God, one's higher-self, holy guardian angel or

spirit guide) tries to pass contradictory new truths through a flawed belief system, these

truths are conceptually blocked or distorted. The greater the fundamental errors in one'sbelief system, the greater will be the distortion. All things being equal, this is why some

people can receive inspiration (be it scientific or spiritual) and others cannot or receive

only poorly.

This concept that you create your own spiritual reality is nothing new. Versions of thiscan be found in a great many books of spiritual philosophy. But actually realizing how

this works and applying it to one's own foundation belief system in pursuit of higher truth

and knowledge is an entirely different matter.

I was given detailed instructions on how to accomplish this. The next day I sat down andmade a list of all the things I believed in concerning my spiritual reality. I then analyzed

and erased all the things I had not actually experienced or proven for myself. After many

days of pondering and revising, I ended up with a very small list indeed. It wentsomething like this:

OBE is real: I've had Astral projections all my life. Clairvoyance is real: I've seen auras and visions all my life.

Healing is real: I've both given and received it, seen and felt its power.

Kundalini is real: I raised mine to its highest level in 1987, and many times since.

We survive death: I've seen people after their deaths and have visited the spirit

worlds.

A higher force is concerned with human existence and its spiritual evolution: I've

experienced this many times -- the voice I heard above is just one example.

Angels, masters, deities and good spirits are real: I've interacted with these many

times.

Bad spirits are real: I've experienced poltergeists and psychic attacks, been

possessed and self-exorcised, and helped many people and children with similarproblems.

Gone were personal spirit guides (while I had learned to believe I had one, I had never

actually met or openly communicated with him). Gone was the involvement of spirits injust about everything spiritual and psychic (I had no hard experience to support this, only

vague assumptions). And gone was the entire organized spirit structure above us that I


25/27

had been taught to believe in (I had no real proof this was accurate). I also had a

quandary. Apart from angels and other such exalted beings (which have such power and

presence they are impossible to mistake for who they truly are) I had no reliable way oftelling good spirits from bad spirits. Therefore, logically, I had to reject all lesser spirits

until I discovered a reliable method of discernment.

The above might sound extreme, but it is eminently logical. Given the source, I took theadvice I had been given to heart. I would learn to live this new way of truth and to apply

it to my life.

My final list was real and true, as I had personally experienced everything on it. As

instructed, I would build on what was real and discard everything else. I was told toshelve items of 'possible' truth aside, until proven or disproven. However, this is easier

said than done and I went into what I can only describe as spiritual shock. I felt empty,

alone and depressed. I had to keep stopping myself from talking to my spirit guide duringprayers. If I was to do this at all, as instructed, I had to go all the way.

In time, this new foundation belief system settled more comfortably within me. I got overmy emptiness and began filling my aching void with practical truth and knowledge. From

this point onwards, slowly and surely, everything started to come together in my life. Asinstructed, I began writing a journal of my thoughts and ideas. I used the writing process

to nurture my inner genius, to free up the flow of inspiration between my physical-self

and my higher-self. This flow, I had been told, was blocked not only by my previouslyflawed conceptual filters, but by the vast differences in consciousness: between the level

of consciousness of my normal awake mind (my base level of consciousness) and the

more rarified and abstract level where my higher-self resided within me.

I turned my unanswered questions into journal articles. These contained everything I

experientially knew to be true about each subject. I found myself putting in many logicalsubtitles and question marks to represent gaps in my knowledge. I used the writing

process (revision, sleep, revision, sleep, and so on) to coax the truth from my dreams, andfrom the deep recesses of my higher spiritual-self. As instructed, I began shutting myself

away in a dark, silent room for several hours at a time, discovering a profound new level

of deep trance thinking. I thought, dreamed, meditated and wrote on seemingly

unfathomable arcane matters.

In time began receiving inspirational ideas. My dreams and visions swam with sparkling

clues; tiny pieces of the jigsaws I was trying to build. My logical and inspirational

processes began working overtime, far more powerful than ever before. I found myself

waking many times during sleep, compelled to reach for pen and paper to record newideas. Mundane conversations and events triggered intellectual storms through the mental

associations they caused, necessitating much frantic note-taking as inspirational ideas

surfaced like glistening dolphins leaping from the murky waters of my subconsciousmind.

In time, I accepted this process and began working with it. I felt like I had been reborn.

This is how I developed my Catch Basket concept. During the day, I set my catch baskets


26/27

by pondering unanswered questions. These are baited with rich crumbs of personal

experience, tantalizing ideas and juicy pieces of logic. In the morning, I check these for

fruits that have been cast into them from above. I record everything and add each smallharvest to my questioning articles. Pretty soon, these began fleshing themselves out and

filling in the mysterious gaps.

In truth, my work teaches me just as much as it teaches those I share it with. Over the

years since I began this process, my catch basket repository began groaning with ripeesoteric fruits. As instructed, I began pouring these into the articles, tutorials and books I

eventually began writing.

Over the years since my arcane riddle began, my inspirational process grew into a finely-tuned subtle mechanism. Now, if I have a serious question the answer always comes to

me. Sometimes it surfaces immediately, sometimes days, months or even years later, but

the clues that lead me to the answers always come. This has given me drive and purpose,

plus an ever-increasing fascination for this many-splendored thing we call mortal life.

Whatever the future holds in store, I look forward to living it with great interest.

I hope the above explanation of where I am coming from is of some help to people who

might be struggling with their own beliefs. It is neither my intention nor my joy to cast

doubts upon anyone's heartfelt theories and beliefs. But if my work causes you beliefsystem discomfort, then how solid were your beliefs to begin with? While faith is a

priceless jewel, if one accepts anything blindly one risks polluting one's essential

foundation belief system with the curse of mindless dogmatism.

Please keep an open mind to the possibilities I have introduced here. The popular New

Age spiritual model contains a great deal of beautiful, comforting philosophy. But it can

fall down quite badly in a practical sense, especially when applied to dark supernaturalproblems. If one clings to this model, the development of new concepts and the gatheringof higher spiritual truths becomes virtually impossible. The parameters of current popular

spiritual models simply do not allow for this. Because of this, many people today bend

the rules and invent elaborate explanations to get around these problems, whiledogmatically holding true to popular beliefs. But this increased complexity prohibits a

more direct approach. It leads to belief system obfuscation and ineffective methods being

developed.

A Little Sage Advice To Close On:Question everything, especially the sacred cows of dogma. Always think for yourself.

Experiment and learn from all that life has to offer you. Listen to and consider the

wisdom of others, and try on their ideas as you might try on a new coat for size. Neverbuy a new coat just because it seems to fit; it must be practical, within your price range,

and look good on you too. And above all, build your own foundation belief system from

the wealth of your own personal life experience.

Copyright 2000 by Robert BruceReprinted with permission


27/27

About Robert Bruce

Robert Bruce is an internationally respected arcane mystic, best-selling author, and charismatic

speaker from the land down under (Australia). For over 25 years he has actively exploredmetaphysical, paranormal, energetic and spiritual phenomena, making a number ofgroundbreaking discoveries. Robert is the author of 'Astral Dynamics' and Practical Psychic Self-Defense, and coauthor of Mastering Astral Projection. Robert is a true spiritual pioneer of ourtimes. The experiential depth and scope of his knowledge is quite remarkable.

Visit http://www.astralpulse.com to see the latest updates of Robert Bruce's work.

This is a general copyright notice for all online articles and tutorials carrying the name of 'Robert Bruce' as the author. Allrights are most definitely reserved. However, the author gives permission for people to freely copy any of his onlinearticles and tutorials for their personal use, and for them to to store these on their personal computers, and for them todisplay these on their public websites, and for them to share these in electronic magazines, providing the author's nameand website url are attached to every article, i.e., (written by Robert Bruce, date written, www.astralpulse.com ) Further tothis, short excerpts from the author's online articles and tutorials may be used by authors in other works, following therules of 'fair usage' as long as these excerpts and quotes are properly referenced and attributed to the author. Please see

full copyright notice.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1571741437/worldmyster07-20/http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1571741437/worldmyster07-20/http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1571741437/worldmyster07-20/http://www.astralpulse.com/http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1571741437/worldmyster07-20/http://www.astralpulse.com/

truth journal

Documents