The Day I died (Documentary)

[Polterwurst]

Well, as we discussed, my conclusion is 1st and foremost, that the phenomenon of small children making remarks about another life, another family they lived with, or even how they died and what happened after that is not just a myth forwarded by the wishful thinking or the religiousness of reincarnation proponents, but simply fact, as I've experienced talking with two children in my family and their parents.

Sometimes, these children have birthmarks which look like they could have been a wound once (which I have also seen myself) and phobias and nightmares which seem to correlate with these woundlike birthmarks (also showed up in the 1st case in my family).

Together with the now over 3000 case investigations by the late Prof. Ian Stevenson and his department at the University of Virginia, who I think are thoroughly scientific, ever considerate of the possibility of fraud, exaggeration, parental imprints etc. and don't have the slightest inclination towards charlatanery or esotericism, I think I can say that's established fact.

Now for the more speculative part. If I combine these personal experiences above with mediumship and NDE research of IMO also very credible, non-deluded and thorough scientists, with cases like that of Pamela Reynols, Vicky Umipeg, Eben Alexander, Jenny Cockell, James Leininger (as always, I can't dismiss the possibility of fraud, compulsive lying, religious motivation etc., but these cases all seem legitimate to me), with the fact that law enforcement officials have been working with "psycic detectives" and sometimes even go on record saying they got positive results which they cannot explain; and with the fact that over and over again, despite all the fraudsters and "Sylvia Brownes" on TV, people report getting relevant and useful information from mediums, which the latter allegedly could not have gained by cold reading, previous research or fraud, I come to the conclusion that there is not only "survival of information" but "survival of consciousness".

And of course, there is my personal experience that with the second of "my own cases" the memories of a very dear deceased person seemed to show up in my sister's child, which after years of thinking about and researching the subject, led me to believe that these memories are not just fragmented information without sense or intent, surviving in some kind of field which is in itself not conscious, but are actually part of a "discarnate consciousness" which seems to be able to choose to be "born into" another body. By some unknown mechanism, the consciousness that shows up in the newborn brain is "reset", at least the memories of former existences are no longer accessible, but for some reason this mechanism partially fails in a minute percentage of births. AFAIK, in nearly all of the cases investigated by Stevenson and his people, the children remember traumatic and/or violent deaths, so this seems to be a main factor why it fails.

I could go on about how this reminds me of the fact that, although we all dream every time we sleep, we tend to only remember the bad dreams which ended in fear and terror, and how this might be an everyday "smaller-scale version" of the life-and-death-cycle itself and how it led me to believe that dreams could be a fleeting insight of what our consciousness is like after it has left the body. But that would of course be nothing than conjecture and speculation again. Just this much: I think that Plato already might have got many things right in believing that we come from and return to a "realm of ideas", where the ideal forms remain unharmed whereas the bodily, material forms in our material "realm of senses" are subject to entropy.

 

[Randall]

Well, as we discussed ...

OK just checking. We've been through all that, and I've yet to see evidence that makes it reasonable for me to believe consciousness survives the death of the body. That's not to say that I think it's impossible, only that I think it's premature to draw that conclusion without more definitive evidence. At the same time, I also think that you're very well informed on the subject and you're one of the few people I've traded posts on this issue who has presented some substantial food for thought. I respect your position just as much as you've respected mine ( and that doesn't happen often ).

 

[boomerang]

Perhaps we should make a distinction in assessing psychic and paranormal events as statistically improbable or not. One category,and seemingly the most common cause of the "wow" factor in the paranormal, is the one-time instance of an event that occurs spontaneously and is, in and of itself, very improbable. Many of us have had these. Vallee's Melchizedek experience is a good example. These often qualify as synchronicity.

But, when we attempt to assess probability with repeated cause and effect experimentation, as in the lab, phenomena pop in and out of the statistical noise. What we seek sticks in a kind of fuzzy boundary layer of probability that leaves us without the analytical satisfaction of hard numbers.

Does this make any sense?

 

[Polterwurst]

Does this make any sense?

Very much so. It's actually quite frustrating.

 

[Tyger]

OK just checking. We've been through all that

Understood that you feel you have 'been through all that', and you dismiss it all.

and I've yet to see evidence that makes it reasonable for me to believe consciousness survives the death of the body.

Your prerogative, but for others - and that includes a lot of humanity for a lot of years - the evidence is compelling. In fact, it's beyond 'evidence' - it's personal experience.

That's not to say that I think it's impossible, only that I think it's premature to draw that conclusion without more definitive evidence.

Perhaps for you it is 'premature' - but the world moves on whether we 'like' it or not.

At the same time, I also think that you're very well informed on the subject and you're one of the few people I've traded posts on this issue who has presented some substantial food for thought on this issue.

Personal testimony is compelling.

I respect your position just as much as you've respected mine ( and that doesn't happen often ).

It is heartening to see you being polite - rather than hectoring.

 

[Polterwurst]

Understood that you feel you have 'been through all that', and you dismiss it all.

No, actually I think he doesn't dismiss anything without at least looking at the evidence and processing it first, which is a lot more than you can expect from a debunker who just thinks "it can't be therefore it isn't". In our discussion about "cases suggestive of reincarnation", he's always been willing to look at the evidence I presented. We often agreed to disagree, that's for sure, but always respectfully and based on understandable differences in our respective world views.

Understandable, because I don't expect anyone who hasn't himself witnessed a child making very unchild-like and thoughtful remarks about life and death etc. to believe any of this based on what I say or reading about these cases or watching Youtube vids. I can understand the reluctance to accept something this immaterial and (based on a materialistic worldview) illogical, because I felt it myself for quite some time. I guess you have to experience it yourself.

 

[Randall]

Understood that you feel you have 'been through all that', and you dismiss it all.

You're missing some background. @Polterwurst and I have had discussions in the past that you weren't a part of, and understands what I meant. I also don't simply "dismiss it all" as you claim. If you check again, you'll see that what I actually said was, "That's not to say that I think it's impossible, only that I think it's premature to draw that conclusion without more definitive evidence." To make this more clear, I recognize that there is evidence that amounts to a partial picture, and I don't throw that picture out. But neither do I fill in the missing pieces with my own unsupported preconceptions.

Your prerogative, but for others - and that includes a lot of humanity for a lot of years - the evidence is compelling. In fact, it's beyond 'evidence' - it's personal experience. Perhaps for you it is 'premature' - but the world moves on whether we 'like' it or not. Personal testimony is compelling.

I've said many times that I believe that people do experience strange phenomena, and that I value personal experience. I've experienced Ψ phenomena myself. It's the interpretations of such experiences that I find are often based on personal preconceptions arising from some socio-religious background, rather than definitive evidence.

It is heartening to see you being polite - rather than hectoring.

It seems to me that your interpretation of my "hectoring" isn't usually based on what I'm actually saying or trying to get across, but on how it is filtered on your end, which from my perspective seems to involve the application on your end of false assumptions about my intent. Perhaps in the future, before you make assumptions about my intent, you might try asking questions that would help you avoid those pitfalls.

 

[Tyger]

No, actually I think he doesn't dismiss anything without at least looking at the evidence and processing it first, which is a lot more than you can expect from a debunker who just thinks "it can't be therefore it isn't". In our discussion about "cases suggestive of reincarnation", he's always been willing to look at the evidence I presented. We often agreed to disagree, that's for sure, but always respectfully and based on understandable differences in our respective world views.

Understandable, because I don't expect anyone who hasn't himself witnessed a child making very unchild-like and thoughtful remarks about life and death etc. to believe any of this based on what I say or reading about these cases or watching Youtube vids. I can understand the reluctance to accept something this immaterial and (based on a materialistic worldview) illogical, because I felt it myself for quite some time. I guess you have to experience it yourself.

As I say, I am heartened.

I, too, have had an extensive experience of the poster and his capacity for rude (and unkind) posting is considerable. At an earlier point in my presence on this site it was assumed I was a Christian Fundamentalist (for some reason) and the scale of hectoring was intense. I am not of that persuasion, though I think even someone who is would be entitled to courtesy instead of being told 'people of your ilk', etc. POVs that traced along the spiritual and 'mystical' (any alternate view - not materially based - could be labelled 'mystical' so it's unclear what is meant by the term when used by this particular poster) were routinely called 'woo' and dismissed out-of-hand as 'nonsense'. When called to task for such posting behavior, said poster would complain about being personally attacked. Double standard.

As I say I am heartened to hear that your experience has been positive. It has not been the case for some others on this site - I am not the only one to have observed the problem.

 

[Randall]

As I say, I am heartened.

I, too, have had an extensive experience of the poster and his capacity for rude (and unkind) posting is considerable. At an earlier point in my presence on this site it was assumed I was a Christian Fundamentalist (for some reason) and the scale of hectoring was intense. I am not of that persuasion, though I think even someone who is would be entitled to courtesy instead of being told 'people of your ilk', etc. POVs that traced along the spiritual and 'mystical' (any alternate view - not materially based - could be labelled 'mystical' so it's unclear what is meant by the term when used by this particular poster) were routinely called 'woo' and dismissed out-of-hand as 'nonsense'. When called to task for such posting behavior, said poster would complain about being personally attacked. Double standard.

As I say I am heartened to hear that your experience has been positive. It has not been the case for some others on this site - I am not the only one to have observed the problem.

I interject here because you are alluding to me and therefore have every right. I deny that I've asserted that you're a Christian fundamentalist, and I deny that I've been unkind. In fact, if you plug the phrase "Christian fundamentalist" into the search and check the box to search my posts you'll get zero results ( except perhaps this one now ). Your assumptions have been made on your own subject interpretive filter that despite my attempts to reconcile, appear to remain fixed. Why? What is the point of your continued slights? Your continued posts that reference me are more akin to sly Internet flaming and/or trolling than constructive, and quite frankly it's working because I'm getting sick and tired of having to contend with it. You have come in here from "far away place" ( according to your profile ) with an anonymous persona and are making unsupported and potentially damaging comments about my personality, I'll kindly ask you to please stop it before I start considering it to be libel.

 

[Tyger]

I interject here because you are alluding to me and therefore have every right. I deny that I've asserted that you're a Christian fundamentalist

Okay, not that phrase but you were close to that - you know enough not to go that far. You asserted I was 'of that ilk' - and religions were the counter-topic to anything 'spiritual'. The religious hectoring was intense. It's there for anyone to see on some very early threads in the summer and fall. You will also see how unfailingly pleasant and reasonable I was in the face of all that. I stand by what I have said.

and I deny that I've been unkind.

You most assuredly have been - I have watched you be so to others - and you have refused to apologize when it has been brought to your attention. Your disenchantment stems from that point when I basically told you that you had crossed a line. No one else on this site will do that. I did.

In fact, if you plug the phrase "Christian fundamentalist" into the search and check the box to search my posts you'll get zero results ( except perhaps this one now ).

Correct - perhaps you did not use the phrase - rather 'of that ilk' was the phrase being bandied about, along with a lot of religion-bashing and bashing of those who are religious, etc.

Your assumptions have been made on your own subject interpretive filter that despite my attempts to reconcile, appear to remain fixed. Why?

Experience of your posting over the course of 6 months.

What is the point of your continued slights?

I've lost my patience with you. After you forbade any mention of the 'spiritual' and 'mystical' on 'your' thread - a new thread was started where such would be 'allowed' and (inexplicably) you came onto the new thread to continue making non-starter comments about the same'ol'same'ol objections to 'spiritual' and 'mystical'. Bookmark this example of behavior, please, for the below.

Your continued posts that reference me are more akin to than constructive

Please note the bookmark above. Especially when you started to make 'lunatic' comments - and expressed surprise at the offense taken by a couple of posters and refused to apologize.

and quite frankly it's working because I'm getting sick and tired of having to contend with it.

Good. So now you know what your behavior feels like.

Why did you take some of my text from one thread and post it onto another thread in November, for one example? I just found out about it over the holidays. I had no knowledge that my text had been placed onto another thread - and it was on a thread that had nothing whatever to do with my post's context. What kind of internet behavior would you call that? I'd be interested to know.

You have come in here from "far away place" ( according to your profile ) with an anonymous persona and are making unsupported and potentially damaging comments about my personality

The only 'personality' you have here is your 'texting personality'.

I'll kindly ask you to please stop it before I start considering it to be libel.

Threat. I've seen you do this before with two other posters who dared call you out on what you were doing in a conversation. I understand that you want to be free of all past negatives and sally forth unfettered. Okay. Fair enough. I would feel the same way - but then, I am also able to apologize when feelings are hurt and I can abide by requests when asked. You want no 'spiritual' or 'mystical' to be discussed on 'your' thread? Okay. I left 'your' thread. You don't want me to bring up the past again? Okay. Done.

I will also say that I am not one who enjoys the sense of getting the better of someone, or causing them discomfort. It bothers me - and I do apologize if I have caused either condition with you. . However, I cease from this moment.

 

[Tyger]

It will be interesting to see what is done because I made a request to Gene, too, at one point. Regarding the below.

Why did you take some of my text from one thread and post it onto another thread in November, for one example? I just found out about it over the holidays. I had no knowledge that my text had been placed onto another thread - and it was on a thread that had nothing whatever to do with my post's context. What kind of internet behavior would you call that?

You did not answer my question: what is your opinion of your behavior regarding taking some of my text and posting it on another thread? Without my knowledge or consent? Posting it to a thread that had nothing to do with my text, even. Do you have an answer? An explanation?

Also, I have already apologized for any discomfort I many have caused to you and said that I will cease to mention the past. That said - you threaten again. Argument made.

 

[Randall]

It will be interesting to see what is done because I made a request to Gene, too, at one point. Regarding the below ...

I'm don't find this so serious that I need to bother Gene personally with it; at least not at this point. There is a protocol to follow, starting with my requests for you to keep the commentary on topic and less personal, then to stop with your slights on my character, and then to alert a moderator. Gene is the owner and I doubt I'll need to approach him directly. In the meantime, if you absolutely feel compelled to continue with your criticism of my personality, I'll invite you to do so in private rather than in the open forum. This isn't the place to hash out your personal grievances with me.

 

[Tyger]

So you back off - but you still have not answered my question regarding the movement of my text to another thread where you proceeded to respond to my text on that other thread. How is it okay for you to do that without either asking me if I was okay with that, or telling me about it?

 

[Polterwurst]

The combat. The courage. The silly misunderstandings and wounded egos.

 

[Oakenwulf]

My question is, for those who died and came back, I'm very interested to know if they experienced the first physical symptoms of death, such as releasing of the bladder or bowels, etc and how far can one go before returning to body ( measurement of time away from the body), seems like many are very good at returning when they need to or "pushed back", I remember when I died.. wait....nevermind..

 

[Polterwurst]

Hey. That must be why babies poo in their pants all the...aaah, wait. Nevermind indeed.

 

[Oakenwulf]

I'm not changing those diapers

 

[Tyger]

My question is, for those who died and came back, I'm very interested to know if they experienced the first physical symptoms of death, such as releasing of the bladder or bowels, etc and how far can one go before returning to body ( measurement of time away from the body), seems like many are very good at returning when they need to or "pushed back", I remember when I died.. wait....nevermind..

It's possible you don't expect an answer but I will supply one. In the Tibetan Book of the Dead and other 'manuals' for the death process, the experience of death is laid out. This would be for someone who is having a death in bed 'normally'. [Childhood prayer:'....from death in battle and from sudden death, dear Lord deliver us.'] The cells begin 'winking out' beginning at the extremities [experience of 'oceans' - dying is thirsty]. By the time the death process has reached the head (in a sense), nothing is being 'felt' in the body in general.

Anyone who has sat with a conscious dying person in the hours leading up to the crossing-over sees the dying person's gaze become unfocused and highly mobile - similar to the gaze of a new-born. They are actually seeing into the 'spiritual world' - they are being greeted (by various beings - some known to the dying), being prepared, for the final 'letting go' - until the 'silver chord' (like the physical umbilical so long ago at birth but now the 'silver chord' connecting the astral/ego body to the physical/etheric) is severed.

When this occurs in most cultures the body is ritually washed and laid out for three days (hopefully, no embalming, no manhandling of the body beyond the washing and laying out). During these three days the life body (that coheres the physical) is dissipating into the etheric realm (the physical body takes longer to dissipate into the physical realm). The deceased person (conscious but now wholly 'in spirit' - again inadequate words but they will do for here) is experiencing their life in reverse over the course of those three days. After the three days the life body that held the person's 'template' for physical existence is no more, and the person lives from the astral realm for a duration that is 1/3 of the physical life span. (Die at 60, time spent in this astral realm is 20 years).

To answer your question: physical - and irreversible - death occurs once the 'silver chord' is severed. It is not a matter of 'time away' and the body will get 'cold'. As long as the etheric body infuses the physical body, said body will remain intact. There is something the medical profession calls a 'beating heart cadaver' - for the purposes of organ harvesting. Here we have a significant intrusion into the death process.

All of this is from a particular way of looking at the world, and a particular experience. For those with 'second sight' in the room of a dying person, it is a crowded - and jubilant - scene on the subtle levels, for the dying person is literally being 'born' back into the spiritual world - and a party is going on.

 

[Tyger]

My question is, for those who died and came back, I'm very interested to know if they experienced the first physical symptoms of death, such as releasing of the bladder or bowels, etc and how far can one go before returning to body ( measurement of time away from the body), seems like many are very good at returning when they need to or "pushed back", I remember when I died.. wait....nevermind..

Care to share?

 

[boomerang]

So many believe. No one knows.