I confess to being unable to finish "Vision." While the core of the experience seems to have been an accurate account of a genuine NDE, the bulk of the story seems highly embellished with superstition and religious dogma. Maybe I should skip the depiction of Hell and see what else is there.
It did remind me of a book that I'm currently reading: "The Astral City," by Chico Xavier. Despite the book's acclaim, I'm not sure that I accept it as a valid channeled document. Still, the existence of a hellish astral level, a nether world, is universally documented in NDE accounts and Spiritualistic works, including a fair number of OOBE accounts (such as Robert Monroe's). It's very possible that memories of this realm persist in the human consciousness, and exposure to it may well explain the phenomena of negative or "distressing" NDEs.
So while I am a skeptic, I am not a critic. I have no doubt--from vivid personal experience as well as extensive reading--that the realms that Dr. Alexander and others describe, actually exist. Unfortunately, we have no vocabulary to frame the description of such realms except in archaic and distorted religious imagery. I also believe that there is some sort of "universal law" that operates in what Seth calls our camouflage reality. But again, we lack the symbolic vocabulary to describe it. What we label as "good" and "evil" seems instead to be oversimplifications of an infinitely complex series of non-physical connections that form the perceptions of our experiences. Who the First Cause is of such a system--and who continues to drive it--is both invisible and beyond our capacity to understand. Perhaps this is Dr. Alexander's ultimate scientific heresy. Science insists that we measure and explain the objective world as it is, without reference to a "higher" source. Science has only recently begrudgingly admitted that the world that we perceive may well be camouflage, created continuously through the act of individual perception. Dr. Alexander asks the simple question, "Who, or what, creates the perceiver?"
No comments:
Post a Comment