Reading this book at the moment:
and⌠LOVING it
saw a common line with a recent sharing:
Common factor in Rupert Sheldrakeâs comment that to understand three-dimensional, we collapse it into two or one dimension â in a graph, image, video call, or video. And with Bernardo Kastrup who mentions that âitâs not true but it worksâ, referring to the way we can do computational programming and understand somehow how some things can work.
The author of this book (Life after Life) captured a person who had a near-death experience saying, âI have a huge problem trying to tell you this, because all the words I know are three-dimensional. (âŚ) our world â the one we live in now â is three-dimensional, but the next one is certainly not. Thatâs why itâs so hard to tell. (âŚ) I canât really give you the full picture.â
Another very interesting passage:
âThe facts reported by thAse who came close to death are outside our common experience, and therefore it is to be expected that they will have some linguistic difficulties in expressing what happened to them. These people uniformly characterize their experiences as ineffable, that is, âinexpressible.â
Makes me question:
What if we lucid dream, experience astral projections, or take psychedelics?
And understand better why these practices are such a great preparation for death.