Hacking the Afterlife with Carl Jung, Krishnamurti and Bill Paxton

Proof of concept.

For flipside fans, this won't be too hard to digest. For those who are unfamiliar with the term, this may be the hardest to consider.

Some months ago - perhaps a year - Jennifer and I were conducting a "class" - well, Luana Anders conducts the class, Jennifer and I just show up to interview folks in the class.  And during this interaction she said "Carl Jung is here." (HackingTheAfterlife Podcast)

I may have said "do you mean Carl Sagan?" because we had chatted with him before. 

But she said "No, Carl Jung."  

Carl Jung. Biography.com

We were interviewing someone else at the time, so I put him in the back of my mind as someone to interview in the future. After all, if he took the time to show up in our class, and identify himself (I couldn't pick him out of a lineup, so for her to do so, is uncanny) I should at least ask him why.

JenniferShaffer.com

Jennifer is a medium who works with law enforcement agencies nationwide on missing person cases. She's helped Bill Bratton with a case (ask him about it) and has helped others nationwide.  I've been working with her for over five years and know how accurate she is and can be.

Prior to our sessions, I often "say the name aloud" of the person I'd like to speak with.  So I did that in this clip - said his name aloud - used the "Greenwich Mean Time" clock (on the right side of this page) to indicate when the name was evoked - and then began to tape the session.  I'm in an apartment building upstairs - sometimes too many folks are on the wifi at the same time, so apologies for the intermittent cutting out of my voice - but her voice is not interrupted.

Prior to the session I did some casual research into the fellow. I have a friend familiar with his work (David Kirkpatrick, thanks) who supplied me with a couple of questions, because oddly enough that morning he was referencing him - and I said "If you had a couple of questions, what would they be?" He supplied the "Why didn't you go to Rome?" and "Why didn't you meditate or do a hypnosis session?" questions.

Here's the Wikipedia page where I gathered some of the details - the "soul stone" for example.  When I read that I can only think of the many filmed interviews I've done with people under hypnosis ("Flipside" to "Hacking the Afterlife" - "Architecture of the Afterlife" includes about 50 of people not under hypnosis.)  In those cases, when a child does something as odd as Carl did - making a totem of a native culture - I assume it's related to a past life memory.

Carl Jung; Wikipedia

In terms of his mother, Emilie, indeed, he reported that she "spoke to spirits."  He's also the person who created the concept of "Collective unconscious" as well as the term "Archetypes."  

Which brings us to point two.  Bill Paxton and I were friends many years ago, we stayed in touch over the decades, but his career skyrocketed while mine floundered.  When he passed away, I did a series of interviews with him ("Talking to Bill Paxton" on Gaia) via three different mediums.  So when I was referencing that "we have friends in this class who lived in Ojai" - while interviewing Krishnamurti, I was referring specifically to him.

One of Ojai's famous residents

I didn't ask for him in this interview - but was referring to him when I said that.

Jiddu Krishnamurti

So I wasn't surprised when she said his name - but I was surprised when he said "Ask him about archetypes."  I did not know that he had created the term until I read it that morning - and here was my old pal referencing something that I had not written down (I had written down "synchronicity" and "collective unconscious") - but here was someone asking a question from the flipside to someone we are interviewing.

Jennifer is not an expert on Carl Jung - as she freely admits on camera. She had no idea that Carl had invented the term.  But Bill did. And he is the one who asked the question. Here's the video:





This morning, former studio exec turned author David Kirkpatrick wrote to me to thank me for sharing the video with him. I wrote back: 

"Thanks for the questions. I tried to focus on the things that relate to this research (his "soul stone" sounded like a past life memory) his mother seeing spirits - Bill saying "ask about archetypes" is "new information."  

Jennifer never studied Jung (formerly a financial analyst in Manhattan beach) I had just read in the wiki entry that Carl invented the term. 

Bill literally raised a point only he could raise. Asked Carl his own question.  (Not mine. Not from Jennifer.) It's mind bending and proof of concept. I mean... am I missing something?  Is this not proof of the afterlife?  

Jennifer doesn't know anything about Carl.. and yet recognizes him. Doesn't know about archetypes yet repeats a question from an actor she met "in class." Proof life goes on. Full stop. 

Those whose path doesn't include this knowledge will not see it. Will assume we "cheated" or she "read my mind."  But she asked things not in my mind. She repeated answers I could not invent. Welcome to my world."

Indeed. Proof that life goes on. Proof of concept. Proof of the flipside. Proof of heaven (although everyone calls it "home" instead). Proof of being able to "Hack the afterlife."  I could go on... I frequently do.  But in this era when our friends are falling around us like flies, it's important to report that life goes on. They know it. We just aren't privy to that same information. Our loss.



Post script:

Some wag wrote on the MartiniZone page: "Why did you have to give her so many clues as to the identity of the man?   Totally unconvincing."

To which I replied: "Well, since this is the first time you've seen us work together, or have watched any of our videos, you wouldn't know that I've done this for five years with her. 

Sometimes she gets it immediately (as reported in "Backstage Pass to the Flipside" books) sometimes it takes three or four guesses.  It's not a contest. 

I'm not trying to prove that she can do this kind of work - I've been doing that for over five years now.  I had her for 45 minutes. The clues I gave her were "he's shown up in our class before" she picked Einstein. Instead of saying "No" I said "of that era."  She's not scanning my mind - or scanning her knowledge of Carl - she's asking the class "Why are you showing me Albert?" And then she said "Carl Jung."  (I just now remember that it WAS Albert we were interviewing when he showed up in the classroom - asking him about turning salt to fresh water for pennies, or how to create energy from non carbon sources.  The image of who we were interviewing popped into her mind - and from there came the answer.)

I'm sorry if this is the first time you've watched us do this. I'd say "watch the other 20 clips here" or "read the three books where I provide transcripts" or "watch "Talking to Bill Paxton" on Gaia.  

Or watch the clip on here called "Talking to Paul Allen, Junior Seau and Dave Duerson."  





In this clip - live - I asked for three people to assist us - and she named them in a row, one after the other.  (John Lennon because I'm a friend of his son, Steve Jobs because we'd interviewed him previously, and Anthony Bourdain because I assumed they met. She names them live on camera - one after the other in a row.) 

Again - I'm not trying to prove anything to someone who did not sign up for a lifetime to know how the play ends. It's pointless.  

As Harry Dean Stanton told us "Tell people to believe in the possibility of an afterlife then they won't waste any more of their time arguing about it like I did."  Once there is the possibility - then one can focus on what the content is. And that is a conversation about his mother, about his soul stone, and my old friend Bill Paxton reminding me to ask him about archetypes.  

Not my idea - not Jennifer's idea. Bill's idea.  

So thanks for the comment so that I could report that this is just one of many many many interviews we've done.  People can read them, view them, discuss them at their own leisure - eventually we all get to a point where we realize how much time we wasted arguing about something that was possible."

My two cents.

Slices of Time and Stephen Hawking

From Wired Magazine - the Nebula where the black home exists. Note the dot at the center.  Reportedly, the black hole of recent photos.

So the other day I was talking to Stephen Hawking...

And he said that he could access time like "floppy disks."

Let's break this down for a moment.  I have been speaking to a number of people on the Flipside via Jennifer Shaffer, and in "Backstage Pass to the Flipside: Talking to the Afterlife" we had a conversation with Mr. Hawking just after he departed.

I asked him if he had seen a black hole since his departure and he said he had, that he had learned what it really was, but that it is more complex than he thought it was.  In subsequent follow up conversations, he allowed that the word "portal" would apply to a black hole, but not in the way we think of the word, as in "window."

Jennifer said that she could "see the location of the black hole" that it was not in the center of our universe (I asked) but that it was the larger one where "most of the matter is going through."

(For fans of "Flipside: A Tourist's Guide on How to Navigate the Afterlife" I had an out of body experience of going through a black hole.  I was so enchanted by it that I actually reached out to Hawking to describe it to him - but as of yet haven't asked whether he ever got my email. But I digress.)

According to what Stephen is "telling us" there is matter that moves from our universe to other universes via black holes.  "It's the source of the majority of dark matter as it moves through the hole or holes to create other universes."

Portal. According to Stephen.

Which begat a follow up question for scientists on the flipside - "What is dark matter and/or dark energy?" and I asked Jennifer to line up a "Panel of Flipside All Stars" who might know the answer to the question.

The All Stars include Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking and Nikola Tesla. (I wrote a script about Tesla in the 80's, am familiar with his engineering background, and asked him to "show up for the conversation.")

Nikola

I know how odd this odds. ("Really? Do you Richard?")  But as a construct, it's been effective.  If one takes the time to look at the responses that we get, they'll find that many are accurate, contain new information that can't be ascribed to my mind, to Jennifer's mind, or any other method of understanding how we got the answers we did.

The results of this line of questioning to our "Panel of All Stars" were kind of astounding - no other way to put it. Albert gave us visual references to explain it, Carl Sagan made it more accessible using metaphor, Tesla gave us an understanding that was electromagnetic in nature, and Stephen gave us an actual formula.

A formula!  Indeed.

One that I have written down, and then looked up - and while it doesn't exist anywhere online that I could find, portions of the formula did exist on physics websites.  That alone gave me pause - Stephen Hawking giving Jennifer Shaffer a formula - which she repeated to me, which I filmed and wrote down.

At the moment I have some calls out to people who might be able to connect me with someone who knows physics, or a scientist who could understand this formula... because after all IT'S THE FORMULA FOR DARK MATTER.

I know how insane this sounds ("Really Rich? Do you?").  But it's just what we've been doing. Asking questions and then filming the answers.  Not all of them are going to be 100% accurate - there is the matter of translation involved - they're projecting a signal that taps into an image or sound or feeling in Jennifer's mind or field of awareness, and she tries to describe it using syntax and words and language.  An imprecise science to be sure, but it's what we've been doing.

For example, in one of the replies, she said "I'm seeing things being pulled."  I said "Do you mean a gravitational pull?" She tapped her nose, which is their way of saying to her "Correct." (As she puts it, they only do that when I'm asking questions, so it's not something she had ever thought to see or do in the past - they do it for her when I hit the nail on the head.) I knew that the way they discovered dark matter was because of its gravitational properties ("Dark" meaning "not understood" and "not visible" rather than "light.")

I said "They're showing you that dark matter has gravitational qualities?"  Another tap of the nose.  I say "Well, that's accurate in terms of science" and she made a face and said "I don't know that!"  Of course Jennifer on the planet doesn't know that. But Jennifer the medium just said it on behalf of someone who would know that.

So on to slices of time.

The other day Stephen showed up - as he always does, looking about 27, standing, in a suit.  A professor showing up to share knowledge.  In this case, I had a question for him about time.

The other night, Hank Azaria was on Colbert talking about the time that Hawking had appeared on The Simpsons.  Hank told a hilarious story, and I asked Hawking a question based on that story. 

I said "Hank Azaria was on Colbert the other night, and told a story about you.  He said that while they were at the table read, waiting for you to appear to do the show, Harry Shearer, who does a number of voices on the show, said something funny about you.  Are you aware of what it was?"

Jennifer said "That he has no concept of time."




BOOM! That is exactly what Shearer said. "The man has no concept of time." He said it as a joke, dryly, without looking up from his script. 

Because cast and crew had been waiting a half hour for him to arrive, all in anticipation of this superstar.  On Colbert, Hank said it was the funniest line he'd ever heard anyone say, and I laughed aloud when I heard it.  

But Jennifer had not heard it, and more importantly NEITHER HAD HAWKING.

Because he wasn't in the room when it was said.  He may have heard it afterwards, he may have heard it as a joke later - he may have even heard someone tell him that Harry said it. Maybe even Harry told him.  I don't know. 


But Hawking could not know what Azaria witnessed - nor could Jennifer.  There are some who would claim that somehow Jennifer is "reading my mind" but then that implies accessing consciousness outside the brain, so first they'd have to admit that to be the case before making that argument.

Yes, consciousness does exist outside the brain, (according to scientist Bruce Greyson) but I asked a follow up question for my own edification.

I said "So how are you aware of this Stephen?  You weren't there, you were not in the room - did someone tell it to you later, or did you somehow hear about it at another date?" He said to Jennifer that he had "accessed the time frame."

I asked him how he did that.  He said "Time is like floppy disks." Jennifer said "He's showing me those old floppy disks people use to use, and he says "It's all numbers."

A slice of an earlier time let's say.

So let's unpack this for a moment, shall we?

Some years ago I passed a restaurant that had been closed since the quake of '94, but as I passed it, I suddenly "heard" the sound of people in the restaurant, and flashed on a moment I had in that restaurant decades ago, having breakfast with my friend Luana Anders (who is our guide on the flipside, who helps facilitate these meetings with people over there, including with Stephen.)  In that brief moment, I experienced a slice of time - as it had been years earlier.

(Which is like the time my wife was walking in Washington Heights in Manhattan and turned the corner to see a large outdoor gathering of people dressed in 18th century costumes having a dance; that is until they disappeared and she realized they didn't exist.) 

Or the program that Arthur C Clarke did on "the unexplained" he detailed stories of people who visited Versailles and claimed to see "People in wigs walking around" or those who've been to Gettysburg and claim to see "troops dressed in uniforms marching." It's as if these people are accessing "slices of time." 



In the "Holographic Universe" by Michael Talbot, he argues that everything in the universe is holographic in nature. In that if you examine something from the perspective of time, one can see other aspects of it. I've found this to be the case in my research - by merely asking people simple questions about a memory they once had, I've found they can access all kinds of information, including who else was there to witness the event, why experienced the event, if anyone at the event has had a previous lifetime with them, what that lifetime was like, what their guides look like and what they might want to impart to the person I'm speaking with. 

If I did it one time, it could be chalked up to someone's imagination, but I've done it many times - and the people who've never met, never read my books, have no access to flipside discussions or conversations, are suddenly "speaking to their guides" and hearing the same answers they all give. 

One of the oddest questions I ask ("Really Rich? You? Ask odd questions?") is when I'm "visiting a council." "Can I ask you, council person, have you ever heard of me, or what I'm doing?" And often I get the answer "Yeah, you're the guy who goes around asking councils questions." 

Sometimes it's with a person who has no idea why they respond in that fashion, sometimes, a council member will say "No, I have not heard of you" - but generally, even among different members of the same council, some of heard of this method of "asking questions" and some have not. 

I guess there are water coolers on the flipside to have these kinds of discussions. But back to slices of time. If what he's saying is accurate, then any slice of time is numbers. And if that's the case, then we only need to find a method to decode those numbers to recall experiences that occurred before. 

When people are under deep hypnosis, they get to access these "floppy disks" - when people visit "Akashic libraries" they too are accessing the same disks. (I don't use the word Akashic normally, as it's just Sanskrit for "library" despite what new age folks like to say about it. Channeling the Akashic records is literally visiting someone's library.) What I've learned in visiting a few libraries is that no two are the same, the library itself reveals itself to the person who is viewing it based on their subjective reality (like everything in life apparently) and that each person sees different aspects of their own "library." 

The word LIBRARY is consistent - but the objects within it are not. Some see video screens, some see stacks of books, some see microfiche. But when they access these files, they do report it's the "history of a person" or of themselves. And in this particular instance, Mr. Hawking has identified them as "numbers." 

A very complex form of math. 

Slice of time Lawrence of Arabia

But when it comes to coding the future - or having computers change our future - I think people have it backwards. Computers can't decode the past - we can do that, but we have filters that prevent us from doing so. 

If we can disrupt those filters - either via a near death event, a drug, deep hypnosis, or some other method, we can access this information. (For examples of people doing so, I recommend the IANDS website). 

Our experience is tailored to our path and journey, so it won't be like peering into someone else's journey - we do have free will, and disrupting someone else's path (or people on another planet's path) appears to be something that we cannot do, be we can alter our own path and journey by accessing these moments in the past and seeing that we chose them to learn lessons from them. 

By observing the past, we change the present and alter our future. Eventually people will realize that the object isn't to make computers sentient - it's to realize that all living things are sentient, but we have filters in place that prevent us from understanding that. These filters and limiters, like those in a stereo, prevent us from accessing universal information, or even being aware of this information. 

Slice of time Marilyn and Mom

Not the mundane coded intel inside a computer that is keyed in or posted by partisans - (those in charge of what information is uploaded, or ignored)  but the raw intel of the universe - the intelligence one student filmmaker at USC called "the force" or what a professor in Vienna dubbed the "universal unconscious." 

Carl Jung was half right on this score; it's universal all right, permeates everything like the dark energy/matter that is a vehicle for it. (Another thing that Hawking answered; "Would you consider dark matter and energy to be "source?" To which after a long pause, Jennifer said "Yes.") 

Call it Source or The Force, but you tap into it the moment the filters stop functioning. Could be a near death event, deep hypnosis, obe, drugs (or "death") but the advancement in science will come when people learn how to unlock those filters/limiters. Not "code the game" but decoding the filters that keep us from the actual source. 


One final note on slices of time. Was watching a video of some Lakota warriors the other day, and it reminded me of one of my own past life experiences, remembering that lifetime when I walked among those proud people. We tend to think we are separated by time and space. It appears memory is holographic and time is merely numbers held in space by thought. 

If you can decode these numbers a person can relive any moment, explore any previous lifetime. Something foreign like this Lakota song of liberation becomes familiar, the earth opens itself up to memories of sensations, people, events. 

Wakan tanka - dark energy - source - the force - permeates all. 

People and events are not gone. They're just not here.  

Memories, Dreams and Reflections

"Our age has shifted all emphasis to the here and now, and thus brought about a daemonization of man and his world. The phenomenon of dictators and all the misery they have wrought springs from the fact that man has been robbed of transcendence by the shortsightedness of the super-intellectuals. Like them, he has fallen a victim to unconsciousness. But man's task is the exact opposite: to become conscious of the contents that press upward from the unconscious. Neither should he persist in his unconsciousness, nor remain identical with the unconscious elements of his being, thus evading his destiny, which is to create more and more consciousness. As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being. It may even be assumed that just as the unconscious affects us, so the increase in our consciousness affects the unconscious."  Carl Jung "Memories, Dreams and Reflections."

Carl Jung notes that "Man's task is.. to become conscious of the contents that press upward from the unconscious."

He also notes that man's "destiny.. is to create more... consciousness."

Perhaps.

Then on the other hand, perhaps consciousness isn't created solely in the brain, but is experienced by the brain.  That part of experiencing consciousness is reconnecting to who we are - and more importantly - who we once were. 

As I delve into accessing information from the Flipside - the journey I've mapped out for myself in the next book "Hacking the Afterlife" - I find that the more I delve into the idea that consciousness is not only created by the brain - but that it requires access to the "motherboard" - not the idea of a vast "collective unconscious" that Jung suggested - but individual consciousness of each person, that resides back in the mainframe of the computer, and is accessible when we are "outside of our physical bodies" - whatever that implies.

People who've had near death experiences, out of body experiences, under deep hypnosis, sometimes during a drug induced adventure - people are able to "shut off" the filters in the brain that keep us from accessing this information on a daily basis, and allow us to glimpse the nature of things.  That being that each one of us has a vast library of previous experiences, lifetimes to draw from - and that library exists between lives.

But as they say; the veil is thinning.  

As if the mechanical nature of the filters seems to be easing up, or the energetic construction of the filters seems to be adjusting to allow us more access to this point of view, or information.

How can accessing this information improve my life?

That's ultimately the point of understanding the nature of existence - not to realize that "all is relative" and that "I only exist relatively" (even though that appears to be accurate) but finding a way to process this new information about the nature of our existence so it allows us to enjoy and take advantage of what we're experiencing on a day to day basis.

One profound way that it can affect a person is to realize that what appear to be obstacles, setbacks and trauma, may have some genesis in the between lives realm.  Not in terms of "karma" - but in terms of "what kind of puzzle or task can I design for myself that will help me to overcome this issue?" 

If every task, obstacle or steback becomes an "apparent lesson" - then we can see them for what they really are.  Stumbling blocks that allow us to learn lessons by overcoming them.  The dark stone in your path turns out to be the glowing light of understanding once you've accomplished going through it.

What's that got to do with Presidential politics?

Well, imagine for a moment that each person that is running for office represents some part of the human experience.  Vanity, compassion, negativity, wisdom, etc.  And then imagine that whomever is running for office at this particular time is someone who helps people to examine these human characteristics.  Either to fight for their point of view, or to understand through compassion that they need to support someone who is aligned with their own beliefs and life experience.

Hard to imagine that whatever happens on the planet, is part of the learning experience we all go through.  Like classes in college, or a giant university, each one of us learns from setbacks, failures, or learns that working harder brings positive results.  One can only hope that is the case.

My two cents.