Question popped up on Quora today - with regard to why God would let people choose the lifetimes they've chosen, or if that was possible...
My answer, based on the flipside research:
"I suggest opening up the idea of what or who God is. Not a person, entity or programmer per se - but it shows up in the research as this: I brought a skeptic to a session to film a past life regression/between life session (with a Newton Institute trained hypnotherapist.)
On the way there I asked if she had any questions to ask if she met one of her guides: she said “I’m a skeptic. I’m an atheist. I don’t believe in any afterlife, I don’t believe anything you’ve told me about the research, I don’t believe in guides.” I said “So why are we doing this?” She said “I’m having surgery on my ovary, and the doctor said it would be a good idea because it will help me to relax.”
We got to Scott’s office (lightbetweenlives.com) and I handed over a couple of her questions; “What or who is god?” was the one she decided to “ask in case she got somewhere” even though she didn’t believe she’d go anywhere. I didn’t tell him she was a skeptic - I didn’t tell him anything, just set up the tripod and put the camera on it.
In 15 minutes we were in Arizona in 1820 and she was recalling the lifetime of this rancher (details I was able to historically verify) and what a cranky fellow he was. She had a wild session (It’s in “It’s a Wonderful Afterlife”) and then she met her guide in her Akashic library. (Akashic means "invisible" "energy" or "etheric" in Sanskrit) And the librarian said “I'm busy, but I’ll answer whatever questions you have.”
So Scott repeated her question.
 |
Michael Newton - one of the hypnotherapist
who trained Scott De Tamble |
The guide (speaking through her - she’s saying “He seems like he’s busy and can’t be bothered, but he says he’ll answer my questions.”) He said in reply “God is beyond the capacity of the human brain to comprehend, it’s not physically possible to comprehend.”
I thought that was the end of it - he was literally ducking the question. He didn’t use any gender or objective pov - just said “God is beyond anyone’s capacity - because it’s not physically possible for the human brain to comprehend what that means.”
But he continued;
“However, you can experience God by opening your heart to everyone and all things.”
Now I knew the person saying this was not a Buddhist, or religious - she remains a jaded skeptic of a Hollywood film producer, responsible for behind the scenes production on some big blockbuster films. To this day she doesn’t remember saying it - and that’s why I’m glad to bring a camera. Because I recorded her saying it.
Look at the sentence.
No reference to a being or person. No reference to a creator or creators - just a reference to an experience. And if we want to experience that experience - have that epiphany or that apotheosis - we can.
But to do so we have to do something literally impossible for humans to do.
Some do it with pets. Some do it with family members. Open their hearts in such a way that it constitutes “unconditional love.” Opening your heart to someone is literally that construct. No conditions on that love. Open heart to everyone.
But he added something interesting - and I’ve thought a lot about it since then. Not just “open your hear to everyone” - which could be heard on a pulpit (even when they don’t mean it - because it implies opening up hearts to people they fear or dislike or don’t agree with) - he said “open your heart to everyone and all things.”
So start there.
What does it mean to “open your heart to a thing?” Why would anyone suggest that “opening one’s heart” to an object - a table, a chair, a keyboard - this monitor - a plant, a blade of grass… how could that be an experience of God?Because by becoming aware of how consciousness functions - how incarnation works - we get the awareness of the idea that quantum entanglement exists not only between objects created in the same space - but between all objects, all things, all people.
And that “holding of space” that atoms do - agreeing to hold space in a piece of wood, concrete, earth - those atoms are all there agreeing to occupy that space… and our awareness that we are connected to all things is like turning on a massive light that illuminates every drop of water in the ocean.
So the idea of “god” punishing, doling out warrants, judging people - isn’t in the research.
What is in the research is that people who claim to have an experience of “god” or being near “god” or being near someone who has more source energy than most - someone who embodies “unconditional love” - they are consistent in their reports of having an experience of “unconditional love.”
So in essence - in the sentence, this librarian on the flipside, via this jaded skeptic of a Hollywood film producer, has revealed that the “path to God” is not only good works, not only being kind or generous or compassionate - but the path to “knowing god” or “experiencing god” is by way of “opening their hearts to everyone AND ALL THINGS.” (Italics and caps added for emphasis.)
Easy to say but next to impossible to do on this planet of negative/positive, yin/yang, dark/light experiences - because opening our heart to all of them means that we love them all equally, embrace them all equally, and share that connectivity.
This is one of those answers that seems to be beyond sense - or all over the map, but inside of it is the “flipside code” as I call the subtitle for “Architecture of the Afterlife.”
It may offend those with a vested interest in a person, object or thing that they deify - but within the answer is the observation that we are all part of that thing we deify, we are all part of that wisdom and compassion, we are all part of the journey - all beings just walking each other home.
We do choose to come here - and the reasons are often based on multiple lifetimes, on knowing the person who asked us to show up over many lifetimes, on reasons that are beyond our stage persona’s ability to contemplate, but completely make sense to our higher self - the rest of our conscious energy sitting in the theater - applauding.
By the way, check out Dr. Greyson's book “After” as an example of how a scientist approaches data that doesn't fit the paradigm. Because its hard to comprehend doesn't mean we shouldn't examine. As he quotes social scientist Raymond Wolfinger: “The plural of anecdote is data.” (Pg 61 “After")
My two cents.
