Episode 6
Beyond Materialism: Science and The Mystery of Existence
Tracking Wisdom
Episode 6
Beyond Materialism: Science and The Mystery of Existence
Recorded - 10/03/22
DESCRIPTION
This episode presents a compelling dialogue on the interplay between scientific inquiry and Buddhist philosophy, particularly focusing on the concept of rebirth as articulated by Dr. Grant Grenville. The speakers, Speaker A and Speaker B, engage in a thoughtful discussion that juxtaposes belief in rebirth with skepticism, thereby illuminating the complexities surrounding this topic. The conversation begins with a reflection on Grenville's work, which posits that scientific methods can be applied to the understanding of rebirth, thus challenging the traditional exclusion of such metaphysical concepts from scientific discourse. Speaker A expresses a personal belief in rebirth, while Speaker B provides a critical perspective that encourages a deeper examination of the implications of such beliefs.
Throughout the episode, the speakers explore the historical context of scientific inquiry, noting how classical science has often dismissed metaphysical inquiries in favor of observable phenomena. This exclusion has significant ramifications for our understanding of consciousness and existence, leading the speakers to advocate for a more inclusive scientific approach that accommodates metaphysical considerations. The discussion emphasizes the potential for modern science to expand its boundaries, inviting listeners to reflect on how concepts like rebirth could be integrated into mainstream scientific thought.
As the conversation progresses, the speakers delve into the philosophical ramifications of rebirth, encouraging a critical examination of how personal beliefs intersect with scientific inquiry. They challenge listeners to reconsider their assumptions about the nature of existence, urging an open-minded approach to the exploration of consciousness. This episode serves as not only an academic discourse but also a personal exploration of beliefs that resonate with the human experience, positioning the dialogue as both intellectually stimulating and deeply relatable. By advocating for the acceptance of metaphysical inquiries within scientific frameworks, the speakers foster a richer, more nuanced understanding of life, death, and the possibility of rebirth.
Takeaways:
- The podcast discusses the intersection of modern science and Buddhism, particularly the concept of rebirth and reincarnation.
- Critical analysis highlights the historical divide between classical and modern science regarding observable phenomena and metaphysical concepts.
- Listeners are encouraged to consider the implications of quantum physics on traditional views of existence and consciousness.
- The episode examines anecdotal evidence surrounding near-death experiences, raising questions about the continuity of consciousness after death.
- We reflect on the challenges faced by individuals and institutions in accepting metaphysical ideas within the scientific framework.
- The discussion emphasizes the need for open dialogue between science and spirituality, suggesting that both realms can inform and enrich one another.
Episode Resources
- Scientific Acceptability of Rebirth - Based on a research paper presented at the Annual Sessions of The Sri Lanka Association for The Advancement of Science.
If this content has been meaningful or entertaining for you,
consider showing your support to help make this content possible.
Review us on Podchaser
We are grateful for your gifts.
Have a discussion topic idea or show feedback? Use the Suggestion Box link below!
Social Media:
License: Unless otherwise noted, all excerpts of copyright material not owned by ETH Studio are used under the Fair Use doctrine for the purposes of commentary, scholarship, research and teaching. Works are substantially transformed by means of personal insight and commentary as well as highlighting important corollaries to additional thoughts, theories and works to demonstrate alignments and consistencies.
Copyright 2025 Ears That Hear Media Corporation
Keywords: rebirth, reincarnation, Buddhist philosophy, quantum physics, near-death experiences, life after death, spiritual awakening, consciousness studies, scientific method, metaphysics, spiritual beliefs, evidence of rebirth, past life regression, energy transition, intelligent design, historical science, modern science, dualism, mind-body connection, philosophical discussions
Transcript
Foreign.
Speaker B:Views, interpretations and opinions expressed are not advice nor official positions presented on behalf of any organization or institution.
Speaker B:They are for informational and entertainment purposes only.
Speaker B:Now join Ryan and Peter for another episode of the Tracking Wisdom Podcast.
Speaker A:So last session we had discussed talking about a short booklet on.
Speaker A:Boy, I can't pronounce that, but Dr.
Speaker A:Grant Grenville, Darna something.
Speaker B:Dharma Wardena.
Speaker A:Yeah, very good.
Speaker A:That's right.
Speaker A:And this is a Buddhist physician who was making the case for the scientific acceptability or appropriateness of theories around the idea of rebirth.
Speaker A:And you've previously mentioned that you're skeptical of rebirth.
Speaker A:A generous statement.
Speaker A:And I think I do believe in the idea of rebirth.
Speaker A:And this paper was interesting as far as laying the three is using scientific method, historically accepted method.
Speaker B:So.
Speaker B:So let me digress for a moment because I was actually just asked, I think on Friday what I thought happens after death.
Speaker B:And so I said, well, I, you know, I kind of subscribe to the Buddhist view that if you are well prepared, then you just kind of rejoin the universal, universal unity.
Speaker B:But if you're less well prepared, then you.
Speaker B:You go to rebirth.
Speaker B:That.
Speaker B:That's a whole.
Speaker B:And so because there are Buddhists who say, teachers who say rebirth doesn't mean reincarnation.
Speaker A:Okay.
Speaker B:And there are some teachers who say that Buddhist dharma doesn't actually exclude the soul, which.
Speaker B:And I just saw this for the first time, I was like, what?
Speaker B:Because as far as I know, the teachings do exclude, like, explicitly exclude this kind of.
Speaker B:That's something I want to look into because someone is saying, oh, no, the.
Speaker B:The scriptures.
Speaker B:I don't say that.
Speaker B:Which is curious.
Speaker B:But as yourself.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:So just to say that even within Buddhist circles, what rebirth is, is by no means clear.
Speaker B:And I think that we tend to think of it as Westerners as the belief in reincarnation, which is, I think, more foreign probably to Western thought or belief than, you know, these other aspects, kind of psychological aspects of rebirth.
Speaker B:That's.
Speaker B:Just wanted to make that.
Speaker B:Those comments.
Speaker A:So by that extension, it would seem to me that the suggestion is that you continue your existence on this plane until you are prepared and ready, in which case that would be your.
Speaker A:Your transition would be death.
Speaker A:I mean, your death is your transition and your only transition when you're ready.
Speaker B:In terms of the question I was asked, it was specifically about death.
Speaker B:So I still haven't read enough about that to have a clear idea.
Speaker B:Yeah, well, I guess in some way that's what this book touches on.
Speaker B:But there's the question of the logicality, like how do you make sense of reincarnation?
Speaker B:So, I mean, the question population growth makes reincarnation mood, maybe logically, like, how can you go from having a million people.
Speaker A:One.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker B:How can you go from having a million people to having 7 billion people?
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker B:Based on reincarnation.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:I mean, previous.
Speaker A:And of course, we're not speaking in absolute fact, factual terms.
Speaker A:We're just kind of spewing off the cuff what our historical viewpoints have been.
Speaker A:But we've talked about, you know, the idea of the central consciousness or whatever we want to call that, that separated itself into smaller pieces, essentially of the same thing, and that that becomes the individual that is also still part of the whole.
Speaker A:And I guess from that viewpoint, if we were to follow that thought process, one question would be, did that separation happen all at once in like a Big Bang kind of thing?
Speaker A:In which case everything is as it is?
Speaker A:Or is there energy changing state?
Speaker A:We have more people, but we have less other resources, maybe energy and our existence and the oneness.
Speaker A:Well, I mean, the Gaia Kant concept or the oneness with everything, not just with our species, but take that quantum idea down to its smallest parts, which I guess would be infinite technically.
Speaker A:But, you know, the.
Speaker A:The smaller parts, everything basically boils down to those quarks and.
Speaker A:And other minuscule particles.
Speaker A:If all of that is still the consciousness, then we could be transitioning energy from different materials and stuff to create more people.
Speaker A:Just throwing that.
Speaker A:Trying to.
Speaker A:Trying to rationalize it as best I can in a way that would be.
Speaker A:I don't know.
Speaker B:No, I mean, I guess that does make sense if you view it as, you know, absolute conservation.
Speaker B:Like you said that from the beginning there is this amount of existence and that.
Speaker B:I'm gonna say potential souls, or you could even say souls.
Speaker B:Although that sounds conceptually kind of strange, like, you know, a Googleplex of souls that are.
Speaker B:That are generated and we just haven't gotten that number yet.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker B:Then maybe that makes sense.
Speaker B:I'm kind of pausing on the rationality of reincarnation, but there's no reason it has to be a rational process.
Speaker B:Because I'm just thinking, if you have trillions and trillions of souls, why do you then need to reincarnate someone?
Speaker B:But that's a silly question because it's not a question of need.
Speaker B:It's like it either happens or it doesn't.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:But we are a creature that rationally made sense to me in the context.
Speaker A:And this is what I was going to say earlier was one specific point on this reading Was the, the difference between classic science versus modern science or whatever the reference was.
Speaker A:And you, you said previously, actually last session, I think you said that, you know, you are more of that classical scientific mind and you were less knowledgeable about some of the, the newer thing which you know, they were saying new science, modern science, post Einstein, which obviously there's been a number of years since Einstein, but the idea from quantum physicists or you know, the, the new emerging is what I should, I think is the more appropriate term because I don't think it's necessarily this widespread documented and readily documented in journals.
Speaker A:And although I think there is scientific studies that are documented in journals that support this, the quantum mechanics and theories when start to investigate some of that, that's what opens my mind more to the possibility of some of these other things where you know, historically we've been so focused on reality being the material world and, and what we can touch and see and measure.
Speaker B:So my understanding is that quantum mechanics is actually applied science now.
Speaker B:It's.
Speaker A:I agree.
Speaker B:I mean, yes, and they're building.
Speaker A:Yes.
Speaker B:Quantum computers.
Speaker A:Yes.
Speaker A:But the, the level to which that knowledge and information is being portrayed in schools and other things.
Speaker A:I don't, I don, I assume, I believe it's still kind of an emerging area of science.
Speaker A:But from what I've learned through investigating that is that there seems to be through that method of science a lot of indication of intentional design and going through the statistical analysis of what the likelihood is of this not being intentional design.
Speaker A:And you know, I don't remember the numbers, but it's something very, very remote that this world, the whole universe in existence and the symbiosis that is created is statistically exceedingly unlikely.
Speaker A:That that was not by some sort of design.
Speaker A:And I think even we had mentioned, I had talked to you on a previous recording session.
Speaker A:I think I had heard Neil Degrasse Tyson talking about this and saying similar things and maybe it wasn't specific to that, but basically indicating that there's evidence that it's not by accident and yet still fervent pushing the theology of it.
Speaker B:Like I'm so, yeah, it's not God, because you just like put up a flag.
Speaker B:I'm like, whoa, let me ask you about that.
Speaker B:So, so intelligent design is different from anti evolutionary.
Speaker B:What.
Speaker B:What is that?
Speaker B:So that's intelligent design, right?
Speaker B:The anti evolutionary creationist approach.
Speaker B:Isn't that called Intelligent Design?
Speaker A:I think they're used interchangeably, but I don't think they necessarily mean the same thing.
Speaker A:Creationism would be specific, like Genesis story, like 4,000 years old.
Speaker B:Okay.
Speaker A:You know.
Speaker B:Okay.
Speaker A:And no evolution, where intelligent design, I think, bridges that gap, where we can acknowledge that at some point in the past, all of this started with some intelligence of some sort, some purpose and meaning.
Speaker A:But that.
Speaker A:That started.
Speaker A:That was the catalyst.
Speaker A:And then the rest of it was just the physics and laws and.
Speaker A:And stuff of this existence that drove.
Speaker A:So you can still have evolution.
Speaker B:Okay.
Speaker A:Design.
Speaker B:Oh, okay.
Speaker B:Yes.
Speaker B:I'm not familiar with that because I'm thinking about the bombardier beetle story, which is.
Speaker B:Oh, it's not possible to evolve a bombardier beetle because it would blow itself up.
Speaker B:So that's a proof of a bombardier beetle was created intentionally.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:Okay.
Speaker A:That's not what I was.
Speaker B:Yeah, that's okay.
Speaker B:So just to clarify that, because you said that I was like, whoa.
Speaker A:But yeah, just the factors that went into.
Speaker A:And the tight margins to which all of the existence of.
Speaker A:In the universe, not just the people, the tight margins that everything has to operate within in order for this to be feasible, essentially without basically blowing everything up.
Speaker A:And there's.
Speaker A:There's no existence.
Speaker A:And so the likelihood that all of these different criteria and factors can all fit within these very tight margins statistically alludes to the fact that it's essential, actually gotta be intelligent design, meaning that there was some purpose or some action by an intelligent being that started it.
Speaker B:Which makes me think about.
Speaker B:So we, we had mentioned the double slit experiment.
Speaker B:And, you know, I'm thinking about Heisenberg uncertainty, which.
Speaker B:About which I know very little, but that there's this whole idea of observation.
Speaker B:And so if things can only be the way they are by observation, then there has to be an observer.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker B:So that in my mind aligns with the idea of intelligent design.
Speaker B:The idea of this modern science pointing us towards some entity, some other thing capable of observation, even if it's the universe.
Speaker B:Even if we want to say it's the universe observing itself.
Speaker B:But there's still some.
Speaker B:I think when we say observation, it's very hard to use that word without some idea of personification.
Speaker B:And so that's interesting.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker B:This short book is the Scientific Acceptability of Rebirth.
Speaker B:And I think, you know, maybe if you are more familiar, maybe the book's of less interest if you're familiar with.
Speaker B:More familiar with the history of science.
Speaker B:To me, one of the most interesting things about it was the premise of why science excludes or doesn't exclude the possibility of reincarnation.
Speaker B:And I'm gonna.
Speaker B:I'm gonna say reincarnation instead of rebirth because I think that's explicitly what he's talking about.
Speaker B:And so, and that's the split, the history of science that he, that he talks about is the difference between classical science and modern science, which basically we're talking about quantum physics.
Speaker B:And so apparently in, in the early days of classical science, there was an explicit decision to apply science only to observable phenomena.
Speaker B:That's right, yeah.
Speaker B:And I can't remember what the two, what the two divisions are called, or I feel like I should have done more homework in this.
Speaker B:Was it Descartes that he said Descartes.
Speaker A:Was one of them and Newton.
Speaker A:And there's a third one.
Speaker B:Clearly there was, there was an explicit decision that science would only apply to observable phenomena, which makes it obvious from the outset of why science would not be able to explain any of the physicals.
Speaker B:Yeah, yeah.
Speaker B:And so it was basically a decision of Western philosophers whose position held sway in Western civilization and didn't change for a long time and basically still hasn't changed in terms of what, as you said, the modern science isn't widely promulgated.
Speaker B:And so when people think of science, people think of classical science, which excludes the non physical.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker B:But there's no, not to say that.
Speaker B:There's no reason that that should be.
Speaker B:But the fact is modern science no longer does that.
Speaker B:And as we've said before, the Dalai Lama loves science and loves scientists, and scientists like talking to the Dalai Lama and they have a lot of exchange because of the willingness of modern scientists not to say, no, we can't talk to you.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker B:That's all, that's all it comes down to is just people who are willing to investigate or people who are qualified to investigate who are willing to say, oh, yeah, we'll investigate that, we'll talk about that.
Speaker B:As opposed to saying, no, Descartes says we can't talk about that.
Speaker B:And so that's, to me, the really big eye opener of this, of this book.
Speaker B:And really, as far as reincarnation, like the status of reincarnation, I don't care.
Speaker B:It's just important, I think, for, for us, us as Westerners, for just the general public to know that it's not irrational to talk about supernatural things, which is, it sounds weird to say.
Speaker B:I mean, it's so ingrained in me as a scientist that, yeah, it's, it's really jarring.
Speaker B:Jarring, exactly.
Speaker B:To say that, yeah.
Speaker B:So intellectually it makes me uncomfortable, but subjectively or intuitively it's like, oh, this is this, it's liberating.
Speaker B:It's like, oh, this is so kind of obviously true in a way.
Speaker A:So the initial, obviously hundreds of years ago, you know, the initial inclination to limit the use of the tool made sense.
Speaker A:There was a lot to be learned.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker A:And that tool was very effective in helping us to understand the physical world that we live in.
Speaker A:And even in this paper it mentions, you know, at some point in the distant past, but you know, that they thought they had already learned everything essentially.
Speaker A:You know, they had already resorted to white wipe the hands of it.
Speaker B:And it's all mechanics, all mechanics.
Speaker A:And we might tweak here and there, but this is it.
Speaker A:And then I think part of it ended up being that you've resorted to that.
Speaker A:You still have inquiry, there's still questions that people have that science has been unable to really touch.
Speaker A:Classical science was unable to touch.
Speaker A:And then we had some more moder physicists and scientists that were willing to kind of go there.
Speaker A:And interestingly enough, you know, many, I mean, I guess I can't really think of any that have become law.
Speaker A:Einstein's theories are still called theories.
Speaker A:They're still.
Speaker A:Because they're challenged in trying to apply the classical methodology to verify it, other than mathematically, I guess.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:It seems where many of the more recent discoveries have taken place is through math.
Speaker A:And at least, if nothing else, finding in math the likelihood that was the, the God particle, which ended up being, I think they call those quarks too, or whatever it was the, the idea that there was this smaller subatomic particle than we were aware of.
Speaker A:The math demonstrated this should exist.
Speaker A:So then it sent people on the path to try and find it.
Speaker B:So I, what, I think this calls back our central thesis about institutions, that it made sense at the beginning of science to try to develop a manageable body of knowledge.
Speaker B:And the tools of early science were so, say, crude, I'll use the word crude, that there was really a limit to how much they could work with.
Speaker B:And so in some way it makes sense to say, okay, there's the, what they call the res extensa, the external matter world and the res cogitans, the mental world.
Speaker B:And we're going to split that because we really don't have any tools to look at the latter.
Speaker B:And so it was kind of a working approach, a practical approach.
Speaker B:But then once you've generated the body of knowledge, now you have an institution comprised of individuals who are interested, who now have self interest, either as individuals or as an institution.
Speaker B:And so then it starts self limiting, which is not the original purpose of the institutions, like what we said, religion, you know, the purpose wasn't to exclude, the purpose was to include and be total and universal.
Speaker B:But it ends up being exclusive.
Speaker B:And likewise science, it seems from what I've learned here, limited itself for practical reasons and then developed more tools that were capable of continuing to ask these expanding questions, but then self limited again because of self interest as opposed to practicality.
Speaker B:And so even now it seems there may be self limiting in the idea of new science that willing to push the boundaries, but they're working against this inertia of the institution, which is both practical and a hindrance.
Speaker B:So I mean one of the values of the scientific approach is that you don't just jump at every little piece of evidence and say see, that proves it's this way.
Speaker B:No, and that's, this proves it's that way that you, you wait for preponderance or you, you need to accumulate to some tipping point where then the theory becomes a law where you just say, well, we now have a preponderance of evidence that lets us call it a law.
Speaker B:Which doesn't mean that that law can't be overturned because you're going to continue to accumulate evidence and you may end up accumulating contrary evidence.
Speaker B:Do you know of an example of that?
Speaker B:It's something we should look up.
Speaker A:Not thinking of it off the top of my head.
Speaker B:So anyway, sorry, I just digressed to this idea of institutional.
Speaker A:No, I think that was a good digression.
Speaker A:And I think it's interesting to me that it would seem, and maybe this is me projecting, but it would seem that the institution has a vested interest in, and I don't know why, but in not proving God, so to speak, you know, as a, just a flat statement.
Speaker A:I think there's nuance to that and maybe it's because there's been this vocal community that references science as proof that God or you know, that the religious nuts are nuts and rational people follow the science and the science is clear, this is how it is.
Speaker A:And if science starts moving in a direction that it's actually coming closer to what?
Speaker A:Well, I guess in reference to this paper that there was two ways of learning.
Speaker A:One was Buddha who intuited the truth of reality versus science, which is a, per the author, a slower process that is iterative and takes time.
Speaker A:And so I guess kind of saying at this point in our scientific pursuits we're still kind of naive to some of these higher things that in the future, like we're on the path and we can get there eventually, but it's going to be much slower than the way Buddha obtained the enlightenment and the full knowledge of an understanding, the science versus religion.
Speaker A:So I would not make the suggestion that the vast majority of religious people are enlightened and have this knowledge.
Speaker A:They speak of working on faith and they just kind of believe this.
Speaker A:And that in itself is probably irrational, but that ardent scientists, classical scientists, are struggling to kind of move that there could be these other reality, could, could be different than the way we understand it and people could know it or intuit it even without being able to, to prove it.
Speaker A:And then as those two avenues start to come together, it could be scary for certainly for classical scientists who are starting to see, well, this is actually starting to point and maybe they reject it, but they can see that their opponent might be able to utilize this and point and be like, see, this is, see, intelligent design is statistically likely.
Speaker A:And then try and suppress some of that information so that it can stay on the straight and narrow with the institution.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:And, and what it comes down to is personal belief, even on the part of scientists.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:Because the personal belief is the unwillingness to follow the evidence.
Speaker B:So if you're a scientist and you say, well, I know that God can't exist, then, well, you're, you can't mechanically disprove the existence of Go.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker B:Don't think that anybody has successfully published a scientific result, you know, that there couldn't.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker B:So whether you're a professional scientist or an atheist or anyone else who is anti God in a philosophical way, it's, it's a personal belief.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker B:It's not, I think it's presented as a logical position and it can be.
Speaker B:You can make logical arguments about that.
Speaker B:But that's not proof.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker B:You know, unless your version of philosophy is, well, if I can logically prove something, then it's true, which is silly because we know that there are logical proofs of things that aren't true.
Speaker B:So that's one of the limitations of logic.
Speaker B:Logic's.
Speaker B:We love logic, you and I, we're big fans of logic, but we accept that, you know, it's a tool.
Speaker B:There are limitations to it.
Speaker B:So where was I going with that?
Speaker B:Oh, personal belief.
Speaker B:What you were saying was making me think about us and them and the impetus to defend a position, defend personal belief.
Speaker B:And this is another, I think, central thesis of our conversation is the problem with that and how good people do bad things and good institutions become tools of evil.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker B:When this desire for security and to protect a position overrides the nature of that position itself.
Speaker B:Any religious zealot who says, well, we have to kill these other people, I think has crossed that line because again, essential thesis is there's no.
Speaker B:There's no religion that in its essence says the purpose of this is to tell you who to kill.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker B:And the purpose in its essence is to tell you how to live productively with other people.
Speaker B:And so one of our core interests, you know, it's interesting, this idea of, yeah, good people doing bad things or why.
Speaker B:I mean, I don't know, maybe it's the nature of evil.
Speaker B:Maybe that's the big question, right?
Speaker B:Is how do people believe that what they're doing is right when it's very destructive?
Speaker B:Okay, So I think where we digressed was talking about how.
Speaker B:How scientists or even the institution of science can promulgate this limiting historic division, which seems to no longer apply practically, right.
Speaker B:That there's no longer a clear division of race extants and race cogitans.
Speaker B:But that's a very stark, explicit division that underlines all of our thought without us knowing it.
Speaker B:Because most people don't know those terms.
Speaker B:They don't know the history of it.
Speaker B:I certainly didn't.
Speaker B:And that's why I found this interesting.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker B:So he then goes on to explain how science has moved beyond these classical mechanistic idea of existence.
Speaker B:That.
Speaker B:And that most people do know.
Speaker B:Most people do know that, you know, Newtonian mechanics doesn't explain the way the world works.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:That it was really, really good at explaining the solar system, you know, as opposed to the view of the Dark ages that, well, the Earth is the center of everything because God created man and we're on Earth.
Speaker B:That this then new discipline of science and Newtonian laws could explain, oh, here's how the solar system works and things orbit and gravity works and oh, now I lost my train of thought that.
Speaker B:That modern science wanting to move beyond that and not be limited by this arbitrary division of materiality and spirituality.
Speaker B:And following, as you said, following the evidence, following the math that's pointing to these unseen, unknowable things, you know, apparently unknowable things, but then saying, well, the math says it should be knowable, so we have to find a way to make it knowable.
Speaker B:And through the extraordinary diligence and brilliance of scientists, they started actually discovering and demonstrating these subatomic particles and all this weird quantum physics stuff, which is interesting.
Speaker A:To me because it then becomes part of our physical understanding, like it is still part of our physical world.
Speaker A:Historically, we were unable to Measure it and to see it.
Speaker A:But now to your point, we're.
Speaker A:We're able to manipulate and create new ways of being able to detect and measure and see air quotes, see some of these.
Speaker A:What previously would have been thought of as supernatural.
Speaker A:But is it supernatural?
Speaker A:It's just part of the fabric of our existence.
Speaker A:We just have historically been unable to review it and study it.
Speaker B:So one thing that's interesting to me is that we can become aware of a fact and accept it as a fact and be completely unable to incorporate that fact to our actual framework of thought, our actual schema, actual schema of the universe.
Speaker B:So it doesn't change the way you see things at all.
Speaker B:It's just like, oh yeah, that's a fact.
Speaker B:And then we continue to believe things that are completely contrary to that.
Speaker B:And that's where I think we are now culturally.
Speaker B:A lot of people do know little tidbits of quantum mechanics as a fact because media is so prevalent and media news publish findings so early, relatively.
Speaker B:So we have all these facts in our culture which are accepted parts of our culture, but they have no impact on the way the general public thinks about what they know.
Speaker B:And that's the whole sociology of thought or that how do we change our minds?
Speaker B:You know, how do we.
Speaker B:How do we learn things?
Speaker B:So I think kind of an underlying idea is that if people understood this stuff better, they'd be better able to abandon really destructive ideas.
Speaker A:Yeah, well, and the language about it, I think, think has an impact too.
Speaker A:You know, if we talk about things and we're going to talk about supernatural things now, people who are not interested in that is going to shut off.
Speaker A:But I think what we're really trying to talk about, at least me, is metaphysical.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:It's not necessarily talking about supernatural.
Speaker A:I'm saying this is natural.
Speaker A:This is the way of the world.
Speaker A:And it's just that metaphysical area that we still are very naive and ignorant on as, as a people to what that entails, what impacts it has on the natural laws as we understand them.
Speaker A:Because we don't know why.
Speaker A:I don't want to assert what we do and don't know because I don't know.
Speaker A:But the fact is, I think many things we know to be true, but we don't know why.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:This is the way the natural world works.
Speaker A:But why?
Speaker A:And some of that metaphysical.
Speaker A:Studying the metaphysical stuff and as we delve further into smaller particles and how all of this interacts with each other will hopefully shed some light on some of that.
Speaker A:And then we'll Be able to say why it is this way.
Speaker B:So, I mean, is gravity an example of that?
Speaker A:Maybe?
Speaker B:Or, I mean, so I don't even know.
Speaker A:So gravity.
Speaker A:But I think some of that is.
Speaker A:I think there's been effort to try and indicate why gravity works.
Speaker A:Although some of that, to me, I think is more modern when we're talking about space time as a mesh.
Speaker A:And one experiment or a science teacher that was trying to demonstrate gravity using, I think, a parachute or something, it was like the whole class holding this thing out as a big circle of cloth, maybe a spandexy kind of thing.
Speaker A:And he would take.
Speaker A:He took like a really big ball and like put it in the center and everything.
Speaker A:So the reposin model.
Speaker A:Yeah, something like that.
Speaker A:And then, you know, you start spinning smaller balls around it and they're gonna go around as long as there's inertia.
Speaker A:But once it doesn't, everything would fall into, you know.
Speaker A:And I guess that's an example of an effort to try and visually produce why in a way that we might be able to understand the mental concept of how this could possibly work.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker A:And I don't know how accepted, widely accepted, the fabric of space time is as a model, but that's a thesis that I can follow.
Speaker B:Well, that.
Speaker B:Well, that's what I was saying is that, I mean.
Speaker B:So the rubber sheet model has been around for a long time, certainly since popular culture started talking about black holes.
Speaker B:Everybody knows the kind of funnel graphic of this black hole bending a rubber sheet.
Speaker B:But that's as far as I know about gravity.
Speaker B:My understanding was that it's not explained, it's just a model.
Speaker B:But there is no essential knowledge of what gravity actually is and how it works, unlike, say, electricity, which is well understood.
Speaker B:Okay, so where were we?
Speaker B:Coming back to the text.
Speaker B:So we're talking about the nature of knowledge.
Speaker A:And I was saying that, you know, even referring to it as studying metaphysics as opposed to.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker A:Supernaturalism or something like that, where it sounds more airy, fairy and foofy.
Speaker A:Somebody who is of a scientific persuasion might be more inclined to open.
Speaker A:Open their ears and listen to somebody who's studying metaphysics as opposed to God and spirituality.
Speaker B:So this is.
Speaker B:This is another obstacle to discussion is that these distinctions are so culturally tied to value propositions and especially morality and rationality.
Speaker B:So if you value morality, I think, think the inclination is to be oriented towards, oh, it's supernatural, therefore it's evil, it's anti God.
Speaker B:Because the Bible says all these things about supernatural things.
Speaker B:Basically, it depends on your Religious orientation.
Speaker B:And if you're more rationally based and less morally based, then supernatural has negative connotations.
Speaker B:Superstition, you know, the idea of superstition as being a value proposition and a label to stick on.
Speaker B:Yes, A label to stick on.
Speaker B:It say, well, that's superstition as opposed to.
Speaker B:Well, that's something that we don't understand in the context of science.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker B:You know, or that's ungodly because it's something that we don't understand in the context or doesn't fit into the positive context of, you know, our scriptural beliefs or whatever.
Speaker B:So there are a lot of obstacles culturally that we have to overcome in order to have meaningful conversations or willingness not to have a conversation, but a willingness to have a conversation.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:That's what starts talking about.
Speaker B:Right, right.
Speaker B:Okay.
Speaker B:So then the book talks about.
Speaker B:So the book introduces this history of science and this, this division, historic division of the physical and non physical or metaphysical, as you say, realms.
Speaker B:And then, you know, points out that the Buddha wasn't limited by those distinctions because he wasn't a scientist and he was able to intuit the complete nature of the world.
Speaker B:That's the tradition.
Speaker B:That's the teaching is that the Buddha was all knowing and perfectly understood existence.
Speaker B:Which is a pretty cool idea.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:Actually have some believe it to talk about to that.
Speaker A:But let's finish this part.
Speaker B:And then there's a point I wanted to introduce about the word Buddha also that we'll come back to.
Speaker B:And then I think pretty much, I mean, it's a short book I think he introduced is that.
Speaker B:And then he says, he talks a bit about quantum physics, that it's very, very separate from classical science and shows things that are completely contradictory to classical science.
Speaker B:And it's not that they're unscientific.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker B:It's not that there's not scientific proof for them.
Speaker B:It's just that they can't be explained.
Speaker B:Pursuit of science that contradicts earlier science.
Speaker B:Oh, so I guess there's a.
Speaker B:An example of.
Speaker B:Because I had to ask, oh, what's the example of scientific law being overturned?
Speaker B:And it'd be Newtonian physics.
Speaker B:Physics.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:Newtonian laws have been.
Speaker A:Have they been overturned?
Speaker B:Yeah, in.
Speaker B:In the sense that they don't apply to subatomic particles because the law was.
Speaker B:There is no particle that doesn't behave.
Speaker B:That's the law.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker B:There's no, you can't.
Speaker B:There's no exemption.
Speaker B:You know, I think when we say scientific law, that's what we mean.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker B:Although we don't say, oh, Newtonian physics doesn't work.
Speaker B:We just say it's not, not, it's no longer exclusive, it's no longer absolute.
Speaker B:That it applies to everything that we experience in our normal of things that we can manipulate without millions of dollars of high energy physics equipment.
Speaker B:Everything that we can just kind of naturally manipulate, it applies.
Speaker B:But this other stuff that we know only because we're aware of, only because of the mathematics, that's why we're aware of it.
Speaker B:We know it's because we followed the mathematics to generate these millions of dollars of equipment to do really weird stuff, which we would have no reason to do except for the math, which is a very weird.
Speaker B:I mean, talking about this stuff is really weird.
Speaker B:And it kind of makes you realize that the nature of rationality is strange.
Speaker B:Like it's not irrational, but from a certain perspective it is irrational.
Speaker B:If you don't have them hire mathematics, it's completely irrational.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker B:Which is certainly a thing that you hear in popular culture.
Speaker B:Like why are scientists wasting their time with this?
Speaker B:You know, people are studying X, you know, and it's really goofy.
Speaker B:Yeah, it's goofy if you don't know the math.
Speaker A:Yeah, well, it's, it's interesting too that going back a little bit to the institution, and maybe it was around the time that they all kind of thought they knew everything, but at some point it seems the institution sort of abandoned its original goal.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:And quest like the.
Speaker A:Where the tool that started as a tool was transformed culturally into a religion or an ideal.
Speaker A:And so therefore we start to apply it so rigidly that we forget that it's a tool and a wrench isn't good for every bolt, you know, so.
Speaker B:So you're saying science started as a tool with the premise that humans can understand things, that, that there's a lot to understand in the universe that we don't understand, but we can understand it.
Speaker B:And science is a really good tool to get that understanding.
Speaker B:And we applied it and applied it until we ran out of stuff for which it was applicable.
Speaker B:And then we said, well, that's all there is to know because that's the only tool we have.
Speaker B:Therefore there is no other knowledge.
Speaker B:You know, nothing exists except a nail because we have a hammer.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker B:And we've hammered all the nails and therefore nothing else exists.
Speaker B:Which.
Speaker B:Yeah, when you.
Speaker B:It's a weird position to take, but we fall into that.
Speaker B:Humans fall into these very weird positions.
Speaker B:And so obviously a bunch of brilliant, brave people overcame that and made a bunch of other discoveries.
Speaker B:So he introduces the weirdness of quantum physics and says basically the universe does not have to perform logical.
Speaker B:Which is why we're looking at the double slit experiment, right?
Speaker B:Because that's an example of just irrational behavior of the universe.
Speaker B:So we'll come back to double slit because that's a whole thing.
Speaker B:But basically his thesis is that therefore we have access to understanding reincarnation.
Speaker B:Because once you understand that the universe does not have to behave rationally and in fact does not behave rationally, then you can be open to studying these irrational things.
Speaker B:And then that's where he kind of falls.
Speaker B:Because I think he says he has evidence that he doesn't have.
Speaker B:I think is where it ends up.
Speaker B:He has a, he cites a bunch of air quotes evidence and then says therefore we've proved reincarnation.
Speaker A:I don't.
Speaker A:What I gathered from the paper wasn't that he was trying to prove reincarnation.
Speaker A:And I agree there was no reality.
Speaker B:It's acceptable.
Speaker A:It's a scientifically acceptable, acceptable theory or thesis to take.
Speaker A:And I think that was where he was really trying to break down, was just like, don't shut it down.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker A:You know?
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker A:No, I agree though, it didn't.
Speaker A:All he seemed to lay out was historically these thes were acceptable to the scientific community based on this three step process.
Speaker A:And I can present evidence that this theory meets that criteria to be accepted.
Speaker B:So can you scroll down to where he does some evidence?
Speaker B:There was one, the one explicit piece of evidence that he gives I looked into and was kind of disappointed.
Speaker B:So generically he says, well, there's a lot of past life research and there's a lot of, you know, studies and basically a preponderance of anecdotal evidence for past lives and without being very specific.
Speaker B:But then he specifically named a person who is recognized as a reincarnated Buddhist monk.
Speaker A:Yeah, I remember that.
Speaker B:Oh.
Speaker B:So basically there's this disadvantaged kid in Brooklyn who grew up to be someone who started teaching some philosophy and set up a center and eventually had a guest speaker, a Tibetan monk, come into her center.
Speaker B:So she was just teaching basically her own philosophy.
Speaker B:And one day she had a guest speaker of a Tibetan monk or she went to Tibet or something.
Speaker B:Basically this person said, oh well, what you're teaching is Buddhism and you have come up with this whole philosophy of Buddhism spontaneously.
Speaker B:And then she was recognized as the reincarnation of a Tibetan monk and ended up taking on the regalia.
Speaker B:And so if you look her up, you'll see her in, in full regalia, just like The Dalai Lama in a formal setting.
Speaker B:And so this.
Speaker B:This writer spends a few pages on her as ev.
Speaker B:Evidence of reincarnation.
Speaker B:And then when I look her up, there's just, you know, we keep on coming back to the unfortunate fact that there are a lot of religious.
Speaker B:I'll say events, not religious event in terms of a ceremony, but a religious event in terms of someone gets recognized as a reincarnation of someone else, or someone gets a sainthood or whatever that end up being fraudulent.
Speaker B:You know, they end up being false in some way.
Speaker B:And so other people have written about.
Speaker B:Now, just because there's a controversy doesn't mean that the first person's wrong.
Speaker B:So I shouldn't say that this.
Speaker B:This person is invalid because she's controversial.
Speaker B:But it makes what I did, what I did read, you know, I did see an article about her in a Buddhist journal saying how really the thing.
Speaker B:The positions that she takes can't be Buddhist, and that sure, there.
Speaker B:There's a whole structure that aligns with the Buddhist structure of thought, but that if she were budd, she couldn't take the positions that she takes.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker B:And yet she does appear in regalia, so she's willing to exploit.
Speaker B:And then the other question is the ability of Tibetan monks to recognize people as reincarnations and whether that's.
Speaker B:It's not an infallible process and not in a theological sense, but in a human sense, that there are frauds and there are people who take bribes and blah, blah, blah.
Speaker B:So that.
Speaker B:That was kind of disappointing.
Speaker B:Now, on the other hand, as we keep on saying, there are people, institutions introduced in, interested in preserving their own standing so it can serve people to criticize other people.
Speaker B:So you got to take everything with a grain of salt.
Speaker B:But I was disappointed when I looked into this.
Speaker B:I mean, primarily because this guy spent a couple of pages saying, here's, you know, holding her up.
Speaker B:It's like, this is a perfect example of a reincarnated person.
Speaker B:It's like, okay, I'd rather look at the Dalai Lama because I think he's a lot less disappointing.
Speaker B:Which also led me to.
Speaker B:What's his name?
Speaker B:Steven Seagal.
Speaker A:Oh, yeah, you said that.
Speaker B:So Steven Seagal has been recognized as a tulka by some monk.
Speaker B:He's been recognized as a reincarnation of an important Tibetan figure, but has not gone through the training the way I think this woman has.
Speaker B:The one in the book has since been formally recognized.
Speaker B:Steven Seagal was informally recognized.
Speaker B:Recognized.
Speaker B:But then when you look into it, apparently there is.
Speaker B:And again, you don't know which side to believe.
Speaker B:But the story is he basically bribed it.
Speaker B:Like he gave his huge donation to this guy's monastery.
Speaker B:Now so the thing that I had told you before is that Steven Seagal is a big gun guy and works with gun manufacturer.
Speaker B:And I'm not sure that there's any branch school or you know, bonafide Buddhist teaching that would be able to include that.
Speaker B:So it's, it's weird because.
Speaker B:Because I think, I think he is a practicing.
Speaker B:At least in some way.
Speaker B:Who knows if it's.
Speaker B:I mean, I suppose it's just.
Speaker B:What would you call it?
Speaker B:Virtual virtue signaling.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker B:But anyway.
Speaker B:Yeah, just a bunch of disappointing stuff.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker B:But if you're looking for, you know, kind of absolutes.
Speaker A:It's funny because when you were giving the background on what you had found about this person, if I were to take the perspective that she was legitimate, sounds a lot like Jesus.
Speaker A:Not Jesus, but the route that Jesus took, who was recognized in his culture by some to be something that others refuted.
Speaker A:Went in and taught in the temples, but taught his understanding of, of Torah.
Speaker A:And yeah, I mean it just.
Speaker A:When the institution has a handhold, it almost takes like that outside person to be like, this is actually the real.
Speaker A:And I don't know what this person teaches.
Speaker A:So I, I don't, you know, I'm not suggesting that it is or isn't, but I'm just saying conceptually I could see how, you know, going against the grain isn't necessarily a bad thing or fraudulent thing.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:Yeah, so.
Speaker B:But that's all beside the point.
Speaker B:I think, you know, we, we agree that the central thesis is interesting and valid.
Speaker B:That you know, science no longer excludes the metaphysical.
Speaker B:And not only does science no longer exclude it, but science has very thoroughly demonstra.
Speaker B:The ability of the universe to be irrational.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker B:To defy logic.
Speaker B:And it doesn't mean that the universe is completely alive.
Speaker B:It doesn't mean that we live in chaos.
Speaker B:No, it just means that.
Speaker A:Well, I think our.
Speaker B:Well that's.
Speaker A:Our understanding is limited.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:Our logic is only based on what we know.
Speaker A:And if we learn new things to be true, then our logic can be expanded.
Speaker A:Right?
Speaker A:Yeah, I guess so.
Speaker A:When I read this, I came to it having reviewed a fair number of near death experience testimonies and even some past life stuff to where I'm familiar with anecdotes that reportedly have been verified.
Speaker A:I didn't verify them, but you know, the kids who report these very specific and detailed experiences that they could never have Known else, you know, otherwise because they're like 4, 5, 6 years old that have been historically verified as accurate that as being sort of the reincarnate but also the experiences from near death experiencers, testimonies and many of them who report leaving their body but being in the room and repeating to surgeons and stuff what they were talking about when that person was dead, you know, on the table.
Speaker B:Right, right.
Speaker B:Or even out of the room.
Speaker A:Or even out of the room there was somebody who, their testimony was that there was a shoe on the ledge of the hospital, like way up outside this window and they saw it when they were leaving their body and going up into space or whatever they were doing and they told the people and that was legitimately there.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker A:So anecdotally there's, there is a number of experiences.
Speaker A:Obviously this isn't the norm, but there has been some experiences that indicate hate.
Speaker A:Anecdotally but somewhat verified.
Speaker A:You know, if, if you're talking to hospital staff and physicians, they're generally science based people and if they find that it happened, you know, and are willing enough to admit that they found that happened and open minded enough to say hey, that was weird, I can't explain it.
Speaker B:Yeah, I'm, I'm.
Speaker B:When you make the generalization about healthcare professionals being.
Speaker A:Sure.
Speaker B:Having, having intimate personal knowledge of a number of health care professionals, I'm perfectly aware of their capacity for irrationality.
Speaker A:Oh sure.
Speaker B:And I don't mean just incidental, I mean like central beliefs kind of thing.
Speaker A:Well, they're human.
Speaker B:People are interesting.
Speaker A:They're still human.
Speaker A:And the savant type thing or the prodigy.
Speaker A:I'm not sure I would necessarily make the extension that they are that, that is talent from past lives.
Speaker A:But you know.
Speaker B:Well, it's interesting that it's.
Speaker B:Okay, so, so the idea is, the point that he's, is that say a, you know, three or four year old can play multiple masterpiece sonatas and, and things that they have no opportunity to learn and yet they can just play them.
Speaker B:And the other example is multiple languages.
Speaker B:So I mean we know that humans learn language by.
Speaker B:Environmentally, they learn language environmentally, what they hear, they, they learn.
Speaker B:And yet there are individuals who are able to fluently speak languages to which they've never been exposed.
Speaker B:So these are not proofs, but they are, they are evidence that is dissonant with classical science and are consistent with the idea of reincarnation.
Speaker B:So I mean, I think those, Yeah, I, I think altogether there is a bunch of evidence.
Speaker B:There are, what's the word?
Speaker B:There are facts, there are Facts that are evidence in the sense of being facts that are very consistent with the idea of reincarnation as opposed to the idea of finite life and death.
Speaker B:You die, you stop existing and there is no continuity of yourself in any way beyond your decomposition.
Speaker B:So it's very interesting and thought provoking.
Speaker B:I.
Speaker B:It's funny because subjectively I'm very, very skeptical.
Speaker B:You know, any like you have, you have expressed interest in past life or, or near death things and I find myself a little, I find myself very resistant.
Speaker B:You know, when you say that I'm like.
Speaker B:Oh yeah, right.
Speaker B:I'm like eye rolling.
Speaker B:Even though my mother has a nearby.
Speaker B:Your dad's story.
Speaker B:I mean she bled out essentially from you know, a pregnancy and.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker B:And says, you know, I'm.
Speaker B:I don't know if I'll have to edit this out.
Speaker A:That's okay.
Speaker B:But yeah, she's, she's what I just like super skeptical about because she has, she has like also irrational beliefs.
Speaker B:It doesn't mean that she's not.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:You can be irrational about one thing and completely correct about another.
Speaker B:You.
Speaker B:Which she is.
Speaker B:But it's just.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker B:There's so probably part of, probably part of my resistance.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker B:But so subjectively.
Speaker B:Subjectively I have that and viscerally I'm resistant but rationally and objectively I'm like really interested in it.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker B:Which is weird it.
Speaker B:Because usually it's the other way around.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:Yes.
Speaker B:So anyway.
Speaker A:But it makes sense at the same time and to your point, you know, you kind of grounded in classical science.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker A:So.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker A:You know, know it's, it, it has been made taboo, you know, in.
Speaker A:Over time.
Speaker A:So I can see how that would be.
Speaker A:The thing that I found interesting about near death experience testimonies is the apparent consistency.
Speaker A:There's a number of things that seem very consistent and I've gone through probably 20 or 30 testimonials at least.
Speaker A:I mean it's, it's a lot but not extensive and they're not all the same.
Speaker A:You know, it's not like to me.
Speaker B:The consistency is the least compact, compelling aspect of it.
Speaker B:I think it's the, the occult knowledge which is the most.
Speaker B:Like you said, the shoe on the ledge.
Speaker B:That to me is the most.
Speaker A:Sure.
Speaker B:Compelling.
Speaker A:Oh yeah, I agree.
Speaker B:The consistency to my way of thought, as you say, grounded in classical science, you know, it makes me lean towards.
Speaker B:More towards brain chemistry.
Speaker A:Sure.
Speaker B:It's like, well that's biology.
Speaker B:It's going to be consistent.
Speaker B:Consistent, you know.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker B:Or more consistent than not.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker B:On the other hand, you know, like you said, it's not the rule near death experience, right?
Speaker B:Mostly.
Speaker B:Well, I don't know.
Speaker B:I mean I, I guess most people who are resuscitated don't report the experience, right?
Speaker A:I think probably not.
Speaker A:Although there is a number of healthcare professionals.
Speaker A:Well, one in, you know, what you sent me, but that seems to be ER physicians and nurses in particular who see these.
Speaker A:They're familia all the time, it's not surprising to them.
Speaker A:So it's, it's regular enough.
Speaker A:I don't know how regular.
Speaker A:And I would agree with your point about consistency possibly being correlated to brain chemistry and biological mechanisms.
Speaker A:The thing that I find interesting in the consistency, and I would say that the thing that first drew me was more like you said, you know, that kind of verifiable knowledge of something that could have not been known.
Speaker A:What I find interesting about the consistency is that one thing that is consistent is many of these people are atheists and, or did not grow up or that their, their experience was not necessarily consistent with what their understanding of what happens after death is.
Speaker A:Many of them were like, I thought that, you know, nothing happened, it was just lights out kind of thing.
Speaker A:So to me it's like, yes, there could be a biological process that helps with the consistency.
Speaker A:And you would think that if there was something in brain that was biological, that the person's cultural and, and environmental experiences growing up would impact what that looked like.
Speaker A:And you know, I think some of it, people, the language or the titles people use are sometimes related to what they understand.
Speaker A:So like somebody might call them angels where other people call them light beings or some people seem to see people where others just know.
Speaker A:Oh, but that's one of the consistencies is like we communicated but there was no talking, it was through emotion essentially you just felt what the other person was feeling and, and you just had that understanding and then the unconditional love that frequently people break down, you know, or get emotional even talking about even decades after their experience like that.
Speaker A:It was so moving, that feeling.
Speaker A:They all, all report not wanting to come back and sometimes being quite disappointed, being forced back in.
Speaker A:There's a lot in that lifting out of the body and kind of floating up.
Speaker A:Some have reported being in a darkness and being terrified.
Speaker A:There's very few that seem to be that way.
Speaker A:And I haven't been able to figure out, you know, what that's about, why so many seem to experience this one thing.
Speaker A:In a handful of people, people experience this really terrifying and dark transition before they get to that to the to the light.
Speaker A:So and again, I think it's in for me, it's in context that none of this is in isolation.
Speaker A:It's taking what I've read that resonates with me in things like conversations with God or my my general worldview of what happens after after in context with what I've heard through near death experiences in context with what I've heard from people who have trained and done astral projection and what I've psychedelics and stuff.
Speaker A:All the experiences seem to have a nuance of consistency.
Speaker A:It's not they're not absolute consistent.
Speaker A:And maybe it's me just looking for confirmation bias and trying to find what I want to see.
Speaker A:I'm totally open to that, but I'm okay with that too, because it comforts me.
Speaker B:Thank you for listening to the Tracking Wisdom Podcast.
Speaker B:Join us next time as we continue the discussion.
Speaker B:Don't forget to follow us on Facebook, Instagram and YouTube, and visit www.eth-studio.com for more information and content.
