This is part of the Implicit Cosmology Series of essays associated with the Trans-survival Hypothesis. It has been incorporated into a book titled Your Immortal Self. Some potentially important changes have likely been made to this essay for the book. As such, please consider this essay an early draft
This is an essay describing a composite view of transition and the other side. In more common terms, it is about what people can expect when they die and what it is like in heaven.
“What it is like on the other side” is probably the number one question about death and dying, but unfortunately, it is also the question with the least understood answer; or probably more correctly stated, the one that has the least agreement amongst metaphysicians.
Why the Old Beliefs are Suspect
Let me first explain why the usual source for information is not widely accepted by researchers who seek an objective view. Most of what we are told about the other side is conveyed to us via a medium. That is, a physical person has made contact with an etheric person, and in some way, has conveyed information from the etheric to us.
Having a person in the circuit is seen as a problem because research is showing that the person acting as the channel—the medium—is more involved in the message than popular wisdom would have us believe. In mediumship, what they call coloring is when the medium’s own worldview contaminates the information coming from the etheric communicator. This is a known problem and mediumistic and/or trance messages are almost always taken with considerable reservation by researchers seeking objective evidence.
Popular wisdom also tells us that, in physical mediumship (usually that of the séance room), the medium is supposed to be completely out of the circuit and the message from the etheric communicator is said to be pure. However, everything we are learning tells us that the deep-trance medium is still capable of coloring the message. I have included the ATransC Survival Hypothesis below. It is an elaboration on the usual version followed in parapsychology, but refined based on understanding gleaned from ITC. Careful reading of this will show that we think all transcommunication must pass through the worldview of people still in the flesh. If the medium has preconceptions about something, any mediumistic message about that will be, in some way, contaminated by that worldview.
A test of this hypothesis would be if channeled messages have a cultural bias. In fact, they do. For instance, how heaven was described to us in the late 1800s and how the Other Side is described to us today has changed in much the same way that our societies have changed. The same can be said between information channeled by a USA medium, and say, an Australian aborigine.
Transcommunication involves the movement of information across the veil from a very conceptual environment of the etheric to the mostly objective environment of the physical. A message exchanged between a medium and an etheric communicator appears to occur as the mind-to-mind exchange of a gestalt thoughtform containing everything one would want to know about the subject. It is then translated by the medium via familiar patterns and embodied into the physical as a spoken message.
If the medium is very religious, then a message something like “I am part of your group” might translate as “I am God.” (We think that each of us is a point of view of a group consciousness.) If the person is fond of conspiracy theories, a message like “Change is a natural part of growth” might be relayed as “beware of change in your life.”
With all of this said, you can see that we think of information given to us via mediums and holy books is historically interesting but not very useful. Of course, it does have value as a reference point, but we spend a lot of time normalizing such information in an effort to find the root message. The messages of ITC often have an objective component which gives us reason to have more trust in the information. This has given us a very unique perspective not shared by those who study survival but do not understand or accept the evidence of ITC. The ATransC Survival Hypothesis is the result of this normalization and consensus building based on purely mediumistic and ITC sources. I regret that there are a number of other supporting essays that should also be considered, but they are mostly on the Internet. I am working on a book that will make all of that available in paper form but it will take a while.
So, to answer your question, we think all of us experience a short period of shock after the moment of our transition (death), followed by a period of getting well. That is thought to be followed by a period of adjustment and finally a second transition into a new venue for learning. That could be in the physical, but it could as well be in some other imagined world.
During the initial shock of transition, we think it is relatively easy for the entity to remain perceptually close and communicate with people in the physical. The getting well period is needed to allow the personality time to realize that old handicaps no longer apply. We think this is also when we undergo a self-evaluation of our past lifetime. This is that dreaded judgment we are always warned about, but instead of our being judged by some authority on high, it is a personal process in which we sense how our actions affected others from the perspective of those whom we affected. It is from this self-evaluation that we apparently determine our future lessons.
The period of adjustment apparently begins as the sense that we are in a world very much as we experienced in the physical. However, if we expect a heaven from the religious point of view, we will likely find ourselves in that heaven. As we understand it, over time, we find that these are only constructs of our worldview, which itself is slowly realigned to better agree with the greater reality.
It appears that we are born into a venue for learning (a lifetime) with a point of view, a degree of maturity in our understanding of the nature of reality gained from past experiences and an urge to learn specific lessons. Worldview—that filter we use to determine how we will react to situation—is a learned thing and we think it is a blank slate at the time of our birth. Thus, it is full of physical world contaminants when we transition. The process of self-evaluation and normalization of what we think we have learned, with the nature of the greater reality, further matures our understanding of the nature of reality. That is, we establish a new level of maturity, realign our urge to learn (what experience do we need to learn what) and enter a new venue for learning with a relatively empty worldview.
The objective is to gain understanding of the true nature of reality. There is no time limit for us to do this and we have access to many different venues of learning to gain this understanding. How well we have aligned our understanding with the nature of reality is described in the ATransC Survival Hypothesis as our “spiritual maturity.” We are not all-wise when not in a lifetime. Instead, we have an imperative to learn and a degree of spiritual maturity which helps to form our point of view. It is this maturity and resulting point of view which determines what aspect of reality we can be in agreement with. In effect, the greater our understanding, the wider range of venues and opportunities for learning we have available to our personality.
An important point is that there are no enforcement officers making sure we do what we should. We are self-governing. Our spiritual maturity manifests as the energetic character of our personality and that determines what aspects of reality we can visit. One of the few governing principles I work with in these models is the Principle of Agreement: A components of reality must be energetically in agreement with the aspect of reality it will inhabit. Our personality is a component of reality. In this lifetime, we are energetically in agreement with the physical aspect of reality because of the energetic nature of our personality and the relationship with our physical body. The personality of our etheric friends has no such agreement.
It appears that transcommunication is possible until the personality transitions out of the period of adjustment. Once a personality transitions into a new venue of learning, it appears that all communication into the physical stops unless it is assisted by other, more mature personalities.
We have noted that our etheric communicators behave as if they are living in a world much as they experienced in the physical. This is true even to the extent that they might refer to grandma’s house at which members of the family in the etheric gather for a family dinner. We speculate that this familiar world eventually changes to a more energetic view as the person’s worldview is aligned with the local reality. We are told that our natural form is more of as a luminous being existing in a very luminous landscape.
The Psi Field Sense
In the psi field sense, think of yourself as an etheric personality temporarily inhabiting your physical body so that you are entangled in such a way that your intentionality becomes the intentionality of your physical self. A personality that is not entangled in this way—a person that is not in a lifetime—does not have such a conduit for their intention into the physical.
The model that seems to best describe this relationship is the avatar as discussed in the Comparing Personality-Body Models Discourse. I have also included information about the avatar model below. In that, personality is in the etheric, but if it is in a physical lifetime, when the physical body is awake, its point of view is with the body. When the body is sleeping, or even hypnogogic, personality’s point of view is free to be elsewhere.
All etheric-to-physical influences are thought to require a personality entangled with a physical body. Thus, we say that all of us living in the physical are the creators of the physical. We individually create our personal reality, and collectively, we create this venue for learning.
The implications of this concept are profound. We say that an EVP practitioner or an interested observer must provide the conduit by which the message is allowed into the physical. In the same way, it is the worldview of the practitioner or an interested observer that acts as the source for translating the conceptual message into physical form.
The base concept here is the principle of agreement as noted above. It is the energetic entanglement of the personality with its physical avatar that allows the personality’s intention to have an influence in the physical.
A concept that very frequently comes up in transcommunication is the idea of group consciousness. It appears that consciousness is hierarchical and that this hierarchy of awareness shares a common source. Thus, we think personalities are associated with many other personalities as a vast collective that is itself actually a unique personality. We create a little me in our mind to imagine ourselves in a new situation so that we, through that little avatar, can learn something about that situation. In the same way, we think our personality is created to experience and return with some specific understanding. When we are born into the physical, we come with the spiritual maturity of our personality and an urge to gain specific understanding about the operation of reality. That understanding adds to our maturity and to the maturity of our group.
It is not clear how our personality relates to the group; however, indications are that it retains its unique point of view far after transitioning out of this lifetime and probably for many other lifetime experiences in this or other venues. At some point in our personality’s development, it will probably merge with the group as a whole, as the group continues to fulfill the urge it has inherited from its source. And so on….
As the cosmology goes, a personality or group of personalities is responsible for maintaining venues of learning in their imagination. This gets complicated, but there appears to be two hierarchies of personalities. One is the imaginer/experiencer hierarchy and the other is the formative. The formative would be known in our lore as nature spirits, devas, guides or angels. As Jesus said in John 14:2 “In my Father’s house are many mansions…” We think of this as a reference to these venues for learning which are imagined by experiencers and maintained by the formative entities.
Of course, all of this is a large part speculation, but there is a growing foundation of experimental and empirical evidence leading us to think it is correct.
There are numerous cosmological principles that could be discussed here, but doing so takes us a little beyond the scope of your question.
After reading this material, take some time to contemplate the various popular beliefs about our nature. Most are based on fundamentally sound concepts, but have been corrupted by people’s fears, preconceptions, political leanings and … well, and good story telling. Here are a few concepts:
Karma is a very old reward/punishment system that in effect, says that a person can gain reward with good deeds and will be punished for bad deeds. We understand from the above that karma is better described as “imperfect understanding of the governing principles of nature.” There is no merit system, only lessons to be learned.
Learning continues beyond this lifetime. That is pretty clear. We think that where the learning occurs— in which venue for learning—depends on what needs to be learned and the spiritual maturity of the personality. The person may reincarnate back into the physical. But the next lifetime could as easily be in some other venue.
It is clear that there are principles which govern the operation of reality. One fast, emerging theory championed by Dr. Rupert Sheldrake is the concept of what he calls “morphogenetic fields.” In that, there is thought to be a hierarchy of fields which in effect, act as a mold in which objects of reality are formed. (This would be the formative hierarchy or devic entities.) In living systems, a huge unknown is how cells decide to differentiate into skin, hair or bone. They call the process, morphogenesis. The growing view is that each subsystem of a living organism is described by an organizing field that controls this differentiation. The field would be like the influences brought together by the process of imagining, and the rules of the field would be whatever is necessary to realize what is imagined.
In this cosmology, each morphogenetic field represents the organizing principles for the behavior of that system. The thing is that this field evolves. It learns as external influences require. In fact, this entire cosmology argues that Source—Infinite Intelligence—God—has created us so that it can learn about itself. Thus, Source is also evolving as it learns. While life seems to be the fundamental fractal of reality, learning/growing/evolving seems to be the fundamental imperative.