I don’t think it could be just “coincidence” that these pages seem to be full of the same theory put forth by Peter Novak, who writes a collection of very deep material on the same subject with a slightly different angle…. Death.

The Binary Soul Doctrine:

According to Novak, this ancient belief held that each person possessed two souls, which would separate at death and go on to different afterlife experiences. Novak believes the Binary Soul Doctrine helps account for reincarnation, and a host of other puzzling afterlife phenomena.

Novak also explained how the interior passages of the Great Pyramid illustrate the Binary Soul Doctrine, as well as discussed 'original' Christianity, which Novak thinks involved a belief in reincarnation.

Does anyone else see this comparison?? Or is it just me?

Hopefully the author of these "Perils of wisdom" will also give some insite to thier take on it.

Hi David!

I'm just going to jump in here: From my limited look at Binary Soul Doctrine it seems that this theory has been developed from a founding premise that the soul or self is DEFINED as a separable duality -- defined as a conscious and then a separate unconscious mind/soul (?) So does this apply as an explanation -- a core concept -- about life as well as about death? From such a premise, what is this theory telling me about life and death?

While I do see some similarities between the theories in Binary Soul Doctrine and those of Self-to-self, I think that what is presented on this self-to-Self site is saying something fundamentally different. The self-to-Self idea seems to be that individual existence is defined as a single unified whole OPERATING SYSTEM that originates as a two-track energy pattern, rather than as two separate operating systems (of 2 souls). The founding premise of the self-to-Self theory seems to be that rather than two souls or two minds with one conscious and then one unconscious, human beings are a conjoined fusion or INSEPARABLE, linked energy, of mind/soul. Albeit, as human beings we are 2 kinds or focuses of energy (physical and incorporeal) that combine into one operating system of being human. To me this means something quite different and the theory that grows out of this premise is then also very different.

This self-to-Self theory seems to be saying that being human is about multi-focuses of energy or various angles of view, experience and perception that are actually the various degrees of clearly conscious and then less clearly conscious "operations of mind". This theory seems to be suggesting that we can bring information from one part of our mind (less conscious) into the other part, (more clearly conscious), since we are only shifting self-imposed boundaries of mind -- thereby learning how to actually expand our consciousness as consciousness is connected to mind. What would the unconscious mind be, if it's unconscious to us?

I wonder if this debate is only as the opening remarks of this site asks -- what is a more likely story? It seems to me that if both of these theories are based on the same base line of experiences, as explanations of those experiences, then one theory is equally as plausible as the other. Then for me the question is, which one tells me a more likely story -- and more than that, which tells me a story that explains not only past and present experiences but shows me a method - gives me operational hope - to actually change future experiences out of these present experiences of "being human"? Which of these ideas gives me hope for a future that is not simply the endless repeating of an inbred immutable pattern of duality or polarity, but offers me a practical, do-able way to create a future that can actually be different than the past or the present?

I'm also not sure I'm sold on Binary Soul Doctrine as the root answer, or the only explanation for NDE's -- doesn't the Self-to-self theory offer another equally valid explanation? Does the Self-to-self theory also speak to the perplexing questions of human life's purpose in the theories/belief-systems of reincarnation and religion? (As opposed to looking at this the other way around as though the questions are about the purpose of reincarnation and religion in human life.)

Please anybody out there, jump into this discussion too!

Thanks for opening this discussion David!

Regards,
Spinfo

Let me answer the last paragraph FIRST to put things in perspective. I did NOT say that the BSD was the “ONLY” explanation of NDE’s.. In fact, I thought I went out of my way to say “isn’t it amazing that there is SOME correlations to THESE writings and those at the same time.

Personally, since I have traveled so much through information everywhere, I find life is only beginning to be explained in the questions of “who we are, where we came from, and where we go?”. THESE writings offer a “HINT” of who we are, and where we go, but I do not believe they are the total answer to everything either. I do not believe any ONE doctrine, or theory has that answer. (That is just me personally of course, and I know of a LOT of people in the Southern Baptist Church that would be appalled at this kind of information entertaining the remotest Idea that God doesn’t come with a white beard and walks upright) If you are a Southern Baptist, then I suggest you really start opening your eyes around you. Life is too short to live it being angry, and in the continuous state of getting yourself “absolved” of your actions.

Going to the first paragraph, I would have to say you need to “bone up” on it a little more. The author does NOT say the soul IS binary, he states it is something does indeed happen to us, but due to a mishap somewhere in our ancient past. He goes on to state that “WE AS INDIVIDUALS HAVE THE CHOICE” if it will be that way for us. And continues to explain why, and sites several examples of people that have. (Or at least why he thinks they have, and explains his reasoning behind it.)

I was glad to see you admit in your second paragraph that you at least stated “while I do see some similarities”, because that is all I was really asking in the first place. And yes, I would HAVE to admit the two site are “FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT”, because this one deals primarily with life, and the struggles it goes through, and that one deals with DEATH and what happens. THIS site gives, or at least eludes to, the idea that death is non-existent (in a way). The other site’s main focus in on “what happens next as we know it.) but offers NOTHING in the way of hope, creative approach to joining the stars, or instruction on what to do today. THIS is what I find here, and why I come back to read some more.

In the third paragraph, you got a little deep for me. “If you walk into a room without a light, in fact if there is no light at, all then what do you see?” Is essentially what you asked there. IF the “unconscious” mind is exactly that “unconscious”, then there is not, and never would be a “mingling” between the two, because then the “unconscious” wouldn’t exist any more at all. Of course this could be the whole point. Maybe that is what we are supposed to strive for. In theory, it works, but in words and spoken literally, it doesn’t work to well at all. In which case it went “whoosh over my head” and I only caught the tail end and that’s only “IF” I got THAT much right, which I doubt..

In my opinion there hasn’t been enough put on this site (and I have not nearly read all of it). It’s kind of like there is a pathway here or a roadmap that someone is trying to present, but only a shard of that information, I don’t know if the information is purposely being withheld, or it could be because it takes time to get information together. IN EITHER CASE,. due to the dates of the articles, the information we HAVE been given, I suspect there is a LOT more than what is here. I have a strong feeling that there will be a lot of “jewels” produced over time where we (as common INFO-Junkies), will have a larger experience still yet.

Thanks for the "mind" info -
David4444

Hi David and everyone else tuning in here.

I just wanted to let everyone know why it is that the Speaker Material is coming on line rather slowly perhaps.

The inherant production problems (how is it we ACTUALLY go about expanding our consciousness???) that a venture like this presents, have been continuously written into the material as part of the production itself. I'm a single self with a full and complicated life just like everybody else, and editing this material is a unique challenge beyond the usual ideas of what such a job might be.

About 6 years back I began the process of editing this material, (file drawers full!) but after many months of struggle, I laid this task aside (though of course I kept up current "conversations" as ongoing work). I had to trust that I would be able to return to the editing that needed to be done, when I'd learned what I needed to, and "in good time". There turned out to be amazing reasons for the delay (or pause) - not the least of which was my eventual association with the people who have created this site and made the sharing of this material possible.

Speaker Material seems to give us a theorical proposition and then opens our awareness and presents us a pragmatic opportunity for the practical experiences that represent that lesson. Self-to-self trust and co-operation are more than just ideas as concepts that represent esoteric ideals. The proof is truely in the pudding of our everyday lives.

In returning to edit this work, the process has hugely changed as a psychic-spiritual engagement for me. This editing is not some dry, academic proposition, for this material is as alive in this instant of my living as it was almost 20 years ago when it was first brought into words and put to paper. I'm often reminded that these "Speakers" are only as real as I am.

The difference between earlier editing attempts and the text that appears on this site now, is a matter of personally directed progress for me (and much of that effort wound up written into the work as explanations of mind's development.) I beileve that the variations of our psychic-spiritual evolution, expand exponentially - because one variable factor depends on another variable factor - Self-to-self. By this I mean that each of us progresses, evolves, develops - expands our consciousness - according to the individual self-to-Self goals, aims, intentions, reasons, needs, purposes, beliefs, ... that shape our intimate energy into our individual power of specific choice for that evolution. I set about learning what I needed to in order to edit this material, as that learning was a step on the path of my own evolution.

So now, this material will arrive on site here, ASAP!

See you later
Spinfo