What's new

Life Between Lives — Dr. Michael Newton

guanoloco

As-Wased
About 1/5th through Newton's 2nd book and, once again, very happy to have this book in the library. Paul and others who found this resource valuable may want to check out There Is a River by Thomas Sugrue and the Power vs Force series by David R Hawkins.

There Is a River is actually about Edgar Cayce and the relevant chapter is close to the end. I thought about scanning that and uploading it and will do so if requested. It lays out a direct correlation regarding karma and the purpose of man on Earth as chronicled by Dr. Newton's discoveries. This chapter was written in 1945 and comes from a source that seemingly proved itself reliable upon every inspection.

The other set, Power vs Force, is an absolute MUST read. Once again, it perfectly complements all of this work. As well, it describes in exact detail the ego and enlightenment with absolute clarity. So well that the ego described was an entity that I was completely unaware of previously and now, having it revealed, it's like having the blinders removed.

I cannot emphasize enough how much a must read this body of work is - I would really like to hear from some of you with reviews.

One question I do have, these three sources are aligning and complementing each other as to be contiguous bodies of work, yet NONE of them have any mention of BTs or such. In fact, Newton's work seems to highly suggest that no such thing exists.

Any thoughts?
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
One question I do have, these three sources are aligning and complementing each other as to be contiguous bodies of work, yet NONE of them have any mention of BTs or such. In fact, Newton's work seems to highly suggest that no such thing exists.

Any thoughts?

Yes. Thanks for your comments. Please don't scan and paste in a long copyrighted book chapter here. My ideas on BTs are covered in the thread, Paul's Body Thetans.

Paul
 

guanoloco

As-Wased
To Mate

David,

That post I was looking for was the "Evaluating/Criticizing Scientology" thread and the referrences were from you and Haiqu regarding LRH tech on BTs.

That was a good read and I also copied your C/S on Life Repair - awesome!

Now it's be great if you read that Cayce book and the Power vs Force series.

Here's 3 sources that outline the same description and each of them came from separate fields of inquiry. Newton as a regression therapist with a plethora of cases, Cayce with his readings spanning decades and Hawkins utilizing applied kinesiology and claiming to describe the state of enlightenment - he even discovered a synonymous tone scale and established that about 2.5% of the population responded favorably to negative stimuli - stimuli that the remainder of the population responds to adversely.

Very interesting when 3 separate fields of independent study discover an area heretofore never substantiated.

All of these sources are discriptive of a spiritual evolution as opposed to a Scientological view of a spiritual de-evolution.

Theoretically anything that divides is Luciferic/Satanic and anything that unites would be divine. This can be paralleled in physics where anything that has united what was previously viewed as separate has lead to major advancements and resulted from simple clarity as in Newton with celestial/terrestial motion, Maxwell and electric and magnetic waves = electromagnetism, Einstein unifying the laws of physics in all inertial frames = special relativity (matter = energy), etc. Those things that unite would be divine, truthful and universal. Forgiving and accepting would land here as would healing. Nurturing and empowerment would be here. This is power.

Luciferic/Satanic would simply be ignorance feigning as wisdom, as in racism, etc. It would be false, complex and divisive. Intolerant and demanding would land here as would wounding. Exploiting and weakening/eroding would be here. This is force.

Anytime I see something uniting or healing I consider that it's truth or a higher gradient thereof. Anytime I see something that is dividing I consider that false and to the degree that it is individuating. The more lines that it draws in the sand, the more enemies that it fights, ultimately, the less truth it contains. The more force that is applied, etc.

Therefore I think it's amazing that these 3 endeavors were stumbled upon by empowerment as opposed to deliberately sought after in discovery as in force.
 
Last edited:

mate

Patron Meritorious
Hi guanoloco,
Thank you for the reference to my posting.

BTW, I have ordered the Cayce book, you have recommended, from Amazon, and should have it in a couple of weeks. I am looking forwarded to it.

David.


David,

That post I was looking for was the "Evaluating/Criticizing Scientology" thread and the referrences were from you and Haiqu regarding LRH tech on BTs.

That was a good read and I also copied your C/S on Life Repair - awesome!

Now it's be great if you read that Cayce book and the Power vs Force series.

Here's 3 sources that outline the same description and each of them came from separate fields of inquiry. Newton as a regression therapist with a plethora of cases, Cayce with his readings spanning decades and Hawkins utilizing applied kinesiology and claiming to describe the state of enlightenment - he even discovered a synonymous tone scale and established that about 2.5% of the population responded favorably to negative stimuli - stimuli that the remainder of the population responds to adversely.

Very interesting when 3 separate fields of independent study discover an area heretofore never substantiated.

All of these sources are discriptive of a spiritual evolution as opposed to a Scientological view of a spiritual de-evolution.

Theoretically anything that divides is Luciferic/Satanic and anything that unites would be divine. This can be paralleled in physics where anything that has united what was previously viewed as separate has lead to major advancements and resulted from simple clarity as in Newton with celestial/terrestial motion, Maxwell and electric and magnetic waves = electromagnetism, Einstein unifying the laws of physics in all inertial frames = general relativity (matter = energy), etc. Those things that unite would be divine, truthful and universal. Forgiving and accepting would land here as would healing. Nurturing and empowerment would be here. This is power.

Luciferic/Satanic would simply be ignorance feigning as wisdom, as in racism, etc. It would be false, complex and divisive. Intolerant and demanding would land here as would wounding. Exploiting and weakening/eroding would be here. This is force.

Anytime I see something uniting or healing I consider that it's truth or a higher gradient thereof. Anytime I see something that is dividing I consider that false and to the degree that it is individuating. The more lines that it draws in the sand, the more enemies that it fights, ultimately, the less truth it contains. The more force that is applied, etc.

Therefore I think it's amazing that these 3 endeavors were stumbled upon by empowerment as opposed to deliberately sought after in discovery as in force.
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
Another way of expressing this, guanoloco, with greater simplicity, and meaning in scientific contexts, is the concept of "elegance".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_elegance

It is related to Occam's Razor, in a way. When two solutions seem both to be logically coherent, the one that is most preferred is the most elegant (simplist and most aesthetically pleasing).
 
Another way of expressing this, guanoloco, with greater simplicity, and meaning in scientific contexts, is the concept of "elegance".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_elegance

It is related to Occam's Razor, in a way. When two solutions seem both to be logically coherent, the one that is most preferred is the most elegant (simplist and most aesthetically pleasing).

No, U. Mathematical elegance is an expression of aesthetics. Its like preferring Durer to Picasso, or vice versa. It relates to the manner of expression of a mathematical argument, especially a proof. It's not typically about the argument itself, although that can be an influence, it's about the beauty with which it is EXPRESSED.

A simple example is this ...

proof31.gif




Mark A. Baker
 

guanoloco

As-Wased
David wrote:

Hi guanoloco,
Thank you for the reference to my posting.

BTW, I have ordered the Cayce book, you have recommended, from Amazon, and should have it in a couple of weeks. I am looking forwarded to it.

David.



This be AWESOME! :clap: Can't wait to hear your review.

Now, what would REALLY make my day would be to see you get and read that Power vs Force series by David R Hawkins...:happydance:

http://www.veritaspub.com/

Unfamiliar with your local libraries but there's 8 books by this author:

1. Power vs. Force
2. The Eye of the I
3. I: Reality and Subjectivity
4. Truth vs. Falsehood: How to Tell the Difference
5. Transcending the Levels of Consciousness
6. Discovery of the Presence of God
7. Reality, Spirituality and Modern Man
8. Healing and Recovery

and it appears that a 9th book is about to be released:

"365 Days Along the Path to Enlightenment"!


Then there are these dissertations:

1. Dialogues on Consciousness and Spirituality

2. Synopsis and Study Guide to Power vs. Force

3. Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis and Calibration of the Levels of Human Consciousness (Dissertation)

Perhaps they're available through the libraries but certainly through ebay, amazon, etc.

This is THE BEST material that I have ever come across or read. Just reading these books delivered more case gain than anything else.

This body of work opened the world of non-dualism to me. This is the material I'd really like to have you read!

ENJOY!
 

Hatshepsut

Crusader
No, U. Mathematical elegance is an expression of aesthetics. Its like preferring Durer to Picasso, or vice versa. It relates to the manner of expression of a mathematical argument, especially a proof. It's not typically about the argument itself, although that can be an influence, it's about the beauty with which it is EXPRESSED.

A simple example is this ...

proof31.gif




Mark A. Baker

I liked this one too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_beauty

robinson.jpg
 

I don't recognize that as anything other than a diagram. It has beauty in it but unless I'm missing something about the mathematics it is not a mathematical expression in itself.

If you take some time to consider the diagram I posted in my prior post you will realize it is a geometric (euclidean) proof of the Pythagorean Theorem. A proof without words embodied in a simple geometric figure. That's an example of mathematical elegance.


Mark A. Baker
 

Hatshepsut

Crusader
blah blah :duh:

I thought it was a sectional drawing of a seashell with fibonacci curves.

And if you look you will see that I know the difference between the wikipedia's definitions of mathematical elegance and mathematical beauty. Not identifying them as the same thing at all.
 

guanoloco

As-Wased
Unique Mind & Mark Baker:

Thank you for sharing that! That is information that I have never come across before!

Kind of reminds me of symmetry:

Symmetry in physics has been generalized to mean invariance—that is, lack of any visible change—under any kind of transformation, for example arbitrary coordinate transformations. This concept has become one of the most powerful tools of theoretical physics, as it has become evident that practically all laws of nature originate in symmetries. In fact, this role inspired the Nobel laureate PW Anderson to write in his widely read 1972 article More is Different that "it is only slightly overstating the case to say that physics is the study of symmetry."

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry#Rotoreflection_symmetry

An example of this is where negative values in an equation do not alter the equations solution. Possibly the most famous application is Feynman's diagrams from quantum electrodynamics (QED) and the theory that all the universe's matter is a single electron bouncing back and forth through time.

Now if one thought about that it would truly mean "all were one", as in non-dualistic enlightenment, from a purely matter perpective. :roflmao:

I recall the LRH reference where the physical sciences had far out stripped the humanities and this began the query of "why", and "in what way". From here the natural path to walk is to realize that the advancement of the physical sciences are pivotal with the great cognitions that properties and states that were previously thought to be different were actually the same thing.

As in:

celestial motion and terrestial motion - these were unified by Newton to be the same, this launched the laws of physics and the age of classical physics

electricity and magnetism are one thing - electromagnetism - sets the groundwork to establish the constant of the speed of light

space and time are actually one thing - spacetime

matter and energy are equivalent - e=mc(squared)

...on and on to the point that theoretical physicists no longer look for anything but symmetries and then extropolate the corresponding law of nature. This has postulated the theory of everything as the unifying of the four forces of nature. These are the "business" of the physical sciences.

What are some of the "businesses" of the humanities?

One would be ethics. Another morals, another justice, perhaps law may be another?

What would happen to the humanities if they underwent similar unifying revelations as the physical sciences?

I then looked at ethics, morals, justice and law to see.

If non-dualistic enlightenment were to occur then ethics, morals, justice and law would unify, much like the 4 forces of nature under the unifying theory of everything, and here's how.

In a state of enlightenment there exists no lack and in its place there's a state of fulfillment and abundance. There is no separation. It is a transcended state that transcends the overt-motivator sequence, cause and effect, etc. It transcends MEST.

One does not steal from oneself, rape oneself, knowingly decieve oneself for the purpose of something for nothing. In a state of fulfillment there's nothing to steal - no promise of gain or threat of loss so no need to rape or deceive.

In this state ethics, morals, justice and law probably wouldn't even exist. No one would need to "keep their ethics in" because that implies to not selfishly act upon a perceived tempation to drop below fair exchange. If one were totally fulfilled there would exist no tempation - one would already possess everything.

Under a true unified theory there may not exist the four forces of nature.

For instance gravity. It implies a separation from matter, energy and space to exist - perhaps even a separation of time. If these things were to be unified then gravity itelf may prove to be an appearancy.

If fact, the more we know about the physical universe the more we know that it's not there - and this is extant under the current big bang theory of cosmology. This theory itself is problematic - google search "top 30 problems of the big bang". Perhaps as we learn more about the universe we'll as-is even more! (Null Physics, as in http://www.nullphysics.com/, is a recommended read.)

Going back to the humanities the more we apparently learn about the ego the more it's not there. Take a bed sheet and cover it with sand. From below push up the fingers of one hand and what will appear would be 5 distinct linen entities standing in the sand. The sand would represent the physical univers, the linen the ego and the hand would be you. Pull off the sheet and there's only you.

At any rate it is true for me that factual truth is universal and is instantly agreed upon by all...it transcends age, sex, health, wealth, status, religion, language, intelligence, beauty, aptitude, geographical location (space), time, philosophy, opinion, belief, etc., as in "2+2=4". No matter where you go in any of the mentioned positionalities 2+2 is always 4 (excluding calculus :whistling:).

This is why physics is physics no matter where you go.

People are united by truth and divided by fallacy.

Anywhere that people are divided there is fallacy and to the degree that they are divided then to the degree fallacy exists.

Democrats vs Republicans, Democracy vs Communism, Black vs White, Man vs Woman, Psychiatrist vs Scientologist, NAZI vs Jew, Cowboys vs Indians, Spy vs Spy (ha ha)...

When one looks at all these opposing forces one can see that they all want and don't want the same things and these truths are universal. Everyone wants security, health, wealth, happiness, fulfillment, love, education adn they don't want murder, crime, loss - they merely argue on how to go about it as in Democrats vs Republicans.

The ultimate separation is death = the ultimate fallacy.

At the top of the scale of emotion we have "us" - at the bottom we have "vs". Anything that is "vs" is at the bottom of the scale of emotion.

To transcend these it to reach for and attain truth. This is healing. This, followed to its end, is non-dualism. This is divine.

In reality, truth even transcends "truth vs fallacy" in that no one can argue factual truth. It is self-evident and everyone will instantly agree with it, as in "2+2=4".
 

mate

Patron Meritorious
Hi guanoloco.

Thank you for your suggested extension of Lisi's "a Simple Theory of Everything". I came across Lisi's work in a press report some years ago, but it ended up in the too hard basket. My mathematics was not up to it, although I did grasp that the key was the confirmation of the prediction of the existence of, I think, two further particles.

The work you have done is remarkable, but it is going take me some time to fully digest it.

Thank you for sharing it with us.

David.

Unique Mind & Mark Baker:

Thank you for sharing that! That is information that I have never come across before!

Kind of reminds me of symmetry:

Symmetry in physics has been generalized to mean invariance—that is, lack of any visible change—under any kind of transformation, for example arbitrary coordinate transformations. This concept has become one of the most powerful tools of theoretical physics, as it has become evident that practically all laws of nature originate in symmetries. In fact, this role inspired the Nobel laureate PW Anderson to write in his widely read 1972 article More is Different that "it is only slightly overstating the case to say that physics is the study of symmetry."

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry#Rotoreflection_symmetry

An example of this is where negative values in an equation do not alter the equations solution. Possibly the most famous application is Feynman's diagrams from quantum electrodynamics (QED) and the theory that all the universe's matter is a single electron bouncing back and forth through time.

Now if one thought about that it would truly mean "all were one", as in non-dualistic enlightenment, from a purely matter perpective. :roflmao:

I recall the LRH reference where the physical sciences had far out stripped the humanities and this began the query of "why", and "in what way". From here the natural path to walk is to realize that the advancement of the physical sciences are pivotal with the great cognitions that properties and states that were previously thought to be different were actually the same thing.

As in:

celestial motion and terrestial motion - these were unified by Newton to be the same, this launched the laws of physics and the age of classical physics

electricity and magnetism are one thing - electromagnetism - sets the groundwork to establish the constant of the speed of light

space and time are actually one thing - spacetime

matter and energy are equivalent - e=mc(squared)

...on and on to the point that theoretical physicists no longer look for anything but symmetries and then extropolate the corresponding law of nature. This has postulated the theory of everything as the unifying of the four forces of nature. These are the "business" of the physical sciences.

What are some of the "businesses" of the humanities?

One would be ethics. Another morals, another justice, perhaps law may be another?

What would happen to the humanities if they underwent similar unifying revelations as the physical sciences?

I then looked at ethics, morals, justice and law to see.

If non-dualistic enlightenment were to occur then ethics, morals, justice and law would unify, much like the 4 forces of nature under the unifying theory of everything, and here's how.

In a state of enlightenment there exists no lack and in its place there's a state of fulfillment and abundance. There is no separation. It is a transcended state that transcends the overt-motivator sequence, cause and effect, etc. It transcends MEST.

One does not steal from oneself, rape oneself, knowingly decieve oneself for the purpose of something for nothing. In a state of fulfillment there's nothing to steal - no promise of gain or threat of loss so no need to rape or deceive.

In this state ethics, morals, justice and law probably wouldn't even exist. No one would need to "keep their ethics in" because that implies to not selfishly act upon a perceived tempation to drop below fair exchange. If one were totally fulfilled there would exist no tempation - one would already possess everything.

Under a true unified theory there may not exist the four forces of nature.

For instance gravity. It implies a separation from matter, energy and space to exist - perhaps even a separation of time. If these things were to be unified then gravity itelf may prove to be an appearancy.

If fact, the more we know about the physical universe the more we know that it's not there - and this is extant under the current big bang theory of cosmology. This theory itself is problematic - google search "top 30 problems of the big bang". Perhaps as we learn more about the universe we'll as-is even more! (Null Physics, as in http://www.nullphysics.com/, is a recommended read.)

Going back to the humanities the more we apparently learn about the ego the more it's not there. Take a bed sheet and cover it with sand. From below push up the fingers of one hand and what will appear would be 5 distinct linen entities standing in the sand. The sand would represent the physical univers, the linen the ego and the hand would be you. Pull off the sheet and there's only you.

At any rate it is true for me that factual truth is universal and is instantly agreed upon by all...it transcends age, sex, health, wealth, status, religion, language, intelligence, beauty, aptitude, geographical location (space), time, philosophy, opinion, belief, etc., as in "2+2=4". No matter where you go in any of the mentioned positionalities 2+2 is always 4 (excluding calculus :whistling:).

This is why physics is physics no matter where you go.

People are united by truth and divided by fallacy.

Anywhere that people are divided there is fallacy and to the degree that they are divided then to the degree fallacy exists.

Democrats vs Republicans, Democracy vs Communism, Black vs White, Man vs Woman, Psychiatrist vs Scientologist, NAZI vs Jew, Cowboys vs Indians, Spy vs Spy (ha ha)...

When one looks at all these opposing forces one can see that they all want and don't want the same things and these truths are universal. Everyone wants security, health, wealth, happiness, fulfillment, love, education adn they don't want murder, crime, loss - they merely argue on how to go about it as in Democrats vs Republicans.

The ultimate separation is death = the ultimate fallacy.

At the top of the scale of emotion we have "us" - at the bottom we have "vs". Anything that is "vs" is at the bottom of the scale of emotion.

To transcend these it to reach for and attain truth. This is healing. This, followed to its end, is non-dualism. This is divine.

In reality, truth even transcends "truth vs fallacy" in that no one can argue factual truth. It is self-evident and everyone will instantly agree with it, as in "2+2=4".
 

RogerB

Crusader
I don't recognize that as anything other than a diagram. It has beauty in it but unless I'm missing something about the mathematics it is not a mathematical expression in itself.

If you take some time to consider the diagram I posted in my prior post you will realize it is a geometric (euclidean) proof of the Pythagorean Theorem. A proof without words embodied in a simple geometric figure. That's an example of mathematical elegance.


Mark A. Baker

Actually, it is a diagram of the "lines" of force of/in a toroid.

And to me, it is truly beautifully expressed, and elegant if complex. But then toroids are complex expressions of energy/force forms.

This diagram, to me, expresses the complexity, relevance and relationship of all the forces in the form . . . and it is beautifully done.

Rog
 

RogerB

Crusader
Here are some things I wanted to incorporate into that last post but ran out of time - tough to be unenlightened!

Snipped . . .

- although this doesn't describe the negative aspect of persuing these for their own sake.

Later...:wink2:

Hey, guanoloco,

Nice writing and wonderfully expressed views in your posts above. You expressed some high level truths there.

Well done.

RogerB
 
Actually, it is a diagram of the "lines" of force of/in a toroid.

And to me, it is truly beautifully expressed, and elegant if complex. But then toroids are complex expressions of energy/force forms.

This diagram, to me, expresses the complexity, relevance and relationship of all the forces in the form . . . and it is beautifully done.

Rog

I agree it is beautiful, and it is also elegant. :yes:

What it apparently is not is an example of "mathematical elegance". :no:

ME is a special characterization used by mathematicians to describe an especially aesthetic expression of a mathematical idea, as in the diagrammatic proof of the Pythagorean Theorem in my earlier post.

The phrase "mathematical elegance" is a specialized use of terms which are commonly misunderstood by non-mathematicians as they rarely have sufficient "mass" or context associated with the term.

It is NOT simply a reference to a pretty object with a mathematical description. It's a reference to the beauty inherent in the MATHEMATICAL REASONING which itself underlies a mathematical proposition. Mathematicians commonly place a high value on "elegance" in this sense, and esteem as especially noteworthy those mathematicians with the routine ability to express themselves in such a manner.

It's essentially the mathematician's equivalent of superior skill & grace in athletics.


Mark A. Baker
 

RogerB

Crusader
I agree it is beautiful, and it is also elegant. :yes:

What it apparently is not is an example of "mathematical elegance". :no:

ME is a special characterization used by mathematicians to describe an especially aesthetic expression of a mathematical idea, as in the diagrammatic proof of the Pythagorean Theorem in my earlier post.

The phrase "mathematical elegance" is a specialized use of terms which are commonly misunderstood by non-mathematicians as they rarely have sufficient "mass" or context associated with the term.

It is NOT simply a reference to a pretty object with a mathematical description. It's a reference to the beauty inherent in the MATHEMATICAL REASONING which itself underlies a mathematical proposition. Mathematicians commonly place a high value on "elegance" in this sense, and esteem as especially noteworthy those mathematicians with the routine ability to express themselves in such a manner.

It's essentially the mathematician's equivalent of superior skill & grace in athletics.


Mark A. Baker

Fair enough . . . . . :D

Personally, I wouldn't hold the term to such a narrow usage.

When I studied physics there was lots of math applied to the quantification and expression of vectors of forces.

And that diagram expressing the vectors and even the relative quantities of forces in the toroid, as with the ones you posted of geometric shapes (geometry being one form of math), to me expresses elegantly and beautifully the math of the vectors and quantities involved.

Just that we are dealing with a different branch of mathematics.

Also, just as a side note of a spiritual nature . . . . that toroidal diagram expresses beautifully the kind of turbulence and patterned formations of spiritual Life-Force that can occur (and actually exist). :D

R
 
Fair enough . . . . . :D

Personally, I wouldn't hold the term to such a narrow usage.

When I studied physics there was lots of math applied to the quantification and expression of vectors of forces.

And that diagram expressing the vectors and even the relative quantities of forces in the toroid, as with the ones you posted of geometric shapes (geometry being one form of math), to me expresses elegantly and beautifully the math of the vectors and quantities involved.

Just that we are dealing with a different branch of mathematics.

Also, just as a side note of a spiritual nature . . . . that toroidal diagram expresses beautifully the kind of turbulence and patterned formations of spiritual Life-Force that can occur (and actually exist). :D

R

Mathematicians can be quite appreciative of the aesthetics involved in the objects they study. The ones I've known have had very distinct & highly developed senses of aesthetics. But mathematicians commonly use the term "elegance" in the specific sense I've described. Consider it a specialized usage or sense common among mathematicians.

As mentioned, mathematicians know what they mean by "elegance". Non-mathematicians commonly mistake it. Accordingly when they see the term "mathematical elegance" they typically "dub in" from other meanings of the term "elegance" with which they are familiar.


Mark A. Baker
 

guanoloco

As-Wased
RogerB and David "Mate",

Thank you! I very much appreciate this feedback and this forum - very therapeutic and I love participating for just that purpose - therapy.

At some time the intention/plan is to share with you the realizations/cognitions regarding enantiodromia and it's relation to the ego and spirituality. This has been a mammoth break through for me.

It's kind of synchronous that "beauty" and "elegance" are being mentioned because the value of using what I'm beginning to see as a scale of enantiodromia is shaping up to match those usages of beauty and elegance as shared here for me.

I use enantiodromia and compassion to measure relative "truth" these days. This has proved extremely useful.

It's seems like at every turn of my life a key doorway is opened just when I'm ready for it. Literally, I will just be setting down some topic of study and wondering "well, that's done...now what?" and suddenly the next discovery presents itself.

This has been exactly what these Dr. Newton books have been for me. I'm certain of "truth" here for the extreme calming affects of the material and the exposure of abundance of compassion demonstrated in the between lives area.

More to come...:)
 
Top