Dr. Michael Newton - Journey of Souls

E

Erna

The Living Force
I did a search on Dr. Michael Newton without results, so sorry if it might have been mentioned in another thread.

Is anyone familiar with the books "Journey of Souls" and "Destiny of Souls" by this guy. I borrowed "Destiny of Souls" from someone a couple of years ago and couldn't put it down. After I returned it, the content of it pretty much stayed with me ever since, + the belief that reincarnation is very likely, or to put it bluntly, I think it's the way it is until something else makes more sense.

Anyone here who had a "past life regression" or a "life between lives regression" and want to share what happened. The best counter argument I have heard for reincarnation is that DNA actually possess memory, therefore people recalling past lives are actually recalling past lives of their ancestors.

It's positive reading, to say the least. My only big question that I haven't found an answer to is this:

"If the reason for continuous reincarnation is learning, why can't we remember previous lives - yeh, yeh, I mean without hypnotism, and I mean as a rule, I'm not talking about certain kids who do it spontaneously.


On an unrelated issue, which I should probably create a new thread for. Has the question ever been raised to the C's regarding why we only see one side of the moon. It doesn't make sense if it's a round body that it shouldn't rotate around it's own axis. I have a friend who always brings this up, but I would rather not elaborate as to why he thinks it might be, it's a little far out...

Any thoughts?
 
I have almost finished Journey of Souls and decided to do a search on here, simply because there were some similarities. I'll finish it before I make notes on here about it.

I must admit I am surprised to find this the only question and reference to him and this book on the whole of this forum.

As per the moon, I was intrigued by this for quite some time until one day I decided to do a google search on it. Apparently all the moons in our solar system with the exception of one, rotate on their own axis, but rotate at such a speed that the same side faces its planet always
 
E said:
Is anyone familiar with the books "Journey of Souls" and "Destiny of Souls" by this guy. I borrowed "Destiny of Souls" from someone a couple of years ago and couldn't put it down. After I returned it, the content of it pretty much stayed with me ever since, + the belief that reincarnation is very likely, or to put it bluntly, I think it's the way it is until something else makes more sense.
Click to expand...

Newton's first two books were among the first non-mainstream stuff I ever read, several years back, along with Robert Monroe's trilogy and some popular books on remote viewing. I actually own Newton's third book as well, but haven't read it yet.

I have a vague recollection of Journey of Souls being alluded to briefly in one of the first books of The Wave, but I don't have it in front of me right now and can't look for the reference. If my memory is right, the brief reference wasn't overwhelmingly positive, but I would want to check to be sure.

I couldn't put those two books down either, and they were definitely by "breakthrough" into taking reincarnation seriously -- you do have to wonder if Newton's material allows an actual glimpse into the world of 5D, which we don't hear too much about.

The only thing I can think of from what I remember that comes into direct conflict with Cass material is that in the second book (I think), there is a description of new souls being created -- pulled essentially out of the big pool of consciousness that we would probably call DCM. The C's, on the other hand, stated at one point something to the effect that new souls are never created -- they have always been (I don't have the transcripts with me right now to check for a reference, so if anyone finds me in error, please say so!).

E said:
On an unrelated issue, which I should probably create a new thread for. Has the question ever been raised to the C's regarding why we only see one side of the moon. It doesn't make sense if it's a round body that it shouldn't rotate around it's own axis. I have a friend who always brings this up, but I would rather not elaborate as to why he thinks it might be, it's a little far out...

Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

All I know is that I've heard all sorts of people bring this up -- Clif High did recently in one of his interviews last fall. It is often suggested that the moon is functioning as some kind of base (that much seems plausible) and that the orbit has been fixed like that so that amateur astronomers can never get a look at the dark side and figure out that somethings up. That makes sense too, although I don't know if its actually correct. If your friend's theory tops that, then I bet its an interesting theory!
 
E said:
On an unrelated issue, which I should probably create a new thread for. Has the question ever been raised to the C's regarding why we only see one side of the moon. It doesn't make sense if it's a round body that it shouldn't rotate around it's own axis. I have a friend who always brings this up, but I would rather not elaborate as to why he thinks it might be, it's a little far out...

Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

Hi E,
Here is one website among several that explains the rotation of the moon. :)
 
Hi to all. I looked up the subjet on the souls ability of remembering that I believe Shijing and E might have been referring to. From session May 27, 2000...
​
Q: (L) So true. Like the Malta "cart ruts." It's there in stone, and the archeologists still seek to
explain it away with nonsense. (F) Yeah. It's the same story with the abduction experience.
They have now discovered that if you put somebody in a sensory deprivation chamber and
subject them to EM waves of some sort, they will report the same thing. So, let's just ignore the
physical traces of alien interaction. Let's forget all that and pronounce that "see?! We have
tested these other people in tanks, under waves, and that proves that this is the only thing going
on here!" Forget the fact that the people experiencing abductions were NOT in sensory
deprivation chambers and were NOT subjected to the same types of waves and suggestion. (L)
Moving along to the next question: we have been discussing memories and how memories of,
say, past lives are stored, and that leads to the question of what is the structure and composition
of the soul? How does the soul remember? How does it carry its memories from lifetime to
lifetime, from body to body, whether simultaneous or sequential? How does the soul "store"
them?
A: Has to do with atomic principles. These with gravity present the borderland for the material
and the nonmaterial. Which theoretical atomic particulates would you think form the basis here?
Q: (L) How about tachyons?
A: Maybe neutrons?
Q: (A) Neutrons? Or neutrinos?
A: Neutrinos.
Q: (A) Well, first they say neutrons, then neutrinos. Or "maybe neutrons." I say "neutrinos" and
they say "yes." So a "maybe" is only a pointer. Neutrinos are funny particles because they are
mass less. But, some people don't believe that neutrinos exist. My guess would be neutrinos.
Do they exist?
A: Okay, we are going to throw caution to the "winds," and say yes. [Laughter.]
Q: (L) In terms of these neutrinos and soul composition, how are memories formed or held or
patterned with these neutrinos?
A: Contained within for release when and if suitable.
Q: (L) Memories are contained within the neutrinos?
A: Sort of.
Q: (L) Are they contained within patterns formed by the neutrinos?
A: Closer.
Q: (L) So, that means that if one "consciousness unit," or soul, has more memories or
experiences than another consciousness unit, it would have more neutrinos?
A: No.
Q: (B) Different patterns?
A: No.
Q: (L) What's the difference?
A: More data per unit, sort of.
Q: (L) Does that mean that an individual neutrino can be, in and of itself, more "dense" in data,
so to speak?
A: So to speak.
Q: (L) Does this increased density of data change the nature or function of the individual
neutrino?
A: Maybe it changes the function of the awareness, thus the environs.
Q: (L) Is there a specific number of neutrinos that constitutes a consciousness unit, or soul?
A: Number is not quite the right concept. Orientation is closer.
Q: (L) What are the orientational options?
A: Vibrational frequencies.
Q: (L) Do the vibrational frequencies increase or decrease with density of data?
A: Change; better not to quantify.
Q: (A) We are talking about soul. Soul is what density, in concept?
A: Ark, are neutrinos related to the concept of a bridge into pure energy in some way?
Q: (A) Yes. I was going in that direction. I was wondering why you speak about neutrinos and
not photons, because photons are also a bridge to pure energy, I would say. The difference
between photons and neutrinos is that photons are bosons and neutrinos are fermions.
Neutrinos have to dance so that they don't touch each other. Bosons are like pairs of neutrinos
and photons, as bosons, are free to move in space any way they want.
A: We would mention photons in terms of this discussion, but for the tendency of some reading
the WebPages to misinterpret in terms of the "love and light" fantastic.
Q: (L) Well, the "light fantastic" was a dance around the turn of the century, so that refers back to
the remark about "dancing." (A) Are neutrinos the fundamental building blocks of everything?
The most fundamental particle, so to speak?
A: More like a midpoint with spherical outward expansive quality. Tetrahedron, pentagon,
hexagon.
 
I've got Newton's books (2 of them) and I was flipping through it reading some of his sessions and got so upset to see how he was leading his subjects that I decided not to read the whole thing because with that kind of unprofessional and unethical hypnosis work, how can any of it be really reliable?
 
Thanks for your comment, Laura -- you are probably one of the only (if not the only) one here with a strong enough background in hypnosis to critically evaluate his methods -- good to know :)
 
Laura said:
I've got Newton's books (2 of them) and I was flipping through it reading some of his sessions and got so upset to see how he was leading his subjects that I decided not to read the whole thing because with that kind of unprofessional and unethical hypnosis work, how can any of it be really reliable?
Click to expand...

I had a chance to read the first and part of the second Newton's book before I started to read some of C's concept. I'm start to wonder what type of people they used in his examples, are all of them with souls when they all talking about previous lives and reincarnation, and what is about knowledge about matrix when they comes back to the 5th density? Or they (souls from the planet Earth) are landing to some sort of special/restricted section of 5th density where ideas about 4D STS is hidden from "pupils".

Please Laura if you have time and elaborate in more details how his work is unprofessional/unethical, does it mean that going to such type of session could in some way create problems in one's development, attract some entities, collect "false knowledge", or what?
 
Just read the way he phrases his "questions". It's all about HIS assumptions! I would NEVER have gotten anywhere with channeling, Cs and all that, if I hadn't learned how to ask a question without any anticipation of what the answer would be.
 
Thanks Laura for advice, I'll go back once again and browse thru his books. Does it mean that using the same type of anticipation you can expect a similar results from various people? And after that he can build a presumption about people's experience that is not real or even worse: that presented results induced with his anticipation could came from completely "wrong" source that want to deceive us?
 
prasimix said:
Thanks Laura for advice, I'll go back once again and browse thru his books. Does it mean that using the same type of anticipation you can expect a similar results from various people? And after that he can build a presumption about people's experience that is not real or even worse: that presented results induced with his anticipation could came from completely "wrong" source that want to deceive us?
Click to expand...

Let me give you an example.

Suppose you have a person under hypnosis and you want to find out about a possible abduction. So you are going along and you ask: "Did you smell anything?" Now, what if the person remembers smelling nothing? They will feel that they have to answer affimatively because obviously, the hypnotist expects them to have smelled something.

Some guy bogarted into one of my sessions once. He was supposed to be an experienced professional and I sat there with my mouth dropping open listening to him ask these leading questions that helped the subject create an experience that was clearly not what really happened.

He would ask things like: "Are they here to help us?" instead of "could you discern any purpose in their activity?"

Instead of asking "Did you smell anything?" you CAN say: "look all around you carefully, check all your senses for clues or details and tell me what you find."

See?
 
prasimix said:
Many thanks for the example. I see the difference.
Click to expand...

Now, with that in mind, read some of Newton's sessions where his slavering assumptions are all that matters. Not one whit of concern for finding the truth, for being open to whatever it may be, just one assumption after another.

That's not to say that some or even a lot of what he writes about is not true. But it is so tainted that in order to give any of it a high probability, everything would have to be done all over again with fresh subjects and strict controls over how questions were asked ... and that's just for starters.
 
Michael Newton

I was just wanting to know if there may be value in Michael Newton, PH.D. Works. Found a book by him this morning in a flea market Journey of Souls, and wondered if it is worth using my valuable reading time on this work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom