Where I Find Problems with the book
I said there were areas of the work that I found off or error-prone. In fact, it so bothered me, I originally discarded the book at chapter 6. I’m glad I persisted with it. But I would like to tell you where I feel he’s wrong.
Keep in mind that spirituality is not a “right/wrong” thing, BUT when you say you believe in the alphabet and talk up the letters XYZ and then condemn the letters TUV… we’re not working with the alphabet correctly. There’s a domain of knowledge that should be consistent to itself.
It’s fine to invent something new… or to give a new perspective on something, but there’s a certainty that most of us have through our own spiritual experiences that goes counter to some specific teachings of Eric Pepin
White Cell vs. Red Cell (and the lack of soul)
In chapter 2 Eric makes an anology to red and white cells in the body. White cells fight infection and they are like spiritually driven people. Red cells are the general worker cells, who are like mundane minds. Basically, Red Cells are mundane folks who can’t respect or understand the spiritual. They have a hard time getting past the illusion around us. I get it. I agree. White Cells are folks who are looking deeper, seeking truth and going beyond “reality” and I agree with that as well.
Where this gets off (in my view), is that Eric states there is no “soul” in us from the moment we are created. We “create the soul.” If we are not spiritually aware enough to create a soul (which takes years), well… we don’t have one. In his world-view, such a person, at death, simply dissolves into energy that is absorbed back into life. They do not continue past death.
It means a child who dies, doesn’t continue. They are gone. Your family that didn’t really get into spiritual movements, at death – they’re gone for good. It’s very nihilistic. Children don’t have the time to learn to create a soul. A mundane person who didn’t grow spiritually and dies… totally lost.
Another issue you’d have to bring up at this point – in a spiritualist discussion – is what about mediums? Let’s say 80% of so called mediums are fakes. But if 20% can reach out, talk to a dead Red Cell “spirit” and relay the information back to a family member who can confirm it (especially if it’s specific data that is not public), where did that come from? The medium claims they interacted with a spirit. Not some general database in the afterlife. They may pick up on the personality as well, even imitate the hand writing or vocal inflection.
Out of Body Experiences
Several Amazon reviewers were outraged at this point in Eric’s book. These reviewers brought up Out of Body Experiences that many have reported – even those who aren’t spiritually inclined. “How does he explain that,” they demanded. I take it they didn’t keep reading, because Eric does talk about that.
Eric answers that in Chapter 9. He feels that such Out of Body Experiences are simply Remote Viewing exercises at death. Which is odd… since we’re talking about Red Cells here… people who haven’t studied Remote Viewing… so how did they do it?
Such Red Cell minds are simple it seems. They haven’t had any spiritual growth or training. How does someone with no spiritual growth just start Remote Viewing? He states throughout the book, that to learn these things (psychic work) you must have proper training.
The question becomes: how did a 7-year-old die and see something far away and then reintegrate into his body? If his data is verified, how did he “remote view” without any training? Especially if you have a world-view that such psychic work must be learned.
It seems more plausible to me that such a child has a consciousness that persists beyond body death and it left his body, later returning with knowledge obtained. Think of those shamans who took herbs that caused out of body experiences. These were not described as remote viewing exercises, but of separated consciousness.
Physical Organs and Memory
In the book, the author states that spiritual beings do not “see.” They don’t have senses like we do in the physical realms. This dimension, as it were, caters to physical organs… and spiritual consciousness doesn’t see/hear/feel. This again, just isn’t congruent with my view of the afterlife. I’ve summoned full manifestations into my physical space. I’ve had summonings with multiple witnesses (even skeptics.) We saw the manifestation and the manifestation saw us.
While true, spiritual beings do not have the same sensory organs, they do perceive similar to us. They “see” in some way to know what we are doing or feeling. Even knowing colors or objects we are holding. I believe it must be close to OBE’s. Where the mind is understanding the surroundings, rather than eyes. Also, keep in mind that to the ancients the mind chakra was an “eye.” Perhaps it is the visual component of a spiritual body, enabling “sight.”
How could memory persist after body death? That’s the question. For Eric, it doesn’t, unless you are a White Cell (and created a soul to carry it on.) This is perhaps why he thinks the OOBE is simply a remote viewing exercise.
Many spiritual seekers believe that memory is non-corpreal and not just maintained in the brain. That there is a non-corpreal consciousness that retains data – this data is transmitted to the meat brain that holds it. I agree with this idea. It can explain how one retains knowledge of an event while there was no recorded brain activity.
My view is that our consciousness is eternal and extends the “length” of creation. It is our self-awareness that determines where we “think we are.” Our ego limits us and makes us think we are just a body, but in truth we are consciousness. If we truly had the belief/power, we could manifest on Mars, or in a different spiritual dimension – as we are there already!
In my view, our higher self is that which is closest to God. We are like a “ray of one light” (to quote Yogananda) and at one extreme we connect with the Divine source (our higher self) and at the other extreme we are in outer darkness. Our awareness places us on that sliding scale at one point or another. This “ray” as it were, is our soul – I believe we each have one and it is not something we “create” on our own.
Objective vs. Subjective
In my experience, there are two types of spiritual Astral Experiences (Eric does not use the word “astral” but I’ll use it for lack of a better term): Objective and Subjective.
Subjective experiences are like remote viewing. It’s where you hold an image of a space in your mind. I’ve described such an experience when I did some spiritual work to free a hostage. A friend of mine who was taken in a kidnapping – I describe it in a post where I (for lack of a better word) astrally saw his space (remote viewing)… and I did spiritual work on the kidnapper to let the hostage go… and it worked. That whole experience was within my local conscious awareness. I wasn’t “out of body” but was consciously aware of another place.
I would also list lucid dreaming states as Subjective as well. Information is being sent to you, and you are interpreting it within your local conscious awareness – in a dream state.
Objective experiences are a form of disconnection from the body (the OBE if you will.) This full disconnect is very different. It’s very jarring. It’s more akin to the descriptions of Robert Monroe. I’ve had this experience one time in my life. I honestly thought I was dead. It was a consciously induced meditation to experience an out of body experience (aka Astral Projection.)
Here’s a bit from Robert Monroe on out of body experiences:
When it occurred I saw the room as though I was there at the ceiling, and not there in bed. I had a full disconect from the body. I didn’t feel the body anymore. I wasn’t the body anymore. The jarring realtiy of it scared me and SNAP – I was back in the body.
The idea that we “create the soul” is counter to my own experience, as well as the knowledge of Hinduism (which he espouses.) Proof is in the OOBE. Eric argues in Handbook of the Navigator that not all people have Near Death OOBE. Therefore, he concludes, it’s not an accurate litmus test. I disagree. His assertion is flawed.
All it takes is one person to have a verifiable experience out of the body, and we know it is real. Not everyone remembers. Not everyone gets the same result… but one verifiable result is all that is needed to be certain of the possibility and we have many.
Yes, each person has their own tapestry of experience at death (one seeing Hindu gods, another seeing Jesus, another seeing Moses…) – this is simply one’s own ego presenting data in a way to fully digest the experience. The fact of the experience and the overlapping elements is where the evidence is.
He speaks about needing scientific evidence, and that (in my opinion) is in the recorded Near Death Experience of the woman, where she dies on a hospital bed and leaves her body… she finds herself on the roof of the hospital and sees a girls red shoe on the roof. It was an odd object to find there, so she took especial note of it. She returns (is revived) and recounts this to the doctor later. The doctor is curious and goes up with a maintenance worker and discover a red shoe, as she described it.
That one event is proof. Maybe 1,000 people recount nothing. That’s fine. How many people remember their dreams? If 80% of folks don’t remember their dreams, that doesn’t mean dreams don’t occur! All it takes is 1 person to have a dream and then we know dreaming is something that occurs.
How many people can recount an adrenaline packed event with clarity? All it takes is one, to verify there is a body of consciousness outside one’s physical form.
3,000 years of Human experience
Lastly, I turn to the ancient explorers of the spirit world. Shamans, Buddhists, Hindu’s, Daoists and more have explored human consciousness over thousands of years. Eric refers to such folks as the fingers of God. They were connected to truth. He gives them credit for that. Yet each of these, found the truth that consciousness in all sentient beings exists outside the body.
Where Eric Pepin gets this notion… I don’t know. It runs counter to my own experiences, and the knowledge of others. So I have to disagree with him on this point.
Another topic that I took content with was his view of Non-Duality.
Click Next to see what Eric has to say about Non-Duality…