21 thoughts on “Discussing “A Walk in the Physical” on The Past Lives Podcast with Simon Bown

  • Hi Christian
    Thank you for another great interview!

    I just have a couple of questions.

    You made an interesting comment about elves and auks. Obviously the elves were the ‘good guys’ and the auks were the ‘bad guys’. So was Hitler planned, i.e. a soul having a ‘bad guy’ experience, a bit like actors in a play? Or did the soul play8 g Hitler go massively off track?

    How can we know if we have deviated from the plan we had before we incarnated, is it possible to find out so that we can get back on track?

    Also, I wondered what you could tell us about Jesus?

    Many thanks Christian, your work has provided much comfort in so many ways. Xxx

    Like

    • Hi Amanda! Playing an elf or an orc is just a context we sign up for; we then get to choose what we do while in it. Yes we do sometimes sign up for roles, somewhat like actors in a play; but I feel it’s never that we are “required” to do harm to others, as we wish to shine our true nature through our roles, and love is ultimately the name of the game. So we might sign up for something that has a high potential to “overcome” us (in which a rather damaging ego-pattern may result), but we do so because of the opportunity, and because truly we cannot fail, and we are so bold in our creativity that we are interested in “testing the limits,” and we see the opportunity available in doing that. We might also sign up to perform a role for someone else that to the human personality appears negative, when in fact from the soul level we knew that experience would actually be beneficial to the other. Regarding is it possible to find out if we are “off track,” yes I feel generally speaking that is possible, but of course there is no “prescriptive answer”: we each have a very unique walk in the physical, and our relationships with physical reality and with the divine are unique, so for each individual it will be different. But very broadly speaking, our intuition knows: if we are willing to listen deep enough, humbly enough, open enough, beneath our stories and human expectations, we can often sense our optimal direction (and in many cases, it may not align with the human-chosen action path; the soul has a much higher vantage point!). Regarding Jesus, I generally try not to share personal conjecture on Jesus specifically as that topic is highly charged for many people, but I will at least say that I feel Jesus was the human expression of a very highly evolved soul. Also the “symbol” (name, thought object) of Jesus has great momentum in the collective consciousness of humanity, so in a sense, “Jesus” the man and being may be one thing versus “Jesus” the thought-object (which has its own “mass” in the astral and can be tapped into/ experienced). In either case, we do often benefit from “channels” or “symbols” in our pursuit of the divine while we are form-based. Just some thoughts in case they are helpful! 🙂

      Like

  • Thank you very much Christian, it is so lovely, as well as touching and inspiring, to hear what you share.
    A question – if I am not mistaken you said the soul is immortal and you also said the soul is created. How do these two statements go together? Do we have a beginning?

    Or in other words, what exactly is a soul? Where does a soul come from? Did it start from somewhere?

    And related to the above – what exactly is the relation between soul and source/god? Is it one and the same “thing”? or are these two distinct things? If it is two distinct things then what is the relation between them?

    Thank you

    Like

    • Hello Amir! While we are in linear time, questions like the “creation of the soul” can seem paradoxical, when in fact they are not. Beingness itself has no beginning, and the soul is of Beingness. Metaphorically: the water of the Ocean of All That Is always was and always will be and has no beginning and no end, and the soul is “comprised of” that. As the Ocean issued the intent to give rise to a new free-willed expression of itself (call it a “drop” in the ocean), we might call that a “creation” moment- but in fact nothing is truly “created,” and that “moment” is not a moment in linear time, but in the one eternal Now. I can think of no other way to express it! 🙂 (The soul then has the opportunity to make its own choices as it ever evolves “toward” the “perfection” of the whole Ocean, thus participating in and contributing towards the grand process of evolution.) I will also paste a couple excerpts from the book below in case they help sir!

      Part 3 Q&A excerpts:

      Q: What is the “higher self?” What is the soul?
      The higher self is you – the real and complete you – unconstrained by the limitations of the physical experience, the you that knows its oneness with all, the total you with all the experience you’ve had (as opposed to the “smaller” you, the human personality, which is the portion of you who identifies almost exclusively with the local human identity). The soul is metaphorically the drop in the ocean, the “fragment” of the Whole that is both connected and individuated and has free will. I am using the two terms higher self and soul interchangeably.

      Q: Is our soul or spirit energy?
      While we are human we believe reality is made of things. So, when we want to know what one thing (e.g. our soul/spirit) is, we ask, is it this other thing (energy)? All discrete things – all forms – arise from that which is fundamental: consciousness (or spirit) itself. Spirit is the fundamental substrate of everything. Spirit does not have a precedent; it is That Which Is. And all forms – including concepts like energy or experiences of energy – arise within it.

      Also here is an excerpt specific to the Soul in Part 1, with essay references in case they are helpful:

      Part 1 excerpt:

      II. THE SOUL AND THE WHOLE

      Source, also called God, is sentient, purposeful, and unfathomably wise and loving. (037) (114)

      The Whole of consciousness individuated Itself. We call those individuations souls. Each soul is indivisibly a part of the One, and yet is simultaneously a precious sovereign free-willed piece of the One. (056) (123) (152) There is no paradox in the simultaneous Oneness and individuation of the soul. (139) In the words of Rumi, “You are not just a drop in the ocean, you are the mighty ocean in the drop.”

      Through individuated pieces of Herself (Himself, or Itself), Source takes on numerous physical and nonphysical experiences, including experiences where She may veil Herself from Her own true nature so that She can have the experience of separate perspectives. (019) (065) (092) She does this for the purpose of the expansion of the joy and love of Beingness through Creation.

      The soul is always full of the amazing life, power, vibrance, and profound abundance of Being. (015) (050) (110) (122) (144)

      The soul contains many aspects of the self – different “personalities” or “characters” – that it has been and is, and yet it transcends them all. In other words, the human character is a small part of a much larger multidimensional self. The soul is the same “I” even when it engages the experience of being these different “personalities” or “characters,” and they are each available to each other and inform each other. The self is unfathomably deep, and the individual can benefit greatly from personally exploring one’s own depth of being.

      Source vastly transcends the sum of its parts.

      Like

      • I am deeply thankful for this care-filled reply. And apologies that i only now had the chance to truly reflect on it (the demands of physical reality can be intense at times).

        I noticed that when “my” thought process thinks of God/Source/Consciousness/Spirit, it immediately imagines it as a thing, a discrete thing with certain qualities (“sentient, purposeful, wise and loving”, as you said), and my experience tells me that whenever there is a thing, then there must inevitably also be something else that is not this thing (otherwise this thing wouldn’t exist, wouldn’t stand out, if there wasn’t something which is not it. For example, if everything was the colour yellow then I wouldn’t even know that yellow exists because there would be nothing which is not it. There must be something which is not yellow for yellow to exist in my perception, it seems).

        And that leads me to conclude that if God/Source/Consciousness is said to exist (as a distinct thing, as some-thing which can be talked about and thought about) then it must mean that there is something else, something which is not God/Source/Consciousness/Spirit

        In other words, the only two options that I can see are that (1) EITHER God/Source/Consciousness/Spirit is everything that exists, is existence/reality itself, and therefore NOT a distinct thing, not a some-thing, not a some-thing that stands out, not a something which has an opposite to it, an opposite which is not it. And in that sense it seems that it would be equally true to say that God/Source/Consciousness/Spirit is no-thing, is not an “it” (becasue if “it” is all that exists, if “it” is existence itself, if “it” has no opposite, then “it” obviously cannot be some-thing, “it” must be nothing, no-thing, no-thing which is every-thing,..
        “It” cannot be an it, cannot be a some-thing, a distinct thing, becasue a distinct thing is NOT all that exists, a distinct thing is only part of all that exists.

        OR (2), if God/Source/Consciousness/Spirit is indeed something, a distinct thing, then it inevitably means that there must be something else other than God/Source/Consciousness/Spirit (becasue if there wasn’t something else then God/Source/Consciousness wouldn’t be a thing, wouldn’t stand out as a distinct thing).

        In other words, the only two options i can see is that (1) EITHER God/Source/Consciousness cannot be known by perception and is NOT a distinct thing (becasue it is not an “it”, not a something that stands out from the rest of existence/reality, but is existence/reality itself). And therefore, everything that can be known, that csn be recognized is NOT God/Source/Consciousness

        OR (2), if God/Source/Consciousness is to be known, to be conceived of, to be recognized, to be talked about, then it must mean that it is a thing, an “it”, and in such a case this thing, this “it”, is inevitably not the only thing in existence/reality (in other words, there must be something other than God/Source/Consciousness).

        May I ask if that rings true in your understading, or are there other options than these two?

        Like

      • I love the question; it is important! Please keep in mind you are trying to understand with a thinking mind using discreet idea objects FROM the perspective of duality (is it “this or that”), whereas duality itself is the very thing that is transcended. The very logic you are seeking to rely upon is based on duality, which is transcended. Still, hopefully we can (very crudely) discuss that can be “thought about” anyway (at least until that important moment we realize the duality-conditioned thinking mind will not get us to the answer).

        Ultimately at the root there is not “something else” (something that is not Source). God/Source/Consciousness/Spirit is not a “distinct thing,” it is That Which Is (That Which Ultimately Exists).

        Distinct things (forms) are not fundamental, they only exist within that which IS real (consciousness/ Source). The experience of form is a real experience (because consciousness is fundamentally real and it is knowing it), but consciousness is not the form and consciousness transcends the form.

        On one hand, agreed that no form perception can fully capture or perceive God/Source/Consciousness/Spirit (I’ll just use the word “Source” from here out), because Source transcends all form and gives rise to all form. Yet, simultaneously and without paradox, because Source is What Is, technically you are looking at it (at a form expression within it) right now- in ANY and ALL experiences of form! “It is not the form but is the form” only sounds like a paradox in duality where form seems fundamentally real and we’re trying to figure out if it’s A or B. If a fish is swimming in an entire ocean of water, and currents and temperatures alter around him all the time, is he still not perceiving the water? (Except in this analogy, the fish is made of water, too.) Perhaps not all the water, but yet, water is water. (And in our case, all water is always connected to all other water and is not separate from it!)

        So to your final summary query- it is not either/or, it is both. The “Its” (forms) can only be perceived by consciousness, and can only exist within consciousness, made of consciousness- the That Which Transcends All Form appearing as a form. Then we, who are so very deeply associated with the realness of form and with the separateness and with the distinction, get confused- because in our world, something is A or B and not both; but in Isness, there is no paradox. In summary: The immanence and transcendence of Source are not contradictory, except to the perspective of the form-conditioned thinking mind, which deals only with forms themselves. We might say the depth of the apparent separateness of our human personality mind (through form association) is precisely the paradox-inducing distance, whereas in fact, all is One.

        I’ll paste some pertinent Part 2 essay references from the book in case they are helpful as well!

        Answer not in intellect: 021, 029, 041, 062, 070, 073, 075, 080, 118, 147
        Truth beyond knowledge: 019, 037, 046, 062, 069, 082, 090, 098, 102, 132, 139, 157
        Understanding as forms pointing to forms: 055, 058, 062, 072, 089, 139
        Form vs. formless: 041, 075, 080, 105, 114, 118, 141, 150, 155
        Seeking nonphysical answers while physical: 035, 044, 098, 150

        Like

      • Thank you very much for explaining that. I – This dualiatic form-conditioned mind – understand what you are pointing towards, as well as see my own inherent limitation in looking at this question of Source from the perspective of a form-identified state. Thank you

        Like

  • Hi,

    I’ve been listening to Simon’s podcast for awhile now and this episode led me to your book which I’m now listening to on audible. I come from the world of technology and project management like you do, and so I appreciate tremendously the careful, comprehensive way you lay out these concepts which I can tell are really impossible to fully express through language. Your book is a true gift. Thank you.

    Right now I’m grappling with the concept of fear. I see it as the cause of suffering and see that it comes from ego, but how does it play a part in our soul’s journey, if our souls are perfect? You describe how you opted out of a life while a fetus because of fear (I think) and how you returned again to overcome a fear. Did that fear come from an ego/previous life?

    Liked by 2 people

    • Hi PM Genevieve! 😉 “Fear” is just another word for “unevolvedness.” The substance of Being is always perfect, and yet, as it applies itself into manifest creation, a given soul is only “so good” at actualizing its true loving nature in a given context. Fear is experienced as consciousness experiences some context or constraints, and then buys into perceptions that are not in alignment with the truth (for example perceptions of powerlessness or unworthiness-to-love). Consciousness then (sooner or later) attempts to integrate (come to terms with) the experience of those constraints- after which point there is no more fear. Ego arises from fear (not the other way around). When I incarnated into this life, I had fear (yet-unevolvedness) that immediately was deeply triggered by the new hugely different constraints of separateness and no longer having my knowing. The constraints were “too much,” so I rejected them. When we come to terms with the great constraints, and really process them and integrate them, we expand to that point in due measure. In a sense, I am still “coming to terms with” this huge vibrational distance we are experiencing here in the human state- I feel I am doing that, and there is incredible opportunity in that. I hope that speaks to your question! (Meanwhile, I feel the book will speak to it in more depth! 🙂 )

      Liked by 1 person

      • I think I get it! Thank you so much for the reply. Hard to put into words of course, but if I try to explain this to myself, I would say: you take on constraints in order to experience separateness which > gives rise to fear as long as you are still evolving which > gives rise to ego which tries to protect against the fear, which > keeps you separate until you can process and integrate which > adds to your evolution. You could not evolve like you say from just learning about all this – you must go through the experience in order to “get” oneness/wholeness from the perspective of separation.

        Or something like that.

        Liked by 2 people

  • Hi Christian, I’m still visiting your site almost daily.
    Just so you know. 😉

    I am having a hard time trying to cope with grief
    (4 others: my husband died not long ago).

    Can you explain a little bit about heartache, please.
    Where does this fit in the things we need to learn?
    How can a human learn from a heartache, does one just need to conciously endure it, nothing else? And wait for it to stop aching?
    And how does a human’s heartache stimulate growth for the rest of us that are no longer physical?

    Also; what about a human feeling desperate? Not scared, just desperate. Hopeless. Without hope.
    How does it fit in the process of growing when a human (any human?) feels desperate?

    Thank you very much for answering sooner or later.

    Lisa

    btw: I do have your book, but English is not my native language, so I find it quite hard to read 🙂 I feel a bit stupid for that. But then again; it probably had to be that way.

    Like

    • Lisa,

      We love- we are love!- so, our hearts ache mightily when we lose someone close to us. Does the feeling of heartache preclude joy? At the root of our grief, can we not sense the sweet enduring love beneath it? That love will not die.

      But to comment more directly, the experience of loss is yet another experience (or feeling or perception) that we can integrate, and through it, better know and experience unlossability forever (I made up a word there: “unlossability” is not a real word 😉 ). For each, that process will be personal and unique. But as always, allowing ourselves to really feel it, allow it to rise up and be present and tell its story, is very powerful.

      Hopelessness can only arise when we buy into a perception that is not in alignment with the truth. Hopelessness doesn’t feel good. So we are free to find what perception we are buying into that is untrue. For example, if we perceive that we are powerless- that the world or our body has proven that to us- we may feel hopelessness as a response to the thought (it is in response to an idea that we buy into). Our association with that (untrue) thought is painful. But the truth is, we are always incredibly powerful beings- even if the rigorous virtual physical reality around us has remained firm in some limiting way.

      If my English is not helpful, please let me know and I will try again!

      With love,
      Christian

      Liked by 1 person

      • Thank you Christian.
        You wrote “Hopelessness can only arise when we buy into a perception that is not in alignment with the truth.”

        I know now that you are right, because I know now what it was that I had talked myself into.
        My husband sort of showed me.
        I had made myself believe I am a horrible person with a very bad character.
        I did not realize that untill this morning my husband made me “stumble upon” a video of me taking care of a 10 day old english sparrow. It was such a loving person that took care of this bird. And it was me.
        So I than realized I had been fooling myself into thinking I am a bad person. And felt desperate for days on end.

        Your first sentence made me ache quite heavily (I’ll take a better look at this later on, when I am more ready for it), but I understand what you are saying about love and allowing the feelings.

        Wishing you much love

        Lisa

        btw; only one word I had to look up. “preclude”. (Sort of “exclude”.) 😉
        unlossability I understand. 😀

        Liked by 1 person

      • Hi Christian,
        I found the reason your words (“so, our hearts ache mightily when we lose someone close to us. “) hurt me so. It is because I lost the chance to be one with my man, when he was alive.
        .
        What happened between us was sort of like one of those drama’s where two people love each other but they can’t be together. This happened to my husband and me.
        He had a burden, and I had another one. When we first met, those burdens were complementary.
        And when we started growing the burdens got in the way. So much that we could not be one.
        (a youth-trauma (exploding feelings of fear) and an asperger autism)
        .
        So I would like to ask you this:
        .
        If my husband is already on the other side of the veil, and I am still bound by a human body, is there a way in wich he and I can be one anyway. Him being unveiled and me being veiled?
        .

        Lisa

        Liked by 1 person

      • While the physical reality places limits on physical opportunities, our true Being is always connected, unified, and one. So technically yes, it is possible to be “one” with another being, especially one we deeply love (love is a very powerful bridge and connector)- and while the veil may at times seem to inhibit non-physical exchanges, the veil is also not a fundamental limitation, and our Being remains firmly connected at a deeper level. I feel that true merging of Being is a far greater, truer, and even more pleasurable connection than even physical sexual exchange. In short, physical death does not prevent true connection. 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s