Is one actually going to the place and doing a DMP on a person?

Or, are they accessing universal consciousness, and brining an image of the outside world into their mind, including a copy of any persons there, and doing a DMP on that copy/image?

This is a huge distinction, because you are saying that not only are they clairvoyant, but also telepathic...

You wouldn't need a lightup procedure at all if you are only accessing universal consciousness, would you?

Also, Farsight often asks wether the target person is willing to answer questions. So there's some interaction going on.

Also, Courtney mentioned more than once that telepathy is the standard in the galaxy.

Karmaic returns are what is up for grabs! Few in the west due to ignored religious teachings have missed one crucial fact! Transgender/transexuals are a point for all normal males to now consider the fee Male perspective! The fee Male spirits re-incarnated into Male body's (Gay) need to acknowledge this as well.

"because prisons have time frames for inmate terms, this is indefinite terms."

Prisons also require a legitimate reason for the prisoners to be there... War is not one of them (because then it would be termed a "Prisoner of War camp")

In nature, every ISBE has the natural right to freedom.

True freedom is the absence of aggression.

-> In nature, every ISBE has the natural right to the absence of aggression.

If this wouldn't be the case, aggression must be considered as something everybody can do without consequences, and that leads to the problem that wrong doings can't be defined anymore. I could steal your car and you can't tell why this is wrong, therefore it's not your car.

"When one chooses to incarnate into a body, it also accepts those limitations. Those limitations can all include violence, death, pain, suffering, ..."

Not every experience is a right. Losing rights is an experience as well.

"Saying one should not suffer violence ..."

I don't say one should not suffer violence. I say violating rights is not a right. You are allowed to be a criminal, but you still are a criminal.

"If this wouldn't be the case, aggression must be considered as something everybody can do without consequences, and that leads to the problem that wrong doings can't be defined anymore. I could steal your car and you can't tell why this is wrong, therefore it's not your car"

Firstly, many people all over the planet do 'bad things' such as aggression with absolutely zero consequences. I do wonder what sort of consequences you are talking about... After all, if there are these 'natural rights', then surely nature would be doling out the consequences to those who violate rights...

Ownership of physical objects... there's a few lines of (spiritual) belief that say such ownership would be a violation of rights - the rights of others to have equal enjoyment of things. Capitalism is seen as a terrible thing because of such a belief system. When no-one owns anything, and everything is available for anyone's need to use, then some would call it a utopia.

Wrongdoing can be defined - but it's not an absolute, it's not always 'right' (correct) and definitions can be changed... have been changed. You used the example of the car, and stealing it would be wrong. It wasn't that long ago (and actually, still is in parts of the world) that slavery - the ownership and use of humans as property, with the same legal rights enshrined - meant that if you stole someone's slave, it was 'wrong'. So, in this situation, there's a clear definition of what is wrong. So, how would you get out of this existential conundrum? Is it wrong to steal property? Is it wrong to own slaves? Is there a paradox here?

(Just FTR, this is part of a subject that I teach, and changed my career to teach! The subject is called Theory of Knowledge, and ethics plays a really big part of it.)

"Firstly, many people all over the planet do 'bad things' such as aggression with absolutely zero consequences."

This is not correct.

"I do wonder what sort of consequences you are talking about..."

It's all about symmetric and asymmetric behavior. Let me explain:

An aggression is asymmetric behavior, as the aggressor believes that initiating harm to others is right while at the same time believing that others initiating harm to him is not right. Therefore, through the natural law of attraction, the aggressor attracts other asymmetric beings and repels symmetric beings, thus manifesting never ending war and pain in his life, even after "death".

Non-aggression, also called peace or freedom, is symmetric behavior, as the peaceful being believes that initiating harm to others is not right. Therefore, through the natural law of attraction, the peaceful being attracts other symmetric beings, thus manifesting peace, freedom, true friendship, and love – and repels asymmetric beings, thus manifesting protection against aggression.

Look at the world and you will see the consequences right before your eyes.

"Ownership of physical objects... there's a few lines of (spiritual) belief that say such ownership would be a violation of rights"

Ownership is acquired through creation, contract or the intention to keep an unowned object. Ownership is never acquired through stealing of an already owned object. Everything that is stolen is not owned.

"the rights of others to have equal enjoyment of things."

I own my body. There's no right to have equal enjoyment of my body. As a result, I own my workforce. There's no right to have equal enjoyment of my workforce. As a result, I own the money I earned through the contract of working for other people. There's no right to have equal enjoyment of my earned money. As a result, I own the objects I bought, which also is a contract.

Violating any of this always results in slavery.

"It wasn't that long ago (...) that if you stole someone's slave, it was 'wrong'."

You can't steal a slave because you can't own a slave.

""Firstly, many people all over the planet do 'bad things' such as aggression with absolutely zero consequences."

This is not correct."

So, evidence???

And, by that, I mean this world evidence. Not about merely theorised 'next lifetime' evidence that can't be substantiated in any way.

There are murderers and rapists all over the planet who have 'gotten away with it' for years. Unless you want to try to invoke some sort of 'spiritual' consequences, then you've got a hard time convincing people.

For (tens of) thousands of years, slavery was the norm. If we say that slavery was wrong, which would naturally be a part of your thesis, then you'd also have to accept that *each and every person* who was part of the slave trade suffered terrible consequences for this... and this is pretty manifestly not true.

" Therefore, through the natural law of attraction, the peaceful being attracts other symmetric beings, thus manifesting peace, freedom, true friendship, and love – and repels asymmetric beings, thus manifesting protection against aggression."

Firstly, what's this 'natural law of attraction"??? Where's the *proof* of this???

Secondly, once again, I can point to numerous situations where such wonderful peace-loving people got themselves beaten up or killed. Not much protection happening...

"Ownership is never acquired through stealing of an already owned object. Everything that is stolen is not owned."

Tell that to the numerous indigenous peoples of so many lands on this planet...

"You can't steal a slave because you can't own a slave."

Except, there are numerous examples of this happening...

BTW, what I should have asked earlier (at the beginning) is - what are these 'rights' you write about??? Can you explain them, in detail, in a way that can be clearly seen by anyone, in the real world (ie, not merely hypothetical).

I'm a little curious here, Manuel - do you believe in the Death Traps, as espoused on this site?

"And, by that, I mean this world evidence. Not about merely theorised 'next lifetime' evidence that can't be substantiated in any way."

If you limit the timeframe to a prison planet experience where information is lost again and again, the information that would be the evidence can't be obtained. That's why the prison planet works, and that's why we need remote viewing to obtain the information.

"If we say that slavery was wrong, which would naturally be a part of your thesis, then you'd also have to accept that *each and every person* who was part of the slave trade suffered terrible consequences for this... and this is pretty manifestly not true."

Losing memories again and again, forgetting your own self, is the terrible consequence. It will be okay for a few thousand lifetimes, but eventually, you will feel like a zombie, hollowed out, depressed and frustrated. Because your soul misses the new experiences that you, in your numbed state, don't even know could exist.

Imagine having the same vacation, at the same hotel, over and over again. How long will you enjoy it?

"do you believe in the Death Traps, as espoused on this site?"

Yes, because I know why they were built. Either they exist at this time on this planet, or they existed somewhere else and I remember what once upon a time happened. It's not a fantasy.

I don't think the analogy works.

If this thing that we call 'consciousness' is not actually localised in one particular place (e.g., a 'mind', or a brain), then one isn't actually 'invading' by doing a probe, one is merely accessing a particular bit of the cosmic consciousness of which we are all a part.

It's only the ego that wants to say "this bit of consciousness is 'mine' ".

(however, that all depends on how you see the structure of the universe)

Is it any more invasive than, say, viewing someone's aura?

@Shiningbrow

So I could show up in your bedroom, lighting up all night long disturbing your sleep? How would you tell me that this is not okay? Would you defend yourself?

Yes, you could.

You have the *right* to do that. (see my post below).

Would I 'defend' myself? I would take action... (I have taken such action). But it doesn't make it a 'right' as you would like to think.

After all, I can consider it my right to steal your car. Would you take some sort of action to stop me?

I could also say I have the right to kill someone... just because I can use those words, it doesn't make it true. After all, I could say that you're trying to stop me from killing someone is impeding my rights.

Speaking of which - since we're aware of the death traps, and the idea that life on earth is a prison, and that being forced into these bodies against our will is (we generally consider) a breach of our rights as a free being - then surely it would be the best thing for me to kill people, to give them the chance of escaping this world...??? No?

Harming others is done through force.

Force is divided into rightful force and wrongful force.

Wrongful force is called violence, because it's a violation of rights. Violence is the result of aggression, which is the initiation of harm against other beings.

Rightful force is called defense, in which you use force against violence that was initiated against you.

I don't have the right to come into your bedroom and initiate harm against you.

I would reply by saying that the terms 'rightful' and 'wrongful' are merely opinions based on one's perspective.

And I'm still waiting for an outline on this 'rights' thing...

It's hard to see the overall pattern of consequences when limited to a lifespan of less then 100 years, always forgetting what you have learned. That's why they do it. If people would remember, they wouldn't start the same wars over and over again. They would begin to see the prison. Erasing memories is the only way to keep the prison running.

Yes, on this we totally agree! (although, i would fall into the same 'trap' as I've been pointing to above - it's merely conjecture with no substance. A feel-good exercise to placate an ego that doesn't like the situation I'm in... Just like those that believe in a heaven after death.)

People started wars before the invention of death traps and prison planets, so there's no heaven hiding behind the corner.