Reincarnation? Options

Can anyone give me some good arguments for Reincarnation?

I have myself quarreled inside when it comes to this topic.
I prefer however to keep disciplins apart and keep the Relegio/Mystical to it self and not blend in natural science.

Scientifically the most importand factor defining life is procreation.

Since most of my spirtual work has been Hermetic and Kabbalistic i tend to see thing through those traditions.

The "wheel" of rebirth, or Samsara of the Hindus does not really have an equivalent in either Kabbala or Hermetisism even if the "climbing" towards the light of anihilation, Nirvana does (in the case of Kabbala it would be Kether).

I HAVE however speculated in the sphere of Yesod, working as a final matrix for creation might harbour som "stuff" or "memories", patterns of the created on the way up after death and that energy of a sort corresponding might "grab" it in going down to be created.

This could explain being reborn as severel different people as one Dalai Lama was.

This is not well thought through Kabbala or canonic in anyway though.
My main concern is the here and now.

Sometimes rather naive arguments like "the little flowers returning in spring" are used. Thing is, its not the same flowers. They procreated and rotted.

*Feed the worms*

This is really good!!!

In reality, if we are to practice and understand Magick then we in turn would need to understand science. With that said there really is no proof of reincarnation except save the "personal" experiences each one of us encounters in our lives.

Personally I want tio believe and actually do...but the proof is very slim at best. In magick we need repeatable results likewise the proof of reincarnation is not tangible but of a personal level that only you can answer.

In short - there is no one definitive answer

X

This post has been edited by mandrake: Nov 26 2006, 03:18 PM

This is really good!!!

In reality, if we are to practice and understand Magick then we in turn would need to understand science. With that said there really is no proof of reincarnation except save the "personal" experiences each one of us encounters in our lives.

Personally I want tio believe and actually do...but the proof is very slim at best. In magick we need repeatable results likewise the proof of reincarnation is not tangible but of a personal level that only you can answer.

In short - there is no one definitive answer

X

The problem with scientists is that they do not try and work with spirituality to attain best results. Had they tried to prove reincarnation wrong or right they'd be way ahead of the game, but they're just too materialistic. Its just like physics, physics deals with the physical materialistic world, but "meta-physics" or "beyond-physics" (Greek), deals with the astral, etheric, spiritual, mind, etc... Now together they come up with more truth to them. The smarter thing to do is to coalesce Science with Spiritualism for better benefits, but the western society is too blind for this.

Those who have talked to dead spirits (primarly mediums and necromancers) have said that there IS a reincarnation, now have any scientists attempted to prove it wrong or right? No.

The point of the matter is; the universal matters are beyond science, science is true to a point, but needs to coalesce with spirituality to make the bullet proof points.

This post has been edited by DeathStalker: Dec 7 2006, 03:34 AM

The problem with scientists is that they do not try and work with spirituality to attain best results. Had they tried to prove reincarnation wrong or right they'd be way ahead of the game, but they're just too materialistic. Its just like physics, physics deals with the physical materialistic world, but "meta-physics" or "beyond-physics" (Greek), deals with the astral, etheric, spiritual, mind, etc... Now together they come up with more truth to them. The smarter thing to do is to coalesce Science with Spiritualism for better benefits, but the western society is too blind for this.

Those who have talked to dead spirits (primarly mediums and necromancers) have said that there IS a reincarnation, now have any scientists attempted to prove it wrong or right? No.

The point of the matter is; the universal matters are beyond science, science is true to a point, but needs to coalesce with spirituality to make the bullet proof points.

Don't be too judgemental of the scientific western mind - while our science is capable of a great deal, it's really got a long way to go before we can even begin to test things like reincarnation from an empirical point of view. Most scientists, if asked, would probably just say, "There's no way i can prove or disprove reincarnation." It lacks what's called, 'disprovability'. You can't establish a good experiment to test any hypothesis on the matter, either because it is not a true phenomenon, or because we lack the necessary technological advancement to form a testable hypothesis, one or the other.

Also, people who have talked with dead spirits have said a lot of other things too, some of which have been really out there and probably not true in the sense they were communicated in. Which is to say, sometimes mediums will say what spirits told them, but lack the proper context and understanding (i.e. the POV of a spirit) with which to fully express the truth in what they were told.

Science and spirituality will never coalesce in the sense that you're talking about. Spirituality will always push the envelope further than science, and I think that if you look back on the history of technological development and the growth of science as we know it today, you'd probably find that the adventists of modern science were spiritualists. Science is spiritual, it's just not seen that way because of the mutual stigma associated with the words Science and Spirituality. I know one or two physicists that are very spiritual about their science. To them, the mathematics of the universe are the spiritual equations that make up existence, and there are variables that have no constant only because of our limited perspective versus their infinite scope. But, as scientists they know better than to state that what they cannot prove objectively is universally true.

And there's nothing wrong with that. There may be objective phenomenon that occur subjectively, but understanding the phenomenon subjectively is not the same as understanding it objectively. Only an objective truth can be knit together with other objective truths to understand how the universe works in a way that everyone can see and understand. That's why science is for people, and spirituality is for persons.

peace

Don't be too judgemental of the scientific western mind - while our science is capable of a great deal, it's really got a long way to go before we can even begin to test things like reincarnation from an empirical point of view. Most scientists, if asked, would probably just say, "There's no way i can prove or disprove reincarnation." It lacks what's called, 'disprovability'. You can't establish a good experiment to test any hypothesis on the matter, either because it is not a true phenomenon, or because we lack the necessary technological advancement to form a testable hypothesis, one or the other.

Also, people who have talked with dead spirits have said a lot of other things too, some of which have been really out there and probably not true in the sense they were communicated in. Which is to say, sometimes mediums will say what spirits told them, but lack the proper context and understanding (i.e. the POV of a spirit) with which to fully express the truth in what they were told.

Science and spirituality will never coalesce in the sense that you're talking about. Spirituality will always push the envelope further than science, and I think that if you look back on the history of technological development and the growth of science as we know it today, you'd probably find that the adventists of modern science were spiritualists. Science is spiritual, it's just not seen that way because of the mutual stigma associated with the words Science and Spirituality. I know one or two physicists that are very spiritual about their science. To them, the mathematics of the universe are the spiritual equations that make up existence, and there are variables that have no constant only because of our limited perspective versus their infinite scope. But, as scientists they know better than to state that what they cannot prove objectively is universally true.

And there's nothing wrong with that. There may be objective phenomenon that occur subjectively, but understanding the phenomenon subjectively is not the same as understanding it objectively. Only an objective truth can be knit together with other objective truths to understand how the universe works in a way that everyone can see and understand. That's why science is for people, and spirituality is for persons.

peace

If scientists had understood the simple concepts of how psychic attacks happen and of the possibilities in the etheric realm, then the SUNDS disease which occured starting in 1977 with the "Hmongs" would've found a greater "cure". But to this day no scientist understands why it occured. In a sense you're right, spirituality has always ascended science (read my Philosophy + Science post), but science and spirituality work best together, though scientists are not too aware of the spiritual world. Because a Scientist's mind is usually based in reality of what is "physical" and "materialistic", the mind has evolved into this notion, it won't accept spiritual or "meta" otherwise.

What happened to the Hmongs due to SUNDS is no exception, that is due to a lack of spirituality in science.

To understand reincarnation means to study the soul itself, and the realms of consciousness. Its not impossible... Scientists came up with a machine called the "telegram" which used electric/magnetic impulses to contact with dead spirits and other spirits of the etheric, but what did they do with the research? Something tells me that mainstream religion has a role in this as well.

If reincarnation was not a logical explanation, if consciousness and the "Soul" essence and Personality did not continue from incarnation to incarnation, then, what is the reason of developing such complex beings? Why are we so different and unique? We should all have been like robots, acting and reacting mechanically. Why do we develop such an array of different tastes, moods and creativity? Why is there such a difference in the intelligence, imagination and feelings of people? How can we accept the fact that one person is born a genius and another a poor idiot? Some people might simply say that it is due to an accident of circumstance, or of parental genes and DNA, of the environment, of culture and education, etc… I personally find this to be a simplistic answer to this crucial question. Other than that, let us imagine for a moment that the laws of nature are simple, but the result of their creations very intricate.

Science is knowledge of facts built around some proven principle. All that we know about any science is that certain things happen under certain conditions. Take electricity as an example; we know that there is such a thing as electricity; we have never seen it, but we know that it exists because we can use it; we know that it operates in a certain way and we have discovered the way it works. From this knowledge we go ahead and deduce certain facts about electricity; and, applying them to the general principle, we receive definite results. No one has ever seen the power or the energy that we call electricity; and the only proof we have that it really exists is that from it we receive light, heat and motive power.

I probably did not explain my point in detail in the beginning, but I know that spirituality will always transcend science, my only point is that as long as scientists do not open to spirituality, their gains will not progress in a faster pace, and it will blurr the public's perception of what spirituality is.

This post has been edited by DeathStalker: Dec 8 2006, 02:56 AM

If scientists had understood the simple concepts of how psychic attacks happen and of the possibilities in the etheric realm, then the SUNDS disease which occured starting in 1977 with the "Hmongs" would've found a greater "cure". But to this day no scientist understands why it occured. In a sense you're right, spirituality has always ascended science (read my Philosophy + Science post), but science and spirituality work best together, though scientists are not too aware of the spiritual world. Because a Scientist's mind is usually based in reality of what is "physical" and "materialistic", the mind has evolved into this notion, it won't accept spiritual or "meta" otherwise.

SUNDS isn't a disease, it's a syndrome, akin to SIDS but associated with adults who die during sleep for *apparently* no reason. But, there are plenty of cases discussing possible factors which many SUNDS victims tend to have in common. There is no problem which has ONLY a spiritual OR physical cause/cure. Everything is connected between the three aspects of existence.

I would argue that science and spirituality deserve equal footing in the heart, but they are for very different purposes, and do not work well together as well as I believe you think they would. Spirituality is subjective experience of consciousness and being. Science is Objective observation, categorization, and explanation of Objective physical phenomenon. The heading of 'objective physical phenomenon' expands as our database and our technology allow us to look at deeper and more subtle layers of physical reality. We may discover things, which science, and explain them, with science, in terms of how they work and what other systems they effect, but science will never place meaning on those phenomenon because its science, not spirituality. Also, I don't want to attack you personally, but saying that scientists are unaware of the spiritual world tends to suggest that you don't know very many scientists. Out of sheer coincidence, between my associations with professors and a diverse group of clients, I have met a lot of scientists - from botanists, to physicists, to everything in between, it seems like. Few of them evince a 'pure science' attitude about the world. They know, generally, which paradigm fits which problems in life and the world, and they do work with one another to a degree, but are for very different purposes. Science is not unspiritual, and most scientists are not atheists. That's a common misconception spread around by religious fanatics who think science is the devil's work.

Scientists CANNOT spread their spiritual view of scientific findings. That's not their job, and they are usually very touchy about the subject in public because just like individuals with no science degrees, they too have extremely personal opinions about WHY things work, even if they largely agree on HOW.

What happened to the Hmongs due to SUNDS is no exception, that is due to a lack of spirituality in science.

SUNDS is a present day syndrome, still going on. Spirituality in science wouldn't have helped at all, probably, because we have no spiritual technology.

To understand reincarnation means to study the soul itself, and the realms of consciousness. Its not impossible... Scientists came up with a machine called the "telegram" which used electric/magnetic impulses to contact with dead spirits and other spirits of the etheric, but what did they do with the research? Something tells me that mainstream religion has a role in this as well.

Hmmm.... the greatest mystics of our history have described the soul as immaterial, immense, unimaginably vast, and beyond the grasp of human intellect. Not impossible, I think, because maybe one day we'll have that sort of technology, but we don't now, and they ARE trying to develop that sort of thing - but there's a lot of half-assed fake technology out there that does a good job of pretending to observe such subtleties. Usually they are debunked as soon as a competent person takes a critical look at the results. Obviously something else is being measured, or you and I need to rethink what consciousness is.

And, I looked all over the place for evidence that the telegram was indeed originally made for such a purpose, and could find none. If you could supply a link to where you read that, or cite a source, like a book or something, then I'd appreciate it, that's a new one on me.

If reincarnation was not a logical explanation, if consciousness and the "Soul" essence and Personality did not continue from incarnation to incarnation, then, what is the reason of developing such complex beings? Why are we so different and unique? We should all have been like robots, acting and reacting mechanically. Why do we develop such an array of different tastes, moods and creativity? Why is there such a difference in the intelligence, imagination and feelings of people? How can we accept the fact that one person is born a genius and another a poor idiot? Some people might simply say that it is due to an accident of circumstance, or of parental genes and DNA, of the environment, of culture and education, etc… I personally find this to be a simplistic answer to this crucial question. Other than that, let us imagine for a moment that the laws of nature are simple, but the result of their creations very intricate.

See my quote below. I agree with that last statement, but I think the others presume a great deal more than should be allowable in rational examination of these phenomenon. Could there be another explanation besides reincarnation as it is traditionally know? Yes, of course their could be. You don't have any hard evidence, nor do I, to support reincarnation. No one does. Even when there seems to be some, there's always some subtle flaw between the Theory and the Evidence. Which is why we're having this conversation in the first place. What reason indeed, to develop such complex beings? On the other hand, most life on earth is fairly complex even without moods and tastes and creativity. But, what if there is no individual, as many religions offer, but rather one immense consciousness which is projected through us by happenstance, arrested by the Ego and convinced of it's own seperateness? Reincarnation would take a bit of a dive after that, in it's current (traditional) form. Fact is, we just don't know, and science can't touch what it can't observe.

Science is knowledge of facts built around some proven principle. All that we know about any science is that certain things happen under certain conditions. Take electricity as an example; we know that there is such a thing as electricity; we have never seen it, but we know that it exists because we can use it; we know that it operates in a certain way and we have discovered the way it works. From this knowledge we go ahead and deduce certain facts about electricity; and, applying them to the general principle, we receive definite results. No one has ever seen the power or the energy that we call electricity; and the only proof we have that it really exists is that from it we receive light, heat and motive power.

We have seen electricity. In sufficient amounts it becomes visible as lightning, sparks, all manner of beautiful phenomenon. We also discovered it, because we can see it, feel it, be killed by it, etc. Reincarnation is very different, and I honestly cannot believe you didn't read over that again before posting it.

I probably did not explain my point in detail in the beginning, but I know that spirituality will always transcend science, my only point is that as long as scientists do not open to spirituality, their gains will not progress in a faster pace, and it will blurr the public's perception of what spirituality is.

I understand your point, I'm just rebutting. Personally, Magick and Science (specifically physics and psychology) are my two great loves, second only to Life itself and the people in it. Science operates under strict guidelines about what constitutes a phenomenon. Plenty of scientists have taken a subjective sensation or experience and gotten into the nitty gritty of how it works, why, and what it really is. But, they recognize from the beginning that Subjective and Objective are both valid, but only one of them is under the realm of Science. It's a paradigm with a purpose, and like it or not, science has done at least as much for us as Spirituality has, as far as anyone can tell. Science is moving forward at an astonishing speed, and adding spirituality to the classical scientific view is a bad idea. Then we'll have scientists arguing for decades over whether or not some principle that no one can observe is valid according to one theory or another. Hard facts, data, numbers, angles, equations, observations - these are the organs of the Scientific Body. Faith and metaphysical reasoning are for spirituality. When the technology gets far enough, it will begin to look into consciousness and the soul more closely, but as objective phenomenon, not spiritual at all. Individuals will be left to decide for themselves what the spiritual significance is. Fact is, Objective Spirituality requires and Objective view of Spirit, and it is so vast and incomprehensible that finite, ego-encased minds, cannot grasp it at that level objectively. It will always be bigger than us as long as we care - by the time we're the same size, these issues will be somewhere far, far away.

I don't want to drag this out too long, and please accept my assurance that I don't mean to attack you specifically, or personally - lots of people think the way you do about the scientific community. But, taking that point of view, assuming that science can't have anything next to the enlightened mind, is an egocentric POV that is limiting and ultimately evolves ignorance. Everything has its place, everything evolves to expand that 'place' that it governs, and everything advances. Trust me, uneducated shamans and gurus are fascinated by cutting edge science, because it puts into material terms the principles they have experienced and understood their whole lives. They don't turn their noses up at that knowledge, because as I said before, it is knowledge for the masses, a technical understanding of this physical reality.

peace

SUNDS isn't a disease, it's a syndrome, akin to SIDS but associated with adults who die during sleep for *apparently* no reason. But, there are plenty of cases discussing possible factors which many SUNDS victims tend to have in common. There is no problem which has ONLY a spiritual OR physical cause/cure. Everything is connected between the three aspects of existence.

I would argue that science and spirituality deserve equal footing in the heart, but they are for very different purposes, and do not work well together as well as I believe you think they would. Spirituality is subjective experience of consciousness and being. Science is Objective observation, categorization, and explanation of Objective physical phenomenon. The heading of 'objective physical phenomenon' expands as our database and our technology allow us to look at deeper and more subtle layers of physical reality. We may discover things, which science, and explain them, with science, in terms of how they work and what other systems they effect, but science will never place meaning on those phenomenon because its science, not spirituality. Also, I don't want to attack you personally, but saying that scientists are unaware of the spiritual world tends to suggest that you don't know very many scientists. Out of sheer coincidence, between my associations with professors and a diverse group of clients, I have met a lot of scientists - from botanists, to physicists, to everything in between, it seems like. Few of them evince a 'pure science' attitude about the world. They know, generally, which paradigm fits which problems in life and the world, and they do work with one another to a degree, but are for very different purposes. Science is not unspiritual, and most scientists are not atheists. That's a common misconception spread around by religious fanatics who think science is the devil's work.

Scientists CANNOT spread their spiritual view of scientific findings. That's not their job, and they are usually very touchy about the subject in public because just like individuals with no science degrees, they too have extremely personal opinions about WHY things work, even if they largely agree on HOW.
SUNDS is a present day syndrome, still going on. Spirituality in science wouldn't have helped at all, probably, because we have no spiritual technology.
Hmmm.... the greatest mystics of our history have described the soul as immaterial, immense, unimaginably vast, and beyond the grasp of human intellect. Not impossible, I think, because maybe one day we'll have that sort of technology, but we don't now, and they ARE trying to develop that sort of thing - but there's a lot of half-assed fake technology out there that does a good job of pretending to observe such subtleties. Usually they are debunked as soon as a competent person takes a critical look at the results. Obviously something else is being measured, or you and I need to rethink what consciousness is.

And, I looked all over the place for evidence that the telegram was indeed originally made for such a purpose, and could find none. If you could supply a link to where you read that, or cite a source, like a book or something, then I'd appreciate it, that's a new one on me.
See my quote below. I agree with that last statement, but I think the others presume a great deal more than should be allowable in rational examination of these phenomenon. Could there be another explanation besides reincarnation as it is traditionally know? Yes, of course their could be. You don't have any hard evidence, nor do I, to support reincarnation. No one does. Even when there seems to be some, there's always some subtle flaw between the Theory and the Evidence. Which is why we're having this conversation in the first place. What reason indeed, to develop such complex beings? On the other hand, most life on earth is fairly complex even without moods and tastes and creativity. But, what if there is no individual, as many religions offer, but rather one immense consciousness which is projected through us by happenstance, arrested by the Ego and convinced of it's own seperateness? Reincarnation would take a bit of a dive after that, in it's current (traditional) form. Fact is, we just don't know, and science can't touch what it can't observe.
We have seen electricity. In sufficient amounts it becomes visible as lightning, sparks, all manner of beautiful phenomenon. We also discovered it, because we can see it, feel it, be killed by it, etc. Reincarnation is very different, and I honestly cannot believe you didn't read over that again before posting it.
I understand your point, I'm just rebutting. Personally, Magick and Science (specifically physics and psychology) are my two great loves, second only to Life itself and the people in it. Science operates under strict guidelines about what constitutes a phenomenon. Plenty of scientists have taken a subjective sensation or experience and gotten into the nitty gritty of how it works, why, and what it really is. But, they recognize from the beginning that Subjective and Objective are both valid, but only one of them is under the realm of Science. It's a paradigm with a purpose, and like it or not, science has done at least as much for us as Spirituality has, as far as anyone can tell. Science is moving forward at an astonishing speed, and adding spirituality to the classical scientific view is a bad idea. Then we'll have scientists arguing for decades over whether or not some principle that no one can observe is valid according to one theory or another. Hard facts, data, numbers, angles, equations, observations - these are the organs of the Scientific Body. Faith and metaphysical reasoning are for spirituality. When the technology gets far enough, it will begin to look into consciousness and the soul more closely, but as objective phenomenon, not spiritual at all. Individuals will be left to decide for themselves what the spiritual significance is. Fact is, Objective Spirituality requires and Objective view of Spirit, and it is so vast and incomprehensible that finite, ego-encased minds, cannot grasp it at that level objectively. It will always be bigger than us as long as we care - by the time we're the same size, these issues will be somewhere far, far away.

I don't want to drag this out too long, and please accept my assurance that I don't mean to attack you specifically, or personally - lots of people think the way you do about the scientific community. But, taking that point of view, assuming that science can't have anything next to the enlightened mind, is an egocentric POV that is limiting and ultimately evolves ignorance. Everything has its place, everything evolves to expand that 'place' that it governs, and everything advances. Trust me, uneducated shamans and gurus are fascinated by cutting edge science, because it puts into material terms the principles they have experienced and understood their whole lives. They don't turn their noses up at that knowledge, because as I said before, it is knowledge for the masses, a technical understanding of this physical reality.

peace

You had a logical enough explanation and I will take it into account, It's what i've wanted to hear. Thank you.