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*

One theory I have toyed with is the idea that we are reincarnated through our DNA. I mean what is DNA? Its the chemical make up of evolutionary memory. Like binary code in software programs, the human genome diffines the peramaters of our perceptive existance. So maybe in our lives the things we experience are imprinted on our DNA then passed on to future generations. If "spirit" is an energy that makes us living and not dead than soul for individual only lives, at least on the mundane level, until the point of death. But if DNA is the capacitor for spirit than the human spirit as it uniquely experiences life from one person to the next is what is actually reincarnated through the ages. Therefore past life experiences are not actually a person reliving what they themselves once lived, but remembering what someone else, apart of a shared human spirit, once lived.

Personally I think more or less reincarnation is a possibility but I don't think we really understand exactly what it means to be reincarnated.

I have read several books on this subject and I myself have had several regressions. One book that I found rather interesting was by a lady by the name of Slyvia Browne who has spent many years researching this subject and has many many case files regarding clients that she has helped to 'heal' through the use of regression techniques. One of the things that is mentioned in the book has to do with something called cell memory, which is along the same lines as the DNA theory that Acid09 mentioned. I have also read several other books regarding childeren and the subject of past lives that have been well researched for dates, times and names of places and people. Through one of my regressions I was able to obtain a name that I was able to trace back to a particular event as an actual person that was living here on this plane of existence. I was more inclined to be less skeptical because the event itself was something I had very little knowledge of and yet the more I researched and the more I found out the more it fitted with what happened during the regression. I personally think that we have along way to go before we are able to prove through mainstream science that reincarnation occurs and the evidence of case files and regressions is simply not enough to prove to those that are skeptical about reincarnation that this does take place. I think that what people are trying to get at with the anology of the flowers is the patterns that occur within nature and the universe, whilst you say that these are not the same flowers each time, when we reincarnate - we are not the same people. I think this is definately something that someone could ponder for a lifetime and still not be one hundered percent sure of, whilst I beleive that this takes place, I still like to look at the sibject objectively and have arguments for both sides.
In a round about way I can see what you mean in regards to Yesod, due to the bonding aspect and the teachings of how to appreciate the present moment. As a singular moment is the both the expression of how we have lived in the past and what is possible in the future. This particular teaching I feel could be viewed on both a microscopic scale (our present lifetime) and also on a macrocosmic scale (our past lifetimes). I think from my experiences with regression we definately "carry over" issues or experience which contribute to who we are and how we react to situations until we have somehow come to resolve them, wether it be this lifetime or several lifetimes.

My opinion is we get another chance to become better people.In some religions this is aceppted.I even heard rumors that the topic of reincarnation was in the Bible until in 300 A.D some priests decided to modify it , but i'm not sure.
Maybe we can see the process as a distilery.From a lot of fruit(regular fruit) comes very little alchool (pure people) and the rest is thrown away and the seeds grow into other fruit and the process repeats itself - just my opinion.
However I really haven't read that much on the subject but i belive in it.

yeah what i have read form other sources on reincarnation is that we go to a place called the other side

we live there for as long as we want as others would seeit as heavan in a way....then when we want to reincarnate...we do but we have no recalation of any pasts lives at all


thats pretty much what i know and what i learned in july

My toughts exactly , and then when we die we remember all .But some say they have experiences of past lives through certain ritual , though I'm not sure.

Do you believe in reincarnation? For that matter do you beieve in Karma?

Let me rephrase the last one, do you believe that what you do comes back to you?

I am a Witch, and I believe in reincarnation, and I follow the Karmic Law. No, all witches do NOT have to follow the three or ten fold law!! I think it is unethical...but remember this is just me, and I am not shooting down other peoples beliefs. Sorry, I know thats anoying, but I TRY not to offend anyone...

Do you believe in Reincarnation?

I believe in reincarnation, but a limited one.

Do you believe in Karma?

I believe that Karma exists for those who believe in it, for those who give it life, I believe it to be a psychological barrier of a sort. The mind is powerful and can make anything possible.

Yes I believe in reincarnation.

Yes I believe in the Karmic boomerang.

It is refreshing to see a Witch debunk the three fold law. The way I remember it the three fold law represents the triple moon Goddess. So whatever U do will return to you in a lunar cycle. Currently the 3 fold propaganda is basically just to scare people into being good Wiccans etc. All magickal laws are also Scientific laws. For each action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Of course many Witches / Wiccans here may disagree with me and believe that 3 karmic boomerang return for each one you throw out. Opinions are like arseholes and this is of course just my opinion.

Peace!

Blech... Three Fold path is yuck...ok

But by what death stalker said, acording to my religion, all the shit would manifest in their next life. So they would be robbed or something, to pay for past Karma. That is if the shit didn't come bacl a;ready in this life...obvioslly Hinduism really, REALLY bleeds into my beliefs.

And I have another question-Why do some people spell Karma Kharmah? Is it just to get attention? (Like Magik, majic, majick, majik, or even magick?)

P.S. I'm not getting mad at people for spelling magic, like magick...its just how the spelling is widely accepted in the magickal community. I just think its stupid, anyone who comes here to roleplay Harry Potter, or to talk about stage magic is stupid. This obviosly has NOTHING to do with stage magic...and if you buy a book on magic, just by reading the front and back, you can tell it isn't a fantasy story, or a book on stage magic. I have a feeling Crowly had an inferiority complex...not that he was bad, his writing WERE good...

P.P.S. You should read www.obsidianmirror.net, he is very...truthfull, yet rude at the same time...

P.P.P.S. I have somthing very important to say, Naw I just did this one to get attention

I believe the spelling of magick comes from a certain Mr. Crowley who wished to distinguish magick from stage tricks.

I can kinda see his reasoning for that, but I still believe it was unnesecary

I believe in both karma and reincarnation.

Here's my two cents on both.

Reincarnation, to me, seems to be a phenomenon connected to other incarnations of consciousness to which we have a particularly strong resonance with. I think that is because the unified consciousness, when it is pulled into incarnation in a newborn, comes with karma, negative influences to workout, purifying their locale in the greater consciousness. Also, by reacting to the karma they were introduced to, they further the overall engine of karma on the world scale. I think that your personal consciousness as you know it has no direct 'source' from another life, but that you were rather incarnated out of 'momentum' if you will. You can follow the karmic current that you are incarnated into backwards to it's source, and these occur to us as 'past lives' because they are the path that our karma has followed. We see it as our own because of our ego.

Which brings me to my two cents on karma. I don't believe that karma is totally predestined. I think it is a pattern of events that manifests in a universe which is constantly changing based on infinite variables, and that it is this course of change that constitutes the karma of the universe. The consciousness of the universe navigates that constant change, and it's parts, too small to grasp the perspective of the whole, inherently do the same. As individual parts of the universal consciousness, it is our responsibility (IMO) to transmute each element of our karma as it confronts us, which it ultimately must. In doing so, we divert the negative currents into positive ones.

You think about one person spends their life doing unspeakable evil, and another, somewhere else in the world, spends a life doing only good. Evil being reversion and regression of any form of evolution (consciouness, biological, social, etc.), good being the opposite in furthering that progress of evolution.

Each act of evil done by the one man will start several causal branches that are negative in nature. THe individuals inflicted this way will deal with it in different ways. Some will take that evil done to them and transmute it to good by the nature of who and what they are. Others, though, will become infected with it one way or another, and pass it on.

The same goes for the man who lives a life of good - he passes on a current of progression, of positive intentions, and just like the other man's karma, some people will take it and do good by it and others will twist it into evil.

Those people's karma was to be a part of that current, because they were incarnated into that current to begin with - what they do with their part, depends on them as individuals. Likewise the individuals who began each respective 'nexi' of good and evil currents, did so because they were incarnated into a pre-existing karmic current and were destined to become a part of that current through their actions.

So, in my opinion, if we see ourselves as temporarily separated from a greater consciousness by the ego condition, then the is no individual, personal karma, based upon one's own, individual deeds, but rather a greater, universal karma which we each take part in transmuting into a positive current of karma or a negative one. Personal Karma and Past lives are, thusly, again in my opinion, essentially Illusion in the sense of a recurring ego consciousness, even including some beliefs in being 'wiped clean' afterwards. I think that if all experience is 'recorded' or rather already present, in the eternal, timeless dimension of the chaotic source, then it seems to me that there's no erasing done, just a union between the localized context of individuality and the greater context of the Source.

Now, I do think that by mastering one's temporarily contained consciousness, maybe you can expand your awareness to encompass a greater degree of the karmic current you are currently in, and deal with it then in whatever way you feel you are supposed to, but I've had dozens of different past life memories occur in the course of my life, and i've learned that they're of virtually no importance beyond signaling a karmic issue you should be handling, at least in my case so far. Experiencing a fraction of some other life that happens to be in the same frequency range, or in the same current, as mine, only means that this incarnation has encountered a particular locale of the universal karma, and that it happened so that an incarnation could deal with it, so here I am to do just that, it's my job.

Whether there is truly such a thing as retaining one's ego, or individual, separate awareness after death, though, I think it might be possible, but I also wonder if there's some very heavy cost. Does the source want us back, and if it does have such a comparable 'urge' within it, will it work against me if I try? What happens if I succeed? Am I cast out of the sphere, to start my own? Makes me wonder about the myth of the fallen angel Lucifer.

Being an ascensionist, I must believe in ascension, and I do. But so far, no evidence to report on that. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

that's what I have to contribute to that.

peace

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.

I went ahead and merged this thread with a pre-existing thread.

When it comes to reincarnation I think we should consider life, death, the after life and rebirth and the forces that could potentially cause the phenomenon. In order for there to be life on Earth, as we know it, there must an organic structure for it to exist. The type of structure determines its nature (bird as a pose to lion or bacteria). This is only a termporary vehicle for a life form. All life eventually ends, in its mundane earthly form.

Now suppose that there is an energy say "life force" that continues on after life. Death and the after life would be interwined so much so that it could be argued they are one in the same. What this stage of existance could mean is a sort of "reconstruction" period. What I mean is this energy that dwells within life forms evolves and death/afterlife is the a temporary staging ground for it to reconstruct itself. This is where a force such as karma could come into play. One's karma determines the out come of the evolution of their life force. The final result is the emergance into a new life.

There are several facotors to consider - for one, the nature of an individuals death. Now suppose the way somebody dies further influences reincarnation. To put it in another way -how we die determines how our life force is released from our bodies. Theoretically, to die of natural causes would be the most prefferable way because this form of dying means their life force has reached a peak maturity, sort of like how wine ages. Though some bodies may be able to mature longer than others (we don't die a specific time, or bodies just of decay to the point where they can no longer life). To die prematurely means the life force would reincarnate as a lesser life form (or forms as its possible out life force can fill several other creatures), but would still retain its original qualities. So like the guy on terminator 2, eventually reconglomerate into a higher life form. Then there is the matter of consciousness. Personally, I believe when our bodies die our physical consciousness goes with it. Only bits and pieces of memory, not consciousness, remain embeded in the life force and have the potential to travel with the life force as it reincarnates. But who you are now is only until you die. Its you're life force that determines your individuallity, not your consciousness.

i can see reincarnation as being as valid as it not being ... and i think that is the case ...
some people are reincarnated from past human lives ... maybe some are not, but the energy had to be somewhere before it took this form ... perhaps it was just dormant and something sparked it, but once it sparks it has to keep moving ... so after death can it really go dormant again ... and if so, what is that ...

i think its very relevant for many people to integrate past lives, or future lives, for that matter into this one to apply a context for their evolution in consciousness ...

eliminate the illusion of time, however and then, what is reincarnation? hmmmmm ... great mind game question!

A very good book on reincarnation is called "Old Souls" by Tom Shroder. The book follows Dr. Ian Stevenson to Beirut and India to investigate cases of children who recall past life details. Most of the children are born knowing intimate details of families they've never met. The families generally live within 50-100 miles from the children's homes. The kids know names, dates, places and even resemble the people they claim to have been in past lives. Dr. Stevenson is a man who has devoted his entire life to researching these cases and investigating them, even at the cost of his medical career.

Some commonalities in the cases are; that reincarnation usually occurs within 8 months of death, karma seems to have no effect at all on the types of lives the souls are reborn into, birthmarks seem to be scars from past life injuries. Also, there are claims the the spirit world mourns a rebirth in the same fashion that we mourn a death on earth.

It's a very scientific investigation in reincarnation and an excellent read. I came away from the book with this thought - Does it really matter if reincarnation exists if you cannot remember your past lives? What is the difference between a reincarnated soul and a new soul if no memory of the event exists?

Check out the book if this topic interests you. I don't think there is a better book on the subject.

As someone who remembers being reincarnated more than once...and by CHOICE, I KNOW that reincarnation is a very real, tangible thing. I dont know if it varies with different entities, it probably does, but i have lived both animal and human lives, mostly female, sometimes with single objectives, and sometimes just to simply exist. I have been murdered at least twice, written several novels (ill never know if they were published), and ive been hunted and eaten. Let me tell you, it sucks to be gazelle.

Despite my memories, and personal experiences, in this specific lifetime i have tried to attach some logical reasoning to why reincarnation might exist, what its process would be, and other significant factors. My twin brother, too, has discussed and argued different philosophies regarding it. Give and take a few points, we generally agree on the same things:

Time is not lateral. You can live a life more than once. The same life can have very different results. Some souls have the choice of what "time" they enter into. For most though, life is a continuity spanning from one end to the other and there is little variation from this path. For most, there is a past, a present, and a future.

The soul is seperate from the body. Well duh.

There are Old souls, and there are New souls. My brother is an old soul. Im not sure how old i am, but i think i am relatively new on the spectrum of aging souls. What i can surmise from this is that souls are constantly being born...which leads to the question: where are they coming from? This source must be ever expanding and virile to be animating so many and without time constraints.

There is a period between transmutation: what we call "limbo". It is a time of reflection, decay, and sometimes an oppurtunity to return to the source. In order to move on, in either instance (either to go to the next life form, or return to the source) one must be able to give up a past identity, past knowledge or realizations and characteristics. It is not easy, and it might take millions of years for some. For others, there is an immediate return. It is the "River of Lethe" before one's return that makes us forget or let go of past lives. As painful as it is, and it IS torturous, be glad that it exists.

There is a Source: Dont get me started on it. "Being" "God" call "it" what you will, but it is in general an assemblance of life in one mass. It is a "heaven" of sorts, only there is no individual...no such thing as seperate souls. LIFE. Everything every one is All, the Entirety.


So these are the general points my brother and i agree on. I could go on and on about Why, and i have several ideas. I also have a lot of questions stemming from my theories and my experience. If there is the Epitomy of everything in the Source....then is there an epitome of Nothing? Where are we headed to, and how does the latest evolution of sentient life progress us towards out destination? Do we have a destination assuming that our Origin is selfsustaining and paradoxical in ITS own origin? So many questions. But i thought it was best to lay the ground work out first...and get some feed back. After all, there is always someone out there who knows more, whose lived more lives(lol).

P.S (lol) I thought the scientific approach would be to first list my observations. Theories will come later, much later.

IMO the goal of human existence is the attainment of the stature of the perfect man, and only through a series of reincarnation can this achievement be realised.

Jesus, The Buddha, Mohammad, the Prophets, countless of unnamed and silent people throughout history have understood this principle, and their lives have reflected the decency which humans very often display. It is not the need of remembering past lives themselves - the recollection of precise events, people, possessions, but the ability to draw on the subliminal experiences and put them to good use in the present incarnation.

I think that in the case of Jesus, his "perfection" was so enigmatic and startling to the very unsophisticated individual of that time, that his innate goodess was rewarded with the mantle of deity. History bears testament to a successful spin-doctor, Saul of Tarsus! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Anyway that is just a personal thought.

I love your post Valkyrie, as you have hit the reincarnation nail on the head, but it might be more diplomatic to speak of Old Souls and Young Souls, rather than "new souls", which some people might take a dim view of being called. You are very definately a Mature Soul! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/starspin.gif)





(IMG:style_emoticons/default/angel.gif)

Much love to Alafair. Your reply was enjoyed.

I have often entertained the idea that perfection was the goal. The paragon of our race, as i was speaking to a friend about, could possibly already have come and gone unnoticed in this world. If "perfection" is listed under very specific terms, the pursuit of it may be very difficult indeed, and for those that believe demons and angels can strive for such power and very nearly get it, there is only a little hope for humankind. But if there is no specific definition for "perfection" then the simple goal of attaining could have been met a long time ago, and our widely varying definitions would not have recognized such divinity. Some might argue this is the Jesus role. And perhaps, humans would reject "the prophet" because he hit too close to home, it was alienating. 'home' being the subject of human perfection. If this is the case, it could explain why we made a god out of him, instead of merely embracing him as one of our own. In any case, the "perfection" idea is a cult classic.

i must make a point of emphasizing animal reincarnation. Does this perfection theory exclude animal paragons? Yes, humans are animals too yet, in which case, could there be a paragon other than human that might fulfill all our souls' life quests in the form of one perfect itty bitty ant? Can one argue that human intelligence holds the key to perfection? If this were so, why do we live animal lives? Does each and every one of us strive towards this goal...the majority of us never actually attaining such enlightenment but simply being engulfed back into the Source prematurely? I find that however close to perfection an individual might get, would not determine if he or she or it Returned to the perfection of the source.

On second thought however I could definately embrace the idea. There is a possibility that this perfection is not life form specific at all, but rather a method of living life. In which case, could this method Return us to the source before we die and face the transition? Could we in effect simply vanish into the great Being...one day an enlightened reincarnation the next "walking with God" no trace to be found? I cant imagine if anyone ever obtained so said perfection, the Source would allow it to stay seperate and in such a fragmented existence. There is little possibility that perfection exists outside the plain of the Source. But could it be true? Here is the question: Does all perfection stem from the Source? Can this shallow existence allow for a life of uncompromised Perfection?

This post has been edited by valkyrie: Feb 8 2007, 02:19 PM

I figure this subject is not a popular one anymore....im getting no replies, and i dont solely depend on my own opinion, people! But im going to add to the thread just the same so here goes.... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blablabla.gif)


I wrote this a while back but it is a dangerous philosophy that threatens to disolve all the borders i put up between me and the rest of the world:

When you die, you will feel a stubborn familiarity. You’ll fight, but you will slip out of your body, and momentarily, you will curse because your body is not obeying you. Then you will accept your fate and no, not surrender…you will simply acknowledge there is no other way to exist now. Sometimes you will make the decision, sometimes it is made for you…but when you return to the living world…you will once again be born in red…in bloodshed, in cries of pain and happiness. And then, there is no other way to exist either. You live die and live and there is no in between. In death there is life, and in life there is death. Why must you long for eternal life? When you have the sublime cycle ever organizing you into a long and narrow line of being? All roads lead to one…it is the path to Avalon, to Heaven, to Alexander…all names are one. The Great Being will take you to its infinite bosom, and you will add to its identity as you do now…ever increasing, ever growing and pleasing. There is eternity in our eyes…we just think we must earn it. That we must own it. No…we mustn’t try…there is wasted energy in that. We must Be.

My mantra? All the world is me and I am all of the world. When i was a kid, i used to get the impression that everyone else was just bumping bodies...that no one else had definition or real conscious reasoning. They were all just automatons that were there to test and please me. I imagined that they were all just my own creations. Then i told myself i was being selfish. That everyone has their own emotions, and of course i had no way of proving that, and it made me feel small. But with the Source in mind, the reason behind the incarnation of individuals seems clear to me: its just another million different ways to exist. In reality, there is no one reality...and all is one and one is many.

Then i got to thinking, WHY do all of us exist? Perhaps it was the pursuit of perfection, or the Source is in a constant state of birth and death? There are a million different whys, but no actual right or wrong answer. It couldnt be far from the truth...any other reasoning seemed flawed. And my thoughts spiraled and colapsed but built back up again...with no real object in mind, just a question. The one question that everyone always asks but takes a lifetime trying to figure out. And even when say, a person finally figures it out they can still remain in their seperate world, if they so choose. I have to make my theory, the one argument that seems to be supported everytime im reborn or new life comes into this world: Are we here simply to exist? Is each seperate life given oppurtunity to answer such a question, and therefore is given immortality in such an infinite resource of answers?

"There is a possibility that this perfection is not life form specific at all, but rather a method of living life." (to quote myself earlier) If this is true, then how many different methods of living life are there? Infinite. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/angry_pissed_off_emoticon.gif) sorry im not trying to make heads explode. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

im posting a good site that supports the jesus theme Alafair mentioned. For those who are interested: http://www.crystalinks.com/edgar_cayce.html

check it out (IMG:style_emoticons/default/bigwink.gif)

This post has been edited by valkyrie: Mar 8 2007, 06:25 PM