We're born, we live for a time, and then die.

What if the circle/cycle of life is to repeat life after life, instead of forever after?

Regardless of why or how our memories get scrubbed from one incarnation to the next, so we have no recall from past lives... it could be nature's way of conservation by recycling our souls into new bodies once the old give out (or "up the ghost," figuratively speaking.)

I wonder about reincarnation as part of the life process. It would be nice IMO if we could have more say in it all, instead of being subjects belonging to something beyond our finite understanding.

Like Shakespeare once said, "All the world’s a stage, And all the men and women merely players." Only do we really get to choose our parts, or do they select us?

"Tibetan Buddhism holds that there are two ways that someone can take rebirth after death. The first is to be reborn involuntarily, under the sway of ‘karma’, drawn back to life by destructive emotions and desires. This is the fate of most of us. A few, select others, through the power of compassion and prayer to benefit others, are believed to be able to choose their place and time of birth as well as their parents."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10935470/Tibetan-Buddhism-what-is-reincarnation.html

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Like Shakespeare once said, "All the world’s a
> stage, And all the men and women merely players."
> Only do we really get to choose our parts, or do
> they select us?

My own sense is that there are natural laws involved (something along the lines of quantum physics, or---as I learned from YouTube last night---quantum biology :) )...

...and while we generally or often do not get a conscious "choice" of parents and situations, we are naturally drawn to that which is needed [for us...or perhaps for larger reasons: we are "needed" there, etc.], or is the most optimum, given where we have been/who we have evolved into/and where we (in a more ultimate sense than any single death) are ultimately "headed for."

It is not necessarily that we, ourselves, consciously choose from a set of alternatives (otherwise, no one would choose the really tough lives: extreme poverty, extreme abuse, slavery, dying fairly soon from starvation or dehydration or mistreatment, etc.)...

...more like, of the alternatives, we go to that next life which "fits" us best at that time in our larger "soul" evolution, or will give us what we need, or could use, to get to a "place" (think: a future Einstein or Rembrandt, etc.) we are headed for in lifetimes beyond the immediate next one.

This is my sense, at this point in my own larger evolution.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/14/2016 01:19PM by Tevai.

There are people who remember past lives in enough detail for the previous life to be verified. This is the evidence which has convinced me reincarnation is true. Read Ian Stevenson and Jim Tucker.

I think it is essential that we figure out why and how this past life recall occurs so we can eventually all remember and know, for an absolute certainty, that reincarnation happens. If we knew this great truth we could solve a great deal of the problems that make existence in this world bad. Acceptance of reincarnation is also essential because if we keep thinking we are going to a "better place" after we die, we have no motive to make this world a better place.

There are more people alive today than the sum of all previous generations combined (or close to it). So there are not enough past lives for each person alive today, to have had even one past life. With the number of people alive today and the limitations on how many people this planet can support, most people alive today won't have the opportunity to reincarnate even once after this life. This kind of throws a flaw in to the idea that we reincatnate and have karma over several lifetimes. That would only work while the planet's population is relitively small.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/14/2016 11:59AM by azsteve.

azsteve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are more people alive today than the sum of
> all previous generations combined (or close to
> it). So there are not enough past lives for each
> person alive today, to have had even one past
> life. With the number of people alive today and
> the limitations on how many people this planet can
> support, most people alive today won't have the
> opportunity to reincarnate even once after this
> life. This kind of throws a flaw in to the idea
> that we reincatnate and have karma over several
> lifetimes. That would only work while the planet's
> population is relitively small.

One of the theories about this is that whatever is the essence of "us" that survives death can split, and then potentially reform, to accommodate the circumstances---much like identical twins once split apart (though I don't know of any instances where identical twins reformed as one entity ;) ).

So theoretically: the "you" that exists now may be, at this moment, only a constituent part of the "you" that existed eons ago...

...and the "you" that exists now might well have another "you" (or several "you's") living other lives on other parts of this planet right now...and all of you would have a single common ancestor "you."

The point would be that the various "you's" which exist now would, collectively, be gaining experience and wisdom which could later be coalesced together, back into a single "you" (or, alternatively, some or all of the different "you's" might decide to stay independent from each other).

This is a theory, but there are anecdotal accounts of this happening.

Anecdotal accounts don't mean that it IS happening, but this is an explanation that could possibly be at least partially true, given our current level of knowledge and understanding.

It's intriguing exploring the possibilities of "mind over matter," and where our consciences go after we depart this life for the next.

One rabbi I was reading from last week online (and I cannot now find the source of that,) related that there may be some souls who do not survive life after death. That would be the fate of those who were evil in this one, with no redeeming grace to save them from their misdeeds. Another rabbi disagrees with that one by stating that there's a waiting time after death for bad spirits to go through a sort of purgatory before being allowed to continue on in the eternal realm, or another incarnation of earth life.

Maybe each spirit has different "manifest destinies" to fulfill. And one life just won't be enough to accomplish what they need to do or learn.

As for splitting of souls, here's something I came across from a Jewish educator Eliezer Abrahamson, "The conventional understanding of reincarnation is of a recycling of the "self", or identity, of a person, in which the reincarnated person is actually the same person that lived previously, just with a different body.

However, from what I have seen in actual kabbalistic sources, it seems fairly clear that gilgul does not involve the return of the actual person, but simply the reuse of (parts of) the soul.

One of the basic problems we face here is that the concept of the "soul" in Jewish thought, and especially in kabbala, is quite complex.

Among the complexities is the relationship of the "self" with the soul. From various traditional and kabbalistic sources it is clear that the "self" and "soul" are not identical. Some sources seem to indicate that the human "self" is created through the synthesis of the soul and the physical body. Thus, my "soul" is not "me", and the "recycling" of my soul (or parts of it) would not imply that I am returning to earth in a different body. Similarly, if parts of my "soul" were previously attached to other human beings, while this might create some kind of spiritual connection between me and those other people, it would not mean that I was actually them."

https://www.quora.com/Do-Jews-believe-in-reincarnation

azsteve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are more people alive today than the sum of
> all previous generations combined (or close to
> it). So there are not enough past lives for each
> person alive today, to have had even one past
> life. With the number of people alive today and
> the limitations on how many people this planet can
> support, most people alive today won't have the
> opportunity to reincarnate even once after this
> life. This kind of throws a flaw in to the idea
> that we reincatnate and have karma over several
> lifetimes. That would only work while the planet's
> population is relitively small.

Only if you are limiting life experiences to this planet.

"There are more people alive today than the sum of all previous generations combined (or close to it)"

Says who? Some estimate that over 100 billion people have lived on the earth. I think the problem is the opposite of what you're describing. Where did all the new souls come from when populations were doubling every generation?

It could be old/er souls splitting off like atoms, and regenerating into new souls, like the universe expands concept. Parts of what once was, becoming incorporated into the newer version/s of what now is, and what is to become (maybe perhaps?)

I don't want to come back as a human being. Been here, done this.

But I'd like to come back as a burrito--one of those truck-stop bean and cheese burritos. I'd wait patiently on the shelf until a trucker came in, bought me, nuked me in the truck-stop microwave, and then gobbled me down as he was cruising down the interstate. I'd pass through his gastrointestinal track like floating through "Pirates of the Caribbean" at Disneyland, then he'd extrude me into a gas-station toilet several hours later. And that would be that.

After dutifully serving as a truck-stop burrito, in my next life I'd like to come back as a pair of Scarlett Johansson's panties. Seems fair.

Yes, reincarnation is real based on seeing portions of 2 past lives and many other experiences. And we usually come back in 'family/soul groups' that are fairly consistent from incarnation to incarnation so hopefully you can get along with those closely related to you and close friends. This can be verified by being asked 'who do you recognize' when in a 'past life meditation or trance" ---- they won't look the same but you will recognize them.

I believe we do have a choice on us coming down this reincarnation as Mormons for example. But are choices are based on a 'ton' more knowledge and experience than we presently realize as we have be reincarnating and 'experiencing' for millions of years and some are to mainly support the 'group' goals. And yes to a large degree 'life is a stage' and we are just playing our roles!

As far as the 'too many new people theory' ---- small thinking.

There are far more species than 'human beings on this one planet (earth) in our vast universe' to reincarnate into and also plants and animals ---- although once we progress to 'human-type beings' we do not go back to plants or animal forms.

We will all remember this 'temporarily blocked knowledge' shortly after we pass. However, you can get 'past life' glimpses if you try guided meditations or get 'past life or between life' regressions from hypnotists with some experience with getting people back ---- even other hypnotists sometimes stumble onto this fact that they can regress their subjects back before this life/incarnation.

The 'truth' will set you free!

The woo.... too much woo woo.


The truth will set you free Spiritus? What truth would that be?

can you provide any? I'd love to see it.

Don't be pissing off the woozers, mi vida!

Why not? They gonna sic some Woo on me? Should I be scared?

and eventually reach the state of nothingness.

I have read a couple of interesting books dealing with this topic. I can't recall the titles but they are written by Michael Newton, PhD. I found them fascinating, especially the case studies of people he has done past life regressions on.

Newton's 'Journey of Souls' should be in every believer's library.

He pretty much nailed this whole issue but there are a few things left he didn't mention ----- yet, or at least in that book that I didn't notice.

We've had lengthly discussions about it. Things are too eerily similar.

One of the really powerful social pressures I felt growing up in Salt Lake--in the same neighborhood where quite a few RFM-ers lived at one time or another--was the "need to answer the BIG QUESTIONS."

Mormonism was actually fairly easy for me discount; my parents and grandparents were inactive and unbelieving Jack Mormons (my dad was really devout until about age 20, and then I think he wound up an atheist for many years. He's not now, but simply concedes "There is something"), and a number of very devout teachers were actually "forces fueling my heresy" because they really weren't very bright.

This book was very powerful for me, but in the interest of objective honesty, I read it a few months after a year or two of "the counterculture" (and I did more than just inhale, honest):

https://www.amazon.com/Story-Edgar-Cayce-There-River/dp/0876043759

Quite frankly, I'm not willing to discuss this subject much more; these days my "spiritual program" focusses on "Keep It Simple," and from what I've seen of the way an LDS upbringing (particularly BIC folks) "handicaps" an individuals' objectivity and thought processes (the church, IMO, is a "Typhoid Mary for near-clinical Narcissistic Disorders"), that's some advice I can pass on with a clear conscience. I find there's often "a savagery among atheists" (not that I don't have strong views myself, but I think they're more flexible) that results in a zealotry nearly as rigid as a TBM mindset.

And on the "woo woo" front, I did spend one time among the "New Agers" about 30 years ago. By then I had enough psychology to recognize most "unbalanced sorts" (I wasn't a lot saner, but I knew I was "deeply troubled"), and I didn't find they had anything to offer me.

Per Sheldon Kapp: "The guru is disciple to no man."

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What if the circle/cycle of life is to repeat life
> after life, instead of forever after?

The trouble is, there's no more evidence to support that kind of idea than there is to support a claimed "pre-existence" or an "ever after."

All the evidence we DO have supports the observed "cycle:" "you" don't exist, "you" begin to exist upon conception, "you" live until you body stops working, then "you" cease to exist.

Are other things, were "you" continue to exist in some kind of conscious form possible? They can't be ruled out. But no evidence supports them, either.

Personally I don't understand why some humans have such a strong desire to pretend ideas like this without any supporting evidence are "real." I'm OK with beginning to exist, living, then ceasing to exist. It helps me make the most of the living part.

/philosopher-scientist voice back on

Beliefs have survival value, period (a reality that eludes many psychologists; see Bradshaw on "toxic shame" and how some beliefs and behaviors entail "avoidance," aka denial); that's all. Also see Darwin, Charles...

Years ago, Cricket and I attended a presentation by Thomas Murphy, a Washington state anthropologist--with Native American ancestry--who was threatened with a church court over publishing reviews of N/A DNA research (Simon Southerton previously wrote "Losing a Lost Tribe" on the same subject and was ultimately excommunicated).

Murphy, who's visited here infrequently, offered an insight I found really illuminating. Native Americans with their spiritual beliefs and "ancestral stories" don't care whether a story is factually true or not; they are strictly interested in the moral lesson offered.

He then pointed out that the BOM's "moral lessons" are pretty lame and racist, pointing to how it was the "dark-skinned" sort who were lazy and evil and the white-skinned Nephites who were "delightsome" (yeah, the wording in the BOM on that one was changed about that time).

Another profound observation he made was noting, "When white men want to act out, they dress up as Indians."

I ducked any "personal guilt" involving Mountain Meadows with that one, but alas, I did have some ancestral relatives who helped vandalize a shipment of tea in Boston Harbor back in 1773...

SL Cabbie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Beliefs have survival value, period...

Yes, no doubt.
Knowing facts also has survival value.
Does either have *more* survival value? Or usefulness?
I'll wager one does. And it's not the one with "beliefs" :)

Hypotheses are a form of beliefs that have advancement values.

Even when/if ruled out, they promote the study of science.

Imagination is not grounded in fact. And it's imagination that gives wings to science.

And inspiration. And then lots of hard work.

Where are all the schools and colleges offering classes and degrees in all the myriad and varied woozery you and others offer?

Did you see the *spirited* debates regarding Jesus? There were proffers of evidence on both sides. The names of Ph.D.s were mentioned, along with their works.

There have been names mentioned in support of woozery, but if there was a Ph.D. among them, I missed it. The guy I liked the best of Edgar Cayce. I can accept that he was sincere about his 'knowledge.' I think it was this sincerity that helped him usher in the Age of Woo.

I have no problem admitting that there are things that humans don't know, but wanting pet theories to be True, without proof, is asking too much. It becomes the same as a religion: "I don't have any proof yet, but I know it's true!"

Theological schools and schools of religion are not what I consider to be woozery.

As for schools of science, my post was referring to the scientific knowledge that begins in the imagination, based on observation, deduction, usually some inspiration before it becomes factual.

You rely on facts first to prove your beliefs. Science defers to beliefs first to prove hypotheses, that may eventually become facts.

What Tevai was sort of saying in her post was that not even science knows with any certainty regarding what constitutes souls or the afterlife. But that doesn't preclude it won't ever know. What we don't understand now may someday be hard science that there are souls and an afterlife.

You make fun of what you don't understand. Like the scoffers who used to laugh that the earth was round.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/15/2016 04:03PM by Amyjo.

>
> You make fun of what you don't understand. Like the
> scoffers who used to laugh that the earth was round.
>

The above is called an ad hominem attack, to wit, "... a personal attack on one's character rather than an attempt to address the issue at hand."

The issue at hand, in my view, is that the Woozers (see? I'm capitalizing it!) want their beliefs given the same status as proven knowledge. I have never once said you did not see angels or speak with ancestors. I can respect personal beliefs. But such assertions are not proof, they aren't 'evidence' because the can't be replicated under controlled conditions. That's science.

Will you one day be visited by one of your guardian angels and have it verified by 'sciene'? Sure, why not? But it hasn't happened yet, and so it's Woo. Nothing personal!

"But such assertions ---, they aren't 'evidence' because the can't be replicated under controlled conditions."

Why you and others continue to show your lack of 'knowledge of the English Language' is beyond me. One may as well argue with a rock than one that wants to define words to their own liking!


Full Definition of evidence

1
1
a : an outward sign : indication

b : something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter


2
: one who bears witness; especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices.

Sorry, but I don't see anything about 'can't be replicated under controlled conditions'! You and others really need to get a life!

I agree what myself, at least, has 'witnessed' is evidence but not the best at convincing others!

Why can't people share their experiences freely on this board without being called childish names ----- "woozers"? Grow up ---- if it's not too late!

Additionally, talk about 'delusional' what vision or dream did you have to form the opinion ---- 'Woozers (see? I'm capitalizing it!) want their beliefs given the same status as proven knowledge".

So, in summary----- childish name calling, delusional, and making up word definitions! Why should anyone argue or converse with you?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/15/2016 04:52PM by spiritist.

there are legal definitions and there are scientific definitions.

When a proffer of evidence is made in science, the hypothesis is given, the steps taken to prove the hypothesis are enumerated and the outcome is described. When such a paper is published, it is NOT accepted as your definition of legal evidence is described. The jury doesn't retire, weigh the evidence and then return a verdict. That's not how science works.

If those who are so moved to do so, attempt to recreate the steps taken to prove the hypothesis, and they do so successfully, they then publish and with the weight of reproduced results, the evidence is established.

Hey, it's not rocket science! It's just 'show me how you did it so that I can do it, too."

Also...: "Grow up...if it's not too late!"? et tu?

I think I must be onto something.

See Spiritist, There are always going to be those who persecute visionaries whether they be in the sciences, arts, or theological as heretical - because their own prohibitions prevent them from seeing past the veneer of existence into the soul of humanity.

Scientists tend to be viewed with skepticism too by the same folks who make fun of your spirituality and mine.

The same inventiveness, creativity, imagination, vision as in ability to dream, and aspire and simple childlike curiosity are what drives scientific wonder and invention.

Someday we will know more scientifically about the soul and afterlife as a civilization, if we don't blow ourselves off the face of the planet first. It won't be the naysayers who will get us there, it will be the dreamers and visionaries - just like they always have.

:)

An interesting discussion: who/what are the classes of peoples who most 'drive' society and its (supposed) progress?

How many vote for Politicians? We all might have that finding in common...

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> See Spiritist, There are always going to be those
> who persecute visionaries whether they be in the
> sciences, arts, or theological as heretical -
> because their own prohibitions prevent them from
> seeing past the veneer of existence into the soul
> of humanity.

Pointing out that there is no evidence (and for 'spiritist' yes, I mean scientific evidence) for the "woo" claims isn't persecution.
And insisting that they only reason people can't "see" things is because they won't look or have "prohibitions" isn't just false, it's insulting. But also false.

> Someday we will know more scientifically about the
> soul and afterlife as a civilization...

Maybe, maybe not. Until we DO, "belief" in such things is irrational. Proclaiming it "true" (instead of "I believe this...") is downright dishonest.

You realize how much that sentence sounds like mormons saying "someday we'll receive more light and wisdom," don't you? And then they insist on belief in the meantime...
That's the difference. Science never insists on belief. It doesn't even encourage it. It does often take ideas and "inspiration" to come up with testable hypotheses, but it doesn't take belief of any kind to test them. In fact, the less you "believe" and the more you're ready to accept whatever results the tests give, the better a scientist you are.

Huh! When you take the Woo, and think of those who enjoy Woo'ing, as religion and the practitioners thereof, their annoyance with the non-believers, or the unconverted, rounds into a more convenient set of palpable emotions, in terms of why they get annoyed with the non-Woo'ers.

I have never felt the need to announce any specific skepticisms, just like I never do more than nod my head, in April, when a Cubbies die hard fan tells me this is the year they win the world series. One year they just may!

The Woo'ers can't just say, "Hey, there's a very decent chance, in my mind, that the Woo will one day be established as real..." and then simply go on about their business. Nope, they demand to be taken seriously now! Like Wimpey, they will gladly pay us next Tuesday for the hamburger today, if you think of the hamburger as respect today for the 'facts' they expect to proven in the future. (Not elegant, but I like it.)

The belief that evangelical snake handlers have that rattlesnake venom won't hurt them does not on its face seem to offer much in the way of evolutionary survival value.

Is it possible that above a certain demarcation point in societal evolution, that some beliefs are just plain and simply ... silly?

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The belief that evangelical snake handlers have
> that rattlesnake venom won't hurt them does not on
> its face seem to offer much in the way of
> evolutionary survival value.
>
> Is it possible that above a certain demarcation
> point in societal evolution, that some beliefs are
> just plain and simply ... silly?

The problem is that a certain percentage of "today's" silly is "tomorrow's" scientific fact.

By this standard, many of the leading scientific minds of most any post-medieval era would be considered silly in their musings: For example: that (prior to the invention of the microscope) tiny, and invisible to our eyes, "beings" cause disease, or that invisible-to-our-eyes parts of different foods can PREVENT disease...

...but those musings lead to hypotheses...

...and those hypotheses then lead to whatever scientific study is available at that time.

Often depending on the technology (and the math) available at a given moment in time, those initial musings may be scientifically proven or not, but the final judgment is not "in" until it IS in...and THAT may take a generation or several to become apparent.

Science is not just a one-off snapshot, it is a PROCESS...and that process may extend through entire lifetimes before the final scientific decision is finally reached (especially when you are dealing with the sub-atomic world, as well as the cosmological world WAY beyond our home solar system).

Right now, science knows zippity-zip about "soul"/after death matters (of our species, or of any other species). This could mean that there is "nothing" to be known...or it could mean that we as a species are just not yet evolved enough to accurately conceptualize the reality of what "is"/could be.

Just because we human beings don't scientifically KNOW something doesn't mean that it does not exist...

...and this kind of knowledge always begins with someone, somewhere, blue-skying a concept that has yet to be adequately scientifically studied (and may not be scientifically studied for centuries to come).



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/15/2016 06:44PM by Tevai.

I shan't quibble regarding the idea that we don't know things, but I shall quibble when people say they know things, but can't prove them...like mormonism and me shooting par.

We often see statements here about 'knowing' and that those who can't equally 'know', despite the lack of evidence, are somehow remiss.

And we get into the usual weaving maypole dance of OPINIONS regarding knowing and believing. And thus shall it always be.


_____ exists!!

Where's your evidence?

It's right here, haven't you been listening?!

Yes, Tevai, you're absolutely right about that is the way science works and has always worked.

Scientists are the first to admit they don't know. It's the search for knowledge that is their business and their passion.

>
> The problem is that a certain percentage of
> "today's" silly is "tomorrow's" scientific fact.
>

What about the percentage of "today's" silly that doesn't fall into this category of future scientific fact? At least it does seem that you are leaving the door open for scoffers like me, to scoff!

I'm sure we all have our sacred cows, and loathe seeing them gored, but when we enter our sacred cows in the town fair, I'd say we had best be prepared to field less than complimentary comments, especially from competing entrants.


Do we ever open our eyes in the womb? If so, it certainly gives meaning to the phrase, "Go toward the light!"

It has its basis in ancient scripture, I know, and again, power has survival value.

/darwin voice off

what if huge spiders crawled out of your butt.

equal chance of both.

Those spiders probably have names by now.

IMO, there is conservation of energy. It never goes away, just transforms. I don't believe in a bearded 'man' sitting on a throne judging me for what he knew I would do anyway. Not really sure how to describe this because it may be indescribable.

Consider perfection. What does that mean? In a way it's the absence of everything. Can it be possible to have emotion and be perfect? I believe it is impossible to describe perfection outside of infinite refining. That's what Hinduism teaches. Life after life of refining until you become one with 'god.'

Reincarnation makes sense to me. No proof.

One night I dreamed that I lived in the middle ages. I was outside the castle ridding a horse trying to escape others on horseback chasing me. My wife sat behind me clinging on for dear life...In the morning my wife said she had a terrible dream. She recounted my dream word for word. Coincidence? Maybe. Who knows?