ok when we die and go 2 heaven well do we have a decision if u wanna get recordnation how ever u spell it well does he ask u if u want too or can we stay in heaven for ever?

Ashley

I sincerely suggest shorty... that you read/study the various materials that dave and I had suggested in your previous post concerning the afterlife... Not only will this research give you a *better* understanding of the questions that you pose, but it will also give you a better understanding of the questions that you didn't even realize you had.

In a short reply to the question you have about reincarnation:

As far as I have come to understand, we are "free-willed" spirits... We can choose/dictate, if we are understanding/aware enough, the paths that we lead regarding reincarnation as vs. "staying in heaven"... There are guides/helpers/angels that will suggest/counsel us as to what would be most beneficial for our soul's evolution... But, nobody can "force" you to do something that you don't want to do. Sooner or later however, you will come to realize/understand that in order to mature/grow as a soul/creator, you will eventually "choose" to have another go at an incarnation which will help you to achieve that growth... And in growing spiritually we are becoming closer/more understanding/knowledgable of the source from which we came... (never left). I know it seems like a bit of a paradox, but in all truth and honesty, in time, this paradox becomes more natural than anything you could ever come to know... The more spiritual growth that we undergo as souls, the more we come to understand the "naturalness/trueness" of this complex paradox.

Best of luck,
PUL,
Cosmic_Ambitions

Hi Folks-

I recall two stories reported in past life sessions. In one, a man was invited to jump into a beautiful pool. Only afterwards did he discover that it had a funnel at the bottom that sent him down to be reincarnated. He was both amused and annoyed at having been tricked so cleverely.

A woman wanted to stay forever in the spirit world. Finally "a man" came to her, took her arm and told her to "hurry up" and "there's not much time".  He then took her to the place from which she came back to earthly life. I have no idea why she was short of time, or maybe there's something in the works that we do not yet know of.

I read another person's views, who said that when the time came it was like being sucked back to earth in a cosmic vacuum cleaner.

Given these remarks, I have the impression that we have a certain time to relax and recuperate - and then it's back to school in Classroom Earth.

The question you ask is actually a very good one, and if you persist in asking it until you get an answer tht you personally find satisfying, you will eventually learn how it works. It may take a while, but you're on a good path, and it will definitely pay off.

dave

Unfortunately, I tend to disagree.  I don't think the answer is absolutely clear.  Firstly, none have settled the paradox of how if there are 5-6 billion souls incarnated now, they all could have had past lives, when there were, say 1 billion a little more than a century ago.  I have heard theories of aliens reincarnating here, or dividing one's essence into five different lives, simultaneously.  This makes the picture quite strange, even confused.

The issue of reincarnation is a highly debated one.  Free will does seem to reign, thus I would normally think it is up to the individual soul.  I can not believe that a spirit won't mature in the spiritual realms if it is dedicated toward love and serving others.  Thus, this notion of being hurled back to earth life against our will rings quite false to me.

One may see enlightenment as a continuing evolution of the soul.  This may be done by voluntarily coming back to earthly life, but one could easily plot a different path.  We allow ourselves to believe that we have more limitations here, on earth than we really do.  Those who propose mandatory incarnation or reincarnation on earth are in a way imposing limitations on our creative and spiritual selves.  I don't buy into it.  Not yet.  

Our whole past live discussion about Michael Newton, and friends, led me to believe that some of those past life regressions were implanted with suggestion.  So one must be careful in weighing the data each way.  

To each his/her own.

Matthew

I have to agree with DocM on this one.

PUL,
Cosmic_Ambitions

I differ with Doc M. The question is a good one, but it carries the implication of a closed static system which I resist.

Let's say that I put a gallon of thick cream into a bowl. Then I
put an egg beater into one side and begin to paddle it around. The cream swirls in a circle. If I look at the amount of cream flowing past a point in the side of the bowl I might say that the flow rate is ten gallons per hour. Further, it looks like all of this can't be the same cream as I started with because what I see is not only flowing past, it's getting thicker. Since it seems to be changing and evolving in some manner, I take it to be different. Then I have a paradox of how I can get a flow rate of ten gallons per hour out of one gallon cream.

Round and round it goes. Like the tread on the caterpiller bulldozer,  spinning past at a high rate, always different as it picks up or drops off clods, yet it's still the same tread, nothing needs to be added to explain its passage.

OK - now look at it from a slightly different angle. God dumps a few gallons of creation into the universe and spawns more galaxies than grains of sand on the beach. Each galaxy contains hundreds of billions of stars, about 20% of which support some kind of self-sustaining chemical process that responds to its circumstancesto some degree, like the prions, virii, molds, fungi, bugs, birds and other critters in my garden. Then God stirs the pot, so I see a huge amount of life activity. The very primitive organisms gain a little bit and become more advanced. Prions gain DNA and become virii. The advanced critters and bugs take on features like mammals. The mammals advance to become people, and som eof the people advance to go off into hyperspace and so on.  Meanwhile, it seems that God keeps on pouring in more raw materials to keep the entire process rolling.

The difficulty with this type of question is that it assumes that our world is static. That leaves room for questions about static balance and measures etc. Actually, the world is dynamic. Nothing exists that is truly static. Every comes into existence, interacts uniquely, then in conjunction with other things, and finally is absorbed into the dynamic background as it loses its initial nature by merging and acquiring new properties.

In fact, we cannot even imagine a static object, because it would have to exist at Absolute Zero temperature, give off no radiation, no gravitation etc, and it would have no interaction by which to manifest its presence.  Our sensors, by contrast, sense changes in their states, so that sensation arises solely from dynamics.

If nothing is static, then there is no reason to ask about how many souls there are at any instant, because some are being created and sent forth, others are being received back into the Creator, and the rest are whirling around and around the bowl being whipped into a froth by God's egg beater.

Time to refill my coffee cup - maybe mit schlag this time.

d

Ah Dave,

Nothing is static my friend.  It seems I posted this on another comment this very day.  The universe is in flux.  

The assumption of mandatory reincarnation implies a form of staticism.  You and I agree on much, but here on at least two points.  Firstly, that the universe is not static and second that our souls/consciousness are destined to continuously evolve.

So, in your system, from what I read in your writings, the soul/consciousness continues to evolve, but often wipes its memory clean and gets various tries in the earth school (my other thread).  In the system I can envision, a soul/consciousness may evolve in or outside of the earth school, as long as this conscious being is moving toward love, assistance and unity.  Actually my friend, I'd be surprised if you disagree with this.

I like Recoverer's idea that if there are connected souls or a disc, that reincarnation is simply the disc sending out a new incarnating consciousness, but the finished/deceased consciousness may also continue to exist and evolve on a spiritual plane.  

I see no reason, I suppose why in a universe in flux, we would be restricted to numerous mandatory incarnations in the earth school.  Yes, as someone pointed out, our attachments to our baser and carnal instincts might draw us back to earth, but if that happens, I believe it occurs with the use of our free will.

Peace be with you old friend (Incidentally, I too took a few magic mushrooms way back when!)

Matthew

Interesting thoughts dave...

I was wondering... Will God/Source/Us/Everything decide that at some point there have been a sufficient amount of probes sent out to explore itself/create within itself, or does the exploration/creation of new probes expand ad infinitum?

Curious thoughts,

PUL,
Cosmic_Ambitions

I agree with your thoughts DocM... That's the same way that I envision the system of our universe/reality as well.

PUL,
Cosmic_Ambitions

Cosmic,

In my opinion, it depends on your model of the universe.  If the big bang started as a singularity, pre-time and space, and now expands in a myriad of ways after the bang, then it may continue on, or as some have theorized, contract back into a singularity again, much like an accordion.

I personally do not see an end to evolution, unless it is to reapproach this singularity unity with the divine.


Matthew

DocM wrote:

"In my opinion, it depends on your model of the universe.  If the big bang started as a singularity, pre-time and space, and now expands in a myriad of ways after the bang, then it may continue on, or as some have theorized, contract back into a singularity again, much like an accordion.

I personally do not see an end to evolution, unless it is to reapproach this singularity unity with the divine."

DocM,

I have read in various scientific articles numerous theories that support the idea of the accordian type universe... whereby upon full contraction, it just explodes again, and the process recycles itself ad infinitum... If this were in fact indesputably true, it would in essence provide strong evidence to the case that we are forever evolving/creating, and that there is in fact, no permanent end or singular unity with this divine... Also, beings we are "already" in union with the divine and flowing always and forever creatively within this divine... Maybe the expansion and contraction of our universe/of other dimensions does in fact go on forever, with no end... us being raisins in the midst of a large loaf of bread.

PUL,
Cosmic_Ambitions

Hey Cosmic Ambitions,
you believe spirits must follow the development of the physical universe?
In my view we can just watch how it blows up forever or collapses or whatever from a comfort lounge, if we want we can engage in this development, if not, well let's just watch or go to something completely different and let the Big Bang be big.

Spooky

Well put spooky2! (I enjoyed the simplistic comradery that you meticuluously placed into your post... LOL!)

I agree with you... we do not "have" to follow the development of the physical universe... I guess my  ponderings were posed mainly with respect to the physical planes which lie within our particular dimensional stretch of this vastly flexible reality of ours... I like your take however:

"In my view we can just watch how it blows up forever or collapses or whatever from a comfort lounge, if we want we can engage in this development, if not, well let's just watch or go to something completely different and let the Big Bang be big."

I'm in with you on this one spooky! By the way? Does your comfort lounge serve martinis with sliced lemons, or tangy pungent limes!? LOL!  

Spooky2 wrote:

"I'm all up for letting the Big Bang be big..."

I agree!... It just wouldn't sound right if it was called "The Little Bang"... ;)

PUL,
Cosmic_Ambitions

Hi Cosmic Ambitions,
when I was afraid to get lost in the greatness of the universe, feeling so little, a big entity gave me a golden ball. Returned to physical reality I remembered it, and in my mind I opened it, and I saw clearly, and totally unexpected, a galaxy in it, and I held it in my hands.

Be careful with liquors out there in the lounge, it may be it sucks you right back to another earthy experience! Hmm...is beer liquor? ;D

Spooky

spooky wrote:

"Be careful with liquors out there in the lounge, it may be it sucks you right back to another earthy experience! Hmm...is beer liquor? Grin"

I believe we could pass beer off as being a malt liquor if we were really careful... ;)

By the way, maybe if I had a few martinis in your lounge, I could say that the "spirits" were within me! LOL! ;)

It's like incorporating vodka into the Ouija board phenomenon, and then announcing proudly that you are about to "raise" the "spirits"! LOL!

All in good humor,

PUL,
Cosmic_Ambitions

Hi Doc-

So the world is in flux, and we want to understand it, which is impossible because it changes so fast that we're always out of date.  That means we either accept the moment in which the world is acting out its definition, and respond directly, without need to "think" - because that interposes an interpretaive process, cast in terms of prior experiences, and thus separates use from the moment - or we get bogged down in trying to do an analysis of the whole thing.

From the latter position, since I like to play with such ideas, we can go back to the initial definitions, and we discover that the sequence of events by which the world extends itself has only a few moments in which it is unquestionably in a specific state. All the rest of the time, the world is between those instants. This is a topological fact because the initial point of manifestation and its context of space expand their nature through iterated complexions, and only the integer valued iterations are well defined.  

It is necessary and sufficient for the world to evolve in a manner `in which yesterday implies today in the same manner as today implies tomorrow. Or, one instant implies the next, without cancellation of the prior instant, since we carry forward whatever we were doing etc. In between the well-defined instants, there is a transition in which growth occurs, but in which there are very many equivalent and exclusive ways for it to occur.

As a simple example, a hypothetical world of three terms can create a new woirld in which the same three terms are brought forward, plus their combination in three new pairs, and one triple, giving seven elements. Between the world of three terms and the world of seven terms there are 5040 different pathways or worldlines. ( 7! = 5040 ) For a world in which we start with several thousand elements, the number of worldlines starts to look almost infinite.  These all "pre-exist"  outside of time as logical structures, but we have limited experience of them.

To participate in this world we have to attach to a worldline, meaning that we must accept whatever logical relationships hold things together etc. One collection of logical relationships looks like our world, and defines our worldline. Other ways to get across the same space exist, but some are less likely, some contradict things that we'd like to keep, and so on. Until we actually attach to this worldline and get born, the world is just a jumble of potentialities that float around in abstract Riemannian state space without any kind of ordering or other relationships. When we attach to a worldline is when things "appear", because the worldline implies a specific type of ordering, and a specific sequence in which it occurs.  

The whole astronomical and cosmological scheme looks as it does because we have adopted a worldline in which the logical relationships, their sequence in arising, and the definition of "self" forced upon each soul's viewpoint  happen to be defined in this specific manner. Were we to jump to a new worldline, we would be governed by different logic, have a different kind of embodiment, and we would experience the universe as a totally different place.

Because we experience only one of the very many statistically possible expressions of our universe, I don't personally find it especially useful to try to make spiritual sense out of the manner in which this one expression of the universe appears. There is limited available information about the ultimate nature of creation, aside from the idea that today comes from yesterday etc.

dave

Hi Dave and all!

>>>we discover that the sequence of events by which the world extends itself has only a few moments in which it is unquestionably in a specific state.<<<

From a, let's say logic and distanced viewpoint it appears to me there only is a certain specific state in a relative-dual meaning, namely: nothing - something (or in popular terms: No Big Bang  - after Big Bang).

>>>In between the well-defined instants, there is a transition in which growth occurs, but in which there are very many equivalent and exclusive ways for it to occur.<<<

This is, how I see it, an assumption, that there are well-defined instants, which is not necessarily so (1), in the meaning that there are single, fully describebable elements with certain relations. It's very hard to understand now this in-between of instants, which touches the nature of time. When instants would be well defined, they would be sort of "closed"- timeless. For experiencing time, one instant has to vanish and instead a different instant would be occur (and somebody must watch and compare the two states), and there is no possibility for an in-between, because when it isn't an instant in itself, it has to be a relation, and how can relations be thought between certain instants? (3) It is the old struggle between the "beings/substances" and the "relations", what really is, and this struggle is occuring when we consider to see the world atomistic; btw Descartes said in his "Principia" God would keep the world going by swapping instants. But, a different turn on this we find here:

>>>one instant implies the next, without cancellation of the prior instant, since we carry forward whatever we were doing etc.<<<

When I put it more visually, I'd say one instant carries the other in itself, is pregnant with the other. But this is again problematic, because it would mean there wouldn't be true instants cause they are dissolving into each other, in other words from digital (distinct though "implying" instants) to analog (continuous) again.

>>>To participate in this world we have to attach to a worldline, meaning that we must accept whatever logical relationships hold things together etc.<<<
>>>Were we to jump to a new worldline<<<
You remember RAMs second book? He was a nonhuman and as a tourist he signed up for an earth trip, so he jumped into a worldline as a human on our earth here. In a meditation about these great issues it was as if a big wise being tried to teach me with graphics, and I saw glowing lines of potentialities, or probabilities. On the level of that being, as far as I understood, these probabilities were things like for us realities (2) (my hacking fingers for example) and they organize and build and structure this rug of probabilities. So now Dave, this is interesting: Are there positions where different world lines can be overviewed? It's difficult, as you must be in one, and then how could you see others? I know there must be a way, you've said this some times, it's when something gets mixed, different world lines of different systems such as ghost apparitions and miracles, precognitions and those things. The "jump"- that's something mysterious. It's not that easy to say when two people meet there are two worldlines meeting, because they somehow must be in one worldline or they would never meet, so "world line crossings" are maybe too easily spoken out, or is it just a hierarchy thing, worldlines within worldlines? Boy I can't follow my own thoughts anymore...had no Schlag in my coffee today.


Remarks

(1) It's unfortunately a problem too to build the world from non-well defined states.

(2) Probability is a strange thing because it isn't a thing at all! It just remains because it works so well in gambling halls and casinos and then came the Quantum Mechanics and built a theory with it, kinda substancialized it which Einstein reminded of a casino. Actually, imagine you throw dice. Each side of a die has a probability at 1/6 to be the upper side after you throwed. Now you are shaking your dicebox, it's still the probability of 1/6 for each side to be the upper and THEN, you have thrown it and now the probability of the upper side to be the upper side is just 1 ! Ha ha, never got that thing. It's the same with the "reduction of the wave packet" in quantum mechanics. There is this probability wave (paradoxically, it's well defined) and bang! Then it has collapsed to probability 1 and you have a dot on a photographic film.

(3) Generally when talking of instants or moments, there always is the question about the glue of it. Or like Kant said: "A rule to combine" occurances, which is given by the mind in his book. For if there isn't a glue of that sort, all moments are just a random stack of atoms with no relationship to each other.
------------------------------------------------------------------

When I wonder about those issues like if incarnations are planned, then I tend to recall this graphics the big entity was giving me. It was definitely a different perspective then I could fully digest, a glimpse that maybe comes a bit close to the viewpoint of those "consciousness workers", to say there are probability lines taken as things to work with, or what we see as concrete reality as just a density of probability, the past seeds the future but the future also the past, enduring structures appearing as cycles or curls of probability/world lines...It's just so different behind the curtain. I like the saying about the void: "It's not nothing, it's not something." Negative philosophy. It still works with logic (Tertium non datur)- as long as it is forbidden to make yes/no- decidable affirmations.


Sorry for that people, must be possessed of a rambling entity right now!

Spooky

Hi Spooky-

Thanks for translating my words into understandable thoughts. To answer your questions, try this -

I work at this thing as a problem in topology. Assume a Riemannian hyperspace in which space is not yet defined, and in which the action of the Uncaused Cause projects a dyad - a point and a void. Then proceed by iterated complexions to generate a geometric array of potential states - many of which are redundant.  Each integer iteration is well defined, but between them there numerous parallel worldlines. They form the mesh of interactions associated with our everyday experiences.  We select these potential states by identification with them.  If you look at it from the material world, we can't see the mechanisms, and it's all a matter of chance. From the world of consciousness, it's a matter of selection of pre-existing potentialities. David Bohm expressed this as the explicate and implicate orders of reality, and came up with essentially the same view.

d