I wonder why all these reincarnations have produced a world that is essentially no better off than it was thousands of years ago, where people still kill each other, where greed is rampant, where millions starve to death because of a lack of attention from those who could help them. And what about the first children born to Adam and Eve? (Or, if you don't like the concept of Adam and Eve, call them Chuck and Susie.)

Did Adam and Eve (Chuck and Susie) have to die for their souls to reincarnate into their children? And, how did six billion souls reincarnate out of two souls? I couldn't get reincarnation to make any sense.

Alan

I"m not buying the Adam and Eve myth but if I did I would have no problem believing that there were many souls before there were two humans. Curls if you prefer, to use Bruce's terminology. I don't really see that your thought has much to do with the relevance or possibility of reincarnation or lack of that possibility. Recycling makes more sense to me than some things, but wouldn't you be reincarnated in another plane if not of the earth...especially if physical existence is a good teacher. Of course that can argued too I suppose.

The mathematics won't necessarily make sense when we are talking about going from a timeless realm (thought) to earth-time.  Factor into the equation other dimensions and universes and the math is much more difficult to begin to think about.

I don't like the reincarnation model of us "helpless on the wheel of karma," doomed to reincarnate no matter what our free wheel is.  Some reincarnationalists may argue that we willingly reincarnate for we are so drawn to the attachments of the ego based lustful earth-life-system that we willingly go through it again.  I would argue that if free will exists here on earth, then it exists in spirit, and that we have the ability to choose when and where we go within the plane of love that we have raised ourself to.   


M

Beau wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2009 at 10:03am:

I"m not buying the Adam and Eve myth but if I did I would have no problem believing that there were many souls before there were two humans. Curls if you prefer, to use Bruce's terminology. I don't really see that your thought has much to do with the relevance or possibility of reincarnation or lack of that possibility. Recycling makes more sense to me than some things, but wouldn't you be reincarnated in another plane if not of the earth...especially if physical existence is a good teacher. Of course that can argued too I suppose.

What about the two original humans, humanity must have started off with a male and female, that is hard science not myth?

Two humans is not hard science....yet. It well might have been a gradual evolutionary process and when you say human I assume you mean Homo Sapien Sapien

Would this mean that Neanderthals did not reincarnate? Or Astrialepithecus? What about the amoebas long before mankind. Why do you assume Humans had to be the first to reincarnate. It could all be an evolutionary process.

Beau wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2009 at 10:46am:

Two humans is not hard science....yet. It well might have been a gradual evolutionary process and when you say human I assume you mean Homo Sapien Sapien Would this mean that Neanderthals did not reincarnate? Or Astrialepithecus? What about the amoebas long before mankind. Why do you assume Humans had to be the first to reincarnate. It could all be an evolutionary process.

Then we must take the karmic reincarnation view that we all started out as microbes became cockroaches etc etc. But how the heck can one cockroach become better than his fellows and by the process of karma reincarnate into a higher form of life, say a frog??  ;D

I find the idea that we as humans are superior to anything to be ridiculous personally. I was just saying that your concept of the beginning makes no sense to me. I think you have not surveyed this at all you are making assumptions based on your own religious or spiritual or even scientific biases based on something that is no more provable than what you attempt to disprove. I have no problem with questioning anything but to prove your point with "facts" that are anything but, would make me question everything you write about. If you are trying to explain the big picture with little picture logic...which you are, then you are hopelessly going to find yourself thinking you are something you are not.

As for the cockroaches I would have to say that perhaps it is all relative.

   Lately, I've been tuning into parts of the animal kingdom wavelengths and can feel the association with spiritual energy. The books that I've read when my skills were non-existent at meditation gave me an idea of what happens to us and all other beings in existence that have souls.

   Reincarnation may not be mandatory at all, but a compelling desire by the being to reconcile past events for it's own reasons. The moment of death may have alot to do with what options the soul has for taking.

   The concepts that come up in some person/animal/vegetable's mind at the moment of death dictate what doors can be opened for further progress, within reasonable boundaries.

   So I feel that it's up to the individual entity to create the ability to comprehend the possibilities available to it for making progress through this multiverse of God.

Ralph

If you  go by what near death experiencers tend to say, attachment to this World doesn't cause souls to reincarnate into this World.

I believe it it possible that people get more attached to their identities than this World. This being the case, would they actually give up their identity in favor of a new identity in order to experience what this World has to offer?

Also, going by some accounts, if a soul isn't able to move on to the light right away, it hangs out in various astral realms until it is able to do so. The fact of how it is able to eventually do so suggests that it overcame whatever attachments it needed to overcome. This being the case, what attachments would cause it to incarnate again?

If it needs more lessons that are based upon human experience, perhaps it could obtain them through other members of its disk and soul group. It is also possible that souls can share lessons without being members of the same disk and soul group.

I really like Edgar Cayce's "Many Mansions" and ALL of Brian Weiss' books regarding reincarnation and karma.  Weiss' latest book is based on "progression therapy" which is so interesting when paired with "regression therapy."  I think you might find the answers you're looking for from those books.

If I have any say in the matter I will be moving on to better pastures not returning again and again to this earthly realm.

Alan

Touche!

I don't think your maths make sense in six billion out of two souls. From reading Bob Monroe's books, a bunch of us are here from other realities to experience life in the Earth Life System -ergo, we've been incarnating in other forms and in other realities for ever. (No, I have no idea where I'm originally from -this universe or any other)
As to the karmic aspect, I find a correlation with Bob's idea of addiction to the ELS: you keep coming back until you either 'get it right' or you decide you've had enough of the whole thing and want to go back home -wherever home is, and Bob discovered when he went back home that he was unutterably bored by the place, and that was why he left in the first place.
So maybe (and I don't know, I'm speculating) most of the folks on earth at the moment have only been around  quite recently. Maybe they're first timers who are having a great time messing up because they don't know any different, and I've read elsewhere that a bunch of souls are here at thius time to witness earth changes, or indeed the human race being accepted back into the galactic community. Take your pick as to which suits you.
Either way, all of these ideas are to me just as valid -in fact more so- than the bible idea of Adam and Eve, original sin (what a great system of control THAT one is), and all the rest.
So reincarnation is for me the chance to explore all the things my soul/higher/total self has decided to explore, together with all the other folks in my disc and adjoining ones, which explains karmic links and debts.
For instance: 'Okay, you did that to me in that last lifetime, now this time we'll swap around and see how we get on' -and that to my mind can be both good and bad stuff, depending on what you decided to experience before you came here.
Then when everyone in a group has completed all they wanted and needed to experience, they all get together and vanish as the entire disk of souls moves to another dimension altogether.
As for the concept of starting out as an amoeba and going up through cockroaches, I find that needlessly limiting as a concept. Again, I've read of people in past life regression who could go back to being a molecule in the big bang, and that's only part of the whole thing.
Needless to say, most of the above is only my reading and speculation, all of which you may be able to correct, amplify or add other perspectives on.

Best wishes,
David.

I have many reasons for rejecting reincarnation, but will restrict myself to just 6:

(1) Emanuel Swedenborg is the astral explorer with the best verifications.  ES was initially convinced that he was recalling his past lives during astral exploration.  But when he ascended to the higher heavens, his guide warned him that these were not past lives, but rather undetected possessing spirits.  It is well known that the memories of such spirits are mistakenly experienced as if they were those of the astral traveler.  Then ES's guide descended with him to a reincarnationist hollow heaven and offered to demonstrate to its denizens that their reincarnation beliefs were mistaken.  But they were far too stuck in their overview even to witness such a demonstration.  Modern New Agers freeze like Bambi in the headlights in the face of ES's discovery and invoke other members of the New Age Ghetto who merely reinforce their discredited beliefs.   

(2) The best evidence for reincarnation comes from Dr. Ian Stevenson's research on the past life recall of young children.  Yet even here, in two of his cases the child is already alive well BEFORE the alleged incarnating spirit incarnates!  Thus, the children seem to confuse possession by an undetected discarnte spirit with reincarnation.

(3) Occasional cases in which birthmarks are alleged to correspond to the fatal wound to the prior life strike me as worthless evidence.  Such cases are rare and our bodies are blotched with all sorts of skin marks.  It would be shocking if there rarely were correspondence between the birthmark and the fatai wound of the prior personality!  Besides, how do we know whether the birthmark is merely close to the wound in question?  And if the reincarnating soul can cause such a birthmark sign, why not ensure that the initials of the prior personality are "engraved?"

(4) The absurdity of Robert Monroe's past lives refute themselves. e. g. (a) a past life as a pilot in another world dodging spears thrown by cavemen; (b)  a past life as a priest ritually torturing Nancy (his late current wife) with a spear in an ecstatic intiation ritual.  Such past lives rank with his astrally discovered claim that space aliens visit the earth to explore human jokes.   No rational reader outside the New Age Ghetto would find such claims plausible.  So much for past life memories.

(5) Karmic based reincarnation implies increased wisdom and spirituality over many reincarnations. But if anything, humans are getting morally worse.  For example, Christians in India are now being increasingly murdered by increasingly violent Hindus.   

(6) Much evidence from OBEs and NDEs demonstrates that the afterlife is our future career in which several schools exist to teach us how to face the challenges of new worlds.  Such a scenario implies that we don't need several earthly incarnations.  In my view, karmic reincarnationists are earthbound souls.   

Don   

Don

My thoughts on your six points:

(1)  I was hoping you could elaborate on what exactly an "undetected possessing spirit" is.  What exactly is meant by "possess?" 

(2)  I am sure Dr. Stevenson has done research on more than just those two children you mention.  What of the reality of their experience?  As for the children having reincarnations born after themselves- these two cases only disprove the theory if the linear concept of reincarnation is correct- which, as most will agree, is false.  Our higher selves are not limited by time, and can have incarnations at any point of time and in any order. 

(3)  This is simply a biased opinion.

(4)  Monroe was not dodging spears while flying a plane.  If reincarnation is true in some sense, then is it so far fetched for one to remember being a pilot?  Being a caveman?  Being a sadistic priest in a life with another close aspect of his higer self, possibly a "soul mate"?  I don't think so.

(5)  The problem is not that people are getting morally worse.  In fact, we are capable of more goodness now then anytime before.  Humans have the potential to become more advanced now technologically, mentally, spiritually, and emotionally, then ever before- unfortunatly not all are living up to their potentials.   The problem is that society is developing in a manner which cuts people off from their true nature, and in my opinion this is not an accident or a natural evolution, but rather a method of control by the ruling elite. 

(6)  I am not sure if this is true for everyone, but I partially agree that multiple lives on earth may not be neccessary- for every one individual.  I believe that if an individual does have the choice to reincarnate, which probably is true, it is done out of false belief rather than following one's inner self.  We share the experience of all the incarnations of our higher self, and as the higher self sends incarnations as needed for optimal growth and experience, it seems unneccessary.

Lots of speculation here. All you have to do is go to the hall of records and talk to the cw's (consciousness workers) in the planning center and the other Moen areas in focus 27... why not get the answers from the horses mouth. 8-)

Many who have intense recollections of a past life may have merged with another deceased human in the mental/spiritual plane.  Since in that realm, thoughts and memories are conveyed immediately and in large quantities, we might at first access the memories and emotions of another, and say "wow, that must have been me," whereas, in fact we merely had a close encounter where we could see, feel and taste another person's memories in such detail that we assumed it had to be our own memory.  This is what Don refers to with the discarnate possession talk (I think).

In texts such as the Bardo Thodol (Tibetan Book of the Dead), there is an underlying theme, that for the average person who dies, rebirth is inevitable, unless he/she can recognize the death process and deny their attachment to the physical world (which keeps drawing them back again and again). 

What the reincarnationists don't take into account are two factors; namely, love and free will.  If the universe runs on love (PUL), and if we die and are, essentially loving people, then theoretically, we meet others in focus 27 or other heavens, and learn about our spiritual existence.  We help others, and are helped in turn.  In that setting, might we voluntarily reincarnate?  Sure.  Then again, we might help others who just crossed over, or try to go into the hollow heavens or hells as retrievers.  What do we do?  Why whatever takes us in the path of love, and our free will.

A reincarnationist may say that we actually use our free wills in reincarnating, because we are so attached to earthly things that the illusions of the immediate afterlife send us into goose chases that end with us in a womb ready to repeat the entire process.  I say, bunk.

Perhaps, if a person is not met by loved ones when they die (and reports are that a vast majority of people are met), and didn't believe that they would survive death, perhaps then they might be so fooled that they would reincarnate hanging on to the only thing they understood (earthly life).  However, this would not describe the majority of people who die. 

If love and free will exist then, in my opinion reincarnation certainly is not inevitable - though it may be possible. 

M

I think reincarnation exists merely because our supersouls needs as much experience as possible in order to learn as much as possible, and I believe we do have choices but we decide whether or not to assertively make them, or to just 'drift with the tide' so to speak.

Since in the spiritual there is no time, all incarnations are happening in an eternal simultaneous 'now', and it makes more sense to look at it as 'multi-incarnations' rather than reincarnations, since our supersoul can have many incarnations of itself in the same time line as well as the past and the future. That's why we have 'soulmates' and 'soulgroups' I assume. I think 'past life memories' come from our other probes that are the most influential to the lessons needed to be learned in this life.

I think our original poster is very bitter, biased, and closed minded about the idea of reincarnation and karma based on misinformation.

I don't believe that anything is 'inevitable' and we are doomed to certain experiences. If we are made of the love of God, so to speak, then we always have a choice, we just have to become aware of that. :)

Let's take the Buddhist view a bit further.  After one takes Refuge vows to become a Buddhist (taking refuge in the Buddha, the dharma and the sangha), one eventually takes the Bodhisattva vow.  In doing so, one vows to continue on this earth, in however many rebirths it takes and however enlightened one might have become, until all sentient beings have become enlightened.  In other words, one commits through compassion, PUL, whatever you call it, to serve others for the benefit of all, seflessly and endlessly.  Exactly what enlightenment leads to is a bit fuzzy to me, but it seems to include leaving the ELS for a better place, but I certainly hope not a "sitting on the right hand of God" sort of place, which certainly sounds boring.

One version of the Buddhist cosmology has souls taking rebirth at all levels (in the six classic realms for example and as all sorts of beings, based on karma, not necessarily in an ever upward sequence, whatever "upward" means) and on worlds throughout the universe which seems to be far more vast than we can imagine.  While my initial interpretation of that several years ago was that all such worlds were physical worlds, but why should they not include nonphysical worlds?

The idea that we, as individual points of perception, may reincarnate as a shrub or piece of sea weed, strikes me as a bit odd.  Even in reincarnationist circles I have heard tales that this rarely happens. 

If we are mistaken in thinking of ourselves as separate from God and the universe, then what exactly is reincarnating?  And why? 

Could a person reincarnate out of love for other earthly souls (loved ones, family members) in order to guide them, help them?  Possibly.  I have often thought that I have such a relationship with my seven-year-old son - that I would have willingly been born to be here for him. 

However, the idea that we, in large numbers reincarnate out of compassion to guide the rest of humanity out of the earth life system doesn't hold much water.  Why not help them when they cross over?  Meet them, guide them toward love, and take them to a rehab center in focus 27 (and then beyond)? 

Matthew

Guys I am not mocking reincarnation or karma after all millions if not billions believe in it in some way or the other.

My real problem with it is , if I have indeed existed in a previous life I have forgotten it in total, so the person I was then is for all purposes dead?.

And how can I improve on my mistakes in a past life if I have no recall about it in this present life??

Alan

Alan

Do YOU Alan reincarnate or does your YOU disc reincarnate?

But, assuming you do have a disc or oversoul or whatever, do you have acces to all the memories of the disc?

I don't think you can treat YOU Alan (ie the individual) as a concrete thing, although in C1 that is exactly what we do. We assume it is fixed , Is it?

Here's another point:
Perspective.
When we are here in C1, we tend to view and recall events from one perspective. But when I hear stories of life reviews, I hear that the individual experiences the event from the perspectives of all parties involved. From a 360 degree perspective. How can that happen?

"And how can I improve on my mistakes in a past life if I have no recall about it in this present life??"

Doesn't this assume that things are ordered a particular way? A way that makes sense in C1 but may not hold in the greater perspective of multiple layers of conciousness?

I think I have unkowingly struggled with this myself for many years because I expect to be able to create a model of the world based on words, which start in C1. Events will present themselves and I will think I am acting logically and of course maturely (!) but nothing resolves. But sometimes when I let go it resolves in an unexpected way. (not the real big problems but sometimes the intermediate ones). Perhaps that is my oversoul stepping in and finding a new way to approach it. It's not something I seem to do either with logic or with visualization (like in The Secret .)

To improve on your mistakes in a past life you need to know what the goal of being here is, and there doesn't seem to be great agreement on what that is. Perhaps that is because we try to frame the goal in language, which is a product (subset) of C1, but the answer is only found on some meta level or in some meta language. (or meta conciousness).

Regarding your question about the person you were in a past life being dead....well sometimes I feel the person I was 5 or 10 years ago is dead. So what does that mean? Besides, some mystics sometimes say the person I was 5 seconds ago is "dead".

Of course, then you have to ask "what is memory?" and I don't know the answer to that.

OK maybe we could start there. What IS memory? It seems so self-evident that we don't often stop to pick it apart. And I can usually distinguish memories of events from memories of, say, dreams, but I don't know what I amn doing. So I think memory is a slippery slope anyway.

Quote:

so the person I was then is for all purposes dead?

well, that's a tricky one; exactly what is "dead" when talking about life after life and an everlasting now?
Neither the spirit which was in the body is dead, nor is the "person" which still exists in its earthtime and environment.
I can't tell you where the material, that the body was or will be made of, is at this point; nature uses everything. I wouldn't count on it that it's just laying around dead.


Quote:

And how can I improve on my mistakes in a past life if I have no recall about it in this present life?

You don't need to remember it; it's in you; all you've learned is a part of you.

cheers,
Vagabound

Hi all: Here is another angle on the reincarnation issue... time is not consecutive... depending on what the oversoul needs, it will send its soul members into any number these on going life time lines... those of you who know about the simultaneous incarnations of complex oversoul pods or disks will understand what I am talking about... those who don't need to read Bruce Moen's quadrilogy.  :D

@Seraphis1: Ally already mentioned this (just thought you may wanna read it in case you skipped it).

What I wonder though is, would it make a difference in the quality of your experience? If you (the oversoul) send only a part (you called it member) of yourself; either the one who needs it the most or the one that you think has the best chance of mastering it, will you be able to make the whole experience yours and feel comfortable with it? Won't there be some aspects missing?

cheers,
Vagabound

It is a tricky subject, the whole realm of reincarnation really. It is pretty hard to think outside the box on this and without that ability it is kind of waste of thought to speculate, but it seems to me that if time is as yet undefined outside of C1, then how could one draw any conclusion that seems completely based on time. On one hand it seems to me that Alan's evidence to nullify reincarnation is weak, but not really any weaker than the arguments for it. If we are just the fraction of our Self then I am quite sure the small we does not make the decision to reincarnate. We are the player/character but the actor/inspiration is the whole which we can only find in certain sweet moments of this life. If the mystery were so easy to unravel as basing it on "inside the box" thinking even science would have figured it out by now.

<<@Seraphis1: Ally already mentioned this (just thought you may wanna read it in case you skipped it).

What I wonder though is, would it make a difference in the quality of your experience? If you (the oversoul) send only a part (you called it member) of yourself; either the one who needs it the most or the one that you think has the best chance of mastering it, will you be able to make the whole experience yours and feel comfortable with it? Won't there be some aspects missing?

cheers,
Vagabound>>

Hi Vagabound: Don't know what you know about the Oversoul..., but, my information is this.... a very complex oversoul pod contains the Master oversoul... which never incarnates.... it sends the Monads... sub-oversoul structures... light bodies of beings into the physical universe to have experiences... the Master Oversoul is orchestrating all the Monads on filaments (silver cords)... there can be hundreds of these Monads operating all at once in a dynamic multitasking action... it is amazingly complicated and profound... just finished guidelines at TMI and I encountered my own self... my real oversoul self... I am the most amazingly beautiful man you ever saw in your life... I was worshiping myself... luckily Bob Monroe as a limiter in the return instructions that says... leave all emotion behind... I could not have sustained the radiation of myself had I carried it back to the physical plan as it was I nearly burned out the receptors of many of my fellow students when I discussed it... all they could do to protect themselves from the radiation was to reduce my experience to childish jokes and left handed ridicule, but, I understand the process lucky for me. Hope non of you who read this are upset or disturbed... :-?

Vagabound

Why would the oversoul feel it's experience as an individual incarnation was not wholey their own, or that something was missing from the experience?  The oversoul IS the incarnation.  They are one.  The totality of the oversoul's consciousness cannot operate in the physical dimension alone- it is a multidimensional being operating in many modes of reality simultaneously.  That does not negate or lessen the reality or importance of its experiences in any of these multiple realities- they are all aspects of its total experience.  A less complex way to look at it is that the oversoul is multitasking, and its physical incarnations are simply one of its many tasks.

<<Out of body dude writes: Why would the oversoul feel it's experience as an individual incarnation was not wholey their own, or that something was missing from the experience?  The oversoul IS the incarnation.  They are one.  The totality of the oversoul's consciousness cannot operate in the physical dimension alone- it is a multidimensional being operating in many modes of reality simultaneously.  That does not negate or lessen the reality or importance of its experiences in any of these multiple realities- they are all aspects of its total experience.  A less complex way to look at it is that the oversoul is multitasking, and its physical incarnations are simply one of its many tasks.>>

Hi Oobd: Just out of curiosity, have you read all of Moen's books?  Moen doesn't have to be right, just want you to know I am open to other ideas.  ;)

Seraphis1

Not sure why you asked, or why you wanted me to know you are open to other ideas, but..

I read a couple of Moen's books.  I really didn't get much out of them.. I learned a few new things, but nothing groundbreaking. 

My beliefs about the oversoul come from a mixture of the work of Monroe, Jane Roberts/Seth, Bashar, Robert Bruce, and of course my own personal experience with my HS.

<<obdude writes: Not sure why you asked, or why you wanted me to know you are open to other ideas, but..>>

I was curious as to your information sources... I don't suggest there are any really correct or incorrect answers... but it is good from my point of view to know the sources.. even if we come from the same source each of us will see or interpret the information differently... I don't think there is a right of wrong here there is only a viewpoint 8-)

I have one question for the board.. has anyone here talked to a CW (consciousness worker) at the planning center of focus 27?  With respect to Swedenborg what his guides told him may not have been understood clearly by him… throughout Moen and Monroe’s work the CW’s always say what we are telling you is told in a way you can best understand it… Swedenborg may not have understood the phantom phenomena… Monroe reports three phantoms connected with one life time in which he was speared in the back. He released all three over a number of years. Just a thought.

I sought to get the answer from the horse's mouth (I had a different name in mind as I did so), and going by the responses I received a higher self/oversoul/I-there/disk/horse's mouth/whatever term you use, sends out numerous incarnating selves, and each self incarnates just one time.

Eventually each self returns to its disk/horse's mouth/whatever term you use, and absorbs the lessons of all of the other selves that were projected.

Each disk is a member of a soul group (Robert Monroe might use the term "I-there cluster), and lessons can be obtained from other soul group members. Lessons can be learned by merging with other members.

Of course, not all people receive the same answer when they speak to the horse's mouth.



Seraphis1 wrote on Oct 24^th, 2009 at 9:47pm:

Lots of speculation here. All you have to do is go to the hall of records and talk to the cw's (consciousness workers) in the planning center and the other Moen areas in focus 27... why not get the answers from the horses mouth. 8-)

Let's remember something very basic about this whole reincarnation thing.

When we are born, do we say to ourselves "oh boy, here I am again, great to be alive again!"

No.  We have no recollection of having a prior life (except for what is recalled under hypnosis or the deja vu experience, neither of which proves anything).

So, as we go about our daily lives, what difference does it make if we lived before or if we didn't?  If we don't remember, the net effect is zero.

The whole "debate" is basically pointless and somewhat silly.

If I lived before and have no memory of it, that's the same thing as not having lived before.  Simple as that.

R

I agree. It is pointless to debate reincarnation... and thereby isn't it also pointless to debate the afterlife unless you have pertinent experiences or at least think you have them. Some people feel they have pertinent experiences with reincarnation.

If there is reincarnation it most likely has little to do with the here and now for the little us and everything to do with the bigger "us" if there is such a being.

Roger:

I don't believe it's that simple. When people believe in reincarnation in a conventional and linear way, the following can happen.

-They become depressed because not only do they have to deal with the difficulties of this life, they have to deal with the difficulties of numerous lives. On the other hand, a person who doesn't believe in reincarnation might be more likely to maintain a positive attitude because he (or she) believes that only one physical life needs to be dealt with.

-Some people end up following gurus because they believe a guru will empower them to become enlightened and avoid having to reincarnate. I believe it is a mistake to hand another person the key to our spiritual welfare.

-Some people believe that bad things happen to people because of karma. For example, a child gets beaten by his parents because past life actions make it so he deserves to beaten.

If one believes that a parent abuses a child for reasons that have nothing to do with what a child deserves, one can view such a child as perhaps a very brave soul who took on the burden of incarnating into a lifetime where he will undeservingly get abused by his parents.

Some people become lackadaisical because they believe that past life karma prevents them from changing their life situation.

-People who believe in reincarnation will consider past life issues when trying to figure out their psychological issues. Because hypnosis can lead to false memories, they might consider issues that dont apply.



rondele wrote on Oct 26^th, 2009 at 3:05pm:

Let's remember something very basic about this whole reincarnation thing. When we are born, do we say to ourselves "oh boy, here I am again, great to be alive again!" No.  We have no recollection of having a prior life (except for what is recalled under hypnosis or the deja vu experience, neither of which proves anything). So, as we go about our daily lives, what difference does it make if we lived before or if we didn't?  If we don't remember, the net effect is zero. The whole "debate" is basically pointless and somewhat silly. If I lived before and have no memory of it, that's the same thing as not having lived before.  Simple as that. R

Regarding it being pointless to debate an issue such as reincarnation, doesn't a person start the debate as soon as he or she does something such as write a book stating that reincarnation exists? Perhaps a rebuttal is in order.

An exchange of ideas takes place even when one person does the talking.

rondele wrote on Oct 26^th, 2009 at 3:05pm:

Let's remember something very basic about this whole reincarnation thing. When we are born, do we say to ourselves "oh boy, here I am again, great to be alive again!" No.  We have no recollection of having a prior life (except for what is recalled under hypnosis or the deja vu experience, neither of which proves anything). So, as we go about our daily lives, what difference does it make if we lived before or if we didn't?  If we don't remember, the net effect is zero. The whole "debate" is basically pointless and somewhat silly. If I lived before and have no memory of it, that's the same thing as not having lived before.  Simple as that. R

Hi: The problem is many people do remember... children particularly remember and can't use the information.

;)

recoverer wrote on Oct 26^th, 2009 at 3:56pm:

Roger: I don't believe it's that simple. When people believe in reincarnation in a conventional and linear way, the following can happen. -They become depressed because not only do they have to deal with the difficulties of this life, they have to deal with the difficulties of numerous lives. On the other hand, a person who doesn't believe in reincarnation might be more likely to maintain a positive attitude because he (or she) believes that only one physical life needs to be dealt with. -Some people end up following gurus because they believe a guru will empower them to become enlightened and avoid having to reincarnate. I believe it is a mistake to hand another person the key to our spiritual welfare. -Some people believe that bad things happen to people because of karma. For example, a child gets beaten by his parents because past life actions make it so he deserves to beaten. If one believes that a parent abuses a child for reasons that have nothing to do with what a child deserves, one can view such a child as perhaps a very brave soul who took on the burden of incarnating into a lifetime where he will undeservingly get abused by his parents. Some people become lackadaisical because they believe that past life karma prevents them from changing their life situation. -People who believe in reincarnation will consider past life issues when trying to figure out their psychological issues. Because hypnosis can lead to false memories, they might consider issues that dont apply. rondele wrote on Oct 26th, 2009 at 3:05pm: Let's remember something very basic about this whole reincarnation thing. When we are born, do we say to ourselves "oh boy, here I am again, great to be alive again!" No.  We have no recollection of having a prior life (except for what is recalled under hypnosis or the deja vu experience, neither of which proves anything). So, as we go about our daily lives, what difference does it make if we lived before or if we didn't?  If we don't remember, the net effect is zero. The whole "debate" is basically pointless and somewhat silly. If I lived before and have no memory of it, that's the same thing as not having lived before.  Simple as that. R

Nice points. Yes, people who trip into past lives can and do become bewildered and frustrated by not knowing what it is all about. Particularly if they think the thing goes on, on without respite. It can be a Hell! ::)

The bottom line (at least for me) is this:  Regardless of whether reincarnation exists or not, the real point is how we live the life we have right now.

If you believe in the life review that many people have experienced during a NDE, they all say the same thing.  Namely, what's important is what we did (or didn't do) in the life we just completed.

We can spend our entire life debating or speculating about this or that until the cows come home.  If that's how we want to use what limited time we have here on earth, that's our decision.

But to do so inevitably will take our eyes off the prize.  We can be completely ignorant regarding the afterlife and reincarnation or completely informed about all of the pros and cons.  Doesn't matter.

What matters is how we live our life in the here and now.  I would bet that 100 years from now, or 1000, folks will still be wondering about the same things that are discussed right now, just as they have throughout human history.

R 
ps- Albert, I agree with you that believing in karma can cause people to ignore the plight of the less fortunate on the basis that they are just getting their "payback" from the sins of a past life. 

But if everyone really followed the golden rule, they would help those people in any event.

Sometimes I think the belief in karma is simply a convenient excuse to be complacent about the plights of others.

I think that perhaps the people who are looking at the karma of others are missing the point. That's like Christians who look at the sins of others and judge them based on what they perceive.

Beau wrote on Oct 27^th, 2009 at 9:31am:

I think that perhaps the people who are looking at the karma of others are missing the point. That's like Christians who look at the sins of others and judge them based on what they perceive.

The concept of reincarnation is widely accepted among non-Christians, probably because it appeals to many who would like to believe that they would be given a second chance in case they failed to make the grade in this life.

Christianity disputes reincarnation because it is unnecessary, since anybody can "make the grade" simply through an act of their own will through faith in Jesus Christ.

The scientific rebuttal to reincarnation is quite simple. Because of the population explosion, more people are currently living on the earth than have ever lived on the earth for the entire history of humankind. In other words, over half of the people who have ever lived on earth have never died even once! There simply are not enough dead souls to go around for a second time. This does not absolutely eliminate reincarnation, but it does severely restrict its extent, especially for those who have claimed to have lived several times before.

However, some people believe that souls can be reincarnated into or from animals. In that case, it is possible that many people have been frogs or even a microbe before they reincarnated as humans

Alan-

Well, true believers in reincarnation explain the math problem by saying that we lived "before" on other planets in other universes, or even on multiple earths that co-exist with our planet in other dimensions.

The genuine new-ager will come up with any number of theories to get around the math problem.  Like existing as a fish on a watery planet.

New-agers are certainly entertaining if nothing else.

R

Hi all: I'm going through Moen's quadrilogy for the second time and in the first book chapter II page 82 he describes his first encounter with the Disk... part of the structure of the Oversoul cluster he could see and interact with... it is germane to this conversation... another great source for oversoul protocols is Lobsang rampa... he has a great theory concerning Joan of Arc as a short in the silver cord filaments caused by entanglement... the warrior spirit that entered JoA was not supposed to be there...  ;D

Quote:

We can spend our entire life debating or speculating about this or that until the cows come home.  If that's how we want to use what limited time we have here on earth, that's our decision. But to do so inevitably will take our eyes off the prize.  We can be completely ignorant regarding the afterlife and reincarnation or completely informed about all of the pros and cons.  Doesn't matter. What matters is how we live our life in the here and now.

I don't think that for any of us, posting messages on this board takes up the whole day. I enjoy comunicating with you guys and since we all are interested in these kinds of topics, it just makes sense to talk about it. I don't think that any of us would prefer discussing a neighbours obsession with hats.


Quote:

In other words, over half of the people who have ever lived on earth have never died even once!

Don't forget the possibility of starting in the future, since those lives are probably easier (better for beginners).

have a nice day,
Vagabound

wrote on Oct 27^th, 2009 at 11:25am:

Quote: We can spend our entire life debating or speculating about this or that until the cows come home.  If that's how we want to use what limited time we have here on earth, that's our decision. But to do so inevitably will take our eyes off the prize.  We can be completely ignorant regarding the afterlife and reincarnation or completely informed about all of the pros and cons.  Doesn't matter. What matters is how we live our life in the here and now. I don't think that for any of us, posting messages on this board takes up the whole day. I enjoy comunicating with you guys and since we all are interested in these kinds of topics, it just makes sense to talk about it. I don't think that any of us would prefer discussing a neighbours obsession with hats. [quote]In other words, over half of the people who have ever lived on earth have never died even once!

Don't forget the possibility of starting in the future, since those lives are probably easier (better for beginners).

have a nice day,
Vagabound [/quote]

Right if no one was interested in this topic they would not participate  8-)

Hi Rondele,
I just thought if we are the result of frogs and cockroaches and microbes that by a process of karma finally evolve to become humans, there is an infinity of poor life forms such as toads and microbes that due to the almost limitless number, will never have a chance to reincarnate into humans, but that is no problem , they could just go and reincarnate on another planet alternate universe, whatever?  ::)  ;)

Dude wrote: "I read a couple of Moen's books.  I really didn't get much out of them.. I learned a few new things, but nothing groundbreaking. 

My beliefs about the oversoul come from a mixture of the work of Monroe, Jane Roberts/Seth, Bashar, Robert Bruce, and of course my own personal experience with my HS."

Recoverer responds: "I checked out the Bashar site and found the below words (I added the strike commentary):

"Bashar shares the idea that Santa Claus is a nature spirit created by our collective consciousness and discusses the symbolism of his red suit and reindeer (strike one). Also in this session, Carl Sagan sends a message (strike two). Bashar recommends reading: "Conversations with God" by Walsch (strike three)."

recoverer wrote on Oct 27^th, 2009 at 1:47pm:

Dude wrote: "I read a couple of Moen's books.  I really didn't get much out of them.. I learned a few new things, but nothing groundbreaking.  My beliefs about the oversoul come from a mixture of the work of Monroe, Jane Roberts/Seth, Bashar, Robert Bruce, and of course my own personal experience with my HS." Recoverer responds: "I checked out the Bashar site and found the below words (I added the strike commentary): "Bashar shares the idea that Santa Claus is a nature spirit created by our collective consciousness and discusses the symbolism of his red suit and reindeer (strike one). Also in this session, Carl Sagan sends a message (strike two). Bashar recommends reading: "Conversations with God" by Walsch (strike three)."

Hi dude: Not sure what the strikes mean unless you are discounting Bashar because of his commentary.

8-)

Recoverer

Oh boy, here we go again.  Discrediting a source because you disagree with a minute portion of their work.  You obviously enjoy antagonizing.  What is your motivation behind this?  Something is not right here- there is simply no reason for this kind of nit picking.  It's borderline pathetic.

It is obvious that you have not listened to the many hours of his recorded sessions, for if you did you would know of the truth that radiates from him.  Until you are knowledgable of the totality of his work, you will not have the proper perspective.. of course, this goes with anything.  I am not saying that everything Bashar says is true- but I am saying that a lot of it is, and he offers unique perspectives which have helped more people then you ever will.         

Seraphis1

It is Recoverer who is discounting Bashar.  He has issues with allowing people to benefit from sources that he does not fully agree with.  He sometimes tries to force his perspectives upon others, not realizing they have their own perspectives which are as equally valid, sometimes more so than his.  Of course, this obvious fault in his personality is denied, and twisted into a sick sort of "love" and "caring".

Dude:

First of all, I've read enough so-called channeled sources to know what they're about.

Second, I searched Bashar's site because I had no idea what is about, and hoped that it might have some useful information.

I read the paragraph I posted, and saw two things that seem quite erroneous and one that seems questionable. What he says about Santa Claus is a bit much. What's next, Batman and Robin can be found in the astral realms as actual entities because some of us created them? I believe there is more to creating a soul than phantasy based mind activity.

He wrote that Bashar recommended reading Conversations with God. No high level being would recommend such a thing, because a high level being would understand that Walsch didn't actually channel God, and that some of the things he says are inaccurate and misleading.

Regarding the supposed message from Carl Sagan, on this basis alone I can't say whether the Bashar source you refer to is fraudulent, but I've found that people who make the claim of channeling some famous person tend to be full of beans.

I don't care how many accurate things a fraudulent source of information has to say, at some point they are going to say something that is inaccurate and lead people astray.

If an unfriendly being is behind their messages, then such a being will find a way to mislead people without their realizing they are being misled, as is the case with ACIM.

I have far too much respect for my soul to allow myself to receive information from a conman who purposely tries to mislead people. To allow myself to receive information in such a way, would be the same thing as being supportive of what such a conman does.

Here's another way to put it. There is so much grace available to us, we don't need to rely on what the conmen of this World have to say.

Regarding my motivation, to speak up when a fraudulent source of information presents itself as if it represents the light when it doesn't.

Believe me Dude, I don't enjoy stepping on your toes, not at all, but somebody has to say something about all of the misleading sources of information that exist (I don't mean you, I respect you a lot, despite how it might seem).

recoverer wrote on Oct 27^th, 2009 at 5:38pm:

Dude: I read the paragraph I posted, and saw two things that seem quite erroneous and one that seems questionable. What he says about Santa Claus is a bit much. What's next, Batman and Robin can be found in the astral realms as actual entities because some of us created them? I believe there is more to creating a soul than phantasy based mind activity.

Hi Recoverer: I admire your efforts to at least question sources that come from the otherside... you may or may not be correct... and Bashar doesn't have to have the correct interpretation of what he saw... luckily for us Bruce Moen's vision involves a Whiplash Snidely kind of character but draws no conclusion about the character or why he saw it... the cartoon nature of some of the events one encounters may have to do with the way the oversoul or your own personal processing skills, interact and give YOU... information YOU can process from YOUR resource base... be careful of condemnation without careful investigation and a lot of leaway in things that don't much matter overall... if Bashar was trying to get $10,000 from you with some secret of the universe that may be grounds for running not walking away.

:D

recoverer wrote on Oct 27^th, 2009 at 5:38pm:

Dude: Regarding the supposed message from Carl Sagan, on this basis alone I can't say whether the Bashar source you refer to is fraudulent, but I've found that people who make the claim of channeling some famous person tend to be full of beans. .

Hi recoverer: you're a traveler/retriever... why not go find Carl Sagan and ask him if he interacted with Bashar... or better yet contact Bashar on Focus 27 and talk to him

:D

[quote author=5740464A5340574057250 link=1256219285/51#51 date=1256679500]

I read the paragraph I posted, and saw two things that seem quite erroneous and one that seems questionable. What he says about Santa Claus is a bit much. What's next, Batman and Robin can be found in the astral realms as actual entities because some of us created them? I believe there is more to creating a soul than phantasy based mind activity.

quote]

Recoverer: You realize that all these powerful comic characters are archtypes... they do exist somewhere in the subconscious, unconscious as real entities generated by belief systems surrounding them... their popularity is resonating in the world population for a very good reason... this is deeper than you think :D

Seraphis1:

Darryl Anka is claiming to channel a high level being named Bashar, therefore, it isn't a matter of how he interpreted what he saw.

I won't try to contact Bashar, because I doubt that such a being exists.

There are beings who represent divine will, and when frauds misrepresent the light, they interfere with what divine will is trying to accomplish. Therefore, I don't believe such sources should be considered with indifference. To be indifferent is the same thing as handing them the key that determines how this World and beyond evolves.

I'll stop worrying about how fraudulent sources mislead, when I stop carring about divine will, and that isn't going to happen.

Recover where did you read the stuff about Santa Claus I went to the site... you have to pay $15 to get the essay.

:(

recoverer wrote on Oct 27^th, 2009 at 6:55pm:

Seraphis1: I won't try to contact Bashar, because I doubt that such a being exists.

Recoverer: You are a traveler with abilities to verify the existence of Bashar, why not do it.  If you won't try to make direct contact when you or capable of it... you are condemning without investigation and that is a sure path to ignorance... verify your facts then give us the scoop don't guess or speculate, you have the ability to make a clear contact.

:D

Seraphis1:

I won't try to make contact because I don't believe that Bashar exists. Even if he does exist I still wouldn't want to make contact, because he recommends that people read Conversations with God, and I don't believe a light being would recommend a source that misrepresents God in the way CWwhoever does.

Below is the link to what I posted about Santa Claus.
Scroll down until you see the title that says "Is There a Santa Claus."

http://www.bashar.org/HOMEMAIN.html









Seraphis1 wrote on Oct 27^th, 2009 at 7:04pm:

recoverer wrote on Oct 27th, 2009 at 6:55pm: Seraphis1: I won't try to contact Bashar, because I doubt that such a being exists. Recoverer: You are a traveler with abilities to verify the existence of Bashar, why not do it.  If you won't try to make direct contact when you or capable of it... you are condemning without investigation and that is a sure path to ignorance... verify your facts then give us the scoop don't guess or speculate, you have the ability to make a clear contact. :D

I just tried the link I provided, and it brings you to the main page. After you reach the main page select "Product Catalog." Next select "Spirituality." Next select "Higher Self." Next, scroll up and you'll find the Santa Claus title.

Out of Body Dude, take a look at the name Recoverer. What does that say?

Imagine someone who nearly drank himself to death. Well, he joins AA and really wants to live. This person is not really going to be very happy about walking down the aisle of a liquor store. All the red flags are going up, all the warning bells are sounding. For him.

I think it's better, at least for my own part, to let the 'recoverer' go look at some magazines or something else, and maybe he doesn't even want to come to the party.

That's okay, someday he may enjoy a party again. Some people might think he has a problem. Well, that's okay. He has to live his own life.

I completely understand why you lose patience at times. I find this Bashar fellow interesting. But that's me.

Recoverer

You bringing up some questionable things that Bashar says is fine.  I knew far before you said anything that Bashar isn't 100% accurate in what he says- no single source of information is.  However, to claim that his goal is to mislead people is a biased and uneducated opinion which serves noone.  It cuts you off from the possible experience of gaining knowledge and perspective you did not have before through Bashar's material, and it dissuades others from doing the same.  If you witnessed any of his sessions you would have a better understanding of what he is about, but your bias of channelled sources will probably prevent this anyway, so I suppose it is a waisted effort. 

You are mistaken if you believe you can change people's beliefs by trying to prove that a source they benefit from is false- for even if you can prove to them that some of the things the source in question says are false, the fact remains that that individual still benefited from whatever perspective that source offered them.  THIS is what's important.  Just like the book Convos with God.  If the book helps the reader to live a better, happier, more fulfilled life, as it has with many, many readers, then obviously that book is what that individual needed at that time- and if it serves as a positive influence and encourages that individual to grow, then THAT is what's important.  And if some things they picked up while reading are false, this will also be revealed when that individual is ready. 

Name one person you have helped by attempting to disprove a source they trusted in. 

Actually B2, when I joined another forum the need to quickly choose a name came up, and because I had recently overcome back and neck pain through psychological and spiritual means, I choose the name Recoverer.

I have never been an alcoholic, but I used to belong to a cult.  It was led by a guru who seemed quite sincere and was good at pontificating supposed higher truth. I have no regrets about being a member of his group, because it taught me the importance of using discrimination when considering sources of information that claim to represent higher knowledge in some way.

Discrimination can be a hard thing to gain, partly because people judge what another person will do when dealing with spiritual matters, according to what they will do. It takes time to realize that there are a lot of people who can read a bunch of books and then use the book based knowledge to mislead other people.

If you have a planet with over 6 billion people, then only a "very" small percentage of these people need to be dishonest enough to become fake gurus and channelers, in order for a large number of them to exist.

If you prefer to learn the hard way and have a fake channeler or guru mislead you for a while that is your choice. I speak only for people who are interested in avoiding the pitfalls of being involved with new ageism as it exists. It is a money factory for unethical people.

Yeah, you're right, Recoverer. Orange soda is sometimes not good for you. But sometimes it is.

Beau wrote on Oct 27^th, 2009 at 9:31am:

I think that perhaps the people who are looking at the karma of others are missing the point. That's like Christians who look at the sins of others and judge them based on what they perceive.

Hi Beau: The reason reincarnation is important and why we do encounter it during the TMI programs is because eventually you must gather all of your phantoms and release them. Monroe over the course of three books with a lot of time between released three aspects of himself connected with being speared in the back... Moen cured himself of sardo (sp)sis or something like that by contacting his phantom in a lifetime in which he was severely wounded in war and took a long time to die, that phantom who still did not know he was dead and needed to be released and it was...Moen is cured of that condition... but, we all have these phantoms and they must eventually be confronted and dealt with...

;)

“There is no book so bad,” said the bachelor, “but something good may be found in it.” 28
          Don Quixote. Part ii. Chap. iii.

Not sure that I believe that, but perhaps we can apply that saying to some New Age bogus channeled sources as well? I went through the Bashar site, and it has certain pseudo-wisdom in it, but ranks right up there with the same trite sayings as are found in  a mixture of: Ramtha, Seth,  Elias, The Secret, and other common New Age sources.  And hey, you can get your own private reading at anytime (for a price).  We won't even talk about the "Santa Spirit."

Followers of Seth and Elias (who some claim to continue the Seth material), often follow thousands of hours of channeled material, and many are extremely fluent in it and can cite chapter and verse on virtually any topic.  I respect that degree of study, but I find it hard sometimes to carry on conversations about the nature of reality when I am quoted to about a so called channeled source, rather than actually discussing the topic at hand.

If your thoughts create your reality - explore it  - I have and was convinced of the truth behind this expression - though in a way that is not magical but a bit more subtle, by changing probabilities in the physical world. 

Yes, explore for yourself, as Bruce advises, don't rely on channeled sources or get snookered into following someone else's message, without personally validating it for yourself.

After much investigation into various philosophies, many seekers get tired of the rhetoric and want to move on to the direct spiritual experience.  This can only come from personal exploration and patience.  Unfortunately, this is not accomplished by buying the latest CD from the psychic channeler "du jour."

Dude - no one will begrudge you the right to follow sources like Bashar, but if you think Albert is speaking out against this channeled source for any reason other than what he perceives to be helping others, then you are mistaken.  You ask "how does it help others to speak out this way?" Hmmm.....I wonder, one could equally ask "why should we retrieve deceased humans from stuck focus levels such as focus 23, 24-26?"  If anyone's views are equally valid, why be concerned at all about helping anybody? My answer;  love.  Love is the reason we help each other.  The reason we pick each other up when we fall.  It is the reason we don't usually sit idly by when someone is following a dark path, although we could.

This is a feeling I get from many channeled sources.  The lack of love for others, and the lack of emphasis of love as the driving force for everything.  It is more a personal indulgence - a feel good message saying you can do anything, you can experience ecstasy, make your reality, without factoring love or love of others into the equation.  That is an important sniff test for me when evaluating any source of information.

Albert, no matter what else has been said here, I understand where you are coming from.  From my point of view, you help many people on this board.

Matthew

Hi Albert-

I totally agree with Matthew, you do help people and your motives are sincere.

Unlike, I might add, so many of these "gurus" who take advantage of gullible people with their bizarre beliefs.

It would be interesting if someone were to do a serious study of these characters and do a side by side analysis of what they say.

The results, based on what I've already analyzed with some of them (Seth vs Elias), would no doubt show that they contradict each other all over the place.  These so-called enlightened, highly advanced entities can't even agree on the most basic of things (other than how easily they can bamboozle their readers).

Regarding Walsch, he's already admitted to plaigarism.  What he did with his Conversations books was to simply reformulate what he read in ACIM and pretended it came directly from God.

What's amazing is that people actually believe him.

P.T. Barnum was right.

R

Thank you Matthew and Roger.

I find myself in quite the quandary when I post as I do at times, because on the one hand I don't want to be disrespectful towards others, and on the other hand I find it hard to just sit on my hands and be mum while the fraudulent gurus and channelers of in this World have their field day with well meaning people who have yet to develop the discrimination to see when somebody is conning them.

Dude is partly correct when he says some people obtain benefit from fraudulent sources and they move on when they want something  better. However,  because I know a number of people who have been mislead by fraudulent sources for much or all of their life, I don't believe the matter is as simple as Dude states.

Consider what J.Z. Knight (Ramtha) once did. She told her followers don't go to the light, go to the darkness. Some of her followers became very upset when they heard this. Because of where she was positioned as she spoke, she couldn't see that they had become upset (Ramtha certainly didn't tell her). She was informed about their upsettness during a break. So what did she do? She decided to use fear to regain control. She came up with this alien/reptilian thing. When the break was over she told her followers to not go to the light when they die, because reptilians use the light to trick people and strip memories from their soul. As a result, a soul will have to return to this World and reincarnate.

If a person dies while believing in J.Z. Knight's nonsense,  and looks for the darkness instead of the light, a retrievel might be needed.

Regarding Walsch, how much lack of character does it take to tell people you channel God when you don't? It is disrespectful to God, and it is disrespectful to the  people you mislead. It is downright arrogant for a person to assume that it is okay for he or she to share his or her ideas with other people as if they come from God or some other high level being, when they don't.

I watched some Bashar videos on Youtube last night and I can't say I was impressed.

As I mentioned before, is grace and genuine guidance so lacking that we have to rely on fraudulent sources of information that mislead people to varying extents? Is a honest person with integrity more likely to find wisdom within his or her self, or from a person who lacks such qualities and misleads others.

It's true, no one should rely on any one source for all the answers- except, of course, the Inner Self.  Of course, it is also sometimes a tricky situation when receiving guidance from one's Inner Self, for everything is filtered through one's belief systems, and if one holds limiting beliefs, it is difficult for even the Higher Self to penetrate through- which is why many people remain unaware of the higher aspects of their being. 

One thing that strikes me as real with channels such as Seth and Bashar is that they constantly stress that one finds the answers for themselves by exploring the higher realms of their own consciousness.  I benefit from these sources by taking in what resonates with me and leaving out the rest- in other words, discrimination.  Rather than judging the source as genuine or phoney based on preconceived beliefs, I simply see what they have to say, and if I like what I hear, if it arrises excitement within me, if it helps me to broaden my perspectives, if it encourages me to grow, then that is obviously a positive thing.  If I come across something that does not seem accurate then I simply pass it by.  An open mind is key to growth.

Albert-

"Gurus" have a long and sordid history. Thing is, just like unscrupulous internet scammers, they will always be with us. 

Here are just a few examples from http://www.strippingthegurus.com/

Ramakrishna was a homoerotic pedophile.

His chief disciple, Vivekananda, visited brothels in India.

Krishnamurti carried on an affair for over twenty years with the wife of a good friend. Chögyam Trungpa drank himself into an early grave. One of Adi Da's nine "wives" was a former Playboy centerfold. Bhagwan Rajneesh sniffed laughing gas to get high. Andrew Cohen, guru and publisher of What Is Enlightenment? magazine, by his own reported admission sometimes feels "like a god."

These are typical of the "wizened sages" to whom otherwise-sensible people give their devotion and unquestioning obedience, surrendering their independence, willpower, and life's savings in the hope of realizing for themselves the same "enlightenment" as they ascribe to the "perfect, God-realized" master.



But just as Bruce says, belief systems are almost impossible to change.  If a person is convinced that somebody named Lobsang Rampa is an enlightened master, regardless of how much evidence there is showing that he's a shameless fraud, there's not much you or I can do about it.

Maybe the best course is for you to continue to post your own experiences and let them speak for themselves.  A lot of the guru groupies are frankly young and immature persons and logic doesn't have much sway.

R

rondele wrote on Oct 28^th, 2009 at 2:01pm:

But just as Bruce says, belief systems are almost impossible to change.  If a person is convinced that somebody named Lobsang Rampa is an enlightened master, regardless of how much evidence there is showing that he's a shameless fraud, there's not much you or I can do about it. R

Hi All: Therein lies the key.... the belief system territories are broad and wide... they are loaded with every sort of practice... but, perversion is in the mind of the beholder... the path that Monroe and Moen have laid out... walks a very narrow line... if you've read and understood monroe and moen you have have the rosetta stone of mysticism and cosmology... but, YOU, have to do the work of freeing yourself from the illusion. Monroe said: the greatest illusion is that mankind has limitations... judge not that you be not judged... free yourself... others must find there own way... it's that simple.

::)

So, where do everyone's 'dead relatives' fit into all this. Where do all these previously 'living' folks come from that near death experiencers run into, folks that they've never even met? Why do they meet people who are no longer here? It seems to me that if it's all in our imagination then people would report meeting all kinds of people who are still alive, as if they were dreaming. It is tempting to think that perhaps all these experiences originate within the brain itself, from a brain which operates through more than one 'system'. But it just doesn't explain to me all knowledge that people come back from near death experiences carrying with them.

Yes Rondelle, Ramakrishna did as you wrote, yet he claimed to be an Avatar, an incarnation of Rama and Krishna at the same time, hence his name.

Sai Baba also claimed to be an Avatar, a direct incarnation of God, yet he molested the male children of his disciples.

Robert Bruce claimed that Sai Baba materialized to him in white light. When the allegations came out that Sai Baba was a pedophile Bruce said they were false. Eventually things reached the point where Bruce had to conceed that the allegations are true. He defended Sai Baba's actions in about 5 ways. He said things such as the actions of Avatars are mysterious. He said the boys Sai Baba molested agreed to have sex with him.

Each defense is preposterous. When it comes to the boys Sai Baba molested, even if they were (they weren't) mentally and emotionally mature enough to decide whether or not they want to have sex with a narcissistic guru who claimed to be God, Sai Baba idn't give them the chance to decide, because as soon as they would enter his room he would start molesting them.

Perhaps Robert Bruce backed himself into a corner when he claimed that Sai Baba materialized to him within white light, and in order to defend his story, he defended Sai Baba's actions.

The things you said about the other gurus including the hoax of T. Lopsang Rampa are accurate.

P.S. Adi Da also claimed to be an Avatar. Back in the 80s he said in one of his books that all of the slugs of this World would someday follow him. He claimed that he was the World teacher. He claimed that there has never been a master as advanced as him, and there never will be again. He said that when he died he would be resurrected within a few days. This claim ended up being false. Robert Bruce recommends one of Adi Da's books at his site.

He also recommends one of Trungpa's books  on how to deal with one's ego. It is hard to imagine that a guru who died of alcoholism at such a young age, and had sexual affairs with followers, actually overcame his ego.

I  guess a person could deny what is said about some gurus, but they might end up in the same quandary Robert Bruce ended up in when he spoke of Sai Baba.

I don't understand how a person can be considered a manifestation of love and wisdom, if his or actions aren't reflective of such qualities.

Dude said: Rather than judging the source as genuine or phoney based on preconceived beliefs, I simply see what they have to say, and if I like what I hear, if it arrises excitement within me, if it helps me to broaden my perspectives, if it encourages me to grow, then that is obviously a positive thing.

Recoverer responds: Certainly we can discriminate things in a manner that goes beyond playing around with preconceived ideas.

I gave some channeled sources a shot, until I found that they were lacking.

One of the reasons people don't question the false gurus they follow is because they take the stance, "How could little old unenlightened me determine if this person is enlightened?" I believe it is a big mistake when they take on such a self-defeating approach. WE CAN discern if a source of information is valid if we allow ourselves to do so.

rondele wrote on Oct 28^th, 2009 at 2:01pm:

[b]Ramakrishna was a homoerotic pedophile. R

Hi All: Ramakrishna never had physical sex with anyone. You can’t prove he did beyond a reasonable doubt and absolute certainty. I can’t prove he didn’t to a moral certainty. But, as a student of his writings I know he claims not to have had even a “wet dream” which is natural for male humans at specific developmental times. He married by custom but never consummated the marriage. He was in my opinion a high level avatar in the Hindu/yogic belief system, probably operating in what TMI would deem levels at or above focus 34 and 37 (when I am skilled enough to verify directly this premise I will report it here). Some of you are displaying an appalling lack of information about cultures. In the India of that time and place what you call pedohilia was not a taboo… to an Indian that was just part of their way of life. Those of you who are screaming and yelling about other practices are doing so from your own rigid belief system restraints, imposing your personal values or hang ups on the Indian world. What their practices are today I do not know.  Men in the Muslim world walk about holding hands which is appalling to westerners. Those of you who are jumping out of your skin over these cultural variations without looking into the cultural norms of those societies are displaying an amazing level of intolerance and ignorance, that is rising to the level of obscene. But that is just my opinion. When in Rome do as the Romans do… if these Indian mystics come to America and practice pedophilia I wholeheartedly endorse prosecution to the full extent of the law. Here it is illegal. But in their own countries it is the business of that society and that society alone.

Hi,

frankly i'm puzzled everyone seems to be talking about a different set of books to the ones I read regarding Conversations With God. The ones I read taught that we were all one, love was paramount, we need to heal the world etc etc - is the US version that different to the UK ? I get confused because the same people quite happily absorb the bible with its mixture of murder and mayhem (OT predominately) carried out by a jealous Jehovah.

A lot of people seem perturbed by the temerity of Walsch to claim that he's communicating with the divine but that criticism presupposes that we can know the Creator objectively/directly. Walsch freely acknowledges that the material comes through his very human 'filter'. But then I would ask how could we ever experience/know God but through our filters of unique individual perception ? To my mind Walsch either strikes a chord with you or he does'nt but to say that's not God suggests that You (only ?!) know the real God ! Is'nt that something Al-Quaida claim ?

I'm also a bit concerned by the blanket use of the term of 'New Age' (usually used pejoratively) which covers such a wide range of philosophies/theologies to be almost meaningless as a referential term. I am puzzled when I hear gentle spiritual beliefs are descibed as 'hate filled', terms more appropriate for the Christian Spanish Inquisition.I do believe that many current teachings/beliefs can legitimately be queried on the grounds of 'wooliness' or untested claims but I just don't get the blanket attack on everything one does'nt accept as currently true. The last thing such a 'New Ager' would do is attack you for not believing what they believe in, a claim which cannot be made about many 'Christians' over the centuries.

I would like to point out that my intention is not one of causing offence to anyone and is done in a genuine spirit of enquiry ( I'm really interested !). I think its great that people from all round the world can come together and talk about this stuff on this board without aggression or intimidation.

Dave

To me it verges on censorship when people can't even recommend a book in passing to someone without having the entire thread diverted into this kind of debate. I see nothing wrong with voicing an opinion, but some of the vigilant behavior that appears here occasionally (rather often, actually) borders on harassment and bullying, in my opinion.

Hi All: I am appalled by the lack of personal investigation into the Hall of Records to get verification to all this crazy stuff attacking other systems and their leaders. Everyone is using secondary sources which are relying on inuendo and hearsay and questionable sources. Failure to understand the cultural norms of other social systems, condemnation without personal and direct initiative. Shape up.. you know who you are... concentrate on your own personal spiritual developement. remember there are Hells and hollow heavens... they exist in the physical and live on in focus 23 and 24 afterdeath... the more you resist them the more you will be drawn to them.

8-)

Bro my bottom line is that you can't tell me what serves me best.  That is for me to decide.  Of course, you can see things with a different perspective than I can due to our varying beleifs, and offer your perspective, but that doesn't make it a more valid perspective, and so while you are worried about these sources misleading me(due to your beliefs), my beliefs do not allow these sources to mislead me, but instead allow me to take what resonates and leave the rest. 

There is a lot of BS in the Bible.  Some of the passages are extremely negative and misleading.  And yet I still understand that there is also truth contained within that I can benefit from.  I am sure everyone can agree to this.  It is no different with any other source.

Your advice may be helpful to those who do not trust their intuitions and inner self, those who have no inner connection, those who are so narrow minded that they are unable to discern truth from lies.  Do you think I am one of those people?  Are you really afraid that Bashar or any other source is going to mislead me?  That I am actually going to follow blindly?  I am smarter than that my friend.

Seraphis1:

It doesn't matter what the culture was like in India during Ramakrishna's time. An adult man who lives according to love wouldn't have sex with a boy.

The below is a case of moral relativism used in a non-discriminitive way. There are some cultures where people owned slaves, certainly this isn't okay. There are some cultures where women are oppressed, certainly this isn't okay.

It isn't alway relative. If you do something to hurt another, then you do something to hurt another, regardless of how unenlightened the culture you live in is.

Come on, men holding  hands is hardly the same thing.

Either we can give the fraudulent gurus of this World power by contending that we can't know anything, or we can give ourselves more credit.

If you took the time to do some thorough research you would find that more than inuendo is involved.


Seraphis1 wrote on Oct 28^th, 2009 at 3:27pm:

rondele wrote on Oct 28th, 2009 at 2:01pm: [b]Ramakrishna was a homoerotic pedophile. R Hi All: Ramakrishna never had physical sex with anyone. You can’t prove he did beyond a reasonable doubt and absolute certainty. I can’t prove he didn’t to a moral certainty. But, as a student of his writings I know he claims not to have had even a “wet dream” which is natural for male humans at specific developmental times. He married by custom but never consummated the marriage. He was in my opinion a high level avatar in the Hindu/yogic belief system, probably operating in what TMI would deem levels at or above focus 34 and 37 (when I am skilled enough to verify directly this premise I will report it here). Some of you are displaying an appalling lack of information about cultures. In the India of that time and place what you call pedohilia was not a taboo… to an Indian that was just part of their way of life. Those of you who are screaming and yelling about other practices are doing so from your own rigid belief system restraints, imposing your personal values or hang ups on the Indian world. What their practices are today I do not know.  Men in the Muslim world walk about holding hands which is appalling to westerners. Those of you who are jumping out of your skin over these cultural variations without looking into the cultural norms of those societies are displaying an amazing level of intolerance and ignorance, that is rising to the level of obscene. But that is just my opinion. When in Rome do as the Romans do… if these Indian mystics come to America and practice pedophilia I wholeheartedly endorse prosecution to the full extent of the law. Here it is illegal. But in their own countries it is the business of that society and that society alone.

Heisenberg69:

The fact of the matter is that no matter how much a person including Walsch spins it, he called his books "Conversations with God."

Because the conversations are contrived and false things are said, I believe a person can see, if willing, that Walsch didn't actually speak to God.

Yet, he tries to benefit by including "God" as a part of the name of his books, and boy has he benefited.

When I see that a person allows his or her self to be so dishonest, I can't see what point there is in trying to benefit by what he or she says.

I wonder if he said anything to inspire people to view God with humility, respect, grattitude, reverence, loyalty and love, because if he did, they wouldn't be so quick to minimize what is involved when a person irresponsibly proclaims that he received words from God.

I don't believe we all became sinners because Eve ate an apple, but it is possible for us to do things that aren't appropriate.

It is fine that people have the inclination to speak up for various sources of information, but it behooves them to be certain about what they are defending. To defend in a non-discriminitive manner serves no purpose.

recoverer wrote on Oct 28^th, 2009 at 4:44pm:

Seraphis1: It doesn't matter what the culture was like in India during Ramakrishna's time. An adult man who lives according to love wouldn't have sex with a boy. As I told you can't prove ramakrishna had sex with under age boys... this is libelous... in a court of law you would be paying ramakrishna a major financial settlement... The below is a case of moral relativism used in a non-discriminitive way. There are some cultures where people owned slaves, certainly this isn't okay. There are some cultures where women are oppressed, certainly this isn't okay. It isn't alway relative. If you do something to hurt another, then you do something to hurt another, regardless of how unenlightened the culture you live in is. Come on, men holding  hands is hardly the same thing. Either we can give the fraudulent gurus of this World power by contending that we can't know anything, or we can give ourselves more credit. If you took the time to do some thorough research you would find that more than inuendo is involved. Seraphis1 wrote on Oct 28th, 2009 at 3:27pm: rondele wrote on Oct 28th, 2009 at 2:01pm: [b]Ramakrishna was a homoerotic pedophile. R Hi All: Ramakrishna never had physical sex with anyone. You can’t prove he did beyond a reasonable doubt and absolute certainty. I can’t prove he didn’t to a moral certainty. But, as a student of his writings I know he claims not to have had even a “wet dream” which is natural for male humans at specific developmental times. He married by custom but never consummated the marriage. He was in my opinion a high level avatar in the Hindu/yogic belief system, probably operating in what TMI would deem levels at or above focus 34 and 37 (when I am skilled enough to verify directly this premise I will report it here). Some of you are displaying an appalling lack of information about cultures. In the India of that time and place what you call pedohilia was not a taboo… to an Indian that was just part of their way of life. Those of you who are screaming and yelling about other practices are doing so from your own rigid belief system restraints, imposing your personal values or hang ups on the Indian world. What their practices are today I do not know.  Men in the Muslim world walk about holding hands which is appalling to westerners. Those of you who are jumping out of your skin over these cultural variations without looking into the cultural norms of those societies are displaying an amazing level of intolerance and ignorance, that is rising to the level of obscene. But that is just my opinion. When in Rome do as the Romans do… if these Indian mystics come to America and practice pedophilia I wholeheartedly endorse prosecution to the full extent of the law. Here it is illegal. But in their own countries it is the business of that society and that society alone.

Hi Recoverer: you have serious psychological problems my friend... now you want to reach into another culture and tell them how they should have behaved over a century ago... pardon my french but that is daft.  Just an opinion.

Men holding hands walking down the street in most american cities will get them killed or beat up... what planet are you on... do a reality check.

:P

Frankly, I'm extremely tired of hearing about which guru slept with what person or underage whoever. Listening to these stories over and over makes me sick to my stomach and I am beginning to find it a violation to have them repeated to this forum again and again.

We need to listen to our conscience, common sense and heart. Therefore, it is perfectly okay to say it is wrong when cultures do things such as own slaves, repress women and beat up men for holding hands.


Hi Recoverer: you have serious psychological problems my friend... now you want to reach into another culture and tell them how they should have behaved over a century ago... pardon my french but that is daft.  Just an opinion.

Men holding hands walking down the street in most american cities will get them killed or beat up... what planet are you on... do a reality check.

:P[/quote]

Well this thread went from being interesting and on topic to sucking and off topic.  Who is to blame?  BASHAR!!!

Out of Body Dude, you are so right.

Gotta love him.

Dude-

I agree, Bashar made my evening! I finally gave in and watched 2 of his videos.

The guy should audition for a slot on Saturday Night Live.  He's wasting his talent pretending to channel space aliens.

He's a natural born comedian.  He just needs to control his coughing.

Thanks again.  It's been a long day, I needed the laughs.

R

It baffles me why someone has to go to a channelled demon to get supposed wisdom, yes they will get the wisdom of deception,

The greatest and purest form of wisdom is the lord Jesus

Recoverer:

thanks for taking the time to reply to my post. Here is my responce to some of your points...

'The fact of the matter is that no matter how much a person including Walsch spins it, he called his books "Conversations with God."'

He does indeed but then many authors (from all genres) use God in the title of their books so Walsch is not alone in this (if you don't believe this type God in the Amazon search bar as I just did ! ). Its not so much using God in the title as how one defines "God". As I posted before 'God' means many things to many people. I think Walsch uses it in the sense of 'the best take on the Creator currently available to my limited understanding i.e. through my personal human filter. ' He freely acknowledges as we grow our view of God evolves - nothing stays 'set in stone'.

'Because the conversations are contrived and false things are said, I believe a person can see, if willing, that Walsch didn't actually speak to God'

This a personal opinion not an objective fact. How can anyone say definitively "thats not God but this is ?". A person can have a divine revelation but that will only be ' God truth' to that person. I think this is an important point because over the course of human history millions have been killed because people think their take on God is 'the real one' (its still going on).

'and boy has he benefited'

Surely successfull book sales means some people find meaning in what he says ( I bought four) - is'nt that a positive ?

'I wonder if he said anything to inspire people to view God with humility, respect, grattitude, reverence, loyalty and love'

But, Recoverer, those themes are a central part of his work !


'It is fine that people have the inclination to speak up for various sources of information, but it behooves them to be certain about what they are defending. To defend in a non-discriminitive manner serves no purpose' 

I agree !

Dave

Walsch is talking to himself and maybe in the process he has come up with a few truths but not any new truths

Alan

In my own experience there is no certainty outside of my own experience and my subjective experience is influenced by my own biases therefore I have to accept that this is the case for others as well. Not right or wrong just approaching the cabin from a different set of coordinates from way out in the forest. There may be a bear on one path but perhaps that path is shorter ultimately than the long and winding path where I can see the cabin down in the valley, but must climb endlessly down a high mountain to get to it. It's a metaphor, of course. It's one thing to say you disagree, but to feel you are helping others find there way is like using a map for the bear path when you're on the winding one that has no bear. You think its shorter because you're working from someone else's map and maybe you get eaten by another bear because you get lost. Now, if we were all on the same path then it's fine to say "this is how it is" but we are not unless we are all looking at the same map. In Shakespeare's day they didn't give the whole play to the actors, they only got what is called a side which had their cues and the lines that the particular actor would speak. No one could discuss the whole play until they rehearsed to see where their part fit in. So no one could say the other guy had it wrong. I think our maps are like this. We're all meant to find our own way and that's how we grow. Telling someone they are on the wrong path or that their source is not accurate makes no sense to me. See what I'm saying? "Telling them". Certainly we all have our own opinions...but until you are there in the cabin it is an opinion. Sorry for the wordiness.

I pretty much agree with you Beau but would just add that that we're not alone on our individual journeys - there are sources which can help us go where we want to go. Some sources we intuitively 'resonate' with and some we don't - thats perfectly fine we're all at different places anyway. I think the problem comes when someone tries to introduce 'a one size fits all approach' for everyone regardless where on the path they are, suggesting that things which resonate for me should resonate for you...

Hi All:

Maya

I was not just a little disturbed by the vitriolic attacks on various so called spiritual leaders, cultist and the like some probably deserved and some not deserved. But be that as it may, the problem is Maya and the goal of the Disk or Oversoul. Maya is an illusion. It is indestructible and everlasting. Dwelling on it too strenuously is pointless. The goal of the Oversoul probes are to gather experience and eventually return to its respective Oversoul cluster or disk and eventually when all the members of that cluster are retrieved the cluster winks out. Most of us who have found Monroe, Moen and to some extent Robert Bruce now have the tools to return to our cluster. That is the long and short of it.  :)

Alan McDougall wrote on Oct 27^th, 2009 at 9:52am:

The concept of reincarnation is widely accepted among non-Christians, probably because it appeals to many who would like to believe that they would be given a second chance in case they failed to make the grade in this life. Christianity disputes reincarnation because it is unnecessary, since anybody can "make the grade" simply through an act of their own will through faith in Jesus Christ.

Not true. Reincarnation was an original tenet of the Bible until the Council of Nicea under the Emperor Justinian in AD557, where it was declared anathema. Justinian had a mistress who turned him on to another cult altogether, and he decided that getting rid of reincarnation was a really good way of extending the church's power base.
The council was so controversial that the pope of the time refused to attend -he knew a frame up when he saw it.


Quote:

The scientific rebuttal to reincarnation is quite simple. Because of the population explosion, more people are currently living on the earth than have ever lived on the earth for the entire history of humankind. In other words, over half of the people who have ever lived on earth have never died even once! There simply are not enough dead souls to go around for a second time. This does not absolutely eliminate reincarnation, but it does severely restrict its extent, especially for those who have claimed to have lived several times before.

Again you're limiting yourself to the view that this planet and dimension is the only one we can experience. As stated before and in RAM's books, some folks here have been here for millenia, some have only been here a few lifetimes, and other may even be first timers. Many spiritual writers have stated that the earth at this time offers unparalleled opportunities for experience through incarnation, and that many are choosing this point in time for a 'crash course' while the opportunity presents itself. Supposedly the population will decrease markedly in the future, so they're getting in now so as not having to wait for a suitable opportunity in the future.

Best wishes,
David.

Quote:

Again you're limiting yourself to the view that this planet and dimension is the only one we can experience.

You're limiting yourself timewise, so why would you not accept his limitation? (couldn't resist, I'm not trying to offend you)

cheers,
Vagabound

wrote on Nov 1^st, 2009 at 8:16am:

You're limiting yourself timewise, so why would you not accept his limitation? (couldn't resist, I'm not trying to offend you) cheers, Vagabound

Hi Vagabond,
now why should I be limiting myself timewise? (no offence taken by the way).
As I see it -and I'm quite prepared to be corrected by the knowledgeable folks here- there is at the present time a conjunction of galactic energies that mean for those who are working their way through their incarnations that the most progress can be made all at once. I could speculate also that there are a lot of last timers who are here on earth to finish their rounds of the ELS and get it over and done with as quickly as possible so that they can go on to the next level -whatever that may mean to you.
If you miss out on this time, it could be a while until the conditions are right again for you, and that could mean many thousands of years hence.
And the reason I'm not accepting Alan's limitation is that it's one I've heard all too often from others trying to debunk reincarnation. There's always more to it than is apparent, and the idea that one lifetime follows another immediately and that that proves that it doesn't hold up seems to me to be untenable. From what I've read and experienced through hypnotic regression, your most recent past life could have ended a few weks before you were born or many centuries. There's also the theory that some have past/future lives that overlap this one. For instance, you may still be alive someewhere else on the planet and be older/younger than you are now!
Time's a curious thing.... :)

Best wishes,
David.

Seraphis1 wrote on Oct 31^st, 2009 at 11:44am:

Hi All: Maya I was not just a little disturbed by the vitriolic attacks on various so called spiritual leaders, cultist and the like some probably deserved and some not deserved. But be that as it may, the problem is Maya and the goal of the Disk or Oversoul. Maya is an illusion. It is indestructible and everlasting. Dwelling on it too strenuously is pointless. The goal of the Oversoul probes are to gather experience and eventually return to its respective Oversoul cluster or disk and eventually when all the members of that cluster are retrieved the cluster winks out. Most of us who have found Monroe, Moen and to some extent Robert Bruce now have the tools to return to our cluster. That is the long and short of it.  :)

Simple as that??? The only One with all the answers is God Simple as that!!!

Detheridge:] "Reincarnation was an original tenet of the Bible until the Council of Nicea under the Emperor Justinian in AD557, where it was declared anathema."

No, this is an often discredited error invented by New Agers who have never themselves studied the primary texts of early church history.  You, of course, have no first hand knowledge of the Council of Nicea and can cite no provisions of its proceedings. 

Your other points can be refuted by 3 observations universally accepted in the scholarly world:

(1) Rerincarnation is never taught by the Bible or for that matter, by the Judaism of late antiquity.  [No, no one imagined that John the Baptist was the reincarnation of Elijah.  Defend this claim and I'll demonstrate the error in great detail.] Only denizens of the New Age Ghetto imagine otherwise.  They need to get out more and read mainstream secular scholarship on the early church.  What a couple of intertestamental Jewish books (2 Enoch and Wisdom of Solomon) do teach is the preexistence of the soul; and this teaching seems implicit in Jesus' encounter with the man born blind in John 9:1-2. 

(2) There is no Judaeo-Christian reincarnationism in first-century Palestine.  A very tiny Jewish baptismal  sect, the Elchasaites east of the Jordan River, did teach reincarnation in the early second century AD, as did a small minority of second century Gnostic sects (e. g. the Carpocratians).  But their reincarnationism is rare even among the Gnostics and does not infect the early Catholic church. 

(3) An early church council did condemn reincarnationism in the form attibuted the early third century church father, Origen.  But in fact they misuunderstood Origen who merely developed the doctine of the soul's preexistence in greater detail.  In fact, Origen repeatedly CONDEMNS reincarnationism!    

Don

And I say who cares about what the Bible says about reincarnation. Irrelevant. But in case anyone wants another perspective, I suggest:

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen03.html

Goobygirl,

Conversely, I likewise care nothing about what you think because you are making comments about ancient sources you know nothing about.  Your New Age source provides no quotes from Origen and clearly has not read him.  A few years ago, I developed a long thread on Origen in which I quoted several of his denunciations of reincarnation!  You must rise above the level of the "flat earthers" who were threatened by the Apollo moon landing; so they gathered kooky sources to mount a case that Neil Armstrong's moon landing was faked in a New Mexico hangar.  Gooby, you are not even RATIONALLY entitled to an opinion on subjects with which you have not engaged by direct reading of actual literary sources in question.  Don't be a New Age Fundamentalist; be a thinker who investigate claims on her own.

Don

Berserk2 wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2009 at 1:15am:

Goobygirl, Conversely, I likewise care nothing about what you think because you are making comments about ancient sources you know nothing about.  Your New Age source provides no quotes from Origen and clearly has not read him.  A few years ago, I developed a long thread on Origen in which I quoted several of his denunciations of reincarnation!  You must rise above the level of the "flat earthers" who were threatened by the Apollo moon landing; so they gathered kooky sources to mount a case that Neil Armstrong's moon landing was faked in a New Mexico hangar.  Gooby, you are not even RATIONALLY entitled to an opinion on subjects with which you have not engaged by direct reading of actual literary sources in question.  Don't be a New Age Fundamentalist; be a thinker who investigate claims on her own. Don

Hi Don I moved away from the bible but now find myself returning to its beautiful truths

The Bible says It is appointed "ONCE TO DIE" and then the Judgement No where does Jesus preach reicarnation, where people get this idea beats me.

Of course they will say John The Baptist was the reincarnation of Elijah.

"John chapter 1 verse 21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith I AM NOT Art thou that prophet? And he answered NO

(notice John twice deny s being Elijah!!)

Don I want to take this opportunity for any negative remarks I have made to you on this forum and ask for your forgiveness!!!

Alan

Quote:

The Bible says It is appointed "ONCE TO DIE" and then the Judgement No where does Jesus preach reicarnation, where people get this idea beats me.

   It's simple. Not all babies that are born come here for the first time. Some souls that want to return just jump into a new physical body.

Ralph

Ralph Buskey wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2009 at 4:20am:

Quote: The Bible says It is appointed "ONCE TO DIE" and then the Judgement No where does Jesus preach reicarnation, where people get this idea beats me.    It's simple. Not all babies that are born come here for the first time. Some souls that want to return just jump into a new physical body. Ralph

Are you sure???? You made this statement as if it were fact, how do you know this???

Hi Don,
thanks for the reply. However, I would point out that the original quoted source for this assertion is from the Catholic Encyclopedia itself.
Also try here:
http://reluctant-messenger.com/origen7.html

Best wishes,
David.




Berserk2 wrote on Nov 1^st, 2009 at 10:02pm:

Detheridge:] "Reincarnation was an original tenet of the Bible until the Council of Nicea under the Emperor Justinian in AD557, where it was declared anathema." No, this is an often discredited error invented by New Agers who have never themselves studied the primary texts of early church history.  You, of course, have no first hand knowledge of the Council of Nicea and can cite no provisions of its proceedings.  Your other points can be refuted by 3 observations universally accepted in the scholarly world: (1) Rerincarnation is never taught by the Bible or for that matter, by the Judaism of late antiquity.  [No, no one imagined that John the Baptist was the reincarnation of Elijah.  Defend this claim and I'll demonstrate the error in great detail.] Only denizens of the New Age Ghetto imagine otherwise.  They need to get out more and read mainstream secular scholarship on the early church.  What a couple of intertestamental Jewish books (2 Enoch and Wisdom of Solomon) do teach is the preexistence of the soul; and this teaching seems implicit in Jesus' encounter with the man born blind in John 9:1-2.  (2) There is no Judaeo-Christian reincarnationism in first-century Palestine.  A very tiny Jewish baptismal  sect, the Elchasaites east of the Jordan River, did teach reincarnation in the early second century AD, as did a small minority of second century Gnostic sects (e. g. the Carpocratians).  But their reincarnationism is rare even among the Gnostics and does not infect the early Catholic church.  (3) An early church council did condemn reincarnationism in the form attibuted the early third century church father, Origen.  But in fact they misuunderstood Origen who merely developed the doctine of the soul's preexistence in greater detail.  In fact, Origen repeatedly CONDEMNS reincarnationism!     Don

detheridge wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2009 at 6:03am:

Hi Don, thanks for the reply. However, I would point out that the original quoted source for this assertion is from the Catholic Encyclopedia itself. Also try here: http://reluctant-messenger.com/origen7.html Best wishes, David. Berserk2 wrote on Nov 1st, 2009 at 10:02pm: Detheridge:] "Reincarnation was an original tenet of the Bible until the Council of Nicea under the Emperor Justinian in AD557, where it was declared anathema." No, this is an often discredited error invented by New Agers who have never themselves studied the primary texts of early church history.  You, of course, have no first hand knowledge of the Council of Nicea and can cite no provisions of its proceedings.  Your other points can be refuted by 3 observations universally accepted in the scholarly world: (1) Rerincarnation is never taught by the Bible or for that matter, by the Judaism of late antiquity.  [No, no one imagined that John the Baptist was the reincarnation of Elijah.  Defend this claim and I'll demonstrate the error in great detail.] Only denizens of the New Age Ghetto imagine otherwise.  They need to get out more and read mainstream secular scholarship on the early church.  What a couple of intertestamental Jewish books (2 Enoch and Wisdom of Solomon) do teach is the preexistence of the soul; and this teaching seems implicit in Jesus' encounter with the man born blind in John 9:1-2.  (2) There is no Judaeo-Christian reincarnationism in first-century Palestine.  A very tiny Jewish baptismal  sect, the Elchasaites east of the Jordan River, did teach reincarnation in the early second century AD, as did a small minority of second century Gnostic sects (e. g. the Carpocratians).  But their reincarnationism is rare even among the Gnostics and does not infect the early Catholic church.  (3) An early church council did condemn reincarnationism in the form attibuted the early third century church father, Origen.  But in fact they misuunderstood Origen who merely developed the doctine of the soul's preexistence in greater detail.  In fact, Origen repeatedly CONDEMNS reincarnationism!     Don

Hi I dont need to go to any human source to find out if reincarnation is true or not. The Divine Christ Jesus said it was not true and that is good enough for me

IT IS APPOINTED ONCE TO DIE AND THEN THE JUDGEMENT

There are so many things wrong with reincarnation that I feel it's one of the more puzzling beliefs out there.

1) First of all, to accept reincarnation, you have to accept dualism. After all, it is the soul that survives and merely changes bodies when the current host dies. ?

2) Living creatures, reincarnation claims that a new baby that doesn't have the same biological materials, don't have any of the same memories, doesn't have any sort of viable link to an old lady recently deceased from a heart attack, is indeed that old lady. It's patently absurd.

But let's assume that the soul does exist and inhabits a new body when the old one dies.

3) Why does the soul forget its past experiences? What would make the soul's memories stop when the old body dies?

4) Why would the self - the  soul - not be able to remember? Is the soul not the ultimate self? Why would a new body limit the self's ability to conjure its own memories?

And for those who claim that déjà-vu or whatever is repressed past memories?

5) I ask what is the mechanism is for memories to be blocked or let through?. If they are blocked, how are they getting through? Why can't they all get through?

6) And if your old memories are lost forever, then what is the point of being reincarnated?

7) The point of reincarnation is to extend life, but if you can't retain memories or lessons or knowledge from those past lives, how exactly have you extended your life?

8) It's not much better than saying you achieve immortality by living on in the hearts and minds of your friends.


9) I want to live forever by living forever. I don't want some memory or trace of me living on.

10) Where were all the souls before the earth existed?

11) Where will they go when the earth is destroyed?

12) Will they continue to exist and be sentient, to interact in soul-land?

13) Then why come into bodies at all??? the spiritual body is much superior why leave it for bleak flesh and blood

14) And then what if the ratio of bodies-to-souls is off, say more souls than bodies?

15) Do the souls just hang out in soul-land waiting for a new body to inhabit?

16) Or what if there are more bodies than souls? Are new souls born?

17) Or are there some people who are just automatons - functioning robots without souls at all? Could we tell the automatons apart from the real people?

18) Now let's deal with animals, if you accept trans-special reincarnation. Clearly some animals have different sorts of mental functioning abilities.

19) We can reason better, rats can discern smells better, bats can hear well. Different animals can see in different colors, very much a mental process of the mind.

20) How does the soul make up for these things?

21) When we get transferred to a chicken, do we lose our ability to reason?

22) When we are transferred out of a wolf, do we lose the knowledge of how to hunt?

23) Are our souls restricted in what they can express on their host? And then of course, what's the cutoff point of creatures imbued with souls?

24) Do rats have souls? Bees? Roaches? Bacteria? Viruses? Replicating proteins like Mad Cow?

25) Even if you restrict reincarnation to just humans; at what point in the human evolutionary chain was the first soul imbued?

26) How do we explain Hitler heck what karma was he working off???

27) Now how about the idea that the creature you get to inhabit depends on how good you were in your past life. Who keeps track? Who is the great record-keeper that sends you to your new body? What criteria are used? Is it objective, could it be objective? Does it make mistakes? How does it force our souls into the hosts? Could the soul refuse? And you have to wonder; is your fate graded on a curve?

28) What if everyone in one generation acts perfectly and kindly and loving to everyone?

29) Surely the less desirable bodies are still being born and need to be inhabited.

30)) Would a couple of hugs be the difference between a hawk and a slug?

Etc , etc , etc adinfinitum adinfinitum

hi detheridge,


Quote:

If you miss out on this time, it could be a while until the conditions are right again for you, and that could mean many thousands of years hence.

What I meant is, you do not have to wait for the future (on earth) in order to reincarnate, it's all there, from dawn til dusk.
Yes, time is a curious thing and from the other side navigating through earthtime is just like walking to the next block or back down the road.

"the knowledgeable folks here"  [smiley=laugh.gif] ; I know all we can go by is personal experience. I'm here because I've found some explanations here for things I've experienced. When you see or feel a soul split, the first thing that comes to your mind is you're losing it. Here I find comfort in the experiences of others, who think that's perfectly normal.

anyway, have a nice day,
Vagabound

If they were denouncing reincarnation then I'd say it's a pretty sure thing that it's true, in one form or another. I don't trust the foundations of the Church, but I think Jesus is pretty cool. I like him because I don't have to take anyone's word for what he did and was. And the Jews do believe in a form of reincarnation that is simply called "Coming Back". It's not talked about but it's known. I would not trust any Christian source that was using scripture as proof, but that's just me. The fact that the Christians came out against reincarnation is proof enough to me that it's real. Sorry not meaning to offend it's just the way I see it.

Beau wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2009 at 9:39am:

If they were denouncing reincarnation then I'd say it's a pretty sure thing that it's true, in one form or another. I don't trust the foundations of the Church, but I think Jesus is pretty cool. I like him because I don't have to take anyone's word for what he did and was. And the Jews do believe in a form of reincarnation that is simply called "Coming Back". It's not talked about but it's known. I would not trust any Christian source that was using scripture as proof, but that's just me. The fact that the Christians came out against reincarnation is proof enough to me that it's real. Sorry not meaning to offend it's just the way I see it.

But you do offend!!!!

We all have our shortcomings I guess.

Fascinating discussion on this board. 

I'm not so interesting in proving or disproving reincarnation based on ancient sources.  I like to have some actual experience to prove or disprove things.  I'm not so good with "faith".  But what I want to ask here is, if we were all to agree that either reincarnation IS true, or ISN't true, how would it change the way we live our lives?  If it ISN'T true, then we have only one life here, and we have to suck the most out of it.  If reincarnation IS true, then we have returned here again, presumably because this human experience is very important, and we must suck the most out of it.  Either way, it seems to me we aren't just here for the ride, or here to endure life until we get to heaven.  We are meant to drink deeply, question constantly (like on this board).

If reincarnation isn't true, then there's no point in anything. You can be as good/evil as you like and there'll be no come back at the end and nothing and nobody mattters.
However, the one life and then judgement doesn't stand up to analysis either. Take a cot death baby; what's the point of a life that may only last minutes, hours or days, and then that's it. And as for the judgement bit, just how are you going to be judged by a supposedly perfect, all knowing creator, who's just dealt you the worst and most unreasonable hand?
On the other hand if it is true, then we can look to makign the most out of each life, and trying to connect with those we may have met before, as well as making the use of the talents we bring with us. Moreover, reincarnation explains perfectly why you have child prodigies like Mozart who was composing pieces at the age of four (his dad had to help him write the notes out) or anyone to whom a particular activity or interest becomes familiar right from the start.
Are they learning this, or remembering this again from a previous time?
Believers in reincarnation includes not only the ancient Egyptians, but such non new age folks as Henry Ford and General George Patton, who claimed to remember retreating from Moscow with Napoleon in 1812, and fighting against the armies of ancient Rome.

Best wishes,
David.

Frank Kepple's view of reincarnation is the very best thing I've ever read on the subject. Short, simple and sweet. The link is floating around here, oh here it is. Pardon the duplication from Gooby Girl's post:
http://www.astralpulse.com/frankkepple.html

I expect no one here to study the Bible, post-biblical Judaism, early Christianity, or for that matter, Swedenborg, Bruce Moen, or Robert Monroe.   What I do expect is this: if you are going to dogmatically post a dismissal of any of these sources, then I expect you to provide sound reasoning and to have at least read them, together with academically respectable commentaries on them.  Nobody cares about your unsubstantiated opinions!

Why is this relevant to afterlife exploration?  Because the credibility of the sources is critical.  For example, the best-selling NDE book of all time is Betty Eadie's "Embraced by the Light."  I have no doubt that she had a genuine NDE and her book reinforces some of my treasured insights from doctoral research on afterlife beliefs in the early church.    But I find her book of limited value because it betrays a credulous mind that has not concerned itself about the line between reality and delusion.  So I instead recommend less "exciting" NDE books by people like George Ritchie and Howard Storm.  These NDEers are well educated and, more importantly, seem more capable of critical discernment.  We must always consider the source.

One problem with astral sources is the deceptive role of memory and how it is reshaped by current beliefs and expectations.  When I have time, I hope to start a new thread on the relevance of memory problems to astral exploration because I think this issue can help explain the radically contradictory perspectives of various NDErs and astral explorers.

Don

Beau wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2009 at 10:42am:

We all have our shortcomings I guess.

What I found laughably about you post where you say "Jesus is cool" Britney Spears is "cool", Michael Jackson is "cool" etc etc,

Jesus is the Divine son of God a very big difference!!

Quote:

The Bible says It is appointed "ONCE TO DIE" and then the Judgement No where does Jesus preach reicarnation, where people get this idea beats me.

Hello Alan.

   When you argued against reincarnation based on this verse from Hebrews 9:27, you have placed all of your argument eggs in the wrong basket. I've debated this bible quote with my brother many times, who stands by this verse just as you do to argue against reincarnation. Here is a link to an interesting viewpoint on that Bible verse:
http://reluctant-messenger.com/reincarnation-Hebrews9-27.htm

   I gave up thinking of the Bible as God's word when I was still a teenager after learning about and studying other religions and writings about the paranormal, etc.
The Bible is just a compilation of teachings by physically incarnate humans tring to grasp at concepts that they barely understood back then.

   With the abundance of information that we have today, both personal experiences written by experiencers and scientific researchers, it takes only deductive reasoning to piece together the evidence that screams a resounding yes to the question of whether or not reincarnation is true. Here is just one scientific researcher who has amassed analytical proof:
http://reluctant-messenger.com/reincarnation-proof.htm

   Here is one very compelling tale of a child with amazing details of past life recall:
http://www.reversespins.com/proofofreincarnation.html

   When you asked me before where's my proof, I must say that I cannot give any personal experience testimony or scientific proof to offer you. All I can say is that I stand by my educated opinion based on thorough research into reincarnation.

Ralph

He is your divine son of God. Buddy Holly is mine. :)

Now, Buddy Holly was one cool dude.  I remember well the day the music died.  Wonder if he has circled back among us.

We are all divine sons of God. Jesus came to show the way so that all could do what he did, as he said, you will do all this and more.

To say he is God without us all being God also is blasphemy (in my opinion) and also denigrates what Jesus said and did.

If he has circled back among us, Pat. I'm sure he's looking for a much slower ride than the one he had last time. And I'm sure his thinking has evolved to an even higher plane. His message was pure and simple and it's on tape so it's hard to dispute.

I agree with you Goobygirl and it is blasphemy to me too to suggest otherwise.

Buddy Holly Lives!

Beau