There is overwhelming evidence that most individuals are capable of perceiving themselves as being a totally different individual/personality living a completely different life sometime in the past.  These realizations are obtained mainly through hypnosis, but are also common in other altered states, like meditation and out of body.  Many of these people recall names, dates, events, and other knowledge that they were ignorant of before hand.  Some were even able to speak languages totally unknown to them.  There are also many cases of young children having these types of "memories," likewise recalling information they had no way of knowing. 

These are document facts, and are more or less undebatable.  However, it is the interpretation of these fats where the issues arise.  There are several popular explanations among those who accept these findings as truth and actually put thought into their meaning. 

Some believe that these individuals are tapping into the collective unconsciousness, which contains the memories of every human who has ever lived throughout history, and are experiencing the memories of other people first hand.  Others also believe that they are experiencing the memories of other spirits, but not by tapping into a higher source, but rather through a transference of energy from a discarnate spirit who has "possessed" or attached themselves to the individual.  This group generally does not buy into the reincarnation concept.

Others do believe these memories are reincarnationally linked to the person experiencing them, but there are even different interpretations within this group.  Some believe that these memories are from past reincarnational lives, and in between each one we spend time in the spirit world planning and preparing for the next life.  Others believe that these reincarnational selves are actually part of a larger self- the oversoul/higher self/disk, and that these other lives are shared by each member of the oversoul/HS through the oversoul/HS, but not personally, and so these memories are part of the oversoul's collective experience.

So what does the evidence suggest?

Well, it seems that the first group, those who do not believe in the reincarnation concept, either are unaware of or deny the evidence for reincarnation.  This evidence includes detailed accounts of individuals' lives in between their physical lives, and the ways in which they are aware of planning and preparing for their next life.

I can see how it can be argued that the subjects under hypnosis may have been influenced by the hypnotist to conjure up such stories from their imagination.  However, these experiences have been reported by the most prominent hypnotists in the field, who are highly skilled at asking questions in a way that doesn't interfere with true memories.  This life in between lives has been recalled by so many individuals from all walks of life that it seems to be a universal experience.  It has even been reported by those exploring consciousness in other ways, such as astral and mental projections.

Other strong evidence for reincarnation is the strong connection between the individuals and their "past lives."  In many cases there have been staggering similarities between reincarnational selves.  For example, injuries are sometimes carried over to the next incarnation and manifest as birthmarks, scars, and even mysterious diseases.  The identities of the deceased past reincarnations have been confirmed in many cases, as well as the injuries suffered and their similarities to the present individual's marks.  Many times there are almost identical physical, emotional, and mental attributes between present and past incarnations as well, these similarities being documented facts. 

Is this connection a result of a random viewing of a memory from some random individual from the collective memory bank, or caused by a random discarnate spirit attachment?  This doesn't seem likely.  There seems to be a deeper level of oneness in these cases.

It has been argued that some children have what they think are past life memories, only the people they "remember" being are still alive, and therefore reincarnation cannot be the answer.  However, if our higher self operates in a higher spiritual dimension outside of our physical time/space construct, then logically it is not bound by time or space, and can incarnate at any point of time simultaneously.

Many prominent explorers of consciousness have discovered this to be the nature of reality.  This is not just a new age concept.  This idea has been part of many ancient civilizations' philosophies as well.

The only explorer I have come across who's findings go against the reincarnational model is Emanuel Swedenborg.  He went against his own judgement on the matter and confided in what an "angel" told him.  Of course, it is rather apparent in his work that his interpretations of his experiences in higher realms, while being advanced for his time, are rather crude by our own current metaphysical standards and findings.

So what we are left with is a truckload of evidence supporting reincarnation being the source of these memories, and virtually none that goes against it.  But there is still an issue.

Which version of reincarnation is true?  The version in which we are personally experiencing every life and plan for the next one in between them?  Or the version in which our higher self sends out a multitude of incarnations throughout time, each one personally experiencing just one physical life but also simultaneously sharing the experiencing all the other incarnations through the oversoul.  Is there some sort of middle ground?  My research has shown that there is truth in aspects of both versions.

Hi Dude,

I've given a lot of thought to this issue, and decided that, unless I have a major spiritual breakthrough where, like Swedenborg or Cayce, I am permitted to travel at will to the spiritual realms and gather evidence, (all of which is unlikely, given how rare it is that an adept gets to such a level), I won't be able to sort the answer to your question out while I am alive.

But another thought to bake your noodle, is this; that if we are all part of the unity of God, suffused with God as the underpinnings of our being, and if our false sense of "separateness" causes much misery and suffering in the physical world, then the idea and theory of reincarnation may become moot.  The reason behind this is that we are starting out with the false premise that we are separate from God, and the unity.  That separate point of consciousness calls itself Matthew (myself).  If I postulate that when I shed my physical body, that separate point of consciousness then spends some time with planners to incarnate again, what I am really saying is that consciousness is not ready for the big picture, and insists on continuing this false separation from God and heaven (hence the need to reincarnate a false separate self).

Part of me believes on a gut level, that even at a young age, I felt there was a pre-life purpose and memory - I can "feel it."  And yet, much of what makes me a separate point of consciousness is, right now, a mixture of my innate reactions to life, and the wisdom of my accumulated earth-life experiences.  The idea, that I will keep shedding these experiences and wisdom on earth, so that the core of my soul can be tested again and again by being born on earth is intriguing, yet remains unproveable.  As I said, we are starting with a premise that I am separate from God and everything else - a premise which I believe to be faulty from the get-go.  Then we are saying that this false separate self reincarnates in order to "get it right."  Yet in truly getting it right, we must lose our ego based thinking and, in some ways our ideas of separate incarnations.

I give a lot of credence to E. Swedenborg's notion that mergers of thought could mistakenly lead many to assume the life they merge with was one of their own.  In reading of the transfer of thought in focus 27 and other realms, I have been told that huge amounts of data can be transferred in "thought balls," that take mere seconds, but convey days or weeks worth of data.  Its easy to see how, any person might confuse this for a past life of their own.

If there are soul groups, people in your "disc" who you are bonded to, then it is very possible that these personalities are so close to us, that they also at times appear to be our own past lives.

So for me, the issue of past lives is a difficult and complicated one.  Although I haven't closed the door on the possibility, it seems clear that we are meant to work with what we have in the here and now.  If we feel a deep wound or scar, and wish to heal that inside ourselves, in order to move on in our present life, that seems like a sensible idea to me.  For myself, if I can become more loving while alive, and lose selfish ways of thinking and unnecessary fears associated with the physical plane, I will feel that I accomplished quite a bit.

Matthew

Its hard to say, we are part of our over soul. The I, is merely a spark of the whole. There is indeed a repetitious program playing, one few break the cycle of.

The only way off the merry go round is through the heart and sacrifice for another, so as to ofter that other an opportunity too see.

We have for the most part participated in what would be called an endless cycle, being reincarnated time and time again. Due to our own inapt inability to face and overcome the program set out.

Its not a miracle that someone reincarnates, its a miracle if they don't.

It is such an interesting question. To have love for and desire for the happiness and longevity of a body is a natural part of our existence -- necessary for our survival in a difficult world. At times, a joy to us, at others, only sorrow or pain. For the mind, freedom from the body is a joy to us, if we only knew. Freedom from the body, and freedom of the body, can be very similar.

To me, it seems like an endless road we are on, one that loops and loops like a vehicle flying around. We reach for the controls, we want to have control. But why would any creator of any worth give a child control of a dangerous vehicle -- one which can hurt that child or others?

It seems to me that such a creator would never do such a thing. Rather, a place may be 'marked off' for the children to play. Perhaps they might get hurt, but not too badly, while they learn and play their games. One day, their games become more 'real' to the world, and they are living 'their' lives. We then hold them accountable for what they do.

If we are following a path set out for us, perhaps the lessons are, indeed, very difficult.  And I'm not answering the question, am I?

Perhaps after death, we become creators of such magnificent details that certain qualities are essential. Like love. If we have only love for our own small circle of influence, what can we create? To have a larger love, for all that exists, and to nurture it all, is not only beneficial to the world, but to ourselves as well. We cannot 'see' with the mind of the creator without being able to step outside the 'box' of our own 'vehicle' to understand a larger picture of reality.

How does this change the reality of our own 'preciousness' -- our own several square feet of physicality? Very much. When our 'expansion' is right, the world flows. It moves just as it can move, as it does move, when conditions are right.

We are practicing, even down to our tiniest thoughts. For the big jobs out there, in my opinion.

Greetings.

   I have some thoughts on why reincarnation is a good thing. I'm fifty years old now and I've seen enough of human nature to make an educated theory, though not to say that my perceptions will stay this way as I get older.

   Hinduism and Buddhism consider reincarnation mandatory in order to work off karma and achieve enlightenment. This world is more like a school to me rather than a playground. I look at it like God's school of learning love, compassion, sharing, and self improvement.

   There are those who come here for nefarious purposes and upset other's plans while incarnate. This also makes reincarnation good for getting another shot at what was planned before the screw up by another being or beings coming here with there own agenda.

   When mixing many beings from different worlds are coming together on a planet and all of them randomly selecting available bodies to inhabit, planning becomes a difficult process. First timers, old timers, and drifters incarnating here make reincarnation tricky to accomplish any significant goals before leaving this physical existence.

Ralph

Hi: Reincarnation doesn't come into play for the average being until one achieves the raising of "Kundalini" then all your baggage of eons of miss use of "Kundalini" power has to be confronted. Occasionally, as with Monroe and Moen (and myself) it comes up to resolve some important issue that requires contacting the event that could interfere with "present time" mission goals..

S.

Seraphis

What do you mean, "Reincarnation doesn't come into play?"  Like, it doesn't happen?  That is generally what that phrase means. 

How does one "misuse" Kundalini power?

Seraphis:

Sometimes you say things that are based more upon what you read, rather than what your own experience tells you. I have awakened kundalini and have found it's better to find out for one's self what it's about, rather than rely on what others have to say. Especially since some kundalini viewpoints come from gurus who aren't what they claim (claimed) to be. I believe that a person who really understood something, would never put his or her self in the controlling position gurus put themselves in.


Seraphis1 wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2010 at 7:41pm:

Hi: Reincarnation doesn't come into play for the average being until one achieves the raising of "Kundalini" then all your baggage of eons of miss use of "Kundalini" power has to be confronted. Occasionally, as with Monroe and Moen (and myself) it comes up to resolve some important issue that requires contacting the event that could interfere with "present time" mission goals.. S.

Doc

You're idea that we can bypass all the intermediary subdivisions of the afterlife, such as focus levels and the higher self, and go right to source is very similar to what David Icke says.  He says that during an ayuasca trip he communicated with an aspect of source who told him that these intermediary areas are more or less traps which keep individuals confined to the physical reality system and prevent ascension into our true state of being, which is oneness with source.  I am sure there are others who have had similar revelations. 

I suppose it boils down to what our reasons are for being here.  If it is to just have a different type of experience and then move on, then perhaps it could be seen as a trap.  But what if our purpose for being here is to perfect our spiritual selves as physical beings, to the fullest extent that the physical system of reality will allow?  Then it can no longer be seen as a trap.

I belive that when we die.we sleep,and in no time we wake up as a baby,but our memorys of this life time are forgotten,and we will think that we are born here for the first time.George

George

Why do you think that?

because when I was a crossing school guard,a young boy came over and looked at me,and I could my fathers eyes in him.he showed me a lot of love,and my father was dead only a year when this happened.George

I don't see the connection.

Dude,I think there was a strong bond between us,I could sense it.George

I am sure there was some kind of connection.  What I am saying is I don't see the connection between your experience with the boy and your beliefs about reincarnation. 

Hello,

I will not try to convince anyone of my version of reincarnation as truth because that is indeed an impossiblity.  I go with what feels right to me and I would always suggest others do the same.

My feeling, borne out by my own reincarnational meditation and the assistance of hypnotic and akashic readers, has been that we plan what we intend to do in a specific life guided by certain milestones or indicators we have set up in advance to assist us in experiencing those events...all subject to free will and choices made at the time of those events.  Each life is an opportunity to create, develop and achieve a greater understanding of ourselves and the way we fit into our life/society/soul, and to develop the ability to accept our then created circumstances and deal with them with love and acceptance of our hand in causing it.  I do not see it as a test beyond that of playing golf...you went to the golf course, you tried to play the best you could, but in the end, it is what it is...you either feel good about it or you don't, you've made good choices or some not so good, but you're surrounded by beautiful countryside so why not enjoy?  Besides, we get to plan another life and come back out with another group of friends and try again, but playing another role in the play.  How much better could it get?

My soul, through its various lives or egos, (each of which are present with me at some level, sometimes easier to reach than others!) learns, creates and experiences through each incarnation, and each have lent me wisdom at times when I was open to it and/or when I have asked.

As far as ultimate assimilation with the Creator, naturally I would love to enjoy eternal bliss, ultimate love, unending ecstasy, together with knowing the All Knowing, but without experiencing the counter to each of these points, how does one appreciate the absolute?  And my guidance has assured me I am on the path and on schedule, so "enjoy the party!" 

I have currently a group of about 30 people I am currently among whom I've been involved for many lives and we've played countless roles with and for each other.  A few are in my soul group, and the connections are extremely strong, but directed toward others as all we have is common between us.  Others who are in my pod are those with whom upon meeting I have immediate affinity and it feels like we are reuniting instead of newly acquainted...these are those we plan with to live out our life plans, one of which is my current wife. 

I have been with my current wife in excess of 170 lives and she has been a child, parent and sibling as well as a wife...whether she'll play her role or not in this life is still undetermined, but if she is she must get moving!  If she doesn't there is another planned to take up her role in my life...interstingly I have heard and felt alot of things about her in lucid dreams and meditation but I am yet to meet her although we are in the same geographical and relational circle.  I won't meet her unless my wife uses free will to take another course.

I apologize for my rambling discourse as opposed to a formal and on point response...but it felt right and I thank you for the opportunity to type.  Love and light.

Because this young boy in my opinion was my father incarnate.George

George, I understand that you think he was your dad reincarnated.  But why do you believe we sleep through our afterlife and go straight into another body?  There are loads of evidence against this, and in ways may be unproductive to believe such a thing. 

I Am Dude wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2010 at 1:13pm:

Seraphis What do you mean, "Reincarnation doesn't come into play?"  Like, it doesn't happen?  That is generally what that phrase means.  How does one "misuse" Kundalini power?

Hi OBD: Sorry I got to this late. What I mean is the Oversoul, in my opinion doesn't make past life information available without a reason... Monroe used his past life experience to develope the method for handling the phantom phenomena... Moen got a cure of his illness which could have been fatal thereby ending his life before he could accomplish the higher mission he began to pursue.

The Oversoul want each probe to accomplish something, if it get preoccupied with past lives that could impede the goal of a specific life project.

Make sense?

S.

recoverer wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2010 at 4:00pm:

Seraphis: Sometimes you say things that are based more upon what you read, rather than what your own experience tells you. I have awakened kundalini and have found it's better to find out for one's self what it's about, rather than rely on what others have to say. Especially since some kundalini viewpoints come from gurus who aren't what they claim (claimed) to be. I believe that a person who really understood something, would never put his or her self in the controlling position gurus put themselves in. Seraphis1 wrote on Jan 2nd, 2010 at 7:41pm: Hi: Reincarnation doesn't come into play for the average being until one achieves the raising of "Kundalini" then all your baggage of eons of miss use of "Kundalini" power has to be confronted. Occasionally, as with Monroe and Moen (and myself) it comes up to resolve some important issue that requires contacting the event that could interfere with "present time" mission goals.. S.

Hi recoverer: Unfortunately, I have not read your "kundalini" awakening episodes, if you have posted or shared them with the board... so there is no way to evaluate what your awakening was and what it lead to so I really can't comment. If it was real to you. More power to you. But, you seem to suggest that only your experience validates or contradicts all other experiences.

S.

I believe that little boy was my father encarnate

I Am Dude wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2010 at 1:13pm:

Seraphis What do you mean, "Reincarnation doesn't come into play?"  Like, it doesn't happen?  That is generally what that phrase means.  How does one "misuse" Kundalini power?

Hi OBD: This is a mis-communication. 'Reincarnation" doesn't become important until you need to examine specific issues. The primary reason we got into the predicaments we get into in the physical plane is that when we had direct use and ability to manipulate and use kundalini power... we used it to dominate and control empires... then comes the dwindling spiral of loss of knowledge and the ability to be 'in the world' but 'not of the world' the more real the physical world became the more trapped 'kundalini' power final one remembered nothing but still had unseen powers... look at The Fool Card of the rider-waite Tarot deck... that is Kundilini... it is a fool... all power and no ability to discriminate or tell the difference between right and wrong... thats what reincarnation finally does introduce education... when kunadlini is released and raised in this context it... recovers its power and identity and has no desire to use it. That is my point of view.

S.

I Am Dude wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2010 at 1:13pm:

Seraphis How does one "misuse" Kundalini power?

Hi OBD: Adolph Hitler abused Kundalini power. He was the protege of two members of the Order of the Golden Dawn. I think between the two of them they managed to raise kundalini to Hitler's Manipuri chakra (The Will Chakra). Interesting that Leni Riefenstahl called her great propaganda film "Triumph of the Will)... I have no doubt she was a member of The Golden Dawn group... but if you abuse the power it will destroy you and it did... I may have attempt a Hitler retrieval... see my thread in Partnered Exploration... but... the jury is out on what really happened.

S.

dude.i think that little boy is my father incarnate.

George

You do realize that the child who approached you, assuming he was going to or coming from school, had to be at least 4 years old, yet your father was only dead for one year.  So do you think your father reincarnated before he died?

Seraphis

Wow.

Among other factors, the following 3 factors should at least prevent posters from being dogmatic about their strong belief in reincarnation.

(1) In Dr. Ian Stevenson's study of past life recall in young children, 2 of the children recalled a "prior personality" who was still alive a the time of the child's birth!  This in itself is an powerful argument that possession, not reincarnation, is the source of the past life recall.

(2) More importantly, this finding confirms Emmanuel  Swedenborg's astral discovery in which he abandons his earlier conviction that he was experiencing his own past life recall.  ES ascends to higher heavens in which the falise doctrine of reincarnation is refuted and it is demonstrated to him that these memories are those of other discarnate spirits whose merger with ES's astral self has gone undetected.  It is well known that the memories of merging spirits are experienced as if they are those of the projector.  ES's guides offer to descend to the lower planes in which spirits are stuck in a reincarnation belief system to demonstrate this error, but the denizens of these planes are too close-minded to witness such demonstrations.  And ES's astral travel is confirmed by far superior verifications than those of modern adepts. 

(3) Those relying on Akashic or past life readers should be notified about a study of this done in the 1970s.  Past life readers were confronted with their inconsistencies from reader to reader.  They tried to explain these contradictions in terms of memories of different past iives.  So researchers did a study that inquired into immediate past lives.  No two past lives revealed by Akashic readers were the same!  This source of reincarnational memories has been discredited. 

(4) The most respected learned hypnotic societies uniformly reject past life regression as bogus.  There are at least 3 reasons for this: (a) Hypnotic regression is notoriously unreliable for the first 2 years of life. (b) Studies of distant memories has shown that these memories are created by a combination of distant memories and present imagination.  (c) Also, hypnotic subjects consciously or unconsciously try to anticipate what the hypnotist hopes to uncover and this invalidates most past life regression.  Respected associations of hypnotists recognized by medical science recognize this distorting factor. 

But the hypnotic state is psi-conducive.  So just occasionally some paranormal infornation can seep through.  But clairvoyance and temporary spirit merging is a more rational explanation of these cases then reincarnation.  Of course, those who need to believe in reincarnation will disregard all contrary evidence. 

Don

[quote author=7C5B4C4D5B4C550C3E0 link=1262226775/26#26 date=1262743255]Among other factors, the following 3 factors should at least prevent posters from being dogmatic about their strong belief in reincarnation.

(1) In Dr. Ian Stevenson's study of past life recall in young children, 2 of the children recalled a "prior personality" who was still alive a the time of the child's birth!  This in itself is an powerful argument that possession, not reincarnation, is the source of the past life recall.>>

You are assuming Dr. Ian's study is valid. His assumptions are based on a linear model. You need to think about what we know and don't know... reincarnation may not be linear in time and space... time and space may not truly exist... and everything is going on simultaneously all the time and we simple shift our p.o.c. through oversoul mechanics... there are the simultaneous incarnations an oversoul might have projected into the physical universe at the same time and the same vicinity... so unless you know how reincarnation works you can't study it very well by attempting to disprove it rather than gather a data base and see if a pattern can emerge that can define all the ways it might work.

S.

don.have you read and understud the bible?its full of reincarnation stories.jesus even told his follours that its true.you must be born again of the water and the spirit the human body is mostley water,and the spirit is spirit.people misunderstand,they say they are born again while living in this life.they are wrong.jim reed a avanalist,if you read his book.born again is very interesting.all you have is type in reincarnation,and you will find his book.it will open a lot of eyes.George

Seraphis,

Many hypnotic therapists like Michael Newton write of linnear reincarnation as a way human souls "get it right" or achieve things/work their way through problems.  If all incarnations are simultaneous in the mental planes, then there is no sequential learning from previous lives...

Still, Don needs to sort out a few issues for me.  First, Don - where do you hypothesize you were  before you were born, and what was your state of consciousness?  Second question is, why does reincarnation have to be an all or nothing proposition?  If a stuck soul was bound to the earth life system and could not ascend to a higher heaven based on love, due to earthly attachments, does it not make sense that the soul would find a way back to earth and reincarnate if it were possible - even if it meant a loss of memory?  Also, how do you account for TMI people visiting focus 27 and going over their past lives or incarnations there?  All just a false belief system of focus 27?

Matthew

George, there is no evidence for belief in reincarnation in the Bible or in the Judaism of late antiquity.  I challenge you to find a single example.  You cite Jesus' reference to the need to be "born again."  The Greek here literally means "born from above" and refers to spiritual transformation and the resulting change of relationship with God.  No modern biblical scholar takes this as a reference to reincarnation.

Matthew to Seraphis: "Many hypnotic therapists like Michael Newton write of linnear reincarnation as a way human souls "get it right" or achieve things/work their way through problems.  If all incarnations are simultaneous in the mental planes, then there is no sequential learning from previous lives..."

I agree with Matthew's reply to Seraphis.  I would only add that Seraphis misses the point: possession creates the illlusion that the memories of the possessing entity are the past life memories of the posessed person.  So when the past life recall of young children recalls a prior personality who was still alive after the child's birth, the natural and documented way to construe this is spirit merger rather than simultaneous reincarnation.

Matthew: "First, Don - where were you before you were born, and what was your state of consciousness?"

Of course, the prior question ia whether I existed at all before I was born.  The Bible does imply a belief in the preexistence of the soul, in which sin can be committed and future divine callings can be experienced.  I have no idea what this means in terms of actual prenatual experience.  But it certainly need not imply reincarnation on this earth. 

Matthew: "Second question is, why does reincarnation have to be an all or nothing proposition?  If a stuck soul was bound to the earth life system and could not ascend to a higher heaven based on love, due to earthly attachments, does it not make sense that the soul would find a way back to earth and reincarnate if it were possible - even if it meant a loss of memory?"'

You point to a theoretical possibility that I don't categorically deny.  But there is no evidence for this.  My point in this thread is that reincarnation (linear or parallel) lacks evidence that cannot be interpreted with equal validity as spirit mergers or clairvoyance.
 So why not avoid need-based belief and just keep an open mind?

Matthew: " Also, how do you account for TMI people visiting focus 27 and going over their past lives or incarnations there?  All just a belief system?"

These TMI people are precisely the sort that ES refutes through the corrections revealed to him on higher heavenly planes.  Like attracts like and determined reincarnationists can always band together to reinforce arbitrary beliefs, perhaps much to the amusement of lurking spirits into whose memories these innocents unconsciously tap.  On the other hand, ES's refutations were not directed against the New Agers of his day.  Such New Agers did not yet exist!  ES has no ideological ax to grind here.  Besides. unlike believers in karmic linear reincarnation believers in parallel reincarnation can offer no compelling justification for why such reincarnations are necessary. 

Don

Don.jesus told the 12 all about reincarnation,while he was here on earth.are you reading the bible after jesus died on the cross?if you are,you have to go back before he died.because everybody believed in reincarnation at that time.then the romans changed what jesus preached,takeing reincarnation out to please themselfs,and if you cant see any furter than your nose,thats your problem.George

No, George, I'm afraid it's your problem, not mine. Modern Bible scholars universally recognize that everything you just said is false.  There is no evidence for reincarnation belief in first and second century Palestine.  And except for a very few minority Christian sects (the Basilideans, Carpocratians, and Elchasaites), there is no Christian belief in reincarnation in late antiquity.  I have read the many relevant documents on this issue and you have not.  Give me at least one primary ancient text in support of your claims.  You need to know what you don't know before you pontificate on subjects on which you have little or no formal education. 

Don

DocM wrote on Jan 5^th, 2010 at 10:49pm:

Seraphis, Many hypnotic therapists like Michael Newton write of linnear reincarnation as a way human souls "get it right" or achieve things/work their way through problems.  If all incarnations are simultaneous in the mental planes, then there is no sequential learning from previous lives... Matthew

Hi Matthew: I am not suggesting linear reincarnation is not a fact. I'm suggesting that linear is one path to do one thing. Another path could be a lifetime right now... and then some lesson could be learned that resolves some issue encountered now then instead of going in a normal timeline one goes back in time to Ancient Rome and takes a lifetime that resolves it in a unique manner... i.e... the timeline can be a mix of past future and present... but... events are happening simulateneously all the time... one just steps into them at appropriate moments to achieve specific things...

The Tibetan Buddhist recognize 'self' as composed of many consciousnesses all potentially existing at the same time.

This is why berzerker is going to go berzerker trying to make conventional western think sense out of reality which functions more like chaos theory.

S.

Berserk2 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2010 at 12:03am:

Besides. unlike believers in karmic linear reincarnation believers in parallel reincarnation can offer no compelling justification for why such reincarnations are necessary.  Don

Hi berserker: The Universe just 'IS'. It has no rational, yet is ultimately completely rational.

Answer me this: What is the sound of one hand clapping?

S.

Don,

Where does infos of idea of reincarnation come from? Not bible people, then who think about this at the first? Thankyou for infos.

smidee wrote on Jan 6^th, 2010 at 10:53am:

Don, Where does infos of idea of reincarnation come from? Not bible people, then who think about this at the first? Thankyou for infos.

Hi Don: It used to be in the bible much of it was purged under the Constantine's Nicean Councel consolidation of the writings. google bible reincarnation you may find some interesting references..

S.

Don


Quote:

My point in this thread is that reincarnation (linear or parallel) lacks evidence that cannot be interpreted with equal validity as spirit mergers or clairvoyance.

And how do you interpret individuals with uncanny similarities with their "past life incarnations"?  Those who are able to accurately provide details about real individuals who have lived in the past who they claim have been their past lives, and the parallel traits these individuals share, such as nearly identical physical, mental, and emotional traits, including scars, marks, and diseases in the exact locations the "past life" incarnation had a significant injury.  Surely this is more than just a "spirit merger." 

One question for you.  What is the purpose of these spirit mergers, or as ES calls them, possessions.. why do these spirits do this?  And are you saying that every person alive is a "victim" of these spirit mergers?  Because almost every individual put under hypnosis is able to recall having a past life.

And what of the strikingly identical accounts of the afterlife, namely the life in between lives, which are prevalent among these subjects?  These individuals describe the planning and preparation of beginning a new incarnation after they are through with a previous one.  Although most of these individuals are completely unaware that such a thing even is possible before hand, they all describe nearly identical key aspects of this experience. This is something that neither of your "explanations" prove wrong, and must be taken seriously if one is going to examine this issue honestly.

Maybe the real question we need to address is this: What difference does it make whether reincarnation exists or it doesn't?

Suppose we had incontrovertible evidence that it's true.  How would that change our life? 

Or if we had similarly irrefutable evidence that it's not true.  What would be our reaction?

In other words, what is really the subtext behind the obsessive debate?  Is it fear of death?  Is it fear that our unique identity might be extinguished when we die?

Maybe it's the fear that we really need to deal with, and not whether reincarnation is true or not.

Because the former can be dealt with, whereas the latter will never be resolved.  At least not in this lifetime.

R

[Seraphis:] "It used to be in the bible much of it was purged under the Constantine's Nicean Councel consolidation of the writings. google bible reincarnation you may find some interesting references."
__________________

There were 2 Councils of Nicea and neither discussed reincarnation.  Your website asserting the contrary is quackdoodle (from Shirley MacLaine, etc.) emanating from the New Age Ghetto which is so mindless it doesn't bother to check the primary ancient sources. 
You will find no professor of church history at any university who accepts your  unfounded claim!  More importantly, you can cite no ancient texts in support of your claims.  The only church council that  comes close to critquing reincarnation is the Council of Constantinople which condemns Origen in one vague sentence.  Ignorant New Agers take this as a blanket condemnation of reincarnation and an indication that the New Testament once taught reincarnation, but was purged by Catholics.  As usual, New Agers are as clueless and intellectually lazy as cultists who claim the Apollo moon landing was faked in a New Mexico hangar.  Origen was only denounced for his doctrine of the preexistence of the soul.  IN FACT, ORIGEN REPEATEDLY ATTACKS THE DOCTRINE OF REINCARNATION. 

Don

Aside from biblical doctrine, for me a key issue is, what is our unfettered conscious mind capable of doing?  We hear that in Focus 27, we have access to virtually unlimited information.  I have heard that Cayce, the sleeping mystic would freely access these archives to come up with cures for various ailments.  Yet when I looked at what was prescribed as a cure, the ingredients fell short of any modern medically accepted treatment.  For example, as a physician, I could tell that Castor oil and cod liver oil supplements would have little to no effect on systemic lupus - yet there it was.  Cayce came back after an astral journey, and told this woman with lupus to take it in order to heal her lupus.  Parenthetically, it should be noted that many of cases remedies found in Cayce's  akashic records were popular remedies of his time (such as cleansing enemas), which have since fallen out of favor by modern medicine....

From the above, one may conclude that while here on earth, our abilities to access this limitless information may be colored by our own preconceptions, or that the limitless information isn't in fact there - (I prefer the notion that while incarnate, our brains misinterpret information from the mental planes). 

Now as to reincarnation, a similar issue comes up.  What can we do with our consciousness after we die?  We can clearly explore and travel in our plane according to how loving we are (our vibratory rate of love so to speak).  Yet incarnating in the physical world seems to be unrelated to love, since the world is full of both hateful and loving souls in a mixture. 

Bruce had found a reincarnation center where people were line up into little condensed curls waiting to be injected into physical reality. 

Is that possible?  If not, why not?  From my perspective, our belief systems seem to limit us the most, or free us up to experience more.  In that regard, a reincarnationists beliefs may facilitate true reincarnation on the earth plane - whether or not that is a spiritually desireable thing to do.

I suppose for me, I have the most trouble with the Eastern notion of the "wheel of karma" whereby we are all destined to be helplessly drawn back time and again to reincarnate until we give up egoistic thinking and we become enlightened (which, according to most Eastern thought is very rare).  This "forced or inevitable" reincarnation theory bugs me, as it strips us of our free will, and assumes that after we die, we will be plagued by illusions until we are tricked or seek out a willing womb to be reborn into (Bardo Thodol - Tibetan Book of the Dead). 

Matthew

Don,you are something else.sweadenborg has you brain washed for sure.George

DocM wrote on Jan 6^th, 2010 at 4:53pm:

Aside from biblical doctrine, for me a key issue is, what is our unfettered conscious mind capable of doing?  We hear that in Focus 27, we have access to virtually unlimited information.  I have heard that Cayce, the sleeping mystic would freely access these archives to come up with cures for various ailments.  Yet when I looked at what was prescribed as a cure, the ingredients fell short of any modern medically accepted treatment.  For example, as a physician, I could tell that Castor oil and cod liver oil supplements would have little to no effect on systemic lupus - yet there it was.  Cayce came back after an astral journey, and told this woman with lupus to take it in order to heal her lupus.  Matthew

Hi M: I don't remember much of my EC stuff, but, didn't those who folowed his weird perscriptions get cured in all cases??

S.

DocM wrote on Jan 6^th, 2010 at 4:53pm:

Bruce had found a reincarnation center where people were line up into little condensed curls waiting to be injected into physical reality.  Is that possible?  If not, why not?  From my perspective, our belief systems seem to limit us the most, or free us up to experience more.  In that regard, a reincarnationists beliefs may facilitate true reincarnation on the earth plane - whether or not that is a spiritually desireable thing to do. I suppose for me, I have the most trouble with the Eastern notion of the "wheel of karma" whereby we are all destined to be helplessly drawn back time and again to reincarnate until we give up egoistic thinking and we become enlightened (which, according to most Eastern thought is very rare).  This "forced or inevitable" reincarnation theory bugs me, as it strips us of our free will, and assumes that after we die, we will be plagued by illusions until we are tricked or seek out a willing womb to be reborn into (Bardo Thodol - Tibetan Book of the Dead).  Matthew

Hi Doc: Aren't you forgetting that 'free will' does exist but, you give up free will by committing crimes against humanity thus becoming entangled in the Law of Karma... there is no free lunch... for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. You free will exists only to the extent you can be detached from your actions.

S.

Hi Seraphis,

I'm a full believer in Free will, but not in being bound helplessly to the wheel of karma.  You see, I disagree with your premise.  We always have free will; the freedom to act lovingly or hatefully in any situation.  The more lovingly we act, the more love is given to us.  The more unlovingly we act, the more misery comes to us.  In that sense, the law of Karma holds.  However, your premise that one who acts ruthlessly gives up free will rings false to me.  More likely, one who acts hatefully, ruthlessly will continue to do so, and will use free will to confine themselves into environments both on earth and in the afterlife, where they can continue to act that way.

However, we are perceptive thinking beings.  We are bound only in that we don't exert our intent and will in a positive way.  There is no prior action that permanently binds us.  We can forgive ourselves.  Seek the forgiveness of others, and move on.  Make new choices, and the karmic merry-go-round is broken. 

     Free will is there, always, unless we forget and lose our ability to move on.


Matthew

I never have understood how "free will" fits together with "cause and effect". So, to me, "free will" is an empty phrase. It just makes no sense.

Spooky

DocM wrote on Jan 6^th, 2010 at 10:58pm:

Hi Seraphis, I'm a full believer in Free will, but not in being bound helplessly to the wheel of karma.  You see, I disagree with your premise.  We always have free will; the freedom to act lovingly or hatefully in any situation.  The more lovingly we act, the more love is given to us.  The more unlovingly we act, the more misery comes to us.  In that sense, the law of Karma holds.  However, your premise that one who acts ruthlessly gives up free will rings false to me.  More likely, one who acts hatefully, ruthlessly will continue to do so, and will use free will to confine themselves into environments both on earth and in the afterlife, where they can continue to act that way. However, we are perceptive thinking beings.  We are bound only in that we don't exert our intent and will in a positive way.  There is no prior action that permanently binds us.  We can forgive ourselves.  Seek the forgiveness of others, and move on.  Make new choices, and the karmic merry-go-round is broken.       Free will is there, always, unless we forget and lose our ability to move on. Matthew

Hi Doc: Of course, free will is always there but you can only commit a crime against humanity and get away with it (i.e... not incur a karmic reaction) is if you can commit the crime without attachment to it... but, that is not why one commits the crime... one commits the crime to gain something you value... thus one is attached and ...the law of Karma... kicks in... you still have free will but now it is tangled in a web of action and reaction...

S.

Seraphis,

Yes, for those unloving souls who exercise free will in that direction, there is cause and effect, but they still operate under the free will to act lovingly or not.  Karma is broken when they change their choices, invoke grace, forgiveness, make amends and move on.  Not saying that the individual would do it, or find it easy to do if they chose to act in a heinous fashion.  But acting poorly is still a choice.

Spooky, cause and effect is simply a universal law.  Choice is the action and decision of intent.  Karma is then the logical consequence of it.

M

Doc

I agree.

Don

Interesting you respond to the "easier" posts, yet seemingly ignore mine.  Maybe you're doing some research.  I'm still waiting for your reply to my inquiries/rebuttal.

I must admit I don't really see why reincarnation is such an crux issue anyway. Personally I don't have big feelings either way.

I would just like to point out that if we are ultimately derived of one source (God? ) then we are all individuated consciousnesses of that one source (one of the many faces of God ? ). From this it follows that all personalities are a subset of that One, albeit ones at different stages of conscious awareness/awakening. The only difference between an enlightened person and a Hitler say, is that level of conscious awareness/awakening. There is no need for reward/punishment (ultimately) in this schema only evolution (although karma may conceivably act as a teaching aid).

Brian Keenan encapsulates this idea in his book 'An Evil Cradling' about his exeriences in captivity in Lebanon. He reaches an epiphany when he's receiving a fearful beating from a young militant after a long period of abuse. He realises that young man is himself , albeit a fear-filled version, and feels pity for him. I think this may have been the level of consciousness that Jesus demonstrated judging by the words of the Gospels.

Dave

Dave-

I agree. Even if reincarnation is true, it's really irrelevant anyway since the overwhelming majority of us have no conscious memory of having lived before.  Therefore, it's the same as being born only once. 

We might as well debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  It's about as productive as the reincarnation debate.

R

DocM wrote on Jan 7^th, 2010 at 2:38am:

Seraphis, Yes, for those unloving souls who exercise free will in that direction, there is cause and effect, but they still operate under the free will to act lovingly or not.  Karma is broken when they change their choices, invoke grace, forgiveness, make amends and move on.  Not saying that the individual would do it, or find it easy to do if they chose to act in a heinous fashion.  But acting poorly is still a choice. Spooky, cause and effect is simply a universal law.  Choice is the action and decision of intent.  Karma is then the logical consequence of it. M

Hi doc: That is the point of reincarntion to teach you when you touch a hot stove you get burnt don't do it.

S.

Rondele-

indeed, you could in fact argue that conscious reincarnational knowledge would act as an impediment ; bringing unwanted baggage to bear on this life, when what we need is a 'clean slate'. Personally, I want to give this life my undivided attention and so shielding from reincarnational memories (supposing it exists) is a blessing.

Dave

Rondele


Quote:

We might as well debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin

Personal experience has shown me that angels are assigned to one and only one pin head in heaven.  There is irrefutable evidence that they dance the macarena.   I will debate this to the death.

hi i had a miscarriage in 1973 and i always beleived that it was a little girl i lost ,so this medium said that it was a girl and spirit had called her teresa

teresa said through the medium that she wants to reincarnate on to the eath plain again but not until she has been reunited with me in heaven and her sister dad and brothers

i felt sad about this as i dont like to think as soon as i reunite with my little girl,i'm going to lose her again when she reincarnates.

love and god bless  love juditha

<<There is irrefutable evidence that they dance the macarena.>>

Dude- That's right, unless of course they were reincarnated as rap artists and are now breakdancing on the pins.  That however might require more than one pin per rapper......

R  

i felt sad about this as i dont like to think as soon as i reunite with my little girl,i'm going to lose her again when she reincarnates.

Juditha - she said "until", but that doesn't mean she'll go immediately thereafter.  There's a lot of time over there, and she can wait to reincarnate 'til it suits, I'm guessing.   :)

Matthew,

I don't believe in reincarnation.  But I consider your perspective on the related issues most rational.  The fact that New Agers misconstrue early Christian and Jewish perspectives as reincarnation is not directly relevant to the question of the reality of reincarnation.  I just want reincarnationists to be honest and intellectually responsible about which sources are and are not relevant to the issue.

In Howard Storm's NDE, Jesus implcitly denies the doctrine of reincarnation, but then concedes that reincarnation is possible for a very few cases.  My critique addresses the ambiguous evidence for the doctrine, not the question of a few exceptions.

As I have mentioned, Origen (225 AD) is the early Christian poster boy for reincarnationists.  Yet he repudiates reincarnation several times!  However, his teaching about the soul's pre-existence allows that souls pre-exist in a variety of pre-earth planes and enter bodies appropriate to those planes.  Though he rejects the notion of earthlyreincarnation, his position opens the possibility that reincarnation on earth is at least a theoretical possibility.  If we can acquire bodies appropriate to different world planes, why can't we do so on our planet as well?  My critique merely urges an open mind towards alternative theories; it does not categorically reject reincarnation. 

The New Age misinterpretation of the biblical and early Christian evidence has blinded them to an important source of support for past life exploration.  In fact, the Catholic church has never officially condemned reincarnation at any of their definitive councils!  As a result, some Catholics insist that they can be true Catholics in their doctrine and still believe in reincarnation. 

Don 

Don-

What exactly do you mean by "pre-earth planes?"

R

I assume that the pre-earth planes in judaeo-christian thought are places like the "Guff," sort of like chambers of premade souls with the potential to be us, who have not yet been incarnated or come into being.

Of course I'd be interested in hearing Don's take on that.  I've never been very satisfied with the ideas of storage areas of potential souls.  Something doesn't quite work in that concept for me...

M

Roger,

Origen (225 AD) endorses the potential ability of every believer to exercise prophetic gifts. In his own exercise of this gift, he reports alternate worlds that sound very earthlike (e.g analogous geographical regions), but seem to be worlds from other dimensions.  Important soul work is performed in these worlds.  The Bible embraces not reincarnation, but the soul's preexistence.  The Bible does not expound on the nature of this state to the extent t hat Origen does and the Council of Constantinople decided that Origen goes too far.  But The Bible does imply that one's vocational calling and character in our world are affected by our preexistent state.  I have often wondered if the apparently unfair suffering in our world is at least partly determined by our actions and fate in our preexistent state.  So Christians and reincarnationists share in common a belief in the importance of a preexistent soul state.  This is a tantalizing mystery.

Don

DocM wrote:
"Spooky, cause and effect is simply a universal law.  Choice is the action and decision of intent.  Karma is then the logical consequence of it. "

Thanks for responding, Matthew. My respond to you:
Because cause and effect is a universal law, there is no free will. A "will" is always someone's will, in our realm, the will of a person (maybe even of animals etc.). A person is the sum of it's experiences and the consequences of those. Therefore, the will of a person is the consequence of that. If the will would be free, it would mean chaos. A free will would be truely independent of anything. Independent of the history, of physical laws, knowledge etc. A free will would break every form of continuity, every form of predictability, what we call randomness. Therefore, there is no free choice and no free decision, but always a dependant one. Either causality, or free will. You can't have them both. ("Free will" would even be a meaningless term in world without causality, when you think about it)

I'm sorry when I'm off-topic, but at least "free will" is often used thoughtlessly as a major argument in theological and spiritual discussions. I think this should stop. It's a metaphysical concept which is proven to be illogical.

Spooky

I agree spookey,but lets look at it this way.God could have robots,but no,I will wait for them to come to me of there own free will,no matter how long it takes,because I do not want to lose not one of my sheep.George

Spooky,

Though I often agree with your posts, i couldn't disagree with you more in this case.  The law of karma (cause and effect) is a passive law not an active one.  For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.  But Karma only reflects, it does not direct our intent.

A person's current state of being is the sum of their experiences and consequences of those (the karma they wrought).  However, we do have free will, we are able to forgive others and ourselves (with effort, grace and practice - along with eating some humble pie), and thus we can make new decisions.  This is the whole basis for Bruce's retrievals - for people exiting from self imposed hells.  We are not the sum of our particular circumstances, rather that is a reflection of a particular chosen state of mind.

I would put it to you that we human beings change our minds frequently and our thinking, and are quite difficult to predict.  You can calculate probabilities of actions based on tendencies, previous actions, and karma, but in the end, this marvelous thing we call consciousness, has the ability to evolve.  To change, morph, learn, and become something else.

You say we can't have both causality and free will.  I disagree.  Free will initiates action.  Action begets reaction and consequence (karma), yet this does not dictate the next intent/belief with any certainty.  You say if we had free will, life would be pure chaos.  I'd say that these universal laws of the physical world are broken whenever they are examined scientifically(and thus paradox and chaos are there whether we like it or not).  We try to account for this by creating new laws, like quantum mechanics to account for the paradoxes (how can an electron be at two places at the same time?).  In the end, we find that rather than absolutes in our physical world dictated by causality, we have "tendencies and probabilities."  And what is the deciding factor in all of this?  Well, even advanced thinkers like Einstein concluded, that it was the observer in any experiment himself/herself!

In other words, our consciousness could actually change the objectivity of even the most basic experiment. 

I actually rejoice in the notion of unfettered consciousness exercising free will, in a joyful, unafraid manner.  To do otherwise would be to see yourself as being acted upon by other external forces rather than to be in charge of your own destiny.  And since our deepest beliefs tend to shape our realities, I suggest that anyone out there embrace the belief in free will and become the master of your own fate.


Matthew

Matthew,

Thank you for the eloquent post.  I agree with you completely.

In Buddhism, one learns that karma is as you have described and that the practices of compassion and lovingkindness (PUL) can generate more positive karma.  And eventually enlightenment after many, many lifetimes.  Though one description of Buddhist cosmology I've read  considers a much bigger universe than our physical universe and posits that those lifetimes can be spent on any of the unfathomably large number of possible worlds. 

Viva free will (and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle)!

Pat

DocM wrote on Jan 7^th, 2010 at 2:38am:

Seraphis, Yes, for those unloving souls who exercise free will in that direction, there is cause and effect, but they still operate under the free will to act lovingly or not.  Karma is broken when they change their choices, invoke grace, forgiveness, make amends and move on.  Not saying that the individual would do it, or find it easy to do if they chose to act in a heinous fashion.  But acting poorly is still a choice. Spooky, cause and effect is simply a universal law.  Choice is the action and decision of intent.  Karma is then the logical consequence of it. M

Hi Matthew: So you are telling me that in 100 lifetimes or say 100,000 years you have never lifted your hand in anger against an enemy. You have never plotted the overthrown of a king or engaged in court intrigue to unseat popular or favored courtiers. Never were a member of an invading army. Never defended a rampart and killed your enemy as they attempted to breach your citadel. Never extracted tax or over burdened you serfs in your service. Well, if you fit the above, I salute you my friend and you are a better man than I gunga din.

S.

Hmmmmm......not that I can remember! Ha! (I don't recall a past life). 

No but seriously Seraphis my friend, you must be way out there if you got that impression from my rather straight forward post.  Scratchin' my head here - nothing mentioned myself in anyway or incarnation.  If your question is, can a maniacal sadist simply decide to change and become loving, and not work off their Karma, by exercising free will, my answer would be no, not right away.

No one goes from loving to harm another, to being a loving enlightened person at the flip of a switch. 

People make too much out of karma.  Karma is passive, not active.  If you plant seeds, they grow.  You reap what you sow.  The escape from karma comes, not with  "Hitler" type person waking up in a hell and saying "please!  I was wrong!  i won't do it again!  Now let me into heaven!"  No, just being unhappy doesn't change the amount of love in you.

However, change is the rule, not the exception.  And a hateful being will have choices to make in their hell (or on earth).  Each time they make choices, the karma entailed will change their future state of being.  Should they continue, with free will to voluntarily choose to act unlovingly, they will, be subject themselves to those conditions.  But in doing so, karma is not binding them; they are binding themselves. 

And don't kid yourselves.  karma is a true force, but to some extent self inflicted.  The soul realizes the awful things that others have experienced due to its actions.  It initially can't forgive itself.  So we seek forgiveness from those we've harmed, and ultimately from ourselves (we are our own harshest judges).  When some former evil doers come into a change of thought, and allow God's love to enter into their lives, they can find forgiveness from those they've hurt (eventually), and at some point after atonement, they forgive themselves - and then move on.

I am sure that there are those slow to learn the lessons of love, who appear trapped in a demonic type existence.  I won't debate that possibility, yet I would say that static thought is highly unusual and that change or evolution is more the rule.


Matthew

For me the jury is still out in regards to reincarnation, however, if we are fundamentally consciousness at our inner core being, then I suppose there would be more things possible within consciousness than not, therefore I don't think reincarnation can be completely ruled out. I simply don't know whether it is true or not.

What I find most plausible is what Don is saying in regards to preexistence of the soul that implies one's character of expression in the world is affected by the preexistent state of being. Or the core of what the preexistent soul is according to its progression/evolution of its consciousness. From my experience and interpretation of that experience, there are many other worlds that exist that are similar to our physical world. Is it possible that the total self consciousness incarnates streams of itself not only in the earth plane, but other planes as well? If the soul is continually evolving then perhaps this is a way for it to continue evolving.

If a soul's consciousness is imperfect/disorganized in the sense of utilizing the information it has gained through experience and this is brought forth and manifested as fear or love, it may be the duality/suffering we experience. Or in other words, as an evolving soul grows in love/organization of its core being, that soul does so by letting go of or working through the fear/disorganization, which in turn changes the core being of the person as well as the total self.

Kathy

PS to Matthew... Absolutely wonderful posts!

Related to what Spooky and others said:

As far as I'm concerned having a free will isn't a matter of a person being able to do whatever he (or she) wants regardless of how it affects others, because then he is giving into to his self-centered motives, and how can that be free will?

Freewill is about having the freedom of mind to live according to love and what serves the oneness, and be joyful as you do so. The more our souls grow, the wiser we become, the more we are able to live according to true free will.

Or in other words, it is a matter of having the freedom of mind to respond to circumstances with wisdom and love.

I can't say I have complete freedom of mind, sometimes I listen to my attachments, but I've found that the more I've grown spiritually, the more freedom I've obtained to live according to love and universal wisdom.

I guess, Albert, that I see my own consciousness so clearly that I feel differently about free will.  I agree with your thoughts about growing according to love, and the lessons we learn (I've mentioned this in my posts).  I disagree with the implication that if one chooses a nonloving path, acts according to one's lusts or attachments, that one is being acted upon by one's external vices and thus acting outside of free will. 

It is so simple...so basic really.  I think you and Spooky may be confusing the negative Karma generated by unloving actions with a stripping away of the freedom of choice (if I understand you correctly).  This is absolutely not true. 

Take Bruce's example of Max and Max's hell, in which certain sadistic acts were acted out again and again in different scenarios after Max died.  Max chose to be there.  An unloving choice with unloving activities, yes.  He will be hurt there and hurt others, yes.  His actions, generate karma in that plane which makes his situation worse.  He may learn from these choices at some point and leave that hell (by making other, more loving choices).  His hell is not being imposed upon him; rather he chooses to be there.  I don't mean to talk down to anyone, but it is so crystal clear to me that the one thing, as conscious beings that we always have is choice.  Karma never imposes a choice on us; instead it gives us feedback, good or bad that alters our surroundings based on our choice. 

M

Matthew:

When it comes to people who use their free will in a negative way, I'm not one hundred percent certain about what takes place.

On the one hand a person like Max seeks to hurt people not because he is ignorant of what he is doing, but because he derives pleasure from doing so.

On the other hand, if a person (soul) clearly understood that it is preferable to live according to love rather than a negative way of being, there is no way he (or she) would choose a negative way. To imply that a person would choose a negative way even if he knew the difference, is to imply that a negative way of being has just as much to offer as a love based way of being (no way).

When it comes to free will for myself, I've found that there are certain tendencies of mind that have given me some trouble. For example, it took me a while to overcome my fear of unfriendly spirits. It happened in increments. It was a matter of finding more and more that it is up to me and nobody else whether or not I live according to positive qualities such as love.

I believe a key to having free will is understanding that we can be wrong at times, regardless of how intelligent we consider ourselves to be.

We have to understand that sometimes a certain way of thinking makes sense to us not because it is true, but because of how our mind is psychologically conditioned. We have to find a way to extricate ourselves from our own conditioning. A hard thing to do if fear and/or overconfidence in our intellect deters us from looking at our beliefs honestly.

Consider what happens when somebody discusses something such as reincarnation. Are people considering the issue with a mind that is free?

I think that Max initially does receive a thrill from his sadism both on earth and now in that hell.  To you or I, we would realize that he would never be fulfilled that way, or really happy.  But to the practiced sadist, or anyone attached to any unloving behavior, they willingly consign themselves to do it over and over again, until they start to "get it".  That is why they can't choose to poof themselves from Max's hell to focus 27.  The vibratory rate isn't there, or in another way of looking at it, they are not ready to give up their sadism/harm for the stronger joys of love.  Does that make them without free will.  No.  Not in my book. 

Matthew

Look at this way. Sometimes our children make mistakes because they haven't had the time to develop wisdom.

Perhaps Max's soul was a young child like soul who hadn't developed wisdom while in this World.

Sure he could've listened to his higher self (and therefore his conscience), but sometimes people lose track of their higher self. The more they act in a negative way, the more they do so.

Perhaps if we want to allow souls to have the freedom to become wise in their own way, we have to allow them to learn through their own trials and errors.

I don't mean they should be allowed to hurt others. I wonder why they are allowed to do so as much as they do. Sometimes I wish the people who do things such as rape and beat others would be beamed over to another planet. I don't have enough information to understand why they are allowed to do as they do.

Perhaps some of us agreed to live with people/souls who manifest in a negative way with the hope of inspiring them to be positive. If you put them in a situation that is completely negative they might become worse.  Consider how some people are more negative after prison than before.

DocM wrote on Jan 8^th, 2010 at 10:17am:

Hmmmmm......not that I can remember! Ha! (I don't recall a past life).  No but seriously Seraphis my friend, you must be way out there if you got that impression from my rather straight forward post.  Scratchin' my head here - nothing mentioned myself in anyway or incarnation.  If your question is, can a maniacal sadist simply decide to change and become loving, and not work off their Karma, by exercising free will, my answer would be no, not right away.

Hi Matthew: That is precisely my question.  Monroe's AA got tangled and we don't know what cause and effect issues he/she dealt with but he had bb and monroe working to free him... The Facilitator was a special case... but normally once in you don't just come out easily.

S.

Matthew,
I must say I haven't found an argument against my opinion, that "free will" is nonsense. I try to clarify.

Quote: "A person's current state of being is the sum of their experiences and consequences of those (the karma they wrought).  However, we do have free will, we are able to forgive others and ourselves (with effort, grace and practice - along with eating some humble pie), and thus we can make new decisions."

   I agree in that we make new decisions, but these decisions are the result of our history, of what we've learnt/experienced. If our decisions were the result of a free will, this very free will would negate our ownership of this will, as it is the attribute "free" together with "will" which clearly indicates that this will is exactly NOT a result of our personal cause-and-effect history, and would be, as I said, an element of pure random within an orderly time chain of events, which would mean a break in our personality, because it would be a break in the order of time, as long as we define us as beings within time, beings which can change on an evolutionary basis (including of course an evolution of our mind). Now, someone could say that such a break can actually happen, and I admit that this might be true, but then we can't speak of a will anymore which is mine or yours, it is a will then which comes out of nothing, if it is free.

   A word on quantum mechanics. It is indeed the case, that for instance the known double slit experiment shows results which are not only inexplainable by our normal vision of time and space, but even indicate that time and space don't exist as consistently as we (still) think they do. It is but quite ironic, that the quantum mechanics theory, as every scientific theory, is based on time and space (and with time, the order of events, causality, in a probabilistic interpretation), so when time, space, and causality is not anymore considered as valid, then the theory of quantum mechanics necessarily isn't valid anymore, too. The "unsharpness", the unpredictability in single events and the statistical predictability of the sum of a large amount of events nicely shows the bandwidth of randomness and order- statistical order. "Free will" has nothing to do with quantum mechanics, as long as "free will" means something different than randomness.

   So let's forget "free will", as it is indeed nonsense. That's my only intent with these posts, to simply suggest not to make use of that phrase anymore as it is illogical and therefore isn't an argument, and isn't a reason, for or against anything.

Spooky

Spooky:

Let's say two people are debating about whether or not global warming is true. Their openess of mind wouldn't be dependent upon the quantum principles that make up their bodies. It would be dependent upon whether they have reached the point where they can use their minds in a way that isn't impulsive, and whether they have developed the ability to question the conclusions their minds have come to.

Here's another example. Say I really need to speak to my boss but she isn't available. Either I can listen to the bratty part of myself and become angry, or I can be reasonable and realize that the World doesn't rotate around me, and sometimes other people are busy for reasons that go beyond my little universe.

Because I have a sufficient amount of self awareness, I've found that in different circumstances I have the option of listening to what my ego and higher self have to say (I don't mean I receive a message from my disk), and choose according to what makes the most sense. When I do this, it seems as if there is a part of me that is independent of the two.

It is rather self defeating to conclude that we don't have free will. I've found that non-dual gurus with their nihilistic non life-affirming way of thinking often think in such a way. As a result they don't take responsibility for their state of consciousness.  They assume that as long as they assert that they are only their pure awareness, they will be okay.

A day will come (perhaps when they are in the spirit World) when they will find that it does matter what their state of mind is. If there are psychological issues they haven't taken care of, these issues will determine where they end up.

Regarding the two slit experiment, I'm no expert, but I've always had the feeling that perhaps subatomic particles have a nature that can appear as either a particle or a wave without being either. Perhap they go through two slits as they do because their nature, which can't be defined or limited by a 3d way of thinking, enables them to go through two slits at a time.

I've found that one part of my energy can interfere with another part of my energy. Perhaps one part of a subatomic particle's energy can interfere with another part of its energy and create a wave pattern.

Why do some physicists insist that the issue has to be defined within the particle/wave conundrum?

Hi Spooks,

I get what you are saying, and how you don't like the phrase free will, but still disagree on the presuppositions you make.  To say that our decisions are based on our past history and experiences is not to say that these decisions are pre-scripted.  We do have unique histories, tendencies and circumstances.  Our choices though can not be predicted from our past histories, however with any certainty, only with probability.  I hate to belabor the point, but it is important.  My consciousness is a pin point of perception which sees itself as an individuality and yet part of God and the cosmos at the same time.  This initial premise "cogito ergo sum" (I think therefore I am) is at the basis of all individuals.

The entire basis for spiritual progression is, in my opinion made by choices.  If you don't like the semantics, and don't believe that these choices are made freely by the individual conscious being, that is your opinion.  But in the purest sense, that means you believe all our actions are pre-scripted, ordained and written-in-stone before we decide, and I disagree with that premise.  Even if, we assume tendencies and probabilities and accumulated consequences from past actions, I know, at a core level, that this "me" or "I" that is out there can and do make unpredictable choices, which causes a varied and at some stage unique chain of change and evolution.  If you feel that it is pre-scripted, that is fine.  We agree to disagree.

Matthew

DocM wrote on Jan 9^th, 2010 at 5:15am:

Hi Spooks, I get what you are saying, and how you don't like the phrase free will, but still disagree on the presuppositions you make.  To say that our decisions are based on our past history and experiences is not to say that these decisions are pre-scripted.  We do have unique histories, tendencies and circumstances.  Our choices though can not be predicted from our past histories, however with any certainty, only with probability.  I hate to belabor the point, but it is important.  My consciousness is a pin point of perception which sees itself as an individuality and yet part of God and the cosmos at the same time.  This initial premise "cogito ergo sum" (I think therefore I am) is at the basis of all individuals. The entire basis for spiritual progression is, in my opinion made by choices.  If you don't like the semantics, and don't believe that these choices are made freely by the individual conscious being, that is your opinion.  But in the purest sense, that means you believe all our actions are pre-scripted, ordained and written-in-stone before we decide, and I disagree with that premise.  Even if, we assume tendencies and probabilities and accumulated consequences from past actions, I know, at a core level, that this "me" or "I" that is out there can and do make unpredictable choices, which causes a varied and at some stage unique chain of change and evolution.  If you feel that it is pre-scripted, that is fine.  We agree to disagree. Matthew

The best way to look at free will is this. They say if you get caught in quicksand, don't struggle, if you relax you will tend to float to the top... the physical universe is like quicksand... when you decide to float to the top that is exercising free will...

S.

Quote Recoverer:
"Let's say two people are debating about whether or not global warming is true. Their openess of mind wouldn't be dependent upon the quantum principles that make up their bodies. It would be dependent upon whether they have reached the point where they can use their minds in a way that isn't impulsive, and whether they have developed the ability to question the conclusions their minds have come to."

Yes, true. But what you are saying would not be possible if these persons had free will, as this will then would be independent from what they have learnt, what they are, from their personality etc. Otherwise their will won't be free. That's why I say "free will" is incompatible with a person (when saying "someone has a free will").

Quote Recoverer:
"Because I have a sufficient amount of self awareness, I've found that in different circumstances I have the option of listening to what my ego and higher self have to say (I don't mean I receive a message from my disk), and choose according to what makes the most sense. When I do this, it seems as if there is a part of me that is independent of the two."

I again agree with your description! You listen to the voices inside you and then you (or, as you say, your independent part of you) carefully weigh arguments and you choose the option which makes most sense. But this would be impossible when a free will comes into play. Because a FREE will would be independent from all your pondering and reasoning; if your will, your choice is a result of your reasoning, then by definition it is not free, but just the result of your reasoning! That's why I see it as impossible that a person "has" free will. In the moment the free will occurs, the person vanishes.

Quote Recoverer:
"It is rather self defeating to conclude that we don't have free will. "

The propagation of a free will is self-defeating! Because if you ascribe a person a free will it means this person isn't responsible for his/her will, because the will is free. The composition that someone has a free will is contradictive. A person, with his/her experiences, traits, beliefs, knowledge etc. would be unable to make own choices when a free will would take over, this term is contradictive because a person's free will would be free from that person. So, let's just say "a person's will" and cut the "free" out.
   And this issue hasn't anything to do with non-duality gurus or so. For Sylvester and Parsons "free will" is a meaningless phrase because they say time isn't real, and then pretty much everything is meaningless. My point is a different one, I don't deny the existence of time. Philosopher Kant has seen the impossibility of freedom in a similar way (but his "solution" isn't a solution but nonsense, as it undermines his own system, I can't really recommend his "critic of pure reason" unless you're a philosophy student). From my position, I'm not propagating something which could be so or not so, I'm trying to describe a contradiction.

Quote Recoverer:
"Regarding the two slit experiment, I'm no expert, but I've always had the feeling that perhaps subatomic particles have a nature that can appear as either a particle or a wave without being either. Perhap they go through two slits as they do because their nature, which can't be defined or limited by a 3d way of thinking, enables them to go through two slits at a time."

One result of the double slit experiment is that something can be a particle and a wave AT THE SAME TIME. I'm too much rooted in space and time to find that not mind-buggling :-) .
-------------------------------------------------------

Matthew:

The non-prescriptedness, or unpredictability of decisions (and the future in general) doesn't depend on the existence of a free will. The world can be unpredictable without a free will. Whether unpredictable or predictable depends on the structure of the world, if it consists entirely of something which has exact values or not. In the first case it would be predictable for an entity which knows all those values and can process it aka the Laplace Demon (although I'm not completely certain about that regarding the so called three-body-problem), in the latter case it would be unpredictable. People who interprete quantum mechanics in a certain way conclude that the world is unpredictable (on a cosmological level though it might be possible to make a good prognosis).

So, we have to separate the "free will" problem from the question of the predictability of the future, whether it's open or already written.

Quote Matthew:
"Even if, we assume tendencies and probabilities and accumulated consequences from past actions, I know, at a core level, that this "me" or "I" that is out there can and do make unpredictable choices, which causes a varied and at some stage unique chain of change and evolution."

   Yes, I have no problem with that. That's not the point. The point is that I can't see how "free will" is compatible with what you said here. When we, or our core self, make choices, these are the choices of that self. Now, if these choices would be a result of a free will, those choices won't be anyone's choices, it is impossible that an entity which make choices (and insofar is in time) does have a free will, as exactly this freedom (by definition, that's why it's called free) makes this will independent (therefore independent as well of that person's history and all his/her attributes), and cannot anymore ascribed to such an entity. It is a contradictio in adiecto.


Spooky

Don


Quote:

My point in this thread is that reincarnation (linear or parallel) lacks evidence that cannot be interpreted with equal validity as spirit mergers or clairvoyance.

And how do you interpret individuals with uncanny similarities with their "past life incarnations"?  Those who are able to accurately provide details about real individuals who have lived in the past who they claim have been their past lives, and the parallel traits these individuals share, such as nearly identical physical, mental, and emotional traits, including scars, marks, and diseases in the exact locations the "past life" incarnation had a significant injury.  Surely this is more than just a "spirit merger." 

One question for you.  What is the purpose of these spirit mergers, or as ES calls them, possessions.. why do these spirits do this?  And are you saying that every person alive is a "victim" of these spirit mergers?  Because almost every individual put under hypnosis is able to recall having a past life.

And what of the strikingly identical accounts of the afterlife, namely the life in between lives, which are prevalent among these subjects?  These individuals describe the planning and preparation of beginning a new incarnation after they are through with a previous one.  Although most of these individuals are completely unaware that such a thing even is possible before hand, they all describe nearly identical key aspects of this experience. This is something that neither of your "explanations" prove wrong, and must be taken seriously if one is going to examine this issue honestly.

DocM wrote on Jan 9^th, 2010 at 5:15am:

Hi Spooks, To say that our decisions are based on our past history and experiences is not to say that these decisions are pre-scripted.  We do have unique histories, tendencies and circumstances.  Our choices though can not be predicted from our past histories, however with any certainty, only with probability.  I hate to belabor the point, but it is important.  My consciousness is a pin point of perception which sees itself as an individuality and yet part of God and the cosmos at the same time.  This initial premise "cogito ergo sum" (I think therefore I am) is at the basis of all individuals. Matthew

Absolutely...my resonating bell is ringing from the rooftops.

Free will is predominant in all we do.  There are probabilities, but those are based on our past expressions of free will, and do not lock us into a pre-ordained pattern of behavior.  If it did, there would be no hope for change and development.

Quote usetawuz:
"There are probabilities, but those are based on our past expressions of free will, and do not lock us into a pre-ordained pattern of behavior."

When our acts are based on our further acts then they're not free. It's cause and effect. I once had a discussion about this with forum member dave_a_mbs, and we could agree in this that we can insofar speak of "free will" that there has been an initial act which started it all, before there was time, and we could call this initial act "free", and only in reference to this initial act the following acts could be called "free", but not in respect to the chain of cause and effect in which every act within time is embedded.

Spooky

Spooky-

when we talk about free will the important point seems to be - free of what ? You seem to be using a very specific form of the word 'free' as in free of all influence ; this seems to suggest a kind of quantum randomness. Surely no one who believes in free will believes that their choices are free of all influences/motivations. Maybe the belief in relative free will would be more accurate ...

Not in my view, Heisenberg. When we imagine what a "relative free will" would be like, we either come to the result that there's only cause and effect (while we still make decisions, only not freely) or we come to a sort of hybrid-free will, which in part is influenced by the past, and in part not, the latter then is the "free" part. But then the same problem would occur with this free part. It cannot be ascribed to a person being within time, it is without cause, without reason, and may this free part be as small as it may. This free part actually would be totally random due to it's independence.

Spooky

Hi

To know whether our wills are free are not, it seems we would have to know the extent of our will. The extent of a will seems like it would have to include the influence of that will. How could we ever know that ?
I'm comparing, for example, when my will has an argument with my husband's will  >:(   as compred with a butterfly's will to flap its wings -- that we've heard can start a tide that creates a hurricane across a sea. 

If I wanted to absolutely free my will from other influences, it seems that I would also have to keep it from influencing others. Since its influence on others is an aspect of physics that I cannot control, this seems impossible.  and don't ask me to silence my will by committing suicide because I've been near some suicides and no way have they stopped their influences on others' wills.

I just don't see how this can be resolved.  :-?

Bets

I resurrected this thread to address an issue I have with Don's line of thinking regarding this subject (Reincarnation - NOT free will!  There is another thread to discuss free will!  Stick to it!)  Don has craftily avoided responding to my rebuttal, even ignoring my personal messages to him.  I want answers Donny boy!

Hi Spooky,

I admire your philosophical honesty; you go with where your reasoning takes you even if the conclusion may not be what you want.

You offer up a straitforward proposal; either 'free will' is the product of a causative chain (not free) or its the product of randomness (not willed). I would offer up another view for perusal.

In the 'relative' realm which we are familiar with it is at least possible that the choices we make are fundamentally not computable from prior causation ( ie non-algorithmic) due to feedback processes .For example the belief that life is preordained will loop back and affect your choices...which will affect your beliefs etc etc. Things are not totally random either in that they are predictable to a certain extent; for example the chance that I'll choose to go to work tomorrow might be 99.99%....in a years time that might drop to 50%. Its a bit like trying to predict the weather or tomorrow's stock markets - not totally random or predictable.For all intents and purposes from my perspective I feel I have free will.

If we move up to a higher perspective (God's eye view ?) it may well be that so called free will is not free. But I suspect that from that viewpoint the idea that we as individuals could operate as separate from eachother would be a bit like my arm declaring independance from my hands ! I think this echoes Bets's point.

Anyway its fun to muse...

Dave

Sorry Dude just read your message !

Don't sweat it.  Your free will allowed you to make the decision to post your message!

Don:
Please have a look at Dude's latest posts on this thread.

Dude: Sorry, I can't stop and try to keep it short. (But when even you are adding fuel to the fire... :-) )

Bets:
It seems to be common sense that our will is influenced, and is influencing. All who contributed to this discussion have admitted this (with the modification that there is still somehow, somewhere a portion of freedom). What you said seems to me to reflect the cause-and-effect nature of will. And I agree, we neither can comprehend all effects of our will, nor all things which have influenced our will. So, when I read along your lines, we could say we even don't know our own will very well in this extended meaning.

Heisenberg:
What you wrote about predictability is true, but is not really resolving the core problem of "a person's free will". Such a free will, in my view, must necessarily be a chaotic foreign object within any structure which contains rules, and therefore cannot be a property of a person in the common meaning.

Spooky

Dude, go easy on us.  You know how easily we get distracted from the intended topic, despite the clear title given the thread by its originator.