In some ways, a most interesting aspect of this was that it was on NPR radio. Does that mean the mainstream is starting to look at reincarnation?

http://www.wbur.org/npr/259886077/searching-for-science-behind-reincarnation

The University of Virginia has long been ahead of the curve on this. Ian Stevenson has been dead for several years but the work goes on. Some of these cases are pretty interesting.

Quote:

Jim Tucker. A psychiatrist at the University of Virginia ... I think it's very difficult to just map these cases onto materialist understanding of reality. I mean, if physical matter, if the physical world is all there is, then I don't know how you can accept these cases and believe in them. But I think there are good reasons to think that consciousness could be considered a separate entity from physical reality. And in fact, some leading scientists in the past, like Max Planck, who's the father of quantum theory, said that he viewed consciousness as fundamental and that matter was derived from it. So, in that case, it would mean that consciousness would not necessarily be dependent on a physical brain in order to survive and could continue after the physical brain and after the body dies. In these cases, it seems, at least on the face of it, that a consciousness has then become attached to a new brain and has shown up as past life memories. ... it may well be that our brains are conduits for consciousness but it is actually being created somewhere else.

Hi Lucy,

Interesting interview.  What Tucker says in the quote above, that consciousness is fundamental and all that really exists is something I keep running into from several fields of science.  Biologists, physicists, psychiatrists, and so on.  Maybe the numbers are about to tip and mainstream science will start giving these ideas and theories some credence.

Kathy

Check out Carl Wickland's "thirty years amongst the dead" for an alternative perspective to what Ian Stevenson found.  Check out the chapter on Reincarnation. A PDF file of the book is available for free on the internet.

Quote:

Check out the chapter on Reincarnation.

which is the chapter on reincarnation?
what's your point?

though I don't see much to compare with the body of work Stevenson produced and it certainly may be different than current work.

Here's a view of a comparison between Wickland and Stevenson, just for the sake of developing this topic. It's from an Amazon book review (OK to quote since credit is given, I hope)--
"A must read for all ssychiatrists
By Shawn T. Murphy on November 27, 2004
Format: Paperback
Dr. Carl Wickland MD would not have agreed with the conclusions of Dr. Stevens [...]. He specifically stated that all of the memories observed in such cases were actually originating from the discarnate spirit of the deceased, who was attached to the patient. He did not accept the case of the deceased spirit entering into a new incarnation. Of course Dr. Wickland was dealing with the psychosis of much older patients and did not to my knowledge examine any of the type of patients that Dr. Stevens did."

Kathy wrote, "Maybe the numbers are about to tip and mainstream science will start giving these ideas and theories some credence."


  Once certain hindering forces are taken out of the equation, then yes, i think this will eventually happen. 

  But science has become like a religion in many respects, as to dogma, control, money, and politics being very involved. 

   Here is an interesting article i read regarding the Big Bang theory. http://rense.com/general53/bbng.htm
Note the strong words used about this major area of science becoming so dogmatic and controlled and scienctific research being so fudged.  And this is about material science based on physical reality, not something as "out there" as consciousness, nonphysical reality or the like. 

The question is, is this completely a natural development because of how human nature tends to be, is it something before forced from higher up the food chain to speak, or a combo of both. 

  I would say, and i think those who created the documentary Thrive might agree, that it's a combo and that there are individuals in this world with immense wealth and material influence who have something to gain from the control/manipulation and dogmatism of science and purposely want it limited in it's scope and conclusions.

   Consciousness and nonphysical reality is just too much of a freeing concept.  Crap, what if people lose their fear of death?  Things might really start to change in this world, but they like the way the world is now, fearful, easily manipulated and controlled, etc.

  And these folks will not roll over lightly and give up the fight easily.  They will hold on until it's taken forcefully from their grasp, as the Creative Forces plan to do to give us a fighting chance on this sad planet. 

Dr. Wickland's research confirms Swedenborg's discovery that the past life recall of children is no evidence for reincarnation.  Rather, it signifies unknown discarnate spirit attachment in which the discarnate spirit's memories seem to be one' own.  Even a coople of Ian Stevenson's cases point in this direction: that is, the child's alleged prior personality was still alive at the time of the child's birth!

Don

Berserk2 wrote on Jan 15^th, 2014 at 8:25pm:

Dr. Wickland's research confirms Swedenborg's discovery that the past life recall of children is no evidence for reincarnation.  Rather, it signifies unknown discarnate spirit attachment in which the discarnate spirit's memories seem to be one' own.  Even a coople of Ian Stevenson's cases point in this direction: that is, the child's alleged prior personality was still alive at the time of the child's birth! Don

Dr.Carl Wickland dismissed reincarnation as false!?? His wife, a medium, supposedly received this information from spiritual heavyweights like Madam Blavatsky, and others like Mary Baker Eddy, plus others. Wickland also said that the person called 'Jesus Christ', did not die our sins! In fact in his book, "Thirty Years Among The dead", he states that the Christ of the Christian bible is false, and that he did not die for anybodies sins! Just google up his book "Thirty years among the dead"...It's a free Internet download and read. Blessings and Love. Carl         

Quote:

The question is, is this completely a natural development because of how human nature tends to be, is it something before forced from higher up the food chain to speak, or a combo of both.

I find I am somehow intrigued by the question of what are we choosing from this side and what did we choose from the other side. I find Natalie Sudman's description of her experiences compelling. Sort of like, you put the pin ball into play from the other side and watch what unfolds here in this earthly pinball machine.

Re: Wickland
I find his assumptions too limiting. Guess the only thing one can do is go on one's own experiences. I currently have no personal memories to guide me but I don't like to be limited.

Note: it was fashionable at the time (Wickland's) to have a wife who was a medium....sort of funny to me now. I looked at the book but haven't read it. I did so like The Betty Book.

for my own amusement I looked Betty up again, I have read the husband's letter on her dying before but it is still interesting.

http://www.spiritwritings.com/bettywhite.html

All things spiritual were fashionable in the '20s. While I certainly think some of it is credible (Cayce for example), I think that period spawned a lot of charlatans as well. Not saying that these folks were, at all.

"The question is, is this completely a natural development because of how human nature tends to be, is it something before forced from higher up the food chain to speak, or a combo of both."

  Meant to write, "...is it something being forced..." 

If you open the PDF file that is available on the internet and search "Jesus," you'll find that overall Jesus is spoken of in a positive way. Regarding dying for our sins, consider Matthew 7:21.

Plus, certainly it is possible that there are times that Carl Wickland's understanding wasn't accurate. This doesn't mean that he and his wife didn't do the work they  said they did.


carl wrote on Jan 15^th, 2014 at 11:13pm:

Berserk2 wrote on Jan 15th, 2014 at 8:25pm: Dr. Wickland's research confirms Swedenborg's discovery that the past life recall of children is no evidence for reincarnation.  Rather, it signifies unknown discarnate spirit attachment in which the discarnate spirit's memories seem to be one' own.  Even a coople of Ian Stevenson's cases point in this direction: that is, the child's alleged prior personality was still alive at the time of the child's birth! Don Dr.Carl Wickland dismissed reincarnation as false!?? His wife, a medium, supposedly received this information from spiritual heavyweights like Madam Blavatsky, and others like Mary Baker Eddy, plus others. Wickland also said that the person called 'Jesus Christ', did not die our sins! In fact in his book, "Thirty Years Among The dead", he states that the Christ of the Christian bible is false, and that he did not die for anybodies sins! Just google up his book "Thirty years among the dead"...It's a free Internet download and read. Blessings and Love. Carl

The chapter is actually called "Theosophy." It says that some people, because of their belief in reincarnation, try to re-enter a body after they die and they end up possessing the person who is using such a body.


Lucy wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 4:27am:

Quote: Check out the chapter on Reincarnation. which is the chapter on reincarnation? what's your point? though I don't see much to compare with the body of work Stevenson produced and it certainly may be different than current work.

I corrected my post to say Matthew 7:21. Nevertheless, Matthew 6:21 does relate.

In my desire to point out parallels with various types of alleged afterlife communication, I often seem to forget to add that almost all channeling in IMO bogus.  My main point is this: Ian Stevenson's cases are self-refuting because of cases in which the child's alleged "prior personality" was still alive at the time of birth.  ES's perspective therefore seems to make the best sense of all the relevant date.

In this regard, I am rather surprised what is often deemed the best evidential case for survival ever is seldom discussed here--the Lurancy Vennum case.

Don

I will have to go back and look for the "Theosophy" chapter (later).

I actually get a kick out of the things that were produced in the time-frame. At the time I first read it The Betty Book was very interesting to me. I don't think the White's were charlatans. Just sort of simple by today's standards. Mr. White wrote about Betty's dying as though she hung on to life because he wasn't able to let her go, so much so that the doc was amazed she was still alive, and when he gave her permission in his heart to leave, she did, but then he found he felt she was spiritually even closer to him. I have had times when letting go was difficult and I find his description comforting, even though now the language seems quaint.

I appreciate reading about the experiences even when I don't accept the explanations given. You can distinguish between data and hypothesis.

I am not a student of Stevenson's work, but even if a few of his cases turned out to be contradictory, that doesn't refute his whole hypothesis. Besides, if there were other spirits, deceased, that were telling these kids things (as opposed to reincarnational memories), then that would still be something contrary to the idea that death is the end. It is just a matter of how you want to sort the data.

Medicianl drugs that are being used do not have a 100% efficacy or 100% safety record and yet people use them. Why do you look for 100% in the data from sources like Ian Stevenson?

Don you mind-boggle me. You dismiss the careful work of Ian Stevenson and then bring up an obscure case that has become popular with the ghost hunters set (Lurancy Vennum ) as better evidence.  Why ever do you say


Quote:

In this regard, I am rather surprised what is often deemed the best evidential case for survival ever is seldom discussed here--the Lurancy Vennum case.

This is hardly the "best evidence" for survival.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watseka_Wonder

How would this be interpreted if it happened today?

Berserk2 wrote on Jan 17^th, 2014 at 10:14pm:

My main point is this: Ian Stevenson's cases are self-refuting because of cases in which the child's alleged "prior personality" was still alive at the time of birth.

   Wouldn't necessarily be self refuting if you look at it from a "Disk" type perspective.  For example, Bob Monroe was still alive when Bruce Moen incarnated. 

     Even within the same Disk, there are varying degrees of connection between different "probes" (in the temporary sense, especially when considering involvement with the physical) and time is no barrier or separator here at all .  As we live our own in physical life, we often cycle through various patterns and energies of different aspects of our own Disk, even if we are not literally a direct reincarnation of a particular individual within our Disk.  For one month, moment, week, etc, i may act, feel, think, a lot like John Doe in my Disk, and then some other time like Jane Doe.  Course, i also always have my own individual pattern, will, etc which is unique.

  This is very apparent and strong when we are children, especially before we become more individualized and set in our own unique personality and life pattern.

    We also deal with karma of other aspects and individuals are our Disk. 

    Edgar Cayce's son, Hugh Lynn, was told in a reading to watch for an appearing and disappearing mark on his hand--it related to a wound one of his Disk members received during his life--there apparently would be a strong energetic connection between these selves/lives at some points, which would even manifest physically as marks in the body relating to those experiences. 

  Now, i don't know if Hugh Lynn was a direct, literal, reincarnation of this "past" self, or if they were just part of the same Disk.  Knowing how rare direct, literal reincarnations are, i would say that most likely they were fellow Disk members. 

   I've learned that i'm a literal direct reincarnation of an individual (an Egyptian dude) who previously lived an in physical life.  My life and pattern, not unsurprisingly, has mirrored and had major similar themes as his---especially the challenges and things he needed to work on or overcome in his life.

  For example, he experienced getting kicked out of groups he was involved with and cared about.  This has been a major pattern and challenge with me as well. 



   

    

Quote:

literal direct reincarnation of an individual

thanks for bringing that distinction up. I have wondered about the cases people think they have that when there is , for instance, a strong physical resemblance and someone uses that as part of their evidence. But then there are many cases where that isn't the case.  there is so much potential variation. Wonder if that makes it more fun for the disc?

a channel,
True, but the Watseka Wonder makes possession more viable than the Disk interpretation, which strikes me as the most implausible option.  I mean, contemporaries in the same so-called Disk should have shared lives domonstrated by shared memories.

Hi Don,

The disk interpretation is just that, the interpretation of voyagers into a different states of consciousness.  It is personal experience that will verify or refute what you know to be true.  Bruce talks of the "interpreter" of our brain.  Remote viewing seeks to quiet our own innate desire to lend/give meaning to things in a way that we can make sense of.  Yet many people with NDEs will be having their own experiences, translating their interactions as best they can - as best they "interpret" them. 

The more I look into this, the more I believe that the afterlife experience is unique for each individual, and highly dependent on their belief systems.  Perhaps some, like Bruce or Swedenborg or Robert Bruce are more able than others to "turn off" their own desire to lend an interpretation to the consciousness data directed at them.  But we should all keep in mind, that our minds are prone to trying to make sense of things. 

As to the reality of reincarnation then, my gut feeling tells me that it is not nearly as common as is assumed nor is it mandatory.  We appear to have free will in so many areas of exploration while in a body.  I find it difficult to believe that we are free to choose actions in the physical world, but not in the spiritual realm.  And if we can choose in either location, how many of us will choose to be thrust into the physical, bereft of memory so that we can "get it right?"  Pullleazzee. 

But the number of reasons for incarnating or reincarnating may be many.  I don't buy the "get it right" theory, because I don't think it is black and white.  Reincarnation is, for the most part black and white - i.e. - you reincarnate until you free yourself from ego and karma and melt into the universal mind.  Blah.  Why would I create a new ego, with all the hangups that we create here in the physical, only to have to overcome it to advance in spirit?  Why couldn't I be a helper in spirit, or learn to express love and lose the ego in a spiritual plane?

Food for thought

Matthew

Doc:

Do you really know that the Disk interpretation is "just that - an interpretation?"

What is it an interpretation of?

Outside of people who think in terms of higher self, oversoul, total self, disk, I-there, some NDErs have spoken in such a way. For example, consider what Thomas Sawyer said.

"Reincarnation is not a linear thing. One of the problems in defining it is that there is no analogy to it. It is outside of time, yet we can't help but think of it in terms of the past and the future, and this incarnation. The whole story is so big and so involved.

Reincarnation is an opportunity to reach a goal. The goal is true self-realization. Self-realization is to know that you are a soul, a part of God, yet also the Whole. Perhaps no one has a very good image at all of his or her soul - the whole self. And they have no idea of what proportion their personality is in relationship to their soul.

As an example, a characteristic of your personality is one percent of all of your personality characteristics put together, and all of your personality characteristics make up your personality, and your personality is only about five percent of your soul, then we are blinding ourselves to 95 percent of the rest of our soul in order to reincarnate.

Reincarnation is an opportunity to evolve through many personalities. The definition of reincarnation is that your personality is who you are in your current lifetime, and that it can be reincarnated as an entirely different personality with the characteristics of the previous personality and previous personalities including even characteristics of another soul altogether. That is, characteristics of your present personality may be the reincarnation of other characteristics of personalities from your previous lifetimes as well as characteristics from personalities from other souls.

If a person dies and goes totally homogenous back into the light it is reasonably improbable that there will be another reincarnation. It is improbable. However, it is more usual for people to die and go partially back into the light while remaining partially in the realm of the Earth realm. That means remaining partially within the earthly confines of the human condition with an attachment of sorts to the human condition.

Once you go into the spirit realm, you may realize that you haven't learned everything you should, so you find another personality, another body and your soul is maintained throughout. As you transform into another personality, your soul does not get bigger or smaller. You carry with you characteristics of your former personalities. The simplest example is to say that the phrase "burning off bad karma" means that you have characteristics that you have to deal with."

When Ron Kruger wrote about his NDE, he also spoke of meeting something like a disk (he didn't use the word "disk").

P.M.H. wrote that just one small part of a Soul incarnates into this World. I mentioned this to her at a conference and asked her if she is just one finger of her Soul, and she "very" admantly answered "Yes!" (she might've said "Absolutely yes.") She said that when she experienced her Soul during her NDE she found it to be a very large being and that there is no way the entirety of it could incarnate into one body. It sounds to me that she considers herself to be like a "probe."

This matches my experience.

Perhaps it is our ego that causes us to be afraid of the possibility that our soul is much more than the punny personality we know about while incarnated in this World.

There is also the matter of our Souls becoming connected to Soul Groups. Even though there may be children that receive past live memories from possessing spirits, it may also be possible for people to receive memories from Soul Groups.

Albert,

I do think our souls are part of something larger, and that there are connections or soul groups.   The reason I said the idea of a disc is an interpretation is because that is an accurate description.  We all can explore and we tell each other what we encounter.  Our brain/mind can't help but interpret that data we are given.  The data is "true" or "real" if we can take the pure perception and see it without our mind's interpreting the data to look like something else. 

If I see a structure that looks like a ladder, my mind may think "DNA, double helix," because of my background in biochemistry.  If a remote viewer sees a ladder like structure as part of a building, but his brain interprets it to be a DNA double helix, he is being led astray by his "interpretor".   You follow?   So, yes, we are part of greater whole.  It makes sense.  Does that greater whole have to be the exact disc model Bruce speaks of?   To him it appears so.  What about the notion of an oversoul, soul group, etc?  Variations on a theme?  Which is correct? 

My main problem with reincarnation is the notion of "getting it right, " as if we always "get it wrong."  Life isn't so cut and dry.  And a do-over doesn't necessarily evolve us in spirit.  I could have dozens of lifetimes, or hundreds, and not necessarily make spiritual progress.  Circumstance could set me back - karma could get more entwined as could ego, which must grow and be cultivated from each childhood. 

Spiritual freedom for me involves the release of ego in favor of the embracing of love for ourselves, others and God.  It is not a loss of individuality, but it is a loss of our egos which separate us from all that is and create much misery in that false separation. 

I see no reason why reincarnation would be the norm, when our memory is wiped and we start each life building a new stubborn ego to overcome,  or if not,  to further entangle the soul in karma and pain.

Truth be told, I am uncertain how often reincarnation occurs.  It certainly seems like a possible path, but there are many others to explore.  If someone is unaware of their true divine nature, they may be driven to incarnate on earth again, thinking that is all that really matters.  They may have a burning desire to be an opera singer, or invent some new technology and see it manifest.  One can think of many scenarios.  But I think many who pass on would like to contemplate the life they lived, learn and get schooled in the ways of the spirit, look out for loved ones,and move on in the plane of spirit.

M

Quote:

Albert wrote: P.M.H. wrote that just one small part of a Soul incarnates into this World. I mentioned this to her at a conference and asked her if she is just one finger of her Soul, and she "very" admantly answered "Yes!" (she might've said "Absolutely yes.") She said that when she experienced her Soul during her NDE she found it to be a very large being and that there is no way the entirety of it could incarnate into one body. It sounds to me that she considers herself to be like a "probe." This matches my experience.

This is my experience and understanding as well. 

This is also what many scientists are theorizing.  They say at a fundamental level the only thing that actually exists is an unimaginably huge information or consciousness system that is evolving.  For example, this system evolved time when it first noticed a difference between one state and another state.  It developed free choice when it became conscious of its ability to choose between different states at will.  It also evolved into a substance or essence or beingness that further evolved feeling states of consciousness.  Since "love" for lack of a better word was/is the most profitable way to evolve, that's what it evolved into... an enormous being/substance/essence of love that continues to evolve in that direction, though most of us cannot even begin to imagine it, but essentially this "love being" is better organizing its own consciousness and "love" is like a byproduct of better organization of consciousness.

Eventually it evolved what I'll call souls or light beings to exist in virtual realities in which the souls themselves, having the same fundamental attributes, can identify themselves as individualized consciousnesses from within these realities.  If it were not for the existence of these virtual realities created and held in place within the whole of consciousness, a soul would not have the ability to distinguish itself from the entirety of the whole of consciousness. 

These souls created of the same substance as the whole of consciousness also have the capability to create what I'll call "spirits" by incarnating a portion of their "energy" or substance/essence/consciousness into a human for example.  The purpose in this is to further evolve not only the soul itself, but also the entire consciousness of the greater being.  A human is nothing more than a virtual form that a soul or light being can "blend" with, or merge into to experience that particular virtual reality.  There are so many virtual realities a soul can choose to participate in (incarnate in) that it is impossible to number them.  Many souls or light beings do incarnate into ELS even thousands of times not from some never ending wheel of karma, but because they choose to experience as much as they possibly can experience of ELS to further their evolutionary experience, which takes that long because of the limited life spans of ELS forms.

Nanci Danison in her books indicates the same thing though she uses different words and descriptions based on her own understanding and interpretation of her NDE and subsequent "paranormal" experiences.  I haven't had a lot of time to read lately, but soon as I finish her book, I'll post more.  The bottom line is that we never "die" because we were never "born" in the first place.  Our soul, which is a "light being" that most NDE'ers describe, is what we are and always have been.  It's our light being soul that is experiencing our life vicariously by inhabiting a virtual, animal human form.  In other words, we are not human.  We are having an experience to see what it is like to live/exist as a human.  Ego comes from the way humans have evolved, which is fear based, so another part of our light being soul mission is to help the human race evolve toward love.  Sounds kind of sci-fi doesn't it?  Still, I'm fascinated by the possibilities.

Kathy

Kathy-

The plot thickens!

I agree with Doc that the popular premise of multiple reincarnations for the purpose of "getting it right" is off the mark.

If in fact the real purpose for existence is expansion of consciousness, it opens up (at least for me) some intriguing questions along with some dilemmas.

For instance, what about the concepts of right and wrong?  Do they really have any meaning?  Does expansion of consciousness have room or relevance for such value judgments?  If not, why the life review that so many NDEs describe?  Why would it matter whether we were Mother Teresa or Stalin?  Expansion of consciousness would take place regardless.

Reminds of me of Elias (sort of a Seth counterpart) who claimed we are here to "experience" no matter what that experience entailed.  I wonder if maybe there is truth in that?

On the other hand, if Love underpins everything, then I would think it does matter how we live and how we treat others.

I guess the bottom line question is whether the expansion of consciousness is value neutral.

R

Doc:

A few times I was shown structures that I couldn't describe and I can barely remember. It is possible that Bruce was presented with a Disk image because it is fairly accurate and easy to describe.

This whole image thing, even what we see when we look at another person's body isn't an accurate representation of what a person's body is.

If an oversoul would want to learn by incarnating into this World the first time it does so, why wouldn't it want to send extensions of itself more than once?

Perhaps Soul Groups are composed of a number of Oversouls.

Kathy:

I get what you wrote.

Another factor, why would I be enabled to experience myself as this vast being abiding in space (not physical) who is aware of a number of incarnations taking place within itself, if such a possibility doesn't have something to do with reality?

I don't necessarily mean that all incarnations take place at one time, but it wasn't hard to be aware in the above way because I was vast enough to do so. It was really cool, yet I still felt like me.

Hi Roger,

Yes, I agree.  Reincarnation is not about "getting it right", and I'm also not inclined to say that we "reincarnate" either.  The light being soul may incarnate portions of its energy/essence/consciousness in humans on a regular basis, however, I wonder how likely it would be for those elements of energy/essence/consciousness to be exactly the same time and again?  It could be, especially if those consciousness elements were productive in furthering their evolution. I don't know, but I think that would be the most likely reason if reincarnation does occur.

Yes, consciousness would be expanding as it evolves in the sense that it is gathering more and more information and organizing that information in positive ways that affect its beingness.  As with any type of system evolution, what is not beneficial or profitable to the system falls away, dies off, or destroys itself.

ELS is like an individualized consciousness system within a greater consciousness system.  It is the inhabitants of the ELS that evolved and continues to evolve morality.  In other words, it is our ELS group consciousness that defines right or wrong based on the experiences of humans.  And of course, this evolving morality has a great impact on the way human consciousness either evolves or de-evolves.  The greater consciousness system doesn't judge in the same way as we do.  Within it all other consciousness / information simply exists.  Still, the larger system must have some way to discard information that is not useful or profitable to its evolution, so there may be some form of judgment in that regard, but I'd say it would be more like non-profitable patterns could possibly be deleted, but more likely reorganized into patterns that would have the potential to become profitable.

For lack of a better metaphoric description, Danison indicates that in the documentary she was shown that there is no missing link in the evolution of humans, but that humans evolved twice.  Could this have been an intentional reorganization of human consciousness that originally was not a profitable pattern of development?  That the patterns were changed in ways that had the potential to evolve a more productive human race?  Of course, I'm speculating, but sometimes that's kind of fun to do.

K

Kathy said: The greater consciousness system doesn't judge in the same way as we do.  Within it all other consciousness / information simply exists.  Still, the larger system must have some way to discard information that is not useful or profitable to its evolution, so there may be some form of judgment in that regard, but I'd say it would be more like non-profitable patterns could possibly be deleted, but more likely reorganized into patterns that would have the potential to become profitable."

Recoverer responds: For example, I doubt that beings who abide with God treat each other with rudeness and disrespect.  Some sort of judg...discernment needs to be used to determine what traits are preferable and which aren't. Hitler like traits not, Mother Teressa like traits, yes.

Hi Albert,

I'm not so sure it's as cut and dried as that.  Remember we're talking about a consciousness, or informational system that provides the means by which light being souls can evolve.  That greater system (God if you want to call it that) likely is only interested in patterns as they develop, where a light being soul while still interested in patterns developed would also be more interested in individualized consciousness as a part of itself as good or bad. 

It may be possible that a light being soul could create both a Hitler and a Mother Teresa and both would be a part of itself.  I mean, don't we all have a little of both good and bad in us?  The bad, in my opinion stems from fear and humans are extremely fearful as a species.  So I have to wonder if a soul wouldn't simply reorganize a developing pattern it notices within itself?  For example, if my child were like a Hitler, that child would still be a part of me and I would try to guide him in more productive directions.  Does that make sense?

Kathy

PS  As a side note, I think of God as the ground of all being including the evolving consciousness system.

Kathy:

Hopefully a guy like Hitler will decide to change for the better. We can change for the better.

'It may be possible that a light being soul could create both a Hitler and a Mother Teresa and both would be a part of itself.  I mean, don't we all have a little of both good and bad in us?  The bad, in my opinion stems from fear and humans are extremely fearful as a species.  So I have to wonder if a soul wouldn't simply reorganize a developing pattern it notices within itself?  For example, if my child were like a Hitler, that child would still be a part of me and I would try to guide him in more productive directions.  Does that make sense?'

I agree with this.From my perspective the (horrible) irony is that it is the belief in the good/bad duality which helps keeps the 'bad' going. Look at Northern Island, the Catholics and the Protestants have to keep marching just to keep reminding themselves how 'bad' the other is ! But like Recoverer says we can change for the better; we can change our minds. In Northern Ireland now (though far from perfect) they have a level of peace which I thought I would never see in my lifetime because some people chose to change their minds.

DocM wrote,
Quote:

"My main problem with reincarnation is the notion of "getting it right, " as if we always "get it wrong."  Life isn't so cut and dry.  And a do-over doesn't necessarily evolve us in spirit.  I could have dozens of lifetimes, or hundreds, and not necessarily make spiritual progress.  Circumstance could set me back - karma could get more entwined as could ego, which must grow and be cultivated from each childhood. "

   Some don't see it quite as just "getting it right", but a combination of different processes that are interrelated.  Having experience for the sake of experience, growth of consciousness of the Whole, individual growth, and opening up to purer and purer levels of love. 

  It's more a matter of dropping hindrances to the ability to open up to love than necessarily getting it right.  Different people will describe it in slightly different ways with slightly different words, but it's the same essential concept, growing in love and general awareness or expansion of consciousness.

  And i'm not saying that this process has be completed here.  A number of sources talk about being here in this physical system for awhile, and eventually growing to complete the process in other physical or nonphysical systems that aren't much energetically connected to the physical Earth and it's related non physical dimensional aspects.

   The physical and it's conditions are fairly unique and intense in a lot of respects compared to many other levels/dimensions of Consciousness though, and that's part of reason why it's a popular place and why many do make repeated rounds here. 

  So many sources speak of this odd and common dichotomy of Consciousnesses and their attitudes to having lives here, a weird combination of excitement and appreciation for the opportunity, but also some definite reservation and caution because it IS so intense here, and easy to get off track of your original intents for incarnating. 

  Every time we incarnate into such a difficult and polarized stream, we do run the risk of getting off track some and regressing some, and while that's a consideration we also know that we have a lot of time and opportunity to grow. 

   And individually and temporarily speaking, there are different reasons for different individuals incarnating here.  Often with more immature souls, they incarnate here a lot because they are addicted to the excitement and drama of this place. They are like adrenaline junkies and often like having power, wealth, status and influence here.  These Disks and connected probes tend to cycle in and out fast and constantly, as much as circumstances and higher ups allow.   

  Some of us incarnate here less for specific and individual growth or any more "physical-emotional" experiences, and more to act as guides and positive energy centers for others (but they do grow through that as well, they just don't necessarily need to incarnate here). 

  And there is a whole range in between these.  Then there are many Consciousnesses who don't ever come to places like this.  Then there are some who once in a great while like to dip into places like this but spend most of their awareness in more fluid and harmonious states and dimensions. 

  Quite a range out there of activity, patterns, intents, motivation, but ultimately, whether the individual consciously knows or consciously works with it or not all the time, the purpose is the expansion of the individual and of the Whole in combo.

   Until you have more definite experiences and verification's with the concept of reincarnation (as some of us here have had), whether Disk type, literal, a combo, or something different, it will be more of an intellectual concept to you and you will tend to be more on fence.  And there is nothing wrong with that whatsoever, but you're speaking more as someone who guesses than knows from repeated experience. 

  If you really want to know the more whole and full truth of the matter, while meditating make the intent to connect only to the most loving, spiritually developed, aware, constructive-creative and helpful Consciousnesses and ask these with no preconceptions for help, guidance, and info about this.  If they think it's helpful for you and your growth, you will be given info about something along those lines at some point. 

  Practicing Bruce's feeling of love exercises whilst doing the above can only help and expand your sensitivity and awareness of those kinds of very expanded forces. 

  Talking to us here about it, is like a child asking your fellow child playmates while living in Cincinnati and all of them only having been there, "anybody knows what's going on in Barrow Alaska"   More pragmatic to ask and talk with a widely traveled adult that has been to that part of Alaska many times.

  Just makes more sense to talk to the grown ups for the more accurate scoop on things.  As far as i know and can tell, no one here, very much including myself, is currently a full grown adult in this sense.  The only in human that i consciously know of who we could say that about is the one Bob temporarily labeled "He/She" and many others call something differently. 

  By fully adult, i mean an individual completely and constantly opened up to the awareness and livingness of PUL and Oneness/Universal Consciousness, PUL incarnate.  My definition of true and real "enlightenment".