Cud souls incarnate in to the bodys, which already has been "in use" before ?

When asking these sorts of questions as a child (questions lacking any semblance of logic), my mom used to respond, "Don't be silly." 

Perhaps this response is appropriate here.

Are you asking about zombies? The living dead? That sort of thing?

I tend to think of such things as silly...however, it could be said that many people come back from a near death experience and, to them, it may appear that they are being thrust back into a body they have no interest in anymore, as they have experienced something different that they liked very much. Someone who is severely injured might be an example, as returning to their physical body can be very unpleasant.

<<Cud souls incarnate in to the bodys, which already has been "in use" before ?>>

No.

Also, if my reply seems vague, just read some accounts of "near death experiences" online and you will know what I mean. This is what people forget, that many people have been out of their bodies, but not completely, not for good. Some come back. These are not new souls incarnating into previously used bodies. But, they are changed during the process and often feel they have a better understanding of what awaits them after this life, and also a better understanding of what is important in this life.

The thing to remember when reading these, however, is that everyone has a unique experience. There are some similarities, which you can realize when you read many of these accounts. It is the similarities which are most important, in my view. The similarities are what make these accounts so reassuring, in general.

AriX wrote on Feb 10^th, 2016 at 8:19am:

Cud souls incarnate in to the bodys, which already has been "in use" before ?

The body is only a mortal coil; a suit that fits the soul.

Some people who can leave the body say they have temporarily entered other people's bodies. 

In east and west there are myths about gods and divine beings entering into human bodies. Zeus is known for doing so. 

There are numerous stories, contemporary, recent and historical, about bodily takeovers. Stories about mediums and channelers are common. So are stories about obsessions, possessions and foreign occupations, and the Church has a long history of exorcism rites for dealing with such situations.   

A great soul might take over a body after a lesser soul grows it up and prepares its neural network. And at the other end of the scale, a low soul may invade and occupy a body with a damaged neural network. In each case the first occupant has departed or is to some degree dissociated from the body. But I'm surmising of course, aren't I.   

https://youtu.be/2PIphk0mEX0

R

rondele wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 11:30am:

https://youtu.be/2PIphk0mEX0 R

I expect there are no shortage of potheads deluding themselves that they are "walk-ins".

Quote:

I expect there are no shortage of potheads deluding themselves that they are "walk-ins".

Not even potheads.  Just residents of the "New-Age Ghetto." 

<<Not even potheads.  Just residents of the "New-Age Ghetto.">>

Oh oh, I think Don just walked into Dude's body!  I was wondering where he went.

R

rondele wrote on Feb 12^th, 2016 at 12:53pm:

<<Not even potheads.  Just residents of the "New-Age Ghetto.">> Oh oh, I think Don just walked into Dude's body!  I was wondering where he went. R

Haha you know, there was a time when I was extremely aversive to the expression.  Now I know exactly what Don was talking about.  Ideas such as the one presented in the OP are shining examples of the NAG mentality in action. 

Yes, Don was spot-on with the NAG description.  All that's needed is to put the concept of walk-ins into the net and before you know it, tons of people delude themselves into thinking they too are walk ins.  Somewhere I read the Founding Fathers were walk ins.  Why not?  And there are plenty of variations, even "braid-ins".  A baby born the conventional way is (get ready) a "crawl-in."

It's fine to have an open mind, but the opening apparently is way too large and brains are falling out at a record rate.

R
ps Don, go back to your own body, leave Dude alone, I miss your posts.

I don't agree with Don's usage of New Age Ghetto. It is disrespectful and lacking in humility to speak in such a way. Before a person preaches to others he should learn a little about respect and humility.

I bet you Jesus wouldn't poke fun at people and put them down with comments such as new age ghetto.

What's the point of knowing about Jesus if people don't know about love, humility and respect for others? A person who doesn't live in such a way might some day call out, "Save me Jesus," and Jesus will probably respond, "Why didn't you save yourself by loving your neighbor as yourself?"





I Am Dude wrote on Feb 12^th, 2016 at 1:22pm:

rondele wrote on Feb 12th, 2016 at 12:53pm: <<Not even potheads.  Just residents of the "New-Age Ghetto.">> Oh oh, I think Don just walked into Dude's body!  I was wondering where he went. R Haha you know, there was a time when I was extremely aversive to the expression.  Now I know exactly what Don was talking about.  Ideas such as the one presented in the OP are shining examples of the NAG mentality in action.

And then there's the crowd of passive aggressive "spiritual" elitists, you know, the ones who are always making out they're above criticising others, but like to criticise others for criticising others, or even for having fun with others. Its a false way of feeling spiritually elevated. And a delusion, of course.

***

When I was a boy my father taught me to laugh at myself. He said, "Always laugh at your self son, and when others laugh at you, laugh with them."

I don't mind being the butt of jokes. To me its all fun. Being able to laugh at our self is a sign of maturity. And laughing at others is fine too. It encourages their maturity. he he he

    

1796:

I believe that your response is out of context. What if somebody insisted on calling you stupid as he tried to help you? Would you continue to seek his help, or would you value yourself too much to do so? It is one think to joke with people, and quite another to make negative comments about them because you despise them in some way.

I do not need to see fault in others in order to feel good about myself.

Regarding the original poster's question, my first inclination is to say that walks in don't occur, but the truth of the matter is that I really don't know. Whatever the case, I do not believe it was stupid for the original person to ask the question.




1796 wrote on Feb 12^th, 2016 at 5:25pm:

And then there's the crowd of passive aggressive "spiritual" elitists, you know, the ones who are always making out they're above criticising others, but like to criticise others for criticising others, or even for having fun with others. Its a false way of feeling spiritually elevated. And a delusion, of course. *** When I was a boy my father taught me to laugh at myself. He said, "Always laugh at your self son, and when others laugh at you, laugh with them." I don't mind being the butt of jokes. To me its all fun. Being able to laugh at our self is a sign of maturity. And laughing at others is fine too. It encourages their maturity. he he he

What's the difference between the concept of a walk-in and a virgin birth? One concept makes you special, the other just makes sense.

I find the concept of walk-ins rather interesting. It's not one that we've really discussed here before. I didn't view the video but I've been reading some literature online because of it being posted here.

The walk-in subject is so cumbersome to describe that it seems overly complicated in some ways. I don't recall ever reading about this from people who describe travels in and out of their bodies for other reasons, such as near death experiences.

Ambivalent, that's amusing. You seem to become less ambivalent by the day. :)

Albert, I think we all could benefit from cultivating a sense of humor and not taking things so serious.  Reminds me of times when my JW friend would come over with his Watchtower and Awake magazines and insisted on studying them together.  He was always so serious and even grim with the subtle warnings of what I would face if I didn't convert.

One day I told him that the thing that bothered me the most was the lack of joy in his message and in his dour demeanor.  One would think that if you possessed the "truth" and were one of God's chosen few, you'd be a bit more happy about it.

Regarding Jesus, I doubt he'd be upset about criticising new age stuff.  Seth, ACIM, Elias etc is hardly consistent with His teachings.

R

recoverer wrote on Feb 12^th, 2016 at 4:51pm:

I don't agree with Don's usage of New Age Ghetto. It is disrespectful and lacking in humility to speak in such a way. Before a person preaches to others he should learn a little about respect and humility. I bet you Jesus wouldn't poke fun at people and put them down with comments such as new age ghetto. What's the point of knowing about Jesus if people don't know about love, humility and respect for others? A person who doesn't live in such a way might some day call out, "Save me Jesus," and Jesus will probably respond, "Why didn't you save yourself by loving your neighbor as yourself?" I Am Dude wrote on Feb 12th, 2016 at 1:22pm: rondele wrote on Feb 12th, 2016 at 12:53pm: <<Not even potheads.  Just residents of the "New-Age Ghetto.">> Oh oh, I think Don just walked into Dude's body!  I was wondering where he went. R Haha you know, there was a time when I was extremely aversive to the expression.  Now I know exactly what Don was talking about.  Ideas such as the one presented in the OP are shining examples of the NAG mentality in action.

Rondele, Don's spirit has finally left my body.  Strangely, I woke up to find bibles and crucifixes all over my house.  I'll have to donate them to the local church I suppose.

Albert, I agree that the term can be offensive, particularly to those who entertain beliefs associated with that mentality.  I didn't mean any offense in using it.  Perhaps "New Age Ignorance" would be a better fitting term.  I suppose the main problem with the expression is that it seems to lump all "new agers" into one category, when in reality, one can entertain certain new age beliefs in a way that is logical, intelligent, and based on real experience, in no way reflecting a "ghetto" mentality.  The term can even be seen as a bit racist, as a ghetto has more to do with the presence of minorities than it does ignorance. 

Roger:

Of course I don't know what Jesus would do, I'm just supposing. That said, he might speak critically of the sources you mentioned, but he would probably do so in a respectful way. He would choose such a way because within his heart he would cherish the people he is speaking to.

Regarding New Ageism, without getting into how much new ageism includes, I believe that there are a lot of well meaning and good hearted people who are involved with new age teachings. Not just for their own sake, but also because they want to make this world a better place.

As far as what parts of new age teachings are nonsense and which aren't, this isn't always easy to see. For example, I don't know anything about Astrology. I could be quick to dismiss it by saying "how could random constellations in the sky have the meaning some people state?" I won't though, partly because several people I know of that seem to have good discrimination, have found that there is some truth to Astrology.







rondele wrote on Feb 12^th, 2016 at 6:25pm:

Albert, I think we all could benefit from cultivating a sense of humor and not taking things so serious.  Reminds me of times when my JW friend would come over with his Watchtower and Awake magazines and insisted on studying them together.  He was always so serious and even grim with the subtle warnings of what I would face if I didn't convert. One day I told him that the thing that bothered me the most was the lack of joy in his message and in his dour demeanor.  One would think that if you possessed the "truth" and were one of God's chosen few, you'd be a bit more happy about it. Regarding Jesus, I doubt he'd be upset about criticising new age stuff.  Seth, ACIM, Elias etc is hardly consistent with His teachings. R

Dude:

For the most part I believe it isn't the fault of new age people that questionable parts of new ageism exists. We all need time to develop discrimination. Perhaps the human race will reach the day where it isn't so easily fooled by the numerous misleading things that are out there, both new age and non-new age.



I Am Dude wrote on Feb 12^th, 2016 at 6:49pm:

recoverer wrote on Feb 12th, 2016 at 4:51pm: I don't agree with Don's usage of New Age Ghetto. It is disrespectful and lacking in humility to speak in such a way. Before a person preaches to others he should learn a little about respect and humility. I bet you Jesus wouldn't poke fun at people and put them down with comments such as new age ghetto. What's the point of knowing about Jesus if people don't know about love, humility and respect for others? A person who doesn't live in such a way might some day call out, "Save me Jesus," and Jesus will probably respond, "Why didn't you save yourself by loving your neighbor as yourself?" I Am Dude wrote on Feb 12th, 2016 at 1:22pm: rondele wrote on Feb 12th, 2016 at 12:53pm: <<Not even potheads.  Just residents of the "New-Age Ghetto.">> Oh oh, I think Don just walked into Dude's body!  I was wondering where he went. R Haha you know, there was a time when I was extremely aversive to the expression.  Now I know exactly what Don was talking about.  Ideas such as the one presented in the OP are shining examples of the NAG mentality in action.  Rondele, Don's spirit has finally left my body.  Strangely, I woke up to find bibles and crucifixes all over my house.  I'll have to donate them to the local church I suppose. Albert, I agree that the term can be offensive, particularly to those who entertain beliefs associated with that mentality.  I didn't mean any offense in using it.  Perhaps "New Age Ignorance" would be a better fitting term.  I suppose the main problem with the expression is that it seems to lump all "new agers" into one category, when in reality, one can entertain certain new age beliefs in a way that is logical, intelligent, and based on real experience, in no way reflecting a "ghetto" mentality.  The term can even be seen as a bit racist, as a ghetto has more to do with the presence of minorities than it does ignorance.

I prefer to take responsibility for the path that I walk, and I feel that under normal circumstances, others should likewise be held accountable.  After all, the adoption of new age ideas is a choice, not something forced upon us.  The love and light philosophies of the new age bring many people comfort, and there are those who would prefer to convince/delude themselves of such ideas, partly because it allows them to bypass the otherwise difficult task of genuine self investigation and coming to terms with aspects of their reality that they would rather ignore.

recoverer wrote on Feb 12^th, 2016 at 5:47pm:

1796: What if somebody insisted on calling you stupid as he tried to help you? Would you continue to seek his help, or would you value yourself too much to do so?

I am stupid. For instance, I am not mentally dexterous.

Whatever I have to do. A man must do what he as to do, put up with what he has to put up with.

Everything in life is comparable to the alternative/s.



Quote:

For the most part I believe it isn't the fault of new age people that questionable parts of new ageism exists.

Whose fault is it then?

Fortune cookie says: Every wise man started out by asking many questions.

Without getting into it too much, I believe that new age teachings that are misleading come from those who seek to mislead.

I don't blame the people that are misled because we all need time to develop discrimination.


1796 wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 6:35am:

recoverer wrote on Feb 12th, 2016 at 5:47pm: 1796: What if somebody insisted on calling you stupid as he tried to help you? Would you continue to seek his help, or would you value yourself too much to do so? I am stupid. For instance, I am not mentally dexterous. Whatever I have to do. A man must do what he as to do, put up with what he has to put up with. Everything in life is comparable to the alternative/s. Quote: For the most part I believe it isn't the fault of new age people that questionable parts of new ageism exists. Whose fault is it then?

Excellent point!


seagull wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 10:22am:

Fortune cookie says: Every wise man started out by asking many questions.

That is an actual fortune cookie piece of paper that I ran across while moving objects around in my home today. I take no credit. It is reality revealing itself.

recoverer wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 1:07pm:

Without getting into it too much, I believe that new age teachings that are misleading come from those who seek to mislead. ...

Oh, the lizard people, I presume?


Quote:

...I don't blame the people that are misled because we all need time to develop discrimination.

Recoverer, you don't define what you mean by discrimination. And you don't provide a context.

You occasionally use the word in a vague sentence, knowing its conflicting uses and connotations.

Common usage by the left of the term "discrimination" is usually as a mindless put down.

We frequently hear lefties saying, "That's discrimination", as a thoughtless way of dismissing an idea they don't like, and as a meaningless insult to whoever put forward the idea.

From the left side of western institutions and organisations, particularly those influenced by social psychology, is frequently heard the assertion: "You must not discriminate." Along with their other favourite squawk, "You must not generalise".

In those fields of employment at the left end of the socio-industrial spectrum where one's personality and opinions are considered more important than one's ability to do the officially declared job, such as in the government funded social sciences and in the various streams of societal engineering, to accuse someone of discrimination is likely to trigger gossip that will lead to their dismissal. Even if they survive the dismissal attempt, the accusation will stick and they may be pressed out of their job by malicious passive aggression. This malicious usage of the word discrimination, as a weapon, occurs despite propagators being aware of its correct usage. 

Social psychology students and even primary school children get guilted into complying with thought restrictions by teachers frequently telling them, "That's wrong because that's discrimination". 

Discrimination gets hammered home in the social sciences, and in child and youth education as something we must not do, and if we do discriminate then we are a bad person. The accusation of discriminating is nearly always used vaguely, with no or little meaning other than it means "you're bad", so that just the sound of the word being levelled at oneself is enough to cause a student fear of failure and a worker fear of dismissal.   


However, the word discrimination is used differently in fields where truth and reality matter, than it is in those fields where what matters is manipulative power and control over people's opinions.

In fields such as mineralogy, biology, immunology, physics, and the development of artificial intelligence, and other genuine sciences, particularly in the private sector and at the right end of the socio-industrial spectrum where one's ability to do the declared job is more important than one's personal opinions, the word discrimination refers to a functional ability to differentiate and evaluate the differences between one item and another.

The discriminatory function may be quantum/atomic, molecular, cellular, mechanical, chemical, electronic, or any other.   

There is a distinction between the terms differentiate or discern, and discriminate.

The distinction between differentiate and discriminate is that to differentiate means to discern the existent difference between one thing and another, the two of which may be or may not be the same as each other. The term differentiate is therefore more a numerical and positional distinction than a qualitative one. For example, one may differentiate between two identical items.

To discriminate though, refers not only to the ability to discern different items, but also the ability to differentiate between the qualities of the different items discerned.

As an illustrative example, a prospector's metal detector can differentiate between there being two metallic items under the ground, and can also discriminate between which item is iron and which is gold. The distinction therefore is not only between there being one item and another, but also between their differences in quality. That is discrimination.

The word discrimination is used in this same regard in cognitive psychology, although quietly and only in some quarters, for there is a fundamental rift between cognitive and social psychology, and it is from social psychology that the push comes to demonise discrimination and to eliminate people's ability to exercise it.

In such quarters of cognitive psychology the term discriminate refers to the conscious ability to differentiate between one thing and another and to evaluate the differences between them.

Discrimination, therefore, in the cognitive sense, is not only the ability to differentiate between the existence of one thing and another, in number and position, but is also the ability to differentiate between and evaluate any existent qualities.

Discrimination by its ability to recognise degrees of similarity and difference, enables generalisation, which is the ability to recognise a discernable pattern within a majority.

Discrimination underpins intelligence, which is the ability to freely choose from discernable items.

The degree of fineness to which one can discriminate, and therefore generalise, is the measure of one's intelligence quotient or general intelligence factor (IQ/g). Intelligence is distinct from one's education and knowledge, for intelligence is the potential to be educated, and underlies what we are able to do with what we know.    

Without the ability to discriminate, intelligence cannot function. One becomes a manipulable automaton. 

1796:

I think most people know what discrimination is, so perhaps there wasn't a need to say all that you wrote. :)

Speaking of Lizard people (since you brought up the subject), perhaps I'm not using good discrimination when I share this--I'll go ahead and do so anyway.

A few weeks ago I was meditating one night and suddenly I saw a Reptilian-like being and he was wearing a hood. He looked very unfriendly and it felt as if he doesn't like me. This experience was interesting because I felt my awareness within my body and within the bridge of the Reptilian's space ship at the same time.

It could be that my oversoul created this experience for one of two reasons. One, in order to let me know that unfriendly Reptilian like beings do in fact interact with this world. Past information I received about unfriendly aliens didn't tend to specify Reptilians (two might've). This experience did.

Two, my Oversoul wanted to let me know that even if I did meet a Reptilian like being, it wouldn't be able to harm me, because in this case the being I met didn't.

Regarding the hallucination possibility, going by extensive past experience with supernatural things, I do not believe this was a hallucination. If it was a hallucinaton, I figure it would repeat in some way.

Back to options number one and two, option one seems more likely when compared to option two. Whether I actually interacted with a Reptilian, I'm not certain.

Even though there is some questionable information about Reptilians, some of it seems believable to me. If Reptilians do in fact interact with this world in a negative way, and we choose to not find out if this is so, we do them a favor.






1796 wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 9:53pm:

Common usage by the left of the term "discrimination" is usually as a mindless put down. We frequently hear lefties saying, "That's discrimination", as a thoughtless way of dismissing an idea they don't like, and as a meaningless insult to whoever put forward the idea. From the left side of western institutions and organisations, particularly those influenced by social psychology, is frequently heard the assertion: "You must not discriminate." Along with their other favourite squawk, "You must not generalise". In those fields of employment at the left end of the socio-industrial spectrum where one's personality and opinions are considered more important than one's ability to do the officially declared job, such as in the government funded social sciences and in the various streams of societal engineering, to accuse someone of discrimination is likely to trigger gossip that will lead to their dismissal. Even if they survive the dismissal attempt, the accusation will stick and they may be pressed out of their job by malicious passive aggression. This malicious usage of the word discrimination, as a weapon, occurs despite propagators being aware of its correct usage.  Social psychology students and even primary school children get guilted into complying with thought restrictions by teachers frequently telling them, "That's wrong because that's discrimination".  Discrimination gets hammered home in the social sciences, and in child and youth education as something we must not do, and if we do discriminate then we are a bad person. The accusation of discriminating is nearly always used vaguely, with no or little meaning other than it means "you're bad", so that just the sound of the word being levelled at oneself is enough to cause a student fear of failure and a worker fear of dismissal.    However, the word discrimination is used differently in fields where truth and reality matter, than it is in those fields where what matters is manipulative power and control over people's opinions. In fields such as mineralogy, biology, immunology, physics, and the development of artificial intelligence, and other genuine sciences, particularly in the private sector and at the right end of the socio-industrial spectrum where one's ability to do the declared job is more important than one's personal opinions, the word discrimination refers to a functional ability to differentiate and evaluate the differences between one item and another. The discriminatory function may be quantum/atomic, molecular, cellular, mechanical, chemical, electronic, or any other.    There is a distinction between the terms differentiate or discern, and discriminate. The distinction between differentiate and discriminate is that to differentiate means to discern the existent difference between one thing and another, the two of which may be or may not be the same as each other. The term differentiate is therefore more a numerical and positional distinction than a qualitative one. For example, one may differentiate between two identical items. To discriminate though, refers not only to the ability to discern different items, but also the ability to differentiate between the qualities of the different items discerned. As an illustrative example, a prospector's metal detector can differentiate between there being two metallic items under the ground, and can also discriminate between which item is iron and which is gold. The distinction therefore is not only between there being one item and another, but also between their differences in quality. That is discrimination. And it underpins intelligence, which is the ability to choose from discerned items. Discrimination also enables generalisation, which is the ability to recognise a discernable pattern within a majority. Without the ability to discriminate, intelligence cannot function. One becomes a manipulable automaton.       The word discrimination is used in this same regard in cognitive psychology, although quietly and only in some quarters, for there is a fundamental rift between cognitive and social psychology, and it is from social psychology that the push comes to demonise discrimination and to eliminate people's ability to exercise it. In such quarters of cognitive psychology the term discriminate refers to the conscious ability to differentiate between one thing and another and to evaluate the differences between them. Discrimination, therefore, in the cognitive sense, is not only the ability to differentiate between the existence of one thing and another, in number and position, but is also the ability to differentiate between and evaluate any existent qualities.

Recoverer, you clearly have no idea what a hallucination or delusion is, or how they are generated, and no idea what the functions of the mind are, how the mind works, or how it misadjusts. 

1796:

Somebody might say the same thing to you if you told them about your Oversoul experiences, or about what you learned about Astrology. Some people might consider such viewpoints as crazy as Reptilian talk.

Or how about that whole out of body experience thing? Crazy!


1796 wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 10:47pm:

Recoverer, you clearly have no idea what a hallucination or delusion is, or how they are generated, and no idea what the functions of the mind are, how the mind works, or how it misadjusts.

recoverer wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 10:38pm:

... A few weeks ago I was meditating one night and suddenly I saw a Reptilian-like being and he was wearing a hood. He looked very unfriendly and it felt as if he doesn't like me. This experience was interesting because I felt my awareness within my body and within the bridge of the Reptilian's space ship at the same time. ... Regarding the hallucination possibility, going by extensive past experience with supernatural things, I do not believe this was a hallucination. If it was a hallucinaton, I figure it would repeat in some way. ...

You are devoid of reason, and of knowledge of how the mind works. You cannot explain things, except by fallacious logic. If you knew, you could explain.

If you could differentiate between reality and hallucinations you would not have to surmise, guess, or attempt to legitimise it as real by saying "If it was a hallucination I figure it would repeat in some way". That is just ignorant nonsense. Repetition is not how hallucinations are identified.

Dynamic hallucinations and delusions are identified by their interaction with their supporting static beliefs, between which they naturally arise, to reconcile the disconnected beliefs, and to reconcile reality and the beliefs. Hallucinations are not identified by examining them in isolation, but by examining the shape of the overall mindset.

You have revealed your relevant beliefs and the shape of your mindset, and that you would have reptilian hallucinations is quite predictable.   

1796:

I suppose it is safe to say that you know that your life in this world is more than an illusion that only you experience, because when you consider how all of the data adds up, it is quite clear that you share this world with others.

I am able to tell whether I am doing more than having illusions, by how all of the data adds up.

What other people have found out about unfriendly aliens doesn't become a non-fact, simply because you haven't found out the same. What people are able to know is not limited and defined by what you have discovered.

You are egocentric and delusional if you believe that people can't know about things that you don't know about.



1796 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2016 at 1:13am:

recoverer wrote on Feb 13th, 2016 at 10:38pm: ... A few weeks ago I was meditating one night and suddenly I saw a Reptilian-like being and he was wearing a hood. He looked very unfriendly and it felt as if he doesn't like me. This experience was interesting because I felt my awareness within my body and within the bridge of the Reptilian's space ship at the same time. ... Regarding the hallucination possibility, going by extensive past experience with supernatural things, I do not believe this was a hallucination. If it was a hallucinaton, I figure it would repeat in some way. ... You are devoid of reason, and of knowledge of how the mind works. You cannot explain things, except by fallacious logic. If you knew, you could explain. If you could differentiate between reality and hallucinations you would not have to surmise, guess, or attempt to legitimise it as real by saying "If it was a hallucination I figure it would repeat in some way". That is just ignorant nonsense. Repetition is not how hallucinations are identified. Dynamic hallucinations and delusions are identified by their interaction with their supporting static beliefs, between which they naturally arise, to reconcile the disconnected beliefs, and to reconcile reality and the beliefs. Hallucinations are not identified by examining them in isolation, but by examining the shape of the overall mindset. You have revealed your relevant beliefs and the shape of your mindset, and that you would have reptilian hallucinations is quite predictable.

Most of my contacts know more than I do about most subjects. I am pleased to have many such contacts.

A common retort of yours when challenged, is to dispute a claim not made. You make a sidestep with a fake defence intended to infer an accusation or a counter accusation. Its a lame tactic though; there's no meeting of reason there.

Think of me as you like.



1796 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2016 at 4:10am:

Most of my contacts know more than I do about most subjects. I am pleased to have many such contacts. A common retort of yours when challenged, is to dispute a claim not made. You make a sidestep with a fake defence intended to infer an accusation or a counter accusation. Its a lame tactic though; there's no meeting of reason there.

I guess it could also be said that we each incarnate a new being in each moment, being that we are unique in each moment of time, and there is much about time and space that we do not yet understand.

So, if you multiply that by the infinite moments that exist, and the infinite possibilities that exist for our unique presentation of each moment, you may just call yourself a new-ager.

Well, well, it is easy to lose focus of what is important. At the end of the day, while on earth at least, some of the big ones in life are hope, faith & love. But greatest of them all is the blue whale.

You are so right. I am overwhelmed by how right that statement really is.

You have one body one life and then the judgment

Reincarnation is a demonic lie