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

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.

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.

https://youtu.be/2PIphk0mEX0

R

Quote:


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

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


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.

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:

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:

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.

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


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.

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 12^th, 2016 at 5:47pm:

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:

Whose fault is it then?

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:

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.

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. 

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:


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.

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.

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