Larry Neal Gowdy - Reincarnation of the Soul Proof or Belief
||| Logics Home || Logics Site Info |||
Larry Neal Gowdy - Reincarnation of the Soul Proof or Belief
(PD) Edward Theodore Compton - Im Wald von Valdoniello
Copyright©2013-2014 - December 26, 2013 (updated December 07, 2014 - typo edits)
Note: this article is of a controversial topic that some people intensely enjoy and some people intensely dislike. Most of my articles on The Logics are of relatively neutral topics that have little impact on a person's beliefs, but the topic of reincarnation brings to the surface and challenges each individual's most deeply seated beliefs. If we say yes to reincarnation, then upon what logic do we believe reincarnation to be true? If we say no to reincarnation, again, upon what logic do we believe that reincarnation is not possible? Please read the full article before forming a conclusion of what the article is pointing to. For myself, my answer for reincarnation will likely always remain "I don't know."
Abstract: The topic of reincarnation is difficult to discuss because there is rarely any verifiable evidence of whether reincarnation might be true or false, and too, the beliefs and interpretations themselves are too frequently formed upon imaginations that have no basis of firsthand observations. Within this article I have attempted to give a well-rounded overview of reincarnation, of how the belief is influenced by an individual's own psychological history, plus how the belief itself might in part be a natural biological effect acquired in the womb. My aim for the article is to present to the reader several concepts that give rise to questions that are rarely publicly asked.
Too, all opinions expressed in the article are my own, and not derived from any source other than my own interpretations of my own life. The opinions are not formed upon the beliefs or doctrines of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, science, or any other ideology. I really do not care what the many ideologies believe, all I care about is discovering what is logical for myself, and while it may be true that my subjective interpretations do not make for a favored method of investigation, still the interpretations are useful for raising questions that deserve sincere attention.
And why would I place such a controversial topic on The Logics? It is my opinion that all topics deserve an honest discussion, to determine for ourselves if the topics are suitable for further investigation. If we ignore a topic simply because the topic may not agree with a culture's popular opinion, then the ignoring is itself an act of belief and an act of following the herd, and not an act of rational logic. If The Logics is supposed to be about logic, then let's see where logic leads us.
Links to the Sections on This Page:
I am adding this section towards the beginning of the article so as to more clearly emphasize that the topic of reincarnation is very much more complex than what is commonly believed. Some individuals are content to believe in a 'yes reincarnation is true' or a 'no reincarnation is not true', which is fine and an acceptable belief for them, but some of us approach topics with an exponential extrapolation that questions each feature of a topic, and then we question each question's question, on and on until either we land upon a suitable form of evidence that supports a specific hypothesis, or else we reach the limits of our knowledge, at which time we then recognize that we cannot form a suitable answer for the original question.
The following example is useful as a means of illustrating a small portion of the topics that we must be knowledgeable of before we can form a rational conclusion of whether the example might be true, false, or something else. If we cannot form a solid foundation of evidence for a hypothesis, then the conclusion should remain "I don't know." For myself, I enjoy musing of different possibilities, but still the final answers are all of the same conclusion: I don't know, and I will not pretend to know anything beyond that of the firsthand experience of an experience itself.
Let's begin with a simple perception that appears to suggest that a soul has already incarnated (joined with organic matter). For the moment it does not matter if a person believes or disbelieves in the existence of souls; the important focus is to observe how an experience is described, and from that description we can then determine whether the perception was derived from firsthand perceptions or whether the perception was invented in the mind. As the SQ intelligence tests amply verify, there is an objectively measurable difference between how a person describes firsthand experiences and imagined experiences. The differences are obvious, and regardless of how much effort an individual may apply towards pretending to have perceived a perception, still will the person's wording describe whether the perception was firsthand or imaginary. For the moment the belief or disbelief in souls is irrelevant, but rather what is important is to observe and learn how the popular beliefs of reincarnation are presented to the public. If a description of reincarnation is presented from a firsthand point of view, then we will have reason to ask more questions about the firsthand experience, but if a description of reincarnation is presented from an imaginary point of view, then we will have reason to direct our attention to a different topic.
The specific perception in question (greatly abbreviated for brevity's sake as well as to not speak of several specific details that describe the differences between firsthand and imaginary) is that of a self-awareness of one's self existing as a self-presence (a "me") as well as an "I", and the self-presence as well as the "I" have joined with 'another-self' that is of more presence than the self-presence (in adult terms the other self is larger, that of the adult human body relative to about the size of a house), and after a pause of major events and changes occurring external to the self, the newly combined 'self and other-self' then becomes a duality while the "I" remains unchanged relative to the other-self (analogous to standing on the front porch while one's house unexpectedly doubles itself into a duplex).
To form an opinion of whether the perception might be true or false, which questions should we ask first? The quantity of questions popping into mind will be relative to how well an individual is knowledgeable about other topics that include biology, electrical physics, psychology, sensory perception, and on and on. Do we first ask about transductive electrical fields, or do we jump to hypotheses of the brain, or do we first ask for a description of the mind, or do we first demand a definition of what consciousness implies, or what? If we hope to give a reasonable answer about the perception, then it is required that we first have a full knowledge of all related topics, a knowledge that is exact, unerring, and exhaustively complete, which is extraordinarily unlikely for any human.
Let's proceed with what is popularly believed to be a primary ingredient of all organic matter, that of electrical physics. We could hypothesize that awareness, perception, and the "I" are products of an electrical field in motion within an ether (analogous to a metal sphere moving through a magnetic field creating an electrical charge), but we actually do not know what an electrical field is, nor how electricity is created. Modern physics has only recently accepted that electrical fields must be relative to matter - not the older belief that electrical fields could propagate independently from matter - and since there is no knowledge whatsoever of what created the thing that we term to be electricity, then no electrical hypothesis can explain the incarnation perception. If electrical current were the thing that creates consciousness, then all light bulbs are conscious when lit, and if relative motion is an ingredient of consciousness, then all lit light bulbs are conscious in moving vehicles while all humans would cease consciousness when lying still. An electrically-based consciousness hypothesis quickly finds itself to be fully implausible because there is no observable electric field in the universe that remains perfectly stable, and since the "me" and the "I" remain the same regardless of health, age, and even in dreams, then there is no reason whatsoever to entertain the possibility that consciousness could be electrically-based. Additional questions begin forming here that ask why consciousness could possibly be the effect of any 3D field, and the questions lead to dozens of immediate conclusions that suggest a need for more knowledge than what we possess.
The brain hypothesis - that of the brain being the one and only means of all thought, memories, and perceptions - is false in all fashions. All hypotheses of the brain are founded upon the belief in electrical activity being the reason for all brain activity, but since electrical theory is known to be incomplete and to be unknown of its nature, plus that the unexpectedly stable "me" and "I" cannot be based upon unstable electrical currents, then no brain theory can be complete or acceptable. Too, there is no evidence of anything anywhere in Nature that it could be possible for roughly 500-billion brain cells to store trillions of trillions of trillions of bits of thoughts, memories, emotions, and sensory perceptions. The hypothesis of the brain being the seat of consciousness and thought is a hypothesis that is not based upon any known physics or common sense. If it is known that the current hypotheses of the brain are invalid, then it is also known that the incarnation perception cannot be judged relative to any brain hypotheses.
What of psychology, that of hypothesizing that the individual's brain self-invented the perception? The psychological hypothesis immediately fails because it is known that the brain hypothesis failed, and since psychology is based upon the belief of the brain being the seat of all thought, then psychological hypotheses are immediately rejected as being implausible. Nevertheless, the next question is to ask if the mind somehow invented the incarnation perception, and though it might be unknown how the mind exists and processes information, still it is observable that most or all humans self-invent beliefs that are obviously not true (like brain theories). Here we continue asking other questions including that of whether or not the incarnation perception is accurate relative to what we can objectively observe in material things.
Having arrived at an answer that yes the incarnation perception does appear to be objectively supported in its description of organic cells duplicating, then the next question is to ask if the individual arrived at the incarnation perception by firsthand experience, or whether the memory was invented as a child who learned of cell duplication, or whether the information was somehow implanted into the fetal mind by the mother's emotions and thoughts.
We do not know how much information is passed from the mother to fetus, and so we cannot immediately adequately hypothesize whether the information was derived from the mother or from some other source, but we can ask the question of whether the mother held a sufficient knowledge of cell duplication to pass-down to the fetus. If the mother is found to have had no knowledge of the manner of cell duplication described within the incarnation perception, then the hypothesis of the knowledge being handed-down to the fetus is deemed implausible.
Within the incarnated cell duplication description there is included the perception of relative sizes, relative movements, relative humidities, and among the numerous other perceptions is a description that describes the event from a firsthand observation and not from a learned visualization (the differences of description are obvious and objectively unmistakable). If the description were invented by the mind, then the question asks how the mind could have invented such a detailed description prior to the child being born, or even invented after being born since the descriptions have still not yet today been taught in schools. If the human mind requires firsthand sensorial experience to be used for all abstract thoughts, then from where did the incarnation perception acquire its base of information? Here the questions expand in many directions including that of posing improbable scenarios that of themselves must be adequately explained why they are implausible before we can then conclude that the unlikely scenarios are implausible, and since we do not have full knowledge of all things, then we cannot positively state that any scenario is fully ruled-out.
Was the incarnation perception a form of clairvoyance that perceived a future knowledge? If not, then why not? Can we find any reason to conclusively state that clairvoyance is not possible? What if the incarnation perception were of a different form of physical memory-retention that is later recognized by the developed mind and then believed to have been a firsthand memory? Are all events in one's life already known, and the remembering of any event is merely the remembering of what was already known? The questions are endless.
And when we exhaust ourselves with questions that cannot be answered, then we can progress to the next incarnation perception - of which there are many dozens - that describes the body being composed of many 'selves' that originated from the first duplication of the combinative selves, that the body had a predetermined design, and on and on including a state of development of where the "I" resided as if forward of the body, although still connected. Again the questions are many, and as we progress through each set of questions we then ask more questions about the first questions, extrapolating further and further. If the incarnation perception was correct in its descriptions of singular-self, combined-self, duplication, body composed of the duplications, the heart located semi-external of the torso, the several different types of growth stages, and on and on, each described from the firsthand point of view and not from the learned point of view, then we may still conclude that we do not possess sufficient knowledge to positively say yes or no for any question, but we can acknowledge that the evidence strongly suggests that the descriptions were formed from within the firsthand point of view. We still do not know if the experience denotes a soul, or an organic field within an ether, or anything else, but we do acknowledge that to the best of our knowledge and ability to reason, the firsthand experience itself is valid.
Within the example given, the one thing that is missing relative to reincarnation is the absence of description of a previous organic life. Though the description might very clearly describe the acts of organic matter as well as what may have existed immediately prior to the existence of the organic matter, and the descriptions may well describe the differences between the "I" mind and the human mind's stages of development, still the descriptions tell us nothing specific of whether the "I" consciousness is a soul, a multi-dimensional field-presence, or anything else.
It is here that we must permit and accept that though no known human has knowledge sufficient enough to form a rational concept of how or why a thing occurred anywhere in the universe, still we can recognize the descriptions as firsthand, and we can then draw from the descriptions a suitable logic, that if the descriptions prove valid then we should give weight to the portions of descriptions that describe a knowing that this life was planned from a time previous to organic matter, that the plan was to include the "I" and the organic matter coexisting together for a specific purpose, and that there would be an act of experiencing life together now and to be continued for a specific duration of events. In this example, the evidence of correctly describing organic matter infers that the description of purpose is likely also valid, and therefore if the purpose is valid then so is it reasonable and plausible that the "I" existed prior to the forming of matter, and thus - in a common terminology - the "I" is as a conscious entity that exists independent of organic matter and independent of known 3D physics.
To further clarify, the three dimensions known to science are length, width, and height. Time is sometimes referred to as a fourth dimension, but time is merely a two-dimensional man-measured length of sequenced events, and so therefore time is technically not a dimension. Any dimension beyond three must be different than the three: not length, nor width, nor height. If there is no word for the fourth dimension - and indeed there is none - then all hypotheses about a 4+ dimensional consciousness are imaginary and known from the beginning to be based upon no knowledge whatsoever of what a fourth dimension might be. A deck of cards does not contain 156 dimensions; adding three-dimensional shapes over and over does not make more dimensions than the original three. The popular physics belief of reality being based upon eleven dimensions is a belief that adds three-dimensional shapes over and over; the popular description of physics never exceeds 3D, and therefore popular physics is not a suitable judge of whether a soul-consciousness can or cannot exist.
The evidence supporting a non-3D form of consciousness is within the clarity of details described within the firsthand experience, plus the full absence of any plausible explanation by any form of science of why the non-3D consciousness cannot exist. For the moment, the firsthand description is the only evidence and the only hypothesis that withstands scrutiny. For over a decade the SQ tests evolved to include questions that positively distinguish between fact and imagination, with the newest questions being quite excellent for preventing all forms of cheating (a large percentage of people do cheat on intelligence tests, and at least one person who is popularly believed to have one of the highest IQs is known to have cheated, and the person even admitted it in public). A three-dimensional thinking person cannot cheat on a four-dimensional test simply because the three-dimensional thought-process cannot think beyond three dimensions, and no quantity of 3D words and attempts of cheating will ever produce a mental concept that exceeds 3D. A Fox news special recently promoted a 'child prodigy' who claimed to think 4D while the boy drew three-dimensional blocks on a chalkboard as alleged proof. Three dimensions - height, width, and length - are three dimensions, not four regardless of how many times the same three dimensions are repeated. The quantity of fraud within the fields of science is quite large, and yet public opinion about reincarnation is primarily formed upon what the public has been told by science. The SQ tests verify that most humans typically do not think beyond two dimensions when analyzing a topic, and if the typical human does not effortlessly think three-dimensionally, then why would it be assumed that the typical human would grasp four dimensions or be capable of judging whether a four-dimensional description is valid or invalid?
In private I have been told memories of individuals' that parallel the memories of other individuals' who have never met, and the memories are unlike anything known to have been written and made available to the public. If a specific group of individuals speak of similar firsthand experiences that describe events unknown to science and religions, and there was no possibility of the individuals having learned of or self-invented the experiences through having first read or heard other people speaking of the experiences, then what is the answer to their memories? Were the memories simply a freak coincidence, or might there be something more?
I myself have always interpreted incarnation as a valid perception even though I openly admit that I do not have sufficient knowledge to substantiate the how and why, but I do possess the firsthand experience, which is the one and only interpretation that can be objectively verified. But on reincarnation, of that I am unsure. Perhaps some conscious entities incarnate repeatedly, and perhaps my incarnation is the first time, I don't know for sure, but this is my life, my experience, and for me the experience remains the sole purpose.
If a person believes that it is not possible to be aware of one's own conception, nor for there to exist a non-3D form of consciousness, then fine, no problem, but if the person wants to convince other people to believe the same belief, then the person must present a reason why the belief ought to be believed. And what possible reason could be presented to convince anyone of the belief? If all hypotheses of physics, biology, psychology, and philosophy are known to be false, then upon what reasoning will the person rely upon as evidence of his belief's validity? What if the person were to rely upon his own firsthand experiences? Again questions rise, and among the first questions will be to correlate that if over 99% of humans cannot adequately describe anything - a well-established fact derived through over a decade of objective research - then why is it believed that the person is able to adequately describe any firsthand experience at all? What firsthand experiences lend a suitable reason to believe that a non-3D consciousness cannot exist? Can the firsthand descriptions survive objective scrutiny? Why is it believed that not experiencing a thing somehow proves the thing to not exist?
Perhaps the foundational reason why many people believe or disbelieve in early consciousness is because the people believe what authority tells people to believe - as verified by the Milgram experiments - and not because the individuals know the reasons of why early consciousness ought to exist or ought not to exist. If a person believes in the inerrancy and omniscience of authority, then the person has no choice but to accept and to believe in everything that the authorities demand, even when it is empirically proven beyond all doubt that the authority's beliefs are false.
The only authority worthy of listening to is one's own self.
Imagine yourself standing on the land and viewing the landscape as illustrated in Compton's painting. Now describe to yourself what you see and think, and as you describe the landscape, give attention to the location of each object.
Where are the trees? Where are the mountains? Where are the clouds? Where is the sun? Where are you?
Which is older, the trees or the mountains? Which is older, the sky or the mountains? Continue imagining yourself as existing in the landscape, and ponder what it would be like to live your life in a similar environment.
Now look at your computer monitor or other device that you are using to view this page. Where is the device located? How old is the device? From where did the device originate? How did the device come to exist where it is now?
Which is older, the trees, the mountains, you, or the device? Which came first? From where did each object originate? When imagining yourself living in the landscape, what era did you imagine yourself being alive within the landscape? How many times did you live in the landscape? Once?
The popular interpretation of reincarnation is a belief that is triangulated upon the individual's present physical life, that is, the belief is based upon this life, the belief is rationalized from the experiences recognized within this life, and the belief is not based upon the soul's point of view of having incarnated.
When a healthy person visits a grocery store, the person does not interpret their life from the point of view of having newly incarnated while in the grocery store, nor does the person interpret that life outside of the grocery store is 'out of body' or of a different life. The normal interpretation is that the current life continues uninterrupted as a single life, and the interpretation also concludes that the visiting of stores and different locations is merely the body changing locations: the life remains as a single thing; visiting stores is one of the many temporary events that occur in the single life.
The popular belief in reincarnation draws conclusions that are upon the thoughts and memories that were formed from within 'this physical life'. The thoughts do not interpret reincarnation from a mind having previously existed prior to this life, nor is the interpretation from a mind that is now experiencing this physical life as a secondary state, that is, the popular interpretation of reincarnation is mentally based upon the view that the current bodily life is the first and original state.
Compton's painting is useful for illustrating what I am pointing to. What was your description of living in the painting's environment? The normal interpretation of the scene is imagined as the person standing near the river's bank, of having been born to the world, of living in the world, of the clouds above, and of the sun at a distance from one's self; a sun that the person can only see, and has never visited in person. But what if the person were a space traveler who traveled to the planet from the sun when the planet was barren, and the individual created the clouds, created the fertile soil, created the mountains, created the river, created the trees, and created the living being from which the individual now sees his creation through the being's eyes?
The normal person sees the sun as at a distance from where the person began and has always been - on the planet - but to another person the sun is where the person once was, and the person is now here. To the normal person the sun is older than the planet, and the sun is far away. To the traveler, the sun was once near, the planet was once far away, the person once existed in the presence of the sun prior to existing in the present presence, the planet is younger than the sun, and the traveler's history creates a different interpretation of the painting.
The history of a person's existence dictates how the person will interpret their present existence, and the interpretations cannot be identical between different individuals. Though we might travel to other planets or other bodies - or grocery stores - still it will always be our origins that dictate how we interpret our present presence.
One man might look at Nature and reason to himself that Creation was somehow created, but another man might look at Nature and remember Creation being created. Though both men might agree that Creation was created, the similarity of interpretations did not arrive from a similar logic, and therefore a created thing cannot mean the same thing to the two men.
If the created thing does not mean the same thing to the two men, then neither can the men's interpretations be the same for the soul's travels.
Reincarnation is a belief and an idea structured upon a history that began as a human born on earth. Since reincarnation believes that souls incarnate into flesh on earth, and the souls leave when the body dies, and the souls return to incarnate again into earthly flesh, then reincarnation views life on earth as the origin and the central theme. Reincarnation is worded from the flesh's point of view, of souls that come and go: if a thing comes and goes, then the point of view is from the thing that the soul comes and goes to.
However, for an individual whose history is as from before the creation of the sun, the idea of reincarnation is as unimportant as the believing that each journey to a grocery store is a reincarnation. From a point of view that is older than the body's, the soul existed first, and this physical life is a momentary visit, an experience to experience, a thing that is temporary.
Life in the flesh, is not the same experience to the mind that was born of flesh as compared to the mind of the soul that was not born. The histories are different, and the experiences are different.
Entering into a grocery store, the mind retains the memory of having lived outside of the grocery store, and the healthy mind will form its thoughts relative to the memories of having arrived into the grocery store from outside of the grocery store. The normal man experiences physical life without past memories, but the soul experiences physical life while in the cognition that physical life is an experience that has a history prior to physical life.
The normal man may believe that his soul reincarnates, but he has no memory of the incarnation, and therefore his belief is imagined because there was no firsthand experience to form the necessary memories that are required to base a rational opinion.
While retaining memory of living outside of the grocery store, the healthy mind may say "A short time ago I was home, then I entered the grocery store, and soon I will leave and travel back home." The ill mind with a defective memory may say "My life began in the grocery store, I have no memory of being anywhere else, and someday when I die I will be reborn in the grocery store." The common theory of reincarnation is as the ill mind.
The human body is not the center of the universe, nor is the human body the cause and reason for life: reincarnation assumes that organic life on planet earth is the center of all importance, which simply suggests that the common concept of reincarnation cannot be valid because the belief arrives from the journey and not from the journeyer.
Do souls enter into bodies? All ideologies agree that the answer is yes - of sorts - but perhaps the question is not quite the right question to ask. If the soul exists prior to the creation of the body, and created things are created for a purpose, then what is the created body's purpose? Only the soul can answer that question, and whatsoever the body's mind believes cannot be a true interpretation. What is the soul? What is the nature of the soul? By what means was the soul created? What is the reason and purpose of the soul? Only the soul's creator can answer that question.
Though the masters of religions and philosophies may have spoken words that appear to have similar meanings, and all masters may have spoken of reincarnation, if the words were from the body's point of view, then the masters were not masters as was claimed. If the masters' words do not describe physical life as an experience that is judged relative to a memory of having entered physical life, then the masters' claims are imaginary.
To the aware mind that remembers awareness prior to physical life, this fleshly life is an experience, like as if walking into a virtual reality that is known to be illusionary, but so very realistic in its own narrow way. Walking from room to room within one's own house, we retain the awareness of our own self even while in each room. Similarly, the soul walks from experience to experience, while retaining the awareness of its own self while in each experience.
And for some individuals, the experience, this time, here, is to learn of and to discover three-dimensional life as the three-dimensional itself, and, it is a peculiar experience, very difficult in its restrictions, but so very rewarding for the beauties of love, compassion, and the presence of an honorable woman.
As the SQ tests have verified the differences between firsthand experiences and imaginary beliefs, so are the popular descriptions of reincarnation as easily verified to have been firsthand or imaginary. Again, the only evidence that can withstand the scrutiny of logic is the firsthand experience itself.
I have included a few of my own stories to be used as examples of how past life memories ought to be examined, questioned, and pondered. The stories are true experiences for me, but an experience of the mind does not necessitate that the experience must also always be true of the body and soul.
Shortly after being born I had a recurring dream, one that repeated itself no less than twice a week for about sixteen years. Every week for sixteen years, every week, I was of about ten years of age, led by elderly individuals - who were allegedly my parents - towards a medium-brown colored train station where numerous other individuals similar to us were walking. I wore a suit of clothes with the arms and legs being too short, of a style that I would not learn until much later was of a style common among a specific culture in an earlier era.
Once within the train station I looked at two stern men who stood at each side of an entrance that led down stairs to an underground tunnel where the train was supposed to arrive. The two men disturbed me for their solemn faces of subservience to authority, and I gave special attention to the colors and styles of their clothing.
As I entered the entrance, the two men closed and locked the entrance doors, trapping many of us in the tunnel and on the stairs. Instead of a train arriving, the tunnel began filling with water, and as the individuals on the stairs pressed upwards in an attempt to escape, I was crushed, suffocated, and as I was about to die, I would awake.
Every week for sixteen years I died at the hands of the two stern men. I learned a resistance to authority; I could never submit; I had already been killed too many times; I had learned how to say no, and mean it.
In high school my class sat to watch a history movie, and there for the first time in my life I saw the young children with the short suits and the elder parents, all walking towards an underground train station. Once inside the train station, the individuals were led down the same sort of stairs seen in my dream, where the tunnel was to be filled with water, where the Jews would be murdered by the two Nazi soldiers standing guard at the door. I cried profusely, for I knew firsthand the victims' pain, and the events of another's explained the events of my dreams.
The dream never returned again.
Was the dream that of a young Jew being murdered in a previous life, or was it of the actor who played the role in the movie in a previous life? Or was it something else? Why, after I was born, did my mother begin having recurring dreams of my drowning?
At one time I felt an urge to write a book about a specific topic, a topic that I had heard of but one that I had no knowledge of except of how the topic related to another topic. As I began writing the book by hand, I had several pages completed when I received a new shipment of books in the mail. With my being excited and anxious to read the words of an author's of whom I knew almost nothing of, I was stunned that - except for a few synonyms translated from the French - his words on the topic were identical to mine on all of my hand-written pages. I did not finish writing my book, for after all, the book had already been written.
A few similar words is expected, yes, perhaps a dozen words strung along similar phrases is expected, yes, perhaps even a bizarre paragraph being similar, it could happen, but not thousands of words, and never from a different language.
When browsing titles in a library I came across a photograph of Angkor Wat, and my heart leaped, and then when I found a photograph of a monk's room with carved window columns, my heart cried with a longing, to again be with the comfort of being within the monk's room. Of all the dreams I had when young, many were of a beautiful life in a similar setting, of a line of trees to the right, of a pond and lilies, and I wonder how much of a dream is imaginary, and how much might be real. There are no answers, but rather there is only the question and the experience; how they might be connected is forever unknown.
Of all of our dreams and memories of past lives, and though some of us have many that are quite detailed, of what value is a memory if the memory is merely a memory of a different life, and not the experience? The experience of now, that is what is important, and useful.
It is one thing to remember a past event, it is another thing to imagine a memory of a past event, and it is yet another thing to recognize a knowledge of past events that may not have occurred in one's life, but it is a fully different sensation to remember the actual experience itself as it occurred within the current consciousness. When the memory of entering life is as vivid and fresh as having walked into the room, and the experience remains as the foundation of one's current thoughts, then will the interpretation of incarnation be acceptable.
Thoughts From the Mind on Reincarnation
Science and Reincarnation
At around two months old, and having been moved from a bassinette to a brown crib bed with rails on the east and west sides - which had the intensely more comfortable mattress and bedclothes (a highly valued perception still today) - after a time I attained a means of acquiring what appeared to me to be very real memories of myself living in a previous era not too distant from my own (perhaps the late 1800s or early twentieth century). I first remembered my walking among trees and feeling the humid warmth of the sun on my face, and as the memories quickly flooded into my mind I recognized who I had been, I remembered the many spoken languages, I held countless memories of a life prior to this one, and upon recognizing my past I then excitedly thought to myself that I would take-up the activities in this life where the other life had ended. An event - that I will not discuss at this time - occurred soon afterwards and caused me to forget most all of the memories except for the remembering of having remembered, plus small segments of items like my having lived within a lifestyle of what adults popularly term to be as a man of knowledge and a few other vocations. At times I have tried to recall the memories, but during the process of attempting to open the closed door I am met with an intense emotion that lets me know that I am much happier to not remember that past. The memories' tone describes to me that the life itself was positive, but if I were to attempt to further the life into this life, then the result would be negative.
The questions here seem best to focus on asking how a young infant can attain or experience memories of a life that is very dissimilar to the child's own life. If the memories were mere imagination or a dream, then fine, no problem, but a complex memory requires a complex life. How can an infant know of sciences, theologies, and widths of adult experiences prior to the infant having attained sufficient age to learn language, and thus, learn what is implied by the terms "science" and "theology"? The purpose of the questions is not to prove or disprove reincarnation, but rather to study and learn how the mind works, and how a mind can experience thoughts that appear impossible at an early age. How does the mind work? Science does not know, nor anyone else, and so it is through our investigating firsthand descriptions that we can begin discovering new ways to answer old questions. The study of reincarnation will always be irrelevant until we know how the mind works, and so it is an intelligent choice to first study how the mind works before we begin claiming reincarnation is true or false.
Another perception was of having been alive during an age of perhaps around eight- to ten-thousand years ago, and I had been with friends, of whom I had shared many lives together, and we were known. The style of clothing worn was different than that of any other culture known to modern North Americans, and the style suggested a specific manner of life. Again the memories themselves are not overly important, but what is important is to ask how an infant can estimate such a lengthy period of time prior to his/her current life. Different people estimate time differently, but for me - especially during the earliest ages - was to feel the body's current duration of time, and to then use the current life's age as the yard-stick of measuring time. As an example, in 1971 I perceived a world event would occur that included numerous specifics of computers connected with telecommunication cables, the world's governments and societies becoming dependent on the computers and the means of fast communications, and of a world-wide fervor of a possible global problem accompanied with fanatics preaching doom and gloom. I arrived at the date by feeling the future date to be approximately a little over one and half times more than my present duration of age, and then by adding the numerous other perceptions together I arrived at the last days of 1999 and the first day of 2000. I knew that the world would watch with interest, but the feared event would not occur, that the suspected problem would pass without hardly a jiggle. So when Y2K arrived, I was already with the belief that the day would pass uneventful, which it did.
By using the same method of estimating periods of time, at a couple months old I was estimating a previous life of thousands of years into the past, which would not be overly difficult for an adult who knows of the nature of years and who possesses a method of adding and dividing, but how would an infant discern a period of time almost one-hundred-thousand times longer than his/her own life? The item of primary importance here is that the infant mind - or at least some infant's minds - does possess the ability to discern forward time and backwards time that extends beyond one's own duration of life.
A question that I have often asked myself is whether some 'past life memories' might instead merely be the emotional content handed-down from the mother while the person is in the womb. Emotions are built upon events in a person's life, and if an ancestor were to experience a strong emotion, then perhaps so would the emotion be received by the fetus as a subconscious base of knowledge. A well-known recent example is of William Sidis having been said to have had a fear of dogs, which was a fear that his mother had before William was born. Emotions, behaviors, and manners of cognitive interpretations are frequently originated within a parent, which is then found in the newborn infant as well. The newborn might not know fear when born, but the child might subconsciously react when seeing the thing that the parents fear, and the child would then learn to experience and develop a fear of the thing. Sidis' fear of dogs may have simply been that of a learned sympathetic reaction from seeing his mother's fear of dogs, a fear that Sidis outgrew as an adult, but some forms of 'instinct' are passed down to the fetus. Genetics might guide the body, but the emotions guide the mind, and the mind guides the body that creates the emotions and the genetics. (The Darwinian view of chance evolution is not plausible within such a short period of time - that of only a few billion years - but an experientially-guided evolution influenced by ancestral emotions is plausible and observable within very short periods of time. I want to strongly emphasize here that the questioning of a topic like reincarnation is extremely valuable because it raises questions about other topics. Answers are never found by dissecting, but answers are many when the topic itself is lived.)
The reason why I give weight to the concept of fetal emotions is because in my own experience I interpreted there to be two primary external forms of 'nutrition' for the body, a physical and a non-physical nutrition. The physical nutrition is obvious, that of fluids and the minerals and nutrients within the fluids, but the non-physical 'nutrition' was what I interpreted to be as an external-arriving-inwardly flow (analogous to that of a felt wave of a substanceless breeze), which I now classify as the felt emotions of the mother's. It is a common practice among many cultures for the mothers to purposefully express emotions while pregnant so that the fetus will feel and know of the mother's intentions, and it is surely common knowledge that a mother's emotions and sensory perceptions will influence the unborn child's physical and mental development. The question here is to ask of what degree that the emotions influence the developing mind, and how deeply do the emotions form the base psychological nature of the child? I myself do not find it to be plausible for DNA genetics to pass-down cultural information - a cultural instinct that is especially common among migrating animals - but I do recognize the very likely probability that subtle emotions of the mother's will be as one of the foundational psychological impacts on the fetal mind.
Cultural heritage is also observable in all humans. As an example, part of me enjoys the no-tech life of living in the mountains as a free man connected with Nature, which is a cultural emotion of my maternal Cherokee blood, while another part of me yearns for gaudy furnishings and a language that flows sweet within its rhythms, which is a cultural emotion of my paternal French blood, while other yearnings find fulfillment in other activities that never occurred in this life, and each yearning of the heart is discerned to have its roots within my ancestors' own hearts. My life is, in part, the reliving of what my ancestors lived, the enduring of the discomforting conflicts forced upon all children of mixed cultures.
I myself see no reason why it would not be possible for an individual to self-observe and learn to recognize his/her ancestors' emotions, and I also see no reason to disbelieve the plausibility that a past life memory might simply be a lucid discernment of an ancestor's influence that has been passed-down through the emotions. However, an emotional heritage should not include the variable of time.
If an emotional heritage were indeed passed-down, and an individual were to learn to divide and recognize his own foundations of knowledge, then the memories should remain as the memories in the present 'now', the 'now' of the ancestors' when the emotions first occurred, and not be felt to have occurred at a specific past time. I have repeatedly asked individuals how they perceive the sense of time, but I have not yet received an answer from anyone, and so at present the only measure that I can use to judge the topic is to use my own known method of sensing time. As the previous example of Y2K pointed, my method is the conscious retention of duration of life, that is, the experientially known duration of life is used as the yard-stick, and when a different length of time is compared to my own duration of life, I can then weigh the differences of length to determine what percentage of my own life that the different length of time infers, and if, say, the different length of time is felt to be half of my own duration of life, then I can use mathematics to divide my mathematical age in half, and then use the learned mathematical number to communicate the quantity of years that I estimate the different time to be.
My life duration is of this life, having begun at the earliest stages, and the duration continues lengthening each moment that I remain alive. But now here is the curious thing, that at a couple months old I was perceiving (or imagining) a length of time far further into the past than my current life, and though I find no difficulty in recognizing the method of sensing such a long period of time, still there is the question of why I deemed the perceived past life as "me". If the memories had been those of an ancestor, then why were the memories not of "them"? Why were the memories not in my own present? Do the emotionally-induced memories form within the fetal mind as those of the fetus' own, or should the memories form as those of the ancestor's?
The topic of the "me" - which is within all individuals who are sufficiently conscious to recognize their own existence - is one that I have been working on within an article about consciousness, and it is indeed an intriguing topic. The "me" remains "me" regardless of health, moods, age, out of body experiences, near death experiences, or memories of past lives. It is extraordinarily implausible that a sense of "me" could remain the same "me" while being a product of a highly variable organ like the brain. Classical physics states that everything in the universe is in motion and in the change of being and becoming, but the "me" and the "I" remain unchanged, motionless, and the "me" defies physics itself. If the "me" is unique to each individual, and the "me" is perceived to exist in a previous era, then is the "me" a personal interpretation of someone else's memories, or are the memories indeed one's own? Or might everyone share the same "me"? Would another person's experience, if implanted into one's own developing mind, then become one's own personal experience? Likely not because the memories are formed upon what the body perceives, and if a memory is formed within a different body that has a different past, then the memory cannot be held as a valid "me" experience, although, the emotional content handed-down by the mother is intensive and thorough, perhaps strong enough to create a base of knowledge that is structured upon ancestral experiences, but at the moment this is speculative, and the only plausible means of judging to what degree the emotional content is passed-down would be to permit a fertilized egg to be raised outside of a womb, and then observed to determine how well the grown child knows how to cope with the environment. (It is a cruel experiment that I hope never happens.)
And it is here that we come face-to-face with possibilities that we do not have a means of answering. If the "me" is unique to each individual, then my memories are of having lived past lives, but if the "me" is identical to everyone else's "me", then no memory is truly valid, not even the memory of having read this sentence.
As sure as my memories are of having typed this article, so do I retain memories of events that are not possible to be memories unless I experienced the events as a conscious entity before the present body was formed. And here I must state that I hold memories of things that were not known to my ancestors, nor to my parents, nor yet to religions or sciences, and for me to have developed the memories the only known possible method was by my having been present when the things occurred. It really does not matter whether anyone believes me, or believes anyone else, but what does matter is our own heart, of knowing what we know to be true of ourselves, and if a thing is true for one's own self, then it is true for them, and not always true for anyone else.
A hard lesson in life - albeit a very useful lesson it was - is that sometimes when a person makes a claim about themselves, though the claim might appear unreasonable to the listener, still the claim might be true for that individual. The theory of frontal lobe activity denoting consciousness might indeed have validity for some individuals, but not all. The theory of an infant not being conscious until a year of age might be true for some individuals, but not all. The claim that a person can only smell a one-dimensional presence of aromas is true for many humans, but not true for everyone. Some people claim that they are organic robots without souls, some people claim that their soul only experiences one incarnation, some people claim that their souls arose from insects and farm animals, and each person has their own belief of themselves. What if the beliefs were true for them? To know one's self, is sufficient.
Reincarnation Recognition of Location
Within a faint memory, one that surfaces when I enter into a specific state of devotion to an honoring of that which is honorable, I find myself at a location north-east of Egypt, within a dwelling that is old, albeit not too old, and as I stand near a wall within the dwelling, I am aware that there is a small indention - a little wider than my body - within the wall where I feel most comfortable and drawn, and to the left of the indention there is a larger indention in the wall, and to my right there is a passage that exits the room. I had been curious of the dwelling, my thinking that it had been some form of religious-like setting, although not one of Christian or of any other known (to me) religion, and it remained a curious question in my mind, of whether the dwelling had actually existed, or whether it had merely been my imagination. Within the dwelling I am felt to be with a devotion, but not as what a religious devotion is known to be today, but of a different manner of interpretation of religion, one that is as part Egyptian and part something else, but neither.
In recent weeks I discovered pictures of a similar dwelling that is located in the perceived region, and though I have no direct reason to assume that my perception must be of the one dwelling, still the pictures do describe why I would have held a deep reverence for the dwelling with its indentions and passage: the dwelling is that of a religious icon's, and if the stories are true of the individual, then yes I would have held a deep reverence for their honorable life, and the time period is similar in it being prior to the Coptic.
The concept of consciousness-exists-first incarnation has never been questioned in my life; I know of no other alternative, nor have I ever had reason to believe otherwise. All known ancestors in my family tree were of the Christian variation that does not believe in reincarnation, and of the ancestors that I have spoken to, the idea of reincarnation is deemed to be wrong and of an immoral belief of heathens'. To my ancestors, the concept of reincarnation is met with anger, hate, and a belittling emotion that very strongly goes against the theory of cultural beliefs being emotionally handed-down to the fetus. The possibility of my having received the idea of reincarnation from my parents is very much not plausible.
But here it should be noted that life is not two-dimensional. There is never a single cause for anything. Acquiring an ancestral memory in the womb cannot be the one and only influence. If the soul enters into 3D at or prior to conception, then the influence of the soul (whatever influence the soul might have on the body) will exist first, and the emotional influences of the mother's will be later. Firsthand experience overrides external suggestions, and though an ancestral heritage might be strong, still will there exist other influences with similar or greater strengths of influence. I am purposefully omitting several sub-topics here, simply because some things are best left unsaid, and too, for the moment the item of interest is to give attention to the fact that some individuals' experiential backgrounds include a knowing of incarnation, and their beliefs of reincarnation were not learned.
In 1999 I wrote of some of this article's topics in one of my books. I had never before spoken about the details to anyone, but on my twenty-fifth wedding anniversary the topic came up between my wife and I, and I chose to speak of my past because it felt safe for me to tell my wife. One of my first lessons in life was to keep my mouth shut and never for any reason to ever speak of anything that might disturb the minds of humans, and since human minds are often too easily disturbed when their beliefs are confronted, I remained silent, and I did not openly talk about my memories until the age of forty-six. I am now old enough that it no longer matters what people think of me, or perhaps I am now old enough to not care, but either way, it now feels to be a useful thing to bring into the open some of that which I used to keep hidden.
Science Proves Reincarnation True
The thing that we believe to be the more truthful thing is the thing that we then use to judge other things. But observe how man is quick to claim that science has proven his religion true. If the man truly believed his religion to be true, then he would use his religion as the measure of truth, and perhaps he might then find reason to claim that his religion sometimes proves science true. Almost never will it be heard that Buddhism proves science true, or Christianity proves science true, or Islam proves science true, or Judaism proves science true, or any other. But we will frequently hear individuals claim that science proves Buddhism true, Christianity true, Islam true, and Judaism true. Observe, and notice that the thing given the greater honor of being true is science, and not one's religion, nor even one's own observations.
The definition of an honorable thing includes the thought of the thing having a keen sense of what is proper, of what is just and fair, of what is correct, and that the thing has an absence of meanness and deceit. The science known to man is replete with meanness, deceit, lies, misinformation, and unfairness, as well as does science boast of it having created conclusions that were formed while the scientists were in the negative emotion of not caring about the thing being observed. Negativity greatly corrupts the mind's ability to perceive, to think accurately, and to store memories. Even science has stated that negativity is detrimental to the mind and body, but still scientific inquiry and the scientific method are purposefully performed while the scientists stand back with the negativity of detachment, and the ill effects of the negativity are shown within the untrue scientific claim that the things being observed were correctly observed.
Negativity is destructive behavior that causes errors of thoughts and judgment. Negativity is wrong behavior because conclusions formed within negativity are wrong; the sums are incorrect. Science may know of the beneficial effects of positivity, but science purposefully and knowingly acts within negativity. The hypocrisy of science is profuse, and the science of science nullifies all scientific claims. Science is not an honorable ideology.
Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism all know and teach positivity. The religions prove science to be false, at least on the topic of positivity.
Some individuals have said that science has proven reincarnation true, but the individuals' words are self-nullifying. Science is not a god, not a leader, not an authority figure (regardless of the style and color of uniforms that scientists might wear), nor so much as an honorable ideology. Men who investigate topics in an objective manner, who work in labs, theirs might be an honorable vocation, but individuals who claim that a researcher's labors prove the individuals' beliefs true, their claim is not honorable because the claim is founded upon the acceptance of an unacceptable authority over one's self. Science rules no one and no thing. No one is subject to the rule of science. Science is as a false god, the new one-world religion, and though most humans place science above their own religions, still, science is nothing, it is empty of knowledge, and empty of heart. Science claims one thing one day, and then science claims the opposite the next day, and humans are expected to continue worshiping science although science is continuously proven to have been wrong. It is foolish to beg the false god science for its approval of one's religion and beliefs. Your only master is you, only you are indebted to you, only you can accurately measure your own worth. Whether or not science ever 'proves' reincarnation, it is immaterial, not worthy of the effort of consideration; of more value would be that of observing the wonder of an ant walking the leaf of a tree. The only proving needing done is your proving to yourself what is true of your own inward self.
Countless books, articles, and videos speak about reincarnation, but usually only from the imaginative angle, the angle of a belief that is based upon the believing of what other people claim to be true, and not based upon firsthand experience, or in other words, almost all of the writings are made-up, imaginary; an invention of the human mind. If a person had never been told of reincarnation, and the person had never read a book about incarnations of the soul, then it would be very unlikely for the concepts of incarnation and reincarnation to have crossed the person's mind. Reincarnation is a man-made belief, a man-made science that has no foundation built upon firsthand experience.
The "me" remains the same "me" regardless of health and age, but the human mind's thinking is very sensitive to nutrition, emotions, health, life experiences, and environmental influences. The human mind is not the soul, nor is the soul the thing that thinks human thoughts. The human mind was created within the three-dimensional reality, and it is within three-dimensional memories that the human mind will remain. Beliefs about reincarnation - beliefs that were not formed upon the firsthand experiences of incarnation - were invented by the human mind, and not communicated through words by the soul. To hear the soul, listen to the heart.
Reincarnation Past Life Regression
One of the talents created within an individual who learns self-observation is that of dividing one's own thoughts to discern from where the thoughts originated. Thoughts do no magically pop into existence as singularities, but rather each thought is founded upon one's own emotions and memories.
To hold both hands cupped together, filled with water, it is easy to feel the weight, and to use the human mind to create the abstract calculation of what the weight would be if halved. Similarly, to gaze upon the color of violet, the human mind can discern and divide from the singular color the originating colors of reds, blues, greens, and the unnamed. When the emotion of happiness is felt, the observing mind recognizes the many emotions that combined to create happiness. When the thing called "virtue" is expressed, the observing mind knows which attributes combined to create the song that is named virtue.
The adept self-observer observes one's own thoughts, dividing each thought, determining from where each thought originated, and if the individual becomes finely skilled with accuracy and quietude, the individual will then recognize the nature of each thought, and within the mind there will be lit a recognition of the memories that formed the thought.
When the mind is quiet, of a steady flow of listening to the heart, of a quietude blended with the peacefulness of a longing love and a questioning, then might the human mind come to know itself, and it will not be mistaken. Hypnosis may or may not be a true method of remembering past lives, but if a past life resides within you, then it is within you, and all you need is to listen, very quietly, very carefully, and with a loving heart that desires truth above all else.
Reincarnation of Future Lives
The "me" is always "me" regardless of whether it is now or the past, and if the "me" remains unchanged, then is the future "me" already present? Time is a human interpretation, an interpretation that is restricted to the three-dimensional reality, and time does not exist outside of three dimensions. Is the "me" eternal? If so, then outside of the three-dimensional reality there exists a timelessness - or at least from the three-dimensional point of view of what timelessness might infer - that is eternal already.
Can a soul convey information to the human mind? And if so, and the soul is eternal, then might the soul somehow convey information about another life that has not yet occurred in this three-dimensional line of sequenced events?
By what means does the soul communicate with the human mind? Surely we do not expect a soul to speak man-made languages - neither English nor Greek - and if the soul has its own form of language, then it would become our own responsibility to learn of the soul's language so that we might perceive a portion of what the soul holds. The common thread spoken by many throughout the ages is that a loving heart, within quietude, is that which hears what the soul speaks.
Reincarnation in the Bible
(PD) Leonardo da Vinci - St John the Baptist
A well-established fact about humans is that we never unanimously agree on any topic (but this is a good thing because if we discuss why we disagree we can then better understand more about all topics). Today, some humans believe in reincarnation, some humans believe in only one incarnation of the soul, some individuals believe that the soul is created by the existence of the physical body, and some humans do not believe that a soul exists at all. Similarly, the humans living during Biblical periods also had differing opinions about reincarnation. My purpose for this section is to simply illustrate that the Bible suggests that some individuals believed in reincarnation, but the section is not claiming that the Bible directly teaches reincarnation as a distinct topic. Of the times that I read the Bible, and of the many commentaries that I have read, in none did I find an explicit teaching of how many times that a soul might incarnate. The Bible is a collection of stories and prophesies, the Bible is not a textbook of facts and figures, and so we must derive inferences from the stories while we accept that there will be no clarity of descriptions of any topic.
"But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall. Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse." (Malachi 4: 2, 5)
"For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come." (Matthew 11:13-14)
Elias - or Elijah - was an Old testament era prophet who was prophesied to return prior to the Messiah. If the prophecy were true, and if Jesus was the Sun of righteousness, and if Jesus spoke correctly, then John the Baptist was the reincarnation of Elijah.
"And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." (2 Kings 2: 11)
John the Baptist would have been of a similar age as Jesus - younger than thirty years old - and although it is uncertain how old Elijah might have been when he was taken up in the whirlwind, it is a safe assumption that the Jewish leaders were both aware of John's age and his having been born to Elizabeth.
"Now this was John’s testimony when the Jewish leaders[c] in Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was. He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, "I am not the Messiah."
They asked him, "Then who are you? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not." "Are you the Prophet?" He answered, "No." Finally they said, "Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?" John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, "I am the voice of one calling in the wilderness, 'Make straight the way for the Lord.'"
Now the Pharisees who had been sent questioned him, "Why then do you baptize if you are not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?" "I baptize with water," John replied, "but among you stands one you do not know. He is the one who comes after me, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie." (John 1: 19-27 )
The "nor the Prophet" might be better read as "nor a prophet". A prophet has one talent, whereas John's talent was of a different nature, and in many respects of a higher quality and importance than that of a prophet's.
To know of a person's age, plus to know of whom they were born, and yet to ask if the person is the same person as someone who had lived roughly nine-hundred years previously, then it appears that at least some of the Jewish leaders believed in reincarnation.
"And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him." (John 9: 1-3)
To be born blind because of one's own sin, then the sin must have occurred prior to birth, which in this context assumes a soul that had previously lived within a body; reincarnation. All states of man are useful, including that of the crippled child of whom breaks our heart and arises within us a compassion that we otherwise could never have experienced. In the greatest pains, grows the greatest comforts, and when viewed in this manner, all things are for the betterment of man, but only if he has a heart.
Regardless of whether an individual believes the Bible stories to be true or not, still the Bible does present numerous verses that point to the concept of reincarnation in both the Old and New Testaments. If an individual believes the Bible to be true, then the individual ought to accept reincarnation as true, and even if an individual believes the Bible to not be true, still the individual ought to agree that the Bible stories do infer that some individuals believed in reincarnation, or in other words, the concept of reincarnation is in the Bible, but the Bible itself does not directly teach reincarnation.
Description of Reincarnation in the Gospel of Thomas
"When you should make the two one, and if you should make the inner side like the outer side, and the outer side like the inner side, and the upper side like the lower side, and so you will be making the male and the female that one alone, so that not the male become male, nor the female become female, when you should make some eyes to the place of an eye, and a hand to the place of a hand, and a foot to the place of a foot, an image to the place of an image, then you will enter." (Saying of Jesus in The Gospel of Thomas)
The Gospel of Thomas is one of the very few writings that appears to speak of an actual firsthand incarnation experience. Numerous different explanations have been given to the text, but the context appears to best fit that of a conscious conception.
"The dual becomes singular, and the singular becomes dual: the awareness observes. The dualities increase, within their cyclic duration. Duals, quads, triplicities." (My own, paraphrased and condensed from Spiritually Connected.)
The important item in this topic is to give attention to how an experienced thing is described. If the thing is described from an adult's point of view, then the description is invalid because it is being imagined as an adult and not experienced firsthand. The self joining with another self, becoming a singularity with both selves, and then the singularity becoming a duality, and the dualities becoming dualities, and on and on, the body is observed to be composed of many selves as they join to create the body, as a pre-designed action and not as a hindsight-anticipated course of action. A description that speaks of cells and similar terms is a description that is built upon the imaginary construct of learned knowledge, and not formed upon a self-referencing interpretation. Believed or not, the fetus has not yet attended school to learn the names of cells nor the adult-made mathematics of numbers, and so a description of one's own reincarnation that relies upon adult terms may not be valid, but within the Jesus stories, they were written by someone else, and therefore it is possible that if the stories are true then the writer may have unknowingly inserted his own incorrect terms.
A deeply disturbing reality is that humans do not ask how the experience of incarnation might be perceived by the individual, nor do humans ask for any descriptive explanation whatsoever, but rather the typical human appears to merely assume that they somehow psychically know everything. There are no questions about what manners of perceptions that might occur, nor any questions of how the first thoughts form a recognition of quantities, nor any questions about locations of objects and self, nor any questions about how an individual might interpret their own selves, and of the numerous topics that ought to light a roaring flame of curiosity within the human mind, there is not so much as a flicker, and I suspect that man's absence of questions is due to man not being conscious of his own self, which leaves the man without a knowing that life is experienced. Man will not ask what the sense of location feels like in migrating animals, but man will continue to dissect migrating animals while believing that he will find a magical man-made compass embedded in the animal's brain, and man will continue inventing theories of morphic waves while he simultaneously declines the opportunity to ask what the waves might be. Man does not so much as know that different people use different methods of choosing the quantity of food that is placed on one's plate, nor will man think to ask. Man does not want questions to ponder and to solve, but rather, man only wants to be told words to be memorized; words within stories.
The stories of Jesus are the only known ancient references that have weight of suggesting themselves to have possibly been true experiences, although the words "then you will enter" suggest that the soul enters the body after the body is well developed, or perhaps the words simply implied "then you will enter this world as a newborn baby" which seems more likely since the words had inferred what appears to have been an existing awareness of body development.
"When you should look upon he whom did not they beget out of the woman, prostrate yourselves, onto your face, and worship him; he who is there, is your father."
"If they should ask yourselves this, 'What is the sign of your father which is in yourselves?', speak to them this, 'A movement it is, and a repose'."
The movement and repose is an excellent inference of the "me", and in this example it might be paralleled to that of the soul. As I have written in previous years, if the soul exists first, then the soul has a purpose, and the soul is a portion of the cause and nature of the body. Within this context the "father" soul is still deemed to be - in part - as the creator and cause of the body, but a singular inference is never fully correct. Nevertheless, within the Jesus sayings there is a generalized concept of loving the soul, and for individuals of a specific nature and heart the loving of the father and the Father is one of the most remarkable experiences that produces spiritual euphoria as well as a physical agility that surpasses all known potentials for grace and youthfulness of body movement. As the television series Kung Fu spoke of walking rice paper without leaving a trace being the ability of an accomplished monk, so can the act of loving the father produce a similar or greater potential, but only among individuals of specific pre-existing natures, the natures that are developed through years of quietude, self-observation, and love.
"At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me." (Matthew 18: 1-5) The story may point to a manner of innocence of mind and heart that might be more common among children, but the story might also have the additional inference of experiencing the youthfulness of that which exists within the reciprocal act of loving the loving soul. A man who is not aware of his own soul will never experience the intense beauty that has no equal, and here the question is asked: how would a man like Jesus have known of the effects of love if he had not personally experienced the effects, the very effects that require a firsthand knowledge of one's own soul?
When Does a Soul Reincarnate
Some individuals believe that they incarnated at the moment of birth, and the variances of beliefs range on back to the moment of conception or before. One soul's entrance into the 3D does not necessitate that all souls must enter at the same identical period. If a soul incarnates, then there is no immediate reason to assume that the soul must incarnate at any specific period. Nevertheless, if the soul's presence is a necessity for the body's life, then it is likely that the soul ought to enter at or before conception. Known near death experiences that occurred due to an out of body experience lasting too long suggests that the soul is one of the ingredients of human life, and if the life ceases without the soul, then how long can a fetus endure without a soul?
"And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost." (Luke 1:41) If John the Baptist leaped within his mother's womb, then did the fetus have a soul?
Humanity may never know for sure if a soul enters at conception, or before conception, or at any other time, but we can know of our own, and that is all that matters.
Reincarnation Past Life Test Quiz
Of the known past life tests available on the Internet, in none were found any sensible questions that might lend an insight into one's own past life. The tests generally focus on an individual's memories and experiences in this life, which are human-mind features - not attributes of the soul - and therefore have little or no relationship to a past life. The past life tests might be entertaining, and perhaps might lend a bit of insight into one's own personality, but the tests are most assuredly not an accurate insight into one's past lives.
If an individual has been conscious of every event in their life since before birth, then the individual will recognize that some personality traits existed prior to birth, and that the personality traits were not created in response to one's current environment. If an individual has not been conscious of every event since before birth, then why is it believed that a present personality trait must have arrived from a past life and not have arrived as a natural reaction to the current environment?
The best past life test is for an individual to test themselves, to critique their thoughts and emotions, to invest many years into self-observation with the goal of discovering which portions of their personality were formed in the present life, and which personality portions must have formed outside of this life. Since few humans will exert the effort to self-observe, then it is unlikely for an individual to ever arrive at a coherent reason why they might believe their present life is influenced by a past life.
Reincarnation - How to Remember Your Past Life
Of the several different methods popularly claimed to enable an individual to remember past lives, none are known to produce plausible results. Perhaps some individuals are successful in recalling true past lives, but the act would surely be very rare - especially in modern countries - and if the memories cannot be verified as true by the individual personally visiting the region of the past life to see with one's own eyes that the buildings and cultures are exactly as imagined, then the past life memory should be held as a "I don't know", and not held as a conclusion that has no evidence of being true.
Visualization is a useful tool for relaxation and promoting the health of mind and body, but most humans too easily visualize fanciful imagery that simply cannot have been a true past life. How can a person know for sure that the imagined past life was real, or if it were simply a lucid daydream? What features - if any - distinguish the 'past life memory' from your current memories and thoughts? A memory is built upon and contains one's own life's history, and if the memory of a past life is not rooted upon the emotional history of that past life, then the visualized memory is merely an imaginative self-creation that is not valid.
Hypnosis is another useful tool for digging into one's own hidden thoughts, but why is it believed that hypnotizing the human mind will somehow reveal the soul? Why is it believed that the biological mind will hold memories of a spiritual soul? What is the connection between the soul and the human mind? If it is unknown how the soul interacts with the mind, then how can it be known whether or not the mind is imagining a past event?
What is your root emotion? Do you know what a root emotion is? If after much effort to perceive and recognize the root emotion, what will then be found? Having self-observed one's own root, perhaps then the person can further observe the nature of the root, but it is not the human mind that understands emotions, but rather it is the heart. Again we are brought back to the necessity of developing the heart, while avoiding the imagery of visualization.
Thoughts from the Heart on Reincarnation
The Soul Chooses Reincarnation
It is a choice, a chosen purpose, to incarnate, to fulfill the purpose for incarnation. It is popularly believed that many souls reincarnate without a choice, because the souls have a debt, a karma, a cycle of behavior that has not yet achieved a proper balance. For those who chose, there was not as a need or a requirement to incarnate, but rather there was a purpose, there is a purpose, a thing to learn, a thing to experience, a fulfillment and an expression of their very nature.
And where should the soul choose to incarnate, but where there exists an environment that best fulfills the purpose?
To wish happiness, is the wish to feel sadness, to contrast the sad with what is good, and so I wish no happiness for anyone, but to those who have already known sadness. To learn of and to experience happiness, a soul might choose the experience of sadness; the purpose of incarnation.
The Reincarnation Sacrifice
Of the yogis who permitted of themselves to be harmed by interacting with society, the harm is deep, the pain is long-lasting, and yet from the pain arrives the beauty perceived by the individuals whose balance desperately needs the experience of observing the yogis.
As the yogis leave Tibet, as the burden of the land is losing its allure, some yogis walked to other lands, while some chose a different path, to be reborn where their journey would be most useful. The push of Mao, seeded the world. Mao sewed, yogis sprouted, man reaps.
Body positions, known as yoga, if practiced by the non-Buddhist toddler who has had no instruction, nor has seen another individual perform yoga, it is a natural state and position of the body, it is as a memory of what was once the toddler's way of life, as is the recognizing of the subtle energies of the body a natural way of awareness, a natural focus upon one's self.
It is hard, a difficult thing, to know that the choice is yours, and still you choose that which has the greater good, and not for one's self, but for all souls. This is the only choice possible, and the heart would hear of no other.
Theists truly do believe that gods exist. Scientists truly do believe that their science is true. If a belief has a name, then it is a belief, and not true. It is the unnamed that is true, and that which the adept observe.
The adept will not speak of that which is unnamed.
Reincarnation and Meditation
To strive to not reincarnate, to strive to achieve the enlightenment of taming the mind, the striving acquired by meditation, which then is the form of mind that is tamed? And how is the soul influenced by the mind? Which is being tamed, the human mind that is not the soul, or is it the soul that is not the human mind? If a man does not know the difference, then his is not yet a useful meditation.
Meditate, be and become love, feel and know compassion, and not as a state of mind, but rather as the nature of the heart. Seeking one's own escape from suffering, and yet accepting bliss at the cost of another's suffering, the bliss may remain, but the soul dies. Meditate, not with the mind, nor in seclusion, nor sitting facing a wall, but while walking, and speaking, consciously aware of a heart that is itself love and compassion. To fulfill the goal, one must become that which is the goal.
Reincarnation and the I
There is an "I", and there is a "me", and then there is a different "me" that is the same "me" except more. Likewise, there is another "I", of the same manner of observing as the original "I", but the other "I", has more. Which "I" is known, which "me" is you? Which is that which incarnates? Until a man knows which is which, until the man sees his own self, he will not understand.
I believe that a form of repeated incarnation occurs, but I do not have any reason to believe in the popular views of reincarnation. I only know what I have experienced myself, and I do not know what other people might have experienced. To my knowledge, since other people do not report similar firsthand experiences as my own, then perhaps the atheist biologists might be correct that the human body does not normally possess a soul, and for all I know there might only be one body with a soul, and none others. What proof is there for any other opinion? Are you the only human with a soul? Am I? Are there five of us with souls? Ten? How many? How do we know? How can we judge the concept of reincarnation if we do not know which or how many life-forms have souls?
Is the soul conscious? Must not the soul be conscious? Then what is consciousness? There is no universally accepted definition of consciousness itself - nor even a coherent public knowledge of consciousness - and if the word itself is an unknown, then by what logic can it be claimed that the soul is conscious? How many unknowns must become known things before we can rationally discuss reincarnation? There is no knowledge of consciousness, no knowledge of what exists outside of the 3D, no knowledge of what created the universe, no knowledge of the nature of the thing that caused the existence of energy in the 3D universe, and in every question of reincarnation we are faced with the stark reality that we simply do not possess enough knowledge to so much as render an interesting speculation.
The proving of reincarnation to be true - or false - is a personal endeavor, a thing that each individual must accomplish for themselves, and no quantity of evidence will ever conclusively prove anything true or false for anyone else. If the universe is as a hologram, then in what manner does a soul interact with images of light? If all things in the 3D reality are wave-based, then is a soul wave-based? What is the origin and cause of waves? If a soul is not wave-based, then what is the soul? If the soul exists outside of the 3D, then why does anyone believe that the 3D mind can grasp the nature of the soul? The use of 3D terms to describe a soul - energy, power, shape, size, motion - are all 3D terms that only apply to a 3D reality, and do not apply to anything outside of the 3D. What then is a soul if it exists outside of the 3D? How can reincarnation be intelligently discussed if we do not first know what it is that is reincarnating?
Memories of past events do not in of themselves prove anything except a perception of the events. Are the memories true firsthand memories, or might the thoughts be a sensorial perception of a distant event that the person did not personally experience? If migrating animals and some tribes of humans perceive events from a distance, then might some 'past life memories' merely be a perception, and not a memory at all? If the "me" is the same "me" for everyone, then might the "me" of other people's lives sometimes be mistaken as one's own memories?
Proof of reincarnation exists, but only within one's own self, and the proof is only valid for one's self.
And so then what should we choose? The acts of love, compassion, caring, gentleness, kindness, honesty, and the many others, they are correct behaviors because they produce correct results, creative results, results that better all things, and though we cannot know the nature of the soul, still, we can know the nature of our own hearts, and it is enough - at least for now.
Allowing instruction observantly,
Knowledge flowing satiatedly,
Answers prelude questions.
Perception of otiosity,
Knowledge feigning understanding,
Indignation raging gently,
Pursuing contiguous edification
Spirituality attains sensuality,
Obtaining experience absolute.
(from my memoires, 1970s-1980s)
Conscious Soul Incarnation
Is the soul conscious of an incarnation? I cannot imagine that a conscious soul would not be conscious of the incarnation. If the soul is conscious, then is it not conscious prior to human conception? Do some people believe that the soul can only be conscious through the human mind? Apparently it is not common for the human mind to possess memories or a method of recognizing what the soul perceived, but it seems most rational that if a soul exists, and it travels here and there to incarnate, then does that not imply consciousness?
And how would the human mind - that which is created long after conception - possess an ability to recognize what the soul perceived? The soul, obviously, is not the human mind, nor does the soul communicate with human-made words, and so if it is desired to communicate with the soul, then what is the language of the soul?
One man might retain a memory of incarnation because his soul's nature is that of love, the cell's tone was of love, the conception was within love, the body formed within the presence of a loving soul, the body's tone developed within the tone of love, the body retaining a tone of love, and as the man's mind developed, so did the mind remain within an attentive awareness of the love, and the variables known by the soul were then retained within the mind, as the root of the mind, recognized by the mind to be the events of the soul's.
A man whose life has no stable emotion, whose emotions flow from one extreme to another, a man who has no control over his own mind and heart, he cannot remember, because all memories are emotionally based, formed within emotions, and unless the man attains the same emotions as those of his own soul's, then the man cannot remember what the mind cannot perceive. The language of the soul is that of the heart, and the only stable emotion is that of love.
What is your soul's nature? Is it love, curiosity, yearning; what? Find the root, and then, perhaps, you will find the soul, if the soul were of a stable emotion.
When lying down upon one's bed, curled into the natural-feeling position known as the fetal position, when the man can recall the sensation of the position from before birth, that of feeling to be so infinitesimally small and yet all that one is, and to recognize and to remember what the position felt like, the body itself remembering, then the man will be close. Listen to what is felt, hear what the body feels, discern the memories of the body, how the body was formed, from within which tone of the soul, and listen, listen, it is there, it has always been there.
But yes, some individuals do retain the knowing of the firsthand experience of incarnation, and not as memories of the human mind, but as the self-referencing sensations of the body and soul, and if the man maintains the emotion of the soul, then the knowing remains, the experience remains within the awareness, the experience is the foundation of all present experience, and the knowing of the experience is as vivid and real as is the experience of now.
The question of someone asking of whether anyone remembers their own incarnation, and asking for a description of the experience, the answer is yes, but the answer is rarely spoken openly, nor with a fullness of description, because though man might ask questions, almost never does man want to hear an answer that is not what he already wants to believe, and if the answer is not what the man wants, then the man becomes angry, unsettled: there is no value in strife, and so the descriptions are not shared except in privacy among close friends.
Reincarnation and the Location of the I
And where is the "I" that incarnates? Where is the "I" located relative to the body? Is there a memory of from where the "I" observed? Where is the "I" that is discovered as an adult within meditation? Why is there not a surplus of descriptions of the "I's" location during fetal development? Is man's "I" a product of the brain, or of the soul?
Most adults interpret their "me" to have its presence behind the eyes. Has the "me" always been there? Might the "me" be something different that has not always been where it is now perceived? It is said that the "I" is a difficult thing for an adult to recognize, but does the "I" not always exist? If the "I" always existed, then where was the "I" during incarnation? Why do the believers in their own incarnation not describe the "I's" location?
If I were to describe - with firsthand detail - the nature of the embryo during different phases of growth, of describing the interpretation of a heart that is outside of the torso, of what value would the words serve? Name one man who would listen. What occurs at around the age of twenty days, and where is the "I"? There is a reason why I so frequently speak of the heart as being the channel of communication with the soul. What is one's root emotion, and where is it located? Where was it located? Is it the same location as now?
The educated man is said to think from the head, and the enlightened man is said to think from the abdomen, but the man whose soul is love, he thinks from the heart, and it is there that the "I" resides, and observes, but perhaps, only for him, and not always for all others.
To but experience the nature of the fetus, the design-creation that is the body, that alone is worthy of incarnation. For some, the greatest beauty is within one's first years, and then comes knowledge, the polluter of innocence, not to be made whole again until the day that we learn the value that is the love of both heart and body for another.
Liberation from Reincarnation
A popular view is the aim to achieve a sufficient grade of soul so that the soul no longer must incarnate. The general belief is that life is an act of suffering, and therefore suffering would not exist if the soul did not reincarnate. Within popular Christianity, Islam, and Judaism the goal is to reincarnate once more, to live in a paradise that is eternal.
But on suffering, one man's ordeal is another man's delight, and if a man's suffering is weighed by his own interpretation of himself, then what is suffering, and might suffering merely be an act of interpreting one's self negatively? How easily the mind changes its interpretation of the world when the mind's focus changes from self-importance to one of love: to see a man who is of disquality behaviors, and to judge the man as inferior, but to then hold love for the man, and to then judge the man as having value, the suffering is then gone, and the suffering is discovered to have been self-made and self-inflicted.
Suffering is a state of mind, of the human mind, and not a state of the soul. To love the soul within - and to love the soul that is within all living beings - within the act, suffering ends.
But yes I am aware that there are different types of suffering, from illnesses and injuries to hunger and cold, and though they do hurt intensely, they too are temporary, and they will pass. That which we dwell on is that which we become, and if we dwell on suffering, then so will we remain suffering. To expel an unwanted thing, we do not keep the thing in our hands while complaining about the thing, but rather we grasp onto a positive thing that replaces the unwanted thing.
The monkey trap is an immovable box with a hole that is barely wide enough to permit a monkey's hand, and inside the box is a delicious fruit that when held causes the grasp to be larger than the hole. Having grasped the fruit, the monkey is trapped because the monkey chooses the prison of a fruit rather than the rational solution of letting go of the fruit. Humans and monkeys are not so different: humans cannot let go.
To fill one's hands with suffering, or to fill one's hands with love, it is each individual's choice. Filling the heart with love, and filling the mind with positive thoughts, there is no room left for suffering; just let it go.
But what of illness and injury? The emotion of love is not possible within some forms of illness and injury - including old age senility - and if through no fault of his own a man is unable to love, feel compassion, or retain enlightenment, then the popularly believed purpose of reincarnation cannot be attained. Is a man's soul doomed simply because Nature forces the body and mind to fail? Where is the logic? Man's philosophies are created by well-fed philosophers of leisure, but the hungry man cannot enjoy nor be profited by a philosophy if the man is struggling for survival. What then is the purpose of the soul, and what is the purpose of the body?
If the purpose of life is to be an experience for the soul, then regardless of the body's health the purpose will be fulfilled. If the body is predestined, then the body's health is for a purpose. But if freewill exists for the body, then where does the freewill go when the body is ill? Flatlanders cannot jump up, and Cubelanders cannot jump out; where is the freewill? Where is the reason for reincarnation?
Reincarnation and the Foundational Emotion
In 1999 I wrote of the foundational emotion in the book "Spiritually Connected", and I wrote about it again in the 2003 book "Reality". The foundational emotion is as a catalyst, the thing that stirs the body and mind, the thing that flavors all thoughts, all memories, and all actions.
The foundational emotion is interpreted to be as the first nature, an attribute, the first foundation of which all thoughts and emotions are built upon. The first observation influences the first nature, and from the combined effect of the observation and nature is created a new concept that is held within the body as an emotion. Like the assembling of musical notes or hues of colors, each new experience creates a new note or color that is based upon the sum of all previous notes and colors. Each new thought is as the sum and product of all previous thoughts and perceptions. To understand one's own thoughts, and to recognize why we think the thoughts we think, we self-observe, dividing each sum to find the components, and ultimately arriving at the component that is indivisible, the singular attribute that is the foundational emotion itself. This is one of the goals for all who seek self-awareness.
For as long as the foundational emotion remains steady and unaltered, so will bodily memories remain vivid. To remember the experience of new life, not as a mental memory but rather as the re-experiencing of the heart-felt sensation itself, this is one of the keys of recollecting one's own earliest moments. To remember, to re-experience the sensation of fetal growth, the experience was beautiful when it was a new experience, and as an adult the experience has its own beauty of appreciating a time when life was more beautiful and meaningful than the present.
The teaching of loving your highest value with all of your heart, mind, and body, as well as loving your neighbor as yourself, it is the one and only honorable teaching that man has ever known. There is no greater teaching, and no greater value exists, but not all humans can love, and the teaching is only useful for a small segment of the human specie. Science - and thus academia - teaches of love being the acts of lust and habit, generally reduced to the terms of attachment, care-giving, and procreation. Full books and classes on the topic of love exist without so much as a single mention of the type of love that is creative and beautiful.
If believers in science have not experienced the emotion of love - which is evidenced by the absence of love in all teachings of science - then we must ask why some individuals do not have the capacity for love. Is it because their foundational emotion cannot support nor create the emotion of love? Is the absence of love one of the reasons why many individuals have no early memory nor capacity to re-experience previous experiences? Is it the stress of negative emotions that causes loss of memory and the unknowing of one's own nature?
And here is where one of the sub-topics might better explain why different people experience different emotions, but I purposefully omit the sub-topic, my remaining silent because there is no value in speaking of a thing that cannot be described with sufficient detail to prevent misinterpretations. But the questions are obvious, asking why there exists foundational emotions that are different from individual to individual. Are the emotions created by the father, by the mother, or by some other means? And here it must be known the sequences by which the emotions are created, but if an individual cannot accurately reason prior to their earliest memories, then how could it be possible for an individual to accurately judge which possible sequence might be the most plausible?
There is a sequence that is both parallel as well as reversed, and the sequence describes the conscious awareness as well as the form of body. If some individuals are of love, some are of selfishness, and each individual is of a different foundational emotion, then from where did the emotions arrive? An emotion is the reaction of an energy influencing matter, and so then if the consciousness-soul were the energy, and the body is the matter, then why are the souls different? By what means and sequencing do souls and forms of consciousness change? Are the differences of foundational emotions the product of the parents' own differences of emotions? If a cell has a foundational emotion prior to conception - and the cell must exist within an emotion if the cell exists - then are the emotions from the father, from the mother, or from some other source that is unknown?
Within a quick glancing of the sequences it would appear reasonable to assume that reincarnation is a plausible explanation for the differences of personalities that describe the foundational emotions. And though it is easy to leap to the belief that the male cell is the cell that carries the soul, the belief is quickly challenged when questions are asked about the many cells that doubled and formed the body, the cells themselves possessing individual characteristics similar to the "me" and "I". And what of the female cell, was it not also with a foundational emotion? Where did the female cell's soul go? If the public knew of the sequences of events, perhaps we might then be better able to speculate on topics like multiple personalities, but the sequences are not publicly known, nor publicly tolerated, and so the discussions never occur.
If all souls learn through the firsthand experience of 3D life, then reincarnation is likely a viable interpretation, but how can we know if all souls learn similar things? And here we return once again to the foundational emotion; if the foundational emotion dictates one's personality in life, then why are we not all identical due to all souls coming into existence from one identical source?
If a person wishes to believe or disbelieve in reincarnation, then the person must first choose to master self-awareness, to observe one's own thoughts and emotions as they arise so that the individual can apply their own firsthand observations to their own firsthand reasoning. If an individual will not exert the effort to master self-observation, than forever will the individual's beliefs remain as mere beliefs.
A reincarnation name, and the name of god: names are given to objects and actions that exist within the limitations of three dimensions, and no name is given to a thing outside of three dimensions. As a man self-observes, and the man comes to recognize that which is undividable, he will have discovered his root, and he will have discovered that actions can be divided down to the root, but when the root is found, the root of all action, then what name will the man give to the root?
Where there exists no movement, and where there exists no divisions, there is the root, and there is the attribute, the attribute that creates actions. And what attribute can create the attribute of creativity? When a man has discovered his own self, he will then know the attribute of his own self that has no name.
Related topics by Larry Gowdy
More articles on The Logics home page...