Reincarnation
-
@jlpugh said
"Perhaps this accounts for the few Thelemites who do not believe in reincarnation!"
Say you live decades being familiar with one 'bubble' of memories. You have no frame of reference for any other bubble but your own. Every time you've remember something out of the blue, its been your memory (as far as you can tell). So if suddenly your mind becomes aware of other bubbles of memories, it seems natural that you would assume them to be your memories, right? If you choose (consciously or unconsciously) to identify with some bubble of memory, then reincarnation seems to be a pretty good explanation (especially if you come to the memories via temporal regression exercises). The concept still leaves the problem of explaining the seemingly persistent nature of memories. Part of me can't help but wonder though, if people with more knowledge of human history identify with more interesting or varied past lives that those ignorant of history.
-
@jw said
"Say you live decades being familiar with one 'bubble' of memories. You have no frame of reference for any other bubble but your own. Every time you've remember something out of the blue, its been your memory (as far as you can tell). So if suddenly your mind becomes aware of other bubbles of memories, it seems natural that you would assume them to be your memories, right?"
Well, not necessarily. There is a very different feel between one's own memories and "just other images" that go through one's mind. For example, there is a big difference in the feel of remembering your own past or remembering the vivid, compelling story of a movie or literary character.
"Part of me can't help but wonder though, if people with more knowledge of human history identify with more interesting or varied past lives that those ignorant of history."
Good theory. Or, alternately, one at least is better able to recognize what one is seeing. - Of course, this doesn't explain memories that come arise years before one learns anything, by conventional means, about the period in question.
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
@Jim Eshelman said
"I have known people who gave every indication of having their first human incarnation. Not their first incarnation - just their first human one. They may have come from the animal kingdom or, from their natures, more likely from one of the kingdoms of Elementals, having finally become a Microcosm."
Cool. Did they get animal and/or elemental memories through the same kinds of regression used for past lives?
Hypothetically, could it be the case that your first human incarnation is also your last?
Love is the law, love under will.
-
@jlpugh said
"Cool. Did they get animal and/or elemental memories through the same kinds of regression used for past lives? "
No. (Though I've had such memories myself, especially at one point in my early 20s when dozens of them came through.)
The individuals that come most vividly to mind seem to have come from the Elemental kingdoms (and to have retained their connection to the world of Fay or Deva).
Very young souls superficially resemble very mature souls. The superficial similarity is that they seem naturally connected to spiritual worlds. But for the very young souls this is because they have barely left them, have hardly emerged out of them. They have a tendency to be enormously curious and keenly alert, to have almost an idiot's capacity for natural happiness (and corresponding capacity to be deeply hurt). Even as adults, unless very badly treated as children, they carry a child-like sense of wonder, ability to smile, and ability to trigger a smile. Even when hurt, they tend to spring back with a child's resiliency pretty much regardless of their age. Etc.
"Hypothetically, could it be the case that your first human incarnation is also your last?"
Hypothetically? Sure. Do I think it has ever happened? No. We live hundreds of lives (which is a drop in the bucket in the time stream of our existence).
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@jw said
"Say you live decades being familiar with one 'bubble' of memories. You have no frame of reference for any other bubble but your own. Every time you've remember something out of the blue, its been your memory (as far as you can tell). So if suddenly your mind becomes aware of other bubbles of memories, it seems natural that you would assume them to be your memories, right?"Well, not necessarily. There is a very different feel between one's own memories and "just other images" that go through one's mind. For example, there is a big difference in the feel of remembering your own past or remembering the vivid, compelling story of a movie or literary character."
Well, typically one remembers a book or movie as an observer, not as a participant. If the memory bubble contains first-person memories (perhaps a residual memory of some prior individual drifting about in a collective unconsciousness), then it may account for the process. The backward momentum of the regression experiment may account for why these lives appear to be along a single line of succession (even if they aren't recalled in order). In other words, I'm not disputing that these may be memories of past lives; but I think there may be a difference between saying "I remember my past lives" and "I remember past lives". The "practical" application wouldn't be terribly different either way, except perhaps in one's attitude toward attachment to one's identity.
-
Nature reuses everything, so why not the soul?
Little sister earth is just trying to be like big sis
-
@jw said
"The "practical" application wouldn't be terribly different either way, except perhaps in one's attitude toward attachment to one's identity."
Agreed. Something I think I haven't said in any of the above, but which I say anytime I teach on the matter, conduct a regression, etc., is that one shouldn't necessarily regard what one gets as "real," but, rather, as "relevant."
-
Because there ain't no soul to reuse.
-
@Froclown said
"Because there ain't no soul to reuse."
Thanks for the pointless contribution, Fro.
Dan
-
@froclown said
"
Because there ain't no soul to reuse.
"I could just scream out "BECAUSE IS DEAD" like some Zealot, but you are correct.
There is no soul to reuse.
Just as there is no gravity...
But, SOME-THING keeps our feet on the ground!
(I use glue) -
@ar said
"
@Froclown said
"Because there ain't no soul to reuse."Thanks for the pointless contribution, Fro."
Good debaters can flip a coin and then argue either side of an issue well. Should Thelemites be any different?
I assert that it's just as important to stand firmly in Assiah - and see the Wonder of the Universe from the point of view of "soul as epiphenomenon of the brain" - as it is to stand in the other worlds and view spirit/soul as the primary "stuff."
Isn't it a key goal of initiation to develop this kind of flexibility?
Steve
-
93
Stephen wrote:
"Good debaters can flip a coin and then argue either side of an issue well. Should Thelemites be any different? Smile"
That is sophistry. It is good for lawyers. But there is no room for debate after discovering basic principles of existence. A thing either is, or it isn't. There is either a Sun, or there isn't. You may by argument convince others to your point of view, may potentially fool them, but in the end this doesn't change the fact that the Sun is pelting you with its radiation, lead notwithstanding. Yes? No? Of course yes.
and then he wrote:
"I assert that it's just as important to stand firmly in Assiah - and see the Wonder of the Universe from the point of view of "soul as epiphenomenon of the brain" - as it is to stand in the other worlds and view spirit/soul as the primary "stuff." "
Right, but you see this isn't an intellectual debate between two people who are not certain on an issue. One knows and another doesn't. The one who doesn't couldn't possibly believe that the former actually does. This doesn't change the facts of the former's knowing.
and further:
"Isn't it a key goal of initiation to develop this kind of flexibility? "
I can see where you're going with this but I think the answer is no. Initiation is supposed to awaken you to the reality of things, not simply their intellectual possibilities.
And so I would ask you: Is it possible for one who doesn't know to know what one who knows knows simply by the former convincing them of it? Yes? No? Of course no.
93, 93/93
P.S. I make no comment on the original topic.
-
@Draco Magnus said
"93
Stephen wrote:
"Good debaters can flip a coin and then argue either side of an issue well. Should Thelemites be any different? Smile"
That is sophistry. It is good for lawyers. But there is no room for debate after discovering basic principles of existence. A thing either is, or it isn't."
It was only a short time ago that our ancestors were certain -- CERTAIN -- that the earth was flat. This was, at the time, without doubt, a basic principle of existence. The earth was flat, period. If you said the earth wasn't flat, you were probably killed. Fortunately, people kept saying it, disregarding the basic principle of existence of a flat earth â back then, there was apparently room for debate.
I'll be glad to discuss with you the lack of existence of a soul when I see you.
-
@zeph said
"It was only a short time ago that our ancestors were certain -- CERTAIN -- that the earth was flat."
Yes, and they were wrong. (Or else they were right, and we are wrong.) I think we're confusing serveral issues here. On questions of fact (e.g., is the earth flat?) there is a right answer and anything that contradicts that is wrong. But the existence of a right answer does not mean that we know the right answer, and for that reason we do indeed need to be flexible. It's a virtue to be able to see all sides of an argument where the facts are unclear.
A question like "is there a God?" on the other hand is of a different character. "God" is not a thing like my tea mug or the sun; it's a symbol or an "archetype of the collective unconscious". It's a sort of vehicle for conveying information that cannot be grasped by the logical mind. It is an important part of our training to learn to experience both "there is a God" and "there is no God" as "true" in order to develop a state of consciousness that transcends the logical mind.
As for the question "is there a soul?" -- I don't know if it belongs to the first category or the second! Is the soul a thing or a symbol? I guess I'll have to be flexible and try to see it from both points of view.(PS. A better kabbalist than I would have sprinkled this post with terms like "ruach" and "briah" and the like. Sorry.)
-
93,
At certain points, consciousness becomes stretched beyond anything we have experienced previously. At such points, we realise that we need a term beyond 'mind', which covers only a certain range of pehenomena and perspectives on those phenomena. I am not trying to define a precise line between 'soul' and 'mind' because I don't know how. But there are certain things that shake us from, and at, levels we did not suspect we could experience until that opening happens.
So declaring dogmatically that there is no soul becomes absurb at that point, at least for those who have had such experiences. Even if we insist on a reductive attitude that "all is mind, and mind is an epiphenomenon of the central nervous system" we still need a new label for the 'part' or 'level' of mind that has such experiences.
The word 'soul' is as good as any, and lets us differentiate between the regular spectrum of human mentation and those things we (perhaps stumblingly) call 'spiritual'.
Whereas pushing it all back into one little conceptual box doesn't help us at all, unless we are afraid of the awe that comes with the soul experiences, and want to block it out.
93 93/93,
EM
-
@Draco Magnus said
"But there is no room for debate after discovering basic principles of existence. A thing either is, or it isn't."
Below the Abyss, sure. Maybe the ultimate reality of things like divinity and soul have their home-base in the supernals?
And my lawyerly, debate-society analogy did come with a smiley...
@gmugmble said
"As for the question "is there a soul?" -- I don't know if it belongs to the first category or the second! Is the soul a thing or a symbol? I guess I'll have to be flexible and try to see it from both points of view."
I can't add much more to this. At this stage of my evolution, I'm comfortable putting it in the second (God-like) category.
@Edward Mason said
"The word 'soul' is as good as any, and lets us differentiate between the regular spectrum of human mentation and those things we (perhaps stumblingly) call 'spiritual'.
Whereas pushing it all back into one little conceptual box doesn't help us at all, unless we are afraid of the awe that comes with the soul experiences, and want to block it out."
I'm right with you about the usefulness of the concept of soul. One of the great things about the Western esoteric tradition (and Hermetic Qabalah in particular), in my view, is that it gives us an expanded language for these concepts that allows the full depths of mystical experience to be plumbed and explored.
It's the literal belief in these things (whether based in personal experience or just "learned") with which I feel uncomfortable. I'm reminded of Crowley's comment about thinking the letters C.A.T. actually give rise to a cat. I think it's possible to be stuck in an opposite kind of "box," wherein one can't imagine that an "underlying" materialist viewpoint could be compatible with awe, wonder, or gnosis.
Anyway, that's the vibe I get when the more "paranormal" aspects are simply assumed to be literally true - i.e., a straw-man is set up: "Those nasty materialist skeptics just don't get it." I like to think Thelema is a slightly bigger tent than that...
Steve
-
@Steven Cranmer said
"Anyway, that's the vibe I get when the more "paranormal" aspects are simply assumed to be literally true - i.e., a straw-man is set up: "Those nasty materialist skeptics just don't get it." I like to think Thelema is a slightly bigger tent than that..."
I guess I don't see any difference between that and anything else for which we use verbal language.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"I guess I don't see any difference between that and anything else for which we us verbal language."
Hmm.. Part of me wants to rebel against that and say: "No, my petty distinctions are important! They reflect really different ways of..." But there it is. Step away from one trap of "real," and there's another one behind me!
I guess if the goal is reaching the mountain-top, it doesn't matter if you get there via the northern route or the southern route...
Am I a 5=6 now?
S
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"Very young souls superficially resemble very mature souls. The superficial similarity is that they seem naturally connected to spiritual worlds. But for the very young souls this is because they have barely left them, have hardly emerged out of them. They have a tendency to be enormously curious and keenly alert, to have almost an idiot's capacity for natural happiness (and corresponding capacity to be deeply hurt). Even as adults, unless very badly treated as children, they carry a child-like sense of wonder, ability to smile, and ability to trigger a smile. Even when hurt, they tend to spring back with a child's resiliency pretty much regardless of their age. Etc."
Yikes! I can identify with almost everything in that description, but I don't want to be a youngling!
Could I please get an elaboration on the subject, Jim? Is having a few talents a bit "above" ordinary humans, such as learning to read early, calculate math early, ask a tad deeper questions than most etc. a good sign that those treats are only superficial and not of that I was an elemental or the like in my former incarnation? -
@Malaclypse said
"Yikes! I can identify with almost everything in that description, but I don't want to be a youngling!
"LOL. I'm sure my description is insufficient for making such a judgment. I was just trying to give an idea of the type.
"Could I please get an elaboration on the subject, Jim? Is having a few talents a bit "above" ordinary humans, such as learning to read early, calculate math early, ask a tad deeper questions than most etc. a good sign that those treats are only superficial and not of that I was an elemental or the like in my former incarnation?"
In the same way that my description is insufficient for making a judgment, so are these traits - I really couldn't offer an opinion without personal contact. However, having said, that, I'll add that yes, some of those traits do sound, to me, like unlikely first incarnation traits.
But don't include a tendency to "ask a tad deeper questions than most." Few are likely to ask genuinely deeper-seeming questions than the youngest incarnates because (remember) they "just moved here from the Deva world" and it's natural for them to think and inquire of it as the newly blind might speak of sight and ask the most cogent questions about what a thing looks like. OTOH, while such might have a natural aptitude for math (depending on what type of being they have been), there isn't likely to be a picking up of distinctly human and Ruach things from very young as if one were taking a brief refresher of things previously mastered.
Does that make sense? It's a subject not discussed much.