Reincarnation

Persephone

@Neshamah246 said

"Crowley believed that he was the reincarnation of Ankh-af-na-khonsu, the Egyptian priest who appears in Liber L (I:14, 36; III:37, 38). He also identified with Eliphas Levi (but I don't have any citings that might help in that regard).

Perhaps the spiritual world is like a 'Pyramid Scheme.' I wonder how many of you are old enough to remember the "Seth Speaks" books, channelled by Jayne Roberts during the late '70's? * 'Seth,'* through Roberts, suggested that all lives were lived at once, in the eternal now. Over our incarnate selves we have a sort of 'supervising Self,' the second-ordefr Self that is aware of all our incarnations (this might be seen as our HGA). Over that *'supervising Self' *was another Self, which administered the Selves of several of these 'supervisors.' And on up the ladder we go until we finally reach the **Ultimate Self **-- G/god, or whatever one wishes to call her/him. This Ultimate Self is over All incarnations through the intermediaries which are all parts of herself/himself, as well.

I don't know how reincarnation works. I only know that it explains a lot of experiences I've had; and it explains a lot of material written on the subject of 'life after death.'

But, I'm always open to new ideas, provided they are well-presented.

With much Peace,"

Neshama; I vaguely remember the Seth books, Am familiar with a couple of them. Last year I read that some in the field of quantum physics are putting forth the idea of parallel universes, or parallel timelines. I forget where I saw that. This seems to fit with a theory of living multiple lives at the same time. If this were true, it would probably be easier for us to think of them as happening sequentially in time as we know it.
In any case, reincarnation works for me also, in explaining many experiences.

Fr. T.E.U.

Hmm...

Might I propose a second possible explanation for the notion of the "eternal now", besides turning to the oft misunderstood quantum mechanics? Consider: the "eternal now" - as I have understood it - might mean the merging of present/past in memory; ie: that which has happened is recorded by the conscious aspect of the cosmos and can then be viewed as (technically) "still happening". In short: is there really any need to postulate a nigh infinite amount of time streams/universes? What say you?

Thanks for your time,

QaZsE - Fr. T.E.U.

Persephone

@Fr. T.E.U. said

"Hmm...

Might I propose a second possible explanation for the notion of the "eternal now", besides turning to the oft misunderstood quantum mechanics? Consider: the "eternal now" - as I have understood it - might mean the merging of present/past in memory; ie: that which has happened is recorded by the conscious aspect of the cosmos and can then be viewed as (technically) "still happening". In short: is there really any need to postulate a nigh infinite amount of time streams/universes? What say you?

Thanks for your time,

QaZsE - Fr. T.E.U."

Fr. T.E.U.; Sure, anything is possible and one theory is as valid as another. Could that be something like The Akashic Records?

Fr. T.E.U.

...Before I forget my argument, I'd like to propose a counter-argument to the comment above concerning complexity and the growth of consciousness. ...Infact, this is an older and well-used counter-argument of mine.

Consider: when most people talk about atoms, molecules, chemicals, sub-atomic particles, quarks, mesons, bosons - ad infinitum - they are talking about a matter that is postulated to be:

Not aware
Incapable of becoming aware

Ie: a rock, to most people, is just such "inert" matter. Fine - let's roll with this idea for moment and see where that leads us? So we have unliving/unaware quarks, sub-atomic particles (protons, neutrons, neutrinos, electrons...), atoms, molecules...rocks, dirt, metals...

Hmm...what about single-celled organisms such as ameobas and various bacterias? Are they not simply slightly more complex aggregates of the same matters above? So, let us include them. Hmm...what about eukaryotic cells? Surely we can all observe the fact that they, too, are simply slightly more complex aggregates of the same matters as above. Thus, shall we also include tissues, organs, and the more complex organisms such plants, animals, and humans? By the reasoning thus far, we can and must!

Now, let us return to the crux of the issue; the essential "leap of faith" exhibited by this reasoning as we consider rocks, dirt, and metals by comparison with single-celled organisms. Let us wonder: just "how" is it that we have very little trouble in seeing, say, an ameoba as being aware while not recognizing that it is made of all the same matters as the rocks, dirt, and metals which we have no problem in denying awareness? Is this not completely irrational; is this not a perfect example of "magickal thinking"? How shall complexity ever be able to do that which - supposedly - cannot be done?

Consider the following absurdity: by the "reasoning" above, I should be able to take a unawares matters, arrange it in some way, shape, or form...and, suddenly, it shall exhibit the qualities we already declared are impossible of it! How?!

Thus, we can safely conclude: one or more of the commonly held postulates mentioned above are wrong; either A). awareness is a potential of all matter and/or B) awareness is already realized (to varying degrees) in/of all matter.

EDIT: In short, I mean to say that consciousness, like matter, cannot be simplified or made an emergent property; it is the great subjective aspect of reality just as matter is the great objective aspect - think: the Father Mother and Child.

Now, which position is more the "leap of faith"?

Thanks for your time,

QaZsE - Fr. T.E.U.

Persephone

@Fr. T.E.U. said

"...Before I forget my argument, I'd like to propose a counter-argument to the comment above concerning complexity and the growth of consciousness. ...Infact, this is an older and well-used counter-argument of mine.
...
Thus, we can safely conclude: one or more of the commonly held postulates mentioned above are wrong; either A). awareness is a potential of all matter and/or B) awareness is already realized (to varying degrees) in/of all matter

Now, which position is more the "leap of faith"?
"

I apologize, I didn't know you were a materialist since you talked about a conscious universe. You have my condolences, you don't know what you're missing.
Your logic leaves out numerous other possibilities.
A and B are both basically the same thing, said different ways and there's no point quibbling about shades of meaning.
As others have mentioned, it really is surprising that so many non-spiritual people are drawn to a magick forum. But really, why bother debating this, since you have already made up your mind?

Fr. T.E.U.

...Excuse me, Persephone - I don't quite understand why you're so upset all of a sudden; why you're "taking pity" on me and offering me "condelences". Perhaps you could clarify yourself?

I'll end this quick response with the following:

Persephone, there is such a thing as a "spiritual materialist". ...That, and materialism is not synonmous with physicalism.

Thanks for your time,

QaZsE - Fr. T.E.U.

Persephone

@Fr. T.E.U. said

"...Excuse me, Persephone - I don't quite understand why you're so upset all of a sudden; why you're "taking pity" on me and offering me "condelences". Perhaps you could clarify yourself?

I'll end this quick response with the following:

Persephone, there is such a thing as a "spiritual materialist". ...That, and materialism is not synonmous with physicalism.
."

I again apologize if what I wrote sounded as if I was upset. I think that is a failing of just reading someone's words without hearing their voice. I wasn't at all upset, just trying to reply to your question. I sincerely feel bad for anyone who is a materialist. No pity.
Thanks for elaborating on your philosophy, if it works for you, great.

Fr. T.E.U.

...On the contrary, Persephone, it is quite obvious that you do not understand me.

Consider: my last question (a rhetorical one, even) concerned not the difference between A) and B) possibilities but the difference between postulates 1., 2., and A) or B) possibilities. Your answer then made no sense, Persephone, ...which is why I shall not entertain it further.

Secondly, by some definitions, you are most certainly "taking pity" on me ...and in a rather condescending manner at that. Now: if you want to pretend to be "greater than", be my guest Persephone - it matters not to me what your perception is. ...That, or you could be brave enough to stand up and explain:

Just what is it us "poor miserable" (spiritual) materialists aren't getting? By God, enlighten us already!

Thanks for your time,

P.S. - I hardly think you know my system from a handful of posts - perhaps you should reserve your judgement?

QaZsE - Fr. T.E.U.

Anonymous

Edited and italicized for clarification:

"Consider: when most people talk about atoms, molecules, chemicals, sub-atomic particles, quarks, mesons, bosons - ad infinitum - they are talking about a matter that is postulated to be:

Not aware
Incapable of becoming aware

. . .

Thus, we can safely conclude: one or more of the commonly held postulates mentioned above are wrong; either A). awareness is a potential of all matter and/or B) awareness is already realized (to varying degrees) in/of all matter.

EDIT: In short, I mean to say that consciousness, like matter, cannot be simplified or made an emergent property; it is the great subjective aspect of reality just as matter is the great objective aspect - think: the Father Mother and Child.
"

Redirecting...

Of the two possibilities that you cite. . .

" either A). awareness is a potential of all matter and/or B) awareness is already realized (to varying degrees) in/of all matter."

. . .which do you personally lean toward?

And if awareness is a "potential" of all matter or realized "to varying degrees" is this static or evolutionary? I ask because you say that it's "not an emergent property," and I'm wondering if you'd mind clarifying? I do tend to picture consciousness with an "emerging" quality to it but I may be misunderstanding your concept of consciousness and confusing it with "learning" or "memory."

Mephisto

@Alrah said

" Success is thy proof, and you won't find it trying to convolute yourself to gaze at your own arse."

What about someone else's arse?

As regards reincarnation: While it is probable that one's soul takes various forms during its cosmic evolution, none of us can conclusively prove that reincarnation is undisputed fact. Unless, of course, we have an enlightened master amongst us. Any hands?

As evidence supporting the reincarnation theory, however, I can provide this most conclusive observation: I had, for some years, a pet rat identical in form and temperament to my deceased great-grandmother. Accordingly, I did my best to treat her with grace and dignity.

Fr. T.E.U.

...I shall most certainly try to clarify myself, as requested.

Thus, first and foremost let me answer your first question: of the two possibilities mentioned, I find myself leaning more towards B) - that consciousness is already realized (to varying degrees)...meaning that it is, indeed, "evolving" as you mentioned.

Now, as per what I meant about consciousness not being an emergent property of matter is that consciousness (universally speaking) is not merely a property of matter in the same sense as, say, spin or rotation. ...That, and I am not presently concerned with the "quality of consciousness" (which then is a quality of the form) but rather the constantly subjective Self; the "I"; the Monad, materially. In short, what I mean is that matter and consciousness are aspects of one reality; they are (universally speaking) the simplest possible notions and do not derive their being from each other. Consider: a diamond which has many facets - one of them consciousness and the other matter; one of them subjective and the other objective - identification/liberation. ...Of course, there is a third aspect just as much as there needs to be a Mother and Father for the Child. By the "play of opposites", the Child (which was always a potential to begin with) is born; consciousness is realized in/of the cosmos precisely because there is now "something" to experience (ie: difference the self/not-self). Admittedly this is all a little simplistic, but hopefully the point is made. I'd rather not have to attempt explaining the whole process - the last time I did this...well, let's just say I'm still explaining it.

...And no then: by consciousness I do not mean "just" learning or memory.

Honestly, I'm pretty sure we're just not on the same page. Hopefully then this response helps some, ...or at least proves itself an "interesting" read.

EDIT: Perhaps this thought will help some - in essence, the aspects are one - all matter is one; all consciousness is one; all will is one. These aspects interact, but are not the same - they are like differing PoV's concerning one object: reality.

Thanks for your time,

QaZsE - Fr. T.E.U.

Anonymous

No, I think we're on the same page. I'm just clarifying some terms.

I am trying to tie your ideas back to reincarnation, which is on my list of "traditional phenomenological experiences" and "possibilities," but that's about as far as it goes.

It doesn't really mean anything for me to say so, but I like your thoughts and tend to agree with them. As I try to tie this common idea of ours to reincarnation, however, I run into the problem of "different matter." Conscious matter - I can imagine (if there are levels of consciousness), but since my current body is constantly re-made of different matter through the birth, death, and elimination of old cells, I'm not sure how to get to the idea of what exactly it is that reincarnates.

Is consciousness dependent on matter? I am told "no" by those who have had certain phenomenological experiences, and I am told that once I myself have these experiences, I will no longer doubt it, which... is what it is.... But for now, even when I connect consciousness and matter, it just makes the concept of reincarnation *more difficult *to conceive because it seems to bind consciousness to matter.

Thoughts?

Edit: Your own edit may provide some insight into that question, but if you have any more thoughts they are welcome.

Persephone

Alrah; Very funny and well-written.
And I would just mention amid a break in the endless intellectualizing, that reincarnation is traditionally called transmigration of the soul.

Fr. T.E.U.

Indeed, Persephone - quite clever! Surely, Alrah must be a genius for having, essentially, paraphrased definitions from an encyclopedia! ...Surely!

I, however, prefer sincerity - geniuses aside.

Thanks for your time,

QaZsE - Fr. T.E.U.

P.S. - Persephone, I really don't get the point of your need to assert "reincarnation = the transmigration of the souls", in much the same way one might assert "x = y" or "1 = 1"; what does it add to the conversation, exactly?

Persephone

Your comments are bordering on harassment. I can't decide whether you're a boor or a bore. Go away, I wan't even addressing you.

Fr. T.E.U.

FraterLR: first and foremost, let me just say that I am sorry - I don't like making people have to wait for their answers more than is - perchance - necessary. ...That said, I do have a few things to say prior to responding to your questions.

Understand Frater: I initially came into this thread for the sole purpose of "defending" the notion of reincarnation, for what it's worth. In short, I never really intended to write theoretically upon the matter...which is the direction things are going now, correct? Thus, understand: I am not against this, seeing as you have asked my thoughts in these regards but please note that I will only share them "if" you can remember that I am speaking theoretically; what I offer is a theory not facts, nor do I want you to merely believe.

That said, I'll begin writing an answer to your questions.

Thanks for your time,

QaZsE - Fr. T.E.U.

Fr. T.E.U.

EDIT: Mind the sp's...I'm writing this on a hand-held device.

The first question I'd like to entertain is: just "what" reincarnates? First and foremost, I'd like to commend you for grasping the notion that all is on motion; all is in the process of growing, changing, and/or transforming from/of one state to another - it is obvious that you understand this dilemma given your question, Frater. Indeed, "what" reincarnates when all is change? ...Does this not remind you of certain oriental lines of thought conerning "permanence/impermanence"? What does not change; what remains ever the same, in the whole of the cosmos? The answer is simple enough, when you think about it: the ground; the essence. This "matter" cannot change precisely because it is the Child of two absolute, interposing qualities: absolute density (ie: the aspect of matter, the Mother) and absolute elasticity (ie: the aspect of motion [Will], the Father). Thus is born the " atom" proper; the Monad (material); the True Self (consciousness). Thus, the Monad (True Self) is what does not change - in a sense; is what incarnates - which is how it changes. To pre-emptively rebutt: admittedly, there is a paradox in two interposing absolute qualities - I am well aware of that, ...however what is most important here is that we need to keep in mind that if either quality was to overtake the other, the cosmos as we understand it could not exist; if Spirit and Matter (the Father and the Mother; Motion [Will] and Matter) were not evenly matched, there would be a "winner" and the game would be over.

Of course, I'm hardly done explaining - that is far too simplistic an answer. ...Shall we follow the white rabbit a bit further?

Thus, if we can accept - even temorarily; hypothetically - the notion of a Monad built out by the interplay of these opposites and a cosmos built of them (Monads), we can effectively "see" our unchanging ground; the essence. Thus, we have:

The individual that does not change.
The ground that does not change.

Now, the problem: all the matter that makes who we are is constantly changing. Perchance the simplest way to tackle this problem would be to speak on the notion of "discrimination"; coming to know the difference(s) between the:

Perciever
Perception and/or the instrument of perception
The object percieved and/or the field of perception

The problem is, as I see it is that people are identifying with Perception and not with the perciever; are identified with the periphery of the incarnated self and not the center (the center being the perciever whom has - seemingly for a time - no form).

Understand: the Monads participate in/of the cosmos via involving into denser matters; denser material forms through a series of processes called involvation/evolvation/involution/evolution/expansion. This, in short, is the creation of aggregate envelopes or bodies and - following upon that - the taking of some aggregate envelopes or bodies for experience (the growth of consciousness in the Monad - the growth of the True Self). ...Interestingly enough, it seems that now might be as good a time as any to offer a "visual"; to offer some results of my meditations upon the "point in the circle". Think: the center is what incarnates, is what makes use of the periphery (the cirle); the Monad representing the sun has a solar system as it's envelope(s), the nucleus a cell, the planet it's inhabitants, ...that inner self a man. The planets will come and go, the cells organs will come and go, the life on a planet will come and go, as will the man but the center remains; the center is the crux of these lesser periods, these lesser rhythms. So long as we identify ourselves with these peripheries, so long it will be true that we have failed the Oracle's dictum:

Tetum Nosce; Know thyself!

The human being then has a triad of bodies or instruments of perception at it's disopsal; a physical body, a emotional body (astral body), and a mental body. Ontop of that is a higher mental body or causal body (refering to the notions of cause/effect relationships betwixt matter in these worlds) and a higher physical body or physical-etheric body which contains one set of the oft-mentioned chakras. Of all these bodies, only one of them remains after the death process is complete...and that is the higher mental or causal body which is the "temporary" seat of the True Self (the Monad). Thus, incarnation is little more than a telescoping process in which the Monad, in it's causal envelope, builds out a series of bodies and then "identifies" with the conscious aspect of some grade of matter within/of the bodies. Thus is the "personality" born; what many here call the ego.

...Unfortunately, my battery is dying so I'll have to cut this response short. Please try to refrain from "killing me" with questions as there is alot more to go, even now. Understand: I've hardly scratched the surface of this theory; I am trying to do it as much justice as I can in explaining it, but it is difficult.

Thanks for your time,

QaZsE - Fr. T.E.U.

Fr. T.E.U.

...Sighs That's how systems thinking works, Alrah; you proceed from general universal postulates and work your way "down-ward" (ie: to specifics). I am well aware that it is, essentially, a theory - but thanks for pointing that out again, Alrah, as if it changes anything whatsoever.

EDIT: Please note, Alrah that when I speak of systems thinking above I am not meaning systems theory.

On the point of non-causality and/or self-causality: I find these notions somewhat difficult to take seriously "given" what we do know about reality via actual experiments, ...while we're talking about proofs and all. Just saying.

...And your last comment just seems down-right ignorant; it adds nothing to the conversation, whatsoever - is a lame way of implicating: "Take that!, as if I really cared.

Thanks for your time,

QaZsE - Fr. T.E.U.

Anonymous

Thank you all for your comments/concepts. They've all be helpful.

Peace.

Shiva Tseba'oth

@Fr. T.E.U. said

"On the point of non-causality and/or self-causality: I find these notions somewhat difficult to take seriously "given" what we do know about reality via actual experiments, ...while we're talking about proofs and all. Just saying."

Profane comment: Some very respected ideas of the current theories on Quantum Mechanics dismiss the concept of causality and locality. Dismissing the implications and applications of Quantum Mechanics is somewhat difficult as those concepts are what power our modern technology.

Esoteric comment: Any two opposing qualities shall be evenly matched on a cosmic level if you take the Thelemic concept of2=0 for the sum of everything must be nothing.

My take on it:
We are all part of the whole Nothing that is existence. Our stay in human bodies is a manifestation of the Nothing divided, there's no soul of ours to (re)incarnate as there is only the whole Nothing. Once we die, our ride in this playground of human flesh ends and we go back to the Nothing or maybe start another ride, and that's all. I believe there is no Soul per se. What we have are manifestations of the Nothing. No more, no less. We are not apart from the whole universe.