Reincarnation

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.

Mephisto

@Fr. T.E.U. said

"
...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."

Don't take it personally... (She has a Moon in Ares.)

Again, as regards incarnation, none of us can really prove that it either exists or doesn't exist. All we can do is debate semantics, unless, of course, someone here has managed to isolate themselves from the cycle of causality...

Andrey

@ Fr. T.E.U. , about what you said in the first page regarding which atoms in your brain consciousness lies in. (I actually made an account to write this, this topic being so interesting )

Anyways, don't know where I read this metaphor, but it isn't mine.
The question where in the brain consciousness is, which neural pathway is responsible, is akin to asking which transistor in a computer is responsible for synchronising audio and video in a film that is playing. And then using that as an argument for the external existence of audio/video synchronism.

Considering how drugs, brain surgery, brain trauma and disease, affect consciousness itself, it is very difficult for me to think that anything we consider ourselves to be "I" can possibly survive death.

Alias55A

"Considering how drugs, brain surgery, brain trauma and disease, affect consciousness itself, it is very difficult for me to think that anything we consider ourselves to be "I" can possibly survive death."

well mostly everyone on this thread is forgetting if something happens to are brain, it can deffinately impair our consciousness, but our etheric consciousness, not our soul, in order for our sould or HGA to take seat in this physical form, cirtain physical conditions must be aright! to properly handle to engeries and communications of such an entity of ourselves, since our HGA is of a higher realm, think of it as we have different bodys our sould gives off to exist and transform into each lower realm we decend unto untill we reach malkuth to take seat in the kingdom of the human body.

Fr. T.E.U.

...Luckily enough, I've gotten hold of a computer temporarily - should make writing the following response a little easier. That said, times a wastin':

"Anyways, don't know where I read this metaphor, but it isn't mine.
The question where in the brain consciousness is, which neural pathway is responsible, is akin to asking which transistor in a computer is responsible for synchronising audio and video in a film that is playing. And then using that as an argument for the external existence of audio/video synchronism"

@Andrey:

...However there is a subtle difference between the two metaphors, Andrey - a difference which makes it seem as if we are comparing apples and elephants here. Consider: in my case, I am talking about the problem of consciousness; the veritable "abyss" (lack of explanation) betwixt objective/subjective experiences and even causality. You, however, are talking in terms solely of objective experiences; things we could simply measure. Thus, in your case Andrey, it would - indeed - be ridiculous to conclude the external existence of audio/visual synchronism; there is a science behind it that is "completely" causal because you are talking about objects. In my case, however, we are experiencing a very real problem in that: we cannot see any true causal chain of events because of the difference in aspects; matter and consciousness; object and subject. ...Yet people go on making the mistake that: if A brain is damaged, and they seem different therefore, that B consciousness must necessarily have been damaged - which is flawed causal thinking; it "bridges the abyss" without an explanation; in short: it jumps to a conclusion based on objects alone. Does that make more sense now, Andrey?

"Considering how drugs, brain surgery, brain trauma and disease, affect consciousness itself, it is very difficult for me to think that anything we consider ourselves to be "I" can possibly survive death"

...And that would be a perfect example of flawed causal thinking, Andrey; concluding that, seeing as it "seems" like A, B, and/or C events affect consciousness, it must - necessarily - be so. No, no, no, no, no. The DSM-IV calls that "magickal thinking" (rather, it is one of the many interpretations of the notion); connecting events on a 1:1 basis because they "seem" connected and not because they actually are. Funnily enough, Andrey: most people hold to just such a notion, do they not?!

"Again, as regards incarnation, none of us can really prove that it either exists or doesn't exist"

@JPF:

Indeed, you are quite right JPF - no argument there! ...However - surely you can see, JPF - that we can still (at the least) test the logical tenability of some notion without coming to actual proofs; that there is more than one way to "skin a cat", as the saying goes? Yes, I am well aware of the fact that nothing shall ever beat the solid physical evidence(s) (1:1) but - to be perfectly fair - if that's all you considered...you'd be the poorer man, I'd think! Consider: what progress would science ever have achieved without any amount of speculation and/or theorizing, such as we are doing here and now?

Nevertheless, I very much do appreciate your comments JPF - it helps keep us "on the ground", in a sense.

"Don't take it personally... (She has a Moon in Ares.)"

...And the comic relief; thanks again, JPF.

"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"

@Shiva:

A classic move - the "quantum mechanics card" is played! ...Sorry if I'm coming off as a bit of an asshole here (I don't mean to), but it just seems to be that nearly every couple arguments in the field of occult/esoteric things someone plays the same card, as if it was going to elicit a different response this time around; as if it were going to be more of an argument this time aroud.

Quantum mechanics "proper" is hardly understood, Shiva; it is particularily "esoteric" (ie: expert knowledge), concerned less with actual physical tests and more so with theoretical abstract mathematics (and how things seem to go ape-shit at a certain point). Thus, it can hardly be used as an significant argument without a thurough grounding in that side of it. ...At that, we might consider just how the (all-too-common) misunderstandings of quantum mechanics prevalent today have given us such great works as: "What the bleep" and "My unicorn CAN fly".

I say, with full confidence Shiva: I know not of it; I profess my ignorance. ...We can't all be experts of everything, after all.

What you have mentioned above are only one or two "theoretial interpretations" of some phenomena, x (if that!), Shiva. Thus, I wonder: what do the other theories postulate; did you look at them as well and judge therewith, or did you simply choose those which seemed most pleasant to you? Understand: this is how alot of misunderstanding begin; the inability to view - fairly - all sides of a case; all the facets of a diamond. ...Not that you and I could even do that where quantum mechanics is concerned, mind you.

On that point: I could care less who agrees with those particular theoretical interpretations - I do not make decisions based "who supports what"; upon "authority".

The correct (causal) interpretation would be "some quantum theories 'seem' to disprove causality and locality" not that they, necessarily, do Shiva; to know for sure, you'd need to know both the Alpha and the Omega; you'd need omniscience, in other words. ...And with quantum mechanics, it's very easy to make mistakes concerning just that (ie: causality *), correct?

...Non-locality...isn't that - essentially - one of the basic understandings of the occult/esoteric; that everything is inherently connected from the get-go?

"Esoteric comment: Any two opposing qualities shall be evenly matched on a cosmic level if you take the Thelemic concept of 2=0 for the sum of everything must be nothing."

No argument, Shiva. ...However, let us think for a moment: what, then, is Nothing but Everything and Everything, Nothing? Essentially, to call things Everything or Nothing then is moot - it simply Is. This, in no way, detracts from the system being proposed above, as the points AGREE.

"The All is One, and the One is None"

...Mysticism.

"I believe there is no Soul per se"

...And I concur, Shiva; as it's generally understood (by the hoi polloi), there is no Soul - what is often postulated is simply ridiculous. Nevertheless, that doesn't - necessarily - mean there isn't (much) more to us, which only seems too likely given our lack of knowledge; it only seems too likely that we have (much) more to know about ourselves. As I mentioned above, we still need to succeed in the Oracle's dictum:

Know Thyself!

...Those who think they've figured it all out yet have failed miserably, as I see it.

Thanks Shiva; I appreciate the thoughts.

@Alrah:

"Well, you can work it from the general to the specific or the specific to the general and both at the same time for best results, but if your apriori is a wronger then everything that proceeds from it is going to be flawed except if chance throws you a ringer (stolen truth that doesn't belong there)."

No, it cannot Alrah; that's not how systems thinking works, ...how this sort of reasoning works. Consider: the fact that, say, x = 1 only ever tells you x = 1.

...As per expanding upon the notions of non-causality (and/or acausality) and/or self-causality as being - somewhat - ridiculous, no, I shall not expand on this Alrah; if you'd been reading along "carefully", you'd grasp what I meant by this comment.

"Previous to this I'd been having a transporting discussion on the virtues of vanilla. Ice cream often comes about in a seemingly sudden non causal fashion also. Why mourn a lack of monkey sauce?"

...Uh-huh.

@FraterLR:

Hopefully, I can get up the next response up some time today, if not tomorrow.

@Alias:

I saved responding to you for the last because it seems to be that you get what I am arguing, in a manner (your manner); thus all I have to say is kudos.

@All:

Thanks for your time,

QaZsE - Fr. T.E.U.

Andrey

Fr. T.E.U.

" we are experiencing a very real problem in that: we cannot see any true causal chain of events because of the difference in aspects; matter and consciousness; object and subject.
"

We cannot see any true causal chain of events, I agree. So to begin with I can say that neither of us can "win" the argument, we can at best get a more clear picture of the problem

From where I am standing something being subjective does not stop it from being examined or analyzed. The best part being that an external observer (actually a few of them) all observing a "subjective" event can in a way then both perceive it an analyze it as an objective event. Like very detailed and specific shared hallucinations would mean that there was something there, as opposed to it just being the mushrooms.

Same can go for consciousness, while it being subjective fully for the person in question, we standing from the side may to an extent see it objectively, and say something is there, now what can it possibly be?

I wrote that to try to justify that we can still examine consciousness even though its not matter or objective.

** Fr. T.E.U.**

"...Yet people go on making the mistake that: if A brain is damaged, and they seem different therefore, that B consciousness must necessarily have been damaged - which is flawed causal thinking; it "bridges the abyss" without an explanation; in short: it jumps to a conclusion based on objects alone. Does that make more sense now, Andrey? "

Yes it does. You are right, that conclusion would be premature. We have another explanation, that the brain is like a jewel through which light passes. Damage in the jewel does not damage the light in any way.

We should then test both models/hypothesis as far as they can be tested, and see if one can be shown true/more likely.

For the transistor hypothesis we have brain surgery. For the jewel hypothesis we have ? what indication do we actually have of the consciousness possessing some external existance? A melody is not material, shows itself through matter, but Fur Elize wouldnt survive if I nuked the piano, the sheets of paper its written on and the people that can play it...

This got me thinking about astral travel, and how that may be able show that the consciousness can be external to the brain, which then begs the question Why hasnt anyone won the James Randi prize?

Anyways I think I learned something today, Im just not quite sure what it is

Anonymous

"How photosynthesis works on a quantum level is really quite fascinating and suggestive and could have possibly made the best case for a type of consciousness existing very akin to the Platonic idea of form, and certainly various new hypothesis's about reincarnation could have arisen...
"

I'd love to hear the analogy...!