Reincarnation
-
@Modes said
"That's why I try not to over discuss things."
"talk not over much!" - CCXX III:42
616
-
@Michael Staley said
"
@Aum418 said
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. " - Aristotle
IAO131"Thanks for that, Aum418, though I'm not sure the quote from Aristotle is applicable in this instance.
I wonder if in future you might indicate posts where you are adopting a stance purely as a debating exercise. Then I'll know not to waste my time responding to them.
Best wishes always,
Michael."
My point was that I can have an interest in Eastern Mysticism without adopting all of its tenets.
Do you intentionally approach all your posts to me as a passive aggressive bore?
IAO131
-
@Steven Cranmer said
"I suppose I'm with Aum418 (and maybe gurugeorge... and even Erwin Hessle, to an extent) on this, in that I share much of that ultimate reductionism. I continue to hope there's a place in the "big tent" of Thelema for those who are enchanted by the beauty and truth of the Holy Books, and who want to explore aspects of the path of self-discovery outlined by the A.'.A.'., while not really getting into the more... um... paranormal aspects?"
Yes, there certainly is a place in the "big tent" for Thelemites of all shapes, sizes, and diversities of interests. Rationalism is indispensible in daily living; however, magical and mystical experience reaches beyond the rational. That doesn't mean that one has to accept things indiscriminately; it does mean, though, that one doesn't discard experience on the grounds that it is not rational. It's not an either/or situation; both logic and intuition are necessary to me.
Best wishes,
Michael.
-
If we imagine the world as an ocean, we are like the ripples on the ocean. Formations like ripples and waves occur, because of wind, tides, and other kinetic forces. In the Buddhist analogy, the universe is in motion due to karmic forces. A ripple, a wave, or a billow may seem as an individual entity for a moment, creating the illusion that it has a self, but it is gone in the next moment. The truth is that all individuals are one. A ripple is a temporary phenomenon; it is just water in motion. We know that kinetic energy causes wave forms on a body of water and it would be ridiculous to say that a single ripple or wave has a self.
Similarly, in case of beings, the process of coming into life and being conditioned in a particular way is caused by karmic forces. The up and down of the ocean's waves corresponds with the rotation of the wheel of life. The sea that surges, falls, and resurges, is the life that is born, dies, and is reborn again. It is therefore obvious that we should not focus on the temporary phenomenon of the wave, but on the force that causes, forms, and drives it. Nothing else is said, although in more practical terms, in the Eightfold Path.
-
First and foremost, let me just say this to the OP: you are an sterling example of bravery, for it takes a certain amount of bravery to offer up to criticism ones most closely held beliefs; kudos.
That said, I shall now play "the devil's advocate" and argue against Aum418 in support of the OP.
Aum418: We meet again...and what - is this scene not a familiar one? In short, we have argued about this before have we not? Was I so unable to convince you of just how the position you are holding is somewhat reminiscent of "magickal thinking"; that a cause "seemingly" corresponds to b event?
Consider: if the brain is damaged, does it necessarily follow that consciousness is so damaged? So far, it seemed you'd argue "yes". Thus, I ask: how? The brain is not, itself, consciousness nor have we anyway, thus far, to make consciousness an object of study; ie: the brain is a material object, while consciousness is ever a subject - objective/subjective. Where is consciousness, then, in/of the brain? You argue quite stauchly that it is so: where, Aum418? Which atom(s), molecule(s), sub-atomic particle(s), cell(s), tissue(s), radiation(s), activity(ies), ...ad infinitum? And what - pray tell - shall be your proof besides a lop-sided causal correspondence? Just because the brain is damaged, it does not necessarily follow that consciousness is as well. The above notion of a wrecked car is actually quite fitting.
On the point of death then, one might reflect upon the notions of existence/non-existence and the logical absurditites which abound when we take the view - as most do - that the states of existence/non-existence (ie: annihilation) "co-exist"! What sort of madness is that...and we call it reason?! The self is not ever "annihilated" - that which exsists always exists; it cannot do or be otherwise. ...Though it is not ever "annihilated", it most certainly does - as motion necessitates - change or transform. As most occult/esoteric groups teach: death is no end - is nothing to be feared. Thus, I wonder: what is so difficult about that? What is more "magickal" - seeing an inert body and concluding - from that alone - that the individual is likely "gone" even if the rest of the universe doesn't seem to work that way, or seeing an inert body and concluding that they are likely in the process of changing or transforming from/of one state to another, given that's how the rest of the universe seems to work?
...Of course, I do realize I've hardly touched upon reincarnation as of yet. Nevertheless, perchance it is best if we can take this sort of debate one step at a time.
Thanks for your time,
QaZsE - Fr. T.E.U.
-
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,
-
Hmm...
Interesting - a "pyramid scheme"; in truth, I hadn't really thought of it like that per se but I can most certainly see how it adds something to the conversation. I had only ever read one of the "Seth Speaks" books way back when and - as you mention it - I most certainly do recall this "pyramid scheme" explanation. ...What particularily surprises me just now is how, for the past while, I had been puzzling over the rather paradoxical notions of:
- The individual material of the monad
- The collective consciousness of the cosmos
The "point in the circle".
Now, I have been meditating upon this symbol for some time now...and learned alot of things by it but this "pyramid scheme" might be the answer to the dilemma of the indivual vs. the collective monads/selves making up a cosmos; the "seeming" inconsistency, as it were. Thanks.
Thanks for your time,
QaZsE -Fr. T.E.U.
-
@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. -
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. 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?
-
...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.
-
@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 matterNow, 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? -
...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.
-
@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. -
...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.
-
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."
-
@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.
-
...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.
-
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.
-
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.