Reincarnation

[solomon levi]

Have you noticed how circulation parallels reincarnation?
The soul is recycled until it is pure enough to ascend as one with spirit.
It identifies once again with consciousness.

 

[dragon]

Hello, I am new to alchemy, and this forum, but not to the concept of it all. I have been getting opinions across the internet and was wondering what some people on here thought. (Please move this post if it is not in the correct location.)

I do have a question for members of the site, and after doing a search, I only found one comment. My question is about reincarnation of one species to another, mainly, the reincarnation of an animal or other sentient/intelligent being in to a human physical body. What do you think of this? Do you think it is a spiritual trait of many (to have had a body of a non-human in a physical scenes)? Please feel free to construct a point of view that is not against site rules, but represents your true feelings if you wish to disclose them.

One more question for those who have herd of the term "Otherkin." How does this reflect on your view against what you associate with the otherkin community?

 

[Nibiru]

I'm unsure but it seems possible to me.

Metempsychosis:

Metempsychosis (Greek: μετεμψύχωσις) is a philosophical term in the Greek language referring to transmigration of the soul, especially its reincarnation after death. It is a doctrine popular among a number of Eastern religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Druzism[1] wherein an individual incarnates from one body to another, either human, animal, or plant.

From here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metempsychosis



Apparently Pythagoras was a proponent of this philosophy:

“Pythagoras believed in metempsychosis and thought that eating meat was an abominable thing, saying that the souls of all animals enter different animals after death. He himself used to say that he remembered being, in Trojan times, Euphorbus, Panthus’ son who was killed by Menelaus. They say that once when he was staying at Argos he saw a shield from the spoils of Troy nailed up, and burst into tears. When the Argives asked him the reason for his emotion, he said that he himself had borne that shield at Troy when he was Euphorbus.

They did not believe him and judged him to be mad, but he said he would provide a true sign that it was indeed the case: on the inside of the shield there had been inscribed in archaic lettering EUPHORBUS. Because of the extraordinary nature of his claim they all urged that the shield be taken down - and it turned out that on the inside the inscription was found.” (Diogenes Laertius)

Taken from here: [link broken]

 

[solomon levi]

In my understanding/memory, when the first thought became aware of
itself as the first thought and there was awareness/consciousness and that which
was/is unaware/unconscious... the conscious points of "God" are the substance of
the universes, aeons, planes, dimensions...
After aeons, these conscious points evolved (or involved, as they are still on their
way to mass, still inorganic spirit beings) to a point where they created the creation -
suns, planets, atmospheres, mineral, plant and animals... and finally they created
bodies for themselves to occupy so that they could experience their creation mass to
mass - smell the flower, see the colors, feel the scales of a fish... etc.
Now in creating the animals, they necessarily became their creations, but then they
withdrew, particularly the individual soul - most animals operate on a collective
consciousness. It's hard to explain... mainly, they don't say to themselves "I am".
The human bodies are fairly similar, but more evolved, mainly because the "I am"
consciousness has dwelt in them for so long. It is very plausible, and a fact if you ask me,
that there are other planets in other star systems that the "I am" has identified with canines
or insects or dolphins or whatever.

Sooo... I don't think people reincarnate as animals. I think they can remember when they were
animals in their deepest soul memories... we can even become animals now, like the shamans
of north america did the buffalo dance to locate the herd. But animals are energetically different
than "I am"s. I don't see how someone could become an animal, unless they really wanted to -
anythings possible, but not for just anyone.
If one did reincarnate as an animal, it might be in a place where that animal has "I am", and I will
admit that rarely there are "I am" animals on this earth for some reason or another. But I disagree
with the generic version of someone (especially a sleeping someone) coming back as a goat or
whatever, especially to be punished. Humans get punishment enough and create psychological
hells for that between incarnations.

Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[Krisztian]

I think the energy-substance, for lack of a better term, that our soul is can, and does, reincarnate in many forms. Not just all of the soul energy into one single body; but also can easily split into several energy forms and reincarnate in the physical world at the same time, as an animal, humanoid, rock, tree, etc. In the lower form of vegetation like a tree, I tend to believe it doesn't need as much energy as perhaps when reincarnating as a humanoid. All things are coagulated energy, and the soul can, and does, collect different experiences. The soul can have many faces, forms, etc. in reality. All is valid.

I think when we say, we're one single identity only, with a separate soul, we're more speaking here about ego, fear of loss of identity. People are generally, I noticed, fearful of the thought that maybe their precious humanoid identity, say, named Bob, is only one among many in the same soul family. In other words, that perception tends to be generated from fear.

That's my position.

 

[Seth-Ra]

I meant to respond to this thread weeks ago, but forgot about it, until a mention in another thread reminded me.


To my understanding, past "memories" are just that - memories, though not of you yourself. As has been mentioned in other threads, there are things like genetic memory, and even your food affecting your emotions/thoughts due to how it felt (like slaughter houses for example). So, with your being having such family histories, and genetics flowing through it, plus the energy that makes you up (food wise, which is always being taken in), as well as location (some places jar a deep energy-memory of a similar place, or the same one, depending), one connects to, and experiences the past.

Much like how residual hauntings (non-intelegent, those that simply repeat the same thing over and over again) are like a video-recording of the past, i.e. a memory of the planet (or that specific location), so to are such inward energy memories. Our body/mind mimicking the planet's, but ours are inward memories which become our own sort of ghosts.

Why cannot the flower remember the minerals that it once was? Or the rabbit have memory which belonged to the flower (or carrot more likely), and why not the wolves having rabbit memories, and then the humans - having memories of them all, until one day the flower has a human memory?

Its not that we once were - its that we all are - in this moment, in every moment, connected.




~Seth-Ra

 

[Awani]

I have started to consider that to come back as an animal is an honour. To be for example a whale would require a nirvana state to be able to float around in the vastness of the deep without going insane. Most animals lack all the negative attributes that we humans have.

Of course we say we have skills they don't but science has changed a lot. Before animals didn't have feelings and now we know they do. Shamans have always known this but they have always been a little wiser.

 

[Krisztian]

I have once heard a 'channeling' that locked into a rock that was sitting in Siberia somewhere. I guess, what I remember from this transcript is how alive the rock itself sounded. It was waiting for a flood that was going to happen some hundred of years from it's present state. It's been 25 years since I last contemplated this transcript but I couldn't help but think how 'slow and uneventful' the experience of the rock sounded. It was very imaginative like a child playing in the garden.

 

[Awani]

Good point. If you time lapse a mountain it will look like a wave. Nothing in the world is dead matter. Perhaps man made things like plastic, not sure but feels like it. Although we are here to create more novelty and new matter. Inventions are not bad in themselves only how we choose to use them.

 

[solomon levi]

This is a matter of perspective; of identification.
As bodies, as genetic material, of course we have existed before,
in/as our parents, and their parents and so forth.
This can also lead to soul, to evolution.

But as spirit... spirit has not had many manifestations, many lives/incarnations.
Spirit does not evolve on time like soul and bodies do.
Spirit is one, is forever, is your ultimate identity.
Spirit is impersonal.

 

[solomon levi]

Spirit is a spontaneous realisation.
I have said that I am not interested in my soul.
That hasn't always been true.
About 6 years ago, I was still interested in evolving as a soul.
But what happens with spirit is like the singularity of a black hole.
As you approach it, time speeds up exponentially, and suddenly, you are spirit
without any time, without a past, without cause and effect, without relation to
your past, without ideas of evolution.
Spirit is the black hole. When you become aware of it, it starts to suck you in.
As spirit, I am not the product of my past; I didn't evolve to this state.
This has always been the underlying truth of me.
Everything else was a story.

 

[garvolt2002]

To be honest on the subject of Reincaration nobody really knows. Each religion and esoteric group have different viewpoints. I don't think we will ever understand if its true or not.

 

[solomon levi]

If nobody knows, we must assume the Buddha was disillusioned and not enlightened at all.

This is certainly within the known. Nothing I said above is speculative.

It is an error to think/assume that what we personally know now is all that is
possible for man to know.

There are hundreds or thousands who remember previous incarnations.
I am one, Krisztian is one, my mom was one, Androgynus too...

 

[solomon levi]

A very scientific explanation, which I actually saw myself in vision, is this:
Everyone in bodies now are the successful survivors of genetic lineage from the beginning,
whatever that beginning was. When a tree grows a fruit and a seed, is the seed not the tree?
When is it not the tree? When it creates a new tree? The parent tree is also the child tree.
They are genetically connected. So too are we. Your genes remember! They wouldn't be genes
if they didn't.
Reincarnation is simply becoming aware of what your genes already/always know.
This is as simple as saying your body is the product of your parents genes, and they of theirs,
and so on, and so on.
Soul is the product of life memories, just as ego is the product of this life's memory.
Spirit is the only part of us that isn't the past - a product of something else.

Reincarnation, as it is generally known, is only slightly more complicated.
We don't normally call every previous genetic existence one of our past lives;
only the ones our soul had "spike" experiences in seem like "ours".
This idea of possession is illusory though for those who look very closely.
Even your ego isn't you/yours. When you're not personal, possessive, identified, attached...
every life is you. You are consciousness. Everything is this one consciousness.

 

[Krisztian]

There are hundreds or thousands who remember previous incarnations.
I am one, Krisztian is one, my mom was one, Androgynus too...

O it's impossible for me to ignore re-incarnation. It's not about belief; in fact the word 'belief' shouldn't be in the vocabulary nor thinking of a spiritually-inspired person.

As for the intellectual arguments:

Every religion, known to mankind, even very remote traditions, as well as those that went extinct, contain within their system of philosophy 'reincarnation'.

Canadian psychiatrist Ian Stevenson's clinical work has seriously explored this subject.

Plato, perhaps the greatest philosopher of recorded history, says we don't learn anything new, we just 'remember' by the help of experience.

/

But, there's no thing I can say to change minds and, it is as it should be. Perhaps one day you recall memories that just don't fit, makes sense, within the constrains of your current identity.

 

[Krisztian]

Coast to Coast AM

Excerpt taken from Coast to Coast AM website, I believe George Noory will be hosting Monday night, June 11th, 2012 on his radio program the topic of reincarnation:

Widely respected journalist and publisher, Roy Stemman, will discuss his life researching the paranormal, and his most recent work investigating reincarnation, comparing the best-documented case studies from around the world, as well as the scientific theories to explain them.

I guess, as life would have it and always does, this program may be fitting to what we started discussing here in this Thread. We'll see where Roy takes this topic?

 

[Awani]

There are hundreds or thousands who remember previous incarnations.
I am one, Krisztian is one, my mom was one, Androgynus too...

Having experienced visions of reincarnation I have viewed it both as beautiful as well as horrifying.

A: One part of me is afraid to die because I don't want to face the eternity... the infinite light... physical life down here seems so easy to grasp in comparison. I guess this is the addictive nature of the physical realm.

B: Another part of me is looking forward to death because it will be a great adventure stepping into the unknown... and moments after this it will be the known... only to - perhaps - be transported back into a new body, which is fine... why not... till it's not.

C: A third part of me still thinks that it could all be mumbo-jumbo and in death everything just goes "black". The end of any sort of awareness or consciousness.

The wisdom I have experienced has firmly told me that it is path B that is the most wise path to travel on. The best state of mind to have when thinking about these things. It does bring the most peace... just can't seem to shake the other two...

It's like a roller coaster. Either it will be very fun, or it will be very boring/sickening... or there will be an accident. The concept that it might actually be fun/enjoyable is the most wise path to take... and it will probably be correct... but it is nevertheless not impossible that it might be bad or, even worse, fatal.

I don't really have a point... just wanted to put it out there that even though I am 99 % certain of my current position the 1 % is bugging me. I am aware that it is practically impossible to be 100 % certain about anything. That would be silly, but it would be some sort of peace of mind.

Perhaps the best path to go down is to say that this is 100 % how I want to see things and how I want the afterlife to be like... and if for some reason it isn't then I will be reborn anyway and forget all about it or I will loose consciousness and then it won't matter anyway. Because what I want is the only thing that I can be 100 % certain of... for the most part. And I want this:

[image link broken]

 

[3+O(]

If the spirit can leave the body, that is, temporal conditions, for eternity and return to time in another body, what restricts it from entering a body in the past of its previous bodily incarnation? To suppose it cannot implies some higher-order "time" in which our time is embedded but which is not yet the timeless condition.

Furthermore, if reincarnation (metempsychosis) is a reality, what prevents simultaneous incarnations of the same spirit?

And, if one agrees with the argument to this point, then one must agree that it is superfluous to assume the existence of more than one spirit, which is incarnating in all bodies at all times.

 

[Ghislain]

As all is now then to enter a body in the past of its previous bodily incarnation is already happening...right now.

Ghislain

 

[Bel Matina]

The past is in one's memory and the future in one's expectation. What you remember, you remember now, and likewise with expectation. Time may or may not be a fiction of these phenomena. It doesn't matter. Either way, the relationship of now to another moment is established by its presence in the moment now, whether explicitly as memory or expectation, or implicitly according to the rules of logical consequence. Therefore my relationship with each of you in the moment of reading this is no different than to the memory or expectation of myself in another moment. All souls I can conceive of may or may not be identical to mine, but they might as well be.

 

[Ghislain]

The past is in one's memory and the future in one's expectation.

Information of the past is in the memory, perhaps, but where is this memory?

If I write "Elephant" then the reader can recall an elephant from memory, but can I chop the brain up to find the information of this elephant they recall?

If one could plant the information of the past into the place where it is stored, wherever that may be, would those plantees perceive that as a past they have lived through?

I do understand your point BM, but if we only think inside the box then is there an outside?

If everyone was implanted with past thought of you then you may have only just got here and we would be none the wiser.

So reincarnation may just be as simple as a reboot.

Ghislain

 

[Bel Matina]

The memory is an image in the present, which appears to us in the same way that the image of the world appears to us. Whether the past, the world, or anything I could mention is really "there" in whatever sense might be meant makes no difference to the image. The experience of the moment does not demand a cause or precedent. It simply presents itself.

I do understand your point BM, but if we only think inside the box then is there an outside?
Ghislain

You do understand my point. You argue it well. I take it a step further. Is there any difference in consequence if there is or is not an outside? The systems that appear to exist outside our experience still appear, and therefore exist within our experience as well. Do we need to posit another place for that system to be repeated?

The Sefer Yetsirah defines five dimensions, as I reference in my signature; three of space, one of time, and one of choice. In as much as we travel in any of them, we could easily be travelling as freely in all as any. Time borrows its linearity from narrative. There can be narrative in a single moment, as in a memory, but there can be no string of moments without a narrative. Given our desire to make sense of what we see, how would we catch ourselves rewinding? If we carried a memory of the future, it would be to a new past with that image. A new beginning starts a new story, and when that story diverges from this future memory, does it mean anything to call it something other than an expectation? If I slip behind your face for a moment, I leave my memories in the moment here, and if I didn't you'd call it intuition, or imagination, or telepathy.

The ethical problem with solipsism goes away when you realize that all the restrictions placed on you by the outside world are already inside your experience. If I'm seeing imaginary reflections of myself I can certainly expect them to act similarly to the way I expect I would in their position. More than that, if this is all a dream, and I do violence to you, I should expect next to dream of being you in that condition, since that's the sort of word-association logic that dreams tend to follow.

I view every moment as simultaneous and complete, connected through their ambiguity, and most strongly along the lines of "sensibility", though not necessarily strictly. What attitude I take is more of a feeling derived from the experience that the stone projects with less resistance into a like medium. I find the universe of possible moments exists with some or another degree of clarity in every moment, and it seems reasonable enough that that universe would be the true nature of what I see, with only darkness obscuring everything invisible to me now. If I seem to be moving, I'm just turning the stone.

I digress. My point was that the faculties of discrimination and inquiry are indifferent to any reality beyond our immediate experience. Given that, if there's a deeper truth to be had, it will be through some faculty of direct perception, and it will remain fundamentally inexplicable. Committing to reincarnation as a linear thing assumes the narrative, or worse, assumes time, which I hope I've demonstrated to be a tenuous assumption.

 

[Ghislain]

We could go on and on with this conversation, I find it fascinating, however the thread is about reincarnation, thus we have to assume first that we are carnate in the form of our bodies, but what are we without one...

In my experience, and at this present "time", I assume myself to be me (ego), but from another point of view I see myself as made up of many and then those many are all a part of just one that encompasses all.

When people talk of reincarnation they are usually talking of leaving the body they are now in and an essence of them returning to this world incarnate of another body. If we take science as a truth then we most certainly do return, taken up by the roots of a plant perhaps, to go through the food chain and finally reach another body. But I am sure that is not what the question is asking. It is more of a question of us as a single entity restarting as we started within this body; forgive me as I get confused between spirit and soul.

I don't have a straight answer, I have had an experience that would be an answer to that if I could believe it myself, but I have to even question that experience.

Ghislain

 

[Bel Matina]

I think we've stayed on topic pretty well, though I do also see this wrapping up.

Taking the question of reincarnation as one of, "do we live lives other than this one?" "does this experience continue in another body?", I've proposed that in one of many analyses I hold to be equivalent, why certainly, all of them.

The circumstance could be equally well described holding that death is the end, or that the soul transmigrates specifically in an ordered way according to some criteria. I see every reason to think that what's true for you is whatever you will, and in any case I'm sure you'd never know the difference.

I've tried to communicate the value I find in seeing equivalent possibilities as equally true. Words can only indicate this sort of thing, not communicate it, so I've met no frustration. It was or it wasn't the time; you saw it or you didn't. If the time passed, it will come again, as all things turn with the stone.

I would like to hear about your experience, if there's a venue in which you're willing to share it.

 

[Eshai]

If we are all part of the whole, perhaps we can experience multiple awarenesses simultaneously. I do not regard the soul as solid and fixed, but rather as a liquid/gas and fluid, able to permeate multiple dimensions of existence, as well as fragment and give rise to more, each fragment unique in some fashion.