A Case For Reincarnation

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: UKTruth
Isn't this a pointless argument in the end? Suppose that we all reached broad agreement that we are 'recycled' by the universe and we never truly die? I still won't be able to remember 'me'. My experiences. My very essence. How many people actually have concrete past lives experience? The ones I hear of tend to have quite colourful stories but never any clear recollections or detail.

To use a simple and non controversial example , how many of us from this site will die and then if/when we come back remember our passwords so we can pick up the thread where we left off, with full knowledge of what we said before?

Without continuity of conscience, are we not 'dead' regardless of whether the materials of our bodies are recycled? (by the way, has anyone noticed the conscience is 'con' science).

The only afterlife I could really imagine is one where we move to a different place. By place, I mean dimension, or higher plane of existence. One that can not interact with this one. Reincarnation does not make any sense to me because, either, we would have SOME evidence of it after all these generations, or, it doesn't include our 'conscience' so it's the same as being 'dead' anyway.

But what if we "remember" or "know" everything after we die and it's only on this plane-this earth that we forget. And we keep reincarnating until we are enlightened enough to remember such as the truly great masters-Jesus-Buddha-Krishna-Charlie Sheen.

Perhaps we can choose to come back to earth if we want, to experience the physical realm? Perhaps we have no choice in the matter until we've lived enough lives or become "Old Souls".

All i can say is that it must be a long time before we can come back AND remember because no one has yet that I know of or have heard of. You would think that those who really did come back to the physical realm would be nice about it and tell everyone else. It would certainly solve a lot of the worlds problems!

But maybe they have. Maybe Jesus and Buddha came back. Maybe some of the ancient Chinese philosophers had come back. Maybe some of the new age guys now, are evolved souls.

Maybe, totally unaswerable really. I would have thought though that these 'retrunees' would be a bit more explicit about things.
The only thing that does make me wonder sometimes is just how good our 'memories' really are. Most of us can not remember much from the ages of 1-3 so maybe our consciousness has a limit on what it can 'remember'. I have a pretty good memory but it tends to fade out beyind 30 years or so.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: nerbot

Because their brains no longer function, their hearts stop beating, and they are no longer breathing, all of which are essential for life to be present.

Do plants have hearts and brains?

I think you have convinced yourself beyond the point of no return but please don't dismiss things said in reply so quickly without truly considering the bigger picture.

a reply to: nerbot

Plants don't need hearts and brains, their physiology doesn't require them, ours does.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: WhiteHat

If there are parts "falling off" then it is a sum of parts. I think it's simple logic.
Is a hand the body or part of the body? Is there a body if you take all the parts off?
Common, is nothing mystical here, just logic. Even if is growing a body is a sum of many parts.

Not really. If things are removed from the sum total they are being subtracted. In other words, a hand is no longer a part of the sum total if it is removed. Dust is no longer a part of the sum total if it is subtracted from the total.

What does that have to do with the fact that human body, every thing in fact being the sum of it's parts?
Too many abstract concepts to avoid an obvious reality. A hand was never "the body", was always a hand. A lot of human parts spread on the floor will never be "a body". Only when they are sticking together and functioning together we can say we have a body.
Like an orchestra being in fact the sum of people playing in it. Two people playing together can form an orchestra? No. What about three people playing together? Not yet. Ten people singing together but without instruments can be an orchestra? Again no.
There are some conditions to be met, as how many, and what instruments to be played before we can call a group of playing people together an orchestra.
Then orchestra is just a concept used in specific circumstances, and orchestra does not exists apart from it's component people. There is no such thing as an "orchestra" in itself.
It's a bit less obvious with a human body but is the same principle.
We attach labels to composite things in order to make things easier, then we start believing them to be absolute reality.

My point was that human body is a complex aggregate of things and conditions temporarily working together, yet is no absolute reality in itself, no singularity, and the fact that it does at some point become dust shows how relative its existence is.

If you believe in the absolute reality of the material world it can be a difficult idea to accept, and I can relate to that. Still using nothing other than simple logic we can see how reality can be taken apart piece by piece until nothing is left of it. Then maybe a shift in one's beliefs can happen by itself.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Is reincarnation meant to be an eternal 'Punitive' hamster wheel stuck in negative 4D Karma to regain rungs of lost enlightenment (relearn lessons missed last incarnation); or those that come back voluntarily as 'Ascended Masters' to help the human race? I bet on the latter as a positive; otherwise I think enough astral spirit forms are so desperate to experience the 'Human School" would take 3 months as a Somalian baby (died of starvation or aids) just to be a human for whatever time was allowed; having been a physical human is valued, (trophy wise accomplishment) in the astral plane.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: nerbot

We are energy, pure and simple. Energy that binds our molecules together and makes them function as an entity with minute atomic structure and order. Death is the beginning of Chaos until each part finds a new home...inevitable but often a loooooong journey of unknown destination.

Saying "we are energy" is no different than saying "we are mass". It's nonsensical.

So, what is the energizer bunny "animator" of the human body that leaves upon death that is supposedly eternal?

I find this topic very interesting and it made me think of the many, many children who recall past lives. There have been many who described persons, places, etc from their past life and when researched, it turns out to be real and truthful. I do believe we are reincarnated, as energy doesn't disappear. I feel that we have to learn some lessons on this plane before we are "enlightened" enough to move to the next.

Here's a site with a bit if information on done of the children who remember

www.psychologytoday.com...

Thought provoking and beautifully written. S and F to you sir.

I now must ponder this cycle.

a reply to: WhiteHat

What does that have to do with the fact that human body, every thing in fact being the sum of it's parts?

Plenty, but mainly that the idea that a human being is the sum of its parts is false. I'm saying that no, it is not a fact that a human body is the sum of its parts because it has no parts. There are no seems; there are no screws; there is no thread holding its parts together.

Too many abstract concepts to avoid an obvious reality. A hand was never "the body", was always a hand. A lot of human parts spread on the floor will never be "a body". Only when they are sticking together and functioning together we can say we have a body.

We've simply given an area of the body a name, like how we've named that little leg-shaped area of Europe "Italy".

My point was that human body is a complex aggregate of things and conditions temporarily working together, yet is no absolute reality in itself, no singularity, and the fact that it does at some point become dust shows how relative its existence is.

If you believe in the absolute reality of the material world it can be a difficult idea to accept, and I can relate to that. Still using nothing other than simple logic we can see how reality can be taken apart piece by piece until nothing is left of it. Then maybe a shift in one's beliefs can happen by itself.

Your "things and conditions temporarily working together" has no reality in itself.

Instead of these abstract terms, we can settle it by pointing. No need for some strange version of logic and further abstractions. Point to any "thing and condition temporarily working together" in your own biology and convince yourself or someone around you that you are not, in fact, pointing to your body.

The notion that we are an aggregate of parts is not only illogical, but also demonstrably untrue. Through our development we are always whole and develop through growth, not by interchanging parts. The human body is an organism, not a machine. It turns to dust; it isn't made of dust. Only by severing something from the whole can you call it a part, and until then the body is a whole. Saying a body is an aggregate of parts is like saying a loaf of bread is an aggregate of slices before you've even sliced it.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

So, what is the energizer bunny "animator" of the human body that leaves upon death that is supposedly eternal?

An organism animates itself quite beautifully. The rest is a figment of the imagination.

The notion that we are an aggregate of parts is not only illogical, but also demonstrably untrue. Through our development we are always whole and develop through growth, not by interchanging parts.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I think that for the sake of clarity we must define what exactly is a human body.
I feel a bit uncomfortable talking about the human body like that, I would rather take the example of a chicken, if you don't mind. A chicken is also a living, growing and developing entity, with a body made of parts.

Now, a chicken is evolving from an egg, but an egg is still not a chicken. First there is a cell inside that egg, then two, then four and so on until we have a chicken breaking the shell and waking away. At what point exactly the cells became fetus then the fetus became a chicken?
As with every thing is important to define how a body comes to be. So is the number of cells that "transform" the lump of cells into a body? Like 2 millions of cells are still cells but 2 millions and one is a body? It depends on certain organs to appear? What is the exact definition by which I can put two eggs next to each other and say " this have a chicken inside, this only have some forming cells?

Next, if a body is something "always whole" what if I cut a chickens leg? It will still be a chicken or not? If I pluck his feathers? If I cut his wings off? At which point we look at a mass of meat at supermarket and say: this is a chicken, this is chicken wings?
Is a dead chicken still a chicken or is something else?
How come, if I take away a chicken leg the rest of the body is still a chicken but the part I cut off became a leg? What exactly changed in that leg fundamental structure?

So I must understand that the body is a singularity from which we can substract pieces ad infinitum and is still remaining a body?
Until of course is so chopped off that cannot be recognized anymore as a body. So again, at what organ or part exactly the "transformation" take place and a body becomes some parts of the body? where do the body go when there are only parts remained?

Because if I have a glass of water and I take a teaspoon of water away from it, I will still have water in that teaspoon, not tea. Even if I spill all the water on the floor, they will not became parts of the water. I don't need a specific amount of drops to form water. Every drop of it will be still water. But not every drop of human body is human body, not the hair, the teeth, the ever changing cells of the skin, the replaceable heart, and kidneys and legs... and on and on.
Is the difference obvious now?
If I need certain parts to be together and certain conditions to be met in order to form an object, alive or otherwise, then that object is composite and it has no existence in itself. The fact that is not "put" together have no bearings in what is it fundamentally.

And if I didn't get something maybe you can give me an example or define the human body for me so I can figure it out better.

The notion that we are an aggregate of parts is not only illogical, but also demonstrably untrue.

Can we tell that to people with transplanted kidneys, or hearts, or skin?

a reply to: WhiteHat

The human body, as I am speaking of it, can be pointed to. All you have to do is look in the mirror. Now I don't think we should go around calling each other bodies—a given name will suffice—but for the sake of discussion I thought it was quite clear. The body, the flesh and bones, the meat suit. Not chicken bodies, not bodies of water, not heavenly bodies, not corpses.

What continues to live and function is the human body. A leg stops living if it is removed. if it cannot be salvaged and returned to function, it rots and turns to dust. It has no circulatory, respiratory, endocrine system. The rest does.

Nothing of the body reincarnates.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: WhiteHat

The human body, as I am speaking of it, can be pointed to. All you have to do is look in the mirror. Now I don't think we should go around calling each other bodies—a given name will suffice—but for the sake of discussion I thought it was quite clear. The body, the flesh and bones, the meat suit. Not chicken bodies, not bodies of water, not heavenly bodies, not corpses.

What continues to live and function is the human body. A leg stops living if it is removed. if it cannot be salvaged and returned to function, it rots and turns to dust. It has no circulatory, respiratory, endocrine system. The rest does.

Nothing of the body reincarnates.

Is true, nothing of the body reincarnates.
But our discussion was about the human body being composite. And you said "The notion that we are an aggregate of parts is not only illogical, but also demonstrably untrue."
To say that the body is not composed of flesh, bones, blood, organs and so on is absurd. Are they not parts that together form the body?

a reply to: WhiteHat

I added the reincarnation part to remain on topic.

But no, the body is not formed of parts for the exact reasons I stated earlier.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope
Well, that was quite...unconvincing.
But maybe you're having a bad day so I'll keep my belief for now.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: vethumanbeing

So, what is the energizer bunny "animator" of the human body that leaves upon death that is supposedly eternal?

An organism animates itself quite beautifully. The rest is a figment of the imagination.

Figment of the 'cosmos' (absolute's) imagination YES. This THING is always expressing itself in the most arcane ways; because it is imaginative (has seven laws to abide by/just as we do) and more so: has the desire to continue to recreate itself in better forms. Its desire is to improve the system through us/a higher and higher evolution of human. Explain the animation process even if a figment.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: WhiteHat
I added the reincarnation part to remain on topic.
But no, the body is not formed of parts for the exact reasons I stated earlier.

One chooses to incarnate as a human but there is a hierarchy; and after picking the family/circumstance must at some point recognize the lesson to be learned. If you do not and remain stuck in the material (same ole same ole I am Joe Shmoo) will digress; your ego/Iam will return to the no thing; as the desire to learn or understand this life is a game unless you take this experience seriously. There are few chances left at this; because to incarnate as a human is becoming next to impossible for older souls as they are not progressing (learning/too lazy) who their higher self is which is the key to the Cosmos progress in continuing to define itself. Individualized not particularized.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

I find more evidence for reincarnation than some of the latest theories on the Standard Model for example.
Reincarnation and the endurance of a Soul/Spirit is common to many belief systems worldwide.

The materialists who deny such have an agenda; it allows for the dehumanization of the Individual - experimentation and destruction of the human can then be rationalized in their minds.

(String Theory 10/11 dimensional space time. en.wikipedia.org...)

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

This is the big picture that starts to form as you learn and grow. The lightning bolts, rivers, trees, the fractal pattern is everywhere. It is only dogma if you believe it without seeing it yourself. You don't even need a mystical experience to see it yourself, simply gain enough information and it will reveal itself on its own.

"And you and I, sitting here in this room, as complicated human beings, are way, way out on the fringe of that bang. We are the complicated little patterns on the end of it. Very interesting. But so we define ourselves as being only that." Alan Watts

Is it more likely we are isolated phenomena on the ends of the pattern, or more likely we have been intimately connected to the pattern the whole time?

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: vethumanbeing

I find more evidence for reincarnation than some of the latest theories on the Standard Model for example.
Reincarnation and the endurance of a Soul/Spirit is common to many belief systems worldwide.
The materialists who deny such have an agenda; it allows for the dehumanization of the Individual - experimentation and destruction of the human can then be rationalized in their minds.
(String Theory 10/11 dimensional space time. en.wikipedia.org...)

It is common within many belief systems; not in agreement but has a thread that resonates within all that is undeniable. The Soul/Spirit is in the quest of knowing or understanding IAM far above (me or personality). The IAM is the individual growth of EGO attached to the Cosmos; (not the Freudian type). Not sure what materialists are up to; as they speak of body not the animation of?