Fangsz:

If one gives any weight to the multiverse theory, wouldn't it be possible for someone to be reborn in a different universe, the same way someone could be reborn in a different location on the world map?

I indeed think it would be possible, though that is highly speculative. I also think it would be extremely unlikely. We must consider deeply the reality of desire, attachment, familiarity, karma. When we peer deeply into the nature of those things anything like that seems highly imaginative and just simply not true. This is, at least, my experience.

Fangsz:

What if reincarnation itself is just a metaphor for collective consciousness?

I think this would be a failure of differentiation or lack of experiential knowledge. We indeed have things locked within our universal collective unconscious that we might mistake for "past lives." In fact, this is very interesting becasue our very genetics and cells and so forth do have memories of some kind that might manifest in an exerience. So that would be UR stimulating a feeling or stragne experience in the UR. And as can be noted, this is evident even in ordinary western psychology for this life. (i.e. I was burned by the oven as a child, my body remembers the experience, etc.)

But we DO also have very unique and specific UR "material" that can in many ways be easily differentiated from this (the above example or other possibilities) and they are indeed quite different in quality, source and nature.

All for now.

---

"With whom or with what are you in communion at this moment?"
. . ."I?" he replied, almost mechanically. "Why not with anyone or anything."
"You must be a marvel . . . if you are able to continue in that state for long."
-Constantin Stanislavsky

infimitas:

I've also read some of Brian Weiss' books.  He started out as your typical left-brained psychiatrist, then he had a patient whos troubles were difficult for him to deal with, so he tried hypnosis and... well, you can guess what happened next.  I found his story pretty convincing.  He also hints at a sort of non-dual goal, when one of the "master" spirits says that you are on the right track when you can look into the eyes of another and see yourself.

Perhaps both reincarnation and collective consciousness are effects of something deeper and more profound?

The idea of "mater spirits reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend recently.  I had said that when I write a story, I don't feel like it's really coming from my own consciousness.  I took that, and another experience I had that I'm not sure I know how to explain, as evidence of some sort of higher being, but "God" didn't seem like the right word for it.  My friend questioned the motives of this higher being, saying that, if it exists, how do I know it's leading me in the right direction.  I replied that if it was helping me evolve, I didn't see how it could be leading me in the wrong direction, but the issue of motives got me thinking that there may be more than one of these "master" spirits.  If they do exist, they wouldn't be completely non-dual, of course, but they'd be a lot close than we are and might act as guides, intentionally or unintentionally.

All this kind of reminds me of the movie Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, a sci-fi film where each planet has a Gaia spirit and every living thing that dies on that planet has a spirit that returns to the Gaia of its planet, much like returning to the Source in The Matrix Trilogy, where it is then, I assume, "recycled".  The serious of novels called His Dark Materials has a similar system.  The "Source" in that narrative is called Dust, which also represents Original Sin, but I beleive only conscious enteties return to it, rather than all living things (but it's been a while since I read the books).  Basically where I'm going with all this is that we see evidence every day that there is a sphere of matter that is recycled and a sphere of life that is recycled.  I think it would also make sense if mind and spirit were recycled as well, each sphere incorperating the last because life incorperates matter, mind incorperates life, and so on.  Maybe memories of reincarnation are simply due attatchments and familiarities that the mind and spirit inside of us formed before it was recycled, as timelody said.  But at the rate humankind is growing, it seems like most of that mind and spirit would be new, and it wouldn't necissarily be the case that a whole mind and spirit is reborn in a new body.  It seems like it would generally all get scrambled around.  It seems like there would also need to be reproduction processes just as there are in the biosphere, but perhaps more complex.  I guess in the sphere of the mind, part of that process is already evident when we see children learning about the world and forming their own consciousness, but what about reproduction of the spirit?  Of course, this is all very speculative, but I love to speculate.

timelody:

Fangsz:

If one gives any weight to the multiverse theory, wouldn't it be possible for someone to be reborn in a different universe, the same way someone could be reborn in a different location on the world map?

I indeed think it would be possible, though that is highly speculative. I also think it would be extremely unlikely. We must consider deeply the reality of desire, attachment, familiarity, karma. When we peer deeply into the nature of those things anything like that seems highly imaginative and just simply not true. This is, at least, my experience.

Fangsz:

What if reincarnation itself is just a metaphor for collective consciousness?

I think this would be a failure of differentiation or lack of experiential knowledge. We indeed have things locked within our universal collective unconscious that we might mistake for "past lives." In fact, this is very interesting becasue our very genetics and cells and so forth do have memories of some kind that might manifest in an exerience. So that would be UR stimulating a feeling or stragne experience in the UR. And as can be noted, this is evident even in ordinary western psychology for this life. (i.e. I was burned by the oven as a child, my body remembers the experience, etc.)

But we DO also have very unique and specific UR "material" that can in many ways be easily differentiated from this (the above example or other possibilities) and they are indeed quite different in quality, source and nature.

All for now.

1. There are different levels of familiarity.  What if a person is more familiar with a fantasy world than with the "real" world, and what if something like that fantasy world exists in a different universe?  Plus, maybe we can only act upon our strongest familiarities and desires (people and ideas rather than specific places), and leave the rest to things beyond our control.  If that's the case, than it seems to me we could end up in a different universe just as easily as we could end up in a different time and place.  I don't do a lot of purely science reading, but Micheal Crichton's Timeline indicates that different points in time exist simultaniously in seperate universes, and that's how it explains time travel in the story.  For me it seems more far-fetched that a reincarnated person would end up in exactly the same reality, but that's entirely speculative, as you said.

2.  I'm not sure I completely follow you with this one... using the four quadrants, wouldn't collective consciousness be LL and individual reincarnation be UL?  I'm sort of new to all the terminology.  But when I look at it that way, I guess it's a mistake not to look at collective consciousness and individual reincarnation at least somewhat seperately, even though they're most likely intertwined.  It still seems like an oversimplificiation, however, to look at reincarnation as souls drifting through time, from one life to the next.  I think what we see as reincarnation may indeed be, as infimitas said, simply an effect of something more profound.

When the ego and the physical body dies the pychic and causal realm remains The problem with reincarnation is that most people identify themselves with their ego and personalities and they feel this never dies and will come back. That concept has allot of problems.

---

when two people agree on everything all of the time one of them is not necessary

infimitas:

In The Key to Theosophy, which I am currently reading, [Blavatsky] refers to reincarnation as being a universal law that applies to all except ascended masters.  Her explanations get fairly complicated, but generally only the lower part of what she called "manas" reincarnates, which is part of the monad, I think.  She did change her mind at times though, for certain ideas; perhaps this is one of those things?

Probably, because on page 351 of Isis Unveiled she says:

Reincarnation, i.e., the appearance of the same individual, or rather of his astral monad, twice on the same planet, is not a rule in nature; it is an exception, like the teratological phenomenon of a two-headed infant. It is preceded by a violation of the laws of harmony of nature, and happens only when the latter, seeking to restore its disturbed equilibrium, violently throws back into earth-life the astral monad which had been tossed out of the circle of necessity by crime or accident. Thus, in cases of abortion, of infants dying before a certain age, and of congenital and incurable idiocy, nature's original design to produce a perfect human being, has been interrupted. Therefore, while the gross matter of each of these several entities is suffered to disperse itself at death, through the vast realm of being, the immortal spirit and astral monad of the individual--the latter having been set apart to animate a frame and the former to shed its divine light on the corporeal organization--must try a second time to carry out the purpose of the creative intelligence.

The entire text is available here.

Peter

---

"All nations should be like Amsterdam" -- Ken Wilber

balder:

Anyone interested in reincarnation, particularly scientific studies of modern cases of recalled past lives, has probably heard of Dr. Ian Stevenson, who currently does research under the aegis of the University of Virginia.

He is indeed one of the pioneers in the field. I read his book Where Reincarnation and Biology Intersect. His work is a great addition to other types of zone #2 research, since Stevenson does not use hypnosis. Especially when studied alongside other serious literature on the subject, the evidence on reincarnation is staggering.

In reply to some of the other recent posts, I do not see past-life memories as an effect of some form of collective memory. If that was the case, many of the time periods of a person's past lifes would overlap.  In later sessions, a person experiences the same lifes as in the first session. I'm not saying that there is no such thing as a collective memory, but it does not seem to play a significant role here.

There are indeed some very strange phenomena showing up, and for some of that it is simply too early to tell if it's real or not. Within the Scientology movement, for instance, experiences of past lives as a robot are not uncommon. As with any type of research, the experimental setup is very important, which is why I try to focus on trained researchers in this field. As with any memories, past-life memories can get distorted and parts of it can be fantasies. Idealy, a good setup should filter out such disturbances as much as possible. Helen Wambach was very careful in the way she asked questions to her test subjects, and took out the data of people who she thought could have read about reincarnation stories. Still, her methodology could use some improvements from a strictly scientific point of view. But since she was the first one using hypnosis this way, here work is absolutely important.

Tricia, reincarnation is not about the ego coming back, so reincarnation theory has no problem in that respect.


Peter

---

"All nations should be like Amsterdam" -- Ken Wilber

Hi Tricia (I always get the urge to call you "Trish" btw.),

tricia:

When the ego and the physical body dies the pychic and causal realm remains The problem with reincarnation is that most people identify themselves with their ego and personalities and they feel this never dies and will come back. That concept has allot of problems.

I see that as a problem with preconventional views of reincarnation rather than reincarnation perse.

Some traditions say that when the physical body dies, the animal soul (the part asociated with the body) also dies, possibly with its energies returning to Earth, its source and home.  The human soul (the middle soul) comes from higher though -- it is the part that incarnates.  So on the death of the body, the human soul returns to its own source: the divine soul (which includes several sub-levels, the highest of which is causal spirit).  The life we know now is basicly part of the animal soul and goes away as an exclusive "ego".  It still exists as a collection of memories, but becomes part of the divine soul, not unlike your chikldhood memories: those memories form part of you, an important part, but you are also much more than that now.

Is this true?  I suspect that some of it is, but mostly I see it as what Socrates called a "convenient fiction".  It has allowed me to be less attatched to my personality, and accepting reincarnation has allowed to relax, like Peter said, and not worry about having to do everything in this life.  Maybe I won't swim with dolphins... this life; maybe I won't walk on the moon... this time around.  But who cares?  What's the hurry?  I already have my own things going on, so I'll assume I am here for a reason and concentrate on that.  It also means I don't have to achieve full enlightenment, so I can approach spiritual practice with a more care-free attitude.

As important as those things might seem, however, I suppose that main reason I enjoy these discussions is that I enjoy metaphysics... up to a point, at least.  I draw the line at new age magic.

---

Gavin

Haunted by the familiarity of inner softness behind frozen eyes

kessels:

Probably, because on page 351 of Isis Unveiled she says:

Reincarnation, i.e., the appearance of the same individual, or rather of his astral monad, twice on the same planet, is not a rule in nature; it is an exception, like the teratological phenomenon of a two-headed infant. It is preceded by a violation of the laws of harmony of nature, and happens only when the latter, seeking to restore its disturbed equilibrium, violently throws back into earth-life the astral monad which had been tossed out of the circle of necessity by crime or accident. Thus, in cases of abortion, of infants dying before a certain age, and of congenital and incurable idiocy, nature's original design to produce a perfect human being, has been interrupted. Therefore, while the gross matter of each of these several entities is suffered to disperse itself at death, through the vast realm of being, the immortal spirit and astral monad of the individual--the latter having been set apart to animate a frame and the former to shed its divine light on the corporeal organization--must try a second time to carry out the purpose of the creative intelligence.

In The Key, she says that the astral is the personal soul of any particular incarnation, and essentially dies at the end of that life.  The true reincarnating part is the manas, of which the lower part descends to Earth each life-time, then returns to the spirit world upon death.  I think what she is refering to in the passage above is a special case of reincarnation where that same personality (astral form) comes into a new body.

I personally think she has it wrong.  I suspect that the soul simply reincarnates again for the same purpose and recreates a similar life.  Besides, she offers no real evidence for her views, she just asserts them and insists that they are the only idea that makes sense, and ridicules anyone, like the spiritualists, for having the ordasity to think differently to her.  (I think most spiritualists commit the pre/trans fallacy, but Blavatsky didn't know about that.)

This thread has inspired me to read Destiny of Souls again.  A second reading may enable me to update my ideas, especially as I consider myself a bit more sophisticated now.

---

Gavin

Haunted by the familiarity of inner softness behind frozen eyes

Hi Gavin,

Further on in Isis Unveiled (page 481), Blavatsky adds:

A resuscitation, after the soul and spirit have entirely separated from the body, and the last electric thread is severed, is as impossible as for a once disembodied spirit to reincarnate itself once more on this earth, except as described in previous chapters. "A leaf, once fallen off, does not reattach itself to the branch," says Eliphas Levi. "The caterpillar becomes a butterfly, but the butterfly does not again return to the grub. Nature closes the door behind all that passes, and pushes life forward. Forms pass, thought remains, and does not recall that which it has once exhausted."

It's kind of hard to figure out what Blavatsky's take on reincarnation was exactly.  She has a defence to that as well:

But such is the materialism of the age that the more we explain, the less people seem capable of understanding what we say.

Oh, okay...

I hope I get my Michael Newton books soon, and I look forward to what you have to say about it after a second reading.

Peter

---

"All nations should be like Amsterdam" -- Ken Wilber

Fangsz,

I think that with a lot of the things I have to share or explore on this subject we can circle back to some of your ideas a little bit later in a wider and maybe even more specific context -and I especially say this with regard to your dream. I am going to answer now, but please (I hope) be patient for a little bit more as we go on (at least from my perspective -this subject can get vastly complicated very quickly and I don't want to get too far off track).

1. There are different levels of familiarity.  What if a person is more familiar with a fantasy world than with the "real" world, and what if something like that fantasy world exists in a different universe? 

While again I see no reason to conclude that this is impossible, I would still maintain that it is highly unlikely. To post just a little bit of my view for now, I am thinking of A Course in Miracles. The workbook begins with a series of startling lessons (or daily reflections) the first of which is "Nothing I see means anything." and continues in this direction, at one point reaching

"I don't know what anything is for."

In the decidedly partial explanation for this he ( It, the Voice, Jesus) says (from memory)

 "When you look at a telephone you certainly know that it's purpose is to make it possible for you to call someone. But what you don't know is why you want to talk to them." (emphasis mine)

There are levels of depth going on underneath and/or behind-the-scenes of all of our simplest of activities that we (and ordinarily gross level mind, and even dreams) are simply not aware of. And some of these are the things which would cause me to say that-short of some seriously exhausted karma, bond, human attraction and attachment-the reality is that in another universe or another world you would probably find yourself so completely and utterly lonely it would simply be unbearable. (and I mean so lonely that, perhaps even with the most ardent will, life simply would not even be sustainable.) Oh, and don't forget, all of those fantasies and any or all love and identification with them are still products of the human mind . . . . that Spirit and Nature and nature have labored for 13.5 billions years to create .  . . right here at home.

 I also think here of the Bodhisattva Vow . . . which is something that arises naturally. If the most realized of masters find in themselves an inherent and inescapable obligation to return and assist and continue to live with all the others here, what is the likelihood of any consciousness realization less than that not doing the same?

Do ya kinda get what I mean? We are as much bonded and attached to you Fangsz, as you in reality are to all of us.

(Wow, freaking deep!)

2.  I'm not sure I completely follow you with this one... using the four quadrants, wouldn't collective consciousness be LL and individual reincarnation be UL? 

Yes, see, because I switched quadrants on you without notice demonstrating the complexity involved. . . . . I also accidentally wrote UR where I meant to write UL. Whoops!

 

---

"With whom or with what are you in communion at this moment?"
. . ."I?" he replied, almost mechanically. "Why not with anyone or anything."
"You must be a marvel . . . if you are able to continue in that state for long."
-Constantin Stanislavsky

in ...The Eye Of Spirit, Wilber has some thought-suff on reincarnation, which makes sense.

The Tibetan Book Of The Dying , is another.

and i think that's about it...the extent of my book-reads on this topic.

i recall one incident-time, when it sure felt like another 'someone' was merging in an upward manner , cell by cell within  my body ...at some point i heard a snippit of,  in-pain-like, (moan) male voice....it felt exactly as if a huge wave of 'crushing  pain' passed /  washed through  my matter-being...then a release ... light as feather with wings...

and then there was mamma bear one early morn' sniffin 'round my head-nugin...sure felt and heard her breath...feeling slightly painful tug ...and was cringing some...all the while thinking "i'm perfectly awake!"

baby bear

 

tricia:

When the ego and the physical body dies the pychic and causal realm remains The problem with reincarnation is that most people identify themselves with their ego and personalities and they feel this never dies and will come back. That concept has allot of problems.

I'll say more on this later, but indeed, the very idea of "reincarnation" is so completely loaded with endless forms of baggage, we have to always immediately ask (or at lest qualify), What exactly do we mean?

Again, I will say more on this later but I believe that in the end Buddhism does have it right with something that is simply a continuity of consciousness. On the older thread Icon posted Da Free Jon "Not only is your body going to die, you are going to die. And not just a little."

I also think we should -myself included-always try to orient ourselves with AQAL and Integral Theories and especially, as Peter has already, the zones, to be clear of what exactly we are talking about.

Again, more later but here is a portion of Excerpt G: from Volume 2 of the Kosmos Trilogy -with regard to an integral theory of subtle energies. (And of course, click the link for the full excerpt)

Wilber:

Reincarnation

      We come now to the most controversial topic related to subtle energies, namely, reincarnation or transmigration. I am reluctant to even comment on it, because once you take sides in this issue, you alienate the other half of the audience.

      My own belief is that reincarnation does occur; however, for the moment, I am more concerned with suggesting a proposed mechanism for such an occurrence, rather than arguing that it does or does not happen. Let us simply assume that it does, and then ask, how can that occurrence be squared with hypothesis #3, namely, that subtle energies are associated with complexifications of gross form? Upon death, clearly the gross form dissolves; what happens to the subtle energies if they are tied to those gross forms?

      At this point, one simply chooses to decide whether reincarnation exists or not. If you believe that reincarnation does not exist, then the integral theory of subtle energies that I have presented thus far needs no further adjustments (not in relation to reincarnation, that is). If, on the other hand, you believe in reincarnation, then an integral theory needs to be able to incorporate that occurrence. It can do so if it adds one hypothesis, as follows:

      #4. Complexity of gross form is necessary for the expression or manifestation of both higher consciousness and subtler energy.

      Hypothesis #4 introduces the possibility that the higher forms of consciousness and energy (i.e., higher than the gross-family realm) are not tied to complexifications of gross form ontologically but rather as vehicles of the expression of subtler forms and energies in that gross realm itself. In other words, it is not that higher consciousness and energies are bound to the complexities of gross form out of ontological necessity, but that they need a correspondingly complex form of gross matter in order to express or manifest themselves in and through the material realm. [so we could think here of involution and even this "precious humn body" and even evolution]

     The question of whether or not that is true is one thing; but if it is true, something like hypothesis #4 must be entertained. To avoid that hypothesis is to avoid the entire issue. For example, Francisco Varela et al., in The Embodied Mind, attempt to derive a spiritually attuned theory of consciousness that anchors consciousness firmly in the sensorimotor body—so much so that reincarnation, by their theory, is impossible. They present their theory as consonant with an updated Buddhism, but clearly it avoids this difficult issue. There is no way around something like hypothesis #4 if one wants to entertain transmigration.

      With hypothesis #4, integral theory, at least in this particular regard, would revert to something closer to the traditional Vedanta/Vajrayana conception, but with a few major and important exceptions (which eliminate most of the metaphysical postulates required to drive the scheme, while still accepting the relevant data to be explained). ⁴ All we need note here is that it is exactly the bare essentials of the Vedanta/Vajrayana model, already incorporated into Integral Psychology, that can be outfitted with hypothesis #4 and used to drive a possible explanation of reincarnation. There is no question but that this increases the metaphysical baggage of any approach, but it can be done in relatively modest ways that, further, are open to a fair amount of actual empirical and phenomenological testing (which is the antidote to metaphysics).

      The bare essentials of the Vedanta/Vajrayana model, with regard to reincarnation, are as follows. It is true that there is no mind without its supporting body, and no body without its guiding mind (where "mind" means "consciousness" and "body" means "mass-energy"; in other words, to put it in AQAL terms, every consciousness state/stage in the UL has a mass-energy-body correlate in the UR). In simple terms, for both Vedanta and Vajrayana, the gross mind has a gross body; the subtle mind has a subtle body; and the causal mind has a causal body. We can, in fact, simply refer to them as the gross bodymind, the subtle bodymind, and the causal bodymind.

      According to Vedanta/Vajrayana, although there is never a mind without a body, the subtle bodymind can exist without the gross bodymind, and the causal bodymind can exist without either of them. Hence, although there is never a mind without a body, transmigration can occur.

     There are several ways that, according to the traditions, that statement is true. One, ontologically, during involution—which is also essentially the path that is said to occur in the bardo realm of the reincarnating or transmigrating entity (see below)—when Spirit first throws itself outward, it creates a causal bodymind. The causal bodymind clearly exists without either a subtle bodymind or a gross bodymind, since neither of them have yet been created.

     Two, phenomenologically, when you go to sleep each night and begin dreaming, the gross bodymind does not exist and you reside primarily as a subtle bodymind; likewise, as you pass into dreamless-formless sleep, there is no gross or subtle bodymind, only a causal bodymind; hence, phenomenologically, the senior bodyminds can exist apart from the junior bodyminds.

     Three, in certain nonordinary waking states—such as out-of-the-body experiences (or "astral travel")—one exists in a subtle bodymind, not merely a gross bodymind. And in formless meditative states, one exists in a causal bodymind, not a subtle or gross bodymind.

     The traditions therefore maintain that upon physical death, as the gross bodymind dissolves, the soul, existing now in its subtle state and actually supported or carried by a very real but subtle energy (or subtle body), transmigrates through a series of bardo realms or stations, until various karmic factors incline it towards the assumption of a new gross bodymind, whereupon rebirth in a physical body occurs.

      Thus, the overall subtle body/energy (i.e., the family subtle-energy) is said to support various minds or states and stages of consciousness, including: (1) the dream state in all humans; (2) meditative states with form (e.g., savikalpa samadhi); (3) various nonordinary states (e.g., out-of-the-body experiences, near-death experiences); (4) and the bardo realms of transmigration.

     This is why, for example, if, during one's lifetime, one practices meditation and learns to enter the dream state with awareness (lucid dreaming), it is said that one can then control to some degree one's actual bardo course of rebirth, because to master one is to master the other: they are essentially the same realms.

      Hypothesis #4, then, involves the suggestion that a subtle consciousness, supported by a very real but subtle mass-energy, does not itself depend for its essential existence on the gross realm, although it does require a specific degree of complexification of gross matter-energy in order to manifest in the gross realm. If hypothesis #4 is true, then we would have warrant to say that this is why these subtler dimensions, although created and existing in potentia during involution, cannot actually manifest themselves until evolution in the gross realm reaches a required degree of complexification. Increasingly complex vehicles are required for increasingly higher realms; when these higher realms manifest, they are not apart from the complexification of form, but shine through them and by virtue of them: again, even with hypothesis #4, we would say that the higher realms are not actually above matter, but within matter. The difference with hypothesis #4 is that it adds: the higher realms, when they manifest, manifest within matter, but in themselves, they can exist without gross-family matter.

     Thus, etheric energies cannot manifest until gross matter assumes the complex form of a living cell (a quark is not complex enough to "contain" or funnel etheric, psychic, or causal energies). As gross form continues to complexify—driven by the fact that even the stones cry out and reach for God—then increasingly subtler dimensions of both energy and consciousness can shine through them, until the entire Kosmos shines with the radiance of the Spirit that is their Source and Suchness.

      Accordingly, a subtle bodymind can migrate from one gross bodymind manifestation to another gross bodymind manifestation, much as heat can pass from one material object to another; but it requires a complex gross bodymind to manifest—and further, any truly integral spiritual realization would require the enlightenment of the gross bodymind, the subtle bodymind, and the causal bodymind—which is surely why the traditions maintain that only humans (and not angels, not gods, not demi-gods) can realize enlightenment. Only humans have all three bodies.

      The fact that the subtle (and causal) bodymind can transmigrate the gross bodymind is indeed metaphysical; but the fact that these subtle energies are postulated as real, concrete, detectable, often measurable—if subtler—energies, stops the whole conception from spinning off into the vaporware of pure metaphysics. If you read hypothesis #4 in conjunction with the first three hypotheses, I think you will see that they are at least consistent with each other; and thus I believe that an integral theory of subtle energies can accommodate the existence of transmigration, if we decide, on other grounds, that there is enough evidence to conclude that transmigration occurs.

 

---

"With whom or with what are you in communion at this moment?"
. . ."I?" he replied, almost mechanically. "Why not with anyone or anything."
"You must be a marvel . . . if you are able to continue in that state for long."
-Constantin Stanislavsky

My thought on the Multi-verse is that each universe has the same seeds for reality as the other. The difference is in the ways the seeds develope.

The dream however is more of an expression of your will and imagination. There are many hints to your true being and life in such dreams. They occur as I understand them on the Astral Realm.

You are right about the research into reincarnation and I believe that when people recite experiences from their past lives it is merely seeing through the Akashic veil to similar lives in different times. They tend to be from the past mainly (I believe), because the Akashic Record has ceased to exist... Personally, I see the Akashic Record as the internet now.

I believe that we are the same consciousness that emerges into the myriad of forms and states throughout our world and others. Pelastration is a good way of interpreting this theory in a physical sense, but what I am trying to get at is that we are all connected deeply with the universe and thus feel that this life is much too finite and are much more on the physical realm than we are seen to be. Physically, this is all we are. However, that involves the multiple incarnations on the the parallel dimensions, and there is much more non-physical existence we have in the higher dimensions.

alteredly,

Ulzo

---

Sorry further response canceled due to Ragnarok.

Hi all,
Gautam Buddha reportedly said, "The truth is what works."

In that spirit I may have something to offer those who want to work with more than just speculations about the concept of reincarnation but help the actual experiencers. Maybe I can serve as bit of a case study.

Little bit of background:

I was born with memories of previous existences in different realms. (If you can accept this claim as potentially valid, read on).
For the first 5 years or so, I took the perceptual/sensory input of these memories for granted and assumed that everyone was aware of many interior dimensions as well as *guided* by the information they contain. A pivotal turning point occurred when my parents told me that my grandfather had died. This was accompanied by much hand-wringing to 'spare me the blow' etc. Puzzled, I informed them that gramps was smiling down at us from on top of a cloud that very minute and happy as a lark. They were stunned, so I mentioned the blatantly obvious 'truth' that Opa (German for grampa) had risen up from his crappy body like a drop, gone back into the clouds whence he came, joined all the other drops who rise up and fall down from there all the time, was hanging out with God (an unseen but keenly felt presence I didn't have words for - my parents were agnostics) - and that Opa could see and hear us if he wanted to, any time. Moreover, Opa would come back down to earth and be with us again if he felt a need to do another round -- just don't count on it and don't MAKE HIM!
My parent's reaction: "Oh dear, who on earth told you that?? We wish it was true....... but......."

In that moment the colossal ignorance of these people struck me like a blow. They thought reincarnation was a good thing! They didn't realize that it implied countless horrors I had no words for then, but do now: Like the compulsory need to repeat over and over the same awful process of narrowing your vastness down to a piddling heap of numbness (slow vibrations = matter), dullness (forgetting who you REALLY are) and all the pain of having to wake up again to fuller, broader consciousness without anesthesia! while being operated upon by forces you perceive as outside yourself -- and the endless complications that make it nearly impossible to Simply Be as You Are and stay that way with the grace and elegance that is your pre-birthright...... etc. etc....

At around age 10, my school teachers were kind of freaked out when I didn't have to learn English so much as remember it. Similar with French (though I hated the "snot-nosed arrogance" of the language and the French as a people without being taught that attitude - quite the contrary, actually), then Spanish, Italian, and finally Sanskrit.

I've got a lot more anecdotal examples of inexplicable aptitudes, attractions and prejudices from earliest childhood on-- enough to fill a book. Point is, everyone has to deal with how their brain configures input - what it filters out and what it lets through as valid information.

Frankly, I don't care so much anymore what even the greatest Masters think (let alone all the scholars). As long as freaks like me can stay functioning (thank you Ken & Poonjaji et al for the navigation maps), as long as we can make some sense to other edge-dwellers, borderline cases and abyss jumpers, we'll be at least marginally useful - I hope.

More later if interest is here.

Love to you all,

M

yah, i knoooow the feeling M!!! i too had powers of  unimaginable uptituds ...could even  make the meanest in the world rooster crow at my bidding:)  .. just tree feet away he stood , at any time, should he decid to make a beek-run  at me , i could slam the front door shot! that was his style , all us kids were afraid of him:( ......a Guru  in disguise? brrrrr...

so we had a stare for a moment or two and then i had me a notion (i ask he does so) that he crows right then and there ...and he did! right in my face!  and truth be told i don't think i was afraid of him any more:)

h