Reincarnation

[Belinda]

Experience is undeniable. For instance the experience of typing that last sentence is undeniable as I am not a robot. All experiences, including the experience of a tiny sparrow can't ever be un-experienced.

Age says the soul continues to exist after the death of the body, so where do you think an experience exists after death?

Experiences exist absolutely. By "absolutely" I mean not transient, not relating to time, and not relating to separate bundles of experiences.
If there is any way to express this using the concept of 'where', then I'd say experiences exist in the absolute, and that's 'where' they exist.

[Belinda]

If there’s no such thing as a self to die then neither can there be such a thing as a body to die, so no such thing as something outlasting or surviving that which never existed in the first place. So in essence what happens is not really happening only appearing to be happening as this experiencing no self or body is experiencing.


Belinda wrote:
“I prefer to use the word 'experience' for that which outlasts individual bodies and which cannot become nothing after death.”

The body is experience of body. If bodies were not experienced then bodies would not exist.

The body is an experience of awareness not the body. When the body dies then there is no more experience of body since the knowing awareness of the experience of body will be offline too.

When there’s no body, then there is no awareness of experience of body. So the idea that there is an experience of body outlasting the death of the body is absurd.

There is not just one experience of one body, there is experience of all bodies. If there are no bodies to confine experiences to, then all experiences exist unseparated from each other by skin and nervous systems and so on.
The absolute is like as if all living beings shared the same nervous systems and had the same memories as each other, so there is nothing that keeps experiences limited to individuals.

Experiences happened and can't be un-experienced, even if all life on Earth suddenly stopped

[Harbal]

Experiences exist absolutely. By "absolutely" I mean not transient, not relating to time, and not relating to separate bundles of experiences.
If there is any way to express this using the concept of 'where', then I'd say experiences exist in the absolute, and that's 'where' they exist.

But for there to be an experience, someone or something has to be experiencing, so once the experiencer no longer exists how can the experience exist?

[Walker]

But for there to be an experience, someone or something has to be experiencing, so once the experiencer no longer exists how can the experience exist?

Qualities are not unique to any one form, but are reincarnated into other forms.

The other forms are called ilks.

[Age]

'i' also apologize if 'i' go off track from what 'you' were actually asking for and seeking here.

Not at all; I appreciate the time and effort you've put into your explanation.

Just to help me understand:

Are you saying that, after a person has died, it is the influence that his existence continues to have on the world that you think of as his soul?

There is a smile on this body now, because what I wrote and 'explained' was COMPLETELY MISUNDERSTOOD, COMPLETELY MISINTERPRETED, or just COMPLETELY MISSED.

A 'person' can NOT 'die'.

All, visible and physical, human bodies, eventually, STOP breathing and STOP pumping blood, at which and after is generally known as 'died'. BUT, to 'me', a 'human body' is NOT a 'person'. A 'person' is the invisible part WITHIN a 'human body', which, although 'born', can NOT 'die', in a sense.

But anyway, yes it is this invisible part of the 'human being', which 'i' say does keep on living as that 'person' has had an influence on other invisible people, as well as on the visible physical world too. Every 'person's' existence continues to have an influence in one way or another on 'the world'. Some more so than others, and this is part of what the story of 'jesus' is, literally, about. Again, some people have more of an influence than others, for example, some people are more influenced, or know more about, that one person known as "jesus christ" than they do of their own grandmother and/or grandfather. But again the story of and about the 'person' "jesus christ" has come 'through', and has been 'passed on' from, grandparents or previously 'related persons' or 'acquaintances', anyway.

Now, 'i' do NOT think of the influence of someone's existence is his nor her 'soul' but the 'person', itself, which is continuing to influence is what the word 'soul', itself, is referring to, exactly. That is; the word 'soul' was a word used to mean or refer to the invisible part of the 'human being', which continues living, lives on, or remains HERE lasting forever more. How a 'soul' could, and does, do this, I hopefully have, somewhat, partly explained above.

The 'soul' would be the invisible 'person', "them" 'self'. The influence from one's actual existence lasts forevermore, or in other words, lives on. The 'existence' of 'one'/'a person' is the 'soul' living on. To 'me', there is NO 'his' NOR 'her' existence. There is also NO 'their' existence, as though there is some 'thing', with its like separated existence. It is 'the existence', itself, of 'one'/'a person', which lives and carries on.

I know that is put very biefly and simply, but is it correct in principle. Or am I not getting it (as usual ).

It is close.

A 'person', however, does not 'die'. BUT, in rethinking or in further thinking, if 'we' want to say or call a 'person' the invisible one, or part, that is continually forming, as new thoughts are continually forming, or 'arising', and which becomes 'consciously' more 'self'-aware, while the body is breathing/pumping blood/alive, then when the body 'stops', pumping blood and breathing, then that 'self', which was 'be-coming a more aware' 'being', also 'dies' but changes into and a 'soul', which is said to remain, then that could also work.

But, it is not 'his existence' nor 'his soul', because that 'one' is existing, or is in 'Existence', Itself. That 'one' is also 'the soul', itself, and does not 'have' 'a soul'.

'people' or 'souls' are 'existing', and thus do not 'have' 'existence', like 'existence' is something else.

By the way, NO one was ever expecting 'you' to get this, YET. But, considering 'you' are, by far, showing the MOST INTELLIGENCE here now, 'you' WILL get this BEFORE ANY one else does.

[Age]

Subject and object stand or fall together. It is through the experience of the energies of the world that there are objects,

What are these said 'energies', exactly, which, supposedly, through the 'experience of' 'the world', that there are 'objects?

Or, if 'you' mean there are 'energies' 'of the world', which are 'experienced', and it is through these 'experiences' that there are 'objects', then 'what', EXACTLY, are the 'things' that are 'experiencing', the 'energies of the world' if they are NOT ALREADY 'objects'?

as long as there are organisms there will be an apparent world.

How do 'you' define the 'world' word here?

Did 'experiencing' 'organisms/objects' come first, or, did 'experiences of 'the energies of the world' come first, which 'through' then brought about 'objects'.

The various patterns of organisms are repeated, and experience is incorporated within the chain of beings that are relatively immortal as species. The individual is but a wave within an ongoing frequency, all patterns of experiences are reactions, reactions are apparent reality. Reincarnation is the repeated segments of a being within the ongoing pattern, the ongoing arrangement/frequency makes the energy a pattern, no repetition no pattern, arrangement unrepeated is not an object, repetition is nature. Reincarnation is repetition is nature. Nature tends to stutter.

Okay, if you say so.

[Age]

Experience is undeniable. For instance the experience of typing that last sentence is undeniable as I am not a robot. All experiences, including the experience of a tiny sparrow can't ever be un-experienced.

Age says the soul continues to exist after the death of the body, so where do you think an experience exists after death?

Experiences exist absolutely. By "absolutely" I mean not transient, not relating to time, and not relating to separate bundles of experiences.
If there is any way to express this using the concept of 'where', then I'd say experiences exist in the absolute, and that's 'where' they exist.

Does there have to be a 'thing', which is able to 'experience' before 'experience' could exist?

[Age]

The body is experience of body. If bodies were not experienced then bodies would not exist.

The body is an experience of awareness not the body. When the body dies then there is no more experience of body since the knowing awareness of the experience of body will be offline too.

When there’s no body, then there is no awareness of experience of body. So the idea that there is an experience of body outlasting the death of the body is absurd.

There is not just one experience of one body, there is experience of all bodies.

When 'you' say, 'there is experience of all bodies', do 'you' mean 'all bodies experience', or do 'you', literally, mean, 'there is experience of all bodies'?

If it is the former, then okay. I agree.

But if it is the latter, then who or what is doing the 'experiencing' of all bodies'?

If there are no bodies to confine experiences to, then all experiences exist unseparated from each other by skin and nervous systems and so on.

Oh, when 'you' say 'bodies' do 'you' just mean or refer to human 'bodies' and/or animal 'bodies' only?

The absolute is like as if all living beings shared the same nervous systems and had the same memories as each other, so there is nothing that keeps experiences limited to individuals.

What is sometimes referred to as 'The Absolute', or 'God', or 'Allah', or 'The Spirit', or 'Enlightenment', or many OTHER words, phrases, and/or terms, then ALL 'living beings' are A part of This One, sharing the EXACT SAME 'body', that is; just, literally, the 'body' of 'physical matter'. BUT, NOT all 'living beings', like 'you', human beings, share the SAME 'memories', BECAUSE 'you' are ALL EACH WITHIN DIFFERENT 'human bodies', which have EACH, literally, had their VERY OWN DIFFERENT 'experiences', from which, through any of the five senses is WHERE 'memory' has come from. Although within EACH 'body' there is NOT the EXACT SAME 'memory' there IS, however, A WAY to 'sense' or KNOW 'the world/Universe' FROM the 'perspective' of 'that SEPARATE body of matter'. But I think there is far MORE to be LEARNED, and UNDERSTOOD, before 'we' move onto that 'learning' and 'knowledge'.

Also, BECAUSE the EXACT SAME 'Life source or energy' IS WITHIN ALL 'matter', then ALL 'bodies', or 'shapes' and 'forms', of 'matter' HAS ACCESS to that EXACT SAME One. It is also from This One WHERE ALL, and IRREFUTABLE, Knowing EXISTS, and COMES FROM.

Experiences happened and can't be un-experienced, even if all life on Earth suddenly stopped

Okay, but there has to be SOME 'thing' that IS DOING 'the experiencing', and WHO and WHAT 'That' is, EXACTLY, IS VERY EXCITING to LEARN and DISCOVER.

[Age]

Experiences exist absolutely. By "absolutely" I mean not transient, not relating to time, and not relating to separate bundles of experiences.
If there is any way to express this using the concept of 'where', then I'd say experiences exist in the absolute, and that's 'where' they exist.

But for there to be an experience, someone or something has to be experiencing, so once the experiencer no longer exists how can the experience exist?

GREAT question "harbal".

But, then again, I might be 'biased' here as I more or less asked the EXACT SAME question.

[Age]

But for there to be an experience, someone or something has to be experiencing, so once the experiencer no longer exists how can the experience exist?

Qualities are not unique to any one form, but are reincarnated into other forms.

WHY are these so-called 'qualities' called 'reincarnated' and NOT just 'exist'.

All animal 'bodies', or sentient 'beings', come with 'senses', so that 'the world' around 'them' can be 'sensed' or 'experienced'. WHY does this phenomena have to be called 'reincarnation' and NOT just 'what happens', in Life?

The other forms are called ilks.

What is the 'first' 'form', for example, and how does 'that form' differ from the 'other forms', which 'you' call 'ilks'?

And, what does the word 'ilk' mean or refer to, to 'you'?

[Dontaskme]

The body is experience of body. If bodies were not experienced then bodies would not exist.

The body is an experience of awareness not the body. When the body dies then there is no more experience of body since the knowing awareness of the experience of body will be offline too.

When there’s no body, then there is no awareness of experience of body. So the idea that there is an experience of body outlasting the death of the body is absurd.

There is not just one experience of one body, there is experience of all bodies. If there are no bodies to confine experiences to, then all experiences exist unseparated from each other by skin and nervous systems and so on.
The absolute is like as if all living beings shared the same nervous systems and had the same memories as each other, so there is nothing that keeps experiences limited to individuals.

Experiences happened and can't be un-experienced, even if all life on Earth suddenly stopped

I'm sorry Belinda, I'm just not really sure what you are explaining is resonating with me. I seem unable to see what you are pointing to. But that does not mean anything, as you obviously understand what it is you are saying to me, from your own unique perspective and way of looking at these ideas.

Now you have mentioned the word ABSOLUTE
I can say to you in response, is that from the way I see things, there is only the Absolute, and that You are the Absolute.
But when you use the word ''outlasting'' ....that just doesn't make any sense to me here, because from the way I see things, there is only the Absolute.


As I see it, the awareness of ''experience'' is infinite, eternal, and unchanging. While 'experiences' are many, always changing, they are inseparable appearances within awareness as this infinte ''experiencing'' which is the absolute and all that IS appears within it's emptiness.
This is Absolute Reality.

[Dontaskme]

Experiences exist absolutely. By "absolutely" I mean not transient, not relating to time, and not relating to separate bundles of experiences.
If there is any way to express this using the concept of 'where', then I'd say experiences exist in the absolute, and that's 'where' they exist.

Who or What or Where is ''Experiencing'' happening, is Here Now, Nowhere.
...And can only be defined as this immediate present ''What IS'' Absolute.
What other name can be given to all that is, was, and ever will be.
No word can define 'What IS', or every word defines 'What IS'.
Which by definition ..is that which is not anything, but not nothing, that which is everything, and knows nothing but itself in this conception.

The Absolute Reality.

[Age]

Experiences exist absolutely. By "absolutely" I mean not transient, not relating to time, and not relating to separate bundles of experiences.
If there is any way to express this using the concept of 'where', then I'd say experiences exist in the absolute, and that's 'where' they exist.

Who or What or Where is ''Experiencing'' happening, is Here Now, Nowhere.
...And can only be defined as this immediate present ''What IS'' Absolute.
What other name can be given to all that is, was, and ever will be.

TOTALITY, Everything, or ALL-THERE-IS, to name but just a few.

No word can define 'What IS', or every word defines 'What IS'.
Which by definition ..is that which is not anything, but not nothing, that which is everything, and knows nothing but itself in this conception.

The Absolute Reality.

[Walker]

But for there to be an experience, someone or something has to be experiencing, so once the experiencer no longer exists how can the experience exist?

Qualities are not unique to any one form, but are reincarnated into other forms.

WHY are these so-called 'qualities' called 'reincarnated' and NOT just 'exist'.

Because the qualities, which are called qualities to distinguish them from the chaos via characteristics, exist amongst different forms. When one form dies, the quality moves onto another form. Two forms may share the same qualities, but then again two forms may not. In those that do, the qualities exist.

These are not learned qualities, but rather the qualities that get reincarnated. One might call them, aptitudes.

The qualities cause experiences that exist, and these qualities are distinguished from the chaos via apprehension that is shaped by the qualities.

The less corrupted the quality by human induced delusions, the more recognizable it is other forms. When both forms are uncorrupted, the qualities are apparant. This is why saints can be recognized from form-to-form, by those with saint-recognition aptitude.

For example:
- The qualities of one form will turn an experience of a condition into an opportunity to question others.
- In another form, the qualities of that form will cause the same condition experienced by the other qualities, to be experienced as an opportunity to question oneself.

[Harbal]

Qualities are not unique to any one form, but are reincarnated into other forms.

WHY are these so-called 'qualities' called 'reincarnated' and NOT just 'exist'.

Because the qualities, which are called qualities to distinguish them from the chaos via characteristics, exist amongst different forms. When one form dies, the quality moves onto another form. Two forms may share the same qualities, but then again two forms may not. In those that do, the qualities exist.

These are not learned qualities, but rather the qualities that get reincarnated. One might call them, aptitudes.

The qualities cause experiences that exist, and these qualities are distinguished from the chaos via apprehension that is shaped by the qualities.

The less corrupted the quality by human induced delusions, the more recognizable it is other forms. When both forms are uncorrupted, the qualities are apparant. This is why saints can be recognized from form-to-form, by those with saint-recognition aptitude.

For example:
- The qualities of one form will turn an experience of a condition into an opportunity to question others.
- In another form, the qualities of that form will cause the same condition experienced by the other qualities, to be experienced as an opportunity to question oneself.

What a load of absolute drivel.