Reincarnation

[Harbal]

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?

[Sculptor]

How easily do you forget that time when we two marched with Caesar in his great victory against Vercingetorix at Alesia, my friend!!

Remeber!

Actually, now that you remind me, it does ring a bell.

If I remember correctly you died of the shits after eating that dodgy fish sauce from the canteen.

[Dontaskme]

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.

But to know 'experience' would be the experience of knowing. Which would require a knower. How can the 'known experience' of knowing in the knower outlast the individual knower of experience upon it's death, if that individual knower of experience is no longer around to be aware of the individual knower responsible for knowing the experience of typing?

[Harbal]

If I remember correctly you died of the shits after eating that dodgy fish sauce from the canteen.

No, I'm sure my death was more dignified than that.

[Sculptor]

If I remember correctly you died of the shits after eating that dodgy fish sauce from the canteen.

No, I'm sure my death was more dignified than that.

Oh yeah that's right you died of the shits whilst killing a barbarian.. He was covered!!

[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.

But to know 'experience' would be the experience of knowing. Which would require a knower. How can the 'known experience' of knowing in the knower outlast the individual knower of experience upon it's death, if that individual knower of experience is no longer around to be aware of the individual knower responsible for knowing the experience of typing?

You yourself (and I agree) insist that there is no self. What neither of us can deny is that there are experiences going on. 'The self' is nothing but a bundle of subjective experiences.

There is not such a thing as a self, so there is no 'self' that can die. However experiences happened and can't be un-happened.

[Dontaskme]

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.

But to know 'experience' would be the experience of knowing. Which would require a knower. How can the 'known experience' of knowing in the knower outlast the individual knower of experience upon it's death, if that individual knower of experience is no longer around to be aware of the individual knower responsible for knowing the experience of typing?

You yourself (and I agree) insist that there is no self. What neither of us can deny is that there are experiences going on. 'The self' is nothing but a bundle of subjective experiences.

There is not such a thing as a self, so there is no 'self' that can die. However experiences happened and can't be un-happened.

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.”

[Belinda]

But to know 'experience' would be the experience of knowing. Which would require a knower. How can the 'known experience' of knowing in the knower outlast the individual knower of experience upon it's death, if that individual knower of experience is no longer around to be aware of the individual knower responsible for knowing the experience of typing?

You yourself (and I agree) insist that there is no self. What neither of us can deny is that there are experiences going on. 'The self' is nothing but a bundle of subjective experiences.

There is not such a thing as a self, so there is no 'self' that can die. However experiences happened and can't be un-happened.

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.

[Dontaskme]

You yourself (and I agree) insist that there is no self. What neither of us can deny is that there are experiences going on. 'The self' is nothing but a bundle of subjective experiences.

There is not such a thing as a self, so there is no 'self' that can die. However experiences happened and can't be un-happened.

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.

[Age]

The 'you', 'self', or 'person', or in other words, the 'soul' of a body, keeps existing after the physical body has stopped breathing and stopped pumping blood,

What is the evidence that supports this assertion?

Firstly, let us not forget that this is how 'things' are, to 'me', and so not necessarily how 'they' are, to 'you'.

But the 'evidence' that supports this 'assertion', of 'mine', is that, to 'me', if, for example, a human body was smaller than another or that that body had arms and or legs missing, then this would not make that 'one' 'less of a person'. So, if the body, itself, does not make 'one' more than, nor less of, 'a person' to 'another', then 'a person' must be something different than just the body, itself. The word 'person', to 'me', therefore meant something else other than the visible body, itself. Another part of 'being' 'human' are the invisible 'thoughts' and 'emotions' within the physical body. This invisible 'part' is what then became the 'person', 'you', and/or 'self', to 'me'.

What became further 'proof' to 'me' that the word 'person', which refers to the 'self' word, as well as the 'you' word, when speaking from another person's perspective/point of view, is that when 'i' looked at and used the words here the way 'i' had started those words fitted in perfectly with the way they have been used previously throughout all the writings and spoken words that 'i' would come across. Of course "others" would use these words from a different perspective or in and from a different context, but when delved into that way would not make sense, to 'me'. But when used in the new way that 'i' was using the words, they would make far more sense.

When these words were also used with and in relation to other words like 'soul', 'mind', and even 'spirit', then 'things' were fitting in together even better, whilst at the same time forming one perfectly unified big picture of 'things'.

Now, the word 'soul' is used in reference to an, invisible, 'one' remaining, or carrying on, here, after the body has so-called 'died', or in other words, is still alive and living here, in this 'world', after the physical body has stopped breathing and stopped pumping blood. The way 'i' saw this could be possible, and was in fact actually happening, was because the 'thoughts' from within a human body has a huge influence on the 'thoughts' within other human bodies, then after one human body has died those invisible 'thoughts' live on, in other human bodies, 'passed on' down through the generations. Think about how the 'thoughts' within 'that body', which are being expressed here under the label "harbal", have been influenced from what was 'you' 'mom' and 'dad'. 'They', in a way, are still alive and living, within 'you'. 'They' the individual 'souls' within those bodies were, literally, 'beings' 'being' 'passed on', and this 'passing on', or 'passing over', has been going back 'generational' since time immemorial. 'you', the invisible 'person' or 'soul' 'now', are, literally, the way 'you' are because of the 'people' or 'souls', before 'you'.

There are still far more examples, explanations, elaborations, and evidence that can still be provided, if any is sought.

The 'soul' does NOT exist as 'you', the 'person' and 'self' did, before the body decayed, where and when 'you' could keep learning and becoming 'anew', but exists in that 'it' can NOT go ANYWHERE ELSE in this One and ONLY Universe as well as existing in that 'it' has had an everlasting effect on "others", in some way or another.

So, while the body is still alive, what is the relation between the soul and consciousness?

This, like every thing else, all depends on how 'you' use the words 'soul' and 'consciousness'. But, as 'i' have been using the word 'soul', then what the relationship between the 'soul' and 'consciousness' to 'me', 'i' will have to first define and describe what 'consciousness' means, or refers to, to 'me'.

To 'me', the word 'consciousness' just refers to being 'aware'. For example, if 'one' is 'conscious' of some 'thing', then they are 'aware' of that 'thing'. Therefore, 'consciousness' is just being in a state of 'awareness'. So, it is only when a body is pumping blood and breathing, or in other words, 'alive and living' when the invisible 'person', or invisible 'soul', within, can be 'aware' of 'things'.

Physical matter, like what the human body, itself, is made up of is not 'aware' of 'things'. It, however, has 'senses', which 'sense' the environment, around the body, passing that 'sensed information' through and along any or all of the 'five senses' towards the physical brain, where some of that 'information' becomes 'knowledge', which is then stored as, or within, 'thoughts', themselves. Which are obviously invisible, which is what the 'soul' word means, and/or refers to, exactly.

Now, it is only while the physical body, and physical brain, are called, and what is known as, 'alive' can there be a 'state of awareness', or in other words, 'consciousness' within that body. But, as soon as that body, and brain, are called, what is known as 'dead', then there are no more new 'thoughts' forming, or, if there are, then there is no more ability to share these new 'thoughts. Only now that 'i' have been thinking more, because of your clarifying question here, if there was a 'state of awareness', a 'consciousness' still occurring, which 'i' doubt but really have no proof of, that 'consciousness' or 'awareness', however, can be transferred, expressed, nor passed on. It was only the pre-existing 'thoughts', from 'consciousness', which can be 'passed on'.

The word 'soul' might be referencing the invisible 'one' that existed previously within a 'human body' but which is 'now' existing in some 'shape' or 'form' within 'our' bodies. Which, by the way, helps in understanding the 'reincarnation' word and what that word means, or refers to, exactly.

By the way, and which some of 'you' might like hearing, as the physical visible body is always getting what is called 'older', the invisible 'person', 'you', within the physical body, is always getting 'newer', or is always becoming 'anew'. That is; until the body stops pumping blood and stops breathing, when then there is no more 'consciousness' occurring, but what influences 'those' have had on the 'world', and on 'you', will last on, forevermore.

So, although a human body comes to be, or is what is called 'born', and so to 'you' come to be, or are 'born', in a sense', 'you' actually do 'live on' forever, in the sense that what 'you' were able to create or influence does last on forever.

Again, there are still far more examples, explanations, elaborations, and evidence that can still be provided, if any is sought.

'i' also apologize if 'i' go off track from what 'you' were actually asking for and seeking here. There is just so much to explain, but which, by the way, all of does fit in perfectly together to form and illustrate One Unified Picture of Everything. For example, when the word 'human' is meaning or referring to the visible human body, and the word 'being' is meaning or referring to the invisible 'thoughts' and 'emotions' within, then the term 'human being' makes more sense, well to 'me' anyway. 'i' also say the 'human' part is visible and physical but the 'being' part is only invisible. 'i' do not say the 'being' part, that is; the 'thoughts' and 'emotions' are 'not physical' because 'i' am not yet sure. They might be or they might not be, 'i' just wait to see.

[Harbal]

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

[popeye1945]

Subject and object stand or fall together. It is through the experience of the energies of the world that there are objects, as long as there are organisms there will be an apparent world. 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.

[Age]

One can be born, but NEVER die.

You'd have to already know you were born to be able to make that claim ''one can be born''

As this human body got 'older', the 'person' within became 'aware' that this 'body' was born, from, literally, the 'coming together' of a 'male gendered' body with a 'female gendered' body, which created, or caused, a new human body, which WAS what is called 'born'.

And, from within that physical body there is a continual 'borning' of 'new thoughts' and/or 'new awareness'. From which one of those thoughts or awareness was the REALIZATION of coming to LEARN ABOUT and thus the KNOWING OF 'being born'. So, I ALREADY KNOW that 'i' WAS 'born', and are, literally, STILL in the process of 'being born'. I also KNOW that the physical human body WAS 'born', literally, AT BIRTH, when this body was drawn to a VERY BRIGHT LIGHT, going towards and then went past those 'pearly gates', or what are also referred to as 'the vagina', coming into this whole NEW WORLD of SENSATION and WONDERMENT. That was; until this body was ABUSED when SMACKED by a so-called adult human being, when all this body REALLY was to just be given a gentle and soft 'breathe-of-life', INSTEAD.

So, EXACTLY HOW a human body IS BORN, and EXACTLY HOW 'i' am ALWAYS being BORN, is ALREADY KNOWN. So, NOW, can 'i' make the claim 'one can be born', "dontaskme"?

By the way, what 'you' are referring to here is thee 'I', which can NOT be born, but which is a WHOLE OTHER STORY and MATTER.

To know that one can be born, would automatically make it known in the same instance of knowing, that one can also die, simply because the knowledge of one's birth would be a totally meaningless concept without the contrast of distinction.

ONCE AGAIN, "dontaskme", 'your' OWN "logic" here does NOT work NOR follow.

Human bodies are, what is called, 'born'. This happens at what is usually referred to as 'birth', when a human body passes from one human body, usually through the vagina, but sometimes through the stomach instead, out into what is sometimes called and referred to as 'the world'.

But when one, like 'yourself" uses the word 'one' here, then what do 'you' actually mean or are referring to, exactly, when 'you' say the words, "To know that 'one' can be born, ...', and use the word 'one' in that sentence? What does the word 'one' actually mean to 'you'?

In knowing reincarnation for a person is a fact, then so too is the fact that no reincarnated person could ever die or live.

To 'me', the phrase or term 'reincarnated person' is just NONSENSICAL anyway. So, absolutely ANY thing associated with that phrase or term is obsolete or moot.

If the person makes the claim it has experienced many lives then that person has never really died, and if that person never died, then that person cannot have had many lives either. But even this knowing, is all based in the knowledge of concepts, which is nothing more than a story the material brain is self creating.

Okay, if 'you' say so.

There is no knowledge of birth and death,

Have 'you' EVER looked up the word 'birth' in an encyclopedia, in wikipedia, on the internet, or even asked "another" about ANY 'knowledge' of 'birth'?

If no, then I suggest 'you' do, then what I think 'you' WILL FIND is that there ACTUALLY IS SOME 'knowledge' of 'birth', which DOES EXIST.

except what the brain creates out of it's artificial sense of self in it's own self created world of conception, an artificial conceptual separation where there is none in reality.

Does this phenomena happen from the brain in that body as well?

Could absolutely EVERY word SAID and WRITTEN under the 'label' of "dontaskme" ALSO just be what THAT brain creates out of its OWN artificial sense of self, in its OWN self created world of conception, which is just an artificial conceptual SEPARATION where there is NONE in reality?

Or, does this NOT happen from the brain within THAT body associated with the word "dontaskme" here?

In other words, the sense of separation was all likened to a dream, dreamt by nobody. Just as there is no one in a tree or a brickwall or the sun, or the moon.


.

On MANY occasions "dontaskme" 'you' appear to ONLY get FURTHER AWAY from what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, which 'you' are trying to EXPRESS and SAY.

LOOK, 'we' ALREADY KNOW that what 'it' IS, which 'you' are trying to EXPRESS here IS ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY True, Right, AND Correct okay?

[Age]

What, exactly is a soul, Age?

To me, the word 'soul' is a word that refers to the invisible part of the human body. I say the individual 'person', 'self', or 'you', is within an individual human body and which is made up of the invisible 'thoughts' and the invisible 'emotions', only. While the human body is just made up of visible matter, only.

The 'you', 'self', or 'person', or in other words, the 'soul' of a body, keeps existing after the physical body has stopped breathing and stopped pumping blood, and has even decayed and formed into other 'matter'. The 'soul' does NOT exist as 'you', the 'person' and 'self' did, before the body decayed, where and when 'you' could keep learning and becoming 'anew', but exists in that 'it' can NOT go ANYWHERE ELSE in this One and ONLY Universe as well as existing in that 'it' has had an everlasting effect on "others", in some way or another.

Examples, explanations, and/or elaboration can be further provided, if sought.

I agree with Age. But I prefer not to use the word 'soul' in that context, because 'soul' has strong connotations of the supernatural.

When 'you' say, 'supernatural', what do 'you' actually mean or refer to, "belinda"?

To 'me', ABSOLUTELY EVERY 'thing' IS 'natural'. To 'me', there is ABSOLUTELY NO 'thing' that is above, beyond, separate, away from, NOR super 'natural'.

If some 'thing' is NOT 'natural', then it does NOT belong in THIS Universe. But, because THIS One and ONLY Universe is INFINITE and ETERNAL, then there is NO OTHER 'place' for ANY OTHER 'thing' to exist. Therefore, ABSOLUTELY EVERY 'thing' that exists, exists NATURALLY.

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

Okay, but the word 'experience', to 'me', from a human being perspective, is in relation to 'what happens' when some thing is 'felt', 'seen', 'heard', 'tasted', 'smelt'.

To 'me';

There is NO 'that', which outlasts individual bodies and which cannot become nothing after death.

[Age]

I agree with Age. But I prefer not to use the word 'soul' in that context, because 'soul' has strong connotations of the supernatural. I prefer to use the word 'experience' for that which outlasts individual bodies and which cannot become nothing after death.

How do you know that an 'experience' outlasts the death of the physical individual body that was aware of the 'experience'?

Experience is undeniable.

'Experience' is ONLY 'undeniable' to a living sentient being, correct?

For instance the experience of typing that last sentence is undeniable as I am not a robot.

This does NOT logically follow.

All experiences, including the experience of a tiny sparrow can't ever be un-experienced.

But none of your responses answers the ACTUAL question posed and asked to you.