Reincarnation

[Josh Young]

I believe in the reincarnation of a type, wherein the self incarnates repeatedly, but still only during a single life.

 

This incarnation has to do directly with samsara, but has nothing to do with the transference of consciousness from one body to another.

 

In this all suffering is liked to incarnation, and only by not incarnating is suffering transcended.

 

There comes a point where reflecting upon reflection we realize that who we are is a construct that changes each time we construct it and that does not exist independently of such construction, thus each independent construct of self is an incarnation.

 

Any I statement entails such an incarnation and related to this is desire.

 

Thus nobody can be enlightened, for it cannot be correctly said "I am enlightened" for in enlightenment the illusion of I cannot exist, and if it did there would not be enlightenment. This does not mean enlightenment is not possible, just that no self or identify can be enlightened.

 

Likewise enlightenment is not mystical and does not result in attainment of anything. It neither extends the life nor heals the body. It also cannot be had by those who seek it, for it entails letting go of the burden of identity or self. All of the past incarnations of self become apparatus in it, as a manner of clarity beyond thought.

 

This self evident truth is not only in the Diamond Sutra, it is also in the Dhammapada.

I share the first of the twin verses to illustrate:

Chapter I: The Twin-Verses

 

1. All that we are is the result of what we have thought: it is founded on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts. If a man speaks or acts with an evil thought, pain follows him, as the wheel follows the foot of the ox that draws the carriage.

 

2. All that we are is the result of what we have thought: it is founded on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts. If a man speaks or acts with a pure thought, happiness follows him, like a shadow that never leaves him.

 

The pure thought is beyond self. It is beyond the incarnation of the ego mind via word thought.

 

And of the same work:

# Such a one who does his duty is tolerant like the earth, like Indra's bolt; he is like a lake without mud; no new births are in store for him.

 

# His thought is quiet, quiet are his word and deed, when he has obtained freedom by true knowledge, when he has thus become a quiet man.

 

Each thought is as a potential incarnation of self, when the thoughts are settles then the incarnation ceases, the very root of suffering is severed.

 

So although I believe in reincarnation, I do not believe in the transfer of self from one body to another.

[Ben D]

Thus nobody can be enlightened, for it cannot be correctly said "I am enlightened" for in enlightenment the illusion of I cannot exist, and if it did there would not be enlightenment. This does not mean enlightenment is not possible, just that no self or identify can be enlightened.

 

Likewise enlightenment is not mystical and does not result in attainment of anything. It neither extends the life nor heals the body. It also cannot be had by those who seek it, for it entails letting go of the burden of identity or self. All of the past incarnations of self become apparatus in it, as a manner of clarity beyond thought.

 

Well said Josh!

 

So although I believe in reincarnation, I do not believe in the transfer of self from one body to another.

Also agree, the inherent dualistic nature of the mortal mind as a self referenced framework based on an 'I' and 'not I', 'here' and 'there', 'now' and 'then', etc., dichotomies, is a product of evolutionary design for functioning in a physical body in a cosmic material realm. The self of matter and the Self of spirit can never meet, one of the two will disappear at the death of the body,...no prizes for guessing which!

 

BTW, it is my understanding that the true meaning of the metaphorical story of the fall in Genesis associated with the eating (pabulum) of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, is the descent of the awareness of the non-dual Tao, to the dualistic self awareness of the adamic (clay) material body.

 

It ties in so well with the first verse of Hsin Hsin Ming,

 

The Great Way is not difficult for those who have no preferences.

When love (good) and hate (evil) are both absent everything becomes clear and undisguised. (Italics mine Ben D)

Make the smallest distinction, however, and heaven and earth are set infinitely apart.

[Gerard]

Thus nobody can be enlightened, for it cannot be correctly said "I am enlightened" for in enlightenment the illusion of I cannot exist, and if it did there would not be enlightenment. This does not mean enlightenment is not possible, just that no self or identify can be enlightened.

 

One thing that spiritual practitioners tend to forget is this:

 

1. Belief in an individual self

2. Doubt or uncertainty, especially about the teachings (Dharma)

3. Attachment to rites and rituals

4. Sensual desire

5. Hatred

6. Lust for material existence, lust for material rebirth

7. Lust for immaterial existence

8. Pride in self, conceit, arrogance

9. Restlessness, distraction

10. Ignorance

 

Also called the ten fetters.

 

There are different levels of Buddhist enlightenment according how far you conquered them:

 

1. Stream-enterers or Sotappana: Those who have destroyed the first three fetters won't be reborn into any of the undesirable rebirths: animal, ghost or hell being. At most they will have to be reborn only seven more times (or possibly less) before attaining Nirvana.

 

2. Once-Returners or Sakadagami: Those who have destroyed the first three fetters and have lessened the fetters of sensual desire and hatred will attain Nirvana after being born once more in the world.

 

3. Non-Returners or Anagami: Those who have destroyed the five lower fetters, which bind beings to the world of the senses. Non-returners will never again return to the human world and after they die, they will be born in one of the higher astral planes, there to attain Nirvana. Attaining this state is portrayed in the early texts as the ideal goal for laity.

 

4. Arahants: Fully enlightened human beings who have conquered all fetters, having fully abandoned Samsara. The will attain Nirvana after death (Parinirvana). Attaining this state is portrayed in the early texts as the ideal goal for monastics (but it is not necessarily so).

 

For instance, I have been meditating intensively lately and been struggling with fetters number 4 (sex), 5 and especially 7. I still got a long way to go, hopefully this lifetime is my last. But it is no easy task, for sure.

 

I can assure you that the Buddhist model enlightenment is very real.

 

I hope this sheds some light over your model which I find rather inaccurate.

[Ben D]

There are different levels of Buddhist enlightenment according how far you conquered them:

 

1. Stream-enterers or Sotappana: Those who have destroyed the first three fetters won't be reborn into any of the undesirable rebirths: animal, ghost or hell being. At most they will have to be reborn only seven more times (or possibly less) before attaining Nirvana.

 

2. Once-Returners or Sakadagami: Those who have destroyed the first three fetters and have lessened the fetters of sensual desire and hatred will attain Nirvana after being born once more in the world.

 

3. Non-Returners or Anagami: Those who have destroyed the five lower fetters, which bind beings to the world of the senses. Non-returners will never again return to the human world and after they die, they will be born in one of the higher astral planes, there to attain Nirvana. Attaining this state is portrayed in the early texts as the ideal goal for laity.

 

4. Arahants: Fully enlightened human beings who have conquered all fetters, having fully abandoned Samsara. The will attain Nirvana after death (Parinirvana). Attaining this state is portrayed in the early texts as the ideal goal for monastics (but it is not necessarily so).

 

For instance, I have been meditating intensively lately and been struggling with fetters number 4 (sex), 5 and especially 7. I still got a long way to go, hopefully this lifetime is my last. But it is no easy task, for sure.

 

I can assure you that the Buddhist model enlightenment is very real.

 

I hope this sheds some light over your model which I find rather inaccurate.

 

Hi durkhrod chogori, thank you for sharing your present understanding.

 

Do consider however, that there are other understandings, zen buddhist understanding for example teaches non-duality as the way to enlightenment, and enlightenment is Buddhahood. Zen accepts all other vehicles as capable of producing highly virtuous disciples and arahants, but not buddhas, for a buddha is beyond time and space and nothing associated with time and space can enter into it. A buddha wouldn't know what a buddha was, for it is only a concept arising in the minds of mortals. Zen teaches that the dharma is based on concepts, and concepts are a product of the mortal mind and therefore are only used as an expedient to transmit true understanding and then dropped. Like the raft built to take one across the water, when on the other side it is left behind.

 

Here is a perspective from the zen teaching of Bodhidharma concerning mortals and arahants relative to mind and reality,.. though it may seem somewhat abstruse if you are unfamiliar with zen.

 

Mortals keep moving, and arahants stay still. But the highest meditation surpasses both that of mortals and that of arahants. Mortals keep creating the mind, claiming it exists. And arahants keep negating the mind, claiming it doesn't exist. But bodhisattvas and buddhas neither create nor negate the mind. This is what's meant by the mind that neither exists nor doesn't exist. The mind that neither exists nor doesn't exist is called the Middle Way.

 

If you use your mind to study reality, you won't understand either your mind or reality. If you study reality without using your mind, you'll understand both. Those who don't understand, don't understand understanding. People capable of true vision know that the mind is empty. they transcend both understanding and not understanding. The absence of both understanding and not understanding is true understanding. Seen with true vision, form isn't simply form, because form depends on mind. And mind isn't simply mind, because mind depends on form. Mind and form create and negate each other. That which exists, exists in relation to that which doesn't exist. And that which doesn't exist doesn't exist in relation to that which exists.

This is true vision.

[Josh Young]

durkhrod chogori, what you present is of no meaning to me.

I neither believe in an afterlife nor a transference of consciousness.

 

There are teachings associated with Buddha that are self evident, then there are dogmatic aspects from evolved Buddhist folk religion that are not self evident.

 

I have no use for the scheme you present, which is still based upon ego, fear and reward.

 

Enlightenment is here and now, not then and when.

[Zhuo Ming-Dao]

durkhrod chogori, what you present is of no meaning to me.

I neither believe in an afterlife nor a transference of consciousness.

 

There are teachings associated with Buddha that are self evident, then there are dogmatic aspects from evolved Buddhist folk religion that are not self evident.

 

I have no use for the scheme you present, which is still based upon ego, fear and reward.

 

Enlightenment is here and now, not then and when.

 

This sounds like a very dogmatic statement of belief, Josh.

 

I try to keep my mind open to the possibilities and I only form loose opinions after I have had personal experience to back my metaphysics. I have experienced the out of body state and traveled to heavenly realms. This does not mean that I am convinced that it was an objective experience and there is an afterlife, but I am open to the possibilities. I also admit that some people have experienced past life memories. This also does not mean that past lives necessarily do or do not exist. They are all philosophical models based on many personal experiences (and some cultural bias) to understand the greater reality.

 

If someone becomes fixated on the existence or nonexistence of an afterlife state, they are also setting themselves up in a dualistic model. Consciousness is so much more than Is or Is Not.

 

Of course I agree, though, that you should not allow the existence (or nonexistence) of afterlife rewards (or worldly rewards) to impede or otherwise influence your practice and your experience of life in the moment.

 

 

 

Also, as a side note, it is the skandas (the bundles/patterns of karmic habit energy) that move along after death in the Buddhist model, not pure consciousness. Not a soul. Anatman. Even in the Theravada school, you do not really reincarnate since there is no "you" to go anywhere. The attachment and desire (since they cannot be satisfied and extinguished through outside objects) continue to move forward (objects in motion stay in motion) until nirvana, when they are wound down and put out.

Edited July 9, 2009 by Zhuo Ming-Dao

[Josh Young]

I try to keep my mind open to the possibilities and I only form loose opinions after I have had personal experience to back my metaphysics.

I hope to remain open to the possibilities as well, still I am entitled to belief.

I have experienced the out of body state and traveled to heavenly realms.

You know, so have I. I used to experience OBE's often as a child and have had many adventurous episodes relating to this. However I do not accept my experiences as more than subjective.

This does not mean that I am convinced that it was an objective experience and there is an afterlife, but I am open to the possibilities.

I do not believe in knowledge, thus I do not know there is no afterlife. I believe it may be a possibility, and I also believe it may not. I have never seen any evidence of an afterlife however, so I do not concern myself with this, I have seen evidence of this life, so I concern myself with that.

I also admit that some people have experienced past life memories.

This is true. Some people also see and hear things that others do not report. Head trauma victims often have visions, NDE and OBE's. People on various drugs report these as well. A major study of the molecule DMT (a molecule that can occur in our brains naturally) that sought to demonstrate it was a "spirit molecule" found that at high levels given by injection alien abduction experiences of a terrifying nature abounded and due to the trauma of this the research was ended prematurely. My point being that the subjectivity of our experiences is so profound that we can be certain that things are not at the appear, ever. Color and sound do not exist for example, outside of perception, they are constructs of our mental and sensory function. And yet people will insist they exist, however we do not know them, only the experience of them, which does not affirm their existence. The same can be said about mathematics, which do not exist independently of their application. People can have experiences suggesting math exists, however this is simply not true.

 

 

So while my belief is subjective and perhaps dogmatic, it is not based upon perception which is illusory, rather it is related that which is self evident beyond sensory input.

 

We may also talk about recovered memories and how people can recount detailed experiences that they cannot tell apart from reality, that they believe happened, which never happened at all. Many false accusations have come of this type of thing, some of them rather famous.

 

So yes i have had OBE's and mystical adventure type experiences, as well as episodes of profound thoughtless euphoria. I have had memories with no source, sometimes of a prophetic nature and true. I have had several experiences which lead me to believe that telepathic events may occur as well. I can see "auras" and have taught several people how to do this, but honestly it is so normal and natural I don't think it profound. I hope to be an open minded person, however I utilize reason in a way that affords me clarity into what I do and do not believe.

 

I care little for Buddhism and a great deal for the teachings of Siddhartha.

Edited July 9, 2009 by Josh Young

[yabyum24]

So while my belief is subjective and perhaps dogmatic, it is not based upon perception which is illusory, rather it is related that which is self evident beyond sensory input.

What is there to be found which is "self evident beyond sensory input"?

 

Namaste

[Unconditioned]

I hope this sheds some light over your model which I find rather inaccurate.

 

Why so much importance on being right/accurate? On correcting? On following only your path?

 

Josh, very refreshing posts.

[Josh Young]

What is there to be found which is "self evident beyond sensory input"?

I believe many things are, not one of which can be put into words easily. Perhaps I am wrong, however:

 

One of the foremost things is that things are not as they seem.

 

Another is that aspect of being that exists before the senses, if the senses were a river, it would be the river bed. It cannot be sensed, but is self knowing.

 

However when I wrote those words I had something less profound in mind. Basically it can be said as follows: seeing may be believing, but it is not knowing and this simple truth is self evident, but you cannot smell it, taste it, hear it, see it or touch it. For this reason I do not believe in knowledge. In context of afterlife this means that even if I perceive what i view as an afterlife, via my senses, I cannot know that it exists while I am alive, and the truth of this, that i cannot know, is self evident beyond senses in the manner I mentioned.

 

 

 

What is the thought, that thinks itself?

Edited July 10, 2009 by Josh Young

[Vajrahridaya]

So basically your saying that your consciousness is based upon the body, or the interconnectivity of all things within the physical realm and there is no consciousness beyond physicality.

 

I wish you deeper meditation and experience.

 

Your theory that current Buddhism about re-birth beyond this body and past lives as being some folk religion based idea mixed in with a materialist nihilism view on Buddhism is not accepted by very highly realized Buddhas.

 

But... keep inquiring.

[Josh Young]

So basically your saying that your consciousness is based upon the body, or the interconnectivity of all things within the physical realm and there is no consciousness beyond physicality.

I did not say that.

Your theory that current Buddhism about re-birth beyond this body and past lives as being some folk religion based idea mixed in with a materialist nihilism view on Buddhism is not accepted by very highly realized Buddhas.

What care I for consensus?

 

I do not believe things simply because others do. No matter what their title may be, or how high in a religious hierarchy they may be.

Edited July 10, 2009 by Josh Young

[Andrei]

_g-rtp_dTgQ

Alex Collier quotes:

"everybody on the earth is from some place else"

"we all come from another time and place"

"my understanding is that all conscious spirit in this universe came through different black holes from other universes in time and space ... we're ancient, there is no age to us, we weren't created with the universe, we came through another universe through black holes to this place that we now call universe to continue to evolve"

[Josh Young]

"everybody on the earth is from some place else"

 

"we all come from another time and place"

 

"my understanding is that all conscious spirit in this universe came through different black holes from other universes in time and space ... we're ancient, there is no age to us, we weren't created with the universe, we came through another universe through black holes to this place that we now call universe to continue to evolve"

Where does he get his understanding from?

 

Black holes are the subject of a great deal of assumption, for example they are theorized, but not demonstrated. The name holes is misleading and most theories about them call them holes but note that they are masses, not holes, however laypeople do not know this and so can easily buy into theories that say they are holes, when they are not.

 

There is also more than one type of black hole according to modern theories, however none are holes per say, just masses so big that they create event horizons. These masses also grow as they absorb.

 

I suspect fraud.

[yabyum24]

Another is that aspect of being that exists before the senses, if the senses were a river, it would be the river bed. It cannot be sensed, but is self knowing.

I like this analogy. When you say that a 'self-knowing aspect of being exists before the senses', do you mean within the moment of now, or prior to our birth? Is the river bed a kind of continuum?

 

In context of afterlife this means that even if I perceive what i view as an afterlife, via my senses, I cannot know that it exists while I am alive, and the truth of this, that i cannot know, is self evident beyond senses in the manner I mentioned.

Good point.

 

One thing I've encountered when looking at this topic is the confusion that sometimes surrounds the terminology (no implication that anyone here does this btw). Some people make no distinction between Rebirth and Reincarnation. The latter suggests the return of an ego, a sense of 'I' still able to associate in some way with 'its' previous life. This concept can be encountered within Tibetan Buddhism in the context of very advanced meditators who are able to navigate the Bardo and maintain awareness throughout even the most subtle stages of mental dissolution.

 

Rebirth, on the other hand, does not have this implication. There is no 'thing' to be reborn, no one identity which can claim ownership of the impersonal process. In this way "You" can never be reborn and for a "person" no such thing as rebirth exists.

 

I just thought I'd throw the above points into the pot (not in a definitive way mind), as it's stuff I've pondered. I like the way threads like this can cover a topic without adherence to dogma.

 

Namaste

[dwai]

I believe in the reincarnation of a type, wherein the self incarnates repeatedly, but still only during a single life.

 

This incarnation has to do directly with samsara, but has nothing to do with the transference of consciousness from one body to another.

 

In this all suffering is liked to incarnation, and only by not incarnating is suffering transcended.

 

There comes a point where reflecting upon reflection we realize that who we are is a construct that changes each time we construct it and that does not exist independently of such construction, thus each independent construct of self is an incarnation.

 

What sustains the consciousness forward?

 

Any I statement entails such an incarnation and related to this is desire.

 

Thus nobody can be enlightened, for it cannot be correctly said "I am enlightened" for in enlightenment the illusion of I cannot exist, and if it did there would not be enlightenment. This does not mean enlightenment is not possible, just that no self or identify can be enlightened.

 

Likewise enlightenment is not mystical and does not result in attainment of anything. It neither extends the life nor heals the body. It also cannot be had by those who seek it, for it entails letting go of the burden of identity or self. All of the past incarnations of self become apparatus in it, as a manner of clarity beyond thought.

 

This self evident truth is not only in the Diamond Sutra, it is also in the Dhammapada.

I share the first of the twin verses to illustrate:

The pure thought is beyond self. It is beyond the incarnation of the ego mind via word thought.

 

And of the same work:

Each thought is as a potential incarnation of self, when the thoughts are settles then the incarnation ceases, the very root of suffering is severed.

 

So although I believe in reincarnation, I do not believe in the transfer of self from one body to another.

 

There are different levels of "I". One is the Antahakarana-related Ahamkara (or the Egoic self) and the other is the objectless consciousness self which exists on it's own nature (without being dependent on anything else). Which "I" are you referring to?

[Josh Young]

When you say that a 'self-knowing aspect of being exists before the senses', do you mean within the moment of now, or prior to our birth? Is the river bed a kind of continuum?

 

This is the most difficult question I think I have been asked in a long time.

 

By "before" I mean do not mean to imply causality, nor invoke a time reference.

 

By before I mean that senses must be sensed, they do not sense themselves. That which senses sense facilitates sense, so I mean facilitate, for that which facilitates is before that which is facilitated.

 

However you brought up the moment of Now, which is eternal and unending. All things ever exist in now, which is constant, ever present and instant. It is eternal, but not in the linear sense, for the linear sense is an illusion. Time does not exist, only the perception of time exists. There is no line between time and space, much as there is no line between one moment and the next.

 

There is one whole made by all things, it exists now. Every moment of our life is in this singularity. So yes the river bed is a continuum after a manner, though when I wrote those words that was not what I was trying to convey.

 

I note your point about rebirth verses reincarnation is a good one in my opinion. This is why I like to use the terms transference of consciousness and succession of bodies.

 

Because now is eternal, I am eternal, but this does not mean I live indefinitely. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but change is ever present. I am one with the universe, because it is I and I am it. Where is the line between me and the universe? It does not and cannot exist.

 

Now I have a question:

What is there to be reincarnated?

Anybody?

Edited July 10, 2009 by Josh Young

[yabyum24]

That which senses sense facilitates sense, so I mean facilitate, for that which facilitates is before that which is facilitated.

How about if they were co-emergent? No need for anything to facilitate anything then.

 

Just a thought...

 

What is there to be reincarnated?

As I understand what I have been taught, it's more a question of process, rather than a 'thing' to be reincarnated. Perhaps if you compare it with going to sleep, passing through the dream state and deep unconscious sleep and then nevertheless waking up as yourself again - there is a process which may (or not in my case) be observed.

 

A good question though and I'm looking forward to reading what others think.

[Josh Young]

Where does Buddha teach a self exists that can be re-incarnated?

Of course this question is for those who follow Buddhism in particular.

 

How about if they were co-emergent? No need for anything to facilitate anything then.

I find that I do not understand this at all, please forgive me. Could someone explain to me what it would mean?

 

I'll give an example, senses are like paint, then what I am talking about is like canvas. How can they be co-emergent?

 

I do not understand.

 

Do you remember the womb?

I think I do, but do not know for sure.

I have memories that are so strange, there is no light, only sound and pressure. There is a sense of self, but no thought language. It is like being an aware part of a big machine, but not knowing it, because there is nothing to compare it to, there is no memory to reference. But I remember waking over and over in this situation and being curious what it was, what I was. It was so alien compared to what I know now.

 

From this I have a sense of sense before senses, if that makes sense.

 

There is also a part of awe or awareness that never sleeps. It is ever present. For me this is the architect of the tabernacle of which Buddha speaks.

[Andrei]

Where does he get his understanding from?

...

I suspect fraud.

 

check this

 

 

UOzQnw0grOo

 

 

 

Budhism says that there is nothing that reincarnates (at least some Budhists). They say the being is made of aggregates that eventually dissolves into the ocean of existence. Which is partial true, partial in the sense that different aggregates dissolve in different span times, like Taoists and esoteric Christians say (some of them).

 

Taoism says that there are five spirits of the five organs that compose the spiritual being: Hun, Shen, Yi, Po, Zhi.

Hun is the Heavenly soul, actually there are three Huns (three souls or three kernels of soul) that in my understanding corresponds to the three brains / dantians: thinking, emotional and instinctual. You may say that past lives memories are recorded in these three souls or kernels of the soul. Also you may say that these information that comes from past experiences are very deep buried into the unconscious mind, or you may say that unconscious mind comes from these recordings.

Shen is the conscious mind or the energy that nurture the conscious mind. Shen disappears in the moment of death because Shen is nurtured by Qi and Qi is disrupted in death; or unites with Hun to form the future heavenly soul which is also called the Yang soul.

Yi and Zhi is the will that is made only in the physical being. I have not a clear understanding what are the differences between Yi and Zhi - apart from the fact that one is the spirit of the spleen and the other is the spirit of kidneys. I suppose Yi is the will that come from my own mind and my own energy body while Zhi is the will of life that comes from ancestral karma (energy of the parents).

Po is an interesting soul, it is called animal soul and they say actually there are seven souls Po (or seven kernels of souls). In my understanding corresponds to the seven chackras/energy centers. Po is called also the Yin soul because it became the ghost that dwell on earth after the human being dies and the Yang soul split from the Yin soul. Ultimately the Yin soul (Po or the ghost) will dissolve but it may take several decades or maybe hundreds of years. The ghosts are inoffensive because they don't have neither Shen (mind) nor Yi (will) they are only "astral cadavers" or cadavers of Yin energy. The demons that may posses a body are a different kind of beings, they may be human souls that have a Po soul - Yin energy and a Shen and Yi through cultivation (wrong cultivation) but this is different than a regular ghost.

 

For example Michael Winn says that all the five spirits reincarnates but in different beings so a human has five souls from different persons with different previous lives. I don't buy his theory because Shen and Yi are spiritual energies that are made only during conscious life and may be recorded as information for future generations as cultural and education heritage. Zhi is the spirit recorded through genes so it is passed over generations only from parents to siblings. Po is just a energy cadaver that dissolves into the earth energy or may be used by demons. So the only energy that can carry the information from life to life (memories) is the heavenly soul - Hun and probably Shen the conscious mind in case the human cultivated during lifetime on earth and died fully aware. In the case that cultivation was complete i.e. all Jing (generated by Zhi) was transformed into Qi, and all Qi (included the Qi generated by Po and Yi) was transformed into Shen that means there is no Yin soul that remains, in some cases there is no physical cadaver that remains on earth, then the human becomes immortal and/or a celestial being. In that case the being does not return in physical life but just by his own will. The Buddhists call such an immortal being a Buddha, while an immortal that returns on earth a Bodhisattva. Normal people that have an incomplete Hun soul return on earth not by their own will but because they are obliged to reincarnate and to make another recurrence of the life cycle.

 

In this point there are two theories: the Hun soul may have also a limited span life and if it does not find a body embryo to nurture its existence and to recur the life will dissolve as everything else in this universe due to the entropic laws. The other theory like this guy (Alex Collier - contacted by "Andromedans" ) says that the Consciousness (intelligent information) is eternal and comes beyond this universe and this universe will pass but Consciousness (either the One Universal Mind or the Multitude of Conscious Individuals) will survive this universe and the following universes in the flow of the time. This is a very popular theory amongst New Agers and is very similar to the esoteric Christianity that says essentially the same thing.

 

I may be wrong but this is my understanding how these things work. I am open to discutions.

Edited July 11, 2009 by steam

[Josh Young]

His "contacts" are rather consistent with those reported in the use of DMT, which frequently results in "contact", time dilation experiences, strange colors, visions and scenes etc.

 

I do not think he is a liar, but I think his experiences may not be what he thinks they are.

 

I like his good intentions about global reformation.

 

I do not see him as having any scientific knowledge that would have come from a non human source, much of what he says, like about black holes being holes, seem based on common misunderstandings that few would be able to catch, including him, simply because most people have little exposure to astrophysics and a great deal of exposure to science fiction.

 

 

His "reincarnation" does not appear to include birth as animals or any other species.

 

He says people are a unique GMO species and yet he says that their souls are very ancient. There is an inconsistency with this that may be sublte but is profound in its implication about his claims.

 

I do not think he is lying about his experiences, but given that he has no new information in any scientific sense then I suspect he is not the real deal.

 

That he predicted great calamity between July and August 2001 that did not happen, when he was told about it by aliens with supposedly amazing technology, makes me suspect he is not in contact with aliens who can make accurate predictions of the future.

 

That his contact experiences are extremely close to many DMT experiences reported in and outside of studies, and that DMT can occur naturally in the human brain, leads me to wonder if his experiences are not chemical in nature.

 

I have had some interesting episodes as a kid where I thought I was being abducted, in many of them I was in the back of a vehicle on a military base with those orange sodium vapor lights. This all happened when I was asleep, but often as I was tired I would hear strange noises that i have never understood and for a time I thought perhaps this was an alien craft.

 

In my dreams I can fly. I have lucid dreams rather often you see. The experiences I have had flying in dreams are very real, I have been lost above city lights many times, it is hard to navigate actually. But does this mean I can fly? What I mean is that despite very convincing experiences of flight, I have no reason to believe that i have flown in reality. If my dream states can seen real, then perhaps so can those of others.

 

Who am I to know that he is or is not real?

I do not and cannot know, however I do not get the feeling he is real and the details of the situation do nothing to convince me.

[yabyum24]

Where does Buddha teach a self exists that can be re-incarnated?

Of course this question is for those who follow Buddhism in particular.

He doesn't. Some Buddhists claim that there is a kind of findable continuum, but upon investigation nothing is found. Others claim that there is 'nothing' but how can this be? 'Nothing' cannot be aware. Both are flawed.

 

I'll give an example, senses are like paint, then what I am talking about is like canvas. How can they be co-emergent?

A very good comparison. You have already highlighted the limitations of a linear interpretation of our being. If there is only NOW, then the arising of subjective awareness and its object must be a simultaneous dualistic event.

Consider this; when we dream, we say "I had a dream in which I went someplace, met some people, got scared, did all kinds of things etc". In truth, the entirety of that event was mind-created, especially the subject as well as its objects. We take it for granted that we feature in our dreams, but a subject has to be created in order that the play of being can dance before us.

 

From what does this emerge and by what force?

 

Do you remember the womb?

Recent recall within meditation, as well as past life recall. I think you are describing that state.

 

From this I have a sense of sense before senses, if that makes sense.

It does. I sometimes get that just before I wake up.

 

Namaste

[Andrei]

Hi Josh, I will not discuss the experiences of this guy if they are real or not. In my opinion any experience is real either it is in a dream state or awake state. How do you define awake and dream?

 

I will make some comments about your dream experiences, and you take them whatever you like it or not. Taoist theory says that when Hun and Po are not harmonized they fight each other and during night Po dominates the Hun. Because of that Hun leaves the body and all the dreams during night are experiences of the Hun soul. All the OBE and lucid dreaming are experiences of the Hun soul and Shen together because they are conscious dreams. When one begins to cultivate (meditation, alchemy, prayer... whatever) the animal soul Po is tamed and the Hun no longer leaves the body but stays inside during the night. The alchemical process transform the Po energies in Hun energies. A sign that shows these processes are running is that the cultivator no longer have dreams, and if they are they rarely occur and usually these dreams are very spiritual insightful about his spiritual path. The symbols or the lessons of the dream are not for everybody but just for the person that dreams them, and anyone else have no clue about their meaning. But in the normal lucid dreaming there are some stories that are shared by various people and that shows that there is an "objective reality" out there regardless the subjective experiences of the dreamer in the real world or dream world.

 

In my opinion DMT is just the chemical substance that open the gate. I personally don't believe the theory that all the experiences are chemical stimuli inside the brain, and we create them in the visual cortex. I do believe in souls and subtle energy bodies and subtle energy realms. By the way you make confusions between the physicist or mathematical dimensions and the so called "densities". The densities are worlds inside this world (with the same number of dimensions) but more subtle and of another energetic level.

[Josh Young]

Don't worry I am aware of the differences between geometric dimensions (mathematical dimensions) and physical dimensions (timespace), but thank you for bringing that up.

 

I don't dream much at all anymore. I have not dreamed for almost a year that I can remember. The last dreams I had, which are few(3-5) over the last years(5), were all lucid though. But honestly I have never really dreamed much, so I do not think it has anything to do with Hun and Po in my case. It is just the way I am still I have dreamed much less as an adult than when I was a child.

 

Now I have some other strange thing happening. I have dreams that never occur. For example I had a dream that my taiji teacher came back to my town, in the dream he came back because there was no economic opportunity. The funny thing is, I remember the dream, but never had it. It just appeared in an instant, it was not at all related to sleep, one moment it was not there, then it was.

 

And the part that interests me is when i spoke to him on the phone, and he told me he was moving back. I told him of my "dream" and it was totally accurate.

 

I know nothing about what you spoke of about Hun, Po and Shen. So do not know how this relates to my experiences. It sounds interesting.

 

I define awake and dream in a rather scientific way. Wakefulness relates to exogenous sources of sensory information, dreaming relates to endogenous sources of sensory information, ergo memory.

 

I have no belief in these things: souls and subtle energy bodies and subtle energy realms. I have no belief against them either.

 

I have a different view of the action of DMT than you do.

Edited July 11, 2009 by Josh Young

[Andrei]

Well it sounds like your cultivation gives results. You may have experiences that will change your beliefs. One thing is for sure, everything in the universe is subject to change.