[video=youtube;7uCdrRNdxYY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uCdrRNdxYY[/video] at 9:45 he talks about someone who purposely planned to be reincarnated as someone with AIDS. Then a woman who purposely wanted to be rebirth as deaf. The general public's understanding of karma is - you do good in this life, you get reborn into privilege. A charitable peasant may be reborn into wealth. You do bad, you get punished. A greedy businessman may be reborn into poverty. But the video is saying, sometimes good people may choose to be reborn into unfortunate circumstances (poor/illiterate/mentally handicap/etc.). Possible because they wanted to teach the world compassion/patience/virtue/understanding. Do you think the general understanding of reincarnation is accurate?
I think that we are all a part of the same thing. In the beginning a consciousness arose from the nothingness (makes as much sense as anything else pre-big bang). This consciousness could not experience anything in an empty Universe so it caused life to exist simply to experience it from all of our perspectives. This view is common, and I first read about it in Edgar Cayce books. Over 75% of the world believes in reincarnation. I believe what was outlined in the opening post. I also believe friends and loved ones may choose to have more than one life together. Perhaps a father in this life may choose to return as a short lived son to you in another to teach you about loss and perseverance. Most concepts regarding reincarnation are similar. None of this post is only my opinion. These beliefs are shared by millions and I am simply repeating. This is a philosophy thread, however Sciforums is not a great place to find spiritual discussions. Science can only accept what is measureable, and there is no proof of spirituality or religion.
Chuckle Care to back that up? Googling it suggested a high of 33% - pretty far off from the 75% you claim. You may need to link to a good source for that one. Not that it matters much- Argumentum ad populum.
Glad we have a fact checker. It is true. Many people may not believe just because they are in religions that profess reincarnation. I am not about to start counting the religious populations that profess it such as Hindu, Buddhist, etc. 33% is as good a number.
kwhilborn: "I think that we are all a part of the same thing. In the beginning a consciousness arose from the nothingness (makes as much sense as anything else pre-big bang). This consciousness could not experience anything in an empty Universe so it caused life to exist simply to experience it from all of our perspectives." EXCELLENT! . . . . My philosophy exactly. I stretch it a bit farther . . . . "it" (prime consciousness) exists within a subquantum-state, from whence it manifest (and is evolving?) the material universe. We (life) are a part of that material universe. It may have manifest life via subquantum mechanisms (e.g., Casimir Effect is one). Life evolved a subordinate consciousness and senses so that "it" could sense it's creations through living entities. Being subquantum in nature, "it" cannot directly sense it's creations, although "it" permeates the entire iniverse (both observable and subquantum). I also speculate that each living form possesses a 'soul' that is an undetectible, single 'seed' entity from the subquantum source and that, on death, that single 'bit' returns to the subquantum source milieu. Physical bodies, and such, are simply an evolved environment, or shell, to encase and protect the soul while it exists in a living form. (I KNOW Mods . . . more "nonsense and gibberish" . . . BAN me again!!)
I ALMOST did (come back as a rock!) . . . but I was side-lined at the last moment to be a geologist instead . . .!
@ wlminex, Dang.. You are banned again? Still Prometheus? I think it gives the moderators some shred of self-importance in their life. I find people who abuse small portions of authority are usually denied authority in their workplace. However.. I hope the ban you received was not for posting here. Philosophy by its definition is woo when concerning reality, etc. There are more narrow definitions of philosophy such as "philosophy of law", "philosophy of science", "philosophy of politics", that tend to deal more with reality as we see it, but when discussing "Philosophy of reality" there can be no sane sounding plausible explanations. Even the "Big Bang" sounds like woo if you understand the proposal. This is philosophy of reality so woo is allowed. I will expand on your comments. Perhaps you could expand on this to say all of matter is conscious. Your toaster knows it is a toaster? I know you feel life has a consciousness, but listen to this idea. This concept is not my own, but I enjoyed reading it. I do not know if a person could channel an entity, however even if she did not. Jane Roberts has put forth a lot of work that makes sense to many. rom wiipedia on Seth - Jane Roberts This Philosophy (not necessarily my opinion or true) states that we all project what we wish to see based upon a common telepathic bond amongst us all. We all would view reality differently based upon this view. If there is 4 people in a room drinking tea, each person would view the teacups differently. Their reality would be their own. To effect such a reality then light collapsing into particles and reflecting off "objects" would be unique in each case and based upon ones expected reality. Matter then would need to be an extension of consciousness (subconsciousness is more apt a word). It is an interesting argument. The philosophy of Dianetics (bases of Scientology) was based on the premise that individual cells could hold memory, and that single cell creatures can sense and recall danger from acidity, etc. If the acidity is coupled with colder water than a single or multi-celled organism might even associate cold water with acidity. This means we could also have a "reactive mind" formed from the cells in our body and not our brain (according to theory). Our cells imprint engram memory that react without reason to stimulus associated with pain, trauma, unconscious event (According to this theory). NOTE TO MODS. I keep validating this theory as one of many, but for this post it seems like I keep saying "(according to this theory)" a lot. Many people managed to sense Engrams (according to them) through emotional responses in language and cleared their problematic Engrams. This group felt so spiritually alive they formed a church called "Scientology". Scientologists are all people who have been "cleared" of reactive mind stimulus. A Scientologist must have someone present during unconscious surgery to monitor words that are said. It was alleged a woman said to a unconscious dental patient she would take care of him and he should just relax and do nothing. The story ends with the man quitting his job and marrying a woman who looked like the nurse to care for his do nothing mental state. It almost sounds more like "power of Suggestion/NLP" to me rather than "Reactive Mind", but either way Dianetics is believed by many. Now back to the questions of consciousness? Is a cell conscious and aware? Is an Atom Conscious and aware, or better yet an extension of your own consciousness? Neither of those questions is posed by me, but they are food for thought. Is your toaster conscious? This post is directed at wlminex so all others kindly ignore it. I can already surmise what dandy contributions some may inject into these thoughts.
kwhilborn, How could consciousness arise, and more importantly, why?? Again, how and why (philosophically speaking of course)?? jan.
@ Jan, The description I gave was a poor attempt to describe the more poetic Edgar Cayce version. If we think about how the universe came into being, it can be quite a consideration. Was there ever a beginning to the Universe? If so how? Even if you subscribe to the big bang theory What existed before? Nothing? If so what could cause big bang? Please really consider those questions before reading further... Really... If you do not think of how nothingness can become everything or wonder how everything could have existed for an infinity amount of years? Then you cannot fathom how insane any answer must sound. This is why I liked reading the following The below was written by an alleged "sleeping prophet" who was known to cure illnesses and was very accurate as a psychic, although that would be denied by many here as psychic powers are viewed as woo. However it is necessary to describe this man as at least someone who was reputed to be a psychic regardless of his abilities. His name was Edgar Cayce. This is Edgar Cayces "Edgar Cayce on Human Origins"
I think reincarnation is likely just the atomic or subatomic particles that made up the body eventually entering the universe to continue to act according to the laws of physics, as they were doing before the person died. Dead cells that leave the living body do that already. Therefore, we experience consciousness only during the time that our bodies are alive here and now, and that's even though I would like to come back in a better life later, I just don't see how it could happen.
Hey! That was heavy (excellent). I didn't realise how heavyweight Cayce was. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You ought to put this in the discussions about consciousness that are presently going on in the ''General Philosophy'' forum, I think they need to ponder on this. So thanks for that. What I don't understand is how you arrive at the points you made... ...after reading that remarkable essay from Edgar Cayce. Perhaps you can explain it to me. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! jan. P.S. I understand point no.1, but not point no.2.
I am not really sure what I meant with point #2. I was trying to condense that Essay into 1 line mostly. That explanation has seemed to make more sense than most I've heard. I also enjoyed it, but found it many years ago.
