Like to believe in reincarnation but it just doesn't seem to fit ME!

Discussion in 'Reincarnation Questions' started by Lucky Dan, Jul 5, 2017.

  1. Lucky Dan

    Lucky Dan New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2017
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello and welcome to this life, only kidding, in actual fact I have a serious question that is really bugging me, I am a mystic and you would think a mystic should know better than to ask, but I am simple, profoundly so, because of the way my psyche has unfolded I have the intellect of an infant, literaly, I can think, and quite clearly but complicated intellectual ideas sail right over my head.. A zen monk I once knew once said "God has told me I never have to come back again," I respected this man, and his words suggest re-incarnation do they not? He also said "there is a special place in Hell for clever people" I think he was trying to make me feel good.

    Anyway in any incarnation, I know I most certainly would have attained enlightenment and therefore would not have to come back again, my journey would be completed in that incarnation, it would have been inevitable, as I am inspired by God and he has, and would have inspired me to free myself from inner darkness, unless that is I died young every time??

    So while my heart wants to believe in re-incarnation my head just can't seem to get it self around it.

    Namaste.

    Lucky Dan.
     
  2. baro-san

    baro-san Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    22
    The way I see it:
    (1) and (3) are tied together: it's complicated, not only for you
    (2) is amusing, and likely: incorrect
    (1) and (4) may be tied together too
    :)
     
  3. KenJ

    KenJ Super Moderators Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2014
    Messages:
    227
    Likes Received:
    81
    Location:
    SW Ohio, USA
    You are not alone Lucky Dan, there are many people in your position.

    I am somewhat envious of people that recall their past lives, I have not so far. I have, however, experienced things that can be answered in no other way - it seems that having those actual remembered "experiences" is the primary of creating a "Believer".
     
  4. baro-san

    baro-san Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    22
    Using regression, I remembered fragments of several past lives, over thousands of years.

    To me, the most interesting / useful / eye opening thing was to learn what were the life lessons I was assigned to learn in each life, and to see how those lessons were caused by the way I behaved in previous lives. I was also able to identify past experiences / relationships I shared with people I know during this life, which made me look differently at them.

    You can try for yourself using self-hypnosis.
     
  5. Deborah

    Deborah Executive Director

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 1997
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    174
    Location:
    CA - USA
    Welcome Lucky Dan,

    I am curious, what does Enlightenment mean to you? What is the goal in your mind (heart & soul).
     
  6. Native Son

    Native Son Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2017
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    8
    Exactly the point....what is enlightnment? Does anyone remember being enlightened in a previous Life? And if the goal of reincarnation, as most seem to agree on, is to learn, what can an already enlighitened soul learn? Because to me, being enlightened means to be like God as much as a human soul can attain to. And to be God-like means to know reality and the rest that goes with it. I'm very partial to Plato. And since Lucky Dan believes to be a mystic, I thought to combine your question with mysticism and bring in Plato's most popular and known allegory, the cave allegory. Although most academic scholars acquainted with Plato will not allow to refer to Plato as a mystic, a mystic theme, and one of enlightenment is our famous allegory of the cave.

    And if Lucky Dan is truly inspired by God, Dan has to also be enlightened. To be enlightened is to have caught a glimpse of reality, and having kept it in mind whenever a soul reincarnated. The passage from Plato's Republic starts at book 7, and it opens with Socrates speaking thus.
    "And now, I said, let me show you in a figure how far our nature is enlightened or unenlightened............"
     
  7. Lucky Dan

    Lucky Dan New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2017
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    Enlightenment can never be expressed in words, I remember someone said that next to silence music expresses it best, but who do birds sing, because they must, so every person who has attained enlightenment, which doesn't involve attaining anything :) tries to express it in their own unique way, Christ called enlightenment the kingdom of heaven, William Blake called it Golganooza, land of artists poets and musicians, both these men were enlightened, both were mystics, both knew their own innocence, enlightenment is a blissful state of oneness, where there is no ego, where there are no objects, where there are no opposites, no male or female, just God, all else is seen as illusion, but when all is said and done I am just using words to convey ideas, but the kingdom really is within us all, wholly within. Thankfully we now have the language of modern psychology, so using that language I say that enlightenment is to be found within your own unconscious mind. We all have a dark side to our personality, psychologists call it the Shadow, it is a repository for all our childhood negative emotions, where all our deepest fears live. Enlightenment means being supremely aware, and awareness begins by knowing your inner self, start with the knowledge that you do indeed have a Shadow, even a Saint in Heaven must cast a shadow. Jungian psychology offers a good way to start getting to know yourself, and has enlightenment as it's goal, although not enlightened himself, Jung knew of it and respected it, even revered it, and he built a system of psychology which can for the few actually lead to it, but it is a lifetime work, the work of healing never stops. Imagine this, someone steals from you and you become angry, you blame the other person for making you feel angry, this is not showing awareness, this is demonstrating ignorance, one should realise that when one feels angry it is ones very own negative feelings that are making one feel angry, someone else is not making you feel angry, you are creating the feelings of anger yourself, this is showing awareness. Becoming aware is not easy, it is painful and difficult to recognise the Shadow in one self and accept responsibility for it. The Shadow represents the greatest threat that humanity faces, it's enemies are not outside it as our politicians would have us believe, who lead us to war and conflict, humanities real enemies are inside the individual. The battle between good and evil is represented in mythology, it is a battle which has been going on for a very very long time, the outcome will depend on the individual, whether the powers of light or darkness triumph depends on the individual. But whether the person takes on their dark side, their Shadow and eventually triumphs over it or not, one thing is for certain, if we don't deal with our Shadow, then in death our Shadow will define us, death for most people is a scary thing, one of the infinite beautiful things about enlightenment, about being inspired by God is, there is no death because there is no ego, it is the ego which must perish when we die, not the immortal Soul, or the kingdom of heaven which lies beneath it slumbering.

    Namaste.

    Lucky Dan
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2017
  8. Native Son

    Native Son Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2017
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    8
    O yes, that old "black magic", the EGO. What will reason make out the ego to be? To be or not to be God-like, that is the question for the enlightened, once we know just what is "enlightenment." The following is an excerpt from the book, "Seekers after Soul", by John Knott
    .....The antinomies of reason growing out of an
    attempt to establish determinations respecting the
    world, are too well known to give them in any
    detail. Kant thought much of his work here.
    Others have not shared his estimate with him.
    Hegel has done his best work in refuting this section
    of Kant's Critique.
    Under the head of the pure reason and the idea
    of God, Kant discusses the ontological, the cosmological,
    the theological or physico-theological arguments—
    and comes to the conclusion that the idea
    of a Supreme Being is nothing other than a regulative
    principle of the reason. We can act "as if"
    there were a God, but the Critique of Pure
    Reason goes no further. Kant has had in mind
    all the while to chastise reason, in that it has been
    presumptions : the age of Enlightment had made a
    god of "Reason." The Practical Reason will give
    to the intuitions of the soul what Romanticism was
    calling for and faith may affirm what reason must
    remain an agnostic concerning.
    The Practical Reason has to do with the determination
    of the will. It has nothing to do with the
    cognizableness of objects. Freedom is an a priori
    fact of inner experience. But free will works
    through its acts upon the sensory, and there must
    be a point of contact between the two. This is the
    basis for the Critique of the Practical Reason.
    In the Analytic Kant starts with freedom as
    the simple "form" of our actions. But experience
    or the empirical gives matter to the empty form
    in the desire for pleasure and the dread of pain.
    The categorical imperative is the necessary law of
    freedom binding upon all men, and regulates men
    in regard to the variations which arise in their relations
    to pleasure and pain. The highest principle
    of morality is : so act that the maxims of thy will
    can at the same time be valid as the principle of a
    universal lawgiving.
    The impulse impelling the will to act comformably
    to the highest moral law is the moral law
    itself apprehended and revered, and no mere impulse
    to happiness. Kant's morality was most severe:
    he said if we do that which is moral for the
    sake of law we have legality and not morality.
    Reverence for the moral law is the single feeling
    befitting man.
    In the Dialectic of the Practical Reason Kant
    atones for what he has left undone in the Critique
    of Pure Reason. When we ask, What is the high-
    est good? we find in reply that it is the highest
    happiness joined to the highest virtue. But the
    highest virtue cannot exist in this life, both because
    of the union of soul and body, and because of the
    brevity of life: hence we are bound to postulate
    the immortality of the soul—it must have time into
    which to develop in virtue. And the highest happiness
    can never be experienced save from the assumption
    of a God who knows our nature and the
    demands of the same. Hence we are bound to postulate
    a God. What the Pure Reason therefore
    could not prove the Practical Reason affirms.
    The Critique of the Judgment discusses the aesthetical
    and theological sense, and is a kind of
    bridge between the two other Critiques. He calls
    this last Critique that of "Judgment," because in
    the narrower sense it establishes a relation between
    things which have nothing in common. "Beauty
    does not inhere in objects ; it does not exist apart
    from the aesthetic sense; it is the product of this
    sense as time and space are products of the theoretical
    sense."
    Here we find Kant with his principle with which
    we started out in these characterizations of his
    teaching subjectively binding us ; and struggle as
    we will, aspire as we will, (and Kant allows us
    to do both) the mind prescribes law and the mind
    makes beautiful things beautiful. In an evil day
    Kant said in his first edition of "The Critique of
    Pure Reason" that the Ego and the "thing in
    itself" might be one and the same thing. This
    hint to plunge Fitchte and others into the extreme
    of making the universe one substance—God. Thus
    the pendulum swung to the opposite extreme.
    For Hume, whom Kant feels called upon to refute,
    assumed that the universe was one substance, and
    that substance was matter. Kant vainly protested
    that the extreme Idealism of Fichte had no
    right to claim Kantianism as its progenitor. Notwithstanding
    the severe denunciations of Kant
    against Fichte and his followers, the Idealism of
    the latter will continue to have its place in the
    History of Philosophy as a natural inference from
    Kant's psychology.
     
  9. Lucky Dan

    Lucky Dan New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2017
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello Native Son.

    Thank you for you
    I feel I should grovel and apologise, I did not explain that I had the intellect of an infant due to the way my psyche has unfolded, due to this after reading only a line of your reply my mind went totally blank, I simply could not process such complicated intellectual ideas, however I have been able to think clearly for the past eleven months and I have been busily filling it with what I consider to be useful information, I devour Jungian psychology of which I have been a student for the past thirty years and now that I can think clearly new intellectual vistas are opening up to me, I find it most exciting. Also the development of the infant psyche has my avid attention, I am deeply interested in precisely how we experienced the universe(s) when we first came into it, why? Because I am close to innocence myself, there is virtually no ego here, there are no objects, no things, no male no female, the universe appears to be whole complete, and further bound together by ecstasy and bliss, but here I am using words to convey experiences which are conceptualisations, what really bothers me is precisely what it is that inspires me, that holds my attention for long periods of time, exactly what is it that inspires me , he appears to be God, what Christ called the Heavenly Father and that's all there is, apparently, I appear to be a Saint in Heaven, I appear to be enlightened, however you interpret that, but even that is a conceptualisation? So what on earth is going on here?

    However what I lack in intellectual development God has more, much more compensated for by giving himself to me, almost completely and those fair graces and virtues are hard to win, and cannot be obtained by mere chance alone, also there is considerable intelligence in here, it comes direct from Gods heart, but this is a conceptualisation, from whence it came and it's originator is a mystery to me? But I guess there are many mysteries yet to reveal themselves to me, one more shouldn't worry me :)

    But I am intrigued by what message you were trying to convey to me, what is contained in your reply that is of relevance to me?

    You are, if I am not mistaken an intellectual? As I have said I lack intellectual ability but I do have the heart of a Lion, which though a ferocious beast when naturally confronted in my case is also capable of showing great Love.

    Namaste.

    Lucky Dan
     
  10. Native Son

    Native Son Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2017
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    8
    If I grasp your drift, and we both agree as to just what on earth is an intellectual, then you are selling yourself short. To be able to grasp Carl Jung's thoughts and ideas requires nothing short of being an intellectual. They say that "genius is 10% inspiration and 90 percent perspiration, But I do not prescribe to it, as it more like 90% inspiration and 10% perspiration. And if you are inspired to such a degree as you state, you are past being an intellectual, and more in the realm of genius. Just what message you feel that I'm trying to convey, it is not clear even to myself. It's more like more questions to further define the questions, and not answers in themselves. I feel that I'm more like just another lost soul, traveling on eternity road, trying to find my own peace of mind. And I would say that we both caught the "bug" when it comes to the Heavenly Father, as I believe that we both have, basically, the same idea as to the identity of "our" Heavenly Father, if I'm not mistaken!



    Stay inspired Lucky Dan, as the great mystery of life and existence will always be a mystery to us, as only God knows!
     
  11. Native Son

    Native Son Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2017
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    8
    @ Lucky Dan....following from above.

    Funny that you should use the "lion" to convey your inner being, as this animal was also used by Socrates as a simile in describing the inner man (the soul). Also we have our mythical ancient hero, Heracles, dawning the lion's skin.

    From the Republic of Plato:

    You suppose marvellous powers in the artist; but, as language is more pliable
    than wax or any similar substance, let there be such a model as you propose.
    Suppose now that you make a second form as of a lion, and a third of a man,
    the second smaller than the first, and the third smaller than the second.
    That, he said, is an easier task; and I have made them as you say.
    And now join them, and let the three grow into one.
    That has been accomplished.
    Next fashion the outside of them into a single image, as of a man, so that
    he who is not able to look within, and sees only the outer hull, may believe the
    beast to be a single human creature. I have done so, he said.
    And now, to him who maintains that it is profitable for the human creature
    to be unjust, and unprofitable to be just, let us reply that, if he be right, it is
    profitable for this creature to feast the multitudinous monster and strengthen
    the lion and the lion-like qualities, but to starve and weaken the man, who is
    consequently liable to be dragged about at the mercy of either of the other two;
    and he is not to attempt to familiarize or harmonize them with one another–
    he ought rather to suffer them to fight and bite and devour one another.
    Certainly, he said; that is what the approver of injustice says.
    To him the supporter of justice makes answer that he should ever so speak
    and act as to give the man within him in some way or other the most complete
    mastery over the entire human creature.
    He should watch over the many-headed monster like a good husbandman,
    fostering and cultivating the gentle qualities, and preventing the wild ones from
    growing; he should be making the lion-heart his ally, and in common care of
    them all should be uniting the several parts with one another and with himself.
    Yes, he said, that is quite what the maintainer of justice say.

    And as far as "intellectualism", I tend to look at one as being an intellectual, not as, for example, a Nobel laureate nor a professor of some academic field of expertise, such as; physics, philosophy, mathematics, medicine, engineering field, etc., but rather one that may understand the following excerpt from Plato's Timaeus:

    Now when the Creator had framed the soul according to his will, he formed
    within her the corporeal universe, and brought the two together, and united
    them centre to centre. The soul, interfused everywhere from the centre to the
    circumference of heaven, of which also she is the external envelopment, herself
    turning in herself, began a divine beginning of never-ceasing and rational life
    enduring throughout all time. The body of heaven is visible, but the soul is
    invisible, and partakes of reason and harmony, and being made by the best of
    intellectual and everlasting natures, is the best of things created. And because
    she is composed of the same and of the other and of the essence, these three,
    and is divided and united in due proportion, and in her revolutions returns upon
    herself, the soul, when touching anything which has essence, whether dispersed
    in parts or undivided, is stirred through all her powers, to declare the sameness
    or difference of that thing and some other; and to what individuals are related,
    and by what affected, and in what way and how and when, both in the world of
    generation and in the world of immutable being. And when reason, which works
    with equal truth, whether she be in the circle of the diverse or of the same–in
    voiceless silence holding her onward course in the sphere of the self-moved–when
    reason, I say, is hovering around the sensible world and when the circle of the
    diverse also moving truly imparts the intimations of sense to the whole soul,
    then arise opinions and beliefs sure and certain. But when reason is concerned
    with the rational, and the circle of the same moving smoothly declares it, then
    intelligence and knowledge are necessarily perfected. And if any one affirms
    that in which these two are found to be other than the soul, he will say the very
    opposite of the truth.
    When the father and creator saw the creature which he had made moving
    and living, the created image of the eternal gods, he rejoiced, and in his joy
    determined to make the copy still more like the original; and as this was eternal,
    he sought to make the universe eternal, so far as might be. Now the nature of
    the ideal being was everlasting, but to bestow this attribute in its fulness upon
    a creature was impossible. Wherefore he resolved to have a moving image of
    eternity, and when he set in order the heaven, he made this image eternal but
    moving according to number, while eternity itself rests in unity; and this image
    we call time. For there were no days and nights and months and years before
    the heaven was created, but when he constructed the heaven he created them
    also. They are all parts of time, and the past and future are created species
    of time, which we unconsciously but wrongly transfer to the eternal essence;
    for we say that he ’was,’ he ’is,’ he ’will be,’ but the truth is that ’is’ alone is
    properly attributed to him, and that ’was’ and ’will be’ are only to be spoken
    of becoming in time, for they are motions, but that which is immovably the
    same cannot become older or younger by time, nor ever did or has become, or
    hereafter will be, older or younger, nor is subject at all to any of those states
    which affect moving and sensible things and of which generation is the cause.
    These are the forms of time, which imitates eternity and revolves according to
    a law of number. Moreover, when we say that what has become IS become and
    what becomes IS becoming, and that what will become IS about to become
    and that the non-existent IS non-existent–all these are inaccurate modes of
    expression. But perhaps this whole subject will be more
    suitably discussed on some other occasion.
    Time, then, and the heaven came into being at the same instant in order
    that, having been created together, if ever there was to be a dissolution of them,
    they might be dissolved together. It was framed after the pattern of the eternal
    nature, that it might resemble this as far as was possible; for the pattern exists
    from eternity, and the created heaven has been, and is, and will be, in all time.
    Such was the mind and thought of God in the creation of time.
     

Share This Page