• Thank you to Carol and Steve Bowman, the forum owners, for our new upgrade!

What and who are you?

John Tat said:
Hi spacecaseO
This thread has had an extensive debate about spiritual gender


So it has been well covered. So there is no point gong over it again.In saying that as you are properly aware I believe the spirit does has gender. There are in my opinion plenty of reasons. What they all add up to is that without our spirits and physical body having the same gender there cannot be any form of stability for the physical entity. There may be constant conflict between each of them. That is my belief anyway from what my guides have told me


As you know there is no comparison between physical and spiritual gender, they are completely different, none the less there is male and female


If I'm right and there is spiritual gender then the mistakes are made during the reincarnation process when the spirits find themselves reincarnated into different gender physical body.


Again if this right then the way forward may be simple


You would have to remain true to who you really are. The reincarnating and continuing spiritual you. If I'm right then next time all will be brought back to how it always was meant to be. Keeping true to yourself during this incarnation would be important for next time. I'm not saying I'm right but going by what my guides communicate to me on spiritual gender it may not be far away


Regards


John Tat
Click to expand...
I think you are correct,


but I tend to think that it was not a mistake that I ended up this way,


I suspect that it was done to show me what I am not.


if you don't have any contrast in life, how are you suppose to know for sure what you really are ?
 
Who and What I Am?


This is an actual chapter of my karmic thread. I traced that painter to his being one of a 4-pack of artists who were the spearheads of a major art movement. His art school buddies were Frédéric Bazille, Auguste Renoir, and Claude Monet.


He died penniless of throat cancer, with a huge inventory of unsold canvases, and his lifelong dedication to Art seeming to have been a lost cause.


Today, more than 900 of his canvases hang in galleries throughout the world, along sides the Monets and the Renoirs.


https://www.facebook.com/notes/james-w-cook-multimedia-artist-artiste-multim%C3%A9dia/the-last-impression/108408899295653


After laving lost my last job at 51, I said, "Fine! I'm going into the arts full time!" Call it a karmic redemption, call it whatever...
 
I would welcome clarifications


Interesting thread; I've been absent for awhile and missed this thread until today.


While reading the exchanges, I found myself wanting John to define where "ego" was in his scheme of things.


Being even a bit older than either S&S or John, and having been all over the map in regards to religion, I found their childhood memories similar to mine and their differences in opinions as parts of my experiences. I would however be interested in finding if John thinks that believing in a "Source" the same thing as "Religion".
 
Hi KenJ


An interesting question "Do I believe a source is the same as a religion"?


No I don't Ken. For me there are two definitions of a religion. Firstly the belief in a super power that helps you through life and provides for you if you believe in him/her. A source is not that


Secondly a religion is an organized collection of beliefs to give meaning to our existence. Then a source is not that either


A source is just that nothing more.
 
Hi Ken


I forgot about you question about Ego


We all have Ego. Ego is how we act to reality and it informs our brain about us as individuals. The more we learn and know the greater our ego becomes. When babies first begin to comprehend and learn that is the beginning of ego. Ego can be seen as a bad thing when in fact it's the opposite.


The greater the knowledge and understanding someone has it appears to be the bad ego thing to others. When in fact its a direct reflection of their knowledge and what they know and understand


Regards


John Tat
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi John:


I think KenJ is aiming you towards Newton’s two books on the “life between lives” —when he mentions the “Source”. Newton is a person I have recommended to you before, and I am glad that KenJ has done so as well (assuming my assumption is correct). Some of what Newton found in his research sounds remarkably like things you have said, and others not much like what you have said at all. Newton mentions the “Source” in his second book, a constant presence and (as the name implies) the source of all that is. However, there is nothing in Newton’s writings that suggests that the Source meets the definitions you have given for a God or religion, nor did the Source appear to be worshiped. In fact, you may find it reassuring to know that the “Source” didn’t correspond to my sense of things in terms of a whole variety of particulars (so I am still trying to fit Newton’s findings into my own belief structures). Anyhow, I definitely think you should read his work. You may, in terms of certain things you have said, find an unexpected and highly respected ally among the current researchers in this field.


Cordially,


S&S
 
Hi SeaAndSKy


Thanks for the advise I went to Amazon and there are five books of Newtons there is only one titled "life between lives". Which of these five should I buy?


When you wrote "A Constant Presence" that is exactly what it is


and makes it necessary for me to read these books


It takes some doing to just have it there in the background which they insist over and over again that is how its meant to be, just in the background


Regards


John Tat
 
Thanks


Thanks for the reply John. I was concerned that your protest against God was a protest against a belief of a "creator" rather than against the religious perversions.


I must admit I was concerned about where your feelings were coming from when I read the earlier posts in this thread. It sounded to me that you were saying that you wanted others to help you understand something while at the same time suggesting that what you really wanted was confirmation in what you already believed. This led me to wonder where you saw "ego" as a part of your thinking since it sounded that your ego might have been the one writing some of the posts.


S&S, although I read and like Newton I much prefer Weiss.


Again, thank you both for responding. Like John, I have been shown things that led me to my present thinking about my next step/phase/whatever that I am to encounter. Unlike John, I have read probably about ninety books on the subject looking for verification or indications of a direction that might aid in my understanding and spiritual maturity.


Each of us seem to be looking for clarification in this area, some in terms of structure while others seek understanding in other areas. I seem to be "stuck" in still trying to reconcile the structural characteristics - as was my first post on this forum.


I wanted to add something about Ego that I read so I went off to find the book or find my thoughts of the book in the file I have with a brief description of it - I found neither so I'll just stumble along. What the book made obvious to me was that my ego was born slightly after I was, it knows that it will die when my body does. It is the part of me that holds fear, anger, worry, etc. (one of the fears being it's own demise). This puts another "player" in the game where my Soul-part is eternal whereas my body and ego are not.


I don't feel qualified to define attributes and descriptions of each and every aspect of my makeup so I'll leave it at that for now. The only other relevant comment that I have for this thread's topics is that the "gender" part could be one bound characteristic of the soul that is multi-sided where one side is expressed with each incarnation. See- I told you I was still trying to determine structural aspects!
 
Hi KenJ


Which book of Weiss's would you recommend


It would be good to get another take on all of this.. This maybe is how it's meant to be. "This is how it's meant to be" is what they say to me about important matters. The trouble is, how it is now with some things and how its meant to be, is so different there is nothing I can do to alter those things to bring them back to how they are meant to be


Regards


John Tat
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi John,


In terms of Newton, I was referencing Michael Newton, PhD and his two books: "Journey of Souls" and "Destiny of Souls".


Overall, I really like both Dr. Weiss and Dr. Newton. However, they seem to have very different emphases to me.


Dr. Weiss, in my experience, focuses on PLs from a therapeutic and life "meaning" aspect by looking at individuals' different PLs and how they have impacted the current life. So, I think he is mostly concerned with how understanding PLs can help us live with more meaning and understanding in the here and now.


Newton focuses on the life between lives as the defining and most important thing to analyze, as our lives in this world are extensions of, or projects of, entities that have their most basic existence elsewhere and are seeking to advance through physical manifestation in and through multiple lifetimes. His first book shouldn't be skipped, but the second book provides the most interesting information about where the whole process is going. So, he's more of a "big" picture person rather than an individual "meaning" person (though, of course, our individual meaning is part of the big picture).


They're both great guys to study and read. Once again, both are very scientifically minded, but Weiss to my mind is more therapeutically oriented, and more interested in the "human" side of things. Newton reminds me a bit more of his namesake, Isaac Newton: someone doing incredible mind expanding research into the universe of "souls".


You can't really go wrong either way, and you probably should read both if you can. Still, in terms of the subject of this thread and your prior posts, I think Newton is where you should start.


Cordially,


S&S
 
Favored books


John, it seems that you were writing your post as I was adding to mine above it.


I may have my foot in my mouth here since I would have a hard time recommending one particular book. In my notes I ranked three of his books as very good: Many Lives Many Masters, Messages from the Masters, and Same Soul Many Bodies.


I have one other that I simply stated as Good, Miracles Happen, and one that is my favorite because of the story that was told - Only Love is Real.


Of Newton's books, I've read: Destiny of Souls, Journey of Souls, Life Between Lives, and Memories of the Afterlife. I think that I have another one of Newton's books partially read laying around here somewhere but I can't recall the title.


I mainly like Weiss because of his style of writing, it just feels better to me. The message may be the same, but I like his writing style - it is milk and cookies compared to bread and water.


Of all the books that I've read about reincarnation, what is most striking is the similarities that they share. From Stewart White's writings just before I was born, through Edgar Cayce's writings writings when I was young, through Weiss and Newman who have written in the last couple of decades.


I must fuss too much with my text as I see that S&S has replied before my getting back to you. My feeling closer to Weiss could come from a short sharing of professions.


Ken
 
Hi KenJ:


Thanks for joining this thread. You may wish to review John's thread about his past life memories of dying in WWII and his bitterness towards all things religious, apparently as a result of this. He has claimed atheism repeatedly on multiple threads, but I begin to think (based on his last few comments) that his position may allow for some form of Deism (at least as a possibility). Overall, John's vehemence on all of these issues has been dropping somewhat over time, though this may be (as he has said) because he has been instructed to let go of anger.


Either way, I think all of this is a positive step. This is not because I think John is heading for an affirmation of "religion" in any general sense, but because I respect some of the intellectual antecedents for Deism. It's not where I stand, but it was a position held by a great many deep thinkers in the Enlightenment period, including founders of the United States. I can't say for sure, but it also seems to be the position most in tune with Newton's research. In addition, I think a lot of John's initial position was based on a rejection of what was most likely a rather simplistic religious upbringing in his last lifetime and simplistic self-serving and self-centered religious expressions as a whole. (This doesn't mean that I am a harsh critic of "simple" religion--I know a lot of very good folks who are spiritually nourished by such beliefs).


Also, I just saw your most recent post. I agree about writing style. I think Newton writes more like a dispassionate scientist and Weiss more like a compassionate physician. You have read more books by both of them than I have and also are better read in the whole field. BTW--I just finished "Only Love is Real"--a very heart warming book and a very good read. I'll look forward to learning more about your background (were you in counseling at some point?). Also, I will let you know that I took an approx 35 year break--so, I'm just now trying to catch up on a lot of things I was very deeply into in my youth.


John,


It may seem like I am discussing you like a prize bull for sale in a pasture (I live in the country), but I'm fully aware you're reading this too, and I really do believe you are expressing yourself differently at this point, though without departing from most of your basic positions. You just seem to be more calm and serene about the whole thing. Maybe this is partly the result of having an open forum to vent or maybe its the result of something else, but it is noticeable from my standpoint. (I also have to battle some anger issues, so I know anger--and its absence--when I see it).


Cordially,


S&S
 
I need to read other posts

S&S, after rereading that I must add that the post concerned hearing voices and I included some examples, partly humorous and part serious. Yes, I worked in the Counseling area for ten years part time, never felt that it was my "calling" though and moved on to computer programming where I once again could create things as I had done before. It seems that my ego has directed quite a bit of my life when I look at it that way.

My acceptance of reincarnation was perhaps the result of my father's acceptance of it despite our bumping-heads most of our lives together. One of my daughters has had more "uncommon" experiences than I have including one OBE where her stillborn son showed her around heaven.

For me, I could not regress to a prior lifetime despite three attempts by fairly good people in that area. So, I sort of chip-around-the-edges hoping to come upon some enlightenment.
 
Hi Ken,


I don't hear voices, but I do dream dreams, though (having tried once) I generally find it too difficult to keep a dream journal going. (Plus, when I did so it turned my life upside down, which I don't think my psyche can stand more than once per decade). Anyhow, it seems that the ones that I call "Wake Me UP Dreams" (because they do just that) are the ones I really, really need to listen to. It has taken me a while to work out the symbolic language used, but I can generally arrive at an approximate (at least) meaning and often a very direct meaning for most of these. Some are prescient and others seem to be a very wry and sometimes scathing comment on something I'm doing or not doing. My unconscious mind (or whoever is putting on the show) is definitely not interested in flattery. (BTW--from what I can tell, almost everyone on this board has some type of phenomena such as ESP, OOBE, or etc. going on in their lives in addition to some type of PL related phenomena). Seemingly, this is an area where it "never rains, but it pours."


In terms of background, you know some of it already from my discussions with John. Other factoids: Huge SciFi buff through early life, studied Physics in college, graduated during recession in '75, took my brothers advice and (after working harbor tugs for a couple of years) started law school. (I've been "lawyerin'" since then, but really wish I had become an academic, artist, doctor, psychologist, or a whole variety of other things I think I am better suited to). Married in '79, 5 kids (2 still at home), and 3 grands so far. I'm still working, and financially speaking, it looks like I will be doing so until I kick the bucket.

In terms of past lives, this was what my dream analysis led me to suspect (and was part of the whole "turned my whole world upside down" thing I mention above). I did a Youtube regression with Dr. Weiss, which led to the discovery of what I believe was a past life.

However, after that I found myself more or less "shut down" and unable to use this route again. More recently, I've had a couple of dreams that let me know that I need to stop forcing the issue. Frankly, I think there is some traumatic stuff that I'm not prepared to handle without someone to help me through it. In the meantime, I find all of this interesting, but one of my real issues is how to integrate it into my "other" life. Backstory: I always felt like there was something missing in my little parrish church growing up, found the esoteric materials in the downtown public library at around 12 (back in the day when a 12 y.o. could still safely take a bus downtown) and dove in deep. However, I was very unhappy overall, and took a turn away from all of this when I met the "right" girl, leading me to reaffirm my faith and become a very straight-laced Bible-believing Christian (which I still am to some degree). I did not look back for 30+ years until I was (so to speak) blind-sided. Now I'm pretty sewed up by my past life and my good Christian wife and family, who will have a hard time stomaching anything like this. Hmmm. I'm wondering if I'll ever be able to "come out of the closet" on this? Life is definitely strange.

Cordially,

S&S

PS-Other details are spread over numerous posts and threads, but you've got enough to go on (and probably more than you really wanted :cool:).

PPS--I wish I could make the jump over to some type of counseling. I think you're lucky to have that potential in such an exciting era, especially with PL research where it is now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Religous spouse


S&S,


I recall your saying that you married someone with "formal religious beliefs", I hear you. My current wife is very much involved with the same church she has been a member of all of her life. My belief in reincarnation stretches what she is comfortable with quite a bit.


Like you, I have tried to find a reason for being unable to get more information about any prior incarnations. I simply put it off as being something that was not going to be beneficial to me and went about trying to understand things like - does our soul enter our bodies or is it just a part of our soul with the remainder remaining at "home". And, the difference in Soul and Spirit; I read Cayce's book about Soul and Spirit and have just as many questions after reading it as when I started.


It would be interesting, and challenging, to do regression I think. I considered getting back into that field but I would have to contend with the licensure issues that put me off thirty years ago. I did some training in hypnosis but had no supervisor while doing my internships. A lot of NLP processes led to clients being hypnotized without my intending to do that.
 
Ken,


In terms of your last comment, I wish you'd pop over to the Jung thread that Deborah is trying to re-open after a long hiatus. I think there is some interesting stuff that can be developed over there, and you've got the background that I lack. I'm interested in the area, and was surprised that no one was very interested in responding to her. Anyhow, the thread is here, though you'll probably want to go back to the prior page to where Deborah tries to re-open the topic.


John,
You should be interested in this as well, though you seemingly found the whole thing pretty weird when you responded to Deborah's opener.

Cordially,

S&S
 
S&S,


I never got into analytical psychology formally; my bachelors degree was in experimental psychology, my masters was in Counseling, and my PhD was in Counseling Psychology. The closest thing to "old-school" stuff was two years in a Gestalt group.


I read some of Jung's stuff of course, but not enough to contribute to the subject, and that was forty years ago for me. Most of that stuff seems to suffer from what puts both John and me off in that it often becomes a "religion".


I was personally interest in Brief Therapy and NLP. I liked seeing results rather than "making a living" at doing something. Construction work, designing, and programming suited me better than being a good listener.
 
Hi Ken,


I can understand where you're coming from, but for me, trying to deal with an unruly dream life and a variety of images and scenes that didn't seem to make sense, it gave an overview and a bit of a road map to understand what was being presented to me. It was invaluable in its way. My appreciation for it has been enhanced by the fact that it actually offered viable explanations for a lot of the images and scenarios that were being presented. It was the beginning of my being able to understand my dreams and progress on some spiritual fronts where I had been stymied and/or simply in stasis.


I understand that some types of therapy can simply become a habit pattern with no actual results in the short-term or long. Weiss talks about this in the "Love" book we were talking about earlier in regard to some of his "old" non-past-life oriented patients, who continued to come in, but never seemed to progress. I guess its whatever floats your boat. This stuff worked as a tool for me at a critical juncture, but I can see how it could end up being a very expensive and non-productive indulgence for others.


Cordially,


S&S
 
Hi Ken and S&S


Your back and forth were very interesting. S&S ... you will notice Ken talks about understandings he has.. My sources (which is a good term for them) say I must have understandings with substance. Understanding with substance and knowledge are two very different things. Different to what is commonly believed knowledge does not lead to understandings with substance. Almost daily you read or hear about something that for years was thought to something or other and turned out to either not exist or was something entirely different We are not talking about 2 + 2 =4 here. Knowledge is totally depended on its absolute accuracy for us to have understandings with substance. How much of your knowledge is absolutely accurate and can never possibly be changed by future discoveries and findings and turn out to be wrong? Understandings certainly lack substance That is one of the human problems They rarely talk about knowledge. As I have said there is only right and wrong to them. Understanding with substance is what they focus on with me Knowledge to them is not the same as it is to us. At first I did not believe that then I found it fascinating that at a higher level knowledge as we understand it to be has no relevance. Knowledge is a human thing. That's interesting isn't it?


Ken I will contact you on your email you suppled


Regards


John Tat
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I thought that I would direct my thinking to the points that John started this thread with and found that my definitions were not as distinct as I thought they were. I was particularly disturbed that when trying to identify my thoughts about Spirit, I felt adrift. I believe that part of that problem is because of the many uses of that word and how I prefer to think of it as simply a label for a subset of the Soul itself, the part of the Soul that divides with each incarnation and unites with a body. This gets back to my attempting to understand the structural configuration as I would think that part of the Soul remains at “Home” while a part of it incarnates for new experiences. How else could my past incarnations, which are a part of my Soul, be back Home?


I will attempt divisions as John suggested; I have a problem defining Spirit.


Body – The dense physical part of us that we wash and clothe


- Bodily Senses – Sight, Smell, Taste, Hearing, Touch, Vestibular, Proprioception


Mind* – The mechanism that is used to make sense of things - understanding


- Thought – A process of assembling data into expectations (relearned and used during the incarnation?)


- Consciousness – Awareness, the ability to experience something - or is this Spirit?


- Memory – The re-experiencing of a prior experience


Ego – The management system that we identify with as “me” that is created by the Mind and dies with the body


- Judgments, fears, emotions


Immortal part – That part of us that transcends physical existences


- Life plan that was agreed to before incarnating


*That which I call Mind is a mechanism that is not limited to physical existence since it accompanies the immortal part as well.


I look around for what the web had to offer and rejected most of what I found; I did find one site that seemed to make sense to me in a lot of ways - http://www.enlightened-spirituality.org/Body-Mind-Soul-Spirit.html


What makes the most sense to me AT THIS TIME is that “The Source of all that is” created what exists including a way of experiencing what was created. The method of experiencing everything was to create what I think of as Souls that gather varied experiences through incarnations. Reincarnations will result in verifying the “learnings”, like John’s “Understanding with substance”, of the Soul-part having an incarnation as well as new experiences and new challenges.


I found it very interesting that John viewed it as the physical form seeking perfection rather than the Soul itself seeking perfection. My take on that is that, hopefully, the physical form will advance, but history shows that it back-tracks quite often.


Knowledge, beliefs, and “understanding with substance” was brought up and my mind immediately brought up thoughts about how I questioned the real understanding of what is right and wrong.


Continued below
 
Continuation


Does my wife’s knowledge that stealing is wrong because of her upbringing more or less than mine from stealing a nickel from a classmate in fourth grade and then feeling guilty, telling my mother, and then being taken to the teacher’s house and having to confess my transgression?


While my children were growing up, I tried to teach them as much as we were each willing. One of my daughters paid particular attention to my wiring of the first house I built and my explanation of how electric circuits worked. She called me once about twenty years later as she had created a problem for herself when changing switches and switch-plates where both three-way and four-way switches were involved and the results she was getting indicated that some of her connections were wrong. It was then that I learned that she usually did wiring and re-wiring tasks without shutting off the electricity since I had told her that she would not get shocked if she did not complete the circuit with her body. Does she truly understand or must she get shocked to have “understanding with substance” before knowing what is necessary to get shocked?


There are other things that cause me to wonder about “knowing”. When “mountain building” was described in my geography class in grade school I knew that that was incorrect. I did not know about tectonic plates at that time but I recognized that the description was wrong. Was that “knowledge”, “understanding”, or “memory”?


Words and definitions seem to be as divisive as they are uniting.


I think I need a nap to recover from all of that!
 
I think "understanding with substance" is an interesting concept, here. I find myself asking which part of us contains this element of understanding.


I have a habit of trying new beliefs or perspectives on for size. I drop all disbelief to the best of my ability and try to see the world as I would if the entire construct were true. This is how I experienced PL self regressions for the first time. "I'll just try it and see if it works." It did. That was a shocker for me. I'm still finding thought processes that need to adjust in light of this element of experience.


I went from disbelief, to questioning, to considering, to experience, to the beginnings of knowledge, to simple understanding (or at least "understanding that reincarnation makes sense of life").


I think a problem arises when we think it is possible to skip steps along the way, or to bring others along our own path without assistance.


- Metaphors help us consider possibilities.


- Illustrations help us grasp the differences between how two people are using the same words.


- Stories help us realize the similarities and differences between their own and others' experiences.


- Scientific research helps us survey all these elements and compare them to each other in various ways.


- Experience helps us to locate and test our views of reality.


- Spiritual guidance uses all of these to direct us forward into personal growth.


- Relationships give us a chance to apply or test what we have learned and experience the results.


There have always been "truths" I couldn't quite reach (some of which turned out to contain major errors, which helped me understand why I couldn't grasp them). I could see the possibility for living as if they were true, but I didn't know how to live them for real instead of performing them. There was a difference between "knowing" the concept and "KNOWING" the living of it.


I often used to say, "I know this, but I don't KNOW it." Now, I realize there are also many things I KNOW that I don't actually know how to explain to anyone, even myself.


They start deep and sprout like the product of an unidentified seed, still buried beneath the darkness of my consciousness. Now that I listen to these dreams and nudges, they emerge constantly and direct my efforts far more smoothly than I could manage logically.


To me, "understanding with substance" sounds like a combination of that unconscious "knowing" that guidance brings through (intuition?), combined with a conscious awareness of how the meaning of it connects to the testable reality of the universe. True understanding won't always fit within common knowledge because humanity in general doesn't know enough to recognize or even test it yet.


So, I do agree that there is an unshakeable truth to how the universe functions. I also believe that sometimes it doesn't matter that we don't grasp it all yet. We're not meant to "get it" or at least not all of us are in a place where we're even meant to try. We all learn differently, and are focusing on different classes of knowledge, different applications, different perspectives.


To one who has lived only in darkness, even a candle is very bright. To one who stands with his eyes upon the sun, the light of a candle is scarcely visible. Light is light. Truth is truth. Understanding is understanding. All of these interact within a universe shaped of contrast, and this is why everyone has a different experience of the same thing.


I don't doubt we will discover that it all fits somehow. The seeming contradictions in understanding are explained by the places in which we stand.... not because "everything is true", but because we are, ourselves, unique and varied in our approach to the core of truth. We refine our views as we go along, just as everyone must.
 
KenJ I found your beliefs interesting... There are many things my source is trying to communicate to me but I still do not fully understand what any of them mean right now


That's why I asked tanguerra if we swapped souls and spirits/pure self's who would she be tanguerra or John Tat?. When we reincarnate into a new physical body that is in essence what happens?


Our spirits/souls find themselves in a new physical body. The question is how much influence does our spirit/pure and soul self have over the physical entity and what it does?


If they have none then how would have tanguerra have coped in my young years as she experienced along with me my drinking, gambling and torrid relationships?


Or on the other hand would she never have allowed such activity and controlled the physical entity from doing those things and educated the physical entity to be something like her and her beliefs. If that is what happens then we are a reflection of our spirit/pure self which of course we are not. If we are the there are far more immoral spirits/souls that moral


You seen Ken none of it adds up unless our spirits and souls are on a learning curve of their own separate from the physical entity That is what I think they are trying to communicate to me, but I may be wrong until I fully understand


Have you or anyone else ever considered these things?


because they are critical to what reincarnation is and why it happens which then directly reflects on what and who we are


Regards


John Tat
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi John,


I may be butting in here, and maybe I am not understanding you correctly, but when you say "our spirits and souls are on a learning curve of their own separate from the physical entity" it seems to me that you are merely repeating what every great teacher in this field has said, what I have said repeatedly, and what (I think) most of the people on this board would affirm. There is nothing new there. There are, however, many differences on the question of what we (as spirits and/or souls) are here to learn, how the process proceeds, and what its final goals are, etc. You seem to differ a great deal from what most seem to be saying on some of these points.


Cordially,


S&S
 
John,


A short reply while I'm thinking about other things to add.


I have learned that my very-brief notes that I attached to my readings are of little help and I wish that I had written more. In trying to locate books that speak directly to the questions you are asking I am concerned about whether what I suggested fits very well. Newton probably would fit better than Weiss.


In trying to recall the text from my notes, I find two other books that might fit better: The Big Book of Reincarnation by Roy Stemman and Reincarnation and the Law of Karma by William Walker Atkinson. I really can not recall exactly what was in the books, but my notes would indicate a better fit with your questions - I certainly hope that this is correct.


I might add that your question concerning Soul-swapping is similar to "Walk-ins" as described by some authors where a soul abandons a body and another soul takes over (not talking about "possession" here). If I recall, Newton states that this does not happen whereas Cannon claims that it occurs often when a soul has achieved their task (or completely failed) and another Soul wishes to skip childhood.
 
SeaAndSky


I think you missed my point In your opinion is your spirit/soul godly, from god or part of god? Or are they from some sort of higher realm?


Or are they nothing more than a lost souls, searing for the truth from us mere mortal entities?


Different to what you may think about yours, my pure self and soul is neither lost or searching for answers from the physical


Do you really believe your spirit and soul can learn anything from you and the physical life you live?


You see, these are types of understandings that lack substance my source talks about


Regards


John Tat
 
John,


Each of your posts allows me what I believe to be a better understanding of your questions. This thread has pushed me to discover that putting my beliefs into some kind of verbiage was more difficult than I imagined.


Your last post made me wonder if you believe that your pure-self was perfect since it was associated with the Source. If that is where you are basing your question than I can respond to that with my thoughts.


My Pure-self or Soul is "learning" by experiencing incarnations, it does not yet know all sides of all experiences. It is not that it is inferior or imperfect, it has more to understand from experiencing various things that life as a human can offer.


You may know what it is to be both rich and poor in different incarnations, but maybe not know what it is like to win a lottery or lose everything in an investment gone wrong. My understanding is that we must have, and understand all sides of experiences - what it feels like and how it affects others.


Maybe I am still missing where you are coming from, but I'm trying to get on the same page that you are on.
 
H Ken


As you said it's difficult to put into words our beliefs


I'm in no way saying my pure self is perfect because it is connected to the source. What I was referring to is, that the majority of posts on this forum which refer to their souls and spirits believe they came from some super power or source. I may be wrong but that is how it comes across to me


It would be interesting to know where you believe your soul and spirit originated? I believe my soul is the life force the energy that makes all things possible and my soul created or gave birth to my spirit/pure self


So my pure self is directly connected to and/or is a direct descendent of the life force that makes all things possible


As a result over time and as we evolve and are transformed into an absolute spiritual physical entity that the life force and energy we will have as a pure spiritual physical entity will have come directly from our souls the life force and energy that makes all things possible. It is not possible to get that education in the physical. As each physical body dies our spirits and souls must reincarnated into new physical bodies to continue their education


I think you must have read that it's my belief there is only physical life. Our souls and spirits must occupy a physical body to fully function That is why the must reincarnate back into physical bodies to continue their education to our ultimate destiny of being a pure spiritual physical entity which will liberate our spirits and souls to what they should have always been


Regards
 
Ken


I have been reading over and over and over your beliefs and understandings about yourself you posted on this thread.


I'm just beginning to understand where you are coming from.


My initial thoughts may well be wrong and if they are please correct me


It appears to me like everyone else your belief's are centred around the physical. Your draw from your physical experiences and understanding to rationalize the spiritual side of yourself.


Even to the extent of believing the spiritual you can only grow through the experiences of a mortal physical entity.


From my understandings that is way out there in left field


. For me what stood out is when you said and I quote


"I was particularly disturbed that when trying to identify my thoughts about Spirit I felt adrift" You thought it may be because of the many uses of the word and how you prefer to think of it as a label for a subset of the soul


That again is way out to left field for me. If I'm right in my interpretation what you are saying is... I have no real idea about who I am It's my belief the pure me /spirit is who I am


I have spend hundreds and hundreds of hours mediating with myself the pure me It is a guess, but when I asked my source why me? and they replied.. you must have lived many incarnations to be ready for this, but you current incarnation became important to us and has brought us to you As I said it is my guess but it may have been because of me beginning to understand with substance who I really am That is why and if I'm right you not understanding who you really are is right out there in left field for me The more you know who you are the more understandings you will have with substance. I always worry I'm appearing to be nuts when I talk the truth about myself. I hope that is not what you think, so I will stop now, that's enough


Regards
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top