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

What things remain the same from life to life?

Jody

Jody

Senior Registered
What things can be different? I think this question may be key to being able to scientifically detect past lives (though this brings up another legitimate question ... would that be a good thing?)

When I consider the lives of twins, particularly *conjoined* twins like Abby and Brittany Hansel who pratically share the same body and experiences, I see what seems to be the ultimate contrast of reincarnation, which is one soul in different bodies with different genetics, born at different times in different circumstances. The differences in the twins seem to support the idea of a soul -- where else would these differences come from? I read an article about Abby and Brittany when they were 7 years old, and remarked that one wanted to be a pilot and the other wanted to be a dentist when she grew up (I felt bad because I couldn't see how they would manage that...). One liked orange juice and hated milk, while the other loved milk. Little things like that ... where do they come from? So anyway, it seems to me that things that are different in identical twins might point to things that remain consistent between lifetimes of the same soul.

I think definately one's sense of aesthetics and artistic expression remain reletively constant from one lifetime to another. Also the eyes ... I remember seeing one moving TV segment about reincarnation where one old guy from Ireland meets a woman who claims to have been his mother in another life. It was very moving. When asked if he thought if this young housewife had indeed been his mother in a previous life, he replied in the affirmative, tears welling. "She has the same eyes. And I'm an Irish Catholic, ma'am."

Another thing I think tends to stay constant is one's sense of humor. I've said on my blog that if the eyes are the windows of the soul, the sense of humor is the chimney. You can get a good sense of whether a soul is fiery and passionate, warm and inviting, cold and uncaring, or burning vile and poisonous things by looking and smelling what's coming out of the chimney!

This is what Dr. Walter Semkiw has to say on this subject:
http://www.awarenessmag.com/janfeb2/JF2_EVIDENCE_REINCARNATION.HTML

Can anybody think of anything else that might remain constant between lifetimes? Is there any similarity between fingerprints and so-called "junk" DNA (if so, how did that get there?)? I've heard of a guy who wrote a book called "the Genome Project" that claims there's a corelation between bone structure, the iris of the eyes (when I mentioned the eyes earlier, I was thinking about the "spark" and general feeling conveyed by the eyes, not any tangible physical charactaristic ...) and other stuff. I haven't read the book yet but I'd be interested to know of any research having been done on the subject ...
 
I'm don't know that there's necessarily anything that would definitely stay the same to the extent that it could be used as a scientific evidence. I'm sure there is this "vibration" that makes us sometimes able to tell that someone we remember from a PL is someone we know now (or in some other PL), too, but so far there is no way to measure this scientifically.


Karoliina
 
Or not that we can figure out right now anyway. : angel


I am going to be 40 years old this year. There is a part of me, that somehow is not aging. It feels the same "me" for as long as I can remember and I can remember things from a very young age. (2-3 years old). Of course there are layers and layers of experience and knowledge and insight, but there is this little something that is quite shocked to realize that now I am 40. :butbut:: angel:) Suppose that particular "me" is the one that doesn't change between lives?
 
I believe while our life circumstances change from life to life, that our essence must remain from lifetime to lifetime. I believe our essence is the core of who we are when we strip away all of the personality traits, good and bad.
 
HI Jody,


I don't think anything is constant....except as Susie stated - our essence. That essence I like to refer to as The Light; some say God, others Love, etc.


If we look at the universe/nature - it is always in flux and forever changing. If our sense of humor, our likes and dislikes - our race, religion, sex and education were to stay the same, there would be no growth.


I look to Roger Woolger's work, Gregg Braden's and Carol Bowman's. I have often wondered if people like Ophra Winfrey, Carl Sagan and Bill Clinton (to name a few) buy into Semkiw's assessments or if he is in fact basing his claims on their experiences.


Jeff Keene's experiences and circumstances being one of the few cases he presents that hold merit to me; he had the experiences FIRST, did the research and documented it BEFORE Semkiw presented it as a case.


I believe that thoughts, feelings and emotions play the largest role in what will be the next life and why. There are a lot of books out there that are based on scientific research, Molecules of Emotion for example by Candace Pert Ph.D.


I prefer to look to science, ancient religions and personal experience for the common thread that runs through - life times. ;)
 
So is there any way to *prove* reincarnation?


If the only thing that stays the same about people their essense, which is God (love), then how can there be individual souls? We're all different manifestations of God then, right? Yet there are differences between people, even identical twins who are constantly with each other. So I don't think children are born blank slates ... what could be the reason that some have certain memories of people who have lived before? Are they just tuning in to the ether, channeling past vibrations? Or are they a continuation of that vibration? I think if babies are born with certain charactaristics that don't change, and then later they "remember" a past life that has those same charactaristics, it points towards the idea of individual souls that by definition must retain some sort of continuity.


(I'm sure all this has been rehashed over and over on this forum, and I appoligize for being redundant, but I just joined a week ago.)


BTW, Deborah, I disagree with a lot of what Walter Semkiw's "picks" are for who is reincarnated from whom. George Washington was too great a man to come back as a guy who said,


"a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event [will occur] somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event." http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/EDW311A.html


That being said, I think he comes up with some good ideas about what to check to see if you may be dealing with a past life. (handwriting, writing style, facial architecture, etc ...)


I guess what I'm really looking for, though, is a way to scientifically prove the continuation of souls, and of course that's no small task! :)
 
This is something that has always fascinated me: what gets passed on, and what doesn't. Since I view reincarnation as an evolutionary process, this is a question of key importance: the mechanism of selection.


One thing I've noticed is that the evidence contradicts commonplace notions of the self. What a person regards as central and core to their sense of identity, such as political, religious and moral beliefs, may completely change without warning from one lifetime to the next. (See the thread "Denial, Re-running, & Extreme opposites".). A fanatical member of the Inquisition may reincarnate as an equally fanatical atheist, or vice versa. Conversely, completely trivial traits such as how someone holds a teacup may be passed on intact. They remain unchanged because there are no selection pressures to change them.


Personally, I don't believe in the concept of the soul as a single, separate entity. Rather, I have a cladistic model of the soul; I regard it as a cluster or package of information which can be recombined with other such clusters. Thus, a person can inherit memories and traits from multiple "donors" and pass them on to multiple "recipients"; the overall pattern of transmission, therefore, is not a linear continuity but a network.


In comparison with genetic inheritance, for example: a person inherits a specific percentage of DNA from each ancestor, 50% from each parent, 25% from each grandparent, etc. But the content of the traits inherited is random: the person may have his father's nose, his mother's eyes, etc. There is no guarantee that he will get any specific trait, but a certain percentage of the whole package will always be passed on.


Now, reincarnation is more complicated since we are not limited to only two "parents". However, I think a similar principle applies: the information patterns (memes) of the donors are mixed into a new cluster which contains a unique combination, and this forms a pool of inherited (usually unconscious) habits, knowledge etc. on which the new child draws while developing. This pool, in turn, is then weeded out by the pressures of the current environment. Some old patterns die out and are replaced by new ones. And, of course, since the self is a living, dynamical system, there is always room for choice, creativity, and novelty at all stages of the process.
 
I just thought of something else that I don't think changes much from life to life. One's voice. Of course accents, languages, and frequency range can differ as a result of culture, sex, or race, but one's general timbre and manner of speaking I think probably stay the same. I have been reading Jeff Keene's book "Someone Else's Yesterday" and comparing it to the writing style of Gen. Gordon's "Reminiscences of the Civil War" and I have to say, they sure sound like the same person to me. But not only that, in the intro, Gen. Gordon was described as "ringing", which I think could also be said about Jeff Keene, who can be heard on

. (I'm well aware Mr. Keene is a member of this forum, BTW, I hope he doesn't mind me mentioning his case.)
Then there's the case of Marilyn Monroe/Sherrie Lea Laird, and I think they also share the same quality of voice.
 
As far as physical appearances go, the eyes are always the same. Also the shape of the face, the nose, the mouth. Your mannerisms; how you walk, your hand gestures and motions. Also the voice is similar.


It can be hard to differentiate between your soul characteristics (which is eternal) and your human body characteristics (which is temporary) unless you have knowledge of some of your past lives. Say for example you have a soul that is a deep thinker, reckless, adventuresome, energetic, selfless, etc. If you put that soul in a body that is a Taurus or Leo then you would have a take charge personality suited to leadership type roles. But if you put that soul in the body of a Virgo or Aquarius, you would have a personality that is more introspective and creative and slightly crazy. Maybe not the greatest examples but you get the picture.
 
Solysombra said:
It can be hard to differentiate between your soul characteristics (which is eternal) and your human body characteristics (which is temporary) unless you have knowledge of some of your past lives. Say for example you have a soul that is a deep thinker, reckless, adventuresome, energetic, selfless, etc. If you put that soul in a body that is a Taurus or Leo then you would have a take charge personality suited to leadership type roles. But if you put that soul in the body of a Virgo or Aquarius, you would have a personality that is more introspective and creative and slightly crazy.
Click to expand...
Hi Solysombra, welcome to the forum :)


Interesting thoughts there, I often wonder what it is that can make us be (for example) a 'leader' in one life, then a 'follower' in the next. I'm a bit of a skeptic with astrology to be honest (but I always have an open mind) you've given me something to think about there, thanks :thumbsup:

As far as physical appearances go, the eyes are always the same. Also the shape of the face, the nose, the mouth.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure about this one. I agree that an overall appearance of the facial features can often be similar to how we looked in a past life, but surely the individual features like nose, mouth etc. are inherited from the parents? Identical twins for example could have been two very different looking individuals from seperate families in their past lives, and most likely to be in their future lives, yet they both have the same features in their present life, it doesn't add up if the above statement were the true, just my thoughts.


BTW I hope you're enjoying the forum and I'm looking forward to reading a bit more about you .... if you don't mind sharing that is : angel
 
ChrisR said:
I'm not so sure about this one. I agree that an overall appearance of the facial features can often be similar to how we looked in a past life, but surely the individual features like nose, mouth etc. are inherited from the parents? Identical twins for example could have been two very different looking individuals from seperate families in their past lives, and most likely to be in their future lives, yet they both have the same features in their present life, it doesn't add up if the above statement were the true, just my thoughts.
Click to expand...
Although I don't necessarily agree that facial features are always unchanged, there are cases in which, regardless of the genetics of the individual, the facial structure doesn't change.


In one case, the facial features didn't change from one life to another, making the person instantly recognizable in this life. I have also seen one case in which the features in 3 lifetimes were so identical that it was absolutely creepy.


My own features have changed some through the ages, but not enough to make me happy.


Phoenix
 
Jody said:
I'm a Virgo and I'm being haunted by the ghost of John Paul Jones! :eek:
BTW, some people thought Paul Jones was slightly crazy himself. He was born July 6, 1747.:laugh:
Click to expand...
And your not in Led Zeppelin?


Anyway, I have thought for a very longtime that the bass and keyboard player for Led Zep had been the composer of our anthem.


January 11, 1843 in History


Francis Scott Key, composer (Star Spangled Banner), dies at 63


I believe he was a lawyer by trade.


In Baltimore at the end of the block I lived on for 10 years was this death place.


I also think he was also Lully, the composer in the court of Louis XIV...he is said to have been the 1st conductor, but used a large staff to pound out beats, but has been said to have died from an infected foot due to hitting his foot instead of the floor!
 
Conjecture about who others MIGHT have been really leads us nowhere. Please keep the thread on topic.. ;) Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top