Reincarnation. Who or what would reincarnate? (explained)

[AlexW]

Although the thoughts, themselves, might be delusional. Thoughts, themselves, are not a delusion

Agree

Thoughts are the only thing that I can be 100% truly sure of

What about the moments when no thought happens?
Aren't you still present?

Isn't the only "thing" you can be sure of the presence (= the "ever-present") that simply IS, no matter if thought (or whatever else) arises?

Or do you use a different definition of what defines a "thing"?

I have not.

No, I don't have one either - lets use this definition.

I would agree with this up to the point where you said, separate things "have to" exist as well. Could any thing exist separate of the one Everything, for example?

If yes, then how?

Thats exactly what I am wondering too. My guess is: no

But if no, then why MUST there "have to" be separate things existing as well?

If there is only one thing existing then it looses its "thingness", doesn't it?
It would be everything and equally nothing - it would contradict things having certain attributes while not having other attributes, it would also contradict a thing being something that is limited, that has a certain size and that exists for a certain time...
This one "thing" would be a "no-thing" as per the above definition - it would be unlimited, absolute boundlessness. Every attribute - size, color, weight etc etc... would have no meaning for this one "thing".

[Dontaskme]

And an obviously WRONG observed activity.

So, why do you make obviously WRONG observations?

And that assumption, which is a movement, is obviously a WRONG assumption.

So, that WRONG assumption and WRONG movement, along with absolutely every thing else in the Universe, is within the ever stillness of Awareness.

It is easy to be WRONG. But that which is WRONG is so close to that which is right as to not deserve a worry.

For example:

It means that we cannot be by ourself alone. You have to be with the other side. It's like the wrong and the right. If the right is not there, the wrong cannot be. It's not possible to take the wrong away from the right.

The right and the wrong want to be together, because without the other, you cannot be.

That is interbeing. They have to be there at the same time.

.

[attofishpi]

Purveyors of the reincarnation myth so often have a shocking poor understanding of how consciousness, memory and identity are generated by the brain.
It only takes five minutes in an old people's ward, or spending time with a person that has had a stroke, or head injury to know that the chances of any kind of meaningful re-incarnation is zero.
All we are and all we amount to is sustained by a healthy brain.
There is nothing beyond this.

Oh do tell.

What is you understanding of how consciousness, memory and identity are generated by the brain?

[Age]

Although the thoughts, themselves, might be delusional. Thoughts, themselves, are not a delusion

Agree

Thoughts are the only thing that I can be 100% truly sure of

What about the moments when no thought happens?
Aren't you still present?

Being present of the thoughts, as they come and go, and being present when there are no thoughts, then I am always present, or 'ever-present'.

Isn't the only "thing" you can be sure of the presence (= the "ever-present") that simply IS, no matter if thought (or whatever else) arises?

To me, a 'you' is not the same as the One that is 'ever-present'.

Or do you use a different definition of what defines a "thing"?

I have not.

No, I don't have one either - lets use this definition.

I would agree with this up to the point where you said, separate things "have to" exist as well. Could any thing exist separate of the one Everything, for example?

If yes, then how?

Thats exactly what I am wondering too. My guess is: no

But if no, then why MUST there "have to" be separate things existing as well?

If there is only one thing existing then it looses its "thingness", doesn't it?

Not to me.

Previously you asked, "If a thing is something that is limited, that has a certain size and exists for a certain time?" I could say yes to this, and still have the one and only 'thing' of the Universe, Itself, and still be of a certain size, for a certain time. That certain size just being infinite, and that certain time just be eternal.

It would be everything and equally nothing,

which is exactly what someone here would say, and call 'it', which, in a sense, is exactly what 'It' IS. But, in a scientific explainable way.

- it would contradict things having certain attributes while not having other attributes, it would also contradict a thing being something that is limited, that has a certain size and that exists for a certain time...

I hope I have just showed how it could still not contradict at all. If you would like more evidence, then just ask specific questions.

This one "thing" would be a "no-thing" as per the above definition - it would be unlimited, absolute boundlessness. Every attribute - size, color, weight etc etc... would have no meaning for this one "thing".

It might be those things and still have meaning.

[Age]

And an obviously WRONG observed activity.

So, why do you make obviously WRONG observations?

And that assumption, which is a movement, is obviously a WRONG assumption.

So, that WRONG assumption and WRONG movement, along with absolutely every thing else in the Universe, is within the ever stillness of Awareness.

It is easy to be WRONG. But that which is WRONG is so close to that which is right as to not deserve a worry.

For example:

It means that we cannot be by ourself alone. You have to be with the other side. It's like the wrong and the right. If the right is not there, the wrong cannot be. It's not possible to take the wrong away from the right.

The right and the wrong want to be together, because without the other, you cannot be.

That is interbeing. They have to be there at the same time.

.

Absolutely every thing has an opposite, and in a continuum, with equilibrium. This is Everything as One.

[Sculptor]

Purveyors of the reincarnation myth so often have a shocking poor understanding of how consciousness, memory and identity are generated by the brain.
It only takes five minutes in an old people's ward, or spending time with a person that has had a stroke, or head injury to know that the chances of any kind of meaningful re-incarnation is zero.
All we are and all we amount to is sustained by a healthy brain.
There is nothing beyond this.

Oh do tell.

What is you understanding of how consciousness, memory and identity are generated by the brain?

Neuroscience has made great leaps. It is a growing field of knowledge. I can hardly be expected to cover an entire branch of science in one post.
By contrast there is nothing on the other side of the argument; zero.
The simple fact is that no brain means no consciousness, no memory, no thoughts, no feelings and no identity of any kind.

[attofishpi]

Purveyors of the reincarnation myth so often have a shocking poor understanding of how consciousness, memory and identity are generated by the brain.
It only takes five minutes in an old people's ward, or spending time with a person that has had a stroke, or head injury to know that the chances of any kind of meaningful re-incarnation is zero.
All we are and all we amount to is sustained by a healthy brain.
There is nothing beyond this.

Oh do tell.

What is you understanding of how consciousness, memory and identity are generated by the brain?

Neuroscience has made great leaps. It is a growing field of knowledge. I can hardly be expected to cover an entire branch of science in one post.
By contrast there is nothing on the other side of the argument; zero.
The simple fact is that no brain means no consciousness, no memory, no thoughts, no feelings and no identity of any kind.

Sure, and I have no to argument with that.

But where is the argument you have within relation to your statement and reincarnation?

[Sculptor]

Oh do tell.

What is you understanding of how consciousness, memory and identity are generated by the brain?

Neuroscience has made great leaps. It is a growing field of knowledge. I can hardly be expected to cover an entire branch of science in one post.
By contrast there is nothing on the other side of the argument; zero.
The simple fact is that no brain means no consciousness, no memory, no thoughts, no feelings and no identity of any kind.

Sure, and I have no to argument with that.

But where is the argument you have within relation to your statement and reincarnation?

Death of the brain means death of identity.

[attofishpi]

Neuroscience has made great leaps. It is a growing field of knowledge. I can hardly be expected to cover an entire branch of science in one post.
By contrast there is nothing on the other side of the argument; zero.
The simple fact is that no brain means no consciousness, no memory, no thoughts, no feelings and no identity of any kind.

Sure, and I have no to argument with that.

But where is the argument you have within relation to your statement and reincarnation?

Death of the brain means death of identity.

Do U know much about the concept of pointers within a computer programming language?

The reason I ask, is that it seems quite apparent to me, although I don't actually know, that within brain matter - which you must agree can conceptually be compared to a pile of computer 'RAM', that our 'soul' is merely a pointer within matter. A point of reference - a location. So perhaps when we die - that point of reference drops out of the matter recursively.

Indeed I digress, and you are obviously far wiser than me about such matters.

The point is, sure we die, the brain is dead, but a certain amount - perhaps just a reference point back to the Operating System - the 3rd party intellgence - the puts that reference into the matter of a rebirth.

I don't give a fuck about the ins and outs of it all. The sage introduced himself to me in 2005 and I asked some pertinent questions. One of which was along these lines: 'When we die, are we judged about what family we deserve to be reborn into?'

I was tapped heavily on my right knee - as in yes 'right'.

[Sculptor]

The point is, sure we die, the brain is dead, but a certain amount - perhaps just a reference point back to the Operating System - the 3rd party intellgence - the puts that reference into the matter of a rebirth.

HOW?

[AlexW]

Being present of the thoughts, as they come and go, and being present when there are no thoughts, then I am always present, or 'ever-present'.

Exactly

To me, a 'you' is not the same as the One that is 'ever-present'.

To me, the "you" is only a collection of conditioned believes/ideas/concepts... besides these thought processes there is no separate "you" at all.
The "One that is 'ever-present'" is the only real You/I.

"If a thing is something that is limited, that has a certain size and exists for a certain time?" I could say yes to this, and still have the one and only 'thing' of the Universe, Itself, and still be of a certain size, for a certain time. That certain size just being infinite, and that certain time just be eternal.

OK... if that works for you, fine. To me, infinity and eternity leave no room for further attributes like size and time - they dissolve in the ever-present.
To me, all attributes are purely thought based, conceptual, attempting to define/interpret a "part" of the ever-present, essentially attempting to break into parts what is forever one whole.

I hope I have just showed how it could still not contradict at all.

I do understand why there can be no contradictions - but I am not sure if I can follow your explanation of how to get there
To me, all contradictions end when understanding that outside of the world of idea and belief there are no things at all - and where there are no things (beside the one "thing", the ever present) there can be no contradictions.
Why? Because the "ever present" (the apparent "mother" of all things) itself is not a thing, and thus it neither exists, nor does it not exist (existence, birth and death, creation and destruction are for things only, but they are only conceptual entities, nothing more, the ever-present has never been created and can never be destroyed, thats why we call it "ever-present").
Taking this further we may find that this even holds true for all apparent arisings "within" its infinite presence (they are children of their infinite mother and thus can not be but infinite themselves). They are not governed by dualistic black and white, existence/non-existence - its only human thinking that insists that we live in a dualistic universe.

By the way: what I have just written is not right, but neither is it wrong, it simply has been stated, that’s all

[Age]

Being present of the thoughts, as they come and go, and being present when there are no thoughts, then I am always present, or 'ever-present'.

Exactly

To me, a 'you' is not the same as the One that is 'ever-present'.

To me, the "you" is only a collection of conditioned believes/ideas/concepts... besides these thought processes there is no separate "you" at all.

This is true. But to be able to explain this fully is the most simplest and easiest way so that everyone can understand this also, is to first explain WHY the perception of completely separate and distinctly different 'yous' exists.

There is absolutely no use telling some one there is NO separate you, when to them there is "obviously" a separate 'you'. The very word 'you' denotes 'another' one, a 'separate from me' one.

The "One that is 'ever-present'" is the only real You/I.

To me, I much prefer to the use the word 'I' only for the 'ever-present'. The word 'I' by itself infers one, and only one, whereas the word 'you' infers another, separate, one.

Because there are obviously seemingly apparent separated human bodies, each one with obviously separate and different thoughts, then the word 'you', for me anyway, relates to these different human beings, or more correctly different people. When the person or the 'you' can be objectively looked at and seen, then who and what they really are is much better understand, and then who and what the 'ever-present' or the 'I' is, is much better understood too.

"If a thing is something that is limited, that has a certain size and exists for a certain time?" I could say yes to this, and still have the one and only 'thing' of the Universe, Itself, and still be of a certain size, for a certain time. That certain size just being infinite, and that certain time just be eternal.

OK... if that works for you, fine. To me, infinity and eternity leave no room for further attributes like size and time - they dissolve in the ever-present.

Is there any issue or problem with that dissolving in the 'ever-present'?

To me, this further backs up and supports ALL-THERE-IS, which in turn makes ALL-OF-THIS much easy and much simpler to explain, and understand.

To me, all attributes are purely thought based, conceptual, attempting to define/interpret a "part" of the ever-present, essentially attempting to break into parts what is forever one whole.

And this is exactly what human beings have done and do it. By just naming and labeling ALL the parts that human beings can conceive of, and which they perceive to exist, that makes describing and explaining things much easier and simpler. Desiring to understand ALL-OF-THIS is a very natural part of being, and breaking the One down to as many parts as possible is a very natural thing to do, for a very naturally inquisitive creature as the human being.

Once ALL the parts of the whole One inseparable united Thing is labeled and understood fully, then seeing how there really is NO separation of the 'ever-present', which is just the 'Mind', then human beings can and will start fulfilling their other true purpose for being HERE, in the NOW.

Human beings can not literally break the 'ever-present' One whole into parts. Human beings just naturally do this breaking or separating conceptually, in order to make sense of ALL-THERE-IS. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this essentially "breaking" or "separating" in order to better understand and visualize what the actual Truth of things is, as this is the most natural way to find and accomplish understanding and meaning.

I hope I have just showed how it could still not contradict at all.

I do understand why there can be no contradictions - but I am not sure if I can follow your explanation of how to get there

I am only learning how to communicate better, so you might have to bear with me.

To me, all contradictions end when understanding that outside of the world of idea and belief there are no things at all - and where there are no things (beside the one "thing", the ever present) there can be no contradictions.

Remember we can conceive, conceptually, contradictions when really there are none there, (and conversely sometimes we cannot see a contradiction which is obviously there to others, and from their perspective).

I do not see any contradictions here at all in nor from what I am saying. This is obviously does not mean there are none, but if people do not pull me up and say this is a contradiction and point it out to me as clearly as they see it, then I will probably completely miss it myself.

To me contradictions stop when I understand ALL of the apparent separated "world" in conjunction with the One and only "world". When the apparent separate "world" is understood fully, then that self-explains how the One "world" works, and what that Truly United as One "world" is exactly.

Why? Because the "ever present" (the apparent "mother" of all things) itself is not a thing, and thus it neither exists, nor does it not exist (existence, birth and death, creation and destruction are for things only, but they are only conceptual entities, nothing more, the ever-present has never been created and can never be destroyed, thats why we call it "ever-present").

You sound like you are repeating things that have been told to you, which there is nothing inherently wrong with this. But when I hear people repeating things like the 'ever-present' is "not a thing" because this is what they have been told, then, to me, this more or less the so called "guru" just does not yet know the actual and true answer them self.

To me, this reminds me very much of a religious teacher telling a group of young children that God created everything, and to just about every one of those truly inquisitive and wondering children they want to just about straightaway know, and so put up their arms, and ask; "So who created God?" to which the replies are something like; "There are some things that we are not supposed to know".

Childhood logic is probably about one of the most beautiful things in Life, which cannot be overshadowed by adulthood stupidity, but sadly childhood logic does get overshadowed by stupidity, for the simple fact that those (truly inquisitive) children grow up to become (believing) adults. Once these obviously ridiculous and stupid sayings and teachings are repeated over and over again, they start becoming self-fulfilling prophecies.

Now, hearing, repeating, and saying something like, "The 'ever-present' is itself 'not a thing'" or "There are no words that could ever describe this thing (which is not a thing)", is the exact same as saying, "There are some things that we are not supposed to know". The ridiculousness and stupidity of these sayings should speak VERY LOUDLY for themselves, but because this is what we are told, from the ones who are supposed to know better, the gurus and the preachers, then we just accept them as being what is true and real, especially considering the other things they have been saying appear to be true and correct, themselves.

It does not matter if it is a very old strict type of religion, like christianity or islam or any of newer freer ones like non-dual or any self-help one, or even the "religion" of education or of even science, where there are teachers 'preaching' things, and some sort of contradiction or absurdity appears, then there will be some one who has that absolutely beautiful childhood wonder in them, and who will ask just a PURELY very simple and very logical question, which when cannot be answered in a way that resolves the contradiction or absurdness of it, will be given some sort of answer that on hindsight is even more contradictory or more absurd, but also means more or less leave me alone and stop asking me questions that I have absolutely no answer to.

Instead of just admitting that what was said, taught, or preached was actually a contradiction or absurd and so really does not make any sense at all, they will say something to deflect and stop what ever it is that is "pestering", which is just commonsense and logically reasoned questions.

To me, the 'ever-present' has never been created and can never be destroyed because this is exactly what God is. The 'ever-present' God is never able to be born and never able to be destroyed because It exists HERE-NOW, infinitely and eternally. The 'ever-present' God, in the visible physical sense, is just the Universe, Itself, which was never born and will never be destroyed, as It could not existed in any other way than infinitely and eternally HERE-NOW. And, the 'ever-present' God, in the non visible spiritual sense, is just the Mind, Itself, which was never born and will never be destroyed, as It could not exist in any other way than how It does HERE-NOW. That is; always OPEN to keep being inquisitive and in wonder, and so is always ready to learn and understand more. The consequence of this is always becoming wiser, and thus knowing more.

To me, there is absolutely NO contradiction anywhere. But, as I say, I may be missing some thing, which is completely obvious to you, or someone "else". Please let me know if there is any contradiction, or absurdity, anywhere in what I say.

Taking this further we may find that this even holds true for all apparent arisings "within" its infinite presence (they are children of their infinite mother and thus can not be but infinite themselves). They are not governed by dualistic black and white, existence/non-existence - its only human thinking that insists that we live in a dualistic universe.

Does suggesting that there is a 'mother', and 'her children', instantly imply duality?

See, the issue one is going to have in explaining how there really is only One thing, using words, which obviously mean and are used to describe different things, speaks for itself, does it not?

By the way: what I have just written is not right, but neither is it wrong, it simply has been stated, that’s all

The truth is; if whatever one writes is just 'their' views only, then they may or may not be right, in relation to the One and only Truth of things. But because of the very nature of the One constantly always evolving and coming to know Thy Self and always being, coming, or more truthfully be-coming into Its own Self, then absolutely EVERY thing is PERFECT how it is HERE, NOW.

When, contrary to popular belief, ALL-OF-THIS is KNOWN, and thus can be explained WITH WORDS, then the ONLY reason it came about is because of absolutely everything prior to It was in the right "place", at the right "time", which is just the HERE and NOW.

So, in a sense, whatever is written is not right but neither is it wrong, because ALL-OF-IT together is HOW the 'ever-present' God becomes to KNOW to fully and truly Thy Self, and Who 'I' am.

[attofishpi]

The point is, sure we die, the brain is dead, but a certain amount - perhaps just a reference point back to the Operating System - the 3rd party intellgence - then puts that reference into the matter of a rebirth.

HOW?

...IT (the 'OS') is more pervasive than an actual OS. IT is at the core of all existence - all matter - where matter is broken down to its most finite level - a binary level. It pervades ALL the matter within your brain, this I know from the TEST_AMEN_T tests. So that is HOW.

[Dontaskme]

The concept ''Re-incarnation'' is pointing to this ever SAME ONE ESSENCE which apparently transforms itself from one form to another. In-form, essence is never the same static constant unchanging thing, but is a shapeshifting illusion appearing real. In-Form is always in a constant state of FLUX like water. No form ever lives or dies except as imagined by what never lives or dies but IS always and ever present Awareness unchanging unborn ever-presence ever present informing itself.

The concept ''Incarnation'' (aka imagination) is a ''thought'' pointing to what's already and always IS ever-present unchanging, and unborn therefore cannot die. Presence is that which is aware of all thought and things but IS NOT those thoughts and things. Aware is another word for KNOWING.
KNOWING/IN FORM....in forms itself the illusory nature of it's existence, in that it is one and the many simultaneously.

That which is known to live and die is ''thought'' known by that in which they arise and fall. Thoughts are born and die in AWARENESS which does not die because awareness has never been born. Awareness is infinity itself without beginning nor end. That which begins and ends is of 'thought' a finite imagined thing that knows nothing, only the infinte knows itself.


So no such thing as any concept having an independent or separate existence in and of itself, for the concept of SELF is a myth.
You are already beyond the SELF concept. You are that which the concept is known, is made of and comes from. A concept is only the imagined character in your dream, just one of many infinitely forever. For a dream to be known requires a dreamer. You are both and neither.





.

[surreptitious57]

I do not think the purpose of the Universe in the form of Mind is to be inquisitive because I do not think Mind exists
I do not think there is any purpose to the Universe at all beyond its mere existence although this is just my opinion