Reincarnation. Who or what would reincarnate? (explained)

[Age]

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

I know the purpose of the Universe in the form of Mind, in human beings, is so that inquisitive continues because I know the Mind exists. The reason human beings collectively do not stop learning is just simply because of an OPEN Mind.

I know there is a purpose to the Universe, which is to just bear witness to the beauty that 'I' am creating.

[surreptitious57]

The purpose of human beings which are many should not be mistaken for the purpose of the Universe
The Universe has no purpose beyond simply existing and eventually dying because that is all it can do

[surreptitious57]

Flux has to by definition be in a constant state of change because that is what it means
Concepts cannot be entirely independent because they have to originate within a brain

[surreptitious57]

Does awareness exist independent of a brain or is it just merely a concept imagined
For can what a brain thinks is true within conceptual form in reality be simply false

[Dontaskme]

Does awareness exist independent of a brain or is it just merely a concept imagined

Does a tree exist independant of a brain?

[surreptitious57]

A tree is a physical thing and so its existence is real not imaginary
But if awareness is non physical then how can one know if it is real
As its existence cannot be demonstrated like the existence of a tree

[Skepdick]

The purpose of human beings which are many should not be mistaken for the purpose of the Universe
The Universe has no purpose beyond simply existing and eventually dying because that is all it can do

The distinction is immaterial when interpreted in a spatio-temporal framework.

Where are we going?
Who decides?

The intended future destination in spacetime is 'purpose'.

The Universe has decided that we are heading for heat death. That is its 'purpose'.

[Dontaskme]

A tree is a physical thing and so its existence is real not imaginary
But if awareness is non physical then how can one know if it is real
As its existence cannot be demonstrated like the existence of a tree

Just answer this question first and then we can proceed....Does a tree exist independant of a brain? .... yes or no?

[AlexW]

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.

I found that honestly investigating ones own direct experience (as well as the interpretation thereof which arises as thought) is actually all that is required to come to this conclusion.

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

Of course not.

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.

Sure, I agree.

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.

If this is how it sounds to you, fine, but I can assure you that, just because I like to use metaphors it doesn't mean that what I have said is not based on own actual investigation and conclusion. As I stated above, honest investigation of ones own, direct experience (as well as the interpretation thereof, which arises as thought) is all that is required to understand.

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.

I don't want you (or anyone else) to simply believe what I say - much the opposite, I hope to actually spark some interest in people to actually look for themselves and come to their own conclusion.
When I say "The 'ever-present' is itself 'not a thing'" then this is something I have found investigating my direct experience - it shouldn't come as a surprise that this sounds like it has been said many times before. Why? Because when honestly investigating people will come to the same conclusion even they might express it using slightly different words and concepts, but the message is the same.

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.

Agree.
But to me, even saying that It "exists" is not really correct. Something can only exist if non-existence is an option as well. Thus I said: It neither exists, nor does it not exist. This statement takes It out of the "ordinary", dualistic mindset - it is a hint that It can not be contained/defined by conventional descriptions.

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

Yes, conventionally it does.
But when we investigate further we will find that the mother and the child (the One and the many things/forms) are really one.

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.

No, to me, there is no way that anything one writes "may or may not be right" - it is neither right nor is it wrong.

Of course this doesn't mean that a statement may be right or wrong within the conceptual boundaries it has been made - if we work in the world of independently existing, separate objects then the statement 1+1=2 is certainly right, but we should also understand that ultimately even this simple equation is neither right nor is it wrong.

Do you see my point?

[Age]

The purpose of human beings which are many should not be mistaken for the purpose of the Universe

I do not make this mistake.

What are some, or all, of the many purposes of human beings?

The Universe has no purpose beyond simply existing and eventually dying because that is all it can do

You sound like you know what you are talking about. So, what evidence do you have that the Universe has no purpose at all?

And, what evidence do you have that the Universe will eventually die?

[Age]

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.

I found that honestly investigating ones own direct experience (as well as the interpretation thereof which arises as thought) is actually all that is required to come to this conclusion.

And when, and if, you investigate your own direct experience, even further, then you will come to understand and know, even more.

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

Of course not.

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.

Sure, I agree.

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.

If this is how it sounds to you, fine, but I can assure you that, just because I like to use metaphors it doesn't mean that what I have said is not based on own actual investigation and conclusion. As I stated above, honest investigation of ones own, direct experience (as well as the interpretation thereof, which arises as thought) is all that is required to understand.

And as I stated above, with, even more, honest investigation of one's own direct experience, plus a truly honest investigation into one's own wrong behaviors, and a serious commitment to change for the better, then being able to FULLY understand ALL-OF-THIS and being able to explain ALL-OF-THIS very simply and very easy, with WORDS, so that ALL-OF-THIS is FULLY understood by others, is all that is required to Truly understand.

Saying things like; The only one 'thing' that exists is really 'not-a-thing' at all, just shows that 'you' do not Truly understand ALL-OF-THIS, just yet.

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.

I don't want you (or anyone else) to simply believe what I say - much the opposite, I hope to actually spark some interest in people to actually look for themselves and come to their own conclusion.
When I say "The 'ever-present' is itself 'not a thing'" then this is something I have found investigating my direct experience - it shouldn't come as a surprise that this sounds like it has been said many times before. Why? Because when honestly investigating people will come to the same conclusion even they might express it using slightly different words and concepts, but the message is the same.

What I said here regarding this was NOT solely about if you are copying and repeating what "others" are saying or telling you. What is more important in what I said here is saying things like; "A thing is 'not-a-thing' ", and/or, "There are some things that we are not meant to know", is a sure sign that the ones saying those things still have some more to learn.

Just how much more they have to learn is up for discussion and SEEING.

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.

Agree.
But to me, even saying that It "exists" is not really correct. Something can only exist if non-existence is an option as well.

Well I could explain EXACTLY HOW this is possible, and thus correct.

That is if anyone was interested and did not just believe that it "is not really correct".

Thus I said: It neither exists, nor does it not exist.

But you also said: "It is also not-a-thing" anyway.

Now, if that is the furthest you can go in explaining and elaborating on this, then so be it. Imagine what that looks like to a 'not-knowing' what you are talking about person.

This statement takes It out of the "ordinary", dualistic mindset - it is a hint that It can not be contained/defined by conventional descriptions.

When are you people who say things like: "This can not be contained/explained/defined by words or by conventional descriptions", ever going to STOP believing such, (obviously false to me), beliefs, and start realizing that ALL-OF-THIS can actually be explained, and understood, very simply and very easily by just the use of common conventional descriptive words, which exist now, when this is being written?

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

Yes, conventionally it does.
But when we investigate further we will find that the mother and the child (the One and the many things/forms) are really one.

The reason I asked that question was to point out just how inconsistent you people are who BELIEVE such things.

I TRULY suggest you do far more open and honest investigating before you start 'trying to' explain ANY or ALL-OF-THIS.

Do you want to use "conventional language" or the "real language"?

You choose which one, and then we can discuss using that one ONLY, okay? Otherwise you are going to be writing extremely confusingly, which just further SHOWS you may well still have a lot more to investigate and learn here.

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.

No, to me, there is no way that anything one writes "may or may not be right" - it is neither right nor is it wrong.

Okay, but, to you, is there a way that anything one writes "may or may not be correct"? - is that either correct or not correct, or is the same, in that it is neither correct nor is it incorrect?

Of course this doesn't mean that a statement may be right or wrong within the conceptual boundaries it has been made - if we work in the world of independently existing, separate objects then the statement 1+1=2 is certainly right, but we should also understand that ultimately even this simple equation is neither right nor is it wrong.

Do you see my point?

See your point in regards to 'what' EXACTLY?

Is it even possible, to you, that I may well be years ahead of you, in that I already KNOW a way to 'describe' ALL-OF-THIS here, by 'conventional descriptions, which you propose can not even be explained by 'conventional descriptions'?

[surreptitious57]

A tree is a physical thing and so its existence is real not imaginary
But if awareness is non physical then how can one know if it is real
As its existence cannot be demonstrated like the existence of a tree

Just answer this question first and then we can proceed .... Does a tree exist independent of a brain

Yes a tree does exist independent of a brain and also brains exist independent of trees
The fact that a tree cannot be perceived without a brain to process it is just incidental

[surreptitious57]

The purpose of human beings which are many should not be mistaken for the purpose of the Universe

What are some or all of the many purposes of human beings

The purpose of the human being known as Age is to learn how to communicate better on this forum
The purpose of the human being known as surreptitious57 is to acquire as much knowledge as he can

[surreptitious57]

So what evidence do you have that the Universe has no purpose at all

And what evidence do you have that the Universe will eventually die

I do not think that a non biological entity can be said to have a purpose

There are five possible ways for local cosmic expansion to end but only time will show which one that is
Local cosmic expansion is not the Universe however but merely the observable part of it that we can see
The entire Universe which includes the non observable part too cannot die because something always has to exist in some form

[surreptitious57]

Is it even possible to you that I may well be years ahead of you in that I already KNOW a way to describe ALL
OF THIS here by conventional descriptions which you propose can not even be explained by conventional descriptions

Well of course it is possible or else why would I bother to even read your posts here unless I could really learn from them
You should realise by now that the fact that I may not always agree with what you say does not mean I am closed minded
You seem to have all the answers whereas I have none at all so it is harder for me to know what they are or even if they can be known