Reincarnation

[Walker]

Start with what you know.

I know you get on my nerves, but where do I go from there?

As long you don't give them cause to put you in the nervous hospital, you'll be fine everywhere else, glasshopper.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEsvKsGjo14

[Walker]

Listen carefully, because I'm not joining you in your rabbit hole, so if you don't understand this, then just let it go without whining for clarification.

That's because you are a lazy little fuck ...

[Harbal]

As long you don't give them cause to put you in the nervous hospital, you'll be fine everywhere else, glasshopper.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEsvKsGjo14

The man in that video clip had the top button of his shirt fastened, which is something I would never do. He is also an American, which is another thing I would never do.

[Age]

In what ACTUAL way does the 'immaterial' 'perish'?

The exact same way ''pain'' does. No one has ever seen pain, pain is immaterial, but needs a body to be known, no body, no pain. Pain which is immaterial can only exist where there is a material body.

So, ONCE AGAIN, HOW does the 'immaterial' perish, EXACTLY?

The immaterial and the material are one and the same reality,

So, to 'you', the TWO OPPOSING 'things' are the ONE and the SAME, correct?

the immaterial has to be as temporal as the body is,

WHY?

which is constantly appearing and disappearing and then reappearing.

But 'the' body is NOT constantly appearing and disappearing, and then reappearing, AT ALL.

There is no separation here, where the immaterial is immortal and the material is mortal, both must be present at the exact same instant in time as they are known conceptually, namely now.

IF, as 'you' 'now' say, "the immaterial is immortal", then, AGAIN, HOW, EXACTLY, does the immaterial perish?

The immaterial known as the soul known to be immortal can be possible but only if the body is immortal.

IF the 'soul' is within a human body, and relates to that 'person', which was OBVIOUSLY 'born', THEN it would be an IMPOSSIBILITY for a 'soul' to be immortal.

So the idea there is a separation there where individual souls exist and then die and then go on to seek out another body, is indeed totally bonkers.

OF COURSE 'that' is BONKERS.

I think the ONLY 'one' here who thinks or BELIEVES that the 'notion' of 'reincarnation', which 'you', human beings, have been using and talking about here, is true, is "attofishpi".

And, what is ALSO VERY BONKERS is the way 'you' describe some 'things', and, the way 'you' 'try to' "justify" what 'you' say and claim.

Logic informs us that everything that is was and ever will be forever, has to exist all at once, one without a second. Therefore, there is nothing reincarnating except everything is constantly becoming brand new in every instance, only to become old and pass away to make way for the ever newness and mystery and not-knowingness of life to become known.

Which IS, more or less, EXACTLY what I said about 'reincarnation'.

But, unlike 'you', 'I' KNOW that ALL-OF-THIS can be, and IS ALREADY, KNOWN.

No one knows this..this is just arising out of the mysterious emptiness of the void out of which apparent fullness arises and falls back into.

AND, just like EVERY thing else "BEFORE" was UNKNOWN, EVERY thing that is UNKNOWN, to 'you', in the days when this WAS being written, IS ALREADY KNOWN, to 'us'.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Do you UNDERSTAND that the ONLY True PEST on earth are HUMAN BEINGS?

Is that what folks have been telling you, Age?
Maybe they're laying on some heavy hints.
Especially if they urge you to drink pest poison.
Just kidding.
Everyone knows that's just a figure of speech. Isn't it?

*

Incarnation = “a concrete or actual form of a quality or concept.”
Re- (prefix) = “again: anew.”
Reincarnation = A new, actual form of a quality or concept.

Example: While watching television I saw the moving image of a yellow tabby cat. It was the literal reincarnation of our old house cat who years ago used up the last of his nine lives. Why literal?

According to the meaning of the above defined words, both the TV cat and our cat were “the actual form of cat qualities” and mannerisms, although the TV cat was just an image of cat form, not the actual form. The two cats appear to be the same cat to human eyes* because cats have few to no illusions that change the appearance of cat qualities, such as behavior.

As far as we know, neither do they have an ideal abstract concept of what it means to be a cat, although each cat can't help but be the essence of cat, an essence that is recognizable in the actual form of cat that reappears from cat to cat, the essence that philosophers struggle to define as a singular thing.

Cat ladies could likely chime in with some topical news items.


* a figure of speech that refers to all the senses

A 'literal' reincarnation? Really? Was it also 'literally' yellow?

[Walker]

A 'literal' reincarnation? Really? Was it also 'literally' yellow?

Literal refers to the word reincarnation, not to what you think the word might mean.

I had a recent insight about "wokeness." Care to hear it?

[Age]

Dontaskme wrote:
At the moment I am choosing this forum to pass the time of day, and that's all I'm doing here.

You can keep 'trying' to "justify" but it is NOT working.

Err, actually it is working, I'm here only to pass the time of day, until it's time to go to sleep.

Working for 'who', EXACTLY?

And, are 'you' 100% SURE that the ONE and ONLY reason that 'you' are here, in this forum, is to 'pass the time of day'?

It's working fine for me, and that's exactly what I am doing here whether you think it's not working or not, I do not have to justify to you or anyone else the fact that using this forum as a way of passing the time of day is definitely 100% working for me...

BUT I NEVER EVEN MENTIONED ABSOLUTELY ANY thing about 'it' NOT working for 'you', in regards to 'passing the time of day'. What I said that to was in regards to some thing COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

so keep your stupid annoying little opinions to yourself why don't you.


.

AGAIN, if 'you' come into a PUBLIC forum, then it does NOT help you to TELL "others" what to do or what not to do.

Are 'you' AWARE that "others" could SAY to 'you', "Keep your xxxx xxxx xxxx opinions to "yourself", why do you NOT?" as well.

But 'you' would NOT listen to them ALSO, correct?

[Walker]

As long you don't give them cause to put you in the nervous hospital, you'll be fine everywhere else, glasshopper.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEsvKsGjo14

The man in that video clip had the top button of his shirt fastened, which is something I would never do. He is also an American, which is another thing I would never do.

Nice lede, unlike that other mean and nasty one that caused a chuckle because of its inappropriateness.

[Dontaskme]

You can keep 'trying' to "justify" but it is NOT working.

But it is working for me, I do not even have to justify why is working for me, why won't or don't you believe that?

[Harbal]

Nice lede, unlike that other mean and nasty one that caused a chuckle because of its inappropriateness.

Some people need to be approached with inappropriateness, as a demonstration that they are not in control of the behaviour of others.

[Walker]

Nice lede, unlike that other mean and nasty one that caused a chuckle because of its inappropriateness.

Some people need to be approached with inappropriateness, as a demonstration that they are not in control of the behaviour of others.

Interesting. This dovetails with the insight concerning wokeness that VT has yet to request.

[Dontaskme]

AGAIN, if 'you' come into a PUBLIC forum, then it does NOT help you to TELL "others" what to do or what not to do.

Are 'you' AWARE that "others" could SAY to 'you', "Keep your xxxx xxxx xxxx opinions to "yourself", why do you NOT?" as well.

But 'you' would NOT listen to them ALSO, correct?

If someone is hitting on me telling me that something I know damn well is working for me, is not working for me, when I clearly know it is, then I have every right to tell that someone to keep their opinion to themself.

I personally would never tell someone something they have said is working for them, that is it NOT working. Like you did.

[Walker]

Nice lede, unlike that other mean and nasty one that caused a chuckle because of its inappropriateness.

Some people need to be approached with inappropriateness, as a demonstration that they are not in control of the behaviour of others.

Well, consider this.

If VT does not want to hear my recent insight about wokeness, then seeing as how wokeness is an interest of hers, this would indicate that my request influenced, if not controlled, her lack of response.

Will this insight be appropriate to this thread? Of course. It references the incarnation of ... qualities.

[Harbal]

Well, consider this.

If VT does not want to hear my recent insight about wokeness, then seeing as how wokeness is an interest of hers, this would indicate that my request influenced, if not controlled, her lack of response.

Why should I consider that? It's got nothing to do with me.

[Harbal]

To understand the concept/notion of 'reincarnation', which I speak of here, one must first has to understand that the 'self', which 'you', people, talk about, in the days when this is being written, is NOT what 'reincarnates', and is NOT thee True Self.

The True Self, or as some call 'It', Spirit, Allah, God, or Enlightenment, is the One and ONLY One here, which exists. 'you', human beings, are just 'parts' of the WHOLE, or of thee One.

I don't think there is such a thing as "The True Self". The term "self" has a very fuzzy meaning at best. People use the word all the time, and very often mean something different on each occassion. As far as I'm aware, there is no great universal dictionary out there that clearly and categorically defines the term.

Now, for those who want to say or claim that there are MANY 'things' that exist, then imagine a 'car' as being the WHOLE, or the One, and all of Its 'parts' are 'just parts'. If you look at the 'parts' as individual 'things', which they obviously are, conceptually through definition, and because of a conceptually defined 'boundary', then 'you' will only see a small or narrowed PART of the WHOLE. You will not be able to SEE the 'forest' for the 'trees'. BUT, if you look at the 'whole' as an individual 'Thing', then you will not SEE/UNDERSTAND the 'trees' for the 'forest'. So, it now depends on how 'you' want to LOOK AT at 'this', which then influences how 'you' are then SEEING 'things' here.

If 'you' LOOK AT the 'car' as the WHOLE, and ONLY One, and look at the 'parts' being interchangeable, or born and dying/wearing out, with the new 'parts' also could be called re-born, then ALL of those 'parts' are NOT 'reincarnating', but the 'car', Itself, is being rejuvenated, or 'reincarnating' into a 'newer' and, hopefully, 'better' model.

..........................................

If you think of the Universe as a whole, then it is easy to see ourselves as merely small parts within it, but by using your car analogy, you seem to imply that we are components, with a function to fulfil. A machine part has a prescribed purpose, but I'm afraid that I can't go along with the idea that the components of the Universe are all there to serve any specific function.

But perhaps I have misunderstood you, which is more than possible.