Reincarnation

[Age]

There is the commonality of the essence throughout the living world, organisms differing in structure and form but in essence the same. Creatures born into this world adapted in form and structure to the niches that they will inhabit. Here the physical world plays them like its instruments, the organisms in reaction gain a sense of identity from their environmental context, what is often termed the self, is but an ongoing experiencing organism. No self, only essence.

And 'what' IS 'the essence' of 'you', EXACTLY?

No known or knowable line of enquiry, e.g. anatomy, physiology, chemistry, physics, or psychology, can find an essence of an individual.

That was ONLY hitherto the days when this was being written.

Also, what do you mean or are you referring to by the use of the 'individual' word here?

Essences of things, ideas, or persons, probably do not exist.

The EXACT SAME 'essence' exists for ALL 'things'. Which, by the way, is the EXACT SAME 'essence' for the One and ONLY, REAL, individual, 'Thing' existing.

And, if it is claimed that there are DIFFERENT 'essences' for DIFFERENT 'things', then 'each essence' is ONLY 'that' what is UNIQUE to 'that thing', and which is obviously SEPARATE or DIFFERENT from 'the essence' of EVERY "other" 'thing'.

[Age]

And 'what' IS 'the essence' of 'you', EXACTLY?

No known or knowable line of enquiry, e.g. anatomy, physiology, chemistry, physics, or psychology, can find an essence of an individual. Essences of things, ideas, or persons, probably do not exist.

The essence of all things is energy. The essence of all living things is life itself,

I agree.

Also, one has to remember, or first LEARN, and then REMEMBER, that ALL 'things' ARE ALIVE, and LIVING, in some form.

an energy form unique in its essence,

Here it appears that you are proposing that 'life', itself, is an 'energy form' with 'its' OWN 'essence'.

If this is correct, then what is 'the essence' of 'life', itself?

But if you are just implying that 'that energy form' is made up of 'things', or is created in some way, then that is perfectly fine as THE ANSWER to 'this' is VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY.

despite structure and forms differing.

Will you provide some example/s of 'structure' and 'forms' differing?

[popeye1945]

No known or knowable line of enquiry, e.g. anatomy, physiology, chemistry, physics, or psychology, can find an essence of an individual. Essences of things, ideas, or persons, probably do not exist.

The essence of all things is energy. The essence of all living things is life itself,

I agree. Also, one has to remember, or first LEARN, and then REMEMBER, that ALL 'things' ARE ALIVE, and LIVING, in some form.

an energy form unique in its essence,

All things are not alive, that is the distinction of biological beings, while all things are energy forms, there is a difference between animate life and the inanimate physical world. Just as there is a difference between unmanifested energy and that energy with is manifested as objects, which we as life forms qualify as well, you are an object in my physical world.

Here it appears that you are proposing that 'life' itself, is an 'energy form' with 'its' OWN 'essence'. If this is correct, then what is 'the essence' of 'life', itself? But if you are just implying that 'that energy form' is made up of 'things', or is created in some way, then that is perfectly fine as THE ANSWER to 'this' is VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY.

All, as science tells us today, is energy, so that includes life forms. So, energy is common to both the animate and inanimate world. Life has some very distinctive things about it that the inanimate world of objects does not share, such as a conscious awareness of the object. While object has no awareness of us as subjects. The following is a personal understanding. The inanimate world, the physical world of objects alters our biological sensors and the way these alterations are experienced presents us with knowledge, meaning and in totality they present us with our apparent reality, our everyday reality. It is as if the physical world plays biological life forms like its instruments, and the melody it plays on us is a reality particular to the instrument organism. So, we do not gain knowledge of what precisely is out there, we gain knowledge about how what is out there affects our biology, thus all meaning is relative to biological consciousness and has no other significance. This means in fact that there is no world of objects out there, there is but the energies out there playing a given melody upon biological life forms, energy forms reacting to energy forms.

despite structure and forms differing.

Will you provide some examples of 'structure' and 'forms' differing?
[/quote]

Forms, would be the myriad of organic life from the ameba to the blue whale in their shapes, and structure supplies the framework of form.

[Wizard22]

I've been thinking about the possibility of reincarnation, and after much deliberation (one minute and twenty three seconds) I have concluded the notion to be utterly bonkers, and that's that.

What do you imagine 'reincarnation' to be exactly?

Like your mental understanding of yourself in this life is 'moved' to another life?

Or your "you" is born again?

[Harbal]

I've been thinking about the possibility of reincarnation, and after much deliberation (one minute and twenty three seconds) I have concluded the notion to be utterly bonkers, and that's that.

What do you imagine 'reincarnation' to be exactly?

When I started the thread, I suppose I was mostly thinking about the concept of what people call the soul, or spirit, inhabiting a new body after the physical death of its previous one. I know there are other ideas of what reincarnation is, and I think a few have been mentioned here.

Like your mental understanding of yourself in this life is 'moved' to another life?

Something like that, but there seem to be variations of that basic idea.

Or your "you" is born again?

Possibly, but not necessarily. I think some people believe that, while others seem to believe we come back as something else; a grasshopper, for example.

[Wizard22]

Would you consider the genetic material between parents and children, explicitly NOT a semblance of reincarnation?

That reincarnation only refers to mysticism, and not science?

[Harbal]

Would you consider the genetic material between parents and children, explicitly NOT a semblance of reincarnation?

To call that reincarnation would be no more than an imaginative mental exercise, where you would try to think of some way in which it might seem to qualify. Even so, there are, no doubt, people who would call that reincarnation. We do pass something of ourselves on to our descendants, but those elements are just copies.

That reincarnation only refers to mysticism, and not science?

I wouldn't separate things that are possible into those two categories. If there were such a thing as the soul -I don't believe there is- it would have to be possible for such a thing to exist, so it would be the same as everything else in that respect.

[Dontaskme]

Can a 'single life form' know it's repeating itself through the idea of reincarnation? I do not think so.

That's what the word ''Reincarnation'' means, it implies the rebirth of a soul in another body. Rebirth: meaning being born again.
Even though every one who is born, hardly ever say's ''Oh,here I am again, I remember dying and being born again'' Rather, it's more like, as though they are experiencing their life for the very first time.


My personal observation is to say No to repeated births, as I understand nature to never repeat exactly, just as no two finger prints are the same, or no two snowflakes are the same.
Even the offspring of the same 'two parents' are all unique and different in every way shape and form.

So it's a big NO to the idea of reincarnation.

[Dontaskme]

I suppose religion would have one believe that reincarnation means eternal life, for one.

But when you think about what that actually means, eternal life, can only mean, nothing, not a separate thing, is living life, and that every living organism is unique and different in it's appearance, as it appears in infinite ways, infinitely forever as one life living itself, in different forms and appearances.



And remember, every grain of sand is unique and different, and yet at the same time, sand, pretty much looks to be all the same stuff.

[Age]

The essence of all things is energy. The essence of all living things is life itself,

I agree. Also, one has to remember, or first LEARN, and then REMEMBER, that ALL 'things' ARE ALIVE, and LIVING, in some form.

an energy form unique in its essence,

All things are not alive, that is the distinction of biological beings, while all things are energy forms, there is a difference between animate life and the inanimate physical world. Just as there is a difference between unmanifested energy and that energy with is manifested as objects, which we as life forms qualify as well, you are an object in my physical world.

Here it appears that you are proposing that 'life' itself, is an 'energy form' with 'its' OWN 'essence'. If this is correct, then what is 'the essence' of 'life', itself? But if you are just implying that 'that energy form' is made up of 'things', or is created in some way, then that is perfectly fine as THE ANSWER to 'this' is VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY.

All, as science tells us today, is energy, so that includes life forms.

Firstly, I am NOT sure why you added the bold part above and quoted 'it' under the label and name "age" here.

Also, that bold part was NOT even in your post that I responded to. So, again, I am NOT sure WHY you added that part here.

Now, what are 'life forms' to you, EXACTLY?

What you appear to mean by 'life forms' is VERY, VERY DIFFERENT to me.

And, if ALL 'things', which includes 'forms', IS 'energy', then WHY are NOT ALL 'things' alive and/or living? Surely if ALL has, or the essence of, is 'energy', then ALL would be alive and/or living, correct?

So, energy is common to both the animate and inanimate world.

But HOW do you SEPARATE or DIFFERENTIATE between the 'animate' and the 'inanimate', EXACTLY?

Life has some very distinctive things about it that the inanimate world of objects does not share, such as a conscious awareness of the object.

Who or what DECIDED on what the VERY DISTINCTIVE 'things' of 'Life' were, EXACTLY?

And, who is AGREEING and ACCEPTING 'this definition' of 'yours' here?

From my perspective 'your OWN definition' here appears to be a VERY LIMITED and CLOSED one.

While object has no awareness of us as subjects. The following is a personal understanding. The inanimate world, the physical world of objects alters our biological sensors and the way these alterations are experienced presents us with knowledge, meaning and in totality they present us with our apparent reality, our everyday reality.

This seems reasonable, and very obvious.

It is as if the physical world plays biological life forms like its instruments, and the melody it plays on us is a reality particular to the instrument organism.

But the 'physical world' is made up OF 'biological life forms'. So, then it could now be argued or said that it is as if 'biological life forms' plays the 'physical world' like 'its' instrument.

Also, who and/or what does the 'us' word here refer to, EXACTLY?

So, we do not gain knowledge of what precisely is out there, we gain knowledge about how what is out there affects our biology,

Who and/or what, supposedly, has biology?

Also, while 'you' are ONLY gaining knowledge about HOW so-called 'what is out there' IS affecting 'your' so-called 'biology', some of 'us' are ALSO gaining knowledge ABOUT other 'things' AS WELL, like, for example, PRECISELY WHAT IS so-called 'out there', AND 'in here', AS WELL AS OTHER 'things' TOO.

thus all meaning is relative to biological consciousness and has no other significance.

As I have CONTINUALLY SAID and STATED throughout this forum, Absolutely EVERY 'thing' IS relative to the observer.

Which, by the way, is CERTAINLY NOT necessarily ANY 'biological thing'.

This means in fact that there is no world of objects out there,

Just because ALL 'meaning' is relative to some so-called 'biological consciousness', and ALL 'meaning' has NO other significance AT ALL, this does NOT AT ALL mean that 'there is NO world of objects out there'.

Which, by the way, is a Truly VERY FUNNY 'thing' to SAY and CLAIM here, now, especially considering that just two sentences prior you SAID and CLAIMED that there ARE 'objects' 'out there'.

So, now, is there A 'world of objects, out there', OR, is there NO 'world of objects, out there'?

there is but the energies out there playing a given melody upon biological life forms, energy forms reacting to energy forms.

When you SAY, 'there is but 'the energies' 'out there', are you here implying that there is NO 'energy' 'in here', in 'biological life forms'?

despite structure and forms differing.

Will you provide some examples of 'structure' and 'forms' differing?

Forms, would be the myriad of organic life from the ameba to the blue whale in their shapes, and structure supplies the framework of form.

Okay. But what are 'structures', EXACTLY, HOW do they supply some supposed and so-called 'framework of form', EXACTLY, and what do the words 'framework of form' mean or refer to, EXACTLY?

Also, HOW do 'you' DIFFERENTIATE, EXACTLY, between WHEN so-called 'consciousness awareness' EXISTS or does NOT EXIST in objects such as 'ameba' all the way to 'blue whales' for example?

[Age]

I've been thinking about the possibility of reincarnation, and after much deliberation (one minute and twenty three seconds) I have concluded the notion to be utterly bonkers, and that's that.

What do you imagine 'reincarnation' to be exactly?

When I started the thread, I suppose I was mostly thinking about the concept of what people call the soul, or spirit, inhabiting a new body after the physical death of its previous one. I know there are other ideas of what reincarnation is, and I think a few have been mentioned here.

When the word 'soul' is USED, if that word is thought of as relating to an individual, invisible person, or 'thing', WITHIN an individual human body, (or WITHIN any other animal body if one so likes and chooses), while the 'Spirit' word is thought of as relating to some individual, invisible 'Thing', or even 'Person' if one so likes and chooses), WITHIN ALL physical bodies, then 'you' are a step CLOSER to LEARNING, and UNDERSTANDING, the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of 'things' here.

The 'soul', or 'person', word/s here, when referring to the invisible 'thoughts' and 'feelings' WITHIN a human body NEVER just completely STOP and END, in one body, and just BEGIN AGAIN, completely, in "another' human body.

Like your mental understanding of yourself in this life is 'moved' to another life?

Something like that, but there seem to be variations of that basic idea.

The word "yourself" is an oxymoron, AND, NO one is born KNOWING thy 'self'.

Coming-to-KNOW thy 'Self' is LEARNED, along the way.

Or your "you" is born again?

Possibly, but not necessarily. I think some people believe that, while others seem to believe we come back as something else; a grasshopper, for example.

What the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY, is REALLY VERY EASY and SIMPLE to LEARN, and UNDERSTAND.

[Age]

Would you consider the genetic material between parents and children, explicitly NOT a semblance of reincarnation?

To call that reincarnation would be no more than an imaginative mental exercise, where you would try to think of some way in which it might seem to qualify. Even so, there are, no doubt, people who would call that reincarnation. We do pass something of ourselves on to our descendants, but those elements are just copies.

That reincarnation only refers to mysticism, and not science?

I wouldn't separate things that are possible into those two categories. If there were such a thing as the soul -I don't believe there is-

How do you define the 'soul' word, EXACTLY, to which you then BELIEVE there is NONE of?

it would have to be possible for such a thing to exist, so it would be the same as everything else in that respect.

One can either:

1. Make ANY 'word' RELATE TO some 'thing', or some 'things', which ACTUALLY DO EXIST, which COULD NOT EXIST, or which MAY POSSIBLY EXIST.

2. And then, DEFINE 'that word' in a way, which FITS IN, PERFECTLY, with EVERY 'thing' ELSE, in the Universe, which MAY or MAY NOT FIT IN with OTHER 'things', in the Universe, or will NOT FIT IN with OTHER 'things', in the Universe.

AND, by the way, when one HAS FITTED ALL 'words', and ALL of 'their' DEFINITIONS, in A WAY, PERFECTLY TOGETHER to from One Unified and Faultless Picture of ALL-THERE-IS, then 'this' BECOMES A G.U.T.O.E, for EVERY one "else" to TEST, and VERIFY or DISCREDIT.

[Age]

Can a 'single life form' know it's repeating itself through the idea of reincarnation? I do not think so.

This One and ONLY SINGLE 'Life', 'Life Form', or 'Existence', Itself, (which is also KNOWN as and by OTHER names), ALWAYS KNOWS, EXACTLY, what IS ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY HAPPENING and OCCURRING HERE, NOW.

That's what the word ''Reincarnation'' means, it implies the rebirth of a soul in another body.

What IS the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth here?

Does the 'Reincarnation' word mean, 'it implies the rebirth of a soul in another body', TO EVERY 'one', or to the 'one' here known as "dontaskme"?

Rebirth: meaning being born again.

Is it even logically POSSIBLE, let alone physically POSSIBLE, for ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing', which WAS 'born', and THEN 'died', to be 'born' AGAIN?

If yes, then HOW, EXACTLY?

Even though every one who is born, hardly ever say's ''Oh,here I am again, I remember dying and being born again''

What do you mean by, 'hardly ever says ...'?

Do you KNOW of ANY one who has said, 'Oh, here I am again'?

Rather, it's more like, as though they are experiencing their life for the very first time.

Which would imply, or be very compelling evidence or proof that 'that one' was NEVER ACTUALLY 'born' BEFORE this 'one time', correct?

My personal observation is to say No to repeated births, as I understand nature to never repeat exactly, just as no two finger prints are the same, or no two snowflakes are the same.
Even the offspring of the same 'two parents' are all unique and different in every way shape and form.

So it's a big NO to the idea of reincarnation.

So, for THAT 'idea' of 'reincarnation' it is a big NO.

But for the ANOTHER 'idea' of 'reincarnation' it is a big YES, as THAT 'idea' FITS IN PERFECTLY WITH EVERY 'thing' "else", in the Universe, Itself.

[Age]

I suppose religion would have one believe that reincarnation means eternal life, for one.

Well considering that 'this idea', or 'perspective', FITS IN, PERFECTLY, with the 'nondual idea and perspective', one would expect ' one, like 'you', "dontaskme" ' would AGREE with 'this' ENTIRELY.

But when you think about what that actually means, eternal life, can only mean, nothing, not a separate thing, is living life, and that every living organism is unique and different in it's appearance, as it appears in infinite ways, infinitely forever as one life living itself, in different forms and appearances.



And remember, every grain of sand is unique and different, and yet at the same time, sand, pretty much looks to be all the same stuff.

[Harbal]

How do you define the 'soul' word, EXACTLY, to which you then BELIEVE there is NONE of?

I don't think I can define "soul" when it refers to what we might call the traditional concept of it. Whether it be the soul that leaves one physical body then goes on to inhabit another one, or the soul that transcends to a higher place (heaven) after the death of the body. When I try to reduce down what such a soul could be, I find there is nothing left to fix a definition to.