Conference hydra::dejavu

    From a strictly Christian viewpoint (and mine) Nope, it doesn't
    exist.
    
    Ken
    

  Yes, how can I be expected to become perfect or meld with God
  (the universe, the spirit) in 100 years max?
  
  Besides, I for one have had a number of Dejavu type experiences
  with people from other lifetimes (many of them have had
  corresponding feelings).
  
  /Kathleen

    I believe in reincarnation.  It seems to me that one lifetime is
    too short to learn everything needed to go beyond this physical
    plane (and remain).
    
    		Dave

    
    for those who accept reincarnation - what's the feeling on soul
    mates?  Soul mates being defined for purposes of discussion as 
    people with whom one has had significant bonding to in past lives
    and who turn up again in this life.  Also for purposes of discussion,
    let's describe soul mates as being of three types:
    
    	1) karmic soul mates - people one keeps ending up with to work
    		off karma from past lives
    
    	2) twin flame soul mates (or twin souls) - people (beings) who
    		have been together since the beginning of creation.
    
    	3) companion soul mates - those who are close enough to be soul
    		mates, but don't fit into  category 1 or 2.
    
    I realize that this is far from a rigorous definition, but I hope
    it will serve to kick off the discussion.  
    
    Alison
    

  RE .-1
  
  I am presuming that you are using the term "soul mate" loosely,
  that is you are referring to people who are somehow relating
  together through multiple lives (friends, relatives, enemies,
  spouses, etc.) as opposed to just spouses.
  
  1)	Yes, have you ever met a person you instantly liked or
  	disliked without a reason?  This could be due to the Karmic
  	soul mate idea.  For example, you would probably instantly
  	dislike someone who killed you in a past life.  The other
  	person's feelings would depend upon the cercumstances.
  	If it was done out of hatred the other person may still
  	be tied up with that hate.  If it was done accidentally
  	or perhaps in an act of war, the person may not remember
  	and be totally puzzeled at your reaction.  
  
  2)	Kind of.  There is a person on this planet whose soul and
  	mine used to be one being.  Something occured to cause
  	a split.  This leads to a very strange relationship.
  	Telepathy is an assumed part of the relationship, for example
  	if one of us wants something that the other can and is
  	willing to give it will be given without asking.  If one
  	us wants to talk the other one will call.  We share dreams.
  	Oddly, even though I love this person, and he is of the
  	oposite sex, a romantic relationship seems impossible somehow.
  	Considering all of the things that have happened to us
  	over the years, it really took the telepathy to keep us
  	in touch.
  
  3)	Yes, there seem to be people who get together over and
  	over.  There doesn't seem to be any karma to be worked
  	out and 2) doesn't seem to apply. 
  

 /Kathleen   
  

    As far as I know, there is no way to find out the truth about
    reincarantion short of dying.  Why bother speculating?
    
    Another "explanation" for soul mate type experiences lie in the concept
    of universal mind or over soul that we are all connected to.  Perhaps
    the same as Jung's archetypes.  The more I live, the more automatic
    closness feelings I get.  Perhaps we should experience these feelings
    for everyone but we get lucky once in a while in our ignorance.
    
    Another related topic is the feeling of falling in love where one
    seems to be one with the loved one.   There is some interesting
    discussion on this in Peck's _The Road Less Travelled_.  He feels
    that falling in love is a boliological mechanism provided so that
    we can mate; the purpose being a screen so that we do not see the
    other's flaws.  I am not sure I agree but his more basic point is
    that a spiritual love is needed beyond romantic love.
    
               John H.
     
    

  What a boring entity I would be if it dosen't.  In fact I suscribe to the
multiple existance at once theory.  I think that if a person adopts the point 
of view that it is possible to live more than once then it is also possible
to believe that a person lives more than once at one time. Confused yet?

  I sorta' visualize it as a segmented worm (if you will) where each segment
lives in a diferent portion of time.  I am not saying that we are worms!  The 
purpose for reincarnation is for an entity to gain vast experience over 
many lifetime and possible many different dimensions.  Wow!  Isn't that a great
idea?  If taken in the right light this means that our existance gets better
over the many lives that we live. (I always wanted to be President...  Well
maybe next lifetime).  

  Here I will ask a controversial question.  What are the Christians going to 
do after they get good and tired of living in the "City Of God" and ruling
the nations with a "Rod of Iron" for 2 or 3 hundred thousand years?  It will
seem wonderful at first but then it will get *boring*.  By that time I 
should have fully explored a couple of galaxeys and that is just a start.

  As for Karma and Karmic soul mates....  I don't know.  I kinda' think that
Karma has nothing to do with it.  I think that our entitys are very honest and
very genuine.  It could be that between lifetimes we judge ourselves fairly and
justly in order to plan (maybe plan isn't the word for it) for the next life-
times activities.  Considering the idea of soulmates I think that it is very
possible and entirely likley that we will have agreements with other entities
concerning what we will do in a particular life.  Undoubtably some individuals
will have more a liking toward certain other individuals.  Generaly what you 
see in this world will be a (shallow?) representation of what goes on in the 
between lifetime areas.

  Why shouldn't we consider speculating about reincarnation?  Where is your
adventurious spirit John Heffernan?  We speculate about everything else
including the National Deficit.  A questioning mind is the first tool necessary
to solving complicated and obsucure problems.  What are the "Problems to be
Solved you might ask?  Life, growth, love and the expanding of our personal
horizions are the most important problems we face.  If we don't grow in these
and other areas then we stagnate.  You see I have already sovled the nuclear
problem.  Living in Colorado Springs, ie. next to Norad, if Norad gets
nuked... I get nuked.  Next lifetime!  I can't stop what may happen.  Still
I have to believe that I am much more reselient than that.  Sticks and Stones
may break my bones (I'll be pissed too, at least for a little bit) but my
consiousness goes on forever.  

  I think speculation is a great tool for us to use.  Our belief systems
form our reality.  If I view myself as a ugly and insignifi thing then
sooner or later I will fashion myself at that ugly thing.  Therefore I
view myself as an extension of the Creator.  A son or daughter if you will.
Many of the attributes of the Creator both you and I have.  We create our own
worlds and then we live in them.  Some of us create different worlds to live
in.  Some of us create by force of will and others create simply by being.
Regardless of any circumstance we all create at least a portion of our worlds
if not all of it.  
 
  Why am I ranting about this?  Well if we create our existance here and now,
what about then and there?  I think that we can get a grip on what is happening
to us and make things better for both now and then.  That's why it is also 
important to develope those tools and attitudes we will need between lives, sos'
we don't make the same mistake time and time again.  

  Anyway... It's fun to speculate.

                                 Mikie

    Mike,
    	I beleive that you are misinterpretting me.  I said why speculate
    about reincarnation, not why speculate about anything.  Be careful
    not to overgeneralize.  I beleive strongly in speculating but only
    about things I can do something about.  See what I mean? 
                                   John H.

       I am a firm believer in reincarnation.  It's logical, it explains
    a lot of things that we see in the world (ie. the wrongs the rights
    the suffering the injustices) if you include Karma which I believe
    is an integral part.  This also says that we have a very loving
    and caring God that would not require perfection from his/her children
    in only one lifetime.
    
    Steve

    .6:
    
    Peck first;  I find Scott Peck's explanation of love as the collapsing
    of ego boundries for purposes of sucking one into procreation to
    be a bit TOO sterile for me.  I thoroughly agree that there is a
    spiritual side to romantic love.  I also find it hard to understand
    why people keep stressing that - there's a spiritual part to anything
    we do be it love, work, art, etc.  I guess I'm just weird or something
    to not have seperated out the spiritual stuff in my life.  Anyway
    - I digress.  I find the concept of soulmates intriguing because
    it provides a new possible explanation for why we do what we do.
    If we accept the premise that modern psychology, while it can explain
    a good deal of human behavior, occassionly comes up with cases for
    which there is no good explanation, then if we allow for the
    possibility for past life influence on current behavior, we find
    that a whole bunch of new doors open up for contemplation.  For
    example, some of the cases of battered wives - whose pychological
    history show no predisposition to getting suckered into these 
    no-win situations.  The concept of working off karma from something
    in the past seems to fit well here.  PLEASE NOTE - I am not 
    saying all cases - only those few which seem inexplicable.
    
    To address your comment about why bother speculating since we can't
    know; for me, I don't know either whether God exists, but I
    take it on faith that he does.  Since part of my Weltanschang includes
    taking things on faith, speculating on reincarnation is not
    inconsistent.  As I mentioned above, accepting reincarnation apriori
    allows for the unsnarling of quite a few tangled and loose threads.
    But then, this is me.  
    
    I am not a terribly good logician, so I hope what I typed makes
    some sense.
    
    Alison
    

    
    One comment on god, I believe this can be experienced.  Reincarnation,
    I do not think can be experienced without dying.  Again, I am all
    for speculation, as long as it has a chance of being experienced.
    The after life is really the one thing that I beleive is
    overspeculated about.  Life on this earth in this lifetime- now
    that is something I can do something about.
    
               John H.

    .-1
    
    I said it incorrectly.  I meant proven empirically.  God can be
    experienced.  If one allows for past life regression under hypnosis
    then reincarnation can sort of be experienced.  
    
    Anyway - it all gets very personal very quickly - so enough said.
    
    Alison
    
    

    Sorry to pick on you John.  I'll be a good boy in the future.  I
    promise.
                                Mikie

The following is extracted from an article I posted to the USENET philosophy
bulletin board a few months ago when the subject of reincarnation came up
there:

    Actually, to complicate the issue somewhat, there *is* objective evidence
    (I said evidence, *not* proof) for reincarnation.  The most complete body
    of such evidence that I know of can be found in the following books.  All
    are by Dr. Ian Stevenson, all are published by the University Press of
    Virginia.

	_Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation_, 1980
	_Cases of the Reincarnation Type_ ...
	    _Vol. 1: Ten Cases in India_, 1975
	    _Vol. 2: Ten Cases in Sri Lanka_, 1978
	    _Vol. 3: Twelve Cases in Lebanon & Turkey_, 1980
	    _Vol. 4: Twelve Cases in Thailand & Burma_, 1983

    I must admit that I have only skimmed these books, and read papers which
    discussed them.  What they deal with are cases where a small child appears
    to have memories which "belong" to some deceased person.  Such stories
    are, of course, common and are very poor evidence.  These cases have,
    however, been carefully investigated: extensive interviews with everyone
    involved, claims checked and compared, possible ways the child could have
    learned the relevant facts investigated.

    The result is a body of case reports, the "simplest", most straight-forward
    explanation for which is reincarnation.  The problem is, of course, that
    there are other, more complex explanations.

Personally, I tend to accept the so called "super psi" hypothesis of these
phenomena: that these cases are the results of conditions under which
clairvoyance acts with particular intensity -- the information the children
have is the result of ESP rather than past-lives memory.  I'm willing to be
convinced otherwise though.

By the way, past-life regression cannot be considered as providing any
evidence at all for reincarnation, except in those rare cases where details
which could not normally be known to the "subject" are gotten and proven.
Even then the super psi (frequently not so "super", since we may be talking
about a single detail) hypothesis can't be eliminated.

As an experienced hypnotist, I can assure you that, without the hypnotist
even trying, the subject can become completely convinced that they remember
things that never happened.  This is the problem with using hypnosis on
crime witnesses: they make things up and pick up clues from those present
about what is expected, and are *absolutely* convinced that it really happened
the way they "remember" it.  The application to some famous "close-encounter"
cases is obvious as well.

		    Topher

    	One must be very careful talking about "Reincarnation" which
    is a distinctly non-European concept with a language like English
    which is fully immersed in Judeo-Christian biases and assumptions.
    
    	From India, East to Japan, the islands of the Pacific, and the
    American Indians never really doubted that reincarnation existed.
    This is not to say that these cultures insisted on fundamentally
    seperate souls either, or that the pattern of rebirths was formed
    by some sort of "Quantum Jelly" named "karma". For an Indian (from
    India) to say "His reincarnation was brought about by his Karma"
    is like a physiscist saying "The queue ball transferred it's momentum
    to the eight ball, causing it to move into the side pocket". The
    law of karma is simply the law of cause and effect. Reincarnation
    is one part of that process. It is ironic that European style culture
    prides itself on precision, yet is always trying to escape the
    consequences of its short sighted actions (pollution, building nuclear
    arms, carbon dioxide poinsoning of the atmosphere, etc.)
    
    	Anyway, yes I believe in reincarnation, and I'm marrying a soulmate
    on Friday for Valentine's Day. Happy hearts to everyone.
    
    	Ed
    
    

    [RE .1]:  I beg to differ.  There are those who interpret
parts of the Bible to support reincarnation.  It all depends on
one's theology.
		<_Jym_>

Re: .15

	Christianity is not the first (or only) religion practised by the
Europeans.  Several of the pre-existing religions included a belief in
re-incarnation.  The Catholic Church, in fact, taught that re-incarnation
took place.  This changed, however, with the Doctorine of Original Sin.

Mark

re: .17
    
    	Yes, you're right of course. I only meant to say that the influence
    of Christianity and it's particular and perculiar views has greatly
    influenced the language to the point of making it difficult to discuss
    certain things which do not fit into what was publicly acceptable
    through the last few hundred years. The non-Christian sects in Europe
    had to hide themselves or face any one of a variety of violent
    persecutions. While things may seem better on the surface, the european
    languages are still deeply immersed in presumptions and cultural
    prejudices that take more than simply "good intentions" to overcome.
                                                           
    	Ed

  Even the Christian bible talks about "The Second Comming of Jesus
  Christ".  If this isn't talking about reincarnation (At least
  in one case) what is it?

Re. .18
        Then perhaps you are referring to the classical Orwellian "new speak".
    Where a group of individuals attempt to guide the course of
    history through the manipulation of language.  Yes I can see how
    that could happen.
                                     (*)

    My own personal suspicion:
    
    Reincarnation doesn't exist, but people who pull up "past lives"
    are tapping into the collective ("racial") memory that some folk
    suggest we all share (with our individualities like little islands
    in a sea with an underlying baserock).  If this "collective uncoscious"
    or whatever you like exists (one could make a good telepathic case
    for it -- kind of like clustering), then anyone under the right
    circumstances could "remember" _any_ past life.
    
    Re Christianity and reincarnation and being saved/reaching perfection:
     I believe it was C. S. Lewis who said that any species that _deserved_
    to be saved wouldn't need a Saviour; only those who couldn't do
    it on their own (per some views of Man) would require Outside Help.
    
    I rather concur: for that reason, the idea of reaching a state of
    perfection before being flung from the Wheel doesn't seem so credible
    for me.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    I have been a believer in reincarnation for many years now.  I have
    had a thought recently which has been on my mind quite a lot lately.
    
    I have learned of the purpose of reincarnation but I have seen no
    evidence that it is successful.  Could it be possible that reincar-
    nation is a dismal failure.  Could it be that God started the law
    of karma and Reincarnation as an experimental road to oneness and
    that the experiment has failed.

    
    Steve

    re .22:
    
    My concept of God is one of perfection, not experimentation.  I
    sincerely doubt that an Almighty Creator is likely to create anything
    that isn't complete.  Not perfect, mind you, but _complete_ to find
    its collective destiny.
    
    As I said jocularly in another note, though paraphrased for this
    one, be sure the past-life memories you recall are _your_ past-life
    memories; else you don't need reincarnation to explain them.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    Steve
    
       If memories of our past lives are just race memories then you
    are saying that we have only one life to live as the Christian
    doctrines teach.  This is a rather dismal point of view for those
    who believe that we have more lives that one to perfect ourselves.

    Also aren't you contradicting yourself here when you say "My concept
    of God".  By saying it is all race memory you are denying the existence
    of God.  Or am I reading you wrong?
    
    Steve

    I don't see any incompatibility about a racial memory and individual
    memories; the latter is what makes each of us unique, the former
    would be a resource, like instincts and reflexes (just because a
    rubber hammer in a doctor's office struck below the kneecap makes
    a person kick doesn't have to be extrapolated to mean that we're
    nothing but a complex set of reflexes, having access to a racial
    databank [however imperfectly] doesn't mean that we don't have our
    own -- unshared -- memories: the shared ones might be genetically
    imprinted or energized, meaning that memories up to the conception
    of the direct ancestor next in line would be all you'd get.  There's
    _lots_ of area for study in this area).
    
    _My_ concept of God (not necessarily anyone else's) is of a loving
    creator who is not so hard a taskmaster as to demand perfection
    before allowing entry into a pleasant afterlife.  Life here, or
    elsewhere, should be a learning experience: absolute perfection
    would make each person the equal of God, which is even stranger
    philosophy.  But I suppose this sort of discussion is really more
    appropriate to NOTES:RELIGION.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    In reading all the replies in this note, wonder:  why is it that
    it would be easier to accept the idea of shared memories rather
    than personal ones?  The idea that if you weren't elaborating for
    the hypnotist (if regressed) you were more likely tapping into group
    knowledge is a new one for me.  Why would that be more likely than
    recalling your own individual memories?
    
    Signed,
    		Thoughtful

    re .26:
    
    > ... whi is it that
    >it would be easier to accept the idea of shared memories rather
    >than personal ones? ...
    
    Probably because shared _racial_ memories have a basis in inheritance,
    tracable genetically in an unbroken chain, where personal memories
    force the idea of some form of reincarnation, implying a physical
    discontinuity.
    
    That's a good one for starters. :-)
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    
    I am a former disbeliever in reincarnation.  I had a pretty strong
    mental block against it.  Partly because of the conservative religion
    I had, partly because my life was unpleasant enough that I didn't
    want to entertain the idea of having to go through with it again,
    and partly because I was insecure and afraid of losing my present
    identity.  
    
    Well, I changed my religion, my life got better, and I got a lot
    more secure.  I was able to listen to my friends who did believe 
    without getting upset.  After being regressed several times, I
    began to accept the possibility of reincarnation or something so
    much like it that it might as well be the real thing.  Right now
    I guess I am more of a believer than a disbeliver.  I try to keep 
    my mind open and free of mental blocks.  I feel that whether you
    believe in it or not doesn't matter.  If you don't believe in 
    reincarnation, you will want to live the best life you possibly can 
    because you only live once.  If you do believe, then you will want
    to live the best life you possibly can so you will have fewer and 
    better incarnations.  
    
    Mike Baker

    re: .27
    
    Steve,
    
    This is actually a continuation of my questioning in note 105 regarding
    racial memory.
    
    You say in .27 -
    
    "Probably because shared _racial_ memories have a basis in inheritance,
    traceable genetically in an unbroken chain, where personal memories
    force the idea of some form of reincarnation, implying a physical
    discontinuity."
                  
    Don't you think that the racial memories have to start as personal
    memories?  They must originate within an individual - they have
    to start as individual experiences.  And those individuals have
    experienced physical discontinuity (which I don't think would 
    affect this structure other than adding another experience to
    remember).  If the idea that we can tap  into someone elses experience 
    is acceptable, than I don't see how you can rule out that we can tap
    into our own?
    
    Carole
    

    Re .29:
    
    Carole (and all),
    
    I can't disagree with your question if you accept the idea of
    reincarnation.
    
    There are at least three possible alternatives to consider:
    
    Reincarnation exists; racial memory doesn't.
    Reincarnation doesn't exist; racial memory does.
    Reincarnation and racial memory both exist.
    [a fourth: neither exist.]
    
    Your question supposes the third condition.
    My discussion raised the possibility of racial memory as an alternative
     explanation for those experiences attributed to reincarnation.
     [condition two]
    Condition one "explaines" racial memory in terms of reincarnation.
    
    A fourth possibility: certain items such as crystals might store
    memories and release them to receptive brains years or milennia
    later.  These may be confused with personal "memories."
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    I'm going to make two assumptions here in order to express
    some thoughts this discussion is bringing up; 1)we are spiritual beings
    expressing through a physical body, and 2)our consciousness survives 
    death.
    
    Based on those two assumptions, before we were born in this life
    we existed as "conscious" spiritual beings.  We consciously chose
    to be born.  Why would we be limited to only doing it once?  Proof
    that we can do it is the fact that we are here.  If we can do it
    once we can do it again.
    
    Carole
    

    	I can see the avalanche coming now, but....
    
    	If we conciously choose to be born, then how do you explain
    abortions and miscarriages?  I mean, if our "spiritual selves"
    essentially pick when and where they want to be born, then why pick
    a life which will be terminated so early?  This is of course assuming
    that reincarnation happens to everyone.
    
    	Larry
    

    RE .33    
    
Some speculations I've seen regarding abortions and/or miscarriages have been 
the following:

1. the entity choses a fetus that will not go full term so as to get "their 
toes wet" if you will. Sort of like letting them get the feel of things before 
they jump all the way in, because if they haven't experienced "earth living" 
before, the inputs could be too overwhelming.
          
2. the entity inadvisedly jumped into a situation and either backed out or was 
persuaded that was the better choice or perhaps there was a better time.
          
3. simply a learning experience of what can go wrong and how to deal with it.

    I speculatate that miscarriages and/or abortions are
    simply physical entities that may at some point receive
    a soul.  I feel that the soul chooses to enter that body
    at some point in time-perhaps during gestation, at times
    at the time of birth, maybe after birth in some cases?
    
    In other words, not all physical bodies are a receptical
    for a soul.
    
    I firmly believe that children are born to the "right"
    parents at the "right" time.  My son was meant to be
    connected to me.   He was born 6 weeks early, on my 4th
    wedding anniversary-I went into labor on Halloween eve.
    He was born 24 hours (to the minute) after I entered the
    hospital, on All-Saints Day.  Coincidental?
    
    

          
    
    What I am trying to express by the statement "our consciousness
    survives death" is that we don't end when our physical body dies.
    What we _are_ survives.  I call that part of us spirit.  We are
    just as aware after we die as we are in the physical world.  
    I have no definitive proof of this - it just feels right to me.  
    
    I don't know if what I am referring to above is the same "conscious"
    that you refer to.  Who knows at what point the subconscious is
    created (or separated?) and for what purpose.  What I "feel" about
    it is that at the level of our higher self, or maybe it is even
    at the Christ level, all of this is merged with no need of 
    definition.  It's all speculation and certainly can get the "mind"
    going!
    
    Carole 
    
                 
    

    
    
    
    If the concept of time has been created so that we have experiences
    in a "string", but in "reality" everything is happening at the same
    time, then I think we can influence our past as well as our future.
    
    C.

    The way I understand it presently (insert suitable disclaimer for
    opinion) on a first time birth (if there is such a thing) a conscious
    energy field (power) is generated that is capable of sustaining the
    individuals physical life for a number of years.  As time goes by and
    the individual gets older it collects more energy, makes it denser,
    stablizes that energy and learns to put it to good use.  Somewhere near
    the end of that life the oversoul (or insert suitable term) decides
    that it is time to check out of physical life for whatever reasons.
    During the transformation the energy field leaves the dead body and
    begins the adjustment process to its new enviroment.  The important
    part is that it doesn't take all the physical data with it. It seems to
    take some but not all. I'm not sure what part it takes either.  It
    seems as if there is a body specific and soul specific set of
    knowledge.  Perhaps the soul specific set gets transfered but the body
    set is left.  That discussion is probably better left for later though. 
    
    As the new creature adjusts to the new enviroment it will naturally be
    confronted with images, ideas and concepts about that enviroment that
    it brought over in the soul specific set of knowledge.  In other words
    it will look for confirmation of the knowledge that it brought over.
    We do the samething in the physical.  On entering a new town on a trip
    we look for a resting place first, then on with the entertainment!
    Anyway that is as good a guess as any. B^)
    
    Over a period of time natural law takes its course.  As we get older in
    that enviroment we use energy, or as some would say, lose it. And as we
    shed that energy (power?) we lose the soul specific knowledge that we
    have collected because we have no way to hold it togather. Perhaps it
    is a kind of senility but only of the disembodied soul. As the
    energy/power field gets less dense it become more ghostly and it's
    energy field can be inserted into denser energy fields. When the power
    field gets sufficiently less dense it can be inserted into a new body.
    In this new body it becomes recharged over the  period of a human
    lifetime. (Are we really rechargable batteries??) 
    
    As to whether the lite energy field is drawn to the new body or makes a
    conscious choice I haven't made a decision on.  One part of me wants to
    believe that I have a choice in the matter and another part says that
    it is part of nature and I have no choice.  Perhaps if one makes the
    choice to live again and does so when sufficient power is left over in
    the soul specific set of knowledge to be able to make a (good?)
    decision, one could indeed choose ones birth. 
    
    That would help explain crib death and such.  The old spirit creature
    has enough energy to decide that this new enviroment is not what it
    wants and it departs, leaving the newly developing body and body
    specific set of knowledge.
    
    Now, what do we do between lives to entertain ourselves??  B^) 
    
    Seth says (who is this Seth person anyway?) that the individual usually
    takes between 300 to 600 years between lifetimes.  Perhaps there
    is some need to get back into an enviroment that one understands
    with experience gained before.  In other words I don't want to be
    reborn into a world that is too different from the one I departed
    from.  Future Shock??
    
    The Theosophists (sp?) think that after death something like in the
    tens of years is spent on the first plane up (etheric??).  After energy
    is lost the individual goes up to the next plane (astral??) for some
    period of time.  From here another loss occurs and the mental plane is
    achieved.  The key note here is loss of something, either energy or
    "dross".  After a sufficient loss occcurs the individual is able to
    insert itself back into a physical body to be reborn if it feels a
    need.  It is stated that this complete process can take anywhere
    between 600 to 1200 in earth years to complete. 
         
    Perhaps there is a third transformation to be achieved.  What happens
    if one loses enough power and chooses not to be reborn?  Does one
    fall through into another dimension?  Or does one get so weak that
    one cannot resist being drawn into a new round of physical life?
    
      Mikie?
    

    reply tp .39,
    
    The way I see it (with the minds eye) is that we progress through time
    like ripples on the water.  One field of energy pushes (maybe _causes_
    is a better term) another field of energy into existance in a cyclic
    pattern. 
    
      Mikie

re: .42

what's meant by "etheric" and "astral"?  "mental" i can
sort of relate to (which means maybe i know just enough
to misinterpret that one:-)), but astral brings to mind
something relating to stars and etheric something relating
to that gas my ma says the doctors used to give you, so
i'm not sure how those are descriptive of a state of the soul

what are the qualitative differences between existence in
these different planes supposed to be?  is all the information
about these planes gotten from mediums or is there some other
source?

					paul c.

    re: .44
    
    I entered some information about this in note 8.14,
    where I describe a "plane structure" from one school
    of thought.  The etheric exists on the physical plane
    as part of the physical body - the physical body could
    not exist without it.  It is sometimes described as our
    energy battery, and it is the source for ectoplasm (a
    substance that can physically manifest and is used during
    physical mediumship sessions).  People who are considered
    "physical mediums" are said to have loosely structured 
    etheric bodies.
    
    Carole

         Going back to racial memory for a little bit, some people have
    described verifiable events in other lives.  Those other lives were
    researched and found to be true.  No one ever mentions that the
    other life was an ancestor of the person who remembers them.  Further,
    if that is the case, one would be much more likely to remember events
    in one's parents' lives that happened before one was born.  Another
    thing that remains unexplained by racial memory is that people 
    "remember" previous deaths. Since having children happens before
    dying, memories of death can't be passed on.  Another explanation
    is required.  Psychic ability opens other doors that are just as
    strange as reincarnation, and says that there is more to us than
    the materialists can explain.
         I'd like to pass on the title of a interesting book on
    reincarnation, called "Reincarnation: The Phoenix Fire Mystery",
    by Joseph Head and S.L. Cranston.  I'm amazed at all the people
    throughout history who've seriously considered or believed in
    reincarnation.
         One thing I learned in that book is that there was a group
    of early Christians (actually there were many) called the Gnostics,
    who claimed a direct line back to Christ's apostles.  They believed
    very seriously in reincarnation.
         The thing about Christianity is Hell.  Accept the saviour,
    and no matter how many people you've tortured and slaughtered, you
    can be saved.  Don't accept him, and no matter how good you've been,
    to Hell with you.  I personally don't think that even Hitler deserves
    to burn in Hell forever.  I don't think God throws souls away either.
    I think reincarnation is likely, including karma.  I think we get
    to spend some time resting between lives, the way we get to sleep
    between days.  Then we get to wake up in a new body, learn some
    new stuff and try to improve on our past performances.
         An alternative is that we have no soul or spirit, that the
    whole universe is a materialist event, that we die and that's the
    end.  Possible but unlikely.
    Mike

    Re .46:
    
    There are two models of "racial memory."  One is that it's genetic
    (some or all ancestor memories inherited, as are instincts).  If
    one _truly_ remembers a death of a past life, then this model is
    highly dubious.
    
    The other is that there's a universal (telepathic?) pool of shared
    memories called the "collective unconscious" and similar names,
    which is something we all can tune into.  In this model, a "memory"
    might be from _any_ other human, whether directly related or not.
     So, old "memories" stored up and dredged by "regression analysis"
    would appear to be individual memories without actually being.
    
    Anent Christianity, Heaven/Hell: it's more complicated than that.
    And different branches of Christianity view this in different ways.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    What if we ("all" life) are not individuals at all but rather different 
    expressions of a single lifeform...like cells in a body perhaps,... 
    performing different functions at different times but always part of
    the whole.  Omni had an article about OOBE this month that said
    that a researcher has identified a "different brain wave pattern"
    in a woman who took part in an OOBE test.  She was wired to the
    bed with eeg and a random number was written on a piece of paper
    and put on a high shelf.  Her results were phenominal.  If we were
    all parts of a single lifeform then we could be physically evolving 
    into a concious awareness of the "other parts" and of the whole
    ourself..  OOBE and racial memory could be a transcendence into 
    "our" own greater thought patterns".                                                         
    
                      

RE: .46
    
    "Remembering" verifiable events associated with a seeming past life
    is suggestive of but does not constitute strong evidence for
    reincarnation.
    
    First off, you have to understand that what we think of as a memory
    is not at all what it seems to be.  When we remember something
    consciously we don't simply "fetch" a stored fact out of a big array.
    Rather we "communicate" what we want to our subconscious.  Our
    subconscious picks up a bunch of related stored facts, combines
    it with what we wish or expect things to be, uses hints from the
    current environment and does other things to produce a smooth
    "cleaned-up" memory.  Under some, perfectly ordinary, conditions
    the conscious memory can be completely invented from sources other
    than actual "storage".
    
    Past lives memories, in the absence of verifiable details, cannot
    be taken necessarily at face value.
    
    Verifiable details are the question -- where did the "information"
    come from?  One possibility *is* reincarnation, and I would be the
    last to deny it.  There are a number of possibilities:
    
    	1) Clever subconscious deduction on the basis of "hidden" memories.
    	For example, I have an article about someone who during past-lives
    	regression could suddenly speak French.  Miraculous?  No.  Analysis
    	of the actual language showed that he was cleverly (and quite
    	unconsciously) stringing phrases together which he could have
    	easily picked up from comic books and television shows.  He
    	showed no real knowledge of the language.
    
    	2) psi -- For the details to be verifiable there must be a written
    	record, a memory, or some other kind of record against which
    	the fact can be checked.  This record could be accessed by ESP
    	(unconsciously) to provide the verifying details.
    
    	3) Genetic racial memory -- even if the death is seemingly
    	remembered, this could be a subconscious reconstruction.  The
    	verifiable details may have occured before the birth.
    
    	4) Racial pooled memory.  We may be able to tap into the memories
    	(under the right conditions) of anyone who lived before.
    
    	5) Spirits -- disincarnate spirits may be passing the information
    	to the subconscious.  That is, the soul of the deceased may
    	be "talking" to the "rememberer" rather than them being the
    	"same" person.
    
    	6) Passed on memories -- at death some or all of the *memories*
    	(not soul or personality) may be passed on to someone still
    	living or (trans-temporally) not yet living.
    
    Even if we accept the statement about the implications of psychic
    abilities (and it can be debated with at length), the facts are
    that those abilities *have* been demonstrated to exist under conditions
    where reincarnation does *not* provide an alternate explanation.
    The existence of one "strange" thing does not imply the existence
    of another.  Psi is known to exist (whatever the hell it is) and
    provides an explanation for seeming reincarnation.  There is no
    evidence for reincarnation which excludes psi as an explanation.
    
    					Topher

    Re: .50
    
    Yes, I too have wondered about this life being a dream, just as
    real as the dreams I have when I sleep.  In fact, I've wondered
    what it would be like to be going along in my daily life and
    suddenly become aware that I am being woken up, by different
    people in another reality, which would be familiar to me.  Very 
    strange.
    
    Jerri
    
    "For this is all a dream we dreamed one afternoon long ago..."

>< Note 77.51 by ORION::HERBERT "Aim above morality" >

>    In fact, I've wondered
>    what it would be like to be going along in my daily life and
>    suddenly become aware that I am being woken up, by different
>    people in another reality, which would be familiar to me.  


I think we wake from this physical dream when we die.  I believe we would
then be in another reality that would be quite familiar.

		Dave

"Inch your way through dead dreams to another land"

         There are cases of people "remembering" verifiable details
    of lives that happened before they were born -- including exact
    details of how that person died, not some subconsciously recreated
    very likely story.  If there is some sort of racial memory, then
    there should be some cases where more than one person has an
    extracerebral memory of the same life.  While all life is really
    unbelievable and wonderful, when we have the ability to appreciate
    that, I find the idea of a place, somehow beyond time and space,
    where memories of lives are stored for us to tap into just a little
    too unbelievable.  That belief has no necessary connection to reality,
    of course.
         As for disembodied spirits influencing people, that's an
    interesting possibility.  For me, it comes down to "What happens
    after we die?".  It's comforting to think that death is not the
    end, that there really is no end.  It's also comforting to think
    that death IS the end, that we don't have to put up with this bulldung
    FOREVER!! (I think that way more often when I'm tired.)
         Reincarnation is not provable.  Very few tenets of any religion
    or belief system anybody has ever heard of are provable; if they
    were, we would call it "science".  I despise most of the versions
    of Christianity that I've been exposed to, again not influencing
    the truth.  I think there is life after death and reincarnation
    makes a certain sort of sense to me.  It's part of my current working
    hypothesis about the nature and meaning of our lives in a very strange
    place.  By the time I get to test that hypothesis, it won't be any
    good to me

    RE: .53 
    
    >If there is some sort of racial memory, then there should be some cases
    >where more than one person has an extracerebral memory of the same
    >life. 
    
    Do you mean like all the people who remember that they were Cleopatra?
    
    Elizabeth
    
    BTW, before you flame me, I *do* believe in reincarnation.

    re .54, .53:
    
    There are two ways to look at this from the racial memory standpoint:  
    
    1) a "telepathic" (i.e., not connected to bodies, but sort of "pool"
       that people can connect to) memory, shared by all, in which case
       anyone could theoretically "remember" being Cleopatra (or anyone
       else, for that matter); and                                      
    
    2) a "genetic imprint" memory, in which case only one's direct
       ancestors could provide "memories."  Even this latter case would
       be a lot of people, if you go back a number of generations.
    
    If racial memory isn't involved, there are two other possibilities:
    
    1) Actual memories of one's past life [i.e., reincarnation works]; and
    
    2) Mistaken impressions of having led past lives, either
    
       a) by unintentional prompting by the past-life regressor; or
    
       b) through intentional suggestions, either by the regressor or
          by another person or entity desiring to make the person ex-
          periencing false memories believe them to be real.         
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    P.S.: Topher pointed out elsewhere that some "memories" could be
    the result of one or another psi-function that's not time-based.

    Postscript to .55:
    
    If the racial memory by genetic imprint hypothesis is correct, it
    would be very hard for anyone to remember being Cleopatra (if you
    men the last of the Ptolemaic line, who dallied with Julius Caesar
    and Mark Antony) because her child (Caesarion) was killed before
    _he_ could reproduce.  Any children by Mark Antony (I vaguely recall
    two) met the same fate.  She left no descendents.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.        

RE: .55
    
    Its even been suggested (by a parapsychologist whom I respect but
    absolutely disagree with on this issue) that *all* memory, including
    "normal" memory is ESP.  That this is the true "function" of ESP
    in the organism.  According to this hypothosis, what we recognize
    as ESP is a leakage or failure of the filters designed to keep things
    manageable -- i.e., we actually could remember everything which
    has happened, is happening or will happen, but to keep us "sane"
    there are filters which restrict us to remembering only what we
    actually perceived.
    
    Its an interesting idea to play with, but frankly it makes no
    biological/computational sense to me at all.  Of all the possible
    sets of filters which could be applied, one limited to what we have
    previously perceived, *including* misperceptions (e.g., optical
    illusions) seems like a poor choice and unlikely to have evolved.
    
    					Topher

        RE: Note 77.53
    
    "It's part of my current working hypothesis about the nature and meaning of 
    our lives in a very strange place.  By the time I get to test that 
    hypothesis, it won't be any good to me"


    Actually, it will be of some good to you.  There are some souls in the
    spirit life who are very stubbornly holding onto beliefs that keep them
    from realizing that they have died, and some who will not wake up in 
    the spirit world because they believe only their saviour can awaken
    them.  The more we come to know the true nature of ourselves, the further 
    we can expand our journey.  I think it will assist you greatly to be aware 
    at the time of your physical death that you are actually experiencing a 
    part of "life" - the transition from one experience to another - and that 
    your experiencing and learning will continue.

    Carole
 
                                                                        

    After some perusing of this file, I just had to express my views
    although they may be vague and unscientific.
    
    About 10 years ago I became involved in the "esoteric" side of *life*.
    I searched out a psychic councelor, became involved in prayer groups,
    researched the bible and read every book I could get my hands regarding
    psychic phenomenon, reincarnation, healing, etc.  Reincarnation
    was of the greatest interest to me then.  Circumstances disallowed
    for me to further my knowledge until recently....but now it's time
    to pick up the books again.  AND this reply can only tap on what
    I have read about and truly believe in.  Sketchy as it may appear,
    my philosophy is as such (as well as the unexplained):
    
    I believe that our souls were created by a superhuman existence.
    Although theologically speaking, there was only Adam and Eve,
    scientifically speaking, we evolved.  As to where and when the soul
    was placed is a question that I haven't been able to answer.  More
    research.....
    
    Look at a soul's journey as a pendulum swinging from left to right.
    It starts with the widest swing at it's base and gradually slows
    as it begins to reach the point where it need swing no more.  During
    it's "swing" it touches one side of a *life*, experiences it,
    reincarnates to another, experiences that.  During each *life* the
    soul, now in human form on this earth, experiences life as we do now.
    We see ourselves in different situations.  We know if we are rich,
    poor, beautiful, ugly, disabled, talented, etc.  Why???  I believe
    (an example) that if in another life we were to have been gifted
    with wealth and beauty, but misused the gift....by say, ridiculing
    the poor...we would see a justice in the next life....being born
    poor and not so hot looking.....a struggle.  We surely would not
    understand why this was happening to us (on this plane), but
    reincarnationlly speaking we "deserved" it.  How many times has
    one asked themselves....."What could I have ever done to deserve
    this??!!"  This is a *simple* explanation....there isn't enough
    room in this conference to get into more deeply.
    
    Although I do believe in a force of guidance we call God, I also
    believe that after we cross over to the "other side" we have control
    of our destinies.....what is it that we need to do to sit on the
    Right hand of God on that plane, so that we may be of service to
    him and the souls who are working on their "karma" on say, the Earth?
    (ah yes - our spirit guides - guardian angels, had to come from
    somewhere!)
    
    While we are on the "other side", another "plane" or "dimension"...we
    wait for the *others* to arrive so that we can plan again.  This
    process may take "time" (only a perception - for there is no such
    thing as TIME....to think is to be).
    
    Death and Reincarnation:  It is my opinion through the digested
    information I have read and absorbed that there is an written law
    concerning suicide.  Suicide is an unnatural death.  Unnatural deaths
    are NOT rewarded and the soul is immediately sent back to "work
    the issue" they originally set out to do.  SO although WE DO
    pre-destine ourselves, WE MUST work out our *situations* to the
    best of our abilities so that we DO NOT have to come back and do
    it again!  The next *time* should actually be a new learning experience
    so that *later* the pendulum need not swing any more.
    
    Now, for whatever reason we were orginnally placed here, for whatever 
    journey we have set for ourselves, I DO NOT KNOW.  All I know is
    that I am here to make the best of what I have....obey the "Golden
    Rule" and hopefully there will be a place for me on the other side
    so that I do not need to come back.....for I also have my views
    on Heaven and Hell....and although the fire of the earth is not
    visible to the eye, I feel that we are dependant on ourselves not
    to make anymore out of the hell we could be living......but that
    is for another discussion.
    
    This may have been a basic, simple interpretaton......and there
    is SO MUCH more to be investigated......one person's opinion is
    as welcome as another's...for we all have a purpose and only we
    know what it is....either conciously or super-subconsiously.
    
    On that note.............
    
    
              
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

I thought I'd throw in my 2 cents worth.  You won't find scientific rigor
here so if that is what you desire, hit your <next unseen> key.
These are just my beliefs, constructed from the results of many
years of searching.

I accept the concept of reincarnation and have integrated it into
my personal philosophy.  I find reincarnation much more reasonable
than only having one lifetime in which to work things out.  I also
accept the concept of cause and effect carrying over from lifetime to
lifetime, that is, if I do something nasty in a lifetime, I shall
catch the repurcussions the next time around ('as you sow so shall you
reap.')  I find that when using these concepts as a basis of evaluating 
the world around me I am much more able to apply the 'golden rule - love 
one another.'

Related to the concept of loving one another, I find that acceptance of 
the concept of reincarnation makes bigotry (in any of it's forms) very
difficult to embrace.  If I reincarnate from lifetime to lifetime in
different stations in life, then I am not descended from a tribe or
nation, that is I am not "one of 'these' people - and other people
are not one of 'those' people."  My body may be of genetic Austrian/Italian
descent, but my soul is not.  So for me disliking/distrusting people
who live in Russia, for example, makes no sense, because while I occupy
a body in America for this lifetime, perhaps next time I will occupy
a body in Russia.  People remain people, untainted by race, nationality,
belief structure.  (In my worse moments though I do have a real problem
with people who beat me over the head with their belief system and
say that their way is the only way.  In my better moments I keep trying to 
accept them.)

I also believe in an Ultimate Being.  I use the words Ultimate Being because
the name God carries too many negative connotations for me.  My religous
background has left me with the feeling that the Judeo-Christian God
is vindictive and spends lots of time following you around on a day to
day basis and punishing you if you stray off the narrow little path.
The name God also connotes a male entity instead of a sexless entity.
So I use Ultimate Being.  I suspect they are the same and I suspect
that the Ultimate Being/God doesn't much care what S/HE is called since
I suspect the Entity is beyond the limiting bounds of human language.

alison

RE: .59
    
    > -< ....it CAN be proved scientifically as well... >-
    
    Perhaps it CAN but to the best of my knowledge it has not.  The
    closest that I know of is Stevenson's carefully collected cases
    which are (in Stevenson's words) suggestive of reincarnation.  If
    you know of some scientific evidence which I am unaware of, please
    share it (I'm not being sarcastic here -- I really am open to such
    evidence, I just don't know of any).
    
    Reincarnation is a reasonable belief, and may even be a reasoned
    belief, but neither of those is the same as a scientifically proven
    theory (i.e., one for which falsification exists for its negation,
    or at least one which provides a better explanation for all known
    phenomena than its alternatives, without adding additional
    assumptions).
    
    I realize that you label the body of your note as describing views
    which are "vague" and "unscientific".  I have no problem with this
    -- not every belief or statement has to be able to bear scientific
    scrutiny (thank goodness, or scientific ideas would die before they
    are mature enough for such scrutiny, and science would stagnate).
    
    I am reacting only to your title.
    
    				Topher

    Hello everybody, I'm new to this NOTES stuff but was delighted
    to find DEJAVU.
    
    I believe in reincarnation, but along with that must come the
    acceptance of other people's ideas and "where they are at in
    this lifetime."  Some of us are ready to accept the more
    advanced teachings of The New Age, some of us are not.  And
    no matter where we are, the fact that there are so many people
    interested makes it a lot easier for us "believers."  Although
    true belief knows no discord, or something like that.
    
    Past lives are something that our higher level holds in memory,
    but which our "conscious" level does not embrace -- depending
    on the age of our soul, we've experienced many lifetimes of
    joy and of great pain.
    
    I haven't seen the subject of phobias and how they relate to
    past lives discussed...
    
    Would love to see some input on that...
    
    Carla
    
    exper

    
    Carla,
    
    I'm in the process of reading the Shirley McLaine book series and
    seemed to recall something on phobias and past lives - not 100%
    sure though (I'm reading about 10 books simutaneously at the moment).  
    Might be a start.  Keep us posted....and welcome!
    
    Cindy

    In a past life, Shirley MacLaine claims to have lived in the desert.
    (Don't remember which one.)  She had an affair, and her punishment
    was to be tied to a stake in the desert where she died.  While there,
    birds were all over her, picking at her etc. (pretty gross!!!) 
    However, she claims that her present day fear of birds is due to
    this past life experience.
    
    BTW she has just published another book, so expect to see more of
    her in the future.
    
    Debbie
    

    
RE:  .61
    
    Sorry, Topher, haven't been in the FILE lately to answer your question.
    
    After discussing 'reincarnation' with a Christian Spiritualist Minister
    who I KNOW believes in *our* idea of reincarnation, but according
    to her doctrine is NOT supposed to.....she claimed that we can use
    the word "genetics" as a scientific approach.  Not that it stands
    a chance in the laboratory, but if you can carry genes from your
    ancestry to your living self today, then how far back may we carry
    ancestry/genetics..(????)  Although someone may want to shoot holes
    in this theory, I think she had a profound point.  Something to
    think about......
    
    Cheryl    
          

    re priors
    
    According to population stats I have read, over half the humans
    who ever existed are currently alive and breathing.  If that is
    the case how is it possible for all of us to have had previous lives?
    

    re: -.1
        I once asked Lazaris that.  He replied (and I should really
    give it to you verbatim...I have it on tape) that it was really
    naive to hold onto that view (which he elaborated.)  First off,
    he said, we all incarnate at various "times" to fulfill a particular
    desire.  There is no time (it's an illusion) and what you are calling
    the past may *actually* be the future.  Therefore, looking "backwards"
    is insignificant there.  Also, since we choose whatever era we wish
    in which to incarnate, we could easily choose the more populous
    eras.  Most of us have thousands of lifetimes but evolve, eventually,
    to the point of not needing physicality "any longer."  So, pick
    any epoch you want and you will find people who are probably
    incarnating for the *final* time.  (Keep in mind that there is no
    sequence of time in these incarnations, i.e., you may leave this
    lifetime and go "back" to the 18th century, leave that one and go
    to the 21st century and leave that and go back to Atlantis, etc.)
    The experience of time is yours and yours alone.  For example,
    when I first talked to Lazaris he thought it was interesting that
    I told him it was my first time talking with him because in his
    reality he had talked with me before...Anyway, more of what he said
    in that private consultation was that there are many more disincarnate
    beings than carnate beings, therefore their chosing when to become
    carnate (or even *if* to become carnate) has no real relevance to
    our perceptions of population.
       I have paraphrased and *interpreted* liberally, here...I do not
    remember all he said word-for-word, but I believe this is the gist
    of it.  If you spend some time thinking this over, you will come
    to the conclusion that it fits (assuming the premises are valid.)
      
    Frederick
    

    	You've given me a new concept to ponder, Frederick, that
    	of moving around in time as our *need* dictates.  It is
    	something that logically is totally beyond my conscious
    	level of comprehension, yet there's a part of me that
    	understands exactly what you mean.
    
    	Interestingly enough, my SO believes that UFO's are time
    	travellers, yet he doesn't understand or even want to learn
    	more about metaphysics.  THAT baffles ME, but the choices
    	can only be individual.
    
	But let me ask you this -- have all the other people who are
    	around us today also chosen this EXACT time to incarnate?  I
    	have problems with the theory that everything is a product of
    	our creation (meaning that I'm just *dreaming* all of this),
    	so I'm curious to know your theory.
        
    	Sending you peace,
    
    	Carla
    

    re: -.1
        Carla, I certainly can understand why you might have trouble
    with getting your SO to understand or be interested in this.  This
    has been noted here before...specifically look at MASCULINE/FEMININE
    (anima/animus) topics (in 358 I gave Lazaris' definitions.)  You
    may have become aware that more women than men are interested in
    metaphysics...this is due to (from Lazaris' statements) women
    being "charged" more with Perception/Conception (anima-feminine
    energy) than men acknowledge...these are metaphysically oriented
    energies.  Shirley Maclaine does a wonderful (in my opinion) job
    of addressing this issue in "It's all in the Playing," too.  She
    states therein that the Old Age was masculine energy oriented while
    the New Age is the re-emergence of feminine energy (both men and
    women have both, by the way.)  Anyway, this is not part of the
    discussion of this topic.
         I used to have no understanding of time, etc.  I was a good
    Catholic who played sheep (mostly.)  Upon my "awakening," however,
    I have come to believe that we choose EVERYTHING, including parents
    and "time" of birth.  (This does NOT necessarily mean conscious
    decision-making, incidentally.)  Some people are in a hurry (and
    therefore are born prematurely,) some change their minds (and die
    within a few days of conception or birth,) but most of us hang in
    there and "go for it" in "standard" fashion.  If you stop and really
    look at this planet at this time, you will notice that we have
    available right now virtually every condition that has ever existed.
    Let me explain a little:  if you want to experience abject poverty
    you could be born in India (or some third-world country.)  If you
    wanted to experience disease or religious persecution you could
    be born in Africa (e.g.) or in the Middle-East.  If you wanted to
    experience racial and sexual discrimination you could be born as
    a black woman here in the U.S.  As I have attempted to point out
    elsewhere in these notesfiles, we too often assume that we were
    always "superior" in other lifetimes because we feel "superior"
    in this one.  That is unlikely.  (I get a kick out of this guy
    named Rama--ne' Frederick Lenz, Ph. D., who claims to have 
    incarnated over and over as various gurus and masters...what
    an ego problem this guy has!)  Remember, you don't live for the
    sake of others...you live for your-*self*.  What lessons or experiences
    do you wish to have?  Where best to have them?  When best to have
    them?  What sex should you best be in order to have them?  Which
    parents should you have in order to best deal with them?  Which
    culture would be best born into in order to deal with them?  This
    list goes on and on.  Finally, *you* "decide", make the "connections"
    and incarnate...thereupon you set out on your journey to deal with
    what you "set-up" before the incarnation and perhaps resolve those
    lessons and experiences and create new ones.  Perhaps you evolve
    "enough" to "figure-it-all-out" and decide that you do not wish
    to play this physicality game any further.  (Again from Lazaris--
    he once stated that the energies or programming necessary to
    create the tip of your finger would fill volumes of books, the
    energy/programming necessary to create the human body would fill
    volumes of libraries.)  It is, in other words, highly complex.
    It is so complex that it serves us NOT to "remember", which is why
    we "make it easy on ourselves" by incarnating without those memories.
    Once you get in touch with those memories, however, you can "figure
    out the game" and end it (or, "go HOME", as my process name shows.)
    So, Carla, this is the *perfect* time for you to incarnate...it
    is filled with all the *perfect* opportunities for you to learn
    and experience all you "need."  
        I need to go off and do some of what I believe DEC is paying
    me for, but I hope I responded in a manner that you can understand.
    (I am enjoying your notes, by the way.)
      
    Frederick
    
    

There are lots of problems with the concept of reincarnation, but my biggest
question regarding all this "experience" is "To what end?"  What is all
of this human experience for (to say nothing of chimp experience)?

And where do all these spirits come from?  Why are they not created perfect
in the first place? 

My problem with "Lazaris's" explanations (as presented) is that they seem
to solve problems by throwing baby, basin, and bathwater out the window.
Reincarnation is no problem because there is no time.  Money is not a concern
because reality is just an illusion.  Really, it's like asking someone why
trees are green and getting the answer "trees do not really exist so it
doesn't matter."

I always find it interesting that people who believe in past life regression
never go to multiple channelers and see if they get the same story.  Usually
they accept the story they like best.

An Aside:

I knew a wealthy lady in San Francisco who spent a bundle of money on a
channeler who told her all about her past lives.  (She also told her she had a
ghost named Eugena living in her house.)  Anyway, this lady passed some false
information onto some acquaintances who also were clients of the channeler.
When the channeler relayed the false information back to her while in a "trance"
she stopped going.  

John M.

    re: -.1
        Is this deja vu or what?  Didn't we already talk about these
    issues?
        In regards to reincarnation, it (the concept or belief) has
    been around for longer than recorded history, apparently. Even
    Christianity had it for about 400-500 years (until it became obvious
    that more control could be garnered by NOT having it---an idea that
    I think you allude to in your expression of "life.")
        Yes, one probably would or could get an idea of "so what?" if
    indeed life is nothing but some sort of playground for either a
    "Higher Self" or a "God."  But framed in the context of what you
    can accomplish within this "game," goals can be established and
    accomplished.  Learning can occur with satisfaction, etc.  As we
    understand the concept of infinity, it becomes soothing to know
    (without the feeling of fear or loneliness, e.g.) that there is
    no end to this "Game," that there is no end to "God," that even
    "God" itself will never know itself...perpetual games of love. 
    I have felt the fear of being "all-there-is" and been scared because
    of the inadequacy I have felt in my knowledge and understanding...
    "if this is it, I'm in trouble."  So, for me it has been a great
    comfort to internalize the concept of reincarnation...it also does
    wonders to getting a handle on the negative ego, which wants to
    say that either we're the greatest or we're the slimiest.  As I
    wrote several months ago, I have felt my greatest peace since I
    learned these things and I anticipate even greater harmony within
    myself as I integrate my understandings with my feelings.
        As I have come to study the subject of reincarnation and applied
    it to my life, I have seen it as the only way I can come to accept
    my reality.  There can be no other way for me, that makes as much
    "sense."  
        
    
    Frederick
    (p.s. John---read Shirley's book...it covers much of this territory
    in a manner which I, for one, support fairly strongly, if not across
    the board.)
    

    Firstly I don't want to start any arguments, for a start I don't think
    I have the stamina but my opinion on this subject has nothing to
    do with Lazaris, as the only channeller I have been to is my tarot
    reader and a numerologist.
    
    What I have read is Living in the Light (among many many more) by
    Shakti Gawain.  This explains quite a lot of things.  This is from
    the book - just a small sample,
    
    The difference between a technician and a channel was clearly
    demonstrated in the movie Amadeus.  Salieri knew how to write music,
    but he didn't know how to tap into the creative source.  Mozart
    - one of the most amazing channels who ever lived - wrote music
    that was both technically perfect and wonderfully inspired, and
    he did so easily, spontaneously, without thought or effort.  From
    his early childhood on, music just seemed to bubble up and overflow
    from within him.  I'm sure he had no idea how it happened and could
    not have explained to anyone else how to do it.
    
    Her explaination of a channel is a long round pipe with energy flowing
    though it... and so on.
               
    I have been regressed quite a few times, and the visions are very
    clear.
    
    All that aside, I agree Frederick, we come back to learn what we
    didn't learn last life.  If we were a criminal, then we have more
    karma to work off, and would choose a life that would hopefully
    teach us that crime doesn't pay, etc.  I have dealt with a problem
    I had from a past life.  It wasn't until I faced up to this situation
    that I realised how true reincarnation was.  I dealt with this problem
    with the person that it concerned in my past life.  He still hasn't
    worked it out for himself, but eventually he will.
                                       
    Please try to read between the lines, and don't take everything
    literally (John I do love your dry humour but I haven't the strength
    to defend myself until our air conditioning is fixed).  :^) :^)
    
    I have three friends that have shared past lives (talk about dejavu
    - I know I have written this somewhere) and we have all been back
    and discovered this.
    
    Sorry I cannot take this air any longer...
    
    See ya'll tomorrow.
    
    ....dale
    
    

    
    	From my own personal experience, I know that "reincarnational"
    memories are real.  I put the word in quotes however, since I still
    have some reservations about the conceptual model of "reincarnation".
    I have found at least four models useful, in understanding the
    reality of archaic memories;
    
    	1) The theory of reincarnation, as it is commonly understood.
    	2) Racial memory, where some very old memories may be recorded
    		in genetic material.
    	3) Subconscious generation of dreamlike scenarios that may seem
    		like past life memories.
    	4) Telepathic contact with spirits who have other memories.

    I have myself experienced vivid "memories" of being in Atlantis
    as an artist, and as an Inca.   However, I have never been able
    to totally categorize my experiences in terms of any one of the
    four above conceptual models.   I think such memories may be the
    result of one or more of these "causes", and I think it is
    best to be hesitant to either dismiss such experiences as unreal,
    or to too hastily categorize them as "known".
    	I believe it is best to understand that the experience of
    archaic memories is a real experience, that people refer to
    within differing conceptual models.   We should tentativly accept
    all such models that have not been decisivly disproven, and where
    necessary we should allow multiple models to allow discussion of
    all aspects of the experience.
	
    	I validate the reality of "reincarnation", as a real experience
    that I have shared,  even though I cannot entirely claim full
    belief in that conceptual model.   
    	J Marshall's suggestion on trying multiple psychics for 
    confirmation is certain to result in contradictory results.   
    I once, in a two month period, ran  across references to four 
    separate persons who were the "reincarnation" of Cleopatra.   
    This might be possible, within the genetic memory of theory #2, 
    where multiple copies of the memories could exist, or perhaps 
    also within the Lazaris' theory of multiple incarnations
    in a single time frame.
    	I do believe that all four women must have had an aspect of
    personality that the psychic could accurately portray as
    "Cleopatra".   Even if this is not exactly the case, does this
    embody deception?    Not necessarily.   In the final analysis,
    I think the value of such experiences is in the personal growth 
    or understanding that is triggered.
    
    	Alan.

    Edgar Cayce explains some reasons for reincarnation rather well
    from more of a religious point of view, in some of his works.
    "Edgar Cayce on Reincarnation", "Edgar Cayce Primer." As was stated
    earlier, the Church left out almost all references to reincarnation
    but Edgar's work attempts to explain how many exsisting entries
    in the Bible such as the Garden of Eden are really symbolic of 
    reincarnation. He also did case studies in Trance states of
    people's multiple lifes and how the present one depended upon
    "previous" lifes that they lived.  He may or may not have been accurate
    in these cases of reincarnation, but if his accuracy in diagnosing
    medical cases under Trance conditions is any indication (and all
    the cases have been documented, treated and confirmed by medical
    doctors) Then perhaps the need for reincarnation does exists from
    a spiritual, if not only religious reasons.
       If anyone is interested in learning more about these concepts
    and others, I would suggest reading Edgar Cayce's biography
    by Thomas Sugrue " There is a River " to set the background and
    also it reveals the inner conflict that Cayce subjected himself
    to in doing the  trance readings because of their conflict
    with his deep religious beliefs and love of Jesus (with whom the concept
    of living in the light really began).  
     
     
                                                        

    Re .73:
    
    >I once, in a two month period, ran  across references to four 
    >separate persons who were the "reincarnation" of Cleopatra.   
     
    Well, there was more than one royal personage in ancient Egypt named
    Cleopatra ... :-)
    
    Or, as quoted from an obscure publication:
    
    "Never claim you're the reincarnation of [name] unless you're sure
    the person standing next to you isn't."      :-D
                                                  
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    I would say that the chances of being a reincarnation of a famous
    person is the same as bumping into a famous person in the middle
    of the street in Boston --Very slim.
    
    In the song "Industrial Disease" By Dire Straits there's a line:
    
    	"There are two Jesuses in the waiting room, one of them must be
    	wrong"
    
    That sums up my feelings.  A lot of people would like to believe
    that they were a famous person in a previous life, and belief is
    a powerful force.  One way to verify/disprove the multi-reincarnations
    would be to compare notes about the life between different people.
    
    Comments and questions about "future reincarnations", makes sense
    if you consider that the universe is multi-dimensional and we're
    "based" in a higher dimension.  Does anyone have "memories" of future
    lives?  This might be easier to prove than previous lives since
    we can talk about predictions here. . .
    
    (While you're off in a future life, could you tell me the price
    of Digital Stock in 5 years? ;-D )

                               
    Two things:
    
    1.) On future lives - not me, but Douglas Adams might have!
    
    2.) Anyone care to comment on multiple personalities and how
        this phenomenon/psychiatric disorder might relate to 
        reincarnation?  
         
    Cindy

    re .69                                                      
    
    	This idea that 1) everyone reincarnates whether they (while
    on earth) know it or not, and 2) we choose EVERYTHING (presumably 
    while in-between states of reincarnation) has some staggering 
    implications.
    
    	If people choose to come back as victims of some evil, whether
    it be abject poverty, debilitating disease, murderous religious
    persecution, or whatever, then what basis is there for calls for
    social reform and social justice?  If sufferers of evil choose to
    experience it, then why should they complain?
    
    	Personally, I find the idea that someone would choose to be
    born to experience the most horrible of cruelties just for the sake
    of experiencing it to be too incredible to believe.  It's hard for
    me to imagine that someone who, even just once, had the chance to 
    choose a happy life over one of misery would do so without question 
    (since the theory seems to imply that one can choose aspects such as 
    these of one's earthly destiny).
    
    	Further, if one can choose to be a victim, then logically, could
    not one also choose to be a perpetrator?  Does this somehow justify
    being a murderer or an industrial polluter or a rapist or child
    molester because one has chosen to be so in that nebulous state
    in-between reincarnations?  In this world, we abhor willful offenders
    such as these.  And yet, reincarnation passes it all off as part
    of the matrix of experience.  To say the least, it defies common
    sense.
    
    							-mark s.

    
    Just a guess - to everything there is a purpose.
    
    In order to see the light, one must experience darkness.  In order
    to see the intensity of the light, one must also see the intensity
    of the darkness.
    
    The same with 'evil' and 'good' - there are varying degrees of both.
    The Holocaust was a terrible evil thing, but then there were also signs
    of human greatness as well - such as the case of Wallenburg and of the
    thousands of people who weren't Jewish yet risked their own lives
    to secretly house Jewish families. 
    
    In reading Peck's "People Of The Lie", he states that there is evil.
    Going back to the 'turning of the cheek' way of thinking, he stated
    at the end that for every act of evil, people have a choice.  They
    can either repay the evil with another evil act or they can extend
    the hand of love toward the enemy.  The last quote of the book says
    that for every act of love toward the enemy, the balance of power
    is slightly shifted somewhat.  Peck also stated that it was his
    hope that humanity could begin loving, truly loving one another
    and that in the end there would be the evil force (Satan) writhing
    in his state and humanity would ultimately turn toward him with
    love (or something like that - I'm paraphrasing here). 
    
    From the very little I know about these sort of things, this fits
    in well with the positive and negative balances of power in all
    things (but then I freely admit that I know VERY little about this
    subject.....yet).
    
    Cindy
                                           

    RE: .78
    
    I'm not an expert - far from it. But this is what *my* feelings
    are about reincarnation and "horribleness".
    
    The idea is not that one may excuse one's actions by saying "Well,
    OK, I tortured a bunch of people in concentration camps, but hey!
    it's cuz I chose to *learn* from that experience back when I was
    a soul choosing my next life. So I'm off the hook! Neat, huh?!"
    
    I think one is always supposed to be trying to fulfill one's highest
    purpose and abilities. There is still free choice. My view would
    be that, if one chose to be (say) a concentration camp guard in
    that particular time, it would be in the interest of (for example)
    seeing how to act *for* humanity while in the constraints of the
    situation at hand. The one who managed to sneak food to prisoners,
    to change policy, to diminish torture, etc. would be the one acting
    from one's "higher self". But everyone gets to choose how to react
    in a certain situation.
    
    *I* think that maybe after a life has ended, the soul may contemplate
    how it was lived, and have the opportunity to say *Whew! I blew
    it that time. " or "Gee, I did OK". Then these decisions affect
    the situation the soul would choose to be in for another life (say,
    on earth).
    
    The charge, I believe, is to always act for the good of humankind,
    kindly, "Do unto others..etc." WE don't have to live up to that
    charge, nor are we expected to get off the hook because we supposedly
    "chose" a certain situation.
    
    Those're my impressions from a certain amount of readin, and my
    own interperetation, of course. I'm sure there are others in this
    conference who can expound on this more informatively than I.
    
    Dawn
    

RE .78


The issues you have raised are good ones, and while I do not have all
the answers I will try to explain as best I can based on my own beliefs.
As it's very difficult to put into words I hope you will bear with me.

In between lives we are more in touch with our higher selves. I believe
the goal of each self-aware being is to grow towards a goal of personal
perfection. To this end we reincarnate, with lessons to learn. I believe
all life experiancs have some lesson to teach. And for myself I think
that hardship teaches more than happiness. I know that without my difficult
childhood I would not have the compassion I do today. Also I can see
where the same childhood could have made me a bitter person who would
take that bitterness out on others. 

But why would someone want to incarnate into a bully or a murder? 
Perhaps they choose a difficult life and made the wrong choices.
(could have happened to me for instance)

Perhaps they were badly treated in one life and have alot of anger
and hatred. If we were perfect we wouldn't need to return.

And lastly if someone has chosen and incarnation in poverty
or disease, that in no ways means we shouldn't help them. It
could be OUR lesson to learn the value of helping others. Every
experience has a lesson. In this life we have no knowledge of
any higher plan, and it is a bad idea to act as if we do..i.e
not help someone in need because they "chose" their misery.

-vicki

    
    I think that a more rational mechanism is that souls do not plan
    out their incarnation; they merely chose to incarnate. Given this
    "shotgun" approach to karma, it may take several lifetimes to work
    through a single issue...in fact, many issues could be worked on
    simultaneously (making this method more efficient).
    
    Intuition tells me that time *is* dynamic in this universe: It may
    be possible to step outside our frame of reference and see all of
    time spread out before you, but to do so would mean stepping outside
    of our universe. I therefore believe that incarnating into the past
    is not possible; neither is it possible to incarnate into the future.
    We incarnate into the *present* and take our chances.
    
    Tananda
    

    Re: .78
    
>    Being a victim, being a perpetrator, and defining common sense (Did
>    you think I wouldn't comment about this one? ;-) )
    
    I have known many people who have set up themselves to be victims,
    maybe not as victims of a rapist, or robber, etc., but as a victim
    of life.  Theirs is not a life under their own control, decisions
    are made by other people, or not at all.  The actual details about
    the aggression against them is a moot point, something was bound
    to happen sooner or later.  This is the life of a victim.
    
    Perpetrators are either vengeful, blind of their own actions, or
    ignorant of their results.  "Oh, a little toxic waste won't hurt
    anybody".  Remember ignorance is bliss, and revenege is a powerful
    force in a life.
    
    CAVEAT: Both examples above are Generalizations, I agree that not
    all victims of violence are "asking for it", but there are many
    out there that do "ask for it" and "it" is not nice.
    
    Both sides are extremes and have to be educated.  The victims don't
    understand that they are destroying their own lives and the
    Perpetrators don't understand what they are doing to others.  I've
    seen too many people that I know set themselves up for a fall
    (including myself!).  I can understand how someone can choose to be a
    victim.
    
    What makes you think that you would make perfect decisions in an
    afterlife that includes reincarnation?  One of the reasons why you
    are reincarnated is because you're not perfect, right?
    
    Dave

    There is a very interesting book (not great, or well written) that
    has some even more interesting facts.  Ruth Montgomery's book Life
    after Life (I hope this is the correct title).  It is suppsed to
    be Arthur Ford channelling through Ruth.  He died then tells her
    the story of how it all is up *there*.
    
    It made more sense than anything else I had read on this subject.
    Very cheap paperback and quick to read.  Has anybody else read it
    and are there any opinions.
    
    ...dale

	The concept of reincarnation is extremely attractive to the
	subconscious.  We (humanity) have difficulty in facing the
	unknown, and death is the biggest 'unknown' that we have to
	face.

SET STATE=MENTAL

	Hermetic thought follows the line that the consciousness, in
	some form, survives death.  The soul consists of three parts:

	Nephesch -- The "lower astral" or "animal" soul.  It is the
		vehicle in which mind is brought into contact with
		matter.

	Ruach -- The "mind" or "intellect".  The Ruach is considered 
		to consist of five intermeshed intellectual principles,
		and is considered to be the center of human consciousness
		and 'will'.

	Neschamah -- The "spirit".  Three principles are at work here...
		the Jechidah, or "Divine Essence", is the 'that in me that 
		is more than me myself'; the Chia, or "Essential Will" is the
		creative impulse through which the Jechidah obtains its
		self-realization (wisdom);  the Neschamah proper.

	The three parts of the soul are held to the body by an astral
	matrix.  Man's view of the universe is limited, and his spirituality
	is limited to the "boundaries" that are set by the four aspects
	of his existence.  In the physical body, he is unable to leave the
	physical plane.  The astral component cannot venture beyond the
	"astral" plane.  The "mental" body (Ruach) cannot transcend it's
	limitations.  Only the pure spirit is capable of seeking out and
	joining with Divine Providence.

	Within the astral plane are the heavens and hells of the world's
	religions.  The "faithful" see what they want to see here.  The
	adept sees the symbols but realizes that religion, by itself, is
	limiting.

	To the Hermeticist, the concepts of "paradise" and "damnation" have
	much more to do with Karmic Sin.  The Hermeticist looks at a universe
	of vibrations and polarities.  Karma sets up primary vibrations
	that "tune" your soul to a certain sphere of the universe.  Upon
	death the soul is naturally drawn to the sphere that it is most
	in harmony with.  It will remain there until it is able to change
	the vibrational frequencies.  If the soul is in a place that is
	full of negative influences, it could give up trying and "be damned
	for all eternity."  (Is it in the Bible that there is a passage
	that says that all sins EXCEPT despair can be forgiven??)

	The Cycle of Incarnations has this TIME/NO-TIME dependency based
	on how long the soul must wait until it will be ready to be incarnate
	again.  Time passes, but to the soul time has no meaning other than
	to measure the synchronity of events.  The Cycle will continue until
	the pure spirit is set free, or until the soul believes that it's
	condition is hopeless and gives up.

SET STATE=OPINION

	I lean toward this view of reincarnation, however I have no proof
	either for or against it.

						-- Mike

 I recently came across a paper that I wrote in college as a Pro-Con Analysis
for the following proposition of policy :

  "Reincarnation should be adopted as a belief which explains the purpose
   of (wo)man's existence."

 Most of the material came from the book "Reincarnation in World Thought"
(S.L.Cranston and Joseph Head eds., 1967) which contained reprints of a
number of relevant articles including:
	- "Is There a Future Life?" (Paul Williams)
	- "Nature, Mind, and Death" (C.J.Ducasse)
	- "Some Dogmas Of Religion" (McTaggart)
	- "The Religions of Man"    (Huston Smith)

 I present here an excursion into the analysis of the _belief_ in
reincarnation here (mostly the 'Pro' side ... sorry skeptics/debunkers :-) ),
primarily to propose that even though reincarnation may be difficult
or impossible to _prove_ scientifically, there are many _rational_
bases upon which a belief in reincarnation can be founded.

1. Reincarnation merits further investigation by all people since it is
   a firmly established belief.

   a) A sizeable number of distinguished thinkers of every era have considered
      (wo)man's immortality in terms of repeated existence on earth.
      (not only in the East .. also Ben Franklin, C.G.Jung, etc.)
   b) Belief in reincarnation has existed continuously for over 2000 years.
   c) Approximately two-thirds of the worlds population believes in
      reincarnation.

2. There are rational bases for the belief in reincarnation.

   a) The belief is _logically_ consistent, regardless of any _emotional_
      reaction to it.

   b) While the case for a future (or past, or simultaneous) life is no
      stronger than is the case for the existence of the 'soul', there are
      rationales for believing in a 'soul'.
	- Scientific proof is not the only valid form.  Proof can also
	  be provided through a 'conclusive demonstration of something'
	  (American Heritage Dictionary) in the form of experiences.
	- For many people (myself included), it is much easier to account
	  for the experiences of people on the assumption that the essential
	  human being is more that just a physiochemical reaction.

   c) Even if we accept the belief in a soul, reincarnation is still not
      proved.  Could these souls survive bodily death?
	- William James suggested that the body could be considered to
	  produce life like a candle produces light (when the light goes out
	  its all over) *OR* that the body could be considered to _reflect_
	  life like light is reflected by a mirror (when the mirror is
	  removed, the light continues).  Bodies could be the instruments for
	  the _reflection_ of the soul.

   d) Reincarnation is no more hypothetical than is atomic theory.
	- While the materialist view contends that all but observable facts
	  are contrived and hypothetical, atomic structure has never been
	  observed directly, but is _inferred_ from what has been observed.
	- The conception of atomic structure is believed because it is
	  _consistent_ with (and _predictive_ of) the way elements combine,
	  and it _explains_ why peculiar marks appear on photographic plates.
	- Could we thus prove reincarnation (or at least accept it as a
	  useful model) if we could show that the _predictions_ reincarnation
	  makes are _consistent_ with our own personal experiences with people
	  and if it _explains_ some peculiar experiences that others have
	  testified to and we ourselves have experienced?
	- While alleged recollections of past lives are not scientifically
	  replicable, if pre-existence should happen to be a fact it is clear
	  that the only _possible_ empirical evidence of it would consist of
	  verifiable recollections.  The validity of past-life recollection
	  testimonials must be evaluated by the same standards used for any
	  testimony, and not rejected off-hand.

3. Many of the common arguments against reincarnation are based upon an
   inadequate understanding or distorted version of the belief.
   Some of these misconceptions are clarified below.

    a) What is it that is reborn?
	- First, we can distinguish between _acquired_ skills, habits, and
	  memories which comprise our _personality_; and _native_ aptitudes
	  dispositions, and proclivities which can be thought of as our
	  _individuality_ (or 'soul').
	- There is no doubt that each of us, on the basis of our same
	  _individuality_ would have developed a different _personality_
	  if we had been born into a different family, a different time
	  period, had a different education, etc.

   b) Does reincarnation state that people are reborn into animals?
	- This concept (called 'transmigration') is believed by only a small
	  sect of Hindu faith and is by no means a common, well-accepted, or
	  necessary part of the belief in reincarnation.

   c) Reincarnation or Heredity?
	- (quote from McTaggart) "There is no impossibility in supposing that
	  the characteristics in which we resemble our ancestors of our body
	  may be to some degree, characteristics due to our previous lives...
	  It is possible that a man whose nature had certain characteristics
	  when he was about to be reborn, would be reborn into a body descended
	  from ancestors of a similar character."
	- McTaggart is not suggesting that a bodiless soul must shop around
	  for a suitable body, but rather he describes an automatic process
	  analogous to certain chemical affinities which might guide the
	  connection of a person with an appropriate body.

   d) Wouldn't we all have memories of past lives?
	- If absence of memory of a certain time proved that we did not exist
	  at that time, then it would prove that we did not exist in the first
	  few years of our present life, nor on most of the days since then.
	- Moreover, there _is_ testimony of the recollection of past lives.

   e) Without the awareness that memory provides, how is rebirth discernibly
      different from death of one individual followed by the birth of another?
	- It is the _continuity_ of memory, rather than preservation of a
	  continuous span of memories, that is significant for the conscious-
	  ness of one's identity.
	- A sense of identity depends on gradualness of change in ourselves
	  rather than on preservation unchanged of any part of ourselves.

   f) Without memory of what one is being rewarded or punished for, one learns
      nothing from the retribution, which is then morally unjust and useless.
	- Eye-for-eye retribution is not the only form of moral education.
	- For example, if _impatience_ caused Tom to inflict injury on Jim,
	  the morally important thing as regards Tom is to acquire the patience
	  he lacks, not to have similar injuries inflicted upon himself.
	- Viewing our own life in perspective, our aptitudes, interests, and
	  decisions have brought about, not by plan but rather automatically,
	  changes in material and social circumstances or opportunities.
	  These changes, as much as external causes, contributed to shape what
	  we have become.  This which is observable in one life could occur
	  equally naturally between the present and subsequent lives of a
	  continuous and gradually changing self.

   g) Many misconceptions arise from separating the idea of karmic dependence
      from the reincarnation belief.
	- Karmic dependence: When the soul leaves the body, it is born in
	  another body; its rank, character, circumstances and experiences
	  in each successive existence depending on its qualities, intentions,
	  and attainments in its previous lives.
	- Although the hypothesis of karmic dependence is logically distinct
	  from and additional to that of rebirth in another physical body,
	  in fact it is virtually _always_ conjoined with the belief in
	  reincarnation because of its resolution of all difficulties of
	  moral justice.
	- Karma is not fatalism where people have no free will.  In fact,
	  quite the opposite!  Karma states that every _decision_ must have
	  its determinate consequences, but the decisions themselves are
	  freely arrived at.  Also, it is the _intentions_ of one's act that
	  are subject to karmic dependence, rather than the results.

Summary:
	Reincarnation does demand a subtle mental attitude and entails an
	understanding of the higher planes of consciousness, the law of
	cause and effect, and laws of evolution.  It is possible that these
	reasons have contributed to some theorists belief that it could
	have adverse psychological effects on the masses since they might
	not fully understand the theory.  Yet the theory is here to stay,
	and for those who are familiar with the intricacies of the theory
	it forms a clear and logical rationale for the purpose of (wo)man's
	existence.

RE: .87

    > Reincarnation merits further investigation by all people since it is
    a firmly established belief. < 

So?  Why does it merit investigation simply because a lot of people believe
in it?  A lot of people believe in fairies and elves; that doesn't make them
worth investigating.  


    > There are rational bases for the belief in reincarnation.  The belief
    is _logically_ consistent, regardless of any _emotional_ reaction to
    it. < 

It is by no means logically consistent.  For one thing, it is not
*mathematically*  consistent, since the earth's population has been on the
increase.  It is also makes little sense to assume that people should somehow
reincarnate whereas animals should not.  And there is nothing "logically
consistent" about 1000 people claiming to have been Lincoln.


    >  Scientific proof is not the only valid form.  Proof can also be
    provided through a 'conclusive demonstration of something' (American
    Heritage Dictionary) in the form of experiences. < 

The doctrine of reincarnation lacks too many "conclusive demonstrations" to be
considered as anything more than mere supposition.  Would you care to share
some examples? 



    > For many people (myself included), it is much easier to account for
    the experiences of people on the assumption that the essential human
    being is more that just a physiochemical reaction. < 


Why?  The rain falls and the sun shines on humans and wombats alike. Human
experience is no more extraordinary or valid than wombat experience, as both
humans and wombats are animals.  Like it or not, emotions ARE chemical in
nature.  And emotions are the property of most animals, not just humans. 



    >  Bodies could be the instruments for the _reflection_ of the soul. < 

Yes, and they could be miniature universes for microscopic beings or they could
be macrocells in a cosmic brain or they could be...  The point is that we are
not any closer to making a case for the existence of souls simply because
souls "could be." 


    > Reincarnation is no more hypothetical than is atomic theory. < 

That couldn't be more untrue. A hypothesis is a formulation of a natural
principle based on inference from observed data.  Reincarnation is an
assumption regarding an object (the soul), the existence of which cannot be
proven or consistently described.  Thus reincarnation is not even a hypothesis;
it is only a belief. 

    > The conception of atomic structure is believed because it is
    _consistent_ with (and _predictive_ of) the way elements combine, and
    it _explains_ why peculiar marks appear on photographic plates. < 


That "predictive of" is a biggie.  And the marks are by no means peculiar;
they are expected.

    >  While alleged recollections of past lives are not scientifically
    replicable, if pre-existence should happen to be a fact it is clear
    that the only _possible_ empirical evidence of it would consist of
    verifiable recollections. < 

No.  "recollection" is a function of the organ called the brain.  First
one would have to prove the existence of a soul and then prove that the
soul has an ability to remember.  It is an established fact that memory
is physiological in nature.  How, then, does one explain a physiological
phenomenon existing in a supposed supernatural object (the soul).


    > The validity of past-life recollection testimonials must be evaluated
    by the same standards used for any testimony, and not rejected
    off-hand. < 

Simply because a living person has knowledge of facts that coincide with events
in the life of a dead person does not prove reincarnation.  And even if
it did, it would not prove reincarnation in all persons.

I have always found stories of 4-year-old children (usually in India) being the
reincarnation of some dead adult interesting, if not amusing.  If the child
supposedly remembers trivia from the past life such as names of persons,
various events etc, how is it that they are not born recalling essentials such
as how to walk or tie one's shoes or feed oneself?

You state that we can distinguish between acquired skills and native aptitudes.
Well, how is an aptitude judged except by skill?  And other animals share the
"native aptitudes, dispositions, and proclivities" that you suggest constitute
individuality or soul.  This would mean that "souls" are indeed physiological
in nature and not the exclusive property of mankind.  Anyway, that we call such
attributes a "soul" is just for the sake of convention; it does not mean
that these qualities exist apart from the body. 



    > Does reincarnation state that people are reborn into animals? This
    concept (called 'transmigration') is believed by only a small sect of
    Hindu faith and is by no means a common, well-accepted, or necessary
    part of the belief in reincarnation. < 


That does not make the Hindu faith any less valid than that of the majority
of reincarnation believers; all are equally unprovable.  A lot of people
once believed the world was flat; that did not make it so.  If there is
any truth to reincarnation, the Hindus could be correct.  They are not
necessarily wrong because they hold a minority viewpoint.

One of my complaints about species-specific reincarnation is that it is
the height of human arrogance.  Even DaVinci recognized that there is very
little difference between man and any other animal.  Why should nature
favor one type of being over another?  Why is it that only humans should
be granted souls?  If the soul is a function of personality, then I know
a lot more dogs who will be floating in "the great beyond" than DEC engineers.

    > Wouldn't we all have memories of past lives? < 

See above.


    > Moreover, there _is_ testimony of the recollection of past lives. < 

Yes, and there is testimony that the moon is made of green cheese.


    > Without memory of what one is being rewarded or punished for, one
    learns nothing from the retribution, which is then morally unjust and
    useless. < 

Yes.  And above all, useless.

    > Eye-for-eye retribution is not the only form of moral education. -
    For example, if _impatience_ caused Tom to inflict injury on Jim, the
    morally important thing as regards Tom is to acquire the patience he
    lacks, not to have similar injuries inflicted upon himself. < 

That only works if Tom is made to understand WHY what he did to Jim was
wrong.  It may be necessary to make him feel Jim's pain to do that. Otherwise,
why should Tom feel compelled to change?


    > Reincarnation does demand a subtle mental attitude and entails an
    understanding of the higher planes of consciousness, the law of cause
    and effect, and laws of evolution.  It is possible that these reasons
    have contributed to some theorists belief that it could have adverse
    psychological effects on the masses since they might not fully
    understand the theory.  Yet the theory is here to stay, and for those
    who are familiar with the intricacies of the theory it forms a clear
    and logical rationale for the purpose of (wo)man's existence. < 

So now reincarnation has leapt from being a hypothesis (which it never really
was anyway) to being a theory!  You also state that this belief requires
a "subtle mental attitude (whatever that means) and an "understanding of
higher planes of consciousness."  What are these supposed higher planes
and what is the proof of their existence?  You have also not demonstrated
any connection between evolution and reincarnation (there are no "laws
of evolution," BTW).  Although your reply was interesting for other reasons,
it did not supply any more validity to the notion of reincarnation than
already existed.

John M.                                                            

    re .-1 (John)
    
    You seem to believe that although most people do not believe that
    humans incarnate as animals, or animals as humans, there is no reason
    to not believe that animals are not (usually) reincarnated as like
    animals.
    
    As for the mathematical problem, of there being too many people
    currently on the earth as compared to former times, maybe *everyone*
    was not reincarnated, or there are several people currently on the
    earth that are actually only one soul.
    
    As for children remembering the details of someone's life (people,
    places, situations, etc...), but not remembering the 'how-to' stuff,
    like tieing their shoes or feeding themselves, remember, people
    with amnesia seem to remember how to do things, but don't remember
    people, situations, places, or anything like that.  Maybe these
    things are stored in the soul, so a head injury doesn't hurt them,
    and how-to information is stored in brain cells, and can be injured
    (as in the case of the person with amnesia), or lost, when one goes
    on to another body.
    
    You certainly haven't covered all of the bases...
    
    Elizabeth

    There are more people on earth today than ever before.  In some
    arguments for reincarnation, this is addressed by saying that more
    than one body may share the same soul.  If this be the case, then
    for any N bodies sharing a soul, the soul-content of each body
    becomes 1/N.  Otherrwise, if a soul can inhabit only one body, then
    for N people whose bodies could house a soul, there would be N-1
    bodies that are soulless.
    
    Either way, if reincarnation has any meaning, is it any wonder that
    people today are like they are, for the most part? :-)
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    
    
    Another thought regarding more people on earth today than before...
    A couple of people I know who have had past-life readings were told
    that this is their first time here - that they are not indigenous
    to the Earth (or possibly even the galaxy).  Who knows?
    
    Carole
    

    
    Good point, Carole...the "maximum souls exceeded" argument narrowly
    takes the view that souls only incarnate on Earth.
    
    I've been told many times that I'm a space alien. >:^)
    
    Tananda
    

    	Also remember that we are part of only ONE universe.  Who's 
    	to say how many other universes there are and what they're
    	comprised of?  Perhaps we experience life in other
    	universes in between experiencing life on Earth or in other
    	parts of our own universe.
    
    	When infinity is involved, mathematics are redundant.
    
    	Carla
    

.95   Whew!  I think that would leave me a bit shaky also.

Do you know anything about him? Who he was, where he was from? Did he say
why he bothered to stop and tell you all this?

Jay

    Reply to .95; Ray,
    
    That would certainly curdle my sox!

    Ray,
    
    I found your story fasinating, and interesting.  He has already
    given you a background, Have you thought of going to a psychic to
    get another reading?  It would be interesting (and probably possible)
    to get a name, city, etc. and see if you could do some research
    about your past life.
    
    Considering the troubled life you've lived, you may find this to
    be the way to put some troubled spirits to rest.
    
    Dave

    re: 84 and 92
    
    The Ruth Montgomery book you're referring to is "The World Beyond."
    For some insight into creation, etc., "The World Before" is an
    excellent source (also R. Montgomery).
    
    For some further info RE: space beings, aliens, Ms. Montgomery gives
    us "Aliens Among Us."  Very worthwhile reading.  In fact, ALL of
    her books are VERY hard to put down, once started.  (I suggest starting
    with her first, and proceeding to the latest.)
    
    - Cindy
    

    Those interested in learning more about reincarnation from a Christian
    viewpoint would do well to read some or all of the following books 
    available from:
    
    	 Religious Research Press
    	 Box 208 
    	 Grand Island, FL  32735

 [The prices listed are postpaid worldwide.]
 [orders of 3 or more books, subtract 20%  ]

	Karma The Great Teacher  455 pages	$14.50

	Destiny of the Soul  285 p.		$12.50	

	Dr. John: He Can Read Your Past Lives
					270 p.	$12.50

	Death With Understanding  282 p.	$12.50

	Diary After Death   148 p.		 $7.50

	Development of Religion as a Science
					92 p.	 $4.50

    
    	- Bill Keefe

    "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the
    judgement:"
                                               Hebrews 9:27
    
    In this day and age where evil is called good and good, evil.
    Where people with itching ears heap to themselves those who expound
    and propagate the wildest concepts based on incredible myths and
    fantastic assumptions; reincarnation is at the head of the list.
    Why? Because it provides the most palatable premise of them all.
    If you can't get it together in this life . . . not too worry, we
    all get a second and a third and a fourth and a fifth chance . . . 
    ad infinitum. "Now there's a convenient belief" many think. It makes
    sense, why it's even logical to a great extent; it "seems" right.
    
    "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the ends thereof
    are the ways of death".  Solomon said that                                                       
    
    
         
    

    re: Esposito (do you have a first name? we like to be friends here.)
    
    That is the Judeo-Christian belief.  Others herein may subscribe
    to other beliefs.
    
    I was raised Catholic, but was unable to get behind some of the
    corresponding mysticism.  There are numerous other religions and
    beliefs that, given we assume there is a god, must be acceptable
    paths to reach him.  I am quite willing to believe that *no* religion
    *entirely* and *totally* encompasses the "word of god".  The various
    religions each contain part of the message.  It is up to each of
    us to interpert god's message when and where we find it.  There
    will be those who are wrong either by choice or by interpretation.
    Must they be condemned?  (each must answer this according to belief
    I step aside here)  My personal belief is that if you adhere to
    the Golden Rule you will encompass a large percent of all religions.
    
    What happens when we die?  We will all find out.  We will all likely
    be surprised.
    
    Stan

    Re .103 (Stan):
    
    >What happens when we die?  We will all find out.  We will all likely
    >be surprised.
     
    I love it!  May I use it (with attribution)?
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    re: Steve and others
    
    Use it with or without attribution.  If I say something useful here
    that is, in part, my goal in participating (the other part is finding
    something I can take to heart i.e. learning).
    
    Stan

    >"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the
    >judgement:"
    >                                           Hebrews 9:27
    
    >In this day and age where evil is called good and good, evil.
    >Where people with itching ears heap to themselves those who expound
    >and propagate the wildest concepts based on incredible myths and
    >fantastic assumptions; reincarnation is at the head of the list.
    >Why? Because it provides the most palatable premise of them all.
    >If you can't get it together in this life . . . not too worry, we
    >all get a second and a third and a fourth and a fifth chance . . . 
    >ad infinitum. "Now there's a convenient belief" many think. It makes
    >sense, why it's even logical to a great extent; it "seems" right.
    >
    >"There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the ends thereof
    >are the ways of death".  Solomon said that                                                       
    
    That was a nice try, but your mythology is 2,000 years too old.
    Want to update it??
    
    B*B Mikie?

     Re: .102
    
    Your response is basically one reason why reincarnation was editted
    out of the bible.
    
    The whole point of karma & reincarnation is to ascend to the next
    plane of consciousness.  If you have the attitude of "Oh well, I'll
    just make it up in the next life...", you will keep on incarnating
    until you get it right, and most likely, each of those lives will
    be "worse" and "worse" regarding that situation.
    
    It has been my observation (and is certainly true for myself) that most
    of the people that I know of who adhere to the karma/reincarnation
    belief system really try hard NOT to wrack up bad karma and tries
    to work out their karma and to wrack up Dharma (good karma).  I really
    don't think I know of anyone who has the attitude that you have
    mentioned. If a person has that attitude, he does not understand the
    whole concept of karma/reincarnation, does not fully believe in it, and
    is using it as an easy out.
    
    Please be re-assured that the majority of people who truly believe
    and understand the concepts of karma & reincarnation do NOT have
    the attitude as you described.
    
    Working_full_time_that_this_is_my_last_life,
    
    Linda

re; Esposito...

A thought, here.  I know of people who believe that someone died for their 
sins, and so, it doesn't matter if they commit them; they can do what they 
want, because they are Saved.  And these same people condemn the idea of 
reincarnation, as you have.  They don't look to their next life to make up 
their Karma; they look to someone else to do it for them.

Bottom-line; We are human.  We shall err.  Hopefully, we shall also forgive 
those around us who err, and forgive ourselves for erring, and do the best we 
can, because that is the best thing to do, not because someone else says we 
should.

    Whew... all this boggles a little mind a little...
    
    I am afraid I can only have one working assumption:
    
    	"This may be the only shot I get!"
    
    Now I have 2 choices:
    
    	a. Whooopppeeeee!!
    
    	b. Do it right the first time.
    
    No matter how you look at it you can rationalize two alternatives.
    I am afraid you are stuck with free choice now matter what you believe.
    (CAUTION TURNS IN LOGIC AHEAD --> even if what you believe does not 
    allow you free choice)
    
    Stan
    
    Aside to Daniel (sorry, your first name slipped for a moment):
    
    	I saw a bornagainer on TV who basically said "because I have
    	been "born again" I know I will be saved.  Therefore, it doesn't
    	matter how I live my life."
    
    	Boy, did I change the channel in disgust!  It was almost beyond
    	my conceptual abilities to believe that a person could actually 
    	think (and I use the term loosely) like that.

    The following is a quote from a book titled The Healing of the Planet
    Earth: Personal Power and Planetary Transformation by Alan Cohen:
    
    "You might also be fascinated to know that until the sixth century A.D.
    reincarnation was an official doctrine of the Catholic Church.  At that
    time the governors of the church body met at the famous Synod of
    Constantinople.  There, by a vote of five to four, the board decided
    that reincarnation was no longer true.  Five to four!  That means that
    one man's vote determined that you get to come around only once instead
    of making a return trip.  
    
    Just think: What if the man with the swing vote was hard of hearing and
    he was just scratching his ear when the vote was taken? Woody Allen
    would have a field day with that one!"
                                                                       
    

    RE: .102
    
    "Why do our teachers say that Elija must come first?  He [Jesus]
    replied, "Yes, Elijah does come first to set everything right. Yet how
    is it that the Scriptures say of the Son of Man that he is to endure
    great sufferings and to be treated with contempt? However, I tell you,
    Elijah has already come [John the Baptist] and they have worked their
    will upon him, as the Scriptures say of him." [Mark 9:10-13]
           
    Scripturally speaking, one can say that John the Baptist was the
    reincarnation of Elija.  Expect him again before the 2nd coming.
    
    John M.                                         

    I never believed in reincarnation per se until earlier this year.
    As a Catholic, the particular way that "reincarnation" had been
    presented to me in various literature/media sources didn't mesh.
    What really sent the bells of my subconsious ringing was the material
    on Edgar Cayce, himself a devout Christian Fundamentalist until
    an "accidental" initial pouring forth of his subconsious.  His insights
    are God-centered, Life-centered, Love-centered -- Centralized. 
    It just makes sense that one must rid his soul of anything non-good
    before meshing WITH good, that one must purge himself of il-will,
    malice, resentment, lack of forgiveness (this is essential), or
    anything that feeds the energy known to us as "evil" and stops us
    from growing and loving.
    
    Whereas some of you think of God as being toying, even cruel, by making
    us "do it until we get it right," I think this is just a natural
    attribute of a loving creator.  (How many of you have children that
    follow their own will over yours, and won't you always give them
    another chance to be the person you know they can be?  How many
    times as they grow will you have to forgive them?  70 x 7 ?
    
    Yes, the lamb has been sacrificed, but individual redemption continues.
    If you take what are known as the sorrowful mysteries from a religious
    to a psychic level, it just continues to make sense that (1) prayer
    (getting to the core of your being, letting the cares of the
    earth-plane dissipate), (2) modesty/purity (stripped of baggage, not meaning
    saintly or perfect), (3) courage (to do what is right/needed/the
    most loving alternative), (4) PATIENCE IN SUFFERING (you are being
    given the chance to offer this suffering as a redemption for
    yourself/soul, in all its earthly manifestations), and ultimately
    (5) SELF-DENIAL, "not my will by thine".
    
    Another thing that makes sense:  It's a good thing that reincarnation
    is NOT considered "reality" by the "mainstream" public.  What is
    meant as a vehicle would become a stumbling block, as people fought
    with guilt, shame, heavy knowledge, old resentments/hurts.  While
    I'd love to have a life reading someday, I'm not sure I'd want to
    know who or what I may have been.  It's fascinating, but frightening.
    What if I ever killed someone?  (Ray, are you still reading this
    conference?  How are you dealing with the 'revelations' a year later?)
    What if I hurt animals or children?  I couldn't live with myself
    if I knew these truths about myself, and would waste such energy
    dwelling on this instead of LOVING NOW.
    
    There is so much more I want and need to learn about reincarnation,
    now that I understand it in a different, more basic way.  Are there
    any bonified, credible groups (a la Virginia Beach) in Massachusetts?
    
     2
    M
    
    [My friends called me 'Maureen the Mystic' in college, presumably
    with a grain of salt ;-) .]
    
    

    re: .112

    >There is so much more I want and need to learn about reincarnation,
    >now that I understand it in a different, more basic way.  Are there
    >any bonified, credible groups (a la Virginia Beach) in Massachusetts?
    
    You can try the study group of the Aquarian Foundation (called the
    Aquarian Truth Centre of Light).  They have public services on Sundays
    at 11am and on Wednesdays at 8pm at the YWCA in Boston on 140 Clarendon
    Street (for now on the 6th floor, but in a couple of weeks they
    will meet in the 2nd floor library).  For more information you can
    contact Kim Thiele at (617) 723-9100.
    
    Linda

re: .112 (Linda)

    If you are particularily interested in Edgar Cayce, you can write the
    Association for Research and Enlightenment (ARE) in Virginia Beach.
    Most Edgar Cayce books contain address info and membership applications.
    Joining them, if that is what you wish to do, can put you in touch
    with local study groups that discuss and apply Cayce principles,
    including reincarnation.

    Terry

    Funny that this note should come up with NEXT UNSEEN for me right 
    now ... just last night, I was reminding an old friend of some 
    things he had taught me 10 - 12 thousand years ago (or was that 
    10 - 12 thousand years from now ... I can never keep that 
    straight).

    For what it's worth, I think of life  as "going to school."  This 
    time, I've signed up for this particular curriculum; last time it 
    was to learn something slightly different; next time it will be 
    something else.  Of course, sometimes you don't learn as much as 
    you had hoped ... so you sign up for a very similar set of 
    courses next time.  Sometimes, you go back and review lesson 
    you've learned before, but have become "rusty" on.

    I don't think we ever flunk ... or graduate.  I am not looking to 
    "move on to a higher plane" or "go home" ... I am on a higher 
    plane; I am home.  From my point of view, "Life, the Universe, 
    and Everything" (thank you Douglas Adams) is the Creator in the 
    act of Becoming ... Forever is all there is.

    With Love,
    Terry

    I am what you would call your typical semi-believer (I guess) in
    the area of unexplainable occurrences.  There are things that I
    believe in (either through personal experiences or the fact that
    the possibility of it seems feasible), things that I could believe
    in given the proper facts, and the things that I don't know if I
    could be convinced on.  The main thing on the latter is the existence
    or actuality of Reincarnation.  I know people who firmly believe
    in it and those who are dead set against it (no pun intended). 
    So I thought that this would make a good topic for discussion in
    this note.  
    
    Any comments, opinions or stories anyone?
    
    
    >> David <<

    
    	I have personally experienced what I think of as 'archaic
    memories'.   I know that kind of experience is what has generated
    the belief in reincarnation.   Personally I think there are many
    possible explanations that could account for such memories, such
    as;
    
    	1) a genetic based racial memory
    	2) a collective unconscious mind 
    	3) reading the 'akashic records'
    	4) reincarnation
	5) confabulation (dreamlike events invented by the subconscious)
    	6) the presence of spirits (the memories are theirs, not ours?)
	7) other?

    I would really enjoy someone's proving to me that any one of these
    theories are really better than the others.    Is there any foolproof
    way to determine the source of memories?   Once I dreamed a whole
    wednesday, tuesday evening, and awoke thinking it was really thursday, 
    so I think it's easy to mistake one kind of 'memory' for another.

        					Alan.

    
    Re: < Note 1057.1 by SSDEVO::ACKLEY "Mediumfoot" >
                -< Archaic Memories: where do they come from? >-

    Perhaps it'd be good to discuss how physical memory works. My imression
    at this time with no real study is that memory is composed of charged
    neurons, each with 1000s of connections that can be overlayed with
    other memory signals if the brain allows such. 
    
    My point is, and I need to look at it more, that some memories can be
    layed over others creating new memory that has very little to do with
    what actually happened. 
    
    How do we then know the difference between real and confused memories? 
    
    

    re: .0
     
         This is not a new topic here.  Please observe note 77,
    which is on reincarnation.
    
         Interesting that this comes up today (for me) since last
    night I watched a video I taped from Sally Jesse Raphael's
    show last week which dealt with this subject.  There is a
    psychiatrist who has written a recent book who started getting
    such impressive results with patients using hypnosis and
    "past life regression", that he has come to firmly believe
    in this probability.  He was on the show with several other
    educated people who believe, along with a clown (in my opinion)
    from CSICOP (sp?) [the organization of skeptics Topher has discussed
    at length in the notesfiles.]  He did nothing to impress me on
    her show.
    
    Frederick
    

    notes 77.116 - 77.119 were moved here from note 1057.* 
    
    	- Bill Keefe (moderator)

I attended a conference on Traditional Indian Medicine recently (for more
about the conference I attended, see GENRAL::NATIVE_AMERICANS note 60) and 
the leader discussed reincarnation.  I loved what he said about it:

	"You don't have to believe in reincarnation, because it is
	 going to happen whether you believe in it or not."

How's that for logic?  ;-)

Judy

          I have my own personal view on this subject.
       re-incarnation implies a type of automatic service provided by??
       I believe the correct wording is incarnation,this implies that
       we are here now,incarnated by our choice,maybe once a century
       or every millenia.I think my wording "our choice" is key.
          As an incarnated SPIRIT we have power and are the envy of
       the spirit realm.We choose when,where,parents{by agreement},
       and all the leasons we are here to learn.My life presently
       has been a proccess of remembering.Awakening may be another
       term that aplies.Its not really important to remember past lives
       we are the sum product of all of them right here and now.What
    is important is to awaken to our responsibility and power to shape
       our futures.Our reality.DIVINE LAW::Energy follows thought!
       Think on these things.E=mc2 this works both ways!!!!
                        
    
      BLUE SKIES,
                 HOWARD
    
    
                                                                   
      
    

     I was browsing through the book store the other day and saw a book

  I had not seen in years ( Psychic Energy, by Weed??). He had a

  technique in it to see yourself as you appeared in a previous life.

  Basically you set up a mirror and stare at your reflection by

  candlelight asking to see yourself in a previous life. He said that

  friends can also do it by staring at each other. It also stated that

  you should not do it to long and if you do not get any result take

  a break before trying again. I had read the book years ago and had 

  tried it with surprising results. At first nothing happened, but I found

  that if I stopped myself from blinking parts of my image seemed to start

  to disappear and change. Suddenly I was looking at a beast of a man

  with a metal collar around his neck. The metal collar looked a gold

  color but I did not get the impression that it was jewelry. He looked

  more like a beast that was chained. Although it did not convince me

  that reincarnation and such is real it was for me an interesting

  experience. ;^) Have any Dejavuers tried this? 

               G.D.

  

   

      

    Reply to .124, George, (?)
    
    I've done this myself with very interesting results. A lover and I did
    this exercise for 20 minutes. Her face changed into at least two other
    faces. She didn't tell me what mine did. The very interesting part is
    that she reached orgasm. Both of us were fully clothed we weren't
    touching.
    
    That's my kinda' woman!
    
    My guess is the brain filters much incoming information. Doing this
    exercise relaxes or turns down part of that filtering. Another
    interesting items is that more faces appear in regular, unassisted
    states of counsciousness. Perception will narrow when doing this type
    stuff.
    
    I've ran this expirement in my bathroom mirror, but in full light it
    may be different. You could also try a scrying mirror, one painted
    glossy black.

    I had a similar type occurence happen to me about 19 years ago.  
    My sister, who had just returned from her honeymoon, was rushed to
    the hospital seriously ill.  I remember being very worried and just
    sat staring at her college graduation picture that was hanging in
    the living room at home.  Her face kept changing into different
    faces and somehow I felt comforted 'knowing' that these were forms
    I had known her in before and that if anything should happen we
    would be together again in another life.  This was before I had
    studied or really understood the concept of reincarnation.
    
    Ro
    

    Could anybody recommend a reputable person (or persons) that conduct
    past life regressions ? What does it cost, what are some of
    the constraints?
    
    			Jim

    	Believe you me, reincarnation is quite real.  I have memories of at
    least 10 past lifetimes.  It's weird, cause I haven't always been a
    woman!  That has a minor tendency to freak you out.  Another thing is I
    am constantly in the company of at least 2 of the same people. 
    Presently they are, my future sister-in-law, and my fiancee.  But those
    roles have changed over the centuries.  Personally, my sister-in-law
    and I are looking forward to our next "comeback" you might say.  This
    time around I seem to be attracting a lot of my past families, friends,
    and enemies.  But, what the hay, it's just another life.
    
    T.A.G.

    Isn't it a choice of who we return with?  Like maybe we owe them
    something (karma) or we like them or something
    
    It just seems to me if we HAD to come back with the same group of souls
    every time in every life we would limit ourselves and our growth
    potential
    
    For instance, let's say that in our lifetimes we meet up with people at
    different points of time who we've been with before.  What if some of
    the people we've been with before are in Europe or Africa or Asia or
    Egypt or (you get the picture)
    
    We may go our whole lives and never meet up with them...maybe not get
    to repay a debt from a former life or something, and then what?
    
    Also, by continuously surrounding ourselves with the souls of those we
    are close to from life to life we will never be challenged and then
    will not grow...
    
    What I find interesting is that according to the Tibetan book of the
    dead...they believe you are the same sex in all your lives...
    I do not agree with this and have done regression therapy and seen
    twice when I was a man instead of a woman...
    
    In Brian Weiss' book, "Many Masters Many Lives" the woman says that
    the souls choose to come back together and procedes to tell the
    hypnotist who was who in a former life...
    
    I was talking about this to a friend and said "Your daughter could very
    wel have chosen to have you as a father"
    
    It blew him away to think of this...the parents may choose when to have
    the children but the children's souls may have been with them before
    and chose to come back as children of them...
    
    But do we HAVE to come back with the same group or is it a choice?
    
    Opinions please?
    
    

    I've heard both. My personal oppinion, very humble is that we are
    compatible with certain souls and choose to meet again in most
    incarnations. However sometimes we do need to work out a karmic debt
    and a particular incarnation may take us away from our "soulmates"
    (Note: Plural) because what we need to do and experience to learn the
    particular lesson(s) may not coincide with what they are doing. 
    
    I recently read Life Between Life (forget the author's name) and came
    away disappointed. His subjects state that they are always with the
    same soul group and rarely mingle with others. This is even during the
    afterlife. Maybe on a higher plane it's different, but I don't think
    I'd like it if I had to stay with exactly the same group throughout all
    time and space and dimensions. new experiences teach also. This is not
    to say that I don't want to see some of the same folks again and again
    a lot. I do. Many of them I truly believe are current and former
    DEJAVU'ers. It took me a lot of years and searching before we found
    each other again, but we have and the joy is almost tangible when we
    get together. Not that we don't have differences, we are mostly human.
    right now. :-)
    
    Anyway, I look at my preDEJAVU time as learning some lessons and now as
    learning others and we'll see what I've learned when I pas over and
    start again.
    
    Bright Blessings,
    
    PJ 

    re .130
    
    In reference to Weiss's book, wasn't the woman born in the
    north-midwest and then moved to Florida at a later time?  Perhaps
    souls choose to return to those they know BECAUSE they know them
    and trust them?  

    re: -1
    
    So the souls know WHERE the other souls are?
    
    Like I may know that my true soul mates are not in California so I
    won't stay?
    
    (I just moved here seven months ago)
    
    I mean, provided I (my soul) fees it wants to be with them?
    
    
    Also...because we are comfortable with a group of souls does that mean
    they are our soul mates?  Can we have more than one?
    
    What if our soul mate never meets up with us?  Do we go through life
    feeling on a sub-conscious level, as if something is missing?
    
    

    
    Re.133
    
    Leslie Parrish said it best in one of Richard Bach's books when she
    said, "Haven't you ever found yourself missing someone you've never
    met?"
    
    Cindy

    re .133
    
    According to the book Many Lives, Many Masters; the subject, Catherine
    was born and raised in Massachusetts.  She moved to Miami, Florida
    which is where she met many people that she knew in previous lives.
    
    I don't recall if Catherine was "drawn" there, but she certainly
    reacted to a number of people as if she had been close to them in
    previous lives.
    
    Have you ever met someone and felt instantly comfortable with them?
    Not just idle chit-chat comfortable, but REALLY comfortable.  Able to
    "connect" with the way they think, act, as if you've known them for
    a long time.  Dr. Weiss's research suggests this may be because you
    knew this person in a previous life.
    
    You asked if it's possible that you might never find your soul-mate
    in this world.  Isn't that why there are so many unhappy people in
    the world?