Conference hydra::dejavu

       A long time ago I read a book called "You have lived before...You
    will live again." (Can't remember the authors name)  He (or She)
    simply cronicalled numerous recorded instances of people that had
    vivid recollections of past lives. Most of the instances in the
    book were cases that had been verified. The past life and incidences
    that were remembered were traced and found to have been actual lives.
    
       Being somewhat skeptical of past life rememberances I tried to
    keep an open mind on the subject, however some of the documentation
    made me sit back and think that perhaps a past life and future lives
    may just be possible.
    
       Is a past life really possible?  Or is it just DEJAVU?
    
    

    	A science fiction book by Greg Bear, called "Blood Music"
    presents the theory that some spare genetic material may
    contain racial memory.
    	Each cell contains a lot of genetic material that is not
    a part of the nucleus, and not required for accurate reproduction.
    Organelles (i think that's the word) like mitochondria, and other
    items contained within a cell contain genetic material also.  When
    the cell reproduces, the mitochondria reproduce also, but as
    if they were separate creatures in the cell environment.
    	Also virii and perhaps other little thingys can transport
    genetic material around from one creature to another.   (Gene
    splicing technology harnesses these natural gene exchanging
    mechanisms)
    	If racial memory is stored in these little scraps of genetic
    material, then people may each contain quite a mish-mash of
    "past life memories".  
    
    	This theory would go far to explain some of the oddities
    of reincarnational memories;
     
    	Duplicate genetic copies of memories may account for all
    those Napoleans and Cleopatras.
    	Some past life memories seem like disconnected scraps,
    and not an entire life's memories.
    
    
    	I have myself experienced some "reincarnational memories",
    but do not subscribe to the idea that this proves I was there,
    or was actually a person who had those experiences.
    	I believe there must be some mechanism that supports
    racial memory or collective consciousness.   I prefer either
    this genetic theory as an explanation, or perhaps the theory
    that "thought forms" may be independent of the brain, and
    can move from person to person.
    
    	Alan.

    There is no real question in my mind that occasionally facts come
    through past lives regression for which there is no conventional
    explanation.  There are many extremely subtle and difficult to
    eliminate conventional explanations for some of what appears to
    be this.  But there are a very few cases where all of these may
    be eliminated.  Generally these confirmed memories are mixed in
    with others, equally vivid, which can be demonstrated to be wrong.
    (A frequent pattern is elaborate detail about a past place and period
    and even events provided by the "memories" of someone who provably
    did not exist).
    
    Keep in mind that people seem to be able to learn things, when
    hypnotized but not regressed, when asleep, and even when wide awake,
    for which no conventional explanation nor past-lives memory provide
    an explanation.
    
    The best documented and most convincing cases of apparent past lives
    memory, e.g., Patience Worth or the cases collected and documented
    by Dr. Ian Stevenson, were produced without regression or explicit
    hypnosis.
    
    					Topher

One thing that makes me wary about past life regression is that so many
of us seem to have great difficulty even trying to remeber past events from
THIS life.  (For instance, see how unreliable "eyewitness" testimony can be
in a court of law...)

    Re .0
    
    Another idea gleaned from science fiction that might provide a
    possible solution to 'virtual' past lives would be the parallel
    universe. Many stories have been written about parallel earths in
    which history has progressed differently. If this were the case then
    possibly some of your past life memories would come from incarnations
    in an alternate universe where history was different and thus the
    memories would not check out in this one. 
    
    Paul.

    'Seth' (via Jane Roberts, now dead, unfortunately) spoke about
    virtual past lives at considerable length. 
    
    I quickly, informally, & also immediately easily visualized 
    them as long threads emanating outwards from ourselves, each
    a different length (in a different decade or century), but all
    ultimately connected back to the source, the individual who
    'owns' them while the 'net is up'. Computer terminology helps
    here: 'while the net is up' is a measure of a perception, not
    location. Personally, I imagine the 'magnitude' of perception
    is one measure of a person's progress towards enlightenment.
    A spiritual equivalent of 'breadth of scholarship'. Perhaps the
    threads have 'split-ends' into multiple-lives @ various nodes.
                             
    Certainly I'd never have imagined them as 'virtual' w/out having
    read any of the 'SETH' books. It was beyond my 'perception' as
    my comments on my regression experiences readily demonstrate. 
    
    I hadn't read any 'Seth' books by them, just Jane Roberts' novel:
    THE MAKING OF OVERSOUL #7 which helped me to dare to ask about a
    regression session @ all. (Because it allayed my fear that any
    return to a moment-of-death-experience might be devastating; my
    experience in the regression-sesion conducted by Lora Wallis was
    'intense but painless' during the experence of two of my deaths.)
                                                 
    - Boleslaw
    

                <<< DMATE2::DUA0:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DEJAVU.NOTE;1 >>>
                             -< Psychic Phenomena >-
================================================================================
JJM::ASBURY                                          11 lines   6-NOV-1987 13:32
                              -< parallel lives? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    
    re: .5
    
    There is a book entitled _Past Lives, Future Loves_ written
    by a guy named Dick Sutphen which discusses parallel lives
    and includes transcripts of hypnosis sessions which he feels
    proves that people haved lived other lives before this one
    and also may be living other lives in parallel realities
    right now. Anyone familiar with this book or any of Dick
    Sutphen's other writings? One of his other books is entitled 
    _You Were Born Again To Be Together_, which I have not yet read.

    I have always been suspicious of the past lives concept. I think
    it tends to create the attitude if I screw it up this time there's
    always the next life. Even if there is a connection between ourselves
    and life before our birth, it doesn't mean we lived back then. NLP
    material talks about different ways of remembering. It is possible to
    dissociate the memory and see it in the mind as if it is happening
    to someone else or remember it as if you are actually in your body,
    ie visual combined with kinesthetic experience. If an individual
    intereprets this last style of experience as definitely a memory
    of something that happened to me, then an evocation of a spirit
    would be understood as a past life memory. 
    
    john

    re: .10 (John)
    
        Yes, it could create that attitude.  On the other hand, knowing
    that this is one of many, there could be an attitude of making
    this one the significant which could end the process of physically
    incarnating forever (which is more akin to "If I do well, maybe then
    there won't need to be any others", as opposed to screwing up, etc.)
    "I've undoubtably already screwed up in other lifetimes, which is 
    maybe why I'm here, and THIS TIME the results will be different."
    
        There is lots more reason to support reincarnation, I just
    thought I'd balance out your thought.
    
    Frederick
    

John,

There is nothing like "screw it up" if one thinks  in terms of evolution.
Every species are right in their own way. Think of an idiot who enjoys
his own world. A thinking species like human beings are also not free
from ignorance. The key thing is to recognize ignorance as the enemy
and work toward a higher plane of existence. Life and death are part of
this wider purpose and apply to the gross body which deteriorates quickly.

A useful concept to benefit in this process of evolution might be to consider
the human body into three parts: gross body, subtle body and soul. Gross
body is what holds subtle body (mind, intelligence and sense organs NOT
instruments). The subtle body is so fine that can survive several lives and
it holds our tendencies towards a higher purpose generated as a result of
of our past actions or more technically karma. The soul is necessary in this
model because an animating principle is required. It is all pervading and
is associated to this subtle body in a very special way. I think this model
does not require the assumption of the existence of God or any other deity.

- Virendra

    re.  .11 and ..12
    
    	Did you read the rest of 391? The discussion is about possible
    explanations for the past lives phenomenon. The evidence consist
    of memories outside of the experience of the present gross body.
    That it means someone lived before is only one theory. Just because
    you remember something you did before "you" were born doesn't prove
    anything but that you experienced something. You seem convinced
    that reincarnation is the explanation. I won't rule it out, but
    considering how often spirits lie about what going on, I think caution
    is in order. Steve commented in the first note about bogus memories
    of past lives. A lot of ideas have been put forward..... collective
    memory, spare genetic material,parallel universes, threads of
    consciousness. If we back up to what we really know the pickings
    get pretty slim. The Judeo-christian scriptures talk about
    reincarnation, but  only in the context of a resurrection at the
    end of time. Jesus compared death to sleep. There are a great many
    warnings in scripture about contacting spirits of the dead, the
    implication being they aren't dead people but masquerading evil
    spirits. There is a concept developed in christian theology about
    Jesus taking on himself the shortcomings of mankind, which is perhaps
    related to emmpathy within some kind of collective memory.
    
    So..... What constitutes proof about  multiple reincarnations? In
    order to do it you have my whole cosmology as an obstacle. Its very
    consistent and even makes allowances for yours! Unfortunately they
    aren't very flattering allowances. I like you people anyway, I just
    afraid for you because of the consequenses of being wrong.
    
    john

    John .13,
    
    > ...but considering how often spirits lie about whats going on, I
    > think caution is in order.
    
    That's a curious statement John;  what experience(s) have 
    you had that prompts your conclusion that spirits often lie?
    What spirits?
    
    Karen 

    John .13,
    
    Another question...
    
    > So.... What constitutes proof about multiple reincarnations?  In 
    > order to do it you have my whole cosmology as an obstacle.  Its 
    > very consistent and even makes allowances for yours!  Unfortunately 
    > they aren't very flattering allowances.  I like you people anyway, I 
    > just afraid for you because of the consequenses of being wrong.
    
    What consequences do you see?
    
    There is no "empirical" proof John, if that is what you're looking 
    for, to tell you with 100% surety that you or anyone else lived before 
    and will live again.  All there is, to my knowledge, is subjective 
    experiences and scientific research that has, at best, only been able 
    to provide hypotheses.
    
    Maybe I hear the tone of your words wrong, but in them I see a man who 
    is currently grappling with issues of his own mortality.  It will take 
    every ounce of your beloved cosmology to deal with that one my friend.  
    
    Flexibility, open-mindedness, reason, compassion, perserverence 
    and the courage for you to direct your cosmology to make allowances 
    for itself make for good cosmological tools along the way.  
    
    Good luck.  You are not alone.                       
    
    Karen

    re  .14   lying spirits
    
    Ouija boards are notorious for bringing out liers. Channelers are
    another source of contradictory and erroneous info. Witness Edgar
    Crazy(oops, I mean Cayce).
    
    re  .15 Consequences.
    
    Many religions lull people to sleep with a variety of second chance
    doctrines. Reincarnations is one. As a christian, I believe in a
    type of reincarnation, but not one that allows one to undo the mistakes
    of the present one. Present choices determine for all eternity ones
    fate. In the bible our present existence is compared to a seed that
    is planted in death that rises into a far more advanced and complex
    growth.
    
    	Incidently, I don't believe that there is any magical significance
    in the name of Jesus as some who quote bible seem to. When the bible
    says "there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby
    we must be saved", name is used in the Semitic sense, that is to
    say character. Anyone who lives a self sacrificing life in loving
    service to his fellow man partakes of the meaning of this passage.
    Still, many things about the nature of God are revealed in the life
    of Jesus that are revealed no where else. The ego death necessary
    to lve truly is much easier if one believes in a trustworthy God. 
    
    re   .15 Coming to terms with my mortality. 
    
    	My cosmology has at its head a creator who has left enough clues
    in His natural world and religious revelation to allow me to not
    worry about my mortality.
    
    					Peace,
                                              
    					John

    re: .16 (John)
    
         Too bad your experience has so many liars in it.  Perhaps your
    "God" is trying to show you that no one can be trusted.  How far
    can you trust yourself?  
         Yes, it's so much better to think about some distant future
    when all wrongs are righted, when the unfortunate luck of the 
    draw can be corrected.  ;-}   Might as well pull out the old 
    rocking chair right now and sit around and wait for death, no?
    
    Frederick
    

    John, (.16)
    
    Perhpas I read it wrong, but it is 'your cosmology' that appears
    to be contradictory.  One one hand you say:
    
    >>As a christian, I believe in a type of reincarnation, but not one
    that allows one to undo the mistakes of the present one. Present
    choices determine for all eternity ones fate.<< 
    
    Then you say:
    
    >>My cosmology has at its head a creator who has left enough clues
    in His natural world and religious revelation to allow me to not
    worry about my mortality.<<
    
    Where does the Grace of your Creator enter here?  He gives you only
    one chance to determine your fate, so no mistakes are allowed?  Hmm,
    how does one learn if not through mistakes and then correcting them.
    In other words if one is not smart enough to pick up 'the clues' and
    have access to the revelations, one's fate is sealed.  Doesn't appear
    to be a very loving Creator or have I missed something?
    
    BTW, have you discovered contradictory and erroneous info given by
    Edgar Cayce.  Could you please share it with us?  Have you studied
    channelers in enough depth that allows you to make a blatant statement
    that all channelers give contradictory and erroneous information?
    I find it difficult to learn and share from you when you make such
    generalizations.
    
    Ro
    
    
    					Peace,
                                              
    					John
    

    Re .16 & .17
    
    Moral inertia can find an excuse in any eschatology:
    
    For an afterlife with reincarnation, the excuse is you can always fix
    it the next time around.
    
    For an afterlife without reincarnation, the excuse is it will all be
    fixed in the Kingdom Come.
    
    For no afterlife at all, the excuse is that all effort comes to nothing
    in the end, so why bother.
    
    Similarly, moral zeal can find motivations in any eschatology:
    
    For an afterlife with reincarnation, the motivation is to improve your
    karma for the next time around.
    
    For an afterlife without reincarnation, the motivation is to gain a
    favorable judgement on Judgement Day.
    
    For no afterlife at all, the motivation is to improve things while you
    can, since this is your only chance.
    
    The connection between doctrine and action is a lot looser than it may
    at first appear.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

re:                      <<< Note 391.16 by FREEBE::TURNER >>>
                 -< Sometimes I'm like a loose cannon on deck >-

>    Many religions lull people to sleep...

I believe this is true and Christianity is no exception.

		Dave

    John .16,
    
    Re "lying spirits",
    
    > Ouija boards are notorious for bringing out liers.  Channelers are 
    > another source of contradictory and erroneous info.
    
    How do you know who is the "liar"?  Spirits, the oujia board 
    operator, or the channeler?  
    
    Have you ever been wrong or contradictory in your life?  If so, did 
    you call yourself a liar on those occasions?
    
    > Witness Edgar Crazy (oops, I mean Cayce).
    
    I am no expert on Cayce, however, I understand a good deal of the 
    information he provided, especially in matters of health and healing, 
    was right on the money.
    
    Re:  Reincarnation belief - Consequences of (...???)
    
    > Many religions lull people to sleep with a variety of second chance 
    > doctrines.  Reincarnations is one.  As a christian, I believe in a 
    > type of reincarnation, but not one that allows one to undo the 
    > mistakes of the present one.   
    
    Many religions lull people to sleep -- period.  I agree with Ernie that
    "moral inertial can find excuse in any eschatology".
    
    But I don't see you addressing your original claim that you are 
    afraid for those who believe in reincarnation because of the 
    *consequences* of being wrong...
    
    A belief in Reincarnation usually walks hand in hand with a belief in 
    Karma.  Karma is the *essence* of the biblical teaching:  "As you 
    sow, so shall you reap".  Both are akin to the scientific law of 
    cause and effect.  
    
    The process of reincarnation is one way to reap what you sow, but it 
    is *not* the only way, and it is not "undoing" of past mistakes.  
    Actions cannot be "undone", as far as I know.  All you can do is reap 
    the effects of what you think and do, and imo, you will.  We all 
    will.  And we are.  We are all *today* reaping the effects of our 
    thoughts and actions of our past, (distant and immediately recent, 
    imo)  :-)  But that's another story...
    
    I believe in reincarnation.  But it does not 'lull me to sleep' in this 
    life.  In fact, it spurs me on!  My feeling about it is, "Why put off 
    to another life, what I might be able to accomplish in this one?"  
    
    For example, my mother and I have some old wounds that go back to my 
    early childhood (this life :-)) with her.  I decided a few years ago 
    to move in with her.  Among the three or four reasons I had, #2 was 
    to work on healing these old wounds with her, to create a more 
    healthy and loving relationship with her before this lifetime is 
    over for either of us.  Although I may have a multitude of lifetimes 
    to live, I'll never have *this* one ever again - I'll never have 
    *this moment* ever again - so what the heck, why not try to make the 
    most of it?  I cannot "prove" to myself or anyone else that what I've
    just stated is empirically true, it is just a belief based on
    subjective experience, readings, and reflections.  What I've distilled
    from these experiences has deepened into faith for me, as I've lived it 
    for years now, and it has served me well.  
    
    > ...many things about the nature of God are revealed in the life of 
    > Jesus...  The ego death necessary to lve truly is much easier if 
    > one believes in a trustworthy God.
    
    I tend to agree, but I would say that my own experience of a 
    trustworthy God has not necessarily made my ego death (integration) 
    "much easier", but rather more joyful.  Joy is not always easy.  Easy 
    accomplishments are not always joyful.  I strive toward joy, my ego
    strives toward ease. :-)
    
    > My cosmology has at its head a creator who has left enough clues in 
    > His natural world and religious revelation to allow me to not worry 
    > about my mortality.
    
    I am glad for you.  Perhaps there is another reason for your tone of 
    .13, which you may prefer not to share, and rightfully, choose not 
    to.
    
    peace,
    
    Karen
                            

    Re: "many religions lull one to sleep.."
    
    A friend put it neatly the other day when he said that most of the
    established religions had become inefficient at helping people know
    God.
    
    Re reincarnation: I think a lot of confusion arises due to assumptions
    about the linearity of time and the attempt to put into words that
    which possibly transcends words or for which we currently do not
    have the means/knowledge to express
    
    brian

    I agree Brian.

Don't all religions teach you reap what you sow?  (at least in some aspect)

Another comment just to correct any possible misunderstandings.  Christians
(and their offspring!) certainly do reap what they sow.  They just don't
get judged for what they sow (since Jesus takes the judgment upon
himself).

Re:  Edgar Cayce

It seems to me that at least on the physical plane (which is much more
easily verifiable than the spiritual plane), Edgar Cayce was right an
inordinate amount of the time.

Re:  "anyone who lives a self sacrificing life in loving service to his
  fellow man partakes of the meaning of this passage"

Certainly this is one interpretation.  It is not the interpretation the
church (Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant) has ever used down through the
centuries.

WOW!
    
    Our respective theologies mix like oil and water! It reminds me
    of the old Sufi tale about the blind men and the elephant. They
    each touched a different part and argued about who was right.
    I just stepped in a pile by the end with the small rope.
    
    Lets see now.
    
    "one chance to determine your fate".
    
     A lifetime is full of chances, Ones attitude toward mistakes, ones
     willingness to accept correction is what counts rather than how far
    one progresses in this life. This is why Jesus could help the most
    ignorant and degraded without discrimination. No case was hopeless
    if it responded to divine grace.
    
    re .21
    
    	 Are you awake? Awake to what? How awake? Thats another topic.
    
    
    re .17
    
    	"Might as well pull out the old rocking chair right now and
    sit around and wait for death."
    
    	 Would believing as you think I do remove your motivation for
    living?
    
    re.  Edgar Cayce.
    
    I was particularly referring to some statements he made about Atlantis
    rising again. True, he said a lot of good things about health, but
    is this the best authority you can find? Certain Sufis(them again?)
    say that various doctrines and oracular methods were started to
    occupy the unworthy, keeping them from impeding those who were truly
    on a spiritual path. So how do you tell which is which?
    
    If believing in reincarnation spurs you to greater efforts in your
    search for truth and is sincere, good. I agree with Earl that its
    attitude more than  doctrine that produces good results. Many ideas
    produce bad attitudes, though. Some are obviously bad, like the
    doctrine of an eternally burning hell. Its unbiblical, yet many
    christians defend it.  Does the doctrine increase spiritual progress
    or not? Even that could be grounds for endless argument. I probably
     shouldn't have expressed myself so vehemently, considering our
    vast differences. As to its danger, if its a lie its dangerous, in my mind.
    Am I hung up on honesty? Truth is like a telephone number. Dial
    the wrong number and you get the wrong connection, even if you have
    fun talking to wrong numbers.
    
    	I remember reading one Indian author who said the doctrine of
    reincarnation was started   to help poor serfs who
    looked upon death as an escape. Sort of like if you don't get it
    right you've got to suffer through it again.
    
    	 Unless suffering is overwhelming you, why not come back? To want
    to not come back seems weirder to me. 
    
                                                 john
    
    	

    re: .25 (John)
    
         I don't wish to get into more arguments with Christians...that
    has been eminently boring to me for the three years I have spent
    in this file (at least, it has gotten to be quite boring, and I'd
    rather spend my energies more productively.)  So, I won't engage
    you very long.  
         Why have you limited your imagination to the extent that you
    take Edgar Cayce's prediction about Atlantis literally?  Do you
    take everything you read in that Valued Bible of yours to be literal?
    Don't look now, but Atlantis has already risen...
         AS for the rocking chair, I can only tell you what is by now
    boring information for those in here who already know it...I spent
    over three decades as a fairly devout Catholic, and I know from
    whence you or at least that type comes.  You, on the other hand,
    do not know from where I come.  You haven't been there.  Moreover,
    if I considered your beliefs now, after learning what I have since
    learned, then, yes, I'd definitely be limiting the potential of my
    reality by comparison.  For me, it be like cutting off my arms,
    legs, and other favorite parts, and then asking me if life is 
    orgasmic.  Sorry, no sale.
        Destiny is not something that happens to you.  It is something
    you choose and discover.  IF my life consisted of fate, I think I'd
    be far better off sitting in the rocking chair and waiting for the
    next earthquake, hurricane, tornado, runaway truck, structural failure,
    murderer, heart-attack, etc., etc., and then justify my victimization
    with all the righteousness I could muster than to go about pretending
    to be in charge of just a few things and not having the emphasis of
    total victimization.  No, no thank you.  Thanks for trying.
    
    Fred
    

    Fred, I don't think you know where I'm coming from. I'm glad to
    hear you've escaped your catholic shackles. Perhaps you've moved
    from the frying pan to the fire. Christianity is such a horrible
    mishmash of superstition that I hesitate to identify myself as one.
    I do try to follow him, though. I've met a few people along the
    way who were enough like Jesus to keep me interested. Its definitely
    not all pie in the sky by and by.
     Unfortunately, I suspect
    that I know more about what you believe than vice versa. Part of
    what I'm doing here is similar to what Gurdjieff was attempting
    to accomplish in Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson. Someone once
    said that 1% think, 5% think they think and the rest would rather
    die than think. A lot of people settle for feeling good and not
    thinking it through and accepting b.s. The animal part of us seeks
    pleasure and avoids pain. The psychic pain of uncertainty is one
    worst kinds. No wonder people get so upset when someone doesn't
    show enough respect for their closely held beliefs.
    If pain is an obstacle between us and truth it  takes a miracle for us
    to arrive at it. 
    
    Steve Kallis' purpose (I thought) was to discuss various aspects
    and alternatives about the reincarnation issue. Perhaps I was too open
    about my personal views.
    
    SO...WHICH IS IT, VIRTUAL PAST LIVES, REAL PAST LIVES OR BOTH? OR?  
    

    re: .28 (John?)
    
         Some of your views are interesting...and possibly even very
    limited (as expressed in that response.)  The animal part wants
    pleasure?  That's interesting.  What do the other parts want?
    I had a hard time following the continuity of the three sentences
    or so that were attached to that one...don't reply for my sake,
    however.
    
         As for past lives, I think a distinction needs to be made
    about the point of reference.  Speaking from a level removed
    from normal consciousness, it's easy to say that all lives are
    illusionary, whether they are past or present or future makes
    no difference.  Virtual or "real" makes no difference, either.
    They are held in the same way by our current beliefs, and that
    is what holds the attention of our consciousness.  As you change,
    so do past lives (and so does the future...)  Some may fade away
    or become less prominent while others will fade in or have
    more impact.  I really like comparing this to movie production.
    We could take every movie ever made and store them intact in 
    a big room and select certain ones to play.  One could be the main
    feature while others could be found that have similarities or 
    that have important tangents.  OR, we could look at it as a room
    full of hundreds of thousands of snapshots, some of which were placed
    next to each other, but if separated wouldn't make "sense" at all.
    Life doesn't make sense, unless it does, unless you give it sense.
    Add a dose of beliefs along with a chunk of attitudes, then a form
    can be given and applied.  I believe this is in some ways close
    to what we've got.
    
    Frederick
    

    It does seem like everybody's talking about the different parts of the
    same thing.
    
    Fred, 
    what you are describing about our multidemensional existence as
    being a series of photographs is similar to the ideas of exressed by
    Seth , channeled by Jane Roberts.  He also authored a series of novels
    through her to help explain this concept.  The titles were "The
    Education of Oversoul Seven and "The Further Education of Oversoul
    Seven."  These novels made these concepts very interesting and 
    understandable for me.
    
    Also it is very difficult to hear the concept of everything is an
    illusion, even ourselves and  be able to accept it on an emotional
    level.  There is a dichotomy there: Yea, we are an illusion, but only
    if we realize it.  Illusion doesn't mean "imaginary" as we may want to
    understand it.  It means that we have the option of changing that
    the aspects of that illusion into anything we want.  And if there come a 
    time that illusion is no longer necessary, we can then drop the illusion 
    that we are this body.
    
There are many sources that claim that reincarnation doesn't really exist.  
Not because of doctrine and dogma, but because time only appears sequential 
when observing it from our limited three dimensional existence.  Since from 
their point of view, we are only on one plane of "three dimensional time" we 
may have aspects of existence on some other plane of that three dimension time. 
From our point of view we could only perceive these lives as existing 
sequentially.  When, in actuality, all our past, present, and future lives 
exist simultaneously.  One would think that since all our lives exist 
simultaneously, then we have no hope of learning from our past our influencing 
our future.  NO NEED TO WORRY.  Just like in this three dimensional realm,
when we impact one aspect of our life it affects all other aspects of our 
life, so does it effect our lifes in the past and present.  This can be so 
because of the multidemensional aspect of time of which we see only one small 
segment of.  This aspect is discussed in Ouspenski's works, Seth material of 
Jane Roberts, and implied in the Statement by Jesus: "Before Abraham, I  am."  
Notice he didn't say "I was." 
    
    It really seems to me that all points of view are valid depending on
    ones perspective. 
     
Hello John,

	"If pain is an obstacle between us and Truth, it takes a miracle for 
us to arrive at it."

That was beautifully said.  I have been trying to state that in some way.  
Perhaps this is why we have a tendency to grasp at beliefs long after they 
stop being effective.  I've discovered for myself that it is easier to cling 
to a worn-out but very familiar belief than suffer the pain of releasing it 
    and stepping out into the unknown. I'm not so sure it's such a
    conditional statement though.

	I refuse to consider myself a Christian, at least in the familiar 
sense. I guess, If I had to stereotype my religious identity, I would have to 
consider myself a Jew of the same sect that Jesus was. Years ago when I became 
the "prodigal Son" and went out exploring 
**Many** different paths, I began to understand what Jesus was really trying to 
say, unencumbered by the ideas of religionists.  As can be evidenced from my 
writings in this conference, I haven't given up valuing these other paths as 
all religionists including the "new-agers" seem to expect me to do.   
Also, as the prodigal son returning back home, so to speak, I have gained a 
significantly increased awareness of just how far reaching Jesus "philosophy" 
is. I talk about Buddha in my replys just as much or more than I refer to 
Jesus.  Does this make me a buddhist, I refer quite a bit to don Juan the 
Yaqui Indian, does this make me a don Juanian? (;'> I don't even consider 
myself a "New Ager."  Lately, I have been referring quite a bit to Ouspenski; 
does this make me an "Ouspenskian?"  I prefer to belong to nothing. At the 
same time I can see a purpose for everything in this universe including the 
individual religions and new Age stuff because they are all aspects of the 
perfect universe.


About Edgar Cayce,

"...but is this the best authority you can find?"

Well, on certain maladies, he very well seemed to be, especially for the 
medical field during that time.


What you say about Sufism, may be the reason they gave those various 
doctrines  to "occupy the unworthy," but I kind of doubt it. Ouspenski talks 
to this subject for the path of the "fourth Way," which seems to be primarily 
a "spiritual path." It takes an intuitive understanding to be able to apply 
the knowledge of a particular spiritual philosophy, whether it be Sufism, 
Buddhism, Christianity, etc.  Those who yet have self serving natures, 
misconstrue the knowledge and create the doctrines and dogma surrounding each 
belief.  Perhaps the effect is the same as claimed by the Sufi theory, but the 
"purpose" seems higher.


Ernie

RE: .30 (Ernie)

    > I guess, If I had to stereotype my religious identity, I would have to 
    > consider myself a Jew of the same sect that Jesus was.

    Really, Ernie?  That is a pretty tight box.  I have frequently been
    struck when reading the New Testament that when it is reporting what
    was supposedly said and done by Jesus (as opposed to interpretations
    and extensions by others) that he seemed to hew pretty close to what
    is mainstream Rabinical Judaism (which was not the poltically dominant
    form of Judaism at the time -- hence the conflicts).  Mostly he
    preached personal responsibility, good works, respect for God's
    creations (including or perhaps especially people), and conformance to
    religious law.  To say you are inspired in large part by his beliefs
    is one thing, but to say that you are actually of the same sect of
    Judaism is something else again.

    If you are not of the right descent, you would need some strong
    justification for believing that you have become part of that community
    (I do not say that you have to accept a formal Rabinical conversion,
    with all the roadblocks deliberately erected; but similar belief does
    *not* make you, according to Judaic belief, one of The Chosen People,
    and I see nothing in Jesus' words to say that he disagreed with that --
    indeed, this was part of Christian belief for several centuries).  You
    would have to follow strict Kashrut (the laws of Kosher -- it would not
    of course have to be identical in all the decisions which have been
    made in the last 2 millenia, i.e., whether or not swordfish is Kosher,
    but it would have to conform to a reasonable extension of Kashrut as it
    can be inferrred was practiced at the time of Jesus).  You would *have*
    to keep Shabbis (Saturday) reserved from work (again, details of how
    you do this are another question -- it would not, for example, be
    necessary for you to refuse all phone calls or to tear your toilet
    paper in advance -- but reserving Saturday as a day of "rest" or holy
    work would clearly be required).  You would have to celebrate Passover
    (I say that because, of all the holidays, it is the one most clearly
    celebrated by Jesus -- the "last supper" was the Sedar), and presumably
    many of the other holidays.

    I don't mean to be hard on you Ernie, but I honestly wondered if you
    really meant what you said.  I don't doubt that you thought you did, but
    it implies a very strict, specific and ritualistic religious observance
    which did not seem at all in agreement with the other things you have
    said.

				    Topher

Topher,

Let's not go overboard, here.  For those who can accept it (and millions
do), these restrictions were done away with by Jesus.  Just read Galations,
for example.  (For those who can accept it, written by Paul, called by
Jesus himself to be an apostle, and the Holy Spirit.)

Collis

    Topher,
    
    	Also, there are sources (not in my hand) that show evidence that
    Jesus belonged and was trained by the sect referred to as the
    Essenes(sp?). This sect was a more secretive, mystical sect that
    supposedly helped Jesus unfold his healing abilities, etc.  He was
    supposedly hidden away for the twenty or so years that has no mention
    in the New Testament.  While he was hidden away, He learned the secret
    doctrines of the Essenes and becasme masterful enough to attempt to
    make the knowledge more public; thus the disciples. 
    
    Now, from what I've read of the New Testament, Jesus was teaching
    anything but "Kosher" Ideas.  His statement to the effect that "What goes 
    into the mouth does not defile the man, but what comes out of his mouth
    defileth him," seems to me to speak against the ideas of "Kosherness". 
    
    	What you say Jesus taught about responsibility, good works, etc, was 
    the messages in parables given  to the masses-your literal translation you
    might say.  What Jesus taught his disciples consisted of higher or 
    "intuitive logic."   Without the intuitive understanding of Jesus' words 
    as suggested in Luke, 8:18: "Take heed therefore how you hear: for
    whosoever hath, shall be given; and whosoever hath not, shall be taken
    even that what he seemeth to have"-the implication of what he is saying
    will be completely missed.  If this doesn't describe "intuitive logic"
    I don't know what does.  I could find other references to this idea of
    "intuitive logic."
    
    And to further show that his teaching  wasn't accessable through
    concrete knowledge:
    
    " In this hour, Jesus rejoiced in spirit and Said; I thank thee o
    FAther, Lord of Heaven and Earth,  THat thou has hid these things from
    the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes...." The wise
    and prudent; those who have a large base of concrete knowledge and
    those who tend to Euclidian knowledge carefully, cannot grasp what Jesus
    attempted to teach his disciples.
    
    In fact, he seemed to do much against the religious laws of the day. I
    don't have the exact passages but I remember the people questioning his
    healing and doing other "miracles" on the Sabbath, which seems clearly
    against the religious law of that time.
    
    If Sammy Davis Jr. could become Jewish, Why couldn't I? (:'>  Actually
    I did say it  "tongue in cheek".  I enjoy playing the devil's
    advocate.  The point is: why do we have such a need to stereotype- and 
    this happens seemingly as much with the "NewAgers, as it does with other 
    religionists.  Yes, the New AGe Scene and Spiritualism can be just as
    much a religion as can the established religions.
    
    
    Ernie
                               

RE: .32 (Collis)

    This is an essentially a semantic argument.  This does not make it
    unimportant -- a semantic argument is an argument about meaning,
    usually the meaning of words, and that is the essence of understanding
    and communication.

    I am not talking about "spiritual" or theological correctness but the
    accuracy of Ernie's self-label.

    Today, there is essentially a single major sect of Judaism, Rabinical
    Judaism, with three major and many minor variants.  At the time of
    Jesus, however, there were a large number of different sects, many of
    whom left no surviving records of their beliefs.  It is almost
    universally believed by non-Christian historians (and widely believed
    by Christans ones) of the period, that the historical Jesus was a
    member of one such sect, and that his teachings were his (perhaps
    devinely inspired) interpretation of that sects teachings.  There have
    been attempts to link that sect with the one known as the Essenes, but
    the evidence is rather tenuous.

    Ernie was distinguishing being a modern day adherent to that sect (and
    claiming to, rougly speaking, fall into that category) from being a
    Christian, i.e., someone who follows the interpretation of Jesus'
    teachings by those who followed him (e.g., Paul).  I think that the
    distinction is a meaningful one, but am in no way stating a judgment
    about which (if either) is a better one, or a more accurate way of
    dealing with Jesus' teachings.

    There are three pieces of interpretation done by the followers of Jesus
    which have bearing on this discussion:

	1) That Jesus left his teachings and his work "unfinished", for
	   others to complete -- i.e., interpretations are needed and are
	   valid.

	2) That certain followers/interpreters of Jesus (e.g., Paul) were
	   divinely inspired and that therefore there words about Jesus'
	   teachings bear equal weight with his -- are, in effect, his
	   teachings.

	3) That one implication of Jesus' teaching -- one realization left
	   for his followers to have and act on -- was that in all senses
	   Jesus' teaching was not just for Jew's.  That being a Christian
	   did not imply being a Jew and in many ways contradicted it.
	   Hence there followed a long period of interpretation as to what
	   parts of Old Testament law were purely "Jewish law" and what
	   parts applied to all people.  The New Testament is quite clear,
	   however, that Jesus himself, for whatever reason, followed
	   Jewish law -- though his interpretation of Jewish law did not
	   always accord with that of the politically dominant Jewish sects
	   of the time.

    I have no argument with those who say that they are Christians (and
    therefore followers of Jesus' teachings) and who believe that a
    consequence of those teachings is that they do not have to follow
    Jewish law (or, saying it another way, are not Jews).  I have no
    argument with those who say they are not Christians (for example,
    because they don't believe in 2 above) but are followers of Jesus'
    teachings or have been inspired by those teachings and who similarly do
    not feel bound by Jewish law.  But to say that you are a Jew of the
    same sect as Jesus, and yet are not bound by Jewish law as interpreted
    by that sect is semantic nonesense -- equivalent to saying that you are
    a Christian but reject Jesus' teachings.

					    Topher

    About Jesus Following the Law:
    
    I think he **chose** to, out of honoring those who needed to believe in
    those laws, not because he felt he himself had to follow them to be a member
    of a certain sect; and Perhaps to lend a little credence to himself, also. 
    As a "self-actualized" person, from what I read of his text, Jesus
    chose to do what was he **needed** to do, not what doctrine and dogma of
    religion dictated him to do.  You may see the end result as being the
    same, but the process is a world of difference.  There is a spiritual
    purpose to form and ceremony that lies not in the content of the
    (religious) event but the in process of the event.  This concept is very 
    much in evidence in therapeutic psychology of today.  Just as it matters 
    not what belief system is used in counseling, but the process used; The 
    same is with ceremony, ritual, meditation, etc.  Current Jungian 
    psychology talks to this idea.  Jesus understood the **process** of those 
    religious ceremonies and chose to honor them and not just abide by them.
    
    
    Ernie
    
          

Thanks, Topher for your reply.  It does help to have it fully explained
what the various possibilities are.

However, I still disagree with you conclusion.  But it's not important
to delve into here.

Collis

    I'm sick of people telling why Jesus did what he did and what he meant
    by it. If Jesus came back today and stood in a crowd, nobody would
    reconize him. Nobody can know the meaning of anything he said until it
    all happens.  

    re: .34, Topher,
    
>    This is an essentially a semantic argument.  This does not make it
>    unimportant -- a semantic argument is an argument about meaning,
>    usually the meaning of words, and that is the essence of understanding
>    and communication.

    	This is beautiful, definitely one for my book of quotes.
    
    re: .37,
    
>    I'm sick of people telling why Jesus did what he did and what he meant
>    by it. If Jesus came back today and stood in a crowd, nobody would
>    reconize him. Nobody can know the meaning of anything he said until it
>    all happens.  
    	
    I can really appreciate the frustration shown here, and I agree with this
    statement.  I also think that the effort we make to interpret the words 
    and actions of prophets and saviours and madmen and relate them to our
    own lives (as silly and futile as that effort may be :-)) is the reason
    why we were given the power of intelligent thought.   That fact that the 
    effort often becomes tiresome and sometimes seems pointless appears to me
    to be a primary motivation behind our affirmations of faith (?)
    
    	>Todd>

    Re.13 (Turner)
    
    Hi John,
    
    >I like you people anyway...
    
    Hey, that's nice of you!  We like you too.  But you forgot to add...
    
    ...even if we do appear to be dingbats at times.  (;^)
    
    If this doesn't make sense, it's a joke from a few months back.  Not to
    take it too seriously...
    
    I suspect that when you die, you will indeed go to the perception of
    Heaven that you hold.  It may take you a while to figure out that it is
    an illusion, and a self-created one at that, but that's OK - that's half 
    the fun of it all.  
    
    Cindy