reincarnationcafe

Past lives are not role play.

A verifiable past life does not create a stereotype by which all other possible past lives are measured. Human personality is as varied as us humans, ourselves. Our current selves don't fit into single paragraph compartments let alone our past selves. We may choose to repeat certain themes out of familiarity and comfort. Living a life in a certain role doesn't stereotype us into that same role for the rest of our lifetimes.

Past lives don't give right to presume knowledge.

You've still got to go to school even if you were once a renown genius. Past lives aren't permission to unduly criticize, assume expertise in advice, draw conclusions without the foundation of research, etc. Remembrance of past lives can be a first-hand experience into history and humanity. Then again, your memories may be wrong.

Past lives don't presume accomplishment.

You may have been great and accomplished many great things. You still need to get out of bed and make a living. It's difficult for accomplished people to live off past success in their current lives regardless of recognition. Daily bread is bought with daily income. Past lives aren't substitutes for personal mediocrity.

Past lives don't follow formula.

Past lives are not algebraic equations where we know C and B but need to know A in order to find the correct answer. Our past lives don't conform to our currently accepted moral systems. Our past lives aren't perfect as our current lives aren't perfect. There is no discernable black and white demarcation line especially dealing with far distant past lives when current morals were unheard of or considered immoral. We can't redo past lives. Past lives are as an equation that has been answered. We can't expect to do the same things over and over expecting different results each time. That's insanity.

Past lives don't prove religion.

Whatever your chosen religious belief is, that's just fine. Past lives are experienced by a wide variety of individuals with different religious/atheist backgrounds. Past lives don't provide proof of a single religion's doctrines nor need to fit within parameters established by a particular religion in order to be true. Past lives exist regardless of personal philosophy.

Past lives don't suspend disbelief.

Belief in past lives doesn't obligate the believer to believe anything other than the existence of past lives. If we choose to believe in whatever we fancy to believe in, that's fine and dandy. However, it is not our right to shame other believers into buying our particular world-view. We have every right to use the same means that verify our past lives to verify any other system of belief.

Past lives aren't proof of guilt.

The doctrine of Heaven and Hell has sometimes been melded with past lives in reincarnation circles. The reason we live multiple lives, so says such philosophy, is because we sinned in the past and need to repent. In other words, we screwed up and need to learn better. What is it that we need to learn? It depends on who believes this philosophy. The fact that we cannot come to mutual agreement to what divine law is makes it difficult to define sin in the first place, let alone designate it to each other. Past lives, in turn, don't provide evidence of past sin.

Past lives don't preclude us from average human identity.

We are human. Period. We act as humans, think as humans, feel as humans, perceive as humans, anything that has to do with humans has to do with us because we're humans. We all have the same basic instinctual drives regardless of spiritual growth. We all forget. We all are vulnerable. We all screw up because we're human. Past lives are a part of our humanity.

Past lives are not a casting call for the famous.

Past lives are sometimes played like the lottery where many people clamber for a famous life but one walks away with the memories. Past lives are sometimes used as a role-call for the famous. Given the population of Earth combined with the time line of history and the average life span of human beings, chances are greater that we were once notable or lived through notable periods. Regardless, suspicion of past lives should be based upon memories. Not upon the popularity of certain historical periods or figures. Not upon the absence of claimants from certain historical periods or of certain historical figures.

Past lives do not supersede accurate research.

If any past life is to be reasonably believed by reasonable persons without active bias, then accurate research is essential. History sources can be far from accurate. That is a poor excuse for ignoring them all together. Your case may not be believed no matter how much research you do. Your case certainly won't be believed if you do none.

Past lives are not contests of spiritual growth.

Past lives are what they are. They are not indicative of the spiritual height of the individual remembering. They are not ammunition against conventional organized religion. Past lives can be means of personal awareness. However, this doesn't presume enlightenment nor the eradication of internal negativity and struggle. We are all equal in human struggles from the least of us to the greatest of us. There are no shortcuts to personal greatness. Shortcuts are designed to win out over others. A personal journey is something we ultimately walk alone.

Past lives don't presume authority.

If you were the boss in a past life, good for you. Now you're not. Deal with it. The first shall be last, and the last shall be first, says the phrase. Death changes many things. Although you may remember power, retain talent for authority, or carry a powerful presence, it doesn't give you position. Position is given by the will of the people. Wether minority or majority, your position to rule was allowed by others. The passage of time changes the rules of the game. If you're no longer willing to play by them, don't expect position. Pulling rank only works when you have rank to pull.

Past lives don't grant eidetic memory.

It doesn't necessarily follow logic that past life memory is any better than current life memory, even under legitimate hypnotic regression. More often than not, human memory is fragmentary and follows no deductive pattern. Human memory is a basic biological function and is triggered just as basically. If past lives exist, it is logical to assume that they would be remembered along with current life memories in such a fragmented and non-systematic fashion. Research is to verify that such memories occurred, and that recent memories acquired by similar means occurred, and to verify past identity if possible.

Past lives don't provide invitation into other people's past lives.

There are many reasons to feel a connection with another human being that have nothing to do with past lives. These may include hormonal attraction, repeating life patterns, charisma, admiration, fame, even outright manipulation from abusive parties, among other things. A human being has a physical and a psychic boundary. When the physical body dies the mind does not, hence reincarnation. That same psychic boundary remains intact and should be respected if healing is to take place. Past lives are not role play. Role-play involves the creation of an imaginary psychic boundary with imagined trauma. The player can leave that personality behind at will. The truly reincarnated personality cannot. Wounds from violations of psychic boundaries remain until healed. It is not the right of any believer, no matter what the intent, to create a past life in conjunction with another to explain feelings of connection. If memory and familiarity remain after all other possible explanations are exhausted, then, with respect to the other person's boundaries, it is right to heal past issues. Such healing may or may not involve the other person.

Past lives aren't proof of insanity.

If you want the audacity enough to diagnose other people with mental disorders, get a degree, a medical license, and charge by the hour. That's how the professionals do it. Even they will concede that psychiatric knowledge is changing with new information provided by better techniques in brain technology and pharmaceutical practice. The greatest minds in history have banged their heads against the wall, metaphorically speaking, attempting to discover and prove the nature of the human mind and spirit. It may be that a belief in past lives and any other belief in the incorporeal is a remnant of earlier human psychological function to explain an unknown and intimidating outer world. It may be that we are no different and that reincarnation provides believers with a sense of purpose and recognition of existence in the face of an unknown and intimidating cosmos. That's not insanity. That's human nature. There's nothing wrong with a leap of faith. These same leaps of faith are what drive us to discover the unknown.

Okay, I spell-checked and grammar-checked these as best I could and put them in one post. I finished the list off with two more. I don't know quite how to word the second to last. That's the best I can come up with right now, but as I see it, it's a very big issue. Even something I've recently lived through, to speak personally.

Anyone else?

Inspired by Wil:

Past lives are not a casting call for the famous.

Past lives are sometimes played like the lottery where many people clamber for a famous life but one walks away with the memories. Past lives are sometimes used as a role-call for the famous. Given the population of Earth combined with the timeline of history and the average lifespan of human beings, chances are greater that we were once notable or lived through notable periods. Suspicion of past lives should be based upon memories. Not upon the popularity of certain historical periods or figures. Not upon the abscence of claimants from certain historical periods or of certain historical figures.

Past lives do not supersede accurate research.

If any past life is to be reasonably believed by reasonable persons without active bias, then accurate research is essential. History sources can be far from accurate. That is a poor excuse for ignoring them altogether. Your case may not be believed no matter how much research you do. Your case certainly won't be believed if you do none.

Past lives are not a contest of spiritual growth.

Past lives are what they are. They are not indicative of the spiritual height of the individual remembering. They are not ammunition against conventional organized religion. Past lives can be a means of personal awareness. However, this doesn't presume enlightenment nor the irradication of internal negativity and struggle. We are all equal in human struggle. From the least of us to the greatest of us. There are no shortcuts to personal greatness. Shortcuts are designed to win out over others. A personal journey is something we ultimately walk alone.

Past lives don't presume authority.

If you were the boss in a past life, good for you. Now you're not. Deal with it. The first shall be last, and the last shall be first, goes the phrase. Death changes many things. Although you may remember power, retain talent for authority, or carry a powerful presence, it doesn't give you position. Position is given by the will of the people. Wether minority or majority, your position to rule was allowed by others. The passage of time changes the rules of the game. If you're no longer willing to play by them, don't expect position. Pulling rank only works when you have rank to pull.

A few edits since I didn't draft these.

Do they make sense? Sound like presumptuous horse puckey?

Past lives don't grant eidetic memory.

It doesn't necessarily follow logic that past life memory is any better than current life memory, even under a legitimate hypnotic regression. More often than not, human memory is fragmentory and follows no deductive pattern. Human memory is a basic biological function and is triggered just as basically. If past lives exist, it is logical to assume that they would be remembered along with current life memories in such a fragmented and non-systematic fashion. Research is to verify that such memories occured, and that recent memories acquired by similar means occured, and to verify past identity if possible.[/b]

Andy I'm sorry I haven't told you this already, but these are excellent. No way they sound like presumptuous horse puckey. I guess Sandra's still offline because we haven't heard from her in a while, but I suggest when she gets back that we suggest adding this to her website somewhere, or in some way making it more prominent than posts in a forum thread. People have all sorts of misconceptions about past lives, most if not all of which you've covered, so the education needs to be out there.

Warmly,
Karen

Yes Ak6. I think it is an excellent list. Everyone has had past lives. Most people remember some little bits and pieces (even if they don't realise that is what they are doing). It is a universal experience.

I agree with you, it does not bestow any great spiritual or other virtue on those who do recall things. Some remember more than others. Whatever. Like everything, it is what you do with the knowledge gleaned that is important. Will you use it for self-aggrandisement and in general showing off, or for spiritual growth, helping others, gaining in wisdom, compassion and so forth. The same could be said of any other special ability people may have, perhaps with the exception of being able to pull their lower lip up over their head or regurgitate interesting objects.

Past lives don't provide invitation into other people's past lives.

This section represents an explicitly anti-recombination viewpoint, which is not shared by everyone here, such as myself and Kris. I'd like to request that this not be included in any "official" statement on the website as it does not reflect the full range of alternative views.

Comments on specific statements:

The "invitation" is provided by the consciousness involved. It is a mutual agreement between parties. I do not believe that recombination can occur against the free will of either participant.

A human being has a physical and a psychic boundary. When the Iphysical body dies, the mind does not, hence reincarnation. That same psychic boundary remains intact and should be respected if healing is to take place.

From a nondualist/ nondiscretist standpoint, such boundaries are relative rather than absolute. They can be stretched or reorganized through various consciousness techniques.

As for what boundaries are to respected in terms of recombination, once again that is up to both (or however many) participants. The question of what constitutes rights or violations is decided between them, just as in a present-world relationship.

For example, I always get a clear sense of what parts of my counterpart's data I am allowed to share publicly -- art and poetry are okay, his personal thoughts and feelings are not. Similarly, he does not barge into my mind without my consent. We share a common ground between us, the point where our identities intersect. Either of us can act in and through that point, because it is "ours".

It's sort of like having two houses with an adjoining backyard. At times, we merge together completely; at other times we are separate. It is done with respect for the feelings of both parties.

Past lives are not role play. Role-play involves the creation of an imaginary psychic boundary with imagined trauma. The player can leave that personality behind at will. The truly reincarnated personality cannot.

This is making the assumption that recombination is only imaginary -- an assumption that not all share.

The notion that things chosen by will are less real or valid than those which are involuntary is a common one, but it is not universally held. Magickians, and Vitalists, who regard the Will as a primary creative force would disagree.

Wounds from violations of psychic boundaries remain until healed.

Here is an alternate viewpoint on wounds and boundaries:

When parts of a plant lifeform are recombined, through grafting, a wound is first made in the plant material -- pieces of branches are broken off, then the graft is wired back into place. In time, the wound heals and the grafted branch becomes an inseparable part of the host plant.

Similarly, suppose that biological tissues are transplanted from one animal or person's body to another. First a wound, a surgical incision, is made, and the new materials are inserted. If the operation is successful, the wound will heal and the new parts will be fully integrated as a living, functioning part of the organism.

Viruses can also transfer informational molecules, RNA and DNA, from cell to cell by "wounding", penetrating the cell. The cell wall then heals itself, the new genetic programming intact.

In short, the nature of biological substances is so designed that such rearrangements can occur, and even do so spontaneously. Even if an initial wound is involved, the recombined organism can then develop into a healthy, flourishing whole.

Recombining consciousness may involving "wounding" in some sense, especially if the memories and knowledge imported are not too pleasant. Certainly, there is adjustment involved. Yet, the overall result can be one of renewed health, strength and vigour.

It is not the right of any believer, no matter what the intent, to create a past life in conjunction with another to explain feelings of connection.

Once again, who confers or defines such a right? As I see it, this is strictly between the parties directly involved. No one has the authority to tell others what their "rights" to consciousness or identity are.

If memory and familiarity remain after all other possible explanations are exhausted, then, with respect to the other person's boundaries, it is right to heal past issues. Such healing may or may not involve the other person.

Healing is only one of the many purposes for which individual souls may enter into such an arrangement. And, once again, it is up to the individuals' own choice.

As I've said, I recommend that the public statements be kept "NPoV", to employ a Wikipedia term, with regard to controversies such as this, rather than to impose a specific doctrine or dogma. There are many different interpretations and worldviews in the reincarnation community. For one, I advocate freedom of choice.

Joyful- If you feel swo strongly that everyone else is wrong, then perhaps you should make youre own list instead of critisizing and snapping at the works of others. Then we could discuss the attributes of both. If Kris also believes that strongly, then I would also invite him to put in his own .02 and perhaps make his own list as well.

Personally, I agree with what Andy has to say, I think like Karens Criteria it offers a good BASIS for someone who isnt that familiar with reincarnation without all the fluffy-bunny-rainbows-out-our-asses-metaphysical-weirdo-stuff-that-you-need-a-damn-flowchart-and still-dont-understand-bullshit. It may not be all inclusive or encompassing. But then again, getting everyone- hell even a couple of people- in the reincarnation community to agree on something is sort of like trying to come to a unanimous resolution in the Roman Senate- aint gonna happen. It should at least be put somewhere where it can be discussed or seen- perhaps a sticky would be good.

Also, as an aside, as far as I know, the RC website is owned by Sandra. therefore, it is HER decision as to what is posted on there, not yours. If you disagree, that is fine, and it is naturally open to discussion. but in the end, it is Sandras decision what goes onto her (PRIVATELY OWNED) site. Yet again, you are attempting to indrude upon anothers territory. Heh, constantly trying to interced on the boundries of others... maybe you were Hitler...

Wilhelm

Joyful- If you feel swo strongly that everyone else is wrong, then perhaps you should make youre own list instead of critisizing and snapping at the works of others. Then we could discuss the attributes of both. If Kris also believes that strongly, then I would also invite him to put in his own .02 and perhaps make his own list as well.

What exactly did I say that you regard as "snapping"? As far as I can see, the vocabulary that I used above is no different from that employed in most rational discussions. I expressed disagreement. AK6 specifically asked for comments and opinions.

And, hmm. I might make out a list, when my fingers are in a little better shape.

It may not be all inclusive or encompassing. But then again, getting everyone- hell even a couple of people- in the reincarnation community to agree on something is sort of like trying to come to a unanimous resolution in the Roman Senate- aint gonna happen. It should at least be put somewhere where it can be discussed or seen- perhaps a sticky would be good.

This is true. Reincarnationist views are very diverse, and cats can only be herded so far into the corral.

Mm... perhaps that's one item that should go on the list. "Reincarnation is not one thing to all, but many things to many. It is not a topic on which one should expect absolute agreement."

Also, as an aside, as far as I know, the RC website is owned by Sandra. therefore, it is HER decision as to what is posted on there, not yours. If you disagree, that is fine, and it is naturally open to discussion. but in the end, it is Sandras decision what goes onto her (PRIVATELY OWNED) site. Yet again, you are attempting to indrude upon anothers territory. Heh, constantly trying to interced on the boundries of others... maybe you were Hitler...

I said "recommend", Brooklyn, not "command." Making requests and recommendations is, as far as I know, one of the acceptable forms of communications with a list owner. So, never fear, I can tell the difference between Sandra and Poland.

True, I wanted to get viewpoints. And I'll respond.

Violations of personal boundaries is an issue of harassment, not postulating theory to combat your own. It's meant to represent very real accounts in terms of manipulative abusers looking for prey and/or groups of people forming mutual delusion societies based entirely upon each others roles rather than external fact-finding.

My list is based upon personal experience and accounts of others. I understand these are from my own perception, which is the reason I asked for external input. What is your input, Joyful? Your input is that my list does not represent your views.

As I've said, I recommend that the public statements be kept "NPoV", to employ a Wikipedia term, with regard to controversies such as this, rather than to impose a specific doctrine or dogma. There are many different interpretations and worldviews in the reincarnation community. For one, I advocate freedom of choice.

This is a fine example of a psychic boundary violation. Such a violation is an aggressive imposition upon the intent of my will and the intellectual property of my statements. Furthermore, these statements are reflections of others accounts. I specifically asked for other members' personal lists, not critical deconstructions of my wording and demands to limit the presentation of my point of view.

As I've said, excerpts from this list are derived from personal accounts from myself and others over the years. Others are there simply to remind ourselves that if we are to present past lives as a viable system of existence then it needs to be presented in a logical, coherent, and evident manner. Otherwise, we are only fighting over semantics. I don't put up for very long with word-games. That is an offshoot of role play.

This is a fine example of a psychic boundary violation. Such a violation is an aggressive imposition upon the intent of my will and the intellectual property of my statements. Furthermore, these statements are reflections of others accounts. I specifically asked for other members' personal lists, not critical deconstructions of my wording and demands to limit the presentation of my point of view.

I think you are misunderstanding this, AK6. I was not contesting your personal right to free speech. I was referring to the idea of posting this list or a similar one on the website as an "official" statement of what reincarnation is supposed to be. I recommended that any such statement should be "NPoV" or neutral with regard to controversial issues. If one side of a controversial issue is posted in such a manner, I think the other side should also be. I am hardly denying your right to express your views -- I'm not sure where you got that from.

The passage I critiqued -- you asked people if they thought any of it was "horsepuckery", although I wouldn't employ that specific term -- sounded a lot to me like it was referring to my own theory of spiritual recombination, and was directed specifically against that viewpoint. Were you referring to something else?

A couple of my own:

Past lives do not guarantee absolute agreement.

There will always be different theories, worldviews and paradigms. Everybody has their own idea on "how things work", and there is no reason to assume that a belief in or experience of reincarnation will make people agree on the particulars. That's how it's supposed to be -- it's the marketplace of ideas.

Past lives are not "The Highlander".

... in which "there can be only one". Multiple people can and do claim to experience the same identity. The notion that selfhood is exclusively single and unitary is a Western one which is not shared by all people in the world -- or even the West, for that matter. When multiple versions of the same persona show up, they can either squabble over who has the right ticket, or perhaps compare notes, accept each other as possible counterparts and learn from their shared experiences. Identity itself is a fluid and contested notion, as the postmodernists would attest. If this is so even within a single lifetime, one would expect it to be no less so across lifetimes.

I think the list is pretty good. It would be a good companion piece to Karen's 12 reasons why having a famous past life sucks. I have an idea for a #13 for that list, while we're on the topic. If you were someone really famous your constantly reminded of your past life actions by everything from the history channel to cartoon show parodies of yourself. If someone uses your past personality to pitch some stupid product you have no say in the matter and can't sue anyone over it or receive royalties for use of your image. When you die you basically lose all rights to your image and identity and it's use. Or related to that if you see your things in a museum you really can't just take them. You know your things exist out there but you no longer own them. That's why I intend to try and leave everything to my future self in my will . Hey it's worth a try!