That's an interesting view.

When discussing atheism versus spirituality I often use a simlar analogy.

We are either the 'form', or we are the thing that is taking the 'form'.

Pure atheism (atheism that does not allow for any spirit world or essence), believes that we are the 'form'.

Out bodies arise, through birth, give us existence (form), we are then the form. When the bodie dies, the form deteriorates, and we no longer exist.

All we were, was the form. In that sense I would say that there was no 'spirit' or 'soul'. (I used these words to mean the same thing). All that existed was the form.

When thinking in tersm of spirituality, rather than saying that we are the form, we say that we are the think that is taking the form. And the thing that is taking the form is the 'spirit' (or soul).

The spirit or soul is non-physical. The body is just a vessel (the form that the spirit is currently taking).

Here's the interesting part. If spirituality is correct, then it seems to me that no only does the spirit not die when the body dies, but neither did it come into being when the body was born!

I could never understand the one-way thinking on that. If our true nature is spirit, then surely it would be a two-way street. Why should we think that our spirit was born with our body, yet will continue to live on after the body dies?

If we are spirit, then that's what we are, and what we always were.

I feel much the same way as you regarding reincarnation, however, I feel that there is more to it than that.

I don't believe that spirits can only exist with a physical body. In other words, when the body dies we don't need to instantly enter into another incarnation. Instead we 'awaken' in our true form as pure spirit. In that form we understand the true nature of everything. I even have dreams of what it is like to be in the spirit form.

However, the spirit form is a form of pure thought (non-physical being). There isn't much you can do as a spirit other than dream.

And your dreams can become physical realities. Thus what spirits do is imagine they are reincarnated into another physical reality.

So there is this "intermission" between incarnations when we understand our true nature. We don't just go from one incarnation to the next like dust in the wind never knowing what's going on.

There is no uliamtely goal. There is no rush. There's no destination. It's not about constantly learning more and more stuff until you finally know everything. That would be redundant. What would you do when you reach the end?

There can't be a goal. They're can't be an end. Because the end would be meaningless unless it was the beginning of something else, but then it wouldn't be an end! So there can be no end, no absolutle goal.

The only 'goal' is live incarnations. Forever. If it sounds boring the only other question would be that if you aren't living incarnation then what else is there? Anything that you can imagine to experience would be just yet another incarnation. The only way to get out of incarnations would be to cease to exist altogether.

Because as long as you exist you are in an incarnation (or pure spiritual form which is just a non-physical incarnation).

There's just nothing else to do or be. No goal would make sense unless the goal was to cease to exist. That's the only goal that would be final. But it doesn't sound like a goal that would be worthy of shooting for.

Unless of course you're just plain tired of existing.

I see no paradoxes at all in the simultaneous incarnations.
Please give me an example of what you would call "a paradox."

Perhaps you have a problem with the idea of simultaneous incarnations because of your understanding of time itself.

The main reason a human must not "remember" his past lives, is so that he can live one life at a time. The higher self is outside of the space-time of this third density reality.

It can enter the game at any point in space time. (Think of the game as a holographic 3-D environment or a computer game that you can actually plug into at any point.)

Some movies on DVD have several different endings. Games too have several different outcomes and endings, depending on what the player does or where he goes in the game.

Anyway I could write a lot of interesting stories based on this theory of reality.

JB

for all the philosophy and rhetoric and theorizing, no one really knows do they?

Well if we knew there would be no need for discussion would there?

One individual can only know what they have experienced.

The rest is opinion.

I know I exist. That is all I know for certain.

JB

Of course not.

They why they call it 'religion' or even 'philosophy'.

If we knew, we'd call it 'science'.

Actually it's my own personal view that of all the religious philosophies that I'm aware of, the pantheistic views are the most compatible with what we know of science.

Science can't prove them, but it doesn't conflict with them (or maybe I should say that they don't conflict with science).

However, the Mediterranean religions that are based on "Zeus-like" Gods, do seem to conflict with science, history, and common sense. Not to meantion that they aren't even self-consistent in their own proclaimations. They claim that God is one thing, but then go on to tell stories where he appears to be acting entirely out of character.

Personally I would reject the Bible just based on it's own inconsistencies even if I knew nothing of science at all.

I just can't see an all-wise, all-loving God asking people to stone sinners to death (that would automatically require that they judge them_).

I can't see an all-wise God requesting blood sacrifices from people to atone their disobedience.

I can't see an all-powerful God putting up with any crap for a stupid fallen angel.

I can't see an all-powerful God flooding out an entire planet when he could obviously just give them all cancer, heart attacks, or just make them disappear if his so "all-powerful".

Going through the trouble of flooding a whole planet just seems far too crude for an all-wise all-powerful being. That just seems to be way too messy and uncalled for.

Also, wouldn't an all-wise, all-power, all-knowing God have nipped thing in the bud before they got that bad?

Why didn't he send Jesus before the flood?

Why did Jesus disagree with his dad? Jesus didn't seem to like the idea of stoning sinners to death or getting revenge of an-eye-for-an-eye and a-tooth-for-a-tooth. He taught forgiveness and to turn the other cheek. Doesn't even sound like the same God to me.

Why would a supposedly unchanging God change his mind?

Why would a God who told people to procreate require atonements for their spiritual purification after having given birth? Why would the same God frown upon a menstrural cycle as being 'unclean'?

Just way too many self-inconsistencies for my taste. No science even required.

The Rev. Al Green has soul.

http://www.algreenmusic.com/

Very cool my space page. I am listening to his music now.

For me, the paradox is most easily expressed by using your example of "meeting yourself". Per my concept of 'I', that is a nonsensical statement. There is only one 'I'. Everything else is 'not-I'. So anything that 'I' would "meet" is, by definition, 'not-I'.

Although I have some differences of opinion in other parts of your post, I am totally on the same page with you here. Especially regarding any necessity of 'I' to occupy a body. (I just didn't bother to take the time to explain myself as fully as you did.)

We meet ourselves every day. In my view we are all connected anyway. We are all One.

Some of us are connected more directly.

The "I" is both the little self and the Higher self.

The higher self is like a time traveler. It sends a life stream to any place in our spacetime and incarnates into a body there.

But it sends more than one life stream, it sends many. The experience of time from the perspective of the Higher self is not the same as the experience of time in this world.

The higher self's time is in relation to events, they are not in relation to the movement of bodies through space... (Sun, earth, planets etc.)

BE A TIME TRAVELER:

Now imagine that you could go back in time and meet yourself when you were 20 years old or even 15 years old. Perhaps you need to talk yourself into or out of something you were about to do. Perhaps you were about to make a huge mistake and you could go back in time and try to convince yourself not to do that.

What then would you say to yourself? Would the person you were talking to be the same person that you are now? (Hint: No he would not be.) He is the younger version of you. He does not have the experience behind him that you do. He thinks you are some crazy old man giving him advice. Yet he is you, ~~ only a younger you but he is not the same person.

Now take that a step further and go back in time to a past life and meet yourself. You might be wiser because you have lived longer and learned more. But how would you council this person that you know is you but he does not know this?

First of all, he would never believe that you were him in his future life probably.

We meet each other every day. Each person you meet is you in another life. They are animated by different life streams and even different higher selves, but they are all connected ultimately to the one God or the ONE SELF that we call God.

That is the way I see it. The "I" you are thinking of is the little self, it is not the true self. It is only part of self.

JB

Ok, well you seem to be explaining away the paradox by saying that when "I meet myself", it's not really "I" meeting "I", but somebody else meeting somebody else. Which certainly dissolves the paradox. But it kinda disolves everything else too. Now, sometimes 'I' is 'I' and sometimes 'I' is sombody else. And who 'I' is depends on what time it is!?!?!?!

There is one other viewpoint under which it could make sense. A sort of "quantum spirituality" where everything is really everything else. But for me, that would be just about the most terrible thing imaginable.

Different tack...

Close your eyes and get a picture in your mind of your house (or car or pet or anything).

Now, when I use the term 'I', what I am refering to is "that which is aware that it is looking at the picture."

So if that's what you call "the little self", then good - we understand each other. Otherwise we're not really even talking about the same thing.

For me, the "little self," is the personality of the current life you are living. You might call it the ego but I define it as the "person" who you are now.

The higher self is the true self. It operates through the little selves.

But still we are individuals. And each of our lives will be retained within the higher self and all memories and information will contribute to that self.

We are not the "borg." We have individual desires and lives and interests.

But I believe we are all connected, (some closer than others.)

It is not likely that you would run into one of your "other selves" but it is not impossible ~ given the time travel nature of the incarnation process. (I think it would only happen if it were "necessary" for some reason, and that meeting would be directed by the higher self I think. But these are only possibilities that I think about, not anything that I know.

If you were to run into one of your "other selves" or a past or future incarnation, you may never even know it.

What I meant when I said that if you could meet the person you were when you were age 20 you might look at yourself and not even recognize yourself. You are not the same person anymore.

Each time we learn and experience something new we change. We are not the same person anymore.

After the higher self completes its incarnations in these worlds they are so changed, they would not be recognized by any of their good friends who did not do the earther game.

The commandment "love they neighbor as thyself" is for a reason. Thy neighbor is you ultimately. It is a pantheistic thought that while we are individuals we are also ONE.

Also you have heard the saying, "What you have done to others you have done to me." Or What you do to others you do to yourself." or "There but for the grace of God.. go I."

"I am you and you are me, look what we have done to each other."


JB

That "I" is the observer. It is the point of view. It could be the true self and the little self... it is you, and it is the real you.

There is no real separation between the true self and the little self. It is just that the little self cannot contain all that it truly is and knows.

JB

I experienced being conscious in two bodies at once in a dream and this is how I came to understand how it might work.

In this dream, I was one person operating two bodies. Same mind, same awareness. I was in two places at one time.

One of my bodies was learning to ride a motorcycle and since this was a rather dangerous task and I was just learning, I needed to focus on what I was doing completely or risk killing my other body.

So in the other body, I withdrew my attention from what I was doing and laid down on the couch and took a little nap in order to completely focus on riding the motorcycle.

If I had been doing a task that I was used to doing that did not take much attention, I would not have needed to do that.

In the operation of only one body at a time, it is sometimes necessary to focus on a specific task if you are just learning it. But if you are skilled at several tasks you might be able to do two things at once.

I can watch a movie and paint a portrait at the same time. I can carry on a conversation and paint at the same time.

State of consciousness is simply a matter of where your full attention is.

People who do remote viewing simply remove their attention from where they are and place it somewhere else. They don't need eyes to see what is there.

JB

One thing I want to make perfectly clear. I strongly believe that individuality is retained and the "person" survives. In the case of the higher self, that IS THE PERSON. It collects all its experience from all its personal lives and they together become the individual.

It is similar to how you collect all of your life experiences and you become who you are today.

Would you trade all that you have learned in this life to be 20 years old again?

I doubt you would, because you would forfeit who you have become through your experience.

Experience is what makes you who you are. You do not loose that when you die.

JB

Ok, I think I got where you're coming from.

The aggregate experiences of ‘I’ create, mold and/or modify the "personality". The “true self” is ‘I’. The “little self” is the “personality”. The “little-self/personality” is not ‘I’. but is the manner in which ‘I’ acts upon or reacts to circumstances that occur during “life”.

And the "simultaneity" thing is actually a single ‘I’ that is “multi-tasking”.

That about sum it up?

Yes that about sums it up.

Once all of your lives come to an end, they are taken up and become part of the "I" that is you.

You will retain all of their memories and experiences. All will be shared, and each "little self" (incarnated life) will remain a part of you.

JB