Search the Community

This question has a problem, and that is that it interprets (as is inevitable) infinity as a straight temporal line. In the absence of limits, endless reincarnation has already occurred infinitely many times, which is equivalent to saying that it will occur infinitely many times, or that it is occurring now infinitely many times, or that it has never occurred. once your current pattern of existence disappears, you will never have existed. Does the 10-year-old boy that you were exist now? Only your essential nature exists and it will always be that way, the forms will always be the current form, and another will never have existed or will exist, or will have existed and will exist infinitely. It is the same, the mind cannot grasp it because it works in 3d, not in infinite d.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4jWTM_o5hJg Sad so few videos about this topic maybe if anyone wants to link another one about a similar topic that would be appreciated

@Oppositionless Now that's a good question, I can't experientially confirm anything yet. There are many reincarnation models and one would wonder what exactly the condition for an NDE or actual death experience is. Does the brain have to be destroyed, what about all the distributed sensations in the body? If one is completely frozen, does that just freeze consciousness, so that no time would pass in the mean time and it would feel like a night of sleep instantly awakening to the future? And then the nature of the self and probable other selves, in fact the distinction between yourself and an identical copy, the nature of consciousness. Leo once said in one of his videos that there is only one god playing the character and everything else is fake, later he changed that to the infinity of gods each controlling a character and then you'd have to wonder if god simulating characters doesn't simultaneously live all of them anyway. And of course I'd kinda assume that there is a background god consciousness knowing exactly what happens to that individual soul of yours being frozen so I don't think you'd be taken out of the body just yet and get to experience the future personally. Many models talk about coming to Earth on a mission choosing all experiences beforehand, but that's just from what I heard/read, all speculation and I can't even confirm the reincarnational model, even though I believe it ties things together really nicely and am inclined to trust it, but that's still an subjective gut feeling/assumption I go by.

@puporing I don't want to dismiss what you are saying, I would agree on some stuff - but from my understanding it seems strange to "(not) plan about coming back", to "be required to teach/heal", to "have attraction to this universe". There is a lot of duality expressed in these words. Leo once said something around "If you can't see god in the shit in your toilet you ain't awake" - I would totally agree. This dream is getting spiced up, but no worrries. When there is literally no death, mind can get pretty twisted and sarcastic. I don't know whether I am too critical here but to be honest it seems as if you were creating a story around a messiah awakening or something like that. There are tons of people claiming to be the second coming of christ, it's almost always all words but not walking the talk. How many guys I have heard talking about their last reincarnation being jesus buddha or whatever, almost never someone claimed to have been a bug or a farmer. It's clear to me that it is all a story, I don't feel the urge to compare anymore. But if you honestly believe in yourself to be who you claim, you gotta be convincing without words. I wish you the best for it - go for it, we need jesus's today!

My intellectual pursuit is about a theory, which would hold not regarding on whether there is reincarnation or heaven or not, or whether we could have advanced psychic abilities or not. If the theory of life, karma and ethics, also the logic is not becoming inefficient with some combinations of variables, and you can always use more or less the same language, it's kind of scientific. Especially, it's communicative - science is shared -, and it allows people with different abilities and perceptions of truth to understand each others based on the same model. I do have a strong personal opinion and experience about whether I believe one or another of such claims, but for me a more important point is understanding and safe feelings with diverse world views, also the ability to point out the same mistakes. I have the most important points: Psychic Powers: Spiritual views do not specifically address that psychic powers, or deep consciousness about things like love and compassion (which have a taste of a miracle, when you experience them, even when they are basically quite simple to scientifically explain up to certain degree), would somehow require attributes of physics, which are not easy to find out or link with humans. More easy theory is that whether you have those abilities or not, your brain is still probable to develop a model of perception, which feels like real telepathy or magic power; our brain is multitasked, and when it reacts to all kinds of things, it finally creates our "virtual reality". It can be mixed - I have perceptions, which I call telepathy, but those are much more detailed and clear when I am also in material contacts with people; those can be very strong, but rather chaotic perceptions, but I can create models of brain functioning, which could reach similar occurrences without any radio contact or non-locality. I am very sure that telepathy utilizes such processes, and gains advantage of conscious and subconscious material inflow of information and processing of facts. Spiritually, this is philosophical case - it's not very important in terms of how we help the humankind and our friends, whether the psychic power is somehow "unnatural" or hard to explain; it's rather the spiritual, practical case, that it either works or does not. I would say we have many perceptions of other people, even perceptions of their emotions in more or less the same time when they are happening in the distance, and this skill can be developed further - in terms of spiritual growth, we want this human contribution and it's a side-effect if we can provide some new interesting details to science about the functioning or possibilities of humans, or about specific genes or strengths of soul, or phases of development. Enlightenment: As explained by Buddha, we do not need any mystery at all to explain why good karma, and cultivation of virtues of Buddhism and other religions, would eventually help to get to more meaningful and deeper stages of life. Indeed, clear consciousness of certain truths with a strength of a theorem, which is told to be a prerequisite to be a non-returner, leads us to best consequence. Attributes, which are similar to described psychic powers, would also appear in natural world by people simply supporting us in ways, which resemble those powers; for example we get more information as we handle it more carefully and responsibly, and our emotions affect other people more, when we are emotionally more beneficial. We could mean very material things by those terms about the powers, and this could possibly benefit the people, who understand the theorems in enlightenment, but do not have any prerequisites of psychic powers, if such are possible, or who do not want to break the philosophy of materialism - they would fulfill those ideals with material or scientific means and bring the same karmic consequence with people, who are capable of something harder to explain. To be neutral, we need to be very social with those people, who are atheists, but ethical, and create technologies or techniques equivalent to good magic. For example, by becoming more sensitive without becoming sensitives. Ethics: Equivalent models appear, whether the ethics is applied to our interactions with people and physical matter, or any kind of entities with higher consciousness or other powers; karmic or ethical principles of energy, doing good and bad, rewards and punishments - they happen all around, follow the same patterns, and eventually lead to same decisions. We can see a vision in a dream, but we cannot find out, how the brain or mind creates this - are we aware of every psychological, physical and biological factor or not. In religion, for example Buddhism, I think this is completely irrelevant; it's questionable, whether this is very important in terms of efficiency, whether we have explained it all or not. Eventually, as we measure it, we explain it and our spiritual theories would not have such exceptions or anomalies for long time - theories of magic, about how to apply will by creating a subconscious intent, is simply a psychology; those things could have been unresearched centuries ago, but today it's only a question, how many forces of nature are involved - theoretically, the magic works anyway, i.e. you can create a subconscious intent somehow and it would seem to create small meaningful random events in your life, with butterfly effects of some kind etc. Logic: Also, very similar attributes of logic, like lack of resources, management of time etc., are there in all those potential spheres. To be scientifically neutral, we have to consider the following: Not claim that something must break the physics, and atheists or skeptics should also not be so sure in this; I mean something we really experience. Alternative theories exist, which are not too demanding and imply the effects of some kind. The mind, it alters the matter anyway, even if it does use our bodies and all kinds of signals between people or people and the nature. We should not be sensational or give people very high, unrealistic promises, as we experience deeper, more subtle things. There are also a probability that some people are, for example, as sensitive as we are, but in a way which can be more or less *completely* explained; for them, they use the standard terms to talk about those topics. Having a common language, so that all those different people, who have built different models in their brains, can use the same language about things, which have a real impact. For example, someone might have hypersensory perception, but it's not so easy to verify this - it's much more easy to see, if they have any benefit in communication with people, finding objects, creating something etc. These real effects, which affect our lives, should be expressed in same terms as we use when we are sure someone could do the same with only the known attributes of human body and mind. For example, a telepathic experience might be unreliable to verify or very vague, but we can measure the people on basis of their effective communication, and the benefit from this communication. If they are able to benefit from their abilities, it would naturally affect their score, but also you can create more effective communication based on more introspection about the language and it's possibilities. It's rather philosophical, how you do it, and practical, what you are doing - so, the philosophy of others is not so much disturbing us, but the practical sides should be measured and standardized between models, like approaches of psychology, which explain certain factors with something hypersensory, or approaches, which explain them materialistically. Those are useful models and we need a common language, which would not confuse people about what you are actually able to do with all what you are. But still, there are differences ..I think we still need freedom of religion. It's currently assumed that all companies follow the same laws and thus hire people with all religious backgrounds - but rather, we should bring this freedom to another level, where companies can be different, valuating traits coming from religions or atheism, but the ecosystem is diverse, so that it's assured that all the different companies exist (in different areas of life); also that we do not check the spirituality, but the exact strengths coming from it, and appreciate when atheists have same kind of ethics, and materialist solutions to same problems.

I´ve heard Leo and others saying re-incarnation aint real. However honestly is the only thing that makes sense. 4 days ago my "father" died, and since then, I started to ask myself questions about where his consciousness went. Is the life of my father a "movie" that I as God lived in the past already, and God currently is incarnated in my form? (and now I am seeing how the movie of my father ended knowing about him "dying"?) I know that I am consciousness and this is my dream. But I still have some questions...

But that is called reincarnation, isn't it? Isn´t the point of Spirituality to stop the cycle of birth and death?

After spending a bit more time on it... I think this issue is a great example of the pre/trans fallacy. A lot of people see Howards ideas as these mystical, quasi-ethereal, science breaking truths from a higher plane of existence - when in reality, it's PROPABLY not much more than the next psychotic narcissist who uses complicated sophistry. The reason why so many people fall for it is because it "sounds smart" - but it just isn't. So much of what he says directly contradicts what we know: Arsenic is toxic because of a variety of very specific intracellular mechanisms and there are 100 years of biological reserach behind that fact - if you think the toxicity stems from "DNA wrapping around the Arsenic-molecule" (lol), then bring some sort of proof for it - don't just say it - show us! Look, I want those things to be true as much as the next guy - because it sounds interesting as fuck - but let's be real, it's highly likely just nonsense as we have seen again and again. We, as a community of spiritually inclined individuals, should distance ourselves from lunatics. The ideas that actually are likely to be valid (primacy of conciousness, NDEs, Reincarnation..) have no chance of getting a wider recognition if we are constantly associated with crazy people.

How can your experiences of being God (for example the sponge-with-bubbles picture) be related to the traditional experiences of yogi about reincarnation, ghosts, Mahasamadhi and nirvana (for example Tibetan Book of the Dead, Sadhguru)?

True haha You believe that there is an alternative to endless reincarnation? If it could be reached, wouldn't it have been already during the infinitely long past? And who says/believes you were born in the first place? I once had a mescaline trip and realized after "attaining nirvana" as buddha I had nothing better to do than imagining the next better illusion. It was like "game over" and you're like "damn I just even started the game". Oh yeah of course it can look like that! It probably even will. But if you look for that, you're screwed

God is trapped in the reincarnation cycle and his memory gets wiped again and again... doesnt it look like a satanic matrix?

I have lately reached the idea, what means being scientific about the God - so that an argument that the Pope would lie to a believer would not apply. Scientists have said believers in God are easy to deceive, but they did not reach a conclusion, what those people should do to be more modern and scientific. We know that God is said to be "totality of everything", "the Truth" etc. We can make many scientific notations, about what such entity would expect from us, should he exist. Also, those are ethical things - the whole, the truth, and all those properties, do exist scientifically and we can term them as "God" even if God does not exist in separate consciousness - this takes our scientific view to the end, we can speak scientifically, what it is to follow the Truth, the Wisdom, or the Goodness. Our collective, working together, creates some kind of God - a collective synchronicity, a Truth of higher kind etc., even if God does not exist. In evolution, bigger and bigger wholes appear, and they will be more alive - the collective consciousness of everything would evolve definitely and much of this has definitely been happening. We can identify this as God. Also, our ethical behaviour produces higher principles and brings the positive qualities into existence - this is beneficial to us and to the society, and so similar to God that we can talk about the God if it does not otherwise exist, as a beneficial whole or the all, which comes from our behaviour - this is the aspect of God of existing subjectively, as one believes in God. We can do scientific work about those properties, the qualities of the real God, and be philosophical whether this is the real God or the whole of our activities and the Universe, which benefits from being the whole, and thus creates an entity, which can be spoken as God in action. Those two theories are definitely, in my experience, the same - the ethics and logics we appear. God is neutral, and thus it's like the Laws of Nature - so if something gives good ends and creates bigger wholes, this is our way to the God. It brings Paradise to an Earth, and reaching some kind of Paradise is also scientific - it's what we benefit from, and we can prove this and sane people would understand the proof or think they need to work on this, on ethical life. When we work on this, we can prove scientifically that many things of the Bible and the Indian texts about God would really be the desires and actions of such entity, and when the society is creating this kind of whole out of it, thus following the God, it would definitely benefit us - the simplest model of this is "God", it's the simplest theory to describe such behaviour of the whole. When people learn this into scientific understanding about God, we would be modern and not depend on personal ego of some priest or teacher - we would see, whether their talk is scientific. If someone claims to be God or godlike creature, we would also measure their theories scientifically, and understand whether those bring the good karmic consequence a God would do. This way, God would be equal to us - we work on theries about the God and reach our individual understanding, whether the omnipotent, omnipresent etc. nature of the Laws of the Nature would do this; we know that the real benefit of such being is mutually beneficial - the Whole and the Parts benefit from the same things; so when God is not beneficial to us, the evolution of the Whole would turn around and the Whole would evolve, creating a different God, or more decent reincarnation. By thinking independently, we are equal to God, in the sense by which democratic people are equal - to the law, the President is equal to a Cleaner, but they understand the laws better and probably follow them on much higher level; but the President is supposed to leave the Cleaner their free mind, and when they break their rights without reason, it's a hard case - a president can justify a criminal, but it's expected that he does this by the law. I do not see a reason, why the Goodest of the beings would be not equal in such sense, in the modern time, when people do not need so many orders and are able to think independently - God, also, would require us to be democratic and independent thinkers; this kind of motivation is indeed beneficial to the God and the society, as much as it's beneficial to the president, when the people have personal motivation. So it's very scientific that in modern times, God would not want us to be slaves of the priest, or manipulated - even if in more traditional times, when people had more rules and less individual motivation, God would have needed to be such as well, more similar to their common leaders. By adapting this view about the God, Spiritual people would follow their motto - to be modern people, independent thinkers, even if very cooperative.

CHATGPT: ARGUMENTS AGAINST: The soul trap or prison planet theory suggests that human souls are trapped or imprisoned on Earth, unable to escape or progress to higher spiritual realms. Here are some arguments to disprove this theory: Lack of concrete evidence: The soul trap theory is largely based on speculation and anecdotal accounts rather than concrete evidence. There is no scientific proof or empirical data to support the existence of a soul trap or prison planet. Diverse spiritual beliefs: Different cultures and religions have varying beliefs about the afterlife and the journey of the soul. The soul trap theory is not universally accepted and contradicts many traditional spiritual teachings. Personal spiritual experiences: Many individuals report having near-death experiences or spiritual awakenings that involve feelings of peace, love, and connection to a higher power. These experiences often suggest that the soul is not trapped but free to transcend physical limitations. Evolution of consciousness: The concept of soul evolution implies that souls are on a journey of growth and learning through multiple lifetimes. If souls were truly trapped on Earth, it would hinder their progress and development. Free will and choice: The idea of a soul trap contradicts the concept of free will and personal choice. If souls were imprisoned against their will, it would raise ethical questions about the nature of existence and spiritual autonomy. Overall, while the soul trap theory may be intriguing to some, there is limited empirical evidence to support it, and it conflicts with many established spiritual beliefs and experiences. *** ARGUMENTS FOR While the soul trap or prison planet theory is not widely accepted and lacks empirical evidence, some arguments that could potentially support this theory include: Reincarnation cycles: Proponents of the soul trap theory may argue that the cycle of reincarnation on Earth is a form of imprisonment for the soul. They might suggest that souls are continuously reincarnated without their consent, keeping them bound to the physical realm. Collective suffering: The prevalence of suffering, injustice, and inequality on Earth could be interpreted as evidence of a soul trap. Advocates of this theory may argue that the challenges and hardships faced by individuals are part of a larger system designed to keep souls trapped in a cycle of suffering. Spiritual amnesia: Some proponents of the soul trap theory suggest that souls are subjected to a form of spiritual amnesia upon entering the physical realm. This amnesia prevents individuals from remembering their true spiritual nature and purpose, contributing to the feeling of being trapped. Control by higher beings: The soul trap theory often involves the idea that higher-dimensional beings or entities are responsible for trapping souls on Earth. These beings may manipulate human consciousness and reincarnation processes to maintain control over souls. Limited spiritual growth: Supporters of the soul trap theory may argue that the challenges and distractions of the physical world hinder spiritual growth and evolution. They might suggest that souls are kept in a state of ignorance or illusion that prevents them from reaching higher levels of consciousness. It's important to note that these arguments are speculative and not based on scientific evidence. The soul trap theory remains a controversial and fringe belief within the realm of spirituality and metaphysics.

My answer, to cover all your topics, was very long. So I write down the short points: God is the Totality of All, including the Truth, Laws of Nature, the First Cause of it's birth; it's the entity of those all - the causes and effects in action, to the last and final, in infinity, are God. It's equal to Goodness and purified mind. The opposites of these things, like the Lies, breaking the Laws of Nature (doing something with intent, which actions are later cancelled out or lost in evolutions), the badness - it's not God, but rather the Satan. In the Laws of Nature, the Truth appears, things get always better and more synchronized. So, in time, all those aspects of God appear more strongly. It's also consistent with religions that as time passes, we get closer to Paradise and the manifested God in our lives and the civilization. The Reason, indeed, in some form existed right from the beginning - I personally believe that when some future is impossible by laws of Nature, this impossibility also affects the past; from Quantum Physics I know that the light somehow moves in accordance with the future, but I believe all the laws of nature are like this. So, by the Reason, the reality without God might be impossible. I also believe that the whole is a frequency, and this appears as a God as person when some beings are born on this frequency. But the God as person - people are said to become Gods as they become enlightened; their minds become infinite and thus, they are more equal to God or rather gods. There is the total infinity, but there are also many degrees of lesser and greater infinity - when you reach infinite potential, "god" is the general word, which describes that. In material world, when a person is born with mind able to work to infinity, it's kind of reincarnation of God. There are many meanings and shades, what people mean by somebody being God or god - there is one, complete definition of God, but also what is getting closer to this, is somewhat one of a kind. Science is commutative, and thus to speak scientifically - we need definitions, which apply not depending on whether God exists. Thus, the results of the process of unification, the appearance of higher truth and goodness, the reason, which brings us closer to this and gives meaning to move towards paradise and godlike properties of our reality; all this has to be seen as God. To be decent people of modern society, we need to know that for a good leader or a good country, it's highly important that people are independent and understand the meanings of their actions, rather than simply following the orders. It's unreasonable to think that this is not beneficial to God - we expect God to be "equal" in sense that he, also, does not simply order us, but inspires and helps to understand. Being scientific, for a civilization, might be creating big and unified theories - for a person it's more a process of finding models, which are understandable to them, and help to work on their truth on their own. When you follow a theory you do not understand, or a spiritual text based on visions you do not see and senses you do not have - you are not scientific, but easily manipulated and not able to work on this truth at all; you also make wrong decisions, because you get wrong answers with formulas more complex than you can manage. Scientific personality is not a person of top science, but a person, who has based their lives on models they can understand and develop further. We need some degree of trust and authority, but even this has to be questioned. Truth is a personal thing - it's a model, which works for you; it can be in contradiction with other models, which work as well, because the essential implications of the model work very well, but there might be side-effects coming from simplicity, or the complications of not having an unified model; all the paradigms are that up to a degree. We are scientific about the God, when we have deep philosophy, which reflects the causes and effects of us in reality, as if the reality is a big creature. By natural sciences, it's similar to creature anyway - the society and it's interaction with the ecosystem has all the properties, like being able to react, to learn, etc. In such way, God might exist or not exist, but in both cases we can be very sure what we mean by reflecting the will of the God. Having good science, we can still be interested in works of reincarnations of God, prophets or people, who speak with God - but we can reflect this better and are less prone to manipulation.

Did you have any insights during an wakening about reincarnation/past lives? if yes, please do share it with us... Please don't tell me something you've read or heard, i want raw insights.

Reincarnation. How? That whole idea goes against 'my' direct experience. Yet 'I' believe it might so be the case because 'I' believe highly woke people found it out. So how do I find it out as well? I as an ego am not. So I don't know what reincarnates. There has to be some truth to this. I wanna verify it through experience. If anyone has, please help me. I have 0 experience in this.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/716499/reincarnation-REAL-proof-life-after-death WHILE many scientists will dispel the notion of reincarnation as a myth, there are some credible experts out there who believe that it is a genuine phenomenon. Reincarnation is generally a religious concept that implies that upon a select few’s deaths, their soul, mind or conscious is transferred to a new born. It sounds like the stuff of fantasy, but some scientists do believe that it is a feasible concept. Dr Ian Stevenson, former Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Virginia School of Medicine and former chair of the Department of Psychiatry and Neurology, dedicated the majority of his career to finding evidence of reincarnation, until his death in 2007. Dr Stevenson claims to have found over 3,000 examples of reincarnation during his time which he shared with the scientific community. In a study titled ‘Birthmarks and Birth Defects Corresponding to Wounds on Deceased Persons’, Dr Stevenson used facial recognition to analyse similarities between the claimant and their alleged prior incarnation, while also studying birth marks. He wrote in his study: “About 35 per cent of children who claim to remember previous lives have birthmarks and/or birth defects that they (or adult informants) attribute to wounds on a person whose life the child remembers. The cases of 210 such children have been investigated. “The birthmarks were usually areas of hairless, puckered skin; some were areas of little or no pigmentation (hypopigmented macules); others were areas of increased pigmentation (hyperpigmented nevi). “The birth defects were nearly always of rare types. In cases in which a deceased person was identified the details of whose life unmistakably matched the child’s statements, a close correspondence was nearly always found between the birthmarks and/or birth defects on the child and the wounds on the deceased person. “In 43 of 49 cases in which a medical document (usually a postmortem report) was obtained, it confirmed the correspondence between wounds and birthmarks (or birth defects).” In a separate study, Dr Stevenson interviewed three children who claimed to remember aspects of their previous lives. The children made 30-40 statements each regarding memories that they themselves had not experienced, and through verification, he found that up to 92 per cent of the statements were correct. The article, published on Scientific Exploration, Dr Stevenson wrote: “It was possible in each case to find a family that had lost a member whose life corresponded to the subject’s statements. Read more. https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/716499/reincarnation-REAL-proof-life-after-death?jwsource=cl

How do you go from "nothingness" to reincarnation as a whole new individual? There must still be something above that decides what to create. It's logical, if you become nothing and despite yourself become something totally new, it's because you are not God.

Everything Everywhere All at Once Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind shows you what it's like to have amnesia or wipe your memory Source Code is a like reincarnation. Edge of Tomorrow is about reincarnation. Free Guy is like simulation theory and true love being the goal Many movies are now like the matrix like the Lego movie, Barbie, etc. The characters penetrate into the real world. Oblivion and Moon (spoiler alert)............. are about clones. Adaptation and Stranger Than Fiction are about manifesting. Maybe Stalker is about the subconscious. All movies and sci-fi films tend to have the heroes journey or symbolism. Human Beings can only really tell one story which is the story of awakening or self actualization. It is very Jungian and Kafkaesque Lol! Once you look for it, you find it everywhere.

To be strong: Truly ethical people are not attacked so much by any side of the war, as they bring diplomatic process. If war is coming, the loss of such people can be big, but it's completely random. Make sure you are on a side, which generally wins in case the war is coming or in case it's not. In the karmic end of reincarnation series, and in the dna and cultural victory, the "good side" is going to win anyway, even with big losses. More integrated people do less things, which are seen criminal by any side of the war. The war is coming mainly if the very positive people are sure that their world won't end, and not listening to all sides, and not considering that they have outcast all the people, who think differently, as they are so positive about their own theory. The part of us, who is not so positive and lives through all the war right now, and finds higher unified theories of the humankind, they somewhat keeps the war away and this is better karma. I see that positive people do not want to be responsible about how much they have messed up the relations, and I have nothing to do with this - usually, I'm quite contra-wars, but with all the crimes done by different sides, I have no strong arguments this time, something has to change to avoid the war, but it's cold fact that russians, muslims, jews and christians are all somewhat hurt and there are a lot of things to protect the positions with militar force, unless the revolution in thinking and friendship of cultures is very big - so, considering this cold fact, I cannot say something very deep to show for example to russians, that they have not been attacked at all, but I can do some work with these unified theories of humankind. The diplomatic side, which for example weakens the positions of people, who have mistreated the russians or the muslims completely against the truth of being neutral and managing the attackers directly, not creating some "general image" of blood, religion or other factors illegal to be used as war arguments ..diplomatic process is very hard, when the violence has got so far, and for example the communist positions are considered illegal, not certain concrete activities of concrete communists, which you can doubt. I have integrated the main facts of communist and capitalist. Russians always consider honour and help the poor, they are more materially social and helpful - psychologically, they get beaten in capitalist environment, which is incapable to do such exceptions to them. Thus, as I see the russian situation in ukraine, I am very silent about the war of ukraine, and rather seeking the solution for this conflict between the capitalist and the socialist, or the communist, which is deeper root - but with closed economics etc., I can see that it's more and more hard to solve it completely. I see that positive people did not see any problem at all, avoiding such things like fear and anger, and going blindly in direction of war being sure they can convince others in their philosophy - I would like to tell russians that such people can manage themselves, and let the others be, but I don't find such reality, where the russians are respected with their culture in other countries. This culture is different and even when they are capitalist, considers the good and bad lessons learnt in times of communism. Best parts of all sides of the war need to create good karmic connections and somehow manage that some part of us survives the war. After the war, it's possible that there are no resources to build up the civilization again so soon. The feeling of "safety" achieved by those means, it would get us further in achieving the good psychology of the war - there is not much more left, just some hope. But with this hope, we must work a lot

What I want to say, there is whole science of multiple paradigmas - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm. This states that in case two persons have multiple paradigms, they can have equally valid models of the world, with their easily correct parts, confusions and biases, but their arguments are contradicting. For example, spiritual views reason ethical arguments, which are practically very similar to the arguments of ethics in science of psychology, but when they argue about those, they would need impossibly and impractically complex arguments to see, where their sciences would not contradict. Those arguments are unreachable for common people. So, when your model is working in real world, thus quite scientific and sane, it does not result that it would not contradict with equally strong model of another person. Contradictions are perfectly normal between two sciences, like science of spiritual people and science of the materialists. Those are strong, almost provable contradictions, and inside other model, following an argument of the other person is leading to insanity. When materialist is following the God in a way they could understand, it would really lead to social and personal incapability, they would be like slaves; where a spiritual person has enough argument to read the channeligns of God with critical mind and find the true arguments, which fit their picture of godliness of a mission; so they do not simply take a gun and start shooting a non-christian people, or do something other insane (by Bible as well, or by Koran). I am very philosophical and critical about what Pope says about God - and if I would be a Christian, by some turn in my life, I would be equally critical. Simply because I am philosophical. If I would see a vision of God talking, and I don't know, why this should not happen to me - all kinds of things always happen - I would be equally philosophical and not act before I have this somehow integrated to my philosophical view, what God said, otherwise he really has to say this to another person. I am constantly critical, constantly skeptical and constantly philosophical, despite that I theoretically believe in God of some sort, and most of spiritual arguments I have heard. Atheist, having some medievial imagery of God, when there really was the inquisition, would possibly go mad with similar vision from God or some channeled message. For me, those people channeling messages from aliens, I don't know about their physical validity, but they bring me strong cultural arguments and that's all - I can see, such kind of complex cultures must exist, they are very developed at least in psychology of such people, who channel, and I read them with same awareness and thoughtfulness, as I would read a good science fiction or fantasy book - it does not matter much, what is the physical evidence. I am interested in more practical topics, whether they introduce better, not yet achieved cultural traits and higher social psychology to me, which is the practical value, and the scientific or spiritual evidence of such aliens - this is merely a philosophy for me. I am sure, in quantum field, those aliens could be simply a possibility, it could be left completely open whether they are there in the end; but this is very practical for me, that imagery of advanced civilizations and possibilities to evolve have appeared, in this sense of creativity - I don't care much, about how the psychology of channelers works, but good work about possible advancements of civilization, and arguments that many people naturally are able to do such advancementss, these are really practical. Someone says God favors them - I read, they are highly synchronous people, that's the argument, and the arguments about existence of God are a philosophy. Someone says in past life they lived in society, where greed does not exist - I do not care about their past life, this is a complex philosophy and never completely true, but I do care if I see they do not have greed, and I have my practical consequence of this. Because of being multiparadigmatic; I do not think that by creating a highly material model of the world I could have a different argument, which even sees reincarnation as something else, like similar person being born by some DNA and other consequences, having some genetic memory of past events or cultural, subconscious understanding. This model could possibly completely connect all the ends, including memories from past life; I think this kind of materialist model is very complex and hard to argue with a person of low IQ. God could be explained by genetic tendency to bring highly synchronous events, and this could explain almost every application of religious theory - except the case that it's a separate paradigm, explaining the facts with simpler model and thus being very scientific; as simpler the model, as more scientific. But considering all this - how different paradigms are equally valid, still contradictionary -, we reach extremely complex scientific picture, because with average IQ, you cannot reach a single case of two, equally valid and still contradictionary, facts. You cannot find a single case, where two models equally hold, still implying direct contradictions. But, with low IQ, you can reach ethics. So the theory of multiparadigm, it's not really a theory for a simple man, and thus it has very abstract, hard to reach consequences, it's kind of aristocrat theory, not a democratic small talk for people; it would not become mainstream or make huge amount of money What, then, applies, is that theory of ethics, ethical views between those several models, views that people could believe many things, but when they do not fail socially and materially so much, if this is not the necessary implication of their views, then they have ethical rights as all the other people, and right to think in their own ways. Ethically, in todays world, we do not punish people for mere thoughts, and this follows also from theory of multiparadigm, where this carries no scientific value at all if we find a contradiction - we would have to go impossibly deep with it. So, ethics over science in this case. We would know that we are speaking of scientific theory of multiparadigmatic views and really, truly mad people, who cannot have objective image about whether other people are attacking them or some model, which turns them to violence, those people should be restricted, analyzed, and guided to less violent lives. You cannot listen to some religious or scientific leader without giving it a thought, and you cannot follow much more advanced model than the one, which allows you to draw fast and simple conclusions; we need to support the personal thought. God can be completely right, but if His model is much more complex than yours, you do not have anything to do with this, and you would appear mad if you follow the model merely as you understood it. So even about words of God, whether God exists or not, you have to philosophize and not follow them until you understand the point. So what is concluded from the multiparadigm views is theory of ethics, which is quite simple, not a theory of science, which is very complex. For people with different gods, different views, different cultures, we only need to show some respect and understanding that in their cultures they can live and survive; we need to point out where they are apparently weaker and less developed than us, but also respect that maybe it's normal and they have other values there. For example, maybe you don't make very big muscle, but you use this time to read books. Maybe you don't make a lots of money, but you have so many friends that they help out in case of financial troubles. Maybe you did not read many books, but you are so social that intelligent people would bring you the most important points. In all those cases, someone sees you very negatively, but others can perfectly live with you; for example, you are too weak to beat your enemies, but you can call the police and use your contacts with grandmother of mafia boss, who simply shares recipes of food with your grandmother. Then, mafia is doing their things somewhat outside your social circle, where equally bad people really have to use their muscles and guns. Or you cannot fight with a gangster, but you studies their honor and do not hurt them where some people would. Your life model can be based on different values, and then you do not even understand a person who says that you lack their specific quality. In all these matters, you can have a "scientific argument" about psychology, physics, chemistry etc. Somebody can debunk your social theory, and you really run into contradiction with their ways to protect themselves - but you cannot say that your risks are then considerably bigger than theirs. In all this, theories run into contradiction, not only hypothesis or hypothesis with theories - those contradictions are interesting thing to study, but they do not prove that one side must win and other must lose. Good scientific argument between scientific and spiritual person brings us closer to truth, but this truth is not so much about who wins and who loses, it's about how these areas of life would benefit from each other's powers. When they are arguments of violent kind, where one person, debunked, would run out of all social honor and be taken as insane or a a liar, not considering that any spiritual process would almost certainly have some physical process happening synchronously, and the physical measurements would indeed still result in more or less the same laws, but this does not disprove that they achieved their effects with their own theories, which can be much simpler and thus more scientific to achieve such practical outcomes. Law of Karma almost certainly has it's measurable connections in physics and social sciences, and all it's separate effects can be somehow described by these - I almost know all those "explanations" -, but it does not disprove that it's a very simple law related to all those, and it's logic holds on it's own, not needing all those sciences and complex explanations to be true. Models, which do involve law or karma, with ones which do not, those models can contradict. So, by multiparadigmatic view, between different sciences you need more ethics than science, and this ethics is something you can explain to girls. Sometimes, this ethics turns out the magic ingredient bringing out the truth that somehow, these different models indeed fit, and won from power of each others; but this is something not to be expected, because it's a very complex process. Ethics is not very complex process and thus, where we see violence in scientific argument, we should directly respond to violence. For example, when a physical doctor is telling you that by your theoretical argument, people would listen to Pope, who tells them to do inquisition, this doctor is basically accusing you in death crime, but it might be the case that in your model, any death crime does not follow. When you accuse someone that in how they cook potatoes, the deadly poison would appear, you would be taken very seriously as peace-breaker; when you accuse a religious argument, for example to listen to God, with dangers like this - you are accusing in crime, and finally, you cooperate with police and doctors with physical violence against this argument, reaching the inquisition yourself. When you present this argument against God, you must also present the arguments that some people listen God, but they are still philosophical and want to see the evidence for the claims. Or, they have such God, which does not tell them to kill people at all - somewhat, your image of God is created by yourself, you can see that God of Muslims gives them different arguments than God of Jews gives to Jews; in some sense, it's the same God, but in some sense, those are two different Gods - so, some person might have a very non-violent God, whereas other person has a violent God. Some person might have a God, which they can trust entirely, while some person must be cautious about their God. In our genes, after all our evolution, we see some archetype or certain truths as signs of God, and some aspects of the World or the Universe, or the Universal law, as God speaking to us. Maybe, your image of God is such that you see all the natural disasters, political struggles and life hardships, and you finally depict a higher entity behind those, but your unconscious notices of all those evidences are so strong that you basically state a physical paradigm, a solid truth in terms and language of God speaking to you. Another person sees the same signs, but the impression is so vague that when they get a vision of God, their God is as stupid as their process of reasoning about those events, and they are dishonest or aggressive against some people, who are not doing a big crime. Philosophically, the actual reasons behind what you see and sense, they are too complex for you, getting deeper and deeper, but they leave so much open that you can have different models, which fit to your personality. With those different models, you can be either quite realistic about the world, or you can be paranoid and accusing people, who are just living their lives somehow. An atheist might be very paranoid and accuse all the conspiracy theorists, believers in God, believers of Karma or any other kind of "reward and punishment", or certain cultures, like Muslims, in overall, and thus they would respond, finally, quite violently - which shows that they are in effect, as mad and paranoid as they see others being. I know many muslims, who do not give a d*mn about me being a white person, and I think I know enough of their culture and I have taken their books somewhat seriously, that maybe I subconsciously avoid some death crimes; an atheist would have hardships to explain their ethics, of torturing animals, wasting the land resources, creating slave labors, accusing people in their beliefs etc. etc. etc., that they feel that they are more accused based on their genetic makeup or beliefs; my scientific theories are also quite safe to tell to muslims, or to spiritual people, and my political theories do not insult conspiracy theorists. I somehow manage in most of this. I can be angry in those spheres and accuse them in things, but this is somehow resolved as a normal conflict. Lately, I cannot speak with atheists any more, for example I cannot say we have had spiritual wars, because the materialistic view of those symbols is not so safe - when spiritual war ends with law and bless, in my transcended ways of battle, then the scientific war ends with such aggression and violence that an atheist would think I am dangerous, when I'm being very honest with them. They translate my symbols to material equivalences and those are telling them something bad happens in my subconscious mind. So I'm kind of having a battle with them - I try hard to listen and to follow their reasons, but I do not believe in the world, where war does not exist; I believe in the world, where the transcended war does not leave dead and injuried people behind. In this, I start to see that scientific argument is becoming really violent - when they accuse all the different people in death crimes and sins, then despite that they say that reward and punishment are not natural and do not follow from scientific laws, they still do something instinctive like punishing for these death crimes, and they look dangerous with their hints to doctors and police. I can understand this has been happened to many ..what I can say, we have to be like with any other enemy, listening to their argument, understanding where we are breaking a material evidence and where our mind powers have been catched doing material attacks, and where they have been neutralized with observing the scientific evidence and doing all the responses, and where they have been connected with our personality - there, the materialist accusing spiritual people in not considering some of their endangered values, it might be correct. They might want to live exactly that way and then, your spiritual battles are dangerous, and battled in degree of how much material evidence they provide - this means, more or less in their completeness. I think this kind of evidences, these days they make scientific people alert of spiritual people. In this, a normal war thinking must be achieved, studying where they have been hurt by any kind of fact, abandoning them where they thought they are doing good, ignorance or thinking that you are higher; they also want to have some say in our things, otherwise they feel they are kind of "dead", or outcast. This is the war I see between paradigms, rather unconscious implication of some spiritual thinking, which vaguely fits their paradigms of why they have some spiritual world-views, like blind listening to God or Pope. Somehow, we must balance our views so that they lose only what they lose anyway, so that they won't feel the vibrations of better futures, and that even from the success of their enemy, they win something from the raise of quality of living; this is the forgiveness, and you cannot enjoy a complete victory before it has raised to the level of forgiveness - this is the spiritual truth about the spiritual war, you can have battles inside you, but you must have peace outside. They do not deserve any karmic punishment, which does not come anyway, and they won't see the one, which comes. Here, you must transmute the dark and light into something, which gives everybody some degree of raise in life quality where you win the battle, and you must not get the hate from the battles. This transmutation done, what is left, is the innocent spiritual dialogue, and you must make sure that it does not give rise to material nonsense - but ones of us, who have more limited views of the world, they can be incapable to sound very true to atheists, like an atheist homekeeper woman still talks about guardian angels and horoscopes, despite simply working in kitchen with materials - non-philosophical spiritual talk must also be protected as those are the weaker thinkers of us, who do not consider every philosophical argument. Where you have considered every philosophical argument, you have strong karma to protect from something, but now the scientist is easily debunked by being a low-IQ person of their society, and not understanding your high philosophy; for spiritual people, they look like debunked by attacking some of the most obvious truth, but usually not very dangerous. But now, some people are left, who are fighting atheists and very dangerous. For this, I have seen that we need ethical arguments, synchronous to Science or all sciences, but hard to follow where it leads to scientific argument; with women, we need to speak more of this ethical argument, than about scientific truth. This ethical argument has an evidence of it's own, and it resonates with what we know of the world - joining, ethically, more cultures and world-views or political paradigms, it's doing the same thing what the Christ was doing to the pagans, it's definitely seeking a happy end for this world-wide crisis, a fairy tale, where police does not yet exist, but this family of cultures and paradigms is living in their little pagan village, where everybody does not even know the law, and this fairy tale takes quite long in the struggle before it reaches it's happy end. The solution is seeing ethics in this and how all the sides are somehow true, but win from cooperation, and all the ethical rules apply, and you cannot change people so much or help them by what you learnt, would help another. It's a long way to civilization in this - in the world, many bad things happen, where cultures cross in the ways that the police would do nothing, or is very slow like american two billions spent on terrorism - you cannot know, whether it had any big effect, but it's so big amount of money that they have started to doubt in similar underdoings, and think that if they do the same with war in Ukraine they would start losing money. So in this village, we live in deep pagan period and we do not talk about ethics. Multiparadigm view, it would create patterns of ethics out from patterns of scientific theory, where two models are equally fit, but different and contradictionary, like two persons might be equally fit, but different in personality and not like each others.

With conscientiousness I refer to the personality trait presented in the Big Five Model. But low-ego people are not born that way, they also have had to work for decades to wash themselves of themselves in the process of life. Don't you think genetics are involved in that process? I agree that luck is HUGE. It's crazy how little it really seems to depends on to make or break a life. People often recall having that one video or that one conversation or that one book that started their journey. Like Ram Dass, used to be hooked to pursuing power and prestige till he luckily stumbled upon LSD. Or some poor drug addict who went out with the boys and ended up trying meth in the heat of the moment. I say he has good genetics in that regard. Yeah, there could be something like reincarnation deeper there beyond science and human comprehension, but from my human perspective, genetics make a very strong argument.

@Javfly33 Delightful. Spreading bliss and love like nobody's business, lol. Feeling better now? Well, kindly allow me quote what you wrote earlier: Yeah, that kind of sounds like you are trying to stop the so-called "cycle of reincarnation", wouldn't you say so? Which begs the question: Why do you think that it is necessary to stop something which God has set in motion? Do you think that God is a fucking idiot who doesn't know what he's doing, and now it's up to you to clean up the mess he has created? And what the fuck would be the alternative? You do realize that without form there can be no experience of reality, right? (And please, just stick to answering the questions. Your petulant hissy fits are getting tiresome.)

Should I be jealous of someone who seemingly hates is earthly existence so much that he seemingly spends all of his waking hours trying to escape it? That really doesn't sound all too blissful to me. Exactly. So why get lost in conceptual stories about "death" and "empty bliss" and "breaking the cycle of reincarnation" instead of just living in the moment and appreciating the Here and Now as it is? All that there is is THIS. So you either embrace it, or you suffer. I didn't say "just fuck everything", I said "just love everything". Slight difference.

I need your opinion on this..