obliguhl said:
but one common thing it tends to reveal to everyone is the cyclical nature of existence.
What makes you think that this includes "you" to reincarnate. The concept of "you" is rather problematic as is and it is also "cyclic" to turn to dust and be the soil for a tree to grow in (for instance).
Well yes.
I see reading through all your responses that we are sort of circling around the same central idea with different metaphors.
I think people who have deep psychedelic experiences also have a different meaning of the word 'you' and 'me'. To us I think it just kind of goes without saying that when I say 'me' I am not referring to the surface layer identity of formed ego. So much as I am just using the one word we have to different perceived forms at this level.
To me it seems obvious that the surface layer ego identity does not reincarnate. But that is also not what I intuitively refer to when I say me or we.
I think part of the realization of reincarnation, not as a standardized ordained understanding, but rather reincarnation as a dynamic to be perceived, part of the realization comes from being able to recognize what the word 'me' is literally referring to. With that it becomes obvious that 'I' am not inherently all that leaves at death, because 'I' am something other than the surface layer of ego identity.
The metaphors of an octopus and mushroom mycelium are I think accurate. But I understand it more through Rupert Sheldrakes morphogenetic field theory, which I think is more literal to what it literally is. The collective concioussness, and the pre-eminating frequency, and fractalling frequencies are a wave form, a multi-dimensional waveform. That the formation of all form is hooked into and tuned into. When I think in terms of what parts of me can be reincarnated, I think in terms, of what resonances can I imprint in the morphogenetic field. As all perception of 'I' will dissolve into singularity, but the light of consciousness's reformation into the physical plane will be directed by the morphogenetic field.
This idea of consciously directed reincarnation is something that intrigues me. But the process of reincarnation, and even directing it, is like interfacing with something beyond yourself, that is not you, the morphogenetic fields. It is us, but when perceived by us, from our current point of view, it's like the underlying machinery of manifestation. A vast web we are all hooked into, but can only exert will over from a localized position of our manifestation in it. Ultimately the experience of willed reincarnation would be like attempted to imprint some will on this machinery, web, morphogenetic field, then willfully extinguishing all manifestation of the self, forgetting everything, then allowing it to reform yourself.
Certainly components of the psyche, even memories, could be given an essence or resonance in the morphogenetic field, to be reformed in another person. But ultimately that person would not be the exact same, nor carry some unique singular point. As all form must pass through the singular point of light to return, all form revolves around the same point of light. But form may extrude itself in a similar space of the waveform of the morphogenetic field, recreating the same memories in the form, but it will also be intermixed with everything else that has stirred into the morphogenetic field. So a new form may actually come to be in the space that once previously occupied two manifestations of people, ultimately making the reincarnation a mix of the two. It's even possible I think that new forms can manifest themselves into areas of the field that was heavily influenced by someone who is still alive, so one could inherently be the reincarnation of someone still living.
