Should You Plan for Your Next Incarnation?

[Laird]

There is a pattern for example of those who are bullied or abused in childhood later adopting those traits.

OK, but it is plausible to think that the chain ends somewhere, wouldn't you think? And wherever it ends could be considered to be the source of evil, and evil of its own nature rather than as a learnt behaviour - this is at least a reasonable possibility, right? It's the sort of view that I take.

There is zero evidence that they deliberately chose miserable pain-filled lives.


I never claimed that it does. But it explains why, for example, an African does not born in Europe or South America in his next life.


That's right, but spontaneous cases are more credible than regression cases or new age teachings.

As I tried to explain, yes, there is no direct empirical evidence, but a clear chain of reasoning still leads to that provisional conclusion.

- Many miserable pain-filled lives exist, where the misery and pain comes as the result of genetic factors and/or environmental and upbringing factors that could have been predicted from the choice of particular parents. They are a small minority, but still demand to be explained by whatever spiritual philosophy is being considered.

- Some lives appear to be chosen either by the soul or the soul as a combination of the human personality and a more advanced being (the spontaneous evidence you refer to, along with less credible evidence such as regression cases and new age teachings derived from psychic channeling). There is no spontaneous case evidence of some other sort of being as the chooser and decider, or that it is a non-sentient Karmic mechanism or a luck-of-the draw random choice.

- Conclusion, it is most likely that some miserable pain-filled lives can come about because of deliberate choice by either the soul or the soul as a combination of the human personality and a more advanced being. 

To be clear, such evidence as exists points to the soul having the necessary knowledge of the physical world to be able to predict the adverse consequences of certain bad choices. But there exists the logical possibility that the soul can be ignorant of or not care about the possible adverse consequence of a miserable pain-filled life.  And other miserable pain-filled lives may come about through other causes - there are other logical possibilities, such as there being some other sort of entity as the chooser and decider, or that it is a non-sentient Karmic (or other) mechanism or it is simply a (bad) luck-of-the draw random choice. But soul choice is the only one that has evidence for it.

OK, but it is plausible to think that the chain ends somewhere, wouldn't you think? And wherever it ends could be considered to be the source of evil, and evil of its own nature rather than as a learnt behaviour - this is at least a reasonable possibility, right? It's the sort of view that I take.

That's a fair comment.

Though if I may make an analogy with semiconductors. It is usually described in terms of electrons (negative charge) and holes (positive charge). However the term 'hole' is simply the absence of an electron.

We might ask, is evil an absence of something? I don't mean this in a trivial way such as a deprived childhood or poverty and so on. Rather it is the absence of good.

In this view, evil is rather like a shadow. My father used to make a joke when I was a kid, he had a torch with different filters so it could shine with red or green light. He used to tease people by telling them he had a torch which shone with black light.

[Laird]

We might ask, is evil an absence of something [that something being "good" --Laird]?

I don't think an absence of good necessarily entails evil. An example might help:

To be good is to go out seeking to help old ladies cross the road.
To be evil is to go out seeking to deliberately knock old ladies over for fun.
To be neutral is to go out seeking nothing in particular, just for a walk.

Both of the latter two entail an absence of good. Only the first of them is evil though.

Rather it is the absence of good.

I think replacing ‘love’ rather than ‘good’ feels better.

I think replacing ‘love’ rather than ‘good’ feels better.

I agree.

Though conventional use of language has the terms good and evil.

I don't think an absence of good necessarily entails evil. An example might help:

To be good is to go out seeking to help old ladies cross the road.
To be evil is to go out seeking to deliberately knock old ladies over for fun.
To be neutral is to go out seeking nothing in particular, just for a walk.

Both of the latter two entail an absence of good. Only the first of them is evil though.

The first two examples have intent in the present, in the third the situation hasn’t yet arisen. 

I don’t know if this means anything really, it’s just what came to my mind.

I’ll edit this to add that I can only envisage the first two being presented as evidence in a life review.

[Laird]

The first two examples have intent in the present

The intent in the third is simply to go for a walk...

in the third the situation hasn’t yet arisen.

There is no situation in the first two either; in those cases the intent is to seek the relevant situations.

"Evil" is such a deeply subjective thing.

In the case of sociopaths, my thoughts are that it likely results from influences from issues in the immediate past-life that carried over.

A person's Soul, I would suggest, often makes seemingly weird choices that make very little sense to us on an ego-level, because we lack the much wider perspective that a Soul has.

For the Soul... there is no "evil", or perhaps irredeemable actions. If a mistake is made, no matter how severe, it can always be amended. Sometimes, by the Soul choosing to go through the same kind of experience it put another through, on an ego-level.

For a random example:

Perhaps I was a murderer in a past-life... and so, I may have chosen to redeem myself by suffering the same at the hands of another who went through that role. Or perhaps I protected those I murdered by being murdered in their place...

Karma? Always a choice of actions to balance out prior actions we have regret and remorse for.

[Laird]

Perhaps I was a murderer in a past-life... and so, I may have chosen to redeem myself by suffering the same at the hands of another who went through that role.

And does your murderer then have to redeem him/herself by suffering at the hands of another murderer, and the same for your murderer's murderer, and for your murderer's murderer's murderer, to infinity? Or...

Or perhaps I protected those I murdered by being murdered in their place...

...does your murderer then have to protect you by being murdered in your place, and the same for your murderer's murderer, etc?