(Yet) Another look at reincarnation

I believe we are talking of two different things here and the confusion stems from the use of the word "group". That was the word used in the Myers communications whereas Seth and others use "group" to mean what you say - a kind of gathering of souls who sort of bond into families or relationships in both the earthly and spiritual dimensions. What Myers refers to as a "group" is what Seth terms a gestalt: an entity composed of many facets or personalities each with individual validity but part of a greater whole. That gestalt is, in turn, part of a greater gestalt and so on. All that is (Seth's term for God) is what he calls the Primary Gestalt - the source of all others.

Primary Gestalt... well, the mystical meaning of the word "Brahman" fits this definition perfectly.


Indeed, going by the idea of Reality being "thoughts in the mind of God", it would make sense that Reality itself, as a Whole, is identical to the Primary Gestalt.

That's all good and well.

Much closer to this egoic perspective, we are indeed also individuals. No contradictions arise, nor can they. The contradiction only exists due to a misunderstanding about how duality can exist within the non-duality.

I used to feel like there was a contradiction, but the concept of Brahman helped me finally put that to rest. It just fits... so very neatly.

The Source of Beingness moves endlessly, dancing like the Dervish for an Eternity.

The Qabalah's symbolism of God and the three veils obscuring God are also quite deeply profound and mystical in this regard. I've heard that the system of symbolism existed long before the Jews, who didn't create it, but merely adopted it as their own, and veiled it in their own symbolism, which doesn't detract from the meaning whatsoever.

All I'm trying to point out is that there may be another way of looking at reincarnation somewhat different to the strict linear process we are all intuitively comfortable with, perhaps because that's how things happen here on earth. I don't find it absurd to imagine a soul entity with shared memories and experiences between multiple aspects through multiple lives..

I very explicitly stated that I consider it possible as well, I just laid out the terms of how I think it might work and the reasons why.

Indeed, I see some parallels with human psychology where a single human can have multiple distinct personalities. Perhaps not an exact parallel but enough to be worthy of consideration

You do realize that Dissociative Identity Disorder (formerly called Multiple Personality Disorder) is generally considered one of the most severe of all mental illnesses right? Not really the best thing to be using as an analogy if you're trying to get people to take this idea seriously.

Also, I think that it is wrong to imply that all the evidence points to the single-personality soul. I've already presented a couple of examples of material supporting the group/gestalt model. 

What, you mean the Alfredo nonesense in your original post? Some guy hears something in his mind about a fragment reincarnating, then some kid stares at him on a bus, then he hears something in his mind again telling him the kid was the fragment? Maybe if the kid himself had said it it'd be worth something, but he didn't, so chances are it's just his imagination.

This might be another although I'm not really a follower of the Michael Teachings because of the diversity of channels who claim to be channeling Michael. Different terminology but similar concepts. "Essence" seems to be what Myers calls the group soul and Seth the gestalt. "Fragment" is the individual personality.

Again, not material, just statements literally anyone could make. Meanwhile there's researchers who actually go out and actually corroborate stories of reincarnation to find, in some cases, actually veridical information (although some might debate that) that backs up their story, giving the researchers actual evidence that  seems to arrange itself in a certain way. Sure maybe gestalt souls do happen, but chances are it's not what happens for everyone if they do.

I am surprised that my speculation has elicited such aggression in response. Particularly surprised at the suggestion that I meant any disrespect to anyone suffering a mental illness.

Anyhow, I’ll attempt to pose the question in another way, hopefully without ruffling too many feathers in the process. If reincarnation is indeed a procession of lives in linear time, then which - if any - life do we identify with in the final analysis? If the answer to that is none and that the lives are all added to the total experience of the soul, then what is the difference between that soul experience and that of a gestalt soul? Because, as far as I can see, the only difference is the difference between serial and simultaneous.

To put it another way, what happens in the between life periods? Do we remember the lives before the immediately preceding one? If so, are they part of the whole soul experience? If so, what might we call that whole soul? How would we describe it? And if we don’t remember those lives, what is the point of them? To my way of thinking, the lives we live are the means by which we learn and evolve. I don’t see the point of a lesson that we are doomed to forget - a slate to be wiped clean by each successive incarnation.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I am surprised that my speculation has elicited such aggression in response. Particularly surprised at the suggestion that I meant any disrespect to anyone suffering a mental illness.

Anyhow, I’ll attempt to pose the question in another way, hopefully without ruffling too many feathers in the process. If reincarnation is indeed a procession of lives in linear time, then which - if any - life do we identify with in the final analysis? If the answer to that is none and that the lives are all added to the total experience of the soul, then what is the difference between that soul experience and that of a gestalt soul? Because, as far as I can see, the only difference is the difference between serial and simultaneous.

To put it another way, what happens in the between life periods? Do we remember the lives before the immediately preceding one? If so, are they part of the whole soul experience? If so, what might we call that whole soul? How would we describe it? And if we don’t remember those lives, what is the point of them? To my way of thinking, the lives we live are the means by which we learn and evolve. I don’t see the point of a lesson that we are doomed to forget - a slate to be wiped clean by each successive incarnation.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Perhaps the lessons are formative eg for  character and aren’t things we need to remember per se? Just a thought.

Perhaps the lessons are formative eg for  character and aren’t things we need to remember per se? Just a thought.

I don't remember every detail of my life - not even a small fraction of those details - but I do remember the formative experiences, the significant things I got wrong or right and how my life changed as a result. If I were to suffer complete amnesia right now, it might not change my character so much but I'm sure I'd wonder why I seem to have liberal leanings or strong concerns for animal welfare.

Looking at it from a wider - perhaps spiritual - perspective, I seriously doubt whether any memory is ever lost. The many accounts of the deceased experiencing the life review in exquisite detail lends weight to that conviction. So I tend to think of all of our reincarnational personalities, whether in serial or gestalt configuration, as characters in an extended drama, playing parts in order to experience life from the perspective of a soldier, a criminal or an academic. But something, some "greater self" is aware of itself as not only its multiple parts but also the evolving whole that is beyond the span of a single personality. That is what I think of as the gestalt.

Well, I usually have something to say on the subject of reincarnation. However, I'm much less committed to any particular viewpoint in the context of this discussion. Certainly there are some valuable posts made by others, to which I can relate, but mostly neither agree nor disagree.

I suppose partly it's something fundamental to my own viewpoint, I pretty much reject the idea of this life as a school, or that we are here to evolve, all those sorts of ideas. I'm very much closer to the idea that we are simply here to be. Being is what we are and what we do.

Given that as a background, I tend to flounder quite a lot in grappling with the ideas sometimes posited by others. However, I don't go so far as to claim that I am right and others are wrong. My only idea really is that there are more ways of viewing things than to simply go along with what seems to be somewhat of a mainstream idea - I use the term 'mainstream' only within the context of those who consider that life might have some significance beyond the random collisions of sub-atomic particles - the idea which seems so oft-repeated that we are here to learn, that it seems to me that there is good reason to question it. What I mean here is that simply because something is repeated or expressed often, doesn't make it true, rather it makes it a belief. Beliefs, I think, should be open to question. At least our own. I'm not here to interrogate anyone else. I only ask questions on my own behalf.

... What I mean here is that simply because something is repeated or expressed often, doesn't make it true, rather it makes it a belief. Beliefs, I think, should be open to question. At least our own. I'm not here to interrogate anyone else. I only ask questions on my own behalf.

I agree that it is a belief and if I have any belief, it is my belief. It is fundamental to my worldview that there is a purpose to life and that we evolve, not only physically in this earthly environment but spiritually throughout many lives and beyond. I BELIEVE that whatever it is that brought us into existence is also evolving and doing so through the experiences of each of us living out these short and seemingly inconsequential lives. Beyond those fundamentals, however, all else is open to question.

Well, I can certainly agree there is purpose. That was pretty much a fundamental factor in the path which led to my interest in reincarnation in the first place.

I realise that there are some perhaps esoteric or advanced ideas covered in this thread. Perhaps my difficulty is in shaking off the shackles of this physical world. That represents enough of a challenge for me, without beginning to enter the more exotic worlds of different spiritual traditions.

Our physical life here is of necessity one of learning and growing, implied simply by the fact that we begin our lives utterly helpless, and only gradually take on more autonomy and independence. That process of physical development I feel has somehow spilled over into spiritual concepts. Hence I see it as a backward step to view spiritual existence as yet more of the same. It is not. It is essentially unchanging - the part which remains unchanged from our life as a baby, as a child, as a strong adult, and in feeble old age. There is where I seek, not in the changing, but in the constancy.

I'm not sure whether I can or should say more. It is not my intention to appear to disagree or sow dissent. My only wish is to shine a little light on my own viewpoint, and then leave things to rest.

I realise that there are some perhaps esoteric or advanced ideas covered in this thread. Perhaps my difficulty is in shaking off the shackles of this physical world. That represents enough of a challenge for me, without beginning to enter the more exotic worlds of different spiritual traditions.

Our physical life here is of necessity one of learning and growing, implied simply by the fact that we begin our lives utterly helpless, and only gradually take on more autonomy and independence. That process of physical development I feel has somehow spilled over into spiritual concepts. Hence I see it as a backward step to view spiritual existence as yet more of the same. It is not. It is essentially unchanging - the part which remains unchanged from our life as a baby, as a child, as a strong adult, and in feeble old age. There is where I seek, not in the changing, but in the constancy.

I'm not sure whether I can or should say more. It is not my intention to appear to disagree or sow dissent. My only wish is to shine a little light on my own viewpoint, and then leave things to rest.

i would be interested in reading anything more you might have to say.