Guest guest Posted February 8, 2006 Report Share Posted February 8, 2006 Hi John, Thanks for your response. To answer your question: yes, the two previous lives I " saw " during my meditations were in India. In one, I was a pretty contemptuous sadhu. I saw myself/the sadhu yell at a woman who was bringing me/him food, and I saw him think that the woman was too ignorant to deserve his respect (very bad)! The second life I caught a glimpse of was, again, in India. A couple of times I saw myself as a fairly heavy-set man in a grey Nehru suit. I didn't see my face, but I could gaze at my body lying on some kind of platform. In my vision, I noticed that I had orange and white flower garlands around my neck and my wrists, which were crossed on my body. I heard myself think " I am dead and they are going to cremate me " , but there was no fear in my thoughts. More recently, I have seen myself being carried around by a crowd as I sat in some kind of large golden chair. This is how notables were carried around in India till about half a century ago. I could have been some kind of public administrator or big honcho in the India of the early to mid- twentieth century. Of course, this could all have been just a daydream. However, given that my interest in Indian mysticism dates back to my childhood, I like to believe that these visions contained a grain of truth. Have you had any insight into your previous incarnations? As to being deserving: the K changes you dramatically. I have become a much more compassionate and balanced person--in a sense, more deserving--now that the K is manifesting. But my current goody-goody self is very different from what I used to be in my pre-K days (sad to say, I used to be a lot more like the contemptuous sadhu). Perhaps one could speculate that the K sees the potential even in flawed individuals, and sets out to transform them. However, this wouldn't explain why some K cases go dramatically wrong. If the K knows better, why does it drive some to insanity? If people choose the K, why does the K often arise spontaneously in individuals who don't even know that such a thing exists? Sel , " nologo3 " <esposito wrote: > > , " selena230 " < > selena230@> wrote: > > Frankly, it feels like the K chose me, even though I am not a > > particularly deserving person. > > Apparently, you ARE a particularly deserving person. But we probably don't > have a broad enough perspective to determine who is deserving and who > isn't. On, the other hand, is it possible that being deserving has little to do with > it? > > > On the other hand, I have also had a couple of visions about two > > previous lives during which I presumably worked the K, so perhaps > > there was some accumulated karma that kicked in... > > I often wonder if this would explain the more spontaneous occurrences of this, > in addition to the talents people are born with. Just curious: Were these > previous lives in the east? > > john E > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2006 Report Share Posted February 8, 2006 Some pretty tentative responses below... , " selena230 " < selena230 wrote: > > Hi John, > > Thanks for your response. To answer your question: yes, the two > previous lives I " saw " during my meditations were in India. In one, I > was a pretty contemptuous sadhu. I saw myself/the sadhu yell at a > woman who was bringing me/him food, and I saw him think that the woman > was too ignorant to deserve his respect (very bad)! The second life I > caught a glimpse of was, again, in India. A couple of times I saw > myself as a fairly heavy-set man in a grey Nehru suit. I didn't see my > face, but I could gaze at my body lying on some kind of platform. In > my vision, I noticed that I had orange and white flower garlands > around my neck and my wrists, which were crossed on my body. I heard > myself think " I am dead and they are going to cremate me " , but there > was no fear in my thoughts. More recently, I have seen myself being > carried around by a crowd as I sat in some kind of large golden chair. > This is how notables were carried around in India till about half a > century ago. I could have been some kind of public administrator or > big honcho in the India of the early to mid- twentieth century. Of > course, this could all have been just a daydream. However, given that > my interest in Indian mysticism dates back to my childhood, I like to > believe that these visions contained a grain of truth. OK, I guess that would help explain your experience with K. I'm wondering if someone with a more western background is necessarily deprived of such experience -- or, more likely, whether such experiences were simply not called the same thing and were perhaps kept secret for pretty obvious reasons... > Have you had any insight into your previous incarnations? A question I've tried to grapple with on and off for a long time. Someone can feel an affinity for some time and place, but that could be explained in a number of ways. Someone can feel a common bond with some historical figure, but that doesn't neceesarily mean that one knew that person, let alone that s/he WAS that person. Someone can see a face in a hypnagogic (almost asleep) state, and maybe even have rare insights into the person behind that face, but that hardly proves anything (especially if it's only seen once). However, to be on the safe side (putting this in the vaguest possible terms), about all I can see for myself is a European literary background in which I developed skills with language and analytical thought, but may be deficient in other areas that I wasn't focused on. I've gone as far as to develop half-baked theories about the chances of a person having similar names and/or appearances from one lifetime to the next, and t I think there may be something in this, but these are things that can't be confirmed in any ordinary way. > Perhaps one could speculate that the K sees the potential even in flawed > individuals, and sets out to transform them. This is encouraging. >However, this wouldn't explain why some K cases go dramatically wrong. If the K knows better, why does it drive some to insanity? It must be their response to the K, and not the K itself -- or so I would think. >If people choose the K, why does the K often arise spontaneously in individuals who don't even know that such a thing exists? Your discussion of past life experience probably goes at least part way toward explaining this. There must be other factors, too, more or less hidden from us. JohnE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2006 Report Share Posted February 8, 2006 If the emergence of the K is the result of what happened in our previous lives, then it's no longer just a matter of an individual choice operated by our current self. Who is doing the choosing, then? What is that subtle awareness that survives the cremation pire and comes back, more or less obnubilated, to take up a different body and live a new, and very different, life? Can we surmise that, to that awareness, the body is just a tool to be quickly discarded if it doesn't serve its purposes? Sel > >If people choose the K, why does the K often arise spontaneously in > individuals who don't even know that such a thing exists? > > Your discussion of past life experience probably goes at least part way toward > explaining this. There must be other factors, too, more or less hidden from us. > > JohnE > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2006 Report Share Posted February 8, 2006 Obnubilated?? You've sent me running to the dictionary! ....OK, I'm back... What can I say? You've answered your first question in your second question. I'd call it the Higher Self, but realize that's hopelessly vague. Actually, most traditions think of the person as tripartite -- the self, a higher self, and a highest self (by whatever names: body-soul-spirit, personality - permanent witness - spiritual witness, personality - ego - monad, etc.) -- but the early Christian church did away with the distinction between souls and spirit, a distinction that probably didn't matter much to the purely exoteric side of the religion. As for your last question, the Theosophists claim that an ego can and often does more or less abandon a personality (lower self) even during a lifetime, if it seems that the person isn't progressing (that would be much of humanity, maybe? Which means that most of the people we see are soul-less for all practical purposes, but always with the potential -- and the inevitability -- of some sort of reunion -- the " deobnubilation " ??) -- J. , " selena230 " <selena230 wrote: > > If the emergence of the K is the result of what happened in our > previous lives, then it's no longer just a matter of an individual > choice operated by our current self. Who is doing the choosing, then? > What is that subtle awareness that survives the cremation pire and > comes back, more or less obnubilated, to take up a different body and > live a new, and very different, life? Can we surmise that, to that > awareness, the body is just a tool to be quickly discarded if it > doesn't serve its purposes? > > Sel > > > > >If people choose the K, why does the K often arise spontaneously in > > individuals who don't even know that such a thing exists? > > > > Your discussion of past life experience probably goes at least part > way toward > > explaining this. There must be other factors, too, more or less > hidden from us. > > > > > > > JohnE > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2006 Report Share Posted February 8, 2006 The Theosophical take on " soul-less " people is worrisome... Makes it too easy do dismiss those who are not on the same wave-length (a very useful political move, though!). I am intrigued by the distinction between soul and spirit. Is the soul individual, while the spirit is universal? Is the difference based on degrees of boundedness (or the opposite thereof)? I remember reading about jivatman and atman in the Upanishads--is this the same distinction? Sel (sorry for the obnubilation--my Romance background kicks it at times...) , " nologo3 " <esposito wrote: > > Obnubilated?? You've sent me running to the dictionary! > ...OK, I'm back... What can I say? You've answered your first > question in your second question. I'd call it the Higher Self, but > realize that's hopelessly vague. Actually, most traditions think of > the person as tripartite -- the self, a higher self, and a highest > self (by whatever names: body-soul-spirit, personality - > permanent witness - spiritual witness, personality - ego - > monad, etc.) -- but the early Christian church did away with the > distinction between souls and spirit, a distinction that probably > didn't matter much to the purely exoteric side of the religion. As > for your last question, the Theosophists claim that an ego can > and often does more or less abandon a personality (lower self) > even during a lifetime, if it seems that the person isn't > progressing (that would be much of humanity, maybe? Which > means that most of the people we see are soul-less for all > practical purposes, but always with the potential -- and the > inevitability -- of some sort of reunion -- the " deobnubilation " ??) > -- J. > > > , > " selena230 " <selena230@> wrote: > > > > If the emergence of the K is the result of what happened in our > > previous lives, then it's no longer just a matter of an individual > > choice operated by our current self. Who is doing the choosing, > then? > > What is that subtle awareness that survives the cremation pire > and > > comes back, more or less obnubilated, to take up a different > body and > > live a new, and very different, life? Can we surmise that, to that > > awareness, the body is just a tool to be quickly discarded if it > > doesn't serve its purposes? > > > > Sel > > > > > > > >If people choose the K, why does the K often arise > spontaneously in > > > individuals who don't even know that such a thing exists? > > > > > > Your discussion of past life experience probably goes at > least part > > way toward > > > explaining this. There must be other factors, too, more or > less > > hidden from us. > > > > > > > > > > > > JohnE > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2006 Report Share Posted February 8, 2006 , " selena230 " <selena230 wrote: > > The Theosophical take on " soul-less " people is worrisome... Makes it too easy do dismiss those who are not on the same wave-length This is pretty tame compared to the widespread belief among many " traditional " peoples that souls can be lost, for example in traumatic experiences. They can, however, be regained. But it's very different to lose ones soul through a trauma than to simply disregard it as if it didn't exist. However, the question remains: what do they mean by the word soul? > I am intrigued by the distinction between soul and spirit. Is the soul individual, while the spirit is universal? Is the difference based on degrees of boundedness (or the opposite thereof)? Yes, I think this is how these things are usually described. The Theosophists, though, tended to divvy things up in different ways. I think their Monad is still the individual, although it must be less bounded than the lower selves, as you say. Of course there are also more unbounded levels of beings above the Monad. > I remember reading about jivatman and atman in the > Upanishads--is this the same distinction? Maybe -- I'd better leave that for someone with more of a background in Vedanta, assuming that some such person reads this. -- J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.