• A resource for those seeking a greater understanding of survival and what follows death.

Over It - copied text

mac

janitor / administrator
Staff member
I actually did read it, and I’ve actually left you a few thumbs up on your responses.
And I DID remark on your having left a 'thumbs-up' like icon on my long posting. :) I accept you have left me other such icons elsewhere but to be frank I probably didn't take much notice of them either because they don't tell me anything. I really would appreciate individual responses to points I make even if you disagree with what I write - it makes me feel what I'm saying isn't just being dismissed without thought.

Regarding the usage of the word incarnate… maybe a more apt word to use would be embody… or occupy?
I've often been accused of pedantry when I explain why one word is less suitable than another based on the way folk use them in everyday conversation. But I find others look sloppy about what they write and/or the words they use. Perhaps it's just down to their not having a sufficient level of education or understanding rather than being "sloppy" in their word usage? As for me, in the context of this website and everywhere else I use the word "incarnate" pretty consistently - I hope?

Whether as a verb, an adjective or a noun I use it in connection with a person living in a physical/material body. Those are essential points - a person and a body. It's the way I've understood it for many years so I am at least consistent! [For me the word "embody" implies giving a visible or tangible form to a notion, idea or feeling - not a living entity. The word "occupy" is even more unsuitable in my view. Maybe there IS a suitable alternative but I don't know it.]

One certain aspect of our incarnate lives is that we each have a tangible, visible form we call a body. We know a fair bit about the parts of our bodies and how they work separately and together but about life beyond this dimension we know bugger all.

It's said we live in an etheric body which resembles the one we have presently but I've argued on numerous occasions there appears to be no reason for there to be any internal organs at all.

All this I find fascinating but what's relevant to this conversation is that I contend we do not INCARNATE into any dimensions following our own - that is we don't go on to become another person living in another physical body.

As my final remark, other than at the closest level(s) to this physical world I feel we may not manifest even in a resemblance of a body. Considering such a possibility gets pretty demanding at this point.
 

mac

janitor / administrator
Staff member
Well, to expand on the original thought… if there IS something beyond even the afterlife realm… then would one return to the afterlife realm once they’ve “died” in whatever is beyond it, or would there be something even beyond THAT realm, which the incarnates in that realm would consider to be the afterlife?
good points, Bruce

On that final point I don't know of any guidance about how the denizens of such 'future' levels see their situation. I also don't know if there's the equivalent of death and reincarnation into the same level/dimension or for similar reasons. I fancy it's somewhat different but it's no more than my feeling. I have enough difficulty just contemplating how we live in the dimension directly following this one let alone any dimensions even more remote and distant from here!

The further we venture from the dimension we live in and the next one(s) we know a little about, the harder it becomes to picture the situation in those more 'spiritually distant' regions - well it's hard for me.




Like, we associate the afterlife realm with “heaven”, or something akin to it, regardless of which faith one follows… there’s largely a spiritual element associated with it. But if it merely IS yet another transitory realm, leading to something greater, then wouldn’t the occupants of that greater realm look to whatever is higher as the afterlife, and consider OUR afterlife realm to be one of the lower levels?
In respect of your last question you make a very valid point but maybe having journeyed through our (physical/earth) levels themselves these more spiritually advanced individuals now understand in depth WHY they did it. Then with that understanding it might not be considered that ANY of the physical and near-physical dimensions are "lower levels" in the way we might think.

We have only our tiny intellects with which to contemplate such massive ideas and my view is that we'll look back and realise that we had - that we HAVE - little chance of understanding anything much about "the big picture". That is not until WE'VE progressed spiritually to a similar point as the spirits we've been talking about..... ;)
 

mac

janitor / administrator
Staff member
Maybe we only hear certain things about it because at the moment that's all most of us can handle. Or if you mean can we incarnate into some other type of existence, my answer is much the same -- I don't see why not, we probably just don't hear about those because we don't need to or couldn't handle it.
Maybe there's a further component to our not hearing about the situation inasmuch as there may be no way such details can be communicated at all.

Looking back at what I consider to be guidance (or just information) from spiritually evolved individuals - spirit teachers and guides - it's been conveyed via unsophisticated, simple communication systems. Mediums/channelers are go-betweens spanning the gap between our physical and the etheric worlds. It's been an important mechanism but there have also been incarnates who received direct, inspired information. Whatever mechanism is used the final interface is the written or spoken word and none of us need to be reminded about the issues we face trying to find the right words! lol

Perhaps, then, it's not only that we couldn't handle certain ideas and/or that we don't need to but even if we could handle them or even though we perhaps do need to know more, there simply aren't the mechanisms for getting that information to us in a way we can process?

Think on if you would about the most fundamental aspects of all this afterlife stuff - what happens to us when we die, where are our loved ones, why can't they communicate with us? Just consider if our spirit friends unseen had a way to make a video of themselves or take a selfie - think 'iSoul Phone'! - and wanted to upload it the way we incarnates do with our Apple iPhones and Android phones millions of times a day. If they could and if we could receive what they sent we would understand in an instant what we agonise about every day.

Do we think we couldn't handle knowing they are alive and well and that after we pass over we'll meet up? Do we think we couldn't handle learning from them about whether we might be able to choose to return to this world? I suggest we could handle all of that provided the info. came the way I've outlined. (or another equally good or better way) But as we know the info has been communicated in the only way there presently is and much or most of humanity remains unsure and fearful.

Now, though, I have sadly to concede you're likely right, bb. Humankind couldn't handle it because it can't even handle the very first stage of the process because the info can't be presented in a readily-digestible form. :( Crack that and who knows what would follow on? At that point you're into the philosophical stuff, the "What if we're not ever meant to know globally because that would give the game away?" stuff.

bugger! ;)
 

bluebird

Significant Contributor
"Maybe there's a further component to our not hearing about the situation inasmuch as there may be no way such details can be communicated at all."

Good point, mac. That may very well be part (or all) of it.

When it comes to knowing that our loved ones are well and that we will reunite with them once we've died too -- I could definitely handle knowing that. It's this not knowing that I can't handle. I don't feel the need to know, right now, whether reincarnation exists (whether limited to just this planet or not), but knowing for sure that my beloved husband still exists, that he is happy and still himself, and that we will be together again, would make all the difference in the world to me (I know that you already know this about me).
 

mac

janitor / administrator
Staff member
With my thanks to Spirit Guide Sparrow and with acknowledgement of his amazing insight. Thank you too, Spiritual Forums, and my grateful acknowledgement of your website: SGS on Spiritual Forums


"It is all a matter of the focal state.

Your present focal state of awareness experiences itself as, I think therefore I am, whether it be Joe Bloggs or Jane Doe. That focal state, or human state, has accumulated memories of experiences through a specific form, which I refer to as the cellular garment. Your cellular memory, which encompasses every cell in the body, retains a collective memory of what you look like.

When the physical body ceases to function, your focal state of awareness, which was conditioned to a first-person state, continues to associate itself in the likeness of Joe Bloggs or Jane Doe. Once free of the body your focal state, which consists of your thoughts and beliefs, feelings and recent memories of association, may become aware of itself through a third-person state. That is, while aware it looks a certain way in appearance, it can experience itself outside of it, by shifting the focus beyond it. This enables your disembodied consciousness to travel at the velocity and behest of a thought, and a belief.

If that thought truly chooses to be somewhere else, with someone else, experiencing something else, then that focal state will open to a forth-person state, where associative collective consciousness exist. It is the existing and present focuses of Joe Bloggs or Jane Doe that determine where their focal state takes them. Even if it takes them nowhere but to their own attachment to their most recent physical life.

The associated collective consciousness you join, in regard to specific people or places, will be reflective of your recent experiences, as Joe Bloggs and Jane Doe, and will present itself as part of your immediate desires and needs. So, if your immediate desire is to see your late father Bloggs or mother Doe, then that is what you will experience.

The choosing where you gravitate to in the first instance, is entirely reflective of the state in which Joe Bloggs or Jane Doe passes, and what is in your consciousness when reaching towards the etheric realms.

The process through which cellular memory is reanimated to the likeness of the human form in etheric states is simply done automatically, as a conditioned belief and state of perception Joe Bloggs, or Jane Doe, adopted to identify with themselves in relationship to all else. That is, because you have conditioned your present focal awareness to relate to everything else through that particular form, that will simply persist in response to your own thoughts about yourself. How you later identify with yourself in relationship to all else will eventually change, and you will take on a different form.

It should be understood, although the human being in relationship to, or in astral passage through, other spheres of consciousness are described as ethereal and intangible, for those beings existing there their consciousness experiences that sphere as physical as you do in yours. This is because they are acclimatised in how they perceive and experience that reality in relationship to how they perceive themselves. Everything is perception and thought given form.

As you identify with yourself differently, from more within a forth-person perspective, of being an active element within a much broader expression of consciousness, the question of who or what does the choosing will ultimately change with the focal state."
 

mac

janitor / administrator
Staff member
"Maybe there's a further component to our not hearing about the situation inasmuch as there may be no way such details can be communicated at all."

Good point, mac. That may very well be part (or all) of it.

When it comes to knowing that our loved ones are well and that we will reunite with them once we've died too -- I could definitely handle knowing that. It's this not knowing that I can't handle. I don't feel the need to know, right now, whether reincarnation exists (whether limited to just this planet or not), but knowing for sure that my beloved husband still exists, that he is happy and still himself, and that we will be together again, would make all the difference in the world to me (I know that you already know this about me).
Yes I know, bb, and you know how deeply I wish I could help you find persuasion.

It's especially poignant because your posting arrived here on ALF just a few minutes after I'd sat in on an amazing demonstration of evidential mediumship. I've watched a lot of demonstrations over the past couple of years and this medium is astonishing, uniting and re-uniting sitters and loved ones in spirit.

I found the depth and breadth of detail impressive to say the very least and it needed a competent spirit communicator and an experienced medium. There are claims that individuals can do it for themselves but I remain to be persuaded it's practicable for most.

I am personally persuaded reincarnation is kosher but that is of comparatively minor importance.
 
Top