HOW THE SOUL CHOOSES HIS PARENTS FOR reincarnate?

[Kisito]

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fesoterisme-guide.blogspot.be%2F2012%2F03%2Fcomment-ame-choisir-parents-reincarner.html&langpair=auto%7Cen&hl=en
This text is Pastor of 1987, there is a link for each language. It explains the cycles of incarnations by civilization.

 

[obyvatel]

It explains the cycles of incarnations by civilization.

The text provides the opinion of a certain person regarding this issue.

[quote author=translated text]
The links are never karmic bonding and that is why you can be married to people who are new in your life evolution. If you wanted each time find the same husband the same wife, there would be no evolution and diversity, because the soul, from the perspective of his kingdom, has no emotional relationship with the manifested. She has a need for relationship and a willingness relationship. What is right becomes his will, what is necessary is his will, and love is for everyone and not for the person that was previously known. Love is for everyone.

That is to say that a soul can both provide to marry this or that being, there is no problem for her because she has love for everyone. By cons, psychology that will result of incarnation, regardless of the provision made ​​by the soul and its universality, will sometimes say this, I do not want it; that one, I do not want to, or I want it, I want it. All this belongs to the world game and not the game of the soul.
[/quote]

Some assumptions here seem to be

- everybody has a higher soul
- this higher soul has love for everyone
- everybody evolves through incarnations

Gurdjieff's views contradicts the first assumption. According to him, man is not born with a fully formed soul. There could be a possibility to acquire a soul through efforts of the right kind.

The C's transmissions contradict the second assumption at least as far as how the term "love" is generally understood and apparently used in the quoted text.

Gurdjieff's ("there is no progress") and Mouravieff's (the film of life is replayed over and over by default) views contradict the third assumption.

 

[electrosonic]

It explains the cycles of incarnations by civilization.

The text provides the opinion of a certain person regarding this issue.

[quote author=translated text]
The links are never karmic bonding and that is why you can be married to people who are new in your life evolution. If you wanted each time find the same husband the same wife, there would be no evolution and diversity, because the soul, from the perspective of his kingdom, has no emotional relationship with the manifested. She has a need for relationship and a willingness relationship. What is right becomes his will, what is necessary is his will, and love is for everyone and not for the person that was previously known. Love is for everyone.

That is to say that a soul can both provide to marry this or that being, there is no problem for her because she has love for everyone. By cons, psychology that will result of incarnation, regardless of the provision made ​​by the soul and its universality, will sometimes say this, I do not want it; that one, I do not want to, or I want it, I want it. All this belongs to the world game and not the game of the soul.

Some assumptions here seem to be

- everybody has a higher soul
- this higher soul has love for everyone
- everybody evolves through incarnations

Gurdjieff's views contradicts the first assumption. According to him, man is not born with a fully formed soul. There could be a possibility to acquire a soul through efforts of the right kind.

The C's transmissions contradict the second assumption at least as far as how the term "love" is generally understood and apparently used in the quoted text.

Gurdjieff's ("there is no progress") and Mouravieff's (the film of life is replayed over and over by default) views contradict the third assumption.
[/quote]

I don't think we can write off the idea of souls incarnating continuously on earth in order to advance, just because Mouravieff talks about the idea of a film script being played over and over.

You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater here.

How about - soul's advance through constant incarnations, by living lives with the scripts required to help them advance - and if that turns out to be the same type of script as last time because the lesson has not yet been learnt, then so be it.

Gurdjieff's & Mouravieff's statements refer to people who have not yet developed a soul.

Maybe we need to better understand the differences between incarnations of partially developed souls against fully developed souls - or even if there are differences?

The whole 'incarnational' subject is probably way more multi-dimensional in all its aspects for us to be able to make any blanket statements like we have above.

How do we know that right now we aren't living multiple incarnations at once - in different locales, time-zones, planets, dimensions, densities?

 

[Kisito]

It explains the cycles of incarnations by civilization.

The text provides the opinion of a certain person regarding this issue.

[quote author=translated text]
The links are never karmic bonding and that is why you can be married to people who are new in your life evolution. If you wanted each time find the same husband the same wife, there would be no evolution and diversity, because the soul, from the perspective of his kingdom, has no emotional relationship with the manifested. She has a need for relationship and a willingness relationship. What is right becomes his will, what is necessary is his will, and love is for everyone and not for the person that was previously known. Love is for everyone.

That is to say that a soul can both provide to marry this or that being, there is no problem for her because she has love for everyone. By cons, psychology that will result of incarnation, regardless of the provision made ​​by the soul and its universality, will sometimes say this, I do not want it; that one, I do not want to, or I want it, I want it. All this belongs to the world game and not the game of the soul.

Some assumptions here seem to be

- everybody has a higher soul
- this higher soul has love for everyone
- everybody evolves through incarnations

Gurdjieff's views contradicts the first assumption. According to him, man is not born with a fully formed soul. There could be a possibility to acquire a soul through efforts of the right kind.

The C's transmissions contradict the second assumption at least as far as how the term "love" is generally understood and apparently used in the quoted text.

Gurdjieff's ("there is no progress") and Mouravieff's (the film of life is replayed over and over by default) views contradict the third assumption.
[/quote]The contradictions are sometimes two pieces of the same puzzle or two definitions of the same understanding. It also depends on whether the aforementioned authors speak of our soul 4D (6D source) or our spirit embodied in 5D or 3D. These are structures of energy and fragmented or veiled knowledge. They try to take off their veils and many combine their fragmentations. While perhaps a soul that grows is a just a soul who wakes. This is perhaps what gives the impression of contradiction. As for love I think you're right in the sense that it is not used in the same way, but I think he will not formalize a flaw semantics default to refute the whole thesis. I think Pastor meant broadly that we can not incarnate when we want. Depending on the date of our death, we have a cut-away of zodiacal incarnation. Also there seemed to join the Edgware Cayce, who said that the Atlanteans where other civilizations often reincarnated the same periods. That said, I do not say that I think that argument is true or false, but it seems to me a good research material.

 

[obyvatel]

[quote author=electrosonic]
I don't think we can write off the idea of souls incarnating continuously on earth in order to advance, just because Mouravieff talks about the idea of a film script being played over and over.

You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater here.
[/quote]

There was no writing off any idea or throwing any baby out with the bath water. The text Kisito referred to has as its basis several assumptions. Sources like G and Mouravieff contradict those assumptions. That is all that was written.


[quote author=electrosonic]
Maybe we need to better understand the differences between incarnations of partially developed souls against fully developed souls - or even if there are differences?

The whole 'incarnational' subject is probably way more multi-dimensional in all its aspects for us to be able to make any blanket statements like we have above.
[/quote]

Yes, incarnation is a complex multidimensional subject. But where is the blanket statement?
" Every body evolves through incarnations " is an assumption. A source that makes such a claim is open to questioning.

There were no answers to the question of incarnation suggested in my post. Seems like you read a lot more into it than what was really there.

Also, what was written was in the specific context of the particular source that Kisito referred to. Did you read the original text that Kisito linked to?

 

[obyvatel]

The contradictions are sometimes two pieces of the same puzzle or two definitions of the same understanding. It also depends on whether the aforementioned authors speak of our soul 4D (6D source) or our spirit embodied in 5D or 3D. These are structures of energy and fragmented or veiled knowledge. They try to take off their veils and many combine their fragmentations. While perhaps a soul that grows is a just a soul who wakes. This is perhaps what gives the impression of contradiction. As for love I think you're right in the sense that it is not used in the same way, but I think he will not formalize a flaw semantics default to refute the whole thesis. I think Pastor meant broadly that we can not incarnate when we want. Depending on the date of our death, we have a cut-away of zodiacal incarnation. Also there seemed to join the Edgware Cayce, who said that the Atlanteans where other civilizations often reincarnated the same periods. That said, I do not say that I think that argument is true or false, but it seems to me a good research material.

Google translate does not do justice to original texts most of the time. However, reading the translated text, I did not see much outside of standard esoteric or " new age" type ideas on soul and incarnation in it. Could it be that you are reading the text while interpreting and critically correcting it based on what you have learnt from other places - like here for example? If this is so, you may want to be aware of the possibility that you may be giving more credit to this source than it is due.

 

[electrosonic]

There was no writing off any idea or throwing any baby out with the bath water. The text Kisito referred to has as its basis several assumptions. Sources like G and Mouravieff contradict those assumptions. That is all that was written.

Well then, perhaps it would be a good idea to explain to us all how you interpret G & Mouravieffs teachings on the subject, to help the rest of us understand?

Yes, incarnation is a complex multidimensional subject. But where is the blanket statement?
" Every body evolves through incarnations " is an assumption. A source that makes such a claim is open to questioning.

There were no answers to the question of incarnation suggested in my post. Seems like you read a lot more into it than what was really there.

Also, what was written was in the specific context of the particular source that Kisito referred to. Did you read the original text that Kisito linked to?

Yes I read it, but frankly the translation was so bad it wouldn't be fair for me to make comment on it.

 

[obyvatel]

[quote author=electrosonic]
Well then, perhaps it would be a good idea to explain to us all how you interpret G & Mouravieffs teachings on the subject, to help the rest of us understand?
[/quote]

That sounds more like a challenge than a request or asking - at least to me. So I will pass.

 

[electrosonic]

[quote author=electrosonic]
Well then, perhaps it would be a good idea to explain to us all how you interpret G & Mouravieffs teachings on the subject, to help the rest of us understand?

That sounds more like a challenge than a request or asking - at least to me. So I will pass.
[/quote]

Challenge?

What I'm trying to say is this - what value to the forum is it to just write that G & Mouravieff disagree with the premise, but then leave the post hanging at that?

Of course you don't have to elaborate if you don't want to, but it would be great for some of us to hear how this information is interpreted by someone who is obviously more familiar with it?
That way, we get to learn too.

But no worries.

 

[Menna]

What I'm trying to say is this - what value to the forum is it to just write that G & Mouravieff disagree with the premise, but then leave the post hanging at that?

Of course you don't have to elaborate if you don't want to, but it would be great for some of us to hear how this information is interpreted by someone who is obviously more familiar with it?
That way, we get to learn too.

In an objective way you can break down the information that Obyvatel posted. G and M are two different sources that have knowledge about soul incarnation. If they have different information about what Paster of 1987 said then if someone is hungry for the truth they would look into what the other two said about incarnation and souls. Take the three sources see where the connections are, the overall theme and what rings true for the individual. Theres alot of value in saying "well these are two other sources that talk about the same thing but in different ways here are their names"

How about if that interpreted information is by you? Theres alot to be done right here. Review the information presented in the first post link, G's information and M's information and then sit and reflect on what they are all saying what makes sense based on all the information you have. Someone at a higher level might interpret something differently and because you are not "ready" you may dismiss it IMO its best for you to interpret so you can come away with information thats right for you.

Also keep in mind people here have many responsibilities its tough to write essays every week for others when the best work is to be done by the individual.

 

[NormaRegula]

[quote author=electrosonic]
Well then, perhaps it would be a good idea to explain to us all how you interpret G & Mouravieffs teachings on the subject, to help the rest of us understand?

That sounds more like a challenge than a request or asking - at least to me. So I will pass.

Challenge?

What I'm trying to say is this - what value to the forum is it to just write that G & Mouravieff disagree with the premise, but then leave the post hanging at that?

Of course you don't have to elaborate if you don't want to, but it would be great for some of us to hear how this information is interpreted by someone who is obviously more familiar with it?
That way, we get to learn too.

But no worries.
[/quote]

Hi Electrosonic,

From what I could gather from the translations of the the works cited by Kisito, there are assumptions regarding soul growth as pointed out by Obyvatel.

Looking at your profile, I see that you have been a member of this forum since 2013. Are you aware that much of this forum is based on the teachings of G and some Mouravieff? Have you studied their works? They are part of the recommended reading for new members to get them up to speed.

FWIW, your request to Obyvatel for more explanation came across as a demand...and the subsequent reply posted above has a passive aggressive flavor.

That said, sometimes explanations are in order...if the asker lets go of any assumptions (like everyone has a soul and each incarnation helps a soul to grow) and has a modicum of understanding the source material presented here on this forum. The C's once stated that information should not be given out like candy. If the seeker is unfamiliar with certain concepts, the answer does not have the same impact and may be misunderstood.

Again, the lessons taught by G and M, the C's transcripts, and the vast research done by forum members are subject to analysis. As in...is it close to the truth?

I used to believe everyone had a soul and "resonated" to a lot of "love and light" stuff albeit with a fundamentalist Christian bent rather than New Age. The more I looked around, the more I realized that spiritually-minded people, myself included, might be gullible and were being subjected to a great con...as nothing has really changed here on the Big Blue Marble. The world has been burning for aeons and people kept giving in to their selfishness, ignoring the truth for a more comfortable assumption that all would right itself in the end if only one believed. I knew deep down it wasn't that simple. So I started searching for answers. Some of those answers shocked the hell out of me. It was difficult to come to grips with what I had been taught.

After reading the works of Gurdjieff, the studies of psychopathology, and other sources recommended to those here on the forum, I came to discover that, yeah, there were most likely plenty of stagnated or soulless individuals and the world was not gonna be saved by a Savior or that one would naturally evolve via reincarnations. Of the latter there's a chance one may have learned a few lessons here and there, but I think it's so much more complex.

Growing a soul is hard work and, as Gurdjieff would often point out, it's hard not to fall back asleep and find refuge from the truth in comfortable lies.

 

[electrosonic]

Fair enough.

The main point I was trying to make at the start was really, that if we are going to refute something someone else posts, we should do it by explaining why it may be incorrect, rather than just saying that 'so & so' wrote its not true.

And yes, of course I am fully aware of the need to investigate things for myself. Its exactly for this reason that I'd like to see explanations that come from the poster themselves rather than just statements of what other people have written.

If my post came across as passive aggressive then I apologise, and take that information on board for next time.

 

[Sol Logos]

Fair enough.

The main point I was trying to make at the start was really, that if we are going to refute something someone else posts, we should do it by explaining why it may be incorrect, rather than just saying that 'so & so' wrote its not true.

And yes, of course I am fully aware of the need to investigate things for myself. Its exactly for this reason that I'd like to see explanations that come from the poster themselves rather than just statements of what other people have written.

If my post came across as passive aggressive then I apologise, and take that information on board for next time.

I was thinking about this today, how we "ask" and it's really no different to a demand. Because when we don't get what we want from others, we get angry at them and on top of that, we still hold on to this false idea that we respect their choice because we "asked" them. I have to wonder myself, if I get angry when someone declines my request, did I even care for them to have a choice in the first place? If I don't care about their ability to choose for themselves, am I just avoiding people picking up on my demands by masking my demand with a "request" - in case I'll be seen as in the wrong?

I was sincerely thinking about this just before I read this interaction and it fitted. So I figured it might be useful to voice those reflections. BTW I think Obyvatel's response what really spot on for such situations.

[quote author=electrosonic]
Well then, perhaps it would be a good idea to explain to us all how you interpret G & Mouravieffs teachings on the subject, to help the rest of us understand?

That sounds more like a challenge than a request or asking - at least to me. So I will pass.
[/quote]

 

[curious_richard]

I was thinking about this today, how we "ask" and it's really no different to a demand.

I was thinking the same thing recently. I wrote something like, "Please don't think that I (something)..." And I realized that I was really writing, "I WANT you to think that I (something)." I was really pushing for that person to believe what I wanted him/her to. Ouch.

So next time, I think I will write something like, "I hope you don't think that I (something), because..."

For simple asking, I might replace, "What is..." with something like, "I am interested in (something)" or "I would really like to learn more about (something)." The first question expects a reply, the latter two hope for a reply.

Then again, when we are trying to help each other here, we ask direct questions of each other, but if the intent is to help others, I think we can safely view the "demand" aspect as harmless.

 

[Sol Logos]

I was thinking about this today, how we "ask" and it's really no different to a demand.

I was thinking the same thing recently. I wrote something like, "Please don't think that I (something)..." And I realized that I was really writing, "I WANT you to think that I (something)." I was really pushing for that person to believe what I wanted him/her to. Ouch.

So next time, I think I will write something like, "I hope you don't think that I (something), because..."

For simple asking, I might replace, "What is..." with something like, "I am interested in (something)" or "I would really like to learn more about (something)." The first question expects a reply, the latter two hope for a reply.

Then again, when we are trying to help each other here, we ask direct questions of each other, but if the intent is to help others, I think we can safely view the "demand" aspect as harmless.

That makes sense, it's definitely good to phrase things in a respectful way. The danger is we can focus on the form and forget the intent or what's going on inside of us. I think we learn to be "polite" for example and act appropriately even when the intent is the complete opposite. It's plainer to see in real life interactions when you can hear someone's tone.

Say at the supermarket aisle, we're spending some time reading the labels, we might inadvertently be in someone's way and we hear in a raised voice: "CAN YOU HURRY UP PLEASE?" - it's formed as a request and even has a "please" attached to it, but it's meaning is entirely different. Many of us though, raising our voices was suppressed since childhood, so we might say "can you hurry up please?" and then might come the rolling eyes and audible sigh. So underneath the apparent composure, our "request" is fuming with as much rage as if we raised our voice anyway. For anyone with even somewhat sensitivity, they pick it up just as easy, which is kind of the point - to pass off our problems on others and for them to feel responsible for them.

But I'm not saying either that expression of our anger is bad, it's actually healthier to express it than not. We should definitely express it. What's even better when expressing it though is not looking for someone to own it (dump it), so we don't have to. When I used to work in the hospitality, I swear there's some customers that don't come just for food, but to dump some frustration on people serving them. In some ways though, that is just another form of feeding.