Chapter 6 – Reincarnation

 

The concept of reincarnation

Reincarnation: incarnating again. Here I will make another attempt at innovating commonly used terms.

Just like I believe virtual reality is a more appropriate term than illusion, I believe that transformation of the soul (re-formation: a transmutation of the soul from one form to another, transmutation of forms of like nature) is more accurate than incarnation of the soul. Reincarnation is restrictive and therefore less suitable for the process it is named after.

However, if we keep the suffix “in-” (as in “incarnation”) for the word “formation”, we have “information”, which would be more accurate for the process the soul goes through; but “information” is already used with a different meaning and it would be therefore misleading.

Though I believe the similarity is pretty interesting, as this is nothing but a change of information. Therefore, the transformation of the soul is actually a transinformation.

Nevertheless, the word reincarnation is very ingrained already and I will use it here, too, but in the aforementioned sense: retransinformation.

We should also bear in mind that, from the perspective of a higher level of truth, this is also an illusion, a part of the Cosmic Game. And yet, it is real from the perspective of the third level of truth, “Being – Reincarnation”, it is part of the divine program and we can’t get rid of this reality and the rules we are subject to just by becoming aware that it’s part of an illusion.

We, as beings – humans, for whom the fourth level of truth, “Human – Space and Time”, is determining, are especially subject to this rules and, as in legal codes, the principle that ignorance is not an excuse also applies to the natural and divine laws.

The difference is that the effect of natural and divine laws always has consequences.

For instance, it can’t be said that if you ignore gravity, it won’t make you fall if you stumble; and bribing it is out of the question.

For reasons that I’m yet to sufficiently study (maybe the famous biblical quote that God created word to His image has influenced the incorrect assumption that God thinks in a way similar to ours), most people tend to put divine laws at the level of human laws rather than at the level of natural laws.

This easily leads to the conclusion that the effect of divine law is pretty much as inconsistent and inaccurate as human laws’, is a big mistake. The mills of God grind slowly but surely. Even in folk wisdom we can find the principle of the laws of reincarnation.

To be consistent in the questioning of all great truths, we should ask: why reincarnation?

So the Being (human) may evolve to divine perfection, to the communion with God. But why?

If Almighty God wanted a perfect Being, He would simply create it. But that’s another illusion: reincarnation as a tool for development.

In order to attempt to understand fully, the theory of reincarnation should be looked at from all four levels of truth.

The meaning of life from the perspective of each level of truth

From the first level, “God – Universe”

The laws of reincarnation are part of the rules of the Cosmic Game, a part of the super-program of the supercomputer used for an endless creative process, which includes the repeated creation of the World. There is no evolution, everything is part of God and God cannot be more perfect.

If we were to admit that god is not perfect, we would limit Him and a limited god is not God in the broadest sense (I am all, what it is and is not).

Besides, we must also be aware that everything takes place simultaneously—past, present and future.

 

And there’s no simpler to define evolution than at least two different states of being in at least two different times. Even from this perspective, evolution does not exist.

From the first level of truth, “God – Universe”, the meaning of life is life. Paraphrasing the motto of the Olympic Movement, the meaning of life is not winning—achieving perfection—but to take part in the Cosmic Game as a co-creative component.

From the second level of truth, “Consciousness – The Created World”

The Being enters the reincarnation process as a particle of the universal Consciousness, the Immanent God, in order to try all the principles and aspects of the Created World, to play all the roles of the Cosmic Game and get to recognise its wholeness.

From the second level of truth, “Consciousness – The Created World”, the meaning of life is knowledge. Knowing itself in its wholeness and complexity; what changes the Being (not the human) is going through many lives, in their many forms, of which only a small part of the role is the human’s.

From the third level of truth, “Being – Reincarnation”

The Being goes through as a seemingly separate part of God, aware of its evolution, from the lowest to the highest attainable level in a reincarnation, with each being comparable to a school class. If, during one lifetime, you fail to understand the curriculum of the class, you must repeat that class and curriculum (and want to, because the Being in its incarnated form craves development).

From the third level of truth, “Being – Reincarnation”, the meaning of life is development. I again point out that I mean the evolution of the Being from the simplest and lowest forms, which may be subatomic particles, or still unknown particles (maybe strings), to forms where the Being is at the highest stage of development but still subject to reincarnation and the laws of karma.

I personally don’t share the opinion that this highest level could be human.

From the fourth level of truth, “Human – Space and Time”

The human is subject to the laws of karma (the law of cause and effect), where actions and thoughts have their consequences, which manifest in a person’s fate, either in their current or future lives. Again, in a very simplified manner, it could be said that good actions are rewarded with a better fate and that the opposite applies for bad actions.

From the fourth level of truth, “Human – Space and Time”, the meaning of life is happiness.

I use happiness because it is illustrative and simple, but inner peace, harmony or serenity would perhaps be more adequate, as they don’t share the concept of happiness meaning material assets or success.

Happiness is a state of mind and not a condition of the reality that surrounds a person. It’s necessary to find a harmonic middle way between the extreme positions of the western and eastern ideas on how to achieve happiness.

The eastern conception is characterised by the concept of wanting nothing, the western conception is characterised by the concept of having everything.

Wanting nothing also affects the development of a person. It’s an absolute concept that corresponds to a lower level of development, which the being has already passed in forms lower than human. So, if we understood this from the perspective of the highest level of knowledge, that the meaning of life is life, or more precisely, the creative process, or, simply put, to experience something, why should the highest meaning of our lives be an evolution the culmination of which would be the end of the cycle of reincarnation?

We come to this life to experience something and then our main goal should be to escape the cycle of reincarnations so we won’t experience anything anymore? That doesn’t seem logical. I’m not saying that working on one’s own development makes no sense; it does, of course. One of the games of the Cosmic Game is reincarnation and evolution and when we enter this game, we accept its rules. The main meaning is to play creatively. I will attempt a comparison with an ordinary human activity: games. With the exception of the "pathological winner" (whose game is winning), most people play tennis, golf, football, cards or chess regularly, even if they lose, because they enjoy the game itself. This is not in conflict with the fact that they try to win within the rules (and some, above the rules).

The problem remains to determine what good and bad behaviour is. Determining what is good or bad will significantly differ among cultures and civilisations at each stage of the evolution of a person. Besides, what is good for one person, may not be good for another, even within the same culture and civilisation.

However, what is decisive for each era and civilisation in this case is the divine laws and not the laws of a given society. As a part of God, each Being contains God. Some people deeper, vaguely suspecting it, others will know about it very well, and others live in compliance with it. Here also applies that ignorance (or rather, unawareness) of the law is not an excuse.

It’s only up to us to decide which meaning of life is decisive for our incarnation. None of them are more or less true, it depends on the level of truth we assess the meaning of life from, which in most cases will depend on the evolutionary level at which we are. The book “Conversations with God” has one advice from god: “Realise in life the noblest idea of yourself”.

Beautiful example that not even God gives precedence to any of the meanings of life. It’s up to each person what their noblest idea is for this incarnation. And thus will determine the meaning of their life.

It could be basically said that the most common meaning of life from the perspective of a human being is to realise the noblest idea of oneself.

Divine justice

Unlike human justice, divine justice is neither blind nor cruel. The emphasis is on assessing the intentions and the consequences of the act (to at least partially excuse human justice, it should be noted that divine justice has much better resources to determine the real intentions of the offender).

Team sports like football could be a good example. When you play football, you more or less voluntarily submit to the rules of the game (the social laws laid down for the game of football).

During the game, a model situation occurs. A player commits a foul, instead of hitting the ball; he hits an opponent’s leg. There is no doubt that this violates the rules of the game. The problem, however, is that according to those rules, the same act may have up to three consequences, depending on the intention of the player:

1.      He actually wanted to get the ball, but failed due to his lack of skills or the skills of the opponent or by accident (the ball leaped unexpectedly because of a bad field, the player accidentally slipped, etc.).

2.      He wanted to stop the opponent to prevent a disadvantageous situation for his team.

3.      He wanted to injure the opponent.

The human judge—the referee—is in a very difficult position. The player will almost always pretend, and argue, that his intention was the first case, and it is usually beyond the capabilities of the referee to figure out the true cause.

God, in contrast, has it a lot easier. He always knows the true intention of the player. He even knows what the referee cannot possibly find out during the game: the motivation of the player, the reason why he acted with the intention of, for example, injuring the opponent.

  1. It may be revenge (a retribution for a previous game, for something the opponent did to him or his team-mates).
  2. He may want to win at any cost, trying to eliminate the best player of the opponent.
  3. He may have got that instruction from the manager and feels he must follow it (so he won’t be left out of the team, or get a reward, or because the manager is such an authority for him that he doesn’t question his instructions). And this could go on, it could be a player who loses money gambling or needs it for his sick mother or child.

Here I realise how many players on the pitch believe in god (at least so they claim and never forget to make the sign of the cross when entering the field) and would bring an opponent down without mercy, in a way that could cause permanent disability.

I believe that many still think that their conscience is clean before god. Isn’t it strange? And they will even say (and I think they believe it) that god helped them win this way.

God’s judgement has the big advantage that He can assess all the aspects of the act. For the sake of accuracy, divine judgement is conducted by the being itself, who naturally knows all the aspects of the act. 

Here, two apparently contradictory principles apply: “ignorance of the law is no excuse” and “ignorance does not sin”.

The effect of divine law is always consistent and just. The consequence of our behaviour is by no means punishment as understood by modern human societies or as interpreted in the Old Testament.

Once again and very simply put, the consequences of divine judgement are that what we do to others will be done to us.

More precisely: the principle that we will experience what our acts made others experience. It can be that of a suffering being or a happy and loved being, and many variants thereof, and many variants of other principles.

The lower the development level, the later the karmic consequences reach us; sometimes after several, if not many lives. In contrast, they reach people at higher levels very fast, even during their current lives, sometimes almost immediately.

With the example of the theory of reincarnation it is possible to clearly demonstrate and understand the multi-level truth.

Someone who wants one absolute truth and is unwilling to admit the possibility of more levels of truth, and unwilling or unable to admit their simultaneous validity, has very little chance to even glimpse the outlines of the Universe in its entirety, I’m afraid.

I want to again point out that there is no truth less valid than the others (and I remind the model described in the Introduction). None of the theories attempting to explain the meaning of reincarnation and the meaning of life are more or less valid than the others. One only needs to carefully assess which level of truth is an aspect of the absolute truth being presented from.

Karma and the freedom of choice

Karma is interpreted as a law of cause and effect. It is wrong, however, to see karma as a law of retaliation or crime and punishment. It is better to see it as the principle that we will experience in future lives what our acts made others experience.

From a higher level of truth, karma can also be seen as one of the sets of rules of the Cosmic Game.

There’s no reason to fear karma. It’s like being afraid of going in a car or a on a bicycle because the road is not infinitely wide, that it has a shoulder and goes through a landscape. It goes up and down, it turns left or right, and sometimes it seems to go back on itself on a hairpin bend.

Attempting to defy karma sometimes has a similar result to a driver’s going straight to a bend at full speed. The consequences will mostly depend on what is by the bend: trees, a precipice or a soft meadow.

It is very impractical to imagine that we can drive a car only on asphalt tarmac. The road karma takes us on is a road on the right direction and our karma can only take us in the right direction.

Without the consent of the Being, none of his forms (incarnation – beings) may be hurt by another being.

Experiencing a given principle is always the free choice of the Being, even if that principle is the experience of pain, fear or sorrow. The Being (Superego) decides when this life ends, when it has completed the tasks set for tit, when it has experienced the principles it had to experience.

In contrast, it may happen that a person refuses well offered by someone else (which may seem hard to understand for the uninitiated), because that good has not been planned for that person during this life.

This does not affect the value of the act has on the karmic consequences of the person who committed it, whether it is good or bad.

In this regard, we should address one of the fundamental questions: the relationship between the freedom of choice of a person and their fate (karma, destiny).

Humans have freedom of choice, but it is conditioned to genetic predisposition, education and the effects of the environment or the level of development of the soul, which are actually the conditions of the particular incarnation. Here is a very graphic example to illustrate the conditionality of freedom of choice. Is a loving mother holding a knife free to choose whether she’ll cut bread for her beloved child or intentionally hurt him with it?

When we watch a film or a theatre play we have no doubt that a particular character has freedom of choice, even if we know well that this choice is the creation of the author.

Freedom of choice and predestination are both sides of the same coin. Humans have a relative freedom of choice while being subject to karma.

The inconsistency or contradiction of two statements about the same thing should not surprise us. Even modern physics has several such cases. The best known one, perhaps, is that light has a particle and a wave nature, even if by definition they are apparently exclusive. Even one of the most renowned theoreticians of materialism expressly came from the unity of the opposites.

Everyone has full freedom of choice as the subject of an act, but the disposition to make this or that choice is conditional.

To fully understand it, we should bear in mind that nobody wilfully chooses to be happy or unhappy. Everyone wants to be happy, even if the idea of happiness is very different. But how happiness can be achieved is a matter of choice.

However, the effect a particular choice will have on the fate of a person depends largely on karma.

We all know cases where a particular choice, after some time (maybe even very long) seemed clearly wrong, but in the end it turned out to be the best possible one; and also opposite cases.

Our choices change the past as well as the conditionality. This idea is very important to understand the paradoxical relationship between freedom of choice and predestination, and I will try to develop it.

According to this book’s model of being, every decision changes not only the present and the future, but also the past. We are not, and cannot, be aware of those changes because a change in the past alters the knowledge thereof.

We are no longer able to remember the past before the change because it no longer exists, and never did.

This means that, despite freedom of choice being conditional to karma, karma is not completely unalterable.

A deeply sympathetic and wise choice or decision can change ourselves and the multidimensional being we are part of so much that it will partly alter the past, including the past of the condition of the freedom of choice.

This is how we can moderate or even alter karma.

By the most part, it is not about one single choice, but a long process of many choices that affect the karmic conditionality of the freedom of choice, which retroactively affects our freedom of choice.

If we want to moderate or alter our karma, we must consciously begin to change ourselves. We have to know what to work on and how. There have been reported cases of divine grace, but when this doesn’t seem to be so, they are actually cases where this conscious work took place in past lives.

I believe that a basic knowledge of karma can greatly help this work in this life. One of the best resources to get this information is a properly conducted regression therapy. The apparent paradox lies in the fact that the ability to recognise the need of self change is given, among other things, by previous lives and therefore by the conditions of a given incarnation.

With regards to the development of each person and also the possible solution to a particular situation, four things can happen.

The ability to decide on a particular act, or even inactivity, has two components.

  1. Cognition: a person is able to objectively assess the situation and knows the right solution (for the sake of simplicity, hereinafter, one knows).
  2. Volition: the person is able to implement the right solution, either by activity or inactivity (for the sake of simplicity, hereinafter, one can).

The combination of these components results of four possible variants:

  1. knows and can
  2. doesn’t know and can
  3. knows and can’t
  4. doesn’t know and can’t

We are all free to decide, at any time, that we will no longer incarnate, but we must reach the category knows and can.

Reincarnations are also a part of the Cosmic Game, which, like any other, also has its rules applicable to the players. Free will relies on what to partake or not, not on whether the rules are going to be observed or not.

The possibilities to choose freely are almost unlimited, only the possibility of other beings to choose freely is limited.

When a person consciously takes part in a created world, they’re be surrounded by everything, the entire created universe—everything that is not self. Here is when their absolute freedom is limited, by everything that is not self—the rest of the world. When they are part of the absolute, infinite nothingness, there are no limits and therefore they are absolutely free.

The degree of free will is determined by the degree of knowledge. Those with a low degree of knowledge, despite their apparent freedom, are dragged by fate and ignore the real reasons behind their decisions and acts. If they lack the necessary information, the see many things as random or bad luck and are not able to chose freely.