From: suzych@swcp.com   
      
   > >You logically know that you achieved this state after having "not" been   
   > >alive.   For example.....if you were born in the year 1952, you achieved   
   > >your current state of life after having "not" been alive in 1947.   
   > >   
   > >So you know from personal experience that you transformed from   
   > >"non-living"" to "living".   
   >   
   > This implies some sort of pre-birth holding-area for the   
   > consciousness...as unlikely as a "holding area" for the consciousness   
   > after death (Heaven...Hell?....   
      
   Not a "pre-birth holding area", as I understand it, but a pause, on some   
   level of the discarnate planes of existence (and no, I can't prove that   
   they exist and you can't prove that they couldn't) between the end of one   
   life and the beginning of another.  Inexperienced souls are scared of   
   this plane, and hustle themselves off it as soon as they can, but the   
   older among them come to regard this space -- used for reflection and   
   planning the next round as well as hanging out with friends -- as a   
   welcome respite and a comfortable retreat that they may make use of for   
   decades before diving back into the fray. In other words, nobody "holds"   
   you: you hold yourself there til you're ready to move on, and when that   
   is is entirely up to you.   
      
   > > we live only once. Abraham Lincoln died...and he is still dead.   
      
   Prove it. Abe could be back as a Haitian fisherman, or an orange seller   
   in a Middle-Eastern marketplace, or . . . ad infinitum.  Don't make the   
   mistake of assuming that a person who was brilliant in one lifetime will   
   choose to be brilliant an all lifetimes, or highborn or lowborn, or for   
   that matter male or female.  We keep coming back til we've really learned   
   what living in the physical is like, good stuff and bad stuff, and there   
   is no way to do that in one lifetime, not even in a long one.   
      
   > So is Caesar, Einstein, and the guy who, for the first time in   
   > history,  intentionally hand-planted an apple tree with the intent of   
   > harvesting its fruit. None have come back.   
      
   Sure they have; but in the first place, from the perspective of between-   
   lives, "proving" or demonstrating the truth of reincarnation is probably   
   completely unimportant (a leaf doesn't have to "believe" in   
   photosynthesis to turn green) so it isn't imperative to go harvest that   
   tree.  In the second place, there are good reasons that in most cultures   
   we lose our between-lives memories very quickly after we are born.  Just   
   consider the fate of, say, a GM executive from Michigan finding himself   
   reborn as an infant girl in a remote Afghan village; that child wouldn't   
   live past learning to epeak more than baby-talk.  Moreover, the   
   experiences of the Michigan life, if remembered, would muddy up and   
   confuse the experiences of the Afghan life, and the purpose of the   
   Afghan life is to live the Afghan life on whatever terms one can manage,   
   not to live an old life over again.   
      
   In cultures where belief in reincarnation is the norm, young children   
   have been recorded identifying people, places, and things from a former   
   lifetime, which they can do without getting into the trouble they'd   
   meet in the culture of, say, a small town in the Southeastern United   
   States with more Xian churches than families in it.   
      
   > >In order to cycle, things need to come around again.   
   > >The cycling of life is termed reincarnation.   
   > >Reincarnation requires survival of the life form during the   
   > >in-between-lives period   
      
   It only requires the survival of the consciousness as energy, because it   
   takes place on a plane where there is energy but no matter.   
      
   > People like cycles...they comfort us. We go out of our way to find   
   > cycles and patterns too in the world. Some even exist.   
      
   Many more than I think you realize.   
      
   > But when   
   > speaking of reincarnation, we get into "fuzzy" science. We know when   
   > consciousness occurs...we can put electrodes on a fetus and measure   
   > its brain fucntion. We can measure when an infant first becomes aware   
   > of "self."  We know what happens to the consciousness when we sleep,   
   > and when we are put under anesthesia. And we can measure when   
   > brain-death occurs.   
      
   All of these measurements are useful; none of them are the defining   
   measurements of human life.  Science evolves; and just because we are   
   limited to Test A at this time, that doesn't mean we won't come up   
   with Tests B, C, D, etc. in coming centuries, which will cause us to   
   completely reinterpret the results of poor little Test A, which will   
   actually look pretty dinky and crude before very long.  Not to mention   
   the well-known distortion patterns, intended or not, that the human   
   element tends to inject into scientific inquiries.  I'll take "fuzzy"   
   science over "bad" science any day (the latter being experiments   
   designed to prove convictions the experimenter already holds, not to   
   answer an open-ended question regardless of whether the answer accords   
   with the experimenter's convictions -- or ambitions, or grandiose   
   schemes, or other limitations of clear thought -- or not.   
      
   Science is wonderful stuff; but subtle matters, it's far from a fixed   
   structure, and it's unwise to put all your trust in it for *everything*.   
      
   > Stephanie, we can make up all kinds myths to fit the cycles and   
   > patters which we like to see. But the bottom line is that we have no   
   > evidence of a conscious, individual awareness existance after   
   > death   
      
   This just isn't so, unless you are simply discounting ("pshaw!  What   
   nonsense!) all the accounts of NDE's and accounts of young reincarnates   
   demonstrating their knowledge of their own previous lifetimes.  Now, if   
   you say, "I've seen no evidence that convinces me", that's another   
   matter, and all honor to you.   
      
   > Personally, I've found my lack of belief to be incredibly freeing.   
      
   I've found a conviction of the truth of reincarnation to be remarkable   
   freeing, myself.  It means that I can learn from my mistakes.  It means   
   that although I can step in the stream of life many times it will never   
   be exactly the same river from one step to another, so I'm moved to   
   treasure the significance of everything around me this time and   
   everything around me the next time.  It means that I don't have wear   
   myself to a frazzle trying to go everywhere and do everything in one go,   
   since I'll have all the time I need to cover all of the ground, which   
   allows me to slow down and attend carefully to each present bit of it.   
   Similarly, I need envy no one, since if I wish to I'll get my chance to   
   do/have some version of what it is that they're doing or having or being   
   that I would like to experience for myself.   
      
   > Sure, there are downsides. I know that when my friends and family die,   
   > we will not be "reunited" in some cozy place where we will all live   
   > together for eternity.   
      
   This is more a notion of Xianity than of reincarnation belief.  I take   
   the individuality of the people near and dear to me very seriously,   
   because I know that after death, when I encounter them again, they won't   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)