X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]

CB Willis (cbwillis@lightlink.com) wrote:

>2.  The stronger claim (i.e., wider in scope), also the popularized
>view, holds that there is an individual substance (usually called a
>soul) that acquires and sheds by turns bodies throughout many
>centuries (even eons).  All of this is toward the end of gaining
>some sort of knowledge via experience in a physical body.  When the
>requisite knowledge is gained and competency is demonstrated, then
>the soul is "liberated" from the necessity to reincarnate into a
>physical body.

     The spin on this is the usual garbage offered by apologists for
being in a body that it is somehow good for one, that one needs to
learn life lessons to be become worthwhile of those already so

     The truth is that a being needs to UNLEARN all the lessons he
ever learned as they are what are sinking him, (gotta remember this
forever, never forget etc.) and that his existence in a body is a last
ditch effort to remain conscious on his way to sinking forever beneath
the Sasgasso Sea of other sick, dead and dying thetans.

     The sweetness and light brigade can't confront their true
position in the drain of existence, so they make a virtue out of a
horrible necessity.

     Now the necessity of it is illusory, a thetan doesn't HAVE to
dwindle but he does have to start UNlearning lessons real fast to
remain afloat.

>Note that the weaker claim has all of the practical (that is,
>potentially edifying) advantages of the stronger claim -- perhaps
>more.  At the same time, it has none of the philosophical
>drawbacks:  1) the problem of whether there are individual souls as
>opposed to no souls at all or a universal soul instead, 2) the
>problem of whether, if there are individual souls, they reincarnate
>in the same way that the stronger claim asserts, 3) the problem of
>determining veridicality ("objective truth") of the impressions--that
>is, determining with certainty whether an impression refers to an
>historical fact, and is not just a psychological quirk, a mistake
>or a delusion; and if it _is_ an historical fact, is it a fact about
>me rather than about someone else, all of us, or none of us (that
>is, the impression was only about a _possible_ event), 4) the problem
>of that sort of non-progressive reminiscing that "I was ...  in a
>previous incarnation," 5) the problem of stating that souls have a
>history (i.e., precision of language, and noetic language*), 
>to enumerate a few.

     The weaker claim however suffers an extreme and damaging
downside, the being WANTS to be immortal and have the stronger claim
be true.

     No being can remain high tone with such a violation of his desire
operating in his world view.

     Here's a magic formula.  Find out what you want, what you HAVE to
have to be happy, then assume that happiness is possible, and that
will give you some idea of what to look for in truth.

>4.  The weaker claim, although smaller in scope, turns out to be
>the stronger claim philosophically.  All of this is not to say that
>reincarnation (the stronger view) _couldn`t_ be the case, or _isn`t
>actually_ the case; rather, we cannot know with certainty _whether or
>not_ it is the case, despite a sense of certainty of _another_ kind
>regarding "reincarnation _impressions_."  

     This is silly.  Why not?  One exteriorization, one memory, and
one has the stronger claim.

     The implied idea in this idiocy is that one has to have the body
die to know that one is not a body, that one is not made of space/time
mechanics, that in fact space/time mechanics are an illusion of
magnitude in consciousness.

     One can know all these things without having the body die.

     The idea that the weaker claim is the stronger claim
philosophically is just nuts.


Sun Jun 18 00:46:56 EDT 2006