Stargate

Is the past and the future connected, by the sliver which is the timeless present? If our origins are as vague and inexplicable as the our future, our past best described as a nothingness, as well as our individual future equally a nothingness, promising on the belief that we around in life only once, where is it really that we come from, and where are we going?

If there is no past or future spatial-temporal past or future, what does it imply for the past or future of individual existence?

The best guess is, that the individual ego also floats in an imminence, constructing pasts and futures by architectural , cultural and semantic markers on one hand, and prophetic self fulfilling prophesies on the other.

The cure to modern angst is the realization, that these constructions are as easily deconstructed, whereby exposing the myth of both: an inviolate past structured in immutable belief systems , predicating necessary, foreward conclusions.

What are the implications of such belief systems regarding the ideas of reincarnation, eternal return?

Do we ever return, when there is only the existential present, and nowhere in the past to come from, or nowhere in the future to get to?

Is the state of the universe based on absolute imminence, or relative transcendence, without beginning, or end?

Is this existence the Golden Eternity? So why worry?
If so, are ego states only a manifestation of this great cosmic emptiness?

Given your self identification as a Mongolian, your cousins are under the Dalai Lama (you heard me right, most Buddhists in Mongolia are Tibetian Buddhists, they’ve done extensive missionary missions in the region since the time of the last imperial dynasty.

This book is a good introduction to the concept of reincarnation independent of Time’s Arrow:

amazon.com/Secret-Lives-Dal … 0385530706

My simple code for expressing temporal geometry (you have some familiarity with it… very basic, for providing concept, not proof of concept) can fit his supposed reincarnation pattern, except Tibetians don’t believe in the Greco-Roman Christian Soul… much passes on, but it isn’t as a whole.

They didn’t go into the physics too deeply in this book, so don’t know if it is a Neo-Plantonist/Neo-Pythagorean ratification of the soul shedding it’s elements through karmic reactions and gaining new qualities, substances, or whatsnot. I’m not longer around Tibetians or even knowledgeable buddhists so can’t anwser… I would like to know more about this because it seems the author was on the cusp of explaining this.

He did note and explain thatt the Dalai Lama would die, at a impasse, and reincarnated in another land (one example was Mongolia) and fix a solution, and that solution would be in place once the next “official” Dalai Lama reincarnated.

So everyone things your going from Dalai Lama 7-8, but then number 8 informs you he is actually 9, that he had reincarnated in another country while Dalai Lama number 8 was midway through his life, he did something important, died while Dalai Lama 9 was still alive…

They don’t hold strictly to time’s arrow. Does this mean you can reincarnated as a tyrannosaur Rex? Then was one of those funky future homos in Cloud Atlas’s future, then reincarnated as Henry IV, then as Obama, then as George Bush? I don’t know. I am familiar more than most Christians with Buddhist, and Tibetian Buddhist concepts, but wouldn’t call myself a expert. I just note typically it is seen as past to future by most, but in Tibetian Buddhism time travel of the “soul” is possible. I’m sure they worked out some impressive explanations for this, I just know it sounds too damn much like Terminator and Twelve Monkies.

Also don’t think Eternal Return is realistic, due to entropy decay… I explained my stance before. As a Catholic, reincarnation save through creation of the soul and the ascent to heaven and hell in judgement is about as far as I follow. Tertullians views are considered heretical, but mildly. Won’t ever be preached as Orthodox in a church, for any ancient church still around that takes it’s apostolic succession and research seriously, but can be tolerated as individual spiritualism and philosophical inquiry. He seems to of developed it in response to a gymnosophist, one can only hope a naked one, for hilarity’s sake.

My only response is an enlightenment at a Khrishnamurti gathering in Ohai Calif, witnessing his last talk.

To reincarnate or not is not the question, since those who are thrown to the karmic gods, will suffer denial as well as those, who could not accept their role and image in their pre incarnated state. So as they look through their magic mirror, they simply will not be able to see themselves then, as they were unable&/or unwilling in their past life. So reincarnation may happen, but whoever claims this, can never see themselves as connecting the past to the present re-incarnation.

Even as a Mongol/Hunn type person, I am able to tell You, that I am not bound to any Bordo, I am free, because I can transcend that, which predicates a transcendent ego. Therefore I live in the here and now, not trying to transcend it into another, new realm into the next transcendent world-life, BUT declare my imminent existential difference-disintegration, here, and now, knowing that even if I live on, as an energy field-grasping to my identity, I can at least try, to release all or most of my ego into others’ , so as to perceive their images into the mirror which I am. I am becoming I afraid to release my self into others’ images, knowing full well, this will carry me over to immortality.

The way of burial in Tibet: First, break back of corpse, and press it into a very compact parcel. Then carry it up to a high mountain, and leave it there, for the carrions and wild life to feed on.

Christianity is all over the place on spiritual-physical monism (body is literally what resurrects, it is the soul, so bury it right) vs soul is very different from mind and body. Cartesian Dualism us a hybrid outgrowth of the latter incorporating aspects of the former, but a great many theologians dance in every direction on this. I’m not too concerned… I tend to veer away from Transcendental theories of the soul, and of Yogic transcendentalism, due to my exposure to the nearby Hari Khrishnans… I live in West Virginia not too close to their Moundsville Temple, and am typically deeply unimpressed with their grasp on how transcendental meditation works, given my background in various meditative methods used east and west… they seem largely ignorant of what they are saying. It is like someone instructing a experienced cab-driver in the basics of driving, and the cab driver is looking at them like they are retarded, prone to crash.

But I understand the appeal for Moksha is historic and given great emphasis, and my skepticism isn’t the sort of Bill Nye or Richard Dawkins where I will stand over people mocking them. I get why the idea is bought into, and lots of smart men have followed such traditions and enriched them… it is enough for me to presume some great unanswered questions of physics lie inside, and as a tradition that hasn’t died off, has undoubtedly a few thousand years of patriastic wisdom that gives expression in how to navigate lives issues.

I tend to look down on synthetic religions (not organically grown from long generational exchange), like KhrishnaMurti, but of the works I’ve read on him, he did too. I can’t blame someone for more or less being born into the role of a cult leader, if they snap out of it, for remaining comfortable in their trade as a philosopher. I wouldn’t blame a carpenter for remaining a carpenter once freed, or a prostitute for resorting to more of the same, or a general for staying with the military, even if trained by birth and given the repression of no choice… it is what they know. But I don’t elevate him higher than I would anyone here. He is only famous due to the early cultic following he received. I hear more about his good name than critical insights to his ideas. I recall reading a books on quotes of him, on the subject of how fear functions in the mind… one of the areas I’m active in… he wasn’t a bad philosopher, just he isn’t studied for being a good one… people seek him our for spiritual completeness. It usually isn’t critical, or deeply investigative. It is why I’m not a fan of the Platonic or Aristotelian schools establishing their schools as a cult… they became long lasting, but very little variation came from it from critical thinkers later on. Mostly stagnant… not good for a track record of 2000 years till the Renaissance. You get much more enrichment to a religion from internalized skepticism. Transcendentalism is only skeptical about the empirical… so I’m left deeply put off by it. I have higher levels of reasonable acceptability for those religions that offer a hybrid, and not a strict dualism of physical not matching the spiritual. No fucking way to verify your progress at all, trust your experiences in progress as it can be completely delusional, and if someone informs me they are fully transcedentally realized, I will smack them hard when they don’t expect it to test it… though admittedly me just seeing such a person and them informing me of the fact they are… is proof enough they aren’t. I’m no fool… I may play the fool at times, but I’m not actually one.