Souls and clones

[MsEVP]

This is a difficult subject. I believe in reincarnation. That we are basically souls on an evolutionary journey during which we become clothed in a human shell. That this is a physical plane where we learn.

I believe that there are animal souls as well, of course.

When a clone is created what brings it to life? Is it a new soul or the soul of the original body dividing, or sharing itself with another body.?

[naomi24]

Sorry for the delay, Tina. I hope I have understood this correctly, but no doubt you'll tell me if I haven't. I find your post confusing and conflicting. You say the soul experience cannot be remembered in either the conscious or the sub-conscious while the soul is inhabiting the body, and that you don't believe we regress.

Then you say that real instances of reincarnation have come out under hypnotic regression. Bearing in mind your conclusion that you don't believe we regress, how can that be?

Additionally, if memories are restricted to 'bodyless' souls, where, in your opinion, do the memories that appear to surface during the regressions you mention, come from?

[Whickerman]

just for the record... I'm not Buddhist.

Reincarnation is a common thread in quite a few belief systems. I did mention the buddhist term boddisatva as it's got a recognised meaning, but also used the term soul for the same reason.

[MsEVP]

Naomi, sorry for the lateness and the confusion.

Let`s see. By regress I meant go down or backward. That is, a soul, no matter how immature, would never inhabit beings of a lower order, animals etc.

Also the few instances that seem to be real cases of reincarnation are probably due to `shadowing`, a Spiritualistic phrase. That is, a spirit enters a hypnotized body and gives evidential information, that may be about itself or another personality, that can be verified.

Hope this clears up my thoughts. Anything else, please let me know.

[naomi24]

Thanks for that, Tina. So your belief bears no relation to Buddhism? Is this belief common amongst Spiritualists? I ask, because I have a friend who is a Spiritualist, and although we've spoken on this subject many times, she's never mentioned this. It's an interesting theory, but one I've not heard before. However, I'd like to understand your thoughts, so just to clarify ....... the spirit that you think enters a hypnotized body is, in effect, just a messenger, and may give information either relating the subject of the hypnosis, or to its own experiences? Is that right? If so, how can the hypnotist know to whom the information relates, and how can it be verified?

Whicker, it's interesting to note that many Buddhists consider Jesus to be a boddisatva.

[MsEVP]

OK, Naomi, possession (shadowing) is where the personality of the hypnotized person (sitter) is taken over by another, usually a discarnate spirit.. Dr Carl Wickland wrote a book called 20 years among the dead. His wife went into `trances` and Wickland noted hundreds of entities coming through her. This really is a fascinating account. He was very scientific and thorough. He was able to verify that some of the personalities had existed, where they had lived etc. This was supernormal knowledge gained when his wife was in a sleeping state and had to be ascribed to an external intelligence. It seems that some people die leaving unsolved issues, or just want to communicate to let people know that they still exist. Some of Wickland`s personalities tried to pretend they were one of his wife`s incarnations. So a good hypnotist has to be impartial and open-minded to the fact that he may NOT be retrieving a reincarnation episode. I`ve practically never had a spiritualist accept the fact that something they`ve just been told by the church medium could very well be due to telepathy! (which does exist without doubt)
Oops, must stop now, did I cover everything?

[jake-the-peg]

Just as a matter of interest where do you believe these souls came from in the first place?

Perhaps the clone souls came from the same place?

Unless you believe the Universe has been here forever (and the evidence would seem to strongly be agsinst that) There must have been a time when there were no souls.

If something can be created it stands to reason it can be destroyed. Simply the creation process backwards.

[Whickerman]

Jake - that would be true, but as in maths you only need one exception to disprove the theory. I'm not for one second equating religious and scientific beliefs here, but I do need to bring physics in to address your specific point - energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can change from one state to another.

[MsEVP]

Jake: haven`t thought about it before, but since there must have been a time when there was no ANYTHING then there could be at least two explanations for the appearance of souls. Either they evolved (like language for instance) or they were seeded from space (along with the human race, for instance).

[jake-the-peg]

Yes but they have to have started somewhere even if they were seeded from space.

If there was a time when there were no souls anywhere they must have come into being.

If they came into being it must be possible for them to go out of being. - jus the reverse process.

Therefore no soul can be truely immortal

[naomi24]

That theory seems unnecessarily convoluted to me, Tina. Since the information imparted doesn't necessarily relate to the subject under hypnosis,the exercise sounds like a combination of regression and a seance. I've read accounts of people being regressed, and of the details they have revealed checking out, but I've never heard of a 'third party' being involved in the process.

Incidentally, I do believe that telepathy is possible.

Good question Jake - and one I hadn't thought of. Perhaps Whicker's right in that souls evolve from changing energy, and if energy can neither be created nor destroyed, then, theoretically, it is possible for the soul to be immortal.