Out of the Dark

#1
We all emerge from a darkness before life, without memory, without self. Which one among us can name that place that we come from? It seems very likely that this same condition is that which will pertain when death claims us. But what is that mysterious dark? Perhaps a realm of pure potential, not yet realized, not yet conscious, not yet made.

But then, what happens to our thoughts, our feelings, our perceptions, once we have them? They also recede into a grounded dark. In all probability the very same one from which we ourselves emerged. And yet...we can call these things back...memories, thoughts, perceptions, from whatever ground of possibility they sink into. Is it so far fetched that being and potential may not also "call us back" again out of the void, albeit perhaps with no memory of what went before? What are these things, these our (thoughts, feelings, perceptions) when we are not thinking, feeling, perceiving them? What are they before they are called back? We call them memories, but this is just a label.

Did some potential not exist for a world then no world would ever have come into being.
 
#4
Certainly not the thousands of children who's cases were documented by Stevens, Bowman, Haraldsson, Mills......

Cheers,
Bill
For those who know (or intellectually accept) multiple incarnations, perhaps a New Agey convention can help in clarity of communication. It's simple - self (refers to the incarnation speaking/writing) and Self (refers to the "larger Self" that is generating all the incarnations).
 
#5
We all emerge from a darkness before life, without memory, without self. Which one among us can name that place that we come from? It seems very likely that this same condition is that which will pertain when death claims us. But what is that mysterious dark? Perhaps a realm of pure potential, not yet realized, not yet conscious, not yet made.

But then, what happens to our thoughts, our feelings, our perceptions, once we have them? They also recede into a grounded dark. In all probability the very same one from which we ourselves emerged. And yet...we can call these things back...memories, thoughts, perceptions, from whatever ground of possibility they sink into. Is it so far fetched that being and potential may not also "call us back" again out of the void, albeit perhaps with no memory of what went before? What are these things, these our (thoughts, feelings, perceptions) when we are not thinking, feeling, perceiving them? What are they before they are called back? We call them memories, but this is just a label.

Did some potential not exist for a world then no world would ever have come into being.
I wonder... why do you ask these questions if I never read you recognizing some merit to the best evidence coming from parapsychology?
Is it pure, groundless speculation superior to empirical evidence? If the empirical evidence we have is not sufficient, as I expect you to claim, why would be unsubstantiated conjectures be of any help?

We all emerge from a darkness before life, without memory, without self.
Where does this conclusion comes from? How do we know that we come into existence without self?

There seem to be good evidence we do have one, since even toddlers start to manifest very different characteristics in their early days. There could be a core of the self which is already there, ready to develop. And which manifests since we're able to emit the first wailing. Instead of no-self.

p.s.= I can already sense the "you're building a straw man" coming ... please don't. I have endured the pain to read your objections to anything parapsychological :)
 
#6
Certainly not the thousands of children who's cases were documented by Stevens, Bowman, Haraldsson, Mills......

Cheers,
Bill
But that is life, rather than the mystery before life. I think we cast that Mystery (the unmanifest) in terms of the manifest, because it is the only thing our sensory style of thinking can really grasp. I don't necessarily dispute that Stevenson's children may earlier have resonated with another life. But just as we can ask, what were they "between" resonances, so we can ask, what are thoughts between...the occasions that we thing them? ;)

EDIT: I meant to say "think" them, but actually "thing" them works well too...
 
#7
Where does this conclusion comes from? How do we know that we come into existence without self?

There seem to be good evidence we do have one, since even toddlers start to manifest very different characteristics in their early days. There could be a core of the self which is already there, ready to develop. And which manifests since we're able to emit the first wailing. Instead of no-self.

p.s.= I can already sense the "you're building a straw man" coming ... please don't. I have endured the pain to read your objections to anything parapsychological :)
No, not a straw man Bucky. Still...toddlers are also structures of life. I think to take manifestation seriously is to take the view that something unfulfilled becomes fulfilled in that activity. I've never been intellectually satisfied with the claim that somehow it is fulfilled already, prior to the world. And in fact, that just pushes the problem back - what process sponsors that fulfilling?
 
#8
I wonder... why do you ask these questions if I never read you recognizing some merit to the best evidence coming from parapsychology?
Is it pure, groundless speculation superior to empirical evidence? If the empirical evidence we have is not sufficient, as I expect you to claim, why would be unsubstantiated conjectures be of any help?
You are making you're own unsubstantiated claim and showing strong bias in branding things as "conjecture" and/or " pure, groundless speculation." As for empirical (physical) evidence - it can be of use but it will not give you the answers you seek. Or think you seek. And I say these as one who perceives things very differently to the OP.
 
#12
But that is life, rather than the mystery before life. I think we cast that Mystery (the unmanifest) in terms of the manifest, because it is the only thing our sensory style of thinking can really grasp.
That might be backwards. The mystery "before" this life might be life (consciousness), and the confusion we feel when perceiving through "this life" is the result of filtering.

Cheers,
Bill
 
#13
That might be backwards. The mystery "before" this life might be life (consciousness), and the confusion we feel when perceiving through "this life" is the result of filtering.

Cheers,
Bill
Except that this sets up a complicated situation calling for *more* explanation, some of it probably far fetched, when by contrast, if we can accept that we surface from a mystery that is unconscious and dark, or at best a primitive groping towards consciousness, we already have an explanation for much of the way that the world is, without having to create spirit worlds, or "life plans" or other things to shore up an unnecessarily complicated idea.
 
#16
Evidence for NDEs, mediumship and children that seem to remember their past lives suggests that the darkness is this life now, because the true self before / after biological life is more lucid than that small self of biological life.
 
#17
You are making you're own unsubstantiated claim and showing strong bias in branding things as "conjecture" and/or " pure, groundless speculation." As for empirical (physical) evidence - it can be of use but it will not give you the answers you seek. Or think you seek. And I say these as one who perceives things very differently to the OP.
Weird... my question wasn't for you. :eek:
 
#18
No, not a straw man Bucky. Still...toddlers are also structures of life. I think to take manifestation seriously is to take the view that something unfulfilled becomes fulfilled in that activity. I've never been intellectually satisfied with the claim that somehow it is fulfilled already, prior to the world. And in fact, that just pushes the problem back - what process sponsors that fulfilling?
Fair enough, but why not integrate the discussion with cross-cultural evidence amassed through the millennia of human history?
If we had a discussion about the origin of the Universe we would be taking into account the body of knowledge and empirical observations we have made so far? Right?

I don't understand your premise:
I think to take manifestation seriously is to take the view that something unfulfilled becomes fulfilled in that activity.
Can you explain why your premise should have more merit than taking, for example, the evidence-based premise that consciousness manifests through multiple, possibly parallel, embodiments in a likely eternal evolutionary process?

Of course, if this is purely philosophical exercise then any premise is valid. In that case I don't have any objections.

Cheers
 
Top