Erin - What happens after you're done incarnating?

[thefictionxwelive]

A few questions that I haven't yet found the answer to:

What happens after you've learned what you want to learn, and you return to Source? Do you lose your individuality and merge into oneness?
This is the main question.

Where did Source come from?

I read in one of your entries about something like learning and experiencing things, then reporting back to Source. But is it all about experience, is that it?


Essentially, I'm asking the meaning of life. Or the meaning of death.
Or the meaning of after all that.


Thanks.

[Erin Pavlina]

My understanding is that when you are done incarnating as an individual tendril of God that you do indeed merge back with Source, your particular identities forgotten.

not sure where Source came from. In this density it's hard to fathom such things.

We are tendrils of Source energy, here to experience, learn, grow, and remember love.

[thefictionxwelive]

So, for understanding purposes...
If I were Source, and I wanted to experience things, I may decide to send parts of myself (people, animals, plants, etc. maybe planets and the universe as well?) out to do so.
So we are all part of Source.

But what does Source get from this? Is it just "Well, I exist, may as well do things." I suppose the answer to this goes along with where Source comes from. If it were an individual thing, then sent us out? Or if we all sent ourselves out, or something different. Not really fathomable right now, I guess.
Maybe there are multiple Sources. But then there would have to be another higher one. Hm.

I really do get reincarnation and learning things and love. It's after that that I don't understand.
I've been really worried about this lately. The point of all this. I mean, I enjoy life and love and everything, I really do. I like the idea of reincarnating as different people and learning different things.

The question is why? After it's all done. Losing my individuality, "becoming one" is what concerns me. Why?, is what concerns me.

[Erin Pavlina]

We're at a density right now where fully understanding the whys and whos is difficult. think of it like being in a play and you're playing a part and your character starts asking what it's doing in this play and what play it's going to be in after this play, and what if it doesn't want to do plays anymore, then what's it going to do? Those are questions best left to the actor, not the character, to ask and understand.

So while you are in character, play your part, do your thing, and when you get to the other side, ask your questions.

[tru]

are you saying that as individual beings we can choose to incarnate ?

[Erin Pavlina]

Tru, yes. We are not sent here without our permission. Read my article on choosing your parents and life circumstances.

[daj]

"We are not sent here without our permission."

Yet the majority of us can't remember making plans to come here.
Where's the permission in not remembering?

It's like a girl waking up to a guy she had sex with, yet she doesn't remember any of it besides drinking the night before, so she finds herself sitting up in surprise and shock. Where's the permission in not remembering?

I grant you permission to make me forget myself and who I am, to come down to a world filled with mundane conflicts and problems to learn and grow?
and to try to remember myself down here as I am up there to help people remember themselves?

It seems to me as if the problem is easily solved if we never came down here in the first place, forgetting who we are in the process.

I feel we've all been raped by spirits who took over the spirit world, but I can't be for sure, and I doubt any of us can be after all...

[tru]

Originally Posted by Erin Pavlina

Tru, yes. We are not sent here without our permission. Read my article on choosing your parents and life circumstances.

Read your article,
must say i find it hard to accept that people would choose to be put in certain situations no matter how short the term may be in the grand scheme of things, but lets say for now that what you are saying is actually how it all works and that people choose to suffer disabilities or abusive parents and all manner of terrible things in order to make a difference and learn. then what about all the privileged people in the world, who don't suffer, who don't struggle, they presumably had the same choices are they just being completely selfish or not willing to learn?

[wstein]

Probably for most beings here, our bodies live on perhaps learning more things we didn't know before. Then the body dies and the soul returns home. The soul (spiritual being) is not to be confused with God, the divine, or the source.

Source didn't come from anywhere nor did it go anywhere.

I'm pretty convinced at this point, there is no meaning to life other than what we tell ourselves. That doesn't really create meaning but it does create direction.

[Erin Pavlina]

@tru, people born into privilege and wealth aren't automatically free of suffering. maybe they chose rich parents to learn proactivity and not how to rest on their laurels.

[sups]

I think to answer these questions or rather to understand the answers one shud have an overview of the existence, otherwise we are in a similar situation of a kindergarten child,who has just become familiar with alphabets to whom you try explaining e=mc2

thanks erin for educating us on the world beyond

[Jaded Soul]

Daj, I don't really get the idea that because you forget something means you never consented to it in the first place. You have never forgotten something you agreed to do in your life? As for comparing regretted sex and drinking with rape, well I can't even begin to explain what is wrong with that.

I guess a big part of the reason we forget who we are and where we came from when incarnating is that that is the only way of engaging with this reality enough to learn from it. That is, if everyone knew all along that life is something of a game and an illusion, we wouldn't engage enough to learn from it. On some level, you have to take this reality seriously enough for it to have an impact on you. Otherwise you would just look at everything as a harmless computer game with no consequences.

Although, I have to confess that it is extremely hard sometimes. Especially when you have had a life of hardship, trauma, loneliness and pain. To know that there really is a universe of infinite love and possibilities and all the rest, but you just don't know it or have erased your memory of it.

[Jaded Soul]

It is also often the case that spirits choose to experience things on the other side without entirely comprehending how hard it is to deal with them in the physical reality. But this is not unlike life. How often have you made a decision you regretted afterwards, or got into a situation and thought "how the hell did I wind up here"?

No matter how awful your experiences are does not necessarily mean you didn't choose them. If you are severely drunk with a hangover, blackouts, and feeling nauseous, you still chose to do it to yourself.

[pianoperformer]

This is a bit of an old thread, but while it’s active again, I may as well respond.
Approaching it merely from a philosophical standpoint, don’t accept that we are all just parts of God (Source or whatever you want to call such a being). I have several reasons to think this:

1. What would be the motive? Such a divine being can’t be trying to experience new things, because by definition, it has to be infinite, and so there is no new experience that this being can possibly experience that is not already within itself in some way.(I use “it” to try to generalize the concept of God as much as possible).
2. God can’t have parts or “tendrils.” Again we run into the problem of infinitude, which cannot be split into parts. God must be completely simple and without parts, or else there would be some other power that would have had to bring those parts together, for such a God could not have done it itself.
3. It violates our individuality and intrinsic value. We have a deep, unquestionable sense that we are individuals, not just imagined components of some whole. While I do agree there is an interconnectedness, we must not overemphasize this for the individual. Even some in this thread have protested to the idea of merging back into source. Intrinsicly, we want to maintain our individuality, and we feel it is unjust to lose it. It denies the value of the individual, because each perceived person is really only a part of the Source, but the person themselves has no value independent of that whole.

I believe that we actually are individuals. I think that we were created out of love. When we love someone, we want them to experience happiness and whatever is best for them. We want to share our own happiness. I believe that God is the same way, and created everything in order to share infinite love.

Yes it is painful here sometimes, but I think that is when we disconnect ourselves from that love and try to make it on our own. I believe the point is to become more and more connected to that love.

[Cado]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

What would be the motive? Such a divine being can’t be trying to experience new things, because by definition, it has to be infinite, and so there is no new experience that this being can possibly experience that is not already within itself in some way.(I use “it” to try to generalize the concept of God as much as possible).

How do you know that? While I'm not able to speak from the highest level of existence I know I can experience one thing in a multitude of ways. I wouldn't know that if I wasn't constantly exploring and if I didn't use certain things as benchmarks of my progress. If the infinite were to ask, "is there anything I don't know about myself?" I doubt it would linger on the question, it would create a mechanism by which it could experiment.

God can’t have parts or “tendrils.” Again we run into the problem of infinitude, which cannot be split into parts. God must be completely simple and without parts, or else there would be some other power that would have had to bring those parts together, for such a God could not have done it itself.

How do you figure? We don't really have a context in which we can say definitively what a god would or would not do, what it could or could not do, or how it would or would not function. We end up making a lot of assumptions. Indeed I gave into conjecture in my last paragraph-it's unavoidable when talking about something of which we cannot be certain. Applying human logic to ultimate truth clarifies nothing.

I think there are some things even the most spiritually advanced among us have to be content not to know. That doesn't mean their insight and their beliefs are irrelevant; it does mean that I think nobody has a clear view of the whole picture and that even if oneness feels like the best answer to some it may well be a distortion of something beyond human understanding. (Plus if there really are non-corporeal entities of some kind I see no reason to believe they wouldn't push their own agenda even if they have the best of intentions.)

Intuitively I can see how it would work. Indeed it sometimes feels like the line between self and other is extremely thin. What does that mean? I don't know; I get nowhere pondering the question. Right now I benefit for developing myself individually so that's where my focus is. My perspective will change as I grow. Seeing as I am mortal, I doubt the truth or falsity of this idea has any impact on the meaning of my life. Indeed life is what I make of it so once I've made something I consider worthwhile I'll sit down and do some more thinking.

It violates our individuality and intrinsic value. We have a deep, unquestionable sense that we are individuals, not just imagined components of some whole. While I do agree there is an interconnectedness, we must not overemphasize this for the individual. Even some in this thread have protested to the idea of merging back into source. Intrinsicly, we want to maintain our individuality, and we feel it is unjust to lose it. It denies the value of the individual, because each perceived person is really only a part of the Source, but the person themselves has no value independent of that whole.[/list]

Some of that's cultural. Say Buddhism was the dominant belief in the west-would individuality be as highly regarded as it is today? You have whole cultures, whole belief systems, wherein the individual is only spoken of in relation to the whole. And as for the struggle to maintain individuality, you can chalk some of that up to survival instincts as opposed to some higher function. It's like imposing greater depth upon the emotions of animals than there really is-we are animals on a certain level and many of our drives go no deeper than the "dumb" creatures we tower over. Strip that away, or at least put us in control, and would we cherish individuality the way we do now? It's apparent that some people don't. While I don't support the notion that the ego is something to put aside entirely it's impossible to see clearly while trapped within its bounds.

I choose to celebrate my individuality because, having stepped outside my programming, it's still something that I hold in high regard. I realize not everyone will feel the same way or make the same choice. I also realize that just because someone devotes themselves to the whole they're not necessarily putting their individuality aside. There are various complexities at work here I'm convinced that definitive answers are the domain of the insecure and the lazy. We don't know where this is going to end though I've a feeling the destination isn't all that different regardless of how you get there.

What is the answer, God? Wait, don't tell me 'til I'm done dreaming.

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by Illustro Cado

How do you know that? While I'm not able to speak from the highest level of existence I know I can experience one thing in a multitude of ways. I wouldn't know that if I wasn't constantly exploring and if I didn't use certain things as benchmarks of my progress. If the infinite were to ask, "is there anything I don't know about myself?" I doubt it would linger on the question, it would create a mechanism by which it could experiment.

You can experience one thing in many ways because you are finite. With an infinite being, if there were any experience that it had not yet taken into itself, that would mean that there existed something not of itself, which would be impossible. For instance, if the being has infinite knowledge, which it must, but then it learned something new, well it would not actually then have infinite knowledge, because something was added to it.

Originally Posted by Illustro Cado

How do you figure? We don't really have a context in which we can say definitively what a god would or would not do, what it could or could not do, or how it would or would not function. We end up making a lot of assumptions. Indeed I gave into conjecture in my last paragraph-it's unavoidable when talking about something of which we cannot be certain. Applying human logic to ultimate truth clarifies nothing.

I think there are some things even the most spiritually advanced among us have to be content not to know. That doesn't mean their insight and their beliefs are irrelevant; it does mean that I think nobody has a clear view of the whole picture and that even if oneness feels like the best answer to some it may well be a distortion of something beyond human understanding. (Plus if there really are non-corporeal entities of some kind I see no reason to believe they wouldn't push their own agenda even if they have the best of intentions.)

Intuitively I can see how it would work. Indeed it sometimes feels like the line between self and other is extremely thin. What does that mean? I don't know; I get nowhere pondering the question. Right now I benefit for developing myself individually so that's where my focus is. My perspective will change as I grow. Seeing as I am mortal, I doubt the truth or falsity of this idea has any impact on the meaning of my life. Indeed life is what I make of it so once I've made something I consider worthwhile I'll sit down and do some more thinking.

No, we may nto be able to know much of God as God. But if you admit that God is an infinite being, which again God must be to be worthy of being called God at all, there are certain attributes associated with that.

Let's take a house. A house has parts. Because the house has parts, we know that it must have been created by someone, because some external power had to bring those parts together. The house doesn't have the power to bring together its own parts into a house.

Similarly, if God had parts, it would be impossible for it to have the power to bring those parts together. If something has parts, it requires an external power to create and bring together those parts.

This isn't to say that we are completely individual with no connectedness at all. God is very being itself. God is being, and from that being comes all else, with its own finite being.

Originally Posted by Illustro Cado

Some of that's cultural. Say Buddhism was the dominant belief in the west-would individuality be as highly regarded as it is today? You have whole cultures, whole belief systems, wherein the individual is only spoken of in relation to the whole. And as for the struggle to maintain individuality, you can chalk some of that up to survival instincts as opposed to some higher function. It's like imposing greater depth upon the emotions of animals than there really is-we are animals on a certain level and many of our drives go no deeper than the "dumb" creatures we tower over. Strip that away, or at least put us in control, and would we cherish individuality the way we do now? It's apparent that some people don't. While I don't support the notion that the ego is something to put aside entirely it's impossible to see clearly while trapped within its bounds.

I choose to celebrate my individuality because, having stepped outside my programming, it's still something that I hold in high regard. I realize not everyone will feel the same way or make the same choice. I also realize that just because someone devotes themselves to the whole they're not necessarily putting their individuality aside. There are various complexities at work here I'm convinced that definitive answers are the domain of the insecure and the lazy. We don't know where this is going to end though I've a feeling the destination isn't all that different regardless of how you get there.

What is the answer, God? Wait, don't tell me 'til I'm done dreaming.

You may be right there; I am not sure. I still think most people wouldn't want to completely lose their individuality altogether.

[Cado]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

No, we may nto be able to know much of God as God. But if you admit that God is an infinite being, which again God must be to be worthy of being called God at all, there are certain attributes associated with that.

But that's still a human conceptualization of infinity. Infinite really means incomprehensible, it's a scale no man or woman can grasp. I can conjecture what that would be like but I will never know unless I someday become infinite or realize that I've always been such. And what would seem incomprehensible to me then? Would I know everything or would I still be expanding?

All sorts of logical arguments can be presented but they're all based on presuppositions that are held... on what basis? While I concede that what we see around us likely reflects what we find beyond the physical a logic that is firmly rooted in what we know cannot adapt to what we don't. Just because we don't know how something would be possible it doesn't mean it isn't, it would only mean there are gaps in our knowledge. But then again who's to say oneness is correct? And the mere fact that I'm inclined to think in such binary terms may indicate that I'm incapable of other modes of thought which would reveal the very truths we're searching for.

Regardless of what's true or false, what will you choose? That, to me, appears to be the only meaningful question (and subsequently the only concrete answer) to be had in matters like this.

I have grown by making myself ignorant and then alleviating it at a later time. Though I've been shat upon in life I would not have chosen a different path as I see the benefit of this one. There are plenty of things which seem to lend credence to what I've heard, but regardless I am convinced that every person is capable of taking charge and making something wonderful of their lives should they choose to do so. That's the important thing, that's what makes the difference. Whether they chose to forget their godhood, whether they chose to be born into their particular circumstances, the only choice that matters now is what they build upon that foundation.

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by Illustro Cado

But that's still a human conceptualization of infinity. Infinite really means incomprehensible, it's a scale no man or woman can grasp. I can conjecture what that would be like but I will never know unless I someday become infinite or realize that I've always been such. And what would seem incomprehensible to me then? Would I know everything or would I still be expanding?

Infinite does not mean incomprehensible. The number centillion (10^303) is incomprehensible, but it is not infinite, because you can have centillion and one. Infinite can neither be added to nor taken away from, which is the basis for my above arguments. When I say God is infinite, I am not saying it is incomprehensible, which it most certainly is, but it is not what I mean by infinite.

[Cado]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

Infinite does not mean incomprehensible. The number centillion (10^303) is incomprehensible, but it is not infinite, because you can have centillion and one. Infinite can neither be added to nor taken away from, which is the basis for my above arguments. When I say God is infinite, I am not saying it is incomprehensible, which it most certainly is, but it is not what I mean by infinite.

Actually, that's quite interesting.

Another angle from which it can be argued is that the infinite doesn't break up into individual parts to manifest as it does here, rather it's filtered so that it appears to. Ahhh, such things are too interesting to stay away from, even when I push in another direction.

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by Illustro Cado

Actually, that's quite interesting.

Another angle from which it can be argued is that the infinite doesn't break up into individual parts to manifest as it does here, rather it's filtered so that it appears to. Ahhh, such things are too interesting to stay away from, even when I push in another direction.

Ha. I can agree with that.

Indeed it could be possible that the infinite is filtered in various ways. How we ourselves are connected to the infinite I don't know, and am not sure it is possible to know.

[wstein]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

You can experience one thing in many ways because you are finite. With an infinite being, if there were any experience that it had not yet taken into itself, that would mean that there existed something not of itself, which would be impossible.

Be a little careful of that word experience. Experience is part of being finite.

Infinity only indicates that something goes on forever (is unbounded), not that it IS everything. For instance, from mathematics, the set of rational numbers is infinite but contains no plants.

There is no prohibition of more than one infinite (being) that are not exactly the same (being). As such, what it part of you may not be part of another.

As the ALL has no form or differentiation, infinite doesn’t apply. There is no context for ‘unlimited’, ‘continues’, ‘size’, ‘experience’, ‘existed’, ‘itself’, ‘bounded’, or anything else.

[jayh]

Can't help but jump into this discussion... Isn't it an assumption that god/source is "infinite" in the first place (not infinite in terms of our concept of time, but infinite in terms of "all encompassing"). In other words, why does an infinite source have to mean that all that could possibly exist already exists in this source? I like to think of source/the universe as something that is continually expanding - or as Abraham/Hicks would say - "on the leading edge"...

I like to believe that we are here incarnated in order to expand this source to more than it was before.

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by wstein

Be a little careful of that word experience. Experience is part of being finite.

Infinity only indicates that something goes on forever (is unbounded), not that it IS everything. For instance, from mathematics, the set of rational numbers is infinite but contains no plants.

There is no prohibition of more than one infinite (being) that are not exactly the same (being). As such, what it part of you may not be part of another.

As the ALL has no form or differentiation, infinite doesn’t apply. There is no context for ‘unlimited’, ‘continues’, ‘size’, ‘experience’, ‘existed’, ‘itself’, ‘bounded’, or anything else.

That is exactly my point, that this being is boundless. If you try to assign bounds to a being, then it is limited, and that is not possible of an infinite being. If there were two infinite beings, and they were both boundless, they would be the same thing. If there was something that one being possessed the other did not, then at least one of them would not actually be infinite.

This being has to be the source of all qualities and of all attributes, or else it could not be infinite, and could not be God or Source or whatever you want to call it.

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by jayh

Can't help but jump into this discussion... Isn't it an assumption that god/source is "infinite" in the first place (not infinite in terms of our concept of time, but infinite in terms of "all encompassing"). In other words, why does an infinite source have to mean that all that could possibly exist already exists in this source? I like to think of source/the universe as something that is continually expanding - or as Abraham/Hicks would say - "on the leading edge"...

I like to believe that we are here incarnated in order to expand this source to more than it was before.

The Source has to be infinite. It doesn't mean that all that exists is within that being. It means that the being is the source and cause of all of that which exists, and gives them their being and essence.

It is philosophically impossible for such a being to expand. If it is properly God, and created and sustains all things, and is the first cause, the unmoved mover, so to speak, it cannot expand. For it to expand would imply firstly that it is not infinite, which I claim to be impossible, and secondly that it has a cause before itself, which would effectively strip it of being God.

If it learns, then who is the cause and source of the things it is learning?

Further, a changing being is contingent. Any being that changes is contingent, which means that it depends on another for its power, and that it is possible that at one time, it did not or will not exist.

[jayh]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

The Source has to be infinite. It doesn't mean that all that exists is within that being. It means that the being is the source and cause of all of that which exists, and gives them their being and essence.

It is philosophically impossible for such a being to expand. If it is properly God, and created and sustains all things, and is the first cause, the unmoved mover, so to speak, it cannot expand. For it to expand would imply firstly that it is not infinite, which I claim to be impossible, and secondly that it has a cause before itself, which would effectively strip it of being God.

Interesting - it's still impossible to completely understand from our viewpoint I guess, because we have to assume so much - even things that seem to make philosophical sense are largely based on our own limited beliefs. But it's still fun to try and figure it out.

An analogy I often think of is to compare source to all the notes and frequencies that exist in the musical scale. We exist to make music with these notes. It's certainly possible that every single combination of notes already exists within source, but maybe it was more perfect to let us discover them?