🐟 09. REINCARNATION (OR NOT): There is NOTHING about the individual person (that is, the ‘ego’, as defined in the following chapter) which transfers to another body after death, except, perhaps, habitual tendencies in the form of indelible mental impressions (“vāsanā”, in Sanskrit). For example, in my present incarnation, I have a strong affinity for the culture of Bhārata (India), a highly-advanced intellectual capacity, a very slim body, and an attraction to a frugivorous diet. That suggests there was an Indian spiritual master in the previous century which had some (or perhaps, even all) of these characteristics, but it was not “ME”, since what I am now is this ever-mutable Australian-born Aryan gentleman. These “subtle mind impressions” are known in psychology as the “collective unconscious”, in new-age spirituality as the “akashic records”, and in Islam as the “Preserved Tablet”. There is an abundance of evidence that humans are born with certain psycho-emotive links to previous persons, times and places. It is far beyond the purview of this document to list such evidence. As mentioned, in my case, I have an EXTREMELY strong association with all things Indian, despite not being of Indian origin, and the “collective unconscious” hypothesis seems to be the best explanation for this bond currently available, in my opinion (although the term “collective conscious” would, perhaps, be more accurate). For the popular view of reincarnation to be plausible, there would need to be an entity or an OBJECT called a “soul” (“jīva” or “ātman”, in Sanskrit), which somehow finds a copulating couple, then enters the woman’s uterus, to inhabit a zygote. Assuming the existence of an individual spiritual soul is profoundly illogical, because spirit is (by most definitions) the antithesis of finite matter. Therefore, how can an immaterial “soul” be confined to a single person’s body? It seems rather strange to believe that the universe was organized naturalistically in such a manner as to “recycle” an object called a “soul”, or even to recycle minds, particularly when one understands that a mind is naught but a series of flickering thoughts, feelings, and memories. Some believe that the “thing” which transfers to the next incarnation are the remnants of one's actions (“vāsanā” or “saṃskāra”, in Sanskrit) or at least one's psychological disposition (likes, dislikes, phobias, etcetera). This is far closer to the idea of the collective unconscious, and even if it is a perfectly accurate account of what occurs after death, it still cannot give substance to the notion of a SEPARATE individual which is travelling from one body to another and again to another (“saṃsāra”, in Sanskrit). According to the law of conservation of energy, first proposed and tested by Émilie du Châtelet, energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it can only be transformed or transferred from one form to another. Both this law, and Dr. Leonard Susskind's minus-first law of physics, states that energy/information is indestructible. The analogy of one candle being lit by another candle is apt. Are the two flames the same flame or completely different flames? According to those laws, PART of the energy is transferred from one wick to another wick, a portion of the energy is released by the flame, and part of the energy remains with the original candle. When I die, my physical body, composed of the five gross material elements (“sthūla-śarīra”, in Sanskrit), will be reabsorbed into the biosphere, whilst the non-tangible aspect of my body, composed of the three subtle material elements (“sūkṣma śarīra”, in Sanskrit), will possibly merge with the collective unconscious, and the story of my life will come to an end FOREVER. See Chapter 05 regarding the eight elemental groups. This fact is difficult for many to accept, since they are thoroughly attached to their pseudo-egos, their intellects, their minds, their bodies, and their possessions. However, when one realizes that one is, fundamentally, not an ever-mutating psycho-physical organism, but, essentially, never-changing, all-pervasive Consciousness, all fears are alleviated. The only “thing” remaining of a person at the time of death is the only “thing” which has ever “existed” - Pure Unalloyed Awareness, or Eternal Conscious Peace (“sacchidānanda”, in Sanskrit). So, fear not - death is a normal, natural and necessary consequence of conception. Putting aside whether or not reincarnation is an accurate account of what happens in this world, it is ABSOLUTELY certain that we receive a completely new body approximately every seven years (via a gradual process, of course). Our first body was a microscopically-sized zygote and our present body is several kilograms heavier. From where has all that extra weight come? Obviously, from all the nutrients that we have absorbed via the umbilical cord in our mother's uterus, or via the food, air and water we've consumed since birth. Therefore, one who believes that he is nothing more than the body-mind organism is grossly ignorant of basic biological science. Genetically, approximately half of the cells in the body are not even of human origin, believe it or not! We can all easily understand that our infantile body is completely and utterly different to our present-day form, so logically, our true identity must be something quite APART from it. Nothing, including one’s genetic code, remains constant from conception to death. The sense of self does not even make its appearance in our psyche until two or three years after conception. Therefore, a person is more accurately defined as a process (a verb), rather than an object (a noun). For the sake of philosophical IMPARTIALITY, it is germane to acknowledge the perspectives of other eminent pundits. E.g. in “Bhagavad-gītā”, one of the very greatest spiritual authorities the world has ever known, Lord Śri Krishna, uses the analogy of how the individual person (“ego”, in Latin, or “jīvātman”, in Sanskrit) travels through the various stages of life (that is, from childhood, to pubescent adulthood, to geriatric), with His description of the process of reincarnation, as conceived by the ancient seers (“ṛṣi” [rishi], in Sanskrit) of India (“Bhārata”, in Sanskrit). However, as the Gershwin song says: "It ain't necessarily so". “...each person is destined to die once...” Anonymous (possibly Saint Paul of Tarsus), Letter to the Hebrews, 9:27. “The entity that is supposed to be reincarnated in another body, does not even itself exist, except as a concept! How can a mere concept be reborn?” ************** “When you are dead, you will be back in the primordial state of rest, which existed before you were born; that stillness before all experience. It is only the false sense of a limited, separate 'me', that deprives life of its meaning and gives death an ominous significance, which it really does not have.” ************** “The fear of death, is actually a product of the desire to perpetuate one's identity. Were you not dead before you were born? Those who know Reality, know the falsehood of life and death.” ************** “What is born, must in due course, die. The objective body, will thereafter be dissolved and irrevocably annihilated. What was once a sentient being, will be destroyed, never to be reborn. But consciousness is not objective - not a thing at all. Therefore, consciousness is neither born nor dies and certainly cannot be 'reborn'.” Ramesh Balsekar, Indian Spiritual Teacher.

It totally sounds as fairytale but also i know😐 i am a fool.