No, quite right.
It is the extinction of all desire of becoming.
Is it a genuine recommendation or simply an example of an extreme?That's in the nature of metaphysics. It's a very technical science! Try reading The Multiple States of Being by René Guénon
Can I offer two things to bear in mind:
One: The need to distinguish between the universal and the particular.
(The most common cause of error)
Two: The need to be mindful of simultaneity, not just sequence.
(Time belongs to the particular)
It's how I have understood the understanding of others at least. You saying it's close is a good sign.Tea, your understanding of 'soul' is quite similar to Buddhism!
Well it's rather extreme. The style of the foremost commentator on the Sophia Perennis either grabs you by the throat or leaves you flat. You can dip into it on Amazon ... After that, try Analogia Entis, the metaphysical treatise of Erich Przywara (1889-1972), one of the pre-eminent Catholic theologians of his day.Is it a genuine recommendation or simply an example of an extreme?
Is it possible I wonder, that the 'energies of mind' retain some of their 'form' for a given period of time after the death of the physical body?And the energy of the mind, or persona, returns to pool of energy that is the universe.
And, continuing my theme, this re-use would involve not simply energy, but rather energy still retaining some of its original form which can appear to the consciousness as 'memory' which, for various reasons, might attach itself (a kind of resonance) to the living being.Rebirth then becomes a re-use of the previous energy into consciousness as a new form.
This is proposition.Rebirth becomes an incorrect term as the previous persona does not return.
Ditto.The energy that returns in a material form is taken from the universe of energy. It is in essence, the rebirth of little pieces of a billion previous personas into an entirely new persona.
Well I would argue 'popular' or 'contemporary' rather than 'traditional', but then that's me, a Traditionalist, being semantically over-protective.This makes sense to me, though it is far, far removed from traditional perceptions of what reincarnation is.
Actually, for those who do remember, Andrew (he of many names, although he never intended that as a disguise) PM'd me a while ago with. He read something that brought me to mind, and I have to say he was most cordial note.
I would add that, as the 'mind' returns to the pool of energy that is the universe, the borders of the 'mind' remain intact.
Would you agree? Or do you see the 'little pieces' mixing with other pieces of the universe, creating a different 'individual' for the succeeding incarnation?
I do believe in reincarnation but dont believe you can reincarnate into anything other than what you are...a human reincarnates into a human not a dog.If one reincarnates as a deer, a dog, a rat, a rock, or algae...
You appear to be supposing that that is worse than being human...that this is a downward spiral, or step back.
Should I have graduated in science and been a bio chemist creating miraculous drugs saving the world but in my retirement decided to take up art... I would have to take beginning art class... Not a step back in any way shape or means... a step sideways maybe to learn a different skill.... Similarly being reincarnated as a lesser being could just be that you need to increase the trait that that animal carries so much better than humans...