Reincarnation: Frank Kepple vs Bruce Moen

[sercetu]

I have noted that Frank Kepple and Bruce Moen have different points of view about reincarnation.

This is what Frank said about it:

"The concept of "past lives" is an interesting one. Problem is, once you step outside of the physical "time", as such, doesn't exist. So there can be no past or future outside of a physical-system linear time construct. So to fly directly in the face of the zillions of mystics who claim otherwise, none of us can possibly have a "past" life. It's just that these people do not realize that we can, of course, merge with other focuses. But our other focuses are not us, as such. We can merge with them, but we are not them. We have never been them and we will never become them.  They are making the basic misassumption that they were once the other person. They are making the mistake of assuming their lives are occuring in a linear time framework. i.e. occuring in a sequential manner. In other words, that each life proceeds one after the other. Nope, all your focuses are living simultaneously and every one of your focuses is a different person. What "connects" them all, if you like, is they are a focus of the same Primary Essence within Focus 4 of consciousness and that is what makes it possible to merge with them. Past Lives" is a belief construct that is gaining popularity. But within subjective reality there is no such thing as linear time. You DO have other focuses that you can merge with, but they are NOT you. You are you and they are they. But people are SO transfixed with the notion of linear time they cannot think beyond it."


Now, Bruce Moen says in chapter 5 of his book Voyages into the Afterlife that in Focus 27 there is a place called Reentry Station.
And he describes how people reincarnate from this place.

Now, from what Frank said I supose that all focusses come from Focus 4 of his model. Not from focus 3 (focus 27).
If reincarnation occur from focus 27, then there is one self with multiples lives.

Can anybody clarify this theme?



***

[Smokeytehbear]

Bah, I was going to try to give my understanding but maybe this video will illustrate it a little better. 

http://www.youtube.com/user/AstralBooBaby#p/u/0/SgvD1jNq7-Y

Not sure if that helps.

Focus 27 was a term coined by Robert Monroe, if you get a chance pick up and read his book Ultimate Journeys (probably the most influential book on my personal life), there's is a lot of info on Focus 27 and how it is basically a soul hub after physical death for those who dont get stuck in the 'belief system territories'.  From here you can rest, create an astral 'life', or if you choose to, reincarnate into another physical body.  So yes there is one self with multiple lives, but there's multiple streams of conciousness from your higherself that are also one self with multiple lives.  I'm not explaining it very well but I feel it makes sense to me. 

Don't forget though, all 'lives' physical and astral are illusions and we are ultimately a single consciousness anyways. 

[Stookie]

A perspective from focus 3 still maintains individual awareness, but from focus 4 awareness as an individual (and space & time) disappear. Awareness of multiple existences that span across space and time simultaneously are observable from F4.

So they are both right.

[CFTraveler]

Exactly.  Not everyone means the same thing when they refer to 'another' person.
To some, a focus can be considered an individual person, and to some others not.
So, they both are toying about the same idea with different ways to express it.  And interpret it.
That's what makes multidimensionality/multilocality so fascinating.  So many ways to say the same thing and mean something different, or mean something different and say the same thing.

[Broken Yogi]

I think Frank is making some category errors. On the one hand, he's insisting on the non-separation of time, and yet he's also insisting on the separation of identity. You can't do only one, you have to either do both, or neither. From an ultimate point of view there is neither time nor personal identity, but from the point of view of identity, there is also time. Thus, since we are examining these matters from the point of view of time, we also have to preserve the point of view of identity.

The essence of ego persists through time, both in this world and other worlds and lives. Ego means time, in some basic sense. So the ego persists from life to life, and there remains a continuity in time for the ego. Outside of time, the ego doesn't exist at all, but neither do created worlds exist outside of time. It's a category error to say that they all exist simultaneously, and yet also separately.

So from the point of view of the ego, there is indeed reincarnation, and there's even a sense of linear time involved in the process. This is regulated at a higher level of focus, beyond which there is diffusion and a lack of differentiation in both time and identity. But below that focus point, there is both time and identity, and a relationship between them.

It's also true, of course, that one's bodily identity does not survive physical death, except as a memory. One's past and future lives are indeed different "people", because they have different physical bodies. So it's not true that one's past lives are the past lives of one's present identity. They are the past lives of one's deeper identity. One puts on various "costumes", but one's inner identity remains the same. These bodies are costumes we put on, and that includes the personality of the body. We take these personalities off at death, and put another on in the next lifetime. If we begin to question the actual identity of the one who puts on costumes, we can refocus attention at its source, and we can rise above the illusions of time, space, and identity. But when we do so, we recognize that none of these identities were ever real or separate individuals, they were just the result of identifying with a particular pattern of energy. But we also see that all energy is merely the modification of a single pattern of energy and not separate from any part of that overall pattern. And so we recognize that none of the identities we assumed were actually separate from us. They were just a string of related patterns which called our "self". Until that point, however, we have to recognize the structure in which we appear and not mix levels or categories indiscriminately.

[Xanth]

I think Frank is making some category errors. On the one hand, he's insisting on the non-separation of time, and yet he's also insisting on the separation of identity. You can't do only one, you have to either do both, or neither. From an ultimate point of view there is neither time nor personal identity, but from the point of view of identity, there is also time. Thus, since we are examining these matters from the point of view of time, we also have to preserve the point of view of identity.

The essence of ego persists through time, both in this world and other worlds and lives. Ego means time, in some basic sense. So the ego persists from life to life, and there remains a continuity in time for the ego. Outside of time, the ego doesn't exist at all, but neither do created worlds exist outside of time. It's a category error to say that they all exist simultaneously, and yet also separately.

So from the point of view of the ego, there is indeed reincarnation, and there's even a sense of linear time involved in the process. This is regulated at a higher level of focus, beyond which there is diffusion and a lack of differentiation in both time and identity. But below that focus point, there is both time and identity, and a relationship between them.

It's also true, of course, that one's bodily identity does not survive physical death, except as a memory. One's past and future lives are indeed different "people", because they have different physical bodies. So it's not true that one's past lives are the past lives of one's present identity. They are the past lives of one's deeper identity. One puts on various "costumes", but one's inner identity remains the same. These bodies are costumes we put on, and that includes the personality of the body. We take these personalities off at death, and put another on in the next lifetime. If we begin to question the actual identity of the one who puts on costumes, we can refocus attention at its source, and we can rise above the illusions of time, space, and identity. But when we do so, we recognize that none of these identities were ever real or separate individuals, they were just the result of identifying with a particular pattern of energy. But we also see that all energy is merely the modification of a single pattern of energy and not separate from any part of that overall pattern. And so we recognize that none of the identities we assumed were actually separate from us. They were just a string of related patterns which called our "self". Until that point, however, we have to recognize the structure in which we appear and not mix levels or categories indiscriminately.

"Outside of time".
This is exactly where Focus 10 and beyond are... hence, ego can't exist on the astral (focus 22+).
What's the point of an ego when you can have whatever you want, whenever you want it? 

Frank is actually saying both of those are true.  Since, we're *everywhere* subjectively... we're both here (objectively) and there (subjectively).  So, this being true, we're also outside this system too at the same time as being here and there, beyond any concept of individuality.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around that concept.  LOL
But it's coming along slowly.

[Gbob]

Lol Xanth you worship Frank too much! You are part of the 'Frank religion'. Although 'Frank' may not even be his real name 

[CFTraveler]

Xanth wrote:

both of those are true.  Since, we're *everywhere* subjectively... we're both here (objectively) and there (subjectively).  So, this being true, we're also outside this system too at the same time as being here and there, beyond any concept of individuality.

I believe noetic scientists use the term "supralocal" instead of the Qphysicist's "nonlocal".

I don't know how far into the rabbit hole the ego persists, but I think it's pretty far- some lessons can't be learned without it.

[Xanth]

Lol Xanth you worship Frank too much! You are part of the 'Frank religion'. Although 'Frank' may not even be his real name 

I'm still really trying hard to understand everything he says... but yeah, I'm a subscriber. 

[Xanth]

Xanth wrote: I believe noetic scientists use the term "supralocal" instead of the Qphysicist's "nonlocal".

I don't know how far into the rabbit hole the ego persists, but I think it's pretty far- some lessons can't be learned without it.

I think I only understood every other word you typed, CFT.
I think I need to try harder to understand. 

[CFTraveler]

Well, I'm not a noetic scientist, but I sometimes read their publications.
If I find an article in the web I'll link it to you- they explain things better than me.

[Broken Yogi]

"Outside of time".
This is exactly where Focus 10 and beyond are... hence, ego can't exist on the astral (focus 22+).
What's the point of an ego when you can have whatever you want, whenever you want it? 

Frank is actually saying both of those are true.  Since, we're *everywhere* subjectively... we're both here (objectively) and there (subjectively).  So, this being true, we're also outside this system too at the same time as being here and there, beyond any concept of individuality.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around that concept.  LOL
But it's coming along slowly.

There are localized forms of time which have their limits, just as their are localized forms of space and identity which have their limits, but time and ego go together in some fashion or other at every level, or you can't have an "experience" at all. To stand outside of time means to stand outside of identity itself, and vice versa, unless you are merely talking about local forms of time and identity.

This Frank dude seems to have gotten some glimpses of space beyond local time, but not beyond ego, and gotten confused by what he's seen. Happens all the time to the best of us.

But "I", the physical body-based ego speaking here and now, is not "everywhere". It's only here in this physical realm. The deeper ego exists at deeper levels as a deeper sense of identity than we currently have. That deeper ego isn't really "here" either, it's just connected to this physical realm through the reincarnational process. It doesn't actually "incarnate" any more than a man actually becomes his clothes. It's more of a virtual reality experience that actually involves taking on not just a set of fleshy clothes, but the personality of that body as well. We have a different sense of "I" depending on what we identify with, which lifetime we identify with, and which stream or pattern of energy we identify with. We tend to identify with certain streams of lifetimes connected together by subtle forms time and space and energy. If we don't identify with them, we can see them as "not us". But we will always identify with some stream so long as we are egos. If we are beyond ego, then there's only the universal Self to know ourselves as, and all time and space are merely modification of That. That would be enlightenment. As long as we do identify, however, we are stuck to some degree in time, space, and identity, no matter how subtle. It's easy to fool ourselves into thinking that when we have overcome some localized, low level of time, space, or identity, that we are free of all of it, but that's not the case. The universe tends to show us that real quick, not always pleasantly.

[Xanth]

There are localized forms of time which have their limits, just as their are localized forms of space and identity which have their limits, but time and ego go together in some fashion or other at every level, or you can't have an "experience" at all. To stand outside of time means to stand outside of identity itself, and vice versa, unless you are merely talking about local forms of time and identity.

This Frank dude seems to have gotten some glimpses of space beyond local time, but not beyond ego, and gotten confused by what he's seen. Happens all the time to the best of us.

But "I", the physical body-based ego speaking here and now, is not "everywhere". It's only here in this physical realm. The deeper ego exists at deeper levels as a deeper sense of identity than we currently have. That deeper ego isn't really "here" either, it's just connected to this physical realm through the reincarnational process. It doesn't actually "incarnate" any more than a man actually becomes his clothes. It's more of a virtual reality experience that actually involves taking on not just a set of fleshy clothes, but the personality of that body as well. We have a different sense of "I" depending on what we identify with, which lifetime we identify with, and which stream or pattern of energy we identify with. We tend to identify with certain streams of lifetimes connected together by subtle forms time and space and energy. If we don't identify with them, we can see them as "not us". But we will always identify with some stream so long as we are egos. If we are beyond ego, then there's only the universal Self to know ourselves as, and all time and space are merely modification of That. That would be enlightenment. As long as we do identify, however, we are stuck to some degree in time, space, and identity, no matter how subtle. It's easy to fool ourselves into thinking that when we have overcome some localized, low level of time, space, or identity, that we are free of all of it, but that's not the case. The universe tends to show us that real quick, not always pleasantly.

As I said, I subscribe to the Frank-model of the universe right now.
Basically, him and Monroe both agreed that time doesn't exist "There".

And because time doesn't exist, neither can space.  So... "There" isn't really a "place" in the terms that we think it is as it has no height/width/depth.
And because of that you don't "move around" it or "go to it" either.

As for ego... I just can't see much use for having an ego "There".  Although, I guess the idea of being "ego-less" is a tough one to grasp and I don't fully comprehend that concept myself.

But, in any case, I'll just respectfully disagree with you for now. 

[Broken Yogi]

As I said, I subscribe to the Frank-model of the universe right now.
Basically, him and Monroe both agreed that time doesn't exist "There".

And because time doesn't exist, neither can space.  So... "There" isn't really a "place" in the terms that we think it is as it has no height/width/depth.
And because of that you don't "move around" it or "go to it" either.

As for ego... I just can't see much use for having an ego "There".  Although, I guess the idea of being "ego-less" is a tough one to grasp and I don't fully comprehend that concept myself.

But, in any case, I'll just respectfully disagree with you for now. 

I can disagree respectfully, but I must still point out that there's a serious contradiction in these claims. Without time, there can be no change. A world or level that has no time, is a world or level in which nothing can change at all. You say that beyond level 10 there is no time, but clearly there is much that changes and moves in the levels above it. Monroe and Moen describe all kinds of things happening in higher levels, and that means that there is some kind of time going on there. Now, one can argue that it's a different form of time, not the same as our time here in the physical world, but one can't rationally argue that there is not time in these non-physical worlds when there are clearly changes going on, which means time exists there. At least I'm unable to understand this contradiction, and if you can explain it to me I would be grateful.

As for "there", which is beyond time and space, I certainly do believe there is an ultimate level of understanding at the source of all creation which is beyond time and space, but at that level there is no change whatsoever, and no ego either. The ego is the crux of the whole illusion of levels and changes and time and identity, including reincarnation, and ultimately that is all an illusion. But as long as there is a sense of separate identity, there is illusion and thus time and space and change and so forth. One can't really have only some illusions and not others. They all come with this singular illusion of ego, and they disappear when ego is seen through.

[Xanth]

Without time, there can be no change.

I'm ill-equipped to answer your queries, due to the fact I still need to fully understand these topics myself... instead, I'll allow Frank to do the talking:
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/welcome_to_out_of_body_experiences/time_perception-t1231.0.html;msg7350#msg7350

Obviously, his is only but a theory based on his experiences... take whatever with a grain of salt.
All I know, so far, is that Frank hasn't lead me astray just yet.  

[personalreality]

Time doesn't exist anywhere.  Change is possible without time. 

I don't believe that it is possible for us to perceive the true nature of what we call "time" from this dimensional perspective.

Try on this perspective of reincarnation. 

Instead of being reborn once this body dies, you die in every instant.  You are perpetually dying and being reborn.  Every time you are reborn you a born into a slightly different perspective from where you died.  This accounts for what we call change.  There is no cause and effect, there is one cause (the source, God if you prefer, which I don't) and there is one effect (the unfolding and building complexity of reality).  All of reality is dependent on one instant, the instant reality was perceived.  That one instant is the instant we're living in now.  We don't live for 80-90 years.  We live for an infinitesimal and infinite moment of perception.  We are simultaneously living and dying an infinite number of times over without the passage of what we call time.  The physical body may move through what we call time but there's no directional arrow in which time must flow.  This physical place is like the holodeck on star trek, or better yet the matrix.  It is a fabrication that eludes us into seeing "time" and ignoring our consistent death.

So let's look at "karma" then.  Karma isn't an accumulated force, Karma is a description of your perspective in each of your infinite deaths.  That perspective influences what direction you will shift for your newly reincarnated perspective.  There is no morality involved, it is simply a choice of what angle you would like to view reality from.  In truth, all of these "yous" exist simultaneously on an infinite continuum.  It's your choice into which one you would like to view reality.  But, again, you're actually existing in all of these infinite number of "yous" simultaneously also.  You're never one or the other.  Though, from your perspective in this reality you see this constantly changing perspective as time passing, cause an effect.

What's the one thing you can't touch with the tip of your finger?  Itself.

It may sound confusing, but those are the breaks.  It's hard to articulate something that's entirely non-verbal. 

[Broken Yogi]

I'm ill-equipped to answer your queries, due to the fact I still need to fully understand these topics myself... instead, I'll allow Frank to do the talking:
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/welcome_to_out_of_body_experiences/time_perception-t1231.0.html;msg7350#msg7350

Obviously, his is only but a theory based on his experiences... take whatever with a grain of salt.
All I know, so far, is that Frank hasn't lead me astray just yet.  

I read your links, and it appears clear that Frank is not speaking correctly when he says that there is no time in these higher levels. He describes all kinds of examples of time in these levels, distortions and bending of time to be sure, but time nonetheless. It's clear that time in these higher levels is far more plastic than it is in the physical realm, just as space is more plastic, and even identity. But that's something widely acknowledged in virtually all the literature on astral life, including Monroe and Moen. So I don't see what the controversy is, except the Frank seems to overstate things and is creating a false kind of absolutism that's actually mere relativism.

[Broken Yogi]

Time doesn't exist anywhere.  Change is possible without time. 

I don't believe that it is possible for us to perceive the true nature of what we call "time" from this dimensional perspective.

Try on this perspective of reincarnation. 

Instead of being reborn once this body dies, you die in every instant.  You are perpetually dying and being reborn.  Every time you are reborn you a born into a slightly different perspective from where you died.  This accounts for what we call change.  There is no cause and effect, there is one cause (the source, God if you prefer, which I don't) and there is one effect (the unfolding and building complexity of reality).  All of reality is dependent on one instant, the instant reality was perceived.  That one instant is the instant we're living in now.  We don't live for 80-90 years.  We live for an infinitesimal and infinite moment of perception.  We are simultaneously living and dying an infinite number of times over without the passage of what we call time.  The physical body may move through what we call time but there's no directional arrow in which time must flow.  This physical place is like the holodeck on star trek, or better yet the matrix.  It is a fabrication that eludes us into seeing "time" and ignoring our consistent death.

So let's look at "karma" then.  Karma isn't an accumulated force, Karma is a description of your perspective in each of your infinite deaths.  That perspective influences what direction you will shift for your newly reincarnated perspective.  There is no morality involved, it is simply a choice of what angle you would like to view reality from.  In truth, all of these "yous" exist simultaneously on an infinite continuum.  It's your choice into which one you would like to view reality.  But, again, you're actually existing in all of these infinite number of "yous" simultaneously also.  You're never one or the other.  Though, from your perspective in this reality you see this constantly changing perspective as time passing, cause an effect.

What's the one thing you can't touch with the tip of your finger?  Itself.

It may sound confusing, but those are the breaks.  It's hard to articulate something that's entirely non-verbal. 

I actually agree with a fair amount of what you say, but you seem not to acknowledge the basic definitions of time and change. There can be no change without time because change is defined as the differences that accumulates with time. If you see one universe this moment, and a slightly different universe the next, it's because we are observing the universe from a different time perspective.

Now, we can certainly step back and see that time is merely a dimensional attribute of the total universe. We could say that the total universe is beyond time, and does not change, and that time is only a dimension of that universe that we are traveling along, which is why it appears only one instant at a time, just as space does when we travel on a railroad track. And it's certainly true that even time is multi-dimensional, plastic, and there are many different perspectives on time that are possible. But this doesn't mean that time doesn't exist from a higher perspective. In fact, it means that even more "time" exists there, because we can see time in greater and greater detail, rather than from the limited perspective of the physical dimension. So both time and space actually expand in their reality and their immensity. Eventually, we see time and space as infinite, not just in one dimension, but in the number of dimensions it encompasses. And the same goes for identity.

But in any particular perspective, we are always going to experience time in some form. It just may not be time as we normally experience in the physical dimension. Only the absolute perspective can be said to be "timeless", not because there is no time at all - it can be still be seen as an attribute of reality - but because we view it from a perspective that sees the totality of time and space and all dimensions as infinite, and resting upon an infinite ocean of consciousness.

[Xanth]

I read your links, and it appears clear that Frank is not speaking correctly when he says that there is no time in these higher levels. He describes all kinds of examples of time in these levels, distortions and bending of time to be sure, but time nonetheless. It's clear that time in these higher levels is far more plastic than it is in the physical realm, just as space is more plastic, and even identity. But that's something widely acknowledged in virtually all the literature on astral life, including Monroe and Moen. So I don't see what the controversy is, except the Frank seems to overstate things and is creating a false kind of absolutism that's actually mere relativism.

Ah, I see where your issue resides.
It's your definition of "change".

Time isn't a part of change.  Well... it is only in as much as it's related to here on the Physical world.

Is it possible for you to consider "change" without "time"?  I can definitely visualize it.

I guess in the end of the day we can only subscribe to whatever beliefs we subscribe to.
I've seen no evidence to the contrary that would require me to change mine.   ... so far. 

[personalreality]

You missed my point Yogi

I explained why there is no time and no change.  It's a perceptual glitch essentially.  We see something as time and change, but there is only one now and all that has ever happened or will ever happen (from our perspective) exists simultaneously.

It's really not possible for us to fully comprehend the dynamics of reality from this perspective.

You can't define time and change on a universal perspective from the perception of a 3-d being, doesn't work like that.

[Broken Yogi]

You missed my point Yogi

I explained why there is no time and no change.  It's a perceptual glitch essentially.  We see something as time and change, but there is only one now and all that has ever happened or will ever happen (from our perspective) exists simultaneously.

It's really not possible for us to fully comprehend the dynamics of reality from this perspective.

You can't define time and change on a universal perspective from the perception of a 3-d being, doesn't work like that.

As I tried to make clear, I agree that the absolute nature of reality is timeless. But reincarnation does not occur on the absolute level, and so it occurs within time, even if that time dimension is a more expanded and plastic one than physical time. To speak of past or future lives still makes sense, therefore, even in a more expanded view of time that takes into account multiple dimensions. It is only when we look at infinite dimensions that timelessness rules, and "we" won't be there either, since infinite identity will also be the case.

But I agree that it's not possible to fully understand reality from this level. Which is why I said that Frank's formulation of time and "out of time" is a category error. We are only talking about relative matters, even if they involve astral experience. The astral is not the absolute reality, I think we need to realize. Which is why time still exists in various forms within the astral.

[Broken Yogi]

Ah, I see where your issue resides.
It's your definition of "change".

Time isn't a part of change.  Well... it is only in as much as it's related to here on the Physical world.

Is it possible for you to consider "change" without "time"?  I can definitely visualize it.

I guess in the end of the day we can only subscribe to whatever beliefs we subscribe to.
I've seen no evidence to the contrary that would require me to change mine.   ... so far.  

Well, it's not my definition of change. It's the english language definition. I'm not sure what you are visualizing in terms of change without time, but being able to say that doesn't make it true. Change can only be described as a difference that occurs over time. Otherwise, you are talking about something else.

Even Frank in the links you gave talks about 'this happens, and then that happens, and there's a repeated pattern' etc., all of which indicates that time is quite alive and present in the realms he claim have no time. It's very clear that he doesn't actually mean there is no time there, only that it works on a different scale, and multi-dimensionally, unlike time on earth (which is actually not straight and linear if you take into account relativistic effects). And posters here who are claiming there is no time on the astral also describe things happening there in terms of time, unwittingly I gather. 'This happens, then that, then that, and there is a change.'

So what is change without time? It's like saying we can have movement without space. The very definition of movement requires space, and the very definition of change requires time. What definition of the word "change" are you using?

[Xanth]

Could you point out where I can find this definition of "Change"?
All I can seem to find (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/change) has absolutely no mention of a concept of "time" associated with it.

[Psan]

Good posts Broken Yogi !

I'll return to the topic for a moment.

Now, from what Frank said I supose that all focusses come from Focus 4 of his model. Not from focus 3 (focus 27).
If reincarnation occur from focus 27, then there is one self with multiples lives.

The word "focus" is being used here in three different senses (F27, F3/4 or "focus of the self") to describe things that may or may not be identical or even related. This is unfortunate, as I feel English has not run out of new words and government has not banned coining of new words (yet).

The truth is, that no one knows what truth is... Its all theories, so don't take them very seriously. Its fun guessing whats all this about though. Some things are becoming evident as we (mankind) evolve. It has been established both by material sciences and spiritual ones, that the physical world is an illusion, a virtual reality created by our minds, a product of our perceptions. Time and space are merely illusions, no doubts about it. Experienced ones will tell you that even Astral and higher worlds are illusions, although not as solid and persistent as this one. Probably due to the fact that they are closer to "that which is". This "that which is", some sort of ultimate stuff, which simply is, is what this universe is, and of course is us also.

So this universe, we and our all incarnations are illusions created by that which is, which appear to be "placed at" various spaces and times. This is called Lila. (Hindus always use new words to describe new stuff). As you move away from illusions, the virtual reality starts breaking and identity, ego, space, time etc start making little sense. Finally, you are left with nothing or emptiness, which is that which is, and this is called Nirvana.

By this time you must have felt that the question - whether incarnations are in one time or different times, one identity or different one,..... is meaningless. Yes, its not very important, once you are awake (Chetan in Sanskrit is the exact word). What is important is to understand the Lila, see it and know it. It lasts for a split second, all that which is quickly throws you back into the virtual reality.

I don't know why this is so. It is amusing that there is something.

[personalreality]

As I tried to make clear, I agree that the absolute nature of reality is timeless. But reincarnation does not occur on the absolute level, and so it occurs within time, even if that time dimension is a more expanded and plastic one than physical time. To speak of past or future lives still makes sense, therefore, even in a more expanded view of time that takes into account multiple dimensions. It is only when we look at infinite dimensions that timelessness rules, and "we" won't be there either, since infinite identity will also be the case.

But I agree that it's not possible to fully understand reality from this level. Which is why I said that Frank's formulation of time and "out of time" is a category error. We are only talking about relative matters, even if they involve astral experience. The astral is not the absolute reality, I think we need to realize. Which is why time still exists in various forms within the astral.

Think of time as a place.  A big empty nothing that only contains one thing, you.  In this big place you are copied over infinitely and each copy contains every possibility of your entirety, which is naturally infinite.  Here's the kicker, that big place is contained in a spaceless space.  There is not direction, no time, no change.  Just you. 

Trust me, I know it is hard to grasp, but that's my point.  It is impossible to see the scope of your existence from our perspective.

Time is a construction of our subjective mind to account for something we don't understand.  Because the astral is a subjective place, (so is everything else but that's another discussion) time still seems to happen sometimes.

How can absolute reality be timeless yet our experience is temporal?  I mean isn't our experience a part of absolute reality?  You can't remove one part and apply different rules to it.  Since our experience is a part of absolute reality (all of it in my opinion) then it too is bound by whatever the properties of absolute reality are.  If we experience something that seems uncharacteristic of the absolute then logically it must be some distortion in the way we perceive absolute reality.