Do You Believe In Reincarnation?

I suppose I need to clarify why I use the term, ‘mind.’ I use a very broad definition that would encompass everything from our conscious rational minds, the subconscious mind, Quantum Information, to the Cosmic Mind and whatever we see as God or an Absolute Reality. There are 3 reasons why I do this:

1.) It does not carry all the religious connotations of spirit, soul, God, Allah, Kami, Atman, Vishnu, Buddha Mind, or any other term that we may apply to whatever we may consider an eternal part of our own selves, as well as that absolute reality of the universe. Therefore it can allow for open individual interpretations of what provides the deepest meanings to life and being.

2.) It follows a long precedent in philosophy—going back to the Ancient Greeks and their interpretation of our ancestral and primal understanding of the animating force of the universe. Plato used the term ‘eidos’ to refer to essence, form, and nature. This also meant, idea, notion, the act of seeing, and so forth, and came from ‘eido’ which is to perceive, or to know, and to have an appearance, or to seem. On the one hand this all refers to activities of the mind, on the other, it is the form, or essence. It is from this word that philosophy gets the term, Idealism, which is a belief that reality is ideas, thought, mind, or selves rather than material forces, which can represent either an Absolute mind or individual minds. Nous was another term used in Greek Philosophy and meant, mind, as well as such things as meaning, intention, thought and understanding. Philosophers, such as Aristotle used it to refer to not only the human mind, but the Cosmic Mind, or the Absolute, as well. This is why the Cartesian mind-body duality, was a duality of the physical and nonphysical, or the physical and the spiritual. Kant, who was also a phenomenalist, used the term noumenal, which came from nous, to refer to the more authentic reality that is beyond our perception, such as the reality of the ‘thing-in-itself.’ Hegel used mind and nous to refer to the Absolute, and related the human mind to the workings of God. In fact, this is the underlying assumption that moved philosophy into the modern age---that the human mind was so god like that it could eventually comprehend the Absolute through its rationalism. Many philosophers used mind in this manner.

3.) Consciousness is a phenomena of mind. It has the passive dynamic of perception and the active dynamic of intention, and a third dynamic of awareness, which gives the other two dynamics meaning and value. We see these dynamics mirrored throughout the universe, for example, Quantum Information. If there is an Absolute Mind, an idea that spiritualities and religions around the world profess, then it would make sense that it would have some level of awareness. The non-linear thought process of the subconscious mind, and its use of archetypes and so forth, is mirrored throughout reality as well, for example, you have Jung’s idea of the collective subconscious, group dynamics, and so forth. There is also the experiences I gain through Native Ceremony, and it is looking at the universe in terms of mind that I am able to make sense of an animated universe.

I have trouble with the idea that the brain is hardware, while the mind is software. Science, particularly neuroscience has taken us back to an old Cartesian philosophy—epiphenomenalism. The premise of this philosophy is that the mind automatically responds to all phenomena through its own biological processes. Consciousness simply mirrors that response. In other words, every action and decision you take is an electrochemical response within the brain, and your thought process was simply a reflection of that process which is to say that consciousness is an illusion, and there is no free will.

Archephenomenalism is the exact opposite of this philosophy. It argues that all physical phenomena is the result of the action of mind. The electrochemical response within the brain reflects the nonphysical activity of the consciousness, and that, yes, there is free will.

Scientists base their epiphenomenalist conclusions on the results of such experiments as those where they measure brain activity and response times. They argue that there is a very small fraction of time between electronic activity within the brain and a physical response, such as a verbal response or a pushing of a button. The problem is that while we can measure electronic activity within the brain, we have no idea what that activity really is in terms of a mental process. We can locate the electronic activity in regions of the brain and we know that those regions represent specific activities or process centers in the brain, but this still does not give us any idea of the actual thoughts themselves. Their conclusions are only valid insofar as consciousness is emergent from the physical activity of the brain---but there are two problems: 1.) Their conclusions are still shaky at best because, we are still unable to know what the initial electrochemical response in the brain actually means—is it a chemical response, or does it represent the actual initial thought? 2.) There are numerous logical fallacies involved in this argument—including a modal fallacy (the physicality of the mental response is treated as necessarily physical rather than possibly physical), circular reasoning (The mental activity is delayed because the physical response is delayed from what is also a physical response (electrochemical activity within the brain)), a Base Rate fallacy (it does not allow for the possibility of a nonphysical (mental) component to the process).

Then one must ask why nature would even bother evolving something that is in essence meaningless? If we are all nothing more than preprogrammed automatons then subjectivity is meaningless, and why even bother having thoughts? Consider the Las Vegas shooting—if this physicalist premise is true, there was no way to escape that massacre, not for the shooter (who we can’t hold responsible for his predetermined actions) and not for the victims, or their families. It’s all just a bad joke and we are on the butt end of it—this is the joke of nihilism.

It is the same for animals---by objectively determining that they have no real mental process, or any sense of sentience as existentially (humanly) determined, then we objectify them into nothing more than organic automatons. Even pain and pleasure for animals and humans alike becomes meaningless. Why torture a living thing with temporal pleasure when life will inevitably end in pain?

Consider the pain of being burned, for example, when the nerves illicit an electrochemical response forcing us to pull away from the heat. This response, we could argue, is electrochemical, so there is no reason for the sensation of pain. And why should the pain linger afterwards? One could argue that the damage to tissue should require us to do something about it—but in such a case there are plenty of physical phenomenon that should illicit an electrochemical response, forcing us to put the burn in water, or to seek help, or go to a doctor, so once again, in so far as consciousness is illusion, the pain is meaningless.

For me there must be an authenticity to consciousness that provides legitimate meaning to our experience of life.

Now as to the question of ‘being beyond mind,’ and the assumption that we cannot comprehend what that would be, we can at least assume that in such a state there is some level of awareness, even if it is not self-awareness. At some level it would at least allow for some form of perception, and some level of volition and intention. Otherwise as being, it too would be meaningless, for there would be no intentional object (This term comes from the 19th century philosopher, Franz Brentano who said that all thought is thought of a ‘thing’ (an intentional object)). I point out that even Quantum Information, as I have stated, has an intentional object—the how, why, and when, that wave will manifest as a physical particle. That intentional object at the quantum level may be the result of something that happened just milliseconds ago, or something that happened at the birth of our universe (such as the background radio noise of the universe). If there is no intentional object, then any sense of spirit beyond mind would be nothing more than an unchanging void---a void because it is nonphysical, and unchanging because there is nothing to initiate change.

Let’s consider quantum information again—if it has an intentional object, it represents some form of intention, or volition. The Quantum Wave collapse occurs when there is decoherence between waves, or the wave-field----when, at a certain specific time, in a certain specific place, a wave-field(s) that is(are) spread clear across the universe, suddenly collapses into two particles. The Quantum Information placed that decoherence between the two particles right there, right then. So we could argue that there is a form of Perception between them, that may be a flimsy argument, until we consider that Quantum Information cannot be destroyed, but it can be modified, and transferred. Because it cannot be destroyed, we understand it to have a history (a memory of sorts). Intention, perception, memory—these are all functions or dynamics of mind. At the very least, there must be intention. Intention at some level of the universe equates to energy, and in the physical realm, energy equates to mass.

Remember, mind is simply a signifier—a word that represents something that is. Maybe the real question then is not one of ‘being beyond mind,’ but rather, can we understand all types of consciousness, including consciousness outside of the living brain?

The subconscious represents a nonlinear thought process which is why the sequence or timeline in dreams can be so strange. English is a very linear language and relatively young. There are many languages, especially older and indigenous, that are nonlinear. Consider the English: I went to the store, with the Japanese: I-as-for store-to went. Or the English: I was shopping at the department store, with the Japanese: I-the department store-at shopping did. In Chinese the words, ‘I, go, store,’ or ‘I, department store, shop,’ do not require any order, and the subject, ‘I’ could even be left out completely, and there is no verb tense (if I remember my Chinese correctly---I can read it, but speaking is a different story, and to even try, I would have to go back and review heavily as I haven’t done much with it for a good 10 years). We could argue that the real problem is that we are defining what is linear by Western standards, but there is more to it than that: Nonlinear languages such as Japanese and Chinese express far more implied context than English. The past, present future tense in Chinese is one example---it is implied not expressed. So there is more to a nonlinear language than just word order (and this is one reason why I disagree with the Structuralists).

I also think that there is a lot more subconscious context in a nonlinear language—a deeper connection to archetypal motifs, if you will. This is why the Lakota, for example, feel their language is very sacred and each word is powerful. Consider such Lakota words as Wakan, which means sacred, great, powerful, mysterious, and so forth. Therefore Wakan Tanka is the Great Spirit. On the other hand, mni wakan, water of power (you could say) is liquor. This doesn’t imply that it is sacred to them as from the very beginning when they were first introduced to it, during their first dealings with the white man, it was used to trick those who had no authority into signing treaties that were certainly detrimental to the tribe. But even we call liquor, spirits, and the idea that liquor has this power to cloud the mind and make one tipsy, represented to the Lakota, one of the multiplistic powers within the universe. To us, this term Wakan may seem vague and full of meanings, but, sacred, powerful, divine, great—these terms all fit into an archetypal motif, which ties them together and gives us a peek into how the Lakota view the world.

While such words seem vague in a Western sense, there is also a greater descriptive value to the Lakota language (which is being lost as the Lakota communicate more and more in English, or are influenced by the English language). This is typical of nonlinear languages. Consider the word for the animating force of the universe: Taku shkan shkan, which literally means, ‘something-moves-moves.’ There is also a closer tie between the words and their etymological roots in such languages, which I believe fits into the archetypal connection—in other words the connection between the words and the subconscious motifs that drive those words.

The Empiricism of Locke considered the mind at birth to be a blank slate. Structuralist and Post-Structuralist philosophers consider language to define our reality, and some would go so far as to say that we might not be able to think without language. I disagree, and find it interesting that they would go that route because Structuralism begins by separating the signifier from the signified (the word from the object).

I think that if we were able to raise a child in isolation (though science has demonstrated that there is a very high risk of failure to thrive, and the baby would probably die—so we are talking hypothetically) that the child would still be have a conscious mind. The child’s thought processes would be non-linear, which is the same with all children (as we learn language, and then especially as we learn to write, learn grammar, math, and so forth, that we become more programmed into linear thought). Certainly not having human interaction and so forth, it would not grow or develop in certain areas, but I am certain that it would be able to think.

And yet there are cases suggesting reincarnation that say otherwise. How would the case of the woman who came out of a coma, or brain injury, speaking French when she never learned, and was also unable to speak the only language she knew (English) even possible? There are cases of memories that have been lost due to brain injury, and are later recovered. My own explanation of such things is that there is a much greater storehouse of memory at a nonphysical dimension. The neural structure, where memories are consciously stored, is a physical reflection of the nonphysical dynamic of memory. Because this structure is formed in the physical dimensions, it provides memories that are freely accessible to the conscious mind without any intervention of the ego.

But yet we define our whole existence through the perceptions of a nonphysical mind—because the mind by definition is nonphysical (look up the definition of physical in just about any dictionary). The wave-field of the wave-particle duality, if I am right, and it makes a lot of sense that I am, is also a nonphysical reality. We may measure this reality every time we measure a wave, in one way or another, and even though that wave is measured after the collapse into a physical particle.

I have written on this forum numerous times that my philosophy also developed as an attempt to try to make sense, in a Western context, out of the strange nonphysical reality I experienced through Native ceremony. The yuwipi or Lakota spirit calling ceremony is a great example of this. I have witnessed walls disappear while the spirits conduct a healing, I have felt and heard the presence of buffalos, I have had an eagle sit on my head and turn into human hands (when I was in fact against a wall, and no one could have been behind me), I could go on with all kinds of stories about yuwipis. My dad was healed of cancer in a yuwipi that I sponsored for him. In keeping with this thread, I have seen the presence of those who have passed on, come back into these yuwipi ceremonies. When my wife and I requested a yuwipi over some issues we were having a number of years ago, the grandmother of the Medicine Man who performed the ceremony for us communicated with my wife regularly before and after the ceremony, guiding her in what to do---she was dead, and was the spirit helper of the Medicine Man in his ceremonies. (My wife is Filipina and her ancestors were healers in the old Philippine traditions so she is tuned into these things in ways that I am not).

Western man has alienated himself from the nonphysical, and yet rediscovering it can just start with allowing for the next dimension. I feel today that it is time for, and very important for, Western Man to rediscover nonphysicality.

Yet for indigenous people, such as the Lakota, spirit is very real, and present every time they step into ceremony.

I don’t quite understand what you mean by unconnected. For example, Einstein’s theories describe a very direct connection between space and time. Even if one did not accept my explanation of the 4th dimension as wave, there is still no denying that the Special Theory of Relativity places light as wave within its own wave-particle duality within the 4th dimension, yet we experience light---actually all electromagnetic radiation (which uses the photon as the carrier particle)---in every aspect of conscious life.

I actually always thought so too. And they tend to be too reductionist. But the more I worked with mind as First Cause, the more I became convinced. It made sense of a lot of things---such as in my thread on the Quantum Mechanical argument for Essentialism.


-----Both you guys had good posts though!

 

And another very interesting post from yourself.

In many ways, I think these terms like 'mind' 'soul' 'body' and the infamous 'God' are, or should be, regarded as flexible. One person understands them one way, another person differently. Myself, I tend to see what I call 'soul' as something distinct from mind, although involved in it. I'd say that it sub-tends mind which is one of its vehichles in this life we live on planet earth. My own conception of soul derives mainly from Hindu and to an extent Gnostic sources, which seem to fit my own experience. By 'soul' I don't mean the emotions and the mind as many traditional Christians seem to do when they use the word.

Sri Aurobindo, whom I consider the leading Indian philosopher of modern times, used a term he coined himself -'psychic being' - to indicate 'soul' when we think of it in terms of the individual being. By psychic he didn't mean anything to do with the sense of the word psychic as used commonly to refer to mediumistic type people. I think he was going back to the Greek 'psyche'.(although born in India he was educated in Britain at Cambridge where he was a star student of classics among other things).
Anyway, according to his notions, it is this psychic being that evolves through a series of incarnations, gaining more spiritual realizations as it progresses. It isn't something of which we humans are aware in our default state. It has to be uncovered by processes of yoga, and I'd extend that to take in other forms of spiritual practice or development that don't come strictly under that heading in the accepted or traditional sense.
Body, life and mind are seen as vehichles used by the psychic being for it's manifestation in the cosmos. It is both one with the ultimate source or brahman, but also there is a certain separativity. It is something that is individual, although it is a part of the All, it is personal although based in impersonality. In the end it isn't really definable or knowable by the intellect. One can say it's there but that isn't to actually experience it.

And actual spiritual experience is really the main thing so far as I'm concerned. One can construct many different mental systems, but in the end they are only systems. Just thinking. Of course philosophy and thinking have their place, but are less than direct experience of the 'divine' (again, a much abused term). Even systems which have as their basis a spiritual experience tend to become rigid, fossilized. The experience is too often lost, and only the statements about it survive and are usually misinterpreted. Christianity is probably a good example of what I mean. We don't know what JC experienced, but it's a long way from whatever it was to Christain theology as it exists today. My own take on things is that Sri Aurobindo's followers in India are currently engaged to some extent in the same process.

That leads me to my next point. When I said I consider mind to be something like the latest production of nature, I didn't mean it in the way a materialist might say something similar. I like the Aurobindian idea that originally, the spirit decended from its own plane of superconsciousness and became lost in the world of matter and unconsciousness. The appearance of life, followed by mind is part of the evolution of consciousness within the universe. Both Sri Aurobindo and the Gnostics had a similar idea in some ways. (Aurobindo took a philosophical approach, the Gnostics used myths) Aurobindo's version doesn't involve a 'fall' in the sense the Gnostics saw it, but amounts to something similar. In a crude metaphor, part of the divine becomes unconscious because the divine made the universe out of a part of itself which had then to become unconscious. The course of cosmic evolution, which in one sense is the evolution of the psychic, is the journey from unconsciousness back to the superconsciousness from whence it emmanated. The general idea is that the cosmos is a manifestation of the divine, but is still very much a work in progress. Our personal development is a key factor in the process.

And another important difference is that whilst the Gnostics along with most traditional Hindu paths thought the goal was release from rebirth and the physical universe, Aurobindo thought it was to move on to the next stage of evolution which he termed 'supermind'. This is quite complex and I don't want to go deeply into it here. Aurobindo's main philosophical work is entitled 'The Life Divine', and the goal is a divine life here on earth, but in a body with faculties and capacities far superior to those we humans currently posses. 'Ye shall be as gods'. But first, we have to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge - knowledge that is in the sense of Jnana or Gnosis.

I always feel that I make a mess of it when I try to expound Sri Aurobino's ideas. Probably I've done it again. Perhaps one day I'll get fully focused and try to do a thread taking it all bit by bit - or perhaps not. Although I've been very much influenced by Sri A. I don't consider myself a direct 'follower'. I like his system but I feel that as its based very much in Indain thought, it has to be expanded a little to take on board stuff from other cultures, as well as things that have emerged since his death in 1950. Hence the mixed cultural references above.

Anyway, that's today's rant.

 

Norman Mailer (one of my favourite American writers) had definite ideas about reincarnation. Read 'On God:An Uncommon Conversation'.

Not that I agree with Norman on this or related issues, but its interesting. Norman saw reincarnation as a positive thing - like a new chance, another bite at the apple. Personally I see it in almost wholly negative terms. Who in thier right mind would want to have to come back here in one of these deficient thinking monkey forms to be fucked over yet one more time?

 

I don't know about that, and I get a little protective of the bad rap poor monkeys get....but I was talking with someone the other day, who told me that all marine life will probably vanish in this century. 40% of all marine life is gone since the 70's, at least. I would not want to come back to a world where there was no longer so much diversity of all kinds of living things everywhere.....with barren oceans, etc.....It would be too sad and depressing.

 

^ Therefore if you listen to uncle Bill, the advice is to awaken in the spirit, the soul, your own inner essential being and self right now, using whatever methods help to actualize that process.

'Seek and ye shall find'. Only make sure your seeking is sincere. And when 'ye find' be sure it won't be what you imagined. It will surpass that in an unimaginable ratio. Everything you could ever have imagined if you happened to be Mozart, Raphael or Shakespeare, and much more.......Christ (who makes those artists look like the children they are) - an ultimate salesman. Krishna my secret love - him too. Buddha. Black Elk,King Wen (master of wisdom), Long list. Some of them on here my dears - its a fact.

Don't be taken in by the dogmatic religions on one hand, or the new age bullshiters on another. Certainly not by charismatic 'gurus' or other types of charlatan. Be true to who you are,to your own vision, no matter what the world thinks. The world my dears,is a fucked up morass of delusion., I feel like a salesaman myself now, but I feel I have to speak in some way, and so I tap these keys and hope. As I hope, I also pray, even on a subtle level ,for all of you for whom I wish the ultimate bliss, love and knowledge, fulfillment of this long road. For it all to come right.

But I know that seems like a hippy dream. A gnostic fanasy. But really, is your or the media's 'reality' a better bet? If you think so, please tell me what reality is, and how I've deviated.

 

To love all creatures big and small, of course.....what else?

and the trees and so on...all of life.

That is my inner core.

 

I know it is.

That what makes you so precious.

 

um...is this where I should say thank you, as you left me kind of speechless and dumbfounded here in a reflective kind of sad way.....but I love you, dear person with a beautiful soul,. Thank you.

 

I am a firm believer that we know very little about the brain and its interaction with our DNA. I lump reincarnation with born talent and hereditary characteristics, but have only a vague hypothesis on how it all blends together. Genuine programs have been made on the subject of reincarnation, the most intriguing one made in a remote Australian village. One girl under deep hypnosis described her life as a child on a farm that she named. She spoke a great deal about looking from her bedroom window down onto a mosaic floor in a building below and drew pictures. Her details led to the identification of a farm in the UK.The house and the building below still existed, but their was no mosaic floor and no window in her bedroom that overlooked it. Intrigued by the accuracy of other details of her description, the floor below was excavated and the mosaic revealed was identical to her drawing. A geologist was called to the house and discovered that the window she described in her bedroom had been filled in around 1760. We need to have an open mind as to how this data was in the brain of a 20 year old girl on the opposite side of the planet who had never traveled more than 20 miles from her village. Thoughts are a system of electrical impulses in our brain and when we one day unlock their secrets I think that a lot will be revealed, including telepathy and possibly haunting's. Learning a telephone directory by heart is regarded is impossible, while a concert pianist can remember the notes of dozens of solo works and concertos and we never give it a second thought. Doctors can identify us by our DNA, but openly admit that they understand less than 1% or what it all means. The science of neurology is still in its infancy and as it advances we may be able to put all the 'mumbo jumbo' to bed.

 

Personally----I'd come back, just as I always do, just for the sex.

 

Why not.. Fact, it is all a mystery... I do believe your soul (self awareness) is in your DNA. If more people believe in reincarnation. This world would not be so messed up if we knew (believed) we will be back... No climate problems etc...

 

When I see how animals react to things they have never seen before I do sometimes

 

I'm with Mountain valley wolf, Moonglow and Norman here: if reincarnation would be real I would happily have another go at life (preferably human, and yes also preferably in an ok position like this life ). For all the good stuff that can come with it
Sinking into the eternal sea of oneness is always an option for later :-D

 

Before I add my little bit, I want to say I really admire those of you (you know who you are ) that have these lost posts that are so compelling and intriguing...you (plural) have so much knowledge and it is for this knowledge that all of you impart that keeps me returning to this area.

I'm going to give a link to a story that I read about several years back and the story, the details, were so mesmerizing to me that this true tale always comes immediately to my mind when this subject comes up.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwisjKG59YTXAhUFYiYKHYSJDGsQFggtMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Ffemail%2Farticle-1209795%2FReincarnated-Our-son-World-War-II-pilot-come-life.html&usg=AOvVaw3s07RwwU7eMb75QlxPqZNR


Then there is Matthew 17: 10-13. That the disciples did not act surprised nor confused by the concept of what I interpret as reincarnation tells me that even these early "Christians" / believers didn't question if reincarnation exists. I seems like it was a given to them...they just probably felt stupid they didn't catch on to "Elias" (Moses?) for who he was (to them) in that life- John the Baptist. The fact that this bit of info has been included (allowed) in the KJV is somewhat surprising to me.

I don't know when or why the church and protestants specifically began instructing that reincarnation is wrong and practically evil to consider; but, that is exactly how Protestants are taught to believe. Of course being the naughty child (and then adult lol) that I am, I read ALL (and questioned) of this bible that they taught me from. By the time I had finished high school, I had already discovered any number of things that didn't seem to agree - between what was said in the bible and what they were trying to teach me.

However and whatever the answer to this is, and I do think it is both plausible and probable...I just hope and yes PRAY that I do retain the knowledge of the dang hell this is and has been..

and yet also remember that having my son and the animals make it worth doing again.

 

As far as my knowledge of all this goes, it appears that by the time of the reformation, belief in reincarnation had mainly disappeared. The catholic belief in one life followed by eternal reward or punishment seems to have become dogma during the 3rd and 4th century AD. Bishop Iraneaus of Lyon, as well as other bishops of those early centuries, and later the council of Nicea held by Emperor Constantine after his acceptance of Christianity laid down the basics of what would become mainstream christian belief thereafter. The Nicene Creed.

Iraneus was particularly concerned to establish what he considered christian orthodoxy in the face of a wide variety of differeing beliefs held by early christians. Such beliefs included some ideas of reincarnation. He seems to have been the first notabale figure in christian history to seek out and expose what he thought of as 'heresy', and establish a standard set of beliefs. The protestants took most of that on board as far as I know. They rejected the authority of the Pope, dropped the belief in literal tansubstatiation of the host in the mass,opened up the Bible for ordinary people to read, but retained the underlying belief structure. One life, salvation through faith.

 

Yes, I do believe in reincarnation.

 

It's not proven so I won't say for sure I believe it. I'd like to believe it because sometimes people are just wise beyond their years despite having a totally average life. I wonder how it happens. And I've heard so many stories of those kids with memories of things they would have no way of knowing about.

 

i believe there are infinite possibilities, no two alike, none more likely (outside of science) then another, and none owing anything to what anyone tells anyone else to pretend.

so i'm not sure i'd call it believing in. but the thing is, what is intuitive to me, and of course intuitive is no guarantee, but if this life is not eternal, why would death be?
why would any one next life, be any more eternal then this one either?

i cannot say if anything follows immediately after death,
but no reason to assume not,
that after some random and very long time, possibly of complete non-existence,
an infant is born on some random world, to the sapient people who have evolved on that world,
with no reason to expect anything learned in this life to be of much use if you could remember it,
which is unlikely, still an infant will be born, to a life as physical and mortal as this one,
who in every sense and way, including experiencing it,
will again be you.