Some renewed important considerations
In the meantime, I return to reflecting on one-life
hypothesis, whether or not it is true, or in any case, in a
strong contrast to the ideal and romantic concepts and notions of the nature
and structure of existence that long ago has been performed during the history
of European philosophy, and is also conducted within spiritual philosophical
systems, such as the classic Indian philosophical system Vedanta, and in
contemporary philosophical spatial systems such as Rudolf Steiner’s
Anthroposophy and Martinus' cosmology in terms of what he denotes as The
Eternal World Picture.
Common to the mentioned spiritual philosophical systems is that these
basically postulate that living beings, alternatively human beings, possess a
basic over-physical nature and structure that is immortal and thus eternal. The
latter two concepts should more precisely be understood as a nature and
structure that is superior to the classical space-time continuum, and thus also
raised above phenomena like creation, change and termination, or birth,
development and termination in form of death.
Although the above-mentioned spiritual philosophical systems claim that
such an eternal structure exists, the great and crucial philosophical-spiritual
issue is, however, whether that paragraph and the apostles are in fact valid?
So, if that assertion is rooted in reality. This is said and stated, regardless
of how logically sound and internally related, among other things, the three
systems mentioned are each.
But here the critic, the skeptic and the doubtful could rightly invoke
whether that also applies to the one-life hypothesis's premise and claim that
the living being, or alternatively, the human being, does not possess an
overall immortal and thus eternal nature and structure? -
Yes, of course, there are prejudices and postulates or statements, which in
both cases are logically justified. Ultimately, the acceptance of either claim
is a question of which postulate and what reasons it considers to be and be the
most likely.
According to the basic perception of one-life hypothesis, the overall
nature and structure of the living being, alternatively, the human being, has
the form of a so-called mental power field, within which all the individual's
life experience and manifestation takes place. It takes place based on a total
of 7 basic power energies: 1. Instant energy, 2. heavy energy (dynamic energy),
3. emotional energy, 4. intelligence energy, 5. intuition energy, 6. memory
energy, and 7. mother energy. The latter is also an exponent of energies, which
are again subject to an overall and so-called high psychic power field, namely
the basic energy no. 7. The modern energy. This is also referred to as the
consciousness of the basic and universal basic principles of manifestation and
life experience. Regarding the basic power energies as well as universal basic
principles or creativity principles, see section 4.125. One-life hypothesis. A
statement. 1. Part.
The shortest answer I can give to that question is that I consider it most likely
that all living beings, including humans, ie all of us each have only one life
available, namely the current life here and now. But of course, I also have
some logically likely reasons and arguments for this assumption.
Since we do not know any living creatures elsewhere in the universe, we
must assume that it is only about all living beings on earth, of what kind and
family relationship these are, that these according to ordinary experience and
experience has only one life: they are conceived, born, usually grow up and
live through basic stages: young, youth, mature, older and dead, which means
the physical bodily end of the individual. The mental power field of the
individual as well as the high psychic force field is generated and degenerates
and ends in pace with the physical generation and especially the brain's
generation and sooner or later subsequent degeneration and cessation. All of
this, according to our knowledge and experience, does not happen by chance, but
follows the so-called laws of nature and, in particular, the causal law or the
law for cause and effect. It is, therefore, first and foremost these laws that
must be considered in trying to understand the world and life, including so
much the living beings and thus also ourselves. Because of experience we have a
self, an ego or an I that is the center of consciousness, as the tool or the
body of the desiring and willing I or ego make use of. That I or ego, as in
this case, is me sitting behind the computer screen and trying to write down
sensible and well-founded thoughts.
As mentioned in other contexts, according to the one-life hypothesis, the
human being constitutes a factor or instance owing to its existence and its
functions that it extracts or gains its power from the universal divine I and
from the universal divine consciousness as well. But please note only if the
individual as a predominantly physical 'size' is alive. Both personal and
personal consciousness begin to be generated in and with the conception and
birth of the individual, as they end with the end of the physical brain and
death. How can you now know and be sure, and that there is only one life
available to the individual? -
The first and in
itself causeless cause
Well, based on the very simple logical understanding that something cannot
occur or come of nothing or by itself. Something can only come or arise from
something. Or put it another way: Everything has a cause and effect, which in
turn causes a new effect and thus continues, apparently endlessly. But is there
or is there a first cause that causes all the following reasons? The
explanation for this is that the first reason in itself must be without cause
or causeless, why it should consequently also be termed forever, meaning
without beginning and without end, and thus the primary cause that causes
everything and all, or short and good reason for the world and life or
existence. In other words, this first cause of reason is identical to the
fundamental body and power we can rightly denote the eternal, universal and
majestic causeless deity of the GOD. The deity known and worshiped under local
names like God, Brahman, Yahweh, God, Father, and Allah.
But why does the concept of deity appear suddenly in the argumentation? - Yes,
simply because we need to understand and acknowledge that in the light of the
order and the laws that are truly in existence, there is a superior and
sovereign wisdom and intelligence behind all that we can observe and experience
in life and the world. Yes, only that something exists and exists at all, gives
rise to the assumption of a higher force, a creative power - or creative power
- tempted to say. As mentioned before, something can not occur or come by
itself. Everything has a cause and all are the effects of causes. In other
words, the deity is the first and in itself causeless cause for all that exists
and unfolds and may exist and unfold.
The situation is obviously that universal divinity, which can be
characterized as the all-encompassing, all-encompassing, omnipresent,
all-flowing and all-living being and creature that can not be perceived
directly, but indirectly through its creation: the world and life or the world
of short and good world, including ourselves. We are each a kind of 'reflection'
of the Divine All-being, in the sense that we each constitute an I, a
creativity and experience ability in the form of consciousness, and a created
psycho-physical organism, which in both cases is subject to the current
physical and psychological powers and laws.
However, in order to be able to rule perfect justice in existence, the
individual must first possess an indestructible spiritual structure that does
not end the end of the physical organism and death. Secondly, it is also a
prerequisite and condition for absolute justice that the phenomenon of
reincarnation must also be an absolute necessity. It is not very difficult to
realize and understand that justice in the form of positive or negative
retaliation can not in any case be given during the one life of life that the
individual has as mentioned.
The jumping point in this argument for the validity of one-life hypothesis
is the possibility and probability of being able to present a valid evidence or
argument that the individual does not possess an indestructible mental
structure, and that reincarnation or rebirth is also not a reality.
This evidence will largely be problematic, since - or rather - I can only
point out that prominent and recognized psychologists and psychoanalysts such
as, for example, Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-72), Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), CG Jung
(1875-1961) and Erich Fromm (1900-80), etc., have not found no ground or reason
to see man in multiple life hypothesis perspective, why a phenomenon, such as
reincarnation in particular, is not relevant at all in the context. In
addition, the various wholehearted trials that have been published to prove or,
rather, to indicate the incidence of reincarnation, are almost not convincing.
See for example about this in the following articles: 4.120. The big question of life and
death. Skepticism and doubt and 4.139. A big paradox - About a shift
in view of life and world.
On the other hand, the conception or idea of reincarnation
has been advocated and defended by a large number of idealistic romanticists -
or romantic idealists, if desired. Among the most famous are a group of
classical-philosophical Indian teachers and writers, such as Shankar Acharya
(788-ca 810, he only became about 22 years old!), Swami Vivekananda
(1862-1902), Aurobindo Ghose (1872-1950). Some well-known idealistic
philosophers are, for example. the Russian-born Madame Helena Blavatsky
(1831-91), Austrian Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925) and - not least - the Danish
idealistic spiritualist and intuitive thinker Martinus (1890-1981). You will be
able to read a little more about some of the persons mentioned in article
4.119. Spiritualism's recent history. In addition, one would also be able to
orientate themselves to the romantic and spiritual perception of spiritualists
in articles 4.136. The amount of idealism in religion, philosophy and politics
- some considerations, as well as in 4,147. Myth and reality. Or truth contra
untruth?
To further elucidate the reasons, arguments and conclusions that I have
used and continue to use in connection with the assumption of one-life
hypothesis, it is recommended that the serious reader read or re-read the
articles under the heading Articles concerning. A life-hypothesis.
But regardless of whether my readers can and will follow me in my
assumption of one-life hypothesis and whether this can be proven as being in
100% compliance with what can and must be understood as reality or truth about
the fundamental organic-structural nature, it is clear to me that the one-life
hypothesis is more consistent with what I personally believe it can and must be
understood by the concept of reality. But of course, knowing that it's not my
personal preferences that determine what's reality and what's not. Therefore,
once again, I would like to draw my attention to the fact that my favorite
writer Hans Christian Andersen fought most of his adulthood with an alternating
belief and doubt about the mortality or immortality of the soul, more precisely
understood as the end of individual personality or death after death. On the
contrary, he almost never doubted God's existence and care for his creatures.
For this reason, in one of his bright moments - more precisely in 1838 - he has
written the following positive and optimistic quotes, reproduced with
contemporary writing:
(Quote) Through the dense leaf of the flower the light shines in colors,
here red, blue, every color we know; with the same power, the deity shines from
all that created; Like the light in the flower, its almighty appearance shines
throughout the whole creature. Everything is a wonder that we do not understand
but get used to and then find commonplace. The poetry
adventures get their supernatural only at the break of the [causal effect]
chain, in the absence of the wise order we daily have in mind in the greater
divine adventure in which we live. (Quote end) (Will be read in the novel Only
one playmate (1837): H. C. Andersen: Novels and Travelogues III, pp. 128-9.
Gyldendal 1944).
It should be noted that Andersen refers to the God Father, whom he later
referred to with thanks or regret, with the broader and objective concept of
deity. It was also the influence of his older father-in-law and mentor, Hans Christian
Ørsted, the natural philosopher. In addition, about the relationship between
the two, you can read in article 3.14. Poetry and science - about the
relationship between the poet H.C. Andersen and the scientist H.C.Ørsted.
Something more extensive is the same friendship described in my book H.C.
Andersen, H.C. Ørsted and Martinus. Publisher Cosmological Information 1997.
The content of the quotation quoted above can be fully endorsed by me. See
section 4.139 for further information. A big paradox - About a shift in view of
life and world.
© April 2018 Harry Rasmussen. Translated into English December 2018 by the
author.
******************