How Rand Dies And Comes Back To Life

[Lisa Campbell]

1. The foreshadowing is connected to Rand.

 

2. There's no reason to resurrect Lan; he isn't the one who has to save the world.

 

The ripping out of TAR foreshadowing is connected to Nynaeve more than Rand. If she rips someone out it will be because she wants to, Rand or Lan qualifies but I don't think it will happen at all. Fake death is more likely in my opinion.

 

Prophecy is different from foreshadowing IMO. Subtle hints are waaaay different than blatant statements of what will happen, even if we don't understand how.

[Terez]

1. The foreshadowing is connected to Rand.

 

2. There's no reason to resurrect Lan; he isn't the one who has to save the world.

 

The ripping out of TAR foreshadowing is connected to Nynaeve more than Rand.

 

It's connected to Rand pretty directly because of the three days dead thing. And there's no other reason that the Pattern would go to so much trouble to make sure she knew how to do it. That certainly wasn't all for Lan.

 

Fake death is more likely in my opinion.

 

Except that Min said he will die, and when Min says someone will die it's not open for interpretation. RJ made that clear way back in TDR.

[Mik]

If there are a thousand Foretellings that state someone will die.

And if there is just one Foretelling that states "he who is dead yet lives".

If we can agree that these concern the same man...

 

Then we have a thousand-and-one Foretellings correctly state that man will die, but at the same time -because he yet lives- is also still alive.

 

I know it's hard to get your head around, but someone who yet lives doesn't need ressurecting or needs to fake his death.

And -I know it's a hard pill to swallow Terez, I do- having two disticnt, living minds might actually make that possible.

[shortkut]

1. The foreshadowing is connected to Rand.

 

2. There's no reason to resurrect Lan; he isn't the one who has to save the world.

No reason except the woman with the power to bring back the dead is his wife...

 

That's a good reason for Nynaeve, but it's not ethical, and I don't think RJ introduced this resurrection technique so a grieving woman could resurrect her husband. I'm not saying she won't do it - I've even argued as much before - but she won't do it unless she is also doing it for Rand. I'd put money on that.

RJ already established that ripping from TAR is not ethical. He also established that Ny would do what she thinks is right regardless of the cost and will risk everything for Lan. We have more foreshadowing that Lan will live past the last battle than Rand, so if Lan dies he has just as large a chance if not larger of being ripped out

[FarShainMael]

There's a clue to Rand's possible resurrection in this:

"Twice and twice shall he be marked,

twice to live and twice to die."

Where? That just means he is marked twice for living and marked twice for dying. How does that alone contain a clue that suggests resurrection?

 

It's an interpretation (which may not be correct, of course). Why would he be marked twice to live, why not just once? To me that quote suggests that each mark represents a life or a death.

[FarShainMael]

1. The foreshadowing is connected to Rand.

 

Not necessarily. If you have definite evidence to establish this point, please provide it.

 

We weren't talking about definite evidence in the first place, so why are you changing the subject?

 

Oh yes we are. If you make statements saying that such-and-such IS so, as you did above, be prepared to defend those statements with evidence. Or they will be ignored.

 

 

2. There's no reason to resurrect Lan; he isn't the one who has to save the world.

 

No, just Malkier:

 

Seven ruined towers around his head, and a babe in a cradle holding a sword.

 

Malkier is dead. Lan probably already fulfilled this viewing by finally proclaiming himself king and fulfilling the oath given to him in his cradle.

 

That's one interpretation, certainly. Mine is another.

[Mik]

There's a clue to Rand's possible resurrection in this:

"Twice and twice shall he be marked,

twice to live and twice to die."

Where? That just means he is marked twice for living and marked twice for dying. How does that alone contain a clue that suggests resurrection?

 

It's an interpretation (which may not be correct, of course). Why would he be marked twice to live, why not just once? To me that quote suggests that each mark represents a life or a death.

I did'n't ask it for nothing about being marked five times. Following your line of reasoning above, that would mean four plausable ressurections?

 

I think he's marked twice because he's one man with two distinct living minds/ personalities. The Pattern demands that both personalities are marked, if you will.

Atleast, that's my take

[FarShainMael]

I did'n't ask it for nothing about being marked five times. Following your line of reasoning above, that would mean four plausable ressurections?

 

Yes, it could be interpreted that way.. Given that we don't commonly see people being resurrected, five lives is no more unlikely than two. A cat would know, I suppose..

 

OK, you have your interpretation and I have mine, that's what makes life interesting!

[Mik]

I did'n't ask it for nothing about being marked five times. Following your line of reasoning above, that would mean four plausable ressurections?

 

Yes, it could be interpreted that way.. Given that we don't commonly see people being resurrected, five lives is no more unlikely than two. A cat would know, I suppose..

*laughs*

Now that you mention it...RJ once made a direct link between Asmodean and cats! "'He's a cat that tried to cross the tracks"!

Asmodean didn't need Shai'tan to Transmigrate him. He had eight lives left! He's hiding in the White Tower... Aes Sedai love cats!

 

OK, you have your interpretation and I have mine, that's what makes life interesting!

True. Although if everyone just agreed with me, it'd make my life so much easier.

[FarShainMael]

[Terez]

1. The foreshadowing is connected to Rand.

 

2. There's no reason to resurrect Lan; he isn't the one who has to save the world.

No reason except the woman with the power to bring back the dead is his wife...

 

That's a good reason for Nynaeve, but it's not ethical, and I don't think RJ introduced this resurrection technique so a grieving woman could resurrect her husband. I'm not saying she won't do it - I've even argued as much before - but she won't do it unless she is also doing it for Rand. I'd put money on that.

RJ already established that ripping from TAR is not ethical.

 

No, actually, he didn't.

 

He also established that Ny would do what she thinks is right regardless of the cost and will risk everything for Lan.

 

He said that when Lan dies Nynaeve will get over it.

 

We have more foreshadowing that Lan will live past the last battle than Rand

 

No, actually, we don't.

[Terez]

1. The foreshadowing is connected to Rand.

 

Not necessarily. If you have definite evidence to establish this point, please provide it.

 

We weren't talking about definite evidence in the first place, so why are you changing the subject?

 

Oh yes we are. If you make statements saying that such-and-such IS so, as you did above, be prepared to defend those statements with evidence. Or they will be ignored.

 

You can feel free to ignore me; it won't bother me at all. But you acknowledged the foreshadowing for Nynaeve ripping someone out of Tel'aran'rhiod. If you're going to pretend like the foreshadowing that that person will be Rand is somehow different, then be prepared to defend that assertion, or you will be ignored.

[shortkut]

1. The foreshadowing is connected to Rand.

 

2. There's no reason to resurrect Lan; he isn't the one who has to save the world.

No reason except the woman with the power to bring back the dead is his wife...

 

That's a good reason for Nynaeve, but it's not ethical, and I don't think RJ introduced this resurrection technique so a grieving woman could resurrect her husband. I'm not saying she won't do it - I've even argued as much before - but she won't do it unless she is also doing it for Rand. I'd put money on that.

RJ already established that ripping from TAR is not ethical.

 

No, actually, he didn't.

 

He also established that Ny would do what she thinks is right regardless of the cost and will risk everything for Lan.

 

He said that when Lan dies Nynaeve will get over it.

 

We have more foreshadowing that Lan will live past the last battle than Rand

 

No, actually, we don't.

1. Fine, he implied it. I guess you'd be fine with that since you love pointing out things that are implied.

 

2. If there was no way of him coming back. If she could bring him back she would. She risked everything for a fake Lan when she was tested for the shawl.

 

3. Have the evidence/foreshadowing you've mentioned implies someone will be ripped not, not Same specifically. Everything relating to Ny learning how to do it can be applied to Lan. Elayne figuring out bonding saves, well Ny was there to see that. If she could learn the first part, she could learn the second part.

 

It is implied Rand will be brought back to life, but the TAR stuff can be applied to anyone

[Mik]

1. Fine, he implied it. I guess you'd be fine with that since you love pointing out things that are implied.

Could you (or anyone else) please post that quote here?

 

2. If there was no way of him coming back. If she could bring him back she would. She risked everything for a fake Lan when she was tested for the shawl.

Well, she did risk a lot for a living Lan. That's not exactly the same as bringing him back from the dead. Like Herid Fel and Lews Therin say somewhere in the books (seriously, I know they did, but can't for the life of me recall where) "that it's the Creators job" or something along those lines with that meaning.

So, while I agree Nyn would do anything in her power to protect Lan's life, I'm not so sure she'd go so far as to bring back someone who died.

 

Sure, she'd do everything in her power as a Healer, but I sincerely doubt she'd jank a Thread from -and short curcuit- the Pattern.

It feels so.... selfish... with such big risks of hurting/ destroying the Thread. It's the opposite of Healing actually. *ducks away from all the apple pies*

 

3. Have the evidence/foreshadowing you've mentioned implies someone will be ripped not, not Same specifically. Everything relating to Ny learning how to do it can be applied to Lan. Elayne figuring out bonding saves, well Ny was there to see that. If she could learn the first part, she could learn the second part.

 

It is implied Rand will be brought back to life, but the TAR stuff can be applied to anyone

Only the Heroes of the Horn afaik. Not 'anyone'.

[shortkut]

1. Fine, he implied it. I guess you'd be fine with that since you love pointing out things that are implied.

Could you (or anyone else) please post that quote here?

 

2. If there was no way of him coming back. If she could bring him back she would. She risked everything for a fake Lan when she was tested for the shawl.

Well, she did risk a lot for a living Lan. That's not exactly the same as bringing him back from the dead. Like Herid Fel and Lews Therin say somewhere in the books (seriously, I know they did, but can't for the life of me recall where) "that it's the Creators job" or something along those lines with that meaning.

So, while I agree Nyn would do anything in her power to protect Lan's life, I'm not so sure she'd go so far as to bring back someone who died.

 

Sure, she'd do everything in her power as a Healer, but I sincerely doubt she'd jank a Thread from -and short curcuit- the Pattern.

It feels so.... selfish... with such big risks of hurting/ destroying the Thread. It's the opposite of Healing actually. *ducks away from all the apple pies*

 

3. Have the evidence/foreshadowing you've mentioned implies someone will be ripped not, not Same specifically. Everything relating to Ny learning how to do it can be applied to Lan. Elayne figuring out bonding saves, well Ny was there to see that. If she could learn the first part, she could learn the second part.

 

It is implied Rand will be brought back to life, but the TAR stuff can be applied to anyone

Only the Heroes of the Horn afaik. Not 'anyone'.

1. There is no quote as far as i know. I said implied because of how it was described as being darkness.

 

2. No need to duck, i'm not terez. Does she know it weakens or damages the pattern? While i agree she would want to heal first, you never know what you will do in a situation until you are in it.

 

3. I know. I meant anyone who could be ripped out, such as heroes. This is under the assumption Lan is a hero

[Terez]

Does she know it weakens or damages the pattern?

 

A more important question...do you know it damages the Pattern? Does anyone? A quote would be nice.

[Gaidzag]

Sorry to be a downer, but I think there's pretty good reason to think Rand is not going to be resurrected other than in the Creator approved cycle of death and rebirth.

 

Rand is not alive in the vision of his daughter's life, as seen through the eyes of Padra during Avi's walk through the columns. True, he may have survived Tarmon Gai'don and then died later. But how? If he was killed, the Aiel would be at war with them and Avienda would have seen it. By accident? To the most powerful ta'veren ever? Not likely. Plus, I'd like to think that if you can survive Shayol Ghul, you're pretty much the odds on favorite to living to the end of your natural lifespan, and Rand being a channeler that would be hundreds of years.

 

I think the prophecy "in order to live you must die" refers to Rand's future lives. If he does not die at Shayol Ghul, then the Shadow wins, and the universe is annulled out of existence by the DO. Hence, "in order to live (as a reborn incarnation of your present self) you must die (at Shayol Ghul to make sure the universe is not annihilated).

 

During VoG, I felt that his epiphany was motivated by the relief at knowing that no matter how much pain and suffering he was going to have to endure in this lifetime, he'd get to come back for a nice second (or nth) go around, not necessarily living happily ever after in this one.

 

As far as being ripped out of TAR, it's just my opinion, but it was presented as such a counter-to-the-pattern thing to do that I would find it weird that the patterns champion is resurrected that way.

 

And let's take RJ's famous line about Rand, the one that graces RJ's own tombstone "He came like the wind, like the wind touched everything, and like the wind was gone." Not an analogy you'd make for someone who's sticking around for a while.

 

Just my two cents. Flame away.

[Terez]

Rand is not alive in the vision of his daughter's life, as seen through the eyes of Padra during Avi's walk through the columns.

 

The wording suggests he abandoned the Aiel of his own volition. He went to Shayol Ghul and they never saw him again. In any case, we know that many things will be different in the actual future than they were in that vision.

 

True, he may have survived Tarmon Gai'don and then died later. But how?

 

That is what this thread has been about.

 

If he was killed, the Aiel would be at war with them

 

Not necessarily.

 

I think the prophecy "in order to live you must die" refers to Rand's future lives.

 

It's a fairly popular theory, but Rand is dead-yet-living on a boat, which doesn't make any sense if he's in the afterlife. The future appears to depend on his return. That goes along with the multiple foreshadowings of the resurrection, including the two distinct three days dead quotes, one referring to Rand, the other referring to Nynaeve and Healing.

 

If he does not die at Shayol Ghul, then the Shadow wins, and the universe is annulled out of existence by the DO.

 

There are four prophecies mentioning Rand's death, and none of them mention Shayol Ghul (or blood on the rocks, etc.).

 

Hence, "in order to live (as a reborn incarnation of your present self) you must die (at Shayol Ghul to make sure the universe is not annihilated).

 

There has to be a point to it, though. How does his death save the world? If he dies before he's saved the day and is resurrected to finish the job, then we have a plausible explanation for why he has to die—he has to sever his connection to Moridin.

 

During VoG, I felt that his epiphany was motivated by the relief at knowing that no matter how much pain and suffering he was going to have to endure in this lifetime, he'd get to come back for a nice second (or nth) go around, not necessarily living happily ever after in this one.

 

Garden of Gethsemane. Jesus was resurrected, too.

 

As far as being ripped out of TAR, it's just my opinion, but it was presented as such a counter-to-the-pattern thing to do that I would find it weird that the patterns champion is resurrected that way.

 

As mentioned before, it was presented that way on purpose; you're not supposed to see it coming. I'm sure they will explain in the process why it's not really a bad thing in the circumstances, and knowing Brandon it will be explained in detail. I'm sure Min's viewing will be a big part of that; she saw that Birgitte is still tied to Gaidal and will be for many lives to come.

 

And let's take RJ's famous line about Rand, the one that graces RJ's own tombstone "He came like the wind, like the wind touched everything, and like the wind was gone." Not an analogy you'd make for someone who's sticking around for a while.

 

Unless he is living anonymously in the Westwood.

[Suttree]

Sorry to be a downer, but I think there's pretty good reason to think Rand is not going to be resurrected other than in the Creator approved cycle of death and rebirth.

 

Rand is not alive in the vision of his daughter's life, as seen through the eyes of Padra during Avi's walk through the columns. True, he may have survived Tarmon Gai'don and then died later. But how? If he was killed, the Aiel would be at war with them and Avienda would have seen it. By accident? To the most powerful ta'veren ever? Not likely. Plus, I'd like to think that if you can survive Shayol Ghul, you're pretty much the odds on favorite to living to the end of your natural lifespan, and Rand being a channeler that would be hundreds of years.

 

By far the prevailing sentiment is Avi was shown that future so she can make sure it doesn't come about. Things are likely to be very different than what we saw...

[thisguy]

Sorry to be a downer, but I think there's pretty good reason to think Rand is not going to be resurrected other than in the Creator approved cycle of death and rebirth.

 

Rand is not alive in the vision of his daughter's life, as seen through the eyes of Padra during Avi's walk through the columns. True, he may have survived Tarmon Gai'don and then died later. But how? If he was killed, the Aiel would be at war with them and Avienda would have seen it. By accident? To the most powerful ta'veren ever? Not likely. Plus, I'd like to think that if you can survive Shayol Ghul, you're pretty much the odds on favorite to living to the end of your natural lifespan, and Rand being a channeler that would be hundreds of years.

 

By far the prevailing sentiment is Avi was shown that future so she can make sure it doesn't come about. Things are likely to be very different than what we saw...

 

Yeah, I in no way think what Aviendha saw was written in stone. It gave her insight into something she needs to think over and try to guide the outcome so that the Aiel have something left for them after the last battle.

[Gristle]

I think using "he who is dead yet lives" as proof of resurrection is a stretch - too ambiguous. It could be referring to timing, i.e. he who is destined to die is still alive at the moment. It could be in reference to the fact that he is physically dead but his soul lives on to come back in the next age. It could be in reference to faking death, i.e. the world thinks he's dead but he's not. It could mean resurrection too, but unless I'm missing something there are too many other possibilities for that to be anything but speculation.

 

Regarding T'A'R - maybe I need to read up on the theory more, but it seems to be that he will die then carry on in T'A'R similar to a hero of the horn, allowing him to finish the mission and be available to be ripped out later. Is there evidence that the Dragon even goes there upon death like the heroes? He's something more than a hero of the horn. I don't think that, if the horn had been blown during the Trolloc Wars for example, LTT would have been at the head of the pack. I think the gang would have shown up and done nothing due to the Dragon not being alive, banner not being there, etc. Possibly unrelated, but to the best of my knowledge none of the heroes are/were channelers - they seem to be a separate group somehow.

[Suttree]

I think using "he who is dead yet lives" as proof of resurrection is a stretch - too ambiguous. It could be referring to timing, i.e. he who is destined to die is still alive at the moment. It could be in reference to the fact that he is physically dead but his soul lives on to come back in the next age. It could be in reference to faking death, i.e. the world thinks he's dead but he's not. It could mean resurrection too, but unless I'm missing something there are too many other possibilities for that to be anything but speculation.

 

How about "too live you must die"? "Or Twice dawns the day when his blood is shed.

Once for mourning, once for birth"

 

Aside from that his resurrection has been foreshadowed none too subltly throughout the series.

[FarShainMael]

1. The foreshadowing is connected to Rand.

 

Not necessarily. If you have definite evidence to establish this point, please provide it.

 

We weren't talking about definite evidence in the first place, so why are you changing the subject?

 

Oh yes we are. If you make statements saying that such-and-such IS so, as you did above, be prepared to defend those statements with evidence. Or they will be ignored.

 

You can feel free to ignore me; it won't bother me at all. But you acknowledged the foreshadowing for Nynaeve ripping someone out of Tel'aran'rhiod. If you're going to pretend like the foreshadowing that that person will be Rand is somehow different, then be prepared to defend that assertion, or you will be ignored.

 

What?

That bolded part is very muddled. Please try again so I can answer it.

[Vardar]

I think using "he who is dead yet lives" as proof of resurrection is a stretch - too ambiguous. It could be referring to timing, i.e. he who is destined to die is still alive at the moment. It could be in reference to the fact that he is physically dead but his soul lives on to come back in the next age. It could be in reference to faking death, i.e. the world thinks he's dead but he's not. It could mean resurrection too, but unless I'm missing something there are too many other possibilities for that to be anything but speculation.

 

How about "too live you must die"? "Or Twice dawns the day when his blood is shed.

Once for mourning, once for birth"

 

Aside from that his resurrection has been foreshadowed none too subltly throughout the series.

 

The non-Bolded part, is perhaps. Blood being shed, nope, mourning? Not really.

 

I've seen no forshadowing about it. I've never heard of any resurection theories until I read these boards. I'm still surprised about it and trying to piece together where people got the idea. Near as I can figure, it's from some of the visions, the Boat one, the one's you quoted above. Hell even the Mat "to die and live again" was pretty straight forward, and he didn't really die did he? He wasn't dead on the tree, just nearly dead, and with the balefire trick, he technically never died. So even that said die and live again, and he never truly died.

 

I guess we'll find out soon enough.

[Terez]

I think using "he who is dead yet lives" as proof of resurrection is a stretch - too ambiguous.

 

No one is doing that. The scene setting in that Foretelling is, however, very important. As explained previously.