About reincarnation

If you care to know more on Buddhism, just talk to Dharmagrl, she's the best...good article btw...

I planned to be reincarnated as myself...and next time I'm going to get it right!

I planned to be reincarnated as myself...and next time I'm going to get it right!

--LOL

I planned to be reincarnated as myself...and next time I'm going to get it right!

--LOL, I think I'm stuck in a 'broke record player' reincarnation, die, be born in same life, screw up, and then repeat the process again...

If you care to know more on Buddhism, just talk to Dharmagrl, she's the best...good article btw...

Thanks Sp

I planned to be reincarnated as myself...and next time I'm going to get it right!

Mmm, good luck with that Toblerone! (or you could just try and get it right in this life, cuz imagine if there's no reincarnation *gasp*!!!)

--LOL, I think I'm stuck in a 'broke record player' reincarnation, die, be born in same life, screw up, and then repeat the process again...

That's either bad luck or bad attitude. In both cases get a grip! Make things happen for yourself. Good luck to u too

Some interesting questions. As far as I understand it, Buddhists don't actually believe in re-incarnation but in re-birth (although confusingly 're-incarnation' is often used in English to translate the Buddhist idea of rebirth).

Hindus, many 'new age' mystics (and I believe I read somewhere some Orthodox Jews) believe in re-incarnation, i.e. after death the soul, following a bit of celestial wandering around, finds a new body [Latin - carno, carnis = flesh] to begin once again the whole journey of life.

The buddhist idea of re-birth is a little stranger and (to me) more interesting. The first difference is that Buddhists do not believe in a soul. What 'continues' is a person's karma, i.e. the whole round of cause and effect is not interrupted even by death. In this view, 'I' do not continue after death, because, essentially there is no 'I' to begin with. It's worth pointing out the Buddhism doesn't reject the 'everyday' concept of 'I' (after all there's a definite 'self' typing these words and maybe at least one other 'self' reading them), it simply points out that, when you try to locate some unchanging essence of self, it turns out to be impossible.

I don't think you can discuss these issues without pointing out there is currently no scientific basis for believing in these things whatsoever. Nor, of course have they been disproven. From the viewpoint of religious psychology the main issue seems to me that re-birth/re-incarnation is a rejection of the belief that a single (bad) life may be followed by an eternity in hellfire. The eastern religious imagination rejects this as irrationally cruel. I'm inclined to agree.

I don't think you can discuss these issues without pointing out there is currently no scientific basis for believing in these things whatsoever. Nor, of course have they been disproven.

--True enough...but just try saying that to those who believe in it with irrational ferver.....(the fundamentalists,etc...)

That's either bad luck or bad attitude. In both cases get a grip! Make things happen for yourself

--Possibly...feel kind of like the cowboy who tried to ride a donkey by hopping onto it from the back, each time he tried, he got kicked, and flew backwards...dusted himself off, and tried again...though i don't think (in my case) i'd try from the back...

--True enough...but just try saying that to those who believe in it with irrational ferver.....(the fundamentalists,etc...)

Without denying for a moment that there are fundamentalist Hindus (see Indian communal violence) and Buddhists (especially in Sri Lanka), a fundamentalist fervor that insists you will re-born doesn't seem to me to be the same kind of thing as an Abrahamic (Christian/Jewish/Muslim) fundamentalism that insists that you will burn in a lake of fire for ever...

--LOL, I think I'm stuck in a 'broke record player' reincarnation, die, be born in same life, screw up, and then repeat the process again...

Same here. That's probably why I keep on experiencing Deja vu...or it could be that I'm crazy (potato, po-tah-toe ).

I think Chakgogka explained it very well.  Actually, I know lilttel of Buddhism, but I have studied Hinduism.  I find it fascinating if somewhat sad.  Hinduism is to religion what a Monarchy is to political systems.

What an excellent topic. I'm now gonna show off my psychic knowledge. There's an interesting model of the world shared by many pschics, which merges Eastern and Western views, as follows:

So what would i wanna come back

When we die, we continue to experience life in Heaven. It is there that we are at our most alive and vibrant, and we exist for all eternity. We freely choose to incarnate on physical planes such as earth as many times as we like, in order to face challenges and trials which don't exist in Paradise. (A good way to interpret the nature of our short lives on earth is to perceive them as quick trips to the gym, which advance spiritual strength and growth.)

The hardships and tribulations that we face on earth are of our own choosing, not God's. For each trip to earth, we choose our own bodies, we choose the timing of our incarnation, we choose the conditions of our upbringing and the challenges we face. (The greater the physical challenge, the greater potential for spiritual advancement. Hence, disabled bodies, for example, are actually blessings in disguise.)

they dont remember their previous life . . .

Our earthly minds are deliberately 'veiled' from the Whole Truth in order for our soul to experience challenges of a deeper kind. (i.e. concepts such as "fear", "loneliness", "pain", "hatred", "ugliness", "insecurity", or "doubt" etc. are incoherent in Heaven. They can only be experienced in realms such as earth-life, and our deeper goal is to rise above them and conquer them from within. If we were always aware of the Whole Truth, then the challenges would cease to be).

Now there would be higher forces at work anyway deciding the when and the shape of the reincarnation. So you wouldnt really have a freedom of speech there.

Our freedom of choice is exercised before we get here. It's completely fair, the divine plan.

The real question would be why some of us get to be reincarnated . . . What's up with a soul coming back anyway? Was it something they had to do but didnt achieve doing?

Oftentimes when we arrive back Home, we have an ineffable feeling of 'unfinished business', and we know that we can do better next time. Maybe we could have exercised more compassion, more patience, or more understanding whilst still on earth. But it's a lot easier to realise this in the afterlife, when we've got the whole picture opened up in front of us. It's when we get back down to this shite-hole that the challenges really come back to us. (Love is the answer to our problems, by the way. It's all that matters at the end of the day.)

Pff, and these are things we'll never know til the day we die, and if we do come back we'll be oblivious to it all and we'll be asking the same questions all over again.

I disagree. It's a question of psychic intuition and spiritual awareness, which advances by a natural process of growth. Humanity will eventually become more aware of the Truth as it evolves. It's our destiny to become enligthened.

I don't think you can discuss these issues without pointing out there is currently no scientific basis for believing in these things whatsoever

The science of it is within our consciousness. It eludes traditional scientific methods, because Heaven exists in another dimension. Our brain-consciousness isn't aware of it, but our soul-consciousness, a deeper form of energy, vibrates at similar frequencies to our Heavenly home. The key to enlightenment lies deeper. It's possible to become completely attuned with pyshic intuition and inner-wisdom. Although this might depend on the development of our soul-awareness. Alternatively, you could be a cheat if you're a 'freak' pyshic, who might not necessarily have grown into such wisdom at all.

Without denying for a moment that there are fundamentalist Hindus

I'm a fundamentalist psychic, believe it or not. I can sound very dogmatic at times, but I don't care anymore.

I've just seen that post, and my God aren't I annoying. I'm telling the Truth, mind, which is all I can do. But I don't think I'm gonna be popular.

Ooh, wow! So many answers and good ones too! I feel belittled by so much knowledge... Anyway lets look at the answers closely.

Chakgoka:

The buddhist idea of re-birth is a little stranger and (to me) more interesting. The first difference is that Buddhists do not believe in a soul. What 'continues' is a person's karma, i.e. the whole round of cause and effect is not interrupted even by death. In this view, 'I' do not continue after death, because, essentially there is no 'I' to begin with. It's worth pointing out the Buddhism doesn't reject the 'everyday' concept of 'I' (after all there's a definite 'self' typing these words and maybe at least one other 'self' reading them), it simply points out that, when you try to locate some unchanging essence of self, it turns out to be impossible.

It's indeed an interesting concept of life. A bit difficult to understand at first, but makes a lot of sense when you think about it. I guess we're to used to think of souls or selves to think of the karma.

I don't think you can discuss these issues without pointing out there is currently no scientific basis for believing in these things whatsoever. Nor, of course have they been disproven.

Like i mentioned in the article that would be another thread, maybe i should have started with that, but i really have no idea how it could be explained scientifically. It's totally irrational right now, but just as people thought the earth was flat in Galileo's time, we'll probably find an explanation and discover a new world some day.

From the viewpoint of religious psychology the main issue seems to me that re-birth/re-incarnation is a rejection of the belief that a single (bad) life may be followed by an eternity in hellfire. The eastern religious imagination rejects this as irrationally cruel. I'm inclined to agree.

Yes, it sounds alot more comforting than a lake of fire. Maybe the two can be linked together though. If you've lived more bad lifes than good ones you'll get what you deserve. The lake of fire! Mwahahah!!

Dr Guy:

I think Chakgogka explained it very well. Actually, I know lilttel of Buddhism, but I have studied Hinduism. I find it fascinating if somewhat sad. Hinduism is to religion what a Monarchy is to political systems.

Sad? Why sad? "Hinduism is to religion what a monarchy is to political systems", i dont really get what you mean here. Do you mean that it's the 'ancestor' to religions, or something like that? Or that it's a terrible religion no one should choose? Heh, i'm a bit lost!

Sad? Why sad? "Hinduism is to religion what a monarchy is to political systems", i dont really get what you mean here. Do you mean that it's the 'ancestor' to religions, or something like that? Or that it's a terrible religion no one should choose? Heh, i'm a bit lost!

No, that it stratifies the beleivers into a caste that they cannot escape.  The untouchables are untouchable.  And nothing they can do will ever change their lot in life.  just as the royals are always upper crust, and nothing they do will ever change that.

Now Andy Baker! Thanks so much for the answers, i enjoyed reading these alot! You have psychic knowledge? I should visit your blog after this...
I have a problem with this statement:

When we die, we continue to experience life in Heaven. It is there that we are at our most alive and vibrant, and we exist for all eternity.

Not everyone goes to heaven, right? A seriall killer would go to heaven too? A paedophile would go to heaven? A rapist would go to heaven? A greedy man would go to heaven?

We freely choose to incarnate on physical planes such as earth as many times as we like, in order to face challenges and trials which don't exist in Paradise. (A good way to interpret the nature of our short lives on earth is to perceive them as quick trips to the gym, which advance spiritual strength and growth.)

That sounds interesting. But i suppose the people that are serial killers, rapists etc, could have been reincarnated souls as well. How could they have chosen to reincarnated in something that would certainly not bring them "spiritual strength and growth"?

(Love is the answer to our problems, by the way. It's all that matters at the end of the day.)

That is so true, it should be written in capitals and in bold!

It's a question of psychic intuition and spiritual awareness, which advances by a natural process of growth. Humanity will eventually become more aware of the Truth as it evolves. It's our destiny to become enligthened.

In a world where rationality and materialism rules, i dont think psychic intuition and spiritual awareness will take over. Maybe when capitalism capsizes like Marx predicted, it's when men suffer the most that they turn to religion or superstitions :NOTSURE: Maybe the end of days as described in the Book of Revelation is when we become enlightened.

That's too many maybes aint it?

Alternatively, you could be a cheat if you're a 'freak' pyshic, who might not necessarily have grown into such wisdom at all.

I like the idea that our souls are linked to heaven somehow. It's true that all of mankind had the intuition of higher forces, either good ones or evil ones. And if it has existed throughout mankind's existence it must mean that there is indeed something bigger than us and that our tiny brains cant even begin to understand. Anyway, what i meant to say is that all myths emerge from the truth. S**t, i'm not making any sense am i?

Thanks for replying Andy, i didnt think you were annoying, it was a good read (at least to me).

No, that it stratifies the beleivers into a caste that they cannot escape. The untouchables are untouchable. And nothing they can do will ever change their lot in life. just as the royals are always upper crust, and nothing they do will ever change that.

Aaah! Hahaha! Dont worry i'm not laughing at you, just at me cuz i didnt see the obvious! lol Thanks for clearing that up!

Aaah! Hahaha! Dont worry i'm not laughing at you, just at me cuz i didnt see the obvious! lol Thanks for clearing that up!

never thought you were.  just a curious person seeking knowledge.  As we all are actually.

just a curious person seeking knowledge. As we all are actually.

Funny that we should all be looking answers for the same questions too...

I believe there is something more for us after we go, based simply on a gut feeling, rather than any particular doctrine.

Andy Baker's ideas have a lot of appeal, but I'm more inclined towards Bill Hicks' idea:

"Life is only a dream and we are all the imagination of ourselves".

I wish I had more time to elaborate on this as it is a really interesting topic.

Cheers,

Maso

I'm a fundamentalist psychic, believe it or not. I can sound very dogmatic at times, but I don't care anymore.

I wouldn't call you fundamentalist. Your ideas are really interesting, but if I were to set up a committee to come up with the nicest most reassuring 'wishful-thinking' possible, I'm sure that they would pretty much come up with what you've outlined.

That doesn't invalid what you say - after all life may in reality be the cosiest of rose strewn paths seen from an 'enlightened' viewpoint. However, it does prompt me at least to exercise some sceptical caution, at which point I start to ask for some supporting evidence. That the science "eludes traditional scientific methods, because Heaven exists in another dimension" doesn't really help me there, because, to play Devil's Advocate, if one were to totally fabricate a reassuring spiritual viewpoint what could be more convenient than that?

I think what ultimately fails to persuade me in your ideas is this notion of life (or a number of recurring lives) as a great celestial obstacle course. Is this, then, the 'purpose' of life?

(Love is the answer to our problems, by the way. It's all that matters at the end of the day.)

Sentimental as this can sound, I do agree with this part of what you have to say, in which case I suppose it hardly really matters how you arrived at this conclusion...

As an introduction let me say that i'm not buddhist

Everyone is part Buddhist because Buddhism states that everyone must find their own way. So if you admonish me and say "No, Ock! I am Christian!" or "I am Muslim" you are agreeing with me. That is your way, Buddhist. Buddhists don't worship a god, so you won't burn in hell for conflict of interest. No worries. There is no insecure deity in Buddhism.

Regarding the article, I like to imagine "god" (used completely generically) as that which existed alone prior to the universe. If all definitions of "god" agree that "It" is the catalyst for all else, then at some point, that thing must have existed alone.

If only one thing exists alone, it has no meaningful description. All that is is also it, so all descriptions of a thing are useless without a description of what it is not. For example, if there were only one temperature in the universe, would it be hot or cold? With nothing to compare it to, there is no way to tell...the question is meaningless.

So, in order for god to have a meaningful existence, that which is not god must exist.

That meaningfulness is true for god itself as well. Without that which is not god, god is meaningless.

God did not actually create that which is not god as an act of will but simply by existing. Light does not create darkness, and it can't exist with any meaning without it. And depending upon which perspective you choose, it is equally valid to say that which is not god created god by existing. This is the nature of duality. Two things which define each other by being NOT the other.

For one side to understand its own existence, it must have a peep into the other side which defines it by not being it. Perhaps this is the point of life. For god to witness "that which defines god by not being god." That would be a good reason for incarnation and reincarnation. For the light to have a glimpse into the darkness so that it could know that itself was light.

For what it's worth, Buddhists (as I am myself), do not take much time with these questions. There is no light and no darkness.

Regarding the article, I like to imagine "god" (used completely generically) as that which existed alone prior to the universe.

This is what gets me about this whole conversation: you 'like to imagine' this, Andy Baker likes to imagine that. Absolutely wonderful for a creative writing course, but are you saying that the whole spiritual realm consists of nothing more than what we 'like to imagine'? Because, if you are, you are saying it has no objective reality at all.

Everyone is part Buddhist because Buddhism states that everyone must find their own way. So if you admonish me and say "No, Ock! I am Christian!" or "I am Muslim" you are agreeing with me. That is your way, Buddhist.

I can make no sense of this at all. You might as well say:

"Everyone is part Nazi, because Nazism states that 'All citizens must possess equal rights and duties' [point 9 of the NSDAP 25 point program]". So, if you admonish me and say, "No, I'm a democrat", or "I'm a liberal" but you still believe that 'all citizens must possess equal rights and duties' then that is your way, National Socialist".

A lot of religious individuals play this game. You're a spiritual seeker? A good person? Then, whether you know it or not you're actually a christian/muslim/buddhist/scientologist etc etc. Why not just let words like 'buddhist' or 'christian' have an actual meaning?

This is what gets me about this whole conversation: you 'like to imagine' this, Andy Baker likes to imagine that. Absolutely wonderful for a creative writing course, but are you saying that the whole spiritual realm consists of nothing more than what we 'like to imagine'? Because, if you are, you are saying it has no objective reality at all.

Can you make statements about god as objective facts? I can't. I have to use my imagination and guess.

I can make no sense of this at all. You might as well say:

And then you continue with some retarded garbage after admitting you didn't get it. If you'd have said "That is your way Buddhist" instead of "National Socialist" you'd have been correct.

Why not just let words like 'buddhist' or 'christian' have an actual meaning?

They do, and the meaning I gave "buddhist" was correct. Everyone must find their own way. A Christian takes the way of Christ, but it is his or her choice to do this. That is in keeping with being Buddhist.

If that isn't objective enough for you, how about this. Your yin-yang is on backwards. The "fish" on the left is supposed to swim up and to the right. Common.

Have a nice day.

Edit: As opposed to offering criticism and no fix, I have copied your yin-yang, rotated it to the proper aspect (with yin on the left going up and right) and uploaded it to my webspace. http://www.ockhamsrazor.org/yinyangfixed.jpg

You're not obligated, of course - just trying to help

Wow Em, how did I miss this discussion. A pretty interesting read! From a personal p.o.v. I do believe in reincarnation. I'm not going to get too deeply into the discussion as I don't have the time at the moment nor can I quote anyone or any religion. Somewhere in one of my blogs I have said that I do believe in reincarnation and the after life. I like Andy's interpretation of it too. We do have that saying also in my birthcountry about someone being an "oldsoul". It's definately an eerie thought but it's true. This definately has gotten me thinking!