Talk:Reincarnation
|
|
I've willing to expand the section on Spiritism, detailing more information as for the actual mechanisms of reincarnation under this particular doctrine. I suggest that Spiritismo (most specifically, Kardecist Spiritism) to get its own section, to help to point out its relationship to Christian doctrines (Kardecist followers have a different interpretation of the Bible, but consider themselves to be Christians). I don't want to step over anyone's toes on it, though.
- I encourage you to write the article. I myself would appreciate it. It may give people options. I'm more in into Edgar Cayce. Wikipedia, I believe is concerned with encyclopedicity, notability and originality/non-copyright-violating. To save you a lot of trouble if you do write, cite a lot of source (External links)and never copy and paste, always rewrite. --Jondel 01:33, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I may decide, sometime in the future, to move the Buddhist rebirth content to a separate article. Usedbook 16:14 21 May 2003 (UTC)
Is this view of Buddhist "rebirth" as opposed to "reincarnation" really an important point? For example, is this a distinction that the Buddha made, or any of this canonical interpreters, or this is some modern distinction?कुक्कुरोवाच 03:00, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, it is definitely important. Reincarnation is not a concept that fits with the Buddhist doctrine of impermanence and anatta. While the difference has apparently gone unnotice by many people through the centuries it is there from the very beggining.
- On the other hand, there is certainly a lot of people who believe Buddhism to include a belief in reincarnation. So I must disagree with LordSurya; Buddhism should be mentioned here if only to clarify the matter. Luis Dantas 03:20, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- The question isn't, is there a difference between Buddhist and other views on the subject (as obviously there are), but rather, is this differentiation of terms one that reflects an original division, or is this merely a problem of translation? Because if we're only talking about different interpretations of samsara which are later translated as either reincarnation or rebirth, depending on the metaphysical implications, then the existing differentiation is much too strong. My assumption is that, if the Buddhists didn't have to coin a new term in Pali and/or Sanskrit (a linguistic world view in which if a new term could be coined, it would), we shouldn't place so much emphasis on this rebirth/reincarnation distinction.कुक्कुरोवाच
- It is partially a translation problem, but semantically it makes no sense to talk about "Buddhist reincarnation". There are indeed different interpretations of Samsara, but the Buddhist version is called reincarnation only by those who lack adequate information. Talking about "Buddhist reincarnation" as a legitimate concept leads to misunderstandings about the metaphysical perspectives. I don't understand your argument - I don't know whether early Buddhists coined new words for the concept of rebirth or not (you seem to imply that they did not), but it is dangerous to assume that reusing existing words is a consequence of similar meanings. From what I gather the early Buddhist Bikkhus used to have a much better grasp of their language and the respective context than we can offer with the often cursory material available in the present times. Luis Dantas
- I seem to be involved in two debates about the importance of chosing the right word, and I'm not sure I'm on the same side of the debate in each. (grin) I don't know for sure that they didn't coin new terms in this regard, but I'm not familiar with any such, and I think I would have come across them if they had.
- If it was good enough for the Buddha to provide a new understanding of the old idea of samsara, and if the "rebirth"/"reincarnation" dispute is indeed of late vintage, I think we should reflect that in wp by (a) discussing Buddhism on the reincarnation page, and (b) specifying that the rebirth/reincarnation terminological differentiation is new. Obviously it's also of considerable importance (really, the actual issue) to specify how Buddhist concepts of samsara differ from those of other Indian philosophies.कुक्कुरोवाच 04:17, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Since you keep mentioning "samsara", am I correct in guessing that this is the word that you translate as rebirth and/or reincarnation? That would explain a lot of misunderstandings. I tend to think of Samsara as the flow itself, not the process of participating in it. Luis Dantas
- (shrug) Samsara refers to the cycle of birth and rebirth, which is inclusive of the process. It's a verbal derivate, from sam√sr; kind of like what "walking" is to "walk," if that makes any sense.
- I just did a word search of the PTSD, (God bless the University of Chicago), and it translates two verbs as "be reborn", "ja" and "upa√pad"; ja just means "be born", and "upa-pad" means, in this context, to come to be; neither has an association with re- anything. Which is interesting in itself. Some more digging turns up "vatta", which would correspond to Sanskrit "vrt", of which "pari-vrt" refers to transmigration. (Interesting--they drop the "re", not the other--but that doesn't really help us.) A little more digging turns up "sansr" as a verb (=samsr) and sansara (=samsara) as its derivate....कुक्कुरोवाच 11:04, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Interesting if not exactly conclusive research, thanks. I take it that vatta/vrt is probably the root for avatar. If I understood you this time (and I guess not - this is complex stuff) the usual terms tend to emphasize the idea of birth/coming to be, not the idea of returning (except for avatar, which I understand doesn't really apply to regular human beings). Perhaps the modern concept of reincarnation is a shortcut of sorts, combining aspects of the concepts of atman and of birth in the samsara? Luis Dantas
- Not conclusive at all. I was reflexively indulging my inane tendency to reach for a dictionary at the drop of a hat. Sorry if I inundated you. Most of the terms seem not to emphasize repetition, and, importantly, not to emphasize the manner or metaphysical implication of what happens.
- But you know what? All this suggests is that reincarnation is the wrong term all around. Not sure where that leaves us, since it's unlikely I can talk Surya into moving the whole shebang to a "rebirth" page. (grins)
- Avatara, for what it's worth, is actually from ava-trr, which means to "go down," "descend," etc.; it's usually "go down into" something. But the grammar of the word is, indeed, quite close to these others, though they imply more of a "going around."कुक्कुरोवाच 11:55, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
| Contents |
Buddhist POV
I think that the section about Buddhist view of reincarnation should be edited, preferably by a Buddhist teacher or thinker since this is indeed a complicated subject. However, I don’t agree that there is a "fundamental disparity" between the concept of emptiness, space and mind and awareness. These are the same. "The form is empty, emptiness is form" from the Heart Sutra describes this relationship best. When it comes to the problem of soul and mind the analogy of sea and waves on it describes best the relationship between mind in general and particular sentient entities.
As I wrote, this is a complicated subject so I think any editing should be done with caution and by a person with deep understanding of it – therefore I decided no to do it myself. AndyBrandt 09:14, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Well, you're absolutely right that the section was crap, and I've cut it down to a sliver with a "See also" note pointing to another page (Rebirth (Buddhist)) that does a better job on the subject. I vaguely recollect that the Buddhist material was split off to that page from this page; this new material seems to have arisen subsequently, and presents by its silliness a good argument to merge Rebirth (Buddhist) back into the main Reincarnation page.
- However, I think it's contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia to restrict editing to those who have deep knowledge of a subject, and I wouldn't want to see only committed religious authorities editing pages on religion. So please, edit away. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 17:55, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Reincarnation vs. Metempsychosis
The beginning of the text of the article "Reincarnation" should be corrected:
- it says "Reincarnation, also called metempsychosis, or transmigration of souls, is the rebirth in another body (after physical death) (...)"
a) Reincarnation (or Rebirth), which is the general rule (law) for Human evolution, in simple words works like this: each life in a human body, each time more developed and each time a bit more close to perfection.
In brief words in Reincarnation the individual stays around this physical world (as a spiritual entity in the etheric or vital plan) near to those places and persons who are familiar to him (it can stay for days, months or years after the death of physical body occurs - it depends on the individual evolution, awareness, his level of detattachement of physical world needs and things, etc); then he enters into others deeper spiritual (invisible) plans for centuries and returns a lot of time later into a new life in our physical world through rebirth as a baby inside the mothers' uterus.
Perhaps the best graphic on this subject can be found at The Cycle of Life (http://www.zyworld.com/jamus/LifeCycle.htm); The graphic ant its terms belong to the Rosicrucian Philosophy (http://www.rosicrucian.com/rcc/rcceng00.htm) but I am sure it works (its stages) fine with terms from other religious doctrines and spiritual teachings: REALITY is the same everywhere - the differences are the terms and perspectives of study used to describe it!
b) Metempsychosis (or transmigration of souls) is the incarnation of the individual (as an spiritual entity living in the etheric - vital plan after death of his physical body) in the body of an animal. It is NOT really incarnation (and less even a Rebirth) because:
1. there is no rebirth into a new life (for evolution purposes) - the individual who practices what is described as metempsychosis never leaves the physical earth environment (he stays in its etherical or vital counterpart) and this "take over" of an animal body (metempsychosis) occurs almost immediatly.
2. these only happens in very excepcional circunstances, happened more frequently in the past (centuries and thousands years ago), caused by extreme deviation of the individual towards some form of spiritual destruction (bloody black magic practices, extreme sexual abuse generaly associated to some form of black magic, primitive societies with canabalistic culture generaly in association to some tribal sourcery, etc).
3. ususally after death of the physical body the normal individual stays in its earthly familiar environment for days till years close to its family, friends, etc. Only those individuals with some kind of knowledge of occult (sorcereres, witches, xamanists, ...) and with great attachment to physical life due to heavy dark-low emotions (hate, sexual needs, blood thirst,...) were/are able to expel the group spirit of an animal and take its place in the body of the animal (which is not so complex as our human physical body).
4. As I said before this happened a lot in past times and in perhaps in all civilizations of the world, and could be seen by those who had clarividence faculty; and perhaps this is the reason why some of these seers took the metempsychosis as the general rule and not Reincarnation.
c) There is no such thing as incarnation in plants (vegetable kingdom); although they also possess a etheric-vital body and also its evolution works through a "group spirit" (like the animals), they have no organs which allows a conscious (awakened) conscioussness of the physical world. The entity which practices Metempsychosis needs similiar organs as the human physical body in the host body that it "takes over", animals have those organs (similiar to ours but far from being so complex) but plants have no such kind of organs.
I guess perhaps one reason why some doctrines thought human beings (after death of the physical body) could incarnate in plants/trees is due to the fact that some older trees in the path of evolution (as it happens to animals) are already acquiring some kind of individual conscioussness - that's evolution! And mystics in the past may have taken this individuality as a sintom of a human spirit having incarnated in the tree (which is juts NOT possible and also totally ilogical; even if it was a rare excepcion it had no way of happenning because this kind of direct interaction between totally diferent things does not occurs).
d) Reincarnation (Rebirth) is the rule (law); Metempsychosis (transmigration of souls) is a totally different phenomena which may happen in an extreme scenario and by the will of the personality of the individual that ceases his functioning in the physical body (when death occurs) and looks immediatly for a victim (generally an animal, it can happen also among humans!) in order to stay connected to this physical world and to satisfy his low needs.
So, should the text be changed and perhaps explain these differences? or even create instead an article named "Metempsychosis"?
(My english is not 100%...)
Thank you! --ekhalom 22:00, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
From: "Roger Clough" <rclough@verizon.net> To: <progressive_theology@yahoogroups.com> Cc: <metaphysicalsoup@yahoogroups.com>; <KMTech@yahoogroups.com> Subject: [progressive_theology] Karma and grace Date: Friday, November 19, 2004 3:24 PM
Edgar Cayce made the very plausible suggestion that we can be freed from karma by grace. If this is so, then reincarnation is not contrary to the New Testament if we interpret "hell" as rebirth (same soul, different body). We keep repeating the cycle, not until we work off the karma as in eastern religions, but are saved by faith and grace, as Paul's letter to the Romans.
Something to think about, anyway.
- Roger Clough
- Very nice. Edgar Cayce allows me to maintain my Christianity and belief in Reincarnation. This is an article I contributed Edgar Cayce on Karma--Jondel 04:41, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- There is at least a western Christian school of thought that has Rebirth (reincarnation) and the Law of Cause and Effect (karma) in its Christian teachings and very deeply explained. Please see the article The Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception --GalaazV 01:20, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Objection: How can souls be reincarnated when there are so many more living humans now than there ever have been before? Not enough souls to go around!
- There are many possibilities. For example:
- Reincarnation does not preclude the production of new souls.
- Circulation might be speeding up, maybe souls had to wait for centuries before being reincarnated, and are now reincarnated almost immediately.
- Maybe, like the Hindus believe, souls are not exclusively human.
- -- Chris Q 07:51, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Also, Cayce mentions that a soul averages around forty years (even centuries)before incarnating except for this 19th and 20th century in which many souls in his reading have been taken as little as 4 or 5 years. This time period is supposed to be be very ideal for fulfillment of Karma, desires and evolution. e.g. there are so many living humans now because these others souls didn't want to incarnate before. Besides Earth is not the only place to incarnate. Souls don't just incarnate. They need ideal conditions or opportunities for evolution, growth and fulfillment. --Jondel 11:27, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Maybe also: needs of evolution as mankind (colective) and human being (individual) at certain times like our own schools (where individual examinations are taken all the time and colective examinations are held at the end of main stages equal in all schools of the country - which, if this is correct, does not means the end but rather transition).
- Maybe also: needs of an individual - as Higher entity evolving, not the personality - which may need sooner rebirth (than usual near a thousand years cycle) due to not having taken total or even none memory (the experience learned through his/her life) of his/her past life at the physical world. Donnot forget everywhere reincarnation and karma are taught also it is/was taught 3 to 3,5 days (84 hours) should be kept in silence - a kind of "memory transition period" - after a peaceful (disease/old age) death; and our societies donnot take this period yet into account and, on the other hand, violent deaths are each time more common in our societies due total immersion of conscience in the physical (and each time this conscience is more disconnected from the spiritual inside a large amount of human beings)).
- Maybe also there were reasons - connected to the need of deeper physical evolutionary purposes - why rebirth (reincarnation), the law of cause and effect (karma) and the 3,5 days transition period (memory) were not publicly taught (till now...) in Christian, Jew and Muslim religious teachings (all these religions always have small groups teaching these three central conceptions in a more secretive way), but the Oriental religions have (deeper in earlier times) these teachings as external, public teachings. To understand it, and its implication in physical development, do not look at Religions as the physical organizations and its present and past individuals leading it, but as movements or expressions of something bigger unseen (like if each of them is/was the small visible portion over the ocean of an iceberg (which has its much bigger body unseen below the ocean)). --GalaazV 01:20, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Bible -> The Christian Bible
dictionary.comgives (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bible) the following definition for Bible
- The sacred book of Christianity, a collection of ancient writings including the books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament.
- The Hebrew Scriptures, the sacred book of Judaism.
Since the section is on Judaism and kabbalah, it is essential to differentiate the Christian Bible. -- Chris Q 16:36, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That's its Hebrew name; its English name is the Bible. And please get consensus for these unilateral changes, rather than trying to impose them on English Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 17:43, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Old Testament only is Tanakh. The (Christian) Bible is composed of both Old and New Testament.--Jondel 04:55, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Exactly. Jcbos 12:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely wrong. Jews do not recognize "the Old Testament," the Tanach is different from the Old Testament. Moreover, Tanach is a Hebrew acronym. In English, people call the Tanach "the Hebrew Bible." The Old Testament+the New Testament is The Christian Bible. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Professor Frazer (Reply to Stevertigo)
Someone, I think Stevertigo, deleted a passage about Professor Frazer. Now, I didn't write that passage and I do not have any personal investment in whether it should be kept out or put back in. But if I understand SV's edit summary, he either doen't know the reference or wants it put in. So: this refers to Sir James Frazer's The Golden Bough which was at the time it was first published (1890) one of the authoritative studies of religion and myth drawing from examples from around the world. The Golden Bough has gone through several editions, including an abridgement I think in 1922 -- the point being that it is hard to provide a page reference that will be of use to the average reader. Nevertheless, the passage in question (or the point) comes from the shapter "The external soul in forl-culture," specifically the section "The ritual of death and resurrection" (in the abridgement, this is chapter 67; in an earlier version it is volume II chapter four section four -- you get the idea, it is confuisng. The book is widely available, but there is no one standard edition). It seems to me that there is some place for this point in this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:15, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Recollections mean nothing! These people were probably hypnotized! Scorpionman 00:38, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
by an anonymous
to all concern i'm under the belief that reincarnation really does exist as based on flash backs i have experienced while bein' in a state of total un-awareness
- If you were in a state of total unawareness then how do you know you had a flashback? ;-)