Post Reply
Switch to Forum Live View What reincarnation isn't ...
3 years ago  ::  Mar 11, 2011 - 3:18PM #1
Nay_ho_tze
Posts: 2,605

Personally, I tend to wince when reincarnation is referred to as a belief.
Discernment reveals that reincarnation is more of a phenomena,
unrooted both geographically as well as culturally,
and it is as varied as the human experience
because the phenomenon of reincarnation is in the remembering itself.
The only commonality from person to person is
that reincarnation says human beings live more than one lifetime.

IMHO, that s why words like dogma and discipline do not apply to reincarnation.
It's not a belief, or a practice or even a discipline.
It is a phenomenon that touches each individual where they live,
or not at all  It s that simple.

So when people believe in reincarnation,
IMO what they are really saying is that,
for them and for whatever reason, reincarnation is a given ...

Any thoughts?

NHT
host
=]
Nay_ho_tze
Beliefnet host
designer and artist
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 12, 2011 - 6:33AM #2
DotNotInOz
Posts: 6,833

:::::: waving her "It's a given" banner ::::::::


No "is it or isn't it" discussion for this kid.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 02, 2011 - 12:06PM #3
Nonchristianheaven
Posts: 147

I wanted to prepare for my next life by studying Hebrew. I planned to be a male Rabbi.


I thought it sounded good.


But then again, I guess you can't plan for these things.


They just come naturally.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 02, 2011 - 3:52PM #4
DotNotInOz
Posts: 6,833

No harm in studying Hebrew anyway although I expect you'll find it rather a challenge.


I've read that some think a person can influence the choice between lives to an extent by studying things, learning skills or practicing ones we haven't much talent for in this lifetime. The point is to "imprint your soul" so that a future personality will have background that may make acquiring facility at whatever it is much easier.


Thus, it makes sense to learn to play the piano, for instance, and to practice it faithfully even though your efforts are cringe-inducing.


"Build it, and they will come...," yanno?


Not sure what I think of that idea, encountered a number of years ago.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 12, 2011 - 1:42PM #5
nnn123
Posts: 1,536

Sri Aurobindo said that people came to him and by convincing reasons told him that God did not exist...and he believed them.


 


Then, after powerful austeries and great religious practice, God came to him.  He wrote...which was he to believe, the reasonings of others (with no direct experience at all), or his own, direct personal experience?


 


Swami Brahmananda heard a complaint that a monk's spiritual practices were not bearing fruit.  His reply was that ...let people practice the path for only a few years, then, if no results are found, you can come back here and slap me in the face.  I do assume that what he meant by practice is not necessarily what anyone would mean.  I assume, he meant 2, 3, 5 and more hours of meditation daily and many other strict disciplines. 


Why should God reveal himself to us without our own strenuous effort?  Should it be so easy?


Should it be so easy to have a vision of a past life?


I think if people practice the spiritual life with sincerity and devotion, all manner of spiritual experiences will come to them. 


 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 06, 2012 - 3:25PM #6
williejhonlo
Posts: 3,582

Mar 11, 2011 -- 3:18PM, Nay_ho_tze wrote:



Personally, I tend to wince when reincarnation is referred to as a belief.
Discernment reveals that reincarnation is more of a phenomena,
unrooted both geographically as well as culturally,
and it is as varied as the human experience
because the phenomenon of reincarnation is in the remembering itself.
The only commonality from person to person is
that reincarnation says human beings live more than one lifetime.

IMHO, that s why words like dogma and discipline do not apply to reincarnation.
It's not a belief, or a practice or even a discipline.
It is a phenomenon that touches each individual where they live,
or not at all  It s that simple.

So when people believe in reincarnation,
IMO what they are really saying is that,
for them and for whatever reason, reincarnation is a given ...

Any thoughts?

NHT
host
=]


I would say reincarnation is about an eternal soul going to and from one body to another according to his karma. A human being can only live one lifetime ( from dust you came, and to the dust you will return ) but the soul which is distinct from the body is just transferred to another body after the present body is of no longer any use. Scientist say energy can't be created or destroyed, if so, then reincarnation is just about how nature acts and is not just about belief.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 01, 2012 - 12:33AM #7
JimRigas
Posts: 2,950

Reincarnation presumes that after a body dies its soul consisting, as a minimum, of its memories survives somewhere and later reenters another body.  I believe that it is simpler and makes much better sense to assume that instead of entering another body these memories remain wherever they have gone to and are just accessed by another body.  This would allow for Marie Antoinette, for instance, to exist simultaneously in the memories of more than one person.  The question then becomes whether memories are not always external to the body and accessed by it in the same manner as in the purported cases of reincarnation.  Dr Ian Stevenson has invested many decades investigating such reports of children accessing the memories of dead persons.   


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 02, 2012 - 10:40PM #8
DotNotInOz
Posts: 6,833

Mar 1, 2012 -- 12:33AM, JimRigas wrote:

Dr Ian Stevenson has invested many decades investigating such reports of children accessing the memories of dead persons.  



It's been some years since I read much of Stevenson's writings, but it seems to me that you are imposing your belief upon his work. I don't recall that Stevenson ever expressed any conclusion about what the origin of the children's memories might be. He mostly attempted to discern if the children might have gotten the "memories" from quite ordinary sources such as overhearing adult conversations and wrote up cases that appeared to have no mundane explanation. Hence, the title Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation, reflecting his unwillingness to draw conclusions.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 02, 2012 - 11:07PM #9
JimRigas
Posts: 2,950

Mar 2, 2012 -- 10:40PM, DotNotInOz wrote:


Mar 1, 2012 -- 12:33AM, JimRigas wrote:

Dr Ian Stevenson has invested many decades investigating such reports of children accessing the memories of dead persons.  



It's been some years since I read much of Stevenson's writings, but it seems to me that you are imposing your belief upon his work. I don't recall that Stevenson ever expressed any conclusion about what the origin of the children's memories might be. He mostly attempted to discern if the children might have gotten the "memories" from quite ordinary sources such as overhearing adult conversations and wrote up cases that appeared to have no mundane explanation. Hence, the title Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation, reflecting his unwillingness to draw conclusions.




You are correct.  Stevenson was trying to prove the existence of reincarnation whereby something called a soul leaves a dead person and then sometimes afterwards enters another person being born.  There are so many questions that this process raises that I don't even want to touch it.


What Stevensons work does seem to indicate, however, is that some young children were able to access the memories of dead people; usually recently dead in nearby physical locations.  These observations were confabulated, however, with his attempts to trace physical scars, etc., between the dead and the living.  As a result it has proven easier for critics to question his entire decades-long research.   But we must remember that even if only one case was accurate, then the effect I mentioned is real.  Unfortunately Stevenson was trying to prove something else and so he missed the significance of what his data, if true, indicate. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 03, 2012 - 12:15PM #10
DotNotInOz
Posts: 6,833

Mar 2, 2012 -- 11:07PM, JimRigas wrote:

Stevenson was trying to prove the existence of reincarnation whereby something called a soul leaves a dead person and then sometimes afterwards enters another person being born.



Actually, that's not entirely correct. Stevenson stated numerous times that he sought to determine if ordinary sources for these "memories" could be eliminated when such cases were carefully investigated. His intent was to try to amass, if possible, a sufficient body of evidence that might support reincarnation. Eventually, he came to believe that there may be something to the belief that a deceased person's soul returns to life in another body.


His work was ongoing at the time of his death a few years ago and is now being conducted by Dr. Jim B. Tucker at the U. of Virginia.


What Stevensons work does seem to indicate, however, is that some young children were able to access the memories of dead people; usually recently dead in nearby physical locations.



You seem to be saying that the child subjects of Stevenson's investigations were simply acting as mediums and claiming the memories of the dead as their own. Stevenson never, as far as I'm aware, suggested that he thought any such thing was occurring.


Do provide evidence to support your belief. I would be very interested in it.


But we must remember that even if only one case was accurate, then the effect I mentioned is real.  Unfortunately Stevenson was trying to prove something else and so he missed the significance of what his data, if true, indicate.



No, we should not remember any such thing, nor ought we jump to any conclusion based upon only one case that seems to bear out our beliefs. One case that appears to indicate accessing the memories of the dead by some sort of paranormal means does not prove a thing. It could easily have been fraud, involve mistakenly interpreted clues, an erroneous conclusion or any number of other possible errors.


Now, if MULTIPLE cases cannot be explained by ordinary means, we might begin to speculate that there is some kind of mental communication with the dead occurring. In which case, that would simply be mediumship and nothing more. That, then, would have to be proven to be the source of the information by carefully controlled investigation.


You seem to me to be suggesting that what is thought to be reincarnation is simply a very detailed form of mediumship which appears to be why you consider Stevenson's work on scars and birthmarks to have been misguided.

Quick Reply
Cancel
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook