Nov 18, 2010 -- 6:27PM, rdsetc wrote:

Has "UPG" been identified on this thread?  I am not familiar with this, whatever it is.

 

 

 

Unverifed Personal Gnosis.

Nov 18, 2010 -- 11:20PM, rdsetc wrote:

Well, there you have me.   I have no idea what you are attempting to say.  This will be my final post on this thread.

 

 

I don't why you are announcing that, but if you are looking for clarification, UPG means the life experiences we have that make us believe the way we do. Empirical evidence doesn't fall under UPG.   Religious belief tends to, because you are relying on the evidence your own eyes have presented to you, or presented to someone you trust, rather than something that can be proven with scientific testing or photographic evidence. There is nothing, beyond what we find it texts written by others long, long, ago that will tell us anything about Heaven, for example.  So when people argue about what Heaven is, or even if it exists at all, well, there is no evidence one way or another. It all boils down to UPG.

Reincarnation falls into the same category.

Nov 19, 2010 -- 8:58AM, rdsetc wrote:

OK-

In many of his readings, Edgar Cayce told people who they were in past lifetimes.  He gave their names and in some cases directed them to the grave of the former sojourner.  One of them, that I read about traveled to Germany (for the first time in his life) and beheld the marked grave in a small town in Germany.  Cayce, of course, also had never left the United States in his lifetime.   Are you suggesting that this is merely the personal cognition of Edgar Cayce, the experiencer, his lifelong secretary, Gladys Davis, who took everything down in shorthand, documenting the readings (as she had many thousands throughout her life) mine for reading about it and now yours and those who are reading these posts?  

In cases uncovered in India, Dr. Ian Stevenson located children in their early stages of being able to speak name their former homes, family relatives and in some cases items hidden about the house in which they lived.  Was this merely the "personal cognition" of the famous researcher, the children, their familites who were in evidence and those who documented the cases at the Division of Perceptual Studies at the School of Medicine of the University of Virginia and their students, their friends and families who listen to the students?  Is it the personal cognition of those who study these cases? 

Now describe for me in clear, conversational English, so that I might understand, the significance of what you are bringing to this thread?   In short, what is your point? 

 

 

I am suggesting that you are trusting in experiences of Edgar Cayce and Dr. Ian Stevenson to form your beliefs on Reincarnation.  That doesn't mean its a bad thing; it's just a thing.

I am not saying that anything about UPG is good or bad; it just is.  What I am saying is your UPG is your UPG and my UPG is mine, and we should trust in our own to form our beliefs.  I am pleased that you believe in reincarnation.  It is good that you have formed confident beliefs to work your life around. The jury is still out for me.

What I am saying that is a fact is that there is no empirical evidence for reincarnation.  Science has not accepted it as even a hypothesis, let alone a theory. It is not testable.  It leaves no evidence that would be accepted by panel or court.  So to make claims that reincarnation is an obvious truth beyond UPG is a gross exaggeration of the facts.

Somehow this thread got OT.

To reply, yes, in Gaudiya Vaisnava tradition reincarnation is accepted but it's not absolutely required to consider since one can reach perfection in one life without bothering about previous or future ones. This is actually the recommended approach.

If Cayce's claims could be verified by going to the place and seeing the tombstone with specific name he mentioned, then it's a testimony acceptable in a court that he had paranormal abilities.

Stevenson's research suggests that the children remembering previous lives (in verified cases) had paranormal perceptions.

There are various alternative hypotheses (aside reincarnation) trying to explain this: linking up to akasha/morphic field (dr. Sheldrake), false memories by demoniac interventions (fundamental Christians), etc. However, reincarnation seems to be the most natural explanation.

The method used by Tibetan lamas searching for a reincarnated lama is one example of verification.

> What I am saying that is a fact is that there is no empirical evidence for reincarnation.  Science has not accepted it as even a hypothesis, let alone a theory. It is not testable.  It leaves no evidence that would be accepted by panel or court.

Modern science (aside its paradigm defense issue and resultant autocensorship) is too gross to observe subtle matter. Even small particles of gross matter aren't easily observed. Subatomic particles are something which can be accepted only on faith (in the testimony of scientists) by most people who aren't members of elite scientific teams with access to observation devices (in Sanskrit 'pratyaksha') nor can understand the complex mathematical proofs (anumana).

This is similar to the perception of subtle matter. It's available only to some. Before studying reincarnation it'd be needed to study OBE and NDE. Some results are already there:

www.springerlink.com/content/p34544k611r...

PS: Interesting photos: reincarnation2002.com/photos.htm

Hope this helps. Hare Krsna
Your servant, bh. Jan

www.vrindavan-dham.com
www.veda.harekrsna.cz

dvaitaM bandhAya mokSAt prAk prApte bodhe manISayA
bhaktyarthaM kalpitam dvaitaM advaitAd api sundaram

"Duality is bondage before moksa and wisdom after realization. The duality accepted for the purpose of bhakti is sweeter than even non-duality." (from mangalacarana to Advaitasiddhi sara sangraha by Madhusudana Sarasvati, former advaitin)

Nov 15, 2010 -- 4:34PM, rdsetc wrote:

Like all play in maya reincarnation is simply part of the game.  Time and space are illusory thus birth and death are like all else, perceptual.  Reincarnation or any other part of existence is free of religiosity but if religionists want to attach it to some religion they are of course free to do so.  It's all in the game, what we do as we continue on to infinity in the play.

The play of maya also consist of us being conditioned by it. Being conditioned by it implies that this is a integrated reality. That would mean we have no real eternal connection to the body but being absorbed in it is evidence of the conditioning power of nature. We have to take a material body to be conditioned and we have to continually take on bodies as long as we stay conditioned by maya.