I think this story is deep. Please try to read with an open mind, beyond the literal words.

---

The Egg
By: Andy Weir

You were on your way home when you died.

It was a car accident. Nothing particularly remarkable, but fatal nonetheless. You left behind a wife and two children. It was a painless death. The EMTs tried their best to save you, but to no avail. Your body was so utterly shattered you were better off, trust me.

And that’s when you met me.

“What… what happened?” You asked. “Where am I?”

“You died,” I said, matter-of-factly. No point in mincing words.

“There was a… a truck and it was skidding…”

“Yup,” I said.

“I… I died?”

“Yup. But don’t feel bad about it. Everyone dies,” I said.

You looked around. There was nothingness. Just you and me. “What is this place?” You asked. “Is this the afterlife?”

“More or less,” I said.

“Are you God?” You asked.

“Yup,” I replied. “I’m God.”

“My kids… my wife,” you said.

“What about them?”

“Will they be all right?”

“That’s what I like to see,” I said. “You just died and your main concern is for your family. That’s good stuff right there.”

You looked at me with fascination. To you, I didn’t look like God. I just looked like some man. Or possibly a woman. Some vague authority figure, maybe. More of a grammar school teacher than the Almighty.

“Don’t worry,” I said. “They’ll be fine. Your kids will remember you as perfect in every way. They didn’t have time to grow contempt for you. Your wife will cry on the outside, but will be secretly relieved. To be fair, your marriage was falling apart. If it’s any consolation, she’ll feel very guilty for feeling relieved.”

“Oh,” you said. “So what happens now? Do I go to heaven or hell or something?”

“Neither,” I said. “You’ll be reincarnated.”

“Ah,” you said. “So the Hindus were right,”

“All religions are right in their own way,” I said. “Walk with me.”

You followed along as we strode through the void. “Where are we going?”

“Nowhere in particular,” I said. “It’s just nice to walk while we talk.”

“So what’s the point, then?” You asked. “When I get reborn, I’ll just be a blank slate, right? A baby. So all my experiences and everything I did in this life won’t matter.”

“Not so!” I said. “You have within you all the knowledge and experiences of all your past lives. You just don’t remember them right now.”

I stopped walking and took you by the shoulders. “Your soul is more magnificent, beautiful, and gigantic than you can possibly imagine. A human mind can only contain a tiny fraction of what you are. It’s like sticking your finger in a glass of water to see if it’s hot or cold. You put a tiny part of yourself into the vessel, and when you bring it back out, you’ve gained all the experiences it had.

“You’ve been in a human for the last 48 years, so you haven’t stretched out yet and felt the rest of your immense consciousness. If we hung out here for long enough, you’d start remembering everything. But there’s no point to doing that between each life.”

“How many times have I been reincarnated, then?”

“Oh lots. Lots and lots. An in to lots of different lives.” I said. “This time around, you’ll be a Chinese peasant girl in 540 AD.”

“Wait, what?” You stammered. “You’re sending me back in time?”

“Well, I guess technically. Time, as you know it, only exists in your universe. Things are different where I come from.”

“Where you come from?” You said.

“Oh sure,” I explained “I come from somewhere. Somewhere else. And there are others like me. I know you’ll want to know what it’s like there, but honestly you wouldn’t understand.”

“Oh,” you said, a little let down. “But wait. If I get reincarnated to other places in time, I could have interacted with myself at some point.”

“Sure. Happens all the time. And with both lives only aware of their own lifespan you don’t even know it’s happening.”

“So what’s the point of it all?”

“Seriously?” I asked. “Seriously? You’re asking me for the meaning of life? Isn’t that a little stereotypical?”

“Well it’s a reasonable question,” you persisted.

I looked you in the eye. “The meaning of life, the reason I made this whole universe, is for you to mature.”

“You mean mankind? You want us to mature?”

“No, just you. I made this whole universe for you. With each new life you grow and mature and become a larger and greater intellect.”

“Just me? What about everyone else?”

“There is no one else,” I said. “In this universe, there’s just you and me.”

You stared blankly at me. “But all the people on earth…”

“All you. Different incarnations of you.”

“Wait. I’m everyone!?”

“Now you’re getting it,” I said, with a congratulatory slap on the back.

“I’m every human being who ever lived?”

“Or who will ever live, yes.”

“I’m Abraham Lincoln?”

“And you’re John Wilkes Booth, too,” I added.

“I’m Hitler?” You said, appalled.

“And you’re the millions he killed.”

“I’m Jesus?”

“And you’re everyone who followed him.”

You fell silent.

“Every time you victimized someone,” I said, “you were victimizing yourself. Every act of kindness you’ve done, you’ve done to yourself. Every happy and sad moment ever experienced by any human was, or will be, experienced by you.”

You thought for a long time.

“Why?” You asked me. “Why do all this?”

“Because someday, you will become like me. Because that’s what you are. You’re one of my kind. You’re my child.”

“Whoa,” you said, incredulous. “You mean I’m a god?”

“No. Not yet. You’re a fetus. You’re still growing. Once you’ve lived every human life throughout all time, you will have grown enough to be born.”

“So the whole universe,” you said, “it’s just…”

“An egg.” I answered. “Now it’s time for you to move on to your next life.”

And I sent you on your way.

---

Comments? Anyone wants to discuss?

given me something to think about at every breakfast,

Thoughtful

I was InesQor

Inesqor, what a wonderful story! Did you write this yourself? I haven't read anything that captures my thoughts on the matter more accurately. Apart from the ending bit, this is what I've tried to communicate especially in my discussions with M_Nwankwo regarding reincarnation and past lives memories.

I do not deny that it is possible to remember the lives of previous people as if you were the one it was happening to. However where I differed from him was that I do not believe strictly that you were that previous person. I think that when people die they leave their memories imprinted on the universe somewhere and that new born babies and certain sensitive people can attract them. When that happens the memories influence the behaviour of the new baby and if the person can dig deep enough later he will actually 'recollect' the past life memory.

Some memories will have a closer connection to some people than to others. However ultimately we are all influenced to varying degrees by the collective memories of all the souls that have lived previously. All past lives are my past lives. And it would be possible to have recollections of the life history of 2 individuals that lived simultaneously. That is why I don't believe that the reincarnation phenomenon can be explained as one soul that passes from one body to another in a relay through time.

musKeeto:

given me something to think about at every breakfast, 

Glad you like it!

phxc:

Thoughtful

I was InesQor

LOL Yes, and I was once, or yet will be phxc, right?

Pastor AIO:

Inesqor, what a wonderful story!  Did you write this yourself?  I haven't read anything that captures my thoughts on the matter more accurately.

Yes indeed I think it is a remarkable story.  I was hoping you in particular would find the thread! But no, it was written by a man called Andy Weir, as I have indicated. I don't know anything else about him except that he wrote this story here http://galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg_mod.html and I was intrigued when I read it last year.

Pastor AIO:

Apart from the ending bit, this is what I've tried to communicate especially in my discussions with M_Nwankwo regarding reincarnation and past lives memories.

I do not deny that it is possible to remember the lives of previous people as if you were the one it was happening to.  However where I differed from him was that I do not believe strictly that you were that previous person.  I think that when people die they leave their memories imprinted on the universe somewhere and that new born babies and certain sensitive people can attract them.  When that happens the memories influence the behaviour of the new baby and if the person can dig deep enough later he will actually 'recollect' the past life memory. 

Some memories will have a closer connection to some people than to others.  However ultimately we are all influenced to varying degrees by the collective memories of all the souls that have lived previously.  All past lives are my past lives.  And it would be possible to have recollections of the life history of 2 individuals that lived simultaneously.  That is why I don't believe that the reincarnation phenomenon can be explained as one soul that passes from one body to another in a relay through time.

Wow. Do you know you just explained my personal view using other / more succinct words? I also personally DO NOT believe that souls reincarnate from body to body across time.

How I'd have said it is this:

You know how humans benefit from the ecosystem, in natural cycles; we impact on the system and it influences us in turn. We eat plants, we eat animals and they eat us, and at the end we die and become part of that same system, the plants feed on us right back. Different plants though, and different animals. Not the exact same one we ate or were eaten by. In an endless loop (for "eternity" as it appears to us; maybe to God its a finite process), on and on it goes. That is for our bodies.

I believe for our souls too, as we grow in experience, we interact with other souls too, from other "times" in eternity and "places" in space. Whenever you do a deed, make a statement, "live a life", what you do is you contribute a certain amount of influence on the moment and the outcome, and it wells up in a "pool" of human experience. Like inside this "egg". That is like how your natural body interacts with the ecosystem.

The same way your body eats a plant that another specie of yours decayed to feed; our souls absorb situations, memories, connections, cases, impulses, ideas, beliefs, fears, faith, will, intellect, innovation, love, hatred, dreams, all forms of non-palpable change that those who have "gone before us" left behind, and release that which those who will "come after" us will require.

Now, the same way people choose what they eat and how they treat their bodies; some souls are more inclined to "absorb" more from the pool than others. And some are more inclined to absorb more of a kind of memory or impulse than others (thus labelled "right" and "wrong" impulses).

I don't believe in a reincarnation of souls. I believe in a reincarnation of human experiences, within only one single shot at life.

Now, that is "recycling" for the body, and "recycling" for the soul. I believe the spirit goes right back to a similar "pool", which is a pool inside God. That process (for the spirit) is the "judgment" (that is God "choosing what he will eat or absorb", just like how your bodies and souls do).

What do you think?

What is happening to inesqor?!  This is not very christian theology o.

Jenwitemi:

What is happening to inesqor?!  This is not very christian theology o.

LOL I beg your pardon

Well yeah it isn't, truly. Read these two verses before you go though.

Matthew 25:40
"And the King will say, 'I tell you the truth, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me!"

Matthew 25:45
"And he will answer, 'I tell you the truth, when you refused to help the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were refusing to help me."

I was reading something about reincarnation. I got discouraged. All these long epistles weary me.

Joagbaje:

I was reading something about reincarnation. I got discouraged. All these long epistles weary me.

That's sad. You have missed the main point, which has nothing to do with reincarnation (which I also don't believe in).

Cheers

Unreal

InesQor:


I don't believe in a reincarnation of souls. I believe in a reincarnation of human experiences, within only one single shot at life.

Gbam-u!!!

This is the best articulation of it yet.  In other words it is not the identity of a person that transmigrates from one person to another but rather the experiences of that person.  And just like a person may access his memories and have his experiences shape his behaviour, even so can another person access the same memories and be influenced by the experiences of the previous life.  

Now, the same way people choose what they eat and how they treat their bodies; some souls are more inclined to "absorb" more from the pool than others. And some are more inclined to absorb more of a kind of memory or impulse than others (thus labelled "right" and "wrong" impulses).

This is deep.  So deep in fact that I am reluctant to go on discussing it on Nairaland.  It also fascinates me that you used the word 'influence' cos that is a word that is at the heart of my understanding of how the world works, spiritually and physically.  

I  have a friend in Jand here that we call Pepsi.  Short for Pepsi Kola.  Any other pepsi there should drop me a line.

^^^

pastor pastor

Very Interesting story! Thanks for posting this.

Grey Beard:

Very Interesting story! Thanks for posting this.

Glad you liked it!

(BUMP)

Wow!

The oneness of existence - the capability to become another even while yourself, feel with them, be with them and see with them. True maturity that transcends food & drink and sees all in self & as self, thus becoming truly, a judge worthy of the name.

Na wa O, Pepsi! If no be say I know you, I for dey fear O

InesQor:

Glad you like it!
LOL Yes, and I was once, or yet will be phxc, right?
Yes indeed I think it is a remarkable story. I was hoping you in particular would find the thread! But no, it was written by a man called Andy Weir, as I have indicated. I don't know anything else about him except that he wrote this story here http://galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg_mod.html and I was intrigued when I read it last year.

Wow. Do you know you just explained my personal view using other / more succinct words? I also personally DO NOT believe that souls reincarnate from body to body across time.

How I'd have said it is this:

You know how humans benefit from the ecosystem, in natural cycles; we impact on the system and it influences us in turn. We eat plants, we eat animals and they eat us, and at the end we die and become part of that same system, the plants feed on us right back. Different plants though, and different animals. Not the exact same one we ate or were eaten by. In an endless loop (for "eternity" as it appears to us; maybe to God its a finite process), on and on it goes. That is for our bodies.

I believe for our souls too, as we grow in experience, we interact with other souls too, from other "times" in eternity and "places" in space. Whenever you do a deed, make a statement, "live a life", what you do is you contribute a certain amount of influence on the moment and the outcome, and it wells up in a "pool" of human experience. Like inside this "egg". That is like how your natural body interacts with the ecosystem.

The same way your body eats a plant that another specie of yours decayed to feed; our souls absorb situations, memories, connections, cases, impulses, ideas, beliefs, fears, faith, will, intellect, innovation, love, hatred, dreams, all forms of non-palpable change that those who have "gone before us" left behind, and release that which those who will "come after" us will require.

Now, the same way people choose what they eat and how they treat their bodies; some souls are more inclined to "absorb" more from the pool than others. And some are more inclined to absorb more of a kind of memory or impulse than others (thus labelled "right" and "wrong" impulses).

I don't believe in a reincarnation of souls. I believe in a reincarnation of human experiences, within only one single shot at life.

Now, that is "recycling" for the body, and "recycling" for the soul. I believe the spirit goes right back to a similar "pool", which is a pool inside God. That process (for the spirit) is the "judgment" (that is God "choosing what he will eat or absorb", just like how your bodies and souls do).

What do you think?

Is there any particular reason why you do not believe in the possibility of a soul re-incarnating across time in different bodies? Is that a stance you draw from the bible or do you derive it from your ruminations on the nature of reality?

Is there anything in reality that suggests to you that reincarnation in different bodies across time is impossible or inconceivable?

Cheers.

nuclearboy:

Wow!

The oneness of existence - the capability to become another even while yourself, feel with them, be with them and see with them. True maturity that transcends food & drink and sees all in self & as self, thus becoming truly, a judge worthy of the name.

Na wa O, Pepsi! If no be say I know you, I for dey fear O

Broooos! How body?

Deep Sight:

Is there any particular reason why you do not believe in the possibility of a soul re-incarnating across time in different bodies? Is that a stance you draw from the bible or do you derive it from your ruminations on the nature of reality?

First off, I believe reincarnation in its popular form presents God as a helpless spectator of the human tragedy. I believe in a sovereign God who takes his time and purpose in the execution of plans, may not be rushed by trifle wishes, is not bound by an impersonal law of karma and isn't waiting for reincarnation to carry out purification on people. In us humans, popular beliefs on reincarnation may tend to cause a detached stand to crime, theft and other social plagues, since they are normal debts to be paid by the victims; contingent on their prior lives. I digress.

I have a working understanding of Christianity, Buddhism and Yoruba traditional religions, so I will explore my reasoning comparatively through these channels.

For those without the patience for a lot of text:

I think of reincarnation like a man who wears a heavy perfume on a garment, hangs it and exits the room. You enter the room and as you walk around, you pick up the same garment by choice and you wear it. You smell the perfume, you perceive tobacco, you see a woman's hair in the fabric, notice an ink stain in the pocket, etc and now you can "share" the former wearer's deeds and experiences without the clutter of their personal identity (as if it was his soul). A woman sees you in the coat and she falls in love with you because she loves how you look in it (influence). Someone like her had also fallen in love with the previous wearer for same reasons (past-life-experience). You wear this until you have to leave the room, and the next person picks it up and wears it too. Now imagine it's not just a coat, but also other garments - the spirit or influence or attitude, so to say - of the former person. That's my view on reincarnation; a sharing of experiences, memories and influences without passing on any permanent identity e.g. a soul.

Now,

Reincarnating in a long cycle across many lives and bodies is actually a recent form of thinking, and not as ancient as people think. Many ancient tribal religions and philosophies nowadays credited for reincarnation actually taught the pre-existence of the soul before birth, and/or its independent survival after death; and not the continuous transmigration from a physical body to another because of an impersonal law of karma.

With the New Age movement in the 19th century came the Eastern gurus, and gradually things changed because the concept was too abstract to be easily accepted, so Westerners needed a milder version of this doctrine. Now what reincarnates is an entity which is currently called the soul, an entity which preserves [/i]the attributes of personhood from one life to the next. This compromise was from the desire to adapt the reincarnation doctrine to Western thought. This doesn’t bear much resemblance to classical Eastern spirituality, which usually rejects it as a perverted view. The New Age Westerners don't mind, anyway. As someone once said, "[i]People who need a belief will tend to defend it by ceasing to listen, switching attention, or being distracted by irritation and contempt".

In the Buddha's original teachings, Buddhism denies the existence of a permanent self reincarnating from one life to the next. He taught that there are 5 aggregates (rupa / body, vedana / feeling, sanna / cognition, sankhara / mental constructions, vijyana / consciousness), like checks and balances, that adjust gradually and inter-influence one another to create that impression of permanence.

The question then, is that if there is no permanent element but all are subject to change, what re-incarnates according to the dictates of the impersonal karma? What causes differences between people in life span, illnesses, wealth, etc? If there is no real self, who inherits deeds? Who reincarnates?

The Buddha replied:

Men have, O young man, deeds as their very own, they are inheritors of deeds, deeds are their matrix, deeds are their kith and kin, and deeds are their support. It is deeds that classify men into high or low status (Majjhima Nikaya 135,4).

He explained that karma is what is passed on from one life to another, like a lighted candle lighting up another one without the transfer of essence from the first candle to the next. This is a rebirth without the transfer of self from person to person, and like my analogy, influence and the experience of illumination has been passed along in a "commonwealth" form.

How I understand this is that, one who does a deed or has an influence and passes on from this life, the deed or karma related to the experience hangs in this life waiting for a similar entity (candle to be lighted) to do a similar deed or have a similar influence that will buy back the potential karma that has been waiting. BAM! He/she shows up, and they get the karma they "deserve" [this is what I referred to as a tendency to absorb some influence over another]. ALTHOUGH it's a different soul and different body, but the karma is absolute. The intangible human experience and its related influence is shared, reincarnated across lives.

This teaching means that the link from one life to another is a causal [/i]link. Furthermore, in the [i]Garland Sutra

According to what deeds are done; Do their resulting consequences come to be; Yet the doer has no existence: This is the Buddha’s teaching.

See the red line I emboldened above. The doer has no existence (no permanent existence, it's not the same soul transmigrating). The deeds are the existence that lurk in the passageway of eternity, moving from life to life and gaining weight, similar influences attracting similar influences as new people with new souls show up.

I also believe in one thing; classical Eastern spirituality is rife with metaphors of meaning. Every day, every moment we change and are "reborn", the contents of our bodies, thought, memories and feelings change. After 10 years there is very little original material left in a human; most has been replaced. [b]THAT [/b]is a reincarnation of experiences as we grow within one same life.

---

The few instances that the Bible relates to the matter of reincarnation are at best, subtle. Close to metaphorical as I explained above, IMHO.

Of course the Bible says in Hebrews 9:27 that it is appointed to everyone to die BUT ONCE, and after that the judgement. There is no room for one to die over and over again. However some people argue that reincarnation was condemned and forbidden at the fifth ecumenical council (Constantinople, AD 553) and was edited appropriately in a deceitful act of manipulating Christianity . This is a lie, though. We have early church fathers like Gregory of Nyssa (335-395), Tertullian (145-220), Irenaeus (130-200), Justin Martyr (100-165) and Origen (185-254) who taught against reincarnation, even before Constantinople and the 5th ecumenical council. Indeed Gnostics and Neo-Platonists, who are non-Christian, believed in the modern views on reincarnation, but it has always been rejected by the early church fathers as heresy.

Origen's Origenism is often quoted by New Age believers as an early church link to modern thoughts on reincarnation, but rather he had Greek Platonist views on reincarnation (which in summary states that reincarnation is a temporary punishment for souls whose divine love has grown cold). Greek Platonist views are closer to the original Eastern views as above described, but the Greeks also have the Neo Platonism which is closer to modern beliefs on reincarnation.

In fact, Origen rejected the modern views on reincarnation in his commentary on Matthew (on John the Baptist as the reincarnation of Elijah (Matthew 11,14; 17,12-13)). Under the heading "The spirit and power of the Elijah, and not the soul, were in the Baptist", he writes.

In this place it does not appear to me that by Elijah the soul is spoken of, lest I should fall into the dogma of transmigration, which is foreign to the church of God, and not handed down by the Apostles, nor anywhere set forth in the Scriptures; for it is also in opposition to the saying that "things seen are temporal," and that "this age shall have a consummation," and also to the fulfillment of the saying, "Heaven and earth shall pass away," and "the fashion of this world passeth away," and "the heavens shall perish," and what follows.

Here, it was the karmic experiences and results of Elijah that hung in the temporal, waiting for one who would attract that influence. John the Baptist showed up like a candle, and got illuminated. There are bound to be observed similarities, because John would share ELijah's memories and deeds. However, not his soul.

Ecclesiastes 9:11
I have seen something else under the sun: The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favor to the learned; but[b] time and chance happen to them all[/b].

In the above, I agree with the teacher; in the passage of time, influences from the pool of human experiences chance upon human lives and illuminate [/i]them.

---

For the Yorubas, in Ifa, they believe that Olodumare (God) placed us on earth (Onile) for a purpose, being that Olodumare is the ultimate divine cause, and if all things are caused by the ultimate cause, it must be with synergistic purpose. That purpose is to have a degree of sacredness towards the creator, the earth It placed us on, and to serve It through the myriad of sacred functionalities of Olodumare, called Its Orisas. ([i]Here, I have used It as a pronoun for Olodumare, in accordance with an absence of gender).

Only Orisa can communicate with Orisa, and as such each human has an internal [/i]Orisha called Ori. This Ori is in closest connection to the creator essence called Olodumare and its functionalities, the Orishas. To live the true consciousness, one's Ori must align with the divine plan. Before incarnation on earth, each Ori is allowed to choose what the human's life will consist of. This is called the Ayanmo (loosely translated as destiny), and it is matched with the divine plan and contained in the human's Iponri (the Higher Self). I like to think of the Ori as the Soul and the Iponri as the Spirit. Now, when the human is incarnated, they have forgotten all about their Ayanmo and their purpose is to remember what the Ayanmo is. Using their Ori, they connect to Olodumare via the Orishas to awaken the Iponri where they stored the divine plan, that they may match it with their Ayanmo as they discover it.

Unfortunately, humans prove vulnerable to their own frailties and flawed intellects, and allow their desires to rule them; not listening to the Orisas but instead more to the now corrupt Ori and doing damage to their spiritual constitution. Thus, they change allegiance and fall out of favour with Olodumare, thus becoming prey for the Ajogun spirits (warriors against mankind, compared with contemporary demons). Hence the human becomes more vulnerable to temptations facilitated by Esu, an Orisa. Esu is a doublefaced enforcer/trickster entity who works like an amplifier. If you are doing what you should be doing spiritually, Esu will be the best agent in the plan for your life. But if you have started succumbing to your own desires, Esu will drive you faster away from Olodumare. According to beliefs, he is doing his own job in setting the world straight. I'm digressing again.

Having provided background, now to my point. I see that room I described earlier on, where you picked a coat, as Olodumare's place where you decide what your ayanmo will be. You pick it up with all its attendant influences as used by whoever and connecting to whoever, and you wear it into this life with all its attendant memories, although YOU are not immediately aware of all of them, you have "forgotten" the memories that you pre-ordered from life. You have new experiences with people and observe the influences involved; sometimes you are stubborn and you act against the divine prescription that had been aligned for your own good, and then you suffer for it. At the end, you return to Olodumare and drop your ayanmo; having fulfilled your purpose or not. Another person selects that purpose and decides to do it on earth; he will inherit all the influences you met plus the ones you added to the mix. And such a one will think they are having past-life flashbacks, but it's nothing of the sort. It's not your own life you are remembering.

---

Deep Sight:

Is there anything in reality that suggests to you that reincarnation in different bodies across time is impossible or inconceivable?

Cheers.

I'll allude to four thoughts here, and I hope they will be sufficient.

I believe one is not punished unless they are conscious of the punishment. There is no refining advantage to a punishment where the punished does not know they are being punished, and what they are punished for, as taught in Neo reincarnation. I see it as unjust and impractical that one is punished for that which they do not even know or remember. The Yoruba beliefs also state that one forgets their ayanmo, but in that case there is only one shot at life to decipher the mystery then return home. Of what use is it to have multiple shots at life when each time one does not know what exactly they are being punished for? How can one strive to improve to a better standard without knowing the previous standard that one failed to attain?

The way reincarnation is taught now, it has had billions of years of impotence and yet mankind is morally unimproved historically! What suggests that it will ever work?

Also, reincarnation in different bodies across time proposes the nihilism of materialism, which I do not believe in. I believe there is purpose to existence, as observed by design in nature. Here, we are made to believe that each individual person exists in a meaningless personal life, and each life is absorbed into the final impersonal reality. If they say each individual person is a cipher and the Impersonal Divine is the only [i]absolute reality at an infinite reference point, then even the entire trajectory of the soul is meaningless. e.g. mathematically there are billions of "numbers" between the absolute reference points 0 and 1. Can you draw a meaningful continuous trajectory across the numbers without, as it were, discretely jumping from 0 to 1? And if indeed the jump were discrete from 0 to 1 then the trajectory across the infinity of ciphers does not have any meaning.

Finally, some people use "past-life experiences" and "past-life therapies" to prove reincarnation. However, if true then the therapists are violating their own tenets in seeking to counter the justice of karma. Aren't people suffering from  past-life karma supposed to be left to suffer? Seeking to counteract karmic justice via therapy is itself a moral violation of the canons of modern reincarnation belief, and will only result in additional karma. This endless loop is meaningless, unless reincarnation is understood in the original Eastern light, in which case "past-life experiences" are understood to be influences gathered by the soul in their life, as left behind by previous travellers.

Cheers

Thank you. Really good writing.

I don't agree that mankind has remained morally unimproved and I would seriously question your understanding of past life therapies.

But here is my main concern: What refining value is added by picking up someone else's karmic garment or absorbing karmic energies floating about?

(Just by the way, I do believe in the oneness of existence, disagree, as people may, on details.)

MyJoe:

Thank you. Really good writing.

I don't agree that mankind has remained morally unimproved and I would seriously question your understanding of past life therapies.

But here is my main concern: What refining value is added by picking up someone else's karmic garment or absorbing karmic energies floating about?

(Just by the way, I do believe in the oneness of existence, disagree, as people may, on details.)

Thanks for reading up, MyJoe!

(1) Please correct me if I'm wrong. I think past-life therapies involve a re-experiencing of one's own past lives in a bid to improve on or better live the present one. Usually a therapist or healer or guide of some sort helps the person through the experience, but some may learn to carry it out themselves.

(2) I believe the refining is a personal participation that is built on one's exposure to the profits and losses that are engrained in the experience of the karmic garment / energy (to use your words) one comes across. One can then judge for themselves in similar decisions where the ones who have gone by, have either passed or failed in decision. That experience gets to be re-lived and thus it gets more refined as discerning the quality of the decisions.

I hope my view is clear

Dear Inesqor,

I thank you for your very well written response, and I did very carefully read every single line you wrote. I must say however, that whilst in terms of eloquence it was one of the best write-ups I have ever seen from you – sadly – I disagree with almost every single word contained therein. In saying so, I must very quickly state the pith of my disagreement – the life-view you have set up therein is – on close inspection – one that renders life itself entirely purposeless and meaningless.

I must further state very quickly two things in brief:

(1) There seems to be no serious basis for your firm rejection of the possibility of reincarnation as commonly understood except for the fact of your conviction in the bible and such scripture as Hebrews 9:27 - and this leads me to conclude that your strenuous rejection of commonly understood reincarnation is thus mainly biblically motivated and -

(2) It is a tempting thing to do; to create fantastical ideas of reality simply to suit one’s preconceived beliefs. Someone once told me that the mere fact that an idea appears outlandishly exotic does nothing to render it true. I must be direct in stating that your thesis above appears as just that to me: a thesis that renders life inherently purposeless and meaningless – and which has been created on account of your determined rejection of commonly understood re-incarnation – which rejection is biblically motivated.

I need hardly point out that we have had long discussions in the past regarding whether or not there are allusions to such commonly understood reincarnation in the bible or not. We best leave that aside: as I recall, it proved a most ill-tempered discussion. It would seem more sensible to me – to ruminate together on the reality that we share, and see whether that which you advance is an idea that could sit well with any strand of meaningfulness or purpose in a human – or even super-human – context. This is what I propose to do.

InesQor:

First off, I believe reincarnation in its popular form presents God as a helpless spectator of the human tragedy. I believe in a sovereign God who takes his time and purpose in the execution of plans, may not be rushed by trifle wishes, is not bound by an impersonal law of karma and isn't waiting for reincarnation to carry out purification on people.

How is this sir? How does reincarnation as presently understood present God as a helpless spectator of human tragedy? I think that beyond creating fanciful ideas of reality you really really need to take a very strong and close look at the ideas that you are advancing. Let us stop and understand carefully: the very idea of karmic reincarnation envisages a God who by the karmic law has set out a just cycle of life in which every being advances and purifies itself under the government of natural karmic laws. There are no terms on which this precept can be described as inferring God being a “helpless spectator of human tragedy.” This is in stark contradiction of that which karmic law obviously infers – and such a shocking inference from you is exactly what I deplore: it renders it obvious that you are indeed desperately seeking to refute commonly understood reincarnation even at the cost of commonsense.

In us humans, popular beliefs on reincarnation may tend to cause a detached stand to crime, theft and other social plagues, since they are normal debts to be paid by the victims; contingent on their prior lives. I digress.

Yes, I understand you here: however I will only add that the mature mind should rather consider the precept as a precept of justice – and not a precept of absolution of wrong.

For those without the patience for a lot of text:

I think of reincarnation like a man who wears a heavy perfume on a garment, hangs it and exits the room. You enter the room and as you walk around, you pick up the same garment by choice and you wear it. You smell the perfume, you perceive tobacco, you see a woman's hair in the fabric, notice an ink stain in the pocket, etc and now you can "share" the former wearer's deeds and experiences without the clutter of their personal identity (as if it was his soul). A woman sees you in the coat and she falls in love with you because she loves how you look in it (influence). Someone like her had also fallen in love with the previous wearer for same reasons (past-life-experience). You wear this until you have to leave the room, and the next person picks it up and wears it too. Now imagine it's not just a coat, but also other garments - the spirit or influence or attitude, so to say - of the former person. That's my view on reincarnation; a sharing of experiences, memories and influences without passing on any permanent identity e.g. a soul.

In the first instance I would have to ask exactly why you have been forced to reach out so far to derive this understanding of reincarnation? Is it because your understanding of your bible is at variance with commonly understood reincarnation? Have you therefore sought to create an understanding of reincarnation that could rhyme with your biblical precept of one lifetime per soul?

My dear, if that is the case, be done with such. Because there is no precept of an eternal soul that could possibly warehouse any idea of a single lifetime – absolutely none. To the extent that a soul is said to be eternal – or at any event to survive this lifetime – then we are already talking about a soul that experiences different lifetimes already – whether in a body or not. At all events, this is not the pith of that which I wish to complain about. In your extracted above – I complain as follows –

1. How does the thesis you set out above serve to improve and mature souls? If every soul simply comes once into the room – and picks up influences left there by other souls, and then leaves same influences and then exits the room – what value does each soul derive from entering the room? What personal improvement?

2. Most importantly, why exactly would you conceive of reincarnation in this convoluted fashion which leaves nothing tangible in terms of the experiencing for each soul to call his own?

3. Do you realize that this thesis of yours is actually in contradiction to the very idea of the eternity of the soul? For if indeed the soul is eternal, whence cometh it, and where does it go, before this life, and after this life. Do you realize that your thesis amounts to annihilating the eternity of souls and sustaining only the eternity of disembodied and soul-less experiences – experiences being fed by a procession of finite souls coming into existence – feeding off them, leaving them, and going out of existence. This renders the soul meaningless in eternity.

Is your alternative – namely that each sould will leave the room and thence proceed to be judged and dwell in a “heaven” or “hell” more plausible to you than commonly understood reincarnation?

4. Commonly understood reincarnation is cohesive to the extent that it envisages souls improving on their nature through the karmic cycle lifetime after lifetime. Do you realize that this thesis of yours is in stark and destructive contradistinction to that to the extent that it could envisage no process of maturity for souls in the course of time. Does it occur to you that processes of maturity are self- evident everywhere in nature – from the formation of stars to the life of seeds and plants. Do you realize that your thesis flings away any process of maturity for souls over time?

The question then, is that if there is no permanent element but all are subject to change, what re-incarnates according to the dictates of the impersonal karma?

This is a huge and flawed leap. You have wrongly concluded that there is no permanent element. Can you substantiate this?

You are surely aware that energy is neither created nor destroyed but only changes form. Permanence is firmly encoded in this alone.

The Buddha replied:
He explained that karma is what is passed on from one life to another, like a lighted candle lighting up another one without the transfer of essence from the first candle to the next. This is a rebirth without the transfer of self from person to person, and like my analogy, influence and the experience of illumination has been passed along in a "commonwealth" form.

Very simple – and I think you have altogether misconceived it inorder to suit your biblical leanings. That which is referred to as being transferred is the karma – which of course is not a being in it self and thus which does not contain “soul” or “self.” However the bearer of the karma is indeed a being.

The Buddhist concept of rebirth is very clear on this – and no sir – it does not rhyme with that which you are attempting to force it to rhyme with – your biblical leaning.

This should set you straight –

Rebirth in Buddhism is the doctrine that the evolving consciousness (Pali: samvattanika-viññana)[1][2] or stream of consciousness (Pali: viññana-sotam,[3] Sanskrit: vijñāna-srotām, vijñāna-santāna, or citta-santāna) upon death (or "the dissolution of the aggregates" (P. khandhas, S. skandhas)), becomes one of the contributing causes for the arising of a new aggregation. The consciousness in the new person is neither identical nor entirely different from that in the deceased but the two form a causal continuum or stream.
In traditional Buddhist cosmology these lives can be in any of a large number of states of being including the human, any kind of animal and several types of supernatural being (see Six realms). Rebirth is conditioned by the karmas (actions of body, speech and mind) of previous lives; good karmas will yield a happier rebirth, bad karmas will produce one which is more unhappy. The basic cause for this is the abiding of consciousness in ignorance (Pali: avijja, Sanskrit: avidya): when ignorance is uprooted, rebirth ceases. One of the analogies used to describe what happens then is that of a ray of light that never lands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirth_(Buddhism)

Inesqor – in the above you can see that it is far from true to suggest as you do that in the Buddhist view of rebirth – there is no surviving element of the previous “self” involved. That is absolutely a false representation of the Buddhist view my friend.

How I understand this is that, one who does a deed or has an influence and passes on from this life, the deed or karma related to the experience hangs in this life waiting for a similar entity (candle to be lighted) to do a similar deed or have a similar influence that will buy back the potential karma that has been waiting. BAM! He/she shows up, and they get the karma they "deserve" [this is what I referred to as a tendency to absorb some influence over another]. ALTHOUGH it's a different soul and different body, but the karma is absolute. The intangible human experience and its related influence is shared, reincarnated across lives.

You cannot even intelligibly use the word “karma” if you are talking about different souls. That would violate both the very definition of Karma as well as the justice of God which both you and I believe in.

Here, it was the karmic experiences and results of Elijah that hung in the temporal, waiting for one who would attract that influence. John the Baptist showed up like a candle, and got illuminated. There are bound to be observed similarities, because John would share ELijah's memories and deeds. However, not his soul.

Believe what you will: we have debated this before – and each person may interprete this as he pleases. What however is not in doubt is that for the Jews to have asked Jesus that question, they must have conceived of a precept of reincarnation which involved the incarnation of a soul in another time. But no need for us to debate this point: as I am not basing my disputations on anything in the bible anyway.

Ecclesiastes 9:11
I have seen something else under the sun: The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favor to the learned; but[b] time and chance happen to them all[/b].

In the above, I agree with the teacher; in the passage of time, influences from the pool of human experiences chance upon human lives and illuminate [/i]them.

I trust you are not attempting to read this passage in such a manner as to declare karma non-existent, are you? For your Lord Jesus himself stated that “whatsoever a man soweth, the same shall he reap.” The wisdom in Ecclesiastes is simply a pointer to the fact that the factors that lead to our destinies are not always such as we think.

I believe one is not punished unless they are conscious of the punishment. There is no refining advantage to a punishment where the punished does not know they are being punished, and what they are punished for, as taught in Neo reincarnation. I see it as unjust and impractical that one is punished for that which they do not even know or remember. The Yoruba beliefs also state that one forgets their ayanmo, but in that case there is only one shot at life to decipher the mystery then return home. Of what use is it to have multiple shots at life when each time one does not know what exactly they are being punished for? How can one strive to improve to a better standard without knowing the previous standard that one failed to attain?

Now this is something I’d like to spend a lot of time on: unfortunately I am pressed for time (valentine duties calling. . . ) however let me put it very simply: as each soul travels through time, its karmic experiences leave an imprint on its nature as it evolves. This imprint is what is critical – it serves to change the nature or inclination of the soul – and that nature is what is observed as the soul’s natural tendency in its next incarnations.

If you conceive even slightly of eternity, you will immediately realize that no soul can in a finite realm contain or consciously apprehend the full eternity of its past or even present. Therefore all that registers within it is the imprint which has defined its present nature. That is what continuously defines every being – the totality of its past. And this is achieved through the working of eternal karmic cycles. Conscious remembrance is not that which achieves this. The imprint left on the soul by its experiences is what achieves this.

The way reincarnation is taught now, it has had billions of years of impotence and yet mankind is morally unimproved historically! What suggests that it will ever work?

CAPITALLY FALSE. Mankind’s moral compass has improved a great deal with time as any student of history will tell you. The mere development of concepts such as human rights and democracy is a testament to that – not to speak of the gradual extinction of a great many abominable practices.

Also, reincarnation in different bodies across time proposes the nihilism of materialism, which I do not believe in. I believe there is purpose to existence, as observed by design in nature. Here, we are made to believe that each individual person exists in a meaningless personal life, and each life is absorbed into the final impersonal reality. If they say each individual person is a cipher and the Impersonal Divine is the only [i]absolute reality at an infinite reference point, then even the entire trajectory of the soul is meaningless.[i]

Actually it is your thesis that infers such meaninglessness and not commonly understood reincarnation.

Need to say much more, but pressed for time.

This issue does not stray far from another philosophical issue that it is worth studying if we are to have any proper grasp of the issue. It is called the [b]problem of Identity [/b]and has been tackled variously by various philosophers. Because at the heart of this discussion is the Problem of Identity.

Is the man the same Identity as the previous life that he remembers?

To what extent does memory play a part in the forming of identity?

What ontological status do we give the Identity? I personally feel that identity is only an effect, and is nothing essential in it's own right. In other words it is merely the product of psychological activity.

Check these links:

http://mindhacks.com/2007/08/21/psychological-continuity-and-the-problem-of-identity/

Philosophy Now magazine has an interesting article on the problem of identity – how we have the impression that we are the same person, despite the fact that our personality, preferences and even cognitive abilities may change from moment to moment.

It’s a problem that was most famously tackled by 17th century philosopher John Locke but is still relevant for understanding the issues of identity and the self in contemporary cognitive science, as well as for informing complex judgements on free will and responsibility.

Suppose a man has committed a crime whilst drunk or undergoing temporary amnesia. Suppose also, that because of his mental state at the time of the offence, he genuinely cannot remotely remember a thing about it. Clearly on the evidence of witnesses ‚Äì and perhaps he was caught in the act ‚Äì it was his own body, the same man who now stands in the dock, who did it. But was it the same person? Should the present person be found guilty of the crime if the drunkenness or amnesia had so changed his psyche that, at the time, he ‘wasn’t his true self’? Can he rightly claim that at the time of the incident the occupant of his body was a different person altogether; or perhaps some fractured component of his own psyche that couldn‚Äôt rightly be described as ‚Äòhimself‚Äô?

Psychological continuity was, Locke claimed, the answer to the question. The accused, considered as a man, the physical being, is certainly guilty. His own hand struck the blow, his own voice had risen in anger. But if the person, the psychological being, cannot remember one atom of it, then he is not guilty.

But though Locke’s theory answered the question, it‚Äôs not certain that it solved the problem; for it raises a paradox that will try the wits of the jurists: the man in the dock may be guilty, but not the person in the man! And if the man is punished, he will experience the pain, but the wrong person will suffer it.

Much earlier than Locke this problem of Identity had been addressed in a paradox called the 'Ship of Theseus'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

[edit] Ancient philosophy

The paradox was first raised in Greek legend as reported by Plutarch,

"The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned [from Crete] had thirty oars, and was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of Demetrius Phalereus, for they took away the old planks as they decayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their place, insomuch that this ship became a standing example among the philosophers, for the logical question of things that grow; one side holding that the ship remained the same, and the other contending that it was not the same."
—Plutarch, Theseus[2]

Plutarch thus questions whether the ship would remain the same if it were entirely replaced, piece by piece. Centuries later, the philosopher Thomas Hobbes introduced a further puzzle, wondering: what would happen if the original planks were gathered up after they were replaced, and used to build a second ship.[3] Which ship, if either, is the original Ship of Theseus?

Another early variation involves a scenario in which Socrates and Plato exchange the parts of their carriages piece by piece until, finally, Socrates's carriage is made up of all the parts of Plato's original carriage and vice versa. The question is presented if or when they exchanged their carriages.
[edit] Enlightenment era

John Locke proposed a scenario regarding a favorite sock that develops a hole. He pondered whether the sock would still be the same after a patch was applied to the hole, and if it would be the same sock, would it still be the same sock after a second patch was applied until all of the material of the original sock has been replaced with patches.[citation needed]

George Washington's axe (sometimes "my grandfather's axe" is the subject of an apocryphal story of unknown origin in which the famous artifact is "still George Washington's axe" despite having had both its head and handle replaced.

, as in the case of the owner of George Washington's axe which has three times had its handle replaced and twice had its head replaced!
—Ray Broadus Browne, Objects of Special Devotion: Fetishism in Popular Culture, p. 134[4]

This has also been recited as "Abe Lincoln's axe";[5] Lincoln was well known for his ability with an axe, and axes associated with his life are held in various museums.[6]

The French equivalent is the story of Jeannot's knife, where the eponymous knife has had its blade changed fifteen times and its handle fifteen times, but is still the same knife.[7] In some Spanish-speaking countries, Jeannot's knife is present as a proverb, though referred to simply as "the family knife". The principle, however, remains the same.

In the 1872 story "Dr. Ox's Experiment" by Jules Verne there is a reference to Jeannot's knife apropos of the van Tricasse's family. In this family, since 1340, each time one of the spouses died the other remarried with someone younger, who took the family name. Thus the family can be said to have been a single marriage lasting through centuries, rather than a series of generations. A similar concept, but involving more than two persons at any given time, is described in some detail in Robert Heinlein's novel The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress as a line marriage.
[edit] Modern examples

There are many examples of objects which might fall prey to Theseus's paradox: buildings and automobiles for example can undergo complete replacement while still maintaining some aspect of their identity. An example is found in the popular UK television show Only Fools and Horses in the episode Heroes and Villains, where road-sweeper Trigger is given a medal by the council for using the same broom for 20 years. He then adds that the broom has had 17 new heads and 14 new handles. When asked how can it be the same broom, Trigger produces a picture of himself and his broom and asks, "What more proof do you need?"

This is good too:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal/

1. The Problems of Personal Identity

There is no single problem of personal identity, but rather a wide range of loosely connected questions. Here are the most familiar ones:

Who am I? We often speak of one's “personal identity” as what makes one the person one is. Your identity in this sense consists roughly of what makes you unique as an individual and different from others. Or it is the way you see or define yourself, or the network of values and convictions that structure your life. This individual identity is a property (or set of properties). Presumably it is one you have only contingently: you might have had a different identity from the one you in fact have. It is also a property that you may have only temporarily: you could swap your current individual identity for a new one, or perhaps even get by without any. (Ludwig 1997 is a typical discussion of this topic.)

Personhood. What is it to be a person? What is necessary, and what suffices, for something to count as a person, as opposed to a non-person? What have people got that non-people haven't got? This amounts more or less to asking for the definition of the word person. An answer would take the form “Necessarily, x is a person if and only if … x …”, with the blanks appropriately filled in. More specifically, we can ask at what point in one's development from a fertilized egg there comes to be a person, or what it would take for a chimpanzee or a Martian or an electronic computer to be a person, if they could ever be. (See e.g. Chisholm 1976: 136f., Baker 2000: ch. 3.)

Persistence. What does it take for a person to persist from one time to another—that is, for the same person to exist at different times? What sorts of adventures could you possibly survive, in the broadest sense of the word ‘possible’, and what sort of event would necessarily bring your existence to an end? What determines which past or future being is you? Suppose you point to a child in an old class photograph and say, “That's me.” What makes you that one, rather than one of the others? What is it about the way she relates then to you as you are now that makes her you? For that matter, what makes it the case that anyone at all who existed back then is you? This is the question of personal identity over time. An answer to it is an account of our persistence conditions, or a criterion of personal identity over time (a constitutive rather than an evidential criterion: the second falls under the Evidence Question below).

The bolded part of the above is most pertinent to any discussion of reincarnation.

InesQor:

Thanks for reading up, MyJoe!

(1) Please correct me if I'm wrong. I think past-life therapies involve a re-experiencing of one's own past lives in a bid to improve on or better live the present one. Usually a therapist or healer or guide of some sort helps the person through the experience, but some may learn to carry it out themselves.

Well, maybe, but not necessarily. Attending a session with a medium or therapist and having recollections of past lives is called a “past life regression”. Of course, you can call it “re-experiencing” although my choice of words would differ. The therapist helps the subject to recollect “past lives” through hypnosis. Now the problem with regressions, it is said, is that the subject’s conscious mind can interfere and false recollections will be had.

That is why most people opt to have the medium do a “past life reading” and transmit the information while in a trance-like state. The subject does not have to attend the session as it would be recorded on audiotape. The subject can choose to “believe” it or get a “confirmation” through another reading or various other means – from dowsing to astrology.

Most past life readings are not actually therapeutic, although many have been reported to be so. Let us take two scenarios. Miss A goes in for a past life reading and is told the reason she has real bad allergies to grapes is because she was violated in a vineyard 88 years before. Mr B goes in and is told he has these violent recurring headaches because as a powerful king he had his enemies’ heads cut off and hung in his compound. Miss A will get a healing, having confronted a matter that her subconscious mind had kept playing up. Mr B will not. In fact, “knowing” will make no difference him. If he is dealing with a medium who’s on the Spiritual Path, he may be told he has three options. (1) Renounce the world and go into meditation in some cave. (2) Put off some of his bad karma to another life. (He will be strongly advised against this option.) (3) Forget about making his headache disappear overnight but do what he can to improve it. Daily thank God for seeing another day and pray for the good of the world. Help people from the goodness of his heart, that is, without ego or the thinking that it will improve his lot in life.

Looking at the third option, you see why knowing does not make much difference because everyone ought to be helping people from the goodness of their heart and praying for the good of the world anyway. I am not aware of any therapists who promise a vacation of bad karma since no such thing exists.

Past life readings are serious undertakings and no respected medium will undertake it to satisfy your curiousity or prove to you that reincarnation is true. Subjects are required to state their specific reasons for requesting a reading and if in the opinion of the medium they are not good enough, you are denied a reading. Before commencing, the medium says a short prayer, asking her spiritual guides to reveal THAT WHICH IS IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO KNOW.

Thus there is no ground to say that therapists are violating any tenets.

Bear in mind that most religions that teach the doctrine of reincarnation do not advocate “past life therapies” and I think there is a lot of wrong in anyone trying to use these sessions as “proof” of reincarnation.

Your assertion that people should be aware of what they are being punished for is a good point. But the doctrine of reincarnation does not counter this in any way. It will require a longer write-up to explain that but let me just state that there are different levels of awareness and having the lessons you need ingrained in your subconscious mind may be sufficient. That is how it is meant to work, since being aware of your past lives can cause you a lot of problems. And there are lives between earth lives, and schools between schools, and incarnations are carefully guided devoid of chaos so the right lessons are learnt. This is what the doctrine teaches.

InesQor:
(2) I believe the refining is a personal participation that is built on one's exposure to the profits and losses that are engrained in the experience of the karmic garment / energy (to use your words) one comes across. One can then judge for themselves in similar decisions where the ones who have gone by, have either passed or failed in decision. That experience gets to be re-lived and thus it gets more refined as discerning the quality of the decisions.

I hope my view is clear 

Well, I pass on this one, as I fail to find the "meaning".

But lemme just say that my understanding of the op is somewhat, just somewhat, different from some expressed in the thread. In no way does the oneness of existence or infinity contradict the matter of personal identity. I am InesQor. Still I am me. Some of the ancient texts explain it well.

we Pagans believe in reincarnation. According to the primary Law of Nature and of Physics, energy can neither be created nor destroyed.it is conserved. Therefore, the soul being a spiritual energy, can neither be created nor destroyed. it is always conserved and therefore finds a new body, which can be anything. there is a spiritual force in everything around us.

@Deep Sight: Niiiiice! I will return to answer you efficiently, I have a lot on my plate right now.

May I say, though, that you have falsely [/i]accused me of lying about the Buddhist views on reincarnation. The religious text has very subtle points that are easy to miss. I will return.

@Pastor AIO: Yes!! [i]The Identity problem / Theseus' Ship paradox!! I'd read that once before but it throws light on my understanding once more. Souls identifying persons uniquely (?). Permanence and impermanence in identity. Thanks, I will return.

@MyJoe: Thanks for the explanation on past life regression and past life readings! I only wrote from that which I know, and I know someone (an acquaintance) who [i]claims [/i]to be able to do this, and yes indeed he [i]said [/i]it is a [i]proof [/i]of reincarnation; but from your [i]clarification [/i]I can see that he used it rather wrongly / loosely.

I will try to return to discuss the other points in a broader light.

@PAGAN 9JA: Welcome to the thread!

Regards

brother this very good and sensible thread you write here unlike all that c.rap we get to here everyday about salvation and[i] tithes[/i] and[i] devils [/i] and[i] jesus king of carpenters/Jews[/i].

Pastor AIO:

This issue does not stray far from another philosophical issue that it is worth studying if we are to have any proper grasp of the issue. It is called the [b]problem of Identity [/b]and has been tackled variously by various philosophers. Because at the heart of this discussion is the Problem of Identity.

Is the man the same Identity as the previous life that he remembers?

To what extent does memory play a part in the forming of identity?

What ontological status do we give the Identity? I personally feel that identity is only an effect, and is nothing essential in it's own right. In other words it is merely the product of psychological activity.

Check these links:

http://mindhacks.com/2007/08/21/psychological-continuity-and-the-problem-of-identity/

Much earlier than Locke this problem of Identity had been addressed in a paradox called the 'Ship of Theseus'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

This is good too:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal/

I personally am not able to place any stock by all the various so called ‘paradoxes’ of identity referred to in the links you extracted for the simple reason that in the case of human beings we are discussing the experiencing of an intangible aspect of a being – which in any view of the subject of reincarnation, will be the primary aspect of such a being.

So my humble perspective is that none of those paradoxes have any significant bearing on this matter. I have seen those “paradoxes” before, and in my humble view they are not even paradoxes at all, but very idle philosophy. In each of those examples we are dealing with material things the parts of which are changed. It is for me a simple matter of language whether one chooses to state that the item has been replaced, reconstructed, deconstructed, re-engineered or whatever. The fact remains that those are material objects and they have been changed. Now the fact that the object may retain the name at first called, does nothing to change the fact that they have been changed – whether suddenly or gradually: they have still been changed. If the entire Whitehouse were to burn down today, it will be rebuilt – even with new material and still called the Whitehouse. There is no philosophical paradox of identity there of any serious moment.

The real issue as far as this thread is concerned, in my view arises where there is a core intangible aspect to the nature of the thing /being discussed. That, and only that is what raises a real question of identity – and particularly in the context of this thread – a question of spiritual identity.

Mark you, it is not that I do not appreciate the fact that those “paradoxes” are meant to probe not just the specific examples they employ, but the broader question of change and identity. Does a thing remain the same when it changes? I get that. I just feel that the answer is awfully simple in the case of physical things such as those given in the “paradoxes” cited. As such I see no paradox in those examples. I can only begin to countenance the question more seriously when we interpolate a non-material aspect to the thing/ being discussed.

However, the funny thing is that once we are talking about a non-material core to a being, then again, the answer emerges in simplicity as well. We need not beat up ourselves about this unless we willfully choose to do so.

So in commonly understood reincarnation (which I lean towards) there is said to be a core aspect of the being which is the spirit. This spirit is what is actually the permanent being. It may evolve and grow in terms of its qualities and even its nature, and it will do this through experiencing in the karmic cycles. However the entire karmic experience cycle ceases to exist or have any meaning if we are to infer or conclude that the spirit becomes an altogether different being with every change that it experiences. This, on close reflection, is actually a nihilist view which will instantly render everything non-existent – since the inference will be that everything ceases to exist with every change – and becomes something else entirely which of course similarly ceases to exist.

This is why I believe that in these matters it is critical that one keeps a clear view: twisted or distorted questions which could not hold any possible notion of meaningfulness or purpose will lead not only to errors, but in the end, will become compounded knots of absurdity – which of course helps no one whatsoever.

Just my view though.

Suppose a man has committed a crime whilst drunk or undergoing temporary amnesia. Suppose also, that because of his mental state at the time of the offence, he genuinely cannot remotely remember a thing about it. Clearly on the evidence of witnesses ‚Äì and perhaps he was caught in the act ‚Äì it was his own body, the same man who now stands in the dock, who did it. But was it the same person? Should the present person be found guilty of the crime if the drunkenness or amnesia had so changed his psyche that, at the time, he ‘wasn’t his true self’? Can he rightly claim that at the time of the incident the occupant of his body was a different person altogether; or perhaps some fractured component of his own psyche that couldn‚Äôt rightly be described as ‚Äòhimself‚Äô?

Again here.

The answer is quite simple. There are different levels of consciousness. We will have the problem above when we consider a being to be his consciousness. The correct take, in my view, is rather that a being experiences consciousness.

Once that is understood, one can also appreciate that in the many shifting levels of experiencing of consciousness, the being retains each of its experiences at a sub-conscious, conscious or super-conscious level. Herein lies the answer. Nevertheless let me add that the principles that play here are similar to those for an insane human being, a child, or an unconscious person. I have commented on that prior, and will post it here in case an aspect is topical to this issue.

Here -

This question lies in many ways at the heart of human responsibility and the moral question. Perhaps I limit it, and should actually say – the spiritual question, or more precisely, the question of spiritual responsibility.

A first analogy may suffice to set the principle that I believe is apt: and I derive that principle from the realm of human law, that realm whence I earn my daily bread – although I should be quick and first to name and state the fact that that is not a realm always apt for spiritual law.

At common criminal law, one of the elements necessary to ground a crime is the Mens Rea – which essentially roughly equates to the evil intention, the motive, that negative purposefulness and deliberation involved in setting out to commit a crime. My university professor used to simply state it to be “the wicked mind.”

To be exact, “Mens rea” is Latin for "guilty mind" In criminal law, it is viewed as one of the necessary elements of a crime.

The presumption of the law in this regard is that full responsibility rests and devolves upon that actual intention – that negative deliberation, the Mens Rea – as opposed to say, something that happens per accident, or without pre-meditation – such as an instinctive action which occurs in the heat of extreme provocation or perhaps self defense.

I have already stated that not all elements in the realm of human law apply exactly to the spiritual law, but the basic principle elucidated above, I believe may give some direction in this matter – for it is within the collective and intuitive sensing of all human beings that no one may blame a man, or more precisely – punish a man, for that which he is not aware of.

Aware. Awareness.

Consciousness.

Is a child aware. Is a mad man aware. Is an unconscious man aware.

Morally aware, that is.

I have two separate thoughts regarding these questions, and essentially these are (x) that on some level each case will determine itself according to its peculiarity and (y) Karma will determine it all.

I think I need to elucidate my thoughts on these a little.

I’ll start with (x) – namely that each case will sing its own song. At the outset it might appear that it is ludicrous that a child, a mad person, or an unconscious person will bear any liability for that which he does. But I do not see this as a nuanced view.

Children
There are certainly children that act in full awareness of the evil that they do – none of us can claim that as children we were not aware at very early ages that this or that action was wrong or bad. A child however, remains a growing being with its consciousness not fully developed. Thus even where a child is aware of the wrong that it does, it may not consciously and fully appreciate its import. Thus I will be inclined to think that the deeds of children will be weighed in terms of Karma in relation to their individual level of maturity, consciousness and awareness of that which they do – and this is something that varies from person to person.

The Insane
Still on the first view – that is (x) which I mentioned above – and now in relation to the insane. The question again remains – awareness – that is – consciousness of the deeds that they do. Can we in all sincerity state that ALL insane people have no knowledge or awareness or consciousness of that which they do? I do not think that that is a nuanced view. There are a great many types and degrees of psychological infirmity and it will be a sweeping and hasty generalization, I think, to state that all such people are not aware of their deeds or the import and moral implications of their deeds. The truth will rather lie in between – there will be those who on account of their state of mind have little or no awareness of what they do, and there will be those who in spite of their state of mind, have EVERY consciousness of what they do, along with the moral implications of such actions. Along the spectrum of different cases, as I stated with the varying level of consciousness of children, the varying levels of moral awareness of these people will also serve to judge them precisely.

The unconscious

At first sight this one may seem like a ridiculous case. How can an unconscious man do wrong? How can an unconscious man even do ANYTHING? How can he be aware of what he is doing?

Again, I believe that the truth lies in greater nuance. How many times are we perfectly asleep and within a dream and yet in that dream about to take some action or the other – and even then in the dream state – we feel a pang of conscience about that deed. . . what does this mean, what does this tell us?

It tells us that there is a sub-conscious, and that moral unction also exists at the level of the subconscious. Indeed, if anything, the psychological postulations of Sigmund Freud urge us to think more carefully about the subconscious mind. It is not nothing. It exists. And if I may pursue Freudian thinking a little, I will state further that it is actually the Unclad mind. That mind which speaks and acts itself devoid of the societal impression of the Ego or Super Ego - that mind which Freud called the Id.

It is the Id, I believe, that each man will be judged on first.

For it is the Unclad man.

Now having said all this, I also said that (y) – Karma will have its way. One could write and quote generations of whole books on this matter, But I will leave it this simple: God’s grace will fall on people. People who have a positive karma, even in sleep, childhood or mental insanity will avoid certain evils which their karma does not permit, and people who have a negative Karma will certainly fall into such evils even when conscious, adult, or mentally sound.

The ONE God, bless, and help us all.

Argh I'm experiencing some work overload, but here, the best I can do now is some few words, some quotes and a couple of links.

Deep Sight, take a bite at these words about Buddhism, karma and reincarnation in their true forms, until I return again. As you will discover, I do not think so "only because my views are clouded by Biblical perspectives". Karma and its role in reincarnation is a teaching that originated in Hinduism, but Buddhists understand it differently, although it may, for lack of nuance, look like that which is impurely [/i]believed today thanks to [i]influences [/i]of the Western world. See that influence word again?

People often turn to religion for doctrines that provide simple answers to difficult questions. Buddhism doesn't work that way. Merely believing in some doctrine about reincarnation or rebirth has no purpose. Buddhism is a practice that enables experiencing illusion as illusion and reality as reality.

Sometimes Westerners use the word karma to mean the result of karma. For example, someone might say John lost his job because "that's his karma." However, as Buddhists use the word, karma is the action, not the result. The effects of karma are spoken of as the "fruits" or the "result" of karma.

In the Buddha's day, most religions of India taught that karma operated in a simple straight line -- past actions influence the present; present actions influence the future. But to Buddhists, karma is non-linear and complex. Karma, the Ven. Thanissaro Bhikku says, "acts in multiple feedback loops, with the present moment being shaped both by past and by present actions; present actions shape not only the future but also the present."

The Rev. Takashi Tsuji, a Jodo Shinshu priest, wrote about belief in reincarnation:

"It is said that the Buddha left 84,000 teachings; the symbolic figure represents the diverse backgrounds characteristics, tastes, etc. of the people. The Buddha taught according to the mental and spiritual capacity of each individual.

For the simple village folks living during the time of the Buddha, the doctrine of reincarnation was a powerful moral lesson. Fear of birth into the animal world must have frightened many people from acting like animals in this life. If we take this teaching literally today we are confused because we cannot understand it rationally.

", A parable, when taken literally, does not make sense to the modern mind. Therefore we must learn to differentiate the parables and myths from actuality."

As you can see, I have not told you [i]any [/i]lies 

"Reincarnation" normally is understood to be the transmigration of a soul to another body after death. There is no such teaching in Buddhism. One of the most fundamental doctrines of Buddhism is anatta, or anatman -- no soul or no self. There is no permanent essence of an individual self that survives death.

The Buddha said, “Oh, Bhikshu, every moment you are born, decay, and die.” He meant that, every moment, the illusion of "me" renews itself. Not only is nothing carried over from one life to the next; nothing is carried over from one moment to the next.

I absolutely love this, below, I swear I just discovered it now and it explains EXACTLY what I was saying about "floating" influences (a la the ecosystem of the intangible)

In his book What the Buddha Taught (1959), Theravada scholar Walpola Rahula asked,

"If we can understand that in this life we can continue without a permanent, unchanging substance like Self or Soul, why can't we understand that those forces themselves can continue without a Self or Soul behind them after the non-functioning of the body?

"When this physical body is no more capable of functioning, energies do not die with it, but continue to take some other shape or form, which we call another life. ,  Physical and mental energies which constitute the so-called being have within themselves the power to take a new form, and grow gradually and gather force to the full."

In summary, according to the Buddhist views, which I subscribe to in this regard (with careful attendance to nuances)
[list]
[li]There is no permanence in identity[/li]
[li]There is no transmigration of souls from body to body[/li]
[li]The[i] karma is the action or experience, and not the result of the action or the effect on the person involved [/li]
[li]It's the karma that lingers and gets reincarnated into the present [/i]and the [i]future [/i]in endless (non-linear) whorls and whirls[/li]
[/list]

Quotes extracted from
http://buddhism.about.com/od/karmaandrebirth/a/reincarnation.htm
http://buddhism.about.com/od/karmaandrebirth/a/karma.htm

If you think the persons quoted above have misrepresented Buddhism, kindly refute appropriately.

As to all other points, I will be back again soon.

[i]Namaste

Reincarnation was not started by the Hindus. It has existed as a basic tenet in most Pagan religions in some form, around the globe.

PAGAN  9JA:

Reincarnation was not started by the Hindus. It has existed as a basic tenet in most Pagan religions in some form, around the globe.

For some unknown reason, I keep getting misunderstood by some people on here.

Thanks for your comment, but I said no such thing as that reincarnation originated with the Hindus. What I said was:

InesQor:

Karma and its role in reincarnation is a teaching that originated in Hinduism, but Buddhists understand it differently, although it may, for lack of nuance, look like that which is [i]impurely [/i]believed today thanks to [i]influences [/i]of the Western world. See that influence word again?