₦airaland Forum

Frosbel, I sense a stirring in your spirit. You are grappling with doctrines that obviously make little sense. I see that you are continuously creating answers to satisfy yourself. That is okay. What is important is that your spirit is obviously prodding you to ask questions about these things. In the fullness of time you will realize that Jesus was just a Jewish Rabbi and perfectly human just as you and myself are. When you realize that, it will be a huge step towards understanding that each man must take personal responsibility for himself and his Karma. We can lean on no one in the matter of salvation - save on our conscience.

Jesus was not the first, and will not be the last, that large swathes of humanity have declared to be Almighty God. Its hero worship: and it occurs most with regard to spiritual leaders. It is wholly false: and even blasphemous. Liberate yourself from it.

Any person who has even a faint glimmer of what the eternal element that is descibed as God is, will never imagine for even one second that any single human being is himself exclusively God.

Jesus was a human being.

Are there any?

Candidates for regular Freemasonry are required to declare a belief in a Supreme Being.[29] However, the candidate is not asked to expand on, or explain, his interpretation of Supreme Being. The discussion of politics and religion is forbidden within a Masonic Lodge, in part so a Mason will not be placed in the situation of having to justify his personal interpretation.[30] Thus, reference to the Supreme Being can mean the Christian Trinity to a Christian Mason, Allah to a Muslim Mason, Para Brahman to a Hindu Mason, etc. While most Freemasons would take the view that the term Supreme Being equates to God, others may hold a more complex or philosophical interpretation of the term.

In the ritual, the Supreme Being is referred to as the Great Architect of the Universe, which alludes to the use of architectural symbolism within Freemasonry.[31][32]

Regular Freemasonry requires that its candidates believe in a Supreme Being, but the interpretation of this term is subject to the conscience of the candidate

^ He is a confirmed pantheist, , , ehen, where was I

nuclearboy:
If you don't agree, please block your bunghole for 2 weeks and you'll get my point

Err. . . I go suffer well well, but even with the worst suffering, and even death, the spirit survives. . . .

Thank you, I apologize, sorry, forgive me
*Runs away very fast*

nuclearboy:
The issue of hierarchy and a Father "greater" than Jesus!

Didnt the guy himself say that.

Thank you, I apologize, sorry, forgive me
*Runs away very fast*

Ehen, where was I

numo86:
1 funny thing i'v noticed is that trinitarians end up being unitarians or STOP worshiping Jesus without even knowing it,
Why do they still say in "JESUS NAME" after prayer?
If Jesus was d almighty GOD or Yahweh, who will be d mediator then.,,
, who will intercede between man & Yahweh then
Or mayb Jesus will be shifting positions immediately, After interceding & pleading on mankinds behalf as d mediator he then runs back, changes to d almighty God & then recieves d prayers, shape shifting!!!!??,
Now i see why d catholics pray through mary because they'v made d high priest & mediator of Yahweh, Yahweh himself,
Trinity has realy turned worship upside down,
, madness!!!!

Hmmmm.

InesQor:
Recap:

Now, this entire karma gist was spawned by Pagan 9ja, who misconstrued my post and Deep Sight decided to agree with him without carefully considering what I said. i.e. karma is a teaching that began with the Hindus, and not that reincarnation began to be taught among them.

He came back with, and I paraphrase, "Anyways, reincarnation as popularly understood depends on karma so when you say that karma began with the Hindus you are still saying reincarnation began with them"

And I have shown that there are people like the ancient Aztecs (as Pagan 9ja also said, there are also pagan tribes from ancient times who believed in reincarnation) who believed in reincarnation without having karma or action-driven cycles of reincarnation, in view.

Deep Sight's riposte is that their cycles, which do not depend on their actions necessarily, are NECESSARILY karmic just BECAUSE they are cycles, and Samsara is a cycle.

This discards the reason employed when one sees that one of the cycles (Samsara) is caused by the human while the other one (the Aztecs') is uncaused by the human, and is just a natural flow.

We have gone way off the topic, and I think I am done.

---

Back to the topic, I have posted my beliefs about how reincarnation really happens. I do not believe that souls move from body to body. Buddhism apparently does not believe there is any permanence of soul i.e. body to body soul transfer will mean that a soul is transmigrating - either. Christianity mentions nothing of the sort, although some people believe that it insinuates that. I believe everyone is entitled to their beliefs.

No no no no, this your summary is wrong. You misrepresenting me and misrepresenting the discussion. But i don tire. Anybody interested in taking up the discussion, meet me for drinks at Freedom Hall. Later.

PS: Freedom Hall is a free stand up for poets, artists, spoken word, music where everyone shares artistic talent. It holds every Thursday at teh Penthouse Hotel, top floor of Mulliner Towers (former NNPC building on Kingsway Road, Ikoyi). I'm addicted to it.

We have gone way off the topic, and I think I am done.

*Grabbing Inesqor by the belt of his jeans ala naija police style*

No no no, you are not done, come back hia by force sir, we are off topic, but you cannot be done, oya, forward march!

Lolzzz

Enigma:
We will cordially look to the future but, as is my wont, I will not guarantee getting engaged in discussion.

This man!

No worries. Cheers.

Enigma:
Well, the history of my interaction with you is still available. At least I have never deleted any of my posts directed to or concerning you.

Go back and read my relevant posts carefully and if you make the adjustments to be done, I might possibly be willing to discuss. If not, my atitude remains very much the same.

My conscience is wholly clear and my heart is wholly clean; I have dealt with you truthfully, honesty and even with much forebearing especially in the earliest interactions when you were throwing ridiculously vituperative insults my way ---- without any cause or warrant whatsoever.  

Well, lets cordially look to the future. Thanks and Cheers.

InesQor:
When I say Karma is an action, I expect you to add the context of our discussion. Whether you lift your hands or you pick your teeth doesn't seem to bear weight on this conversation.

I am just trying to show you that it is absolutely insufficient to describe Karma as an action. That is just a transliteral definition which does not grasp exactly what karma is. Karma is actually the threads of fate.

Enigma:
^^^ And to you!

And if it is not too late to make New Year resolutions here is one recommendation: to learn not to mischaracterise other people.

I have other suggestions but I will stick to just this one for now.

I hear you sir, and i take that comment to heart and in good faith. I have one suggestion as well for you - do drop hard feelings. Lets have a cordial and pleasant 2012. I never had as extensive and explosive debates with you as I did with people like noetic and davidylan, yet neither of those display any bitterness towards me till this day. In your case, the bitterness just reeks everywhere. U no need am bros.

Cheers.

Enigma:
Enigma simply calls idiocy ---- well, idiocy.  

A spade is always a spade --- anytime.  

And a happy new year to you sir.

InesQor:
Bollocks, sir.

Can we please remain polite? What's getting you so upset. Do calm down.

Samsara is the cycle which the Indians believed is caused by Karma, which is a progressively cumulative sum total of peoples actions, deeds and influences.

The cycles of the Aztecs are not caused by any actions of the Aztecs. They just ARE. The same way nature just does its own thing.

How you are trying to conflate the two is just plain dishonest, in my opinion.

I have nothing to say about the rest of your last response. When I disagree with a position, I tell you why. I produce references. You say I'm getting it wrong. You produce no references except to change the meanings of the words involved and tell me that it still means what you intended. Etc etc ad nauseam.

[quote][/quote]Politeness please. I don't know what is ad nauseum about simply having a different perspective. If you did not want a discussion on the subject, you should not have opened a thread on a public forum? If you opened the thread was it your expectation that every contributor would agree with you 100 per cent? Come on friend, pipe down, no one is persecuting you?

Now back to it. What I said was that "Karma refers to the entire process and cycle which returns threads of fate, influence and destiny to the originating points of such threads" - and surely I do stand by that.

Now you mentioned the cycle of Samsara. For clarity, this is what it is -

Saṅsāra or Saṃsāra (Sanskrit: संसार), (in Tibetan called "khorwa"[1], literally meaning "continuous flow", is the cycle of birth, life, death, rebirth or reincarnation within Hinduism, Buddhism, Bön, Jainism, Sikhism, and other Indian religions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsara

So you can see what that cycle refers to. Let us note a few things -

1. In the first place, the very definition of samsara is in direct contradiction to that which you earlier advanced regarding reincarnation!

2. Yes Karma refers to actions. But only a limited understanding of the word will allow and person to simply teach that karma means an action. That is altogether inchoate. You cannot just lift up your hand and say that since that is an action, then that is karma. Surely not. So it is quite clear that it is not simply an action. When it is described as such it is with reference to that which the action produces - threads of fate. It is these threads of fate which are defined by our actions which are actually the essence of what Karma is. This is explained here -

Karma is not punishment or retribution but simply an extended expression or consequence of natural acts. Karma means "deed" or "act" and more broadly names the universal principle of cause and effect, action and reaction, that governs all life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma

So you can see what I mean. It is absolutely meaningless to simply say "Karma is an action". In so doing you are just picking up the bare transliteration of the word in much the same way as you would miss a Yoruba meaning of "Ori" if you always see it as just "head" whereever it appears. The real meaning of Karma is what appears in red above. I tell you again - it refers to the threads of fate created by actions and not just actions themselves! It would be meaningless and stripped of its core meaning without understanding it like this. Lifting up my hand is an action, is it not? Is it Karma? Obviously not!

3. Let us focus on the subject of the OP: the ideas you advanced following that OP are now emerging in forceful contradiction to all that which is now appearing. I will focus on that in my next post.

InesQor:
^^^

What has karma (an ACTION) got to do with cycles and rhythms? Yes, it happens in cycles but is it the ONLY thing that happens in cycles, for which you now EQUATE karma to cycles?

LOL I will leave you to the observant reader, but this simply reminds me why people like Enigma started avoiding conversations with you.

Maybe I will take a cue from him henceforth.

Edit: In the case of the Aztecs, their actions did not determine what happens in their afterlife. In some cases, your gender determines everything. And that is karma too?  

InesQor, do not be tempted to be so unnecessarily brusque. If you do not agree with a position, you can say so and simply say why. This is the problem I have had on this forum with you lot. A debate should be healthy. I do not agree with that which you have advanced and I am simply trying to show you my reasons therefore. This certainly is no reason to begin to refer to Enigma or whoever else is unable to stomach a debate. That is making the discussion unduly personal. I have had alot of that on this forum and i have said a thousand times that its really tiresome. I am sure you recall the other time when we had a discussion about Joagbaje, and before I knew it Pastor AIO had scurried off to publicize a harmless innocuous personal email I shared with him - simply because he did not agree with my position in the debate - which by the way, the email had no bearing on! He has since apologized for that - so I do not mention it inorder to further disturb him (Pastor: I mean this sincerely and without offence) - i mention this only to show you that this behaviour is utterly unnecessary with reference to a debate. If you do not agree with a position, say so and demonstrate why - or even just ignore the discussion. Bringing up personal innuendos and talking about the proclivities of Enigma, and other posters is just off the mark, in my opinion.

Now, in reference to the subject - Karma is not just an "action" - no, no, no, and thrice again no! Karma refers to the entire process and cycle which returns threads of fate, influence and destiny to the originating points of such threads. Thus you must understand that when those cultures speak of cycles, they are speaking of the self same Karma, the idea of which cannot logically be separated from the imperative for reincarnation. You needn't see the same word to understand that it is the same idea.

My observation is that when people cannot stand a rigorous inquiry into their position, they simply throw a tantrum. That is what Enigma does all the time - I say this because you referred to him. Do not do that.

InesQor:
Guy, you are clutching at straws. Long before the Hindus came up with the idea of Karma, ancient pagans like the Aztecs already believed in reincarnation.

Death, reincarnation, the after life, it was all a form of rhythm like the motions of the sea and other beautiful earth processes. NOTHING to do with DEEDS. Nothing about Karma. Nothing.

It was just an intangible aspect of their eco-system. The Hindu karma has nothing to necessarily do with the popular idea of reincarnation, which is a corporeal transmigration of souls over time.

Here you go, extracts from a research paper.

^ Sorry, but everything up there simply proves exactly what I said - i.e - the idea of reincarnation is bound with the idea of Karma. Did you not see the words - "rhythms," "cycles," etc, up there? What else is Karma if not such? Karma is all about cycles my dear! One idea is incongruous and inchoate without the other - and all religions that acceded to commonly understood reincarnation did so with the idea of karmic cycles operating. That is most common place, and so PaganNaija's comment stands. I really hope you are not expecting to see the same word in other cultures before you understand that the same idea is expressed.

Now you can choose to dispute this, and we can take it up elsewhere - but it is not the subject of the thread.

Cos if that is your meaning, then the ideas you advanced earlier certainly collapse. Clarify please.

InesQor:
Who mentioned anything about the spirit?

We're talking about a transmigration of SOUL from body to body;

Okay - does this suggest that you accede the the spirit is indeed transferred from body to body, but not the soul?

^^^ At this point you will please have to give me your own specific distinction between soul and spirit and maybe that will resolve the issue, because there are many different understandings of the proper distinction.

And when you do this, we can then see how that matches up with the issues raised by the OP.

Thanks.

InesQor:
Unfortunately I have similar wishes but we don't always get what we wish, and your usual manner of approach is encouraging just the same.
And who says so? There were teachings on reincarnation as bodily transmigration (the popular concept) way before Hinduism and then Buddhism came up. Once again, refer to the ancient Aztecs.

Are you kidding me

So because Pagan 9ja misquoted me, you are joining him? Can you see what I said:

And honestly [/b]say again that

[b]HONESTLY?

Oh dear, I can now see that is a mistake from me. My apologies, I must have not been concentrating.

However the teaching of Karma does indeed remain inseparable from commonly understood reincarnation. The latter would be meaningless without the former. And the thrust of what Paganaija said remains true with reference to your correct quote - the self same ideas of karma and its role in reincarnation have been rife throughout pagan religions the world over historically.

"That remains constant" is what is key here. Commonly understood reincarnation does not teach that the spirit "remains constant" - in fact, i am not aware of any teaching of reincarnation that advances that. What is advanced is that the spirit grows, changes, evolves, purifies, call it what you may. Thus this quote absolutely does not contradict that which I said. The spirit is always said to change - that does not make it another spirit - it is the self same spirit what has grown or evolved or changed. So this is still in consonance with that which I tell you.

What was advanced in your earlier posts, and if i misunderstand him not, the posts of Pastor AIO, was a suggestion that this core incorporeal aspect of the being, which is the spirit, does not continue to exist in terms of reincarnation. This is altogether wrong - and when you advance it as Buddhist teaching, then you have altogether misapprehended Buddhist teaching.

Pastor AIO:
a buddhist tale:

   Hui K’o: My mind is not appeased.Sir, may you appease my mind?
   Bodhidharma: Bring forth your mind. I’ll appease it.
   Hui K’o: I’ve sought my mind but it could not be found.
   Bodhidharma : Then, I’ve already appeased it.

Immediately, Hui K’o was instantaneously enlightened. [b][/b]

Mind is not the spirit.

InesQor, i really hope that we needn't return to the days of unnecessarily demonizing Deep Sight. I mean no offence whatsoever, i think there are serious issues to be discussed here, and I plead that we walk hand in hand together to understand this matter aright. So please do not begin to venture caustic - it helps nothing and no one.

Let me just say regarding this -

InesQor:
I really hope you have the understanding to see the difference between

Karma and its role in reincarnation is a teaching that originated in Hinduism

and

Reincarnation started in Hinduism

But why should I assume that you do?

Let me assume that you are not being dishonest, and break it down for you.

(1) I said Karma (together with its role in reincarnation - reincarnation was already a pagan teaching from ancient Aztec practices to the present day - if you need references I can produce them) is a teaching that originated in Hinduism.

(2) I did not say that reincarnation was a Hindu teaching. I was talking about KARMA.

This is a very simple reading comprehension exercise.

As for all my so-called irrelevant posts, it is disappointing that that is your best comeback. You mean after all this while, that was your best riposte? I believe when one has falsely accused another (as you falsely accused me of lying about Buddhist teachings on reinacrnation whereas I was correct in my view), and is shown up for it, at the least you can say touche, oh, I gaffed. But not you, Deep Sight. Never you.

- That the teaching of Karma is virtually inseperable from the teaching of commonly unsderstood reincarnation. There will be no commonly understood reincarnation without Karma right beside it. It would be meaningless.

By the way, your exact words were "reincranation originated in hinduism"

And PaganNja paraphrased that to "reincarnation originated with the hindus"

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Sorry, still cant see the difference. But we can leave this, its not the subject for the thread.

"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.

Lol, InesQor, you have not grasped the Buddhist teaching. The denial of soul is absolutely not as you have conceived it, no, no, no, and thrice again, NO! If it were, there would be no Buddhist teachinh whatsoever and all karmic teachings would collapse as meaningless absurdities. Now, please read below and set correct you misapprehension on this score  - (i embolden certain parts for emphais) -



Buddhism teaches that all things are in a constant state of flux: all is changing, and no permanent state exists by itself.[28][29] This applies to human beings as much as to anything else in the cosmos. Thus, a human being has no permanent self.[30][31] According to this doctrine of anatta (Pāli; Sanskrit: anātman) – "no-self" or "no soul" – the words "I" or "me" do not refer to any fixed thing. They are simply convenient terms that allow us to refer to an ever-changing entity.[32]

The anatta doctrine is not a kind of materialism. [size=16pt]Buddhism does not deny the existence of "immaterial" entities, and it (at least traditionally) distinguishes bodily states from mental states. Thus, the conventional translation of anatta as "no-soul"[34] can be confusing. If the word "soul" simply refers to an incorporeal component in living things that can continue after death, then Buddhism does not deny the existence of the soul. [/size] Instead, Buddhism denies the existence of a permanent entity that remains constant behind the changing corporeal and incorporeal components of a living being.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul#Buddhism

I hope this places things in proper context for you.

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."

Again. Has no bearing whatsoever on this discussion. Really,.why are you posting these? Have you forgotten our topic?

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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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."

These are all basic, and have no bearing on our discussion. I see no reason why you have posted them.

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

Unknown reason. Perhaps you need to re evaluate the ideas that you advance and the way or language in which you advance them. I don't think that anybody is misunderstanding you, but it is my honest feeling that you are misunderstanding ideas - and in this thread - especially Buddhist ones.

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

Really, what is the difference between an idea originating with the hindus and an idea originating in hinduism? ? ? ?

I hope you can now see where misunderstandings originate!

Hmm.

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.

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.

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.