This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Reincarnation in early Christianity later squelched by the Church? Hmmm. Well. I'd want a footnote, and it had better not be publised by HarperCollins's religion division. Basically, Judaism believes in a one-body-per-soul thing (and I know, there is all sorts of interesting controversy about exactly what Judaism in the 1st century thought the afterlife or salvation would be like), and insofar as Christianity grew out of Judaism, that cuts that off. -- MichaelTinkler
I've read it in two or three different places, I think, so it seemed to deserve mention. I'll try to do a little more research on it. -- WillWare
One of the endless lands of controversy in Religion departments is the degree of Greekification that Christianity underwent once pagans started converting. Reincarnation is an essentially non-Judaic idea, so anyone who says that it was a belief in E. Christianity is asserting that paganism beliefs made substantive changes in ideas about the nature of the Soul. Not to mention the fact that ancient Mediterranean society was FAR from unanimous on reincarnatin. The Egyptians sure didn't believe in it (Hence, the Book of the Dead is all about getting to the comfortable afterlife), and the Romans don't seem very interested. It was, as far as I can tell, not a popular belief but a position taken by some philosophers. Oh, well - this is what a community project is for, sorting stuff like this out. -- MichaelTinkler
Hmm. That all goes well beyond my level of scholarship. I guess I'll yank it. -- WillWare
Well as I understand the Jews around the 1st century didn't have that clear ideas on the afterlife at all, and most Jews still don't. Some Jews today believe in reincarnation (some Hasidim for instance), though that belief may be Medieveal in origin. As to early Christianity, the mainstream rejected reincarnation, but some Gnostic groups believed in it. (Gnostic Christianity was heavily pagan influenced.) As to reincarnation in ancient Mediterranean society, I'd agree it was far from unanimous, but it wasn't just a philosophical view: some popular movements like Gnosticism or Orphism or Hermeticism believed in it. (I am no historian, so I may be wrong.) --- Simon J Kissane
I've willing to expand the section on Spiritism, detailing more information as for the actual mechanisms of reincarnation under this particular doctrine. I suggest that Spiritismo (most specifically, Kardecist Spiritism) to get its own section, to help to point out its relationship to Christian doctrines (Kardecist followers have a different interpretation of the Bible, but consider themselves to be Christians). I don't want to step over anyone's toes on it, though.
I may decide, sometime in the future, to move the Buddhist rebirth content to a separate article. Usedbook 16:14 21 May 2003 (UTC)
Is this view of Buddhist "rebirth" as opposed to "reincarnation" really an important point? For example, is this a distinction that the Buddha made, or any of this canonical interpreters, or this is some modern distinction? कुक्कुरोवाच 03:00, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Since you keep mentioning "samsara", am I correct in guessing that this is the word that you translate as rebirth and/or reincarnation? That would explain a lot of misunderstandings. I tend to think of Samsara as the flow itself, not the process of participating in it. Luis Dantas
I think that the section about Buddhist view of reincarnation should be edited, preferably by a Buddhist teacher or thinker since this is indeed a complicated subject. However, I don’t agree that there is a "fundamental disparity" between the concept of emptiness, space and mind and awareness. These are the same. "The form is empty, emptiness is form" from the Heart Sutra describes this relationship best. When it comes to the problem of soul and mind the analogy of sea and waves on it describes best the relationship between mind in general and particular sentient entities.
As I wrote, this is a complicated subject so I think any editing should be done with caution and by a person with deep understanding of it – therefore I decided no to do it myself. AndyBrandt 09:14, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The beginning of the text of the article "Reincarnation" should be corrected:
- it says "Reincarnation, also called metempsychosis, or transmigration of souls, is the rebirth in another body (after physical death) (...)"
a) Reincarnation (or Rebirth), which is the general rule (law) for Human evolution, in simple words works like this: each life in a human body, each time more developed and each time a bit more close to perfection.
In brief words in Reincarnation the individual stays around this physical world (as a spiritual entity in the etheric or vital plan) near to those places and persons who are familiar to him (it can stay for days, months or years after the death of physical body occurs - it depends on the individual evolution, awareness, his level of detattachement of physical world needs and things, etc); then he enters into others deeper spiritual (invisible) plans for centuries and returns a lot of time later into a new life in our physical world through rebirth as a baby inside the mothers' uterus.
Perhaps the best graphic on this subject can be found at The Cycle of Life; The graphic ant its terms belong to the Rosicrucian Philosophy but I am sure it works (its stages) fine with terms from other religious doctrines and spiritual teachings: REALITY is the same everywhere - the differences are the terms and perspectives of study used to describe it!
b) Metempsychosis (or transmigration of souls) is the incarnation of the individual (as an spiritual entity living in the etheric - vital plan after death of his physical body) in the body of an animal. It is NOT really incarnation (and less even a Rebirth) because:
1. there is no rebirth into a new life (for evolution purposes) - the individual who practices what is described as metempsychosis never leaves the physical earth environment (he stays in its etherical or vital counterpart) and this "take over" of an animal body (metempsychosis) occurs almost immediatly.
2. these only happens in very excepcional circunstances, happened more frequently in the past (centuries and thousands years ago), caused by extreme deviation of the individual towards some form of spiritual destruction (bloody black magic practices, extreme sexual abuse generaly associated to some form of black magic, primitive societies with canabalistic culture generaly in association to some tribal sourcery, etc).
3. ususally after death of the physical body the normal individual stays in its earthly familiar environment for days till years close to its family, friends, etc. Only those individuals with some kind of knowledge of occult (sorcereres, witches, xamanists, ...) and with great attachment to physical life due to heavy dark-low emotions (hate, sexual needs, blood thirst,...) were/are able to expel the group spirit of an animal and take its place in the body of the animal (which is not so complex as our human physical body).
4. As I said before this happened a lot in past times and in perhaps in all civilizations of the world, and could be seen by those who had clarividence faculty; and perhaps this is the reason why some of these seers took the metempsychosis as the general rule and not Reincarnation.
c) There is no such thing as incarnation in plants (vegetable kingdom); although they also possess a etheric-vital body and also its evolution works through a "group spirit" (like the animals), they have no organs which allows a conscious (awakened) conscioussness of the physical world. The entity which practices Metempsychosis needs similiar organs as the human physical body in the host body that it "takes over", animals have those organs (similiar to ours but far from being so complex) but plants have no such kind of organs.
I guess perhaps one reason why some doctrines thought human beings (after death of the physical body) could incarnate in plants/trees is due to the fact that some older trees in the path of evolution (as it happens to animals) are already acquiring some kind of individual conscioussness - that's evolution! And mystics in the past may have taken this individuality as a sintom of a human spirit having incarnated in the tree (which is juts NOT possible and also totally ilogical; even if it was a rare excepcion it had no way of happenning because this kind of direct interaction between totally diferent things does not occurs).
d) Reincarnation (Rebirth) is the rule (law); Metempsychosis (transmigration of souls) is a totally different phenomena which may happen in an extreme scenario and by the will of the personality of the individual that ceases his functioning in the physical body (when death occurs) and looks immediatly for a victim (generally an animal, it can happen also among humans!) in order to stay connected to this physical world and to satisfy his low needs.
So, should the text be changed and perhaps explain these differences? or even create instead an article named "Metempsychosis"?
(My english is not 100%...)
Thank you! -- ekhalom 22:00, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
From: "Roger Clough" <rclough@verizon.net> To: <progressive_theology@yahoogroups.com> Cc: <metaphysicalsoup@yahoogroups.com>; <KMTech@yahoogroups.com> Subject: [progressive_theology] Karma and grace Date: Friday, November 19, 2004 3:24 PM
Edgar Cayce made the very plausible suggestion that we can be freed from karma by grace. If this is so, then reincarnation is not contrary to the New Testament if we interpret "hell" as rebirth (same soul, different body). We keep repeating the cycle, not until we work off the karma as in eastern religions, but are saved by faith and grace, as Paul's letter to the Romans.
Something to think about, anyway.
- Roger Clough
Objection: How can souls be reincarnated when there are so many more living humans now than there ever have been before? Not enough souls to go around!
dictionary.comgives the following definition for Bible
Since the section is on Judaism and kabbalah, it is essential to differentiate the Christian Bible. -- Chris Q 16:36, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That's its Hebrew name; its English name is the Bible. And please get consensus for these unilateral changes, rather than trying to impose them on English Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 17:43, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely wrong. Jews do not recognize "the Old Testament," the Tanach is different from the Old Testament. Moreover, Tanach is a Hebrew acronym. In English, people call the Tanach "the Hebrew Bible." The Old Testament+the New Testament is The Christian Bible. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Someone, I think Stevertigo, deleted a passage about Professor Frazer. Now, I didn't write that passage and I do not have any personal investment in whether it should be kept out or put back in. But if I understand SV's edit summary, he either doen't know the reference or wants it put in. So: this refers to Sir James Frazer's The Golden Bough which was at the time it was first published (1890) one of the authoritative studies of religion and myth drawing from examples from around the world. The Golden Bough has gone through several editions, including an abridgement I think in 1922 -- the point being that it is hard to provide a page reference that will be of use to the average reader. Nevertheless, the passage in question (or the point) comes from the shapter "The external soul in forl-culture," specifically the section "The ritual of death and resurrection" (in the abridgement, this is chapter 67; in an earlier version it is volume II chapter four section four -- you get the idea, it is confuisng. The book is widely available, but there is no one standard edition). It seems to me that there is some place for this point in this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:15, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Recollections mean nothing! These people were probably hypnotized! Scorpionman 00:38, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
to all concern i'm under the belief that reincarnation really does exist as based on flash backs i have experienced while bein' in a state of total un-awareness
I DO. AND I REMEBER RIGHT BEFORE I WAS BORN. 65.87.191.22 02:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)LTH
The introductory paragraph makes the distinction between reincarnation (human to human) and transmigration (involving humans and animals). The rest of the article however doesn't make this distinction anymore, only talks about "this doctrine" or "reincarnation". But Pythagoras, and many eastern religions, believe in transmigration, not just reincarnation. Right now, it looks like someone edited the introductory paragraph without changing the body of the article.
Someone knowledgeable should fix this. AxelBoldt 17:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Would it? I really do not see why. This terminology is a pain. Luis Dantas 10:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
This page does not mention what may well be a majority view that this is simply superstition. That is assuming that Atheists, Christians, Jews, Muslims etc make up a majority. The Pseudo science tacked on the bottom make it seem even more that way.-- Baphomet. 23:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
"Intellectual arrogance: In addition to the normal kind of resistance with which any paradigm defends itself against change, the atheist paradigm of academia generally, and philosophy in particular, feels especially threatened by the findings of paranormal research. This is because intellectuals like to regard themselves as the highest manifestation of intelligence on the planet, if not in the universe. Embracing an evolutionary model according to which consciousness is correlated with brain development, intellectuals regard the human brain as the highest development of evolutionary forces, and an educated human brain as the highest of the high. Intellectuals like to feel that they are riding atop the crest of the wave of evolution.
This intellectual smugness is greatly threatened by paranormal research, especially the NDE, the results of which strongly suggest (I am tempted to say "clearly show") that the human intellect is by no means the highest form of intelligence. (...)"
by Prof. Dr. Neal Grossman, 2002
[1]
I have read them and they are not very good at all from very minor journals and in one case a yet to be refereed paper. The knowledge that this is superstition is what is valuable, and as your system of critique seems to be based on the stength of belief of the protagonist, I believe it to be superstition more stongly than you believe it to be valid knowledge.
Science's smugness is not threatned by any paranormal research, constantly claim to have undermined something when you haven't is often a sign insecurity.--
Baphomet.
00:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I will finish now, I had a lot more, but to a next encounter, to say about this subject and the type of actions toward Religious (or Spiritual oriented) articles at Wikipedia, not from people of Religious thought, but from people product of a Culture based on reducionist-positivist Science of 19th century, who relegate Religion and related subjects to a Cultural definition, or worse, as a Superstition. -- GalaazV 18:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC) ____
You have removed the {{POV}} msg without any edits being complete. That is naughty.-- Baphomet. 18:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
"::There is no scientific evidence that prayer works. They only people to claim that have been a few US religious nutters, who wanted it to work, it has never been reproduced by independent researchers. As a doctor you should be ashamed of yourself pedling such rubbish.-- Baphomet. 11:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC"
Strictly speaking any and all belief in that which cannot be measured can be labelled "superstition", but labelling in this way is not the point of Wikipedia. An article about reincarnation should describe the belief(s), not pass judgment.
I believe, as does Baphomet that reinkarnation and all other supernatural beliefs are deeply ignorant, but my belief and his has absolutely under no circumstances any place in wikipedia. -- boxed
I must say the whole article is very much POV. And while I certainly agree that science doesn't give final, or for that matter, thrutful answers all the time, what is being said here is that reductionist-positivist world outlook DOES support the theory of reincarnation, only that most scientists don't want to see this due do their own predjudices. This certainly isn't true. Believe me, scientists will believe ANYTHING, given enough evidence. So, I'd really like someone to rewrite the paragraphs about how mainstream science sees reincarnation, since, apart from that, the article is very good and informative.
May-hem
10:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Why does the article state at the beginning that there is a clear distinction between " reincarnation" and " rebirth in Buddhism"? This point is arguable and tendentious at best. As Kukkurovaca argues above, Buddhists have always had their own distinct ideas about reincarnation/rebirth. But I find it farfetched to think that a clear distinction has consistently been made between two concepts.
Also, from where does the idea arise that there is a distinction to be made between "reincarnation" and "transmigration"? I've never heard this before. I looked at Talk:Reincarnation#Reincarnation_vs._Metempsychosis above, but it appears to be based in some obscure POV, possibly relating to Rosicrucianism. - Nat Kraus e 05:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
So, why is Metempsychosis listed under the See also section and then redirects back to Reincarnation? RDF 03:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Uninformed reverting
Please stop reverting veda.harekrsna.cz into www.veda.harekrsna.cz. This url doesn't work anymore after a DNS change. Thanks, Jan
Many reincarnationists make a fundamental assumption. The assumption is that cognition implies presence. It is assumed that if a person knows enough details about another’s life then that person used to be the other. In other words, "if I remember a past life, then it has to be MY past life that I remember."
But is there any reason for this to be the case? If someone were to know or be told in great detail the facts of a person who had died many years ago that would not indicate that you and this person had any link at all.
In fact we can show evidence that it has happened that a person has had retrocognition and it was impossible for him to have been reincarnated.
The case of Peter Hurkos is the evidence as stated in his own autobiography. He talks about the first time he realized that he had a gift. He’d just suffered from a very severe head injury and was lying in a hospital bed when he noticed the man in the bed next to him. “All of a sudden he says that he knew an awful lot about this man despite the fact that he’d never seen him before. He then proceeded to tell the man everything that he saw about him and it proved to be accurate. Hurkos later proved to be accurate 87% or more of the time. He helped the English police recover the royal coronation stone of Westminster Abbey because he knew great details about the thieves and in the same way he helped find the Boston Strangler.
There were only 2 things different between this and reincarnation 1. Most of the people that Hurkos knew about were still alive and 2. Hurkos did not identify with them.
As mentioned, most reincarnationists argue that cognition indicates presence. “I could not know unless I was there.” But the facts from the cases of Peter Hurkos shows that that is not at all necessarily the case. Cognition does not indicate presence. If just indicates knowledge.
In the same way, a young child that merely knew in great detail events of someone else's life may be misled or not be able to comprehend why they know this without identifying with the person with whom they had retrocognition.
Thus an alternate explanation is that Reincarnation could be simply retrocognition with identification.
But how can retrocognition occur. If one subscribes to the belief in multidimensional beings (which one always has to if one is a reincarnationist) then one has to subscribe to the belief that these multidimensional beings would also know the past history of any individual and thus could pass this information on to others who are yet alive.
In some beliefs systems they believe this information is received through channeling. In certain religions when the channeling is unintentional and uncontrollable it is sometimes called demon possession. Thus most reincarnation could be explained as retrocognition caused by demonic possession with false identification. In addition the similar wounds and scars could be psychosomatic. Tests done using hypnosis have shown researchers the power of the mind, when told that a coin that was being pressed to their skin was hot enough to burn them, the skins of the hypnotized subjects would blister.
Thus to provide a complete alternative explanation, reincarnation could also be explained as Retrocognition caused by Demonic Possession with false identification and psychosomatic symptoms.
This is one alternative theory that must be given due consideration when the evidence is being studied.
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Reincarnation in early Christianity later squelched by the Church? Hmmm. Well. I'd want a footnote, and it had better not be publised by HarperCollins's religion division. Basically, Judaism believes in a one-body-per-soul thing (and I know, there is all sorts of interesting controversy about exactly what Judaism in the 1st century thought the afterlife or salvation would be like), and insofar as Christianity grew out of Judaism, that cuts that off. -- MichaelTinkler
I've read it in two or three different places, I think, so it seemed to deserve mention. I'll try to do a little more research on it. -- WillWare
One of the endless lands of controversy in Religion departments is the degree of Greekification that Christianity underwent once pagans started converting. Reincarnation is an essentially non-Judaic idea, so anyone who says that it was a belief in E. Christianity is asserting that paganism beliefs made substantive changes in ideas about the nature of the Soul. Not to mention the fact that ancient Mediterranean society was FAR from unanimous on reincarnatin. The Egyptians sure didn't believe in it (Hence, the Book of the Dead is all about getting to the comfortable afterlife), and the Romans don't seem very interested. It was, as far as I can tell, not a popular belief but a position taken by some philosophers. Oh, well - this is what a community project is for, sorting stuff like this out. -- MichaelTinkler
Hmm. That all goes well beyond my level of scholarship. I guess I'll yank it. -- WillWare
Well as I understand the Jews around the 1st century didn't have that clear ideas on the afterlife at all, and most Jews still don't. Some Jews today believe in reincarnation (some Hasidim for instance), though that belief may be Medieveal in origin. As to early Christianity, the mainstream rejected reincarnation, but some Gnostic groups believed in it. (Gnostic Christianity was heavily pagan influenced.) As to reincarnation in ancient Mediterranean society, I'd agree it was far from unanimous, but it wasn't just a philosophical view: some popular movements like Gnosticism or Orphism or Hermeticism believed in it. (I am no historian, so I may be wrong.) --- Simon J Kissane
I've willing to expand the section on Spiritism, detailing more information as for the actual mechanisms of reincarnation under this particular doctrine. I suggest that Spiritismo (most specifically, Kardecist Spiritism) to get its own section, to help to point out its relationship to Christian doctrines (Kardecist followers have a different interpretation of the Bible, but consider themselves to be Christians). I don't want to step over anyone's toes on it, though.
I may decide, sometime in the future, to move the Buddhist rebirth content to a separate article. Usedbook 16:14 21 May 2003 (UTC)
Is this view of Buddhist "rebirth" as opposed to "reincarnation" really an important point? For example, is this a distinction that the Buddha made, or any of this canonical interpreters, or this is some modern distinction? कुक्कुरोवाच 03:00, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Since you keep mentioning "samsara", am I correct in guessing that this is the word that you translate as rebirth and/or reincarnation? That would explain a lot of misunderstandings. I tend to think of Samsara as the flow itself, not the process of participating in it. Luis Dantas
I think that the section about Buddhist view of reincarnation should be edited, preferably by a Buddhist teacher or thinker since this is indeed a complicated subject. However, I don’t agree that there is a "fundamental disparity" between the concept of emptiness, space and mind and awareness. These are the same. "The form is empty, emptiness is form" from the Heart Sutra describes this relationship best. When it comes to the problem of soul and mind the analogy of sea and waves on it describes best the relationship between mind in general and particular sentient entities.
As I wrote, this is a complicated subject so I think any editing should be done with caution and by a person with deep understanding of it – therefore I decided no to do it myself. AndyBrandt 09:14, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The beginning of the text of the article "Reincarnation" should be corrected:
- it says "Reincarnation, also called metempsychosis, or transmigration of souls, is the rebirth in another body (after physical death) (...)"
a) Reincarnation (or Rebirth), which is the general rule (law) for Human evolution, in simple words works like this: each life in a human body, each time more developed and each time a bit more close to perfection.
In brief words in Reincarnation the individual stays around this physical world (as a spiritual entity in the etheric or vital plan) near to those places and persons who are familiar to him (it can stay for days, months or years after the death of physical body occurs - it depends on the individual evolution, awareness, his level of detattachement of physical world needs and things, etc); then he enters into others deeper spiritual (invisible) plans for centuries and returns a lot of time later into a new life in our physical world through rebirth as a baby inside the mothers' uterus.
Perhaps the best graphic on this subject can be found at The Cycle of Life; The graphic ant its terms belong to the Rosicrucian Philosophy but I am sure it works (its stages) fine with terms from other religious doctrines and spiritual teachings: REALITY is the same everywhere - the differences are the terms and perspectives of study used to describe it!
b) Metempsychosis (or transmigration of souls) is the incarnation of the individual (as an spiritual entity living in the etheric - vital plan after death of his physical body) in the body of an animal. It is NOT really incarnation (and less even a Rebirth) because:
1. there is no rebirth into a new life (for evolution purposes) - the individual who practices what is described as metempsychosis never leaves the physical earth environment (he stays in its etherical or vital counterpart) and this "take over" of an animal body (metempsychosis) occurs almost immediatly.
2. these only happens in very excepcional circunstances, happened more frequently in the past (centuries and thousands years ago), caused by extreme deviation of the individual towards some form of spiritual destruction (bloody black magic practices, extreme sexual abuse generaly associated to some form of black magic, primitive societies with canabalistic culture generaly in association to some tribal sourcery, etc).
3. ususally after death of the physical body the normal individual stays in its earthly familiar environment for days till years close to its family, friends, etc. Only those individuals with some kind of knowledge of occult (sorcereres, witches, xamanists, ...) and with great attachment to physical life due to heavy dark-low emotions (hate, sexual needs, blood thirst,...) were/are able to expel the group spirit of an animal and take its place in the body of the animal (which is not so complex as our human physical body).
4. As I said before this happened a lot in past times and in perhaps in all civilizations of the world, and could be seen by those who had clarividence faculty; and perhaps this is the reason why some of these seers took the metempsychosis as the general rule and not Reincarnation.
c) There is no such thing as incarnation in plants (vegetable kingdom); although they also possess a etheric-vital body and also its evolution works through a "group spirit" (like the animals), they have no organs which allows a conscious (awakened) conscioussness of the physical world. The entity which practices Metempsychosis needs similiar organs as the human physical body in the host body that it "takes over", animals have those organs (similiar to ours but far from being so complex) but plants have no such kind of organs.
I guess perhaps one reason why some doctrines thought human beings (after death of the physical body) could incarnate in plants/trees is due to the fact that some older trees in the path of evolution (as it happens to animals) are already acquiring some kind of individual conscioussness - that's evolution! And mystics in the past may have taken this individuality as a sintom of a human spirit having incarnated in the tree (which is juts NOT possible and also totally ilogical; even if it was a rare excepcion it had no way of happenning because this kind of direct interaction between totally diferent things does not occurs).
d) Reincarnation (Rebirth) is the rule (law); Metempsychosis (transmigration of souls) is a totally different phenomena which may happen in an extreme scenario and by the will of the personality of the individual that ceases his functioning in the physical body (when death occurs) and looks immediatly for a victim (generally an animal, it can happen also among humans!) in order to stay connected to this physical world and to satisfy his low needs.
So, should the text be changed and perhaps explain these differences? or even create instead an article named "Metempsychosis"?
(My english is not 100%...)
Thank you! -- ekhalom 22:00, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
From: "Roger Clough" <rclough@verizon.net> To: <progressive_theology@yahoogroups.com> Cc: <metaphysicalsoup@yahoogroups.com>; <KMTech@yahoogroups.com> Subject: [progressive_theology] Karma and grace Date: Friday, November 19, 2004 3:24 PM
Edgar Cayce made the very plausible suggestion that we can be freed from karma by grace. If this is so, then reincarnation is not contrary to the New Testament if we interpret "hell" as rebirth (same soul, different body). We keep repeating the cycle, not until we work off the karma as in eastern religions, but are saved by faith and grace, as Paul's letter to the Romans.
Something to think about, anyway.
- Roger Clough
Objection: How can souls be reincarnated when there are so many more living humans now than there ever have been before? Not enough souls to go around!
dictionary.comgives the following definition for Bible
Since the section is on Judaism and kabbalah, it is essential to differentiate the Christian Bible. -- Chris Q 16:36, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That's its Hebrew name; its English name is the Bible. And please get consensus for these unilateral changes, rather than trying to impose them on English Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 17:43, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely wrong. Jews do not recognize "the Old Testament," the Tanach is different from the Old Testament. Moreover, Tanach is a Hebrew acronym. In English, people call the Tanach "the Hebrew Bible." The Old Testament+the New Testament is The Christian Bible. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Someone, I think Stevertigo, deleted a passage about Professor Frazer. Now, I didn't write that passage and I do not have any personal investment in whether it should be kept out or put back in. But if I understand SV's edit summary, he either doen't know the reference or wants it put in. So: this refers to Sir James Frazer's The Golden Bough which was at the time it was first published (1890) one of the authoritative studies of religion and myth drawing from examples from around the world. The Golden Bough has gone through several editions, including an abridgement I think in 1922 -- the point being that it is hard to provide a page reference that will be of use to the average reader. Nevertheless, the passage in question (or the point) comes from the shapter "The external soul in forl-culture," specifically the section "The ritual of death and resurrection" (in the abridgement, this is chapter 67; in an earlier version it is volume II chapter four section four -- you get the idea, it is confuisng. The book is widely available, but there is no one standard edition). It seems to me that there is some place for this point in this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:15, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Recollections mean nothing! These people were probably hypnotized! Scorpionman 00:38, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
to all concern i'm under the belief that reincarnation really does exist as based on flash backs i have experienced while bein' in a state of total un-awareness
I DO. AND I REMEBER RIGHT BEFORE I WAS BORN. 65.87.191.22 02:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)LTH
The introductory paragraph makes the distinction between reincarnation (human to human) and transmigration (involving humans and animals). The rest of the article however doesn't make this distinction anymore, only talks about "this doctrine" or "reincarnation". But Pythagoras, and many eastern religions, believe in transmigration, not just reincarnation. Right now, it looks like someone edited the introductory paragraph without changing the body of the article.
Someone knowledgeable should fix this. AxelBoldt 17:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Would it? I really do not see why. This terminology is a pain. Luis Dantas 10:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
This page does not mention what may well be a majority view that this is simply superstition. That is assuming that Atheists, Christians, Jews, Muslims etc make up a majority. The Pseudo science tacked on the bottom make it seem even more that way.-- Baphomet. 23:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
"Intellectual arrogance: In addition to the normal kind of resistance with which any paradigm defends itself against change, the atheist paradigm of academia generally, and philosophy in particular, feels especially threatened by the findings of paranormal research. This is because intellectuals like to regard themselves as the highest manifestation of intelligence on the planet, if not in the universe. Embracing an evolutionary model according to which consciousness is correlated with brain development, intellectuals regard the human brain as the highest development of evolutionary forces, and an educated human brain as the highest of the high. Intellectuals like to feel that they are riding atop the crest of the wave of evolution.
This intellectual smugness is greatly threatened by paranormal research, especially the NDE, the results of which strongly suggest (I am tempted to say "clearly show") that the human intellect is by no means the highest form of intelligence. (...)"
by Prof. Dr. Neal Grossman, 2002
[1]
I have read them and they are not very good at all from very minor journals and in one case a yet to be refereed paper. The knowledge that this is superstition is what is valuable, and as your system of critique seems to be based on the stength of belief of the protagonist, I believe it to be superstition more stongly than you believe it to be valid knowledge.
Science's smugness is not threatned by any paranormal research, constantly claim to have undermined something when you haven't is often a sign insecurity.--
Baphomet.
00:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I will finish now, I had a lot more, but to a next encounter, to say about this subject and the type of actions toward Religious (or Spiritual oriented) articles at Wikipedia, not from people of Religious thought, but from people product of a Culture based on reducionist-positivist Science of 19th century, who relegate Religion and related subjects to a Cultural definition, or worse, as a Superstition. -- GalaazV 18:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC) ____
You have removed the {{POV}} msg without any edits being complete. That is naughty.-- Baphomet. 18:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
"::There is no scientific evidence that prayer works. They only people to claim that have been a few US religious nutters, who wanted it to work, it has never been reproduced by independent researchers. As a doctor you should be ashamed of yourself pedling such rubbish.-- Baphomet. 11:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC"
Strictly speaking any and all belief in that which cannot be measured can be labelled "superstition", but labelling in this way is not the point of Wikipedia. An article about reincarnation should describe the belief(s), not pass judgment.
I believe, as does Baphomet that reinkarnation and all other supernatural beliefs are deeply ignorant, but my belief and his has absolutely under no circumstances any place in wikipedia. -- boxed
I must say the whole article is very much POV. And while I certainly agree that science doesn't give final, or for that matter, thrutful answers all the time, what is being said here is that reductionist-positivist world outlook DOES support the theory of reincarnation, only that most scientists don't want to see this due do their own predjudices. This certainly isn't true. Believe me, scientists will believe ANYTHING, given enough evidence. So, I'd really like someone to rewrite the paragraphs about how mainstream science sees reincarnation, since, apart from that, the article is very good and informative.
May-hem
10:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Why does the article state at the beginning that there is a clear distinction between " reincarnation" and " rebirth in Buddhism"? This point is arguable and tendentious at best. As Kukkurovaca argues above, Buddhists have always had their own distinct ideas about reincarnation/rebirth. But I find it farfetched to think that a clear distinction has consistently been made between two concepts.
Also, from where does the idea arise that there is a distinction to be made between "reincarnation" and "transmigration"? I've never heard this before. I looked at Talk:Reincarnation#Reincarnation_vs._Metempsychosis above, but it appears to be based in some obscure POV, possibly relating to Rosicrucianism. - Nat Kraus e 05:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
So, why is Metempsychosis listed under the See also section and then redirects back to Reincarnation? RDF 03:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Uninformed reverting
Please stop reverting veda.harekrsna.cz into www.veda.harekrsna.cz. This url doesn't work anymore after a DNS change. Thanks, Jan
Many reincarnationists make a fundamental assumption. The assumption is that cognition implies presence. It is assumed that if a person knows enough details about another’s life then that person used to be the other. In other words, "if I remember a past life, then it has to be MY past life that I remember."
But is there any reason for this to be the case? If someone were to know or be told in great detail the facts of a person who had died many years ago that would not indicate that you and this person had any link at all.
In fact we can show evidence that it has happened that a person has had retrocognition and it was impossible for him to have been reincarnated.
The case of Peter Hurkos is the evidence as stated in his own autobiography. He talks about the first time he realized that he had a gift. He’d just suffered from a very severe head injury and was lying in a hospital bed when he noticed the man in the bed next to him. “All of a sudden he says that he knew an awful lot about this man despite the fact that he’d never seen him before. He then proceeded to tell the man everything that he saw about him and it proved to be accurate. Hurkos later proved to be accurate 87% or more of the time. He helped the English police recover the royal coronation stone of Westminster Abbey because he knew great details about the thieves and in the same way he helped find the Boston Strangler.
There were only 2 things different between this and reincarnation 1. Most of the people that Hurkos knew about were still alive and 2. Hurkos did not identify with them.
As mentioned, most reincarnationists argue that cognition indicates presence. “I could not know unless I was there.” But the facts from the cases of Peter Hurkos shows that that is not at all necessarily the case. Cognition does not indicate presence. If just indicates knowledge.
In the same way, a young child that merely knew in great detail events of someone else's life may be misled or not be able to comprehend why they know this without identifying with the person with whom they had retrocognition.
Thus an alternate explanation is that Reincarnation could be simply retrocognition with identification.
But how can retrocognition occur. If one subscribes to the belief in multidimensional beings (which one always has to if one is a reincarnationist) then one has to subscribe to the belief that these multidimensional beings would also know the past history of any individual and thus could pass this information on to others who are yet alive.
In some beliefs systems they believe this information is received through channeling. In certain religions when the channeling is unintentional and uncontrollable it is sometimes called demon possession. Thus most reincarnation could be explained as retrocognition caused by demonic possession with false identification. In addition the similar wounds and scars could be psychosomatic. Tests done using hypnosis have shown researchers the power of the mind, when told that a coin that was being pressed to their skin was hot enough to burn them, the skins of the hypnotized subjects would blister.
Thus to provide a complete alternative explanation, reincarnation could also be explained as Retrocognition caused by Demonic Possession with false identification and psychosomatic symptoms.
This is one alternative theory that must be given due consideration when the evidence is being studied.