![]() | 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. |
Shouldnt this : ""Past Lives" redirects here. For the 2002 Black Sabbath album, see Past Lives (album)." take the form of a standard disambiguation page? I.e. redirect one type of past lives to black sabbath, the other here? This looks really weird at the top.
With the edition you have rejected as a "minority" I've added the new article Metempsychosis: Why? Because it is a concept different from reincarnation. I do not accept also metempsychosis as a valid theory and I regard it - while theory (and not as a possible rare phenomenon) - as a misinterpretation, created by some "gurus", from Sacred writings. Nevertheless, as it is a concept (and not new), it deserves an explanation and understanding (not to be hidden/deleted/reverted). My words are from a "minority", yet, I suggest you do some research in online and paper encyclopedias, as an e.g.:
BE CREATIVE, not destructive! Best regards, -- 212.113.164.104 00:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC) -- 194.65.22.226 01:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC) GalaazV
Regarding the last change: disambig. link for character. The conception to Reincarnation, as presented by sacred, religious and philosophical teachings behind this conception, is Moral character: Ethic and Moral patterns (see as e.g. " Ethic of reciprocity", also known as "Golden Rule") developed by the individual which lead him to true Spirituality (connection with the Inner Self, which will eventually guide the individual out of the Rebirth cycle, toward a higher level of Consciousness), and not fallacious arguments (I would say excuses) based solely in genetic features, which are unable to explain all the individual (inner) behaviour differences, diversity and originallity; or any psychological theories trying to explain abstract processes, and as such also subjective, as events inherent solely to the human mind (regarded by it as a product of the physical human brain; see also Mind, Mind-body problem, Philosophy of Mind, Theory of mind and Mental body). Genetic features, analysed in the light of these Spiritual conceptions, have an important role but, from my point of view, they are predetermined through the interaction of the spiritual worlds' plan of evolution with the physical world, regarding its life forms (that we call "biological") development. -- 212.113.164.104 19:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC) GalaazV
The current version of the article claims that Sufism teaches reincarnation. I think that demands at least a source. To the best of my knowledge reincarnation is anathema to Islam. Luis Dantas 01:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Bumpusmills, I love that you wrote that Judaism doesn't embrace it, since I agree; however you must know that it is very possible that the majority of Orthodox Judaism nowadays do accept reincarnation in one form or another. Yet there are still a few segments of Orthodox Jews who officially reject reincarnation (i being a member of one of them), as is clarified in the Judaism section of the Reincarnation article. It is most likely that the most passionate of those Jews who are against reincarnation and other Kabbalistic innovations are to be found among Dor Daim and other students of the Rambam. I like the point you made about how all three came down from Abraham. It is undeniable that there is NO clear evidence that Jews historically accepted reincarnation. Most proponents of reincarnation among Orthodox Jews explain this by saying that it was secretly passed down generation after generation among the greatest of rabbis. If this is so, how then did they suddenly get permission to reveal this 'secret' to the world only in the 1300's WITHOUT the authority of the Sanhedrin? (Anyone who understands the function of the Sanhedrin in Jewish/Talmudic law knows the power of this question.) Anyway, this isn't the place to discuss the issue. You can find such discussion on www.mesora.org -- Yosef in Jerusalem
I'm happy too see that this article touches base that Native Americans believe in reincarnation. Being of American Indian blood myself I really appreciate anyone who includes my people's beliefs. Wado (thank you in Cherokee), -- Bumpusmills1 04:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
There is a substantial portion of this article taken from this document (warning: Word document). The text was placed there by User:158.143.169.8 ( Contributions) on 27 November 2005. Another portion of that document was added to the article Karma on that date as well, but that edit was reverted shortly afterwards. I am deleting the portion of this article that is lifted from the aforementioned document, since few changes to that portion have been made since then. -- Dachannien 09:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I have heavily modified this section in light of Eggenstein's research, which seems well-founded. I suggest that anyone read this article before making further changes to this section; it surprised me and will surely surprise most readers.
Reply from JMO, April 17 2006: I looked at the Eggenstein article, and though I saw some quotes said to be from church figures, none of the numerous footnotes actually cited a specific source of that type; instead, they all cited modern books by other defenders of reincarnation. I also spent a little time trying to track down the quote attributed to Gregory of Nyssa, and couldn't find it, but did find some other quotes that imply that he rejects reincarnation. Until someone can actually come up with a supporting quote with a direct citation from a recognized Church father, some of the claims about reincarnation in the early Church need to be dialed back.
Reply from Practical123, August 17, 2006: I agree with JMO. The Eggenstein article is hardly scholarship. I seriously doubt that Eggenstein has bothered to read the Church Fathers he cites.
Buddhism teaches reincarnation is not of a permanent self or soul but says the opposite view is also an error. Buddhism is not unified as to what that actually means and some might stress the view of no self, while the teachings of Hinduism might stress the view of everything is ultimately self.
was added 17feb06 to correct statements made about buddhism which seem to tend towards the
false view that buddhism teaches that there is no self at all.
--a view held by a small minority of mostly western buddhists
Jiohdi 18feb06
I notice that there are a few arguments missing in the "objections" section, otherwise worthy of further discussion. One of wich could be the following: if incarnation indeed is true, how does it account for the changing population numbers of each species, especially humans? The current population growth ratio is about 95 million/year new human "souls". Thousand years ago there were less than a billion people - where did the new "souls" come from? If reincarnation is not limited to a particular species, say if it is possible for any living thing with recognized consciousness to reincarnate into a human, then, there is still the dilemma of variable total count of conscious beings available (with many living species going extinct each year, for example).
If the soul can reincarnate into any type of animal, plant or human body on any planet in the universe (as described in the Bhagavad Gita), then I don't really think the above argument causes a problem. (Just think how many souls are existing right now as insects or bacteria - even in a small space of grass in field they are literally countless, what to speak of across the universe) It could be worth mentioning as an argument against souls only reincarnating in human bodies however? Best wishes, GourangaUK 19:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone else out there agree on this? It seems to me that over time this page has become a bit of a dumping ground for a whole host of information loosely based on reincarnation - does anyone else feel it should be shortened somewhat to make it more readable? GourangaUK 15:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
The Japanese metaseries Sailor Moon exhibits the concept of reincarnation in a very interesting way. -- User:Angie Y.
I'm a fan too. =D -- User:Angie Y.
Hello Hgilbert - I see you reverted my edits completely. I am trying to make this article readable if possible - maybe you could suggest where the problems are with the current version as I have just reverted back to and made further amendments on? How is it less clear? Are you happy with the page as it was? GourangaUK 11:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The edits seem to mostly move material around. In the overview section, it is not appropriate to have a detailed focus on one particular area, though I appreciate your intention to relate the various ideas about reincarnation to the philosophical conception of the soul. Similarly with other areas...why are you shifting the text around? Also, your textual edits (on the various kinds of reincarnation) leave out some helpful distinctions, and are generally less descriptive and possibly inaccurate (New Age??). It does not help that the English of your additions is often ungrammatical or obscure. In addition, an encyclopedia is not the place to put in your own musings on a subject; the content should be factual and sources should be able to be cited (preferably actually cited through footnotes or bibliography, though this is not always the case in the Wikipedia).
I am going to revert again for these reasons. I hope you understand. I think it would be better to work within the existing framework, supplementing it with meaningful and verifiable additions, rather than to go with a new structure. Hgilbert 12:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello
Hgilbert - I have not reverted back again but please address the following if you have time. I appreciate your honest approach and agree that my edits were far from perfect, however there are serious technical innacuracies in the current version which I believe need to be rectified as per below:
thus transmigration is also a form of reincarnation. How can this description claim to be 'what is strictly known as reincarnation'? As well as that it is very badly written and not at all encyclopedic:
Even if you do disagree with my recent edits personally - do you at least admit much work needs to be done on the above? Does anyone else feel differently or agree with the above?
Best Regards, GourangaUK 14:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your thorough review above. I have tried to edit the text taking into account all of your excellent points. Feel free to continue editing; I'm sure there needs to be a great deal of work! (If you have access to an English-language spell and grammar checker, this will save others time - it is possible to cut and paste material back and forth from a word processing program, for example!! If not, dive in and someone will clear up any differences from standard English usage.
I appreciate your helpful insights. Hgilbert 21:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I meant to move it down there and must have neglected to paste it in. Hgilbert 13:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
GourangaUK commented that not everyone accepts these to be the oldest Hindu scriptures. Is there really any serious dispute over this? If so something should be added to the Vedas article. -- Chris Q 13:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
While talking with a JW awhile ago, a topic had gotten brought up: The idea of reincarnation. From what this guy was saying, the Christian Bible states that when we die, we remain "asleep" for swhile, until we are called on to take form again, or we may be called up unto Heaven to live there (I'll ask him for references next time I talk to him). Just thought I'd point this out, though I have never seen any JW reference to this anywhere else. Slokunshialgo 04:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
You've (83.84.186.232) defined the additions you've made to the scientific section as 'crucial' - can you clarify as to why? This article is enourmous so it is important to not simply continue to add content unless it is meaningful. Your additions provides examples of people who claim they were reincarnated and their personal evidence, etc, but that section already covers that. So how much of this is enough? There are many, many, many examples of people who claim and give evidence to have been reincarnated, but I don't think the article should be forced to have all of them. Why are your additions crucial and why can't they be summarised, considering the article is already bloated, and what is to stop others from continueing to add more to that section until it just gets even more ridiculous? You should also get a profile to facilitate discussion and feedback. MaxMangel 10:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Ramsters work provides almost conclusive evidence for reincarnation, that why it's crucial. I have read many books that attempt to prove reincarnation, and Ramsters books really stands out. What Buddhists believe and what Hindoes believe, not to mention hundreds of sects, seems irrelevant to me compared to the truth about reincarnation. Ramster seems to get closer to the truth than anyone else, which is why it is not ridiculous to include a summary of his findings. Does reincarnation exist or does it not exist, and if yes, how? That is the question. Beliefs are irrelevant. --MHegener MHegener 17:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I did not succeed in locating the subarticle, but whatever: Ramsters findings belong in the main text. Just read his book carefully. Devoting some paragraphs to Ian Stevenson and none to Ramster, as you would have it, will delight sceptics, who would find Ramsters evidence very disturbing, but it's not a good idea.[[User:MHegener]--MHegener 19:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, fine, a separe article about reincarnation research is a good idea. --MHegener 09:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Thoughts and comments from any angle are appreciated. Ys, GourangaUK 15:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
To the editors of the reincarnation article: A frequent contributor to the Hinduism article, Swadhyayee, posted the following paragraphs on the Hinduism article. I have removed them becasue they could be written more clearly, and because they were somewhat redundant and add too much detail to what was already on Hinduism page regarding reincarnation. I don't disagree with the content of what he wrote, but I think the language needs some polishing. If anybody who is working on this page would like to help him polish it and post it on the reincarnation page, I'm sure he would appreciate it. Thanks. HeBhagawan 13:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
The doctrine of reincarnation, according to Hinduism, states that everything one does, leave imprints in one's mind and intellect, which determines what kind of life one would be in next birth or possess tendencies if born as human. If, one regularly perform good motivated actions, one will develop good tendencies. If, one do bad motivated things, one would develop bad tendencies, which naturally can cause bad things to happen in one's life. Since Hinduism believes in
reincarnation, it follows that one's actions in this life can determine what kind of tendencies one will be born with in subsequent lives. Virtuous actions purify the mind and intellect and help the soul to be closer to the Supreme Divine and lead to a birth with higher consciousness/conscientiousness. Evil actions hinder this recognition of the Supreme Divine, and the soul takes lower forms of worldly life. Therefore, Hinduism teaches, one should try to behave in a virtuous manner as much as possible, so that one will develop good habits and tendencies both in this and the next life. Over the course of time, if one can sufficiently purify one's mind, one can attain the goal of life: experience of the highest truth, which is God.
As per Hinduism doctrines, the immortal soul leaves the body and the soul accepts new body in accordance with Karmas and Desires of previous birth/births. Intellect and mind move along with the soul and so the new body exhibit tendencies of previous birth/births ( i.e. pious, evil, selfish, vengeful, selfless, noble etc.) and also reflect same intellectual level. Further, humans only possess the developed intellect (ability to think and assess) and the human body possesses necessary limbs (Karmendriyas)[ ability to speak, hear, read and do actions by hands ] to carry out actions leading to realisation of God, so the humans must endeavour to merge with The Infinite. When a person fails to merge with The Infinite, the sublimated intellect and mind move along with The Soul in each life and usually The Soul gets the human body to carry on the journey of merging with The Infinite in subsequent births. This doctrines imbibe in Hindus to be alert on the matter of journey towards The Infinite and involve in such actions which if fail to merge the soul with The Infinite after the death, at least reward with next life as humans.
User:Ksolway 13 November 2006 (UTC)
There needs to be an explanation of the interpretation of reincarnation which sees it as a means of talking about cause and effect, which some people call "the esoteric interpretation" because it involves no literal reincarnation.
I don't see this understanding of reincarnation explained anywhere in the current article.
Under what heading and where do you suggest this explanation should be placed in the article?
I suggest the following:
"There is an interpretation of reincarnation that does not involve literal rebirth. In this interpretation, reincarnation is simply a poetic way of talking about cause and effect.
Here, reincarnation refers to the continued life of the imputed I, the ego, which is a false thought, or ignorance. Just as one lights a candle from the flame of another, so are false thoughts passed from person to person. These thoughts are false because they believe they experience loss and gain, life and death. It is because these thoughts believe in life and death, they are said to be caught in the cycle of repeated birth and death.
The Buddha famously explains this esoteric interpretation in "The Questions of Kutananda", where he explains in detail the process of reincarnation when a candle flame is used to light another candle.
Some quotations which reflect the esoteric interpretion:
"If I can see further than others, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants." - Isaac Newton
"One sows and another reaps." - The Bible: John 4:37
"No man, not even a married man, can know definitely how many children he leaves behind him." (author unknown)
"It is a mistaken conception to think,
That I shall experience the suffering of my next life.
For it is another person who dies,
And another who will be reborn." - Shantideva ("Guide to the bodhisattva's way of life")
"Children do not have as much fun in childhood as adults do in adultery." - Spike Milligan
Response (Ksolway): In that case I propose distinguishing between the exoteric (common) and esoteric interpretations of reincarnation, within the Buddhist category. Most Buddhists believe in the more traditional type reincarnation, which is linear. For example, Tibetan Buddhists believe that the current Dalai Lama is the reincarnation of the former, in a narrowly linear line, from one life to the next. By contrast, the esotericists hold that reincarnation goes in strict accordance with the pattern of cause and effect, which is not narrowly linear. For example, "One sows and another reaps", which is not narrowly linear, and is explained in "The Questions of Kutananda" (link above).
The problem here is that the esoteric view is not limited to Buddhism, but is universally held. For example, by those in advaita vedanta, who do not believe in the duality of lives, or the duality of life and death.
For that reason I propose a separate category for the universal, esoteric interpretation.
Your views appreciated.
Response (Ksolway): You are right that the word "esoteric" implies something which is "confined to and understandable by only an enlightened inner circle". But should truths/ideas be excluded from an encyclopaedia just because only wise or informed people understand them? I don't think so.
For example, since very few people really know "God" (if any), then there should be no entry for "God". And since very few people understand quantum physics, there should be no entry for quantum physics - since the only people who can verify the truth of these things are those in the "enlightened inner circle".
However I will think about editing the Buddhist section in some minor way to emphasise the non-linear, non-simplistic understanding of reincarnation.
![]() | 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. |
Shouldnt this : ""Past Lives" redirects here. For the 2002 Black Sabbath album, see Past Lives (album)." take the form of a standard disambiguation page? I.e. redirect one type of past lives to black sabbath, the other here? This looks really weird at the top.
With the edition you have rejected as a "minority" I've added the new article Metempsychosis: Why? Because it is a concept different from reincarnation. I do not accept also metempsychosis as a valid theory and I regard it - while theory (and not as a possible rare phenomenon) - as a misinterpretation, created by some "gurus", from Sacred writings. Nevertheless, as it is a concept (and not new), it deserves an explanation and understanding (not to be hidden/deleted/reverted). My words are from a "minority", yet, I suggest you do some research in online and paper encyclopedias, as an e.g.:
BE CREATIVE, not destructive! Best regards, -- 212.113.164.104 00:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC) -- 194.65.22.226 01:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC) GalaazV
Regarding the last change: disambig. link for character. The conception to Reincarnation, as presented by sacred, religious and philosophical teachings behind this conception, is Moral character: Ethic and Moral patterns (see as e.g. " Ethic of reciprocity", also known as "Golden Rule") developed by the individual which lead him to true Spirituality (connection with the Inner Self, which will eventually guide the individual out of the Rebirth cycle, toward a higher level of Consciousness), and not fallacious arguments (I would say excuses) based solely in genetic features, which are unable to explain all the individual (inner) behaviour differences, diversity and originallity; or any psychological theories trying to explain abstract processes, and as such also subjective, as events inherent solely to the human mind (regarded by it as a product of the physical human brain; see also Mind, Mind-body problem, Philosophy of Mind, Theory of mind and Mental body). Genetic features, analysed in the light of these Spiritual conceptions, have an important role but, from my point of view, they are predetermined through the interaction of the spiritual worlds' plan of evolution with the physical world, regarding its life forms (that we call "biological") development. -- 212.113.164.104 19:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC) GalaazV
The current version of the article claims that Sufism teaches reincarnation. I think that demands at least a source. To the best of my knowledge reincarnation is anathema to Islam. Luis Dantas 01:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Bumpusmills, I love that you wrote that Judaism doesn't embrace it, since I agree; however you must know that it is very possible that the majority of Orthodox Judaism nowadays do accept reincarnation in one form or another. Yet there are still a few segments of Orthodox Jews who officially reject reincarnation (i being a member of one of them), as is clarified in the Judaism section of the Reincarnation article. It is most likely that the most passionate of those Jews who are against reincarnation and other Kabbalistic innovations are to be found among Dor Daim and other students of the Rambam. I like the point you made about how all three came down from Abraham. It is undeniable that there is NO clear evidence that Jews historically accepted reincarnation. Most proponents of reincarnation among Orthodox Jews explain this by saying that it was secretly passed down generation after generation among the greatest of rabbis. If this is so, how then did they suddenly get permission to reveal this 'secret' to the world only in the 1300's WITHOUT the authority of the Sanhedrin? (Anyone who understands the function of the Sanhedrin in Jewish/Talmudic law knows the power of this question.) Anyway, this isn't the place to discuss the issue. You can find such discussion on www.mesora.org -- Yosef in Jerusalem
I'm happy too see that this article touches base that Native Americans believe in reincarnation. Being of American Indian blood myself I really appreciate anyone who includes my people's beliefs. Wado (thank you in Cherokee), -- Bumpusmills1 04:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
There is a substantial portion of this article taken from this document (warning: Word document). The text was placed there by User:158.143.169.8 ( Contributions) on 27 November 2005. Another portion of that document was added to the article Karma on that date as well, but that edit was reverted shortly afterwards. I am deleting the portion of this article that is lifted from the aforementioned document, since few changes to that portion have been made since then. -- Dachannien 09:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I have heavily modified this section in light of Eggenstein's research, which seems well-founded. I suggest that anyone read this article before making further changes to this section; it surprised me and will surely surprise most readers.
Reply from JMO, April 17 2006: I looked at the Eggenstein article, and though I saw some quotes said to be from church figures, none of the numerous footnotes actually cited a specific source of that type; instead, they all cited modern books by other defenders of reincarnation. I also spent a little time trying to track down the quote attributed to Gregory of Nyssa, and couldn't find it, but did find some other quotes that imply that he rejects reincarnation. Until someone can actually come up with a supporting quote with a direct citation from a recognized Church father, some of the claims about reincarnation in the early Church need to be dialed back.
Reply from Practical123, August 17, 2006: I agree with JMO. The Eggenstein article is hardly scholarship. I seriously doubt that Eggenstein has bothered to read the Church Fathers he cites.
Buddhism teaches reincarnation is not of a permanent self or soul but says the opposite view is also an error. Buddhism is not unified as to what that actually means and some might stress the view of no self, while the teachings of Hinduism might stress the view of everything is ultimately self.
was added 17feb06 to correct statements made about buddhism which seem to tend towards the
false view that buddhism teaches that there is no self at all.
--a view held by a small minority of mostly western buddhists
Jiohdi 18feb06
I notice that there are a few arguments missing in the "objections" section, otherwise worthy of further discussion. One of wich could be the following: if incarnation indeed is true, how does it account for the changing population numbers of each species, especially humans? The current population growth ratio is about 95 million/year new human "souls". Thousand years ago there were less than a billion people - where did the new "souls" come from? If reincarnation is not limited to a particular species, say if it is possible for any living thing with recognized consciousness to reincarnate into a human, then, there is still the dilemma of variable total count of conscious beings available (with many living species going extinct each year, for example).
If the soul can reincarnate into any type of animal, plant or human body on any planet in the universe (as described in the Bhagavad Gita), then I don't really think the above argument causes a problem. (Just think how many souls are existing right now as insects or bacteria - even in a small space of grass in field they are literally countless, what to speak of across the universe) It could be worth mentioning as an argument against souls only reincarnating in human bodies however? Best wishes, GourangaUK 19:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone else out there agree on this? It seems to me that over time this page has become a bit of a dumping ground for a whole host of information loosely based on reincarnation - does anyone else feel it should be shortened somewhat to make it more readable? GourangaUK 15:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
The Japanese metaseries Sailor Moon exhibits the concept of reincarnation in a very interesting way. -- User:Angie Y.
I'm a fan too. =D -- User:Angie Y.
Hello Hgilbert - I see you reverted my edits completely. I am trying to make this article readable if possible - maybe you could suggest where the problems are with the current version as I have just reverted back to and made further amendments on? How is it less clear? Are you happy with the page as it was? GourangaUK 11:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The edits seem to mostly move material around. In the overview section, it is not appropriate to have a detailed focus on one particular area, though I appreciate your intention to relate the various ideas about reincarnation to the philosophical conception of the soul. Similarly with other areas...why are you shifting the text around? Also, your textual edits (on the various kinds of reincarnation) leave out some helpful distinctions, and are generally less descriptive and possibly inaccurate (New Age??). It does not help that the English of your additions is often ungrammatical or obscure. In addition, an encyclopedia is not the place to put in your own musings on a subject; the content should be factual and sources should be able to be cited (preferably actually cited through footnotes or bibliography, though this is not always the case in the Wikipedia).
I am going to revert again for these reasons. I hope you understand. I think it would be better to work within the existing framework, supplementing it with meaningful and verifiable additions, rather than to go with a new structure. Hgilbert 12:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello
Hgilbert - I have not reverted back again but please address the following if you have time. I appreciate your honest approach and agree that my edits were far from perfect, however there are serious technical innacuracies in the current version which I believe need to be rectified as per below:
thus transmigration is also a form of reincarnation. How can this description claim to be 'what is strictly known as reincarnation'? As well as that it is very badly written and not at all encyclopedic:
Even if you do disagree with my recent edits personally - do you at least admit much work needs to be done on the above? Does anyone else feel differently or agree with the above?
Best Regards, GourangaUK 14:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your thorough review above. I have tried to edit the text taking into account all of your excellent points. Feel free to continue editing; I'm sure there needs to be a great deal of work! (If you have access to an English-language spell and grammar checker, this will save others time - it is possible to cut and paste material back and forth from a word processing program, for example!! If not, dive in and someone will clear up any differences from standard English usage.
I appreciate your helpful insights. Hgilbert 21:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I meant to move it down there and must have neglected to paste it in. Hgilbert 13:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
GourangaUK commented that not everyone accepts these to be the oldest Hindu scriptures. Is there really any serious dispute over this? If so something should be added to the Vedas article. -- Chris Q 13:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
While talking with a JW awhile ago, a topic had gotten brought up: The idea of reincarnation. From what this guy was saying, the Christian Bible states that when we die, we remain "asleep" for swhile, until we are called on to take form again, or we may be called up unto Heaven to live there (I'll ask him for references next time I talk to him). Just thought I'd point this out, though I have never seen any JW reference to this anywhere else. Slokunshialgo 04:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
You've (83.84.186.232) defined the additions you've made to the scientific section as 'crucial' - can you clarify as to why? This article is enourmous so it is important to not simply continue to add content unless it is meaningful. Your additions provides examples of people who claim they were reincarnated and their personal evidence, etc, but that section already covers that. So how much of this is enough? There are many, many, many examples of people who claim and give evidence to have been reincarnated, but I don't think the article should be forced to have all of them. Why are your additions crucial and why can't they be summarised, considering the article is already bloated, and what is to stop others from continueing to add more to that section until it just gets even more ridiculous? You should also get a profile to facilitate discussion and feedback. MaxMangel 10:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Ramsters work provides almost conclusive evidence for reincarnation, that why it's crucial. I have read many books that attempt to prove reincarnation, and Ramsters books really stands out. What Buddhists believe and what Hindoes believe, not to mention hundreds of sects, seems irrelevant to me compared to the truth about reincarnation. Ramster seems to get closer to the truth than anyone else, which is why it is not ridiculous to include a summary of his findings. Does reincarnation exist or does it not exist, and if yes, how? That is the question. Beliefs are irrelevant. --MHegener MHegener 17:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I did not succeed in locating the subarticle, but whatever: Ramsters findings belong in the main text. Just read his book carefully. Devoting some paragraphs to Ian Stevenson and none to Ramster, as you would have it, will delight sceptics, who would find Ramsters evidence very disturbing, but it's not a good idea.[[User:MHegener]--MHegener 19:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, fine, a separe article about reincarnation research is a good idea. --MHegener 09:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Thoughts and comments from any angle are appreciated. Ys, GourangaUK 15:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
To the editors of the reincarnation article: A frequent contributor to the Hinduism article, Swadhyayee, posted the following paragraphs on the Hinduism article. I have removed them becasue they could be written more clearly, and because they were somewhat redundant and add too much detail to what was already on Hinduism page regarding reincarnation. I don't disagree with the content of what he wrote, but I think the language needs some polishing. If anybody who is working on this page would like to help him polish it and post it on the reincarnation page, I'm sure he would appreciate it. Thanks. HeBhagawan 13:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
The doctrine of reincarnation, according to Hinduism, states that everything one does, leave imprints in one's mind and intellect, which determines what kind of life one would be in next birth or possess tendencies if born as human. If, one regularly perform good motivated actions, one will develop good tendencies. If, one do bad motivated things, one would develop bad tendencies, which naturally can cause bad things to happen in one's life. Since Hinduism believes in
reincarnation, it follows that one's actions in this life can determine what kind of tendencies one will be born with in subsequent lives. Virtuous actions purify the mind and intellect and help the soul to be closer to the Supreme Divine and lead to a birth with higher consciousness/conscientiousness. Evil actions hinder this recognition of the Supreme Divine, and the soul takes lower forms of worldly life. Therefore, Hinduism teaches, one should try to behave in a virtuous manner as much as possible, so that one will develop good habits and tendencies both in this and the next life. Over the course of time, if one can sufficiently purify one's mind, one can attain the goal of life: experience of the highest truth, which is God.
As per Hinduism doctrines, the immortal soul leaves the body and the soul accepts new body in accordance with Karmas and Desires of previous birth/births. Intellect and mind move along with the soul and so the new body exhibit tendencies of previous birth/births ( i.e. pious, evil, selfish, vengeful, selfless, noble etc.) and also reflect same intellectual level. Further, humans only possess the developed intellect (ability to think and assess) and the human body possesses necessary limbs (Karmendriyas)[ ability to speak, hear, read and do actions by hands ] to carry out actions leading to realisation of God, so the humans must endeavour to merge with The Infinite. When a person fails to merge with The Infinite, the sublimated intellect and mind move along with The Soul in each life and usually The Soul gets the human body to carry on the journey of merging with The Infinite in subsequent births. This doctrines imbibe in Hindus to be alert on the matter of journey towards The Infinite and involve in such actions which if fail to merge the soul with The Infinite after the death, at least reward with next life as humans.
User:Ksolway 13 November 2006 (UTC)
There needs to be an explanation of the interpretation of reincarnation which sees it as a means of talking about cause and effect, which some people call "the esoteric interpretation" because it involves no literal reincarnation.
I don't see this understanding of reincarnation explained anywhere in the current article.
Under what heading and where do you suggest this explanation should be placed in the article?
I suggest the following:
"There is an interpretation of reincarnation that does not involve literal rebirth. In this interpretation, reincarnation is simply a poetic way of talking about cause and effect.
Here, reincarnation refers to the continued life of the imputed I, the ego, which is a false thought, or ignorance. Just as one lights a candle from the flame of another, so are false thoughts passed from person to person. These thoughts are false because they believe they experience loss and gain, life and death. It is because these thoughts believe in life and death, they are said to be caught in the cycle of repeated birth and death.
The Buddha famously explains this esoteric interpretation in "The Questions of Kutananda", where he explains in detail the process of reincarnation when a candle flame is used to light another candle.
Some quotations which reflect the esoteric interpretion:
"If I can see further than others, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants." - Isaac Newton
"One sows and another reaps." - The Bible: John 4:37
"No man, not even a married man, can know definitely how many children he leaves behind him." (author unknown)
"It is a mistaken conception to think,
That I shall experience the suffering of my next life.
For it is another person who dies,
And another who will be reborn." - Shantideva ("Guide to the bodhisattva's way of life")
"Children do not have as much fun in childhood as adults do in adultery." - Spike Milligan
Response (Ksolway): In that case I propose distinguishing between the exoteric (common) and esoteric interpretations of reincarnation, within the Buddhist category. Most Buddhists believe in the more traditional type reincarnation, which is linear. For example, Tibetan Buddhists believe that the current Dalai Lama is the reincarnation of the former, in a narrowly linear line, from one life to the next. By contrast, the esotericists hold that reincarnation goes in strict accordance with the pattern of cause and effect, which is not narrowly linear. For example, "One sows and another reaps", which is not narrowly linear, and is explained in "The Questions of Kutananda" (link above).
The problem here is that the esoteric view is not limited to Buddhism, but is universally held. For example, by those in advaita vedanta, who do not believe in the duality of lives, or the duality of life and death.
For that reason I propose a separate category for the universal, esoteric interpretation.
Your views appreciated.
Response (Ksolway): You are right that the word "esoteric" implies something which is "confined to and understandable by only an enlightened inner circle". But should truths/ideas be excluded from an encyclopaedia just because only wise or informed people understand them? I don't think so.
For example, since very few people really know "God" (if any), then there should be no entry for "God". And since very few people understand quantum physics, there should be no entry for quantum physics - since the only people who can verify the truth of these things are those in the "enlightened inner circle".
However I will think about editing the Buddhist section in some minor way to emphasise the non-linear, non-simplistic understanding of reincarnation.