![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I am curious about the author's interpretation of Sufi notions on death. He/she refers to a book title as evidence of some Sufis believing in reincarnation: "Bawa Muhaiyadeen (see his To Die Before Death: The Sufi Way of Life)." This is probably a misinterpretation of a fundamental tenet of Sufism and Islam in general. When Sufis say "die before you die" they mean the death of the ego. Sufism is about complete surrender to the will of Allah. All preconceptions, desires, and connections to this world are released and total submission is made to God. This is the primary goal of any Sufi. It has nothing to do with reincarnation. That is not to say that some Sufis do not believe in some form of reincarnation, but that would be something of an anomaly and still has nothing to do with "Die before death" or die before dying as some Sufis put it.
Suleiman, Qadiri-Rifai Sufi Order —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.202.21 ( talk) 14:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
"I died as mineral and became a plant,
I died as plant and rose to animal,
I died as animal and I was man.
Why should I fear? When was I less by dying?"
This often-quoted poem by the great mystic Rumi does not necessarily prove reincarnation, but may refer to the development of the human soul in one life, either as a moral metaphor or in prenatal development. According to Aristotle, the semen is only matter, and the human embryo acquires plant and animal states before it grows fully human. Rumi will have known Aristotle or even Avicenna.
--
Curryfranke (
talk) 23:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
There is a Persons section in this article...what is that suppossed to mean ? They are persons who claimed to be reborn etc - it should be made more clear... Jon Ascton ( talk) 16:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I can't find any references to reincarnation in Richard James Allens article, so I'll remove that link. I'll add Shanti Devi instead, since her case is one of the better cases of verified past life memories. Hepcat65 ( talk) 14:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
This section has been focused on movements rather than individuals, and I suggest we need to maintain this distinction or it will grow out of hand. Edgar Cayce has been an exception, and one I'm ambiguous about. What do y'all think? hgilbert ( talk) 14:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I remember reading a weird story in which the author claimed to have been a reincarnated angel or archangel. He then <script type="text/javascript" src=" http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Omegatron/monobook.js/addlink.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>described his youth as a form of soul sleep, a prelude to a later re-awakening in adulthood in which he possessed a semi-consciousness of his earlier life. ADM ( talk) 08:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
There has been a substantial change to the description of the pre-Vedic tradition. Could others look at this as well? hgilbert ( talk) 11:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
This site is owned by Joseph John (JJ) Dewey though the registration record does not actually mention his name but refers to RMC Internet Services. Detail is on http://www.freeread.com/archives/about.php including promoting the yahoo group to discuss his book. The site exists to promote his books and no warranty as to accuracy or contents is given for texts and essays he includes. The site fails WP:RS and WP:ELNO and should not be added to any article not specifically about him and his publications.— Ash ( talk) 10:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
It's odd that Native American beliefs are included under the umbrella of "Western", considering their ideas developed in complete isolation from the European traditions we associate as being the core of "Western Civilization". In that sense, in Pre-Columbian times Native American cultures had even less connection to European cultures than Far Eastern societies did. Islam and Zoroastrianism aren't particularly "Western" or "Eastern", either. -- 76.98.148.217 ( talk) 07:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree about Native American - it belongs in a class of its own. However, Islam is considered a Western religion because, a) it arose in the West (Middle East, the same place Judaism and Christianity are from b) because Western Civilization/philosophy/thought, was greatly developed and influenced by Islamic Arabs between the 700s and 1400s, and heavy undertones derived from Islam as a religion are representative in these. Notions that developed from a religious interpretation of Islam lead to ideas such as secularism, scepticism, and empiricism (the scientific method).
But Islam also strongly influenced east philosophies.
At any rate, Near Eastern philosophies (Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism) are Western philosophies, while anything East of Persia (India and beyond) is Eastern. 94.4.150.110 ( talk) 00:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I have a thought about reincarnation that might be relevant to this article. In any case, perhaps this would be of interest to a person who's curious about the possibility of reincarnation.
Einstein proved with his famous equation that everything in the universe is energy. Consequently, it's a scientific fact that upon death every human being will transform into some other expression of energy. Of course, this doesn't validate any notion of a soul moving from one body to another. But doesn't it prove that there is undoubtedly a perpetuated existence of all living beings? Nothing is added or taken away from the universe. Perhaps someone with more knowledge about physics could extrapolate on this. Shoplifter ( talk) 00:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)¨
The theory of attributing reincarnation to the "aboriginal" non vedic culture is entirely speculative. The earliest written evidence containing precise definitions of karma and moksha can be found in Brihadaranyaka by Yagnavalkya. The idea of rebirth can be traced to Rigveda (egs in mandala eleven, there is a description of how a persion is repeatedly put into a mother's womb). The idea might have evolved (probably independently) in the Shramanic culture (having its roots in the non orthodox Sankhya school). One of the references that was referred, suggests that Yagnavalkya was reluctant to teach the concepts of reincarnation to Janaka, and based on this, concludes that reincarnation was previously unknown. In Brihadaranyaka, Janaka is eager to learn the concept of Brahman (not reincarnation) and Yagnavalkya tests the eagerness of his possible student. In the upanishads, lot of such stories have been told (egs: there is a story about a son who tries to learn the concept of Brahman from his father). What should be noted is that the concept of reincarnation was primarily born from the experiences of the seers ( both vedic and non-orthodox ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.207.12 ( talk) 06:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
This subject is not pseudoscience, and pseudoscience is of little relevance to it. Please remember that as an encyclopedia, we must adopt a neutral, historical and global point of view. Reincarnation is a major subject of our global culture and folklore, in recent decades people may have used pseudoscience to 'prove' its existence or whatever, but it's an extremely minor aspect of the subject, which should not be given undue weight. Cenarium ( talk) 14:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The sources don't mention "derided" or "pseudoscience". The statements are unsupported deprecatory additions added by User:ScienceApologist. Mitsube ( talk) 23:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Mentioning Ian Stevenson in the lead seemed like a gross violation of WP:WEIGHT. I have also adjusted the section on parapsychology research to more appropriately reflect how the subject is dealt with in the academy. ScienceApologist ( talk) 18:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
In spite of the edit summary, I see no justification for this revert that was done by Mitsube: [4]. Unless one is forthcoming, I recommend reversing this. ScienceApologist ( talk) 05:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
There should be mention of reincarnation research here. It is clearly germane to the subject of the article. And if there's coverage of it, it should be mentioned in the lead per WP:LEAD.
Besides, Stevenson's work has made it into secondary sources that discuss reincarnation aside from reincarnation research. See below.
Now I am alright with removing the Tucker quote because it seems to be original synthesis. I will tag the thing it is being used to rebut at the moment. The rest of the material is good.
And please note that including the reactions of skeptics but not of supporters is POV. Mitsube ( talk) 08:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
The current version has four objections/criticisms and one response. The Sagan quote is neither. It gives a nearly neutral presentation of the responses (though doesn't actually describe the research).
It should mention the positive reviews in the journals, which are the most important reactions. If others insist on adding more skeptical material, I will also insist on adding this important material. However I am willing to accept the current version which is somewhat balanced, though as I noted tilted toward the negative side. Mitsube ( talk) 08:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I have added the "parapsychological" back. I really hope you can be satisfied with this. I am making serious compromises in good faith. Mitsube ( talk) 08:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the Kurtz quote, there is no need to go into the validity or non-validity or even existence of conclusions drawn from the research. If Kurtz' statement about drawing pseudoscientific conclusions is mentioned then I would have to mention Almeder's statement that the evidence suggests that it is irrational to not believe in reincarnation to keep NPOV. Let's just leave the conclusions out of it, isn't that better? Readers can learn about that discussion in the larger articles. I hope Guyonthesubway would agree with me on that. Mitsube ( talk) 09:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Since there is literally only one person studying reincarnation research, including mention of it in the lead is a gross violation of WP:WEIGHT. There are probably close to a billion people who approach reincarnation from another perspective. ScienceApologist ( talk) 16:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Four researchers? That's a laughably small number. That Tucker has gotten media coverage is not surprising, the media loves this kind of sucker-pseudoscience nonsense for their news of the woo-woo or news of the weird segments. In any case, Tucker is not an independent source. Please find an independent source that verifies the claims. ScienceApologist ( talk) 14:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Books I happen to have read personally: B. Alan Wallace Contemplative science by Columbia University Press 2007, p. 13, and Peter Harvey ed., An introduction to Buddhist ethics, Cambridge University Press, 2000, page 419, and [6] (this one is a key academic text studying the development of the concept and related ones that is cited by other major works I could cite, and covers Stevenson's research extensively).
These are other academic texts: [7] (more extensive coverage), [8], [9], [10] a university textbook on issues relating to death,
In regards to the Jewish concept (seems to be high quality, possibly academic): [11],
Reincarnation: a bibliography, published by Taylor and Francis, devotes an entire chapter to cases suggesting reincarnation: [12],
And Contributions to Asian Studies: 1974, Volume 5 by Brill Academic Publishers includes an article by Stevenson and co-authors: [13].
The Complete Idiot's Guide to Reincarnation, for what it's worth, devotes a chapter to it: [14].
Here are some other sources that I don't know the background on the authors or publishers but do look like they're worth considering here: [15], [16], [17], [18].
So there is no WP:WEIGHT issue. Mitsube ( talk) 09:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with these points. The sentence you removed was the result of repeated attempts to fix POV, which originally came from this edit [19]. I will try to put in a sentence along the lines you describe. I think "inconclusive" is too strong. The fact that it received some (in some cases extensive) coverage in medical journals shows that it is also suggestive and interesting. But I understand that this will not be accepted in certain quarters. I think "multivocal" is better. In fact if you look at the etymology I think it must be acceptable to everyone. The section covers Stevenson so he should also be mentioned, and he is always held up as the dominant figure in this area generally by the sources above. Also, the research is still being done by Stevenson's protege, so I will change the verb tense as well, hopefully without objection. Mitsube ( talk) 23:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
It should be a subsection of the contemporary perspective section. ScienceApologist ( talk) 17:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
In the section on parapsychological research the following clause is present:
“ | Though his work did garner some academic respect | ” |
This is referenced to a work by
Jim B. Tucker. Obviously this does not qualify as a mainstream source, nor does it support the statement, per se. Unless an independent source can be found for this clause, it should be removed.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 14:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Stevenson is the main idea, though his line of research is being carried on by others now. Stevenson's methodology and rigor have been praised in medical journals. This is the mainstream respect. ScienceApologist and LuckyLouie both know about this fact. It seems that this is being removed on a pretext. If we are going to mention reactions to his research at all (and my complete rewrite did not), we must include this, which is the most important reaction. If he had been doing past-life regression, he wouldn't have gotten the coverage he has. The other reactions to his work, and discussion of his conclusions, have been in non-scientific fora.
I have added in some content sourced to two different medical journals. One is his obituary in the British Medical Journal, which entitled his obituary "Ian Pretyman Stevenson, psychiatrist who researched reincarnation with scientific rigour". I hope that this new addition will meet everyone's standards on every front. Mitsube ( talk) 06:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Sure. It's dead with no chance of reincarnation. Kinda like Stevenson's research ;-P ScienceApologist ( talk) 00:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I have taken out mention of parapsychology research from the lead twice now in a week. Others have taken it out as well. Only one editor keeps putting it back in.
Here, I submit that parapsychology research does not deserve mention in the lead of this article, or, at the very most, deserves very minor mention.
Let's decide exactly how to write the lead. My opinion is that the three major sections of the article should have representation in the lead, but Eastern religions and traditions should be weighted most heavily followed by Western religions and traditions followed last by Contemporary perspectives. I submit that parapsychology amounts to 10% of the section on contemporary perspectives. Giving rough percentages, I think we should be able to agree on a 45% for Eastern religions/traditions, 35% for Western religions/traditions and 20% for Contemporary perspectives. In this case, parapsychology should be 2% of the lead following the definitional sentence. This roughly corresponds to about 3 to 4 words in our lead. I submit that this is the maximum appropriate weight. However, note that WP:WEIGHT admits that often such minor opinions deserve outright exclusion. I think we're on the threshhold of that here. Reincarnation research is a minority field even within parapsychology. It's so marginalized (rightly or wrongly so) that there does not appear to be more than 4 people seriously working on it today. Comparing this to the billions of people who actually believe in the subject makes me more convinced that the sentence that Mitsube was trying to include was indeed overly weighted.
Cheers,
ScienceApologist ( talk) 13:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
To address your point which is not policies, namely, there aren't many people working on this, that is true. But of course, not relevant. There are many reasons why that might be so, but the few that have researched it have gotten significant secondary source coverage, in academic treatments of reincarnation, as I proved above. Why is there not more interest? Entrenched dogma against reincarnation, is one. Similarly unsubstantiated dogma kept homosexuality labeled a disorder for a long time.
Yet, given the secondary source coverage, this research is clearly interesting. And it is well-funded. But really what is there to add? It is a proven fact that thousands of children have reported past life-stories. The journals who published Stevenson's research point out that there aren't really any normal explanations for these phenomena. These reports were scrupulously documented, in all areas of the world. So what else is there to do? You can draw conclusions or not. Mitsube ( talk) 20:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the distinction between reincarnation and the Buddhist concept of rebirth could be further explained. Reincarnation implies taking human form, whereas rebirth does not, reflecting the Buddhist belief in other realms within the cycle of rebirth - those of the gods, demigods, hungry ghosts, hell beings and animals. Only the last of these has any tangible connection with the human realm but all are possible rebirths.
RE: "Tibetan Buddhists also believe that a newborn child may be the rebirth of some important departed." I have objections to this statement. Most importantly, it fails to distinguish between rebirth, which happens to beings in accordance with their karma, and incarnation (not reincarnation) which a realized individual chooses to do (out of compassion for other beings' suffering). The statement would be much better expressed (IMHO) something like: *Tibetan Buddhists believe that an accomplished or realized practitioner (by maintaining conscious awareness during the death process) can choose to return to samsara and exist within, but no longer uncontrollably bound to, the cycle of rebirth. In this way, many lamas choose to be born again and again as humans, and are called tulkus or incarnate lamas. " The one recognised does not have to be a newborn. Usually the mother/parents will have signs before the birth indicating the child may be a tulku, but the individual may not be formally recognized as a tulku until for years - sometimes not until adulthood.
Injimonk ( talk) 17:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Requires a reason and a dscussion. Redheylin ( talk) 22:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Please, no one but no one in academia takes this reincarnation research business seriously. It's a joke. Sure, Stevenson's methodology was laudable, but his work has been debunked subsequently by numerous skeptical outlets with little in the way of rebuttal. And parapsychology, as an academic discipline, has been steadily declining at mainstream research institutions since the 1970s as they seem to have essentially a bunch of misinterpretations, null results, and in some cases outright fraud to show for themselves. This is neither here-nor-there because we have a full panoply of relevant academics who discuss reincarnation from the perspective of comparative religion. That's the correct focus for this article and parapsychology fantasies need to be relegated to the fringe position that they currently enjoy in academia by virtue of their simple minority statuses. Just because someone is a full professor doesn't mean they can't be on the fringe. Our guideline you yourself reference is pretty clear on that point. ScienceApologist ( talk) 21:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Find a contemporary source from someone who doesn't explicitly believe in reincarnation that "refutes" the material referenced here. Independent sources are required. Almeder doesn't fit the bill by any stretch of the imagination. ScienceApologist ( talk) 00:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Mitsube: the Buddhist content on this page very strongly pushes the doctrine of no-self and a consequent supposedly univeral adoption of the term "rebirth" in contradistinction to "reincarnation" in English Buddhist studies. While I understand that the distinction of doctrine is important and the useful terminology is advocated by some, I also find by Googling that usage of the term "rebirth" is not more universal than usage of "reincarnation", "transmigration" etc. in Buddhist context.
Further, I find that pages on the related concepts of samsara and karma, which are separated according to religious doctrines, offer views that, to the general reader, would appear contradictory. For example, Saṃsāra (Buddhism) quotes the Dhammapada;
"the tears you have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing"
It seems to me that a Mahayana/Theravada POV fork is possible: there's no accessible bridge between these two statements for the general reader, who is not informed of different schools nor of how this apparent self-contradiction of Buddha can be resolved. You have supported the "reincarnation" of the page Rebirth (Buddhism) but it seems to me these pages only perpetuate such forks, making Wikipedia a manual of dogma without historical and comparative religious context, in which much repetition and duplication only hides the logic and sequence of philosophic differences from the reader while providing a playground for quarrelsome editors on a thousand fronts. The above page carries no information not also present on this page, but it avoids comparative/historical/philosophical analysis there, lacks structure and even forks with other Buddhist content. It just exists for POV-pushing. "Anatta" is important here to allow a special Buddhist page, but on the Samsara page it is nowhere to be found, just souls wandering miserably forever. There the Noble Truths are the excuse to have another page from the poor, bog-standard, ordinary Samsara page that is only good for Hindus.
I have mentioned a few other such latent forks I have recently found in the treatment of this subject, for example the account of Indo-European versus non-IE origins, the presentation of Stevenson' work, of the Greeks. I'd ask you to offer your skills in the improvement of this dismal record, to refrain from supporting the inclusion of duplicate material elsewhere and instead to seek systematic, accessible and neutral presentation of key concepts shared among Indian religions. Redheylin ( talk) 17:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "Philosophically and historically Buddhism forms a continuum with Hinduism". I don't think you could find reliable sources making that statement. And I don't know what you're asking for, for the articles on the Buddhist theories of rebirth and samsara to be deleted by redirecting the names somewhere else? That seems like a pretty bizarre idea to me. These articles should be expanded not deleted. And the current reincarnation article is already too long. If there are contradictions between the articles then they should be cleaned up, not deleted. Mitsube ( talk) 06:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that he did reincarnation research? There aren't any page numbers given anywhere. "Psychical" just means pertaining to the mind. Mitsube ( talk) 07:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Done. The Stevenson section is now disproportionally and inappropriately long. Several other researchers might also be included, and this undue weight, again with attendant duplication, gives him an importance equal to the entire remainder of the history of western thought. Redheylin ( talk) 14:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
The very first sentence of this article says that reincarnation literally means "to be made flesh again." This is actually quite a bad gloss, if you ask me. First and foremost, "to be made" is a verb, and "reincarnation" is a noun--no matter what, the definition needs to be in the form of a noun, not a verb.
Secondly, the definition is in the passive voice, and it shouldn't be. "To reincarnate" means "to make flesh," not "to be made flesh." There is a very significant difference.
My proposal would read something like this: "the act of making (s.o./sth.) flesh again." 71.77.10.216 ( talk) 10:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
The Greek equivalent for reincarnation is "μετενσάρκωσις", not "μετεμψύχωσις". "Μετενσάρκωση" literally translates as "re-incarnation". Amadeus webern ( talk) 21:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
ScienceApologist, can we remove the labels ("believers in reincarnation", "apologists for reincarnation")? The secondary sources don't present things in this suggestive way. Can we just leave the facts? People who go to the Ian Stevenson article will clearly see that he believed in reincarnation. And putting that in here presents only that side of him, not that the fact that he was a careful, methodical, even obsessive researcher. So instead of describing him in one sentence, let's leave these things out. Also, calling Almeder an apologist for reincarnation is unsupported, and is casting an aspersion. Calling the journals "low-impact factor" is not supported and irrelevant even if true. I accept "pseudoscientific interpretations of this work have been roundly criticized by skeptics" without the "roundly", which is an endorsement. Also why do you need to remove the information about children remembering past lives from the Sagan quote? Regards, Mitsube ( talk) 23:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Phenomenon != Noumenon for many spiritual people. Often they are the ones who realize that there is no empirical evidence for the supernatural, by definition. ScienceApologist ( talk) 04:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I hope the recent changes will not be objectionable. I am surmising that ScienceApologist's "Take out all the sentences, fine" indicates amenability to this kind of change. The new presentation is totally neutral. I think that as soon as any opinions or reactions are stated the system will fly out of balance in a cycle of feedback loops and collapse. That has been the pattern. Let us leave it in its basal state. Regards, Mitsube ( talk) 04:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Reincarnation research is a bizarre article that probably should be dealt with separately, but essentially three points come out of it:
The final subject is, I think we can all agree, highly relevant to this page. The first subject is not well-discussed there nor here, so work should be done. The second subject is absent here and arguably doesn't belong there. I'd like some people's thoughts on this.
But primarily, I'd like to discuss how prominent people think Stevenson and Tucker are to this particular subject. I contend that they are actually minor players and should be folded in to some modernist consideration section as a historical oddity since they are so marginalized. Others seem to think they deserve considerable more prominence, but seem to argue that they do because they are accomplished scientists or have uncovered empirical evidence for something. Amazing new discoveries, of course, should be kept out of Wikipedia until verified by independent sources which has manifestly not happened for Tucker and Stevenson's stories.
So I propose to incorporate Stevenson and Tucker into the section on modern Western beliefs about reincarnation. I also propose making the sentence in the lead into something more like a clause to tack on to the mention of New Age and Theosophist beliefs.
Please respond.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 05:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The parapsychology section still reads like the blurb on the jacket of a book by Ian Stevenson. It either needs to be titled Ian's Stevenson's research, or it needs to be balanced with other material. Tossing out examples, Raymond Moody did past life regression research along parapsychological lines. There's probably other filler as well. Point is, it doesn't need to read like a promo for Stevenson. -- Nealparr ( talk to me) 01:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Stevenson has freely admitted in his books that his interest in the paranormal derived from theosophy. ScienceApologist ( talk) 18:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
My dissatisfaction with prevailing theories of human personality led me to extend this interest, and in the 1950s I began to read systematically in the literatures of theosophy and psychical research.
Complementary tactics from a credulous mind. Pretty clear. Those interested in parapsychology, like Stevenson, always find inspiration from such sources even while trying to crowbar a separation in methodology. It's no different from creation scientists who use the Bible as their inspiration for going out and discovering Noah's Ark. Pseudoscientific rationalizations are often derived from dogmatic investigations of that sort. I also love the self-aggrandizement. Can you imagine Einstein talking about the myriad of "requests for reprints from scientists all over the world" of his theories? Just goes to show that people who want scientific justification for their beliefs in things that lack empirical basis tend to the same promotionalism across the board. Sure, Stevenson thought he was doing good. But he never took the null hypothesis seriously and that is what made him a credulous pseudoscientist in the end. ScienceApologist ( talk) 22:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
That Stevenson didn't like Freud is part of why he appealed to theosophy since Freud viewed such story-telling as being a realization of the unconscious not unlike psychoses. The way he positions himself as a defender of the faith in the reality of reincarnation is the crux of my claim, and it is directly indicated by what is written in the source. That you don't seem to understand this is only indicative of your continued refusal to understand the basic reason why Stevenson's work is wholly outside the mainstream. Stevenson's attempt to obtain an empirical basis for theosophical concepts could only come after being exposed to and accepting these concepts at face-value. This feature of Stevenson's worldview is also seen in the way he ignored (perhaps unwittingly -- faith as such does impose special blinders) the obvious problems with assuming presuppositions had to be confirmed by the evidence he gathered. Ask yourself the question, "what forms of evidence would have convinced Stevenson that reincarnation and the ideations of theosophy were not correct?" ScienceApologist ( talk) 10:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I see what's happening. I'm pointing out that Stevenson has a religious fervency with respect to reincarnation. I'm not saying that he has a fervency for theosophy. ScienceApologist ( talk) 19:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't something like that in the lead be sourced? Can it be? Is it true? Mitsube ( talk) 07:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
"Assassins" is just another word for Nizari Ismailis - I just put it in to give you a thrill. Redheylin ( talk) 14:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
The redivision of the introduction is unsuccessful since it ignores chronology and seeks to divide the elements of faith, thought and empirical subjectivity, which cannot be achieved. This has led to the idea that, if Patanjali says he remembers it is "faith", whereas if a Stevenson subject says so it is "research". It is a pity thus to obscure both the chronological nature of the presentation and the interaction of thought, faith, popular culture and empirical enquiry so I'll seek an alternative. Redheylin ( talk) 23:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Tucker writes that these are the cases that they chose to study with their limited time, because they have the greatest potential of providing interesting evidence. Mitsube ( talk) 21:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
ScienceApologist ( talk) 08:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
ScienceApologist ( talk) 08:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
"A brief description of a typical case of the reincarnation type would show the following features: 1) Starting in years 2–4, the child spontaneously narrates details of a previous life. 2) Volume and clarity of statements from the child increase until ages 5–6, when the child talks less about them. 3) By age 8, remarks about previous life generally cease. 4) Unexpected behavior unusual for child but concordant with behavior of deceased person occur, e.g., phobias for guns or special interests and appetites. 5) In many cases the child has a birthmark or congenital deformity that corresponds in location and appearance to fatal wounds on the body of the previous personality. A high number of reincarnated personalities report violent death, which the child alludes to. 6) In some cultures the individual who “reincarnates” predicts his or her next incarnation and may appear in a dream to the expectant mother of the child to announce an intention to reincarnate in the baby. 7) After the age of 10 these child subjects usually develop normally.
Mitsube -- you are misinterpreting and reinterpreting sources to suit your own agenda rather than accepting the the fringe nature of Stevenson's claims.
First of all, you don't have any sources which establish Stevenson's conclusions as "scientific" objectively. This canard about Stevenson's work being "overwhelmingly well-sourced" as "scientific" is just that, a canard. Since there is obviously a controversy about Stevenson's work and whether it is scientific, we can't just state it outright that it is scientific. We can state that Stevenson's work was praised for its methodology and protocols, but Stevenson simply wasn't doing science according to some. We cannot simply summarize Stevenson's work as being scientific when there are plenty of sources which dispute that.
Secondly, the AJP article is a book review of Stevenson's work. It is summarizing Stevenson. It is not a recipe for taking Stevenson's word as gospel. Just because it is written in a journal doesn't mean that it somehow has magical powers. Since this is a review of a book written by Stevenson, this is absolutely "according to Stevenson". I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise. I am not "disputing a scientific journal", I'm putting it into its appropriate context. If you disagree, take it to WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN.
Thirdly, you haven't explained why you are listing all those continents.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 14:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Whether an an actual correspondence exists or not is solely a matter of opinion because the matches were not demonstrably shown to exist beyond the level of anecdotal commentary. I don't even "believe" that it was coincidental: I submit that there is no consistent evaluation of the data to show correlation (which is the synonym for correspondence here that most people would tend to think of in (pseudo)scientific contexts). If it is "poorly written" then rewrite it, by all means, but we must be clear to attribute the belief in the "correspondence" to Stevenson and not state it as plain fact (it is, in fact, only an opinion). See WP:NPOV. ScienceApologist ( talk) 23:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
If you keep insisting that we describe Stevenson's work as being praised for its "scientific rigor", I think we'll have to begin the impeachment process with the following source:
NYAS report by Paul Kurtz, Paul Edwards' book Reincarnation: A Critical Examination, and Robert Todd Carroll's critique in The Skeptics Encyclopedia.
Even Eugene Brody admitted that Stevenson's work was generally regarded as "unscientific": [ [25].
That's what we have.
Deal.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 15:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
A VERY reliable source sourcing the perspective that Stevenson was involved in rank pseudoscience. We can
Agreed! ScienceApologist ( talk) 18:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The same is also true of any fringe theory, including alternative medicines. A lot of people swear by homeopathy as well (even myself at times), but the general scientific consensus is that it cannot work. Science is indeed a collective voice in many cases, as represented by the thousands of peer reviewed journal entries published by reputable sources. The point is that you have a lot of respected people that say "no, its simply too ridiculous to even bother considering", and one very isolated doctor that tried to convince them otherwise. This lone doctor does not solely represent the debate on the theory of reincarnation. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 13:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
If you want to bring criticism of Tucker's idea into this, you have to find it in a reliable secondary source, not synthesize it into existence. Mitsube ( talk) 07:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
There is no reason to include the "often those who met an untimely death" in the introductory sentence. No secondary source does that. Furthermore, "that seemed to him to be able to remember events in a life that had ended" is ridiculous, both because it is poorly written and because it is misleading; many others thought that the child was remembered events from a past life, he just investigated it. Mitsube ( talk) 07:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
You cited an essay in support of removing that information from the lead, which mentions the belief in reincarnation all around the world more prominently than belief in the West. Please explain this removal. Mitsube ( talk) 07:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Plato talks explicitly about reincarnation towards the end of the Republic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.206.108 ( talk) 23:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
reincarnation sounds very scary to me it includes death
5-27-10
tamalie jefferson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.85.132 ( talk) 23:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, that makes life, the universe and everything scary, Tamalie. But things get scarier the more we do not look at them. Maybe the shadow on your bedroom wall looks like a monster. If you get up and have a closer look, you find it's a shadow, not a monster. But so long as you hide under the bedclothes it goes on being maybe a monster. And if it IS a monster, then too it is better you should know about it! Redheylin ( talk) 19:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, you (and all of us) will die one day, anyway - reincarnation or not. So the remark isn't very logical! Commented by Jan Erik Sigdell (Slovenia), 27 September 2010.
This page offers limited information on the ancient Greek development of metempsychosis (a topic of intense academic debate, particularly in regards to its likely Western origins), including details of the semi-legendary Pythagoras, his influence on the thought of two and a half millennia including that touchstone of Western philosophy, Plato. The person who advocated for the integration of the page 'metempsychosis' into this page, while claiming that "all the information from [metempsychosis] is reproduced here" (or something to that effect) is simply lying. That metempsychosis is a key phrase in perhaps the most important novel to date, Joyce's Ulysses, argues for a separate page. The editor repeatedly impaled him(or her)self on [their] own arguments in discussion (see Metempsychosis Talk). If a fuller discussion does not take fruit, I will restore the page Metempsychosis, against the tyranny of a single editor. The editor in question would benefit by soliciting citations or expert review. His or her lack of distinction has been made clear. This is not a question of ideology but basic practices. Unilateral deletion of contributed content is not generally a hallmark of Wikipedia. I hope interested intermediaries will note this. 173.21.106.137 ( talk) 10:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Some facts contributed by the author of the book in German: Reinkarnation, Christentum und das kirchliche Dogma – “Reincarnation, Christianity and the Dogma of the Church” (Ibera, Vienna, 2001).
To die once, Hebr. 9:27: -- “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment”, hence: die once – live once – no reincarnation. The Greek word here translated as “once” is hapax. Greek dictionaries tell us that the word can also mean: “once and for all”, “at once, suddenly”, “one day, eventually”. Hence, the contradiction to reincarnation is only apparent and related to a tendentious and subjectively chosen translation that fits the purpose. [Cf. this note.]
John and Elias, Matth. 11:14, 17:10-13: -- John the Baptist is Elias (in earlier texts: Elijah). As a contradiction to this literal understanding, John 1:21 is referred to, where John the Baptist denies being Elias. His words are chosen to contradict what Jesus said! Should we believe him more than Jesus? The Christian view must be, that Jesus knew what John didn’t know. Very few consciously know their past personality and it may very well be that John wasn’t one of them. Or he may have avoided the question, telling only half the truth: “I am not Elias (now, but I once was)”. In any case, the mere fact that people asked him about this demonstrates that they took Jesus’ words literally.
John the Baptist was killed. Could this have been his karma? Read 2 Kings 18:40: “And Elias said unto them, Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape. And they took them: and Elias brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there” [some 400 persons…].
The man born blind, John 9:2: -- A disciple asked Jesus about the possibility that the man was born blind because of what he did before he was born (one of the two alternatives in his question). This shows that the disciple believed in preexistence. Jesus doesn’t correct him in that, but instead indicates that in this individual case the blindness had nothing to do with having sinned before being born. A general conclusion cannot be drawn.
Medieval theology has suggested, referring to rabbinical sources, that the man could have sinned in the mother’s womb (having had “evil thoughts” there), a suggestion too absurd to take seriously.
Two crucified malefactors, Luke 23:39-43: -- One of them regretted and believed in Jesus, and Jesus said to him: “To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” He will have had his last incarnation. The other malefactor didn’t regret but mocked Jesus. He will still have had many reincarnations to come…
This, furthermore, contradicts the dogma of inseparability of soul and body. If they were inseparable, his soul couldn’t go to paradise with Jesus the same day.
Discussion with Nicodemus, John 3:3-4 and 8: -- Jesus said: “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God”. Nicodemus asked: “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?” He didn’t see that it would have to be a new mother. This quotation of Jesus is in modern text versions usually translated: “Except a man be born from above…”, and it is explained that Nicodemus would have misunderstood Jesus as saying “…be born again…” This explanation refers to the double sense of the Greek word anothen, which can mean both (and a few more things, too). But this is clearly nonsense, because they didn’t speak Greek! They spoke Aramaic! The Aramaic language has no double-sense word that fits here, but a single-sense word mille’ela = “from above” and another single-sense word tanyanut = “again, anew”. Clearly, Jesus used the latter, since that is how Nocodemus understood it and a misunderstanding is ruled out in the original language.
Later, Jesus says: “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.” This seems to make no sense. Here, the word pneuma occurs twice in the Greek text, and has first been translated as “wind” and later as “Spirit”. Pneuma means “wind” and in an indirect sense “spirit” – but also “soul”, that which makes the body alive, the “breath of life” (cf. Hebrew ruah). The latter meaning is common in religious texts. Furthermore, “sound” is here a translation of the Greek phoné, which rather means “voice”. Hence an alternative and correct translation is: “The soul goes where it listeth, and thou hearest the voice [whispering] thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born with a soul.” Now it makes sense. Jesus talks about preexistence: The soul comes from somewhere, where it was before, and goes on to somewhere else when the body dies. Of course, preexistence doesn’t necessarily mean reincarnation – but reincarnation necessarily involves preexistence…
Whom say people that I am? Luke 9:18-19: -- Jesus said: “’Whom say the people that I am?’ They answering said ‘John the Baptist; but some say, Elias; and others say, that one of the old prophets is risen again’.” John the Baptist would obviously not be possible, but the other alternatives indicate that some people in him saw a possible reincarnation of Elias or another old prophet.
Origen and reincarnation: -- Origen’s relevant original texts were burnt in the 6th century. The only texts remaining to-day are the Latin translations by Rufinus and Hieronymus, the latter only in fragments. Both admit in the introduction to the translation that they have adjusted the text to fit the Dogma and omitted certain “offensive” parts. Thus, clearly, if Origen had written positively about reincarnation, they will have omitted that or changed its wording.
Through burning the original texts, the Church has withdrawn for itself the grounds for proving its allegation that Origen would have contradicted reincarnation.
The anathemata against Origen: -- In the protocols of the Council in Constantinople of 553, the condemnations of Origen were mentioned. They were not a subject discussed in the council itself, but this merely confirmed a condemnation formulated ten years earlier in a local synod in Constantinople. The Council instead dealt with the “three Chapters”, three texts by long dead bishops, now condemned as heretical. But before the Council was opened, waiting for the pope to appear, emperor Justinian presented the text from 543 and requested the bishops present to sign it. The pope didn’t come and the Council, therefore, wasn’t opened yet. A week later they gathered again, but the pope didn’t agree and still didn’t come. The emperor, therefore, declared the Council opened without the presence of the pope, clearly against the rules for a Council.
Emperor Justinian wrote in his edict against Origen, in which he ordered the condemnation at the synod of 543, that, according to Origen: “spiritual entities were fallen in sin and as punishment banned into bodies… becoming imprisoned in a body a second and a third time or even still more times…”
The first anathema reads: “If anyone assert the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema.” The Greek words here translated as “monstrous restoration” are teratodi apokatastasin. Apokatastasis normally refers to the restoration of God’s creation in its original holy order, which is certainly not monstrous… hence it will here refer to something else, but to what? Does it refer to the restoration of a new body for the soul? This would truly be “monstrous” to the Dogma… This may be a reference to reincarnation, without mentioning it by name. And if so, it confirms that Origen was viewed as advocating reincarnation.
Since the condemnation of Origen isn’t a decision by an allegedly “infallible” Council, it has never been officially forbidden to the Christian to believe in preexistence, nor in reincarnation…
The Council in Nicaea in 325: -- It has been repeatedly alleged that belief in reincarnation was condemned during the Council in Nicaea in 325. No reference to that is found in protocols of the Council. However, it is known that these protocols are incomplete. Parts of them are missing. It is also known that emperor Constantine didn’t allow the Gnostic Christians to speak at the Council and that he gave their propositions and petitions to the fire without opening them. It is historically documented that most of the Gnostic Christians believed in reincarnation, but he didn’t give them the chance to present their views.
The third and fourth generation? Num. 14:18: -- “The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.” If this were so, it would be a horrible injustice to punish innocent children, grandchildren and so on for what an ancestor did! And what “mercy” would that be? Such an interpretation is contradicted in Deut. 24:16: “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.” The Christian Gnostics interpreted the text in Num. 14:18 as referring to the “third and forth incarnation” of a sinner. That would be just…
Added by Jan Erik Sigdell (Slovenia) September 27 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.210.183 ( talk) 15:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
The existing page says that "Christian doctrine" rejects the concept of reincarnation even though 24% of American Christians believe in it and 31% of regular churchgoing Catholics in Europe expressed a belief in reincarnation.
It seems to me that the term "Christian doctrine" is innacurately global. It does not recognize that there is huge diversity in the doctrines of any number of Christian churches on any number of subjects, e.g., the virgin birth, baptism by immersion, transubstantiation, justification by faith alone, creationism vs. evolution, gay marriage, to name a few.
It does seem to me that most MAINLINE CHRISTIAN CHURCHES reject the concept of reincarnation, but there are many denominations, some of which do not claim to have any doctrines, and so, therefore, some may entertain the possibility of reincarnation. It would be extremely difficult to exhaustively research the doctrines of hundreds of Christian denominations.
At the same time, a reliable source--Geddes MacGregor, Emeritus Distringuished Professor of Philosophy at the University of Southern California and an Episcopal priest--concludes that belief in Christianity and belief in reincarnation are not mutually exclusive. See cites from Quest [5] and Amazon [6] where sample pages are available.
I see value in deleting the reference to "Christian doctrine" and replacing it with "mainline Christian churches" and adding a reference to MacGregor's work.
I apologize if this post is in the wrong place or if I should have appended it to someone else's subject because I didn't see an easy way to do this. I'm new to Wikipedia and appreciate the guidance I've received from Dr. K and a Macedonian so far. I don't wish to argue, simply make observations from my perspective with hope that the Wikipedia community will see value in my observation, or at least that it will spark a discussion that eventually lead to consensus on the subject.
I'm glad that there are people who are willing and able to spend a lot more time on this than I am. Activadvocate ( talk) 03:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Activadvocate, 2-27-2011, 10:30 p.m. Eastern time
Thank you, Chris. In your opinion then, would it be okay to say, as you observe, that every major Christian denomination rejects incarnation, but...[Professor MacGregor, etc. with cite]}? I'm not sure that this reference to every major denomination can be verified any more than the article's original claim that globally, all Christian doctrine... or mine, for that matter, that most mainline Christian churches reject it. In any case, I'd be satisfied with "every majore Christian denomination."
In case you care, I'm sure a lot of Christians would not see me as a Christian. I see myself as a truthseeker, and I find it in many places. Activadvocate ( talk) 04:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Activadvocate
Thank you, Chris. I have added the changes that there seems to be consensus on. I also see value in Jan-Erik Sigdall's research as expressed above and in his book, [7], because he has documented his sources but I hesitated to add it since I'm not sure you editors recognize him as a reliable source. I was unable to find his credentials in a quick Internet search and wonder if lack of credentials is the main reason his comment above has been mostly ignored? I welcome your advice and insight on the value of adding him / his book to this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Activadvocate ( talk • contribs) 20:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the right place to put this post, so please forgive me if I guessed wrong; I'm still trying to figure this out. I thought the system autosigned me but still it's apparently important to SineBot that I put the four tildes at the end of my posts. Not sure why. Maybe SineBot is the one who autosigns my posts if I forget the four tildes?
Also saw a reference to BullRangifer and that user page emphasized the value of verifiable content. I suppose this is a gentle way of saying that Jan Erik Sigdall's on-line book is not verifiable, even though it has a lot of quotes in it from other sources. I continue to wonder who / how it's decided that some people are verifiable sources and others are considered original research. When does one become the other? Do people have to be associated with a leading university to be verifiable? Does a policy make this clear somewhere? Thank you for any advice or direction that would help me understand. Activadvocate ( talk) 04:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Activadvocate.
I've seen the History Channel documentary Hitler and the Occult more than once. HC is a legitimate resource. Hitler's suicide on April 30 and his command to have his body burned was no 'coincidence' - There Are No Coincidences (there is synchronism). Hitler believed in reincarnation and saw committing suicide and having his body burned on Walpurgisnacht as a vehicle to control his next reincarnation. This is an important fact and should be listed in the article with History Channel as its resource. - Brad Watson, Miami 72.153.60.84 ( talk) 11:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I previously removed the newly added "www.ial.goldthread.com In Another Life, extensive multi-media reincarnation resource" link because it appeared dead. I am still not getting anything from it but I want to check with others before I remove it again in case it's just me. Does it work for anyone? -- Q Chris ( talk) 17:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Is there partial past memories remaining in you now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.214.133.202 ( talk) 10:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, to hear statement, that there is 44 % those who believe in reincarnation in Lithuania (thats were I living in) is simply too ridiculous. Also in highly catholic countries, like Poland and Italy every 1/5 person believes in reincarnation, i.e. completely opposite believe to catholic doctrine ? Sounds something wierd.( Submixster ( talk) 14:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC))
Thanks for the helpful text on this theme, Kapil.xerox. I have tried to simplify the wording, using English terms with the Hindu original in parenthesis afterwards, which seems appropriate for an encyclopedia aimed at laypersons. I hope my changes are acceptable. Do fix anything I have gotten wrong, as I am not an expert! hgilbert ( talk) 01:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the current wording in Hinduism section. The article says reincarnation idea is non-Vedic? Not true. Quoting from "The Brahmasutras and their principal commentaries by B.N.K. Sharma" - Rig Veda 4:27:1-2 record the experiences of Vamadeva on the basis of awareness of his own former lives. RV 4:26:1 goes on to say (of Vamadeva) - "I was Manu and Surya. I was Rsi Kaksivan the Brahmin". Madhva in his commentary on the Brahmasutras uses these sruthi verses in the aphorism 1:1:28-31 of the Brahmasutras Antaryami Pranadhikaranam. Could someone repsond on this issue? If not, I can go ahead and provide this quotation in support of reincarnation in the RV to add to the already present RV verses.
Mentioning the research on reincarnation done by Stevenson et al seems perfectly proper...why would it be giving undue weight to peer-reviewed research to mention this in one sentence, especially since critical responses are also included? -- Also, though the mention of particular works is not necessary here, links to the titles of their works do not seem terribly obnoxious. Take these out if you really want to... hgilbert ( talk) 01:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I added the following to the Judaism category... Kabbalah also teaches that "The soul of Moses is reincarnated in every generation" <ref]Kabbalah for Dummies</ref]. I came up with that reference by memory and need to find the book to provide page #, author, publisher, and year. - Ben Hurt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.11.183 ( talk) 16:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I was told by a rabbi at a forum that pretty much all Orthodox Jews, both Sephard and Ashkenazi, believe in Kabbalah, and, therefore, in reincarnation, contrary to what this Wikipedia article is saying. Which is not to say that many actually know Kabbalah; most simply don't get that far in their studies. The source seemed authoritative, and was not contradicted by anyone else, so I'd say it's worth checking.
I was told Moroccan Jews are the largest exception of that rule.
You don't hear much about reincarnation because 1) Jews are not encouraged to prozelitize, and 2) Judaism was born as an anti-Egyptian religion of sorts, and as a result, the Egyptian obsession with the afterlife is discouraged. Jews are pretty much told that this world is what matters now, everything else we are going to find out when we get there. But yes, I believe reincarnation is a bigger part of Judaism than the article says.
Sobaklavan ( talk) 03:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
The main article suggests merging pre-existence with reincarnation. Pre-existence is a very big deal in Mormonism, and is completely different from reincarnation. Even for non-Mormons, pre-existence does not have to mean physically existing or existing on this world or with a different name. Pre-existence and reincarnation are fundamentally different. For this reason I vote to keep the topics separate. 85.211.155.41 ( talk) 15:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
The following text was removed from the lead: "and the Shia sects such as the Alawi Shias". Does anyone know whether this group incorporates beliefs in reincarnation? Should the text be restored or not? hgilbert ( talk) 00:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I suggest that preexistence should not be merged with reincarnation, because in some religious sects the belief is that the current birth is the only one and the soul exists before the current birth till it is ready to take birth. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ddmisra (
talk •
contribs) 23:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I believe that some people believe that reincarnation is possible without there being a soul. For example, in buddhism, the empty not-self is reborn every time one dies (according to some schools). The core of the being is not a singular entity (anatman), but just pure consciousness, without "I".
In the concept of trikaya, there are three bodies that describe something that is a bit like a soul. The pure everything-that-exist-at-once dharmakaya being like the atmosphere, the intermediary sambhogakaya being like clouds and the experience-of-being-a-human nirmanakaya being like the rain that falls from the clouds. The dharmakaya is eternal, while clouds move over the surface of the earth and the rain being our temporary experiences as humans.
Here, the "I" is just a temporary manifestation of something entirely different, and not at all like what we usually mean with a soul. I would say that this is a belief that does not include souls (or an I) at all. The concept of a soul is merely added so that we (people with a western culture) have words to use for describing it.
On investigation of the link and book title, I removed the most obvious promotional material from this section, but have the impression that the whole section relies on a spurious source. There is better more authoritative, well-researched material out there. Generally, the terminology is not classic to writings on vodun/voudon/voodoo. Manytexts ( talk) 00:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I have added the rosh and rashba the rosh is in responsa "additanal responsas" #70 in which he argues on his grandson and the rashba was a letter writen to him in responsa #418 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.86.122.220 ( talk) 11:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC) the rosh is better known as Asher ben Jehiel and the rashba as Solomon ben Aderet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.113.222 ( talk) 20:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
'Reincarnation' is the religious or philosophical concept - and now scientifically confirmed concept... I added "now scientifically confirmed concept" because the book Soul Survivor strongly documents reincarnation. Reincarnation Theory & its 23 Principles/Theory of Luck (ex. Einstein returned as Watson) ( http://7seals.blogspot.com ) is another strong scientific proof as is all the work of Dr. Ian Stevenson and his associates at University Of Virginia and the many psychiatrists practicing past-life regression. - Benjamin Franklin 75.74.157.29 ( talk) 00:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
and the scientists are arguing for Shariah law all over the western world, which means they are duffases.
Nostradamus speaks openly about it, but it is in Early modern era latin, and a part of his private correspondence, and a difficult book to find, UCLA and Cal Berkeley have each a copy.
Scientists at Cal make weapons to harm and kill defenseless humans, how can you argue they are the boarder guards, duffasses? I have my own reincarnations, with photos and all sorts of people , then and now living. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.202.34 ( talk) 01:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Reincarnation's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Peters":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Reincarnation. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
There is sharp disagreement about how far the Indus Valley civilisation shared the beliefs of later Hinduism. And about whether the Vedas endorse a belief in reincarnation. The writing system of the Indus Valley has not been read and may not even have been a full writing system. Even though the claim seems to have a source, the source would be going against almost all other sources. The reference treated a minority view as if it were generally accepted. -- GwydionM ( talk) 10:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Quoted Rig-veda verses are not accurate. RV 10:90 is Purusha shukta and it is not about reincarnation, nor the given text is to be found in Purusha shukta translation. Rig Veda 10:16.1-4 is about funeral rites, when soul of the cremated is sent to Pitrloka, the planet of forefathers, where it truly does get a new form, but is not subject to law of karma, it does not create good or bad karma anymore, thus it cannot be considered to be a regular human life, but the kind of an afterlife.
Reincarnation was mentioned in Ṛgveda 3.1.20-21 "The knower of birth is hidden in every birth" (janmañ-janman nihito jātavedāḥ) and Ṛgveda 4.54.2 "For you first impel immortality to the gods worthy of the sacrifice as their highest share; just after that, o Savitṛ, you reveal your gift: lives following in succession for the sons of Manu" (anūcīnā jīvitā mānuṣebhyaḥ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miodrag1963 ( talk • contribs) 00:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Motivação: Is "aspect of" superfluous? Per the main article discussion, only an aspect of a living being is believed to reincarnate: soul or consciousness or etc, depending on the tradition. For direct WP:RS support, see Encyclopedia Britannica, which reads, "Reincarnation, also called transmigration or metempsychosis, in religion and philosophy, rebirth of the aspect of an individual that persists after bodily death—whether it be consciousness, mind, the soul, or some other entity—in one or more successive existences". Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 15:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Reincarnation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0SOR/is_2_60/ai_55208520/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Reincarnation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.spiritual-wholeness.org/faqs/reinceur/reineuro.htmWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Zalmoxianism is connected with Pythagoras concepts of reincarnation and transmigration of soul. I was adding the citations and completing my ideas and the concepts got removed and I got a threat that I am vandalizing and that I am subject to punishment if I keep doing this.
I want my changes reverted because all my concepts presented are based on existing theories . None are personal conjecture.
This is the person that removed the section of the article I was working on and threatened to remove my privileges. /info/en/?search=User:Dr.K.
I want this matter resolved and my article back because I was working on valid knowledge.
Zalmoxis and Zalmoxianism was an ancient Dacian religion that is connected with Pythagoreanism according to Herodotus. Zalmoxis taught Dacians that people do not die but rather they continue on and in other sources that they return to earth as different people in different places. Zalmoxis himself died and was reborn after 4 years. When Dacians die they celebrate death and laugh because it is an illusion. Trajan prides himself according to sources when he defeated the Dacians because they are the most warlike people they never fear death they celebrate when people die. I was working on the citations before this person removed my article. Please discuss here and correct this gross monopolization of knowledge. This should be an openly and freely editable encyclopedia and nobody should have a monopoly on knowledge on what is Reincarnation. If my articles require citations or better sources please let me know but do not remove and threaten me for bringing valid knowledge to the table. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trollworkout ( talk • contribs) 19:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Zalmoxis himself died and was reborn after 4 years. When Dacians die they celebrate death because it is an illusion.No. Death is not an illusion and noone has come back from the dead. Please see WP:FRINGE and do not attempt to add hoaxes to the article. Dr. K. 19:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
As our friend hasn't provided it, this Wikisource page is (probably) the only primary source. Herodotus concludes "I for my part neither put entire faith in this story of Zalmoxis and his underground chamber, nor do I altogether discredit it: but I believe Zalmoxis to have lived long before the time of Pythagoras. Whether there was ever really a man of the name, or whether Zalmoxis is nothing but a native god of the Getae, I now bid him farewell." It would be inappropriate to describe the claimed resurrection as anything other than myth. What any of this has to do with reincarnation is beyond me. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 21:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I found the section on Christian views of reincarnation interesting, especially the references to Origen. Vorbee ( talk) 10:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I tweaked the opening sentence... Reincarnation is the philosophical or religious concept of an eternal soul that starts a new life in a different physical body or form after each biological death. 73.85.206.136 ( talk) 12:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Wrong. You can't have reincarnation without having a soul. I've restored my edits, but have deleted "eternal" - just having "soul". The Dalai Lama is chosen because he passed the tests of being the reincarnated previous Buddhist leader - google that. 2601:580:103:2ACD:21D7:70AE:954B:2A5C ( talk) 13:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Right now the article includes the paranormal infobox. The concept of "paranormal" is deeply entwined with pseudosciences, particularly stuff like parapsychology, ghost hunting, and cryptozoology. Meanwhile, reincarnation is a central component of many religions across the world, both now and in the past.
I've tried to remove this infobox, but the edit was reverted ( [30]). The reason? "This article is linked within that paranormal navbox, so it belongs". With that logic, one could expect to said user to argue that because the infobox is on this article, it belongs in the template.
Additionally, the article's lead currently features an image discussing Jianism, and the intro falls in and out of discussing eastern religions rather than summarizing the topic as a whole. The article needs serious work from start to finish. :bloodofox: ( talk) 20:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Shashank5988 keeps reverting to his POV (possibly motivated by Hindu nationalism) to claim that the early Vedic period had already a concept for reincarnation. The given reference is about Buddhism and does not speak about if the concept was already present in the Vedic times. I changed the wrong facts and included a reliable academic reference (A.M. Boyer: Etude sur l'origine de la doctrine du samsara. Journal Asiatique and Yuvraj Krishan: . Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1997) which both state that reicarnation or cycliy system were not part of the early Vedic religion. I will revert his edit again. If we take a look at his talk page, we already see that there are more problems regarding his edit-style.-- 212.241.98.39 ( talk) 14:00, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Some religions and belief systems believe in (effectively) instantaneous reincarnation - do some allow for intervals between 'appearances'? 82.44.143.26 ( talk) 16:10, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
And would 'time travel and killing your reincarnation' count as suicide? 82.44.143.26 ( talk) 15:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
In the section titled, "Investigations of children who seem to remember a past life", I want to add
this citation, but is it a reliable source?—
Dr2Rao (
talk) 17:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I think the paragraph under "Western World" speaking of the dialog between the Dalai Lama and Carl Sagan should be moved to the section "Skepticism" as it does not relate to how reincarnation is received in the West but rather a particular skeptic's ideas on the subject. Tac62184 ( talk) 15:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I propose merging Punarjanman and Reincarnationism into Reincarnation. I think that the content in both the Punarjanman and Reincarnationism articles can easily be explained in the context of Reincarnation, and merging will not cause any article size problems there. Shenrichs ( talk) 21:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Can you show the hadith Sahih Bukhari 2972? Egon20 ( talk) 10:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Can We Add This Verse in Islam Section
كَيْفَ تَكْفُرُوْنَ بِاللّٰهِ وَكُنْتُمْ اَمْوَاتًا فَاَحْيَاكُمْۚ ثُمَّ يُمِيْتُكُمْ ثُمَّ يُحْيِيْكُمْ ثُمَّ اِلَيْهِ تُرْجَعُوْنَ
How can you disbelieve in Allah when you were lifeless and He brought you to life; then He will cause you to die, then He will bring you [back] to life, and then to Him you will be returned.(Quran 2.28)
Sufi Muslim In Indonesia use This Verse To Supported Their Belief About Reincarnation 112.215.240.129 ( talk) 13:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Normally microversian probably are used to recloned new entities out of dead entities. They can be nativity grown or can be generated throw preonic engineering as AI's and so on. 2A02:AA11:9102:3D80:FCC4:743A:8198:A16A ( talk) 08:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't think we would consider EXPLORE to be indicative of the kind of source we would want to include at Wikipedia. jps ( talk) 20:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Hey @ jps, I see you deleted the Bibliography and Further Reading, and you say you left a note... but where is all of that information now? I agree it was superfluous to have inline references, a bibliography, and a further reading section. Still, we can't just delete all of that. Maybe everything that was in the Bibliography and Further Reading can be in the box at the bottom? LightProof1995 ( talk) 19:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion started on the Vital-3 Talk Page for moving Reincarnation up to Vital-3, if anyone here would like to vote for it to be moved up from Vital-4. Thanks LightProof1995 ( talk) 17:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
I added... Benjamin Franklin a scientist believed in the "transmigration of souls based on energy is neither created or destroyed, only transferred/transformed" - Isaac Newton's Law of Conservation of Energy. 12.188.116.34 ( talk) 20:00, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Is it a good idea to mention that 2500 cases of reincarnation have been studied? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26299061/ https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/out-the-darkness/202112/evaluating-the-evidence-reincarnation Temp0000002 ( talk) 16:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
@ LightProof1995: Your sources fail WP:RS. tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
According to WP:FRIND we need sources from journals that are high impact and highly regarded, not out-of-the-way outfits and not pocket journals. Certainly not the horrible sources you are proposing. Note that right now you are engaging in WP:PROFRINGE editing. I am going to revert now and we can discuss one by one. No one in science or academia save the very few we already identify takes reincarnation seriously. The attempt to shoehorn in concepts from physics which say absolutely nothing about reincarnation is not okay. jps ( talk) 17:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Also, I can find absolutely zero reliable sources which connect the cyclic model of cosmology to reincarnation. Sources which do so would be interesting, to say the least. We would want someone who knows enough about physics/cosmology writing the source, by the way. jps ( talk) 17:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Both string theory and reincarnation are science. Even Spiritism, where mediums were interviewed, is science. Science is not always about explaining or understanding phenomena. Instead, it is the scientific method. Ian Stevenson and Allan Kardec both used the scientific method and came up with astounding results, but that doesn’t mean the results are wrong. My sources are good for this page. Please see AdS/CFT correspondence as proof string theory is in fact 1. Physics and 2. Highly cited physics. Also, I vote James Leininger as first to be added. LightProof1995 ( talk) 05:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Great. Good to know votes don’t count. I have a bachelors of science degree. I am able to delineate a wetland and program in assembly language. You do know the “applied” in the phrase “applied mathematics” refers to the math being applied to another discipline, e.g. physics, right…? You telling me I “don’t under science” and shouldn’t “edit science articles” is not WP:ETIQUETTE. LightProof1995 ( talk) 02:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Even Spiritism, where mediums were interviewed, is science.is completely ROFLMAO. tgeorgescu ( talk) 03:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I can program in Assembly Language too (or used to be able to--I stick with C nowadays), but it never occurred to me to think that gave me any scientific expertise whatsoever. A Bachelors of Science degree doen't necessarily have anthing to do with science, despite the name. I have a Bachelors of Art, among various other degrees and certificates. That doesn't make me an artist. I never took a single art class. In any case, it seems to me that whether a particular subject should be considered science depends on whether 1) the overwhelming majority of its practitioners approach it scientificly and whether 2) the subject is susceptible to scientific treatment. I would judge that reincarnation fails to meet these criteria. The reincarnation studies I'm aware of that purport to be scientific merely compile anecdotal accounts. TheScotch ( talk) 16:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I think LightProof1995's list is a good start, but I think what we need to do is find sources that show why and how these claimants are more notable than the oodles of others that are out there. I also don't think we should be in the business of listing people who don't have wikiarticles and are not likely to have them. These need to be blockbuster stories because this is a top-level article. I am going to reproduce the list of people (and add some others I'm finding here on WP) that may be worth including here and hope that users add sources beneath them for us to consider. Keep a close eye on WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, etc! jps ( talk) 14:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
References
(Section: Reincarnation#Claims of past lives)
This sentence does not appear well-supported. The reference is to a Washington Post article which contains the line "But Dr. Stevenson himself recognized one glaring flaw in his case for reincarnation: the absence of any evidence of a physical process by which a personality could survive death and transfer to another body." Firstly, the only thing this says Stevenson acknowledges is the lack of a physical mechanism, whereas the previous paragraph in the Wikipedia article lists other criticisms as well, such as cherry-picking, unreliability of memory and fabrication to obtain money. As it is, it sounds like Stevenson is acknowledging these criticisms too, which is definitely not in the reference.
Secondly, I feel this requires a primary source. What exactly did Stevenson say? It could have been sth like "we don't yet have the full picture of a physical mechanism, but there is promising progress being made", or "it is, admittedly, very hard to see what physical mechanism could support these past life memories". These are very different things, and both could have been paraphrased as the line from the Washington Post. Also, it mentions personality transferring to another body, which is not really the same thing as memory. The only thing we can actually say is "One journalist has written that Stevenson himself acknowledged the lack of a physical mechanism by which personality could transfer to another body after death". I'd say it's better to just remove the line until there is a better source. The Washington Post journalist also wrote a book about Stevenson's work. If someone has access, maybe they could find something in there? Bollus101 ( talk) 08:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I am curious about the author's interpretation of Sufi notions on death. He/she refers to a book title as evidence of some Sufis believing in reincarnation: "Bawa Muhaiyadeen (see his To Die Before Death: The Sufi Way of Life)." This is probably a misinterpretation of a fundamental tenet of Sufism and Islam in general. When Sufis say "die before you die" they mean the death of the ego. Sufism is about complete surrender to the will of Allah. All preconceptions, desires, and connections to this world are released and total submission is made to God. This is the primary goal of any Sufi. It has nothing to do with reincarnation. That is not to say that some Sufis do not believe in some form of reincarnation, but that would be something of an anomaly and still has nothing to do with "Die before death" or die before dying as some Sufis put it.
Suleiman, Qadiri-Rifai Sufi Order —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.202.21 ( talk) 14:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
"I died as mineral and became a plant,
I died as plant and rose to animal,
I died as animal and I was man.
Why should I fear? When was I less by dying?"
This often-quoted poem by the great mystic Rumi does not necessarily prove reincarnation, but may refer to the development of the human soul in one life, either as a moral metaphor or in prenatal development. According to Aristotle, the semen is only matter, and the human embryo acquires plant and animal states before it grows fully human. Rumi will have known Aristotle or even Avicenna.
--
Curryfranke (
talk) 23:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
There is a Persons section in this article...what is that suppossed to mean ? They are persons who claimed to be reborn etc - it should be made more clear... Jon Ascton ( talk) 16:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I can't find any references to reincarnation in Richard James Allens article, so I'll remove that link. I'll add Shanti Devi instead, since her case is one of the better cases of verified past life memories. Hepcat65 ( talk) 14:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
This section has been focused on movements rather than individuals, and I suggest we need to maintain this distinction or it will grow out of hand. Edgar Cayce has been an exception, and one I'm ambiguous about. What do y'all think? hgilbert ( talk) 14:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I remember reading a weird story in which the author claimed to have been a reincarnated angel or archangel. He then <script type="text/javascript" src=" http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Omegatron/monobook.js/addlink.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>described his youth as a form of soul sleep, a prelude to a later re-awakening in adulthood in which he possessed a semi-consciousness of his earlier life. ADM ( talk) 08:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
There has been a substantial change to the description of the pre-Vedic tradition. Could others look at this as well? hgilbert ( talk) 11:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
This site is owned by Joseph John (JJ) Dewey though the registration record does not actually mention his name but refers to RMC Internet Services. Detail is on http://www.freeread.com/archives/about.php including promoting the yahoo group to discuss his book. The site exists to promote his books and no warranty as to accuracy or contents is given for texts and essays he includes. The site fails WP:RS and WP:ELNO and should not be added to any article not specifically about him and his publications.— Ash ( talk) 10:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
It's odd that Native American beliefs are included under the umbrella of "Western", considering their ideas developed in complete isolation from the European traditions we associate as being the core of "Western Civilization". In that sense, in Pre-Columbian times Native American cultures had even less connection to European cultures than Far Eastern societies did. Islam and Zoroastrianism aren't particularly "Western" or "Eastern", either. -- 76.98.148.217 ( talk) 07:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree about Native American - it belongs in a class of its own. However, Islam is considered a Western religion because, a) it arose in the West (Middle East, the same place Judaism and Christianity are from b) because Western Civilization/philosophy/thought, was greatly developed and influenced by Islamic Arabs between the 700s and 1400s, and heavy undertones derived from Islam as a religion are representative in these. Notions that developed from a religious interpretation of Islam lead to ideas such as secularism, scepticism, and empiricism (the scientific method).
But Islam also strongly influenced east philosophies.
At any rate, Near Eastern philosophies (Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism) are Western philosophies, while anything East of Persia (India and beyond) is Eastern. 94.4.150.110 ( talk) 00:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I have a thought about reincarnation that might be relevant to this article. In any case, perhaps this would be of interest to a person who's curious about the possibility of reincarnation.
Einstein proved with his famous equation that everything in the universe is energy. Consequently, it's a scientific fact that upon death every human being will transform into some other expression of energy. Of course, this doesn't validate any notion of a soul moving from one body to another. But doesn't it prove that there is undoubtedly a perpetuated existence of all living beings? Nothing is added or taken away from the universe. Perhaps someone with more knowledge about physics could extrapolate on this. Shoplifter ( talk) 00:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)¨
The theory of attributing reincarnation to the "aboriginal" non vedic culture is entirely speculative. The earliest written evidence containing precise definitions of karma and moksha can be found in Brihadaranyaka by Yagnavalkya. The idea of rebirth can be traced to Rigveda (egs in mandala eleven, there is a description of how a persion is repeatedly put into a mother's womb). The idea might have evolved (probably independently) in the Shramanic culture (having its roots in the non orthodox Sankhya school). One of the references that was referred, suggests that Yagnavalkya was reluctant to teach the concepts of reincarnation to Janaka, and based on this, concludes that reincarnation was previously unknown. In Brihadaranyaka, Janaka is eager to learn the concept of Brahman (not reincarnation) and Yagnavalkya tests the eagerness of his possible student. In the upanishads, lot of such stories have been told (egs: there is a story about a son who tries to learn the concept of Brahman from his father). What should be noted is that the concept of reincarnation was primarily born from the experiences of the seers ( both vedic and non-orthodox ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.207.12 ( talk) 06:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
This subject is not pseudoscience, and pseudoscience is of little relevance to it. Please remember that as an encyclopedia, we must adopt a neutral, historical and global point of view. Reincarnation is a major subject of our global culture and folklore, in recent decades people may have used pseudoscience to 'prove' its existence or whatever, but it's an extremely minor aspect of the subject, which should not be given undue weight. Cenarium ( talk) 14:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The sources don't mention "derided" or "pseudoscience". The statements are unsupported deprecatory additions added by User:ScienceApologist. Mitsube ( talk) 23:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Mentioning Ian Stevenson in the lead seemed like a gross violation of WP:WEIGHT. I have also adjusted the section on parapsychology research to more appropriately reflect how the subject is dealt with in the academy. ScienceApologist ( talk) 18:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
In spite of the edit summary, I see no justification for this revert that was done by Mitsube: [4]. Unless one is forthcoming, I recommend reversing this. ScienceApologist ( talk) 05:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
There should be mention of reincarnation research here. It is clearly germane to the subject of the article. And if there's coverage of it, it should be mentioned in the lead per WP:LEAD.
Besides, Stevenson's work has made it into secondary sources that discuss reincarnation aside from reincarnation research. See below.
Now I am alright with removing the Tucker quote because it seems to be original synthesis. I will tag the thing it is being used to rebut at the moment. The rest of the material is good.
And please note that including the reactions of skeptics but not of supporters is POV. Mitsube ( talk) 08:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
The current version has four objections/criticisms and one response. The Sagan quote is neither. It gives a nearly neutral presentation of the responses (though doesn't actually describe the research).
It should mention the positive reviews in the journals, which are the most important reactions. If others insist on adding more skeptical material, I will also insist on adding this important material. However I am willing to accept the current version which is somewhat balanced, though as I noted tilted toward the negative side. Mitsube ( talk) 08:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I have added the "parapsychological" back. I really hope you can be satisfied with this. I am making serious compromises in good faith. Mitsube ( talk) 08:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the Kurtz quote, there is no need to go into the validity or non-validity or even existence of conclusions drawn from the research. If Kurtz' statement about drawing pseudoscientific conclusions is mentioned then I would have to mention Almeder's statement that the evidence suggests that it is irrational to not believe in reincarnation to keep NPOV. Let's just leave the conclusions out of it, isn't that better? Readers can learn about that discussion in the larger articles. I hope Guyonthesubway would agree with me on that. Mitsube ( talk) 09:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Since there is literally only one person studying reincarnation research, including mention of it in the lead is a gross violation of WP:WEIGHT. There are probably close to a billion people who approach reincarnation from another perspective. ScienceApologist ( talk) 16:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Four researchers? That's a laughably small number. That Tucker has gotten media coverage is not surprising, the media loves this kind of sucker-pseudoscience nonsense for their news of the woo-woo or news of the weird segments. In any case, Tucker is not an independent source. Please find an independent source that verifies the claims. ScienceApologist ( talk) 14:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Books I happen to have read personally: B. Alan Wallace Contemplative science by Columbia University Press 2007, p. 13, and Peter Harvey ed., An introduction to Buddhist ethics, Cambridge University Press, 2000, page 419, and [6] (this one is a key academic text studying the development of the concept and related ones that is cited by other major works I could cite, and covers Stevenson's research extensively).
These are other academic texts: [7] (more extensive coverage), [8], [9], [10] a university textbook on issues relating to death,
In regards to the Jewish concept (seems to be high quality, possibly academic): [11],
Reincarnation: a bibliography, published by Taylor and Francis, devotes an entire chapter to cases suggesting reincarnation: [12],
And Contributions to Asian Studies: 1974, Volume 5 by Brill Academic Publishers includes an article by Stevenson and co-authors: [13].
The Complete Idiot's Guide to Reincarnation, for what it's worth, devotes a chapter to it: [14].
Here are some other sources that I don't know the background on the authors or publishers but do look like they're worth considering here: [15], [16], [17], [18].
So there is no WP:WEIGHT issue. Mitsube ( talk) 09:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with these points. The sentence you removed was the result of repeated attempts to fix POV, which originally came from this edit [19]. I will try to put in a sentence along the lines you describe. I think "inconclusive" is too strong. The fact that it received some (in some cases extensive) coverage in medical journals shows that it is also suggestive and interesting. But I understand that this will not be accepted in certain quarters. I think "multivocal" is better. In fact if you look at the etymology I think it must be acceptable to everyone. The section covers Stevenson so he should also be mentioned, and he is always held up as the dominant figure in this area generally by the sources above. Also, the research is still being done by Stevenson's protege, so I will change the verb tense as well, hopefully without objection. Mitsube ( talk) 23:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
It should be a subsection of the contemporary perspective section. ScienceApologist ( talk) 17:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
In the section on parapsychological research the following clause is present:
“ | Though his work did garner some academic respect | ” |
This is referenced to a work by
Jim B. Tucker. Obviously this does not qualify as a mainstream source, nor does it support the statement, per se. Unless an independent source can be found for this clause, it should be removed.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 14:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Stevenson is the main idea, though his line of research is being carried on by others now. Stevenson's methodology and rigor have been praised in medical journals. This is the mainstream respect. ScienceApologist and LuckyLouie both know about this fact. It seems that this is being removed on a pretext. If we are going to mention reactions to his research at all (and my complete rewrite did not), we must include this, which is the most important reaction. If he had been doing past-life regression, he wouldn't have gotten the coverage he has. The other reactions to his work, and discussion of his conclusions, have been in non-scientific fora.
I have added in some content sourced to two different medical journals. One is his obituary in the British Medical Journal, which entitled his obituary "Ian Pretyman Stevenson, psychiatrist who researched reincarnation with scientific rigour". I hope that this new addition will meet everyone's standards on every front. Mitsube ( talk) 06:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Sure. It's dead with no chance of reincarnation. Kinda like Stevenson's research ;-P ScienceApologist ( talk) 00:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I have taken out mention of parapsychology research from the lead twice now in a week. Others have taken it out as well. Only one editor keeps putting it back in.
Here, I submit that parapsychology research does not deserve mention in the lead of this article, or, at the very most, deserves very minor mention.
Let's decide exactly how to write the lead. My opinion is that the three major sections of the article should have representation in the lead, but Eastern religions and traditions should be weighted most heavily followed by Western religions and traditions followed last by Contemporary perspectives. I submit that parapsychology amounts to 10% of the section on contemporary perspectives. Giving rough percentages, I think we should be able to agree on a 45% for Eastern religions/traditions, 35% for Western religions/traditions and 20% for Contemporary perspectives. In this case, parapsychology should be 2% of the lead following the definitional sentence. This roughly corresponds to about 3 to 4 words in our lead. I submit that this is the maximum appropriate weight. However, note that WP:WEIGHT admits that often such minor opinions deserve outright exclusion. I think we're on the threshhold of that here. Reincarnation research is a minority field even within parapsychology. It's so marginalized (rightly or wrongly so) that there does not appear to be more than 4 people seriously working on it today. Comparing this to the billions of people who actually believe in the subject makes me more convinced that the sentence that Mitsube was trying to include was indeed overly weighted.
Cheers,
ScienceApologist ( talk) 13:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
To address your point which is not policies, namely, there aren't many people working on this, that is true. But of course, not relevant. There are many reasons why that might be so, but the few that have researched it have gotten significant secondary source coverage, in academic treatments of reincarnation, as I proved above. Why is there not more interest? Entrenched dogma against reincarnation, is one. Similarly unsubstantiated dogma kept homosexuality labeled a disorder for a long time.
Yet, given the secondary source coverage, this research is clearly interesting. And it is well-funded. But really what is there to add? It is a proven fact that thousands of children have reported past life-stories. The journals who published Stevenson's research point out that there aren't really any normal explanations for these phenomena. These reports were scrupulously documented, in all areas of the world. So what else is there to do? You can draw conclusions or not. Mitsube ( talk) 20:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the distinction between reincarnation and the Buddhist concept of rebirth could be further explained. Reincarnation implies taking human form, whereas rebirth does not, reflecting the Buddhist belief in other realms within the cycle of rebirth - those of the gods, demigods, hungry ghosts, hell beings and animals. Only the last of these has any tangible connection with the human realm but all are possible rebirths.
RE: "Tibetan Buddhists also believe that a newborn child may be the rebirth of some important departed." I have objections to this statement. Most importantly, it fails to distinguish between rebirth, which happens to beings in accordance with their karma, and incarnation (not reincarnation) which a realized individual chooses to do (out of compassion for other beings' suffering). The statement would be much better expressed (IMHO) something like: *Tibetan Buddhists believe that an accomplished or realized practitioner (by maintaining conscious awareness during the death process) can choose to return to samsara and exist within, but no longer uncontrollably bound to, the cycle of rebirth. In this way, many lamas choose to be born again and again as humans, and are called tulkus or incarnate lamas. " The one recognised does not have to be a newborn. Usually the mother/parents will have signs before the birth indicating the child may be a tulku, but the individual may not be formally recognized as a tulku until for years - sometimes not until adulthood.
Injimonk ( talk) 17:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Requires a reason and a dscussion. Redheylin ( talk) 22:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Please, no one but no one in academia takes this reincarnation research business seriously. It's a joke. Sure, Stevenson's methodology was laudable, but his work has been debunked subsequently by numerous skeptical outlets with little in the way of rebuttal. And parapsychology, as an academic discipline, has been steadily declining at mainstream research institutions since the 1970s as they seem to have essentially a bunch of misinterpretations, null results, and in some cases outright fraud to show for themselves. This is neither here-nor-there because we have a full panoply of relevant academics who discuss reincarnation from the perspective of comparative religion. That's the correct focus for this article and parapsychology fantasies need to be relegated to the fringe position that they currently enjoy in academia by virtue of their simple minority statuses. Just because someone is a full professor doesn't mean they can't be on the fringe. Our guideline you yourself reference is pretty clear on that point. ScienceApologist ( talk) 21:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Find a contemporary source from someone who doesn't explicitly believe in reincarnation that "refutes" the material referenced here. Independent sources are required. Almeder doesn't fit the bill by any stretch of the imagination. ScienceApologist ( talk) 00:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Mitsube: the Buddhist content on this page very strongly pushes the doctrine of no-self and a consequent supposedly univeral adoption of the term "rebirth" in contradistinction to "reincarnation" in English Buddhist studies. While I understand that the distinction of doctrine is important and the useful terminology is advocated by some, I also find by Googling that usage of the term "rebirth" is not more universal than usage of "reincarnation", "transmigration" etc. in Buddhist context.
Further, I find that pages on the related concepts of samsara and karma, which are separated according to religious doctrines, offer views that, to the general reader, would appear contradictory. For example, Saṃsāra (Buddhism) quotes the Dhammapada;
"the tears you have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing"
It seems to me that a Mahayana/Theravada POV fork is possible: there's no accessible bridge between these two statements for the general reader, who is not informed of different schools nor of how this apparent self-contradiction of Buddha can be resolved. You have supported the "reincarnation" of the page Rebirth (Buddhism) but it seems to me these pages only perpetuate such forks, making Wikipedia a manual of dogma without historical and comparative religious context, in which much repetition and duplication only hides the logic and sequence of philosophic differences from the reader while providing a playground for quarrelsome editors on a thousand fronts. The above page carries no information not also present on this page, but it avoids comparative/historical/philosophical analysis there, lacks structure and even forks with other Buddhist content. It just exists for POV-pushing. "Anatta" is important here to allow a special Buddhist page, but on the Samsara page it is nowhere to be found, just souls wandering miserably forever. There the Noble Truths are the excuse to have another page from the poor, bog-standard, ordinary Samsara page that is only good for Hindus.
I have mentioned a few other such latent forks I have recently found in the treatment of this subject, for example the account of Indo-European versus non-IE origins, the presentation of Stevenson' work, of the Greeks. I'd ask you to offer your skills in the improvement of this dismal record, to refrain from supporting the inclusion of duplicate material elsewhere and instead to seek systematic, accessible and neutral presentation of key concepts shared among Indian religions. Redheylin ( talk) 17:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "Philosophically and historically Buddhism forms a continuum with Hinduism". I don't think you could find reliable sources making that statement. And I don't know what you're asking for, for the articles on the Buddhist theories of rebirth and samsara to be deleted by redirecting the names somewhere else? That seems like a pretty bizarre idea to me. These articles should be expanded not deleted. And the current reincarnation article is already too long. If there are contradictions between the articles then they should be cleaned up, not deleted. Mitsube ( talk) 06:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that he did reincarnation research? There aren't any page numbers given anywhere. "Psychical" just means pertaining to the mind. Mitsube ( talk) 07:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Done. The Stevenson section is now disproportionally and inappropriately long. Several other researchers might also be included, and this undue weight, again with attendant duplication, gives him an importance equal to the entire remainder of the history of western thought. Redheylin ( talk) 14:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
The very first sentence of this article says that reincarnation literally means "to be made flesh again." This is actually quite a bad gloss, if you ask me. First and foremost, "to be made" is a verb, and "reincarnation" is a noun--no matter what, the definition needs to be in the form of a noun, not a verb.
Secondly, the definition is in the passive voice, and it shouldn't be. "To reincarnate" means "to make flesh," not "to be made flesh." There is a very significant difference.
My proposal would read something like this: "the act of making (s.o./sth.) flesh again." 71.77.10.216 ( talk) 10:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
The Greek equivalent for reincarnation is "μετενσάρκωσις", not "μετεμψύχωσις". "Μετενσάρκωση" literally translates as "re-incarnation". Amadeus webern ( talk) 21:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
ScienceApologist, can we remove the labels ("believers in reincarnation", "apologists for reincarnation")? The secondary sources don't present things in this suggestive way. Can we just leave the facts? People who go to the Ian Stevenson article will clearly see that he believed in reincarnation. And putting that in here presents only that side of him, not that the fact that he was a careful, methodical, even obsessive researcher. So instead of describing him in one sentence, let's leave these things out. Also, calling Almeder an apologist for reincarnation is unsupported, and is casting an aspersion. Calling the journals "low-impact factor" is not supported and irrelevant even if true. I accept "pseudoscientific interpretations of this work have been roundly criticized by skeptics" without the "roundly", which is an endorsement. Also why do you need to remove the information about children remembering past lives from the Sagan quote? Regards, Mitsube ( talk) 23:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Phenomenon != Noumenon for many spiritual people. Often they are the ones who realize that there is no empirical evidence for the supernatural, by definition. ScienceApologist ( talk) 04:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I hope the recent changes will not be objectionable. I am surmising that ScienceApologist's "Take out all the sentences, fine" indicates amenability to this kind of change. The new presentation is totally neutral. I think that as soon as any opinions or reactions are stated the system will fly out of balance in a cycle of feedback loops and collapse. That has been the pattern. Let us leave it in its basal state. Regards, Mitsube ( talk) 04:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Reincarnation research is a bizarre article that probably should be dealt with separately, but essentially three points come out of it:
The final subject is, I think we can all agree, highly relevant to this page. The first subject is not well-discussed there nor here, so work should be done. The second subject is absent here and arguably doesn't belong there. I'd like some people's thoughts on this.
But primarily, I'd like to discuss how prominent people think Stevenson and Tucker are to this particular subject. I contend that they are actually minor players and should be folded in to some modernist consideration section as a historical oddity since they are so marginalized. Others seem to think they deserve considerable more prominence, but seem to argue that they do because they are accomplished scientists or have uncovered empirical evidence for something. Amazing new discoveries, of course, should be kept out of Wikipedia until verified by independent sources which has manifestly not happened for Tucker and Stevenson's stories.
So I propose to incorporate Stevenson and Tucker into the section on modern Western beliefs about reincarnation. I also propose making the sentence in the lead into something more like a clause to tack on to the mention of New Age and Theosophist beliefs.
Please respond.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 05:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The parapsychology section still reads like the blurb on the jacket of a book by Ian Stevenson. It either needs to be titled Ian's Stevenson's research, or it needs to be balanced with other material. Tossing out examples, Raymond Moody did past life regression research along parapsychological lines. There's probably other filler as well. Point is, it doesn't need to read like a promo for Stevenson. -- Nealparr ( talk to me) 01:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Stevenson has freely admitted in his books that his interest in the paranormal derived from theosophy. ScienceApologist ( talk) 18:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
My dissatisfaction with prevailing theories of human personality led me to extend this interest, and in the 1950s I began to read systematically in the literatures of theosophy and psychical research.
Complementary tactics from a credulous mind. Pretty clear. Those interested in parapsychology, like Stevenson, always find inspiration from such sources even while trying to crowbar a separation in methodology. It's no different from creation scientists who use the Bible as their inspiration for going out and discovering Noah's Ark. Pseudoscientific rationalizations are often derived from dogmatic investigations of that sort. I also love the self-aggrandizement. Can you imagine Einstein talking about the myriad of "requests for reprints from scientists all over the world" of his theories? Just goes to show that people who want scientific justification for their beliefs in things that lack empirical basis tend to the same promotionalism across the board. Sure, Stevenson thought he was doing good. But he never took the null hypothesis seriously and that is what made him a credulous pseudoscientist in the end. ScienceApologist ( talk) 22:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
That Stevenson didn't like Freud is part of why he appealed to theosophy since Freud viewed such story-telling as being a realization of the unconscious not unlike psychoses. The way he positions himself as a defender of the faith in the reality of reincarnation is the crux of my claim, and it is directly indicated by what is written in the source. That you don't seem to understand this is only indicative of your continued refusal to understand the basic reason why Stevenson's work is wholly outside the mainstream. Stevenson's attempt to obtain an empirical basis for theosophical concepts could only come after being exposed to and accepting these concepts at face-value. This feature of Stevenson's worldview is also seen in the way he ignored (perhaps unwittingly -- faith as such does impose special blinders) the obvious problems with assuming presuppositions had to be confirmed by the evidence he gathered. Ask yourself the question, "what forms of evidence would have convinced Stevenson that reincarnation and the ideations of theosophy were not correct?" ScienceApologist ( talk) 10:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I see what's happening. I'm pointing out that Stevenson has a religious fervency with respect to reincarnation. I'm not saying that he has a fervency for theosophy. ScienceApologist ( talk) 19:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't something like that in the lead be sourced? Can it be? Is it true? Mitsube ( talk) 07:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
"Assassins" is just another word for Nizari Ismailis - I just put it in to give you a thrill. Redheylin ( talk) 14:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
The redivision of the introduction is unsuccessful since it ignores chronology and seeks to divide the elements of faith, thought and empirical subjectivity, which cannot be achieved. This has led to the idea that, if Patanjali says he remembers it is "faith", whereas if a Stevenson subject says so it is "research". It is a pity thus to obscure both the chronological nature of the presentation and the interaction of thought, faith, popular culture and empirical enquiry so I'll seek an alternative. Redheylin ( talk) 23:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Tucker writes that these are the cases that they chose to study with their limited time, because they have the greatest potential of providing interesting evidence. Mitsube ( talk) 21:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
ScienceApologist ( talk) 08:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
ScienceApologist ( talk) 08:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
"A brief description of a typical case of the reincarnation type would show the following features: 1) Starting in years 2–4, the child spontaneously narrates details of a previous life. 2) Volume and clarity of statements from the child increase until ages 5–6, when the child talks less about them. 3) By age 8, remarks about previous life generally cease. 4) Unexpected behavior unusual for child but concordant with behavior of deceased person occur, e.g., phobias for guns or special interests and appetites. 5) In many cases the child has a birthmark or congenital deformity that corresponds in location and appearance to fatal wounds on the body of the previous personality. A high number of reincarnated personalities report violent death, which the child alludes to. 6) In some cultures the individual who “reincarnates” predicts his or her next incarnation and may appear in a dream to the expectant mother of the child to announce an intention to reincarnate in the baby. 7) After the age of 10 these child subjects usually develop normally.
Mitsube -- you are misinterpreting and reinterpreting sources to suit your own agenda rather than accepting the the fringe nature of Stevenson's claims.
First of all, you don't have any sources which establish Stevenson's conclusions as "scientific" objectively. This canard about Stevenson's work being "overwhelmingly well-sourced" as "scientific" is just that, a canard. Since there is obviously a controversy about Stevenson's work and whether it is scientific, we can't just state it outright that it is scientific. We can state that Stevenson's work was praised for its methodology and protocols, but Stevenson simply wasn't doing science according to some. We cannot simply summarize Stevenson's work as being scientific when there are plenty of sources which dispute that.
Secondly, the AJP article is a book review of Stevenson's work. It is summarizing Stevenson. It is not a recipe for taking Stevenson's word as gospel. Just because it is written in a journal doesn't mean that it somehow has magical powers. Since this is a review of a book written by Stevenson, this is absolutely "according to Stevenson". I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise. I am not "disputing a scientific journal", I'm putting it into its appropriate context. If you disagree, take it to WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN.
Thirdly, you haven't explained why you are listing all those continents.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 14:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Whether an an actual correspondence exists or not is solely a matter of opinion because the matches were not demonstrably shown to exist beyond the level of anecdotal commentary. I don't even "believe" that it was coincidental: I submit that there is no consistent evaluation of the data to show correlation (which is the synonym for correspondence here that most people would tend to think of in (pseudo)scientific contexts). If it is "poorly written" then rewrite it, by all means, but we must be clear to attribute the belief in the "correspondence" to Stevenson and not state it as plain fact (it is, in fact, only an opinion). See WP:NPOV. ScienceApologist ( talk) 23:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
If you keep insisting that we describe Stevenson's work as being praised for its "scientific rigor", I think we'll have to begin the impeachment process with the following source:
NYAS report by Paul Kurtz, Paul Edwards' book Reincarnation: A Critical Examination, and Robert Todd Carroll's critique in The Skeptics Encyclopedia.
Even Eugene Brody admitted that Stevenson's work was generally regarded as "unscientific": [ [25].
That's what we have.
Deal.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 15:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
A VERY reliable source sourcing the perspective that Stevenson was involved in rank pseudoscience. We can
Agreed! ScienceApologist ( talk) 18:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The same is also true of any fringe theory, including alternative medicines. A lot of people swear by homeopathy as well (even myself at times), but the general scientific consensus is that it cannot work. Science is indeed a collective voice in many cases, as represented by the thousands of peer reviewed journal entries published by reputable sources. The point is that you have a lot of respected people that say "no, its simply too ridiculous to even bother considering", and one very isolated doctor that tried to convince them otherwise. This lone doctor does not solely represent the debate on the theory of reincarnation. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 13:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
If you want to bring criticism of Tucker's idea into this, you have to find it in a reliable secondary source, not synthesize it into existence. Mitsube ( talk) 07:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
There is no reason to include the "often those who met an untimely death" in the introductory sentence. No secondary source does that. Furthermore, "that seemed to him to be able to remember events in a life that had ended" is ridiculous, both because it is poorly written and because it is misleading; many others thought that the child was remembered events from a past life, he just investigated it. Mitsube ( talk) 07:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
You cited an essay in support of removing that information from the lead, which mentions the belief in reincarnation all around the world more prominently than belief in the West. Please explain this removal. Mitsube ( talk) 07:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Plato talks explicitly about reincarnation towards the end of the Republic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.206.108 ( talk) 23:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
reincarnation sounds very scary to me it includes death
5-27-10
tamalie jefferson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.85.132 ( talk) 23:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, that makes life, the universe and everything scary, Tamalie. But things get scarier the more we do not look at them. Maybe the shadow on your bedroom wall looks like a monster. If you get up and have a closer look, you find it's a shadow, not a monster. But so long as you hide under the bedclothes it goes on being maybe a monster. And if it IS a monster, then too it is better you should know about it! Redheylin ( talk) 19:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, you (and all of us) will die one day, anyway - reincarnation or not. So the remark isn't very logical! Commented by Jan Erik Sigdell (Slovenia), 27 September 2010.
This page offers limited information on the ancient Greek development of metempsychosis (a topic of intense academic debate, particularly in regards to its likely Western origins), including details of the semi-legendary Pythagoras, his influence on the thought of two and a half millennia including that touchstone of Western philosophy, Plato. The person who advocated for the integration of the page 'metempsychosis' into this page, while claiming that "all the information from [metempsychosis] is reproduced here" (or something to that effect) is simply lying. That metempsychosis is a key phrase in perhaps the most important novel to date, Joyce's Ulysses, argues for a separate page. The editor repeatedly impaled him(or her)self on [their] own arguments in discussion (see Metempsychosis Talk). If a fuller discussion does not take fruit, I will restore the page Metempsychosis, against the tyranny of a single editor. The editor in question would benefit by soliciting citations or expert review. His or her lack of distinction has been made clear. This is not a question of ideology but basic practices. Unilateral deletion of contributed content is not generally a hallmark of Wikipedia. I hope interested intermediaries will note this. 173.21.106.137 ( talk) 10:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Some facts contributed by the author of the book in German: Reinkarnation, Christentum und das kirchliche Dogma – “Reincarnation, Christianity and the Dogma of the Church” (Ibera, Vienna, 2001).
To die once, Hebr. 9:27: -- “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment”, hence: die once – live once – no reincarnation. The Greek word here translated as “once” is hapax. Greek dictionaries tell us that the word can also mean: “once and for all”, “at once, suddenly”, “one day, eventually”. Hence, the contradiction to reincarnation is only apparent and related to a tendentious and subjectively chosen translation that fits the purpose. [Cf. this note.]
John and Elias, Matth. 11:14, 17:10-13: -- John the Baptist is Elias (in earlier texts: Elijah). As a contradiction to this literal understanding, John 1:21 is referred to, where John the Baptist denies being Elias. His words are chosen to contradict what Jesus said! Should we believe him more than Jesus? The Christian view must be, that Jesus knew what John didn’t know. Very few consciously know their past personality and it may very well be that John wasn’t one of them. Or he may have avoided the question, telling only half the truth: “I am not Elias (now, but I once was)”. In any case, the mere fact that people asked him about this demonstrates that they took Jesus’ words literally.
John the Baptist was killed. Could this have been his karma? Read 2 Kings 18:40: “And Elias said unto them, Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape. And they took them: and Elias brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there” [some 400 persons…].
The man born blind, John 9:2: -- A disciple asked Jesus about the possibility that the man was born blind because of what he did before he was born (one of the two alternatives in his question). This shows that the disciple believed in preexistence. Jesus doesn’t correct him in that, but instead indicates that in this individual case the blindness had nothing to do with having sinned before being born. A general conclusion cannot be drawn.
Medieval theology has suggested, referring to rabbinical sources, that the man could have sinned in the mother’s womb (having had “evil thoughts” there), a suggestion too absurd to take seriously.
Two crucified malefactors, Luke 23:39-43: -- One of them regretted and believed in Jesus, and Jesus said to him: “To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” He will have had his last incarnation. The other malefactor didn’t regret but mocked Jesus. He will still have had many reincarnations to come…
This, furthermore, contradicts the dogma of inseparability of soul and body. If they were inseparable, his soul couldn’t go to paradise with Jesus the same day.
Discussion with Nicodemus, John 3:3-4 and 8: -- Jesus said: “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God”. Nicodemus asked: “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?” He didn’t see that it would have to be a new mother. This quotation of Jesus is in modern text versions usually translated: “Except a man be born from above…”, and it is explained that Nicodemus would have misunderstood Jesus as saying “…be born again…” This explanation refers to the double sense of the Greek word anothen, which can mean both (and a few more things, too). But this is clearly nonsense, because they didn’t speak Greek! They spoke Aramaic! The Aramaic language has no double-sense word that fits here, but a single-sense word mille’ela = “from above” and another single-sense word tanyanut = “again, anew”. Clearly, Jesus used the latter, since that is how Nocodemus understood it and a misunderstanding is ruled out in the original language.
Later, Jesus says: “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.” This seems to make no sense. Here, the word pneuma occurs twice in the Greek text, and has first been translated as “wind” and later as “Spirit”. Pneuma means “wind” and in an indirect sense “spirit” – but also “soul”, that which makes the body alive, the “breath of life” (cf. Hebrew ruah). The latter meaning is common in religious texts. Furthermore, “sound” is here a translation of the Greek phoné, which rather means “voice”. Hence an alternative and correct translation is: “The soul goes where it listeth, and thou hearest the voice [whispering] thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born with a soul.” Now it makes sense. Jesus talks about preexistence: The soul comes from somewhere, where it was before, and goes on to somewhere else when the body dies. Of course, preexistence doesn’t necessarily mean reincarnation – but reincarnation necessarily involves preexistence…
Whom say people that I am? Luke 9:18-19: -- Jesus said: “’Whom say the people that I am?’ They answering said ‘John the Baptist; but some say, Elias; and others say, that one of the old prophets is risen again’.” John the Baptist would obviously not be possible, but the other alternatives indicate that some people in him saw a possible reincarnation of Elias or another old prophet.
Origen and reincarnation: -- Origen’s relevant original texts were burnt in the 6th century. The only texts remaining to-day are the Latin translations by Rufinus and Hieronymus, the latter only in fragments. Both admit in the introduction to the translation that they have adjusted the text to fit the Dogma and omitted certain “offensive” parts. Thus, clearly, if Origen had written positively about reincarnation, they will have omitted that or changed its wording.
Through burning the original texts, the Church has withdrawn for itself the grounds for proving its allegation that Origen would have contradicted reincarnation.
The anathemata against Origen: -- In the protocols of the Council in Constantinople of 553, the condemnations of Origen were mentioned. They were not a subject discussed in the council itself, but this merely confirmed a condemnation formulated ten years earlier in a local synod in Constantinople. The Council instead dealt with the “three Chapters”, three texts by long dead bishops, now condemned as heretical. But before the Council was opened, waiting for the pope to appear, emperor Justinian presented the text from 543 and requested the bishops present to sign it. The pope didn’t come and the Council, therefore, wasn’t opened yet. A week later they gathered again, but the pope didn’t agree and still didn’t come. The emperor, therefore, declared the Council opened without the presence of the pope, clearly against the rules for a Council.
Emperor Justinian wrote in his edict against Origen, in which he ordered the condemnation at the synod of 543, that, according to Origen: “spiritual entities were fallen in sin and as punishment banned into bodies… becoming imprisoned in a body a second and a third time or even still more times…”
The first anathema reads: “If anyone assert the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema.” The Greek words here translated as “monstrous restoration” are teratodi apokatastasin. Apokatastasis normally refers to the restoration of God’s creation in its original holy order, which is certainly not monstrous… hence it will here refer to something else, but to what? Does it refer to the restoration of a new body for the soul? This would truly be “monstrous” to the Dogma… This may be a reference to reincarnation, without mentioning it by name. And if so, it confirms that Origen was viewed as advocating reincarnation.
Since the condemnation of Origen isn’t a decision by an allegedly “infallible” Council, it has never been officially forbidden to the Christian to believe in preexistence, nor in reincarnation…
The Council in Nicaea in 325: -- It has been repeatedly alleged that belief in reincarnation was condemned during the Council in Nicaea in 325. No reference to that is found in protocols of the Council. However, it is known that these protocols are incomplete. Parts of them are missing. It is also known that emperor Constantine didn’t allow the Gnostic Christians to speak at the Council and that he gave their propositions and petitions to the fire without opening them. It is historically documented that most of the Gnostic Christians believed in reincarnation, but he didn’t give them the chance to present their views.
The third and fourth generation? Num. 14:18: -- “The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.” If this were so, it would be a horrible injustice to punish innocent children, grandchildren and so on for what an ancestor did! And what “mercy” would that be? Such an interpretation is contradicted in Deut. 24:16: “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.” The Christian Gnostics interpreted the text in Num. 14:18 as referring to the “third and forth incarnation” of a sinner. That would be just…
Added by Jan Erik Sigdell (Slovenia) September 27 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.210.183 ( talk) 15:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
The existing page says that "Christian doctrine" rejects the concept of reincarnation even though 24% of American Christians believe in it and 31% of regular churchgoing Catholics in Europe expressed a belief in reincarnation.
It seems to me that the term "Christian doctrine" is innacurately global. It does not recognize that there is huge diversity in the doctrines of any number of Christian churches on any number of subjects, e.g., the virgin birth, baptism by immersion, transubstantiation, justification by faith alone, creationism vs. evolution, gay marriage, to name a few.
It does seem to me that most MAINLINE CHRISTIAN CHURCHES reject the concept of reincarnation, but there are many denominations, some of which do not claim to have any doctrines, and so, therefore, some may entertain the possibility of reincarnation. It would be extremely difficult to exhaustively research the doctrines of hundreds of Christian denominations.
At the same time, a reliable source--Geddes MacGregor, Emeritus Distringuished Professor of Philosophy at the University of Southern California and an Episcopal priest--concludes that belief in Christianity and belief in reincarnation are not mutually exclusive. See cites from Quest [5] and Amazon [6] where sample pages are available.
I see value in deleting the reference to "Christian doctrine" and replacing it with "mainline Christian churches" and adding a reference to MacGregor's work.
I apologize if this post is in the wrong place or if I should have appended it to someone else's subject because I didn't see an easy way to do this. I'm new to Wikipedia and appreciate the guidance I've received from Dr. K and a Macedonian so far. I don't wish to argue, simply make observations from my perspective with hope that the Wikipedia community will see value in my observation, or at least that it will spark a discussion that eventually lead to consensus on the subject.
I'm glad that there are people who are willing and able to spend a lot more time on this than I am. Activadvocate ( talk) 03:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Activadvocate, 2-27-2011, 10:30 p.m. Eastern time
Thank you, Chris. In your opinion then, would it be okay to say, as you observe, that every major Christian denomination rejects incarnation, but...[Professor MacGregor, etc. with cite]}? I'm not sure that this reference to every major denomination can be verified any more than the article's original claim that globally, all Christian doctrine... or mine, for that matter, that most mainline Christian churches reject it. In any case, I'd be satisfied with "every majore Christian denomination."
In case you care, I'm sure a lot of Christians would not see me as a Christian. I see myself as a truthseeker, and I find it in many places. Activadvocate ( talk) 04:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Activadvocate
Thank you, Chris. I have added the changes that there seems to be consensus on. I also see value in Jan-Erik Sigdall's research as expressed above and in his book, [7], because he has documented his sources but I hesitated to add it since I'm not sure you editors recognize him as a reliable source. I was unable to find his credentials in a quick Internet search and wonder if lack of credentials is the main reason his comment above has been mostly ignored? I welcome your advice and insight on the value of adding him / his book to this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Activadvocate ( talk • contribs) 20:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the right place to put this post, so please forgive me if I guessed wrong; I'm still trying to figure this out. I thought the system autosigned me but still it's apparently important to SineBot that I put the four tildes at the end of my posts. Not sure why. Maybe SineBot is the one who autosigns my posts if I forget the four tildes?
Also saw a reference to BullRangifer and that user page emphasized the value of verifiable content. I suppose this is a gentle way of saying that Jan Erik Sigdall's on-line book is not verifiable, even though it has a lot of quotes in it from other sources. I continue to wonder who / how it's decided that some people are verifiable sources and others are considered original research. When does one become the other? Do people have to be associated with a leading university to be verifiable? Does a policy make this clear somewhere? Thank you for any advice or direction that would help me understand. Activadvocate ( talk) 04:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Activadvocate.
I've seen the History Channel documentary Hitler and the Occult more than once. HC is a legitimate resource. Hitler's suicide on April 30 and his command to have his body burned was no 'coincidence' - There Are No Coincidences (there is synchronism). Hitler believed in reincarnation and saw committing suicide and having his body burned on Walpurgisnacht as a vehicle to control his next reincarnation. This is an important fact and should be listed in the article with History Channel as its resource. - Brad Watson, Miami 72.153.60.84 ( talk) 11:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I previously removed the newly added "www.ial.goldthread.com In Another Life, extensive multi-media reincarnation resource" link because it appeared dead. I am still not getting anything from it but I want to check with others before I remove it again in case it's just me. Does it work for anyone? -- Q Chris ( talk) 17:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Is there partial past memories remaining in you now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.214.133.202 ( talk) 10:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, to hear statement, that there is 44 % those who believe in reincarnation in Lithuania (thats were I living in) is simply too ridiculous. Also in highly catholic countries, like Poland and Italy every 1/5 person believes in reincarnation, i.e. completely opposite believe to catholic doctrine ? Sounds something wierd.( Submixster ( talk) 14:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC))
Thanks for the helpful text on this theme, Kapil.xerox. I have tried to simplify the wording, using English terms with the Hindu original in parenthesis afterwards, which seems appropriate for an encyclopedia aimed at laypersons. I hope my changes are acceptable. Do fix anything I have gotten wrong, as I am not an expert! hgilbert ( talk) 01:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the current wording in Hinduism section. The article says reincarnation idea is non-Vedic? Not true. Quoting from "The Brahmasutras and their principal commentaries by B.N.K. Sharma" - Rig Veda 4:27:1-2 record the experiences of Vamadeva on the basis of awareness of his own former lives. RV 4:26:1 goes on to say (of Vamadeva) - "I was Manu and Surya. I was Rsi Kaksivan the Brahmin". Madhva in his commentary on the Brahmasutras uses these sruthi verses in the aphorism 1:1:28-31 of the Brahmasutras Antaryami Pranadhikaranam. Could someone repsond on this issue? If not, I can go ahead and provide this quotation in support of reincarnation in the RV to add to the already present RV verses.
Mentioning the research on reincarnation done by Stevenson et al seems perfectly proper...why would it be giving undue weight to peer-reviewed research to mention this in one sentence, especially since critical responses are also included? -- Also, though the mention of particular works is not necessary here, links to the titles of their works do not seem terribly obnoxious. Take these out if you really want to... hgilbert ( talk) 01:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I added the following to the Judaism category... Kabbalah also teaches that "The soul of Moses is reincarnated in every generation" <ref]Kabbalah for Dummies</ref]. I came up with that reference by memory and need to find the book to provide page #, author, publisher, and year. - Ben Hurt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.11.183 ( talk) 16:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I was told by a rabbi at a forum that pretty much all Orthodox Jews, both Sephard and Ashkenazi, believe in Kabbalah, and, therefore, in reincarnation, contrary to what this Wikipedia article is saying. Which is not to say that many actually know Kabbalah; most simply don't get that far in their studies. The source seemed authoritative, and was not contradicted by anyone else, so I'd say it's worth checking.
I was told Moroccan Jews are the largest exception of that rule.
You don't hear much about reincarnation because 1) Jews are not encouraged to prozelitize, and 2) Judaism was born as an anti-Egyptian religion of sorts, and as a result, the Egyptian obsession with the afterlife is discouraged. Jews are pretty much told that this world is what matters now, everything else we are going to find out when we get there. But yes, I believe reincarnation is a bigger part of Judaism than the article says.
Sobaklavan ( talk) 03:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
The main article suggests merging pre-existence with reincarnation. Pre-existence is a very big deal in Mormonism, and is completely different from reincarnation. Even for non-Mormons, pre-existence does not have to mean physically existing or existing on this world or with a different name. Pre-existence and reincarnation are fundamentally different. For this reason I vote to keep the topics separate. 85.211.155.41 ( talk) 15:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
The following text was removed from the lead: "and the Shia sects such as the Alawi Shias". Does anyone know whether this group incorporates beliefs in reincarnation? Should the text be restored or not? hgilbert ( talk) 00:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I suggest that preexistence should not be merged with reincarnation, because in some religious sects the belief is that the current birth is the only one and the soul exists before the current birth till it is ready to take birth. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ddmisra (
talk •
contribs) 23:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I believe that some people believe that reincarnation is possible without there being a soul. For example, in buddhism, the empty not-self is reborn every time one dies (according to some schools). The core of the being is not a singular entity (anatman), but just pure consciousness, without "I".
In the concept of trikaya, there are three bodies that describe something that is a bit like a soul. The pure everything-that-exist-at-once dharmakaya being like the atmosphere, the intermediary sambhogakaya being like clouds and the experience-of-being-a-human nirmanakaya being like the rain that falls from the clouds. The dharmakaya is eternal, while clouds move over the surface of the earth and the rain being our temporary experiences as humans.
Here, the "I" is just a temporary manifestation of something entirely different, and not at all like what we usually mean with a soul. I would say that this is a belief that does not include souls (or an I) at all. The concept of a soul is merely added so that we (people with a western culture) have words to use for describing it.
On investigation of the link and book title, I removed the most obvious promotional material from this section, but have the impression that the whole section relies on a spurious source. There is better more authoritative, well-researched material out there. Generally, the terminology is not classic to writings on vodun/voudon/voodoo. Manytexts ( talk) 00:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I have added the rosh and rashba the rosh is in responsa "additanal responsas" #70 in which he argues on his grandson and the rashba was a letter writen to him in responsa #418 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.86.122.220 ( talk) 11:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC) the rosh is better known as Asher ben Jehiel and the rashba as Solomon ben Aderet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.113.222 ( talk) 20:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
'Reincarnation' is the religious or philosophical concept - and now scientifically confirmed concept... I added "now scientifically confirmed concept" because the book Soul Survivor strongly documents reincarnation. Reincarnation Theory & its 23 Principles/Theory of Luck (ex. Einstein returned as Watson) ( http://7seals.blogspot.com ) is another strong scientific proof as is all the work of Dr. Ian Stevenson and his associates at University Of Virginia and the many psychiatrists practicing past-life regression. - Benjamin Franklin 75.74.157.29 ( talk) 00:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
and the scientists are arguing for Shariah law all over the western world, which means they are duffases.
Nostradamus speaks openly about it, but it is in Early modern era latin, and a part of his private correspondence, and a difficult book to find, UCLA and Cal Berkeley have each a copy.
Scientists at Cal make weapons to harm and kill defenseless humans, how can you argue they are the boarder guards, duffasses? I have my own reincarnations, with photos and all sorts of people , then and now living. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.202.34 ( talk) 01:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Reincarnation's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Peters":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Reincarnation. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
There is sharp disagreement about how far the Indus Valley civilisation shared the beliefs of later Hinduism. And about whether the Vedas endorse a belief in reincarnation. The writing system of the Indus Valley has not been read and may not even have been a full writing system. Even though the claim seems to have a source, the source would be going against almost all other sources. The reference treated a minority view as if it were generally accepted. -- GwydionM ( talk) 10:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Quoted Rig-veda verses are not accurate. RV 10:90 is Purusha shukta and it is not about reincarnation, nor the given text is to be found in Purusha shukta translation. Rig Veda 10:16.1-4 is about funeral rites, when soul of the cremated is sent to Pitrloka, the planet of forefathers, where it truly does get a new form, but is not subject to law of karma, it does not create good or bad karma anymore, thus it cannot be considered to be a regular human life, but the kind of an afterlife.
Reincarnation was mentioned in Ṛgveda 3.1.20-21 "The knower of birth is hidden in every birth" (janmañ-janman nihito jātavedāḥ) and Ṛgveda 4.54.2 "For you first impel immortality to the gods worthy of the sacrifice as their highest share; just after that, o Savitṛ, you reveal your gift: lives following in succession for the sons of Manu" (anūcīnā jīvitā mānuṣebhyaḥ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miodrag1963 ( talk • contribs) 00:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Motivação: Is "aspect of" superfluous? Per the main article discussion, only an aspect of a living being is believed to reincarnate: soul or consciousness or etc, depending on the tradition. For direct WP:RS support, see Encyclopedia Britannica, which reads, "Reincarnation, also called transmigration or metempsychosis, in religion and philosophy, rebirth of the aspect of an individual that persists after bodily death—whether it be consciousness, mind, the soul, or some other entity—in one or more successive existences". Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 15:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Reincarnation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0SOR/is_2_60/ai_55208520/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Reincarnation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.spiritual-wholeness.org/faqs/reinceur/reineuro.htmWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Zalmoxianism is connected with Pythagoras concepts of reincarnation and transmigration of soul. I was adding the citations and completing my ideas and the concepts got removed and I got a threat that I am vandalizing and that I am subject to punishment if I keep doing this.
I want my changes reverted because all my concepts presented are based on existing theories . None are personal conjecture.
This is the person that removed the section of the article I was working on and threatened to remove my privileges. /info/en/?search=User:Dr.K.
I want this matter resolved and my article back because I was working on valid knowledge.
Zalmoxis and Zalmoxianism was an ancient Dacian religion that is connected with Pythagoreanism according to Herodotus. Zalmoxis taught Dacians that people do not die but rather they continue on and in other sources that they return to earth as different people in different places. Zalmoxis himself died and was reborn after 4 years. When Dacians die they celebrate death and laugh because it is an illusion. Trajan prides himself according to sources when he defeated the Dacians because they are the most warlike people they never fear death they celebrate when people die. I was working on the citations before this person removed my article. Please discuss here and correct this gross monopolization of knowledge. This should be an openly and freely editable encyclopedia and nobody should have a monopoly on knowledge on what is Reincarnation. If my articles require citations or better sources please let me know but do not remove and threaten me for bringing valid knowledge to the table. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trollworkout ( talk • contribs) 19:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Zalmoxis himself died and was reborn after 4 years. When Dacians die they celebrate death because it is an illusion.No. Death is not an illusion and noone has come back from the dead. Please see WP:FRINGE and do not attempt to add hoaxes to the article. Dr. K. 19:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
As our friend hasn't provided it, this Wikisource page is (probably) the only primary source. Herodotus concludes "I for my part neither put entire faith in this story of Zalmoxis and his underground chamber, nor do I altogether discredit it: but I believe Zalmoxis to have lived long before the time of Pythagoras. Whether there was ever really a man of the name, or whether Zalmoxis is nothing but a native god of the Getae, I now bid him farewell." It would be inappropriate to describe the claimed resurrection as anything other than myth. What any of this has to do with reincarnation is beyond me. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 21:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I found the section on Christian views of reincarnation interesting, especially the references to Origen. Vorbee ( talk) 10:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I tweaked the opening sentence... Reincarnation is the philosophical or religious concept of an eternal soul that starts a new life in a different physical body or form after each biological death. 73.85.206.136 ( talk) 12:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Wrong. You can't have reincarnation without having a soul. I've restored my edits, but have deleted "eternal" - just having "soul". The Dalai Lama is chosen because he passed the tests of being the reincarnated previous Buddhist leader - google that. 2601:580:103:2ACD:21D7:70AE:954B:2A5C ( talk) 13:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Right now the article includes the paranormal infobox. The concept of "paranormal" is deeply entwined with pseudosciences, particularly stuff like parapsychology, ghost hunting, and cryptozoology. Meanwhile, reincarnation is a central component of many religions across the world, both now and in the past.
I've tried to remove this infobox, but the edit was reverted ( [30]). The reason? "This article is linked within that paranormal navbox, so it belongs". With that logic, one could expect to said user to argue that because the infobox is on this article, it belongs in the template.
Additionally, the article's lead currently features an image discussing Jianism, and the intro falls in and out of discussing eastern religions rather than summarizing the topic as a whole. The article needs serious work from start to finish. :bloodofox: ( talk) 20:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Shashank5988 keeps reverting to his POV (possibly motivated by Hindu nationalism) to claim that the early Vedic period had already a concept for reincarnation. The given reference is about Buddhism and does not speak about if the concept was already present in the Vedic times. I changed the wrong facts and included a reliable academic reference (A.M. Boyer: Etude sur l'origine de la doctrine du samsara. Journal Asiatique and Yuvraj Krishan: . Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1997) which both state that reicarnation or cycliy system were not part of the early Vedic religion. I will revert his edit again. If we take a look at his talk page, we already see that there are more problems regarding his edit-style.-- 212.241.98.39 ( talk) 14:00, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Some religions and belief systems believe in (effectively) instantaneous reincarnation - do some allow for intervals between 'appearances'? 82.44.143.26 ( talk) 16:10, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
And would 'time travel and killing your reincarnation' count as suicide? 82.44.143.26 ( talk) 15:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
In the section titled, "Investigations of children who seem to remember a past life", I want to add
this citation, but is it a reliable source?—
Dr2Rao (
talk) 17:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I think the paragraph under "Western World" speaking of the dialog between the Dalai Lama and Carl Sagan should be moved to the section "Skepticism" as it does not relate to how reincarnation is received in the West but rather a particular skeptic's ideas on the subject. Tac62184 ( talk) 15:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I propose merging Punarjanman and Reincarnationism into Reincarnation. I think that the content in both the Punarjanman and Reincarnationism articles can easily be explained in the context of Reincarnation, and merging will not cause any article size problems there. Shenrichs ( talk) 21:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Can you show the hadith Sahih Bukhari 2972? Egon20 ( talk) 10:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Can We Add This Verse in Islam Section
كَيْفَ تَكْفُرُوْنَ بِاللّٰهِ وَكُنْتُمْ اَمْوَاتًا فَاَحْيَاكُمْۚ ثُمَّ يُمِيْتُكُمْ ثُمَّ يُحْيِيْكُمْ ثُمَّ اِلَيْهِ تُرْجَعُوْنَ
How can you disbelieve in Allah when you were lifeless and He brought you to life; then He will cause you to die, then He will bring you [back] to life, and then to Him you will be returned.(Quran 2.28)
Sufi Muslim In Indonesia use This Verse To Supported Their Belief About Reincarnation 112.215.240.129 ( talk) 13:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Normally microversian probably are used to recloned new entities out of dead entities. They can be nativity grown or can be generated throw preonic engineering as AI's and so on. 2A02:AA11:9102:3D80:FCC4:743A:8198:A16A ( talk) 08:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't think we would consider EXPLORE to be indicative of the kind of source we would want to include at Wikipedia. jps ( talk) 20:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Hey @ jps, I see you deleted the Bibliography and Further Reading, and you say you left a note... but where is all of that information now? I agree it was superfluous to have inline references, a bibliography, and a further reading section. Still, we can't just delete all of that. Maybe everything that was in the Bibliography and Further Reading can be in the box at the bottom? LightProof1995 ( talk) 19:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion started on the Vital-3 Talk Page for moving Reincarnation up to Vital-3, if anyone here would like to vote for it to be moved up from Vital-4. Thanks LightProof1995 ( talk) 17:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
I added... Benjamin Franklin a scientist believed in the "transmigration of souls based on energy is neither created or destroyed, only transferred/transformed" - Isaac Newton's Law of Conservation of Energy. 12.188.116.34 ( talk) 20:00, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Is it a good idea to mention that 2500 cases of reincarnation have been studied? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26299061/ https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/out-the-darkness/202112/evaluating-the-evidence-reincarnation Temp0000002 ( talk) 16:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
@ LightProof1995: Your sources fail WP:RS. tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
According to WP:FRIND we need sources from journals that are high impact and highly regarded, not out-of-the-way outfits and not pocket journals. Certainly not the horrible sources you are proposing. Note that right now you are engaging in WP:PROFRINGE editing. I am going to revert now and we can discuss one by one. No one in science or academia save the very few we already identify takes reincarnation seriously. The attempt to shoehorn in concepts from physics which say absolutely nothing about reincarnation is not okay. jps ( talk) 17:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Also, I can find absolutely zero reliable sources which connect the cyclic model of cosmology to reincarnation. Sources which do so would be interesting, to say the least. We would want someone who knows enough about physics/cosmology writing the source, by the way. jps ( talk) 17:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Both string theory and reincarnation are science. Even Spiritism, where mediums were interviewed, is science. Science is not always about explaining or understanding phenomena. Instead, it is the scientific method. Ian Stevenson and Allan Kardec both used the scientific method and came up with astounding results, but that doesn’t mean the results are wrong. My sources are good for this page. Please see AdS/CFT correspondence as proof string theory is in fact 1. Physics and 2. Highly cited physics. Also, I vote James Leininger as first to be added. LightProof1995 ( talk) 05:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Great. Good to know votes don’t count. I have a bachelors of science degree. I am able to delineate a wetland and program in assembly language. You do know the “applied” in the phrase “applied mathematics” refers to the math being applied to another discipline, e.g. physics, right…? You telling me I “don’t under science” and shouldn’t “edit science articles” is not WP:ETIQUETTE. LightProof1995 ( talk) 02:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Even Spiritism, where mediums were interviewed, is science.is completely ROFLMAO. tgeorgescu ( talk) 03:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I can program in Assembly Language too (or used to be able to--I stick with C nowadays), but it never occurred to me to think that gave me any scientific expertise whatsoever. A Bachelors of Science degree doen't necessarily have anthing to do with science, despite the name. I have a Bachelors of Art, among various other degrees and certificates. That doesn't make me an artist. I never took a single art class. In any case, it seems to me that whether a particular subject should be considered science depends on whether 1) the overwhelming majority of its practitioners approach it scientificly and whether 2) the subject is susceptible to scientific treatment. I would judge that reincarnation fails to meet these criteria. The reincarnation studies I'm aware of that purport to be scientific merely compile anecdotal accounts. TheScotch ( talk) 16:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I think LightProof1995's list is a good start, but I think what we need to do is find sources that show why and how these claimants are more notable than the oodles of others that are out there. I also don't think we should be in the business of listing people who don't have wikiarticles and are not likely to have them. These need to be blockbuster stories because this is a top-level article. I am going to reproduce the list of people (and add some others I'm finding here on WP) that may be worth including here and hope that users add sources beneath them for us to consider. Keep a close eye on WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, etc! jps ( talk) 14:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
References
(Section: Reincarnation#Claims of past lives)
This sentence does not appear well-supported. The reference is to a Washington Post article which contains the line "But Dr. Stevenson himself recognized one glaring flaw in his case for reincarnation: the absence of any evidence of a physical process by which a personality could survive death and transfer to another body." Firstly, the only thing this says Stevenson acknowledges is the lack of a physical mechanism, whereas the previous paragraph in the Wikipedia article lists other criticisms as well, such as cherry-picking, unreliability of memory and fabrication to obtain money. As it is, it sounds like Stevenson is acknowledging these criticisms too, which is definitely not in the reference.
Secondly, I feel this requires a primary source. What exactly did Stevenson say? It could have been sth like "we don't yet have the full picture of a physical mechanism, but there is promising progress being made", or "it is, admittedly, very hard to see what physical mechanism could support these past life memories". These are very different things, and both could have been paraphrased as the line from the Washington Post. Also, it mentions personality transferring to another body, which is not really the same thing as memory. The only thing we can actually say is "One journalist has written that Stevenson himself acknowledged the lack of a physical mechanism by which personality could transfer to another body after death". I'd say it's better to just remove the line until there is a better source. The Washington Post journalist also wrote a book about Stevenson's work. If someone has access, maybe they could find something in there? Bollus101 ( talk) 08:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)