Reincarnation

[Anthropos]

”However that may be, the idea of reincarnation too, like that of evolution, is a very modern idea; it appears to have materialized around 1830 or 1848 in certain French socialist circles. Most revolutionaries of that time were ’mystics’ in the worst sense of the word, and everyone knows of the extravagances occasioned among them by the theories of Fourier, Saint-Simon, and others of this kind. For these socialists the idea in question, whose inventors were probably Fourier and Pierre Leroux, had as its sole purpose to explain the inequalities of social conditions, or at least to allay what they found shocking in them, by attributing them to the consequences of actions accomplished in some prior existence. The Theosophists sometimes also proffered this ’reason’ although they generally stressed it less than the spiritists. At root, a theory such as this explains nothing, only serving to push back the difficulty, if indeed there is a difficulty; for if there was really equality at the outset it could never have been broken at least as long as one does not formally contest the principle of sufficient reason; but in this last case the question no longer arises and the very idea of natural law which was to figure in the solution no longer means anything. Moreover, there is still much more than this to say about reincarnation; for from the viewpoint of pure metaphysics one can demonstrate its absolute impossibility, and do so without any exceptions like those conceded by the ’H B of L’ [Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor]. Moreover, here we mean the impossibility of reincarnation, not only on earth but also on any other planet, as well as of bizarre notions like the multiplicity of simultaneous incarnations on different planets; for the Theosophists, as we have seen, there are very long series of incarnations on each of the planets that are part of the same system. The same metaphysical demonstration is equally valid against such theories as the ’eternal return’ of Nietzsche; [...] We will only say, in order to reduce the claims of the Theosophists to their just value, that no traditional doctrine has ever admitted reincarnation and this idea was entirely foreign to all of antiquity, even though some have wished to support it by tendentious interpretations of certain more or less symbolic texts. Even in Buddhism it is only a question of ’changes of state’, which obviously is not the same thing as a series of earthly lives; and, we repeat, it is only symbolically that different states have sometimes been described as ’lives’ by analogy with the present state of the human being and with the conditions of his terrestrial existence. Let us also explain that despite the false interpretations current today, reincarnation has nothing to do with the ’metempsychosis’ of the Orphics and Pythagoreans, any more than with the theories of certain Jewish Kabbalists on the ’embryonic state’ and the ’revolution of souls’. The truth is therefore simply this: the first spiritists of Allan Kardec’s school belonged to the socialist circles we spoke of, and it is there that they borrowed this idea, as did certain writers of the same period; and it was in the French spiritist school that Mme Blavatsky in turn found this idea as the occultists of the Papusian school did a little later; [...]”

René Guénon, Theosophy: History of a Pseudo-Religion, Hillsdale NY: Sophia Perennis, 2nd impr., 2004, 104-106.



Many scholars have since agreed with René Guénon that reincarnation is a wholly Western concept; this despite the fact that Guénon is not held in high esteem in academic circles.
There are no serious translations of traditional Hindu literature where the word 'reincarnation' occurs.


I am quoting Guénon since unlike many others he actually said something about the true origins of 'reincarnation' providing an account of how this idea became so widespread.

DISCUSSION: What did you know about reincarnation, and what was your source of information?

[Óttar]

Hinduism

Main article: Reincarnation and Hinduism
According to Hinduism, the soul (atman) is immortal, while the body is subject to birth and death. The Bhagavad Gita states that:

Worn-out garments are shed by the body; Worn-out bodies are shed by the dweller within the body. New bodies are donned by the dweller, like garments. (Verse 2:22)[17]

The idea that the soul (of any living being with a consciousness) reincarnates is intricately linked to karma, another concept first recorded in the Upanishads. Karma (literally: action) is the sum of one's actions and the force that determines one's next reincarnation. The cycle of death and rebirth, governed by karma, is referred to as samsara. [18]

Hinduism teaches that the soul goes on repeatedly being passed from body to body through the physical cycle of death and birth. One is reborn on account of desire: a person desires to be born because he or she wants to enjoy worldly pleasures, which can be enjoyed only through a body.[19] Hinduism does not teach that all worldly pleasures are sinful, but it teaches that they can never bring deep, lasting happiness or peace (ānanda). According to the Hindu sage Adi Shankaracharya, the world - as we ordinarily understand it - is like a dream: fleeting and illusory. To be trapped in samsara is a result of ignorance of the true nature of our existence.

After many births, every person eventually becomes dissatisfied with the limited happiness that worldly pleasures can bring. At this point, a person begins to seek higher forms of happiness, which can be attained only through spiritual experience. When, after much spiritual practice (sādhanā), a person finally realizes his or her own divine nature—i.e., realizes that the true "self" is the immortal soul rather than the body or the ego—all desires for the pleasures of the world will vanish, since they will seem insipid compared to spiritual ānanda. When all desire has vanished, the person will not be reborn anymore.[20]

When the cycle of rebirth thus comes to an end, a person is said to have attained moksha, or salvation from samsara.[21] While all schools of thought agree that moksha implies the cessation of worldly desires and freedom from the cycle of birth and death, the exact definition of salvation depends on individual beliefs. For example, followers of the Advaita Vedanta school (often associated with jnana yoga) believe that they will spend eternity absorbed in the perfect peace and happiness that comes with the realization that all existence is One (Brahman), and that the immortal soul is part of that existence. The followers of full or partial Dvaita schools ("dualistic" schools, such as bhakti yoga), on the other hand, perform their worship with the goal of spending eternity in a loka, (spiritual world or heaven), in the blessed company of the Supreme being (i.e. Krishna or Vishnu for the Vaishnavas and Shiva for the dualistic schools of Shaivism).[22] The principal Hindu Gods are Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva and their consorts Saraswati, Lakshmi and Parvati. While there is hardly any text describing reincarnation of Brahma and Saraswati, the rest of the Gods are known to have reincarnated in various forms under different circumstances. Lord Vishnu is known for His ten reincarnations, namely Dashavatars.



Greek Philosophy

An early example of reincarnation in Western cultures comes from the Orphic or Dionysus mystery religions dating back between the 6th and 4th century BC, according to which the soul was breathed into the human body through the Aither (air) where the host, or human, would atone for the sins from the inheritance of titan heritage. The soul would spend 10 transformations across a span of one thousand years each before atonement and become one with the gods; by living one's life as a philosopher it would only take three of these transformations.[citation needed]

Among the ancient Greeks, Socrates, Pythagoras, and Plato may have believed in or taught the doctrine of reincarnation. Several ancient sources affirm that Pythagoras claimed he could remember his past lives.[26] An association between Pythagorean philosophy and reincarnation was routinely accepted throughout antiquity.

In Plato's Phaedo dialogue, Socrates, prior to his death, states; "I am confident that there truly is such a thing as living again, and that the living spring from the dead." However, Xenophon, our other main informant of Socrates' life, does not mention the latter as believing in reincarnation.

Plato presented detailed accounts of reincarnation in his major works. It may be questioned whether Plato's accounts, such as the Myth of Er, which also contain many fabulous details irrelevant to reincarnation, were intended to be taken literally. Marsilio Ficino (Platonic Theology 17.3-4) argued that Plato's references to reincarnation were intended allegorically.

In the Hermetica, a Graeco-Egyptian series of writings on cosmology and spirituality attributed to Hermes Trismegistus/Thoth, the doctrine of reincarnation is central.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation

The OP reminds me of my postmodernist history teacher telling the class that Western Civilisation didn't exist despite a demarcation being made between East and West by Herodotos, the Father of History. He also claimed the idea of a Nation only went back to the 19th century when the word natio meaning a group of people with a common origin or birth is attested from the earliest times.

Provocateurs.

[Anthropos]

WEAKipedia.

[Anthropos]

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation

The OP reminds me of my postmodernist history teacher telling the class that Western Civilisation didn't exist despite a demarcation being made between East and West by Herodotos, the Father of History. He also claimed the idea of a Nation only went back to the 19th century when the word natio meaning a group of people with a common origin or birth is attested from the earliest times.

Provocateurs.

It's easy to see who is a provocateur, by the way. You can't even stay on topic. And Nodens will join you any minute.

[Nodens]

And Nodens will join you any minute.

And you called me obsessive. :D

While I somewhat suspect translation/semantic issues to be the real culprit, the immediate question would be as to the date and nature of the first use of the term in the English language. If it can be shown to have occurred prior to the 19th Century and to have referred simply to the transmigration of the soul, Guénon's argument is demonstrably false.

[Anthropos]

And you called me obsessive. :D

While I somewhat suspect translation/semantic issues to be the real culprit, the immediate question would be as to the date and nature of the first use of the term in the English language. If it can be shown to have occurred prior to the 19th Century and to have referred simply to the transmigration of the soul, Guénon's argument is demonstrably false.

I called you obsessive (elsewhere) because you preferred to make statements about me instead of on topic. But let's forget about it; I only saw that you were browsing the thread while I was replying to Ottar (who also made statements about me instead of on topic).

As for your argument, it's only 'if'.

That said, we are not merely speaking of the word, but of the concept at the same time. It should be clear from the quote that Guénon's point does not concern whether the word 'reincarnation' was present in Buddhism, among Orphics, among Pythagoreans and among Jewish Kabbalists. Indeed he did not expect to find it there, and his claim is stronger than that. I have studied all of those things anyway and never did I come across anything like that typically modern, Western idea of 'reincarnation'.

Without implicating anyone (in particular), I suspect that people do not like for their prejudiced opinions to be challenged, and Westerners generally are much more under the influence of neospiritualist ideas than traditional ideas.

[Klärchen]

And again I have only German sources... :(

I'm going to become the Miss Marple of Google here... ;)

Anyway, tomorrow...

[Nodens]

I called you obsessive (elsewhere) because you preferred to make statements about me instead of on topic.

When I called you out for doing likewise.


But let's forget about it;

As amusing as it would be to continue, such is probably for the best.


As for your argument, it's only 'if'.

Of course, Wikipedia wasn't helpful on this point and I really don't think the issue merits real effort.


That said, we are not merely speaking of the word, but of the concept at the same time. It should be clear from the quote that Guénon's point does not concern whether the word 'reincarnation' was present in Buddhism, among Orphics, among Pythagoreans and among Jewish Kabbalists. Indeed he did not expect to find it there, and his claim is stronger than that. I have studied all of those things anyway and never did I come across anything like that typically modern, Western idea of 'reincarnation'.

I'm generally inclined to agree, in as much as most contemporary 'Western Ideas' are essentially vacuous. Further debate is contingent upon the definition of reincarnation that Guénon supposes and the nature of the doctrines that he considers it to be falsely applied to.


Without implicating anyone (in particular), I suspect that people do not like for their prejudiced opinions to be challenged,

You don't say. :whistle:


and Westerners generally are much more under the influence of neospiritualist ideas than traditional ideas.

I'll agree with the General but not the Particulars.

[Anthropos]

No Nodens, I had not even noticed you when you started to analyse (sic) my character.

[Nodens]

No Nodens, I had not even noticed you when you started to analyse (sic) my character.

I never suggested otherwise.

[Anthropos]

When I called you out for doing likewise.


No Nodens, I had not even noticed you when you started to analyse (sic) my character.


I never suggested otherwise.

Stay away if you have nothing better to do than to stalk, troll and to contradict yourself when your bluff is called. I repeat, I had not even noticed you when you started stalking me and obsessing about me, trying to analyse me. On the one hand you think that you were calling me out 'for doing likewise', only to change your mind and agree with me that I had not even noticed you. It's not nice of you and Ottar to ruin my thread just because you like to be the center of attention. Keep your profound insights about me to yourselves, because I'll bet you that very few people besides you and Ottar are interested in me anyway. Don't waste your pearls.

[Nodens]

I see two possibilities: total communication failure, or persecution complex. And I see no remedy for either.

[Brynhild]

Any interest I may have had in posting my experiences regarding this subject have been well and truly killed. First of all, quoting Wikipedia and other lame sources really have no bearing on individual experiences. Second of all, from the word go, there have been nothing but fucking arguments, and it's always the same troublemakers. :mad:

[Klärchen]

OK everyone, if you don't make peace now, you will have to continue your fight in the next life... :p

I have at last found these sources:

The early Christians still believed in reincarnation:

http://reluctant-messenger.com/origen1.html

Among the most prominent reincarnation researchers were Prof. Ian Stevenson (http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/personalitystudies/) and Dr. Helen Wambach (http://www.carolmoore.net/articles/helenwambach.html).

[Anthropos]

OK everyone, if you don't make peace now, you will have to continue your fight in the next life... :p

I have at last found these sources:

The early Christians still believed in reincarnation:

http://reluctant-messenger.com/origen1.html

Among the most prominent reincarnation researchers were Prof. Ian Stevenson (http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/personalitystudies/) and Dr. Helen Wambach (http://www.carolmoore.net/articles/helenwambach.html).



Follow the link to 'host site' from that page claiming that 'the early Christians still (sic) believed in reincarnation', or follow this link: [Chester] the Reluctant Messenger (http://reluctant-messenger.com/main.htm). Do you really think that Chester is a trustworthy source? There is a page Scriptural support for reincarnation (http://reluctant-messenger.com/origen3.html), which contains nothing but Ultraprotestantic and wishful 'support'. The alternative 'theology' of this 'reluctant messenger' is a paraphrase on various more or less peripheral or even irrelevant books, and the conclusion is not too far-fetched that it was created by one reincarnation activist or a few of them, likely just a few years ago. What is clear from what there is to read on the site is that this 'theology' is entirely out of touch with authentic Christianity as it was handed down to us. There is in all honesty no reason that I can think of to attribute any importance to the writings there.

Concerning Origen,


* First, Origen's doctrine of apocatastasis has been condemned in three local councils in the fifth century: an Alexandrian council, under the presidency of Patriarch Pheofilos, a Cyprian council, under presidency of St. Epifanios of Cyprus, and a Roman council, under the presidency of Pope Anastasius I.

* The decision of the Council (also Synod) of Constantinople in 453, confirmed by the Fifth Ecumenical Council's anathemas in 553: "If anyone shall say that all reasonable beings will one day be united in one,...moreover, that in this pretended apocatastasis, spirits only will continue to exist, as it was in the reigned pre-existence: let him be anathema. (From The Anathemas against Origen, Anathema XIV. Online at CCEL (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-116.htm#P5688_1213225).)http://orthodoxwiki.org/Apocatastasis

If I understood it well, some of Origen's teachings were anathemised since he tended towards belief in eternal life as a necessity, thus claiming something to the effect that God must necessarily save all men. But what this has to do with reincarnation fails me completely, for it seems unrelated.


..., if you don't make peace now, ...I'm no internet warrior, so how can I make peace when I didn't even go to war? There's no war that I'm aware of, only some noise.

[Klärchen]

Miss Marple's on the lookout... ;)

[Klärchen]

Whew, it is not quite easy browsing all those texts on the internet. I do not really care, to be true, if someone is Ultraprotestantic, Orthodox, or Catholic (I myself grew up in a Catholic family). Our Bible is a collection of scriptures selected out of many scriptures by clergymen who were certainly interested in preserving their own power and keeping away certain truths from the common people. Sorry, but the Catholic clergy has committed even bigger crimes, as we all know.

You may have heard of Dr.Edmond B. Székely (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Bordeaux_Szekely). He translated ancient manuscripts in Aramaic that he had discovered during his studies in the Secret Archives of the Vatican. There, for ex., Jesus recommends also vegetarian food.

http://www.essene.com/GospelOfPeace/index.html

Another translator of ancient manuscripts was Rev. Gideon Jasper Richard Ouseley. Here I could find two hints at reincarnation:
The Gospel of the Holy Twelve, Lection XXXVII, 2; Lection XCIV, 2-4 (http://reluctant-messenger.com/essene/gospel_4.htm)

But I do not only rely on Christian sources, you know.

[SuuT]

Many scholars have since agreed with René Guénon that reincarnation is a wholly Western concept; this despite the fact that Guénon is not held in high esteem in academic circles.

He is not held in high esteem for the same reasons that Evola is not: He like to make things up, couch his thesis in a scholarly looking progression (almost such that the reader does not care that he is sourcing nearly nothing and yet calling into question the sources of others); he also seems to count on the relative philosophical naiveté of his audience and the common lack of etiological, etymologocal, philological and epistemological training lacking in smart and inquisitive people, who are otherwise untrained to the extent that the subject matter necessitates. Evloa was at least so kind at the end of his life to tell us that he made it all up:D - calling the peoples who were attempting to pronounce he and his works holy, Evola Manic (whack jobs/crazy/insane).



I am quoting Guénon since unlike many others he actually said something about the true origins of 'reincarnation' providing an account of how this idea became so widespread.

There's the problem, though: You are presupposing that he has said anything true at all about it's origins; by and large he has not.

The ideas of Anamnesis, Metempsychosis and Transmigration are metaphysical designations attested in Plato (...is there really a desire to argue this...? Has anyone, anywhere, other than Guénon said different...?). This idea that Guénon has that it was pulled out of some modern French ether is bizzare, if I'm being honest.

Plato likely received the idea for his Innate Knowledge via metaphysical and allegorical ellaboration of Pythagorean ideas. Phythagoras is attested by Diogenes Laertius; who, in his The Life of Pythagoras, portrays the incarnations of Pythagoras as such:

Heracleides of Pontus says that he was accustomed to speak of himself in this manner: that he had formerly been Aethalides, and had been accounted to be the son of Hermes, and that Hermes had desired him to select any gift he pleased except immortality. Accordingly, he had requested that, whether living or dead, he might preserve the memory of what had happened to him. While, therefore, he was alive, he recalled everything, and when he was dead he retained the same memory. At a subsequent period he passed into Euphorbus, and was wounded by Menelaus. While he was Euphorbus, he used to say that he had formerly been Aethalides; and that he had received as a gift from Hermes the perpetual transmigration of his soul, so that it was constantly transmigrating and passing into whatever plants or animals it pleased, and he had also received the gift of knowing and recollecting all that his soul had suffered in Hades, and what sufferings too are endured by the rest of the souls.

But after Euphorbus died, he said that his soul had passed into Hermotimus, and when he wished to convince people of this, he went into the territory of the Branchidae, and going into the temple of Apollo, he showed his shield which Menelaus had dedicated there as an offering. For he said that he, when he sailed from Troy, had offered up his shield which was already getting worn out, to Apollo, and that nothing remained but the ivory face which was on it. He said that when Hermotimus died he had become Pyrrhus, a fisherman of Delos, and that he still recollected everything, how he had formerly been Aethalides, then Euphorbus, then Hermotimus, and then Pyrrhus. When Pyrrhus died, he became Pythagoras, and still recollected all the circumstances I have been mentioning.


There are numerous other examples in antiquity.

I don't care about the East; so...errrrrr....*paging Fortis*.

[Anthropos]

Whew, it is not quite easy browsing all those texts on the internet. I do not really care, to be true, if someone is Ultraprotestantic, Orthodox, or Catholic (I myself grew up in a Catholic family). Our Bible is a collection of scriptures selected out of many scriptures by clergymen who were certainly interested in preserving their own power and keeping away certain truths from the common people. Sorry, but the Catholic clergy has committed even bigger crimes, as we all know.I don't know why so many revisionists think that all what concerned the Apostles was, as also you said just now, 'power' and 'keeping away certain truths from the common people'. These are nothing but idle conjectures. Despite having spent considerable time in the company of these revisionists and read no few of their writings, I have never come across anything like a logical reason for this belief. A belief is what it is, and many of the revisionists whether deliberately neospiritualist or not are in a very crude sense dogmatic on this point (as they are also on many other points).

Furthermore and contrary to what you say there are big differences between different interpretations, so that one cannot even compare them. Modern 'theology' cooked up on a whim has absolutely nothing to do with traditional Christianity, and whatever you prefer I think it is only right to put stress on this.


You may have heard of Dr.Edmond B. Székely (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Bordeaux_Szekely). He translated ancient manuscripts in Aramaic that he had discovered during his studies in the Secret Archives of the Vatican. There, for ex., Jesus recommends also vegetarian food.It seems a bit off-topic, but Orthodox monks are actually not allowed to eat meat, for your information, although certainly this doctor has nothing to do with it.


http://www.essene.com/GospelOfPeace/index.htmlI'll allow you to explain why vegetarianism is so important (for peace or for anything else).


Another translator of ancient manuscripts was Rev. Gideon Jasper Richard Ouseley. Here I could find two hints at reincarnation:
The Gospel of the Holy Twelve, Lection XXXVII, 2; Lection XCIV, 2-4

But I do not only rely on Christian sources, you know. Rely on whatever you want. It is none of my concern.

[Anthropos]

He is not held in high esteem for the same reasons that Evola is not: He like to make things up, couch his thesis in a scholarly looking progression (almost such that the reader does not care that he is sourcing nearly nothing and yet calling into question the sources of others); he also seems to count on the relative philosophical naiveté of his audience and the common lack of etiological, etymologocal, philological and epistemological training lacking in smart and inquisitive people, who are otherwise untrained to the extent that the subject matter necessitates. Evloa was at least so kind at the end of his life to tell us that he made it all up:D - calling the peoples who were attempting to pronounce he and his works holy, Evola Manic (whack jobs/crazy/insane).




There's the problem, though: You are presupposing that he has said anything true at all about it's origins; by and large he has not.

The ideas of Anamnesis, Metempsychosis and Transmigration are metaphysical designations attested in Plato (...is there really a desire to argue this...? Has anyone, anywhere, other than Guénon said different...?). This idea that Guénon has that it was pulled out of some modern French ether is bizzare, if I'm being honest.

Plato likely received the idea for his Innate Knowledge via metaphysical and allegorical ellaboration of Pythagorean ideas. Phythagoras is attested by Diogenes Laertius; who, in his The Life of Pythagoras, portrays the incarnations of Pythagoras as such:

Heracleides of Pontus says that he was accustomed to speak of himself in this manner: that he had formerly been Aethalides, and had been accounted to be the son of Hermes, and that Hermes had desired him to select any gift he pleased except immortality. Accordingly, he had requested that, whether living or dead, he might preserve the memory of what had happened to him. While, therefore, he was alive, he recalled everything, and when he was dead he retained the same memory. At a subsequent period he passed into Euphorbus, and was wounded by Menelaus. While he was Euphorbus, he used to say that he had formerly been Aethalides; and that he had received as a gift from Hermes the perpetual transmigration of his soul, so that it was constantly transmigrating and passing into whatever plants or animals it pleased, and he had also received the gift of knowing and recollecting all that his soul had suffered in Hades, and what sufferings too are endured by the rest of the souls.

But after Euphorbus died, he said that his soul had passed into Hermotimus, and when he wished to convince people of this, he went into the territory of the Branchidae, and going into the temple of Apollo, he showed his shield which Menelaus had dedicated there as an offering. For he said that he, when he sailed from Troy, had offered up his shield which was already getting worn out, to Apollo, and that nothing remained but the ivory face which was on it. He said that when Hermotimus died he had become Pyrrhus, a fisherman of Delos, and that he still recollected everything, how he had formerly been Aethalides, then Euphorbus, then Hermotimus, and then Pyrrhus. When Pyrrhus died, he became Pythagoras, and still recollected all the circumstances I have been mentioning.


There are numerous other examples in antiquity.

I don't care about the East; so...errrrrr....*paging Fortis*.

As for the example that you brought up, to my knowledge noone claimed (so far) that one individual or other may not have had some rather fanciful ideas also in antiquity. Diogenes Laertius lived some 700 years after Pythagoras in a time when the authentic Pythagorean tradition did no longer exist, so there is a perfectly logical reason why this example cannot serve to prove anything. When Guénon uses the word 'traditional' it is always in a very strict sense, if nothing else is indicated.

As for the rest, I dislike very much the commonplace tendency of diverging any topic by making of it a discussion about one individual or another, and although sometimes even off-topic diversions can be interesting, your sweeping remarks are quite uninteresting, fabulous and whimsy.

[SuuT]

As for the example that you brought up, to my knowledge noone claimed (so far) that one individual or other may not have had some rather fanciful ideas also in antiquity.

Like Transmigration, Metempsychosis, Anamnesis, etc.?


Diogenes Laertius lived some 700 years after Pythagoras in a time when the authentic Pythagorean tradition did no longer exist,

Oh? What is your source?


so there is a perfectly logical reason why this example cannot serve to prove anything.

Let's us assume that as true. If we do, we move up the date of introduction of the Reincarnation idea to the time of Plato/Socrates - which still serves to prove Guénon incorrect as to Reincanation issuing from the minds of French Modernist neospiritualists.


As for the rest, I dislike very much the commonplace tendency of diverging any topic by making of it a discussion about one individual or another,

From what I can make of your thesis and approach, you are relying more than a bit on Guénon, who is not well resected in true-blue academic and intellectual circles not out of caprice, but out of the fact that he is unrespectable as a source for accurate and scholarly information: This was and is all that I have to say about your use of, and like for, Guénon.

[Svipdag]

Merely because a statement appears in Wikipedia does not automatically imply that it is false or unreliable. Much though I distrust Wikipedia, I have to concede that it is not always wrong !

The statements about Hinduism which Óttar cites , apparently from Wikipedia, are to be found in the Upanishads,the Vedanta Sutras of Vatsyayana, and the writings of Shankara. Reincarnation, as the means of overcoming karma is mentioned, whether by that name or not, in the earliest Upanishads. Moksha, liberation from samsara, the otherwise endless cycle of birth and rebirth, is the common thread in all schools of Vedanta.

The Jatakas are a series of popular fables about the lives of the Buddha through many earlier incarnations. However, Buddhism has worked itself into a doctrinal bind on the subject of reincarnation. On the one hand, there is the concept of anatman: there is no persistent entity, and on the other, a
belief in reincarnation which is as old as anatman, yet they are obviously inconsistent.

If there is no persistent entity, there is nothing to reincarnate. I have mentioned this to Buddhists and they have told me that it is the "life-force" which is reincarnated. I have then asked if the life force is individualised and if it is the vehicle of the karma and been told that it is. "How, then does it differ from the [Upanishadic] atman ?" I ask. The reply is "Oh, it is not the same thing at all." Which, of course does not answer the question.

The concept of reincarnation in Hinduism as the means by which the self (atman) can be relieved of its burden of karma [but which, of course, carries the risk of accumulating more unfavourable karma], is, by itself, old enough, and surely non-western enough, to give the lie to Guénon's assertion of its recent and allegedly western origin.

[Anthropos]

Like Transmigration, Metempsychosis, Anamnesis, etc.?You'll have to treat each in context, please, because this term-dropping leads nowhere. Reincarnation is much the same idea today as it was when Theosophists started propagating it though.




Oh? What is your source?On what?




Let's us assume that as true. If we do, we move up the date of introduction of the Reincarnation idea to the time of Plato/Socrates - which still serves to prove Guénon incorrect as to Reincanation issuing from the minds of French Modernist neospiritualists.You in turn have to prove your case, you know.



From what I can make of your thesis and approach, you are relying more than a bit on Guénon, who is not well resected in true-blue academic and intellectual circles not out of caprice, but out of the fact that he is unrespectable as a source for accurate and scholarly information: This was and is all that I have to say about your use of, and like for, Guénon.

*YAWN*

Your antipathies are uninteresting. I don't care what you think of me or of anyone else.

[SuuT]

You'll have to treat each in context, please, because this term-dropping leads nowhere.

I'm afraid you've missed the point: Which is that the idea of life after death - a return, and a memory of that return - (cf. Anamnesis, Metempsychosis, Transmigration, Reincarnation, i.e. the transposition and transmogrification of Soul) preceeds Guénon's absurd assertion of Modernist French pseud-intellectuals as the inventors of the idea by thousands of years. And yet...


Reincarnation is much the same idea today as it was when Theosophists started propagating it though.

...you keep saying this like a baying ass. So, one more time: 'Theosophists' did not implant the idea of Reincarnation into the West.


You in turn have to prove your case, you know.

:D Dude... Do I have to prove that the Allegory of the Cave was written as well?



*YAWN*

Your antipathies are uninteresting. I don't care what you think of me or of anyone else.

:confused2:

Alright, buddy. Since I have yet to tell you what I think of you or anyone else I'll take just a moment to tell you what I think about just you.

I think they pump all of you parochial, patronising, jackass, know-it-all Christian fools out of the same factory and ship you - light speed - straight to the internet. So now you know I think.

[Óttar]

Weakapedia
People who bash Wikipedia do so because they think it makes them some kind of innovative revolutionary i.e. "if you don't bash Wikipedia you can't be a nonconformist!"

Metempsychosis, transmigration etc. I think the (non-existent) issue is an effort to twist terminology to suit one's own agenda. Saying that Hinduism and Buddhism don't have the concept of reincarnation is nonsense in the highest.. The original Sanskrit term for reincarnation is punarjanam which is literally again + birth. Samsara is the wheel of birth and death.

Socialism is a political ideology that is materialistic. Tracing reincarnation to a materialistic modern economic concept is also ludicrous.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

If reincarnation is true, then our lives don't really end with our physical deaths - but is there any evidence or any good reason to believe that this is so?

Where would we be between 'death and reincarnation ????

Is the soul not unique to each person???

How does reincarnation explains the uniqueness of a soul.?????

Why have we not learned from our pre-reincarnated mistakes

[Cail]

If reincarnation is true, then our lives don't really end with our physical deaths - but is there any evidence or any good reason to believe that this is so?
No, there aren't (100% credible ones? only some indirect speculations). But neither there is evidence for opposite. The only reasonable position here is an agnostic one. I can't know if it is true, but it is one of the possible options, and surely is better (more wanted) than many others, including ridiculous abrahamic conception of permanent life in heaven (eternity of boredom) or final death (unthinkable). Be it reincarnation here on Earth, or elsewhere, or even on some other plane of existence.


Where would we be between 'death and reincarnation ????
Several variant are possible, probably. From instant reincarnation (each second thousands of new people are conceived/born/whatever), to some time spent in other planes - there are versions with "temporary" heaven/hell between reincarnations.


Is the soul not unique to each person???
How does reincarnation explains the uniqueness of a soul.?????
Why should it be unique? The soul can be born many times as different people ("legal" persons), but the actual person will be the same.


Why have we not learned from our pre-reincarnated mistakes
Maybe we do? Maybe the people who were born better (more intellectual and virtuous) than others have more experienced/developed souls? Maybe it is that this gradual accumulation of soul virtues leads to the development of humanity as well (better people born, better culture they create)?

[Anthropos]

I'm afraid you've missed the point: Which is that the idea of life after death - a return, and a memory of that return - (cf. Anamnesis, Metempsychosis, Transmigration, Reincarnation, i.e. the transposition and transmogrification of Soul) preceeds Guénon's absurd assertion of Modernist French pseud-intellectuals as the inventors of the idea by thousands of years. And yet...



...you keep saying this like a baying ass. So, one more time: 'Theosophists' did not implant the idea of Reincarnation into the West.



:D Dude... Do I have to prove that the Allegory of the Cave was written as well?




:confused2:

Alright, buddy. Since I have yet to tell you what I think of you or anyone else I'll take just a moment to tell you what I think about just you.

I think they pump all of you parochial, patronising, jackass, know-it-all Christian fools out of the same factory and ship you - light speed - straight to the internet. So now you know I think.

Anamnesis has nothing to do with reincarnation, for example. On many critical points, Plato's writings had a traditional mark regardless of whether they are to be regarded as traditional in the strict sense or not. According to the traditional view of a person, all his possibilities are enclosed in the seed, which Plato took to be the male semen. Today we know that it is the fertilised egg rather. But that matters little, since the point in case is that anamnesis refers to knowledge unfolding during the course of a life as possibilities that were already there from the start.

You, Suut, rely on nothing but commonplace errors and argumentative flaws. You have no case whatever, and furthermore, you are the one making the far more qualified claims here, mind you! As far as I know, you did not contest that the reincarnation of French Socialists, Spiritists and of Theosophists is the same concept as the one that is widely known today as reincarnation. Your further claims are that reincarnation was pretty much always there everywhere, and all the burden of proof is therefore with you. This is basic scientific thinking, by the way, but like many others all you do is to rely on your status. Judging by the way that so many scientists assert themselves, one would be inclined to say that the less an individual is praised by those same scientists, the better for him or her. But of course, not all scientists are buffoons.

[nisse]

Erm...your original post clearly quoted:


We will only say, in order to reduce the claims of the Theosophists to their just value, that no traditional doctrine has ever admitted reincarnation and this idea was entirely foreign to all of antiquity

To prove your source as untrustworthy all anyone has to do is find *one* counter example, which both Ottar and SuuT have done....since you only really quoted that source, your argument relies (almost entirely) on its authority for viability...and it has been proven unauthoritative time and time again.

[Anthropos]

Erm...your original post clearly quoted:



To prove your source as untrustworthy all anyone has to do is find *one* counter example, which both Ottar and SuuT have done....since you only really quoted that source, your argument relies (almost entirely) on its authority for viability...and it has been proven unauthoritative time and time again.

I already adressed this. (Ottar, by the way, did not even attempt to provide an example that could support his point of view. I can't help that there are so many people incapable of dispassionate inquiry, who will resort almost exclusively to ad hominem reasoning when their most cherished 'ideas' are challenged.)

It really doesn't matter whether Guénon's way of putting it was a little bit too bold or not, and as I said he always used the word 'traditional' in a very strict sense, so it should be clear enough what he meant. I haven't gotten to it yet, but I would also guess that he expanded on the topic in some other book where the question was closer to the subject. I will see about that, but the interesting thing is that I have come across this position on the question in scholarly works dated far later; Guénon's Theosophy was first published in French in 1921. Only they wouldn't say wherefrom this idea of reincarnation really came. So I think it's interesting enough. And for those who think that I rely solely on Guénon, that is not at all the case. I have done extensive studies on as good as all the great traditions, and since I have never come across anything like this so much cherished reincarnation there, I have no reason to doubt that Guénon was in any case much more right than wrong in his assessment.

[Klärchen]

If reincarnation is true, then our lives don't really end with our physical deaths - but is there any evidence or any good reason to believe that this is so?
Hello, Sacred_Lunatic! As for the evidence, I had already mentioned two researchers who had either analysed the statements of people maintaining that they could remember previous lives, or conducted experiments under hypnosis:

Among the most prominent reincarnation researchers were Prof. Ian Stevenson (http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/personalitystudies/) and Dr. Helen Wambach (http://www.carolmoore.net/articles/helenwambach.html).
You may have also heard of NDEs (near-death experiences) or OBEs (Out-of-Body Experiences), which are explained in the first link. There are even people who had been practically dead and were reanimated, and who could afterwards report what the doctors or the nurses had said or done during this short period.

Modern science tends to believe that life is merely a function of biochemical processes, so to speak. But this is as blind a belief as the assertions of our institutionalized religions are. This is a speech of the German physicist Hans-Peter Dürr who represents a more comprehensive point of view:
Matter is not made out of matter (http://www.compasnet.org/afbeeldingen/Books/EDBCD/Duerr.pdf)

Where would we be between 'death and reincarnation ????
It is a sort of a mental state, depending on what had been one's feelings, fears, wishes, etc. According to mediums' reports, the "beyond" can be similar to conditions here, in fact there are people who even do not realize that they are dead. There is a lot of literature about this, Miss Marple will find out... ;)

Is the soul not unique to each person???
There is one great cosmic consciousness which may be called "God". It is like an ocean that is constituted by single drops, the souls, so to speak. When we left the "Garden Eden", we separated from being one with God and fell into duality. This cannot really be understood by our intellect, but this has been told by so many sages and saints, and they often use parables, because it is beyond intellectual understanding. Our subconsciousness also uses symbols in dreams, by the way.

The individual souls go through many experiences in order to learn, and unfortunately, humans learn best by suffering. Suffering is not a "punishment" by God, but it is our own higher self that decides to improve itself by going through this or that experience. People who underwent a regression therapy (e. g. in hypnosis), even realized that before conception they had planned their life circumstances themselves. This may sound crazy, because obviously nobody likes to suffer, but reality looks different from a higher point of view. Even during NDEs people often see events of their lives from quite a different point of view.

[Óttar]

Ottar, by the way, did not even attempt to provide an example that could support his point of view.
As I mentioned before, one only has to look at the etymology of the word punarjanam. :rolleyes: One can immediately dispel BS by knowing the origin of words.

[Brynhild]

Rather than spewing out theoretical mumbo-jumbo, has anyone here experienced anything of this nature themselves to justify the subject matter? I've been a witch and occultist on more than one occasion, and seen myself put to death in some horrendous ways. I've been a fisherman, a soldier, along with being a Geisha who had her head chopped off because of a dishonourable act against my then husband. These are just a scant few that I can recall. I've seen these lives through my dreams and other methods of recall. There has not ever been a time when anyone else has planted suggestions in my mind. I have no other appropriate explanation for these experiences before reaching this conclusion.

Reincarnation falls under that category of neither proven or disproven scientifically - individuals have either experienced it or they haven't, they either believe or disbelieve.

[Klärchen]

Rather than spewing out theoretical mumbo-jumbo, has anyone here experienced anything of this nature themselves to justify the subject matter? I've been a witch and occultist on more than one occasion, and seen myself put to death in some horrendous ways. I've been a fisherman, a soldier, along with being a Geisha who had her head chopped off because of a dishonourable act against my then husband. These a just a scant few that I can recall. I've seen these lives through my dreams and other methods of recall. There has not ever been a time when anyone else has planted suggestions in my mind. I have no other appropriate explanation for these experiences before reaching this conclusion.

Reincarnation falls under that category of neither proven or disproven scientifically - individuals have either experienced it or they haven't, they either believe or disbelieve.

Well, I had no "visions", but still very strong feelings, like a remembrance, and images that came up and that were definitely not from this life. It also happens that with certain people I have the feeling to know them for long.

I have had sessions with three mediums who told me very precise things about my dead parents and about myself. So there must be something else than the material world. By the way, for several months after my mother's death I could hear her calling my name.

Does anyone of you understand German? One of the former directors of the Bochum University, Prof. Günter Ewald, has done a lot of research concerning NDEs and science and spirituality. Unfortunately, I haven't found anything from him in English.

Spirituelle Grenzerlebnisse im Licht der Neurowissenschaften (http://www.prof-dr-ewald.de/grenzerlebnisse/index.html)

Interview mit Prof. Günter Ewald (http://www.psychophysik.com/html/re053-ewald.html)

Hirnforschung und Quantenphysik (http://www.psychophysik.com/html/re020-quantenphysik-hirnforsch.html)

Über Prof. Günter Ewald (http://www.stadtmag.de/cgi-bin/db/aktuell.cgi?stadt=witten&artikel=36_41)

Über Prof. Günter Ewald (http://www.theologie-naturwissenschaft.info/guenterewald.htm)

[Óttar]

Rather than spewing out theoretical mumbo-jumbo, has anyone here experienced anything of this nature themselves to justify the subject matter?
Not experience, no. But I think observing the natural world can justify a cyclical view of time rather than linear. In this way, I think one could justify a belief in a reincarnation of sorts i.e. a perpetual return to consciousness. But as you say, these things as yet cannot be proved scientifically.

How does one know that "past life visions" may not have been a shifting of consciousness, an experiencing of someone elses experiences or the experience of separate individuals?

[SuuT]

Anthropos,

It's hard to know what to say to you, but here is one last effort. The earliest evidence makes clear that above all Pythagoras was known as an expert on the fate of our soul after death. Herodotus tells the story of the Thracian Zalmoxis, who taught his countrymen that they would never die but instead go to a place where they would eternally possess all good things. Among the Greeks the tradition arose that this Zalmoxis was the slave of Pythagoras. Herodotus himself thinks that Zalmoxis lived long before Pythagoras, but the Greeks' willingness to portray Zalmoxis as Pythagoras' slave shows that they thought of Pythagoras as the expert from whom Zalmoxis derived his teaching. Ion of Chios (5th c. BCE) says of Phercydes of Syros that "although dead he has a pleasant life for his soul, if Pythagoras is truly wise, who knew and learned wisdom beyond all men." Here Pythagoras is again the expert on the life of the soul after death. A famous fragment of Xenophanes, Pythagoras' contemporary, provides some more specific information on what happens to the soul after death. He reports that "once when he [Pythagoras] was present at the beating of a puppy, he pitied it and said 'stop, don't keep hitting him, since it is the soul of a man who is dear to me, which I recognized, when I heard it yelping'" - this theme later having been picked up by Plato as an epistemological anamnetic device (Fr. 7). Although Xenophanes clearly finds the idea ridiculous, the fragment shows that Pythagoras believed in metempsychosis or reincarnation, according to which human souls were reborn into other animals after death. This early evidence is emphatically confirmed by Dicaearchus in the 4thcentury, who first comments on the difficulty of determining what Pythagoras taught and then asserts that his most recognised doctrines were "that the soul is immortal and that it transmigrates into other kinds of animals" (Porphyry, VP 19). Unfortunately we can say little more about the details of Pythagoras' conception of metempsychosis. According to Herodotus, the Egyptians believed that the soul was reborn as every sort of animal before returning to human form after 3,000 years. Without naming names, he reports that some Greeks both earlier and later adopted this doctrine; this seems very likely to be a reference to Pythagoras (earlier) and perhaps Empedocles (later). Many doubt that Herodotus is right to assign anamnetic metempsychosis to the Egyptians, since none of the other evidence we have for Egyptian beliefs supports his claim, but it is nonetheless clear that we cannot assume that Pythagoras accepted the details of the view Herodotus ascribes to them. Similarly both Empedocles (see Inwood 2001, 55–68) and Plato (e.g., Republic X and Phaedrus) provide a more detailed account of transmigration of souls, but neither of them ascribes these details to Pythagoras - nor should we. Did he think that we ever escape the cycle of reincarnations? We simply do not know. The fragment of Ion quoted above may suggest that the soul could have a pleasant existence after death between reincarnations or even escape the cycle of reincarnation altogether, but the evidence is too weak to be confident in such a conclusion. In the 4th century several authors report that Pythagoras remembered his previous human incarnations, but the accounts do not agree on the details. Dicaearchus (Aulus Gellius IV. 11.14) and Heraclides (Diogenes Laertius VIII. 4) agree that he was the Trojan hero Euphorbus in a previous life. Dicaearchus is probably having fun, when he suggests that Pythagoras was the beautiful prostitute, Alco, in another incarnation.

I have also prepared a detailed, and relatively extensive reading list for you, should you want the truth of the matter as to Reincarnative thought in Antiquity. I hope you will consider taking advantage of my efforts to assist you:

Diels, H. and W. Kranz, 1952, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker (in three volumes), 6th edition, Dublin and Zürich: Weidmann, Volume 1, Chapter 14, 96–105 (Greek texts of the early testimonia with translations in German. Referred to as DK.). Aelian, 1997, Historical Miscellany, N. G. Wilson (ed.), Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Aristotle, 1984, Fragments, Jonathan Barnes and Gavin Lawrence (trs.), in The Complete Works of Aristotle, Vol. 2, Jonathan Barnes (ed.), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2384–2462.
Athenaeus, 1927, The Deipnosophists, 6 Vols., C. B. Gulick (tr.), Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Barnes, Jonathan, 1982, The Presocratic Philosophers, London: Routledge.
Becker, O., 1936, ‘Die Lehre von Geraden und Ungeraden im neunten Buch der euklidischen Elemente’, Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte der Mathematik, Astronomie und Physik, Abteilung B, 3: 533–53.
Burkert, W., 1960, “Platon oder Pythagoras? Zum Ursprung des Wortes ‘Philosophia’”, Hermes, 88: 159–77.
–––, 1961, ‘Hellenistische Pseudopythagorica’, Philologus, 105: 16–43, 226–246.
–––, 1972a, Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism, E. Minar (tr.), Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1st German edn., 1962.
–––, 1972b, ‘Zur geistesgeschichtlichen Einordnung einiger Pseudopythagorica’, in Pseudepigrapha I, Fondation Hardt Entretiens XVIII, Vandoeuvres-Genève, 25–55.
Delatte, A., 1915, Études sur la littérature pythagoricienne, Paris: Champion.
–––, 1922, La vie de Pythagore de Diogène Laërce, Brussels: M. Lamertin.
Diels, H., 1958, Doxographi Graeci, Berlin: De Gruyter.
Dillon, John, 1977, The Middle Platonists, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
–––, 2003, The Heirs of Plato, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Diogenes Laertius, 1925, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, R. D. Hicks (tr.), Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press (Referred to as D. L.).
Festugière, A.-J., 1945, ‘Les Mémoires Pythagoriques cités par Alexandre Polyhistor’, REG, 58: 1–65.
Fritz, Kurt von, 1940, Pythagorean Politics in Southern Italy, New York: Columbia University Press.
Gellius, Aulus, 1927, The Attic Nights, John C. Rolfe (tr.), Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Granger, H., 2004, ‘Heraclitus' Quarrel with Polymathy and Historiê’, Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, 134: 235–61.
Guthrie, W. K. C., 1962, A History of Greek Philosophy, Vol. 1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heath, T. L., 1921, A History of Greek Mathematics, 2 vols., Oxford: Clarendon Press.
–––, 1956, Euclid: The Thirteen Books of the Elements, Vol. 1, New York: Dover.
Heinze, R., 1892, Xenokrates, Leipzig: Teubner.
Huffman, C. A., 1993, Philolaus of Croton: Pythagorean and Presocratic, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
–––, 1999a, ‘Limite et illimité chez les premiers philosophes grecs’, in La Fêlure du Plaisir : Études sur le Philèbe de Platon, Vol. II: Contextes, M. Dixsaut (ed.), Paris: Vrin, 11–31.
–––, 1999b, ‘The Pythagorean Tradition’, in The Cambridge Companion to Early Greek Philosophy, A. A. Long (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 66–87.
–––, 2001, ‘The Philolaic Method: The Pythagoreanism behind the Philebus’, in Essays in Ancient Greek Philosophy VI: Before Plato, A. Preus (ed.), Albany: State University of New York Press, 67–85.
–––, 2008a, ‘Another Incarnation of Pythagoras’(Review of Riedweg 2005), Ancient Philosophy, 28: 201–25.
–––, 2008b, ‘Heraclitus' Critique of Pythagoras' Enquiry in Fragment 129’, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, 35: 19–47.
–––, 2009, ‘The Pythagorean Conception of the Soul from Pythagoras to Philolaus’, in Body and Soul in Ancient Philosophy, D. Frede and B. Reis (eds.), Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 21–44.
Iamblichus, 1991, On the Pythagorean Way of Life, John Dillon and Jackson Hershbell (trans.), Atlanta: Scholars Press (Referred to as VP).
–––, 1975, De Communi Mathematica Scientia, N. Festa (ed.), Stuttgart: Teubner.
Inwood, Brad, 2001, The Poem of Empedocles, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Isocrates, 1945, ‘Busiris’, in Isocrates, Vol. 3, Larue van Hook (tr.), Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Kahn, C., 2001, Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans, Indianapolis: Hackett.
Kirk, G. S., Raven, J. E., and Schofield, M., 1983, The Presocratic Philosophers, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kingsley, Peter, 1995, Ancient Philosophy, Mystery and Magic, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Lucian, 1913, Lucian, 7 Vols., A. M. Harmon (tr.), Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Minar, Edwin L., 1942, Early Pythagorean Politics in Practice and Theory, Baltimore: Waverly Press.
Mueller, I., 1997, ‘Greek arithmetic, geometry and harmonics: Thales to Plato’, in Routledge History of Philosophy Vol. I: From the Beginning to Plato, C. C. W. Taylor (ed.), London: Routledge, 271–322.
Navia, L. E., 1990, Pythagoras: An Annotated Bibliography, New York: Garland.
Nicomachus,1926, Introduction to Arithmetic, Martin Luther D’Ooge (tr.), Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
–––, 1989, Enchiridion (Handbook), Andrew Barker (tr.), in Greek Musical Writings, Vol. II: Harmonic and Acoustic Theory, Andrew Barker (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 245–269.
O'Meara, D. J., 1989, Pythagoras Revived. Mathematics and Philosophy in Late Antiquity, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Philip, J. A., 1966, Pythagoras and Early Pythagoreanism, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Plutarch, 1949, Moralia, 14 Vols., Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Porphyry, 1965, The Life of Pythagoras, in Heroes and Gods, Moses Hadas and Morton Smith (eds.), New York: Harper and Row, 105–128.
–––, 2003, Vie de Pythagore, Lettre à Marcella, E. des Places (ed.), Paris: Les Belles Lettres (Greek text with French Translation).
Proclus, 1992, A Commentary on the First Book of Euclid's Elements, Glenn R. Morrow (tr.), Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Riedweg, Christoph, 2005, Pythagoras: His Life, Teaching and Influence, Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.
Sorabji, Richard, 1993, Animal Minds and Human Morals, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Thesleff, H., 1961, An Introduction to the Pythagorean Writings of the Hellenistic Period, Âbo: Âbo Akademi.
–––, 1965, The Pythagorean Texts of the Hellenistic Period, Âbo: Âbo Akademi.
Thom, J. C., 1995, The Pythagorean ‘Golden Verses’”, Leiden: Brill.
Wehrli, Fritz, 1944, Dikaiarchos, Die Schule des Aristoteles, I, Basle: Schwabe.
–––, 1945, Aristoxenos, Die Schule des Aristoteles, II, Basle: Schwabe.
Zhmud, L., 1997, Wissenschaft, Philosophie und Religion im frühen Pythagoreismus, Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
–––, 2003, Review of Riedweg (2002), Ancient Philosophy 23: 416–420.



Give me and my 'status' a shout after you've wrapped your head around those.

[SuuT]

If reincarnation is true, then our lives don't really end with our physical deaths - but is there any evidence or any good reason to believe that this is so?

I think there is. But I do not believe that all Souls are immortal or go through an infinite number of transmigrations. And as far as reason goes, the metaphysical arguments are out there, and thus far have not been disproven. But, that is sort of the beauty of Metaphysics: We are dealing with possibilities that, while rationally ascertained, are rarely 'provable' in the scientific sense of testability.


Where would we be between 'death and reincarnation ????

Personally, I think that the transition would be/is instantaneous; however, our recollection of the transition is hampered by physiological concerns (such as the foetal brain, etc.).


Is the soul not unique to each person???

I think it is for some. But, just like not everyone is special, so it is with the Soul.


How does reincarnation explains the uniqueness of a soul.?????

Ergo the incompatability of reincarnative thought with Christianity.


Why have we not learned from our pre-reincarnated mistakes

I'm sorry to hear things are not going so well this time around. :D;)


Rather than spewing out theoretical mumbo-jumbo,

That's part of the beauty of the thing (imo): That it can be looked at and analysed on so many different levels and in so many different ways.


has anyone here experienced anything of this nature themselves to justify the subject matter? I've been a witch and occultist on more than one occasion, and seen myself put to death in some horrendous ways. I've been a fisherman, a soldier, along with being a Geisha who had her head chopped off because of a dishonourable act against my then husband. These a just a scant few that I can recall. I've seen these lives through my dreams and other methods of recall.

I am jealous! I have never had so vivid and explicit experiences. My experiences are born of deep meditative and trance-induced states (induced Alpha-wave activity), where I am seeing and taking-in knowledge and wisdom from a source that I can only call a Self that transverses, and exceeds the bounds of time - as well as what we know of the physical world.

I feel I am the proverbial "old Soul". :)


Reincarnation ... individuals have either experienced it or they haven't, they either believe or disbelieve.

I think that this is exactly correct.

[Guapo]

This is interesting, parents think their son is a reincarnated pilot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGixKr3Y-NA

I myself used to have these weird dreams(dry) years ago where I would be a child in an old school house wearing lederhosen and speaking German(I don't speak nor understand German) being the class clown,getting in trouble and being hit on the hand with a stick by a mean teacher :confused: When did peasants stop wearing them lederhosen anyway? I actually was a class clown back in the day but was never touched by a teacher. Wouldn't mind if she was hot though :cool:

http://www.nexternal.com/masquerade/images/31968-m.jpg

[Osweo]

The idea of reincarnation is one of the oldest and most obvious around. Our folklore is full of it. Read Sabine Baring Gould on it here (1913):
http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/celt/bof/bof02.htm

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Hello, Sacred_Lunatic! As for the evidence, I had already mentioned two researchers who had either analysed the statements of people maintaining that they could remember previous lives, or conducted experiments under hypnosis:

You may have also heard of NDEs (near-death experiences) or OBEs (Out-of-Body Experiences), which are explained in the first link. There are even people who had been practically dead and were reanimated, and who could afterwards report what the doctors or the nurses had said or done during this short period.

Modern science tends to believe that life is merely a function of biochemical processes, so to speak. But this is as blind a belief as the assertions of our institutionalized religions are. This is a speech of the German physicist Hans-Peter Dürr who represents a more comprehensive point of view:
Matter is not made out of matter (http://www.compasnet.org/afbeeldingen/Books/EDBCD/Duerr.pdf)

It is a sort of a mental state, depending on what had been one's feelings, fears, wishes, etc. According to mediums' reports, the "beyond" can be similar to conditions here, in fact there are people who even do not realize that they are dead. There is a lot of literature about this, Miss Marple will find out... ;)

There is one great cosmic consciousness which may be called "God". It is like an ocean that is constituted by single drops, the souls, so to speak. When we left the "Garden Eden", we separated from being one with God and fell into duality. This cannot really be understood by our intellect, but this has been told by so many sages and saints, and they often use parables, because it is beyond intellectual understanding. Our subconsciousness also uses symbols in dreams, by the way.

The individual souls go through many experiences in order to learn, and unfortunately, humans learn best by suffering. Suffering is not a "punishment" by God, but it is our own higher self that decides to improve itself by going through this or that experience. People who underwent a regression therapy (e. g. in hypnosis), even realized that before conception they had planned their life circumstances themselves. This may sound crazy, because obviously nobody likes to suffer, but reality looks different from a higher point of view. Even during NDEs people often see events of their lives from quite a different point of view.

Before I answer--as a person who is not aufait with Reincarnation, I have to use logic,my logic that is:D I am born-I live my life-I die-I become food for worms-I have no soul-my own genes and DNA are lost,bar the ones I am giving to my children(poor sods):D--read this first.

http://www.healpastlives.com/future/rule/rudebunk.htm

Then I wish you to concentrate on the egg and the sperm saga.
Here we have one egg and 2 million pouncing sperm frightening the egg to death:D
That little shitty egg is so scared to be gang raped by a bunch of morons,that it gives in to the strongest-I repeat the strongest-not the wisest or the gayest or the sloppiest or the happy chappie or the happy clappie or the fat lip blackie or the muslim pusslim intruder or the downs syndrome past experience disadvantaged bugger.
In other words it is a fertilizing process based on the fittest and the fittest may well be the gayest sperm.
Is it not so that Reincarnation uses the past experience so,it would be normal to accept it knows the color mix and render a muslim sperm useless for a Scotties egg.

I would hate to see an identical twin explaining the reincarnation.

I like your explanation though and it is difficult to disregard,but it does not wash if I was reincarnated since Jesus time.
It makes Preservation of a race a farce as during the previous 8000 years there has been so much mixing that the egg and the sperm must have become some confused pot of 'erten' soup.

[Anthropos]

Thanks, Suut, I am not an unreasonable person, and nowhere did I pretend that Guénon should be either flawless or exhaustive.

On the other hand, I have read Plato myself. Furthermore, I have read no few commentaries on Classical Greek life and thinking.

The truth anyway is likely somewhere in the grey area: While I still see it as unlikely that reincarnation should have been an idea present in a traditional doctrine anywhere, I must admit that I am not certain as to the extent to which the idea may have figured in folklore. I think the refusal on your part to make any difference between tradition properly so called and folklore is the source of quite sweeping utterances of yours, and consequently I suspect that some of my utterances may have seemed to be quite categorical. My main interest lies quite naturally in traditional ideas, but that's not all there is to say, because the difference between tradition and lore in a loose sense is very real, and it is real on a level of reality that can be properly called 'objective' as well.

As for the examples that you brought up since I posted last time, I can't help thinking that you interpretted it much the way that you wished to interpret it. I am not pretending now to settle the question definitely, but allow me to demonstrate my point:



The earliest evidence makes clear that above all Pythagoras was known as an expert on the fate of our soul after death.I have noted before a tendency of some writers to confound anything pertaining to the soul after death with reincarnation, and needless to say this can easily be the source of some real confusion. I expect that everyone can see how that may be (but of course, should it be failing someone I will elaborate on it, as people do have different viewpoints and references).


Herodotus tells the story of the Thracian Zalmoxis, who taught his countrymen that they would never die but instead go to a place where they would eternally possess all good things. Among the Greeks the tradition arose that this Zalmoxis was the slave of Pythagoras. Herodotus himself thinks that Zalmoxis lived long before Pythagoras, but the Greeks' willingness to portray Zalmoxis as Pythagoras' slave shows that they thought of Pythagoras as the expert from whom Zalmoxis derived his teaching. Ion of Chios (5th c. BCE) says of Phercydes of Syros that "although dead he has a pleasant life for his soul, if Pythagoras is truly wise, who knew and learned wisdom beyond all men."And here is one example then: Nothing in this is suggestive of reincarnation; only of life after death.


Here Pythagoras is again the expert on the life of the soul after death. A famous fragment of Xenophanes, Pythagoras' contemporary, provides some more specific information on what happens to the soul after death. He reports that "once when he [Pythagoras] was present at the beating of a puppy, he pitied it and said 'stop, don't keep hitting him, since it is the soul of a man who is dear to me, which I recognized, when I heard it yelping'"And it never occured to you that this may have been meant symbolically? Beating up animals is certainly not thought of as good conduct in any traditional setting, is it?


- this theme later having been picked up by Plato as an epistemological anamnetic device (Fr. 7). Although Xenophanes clearly finds the idea ridiculous, the fragment shows that Pythagoras believed in metempsychosis or reincarnation, according to which human souls were reborn into other animals after death. Is this not a clue? Could it be that Plato brought it up to sort out a misunderstanding? One must say that it is at least wholly possible, if one should not say that it is very likely!

[Klärchen]

@ Sacred-Lunatic: But where is the contradiction? You can be born in different cultures to learn there what is necessary to learn. This has nothing to do with the "fittest" – maybe you will also have to learn at some time what it is like to be weak.

BTW, don't mock those poor guys, their lives are hard enough nowadays...

http://www.loslachen.ch/wp-content/myfotos/maenner_4/sperma_rennen_loslachen.ch_34.jpg

[Osweo]

It's certainly a very utilitarian idea:
A very relevant song from the sorely missed bard Vladimir Vysotsky

On the Transmigration of Souls
H-2pyKXEC-A
I'll give the Russkiy lyriki, and I'll do a lazy Google translate on it:

Кто верит в Магомета, кто - в Аллаха, кто - в Иисуса,
Кто ни во что не верит - даже в черта, назло всем,-
Хорошую религию придумали индусы:
Что мы, отдав концы, не умираем насовсем.

Стремилась ввысь душа твоя -
Родишься вновь с мечтою,
Но если жил ты как свинья -
Останешься свиньею.

Пусть косо смотрят на тебя - привыкни к укоризне,-
Досадно - что ж, родишься вновь на колкости горазд.
И если видел смерть врага еще при этой жизни,
В другой тебе дарован будет верный зоркий глаз.

Живи себе нормальненько -
Есть повод веселиться:
Ведь, может быть, в начальника
Душа твоя вселится.

Пускай живешь ты дворником - родишься вновь прорабом,
А после из прораба до министра дорастешь,-
Но, если туп, как дерево - родишься баобабом
И будешь баобабом тыщу лет, пока помрешь.

Досадно попугаем жить,
Гадюкой с длинным веком,-
Не лучше ли при жизни быть
Приличным человеком?

Так кто есть кто, так кто был кем?- мы никогда не знаем.
С ума сошли генетики от ген и хромосом.
Быть может, тот облезлый кот - был раньше негодяем,
А этот милый человек - был раньше добрым псом.

Я от восторга прыгаю,
Я обхожу искусы,-
Удобную религию
Придумали индусы!

Some believe in Mohammed, Some - in God, Some - in Jesus,
Some don't believe in anything - even in the devil, in spite of everything --
But the Hindus invented a good religion:
That when we come to the end, we don't die for good.

If your soul strove for the heights--
You're born again with a dream
But if you have lived like a swine --
A swine you will remain.

Let them look askance at you - get used to reproach --
Pity - well, that you're born again on the barbs.
And if you saw the death of an enemy even in this life,
In the next you will be granted a sure sharp eye.

Live well --
There is reason to rejoice:
After all, perhaps, into the body of a boss
Your soul will next dwell.

Let you live as a janitor - are born again foreman,
And after a superintendent to Minister you might grow --
But if you lived dumb as a tree - you're born a baobab
And as baobab you'll live a thousand years, until you die.

It is sad for the parrot to live
As a viper for a long age, --
Is not it better in life to be
A decent man?

So who is who, and who was who? - We never shall know.
With genes and chromosomes geneticists lose their minds.
Perhaps that shabby cat - was formerly a scoundrel
And this nice man - was formerly a good dog.

I'm jumping for joy,
I avoid temptation --
A highly convenient religion
Those Hindus thought up!

(Okay, Google was SO bad I had to improve it a bit!)

[Lulletje Rozewater]

@ Sacred-Lunatic: But where is the contradiction? You can be born in different cultures to learn there what is necessary to learn. This has nothing to do with the "fittest" – maybe you will also have to learn at some time what it is like to be weak.

BTW, don't mock those poor guys, their lives are hard enough nowadays...

http://www.loslachen.ch/wp-content/myfotos/maenner_4/sperma_rennen_loslachen.ch_34.jpg

Hahahah, a lady with humor.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Hello, Sacred_Lunatic! As for the evidence, I had already mentioned two researchers who had either analysed the statements of people maintaining that they could remember previous lives, or conducted experiments under hypnosis:

Now I shall try to answer you,but please again I am neither into Reincarnation nor do I profess to know anything on the subject.
1. There is no reason for reincarnation. All human beings learn to exist during their life time,they do gather experience and knowledge.Their experience and knowledge is stored in --let's say a universal pool--
Example: Without Tessla, Einstein would not have had E=mc2
Why reincarnate into a whore to experience pain of a whore.She has received all the previous experiences of all the whores in the past,their feelings,their tricks,their habits,their pain their joy etc.She has ample time and opportunities to become a a nun for argument sake. Her soul does not have to be reincarnated into a nun,to experience the joy of a nun.
Besides,who decides what the next level of reincarnation the whore is to get.
We are born at random choice,we have no say in it. My mom and dad did some copulation and I was born,but I could have been a woman had they put their tools and mind to it.
Why should my soul be forced to be reincarnated into a woman's body to experience a woman's life.
It makes no sense.
What makes sense is the life of a soul to be lived out in just one occasion
and all the experiences gathered in the lifetime is for everyone to follow or adopt or take value out by future generations.
It is not necessary for Hitler to become a Pope.





You may have also heard of NDEs (near-death experiences) or OBEs (Out-of-Body Experiences), which are explained in the first link. There are even people who had been practically dead and were reanimated, and who could afterwards report what the doctors or the nurses had said or done during this short period.
I have on many occasions fallen into a deep sleep and yet can tell what was said around me. My functions do not stop just with sleep or NDE or OBE(this is to me a cop out). OBE is a fake.
This morning on CNN there was a case of a mom,while contracting,had a heart attack and "died", a C was done to safe the baby and a few minutes later momma started talking again,this is now called a New Year miracle.

It is not that I am skeptical,it is unnatural and serve no purpose other than uplifting one's own karma.



Modern science tends to believe that life is merely a function of biochemical processes, so to speak. But this is as blind a belief as the assertions of our institutionalized religions are. This is a speech of the German physicist Hans-Peter Dürr who represents a more comprehensive point of view:
Matter is not made out of matter (http://www.compasnet.org/afbeeldingen/Books/EDBCD/Duerr.pdf)

It is a sort of a mental state, depending on what had been one's feelings, fears, wishes, etc. According to mediums' reports, the "beyond" can be similar to conditions here, in fact there are people who even do not realize that they are dead. There is a lot of literature about this, Miss Marple will find out... ;)I have read the article and it is interesting but gets me nowhere.
Life is not matter,it may consist out of certain elements thrown together which somehow is living or has created life.
The same can be said we have a soul--I refer to the movie 21 grams-- what a load of rot.
How can Dürr discuss the subject if he does not even know how lightening works.
Well, Albrecht Dürer is to me worth more, I can feel his products,his genius,his humanity,his brilliance never to be repeated by a 1000 reincarnations. He is unique and if he has a soul, he does not even want to be reincarnated,because he can not behigher than his Gestalt and Wirklicheit has given him in his lifetime.

Nobody can become lower than the lowest in me not higher than the highest in me. It is impossible,that is the law of nature.



(I would call it the Universal intelligence)[/B]. It is like an ocean that is constituted by single drops, the souls, so to speak. When we left the "Garden Eden", we separated from being one with God and fell into duality. This cannot really be understood by our intellect, but this has been told by so many sages and saints, and they often use parables, because it is beyond intellectual understanding. Our subconsciousness also uses symbols in dreams, by the way.The individual souls go through many experiences in order to learn, and unfortunately, humans learn best by suffering. Suffering is not a "punishment" by God, but it is our own higher self that decides to improve itself by going through this or that experience. People who underwent a regression therapy (e. g. in hypnosis), even realized that before conception they had planned their life circumstances themselves. This may sound crazy, because obviously nobody likes to suffer, but reality looks different from a higher point of view. Even during NDEs people often see events of their lives from quite a different point of view.

Oke I will go along with that(see insert).Now the big joke.
Augustine was walking on the beach of Capetown meditating on GOD.
He saw a man digging a hole and with a bowl he took water from the sea filling the hole.
Augustine saw the going ons for about a hour,walked up to the man and asked:"What are you doing" "Oh, I am putting the sea in the hole.
"But,but,that is impossible"
"Yeah, right"the man said and you will never understand meaning of the GOD.
The man grew some wings and flew away as an Angel.

About an hour later an evil 'eyed' man walked up to him.
"I heard you asking the man what he was doing and the man telling you about God.
Come with me.
Both walked into the sea.
The evil man drew his knife,cut Augustine's middle finger(do not ask me why the middle finger:D).Augustine suffered intense pain.
Blood flowed into the sea,first a little drop,the drop became a circle,the circle became bigger and bigger etc. Eventually every drop in the ocean had a tiny bit of blood added to it.
"So what is your meaning"????
The evil man answered:The Ocean is GOD,you are a tiny drop in the Ocean,your blood are your experiences,you have taught God your experiences and every drop in the Ocean too.
You have saved God an embarrassment not knowing everything and you have taught the drops not to reincarnate.
The evil man grew some horns and wings and flew away.:lightbul:

Suffering is for you to gain experience,experience its the ultimate goal for growth,you have only once the beauty to experience anything in your life time. Humanity must learn by mistakes and so must every generation after you. For that reason a baby will be born without experience other than the pain of birth.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Rather than spewing out theoretical mumbo-jumbo, has anyone here experienced anything of this nature themselves to justify the subject matter? I've been a witch and occultist on more than one occasion, and seen myself put to death in some horrendous ways. I've been a fisherman, a soldier,[B] along with being a Geisha who had her head chopped off because of a dishonourable act against my then husband.[?B] These are just a scant few that I can recall. I've seen these lives through my dreams and other methods of recall. There has not ever been a time when anyone else has planted suggestions in my mind. I have no other appropriate explanation for these experiences before reaching this conclusion.

Reincarnation falls under that category of neither proven or disproven scientifically - individuals have either experienced it or they haven't, they either believe or disbelieve.

I had your head chopped off, Xanthippe :)

[Klärchen]

Hello, Sacred_Lunatic, yes, there is truth in what you say. There is some big reservoir of knowledge even lying in us which is sometimes called the akashic records (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akashic_records); I guess it is the same as what Plato meant by the realm of Ideas. That is why the mystics tell the people to go inside (by meditation) to find this knowledge. It is there, but most of us are lacking the "receiver", so to speak, the ability to communicate with this world where there is no time and no space. According to mystic teachings, all the souls once were one in that Universal Intelligence, God, or whatever you like to call it. The separation from God is also a kind of illusion, because we are still all one, and the aim of all spiritual exercises is to find again this source of eternal knowledge and of love.

Till then the souls feel as individuals. But I do not believe in random events any more, it is also our higher self that guides us. For ex., when I started to occupy myself with astrology, I could find that there is a connection between the inner world and the outer world. The soul assumes the material form which corresponds best to its mental state. Even the doctors have found out that there is connection between body and soul. But this is even more complex.

And as the individual learns, there are also collective learning processes. Mankind is also developing as a whole.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by SuuT
I think there is. But I do not believe that all Souls are immortal or go through an infinite number of transmigrations.

Interesting, that’s pretty much how I have come to look at it. I have the uncharitable notion of seeing many people and thinking they are already dust…it’s time they are living out not life. Perhaps it’s strength of life within us that decides if we have the ability to survive death. Ultimately, though, I think we’re all headed for oblivion, just some will arrive earlier than others.

[Anthropos]

Hello, Sacred_Lunatic, yes, there is truth in what you say. There is some big reservoir of knowledge even lying in us which is sometimes called the akashic records (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akashic_records); I guess it is the same as what Plato meant by the realm of Ideas. That is why the mystics tell the people to go inside (by meditation) to find this knowledge. It is there, but most of us are lacking the "receiver", so to speak, the ability to communicate with this world where there is no time and no space. According to mystic teachings, all the souls once were one in that Universal Intelligence, God, or whatever you like to call it. The separation from God is also a kind of illusion, because we are still all one, and the aim of all spiritual exercises is to find again this source of eternal knowledge and of love.

Okay/Yes.


Till then the souls feel as individuals. But I do not believe in random events any more, it is also our higher self that guides us. For ex., when I started to occupy myself with astrology, I could find that there is a connection between the inner world and the outer world. The soul assumes the material form which corresponds best to its mental state. Even the doctors have found out that there is connection between body and soul. But this is even more complex.
But what is this 'higher self' that you speak of? Moreover, whatever does it have to do with astrology? :confused: And with this...


The soul assumes the material form which corresponds best to its mental state.

...I can't help but wonder where in your view of things there is room for knowledge about the divine, of which you were speaking just now?


And as the individual learns, there are also collective learning processes. Mankind is also developing as a whole.

As people forget, mankind as a whole is suffering more and more of Amnesia. This is especially true today since there is no stability in the world. This as well as my estimation of human nature suggests that we shouldn't be too fascinated with such things as 'collective learning'. This collective learning presupposes among other things that a majority is really directing their attention towards truth! Can you honestly say that this is what you see happening?

[Klärchen]

Till then the souls feel as individuals. But I do not believe in random events any more, it is also our higher self that guides us. For ex., when I started to occupy myself with astrology, I could find that there is a connection between the inner world and the outer world. The soul assumes the material form which corresponds best to its mental state. Even the doctors have found out that there is connection between body and soul. But this is even more complex.But what is this 'higher self' that you speak of? Moreover, whatever does it have to do with astrology? :confused:

By our "higher self" I understand that Universal Intelligence, Cosmic Consciousness, God, or whatever names may be given to it.

Since Einstein we know that matter is only a form of energy. According to mystic understanding, matter is the "coarsest" form of energy, so to speak. And energy is vibration, oscillation, which can have higher or lower wavelengths. Physicists have by now discovered all kinds of rays, like alpha particles that consist of helium nuclei, beta particles that mostly consist of electrons, or the non-material electromagnetic radiation such as gamma rays, X-rays, or microwaves. These are the energy forms that have been discovered as yet, but why shouldn't there be other forms of energy that aren't discovered yet? And the mystics say that there is an organ in ourselves, the so-called third eye, with which we can perceive the immaterial world.

"God" as the purest form of energy and consciousness has created the material and the immaterial worlds out of different forms of energy, so to speak. Astrology does not teach the impact of celestial bodies, but these "planets", including sun and moon, are symbols of different cosmic energies. The mystics can perceive them as light and as music = the "Word" or "logos". A horoscope is the snapshot of the current interplay of these energies. And this interplay is effective both in the outer world and in ourselves, in our body and soul/mind. But even without astrology one can perceive a connection between one's own thoughts or mental state, one's health, and outer circumstances.



And as the individual learns, there are also collective learning processes. Mankind is also developing as a whole. As people forget, mankind as a whole is suffering more and more of Amnesia. This is especially true today since there is no stability in the world. This as well as my estimation of human nature suggests that we shouldn't be too fascinated with such things as 'collective learning'. This collective learning presupposes among other things that a majority is really directing their attention towards truth! Can you honestly say that this is what you see happening?

Well, I didn't say into which direction mankind is developing. ;)
But still people – or at least part of them – are living more consciously than they used to live at other times. But it is also said that there are big cycles of time – the Hopis for instance are prophecying a new world where there will be a long time of peace and love, or Ovid has written about the Golden Age, Silver Age, etc., in his "Metamorphoses". The troubles we are now going through may be sort of a purification process. Let's wait and see what happens in the next years. At least I think it cannot go on like this forever, many things really remind of what had been written in the Apocalypse.

[Klärchen]

The Holy Streams (http://www.essene.com/GospelOfPeace/peace4.html#HolyStreams) (from "The Essene Gospel of Peace", Book 4, The original Hebrew and Aramaic texts, translated and edited by
EDMOND BORDEAUX SZEKELY)

[Anthropos]

By our "higher self" I understand that Universal Intelligence, Cosmic Consciousness, God, or whatever names may be given to it.I am perplexed as to how 'Cosmic Consciousness' fits in there with 'God' and 'Universal Intelligence'; this suggests that whatever 'God' means to you, the thing so designated is not above and beyond the cosmos, but confined in it. As for the 'higher self', I do recognise the existence of such a thing, and I believe that it is something that is there with 'the image of God', even if it is not God himself. This 'image' implies spiritual gifts, gifts from God, gifts that enable us to turn to him, and so on. But since 'Cosmic Consciousness' was compared to God and the higher self, we are rather unsure about the meaning of what was said earlier:


I do not believe in random events any more, it is also our higher self that guides us.

How? Is the cosmos 'guiding' human beings (who are themselves a part of the cosmos) and in what manner? Is there a will behind any of this?


Since Einstein we know that matter is only a form of energy. According to mystic understanding, matter is the "coarsest" form of energy, so to speak. And energy is vibration, oscillation, which can have higher or lower wavelengths. Physicists have by now discovered all kinds of rays, like alpha particles that consist of helium nuclei, beta particles that mostly consist of electrons, or the non-material electromagnetic radiation such as gamma rays, X-rays, or microwaves. These are the energy forms that have been discovered as yet, but why shouldn't there be other forms of energy that aren't discovered yet? And the mystics say that there is an organ in ourselves, the so-called third eye, with which we can perceive the immaterial world.

"God" as the purest form of energy and consciousness has created the material and the immaterial worlds out of different forms of energy, so to speak. Astrology does not teach the impact of celestial bodies, but these "planets", including sun and moon, are symbols of different cosmic energies. The mystics can perceive them as light and as music = the "Word" or "logos". A horoscope is the snapshot of the current interplay of these energies. And this interplay is effective both in the outer world and in ourselves, in our body and soul/mind. But even without astrology one can perceive a connection between one's own thoughts or mental state, one's health, and outer circumstances.Here again the cosmos is confused with things that are above and beyond the cosmos.



Well, I didn't say into which direction mankind is developing. ;)
But still people – or at least part of them – are living more consciously than they used to live at other times. But it is also said that there are big cycles of time – the Hopis for instance are prophecying a new world where there will be a long time of peace and love, or Ovid has written about the Golden Age, Silver Age, etc., in his "Metamorphoses". The troubles we are now going through may be sort of a purification process. Let's wait and see what happens in the next years. At least I think it cannot go on like this forever, many things really remind of what had been written in the Apocalypse.
Why do you think that people are living more consciously?

Do you mean that everyone will be purified, many even against their will?

[Klärchen]

Don't stick to words, Anthropos, I said you may give it any name. Our small intellect cannot grasp it anyway. What is your understanding of God?


Why do you think that people are living more consciously?

Do you mean that everyone will be purified, many even against their will?

Many are developing some sense of responsibility for other beings and for nature, for example. And many are searching for truth in a higher sense.

Yes, in the forums some are even purified against their will. They are sort of a purgatory, at least the German forums... :mmmm: ;)

[Anthropos]

Don't stick to words, Anthropos, I said you may give it any name. Our small intellect cannot grasp it anyway. What is your understanding of God?I didn't stick to words. The cosmos is the world that we experience with our senses and with the rational faculty (or lower intellect, if you prefer). Consciousness of the cosmos is certainly not God, and in saying that God is above and beyond the cosmos I think I have said a lot; it should be enough for now anyway.



Many are developing some sense of responsibility for other beings and for nature, for example.

It's mostly another form of moralism, and it really has very little if anything at all to do with spirituality, methinks.



And many are searching for truth in a higher sense.

I used to think so, but after further considerations (and I am talking about considerations that ripened over some years) I don't think so. Many are in search of a spotless conscience, a perfect experience and other things like that, but most don't even believe that there is truth in a higher sense.


Yes, in the forums some are even purified against their will. They are sort of a purgatory, at least the German forums... :mmmm: ;)

Avoiding the question, are you?

(I don't even know what forum you are talking about.)

[Klärchen]

Let's continue our discussion tomorrow, shall we? At least I think that God rightly said that we should not make any image of him or so.
There is a nice story by Hermann Hesse (you speak German, don't you?):


Von Meng Hsiä wird berichtet:

Als ihm zu Ohren kam, dass neuerdings die jungen Künstler sich darin übten, auf dem Kopf zu stehen, um eine neue Weise des Sehens zu erproben, unterzog Meng Hsiä sich sofort
ebenfalls dieser Übung, und nachdem er es eine Weile damit
probiert hatte, sagte er zu seinen Schülern: „Neu und schöner blickt die Welt mir ins Auge, wenn ich mich auf den Kopf stelle.“

Dies sprach sich herum, und die Neuerer unter den jungen Künstlern rühmten sich dieser Bestätigung ihrer Versuche durch den alten Meister nicht wenig.

Da dieser als recht wortkarg bekannt war und seine Jünger mehr durch sein bloßes Dasein und Beispiel erzog als durch Lehren, wurde jeder seiner Aussprüche beachtet und weiter verbreitet.

Und nun wurde, bald nachdem jene Worte die Neuerer entzückt, viele Alte aber befremdet, ja erzürnt hatte, schon wieder ein Ausspruch von ihm bekannt. Er habe, so erzählte man, sich neuestens so geäußert: „Wie gut, dass der Mensch zwei Beine hat! Das Stehen auf dem Kopf ist der Gesundheit nicht zuträglich, und wenn der auf dem Kopf Stehende sich wieder aufrichtet, dann blickt ihm, dem auf den Füßen Stehenden, die Welt doppelt so schön ins Auge.“

An diesen Worten des Meisters nahmen sowohl die jungen Kopfsteher, die sich von ihm verraten oder verspottet fühlten, wie auch die Mandarine großen Anstoß.

„Heute“, so sagten die Mandarine, „behauptet Meng Hsiä dies, und morgen das Gegenteil. Es kann aber doch unmöglich zwei Wahrheiten geben. Wer mag den unklug gewordenen Alten da noch ernst nehmen?“
Dem Meister wurde hinterbracht, wie die Neuerer und die Mandarine über ihn redeten. Er lachte nur. Und da die Seinen ihn um eine Erklärung baten, sagte er: „Es gibt die Wirklichkeit, ihr Knaben, und an der ist nicht zu rütteln. Wahrheiten aber, nämlich in Worten ausgedrückte Meinungen über das Wirkliche, gibt es unzählige, und jede ist ebenso richtig wie sie falsch ist.“

Zu weiteren Erklärungen konnten ihn die Schüler, so sehr sie sich bemühten, nicht bewegen.

:) :) :)

[Anthropos]

Let's continue our discussion tomorrow, shall we?I'm going to bed anyway, but I sense that you are purposely avoiding some questions, or that they made you perplexed, I don't know.



At least I think that God rightly said that we should not make any image of him or so.


If you want the Christian view of the matter I can give it to you, but other traditions have their particular ideas about it. (I wouldn't say that it is necessary to deal with it here.)



„Es gibt die Wirklichkeit, ihr Knaben, und an der ist nicht zu rütteln. Wahrheiten aber, nämlich in Worten ausgedrückte Meinungen über das Wirkliche, gibt es unzählige, und jede ist ebenso richtig wie sie falsch ist.“But there are also false descriptions of reality! Just because there are different manners of symbolising and describing the same thing, it is not at all implied that everything is equally true.

[Klärchen]

Hi Anthropos!

It is not my purpose to persuade anyone that this or that religion is to be preferred, because I believe that God loves all mankind. I rather prefer to search for what the religions have in common. I was myself raised as a Christian, but I have not found answers to important questions in the institutionalized Christendom. It is rather a blind belief in scriptures that were written by authors who lived long ago, and the truth of which cannot be verified by anyone.

It does not really matter whether you imagine God as an old man with a white beard whom you can pray to. But just remember that even Jesus said that we are the temple of the living God. Anyway, God is always with us, be it in this form or another. Agree? ;)

[Anthropos]

Hi Anthropos!

It is not my purpose to persuade anyone that this or that religion is to be preferred, because I believe that God loves all mankind. I rather prefer to search for what the religions have in common. I was myself raised as a Christian, but I have not found answers to important questions in the institutionalized Christendom. It is rather a blind belief in scriptures that were written by authors who lived long ago, and the truth of which cannot be verified by anyone.

It does not really matter whether you imagine God as an old man with a white beard whom you can pray to. But just remember that even Jesus said that we are the temple of the living God. Anyway, God is always with us, be it in this form or another. Agree? ;)

According to Orthodox Christianity it is strictly forbidden to 'imagine' God, just as it is strictly forbidden to worship profane images. True Christianity is institution-oriented, for the sake of using a profane term, and so are all religions properly so called. There are strict traditions that are not religions, though - most apparently in the Far East, but those must not be confused with post-Christian attempts at creating a syncretistic pseudoreligion of all religions. Nota bene, I am not trying to use derogatives here; my intention is only to mention the things I am talking about by recognisable names.

The great traditions (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Far-Eastern Tradition and possibly something I forgot to mention) do have some very Essential things in common. But from this realisation to deconstructing and reconstructing them arbitrarily and according to your whims there is a huge step! This last point cannot be emphasised too much. There is nothing wrong with searching for metaphysical knowledge; I have done so myself, I am continually seeking more of it, and it is the most important intellectual pursuit that I have ever put myself to. But such knowledge does not imply that religious forms are false, and frankly I think it is fairly safe to say that anyone who thinks that metaphysics refutes religion must prior to that have given the name 'metaphysics' to what is really humanism or rationalism (or at any rate some kind of denial of spirituality properly so called, to the benefit at times of some kind of 'individualistic spirituality' (sic), even if there can really be no such thing, just as there can not in fact be a 'collectivistic spirituality' properly so called either, since it is not the collective but a Principle of another quite different order that has the power to unite).

To anwswer your last question there, I must say no, God is not always with everyone. God's support is needed for there to be any manifestation at all, for sure, but this support is not on the level of positively guiding the individual, since God respects his/her free will! This distinction is also one that one can hardly insist too much on, in my opinion. I wonder, are you really certain that you do not agree with this? Of course, I do not wish to say that I have rightly assumed what you think, but it is an interesting discussion and I would also not wish to spoil it by manners that might be interpreted (rather falsely, I believe) to be 'preaching', something which I have really no authority to anyway. I believe that when man goes more or less deliberately away from God, God too withdraws to some extent, even if, as so many people have witnessed, he is always there as soon as man is ready to be closer to God, if this makes sense to you.

:)

[Klärchen]

Whatever we say about God is sort of an image, Anthropos. All the mystics have said that He cannot be described, but they also gave instructions or commandments to the people, partly depending on time and culture. But all those different commandments and rites have a certain goal, namely to help people lead a good life and to prepare them for their prayers, devotional services, or meditation. So in fact there is not much use quarrelling about what separates the religions.

I don't know whether God withdraws Himself from us when we withdraw from Him. But I believe that God is in every person, even in the sinners and in the lowest. Jesus even recommended to love one's enemies.

[Anthropos]

Whatever we say about God is sort of an image, Anthropos.

You could say that, but that's not a very good argument, because it is still forbidden, at least in the Orthodox tradition. :) And what's the point in babbling about God and imagining him like this and like that unless what you really want to do is to create your own idol? Tradition tells us what we need to know; it gives us all the instruction we could ever want and more!


All the mystics have said that He cannot be described, but they also gave instructions or commandments to the people, partly depending on time and culture. But all those different commandments and rites have a certain goal, namely to help people lead a good life and to prepare them for their prayers, devotional services, or meditation. So in fact there is not much use quarrelling about what separates the religions.I don't believe I did. Assessing what a religion teaches is not quarrelling. If I am not mistaken, I did ask you where you got your ideas from, and your replies were varying: On the one hand you accused me of marking words, and on the other you claimed that you were propounding the doctrine that is common to all religions (or something like that). The latter claim was no better than the former, because I had already pointed out exactly how the account you gave was at odds with traditional doctrines; namely in confounding the cosmos as such with the metaphysical as such.


I don't know whether God withdraws Himself from us when we withdraw from Him. But I believe that God is in every person, even in the sinners and in the lowest. Jesus even recommended to love one's enemies.

I said that on the one hand there's the support that is necessary for something to have any existence at all, and this is 'in every person' and in every individual even. On the other hand there is the relationship with God, which naturally is not in every individual, since God does respect the free will of those who deny him. I then asked you if you wouldn't agree, but you avoid the question, maintaining as dogma that without any distinction as to the degree and extent that 'God is in every person'.

[SuuT]

Interesting, that’s pretty much how I have come to look at it. I have the uncharitable notion of seeing many people and thinking they are already dust…

Perhaps more interesting still, is the capacity for speech given to this dust, eh?;)

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by SuuT
Perhaps more interesting still, is the capacity for speech given to this dust, eh?

Diamonds in the rough? Lol a thought process that could lead into dangerous terrain…..

[SuuT]

Diamonds in the rough?

:p


Lol a thought process that could lead into dangerous terrain…..

I am uncomfortable in any other place, Brother. - ...You...?:wink

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by SuuT
I am uncomfortable in any other place, Brother. - ...You...?

I disturb myself once a day regular……not those kind of thoughts I’m not allowed near sharp implements anymore and the voices have stopped, which is a good thing, multiple personalities are tiring, especially when you’re deciding what to wear in the morning….it’s when I let the bad lad out of his cage for exercise and he starts thinking all the things you know to be true….that’s when you need humour it’s better than therapy.:D

[Klärchen]

Tradition tells us what we need to know; it gives us all the instruction we could ever want and more!

But traditions do not necessarily reflect the original purposes of Christ, Buddha or Mohammed, in fact they are often pretty arbitrary. In Catholic tradition e.g., women cannot become priests, although it isn't written anywhere that Jesus barred women from becoming priests. In the Middle Ages they had that tradition of the letters of indulgence. Luckily Martin Luther stopped this tradition. Traditions are great when they serve humanity, but they do not necessarily reflect what the religious teachers had in mind.


Assessing what a religion teaches is not quarrelling.

Right! :thumb001:


I said that on the one hand there's the support that is necessary for something to have any existence at all, and this is 'in every person' and in every individual even. On the other hand there is the relationship with God, which naturally is not in every individual, since God does respect the free will of those who deny him. I then asked you if you wouldn't agree, but you avoid the question, maintaining as dogma that without any distinction as to the degree and extent that 'God is in every person'.

Yes, and I still maintain that God is in every person, for how else would you interprets the words "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" We may turn away from God, but why should He turn away from us? When you and your friend are standing face to face with each other and then your friend suddenly turns around, you will still be standing there although your friend cannot see you any more. Did you prevent him from turning around? No, you didn't, but you will be happy when your friend turns towards you again.

[Anthropos]

But traditions do not necessarily reflect the original purposes of Christ, Buddha or Mohammed, in fact they are often pretty arbitrary.

Be that as it may, they are never as arbitrary as modern revisions of them are.



Yes, and I still maintain that God is in every person, for how else would you interprets the words "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?"Paul is adressing the already baptised Christians there, mind you (1 Corinthians 3:16). The quote reflects exactly what we were saying and what we are about to say once again at the bottom of this post, and, as we have already pointed out, you are cherry-picking this out of context. The next verse has these words: "If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are." Man is said to be a temple, but the temple is not to be confused with the God who wants to dwell therein.

Besides, we wonder what right you have to lean on this quote, since it was not Jesus who uttered it. We are only applying your own thinking:


In Catholic tradition e.g., women cannot become priests, although it isn't written anywhere that Jesus barred women from becoming priests._



We may turn away from God, but why should He turn away from us? When you and your friend are standing face to face with each other and then your friend suddenly turns around, you will still be standing there although your friend cannot see you any more. Did you prevent him from turning around? No, you didn't, but you will be happy when your friend turns towards you again.As I already explained, we believe that God respects the choices we make. If we choose to be on our own, the choice is respected. On the other hand, we do believe that God is 'happy' when we want to return to him. You may want to read the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-24).

[Klärchen]

Be that as it may, they are never as arbitrary as modern revisions of them are.

Let's say, modern Christians tend to reshape the old teachings according to their own wants and needs. I have just been quarrelling with a "liberal" protestant woman about the Christian dimension of one-night stands and about her view that her partner's ex-wife hasn't got real love for her ex-husband, because she does not want to let him go... :blink:


Paul is adressing the already baptised Christians there, mind you (1 Corinthians 3:16).

Okay, my dear. So let's compromise: Your God loves only those who love Him, and my God loves everybody. :)


You may want to read the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-24).

Yes! :D I was going to cite this parable, but you anticipated me. This is just the moment when your friend turns towards you again!

[Anthropos]

Okay, my dear. So let's compromise: Your God loves only those who love Him, and my God loves everybody. :)
No compromise: We believe that God loves every man, but we also believe that God's love is tormenting to those who hate him. Here is a piece on that:

The River of Fire (http://www.stnectariospress.com/parish/river_of_fire.htm) by Alexandre Kalomiros.

It's long, but it's good reading.

:)

[Klärchen]

No compromise: We believe that God loves every man, but we also believe that God's love is tormenting to those who hate him. Here is a piece on that:

The River of Fire (http://www.stnectariospress.com/parish/river_of_fire.htm) by Alexandre Kalomiros.

It's long, but it's good reading.

:)


God is good, loving, and kind toward those who disregard, disobey, and ignore Him.(8) He never returns evil for evil, He never takes vengeance. (9) His punishments are loving means of correction, as long as anything can be corrected and healed in this life. (10) They never extend to eternity. ...

http://www.smilies-smilies.de/smilies/beleidigte_smilies/beleidigt6.gif

[Lulletje Rozewater]

No compromise: We believe that God loves every man, but we also believe that God's love is tormenting to those who hate him. Here is a piece on that:

The River of Fire (http://www.stnectariospress.com/parish/river_of_fire.htm) by Alexandre Kalomiros.

It's long, but it's good reading.

:)


The "River of Fire" is not only an analysis of Orthodox soteriology, of the workings of God's dispensation and our Redemption, demonstrating that Orthodox theology has a unique understanding through the revelation of God. It speaks even more to the driven soul, tormented by trials, who asks in desperation: How can God Who is good permit such evil? How can He condemn me when these temptations and trials surpass by strength to resist? If He is merciful and loving, how can He condemn me to such suffering here and in the life to come?

Where do Christians get the idea that we the Christ smashers are tormented.:eek:
It are the Christian believers who are tormented day in day out by some Platy-puss concept.
I rather die without the worry that Christ is "waiting for me" than dying praying my ass off, to shake his hand and find an empty cup of :coffee:

[Klärchen]

No compromise: We believe that God loves every man, but we also believe that God's love is tormenting to those who hate him. Here is a piece on that:

The River of Fire (http://www.stnectariospress.com/parish/river_of_fire.htm) by Alexandre Kalomiros.

It's long, but it's good reading.

:)

This is really a good explanation of how God's love works, and it is also true that our theology has made God sort of a ferocious tyrant. The same applies to Judaism and Islam, by the way, they all imagine God as someone whose grace must be deserved by immolation. That is in fact why I turned away from our Church when I was about 15. The Churches could not answer my questions satisfactorily, and I was searching for (and found) authentic experience. In this new light, I can now accept the Christian teachings – with one exception: I do not believe that there has been only one Saviour.

As for the "Light of God" – in the secret library of the Vatican old scriptures were found and translated by Edmond B. Székely, and here is one very interesting source:


... For at the beginning of the times, the Holy Law said, let there be Light, and there was Light. And you shall be one with it, and the power of the Holy Light Stream will fill your whole body, and you will tremble before its might. Say the word "Light," as you breathe deeply of the angel of air, and you will become the Light itself; and the Holy Stream will carry you to the endless kingdom of the Heavenly Father, there losing itself in the eternal Sea of Light which gives birth to all creation. And you shall be one with the Holy Stream of Light, always before you sleep in the arms of the Heavenly Father.

I tell you truly, your body was made not only to breathe, and eat, and think, but it was also made to enter the Holy Stream of Life. And your ears were made not only to hear the words of men, the song of birds, and the music of falling rain, but they were also made to hear the Holy Stream of Sound. And your eyes were made not only to see the rising and setting of the sun, the ripple of sheaves of grain, and the words of the Holy Scrolls, but they were also made to see the Holy Stream of Light. One day your body will return to the Earthly Mother; even also your ears and your eyes. But the Holy Stream of Life, the Holy Stream of Sound, and the Holy Stream of Light, these were never born, and can never die. Enter the Holy Streams, even that Life, that Sound, and that Light which gave you birth; that you may reach the kingdom of the Heavenly Father and become one with him, even as the river empties into the far-distant sea.

The Holy Streams (http://www.essene.com/GospelOfPeace/peace4.html#HolyStreams)

[Anthropos]

”Moreover, there is still much more than this to say about reincarnation; for from the viewpoint of pure metaphysics one can demonstrate its absolute impossibility, and do so without any exceptions [...]. Moreover, here we mean the impossibility of reincarnation, not only on earth but also on any other planet, as well as of bizarre notions like the multiplicity of simultaneous incarnations on different planets; [...] The same metaphysical demonstration is equally valid against such theories as the ’eternal return’ of Nietzsche; [...] We will only say, in order to reduce the claims of the Theosophists to their just value, that no traditional doctrine has ever admitted reincarnation and this idea was entirely foreign to all of antiquity, even though some have wished to support it by tendentious interpretations of certain more or less symbolic texts. Even in Buddhism it is only a question of ’changes of state’, which obviously is not the same thing as a series of earthly lives; and, we repeat, it is only symbolically that different states have sometimes been described as ’lives’ by analogy with the present state of the human being and with the conditions of his terrestrial existence. Let us also explain that despite the false interpretations current today, reincarnation has nothing to do with the ’metempsychosis’ of the Orphics and Pythagoreans, any more than with the theories of certain Jewish Kabbalists on the ’embryonic state’ and the ’revolution of souls’."

René Guénon, Theosophy: History of a Pseudo-Religion, Hillsdale NY: Sophia Perennis, 2nd impr., 2004, 104-106.

In The Spiritist Fallacy by the same author there is a twentyfour-page chapter dedicated to reincarnation, in which its metaphysical impossibility is demonstrated. Metempsychosis and transmigration are also treated there; contrary to reincarnation both of them are traditional doctrines in the strict sense, according to Guénon.

The two titles, Theosophy and The Spiritist Fallacy, offer profound insights into the rise and nature of Neospirituality, and many of the observations and conclusions are applicable to such things as 'Heathenry' or Neopaganism as well.

There are also many points there that shed light on the modern mentality considered apart from the specifics of Neospirituality.

[Hrimskegg]

So, obviously, when it's mentioned in the sagas that doesn't count?