Talk:Metempsychosis

Cleanup
"In India we may explain the whole phenomenon as an infusion of the lower beliefs of the non-Aryan conquered races into the higher religious system of their Aryan conquerors. " deleted this. not appropriate at this time. also correcting the notion that karma is the character. this is nonsense.

also deleting: "Outside the somewhat narrow circle of theosophists there is little disposition to accept the doctrine but it may be worth while to point out that there are two fatal objections to it. " as in modern times reincarnation is a far mor popular idea"

kh7 10:22 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)

Merger notice
Unless there are objections. I will merge this article with the one we have on reincarnation, the exact same topic. RK 18:24, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep a redirect --and don't drop any stitches! Wetman 18:29, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Differentiate article
There is a very clear distinction between the concepts of Metempsychosis and of Reincarnation as explained in the "The Columbia Encyclopedia".


 * Transmigration of souls or metempsychosis (mtm´´sk´ss) (KEY) [Gr.,=change of soul], a belief common to many cultures, in which the soul passes from one body to another, either human, animal, or inanimate. (in The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition.  2001-05)

Most of the material of this article was collected from material "rejected" in the reincarnation article. --212.113.164.104 20:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC) GalaazV


 * The reason most of the material was rejected was probably because it was unsubstantiated - I suggest we re-merge the two articles again. GourangaUK 11:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed stuff
I removed this from the article:
 * IN REGARDS TO WHAT IS STATED ABOVE, AND "BEYOND" EDITING IT APPEARS: METEMPSYCHOSIS REFERS TO THE EXPERIENCE OF THE TRANSMIGRATION OF THE SOUL, AND IS INSEPERABLE FROM THE DOCTRINES OF REINCARNATION. WE MUST AVOID TOO MANY CLINICAL HARD EDGES IN REFERENCE TO THE MOVEMENT OF THE SO-CALLED SOUL FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER. REALLY. -WEST GOMEZ

Melchoir 04:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated information
I am removing the following passage because it is clearly false:

''There is no authority in any of the sacred writings of Eastern religions for such a belief as metempsychosis into other animals. The only semblance to such an idea is found in the Kathopanishad (Chapter 5, Verse 9) which says that some of the souls, according to their deeds, return to the womb to be reborn, but others go into "the motionless", which is interpreted by some that they may reincarnate down even as low as the minerals. The Sanskrit word used in that place is "Sthanu", which also means "a pillar" and it is similar to the passage in Revelation that says: "Him that overcometh, I will make a pillar in the house of my God, thence he shall no more go out." This passage is regarded in Esoteric Christianity with the meaning that when humanity has reached perfection, there will come a time when they will no longer be tied to the wheel of birth and death: that is, liberated from the "rebirth" cycle (or "motionless").''

See evidences from Eastern scripture below:


 * "When one dies in the mode of passion, he takes birth among those engaged in fruitive activities; and when one dies in the mode of ignorance, he takes birth in the animal kingdom." (Bhagavad-Gita 14.15)

http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/14/15/en1


 * "At the time of death, the King saw that the deer was sitting by his side, exactly like his own son, and was lamenting his death. Actually the mind of the King was absorbed in the body of the deer, and consequently -- like those bereft of Krishna consciousness -- he left the world, the deer, and his material body and acquired the body of a deer. However, there was one advantage. Although he lost his human body and received the body of a deer, he did not forget the incidents of his past life." (Srimad Bhagavatam 5.8.27)

http://srimadbhagavatam.com/5/8/27/en1

For a summary of the full story regarding Jada-Bharata Maharaj see the followng link: http://srimadbhagavatam.com/5/8/summary/en1

GourangaUK 11:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Reason for reversion
The recent edit by User:GourangaUK directly contradicts what I've read on the subject of metempsychosis (for a text reference, see page 15 of Hamel, F. (1969) Human Animals, Werewolves & Other Transformations. New Hyde Park, NY: University Books.). Metempsychosis certainly includes non-human forms. Please do not go back to GourangaUK's non-animal version of metempsychosis unless you can cite a published source supporting that view.


 * In Reply - You are correct that I'd got the wrong end of the stick originally on the actual meaning of the phrase. However, you must admit that this page was full of irrelevant information. After some research I've re-amended the page to give as clear a definition of the term as I could muster. I obviously welcome any improvements or comments for the article in order to expand it further, although much of the topic is already explored in some detail on the reincarnation and transmigration pages. GourangaUK 14:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you - Thanks for gracefully re-editing. I'd love to expand the metempsychosis article, but I've currently got my hands full with my current projects. Maybe later. Blue Milk Mathematician 23:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

GourangaUK's edit
Metempsychosis is the belief that after death the soul begins a new cycle of existence in another human body. It rejects the concept that a 'human soul' can take re-birth in that of an animal body.

The original text that GourangaUK deleted
Metempsychosis is a doctrine among some followers of Eastern teachings which expresses a theory of transmigration, that the human spirit may incarnate from one body to another, either human, animal, or inanimate, which is very different from the doctrine of reincarnation, which holds that man is an evolving being progressing through repeated human embodiments.

Blue Milk Mathematician 04:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello BlueMM - I had changed the introduction based largely on the definitions given on these two links from the online dictionary:


 * Dictionary definiton of Metempsychosis
 * Dictionary definiton Reincarnation


 * Google Definitons Following this link do you think it would be more accurate to say Metempsychosis is the Greek concept of transmigration?


 * Otherwise what would be the difference between the terms 'Metempsychosis' and 'Reincarnation'? Reincarnation simply refers to 'taking re-birth in another body', the whole sentence regarding evolution of a soul is a point of view . Best Wishes, GourangaUK 08:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

etymology of metempsychosis
Can someone describe metempsychosis in terms of its constituent parts of speech? The word would make more sense to English speakers if the parts meta + psycho + osis were taken individually and explained separately. That way, we could understand what on earth the Greeks meant by the word they coined. Are there similar words, like katapsychosis and parapsychosis?

Metempsychosis in popular culture
The word appears in Molly Bloom's question to her husband, Leopold, in James Joyce's seminal modernist novel, Ulysses. In this multi-layered novel, at one level, Leopold's matter-of-fact and accurate response indicates that the ancient Greek hero's spirit resides in this most typical of modern men, a bumbling, cuckolded, seller of advertising copy.

'Metempsychosis' is the name of the last stage of the video game Ikaruga. The stages are Ideal, Trial, Faith, Reality, Metempsychosis, then Spirit Being.

Omega Metempsychosis is the name of the boss at the climax of Chapter 8 in Xenosaga III. The significance is that the boss itself is a combination of the bodies of Omega Res Novae, Abel, and Dmitri Yuriev; or more accurately Yuriev's transmigration into godhood.

'Metempsychosis' is the meaning of 'Tensei' in the Japanese series of role-playing games, Megami Tensei. The full title translates to 'Metempsychosis of the Goddess'.

In the video game Soulcalibur III, upon entering a battle against Zasalamel, a character seeking to free himself from an endless cycle of reincarnation, the announcer will sometimes say, "After countless lives, he challenges the chains of metempsychosis."

In the short story 'Angelic Butterfly' by Primo Levi, he refers to "Physiological Foundations of Metempsychosis". This is a chapter in a study that proposes that all animals possess that ability to transform like a butterfly.

"Infinite Jest" by David Foster Wallace, features a hypnotic late-night radio DJ named Madam Psychosis.


 * PLEASE NOTE. I was unable to verify the bulk of this material, much of which is both dubious and highly trivial, and all of which lacks any kind of reliable sources. Listing every minuscule mention of "metempsychosis" in a book or film IS NOT A GOOD THING AND WEIGHS DOWN THE ARTICLE.  As a compromise measure, I have moved this unsourced section here, to talk page, so that it is not "lost" in the edit history shuffle.  Please do not re-insert this material without providing the reliable sources deemed necessary by WP:V policy and carefully consider whether or not the material you are reinserting is actually going to be an improvement.  Thank you,  Bur nt sau ce  17:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Redirect Is Really Unfortunate.
Metempsychosis is a concept in Greek philosophy that, as others have pointed out, has a unique cultural and intellectual history, quite distinct from that of Buddhism or New Age belief in reincarnation. It's a shame that domineering and undereducated editors, failing to note the distinction, have made the page a redirect. This is one user's notice of convictional protest. 173.21.106.137 (talk) 08:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Further: having seen that burntsauce was banned I have undone the redirect. With 18 references and a cultural centrality owing to its place in classical Greek thought, this page is hardly worthy of being scrapped. Use templates to request an expert's attention or more thorough or better sourcing in specific cases. 173.21.106.137 (talk) 09:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * May I call you 173? You may be interested to hear that "trauben" have a unique and important place in German culture, while "raisins" play a slightly different but equally significant role in that of France. Nevertheless, both mean "grape" and that's the only page for either on English wiki. Please observe that this page redirects to another, where all the information that was here now is, except with better references and better linked to articles on classical Greece. Nothing has been "scrapped". You can, however, submit authoritative references showing that there's a material difference between the two IDEAS that goes beyond the obvious fact that Latin writers use "reincarnatio" to translate "metempsychosis". That'd be different. BY the way, I do know Greek and Latin - do you? Redheylin (talk) 11:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Latin writers use reincarnatio? A quick check of the American Heritage dictionary says "reincarnation" was coined in English in the 1850s. Etymonline concurs, so your explanation is a fantasy. Good try, you must not have read anything in a while. Ergo, you don't know Latin, at least. I have known enough intellectual pretenders to immediately see through your claims to intellectual superiority and patent bullshit artistry, not to mention rogue lexicology. The Greek doctrine of metempsychosis is linked to Pythagoras and his cult. It did not include the possibility of humans reincarnating as animals. From this fact alone you must surely see that "reincarnation" is not an invariable doctrine. In spite of your boasting, you betray your ignorance and lack of intellectual curiosity. Metempsychosis is part of some Greek philosophies, while reincarnation for many English speakers connotes a doctrine of Eastern origin. 173.21.106.137 (talk) 04:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

'BY the way,' there is authoritative reference showing the 'material difference' already present in the article. This is indicated by the degree of specificity independently associating the concept with the ancient Greeks. The first line in this article is a link to the Reincarnation page. Won't you be satisfied? Move on, discussion over. This is like saying communion is the same thing in Protestant and Catholic ideology, when in fact the debate over consubstantiation and transubstantiation has had real historical consequences. LEARN MORE. 173.21.106.137 (talk) 09:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Latin writers use reincarnatio? A quick check of the American Heritage dictionary says "reincarnation" was coined in English in the 1850s. Etymonline concurs, so your explanation is a fantasy. Good try, you must not have read anything in a while. Ergo, you don't know Latin, at least."


 * See; http://www.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wordes.exe?reincarnation (Notre Dame University Latin Faculty) - thanks.

You claimed to be able to cite in Latin, which you manifestly cannot do. The word 'rehypothesize' potentially exists in English but you'd be hard-pressed to find a credible writer who used it. This doesn't pass muster against a concurrence of English authorities, sorry. (You must know that English and Latin never diverged, and therefore your argument is irrelevant in any respect, the word having been at the least re-coined.)
 * "The Greek doctrine of metempsychosis is linked to Pythagoras and his cult."


 * They spoke Greek. This is like saying the phrase "past life" means something different because it is English. However, now, I hope, you accept the existence of the Latin and recognise that Latin writers were talking about Pythagorean/Platonic, not Indian, philosophies.

No, it's not. You're playing with novice ideas of translation as if you never took Linguistics 101. And "'past life" means something different'" - than what? Furthermore the fact that you claim Latin writers were talking about Pythagorean ideas, and not Indian, leaves one with the definite conclusion that the Greek and Indian philosophies are in fact different. You undo yourself, laughably. Even if you could find a word-for-word translation of metempsychosis for 'reincarnatio' it would only show Latin authors translating metempsychosis - a referential dead-end. The word was re-coined in English.


 * See; http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pythagoras/ (Stanford University Philosophy Faculty)


 * "Pythagoras.. thought that the soul was immortal and went through a series of reincarnations"


 * "It did not include the possibility of humans reincarnating as animals."


 * There are many variant forms of the belief and it is up to us to make sure they can be compared readily.


 * "This is like saying communion is the same thing in Protestant and Catholic ideology, when in fact the debate over consubstantiation and transubstantiation has had real historical consequences."


 * In this example also, such consequences cannot fully be explicated without including the Protestant doctrine (which, of course, derived directly from the Catholic) in the same article as the latter. There, however, the term has been altered precisely to differentiate the two, which is not the case in the present context. The article does not at all suggest that all doctrines of reincarnation/metempsychosis are identical in every way.

Hence, there are separate articles on the two topics (transubstantiation and consubstantiation). Again, you undo yourself.
 * I trust this sufficiently answers your objections. There is no information on this page not present in the other article. You may still bring forward authoritative sources that distinguish between the two sufficiently to warrant separate articles - I am sure you understand that your own personal opinion is insufficient to counter the

authorities I quoted. (See WP:OR) As another editor recently pointed out to you; ''Please stop restoring your text; as explained, you need to reference the claims. They may well be correct, but they need references''. --Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not satisfied, for reasons that are hilariously obvious. I am sure you understand that your own personal opinion is insufficient in light of the fact that you have quoted no relevant authorities, and your logic runs counter to the argument you present. As another editor pointed out, claims may be supplied by knowledgeable readers and the community, rather than yourself, will arbitrate the matter. If you feel you are able to make contributions to this page (which is all you seem to propose) please do so in the metempsychosis article. Please propose specific objections (either through 'citations needed' tags, or the talk page) before you make another radically tyrannical redirect. Perhaps other editors will teach you something. Thank you. 173.21.106.137 (talk) 09:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see my specific objections to your counter-arguments Redhaylin
Or whatever your name is. You can see that though you present your arguments as monolithic they are as impervious as Swiss cheese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.106.137 (talk) 09:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge
Support, obiously. All the information on this page has been merged to Reincarnation - the page was not deleted but merged so that ancient European and Asian ideas are presented side-by-side. That is; the merge has already taken place. The latter page says; "The word "reincarnation" derives from Latin, literally meaning, "entering the flesh again". The Greek equivalent metempsychosis (μετεμψύχωσις) roughly corresponds to the common English phrase "transmigration of the soul" and also usually connotes reincarnation after death,(ref)Encyclopedia Britannica(/ref)" Nobody has undone this, so I conclude that undoing the merge at one side only is not thoughtful editing and there's no reason for this page to be anything other than a redirect. Referenced ideas as to any differences can be included there - they are not here! Redheylin (talk) 23:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know who you think you are, but I'm not some IP you can boss around and mislead. This article will be discussed right here, on it's talk page, and decisions will be made by WP:CONSENSUS. You got a problem with that?
 * It's not a {redirect this article} tag. It's a suggested merge tag and I hope you make it a habit to start using those those. Please clarify what's so “obious”, [sic] won't you:
 * You support a second merge?
 * Or you propose this notable and long standing article should be blanked and redirected, despite repeated opposition, despite being contrary to guidelines, and despite the fact that Reincarnation does not have “all the information” contrary to what you appear to be insinuating?
 * Please strikeout the misleading statement: “All the information on this page has been merged to Reincarnation”. Obviously, this is a talk page... Now that you've brought it up, I can see where there is some question as to whether or not you ever did complete a merge properly... However, if it had been the right thing to do, it looks more or less adequate, and the question is moot, IMO. Obviously there's no guarantee that all the material can still be found in that article, and, in fact, material has been deleted, on several occasions since then...
 * Please strikeout the broken reference to the metempsychosis article from the Britannica Online Encyclopedia: (ref)Encyclopedia Britannica (http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9063098/ metempsychosis )(/ref)
 * Of the articles you attempted, unannounced and unilaterally, to assimilate into a collective, 3 of 5 have been rescued the same way I rescued Metempsychosis. Seeing as the those 2 don't bother you, I find your aggressive posture, and remarks about “one side only” and “thoughtful editing” astonishingly hypocritical, annoying, and transparently false, so I'll direct your attention WP:CIVIL which prohibits telling lies about other editors. If it's just a matter of abject negligence, I look forward to your correction. I would also like to interest you in reviewing some of the relevant guidelines, like WP:SUMMARY. It's no surprise that the ongoing editing of the reincarnation article resulted in quite a bit the material being cut out, chopped off, chewed up, etc.
 * A second merge is inadvisable, as evidenced by this fiasco of which you seem to be in denial. Look, merging a stub is one thing, but even then, if there's opposition don't argue. Put a suggested merge tag on it and give your opinion, if able to comply with WP:CIVIL and WP:CONSENSUS (without making bogus demands or giving misleading advice). All 3 established articles where reverted because you're doing the wrong thing. At least consider adopting the use of suggested merge tags for established articles as a rule of thumb. I'd suggest you keep the following in mind when you reviewing the guidelines.
 * Material shouldn't be cut down to size. WP:Notable subtopics that get too big should be “spun-off” into their own articles. This article, was created in 2002, (reincarnation wasn't created until 2003). When you hijacked it, this article was already 8 years old, and much too big to even consider merging into that bloated, scandalized, three-ring circus. Furthermore, as you're no doubt aware, encyclopedias generally keep Metempsychosis and Reincarnation separated, (more examples) If you want a bigger summary, you can simply make the summary bigger. Never butcher a viable article to harvest “selections”.
 * As I've said, what you pasted initially seems like it would be adequate, more or less, if it hadn't been the wrong thing to do in the first place. At this point, any questions regarding the changes or omissions you did made, in my opinion, seem petty much moot. If the “fully merged” edit or edits are important to you, document which Reincarnation edit/edits they were. But why bother? It's had numerous modifications and removals since then. The material will not remain intact at Reincarnation; spinning-in a viable article to Reincarnation defeats the purpose.
 * [...] the page was not deleted but merged [...] That is; the merge has already taken place.
 * Needless to say, access to the edit history of this article was not impossible while it was being redirected, for someone who knows how. That is; I am aware that the article wasn't technically deleted. Otherwise, I couldn't have undone your pernicious redirect, could I? However, that's no consolation for a newcomer who may not know how to stifle the redirection. I concur with the IP. As far as I'm concerned, it's was tantamount to “wholesale deletion”... which is not to say the information wasn't pasted into Reincarnation. I take it you're defending the meager charade of a “mergeto” here, and a “mergefrom” there your edit summaries? Your behavior was shameful and the question is moot. Fast-forward: I reverted your “merge”. That too, has already taken place. Your capacity for denial is hysterical. I could revert a “merge” by Mother Teresa just the same, the cherubim rapturing each byte into communion don't mind a bit.
 * Nobody has undone this, so I conclude that undoing the merge at one side only is not thoughtful editing and there's no reason for this page to be anything other than a redirect.
 * Appealing to denial, you “conclude” that you're half-wrong? I guess... that depends on what “sides” is supposed to mean... To me, all of it just sounds blatantly hypocritical and applicable to me in no way whatsoever. You are seriously grasping at straws if an ad hoc hypothesis about thoughts in my head, (not facts in my edit history,), is supposed to constitute a solid platform empowering you to... what? To disregard my objections before you've even heard them? To wish the article back into the corn field... Is that correct?
 * That's a rather aggressive agenda you're (not) threatening to dominate me with. I say "not" because, if I've read you correctly, I've already lost. Can I surmise that, in your estimation, your devastating hypocrisy has already dismantled my credibility, and you see no reason not to carry on, doing whatever you choose to think you're doing. If so, you don't require a response from me... but perhaps you'll forgive my temerity, because you're getting one. Is this “thoughtful editing” or no... how's that working out for ya?
 * I can't vouch for your ability to see reason, but I can assure you that any one who does see reason, would have to call that way off-base. Not how I'd phrase it... I have much better things to do—there's nothing I'd like more than to see you run along, following your deranged wiki bliss, The End. 'Til then, I guess I'll have make time to render vivid my “thoughtful editing”... I don't know how to break it to you, but it looks like I knocked one past that dream team you got playing ball up there in our noggin. Incomprehensible I guess... a “Nobody” like me, thinking he's undone all-star dirt cheep like yours... walk it off.
 * so that ancient European and Asian ideas are presented side-by-side
 * Charitably, that would be an anachronism, a mere figment of your imagination. Speaking of The Druids from Atlantis, it's bad enough you abducted an article falling within the purview of ancient Greek philosophy, however peripherally, and let to rot on the alter, an apotropaic against WP:UNDUE I should imagine; but not only is it “presented side-by-side” with pseudo-science, it's fucking dwarfed by it. Pretend it's impossible to undo more quietly, by yourself, like you're doing with the other two, would ya?
 * “"The word "reincarnation" derives from Latin, literally meaning, "entering the flesh again". The Greek equivalent metempsychosis (μετεμψύχωσις) roughly corresponds to the common English phrase "transmigration of the soul" and also usually connotes reincarnation after death,(ref)&#x5b;http&#x3a;//concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9063098/ metempsychosis Encyclopedia Britannica&#x5d;(/ref)"”
 * I have no idea why you're harping on this, how it's an argument, what it would argue for... I didn't ask about it and if you would be so kind as to spare me, I'd be happy to stipulate the words mean anything you like; just so long as they don't say “this article should be redirected”. Articles about notable subtopics are not a problem. As you're no doubt aware, keeping them separated is customary. The current metempsychosis summary in the Reincarnation Ancient whatever section looks like it's been put through a blender (diffed to this article). Any problem you might have with that metempsychotic purée, (especially material you duplicated), you have no one to blame but yourself. Despite objections, you merged it based on faulty reasoning and no consensus whatsoever.
 * “Referenced ideas as to any differences can be included there - they are not here!”
 * Oi stay away from the light - they're here! Machine Elf 1735  13:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Gilgul 27 April – 2 May 2010
 * Foiled hijackings—the first two articles rescued
 * Reincarnation ... (→Buddhism: Since this article has fortunately been kept ...)
 * Rebirth (Buddhism) RESCUED (Should not be merged with the very general article. This topic is certainly worthy of a separate treatment.)
 * Reincarnation Redheylin (→Religions and philosophies: buddhism select mergefrom Rebirth (Buddhism) edit dup/split material)
 * Rebirth (Buddhism) Redheylin (mergeto main article Reincarnation, selective, split/duplicated account)
 * Gilgul RESCUED (wholesale redirect to "reincarnation" not merited, not discussed. This article contains valuable information and requires its own page.)
 * Reincarnation Redheylin (mergefrom gilgul dump replace dup material)
 * Gilgul Redheylin (redirect dump mergeto edited text replacing duplication at Reincarnation)
 * Butchering an article and harvesting its “selections”

29,016 bytes → cuts: 20,297 −70% → 8,719 “dump” →
 * approx. 5,400 bytes ≤ 19% make the final cut
 * Lingo: “duplicate” is a euphemism for duplicitous “deletion”, but what is a “dump”?


 * Metempsychosis—one anonymous soul fighting the good fight
 * Metempsychosis 173.21.106.137 (Undid revision by Redheylin see the talk page if you are interested in this article. reincarnation is no more totemic than the idea of a sleeping god who will awake to save his followers. (see jesus))
 * Metempsychosis Redheylin (Undid revision 364609311 by 173.21.106.137 (talk)see talk - all information fully present upon redirect pagee)
 * Metempsychosis 173.21.106.137 (Undid revision. redheylin has no right to wholesale deletion of an article just because he doesn't like it.)
 * Metempsychosis Redheylin (Undid revision 361443020 by 173.21.106.137 (talk)article fully merged to reincarnation - user may supply disambiguation)
 * Metempsychosis 173.21.106.137 (Undid revision 356857839 by Redheylin (talk) the redirect is a poor and uniformed choice, dumbing-down wikipedia. request article cleanup.)
 * Reincarnation Redheylin (mergefrom metempsychosis select/edit)
 * Metempsychosis Redheylin (duplication/fork - mergeto Reincarnation)


 * uncontested—stub and starter
 * Reincarnation (Ismailism) Redheylin (mergeto main article Reincarnation)
 * Reincarnation Redheylin (→Islam: mergefrom Reincarnation (Ismailism))
 * Reincarnation Redheylin (→Hinduism: text crop and mergefrom Reincarnation in Hinduism) ?
 * Reincarnation Redheylin (mergefrom Transmigration of the soul selective)
 * Transmigration of the soul Redheylin (redirect mergeto Reincarnation)


 * Examples :I am aware there's nothing I have to prove to you... least of all to provide you with “Referenced ideas as to any differences” at a venue of your choosing. I don't have a clue what you mean by “differences”. Hysterical. Here's some references from the home page of the google. It finds them on teh internets. As you're no doubt aware, Metempsychosis appears separately from Reincarnation by common convention. Q.E.D.
 * 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica: Metempsychosis
 * 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica: Metempsychosis (PNG)

&lt;!-- THIS ARTICLE IS ALREADY VERY LARGE. PLEASE ENSURE ANY ADDITIONS TO THE TEXT ARE FACTUAL, PRECISE AND CONCISE - OTHERWISE THEY WILL BE REMOVED. PLEASE CHECK THE DISCUSSION PAGE FOR MORE INFORMATION. --&gt;
 * 1) Did you remove it because it's incompatible with your agenda?
 * 2) Or because that's terrible advice for the newcomers, (Reincarnation's kind of a vandal magnet, no)?


 * Suggested reading : Negligence of acceptable types of forking is no excuse for ignorance, oh or wait... hum. I think it might be a pretty good excuse for ignorance. But ignorance of acceptable types of forking is no excuse for negligence.


 * By hook or by crook : Unannounced unilateral hijacking... meh, it's moot. Vanilla compared to the shave and a haircut you gave Gilgul. I had to move some paragraphs up/down, (like The Druids) and I didn't bother clearing out all the EL (but it was practically vegan for a carcass marked “select/edit” LOL... choice/grade A cut on the left and paste on the right.


 * —Machine Elf 1735  13:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Metempsychosis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080821030150/http://www.bartleby.com/65/tr/transmig.html to http://www.bartleby.com/65/tr/transmig.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)