Talk:Reincarnation/Archive 1

Comments from 2001
Reincarnation in early Christianity later squelched by the Church? Hmmm. Well. I'd want a footnote, and it had better not be publised by HarperCollins's religion division. Basically, Judaism believes in a one-body-per-soul thing (and I know, there is all sorts of interesting controversy about exactly what Judaism in the 1st century thought the afterlife or salvation would be like), and insofar as Christianity grew out of Judaism, that cuts that off. --MichaelTinkler

I've read it in two or three different places, I think, so it seemed to deserve mention. I'll try to do a little more research on it. --WillWare - One of the endless lands of controversy in Religion departments is the degree of Greekification that Christianity underwent once pagans started converting. Reincarnation is an essentially non-Judaic idea, so anyone who says that it was a belief in E. Christianity is asserting that paganism beliefs made substantive changes in ideas about the nature of the Soul. Not to mention the fact that ancient Mediterranean society was FAR from unanimous on reincarnatin. The Egyptians sure didn't believe in it (Hence, the Book of the Dead is all about getting to the comfortable afterlife), and the Romans don't seem very interested. It was, as far as I can tell, not a popular belief but a position taken by some philosophers. Oh, well - this is what a community project is for, sorting stuff like this out. --MichaelTinkler

Hmm. That all goes well beyond my level of scholarship. I guess I'll yank it. --WillWare - Well as I understand the Jews around the 1st century didn't have that clear ideas on the afterlife at all, and most Jews still don't. Some Jews today believe in reincarnation (some Hasidim for instance), though that belief may be Medieveal in origin. As to early Christianity, the mainstream rejected reincarnation, but some Gnostic groups believed in it. (Gnostic Christianity was heavily pagan influenced.) As to reincarnation in ancient Mediterranean society, I'd agree it was far from unanimous, but it wasn't just a philosophical view: some popular movements like Gnosticism or Orphism or Hermeticism believed in it. (I am no historian, so I may be wrong.) --- Simon J Kissane

first talks
I've willing to expand the section on Spiritism, detailing more information as for the actual mechanisms of reincarnation under this particular doctrine. I suggest that Spiritismo (most specifically, Kardecist Spiritism) to get its own section, to help to point out its relationship to Christian doctrines (Kardecist followers have a different interpretation of the Bible, but consider themselves to be Christians). I don't want to step over anyone's toes on it, though.


 * I encourage you to write the article. I myself would appreciate it. It may give people options. I'm more in into Edgar Cayce. Wikipedia, I believe is concerned with encyclopedicity, notability and originality/non-copyright-violating. To save you a lot of trouble if you do write, cite a lot of source (External links)and never copy and paste, always rewrite.  --Jondel 01:33, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I may decide, sometime in the future, to move the Buddhist rebirth content to a separate article. Usedbook 16:14 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Is this view of Buddhist "rebirth" as opposed to "reincarnation" really an important point? For example, is this a distinction that the Buddha made, or any of this canonical interpreters, or this is some modern distinction?&#2325;&#2369;&#2325;&#2381;&#2325;&#2369;&#2352;&#2379;&#2357;&#2366;&#2330; 03:00, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is definitely important. Reincarnation is not a concept that fits with the Buddhist doctrine of impermanence and anatta.  While the difference has apparently gone unnotice by many people through the centuries it is there from the very beggining.
 * On the other hand, there is certainly a lot of people who believe Buddhism to include a belief in reincarnation. So I must disagree with LordSurya; Buddhism should be mentioned here if only to clarify the matter. Luis Dantas 03:20, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * The question isn't, is there a difference between Buddhist and other views on the subject (as obviously there are), but rather, is this differentiation of terms one that reflects an original division, or is this merely a problem of translation? Because if we're only talking about different interpretations of samsara which are later translated as either reincarnation or rebirth, depending on the metaphysical implications, then the existing differentiation is much too strong. My assumption is that, if the Buddhists didn't have to coin a new term in Pali and/or Sanskrit (a linguistic world view in which if a new term could be coined, it would), we shouldn't place so much emphasis on this rebirth/reincarnation distinction.&#2325;&#2369;&#2325;&#2381;&#2325;&#2369;&#2352;&#2379;&#2357;&#2366;&#2330;


 * It is partially a translation problem, but semantically it makes no sense to talk about "Buddhist reincarnation". There are indeed different interpretations of Samsara, but the Buddhist version is called reincarnation only by those who lack adequate information.  Talking about "Buddhist reincarnation" as a legitimate concept leads to misunderstandings about the metaphysical perspectives.  I don't understand your argument - I don't know whether early Buddhists coined new words for the concept of rebirth or not (you seem to imply that they did not), but it is dangerous to assume that reusing existing words is a consequence of similar meanings.   From what I gather the early Buddhist Bikkhus used to have a much better grasp of their language and the respective context than we can offer with the often cursory material available in the present times. Luis Dantas


 * I seem to be involved in two debates about the importance of chosing the right word, and I'm not sure I'm on the same side of the debate in each. (grin) I don't know for sure that they didn't coin new terms in this regard, but I'm not familiar with any such, and I think I would have come across them if they had.
 * If it was good enough for the Buddha to provide a new understanding of the old idea of samsara, and if the "rebirth"/"reincarnation" dispute is indeed of late vintage, I think we should reflect that in wp by (a) discussing Buddhism on the reincarnation page, and (b) specifying that the rebirth/reincarnation terminological differentiation is new. Obviously it's also of considerable importance (really, the actual issue) to specify how Buddhist concepts of samsara differ from those of other Indian philosophies.&#2325;&#2369;&#2325;&#2381;&#2325;&#2369;&#2352;&#2379;&#2357;&#2366;&#2330; 04:17, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Since you keep mentioning "samsara", am I correct in guessing that this is the word that you translate as rebirth and/or reincarnation? That would explain a lot of misunderstandings. I tend to think of Samsara as the flow itself, not the process of participating in it. Luis Dantas


 * (shrug) Samsara refers to the cycle of birth and rebirth, which is inclusive of the process. It's a verbal derivate, from sam&radic;sr; kind of like what "walking" is to "walk," if that makes any sense.


 * I just did a word search of the PTSD, (God bless the University of Chicago), and it translates two verbs as "be reborn", "ja" and "upa&radic;pad"; ja just means "be born", and "upa-pad" means, in this context, to come to be; neither has an association with re- anything. Which is interesting in itself. Some more digging turns up "vatta", which would correspond to Sanskrit "vrt", of which "pari-vrt" refers to transmigration. (Interesting--they drop the "re", not the other--but that doesn't really help us.) A little more digging turns up "sansr" as a verb (=samsr) and sansara (=samsara) as its derivate....&#2325;&#2369;&#2325;&#2381;&#2325;&#2369;&#2352;&#2379;&#2357;&#2366;&#2330; 11:04, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Interesting if not exactly conclusive research, thanks. I take it that vatta/vrt is probably the root for avatar.  If I understood you this time (and I guess not - this is complex stuff) the usual terms tend to emphasize the idea of birth/coming to be, not the idea of returning (except for avatar, which I understand doesn't really apply to regular human beings).  Perhaps the modern concept of reincarnation is a shortcut of sorts, combining aspects of the concepts of atman and of birth in the samsara? Luis Dantas


 * Not conclusive at all. I was reflexively indulging my inane tendency to reach for a dictionary at the drop of a hat. Sorry if I inundated you. Most of the terms seem not to emphasize repetition, and, importantly, not to emphasize the manner or metaphysical implication of what happens.
 * But you know what? All this suggests is that reincarnation is the wrong term all around. Not sure where that leaves us, since it's unlikely I can talk Surya into moving the whole shebang to a "rebirth" page. (grins)
 * Avatara, for what it's worth, is actually from ava-trr, which means to "go down," "descend," etc.; it's usually "go down into" something. But the grammar of the word is, indeed, quite close to these others, though they imply more of a "going around."&#2325;&#2369;&#2325;&#2381;&#2325;&#2369;&#2352;&#2379;&#2357;&#2366;&#2330; 11:55, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Buddhist POV
I think that the section about Buddhist view of reincarnation should be edited, preferably by a Buddhist teacher or thinker since this is indeed a complicated subject. However, I don’t agree that there is a "fundamental disparity" between the concept of emptiness, space and mind and awareness. These are the same. "The form is empty, emptiness is form" from the Heart Sutra describes this relationship best. When it comes to the problem of soul and mind the analogy of sea and waves on it describes best the relationship between mind in general and particular sentient entities.

As I wrote, this is a complicated subject so I think any editing should be done with caution and by a person with deep understanding of it – therefore I decided no to do it myself. AndyBrandt 09:14, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, you're absolutely right that the section was crap, and I've cut it down to a sliver with a "See also" note pointing to another page (Rebirth (Buddhist)) that does a better job on the subject. I vaguely recollect that the Buddhist material was split off to that page from this page; this new material seems to have arisen subsequently, and presents by its silliness a good argument to merge Rebirth (Buddhist) back into the main Reincarnation page.


 * However, I think it's contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia to restrict editing to those who have deep knowledge of a subject, and I wouldn't want to see only committed religious authorities editing pages on religion. So please, edit away. -- &#2325;&#2369;&#2325;&#2381;&#2325;&#2369;&#2352;&#2379;&#2357;&#2366;&#2330;|Talk&#8253; 17:55, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Reincarnation vs. Metempsychosis
The beginning of the text of the article "Reincarnation" should be corrected:

- it says "Reincarnation, also called metempsychosis, or transmigration of souls, is the rebirth in another body (after physical death) (...)"

a) Reincarnation (or Rebirth), which is the general rule (law) for Human evolution, in simple words works like this: each life in a human body, each time more developed and each time a bit more close to perfection.

In brief words in Reincarnation the individual stays around this physical world (as a spiritual entity in the etheric or vital plan) near to those places and persons who are familiar to him (it can stay for days, months or years after the death of physical body occurs - it depends on the individual evolution, awareness, his level of detattachement of physical world needs and things, etc); then he enters into others deeper spiritual (invisible) plans for centuries and returns a lot of time later into a new life in our physical world through rebirth as a baby inside the mothers' uterus.

Perhaps the best graphic on this subject can be found at The Cycle of Life; The graphic ant its terms belong to the Rosicrucian Philosophy but I am sure it works (its stages) fine with terms from other religious doctrines and spiritual teachings: REALITY is the same everywhere - the differences are the terms and perspectives of study used to describe it!

b) Metempsychosis (or transmigration of souls) is the incarnation of the individual (as an spiritual entity living in the etheric - vital plan after death of his physical body) in the body of an animal. It is NOT really incarnation (and less even a Rebirth) because:

1. there is no rebirth into a new life (for evolution purposes) - the individual who practices what is described as metempsychosis never leaves the physical earth environment (he stays in its etherical or vital counterpart) and this "take over" of an animal body (metempsychosis) occurs almost immediatly.

2. these only happens in very excepcional circunstances, happened more frequently in the past (centuries and thousands years ago), caused by extreme deviation of the individual towards some form of spiritual destruction (bloody black magic practices, extreme sexual abuse generaly associated to some form of black magic, primitive societies with canabalistic culture generaly in association to some tribal sourcery, etc).

3. ususally after death of the physical body the normal individual stays in its earthly familiar environment for days till years close to its family, friends, etc. Only those individuals with some kind of knowledge of occult (sorcereres, witches, xamanists, ...) and with great attachment to physical life due to heavy dark-low emotions (hate, sexual needs, blood thirst,...) were/are able to expel the group spirit of an animal and take its place in the body of the animal (which is not so complex as our human physical body).

4. As I said before this happened a lot in past times and in perhaps in all civilizations of the world, and could be seen by those who had clarividence faculty; and perhaps this is the reason why some of these seers took the metempsychosis as the general rule and not Reincarnation.

c) There is no such thing as incarnation in plants (vegetable kingdom); although they also possess a etheric-vital body and also its evolution works through a "group spirit" (like the animals), they have no organs which allows a conscious (awakened) conscioussness of the physical world. The entity which practices Metempsychosis needs similiar organs as the human physical body in the host body that it "takes over", animals have those organs (similiar to ours but far from being so complex) but plants have no such kind of organs. I guess perhaps one reason why some doctrines thought human beings (after death of the physical body) could incarnate in plants/trees is due to the fact that some older trees in the path of evolution (as it happens to animals) are already acquiring some kind of individual conscioussness - that's evolution! And mystics in the past may have taken this individuality as a sintom of a human spirit having incarnated in the tree (which is juts NOT possible and also totally ilogical; even if it was a rare excepcion it had no way of happenning because this kind of direct interaction between totally diferent things does not occurs).

d) Reincarnation (Rebirth) is the rule (law); Metempsychosis (transmigration of souls) is a totally different phenomena which may happen in an extreme scenario and by the will of the personality of the individual that ceases his functioning in the physical body (when death occurs) and looks immediatly for a victim (generally an animal, it can happen also among humans!) in order to stay connected to this physical world and to satisfy his low needs.

So, should the text be changed and perhaps explain these differences? or even create instead an article named "Metempsychosis"? (My english is not 100%...)

Thank you! --ekhalom 22:00, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

--- From: "Roger Clough"  To:  Cc: ;  Subject: [progressive_theology] Karma and grace Date: Friday, November 19, 2004 3:24 PM

Edgar Cayce made the very plausible suggestion that we can be freed from karma by grace. If this is so, then reincarnation is not contrary to the New Testament if we interpret "hell" as rebirth (same soul, different body). We keep repeating the cycle, not until we work off the karma as in eastern religions, but are saved by faith and grace, as Paul's letter to the Romans.

Something to think about, anyway.

- Roger Clough -
 * Indeed. Good contribution. Tom - Talk 16:13, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * Very nice. Edgar Cayce allows me to maintain my Christianity and belief in Reincarnation. This is an article I contributed Edgar Cayce on Karma--Jondel 04:41, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * There is at least a western Christian school of thought that has Rebirth (reincarnation) and the Law of Cause and Effect (karma) in its Christian teachings and very deeply explained. Please see the article The Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception --GalaazV 01:20, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

--- Objection: How can souls be reincarnated when there are so many more living humans now than there ever have been before? Not enough souls to go around!


 * There are many possibilities. For example:


 * Reincarnation does not preclude the production of new souls.


 * Circulation might be speeding up, maybe souls had to wait for centuries before being reincarnated, and are now reincarnated almost immediately.


 * Maybe, like the Hindus believe, souls are not exclusively human.


 * -- Chris Q 07:51, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, Cayce mentions that a soul averages around forty years (even centuries)before incarnating except for this 19th and 20th century in which many souls in his reading have been taken as little as 4 or 5 years. This time period is supposed to be be very ideal for fulfillment of Karma, desires and evolution. e.g. there are so many living humans now because these others souls didn't want to incarnate before. Besides Earth is not the only place to incarnate. Souls don't just incarnate. They need ideal conditions or opportunities for evolution, growth and fulfillment. --Jondel 11:27, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe also: needs of evolution as mankind (colective) and human being (individual) at certain times like our own schools (where individual examinations are taken all the time and colective examinations are held at the end of main stages equal in all schools of the country - which, if this is correct, does not means the end but rather transition).


 * Maybe also: needs of an individual - as Higher entity evolving, not the personality - which may need sooner rebirth (than usual near a thousand years cycle) due to not having taken total or even none memory (the experience learned through his/her life) of his/her past life at the physical world. Donnot forget everywhere reincarnation and karma are taught also it is/was taught 3 to 3,5 days (84 hours) should be kept in silence - a kind of "memory transition period" - after a peaceful (disease/old age) death; and our societies donnot take this period yet into account and, on the other hand, violent deaths are each time more common in our societies due total immersion of conscience in the physical (and each time this conscience is more disconnected from the spiritual inside a large amount of human beings)).


 * Maybe also there were reasons - connected to the need of deeper physical evolutionary purposes - why rebirth (reincarnation), the law of cause and effect (karma) and the 3,5 days transition period (memory) were not publicly taught (till now...) in Christian, Jew and Muslim religious teachings (all these religions always have small groups teaching these three central conceptions in a more secretive way), but the Oriental religions have (deeper in earlier times) these teachings as external, public teachings. To understand it, and its implication in physical development, do not look at Religions as the physical organizations and its present and past individuals leading it, but as movements or expressions of something bigger unseen (like if each of them is/was the small visible portion over the ocean of an iceberg (which has its much bigger body unseen below the ocean)). --GalaazV 01:20, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bible -> The Christian Bible
dictionary.comgives the following definition for Bible


 * 1) The sacred book of Christianity, a collection of ancient writings including the books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament.
 * 2) The Hebrew Scriptures, the sacred book of Judaism.

Since the section is on Judaism and kabbalah, it is essential to differentiate the Christian Bible. -- Chris Q 16:36, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * That's patent nonsens, the book of Judaism is called: tanakh. Jcbos 17:16, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's its Hebrew name; its English name is the Bible. And please get consensus for these unilateral changes, rather than trying to impose them on English Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 17:43, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Old Testament only is Tanakh. The (Christian) Bible is composed of both Old and New Testament.--Jondel 04:55, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Jcbos 12:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely wrong. Jews do not recognize "the Old Testament," the Tanach is different from the Old Testament. Moreover, Tanach is a Hebrew acronym. In English, people call the Tanach "the Hebrew Bible." The Old Testament+the New Testament is The Christian Bible. Slrubenstein  |  Talk  19:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Jayjg (talk) 15:43, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Professor Frazer (Reply to Stevertigo)
Someone, I think Stevertigo, deleted a passage about Professor Frazer. Now, I didn't write that passage and I do not have any personal investment in whether it should be kept out or put back in. But if I understand SV's edit summary, he either doen't know the reference or wants it put in. So: this refers to Sir James Frazer's The Golden Bough which was at the time it was first published (1890) one of the authoritative studies of religion and myth drawing from examples from around the world. The Golden Bough has gone through several editions, including an abridgement I think in 1922 -- the point being that it is hard to provide a page reference that will be of use to the average reader. Nevertheless, the passage in question (or the point) comes from the shapter "The external soul in forl-culture," specifically the section "The ritual of death and resurrection" (in the abridgement, this is chapter 67; in an earlier version it is volume II chapter four section four -- you get the idea, it is confuisng. The book is widely available, but there is no one standard edition). It seems to me that there is some place for this point in this article. Slrubenstein  |  Talk  18:15, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Recollections mean nothing! These people were probably hypnotized! Scorpionman 00:38, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

by an anonymous
to all concern i'm under the belief that reincarnation really does exist as based on flash backs i have experienced while bein' in a state of total un-awareness


 * If you were in a state of total unawareness then how do you know you had a flashback? ;-)

I DO. AND I REMEBER RIGHT BEFORE I WAS BORN. 65.87.191.22 02:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)LTH

Reincarnation vs transmigration
The introductory paragraph makes the distinction between reincarnation (human to human) and transmigration (involving humans and animals). The rest of the article however doesn't make this distinction anymore, only talks about "this doctrine" or "reincarnation". But Pythagoras, and many eastern religions, believe in transmigration, not just reincarnation. Right now, it looks like someone edited the introductory paragraph without changing the body of the article.

Someone knowledgeable should fix this. AxelBoldt 17:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * - I agree with you, it is really needed; please read also the section "Talk:Reincarnation" at this discussion page about this subject, before doing the edits. --GalaazV 18:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * This section has just been deleted. I think it should be restored, and include René Guénon take on the matter.  Is there any reason to exclude it? Luis Dantas 12:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't have any problem with the information being added as a particular point of view. I don't believe that the definition should be presented as definitive - bear in mind by this definition Hindus and Buddhist would not believe in reincarnation! -- Chris Q 12:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * And indeed, they do not. Buddhism in particular is currently taking pains to clarify this regrettable misconception. Reincarnation is not possible per Buddhist doctrine. That is why there is an article on Rebirth (Buddhism).Luis Dantas 00:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I am aware of the Buddhist destinction between rebirth and reincarnation (anatman vs atma). This is totally different to the idea expressed in the paragraph that reincarnation is limited to humans is totally different to this. I agree that I should have more accuratley said "bear in mind by this definition Hindus and Buddhist would not believe in reincarnation or rebirth". -- Chris Q 07:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Would it? I really do not see why. This terminology is a pain. Luis Dantas 10:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The difficulty of the terminology and related conceptions is bigger due to the way we regard to what Religion is (not the physical structures and individuals leading it through the times, but the core and initial teachings presented in each one). If we regard Religion(s) as a dynamic process leaded by a higher type of consciousness according to, and toward, the development stage of beings (humans in our case) in a lower state of consciousness, then understanding will be much easier. --194.65.22.226 00:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC) GalaazV

Superstition
This page does not mention what may well be a majority view that this is simply superstition. That is assuming that Atheists, Christians, Jews, Muslims etc make up a majority. The Pseudo science tacked on the bottom make it seem even more that way.--Baphomet. 23:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * - The external link at the bottom contains the mainstream science (i.e. Medicine) references published literature - which are also now on the "References (mainstream science)" section - of research conducted by men and women of science and which produced clear evidence related to Life conscious survival after physical death. Please, read them.
 * The Quest for KNOWLEDGE is the aim, not the beliefs of some or even of the majority oriented through unclear interests; No belief is asked but just to keep an open mind to the possibility, at least until otherwise proven. Thank you, --GalaazV 00:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

"Intellectual arrogance: In addition to the normal kind of resistance with which any paradigm defends itself against change, the atheist paradigm of academia generally, and philosophy in particular, feels especially threatened by the findings of paranormal research. This is because intellectuals like to regard themselves as the highest manifestation of intelligence on the planet, if not in the universe. Embracing an evolutionary model according to which consciousness is correlated with brain development, intellectuals regard the human brain as the highest development of evolutionary forces, and an educated human brain as the highest of the high. Intellectuals like to feel that they are riding atop the crest of the wave of evolution. ''This intellectual smugness is greatly threatened by paranormal research, especially the NDE, the results of which strongly suggest (I am tempted to say "clearly show") that the human intellect is by no means the highest form of intelligence. (...)" by Prof. Dr. Neal Grossman, 2002 

I have read them and they are not very good at all from very minor journals and in one case a yet to be refereed paper. The knowledge that this is superstition is what is valuable, and as your system of critique seems to be based on the stength of belief of the protagonist, I believe it to be superstition more stongly than you believe it to be valid knowledge. Science's smugness is not threatned by any paranormal research, constantly claim to have undermined something when you haven't is often a sign insecurity.--Baphomet. 00:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * - There are no protagonists here; just individuals sharing knowledge, experiencies and also looking for answers. You would be suprised with the difference between what you may think I believe and what I do really believe and know within me. However, let us take another approach to this question:

I will finish now, I had a lot more, but to a next encounter, to say about this subject and the type of actions toward Religious (or Spiritual oriented) articles at Wikipedia, not from people of Religious thought, but from people product of a Culture based on reducionist-positivist Science of 19th century, who relegate Religion and related subjects to a Cultural definition, or worse, as a Superstition. --GalaazV 18:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC) ____
 * When you categorize the article "Reincarnation" as "Spirituality" it means, in general terms, is a subject accepted by people who follow or have a spiritual view of life (through a Religion, a Cult, in an eccletic way,...); When you categorize the article "Reincarnation" as "Esotericism", it means it was always taught among esoteric schools, movements, systems, traditions. It is categorized in this way because it is known as a fact (the association of this subject to specific types or groups of individuals). But when you categorize it as a "Superstition" you are not categorizing through knowledge you posess; instead your are labeling it through a judgement of value from your own point of view about the subject (even if this point of view of yours may be common to the majority, it is still a judgement of value).
 * An objective example from thousands of articles at wikipedia, a sport like Soccer: it is categorized as "Football (soccer)", "Olympic sports", "Team sports", ... Why? Because based upon knowledge about this subject and due to its caracteristics and so on it is logical to categorize it under those categories. But, suppose I don't like soccer and see it as a sport, based on emotions, turning people out of their normal social behaviour (ie if the team wins the league) and also a lucrative business to a few; like myself probably millions also do think in the same way: should I LABEL it in a "Fanatism" category? or in a "Business profitable" category? Logic and good-sense say it is not advisable.
 * See, when you label things (not categorize), you give it a definition from your own point of view, a judgement of value. On the other hand, the term itself may be considered, as it is the case with your "Superstition" labeling related to article "Reincarnation" or "Pseudoscience" related to "Parapsychology", offensive to people who believe or know or work on the subject.
 * You say the majority of human beings have the same judgement of value as yours. It may be so, but even if it was 99,9% against 0,1% it did not make them right about their perspective. Have you heard about Nicolaus Copernicus and his Heliocentric theory? He belonged to 0,1% of the world of is time... need I say more?
 * What I have said means: You accuse us of not being NEUTRAL and it is you who wants to establish a "Private or Biased Point of View" at the article! You are free ("The Free Encyclopedia") to post your knowledge against it or in favour of it; but, please do not make games with subjects which have to do with each individual: me, you or anyone at the world (it is not a simple data article about a game).

You have removed the msg without any edits being complete. That is naughty.--Baphomet. 18:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I have removed it again because it is not warranted. Any religious topic is to a certain extent POV, but it would be a strange encyclopedia that gave a POV warning for Christianity, Islam, etc. -- Chris Q 14:21, September 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * - The POV msg was posted unfairly and without discussion by yourself! Well, seems you are looking for attention: What is your purpose here? To became known and seen eligible for Administrator? Am I wrong? Anyway, it it is fine that objective. Your actions seem to reveal your intentions (and may I say your character also). :( --GalaazV 19:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * - It seems there is more to your intentions: you are trying to label Religious articles as Superstition (from a POV view of positivism that you call Science: is it your Religion?) and prompting for them for deletion, as it is shown through the discussions at the Talk:Prayer page and at your user page User_talk:Baphomet. --GalaazV 19:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

"::There is no scientific evidence that prayer works. They only people to claim that have been a few US religious nutters, who wanted it to work, it has never been reproduced by independent researchers. As a doctor you should be ashamed of yourself pedling such rubbish.--Baphomet. 11:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC"


 * - I have pity on you; you are doing, using a Culture created by extremism in Science, the job that the Inquisition did in the Middle Ages in a Culture created by extremism in Religion. You are damaging Wikipedia, it is an encyclopedia and not your scientific homepage! -GalaazV 19:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Pretending that there is reason to have pity on me, could be viewed as manipulation. It's you that seems to be trying to exclude views held people with a different view of the world to you and trying to censor out the majority view and trying to act like the inquistion and enforce a single view. I have removed no infomration only added the valuable data that a large portion of humanity regards this as nonsense. --Baphomet. 20:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * This is simply improper categorization, regardless of the factuality of reincarnation. the superstition category is not for articles such as this, or it would be rendered useless, containing every religion-related article here on wikipedia.
 * Superstition and religion are not equatable because of a lack of scientific evidence for religion. "NPOV" does not refer to science or materialism; it does not seek to be objective.  it seeks to be neutral. --Heah (talk) 02:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The article's lack of the other views of this subject makes it POV.--WholemealBaphomet 02:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Strictly speaking any and all belief in that which cannot be measured can be labelled "superstition", but labelling in this way is not the point of Wikipedia. An article about reincarnation should describe the belief(s), not pass judgment.

I believe, as does Baphomet that reinkarnation and all other supernatural beliefs are deeply ignorant, but my belief and his has absolutely under no circumstances any place in wikipedia. --boxed


 * Boxed is right; our NPOV policy makes it inappropriate to refer to reincarnation as a superstition in Wikipedia. On the other hand, it would be appropriate to add a section on "Other religions' views on reincarnation" that describes what the Catholic Church or certain Jewish or Muslim groups think of reincarnation. (Examples here,, and . – Quadell (talk) 19:23, September 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree that all perspectives (against and in favour) should be include in a NPOV way; only this way is possible for any reader to get fully acquainted with the subject in question. My experience tells me that, at least in theoretical conceptions, two or more conceptions which at a first glance seemed totally irreconciliable, later on it is through the junction of parts of those perspectives that a more clear representation of reality is build. Also, please forgive me if my above words seem too hard. --GalaazV 01:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I must say the whole article is very much POV. And while I certainly agree that science doesn't give final, or for that matter, thrutful answers all the time, what is being said here is that reductionist-positivist world outlook DOES support the theory of reincarnation, only that most scientists don't want to see this due do their own predjudices. This certainly isn't true. Believe me, scientists will believe ANYTHING, given enough evidence. So, I'd really like someone to rewrite the paragraphs about how mainstream science sees reincarnation, since, apart from that, the article is very good and informative. May-hem 10:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions
Why does the article state at the beginning that there is a clear distinction between "reincarnation" and "rebirth in Buddhism"? This point is arguable and tendentious at best. As Kukkurovaca argues above, Buddhists have always had their own distinct ideas about reincarnation/rebirth. But I find it farfetched to think that a clear distinction has consistently been made between two concepts.

Also, from where does the idea arise that there is a distinction to be made between "reincarnation" and "transmigration"? I've never heard this before. I looked at Talk:Reincarnation above, but it appears to be based in some obscure POV, possibly relating to Rosicrucianism. - Nat Krause 05:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Please let me aid with some light into that appearently obscure NPOV... Rosicrucianism (thought):
 * - It was written that "For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad." (Luke 8:17; KJV); However in order to fully see its light it is needed, in first place, to understand why "Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein." (Mark 10:15). --GalaazV 02:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I too have never heard this distinction between reincarnation and transmigration. Both the dictionary definitions and a few web-sites visited seem to show them as synonymous. -- Chris Q 06:36, September 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * The distinction I've heard is that reincarnation is the broader term that refers to any rebirth of a soul on the physical plane, while transmigration refers to rebirth from one species to the next. It either could be in the sense of from a simpler form of life to one that is more complex, or in the special case where a human "regresses," usually back to an animal form.  This can happen when a person creates a particularly large  amount of "bad karma" in one's lifetime.  Noteworthy illustrations of transmigration would be when a soul changes in the number of "elements" that are dormant and active, such as from a plant to an insect, from an animal to a human (progressive transmigration) or a human to an animal (regressive transmigration). In the Bhagavad Gita, I believe Lord Krishna might have told Arguna a story about Shiva (?) walking around as an ant, but I don't remember any details, sorry. Here's a simple reference. RDF 11:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * "Leaving them behind


 * Transmigration of the soul is true. We move from the simplest of forms to the increasingly complex."


 * The Way To Excellence


 * So, the distinction arises in Hinduism? We should probably make that clear. I've never heard of Buddhists making that kind of distinction. - Nat Krause 13:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Rebirth (reincarnation) and Transmigration in most of religious/spiritual/esoteric teachings appear together and no clear answer is given about the difference towards human, animal, plants (and even mineral) life forms evolution process.
 * Does the Spirit (or whatever designation we give it) rebirths into any these life forms (even if in progressive or regressive way), or, is it as taught in a few teachings worldwide - as in the above related Rosicrucianism (school) - that each of these life forms follow an independent evolution of their own and there is no rebirth of the Spirit among them?
 * This last way advocates that individual evolution at this time occurs with humans (animals and plants still are in a group Spirit evolution; yet, their path is toward individuality also). When it is said as above "We move from the simplest of forms to the increasingly complex." it does not mean we were animals or plants, according to these teachings: it means our consciousness in a far past was as the type of consciousness of animals (a "dream consciousness") and, earlier, as the consciousness of plants (a "dreamsleep consciousness") and before that time a "trance-like consciousness" (as it happens with minerals).
 * Also each of this four life forms or kingdoms which make their evolution in the Physical World have the Subtle bodies related only to their present evolution, which also gives them their state of consciousness . Transmigration, also known as Metempsychosis, would only occur when a depraved human being comes in posession of an animal body, or even a human body, in extreme cases, as said in earlier discussion, and not as a Rebirth of the Spirit for evolutionary purposes which, from this perspective, occurs in a more developed and sensible human body each life (and also each time forming a finer CHARACTER). --GalaazV 02:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

So, why is Metempsychosis listed under the See also section and then redirects back to Reincarnation? RDF 03:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Uninformed reverting

Please stop reverting veda.harekrsna.cz into www.veda.harekrsna.cz. This url doesn't work anymore after a DNS change. Thanks, Jan


 * Removed from main article:

Another theory of reincarnation that explains detailed knowledge and physical scars and symptoms
Many reincarnationists make a fundamental assumption. The assumption is that cognition implies presence. It is assumed that if a person knows enough details about another’s life then that person used to be the other. In other words, "if I remember a past life, then it has to be MY past life that I remember."

But is there any reason for this to be the case? If someone were to know or be told in great detail the facts of a person who had died many years ago that would not indicate that you and this person had any link at all.

In fact we can show evidence that it has happened that a person has had retrocognition and it was impossible for him to have been reincarnated.

The case of Peter Hurkos is the evidence as stated in his own autobiography. He talks about the first time he realized that he had a gift. He’d just suffered from a very severe head injury and was lying in a hospital bed when he noticed the man in the bed next to him. “All of a sudden he says that he knew an awful lot about this man despite the fact that he’d never seen him before. He then proceeded to tell the man everything that he saw about him and it proved to be accurate. Hurkos later proved to be accurate 87% or more of the time. He helped the English police recover the royal coronation stone of Westminster Abbey because he knew great details about the thieves and in the same way he helped find the Boston Strangler.

There were only 2 things different between this and reincarnation 1. Most of the people that Hurkos knew about were still alive and 2. Hurkos did not identify with them.

As mentioned, most reincarnationists argue that cognition indicates presence. “I could not know unless I was there.” But the facts from the cases of Peter Hurkos shows that that is not at all necessarily the case. Cognition does not indicate presence. If just indicates knowledge.

In the same way, a young child that merely knew in great detail events of someone else's life may be misled or not be able to comprehend why they know this without identifying with the person with whom they had retrocognition.

Thus an alternate explanation is that Reincarnation could be simply retrocognition with identification.

But how can retrocognition occur. If one subscribes to the belief in multidimensional beings (which one always has to if one is a reincarnationist) then one has to subscribe to the belief that these multidimensional beings would also know the past history of any individual and thus could pass this information on to others who are yet alive.

In some beliefs systems they believe this information is received through channeling. In certain religions when the channeling is unintentional and uncontrollable it is sometimes called demon possession. Thus most reincarnation could be explained as retrocognition caused by demonic possession with false identification. In addition the similar wounds and scars could be psychosomatic. Tests done using hypnosis have shown researchers the power of the mind, when told that a coin that was being pressed to their skin was hot enough to burn them, the skins of the hypnotized subjects would blister.

Thus to provide a complete alternative explanation, reincarnation could also be explained as Retrocognition caused by Demonic Possession with false identification and psychosomatic symptoms.

This is one alternative theory that must be given due consideration when the evidence is being studied.


 * I'm no expert so I just kept the material. If it's a question whether to keep, maybe it could be sifted for anything valuable before being fully removed? And do we know how Tao, Shinto or other tribal cultures view(ed) it? FT2 06:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)