Talk:Reincarnation/Archive 2

redirect
Shouldnt this : ""Past Lives" redirects here. For the 2002 Black Sabbath album, see Past Lives (album)." take the form of a standard disambiguation page? I.e. redirect one type of past lives to black sabbath, the other here? This looks really weird at the top.


 * no, its the standard way to do things when there is one clearly dominant usage of a term. i personally don't like it either, but its how things are supposed to be done.  --Heah &#91;&#91;User_talk:Heah&#124;(talk)]] 06:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Your words...
With the edition you have rejected as a "minority" I've added the new article Metempsychosis: Why? Because it is a concept different from reincarnation. I do not accept also metempsychosis as a valid theory and I regard it - while theory (and not as a possible rare phenomenon) - as a misinterpretation, created by some "gurus", from Sacred writings. Nevertheless, as it is a concept (and not new), it deserves an explanation and understanding (not to be hidden/deleted/reverted). My words are from a "minority", yet, I suggest you do some research in online and paper encyclopedias, as an e.g.:
 * 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)


 * Reincarnation (r´´nkärn´shn) (KEY) [Lat.,=taking on flesh again], occupation by the soul of a new body after the death of the former body. Beliefs vary as to whether the soul assumes the new body immediately or only after an interval of disembodiment. Although some religions teach that it may inhabit a higher or lower form of life, most believe that the soul is consistently reincarnated in the same species. See transmigration of souls (Idem).

BE CREATIVE, not destructive! Best regards, --212.113.164.104 00:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC) --194.65.22.226 01:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC) GalaazV

Moral character vs. Character structure
Regarding the last change: disambig. link for character. The conception to Reincarnation, as presented by sacred, religious and philosophical teachings behind this conception, is Moral character: Ethic and Moral patterns (see as e.g. "Ethic of reciprocity", also known as "Golden Rule") developed by the individual which lead him to true Spirituality (connection with the Inner Self, which will eventually guide the individual out of the Rebirth cycle, toward a higher level of Consciousness), and not fallacious arguments (I would say excuses) based solely in genetic features, which are unable to explain all the individual (inner) behaviour differences, diversity and originallity; or any psychological theories trying to explain abstract processes, and as such also subjective, as events inherent solely to the human mind (regarded by it as a product of the physical human brain; see also Mind, Mind-body problem, Philosophy of Mind, Theory of mind and Mental body). Genetic features, analysed in the light of these Spiritual conceptions, have an important role but, from my point of view, they are predetermined through the interaction of the spiritual worlds' plan of evolution with the physical world, regarding its life forms (that we call "biological") development. --212.113.164.104 19:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC) GalaazV


 * I think that my POV coincides with yours in this. I would, however, be interested in the opinions of Buddhists to this. The ideas of Pratitya-samutpada and Anatta could be seen as similar to character structure. I may be grossly misrepresenting Buddhism, but it seems to me that morality in Buddhism is almost a site-effect of right living, rather than a goal, and that right-living is aimed primarily at the self. Though I am personally happier with the Moral character link, maybe the NPOV answer would be to say "Moral character and/or character structure". I will wait for further comments before making the change, however. -- Chris Q 07:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, it would be nice and welcome to hear the opinions of Buddhists regarding this subject. Not having a close familiarity with Buddhism - but kowing in advance they are very beautiful Teachings presenting very deep conceptions, and after studying the articles you refered - I found no similiarity with the psychologycal conceptions presented in Character structure article. Although one must agree with the conception, presented at that article, related to the early childhood development influence in building a character structure, as I see it, the conception of "character structure" creates the negation of any evolutionary form of the human character (or, better, "character" as representing the individual's degree of evolution toward an inner depth or a form of higher awareness); on the contrary, they try to establish a "relativity" of this human major feature, which according to them works like if it was a dispensable object: which can be of advantadge in some situations and regretable in other ("Fromm notes that character structures develop in each individual to enable him or her to interact successfully within a given society may be very counter-productive when used in a different society"). This view, as I see it, by itself excludes the link of "character structure" with any form of evolution leading to beyond the present stage of human and world physical limitations, and even less if this evolutionary path may be performed through the Rebirth cycle. So, my POV preference would still be: moral character conceptions.
 * Related to the Anatta doctrine, and reading only from wikipedia, my POV would be more attuned to the interpretation given by Anatman (anatta) in the "Tathagatagarbha Sutras" (Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra and the Tathagatagarbha Sutra), which strangely it appears to be also, according to the article, from a minority... ;). Regards --194.65.22.226 01:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC) GalaazV


 * In that case I will certainly leave the article unchanged. I would summarise the situation as follows: two non-Buddhists prefer the link to Moral character rather than Character structure. One thinks that Character structure might represent the Buddhist views more closely, the other thinks Moral character would also represent the Buddhist view. We clearly should not make a change, though a Buddhist may want to ammend this later. -- Chris Q 09:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Islam/Sufism
The current version of the article claims that Sufism teaches reincarnation. I think that demands at least a source. To the best of my knowledge reincarnation is anathema to Islam. Luis Dantas 01:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know if Islam embraces reincarnation or not. I'd seriously doubt it though because in my studies I know Christianity and Judaism doesn't embrace it; and all three came down from Abraham. But this is merely me speculating on it. Best, --Bumpusmills1 04:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Bumpusmills, I love that you wrote that Judaism doesn't embrace it, since I agree; however you must know that it is very possible that the majority of Orthodox Judaism nowadays do accept reincarnation in one form or another. Yet there are still a few segments of Orthodox Jews who officially reject reincarnation (i being a member of one of them), as is clarified in the Judaism section of the Reincarnation article. It is most likely that the most passionate of those Jews who are against reincarnation and other Kabbalistic innovations are to be found among Dor Daim and other students of the Rambam. I like the point you made about how all three came down from Abraham. It is undeniable that there is NO clear evidence that Jews historically accepted reincarnation. Most proponents of reincarnation among Orthodox Jews explain this by saying that it was secretly passed down generation after generation among the greatest of rabbis. If this is so, how then did they suddenly get permission to reveal this 'secret' to the world only in the 1300's WITHOUT the authority of the Sanhedrin? (Anyone who understands the function of the Sanhedrin in Jewish/Talmudic law knows the power of this question.) Anyway, this isn't the place to discuss the issue. You can find such discussion on www.mesora.org  -- Yosef in Jerusalem

Really enjoy this Article
I'm happy too see that this article touches base that Native Americans believe in reincarnation. Being of American Indian blood myself I really appreciate anyone who includes my people's beliefs. Wado (thank you in Cherokee), --Bumpusmills1 04:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio
There is a substantial portion of this article taken from this document (warning: Word document). The text was placed there by User:158.143.169.8 (Contributions) on 27 November 2005. Another portion of that document was added to the article Karma on that date as well, but that edit was reverted shortly afterwards. I am deleting the portion of this article that is lifted from the aforementioned document, since few changes to that portion have been made since then. --Dachannien 09:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

early Christian views of reincarnation
I have heavily modified this section in light of Eggenstein's research, which seems well-founded. I suggest that anyone read this article before making further changes to this section; it surprised me and will surely surprise most readers.

Reply from JMO, April 17 2006: I looked at the Eggenstein article, and though I saw some quotes said to be from church figures, none of the numerous footnotes actually cited a specific source of that type; instead, they all cited modern books by other defenders of reincarnation. I also spent a little time trying to track down the quote attributed to Gregory of Nyssa, and couldn't find it, but did find some other quotes that imply that he rejects reincarnation. Until someone can actually come up with a supporting quote with a direct citation from a recognized Church father, some of the claims about reincarnation in the early Church need to be dialed back.

Reply from Practical123, August 17, 2006: I agree with JMO. The Eggenstein article is hardly scholarship. I seriously doubt that Eggenstein has bothered to read the Church Fathers he cites.

Buddism correction
Buddhism teaches reincarnation is not of a permanent self or soul but says the opposite view is also an error. Buddhism is not unified as to what that actually means and some might stress the view of no self, while the teachings of Hinduism might stress the view of everything is ultimately self. was added 17feb06 to correct statements made about buddhism which seem to tend towards the false view that buddhism teaches that there is no self at all. --a view held by a small minority of mostly western buddhists Jiohdi 18feb06

Suggestions
I notice that there are a few arguments missing in the "objections" section, otherwise worthy of further discussion. One of wich could be the following: if incarnation indeed is true, how does it account for the changing population numbers of each species, especially humans? The current population growth ratio is about 95 million/year new human "souls". Thousand years ago there were less than a billion people - where did the new "souls" come from? If reincarnation is not limited to a particular species, say if it is possible for any living thing with recognized consciousness to reincarnate into a human, then, there is still the dilemma of variable total count of conscious beings available (with many living species going extinct each year, for example).

If the soul can reincarnate into any type of animal, plant or human body on any planet in the universe (as described in the Bhagavad Gita), then I don't really think the above argument causes a problem. (Just think how many souls are existing right now as insects or bacteria - even in a small space of grass in field they are literally countless, what to speak of across the universe) It could be worth mentioning as an argument against souls only reincarnating in human bodies however? Best wishes, GourangaUK 19:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

This article needs to be more concise?
Does anyone else out there agree on this? It seems to me that over time this page has become a bit of a dumping ground for a whole host of information loosely based on reincarnation - does anyone else feel it should be shortened somewhat to make it more readable? GourangaUK 15:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * More info is always better. it may need to be splitted though. Procrastinating@ talk2me
 * More info isn't better if the info is useless. I agree that it is a long article and would likely benefit from cutting it down if possible. But, the bottom line is there are a *lot* of opinions about reincarnation. MaxMangel 12:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've thinned down some sections - just getting rid of the less meaningful stuff. I'll probably do some more of that as time goes by. MaxMangel 09:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No. I revrted you last edits. It is not for me or you to decide what is of importance to this Very Subjective subject of personal or collective belief systems. please do no substract info just for the sake of trimming the article down, as long as the info is not poorly worded, repeatative or non factual. if needed this artciel can spin off other sub sections. please keep in mind the removing info that so many others have put it is kinda against the main point. we do not lack storage space..:)
 * ow, and please use a slightly more extensive edit summary than "deletion" . thanks. Procrastinating@ talk2me 22:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a great thing to make a section more conscice, but please try not to do so on account of deletin info, you can link it to an extended article. even the "long" tag states "Please consider splitting it into multiple sections.". thank again.


 * Wha? "It is not for me or you to decide what is important to the subject" - uh, yes it is. Do you even understand the nature of the wiki? WE are the editors, so YES is IS my or your decision to delete or add info. Did you even check what I deleted? I didn't just kill random sentences - I didn't just "subtract info for the sake of trimming the article down" Sentences like "If such accounts were true, they would have profound implications for human life." are not encyclopedic, and that's simply one example. I will undo your revert. If you wish to bring the information back, please justify that sentence by sentence. The attitude that every sentence is precious and must be protected is not appropriate. I fully understand that the article can be sub-divided, so no need to lecture me further on that. MaxMangel 00:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Max - I'm with you in making this article more readable. A lot of the information is already available elsewhere on other pages. I'm more familiar with the Hindu and Buddhist side of things so will concentrate on these areas and the general philosophy. GourangaUK 10:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've had another attempt today to make the article more concise by moving information onto more relevant smaller articles where appropriate, or where information is already included elsewhere in Wiki (and is linked to in this article) I've removed it, rather than having two articles repeating the same details. There was an entire section covering different views on reincarnation which read more like a personal essay so I have removed it entirely. It's content was already covered in a earlier paragraph higher up the page, and each section in turn already covers the variety of beliefs on the subject. GourangaUK 16:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Reincarnation in Sailor Moon
The Japanese metaseries Sailor Moon exhibits the concept of reincarnation in a very interesting way. --User:Angie Y.
 * I wouldn't say it's any more interesting than other anime storylines using reincarnation, and I'm saying this as a fan. Danny Lilithborne 09:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm a fan too. =D --User:Angie Y.

Hgilbert Reversion
Hello Hgilbert - I see you reverted my edits completely. I am trying to make this article readable if possible - maybe you could suggest where the problems are with the current version as I have just reverted back to and made further amendments on? How is it less clear? Are you happy with the page as it was? GourangaUK 11:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The edits seem to mostly move material around. In the overview section, it is not appropriate to have a detailed focus on one particular area, though I appreciate your intention to relate the various ideas about reincarnation to the philosophical conception of the soul. Similarly with other areas...why are you shifting the text around? Also, your textual edits (on the various kinds of reincarnation) leave out some helpful distinctions, and are generally less descriptive and possibly inaccurate (New Age??). It does not help that the English of your additions is often ungrammatical or obscure. In addition, an encyclopedia is not the place to put in your own musings on a subject; the content should be factual and sources should be able to be cited (preferably actually cited through footnotes or bibliography, though this is not always the case in the Wikipedia).

I am going to revert again for these reasons. I hope you understand. I think it would be better to work within the existing framework, supplementing it with meaningful and verifiable additions, rather than to go with a new structure. Hgilbert 12:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello Hgilbert - I have not reverted back again but please address the following if you have time. I appreciate your honest approach and agree that my edits were far from perfect, however there are serious technical innacuracies in the current version which I believe need to be rectified as per below:


 * 1) How can the concept of the Afterlife be mentioned at the top of a list on forms of reincarnation? Most people would never even identify the concepts of the 'afterlife' and 'reincarnation' in being at all connected.


 * 2) The below section on 'reincarnation' is vastly innacurate. The word 'reincarnation' simply means


 * a) a rebirth of a mental capacity, such as a soul, in a physical life form, such as a body or
 * b) the idea of such a rebirth, a specific belief or doctrine on how such a rebirth occurs,

thus transmigration is also a form of reincarnation. How can this description claim to be 'what is strictly known as reincarnation'? As well as that it is very badly written and not at all encyclopedic:


 * Reincarnation: People die, go through inner planes and return, rebirth, (usually or often) as new human beings. Strictly, it is this which is known as reincarnation (also called "rebirth"). In many versions, eventually there is the potential to escape the cycle, e.g. by joining God, enlightenment, some kind of self-realization, a spiritual rebirth, entering a spiritual realm, etc. (There is some confusion, in general society, between reincarnation and transmigration; see below for comparison)


 * 3) The paragraph starting It may be asked how reincarnation fits into this picture. In a word, for Buddhism it doesn’t fit at all... surely is of more relevance to the section on Buddhism? For the article to be neutral how can we dedicate such a large section of text to explore a specific form of philosophy over any others in the overview section?


 * 4) In terms of simple readability and structure - can we really say that the current overview section even reads well? Or is it simply a number of lengthy paragraphs put together without any common thread. There seems to be no structure in it. Nor does it address clearly the main views and points in reincarnation. I feel it somewhat of a travesty just to leave it in the current state.

Even if you do disagree with my recent edits personally - do you at least admit much work needs to be done on the above? Does anyone else feel differently or agree with the above?

Best Regards, GourangaUK 14:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your thorough review above. I have tried to edit the text taking into account all of your excellent points. Feel free to continue editing; I'm sure there needs to be a great deal of work! (If you have access to an English-language spell and grammar checker, this will save others time - it is possible to cut and paste material back and forth from a word processing program, for example!! If not, dive in and someone will clear up any differences from standard English usage.

I appreciate your helpful insights. Hgilbert 21:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Hgilbert - thankyou for your kind words, and for taking the points into account. I've replaced one section which I believe should still be included in full. I can see the article is improving from your edits. :-) Regards GourangaUK 11:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I meant to move it down there and must have neglected to paste it in. Hgilbert 13:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Vedas - Oldest Hindu Scriptures?
GourangaUK commented that not everyone accepts these to be the oldest Hindu scriptures. Is there really any serious dispute over this? If so something should be added to the Vedas article. -- Chris Q 13:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Chris, I realise that generally the Rig Veda is taken as the oldest Vedic scripture by historians, but some modern practitioners of Dharmic religions and Hinduism specifically are of the belief that the Vedas were written down around the same time as each other by Vyasadeva (not as part of an evolutionary man-made process). It might be an interesting area to explore on the article... Best Wishes, GourangaUK 13:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses
While talking with a JW awhile ago, a topic had gotten brought up: The idea of reincarnation. From what this guy was saying, the Christian Bible states that when we die, we remain "asleep" for swhile, until we are called on to take form again, or we may be called up unto Heaven to live there (I'll ask him for references next time I talk to him). Just thought I'd point this out, though I have never seen any JW reference to this anywhere else. Slokunshialgo 04:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Scientific and other research into reincarnation
You've (83.84.186.232) defined the additions you've made to the scientific section as 'crucial' - can you clarify as to why? This article is enourmous so it is important to not simply continue to add content unless it is meaningful. Your additions provides examples of people who claim they were reincarnated and their personal evidence, etc, but that section already covers that. So how much of this is enough? There are many, many, many examples of people who claim and give evidence to have been reincarnated, but I don't think the article should be forced to have all of them. Why are your additions crucial and why can't they be summarised, considering the article is already bloated, and what is to stop others from continueing to add more to that section until it just gets even more ridiculous? You should also get a profile to facilitate discussion and feedback. MaxMangel 10:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Ramsters work provides almost conclusive evidence for reincarnation, that why it's crucial. I have read many books that attempt to prove reincarnation, and Ramsters books really stands out. What Buddhists believe and what Hindoes believe, not to mention hundreds of sects, seems irrelevant to me compared to the truth about reincarnation. Ramster seems to get closer to the truth than anyone else, which is why it is not ridiculous to include a summary of his findings. Does reincarnation exist or does it not exist, and if yes, how? That is the question. Beliefs are irrelevant. --MHegenerMHegener 17:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please try to read paragraphs more carefully, I asked you multiple questions that you have summarily ignored. Sensible communication between us is impossible if you cannot understand the basics of answering questions. I'm now moving that text to the sub-article, which seems like a reasonable comprimise. Also, please try to ensure text and paragraphs are formatted properly in the future. MaxMangel 05:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not succeed in locating the subarticle, but whatever: Ramsters findings belong in the main text. Just read his book carefully. Devoting some paragraphs to Ian Stevenson and none to Ramster, as you would have it, will delight sceptics, who would find Ramsters evidence very disturbing, but it's not a good idea.[[User:MHegener]--MHegener 19:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, fine, a separe article about reincarnation research is a good idea. --MHegener 09:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Given that the Reincarnation Research article is now referred to, I suggest that the Research and Debate section (and sub-sections) could be condensed into a new, smaller section simply called Scientific Research. At present, discussion of research by Bishai, in particular, adds little and should be deleted. Johnfos 00:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Have now gone ahead and made these changes. Johnfos 11:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Should this be included as a form of 'Reincarnation'? - Please discuss

 * ==== Life extension and artificial reincarnation in Transhumanism ====
 * It has been suggested by some transhumanists that a form of reincarnation could be artificialy created without real death. This idea is one of those used to allay the feeling about vastly extended lifespans meaning boredom.


 * The memories of a living being could be partially or totally erased. He would then be able to rediscover what he had willingly forgotten, maybe even since birth. He would then be able to live a new "life".


 * Scientists are already considering pills that would be designed to forget specific experiences (currently, traumatic ones), and studies of current amnesias are progressively unraveling the mechanisms of forgetfulness.


 * In the more futuristic context of mind uploading, erasing of selected memories would almost surely be relatively easy.

Thoughts and comments from any angle are appreciated. Ys, GourangaUK 15:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this discussion ^_^. The idea of 'artificial reincarnation' is of course the idea of a minority. However, I feel the article is enriched with it since it's original and deals directly with the complex idea of reincarnation. Please support the diversity of points of view ! ^_^ Wowulu 13:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I would argue that the above does not come under the classification of reincarnation as described in this article:
 * (from the introduction) "Reincarnation, literally "to be made flesh again", as a doctrine or mystical belief, holds the notion that some essential part of a living being (or in some variations, only human beings) can survive death in some form, with its integrity partly or wholly retained, to be reborn in a new body."
 * A method by which a person may loose their memories is somewhat different to taking re-birth in another physical body. I don't see how you could classify it as reincarnation. Isn't it simply a 'fresh start'? GourangaUK 19:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The idea is that it would be subjectively similar to reincarnation in the usual meaning. Of course it wouldn't be the same, the body would be the same one and there is no mystical meaning in it. But there is also a notion of 'fresh start' in traditional reincarnation, and memories of past lives would be similar to a partially erased memory.


 * Anyway, while still hoping for more discussion on this topic, I've added a link in the 'See also' section. I hope it's ok. ^_^ Wowulu 12:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I see at as different to reincarnation. Its a bit like saying that someone who suffers complete memory loss after a disease or accident has been reincarnated. -- Chris Q 12:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed I think 'complete memory loss after a disease or accident' is somewhat subjectively similar to reincarnation. Anyway I won't argue any further since I realize that the majority will disagree. I only hope that the 'See also' link won't be deleted, because the concept of 'artificial reincarnation' is inspired by the concept of 'reincarnation'. Thanks ^_^. Wowulu 22:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee edits from Hinduism
To the editors of the reincarnation article: A frequent contributor to the Hinduism article, Swadhyayee, posted the following paragraphs on the Hinduism article. I have removed them becasue they could be written more clearly, and because they were somewhat redundant and add too much detail to what was already on Hinduism page regarding reincarnation. I don't disagree with the content of what he wrote, but I think the language needs some polishing. If anybody who is working on this page would like to help him polish it and post it on the reincarnation page, I'm sure he would appreciate it. Thanks. HeBhagawan 13:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The doctrine of reincarnation, according to Hinduism, states that everything one does, leave imprints in one's mind and intellect, which determines what kind of life one would be in next birth or possess tendencies if born as human. If, one regularly perform good motivated actions, one will develop good tendencies. If, one do bad motivated things, one would develop bad tendencies, which naturally can cause bad things to happen in one's life. Since Hinduism believes in reincarnation, it follows that one's actions in this life can determine what kind of tendencies one will be born with in subsequent lives. Virtuous actions purify the mind and intellect and help the soul to be closer to the Supreme Divine and lead to a birth with higher consciousness/conscientiousness. Evil actions hinder this recognition of the Supreme Divine, and the soul takes lower forms of worldly life. Therefore, Hinduism teaches, one should try to behave in a virtuous manner as much as possible, so that one will develop good habits and tendencies both in this and the next life. Over the course of time, if one can sufficiently purify one's mind, one can attain the goal of life: experience of the highest truth, which is God.

As per Hinduism doctrines, the immortal soul leaves the body and the soul accepts new body in accordance with Karmas and Desires of previous birth/births. Intellect and mind move along with the soul and so the new body exhibit tendencies of previous birth/births ( i.e. pious, evil, selfish, vengeful, selfless, noble etc.) and also reflect same intellectual level. Further, humans only possess the developed intellect (ability to think and assess) and the human body possesses necessary limbs (Karmendriyas)[ ability to speak, hear, read and do actions by hands ] to carry out actions leading to realisation of God, so the humans must endeavour to merge with The Infinite. When a person fails to merge with The Infinite, the sublimated intellect and mind move along with The Soul in each life and usually The Soul gets the human body to carry on the journey of merging with The Infinite in subsequent births. This doctrines imbibe in Hindus to be alert on the matter of journey towards The Infinite and involve in such actions which if fail to merge the soul with The Infinite after the death, at least reward with next life as humans.

The Esoteric Interpretation
User:Ksolway 13 November 2006 (UTC)

There needs to be an explanation of the interpretation of reincarnation which sees it as a means of talking about cause and effect, which some people call "the esoteric interpretation" because it involves no literal reincarnation.

I don't see this understanding of reincarnation explained anywhere in the current article.

Under what heading and where do you suggest this explanation should be placed in the article?

I suggest the following:

"There is an interpretation of reincarnation that does not involve literal rebirth. In this interpretation, reincarnation is simply a poetic way of talking about cause and effect.  Here, reincarnation refers to the continued life of the imputed I, the ego, which is a false thought, or ignorance. Just as one lights a candle from the flame of another, so are false thoughts passed from person to person. These thoughts are false because they believe they experience loss and gain, life and death. It is because these thoughts believe in life and death, they are said to be caught in the cycle of repeated birth and death.   The Buddha famously explains this esoteric interpretation in "The Questions of Kutananda", where he explains in detail the process of reincarnation when a candle flame is used to light another candle. Some quotations which reflect the esoteric interpretion: "If I can see further than others, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants." - Isaac Newton "One sows and another reaps." - The Bible: John 4:37 "No man, not even a married man, can know definitely how many children he leaves behind him." (author unknown) "It is a mistaken conception to think, That I shall experience the suffering of my next life. For it is another person who dies, And another who will be reborn." - Shantideva ("Guide to the bodhisattva's way of life") "Children do not have as much fun in childhood as adults do in adultery." - Spike Milligan


 * I would say that the article: Rebirth (Buddhist) is probably the best place for any in-depth investigation of this type as it sounds very similar, if not identical, to the Buddhist perspective on reincarnation/rebirth. Ys, GourangaUK 16:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Response (Ksolway): In that case I propose distinguishing between the exoteric (common) and esoteric interpretations of reincarnation, within the Buddhist category. Most Buddhists believe in the more traditional type reincarnation, which is linear. For example, Tibetan Buddhists believe that the current Dalai Lama is the reincarnation of the former, in a narrowly linear line, from one life to the next. By contrast, the esotericists hold that reincarnation goes in strict accordance with the pattern of cause and effect, which is not narrowly linear. For example, "One sows and another reaps", which is not narrowly linear, and is explained in "The Questions of Kutananda" (link above).

The problem here is that the esoteric view is not limited to Buddhism, but is universally held. For example, by those in advaita vedanta, who do not believe in the duality of lives, or the duality of life and death.

For that reason I propose a separate category for the universal, esoteric interpretation.

Your views appreciated.


 * The word esoteric implies something which is "confined to and understandable by only an enlightened inner circle" or "a compilation of esoteric philosophical theories", so logic would assert that to use it (esoteric) as a descriptive word in this context is not really encyclopedic, it would be pov. It promotes this specific philosophical understanding as being 'special' and 'different' to the others on the page.


 * We already have from the Buddhist section:
 * "Since according to Buddhism there is no permanent and unchanging self (identify) there can be no metempsychosis in the strict sense. However, the Buddha himself referred to his past-lives."


 * and concerning Advaita from the Hinduism section:
 * "For example, followers of the Advaita Vedanta school (often associated with jnana yoga) believe ... that the immortal soul is part of that existence. Thus they will no longer identify themselves as individual persons, but will see the "self" as a part of the infinite ocean of divinity, described as sat-chit-ananda (existence-knowledge-bliss)"


 * There are so many different philosophies and ideologies concerning reincarnation that to include them all would be impossible. Is there a particular group that notably follows the reincarnation theory you would like to include, other than Advaita and Buddhist schools which are already covered? To give a vague 'universal' section on the matter would be out of place in my opinion, unless it differs significantly from the Buddhist or Advaita philosophies included already? Ys, GourangaUK 09:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Response (Ksolway): You are right that the word "esoteric" implies something which is "confined to and understandable by only an enlightened inner circle". But should truths/ideas be excluded from an encyclopaedia just because only wise or informed people understand them? I don't think so.

For example, since very few people really know "God" (if any), then there should be no entry for "God". And since very few people understand quantum physics, there should be no entry for quantum physics - since the only people who can verify the truth of these things are those in the "enlightened inner circle".

However I will think about editing the Buddhist section in some minor way to emphasise the non-linear, non-simplistic understanding of reincarnation.