Reincarnation is deception!

[PetriFB]

If we start to examine basic views of the New Age movement and the Oriental religions, it is good to start from reincarnation. This doctrine is namely in the background almost in all teaching of the New age movement and it is also the basic belief of the Oriental religions, in other words of Hinduism and Buddhism. About its commonness has been estimated, that about 25 % of people in the western countries believes in it, but in India and other countries of Asia, where is the origin of this doctrine, the percentage is naturally much bigger. There, in other words mainly in India and other countries of Asia has been taught this doctrine already at least for 2000 years, and obviously it was accepted generally about 300 before Christ, not just before it.

When it is a question of reincarnation, it in any case is based on the fact, that our life is believed to be continuous circulation. Its is believed to be continuous circulation, so that each person is born on the earth again and again and again, and gets a new incarnation always according to that, how he has lived in his former life. All that bad, what happens to us today, should only be consequence of the earlier happenings, and that we must now reap it, what we have sown earlier. Only if we experience enlightenment and at the same time are freed from the circulation, in other words we will achieve moksha, so this circulation does not continue eternally. (However in the western view achieving of moksha is not very important. Instead of that, in the western world reincarnation is seen in positive light, in other words mainly as a possibility to develop and to grow spiritually. It hasn't similar negative nuance to generally in east.)

But what can we think about reincarnation; is it really true or not, and is it worth while to believe? We try to search for answer to this matter in this writing.

http://koti.phnet.fi/elohim/Reincarnation

 

[duendy]

i also am not happy with te concept of reincarnation with its twin concept, 'karma'

reasons?

the caste systm which comes with it. as in India we have terrible poverty, and people shoveling shit--literally--for those who believe their karma says they deserve it, as does the karma of the poor who are degraded

also we have the guru system which gives out the propaganda that some men are 'purer' then other due to teir suprior incarantions

how the fuk does one PROVE or DISPORVE this is the danger of this stuff. you cant.
what it does is creates hiearchieis which arenoppresive

so what then?

i Do believe that matter-energy is sentinet and creative and natrially expresses itself in myriad of forms . but that it is not 'karmic'

actually the real maning ofthe term 'karma' simply means 'doing'. so what one is doing is action

now say you now are drinking 10 stiff gins a day. the lilihood your action is gonna get you a rotte liver, and death. that is so

but what the propaganderists did is complicate tis natrual ommonsense to mean universal reward and punishment in future lifetimes. whilast not thinking out what is being assumed. forexample are we to believe a diseased baby is suffering some past sin? that an abused child is getting what she desrves....? it is too ugly, and convenient for an oppressive ruling elite to justify the MAINTANANCE of their oppression, and their 'reaping' the benefits!

 

[Jan Ardena]

PetriFB,

When it is a question of reincarnation, it in any case is based on the fact, that our life is believed to be continuous circulation.

It is based on the understanding that the soul is immortal which then transmirgrates to another set of circumstances, some time after the death of its current body. The new set of circumstances are exactly in accordance with the souls level of consciousness before death occurred. As such the living entity must reap the seeds he sowed in his/her previous incarnation.
The transmigration only goes one way (up) untill it gets a human body, then from that position it can go back or continue upward.

Its is believed to be continuous circulation, so that each person is born on the earth again and again and again, and gets a new incarnation always according to that, how he has lived in his former life.

Where did you find this info?

All that bad, what happens to us today, should only be consequence of the earlier happenings, and that we must now reap it, what we have sown earlier.

Hence it is seen as a natural phenomenon.

But what can we think about reincarnation; is it really true or not, and is it worth while to believe? We try to search for answer to this matter in this writing.

One cannot argue whether it is true or not, you must decide for yourself whether it makes any sense, and the best way to make a decision (IMO) is to read Bhagavad Gita.

http://koti.phnet.fi/elohim/Reincarnation

Have only read snipets, but it sounds like a very weak understanding of what it is.

Jan.

 

[KennyJC]

As such the living entity must reap the seeds he sowed in his/her previous incarnation.
The transmigration only goes one way (up) untill it gets a human body, then from that position it can go back or continue upward.

So humans are the bestest life forms in the entire universe? If we are the most morally acceptable life forms in the entire universe, then it doesn't say much for your God does it?

One cannot argue whether it is true or not, you must decide for yourself whether it makes any sense

Yes that appears to be the way you come to your absurd conclusions regarding biology... Yes, it's a good idea, forget about what can be observed, simply go with what the prettiest idea is

 

[spidergoat]

There need not be anything supernatural about this concept. It stems from the experience of liberation, which reveals the interconnectedness of things, rather than their separation. Life seems to be a cycle, human life included, I don't see the problem.

You are somewhat incorrect, PetriFB, since you interpret this concept as similar to the Christian concept of the soul. Actually, each person doesn't get reincarnated, since the self is considered an illusion in the first place. The source of self, therefore, is culture, which doesn't die, but gets passed on to every new brain. This is the self that gets "reborn", and this is the pattern of thought that we seek to transcend through meditation and other techniques. When you truly become an individual, your workings are unique, and the disfunctional nature of thought that creates separate selves no longer gets transmitted to your progeny.

You also overlook some basic facts about Buddhism, which is that there is no compulsion to make people believe it unquestioningly. They just present what Buddha taught, and have you make up your own mind based on your own experiences. Among Buddhists, there is a wide variety of interpretation on the subject.

Also, it's not Oriental, people say Asian now. And I think they would resent you lumping them in with New Agers.

 

[Jan Ardena]

So humans are the bestest life forms in the entire universe? If we are the most morally acceptable life forms in the entire universe, then it doesn't say much for your God does it?

Hiya KennyJC

That's not what that means. It means there is an oppotunity to get out of the cycle, otherwise we run the risk of being perpetually caught-up.
The human body is a vehcle designed the give the soul such an oppotunity.

Yes that appears to be the way you come to your absurd conclusions regarding biology... Yes, it's a good idea, forget about what can be observed, simply go with what the prettiest idea is

What absurd conclusions are you referring to?
Not everything can be observed, such as mind, consciousness, or intelligence.
When it boils down to it, we have to use our intelligence where there are no physical answers, which is what makes the human bodily machine ideal.

There is more to life than biology whether you think so or not KennyJC.

jAN.

 

[marv]

...each person is born on the earth again and again and again,...

Damn, I gotta go thru all this shit again? Now that's hell!

I want to resign from the human race. Where do I turn in the paperwork?

 

[KennyJC]

What absurd conclusions are you referring to?

Im referring to your ideas on creationism and reincarnation. I am wondering why you ignore the fact that evolution has evidence, yet peddle these ideas that not only don't have evidence, but go against all common sense. This to me suggests you don't care what can be proved or disproved, you just go with the most attractive option.

Not everything can be observed, such as mind, consciousness, or intelligence.
When it boils down to it, we have to use our intelligence where there are no physical answers, which is what makes the human bodily machine ideal.

What you mean is make up a fantasy for something that is as good as 100% not likely to exist?

There is more to life than biology whether you think so or not KennyJC.

Oh you mean the whole spiritual thing etc? Well what I was meaning was, in no other branch of science are scientists constantly being impeded than biology. Religious people take it personally as biology explains our origins and they don't like that it doesn't find evidence of the myths they stupidly believe.

 

[qwerty mob]

If I were to say it's characterizable but not objective and not testable, would I win a Science Cookie?

 

[Jan Ardena]

KennyJC,

Im referring to your ideas on creationism and reincarnation.

What ideas on creationism?
Reincarnation is not my idea, my explanation, although admitedly lacking depth and quality, is the basis of what reincarnation is.

I am wondering why you ignore the fact that evolution has evidence,

I don't see any evidence of what is termed as macro-evolution, changes of one species into a completely different species. I'm sorry if that offends you, but I am being entirely truthful.

...yet peddle these ideas that not only don't have evidence, but go against all common sense.

I don't peddle ideas, I like discussing religion and spirituality, which has far more common-sense than the theory of evolution, IMO.
You believe theory of evolution is common-sense?

This to me suggests you don't care what can be proved or disproved, you just go with the most attractive option.

It would do, because you;re intolerent of anything which is contrary to your belief in the theory of evolution. You are non different to a religious fundamentalist when it comes to intolerence, which is why many people believe the theory of evolution is the main part of a Godless religion.

What you mean is make up a fantasy for something that is as good as 100% not likely to exist?

That's your opinion, just as I have mine regarding evolution theory.
The difference between us is that you are intolerent of my opinions.

Oh you mean the whole spiritual thing etc?

No one thing in particular.

Religious people take it personally as biology explains our origins and they don't like that it doesn't find evidence of the myths they stupidly believe.

I'm not interested in what religious people believe or take personally, any more than what you believe and take personally.
Life isn't about religion or science, these are tools to aid knowledge and understanding.
Life to me, is about reaching full human potential, and not thinking someone is stupid because they do not believe what I believe.
When you do that you become arrogant, and bigoted, then there is no potential for understanding any other point, because you believe your point is right and others are wrong.


Jan.

 

[KennyJC]

Jan - Even if evolution is nothing but a belief, it is a belief based upon observations from many different fields of science - Therefor it supersedes any belief that is conjured up from ones imagination that has no basis on the real world (such as all aspects of reincarnation and creationism).

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jan - Even if evolution is nothing but a belief, it is a belief based upon observations from many different fields of science - Therefor it supersedes any belief that is conjured up from ones imagination that has no basis on the real world (such as all aspects of reincarnation and creationism).

That is your personal opinion.

Jan.

 

[qwerty mob]

Anyone with a beef to pick with science, that would like to deny the evidence for macro evolution, go take it up with Sir Isaac Newton's ghost and Charles Darwin's spirit.

World won't wait up.

Thanks

 

[Jan Ardena]

Anyone with a beef to pick with science, that would like to deny the evidence for macro evolution, go take it up with Sir Isaac Newton's ghost and Charles Darwin's spirit.

World won't wait up.

Thanks

If you're implying that I have a beef with science, then you are mistaken.
I don't deny evidence of macroevol, I just cannot see the evidence for it. There is a difference.

Jan.

 

[qwerty mob]

Are you a blind vegetarian?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Are you a blind vegetarian?

Very good.

Jan.