"2nd Coming" & "Resurrection of the dead" through reincarnation?

  • Thread starter Brad Watson Miami
  • Start date
B

Brad Watson Miami

Guest
Peace everyone. This is my first thread under the Christianity Subforum and I thought I'd bring up something different and thought-provoking! A HUGE part - possibly number 1 - of Christian dogma is, "The Christ will return to judge everyone according to their actions and usher in a 1,000-year-period of world peace. This coincides with the 'resurrection of the dead'" (paraphrased) - The Revelation. How is this to take place exactly? Is there a scientific explanation for this phenomenon? Yes, reincarnation.

Let's not confuse 'heaven' with the 'heavens', nor confuse 'eternity' and 'perpetuity'. Before I elaborate any further, let's have some replies. ;)
 
What does scientific mean to you and what kind of reincarnation do you mean? Some people insist that for something to be scientific it must be subjected to numerous tests with could falsify it, enough tests to satisfy everyone, and then it becomes scientific. In the true meaning of 'Scientific' I've never heard of scientific studies of reincarnation, only studies which seek to confirm the possibility of it. I think a lot of people take reincarnation as a metaphor for what happens to our bodies when we die. They rot, grow plants and so on; so then the metaphor is that our deaths result in life. This metaphorical reincarnation is scientifically verifiable. I can test dead bodies to see whether they support life, and if they don't it is obvious.

Individual reincarnation does not seem to be an idea that appears in the scriptures that Jesus uses. An even broader sense of reincarnation is the reincarnation of entire groups. For instance there are in the USA ancient tribes who were wiped out by settlers. In a sense they have been reincarnated as the Americans who live here now, or as the empty places where they once lived or as the idea of those tribes which has remained. You could say that they are still with us in many ways. Perhaps this writer meant Jesus would return in a future generation, such as a generation that had achieved a high level of esteem to God, or as a reincarned individual. If that is what he or she meant, then why isn't there more elaboration on the subject anywhere? We should expect there to be a lot more thought along the same lines. I wonder if the orthodox have anything about it or even about individual reincarny?
 
Jesus will come back after the son of man is accepted. The son of man is the prophet of the Lord. To accept him you must teach what he taught. Example;

The Lord says this; Render true judgment, and show kindness and compassion toward each other.

They shall be my people, and I will be their God, with faithfulness and justice.
These then are the things you should do: Speak the truth to one another; let there be honesty and peace in the judgments at your gates,

Ask of the Lord rain in the spring season! It is the Lord who makes storm clouds. And sends men the pouring rain; for everyone, grassy fields.
1 For the leaders speak nonsense, the diviners have false visions: Deceitful dreams they tell, empty comfort they offer. This is why they wander like sheep, wretched: they have no shepherd.
My wrath is kindled against the shepherds, and I will punish the leaders; For the Lord of hosts will visit his flock, the house of Judah, and make them his stately war horse.
From him shall come leader and chief, from him warrior's bow and every officer.
They shall all be warriors, trampling the mire of the streets in battle; They shall wage war because the Lord is with them, and shall put the horsemen to rout.
I will strengthen the house of Judah, the house of Joseph I will save; I will bring them back, because I have mercy on them, they shall be as though I had never cast them off, for I am the Lord, their God, and I will hear them.
I will strengthen them in the Lord, and they shall walk in his name, says the Lord


They shall call upon my name, and I will hear them. I will say, "They are my people," and they shall say, "The Lord is my God."

Truly I say to you, the son can do nothing on his own, he can only do what he sees his father doing; for whatever the father does the son does likewise For the Father loves the Son and whatever he does he shows him, and he will show him greater works than these, so that you may be amazed.
For just as the Father raises the dead and grants life, so too does the Son give life to those who do His wishes.
Almighty God judges no one, but has given all judgment over to the son so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.
Truly I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes in the one who sent me possesses eternal life and will not come under condemnation, but has passed from death to life.
Truly I tell you, the hour is coming and is now here when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who have heeded it will live.
For just as the Father has life in himself, so too has he given his Son the possession of life in himself.
And he gave him power to pass judgment, because he is the Son of Man.
Do not be amazed at this, because the hour is coming in which all who are in there tombs will hear his voice and will come out, all those who do right shall rise to live, the evil doer’s will rise to be damned.

I am the way the truth and the life no one comes to the Lord except through me. Jesus and I are One in the Lord. I am son of man.

I did not come on my own, the one who is true sent me, Him you do not know. I know him, because I come from him, he’s the One who sent me.

Whoever believes in me believes not only in me but also in the one who sent me,
and whoever sees me sees the one who sent me.

I came into the world as light, so that everyone who believes in me might not remain in darkness.
And if anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I do not condemn him, for I did not come to condemn the world but to save it.
Whoever rejects me and does not accept my words he already has his judge, namely, the word that I have spoken that’s what will condemn him on the last day,

because I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and speak.
And since I know that his commandment means eternal life what I say is spoken just as He instructed me."
 
The scientific method is used regarding the afterlife

What does scientific mean to you?
Dream,

Why 'Dream' as a screen name?

By definition, 'scientific' is the practice of science (insert dictionary definition). In regards to the question of the 'afterlife', we now employ the scientific method of: 1. formulating a problem, 2. observation and experiment, 3. interpreting the data/hypothesis, and 4. testing the interpretation. A 5th aspect is that a proven hypothesis must be presented in mathematical terms for it to be accepted as a 'law' or 'theory'.


- Brad Watson, Miami
teacher
 
I use a different screen name every where I go on the internet. This name is based off of the comic book character by the same name in the Sandman series of comics. He makes a crossover appearance in DC comics, saving Earth and the superheroes from alien parasites that eat dreams and conquer planets.

Reincarnation by your definition does not sound scientific. Reincarnation seems more like a mathematical construct based upon some assertions. That is using a very constrained view of what scientific is, however; and I'm not suggesting that I could disprove reincarnation at all. I've got no problem with you believing in it.

In the strictest sense to use scientific method, observation and experiment would have to come before you interpreted the data or formed a hypothesis; but with reincarnation it is not so. Instead you have an idea which you begin asserting and postulating. Reincarnation is just one of many ideas about what happens after death (or before death). Oppositely, the data do compel us towards one scientific hypothesis: that death might be final. That this is inconclusive compels individuals to speculate upon heaven, reincarnation and to question reality itself.
 
Brad, others:

Although I agree with the idea that Christ Jesus taught Rebirth ... I think the real key when it comes to understanding his Mission can be found here. This commentary (on a Biblical excerpt) was written nearly 125 years ago, but the message is timeless:
"Christ — the true esoteric SAVIOR — is no man, but the DIVINE PRINCIPLE in every human being. He who strives to resurrect the Spirit crucified in him by his own terrestrial passions,and buried deep in the "sepulcher" of his sinful flesh; he who has the strength to roll back the stone of matter from the door of his own inner sanctuary, he has the risen Christ in him." -From the article: The Esoteric Character of the Gospels
Italics are in the original; the Key Idea I have highlighted in blue.

When you consider the Biblical passage with the commentary above (Matthew 24:4+ or Mark 13:5+), it should be apparent to anyone who has taken a class in World Religions or Comparative Religion that we are speaking of a Universal Doctrine, and one which is truly Ageless, or Perennial. That it was well established 2000 years ago or even 10K, as a FOUNDATION (or underlying Pierian Spring, River Alpheus) ... upon which Christ was able to build (with some much-needed reform) is indisputable.

So there are Greek Traditions and Roman (Sol Invictus!), Egyptian, Chaldean, Babylonian & Sumerian ... as well as a Wisdom far more ancient and from further East, all of which were alive and well - in some form or another (even if `Underground') - at the time of the birth of Christ. If we don't understand at least something of these other traditions ... we will never be able to decipher the Message of Christianity.

This is not because Christianity does not have its own set of teachings and special appeal (including place, niche or role in today's world, just as that of the past 2000+ years). But when we understand that Progressive Revelation really means just that, it should become apparent - eventually - that there must be (and is) a NEW WINE. And for this, we will hope that the `thirsty' will eventually appreciate the problem with old bottles. {No, of course they don't hold water; thus, WINE becomes irrelevant!}

This said, I insist on looking for the `BABY' (the Madonna would probably agree that we ought) ... before we drain the dirty bathwater. But who's to say whether a person needs to accept the Teaching on Rebirth, in order to take the next step forward? For example, I have believed in it formally since I was about 17, yet I also have had memories of before since the age or 2 or 3 ~ including all of the confirmation, even at these early ages, that anyone could possibly need.

But I could never insist that it's impossible to get by ... without such an understanding of Rebirth. And I sure don't think one MUST believe in Rebirth to be Christian, especially if we accept that there are plenty of Christians today who are still exploring `What the Christ Taught.' Perhaps the next step for some is the acceptance of the Christ within ... meaning within EVERY Human being. I think this would prove of infinitely greater value, for Christians and for everyone, than simply adjusting the popular soteriology to include multiple lifetimes in order to reach the goal.

I'm playing devil's advocate, yes, but mostly just for the hell of it. I can't advocate believing in a flat earth, or a geocentric universe ... but I figure, if a world could exist in greater harmony WITHOUT such a belief in rebirth, maybe that (as yet untested) condition would ALLOW for a paradigm shift to help get folks moving toward the next step. Yes, somewhere down the line, it will become apparent .... that one lifetime, is `not enough.' And when people see that this is also how God sees it, the blinders will be taken away, the horse will sense the sunshine in a whole new Way ~ and people will probably reconsider Death, perhaps even stop making His Work so friggin' hard (which usually results in needless complications and prolonged suffering and heartbreak).

We can HOPE!
 
Peace everyone.
Pax vobiscum, Brad.

This is my first thread under the Christianity Subforum and I thought I'd bring up something different and thought-provoking!
Interesting!

A HUGE part - possibly number 1 - of Christian dogma is, "The Christ will return to judge everyone according to their actions and usher in a 1,000-year-period of world peace.
Have you a particular denomination in mind? I'm Roman Catholic, and tend to speak from the Tradition prior to the schism between the Latin West and Greek East. Whilst the doctrine you bring up is indeed important, it's not the Number One, certainly not as you express it. The thousand years, of course, is a poetic figure.

This coincides with the 'resurrection of the dead'"[/I] (paraphrased) - The Revelation. How is this to take place exactly?
Short answer: No-one can know for sure; Scripture says nothing directly, except that 'it's not for you to know' and history suggests it's pointless to try and second-guess God. There is sure faith, indeed, and hope ... but 'exactly'? No, that's a step too far.

We can speculate, however...

... Is there a scientific explanation for this phenomenon?
If by science one means empirically or philosophically, no. If one means theology or metaphysics, then yes ...

Yes, reincarnation.[/SIZE]
Er, no ... not in the Christian Tradition.

Those who insist that Christ taught a doctrine of reincarnation have made the understandable and not uncommon error of filtering the data of Christian Revelation through a non-Christian lens as it were, on the presumption that it's saying the same as everyone else. Resurrection is not reincarnation, the New Testament is quite categorical on that point.
"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment" Hebrews 9:27.

The data given by Paul in Corinthians, for example, quite explicitly rules out reincarnation as it is generally understood. This was a point sorted out long before the schism between East and West, and the Greek term for reincarnation is metempsychosis, 'the transmigration of the soul' on the same plane, the prefix 'trans' meaning across. A more accurate Greek term for the process would be 'metapsychosis', where the horizontal determination is replaced by, traditionally, a vertical one.

Reincarnation implies the continual return, not only to the world of manifestation, of finitude and contingency, but this world specifically.

Christian doctrine, looking always to the word or Principle of its expression, treats of the vertical axis, not the horizontal. This is one of the reasons why it appears 'dogmatic' to some — Truth is non-negotiable.

But Paul gives us some clues in Corinthians:
"But some man will say: How do the dead rise again? or with what manner of body shall they come? ... It is sown in corruption, it shall rise in incorruption. It is sown in dishonour, it shall rise in glory. It is sown in weakness, it shall rise in power. It is sown a natural body, it shall rise a spiritual body ... Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot possess the kingdom of God: neither shall corruption possess incorruption. Behold, I tell you a mystery ... and the dead shall rise again incorruptible ... For this corruptible must put on incorruption; and this mortal must put on immortality... "
There are a number of powerful pointers in this text, but suffice to say that an incorruptible and an immortal body is not reincarnation, which implies rebith into the mortal and the corruptible.

Let's not confuse 'heaven' with the 'heavens', nor confuse 'eternity' and 'perpetuity'.
No, let's not.

Before I elaborate any further, let's have some replies. ;)
I await yours.

God bless,

Thomas
 
Those who insist that Christ taught a doctrine of reincarnation have made the understandable and not uncommon error of filtering the data of Christian Revelation through a non-Christian lens as it were, on the presumption that it's saying the same as everyone else. Resurrection is not reincarnation, the New Testament is quite categorical on that point.
"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment" Hebrews 9:27.

The data given by Paul in Corinthians, for example, quite explicitly rules out reincarnation as it is generally understood.

Gertrude Stein said, "A rose by any other name is a rose"

A common human Re-incarnates in a future birth with all the same material identity and attributes and personality and physical features? No!

A spirit-soul of common human Re-incarnates in a future birth with all the same indivisable-individual-spirit-soul without any of the past material identity and attributes and personality and physical features? Yes!

Math, biological reproductioon, eating, sleeping, shelter & even, the gestures for responses, 'Yes, and, No' ---are all universally exchanged between all cultures as common currency ---similarly, the notion that the Soul continues after death is common ---but the degree of informed revelation on the subject will differ.

Some may have no terminologies to address the details of other more specific traditions ---due to bereftment of knowledge of the subject inlieu of otherwise more engaging (mundane) topics.

Can it not be plainly seen that the commonplace person of the ancient western-world had not concept of an "after-life" ---except if a King were to inform them of such!
 
Resurrection is not reincarnation

Yes it is.

The problem is You assert your scriptural knowledge of only the "Resurrection" term ---thus, for the term "reincarnation" you must be instructed by those that are instructed in that term.

Re-incarnate means, ie: "Hoodini died!" ---and if reincarnated ---"Hoodini lives again!" ---thus Hoodini starts resuming touring again, doing his magic/escape show yet again.

I don't know of any legit group that espouses such ideas.

The correct term is "Transmigration of the soul".

The soul lives on! The body turns to dust.

When the soul enters a body [a body made of dust] that body is alive.

If you have not texts on the nature of the soul ---and you have reason to inquire ---the Gita has the whole scoop ---since time-immemorial.
 
Hi Andrew —

I must say it's with some trepidation that I open this dialogue, but with that in mind, I have taken the trouble to highlight the main points of my argument. Might I ask that we address ourselves to them without the asides, abuses, sentimental evocations and other impassioned outbursts that normally render reasonable dialogue impossible?

In short — can you stick to the point under discussion and respond with equal reason and rectitude?

This commentary (on a Biblical excerpt) was written nearly 125 years ago...
I offer only one qualification:

Point: The Higher is not determined in any way by the lower.
The Spirit of God, being God, is the 'Principle without principle' (arche anarchos of the Greeks and the Fathers), The Boundless (Apeiron) according to Anaximander.

The Spirit is formless, aeternal, unfathomable, beyond means and measure, Absolute, Infinite ... Unknowable, because it is not an object of illumination, it is Itself the Principle of Enlightenment. It is the light of men, and without it, man can do nothing.

"The Spirit breatheth where he will; and thou hearest his voice, but thou knowest not whence he cometh, and whither he goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." (John 3:8)

All man can do is cleanse the temple ... and live in hope and faith.

... it should be apparent to anyone who has taken a class in World Religions or Comparative Religion that we are speaking of a Universal Doctrine, and one which is truly Ageless, or Perennial.
Point: Universals are only realised in particulars
The Perennial Tradition, the principle of and by which all tradition is realised, is itself, as you say, ageless ... it is also formless and, in that sense, content-less. It is One, Simple, Uncompound, it transcends all systems and all designations, determinations and realisations ... it reveals Itself within the realised Traditions, as, in like manner, human nature reveals itself in humans, but is itself unrealised, being prior to any and all forms or formless manifestation.

If we don't understand at least something of these other traditions ... we will never be able to decipher the Message of Christianity.
Point: Any self-revelation of the Absolute is, in itself, absolute in regard to its Principle
Any authentic Revealed Tradition is complete and entire in Itself, and needs no complement nor addition, and wants for nothing extraneous to itself for its own realisation. To say otherwise would be to imply that the Absolute Itself is incomplete or in some sense wanting.

But when we understand that Progressive Revelation really means just that, it should become apparent - eventually - that there must be (and is) a NEW WINE.
Point: It is explicitly declared within each tradition that its essential and principial message is declared whole and entire.
The covenant with Israel, for example, is not superceeded by the New Testament, the contract with the seed of Abraham has been infallibly and implacably declared.

The tenets of Buddhism, for another, does not render the revelation disclosed in Brahminism void.

The 'progress' in either case unfolds in time and space, the finite world, but in Itself, was known before the foundation of the world.

What you're saying is that the Buddha is not actually but only provisionally enlightened in regard to Enlightenment as such; that the Tao that cannot be spoken is not the Tao as such but only a shadow of it; that Brahma has still some way to go to reach Perfection, and that the Logos of God suffers ignorance ... metaphysically it's a nonsense, and the Traditions refutes you.

Perhaps the next step for some is the acceptance of the Christ within ... meaning within EVERY Human being.
POINT: Show me the Christian who doesn't?

But He is not (re)incarnated within EVERY human being. Rather every carnal nature finds its spiritual principle in Him. He is the light that lighteth every man, whether that man comprehends it or not, whether in the darkness of his own ignorance, or in the darkness of the supraformal Principle.

I think this would prove of infinitely greater value, for Christians and for everyone, than simply adjusting the popular soteriology to include multiple lifetimes in order to reach the goal.
Point: "What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder."
(Matthew 19:6, Mark 10:9)


Yes, somewhere down the line, it will become apparent .... that one lifetime, is `not enough.'
Point: By virtue of its own contingent finitude, an infinite number of lifetimes would not suffice.
The totality of every possible relative cannot manifest the Absolute, the counting of every contingency cannot manifest the Infinite, all possible imperfection cannot manifest the Perfect.

The distinction is qualitative, not quantitative, and the fundamental quality of every Divine Disclosure is the declaration of Itself as Absolute.

God bless,

Thomas
 
Hi Bhaktajan —
The correct term is "Transmigration of the soul".
That term is also rejected by Christian Doctrine.

For anything to be known — physical, spiritual, divine — requires a knower.

God, in whom and alone in whom the known and the Knower coincide, Is what he knows and Knows what he is without any constraint or limitation.

Even in this carnal existence we know that we know. To know something requires the knower to be more than the known, to encompass the known in every way else the known would in some way outreach its beholder (and thereby be not known).

Everything that can be known exists according to its principle, and in this case the principle of the known is the knower. The knower is not merely the sum of all that can be known, the knower is infinitely more than the sum of all knowledge, and this, in the Christian Tradition, we designate by the term person.

God, in that sense and only in that sense, is designated a Person because God is more than the sum of an all-perfect knowing. God knows that God is more than the sum of an all-perfect knowing, and in Scripture, by declaring Himself as "I am that I am" says that God knows that He is, prior to His knowledge of what He is.

In the case of man, he is designated a person because he is made in the image and likeness of the Principle of God which is God and possesses, above all, the will to know. He knows, but his will to know is more than the sum of all that can be known. His human nature is of an infinite value more than his human knowledge, because his human knowledge is finite, because he knows there are other knowers apart from himself, who know, as themselves, other than he knows.

The body of knowledge is particular to each knowing subject, but the will to know is the one, same will, common to all, differentiated not in principle, but in its actualisation as a knowing subject.

Man knows body and soul so that no corner of the cosmos lies beyond his capacity to know.

To know something 'in truth' is to know a thing as it is, to know something in such manner that the knowing of it to be in its own principle, it's own being, realised formally in the is-ness, the presentification, the body of what it is.

So to know 'in truth' or 'all in all' is to know in its own truth, its own spirit, its own body — each and every truth presents itself in truth (its spirit) as a truth (its body or demonstrable form) — to be considered true, it need be demonstrably so.

The spirit is not trapped or contained in a body, the sprit projects its body in a necessarily material form in a spatiotemporal cosmos. Man is one, and triforme, body, soul, spirit.

God bless,

Thomas
 
Hi Bhaktajan —
I'm posting again because my initial response is somewhat convoluted! Sorry about that ... I was in the process of something else last night.

That doctrine of metempsychosis, 'The Transmigration of Souls', is rejected by Christianity.

Metempsychosis/reincarnation infers a migration on the horizontal plane, a return to the corporeal state, or put another way, corporeality is the principle under which metempsychosis stands.

Christianity rejects it on many grounds, one being that the person is not two things, an immaterial soul contained (under whatever circumstance, positive or negative) in a material body, rather the person is the manifestation of the Principle of the Divine Intellect, brought forth by the Spirit, actualised in the soul (which is distinct from other beings, and thereby 'itself', whereas the spirit is one and undiversified) and made present in this spatiotemporal realm via the soul's projection in corporeal form of its own incorporeal nature.

So the term 'person' designates a unity of spirit, soul and body that stands in a relation, each to the other, in a hierarchical order of ascent from the 'absolutely individualised' that is mineral nature, to the Absolute-as-such of the supraformal Spirit that is present in and to the soul as its transcendent principle ... the person is not just his or her soul, stuck in an alien form.

So the resurrected person will have a body, but it will not be a body as we understand bodies now — that is stated explicitly in Scripture. It will be incorruptible and immortal, but that does not mean it will not possess any materiality.

The spirit/soul/matter relation of man as he stands now is an inversion of the rightful order. In the resurrection accounts, for example, it is evident that the resurrected Christ has mastery over His corporeal form, whereas in our corporeality we are passive; we are present in the world and unable to do anything about it (despite fortunes spent on cosmetics, etc.)

He, on the other hand, although present, is only recognised by those to whom He chooses to reveal Himself. The clues are all there.

With regard to the idea of reincarnation necessary for spiritual development, it should be first understood that whilst it is possible to 'descend' from its proper state to a lesser state, it is not possible to ascend from its proper state to a higher state. In the former case, the soul surrenders its humanity in pursuit of the animal; in the latter however, the soul does not possess the necessary spiritual quality of the higher state to enter the higher state, nor can it know what is beyond its capacity to know.

Even an infinite number of realisations at any given level does not and can never equal the level above ... nor can the lower ascend to the higher by any act of will, any practice, any technique, any methodology.

Furthermore, no matter how many lives a soul might endure across the span of time, eternity itself would not be long enough for the soul to realise every potentiality possible within its sphere of activity. It would be like counting, until one reached the last number ... there is always one more ... this is signified by the idea of advancing by steps, each step covering half the remaining distance left to travel ... one will never arrive at one's destination.

Even in an infinite universe, but virtue of its infinity, the distance from one moment to the next will be infinite, and the distance left to cover will also be infinite.

A soul however, that ascends vertically by incorporation — or participation — in its principle, is 'glorified' with regard to the order from whence it 'ascends'.

Resurrection, in the Christian Tradition, signifies this vertical ascent. What is commonly stated as the indwelling of the spirit in the soul is simultaneously the ascent of the soul, by incorporation by the higher, which is the only way any being can 'transcend', that is pass beyond the bounds, of its own nature.

The underlying metaphysics was also well known by the Apostles and their successors. The Doctrine of Theosis for example, whilst can be applied to individual cases, is in such application only ever provisional. Theosis requires the deification of the person, which itself involves ascending beyond the individual into the universal. Thus Theosis can only be Total and True when all are deified. Hence the doctrinal images of the Mystical Body and Nuptial Union.

God bless,

Thomas
 
Thomas,

Thank you for the great reply. I read your words with relish. Ironically it appears that I agree with you lock-stock-n-barrel . . . except for the final conclusion drawn.

I follow your presentation and there is little to content with you about . . . except the difference in the final postulation.

In reply I have gather the pithy bits of the Oriental Classic Gita’s summations on the “Nature of the Soul”.

I grew up in the Catholic Church and have only the fondest wellwishes for all the servants of the Church.
IMHO, only the properly staunch & constant are following 100% without fault. Which leaves the rest of the masses as jettison, yet flotsam that always washs ashore the coastlines of the church’s influence.

“The Embodied Soul – the science of recognizing the difference
between the Body and the Knower of the body and
attaining the Supreme Goal”

Below is a sampling of verbatim excerpts of the 700 verse Bhagavad-gita’s primary subject matter: the Soul. I feel obliged to directly quote the writ:
________________________________________________________________________
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be. As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death.

Those who are seers of the truth have concluded that of the nonexistent the material body there is no endurance and of the eternal the soul there is no change. This they have concluded by studying the nature of both.

That which pervades the entire body you should know to be indestructible. No one is able to destroy that imperishable soul. The material body of the indestructible, immeasurable and eternal living entity is sure to come to an end . . .

For the soul there is neither birth nor death at any time. He has not come into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain.

. . . the soul is indestructible, eternal, unborn and immutable . . .

As a person puts on new garments, giving up old ones, the soul similarly accepts new material bodies, giving up the old and useless ones. The soul can never be cut to pieces by any weapon, nor burned by fire, nor moistened by water, nor withered by the wind. The individual soul is unbreakable and insoluble, and can be neither burned nor dried. The soul is everlasting, present everywhere, unchangeable, immovable and eternally the same.

It is said that the soul is invisible, inconceivable and immutable. Knowing this, you should not grieve for the body. If, however, you think that the soul or the symptoms of life is always born and dies forever, you still have no reason to lament ---One who has taken his birth is sure to die, and after death one is sure to take birth again.

All created beings (souls taken birth) are unmanifest in their beginning, manifest in their interim state, and unmanifest again when annihilated.

Some look on the soul as amazing, some describe him as amazing, and some hear of him as amazing, while others, even after hearing about him, cannot understand him at all.

The soul who dwells in the body can never be slain.

The spirit soul --bewildered by the influence of false ego, and thus thinks himself the doer of activities that are in actuality carried out by the three modes of material nature.

Curb the great symbol of sin, “Lust” by regulating the senses. Lust is the destroyer of knowledge and self-realization.
The working senses are superior to dull matter; mind is higher than the senses; intelligence is still higher than the mind; and the soul is even higher than the intelligence. Thus knowing oneself [as a soul] to be transcendental to the material senses, mind and intelligence one should steady the mind by deliberate spiritual intelligence and thus--by spiritual strength--conquer the insatiable enemy known as lust.

All the liberated souls in ancient times acted with this understanding.

God is the Supersoul, O Arjuna, seated in the hearts of all living entities.

The Supersoul is the original source of all senses, yet He is without senses. He is unattached, although He is the maintainer of all living beings. He transcends the modes of nature, and at the same time He is the master of all the modes of material nature. The Supreme Truth exists outside and inside of all living beings, the moving and the nonmoving. Because He is subtle, He is beyond the power of the material senses to see or to know. Although far, far away, He is also near to all. Although the Supersoul appears to be divided among all beings, He is never divided. He is situated as one. Although He is the maintainer of every living entity, it is to be understood that He devours and develops all. He is the source of light in all luminous objects. He is beyond the darkness of matter and is unmanifested. He is knowledge, He is the object of knowledge, and He is the goal of knowledge. He is situated in everyone's heart.

Both the material physics of the cosmos and each individual soul should be understood to be beginningless. Their transformations and the modes of matter are products of material nature or, physics. Nature is said to be the cause of all material causes and effects, whereas the individual living soul-entity is the cause of the various “Sufferings and Enjoyments” in this world.

The living soul-entity in material nature thus follows the ways of life, enjoying the physics of nature. This is due to his association with that physics of material nature. Thus individual soul meets with good and evil among various species of births & Lifetimes. But in this body, there is another . . . a transcendental enjoyer ---who is the Lord, the supreme proprietor, who exists as the overseer and permitter, and who is known as the Supersoul.

Individual souls who understands this philosophy concerning material nature, the individual living entity (soul) and the interaction of the modes of nature/physics is sure to attain liberation. Those individual soul will not take birth here again, regardless of his present position.

Some perceive the Supersoul within themselves through meditation, others through the cultivation of knowledge, and still others through working without fruitive desires.

One who sees the Supersoul accompanying the individual soul in all bodies, and who understands that neither the soul nor the Supersoul within the destructible body is ever destroyed, actually sees.

One who can see that all activities are performed by the body, which is created of material nature, and sees that the self (the individual soul) does nothing, actually sees. When a sensible man ceases to see different identities due to different material bodies and he sees how beings are expanded everywhere, he attains to the Brahman conception.

Those with the vision of eternity can see that the imperishable soul is transcendental, eternal, and beyond the modes of nature. Despite contact with the material body the soul neither does anything nor is entangled. The sky, due to its subtle nature, does not mix with anything, although it is all-pervading.

Similarly, the soul situated in Brahman vision does not mix with the body, though situated in that body. As the sun alone illuminates all this universe, so does the living entity, one within the body, illuminate the entire body by consciousness.

Those who see with eyes of knowledge the difference between the body and the knower of the body, and can also understand the process of liberation from bondage in material nature, attain to the supreme goal.

“Knower of the field”

Field = Material energy, the cosmic phenomena of Creation

This body is called the field, and one who knows this body is called the knower of the field.

Godhead is the knower in all bodies, and to understand this body and its knower is called knowledge.

Know that whatever you see in existence, both the moving and the nonmoving, is only a combination of the field of activities and the knower of the field.

Knowledge, the object of knowledge, and the knower = the three factors that motivate action;
The senses, the work and the doer = the three constituents of action.

knowledge of the field of activities and of the knower of activities is described by various sages in various Vedic writings. It is especially presented in Vedanta-sutra with all reasoning as to cause and effect.

. . . Thus the field of activities [the body], knowledge and the knowable have been summarily described . . .

One who is in knowledge of the Absolute Truth knows well the differences between work in devotion and work for fruitive results.

As Arjuna coined:
“You God [Krishna] are the original Personality of Godhead, the oldest, the ultimate sanctuary of this manifested cosmic world. You are the knower of everything, and You are all that is knowable. You are the supreme refuge, above the material modes. O limitless form! This whole cosmic manifestation is pervaded by You!”

Bhaktajan:
This body is called the k’shetra, and within it dwells the owner of the body,
and, the Supreme Lord, who knows both the body and the owner of the body.

Therefore He is called the knower of all fields. The distinction between the field of activities, the knower of activities, and the supreme knower of activities is described as follows:

Perfect knowledge of the constitution of the body, the constitution of the individual soul, and the constitution of the Supersoul is known in terms of Vedic literature as gyana (jñana, vedic-scholarship).

To understand both the soul and the Supersoul as one yet distinct is knowledge.
One who does not understand the field of activity and the knower of activity is not in perfect knowledge. One has to understand the position of Prakriti (nature), Purusha (the enjoyer of nature) and Ishvara (the knower who dominates or controls nature and the individual soul).

One should not confuse the three in their different capacities.
One should not confuse the painter, the painting and the easel.
This material world, which is the field of activities, is nature,
and the enjoyer of nature is the living entity,
and above them both is
the supreme controller, the Personality of Godhead.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The above IMO seems impartial and universal in logic and elementary because they are IMO.

Beyond the above rudimentary analysis given in the Gita there are also all the lessons imparted by bonefide Gurus, spiritual masters, and, even by God’s occasional advent to our terrestrial world ---these are ancillary volumes of scriptural specifics ---apropos to the citizenry’s level of karmic (mass-)sophistication of each epoch that that divine revelation was bestowed.

The soul is a free-agent part-and-parcel of the supreme Soul.

The Lord Jesus Christ gave us a mantra. That mantra contains 10 Bibles’ worth of knowledge ---that mantra is called the “Lord’s Prayer”. Each utterance is replete with volumes of ramifications.
 
Hi Bhaktajan —

Likewise I concur with much of what you present — I'm not so unwise as to assume I've discovered the 'flaw' in an ancient doctrine which no-one has noticed for generations, indeed millennia ...

Nevertheless I have composed a longer answer, which I will post if you fancy continuing the discussion ... but thinking about it, the issue, from the orthodox perspective, is what is it that reincarnates?

Reincarnation, as i understand it, proposes a multiplicity of persons. Fred comes back as Freda comes back as Frank comes back as Fran comes back ... ad infinitum ...

So everything that is associated with the person; gender and all the aspects of the given individual's appearance and character, would be accidental to that which reincarnates, as that which reincarnates is (necessarily) itself undifferentiated ... and thus prior to the person, prior to that which says 'I'.

(Note: In the Christian Tradition, this 'I' is unlimited in its ascent, as it associates directly with the Principle of Selfhood, which is God. So the contingent 'I' that is this person can, by participation, become one with its principle without losing its individual identity, that identity existing in the Principle prior to creation. As Eckhart said "My truest I is God".)

My query is, if that which reincarnates is prior to the individual, what is it that reincarnates? If not the individual, then surely it's a universal, but universals only manifest in individuation ... I can agree that 'life goes on' and that acts in this life determine the quality of life for those who follow (what culture calls 'progress'), but I do not see how this particular life continues in another, without contradiction.

So if I were to say 'in a previous incarnation', the memory and content of that existence is not 'mine' as such, but rather stuff from the collective pool of experience which, by virtue of my current state, I connect to, according to some order of 'harmonic resonance' or perhaps 'morphic resonance' a la Sheldrake.

For that reason I would say the common understanding of 'reincarnation' is, in fact, a confusion resulting from the failure to draw necessary distinctions in the given doctrine, it's applying at the level of the individual what refers to the universal, and in so doing makes a number of sentimental and erroneous assumptions.

So I'm not saying the doctrine you cite is wrong ... but I am suggesting the common understanding of it is.

Hope you, or someone, can help clarify the issue for me.

God bless,

Thomas
 
Seems to me the second coming is not part of the Judaic tradition and one of the many arguements against Jesus being their Messiah.

Should that be glossed over here? Is this not part of the premise? That he was the Messiah?

Beyond that, what science supports reincarnation is what I believe Dream was asking. And when I say science, your definition is fine.
 
Hi Wil —
Seems to me the second coming is not part of the Judaic tradition and one of the many arguments against Jesus being their Messiah.
That's the thing about 'revelation' ... it's never quite what you assume it to be, nor what you know.

Should that be glossed over here? Is this not part of the premise? That he was the Messiah?
Well you could argue that some hoped the expected Messiah would be a warrior who would overthrow Rome ... or that the Messiah would fulfill all their spiritual aspirations. He did that, and more.

Beyond that, what science supports reincarnation is what I believe Dream was asking. And when I say science, your definition is fine.
Good point.

I'd like to flag up the risk of reducing science to pure mechanics. That's scientism, a form of fundamentalism. Philosophy is a science, indeed all science flows from philosophy, but philosophy is not determined by empirical measure. Nor is metaphysics, ontology, meontology, theology ... all of which are sciences.

If science was simply a matter of measuring things, then most of what makes us human would be redundant, and the pursuit of science pointless.

As soon as science loses its capacity to wonder ... it's dead.

God bless,

Thomas
 
I respect this is a Christian forum...


Brad wrote:

"The Christ will return to judge everyone according to their actions and usher in a 1,000-year-period of world peace. This coincides with the 'resurrection of the dead'" (paraphrased) - The Revelation. How is this to take place exactly? Is there a scientific explanation for this phenomenon? Yes, reincarnation.

My comment:

You have to be careful of "paraphrase"...better maybe to quote from a text and then add what you surmise it to mean. Revelation can have a lot of meanings and intentionally so as it was written supposedly by John at Patmos..in exile. So it was intentionally coded and you'll note the use of numerical symbolism as in each letter meaning a numerical value and so on.

An issue I would have is with "reincarnation" while an ancient belief implies re-incarnating..the unique soul of a person re-entering a corporal body. I think the prophecy would be more likely fulfilled spiritually..as in the Spirit of Christ being again manifested rather than "incarnated". But that's my own view.:)
 
Hi all –

A rather hurried glance over wikipedia would seem to indicate that Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity share common ground in their rebuttal of reincarnation as it is commonly understood.

All three speak of continuance of a meta-personal element, or as I would say, the continuation of life according to its meta-cosmic principle not the continual rebirth of this or that person.

I could be wrong, as Hinduism seems to say just that, but by referring to the reincarnating soul as 'jiva', would seem indicate the continuance of a universal principle (of life), rather than an individual being born again with elements of previous individual lives somehow present (although unknown) to this one.

In short, it would seem that popular western misconceptions of the data of eastern traditions, fostered by an enforced and erroneous syncretism such as those expounded by contributors to this discussion (and, indeed, its progenitor, who seems absent from the debate he started), is responsible for the popular but I suggest illogical notion of an individual being manifesting again and again in the temporal world.

God bless,

Thomas
 
Well you could argue that some hoped the expected Messiah would be a warrior who would overthrow Rome ... or that the Messiah would fulfill all their spiritual aspirations.

Jewish belief has always been explicit that the Messiah would do both. :)
 
"Water of Life Am I Poured Forth for Thirsty Men"
Thomas said:
I must say it's with some trepidation that I open this dialogue, but with that in mind, I have taken the trouble to highlight the main points of my argument. Might I ask that we address ourselves to them without the asides, abuses, sentimental evocations and other impassioned outbursts that normally render reasonable dialogue impossible?

In short — can you stick to the point under discussion and respond with equal reason and rectitude??
Well, that sounds reasonable. I will tell you what I believe on the 2nd Coming and Resurrection as Rebirth relates, how about that? Where I can, or where asked, I will tell you something about my reasoning. Where I can't, I'll tell you that too. There's no use butting heads; you are correct about that! ;)

Thomas said:
I offer only one qualification:

Point: The Higher is not determined in any way by the lower.
The Spirit of God, being God, is the 'Principle without principle' (arche anarchos of the Greeks and the Fathers), The Boundless (Apeiron) according to Anaximander.
Yes, but already we're on a different footing. Believing that Christ was the authority here - relative to those he was teaching - I think he would say we need to just stop with `Boundless, Absolute and UNKNOWABLE.' If we try to say more than this, we say less. Do you see why this is the case? {UN-knowable}

Thomas said:
it is Itself the Principle of Enlightenment. It is the light of men, and without it, man can do nothing.
This we call Manas in the individual, or MAHAT as Universal [Cosmic] Principle ... it corresponds to the Holy Spirit, was called Ma'at by the Ancient Egyptians, yet we cannot say much else about its relationship to the Absolute, for that gets back to the point I just made. We DON'T KNOW.

The Bible may speak of the various influences of the Stars, with references to Luminaries and Constellations. At best, we may read something of centres of Manasic significance ... but again, we're just speaking of the Phenomenal, the quasi-Noumenal, and really saying NOTHING about the `Eternal Tao.'

Back to the your points:

Thomas said:
"The Spirit breatheth where he will; and thou hearest his voice, but thou knowest not whence he cometh, and whither he goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." (John 3:8)

All man can do is cleanse the temple ... and live in hope and faith.
Here John is at least making mention of the subtler worlds. I can gather that much. Perhaps that is your point?

I do not agree that we may only cleanse the temple, however, because - insofar as it goes, that is a good metaphor. The body is the temple, whether individual or collective. We may always seek to refine these, at least in their current expressions. However, the very WORK for which we are all currently incarnated involves the building of a New Temple.

I accept as a GIVEN, though it is an expression of Highest Grace, that Christ is at the Head [and Heart, curiously enough] of this effort. But Humanity are the labouring hands and feet, even in the many millions (or more) Who must ALSO WORK and Sacrifice if we are to bring the new Temple into proper expression. In this Work there is solidarity and greatest honor, for this is the work of Salvation - and in it, ALL Kingdoms of Life are involved and important. In it we do share and partake of something Greater ... so actually yes, I must disagree with your first Point:

The lesser does indicate the very Purpose OF AND FOR the Greater, as best we may understand it ... WHEN the lesser is in accord with the Greater. This is true in the individual, BECAUSE it is true in the Whole.

For this reason, and because (or if) we wish to speed things, we may and should Pray and Hope. A strong Faith means Good WORK!

Thomas said:
Point: Universals are only realised in particulars
The Perennial Tradition, the principle of and by which all tradition is realised, is itself, as you say, ageless ... it is also formless and, in that sense, content-less. It is One, Simple, Uncompound, it transcends all systems and all designations, determinations and realisations ... it reveals Itself within the realised Traditions, as, in like manner, human nature reveals itself in humans, but is itself unrealised, being prior to any and all forms or formless manifestation.
There is an error in your logic here, although I don't think you are aware of it. What you have done is to subtly suggest that the Ageless Wisdom is itself somehow allied with the Absolute ... and though I well understand the point that God's Wisdom is Infinite, the Truth being no less of what it IS, simply because we do or do not recognize it, it does not follow that we can never know what is in the Mind [or HEART] of God, simply because we are as yet imperfect [or UN-perfectED].

Remembering that God's revelation to Moses yielded a phrase that is more accurately translated `I am Becoming ... only in jest might we dare to suggest that what the old devil was intimating was comeliness. Rather, it is a growing relief that comes to one, as we begin to see how long but how sweet our Journey shall be; and we ought know by now that we are all *God's CHILDREN*, of which Realization no man can divest you, once that Spirit hath descended into thy {Heart+MindoftheSoulinquestion}.

Problems with inquests, my Friend of Old, is that ever they get around to Realizations, if we continue with them ... and occasionally, a white elephant named Ganesh somehow ends up in the room, as if Hanuman had nothing to do with the matter, nor Krishna, nor Arjuna ... nor DevaMatri. Homework is easy, if we already know the subject! :) :D

He sits in the Cave of the Heart, I seem to recall, about the size of a thumb, and there - yes THERE, Thomas - is your CHRIST ... so enough with the insistence of `our resting within the Lord,' which is well taken and understood - but not at all the point which I often try to make, being that Christ IS WITHIN YOU, end of story. You see, it's a tongue twangler and tryst of a triumph, I'll have you know - because: The mistake the average christian has made, is this very statement ... "I've found Christ/Jesus; now I am SAVED" [END of story!]. For the occultist, even the mystic, the path has just begun. For if Christ is not an OPEN Doorway, He is nothing.

In the form worlds - physical, astral and lower mental - there are great veils drawn over our accurate perception of even the objective world, as we call it. In truth, this is the most subjective, and could you see as the seers do, you would certainly recognize the SON in the SUN, equally as vice versa. But maya, glamour and illusion condition the physical, astral and mental worlds, respectively, and so it becomes possible to grossly misinterpret the nature of the world, of the human heart or psychology, much less the true relationships between more evolved beings, spiritually, and their younger brothers, struggling Humanity.

Were it not for the former, which esotericists know occultly as `Christ and His Church,' we might never find our way out of the apparent maze. Yet the Lord Buddha brought the Light of Wisdom, which Christians call the Holy Spirt, and He did this in several incarnations prior to His coming as Shakyamuni Buddha, Whom Theosophists, Hindus and Buddhists alike recognize as a Mahatma ... and Saviour. Some Christians, too, are aware of the cooperation and partnership between the Buddha and the Christ, involving as it does the assistance of two beings of immense spiritual stature.

One, we should recognize right away intuitively, since it is called the Spirit of Peace ... and Christ, we may remember, is given the title: PRINCE of Peace. The second being is a Cosmic Avatar, comes from Sirius, the Cosmic Christ; this being is called the Avatar of Synthesis. Expressing along the 1st Ray Line and embodying the WILL OF GOD, the Avatar of Synthesis does not descend onto the physical plane, but rather overshadows the Work of the Christ and Hierarchy at this time. Thus a great TRIANGLE of energies is active: the Buddha, the Spirit of Peace and the Avatar of Synthesis, with Christ as the focal point in the center of this Triad.

You see, Thomas, I accept the Doctrine of Avatars as a given, though also a clear indication, a literal PROOF of what you call the Grace of God. Were it not for such beings, Humanity would never have gotten out of the stone age. Were it not for such beings, Humanity could not possibly have learned to use fire and to begin to master the other elements. And were it not for the Teaching branch of the Hierarchy [for not all Masters are as intimately involved with Humanity as the ones we've learned about, and not all take on disciples at all] ... were it not for the Christ and Buddha, and all the other Great Ones down through the ages, we would not have an Ageless Wisdom, because Humanity's MIND, or mental faculty would not even been the least bit fit to RECEIVE such Teachings.

The Christ and the Great Ones guarantee our progress, or at least, they safeguard the Doorway of Initiation, our opportunity to move forward. Looking a bit further, we will be reminded that it was 18 million years ago when the Hiearchy was founded upon our planet ... owing to the arrival of a Kingdom so altogther ahead of us, relative to our stage of planetary evolution, that simply for Them to come ... meant the literal incarnation of Deity upon planet Earth. The Mormons receive their Teachings from a man inspired by an ANGEL, and a day will come when it is very crucial for us to realize that the Lord of the World [Melchizedek, we may say] is the same being as Jehovah, or Yahwah, as Lord Siva ... the expression of one of the Elohim, or Spirits before the Throne of God.

Will you say that when Moses beheld the Lord God on Mt. Sinai, it was something other than TRUTH which he received, simply because it is impossible to encapsulate or limit the `Eternal Tao?' Of course not, or at least, I should hope not. A day will also come when the student acknowledges ... that the various volumes of Wisdom Teachings which he may have been so fortunate as to have laid his eyes upon, perhaps studied for many a year, ARE THE LIVING WORD OF GOD - aye, even MORE so in many respects than the Gospels of several centuries AD ... preserving, as ALL of these examples do, THEOS-SOPHIA, the Wisdom of God.

This Wisdom, let us remember, is rightly regarded as something we DO share with the Divine. Anthropomorphism, I have found, can be such a useful knife-edge, yet when we fail to apply certain basic understandings [either because we lack them, or because we are more comfortable with some other point of view] ... there is no wonder our conclusions come out in error, or slightly off. When we understand that God is a being, like us, yet existing on a much larger SCALE OF LIFE [part of a Great Chain of Being, neither the beginning nor end of which we can as yet faintly fathom] ... it is not unrealistic to state that we are something like the brain cells, within the Mind of God.

Our heart, as yet, we cannot claim to have merged within the pure and perfect Lighted Love of Deity's ... for to have done such on the individual scale is to have faced the long dark night of the soul, and for the SOUL to have prevailed, to have come out the Victor. It's an ongoing WORK; otherwise we'd all be running around enlightened by now. That ain't happened yet. The Great Ones are pretty Adept at helping make sure it happens, however, and they are now able to train us according to rules for GROUP Discipleship ... and not simply one by one. This should tell us something, and if it doesn't, we have food for thought. I am patronizing no one, as I direct my words at myself, as much as (or more than) you, Thomas, or ANY.

Our Souls, collectively, correspond to the Heart centre within the Planetary Entity ... yet when we have a reversed, `upside down' grasp of our own nature and signficance, in incarnation, relative to that of the Soul, is it any wonder we tend to consistently get the cart before the horse? As so many millions of human beings have realized, we are not material beings fundamentally, WITH souls [these latter floating around with us like some kind of mostly inanimate balloons] ... but SOULS, incarnating regularly as human individuals. This is a teaching SO central and basic to the right understanding of any of the world's religions, that we see Christ instructing Nicodemus to prove this very point - that the fundamentals must be grasped, if we are going to probe the deeper mysteries and solve the problems of life.

Christ said, "Water of Life am I, poured forth for thirsty men." It has also been said, You can lead a horse to water ... ;)

Naturally, when a person can *remember* prior incarnations, and when objective, physical plane correlations are shown, all doubt slips away. It may thus take personal experience for many people to finally realize that in the case of Human beings, nature did not make exceptions to Her rule. And as Nature is the instrument, or garment of Deity, an insightful student will apply the maxim: `As Above, So Below,' realizing that the basic idea is true for all Kingdoms. But that gets us back to the matter at hand. In short, how's all this work? :)

I made this post too damn long; the tail end follows ...
 
Back
Top