What's so good about reincarnation?

[Thomas]

Many seem warm and accepting to the idea of reincarnation. Some, like myself, tend to reject the notion, regarding it as somewhat pessimistic, even hopeless.

I still hope for an informed and orthodox Hindu or Buddhist to make the case for reincarnation, but that hasn’t happened yet, so I don't understand the attraction of it, and I still have massive reservations about what I have been led to believe.

So I thought I might air a few of them here, in case I’ve got the wrong end of the stick.

1: Is reincarnation progressive?
There seems to be a popular notion that reincarnation is progressive, that each successive life, to a greater or lesser degree, perfects the last, on a linear journey towards one’s goal, whatever that is perceived to be.

Is it, though? I’m not so sure Hindu or Buddhist doctrine asserts that as the case. The idea of a linear ‘progress’ I rather think is a western one, and relatively recent. Old cultures, including those that gave rise to the doctrine under discussion, tend to see the world as cyclic.

But even if recent, is the idea of progress wrong?

I rather think it is. To be authentically progressive would require the conscious reflection on prior existences. I would have to be able to see myself making progress.

Such is not the case. So I think the assumption of ‘progress’ is in fact one made in blind faith, and indeed is rather optimistic. Dare I say, it’s false?

But then, the idea that I enter this life burdened with a debt derived from prior existences, a debt the nature of which I am completely unaware, seems unjust in the extreme. In effect I am being punished for something I didn’t do, or at least have no memory of ... in which case the punishment is doubly unjust, because without that memory, I have no way of learning the lesson. The punishment holds not value for me. It’s a punitive punishment with no pedagogic value. It cannot be said to be 'good' and, indeed, if we conducted ourselves the same way, we would be described as 'bad', if not 'evil'.

I am told bad karma has to be burned off. Why? Who's keeping the score? Who benefits? Not the victim of our past wrong actions, and not ourselves, being ignorant now of them? So where is the good?

Karma is presented in cold, mechanistic terms, but the balance is determined not by our actions, but by our reasons, which introduce a moral dimension. So we are punished, or rewarded, for moral decisions but a mechanism that is, apparently, amoral?

I'm sorry ... it just doesn't make sense to me.

Say I am born with good health, good looks, a bright mind, into a wealthy family ... I haven't a care in the world ... do I assume this is karma's reward for previous good behaviour?

And yet the priests of this doctrine shun 'the good things' and seem to embrace poverty, dirt, isolation, hunger, self-denial ... why?

So this incarnation is not a means by which I learn from past mistakes. How can I, when I don't know what they are. It’s just a place where I get punished.

Traditional doctrines refer to this round of reincarnation as ‘the wheel’. Not progressive at all then, but cyclic.

In effect, reincarnation lands you back in the place you were before, but no wiser, no better, perhaps nearer your goal, perhaps further ... you have no way of knowing.

And even if you’re a cat’s whisker away from that goal, you can still lose it all, and bump yourself back to square one. Remember the kiddie’s game, ‘Snakes and Ladders’? That was a ‘game’ to teach a moral lesson, that one can get to the penultimate step, and then blow it, and find oneself back at the start.

This, of course, can happen within a life. We make our fortune, and then lose it; we have our faith, and then lose it; we have a family, and then lose it. Life is full of ‘ups and downs’ — life is not progressive, it is not ‘up and up’ or ‘down and down’ ... only physically do we get older.

Do we get wiser? Not necessarily. Do we become more enlightened with age? Not necessarily.

So does reincarnation promise another chance, a better hope?
Not necessarily. Indeed, the odds are against it.

The solution to that dilemma, if there is one, lies perhaps in the answer to this question: What is it that reincarnates?

But that’s a whole other can of worms.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Thomas, as you know, I am an atheist. I will explain the theists Hindu view of re-incarnation.

It is not a linear progression. One could slide back if one engages in evil deeds. And you might not get a human form, the only one in which you can make progress. It will cause many births, some of which may be very piteous. So, the stress is on the current life, saying that 'now, you have a chance to make progress, and even get nirvana/moksha, do not miss the chance. Engage in righteous action. If you miss, nobody knows when you will get another chance".

You may not have done anything in this birth, but you may have some bad deeds from your previous births which have not fructified (delayed action) but they will surely do so at one time or the other. There is no escape from karmas. Therefore, one cannot term these as unjust. These evil karmas can fructify as economic harships, diseases, accidents, etc.

The same may happen with the good deeds from your previous lives. When they fructify, you may get a pleasant surprise, an inheritance or a lottery win or things like that.

Karma record is the responsibility of the God of Death, Yama, and his able accountant, Chitragupta, the progenitor of Kayastha caste. Chitragupta presents these accounts to Yama after the death of a person, so that Yama could inform the person of his/her fate. What do you mean by who benefits? It is part of the God's law. Everyone knows that this law is in operation. One can disregard it only at one's risk. The law of karma takes into account a person's intention since the Gods know everything.

Yes, a human birth with all comforts is because of good deeds, otherwise one might have been born as an ant. So, what would you like to be in your next birth if the need be? Engage in righteous deeds and reap the benefit.

The desire to abandon attachments to riches is for this reason only. That is why charity is highly appreciated and so is piety and compassion. If you are attached to riches and pleasures, then there is a chance that you would not give importance to righteousness and will suffer in the next birth.

Faith has nothing to do with this. The law is the same for all, even for Christians and Muslims. And the yardstick is only your good or bad deeds. I may be an atheist, but I would also be judged in the same way. My being atheist will not affect the judgment.

Why do you say that odds are against a person doing better? Why should one fault anybody else, if one engages in evil deeds even after knowing this.

It is the soul which reincarnates in a new body. Basically Hindu society devised this strategy to encourage Hindus to engage in good deeds so that society can work peacefully and prosper. Now your turn to ask more questions if any.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Aupmanyav —
I know we've discussed this before, so thanks for taking the time to reply.

It is not a linear progression.

Thanks for confirming that.

One could slide back if one engages in evil deeds. And you might not get a human form, the only one in which you can make progress.

So the wheel starts again ... perhaps eternally, with no chance of escape.

So, the stress is on the current life, saying that 'now, you have a chance to make progress, and even get nirvana/moksha, do not miss the chance. Engage in righteous action. If you miss, nobody knows when you will get another chance".

That's the message of Christianity, and yet we're accused of being too harsh.

I think contemporary western notions of reincarnation are watered down (much as the 'local' traditions are) to make them more 'attractive' as a consumer proposition.

Therefore, one cannot term these as unjust

Because there is no 'justice' in human terms. Natural justice is the law of cause and effect. Human 'justice' is deemed 'just' because of its pedagogic value. In reincarnation, there is a radical disjunct between effect and its cause, so no pedagogy.

These evil karmas can fructify as economic hardships, diseases, accidents, etc.

I tend to regard that somewhat skeptically.

It's too easy then – from my knowledge of Christian history – to regard suffering as 'the will of God' and then turn it into a virtue. And accidents might well be just that ... accidents ... to say everything is the fruit of karma requires a deity who is micromanaging our daily affairs down to the last detail.

Even as a Christian, I am somewhat suspicious of the Old Testament notion that regards everything that happened in Jewish history as reward or retribution. This seems to be the same thing in Hinduism.

The same may happen with the good deeds from your previous lives. When they fructify, you may get a pleasant surprise, an inheritance or a lottery win or things like that.

Carrot and the stick? The gods of karma are not coming out very well in this. The contrary tendency is to assume the goods one has in this life as the rewards of the previous, which leads to elitism, pride ... all manner of downfalls!

(Christian doctrine discounts 'worldly goods' as a spiritual benefit. I suppose we're a tougher religion in that regard. Every good carries an obligation. Evil is its own reward.)

... so that Yama could inform the person of his/her fate...

Ah ... so is the person then present at the judgement?

What do you mean by who benefits?

I mean in what way does the process have a value? The body is not informed, the soul (assuming it knows, which seems unlikely from any practical point of view) is a prisoner of circumstance (much like the Christian one) ... the sufferings far outweigh the benefits, and even the worldly benefits tend against spiritual development.

As the west values the material reward, one can't really say the world's getting any better. By any measure of asceticism, which is a necessary discipline in every spiritual tradition ... we're going backwards ... and the East is chasing us hard down that blind alley!

It is part of the God's law. Everyone knows that this law is in operation. One can disregard it only at one's risk. The law of karma takes into account a person's intention since the Gods know everything.

It would seem such a God's judgement is absolute. But I see no sign of a God who loves, or is compassionate, or forgiving. And yet the same God calls on me to be loving, compassionate, and forgiving ... it's one rule for the rich!

Yes, a human birth with all comforts is because of good deeds, otherwise one might have been born as an ant. So, what would you like to be in your next birth if the need be? Engage in righteous deeds and reap the benefit.

Sounds like a threat ...

Faith has nothing to do with this...

Do Hindus get harangued for this 'our rule applies to all' the way Christians do? What of those who have never been exposed to Hindu doctrines, so don't know how to go about 'being good'?

It is the soul which reincarnates in a new body. Basically Hindu society devised this strategy to encourage Hindus to engage in good deeds so that society can work peacefully and prosper. Now your turn to ask more questions if any.

Ah ... er ... um ... the soul ... ?

But the question of reincarnation has been answered as I posited it: Contemporary western notions are somewhat romantic, soft and profoundly flawed. The process is far more pessimistic than 'they' would have you believe ...

 

[donnann]

Thomas, as you know, I am an atheist. I will explain the theists Hindu view of re-incarnation.

It is not a linear progression. One could slide back if one engages in evil deeds. And you might not get a human form, the only one in which you can make progress. It will cause many births, some of which may be very piteous. So, the stress is on the current life, saying that 'now, you have a chance to make progress, and even get nirvana/moksha, do not miss the chance. Engage in righteous action. If you miss, nobody knows when you will get another chance".

You may not have done anything in this birth, but you may have some bad deeds from your previous births which have not fructified (delayed action) but they will surely do so at one time or the other. There is no escape from karmas. Therefore, one cannot term these as unjust. These evil karmas can fructify as economic harships, diseases, accidents, etc.

The same may happen with the good deeds from your previous lives. When they fructify, you may get a pleasant surprise, an inheritance or a lottery win or things like that.

Karma record is the responsibility of the God of Death, Yama, and his able accountant, Chitragupta, the progenitor of Kayastha caste. Chitragupta presents these accounts to Yama after the death of a person, so that Yama could inform the person of his/her fate. What do you mean by who benefits? It is part of the God's law. Everyone knows that this law is in operation. One can disregard it only at one's risk. The law of karma takes into account a person's intention since the Gods know everything.

Yes, a human birth with all comforts is because of good deeds, otherwise one might have been born as an ant. So, what would you like to be in your next birth if the need be? Engage in righteous deeds and reap the benefit.

The desire to abandon attachments to riches is for this reason only. That is why charity is highly appreciated and so is piety and compassion. If you are attached to riches and pleasures, then there is a chance that you would not give importance to righteousness and will suffer in the next birth.

Faith has nothing to do with this. The law is the same for all, even for Christians and Muslims. And the yardstick is only your good or bad deeds. I may be an atheist, but I would also be judged in the same way. My being atheist will not affect the judgment.

Why do you say that odds are against a person doing better? Why should one fault anybody else, if one engages in evil deeds even after knowing this.

It is the soul which reincarnates in a new body. Basically Hindu society devised this strategy to encourage Hindus to engage in good deeds so that society can work peacefully and prosper. Now your turn to ask more questions if any.

It is not possible to be born anything than what you are. The spirit is a white light made up of codes like genetic codes and the combination of codes and amount of them determine what you are. A human being can be born only a human being just as an ant can only be born an ant. The notion of being about to be born in another form is absurd.

 

[Paladin]

It is not possible to be born anything than what you are. The spirit is a white light made up of codes like genetic codes and the combination of codes and amount of them determine what you are. A human being can be born only a human being just as an ant can only be born an ant. The notion of being about to be born in another form is absurd.

So how's the Dale Carnegie course going?

 

[wil]

I've never quite understood the variations and complaints regarding reincarnation.

One being the Christian concept of Heaven (most of the Jews I know have no afterlife preconceptions) You are punished by sins (karmic?) cleansed by fire (wasn't that mentioned) and brought to life again in another dimension (or here on earth for eternity?)

Reincarnation, like most of this stuff, falls under the category of unknowable as anyone we know that has gone to the other side (if there is one) hasn't come back to talk about it (except through this channel or that channel if you are into that kinda thing...a thing most will call their channel the real deal and everyone else's channel and those that believe him/her nuts)

But I'd have a hard time believing in a creator who would create a being to jump through hoops for his pleasure and for those that didn't live upto the criteria were tossed to the abyss (and gave others the power to shun them from pulpits)

But...the notion being hopeless or pessimistic? A concept that your soul is going thru various classes, lessons, experiences in order to better itself over the course of time, that other beings are on the same path. Not so different than other concepts...

 

[Thomas]

I've never quite understood the variations and complaints regarding reincarnation.

Well my point was I can't see any hope in it at all. I fail to see why people think it's somehow 'more fair' than a dialogue with the Divine.

And, as Aupmanyav has made clear, the reasons why they think it is 'more fair' are in fact false, that's not what the doctrine says.

+++

You are punished by sins (karmic?)...

I don't think we share the same concept of sin, so I'm not getting into this one.

As for 'karma' — well, there's the law of cause and effect, but karma goes beyond that, and that it the bit that Our Lord seems to dismiss as nonsense (cf Luke 13:1-5).

Reincarnation, like most of this stuff, falls under the category of unknowable ...

It's worse than that. It's that 'reincarnation' is talked of in terms that indicate the speaker doesn't even know the doctrine, let alone the doctrine speaks of the unknowable.

But I'd have a hard time believing in a creator who would create a being to jump through hoops for his pleasure and for those that didn't live upto the criteria were tossed to the abyss (and gave others the power to shun them from pulpits)

So would I ... If someone said that to me, I'd laugh.

A concept that your soul is going thru various classes, lessons, experiences in order to better itself over the course of time, that other beings are on the same path.

But that's not the concept.

Where did you get that from? Check out the sources of the doctrine, and I'll think you'll find it's been repackaged to make it more commercially viable in the West. Spiritual consumerism again: "I'll have some of that, but no downsides, thank you very much, and make it look user-friendly, will you?"

Reincarnation is not linear, nor is it 'progressive'. There are no 'classes', there are no 'lessons' there are no 'experiences', that's really a rather romanticised idealism.

Think about it: the cosmos is measured in millions of years, and we are measured in seventy, so we say 'that's so unfair!' Tell me that's not anthropomorphism writ large!

Reincarnation is like walking across a minefield, and if you step on a mine, you find yourself back at the start of the minefield, but each time the mines are in different places, so it doesn't matter if its the first or the millionth time, so the odds of you getting across the minefield never improve.

The philosopher George Santayana said "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" ... but in reincarnation, there is no remembrance of the past ...

... now you tell me what there is to be optimistic about.

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

re-incarnation and karma can explain some things on this world, like for example why some people are born its seems to suffer with things like famine, disease, etc and some are born for what appear to be far more happy lives.

not that I am saying that re-incarnation is true, because I dont know.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Thomas, I do think you should stick to commenting on stuff that you understand.

 

[donnann]

re-incarnation and karma can explain some things on this world, like for example why some people are born its seems to suffer with things like famine, disease, etc and some are born for what appear to be far more happy lives.

not that I am saying that re-incarnation is true, because I dont know.

I came out dead when I was born and I know for sure I have never been on this earth before. Where is the explanation for that?

 

[wil]

You know for sure you haven't been on this earth before? Nope, we can't refute what you know for sure.

I've got no problem with it not being linear, or progressive. (that was your #1. wondering what the rest of your questions are) But I sure don't see it as a minefield...and if you do, I understand your consternation.

But the development and understanding of religion is progressive. Thor, Zeus, Prometheus....we've moved on. Taking Genesis and Revelation as literal...we've moved on (some of us). Looking at all religions and concepts and seeing that the writers were condemned to the knowledge, science and beliefs they had at the time and finding links and connections...yup.

Just like we don't use leaches anymore (oops we do) because we've learned. We no longer go from surgery to surgery with the blood and germs from the last guy our hands were in. We no longer think the sun revolves around the earth...we've moved on.

In science and in life we stand on the shoulders of those that have gone before us. That is often the issue with religions...they are stuck in ancient writings they regard as gospel....and never move on.

In reincarnation, I may not consciously remember my past (not saying it is a fact, this is a conversation not a conversion) but my subconscious does, deja vu clicks in, I do something instinctual and wonder where the hell that came from...

Gad I love life, living and discovery....let me at that mindfield.

 

[Thomas]

You know for sure you haven't been on this earth before? Nope, we can't refute what you know for sure.

You can't assert it, either, so it's a moot point.

I've got no problem with it not being linear, or progressive.

Then you accept that you do not progress, you just go round again.

But I sure don't see it as a minefield...

OK. Maybe that's too much to the point for your liking. I'll mention Snakes and Ladders again – d'you have that game? – a hundred squares, you advance from one to the next on the roll of a die (no pun intended). If by chance you land on a ladder you go up, if by chance on a snake, you go down ... the game was devised in the East to explain the moral lessons about reincarnation.

Of course, some will argue that where chance lands you was predetermined by Karma. But then, predetermination is another fate that we reject. No -one is born destined for a perdition beyond his control

But the development and understanding of religion is progressive.

Development leads to deeper understanding of the core truths, it does not alter them.

Like enlightenment, or salvation, or suffering, or sacrifice ... these are so fundamental to human experience they stand as 'universal' or 'eternal' truths.

The oldest love poem we have is on a Sumerian tablet over 4,000 years ago ... and is immediately recognisable today:
"Bridegroom, dear to my heart,
Goodly is your beauty, honey sweet ...
"You have captivated me,
let me stand trembling before you;
Bridegroom, I would be taken to the bedchamber..."
The same old, same old ...

Like love, the essential core truths of religions remain constant.

Thor, Zeus, Prometheus....we've moved on.

You can't apply a generalisation to a particular case just like that. You have to examine the case on its merits. In the understanding of optics, we've left the Greeks a long way behind. In geometry, their basics are still the rule. In language, and we speak the way we think, we still use the same lexicon.

Philosophy – the father of science – reasons itself the same way now as it ever did. Reason, logic ... same words, same meaning.

In science and in life we stand on the shoulders of those that have gone before us. That is often the issue with religions...they are stuck in ancient writings they regard as gospel....and never move on.

Fie on you! Two different things. Science proceeds by observation and reason. Religion proceeds by Revelation and reason. To say that a religion hasn't reasoned its way forward one step from its foundation is just poppycock.

I might add that the religious-minded men have given more to science than secular-minded men have given religion.

Bring a man from 4,000 years ago and he'll explain the difference between botany and astronomy. He won't know as much as the man of today, but he'll know the essential truths.

The vices and virtues are still the same.

... I may not consciously remember my past ... but my subconscious does, deja vu clicks in, I do something instinctual and wonder where the hell that came from...

Science has explained that. Deja vu usually the 'fuzzy function' of long- and short-term memory. And the mind is working all the time, so throws up things which appear 'out of the blue'.

I can think of half a dozen scientists who claim their inspirations came in a flash, a sudden realisation. Are you saying that's evidence of reincarnation? That is less likely that the mind simply came to a solution through a process you weren't focussed on aware of?

In Hinduism and Buddhism, it's axiomatic that the 'sensible' self is ephemeral. That means all the experience that you perceive and in the light of which you define yourself as a unique (because of that experience) existential being, gets wiped.

No continuing consciousness, no continuing subconscious or unconscious. Consciousness in its subdivisions is a mode of consciousness belonging to the ephemeral being. Apparently only the sin burden of that ephemeral being – those conscious acts contrary to received norms – is transferred to another ephemeral being ... they will have that on top of their own fallibility to contend with.

In the doctrines, not only does life repeat the cycle in this world, it also moves among different worlds, in modern parlance, different universes. So reincarnation might involve moving from one universe to another, some better than this one, some worse, but each with its own rulebook.

Nor do you necessarily enter a given life incrementally further on than the one before just because you've been around a bit. You might have landed on a snake that puts you over ninety lives back from where you last were.

Reincarnation is not a 'soft option'.

And if we're looking at it scientifically, what about the law of entropy, the law of diminishing returns? The further on you get, it seems the further there is to go ... and each time the effort is necessarily greater, the way tougher ...

... this isn't making the picture any brighter.

 

[ventura23]

It is not possible to be born anything than what you are. The spirit is a white light made up of codes like genetic codes and the combination of codes and amount of them determine what you are. A human being can be born only a human being just as an ant can only be born an ant. The notion of being about to be born in another form is absurd.

If we were born In another form, I believe it would in a spiritual form, spirit only , no body such as angels unseen.
make sense?
louise

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

I came out dead when I was born and I know for sure I have never been on this earth before. Where is the explanation for that?

what literally dead ? did they have to bring you back to life ?

maybe you have never been incarnated on this Earth before ?

 

[donnann]

what literally dead ? did they have to bring you back to life ?

maybe you have never been incarnated on this Earth before ?

Yes literally dead. The cord had been wrapped around my neck. When I came out no heart beat or breathing. My mom said the doctor worked on me for a long time to bring me back . The nurse was telling him to give up but the doctor wouldn't and finally I came back. I was without oxygen and heartbeat for so long they thought they I may be mentally handicapped but fortunately I am not. I have a memory of that where I was up there talking to someone looking down at the doctor and my mom from above. My mom had left when I was a small child and I reconnected with her again when I was 17. I told her about my memory and she got all upset and said. Did you know you died when you were born? No one had ever told me that. I don't remember the conversation though. So I have never been here before yet I died.

 

[ventura23]

Yes literally dead. The cord had been wrapped around my neck. When I came out no heart beat or breathing. My mom said the doctor worked on me for a long time to bring me back . The nurse was telling him to give up but the doctor wouldn't and finally I came back. I was without oxygen and heartbeat for so long they thought they I may be mentally handicapped but fortunately I am not. I have a memory of that where I was up there talking to someone looking down at the doctor and my mom from above. My mom had left when I was a small child and I reconnected with her again when I was 17. I told her about my memory and she got all upset and said. Did you know you died when you were born? No one had ever told me that. I don't remember the conversation though. So I have never been here before yet I died.

Yes donnann
There is life after death. Didn't Christ die and has come back to life, but, in the form of a spirit, so will we in the form of angels to help those sinners on earth, we will be God's helpers.
That is reincarnation.

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

Yes literally dead. The cord had been wrapped around my neck. When I came out no heart beat or breathing. My mom said the doctor worked on me for a long time to bring me back . The nurse was telling him to give up but the doctor wouldn't and finally I came back. I was without oxygen and heartbeat for so long they thought they I may be mentally handicapped but fortunately I am not. I have a memory of that where I was up there talking to someone looking down at the doctor and my mom from above. My mom had left when I was a small child and I reconnected with her again when I was 17. I told her about my memory and she got all upset and said. Did you know you died when you were born? No one had ever told me that. I don't remember the conversation though. So I have never been here before yet I died.

Thanks for sharing that must have been pretty traumatic for you. There were similar difficulties with the cord when my son was born, wrapped round twice apparently he is healthy though.

Take Care Donnann

 

[donnann]

Thanks for sharing that must have been pretty traumatic for you. There were similar difficulties with the cord when my son was born, wrapped round twice apparently he is healthy though.

Take Care Donnann

Thank you I am glad your son was ok.

 

[ventura23]

what literally dead ? did they have to bring you back to life ?

maybe you have never been incarnated on this Earth before ?

Why is there no insight on this board?

 

[Thomas]

Just to clarify ...

I don't like the idea of hell. It horrifies me. Our Lord used the term 'gehenna' for a very precise reason. It paints the same image in the mind as our Medieval forebears painted ...

... it's not supposed to be 'acceptable'; but then truth is not determined according to human sensibilities or sentiments. That's like repainting our cultural histories to declare that we are always noble in what we do.

... if something in you recoils at the idea, then the image has done its job. That's what it is supposed to do.

It's there to prick the conscience.

Fear is the backstop.

Fear, as they say, is the beginning of wisdom.

Reincarnation is the same.

It should not be regarded as a 'soft option'. That's just sentimentalism.

+++

Those who suffer from depression talk about 'the black dog'. Now I happen to have a thing about dogs, but I would not thereby assume that depression is a nice condition, a walk in the park with the dog.

It's actuality, we none of us know, but that doesn't give us the right or the reason to repaint it as something more palatable, based on nothing more than outraged sentimentality.

Today, rather than investigate, with reason, what the doctrines actually say, people look at the packaging.

Look at yoga. It was once a spiritual discipline. Now it's a keep fit regime, quite trendy once, but has long since got a bit tired. Other fads have displaced it. So yoga will have to reinvent itself as 'yoga-lates' or 'power yoga' or whatever to get back its market share ... or find a celebrity to endorse it, like Madonna or Tome Cruise ...

Personally, I think anyone who draws satisfaction from the idea of one, single soul destined to suffer needs to reconsider their values.

In the West, we 'rationalise' the truth to soften the edges. The western 'reinvention' of reincarnation, with the nasty bits nicely removed, or the wholesale rejected of the idea of the loss of the soul, is typical of our post-modern relativism.

That's not religion. That's politics.