What's so good about reincarnation?

Tadashi said:
I think you've been saying that I buy into the westernized softened consumer-friendly type of reincarnation to make the reality palatable so I can swallow it with ease. I object to that.
Click to expand...
Fair point. Mea culpa.

Tadashi said:
But if we realize there's a way out of this ...
Click to expand...
The way I see it is the moment we begin to actually realise, that is actually do the right thing, in that moment we are in God and no longer 'all at sea'.

If we say 'yes' to God, He will not allow the 'sea' to stand in our way ... if that makes sense.

Tadashi said:
But there is at least always a 'hope' that you will eventually go to God's island, no matter how long it takes.

God will patiently wait for us. He will never abandon me, or you, or anyone.

That's God's compassion to me. And also there are some occasional sunny days where the water is calm when you can float without much effort and enjoy the beautiful sky, when God shows His mercy and tells us to 'rest a bit'...
Click to expand...
Amen to that!

Thomas
 
A Cup Of Tea said:
Skull, do you believe that it is fair to be punished for our mistakes even if we don't know why we are punished or can grow from the punishment?
Click to expand...

Guess you did not read my quote from Narada in post #34?

First, the nature of our 'ego' or 'self' is little known to us - it is not Mr Cuppa Tea, not is it Skull. Second, karma neither blesses nor curses, it is a psychic law that balances disharmony of intention - selfishness in the main.

To use another hypothetical - suppose I decide to run over with my car, my enemy Mr Crossbones and I do kill him - but I lose control of my car, hit a tree and end up with no memory of the event. Will our ordinary law excuse me because I cannot recall the event? Nope.
 
Skull said:
Guess you did not read my quote from Narada in post #34?

First, the nature of our 'ego' or 'self' is little known to us - it is not Mr Cuppa Tea, not is it Skull. Second, karma neither blesses nor curses, it is a psychic law that balances disharmony of intention - selfishness in the main.

To use another hypothetical - suppose I decide to run over with my car, my enemy Mr Crossbones and I do kill him - but I lose control of my car, hit a tree and end up with no memory of the event. Will our ordinary law excuse me because I cannot recall the event? Nope.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you took some sort of offence? No I probably didn't read that, I was just interested in where you and Nick believe the same thing and where they did not. Apparently not appreciated so I'll just back off.
 
Good grief Cuppa, do not be so delicate. I have zero offendedness.

I would suggest to you and all others that reading 'tone' or 'feelings' into words on a screen is without profit and close to impossible for non-psychics, which nearly all are.

The Pilot & I do differ regarding Theosophy, but that is normal. I prefer the original variety based on Blavatsky & her gurus, he finds value in 2nd generation folk like Leadbeater & Besant.
 
Thomas said:
The way I see it is the moment we begin to actually realise, that is actually do the right thing, in that moment we are in God and no longer 'all at sea'.

If we say 'yes' to God, He will not allow the 'sea' to stand in our way ... if that makes sense.
Click to expand...

If what you said here is true, that would really be wonderful. I do consider the possibility that I'm wrong about us reincarnating, and we actually can go to heaven after this life. In that case, I will just be super presently surprised. :D

But I just don't think it's fair that my far-from-perfect soul can go to heaven where people like, for example, Mother Teresa went. I have not dedicated my life to others like she did.

I feel like the rich man who asked Jesus what to do to be received in heaven (the only difference is that I'm not rich), I can't sell everything I own and give it to the poor yet. Alas, my soul is not yet strong or pure enough to live a more godly life as I wish I could.

I'm thinking my 'soul age' is more like 12-15, where it just started to understand right from wrong and the virtue of selflessness, but I'm still waaaaay immature to be able to be completely selfless. I feel I have a long way (many more lifetimes) to go. But hopefully I'll eventually get there, and God will wait for me.

BTW, what does "saying 'yes' to God" actually mean?? I ask this, because I realize there are people who are not aware of God's existence, but leading a virtuous life just as God would wish him/her to. To me, they are already following God, even though they may not have cognitively said 'yes' to God.

My agnostic parents (and many of my Japanese friends) are genuinely good people with a heart of gold. I am not any better (or more worthy of heaven) than them just because I happen to believe God's existence. My parents are more selfless than I am. I feel that they have more mature souls.

I've discussed about this with many other Christians, and they often invoked Romans 10:9, "If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

Well, aside from the obvious failing of excluding people with speech disabilities (if you're mute, you can't go to heaven? Yea I know, the Bible should not be taken literally...), what about babies, small children, people with cognitive impairment (e.g., down syndrome, severe autism, Alzheimer disease...), and the people who have never heard of Jesus, or never read the Bible before they died??


Sorry, this question has nothing to do with reincarnation... perhaps we should start a new thread...? Or you can reply in my thread since this is in a way related to the idea of Universalism.

Tad
 
Skull said:
'Imprints' is a common translation of 'vasanas' a Sanskrit term used by both Hindus & Buddhists. The Hindus use 'soul', the Buddhist use 'mind' for that which is imprinted. Not that much difference, really.

The ancient Greeks (see story of Er in Republic of Plato) like most spiritual traditions accept this notion of the soul's prevision of its next lifetime. The choice of negative or positive elements to the upcoming lifetime are not infinite in number, but limited to possible effects determined by previous acts of body, speech & mind - that is karma.

So, yes Theosophy accepts most traditional, ancient spiritual ideas. It even says that Theosophy is the most ancient source of these common or root ideas regarding the nature of man & universe.
Click to expand...


Thank you for your knowledgeable answer.
So, are you a former Buddhist, now a Theosophist? How did that conversion happen?

Do you find the view of reincarnation between Buddhism and Theosophy vastly different? (Buddhism believes all creatures reincarnate indiscriminately without the borderline between species, am I right?)

Tad
 
Nick the Pilot said:
--> The Theosophical version is a little different than the Hinduism/Buddhism version of reincarnation.

I want to emphasize that Theosophy does not say we must believe this or that. Each Theosophist is free to believe what they will. We do not have a ‘Theosophical Pope’ who tells us what we must believe (and we like it this way just fine). Different Theosophists are free to have different interpretations of what reincarnation really is.
　
I remember the time I attended a Buddhist church service. Buddhists do not believe that we have souls. (I believe we have souls.) I was told that, because I believe we have souls, that I am not a Buddhist. (I was shocked by such blind dogma.)

It is against the rules for one Theosophist to tell another Theosophist what to believe. I do not know any Theosophists who don’t believe in reincarnation, but if someone doesn’t believe in reincarnation, they are still welcome to call themself a Theosophist and attend Theosophical meetings. (How many other ‘religions’ can say that?)
Click to expand...

That's really awesome that one is free to believe what they will. I think I still want to believe animals can reincarnate into humans (but not the other way around, hopefully). Do you know of any theosophists who think that way too?

I know it's silly but I sometimes feel like I love my cat like a son and fantasize him eventually being born into a human, and the way I take care of him is actually helping to shape his soul and his personality and that he'd be born into a kind human being if I pour my love onto him... Well, I really don't know how a father would love his child, I'm not a parent yet, so I can only imagine though.

Tad

**I posted other parts of my reply to the other thread, since it doesn't address reincarnation. This is Thomas's thread and I don't want to crowd it with my off-topic questions.
 
Tadashi said:
Thank you for your knowledgeable answer.
So, are you a former Buddhist, now a Theosophist? How did that conversion happen?

Do you find the view of reincarnation between Buddhism and Theosophy vastly different? (Buddhism believes all creatures reincarnate indiscriminately without the borderline between species, am I right?)

Tad
Click to expand...

I took refuge in the Triple Jewel in 1979 under Master Hsuan Hua (his photo is my avatar). So I am still a Buddhist. That is one fine feature of Theosophy, one can belong to any religion or no religion and be a theosophist. Theosophy, in regard to any specific religion just reduces any sectarianism of that religion to zero. At least for me and other religious theosophists.

Theosophy has an explanation for the animal rebirth & the soul differences between Buddhism & Theosophy. But I have to dash now - so later - or just google it yourself.
 
"…I just don't think it's fair that my far-from-perfect soul can go to heaven where people like, for example, Mother Teresa went. I have not dedicated my life to others like she did."
　
--> This is why there are different levels of heaven, purgatory, and hell. Each person goes to their own level. (You must also consider that heaven and nirvana are totally different, which gives people even more levels to go to after death.)

"I feel like the rich man who asked Jesus what to do to be received in heaven…"
　
--> Every rich man will go to his appropriate level of heaven, purgatory, or hell, depending on his level of compassion and how much (or little) he helped his fellow man.
　
"If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

--> What about people who don't do this? Do you think everyone who doesn't do this will go to hell? Tad, have your parents heard of Jesus but chosen not to follow Jesus? Do you believe they will go to hell because of this? Mahatma Gandhi, one of the greatest men of the last century, chose not to follow Jesus. Do you think he will go to hell because of this?

"…what about babies, small children, people with cognitive impairment (e.g., down syndrome, severe autism, Alzheimer disease...), and the people who have never heard of Jesus, or never read the Bible before they died??"
　
--> The twin ideas of reincarnation and enlightenment remove all of the unfairness of these situations.
　
"I think I still want to believe animals can reincarnate into humans (but not the other way around, hopefully). Do you know of any theosophists who think that way too?

I know it's silly but I sometimes feel like I love my cat like a son and fantasize him eventually being born into a human, and the way I take care of him is actually helping to shape his soul and his personality and that he'd be born into a kind human being…"
　
--> All Theosophists believe that your cat will become a human being. But this will happen on the next ‘earth’, not on this earth. You have nothing to worry about, your cat will have many, many incarnations as a human.

You are correct, humans do not reincarnate as animals.

　


 
It should be apparent that Mother Theresa is dead and buried...that is where 'she went'. The location of her body and brain is known. Nobody knows anything further.

Reincarnation, heaven, hell, purgatory, levels of heaven, ashes to ashes...all conjecture by man...and wishful thinking of those who need to know there is more to it.
 
Nick said "You are correct, humans do not reincarnate as animals." I am curious on what basis you make that statement with such certainty.
 
GK,

This is a fundamental Theosophical teaching. It also makes a lot of sense to me, because I see human-to-animal as a huge step backward in evolution. The whole idea of evolution is to move forward, the jump from animal to human is a huge jump forward, but going from human to animal is seen as being a huge jump backward and contrary to evolution. I do not see any evolutionary benefit to humans reincarnating as animals. (I see a lot of evolutionary benefit to animals reincarnating as humans, but only when such animals are ready for it.)
 
I will take your word about it being a fundamental teaching of theosophy.

Your concept of evolution is not the one currently in favor by most of the scientific community. I.E. that evolution is a constant movement from inferior to superior. Or in your words to move forward rather than backwards.

Evolution as I understand it in present day thought is a random process that sometimes leads to moving forwards, and sometimes moving backwards, and also sometimes moving laterally. The evolutionary tree is full of off shoots and branches that eventually lead to dead ends; and it is not always the "best" trait that perseveres.

Also considering humans to be the height of evolution on planet Earth is a very humanistic centered concept. We make the claim for ourselves. And that concept is also out of favor. In the 4 billion odd years there has been life on Earth, who is to say we are the apex of it all? Besides ourselves that is.
 
Gk, you said,
　
"Your concept of evolution is not the one currently in favor by most of the scientific community."
　
--> Theosophists realized a long ago that Theosophy would not be popular. That’s okay, we want quality not quantity. For example, Theosophists were talking about sub-atomic particles back in the 1800's, when the idea of sub-atomic particles was not only unpopular, it was practically unheard of. Another good example is the idea of NDE's and OBE's, Theosophy has been promoting these two ideas for many years, but we have encountered a great deal of resistance on these two ideas from the so-called "scientific community".
　
"Evolution as I understand it in present day thought is a random process that sometimes leads to moving forwards, and sometimes moving backwards, and also sometimes moving laterally."
　
--> I agree, but I think that the general trend over millions of years is moving forward.
　
"…considering humans to be the height of evolution on planet Earth is a very humanistic centered concept."
　
--> Theosophy does not consider humans to be the height of evolution on planet Earth. According to Theosophy, after the human level there is the nirvanic level, and ‘beings on the nirvanic level’ are having a strong and positive impact on the progress of human evolution. Again, according to Theosophy, there are beings at even higher levels than the nirvanic level and they are also having a significant impact on the progress of human evolution. Humans are not the apex by any means.
 
Very well put, G, I so wish I could give you some reputation but I have spread it around too thinly!
 
Thank you Tea, though I'm not sure what reputation you could give me. I give me my own, not always to my benefit. lol.

Thanks for the comments, Nick. This Theosophy is obviously something I have to look into much further.
 
wil said:
It should be apparent that Mother Theresa is dead and buried...that is where 'she went'. The location of her body and brain is known. Nobody knows anything further.

Reincarnation, heaven, hell, purgatory, levels of heaven, ashes to ashes...all conjecture by man...and wishful thinking of those who need to know there is more to it.
Click to expand...

C.S.Lewis said this:

If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.

So, I'm betting that we feel "we need to know there is more to it" because there actually is something more to know... well, we probably won't know it until we die, but it's still fun to speculate, at least it serves as a good brain exercise for me ;)

Tad
 
I think it is more that as we age our eminent demise gets closer and more real...that is when the 'need to know there is more really kicks in' (hence the average age of the church goer...when most are young and invincible this is not an issue)

The good brain exercise? Let us solve racism, poverty, hunger, homelessness....these all affect the living...and if there is any kind of justice and here after are the type of actions that will be rewarded....contemplating the nature of our navel...not so much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top