Life After Life

[Ahanu]

It may seem simplistic, but I think a lot of Christianity has trended that way --especially in Evanglical circles-- there's the old saying about some preachers "being so heavenly minded they are no earthly good" and a lot of contemporary evangelists who are so hellish minded they are no earthly good -- much of the time those trying to evangelize emphasize the need to "believe" to "save one's soul" and the consequences if you don't.

We do tend to focus on the loudest in the group instead of the quiet ones. I feel there is no need for me to focus on the loud ones. Time to shine the spotlight elsewhere in my opinion.

 

[Cino]

We do tend to focus on the loudest in the group instead of the quiet ones. I feel there is no need for me to focus on the loud ones. Time to shine the spotlight elsewhere in my opinion.

I can sympathise, the loud ones in any group suck in a lot of attention and, frankly, life time. And often, I am just tired of them

On the other hand, not speaking out against them often amounts to giving consent by silence. That can be very dangerous, I think.

 

[Ahanu]

On the other hand, not speaking out against them often amounts to giving consent by silence. That can be very dangerous, I think.

Sometimes this is true too.

At other times it is best to take the wind out of their sails by not giving them the attention they crave so that their ship remains stranded in the middle of the ocean. Here I have in mind everyday individuals - such as a local evangelical preacher or a member of a Christian congregation that has accepted this particular worldview - that one might encounter. These individuals do not possess vast amounts of money and power to make influential decisions that affect millions. Giving them attention is a waste of our precious time, and it is time that is in short supply, so we must spend it wisely.

 

[Cino]

As so often, it depends on the situation.

 

[Thomas]

I rather treat all notions of eternal growth, of progression, as rather modern and not too-well grounded in the metaphysics of the traditions from which they argue the point.

It's not there in Hindu, Buddhist or Abrahamic texts, as far as I'm aware.

The idea of 'my' reincarnation as another step along the road to 'my' eventual perfection was popularised in the west by HPB and the Theosophical Society, although its there is 'popular and sentimental religious expression in both those traditions.

I rather adhere to the Buddhist idea that human life is very rare, and as such a one-time event, and again to traditional metaphysics which encompasses the idea of simultaneity of existence, as well as succession, without a grasp of which, any discussion of eschatology is a bit lopsided ...

 

[Cino]

I rather treat all notions of eternal growth, of progression, as rather modern and not too-well grounded in the metaphysics of the traditions from which they argue the point.

It's not there in Hindu, Buddhist or Abrahamic texts, as far as I'm aware.

Oh it is there in Buddhism. The teachings about the "perfections", and the Bodhisattva ideal, both of which are present in early texts shared by all schools.

I rather adhere to the Buddhist idea that human life is very rare, and as such a one-time event, ...

Rare, and a precious opportunity, but not one-time, in Buddhism.

 

[Thomas]

Ah ... I stand corrected.

 

[JustGeorge]

The Mahabharata is full of mentions of reincarnation as well.

 

[Thomas]

To clarify, I don't absolutely discount reincarnation, but am mindful of the Buddha's teaching, to the effect of 'human birth hard to obtain' and that allowing rebirth as a human is a possibility, it is a rarity and shouldn't be treated as an assumed or a given, but rather as a one-time event.

The odds against human birth are substantial – and against human rebirth surely exponentially so – to paraphrase the Buddha's teaching, of the blind turtle who rises to the ocean's surface once every hundred years and there, somewhere, floating on the ocean is a piece of wood with a hole in it, the chances of human birth are about as slim as that turtle putting its head through the hole – and human rebirth as slim as doing it again.

There seems to be a general assumptions in the west that:
Once human, then one goes on to rebirth as human;
That 'progressive' human rebirths are cumulative – that one builds up a store of virtue towards final attainment of the escape fromsamsara.
That which I identify as 'me' is not reborn, rather that 'i' is just a bundle of transient ephemera.

Looking at the Mahabharata – rebirth is regarded in a negative light, it seems to me, something to be avoided if at all possible.

My 'big issue' is the western way of putting a positive spin on it ... as if progress, however slow, is inevitable.

As @Cino will know, I stand squarely in the camp of Marco Pallis, a Traditionalist of the Sophia Perennis, who was highly admired, and deeply entrenched in Tibetan Buddhism.

 

[JustGeorge]

To clarify, I don't absolutely discount reincarnation, but am mindful of the Buddha's teaching, to the effect of 'human birth hard to obtain' and that allowing rebirth as a human is a possibility, it is a rarity and shouldn't be treated as an assumed or a given, but rather as a one-time event.

It is often mentioned in Hindu teachings as well, that a human birth is a true gift that shouldn't be taken lightly. (I'm not quite as familiar with Buddhist teachings, but I'd love to learn more!)

The odds against human birth are substantial – and against human rebirth surely exponentially so – to paraphrase the Buddha's teaching, of the blind turtle who rises to the ocean's surface once every hundred years and there, somewhere, floating on the ocean is a piece of wood with a hole in it, the chances of human birth are about as slim as that turtle putting its head through the hole – and human rebirth as slim as doing it again.

There seems to be a general assumptions in the west that:
Once human, then one goes on to rebirth as human;
That 'progressive' human rebirths are cumulative – that one builds up a store of virtue towards final attainment of the escape fromsamsara.
That which I identify as 'me' is not reborn, rather that 'i' is just a bundle of transient ephemera.

I notice this, too, that it seems many that believe in reincarnation feel it will all be an uphill experience.

With the Hindu teachings I'm familiar with, a store of virtue could be earned... but a store of vice could easily knock one down a peg or two as well.

Looking at the Mahabharata – rebirth is regarded in a negative light, it seems to me, something to be avoided if at all possible.

Absolutely. If I'm not mistaken, Buddhists and Hindus both desire freedom from rebirth?

My 'big issue' is the western way of putting a positive spin on it ... as if progress, however slow, is inevitable.

I've noticed that, too. And in many cases, Western minds have rebirth out to be a positive, while Eastern minds are more likely to view it as a negative. It seems only human incarnations are focused on in the west currently, though I'm not sure that's always been so. I'm reminded of some Old Welsh poems, in which its mentioned "I was this, I was that" in a large list, including many more minerals, plants, and animals that humans.

I remember in my Druid studies being presented with the idea that, while one could progress, one could absolutely still fall back into the cauldron of Annwn!

I wonder what caused the current set of beliefs of "only upward".

As @Cino will know, I stand squarely in the camp of Marco Pallis, a Traditionalist of the Sophia Perennis, who was highly admired, and deeply entrenched in Tibetan Buddhism.

You'll have to educate me more on this.

 

[Thomas]

I wonder what caused the current set of beliefs of "only upward".

I blame the Theosophists for that ... but then I'm Catholic, and an adherent of the Traditionalist manifestation of the Sophia Perennis, both of whom have a very poor opinion of the Theosophical Association.

You'll have to educate me more on this.

The Sophia Perennis holds to a single, eternal and universal Divine Principle that is the cause of all universal manifestation.

It is an axiom of the Sophia that the Supreme Principle is Absolute and Infinite, and as such encompasses the All-Possible. It is the source and cause of every possible good, and that it manifests Itself always and everywhere in such a manner as to issue from Itself and to lead back to Itself.

As such it is the Good, and the Good is first of all God, then the willing of God into existence, and finally the reintegration of all subsistent being back into God.

Absolute inasmuch as there is nothing more nor greater than. Absolute in that it is not caused nor suffers causation, is not conditioned nor knows any condition or contingency. The Absolute is self-subsisting, without any need or want or hunger – It is entire and sufficent unto Itself. It cannot be added to or subtracted from; It knows neither increase or decrease, growth or decay.

Infinite in that it is without boundary or limit. It transcends time and space and every contingent and relative mode of existence. The Greek philosophers spoke of Apeiron, the Boundless.

Strictly speaking, there is but one sole philosophy (understood in the traditional sense), and one religion (ditto).

This source is formless, shapeless, timeless ... It manifests Itself in all authentic Religions / Philosophies, the forms with which it cloaks itself according to necessity, and accordingly each and every religion/philosophy is complete and entire unto itself with regard to humanity's realisation of the highest because it is in touch with the Transcendent.

(Whilst at an outward and contingent level religions may appear to contradict, in and to themselves they are the same and the message is one, because Truth is One.)

The language of the Sophia Perennis is essentially metaphysics, and its mode of transmission symbolic, thus the perennialist is open and receptive to the message of symbol in all its forms, a primordial and universal language proper to humanity.

+++

The exponents of the Sophia in the 20th century are called Traditionalists and were initially a handful – René Guénon, Frithjof Schuon, Ananda Coomaraswamy, Marco Pallis, Martin Lings, Titus Burckhart – nearly all converted to Islam and became Sufis, the exception being Coomaraswamy and Pallis, Catholic and Tibetan Buddhist respectively, Pallis wrote an essay (The Veil of the Temple) one simple phrase of which 'triggered' my epiphany with regard to my own cradle tradition, the Catholic Church. (Catholic Trads include Roman Catholic Jean Borella and the Orthodox Philip Sherrard.)

 

[JustGeorge]

I blame the Theosophists for that ... but then I'm Catholic, and an adherent of the Traditionalist manifestation of the Sophia Perennis, both of whom have a very poor opinion of the Theosophical Association.

Oh boy. I'm with Catholics and the adherents of the Traditionalist manifestation on that one.

The Sophia Perennis holds to a single, eternal and universal Divine Principle that is the cause of all universal manifestation.

It is an axiom of the Sophia that the Supreme Principle is Absolute and Infinite, and as such encompasses the All-Possible. It is the source and cause of every possible good, and that it manifests Itself always and everywhere in such a manner as to issue from Itself and to lead back to Itself.

As such it is the Good, and the Good is first of all God, then the willing of God into existence, and finally the reintegration of all subsistent being back into God.

Absolute inasmuch as there is nothing more nor greater than. Absolute in that it is not caused nor suffers causation, is not conditioned nor knows any condition or contingency. The Absolute is self-subsisting, without any need or want or hunger – It is entire and sufficent unto Itself. It cannot be added to or subtracted from; It knows neither increase or decrease, growth or decay.

Infinite in that it is without boundary or limit. It transcends time and space and every contingent and relative mode of existence. The Greek philosophers spoke of Apeiron, the Boundless.

Strictly speaking, there is but one sole philosophy (understood in the traditional sense), and one religion (ditto).

This source is formless, shapeless, timeless ... It manifests Itself in all authentic Religions / Philosophies, the forms with which it cloaks itself according to necessity, and accordingly each and every religion/philosophy is complete and entire unto itself with regard to humanity's realisation of the highest because it is in touch with the Transcendent.

(Whilst at an outward and contingent level religions may appear to contradict, in and to themselves they are the same and the message is one, because Truth is One.)

The language of the Sophia Perennis is essentially metaphysics, and its mode of transmission symbolic, thus the perennialist is open and receptive to the message of symbol in all its forms, a primordial and universal language proper to humanity.

+++

The exponents of the Sophia in the 20th century are called Traditionalists and were initially a handful – René Guénon, Frithjof Schuon, Ananda Coomaraswamy, Marco Pallis, Martin Lings, Titus Burckhart – nearly all converted to Islam and became Sufis, the exception being Coomaraswamy and Pallis, Catholic and Tibetan Buddhist respectively, Pallis wrote an essay (The Veil of the Temple) one simple phrase of which 'triggered' my epiphany with regard to my own cradle tradition, the Catholic Church. (Catholic Trads include Roman Catholic Jean Borella and the Orthodox Philip Sherrard.)

Fascinating! Thank you for taking the time to share this with me!

 

[TheLightWithin]

he Sophia Perennis holds to a single, eternal and universal Divine Principle that is the cause of all universal manifestation.

It is an axiom of the Sophia that the Supreme Principle is Absolute and Infinite, and as such encompasses the All-Possible. It is the source and cause of every possible good, and that it manifests Itself always and everywhere in such a manner as to issue from Itself and to lead back to Itself.

As such it is the Good, and the Good is first of all God, then the willing of God into existence, and finally the reintegration of all subsistent being back into God.

I agree with this idea. (Sophia Perennis as explained here)

Most of what I know-think I know-used to know- about reincarnation I got from reading Edgar Cayce material as a kid.
From that, I got the idea that reincarnation was the afterlife theory with the most evidence behind it, and as an occurrance it was commonplace.

 

[Thomas]

Fascinating! Thank you for taking the time to share this with me!

Oh, no problem, let me assure you!

I can, and have, gone on at length and in depth, but made an effort to keep it shorter and hopefully then, more readable.

But anything on the Trads, fire away, it'll be my pleasure ...

As an aside, I reference Pallis a lot as an authority when discussing reincarnation. A letter of his online was my source, and then I discovered it had gone from the site in question. Eventually I managed to get a version from the Wayback archive, and have been hunting for texts and copying them to my drive before they're lost forever ...

 

[Thomas]

Most of what I know-think I know-used to know- about reincarnation I got from reading Edgar Cayce material as a kid.
From that, I got the idea that reincarnation was the afterlife theory with the most evidence behind it, and as an occurrance it was commonplace.

I know next to nothing about Edgar Cayce, but a quick look on his wiki bio has a critic saying: "the "verified" claims and descriptions from Cayce's trances can be traced to ideas in books he had been reading by authors such as Carl Jung, P. D. Ouspensky and Helena Blavatsky."

 

[JustGeorge]

As an aside, I reference Pallis a lot as an authority when discussing reincarnation. A letter of his online was my source, and then I discovered it had gone from the site in question. Eventually I managed to get a version from the Wayback archive, and have been hunting for texts and copying them to my drive before they're lost forever ...

Smart idea.