Why Christians should not accept Reincarnation: Pt 1

earl said:
Well lunamoth, the way karma-rebirth and resurrection-grace are typically presented, thet seem contradictory-& would be by traditional Christian theology. Though as I shared of my personal views in a thread I entitled, "Alternative Christian Theology" in the liberal Christian forum, it does not necessarily, (depending on how one looks at it). But as to Ian Stevenson & what he was getting at, thought I'd post a link to a review of a 2003 book of his in the American Journal of Psychiatry, (trust me that folks in that field generally are skeptical re such things:) ).
European Cases of the Reincarnation Type -- CADORET 162 (4): 823 -- Am J Psychiatry
He had typically studied children for the reasons this review discusses &, as I've mentioned in different threads here over time, young children seem more inclined to manifest a variety of psychic phenomena than us older & set in our way folk.:) Also just visited the website of that U. of Virginia research program I'd mentioned & saw it noted he passed away just 3 weeks ago. Wonder if we'll be hearing from him again.:D earl
Click to expand...


Hi earl, I skimmed the book review...thank you for the link. :) Well, I'll say this, there sure is a lot more evidence for reincarnation than there is for resurrection, although as a pretty skeptical person when it comes to such matters, I'm reluctant to make conclusions from such evidence too hastily. In science evidence is there to be explained by the simplest and more reproducible explanation...so such investigations give us lots more work to do. But it is for certain that there's a lot out there that I/we don't and never will understand. :)

Interesting that when we think of reincarnation it seems rather positive and cool, but when we think of the dead resurrecting...it's horror movie time! :D

Joking aside...since we see through the glass darkly now...I'd say that these concepts and doctrines and scriptures we have are at least metaphors that point to the Truth, if not significantly more than that.

luna
 
Hi guys –

I found this (http://www.kheper.net/topics/Buddhism/Mahayana.htm):
"Within the Tibetan Buddhist tradition we must differentiate two types of the reincarnations:
1. the usual one (the interpretation of which has the doctrine of Karma as its foundation) the interpretation of which does not differ much from that of the Theravadins
... I think the Abrahamic traditions will have issues with this.

2. the doctrine of Sprul-sku (read: tool-koo, Sanscrit: nirmanakaya -- magically produced body, or magically transformed body)), i.e. the ability of the bodhisattvas and other saints (arya pudgala) to create by the force of mind special "artificial" bodies to reveal theirselves to the samsaric world by their wiil for the benefit of the living beings.
... Now there's an area for discussion, especially when one considers Christian instances of bilocation ...

"Thus, Dalai-lama is a sprul-sku of bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara, Panchen-lama the sprul-sku of Buddha Amitabha, Bogdo-gegen of Mongolia the spruls-sku of the saint Taranatha, etc. And only such special incarnations can be realised on the levels of mind, speach and body."

... here I would dearly like to discuss 'what' reincarnates ... is this akin to the Biblical idea of Elijah and John the Baptist, in that it is not a personal reincarnation, but rather the manifestation of a meta-human essence through a person ... which is how i understand it?

"Moreover, each bodhisattva by his/her supernatural powers can produce unlimited number of such "magical bodies" and therefore, to be incarnated in several persons (we had seen such a collision in the Bertolucci's "Little Buddha"). In common speach such incarnations are called "incarnated lamas", or even "living buddhas".
... I think it was Origen (I'll check my source) who argued that if a person can reincarnate successively in time, then by the same law he could also reincarnate simultaneously, ie a number of the same person at the same time, which is a logical impossibility ... unless, again, we are talking of the manifestation of an essence which is metahuman, ie a spirituality (rather than a spiritual being ... which is a person) ... which again, Scripture would seem to imply.

"But ordinary beings move in the wheel of the cyclic existence by the force of their karma keeping the unity of their "santana" -- individual continuality of their psyco-phisical experience."
... here we would argue that Christ showed that by the grace of God, karma (original sin) can be overcome ...

And here: (Buddhism)
Reincarnation exists because of the individual’s craving and desires to live in this world. The ultimate goal of a Buddhists is to achieve freedom from the cycle of reincarnation and attain nirvana.

I would argue that Christianity allows one to escape the material veil, and redress the cravings and desires objectively, as it were, from beyond the veil, rather than enter unknowingly again, and be subject to the 'same old, same old'.

Again, it was Origen (sorry, I will find the source) who argued that if there was reincarnation, then the world would have to gradually filling with 'realised' souls (even in the 2nd century AD!) who could do nothing other than light the way for others under the law of the good always seeks to manifest itself for the good of others ...

... there is still plenty of room for discussion and agreement on both sides of the debate.

Thomas
 
Hi Thomas--

Lots and lots of ground to cover! I am having some trouble getting to the first link you posted, but I can probably find it another way, or something similar.

I just wanted to let you know that I am reading and listening. I really do want to understand your views. I am familiar with some basic reasoning in the Anglican and related Protestant traditions, but not so much with the Roman Catholic. I'm working on it....:)

InPeace,
InLove
 
Hey Thomas. I applaud your quasi-Christo-Buddhist thinking.:D Vajradhara could expound in a more learned fashion than myself on matters vajrayana, but the Tibetan Buddhist system is built around the "tulku" belief system with a tulku being a purported reincarnation of a prior Buddhist master. An interesting aspect of it is their belief that there can indeed be multiple "emanations" from a prior master reborn into several currently living ones. 1 example is the succession of dalai lamas for instance. I've posted a link to a brief article that gives a good overview of how that belief system is represented and how individuals in that culture are recognized as tulkus.

The Tribune - Windows - Featured story

As in Stevenson's research, in the Tulku system such tulkus are recognized as very young children. The current dalai lama has said before that he will be reincarnated elsewhere than in Tibet in a future birth. Don't know if he truly had insight into this or said it for political reasons-didn't want China to falsely claim that 1 of their puppets is the reincarnated next dalai lama. Of course, all the time when asked "who he is," he's always answered he is just a simple monk. That speaks volumes about how to live one's life.:) have a good one, earl
 
I too love this discussion Thomas... let me take a different path:

The word 'EGO' is in both the Greek Septuagint and Latin Vulgate numerous times, often spoken by Jesus:

iterum ergo locutus est eis Iesus dicens ego sum lux mundi qui sequitur me non ambulabit in tenebris sed habebit lucem vitae
John 8:12 Then spoke Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

ego lux in mundum veni ut omnis qui credit in me in tenebris non maneat
John 12:46 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.

Of course, that was him, who pronounced who he was. What prideful ignorant self glorifying EGO am I to say anything of myself in like manner? Well, Jesus also did for you:

Matthew 5:14 vos estis lux mundi non potest civitas abscondi supra montem posita

Where is there something to deny? I defend the EGO. As the Western commercial says, "L'ego my eggo". Yes, I know that confrontation goes over well with the followers of the psychic shadow monsters who for money would interpret it as an anal retentive belief, or for those who will pronounce a person blind unless they deny themselves and work selflessly in their sweat shop factories.

Of course, not that Jesus spoke on the Mount of Light in Latin or Greek, but what part of Hewbrew, Latin, Greek, English, French, German, Spanish, etc... came from China? Was the 'EGO' imported too? Can a person read the Chinese or many Indian translations of the bible without denying the 'ego eimi'?

Ok, I am poking half in fun at a word that has apparently been stomped on by years of diverging and converging language and beliefs... because I believe this topic of reincarnation is an important doorway that should not be rejected and stomped on in the same way. As with the Native Americans who saw a resurrected spirit in the sky, and in the rocks, the river, smoke, wolf, eagle, salmon, whale,... just because I have not communed with a soul there as some claim to have does not mean that I have seen inside every animal or moving object to know whether there is one. At least there is an acknowledgement of something metaphysical or unseen, as there is in the bible. Not an idol, but the animals, the pneuma, and the water are valued by God whether people do the same. While it won't ruin my day to accidently step on a grasshopper and lament that I might have killed a grand parent, and it won't ruin my day to use this mind instead of meditating to deny its functionality... it will ruin my day to stomp on a belief that suggests something metaphysical, which is a foundation of most every religion. If a person believes in reincarnation then they necessarily believe in something metaphysical or unseen like a soul or a spirit.

From a scientific perspective, I see the body like a temple. If you walk into my house you will see and learn something about the person who lived here. If you drive in my car you will learn something about the person who owned the car for a time. If you gain access into my computer you will find files that reveal something about me. I am not the house, or the car, or the computer, but those are the things you can see of me. I didn't make the house, or the car, or the computer, but I dwelled in one and they are the things that you can see of me and others who dwell with me, regardless of what you believe. I share that model to help provide understanding of a divide that I see, but that can not be seen. There are some things metaphysical to this world.... L'ego that ego.
 
I can't say anything definitive on this topic, but I can share that I cannot hold with any particular doctrine on what specifically happens after we die (resurrection vs. reincarnation).

I've tried hard in the past to be an orthodox Christian in this area and believe only in resurrection, but it was nearly impossible because I started having memories/visions/whatever of past lives when I was very young (perhaps about four to five). I dutifully just thought of them as imaginings, dreams, and visions until I was older and ran into other people- strangers- who had the same basic memories- same places, cultures, events, etc. I won't get into the details, but suffice to say that really turned my way of perceiving what I was experiencing on its head. There are far too many details in common for me to chalk it up to anything simple, and for most, these memories or whatever you'd like to call them go back to a very young age for everyone. They affect who you are.

It's a bit like you're born already enculturated, and you look around and get confused as a kid that everything is different from how it should be and you don't blend in easily. After a while you get adjusted to it, but I still have a very deep sense of who I am as a product of all those visions. I can't help that. And to try to shove my own experiences into an orthodox box ends up making me feel very uncomfortable and as if I am lying to myself.

(And for the record, I've never been hypnotized or even had any New Age stuff go on before I realized that I might be having memories rather than just weird thoughts. I was as shocked as anyone would be to realize that my thoughts, ways of being and thinking (a sort of culture, really), and so forth were held by others and not mine alone.)

Now, I don't claim reincarnation is what happens, either. I just learned to accept whatever God gives me. The lesson for me was clearly that I was to trust God and accept where He puts me. If it's resurrection, great. If not, then there is a reason why I'll go 'round again, and I'm to submit to His will either way. Somehow I don't have a problem thinking both ways I'm saved by grace. Whether incarnated on this earth or in a different form elsewhere (a spiritual body or what have you), I'm still only existing because of the grace of God. I'm still in communion with God through grace. And I've learned from my own "past" that knowing Christ is an amazing gift. I didn't always have it in my past cultures, and it makes a difference that cannot be underestimated.

I realize that is a tremendously unorthodox perspective. But I think earl has a point in that if you are a person who has some sort of memory, it does affect you and you can't just throw it out the window in favor of orthodox belief. I could really care less if other people believe in reincarnation or not. But I can't pretend that the "one-life-then-resurrection" doctrine works for me, when I've yet to be successful at working out how that jives with my own life and experiences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top