Reincarnation

[GarryP]

Thought provoking and interesting subject. But I don't believe in reincarnation, life after death, etc. Dead is dead. Final. The End. Curtains.

I think it is wishful thinking for those who just cannnot accept that when they die there is nothing more for them. Many religions are like this, giving false hope for those who need it and are scared to accept reality.

As to the examples of past lives, when you grow up in a culture that teaches you to believe, you tend to start seeing things in a way that others would not. You read events in a different way, due to cultural conditioning.

[thaimite]

when you grow up in a culture that teaches you to believe, you tend to start seeing things in a way that others would not. You read events in a different way, due to cultural conditioning.

This could be the very reason that you do not believe in past lives.

As for those who believe, most of the events involve young children and their past life memories disappear by the age of 5 or 6. Having such memories at such a young age does not match with the theory that your culture inspires you to have them, and certainly does not explain why these children are able to recall places and events they could know nothing about.

[Jingthing]

If it all ends after life, there would be no need to live and and no need to provide for descendants. That would be senseless. It most likely will go on in one way or in another. That does not necessarily mean on that planet in the future.

I find your comment hilarious. What more reason do you need to live other than simply TO LIVE?

[GarryP]

when you grow up in a culture that teaches you to believe, you tend to start seeing things in a way that others would not. You read events in a different way, due to cultural conditioning.

This could be the very reason that you do not believe in past lives.

As for those who believe, most of the events involve young children and their past life memories disappear by the age of 5 or 6. Having such memories at such a young age does not match with the theory that your culture inspires you to have them, and certainly does not explain why these children are able to recall places and events they could know nothing about.

Could be, but isn't. My mother was christian who certainly believed in the bible and resurrection, although she only went to churches for funerals, weddings and christenings. My father is very similar. I have been in the monkhood in Thailand. My wife is a practicing Buddhist who most certainly does believe in reincarnation. So if anything, my background should lend me to be a believer.

As to those children, I am very sceptical. I do not believe they are recalling anything that has not subconciously been planted by parents and siblings, or that what is being said by the kids is being misinterpretted/misrepresented by elders whether intentional or not. Children are highly open to suggestion and cultural influence does not start once you become a teenager, it starts from the day you are born.

But like I said before, an interesting subject.

[Birdman]

If it all ends after life, there would be no need to live and and no need to provide for descendants. That would be senseless. It most likely will go on in one way or in another. That does not necessarily mean on that planet in the future.

I find your comment hilarious. What more reason do you need to live other than simply TO LIVE?

Maybe to develope. Or maybe you are right. Maybe everything we do is complete meaningless, because sooner or later there will be no one of living beings left and everything does not matter, if this life is all we got. Don't think so. Guess we would not have been here in the first place.

[jamescollister]

Interesting thread, but maybe everyone is looking at the tree , but not seeing the forest so to speak. Some research has been done on the the molecular level on brain tissue. It appears that the design is very similar to what they think quantum computers will look like. If true then quantum particles exist outside of time space and are not subject to how we perceive the world. So maybe we are only a computer terminal, but can't access the mainframe. Just a thought. Jim

[Antathome]

I am an atheist because that's the way God made me . In truth, I am a Christian (not a particularly good one) and your point about reincarnation not making sense rings true with me.

[aroya]

Hello,

The British High Court judge, Christmas Humphries was also the president of the British Buddhist society, He believed in re-incarnation, and researched his previous life. He found he had been a minor official in Rome, and found his name and references to himself in historical documents.........

If you do not believe in re-incarnation, then all these lives that we are living are just a glorious waste of time! .....Read 'We have been here before' i don't remember the author.

There is NO Death!

[GarryP]

It may be a stupid question, but how did his honour research his previous life? Did he look for officials who went by names such as Humphorium? Any such research lacks impartiality. If you want to find something you will but it does not mean it had anything to do with past lives.

I am sure that if I google my own full name I will find numerous preincarnations down the ages.

[Xangsamhua]

It may be a stupid question, but how did his honour research his previous life? Did he look for officials who went by names such as Humphorium? Any such research lacks impartiality. If you want to find something you will but it does not mean it had anything to do with past lives.

I am sure that if I google my own full name I will find numerous preincarnations down the ages.

He was also President of the Theosophical Society, so was as interested in the occult as in the Buddhadharma.

He was born and grew up in an era when Spiritualism was still popular and included high profile people among its supporters, including some prominent scientists. In that sense he was a man of his time, and Buddhism had become of interest to the academic and literate community through the work of Rhys Davids, the influence of Schopenhauer and the writing of Alexandra David-Neel.

I expect he researched his previous lives through mediums under the auspices of the Theosophical Society, a body that believes contact with deceased spiritual "masters" is accessible to the adept.

Schopenhauer believed there was nothing to fear in death. We simply return to the state we were in before we were born, an expression of the "Will" (the underpinning, passionless universal force that generates and animates phenomena, including us). He found this quite consoling. Clearly, though, the ego is destroyed at death and hence has good reason to fear it.

[GarryP]

Thanks for the background on that. Not an area I am well up on so I did some googling on the names you mentioned. But again it comes down unsubstantiated claims. If his research was based upon what he was told by mediums, it does not not change the fact that there is absolutely no way his claims can be substantiated. And we all know what charlatans many mediums are both past and present. Although I am sure there were/are some who sincerely believed what they were saying, for the most part they were simply very good at reading people and telling them what they wanted to hear, both good and bad. You would probably not be surprised that many people actually do wish to hear bad things about their past and hauntings by bad spirits, it seems to help explain why they are suffering through a bad patch, ill health, etc. (NB Did you see Family Guy on TV last night?)

Some people feel that there must be an afterlife (so by analogy there must be a pre-life, as our current life is not our first life but an afterlife of a prior life - getting confusing here), otherwise this life (not sure which one on the time scale of lives) has no meaning or purpose. Now for me, I believe that by doing good in this life, you will benefit in this life. If you are doing good to improve your chances of moving up the ladder in the next life (based on my experience of Thai Buddhism), you are missing the point of being a good person, and the merit you are trying to make should be considered as a demerit because you are doing it for selfish reasons, not simply because it is a good thing to do. So with a determined effort to improve oneself in the hereafter, you are actually damaging your prospects and could come back worse off than you are now.

The thing is, if many people did not believe there was life after death, reincarnation, etc. many of those who currently make selfish merit would not make any merit at all. There would be no reason for them to do so as they would not be coming back - nothing would be gained by it. This in itself is bad because charity is good and helping fellow man is intrinsically good; but only the unselfish would be left doing anything which even for good people is a burden too great to bear alone. The selfish are still needed. Does this mean that selfish merit is good? Actually I think it does as long as it benefits someone else and, as such, I wholeheartedly support those who believe in reincarnation and the need to make merit for selfish reasons.

Sorry about all that, went a bit off track there. Anyway, thank you Xangsamhua for sparking my musings on this interesting subject.

[Birdman]

If there would be only this life, doing good or bad would have no meaning at all, it would be senseless.

Some people are doing good all the time and they die after suffering throughout their whole life, and some are doing bad and have a wonderful life. Some die after only 1 hour, some have pain all their life, were born in horrible times, others were gifted with knowledge and talents at the right time/place to become extremely rich..........

If there would be only 1 life, one day there will be no one left of us anywhere. Considering the enormous time frame of possible existence of the universe and everything beyond that all our actions, good or bad, will matter nothing at all. Earth, the human race, all the planets and stars will be gone one day. Therefore to make the best of it excess as long as possible and than death would be most logical. Because why suffer more than enjoy, if after that there will be nothing?

But no one is living like that. Everyone is trying to stay alive. Nature seems to be very logical. It seems there is something behind that.

[GarryP]

If there would be only this life, doing good or bad would have no meaning at all, it would be senseless.

Some people are doing good all the time and they die after suffering throughout their whole life, and some are doing bad and have a wonderful life. Some die after only 1 hour, some have pain all their life, were born in horrible times, others were gifted with knowledge and talents at the right time/place to become extremely rich..........

If there would be only 1 life, one day there will be no one left of us anywhere. Considering the enormous time frame of possible existence of the universe and everything beyond that all our actions, good or bad, will matter nothing at all. Earth, the human race, all the planets and stars will be gone one day. Therefore to make the best of it excess as long as possible and than death would be most logical. Because why suffer more than enjoy, if after that there will be nothing?

But no one is living like that. Everyone is trying to stay alive. Nature seems to be very logical. It seems there is something behind that.

If there is only this life, why do you claim it is senseless? I see no logic in that. Sure some people have good lives, some people have bad lives. Shit happens. But you seem to be one of those who believe you must do good for you to benefit in your future incarnation, rather than doing good because it is the morally right thing to do. You say some people do good but suffer all their lives, but that is your view not theirs. If you asked them if they would rather have not been born to begin with, I'm pretty sure most would say that despite all their suffering they are glad they were born. And if any of them said they would rather not have been born, the only thing keeping them here is themselves, and by continuing to live they are proving what they said was a lie. They actually do appreciate being alive and, thus, must be pleased they were born.

Likewise, I don't follow the logic of "If there would be only 1 life, one day there will be no one left of us anywhere." People do go forth and multiply you know. Numbers will fluctuate as birth and death rates fluctuate, but I do not see the link with reincarnation. In fact in some countries the population is in decline. So where have all those reincarnated fellows gone? Reincarnated elsewhere? Finally reached Nirvana? If you are saying this applies to people, the same must also apply to animals which are also in the chain so to speak. What is happening to all those animals that are becoming extinct, have they been reincarnated as another species? Moved up the ladder? If so, then extinction is nothing to be alarmed about, but if not, where are they?

[Birdman]

We will not physically multiply until eternity. If that would be the case, we would have been here since eternity. But we aren't and that is also scientifically proved. A circle has no end, but a line has 2.

Reincarnation does certainly not necessarily mean to live again on this planet, in this universe and age. Anything thinkable and, more likely, beyond that could be possible. We are now in the physically expanding process > since the Big Bang the universe is expanding,it will slow down, stop and start to shrink until the state before the Big Bang. Than stand by until, maybe, the next Big Bang. It could be that this process is working since eons.

You are very wrong by saying being/doing good is just for a better Karma. It's an inner force regardless of the Karma.

[whybother]

If there would be only this life, doing good or bad would have no meaning at all, it would be senseless.

Some people are doing good all the time and they die after suffering throughout their whole life, and some are doing bad and have a wonderful life. Some die after only 1 hour, some have pain all their life, were born in horrible times, others were gifted with knowledge and talents at the right time/place to become extremely rich..........

If there would be only 1 life, one day there will be no one left of us anywhere. Considering the enormous time frame of possible existence of the universe and everything beyond that all our actions, good or bad, will matter nothing at all. Earth, the human race, all the planets and stars will be gone one day. Therefore to make the best of it excess as long as possible and than death would be most logical. Because why suffer more than enjoy, if after that there will be nothing?

But no one is living like that. Everyone is trying to stay alive. Nature seems to be very logical. It seems there is something behind that.

Considering the universe is 14,000,000,000 years old, and the earth 4,500,000,000 years old, and that humans have been around for 50-100,000 years, I think we're pretty irrelevant.

[dominique355]

If it all ends after life, there would be no need to live and and no need to provide for descendants. That would be senseless. It most likely will go on in one way or in another. That does not necessarily mean on that planet in the future.

Indeed, there is no "need" or "sense" to live. Because that would suppose someone or something determining such a need or sense. There is no such "someone" or "something" (or call it god or whatever you like) who gives life a meaning or a sense.

We are the result of billions of years of evolution. The genes largely determine the continuation of life and genes are chemical compounds following the laws of physic and chemistry.

Today we define "life" as having DNA.

[Farang0tang]

Just wait until the quantum computers hit the streets - all will be clear.

[Farang0tang]

Just make sure you purchase original and not some chinese copy, otherwise you might find yourself down the wrong wormhole.

[canuckamuck]

If it all ends after life, there would be no need to live and and no need to provide for descendants. That would be senseless. It most likely will go on in one way or in another. That does not necessarily mean on that planet in the future.

Indeed, there is no "need" or "sense" to live. Because that would suppose someone or something determining such a need or sense. There is no such "someone" or "something" (or call it god or whatever you like) who gives life a meaning or a sense.

We are the result of billions of years of evolution. The genes largely determine the continuation of life and genes are chemical compounds following the laws of physic and chemistry.

Today we define "life" as having DNA.

Yes of course, everything came from nothing, very scientific.

[GarryP]

Yes of course, everything came from nothing, very scientific.

More plausible than everything came from God.

The beginning of everything poses more questions than answers. I think a visit to The Restauarant at the End of the Universe is due a visit.

[canuckamuck]

Yes of course, everything came from nothing, very scientific.

More plausible than everything came from God.

The beginning of everything poses more questions than answers. I think a visit to The Restauarant at the End of the Universe is due a visit.

That is fascinating logic. A spontaneous appearance of matter is more plausible then the concept of something super natural.

Does your confidence come from the long history of things that have appeared out of nothing?

Actually I think something occurring out of nothing can only be defined as a supernatural event because physical laws rule it out.

[GarryP]

Yes of course, everything came from nothing, very scientific.

More plausible than everything came from God.

The beginning of everything poses more questions than answers. I think a visit to The Restauarant at the End of the Universe is due a visit.

That is fascinating logic. A spontaneous appearance of matter is more plausible then the concept of something super natural.

Does your confidence come from the long history of things that have appeared out of nothing?

Actually I think something occurring out of nothing can only be defined as a supernatural event because physical laws rule it out.

No more illogical than a claim to have been created by God, as your post infers. I agree that science as we know it now does not appear to provide an explanation. But that does not necessarily make it a supernatural occurence.

Not so many years ago, in the scheme of things in the universe, evolution was unknown but now it is a provable scientific fact(Despite what creationists would have us believe). Did that make the advent of man a supernatural event until evolution could be proven? I don't think so.

I would not be too quick to jump on the supernatural bandwagon.

Whatever, each and everyone believes in what they want and I have no problems with that. But what has this got to do with reincarnation?

[canuckamuck]

No more illogical than a claim to have been created by God, as your post infers. I agree that science as we know it now does not appear to provide an explanation. But that does not necessarily make it a supernatural occurence.

Not so many years ago, in the scheme of things in the universe, evolution was unknown but now it is a provable scientific fact(Despite what creationists would have us believe). Did that make the advent of man a supernatural event until evolution could be proven? I don't think so.

So for you something that would defy the physical laws is more plausible than a supernatural event? Why, because anything is possible except the supernatural? I would say that whatever determined that there is something instead of a nothing - the one thing it could never be is a natural event. That by definition is impossible. To suggest otherwise reveals an attitude so driven against the supernatural that anything else regardless of how ridiculous becomes possible. This is the closed loop of the scientific process, anything outside of physical realm can not be considered, regardless of the possibility that the physical may only be a manifestation of the spiritual. Science is so sure, because man is afraid. Better to rule out what we can't control or understand.

I would not be too quick to jump on the supernatural bandwagon.

Whatever, each and everyone believes in what they want and I have no problems with that. But what has this got to do with reincarnation?

Quite a lot actually.

[GarryP]

No more illogical than a claim to have been created by God, as your post infers. I agree that science as we know it now does not appear to provide an explanation. But that does not necessarily make it a supernatural occurence.

Not so many years ago, in the scheme of things in the universe, evolution was unknown but now it is a provable scientific fact(Despite what creationists would have us believe). Did that make the advent of man a supernatural event until evolution could be proven? I don't think so.

So for you something that would defy the physical laws is more plausible than a supernatural event? Why, because anything is possible except the supernatural? I would say that whatever determined that there is something instead of a nothing - the one thing it could never be is a natural event. That by definition is impossible. To suggest otherwise reveals an attitude so driven against the supernatural that anything else regardless of how ridiculous becomes possible. This is the closed loop of the scientific process, anything outside of physical realm can not be considered, regardless of the possibility that the physical may only be a manifestation of the spiritual. Science is so sure, because man is afraid. Better to rule out what we can't control or understand.

I would not be too quick to jump on the supernatural bandwagon.

Whatever, each and everyone believes in what they want and I have no problems with that. But what has this got to do with reincarnation?

Quite a lot actually.

I am pretty sure that there are many things that currently cannot be explained by physical laws as we now know them. However, because something cannot be explained now does not mean it should automatically be defined as supernatural. You are also assuming that everything was created from nothing. Where is the proof that there ever was nothing? Perhaps there has always been something. It cannot be proved either way. I have pondered the point before and always drawn a blank. I too once assumed that in the "beginning" there was nothing but now believe that I cannot assume anything, perhaps there was, perhaps there wasn't. If there wasn't could someone please offer the scientific proof that everything was created from nothing and I mean absolutely nothing. I think we are many many years away from finding an answer to this conundrum.

As to "anything being outside the physical realm cannot be considered", I think everything needs to be considered, and things that cannot be explained, accepted as such until a time when they can be explained. I do not believe in reincarnation, perhaps you do, however, I cannot prove absolutely that it does not exist just that the preponderance of evidence indicates to me that it does not.

To get back on subject, personally I really do not see a need for religion or a belief in reincarnation to be a good person. You can be good without either. However, for those who need a reason for being and who equate religion, reincarnation or spirituality with instilling good moral values, good for them.

Anyway, got to go for dinner now as the wife is calling. Ignore that call and I will learn whose belief set is correct very quickly. Whichever, too soon for me.