• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

A flaw with the belief in reincarnation?

I believe that the problem lies within the fact that we think of souls as defined entities, bound by numbers, space and time.

I find that an interesting angle in which to approach this problem is to view them as "imprints" in the Universe. All share in common that they are merely superficial aspects of the same greater being.

In this manner, it is easy to make suppositions upon how they might connect. It also solves the issue of whether or not souls should begin with the race of men, or "run out" at some point. They would always exist because time is not a creative or destructive force, but simply a direction in which we move.
 
Deneb said:
I believe that the problem lies within the fact that we think of souls as defined entities, bound by numbers, space and time.

Your first post? Welcome!

I would say that the soul is the self, that which is aware of its own existence, no matter what the underlying physics may be.

That said, the issue is whether such a thing can survive death, and whether it can be transferred to another organism.

My opinion is, no it cannot.
 
Deneb said:
I believe that the problem lies within the fact that we think of souls as defined entities, bound by numbers, space and time.


I find that an interesting angle in which to approach this problem is to view them as "imprints" in the Universe. All share in common that they are merely superficial aspects of the same greater being.


How is what you are describing different from a belief that souls are "defined entities, bound by numbers, space and time"?

Deneb said:


In this manner, it is easy to make suppositions upon how they might connect. It also solves the issue of whether or not souls should begin with the race of men, or "run out" at some point. They would always exist because time is not a creative or destructive force, but simply a direction in which we move.

I do not see how this follows.

For this to make any sense to me you will have to start right at the beginning with explaining what evidence lead you to think their might be souls, what evidence you have for an imprint (and of course define exactly what you mean by an imprint) .

And that is just for starters.



(PS Welcome to the forum.)
 
Bjorn said:
Wasn't the problem a lot bigger a hundred thousands years ago, when there were far too many souls compared to the number of people?

No problem philosophically, just a personal problem for the souls concerned.

Zillions of virtuous cockroaches waiting to be born as human.

What we call "overpopulation" means that the more virtuous cockroaches go faster to what amounts to "heaven" for them.

There are lots of cockroaches, and there were cockroaches 600 million years before there were humans.

"Overpopulation" means that God is finally rewarding them.
 
One-el lamas say:

Some Tibetan Buddhists get around the problem by saying that, well, OBVIOUSLY, DUMMY! souls split and the pieces can be reincarnated in more than one person. I mean jeeze, can't you see what's right in front of your nose?
 
Re: One-el lamas say:

sackett said:
Some Tibetan Buddhists get around the problem by saying that, well, OBVIOUSLY, DUMMY! souls split and the pieces can be reincarnated in more than one person. I mean jeeze, can't you see what's right in front of your nose?

You're being sarcastic. But if you accept the idea of souls and reincarnations, I see nothing especially implausible about this explanation.
 
Re: Re: One-el lamas say:

Gregory said:
You're being sarcastic. But if you accept the idea of souls and reincarnations, I see nothing especially implausible about this explanation.
I always thought that what/who a person was reincarnated as, was some kind of reward (or punishment) for the deeds in earlier life (but I could be wrong).

How could that happen if a soul were to be split up, and be reincarnated in multiple persons? Would those persons all have the same degree of (un)happiness in their lives? Or would some parts of the former 'one soul' be rewarded more than other parts?

Multiple personality disorder might exist after all .....
 
Gimme that boing-boing religion

Bjorn said:
. . . . would some parts of the former 'one soul' be rewarded more than other parts?

Now there are two of us being sarcastic.

But Gregory wants us to reason this out, starting from the premise that souls exist and get repotted in new bodies.

Trouble is, once you accept a daffball premise, the reasoning can go anywhere -- and will, ramifying indefinitely into more and more abstruse blind allies. That's called theology.
 
Re: Re: Re: One-el lamas say:

Bjorn said:
I always thought that what/who a person was reincarnated as, was some kind of reward (or punishment) for the deeds in earlier life (but I could be wrong).

How could that happen if a soul were to be split up, and be reincarnated in multiple persons? Would those persons all have the same degree of (un)happiness in their lives? Or would some parts of the former 'one soul' be rewarded more than other parts?

Multiple personality disorder might exist after all .....

Considering the number of people in the world, the idea of multiple people having about the same degree of happinness is not even remotely unbelievable. But it wouldn't have to work like that. Presumably, there is a set amount of suffering one must go through to redeem oneself; if the sum total of the suffering experienced by your soul's recepticals is the correct amount, who says that the individual ammounts have to be even?

And isn't the existance of Multiple Personality Disorder a fact?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: One-el lamas say:

Gregory said:
Considering the number of people in the world, the idea of multiple people having about the same degree of happinness is not even remotely unbelievable. But it wouldn't have to work like that. Presumably, there is a set amount of suffering one must go through to redeem oneself; if the sum total of the suffering experienced by your soul's recepticals is the correct amount, who says that the individual ammounts have to be even?
I certainly hope you're correct, as each of my new persons would have to take only a small amount of suffering (on the other hand, an equally small amount of pleasure, I guess - maybe not so good after all).

And isn't the existance of Multiple Personality Disorder a fact?
It's contested. However, I'm an amateur, we most probably have a lot more qualified persons on the board.

http://skepdic.com/mpd.html
 
The existence of MPD. Is it real, or do people simply believe in it enough to 'experience' it? The brain is such a confusing mass. Yet it is still a mass, and it still not prone to some mysterious gaining of memories after finally being developed. And when is it fully developed? Just when do the memories somehow go through the mom and the baby's head?

My imagination just can't make me believe it can happen. Heh.
 
CFLarsen said:


True. Reincarnation is tied with the wheel of karma, so you are responsible for what you do here, and will be rewarded - or punished - in your next life.

This seems to be the view of a lot of Buddhists, but it isn't what the Buddha taught, at least from what I can tell.

(I sometimes call myself a Buddhist, but I'm not all that well versed in Buddhist doctine or scripture.)

In one often quoted passage, the Buddha was asked about reincarnation, and he discussed the "five aggregates of existence", which are basically something like "body, sensation, perception, memory, and awareness". The words don't translate well. I've seen several lists, and they are never the same in English. There are always one body, and four mental conditions. Anyway, the five aggregates, taken together, describe "you".

So, when asked about reincarnation, the Buddha said, "Will your body survive?" "No." "Will your memory survive?" "No". "Will your perceptions survive?" "No." etc.

The way I interpreted that passage was to say that reincarnation, as we usually think of it, doesn't really exist. The key to understanding "reincarnation" is to understand that "you" have many lifetimes, because "you" don't really exist separately from your world. When you die, the world doesn't stop. It continues, through many lifetimes. Your body is recycled. Your ideas continue through the teachings and examples you provided to others. You help create the world, and the world is changed because of what you did, so when "you" die, the effects of "you" keep on going. You never really die, because, well, "you" never really lived. "You" are a temporary collection of things that come together and spend some time together, until they stop being together.

One reason, although only one reason, that people associate reincarnation so much with Buddhism is the strong influence of Tibetan Buddhists in the United States, compared to other Buddhists. The other sects of Buddhism don't emphasize reincarnation nearly as much. At one of my first dharma talks I attended, for new Buddhists, a member of the crowd asked if he could come back as an animal in his next life. The monk, a Zen Buddhist, said "You can be an animal in this life." And then went on to encourage people to worry about their mind in this life, not their condition in the next.

My own opinion of reincarnation is that reincarnation as we know it doesn't exist. What does it mean to be "reincarnated" if you don't look like and can't remember your past lives? Efforts to recover past life memories usually work very well on talk shows and during tarot card readings, but otherwise are unproductive. On the other hand, I know that the way I live my life will influence the world in subtle ways forever. Every time I look at George Washington's face on a dollar bill, he influences me. Every time I vote in a national election, or attend a fireworks display, or go to a Buddhist temple in suburban Detroit, George Washington's influence is felt. So, he is, in some sense "reincarnated" in me, with or without a soul shortage.
 
Meadmaker said:
... "Will your memory survive?" "No". "Will your perceptions survive?" "No." ...

Then in no meaningful sense is there life after death. What survives that is me?

Buddhism was always death worship anyhow.
 
Abdul Alhazred said:


Then in no meaningful sense is there life after death. What survives that is me?


Exactly, to a Buddhist. (Some Buddhists disagree. Like Christianity, there are lots of different kinds of Buddhists.)

Buddhism was always death worship anyhow.

I prefer "death recognition".
 
Originally posted by lamme

There comes a point where somewheres down the road, there had to have been original life. And out of that original life came reincarnated life (if you so believe this)

That being said; if life comes into existance somehow, originally, in it's pure nonreincarnated state...then why believe that future life becomes recycled (reincarnated)? Why not JUST believe in all life as being original? Why believe that there is both?

From what I understand of Shinto—a variant of Buddhism practiced most prominently in Japan—its disciples believe in even inanimate objects having souls (i.e. rocks). If this were the mindset with which you approached the idea of reincarnation, it could be perceived that life has always existed, just not in forms we're familiar with.
 
Scott Wheeler said:
Ever notice that people who think they have been lived past lives often think they were someone like George Washington or Cleopatra? (I really heard both of those claims)

Hey, I was Abdul Alhazred in a previous life!

Are you the Dinosaur Annex dude?
 
Scott Wheeler said:
Ever notice that people who think they have been lived past lives often think they were someone like George Washington or Cleopatra? (I really heard both of those claims)

And I've seen those hypnotic regression sessions on TV, and it's always that the person was someone famous, important or influential. Nobody ever goes up and the 'Regressionist' says "In your last life, I see you were homeless and suffered from the clap...and then died. And yeah, you couldn't read, and were really stupid for 30 lifetimes."
 
Batman Jr. said:


From what I understand of Shinto—a variant of Buddhism practiced most prominently in Japan—its disciples believe in even inanimate objects having souls (i.e. rocks). If this were the mindset with which you approached the idea of reincarnation, it could be perceived that life has always existed, just not in forms we're familiar with.

-------------------------------------------------------

Batman--- if so...isn't it rather useless to discuss reincarnation out of a rock, when the rock knows nothing (most likely)? To say we came from IT, as if this has some profound effect on our new existance, is silly. We couldn't say we learned anything from that past life, could we? How would we even know that we were a rock?
 
Originally posted by lamme

Batman--- if so...isn't it rather useless to discuss reincarnation out of a rock, when the rock knows nothing (most likely)? To say we came from IT, as if this has some profound effect on our new existance, is silly. We couldn't say we learned anything from that past life, could we? How would we even know that we were a rock?

Well, I'm not saying that memories inherited from past lives are justified in these considerations, and I'm not asking you to accept the basic tenets of Shintoism per se. I'm just trying to make more salient that we don't understand what consciousness is and we don't know what guises it can assume. Therefore, the absence of "life" in its traditional sense may not necessarily warrant the absence of consciousness.

With reincarnation, I remain an agnostic.
 

Back
Top Bottom