Reincarnation

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3117
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Reincarnation

Post by Felix »

Thanks for the suggestion, Renee, I will check that book out. What may I ask is the math conundrum? (if it's not too difficult for you to explain).
Greta: Even so, that unfortunate reincarnated human still has to fight his or her way through all the developmental hurdles, and re-learn so much that was learned last time.
As I said earlier, there may be other worlds besides this one in which one may incarnate, including nonphysical worlds. The Buddhists have a name for them, but I don't recall what it is. This world may be more unpleasant than most others, perhaps it's a place for slow learners to incarnate - and occasionally very fast learners too, to help the slow ones. The Hindu's call these high-speed learners/helpers "avatars."

Of course this is all elaborate speculation unless one actually remembers one's former lives. If it was a nonhuman life, I would think the chances of remembering it would be even more remote than remembrance of a previous human existence.

They say it's actually easier to recall one's previous deaths than former lives, since very traumatic events tend to imprint themselves in the psyche. And one's instinctive fears may be a clue to how one died. For example, a fear of large bodies of water for no experiential reason (accompanied perhaps by nightmares about drowning), may indicate you drowned in your previous life. Which suggests that past death therapy would be more therapeutic than past life therapy, albeit far less fun.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Reincarnation

Post by Sy Borg »

Felix, if you are going to read TP's Feet of Clay, may I also recommend Small Gods, which has many outstanding philosophical snippets.

I read Yogananda's "Autobiography of a Yogi" around thirty years ago. At one stage he claimed that his guru came back after death and in their conversation he spoke of the afterlife:
Sri Yukteswar (posthumously) wrote:"As prophets are sent on earth to help men work out their physical karma, so I have been directed by God to serve on an astral planet as a savior," Sri Yukteswar explained. "It is called Hiranyaloka or 'Illumined Astral Planet.' There I am aiding advanced beings to rid themselves of astral karma and thus attain liberation from astral rebirths. The dwellers on Hiranyaloka are highly developed spiritually; all of them had acquired, in their last earth-incarnation, the meditation-given power of consciously leaving their physical bodies at death. No one can enter Hiranyaloka unless he has passed on earth beyond the state of sabikalpa samadhi into the higher state of nirbikalpa samadhi.

"The Hiranyaloka inhabitants have already passed through the ordinary astral spheres, where nearly all beings from earth must go at death; there they worked out many seeds of their past actions in the astral worlds. None but advanced beings can perform such redemptive work effectually in the astral worlds. Then, in order to free their souls more fully from the cocoon of karmic traces lodged in their astral bodies, these higher beings were drawn by cosmic law to be reborn with new astral bodies on Hiranyaloka, the astral sun or heaven, where I have resurrected to help them. There are also highly advanced beings on Hiranyaloka who have come from the superior, subtler, causal world."
It's easy to see how this world we live in is thought to be a place for spiritual dullards. The vision presented by Yukteswar/Yogananda here seems like a cross between a spiritual pyramid company and a video game where one must know the cheats to advance to the next level (has someone thought of a video game called "Enlightenment" yet, surely only a matter of time?). In the above case, the "game cheat" is being able to consciously leave the body at death.

Reading between the lines, the message would seem to be that salvation comes from mastering our fearful animal impulses, using them rather than indulging or stifling. The biggest of those fearful impulses, of course, is fear of death, hence the idea of consciously letting go. To be accepting and in control in life and death rather than fearful and blithering. No doubt that would take a lot of work.
Darshan
Posts: 174
Joined: February 16th, 2013, 9:11 pm

Re: Reincarnation

Post by Darshan »

Earthellism sees reincarnation as too simplistic to explain our existence here. Based on astrobiology which recently discovered that our planet will be cremated by our sun and the idea that planets that have life also are close enough to their star to also be cremated when their star dies, all life is recycled not reincarnated. Earthellism believes that creatures that have a soul may have their soul recycled to another life on this planet. But bacteria and ants and roaches do not have souls. Only creatures that have a neural network that can sense and give love have souls. Therefore all life is recycled and souls of creatures like dogs/cats/humans/rabbits, etc can have their souls recycled to another existence on earthell.
Fcacciola
Posts: 89
Joined: February 2nd, 2017, 4:32 pm

Re: Reincarnation

Post by Fcacciola »

Scott wrote:What do you think about reincarnation? Do you think that belief in reincarnation compatible with most major religions or not? Do you think a non-religious person can believe in reincarnation?

I guess it depends on how we define reincarnation. In some ways, we get memories (i.e. information and knowledge) passed down to us both genetically and culturally, most notably as instincts. But most people think of reincarnation as more metaphysical than that.

What do you think?
Very nice topic.

Below are my views based on a personal belief system (that I adopted from others by adapting them). I'll try to keep it as short as possible.

Given the topic, let us just postulate the classic dualist view in which we are a soul (or spirit, as I'll call it) temporarily linked to a biological body, that is, incarnate. Of course this can be contended, but there is no point considering re-incarnation without that.

First, let us consider an extreme generalization of what we humans do, separating the essence of our actions from the medium through which these are carried out, and let us imagine what would be the form of these actions if we don't have a biological body (what disincarnate spirits do).

One of the things we humans do, perhaps the most basic of all, is communicate and socialize. We can do that face-to-face, drawing on a cave, sending a telegram, or writing on an Internet forum; forming a circle of friends, a family, a club or a nation. The medium (or channel) of communication, as well as the social structures, changed through the several thousand years we've been here, but the essence remains the same, and it seems simple enough to imagine disincarnate spirits equally communicating and socializing.

Something else that we do is breath, eat, drink and sleep. But all these can be considered to be actions needed to keep our biological body up and running.

The belief system that I'm presenting here includes the proposition that spirits do have an "ethereal body". It is through that body that spirits sense and communicate, and it is in that body that spirits exert their will, that is, express their intent actualizing actions.

While this ethereal body is not physical, hence has no organs, cells, atoms, etc.. it is nonetheless a body, the primal vehicle for the perception and expression of a spirit. Hence, it poses its own set of needs. So, while an incarnate spirit needs to take care of its biological body (and the needs of such a biological body become basic physiological human needs), a disincarnate spirit, also and even more fundamentally, needs to take care of its ethereal body.

On a higher level, other things that we do are go to school and to work. These again can be seen as a human-tailored form of structured interaction. I go to school so I can learn to produce something, which then to produce I go to work, and when I go to work I get money, which in turn allows me to get what other people produce, in exchange for what I produce. Once more, this can be generalized as structured cultural forms of interdependency, and it can be imagined that disincarnate spirits, even in a world without atoms, without water and corn, without heat and cold, are equally interdependent and so construct whatever social structure that better fits that ethereal world.

On an even higher level, we try to make sense of our existence and the reality we are in. Anything we do has an irreversible impact, and as a consequence, at each action we are either closer or farther from whatever it is that we want to be. So we make mistakes and we learn from them as we gain experience and understanding. We try to make sense of everyone else and how what we do affects them, which in turn affects us, and viceversa. This high level of "doing" can even more easily be imagined in the non-physical world of disincarnate spirits.

Now...

Figuring out what to make of ourselves and others, gaining experience and, from that, understanding. Making mistakes and learning, is easier said than done.

According to this belief system, each and every spirit is constantly in its path through that. If, somehow, we measure the distance from where we want to be and where we are, and call that progression or evolution, we all have a timeline that could be visualized as a curve. For some, the curve might consistently go up and up (steady progression). For all the rest of us, the curve goes locally up and down and up and down, and only in the long term, it tends to go up [*1]

Also according to these views, there is a non-physical world populated by spirits and a subset of them choose to incarnate as fast-track to progression.
Since that occurs at a certain moment in time, the spirit that chooses to incarnate has a timeline before that. What is it doing before? whatever spirits do when disincarnate.

According to this belief system, the disincarnate "life" is the norm, and the incarnate life is the exception. So, once a biological lifetime ended (we die as humans), the spirit, now disincarnate, just goes back to its "normal" life, where it continues progression by the normal means.

Each and every time a spirit "lives a human life", it does so because it chooses. Usually, that's multiple, hundreds of times; but it can be just a few, or none at all.

Since the very purpose of living a human life is to fast-track progression, a sequence (always finite) of human (re)-incarnations can be viewed as a straight path to some "high level" of progression or evolution. In practice, it usually is, and spirits transition a finite number of human lives then reach what might be called "purity". However, many spirits just never incarnate at all, either because they have not progressed enough yet to see the point, or because they choose different strategies. Others have "tried" incarnation and decide to do otherwise. Most, however, do fast track straight to "purity" (whatever that means) by sequencing a human life after another.

One important proposition in this belief system is that spirit always incarnate as humans, never, ever, other animals.

Animals, plants, simpler organisms and even matter itself is also incarnation (and re-incarnation) of spirits, except that in this case, these are "fractional spirits" and not "whole units" as in the case of humans.


[*1] I presented the curve as it is usually given, where up is better, yet I mentioned the distance from our desired state to our current state, so, the proper mathematical curve based on that metric would be reverted and go down as we progress further.
User avatar
Papus79
Posts: 1798
Joined: February 19th, 2017, 6:59 pm

Re: Reincarnation

Post by Papus79 »

I'd second that it doesn't take being particularly religious. There seem to be at least a few people who've come to that line of thought from atheism and instead of really subscribing to a particular religion they seem to just prefer to say 'I've repeatedly encountered evidence of X' and leave it at that. Michael Newton, author of Journey of Souls, came to that from findings in hypnotherapy and I get the impression that guys like Dean Radin and Stuart Hameroff are of a similar mindset.

As far as reincarnation in organized religion - clearly it's easier in the East with Hinduism and Buddhism. In the west it's been there but it's more difficult to find since our history has been more Manichaean-Zoroastrian ethos dominated. For philosophies of antiquity you have Platonism, Neoplatonism, and Hermeticism. If you're willing to go with the esoteric versions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam you have Kabbalah, Rosicrucianism, Martinism, the whole Golden Dawn diaspora (essentially neo-Rosicrucian) with which I'd loosely couple Thelema, and Sufism. There seems to be a lot of resurgence of these philosophies in the west and people's desire to find something that matches the current quantum-woo and evidential stories and it typically reflects in the gnosis-oriented traditions.
Humbly watching Youtube in Universe 25. - Me
Fan of Science
Posts: 172
Joined: May 26th, 2017, 1:39 pm

Re: Reincarnation

Post by Fan of Science »

I don't see any credible evidence for reincarnation. I certainly don't believe in it.

Is it compatible with atheism --- sure. The issue of life after death is logically different from the issue of whether a god exists. A god could exist, and there could still be no life after death, or a god may not exist, and there could still be life after death. After all, the existence of life after death would no more provide evidence for a god than life before death does.

Is it compatible with other religions? Depends on the religion, and as an atheist, I am not sure of the answer to this question --- the dogma of various religions simply never interested me enough for me to spend time documenting them.
User avatar
SimpleGuy
Posts: 338
Joined: September 11th, 2017, 12:28 pm

Re: Reincarnation

Post by SimpleGuy »

I think reincarnation in non human human beeings from humans can just supported via a religion like hinduism or buddhism or sometimes christianity. Due to the fact that the simple functionality once represented from the human beeing, is some kind of reduced. Thus a support of a belief is necessary for the single individual to recognize similarities of a beeing , that would have been otherwise never been associated with the beeing itself. Thus the metaphysical layer of reincarnation is in general bound to religious beliefs and not an invariant of metaphysical insight.

-- Updated October 29th, 2017, 9:57 am to add the following --

It's like an attachment to a mail, it depends on the coding to understand it or to see it a useless spam. Once not beeing capable to decode the attached code you can simply delete it as bit garbage.

-- Updated October 29th, 2017, 11:26 am to add the following --

So the butterfly now representing mahatma grunge is not always for everybody perceptible.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Reincarnation

Post by Sy Borg »

Fan of Science wrote:Is it compatible with atheism --- sure. The issue of life after death is logically different from the issue of whether a god exists. A god could exist, and there could still be no life after death, or a god may not exist, and there could still be life after death. After all, the existence of life after death would no more provide evidence for a god than life before death does.
This is a good point. There need not be any deity for reincarnation to occur. If reincarnation is true, it would basically be just be more example of nature recycling itself.

Some figure that the bright light in the void seen by many dying patients is the birth canal of the next life. Apparently the bliss feelings during NDE are the product of a dopamine spike in the dying brain (presumably an animal that experiences bliss when close to death would be much less stressed than one that did not have that relief, and were thus probably more likely to survive). Meanwhile, a birthing baby's brain also enjoys a dopamine spike.

No rest for the wicked, just straight back to work. Brutal :lol:
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Reincarnation

Post by Steve3007 »

For reincarnation to mean anything presumably at least some mental and physical characteristics must be passed on across the barrier of death. In which case, it would presumably have an effect on Natural Selection.

Evolution by Natural Selection is a process by which characteristics which are not beneficial for survival in the current environment tend to result more often in death, before reproducing, than those which are beneficial. Reincarnation could short-circuit this process. If every living thing was reincarnated then presumably it would render the process completely invalid as a description of nature. I wonder if that makes universal reincarnation a testable hypothesis?
User avatar
Papus79
Posts: 1798
Joined: February 19th, 2017, 6:59 pm

Re: Reincarnation

Post by Papus79 »

Steve3007 wrote:Evolution by Natural Selection is a process by which characteristics which are not beneficial for survival in the current environment tend to result more often in death, before reproducing, than those which are beneficial. Reincarnation could short-circuit this process. If every living thing was reincarnated then presumably it would render the process completely invalid as a description of nature. I wonder if that makes universal reincarnation a testable hypothesis?
When people talk about it from an 'in the know' position they usually imply that it's core principles learned that stay and that the fine details of personality other than that don't come across. Not sure how that would impact what you're suggesting but I get the impression that most of our current selection is on genetic/phisiological factors and limits, some on personality to an extent but even there it's closer to being on social alphahood than psychological maturity. If what people are saying is correct, ie. that social alphahood is not the universe's primary value, a lot of what wins in the reproduction market place isn't precisely in line with what the universe is trying to do. That may muddy the hypothesis a little? I suppose as technology rises in good ways and people become more altruistic in general just on less scarcity the results between reincarnation improving humanistic values vs. just more problems solved and less to fight over will be increasingly difficult to distinguish.
Humbly watching Youtube in Universe 25. - Me
Chili
Posts: 392
Joined: September 29th, 2017, 4:59 pm

Re: Reincarnation

Post by Chili »

Steve3007 wrote:For reincarnation to mean anything presumably at least some mental and physical characteristics must be passed on across the barrier of death. In which case, it would presumably have an effect on Natural Selection.

Evolution by Natural Selection is a process by which characteristics which are not beneficial for survival in the current environment tend to result more often in death, before reproducing, than those which are beneficial. Reincarnation could short-circuit this process. If every living thing was reincarnated then presumably it would render the process completely invalid as a description of nature. I wonder if that makes universal reincarnation a testable hypothesis?
We have the paradox of intentionality. Dogs reproduce and natural selection guides the long-term changes. Then Man comes along and also guides the process. From a reductionist view, man's actions are just more physics, just more natural selection. But the development of dogs is intricately linked with the machinations (however blind and deterministic) of Man. If there is a dualistic soul realm, perhaps whatever dramas play out there relate to human evolution.

So many of the dramas which are expressed in reincarnation lore are so similar to what we see in plain old human life. Love, pain, guilt - perhaps impressionable young brains are influenced by these echoes just as they might be by movies and story books.

If reincarnation is all about the soul's move toward perfection, then people don't really need to remember anything. An individual life can play out just as it would without reincarnation, and the soul (oversoul?) learns lessons over time and chooses the next clueless unremembering life appropriately, balancing its karmas in the process.

-- Updated October 30th, 2017, 12:51 pm to add the following --

Interesting to see what sci-fi authors do with some of these topics. In Babylon 5, by the way, *spoilers*:

From Wikipedia:
"Earth has just barely survived an accidental war with the much more powerful Minbari, who, despite their superior technology, mysteriously surrendered at the brink of the destruction of the human race ... Minbari people believe in reincarnation. ... the central reason behind the Minbari stopping their genocidal war with the humans, ... they had found that Minbari souls were reborn in human bodies ... Commander Jeffrey Sinclair is in charge of the station. Much of the story revolves around his gradual discovery that it was his capture by the Minbari at the Battle of the Line which ended the war against Earth. Upon capturing Sinclair, the Minbari came to believe that he was the reincarnation of Valen, a great Minbari leader and hero of the last ... war."
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Reincarnation

Post by Sy Borg »

Steve3007 wrote:For reincarnation to mean anything presumably at least some mental and physical characteristics must be passed on across the barrier of death. In which case, it would presumably have an effect on Natural Selection.
When has nature ever had a need to "mean anything"? :)

It may simply be a natural process that keeps us pinned to life like bugs on a pinning block, as the Buddhists supposed.
Steve3007 wrote:Evolution by Natural Selection is a process by which characteristics which are not beneficial for survival in the current environment tend to result more often in death, before reproducing, than those which are beneficial. Reincarnation could short-circuit this process. If every living thing was reincarnated then presumably it would render the process completely invalid as a description of nature. I wonder if that makes universal reincarnation a testable hypothesis?
Do we know every factor behind every single gene inherited? I understand that there is a fair bit of "junk DNA", most of which has either no functions or affects (or unknown one )in the sequencing of amino acids. Seemingly junk DNA is an element of chaos in an otherwise ordered system, leaving plenty of room for theoretical metaphysical interference.

A quote from Wiki (Anatta article - I don't much care for the anti Wiki rule here :)
The Buddha criticized the doctrine that posited an unchanging soul as a subject as the basis of rebirth and karmic moral responsibility, which he called "atthikavāda". He also criticized the materialistic doctrine that denied the existence of both soul and rebirth, and thereby denied karmic moral responsibility, which he calls "natthikavāda". Instead, the Buddha asserted that there is no soul, but there is rebirth for which karmic moral responsibility is a must. In the Buddha's framework of karma, right view and right actions are necessary for liberation.
As is typical of Buddhism, ambiguous and contradictory. When I was young and credulous this "bait and switch" really bothered me. I felt like I was lacking insight, when in truth what I was being told was contradictory.

So let's parse the doubletalk - "there is no soul, but there is rebirth". What is reborn then must be something other than a soul. Given the irritating Buddhist avoidance of being pinned down on their claims, let's have a go at this (maybe I'm being too hard on Buddhists since the the Bible too included passages about reincarnation, removed by godly scribes around 600AD, fearful that the idea of annihilation at death would result in hedonism and irresponsibility).

The only possibility left is the idea that, as with an ants' nest, an individual's particular characteristics are far less significant than its reflection of greater wholes - of subcultures, cultures, species and life itself. In that sense, as with Kubrick's marines in Full Metal Jacket, the individual may die but "the Corps lives on".

If I examine myself, considering how much of "me" is reflective of life, species and culture, what do I find left over? A collection of peccadilloes, aptitudes, weaknesses and tendencies, none of which are unique, only the combination. As with our cells, when we die any local surrounding "cells" are impacted most, but the rest of the systems of which we are part will be unaffected. I suppose then that an afterlife is inevitable for those who identify with larger, surviving entities such as humanity or biology, the Earth or Sun. The fate of subjective consciousness is rendered moot in this big picture view.

Probabilities make one thing is certain: at any given moment in your life the way you think and feel will have largely echoed the thoughts of feelings of numerous people before you and will be echoed by many in the future. It's only the above-mentioned unique combination of non unique elements that makes us "us", the tip of the iceberg - the most visible part of us while the "concealed" bulk of our sensibilities are fairly typical of the larger groupings of which we are each only a constituent.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Reincarnation

Post by Steve3007 »

Greta:
When has nature ever had a need to "mean anything"? :)
I meant that for the word "reincarnation" to mean anything, something must be passed on. If I say that I'm the reincarnation of some previous person or other living thing then it must be because I think there's something I have inherited from it/him/her - a memory, a personality trait, a physical feature or whatever. Otherwise the term "reincarnated" is identical in meaning to the term "not reincarnated". And if a word is identical to its negation then it doesn't mean anything.

This does indeed seem to be what people claim about reincarnation - that it represents the passing on (inheritance) of something through the barrier of death. Since one of the key features of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is inheritance, this would therefore presumably have a selective effect. It may not be possible to see what the effect is, just as it may not be possible in more conventional forms of inheritance. But it must inevitably be there.
...The only possibility left is the idea that, as with an ants' nest, an individual's particular characteristics are far less significant than its reflection of greater wholes - of subcultures, cultures, species and life itself. In that sense, as with Kubrick's marines in Full Metal Jacket, the individual may die but "the Corps lives on".
I like the US Marine Corps analogy!

So, if "there is no soul, but there is rebirth" then, regardless of what we call it, something is re-born. Something is passed on. Something is inherited. As you've said here, it may be some kind of collective characteristic, as is possessed by ants or marines. But clearly natural selection works on these collective characteristics of ants just as it does on individual characteristics. Ants have evolved to be pretty successful.
If I examine myself, considering how much of "me" is reflective of life, species and culture, what do I find left over? A collection of peccadilloes, aptitudes, weaknesses and tendencies, none of which are unique, only the combination. As with our cells, when we die any local surrounding "cells" are impacted most, but the rest of the systems of which we are part will be unaffected. I suppose then that an afterlife is inevitable for those who identify with larger, surviving entities such as humanity or biology, the Earth or Sun. The fate of subjective consciousness is rendered moot in this big picture view.
I'm not sure what you're saying here, but if you're saying that reincarnation is the passing on of general non-personal characteristics via our genes, using reproduction, then I wouldn't call that reincarnation. I'd just call it normal reproduction. My kids are not reincarnations of me. At least not as I understand that term.
Probabilities make one thing is certain: at any given moment in your life the way you think and feel will have largely echoed the thoughts of feelings of numerous people before you and will be echoed by many in the future. It's only the above-mentioned unique combination of non unique elements that makes us "us", the tip of the iceberg - the most visible part of us while the "concealed" bulk of our sensibilities are fairly typical of the larger groupings of which we are each only a constituent.
Yes, again, this seems to me to be nothing to do with reincarnation, as I understand that term. It's normal inheritance - the "immortal" (or at least very long lived) human genome that (metaphorically) uses individual, mortal humans as its vehicle.

-- Updated Wed Nov 01, 2017 8:41 am to add the following --

My point was that if reincarnation (as I understand that concept) really happens then it represents an extra way to pass on characteristics, on top of the more usual way of making little versions of ourselves using copies of our genes. If I am deemed to be the reincarnation of a mouse that lived in the 1940s, or Henry Tudor (or whatever), then it must be because I have inherited something from them. And not because I'm genetically descended from them. So it would be an extra mechanism by which Natural Selection could work.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Reincarnation

Post by Sy Borg »

Steve3007 wrote:
If I examine myself, considering how much of "me" is reflective of life, species and culture, what do I find left over? A collection of peccadilloes, aptitudes, weaknesses and tendencies, none of which are unique, only the combination. As with our cells, when we die any local surrounding "cells" are impacted most, but the rest of the systems of which we are part will be unaffected. I suppose then that an afterlife is inevitable for those who identify with larger, surviving entities such as humanity or biology, the Earth or Sun. The fate of subjective consciousness is rendered moot in this big picture view.
I'm not sure what you're saying here, but if you're saying that reincarnation is the passing on of general non-personal characteristics via our genes, using reproduction, then I wouldn't call that reincarnation. I'd just call it normal reproduction. My kids are not reincarnations of me. At least not as I understand that term.
The kind of reincarnation for which you are questioning - one that might act like a second layer of natural inheritance, doesn't seem to exist, and not even the Buddhists think it does. But, as you noted, "something" lives on.

So what I'm saying is that if you identify as part of the Earth, then only the local "you" dies when you die - you live on as part of Gaia, or whatever. Just as in the Kubrick film, a marine does but the corps live on - if they identify strongly enough with the marines. Another example, some families have that kind of identification. For indigenous people it was the spirits of the land. For some people it's their nation or religion. Basically, if something is more important to you than life itself (aside from sprogs) then you live on in a sense.

It's this kind of broader identification (with the Big Kahuna of the universe, no less) that brings one "immortality". If you identify with the universe then you live that long. If you identify with the Big Kahuna and its timelessness, then you are effectively immortal. I suspect that this was basically what religion was supposed to be about before it become politicised (more or less immediately).
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Reincarnation

Post by Steve3007 »

Greta:
So what I'm saying is that if you identify as part of the Earth, then only the local "you" dies when you die - you live on as part of Gaia, or whatever. Just as in the Kubrick film, a marine does but the corps live on - if they identify strongly enough with the marines. Another example, some families have that kind of identification. For indigenous people it was the spirits of the land. For some people it's their nation or religion. Basically, if something is more important to you than life itself (aside from sprogs) then you live on in a sense.
Yes, I can see that. Another example from fiction: In the George Orwell novel, 1984, O'Brian describes to Winston Smith how the death of an individual party member does not matter. The Party, as a collective, is immortal.
It's this kind of broader identification (with the Big Kahuna of the universe, no less) that brings one "immortality". If you identify with the universe then you live that long. If you identify with the Big Kahuna and its timelessness, then you are effectively immortal. I suspect that this was basically what religion was supposed to be about before it become politicised (more or less immediately).
Yes, I see. I get that point. And perhaps, as I think you're suggesting, the idea of reincarnation, in Buddhism, is actually a reflection of this idea of being a small part of something bigger, and more long-lived, than oneself. So it does actually also tie into the idea of the selfish gene.

-- Updated Fri Nov 03, 2017 11:05 am to add the following --

If they ever manage to map the genome of Oysters, I wonder if they'll write a book called "The Shellfish Gene".
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021