Joyful

Gospel and Reincarnation

Recommended Posts

Hi all!  I am of the belief that we are most defiantly recycled!  Having been told I am over 10,000 years old and some days I most defiantly feel like it.  I truly believe we are reincarnated.  I do not believe we go through steps like being a animal and progressing up to a human.  I do believe we are sent back into different situations to each learn or teach and most times both. I know of a few of my past lives.  One I was a monk and one an orphan.  Would love to hear your thoughts and experiences with this!

Share this post


Link to post

I am not sure what the Buddhist texts say about soul transfer in their texts. I didn't take to studying that part in depth. It is a curious question, though!

I could be wrong; I think the Dalai Lama mentioned somewhere just as you have mentioned about your beliefs, that reincarnation isn't a progression up or down a hierarchical food chain. (e.g. if human, always reincarnated as human.)

To me that would create somewhat of a caste system, based on how humanity approaches the value of life.

 

Once a cockroach, always a cockroach? The creatures do serve a purpose even if it is not my purpose! However, I am unable to reconcile being stuck as a cockroach for 10,000 years for myself.

 

I am of the belief that soul energy will return to serve the purpose which is most needed at the time. If I am needed to be a cricket for two days, a bee for a month... I am continuously part of a plan and purpose that is in a process of seeking balance and harmony.

 

I was once told that I was a peasant who lived in Spain in the 1400s or something like that. It didn't resonate with me. Something else might have. That one not so much. :huh:

 

:purpleheart:

Share this post


Link to post

something to keep in mind,not all buddhists(or hindus)believe in reincarnation,and transmigration of"your soul"is a different ballgame.

 

for myself,i do believe i have been"here"before,and will be again.do i believe i will come back as human?yes.do i believe i would come back as a  cockroach ?no.but i do think that i have lessons i have learned,some i haven't learned yet,and some i just plain screwed up and need to re learn.

Edited by mark 45

Share this post


Link to post

I have recently wondered about Buddhism, and I suppose differing branches is the explanation.  I have read that Buddhists don't believe in a soul.  But also in the same book, that they do believe(usually) in reincarnation...but I cannot fathom how a being without a soul could reincarnate.  Can anyone clarify for me?

Share this post


Link to post

I'll reference Lion's Roar since they are a well respected publisher of Buddhist concepts and manage to intermingle the different aspects of east/west traditional/modern decently well.

 

Do Buddhists Believe in a Soul

 

Essentially what is called a soul is a matter of vernacular.  Some say soul, some say Buddhanature with a caveat that there is no ego attached. Therefore it is more of a nature or incorporeal force than a corporeal "spirit" or "entity."

 

(What I referred to as 'soul energy' earlier; for the purpose of reincarnation - said energy would incorporate itself into a new form. -->incarnation.)

 

 

Edited by Senior Lightworker Lucas
edited for clarification

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting. I guess it's a different idea of what a soul is perhaps?

 

I have always thought of the soul as the energy consciousness of us without the ego anyway. Spirit seems to me attached here due to the ego, earthly attachments, fear, etc.even when disembodied. I read somewhere there is research going on having to do with ego being related to or somehow connected to environment and our personal biochemical makeup, or perhaps strongly affected by it. I don't recall where I read it, if it's being privately done or scientifically and publicly funded though I'd think if it was publically funded it would be posted and updated some were regularly. I'll have to dig a bit for that some time I guess.

It seems back in the 70s there were a lot of scientific and spiritual blends of research, some leaning more one way or the other. Because it's an unseen element in the physical sense, it's as difficult as air to nail down or wild energy to control.  Being a mom, a wife and having headaches that limit my reading time (always had them off and on) I can't seem to dig as often or as deep as I'd like to.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, AmberLF said:

Interesting. I guess it's a different idea of what a soul is perhaps?

 

I have always thought of the soul as the energy consciousness of us without the ego anyway. Spirit seems to me attached here due to the ego, earthly attachments, fear, etc.even when disembodied. I read somewhere there is research going on having to do with ego being related to or somehow connected to environment and our personal biochemical makeup, or perhaps strongly affected by it. I don't recall where I read it, if it's being privately done or scientifically and publicly funded though I'd think if it was publically funded it would be posted and updated some were regularly. I'll have to dig a bit for that some time I guess.

It seems back in the 70s there were a lot of scientific and spiritual blends of research, some leaning more one way or the other. Because it's an unseen element in the physical sense, it's as difficult as air to nail down or wild energy to control.  Being a mom, a wife and having headaches that limit my reading time (always had them off and on) I can't seem to dig as often or as deep as I'd like to.

 

Like so many other religious questions.  Opinions are many and diverse; and facts are few indeed.  

 

We are not going to come to any conclusions, until we can define the basic terms.  Even then, I see much diversity and little agreement.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/17/2017 at 4:33 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

Like so many other religious questions.  Opinions are many and diverse; and facts are few indeed.  

 

We are not going to come to any conclusions, until we can define the basic terms.  Even then, I see much diversity and little agreement.  

 

 

Absolutely we won't come to any overall conclusions. I'm pretty sure it isn't going to be possible as long as fundamentalist ideas of any religious belief system exists. It doesn't hurt (well, not usually anyway) for more reasonable people to discuss those beliefs and differences, even if we don't follow them or believe them ourselves.

Share this post


Link to post

I think it is detrimental to any debate to have multiple definitions of the same thing.  The energy in the body is called soul by some, chi by some, buddhanature by some, spirit, and so forth...but it's all referencing the same thing while insisting it isn't that thing at all.  Without one working definition, it makes the concept difficult to discuss.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, cuchulain said:

I think it is detrimental to any debate to have multiple definitions of the same thing.  The energy in the body is called soul by some, chi by some, buddhanature by some, spirit, and so forth...but it's all referencing the same thing while insisting it isn't that thing at all.  Without one working definition, it makes the concept difficult to discuss.

 

 

Much like "God", "Chi" is an elusive concept.  So is "energy" outside of physics.  So is "spirit" and "Spirit".  None to be confused with "spirits".  Then we have "spiritual" which does not help understanding.  

 

What then is "soul"?  We don't have the words in common.  

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Share this post


Link to post

Keep in mind that in Zen, there is no "self."  The ego is an illusion that we convince ourselves (yeah, yeah, I know...) is real when in fact there is no one specific central THING that makes you... You.

 

For example, take a teacup.  It has a bowl, an inside, an outside, and a bottom.  What what makes it TEACUP?  If we take away any one of the pieces that go into "teacup" the thing is no longer "teacup."  This is the nature of dependent origination.

 

Dependent origination recognizes that in order to be something, the whole is only what which it is because of other things.  Take away any one of the parts that go into "the thing" and it is no longer what it was, like peeling an onion.  Keep peeling and eventually you no longer have "an onion" but a collection of pieces.

 

Does that make sense?

 

Br. Shoshin

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Geordon said:

Keep in mind that in Zen, there is no "self."  The ego is an illusion that we convince ourselves (yeah, yeah, I know...) is real when in fact there is no one specific central THING that makes you... You.

 

For example, take a teacup.  It has a bowl, an inside, an outside, and a bottom.  What what makes it TEACUP?  If we take away any one of the pieces that go into "teacup" the thing is no longer "teacup."  This is the nature of dependent origination.

 

Dependent origination recognizes that in order to be something, the whole is only what which it is because of other things.  Take away any one of the parts that go into "the thing" and it is no longer what it was, like peeling an onion.  Keep peeling and eventually you no longer have "an onion" but a collection of pieces.

 

Does that make sense?

 

Br. Shoshin

 

 

Maybe.  When I'm cooking and I need an onion -- I don't trouble myself about the essences of onion.  I cut it up and throw it into the pot.  

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, cuchulain said:

i get stuck on that concept.  if i lose my hand, i am still me.

How much of your brain can you lose and still be you? Serious question...

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, mererdog said:

How much of your brain can you lose and still be you? Serious question...

i dont know. are all brains wired the same, does the rest naturally compensate for missing pieces, are thought patterns changed in the loss?  and am i evolving regularly enough that i am different even without brain damage?

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

i dont know. are all brains wired the same, does the rest naturally compensate for missing pieces, are thought patterns changed in the loss?  and am i evolving regularly enough that i am different even without brain damage?

It's quite a rabbit hole, isn't it? Absent a supernatural "I" like a soul there must reasonably be a limit to how much brain we can lose before the "I" goes away. But how much? Which parts? If you lose you memories but not your personality? If you lose your personality but not your memory? If you put coffee in a teacup, is it still a teacup?

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/8/2018 at 2:58 PM, cuchulain said:

i get stuck on that concept.  if i lose my hand, i am still me.

 

You are still you, but is the hand still you?  Is a blood sample taken still you, or is it no longer part of you?  Is a tissue biopsy still you, once cut out?

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, cuchulain said:

 and am i evolving regularly enough that i am different even without brain damage?

 

As a one-time student of psychology (my undergraduate degree), I can state with absolute certainty that you are no longer the "you" that you were at 6 months, 8 years, 18 years, or when you got/get married or spawn children.  In a cosmological sense, they say that after so many years (I forget the exact number) that none of your cells are the same ones that were there X number of years prior.  

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, Geordon said:

 

As a one-time student of psychology (my undergraduate degree), I can state with absolute certainty that you are no longer the "you" that you were at 6 months, 8 years, 18 years, or when you got/get married or spawn children.  In a cosmological sense, they say that after so many years (I forget the exact number) that none of your cells are the same ones that were there X number of years prior.  

 

 

Yes, but there's continuity.  The cells are replaced slowly.

 

If you want angst, consider the case of someone who is teleported.  Is it the same person?  Or a duplicate?     :D

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Geordon said:

 

You are still you, but is the hand still you?  Is a blood sample taken still you, or is it no longer part of you?  Is a tissue biopsy still you, once cut out?

 

 

I don't know if it's true.  I read about one of the victims of 9/11.  One of the people whose remains were never recovered.  His grieving family wanted something for the coffin, so they tracked down his blood donation -- and buried that.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now