Famous Quotes on Reincarnation

[Prober]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Prober,

You said,

"You were born in...well, nevermind...you wouldn't believe me..."

--> The place Boston comes to mind for me.

For China's birthplace?

[Nick the Pilot]

Snoopy,

You said,

"I think the prevailing culture in the time of the Buddha included belief in an eternal "soul" (Western word I know) that passed on to another life...."

--> I agree, although I believe almost every Buddhist in the world would disagree. Modern Buddhists do not believe in a soul. As a matter of fact, Buddhists do not use the word reincarnation, as you point out below. They only use the word rebirth, to distinguish their non-belief in a soul from those who do.

This is a key difference between Buddhism and Theosophy, as Theosophy teaches the idea of a soul, and Buddhism does not.

"I suppose it goes with a view of the universe / time being cyclical rather than linear."

--> The idea of cycles is an important Theosophical/Buddhist idea.

"The Buddha rather heretically said that there is no unchanging 'soul' that passes on, which is why the (Hindu) notion of reincarnation cannot really be said to be the same in Buddhism (where it is more usually termed rebirth)."

--> This always turns into a heated debate, one side saying Buddha did not deny the existence of a soul, the other side saying he clearly taught against it. To me, this is as big a controversy as whether the Bible supports reincarnation. I think the debate will not end we reach Enlightenment (or all become psychic....)

"However, whether or not rebirth occurs is not an impediment to making a useful understanding of the teaching of the Buddha."

--> As I said, there are two sides to the question, and the debate continues.

[Nick the Pilot]

Earl,

You said,

"...ask a Buddhist which school of Buddhism is best hmmm...think that might be like asking a Christian which denomination is truly Christian."

--> There are different kinds of people, so we need different kinds of people. Theosophy strongly supports the idea of different kinds of religions, and says one religion will not work for everyone.

[Nick the Pilot]

Prober,

You said,

"For China's birthplace?"

--> That is just a wild guess. (Let's see how close I get....)

[earl]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Hi,

I think the prevailing culture in the time of the Buddha included belief in an eternal "soul" (Western word I know) that passed on to another life and this is known as reincarnation. I suppose it goes with a view of the universe / time being cyclical rather than linear.

The Buddha rather heretically said that there is no unchanging "soul" that passes on, which is why the (Hindu) notion of reincarnation cannot really be said to be the same in Buddhism (where it is more usually termed rebirth). However, whether or not rebirth occurs is not an impediment to making a useful understanding of the teaching of the Buddha.

s.

What you've just said, Snoopy, is indeed the Buddhist party line. But am not sure how much difference exists really beween the notions of reincarnation & rebirth when you look at how those concepts are embraced in Tibetan Buddhism in their tulku system. Afterall, they typically think of a tulku as a reincarnation of a Buddhist master. I had recently posted a link to an article that I though gave a good overview of how their thinking works as re tulkus as well as how they go about identifying tulkus at an early age on the reincarnation thread in the "regular" Christianity forum:

The Tribune - Windows - Featured story

have a good one all, earl

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Snoopy,

You said,

"I think the prevailing culture in the time of the Buddha included belief in an eternal "soul" (Western word I know) that passed on to another life...."

--> I agree, although I believe almost every Buddhist in the world would disagree.

Huh? Maybe a mis-communication on my part? By soul, I meant Atman. This indeed is a fundamental rejection by the Buddhist teaching I believe, so I'm not sure how the "every Buddhist in the world" disagreeing bit comes about?

s.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

"I had no idea there was this back story going on…."

--> Sorry about that. (Maybe I should sent out a PM to certain people whenever I start a new thread….)

Oh silly, of course you don't need to do that. I only saw Andrew's post in the C forum and did not understand why he made it...now I understand. I probably would have still answered his post in much the same way, except with greater understanding and acknowledging his hurt and sense of injustice having been done.

"I'm sorrowful that Andrew feels he has been stomped upon and so has withdrawn again from our company…."

I hope he finds equanimity, and rejoins us.

My hope is for all of us to find peace and live in love and respect, and I too hope he rejoins us.

"… you are making more or less the same point Thomas does, and that I did in the other thread, that reincarnation and resurrection are not compatible ideas..."

--> I agree.

"Is the implication then that if you accept evidence of reincarnation that pretty much throws all of orthodox Christianity out the window?"

--> Unfortunately, I agree.

What's unfortunate about it?

"My sister often talks of her past lives but it's still not clear me how literally even she understands this kind of belief."

--> I would love to hear more about your sister’s situation.

Perhaps I will ask her to join us and explain it herself. We've not talked about it in any detail, but she refers to it sometimes.

"I made a thread in another forum a while back titled "My karma ran over your dogma." I think I may have even first heard that line somewhere here on this forum, but I can't remember for sure."

--> I think I remember seeing a bumper-sticker like that.

Thanks to earl for that one I see.

"…grace breaks the cycle of karma."

--> See my response to Thomas’ post.

I may reply to some of that post as well, if that's OK.

" I know next to nothing about reincarnation in Hinduism or Buddhism."

--> Feel free to ask questions. I have spent many years studying both religions.

It seems to a pretty big field of inquiry, with almost as many answers as there are schools of thought on the subject. But I will ask for clarification when I don't understand something in particular, thank you.

"… how did the first bad karma happen?"

--> The first time we intentionally hurt someone.

I think my question is related to Thomas' about 'original sin,' how did the big wheel of karmic debt and payment get spinning. I probably have a heterodox view of the Fall and 'original sin'...I'm not sure. Actually I think I'm close to Eastern Orthodox in much of my interpretation of these things, and EO does not accept original sin.

"Forgive. Judge not, for as you judge you shall be judged. It is not quid pro quo, it is being loved in spite of the fact that we are unlovable (to paraphrase Paul Tillech)."

--> Master Po, the Buddhist master in the TV series Kung Fu, said, "Some people receive injury, but return kindness."

You quoted Luke 6. Being non-judgmental is a key Theosophical teaching.

"Grace, Love, Forgiveness. Karma. Whatcha think?"

--> I hope my post to Thomas has answered your question.

Thank you Nick, I'll go to your reply to Thomas next.

luna

[Nick the Pilot]

Snoopy,

I agree. Hinduism teaches the Atma, while Christianity teaches the soul. There is a big difference between the two. Theosophy teaches both concepts, and distinguishes the two.

You said,

"I'm not sure how the 'every Buddhist in the world' disagreeing bit comes about?"

--> This may just be a confusion of terms. Almost every Buddhist in the world disagrees with the idea of a soul/Atman, and fundamentally (as in dogmatically) rejects it. I agreed with you that Buddha did teach the idea of Atman.

(Atman is the dictionary form, Atma is the bound form.)

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by earl

What you've just said, Snoopy, is indeed the Buddhist party line. But am not sure how much difference exists really beween the notions of reincarnation & rebirth when you look at how those concepts are embraced in Tibetan Buddhism in their tulku system. Afterall, they typically think of a tulku as a reincarnation of a Buddhist master.

Hi,

Thanks for that.

"The tradition of the reincarnation is a peculiar feature of Vajrayana. It is connected with the concept of bardo, the intermediate period between birth and rebirth." - from the article.

It doesn't help when the two words are used interchangably (as often occurs).

I do still see a difficulty in the idea of reincarnation when set against some of the fundamental teachings of the Buddha. Possibly my failure in understanding...

s.

[Nick the Pilot]

Luna,

You asked,

"What's unfortunate about it?"

--> It is unfortunate because Theosophy rejects a great deal of orthodox Chrisitian teachings — the more we disagree, the more difficulty there is for the two of us to communicate.

At present, the gap between the two sets of teachings is huge.

"I'm close to Eastern Orthodox in much of my interpretation of these things, and EO does not accept original sin."

--> Please explain your belief regarding Original Sin.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Snoopy,

I agree. Hinduism teaches the Atma, while Christianity teaches the soul. There is a big difference between the two. Theosophy teaches both concepts, and distinguishes the two.

You said,

"I'm not sure how the 'every Buddhist in the world' disagreeing bit comes about?"

--> This may just be a confusion of terms. Almost every Buddhist in the world disagrees with the idea of a soul/Atman, and fundamentally (as in dogmatically) rejects it. I agreed with you that Buddha did teach the idea of Atman.

(Atman is the dictionary form, Atma is the bound form.)

Hi,

yes I think we're clear now!!

s.

[lunamoth]

Big questions Nick! I'm looking forward to answering them, although I don't have time right now to address them fully. A couple of comments:

[quote]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Luna,

You asked,

"What's unfortunate about it?"

--> It is unfortunate because Theosophy rejects a great deal of orthodox Chrisitian teachings — the more we disagree, the more difficulty there is for the two of us to communicate.

I don't see that this needs to be a barrier to communication if we accept that there these different religions are, as Vaj says, "valid spiritual refuges," or perhaps different vehicles is a better analogy. I like the airplane analogy myself. There are certain basic features required to get it off the ground, but there are also differences between different models. You may be able to find one-to-one correlation between some parts so that they are interchangelable, but there are many parts that just won't work in the other models. But, you use the right parts for the right model and it flies.

At present, the gap between the two sets of teachings is huge.

I don't see it as a gap that requires filling, but I can understand how theosophy might view it that way.

"I'm close to Eastern Orthodox in much of my interpretation of these things, and EO does not accept original sin."

--> Please explain your belief regarding Original Sin.

I'll return to this, perhaps in a new thread.

luna

[Thomas]

Hi Earl, and all –

If you can, Earl, try and get hold of "The Sword of Gnosis", edited by Jacob Needleman. Among the essays are a collection by Marco Pallis which are germain to the discussion of Grace, especially in Buddhism:

'Discovering the Interior Life', 'Is the a Problem of Evil', 'Living One's Karma' and 'Is There Room for Grace in Buddhism?' - to which the answer was a 'yes', and then an explanation of 'grace' in a Buddhist context.

Marco Pallis was a Greek convert to Tibetan Buddhism, and held no little authority for his commentaries. When the Dalai Lama was unable to deliver a lecture (the first in the essays above), he asked that Pallis act in his stead.

+++

Hang on ... Tariki and I discussed this:
http://www.comparative-religion.com/...llis#post58786

The list is worth a look, but I've extracted a comment:

Pallis demonstrates, however, the centrality of grace in Buddhism despite its non-personalist and non-theist perspective. He relates grace to enlightenment and shows how the attractive influence of enlightenment strikes the consciousness of human beings who stand on the axis of Buddha-hood as at once invitation to enlightenment, companionship of enlightenment, and reminders of enlightenment. In connection with the latter, he discusses the incredible spiritual presence of the sacred image of the Buddha and the role of traditional Buddhist art, especially in its iconic form, in transmitting a sacred presence which cannot be called anything but grace.
(Emphasis mine - Thomas)


+++

Thomas

[Thomas]

Hi Nick –

An interesting but much wider point, draws from when you say:
"Unfortunately (for Christians), this flies right in the face of the forgeiveness of sins. Both forgiveness and karma just cannot happen...."

Which I would say stems from a Theosophist perspective at odds with a Christian understanding, founded on Scripture (which lies at the heart of all Christian/Theosophist dispute):

Matthew 9:6:
But that you may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins...

Mark 2:7:
But that you may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins...

Luke 5:24:
But that you may know that the Son of man hath the power on earth to forgive sins...

The agreement of the text in all three gospels signifies their origin from an original, proto-gospel text, be it the so-called Q document, or my own favour, an Aramaic Matthew no longer extant.

This presents the miracle workings of Christ in a specific context: not mere demonstrations of power, but rather that the miracles performed make a point, the forgiveness of sin being one in particular, and the identity of Jesus Christ in general. In short, the miracles confirm the words, and the words explain the miracles ... that God can do as He wills.

Thomas

[lunamoth]

Hi Nick, If you'll permit, just a quick comment:

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> Technically, no. When something unexpectedly good happens to someone, you call it Grace. I call it the ripening of good karma.

This is not how I understand grace.

Grace is unconditional love, and it is a state in which we live, not just those good things that happen to us. Grace is still operative when we are suffering, in fact this is when it can help us the most, when we are at the end of our rope. Granted, all that we have is from God, Providence, but that's a little different from grace.

2 c,
luna