Reincarnation revisited, not really

by Lily Sun Apr 18th, 2010 at 02:10:00 PM EST

Many moons ago, I wrote a diary on this blog from amidst my own spiritual journey and in which I explained the truth I had found in the idea of reincarnation, as it can be found in Eastern philosophies.

I found that reincarnation would explain injustice in this world or the unequal distribution of pain and suffering. Besides, ever-reincarnating souls would also provide an explanation for the rapid growth of our world population with the problems pertaining to it that are also a sign of biblical "end times".

I knew I wasn't the first to put forward such view and to associate it with Christianity.

I had tried to talk with other Christians about my views, not many, but they either did not react, were not interested or simply indifferent towards my findings. With no proof of the contrary, I felt confirmed in my newly found convictions and shared them here.

The ensuing debate revolved more around the existence or not of a god than my new discovery. I hadn't meant to proselytise this blog though the underpinning of my diary had been my faith in God.

Time has passed since, and my faith has been questioned, i.e. not my faith in God but my comforting views on reincarnation. For myself, it was surprising and particularly painful to learn that what I had believed to be true would finally be a misconception and not compatible with Christianity. I had asked earlier and found no criticism, mainly just indifference. Meanwhile, this wrong belief had become part of me, like my second skin.

It explained so wonderfully what I hadn't been able to understand or accept before about our suffering, and it acknowledged the reality of a belief prevalent in large parts of humanity. I felt judged by this criticism and through the arguments that stood against my convictions, also in the name of Hindus and others. Everything in me revolted against letting go of it.

This was an almost incredible experience, and I assume that I appeared almost ridiculous in it. I did not grow tired of asking, "Why? But why?" -

The idea of reincarnation fit so beautifully into what I wanted to believe in. It was almost too good to be true. But can anything be any good at all when we're not aware of what is True and what is Real? Can what others tell us to accept as true ever be the criterion? I believe that we need reference points that reach beyond our own (self) interests.

Eventually, I became aware of the mistake. I call it a mistake though its measure was not scientific evidence but the precepts of the Christian faith. I struggled but felt relieved because I dropped this distorted reality in my life.

This was the beginning of a larger process of transformation and change that I'm still undergoing . I'm peeling off onion layers one by one, or some outer force, God, is there that pushes me to continue the work begun. A friend of mine talked of `revolution'.

I also heard somebody say that from a Christian point of view, "sin" refers to a missed target. It has no substance in itself. It means that something is not the way it is supposed to be. Truth can correct this wrong and induce necessary change by which, little by little, our selves become purified and grow in the likeness of God. This sounds high-flying and easy but it is not.

I am still in the middle of this revolutionary process. My change of mind didn't end with dropping the idea of reincarnation. I am already in another painful but necessary change process and not sure where this is going to lead me. Letting go always comes with a loss of security and comfort. It is destabilising and scary. Everything may look chaotic around oneself when we're in the middle of it. We feel lost. The good thing to know is, that out of the chaos arises, a new order.

Out of the feeling of being totally lost, I wrote to a friend a couple of days ago, and she replied that it was amazing to see that the chaos was always producing order in the end. She had already seen this in my words - while I had not.

I sincerely hope that this diary won't stir any trouble. I simply felt the need to correct my earlier assumptions. I have not gone into detail to show why exactly I don't believe in reincarnation anymore since that earlier debate didn't revolve so much around this particular question, either but more around the existence of God. I have found explanations within the Christian faith. Should anybody be interested in those, I can get into more detail about them but I've discussed these questions already a few months ago, so would need some time to reply. Ultimately, though, it will remain a matter of faith.

Reincarnation revisited, not really | 21 comments (21 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: Reincarnation revisited, not really (4.00 / 5)

May I request a "Tip Jar" so I can give you some mojo?

You have guts and Intellectual Integrity and THAT combination deserves respect.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Mon Apr 19th, 2010 at 12:23:18 AM EST

I second ATinNM's comment (4.00 / 4)

and for what it's worth, will throw in an anecdote which my uncle told me years after it happened (I had no personal recollection of it).

When I was five years old, my family was visiting him, and one day when he, my mother and I were riding in the back of a car, I looked up at him to size him up and for some reason asked: "Uncle, how can I go to heaven?" Taken off guard, he was annoyed, too. (He called me a "cheeky brat" as he recounted the story.) For he was a proud atheist but at the same time, he knew that my mother was a devout Catholic. So he was in a bind. Quickly, he came up with the following answer: "Just keep walking forward, putting one foot in front of the other, and one day you'll get there." (My mother, knowing him, had been expecting something much more mischievous. He recalled with glee the look of surprise, relief and new found admiration in her expression.)

I had to admit, that was some swift thinking on his feet -- and it wasn't such bad advice either.

And while it may be a bit melodramatic for this context, I was reminded of ARGeezer's signature while reading your diary and remembering my own bouts of confusion involving "Big Questions":

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

The point is not to be right, but to get to right.

by marco on Mon Apr 19th, 2010 at 07:35:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reincarnation revisited, not really (4.00 / 2)

Thank you ATinNM and others. I only have time in the evenings right now. So, I'm going to reply some more tomorrow.

by Lily (put - lilyalmond - here <a> yahaah.france) on Mon Apr 19th, 2010 at 05:34:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reincarnation revisited, not really (4.00 / 2)

There's no reason for this diary to cause any trouble. Thank you for telling us about the development of your belief.

Personally, I think the order that may come out of chaos is self-chosen, meaning that it is likely to be a pattern that it is helpful or comforting (or energizing or joy-bringing) for us to see. It may be useful to us -- it might be the condition of human psychic stability -- but I'm not sure it gets us nearer to "truth".

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Apr 19th, 2010 at 01:58:06 AM EST

Re: Reincarnation revisited, not really (4.00 / 2)

afew:

nearer to "truth".

maybe the 'truth' is that there is no one truth, but as many as there are perceivers.

i like the vulnerability of this diary, Lily.

wasn't the church open to reincarnation until some council or other, way back in the early part of the last millennium?

i don't see the need for any conflict between jesus' teachings and the concept of reincarnation at all.

but i do see an unhealthy power taken by the church in denying it, making the fear of retribution more intense, as eastern religions posit one has eternity to pay off one's karma, as many lives as it takes to become enlightened, and let go of sorrow.

you can't fear-manipulate people so easily with that eternity clause, because there is always possibility for redemption by climbing out of where one finds oneself, that's empowering.

the church's intransigency in denying souls to animals, preaching hell for unbaptised infants or unshriven dyings, and affirming its patented exclusive DRM type control over the rights to salvation are all insultingly stupid doctrines, as if they only wanted uncritical thinkers in the fold.

of course there are many very advanced intellects and souls in the church as well, such as two jesuit astronomers i enjoyed a fantastic podcast of recently.

http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/2010/asteroids/

in fact i had no idea the vatican had an observatory and was so deep into astronomy, even that the U. of Arizona has an astro research centre run by the vatican.

it's the dogma that holds back the church in the past, the (ridiculous) certainties, baldly expressed without reservations, without humility...

i think jesus would want us to make up our own minds, and not just be told what to believe. the church has become a political organisation, built on hierarchy and unquestioning obedience.

both of which have no place in modern progressive thinking, imho.

They are taste, courage, individuality, and irreverence. These are the qualities I want to retain in my music." ~Stan Getz~

irreverence is an important feature of free thought, and yet the church seems blindly uncognizant of this.

until a priest can move my emotions like stan getz does, i know whom to believe...

reincarnation is a satisfying answer to many mysteries, it is a shame to have it denied to one by anyone who claims higher knowledge. they have no proof after all.

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Mon Apr 19th, 2010 at 02:58:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reincarnation revisited, not really (none / 1)

melo,

You are picking up my old arguments, and if we could agree today, this would mean that either none or both of us would have changed since my earlier diary.

It is true that I had based my belief in reincarnation among others on the Churches explicit ban on reincarnation teachings. It is true that the Catholic clergy in particular have abused of their power through the ages. There are also other less powerful and less scandalous-prone Christian churches/congregations, though. Various structures are meant to help our faith and provide good guidance.

This doesn't always work out as it should, and we then like to blame the Church or a priest or a congregation. When we do this, we deny that none of these structures have any value in themselves. They're only meant to help our faith in our human weakness. Christians believe that there's a God behind, in, through it all, and they believe that Scripture tells us about God, and that God speaks to us through this Scripture.

No one has to believe this. This is what Christians believe, though. Ultimately, it is not relevant whether the Church ever declared the belief in reincarnation to be heresy or not. Jesus' own words contain the answer, at least for the Christian. I find comfort in taking Jesus' teachings as absolute reference points. Early Christians didn't consider Jesus' words to be somewhat true or relatively okay. They agreed that He's the Son of God, the living Word and Truth.

Hence, there is a conflict between Jesus' teachings and the concept of reincarnation.

"i think jesus would want us to make up our own minds, and not just be told what to believe."

He used many parables and was explicitly telling those around him that they should believe in one God, and him, his only Son and the Holy Spirit. This is how he spoke to persons of free will, - free to make up their own minds, yes, but he also clearly told them what to believe.

`Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6'

You speak against doctrines and dogma, ridiculous certainties, since the church "wanted uncritical thinkers in the fold". Well, yes, I don't deny that the Church as a political power leaves much to wish for but Christianity is based on certainties, and from those certainties dogmatic teachings were derived that any Christian is invited to cross-check with God's word, be that in the interest of Church elders/the clergy, or not.

"certainties, baldly expressed without reservations, without humility... "

What is humility? Should we humble ourselves in honour of other people's beliefs, or should we live humbly since we're God's children who are here for some time in our human bodies, limited in space and time. What is it that makes us really humble? Can it ever be our firm belief in our selves, our own limited knowledge first?

"the church has become a political organisation, built on hierarchy and unquestioning obedience.
both of which have no place in modern progressive thinking, imho"

Christianity is more than "the church". You are right, however, that the absoluteness of Christianity is hardly reconcilable with a political current that relies on the "self" to find answers to our existence.

"reincarnation is a satisfying answer to many mysteries,"

Some believe that it is. So did I.

"it is a shame to have it denied to one by anyone who claims higher knowledge."

Who decides to acknowledge the Christian God and His higher knowledge may be glad to humbly accept God's denying it.

`Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, Hebrews 9:27'

"... they have no proof after all."

That's right. We don't. It's a matter of faith.

by Lily (put - lilyalmond - here <a> yahaah.france) on Tue Apr 20th, 2010 at 06:47:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reincarnation revisited, not really (none / 1)

and if we could agree today, this would mean that either none or both of us would have changed since my earlier diary.

i like your point, though it's stated as an absolute here.

you can step in the same river twice, but the water will not be the same.

i don't think it's necessary to believe in reincarnation, Lily, it's just another mansion in the great house, certainly not worth arguing about, lol!

so little is known about so much of Jesus' life, and the fact that some book in the bible says we die once doesn't remotely cut it as basis for decision, imo.

not that you asked, but i base my comprehension on the fact that some are so precociously talented at something that it seems impossible to me that they have advanced to that level in one life, that there is an enormous sense of familiarity and recognition with some people that simply does not jive with the short amount of time knowing them, and the fact that i see it clearly that for a god whose ultimate characteristic is compassion, reincarnation puts eternity in service to spiritual progress, as opposed to submitting it to circumscription by our childish notions of linear time. redemption by sell/by date, lol.

i do not judge the individuals, but the institution which subscribes to such blatantly foolish attitudes has lost any respect or credibility by its inability to be humble, and candidly and transparently eschew temporal power, something Jesus and Francis had no difficulty with, because they had values grounded in compassion.

a god of love who would design a system where souls are cast into eternal hellfire is the acme of oxymorons, yet the church even in this day and age, stubbornly clings to to such archaic idiocy as a matter of course.

the greatest sin is spiritual pride, and the vatican is the poster child for this.

how many centuries did it take for them to climb off their high horse and apologise for ruining great mens' lives, such as giordano bruno, or galileo?

i have never seen such a calcified, sclerotic, patently absurd set of beliefs gathered into one basket in nigh 60 years of life, and fully don't expect to again.

of all the people furthest from Jesus' teachings, none have gained that dubious prize more than those who profess to follow him, and i have met his spirit in many who are content in other religions.

the mere idea that these overdressed clowns hold any arcane truths with their track record demands faith alright, but it's not a faith that i can feel much respect for.

the good news is that even flawed faiths can sometimes improve human behaviour.

reincarnation doesn't explain one very important mystery, that is: if god is so benign, why didn't s/he just give us the complacency of cows, set us down in a meadow and quit right there?

so there goes any illusion that the Creator is purely benign in our human terms, ie, s/he may be in the long term, but to get us going, reflects aspects that are anything but.

as a human i can rail and curse a fate that kills thousands of children a day from starvation, and cannot get my head around an idea of an omnipotent god that would permit such wastage, yet in moments of more lucidity i realise that my human limitations might not yet permit me to understand a divine logic that enabled that, and struggle to see through the apparent perversity of injustice. reincarnation may explain some of the 'how' but it doesn't help deal with 'why'.

so i have come to see the Creator as ultimate love and ultimate darkness, and we pilgrims as fumbling lovers, lost sheep, who are trying to find a thin path to wholeness and fulfillment in the dark, surrounded by croc swamps full of false prophets and cavilling charlatans.

if a creator made a character school out of existence, that would give a moral to this fable, and yet that's too linear an assumption for existence in the multidimensional plethora of phenomena that is our floating home, on the lake of infinite possibility.

i believe the Great Novelist has a moral arc to the longterm plot, and character is built, more than given, but i never expect certainty about anything to last, as we are all spiralling in a vortex of continual change.

and since we just passed the frontier of paradox, i should add that the only thing i am certain of is there are no certainties, the only absolute is that there are no absolutes!

thanks for sharing, it's always a pleasure to discuss such matters with someone who reasons with grace...

one request...could you perhaps tell me more about what you feel and believe, and not bother trying to speak for others, who may not be present at this discussion?

'christians believe' is so vague, and a perception, possibly projected. what makes you feel capable to claim that you know that, might i ask?

many roads lead up the mountain, but they all meet at the top. for christians to claim exclusivity of any trailhead merely shows ignorance and lack of respect for all the great sages who have lived and taught us through the ages, of whom Jesus was but one of many more, though the one who lived sacrifice the most graphically, as was befitting during the age of pisces, era of union through surrender.

:>)

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Tue Apr 20th, 2010 at 11:16:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reincarnation revisited, not really (none / 1)

melo,

I understand that you have faith. It is not carved in stone, and you know what kind of faith, or religion for that matter you despise of: Christianity as represented by the institution of the Catholic Church.

You remind me of someone: me. I grew up with brothers in a small town in Germany where we lived in a residential area. Our home was made to last; we had a garden and family in neighbouring villages; our life was quiet and unexciting. I dreamed of a more exciting life abroad but when our first child was born, I felt most comfortable imagining living somewhere quiet and peaceful with lots of green, and with every child, this way of life appeared more appropriate and justified...

When you say,

the only thing i am certain of is there are no certainties, the only absolute is that there are no absolutes!

Your are serious when you use this paradox. You never ceased to think in absolute terms.

You say,

i don't think it's necessary to believe in reincarnation, Lily, it's just another mansion in the great house

This is what you think. It is your personal opinion but what do you base your believe upon? How would you know that reincarnation IS just another mansion in the great house?

but i base my comprehension on the fact that some are so precociously talented at something that it seems impossible to me that they have advanced to that level in one life, that there is an enormous sense of familiarity and recognition with some people that simply does not jive with the short amount of time knowing them,

You speak of a fact. Some are amazingly talented. I agree. Therefore, it seems impossible to you that they got there in one life. But then, how much do you know about Creation? And why would it not jive with the short amount of time knowing them? What do you, what do we know about time that troubles us so much? What is a "short amount of time" given eternity? What is a "short amount of time"? How can you, can I, can we judge what that is? Sometimes it passes quickly, sometimes so slowly. We neither created space nor time. How would we be able to judge what can be possible in time for the one who set it?

and the fact that i see it clearly that for a god whose ultimate characteristic is compassion,

It is a Fact that You see it clearly that... ?

God's ultimate characteristic is compassion, well, yes but is it really unconditional compassion? "God so loved the world that He gave His only Son..." - These words speak of compassion but we are also free to choose, and He won't forever bother those who deny His existence. Can God pour his compassion unto those who don't want Him?

reincarnation puts eternity in service to spiritual progress, as opposed to submitting it to circumscription by our childish notions of linear time.

What are your words here based upon? What's your reference? Your own thinking? Do you believe this because You want to believe this? Why should this be true? "Reincarnation putting eternity in service to spiritual progress" - what for? What do we understand of spiritual progress - except our own, maybe?

i do not judge the individuals, but the institution ... its inability to be humble

Criticism of the Catholic Church is often justified. But then, how would you define "humble"? Humility begins with putting God first. God who? Which God are we supposed to put first? There are so many Earthlings, religions and differing perceptions of who God is. Who is Your God? Is He the God of compassion and not of judgment, the God of love but why is there suffering? May I search Him at the risk of either not finding Him or of finding disagreement with others who claim to know Him better or differently or who may deny His existence?

candidly and transparently eschew temporal power, something Jesus and Francis had no difficulty with, because they had values grounded in compassion.

Were Jesus' values "grounded in compassion" or was compassion rather the fruit of God's love for us? Isn't compassion rather grounded in our loving Father?

a god of love who would design a system where souls are cast into eternal hellfire

This God of Love is strict and absolute. The "hellfire" is the experience of being separated from God. We are mostly separated from God by our own free will.
Why do we have this free will? Where do we come from? - These are the great mysteries of our lives. I read the "Book of Enoch" not too long ago. Such early texts show that there exists more between heaven and Earth than what we can see when we look up into the sky.

the greatest sin is spiritual pride

IS that the "greatest sin"? according to what definition?

i have met his spirit in many who are content in other religions.

You have "met his spirit". How can this be possible? Jesus says he's the ONE way and there is NO OTHER. He says, he is THE DOOR. How can this spirit reign in anyone who is content in other religions? I don't deny that there are nice people everywhere but they cannot have "his spirit" in other religions.

god is so benign, why

a fate that kills thousands of children a day from starvation

God's ways are Higher than our limited ways. Yes, ask, "Why?" and acknowledge that you cannot read God's mind. If you could, he would not be God, and we could not be His children. Children often cannot get their minds around their parents' "no" or around chores that are expected of them. ... That's normal.

, and cannot get my head around an idea of an omnipotent god that would permit such wastage,

yet in moments of more lucidity i realise that my human limitations might not yet permit me to understand a divine logic that enabled that,

and struggle to see through the apparent perversity of injustice.

You have just spoken of "divine logic" and your human limitations, and there you go again, speaking of the "apparent" "perversitiy" of "injustice". - `Apparent' in our limited eyesight, in our narrow human understanding. We see the Here and are blinded, unable to look beyond and through our human manifestation. `Perversity' - still rebelling against God's Greatness; `injustice' - can we really measure what is just and what is not?

i have come to see the Creator as ultimate love and ultimate darkness

There's ultimate darkness in His absence. His existence is the source of ultimate light that conditions the darkness where he is not.

existence in the multidimensional plethora of phenomena that is our floating home, on the lake of infinite possibility.

You sound like a god - in a floating multidimensional home of infinite possibilities. Is that who we are and how and where we live?

i never expect certainty about anything to last, as we are all spiralling in a vortex of continual change.

You don't expect certainty but seem to be so sure about all our spiraling in that vortex of continual change...

------

WHAT DO I BELIEVE? I believe that it is such a relief and such a gift that we do not have to create in our minds a God that will suit us. I am grateful that He is a living God and a spiritual reality. I am glad that His ways are higher than mine, that I can trust Him unconditionally and infinitely.

`Christians believe' is very vague, that's right. I should have said, "Those who sincerely follow the example of Jesus Christ."

for christians to claim exclusivity of any trailhead merely shows ignorance and lack of respect for all the great sages who have lived and taught us through the ages, of whom Jesus was but one of many more,

No. Jesus taught exclusivity to his disciples and all of us. His absoluteness is not to be mistaken for ignorance or lack of respect for other sages. Truth that is absolute is always exclusive. The ultimate power lies in this Truth, not in the Catholic Church or other structures, and how can you reproach to God(`s Son) that he'd lack respect for `other sages'. Someone who claims to be God's Son is not just one among others.

by Lily (put - lilyalmond - here <a> yahaah.france) on Thu Apr 22nd, 2010 at 06:25:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reincarnation revisited, not really (none / 1)

nice to be arguing theology with someone who cares about such mindstuff, even if this forum does seem a bit stretched for it.

ok, on with the fins and flippers, let's dive in...

Top Diaries

Recent Diaries