Printable View
They are good grounds only if you accept biological determinism. This is disputed by Buddhists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
On another tack, HH The Dalai Lama has been the subject of a number of books which detail his successive reincarnation in Tibet.
DNA is not a good example (actually I don't think anything would be a good example for your point). Darwin already recognized the importance of heredity, he knew that 'something' has to be passed on from generation to generation. This was a century before the 3D structure of DNA was discovered. Also a bit later, Mendel indirectly figured out even how DNA gets split and reshuffled, and which genes count and so on (not the details, but the rough process). All this was done without even knwowing what DNA is.Quote:
Originally Posted by dizzydoll
Additionally, saying 'I believe we are still in the very early stages of humanity's evolution' shows a lack of understanding of evolution altogether. There is no goal in evolution. There is only one thing that counts as far as evolution is concerned: gene replication. A 'soul', or anything immaterial for that matter, has no selective advantage. The future of human evolution will most likely be weaker bodies, because many 'mistakes' are nowadays being corrected by medicine, surgery or glasses (in case of bad eyes). So they don't present a disadvantage anymore (which is good), but on the other hand, this will make our species 'weaker'.
So using the world 'evolution' to refer to spiritual development just makes no sense. It's like those quack crystal healers that talk about 'energized quantum states' and 'programming crystals' to 'fix the body's own energy field'. You can buy these (common) crystals for a lot of money at these esoteric New Age shops, but of course all these people actually do is misusing scientific terminology to bamboozle and awe the gullible.
Words -- I am invariably the one who gets them all wrong.
To put my point simply -- I believe we [humanity] still have much to learn.
..
Haha Musicology. I agree I believe humans cannot be reincarnated as a fly or elephant etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
Dang it. If we go there, why not cute little animals? When I was little, I always wanted to be reborn as a marmot! My parents even let me write a letter to them (why would they be in control of it, hahaha shows how children think). I thought marmots had the easiest life ever. They'd just sleep and eat all day.Quote:
Originally Posted by dizzydoll
At least now I know that they fight too and get eaten a lot. And their habitat is being destroyed by tourism and global warming. Would still be kinda cool though..
But how can you be sure? The evidence - whilst it does not fulfil scientific criteria, may be fulfilled by evidence, as Dodo pointed out, such as testimony. I suppose it depends what credence is given to the testimony. For myself , HH The Dalai Lama has my respect, and what he says I would give credence to.Quote:
Originally Posted by dizzydoll
it's not that I have to accept it on face value, but there are methods to investigate my own reincarnated history.
Just because I can't think of any animal that is as dissimilar to a human being. It would be a bizarre experience for my hypothetically immortal soul.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
You really need to get out of your mind for a bit. Trust me please, allow space between thoughts otherwise you will contaminate your balance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodo25
No need to rush, life is a journey not a destination. Pace it.
For me the real issue here is not the reincarnation as it is a matter of faith; if your religious and spiritual beliefs dictate so, you accept the idea of reincarnation even though there are no "scientific" proofs for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by sh_einstein
However, what I take issue with is the so-called justification for the idea of reincarnation as it is put forward in OP and supported by some other members: that someone must have led morally less than acceptable life previously to be punished by starvation and poverty in this life.
I find this notion disagreeable because it also implies that those of us who are not poor or starving right now must have been "good" people earlier, which, I believe, is a very arrogant and insensitive attitude towards those who suffer in many different ways all around the world. Rape or murder victims, people who died in natural disasters, those who are subjected to abuse in many different forms...
Should we tell them, "Sorry, mate! You had it coming for a long time! Should have been good like I was."?
Apparently.Quote:
Originally Posted by dizzydoll
For the first time, we have something in common.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
How will we know until we have crossed the line?Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
Well, we won't. And I think that's exactly the point everyone's making. In the absence of any way of knowing, most of us think it's a bit, er, inadvisable to decide that there's a system at work which - as you say - there's no apparent support for.Quote:
Originally Posted by dizzydoll
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
It is a valid point, and one that Glen Hoddle - the then England Manager - was in trouble for. This view would justify componding the punishment if it were true, and could very quickly lead to subjugation and victimisation.
The Buddhist view on this point is that Karma - the driving force in the reincarnation of a being into human form - establishes the being in a human form. The Buddhist teachings also state that samsara - the world we live in - is a state of suffering - hence the quest to escape through Enlightenment.
A being in a human form is subject to the suffeing of the human state - fire flood famine war poverty accidents sickness ageing and death etc. Anyone can experience these as a human - we have no way of knowing whether our country will remain peaceful, quake free or experience any of the other unfortunate conditions that afflict countries around the world.
In a similar way, a being conceived as a foetus is subject to the conditions of the human form and may encounter infection, accidents at birth, exposure to toxins, violence, etc etc which then lead to a disability or special needs. In fact any one of us could have an accident or contract a virus tomorrow that could severely impair us in some way.
The explanation for this is that it is the human condition - this, and all the other things we have to put up with are part of human suffering. It is our karma to be reborn as a human, but karma is not deterministic in the sense that it lays down the fact that a person will have car crash on such and such a day which results in some impairment and disability. The most virtuous person in the world can have an accident.
So in conclusion, it is not that people with disabilities, for example, are being punished for their past deeds, it is that they have been exposed to the sufferings of the human realm, and, unfortunately, had an accident or contracted an illness or had some genetic disorder passed to them from a parent.
I hope this is clear. :biggrin5:
Just to add - Buddhism states that we have had countless lives and thus accrued lots of good and lots of bad Karma. Every being has a store of both of these. What occurs at a particular time depends upon circumstances where good or bad Karma can "ripen". It is not a linear view - I was good last time so I'll be rewarded this time or vice-versa. It is a circumstantial view - these conditions arise, so that Karma occurs.
Unless you believe we have reached our peak.... then we have a long way to go!
{EDIT}
Yeah, we do. We need to get beyond making stuff up, for a start.Quote:
Originally Posted by dizzydoll
{edit}
Reincarnation? Hey, I'm as much in favor of recycling as the next
girl, but this is ridiculous.