Re-incarnation and its beliefs

[Shakthiprabha.]

Lets discuss about (AMICABLY PLEASE) ...

belief in re-incarnation acc to diff religious beliefs
and also athiest or agnostics views.

What is re-incarnation?
How does it happen?
Does it happen?
How bout taking incarnation in lower forms of evolved lives?
How scientific is this theory?

[maithree]

As I understand it:



What is re-incarnation?

The Process in which the soul goes into a different body judged by the Karma it has gotten in it's past lives.


How does it happen?

This...I'm not sure of...:lol2: I hope other learned hubbers can let us know. (Sudhamma Ji)


How bout taking incarnation in lower forms of evolved lives?

Doesn't the past Karma of a soul also determine if they're human or other beings? :) We've gone through several births and several beings to be reincarnated as a human.


How scientific is this theory?

I don't think it's been proven yet. It doesn't mean that this theory isn't true. What we define as "Science" is what Scientists have Discovered. And Scientists haven't discovered enough to prove this. That's all that means. :)

[Shakthiprabha.]

Maitree,

I am quite unsure as to how compliacted formation of humans can fit back into lower organisms.

Logic does not work according to me. :?

[thamizhvaanan]

SP, This is my opinion on the concept of soul, my understanding or misunderstanding, logic or the lack of thereof. If ever there were an entity invented for human wish-fulfillment, the soul is that entity. We beleive that one has lived before and will live again in another body after death and that the bodies one passes in and out of need not be human. One may have been a Doberman in a past life, and one may be a mite or a carrot in a future life. Like some tribes avoid eating certain animals because they beleive that the souls of their ancestors dwell in those animals. Why, even we beleive that our dead people reapear in the form of crows.

So how did this idea of soul and thereby life after death emerged?
Man generally loves life or fears death. But he is not ignorant of death. By physical experience and logical reasoning he would have established its inevitability. One cannot ignore death. The only way to ignore death would be to HOPE... hope for a life after death, a hope for immortality. But since physical immortality is impossible, his only recourse would be a hope of immortality of Soul. And man is not prepared to abandon this hope. And not only this, the concept of soul has a deep significance in religious beleifs all over the world, all through the history. But why?

To me, the concept of a non-substantial substance itself is a contradiction . Yet, billions of people have believed in a non-spatial percipient which can travel through space and perceive and interpret vibrations and energies in the air or any medium without any sense organs. The concept of soul has been there for centuries. Dualists consider the Soul to be an immaterial substance, capable of existence as a conscious, perceiving entity independent of any physical body. But dualist philosophers have long struggled with what is known as the mind-body problem. Descartes first raised this problem. What is it that makes it possible for two contraries (one spatially existing and the other not) to interact as our Souls seem to with our brains?

But, why would such a beleif start? The ancient people, the nomads, had the beleif in spirits, the ancestor of the ideas of Soul, which they encountered in their dreams. The ancient man saw ghosts of the dead apparently divorced from their bodies in dreams. He concluded that he too had seperable soul. The idea of Soul and thereby Immortality grew naturally out of this. Infact the word Ghost comes from the german whord "Geist" which means both Ghost and Soul. This is basically due to his ignorance of the fact that his mind can form images out of memories, a case mentioned above. The very fact that in sleep the savage saw himself running, hunting, walking, while later he was assured that his body hadn't stirred, convinced him that he had a seperable Soul.

Now to the questions. This concept of souls throws up so many paradoxes that it would be impossible for me to list them now. I will list a few.

The first simple question would be If someone is dead how will anyone (leave alone the dead person himself), know that the soul survived? How will anyone know that his spirit is wandering and enters a new body unless all of these inferences are a result of incompetency of human mind to comprehend extra-physical (mental) discrepancies like dream, delusion and insufficient analysis.

These days the talk is about cloning and genetic engineering. If an embryo is split into two does that split the soul also?

Anything that has a beginning has an end. If souls are indestructible, then earth would be crowded with souls. Imagine the number of people who have lived since earth was formed. If we say they attain mukti, where do they go?

If protozoans have soul, we must remember that they reproduce asexually. A nucleus of the protozoa simply splits into two organism. So how did one soul become two? at wat point of time did the new soul start to get associated with the second organism.

Compare the same with sexual reproduction in higher species. The process is long involving too many factors. Again, at what point of time the new soul emerges?

so wats the common logic behind the point at which the new soul is formed?

I can pile up more number of questions, but wats the use :lol2:

[Shakthiprabha.]

I myself have similar questions/ views, and want explanation for similar qustions tv.... lets c if someone answers .

However,


Imagine the number of people who have lived since earth was formed. If we say they attain mukti, where do they go?

If they attain the unity with the source, WHERE IS THE QUESTION OF 'THEY' ?
It just becomes single and merges with the source.

Universe has no beginning or end and is infinite. So what do u mean getting crowded?

Where is the question of getting crowded?

According to me, Soul is NOT A SEPERATE ENTITY to be counted in numbers, as per the existing or existed individuals.


Quoting from "secrets of universe"


"That is because say you have a molecule of any element, you can split that molecule in to several atoms, then each of those atom can be split into electrons, protons and neutrons. Then each of those electrons, protons and neutrons can further be split in to even smaller particles, then those particles can be can be broken down to even smaller particles, then those small one to even smaller, then those smaller one and those smaller particles can continue to be split up or broken down to an infinite amount of smaller particles, even those infinite one can be broken down to a still infinite amount of smaller particles and you could continue for ever and never stop.

When you say each of neutrons, protons and electrons can be further split infinite times and YET NOT BECOME CROWDED, same theory holds good for souls too

As far as I understand, souls are nothing but energised magnetic particles with imprints if any :?

[maithree]

So how did this idea of soul and thereby life after death emerged?
Man generally loves life or fears death. But he is not ignorant of death. By physical experience and logical reasoning he would have established its inevitability. One cannot ignore death. The only way to ignore death would be to HOPE... hope for a life after death, a hope for immortality. But since physical immortality is impossible, his only recourse would be a hope of immortality of Soul. And man is not prepared to abandon this hope. And not only this, the concept of soul has a deep significance in religious beleifs all over the world, all through the history. But why?

:lol: Good Point...:?


When you say each of neutrons, protons and electrons can be further split infinite times and YET NOT BECOME CROWDED, same theory holds good for souls too

Good Point, and I'm Lost...:confused2:

[Shakthiprabha.]

When you say each of neutrons, protons and electrons can be further split infinite times and YET NOT BECOME CROWDED, same theory holds good for souls too

Good Point, and I'm Lost...:confused2:

Everybody are ! :rotfl:

and.. We are trying to find our way.
Some may... .. and
Some wont ... :)

[Rocky_]

:D

[Raghu]

SP acca,


1) What is re-incarnation?

Atma transmigrating from body to body according to the atma's Karma

2)How does it happen?

When your atma leaves the body, i.e, when you die, the soul leaves through the third eye, this is why in Hinduism, Maheshwar has a third eye to represent this, and what ever good karma or bad karma you have done in the current life and ur previous life is calculated and you take a new body according to it... dont ask me how the calculation is done, ONLY ISHWAR knows... and atma attains moksha or Mukthi ONLy when the atma realises the ULTIMATE truth AHABRAHMAN and gives up every MATERIAL bonding with this world and surrender UNTO Maheshwar, thus the Atma does not RE-ENTER into the VICIOUS cycle of RE-INCARNATION...
3)Does it happen? I believe it does, for e.g., we suffer for something for which have never committed a crime, for e.g., u never have beaten any 1 b4, in ur life , u walk in the street, some1 hit you and run away or steal you r mobile phone or something, why did this happen? THINK, u probably have committed a similar crime to that atma in ur last life, makes logical sense right?


4)How about taking incarnation in lower forms of evolved lives?

Gita says, if you indulge your self in EVIL crimes such as slaughtering animals, humans or any living organism, you take a birth as low-level species such as animals...

5) How scientific is this theory?

Hinduism means SPIRITUAL SCIENCE...

[Shakthiprabha.]

4)How about taking incarnation in lower forms of evolved lives?

Gita says, if you indulge your self in EVIL crimes such as slaughtering animals, humans or any living organism, you take a birth as low-level species such as animals...

This is not convincing for me raghu. Evolution is scientific...

but regression :?



5) How scientific is this theory?

Hinduism means SPIRITUAL SCIENCE...

I agree to a large extent .

[r_kk]

Reincarnation... in Scientific terms.... very interesting...

Our body is composed of cells which in turn made up of Chemical molecules which in turn made up of atoms which in turn of sub atomic particles which in turn of some finite particles which may in the form of matter or energy or may not exist also (anti-mater). So when our body decomposes (even in our day to day life, we shed lots of death skins) it may become part of another body with or without life. So reincarnation is scientifically possible but whether our mind ( collective intelligence) as whole or takes in to new body with possibility of remembering after decomposing of body is not a proven fact. In Buddhist line reincarnation is very simple. It is just like igniting one candle with another. The new light may be part of the old one, but new one is not the same old one. When our brain cell dies (after certain age, our brain cells die gradually, which is one the reason for loss of memory in old age), we loose all the neural networks and loose all the so called conscious.

[Raghu]

4)How about taking incarnation in lower forms of evolved lives?

Gita says, if you indulge your self in EVIL crimes such as slaughtering animals, humans or any living organism, you take a birth as low-level species such as animals...

This is not convincing for me raghu. Evolution is scientific...



but that evolution process is BEAUTIFULY explaiend in DASAVATAR of lord VISHNU!

[Shakthiprabha.]

Reincarnation... in Scientific terms.... very interesting...

Our body is composed of cells which in turn made up of Chemical molecules which in turn made up of atoms which in turn of sub atomic particles which in turn of some finite particles which may in the form of matter or energy or may not exist also (anti-mater). So when our body decomposes (even in our day to day life, we shed lots of death skins) it may become part of another body with or without life. So reincarnation is scientifically possible but whether our mind ( collective intelligence) as whole or takes in to new body with possibility of remembering after decomposing of body is not a proven fact. In Buddhist line reincarnation is very simple. It is just like igniting one candle with another. The new light may be part of the old one, but new one is not the same old one. When our brain cell dies (after certain age, our brain cells die gradually, which is one the reason for loss of memory in old age), we loose all the neural networks and loose all the so called conscious.

Synchronizes quite a bit with my views rkk . :)


thanks for ur post.

Can u elaborate on ANTI-matter part :)

[Shakthiprabha.]

4)How about taking incarnation in lower forms of evolved lives?

Gita says, if you indulge your self in EVIL crimes such as slaughtering animals, humans or any living organism, you take a birth as low-level species such as animals...

This is not convincing for me raghu. Evolution is scientific...



but that evolution process is BEAUTIFULY explaiend in DASAVATAR of lord VISHNU!

I agree raghu. I just feel REGRESSION is beyond me (not evolution)(

[thamiz]

SP acca,

4)How about taking incarnation in lower forms of evolved lives?

Gita says, if you indulge your self in EVIL crimes such as slaughtering animals, humans or any living organism, you take a birth as low-level species such as animals...



Ok, Raghu, a bad human being becomes an animal. Fine. 8-)

How can an animal act good to become a human being?

I dont see "reversibility" here! :roll:

[Raghu]

SP acca,

4)How about taking incarnation in lower forms of evolved lives?

Gita says, if you indulge your self in EVIL crimes such as slaughtering animals, humans or any living organism, you take a birth as low-level species such as animals...



Ok, Raghu, a bad human being becomes an animal. Fine. 8-)

How can an animal act good to become a human being?

I dont see "reversibility" here! :roll:

ma'am,

AS far as i know, atmas within animal bodies are re-born as animals, this is like an infinte loop? :roll:

[gilgamesh]

[tscii:1727f91747]The concept of re-incarnation and re-birth is dealt with in countless times in the Hindu scriptures. The various upanishads like Taittreeya and Manduka and verious other Brahmanas dwell heavily upon these areas. The philosophy of Dvaita and Advaita is based heavily on the concept of re-incarnations and re-birth.

Dvaita concept says that there is a strict distinction between God and the individual living beings (jivas). Souls are not 'created' by God but do nonetheless depend on him for their existence.

The Advaita concept on the other hand says that both are one and the same. Adi Shankaracharya was the propounder of this princile and He wrote commentaries on the Prasthana Trayi. A famous quote from Vivekacutamani, one of his Prakarana granthas (philosophical treatises) that succinctly summarises his philosophy is

Brahma satyam jagat mithyā, jīvo brahmaiva nāparah — Brahman is the only truth, the world is illusion, and there is ultimately no difference between Brahman and individual self

Not only did the Vedic culture believed in it, the Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Incas,were aware of this concept of re-birth and had many rituals and practices for that.

Now my question, is there a distinction between re-incarnation and re-birth :?: [/tscii:1727f91747]

[Badri]

[tscii:b65c4d0491]The concept of re-incarnation and re-birth is dealt with in countless times in the Hindu scriptures. The various upanishads like Taittreeya and Manduka and verious other Brahmanas dwell heavily upon these areas. The philosophy of Dvaita and Advaita is based heavily on the concept of re-incarnations and re-birth.

Dvaita concept says that there is a strict distinction between God and the individual living beings (jivas). Souls are not 'created' by God but do nonetheless depend on him for their existence.

The Advaita concept on the other hand says that both are one and the same. Adi Shankaracharya was the propounder of this princile and He wrote commentaries on the Prasthana Trayi. A famous quote from Vivekacutamani, one of his Prakarana granthas (philosophical treatises) that succinctly summarises his philosophy is

Brahma satyam jagat mithyā, jīvo brahmaiva nāparah — Brahman is the only truth, the world is illusion, and there is ultimately no difference between Brahman and individual self

Not only did the Vedic culture believed in it, the Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Incas,were aware of this concept of re-birth and had many rituals and practices for that.

Now my question, is there a distinction between re-incarnation and re-birth :?: [/tscii:b65c4d0491]

If Brahman and the Jiva are the same, then what is it that is being re-incarnated or re-born? One first needs to resolve this one, and then everything becomes clear as to what is reincarnation as opposed to rebirth, if there are any differences at all!

[Shakthiprabha.]

Badri,

Do you mean to say, BOTH re-incarnation and re-birth being the same, prior happens when, THE SOUL IS REALISED and happen to take another form in this world, WITH THE KNOWLEDGE or realisation?

[Badri]

Wow! nice twist!

No, that is not what I meant at all...

[thamiz]

ma'am,
AS far as i know, atmas within animal bodies are re-born as animals, this is like an infinte loop? :roll:

The major probelm with this soul theroy is that,

*1 What was the human population 2000 years ago? => Meaning that many # human souls were there!

Anyway, write down a #

*2 Now, what is the human population today?

I mean, how many human souls are there today ?

Write down a #

* 3 Do a subtraction!!! Note down the difference in #.

Here comes the question!

Where are these new souls coming from :?:

Are the human souls multiplying :?:

And HOW would you account for the millions of new souls :?:

* The only way you can do is, some souls are new and they are in their first life. Right ? :roll:

[anbu_kathir]

First of all.. it is not accurate to analyse the precise workings of the Soul with a notion of current science or mathematics.

That is why most Spiritual Masters don't stress on a direct reading of the vedanta or any such treatise without first purifying the mind.

Chitta shuddi (a pure mind) is of prime importance. Without it, no amount of intellectual knowledge will help. Once chitta-shuddi is achieved, the true nature of the Soul/OneSelf will automatically be real-ised.

So there is no means whatsoever by which the following ideas or theories about the workings of the Soul could be validated. One simply has to find one's own damn way out and finally one always does. I guess that means don't ask whether or how they are true.

Chitta shuddhi is all that is to be strived for.Oh, chitta shuddhi has its immense material benefits too, though that will seem secondary as one progresses towards it). Reality will then reveal itself completely once that is done.

contd.....
--------------------------------------------------------

[anbu_kathir]

contd....

Well to answer your first few questions according to what I have read and felt, ( about population, multiplication of souls), thamiz, several arguments can be made depending upon the basic views about the soul.

Assuming the soul according to Dvaita principles..

First, you think earth is the only planet where life exists? And humans are the only beings with a soul ?

Yes individual souls do multiply. Ever heard of soul-mates? or God taking incarnations, what do you think those are..? I would certainly think the incarnations are like dividing the soul of a God, which merge back with the God on the end of the incarnation.
---------------------------------------------------------
If we consider the basis of a soul according to Advaita (Not-two, Non-duality) there is only one Soul. The Soul is All That Is, and there is nothing else.

As an analogy, we may think of air. Theres air everywhere over and near the earth's surface, Air is all that is. However, once you have a building, you can define Air inside the building.

But it still is the same Air, only that a part of it occupies the building, another part of it surrounds it. The difference is merely a matter of perception.

You can go on creating smaller rooms in that building, and air will 'divide' itself to occupy those rooms.

So, Air is all that is, yet I can somehow uniquely feel that the air inside my kitchen is somewhat hotter than the air in my living room, thus differentiating it by its assumed characteristics.

So this is what happens with the Soul too. The Soul is All That Is, and there is nothing else. But it can collect itself in clumps of varying frequencies forming dead matter, plants, animals, humans and other beings in the spiritual hierarchy.

The higher the frequency of vibration, the higher is the energy, the higher is the spiritual self awareness of the form that the One Soul assumes.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Answering your final question about the souls living a first lifetime, -- yes souls sometimes are in their first lifetimes, but no they aren't in their first lifetime exactly.

The Hindu concept of time is cyclic, so time is not a straight line. Creation and the Creator both are eternal (transcending time), while Creation seems everlasting ( for a loooooong period of time).

And hence no one is exactly leading the first lifetime or last lifetime. It is an eternal cycle that appears everlasting.

Love and Light.

[thamiz]

contd....

Well to answer your first few questions according to what I have read and felt, ( about population, multiplication of souls), thamiz, several arguments can be made depending upon the basic views about the soul.

Answering your final question about the souls living a first lifetime, -- yes souls sometimes are in their first lifetimes, but no they aren't in their first lifetime exactly.

And hence no one is exactly leading the first lifetime or last lifetime.

Love and Light.

So, there is no FIRST lifetime for soul at all? 8-)

What about first of all FIRSTS? :roll:

And there is no LAST!!! :lol:

Nice writeup which defends every darn thing but ANSWERS NOTHING!!! :lol:

[anbu_kathir]

So, there is no FIRST lifetime for soul at all? 8-) What about first of all FIRSTS? :roll:And there is no LAST!!! :lol:

Yeah, that is the way these things are. It is difficult to bring concepts of transcendence to words.

Btw, this question I have already answered. I pasted it again for your convenience.

The Hindu concept of time is cyclic, so time is not a straight line. Creation and the Creator both are eternal (transcending time), while Creation seems everlasting ( for a loooooong period of time).

If all of us are taking an infinite number of trips (with small breaks in between ) along a circle, who is first? who is last?

So there is no first of the first.. neither there is a last of the last.

Of course, there seems to be first births, when we join the path of a circle after a break. Similarly before taking a break there is a 'last' birth, but this is not the final one either.


Nice writeup which defends every darn thing but ANSWERS NOTHING!!! :lol:

Oh, if you would see, I have answered your questions in some manner. May be you mean the answers don't make sense to you. Well, at least I gave you some laughs.

Love and Light.

[thamizhvaanan]

I hate to repeat this question again and again, but kathir... are you talking about science or hypothesis or beleif here? Depending upon the category you choose to be in, you need to provide sufficient corroboration :roll:

[anbu_kathir]

I hate to repeat this question again and again, but kathir... are you talking about science or hypothesis or beleif here? Depending upon the category you choose to be in, you need to provide sufficient corroboration :roll:

Its certainly not today's science.

There is no proof of the claims I make that can be said in words. Anyone can scoff at them and say they are bullshit.

Spirituality is not a thing of the intellect or the mind. It is meant to be a harmonious relationship between the body the mind and the soul. All of them have to come together in unison.

To even get a glimpse of the soul, most of us need to undertake certain regular practices atleast for an year. That is a basic starter. You don't have to give much, around 4 - 5 hrs a week is enough.

It does not matter if you don't believe in anything I have said. Try the practices sincerely if you are curious, to the normal regular person of today there is no other way to prove what I have said.

Love and Light.

[Rohit]

Mounting evidences of logically explosive contradictions among the believers.


Assuming the soul according to Dvaita principles..

First, you think earth is the only planet where life exists? And humans are the only beings with a soul ?

Yes individual souls do multiply. Ever heard of soul-mates? or God taking incarnations, what do you think those are..? I would certainly think the incarnations are like dividing the soul of a God, which merge back with the God on the end of the incarnation.
---------------------------------------------------------
If we consider the basis of a soul according to Advaita (Not-two, Non-duality) there is only one Soul. The Soul is All That Is, and there is nothing else.

As an analogy, we may think of air. Theres air everywhere over and near the earth's surface, Air is all that is. However, once you have a building, you can define Air inside the building.

But it still is the same Air, only that a part of it occupies the building, another part of it surrounds it. The difference is merely a matter of perception.

You can go on creating smaller rooms in that building, and air will 'divide' itself to occupy those rooms.

So, Air is all that is, yet I can somehow uniquely feel that the air inside my kitchen is somewhat hotter than the air in my living room, thus differentiating it by its assumed characteristics.

So this is what happens with the Soul too. The Soul is All That Is, and there is nothing else. But it can collect itself in clumps of varying frequencies forming dead matter, plants, animals, humans and other beings in the spiritual hierarchy.

The higher the frequency of vibration, the higher is the energy, the higher is the spiritual self awareness of the form that the One Soul assumes.
In the thread In search of 'TRUTH'


All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago.

- Stephen Hawking

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever.

- Stephen Hawking

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html

[anbu_kathir]

Mounting evidences of logically explosive contradictions among the believers.

In the thread In search of 'TRUTH'


All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago.

- Stephen Hawking

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever.

- Stephen Hawking

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html

And what does this have to do with what you have quoted of me, Rohit?

Anyway, the Hindu concept of Creation also comes with an Universe with a beginning and end.

And it is a creation theory that comes with numbers as big as those that modern science suggests.

Love and Light.

[SRS]

Once again, user "Rohit" is showing is deplorable lack of scientific knowledge. Of course the Universe did not always exist. What has always existed is energy. The beginning of the universe simply corresponds to a transformation of this energy from one form to another. Nevertheless, the present or future state of the Universe is not sufficient to describe the origin of this energy, in purely scientific terms. , leaving open the possibility of a Creator God. By the way this energy, is called the "singular energy" in the Big Bang theory, and "shakti" in Hinduism.

[Rohit]

And what does this have to do with what you have quoted of me, Rohit?

Anyway, the Hindu concept of Creation also comes with an Universe with a beginning and end.
Thank you for your expected reply, dear anbu_kathir. :)

As you have responded, if both the premises of an Advaitic Soul and also of a Creator God are held to together as true, then the implications are extremely serious as derived below.

Hopefully, this will also provide the answer(s) to your question(s).

The implications of holding the combined belief in an Advaitic Soul as well as in a Creator God are:

1. Neither an Advaitic Soul nor a Creator God exists; which directly implies that the Adviata doctrine is a false doctrine.

2. A Creator God has created an Advaitic Soul. This would be absurd from the Advaita standpoint, but unfortunately that is what the belief implies.

3. A Creator God created the universe and then created individual souls, the union of which could be believed as constituting an Advaitic Soul, which again would be absurd from the Advaita standpoint, but that is also what the belief implies.

The above two situations (2 & 3) might falsely seem reconcilable with the other dualistic beliefs of Hinduism, but it is going to be an insurmountable task to reconcile with the Judo-Christian and Islamic theory of Creation.

4. There is neither an Advaitic Soul nor a Creator God, but the universe and individual souls coexist.

Now, in Jainism, there is neither a Creator God nor an Advaitic Soul, but it clearly asserts that souls get contaminated when they come into contact with the material world and only by purification of the soul one can attain liberation from the cycle of births and rebirths - reincarnations.

Ironically, similar approach is echoed not only in your posts, but also in the posts of all those who talk about Advaita.


That is why most Spiritual Masters don't stress on a direct reading of the vedanta or any such treatise without first purifying the mind.

Chitta shuddi (a pure mind) is of prime importance.

Chitta shuddhi is all that is to be strived for.
If I may use your own analogy, if there was only pure air and nothing else, it could not contaminate itself. There must be some other external agents like dust particles etc. which are not air itself but entirely different from air that contaminate the air.

Similarly, if there was only one pure Soul and nothing else, there can be nothing else that could contaminate the Soul.

The need for purification of the Advaitic Soul can only arise when there are external contaminating agents or factors that are absolutely beyond the control of the Advaitic Soul and succeed in contaminating the Advaitic Soul.

If there was only pure air and nothing else, it could not partition itself. That is why you used building-walls as partitioning agents, but the walls are not air; they are entirely different from air.

Similarly, if there was only one Soul, it could not partition itself into individual souls and in any spiritual hierarchy unless there were external agents or factors that are not the Soul itself but entirely different from it, which are beyond the control of the Soul and those external agents or factors succeed in dividing the Advaitic Soul into individual souls and arrange them in a spiritual hierarchy, exactly as you stated.

Thus, no matter how one approaches, Advaita doctrine miserably fails on every account and invariably ends-up resembling Janism when examined under the theory of soul(s), reincarnations and the approach to liberation.

I hope you and other interested readers would not fail to grasp what is explained above.

Thank you!

:D :) :thumbsup:

[SRS]

nor a Creator God exists

However, you cannot disprove the existance of God. Therefore, all reasoning immediatly following this postulate can be considered null and void, since the initial premise itself is faulty.

Enjoy the delirium! :lol:

[Rohit]

[tscii:84612e8d02]It is not for me to disprove the existence of a (Creator) God; it is for the belivers of Advaita, Vishistha Advaita, Dvaita and pantheistic beliefs who should bother to disprove; or else, enjoy the Creation of an Intelligent Designer (ID).

But don’t expect to find any clues in Jainism or.............. :lol:

:D :) :thumbsup:[/tscii:84612e8d02]

[anbu_kathir]

Rohitji, Advaita is not so simple as we might think it is. I don't think it is a joke. If it was, people (the few that do) would not spend a vast period of their lifetime trying to discuss, understand and comprehend it, even theoretically (A practical approach is even more difficult and strenous). And this they have been doing for a few thousand years, but with greater vigour from the time of Sri Adi Sankaracharya.

Advaita theoretically is a transcendent concept, hence it is difficult to put in words, even in Sanskrit, much less in English.
Even some of the greatest exponents in Advaita (The pontiffs of the Sankara mutts) do not talk about it to normal people, because it requires a vast amount of learning, especially in Sanskrit. And clearly a Dvaitic perspective was/is much easier for people to comprehend.

Anyway, from what miniscule theoretical knowledge I have, I am trying to answer your questions for my own sake.

From an Advaitic standpoint, a Creator God doesn't exist separate from Creation. Creation is the Dream of God (The Only Thing There Is - TOTTI ). And hence Creation is not separate from TOTTI, just as our own dreams are not separate from us.

I am using TOTTI instead of GOD here, because TOTTI has a meaning that is exactly how I think of God, and moreover the word GOD has much more different interpretations.

Next, Chitta Shuddi of the mind and NOT the Soul/Self ( which btw is a loose translation of the word Atman) . The Soul/Self is always Eternal and Pure, it undergoes NO contamination of any kind whatsoever. Neither does Advaita nor Jainism talk of a tainted, less than perfect, or a fallen Atman.

The Mind is like a dirty mirror to the Soul, with its fickle nature of associating itself with the sense objects, making the Soul (a part of TOTTI) forget its own true nature, thus causing Creation ( in an imaginary dream ).

The Mind ( including the body) makes the Soul experience itself as a particular and divided part of Creation, which is separate from the rest of Creation.

When the Mind (with all the senses ) turns back on itself, (cleaning the mirror - this is Chitta Shuddi), the association of the self-idea with the external objects, including that of the body fall off, thus revealing the true nature of the Self to ItSelf.

And hence, come the tenets of Advaita Tat-twam-Asi ( That Thou Art ) and Aham Brahmasmi ( I am Brahman ).

I felt that one more of your questions, in my perspective means, how are the different life forms created from TOTTI ?

Different life forms are created from TOTTI because of their states of self-awareness. A being that is completely Self-aware is TOTTI Itself, even when being a part of Creation, it is 'awakened' ( from the Dream ) and 'liberated' ( from the bondages/limitations of a Dream ).

Even so, inherently it doesn't make any real sense, because its just a damn dream. TOTTI always IS. Period. As new forms are created in our dream from our own mind, similarly new forms are created in TOTTI's dream from TOTTI's own mind.

How the free will of the dream-beings of TOTTI, and TOTTI's own will are linked is a different question altogether.

Here is a more Sanskritised intro to Advaita.

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/ad_faq.html

Love and Light.

[anbu_kathir]

And last but not least, analogies remain analogies. A concept may require a number of analogies to explain all its inherent ideas independently.

And a number of concepts ( Advaita, Dvaita, Vishistaadvaita ) have been used to explain the Transcendent, No-Concept state.

All these analogies, and concepts cannot deliver Real knowledge by themselves, they might act only so much as good or bad pointers to Real Knowledge.

You know ( if you have seen 'The Matrix'), as Morpheus says, ' I can only show you the door; you have to open it '.

Which is why, by the way, the Lord Dakshinamoorthi in Hindu mythology, ( God of Self-Knowledge ) , replies with simply the Chinmudra alone and no concepts of thought word or action at all, when requested to explain Absolute Truth.

Love and Light.

[Rohit]

Rohitji, Advaita is not so simple as we might think it is. I don't think it is a joke. If it was, people (the few that do) would not spend a vast period of their lifetime trying to discuss, understand and comprehend it, even theoretically (A practical approach is even more difficult and strenous). And this they have been doing for a few thousand years, but with greater vigour from the time of Sri Adi Sankaracharya.

Advaita theoretically is a transcendent concept, hence it is difficult to put in words, even in Sanskrit, much less in English.
Even some of the greatest exponents in Advaita (The pontiffs of the Sankara mutts) do not talk about it to normal people, because it requires a vast amount of learning, especially in Sanskrit. And clearly a Dvaitic perspective was/is much easier for people to comprehend.

Anyway, from what miniscule theoretical knowledge I have, I am trying to answer your questions for my own sake.

From an Advaitic standpoint, a Creator God doesn't exist separate from Creation. Creation is the Dream of God (The Only Thing There Is - TOTTI ). And hence Creation is not separate from TOTTI, just as our own dreams are not separate from us.

I am using TOTTI instead of GOD here, because TOTTI has a meaning that is exactly how I think of God, and moreover the word GOD has much more different interpretations.

Next, Chitta Shuddi of the mind and NOT the Soul/Self ( which btw is a loose translation of the word Atman) . The Soul/Self is always Eternal and Pure, it undergoes NO contamination of any kind whatsoever. Neither does Advaita nor Jainism talk of a tainted, less than perfect, or a fallen Atman.

The Mind is like a dirty mirror to the Soul, with its fickle nature of associating itself with the sense objects, making the Soul (a part of TOTTI) forget its own true nature, thus causing Creation ( in an imaginary dream ).

The Mind ( including the body) makes the Soul experience itself as a particular and divided part of Creation, which is separate from the rest of Creation.

When the Mind (with all the senses ) turns back on itself, (cleaning the mirror - this is Chitta Shuddi), the association of the self-idea with the external objects, including that of the body fall off, thus revealing the true nature of the Self to ItSelf.

And hence, come the tenets of Advaita Tat-twam-Asi ( That Thou Art ) and Aham Brahmasmi ( I am Brahman ).

I felt that one more of your questions, in my perspective means, how are the different life forms created from TOTTI ?

Different life forms are created from TOTTI because of their states of self-awareness. A being that is completely Self-aware is TOTTI Itself, even when being a part of Creation, it is 'awakened' ( from the Dream ) and 'liberated' ( from the bondages/limitations of a Dream ).

Even so, inherently it doesn't make any real sense, because its just a damn dream. TOTTI always IS. Period. As new forms are created in our dream from our own mind, similarly new forms are created in TOTTI's dream from TOTTI's own mind.

How the free will of the dream-beings of TOTTI, and TOTTI's own will are linked is a different question altogether.

Here is a more Sanskritised intro to Advaita.

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/ad_faq.html

Love and Light.

Yes, dear anbu_kathir, when something is dearly fancied, even though it is known to have been plagiarised, twisted and then wishfully disguised, but miserably fails; there is only one psychology that works; and that is, adoption of the process of "dissonance reduction". Not only me but also every sensible reader who has some idea of what Advaita stands for would never find it difficult to notice that undeniable fact.

Anyway, thank you for your try, AK.

Only for those who are genuinely interested in facts

Advaita Vedanta is nothing but Buddhism in disguise

- GauDapAda is the first historically known author in the Advaita VedAnta tradition.

- GauDapAda is traditionally said to have been the guru of Govinda BhagavatpAda, who was the guru of SankarAcArya.

- GauDapAda composed the GgauDapAdIya kArikAs (GK), which constitute an expository text on the mANDUkya upanishad.

1. The philosophy of Sankaracarya (born about 600 AD), is really just Buddhism in disguise, as explained by Padma Purana (mayavada-asac-chastram pracchanam bauddham ucyate).

2. This can be demonstrated by the chronology of key Mayavadi philosophical explanations, which appear first in Buddhist scriptures and later show up in the philosophy of Sankara and his followers.

3. That Mayavada had stolen the salient features of Sunyavada was not unnoticed by the Buddhists themselves.

4. Buddhism had exercised a profound influence on Sankara's mind to the extent that the tradition opposed to Sankara holds that he is a Buddhist in disguise and his mayavada but crypto-Buddhism.

5. It is well known that Sankara is criticised by his opponents as a "Buddhist in disguise" (pracchanna-bauddha) and his philosophy as mayavada [1] which is but crypto-Buddhism.

6. Among the Vedantins, Bhaskara (750-800) is probably one of the earliest critics against Sankara. He called the Mayavadin "one who depends on the doctrine of the Buddhist" (Buddhamatavalambin), and says that this position has been negated by the author of Brahmasutra.[2] Afterwards, Yamuna (918-1038), Ramanuja (1017-1037), Madhva (1197-1276), Vallabha (1473-1531) and other Vedantins severely criticize the Advaita Vedanta, pointing out that it is in essence nothing but a Buddhist doctrine.

7. Then, in the latter part of the sixteenth century, Vijnanabhiksu of the Samkhya school shows in his Samkhyapravacanabhasya that the mayavada of the Vedantins is of the same standpoint as that of the Vijnanavadin's [4] and criticizes the Vedanta school as a whole. In justifying his criticism, he quotes a verse from the Padmapurana which states that the mayavada is an incorrect theory and is Buddhist doctrine.[5]

Sources:

http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/mayavada.htm

http://www.hindu.com/mag/2004/05/02/stories/2004050200170400.htm

http://www.nagarjunainstitute.com/buddhisthim/backissues/vol11/v11sankara.htm
.
.
.

:D :) :thumbsup:

[anbu_kathir]

>>>Anyway, thank you for your try, AK.

I wasn't trying to do anything, Rohitji.

I do not advocate any philosophy publicly. I don't really care if Advaita is Buddhism or any Xism in disguise.

I am trying to find what works for me. That is all. Because I felt some misconceptions about Advaitic philosophy from your previous post ( as regards Creation, nature and purpose of Chitta Shuddi , and the differences between the objects of Creation ), I have merely pointed them as Advaita tells them to be.

I could be wrong, I could be right. It does not matter. What matters is finding what works for us personally.

I haven't seen either a true Advaita follower or a true Buddhist exploit people in any manner. All they do is empower them. All they want is to make them see the world as it really is. Of course, they suggest their way because they are passionate about it. They have been through it and naturally they are excited about it.

But basically, all they advise for this is the purification of the mind ( by different rituals, that doesn't matter, inherently everything is meditation in some form ).

Purification of the mind is recommended by all religions (in one way or another), and this alone delivers a personal experience of the Atman/God or whatever one might call it ( or not call it).

As someone said, everyone has one's own Bible, as one's life lived.

Love and Light.

[Rohit]

I wasn't trying to do anything, Rohitji.

I do not advocate any philosophy publicly. I don't really care if Advaita is Buddhism or any Xism in disguise.

I am trying to find what works for me. That is all.
Thank you, dear anbu_kathir for being frank.

Of course, I do understand your position, duly taken under the situation you have found yourself in. Though, there is nothing wrong in being honest.

Good luck!

:D :) :thumbsup:

[Rohit]

Neither does Advaita nor Jainism talk of a tainted, less than perfect, or a fallen Atman.
This is absolutely false claim. In Jainism, purification of the Soul/Atman is absolutely necessary.

In other words, it is the nature of the Spirit to get disentangled from matter. For this requisite purification of the soul is very necessary. Then the soul becomes a boadhisattva or Tirthankara. When a man becomes a boddhisattva, there is no mere spiritual degeneration to him. He does not commit evil or sin, on the contrary, he is taken exclusively in the well-being of others, acquires wisdom, treads upon right path and appreciates merit. Haribhadra compares the Jaina conception of Tirthankaras with the Bodhisattvas.

The gradual purification of its love of truth takes place corresponding to the purification of soul. So long the soul has not cut the knot and attained purification, our attitude is bound to be wrong, and perverse called as avidya, mithyatva or darsana-moha. Without purification of the soul, we can have only commonplace attitude of the spiritually advanced soul (yoga-drsti).

www.jainworld.com

[Rohit]

I am trying to find what works for me. That is all.

I could be wrong, I could be right. It does not matter. What matters is finding what works for us personally.

I haven't seen either a true Advaita follower or a true Buddhist exploit people in any manner. All they do is empower them. All they want is to make them see the world as it really is.
Then why not try the original and authentic and not the one that is wishfully twisted, which invariably leads one in the opposite and wrong direction?

This will certainly save one from resorting to utterly useless psychological process of "dissonance reduction", as it invariably happens when one miserably fails in portraying the counterfeit as true.

Good luck!

:D :) :thumbsup:

[SRS]

It is not for me to disprove the existence of a (Creator) God; it is for the belivers of Advaita, Vishistha Advaita, Dvaita and pantheistic beliefs who should bother to disprove; or else, enjoy the Creation of an Intelligent Designer (ID).

Nevertheless, you have tried to show the inconsistency of Advaita on numerous occassions, including in this thread itself, by pointing out so-called contradictions in the conception of God, between one religion and another. The conception of God and the existance of God are not mutually dependent. It seems apparent to me that what you are trying to do is link the two, and discredit the existance of God concept by discrediting certain consistencies between one religion and another.

[anbu_kathir]

This is absolutely false claim. In Jainism, purification of the Soul/Atman is absolutely necessary.

Maybe I made a mistake as regards to the purification of the soul.

But, I think there is a confusion between Soul meaning Atman or Jiva. I doubt if Jainism has the idea of a 'fallen soul', some sites seem to say so, some sites don't. And we don't know what they mean by soul , whether its Jiva or Atman.

BBC ( and some others ) seems to say that Jainism soul has not fallen from perfection. There are also several other sites that say that the soul is fallen.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/jainism/beliefs/soul.shtml


Then why not try the original and authentic and not the one that is wishfully twisted, which invariably leads one in the opposite and wrong direction?

As I said, I don't care about what's wrong or right or authentic or copied. I am trying to find what is functional and workable for myself. I even deviate from most of today's religions including Hinduism concerning certain beliefs of mine. It does not matter at all.

I find that the only way to find what works for me is to check how I feel doing the practical things of any particular system of thought. I believe as I said before; we must write our own holy books from our lives.

Love and Light.

[Rohit]

Nevertheless, you have tried to show the inconsistency of Advaita on numerous occassions, including in this thread itself, by pointing out so-called contradictions in the conception of God, between one religion and another. The conception of God and the existance of God are not mutually dependent. It seems apparent to me that what you are trying to do is link the two, and discredit the existance of God concept by discrediting certain consistencies between one religion and another.
The term existence itself is not a predicate. Therefore, the conception alone of something does not and cannot imply the existence of the thing - it just remains a concept and nothing else.

Therefore, the implications of holding the combined belief in an Advaitic Soul as well as in a Creator God are:

1. Neither an Advaitic Soul nor a Creator God exists; which directly implies that both the Creation and Advaita doctrines are false doctrines.

2. A Creator God has created an Advaitic Soul. This would be absurd from the Advaita standpoint, but unfortunately that is what the belief implies.

3. A Creator God created the universe and then created individual souls, the union of which could be believed as constituting an Advaitic Soul, which again would be absurd from the Advaita standpoint, but that is also what the belief implies.

The above two situations (2 & 3) might falsely seem reconcilable with the other dualistic beliefs of Hinduism, but it is going to be an insurmountable task to reconcile with the Judo-Christian and Islamic theory of Creation.

4. Neither an Advaitic Soul nor a Creator God exists, but the universe and individual souls coexist.

That is why, in Jainism, there is neither an Advaitic Soul nor a Creator God, but categorically asserts that souls get contaminated when they come into contact with the material world and only by purification of the soul one can attain liberation from the cycle of births and rebirths - reincarnations.

I am sure, sensible readers would not fail to grasp what is explained above.

Thank you!

:D :) :thumbsup:

[SRS]

The term existence itself is not a predicate. Therefore, the conception alone of something does not and cannot imply the existence of the thing - it just remains a concept and nothing else.

The something exists in and of itself, irrespective of any conception. If God existed only according to human conceptions, then the God concept would be entirely the product of human sensibilities. But humans did not exist when the Universe was created. So the power of human conception is clearly limited. Therefore it makes sense to consider God as a transcendental being; in particular, transcending the categories of time and space which define human conception.

[Rohit]

The something (?) exists in and of itself, irrespective of any conception.

But humans did not exist when the Universe was created.
This is yet another evidence of a self-defeating fallacy of circular argument - begging the question; "who witnessed the process of creation?" - and a clear example of empty conceptions.

Furthermore, it is produced by entirely disregarding the universal law of conservation of energy, which clearly states that energy [E] [E=mc^2, E=hf] can be neither created nor destroyed. Therefore, the entire net energy [E] contained within the whole space-time continuum - universe(s) can be neither created nor destroyed.

Consequently, there is no possibility of creation. What place, then, for a creator?

That is why, in Jainism, the universe and individual souls exist in and of themselves.

As I said, the term existence itself is not a predicate. Therefore, the conception alone of something (?) exists does not and cannot imply the existence of the thing - it just remains a concept and nothing else.

Therefore, the implications of holding the combined belief remain as stated.

Instead of I just keep responding to such dissonance-ridden fallacies, I would rather ask SRS, or for that matter anyone who can, first define the term "existence" in universally acceptable, unambiguous and non-circular terms and then clearly (unambiguously) state/describe/define what he/she means by "something (?) exists". Also, depending on the clarity or the lack thereof, further definitions may be requested.

As an alternative, I suggest SRS to simply accept the fact that he believes, like others do. It is as simple as that.

Good luck!

:D :) :thumbsup:

[SRS]

"who witnessed the process of creation?" - and a clear example of empty conceptions.

Who has witnessed the curvature of space? Who has witnessed a chimpanzee turning into a human?

So now using your logic, I can argue that relativity theory and evolution are both false. Where modern science is concerned, the evidence lies in the residue.


Furthermore, it is produced by entirely disregarding the universal law of conservation of energy, which clearly states that energy [E] [E=mc^2, E=hf] can be neither created nor destroyed. Therefore, the entire net energy [E] contained within the whole space-time continuum - universe(s) can be neither created nor destroyed.

Consequently, there is no possibility of creation. What place, then, for a creator?

Again I ask you to account for the origin of the singular energy that is at the heart of the Big Bang. If you can give a definitive explanation of the origin of this energy, then I will agree with you that there is no place for a creator. Nevertheless, it remains a scientific fact that such an origin remains unknown. There is, however, plenty of evidence that the Universe was in fact created. By creation I mean had a beginning. Any such "creation" obviously had an energy source. This energy source had to exist before the creation
of the Universe.

Finally, there is no violation of the conservation of energy since the singular energy, which is the energy that created the Universe, simply transformed itself into new forms of energy.

All of which does in fact lead to the possibility of a creator.


As I said, the term existence itself is not a predicate. Therefore, the conception alone of something (?) exists does not and cannot imply the existence of the thing - it just remains a concept and nothing else.

It does not imply the non-existance of the thing either, and that is just as important a point.Unless you can prove the non-existance, then the possibility of the existance is still there. Even though you may refute any number of existance arguments, a new one can be created. Therefore, the only way out is to prove non-existance by showing that the general case is universally true.

[Rohit]

[tscii:3fda50ab94]Poor SRS's utter failure in providing the requested definition of "existence" in itself proves the utter futility of all such dissonance-ridden fallacies and arguments.


Even though you may refute any number of existence arguments, a new one can be created.
The direct conclusion from the above premise is absolutely clear and incontrovertible; there is no God/Brahman than which higher God/Brahman is not needed, making the entire God/Brahman system nothing but a fallacy of false dichotomy; and the entire God/Brahman system completely collapses, reducing it to Absolute Nothing/Void. :D :thumbsup:

The remaining contents in the SRS’s above post also evidently contain the following forms of fallacies.

1. Subjectivism: Fallacious propositions that violate objectivity: I believe/want to believe p to be true; therefore p is true.

2. Reference Effect: Erroneous perception and evaluation of situation based on fallacies.

3. Non-Sequitur: The conclusion does not follow from the premises; the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion. Another name for the fallacy is "irrelevant conclusion"

4. False Assurance: Ascribing credibility to contradicting data or information.

5. Begging the Question (Circular Argument): Because p-->p.

In that case, I accept the above quoted statement from SRS as an affirmation of the fact that he just believes, like others do. Thank you.

Please continue with the belief.

It is now the time for SRS to post his beliefs on reincarnations, the original and intended topic of the thread.

:D :) :thumbsup:[/tscii:3fda50ab94]

[SRS]

We see things alter, come into being, and pass away; and these, or at least their state, must therefore have a cause. But the same question can be raised in regard to every cause that can be given in experience. Where, therefore, can we more suitably locate the ultimate causality than where there also exists the highest causality, that is, in that being which contains primordially in itself the sufficient ground of every possible effect , and the concept of which we can also very easily entertain by means of the one attribute of an all-embracing perfection.

- Kant, KRV. A589/B617-A590/B618

[SRS]

... that being which contains primordially in itself the sufficient ground of every possible effect...

Implying, of course, a creator God, and in doing so, dealing to the atheists a most severe blow. :lol:

[Rohit]

[tscii:8875469e88]
We see things alter, come into being, and pass away; and these, or at least their state, must therefore have a cause. But the same question can be raised in regard to every cause that can be given in experience. Where, therefore, can we more suitably locate the ultimate causality than where there also exists the highest causality, that is, in that being which contains primordially in itself the sufficient ground of every possible effect , and the concept of which we can also very easily entertain by means of the one attribute of an all-embracing perfection.

- Kant, KRV. A589/B617-A590/B618

... that being which contains primordially in itself the sufficient ground of every possible effect...

Implying, of course, a creator God, and in doing so, dealing to the atheists a most severe blow.
Evidently, as I said earlier, poor SRS has helplessly trapped himself in the belief of a Creator God (Intelligent Designer - ID). Good! :D :thumbsup:

Nonetheless, Imperfect Creation by a Creator God with All-Embracing Perfection is in itself a self-contradictory as well as self-defeating proposition.

However, only extremely deluded individuals would lack the requisite ability of appropriate judgment and thoughtlessly rate an absolutely incapable and imperfect designer as an intelligent designer with all-embracing perfection even when his/her design is dismally imperfect, defective, deficient, faulty, flawed, inadequate, insufficient, malfunctioning, unsatisfactory........

On the other hand, when the universe and all its contents are indeed completely self-contained and self-sufficient, forming a closed system, having within itself, of itself and for itself its own interdependent process of cause and effect with additional cause and effect of rendering itself as it is while accommodating every possible mutually contradictory and self-defeating beliefs, there is none whatsoever place for an external, imperfect agency.


There are only three modes of proving the existence of God, on the ground of speculative reason.

The first is Physico-Theological argument, the second the Cosmological, and the third the Ontological. More there are not, and more there cannot be.

I shall show it is as unsuccessful on the one path - the empirical, as on the other – the transcendental, and it stretches its wings in vain, to soar beyond the world of sense by the mere might of speculative thought.

1. The Impossibility Of An Ontological Proof Of The Existence Of God

2. The Impossibility Of A Cosmological Proof Of The Existence Of God

3. The Impossibility Of A Physico-Theological Proof Of The Existence Of God

- Detection And Explanation Of The Dialectical Illusion In All Transcendental Proofs Of The Existence Of A Necessary Being.

- Kant, CPR A589/B617 - A629/B657
In utter desperations, poor SRS has, as usual, taken refuge under the following forms of fallacies.

1. Desire for Self-Fulfilling Conjecture: Another form of selective perception.

2. False Alternative: Failure to consider all the relevant possibilities.

3. False Assurance: Ascribing credibility to contradicting data or information.

4. Fundamental Attribution: Associating fallacy of success with the inherent collective failures.

5. Habit Reutilizing: Using the hallucinations, delusions and dissonance reduction process to help raise false self-esteem.

6. Mental Blockade: Failing to think objectively upon receipt of facts.

7. Non-Sequitur: The conclusion does not follow from the premises; the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion. Another name for the fallacy is "irrelevant conclusion"

8. Reference Effect: Erroneous perception and evaluation of situation based on fallacies.

9. Subjectivism: Fallacious propositions that violate objectivity: I believe/want to believe p to be true; therefore p is true.

10. Begging the Question (Circular Argument): Because p-->p.

Therefore, no matter how much poor SRS gets desperate, jumps up and down, bangs himself sideways or shoots himself diagonally; the conclusion remains absolutely clear and incontrovertible; there is no God/Brahman than which higher God/Brahman is not needed, making the entire God/Brahman system nothing but a fallacy of false dichotomy; and the entire God/Brahman system completely collapses, reducing it to Absolute Nothing/Void. :D :thumbsup:

Again, I accept the above quoted statements from SRS as an affirmation of the fact that he just believes, like others do. Thank you.

Please continue with the belief and enjoy the creation of a Creator God (Intelligent Designer - ID). :)

Therefore, it is now time for SRS to post his perfect beliefs on reincarnations, the original and intended topic of the thread.

:D :) :thumbsup: [/tscii:8875469e88]

[SRS]

Unfortunately for the atheists, not only did Kant believe in God, he also believed in the immortality of the soul:




3.4 The immortality of the soul

In response to this predicament, Kant affirms a principle that, with respect to choice and action, such practical use of our reason cannot require of us what is impossible. To the extent that we view these requirements of reason from the sensible perspective of spatio-temporal causality, they will seem impossible of fulfilment. When, however, we view them from the intelligible perspective within which we frame the exercise of freedom, their fulfilment can legitimately be “postulated” in terms of the immortality of the soul and of the existence of God. Thus, with respect to the requirement that we attain the complete moral perfection of a holy will, Kant holds that we are justified in affirming that we will have an unending and enduring existence after death, outside the framework of spatio-temporal causality, in which to continue the task of seeking moral perfection. He holds a similar view with respect to the requirement that the highest good be the object of our willing. Even though our moral actions do not seem to have the efficacy required in a spatio-temporal framework to produce the happiness proportioned to virtue that is a necessary component of the highest good, we are justified in affirming that there is a supreme cause of nature — i.e., God — that will bring this about, not merely for ourselves, but for all moral agents.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-religion/#3.2

Of course, one should not be surprised if the atheists fail to acknowledge these basic facts. However, when they post one line from Kant, "existance is not a predicate", and declare that is the end of the matter, their desperation is very clear indeed.

Readers with common sense can easily verify the correct facts for themselves![/tscii:0804bc3519]

[Rohit]

Refutation of the permanence (immortality) of the Soul

This acute philosopher easily perceived the insufficiency of the common argument, which attempts to prove that the soul - if one grants that it is a simple being - cannot perish by dissolution; he saw it is not impossible for it to cease to be by disappearance. He endeavoured to prove in his phaedo, that the soul cannot be annihilated, by showing that a simple being cannot cease to exist. Inasmuch as, he said, a simple existence cannot diminish, nor gradually lose portions of its being, and thus be by degrees reduced to nothing (for it possesses no parts, and therefore no multiplicity), between the moment in which it is, and the moment in which it is not, no time can be discovered - which is impossible. But this simple nature, which contains no parts external to each other, and consequently no extensive quantity, we cannot refuse to it any less than any other being, intensive quantity, that is a degree of reality in regard to all its faculties, nay, to all that constitutes its existence.

But this degree of reality can become less and less through infinite series of smaller degrees. It follows; therefore, that this supposed soul, the permanence of which is not assured in any other way, may, if not by decomposition, then by gradual loss (remission) of its powers (consequently by elanguescence, if I may employ this expression), be changed into nothing.

- Immanuel Kant
In utter desperations, poor SRS has, as usual, taken refuge under the following forms of fallacies.

1. Desire for Self-Fulfilling Conjecture: Another form of selective perception.

2. False Alternative: Failure to consider all the relevant possibilities.

3. False Assurance: Ascribing credibility to contradicting data or information.

4. Fundamental Attribution: Associating fallacy of success with the inherent collective failures.

5. Habit Reutilizing: Using the hallucinations, delusions and dissonance reduction process to help raise false self-esteem.

6. Mental Blockade: Failing to think objectively upon receipt of facts.

7. Non-Sequitur: The conclusion does not follow from the premises; the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion. Another name for the fallacy is "irrelevant conclusion"

8. Reference Effect: Erroneous perception and evaluation of situation based on fallacies.

9. Subjectivism: Fallacious propositions that violate objectivity: I believe/want to believe p to be true; therefore p is true.

10. Begging the Question (Circular Argument): Because p-->p.

Therefore, no matter how much poor SRS gets desperate, jumps up and down, bangs himself sideways or shoots himself diagonally; the conclusion remains absolutely clear and incontrovertible; there is no God/Brahman than which higher God/Brahman is not needed, making the entire God/Brahman system nothing but a fallacy of false dichotomy; and the entire God/Brahman system completely collapses, reducing it to Absolute Nothing/Void. :D :thumbsup:

Again, I accept the statements from SRS as an affirmation of the fact that he just believes, like others do. Thank you.

Please continue with the belief. :)

Therefore, it is now time for SRS to post his delusions on reincarnations, the original and intended topic of the thread.

:D :) :thumbsup:

[Rohit]

[tscii:08c2a55fd0]The ultimate fear and certainty of death and the conception of soul:

For humans, death is the most feared, but absolutely certain event. No amount of freewill can deter death. The one, who is born, is certain to die. But no one wants to die. They wish to live forever, remain immortal. The ancient humans had quickly grasped the absolute impossibility of immortal life, but their desire to live forever was indeed intense.

The absolute certainty of death and the acute desire for immortal life were intensely contrary to each other. The dissonance so created was so severe that it manifested in the conception of the soul that survives death. The formulation of the concepts of the soul and reincarnations was the easiest psychosomatic solution for mitigating the ultimate fear of death; and thus, the (false) assurance of immortality was conjured-up by ascribing credibility to the two intensely contradicting conditions.

Morality and the beliefs in God:

To think human morality as the sole responsibility of religion (or Gods) is not only debatable but also fallacious, as morality must have existed before religions (or Gods) were invented. Not only that, it is absolutely self-contradictory and self-defeating to talk about morality or ethics and also believe in something (?) that itself exhibits unethical, corrupt and immoral behaviour; and the factual reality itself categorically refuses to support such notions.

On the one hand, we find persons who may be highly religious, but they are extremely corrupt by nature and exhibit highly immoral behaviour. On the other hand, we find persons who may be non-religious, but they are honest and exhibit very high standard of moral behaviour. Therefore, morality has more to with one’s own conscience and common sense rather than to the irrational beliefs in some non-existent supernatural entities.

In nutshell, moral behaviour can neither be assured nor taught by religious beliefs. Once an individual grasps the necessity and practical value of morality, he/she neither needs religion nor the belief in God as the source of guidance.

There are several cognitive explanations, explaining the psychological aspects of moral judgement in humans. There are three main progressive stages of human morality:

1. Pre-conventional morality: Involves compliance with rules to avoid punishment and gain rewards.

2. Conventional: Involves conformity to rules that are defined by the authority or society (or religion).

3. Post-conventional: Involves moral reasoning on the basis of individual principles and conscience.

As one can clearly see, each subsequent stage of moral development relies on the higher cognitive development of society or individuals than the preceding stage; and it is the last stage, the Post-conventional stage, where the judgement of morality is entirely left to the intellectual abilities of individuals.

Therefore, I do accept that there are many like SRS who certainly need guidance in making moral judgments; and religious institutions might help serve their needs.

Therefore, the beliefs in the immortality of the soul and God are justifiable only on the ground of practical utility when the factual reality and decisive (critical) reason do not and cannot support such beliefs.

Therefore, the drawn conclusion remains as it is, but I do acknowledge the specific statements made and to be made by SRS and other believers as affirmation of the fact that, like many others, they just need to believe before they can even begin to grasp the meaning of morality/ethics and manage to overcome the ultimate fear of death.

Good luck!

:D :) :thumbsup:[/tscii:08c2a55fd0]

[SRS]

Rohit conveniently changed the original heading: "Refutation of the Argument of Mendelssohn for the Substantiality or Permanence of the Soul."

I request the readers to go here and see just how desperate these atheist imbeciles are:

http://www.rbjones.com/rbjpub/philos/classics/kant/kant079.htm

Just because Kant refuted Mendelssohn's argument does not imply that he himself rejected the immortality of the soul. He merely rejected a particular ontological proof of such.

Here is Kant's personal view:




IV. The Immortality of the Soul as a Postulate of Pure Practical Reason.

The realization of the summum bonum ["highest good"] in the world is the necessary object of a will determinable by the moral law. But in this will the perfect accordance of the mind with the moral law is the supreme condition of the summum bonum. This then must be possible, as well as its object, since it is contained in the command to promote the latter. Now, the perfect accordance of the will with the moral law is holiness, a perfection of which no rational being of the sensible world is capable at any moment of his existence. Since, nevertheless, it is required as practically necessary, it can only be found in a progress in infinitum towards that perfect accordance, and on the principles of pure practical reason it is necessary to assume such a practical progress as the real object of our will.


Now, this endless progress is only possible on the supposition of an endless duration of the existence and personality of the same rational being (which is called the immortality of the soul). The summum bonum, then, practically is only possible on the supposition of the immortality of the soul; consequently this immortality, being inseparably connected with the moral law, is a postulate of pure practical reason (by which I mean a theoretical proposition, not demonstrable as such, but which is an inseparable result of an unconditional a priori practical law.

http://www3.baylor.edu/~Scott_Moore/God_immortality.html



Very clearly, Kant states that the immortality of the soul is a postulate of pure practical reason and that this postulate is essential for the "summum bonum," or highest moral order.

Unlike the desperate atheist ignoramus, I have given the full link to my source, since I have nothing to hide.

[Rohit]

Soul = Soul, irrespective of the definition.

[Shakthiprabha.]

:D Life into this thread again :D

[pradheep]

Dear sakthi prabha,
I dont know whether you had a chance to read my explanations at

http://veda.sakthifoundation.org/fundamental.htm

This may answer lot of your doubts about soul.

I tried to answer as much simple as possible. Please let me know.

[aanaa]

*1 What was the human population 2000 years ago? => Meaning that many # human souls were there!

Anyway, write down a #

*2 Now, what is the human population today?

I mean, how many human souls are there today ?

Write down a #

* 3 Do a subtraction!!! Note down the difference in #.

[b] Here comes the question!

Where are these new souls coming from :?:

:roll:




""pullaki poondaki puzhuvay maramaki....""

it has the answer for the present population..


we are clearing all forest ..etc
..

[anbu_kathir]

*1 What was the human population 2000 years ago? => Meaning that many # human souls were there!

Anyway, write down a #

*2 Now, what is the human population today?

I mean, how many human souls are there today ?

Write down a #

* 3 Do a subtraction!!! Note down the difference in #.

[b] Here comes the question!

Where are these new souls coming from :?:

:roll:




""pullaki poondali puzhuvay maramaki....""

it has the answer for the present population..


we are clearing all forest ..etc
..

Things are far more complex than we can imagine :).

Love and Light.

[happyindian]

Very interesting topic.

Concepts of reincarnation and karma have existed since God known when, not only in Hinduism but also in far flung religions like Dadaism. People come to their own conclusions based on what was felt and not on what was proven or what is expected.

We like to believe what was taught to us or what we have read without examining ourselves and the world around us first, so we do not have anyone talking about personal experiences and there is no first-hand information.

Gnostic, Kabbalistic, Amerindian cultures, Polynesian Shamans, Celtic Druids, the wise men of African, Peruvian, Columbian and Brazilian cultures also believed in past lives and reincarnation.

Greek schools of Pythagoreans, Aristotelians and the Platonists accepted past lives and explored it as a scientific subject. They (as did the Egyptian, Mayan and Incan people) spent a great deal of time researching the psychic paths to the past.

Jewish groups such as the Hessians and Caraites include the notion of past lives in their teachings. It was also there in early Christianity (removed later because it wud give man too much time to seek salvation over many births and that was not what the church wanted).

Past life regressions have been known to occur to people in various states of altered consciousness. The book 'Many Lives, Many Masters' by Brian Weiss (a psychiatrist) is the story of one of his patients. He ended up writing other books based on his other patients whose stories he explored and collected. This happened to patients who were not raised to beleive in past-lives.

Thamiz, that was actually Periyar's question :) Well, what can one say - life supports life. Life is life. Chopping down trees, bringing various animals to extinctions, polluting water and killing aquatic life, polluting air and killing everyone including humans - where will all that energy, all those souls go?

[Kusukusu]

Very interesting correspondence. I am seeing it very late.Why so much interest in reincarnation and soul.? I can not understand. It is only possible to believe that you are typing the PC and read the subject now. No more. Rest is imagination or wish. Due to fear death and also life problems may be? Mr Rohit is very right I think.He is quoting - moral behaviour can not be taught by religious beliefs. If persons can know the value of morality, that person is not requiring religion or believe in God. This is very right by personal experience.

If you can be person of fair behaviour or moral person then you understand that only you are responsible person to deal with good and bad things. Both are thre in life but if you understand to be moral person you are knowing it is your action which create problem and also to solve the problem or improve situation.

As per Jain philosophy a moral person with pure of mind is suddha jeevan or suddhathma (with suddha manasu) and treated like God (or Tirthankara). Not because God is there as that is not true. But as model or example of how our own correct and fair action can help to be like God. So the need for God or believing God is not there any more.

But only special people or suddha jeevan can have total suddha manasu. Rest can try to get closer to 100 % by correction for wrong action or thinking. So you can not be perfect but can improve the moral action and increase the self belief. Then the fear is not there and also God is not needed.

Iwant to remind that Kant also said be daring and brave (sapier aude). My understanding is thatthinking about fear and problem without false hope can make self beleif. Kusukusu.

[Shakthiprabha.]

Very interesting topic.

Concepts of reincarnation and karma have existed since God known when, not only in Hinduism but also in far flung religions like Dadaism. People come to their own conclusions based on what was felt and not on what was proven or what is expected.

We like to believe what was taught to us or what we have read without examining ourselves and the world around us first, so we do not have anyone talking about personal experiences and there is no first-hand information.

Gnostic, Kabbalistic, Amerindian cultures, Polynesian Shamans, Celtic Druids, the wise men of African, Peruvian, Columbian and Brazilian cultures also believed in past lives and reincarnation.

Greek schools of Pythagoreans, Aristotelians and the Platonists accepted past lives and explored it as a scientific subject. They (as did the Egyptian, Mayan and Incan people) spent a great deal of time researching the psychic paths to the past.

Jewish groups such as the Hessians and Caraites include the notion of past lives in their teachings. It was also there in early Christianity (removed later because it wud give man too much time to seek salvation over many births and that was not what the church wanted).

Past life regressions have been known to occur to people in various states of altered consciousness. The book 'Many Lives, Many Masters' by Brian Weiss (a psychiatrist) is the story of one of his patients. He ended up writing other books based on his other patients whose stories he explored and collected. This happened to patients who were not raised to beleive in past-lives.

Thamiz, that was actually Periyar's question :) Well, what can one say - life supports life. Life is life. Chopping down trees, bringing various animals to extinctions, polluting water and killing aquatic life, polluting air and killing everyone including humans - where will all that energy, all those souls go?

:thumbsup:

[P_R]

Most of the posts here are a little dizzy for me.
Just wanted to quote a couple of lines from an essay by the recently departed writer Sujatha.

Pretty much sums up all I can say/understand about this subject.


மனிதனைப் பொறுத்தவரை உயிர் என்பது உடல் இயக்கமா ? அவன் நினைவுகளா ?........
உயிர் என்பது என்ன அன்று ஆதாரமாக சிந்திக்கும் பொழுது, நம் ஞாபகங்கள் தான் உயிர்...
...
நினைவுகள் மட்டும் இல்லை. குணாதிசியங்கள், முகஜாடை,கோபம்,சிரிப்பு,கன்னத்தில் விழும் குழி எல்லாமே உயிரின் அடையாளங்கள். அவைகாள் தொடரும் வரை உயிர் தொடர்கிறது.....
...
ஏதோ ஒரு டி.என்.ஏ-வின் தொடர்ச்சியாகத் தொடர்ந்து வாழ்கிறோம் என்கிற கருத்து எனக்கு மறுபிறவி கருத்தை விட வசீகரமாக இருக்கிறது.......

அதனால், பலவகை பிறப்புகளை பிறந்துவிட்டு கடைசியில் மனித உருவத்துக்கு வந்திருக்கிறோம் என்று சொல்வதில் அபத்தமில்லை. அடுத்த பிறவியில் பாவ புண்ணியங்களுக்கு ஏற்ப மண் புழுவாகவோ கிளிண்டனின் பேரனாகவோ பிறப்போம் என்று சொல்வதுதான், தூய தமிழில் சொன்னால், 'உட்டாலக்கடி'.

[Shakthiprabha.]

Most of the posts here are a little dizzy for me.
Just wanted to quote a couple of lines from an essay by the recently departed writer Sujatha.

Pretty much sums up all I can say/understand about this subject.


மனிதனைப் பொறுத்தவரை உயிர் என்பது உடல் இயக்கமா ? அவன் நினைவுகளா ?........
உயிர் என்பது என்ன அன்று ஆதாரமாக சிந்திக்கும் பொழுது, நம் ஞாபகங்கள் தான் உயிர்...
...
நினைவுகள் மட்டும் இல்லை. குணாதிசியங்கள், முகஜாடை,கோபம்,சிரிப்பு,கன்னத்தில் விழும் குழி எல்லாமே உயிரின் அடையாளங்கள். அவைகாள் தொடரும் வரை உயிர் தொடர்கிறது.....
...
ஏதோ ஒரு டி.என்.ஏ-வின் தொடர்ச்சியாகத் தொடர்ந்து வாழ்கிறோம் என்கிற கருத்து எனக்கு மறுபிறவி கருத்தை விட வசீகரமாக இருக்கிறது....... அதனால், பலவகை பிறப்புகளை பிறந்துவிட்டு கடைசியில் மனித உருவத்துக்கு வந்திருக்கிறோம் என்று சொல்வதில் அபத்தமில்லை. அடுத்த பிறவியில் பாவ புண்ணியங்களுக்கு ஏற்ப மண் புழுவாகவோ கிளிண்டனின் பேரனாகவோ பிறப்போம் என்று சொல்வதுதான், தூய தமிழில் சொன்னால், 'உட்டாலக்கடி'.

This point is stressed by some missions / followers of particular cult.

They say, ur re-birth means UR IMPRINTS ATTACHES itself to the DNA which it finds suitable (most likely ur own relatives/esp son/grandson/granddaughter/daughter etc or sometimes some other DNA which is akin to urs, in THOUGHT FORCES

[anbu_kathir]

A DNA is made up of particles. I don't really think we can claim to have understood what particles are. We just have some probablistic measures of how some particles behave, and very few answers to why they do so. As far as I know, even claiming that we have understood DNA is 'utaalakadi'.. LOL.

From my point of view, Life seems to be far more mysterious than most of us ever imagine it to be. Nothing can be ruled out or taken for granted just like that, because its all about perspective and perception.

Love and Light.



Most of the posts here are a little dizzy for me.
Just wanted to quote a couple of lines from an essay by the recently departed writer Sujatha.

Pretty much sums up all I can say/understand about this subject.


மனிதனைப் பொறுத்தவரை உயிர் என்பது உடல் இயக்கமா ? அவன் நினைவுகளா ?........
உயிர் என்பது என்ன அன்று ஆதாரமாக சிந்திக்கும் பொழுது, நம் ஞாபகங்கள் தான் உயிர்...
...
நினைவுகள் மட்டும் இல்லை. குணாதிசியங்கள், முகஜாடை,கோபம்,சிரிப்பு,கன்னத்தில் விழும் குழி எல்லாமே உயிரின் அடையாளங்கள். அவைகாள் தொடரும் வரை உயிர் தொடர்கிறது.....
...
ஏதோ ஒரு டி.என்.ஏ-வின் தொடர்ச்சியாகத் தொடர்ந்து வாழ்கிறோம் என்கிற கருத்து எனக்கு மறுபிறவி கருத்தை விட வசீகரமாக இருக்கிறது....... அதனால், பலவகை பிறப்புகளை பிறந்துவிட்டு கடைசியில் மனித உருவத்துக்கு வந்திருக்கிறோம் என்று சொல்வதில் அபத்தமில்லை. அடுத்த பிறவியில் பாவ புண்ணியங்களுக்கு ஏற்ப மண் புழுவாகவோ கிளிண்டனின் பேரனாகவோ பிறப்போம் என்று சொல்வதுதான், தூய தமிழில் சொன்னால், 'உட்டாலக்கடி'.

This point is stressed by some missions / followers of particular cult.

They say, ur re-birth means UR IMPRINTS ATTACHES itself to the DNA which it finds suitable (most likely ur own relatives/esp son/grandson/granddaughter/daughter etc or sometimes some other DNA which is akin to urs, in THOUGHT FORCES

[Shakthiprabha.]

A DNA is made up of particles. I don't really think we can claim to have understood what particles are. We just have some probablistic measures of how some particles behave, and very few answers to why they do so. As far as I know, even claiming that we have understood DNA is 'utaalakadi'.. LOL.

From my point of view, Life seems to be far more mysterious than most of us ever imagine it to be. Nothing can be ruled out or taken for granted just like that, because its all about perspective and perception.

Love and Light.


anbuk kathir,

:)


Neither have we understood LIFE FORCE nor DNA..thats why probably they equated it.

:)

[anbu_kathir]

Hehehe.. As Nalla says in Anbe Sivam, ' "Dog"a thirippi pOta "God" varuthunga " ' :D.

Love and Light.



A DNA is made up of particles. I don't really think we can claim to have understood what particles are. We just have some probablistic measures of how some particles behave, and very few answers to why they do so. As far as I know, even claiming that we have understood DNA is 'utaalakadi'.. LOL.

From my point of view, Life seems to be far more mysterious than most of us ever imagine it to be. Nothing can be ruled out or taken for granted just like that, because its all about perspective and perception.

Love and Light.


anbuk kathir,

:)


Neither have we understood LIFE FORCE nor DNA..thats why probably they equated it.

:) :D :D

[bingleguy]

5) How scientific is this theory?
Hinduism means SPIRITUAL SCIENCE...

romba late aa kekkaren :-) sorry !!!
but can u explain this part ..... Raghu