InesQor:

For some unknown reason, I keep getting misunderstood by some people on here.

Unknown reason. Perhaps you need to re evaluate the ideas that you advance and the way or language in which you advance them. I don't think that anybody is misunderstanding you, but it is my honest feeling that you are misunderstanding ideas - and in this thread - especially Buddhist ones.

Thanks for your comment, but I said no such thing as that reincarnation originated with the Hindus. What I said was:

Really, what is the difference between an idea originating with the hindus and an idea originating in hinduism? ? ? ?

I hope you can now see where misunderstandings originate!

People often turn to religion for doctrines that provide simple answers to difficult questions. Buddhism doesn't work that way. Merely believing in some doctrine about reincarnation or rebirth has no purpose. Buddhism is a practice that enables experiencing illusion as illusion and reality as reality.

Quote
Sometimes Westerners use the word karma to mean the result of karma. For example, someone might say John lost his job because "that's his karma." However, as Buddhists use the word, karma is the action, not the result. The effects of karma are spoken of as the "fruits" or the "result" of karma.

Quote
In the Buddha's day, most religions of India taught that karma operated in a simple straight line -- past actions influence the present; present actions influence the future. But to Buddhists, karma is non-linear and complex. Karma, the Ven. Thanissaro Bhikku says, "acts in multiple feedback loops, with the present moment being shaped both by past and by present actions; present actions shape not only the future but also the present."

These are all basic, and have no bearing on our discussion. I see no reason why you have posted them.

The Rev. Takashi Tsuji, a Jodo Shinshu priest, wrote about belief in reincarnation:

"It is said that the Buddha left 84,000 teachings; the symbolic figure represents the diverse backgrounds characteristics, tastes, etc. of the people. The Buddha taught according to the mental and spiritual capacity of each individual.

For the simple village folks living during the time of the Buddha, the doctrine of reincarnation was a powerful moral lesson. Fear of birth into the animal world must have frightened many people from acting like animals in this life. If we take this teaching literally today we are confused because we cannot understand it rationally.

", A parable, when taken literally, does not make sense to the modern mind. Therefore we must learn to differentiate the parables and myths from actuality."

Again. Has no bearing whatsoever on this discussion. Really,.why are you posting these? Have you forgotten our topic?

I just stumbled on some fun things from this thread, way back when I was posting as mavenb0x.

I definitely miss Krayola and Viaro on the NL boards! Lol

Deepsight, you remember? You like ?

Krayola:

The Hebrews expected Elijah to return because he never died. Reincarnation was not something that was part of their belief system. . . Even resurrection was only believed by some Hebrews and that was much later, long long long after Elijah. The identification of JTB with Elijah was most likely symbolic and in reference to his function, and not his personal identity. Even, sef, Elisha had the "spirit" of Elijah even though they lived at the same time for crying out loud, which I think supports your opponents arguments. In 2 Kings 2:1-12 Elisha asks Elijah for a double portion of his "spirit", and he "inherits" it and serves a certain prophetic function. Was that also reincarnation? YOur opponents, IMHO, are not twisting anything. Rather than isolating certain texts, they are interpreting them in light of how the Hebrews understood their religion.  

Hebrews were more concerned with functionality. Worrying about the "nature of being" etc were Greek tendencies. If, at all, JTB was identified, by Jesus, with Elijah, it was most likely because of his function. . . he was in the "spirit" of Elijah. For example All those genealogies (Matthew and Luke) that say Jesus is the son of David are interested in his function as "King", "Messiah/liberator", and not whether or not he was an actual descendant of David. A lot of the Bible is symbolic, and a lot of it must be read thru Hebrew eyes to put things in context. I think you are injecting foreign ideas into the mix. Just my opinion though.

There's a paper on this stuff here. . . kinda long, but it's pretty interesting. http://www.columbiaseminary.edu/forstudents/pdf/termapersample.pdf

mavenb0x:
@Krayola: you see, this is why i respect your opinion, you may not be a Christian but you always cut the "c[i]r[/i]ap" and leave your sentiments aside, like a religion facts machine. You distinguish between what you believe in, and what authorities with the worldview in question believe in. Thanks for the input.

m_nwankwo:
It is wiser to say that one does not believe in reincarnation than to say that it is false. To declare that something, particularly spiritual experiences as false or even true pressuposes that such a person have investigated such a phenomenon and have clear cut, irrefutable evidence. An evidence that is both independent and reproducible if such a claim is subjected to objective, independent investigation. By evidence, I do not mean  debates or essays but a reproduction of such evidence in real time and in life. If I say that I believe in reincarnation, then that is my perception and I am entitled to it. The same goes for one who says he does not believe in reincarnation. But if I say that reincarnation is true, then that presupposes that I have personal and independently verifiable evidence of reincarnation and if called upon I can recall evidence of past lives which scholars can check out to see if it matches. The same goes for those who say that reincarnation is false. Reincarnation, miracles, demons and other similar phenomenon must pass independent but objective investigation if it is to be transported from belief or personal perception to the status of Truth or Falsehood. A spiritual experience that has a material manifestation must be subjected to scientific investigation or else a wide door to errors is opened where evertything is possible and impossible. Best wishes.

mavenb0x:
@m_nwankwo: The deal is that Deep Sight says that JESUS PREACHED REINCARNATION in the Bible.

We're not contending reincarnation, we're discussing whether reincarnation is preached in the Bible, and whether it was advocated by Jesus, and whether the Hebrews had such a mindset. As I once said, if someone tells me that Santa Claus has a red unicorn, and the unicorn is the god of every december, I am not bothered. Just don't tell me that the red unicorn-god is the one that Job described in the Bible, or something like that!

m_nwankwo:
I am aware of what is being discussed and I have already said so in my short post before the penultimate one. I have also stated in that post that it is incorrect to interpret the bible for those that believe in it or the koran for moslems especially when the one doing the interpretation does not believe in whole or in part the contents of the bible or Koran. I also stated in that post that John the Baptist is not a reincarnation of Elijah. In addition, I do not sense that reincarnation is taught in the bible. It is my conviction that Jesus, the son of God taught reincarnation but that teaching is not in the bible and thus I agree with those who say that reincarnation cannot be found in the bible. Stay blessed.

Krayola:

@ Deepsight. . . In Jewish religion Elijah has a role, kinda like Jesus does in Christianity. He is a sort of intermediary between God and man, except he does not wash away sins and they don't pray to him. The belief (according to tradition) is that he is the one person that has direct access to God, and so say for instance two Rabbis are debating an issue and cannot come to an agreement, they invite Elijah and send him to God to go and get an explanation. I don't really understand all the technicalities as I ain't a Jew, but Elijah has such a role in Judaism and it is premised on the fact that he never died and has access to God.  One reason why Elijah has such a special status is BECAUSE HE NEVER DIED, according to their belief system. Whether he went to heaven or sky or moon of Ijebu ode is irrelevant. Dude is believed to be ALIVE!! The body has special status in Judaism. (Jesus is believed to have PHYSICALLY risen from the dead, and then into heaven)

Whether or not what is believed is reasonable or plausible is not what we are debating here. . . so all these questions about "where is the body" and all that you are asking are kinda irrelevant IMO. YOu are free to believe in reincarnation, and free to base it on the bible. But to convince others, you have to make a better case. You have made a horrible one so far, IMO. Redefining how reincarnation works to suit your position is an insult to all of us, and is intellectually dishonest. I've spent the last fifteen minutes or so looking at all sorts of articles, book passages, etc on reincarnation, and DEATH and REBIRTH are stated in ALL of them. Can't find anything to support this case of someone, that is believed to still be alive, being reborn as someone else. If you can't show us examples, even outside of Christianity, and stick to the standard version of reincarnation (Not the deepsight2010 remix), then just drop the debate. 

Deep Sight:

Quote by Krayola
Redefining how reincarnation works to suit your position is an insult to all of us, and is intellectually dishonest.

Boy oh boy! And what is the redefinition?

Stating that a person must depart the world before it can be said that he "returns" is dishonest?

And what difference does the means of departure make? Death. Ascension. KLM. Luftansa. Voodoo.

Boy oh boy!

Krayola:

That is not what we are debating here. This was never a debate about Elijah's whereabouts or the plausibility of what is believed. You trying to make this about Christian dogma makes you look desperate. Everyone know this is about whether or not reincarnation can be supported by the Bible.

If Jews believe Elijah is still alive that is their headache (FYI Jews know he isn't alive. . .it's tradition, not dogma. . .don't know if u can appreciate that tho) Does it not occur to you that belief in reincarnation may make you look like an  to some? DO you know how silly some of the stuff you believe in seems to me, or others? What you believe in is your business. But here you have to make good arguments to convince people, and on this particular issue, you have failed woefully and are now just trying too hard, IMO.

Krayola:

Soul departs body at death. . . . . not at flight, ascension, vacation, but when the person DIES!! I'm not goin this route with you. You're, IMHO, being so juvenile that it's actually irritating now. Make arguments that will make us think and we can counter and have a debate. You do that on lots of threads and it's fukn great. But on this one you have just totally fallen apart. You're all of a sudden just yarnin dust.

I'm honestly not interested in endless debate over stuff i don't even believe in. But it is obvious that you are not being straight up here. If you can live with it then it's all good. knock urself out.

Krayola:

@ Justcool. . . I'm trying to find some info about reincarnation being an issue that was discussed and voted on at the council of Nicea and can't find anything from any credible source. I also took a Christian history course where we dealt with this stuff and that never came up. I think that is just conspiracy theory stuff, but I could be wrong. I can find websites that echo what you say, but like I said they are just claims, not even arguments. . . I can't find any academic sources that agree with it. NONE!! And if there was truth to it I'm pretty confident scholars would be all over it. I may be looking in the wrong places though so maybe you can direct me to a source. thanks.

"Reincarnation" normally is understood to be the transmigration of a soul to another body after death. There is no such teaching in Buddhism. One of the most fundamental doctrines of Buddhism is anatta, or anatman -- no soul or no self. There is no permanent essence of an individual self that survives death.

Lol, InesQor, you have not grasped the Buddhist teaching. The denial of soul is absolutely not as you have conceived it, no, no, no, and thrice again, NO! If it were, there would be no Buddhist teachinh whatsoever and all karmic teachings would collapse as meaningless absurdities. Now, please read below and set correct you misapprehension on this score  - (i embolden certain parts for emphais) -



Buddhism teaches that all things are in a constant state of flux: all is changing, and no permanent state exists by itself.[28][29] This applies to human beings as much as to anything else in the cosmos. Thus, a human being has no permanent self.[30][31] According to this doctrine of anatta (Pāli; Sanskrit: anātman) – "no-self" or "no soul" – the words "I" or "me" do not refer to any fixed thing. They are simply convenient terms that allow us to refer to an ever-changing entity.[32]

The anatta doctrine is not a kind of materialism. [size=16pt]Buddhism does not deny the existence of "immaterial" entities, and it (at least traditionally) distinguishes bodily states from mental states. Thus, the conventional translation of anatta as "no-soul"[34] can be confusing. If the word "soul" simply refers to an incorporeal component in living things that can continue after death, then Buddhism does not deny the existence of the soul. [/size] Instead, Buddhism denies the existence of a permanent entity that remains constant behind the changing corporeal and incorporeal components of a living being.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul#Buddhism

I hope this places things in proper context for you.

Deep Sight:

Unknown reason. Perhaps you need to re evaluate the ideas that you advance and the way or language in which you advance them. I don't think that anybody is misunderstanding you, but it is my honest feeling that you are misunderstanding ideas - and in this thread - especially Buddhist ones.

Really, what is the difference between an idea originating with the hindus and an idea originating in hinduism? ? ? ?

I hope you can now see where misunderstandings originate!

I really hope you have the understanding to see the difference between

Karma and its role in reincarnation is a teaching that originated in Hinduism

and

Reincarnation started in Hinduism

But why should I assume that you do?

Let me assume that you are not being dishonest, and break it down for you.

(1) I said Karma (together with its role in reincarnation - reincarnation was already a pagan teaching from ancient Aztec practices to the present day - if you need references I can produce them) is a teaching that originated in Hinduism.

(2) I did not say that reincarnation was a Hindu teaching. I was talking about KARMA.

This is a very simple reading comprehension exercise.

As for all my so-called irrelevant posts, it is disappointing that that is your best comeback. You mean after all this while, that was your best riposte? I believe when one has falsely accused another (as you falsely accused me of lying about Buddhist teachings on reinacrnation whereas I was correct in my view), and is shown up for it, at the least you can say touche, oh, I gaffed. But not you, Deep Sight. Never you.

@Deep Sight:

When I quoted the no-soul (anatta) thing (no, they are not my words, I hope you didn't miss that), I expected you to understand the context and not take me literally. I DO NOT mean that Buddhism does not believe in souls. My point is in the permanence of a soul, as would be required in the transmigration of soul from body to body across the ages.

You are yet to provide evidence that Buddhism believes in reincarnation AS a transmigration of [b]soul [/b]from body to body.

Deep Sight:

[size=14pt]Instead, Buddhism denies the existence of a permanent entity that remains constant behind the changing corporeal and incorporeal components of a living being.[/size]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul#Buddhism

The above was what you were meant to have described in large fonts, and not all of that which you did.

a buddhist tale:

   Hui K’o: My mind is not appeased.Sir, may you appease my mind?
   Bodhidharma: Bring forth your mind. I’ll appease it.
   Hui K’o: I’ve sought my mind but it could not be found.
   Bodhidharma : Then, I’ve already appeased it.

Immediately, Hui K’o was instantaneously enlightened. [b][/b]

InesQor, i really hope that we needn't return to the days of unnecessarily demonizing Deep Sight. I mean no offence whatsoever, i think there are serious issues to be discussed here, and I plead that we walk hand in hand together to understand this matter aright. So please do not begin to venture caustic - it helps nothing and no one.

Let me just say regarding this -

InesQor:

I really hope you have the understanding to see the difference between

Karma and its role in reincarnation is a teaching that originated in Hinduism

and

Reincarnation started in Hinduism

But why should I assume that you do?

Let me assume that you are not being dishonest, and break it down for you.

(1) I said Karma (together with its role in reincarnation - reincarnation was already a pagan teaching from ancient Aztec practices to the present day - if you need references I can produce them) is a teaching that originated in Hinduism.

(2) I did not say that reincarnation was a Hindu teaching. I was talking about KARMA.

This is a very simple reading comprehension exercise.

As for all my so-called irrelevant posts, it is disappointing that that is your best comeback. You mean after all this while, that was your best riposte? I believe when one has falsely accused another (as you falsely accused me of lying about Buddhist teachings on reinacrnation whereas I was correct in my view), and is shown up for it, at the least you can say touche, oh, I gaffed. But not you, Deep Sight. Never you.

- That the teaching of Karma is virtually inseperable from the teaching of commonly unsderstood reincarnation. There will be no commonly understood reincarnation without Karma right beside it. It would be meaningless.

By the way, your exact words were "reincranation originated in hinduism"

And PaganNja paraphrased that to "reincarnation originated with the hindus"

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Sorry, still cant see the difference. But we can leave this, its not the subject for the thread.

Pastor AIO:

a buddhist tale:

   Hui K’o: My mind is not appeased.Sir, may you appease my mind?
   Bodhidharma: Bring forth your mind. I’ll appease it.
   Hui K’o: I’ve sought my mind but it could not be found.
   Bodhidharma : Then, I’ve already appeased it.

Immediately, Hui K’o was instantaneously enlightened. [b][/b]

Mind is not the spirit.

Deep Sight:

InesQor, i really hope that we needn't return to the days of unnecessarily demonizing Deep Sight. I mean no offence whatsoever, i think there are serious issues to be discussed here, and I plead that we walk hand in hand together to understand this matter aright. So please do not begin to venture caustic - it helps nothing and no one.

Unfortunately I have similar wishes but we don't always get what we wish, and your usual manner of approach is encouraging just the same.

Deep Sight:

Let me just say regarding this -

- That the teaching of Karma is virtually inseperable from the teaching of commonly unsderstood reincarnation. There will be no commonly understood reincarnation without Karma right beside it. It would be meaningless.

And who says so? There were teachings on reincarnation as bodily transmigration (the popular concept) way before Hinduism and then Buddhism came up. Once again, refer to the ancient Aztecs.

Deep Sight:

By the way, your exact words were "reincranation originated in hinduism"

And PaganNja paraphrased that to "reincarnation originated with the hindus"

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Sorry, still cant see the difference. But we can leave this, its not the subject for the thread.

Are you kidding me

So because Pagan 9ja misquoted me, you are joining him? Can you see what I said:

InesQor:

Karma and its role in reincarnation is a teaching that originated in Hinduism, but Buddhists understand it differently, although it may, for lack of nuance, look like that which is [i]impurely [/i]believed today thanks to [i]influences [/i]of the Western world. See that influence word again?

And honestly [/b]say again that

Deep Sight:

[b]By the way, your exact words were "reincranation originated in hinduism"

HONESTLY?

"That remains constant" is what is key here. Commonly understood reincarnation does not teach that the spirit "remains constant" - in fact, i am not aware of any teaching of reincarnation that advances that. What is advanced is that the spirit grows, changes, evolves, purifies, call it what you may. Thus this quote absolutely does not contradict that which I said. The spirit is always said to change - that does not make it another spirit - it is the self same spirit what has grown or evolved or changed. So this is still in consonance with that which I tell you.

What was advanced in your earlier posts, and if i misunderstand him not, the posts of Pastor AIO, was a suggestion that this core incorporeal aspect of the being, which is the spirit, does not continue to exist in terms of reincarnation. This is altogether wrong - and when you advance it as Buddhist teaching, then you have altogether misapprehended Buddhist teaching.

InesQor:

Unfortunately I have similar wishes but we don't always get what we wish, and your usual manner of approach is encouraging just the same.
And who says so? There were teachings on reincarnation as bodily transmigration (the popular concept) way before Hinduism and then Buddhism came up. Once again, refer to the ancient Aztecs.

Are you kidding me

So because Pagan 9ja misquoted me, you are joining him? Can you see what I said:

And honestly [/b]say again that

[b]HONESTLY?

Oh dear, I can now see that is a mistake from me. My apologies, I must have not been concentrating.

However the teaching of Karma does indeed remain inseparable from commonly understood reincarnation. The latter would be meaningless without the former. And the thrust of what Paganaija said remains true with reference to your correct quote - the self same ideas of karma and its role in reincarnation have been rife throughout pagan religions the world over historically.

^^^

Deep Sight:

"That remains constant" is what is key here. Commonly understood reincarnation does not teach that the spirit "remains constant" - in fact, i am not aware of any teaching of reincarnation that advances that. What is advanced is that the spirit grows, changes, evolves, purifies, call it what you may. Thus this quote absolutely does not contradict that which I said. The spirit is always said to change - that does not make it another spirit - it is the self same spirit what has grown or evolved or changed. so this is still in consonance with that which I tell you.

What was advanced in your earlier posts, and if i misunderstand him not, the posts of Pastor AIO, was a suggestion that this core incorporeal aspect of the being, which is the spirit, does not continue to exist in terms of reincarnation. This is altogether wrong - and when you advance it as Buddhist teaching, then you have altogether misapprehended Buddhist teaching.

Wait, Deep Sight.

Who mentioned anything about the spirit?  

We're talking about a transmigration of SOUL from body to body; which is the popular belief about reincarnation, and I am talking about how the Bible and Buddhist beliefs do not support this.

In popular belief, the soul stays constant in essence as it transmigrates, and that is why the person has access to memories and ideas (which the soul had experienced in a past life).

Isn't that so?

^^^ At this point you will please have to give me your own specific distinction between soul and spirit and maybe that will resolve the issue, because there are many different understandings of the proper distinction.

And when you do this, we can then see how that matches up with the issues raised by the OP.

Thanks.

InesQor:



Who mentioned anything about the spirit?

We're talking about a transmigration of SOUL from body to body;

Okay - does this suggest that you accede the the spirit is indeed transferred from body to body, but not the soul?

Cos if that is your meaning, then the ideas you advanced earlier certainly collapse. Clarify please.

Deep Sight:

Oh dear, I can now see that is a mistake from me. My apologies, I must have not been concentrating.

However the teaching of Karma does indeed remain inseparable from commonly understood reincarnation. The latter would be meaningless without the former. And the thrust of what Paganaija said remains true with reference to your correct quote - the self same ideas of karma and its role in reincarnation have been rife throughout pagan religions the world over historically.

Guy, you are clutching at straws. Long before the Hindus came up with the idea of Karma, ancient pagans like the Aztecs already believed in reincarnation.

Death, reincarnation, the after life, it was all a form of rhythm like the motions of the sea and other beautiful earth processes. NOTHING to do with DEEDS. Nothing about Karma. Nothing.

It was just an intangible aspect of their eco-system. The Hindu karma has nothing to necessarily do with the popular idea of reincarnation, which is a corporeal transmigration of souls over time.

Here you go, extracts from a research paper.

To many Aztecs, death was seen as another journey, therefore one could suppose that fear of (self) sacrifice or natural death was not as strong as Christian thoughts of death.

Many gruesome rituals that Aztecs took part in stemmed from what they believed about life. Aztecs placed confidence in the notion that all aspects of nature took part in earth’s intricate rhythm. To promote stability in earth’s patterns the Aztecs thought that it was vitally important to run life in perfect beat of nature’s rhythms. In addition, Aztecs believed in supreme beings and divine creation. Ometecunth and Omeciuatl were the highest gods in the thirteenth heaven.

With an emphasis on blood, rhythm, and continuity it is no wonder that the Aztecs also believed in reincarnation.

Aztecs believed that those who died could be reborn and that death was never an absolute for any person. The natural cycles of the earth complemented this with the natural progression of seasons, growth cycles, and time. Aztec religion held that heaven was divided into numerous parts. The West level of heaven was for women who died while in childbirth and the East was for warriors who bravely died in battle or in sacrifice.The many other people who made up Aztec society worshiped the god of rain and when they died they went to live in a tropical oasis. As society hinged beliefs of life and death and sustaining the unquenchable thirst of Tlaltecuhtli, every aspect of Aztec religion permeated poetry, music, art, and the Aztec way of life.

Most Aztecs believed that a person possessed three souls. After the death of a person the souls were trapped in their body until they were released through cremation. Once released, these souls traveled in the afterlife. Aztec warriors and people who were sacrificed also were taught that upon their death they would join the sun god in his cycle across the sky for four years. While they lived with the sun god they would dance, sing, and act out famous war battles until they were reborn into humming birds on earth. Aztecs believed that out of honor warriors became humming birds from service to the god Huitzilopochtli, the god of war. Huitzilopochtli’s symbol was the humming bird. He took the form of a humming bird to lead Aztecs from their mythical home to Mexico. Aztecs who died by water be that storms, frost, or drowning went to Tlalocan, the rain god’s mountain paradise. This was a glorious idea to the many who served the gods but for those who chose not too there was a horrible fate waiting for them.

Those Aztecs who were immortal or the ones who chose not to believe in gods were thought by others to die and go to Mictlan. Mictlan was the god of the underworld and immortal souls were made by Mictlan to live eternally as insects and gross fowls of the air. All other Aztecs who lived an average life only died to face an ardent journey through the underworld. Once these souls were freed from the body they would travel through two mountains and avoid avalanches and other treacheries. If the soul triumphed it went on to avoid toxic snakes and alligators. Still, if the soul was successful it would need to walk through eight deserts, eight mountains, and pass through a lifeless freezing plain where demonic gods would hurl freezing stones and knives at it. Once the soul passed through these treacherous trials it would arrive at a giant river where a friendly dog would meet it and help the soul cross. If successful the soul would arrive at the Mictlan the death god’s feet and offer Mictlan gifts. If the god thought these gifts to be adequate he would allow the soul to pass into eternity. If Mictlan found these gifts unpleasing or if the soul did not make it through his or her journey the person would enter eternity as nothing, a hopeless void to never live again.

George C. Vaillant, Aztecs of Mexico: Origin, Rise and Fall of the Aztec Nation (Garden City: Doubleday & Company, Inc. 1941), 138.
Jacques Soustelle, The Daily Life of the Aztecs: On the Eve of the Spanish Conquest, trans. Patrick O’ Brian (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1962), 96.
The Aztec Stone of the Five Eras, in Colonial Latin America: A Documentary History, ed. Kenneth Mills, William B. Taylor, and Sandra L. Graham, 23-26. (New York: SR Books, 2002), 24.

Deep Sight:

Okay - does this suggest that you accede the the spirit is indeed transferred from body to body, but not the soul?

My clarification:

Nothing gets transferred from body to body.

Influences / actions / karma get transferred from life to life.

As I already said, there is no permanence in identity, whether soul or spirit or body:

InesQor:

In summary, according to the Buddhist views, which I subscribe to in this regard (with careful attendance to nuances)
[list]
[size=14pt][li]There is no permanence in identity[/li][/size]
[li]There is no transmigration of souls from body to body[/li]
[li]The[i] karma is the action or experience[/i], and not the result of the action or the effect on the person involved [/li]
[li]It's the karma that lingers and gets reincarnated into the [i]present [/i]and the [i]future [/i]in endless (non-linear) whorls and whirls[/li]
[/list]

InesQor:

Guy, you are clutching at straws. Long before the Hindus came up with the idea of Karma, ancient pagans like the Aztecs already believed in reincarnation.

Death, reincarnation, the after life, it was all a form of rhythm like the motions of the sea and other beautiful earth processes. NOTHING to do with DEEDS. Nothing about Karma. Nothing.

It was just an intangible aspect of their eco-system. The Hindu karma has nothing to necessarily do with the popular idea of reincarnation, which is a corporeal transmigration of souls over time.

Here you go, extracts from a research paper.

^ Sorry, but everything up there simply proves exactly what I said - i.e - the idea of reincarnation is bound with the idea of Karma. Did you not see the words - "rhythms," "cycles," etc, up there? What else is Karma if not such? Karma is all about cycles my dear! One idea is incongruous and inchoate without the other - and all religions that acceded to commonly understood reincarnation did so with the idea of karmic cycles operating. That is most common place, and so PaganNaija's comment stands. I really hope you are not expecting to see the same word in other cultures before you understand that the same idea is expressed.

Now you can choose to dispute this, and we can take it up elsewhere - but it is not the subject of the thread.

^^^

What has karma (an ACTION) got to do with cycles and rhythms? Yes, it happens in cycles but is it the ONLY thing that happens in cycles, for which you now EQUATE karma to cycles?

LOL I will leave you to the observant reader, but this simply reminds me why people like Enigma started avoiding conversations with you.

Maybe I will take a cue from him henceforth.

Edit: In the case of the Aztecs, their actions did not determine what happens in their afterlife. In some cases, your gender determines everything. And that is karma too?

@ The Egg

I so agree with this   The concept of re-incarnation runs through many religions. I also had an experience around this but I wouldn't wish to talk about it, at least, not in a public forum. Furthermore, contrary to popular understanding, Christianity by no means precludes re-incarnation. I think it even hints at it given Jesus' reply to the Pharisees on the issue of resurrection. Such as, when they asked Him about marriage in heaven ? He said: "For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven." What's also important to note is that Jesus said the same things to the Sadducees who ostensibly don't believe in the after-life given the fact that they deny resurrection. The thing is co-opting the concept of resurrection with re-incarnation which is pretty discomfiting.]

InesQor, are you a Christian ? Do you agree with what I've written thus ? If you aren't a Christian I want to know what your stance is.

@Uyi Iredia:

I must say that the Bible does not clearly discuss reincarnation. As such, personally I believe either
(a) It is not an important aspect of faith, or
(b) It lacks verity

Either of the above have to be the case, in my opinion.

As for Jesus' statement to the Pharisees and Sadducees, I think he deliberately said it like that to cause arguments between the two parties who had come to look for his trouble, thus it was a distraction. As you said, Sadducees don't believe in resurrection, and as such arguments would begin; or at least they would leave Jesus Alone.

Meanwhile, Jesus' statement about the afterlife does not mention reincarnation but it says when they RISE from the dead. That looks like resurrection to me.

As to your question,

I will essentially say that I am a Christian, but my beliefs on many things are so different from that of the usual Christian that I do not know if I qualify to use that term on myself. I can rather drop it and just refer to myself as a Theist. I believe in God. One God. His son by essence is Jesus Christ. And I believe in all of Jesus Christ's teachings. I believe there are teachings in many other religions that compliment and support Jesus' Christ's teachings. I have found some of them in Buddhism for instance. I like to have an open mind BUT upon the foundation of Jesus' teachings. This means that if I find anything which His teachings disagree with, I will most likely discard it.

I believe "In the quest for truth, one should listen to what is being said, and not look at the one speaking"; and I also believe that many of my beliefs are along a very thin line. I may need to explain and explain and explain (quite tiresome) before my belief is expressed in a way that can be conventionally understood.

I hope that answers your question.

InesQor:

^^^

What has karma (an ACTION) got to do with cycles and rhythms? Yes, it happens in cycles but is it the ONLY thing that happens in cycles, for which you now EQUATE karma to cycles?

LOL I will leave you to the observant reader, but this simply reminds me why people like Enigma started avoiding conversations with you.

Maybe I will take a cue from him henceforth.

Edit: In the case of the Aztecs, their actions did not determine what happens in their afterlife. In some cases, your gender determines everything. And that is karma too?  

InesQor, do not be tempted to be so unnecessarily brusque. If you do not agree with a position, you can say so and simply say why. This is the problem I have had on this forum with you lot. A debate should be healthy. I do not agree with that which you have advanced and I am simply trying to show you my reasons therefore. This certainly is no reason to begin to refer to Enigma or whoever else is unable to stomach a debate. That is making the discussion unduly personal. I have had alot of that on this forum and i have said a thousand times that its really tiresome. I am sure you recall the other time when we had a discussion about Joagbaje, and before I knew it Pastor AIO had scurried off to publicize a harmless innocuous personal email I shared with him - simply because he did not agree with my position in the debate - which by the way, the email had no bearing on! He has since apologized for that - so I do not mention it inorder to further disturb him (Pastor: I mean this sincerely and without offence) - i mention this only to show you that this behaviour is utterly unnecessary with reference to a debate. If you do not agree with a position, say so and demonstrate why - or even just ignore the discussion. Bringing up personal innuendos and talking about the proclivities of Enigma, and other posters is just off the mark, in my opinion.

Now, in reference to the subject - Karma is not just an "action" - no, no, no, and thrice again no! Karma refers to the entire process and cycle which returns threads of fate, influence and destiny to the originating points of such threads. Thus you must understand that when those cultures speak of cycles, they are speaking of the self same Karma, the idea of which cannot logically be separated from the imperative for reincarnation. You needn't see the same word to understand that it is the same idea.

My observation is that when people cannot stand a rigorous inquiry into their position, they simply throw a tantrum. That is what Enigma does all the time - I say this because you referred to him. Do not do that.

Deep Sight:


Now, in reference to the subject - Karma is not just an "action" - no, no, no, and thrice again no! Karma refers to the entire process and cycle which returns threads of fate, influence and destiny to the originating points of such threads. Thus you must understand that when those cultures speak of cycles, they are speaking of the self same Karma, the idea of which cannot logically be separated from the imperative of reincarnation. You needn't see the same word to understand that it is the same idea.

Bollocks, sir.

Karma (Sanskrit: कर्म IPA: [ˈkərmə] ( listen);[1] Pali: kamma) in Indian religions is the concept of "action" or "deed", understood as that which causes the entire cycle of cause and effect (i.e., the cycle called saṃsāra) originating in ancient India and treated in Hindu, Jain, Buddhist and Sikh philosophies.[2]

Samsara is the cycle which the Indians believed is caused by Karma, which is a progressively cumulative sum total of peoples actions, deeds and influences.

The cycles of the Aztecs are not caused by any actions of the Aztecs. They just ARE. The same way nature just does its own thing.

How you are trying to conflate the two is just plain dishonest, in my opinion.

I have nothing to say about the rest of your last response. When I disagree with a position, I tell you why. I produce references. You say I'm getting it wrong. You produce no references except to change the meanings of the words involved and tell me that it still means what you intended. Etc etc ad nauseam.

Deep Sight:
. . .

My observation is that when people cannot stand a rigorous inquiry into their position, they simply throw a tantrum. That is what Enigma does all the time - I say this because you referred to him. Do not do that.

Enigma simply calls idiocy ---- well, idiocy.  

A spade is always a spade --- anytime.  

Summarily, Deep Sight what I am saying is that

[list]
[li]The Aztecs believed reincarnation involves an inter-body transmigration of a soul.[/li]
[li]The Aztecs believed in reincarnation as a naturally occurring phenomenon along with nature's unprecedented cycles.[/li]
[li]The Aztecs had no belief in karma.[/li]
[li]They had no belief that actions will determine reincarnation. In some cases, warriors get reincarnated in a form BECAUSE they were warriors. But this is not all across board. Some people got reincarnated in a certain form because they were, for instance, female.[/li]
[li]Thus as an example of an ancient pagan tribe, the Aztecs have shown us that karma is a newer concept along the lines of reincarnation, when popularly understood as inter-bodily transmigration[/li]
[/list]

InesQor:

Bollocks, sir.

Can we please remain polite? What's getting you so upset. Do calm down.

Samsara is the cycle which the Indians believed is caused by Karma, which is a progressively cumulative sum total of peoples actions, deeds and influences.

The cycles of the Aztecs are not caused by any actions of the Aztecs. They just ARE. The same way nature just does its own thing.

How you are trying to conflate the two is just plain dishonest, in my opinion.

I have nothing to say about the rest of your last response. When I disagree with a position, I tell you why. I produce references. You say I'm getting it wrong. You produce no references except to change the meanings of the words involved and tell me that it still means what you intended. Etc etc ad nauseam.

[quote][/quote]

Politeness please. I don't know what is ad nauseum about simply having a different perspective. If you did not want a discussion on the subject, you should not have opened a thread on a public forum? If you opened the thread was it your expectation that every contributor would agree with you 100 per cent? Come on friend, pipe down, no one is persecuting you?

Now back to it. What I said was that "Karma refers to the entire process and cycle which returns threads of fate, influence and destiny to the originating points of such threads" - and surely I do stand by that.

Now you mentioned the cycle of Samsara. For clarity, this is what it is -

Saṅsāra or Saṃsāra (Sanskrit: संसार), (in Tibetan called "khorwa"[1], literally meaning "continuous flow", is the cycle of birth, life, death, rebirth or reincarnation within Hinduism, Buddhism, Bön, Jainism, Sikhism, and other Indian religions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsara

So you can see what that cycle refers to. Let us note a few things -

1. In the first place, the very definition of samsara is in direct contradiction to that which you earlier advanced regarding reincarnation!

2. Yes Karma refers to actions. But only a limited understanding of the word will allow and person to simply teach that karma means an action. That is altogether inchoate. You cannot just lift up your hand and say that since that is an action, then that is karma. Surely not. So it is quite clear that it is not simply an action. When it is described as such it is with reference to that which the action produces - threads of fate. It is these threads of fate which are defined by our actions which are actually the essence of what Karma is. This is explained here -

Karma is not punishment or retribution but simply an extended expression or consequence of natural acts. Karma means "deed" or "act" and more broadly names the universal principle of cause and effect, action and reaction, that governs all life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma

So you can see what I mean. It is absolutely meaningless to simply say "Karma is an action". In so doing you are just picking up the bare transliteration of the word in much the same way as you would miss a Yoruba meaning of "Ori" if you always see it as just "head" whereever it appears. The real meaning of Karma is what appears in red above. I tell you again - it refers to the threads of fate created by actions and not just actions themselves! It would be meaningless and stripped of its core meaning without understanding it like this. Lifting up my hand is an action, is it not? Is it Karma? Obviously not!

3. Let us focus on the subject of the OP: the ideas you advanced following that OP are now emerging in forceful contradiction to all that which is now appearing. I will focus on that in my next post.

Enigma:

Enigma simply calls idiocy ---- well, idiocy.  

A spade is always a spade --- anytime.  

And a happy new year to you sir.

^^^ And to you!

And if it is not too late to make New Year resolutions here is one recommendation: to learn not to mischaracterise other people.

I have other suggestions but I will stick to just this one for now.

@DeepSight:

Don't tell me to pipe down, please. The only thing that will prevent exasperation is when you reply posts more honestly.

What is ad nauseam is how you keep going on about the same point, which you have no references for.

With all your definitions, it is clear that:

Karma causes the cycle called Samsara.

[size=13pt]The Aztec cycle is not caused by their karma (actions).[/size]

SO HOW does their view on transmigration of souls in reincarnation, translate to your view?

It is strange how you keep on saying this, in the face of all the evidence.

Their DEEDS don't ALWAYS have SOMETHING to do with the cycles of life and transmigration of their souls in the afterlife.

And the Aztecs are just an example of an ancient pagan people.

---

When I say Karma is an action, I expect you to add the context of our discussion. Whether you lift your hands or you pick your teeth doesn't seem to bear weight on this conversation.