Talk:Reincarnation/Archive 1

message: dictionary.comgives the following definition for Bible
# The sacred book of Christianity, a collection of ancient writings including the books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament.
# The Hebrew Scriptures, the sacred book of Judaism.
Since the section is on Judaism and kabbalah, it is essential to differentiate the Christian Bible. -- Chris Q 16:36, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's patent nonsens, the book of Judaism is called: tanakh. Jcbos 17:16, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Old Testament only is Tanakh. The (Christian) Bible is composed of both Old and New Testament.--Jondel 04:55, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Jcbos 12:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Exactly. Jayjg (talk) 15:43, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bible -> The Christian Bible 

message: Someone, I think Stevertigo, deleted a passage about Professor Frazer.  Now, I didn't write that passage and I do not have any personal investment in whether it should be kept out or put back in.  But if I understand SV's edit summary, he either doen't know the reference or wants it put in.  So: this refers to Sir James Frazer's The Golden Bough which was at the time it was first published (1890) one of the authoritative studies of religion and myth drawing from examples from around the world.  The Golden Bough has gone through several editions, including an abridgement I think in 1922 -- the point being that it is hard to provide a page reference that will be of use to the average reader.  Nevertheless, the passage in question (or the point) comes from the shapter "The external soul in forl-culture," specifically the section "The ritual of death and resurrection" (in the abridgement, this is chapter 67; in an earlier version it is volume II chapter four section four -- you get the idea, it is confuisng.  The book is widely available, but there is no one standard edition).  It seems to me that there is some place for this point in this article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  18:15, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Professor Frazer (Reply to Stevertigo) 

message: to all concern i'm under the belief that reincarnation really does exist as based on flash backs i have experienced while bein' in a state of total un-awareness
:If you were in a state of total unawareness then how do you know you had a flashback? ;-)
I DO. AND I REMEBER RIGHT BEFORE I WAS BORN. 65.87.191.22 02:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: by an anonymous

message: The introductory paragraph makes the distinction between reincarnation (human to human) and transmigration (involving humans and animals). The rest of the article however doesn't make this distinction anymore, only talks about "this doctrine" or "reincarnation". But Pythagoras, and many eastern religions, believe in transmigration, not just reincarnation. Right now, it looks like someone edited the introductory paragraph without changing the body of the article. 
Someone knowledgeable should fix this. AxelBoldt 17:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: - I agree with you, it is really needed; please read also the section "Talk:Reincarnation#Reincarnation_vs._Metempsychosis" at this discussion page about this subject, before doing the edits. --GalaazV 18:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

text: This section has just been deleted.  I think it should be restored, and include René Guénon take on the matter.  Is there any reason to exclude it? Luis Dantas 12:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any problem with the information being added as a particular point of view. I don't believe that the definition should be presented as definitive - bear in mind by this definition Hindus and Buddhist would not believe in reincarnation! -- Chris Q 12:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And indeed, they do not. Buddhism in particular is currently taking pains to clarify this regrettable misconception. Reincarnation is not possible per Buddhist doctrine.  That is why there is an article on Rebirth (Buddhism).Luis Dantas 00:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am aware of the Buddhist destinction between rebirth and reincarnation (anatman vs atma). This is totally different to the idea expressed in the paragraph that reincarnation is limited to humans is totally different to this. I agree that I should have more accuratley said "bear in mind by this definition Hindus and Buddhist would not believe in reincarnation or rebirth". -- Chris Q 07:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The difficulty of the terminology and related conceptions is bigger due to the way we regard to what Religion is (not the physical structures and individuals leading it through the times, but the core and initial teachings presented in each one). If we regard Religion(s) as a dynamic process leaded by a higher type of consciousness according to, and toward, the development stage of beings (humans in our case) in a lower state of consciousness, then understanding will be much easier. --194.65.22.226 00:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reincarnation vs transmigration 

message: Many reincarnationists make a fundamental assumption. The assumption is that cognition implies presence. It is assumed that if a person knows enough details about another’s life then that person used to be the other.  In other words, "if I remember a past life, then it has to be MY past life that I remember." 
But is there any reason for this to be the case? If someone were to know or be told in great detail the facts of a person who had died many years ago that would not indicate that you and this person had any link at all. 
In fact we can show evidence that it has happened that a person has had retrocognition and it was impossible for him to have been reincarnated.
The case of Peter Hurkos is the evidence as stated in his own autobiography. He talks about the first time he realized that he had a gift. He’d just suffered from a very severe head injury and was lying in a hospital bed when he noticed the man in the bed next to him. “All of a sudden he says that he knew an awful lot about this man despite the fact that he’d never seen him before. He then proceeded to tell the man everything that he saw about him and it proved to be accurate.
Hurkos later proved to be accurate 87% or more of the time. He helped the English police recover the royal coronation stone of Westminster Abbey because he knew great details about the thieves and in the same way he helped find the Boston Strangler. 
There were only 2 things different between this and reincarnation 
1. Most of the people that Hurkos knew about were still alive and 
2. Hurkos did not identify with them.
As mentioned, most reincarnationists argue that cognition indicates presence. “I could not know unless I was there.” But the facts from the cases of Peter Hurkos shows that that is not at all necessarily the case. Cognition does not indicate presence. If just indicates knowledge.
In the same way, a young child that merely knew in great detail events of someone else's life may be misled or not be able to comprehend why they know this without identifying with the person with whom they had retrocognition. 
Thus an alternate explanation is that Reincarnation could be simply retrocognition with identification.
But how can retrocognition occur. If one subscribes to the belief in multidimensional beings (which one always has to if one is a reincarnationist) then one has to subscribe to the belief that these multidimensional beings would also know the past history of any individual and thus could pass this information on to others who are yet alive. 
In some beliefs systems they believe this information is received through channeling. In certain religions when the channeling is unintentional and uncontrollable it is sometimes called demon possession. Thus most reincarnation could be explained as retrocognition caused by demonic possession with false identification. In addition the similar wounds and scars could be psychosomatic. Tests done using hypnosis have shown researchers the power of the mind, when told that a coin that was being pressed to their skin was hot enough to burn them, the skins of the hypnotized subjects would blister.
Thus to provide a complete alternative explanation, reincarnation could also be explained as Retrocognition caused by Demonic Possession with false identification and psychosomatic symptoms. 
This is one alternative theory that must be given due consideration when the evidence is being studied.
:I'm no expert so I just kept the material. If it's a question whether to keep, maybe it could be sifted for anything valuable before being fully removed? And do we know how Tao, Shinto or other tribal cultures view(ed) it?  FT2 06:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Another theory of reincarnation that explains detailed knowledge and physical scars and symptoms