Western belief in reincarnation

ThuleanPerspective Shared publicly - May 10, 2015

DNA is interesting, but the mind -- the real you -- is even more interesting. Link: http://thuleanperspective.com/2015/05/10/the-bear-cult-5/ Direct link to Bear Cult video # 5: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uB7ZdGQ-kws

Who are you? 32 3

12 comments

1

Axel Castilla May 10, 2015 + 1 2 1

For what is worth, in concordance with other cultures, ancient India regarded the mind along with the five senses as "the six enemies of the yogi, of the Self". Different methods had various ways of dealing with them. Nowadays in the West, the self is often equated with the mind, and even with the body ("you are what you eat"), according to reductive psychologistic, neurologistic and solidary materialistic frames of interpretation. On the other hand, the New Age along with occultist contemporary spiritualist movements (they starting in the XIX century), deceptively equate the mind of the human individual, with the universal Self. This is also in accordance to the ruling individualism, which absolutizes the concrete person. There is no place anymore for the ternary soma/psyche/nous. Not even in "neopaganism". Truly an age of intellectual confinement.

ThuleanPerspective May 10, 2015 + 1 0 1 0

+Axel Castilla The 'mind' is the 'self'. It is what Christians and those you speak about call "soul". The Self. I just avoided the 'soul' term here, because it is not native to Europe. We have: Lík (Body) Vörðr (Life force) Hamr (Shape) Hugr (Mind) Ánd (Spirit) The spirit is the divine, that those who have it are a part of... not all are though.

2

Sam Freir May 10, 2015 + 3 4 3

+ThuleanPerspective Thank you Varg! all of this is popping clearly in my mind because I always thought that I was born in the wrong age. I see all this people being proud of their family and their friends and I DON'T. I used to think "I don't belong this world". But how to know who are we? how to recognize our past life? You and Marie really should write a book about it, because it's very complex, and all of this things that we know about keep in touch with dead people (like kardecism or this stuffs) sounds really crap to me.

Axel Castilla May 10, 2015 + 1 2 1

Indeed +ThuleanPerspective the mind (sanskrit manas) is the self, the small, individual one, the ego, "the born man". It matches with the Christian soul (and it, with the greek psyche approximately). In hebrew, the word is different and the context is also different (Kabbalah, not Christian theology), so don't you think that "soul" is an european usage (I get that you reject christianity, but still)? I mean, you can see it used in translations of pagan works, like the ones of Plato and many others. About the self that you mentioned, matching with the mind or the sense of "me", I wanted to advance a step further, in the sense of the small self is described (and experienced) as a sort of phantom in comparison with the universal Self (which by the way, isn't "composed" by "the sum of humankind"; this peculiar misinterpretation is at the root of the modern goals of globalization and egalitarianism; cf. my "Deadly Homogeneity" G+ post at https://goo.gl/ld4zJa). But this supreme Self mostly makes practical sense according to a metaphysical perspective, not for everyone. So I get what you mean about the lack of egalitarianism when it's about the Spirit (also Intellect), approximately the Self. For reasons, religious, exoteric perspectives, addressed to everybody in specific religious cultures (basically Judaism-Christianity-Islam), officially reach only to the soul (between others, Origen of Alexandria, about the 3rd century C.E. was banned as heretic for posing the preexisting intellects), and in the case of the ending of the Middle Ages' Christianity, the error of mistaking soul with Spirit has proven to be fatal, resulting (for instance) into making Spirit-Intellect and reason (this latter a faculty of the mind) synonymous, spawning rationalism and obliterating thus the Spirit or Intellect from the cultural horizon . . . Also Spirit was mistaken for a synonymous of soul, making then impossible to differentiate between psychic and spiritual domains and meanings. Right now I'd need to recheck what is the source and exact meaning of the five divisions that you put above. According to the Vedas, of indoeuropean root, there are also five "sheaths"(koshas) of the Self (Atma), which are essential for the practice of certain doctrines and other more mundane uses as well, like medicine and

3

martial arts; it's striking to see that the same number (and most of the meaning) also corresponds with the "Five Divine Presences" of Islam's gnoseological perspective (at such level of depth, it isn't properly "just religion", also not being for everybody). Regards

Axel Castilla May 10, 2015 + 1 2 1

+Sam Freir and with reason; spiritualism, speaking with dead, is an invention of the XIX century West, and actually is a sort of disguised necromancy. There aren't "spirits around" to talk with, but there are residues instead, without real entity.

Krafthaus May 10, 2015 + 1 2 1

+ThuleanPerspective I'm pretty sure I was a warrior in a former life. Whether I was a good one or not I don't know, but good enough for my ancestors to carry on. I'm a strong believer in memory/spirit carrying on in blood/DNA.

Krafthaus May 10, 2015 + 1 2 1

+ThuleanPerspective The trouble with coming back as our former selves from a past life is that the world has changed. What was considered great then might not now. e.g. a great warrior then would be honoured but now we're just aggressive, 'extremists'. Our people frown upon us wanting to literally fight to preserve them.

4

MPOEO May 10, 2015 + 1 2 1

+Krafthaus I have the same, That hunger for battle is not something that should be called "Psychotic"

Krafthaus May 10, 2015 + 1 2 1

+MPOEO Exactly.

bernardo dsadsa 6:15 AM

+ThuleanPerspective Hey, ThuleanPerspective, I have a question for you. I think that it goes way beyong the "first life". Think a little. How is the second life of a person who was controlled by the momentaneous pleasures and carnal desires in it's past life? They are empty. Being reborn won't make them people that know themselves. It takes more than one life to know who you truly are. Don't you think it's not as simple as just the first life? Sorry for any grammar errors, english isn't my native language.

Axel Castilla 1:22 PM

+bernardo dsadsa actually, a person only has a single life; it can extend to posthumous states like heavens (Walhalla, Swarga, Paradise, etc.), hells, intermediate states and such; and when it's time, the universe wherein such "places" are located finishes, the individual is destroyed, enabling the non-human spirit (not the soul with its multiple components, like the mind, just the "karmic residue") to transmigrate to another completely existence, forming a new creature, a new birth, according to the active predispositions from countless existences (the karmas, the samskaras stored). So, no individual can born twice or have multiple lives; after transmigration of the impersonal spirit, another individual creature is formed, and besides into a different cosmic cycle or world (that new existence can be

5

analog to the human one –which is rare–, or be a completely different form of existence, higher or lower in the ontological scale of Being). The notion of people reincarnating, having multiple births, as such, pertains to confusions artificially made by the british Theosophical Society during the XIX century in its effort to falsify and distort eastern teachings. Like the aforementioned spiritualism (thanks to +Sam Freir), it's another european invention from the XIX century. Actually the subject is a bit delicate and too technical, but the thing is, not even Hindus believed in reincarnation (nowadays they are westernized, so they believe whatever they are told), but instead in transmigration of the impersonal Self along with the karmic residue, into other states of existence, and this when the posthumous states of the individual have been exhausted: reincarnation is an invention of Madamme Blavatsky and its followers. It has nothing to do with ancient wisdom, it can be backed by the Vedic tradition (cf. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad), and the same goes for Buddhism and Taoism. It happens, however, that sometimes a western person can get mistaken by looking at defective english translations of these things, and also due to the interpretations of their own mentality: sometimes, hindu teachings in short treatises, summarizations (cf. Satasloki) or commentaries speak of "the transmigrating jiva" (human being) or "the transmigrating linga-sharira" (the subtle modality of the being), but this isn't literal, but they did that as a shorthand for not repeating again and again in compex detail something that actually each one necessarily had to learn before, exhaustively and with a master, during the Vedarambha. Now, in the ancient Western camp, the scarce and brief Greek and Celtic accounts of afterlife and transmigration, again are exoteric summarizations, like the already mentioned shorthands (and let's have in mind, the real teachings were spoken from master to disciple, only secondary and incompletely put in written form); at this metaphysical level, the teaching is actually the same everywhere. The only difference is that India managed to keep the technical details for much longer. Another factor of confusion resulting in "reincarnationism" is the not always explicit meaning of "a man reborns in his sons", of course in this very world. This has puzzled many scholars and translators that interpreted it as "reincarnation" (cf. Manava Dharma Shastra, George Bühler’s translation), since this underlying doctrine wasn't explicit there, for example.

Axel Castilla 1:46 PM

Despite the lack of "previous lives of the individual" and the fake of "reincarnationism", what +Krafthaus is saying holds true: the determinations and predispositions (karmas & samskaras) for an specific birth, an specific "you" or "me", an specific life or individual, can be indeed out of sync with the medium in which it borns ("I don't belong to this epoch"). This is especially true in times so chaotic like the current ones, in which the entire cosmos is subverted, and things don't work quite as intended. Additionally, the contemporary mentality doesn't allow room for any other human type than the merchant or the farmer, since the imposed egalitarianism reduces everything to the lowest common denominator. Such a denial of the different kinds of human natures, including warrior, or sage –which is also negated, and caricatured by the "scientist"–, involves a criminalization of their values and, at the same time, a falsification of history, especially prior to the French Revolution. It's a plebeian dictatorship –the Kali yuga, our times, matching with Hesiod's "Iron Age" is described as the era of a single varna, the shudra, and having arrived to this day, even the chandala. In any case, I believe that when one sees himself as a warrior, and is eager to fight, there are some good questions on the matter: to fight against what? To protect what? The answers to questions like these can make a real difference with military people that is just enlisted in the army, fighting in favor of political and international goals, furthering the system's agenda.

6

There is also a very important confusion between the fallacy of "past lives" and mere metempsychosis —the heritage of "clear" psychic remains, left around by earlier beings, and claimed by others according to their predispositions at birth.

7