Rebirth? Reincarnation?

[kahljorn]

Classical debate between Classical buddhists who are so classy their class outclasses the class of the classy sirs with kaviar. I would tend to say rebirth, because most Buddhist "Philosophies" would tend to agree upon my tending. However, this tension is often resolved upon reading a certain parcel, call this parcel Golden Eggshell #1.
You see, it essentially says Sir Criesalot(Adavenianda or something) shall be reborn as a buddhist in another life. Why? I don't know. What crazy crazyness thought by the crazy regressed hypno potimus.
As for the rest, it seems to be outlined in general science, toaism and "Christianity". Rebirth is just the idea that things must die and go the fuck away for another to come and say, "Hi my name is joe". This would tend to outline my general marmaliads, small compilations of many, as though the galaxy were reborn all into the earths Cellular fibrosis, oft described as humanity, though considered by me to be nothing more than a cancer. A necessary cancer, for progressional regression marks energies wigity wam, sam.
So basically, does the individual soul and all it's "Karma" carry on to the next life? Or when we die, is it over, and our pieces are left behind to haunt the flow with such a devious passion those echoing our "Legacy" would be declared individual and loved, while merely passing on our conceptual embers. Is that form of rebirth the true form of Reincarnation, merely our conceptual path carved slowly through stony brains leeking their unsaturated energies of our words?
There is also a scripture about rebirth, stating life and death is like taking a lit candle, and lighting another candle. Even as the earlier lit candles burn out, new candles are being lit, and some are still burning. That is a conjecture on beheart of a half, could it be the flame. The flame, the flickering martyr of the flame?

[Helm]

The population of the planet has increased. Is this to say that the majority of people around are new souls? If we're all bound to the circle of karma then a new soul is just starting. Isn't the it possible if there's a start to the circle that there's also an end? Maybe some souls die.


As far as I'm concerned the flames will eat my soul along with my charred flesh. It will be released in a scream that will see me standing carving my own path in death, well after I have stopped being alive.

[kellychaos]

Originally Posted by Helm

The population of the planet has increased. Is this to say that the majority of people around are new souls? If we're all bound to the circle of karma then a new soul is just starting. Isn't the it possible if there's a start to the circle that there's also an end? Maybe some souls die.

Doesn't that assume merely one planet, nay, one dimension? While I can see the wisdom of pragmatically believing what you can only see empirically, but I'd like to believe there's more "out there" than this. Who's to say that while our population is increasing that there isn't some other planet and/or dimension suffering some catastophic, violent end thus freeing up more souls?

[punkgrrrlie10]

Buddhists actually do think it ends eventually when your body is no longer connected to the material possessions which ties souls to the earth. That reincarnation is actually not a good thing b/c it means that you have yet to release all your desires and such which are earthly and that souls that life is torturous until you are able to release what is unnecessary and become enlightened. Those that are truly enlightened are no longer tortured and their souls are not reincarnated.

[kellychaos]

That sounds a lot more fair than the "one shot, you screw up, you'll burn in hell" deal Christians get. Seriously, though. Do you think that you've ever met anyone that has even come close to meeting that lofty status in your life?

[Perndog]

I say tie me to the earth as tightly as possible, let me enjoy my life and not deny myself one ounce of earthly pleasure. And if I get reincarnated afterward, so much the better, because then I'll be able to do it all again.

Buddhism places such an emphasis on detachment because it originated in a poor part of the world where life was just a matter of subsistence and suffering (as viewed in the eyes of Siddharta Gautama). Therefore, people didn't want to keep living the lives they had there, and would rather not exist. Buddhism should have no place in the mind of a person who is able to enjoy his life.

[ScruU2wice]

Seriously, If you can't remember something that happened in your past life (hypothetically), how can your conciencness exist? thats one of the reasons i believe in the after life, i mean when does you concienceness and memories end? What difference would it make if its not you memories your personality affecting the decisions mad in the past. its kinda hard to put what im asking in words.

ps. i can't spell concience

[Perndog]

Consciousness.

I always wondered about that, too. In the same line of thinking, if you get hit in the head and lose your memory, it would be as if your old consciousness died and you now have a new one. Was it really you that was alive then, if you don't even remember it?

[ScruU2wice]

Kinda like that but you have the able to recover your memory...
with reincarnation you have to start from scratch and learn everything over again which could alter your personality.
Moslty i just wonder that if my consciousness ever ended when i died then what exactly would my consciousness be? I kinda think that consciousness is the ability to know of my existence and make decisions now. When the consciouness ends you can't remember anything, and your consciousness doesn't matter.

[Big Papa Goat]

Buddhism places such an emphasis on detachment because it originated in a poor part of the world where life was just a matter of subsistence and suffering (as viewed in the eyes of Siddharta Gautama). Therefore, people didn't want to keep living the lives they had there, and would rather not exist. Buddhism should have no place in the mind of a person who is able to enjoy his life.

All ancient religions are like this, since all ancient soceities were very poor (I suppose Greek and especially Roman religions weren't but Greece and Rome were rich). India and China and that area were in pretty good shape compared to the rest of the world at the time Buddhism originated.

[FS]

Originally Posted by ScruU2wice

Seriously, If you can't remember something that happened in your past life (hypothetically), how can your conciencness exist? thats one of the reasons i believe in the after life, i mean when does you concienceness and memories end? What difference would it make if its not you memories your personality affecting the decisions mad in the past. its kinda hard to put what im asking in words.

ps. i can't spell concience

That's only a valid question if you believe that everything about the brain being the seat of the mind is claptrap. When you're born, you start out with virtually nothing other than instinct. I say if the soul does exist, it's limited to a few basic personality traits and maybe even less than that.

[VinceZeb]

Most if not all religions focus on living more for the family/God than it does for material wealth. In Christanity's case, it is becuase God is the ultimate being in the existance of the universe and we should not let material man-made items/ideas interfear with our worship of Him.

On a side note, being a Buddhist has always struck me as being a part of the ultimate liberal religion. I mean, a rich guy goes out, sees a poor person, freaks out, runs to the mountains and then comes back "enlightened" with no proof whatsoever, spouts off some stuff to movitate more poor people not to do anything about being poor but to just wait till you die so you can get another shot at it. Seems kinda wussy to me. Except for the kung-fu guys, of course.

Edit: Forgive me. Buddha went into a forest and climbed a tree and sat.

[The One and Only...]

Nevermind.

[Ninjavenom]

Ah, karma. If it weren't for karma, i think i'd be a lot more cynical.

[kahljorn]

Most people misunderstand Karma from most of the things I've read about it. They think it's like some crazy force that goes around punishing your soul when it's evil. Everything I've come to understand about it, it's just "Cause and effect".

[Perndog]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

Most if not all religions focus on living more for the family/God than it does for material wealth. In Christanity's case, it is becuase God is the ultimate being in the existance of the universe and we should not let material man-made items/ideas interfear with our worship of Him.

Or, in actuality, because the priests/rulers (if they weren't the same people, they at least shared a bed) wanted to keep all the money and power to themselves so they made it very easy for their followers to part with their money and to keep looking to the priests for guidance.

[kahljorn]

Those Mary Magdolin Motherfuckers.

[VinceZeb]

Yeah, Perndog, because Jesus Christ and the Apostles were walking around with king's robes on and staying at the finest inns. It was all because of the leaders that people were poor. You are 100% correct.

Take your piss-ass idiotic Satanist views and suck a tailpipe, you worthless piece of pig shit.

[Perndog]

Vinth, will you have my babies?

I'd argue, but this thread is about reincarnation, and I don't want to get too far off topic.

[punkgrrrlie10]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

Yeah, Perndog, because Jesus Christ and the Apostles were walking around with king's robes on and staying at the finest inns. It was all because of the leaders that people were poor. You are 100% correct.

Take your piss-ass idiotic Satanist views and suck a tailpipe, you worthless piece of pig shit.

I think you are ignoring the entire reason for Martin Luther for tagging his grievances to the Catholic Church. People "buying" forgiveness from priests and the churches having all the power and money in Europe.

[Skulhedface]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

Yeah, Perndog, because Jesus Christ and the Apostles were walking around with king's robes on and staying at the finest inns. It was all because of the leaders that people were poor. You are 100% correct.

So I want you to scream that, and VERY LOUDLY, the next time the collection plate gets passed around. I can even remember something I'd heard (I REFUSE to call it LEARNED) in Sunday School:

The poor man that only had $2 and gave it to church had a better chance of going to Heaven than the rich man who gave $2.

There is a clear cut case of "Give more money if you have it, and if you give it ALL, you go to Heaven!"

[kahljorn]

And with that note, I believe it is time for a little sing-a-long-tunes:

Back there when I was in seminary school, there was a person there who put forth the proposition, that you could petition the lord, with prayer. Petition the lord, with prayer. Petition the lord... with prayer. YOU CANNOT PETITION THE LORD, WITH PRAYER. Can you give me sanctuuuary, I must find a place to hide, a place for me to hide. Can you find me softer silo I can't make it, anymore, the man is at the door. Peppermint patties are chocolate candy, shampy and sax and a girl named sandy. There's only four ways to get unraveled, one is to sleep and the other is travel. One is a man up in the hill, one is to love your neighbor bill. His wife gets home. Catacombs, nursery bones, winter women throwing stones, carrying babies to the river. Streets and shoes, avenues, letter writers selling news. The monk bought lunch.

[Big Papa Goat]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

Most if not all religions focus on living more for the family/God than it does for material wealth. In Christanity's case, it is becuase God is the ultimate being in the existance of the universe and we should not let material man-made items/ideas interfear with our worship of Him.

On a side note, being a Buddhist has always struck me as being a part of the ultimate liberal religion. I mean, a rich guy goes out, sees a poor person, freaks out, runs to the mountains and then comes back "enlightened" with no proof whatsoever, spouts off some stuff to movitate more poor people not to do anything about being poor but to just wait till you die so you can get another shot at it. Seems kinda wussy to me. Except for the kung-fu guys, of course.

Edit: Forgive me. Buddha went into a forest and climbed a tree and sat.

No proof of being enlightened? What proof do you want him to offer? And the thing about spouting things off to motivate the poor to not do anything about being poor but just wait to die, that is EXACTLY what the catholic church told peasents in medieval times. And since when are buddhists, paticularly the buddhist monkdom (I don't know if its called monkdom, but the guys in the orange robes anyway) rich?

[kahljorn]

They aren't rich at all, in fact most of them embrace begging as an actual profession. It's honorable and shit. I think the Dalia Lama has some goodies though.

THe thing about "Enlightenment" is now a days everyone is such a moron they say, "An enlightened person would not say they were enlightened because they are beyond physical bindings", while in just about every Sutta the buddha either SAID or DID SOMETHING(or whoever scribed that shit overexagerated hella lots) that was really pretentious and arrogant. I mean shit, he was known as the "World-reknowned one". :/

[Immortal Goat]

Ok, Vinth? I hope you are listening to this. You had said sarcastically that Jesus and the apostles wore the finest clothing to prove a point that the religious leaders of his day were NOT rich. Am I right?

Vinth: Yes, that is correct, you fucking liberal satan worshiper!

Ok, but in Jesus' day, he was NOT considered the typical "religious leader" for that very reason. MOST of the religious leaders DID have all the money and wealth. And in the MIddle Ages, it was WORSE!!! The bishops were the most corrupt people in the world at the time. It was either be poor and never argue and spend you money to buy your way out of Purgatory (which was just invented to get money anyway) or go to Hell (which was just invented to scare people into staying poor and obedient).