Reincarnation

[Jiva]

I finally decided to start a topic on the subject of reincarnation. Basically, do you believe it occurs and, although I guess this might be a redundant question, why? There are of course many religious and philosophical interpretations of this, both literal and metaphorical, so I would be interested to see how people define it.

From my point of view, I can’t say I believe the reincarnation of an individual occurs on a literal level due to a lack of evidence. However, from a metaphorical point of view I think it presents a potent hypothetical concept that can have quite profound effects as a thought experiment.

As I’ve probably mentioned more than a few times, Nietzsche is the most influential philosopher to me and thus, I suppose, my ‘favourite’. Since I became interested in Jung’s psychology – where Nietzsche is often lauded – and esotericism, I’ve re-read some of his works and found a lot more depth than I formally noticed. By far the most important of these was Nietzsche’s hypothetical use of the Eternal Return in conjunction with the Amor Fati (love fate) principle.

The Eternal Return is the belief that at some point, given that assumedly infinite possibilities of the developing physical universe, the same structures will naturally reform and repeat themselves i.e. a cyclic repetition of time. Nietzsche posited that the ultimate goal would be to reach a state where, instead of reacting in horror to this theory, one would have developed a loving acceptance of the circumstances of one’s life in totality. This doesn’t preclude struggling against adverse situations, as this is an explicit part of one’s life – to apathetically accept the status quo would correspond to the Slave morality. In some ways, I guess this is as close as Nietzsche got to Kant’s categorical imperative, although it’s predicated on the individual rather than a doctrinal utopian society. Perhaps these could be viewed as LHP and RHP mirrors of each other, although I’m just pretentiously rambling now .

[RaktaZoci]

Good topic, indeed. I believe thoughts are divided on this matter both in the SoA and also amongst our always welcomed guests.

There has been some talk on this matter during the meetings of the Lucifer Lodge, since we've been going through Fosforos and, as we know, the subject is present in the text now and then. I personally believe, and I do think this is a matter of faith, that reincarnation is, if not inevitable, then atleast possible. This is basicly the general stance of many theosophists and Ervast quite often also mentions it. Of course it is then connected to the law of Karma and depending on it, it is somewhat defined where the individual is on his/her 'cycle', so to speak.

Another matter, however, is if the consciousness an sich is actually reincarnated or not, and if it is, is it possible for us to know about it. There was discussion on this recently and the general concensus seemed to be that there is really no need for consciously trying to remember one's past lives, since this life is meant to be lived in this moment, not in memory or as a dublicate of the one(s) before.

Also, to me it would seem that some people do have 'older souls', to use such a crude term, which would implicate their more developed mental state. But again, this is only my personal view.

[Kenazis]

Another matter, however, is if the consciousness an sich is actually reincarnated or not, and if it is, is it possible for us to know about it.

If consciousness is not incarnated in any level, what is that which reincarnates? Is it some "karmapackage" or...? On material level we are recycled for sure, but...just trying to grasp what is the thing that reincarnates and what's the meaning.

[RaktaZoci]

Another matter, however, is if the consciousness an sich is actually reincarnated or not, and if it is, is it possible for us to know about it.

If consciousness is not incarnated in any level, what is that which reincarnates? Is it some "karmapackage" or...? On material level we are recycled for sure, but...just trying to grasp what is the thing that reincarnates and what's the meaning.

By consciousness I meant that which is by common tongue known as personality, or personal consciousness. Sorry for the confusion. That which incarnates I'd say is the vital essence of being of the individual, which some would call The Monad, I'd figure..

[Heith]

I believe that reincarnation is possible. I also believe that I have lived before. In certain moments I have had recollections of a past existence and how I related to a person in that life who has aided me in this life to found my path. I can not offer any proof for this. Lacking words to describe this properly, let's just say that my heart knows that I have been given the opportunity to do the work that I do. There is no choice for me in this. I can resist, but it will bring me misery as I would be acting against my true will. I believe that I shall appear as many times as it's necessary or until I fuck up.

When I was little, I would have more impressions of another life, but of this I can't be sure if they were real or not. It is possible this was fantasy, but then again, it is possible that my current belief is also a fantasy and not more. That is fine, because I've thought that as it does not harm myself or others around me, it is ok for me to think in this way. Actually, it might even be beneficial, because I feel the responsibility and perhaps take it more seriously. Not because I would be judged by a god of any sort, but because I have been granted the possibility and it would be foolish not to try my best.

Another possibility is that if a certain place attracts this feeling of "I have been here before", it is merely that the place is a power spot, or a geockahra, and strong emotions have been connected to it over a long period of time. I think old religious centers could act in this way.

It is in some ways irrelevant how my past lives have been, as I am currently living this one. People are often hyped about having been a native american in their past life or other such grand and a little romantic thing. Have you noticed how no one is ever a loser in their past life? For me a past life is not a source for feeling better about myself or some such. I don't even usually speak about it, as it's a subjective experience and would have little value to others.

I can't say if everyone reincarnates or not, but I believe that if we do, we don't appear in a linear fashion. Rather, I may still occur in the past if that makes any sense.

My mother told me some years ago that in my kindergarten there was a boy who insisted that there had been a mistake, that his parents were not really his own. He said the names of his real parents and kept wanting to go to them. He told he was from another place in Finland (which was some hundreds of kilometers away, where he had never been) and had tried to run away at the age of 4 or 5 and to board a train to meet his "real" parents. Eventually it turned out that a couple named like this lived in that town, and that they had lost their son in a accident some months before this kid had been born. Eventually the child stopped telling these stories and seemed to forget. By this time he was probably seven years old or so, although this I don't remember exactly how my mother told me. It's an interesting story.

[Nefastos]

I just read two theosophical texts which both were named "The Religion of the Future". Blavatsky (1883) and Ervast (1909) both wrote such texts, & although they approach the thing differently, the articles have one common topic: the reincarnation is mentioned as one of the necessary points of the future religion's ethos or dogma. (Blavatsky's short text can be read here. Ervast's longer text has not been translated, as far as I know. It is longer & he discussed the topic in depth, some main points being, for example, openness towards other people's views and to one's own experience & personal approach to world and God or divine truth in new theology.)

I agree with the theosophists here, & think that the belief in karma & reincarnation is of utmost interest. The concept is so important in Fosforos that it is seldom mentioned (!) because it's just taken for granted. Most of the both philosophical & practical points of Fosforos make much less sense if we picture an end for individual mind. E.g. all that despairing search of annihilation of the black magician would make zero sense if he could just kill himself right away.

[Kenazis]

I agree with the theosophists here, & think that the belief in karma & reincarnation is of utmost interest. The concept is so important in Fosforos that it is seldom mentioned (!) because it's just taken for granted. Most of the both philosophical & practical points of Fosforos make much less sense if we picture an end for individual mind. E.g. all that despairing search of annihilation of the black magician would make zero sense if he could just kill himself right away.

Karma & reincarnation are beautiful ideas and for me living and acting like they were actually true is important. However I remain very sceptical (again) towards these (especially reincarnation) because I have no experience supporting these. Karma "inside" this life I believe and practically it doesn't change a thing if I instead believe a reincarnation and karma. I really hope that the great idea of reincarnation and afterlife are true things. Philosophy so beautiful deserves to be true in the most concrete sense.

[Wyrmfang]

I approach these ideas in same spirit as Kenazis, except that I wouldn´t talk about lack of evidence. In fact, there is plenty of evidence but similiar "evidence" can be found with relative ease concerning any fact claim. Most people probably know for example the lists of "incredible coincidences" between the lifes of Kennedy and his murderer etc. I mean that it would be a miracle if similar "incredible coincidences" were not found by those who want to find evidence that some person has lived before between the story someone tells about his/her earlier life and the life of some person that has actually existed. Therefore, it is not enough to look evidence (at the very least "personal evidence") when making fact claims, but the claims have to be able to be proved wrong also, at least in principle. For anyone not into philosophy this seems an unfair condition, but I appeal to think it twice properly through. The only other logically consistent option I can imagine is complete relativism concerning what counts as a fact.

One thing that puzzles me in the very idea of reincarnation is the following. Supposing that a living concrete person who makes moral choices consists essentially of something that loses its structure in death and something that doesn´t, how is the reincarnated person morally responsible for what the earlier person has done, given that they are not the same person (because being a person requires the mortal element too)? It seems that moral responsibility has to be attributed to something else than person, which I find unintuitive.

Most of the both philosophical & practical points of Fosforos make much less sense if we picture an end for individual mind. E.g. all that despairing search of annihilation of the black magician would make zero sense if he could just kill himself right away.

I have a more psychological (Schellingian & Kierkegaardian) view on this: willing nothing to be is still willing, and in killing oneself one ceases to will, which would contradict the will to will. The ordinary everyday conception of willing is not adequate in my view: willing some state of affairs (or there being none) is not the primary target of will, but only a tool to preserve the will itself. Willing nothing to be is therefore actually willing only oneself to be without the world, which is of course a sort of paradoxal painful willing (and Schelling´s definition of evil). As such this sounds very much like Schopenhauer (who indeed thought like this) but the Boehmean-Schellingian tradition is able to conceive the ultimate reality as will also in a more optimistic way.

I remember several years ago in your apartment when I said I would jump out of the windom immediately if I didn´t believe in reincarnation (which I did at the time). Now I´m relatively certain I wouldn´t have done that in any case. Our ultimate motivations are unaccessible to us, perhaps because there are no such ultimate motivations but only will itself, either loving-opening willing or hating-contractive willing (or to be more precise, the both exist in everyone, but the question is the one of their subordination).

Perhaps Jiva had also something similar in mind since Nietzsche´s moral psychology is of the same root (even if I would interpret the doctrine of eternal return a bit differently)?

[Nefastos]

One thing that puzzles me in the very idea of reincarnation is the following. Supposing that a living concrete person who makes moral choices consists essentially of something that loses its structure in death and something that doesn´t, how is the reincarnated person morally responsible for what the earlier person has done, given that they are not the same person (because being a person requires the mortal element too)? It seems that moral responsibility has to be attributed to something else than person, which I find unintuitive.

Yes, the same question can also be found in Fosforos, where it is the ultimate reason (or one aspect of the ultimate reason) to renounce the Right Hand Path God & turn instead to that religion of the paradox, Satanism, which cannot only love God but must also hate Him. (Regardless of what detailed meanings we give to the term "God".)

There are two answers to this, that of the spirit i.e. unity, and that of the differentiated world which is Maya. In the former, there is no problem since the "monads" are temporal only seemingly, and in the fullness of the absolute mind of the monad the reincarnating entities are still the same. But yet, at the same time, from the view point of Maya of this temporal & spatial world of illusion, it is rightful to say that the old & the new personality are not the same. Both are true, & that is the whole point why the world a) sucks but b) can still be remade (perfected) in the long run.

And like the Dostoevsky's atheist who walked the quadrillion kilometres but when arriving to Heaven instantly said that the journey was not only worth it but he would have made if quadrillion times, or Job who first gave his finger to God so vehemently but instantly took all back when he actually met God, so is the thing with the mystic, yogi, occultist or whatever who touches the paratemporal unity: in that unity there is so fundamental, absolute answer that all the illusion-bound personal feelings instantly melt away. And what is more: they are seen to have been unreal as from the beginning, since in the unity (nirvâna or the world of truth) there is no time, nor separation.

One could say that it means nothing for us as long as we do not experience it for ourself, but the truth is - or let us say, according to all the occult doctrines - that we all hold the monad, that gateway to the nirvânic world (actually the monad in us is that nirvânic unity or One), so every one has in him or her that aspect of unity all the time. Although it is so damn hard to reach absolutely, it is not so uncommon to have an intuitive access to its aspectual presence.

[Wyrmfang]

Ok, of course. I guess this answers conceptually to difficulty I mentioned.

The reasons why I personally have abandoned this kind "Spinozist" of view of unity are twofold: (1) it becomes difficult to explain how even an illusion of differences/empirical world can seem to exist, (2) it becomes after all hard to answer why care about morality if also moral differences are ultimately illusory (and in fact, there are many people absolutely fond of this kind of doctrine of unity who are equally harsh towards what they find "spiritless humanism", that is, a view that there are objective moral truths, and that our present society is much closer to them than earlier civilizations). The option is the "alchemical tradition" (represented before all by Jacob Boehme and the late middle period of F.W.J. Schelling) where the world is not drift away from an original unity and returning to it but developing towards unity against a ground chaotic and unknown also to the God/world itself. To my knowledge, in Kabbalah one can find both schools & possibly some completely others as well.