Critical thinking, theodicy and reincarnation!

[Jitendra Hy-do-u-no-us?]

My 'critcal thinking' may be more critical then yours. 😀
I believe that's what it amounts to. You and I are like looking in a mirror both of us make statements that can be taken more then one way; therein lies the truth and the risk. Life is not so simple as people make it out to be. But often people seek out simple explanations for complex challenges. I am o.k. with the fact that I will not always understand one such as yourself. Our very differences make life interesting and gives us something to learn from!

J.

I don't really know what you mean by your thinking is more critical than mine. But I don't actually accept the idea that "enlightened" beings reincarnate anywhere.
   

U really have to read things in context to get an understanding of meaning. U did not ask what I meant but u may have misinterpreted me. In this context I was using critical thinking two ways. Some people apply critical thinking others are critical. Does that make sense?

 
I used to have a friend who I have not seen in years. He was what he called a critical thinker. He actually taught critical thinking in college classes. What surprised me is his reaction to my explanation of suffering and why it appears to randomly manifest and why God allows such things. It is the called theodicy in intellectual circles. He told me that it was a horrible philosophy...and that a decent God would never allow what we did in one life to have consequences in another. What amazed me is that his critical thinking would not translate into such a subject. I think we have to go beyond personal belief and explore these things. Otherwise our 'critical thinking' only extends as far as subjective belief.

So you see u have brought up several topics in two sentences. The other one is enlightened beings reincarnating.

It is quite alrite u know; that is.....what u believe. Would u expect otherwise?

[ding dong]

I do agree with your friend about the injustice reincarnation and have pointed out its problems before. You have to ask yourself what kind of God would be punishing people for crimes they can't remember committing. Could there be a more ineffective form of punishment than that? The punishment being so far removed from the crime that one is likely to need regular reminding of what he's being punished for. And of course, in practice, nobody ever knows what they are getting punished for. A man born blind has no way of knowing what he did in the past to incur such a penalty. At best he has to rely on shoddy psychics and other hucksters to give him a dubious speculation. With such a harsh punishment, one would think that you'd at least be entitled to know what you were supposed to have done.

In fact, this very scenario was brought to Jesus in the bible and Jesus seems to deny this "punished for your last life" theory outright.

His disciples asked Him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” 3Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but this happened that the works of God would be displayed in him. 4

John 9:3

While he does deny the "punishment for your last life" theory, he doesn't explicitly deny reincarnation itself. But it's worth noticing that he missed a very opportune moment to mention it.

If most people thought about it in a more "down-to-earth" case they would see that there are ethical absurdities in the idea of punishing people for crimes they can't remember committing. For example, all but the most barbarous courts wouldn't prosecute a man with Alzheimer's disease.

When it comes to reincarnation, it seems that there was more justice employed at the Salem witch trials!

Let me give you a scenario.

You are sitting in prison. It is a life sentence. You are not told why, you were not present at your trial, and your memory has been wiped by the state. But a fellow inmate suggests to you that if you give him all your cigarettes for the next two months, he can perform a pre-prison hypnotic regression on you. This will reveal to you the crime and you can finally be at peace with the justice of your punishment or you may request a retrial which you also won't be present at.

In the cell next to you there's a man named Job. He tells you not to bother.

You take up the inmates offer, because you really want to make some sense of things. He tells you to lay back and imagine yourself in a green field...

You wake up. It was revealed that in your pre-prison life you murdered your mother and her suitor in a fit of rage when you accidentally walked in on them in private. Your name at that time was Carl. Now your name is inmate 770086. Suddenly it all makes sense and in some weird way, you kind of remember it. It all adds up now.

Job is in the corner laughing. He is suggesting this sounds very much like the movie Sling Blade which was played last year in the recreation room.

Turns out you need faith and also you now owe your psychic jail-buddy your next two months supply of cigarettes.     

It wouldn't be right to post this without mentioning what Ramana said about reincarnation as well. It turns out that he denied it as a reality, but seemed to say that it does seem to occur so long as the ego is in place. He also, at one time or another, endorsed the Saiva school of thought which says that God or Ishwara picks from a set of movies out of all the movies that are in the queue to be shown to a particular jiva. It goes on to say that during each incarnation, he carefully examines the library of movies to be shown and selects a few from there to be shown in that particular incarnation. This however, is not a punishment process, but rather an act of love to bring about the jiva's eventual awakening. As far as it goes, that more traditional view is a lot more palatable to me than the "punished for your last life" interpretations. Not that I totally believe it. Again, Ramana endorsed it but also said that the ultimate truth is that there is no reincarnation, no bondage, and no liberation.

Osho, Nisargadatta Maharaj, and Papaji are among other well-known teachers who, oddly enough, both affirmed and denied the reality reincarnation at different times. Osho said somewhere that it was the final truth and the truth hurts. But he also said at one point that the Buddha was possessing him and demanding he sleep in a different position, much to his annoyance (this may have been induced by heavy medications).

So, take it how you will.

[ding dong]

J. Krishnamurti on reincarnation:

The idea of reincarnation is as old as the hills; the idea that man, through many rebirths, going through innumerable experiences, will come at last to perfection, to truth, to God. Now what is it that is reborn, what is it that continues? To me, that thing which is supposed to continue is nothing but a series of layers of memory, of certain qualities, certain incompleted actions which have been conditioned, hindered by fear born of self-protection. Now that incomplete consciousness is what we call the ego, the "I".

 

[Jitendra Hy-do-u-no-us?]

I do agree with your friend about the injustice reincarnation and have pointed out its problems before. You have to ask yourself what kind of God would be punishing people for crimes they can't remember committing. Could there be a more ineffective form of punishment than that? The punishment being so far removed from the crime that one is likely to need regular reminding of what he's being punished for. And of course, in practice, nobody ever knows what they are getting punished for. A man born blind has no way of knowing what he did in the past to incur such a penalty. At best he has to rely on shoddy psychics and other hucksters to give him a dubious speculation. With such a harsh punishment, one would think that you'd at least be entitled to know what you were supposed to have done.

In fact, this very scenario was brought to Jesus in the bible and Jesus seems to deny this "punished for your last life" theory outright.

His disciples asked Him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” 3Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but this happened that the works of God would be displayed in him. 4

John 9:3

Jesus statement that the man was born not because of his sin or the sin of his parents is a source of bewilderment to many, who think he meant that God arbitrarily denied sight to the man in order that his divine healing power might be manifested through Jesus. To those who know God as the the all-compassionate father, it is inconceivable that he would use one of his children to suffer for years merely to create an opportunity for a miraculous display.

Rather, Jesus meant that the mans affliction was linked to hidden causes formulated in his past lives that brought him to his present condition, and not anything he or his parents had done on their current incarnations. In any case, since the man was born blind, there was no opportunity for any sin in his present existence to be the cause of his malady. Nevertheless, being good in his present life, and drawing from past-life virtues, he had accrued sufficient good karma " that the works of God should be made manifest in him" that is to merit a miracle of divine healing by his coming in contact with God's emissary, Jesus.

Paramahansa Yogananda

.... He approved very dearly and blessed me for writing these interpretationss. This I can say without pride, because the interpretation of Christ's herein is not mine. It has been given to me; but I am not the author. It is Christ. I am only the vehicle through which it is explained.... Paramahansa Yogananda

Reincarnation assures 'Freedom, for it gives immortal souls ample time and opportunity to divest themselves of all false notions of earthly fulfillment, and to realize through wisdom their already perfect divine natures. P.Y.

Reincarnation alone can explain the inequalities and seeming injustices that visit human beings from their birth. P. Y.