Reincarnation

roosh

I can't really speak on behalf of Hindu teachings, but can only give my limited understanding of them, which is also based on my understanding of similar concepts in Buddhism.

cyberhog wrote: »

So what sort of past deed do Hindus believe would cause a person to be born with a disability?

I don't think Hindu teachings say that there is a "sort of deed" that would cause someone to be born with a disability.

It might be helpful to think more in terms of actions and consequences, or cause and effect, rather than in terms of deeds and punishment. If we look at it in reverse and start with the disability, where the disability is the effect; the "deeds" or more pointedly, the actions, are anything that has occurred to give rise to the disability - this can be an unfathomable matrix of criss-crossing actions.

If we take the case of thalidomide babies as an unfortunate example, there are many actions which lead to the children being born with the condition; everyone and everything involved in the process that lead to the mother taking thalidomide would be considered an action, from the mother taking the drug right down to the delivery person [who delivered it]'s decision to apply for a job with the delivery company, and everything besides; even the thoughts of the doctor, mother and delivery person would be considered actions, because they all have an effect in the process.

The disability arises as a result of these actions.

cyberhog wrote: »

If that were true then wouldn't it follow that we would all be born with a disability?

That was a bit of an oversimplification on my behalf, but I was just trying to emphasise that the actions which give rise to the disability are not necessarily the actions of the disabled individual as we might perceive them, or as they might perceive themselves

bou

What is the 'I' that carries on from one life to the next?
What is the 'I' that changes, is destroyed, is re-made?

What is the 'I' that carries on from this moment to the next?
What is the 'I' that changes, is destroyed, is re-made from one moment to the next?

Is the 'I' one thing, many things, neither one nor many, or both one and many?

What are the things we see around us? In what way do they exist? Are they real? Are they non-existent? Are the neither real nor non-existent? Are they both real and non-existent?

What is the universe? What is matter? What is energy? What is consciousness? What is being? What are other beings? How are things in true reality?

What is the subject who performs an action? What is the object of an action? What is an action? What are the causes of an action? What are the results of an action? When does the action begin and when does it complete?

What is karma?

These are some questions I don't really understand the answers to. Maybe there are no answers that can be described in simple terms.

The Buddha didn't answer questions like "What is the world?" He also said that karma can only be fully seen by a fully enlightened being. So perhaps formulas like "This result comes from this action" maybe can't be applied too easily.

There does seem to be the idea of a thread of extremely subtle consciousness that continues from one life to the next over a limitless number of lives. There is, it seems, also an infinite store of karmic imprints that goes along with that thread of consciousness. Some imprints are stronger or more prominent. Karmic imprints ripen at a particular time depending on the conditions that occur in interdependent circumstances. The cause is the karmic imprint and the condition is the circumstance. An imprint that relates to a particular experience could be from yesterday or from a billion lifetimes ago.

The experience of this self here now and these circumstances I'm experiencing and of these emotions arising are results of many many causes (karmic imprints) and conditions (interdependence). I could be utterly destitute and dying alone yet blissfully content or I could be fabulously fit, wealthy, popular and utterly depressed. I could be penniless and feel complete freedom and wealth. I could be wealthy and feel trapped and in constant need. Two people could be in exactly the same circumstances and yet perceive them in completely different ways. One could see friends in everybody they meet while the other sees only enemies and rivals. One could see barren waste and the other see beauty and possibility. Both could be injured and one feel only concern for others while the other sees nothing but their own pain. The same person one day sees bleakness while another day, in much the same circumstances, see with pleasure and joy. Things are subjective and relative.

Circumstances are ephemeral and indefinite. They can appear as pleasurable, painful, or neutral. We can see them this way or that depending on how we are. We can go beyond the perception and experience to see the truth underlying all experiences. We can let go and be.

I wish I was not this way. I wish things were different. I wish I could be this way forever. I wish things would not change. 'I', what is it? 'Wish' what is that? 'Things'?


I just don't know. 'I' wish 'I' knew.

cyberhog

roosh wrote: »

I can't really speak on behalf of Hindu teachings, but can only give my limited understanding of them, which is also based on my understanding of similar concepts in Buddhism.


I don't think Hindu teachings say that there is a "sort of deed" that would cause someone to be born with a disability.

It might be helpful to think more in terms of actions and consequences, or cause and effect, rather than in terms of deeds and punishment.

If we look at it in reverse and start with the disability, where the disability is the effect; the "deeds" or more pointedly, the actions, are anything that has occurred to give rise to the disability - this can be an unfathomable matrix of criss-crossing actions.

If we take the case of thalidomide babies as an unfortunate example, there are many actions which lead to the children being born with the condition; everyone and everything involved in the process that lead to the mother taking thalidomide would be considered an action, from the mother taking the drug right down to the delivery person [who delivered it]'s decision to apply for a job with the delivery company, and everything besides; even the thoughts of the doctor, mother and delivery person would be considered actions, because they all have an effect in the process.

The disability arises as a result of these actions.

As far as I'm concerned the author is clearly saying the consequence i.e. ( the disability) is a result of the person's own actions in the past.

To conclude that the disabled, or others, are being punished for actions in a former life and that therefore I am excused from the obligation of helping them is not only a wrong deduction on my part, it is also a dangerous one. Such unfeeling, cold logic is not what a belief in karma countenances or recommends. It commends warm-hearted concern to minimize the person's problems, even though caused by his or her own actions in the past.

Now it would seem logical to me to conclude that whatever the person did to curse them with a disability must have, in some way, been evil. Unless you believe being disabled is a reward for good behaviour?

roosh

cyberhog wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned the author is clearly saying the consequence i.e. ( the disability) is a result of the person's own actions in the past.

That may indeed be the author's interpretation of Hinud philosophy, or it could be your interpretation of what he is saying; both of which could be misinterpretations of Hindu teachings, just as my own understanding could be inaccurate.

The things is, it cannot be considered in isolation, it must be considered in the context of Hindu teachings on the nature of self, or the nature of "the person". Again, that is central to Hindu philosophy, so what you understand by "the person", may not necessarily be what the author understands by "the person"; or both may not necessarily be what Hindu teachings teach about the nature of self.

cyberhog wrote: »

Now it would seem logical to me to conclude that whatever the person did to curse them with a disability must have, in some way, been evil. Unless you believe being disabled is a reward for good behaviour?

That's only if you view being born with a disability as being a punishment; I don't view it as either punishment or reward, it's simply a matter of cause and effect, if you want to put it in relative terms.

cyberhog

roosh wrote: »

That may indeed be the author's interpretation of Hinud philosophy, or it could be your interpretation of what he is saying; both of which could be misinterpretations of Hindu teachings, just as my own understanding could be inaccurate.

This is what another member wrote about the authors article.

Asiaprod wrote: »

It make sense to me, but I have been a Buddhist for more than 20 years.

If someone who has been a Buddhist for over 20 years thinks the article makes sense then I think it's safe to say the author knows what he's talking about.

roosh wrote: »

That's only if you view being born with a disability as being a punishment;I don't view it as either punishment or reward, it's simply a matter of cause and effect, if you want to put it in relative terms.

For someone who admits he has a "limited understanding" of Hindu teachings you seem very certain that it's just a matter of cause and effect.

It's just not that clear cut to me.

Hindu perceptions of disability

by H. Barry Waldman, Steven P. Perlman, Ramiz A. Chaudhry

Suffering, both mental and physical, "... is thought to be part of the unfolding of karma and is the consequence of past inappropriate action ... that occurred in either one's current life or in a past life." (2) This view is shared by Buddhist and Sikhs... Experiencing suffering satisfies the debt incurred for past negative behavior.

... the reality is that classical texts of Hinduism often refer to disabilities and deformities, "... as something fearful, usually a punishment for misdeeds.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go2827/is_7_40/ai_n56366380/

roosh

cyberhog wrote: »

This is what another member wrote about the authors article.

If someone who has been a Buddhist for over 20 years thinks the article makes sense then I think it's safe to say the author knows what he's talking about.

I think the article would make sense to anyone who reads it, but everyone is going to interpret it according to their own understanding of the concepts contained therein. So the sense that one person makes of it, may not necessarily be the same sense as another person makes of it.

The critical concept on which it is all based is the concept of "self".

cyberhog wrote: »

For someone who admits he has a "limited understanding" of Hindu teachings you seem very certain that it's just a matter of cause and effect.

It's just not that clear cut to me.

I am more familiar with the term Karma through Buddhist teachings and philosophy, than I am Hindu teachings; but from what I can gather the concept is not really used too differently.

Most of the teachings I've come across express it in terms of cause and effect, although there is more detail to it than that, but, from what I've encountered, not such that it changes the essential "nature" of it.

cyberhog wrote: »

Hindu perceptions of disability

by H. Barry Waldman, Steven P. Perlman, Ramiz A. Chaudhry

Suffering, both mental and physical, "... is thought to be part of the unfolding of karma and is the consequence of past inappropriate action ... that occurred in either one's current life or in a past life." (2) This view is shared by Buddhist and Sikhs... Experiencing suffering satisfies the debt incurred for past negative behavior.

... the reality is that classical texts of Hinduism often refer to disabilities and deformities, "... as something fearful, usually a punishment for misdeeds.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go2827/is_7_40/ai_n56366380/

If you google "karma the law of cause and effect" you will undoubtedly come up with similar articles outlining how Karma is the law of cause and effect. That being said, such articles are not a primary source of reference, in [loose] reasearch terms; they are, at best, second or third hand references; they represent someone elses interpretation [often of someone elses interpretation] of the teachings. It is always preferable to investigate the teachings first hand and develop one's own perspective, and it is equally recommended to receive the teachings from a trained "master", so that concepts can be explained.

One such concept, and perhaps the most critical, is the concept of self - rather the attachment to that concept is more likely the most critical part; when we talk about being punished for "your", or "my", own past actions, inherent in that is an assumption about the nature of who/what this "your" and "my" are. Again, spiritual philosophy in general, including Buddhist and Hindu philosophy have a lot to say on this, such that it can completely change what it means for "someone" to be "reaping the 'rewards' of the Karma of their past actions".

Ultimately it comes down to each individuals understanding [realisation and liberation], based on their experience and interpretation of the teachings; so I could quite easily be mistaken in my understanding. I certainly haven't realised the truth of all of the teachings and I certainly haven't attained enlightenment. Of course that's not to say that I don't have any understanding of the teachings at all.

Discussion such as this are just one of the many way in which we can develop our understanding; putting our understanding forward to be questioned and trying to outline that understanding.

cyberhog

roosh wrote: »

I am more familiar with the term Karma through Buddhist teachings and philosophy, than I am Hindu teachings; but from what I can gather the concept is not really used too differently.

In which case my question becomes, how can you not view being born with a disability as a punishment when the Dalai Lama describes karma as a kind of cosmic policeman who will eventually bring to justice those who commit wrongs.

"Countless rebirths lie ahead, both good and bad. The effects of karma (actions) are inevitable, and in previous lifetimes we have accumulated negative karma which will inevitably have its fruition in this or future lives. Just as someone witnessed by police in a criminal act will eventually be caught and punished, so we too must face the consequences of faulty actions we have committed in the past, there is no way to be at ease; those actions are irreversible; we must eventually undergo their effects."

Dalai Lama XIV, from 'Kindness, Clarity and Insight'

http://books.google.ie/books?id=omgsm0I0YvMC&pg=PA153&lpg=PA153&dq=%22Countless+rebirths+lie+ahead,+both+good+and+bad.%22&source=bl&ots=dGNIhCt_lb&sig=r8c4Q_M2zdk1CMEkRoxMDhGjirs&hl=en#v=onepage&q=%22Countless%20rebirths%20lie%20ahead%2C%20both%20good%20and%20bad.%22&f=false

And if that's not clear enough, just below is a snippet of Johann Hari's interview with, Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama.

There is a soft-headed view among trendy Westerners that, while most religions have disturbing elements, Buddhism is a pure, simple, uncontaminated faith. Yet the Dalai Lama has suggested that Tibetans are being punished for their “bad karma”. Can this be true, Your Holiness? “Yes. Of course. We are punished for feudalism. Every event is due to one’s karma.” So, are disabled children being punished for sins in a past life? “Oh yes. Of course.”

You can read the rest of the interview here.

http://johannhari.com/2004/06/07/johann-interviews-the-dalai-lama/

roosh

cyberhog wrote: »

In which case my question becomes, how can you not view being born with a disability as a punishment when the Dalai Lama describes karma as a kind of cosmic policeman who will eventually bring to justice those who commit wrongs.

http://books.google.ie/books?id=omgsm0I0YvMC&pg=PA153&lpg=PA153&dq=%22Countless+rebirths+lie+ahead,+both+good+and+bad.%22&source=bl&ots=dGNIhCt_lb&sig=r8c4Q_M2zdk1CMEkRoxMDhGjirs&hl=en#v=onepage&q=%22Countless%20rebirths%20lie%20ahead%2C%20both%20good%20and%20bad.%22&f=false

And if that's not clear enough, just below is a snippet of Johann Hari's interview with, Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama.


You can read the rest of the interview here.

http://johannhari.com/2004/06/07/johann-interviews-the-dalai-lama/

In short, because my understanding is based on more than just that snippet.

It is possible to speak in terms of "reward" and "punishment" of an individual, but again, this is all predicated on what is meant by "individual".

People born with a disability are "reaping the harvest" of the "seeds of Karma" that were sewn in the past. This simply means that they are experiencing the effect of an almost infathomable chain of causes.

Now, this can be termed as "punishment" but that is entirely dependent on what you mean by punishment; and it also begs the question as to who is doing the punishing and who is being punished?

If you ask HH the Dalai Lama that question, along with the question about children being punished for their past sins, and consider it in the context of the broader spectrum of Buddhist teachings [as delivered by HH DL and others], then the notion of a disability being a punishment for a past transgression would probably look entirely differently.

cyberhog

In the interview I linked to, the Dalai Lama completely agrees with the suggestion that disabled children are being punished for sins in a past life.You've just taken what he said and interpreted it in a way that suits how you happen to already think. It's all far too convenient I'm afraid.

roosh

cyberhog wrote: »

In the interview I linked to, the Dalai Lama completely agrees with the suggestion that disabled children are being punished for sins in a past life.You've just taken what he said and interpreted it in a way that suits how you happen to already think. It's all far too convenient I'm afraid.

Indeed he might completely agree, but he might completely disagree on what you mean by "punish [with a disability]", "sins", "past life" and "children", just as we likely disagree on, at least, some of them.

For example, what is your understanding of the term "past life"; what do you think it means to "have a past life"?

getz

as spiritualists will tell you,they believe in reincarnation, after death they believe you will return about three generations later,in my case i remember as a baby being pushed in a pram down a hill to the seaside by a victorian woman,alongside the pram was two young ladies,one of them kept running across the road to look in shop windows,the road was very distinctive,it was not untill many years later by chance for the first time i went to scarborough and had the shock of finding myself on that road, also there are many cases of people under hypnotic influence going back into previous lives,so its very much a case of what you want to believe,

roosh

getz wrote: »

as spiritualists will tell you,they believe in reincarnation, after death they believe you will return about three generations later,in my case i remember as a baby being pushed in a pram down a hill to the seaside by a victorian woman,alongside the pram was two young ladies,one of them kept running across the road to look in shop windows,the road was very distinctive,it was not untill many years later by chance for the first time i went to scarborough and had the shock of finding myself on that road, also there are many cases of people under hypnotic influence going back into previous lives,so its very much a case of what you want to believe,

There is still the issue of the nature of self i.e. who/what it is that has the past life and who/what it is that experiences the memory.

cyberhog

roosh wrote: »

For example, what is your understanding of the term "past life"; what do you think it means to "have a past life"?

I don't believe in reincarnation/past lives or any other fanciful theories dreamt up by humans. I'm more concerned about the effect these unproven theories have on real people in the real world. In Buddhist countries the belief the disabled are working off bad karma leaves them shunned and stigmatised. I find that to be morally reprehensible and inexcusable.

roosh

cyberhog wrote: »

I don't believe in reincarnation/past lives or any other fanciful theories dreamt up by humans. I'm more concerned about the effect these unproven theories have on real people in the real world. In Buddhist countries the belief the disabled are working off bad karma leaves them shunned and stigmatised. I find that to be morally reprehensible and inexcusable.

I am probably in full agreement with you.