What is Reincarnation?

[Guest guest]

about, sometimes taking physical form, and can influence the living, until they

(the spirits) settle into their 'new bodies. It would be impractical here to go

into the details of the different forms and fashions of this doctrine; more

worthwhile perhaps would be to describe the main substance of it. One argument

for the antiquity of the doctrines of reincarnation is the 'evidence' in ancient

literature, in the tales of metamorphosis for example, Ovid's colorful

extravagances of that name, in which 'gods' take on human and animal forms,

humans take on a diversity of different shapes, etc. But these tales do not

constitute a doctrine; the doctrine proper is not to do with, simply, colorful

change of form, but with a belief that an individual soul must pass through

every 'level' of creation, every species of life form, animate or inanimate,

sentient or insentient. If we reflect upon this we soon realize that the

doctrine is really a strange elaboration on the immortality

of the soul. In other words, the kernel of it is the intuition that the soul is

immortal. That kernel is true; the rest is not. The doctrine may also have

arisen from the observation of the likeness in physical and other traits

between parents and offspring: in other words, the biological phenomena of

heredity, perfectly intelligibly explained by the laws of genetics, are given a

less intelligible, indeed ownright irrational, explanation by the doctrine of

reincarnation. The doctrine is said to have emerged in the Nile basin,

spreading thence to other regions and peoples, to India, for example, and back

west from thence, to Greece. There, the eloquence of the philosophers

rationalized it (incredibly, it seems to us) into a source of consolation and

hope for people who, as do all people, longed for eternity. Among the major

religions, the doctrine was, initially, infiltrated into Judaism by the

Kabbalists, and by the contrivance of Jewish thinkers into Christianity, and

finally into the ideas of some Sufis-despite the hard labors of Muslim

theologians to refute such a distortion. To support it, every apologist for

the doctrine put forward some 'evidence'. For instance, the Kabbalists mention

the transformation of Niobe (mentioned in the Old Testament) into a marble

sculpture, and of the wife of the Messenger Lot, into a statue made of dust.

Another argument explains instinct and intelligence in animals, and the

splendors of the plant kingdom, as once human intelligence and vitality, which

had entered into them. The idea debases humanity and shames its proponents: it

is really difficult to accept that such an assertion, even if made on the spur

of the moment, could be made by people of any understanding. Certainly, it is

beyond doubt that there is a program and a predetermined destiny for plants and

inanimate creation. But it is rather far fetched to trace the harmony and order

we see in the plant or mineral kingdoms to

souls which formerly lived as or in human beings. Actually, plants and trees

have a certain life, a plant life, a direction of growth towards light and

moisture, but this does not mean that this is the activity of the soul of a

human soul cast down, or a soul on its way up the levels of creation. Despite

efforts to corroborate this, no-one has ever received any message from a plant

form confirming that it contains a soul that once belonged to a human being,

nor have we heard any account from a human being that he or she was once the

soul of a plant or animal. True, there have been claims, spread about by

tabloids and other such media, of people recollecting 'past lives', even

recounting incidents from their past lives. Where these claims are not totally

absurd and ridiculous ravings, their substance can easily be explained as

recollections of what the individual has seen or read and then, knowingly or

otherwise, elaborated and transformed as in any ordinary human

fiction. The fact that Niobe and the wife of the Messenger Lot were transformed

into sculptures of marble or dust respectively, even if accepted literally, are

neither an instance nor evidence of reincarnation. What we have in this case is

a transformation of a physical kind; it has nothing to do with transmigration of

the soul. As for petrified bodies, that is not an arcane phenomenon: just such

corpses have been found, in considerable numbers, preserved by the absolute

dryness of volcanic ashes. Pompeii was destroyed by a sudden volcanic eruption

and remained buried under the ashes of Vesuvius for hundreds of years. The

excavations performed there revealed numerous Niobe-like petrified bodies. In

these ruins, and in the petrified faces and bodies, so busy in their

self-indulgent vices, so secure in their arrogance, we can, if we wish, read

the signs of Divine wrath and punishment. Perhaps these figures had their way

of life solidified in ash and so preserved, so that

future generations might witness and take heed. To interpret them as evidence of

reincarnation is simply untenable. Belief in reincarnation in Egypt, India and

Greece developed as a result of distortion of once sound beliefs in the

hereafter, and from a longing for the immortality of the soul. Neither in

Ahen-Aten's Egypt nor in Pythagoras' Greece did anyone know of the

reincarnation, which these distorted beliefs brought about. To Ahen-Aten, when

man's life ends in this world, a different one starts in heaven. As soon as one

dies, one's soul sets off on its journey to reach 'the Greatest Court' in

heaven. It goes so high that it reaches to the presence of Osiris, and hopes to

give an account of itself in words like these: 'I have come to Your presence as

I was free from sins, and throughout my life, I did do everything I could that

would make devout men pleased. I did not shed blood nor did I steal. Neither

did I make mischief nor did I mean any. I did not commit any

adultery nor fornication whatever'. Those who can speak so join Orisis'

congregation, those who cannot, whose evil deeds outweigh their good, are

hurled into hell and tortured by demons. Such sound belief is witnessed also

in epitaphs relating to Ahen-Aten's religion as follows: 'what You have done is

too much and our eyes cannot perceive most of them. O One, Only God! No one

possesses such might as You have. It is You who have created this universe as

You wish and You alone. It is You who decree the world suitable for human

beings, for all animals, whether big or small, whether they walk on the earth

on their legs or they fly up in the sky on their wings. And it is You alone who

sustain and nourish them. Thanks to You, all beauties come into existence. All

eyes see You by means of those. Verily, my heart belongs to You (You are in my

heart)'. The ideas quoted verbatim above were the things which were believed in

as truth in Egypt some four thousand years ago. Likewise, in Ancient Greece,

the belief in resurrection and the immortality of the soul were quite sound.

The great philosopher Pythagoras, for example, believed that the soul on

leaving the body has a life peculiar to itself; in fact any soul has this same

kind of life even before it quits the earth. It is commissioned with some

responsibilities on earth; if it commits any evil, it will be punished, thrown

into hell and tormented by demons. On the other hand, in return for the good

that it does, it will be given high rank and blessed with a happy life.

Allowing for the changes that might have been made in the views of Pythagoras

over time, we can certainly still see that there are fundamental similarities

with the Islamic creed of resurrection. Plato's account is not so different

either. In his famous treatise The Republic, he says that the soul on leaving

the body forgets the material (corporeal) life totally; it ascends into an

appropriate realm, a spiritual one, saturated

with wisdom and immortality; the soul is free from all scarcity, deficiency,

error, fear, and from the passion and love which afflicted it while it lived on

earth; and then, being free from all the evil consequences of human nature, it

is blessed with eternal bliss. In a comparable way, no doubt also through

unscrupulous translation away from the original language and subsequent further

distinctions, the Ancient Egyptian, Indian and Greek religions became

unrecognizable. The doctrine of reincarnation may well be one such alteration

from an originally sound conception of the immortality of the soul and its

return to the Divine Judgment. After reincarnation was inscribed into the

beliefs of the Ancient Egyptians, it became one of the central themes of songs

and legends throughout the vicinity of the Nile region. Elaborated further with

the eloquent expressions of Greek philosophers, it became, with the expansion of

Greek influence, a widespread phenomenon.

The Hindus consider matter as the lowest manifestation of Brahma, and deem that

the convergence of body and soul is a demeaning of the soul, a decline into

evil. However, death is believed to be salvation, a separation from human

defects, and a possible chance to achieve an ecstatic union with the truth. The

Hindus are polytheistic in practice. Their greatest god is 'Krishna', who is

believed to have come in a human figure in order to eradicate evil. Their

second greatest god is 'Vishnu', which means that which can penetrate the human

body. According to Hinduism, Vishnu has descended into this world nine times in

different shapes (human, animal, or flower). He is also expected to descend for

the tenth time. Since they believe that Vishnu will next come to this world in

the shape of an animal, killing any animal is absolutely prohibited. Killing

animals is only allowed during war; and the zealots of that religion do not

normally eat meat. According to the Vedanta, the

most important religious book of the Hindus, the soul is a part, a fragment, of

Brahma; it will never be able to get rid of suffering and distress until it

returns to its origin. Soul achieves gnosis by isolating itself from the ego

and all wickedness pertaining to the ego, and by running towards Brahma, just

as a river flows down into a sea. When the soul reaches and unites with Brahma,

it acquires absolute peace, tranquillity and stillness, another version of which

is Nirvana in Buddhism: there is an abatement of active seeking, a passivity of

soul in the latter, whereas the soul is dynamic in Hinduism. All ancient, new

and contemporary acceptance of the doctrine of reincarnation has one

characteristic, one root, in common, that is the belief in incarnation. There

is a shared failure of intellect to both grasp and accept the Absolute

Transcendence of God: corrupted by this failure, people have been persuaded to

believe that the Divine mixes with the corporal and that

the corporal or the human will mix or can mix with the Divine. But in reality

every individual lives and dies according to his or her individual destiny,

carries his or her individual load, will be individually resurrected and

individually called to answer for his or her intentions and actions and their

consequences, and each individually will receive Divine judgment (which is

perfect justice) according to the same criteria. We set below, in the form of

a list of points, the cardinal reasons why the doctrine of reincarnation should

be rejected. Belief in the Resurrection and Judgment when justice is meted out

to each individual soul according to that individual's record in life. 1. If

the individual soul passes into different lives, in which form or personality

will it be resurrected, commanded to give account, and rewarded or punished?

2. This world is created for the purpose of

test and trial, to benefit the soul thereby. One focus of the test is belief in

the Unseen. Under the doctrine of resurrection, those who live a bad life pass

into a lower form of life (animal, tree, etc.) after death. But in that case,

they will know the consequences of their former life and life as test loses its

meaning. To get round this, believers in this doctrine also have to have a

doctrine of forgetfulness-the soul 'forgets' its past existence. In that case,

for all practical purposes, having had (or not having had) a past existence is

of no consequence to any living creature. Plainly, the doctrine contradicts

itself and has no bearing on life as it is lived except to make the individual

accept his condition whatever it may be without actively striving for

salvation. 3. If each individual is supposed to go through a painful cycle

of transmigrations in order to acquire eternal bliss, then God's promise to

punish the

wicked and the sinful, and to reward the good and the righteous, has no meaning

for the individual life. This is unacceptable for Providence, and God is far

from being vain or futile in His actions. 4. The Holy Book and other Divine

Books state that sins will be forgiven (if truly repented). This proves how

unnecessary and cumbersome a device it is, this doctrine that the soul must

endure innumerable cycles to realize forgiveness. How much better do the

concepts of mercy and forgiveness befit God, the Beneficent Merciful Creator.

There is no sin, which God cannot forgive as He wills. God, the All Mighty,

reveals and promises in the Holy Book that He will forgive those who repent

what they have done wrong and sincerely intend not to do it again. In this

respect, God does not see how great or little your sins are, nor how late your

penitence is. This may mean that a sinner who disobeys and rebels against God

throughout his

life can also be forgiven by a single act of true repentance, done with absolute

sincerity and a profound understanding of servanthood and dependence on God.

(But no individual knows his or her future, none knows if that late hour will

come how unwise then to postpone it!) 5. Long, and tiresome cycles of

rebirth are contrary to the mercy, favor, grace and forgiveness of God, the All

Compassionate. If He wills, He takes ordinary, worthless, inferior things and

turns them into what is purest and best and beyond price. Infinite indeed are

His blessings and munificence. 6. Among the followers of the Messengers,

there have been many who led wicked lives but who afterwards reformed and did

so within an incredibly short time, then being the revered models of virtue for

later generations. After meeting the Messengers, and embracing the Divine

Message, some of them even surpassed previous followers

and came to be more revered than them. This indicates that by the favor of God

one can easily and quickly rise to the summit, even if, previously, one had

been of those apparently destined for the pit. It also shows, again, how

unnecessary is the doctrine of souls 'graduating' into higher levels of being:

indeed the doctrine may have the effect of lessening incentives to moral

effort. 7. To believe that God, the All-Mighty, has created for each

individual an individual soul is a part of belief in His Omnipotence. To

believe, instead, that a limited number of souls migrate from body to body

argues the illogical proposition that the Omnipotent is not Omnipotent. The

sheer abundance of life, its infinite variety, its refusal of mere repetition

of form, is everywhere evident: God is indeed All Mighty. There are

approximately 5 or 5.5 billion people in the world. In recent times we have

learnt how to prove that each individual is absolutely

unique by looking at fingerprints or gene codes. No individual's gene code or

fingerprint is like any other's a fact so reliable as to be used in forensic

science to identify criminals. Another example is the observation by a German

professor, over thirty years, of millions of pictures of snowflakes not one of

which is ever exactly like any other in shape or pattern. It is scarcely

imaginable how many snowflakes fall in one season on one mountainside, let

alone all that have ever fallen. How foolish to imply then that the Omnipotent

could not create an infinite number of individual souls and supply them with an

infinite number of bodies. 8. As there are about 5.5 billion people

altogether on the earth, could not a few of them at least have had some marks,

or signs on them, or evidence, or something convincing to tell, of their

memories, adventures and experiences in different forms and bodies? Must not

there have be an accumulation of

knowledge, experience and culture in some of those who have come to this world a

few times or even completed their cycles? If this happened in only one out of a

million should we not expect there to be a great number of people now living of

extraordinary virtue and competence? Should we not have met a few of them even

in our own countries? If so, where are they? 9. When a body reaches an age

(let's say three or four years), a measure physical maturity, should we not

expect the soul to emerge with, as it were, all the acquisition and achievement

of previous lives? Should we not expect prodigies? There have been quite a few

prodigies in recorded history, but their special gifts need not be the result

of lives lived many times before. It can equally well be explained as a special

combination of genetic characteristics occurring in a particular time and place

which is attributable to Divine Grace and Favor, together with supreme effort

on

the part of the individual to understand his or her own gift in the tradition

and context in which it is given. 10. No faculty special only to human

beings has ever been found in any other entities, animate or inanimate. But we

should expect such a discovery if there were any truth in reincarnation. If a

lower form of life is, so to speak, the consequence (punishment) for particular

evil deeds in the previous life, then, presumably, the good in that life

(outweighed by the evil) must also be carried forward. In other words, some

part of the individual's previous life should be retained in the next life. In

this case we would expect the boundaries of particular forms to be frequently

burst open with, for example, plants never known to do so, suddenly showing

properties associated with animal life. But, by the Mercy of God, zoology and

botany have not, for all their many welcome advances in recent years,

discovered any such monsters.

11. If being a man or animal is the consequence of one's deeds in a former

life, which first existed, man or animal, the higher or the lower? Advocates of

the doctrine cannot decide or agree on any form for the first creature, for

every generation implies a preceding generation in order that the succeeding

generation may be considered as the consequence of the former. And if

generation is an evil, as some who believe in reincarnation also believe, why

did the whole thing start? Why did life begin at all? Plainly, the doctrine

leads again and again to absurdity. Thank you Aravind

DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less