Coming Back- The Science of Reincarnation

[Burner]

Now read chapter three of the book

I dont have access to the book. If it is laid out simply and clearly enough with sufficient evidence to convince you, then it should convince others. So give us the TLDR.

 

[Kasaman]

I have been reading this book, and I am impressed. It presents a whole new view of life, death, afterlife and prelife.
Apparently, you (soul) can exist in one of the following forms, depending on the level of purity. From least to greatest

1. Soil
2. Plants
3. Animals
4. Humans
5. Demigods

And you can be promoted or demoted depending on your behavior.
Surprisingly, the concept of reincarnation seems to have been well understood before the biblical times. Even Jesus himuserofu seemed to acknowledge this.
Example: Jesus said that John the Baptist is a reincarnation of Elias the Prophet.
He also accepted that there's the possibility that the man born blind may have been born blind due to some sin he had committed earlier (suggesting a prelife). Same applies to Islam. Even us Greeks have this concept.

It makes an interesting read. Get it here.

Coming Back - The Science of Reincarnation By A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada

You reincarnated !
Can you vividly remember your past life ?

Is this reincarnation

 

[kijanamrefu]

A shteamulated Saturday morning, I see.
Ghasia.

Naona ni kama umetumia tayari.

View attachment 38351

Another one needs to take his daily dose.

Guys, my son, @This is Phil , had my phone for a while yesterday. I see he has very bizzare(but interesting!) ideas.

 

[kijanamrefu]

[

You can say "this is a bed", would it not follow that the "a" is the soul of the bed? You have not defined anything in your statement hence it is reduced to absurdity.

No. The bed will have to define itself and say, "I am a bed" or "This is my leg", then we can say that it is self aware.

 

[Mwalimu-G]

Guys, my son, @This is Phil , had my phone for a while yesterday. I see he has very bizzare(but interesting!) ideas.

Ni kama bado umelemewa

 

[Burner]

[
No. The bed will have to define itself and say, "I am a bed" or "This is my leg", then we can say that it is self aware.

The issue at hand is the use of the articles not self awareness.
"My/me" is no different from "a/it". Its purely a matter of perspective and in no way can they point to whether that thing (person or bed) has a soul.
And In any case, you cannot with absolute certainty show that the bed isnt self-aware.

 

[kijanamrefu]

The issue at hand is the use of the articles not self awareness.
"My/me" is no different from "a/it". Its purely a matter of perspective and in no way can they point to whether that thing (person or bed) has a soul.
And In any case, you cannot with absolute certainty show that the bed isnt self-aware.

I understand where you're coming from. Allow me to summarize.

I think the arguments on trying to define a soul in this thread are being diluted by an attachment to trying to make humans appear unique among living things. We are not.

A better definition would be whether or not an individual (plant, human, animal) has the ability to act on their reason for existence and self awareness. By this definition, all "living" things have a "soul/life" that can be measured by this ability. Therefore, a rock, as much as it vibrates, is not "alive".

 

[Burner]

I understand where you're coming from. Allow me to summarize.

I think the arguments on trying to define a soul in this thread are being diluted by an attachment to trying make humans unique among living things. We are not.

A better definition would be whether or not an individual (plant, human, animal) has the ability to act on their reason for existence and self awareness.

I agree with you on this part. However, this is part

By this definition, all "living" things have a "soul/life" that can be measured by this ability.

Is where i disagree. The proponents for the existence of a soul in this thread are not merely arguing that we are special in terms in self-awareness, but there is an "extra" component that we have that is unique.
They have yet to give a coherent definition of this thing although they label it a soul. Ok fine. The next obstacle is demonstrating its existence. All of which have failed.

Saying living things have a soul while meaning life only muddies the waters. Because for those same proponents are not using the word soul to mean life. For them it is a seperate entity altogether.
It is why my first comment was to get their definition of the term soul.

 

[Mwalimu-G]

Saying living things have a soul while meaning life only muddies the waters. Because for those same proponents are not using the word soul to mean life. For them it is a seperate entity altogether.
It is why my first comment was to get their definition of the term soul.

I think soul is a construct by the architects of religion to explain how mortals will migrate to Shangri La otherwise they were going to have difficulties explaining how people would get to heaven or hell once the corpse was buried.

 

[Burner]

I think soul is a construct by the architects of religion to explain how mortals will migrate to Shangri La otherwise they were going to have difficulties explaining how people would get to heaven or hell once the corpse was buried.

Especially when you say there is a place you go after death but everyone can clearly see you body right there and its not going anywhere at all.

 

[Mwalimu-G]

but everyone can clearly see you body right there and its not going anywhere at all.

As we say in Greek unable to blow away the flies.

 

[kijanamrefu]

I agree with you on this part. However, this is part

Is where i disagree. The proponents for the existence of a soul in this thread are not merely arguing that we are special in terms in self-awareness, but there is an "extra" component that we have that is unique.
They have yet to give a coherent definition of this thing although they label it a soul. Ok fine. The next obstacle is demonstrating its existence. All of which have failed.

Saying living things have a soul while meaning life only muddies the waters. Because for those same proponents are not using the word soul to mean life. For them it is a seperate entity altogether.
It is why my first comment was to get their definition of the term soul.

Understood. Maybe they should just change their definition of "soul" to "life" then we can close the thread .