Reincarnation...as it is...

[darkangel]

As I grow older I find myself dwelling on thoughts of reincarnation. I am drawn to it like a moth to a flame. I am not learned on the subject, so I wonder if this discussion forum could talk in more depth about this subject. What does the Bhagavad Gita say about it? What was Krishna's views on reincarnation? What are your views on reincarnation? I remember a particularly beautiful photo from the "Bhagavad Gita As It Is" I think, showing a man going from birth to death to birth to death again over and over again. This is obviously depicting reincarnation so I would like to use this as starting point and hope that I learn more as we go down this mysterious (for me) road...

 

[Gauracandra]

My understanding is that whatever state of mind we have at the time of death, that determines our next body that we reincarnate into and where we go. I have always thought of it, perhaps like a "freeze frame". Right before we die - FREEZE!!!! - a flash of light goes off - and a snap shot is taken, and off our soul goes.

 

The recent example of George Harrison, being surrounded by devotees, with pictures of Krsna and chanting going on is ideal. This is a very nice service that devotees can perform for one another in their communities.

 

Gauracandra

[bhaktajoy]

Dear Darkangel,

yes it is all correct even Dr.Ian Stevenson's research on near death has proved last moment thought/body process.

 

www.near-death.com is a great site with many profound near death experiences of people who have seen the truth first hand.You will soon realize it is all the same as Gita as it is and Santana Dharma teaches.

 

Site is cool with all the relevant facts like religions and other stuff put together.

Truth is really beautiful!

 

best regards,

joy

[bhaktashab]

Originally posted by Gauracandra:

My understanding is that whatever state of mind we have at the time of death, that determines our next body that we reincarnate into and where we go. I have always thought of it, perhaps like a "freeze frame". Right before we die - FREEZE!!!! - a flash of light goes off - and a snap shot is taken, and off our soul goes.

 

My understanding is that at the time of death one's life flashes before one's eyes. In other words our state of mind at the time of death (which is what determines our next birth) is itself determined by the way we have lived throughout our life.

 

------------------

shab.

[suryaz]

quote:

 

Originally posted by Gauracandra:

My understanding is that whatever state of mind we have at the time of death, that determines our next body that we reincarnate into and where we go. I have always thought of it, perhaps like a "freeze frame". Right before we die - FREEZE!!!! - a flash of light goes off - and a snap shot is taken, and off our soul goes.

 

Originally posted by shab

My understanding is that at the time of death one's life flashes before one's eyes. In other words our state of mind at the time of death (which is what determines our next birth) is itself determined by the way we have lived throughout our life.

 

Humm “time of death”?????

I am troubled by the phrase. “Time” is a relative concept. It confuses me. Should we not say “at the incident of death”? My reasoning here centres on the view that one can, especially in “cyber space” at a particular point in “time” project a view into the future that ends up in another place and is also in the past. For instance, it is now 10.37 AM Friday Jan 25 2002. As soon as I post this message it will end up in another place that is form me, experiencing a time expression that has past form me many hours previously.

Certainly cyber space has brought with it, new conceptual vents and directs us to be more careful in our use of language. (Just something)

 

[bhaktashab]

Time of Death = Period of time within which a death takes place.

 

------------------

shab.

[suryaz]

Originally posted by suryaz:

quote:

Originally posted by Gauracandra:

My understanding is that whatever state of mind we have at the time of death, that determines our next body that we reincarnate into and where we go. I have always thought of it, perhaps like a "freeze frame". Right before we die - FREEZE!!!! - a flash of light goes off - and a snap shot is taken, and off our soul goes.

Originally posted by shab

My understanding is that at the time of death one's life flashes before one's eyes. In other words our state of mind at the time of death (which is what determines our next birth) is itself determined by the way we have lived throughout our life.

Humm “time of death”?????

I am troubled by the phrase. “Time” is a relative concept. It confuses me. Should we not say “at the incident of death”?

 

My reasoning here centres on the view that one can, especially in “cyber space” at a particular point in “time” project a view into the future that ends up in another place in the past. For instance, it is now 11.18 AM Friday Jan 25 2002. As soon as I post this message it will end up in another place that is for me, experiencing an expression of time that for me, has 'past form' (ie it is projected into a time that is well into my past and experienced by others differently).

 

Certainly cyber space has brought with it, new conceptual vents and directs us to be more careful in our use of language. (Just something)

 

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 01-24-2002).]

[suryaz]

In the Bhagavat Gita Krishna says:

 

“Time I am the all devouring sinful enemy”

 

If time is relative – then can we ask –

 

Is a relative concept that which is the “all devouring sinful enemy’?

 

We could also ask where does such relative concepts come from?

 

Yes I agree ultimately everything come from Sri Krishna.

 

But who is instrumental in the acts of relativity? Generally it is a view promoted in natural sciences and scientific philosophies.

 

But then Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura wrote an essay disregarding relativity.

 

Now I am even more confused.

 

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 01-24-2002).]

[Avinash]

But then Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura wrote an essay disregarding relativity.

 

What arguments are given against relativity?

 

 

[Avinash]

In the Bhagavat Gita Krishna says:

“Time I am the all devouring sinful enemy”

 

This translation means that Krsna called Himself as sinful. I don't think the translation is correct.

[bhaktashab]

Originally posted by Avinash:

In the Bhagavat Gita Krishna says:

“Time I am the all devouring sinful enemy”

 

This translation means that Krsna called Himself as sinful. I don't think the translation is correct.

I think it means, "Time I am the all devouring violent enemy"

 

------------------

shab.

[laksri]

Originally posted by darkangel:

As I grow older I find myself dwelling on thoughts of reincarnation. [cut].. I remember a particularly beautiful photo from the "Bhagavad Gita As It Is" I think, showing a man going from birth to death to birth to death again over and over again. [cut]...

Originally posted by darkangel:

I am not learned on the subject, so I wonder if this discussion forum could talk in more depth about this subject. What does the Bhagavad Gita say about it?

I think everybody is on the same boat. I understand it is easier to listen to live lecture than read a book, hope may be such means are possible for everybody. But for us, who attended a discourse is not an option, we can resort to tapes. Surely this is also a way, asking in this forum of loving krishna devotees.

 

I think, any person who has planned for retirement in youth or atleast tommorrow's food today, will be forced to think what next in old age (or some in younger age too). That is where death looks insurmountable. We don't know what is beyond it, this is really where religion comes. It is a path to avoid this confusion. With the blessings of acharyas, and the mercy of Krishna, it is possible to not bother about re-incarnation for ourselves.

 

Anyhow, to understand reincarnation, we have to understand karma. Unfortunately, this word "karma" is used in several senses, like to mean destiny, planetary influences, past sins, so on. What ever it means, we have to first accept two premises. First one, our actions are our own, that is we have "freedom" to choose (note: freedom with quotes, because it is qualified). If we don't agree that we are even free to choose, then we need not worry about anything because we can't do anything about it. Second, every system will have to have some axoims, I mean at some point you have got to stop and start accepting. Depending on merit people accept things.

 

Now that we accept ourselves as agent in some sense of meaning, we have to see the deeds and the mode. Right now for me, writting is the deed and this body is the mode. The supreme lord and the infinite brahman that he is, assumes three states to our deeds. Namely indifference, permissiveness, and encouragment. Let us say for example, first time we do a deed, god is neither encouraging or discouraging. [ But remember only applicable to human and not animals, and above all, god gives scriptures and acharyas to guide us.] Next time you do he is permitting you to do that. You start repeting such class of acts or a particular act, what ever, he starts facilitating that. This is a very surprising form for us, but he gives a long rope. Probobly too long. So we decide our destiny in that sense, we mark the direction and points in a general sense.

 

All deeds (thought,speech,action) if done as per his guidelines to us, then he whom every thing is dependent on, is also happy about our deeds. If we disregard the reason why he gave the body (especially a healthy human being) he is very sad, that even with his great effort to get his sons (remember souls don't have gender so don't bother). It is odd that this "idividuality" delegated to us, is making us think we are really "independent" and disregard his advice.

 

Now, he cannot treat his bad son who misused given property [body,organs,etc] to gamble, as he treats good son, that would be unfair. Such of his pleasure or displeasure works in deciding our ["bodies"] mode in space-time ["how long and when"].

 

Now, this kind of human body is one mode, it can be some other species, or even different kind of physical body, like demi-gods. This effect of one human life may go on for several (human) years, in some other mode. In the end after exhausting those long tenure, we get a chance in human form, that too only if fortunate with ability to understand good things in life. Simply because of the luring nature of bad things, we may end up again wasting that chance of this valuable human form, only who can break this vicious movement from one mode to another (also called as one body to another, or birth and death). Since this is such a slippery thing, we seem to go in circles, under the effect of karma, it is refered generally as the cycle of birth and death.

 

But modes of pleasure of good deeds is as bad as bad deeds, because enjoyment as a result of it is only temporary. And worse, there is no guarantee that you will not do bad things agin when you are in human form. In the same sense, what we think as punishment or as our suffering in a particualr mode is a part of god's plan for allowing our souls spirutual evolution. So in reality he does only good to his sons.

 

Re-incarnation or next mode is decided by several factors, including whether you complete your good or bad "sentence" and what are your deeds. Since we have so many inumerable lapses, better not to waste our valuable seconds/minutes/hours/days/months/years left for action in this life. Let us find refuge in his holy feet.

 

[This message has been edited by laksri (edited 01-25-2002).]

[Bhaktavasya]

Originally posted by Avinash:

In the Bhagavat Gita Krishna says:

“Time I am the all devouring sinful enemy”

 

This translation means that Krsna called Himself as sinful. I don't think the translation is correct.

"Time I am, destroyer of all the worlds, and I have come to engage all men (women)."

 

Lord Krishna refers to lust as the all-devouring, sinful enemy of the world.

Lust has been generally mistaken (by iskcon devotees mainly) to refer to sexual desire, when lust for power, lust for fame and lust for the body without any love for the person inside is probably a better understanding of the meaning of the word.

 

 

 

[suryaz]

Originally posted by Bhaktavasya:

"Time I am, destroyer of all the worlds, and I have come to engage all men (women)."

 

Lord Krishna refers to lust as the all-devouring, sinful enemy of the world.

 

 

OOOPS!!!!

 

I knew I was confused.

 

But this still does not take away from “time” being a “relative concept”.

 

Krishna still said “time I am”.

 

My posted messages still fly back into what is the past (for me) but at the same incident they are experienced in the experiential domain of future and of the present for others. Thus creating ambiguity about how we perceive Krishna as “time”. The issue seems now more complex as it brings up questions about Sri Krishna and relativity and our previous arguments about the spirituality and relativity.

 

Is Krishna found within relativity, even more is Sri Kriahna found within our concepts of relativity (or in other words time)?

 

 

[valaya]

To put it simply, time conquers all. Though we may struggle physically, mentally and/or `spiritually` the fact is that ultimately we must come to the realization we are not in control. Time moves on in spite of everything, no matter what.

 

Realizing time (Krsna) as the inevitable controller within our relative world, where we may appear relatively in control of our lives, helps us to surrender to Him personally. That of course is the real message of Bhagavad Gita, at least as far as devotees are concerned, while the passage quoted is just one sloka.

 

------------------

Radhe Radhe always Radhe!

amanpeter@hotmail.com

[Avinash]

Suryaz: My posted messages still fly back into what is the past (for me) but at the same incident they are experienced in the experiential domain of future and of the present for others. Thus creating ambiguity about how we perceive Krishna as “time”. The issue seems now more complex as it brings up questions about Sri Krishna and relativity and our previous arguments about the spirituality and relativity.

 

If two persons are moving with respect to each other but the component of relative velocity in any direction does not exceed the speed of light in vacuum, then if some incident is in future according to one person, then it can not be in the past according to the other. I really do not see how Krsna's statement "Time I am" is against relativity.

[Bhaktavasya]

Originally posted by suryaz:

OOOPS!!!!

 

I knew I was confused.

 

But this still does not take away from “time” being a “relative concept”.

 

Krishna still said “time I am”.

 

My posted messages still fly back into what is the past (for me) but at the same incident they are experienced in the experiential domain of future and of the present for others. Thus creating ambiguity about how we perceive Krishna as “time”. The issue seems now more complex as it brings up questions about Sri Krishna and relativity and our previous arguments about the spirituality and relativity.

 

Is Krishna found within relativity, even more is Sri Kriahna found within our concepts of relativity (or in other words time)?

 

 

"In the spiritual world, time is conspicuous by it's absense."

Although I can't remember where this quote is from, most likely the Krishna Book, but it's definetly from SP's books.

 

When Krishna says "Time I am", in reference to the temporairy material worlds, which have a beginning and a dissolution, He is reaffirming another quote from the Bhagavad Gita; "I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds". The spiritual world has no beginning and no end, therefore time cannot erode or effect the activities there.

It would be safe to conclude that as we revive our original spiritual consciousness, we are in effect beginning to live in the spiritual world, so time will not have the same effect as one living in and identifying with the temporal world as the all and all.