Re-incarnation - anyone told you yours ?

[prana]

Wongsifu,

I am just curious, you do remember all of these quite vividly. I wonder how you are able to do so ? For me, I have just been told it by a couple of people, otherwise, I really have not seen my past.

Though I get the feeling I was some sort of hellbeing in my immediate past. I felt much 'hellish' energies when younger, and hence I want to make best use of this one.

Nut'n'Hunny -

With regards to your question, well in Buddhist thinking, rebirth and death is determined mostly by what you thought of last. What you experience at the end of each life is the collection of the grosest energies of that life. Most laypeople (and even more so, just beings) don't think too much about how to die, so they fall helplessly without choice, their rebirth. Hence Buddhist collect selfless thoughts in their lifes, to collect good wholesome karma.

About why there are increasingly more people in this world, I asked this question before and after I became a Buddhist, I still have no answer.
But I do have a question, why are humans so prideful to think they and animals are the only two forms of sentioent beings ? And hence, I keep my mind open.

[Nexus]

Are you saying prana that you live this life and are a good person so in your rebirth you will gain benefits from that? Basically adding up the good karma so you get a payout?

- Nexus

[prana]

Nexus

Its two-fold. You gain now, incredible bliss when helping someone else, but you also gain during the bardo (between dieing and rebirth). Of course, one can just as well accumulate bad and not understand how to die.

Though my usage of words may not be accurate, I hope you see past it.

[Nexus]

Prana, perhaps you should consider this if you have not already, although you are intelligent and I would imagine you probably have.

If not though, consider the following: If all you knew of karma and the return for doing good was farce, and was not actually how you saw it, and in death you actually received nothing for doing good at all, would you continue doing so, and if you would, what would your justification/reason for doing so be?

There is no reason to respond to that message here on the forum, but rather one that a person should consider themselves.

- Nexus

[prana]

Nexus

absolutely :) I am sure you have felt the joys of giving. It is great in its own rights. Forget the future.

What is clear though, we perceive karma entirely differently.

[Wongsifu]

fish of fury , You know the joke you made about remembering your animal lives, i had when i was a kid really weird flashbacks of being an animal a cat or something similar, i was watching tv and suddenly everything i could see went a funny orange-brown khakhi colour and it was distorted, it was like a camera out of focus , and sharper images. Any how it happened 3 or 4 times and i was like wow i only realised later that it was from a previous life. Because when i recollected this i could see the animal with all grass/dirt/dry twigs/weeds around it but i cant remember the animal itself.


Prana
----------------
I am just curious, you do remember all of these quite vividly. I wonder how you are able to do so ? For me, I have just been told it by a couple of people, otherwise, I really have not seen my past.
----------------


The scenes that i actually remember i remember them very vividly , you see it in your minds eye , but i dont remember the whole of the life just maybe various parts of it significant or not significant, but those parts are vivid , from there on i can try and fast forward slowly slowly and see what else happened before or after that point in time and where my surroundings are.

But there is no need to do so , knowing what you were in your past life is nothign special.

To do so all you need to do is meditate on it , at first with me it just started as flashes during the day, but if you close your eyes and fcus on the 3rd eye , provided that your 3rd eye is open you ask to see what you were in your past life and from there on it is like a story.

But it is much better to ask to be one with the most high at that point rather than to see what you were in your past lifes, so after a while when you are curious you will be able to see it as a gift from the higher power. He sees that you wish to know and because you dont ask him for it constantly he will give it to you without asking.


--------------
Though I get the feeling I was some sort of hellbeing in my immediate past. I felt much 'hellish' energies when younger, and hence I want to make best use of this one.
----------
Everybody who is in a path of meditation etc etc has been an evil person in one of his past lives. I dont know why it is just like that.

I remember very vividly 2 of my past lives that i was very evil, In one of them i used to practise black magic very powerful black magic i was very ugly and deformed i looked like a hunchback and my face was very in human , i remember that i was in the underground of a big place maybe a castle i dont know , and the walls were big and black made of something liek granite, i remember seeing my self standing in front of a large river of blood flowing in front of me it was from one side of the room to the other and it was coming in from the wall, i cant describe it otherwise.
Behind me is a large symbol on the floor, and i summon this beast from out of it , it is very weird icannot describe it , all very discusting.

The other life i remeber that is also evil is similar but different.

So anyway this is how it is, when i was young also , could hear something like the voice of the devil in my mind a very slow slooooooow voice very weird and scary, also before i used to try and sleep i would close my eyes and see hellish beings from nowhere all the time in my head after that the beings started to go away and it was just many many many different colours of negative enerrgy flowing in my head....

Luckily nothing of that sort nowadays....

what do bin laden and general custer have in common????
They're both wondering where the fu(k all of those tomahawks are coming from. - donated by mojo

[CD Lee]

You said:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> PS - Interesting trivia - And nevermind the fact that certain ancient Christian sects also believed in
reincarnation, until they were branded heretical and killed. [/quote]

This is interesting. I studied Christian Patristics for years. I would love some detail behind that trivia since I am unaware of it specifically. In Irenaus' 'Against Heresies' (150AD)he describes so many beliefs of off-shoot groups claiming to be Christian that just about every Platonic, Greek, and every possible belief is described. The main problem with all of the groups he describes is that they did not originate from Christ's Apostles. That is when the term Apostolic Succession became an issue. When the stories and teaching tradtions started to vary from the one passed down, that term gained significance.

Many other splinter groups also taught that the body was evil, and to sin more meant getting closer to God in spirit. Sounds like they were selling something. That is the surface.

The killing part is what I find interesting. If you do have that information I would be interested sincerely. Otherwise, I have heard a million unsubstantiated stories before. That is how I got into Patristic studies. Cheers

[Scott R. Brown]

CDLee,

Technically speaking St. Paul did not originate from from Christ's Apostles and he is credited with basically making the church.

Sincerely,
Scott

[CD Lee]

I understand your point. However, St. Paul presented himself before Peter after 15 years. If you read the text, Paul admits to being nervous lest his work had been in vain. St. Paul was picked by Jesus Himself in person to be an Apostle on the road to Damascus if you recall in Acts. All this just to say, Peter and Paul were in total agreement. They had the same Gospel, the same story. St. Paul is not credited by the Catholic Church or the Protestant Evangelicals (where I come from, came from for 20 yrs) as having practically created the Church. The Church was persucuted by Paul long before Paul (Saul) came into the Church.

So, picked by Christ as an Apostle...is pretty certainly originating from Christ's Apostles. As far as anybody 'Creating' the early Church, the Church was created by Jesus himself. Paul was a great evangelist who worked within the Church.

What I am talking about is those groups that split from the teachings of churches that had bishops with an apostolic lineage. Paul and Peter are from that same lingeage. Not sure what the point is, as history show no differences in their followers teachings really? Do you think the two Apostles had not met, and concurred their Gospels?

[Scott R. Brown]

CD Lee,

My point is that Paul was an Apostle by appointment and not an actual Apostle of Christ. Peter was in a bit of a position when he accepted Paul as a bona fide Apostle. By this time Paul had influence over the majority of the church. As you recall there was some disaggreement over whether gentiles would even be accepted into the church.

While you can indeed argue that Christ started the church, it is clear that Paul's words are the most influential of the New Testament. Therefore, it can also be argued that Paul is the one that created the foundational principals of the church. It is Paul's words not Christ's that are most frequently quoted in church services. It is Paul's interpretation of what he belived Christ teachings were that have influenced the church for 2,000 years.

I understand the view that it was the Christ Spirit/Holy Spirit motivating and guiding Paul, however that is a matter of faith and not necessarily truth.

It was Paul who stated he was appointed by Christ. If I said that same thing, would I be accepted as the authority for what Christ really meant to say?

Sincerely,
Scott

[CD Lee]

Ok, I do definately disagree that Paul was not appointed. Appointed by Christ is good enough for the Church. Accepted by the other original Apostles is also good enough for me. Don't see a problem here frankly.

It does not really matter however, as Paul's letters are part of the same Cannon that Peter's letter are, and niether the Catholic Church, nor any mainline Protestant denominations (that I know of) seperate their teachings. Do you think their letters are somehow contradictory???

In fact, in patristic texts of the first and second centuries, Peter and Paul are mentioned together by many of the eary fathers of the immediate post-apostolic period. I guess I just don't see the point. Never heard of tension of theological problems with Paul's and Peter's teachings??? In fact, Peter supports Pauls Letters in his own letters explicitly by name.

In fact, what is the issue here anyway? Are you trying to split apart the New Testament? Whassup?

[CD Lee]

I re-read your post. Ok. Let me make this statement. Christ appointed Paul as His Apostle according to the New Testament. There were witnesses to this event, and full concurrence withing the 'original' Apostles. When Paul met Peter, as the Holy Sripture says, their Gospels were identical with no disagreement.

You make it sound like Paul heisted the Church. Have you studied the Ante-Nicean period of Patristic Texts? Your conclusions are foreign to historical texts on this matter frankly.

Are you a modern proponent of Dispensational Theology by any chance?

[CD Lee]

I hope Scott and I are not killing this thread. Perhaps we could take this one to email. Mine is in my profile.

Please let me know if this is disturbing the forum, and I will take it offline with Scott cuz Scott and I have not even scratched the scratch on the surface. I spent 5 years of my life studying this small area of interest to me!!! Whew! Thanks!

[Scott R. Brown]

CD LEE,

No, I am not attempting to split the teachings. In fact, I respect them very much, as I do Paul and the early Church fathers; I just disagree with the mainstream Christian attempts to validate the truth of the teachings through circular reasoning and other invalid arguments.

I believe that Truth speaks for itself and that the Truths of the Bible are self-evident through independent, individual investigation, and practice in one's life. I believe that the Church embarrasses itself by using invalid arguments in an attempt to prove the truth of its teachings when it is unnecessary. The Truth stands on it’s own that is why it is the Truth.

To me the bottom line is not whether Christ is the actual son of God or metaphorically the son of God. I care about the truth of his teachings and the teachings of the other church fathers. I believe that the Church should focus on demonstrating the practical Truth the Bible teaches and how it can be demonstrated through living its teachings.

I respect Christians very much. I do not respect Christians that proselytize and do not understand the simple rules of rational argument i.e. “You believe by having faith and have faith by believing.” I am not applying these comments to you is particular. So far it appears that you are very well informed and educated concerning these matters.

Sincerely,
Scott

[Scott R. Brown]

CD LEE,

I has been years since I have studied these matters. My memory tells me that Peter and Paul did have some doctrinal issues to iron out. One of which was the inclusion of gentiles into the Church body. You are clearly presently better read I on these issuesthan I and I will defer to your expertise if you correct my memory.

Sincerely,
Scott