Rebirth vs Heaven and Hell

[PureX]

It is thought to include all of the material multiverse and other transmaterial universes as well. Reality is thought to be like a onion with hundreds of different dimensional layers, and beings move through these various layers as per their actions and abilities.

My question in relation to that scenario would be about the 'code' of ethical action across such an inconceivably wide range of realities. Or for that matter, even within this one reality.

Very often a single choice will result in both a positive and a negative outcome, simultaneously, for the various other beings effected. And also, very often, there is no way for us to know in advance which, and to whom. Now multiply this times many different realities and I see no hope at all of any one soul being able to determine the most ethical course within a given circumstance. So how can we be held accountable? So as to determine our next iteration of being? And if we cannot remember any previous iterations, how can we learn any lessons from them?

 

[wellwisher]

This is an interfaith discussion regarding the comparative moral soundness of
1) Eternal Hell or Heaven after one birth (general Abrahamic view)
2) A rebirth cycle till eventual liberation (general Dharmic view)
Call out to @Link to participate as per mutual understanding. There will be mostly discussion here and others are welcome to participate as well.

Please explain what your specific views are and how it is consistent with a good God or a good moral order of the universe (for views that do not believe in a God).

I will put my own in a bit.
PPL asking for evidence of God or rebirth or heaven...this thread is not for you. Cheers.

In Eastern reincarnation, there is continued rebirth, to learn the lessons of life, again and again, until all the lessons are learned. Then there is one last rebirth into paradise, nirvana, etc.

Christianity, assumes the lessons of life, already have what is needed, in this life, so we are in the last incarnation. Unlike Eastern Philosophy, where nature, via reincarnation, keeps teaching the good and natural lessons, until the final natural good, the Western Philosophy believes in the opposing principles of good and evil, with some people using their will and choice, to refine their evil, through reincarnation. Hitler may not have reached that level in one carnation. Hitler for example, had an affinity with the occult and copied Rome; Caesar.

Good and evil is not natural. It is learned knowledge of good and evil. The lion kills to eat or defend itself based on innate natural laws, which are all good; eastern reincarnation. But Western good and evil is mediated by Satan; not natural but based on learned knowledge. The connected lessons of good and evil, can result in good and evil people, who by choice and will, can shift their balance to either side. Satan is not morally neutral but morally polarized.

Heaven and Hell; split Nirvana, is there to offer incentive to be good. However, some will also choose the dark side, again and again, in many reincarnations, until they are perfected in evil; enter the Hellish nirvana, as their final incarnation, by accumulative choice. Each incarnation can offer some good lessons, but they willfully choice the bad.

The Eastern philosophy is more about natural instinct, which is more complicated. The lion may kill to eat and protect, but the lamb does not kill. There is no one size fits all, in terms, of even the same instinct. What is good for the lion is not the same for the lamb. Reincarnation is about learning more about using instincts, within the situational nature of the human life. This is more subtle and needs one to become many critters with its various skills and limitations until human instinct is rediscovered; nirvana.

Good and evil are more clear cut, with a set of rules; laws, easier to learn in terms of one educational shot being needed. However, Jesus said the righteous shall live by faith, apart from the law. Faith in the inner voice; spirit, is similar to natural instinct; sanctified by the word of God and prayer. Heaven and Nirvana are very similar, with hell more connected to will choice and law. Law can be used by the evil dictator, to do will. This is not natural instinct but learned and practiced behavior that law can help induce; dual justice and entitlements by law.

 

[sayak83]

My question in relation to that scenario would be about the 'code' of ethical action across such an inconceivably wide range of realities. Or for that matter, even within this one reality.

Very often a single choice will result in both a positive and a negative outcome, simultaneously, for the various other beings effected. And also, very often, there is no way for us to know in advance which, and to whom. Now multiply this times many different realities and I see no hope at all of any one soul being able to determine the most ethical course within a given circumstance. So how can we be held accountable? So as to determine our next iteration of being? And if we cannot remember any previous iterations, how can we learn any lessons from them?

The intention behind the action matters most. If you wanted to kill, but failed...the act has worse consequences than if you wanted to not kill, but failed (like self defense).
If you look in the animal world, even animals within the same species have different personalities even though they are significantly more constrained by instinct. You can have a more gentle or less gentle lion/lioness in terms of how he/she runs the pride. The impact of a small good act in a savage society may be equivalent to the impact of a large self less act in a more gentle society.
That's the basic idea : Intention behind and how far away from the norm of that society the act is, is what is relevant.

 

[PureX]

But what intention?

We live in a universe that requires life forms to destroy and ingest each other to continue existing. And every life form is destroyed and ingested eventually. This is not the life forms intent, it is the intent of the reality it exists within. So what intention is being used to assess it's achievements?

 

[sayak83]

But what intention?

We live in a universe that requires life forms to destroy and ingest each other to continue existing. And every life form is destroyed and ingested eventually. This is not the life forms intent, it is the intent of the reality it exists within. So what intention is being used to assess it's achievements?

The actions enjoined by the nature of ones embodied form are not being held against them. Here one is only concerned with what is possible within those constraints. And a lot maybe possible, even in lizards.


Read this maybe?
Do Animals Have Personality? The importance of individual differences
Hearing about Sih's research, Bull realized that his well-studied, individually marked, and genetically pedigreed sleepy lizard population was a gold mine for personality research. With data loggers on lizards' backs to measure activity, locations, and social contacts, Bull has determined that interactions are nonrandom. “They're actually physically avoiding some of their neighbors,” explains Bull. Some lizards hang out together in lizard cliques. Others are not part of the social scene. Some males are aggressive, using wide open-mouth displays and showing their impressive blue tongues. Others are meek. Examining the social network, Bull finds that the most aggressive males interact with other males but with few females, whereas the least aggressive males have more female contacts. “So we can divide this population up into the lovers and the fighters. Females avoid aggressive males like the plague,” says Bull, so their personality affects their social network.

Personality traits in lizards and the consequences of this in their social network and dating scene!

The general point is that for any individual X in a given embodies form, there remains choices in their actions, however constrained by that form. The choices and intentions thereof is what matters.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Thanks. It doesn't change my point because I'm looking at it from the end point of view. All souls get to paradise at the end of it, not right away I understand, but at the end good and evil souls all get to paradise. I'm talking about how I feel that is unjust.

Again my friend. The end in Hinduism and Sikhism is 'pralaya', the great dissolution, when everything, good or bad, folds up.
Theist say everything merges back into God, who is the origin as well.
Buddhism says it is a new universe every moment. Not sure of what it is in Jainism. I will check.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I guess what would puzzle me about reincarnation is that the number of lifeforms on the earth fluctuates. So when that number us low, where are those 'souls' in waiting?

Also, does this process include life forms elsewhere in the universe?

And if we do not reincarnate, where are all the 'new' souls coming from? And why is the number always Increasing?

When our number is less, the number of other life forms increases. Some souls reach nirvana/moksha and get out of the cycle, but these are few.
We do not know about the whole universe. What is said is about this world.
Obviously, due to the reduced number of other life forms.

 

[Aupmanyav]

But what intention?
We live in a universe that requires life forms to destroy and ingest each other to continue existing. And every life form is destroyed and ingested eventually. This is not the life forms intent, it is the intent of the reality it exists within. So what intention is being used to assess it's achievements?

"Jeevo jeevasya bhojanam": One life form is food for another. Even a dead lion is food for maggots and vultures. Hinduism sees no evil in it.
Being vegetarian or non-vegetarian is by tradition and choice. My community is traditionally non-vegetarian (Kashmir).
About merit and sin, I always remember this line:
"Paropakaram punyaya, papaya para peedanam": To help others is merit, to cause pain is sin.

 

[PureX]

"Jeevo jeevasya bhojanam": One life form is food for another. Even a dead lion is food for maggots and vultures. Hinduism sees no evil in it.
Being vegetarian or non-vegetarian is by tradition and choice. My community is traditionally non-vegetarian (Kashmir).
About merit and sin, I always remember this line:
"Paropakaram punyaya, papaya para peedanam": To help others is merit, to cause pain is sin.

But this all presumes that we can know when we are doing which. And as much as we humans love to imagine that we know everything, the sad truth is that we actually know very little. Especially regarding the outcomes and intentions of our actions. And not only that, but we are usually doing BOTH at the same time to someone or other. The claim is that it's about our intentions and not our actions, but most of our intentions aren't conscious, aren't deliberate, and are being determined on the blind. So there's very little judge-able intention in them. And who is doing the judging? And how did we come to know any of this if we are still here in the thick of it?

It seems to me that the prominent feature of our existence is our not knowing why we exist to begin with. Because that makes us have to decide for ourselves how we're going to go about it. And to what purpose. And as we make those decisions we are 'creating ourselves'. We are defining who we are becoming through every choice we make along the way. Choices and decisions that we MUST make for ourselves because we do not have any 'true' answers coming to us from anywhere else. We're on our own.

 

[George-ananda]

This is an interfaith discussion regarding the comparative moral soundness of
1) Eternal Hell or Heaven after one birth (general Abrahamic view)
2) A rebirth cycle till eventual liberation (general Dharmic view)
Call out to @Link to participate as per mutual understanding. There will be mostly discussion here and others are welcome to participate as well.

Please explain what your specific views are and how it is consistent with a good God or a good moral order of the universe (for views that do not believe in a God).

I will put my own in a bit.
PPL asking for evidence of God or rebirth or heaven...this thread is not for you. Cheers.

I am mostly option 2) but I believe in a temporary heavenly/hellish experience following each life.

In my nondual (God and creation are not-two) view, we are under the illusion of separateness. This illusion ends upon Liberation.

 

[sayak83]

But this all presumes that we can know when we are doing which. And as much as we humans love to imagine that we know everything, the sad truth is that we actually know very little. Especially regarding the outcomes and intentions of our actions. And not only that, but we are usually doing BOTH at the same time to someone or other. The claim is that it's about our intentions and not our actions, but most of our intentions aren't conscious, aren't deliberate, and are being determined on the blind. So there's very little judge-able intention in them. And who is doing the judging? And how did we come to know any of this if we are still here in the thick of it?

It seems to me that the prominent feature of our existence is our not knowing why we exist to begin with. Because that makes us have to decide for ourselves how we're going to go about it. And to what purpose. And as we make those decisions we are 'creating ourselves'. We are defining who we are becoming through every choice we make along the way. Choices and decisions that we MUST make for ourselves because we do not have any 'true' answers coming to us from anywhere else. We're on our own.

I do not see why intentions regarding what we are doing would be so difficult to determine. If we do not know our own intentions, then that is because we are self deluded, which itself is something worse than deliberately evil actions. In Gita actions are tamasic ( the worst kind) if it happens under delusions about why we are doing it. The first task in order to improve ourselves is to discern why we are doing what we do and recognise our unsavory sides. If we lie to ourselves and are convinced of those lies, then we are in the worst possible state.

 

[Secret Chief]

This is an interfaith discussion regarding the comparative moral soundness of
1) Eternal Hell or Heaven after one birth (general Abrahamic view)
2) A rebirth cycle till eventual liberation (general Dharmic view)
Call out to @Link to participate as per mutual understanding. There will be mostly discussion here and others are welcome to participate as well.

Please explain what your specific views are and how it is consistent with a good God or a good moral order of the universe (for views that do not believe in a God).

I will put my own in a bit.
PPL asking for evidence of God or rebirth or heaven...this thread is not for you. Cheers.

I understand rebirth to be moment to moment. I don't see a moral aspect to that.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I would offer it is not rebirth verses heaven and hell, as all three aspects are entwined.

God has many worlds, other than this world, we pass through this matrix only once, we are born into another world of God, from my current understanding, it is a world of light.

These worlds are not really separated, but I see we get but one chance of rebirth in this matrix, we cannot get back in the womb to be born again into this world, just as we are not able to re-enter the womb of our mother.

Regards Tony

 

[sayak83]

I understand rebirth to be moment to moment. I don't see a moral aspect to that.

Rebirth is caused by clinging. Cessation of rebirth by letting go of clinging leads to cessation of dukkha as well. So the structure has a mechanistic morality to it.

 

[Secret Chief]

Rebirth is caused by clinging. Cessation of rebirth by letting go of clinging leads to cessation of dukkha as well. So the structure has a mechanistic morality to it.

We hold different opinions then!

 

[Alien826]

I understand evil people will have to go through more challenges, but at the end, they reach the same destination as the good and highest of virtue let alone the mediocre. I feel this is unjust that they all end up in the same destination. It makes life almost meaningless.

Take as an example students at school. Some are naturally good learners and progress well. Some have impediments in their lives, or have personalities that don't take well to an academic environment and need correction, even punishment, to learn. If the different treatment each receives is aimed at getting them all to succeed, is that meaningless? I'd call it benevolent.

 

[sayak83]

We hold different opinions then!

It could have been that there are no ways of cessation.
In philosophy we can think of a world's standing as compared to the best of all conceivable worlds or the worst of all conceivable worlds. We can think of this case here in those terms.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. but most of our intentions aren't conscious, aren't deliberate, and are being determined on the blind. So there's very little judge-able intention in them. And who is doing the judging? And how did we come to know any of this if we are still here in the thick of it?

It seems to me that the prominent feature of our existence is our not knowing why we exist to begin with. Because that makes us have to decide for ourselves how we're going to go about it. And to what purpose. And as we make those decisions we are 'creating ourselves'. We are defining who we are becoming through every choice we make along the way. Choices and decisions that we MUST make for ourselves because we do not have any 'true' answers coming to us from anywhere else. We're on our own.

I agree, they are not conscious. It is the society which teaches us what we should do. The first intention may be to grab something which the other person has and enjoy it. That is what happens when cheetahs make a kill and hyenas grab it. But this weakens our society against other predators. Therefore, the society rules say 'don't take what is not yours'. The society does the judging.

Our existence is just a chance.It happened just about 200,000 years ago in the earth's history of 4.5 billion years. If we had perished, it would not have made any difference to nature. Now that we are here, and live in societies. It is the social and governmental rules that we need to follow. After all, the government also is our choice in democratic countries.

 

[Link]

Take as an example students at school. Some are naturally good learners and progress well. Some have impediments in their lives, or have personalities that don't take well to an academic environment and need correction, even punishment, to learn. If the different treatment each receives is aimed at getting them all to succeed, is that meaningless? I'd call it benevolent.

I see what you mean. But I still feel it's unfair for the souls that are good, that their end result is same as those who chosen to be evil many times.

 

[Alien826]

I see what you mean. But I still feel it's unfair for the souls that are good, that their end result is same as those who chosen to be evil many times.

I'd like to pursue this a bit more if you don't mind.

I know very little about Islamic beliefs, so I'll let you instruct me on that, but just taking what you are saying, it seems that you favor a system where everyone gets exactly what they deserve (in terms of rewards and punishment), no more, no less. Are sure you want that though? Do you want to receive exactly what you deserve? You might regret it. Is anyone totally good, or totally bad?

I prefer a model of God that involves a lot of caring and a big dollop of mercy. Looking at the parable of the Prodigal Son (yes, that's Christian theology) the father (a metaphor for God) rejoices over the "bad" son that repents and (gently) rebukes the "good" son who feels that he is being unfairly treated. I see it slightly differently, rather like we are all struggling in the mud, though some do better than others, and we all need help.

(Note: I'm presenting this from a theist viewpoint, though I am not a theist. Nevertheless, I think it applies to how we treat each other).