Brahman and Reincarnation

[The Sum of Awe]

I've gotta say that I'm fascinated by the Brahman theology you've got here, it's quite attractive and influential to my personal beliefs. However, there's one thing that I'm stumped on.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Brahman is all, or more correctly All is Brahman, as a Supreme Reality and One body, One soul.

If this is so, what is reincarnation? A process that never moves? If all are One, then what is being moved? What body would I reincarnate into if we're all one body? With what soul would I reincarnate with if we're all one soul?

Perhaps my entire understanding of Brahman is off as well, just wanted to make sure

 

[ShivaFan]

well... you and me are also space dust.

 

[Fireside_Hindu]

I think a good analogy is that of the ocean.

The ocean is made of bazillions of water droplets. Take a droplet out, and its still technically the ocean, just temporarily removed from it. Likewise, individual reincarnating souls are still a part of the "soul ocean" they're just taking a trip. They'll be merging again soon.

:camp:

 

[Contemplative Cat]

All things are notions imposed upon many qualities of Brahman.
but in relative terms.
Brains emit brainwaves(personality and memory) out.
When a brain dies the brainwaves find a similar character.

They aren't souls, they are just recycled memory, dead peoples memories.
These memories are held together by attachments, without attachments. The brainwaves dissipate without a living brain.

Just like how the body gets recycled into the soil, our tendencies are recycled in to the air waves.
These are how the past life experiences occur. Which is the reasoning behind reincarnation theory.
But maybe nothing happens, if someone meditates enough one will figure it out

 

[Aupmanyav]

Kindly go through http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3643001-post181.html, where I have tried to explain the Brahman idea.

Yes, all is Brahman. What is soul? What is body? It is just Brahman. Will Brahman reincarnate? Let us discuss this for the two theories:

Parinamavada: Brahman changed once to create you. It can change again giving you a new form, human or otherwise. Or it could distribute what constituted you in a million forms.

Vivartavada: There is no reincarnation, no karma. It is only an illusion.

I follow 'Vivartavada' and I am an atheist. I have no problem in my personal view, which is no God, no creation, no soul, no karma, no birth, no death, and no re-incarnation (other than what constitutes me going to a million similarly illusionary forms).

Karma and re-incarnation really go with God/Gods/Goddesses who are involved (which is main-line Hinduism) and a soul different from God/Gods/Goddesses, i.e., duality. It is perhaps difficult to justify it with the Brahman idea (non-duality).

As I said in the other post, my explanation is limited to my knowledge. There are many knowledgeable people in the Directory. Perhaps some would clarify the issue.

 

[DanielR]

It's all just pictures like in a movie, when you die the movie continues (unless you get enlightened) just different pictures, one soul sees all these different pictures

that was always my take on that matter, don't know if it's true though

 

[George-ananda]

I've gotta say that I'm fascinated by the Brahman theology you've got here, it's quite attractive and influential to my personal beliefs. However, there's one thing that I'm stumped on.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Brahman is all, or more correctly All is Brahman, as a Supreme Reality and One body, One soul.

If this is so, what is reincarnation? A process that never moves? If all are One, then what is being moved? What body would I reincarnate into if we're all one body? With what soul would I reincarnate with if we're all one soul?

Perhaps my entire understanding of Brahman is off as well, just wanted to make sure

Brahman is One and all is Brahman. However the universe is a great thought-form of Brahman; a play/drama in which He separates Himself from Himself and then returns Himself to Himself. We are in the process of returning to our Source.

So these reincarnating souls crave to advance and return to their Source. They need experiences to grow; hence reincarnation.

 

[Valjean]

At night you can dream any number of realities, situations and personalities. When you wake these all disappear and are replaced by a different reality, situation and self.

But what if you never did really awake? What if your waking was just a shift to a different level of dreaming, a different subjective fantasy?

Diversity diminishes with each 'waking' to higher levels of consciousness. Eventually you'll wake to find it was all a dream -- and an undifferentiated YOU the only dreamer.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Kindly go through http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3643001-post181.html, where I have tried to explain the Brahman idea.

Yes, all is Brahman. What is soul? What is body? It is just Brahman. Will Brahman reincarnate? Let us discuss this for the two theories:

Parinamavada: Brahman changed once to create you. It can change again giving you a new form, human or otherwise. Or it could distribute what constituted you in a million forms.

Vivartavada: There is no reincarnation, no karma. It is only an illusion.

I follow 'Vivartavada' and I am an atheist. I have no problem in my personal view, which is no God, no creation, no soul, no karma, no birth, no death, and no re-incarnation (other than what constitutes me going to a million similarly illusionary forms).

Karma and re-incarnation really go with God/Gods/Goddesses who are involved (which is main-line Hinduism) and a soul different from God/Gods/Goddesses, i.e., duality. It is perhaps difficult to justify it with the Brahman idea (non-duality).

As I said in the other post, my explanation is limited to my knowledge. There are many knowledgeable people in the Directory. Perhaps some would clarify the issue.

Forgive me if this is answered in the other post (will read that after I ask): What is your view on Brahman as a follower of Vivartavada and as and atheist?

 

[punkdbass]

At night you can dream any number of realities, situations and personalities. When you wake these all disappear and are replaced by a different reality, situation and self.

But what if you never did really awake? What if your waking was just a shift to a different level of dreaming, a different subjective fantasy?

Diversity diminishes with each 'waking' to higher levels of consciousness. Eventually you'll wake to find it was all a dream -- and an undifferentiated YOU the only dreamer.

Your post brings to mind something that I might make a separate thread about. In the Buddhism DIR, arguments and misunderstanding often arises due to the conflict between believing in an ultimate "substratum" that underlies all experience (e.g. Brahman), and not-believing in any ultimate substratum (rather believing that literally anything imaginable is dependent upon something else... nothing independently/inherently exists on its own.. i.e. no ultimate substratum). I feel like many philosophical conflicts, for myself at least (and probably others), hinge on this single conflict: whether or not we are viewing Reality as having an ultimate independently existing substratum. Hinduism (correct me if I'm wrong) generally believes in a substratum, where Buddhism denies such a substratum, or at the very least says the belief in such a substratum is unnecessary towards obtaining enlightenment/nirvana.

I guess what my question here is, and I will likely make another thread to not divert this topic too much... I've heard the Buddhist arguments and reasons for not wanting to believe in a substratum, but I'd like to learn more about the Hindu arguments for believing in a Substratum. I'm pretty sure in Judaism, God as a "substratum" was something that was usually just "assumed" and little work in our tradition is devoted to proving or arguing for such a thing. I wonder if Hinduism is the same way? I'm curious to learn how Hinduism would argue for the existence of an ultimate substratum.

 

[ions]

I wonder if Hinduism is the same way?

God as a substratum is confirmed in scripture:

"There is no truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread." BG 7.7

"By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them." BG 9.4

And various other places as well... Universal intelligence requires a principle intention for creation. Therefore, the source or subtratum that the material energy rests on, must be consciousness. The vedas describe the unmanifest Brahman as sat(truth)-cit(counsciousness)-ananda(bliss).

"Those who are seers of the truth have concluded that of the nonexistent [nontruth] there is no endurance and of the eternal [truth] there is no change. This they have concluded by studying the nature of both." BG 2.16

Thus the temporary material world is like a dream and is non-true, in the sense that it has no endurance. It rests on the real substratum, which is non-changing and eternal.

 

[punkdbass]

God as a substratum is confirmed in scripture:

"There is no truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread." BG 7.7

"By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them." BG 9.4

And various other places as well... Universal intelligence requires a principle intention for creation. Therefore, the source or subtratum that the material energy rests on, must be consciousness. The vedas describe the unmanifest Brahman as sat(truth)-cit(counsciousness)-ananda(bliss).

"Those who are seers of the truth have concluded that of the nonexistent [nontruth] there is no endurance and of the eternal [truth] there is no change. This they have concluded by studying the nature of both." BG 2.16

Thus the temporary material world is like a dream and is non-true, in the sense that it has no endurance. It rests on the real substratum, which is non-changing and eternal.

Interesting, this has helped me a lot. I am currently reading the Bhagavad Gita and I will further look into these verses... Thanks much.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What is your view on Brahman as a follower of Vivartavada and as and atheist?

See it here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3643726-post5.html. Let me mention that hardly any in Hinduism will go by this view. I walk alone.

.. where Buddhism denies such a substratum, or at the very least says the belief in such a substratum is unnecessary towards obtaining enlightenment/nirvana.

Buddhism does not engage itself in this question, and for a valid reason. It focuses somewhere else. Hindus do not miss that focus but still engage in this question. To say that the question does not relate to life is perhaps not correct. It molds a person's thinking.

 

[Aupmanyav]

"There is no truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread." BG 7.7

"Satyam eva ishwaro loke, satyam dharmah sadashrita;
satya moolani sarvani, satyen nasti param padam."
(Truth alone is the God in the universe, in truth 'dharmas' finds good refuge;
all have their base in truth, there is no station higher than truth.)
Lord Rama in Valmiki's Ramayana. But then, Krishna is none other than Truth. Krishna is none other than Brahman.

Universal intelligence requires a principle intention for creation. Therefore, the source or subtratum that the material energy rests on, must be consciousness.

There are questions, Ions. Is there a creation? Is there a Universal Intelligence? Does a creation necessarily requires intelligence? Cannot what constitutes the universe, remain on its own?

 

[Maya3]

I think a good analogy is that of the ocean.

The ocean is made of bazillions of water droplets. Take a droplet out, and its still technically the ocean, just temporarily removed from it. Likewise, individual reincarnating souls are still a part of the "soul ocean" they're just taking a trip. They'll be merging again soon.

:camp:

I like this analogy too.
Our experiences give us attachments that bring us back life time after life time, because we forget that our innermost self is the same as Brahman.
Supposedly there are 7 layers of "bodies or sheaths" around our innermost Self or Atman, and it is one of them that carries all these attachments that bring us back.
But when we feel and remember that we are no different from Brahman then we can let go of all of this and just be who we really are. We become Self Realized.

(I don't know enough about these 7 sheaths, if anyone else does, feel free to clarify it.)

Maya

 

[Stormcry]

oh about that soul !

So hear , soul has no liberation or bondage . Soul has no any incarnation . Soul has no any body .

" Soul incarnates is not the actual fact . It is just an appearance of dream . When person gets dead , he himself thinks due to maya that he has given up body and he is getting another body . This is all because of mind which is nothing but maya . Only mind is running by mind . Soul is always aloof from maya and its activities .

" Indeed that soul is absolute reality itself . Though he appears in body , he is always infinite and always aloof from temperory appearances . This is the glory of soul "

No doubt , This is " vedanta "

Hari hari

 

[George-ananda]

oh about that soul !

So hear , soul has no liberation or bondage . Soul has no any incarnation . Soul has no any body .

" Soul incarnates is not the actual fact . It is just an appearance of dream . When person gets death , he himself thinks due to maya that he has given up body and he is getting another body . This is all because of mind which is nothing but maya . Only mind is running by mind . Soul is always aloof from maya and its activities .

" Indeed that soul is absolute reality itself . Though he appears in body , he is always infinite and always aloof from temperory appearances . This is the glory of soul "

No doubt , This is " vedanta "

Hari hari

I think I agree with what you say here. But what is the definition of 'soul' that you are using here? It sounds like 'atma' kind of.

I just want to comment on the fact that correct answers can be given at many levels. From the ultimate understanding (which you have done nicely here) to a more down-to-earth understanding of reincarnation. Ultimately it's all Maya, yes. But from a more down-to-earth level, reincarnation is true also and many western raised people wonder how such a mechanism can occur from their perspective of reality.

I guess my point is I would like to see more westerners benefit from the glory of Vedic thought as I have. I wonder if people reading the above would think reincarnation (as it's understood at the down-to-earth level) is a false concept in your thinking; (maybe that is what you think?).

 

[Avi1001]

Interesting, this has helped me a lot. I am currently reading the Bhagavad Gita and I will further look into these verses... Thanks much.

punkd, what are your thoughts on the Gita ?

What about this quote ? "Do not yield to unmanliness, O son of Prithâ. It does not become you. Shake off this base faint-heartedness and arise, O scorcher of enemies!"

Also, what do you think about Malinar's views of heroism of the warrior?

"This duty consists first of all in standing one's ground and fighting for status. The main duty of a warrior is never to submit to anybody. A warrior must resist any impulse to self-preservation that would make him avoid a fight. In brief, he ought to be a man (puruso bhava; cf. 5.157.6; 13;15). Some of the most vigorous formulations of what called the 'heart' or the 'essence' of heroism (ksatrahrdaya) come from the ladies of the family. They bare shown most unforgiving with regard to the humiliations they have gone through, the loss of their status and honour, not to speak of the shame of having a weak man in the house, whether husband, son or brother."

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

punkd, what are your thoughts on the Gita ?

What about this quote ? "Do not yield to unmanliness, O son of Prithâ. It does not become you. Shake off this base faint-heartedness and arise, O scorcher of enemies!"

Also, what do you think about Malinar's views of heroism of the warrior?

"This duty consists first of all in standing one's ground and fighting for status. The main duty of a warrior is never to submit to anybody. A warrior must resist any impulse to self-preservation that would make him avoid a fight. In brief, he ought to be a man (puruso bhava; cf. 5.157.6; 13;15). Some of the most vigorous formulations of what called the 'heart' or the 'essence' of heroism (ksatrahrdaya) come from the ladies of the family. They bare shown most unforgiving with regard to the humiliations they have gone through, the loss of their status and honour, not to speak of the shame of having a weak man in the house, whether husband, son or brother."

Just who exactly is "Malinar"? Is that some Indologist?
Edit: Nevermind
Double Edit: Also, this lady (Malinar) seems to be assuming that the case between draupadI and dhana~njaya (arjuna) is akin to that of a regular marriage in ancient bhArata. Seriously? It appears these armchair academics like Angelika Malinar can't even analyze literature without making sweeping generalizations, sheesh. Certainly, giving into cowardice when others expect something of you solely for the sake of protecting your sharIra/body (which is temporary anyway), is foolish. However, is it ever stated in the mahAbhAratam that if a kShatriya flees out of fear, it brings dishonor to the wife? Not as far as I can tell. Anyway, Angelika misses the deeper meaning; arjuna was not seeking to avoid the kurukShetra yuddha because he was scared of the war, but because it is clearly sinful to murder any individual, let alone one's own kin (i.e. arjuna's fear was not of dying, but from having to kill his own relatives in combat). shrI kR^iShNa informs him that performing his dharma (to uphold righteousness) was necessary regardless, and that he would not garner pApakarma-s if he did perform the actions unattached to the result and surrendered unto bhagavAn (kR^iShNa). The bhagavadgItA itself, however, has very little to do with strIsammAn (woman's honor), so that seems a bit irrelevant. The vastraharaNa of draupadI in the sabhAparva of the mahAbhAratam (which I assume Angelika is referring to) is related to the honor of a woman, but even it has more to do with dharma (righteousness) vs. adharma (immorality) and with faith in bhagavAn. For example, there was only one verse mentioning duHshAsana tearing off her clothes (tato duHshAsano rAjandraupadyA vasanaM balAt sabhAmadhye samAkShipya vyapakraShTuM prachakrame), but multiple verses mentioning how draupadI calls unto kR^iShNa/mAdhava/govinda to protect her from being disrobed (AkR^iShyamANe vasane draupadyAstu vishAM pate...., yadyetadevamuktvA tu na kuryAM pR^ithivIshvarAH pitAmahAnAM sarveShAM nAhaM gatimavApnuyAm, etc.). Also, in regard to being the most unforgiving in regard to humiliations, not all women are like draupadI, some like satyavatI and ambAlikA were very forgiving. It's quite a generalization to assume that all women in ancient bhArata were easily provoked and unforgiving. Even in the case of draupadI, she had every right to be upset and curse duHshAsana, duryodhana, and karNa. She was almost disrobed in front of much of the population of hastinApura (if not for kR^iShNa), and was exploited and harassed. If you look at that same exact scene, bhIma (who is male BTW) seems just as, if not even more upset and even states that he would bathe in the blood of duHshAsana. Anyway, I don't think that vyAsa meant for the scene to be analyzed in regard to whether Indian women back then were "most unforgiving with regard to the humiliations they have gone through", as Malinar makes it seem (that sounds awfully sexist). The overall meaning I took from it was that bhagavAn can help you even if no one else is capable of or willing to doing so.

 

[punkdbass]

punkd, what are your thoughts on the Gita ?

What about this quote ? "Do not yield to unmanliness, O son of Prithâ. It does not become you. Shake off this base faint-heartedness and arise, O scorcher of enemies!"

Also, what do you think about Malinar's views of heroism of the warrior?

"This duty consists first of all in standing one's ground and fighting for status. The main duty of a warrior is never to submit to anybody. A warrior must resist any impulse to self-preservation that would make him avoid a fight. In brief, he ought to be a man (puruso bhava; cf. 5.157.6; 13;15). Some of the most vigorous formulations of what called the 'heart' or the 'essence' of heroism (ksatrahrdaya) come from the ladies of the family. They bare shown most unforgiving with regard to the humiliations they have gone through, the loss of their status and honour, not to speak of the shame of having a weak man in the house, whether husband, son or brother."

I absolutely love the Gita thus far. I'm not that far, originally I was studying it verse by verse with Yogananda's commentary which is 1000+ pages so I was going at a very slow pace.. but now I've decided to just read it from start to finish first on my own, then explore commentary more. But the reason why I like the Gita so much is because the core story is just so relatable to me, or any seeker in life. Let me give you a quick synopsis of the way I interpret the story (everything is very symbolic in the story, although I'm open to it having literal historicity as well, I'm less interested in that though and know nothing about its historicity to be honest): Basically there is this Kingdom which is symbolic for the human body. And at first, the human body is controlled by Spirit (think of as childhood innocence), but through youth eventually you start to develop strong desires and attachments to things.. fostering the ego (an idea of yourself), etc.. and the Kingdom get's overtaken by the Evil army of Material Desires and Attachments.. so the Good Army of Spirit is sent into exile. Eventually the exiled army of Spirit decides to fight to reclaim the Kingdom (human body) and a great war is started between the Army of Material Desires/Attachments and the Army of Spirit. I could go into more detail about the specific soldiers of both armies but I'm trying be quick and general here. The War is in many sense symbolic of introspection and meditation. So Arjuna (the ideal devotee) does some introspection, learns about the evil army he is about to fight (his material desires) and at first he does not want to fight them because he feels like they are a part of himself... i.e. often times we don't want to let go of our material desires and attachments because we mistakingly think our habits are part of our True Identity.. but eventually Krisha (Spirit) tells him that he has to fight the battle in order to become liberated (i.e. in order for Spirit to re-take control of the bodily kingdom so man can become free). Because the biggest truth here is that in order to become liberated/achieve Self-Realization, man must overcome his material desires and attachments. Hence every single human being in existence fights the Battle of the Bhagavad Gita, every single day. At the end of the day, perhaps after doing introspection and meditation you can ask yourself.. did the army of your material desires and attachments or the army of Spirit - love, intuition, stillness, etc win that day's battle? And so the Gita can guide the seeker throughout his life to help Spirit reclaim his boldily Temple and set man free.

This is just my understanding of the Gita thus far, it is merely one way to interpret it... and I am still very much in the learning phase.

As for the quote you provided, here is a quick snippit from Yogananda's commentary:

O Devotee, Son of Renunciation, surrender not to behavior that is unbecoming to the positive nature of your true Self, the soul (i.e. don't surrender to material desires/attachments). O Scorcher of Foes, use your fiery will of self-control to overcome this frail weakheartedness resulting from your attachment to sense habits. Arise! Lift yourself from the sense strongholds to the higher spinal centers of divine consciousness."

I'm not sure exactly how to interpret the quote you provided about heroism.. I do have thoughts to say on it, but my thoughts sort of get into gender-stereotypes and I don't really want to do that.. but I will say that in many cases the Female Mother/Wife sets a great example of heroism though her humbleness, unconditional love, patience, etc.